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.
Exactly. It is time - it is overdue.
"Sometimes, when we see a project that we really like because it offers benefits for the community, we have to bend things a little as a little bit of sugar for the developer." Remember this when the City Council looks at the variances for the hotel, and the unbelievably awful traffic plan for the supermarket. Watch them.
Hans, you know that the law cuts both ways. You sued because variances were given at Trancas that didn’t meet the legal test, and the court found in your favor. When I said that a developer can seek a legal remedy if the city denies a variance for arbitrary and capricious reasons, I was responding to Bob’s comment that the city can treat each property on its own merit, apply variances at their discretion, etc., which they can’t. They can’t hand them out like candy, and they can’t treat similar businesses unfairly, so they are constrained by prior development.
John, given the history of zoning in Malibu, it sounds like commercial downzoning should be examined. Any thoughts on that?
California courts have repeatedly ruled that a variance is not an entitlement. The plain language of the statute (and the case law that the statute codifies) is that a city MAY issue the variance if the three-prong tests are met, not that a city SHALL issue a variance. I appreciate the respect you accord me with your discussion.
"The city-approved traffic mitigation plan for La Paz -- which the supermarket is copying and adopting, by the way, -- says it will overload the Cross Creek intersection even with the mitigation it proposes. Same for Malibu Canyon Road. It will be overloaded by just the one shopping center ALREADY approved." The document doesn't say that - were you referring to another study? We can debate the document, but I just wanted to get clear on what it does or doesn't conclude.
I don't know how the circumstances of one project could possibly compare to another, given that every site has a unique set of criteria to evaluate at a different context of time. If a Lifeboat allows for 8 passengers and a variance is granted to allow a ninth, and the boat starts to sink, is the 10th passenger allowed to get on board due to the precedence set by allowing the ninth passenger? Basically you are saying that the General Plan is now moot given the fact that a variance in another part of town at another time was granted. The General Plan can never again be enforced as a statute of the city. That dog just won't hunt!! I don't think it would be a good PR move for a developing group to sue the city because the city chooses to enforce it's own building statutes. That would create an adversarial atmosphere that would, I think, be devastating to the developing group..it would be a certain NO win; the city would have to spend taxpayer money to fight a lawsuit so that a development group can (de facto) extinguish the city's own bylaws?
The interests of the developers and landowners (however worthy of consideration) have to be weighed against the short and long term interests of the city and it's inhabitants and visitors. We all will have to live with the decisions that will be made, as will the future generations, long after our bodies are cold. It takes a thoughtful and well educated council, ruling with a rigid conscience, to be the custodian of these two interests. The stakes are high...
The court cases stress that a variance is an elective act by a city that can only be granted if three tests are passed: 1) they will suffer practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships in the absence of the variance, 2) these hardships result from special circumstances relating to the property that are not shared by other properties in the area, and 3) the variance is necessary to bring the applicants into parity with other property owners in the same zone and vicinity. Because no two properties are identical, cities are allowed wide discretionary power to make nondiscriminatory and rational decisions to deny varianves, or grant them IF those test are met. Malibu failed miserably to meet those tests at Trancas, but granted the variances anyway. My worry is that a city council may do that again -- I hope that worry is unfounded.
if a project is proposed, the city staff must carefully examine the traffic to be generated, and the ways the traffic can be mitigated. At La Paz, that did not happen. City council was given a decision based on inaccurate, incomplete environmental documents. And now, Malibu is compounding the error at the hotel and supermarket. Want proof? Keep reading. Tomorrow.
The stakes could not be higher - it is very safety of the last preserved beach city in all of LA County and beyond. Malibu is literally an endangered species.
who or what are you referring to when you speak of "platitudes and sophomoric anti-business critiques"? I can't speak for everyone but I am a big proponent of business. Who wants a ghost town?...I don't know who is proposing that....proper city planning is crucial to having a good, safe, attractive, thriving, infrastructure. No one knows that better than you..... I haven't heard too many radical proposals .....stay within the General Plan..address the traffic and safety and environmental issues, and you can do whatever you want....I love good architecture and good infrastructure, good restaurants, convenient services, etc.. Bring those dynamics to Malibu, without creating other problems and quagmires (that will never go away), and you will be celebrated, paraded through the streets, even.
Re your comments, again, you are the voice of reason. However, I do not believe many advocates such as Katz agree with you. Her goal is no new development, and I do not think traffic mitigation solutions are really on the table. I do not believe the Soboroff project, for example, would be welcomed even without the variances. FWIW, I suspect it is residential density that it really preserving Malibu and that a market solution exists for limits of commercial development based on supply/demand from that.
I suggest that someone write a new blog or start a new thread or whatever it's called to address this subject and collect people's thoughts and information in a place that is more appropriate and pertinent than a blog which was initially about the lagoon, a completely different subject. It may just slip below the radar here, and it shouldn't.
ripping apart a lagoon when it appears to be naturally healing, and funding this project while 70 of the state parks are closing has perplexed many. that is why there is a hypothesis that the lagoon project is directly related to the proposed development. lets pretend that legacy park needed a place to pump all of the new development's treated waste water since the park itself was found to have too much clay to function, and perenchio's golf course was the best alternative...then we can pretend that without the lagoon project increasing the capacity of the lagoon exponentially, that the entire colony and lagoon area could possibly flood as a result. we could also pretend that Tapia could potentailly increase their discharges as well, facilitating development over the hill ...or we could pretend that Heal the Bay, and the Surfrider Foundation really care about us?
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.
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.
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?