Trancas Park Plans Appealed by Residents

• Appellants Challenge Grading, Noise and Fire Danger

BY BILL KOENEKER

The Malibu Planning Commission approval of the permits and plans for the proposed Trancas Canyon Park have been appealed. The matter now goes to the city council for a new hearing on the objections.
The matter has been appealed by several west Malibu residents, including Teresa Campeau, Clara Thie and John Norvet, Mary Davis and Robert Belvin.
Norvet had told planners and the commission he was going to appeal the matter before the commission made a decision.
Planning panelists approved a seven-acre park, including a multi-use practice field, dog park, tot lot, parking for 64 cars and 128,000 cubic yards of grading.
“We are appealing the decision of the planning commission primarily because the northern ridge of the park where the dog park, tot lot and picnic are proposed has to be significantly altered by extreme cuts into steep slopes and the playing field has to be filled/elevated 10 to 13 feet,” wrote Norvet, Davis and Blevin.
“We ask that other alteratives be studied and found so that no grading of the upper ridge will [take] place. If the city adopts alternative three, or studies a variety of different alternatives than the development of the upper ridge, we are sure the city can find a solution to keeping development off this ridge so that no land form alteration of this ridge is necessary.”
A primary reason for rescinding or modifying the decisions of the planning commission, according to the appellants, is the displacement and/or removal of a total of 128,528 cubic yards of dirt for a project in a geologically sensitive area. The project may very well cause ‘seismic related ground failure, including liquefaction and landslides, given the huge amount of fill that has already been dumped on the site—80 feet deep in spots.”
Another complaint of the appellants is how a dog park can be justified in a residential area. “Malibu has many professional ‘dog walkers’ who are employed to walk dogs for their owners. This incursion of noise from constant and loud barking all day, every day, would without any doubt most certainly ‘impair the integrity and character of the zoning district in which it is located.’ No dog park should be permitted. Noise coming from a dog park centrally located in a residentially zoned neighborhood would have a profound effect on all surrounding homes,” the appeal notes.
Norvet et al. submitted a 16-page attachment to the appeal form laying out all of the reasons the decision did not conform to the Local Coastal Program, or that the Environmental Impact Report is inadequate. The document also laid out in detail the many LCP and LIP policies that are violated by the grading and cut and fill called for in the plans.
The appellants also thought it was not a fair hearing because they believe the concerns of the public were ignored and dismissed instead of taken seriously by the commission. “It appeared that they were more intent on satisfying and accommodating staff than with the public concerns,” an appeal letter states.
Campeau indicated an alternative for the undeveloped acreage might be a park with passive recreation only. “Attractive paths and walkways with an abundance of native plants and effective measures for reducing the dangers of wildfires could be introduced without further disruption of the fragile terrain, pollution of the adjoining Trancas Creek, or danger to children in an isolated, unsupervised and remote area. Grading should be largely eliminated, given the poor geology. Impacts to neighbors require the omission of a dog park and a picnic area to prevent noise and increased traffic. No on-site parking or road should be allowed except for fire trucks or maintenance,” the appellant’s letter states.
The planning commission meeting on the park plans was one of the most raucous in recent memory with much shouting and gavel pounding.
For the first time at a public meeting, some testimony called for not developing a park at all and allowing passive recreation, as espoused by some of the appellants.
The plans had been vetted at numerous workshops, city council meetings and park and recreation commission meetings, with much of the controversy developing about what kind of park it should be. The no-park alternative was rarely discussed.
However, from the get-go most participants had indicated they did not want to see a park plan that involved massive grading.
At some of the first workshops, the plan alterative chosen was the one with the least amount of grading.
Some of the [public] speakers said it was the revelation in the EIR that plans still called for massive amount of grading that caused them to turn into opponents of the current park plans.
The city council meets once this week and does not meet again until next year. A date for the appeal hearing has not yet been set, according to city officials.