Malibu West residents say there are alternative plans for the park that would not have what they say would be negative impacts to the area’s environment.
By Olivia Damavandi / Staff Writer
In a close 3-2 vote during the first half of Monday night’s meeting, and despite vocal opposition by area residents, the Malibu City Council denied two appeals against Trancas Canyon Park and approved the environmental impact report and the conditional use permit for the park’s $3.4 million construction.
Though he could not determine an exact date, Mayor Andy Stern said on Tuesday that the construction of Trancas Canyon Park would begin once the city approves building permits.
Council members predict those opposed to the park will resort to litigation, but potential lawsuits did not hinder Stern, Councilmember John Sibert and Mayor Pro Tem Sharon Barovsky from voting in favor of its development.
“While this isn’t my favorite project, I’m still in favor of going ahead with it,” Sibert said. “A lot of the people in the community want it and I think it’s important to do it.”
Council members Jefferson Wagner and Pamela Conley Ulich voted against approving the park plan as is.
Approximately 18 bewildered residents publicly scolded the council for denying the appeals, and pleaded for another hearing to negotiate a compromise over the final park plans.
Residents have been railing against proposed grading that the seven-acre park, located on Trancas Canyon Road approximately a half mile north of Pacific Coast Highway, would require, saying that an “entire mountaintop” will be removed to accommodate park plans.
The approved park plan allows grading to exceed the maximum quantity of 1,000 cubic yards per acre, and permits construction on slopes steeper than what is allowed by the current code.
In addition to the grading, residents question whether the park’s environmental impact report adequately assesses other project impacts, including noise, traffic, cultural resource protection, possible fire hazards, lighting, hillside protection and impacts to views, wildlife and natural resources.
Frank Angel, attorney for the Trancas Park appellants, requested Monday night that the city not approve the final EIR because, he said, it was developed without information from grading studies and it excludes disclosure about a number of things such as the park’s daily water use, among others items.
“I would urge council members to make motion for a new hearing or for reconsideration right now,” Angel said. “This would give you the opportunity not to say no to this project, but simply to do the right thing: to inform yourselves of what undisclosed impacts are in the revised EIR.”
In its latest report, the city states that the appellants did not provide any substantial evidence that supported their claim that Trancas Canyon Park’s EIR is inadequate, illegal or environmentally destructive.
After confusion erupted over whether the EIR stated the correct number of outcroppings and homes that would be affected by the park construction, Councilmember Conley Ulich made a motion to set a new hearing to further examine the residents’ concerns.
“I think the record will reflect there’s adequate new evidence to request a new hearing,” Conley Ulich said. “It’s never too late to do the right thing. I’d like to make a motion for a new hearing so we can further look into grading and outcroppings.”
Councilmember Wagner seconded the motion.
“Nobody’s opposed to this park,” Wagner said. “I’m hoping to resolve the construction of this park without litigation. There are a number of issues we could discuss again.”
Wagner expressed concern that the EIR “might not have any merit in court” and that attorney Angel “will use that in future litigation.”
“I’m sad to say we will wind up spending more money in court than we could have by properly addressing alternative three as a potential,” Jefferson said.
Many residents at the meeting expressed support for the third alternative stated in the EIR, a reduced dog park and picnic/playground area, to minimize impact on the Malibu West neighborhood, but the EIR states the third alternative would not fulfill the objectives of the park.
Residents listed a plethora of reasons as to why Trancas Canyon Park should be relocated, altered, postponed to another hearing or called off altogether.
Resident Kim Belvin participated in an August 2007 workshop in which the three park plans developed by the city were reviewed. After the city decided on a plan, she said last month, it wasn’t until the EIR was carefully reviewed that it became apparent it entailed significant grading of a local ridgeline.
Belvin, at the hearing, said all amenities could be achieved without the cost of destroying the ridge and the outcroppings. She said the dog park proposes the biggest environmental impact, and suggested either leaving it ungraded or building two smaller ones apart from each other.
“With a little bit of imagination, we could make everyone happy,” Belvin said.
One of the heavily debated components in the appeals was the coastal sage scrub habitat on the eastern part of the park property, which is mapped in the Malibu Local Coastal Program as an environmentally sensitive habitat area, or ESHA. The mapped ESHA also extends partially onto the portion of the site proposed for a dog park and picnic area.
Belvin said ridgelines, large rock landforms, defining views and coastal scrub are all protected by the city’s own municipal code and the Local Coastal Program.
Resident Cindy Vandor agreed, and said the park development would ruin an environmentally sensitive habitat, which could destabilize Malibu West.
City biologist Dave Crawford, however, has determined that the park site and adjacent areas are not subject to the ESHA policies in the Local Coastal Program because the site has been previously graded under an approved coastal development permit issued by the California Coastal Commission in the 1960s.
Park plans also include a multiuse (practice-only) sports field, basketball half-court, picnic area, tot lot, dog park, restroom/maintenance building, storage building, shade structures, an onsite wastewater treatment system, parking area and a storm water detention basin.
March 9 city council actions
n Received presentation by
Shoreline Media on a Sustainable/Ready Recycling Program for
Malibu that would place recycling bins on beaches.
n Directed staff to bring back an
item at the March 23 city council meeting considering whether to televise the “Every 15 Minutes” event
at Malibu High School.
n Conducted second reading and adopted ordinance to prohibit skateboarding and similar activities in certain areas of the city.
n Continued the following items to the March 19 council meeting: consideration of potential appointment of Graeme Clifford as an ex officio member to the Public Safety Commission; consideration of whether to proceed with a clean water initiative; resolution supporting the implementation of the Marine Life Protection Act; city partnership with Malibu Foundation for Youth and Families for leadership summit.