Fence Goes Up Around Malibu Lagoon

Contractor Ford E.C., Inc., began installing the fence early Wednesday morning in advance of bulldozers expected to come in for work on the Malibu Lagoon Restoration Project.

A contractor installed a nearly 6-foot-tall chain-link fence around a portion of the Malibu Lagoon Wednesday, marking the first major step in a controversial restoration project. 

Contractor Ford E.C., Inc. also put in temporary electricity poles and wires, which will power its onsite trailer, according to Suzanne Goode, State Parks Senior Environmental Scientist.

A biologist and several other monitors, including a Chumash tribal member, were on site to oversee the removal of vegetation for the fence, Goode said. The fence should be completely installed around the project area within two days, she added.

Once the fence is erected, scientists will begin capturing wildlife and releasing them on State Park property upstream.

Opponents of the project began trickling in just after 9 a.m., when work had already been well underway.

Activist Marcia Hanscom of the Wetland Defense Fund, one of three groups that filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of a Coastal Commission permit approved for the project, said the fence will block off access to wildlife who need the lagoon.

“This is not for restoration. This is a construction zone,” Hanscom said, motioning to workers installing the fence.

Beach access will be blocked off on a perimeter trail while the fence is installed, and surfers were being directed over foot bridges that are slated to eventually be removed.

A dozen State Parks rangers and other scientists hummed around the site Wednesday morning, and some informed beach goers of the change in access.

Earlier this week, scientists, volunteers and students salvaged native plants and began in the areas of the lagoon that will be disturbed first.

J. Flo June 11, 2012 at 08:17 PM
From John Mazza: "the law of supply and demand does in fact work but it can be DISTORTED in the short run by other factors. For example, if a land lord artificially holds supply off the market to change a business model it can reduce supply. A monopolist also can set rates to some degree by setting artificial rates. That is why we see some centers keep some space off the market and turn down "market offers" (Granita ?}. In the long run that does not work but we all die in the long run also." Another - EXACTLY. In other words: in Malibu, in most centers the typical supply and demand, cookie-cutter scenario is not currently functioning. Obviously, leaving buildings/leases vacant for 10 years is not viable economics as in "supply and demand". "Long run" - could be 20 years or more. When in a massive country-wide recession Malibu rents continued to skyrocket - "economic laws" are distorted. It's lazy and inaccurate to use elementary, broad-brush definitions for this complicated and unique scenario. "Adam Nachos", keeps saying he agrees with Mazza, so obviously he agrees with this point that I, too, have made.
J. Flo June 11, 2012 at 08:21 PM
Adam Nachos - I do not debate with people using a phony name. You know that. You have chosen not to discuss in depth with me. Out of what? Fear? John Mazza and I speak the same language. As does Bob. Who do you think is in Preserve Malibu? There is nothing Mazza says that I don't agree with, you chose to misrepresent his words on this forum through your own filter for your own financial interests. The word is out on your identity and it's less than - ZERO SURPRISE. When you are ready to stand up, own your words and be a respectful resident and speak to this community using a real name - THEN we will talk. The points you've made in the past are the definition of naive, or rather manipulation, and show your complete misunderstanding of this town. Of course, purposefully done for your end-game. You've fully chosen not to discuss important issues with me. You want opinions, you want my thoughts, you want a discussion - simple. I've been ready. Use a real name. My name is here, my opinions open and public. Until you have the same integrity - it's not going to happen. You have only yourself to blame. Your choice. You keep running from a real conversation - it must really frighten you to come out of hiding.
J. Flo June 11, 2012 at 09:47 PM
If only the very most basic of facts was even vaguely comprehended - that this is a multifaceted problem that requires a multifaceted solution. Exactly the reason that John Mazza supports a Diversity Ordinance, a ballot initiative on variances, advanced city planning, chain limitations, traffic planning and on and on the list goes. Big problems require big solutions. Grown-ups know that.
sean June 11, 2012 at 11:24 PM
Adam, the fact is that those against the lagoon don't have any tangible reason for their opposition. There is no development happening at the lagoon. State is just trying to clean up the mess that City of Malibu has ignored. And they are doing the project because if they don't, they will be fined by the EPA. Now there may be different opinions on how to fix it, but most of the opposition is about name calling and accusing everyone. Now we are supposed to think Heal the Bay and the Surfrider Foundation are somehow in cahoots and ready to sell out the lagoon. For what? how do they benefit? First, I heard opposition say that heal the bay is against the lagoon restoration. but now that they are for it, they are somehow part of this imaginary conspiracy. City of Malibu has had since 1991 to do something about the lagoon. Since they did nothing and allowed the septics of the stars to continue polluting, the state has had to step in, otherwise both the City of Malibu and the State, and ultimately the Federal Government would be held legally responsible for people and animals getting sick at the lagoon. If it was up to City of Malibu, they would carve up the lagoon and sell it off as beachfront property, like the rest of Malibu. It is only the State that has protected the natural land in Malibu.
Adam Smith June 12, 2012 at 12:44 AM
Hans, there are 2 issues. First, I believe we disagree about what the report states. Second, I make no claim that the mitigation measures are good ones. I have no idea, as I'm not a traffic engineer. If you have a study showing the traffic analysis is flawed, that would be valuable to present. Wouldn't that also warrant some look into the city engineers who presumably reviewed it prior to approval? If there are no feasible traffic mitigation measures, then that's a good case against further development. But, do you think there really aren't any potential measures? Although I suspect your question is leading, the mitigation proposals for PCH/Cross Creek are the same ones in the Malibu Bay report - reengineering the intersection by moving it south to create a left turn lane westbound. Are the substandard lanes a non-starter at Caltrans? If so, what city engineer let that by? More generally, it is unclear whether Malibu is particularly interested in traffic mitigation since it is one more anti-development tool. You have expertise in the crummy state of PCH and highlighted that in your campaign. Hasn't the city ignored improvements to PCH in part because they want to discourage visitors?


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »