Malibu City Council
April 28, 2025

________________

2. The proposed project, as designed, conditioned and approved by the applicable departments and agencies, will not have any significant adverse impacts on the site stability or structural integrity from geologic or flood hazards due to project modifications, landscaping or other conditions.

3. The proposed project, as designed and conditioned, is the least environmentally damaging alternative.

4. There are no feasible alternatives that would avoid or substantially lessen impacts on site stability or structural integrity.

5. Evidence in the record demonstrates that the project is not expected to have adverse impacts on sensitive resources.

SECTION 4. Planning Commission Action.

Based on the foregoing findings and evidence contained within the record, the Planning Commission hereby approves CDP No. 23-019, and SPR No. 23-024 subject to the following conditions.

SECTION 5. Conditions of Approval.

Standard Conditions

1. The property owners, and their successors in interest, shall indemnify and defend the City of Malibu and its officers, employees, and agents from and against all liability and costs relating to the City's actions concerning this project, including (without limitation) any award of litigation expenses in favor of any person or entity who seeks to challenge the validity of any of the City's actions or decisions in connection with this project. The City shall have the sole right to choose its counsel and property owners shall reimburse the City’s expenses incurred in its defense of any lawsuit challenging the City’s actions concerning this project.

2. Approval of this application is to allow for the following:
a. 4,270 square foot, two-story, single-family residence with a 970 square foot basement, plus a 750 square foot attached three-car garage; b. 900 square foot attached second unit;
c. 500 square foot detached accessory garage;
d. 432 square foot yoga studio
e. Permeable driveway;
f. Swimming pool;
g. New landscaping; and;
h. OWTS;

3. Except as specifically changed by conditions of approval, the proposed development shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the approved scope of work, as described in Condition No. 2 and depicted on plans on file with the Planning Department date-stamped March 12, 2024. The proposed development shall further comply with all conditions of approval stipulated in this resolution and Department Review Sheets attached hereto. In the 365
Resolution No. 24-21

________________
event project plans conflict with any condition of approval, the condition shall take precedence.

4. Pursuant to LIP Section 13.18.2, this permit and rights conferred in this approval shall not be effective until the property owner signs, notarizes and returns the Acceptance of Conditions Affidavit accepting the conditions of approval set forth herein. The applicant shall file this form with the Planning Department prior to the issuance of any development permits.

5. The applicant shall shall digitally submit a complete set of plansto the Planning Department for consistency review and approval prior to plan check and again prior to the issuance of any building or development permits.

6. The CDP shall be expire if the project has not commenced within three (3) years after issuance of the permit, unless a time extension has been granted. Extension of the permit may be granted by the approving authority for due cause. Extensions shall be requested in writing by the applicant or authorized agent prior to expiration of the three-year period and shall set forth the reasons for the request.

7. Any questions of intent or interpretation of any condition of approval will be resolved by the Planning Director upon written request of such interpretation.

8. All development shall conform to requirements of the City of Malibu Environmental Sustainability Department, City Biologist, City Coastal Engineer, City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical staff, City Public Works Department, Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 29 and LACFD, as applicable. Notwithstanding this review, all required permits shall be secured.

9. Minor changes to the approved plans or the conditions of approval may be approved by the Planning Director, provided such changes achieve substantially the same results and the project is still in compliance with the MMC and LCP. Revised plans reflecting the minor changes and additional fees shall be required.

10. Pursuant to LIP Section 13.20, development pursuant to an approved CDP shall not commence until the CDP is effective. The CDP is not effective until all appeals, including those to the California Coastal Commission (CCC), have been exhausted. In the event that the CCC denies the permit or issues the permit on appeal, the CDP approved by the City is void.

11. The property owner must submit payment for all outstanding fees payable to the City prior to issuance of any building permit, including grading or demolition.

12. Prior to final Planning Department approval, the property owner shall provide a copy of a valid operating permit pursuant to MMC Section 15.14.030 or an operating permit application fee receipt.

Cultural Resources
366
Resolution No. 24-21

________________

13. In the event that potentially important cultural resources are found in the course of geologic testing or during construction, work shall immediately cease until a qualified archaeologist can provide an evaluation of the nature and significance of the resources and until the Planning Director can review this information. Thereafter, the procedures contained in LIP Chapter 11 and those in MMC Section 17.54.040(D)(4)(b) shall be followed.

14. If human bone is discovered during geologic testing or during construction, work shall immediately cease and the procedures described in Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code shall be followed. Section 7050.5 requires notification of the coroner. If the coroner determines that the remains are those of a Native American, the applicant shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission by phone within 24 hours. Following notification of the Native American Heritage Commission, the procedures described in Section 5097.94 and Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code shall be followed.

Geology

15. All recommendations of the consulting certified engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer and/or the City geotechnical staff shall be incorporated into all final design and construction including foundations, grading, sewage disposal, and drainage. Final plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City geotechnical staff prior to the issuance of a grading permit.

16. Final plans approved by the City geotechnical staff shall be in substantial conformance with the approved CDP relative to construction, grading, sewage disposal and drainage. Any substantial changes may require a CDP amendment or a new CDP.

Environmental Health

17. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Building Official, compliance with the City of Malibu’s onsite wastewater treatment regulations including provisions of MMC Chapters 15.40, 15.42, 15.44, and LIP Chapter 18 related to continued operation, maintenance and monitoring of the OWTS.

18. Final OWTS Plot Plan: Prior to final Environmental Health approval, a final OWTS plot plan prepared by a City Registered OWTS Designer shall be submitted showing an OWTS design meeting the minimum requirements of the MMC and the LCP, including necessary construction details, the proposed drainage plan for the developed property and the proposed landscape plan for the developed property. The OWTS plot plan shall show essential features of the OWTS and must fit onto an 11-inch by 17-inch sheet leaving a five-inch margin clear to provide space for a City applied legend. If the scale of the plans is such that more space is needed to clearly show construction details and/or all necessary setbacks, larger sheets may also be provided (up to a maximum size of 18 inches by 22 inches).

19. Final OWTS Design Report, Plans, and System Specifications: If the OWTS design and/or bedroom/drainage fixture unit counts are modified in any way subsequent to the Planningstage review, then a final OWTS design report and large set of construction drawings with system specifications (four sets) shall be submitted to describe the OWTS design basis and 367
Resolution No. 24-21

________________
all components (i.e., alarm system, pumps, timers, flow equalization devices, backflow devices, etc.) proposed for use in the construction of the proposed OWTS. For all OWTS, final reports must be signed by a City registered OWTS Designer, and the plans stamped by a California Geologist. The final OWTS design report and construction drawings shall be submitted to the City Environmental Health Administrator with the designer’s wet signature, professional registration number and stamp (if applicable).

20. Any above-ground equipment associated with the installation of the OWTS shall be screened from view by a solid wall or fence on all four sides. The fence or walls shall not be higher than 42-inches tall.

21. The final design report shall contain the following information (in addition to the items listed above).
a. The Whitson Engineers grading plans depict a new fill slope in the vicinity of the future leach trenches. Please discuss impact of the proposed grading on the OWTS design and provide mitigation measures, as appropriate. b. Required treatment capacity for wastewater treatment and disinfection systems. The treatment capacity shall be specified in terms of flow rate, gallons per day, and shall be supported by calculations relating the treatment capacity to the number of bedroom equivalents, plumbing drainage fixture equivalents, and the subsurface effluent dispersal system acceptance rate. The drainage fixture unit count must be clearly identified in association with the design treatment capacity, even if the design is based on the number of bedrooms. Average and peak rates of hydraulic loading to the treatment system shall be specified in the final design; c. Sewage and effluent pump design calculations (as applicable). c. Description of proposed wastewater treatment and/or disinfection system equipment.

State the proposed type of treatment system(s) (e.g., aerobic treatment, textile filter ultraviolet disinfection, etc.); major components, manufacturers, and model numbers for "package" systems; and conceptual design for custom engineered systems; d. Specifications, supporting geology information, and percolation test results for the subsurface effluent dispersal portion of the onsite wastewater disposal system. This must include the proposed type of effluent dispersal system (drainfield, trench, seepage pit subsurface drip, etc.) as well as the system’s geometric dimensions and basic construction features. Supporting calculations shall be presented that relate the results of soils analysis or percolation/infiltration tests to the projected subsurface effluent acceptance rate, including any unit conversions or safety factors. Average and peak rates of hydraulic loading to the effluent dispersal system shall be specified in the final design. The projected subsurface effluent acceptance rate shall be reported in units of total gallons per day and gallons per square foot per day.

Specifications for the subsurface effluent dispersal system shall be shown to accommodate the design hydraulic loading rate (i.e., average and peak OWTS effluent flow, reported in units of gallons per day). The subsurface effluent dispersal system design must take into account the number of bedrooms, fixture units and building occupancy characteristics; and
e. All final design drawings shall be submitted with the wet signature and typed name of the OWTS designer. If the scale of the plan is such that more space is needed to clearly show construction details, larger sheets may also be provided (up to a maximum size of 18-inch by 22-inch, for review by Environmental Health). Note:
368
Resolution No. 24-21

________________
For OWTS final designs, full-size plans are required for review by the Building Safety Division and/or the Planning Department.

22. A covenant running with the land shall be executed by the property owner and recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorder’s Office. Said covenant shall serve as constructive notice to any successors in interest that: 1) the private sewage disposal system serving the development on the property does not have a 100 percent expansion effluent dispersal area (i.e., replacement disposal field(s) or seepage pit(s)); and 2) if the primary effluent dispersal area fails to drain adequately, the City of Malibu may require remedial measures including, but not limited to, limitations on water use enforced through operating permit and/or repairs, upgrades or modifications to the private sewage disposal system. The recorded covenant shall state and acknowledge that future maintenance and/or repair of the private sewage disposal system may necessitate interruption in the use of the private sewage disposal system and, therefore, any building(s) served by the private sewage disposal system may become non-habitable during any required future maintenance and/or repair. Said covenant shall be in a form acceptable to the City Attorney and approved by the Environmental Sustainability Department.

