Malibu Planning Commission last Wednesday voted 3-1 to move with the tide of many California cities when it asked city staff to draw up wording that would ban the cultivation and delivery of medical marijuana within the City of Malibu, despite trepidation from some commissioners and many members of the public who came to speak at the meeting.
A key provision in the proposed language would ensure the ordinance would not go into effect should state lawmakers move not to impose the statutory deadline of March 1. In other words, city staff and commissioners essentially suggested they would only enact the ban if they had to.
The March 1 deadline comes from a provision in the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act passed by Governor Jerry Brown in October 2015, that essentially put a “use it or lose it” clause in local regulation of medical marijuana. According to the staff report from the Wednesday, Jan. 27 Special Meeting, “The City [of Malibu] must adopt land use regulations by March 1, 2016, to regulate or prohibit the cultivation of medical marijuana in the city, or otherwise relinquish regulatory authority over cultivation to the state.”
That deadline is what has Malibu and many other California cities scrambling to regulate cultivation of marijuana, to ensure the power over regulation stays in local hands.
Commissioner Jeff Jennings put it bluntly, telling both other commissioners and medical marijuana advocates in the audience that this was far from the final decision.
“City Council wants a placeholder, and what we say and do here tonight is really not going to be significant in the final analysis at all,” Jennings said. “We need to deal with that issue when it comes back to us. It’s just to keep the city’s rights in place and to avoid losing them to the state.”
Some members of the public who came to speak found fault with this logic.
“If what you want to do is maintain the status quo, you don’t need this ordinance,” said Malibu resident Scott Tallal, pointing out that there is a likelihood the statutory deadline will not come into effect. “The March 1 deadline is effectively dead … so there’s absolutely no rush for this to take place.”
Following Tallal’s comments and other discussion, it was decided the directive to staff would include wording stating the limitations would not come into effect should the deadline not be enforced.
JuJu Chuothesa, who works at 99 High Tide Collective, told the commission that medical marijuana delivery should not be banned in the long or short term.
“There are people that are sick and cannot drive, and need to have medication [brought to them],” Chuothesa said. “Bringing them the medicine is, I believe, a very positive part of the work.”
Commissioners also seemed to agree on that count.
“I agree with everyone that has said that delivery is necessary to the effect that we’re trying to achieve,” Jennings said.
In the end, Commissioner Mikke Pierson voted down the ordinance wording, telling medical marijuana advocates in the audience, “I retract my earlier statement to try to move this forward as a placeholder. I think that was wrong, and that’s because I listened to you.”
Chair Roohi Stack did not attend the Wednesday meeting.
Parking lot safety standards to include bollards
Planners are working on regulations designed to curb one certain type of accident that has become a hot topic in 2015 — cars in parking lots crashing into walkways, outdoor dining areas and through buildings.
New parking lot safety standards were approved by the Malibu Planning Commission at another meeting on Monday, Feb. 1, where commissioners voted unanimously 5-0 to enact stricter safety standards in commercial parking lots where there is outdoor seating available.
The zoning text amendment would add a new section for “parking lot safety standards” to the Malibu Municipal Code: “Vehicle impact protection devices” such as bollards and barriers like cement planters “shall be required adjacent to parking spaces that are angled between thirty (30) to ninety (90) degrees relative to any adjacent outdoor pedestrian seating area.”
“‘Outdoor pedestrian seating area’ means any area where outdoor seating for dining, resting or other purposes of congregation is provided for shopping center employees or patrons,” the amendment specifies.
Planning Manager Chris Deleau fielded questions from commissioners about the details of the proposed amendment.
“We targeted the outdoor seating areas because they are the areas most vulnerable to vehicle attack,” Deleau explained. “Much of the time the building will stop the car … so we were really trying to protect the people in these vulnerable areas.”
Though all five commissioners approved the wording, Commissioner John Mazza said the regulations were “inadequate.”
“It should be gathering areas … it should eliminate the word ‘shopping center,’ I believe. Because, for example, they’re going to build Santa Monica City College … it’s not a shopping center,” Mazza said.
“Our intention was to start with … commercial,” Planning Director Bonnie Blue replied, stating the scope may grow with time.
That answer did not suit Mazza.
“I think that’s a major mistake,” Mazza said, later adding, “Once somebody gets killed, then you’re going to pass it.”