Several Malibu residents have appealed the approval of the Trancas Park project, saying that significant grading will destroy natural habitat and harm local wildlife.
By Olivia Damavandi / Staff Writer
In the wake of brewing controversy over whether the Trancas Canyon Park development will actually destroy a ridgeline in the area, among other complaints about the project’s impact, the Malibu City Council is scheduled to vote on the park project at its Monday night meeting next week.
The Planning Commission in November approved an application to allow the construction of Trancas Canyon Park, a seven-acre public park on a 13.5-acre site located on Trancas Canyon Road. Two appeals have been filed against the approval by a number of residents who have expressed concerns pertaining to grading, geology, noise, traffic and other issues. City staff recommends the project move forward.
The site, donated to the city in 2003, was slated for a park to fulfill a call in the Malibu General Plan for more pocket parks and recreational fields within the city. A planning process with residents started in 2007 and a master plan for the park was approved by the city council several months later.
In the council’s latest agenda report, Bob Stallings, director of the city’s Parks and Recreation Department, estimated the park’s preconstruction cost to be $610,000, and its total construction cost at approximately $3.4 million.
Based on its current conceptual design, Trancas Canyon Park will contain a multiuse (practice-only) sports field, a basketball half-court, picnic area, tot-lot, dog park, restroom/maintenance building, storage building, shade structures, onsite wastewater treatment system, parking area and a storm water detention basin.
The application includes a request to allow grading to exceed the maximum quantity of 1,000 cubic yards per acre, and a request to allow construction on slopes steeper than what is allowed by code. According to the agenda report, it will take approximately 126,528 cubic yards of grading to construct the project, stabilize slopes and make the park’s proposed amenities accessible by people of all abilities.
Residents Teresa Campeau and Clara Thie, whose homes are located to the west and southeast of the proposed park entrance, and Malibu West residents John Norvet, Mark Davis and Robert Belvin have all appealed the project.
The residents question whether the park’s environmental impact report adequately assesses the project impacts, which include noise, traffic, cultural resource protection, possible fire hazards, analysis of slopes and grading, lighting, grading in an environmentally sensitive habitat area, hillside protection and impacts to views, wildlife and natural resources.
“I’m kind of mystified that funds will be going into creating another park when there are so many other alternative ways to spend public funds to improve the lives of locals and visitors alike,” resident Lance Keene said in an interview Monday. “In today’s tough economic times, together with an educated public, is it really the best move to waste funds and potentially damage land that is full of historic significance [possibly violating native culture] so people can walk their dogs? I think this plan is at best, ill advised.”
Resident Kimberly Kellogg 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 on Monday, it wasn’t until the EIR was carefully reviewed that it became apparent it entailed significant grading of a local ridgeline.
In a joint e-mail, the Belvins said that the northeast face of what they call “Trancas Ridge,” in addition to “having a beautiful face with caves and crevices,” hosts coastal scrub and native wildlife habitat.
“It is part of the Trancas Creek watershed,” they wrote. “Red tail hawks can be seen flying over it by day and bats fly around it in the early evening hours. Grading the ridge will destroy most of the habitat that this rock escarpment provides.”
They also said ridgelines, large rock landforms, defining views and coastal scrub are all protected by the city’s own municipal and Local Coastal Program codes.
The city’s staff report states that though the eastern portion of the site is within a mapped LCP- designated ESHA, the city biologist concurred in his review of the project that the site does not meet the criteria of an ESHA because it was previously graded in the 1960s to accommodate residential development.
“We ask that the city honor its own laws,” the Belvins said. “We are asking that the same municipal codes and LCP regulations that govern the entire city and protect Malibu’s beauty be applied evenly and fairly in this matter.”
The Belvins said the city has an alternative plan that makes use of the existing topography but doesn’t require the ridge to be graded.
“This alternative plan has all the features that the city wants to incorporate in the park: playing fields, picnic areas, tot lot, and dog park,” they said. “We ask that the city use the alternate plan so as to protect this irreplaceable ridge.”
Vic Peterson, the city’s community development director, said in an interview Monday, “The staff disagrees with the claims made in the appeal,” and that responses to them will be made at the appeal hearing on Monday night.