23. Proof of ownership of subject property shall be submitted to the City Environmental Health Administrator.

24. An operations and maintenance manual specified by the OWTS designer shall be submitted to the City Environmental Health Administrator. This shall be the same operations and maintenance manual submitted to the owner and/or operator of the proposed OWTS following installation.

25. Prior to final Environmental Health approval, a maintenance contract executed between the owner of the subject property and an entity qualified in the opinion of the City of Malibu to maintain the proposed AOWTS after construction shall be submitted. Only original wet signature documents are acceptable and shall be submitted to the City Environmental Health Administrator.

26. The City geotechnical consultant reviewers final approval shall be submitted to the City Environmental Health Administrator.

27. The City Biologist’s final approval shall be submitted to the City Environmental Health Administrator. The City Biologist shall review the OWTS design to determine any impact on ESHA, if applicable.

28. Operating Permit Application and Fee: In accordance with MMC, an application shall be made to the Environmental Health office for an Onsite Wastewater Treatment System operating permit. An operating permit fee in accordance with the adopted fee schedule at the time of final approval shall be submitted with the application.

Street Improvements

29. This project proposes to construct a new driveway within City’s right-of-way. Prior to the Public Works Department’s approval of the grading or building permit, the applicant shall 369
Resolution No. 24-21

________________
obtain encroachment permits from Public Works Department for the proposed driveway. The driveway shall be constructed of either 6-inches of concrete over 4-inces of aggregate base, or 4-inches of asphalt concrete over 6-inches of aggregate base. The driveway shall be flush with the existing grades with no curbs.

30. Several private improvements are located within the City’s right-of-way, such as (but not limited to) landscaping, railroad ties, fencing. These improvements are required to be removed as part of this project and must be shown on the plans. The applicant shall place notes on the plans for the removal of existing encroachments within the City’s right-of-way.

Prior to the Public Works Department’s approval of the grading or building permit, the applicant shall obtain encroachment permits from the Public Works Department for the removal of the private improvements within the City’s right-of-way.

Grading / Drainage / Hydrology

31. The non-exempt grading for the project shall not exceed a total of 1,000 cubic yards, cut and fill.

32. The total grading yardage verification certificate shall be copied onto the coversheet of the Grading Plan. No alternative formats or substitutes will be accepted.

33. A grading and drainage plan containing the following information shall be approved, and submitted to the Public Works Department, prior to the issuance of grading permits for the project:
a. Public Works Department general notes;
b. The existing and proposed square footage of impervious coverage on the property shall be shown on the grading plan (including separate areas for buildings, driveways, walkways, parking, tennis courts and pool decks); c. The limits of land to be disturbed during project development shall be delineated and a total area shall be shown on this plan. Areas disturbed by grading equipment beyond the limits of grading, areas disturbed for the installation of the septic system, and areas disturbed for the installation of the detention system shall be included within the area delineated;
d. The limits to land to be disturbed during project development shall be delineated and a total area of disturbance should be shown on this plan. Areas disturbed by grading equipment beyond the limits of grading shall be included within the area delineated; e. If the property contains rare, endangered or special status species as identified in the Biological Assessment, this plan shall contain a prominent note identifying the areas to be protected (to be left undisturbed). Fencing of these areas shall be delineated on this plan is required by the City Biologist;
f. The grading limits shall include the temporary cuts made for retaining walls, buttresses and over excavations for fill slopes;
g. Private storm drain systems shall be shown on this plan. Systems greater than 12- inch in diameter shall also have a plan and profile for the system included with this plan; and
h. Public storm drain modifications shown on the grading plans shall be approved by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of the grading permit. 370
Resolution No. 24-21

________________

34. A digital drawing (AutoCAD) of the project’s private storm drain system, public storm drain system within 250 feet of the property limits, and post-construction BMPs shall be submitted to the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of grading or building permits. The digital drawing shall adequately show all storm drain lines, inlets, outlet, post-construction BMP’s and other applicable facilities. The digital drawing shall also show the subject property, public or private street, and any drainage easements.

35. The applicant shall label all City/County storm drain inlets within 250 feet from each property line per the City of Malibu’s standard label template. A note shall be placed on the project plans that address this condition.

36. The ocean between Latigo Point and the West City limits has been established by the State Water Resources Control Board as an Area of Special Biological Significance (ASBS) as part of the California Ocean Plan. This designation allows discharge of storm water only where it is essential for flood control or slope stability, including roof, landscape, road and parking lot drainage, to prevent soil erosion, only occurs during wet weather, and is composed of only storm water runoff. The applicant shall provide a drainage system that accomplishes the following:
a. Installation of BMPs that are designed to treat the potential pollutants in the storm water runoff so that it does not alter the natural ocean water quality. These pollutants include trash, oil and grease, metals, bacteria, nutrients, pesticides, herbicides and sediment.
b. Prohibits the discharge of trash.
c. Only discharges from existing storm drain outfalls are allowed. No new outfalls will be allowed. Any proposed or new storm water discharged shall be routed to existing storm drain outfalls and shall not result in any new contribution of waste to the ASBS (i.e. no additional pollutant loading).
d. Elimination of non-storm water discharges.

37. A Local Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (LSWPPP) shall be provided prior to issuance of grading/building permits. This plan shall include and Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) that includes, but not limited to:

Erosion Controls Scheduling Erosion Controls Scheduling Preservation of Existing Vegetation
Sediment Controls Silt Fence
Sediment Controls Silt Fence
Sand Bag Barrier
Stabilized Construction Entrance
Non-Storm Water Management Water Conservation Practices Dewatering Operations
Waste Management Material Delivery and Storage
Stockpile Management
Spill Prevention and Control
Solid Waste Management
Concrete Waste Management
Sanitary/Septic Waste Management
371
Resolution No. 24-21

________________
All Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be in accordance to the latest version of the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) BMP Handbook. Designated areas for the storage of construction materials, solid waste management, and portable toilets must not disrupt drainage patterns or subject the material to erosion by site runoff.

38. Storm drainage improvements are required to mitigate increased runoff generated by property development. The applicant shall have the choice of one method specified within LIP Section 17.3.2.B.2.

39. A Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) shall be submitted for review and approval of the Public Works Director. The SWMP shall be prepared in accordance with LIP Section 17.3.2 and all other applicable ordinances and regulations. The SWMP shall be supported by a hydrology and hydraulic study that identifies all areas contributory to the property and an analysis of the pre-development and post-development drainage of the site. The SWMP shall identify the site design and source control BMPs that have been implemented in the design of the project. The SWMP shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of the grading or building permit for this project.

40. Clearing and grading during the rainy season (extending from November 1 to March 31) shall be prohibited for development that:
a. Is located within or adjacent to ESHA, or
b. Includes grading on slopes greater than 4 to 1.

Approved grading for development that is located within or adjacent to ESHA or on slopes greater than 4 to 1 shall not be undertaken unless there is sufficient time to complete grading operations before the rainy season. If grading operations are not completed before the rainy season begins, grading shall be halted and temporary erosion control measures shall be put into place to minimize erosion until grading resumes after March 31, unless the City determines that completion of grading would be more protective of resources.

41. The Building Official may approve grading during the rainy season to remediate hazardous geologic conditions that endanger public health and safety.

42. Exported soil from a site shall be taken to the Los Angeles County Landfill or to a site with an active grading permit and the ability to accept the material in compliance with LIP Section 8.3.

43. All cut and fill slopes shall be stabilized with landscaping at the completion of final grading.

44. The developer’s consulting engineer shall sign the final plans prior to the issuance of permits.

45. The discharge of swimming pool, spa and decorative fountain water and filter backwash, including water containing bacteria, detergents, wastes, algaecides or other chemicals is prohibited. Swimming pool, spa, and decorative fountain water may be used as landscape irrigation only if the following items are met:
a. The discharge water is dechlorinated, debrominated or if the water is disinfected using ozonation;
372
Resolution No. 24-21

________________
b. There are sufficient BMPs in place to prevent soil erosion; and c. The discharge does not reach into the MS4 or to the ASBS (including tributaries) d. Discharges not meeting the above-mentioned methods must be trucked to a Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Works.

46. A Water Quality Mitigation Plan (WQMP) shall be submitted for review and approval of the Public Works Director. The WQMP shall be prepared in accordance with LIP Section 17.3.3 and all other applicable ordinances and regulations. The WQMP shall be supported by a hydrology and hydraulic study that identifies all areas contributory to the property and an analysis of the predevelopment and post development drainage on the site. The following elements shall be included within the WQMP:
a. Site Design BMPs;
b. Source Control BMPs;
c. Treatment Control BMPs;
d. Drainage improvements;
e. Methods for onsite percolation, site re-vegetation and an analysis for off-site project impacts;
f. Measures to treat and infiltrate runoff from impervious areas; g. A plan for the maintenance and monitoring of the proposed treatment BMPs for the expected life of the structure;
h. A copy of the WQMP shall be filed against the property to provide constructive notice to future property owners of their obligation to maintain the water quality measures installed during construction prior to the issuance of grading or building permits; and
i. The WQMP shall be submitted to the Building Safety Division and the fee applicable at the time of submittal for review of the WQMP shall be paid prior to the start of the technical review. Once the plan is approved and stamped by the Public Works Department, the original signed and notarized document shall be recorded with the County Recorder. A certified copy of the WQMP shall be submitted prior to the Public Works Department approval of building plans for the project.

Water Quality / Water Service

47. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit an updated Will Serve letter from WD29 to the Planning Department indicating the ability of the property to receive adequate water service.

