Baykeeper Lawsuit Takes Aim at La Paz Enviro Impact Report

• Complaint Says City Violated CEQA

BY BILL KOENEKER

The Santa Monica Baykeeper lawsuit against the City of Malibu that challenges its approvals of the La Paz shopping center and office complex puts forth a litany of the shortcomings and failures of the Environmental Impact Report.
A copy of the complaint, which was obtained by the Malibu Surfside News this week, alleges that the city certified a “flawed Environmental Impact Report in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act [or CEQA].”
Malibu City Attorney Christi Hogin said the city had not been served yet, so she could make no comments on the complaint at this time. “It is disappointing when we end up in litigation,” she said.
A Baykeeper attorney, Tatiana Guar, told The News that the lawsuit was filed now because once an EIR is certified, it must be challenged in court within 30 days.
The Baykeeper lawsuit enumerates what it alleges are inadequacies in the EIR, including incomplete descriptions of solid waste disposal from wastewater, as well as an incomplete picture of plans for landscaping, grading, drainage and wastewater treatment for both version of a la Paz center that have been green lighted by the municipality.
“The EIR entirely fails to analyze impacts from stormwater discharges to the man-made wetlands. The EIR fails to adequately analyze flooding impacts. The EIR fails to utilize its own flooding significance thresholds. Thus, the EIR has failed to evaluate whether the project will place structures within a 100-year flood hazard area, expose people/structures to a significant risk of loss or injury or result in inundation by mudflow. In addition, by failing to properly consider the three-foot depth flood designation, the EIR fails to accurately analyze the project’s flooding impacts,” the complaint states.
The Baykeeper legal action also takes issue with how the city handled the revised EIR and insists that document has to be recirculated for further public comment.
“The revised EIR contains significant new information triggering recirculation of the EIR. The project has been substantially changed, depriving the public of a meaningful opportunity for comment, as the revised EIR adds a wastewater management system master plan and removes the onsite wastewater disposal system presented in the EIR. The [plan] calls for extensive construction of on-site and off-site water system facilities and infrastructure. The revised EIR includes substantial changes to the EIR’s project description, environmental impacts analysis, hydrology/water quality analysis, public utilities/ water impacts and the wastewater impacts which require recirculation for comment, agency evaluation and response,” the complaint adds, emphasizing the city’s failure to recirculate the EIR “is a failure to proceed as required by law.”
The lawsuit also claims the city adopted statements of overriding considerations for both projects that are contradictory to each other.
“The city failed to state in writing how specific benefits of the project will outweigh each significant effect identified in the EIR. Neither the city’s individual findings nor the statement of overriding considerations explain how or why specific benefits will outweigh each significant unavoidable environmental effect,” the complaint states.
The Baykeeper wants a judge to set aside the city’s approvals, mandate that the city comply with the EIR requirements in CEQA and forbid the developer from starting any kind of building or construction.