Council squabbles over Legacy Park plan

0
158

Details are added to the park plan but one council member still can’t pledge support because it does not include a wastewater treatment facility; another changes his mind.

By Nora Fleming / Special to The Malibu Times

The Malibu City Council continued to work on the design of Legacy Park during a meeting on the park’s proposed educational and art exhibits last Wednesday, but brazen disagreement over the overall project launched council members into a debate by the end of the meeting.

The city is currently accepting construction bids for the proposed plan for the park, located on 15 acres off Pacific Coast Highway and Webb Way in the Civic Center Area. The council approved the plan in March, with two dissenting votes. Legacy Park is estimated to cost $15.6 million, a little more than a third of which has already been raised in public donations and grants. The city plans to apply for federal stimulus monies to fill in the funding gaps, as well as potential bonds.

The issues surrounding the overall park plan arose when Mayor Andy Stern asked if he could get a unanimous vote in favor of the general project, which split the council 3-2 a few months ago.

The issues over the wastewater treatment facility plans for the park, which induced the divided vote, were still apparent last Wednesday.

“When I talked to people about this, I promised we would clean up Surfrider Beach and make the ocean better,” said Councilmember Pamela Conley Ulich, who voted against the park plan in March, and said on Wednesday that she took issue with Stern bringing up something that was not on the agenda. “I personally feel that [the current park plan] handles half or three quarters of the problem, but the wastewater problem is still there, and I feel we need to address that,” she added.

The current plans for Legacy Park include an onsite storm water treatment facility that will filter water flowing into Malibu Creek and Malibu Lagoon.

Environmental organization Santa Monica Baykeeper is suing the city for not including a wastewater treatment facility in the park’s plan, as originally proposed. It was nixed due to what the city said was insufficient space on the land. Conley Ulich and Councilmember Jefferson Wagner cited this issue as the reason for their dissenting votes in March.

But other council members said they did not understand how council members who did not support the overall park plan could approve certain facets of the park, specifically moving forward with the exhibits discussed last Wednesday.

“To me, it’s completely inconsistent to vote on one and not the other. So we’re moving forward with art elements but not the park?” Stern asked.

“You had a person that wanted and suggested changes. Why does a person request modifications [for the art elements] and get them and still not support the park?” he asked after the meeting.

The city has stated it is committed to looking for a site for a wastewater treatment facility in the Civic Center area, though the original plans for putting a facility into the La Paz project site, future home to a commercial and business center, may no longer be the solution. Santa Monica Baykeeper is also suing the city over the environmental impact report for the La Paz project, which is currently awaiting a coastal development permit from the California Coastal Commission.

The majority of the council said on Wednesday, as they did a few months ago, that the project should not be stalled over the wastewater facility. Councilmember Wagner, who had previously voted against the park plan, seemed to have changed his mind by the end of the meeting.

“We’re still involved in a couple of lawsuits and I’d like to see those lawsuits go away [but] the way we’re going to rectify the lawsuits is with some kind of modifications of this park in the future,” Wagner said. “This park is a growing element of our community. This is a wise use for the property and a wise use for our funds … and somewhere in the future this park will be a part of an element of wastewater treatment, I am sure of that.

Wagner added that he supported going ahead with the park, provided the plans were left open ended.

The park design calls for walking trails, and children’s interpretative and environmental education areas with outdoor classrooms, all set within three native ecological habitats.

On Wednesday, the council discussed a featured exhibit that will chronicle the history of the city, potential art work to display and the signage recognizing park donors, who to date, have contributed $6.1 million to the project.

Stern said he would not bring the plan back for an official vote, and that he simply wanted to gauge where the council stood as a unit as the park moves forward. The council’s recommendations and modifications to the art and educational aspects of the park will be incorporated by the city into the overall park plan.

The next regularly scheduled City Council meeting is June 22 at Malibu City Hall.