Fire Department

48. The project will require fire flow of 1,250 gallons per minute at 20 psi (pounds per square inch) for a one-hour duration.

49. The project is required to have an interior automatic fire sprinkler system.

Construction / Framing

50. A construction staging plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director prior to plan check approval.
373
Resolution No. 24-21

________________

51. Construction hours shall be limited to Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and Saturdays from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. No construction activities shall be permitted on Sundays or City-designated holidays.

52. Construction management techniques, including minimizing the amount of equipment used simultaneously and increasing the distance between emission sources, shall be employed as feasible and appropriate. All trucks leaving the construction site shall adhere to the California Vehicle Code. In addition, construction vehicles shall be covered when necessary; and their tires rinsed prior to leaving the property.

53. All new development, including construction, grading, and landscaping shall be designed to incorporate drainage and erosion control measures prepared by a licensed engineer that incorporate structural and non-structural BMPs to control the volume, velocity and pollutant load of storm water runoff in compliance with all requirements contained in LIP Chapter 17, including:
a. Construction shall be phased to the extent feasible and practical to limit the amount of disturbed areas present at a given time.
b. Grading activities shall be planned during the southern California dry season (April through October).
c. During construction, contractors shall be required to utilize sandbags and berms to control runoff during on-site watering and periods of rain in order to minimize surface water contamination.
d. Filter fences designed to intercept and detain sediment while decreasing the velocity of runoff shall be employed within the project site.

54. When framing is complete, a site survey shall be prepared by a licensed civil engineer or architect that states the finished ground level elevation and the highest roof member elevation. Prior to the commencement of further construction activities, said document shall be submitted to the assigned Building Inspector and Planning Department for review and sign off on framing.

Colors and Materials

55. All driveways shall be a neutral color that blends with the surrounding landforms and vegetation. Retaining walls shall incorporate veneers, texturing and/or colors that blend with the surrounding earth materials or landscape. The color of driveways and retaining walls shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director and clearly indicated on all grading, improvement and/or building plans.

Lighting

56. Exterior lighting shall be minimized, shielded, or concealed and restricted to low intensity features, so that no light source is directly visible from public view. Permitted lighting shall conform to the following standards:
a. Lighting for walkways shall be limited to fixtures that do not exceed two feet in height and are directed downward, and limited to 850 lumens (equivalent to a 60- watt incandescent bulb);
374
Resolution No. 24-21

________________
b. Security lighting controlled by motion detectors may be attached to the residence provided it is directed downward and is limited to 850 lumens; c. Driveway lighting shall be limited to the minimum lighting necessary for safe vehicular use. The lighting shall be limited to 850 lumens; d. Lights at entrances as required by the Building Code shall be permitted provided that such lighting does not exceed 850 lumens;
e. Site perimeter lighting shall be prohibited; and
f. Outdoor decorative lighting for aesthetic purposes is prohibited.

57. Night lighting for sports courts or other private recreational facilities shall be prohibited.

58. No permanently installed lighting shall blink, flash, or be of unusually high intensity or brightness. Lighting levels on any nearby property from artificial light sources on the subject property(ies) shall not produce an illumination level greater than one foot-candle.

59. Night lighting from exterior and interior sources shall be minimized. All exterior lighting shall be low intensity and shielded directed downward and inward so there is no offsite glare or lighting of natural habitat areas.

60. Up-lighting of landscaping is prohibited.

Biology/Landscaping

61. Prior to installation of any landscaping, the applicant shall obtain a plumbing permit for the proposed irrigation system from the Building Safety Division.

62. Prior to or at the time of Planning Final inspection, the property owner/applicant shall submit to the case planner a copy of the plumbing permit for the irrigation system installation that has been signed off by the Building Safety Division.

63. Prior to final Planning inspection or other final project sign off (as applicable), the applicant shall submit to the Planning Director for review and approval a certificate of completion in accordance with the Landscape Water Conservation Ordinance (MMC Section 17.53.030).

The certificate shall include the property owner’s signed acceptance of responsibility for maintaining the landscaping and irrigation in accordance with the approved plans and MMC Section 17.53.030. (form attached)

64. Prior to final plan check approval, if your property is serviced by the Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 29, please provide landscape water use approval from that department.

65. Vegetation forming a view impermeable condition (hedge), serving the same function as a fence or wall, occurring within the side or rear yard setback shall be maintained at or below six (6) feet in height. View impermeable hedges occurring within the front yard setback serving the same function as a fence or wall shall be maintained at or below 42 inches in height. Three sequential violations of this condition will result in a requirement to permanently remove the vegetation from the site.
375
Resolution No. 24-21

________________

66. Vegetation shall be situated on the property so as not to obstruct the primary view from private property at any given time (given consideration of its future growth).

67. Invasive plan species, as determined by the City of Malibu, are prohibited.

68. No non-native plan species shall be approved greater than 50 feet from the residential structure.

69. The landscape plan shall prohibit the use of building materials treated with toxic compounds such as copper arsenate.

70. Grading/ Grading/excavation/vegetation removal scheduled between February 1 - September 15 will require nesting bird surveys by a qualified biologist prior to initiation of such activities. Surveys shall be completed no more than five days from proposed initiation of site preparation activities. Should active nests be identified, a buffer area no less than 150 feet (300 feet for raptors) shall be fenced off until it is determined by a qualified biologist that the nest is no longer active. A report discussing the results of the surveys shall be turned in to the City within two business days of completion of surveys.

71. Night lighting from exterior and interior sources shall be minimized. All exterior lighting shall be low intensity and shielded so it is directed downward and inward so that there is no offsite glare or lighting of natural habitat areas. Up-lighting of landscaping is prohibited.

72. Necessary boundary fencing of any single area exceeding ½ acre shall be of an open rail-type design with a wooden rail at the top (instead of wire), be less than 40 inches high, and have a space greater than 14 inches between the ground and the bottom post or wire. A split rail design that blends with the natural environment is preferred.

Swimming Pool / Spa / Water Feature

73. On-site noise, including that which emanates from swimming pool and air conditioning equipment, shall be limited as described in MMC Chapter 8.24 (Noise).

74. Pool and air conditioning equipment that will be installed shall be screened from view by a solid wall or fence on all four sides. The fence or walls shall comply with LIP Section

3.5.3(A).

75. All swimming pools shall contain double walled construction with drains and leak detection systems capable of sensing a leak of the inner wall.

76. Pursuant to the Clean Water Act and the Malibu Water Quality Ordinance, discharge of water from a pool / spa is prohibited. Provide information on the plans regarding the type of sanitation proposed for pool.
a. Ozonization systems are an acceptable alternative to chlorine. The discharge of clear water from ozonization systems is not permitted to the street; b. Salt water sanitation is an acceptable alternative to chlorine. The discharge of salt water is not permitted to the street; and
c. Chlorinated water from pools or spas shall be trucked to a publicly-owned treatment 376
Resolution No. 24-21

________________
works facility for discharge.

77. The discharge of chlorinated and non-chlorinated pool / spa water into streets, storm drains, creeks, canyons, drainage channels, or other locations where it could enter receiving waters is prohibited.

78. A sign stating “It is illegal to discharge pool, spa, or water feature waters to a street, drainage course, or storm drain per MMC Section 13.04.060(D)(5)” shall be posted in the filtration and/or pumping equipment area for the property.

79. Pursuant to MMC Section 9.20.040(B), all ponds, decorative fountains shall require a water recirculating/recycling system.

Fencing and Walls

80. The height of fences and walls shall comply with LIP Section 3.5.3(A). No retaining wall shall exceed six feet in height or 12 feet in height for a combination of two or more walls.

81. Necessary boundary fencing of a single area exceeding 0.5-acre shall be of an open rail-type design with a wooden rail at the top (instead of wire), be less than 40-inches high, and have a space greater than 14-inches between the ground and the bottom post or wire. A split rail design that blends with the natural environment is preferred.

82. Fencing or walls shall be prohibited within ESHA, except where necessary for public safety or habitat protection or restoration. Fencing or walls that do not permit the free passage of wildlife shall be prohibited in any wildlife corridor.

83. Construction fencing shall be installed within five feet of the limits of grading prior to the beginning of construction and shall be maintained throughout the construction period (or until the fire protection wall is constructed) to protect the site’s sensitive habitat area.

Prior to Occupancy

84. Prior to, or at the time of a Planning final inspection, the property owner / applicant shall submit to the Planning Department the plumbing permit for the irrigation system installation signed off by the Building Safety Division.

85. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the City Biologist shall inspect the project site and determine that all Planning Department conditions to protect natural resources are in compliance with the approved plans.

86. Prior to a final Building inspection, the applicant shall provide a final Waste Reduction and Recycling Summary Report (Summary Report) and obtain the approval from the Environmental Sustainability Department. The final Summary Report shall designate all materials that were land filled or recycled, broken down by material types.

87. The applicant shall request a final Planning Department inspection prior to a final inspection by the Environmental Sustainability Department. A Certificate of Occupancy shall not be 377
Resolution No. 24-21

________________
issued until the Planning Department has determined that the project complies with this coastal development permit. A temporary Certificate of Occupancy may be granted at the discretion of the Planning Director, provided adequate security has been deposited with the City to ensure compliance should the final work not be completed in accordance with this permit.

88. Any construction trailer, storage equipment or similar temporary equipment not permitted as part of the approved scope of work shall be removed prior to final inspection and approval, and if applicable, the issuance of the certificate of occupancy.

Deed Restrictions

89. The property owner is required to execute and record a deed restriction which shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, and employees against any and all claims, demands, damages, costs and expenses of liability arising out of the acquisition, design, construction, operation, maintenance, existence or failure of the permitted project in an area where an extraordinary potential for damage or destruction from wildfire exists as an inherent risk to life and property. The property owner shall provide a copy of the recorded document.

