MSN_012518

4 | January 25, 2018 | Malibu surfside news News
malibusurfsidenews.com
malibu City Council
Majority vote upholds cannabis delivery ban
Two members,
public plead for
reconsideration
Lauren coughlin, Editor
Marijuana delivery remains
a no-go in Malibu.
Despite additional pleas
from the public and a contrary
motion supported by
two members, the council
voted 3-2 Monday, Jan.
22, to adopt the previously
discussed ordinance which
prohibits delivery of medical
or recreational cannabis,
and regulates personal
cultivation.
Representatives from
99 High Tide and Malibu
Community Collective addressed
the council, as did
patients and family members
of those who benefit
from medical marijuana.
After hearing from the
public, Councilmember
Laura Rosenthal moved to
bring back the item for further
discussion and asked
the council to show compassion
for those who rely
upon the product.
Mayor Skylar Peak seconded
her motion, noting
that one speaker, whose son
had cerebral palsy, was the
“perfect example” of who
Malibu should be serving
through delivery.
Councilmember Jefferson
Wagner, whose surf
shop shares a parking lot
with 99 High Tide, noted
that he sees the needs of the
patients and understood the
passion behind the issue,
but said he was not prepared
to reverse the motion.
“I don’t have a problem
with the medical marijuana
itself — its just it’s too new,
it’s too fresh,” Wagner said.
Mayor Pro Tem Rick
Mullen too said it wasn’t a
lack of passion, but rather
an exercise of caution.
Councilmember Lou La
Monte noted that many other
cities in LA County have
banned medical marijuana.
“So you want to go back
to the Dark Ages and get
rid of medical marijuana
now?” said Rosenthal, who
added that she was “extremely
disappointed” in
the council.
“I feel, as I said before,
that we’re going backwards,”
Rosenthal said.
Addressing coastal erosion
After an informational
presentation on coastal
erosion, Environmental
Sustainability Director
Craig George received the
approval of the council to
seek proposals for a coastal
vulnerability assessment.
Coastal consultant/geologist
Michael Phipps
briefed the council on the
topic, which came to light
last June after surfers asked
the City to look into erosion
at Surfrider Beach and near
the Adamson House.
“I think the biggest problem
we face here in Malibu
is a sediment deficiency,”
Phipps said, noting that
dredging is not an option
for nourishment in Malibu.
Phipps said the Malibu
coast has not been studied
since 1994, though the
council noted some more
recent data is available.
Generally, a staff report
notes that sea level rise, increased
storm intensity and
sediment shortage contribute
to coastal erosion.
“Empirical observations
indicate that during
large storms or even king
tides, the rate and amount
of beach erosion can be
sudden and dramatic,” an
agenda report states. “In
contrast, the subsequent
recovery of the beaches
is slow, often requiring
months for the beach to
reach its pre-storm configuration.
Years of observation
of these cycles have to be
made in order to understand
whether long-term
erosion is occurring.”
Malibu Planning Commission
Commissioners question staff ’s application of code
Project’s permit
application
approved 4-1
Lauren Coughlin, Editor
What the City of Malibu
chalked up to being a
staff typo became food for
thought and, ultimately,
Planning Commission-approved
language during its
Jan. 16 meeting.
The language in question
addressed whether or not a
Coastal Development Permit
should be declared as
consistent with the Malibu
Municipal Code as well as
the Local Coastal Program’s
Local Implementation Plan.
The commission voted 4-1,
with Commissioner Jeffrey
Jennings abstaining, to reinstate
that staff found that the
project — an 8,473-squarefoot,
one-story home located
at 30385 Morning View
Drive — complied with the
MMC.
The commission also voted
4-1, with Commissioner
John Mazza abstaining, to
approve the CDP and remove
Sycamore trees from
the landscaping plan.
For the majority of the
commission, the MMC’s
exclusion was the sticking
point.
“Why was it in there last
time?” Mazza asked, referencing
an earlier initial staff
report that stated the project
needed to comply with the
MMC as well as the LCP.
“My understanding is that
it was in there by error,” Assistant
City Attorney Trevor
Rusin said. “ ... It’s an application
for a Coastal Development
Permit, which is
issued per the Local Coastal
Program, so you’re looking
for conformance with the
LIP. There are no entitlements
that were requested
pursuant to the Malibu Municipal
Code in this situation.”
Commissioner Steve
Uhring pointed to one piece
of the project which was
altered that day, but which
otherwise would have been
bound by the municipal
code. The project included
plans for California Sycamore
trees along the property
line that, upon growing to
maturity, trigger the code’s
private view impact requirements,
Uhring said.
“Didn’t those trees have
a view blockage?” Uhring
asked.
The applicant agreed to
remove those specific trees
to appease a neighbor’s concerns,
but Uhring noted that
staff signed off on the plans
prior to that development.
Planning Director Bonnie
Blue agreed.
“Sometimes that’s why
neighbors, their input, is
important on something like
this,” Blue said. “ ... We do
our best to anticipate where
there’s going to be an issue.”
The home itself does not
exceed 18 feet, therefore not
flagging view concerns that
would require a site plan review.
“We do make sure that
the standards of the municipal
code are enforced
even though you don’t have
to make a specific finding
of that,” Blue said. “ ... If
there’s a specific section that
you are concerned about, let
me know what it is.”
Chairman Mikke Pierson
agreed, noting that he did
not believe staff ignored
MMC standards.
“I get your point,” Pierson
said. “You want to
make sure this conforms. I
think our attorney [and] the
head of planning have said
it does.”
Vice Chairman Chris
Marx noted that he did not
believe the project was consistent
in terms of neighborhood
character, which is
outlined in the MMC. Jennings
was quick to point out
that a neighborhood character
finding was not required.
“Basically, they want to
come up with a way to say
this house is too large,”
Jennings said. “ ... Let’s be
honest, this is a political determination,
not a legal determination,
and not doing
your job as judges and applying
the law to the facts.”
Pierson again emphasized
that the plans fit the code.
“I think we have a lot
of evidence here that this
follows the code as it is,
whether we like it or not,”
he said. “I don’t think this
is trying to circumvent the
code. I don’t think it’s trying
to slide anything mischievous
under it.”
Pierson, who consistently
notes he personally does not
like large homes, said that if
the commission didn’t agree
with the code, they should
elect a council that will
change it.
“The people who wrote
the general plan, who wrote
the code, I don’t think they
had a vision at that time that
said, ‘Look at the money
that’s pouring into the city
and look what that money is
building,’” Uhring said.