Meanwhile, a workshop brings park oppositionists and supporters together to work out compromises on the park’s plans.
By Olivia Damavandi / Staff Writer
Just three days after voting to file a lawsuit against the City of Malibu over the Trancas Canyon Park project, last Thursday the Malibu West Homeowners Association rescinded its decision. Instead, the Malibu Township Council announced last week it has filed a lawsuit against the city, challenging the park project’s environmental impact report approved by city council last month.
Both announcements took place the same day a public workshop comprised of the city council and community members, including HOA members, was conducted for the community to voice last-minute suggestions for any potential changes to the park’s design before it is voted on by the council on May 26.
The Trancas Canyon Park Project, a public, seven-acre park to be built on a 13.5-acre site approximately a half mile north of the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Trancas Canyon Road, has been heavily opposed and supported by various residents, especially those of the adjacent Malibu West neighborhood, who have appealed the project twice. (Both appeals were denied by city council in February).
Park advocates view the park, as designed, as an asset to the community, while oppositionists say it is environmentally destructive and poorly thought out.
The workshop last week, facilitated by City Manager Jim Thorsen, Councilmember Jefferson Wagner, and Parks and Recreation Director Bob Stallings, was thought by most to have been productive. The suggested changes made by residents at the workshop pertained to fire hazards, water shortages and reduced grading.
“I think it [the workshop] went really well,” Lloyd Greenberg, president of Malibu West Homeowners Association, said Friday in a telephone interview. “They [meeting facilitators] were really open to everyone that was there. Everyone spoke their piece, there was even a group of kids.”
Meanwhile, the lawsuit filed by the Malibu Township Council (MTC) last Thursday in Los Angeles Superior Court claims the city’s approval of the Trancas Canyon Park Project’s EIR has violated the California Environmental Quality Act, the California Coastal Act of 1976, the Malibu Local Coastal Program, and the city’s general plan and zoning ordinance.
The MTC was formed more than 40 years ago before cityhood as a local political organization to protect the rights of Malibu citizens. However, since cityhood 19 years ago, the township has often battled with the local government over land issues, including the LCP and Civic Center development.
The MTC, along with park oppositionists, says the Trancas Canyon Park EIR inadequately assesses the project impacts, which include: excessive grading beyond what is allowed by city code; allowing construction on slopes steeper than what is allowed by city code; water quality and supply concerns; noise; fire hazards; grading in an environmentally sensitive habitat area; impacts to views; and depletion and disturbance of wildlife and natural resources.
“The city’s been told by everyone we’re in a drought and that we should be concerned about water conservation,” Steve Uhring, a member of MTC’s Board of Directors, said Friday in a telephone interview. “In the EIR there is not a single word about where water’s going to come from and how much it’s going to [use].”
City Manager Thorsen said Monday in a telephone interview that water will be facilitated to Trancas Canyon Park through a water line that will be connected to easements on La Gloria Road.
“We think it’s [the approved park development plan] against the city’s own rules,” Uhring said. “We’re not against putting a park up there, but we think the city should be able to build the park within the parameters of the land instead of altering it. What we’re looking for is the city to come back with a plan to build the park within the parameters the city allows.”
Councilmember Wagner, who five years ago served as president of the MTC, voted against certifying the EIR last month as did Councilmember Pamela Conley Ulich and said Monday that water delivery to the park is his only concern.
“I don’t believe it’s [my position as former MTC president] a conflict of interest,” Wagner said Monday in a telephone interview. “Now I’m standing somewhat opposed to the Township’s position.
“It creates, I think, a scenario for debate,” he continued. “However, I got elected to do a job and I have to follow the path of what the people want, not particularly what I want. I believe the majority of people want the park.”
Frank Angel, the attorney for MTC who also represented two residents’ appeal against the project, said Sunday in a telephone interview that the lawsuit would be accompanied by a standstill agreement, which allows the lawsuit to sit still for 90 days to help facilitate a settlement with the city. During this time, the city would not have to defend itself or pay attorney fees.
The Malibu West Homeowners Association could legally decide to join the suit, Angel said, “but that’s up to them.”
Angel said the lawsuit going forward is dependent on city council’s decision of how much community input offered at the workshop will be incorporated into the park plans.
“If it [city council] goes in the direction of input received at workshop, the township council sees a possibility the lawsuit could go away and we could settle with the city,” Angel said Sunday in a telephone interview. “But if the majority of the council does not take to heart the many proposals for changes, then there’s little likelihood the lawsuit could be settled.”
The originally approved, $3.4 million development plan for Trancas Canyon Park includes a multiuse (practice-only) sports field, a basketball half-court, picnic area, tot-lot, dog park, a restroom/maintenance building, storage building, shade structures, onsite wastewater treatment system, parking area and a storm water detention basin, all on a 13.5-acre site.
However, the park plan price tag jumped to $3.7 million on April 13 when the city council voted to incorporate $300,000 changes to spare 27.5 feet of grading of a local ridgeline situated above the park property that many residents have sought to protect.