No Agreement Yet on Consultant for Lagoon Review

Three weeks after the voted to spend up to $25,000  to review the controversial , it still has not selected somebody for the job.

Jim Thorsen said he would choose a consultant supported by the state (which is managing the project) and the opponents, led by Marcia Hanscom. As of Wednesday morning, they have not been able to agree on a selection.

The project opponents have proposed five reviewers, all who were rejected by the state. Gov. Jerry Brown's office proposed two, who were both OK'd by California State Parks senior environmental scientist Suzanne Goode, but rejected by Hanscom.

The state has proposed a third person, Cal State Long Beach biology professor Christine Whitcraft. Hanscom wrote in an email to Malibu Patch that her group is considering Whitcraft. She wrote that her partner Robert "Roy" van de Hoek wants to interview Whitcraft "and make sure she has at least some of the expertise we feel is important for a fair review."

Hanscom also wrote that the planned review "appears to be set up to be doomed to failure." She and several other project opponents, including City Council candidate Andy Lyon, also spoke about this at Monday's council meeting.

"Look at the qualifications that the 'expert' is supposed to have," wrote Hanscom, referring to the staff report from last month's council meeting when the council voted to do a review. The document states the person should have "expertise in hydrology, biology, water quality, wave and surf conditions and lagoon and coastal knowledge." 

Hanscom continued, "There are not many (any?) scientists who have expertise in all of those topics, let alone the issues of public access and interpretive education (related to the bridge removal)—two things that were not included .... not only that, but Suzanne [Goode] dismissed our five experts almost immediately. And then, the entire voluminous record is to be reviewed in a month's time and all for $25K ... the 'expert' is supposed to drop everything on their plate ... It is unlikely to happen."

Goode told Malibu Patch on Tuesday that she rejected Hanscom's proposed consultants because none "has expertise in coastal wetlands" and "at least two are known to Marcia."

She said the scientists her side proposed prior to Whitcraft were both from well-respected organizations—the San Francisco Estuary Institute and the Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve.

"State Parks welcomes this study, I'm not certain whether Marcia does," Goode said.

Hanscom responded that it would have been better to have done the review two years ago, prior to the city submitting two letters to the California Coastal Commission in support of the project. Project opponents spoke about these letters during Monday's council meeting.

Thorsen clarified at the meeting that he wrote the letters in his role as city manager, and not at the request of the council. The letters, which also contain various comments about the city's concerns regarding the project, were reviewed by Council member Jefferson "Zuma Jay" Wagner, who was mayor at the time, prior to being sent to the Coastal Commission.

Meanwhile, the dispute over the project could be headed to another round in the courtroom. Hanscom's Wetlands Defense Fund and Coastal Law Enforcement Action Network as well as Access for All filed an appeal this week of San Francisco Superior Court Judge Ernest H. Goldsmith's .

"The trial court refused to enforce the Coastal Act's strict protections of our wetlands," said attorney James Birkelund, according to a press release issued by the Wetlands Defense Fund. "The project's undeniable massive dredging will kill existing wildlife and demolish a treasured beach trail."

The project is scheduled to begin June 1. The orginizations will need to get the state Court of Appeal to approve a stay if they don't want the project to begin prior to the appeal hearing.

Regarding the decision to appeal, Goode said on Tuesday that she did not know anything about it other than . However, she said, "I'm not surprised."