Recently, a real estate developer personally attacked me because I oppose his project to double the size of the Trancas Shopping Center, a proposal can only be built if our city grants tremendous loopholes in our development laws. The accusation that my opposition to the proposed supersizing of the Trancas Shopping Center has become some sort of “personal vendetta” from an “unhappy person” is reprehensible. I have been working to clean up and fix Trancas Lagoon for 12 years now, and I am very happy with my efforts.
It is important to note that the original suit that I filed against the Trancas Shopping Center expansion was dismissed only as to the timing of its filing. The factual issues have not been ruled on, as the city erroneously claimed in its press release. The applicant has not “scaled down” the project one inch, he has merely dropped plans to build east of the creek, for the time being.
Who I am is not the issue. The issue is the mess at the lagoon, and the plan to cram too much retail next to it. I have filed an appeal with the Coastal Commission that points out 30-plus legal problems with the proposal. These legal issues are what’s important, and the developer cannot win because of the problems I pointed out.
Most importantly, I easily surpassed my burden to trigger a mandatory Environmental Impact Report, which was only a fair argument that these problems exist. Malibu officials repeatedly said they would spare the applicant the expense and delay of an EIR-an option the city simply does not have.
The City Biologist, planning staff and the City Council all ignored more than a half dozen previous scientific and legal findings that unanimously say a degraded, functioning saltwater lagoon worthy of restoration exists on the Trancas property. Our city, instead, believes Trancas Lagoon is a man-made body of sewage and street runoff.
The National Park Service plainly told the city that the plan endangers a critical coastal resource, and that an EIR was desirable. The city ignored those comments.
In 2003, Malibu adopted an EIR for Trancas that found a saltwater lagoon exists on the property, and ordered restoration efforts that were far more protective and extensive than the city just allowed. But the city now, without support, claims no saltwater lagoon ever existed at Trancas.
State law is unequivocal that this lagoon is a precious resource to be preserved and, if feasible, rehabilitated. The feasibility of a complete lagoon restoration was not studied by the city.
The city’s Biological Assessment, which was written entirely by the applicant’s team, erroneously concludes no lagoon ever existed at Trancas is based on a 110-year-old topo map that doesn’t show any coastal lagoons anywhere in the area.
This study says the lagoon’s summer water is nothing more than urban runoff and effluent from the Malibu West sewage plant. And the proponent states that the lagoon has been permanently sealed off from the ocean by L.A. County bulldozers. Both allegations would be illegal, if true. But they are not.
The applicant submitted historical aerial photos that plainly depict wetland habitat north of PCH, on the Trancas Property, in 1952, 1972, 1979, and recently, but was allowed to claim that there is no history of a lagoon there despite those pictures of standing water.
The city apparently failed to require the preparation of an adequate wetlands delineation map, or a detailed saltwater plant restoration plan as specified by the LCP.
The project is erroneously described as being landward from the first public road, and the actual coastline along the lagoon itself is not therefore not protected, as required by law and the LCP.
The city failed to examine if storm runoff from the surrounding area could be cleaned in the Lagoon before it flows into the adjacent, protected ocean.
The city never accurately examined the unique topographic, land use and recreational qualities of Trancas Canyon upstream from the shopping center.
The owner plows up the ESHA habitat buffer next to the lagoon and creek every year, choking the water bodies with silt and destroying habitat in the buffer, yearly damage that is not addressed by the city.
The possibility of rehabilitating some of the degraded riparian and saltwater habitat adjacent to the property is not discussed, and the city illegally says the channelized creek is not worthy of restoration because “it is a man made structure.”
The city would allow new parking lots and structures to be added within ESHA zones themselves, well within the mandatory 100-foot ESHA buffer zones.
The city would forgive past unpermitted filling and grading of former riparian and coastal lagoon habitat.
The city cannot allow buildings to be scooted away from ESHA towards PCH if doing so would violate other state laws.
The city failed to consult with responsible agencies, such as the Army Corps of Engineers, as required under CEQA, in evaluating the proposal.
The city apparently calculates density for the project by including vacant space from east of the creek, the unbuildable land under the creek and lagoon itself, and even the land under Trancas Canyon Road in the calculations.
Existing, grandfathered buildings that are too close to roads cannot be used to justify new buildings in setback areas, and existing code violations (lit pole signs, loud compressors) are not ordered removed.
A special favor was handed out in the form to major variances for set-backs and grading, variances that could only be granted if the owner could prove he suffers an unfair disadvantage compared to neighboring commercial land-since there is no nearby commercial land, such a comparison is factually impossible.
A 50 percent setback variance is not a “minor” waiver, as the city claims.
The grading variance would allow the construction of two commercial-scale driveways west of Trancas Canyon Road, reducing and eliminating public parking for the beach and nearby public trails.
Hundreds of Zuma Beach pedestrians daily will be left to jaywalk across PCH and walk on the dangerous roadway, because no provisions are made for foot traffic along the property.
The city’s decision would create an unstudied, dangerous traffic pattern on PCH, violating CEQA, and the scenic resource of a protected scenic highway would be seriously harmed.
The city miscalculated ESHA, degraded ESHA, and ESHA setback boundaries, and did not study a smaller retail expansion, making it impossible to proclaim the proposal to be the least environmentally damaging choice.
And the overwhelming issue: the city cannot possibly find that a project requiring such major loopholes and variances can comply with the LCP, and state law, that both specifically ban such special favors.
The record here shows the Coastal Commission will likely find severe coastal law violations. Other violations are more general, and may go back to court. Either way, there were serious violations of the law committed by the City of Malibu in approving the project.
The developer is certainly entitled to dispute the violations I have found in his proposal. But it is not proper for him to attack me personally for opposing his loophole-ridden project. The developer must answer the above facts, and his resorting to public relations games and personal attacks shows he cannot.
I want the lagoon, a public resource saved, and like every Californian I should be able to do so without malicious, false and personal attack. We in Malibu are obligated to protect our vanishing coastal wetlands, for ourselves and our state. The city has failed to do so, and a private citizen who acts lawfully to protect the coast should not be subjected to cheap shots.