SM Baykeeper Files Its Third Lawsuit Against City of Malibu

• Activist Group Says Legacy Park Environmental Impact Report Violates State Law

BY ANNE SOBLE

Santa Monica Baykeeper filed its third lawsuit against the City of Malibu in Los Angeles Superior Court last week, challenging the legality of the city’s approval of the Legacy Park Project. The park is the subject of a heated battle between environmental and ocean recreation groups and city council members who see the project as the cornerstone of their accomplishments.
In addition to challenging the pollution control capability of the stormwater runoff project, Baykeeper contends the Legacy Park certified environmental impact report does not meet the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA.
Tatiana Gaur, the group’s staff attorney, said, “We tried to work with the city to resolve the inadequacies of the Legacy Park Project and the project EIR to make sure the chronic water quality problems of Malibu Creek, Malibu Lagoon and Surfrider Beach are dealt with.”
Gaur said, “Certifying the project EIR without additional review after fundamentally changing the project also violates state laws designed to ensure meaningful public participation in the city’s planning process to achieve maximum protection of the environment.”
The latest in the troika of lawsuits by the enviro group against the city prompted a swift and sharp rejoinder from municipal officials disputing the premises of the lawsuit and questioning Baykeeper’s motives.
“Clean water does not flow from courtrooms,” said City Attorney Christi Hogin. “I understand that lawsuits are useful against those who refuse to take action. However, where there is a city as committed to success as Malibu, the lawyers need to get out of the way and let the engineers fulfill the will of the community.”
Gaur told the Malibu Surfside News that the city’s commitments are a case of “emperor’s new clothes” syndrome. The Baykeeper counsel said city officials appear to be engaged in “denial and avoidance. They continue to dig themselves in deeper and deeper, and try to blame us and others for their own shortcomings.”
Gaur said Baykeeper’s primary goal is “to force the city to take responsibility for the protection of public health...to do proper environmental analysis and to allow pubic participation...in the process.” She said Malibu officials “have put up a wall. They don’t want to listen to anyone who doesn’t agree with them.”
This criticism includes that the Legacy Park project as originally crafted was a comprehensive plan to address pollution from failing septic leachfields and polluted stormwater and urban runoff in the Civic Center area. The plan was then segmented by the city because of cost and siting issues, as well as, some contend, by political and financial pressures.
“By removing the wastewater treatment element from the project description and allowing septic effluent discharge from the Malibu Lumber Yard development at the Legacy Park site, the city not only fails to solve existing water quality problems, but it actually makes them worse,” said Tom Ford, executive director of Santa Monica Baykeeper.
“The city denied our appeal of the planning commission’s decision to approve the project and left us no choice but to file another lawsuit.” Ford added.
Baykeeper officials contend that because the City of Malibu was both the project proponent and the lead agency reviewing Legacy Park under CEQA, there was “clear bias and discrepancies at the city council’s appeals hearing where city staff were allocated almost three times as much time for their presentation than the environmental groups who appealed the planning commission’s Legacy Park project certification.”
At that hearing, it was reported in the media that Legacy Park proponents were allowed to boo and jeer the speakers who raisied environmental concerns. The perception of collective rudeness extended to some of the members of the city council and staff.
Ford emphasizes that SMB was a strong supporter of the Legacy Park project as originally planned but watched as its written comments and voiced concerns at public hearings were “blatantly ignored when the Malibu City Council approved the EIR without the wastewater treatment system and without doing an in-depth analysis of environmental impacts as required by CEQA.”
Santa Monica Baykeeper’s other two pending lawsuits against the City of Malibu include a state court challenge of the city’s approval of land use entitlements for the controversial La Paz development in the Malibu Civic Center area, which includes a possible donation of land to the city that might be used for a wastewater treatment facility, but critics say the project itself raises too many environmental issues.
The other lawsuit was filed in federal court last year under the U.S. Clean Water Act and addresses the concern of many in the environmental community that the city’s public actions and policies cause or contribute to poor water quality in Malibu Creek and at Surfrider Beach.
Baykeeper’s Gaur said it’s time for Malibu city officials “to move on” and stop “seeking credit for their mistakes.”
Going back to her emperor’s new clothes reference, Gaur said, “[City officials] have to stop acting as if they are solving problems when they aren’t, [and] stop expecting others to behave as if they [don’t know the difference].”