90. Prior to final Planning Department approval, the applicant shall be required to execute and record a deed restriction reflecting lighting requirements set forth in Condition Nos. 56-60.

The property owner shall provide a copy of the recorded document to the Planning Department prior to final Planning Department approval.

Fixed Conditions

91. This coastal development permit runs with the land and binds all future owners of the property.

92. Violation of any of the conditions of this approval may be cause for revocation of this permit and termination of all rights granted thereunder.

SECTION 6. The Planning Commission shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of March, 2024. _______________________________________
KRAIG HILL Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
REBECCA EVANS Recording Secretary
378
Resolution No. 24-21

________________
LOCAL APPEAL - Pursuant to LCP LIP Section 13.20.1 (Local Appeals) a decision made by the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council by an aggrieved person by written statement setting forth the grounds for appeal. An appeal shall be filed with the City Clerk within 10 days and shall be accompanied by an appeal form and filing fee, as specified by the City Council.

Appeal forms may be found online at www.malibucity.org, in person at City Hall, or by calling (310) 456-2489, ext. 246.

Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the public hearing on this application must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section 1.12.010 of the MMC and Code of Civil Procedure. Any person wishing to challenge the above action in Superior Court may be limited to raising only those issues they or someone else raised at the public hearing, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Malibu at or prior to the public hearing.

I CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION NO. 24-21 was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Malibu at the Regular meeting held on the 18th day of March, 2024 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
_____________________________________
REBECCA EVANS, Recording Secretary
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
2 2. You claim the city biologist visited the area but did not look six feet beyond the undefined survey marks for the property lines. Six feet away is a seasonal stream which is very wet today.

3. "a buffer of five feet from the dripline canopy of the native protected tree” The OAKs are amazing- with a 15 to 20 foot canopy, growing on the property line, which you say is 20 feet from story pole..
"The nearest of the proposed development (the ADU and detached garage) are 20 feet from the property line. If the native protected trees are on the adjacent property beyond the property line, this would put the development in compliance with the “Protected Zone” definition stated above.” My requests:

1. PLEASE have a non-bias Biologist reevaluate the two adjacent lots.

2. I will hire my Biologist to meet the City’s Biologist on the properties for a fair and reason evaluation.

Personally, Mr. Eaton, I am confused and insulted by your favorable attitudes towards and for the benefit of a developer. Mr. Kent, who wrote his own Biological Review, cuts down Toyon Trees on his neighbors adjacent parcel and ignores legal building setbacks to benefit himself, has your support?
Your emails do not suggest any solutions to my reasonable concerns, as a 50 year resident on Harvester Road, who rebuilt after the Woolsey Fire and understands the SETBACK regulations. You somewhat suggest i do not know what i am describing and reporting to the City in these email notes.

Dawn N Ericson
On Mar 11, 2024, at 12:25 PM, Tyler Eaton <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Dawn,
I am very familiar with both the ESHA and Native tree Protection sections of the LIP as we have to apply it to the hundreds of CDPs we receive each year. The area of your concern is not a mapped ESHA as indicated by our LCP Maps certified by the Coastal Commission. Secondly, a Biological Inventory produced by Edith Read in June of 2023 was submitted by the applicant for the subject parcel which concluded the findings shown in my previous email. The ESHA setback you are referring to would apply if there was ESHA present. Based on the materials we have received so far for this project, there is no ESHA on the property nor is the proposed development within an ESHA buffer as indicated in LIP Section 4.6.1, again, based on the evidence we have received thus far.

Our Biologist, Courtney McCammon, issued preliminary approval on the project stating that no ESHA exists on the subject parcel.
400
3 As far as the trees are concerned, Walnuts, Sycamores and Toyons as you mentioned are protected pursuant to LIP Chapter 5 if they meet the following criteria:

5.2. DESCRIPTION OF AREA SUBJECT TO

ORDINANCE
The provisions of this Chapter shall apply to those areas containing one or more native oak (Quercus species), California Walnut (Juglans californica), Western Sycamore (Platanus racemosa), Alder (Alnus rhombifolia), or Toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia) tree, that has at least one trunk measuring six inches or more in diameter, or a combination of any two trunks measuring a total of eight inches or more in diameter, measured at four and one-half feet above natural grade. (Ord. 303 § 3, 2007) Here is what has been indicated by our Biologist regarding the trees. “The biological inventory did not find any indications of streams of ESHA on or immediately adjacent to the project site. The biologist identified a sycamore and toyon on the adjacent property, but no native trees were identified on the property.” Per LIP Section 5.3, an applicant has to provide a native tree inventory if native trees (per the description in section 5.2 above) exist on the site. Since they were indicated on the adjacent property, the applicant was not required to submit a native tree report. Lastly, in order to meet the setbacks of the chapter, the development would have to avoid a buffer of five feet from the dripline canopy of the native protected tree, see definition of protected zone from the LIP below.

PROTECTED ZONE of a tree protected under Section 5.2 of the Malibu LIP shall mean that area within the dripline of the tree and extending at least five feet beyond the dripline, or 15 feet from the trunk of the tree, whichever is greater.

The nearest of the proposed development (the ADU and detached garage) are 20 feet from the property line. If the native protected trees are on the adjacent property beyond the property line, this would put the development in compliance with the “Protected Zone” definition stated above.

Per your photo, I believe the stream that goes down through High School is sited much further east.

See photo of mapped ESHA streams in the area.
401
4 If you have evidence that suggests otherwise than the analysis above, we’d be happy to consider it.

The recommendation was made based on what has been submitted to the City as well as the City’s own mapped resources.

Tomorrow at 2:30 should work for me but let me know if another time is better.

Thanks,
Tyler
From: Dawn Ericson
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2024 11:31 AM
To: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>
Cc: Frank Angel
Subject: Re: resident DAWN ERICSON vs STEVEN KENT developer

Tyler Eaton
Senior Planner | Planning
Thank you Mr. Eaton,
402
5 Your attention is greatly valued.

And i would like to find some answers before the meeting on March18th.

May I ask who did the survey?
I understand that the owner/delevelper Steve Kent, with a paid co-writer, WROTE the biological inventory submitted for the project. Please provide the name of The City’s Biologist concurred with Kent's findings.

Your comments below suggest that you have not reviewed or understand my cocnerns and the issue of my complaint.

My complain is about the two different development standards or SETBACK requirements allowed by two different ajacent building projects after the Woolsey Fire.

As for ESHA or NO ESHA: The City determined that this areas is an ESHA in 2022-2023. A more indepth determination and description of any riparian colloridor, stream, creek, ruff off or any name given to these over develped and degraded regions must be professionally evalued again. Google maps, USGS maps, are not on the ground, walking in boots with professional eyes who can easily determine the native amimals, birds, all wildlife and value of these regions. The City’s Biologist concurred with the findings. Did he see SycamoreTrees covered with leaves or the two natuarally seeded CCoastal Live OAKS in this same area? One is twenty feet tall…perhaps small to Mr. Kent. And did he notice the dominant, 2 leafless native Juglans californica, the Southern California Black Walnut, a large shrub or small tree endemic to California – still in this areas despite the Woolsey Fire. CAL SCAPE has determined that the Black Walnut is now endanger due to continued development in its natural range.These can not be seen by a drone or without boots on the ground, along with other small important list of other natives.

These ESHA or NO ESHA clarifications are for more than one qualited expert, or the COASTAL COMMISSION to make a determination.
"If you are free tomorrow, we can discuss the analysis in further detail." I would like to discuss this with you on the phone, if you understand my questions, not to discuss analysis.

I need an explanation from the City of Malibu and a solution to my concerns.

My intention is a reasonable request for a reevaualation of the 30053 HARVESTER Road project, with a review by qualified and unbaised PROFESSIONAL individuals ( 2 or more) to answer my concerns.

My intention is NOT to stop Mr. Kent’s from building a house on his property. I only request his SETBACK standards are the same has the City of Malibu determined for us when we rebuilt in 2022- 2023.

Again,
Thank you Mr. Tyler
As for “blue line streams”…most “run-off” streams in Malibu are not year round creeks such as Bonsai creek and Trancas creek.
403
6 The merged “creeks” or riparian corridor are seasonal runoff rivers that flow off Horizon, to Cuthbert Road, under Harvester and meets 1/4 mile away at the new High School's ESHA and to Zuma Beach.

On Mar 11, 2024, at 8:57 AM, Tyler Eaton <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Dawn,
Apologies for the delayed reply, just got back from some time off. I have time tomorrow afternoon to discuss. To give you some initial information, a biological inventory was submitted for the project and regarding the area of concern, it was indicated that it was not ESHA. Per the report,
“These gullies are not indicated as “blueline” streambeds on the historical USGS map and their hydrologic regimes are best characterized as ephemeral. No wetland conditions were observed during the survey, and with the exception of an immature sycamore and toyon in the west gully, the dominant vegetation consists of non-native landscape species. Flows from these gullies are conveyed through small underground culverts into storm drains on the property to the south. Openings of the culverts were observed to be clear on the day of the survey, and it can be expected that these culverts are routinely kept clear to avoid flooding. As can be seen in the figures, the USGS map shows an unnamed “blue-line” intermittent streambed east of the property but its location is more than 1,000 feet from the property line.”
The City’s Biologist concurred with the findings. If you are free tomorrow, we can discuss the analysis in further detail.

Thanks,
Tyler
Tyler Eaton
Senior Planner | Planning
Office: (310) 456-2489 ext. 273
23825 Stuart Ranch Road | Malibu, CA 90265
From: Dawn Ericson
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2024 8:26 AM
404
7 To: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>
Subject: resident DAWN ERICSON vs STEVEN KENT developer Begin forwarded message:

From: Dawn Ericson
Subject: Re: resident DAWN ERICSON vs STEVEN KENT
developer
Date: March 8, 2024 at 8:54:55 AM PST
To: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>
Good morning Tyler,
I was hoping to connect with you this week as Richard
suggested.

