Council continues most of its agenda while awaiting election returns from Tuesday’s race for two council seats.
China Myers/Special to The Malibu Times
Malibu residents are still waiting for a final decision from City Council on whether builder Brian Sweeney will be able to construct an access road to his property above Sweetwater Mesa Road. The council previously granted Sweeney a variance, despite the opposition of councilmembers Sharon Barovsky and Ken Kearsley, but added a number of conditions.
Sweeney wants to build five homes on county land, located northeast of Serra Retreat. The access road would go through city-owned land. Residents are concerned this road could be extended at a later time, allowing traffic to go between Piuma Road and Pacific
Coast Highway.
After two hours of prolonged and sometimes tense discussions, the council decided to put off a final decision on the controversial road until April 22, when a special council meeting will take place. This is also the last day Councilmember Tom Hasse will serve and before the swearing in of the new councilmembers.
The Malibu city Planning Commission, in an earlier 3-2 vote, narrowly approved the 20-foot wide private, access road but with many conditions. The decision was appealed by several neighbors. Fourteen people were present to speak against the road including Malibu residents Jane Hemenez, Pat Healey, Elizabeth Watson, Todd Sloan and Josh Tate from the Sierra Canyon Property Owners Association, who urged the council to deny the road.
The neighborhood opponents felt the road would open the door to other development in the mountains and the use of the road as an access to public parks. They also feared that others, perhaps some with parcels that are landlocked, would go to court to force the private road to become a public access. Don Schmitz of Schmitz & Associates, who represents Sweeney, said his client has done everything the city requested yet still faces opposition.
The problem, as the majority of the council sees it, is the developer has a right to the temporary access road and if the city were to deny it the city might be on precarious legal grounds. The council delayed a decision to see if it could rewrite some language that would guarantee the road would only serve those five parcels and to try and protect the city if others sued.
All other council items were continued to the next council meeting.