The Malibu City Council will decide on the eve of the City Council election whether to spend $50,000 to oppose the project to reshape the Malibu Lagoon in court.
By Jimy Tallal / Special to The Malibu Times
The Malibu City Council will make a decision on Monday, the eve of the City Council election, whether to spend $50,000 in opposition to California State Parks? Malibu Lagoon Restoration Project before it begins June 1.
The project has been approved by the California Coastal Commission, and the City of Malibu does not have legal authority to stop the project even if it is opposed because it will take place on State Parks-owned land. The City Council has received heavy criticism from opponents of the project for not taking a stance either for or against it. Some say taking a stance so shortly before the City Council election on April 10 is only because of political reasons.
The city’s Administration & Finance Subcommittee listened to public comments on the $50,000 request at a meeting Friday last week, since policy requires them to review any amount over $10,000 prior to consideration by City Council. The subcommittee consists of City Councilmember John Sibert and Mayor Pro Tem Lou La Monte.
Should the council vote to oppose the Lagoon project, it could take the following actions: send letters to the Governor and all relevant agencies stating the city’s opposition to the project; have the city attorney file an amicus brief opposing the project; authorize the city manager to execute a contract with the USGS (U.S. Geological Survey) to conduct an independent study of the project; appoint two members of the city council to an ad-hoc committee to meet with the state and other affected parties to try to negotiate a solution before the project start date of June 1; and appropriate $50,000 for legal costs from the city’s general fund.
The Malibu Lagoon Restoration and Enhancement Plan is a project of the California State Department of Parks and Recreation (State Parks) intended to improve the water quality and restore and enhance the ecological quality of the lagoon. The project will involve dredging and dewatering the lagoon.
The city set a precedent in 2006 when it authorized a similar appropriation of $50,000 to help fund opposition to the proposed Cabrillo Port liquefied natural gas (LNG) facility. The city executed an agreement with the Environmental Defense Center to review the air, water and aesthetic impacts of the LNG project.
Although members of the public rarely attend finance subcommittee meetings, more than a dozen people opposing the lagoon project showed up Friday to weigh in on the lagoon item. Many of the comments dealt with health and safety concerns over the air and water quality impacts the restoration project will have once it gets underway.
A list of these concerns was detailed in two letters that City Manager Jim Thorsen sent to the Coastal Commission back in 2010 and to State Parks on March 12 of this year.
When contractors begin “dewatering” sections of the lagoon and then dredging up the sand and sediment, some fear that harmful bacteria and other toxic substances could contaminate the surrounding air and water. The city therefore requested the state to commit to an air and water testing plan throughout the project.
Thorsen said at the Friday meeting that so far the state has not responded to the March 12 letter. Meanwhile, the de-watering project has already put the project out for bid. Thorsen said the water testing requested by the City of Malibu has not been included in the bid information received by contractors.
“The contract documents don?t address the issues the city has identified,” Thorsen said.
Subcommittee Chair Lou La Monte said “the state’s lack of response might be a reason to pull our support from the project.”
Approximately $2,500 to $5,000 of the $50,000 would be used to file an amicus brief (a third-party petition to the court expressing a public interest viewpoint); and the rest would be set aside to pay for unspecified legal costs performed either by the city’s attorney or an outside firm.
However, there were questions as to whether the city could support an amicus brief at this time, whether the city could use taxpayer money to pay for an amicus brief, and even whether multiple amicus briefs could be filed—one for an injunction on the project and one for the appeals court. Resident and City Council candidate Hans Laetz raised the question of whether the proposed dewatering project was a violation of the Clean Water Act. City Attorney Christi Hogin will be consulted on these questions.
Local nonprofit group the Wetlands Defense Fund (WDF) has led the charge against the project, but its representatives were told at the meeting that the city cannot legally authorize an appropriation to them if the funds would be used for nonmunicipal purposes.
La Monte and fellow subcommittee member John Sibert urged the members of the public in attendance, including WDF, to come to the April 9 City Council meeting with a detailed plan as to how the $50,000 would be used.
La Monte concluded that he would not be able to provide a definite recommendation to city council on the $50,000 until he knows how the money would be spent.
“$50,000 is a lot of extra money above what the amicus brief will cost,” La Monte said.
He said the rest of the decisions will be up to the City Council.