I am preparing for the PLANNING COMMISSION upcoming
meeting and hope to better understanding the reasons for the exception given to Steven Kent on his 30053 Harvester Rd. development.

I want to clarify, I am not against vacant land development in Mailbu Park.

But, want to suggest that develpment setbacks stay within the Coastal Commissions guidelines, as were required of us when we rebuilt our house on the adjacent lot.

Can you pleae arrange a phone meeting next week with Mr.

Mollica?
Thank you,
Dawn N Ericson
405
8 On Mar 4, 2024, at 7:08 PM, Richard Mollica
<[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Dawn and Dominique,
Hope all is well. I would be glad to meet with
you. Since the project at 30053 is under review, I am
looping in the project planner Tyler on this. Tyler will be in contact with you about a time to meet in
person, zoom, or on the phone whichever is best for
you.

Have a good evening,
Richard
Richard Mollica, AICP
Planning Director
406
9 City of Malibu
310.456.2489 ext 346
From: Dawn Ericson
Sent: Monday, March 4, 2024 12:29 PM
To: Richard Mollica <[email protected]>
Cc: Dominique Navarro
Subject: resident DAWN ERICSON vs STEVEN KENT
developer
Richard Mollica,
AICP
Planning
Director
City of Malibu
Thank you Richard.
for your valuable time to advise me.

May I please request a phone meeting?
My concern: the City Planning Department handled
two adjacent large parcel building projects with two
conflicting set-back requirements.
30069 Harvester Rd: ESHA SETBACKS.
30053 Harvester Rd: NO SETBACKS for ESHA.

I attach two diagrams below for a quick review of both
parcels.

I attach one photo below for a quick review of
surround parcels with the required SETBACKs.

Description of issue:

Two adjacent lots: 30053 Harvester Rd is east of
30069 Harvester Road. Both are within a riparian
corridor as seasonal runoff flows off Horizon, from
Cuthbert Road, under Harvester and meets 1/4 mile
away at the new High School's ESHA and to Zuma
Beach.

This riparian corridor and ESHA historically have
native plants, nesting falcons, and numerous wildlife
species which were decimated by the Woolsey
Fire. BUT, slowing the ESHA is recovering. We have
videos of animals – a Gray Fox, Bob Cats, falcons,
owls. There were 2 sightings of a Cougar on
Harvester Road a month ago. We are replanting to
restore the ESHA on our property.

Attachment Dia.#1. 30069 Harvester Road rebuild
after the Woolsey Fire with
REQUIRED SETBACKS due to the parel location
within a ESHA. The Fire Department requested that
we demonstrate that we would only plant native
407
10 species, and requested restoration of the ESHA. We
did not dispute the ESHA or need a 'Biological
Review'.

Attached here is the “SETBACKS map" prepared for
the Fire Department and City Planners.

Attachment Dia.#2. 30053 Harvester Road
Steven Kent's has no intention of developing within an
ESHA or riparian corridor. Therefore, these
APPROVED Planning Department house plans have
NO SETBACKS. Mr. Kent was required by the City
Planner to provide a 'Biological Review'. Mr. Kent
wrote this 'Biological Review', along with a paid
consultant.

Thank you,
Dawn N Ericson
<image001.png>
<image002.png>
408
Biological Inventory
30053 Harvester Rd
Malibu, CA
June 28, 2023
Prepared For:

Steven Kent
11906 Gorham Ave
Los Angeles, CA 90049
Prepared By:

Edith Read, PhD
E Read and Associates, Inc.

Orange, CA
(714) 366-8857
[email protected]
409
Biological Inventory 30053 Harvester Rd, Malibu
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROJECT DESCRIPTION.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 METHODS .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE.................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 SPECIAL STATUS HABITATS AND SPECIES ................................................................................................................................................................. 3 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................................................................................... 4 Figures (all follow Text)
Figure 1. Property Location ................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 2. Site Photographs of Vegetation.......................................................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 4a. Historical Topography and Current Conditions: West Side ...................................................................................................... 7 Figure 4b. Historical Topography and Current Conditions: East Side.......................................................................................................... 8 Figure 5. ESHA Boundaries Relative to Property Location.............................................................................................................................. 9 410
Biological Inventory 30053 Harvester Rd, Malibu
3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This report provides an inventory of biological resources on 30053 Harvester Road in the City of Malibu (APN 4469-009-010; Figure 1). The property is currently vacant.

METHODS
Review of resource information relevant to evaluating biological resources and potential for special status species was conducted for guidance in the field and discussion in this report. This information consisted of aerial photographs, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) maps, the City’s database of locations of sensitive habitat in the region, and the June, 2023 update of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). Regional CNDDB data were overlaid onto a map using Geographic Information System (GIS) software.

The field survey was conducted by E. Read on June 15, 2023.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Vegetation and Wildlife
Vegetation on the property consists of non-native annual grassland dominated by wild oats (Avena spp.). Sometime prior to the survey, this vegetation had been mowed for fire hazard abatement purposes, so species were identified based on leaves and fruiting material. Figure 2 provides photographs representing vegetation on the property and more detail regarding plant species observed.

Wildlife detected during the survey consisted of pocket gopher (Thomoys bottae, evidenced by burrows), coyote (Canis latrans, evidenced by scat), eastern fox squirrel (Sciurus niger), and spotted towhee (Pipilo maculatus). No raptor nests were observed in the trees adjacent to the property.

Special Status Habitats and Species
Streambeds. Figures 4a and 4b show two off-site gullies. These gullies are not indicated as “blueline” streambeds on the historical USGS map and their hydrologic regimes are best characterized as ephemeral. No wetland conditions were observed during the survey, and with the exception of an immature sycamore and toyon in the west gully, the dominant vegetation consists of non-native landscape species. Flows from these gullies are conveyed through small underground culverts into storm drains on the property to the south. Openings of the culverts were observed to be clear on the day of the survey, and it can be expected that these culverts are routinely kept clear to avoid flooding.

As can be seen in the figures, the USGS map shows an unnamed “blue-line” intermittent streambed east of the property but its location is more than 1,000 feet from the property line.

Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA). Figure 5 shows the City-mapped ESHA relative to the property location. No ESHA or feature qualifying as ESHA is located on or within 200 feet of the property.
411
Biological Inventory 30053 Harvester Rd, Malibu
4 Special Status Species. No special status species would be expected to occur on the property due to lack of suitable habitat. Similarly, no raptors would be expected to nest on the property. No native or protected trees are present on the property itself.

POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Development of the property, including landscaping with a fuel modification zone, would not impact special status species or protected habitats, including wetlands. Measures that the City already requires as conditions of development, such as controlling runoff and trash, and avoiding planting invasive vegetation, will be sufficient to protect the adjacent off-site gullies and biological resources of the area. No additional surveys or studies are warranted at this time. 412
Biological Inventory 30053 Harvester Rd, Malibu
5 Figure 1. Property Location
413
Biological Inventory 30053 Harvester Rd, Malibu
6 Above: views north and east from Harvester Rd. The shrubby plant in the foreground is castor bean (Ricinis communis), an invasive non-native species. Eucalyptus trees in the background are on the adjacent property.

Below: views south and west from northern property line. As in the other photographs, mature vegetation consisting primarily of eucalyptus is on the adjacent property. The small pruned shrub in middle photograph is castor bean.

See Figure 3 for additional photographs related to adjacent (off-site) conditions.

Figure 2. Site Photographs of Vegetation
414
Biological Inventory 30053 Harvester Rd, Malibu
7 Top photo shows an immature western sycamore (Platanus racemosa) and toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia) associated with a gully off-site on the adjacent property and upslope from a small culvert (bottom photo). No wetland vegetation was observed.

Figure 4a. Historical Topography and Current Conditions: West Side 415
Biological Inventory 30053 Harvester Rd, Malibu
8 Photo above left is a view to the north showing the eastern off-site gully. No wetland was observed.

Figure 4b. Historical Topography and Current Conditions: East Side 416
Biological Inventory 30053 Harvester Rd, Malibu
9 Brown polygons indicate City-mapped ESHA boundaries. Arrow indicates property location.

Figure 5. ESHA Boundaries Relative to Property Location 417
418
419
From: Stacy Clunies-Ross >
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 8:59 AM
To: K__ malibu planning
<[email protected]>
Subject: 30053 Harvester Rd. - Malibu Planning Commission Hearing Item #5A 3/4/24
RE: 30053 Harvester Rd. - Malibu Planning Commission Hearing Item #5A Dear Planning Commissioners,
We are writing in support of Steven Kent and the building of his new home on Harvester Rd.

We've known Steve for over 10 years. Craig met Steve through mutual friends and over the years has traveled extensively with him. We have all formed a very close friendship. We have also been fortunate enough to have him design two homes for us. One is a fire rebuild on Harvester, very near to Steve’s project, that will soon be our new family home. He has also designed a new home for my parents on Trancas Beach. Both home designs are exquisite.

We have seen the plans and renderings for Steve’s new home. We feel he is building a beautiful house appropriate for the Malibu Park neighborhood. I have lived in Malibu Park my entire life and my husband and I have raised our children here for the last 30 years. As long time Malibu residents, specifically Malibu Park, we appreciate the more rural aspects of our community. Steve been incredibly sensitive to keep his projects as aesthetically pleasing as possible, and to make sure they fit into the natural surroundings of Malibu Park. We believe that Steve’s house will complement the surrounding areas.

We hope you support this project, which will enable his family to live in our beautiful neighborhood.

Sincerely,
Craig and Stacy Clunies-Ross
Harvester Rd.

