Council Misses Key Aspects of CCC Hearing to Rehash ‘Legacy’ Debate

• Members Squabble Over Design and Animal Symbolism

BY BILL KOENEKER

At a special hearing on Legacy Park last week, the Malibu City Council, who had left the all-important California Coastal Commission meeting on overnight camping to talk about lizards, snakes and artwork, got into a heated discussion about finding unanimity on approval of the Civic Center park.
Inexplicably, the council meeting was scheduled on the same date as the Coastal Commission hearing and all of the council, including the city manager showed up for the City Hall meeting on various art elements, donor recognition and educational exhibits of Legacy Park.
Further development of the park is stalled because of a lawsuit filed by the Santa Monica Baykeeper over the city’s approval of the Environmental Impact Report, permits and entitlements.
A debate ensued when Mayor Andy Stern asked a question of both Councilmembers Pamela Conley Ulich and Jefferson Wagner, who had wholeheartedly participated in choosing artwork, signage and other elements for the park, but had previously voted against the approval of Legacy Park. “You got everything you asked for, if I bring this back is it still a no vote?” he asked.
Conley Ulich said she would “have to think about it. I personally feel this is three-fourths the way. We still need to address wastewater.”
Councilmember Sharon Barovsky said, “I agree with you we need to address wastewater. Mark Gold agrees, but it is five years down the road. But we can start to clean up the lagoon now. I never understood why we should not clean up 90 percent of the pollution now instead of waiting five years. We have all promised to clean up Surfrider. I want to clean it up now.”
However, City Manager Jim Thorsen said he was concerned the council’s discussion was “getting off track.”
That did not stop the debate from continuing. Stern insisted he would not support the recommendations sought by Wagner and Conley Ulich on the art elements.
Wagner said he thought the ultimate plans for the park were a “wise use of funds and wise use of land. The park will be an element of wastewater. It is going to change.”
“Then what are we talking about?” asked Barovsky. “At some point, we have to build it.”
“I am trying to find out how we can formulate this,” said Stern. “We found we can work together on the details. So why not a unanimous vote on the park?”
Barovsky said she agreed with Stern. “Why not a unanimous vote on the park? I want to vote for it to be an unanimous vote,” she added.
Stern again turned to his colleagues. “Will you vote tonight to approve the park, then we are unanimous on Legacy Park?”
“It is not on the agenda before us,” answered Conley Ulich.
Stern said he was trying to understand. “We are unanimous on the park work, but you are not in favor of going forward with the park. So it is still 3-2 to move forward with the park, but 5-0 for the artwork? Help me here I am just trying to understand,” said a clearly frustrated mayor.
Whereupon, Councilmember John Sibert spoke on the issue for the first time that evening. “It doesn’t do any good to generate pejorative comments. Everything doesn’t happen at the same time. Even Shelly Luce of the Baykeeper said yes, we should go forward with Legacy Park.”
Wagner said, “This park is going to change including wastewater and purple pipe in the future.”
“It is completely inconsistent,” said Stern, talking about Wagner’s and Conley Ulich’s positions. “Let’s just move the [art element] resolution with the changes,” said Barovsky. “I’ll second that,” said Wagner. The matter was approved on a 5-0 vote.
Earlier, the council was given an update about the exhibits and signage in the park, where the donor plaques would be located and how panels were to be used to tell the story of Malibu.
Council members were told the panels would talk about the Chumash, the ranching era of Malibu, the coastal area becoming populated, the story of Malibu potteries and surfing history. It was pointed out there should be some discussion about the history of fire and how it has impacted the community and the eco-system.
The consultants also explained how large-scale mosaic animals would be placed in the park including the red-legged frog, a California newt, a gopher snake and horned lizard in the dry creek bed.
Conley Ulich said she had concerns about a gopher snake being used for the large-scale animals which can be utilized for children to play on.
She said that was the wrong idea to give to young children, since the snake looked like a rattlesnake.
Dr. Richard Ambrose, one of the consultants, agreed there was a similarity and suggested a king snake. “Your right a gopher snake has the same coloration,” he said. “One difference is the king snake eats rattlesnakes.”
But Conley Ulich persisted. “Could we pick a different type of animal?” she asked. Barovsky suggested a rabbit and Wagner recommended a squirrel.
Wagner, later on, continued his suggestion about adding squirrels, both tree and ground species, to the mix and said he thought the horned lizard, which he said is not as prevalent in Malibu was not a good pick. He suggested an alligator lizard or blue belly, which he said were common in Malibu would be more ideal.
Ambrose answered that the horned lizard was chosen just because of the reasons given by Wagner. “The horned lizard is not very common. They look so neat. They are charismatic, perhaps to a biologist. The horned lizards are more striking,” Ambrose added. “The squirrels are a really good idea. I d expect to have squirrels in the park.” The council continued to hear about habitats, donor tiles and signs, for the recycled water used for irrigation, stating, “Do not drink.”
According to a staff report, the overall cost to design and construct the park is estimated to be $15.6 million. The project construction and management costs could be funded from a various sources including the city’s general fund, a state revolving fund loan and if the need arises, other public financing instruments.
Currently, the city has $6.1 million in public donations and grants. The municipality is applying for $8.4 million in federal stimulus funding through the state revolving fund loan.