Planning Commission Gives Final OK to Trancas Center Plans

• City’s Approval of the Major Expansion May Be Appealed to California Coastal Commission

BY BILL KOENEKER

The Malibu Planning Commission, on a 3-1 vote, with Commissioner John Mazza dissenting and Commissioner Regan Schaar absent, last week approved the permits and entitlements for the Trancas Country Market expansion plans.
The proposal now includes a scaled back version, after Dan Bercu, who heads up the ownership of the commercial property, withdrew the application for the nearly 11,000-square-foot building planned for the east side of the Trancas Creek.
The resolution approved by the commission grants approval for a 25,728-square-foot addition to the existing shopping center located at the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Trancas Canyon Road.
While the chambers weren’t packed as they were for the previous commission hearing on the matter, the critics were just as vocal in their opposition to the project that was approved.
In a hint of what might be to come, neighbor and shopping center critic Hans Laetz said there were 17 violations of state and city laws if the commission granted approval.
“We are entitled to an Environmental Impact Report,” he told the commissioners. “When this matter goes to the California Coastal Commission, you will be told you don’t know what you are doing, and [the city] will be a laughingstock. That is a shame.”
As opposed to the fee of $4000 that is required to appeal a commission action to the city council, there is no fee to file on an appealable issue to the state coastal agency, so appeal is already in the works.
The Trancas property is in what is called an appealable zone, meaning it can be appealed directly to the Coastal Commission, which would have final jurisdiction over the coastal permit and other entitlements. There are certain areas in Malibu that are designated on the Local Coastal Program maps that were judged to be appealable zones by the CCC-mandated document.
Laetz also warned of other issues that will apparently be hashed out at the state commission level.
“We proved the city biologist wrong. There is a saltwater body on the property. The parking lots would infringe on an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area. The LCP requires an interior circulation plan. You approved the California Environmental Quality Act documents for the center without review,” he said.
Lucille Keller, representing the Malibu Township Council, said that group is also still insisting the proposal needs an Environmental Impact Report.
She said the issue of inadequate parking that was said to be mitigated by a parking agreement has not been resolved. “The stores are operating at the same time. That does not qualify as a joint use agreement,” she said.
Keller noted the promise of a locked gate for the employee parking area planned for across the street on the other side of Trancas Canyon Road does not then qualify as a parking site.
She also cited traffic as a major concern, especially at the intersection during emergencies and any kind of evacuation.
Members of the Malibu West Homeowners Association also spoke up about the need for an EIR and talked to the commissioners about what the EIR undertaken by the previous owners of the property, the Malibu Bay Company, that was done by Envicom, Inc. had to say about ESHAs, traffic and other issues.
However, the planning panelists were told by the assistant city attorney that the public hearing was closed and they could not consider any new evidence unless they reopened the hearing. “This is not a public hearing. You can’t consider any new evidence or discuss any new evidence. You can open up a new hearing by vote,” said Assistant City Attorney Greg Kovacevich.
The assistant city attorney also noted that the commissioners could only consider the resolution already drafted by the staff that was before them.
Mazza said he had voted against approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration before them at the last session and wanted to know how that would be handled this time.
Kovacevich said the MND was again in the resolution because it no longer pertained to parcel three, but only parcel one and two.
The motion in favor was made by Commissioner Jeff Jennings and Mazza was the sole dissenting vote.