Court’s opinion states that the park will “improve, rather than harm the environment.”
By Knowles Adkisson / The Malibu Times
A three-judge panel of the state Court of Appeal sided unanimously with the City of Malibu last week for the second time in a lawsuit by Santa Monica Baykeeper over Legacy Park. The lawsuit, filed in April 2009, claimed the park violated state law by failing to meet water quality standards and by failing to adequately treat sewage, or wastewater, generated in the Civic Center area.
Presiding Justice Norman L. Epstein, of the Second District Court of Appeal, wrote in the April 5 opinion, “The record before us demonstrates that the net effect of the Legacy Park project will be to improve, rather than harm the environment.”
The decision affirmed a Superior Court ruling in December 2009, which reached the same conclusion.
Malibu Mayor John Sibert welcomed the decision, but sounded miffed that Baykeeper had continued its appeal even after the park was completed in October 2010.
“It amazes me that it got to this point,” Sibert said.
Baykeeper Executive Director Liz Crosson called the decision “almost as disappointing as Legacy Park itself.
“Unfortunately, the court did not recognize the serious flaws in the city’s environmental impact report [for Legacy Park],” she said.
Baykeeper continued its appeal after the December 2009 ruling, even after it became clear construction on the park would finish before the appeal was heard. Baykeeper’s request to stop construction of the park was rejected by the courts in July. City Attorney Christi Hogin at the time called the appeal “a complete waste of money,” since both sides knew the appeal would not be heard until after the park was finished. That turned out to be the case when Legacy Park opened in October of last year.
When asked why Baykeeper continued the appeal after the park was finished, Crosson responded, “The flaws of the environmental impact report didn’t change regardless of what stage the construction was in the project, and our hope was that a favorable decision by the court would result in significant changes to the project itself.”
Baykeeper and other environmental groups originally became upset with the city in 2009, when the city council decided against including a wastewater treatment facility in the Civic Center area.
Sibert said the purpose of the disputed EIR was to determine whether the 15-acre tract could support both storm water and wastewater treatment facilities. “We did do the EIR to take a look at that and see if it was possible, and there wasn’t a place to put that much water,” he said.
Instead, the city council opted to proceed with the storm water treatment facility and build a wastewater facility later. Sibert noted that the city is already in the planning stages for that facility, having committed more than $2 million for the basic design. The next step, which Sibert acknowledged would be complicated, is navigating the assessment district in order to pay for what is expected to be a $52 million facility.
In the meantime, Sibert said he is pleased with the current results.
“Legacy Park’s performing really well,” he said. “It’s doing everything it should be doing. That water’s clean, we’re re-using it where we can.”
Crosson has said in the past that Legacy Park will not be able to handle enough storm water, and the people of Malibu should be concerned because it will not reduce the health risks of a polluted watershed. She said Baykeeper wanted a project that addresses the serious issues.
Sibert noted that if Legacy Park had not been built there, “it could have been 181,000 square feet of commercial [development].”