So many people called saying I must respond to the misleading and self serving ad in your paper by the developer, Trancas PCH, who is attempting, under a settlement agreement with the city, to build 32 condo/town houses on the beautiful Trancas Field. Instead of honoring existing zoning which was put in place to protect the fragility of the area and building to the holding capacity of the land, this developer is trying to justify its shortsighted and misguided development plan by running an ad that is filled with half truths and innuendoes that belie the reality of what actually could be built by the developer on its parcel on Trancas Field.
For the record, I stand behind my earlier letter to West Malibu on this misconceived project. For those who are unfamiliar with the issue here are the facts.
Current city zoning permits only seven homes on this alleged 35-acre parcel located west of Trancas Canyon Road inland from PCH.
The city’s “settlement” allows 32 townhouses with no size limit and a 28-foot height guarantee with private view disruption instead of view protection as current city code requires.
The old county project of 52 condos and 15 houses, which was the alleged reason for the settlement, never had a vested building right and could only be built if the developer met certain conditions. One of the necessary conditions was a valid coastal permit. The owner of the parcel allowed it to expire in 1996. With this permit expiration, the ability to build the 52 condos and 15 homes ceased. The coastal permit’s expiration was confirmed by the court of appeals. The developer also lost his ability to obtain a new coastal permit at the higher density since the certified Malibu Local Coastal Program, the City General Plan and the City Zoning allowed only one single family home per five acres, resulting in at most five to seven homes.
The ad implies that in the latest lawsuit the judge ruled that the developer had the right to build 52 condo and 15 houses. This is not true! The court said that the city and developer had the right to enter the settlement agreement. If fact, the judge carefully states in his decision that “neither party is the prevailing party in this litigation.” Please call me at 310.393.1818 for supporting documentation and with any questions.
Patt Healy