State and Federal Agencies Blast Legacy Park Specifics

• Municipal Environmental Review Board Gets Latest Word about Major Concerns

BY BILL KOENEKER

Malibu’s Environmental Review Board met this week to discuss the Environmental Impact Report and other documents related to making improvements at Legacy Park on Wednesday after the Malibu Surfside News went to press.
The panel had some of the latest agency comments about the city’s plans for Legacy Park and heard numerous reservations, complaints and concerns about the city’s current plans.
The most recent letter from the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission, which funded grants to the city and considers itself, “a major partner in the purchase,” cited several concerns about the plans, including the proposed use of Legacy Park for wastewater dispersal, which “were discussed only on the programmatic level.”
SMBRC insists the “actual cumulative effects on local groundwater and in Malibu Creek and lagoon of the dispersal of stormwater, urban runoff and treated wastewater may be significant and must be dealt with in a comprehensive manner before proceeding with any one phase of the project.”
The commission, which awarded Malibu $2.5 million in grants, reminded the city of the terms of the grant and then warned that the detention pond proposed is different than vegetated retention basins first cited by the city and represents a “deviation.” The city would have to apply for a deviation from those original plans.
“The detention pond, as currently planned, would occupy only a small fraction of the 15-acre site. We believe that a larger treatment wetland is a much more appropriate alternative for Legacy Park and would more effectively accommodate additional storm flow capacity and allow for the greatest treatment potential,” wrote the agency’s executive director and environmental scientist.
They also took exception to Malibu’s habitat restoration plans, saying the proposal is not native to the area and they support the re-introduction of local native plant species.
A top scientist for the Regional Water Quality Control Board said Malibu lacked documentation for potentially significant impacts pertaining to groundwater, hydrology and water quality impacts.
“Additional public review is necessary because the new design for Malibu Legacy Park proposes to dispose of 33,000 gallons per day in an area where Malibu Lumber will dispose of 17,000 gallons per day and adjacent properties have septic systems which rely on continued groundwater separation. We believe cumulative hydrological limitations should be assessed early in the permitting and construction process because the assimilative capacity of Malibu Valley might preclude future and adjacent projects,” wrote Rebecca Chou, chief of the groundwater permitting unit of RWQCB.
The National Marine Fisheries Service told the city the EIR is inadequate because it does not describe the actual effects of the project on steelhead and critical habitat within Malibu Creek.
The regional administrator charged the impacts from stormwater runoff detention and treatment before release into Malibu Creek are not addressed.
“The final EIR must describe the effects either adverse and beneficial of the proposed action on endangered steelhead and their critical habitat, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act,” wrote Rodney McInnis.
Two environmental organizations also took issue with the plans and urged another approach.
“The stormwater and wastewater components of the project should be designed and completed in parallel,” wrote Heal the Bay staff members.
The environmental group also indicated the project should include “significantly greater treated stormwater storage capacity,” and more study is needed on hydrology and water quality impact.
The Santa Monica Baykeeper had a retired professor of soil and water resources review the hydrology and water quality technical reports and told city officials he believes the project “is also likely to raise groundwater levels and worsen groundwater quality in the project area.”
Dr. Byron Shaw indicated there is no recognition that there are already serious groundwater elevation and water quality problems on the park property and that use of the property to dispose of stormwater via infiltration and evapotranspiration “will only make these conditions worse.”
The Baykeeper analyst also noted the stormwater treatment facility relies on a detention pond that is capable of storing only eight acre feet and that no analysis is presented on how frequently this capacity will be exceeded and untreated water discharged as surface water.
The ERB is charged with reviewing the city’s application to construct a public park, linear park and stormwater treatment components on the 15-acre site and make recommendations to the planning commission.
The proposal, which will require a coastal development permit, conditional use permit and a variance, includes grading, accessory structures, a bridge, master sign program, stormwater pipelines, street improvements, parking spaces, habitat restoration and trails, according to a public notice.
The amount of paperwork and the size of the documents for Legacy Park have become so large, city officials have indicated that due to the size of the attachments, the report will not be posted on the city’s website, but rather the entire ERB agenda packet has been posted to the city’s FTP site.
City officials recently attempted to get the public more involved in review of the park’s improvements and scheduled two workshop meetings. However, municipal officials complained the public turnout was low and the meetings did not attract community interest.
“On Wednesday night, the staff and consultants outnumbered the residents,” said Councilmember John Sibert. “There were seven on Saturday.”
Sibert said he was sorry there were not more Malibuites at the workshops. “There were even signs and ads, but still that got very few folks,” he said.
The workshops were designed as an informal effort to gather as much input as possible from Malibu residents about what they want to see installed in the park in the way of amenities.
The date for submitting comments to the Environmental Impact Report has passed.
Currently, the park plans are described as a facility that will be home to five ostensible coastal habitats and is being billed as Southern California’s only coastal prairie habitat.