Baykeeper Lawsuit Takes Aim at La Paz
Enviro Impact Report
• Complaint Says City Violated CEQA
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.
