Dog Park’s Fate May Be in Peril If MTC Prevails in Trancas Litigation

• Local HOA Urges Ban on League Play as Way to Settle

BY BILL KOENEKER  

While it was not on the agenda, the Malibu City Council this week discussed at length the litigation between the city and the Malibu Township Council over Trancas Canyon Park and held out an olive branch to the Malibu West Homeowners Association, which is not a party to the litigation but is providing funding to the MTC.

Frank Angel, the MTC attorney, weighed in this week on the litigation, which has gotten increasingly complex because of the HOA, which is not represented by Angel, but has played an increasingly larger role in seeking a settlement.

Angel told the Malibu Surfside News that documents were filed last month in the case that “conclusively [prove] that the 1989 [Coastal Development Permit] cited by the [Environmental Impact Report for Trancas Park] was in fact a CDP for development on another property.”

Angel said when confronted with these documents, “The city now admits the CDP was not issued for any development on the park property. In other words, it is now indisputable that in certifying the EIR the city council falsely claimed that under a  [Local Implementation Plan] exemption it may develop the dog park in [an] ESHA. This is a serious misrepresentation, as it served as the basis (isn’t pretext the better word?) for destroying ESHA on public property.”

At the council meeting, City Attorney Christi Hogin, for the first time, acknowledged the dog park could be in jeopardy if the court ruled against the city.

“If the court is persuaded, either to eliminate the dog park or do more environmental review, in no way would the outcome [of that action] eliminate league play,” Hogin told the council.

The city attorney was also referring to the apparent sole issue, no league play, that the HOA wants resolved through settlement talks.

Hogin went on to explain, “We were not sued by the HOA, the MTC filed the lawsuit. With significant changes to the park design, we believed we had reached an agreement with MTC. But then the settlement never consummated. We offered to record the condition of no league play. That’s were we were. Some residents want more security [about no league play]. That is tougher to do. We have resisted giving property rights to certain groups,” the city attorney said.

The MTC attorney elaborated on what many might consider the “smoking gun,” in MTC’s lawsuit, and that may suggest why the council was seemingly willing to agree to settlement talks with the HOA and MTC.

Angel insisted the city is simply changing its tune concerning the legal battle over the dog park. “Now we’re told there was no ESHA in the dog park. The problem with that claim is it’s false, too,” he said.

Angel pointed out the section in the EIR where the city itself states, “The mapped ESHA also extends partially onto the portion of the site proposed for a dog/picnic area. However pursuant to Section 4.4.4.d of the city’s LCP Local Implementation Plan, the park site and adjacent areas are not subject to the plan’s ESHA policies. (see discussion below under Regulatory Setting).”

The MTC attorney noted the city premises its new claim that the CSS on the dog park site is not ESHA on the discussion in the 1989 CDP staff report, which was based on the 1986 county LUP. “The city knows full well, however, that the 1986 LUP is no longer applicable. Since 2002, we have a new LCP, like it or not,” he added.

“We would like to resolve this,” said Councilmember Andy Stern to Mark Goss, the treasurer of the HOA, who had brought the matter to the attention of the council.

Goss told the council he was not in favor of the litigation and had voted against it. “Let’s come together and focus on league play. Let’s set the lawsuit aside and enjoy the park,” Goss said.

After the council members had spoken, Goss was asked what he and the board wanted. “My request is the board members and MTC meet with the council and the city attorney. Keep it as small as possible,” he said. The council concurred.