City Council Allocates $3.5 Million for Trancas Canyon Park

• Action Taken Despite Ongoing Controversy that a Better Park Plan Is Proposed by Residents

BY BILL KOENEKER

Even though some Malibu residents continue to lobby for an alternate park design that they contend is less environmentally damaging and more cost-effective, the Malibu City Council proceeded one step further toward implementation of its approved plans for Trancas Canyon Park.
When the Malibu City Council approved the budget for FY 2009-10 Monday night, the majority of members agreed to allocate $3.5 million for building Trancas Canyon Park.
The motion, approved on a 4-1 vote with Councilmember Pamela Conley Ulich dissenting, was made by Councilmember Sharon Barovsky, who was quick to point out the measure was merely setting up a designated fund for financing park construction and not an appropriation, which is an actual commitment of dollars from city coffers. Currently, the city has a little less than $300,000 set aside for its construction.
“What is the allocation for?” asked Conley Ulich, who was then told it was for Trancas Park.
“You want a designated fund of $3.5 million for the Trancas dog park?” Conley Ulich chided.
Whereupon, Barovsky slowly turned toward Conley Ulich and, while staring her down, challenged, “Do you want to fight?”
The room went silent except for titters from reporters. A silenced Conley Ulich looked on as Barovsky went on to explain what a designated fund reserve is, much like the reserve funds set aside for building or acquiring a city hall.
That was not the only time during the evening that the proposed pocket park that has split the Malibu West neighborhood and turned into a political football was mentioned.
Park critic Audra Lembertas, at the beginning of the meeting told council members her name was on a petition that she said was misrepresented by park supporter Justine Petretti as a petition signed by community members endorsing the proposed park approved by the council.
“I was surprised to find my name among them since I was at that meeting urging the council to examine the Goldman plan before committing to the current design. I had not signed any letter in favor of the city’s park since before the extent of the required grading was disclosed last fall. The letter presented to the council in my name does not represent my current position, nor the current position of many of my neighbors also on the list, whose signatures were collected at the same time, as mine since before the grading revelations. It does not represent my position. It should not have been presented as support of the present park plan,” she added.
Barovsky brushed aside the petition misrepresentation issue saying, “I don’t want to think if somebody plopped down a petition…it does not hold a lot of sway.” She said she did not vote for the Goldman plan because it reduced the size of the sports field and “cut the dog park in two.”
However, Conley Ulich had earlier countered that a petition is what drove the dog park since no need for a dog park is found in the city’s Master Recreation Plan.
Councilmember Jefferson Wagner asked if there was language in the city’s documents that bans league play. “There is nothing in there,” he said.
City Attorney Christi Hogin responded, “It is definitively in there. No league play as a condition of approval.”
Conley Ulich added that did not mean another council could not change such a restriction.
Councilmember John Sibert said not even if it was deed restricted would that stop another council from undoing what the current council did.