Real Malibu

BY BILL KOENEKER

Malibu Planning Commission approval of the proposed Trancas Country Market expansion plans has been appealed by the Malibu West Homeowners Association.
The city council is scheduled to hear the appeal on Jan. 25.
The planning panel had approved a 25,728- square-foot addition to the existing commercial shopping center located at the corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Trancas Canyon Road.
The permit request was granted variances for grading and required yard setbacks. The proposed expansion also includes a joint use agreement for parking between parcels and a minor modification to reduce the required front yard setback.
From the get-go, the Malibu West HOA has argued the expansion plans require an Environmental Impact Report.
City planners had assessed the potential impacts based on what is called a Mitigated Negative Declaration. “The [MND] failed to analyze the evidence presented and the public has provided substantial evidence that supports a fair argument that 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 appellants’ letter states.
The HOA letter indicates the project represents “just under 100 percent increase in commercial space and an almost 200 percent increase in site coverage. The scale of the project no longer fits the character of ‘a local neighborhood market.’ This expansion would not be possible, but for the disregard of public policy in the form of setback restrictions along Pacific Coast Highway. The project is clearly growth inducing, which was never examined in the MND or the technical traffic report. This is a major oversight. Clearly a growth-inducing analysis and a revised traffic report are required.”
The HOA also contends the project was improperly analyzed within what is allowable under the city’s Local Coastal Program.
The 11-pages of citations chart out the deficiencies of the analysis including air quality, hazards, land use, noise, water, biology, public services and transportation.
The appellants also insist the planning commission never actually voted to approve or deny the coastal permit. “To correct this deficiency the project must go back to the planning commission for the [coastal permit] to be voted upon,” the appeal letter states.