Planning Commissioner Jeff Jennings had to bang the gavel several times during the heated hearing. The commission approved the project. At least one resident plans to file an appeal
By Nora Fleming / Special to The Malibu Times
West Malibu residents yelled, interrupted and cheered on their neighbors at Monday night’s Planning Commission hearing on the proposed Trancas Canyon Park. The three commissioners attending the session approved permit applications for the small park on the east side of Trancas Canyon Road, but the decision is expected to be appealed to the City Council.
“This plan is environmentally irresponsible,” said West Malibu homeowner John Norvet, who said the significant grading in the proposed plan will destroy his ridgeline and views. “They’re going to destroy our properties. I plan to appeal.”
Norvet said in the days before the meeting he was able to obtain 37 signatures from his neighbors, who he said shared similar concerns.
The City Council will not be the final stop for the approval process. Since a zoning change needs to be made in the Local Costal Program, the California Coastal Commission will have the last word.
The park, as planned, will include a multiuse sports field, half-court basketball court, picnic area, tot-lot, dog park, parking area and accessory buildings. An onsite wastewater treatment system and a stormwater detention basin will be additional features.
Consultants from Rincon Consultants Inc., who developed the environmental impact report for the project, concluded that the park’s environmental impact was “less than significant.” But a lengthy letter from resident Patt Healy, which said it was on behalf of the Malibu West Homeowners Association, was sent to the Commission on Nov. 14., describing a number of concerns, including excessive grading, potential cause of fire, noise and traffic.
Malibu West residents in favor of the park showed up to the meeting outraged that the letter was sent without their support or to the knowledge of many of the neighbors.
“This is from one person on the board, with a personal agenda,” said former Planning Commissioner Les Moss. “These are Pat’s own opinions and assertions and concerns, but this park is for all Malibu residents not just Malibu West. If you read Pat’s letter, you might think they were considering a 10-story hotel or two shopping malls.”
Others felt some residents were trying to make too many provisions and regulations on the park.
“If this continues, only a leprechaun, born on February 29th, or a three legged dog, will be able to use this park,” said former City Councilmember Ken Kearsley. He added, “This is exclusionism and we need to stop it now,” as several audience members booed. “You may hear some noise and it’s called the noise of happiness from kids playing.”
But other residents supported Healy. Cindy Vandor said she favored the park until she saw the EIR and said she thought she and other Malibu residents had supported a different plan for the park than what was analyzed in the EIR. “This plan is much different and feels like a bait and switch,” Vandor said. “There are some major concerns here that are deal breakers for me.”
These concerns included destabilization after grading that “would send the hillsides into our homes” and what she called a flawed storm water drain system that would act as a “breeding ground for West Nile virus,” among others.
The property, donated to the city in 2002, was slated for a park as a means of meeting 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 June of this year, after a heated debate, the City Council voted for the park fields to be used only for practice and not for games.
Monday’s meeting became tense as residents made comments while others spoke at the podium and booed and clapped, causing Commissioner Jennings to repeatedly bang the gavel and at several points tell audience members they were out of line.
Commissioners weighed other options for more than an hour after public comment closed, particularly one proposed by Rincon as a means for mitigating some of the project ramifications by decreasing the size of the dog park and tot-lot while lowering the amount of grading needed for construction.
“Our question is whether the EIR adequately addresses or doesn’t address the environmental impacts of the project,” Jennings said. “I didn’t hear facts or solid evidence to prove it doesn’t. Our question is not whether or not the project should be built or not built in a certain way.”
Commissioners deemed that a examination of a new project would delay construction of the park for too long and unanimously approved the EIR and the permits with additional conditions. These additions included locked restrooms with security cameras, the ability to close the park on Red Flag days and prevent large gatherings from being held on site.