The group, called Malibu Parents for Sports Fields, wants the city to include the rezoning of property owned by Trancas PCH on a list of proposed amendments that will be sent to the California Coastal Commission for consideration.
By Jonathan Friedman / Assistant Editor
Several speakers from a newly formed group called Malibu Parents for Sports Fields spoke at Monday’s City Council meeting to encourage city leaders to reverse a decision regarding a development agreement they said could delay the city from obtaining nearly 30 acres of open space. City officials responded that what the group was asking to be done would not speed up the process and was premature.
The community group’s attendance at Monday’s meeting was the latest incident in a complicated Trancas development conflict that goes back more than 20 years.
An agreement was signed in 2003 between developer Trancas PCH and the city in 2003, granting the developer the right to construct 32 town homes on a property located on Pacific Coast Highway just west of Trancas Canyon Road (the agreement would only rezone the property in the city’s General Plan, the developer would still have to go through the application process) in exchange for a donation to the city of 26.5 acres of open space and a promise that four of the town homes would be affordably priced. But a state appellate court rejected the agreement in October.
Malibu city officials had originally proposed rezoning the property in its Local Coastal Program as it was proposed to be rezoned in the city’s General Plan in the settlement agreement. The rezoning was included in a list of proposed amendments that will be sent to the California Coastal Commission for consideration. But the council withdrew the property rezoning from that list last month when it approved the amendment proposals, infuriating Trancas PCH partner Dean Isaacson.
The council members’ reasoning was that Trancas PCH should instead renegotiate with the city for a new development agreement and then go through the application process before going to the Coastal Commission about rezoning. But Isaacson said two weeks ago, and repeated his statements in an interview on Tuesday, that he would not want to go through the application process without knowing if the Coastal Commission would approve the rezoning. His lawyer, Alan Block, echoed Isaacson’s comments.
“To go through the application process would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, and to do that without knowing what [the] Coastal [Commission] thinks about the rezoning is a risk,” Block said.
At Monday’s meeting, Isaacson sweetened the offer to the city, agreeing to add another two acres of open space to the donation. He said on Tuesday the extra acreage would be flatter and require less grading, making the possibility of turning the open space into ball fields more likely. Isaacson also said he and his partner were discussing whether they might offer the city $1 million to be used toward the construction of the ball fields, stating, “Our intent is to move in that direction.”
Isaacson said he would continue to approach the council about the issue and more people from the newly formed community group would join him until the city leaders agreed to send the rezoning proposal to the Coastal Commission. He has scheduled a March 26 event to take place on the property, at which Isaacson said people would speak about a need for ball fields on the property. He said he would invite the City Council members and the candidates for this year’s election to the event.
Although Isaacson said his company would not be willing to go through the application process without hearing from the Coastal Commission, he said Trancas PCH would be willing to start negotiating a new deal with the city that would include his new offers and use the appellate court’s decision as parameters.
The Trancas PCH saga has had many twists and turns and stretches back several years, before the city was formed.
The county approved tract maps for the previous property owner in 1980 and 1985, allowing for the construction of 52 town homes and 15 houses. The company received coastal development permits for the project in 1981, 1989 and 1992. But a Court of Appeal decision in 2001 sided with Trancas Property Owners and invalidated the coastal permits. The city also fought with Trancas PCH for several years over the validity of the county-approved tract maps. This eventually led to the settlement, which was crushed in October when an appellate court sided with Trancas Property Owners’ challenge of the agreement.
The court has since agreed to rehear the case, but a new decision will not reverse the agreement rejection since the court will only consider arguments about whether the deal was approved illegally during a closed-session portion of a City Council meeting, not whether the agreement violates the city’s zoning laws. The court’s decision is expected to be issued this month.
With the settlement agreement in limbo, Trancas PCH had the option to fall back on its suit against the city to get the county-approved tract maps validated. However, Trancas PCH agreed to drop its suit as a sign of good faith. But Isaacson has said he could renew the suit, and alluded to a desire to do so last month, but was quiet on the issue this week.