Trancas Park Plans Get Commission Approval

• Opponents Say They Will Challenge

BY BILL KOENEKER

At a raucous meeting filled with shouting, much gavel pounding and a contingent of speakers hoping to cut back current design plans, the Malibu Planning Commission this week—with only three members present—unanimously approved plans for Trancas Canyon Park.
A rising tide of opposition pitted some neighbors against others over what kind of park they wanted, prompting local environmentalists and others to urge the planning panelists to not approve any plans, given what they said was massive grading and park design that would become an attractive nuisance.
“I read the Environmental Impact Report. I read the geology report. The landform alterations are unacceptable. The noise standards will be exceeded. It will be a daytime nuisance,” said Patt Healy.
Lucille Keller, representing the Malibu Township Council, said the proposed uses are too intense. “We support a pocket park without the negative uses of ball fields. Most of the uses should be accomplished without the grading and it would be more cost effective,” said Keller.
The plans approved by the commission—with Commissioners Ed Gillespie and Joan House once again absent—call for a seven-acre park, including a multi-use practice field, dog park, tot lot and 128,000 cubic yards of grading. The cost for the improvements is $3.4 million.
Former Councilmember Ken Kearsley said the criticisms were “worse than NIMBYism,” and brushed aside complaints about noise.“ That is the noise of the happiness of children.”
He said applying the restrictions sought by speakers would allow park use only by a leprechaun and a three-legged dog.
Park supporters called on the commissioners to approve the plans that they said had the consensus of the community after several dozen previous public meetings, four workshops, a city council hearing, several parks and recreation commission hearings workshops and a consensus.
When it was time for the commissioners to speak, time and again audience members interrupted them, causing Commissioner Jeff Jennings, who was chairing the meeting, to pound the gavel and call for quiet. “You know how this works. It is our turn to speak,” he said.
At one point, when Commissioner Regan Schaar was speaking, she stopped mid-sentence and said, “Excuse me, I’m speaking now.”
Commissioner John Mazza quizzed numerous individuals, consultants, staff members and experts in an attempt to get answers to some of the opponents’ allegations about park improvements, the grading, geology and numerous other aspects of the plans.
He asked if an alternative plan might have less grading, but keep the improvements proposed for the park.
A consultant said another plan might, but admitted they had not done any calculations other than those for the specific plan that was presented.
The city’s geologist was asked if the plan is safe and whether the grading posed any risks that would keep the project from rising to a proper safety level. Chris Dean replied that it would have the same safety level as a residence.
Mazza and the other panelists were also told that some of the grading that was planned would mitigate problems with some of the soil that was not recompacted.
Schaar said she did not understand why the park could not be developed for more intense use, complaining that the proposed practice field would only allow a few months of play and the field would remain unused during baseball and other sports seasons. “I think it is a shame we can’t have games here,” she said.
Schaar also sought advice from the city’s experts about how safe the grading and other building improvements would be considered.
Jennings wanted to know what was the appropriate way for the commission to act if they did not certify the EIR. Commissioners were told there would be substantial delays for the staff to make the necessary changes to the EIR to reflect another alternative plan to the one before them.
“I’m reluctant to put the park off,” Mazza said.
Schaar reiterated that the park should be larger and serve more sports teams. “Is this the fiscally correct thing to do?” she said. “The council has backed down to everyone.”
However, Jennings said that aspect of the park use issue was a matter for the council to take up, adding that when he was a member of the city council, he argued for a bigger field and more sports play, but he lost.
Jennings said it was time for the commission to vote on the agenda items before them, including the EIR. “I did not hear any facts, or evidence, that support that the EIR is inadequate,” he said.
The three panelists then quickly voted unanimously that the EIR was adequate and proceeded to certify it.
The commissioners then moved on to consider approval of the coastal permit, the conditional use permit and other entitlements related to the park project.
Mazza said he wanted to attach several restrictive conditions to the permits, including specific park hours, closure on red flag days, no use of night lighting after 9 p.m., no amplified music, and no large gatherings or groups at the site.
After discussing the matter with other commissioners and the staff and reaching some compromises, the planning panelists unanimously approved the coastal permit, the CUP and the other entitlements.
Prior to the meeting, the staff indicated it had received a letter stating that if the commission approved the permits, the matter would be appealed to the city council.