Mayor Laura Rosenthal will write a letter to Gov. Jerry Brown opposing the controversial California State Parks project to reshape the Malibu Lagoon, and the city will explore legal remedies before the project begins June 1.
By Jimy Tallal / Special to The Malibu Times
At the end of a marathon City Council meeting that stretched past midnight, the Malibu City Council voted unanimously Monday to oppose the California State Parks’ Malibu Lagoon Restoration Project, which is set to begin on June 1.
Opponents to the project had been urging the council for more than a year to make a stand either for or against it, and the councilmembers said Monday that the state failed to adequately respond to questions the city had about environmental, public health and legal concerns related to the project.
The City of Malibu has no power to stop the project, since the Malibu Lagoon is State Parks property, and the project was approved by the California Coastal Commission in 2010. There have been suggestions that by acting on Monday night, the eve of the City Council elections, the council was responding to political pressure.
The council voted separately on each of the five courses of action opposing the project that were proposed by Councilmember Pamela Conley Ulich, and unanimously approved the first four items.
Mayor Laura Rosenthal will write a letter to California Gov. Jerry Brown opposing the project based on a response received by the city from State Parks on April 5. In that response, councilmembers said the state failed to adequately respond to some of the city’s requests for ongoing water, soil and air testing to ensure there would be no risks to public health as the project progressed. In addition, the state failed to indemnify the City of Malibu in the event of any lawsuits arising from the lagoon restoration project.
The city decided to spend $2,500 to $5,000 to file an amicus brief with the court that will hear the appeal on stopping the project, although City Attorney Christi Hogan said an amicus brief would be “useful but not necessary.” She explained that an amicus brief is a legal document that brings a larger perspective to the court, showing a third party’s viewpoint on a case. In this instance, the document would detail the City of Malibu’s concern about water quality during the project.
The City Council will uphold the $25,000 that it set aside back in January to have an objective scientific organization review the available science related to the lagoon project and make a recommendation to the council. Most likely the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) will be chosen to conduct that study, even though their selection had previously been stonewalled by the Wetlands Defense Fund nonprofit group.
Mayor Rosenthal will also appoint an ad-hoc committee of two members of City Council to work in collaboration with State Parks and other stakeholders in the project. The appointments will not be made until after the City Council elections.
The fifth element of the plan, which entailed setting aside $50,000 for legal fees related to fighting the lagoon project, did not pass. Councilmembers Lou LaMonte and Jefferson Wagner both said they did not have enough information on how the money would be spent to vote “yes.”
The votes occurred after nearly four hours of public testimony on the subject of the Malibu Lagoon project from 95 individuals, both pro and con, in a packed City Hall. Speakers on both sides were passionate, and Rosenthal repeatedly had to bang the gavel and ask some opponents to remain quiet or leave.
A Sierra Club representative said the group supported the project: “We decided to support State Parks after much serious consideration. The project is supported by almost all of the wetlands scientists in the state.”
State Parks Senior Scientist Suzanne Goode responded to concerns many have raised about heavy traffic from trucks going to and from the lagoon during the summer by saying that they would be limited.
“The traffic threshold is 50 trucks per day, and this project will maybe only have a third of that,” Goode said.
Local Ted Vaill, an opponent to the lagoon project, argued that the endangered Tidewater Goby, a fish, would face a difficult future if the lagoon project proceeded.
“The tidewater gobies only exist in two locations-here and one other-and they live in the mud. How is the contractor going to remove them?”
Vail also questioned whether the project would be finished by the rainy season next winter, and expressed concern that “no trail will go through the lagoon as it does now; there will only be perimeter trails.”