Malibu CA 90265
420
Stacy Clunies-Ross
Westside Estate Agency
CalBRE#01980245
Realtor®
Cell Phone:3
Email:
421
To Chair Hill and Members of the Planning Commission:

Re: new home plan for 30053 Harvester Road
We appreciate this opportunity to be heard. Our home @ 30033 Harvester Road is adjacent to the proposed new home construction plan. We moved here in 2003 and were able to repair the damages to our home from the Woolsey fire and return in 2022. Although damaged, our home was the sole surviving structure from the Woolsey Fire in the nearest enclave of 7) neighboring homes that include; 29972, 30021, & 30060 Harvester (around us) and 29956 & 30000 & 30036 Cuthbert (above us). We believe this was primarily due to the defensible space around our home Our home was designed by the noted architect, Marshall Lewis around 1970. In addition, when our house was originally constructed it was granted a variance to bring it even closer to the property line. Our home sits only 12' from the property line instead of the 16' that would be required today.

We believe a map showing the neighboring structures within 15 feet of the newly proposed plan at 30053 Harvester will illustrate the reality of how close the new build will be to us.

We are not opposed to a new home being built. We are opposing the current plan for this home to be built with a setback of only 13 ½ ‘ from our shared property line.

The plan for 30053 Harvester calls for 24’ roof line, 13.6’ from the property line and only 25.6' from our dwelling. If built to that plan, that new structure will engulf our home on the Eastern side. We will not have any visibility, including afternoon sunlight on that side of the house. The defensible space around our home will be affected and our home made significantly less safe.

Our objection to the current build plan as submitted and approved in the Staff Report provided by the City Council is that the new structure is too close in proximity and needs to be positioned using the largest setback shown as 20’3”. This will increase the distance between our existing dwelling and the newly proposed structure to 32.3”. This slight adjustment will at least provide better defensible space between structures and as the land slopes downward towards the western side yard, the impact of the highest roofline of 24’ will be less consuming.

Lester Tobias is a friend of ours and helped us with our fire rebuild. Originally he thought that the new house would be “innocuous” until he saw the story poles and pulled up our site plan in his office. He was the one who guided us to the feasible alternatives portion of the code, discussed the lack of designing with the contours of the site, the increased grading required by the proposed project, and the “wild” (his words, not ours) notion to slam a linear house up against the property line of the only house within 500 feet.

We have witnessed numerous new home construction projects and understand the positive and negative effects that growth and development bring to our neighborhood and community.

We are requesting a thorough review of the plans based on the information we have provided and a thoughtful review of the loss and impact of what is proposed as to the specifics of our particular

EXHIBIT D
422
situation, site plan orientation and views. This is a unique situation with an existing home of 50 years.

Please see the attached photos for reference. Our existing home should be a major concern in considering how close the proposed new setbacks are applied or adjusted or create a plan that limits the massive impact to the only existing structure in such close proximity.

Thank you for your consideration.

Kindest Regards,
The Philipsons
423
424
425
426
HARVESTER ROAD 1 6 2 5 3 7 9 2 2 5 8 5 4 3 F.Y.S.B. 205'-2 1/4" R.Y.S.B. 79'-3 3/4" EAST S.Y.S.B.
83'-10 3/4"
LOT WIDTH 158' LOT DEPTH 374' 10 11 PIT 1 PIT 2
16'-2" SETBACK INCREASED TO 10% 123 TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 12 D.G. DRIVEWAY 3 EXISTING WOOD DECK PERIMETER PLANTER/ OVERFLOW CATCHMENT 45 PLANTED AREA 6 EXISTING SITE STAIRS EXISTING 1500 GALLON SEPTIC TANK AND APPROXIMATE PIT LOCATIONS. 7 8 EXISTING WATER FEATURE 9 NEW SLIDING GATE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS DEVELOPMENT ITEM EXISTING PROPOSED CONFORMITY T.D.S.F. 2,632 S.F. 2,632 S.F. COMPLIES SETBACKS FRONT YARD 205' 205' COMPLIES EAST SIDE YARD 83'-10" 83'-10" COMPLIES WEST SIDE YARD 12'-0" 12'-0" COMPLIES REAR YARD 79' 79' COMPLIES HEIGHT MAX HEIGHT 25'-1" 25'-1" COMPLIES PARKING 2-COVERED 2-UNCOVERED 2-COVERED 2-UNCOVERED COMPLIES SITE WALLS FRONT YARD 42" SOLID 6'-0" MAX. 12" SOLID 5' COMPLIES SIDE YARD 6'-0" MAX. 6'-0" COMPLIES REAR YARD 6'-0" MAX. 6'-0" COMPLIES GRADING SLOPE CONST. 3:1 & FLATTER 3:1 & FLATTER COMPLIES IMPERMEABLE SURFACE 2,926 S.F. 2,926 S.F. COMPLIES ESHA N/A N/A N/A BUILDING ANALYSIS IMPERMEABLE ANALYSIS FOOTPRINT: DRIVEWAY/FRONT WALK: SIDE YARD WALKWAY: TOTAL: 2,700 SQ. FT. UNPAVED 226 SQ. FT. 2,926 SQ. FT. SITE ANALYSIS LOT AREA: GROSS LOT AREA: NET LOT DEPTH: LOT WIDTH: 56,902 SQ. FT. 56,902 SQ. FT. 374'-0" 158'-0" MAIN LEVEL: GARAGE: TOTAL: 2,132 SQ. FT. 500 SQ. FT. 2,632 SQ. FT. SHEET NOTES 10 MASONRY WALKWAY 11 BBQ AREA SYMBOLS LEGEND ORIGINAL FOOTPRINT 427

A N G E L L AW
2 6 0 1 O c e a n P a r k B l v d . , S u i t e 2 0 5
S a n t a M o n i c a , C A 9 0 4 0 5 - 5 2 6 9
T e l : ( 3 1 0 ) 3 1 4 - 6433
a n g e l l a w . c o m
March 18, 2024
City of Malibu
Attn: Kaneca Pompey, Contract Planner
Tyler Eaton, Senior Planner
Richard Mollica, Planning Director
City of Malibu Planning Commission
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, California 90265
Via Email to [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Re: Objections to Staff’s Recommended Approval of Coastal Development Permit No. 23-019; Site Plan Review No. 23-024; & CEQA Exemption for 30053 Harvester Road Project Planning Commission Meeting of March 18, 2024, Item 5.A.

Dear Planning Commissioners, Ms. Pompey, Mr. Eaton, and Mr. Mollica:

We are legal counsel for and write on behalf of Dawn Ericson, the immediate neighbor to the west of the project proposed at 30053 Harvester Road (Project). We strongly object to the approval of the Project, as sited and designed (scaled). For the reasons explained below, the Project cannot be found consistent with the Malibu Local Costal Program (MLCP). Nor can it be found categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. (CEQA; Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.)
Several MLCP consistency findings proposed for approval by the Planning Commission (Commission) in the February 20, 2024 Commission Agenda Report (Staff Report) and the March 13, 2024 Supplemental Commission Agenda Report (Supplemental Staff Report) rest on faulty evidence, a woefully incomplete description of the baseline plant and biological conditions on 428
Kaneca Pompey, Contract Planner
Tyler Eaton, Senior Planner
Richard Mollica, Planning Director
Planning Commission
March 18, 2024

the ground, and scientifically indefensible assumptions of no harm to coastal resources adversely impacted by the Project. These resources include native wildlife habitat straddling the boundary between the Project site and the adjacent Ericson property at 30069 Harvester Road.

Accordingly, we demand that the Commission deny Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 23- 019 and the CEQA exemption. Alternatively, at a minimum, we request that the Commission continue this item to a date uncertain, to allow the City biologist to visit the site together with our client’s biological consultant and the applicant’s biological consultant, and, in full cooperation with both, to adequately inventory all potentially impacted native trees and environmentally sensitive habitat on and adjacent to the Project site, and to fully analyze the Project’s adverse impacts on the same.
1 Either way, the Project must be scaled back for the Planning Commission to be able to make a legally defensible finding under section 13.9 (C) of the MLCP, i.e., that “The Project is the least environmentally damaging alternative.” The mandate of section 13.9 of the MLCP is clear: the Planning Commission has no discretion to approve a CDP for a project unless it is the least environmentally damaging alternative.

Native Trees
The Malibu Local Implementation Plan’s (MLIP) native tree protections “apply to those areas containing one or more native oak (Quercus species), California Walnut (Juglans californica), Western Sycamore (Platanus racemosa), Alder (Alnus rhombifolia), or Toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia) tree, that has at least one trunk measuring six inches or more in diameter, or a combination of any two trunks measuring a total of eight inches or more in diameter, measured at four and one-half feet above natural grade.” (MLIP, § 5.2.) The Staff Report’s discussion of native trees is demonstrably inconsistent with the applicant-submitted June 28, 2023 biological inventory by Edith Read and Associates, Inc. (Read Inventory), as well as with the October 5, 2023 Biology Review Sheet completed by City Biologist Courtney McCammon (City Biologist Review).

The Staff Report states:
1 This requires the City biologist to understand, among other things, that trees have root zones, and that for some species, the root zone extends substantially beyond the dripline -- the widest reaching branches around the tree.
429
Kaneca Pompey, Contract Planner
Tyler Eaton, Senior Planner
Richard Mollica, Planning Director
Planning Commission
March 18, 2024

“There are no native trees on or adjacent to the subject parcel. Therefore, the findings of LIP Chapter 5 do not apply.”
(Staff Report at p. 12, italics added.) However, the Read Inventory explicitly identified “an immature western sycamore (Platanus racemosa) and toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia) associated with a gully off-site on the adjacent property.” (Supplemental Staff Report at p. 58.) The City Biologist Review accepted that Ms. Read had “identified a sycamore and toyon on the adjacent property.” (Staff Report at p. 55.) The Staff Report statement that there are no native trees adjacent to the Project site is false.

