Malibu West HOA Appeals Trancas Growth Plan Approvals by Panel

• Homeowner Group Wants City Council to Require EIR

BY BILL KOENEKER

The Malibu West Homeowners Association is appealing the Malibu Planning Commission’s approval of the permits and entitlements granted for the expansion and remodeling of the Trancas shopping center.
The commission, after hearing that plans would be scaled back, approved the project sought by Dan Bercu, who heads the ownership of the Malibu Country Market.
When asked to comment on the appeal and a lawsuit, Bercu said, “I'm thrilled by both of them.” The shopping center owner went on to say he thought it ironic that “we gave up half of the project and in exchange we get an appeal and a lawsuit.” At the same time, Malibu Park resident Hans Laetz is challenging the approvals in the courtroom (see separate story).
While most commissioners and others were apparently swayed by Bercu agreeing to eliminate the free standing building of about 11,000 square feet proposed for east of Trancas Creek, the Malibu West HOA was apparently not mollified by the scale back.
The HOA maintains the Mitigated Negative Declaration used to review the environmental impacts of the additional square footage and redesign is not adequate. “It failed to analyze the evidence presented and the public has provided substantial evidence that supports a fair argument the project may have an adverse impact on the environment. This appeal and information in the record clearly demonstrates that an EIR is required under the California Environmental Quality Act,” the appeal letter to the city states.
The HOA appeal letter also claims the project was not analyzed in the context of what is allowable under the Local Coastal Program.
The letter ticks off a laundry list of studies that the group claims were not undertaken and should have been included, from air quality, no carbon monoxide hot spot impact analysis was conducted; hazards, the proposed project’s impact on area wide fire evacuation and emergencies was not adequately addressed; and there was no discussion about variances to development standards in the LCP.
“The traffic study is not accurate since it didn’t take into consideration in its calculations the resident inhabitants and staff of the rehab houses and Trancas Park users and workmen that will be using Trancas Canyon Road,” the letter states. “The traffic study is obsolete. The study is based on traffic counts that were conducted in the spring of 2007.” Most government entities do not accept studies more than two years old, according to the HOA.
The project’s future wastewater generation has not been quantified nor compared against the existing water supply and the MND fails to examine additional waters needs for fire protection, according to the HOA letter.
“An EIR is needed to fully examine the project’s impacts…project represents just under 100 percent increase in commercial space and a 200 percent increase in site coverage…the proposed project is growth inducing which was never examined in the MND,” the appeal missive further states.
Other aspects of the proposal that the HOA states were not clearly examined include the proposed employee lot across the street on Trancas Canyon Road and how it will cause J-walking. The proposed re-routing of the bus drop off and turn around in the employee parking lot also needs further study, the letter states.
The HOA goes on to address why the findings can not be made for granting approval of a coastal permit because the proposed project does not conform to state law and does not comply with the LCP and the Coastal Act.
The findings cannot be made, according to the appeal, for protection of the Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area, the joint use and common parking facilities, development siting impacts to visual resources, grading variance and a variance for reduction of the side yard setback.
The appeal letter also states there was a procedural error made during the planning commission hearing. “It was discovered that the planning commission never voted to approve or deny the coastal development permit for this project. To correct this deficiency the project must go back to the planning commission for the CDP to be voted upon,” the HOA insists.