Only after Ms. Ericson objected did staff prepare the Supplemental Staff Report, which was released a mere five days before the public hearing, last Wednesday. Unfortunately, the Supplemental Staff Report is still deficient and conclusory. The Supplemental Staff Report obfuscates Ms. Ericson’s objections to the adequacy of the Read Inventory as asserting the presence of “Toyons and California Black Walnuts [that] are within the area of concern.” (Id. at p.

3.) However, Ms. Ericson alerted staff that there are not only protected toyon and black walnut trees, but also protected oak and sycamore trees adjacent to and/or on the Project site.

Downplaying the native tree issues raised, staff contends that (1) “[t]he City’s Biologist reviewed the [Read] report and concurred with the findings”; (2) Ms. Read referred to the adjacent toyon and sycamore as “ ‘immature’ ”; (3) “the project applicant suggests that the protected tree species within the area are not the minimum size to be considered protected”; and (4) even though “[s]taff was not able to confirm the size of the native trees within the area,” “the proposed development is set back far enough that it would meet the protected zone requirements of the LIP” because “[b]oth the neighbor and applicant agree that the tree canopy stops at the property line,” and the Project “would be both more than 15 feet from the trunk of the tree and five feet from the edge of the dripline canopy of the tree.” (Supplemental Staff Report at p. 3, italics added.) All of these contentions are questionable at best.

On the first point, how could the city biologist independently concur with Ms. Read’s findings if all she did was a desktop review of the Read Inventory? The Read Inventory -- which was not submitted to the Planning Department until March 11, 2024, i.e., not until after the Staff Report was released to the public and this Commission -- doesn’t even map the one toyon and sycamore Ms.

Read observed, indicating their specific location onsite. Nor does it show the parcel boundaries and the native plant species potentially impacted by the Project, including development footprint, as well as the area impacted by grading, construction staging and other construction activity. 430
Kaneca Pompey, Contract Planner
Tyler Eaton, Senior Planner
Richard Mollica, Planning Director
Planning Commission
March 18, 2024

Second, the Read Inventory states that there is “an immature western sycamore (Platanus racemosa) and toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia) … on the adjacent property.” (Supplemental Staff Report at p. 58.) From this sentence, it is only clear that Ms. Read considers the sycamore to be immature -- the toyon is not clearly modified by the word “immature.” Regardless, Ms. Read does not define the word “immature,” nor does she include measurements of these trees in her report.

Ms. Read fails to provide substantial evidence to conclude that the trees she identified fall outside the protections of the MLIP’s Native Tree Protection Ordinance (NTPO).

Third, why would the Project applicant’s suggestion regarding the size of these trees hold any weight?
As pointed out in the concurrently submitted comments and biological inventory map (Exhibit 1) from Lauren Harris, our biological consultant, the Project site is home to multiple Toyon, Western Sycamore, and Oak individuals actually meeting size requirements (six inches or more in diameter, or a combination of any two trunks measuring a total of eight inches or more in diameter, measured at four and one-half feet above natural grade) under the NTPO.

And fourth, Ms. Ericson certainly does not agree that the tree canopy stops at the property line.

Why was staff not able to confirm the size of the native trees within the area? When staff concludes that the Project “would be more than 15 feet from the trunk of the tree and five feet from the edge of the dripline canopy of the tree” (Supplemental Staff Report at p. 3, italics added), which tree is staff referring to? What about the other protected trees? Neither Ms. Read nor planning staff have measured the dripline canopy or distance from development of protected trees on and/or adjacent to the property, so it is impossible to conclude that the Project is sited appropriately under MLIP section 5.3.

Further, the Staff Report, Supplemental Staff Report, Read Inventory, and City Biologist Review all fail to identify or discuss the oak trees on and/or adjacent to the Project site. Ms. Ericson provided staff clear evidence of at least one oak tree near the Project’s story poles. (Staff Report at pp. 77-

78.) See the photos below:
431
Kaneca Pompey, Contract Planner
Tyler Eaton, Senior Planner
Richard Mollica, Planning Director
Planning Commission
March 18, 2024

(Staff Report at p. 78.) Despite this evidence, the Supplemental Staff Report, which was apparently prepared in part to address Ms. Ericson’s concerns over proper Project setbacks from native trees, did not mention or assess the oak trees. Neither the Read Inventory or the desktop City Biologist Review discuss the oak trees on and/or adjacent to the Project site. The public and this Commission now don’t know what the dripline canopies of these protected trees are because Ms.

Read, the City Biologist, and planning staff all ignored their existence.

Coast live oak (Quercus agrifoli) grow up to 70 feet high.2 A majority of coast live oaks that fail are on residential sites, and they “fail[] most frequently at the root system.” 3 Human activity, including
“both cutting and filling, [are] frequently associated with the failures of native oaks.”4“Reduced gas exchange under compacted soil or fill conditions has been shown to correlate with decline symptoms in oaks (MacDonald et al. 1993)… . . . Cut roots as a result of grade modification operations may also expose entry avenues for disease organisms.”5Importantly, “many oak roots are relatively shallow and extend outward from the root crown, reaching some distance beyond the tree’s drip line.” (Italics added.)6It is advised to estimate an oak’s root zone “as extending out at least one-third farther than the distance to the drip line.” 7 Considering the above information, as
2 Roger Edberg & Alison Berry. 1999. Patterns of Structural Failures in Urban Trees: Coast Live Oak (Quercus Agrifolia). Journal of Arboriculture 25(1) pp. 48-55, available at <request-libre.pdf (d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net)> (as of March 18, 2024). 3 Id.
4 Id.
5 Id.
6 Douglas D. McCreary. 2011. Living Among the Oaks: A Management Guide for Woodland Owners and Managers. University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California Oak Woodland Conservation Workgroup, available at <https://anrcatalog.ucanr.edu/pdf/21538.pdf> (as of March 18, 2024). 7 Id.
432
Kaneca Pompey, Contract Planner
Tyler Eaton, Senior Planner
Richard Mollica, Planning Director
Planning Commission
March 18, 2024

well as the MLIP’s purpose “to provide for the protection and preservation of…native trees” including oak tree species (MLIP, § 5.1), Ms. Read’s, the City Biologist’s, and planning staff’s failure to identify or discuss the oak trees present on and/or adjacent to the Project site cries out loudly for due diligence. An adequate, science-based biological study must be performed before any CDP application for the 30053 Harvester Road is presented to this Commission. Desktop site “surveys” lead to Mickey Mouse mitigation measures. This is not what the MLCP intended or requires.

As noted earlier, before this Commission may approve a CDP, MLIP section 13.9 requires that the project presented to it be the least environmentally damaging alternative. The Staff Report claims to have considered an “Alternative Location Onsite,” but it only suggests that “[t]he applicant could have proposed a smaller, single-story home to avoid the SPR [site plan review] for height over 18 feet.” (Staff Report at p. 9.) The Staff Report then summarily concludes that “there are no project alternatives that would provide a significant benefit to the environment compared to the proposed project.” (Id.) This alternatives “review” does not even come close to court-mandated reasonableness standards. The notion that there exists no environmentally less damaging alternative beside a one-story house makes no sense. How about an alternative where development is scaled back enough from onsite and offsite protected trees to avoid harm or loss thereof and allow them to continue to function as habitat for the wildlife species that have been observed onsite and in the vicinity? Neither the Staff Report nor the Supplemental Staff Report address this simple alternative because planning staff and the City Biologist failed to independently verify the information contained in the applicant-funded Read Inventory.

ESHA
The Staff Report (at p. 2) relies on Ms. Read’s conclusion that “no ESHA, including a stream, exists on or adjacent to the property.” The Staff Report also concludes, for purposes of the MLIP section

13.9 findings, that “[t]he subject property is not in a designated ESHA or ESHA buffer as shown on the LCP ESHA and Marine Resources Map [and] [t]hus, review by the Environmental Review Board was not required.” (Id. at p. 10.) However, the MLIP provides that “those areas not mapped as ESHA, but found to be ESHA under the provisions of Section 4.3,” are also protected as ESHA under Chapter 4 of the MLIP. (MLIP, § 4.2, italics added.) As shown by emails on file with planning staff and meeting minutes (Exhibits 2, 3, and 4), in 2020 and 2021, when Ms. Ericson and her architect, Michael Burke, were planning to rebuild Ms.

Ericson’s house at 30069 Harvester Road after the Woolsey Fire, Assistant Planner Philip Coronel and Planning Director Richard Mollica asked Mr. Burke to avoid the sloped portion on the eastern 433
Kaneca Pompey, Contract Planner
Tyler Eaton, Senior Planner
Richard Mollica, Planning Director
Planning Commission
March 18, 2024

border of the property because “it is considered ESHA.” Now, for this Project bordering on the same ESHA, planning staff rely entirely on the deficient Read Inventory to conclude that the same area is not ESHA -- “Our Biologist, Courtney McCammon, issued preliminary approval on the project stating that no ESHA exists on the subject parcel.” (Supplemental Staff Report at p. 43.) But the City Biologist did not visit the site. What has changed in the space of just a couple of years other than the identity of the Project applicant?
CEQA
Finally, the Staff Report (at p. 15) asserts that “the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Sections 15303(a) and (e) - New Construction [and] [t]he Planning Department has further determined that none of the six exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption apply to this project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2).” The Staff Report offers no clue why none of the six exceptions to this Class 3 CEQA categorical exemption apply to the Project. Of particular note is the following exception:
“(a) Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located--a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply in all instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies.”
(CEQA Guidelines, § 15300.2, subd. (a), italics added.) It is important to note that the CEQA Guidelines describe the Santa Monica Mountains Zone and the California Coastal Zone, both of which are designated, mapped, and adopted by the state, as “areas of critical environmental sensitivity.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15206, subd. (b)(4)(B) & (C).) The Project lies within both the Santa Monica Mountains Zone and the California Coastal Zone. How, then, did staff determine that this exception to the Class 3 CEQA categorical exemption does not apply to this Project? Conclusion
We have herein documented several of city staff’s analytical and observational deficiencies and unsupported conclusions bearing on the Project’s compliance with the MLCP and CEQA. It will be inappropriate for the Commission to approve CDP No. 23-019 for the current Project’s design and setbacks in relation to the ignored and unanalyzed native trees, streambed and ESHA. We ask that the Commission either deny the CDP or continue the Item to a date uncertain to allow for 434
Kaneca Pompey, Contract Planner
Tyler Eaton, Senior Planner
Richard Mollica, Planning Director
Planning Commission
March 18, 2024

comprehensive biological study and full consideration of alternative site planning to prevent damage to the native trees and protect ESHA.

Sincerely,

ANGEL LAW
Frank Angel
Cooper Kass
cc: Kraig Hill, Chair
John Mazza, Vice Chair
Drew Leonard
Skylar Peak
Dennis Robert Smith
435
March 17, 2024
To whom it may concern:

I visited, observed, and documented the habitat and species along the unclear property line between 30053 and 30069 Harvester Road in Malibu on the morning of March 15, 2024. Over the course of approximately

1.5 hours, I observed numerous native plant and animal species including multiple native trees which are protected by the City of Malibu. Additionally, I believe this area may qualify as an ESHA (Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area) due to its nature as an ephemeral stream. I urge you to consider soliciting a more indepth biological survey of the area to better quantify its resources and determine any applicable protections.

During my site visit I identified various native and non-native species present. Native plant species included Toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), Southern black walnut (Juglans californica), Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia), Sycamore (Platanus racemosa), Elderberry (Sambucus mexicana/caerulea), Wild cucumber (Marah sp.), Holly Leaf Cherry (Prunus illicifolia), Prickly pear (Opuntia sp.), and Laurel sumac (Malosma laurina). The first four species of this list are protected by the Native Tree Protection Ordinance (NTPO) of the City of Malibu LCP Local Implementation Plan. The biological inventory conducted by E Read and Associates, Inc., concluded that only a singular immature toyon and sycamore were found on the property, which implies that they are too small to be protected by the NTPO. However, my visit to the 30053 Harvester Road property showed that it is home to multiple species and multiple individuals meet the size requirement1 to be protected by the NTPO. I suggest that a new inventory is conducted using more accurate property lines and land surveying, and data is collected on tree size for every individual. I approve of the ESHA zone plant inventory map on page 4 of the attachment here.

Native animal species I observed on site include the Cooper’s Hawk, American Crow, multiple Monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus), Swallowtail butterfly (Papilio sp.), Cabbage white butterfly (Pieris rapae), Blues (Subfamily Polyommatinae), and a unidentified rodent sp. This area acts as breeding habitat for birds, as I observed an American Crow exhibiting nesting behavior by carrying sticks into the tree canopy. This site has previously provided habitat to some listed species2 such as mountain lions, as the neighboring Ericson family has reported visitation by them in the past. The presence of monarch butterflies and eucalyptus trees may suggest overwintering monarch populations in years past. The moist habitat makes it potentially suitable for amphibians. From the species assemblage I observed over a small fraction of the day, I believe that this is important habitat for a variety of native species.

This site acts as a drainage for the higher elevation parts of the watershed to the north of the property.

Despite some drainage diversions implemented over the past few years, this area likely still acts as a seasonal, ephemeral catchment and supports some riparian vegetation. This may meet the Malibu LIP definition of “stream”3 which would qualify the site as an ESHA. Due to the biological value of this area, I strongly encourage you to reevaluate the site and its protections in the face of urbanization.

Please consider my credentials and experience in the environmental field as as support for my claims. I am Staff Ecologist at Channel Islands Restoration, a nonprofit for planning and implementing ecological restoration projects in and around the counties of Santa Barbara, Ventura, and Los Angeles as well as the Channel Islands. CIR is currently working in LA County at the Ballona Wetlands, the Angeles National Forest, and the Malibu Jewish Center. I hold a Bachelors in Ecology and Evolution (UCSB 2021) and a Masters in Environmental Science in Management (Bren School at UCSB, 2023).

Sincerely,
Lauren Harris, Staff Ecologist, Channel Islands Restoration 436

1. “At least one trunk measuring six inches or more in diameter, or a combination of any two trunks measuring a total of eight inches or more in diameter, measured at four and one-half feet above natural grade.” Chapter 5, Native Tree Protection Ordinance (NTPO), City of Malibu LCP Local Implementation Plan

2. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). January 2024. State and Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Animals of California. California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Sacramento, CA

3. “STREAM - is a topographic feature that at least periodically conveys water through a bed or channel having banks. This includes watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation.” Chapter 2, Definitions, City of Malibu LCP Local Implementation Plan
437
438
Michael Burke & Associates Architects 6079 Paseo Canyon Dr.

Malibu, CA 90265
(909) 557-3052
[email protected]
1 Meeting Minutes
To: Dawn Ericson, Dominique Navarro, Richard Mollica, Aakash Shah From: Michael Burke, Architect
CC:

Date: 5/26/20
Re: Fire Rebuild Planning Meeting Minutes 30069 Harvester Road, Malibu Attendees: Dawn Ericson
Dominique Navarro
Richard Mollica
Aakash Shah
Michael Burke
Location: 30069 Harvester Road ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ These minutes represent what was stated at the introductory meeting, and what actions are suggested prior to the next meeting.

Michael Burke explained the project as a replacement home for the prior residence destroyed by the Woolsey Fire in 2018. The owners are just getting started on the design and wanted to review the process with Malibu Planning.

Richard Mollica stated the mass of the home is grand-fathered into the site and the new design should be as similar as possible to the original. Dawn Ericson stated she would like the home to be the same square footage.

Dawn Ericson stated she would like to move the house further to the east at the suggestion of the fire department. The fire department informed her the prior home was very close to the western property line and power lines to properly defend. MB suggested the house should be moved at least 10 feet to the east, any further would put the home on a slope. The slope would require more complex engineering. The house could also be made thinner to help increase the distance to the western property line with a minimal push toward the east.

Richard stated a sideyard setback of 10% is usually required, but due to the 350 foot lot width, and ESHA, that would be problematic.

Richard explained they would need to have the driveway widened to 20 feet to meet LA Fire regulations. Other regulations for the driveway would also apply regarding slope and materials used per the fire dept. Due to the length, a turn-around might need to be provided. Richard stated a sketch should be sent to Chris or Jackie at LA Fire.

Dawn Ericson stated that a Fire Department meeting took place at the City last spring 2019, and we were told that a 15 foot driveway may be acceptable for our property, but that a turn around is needed.

Richard stated we also need to do a Water and Access Submittal. A fire flow may be required from the nearest hydrant. The water provider would need to be contacted for that issue. 439
Michael Burke & Associates Architects 6079 Paseo Canyon Dr.

Malibu, CA 90265
(909) 557-3052
[email protected]
2 The new house will need to be fire-sprinklered.

Richard stated we would need to meet with Environmental Health to discuss the amount of plumbing fixtures that are allowed in the proposed home. *A written program for the house was provided at this meeting and a recent survey was recently done and provided at the meeting for discussion.

Next Steps:

MB to develop the drawings for a Planning Submittal.

DE and DN will need to contact Water District regarding a fire flow test.

MB will contact LA Fire for a preliminary review of the site for access.

The foregoing represents our understanding of the matters discussed and the conclusions reached. Please review these minutes and notify me in writing of any error or omission within five (5) days.

Michael Burke, NCARB
Architect
Michael Burke and Associates Architects
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
From: Lester Tobias
To: Rebecca Evans; Paul Philipson; andrea slosberg-philipson Subject: 30053 HARVESTER: clarification
Date: Monday, March 18, 2024 11:07:00 AM
Dear Commissioners,
I wanted to clarify the advice I gave to my friends and clients, the Philipsons, and to which they referred in their correspondence on this matter.

When I first saw the site plan for the proposed project and looked at the elevations, it did, in fact, seem "innocuous", in that most of the structure up against the joint property line with the Philipsons was seemingly one story, and there were no large windows that would be peering into their home.

Not being in favor of torpedoing residential projects in Malibu, I painted a rather sympathetic view of the architect and the project to the Philipsons.

But when I saw the story poles I realized that this project will have severe impacts on the Pilipsons, while the owner of the new house will never even know that there is a house next door.

The problem is that neither the survey nor the site plan shows the Philipson's house, which is required per the CDP checklist. Had the Philipson's house appeared on the plans, the problem would have been obvious. This could have led to a real Feasible Design Alternatives study, as opposed to the boilerplate dismissal that appears in the staff report.

I am not saying that the project as designed violates any codes. However, it is my opinion that the staff report is flawed, as it failed to require the Philipson's house to be delineated on both the survey and site plan, and that no meaningful feasible alternative designs were required of the applicant. Had these two items been part of the process, I think the Philipsons would have had the possibility of a more neighborly design next door.

LT
--
Lester Tobias, Principal
Tobias Architecture, Incorporated
29160 Heathercliff, Suite 400
Malibu, California 90265
(310) 317-0507
NCARB #101162
California Architect's License C22552
Montana Architect's License ARC-20223
447
From: Lester Tobias
To: Rebecca Evans; Paul Philipson; andrea slosberg-philipson Subject: 30053 HARVESTER: clarification
Date: Monday, March 18, 2024 11:07:00 AM
Dear Commissioners,
I wanted to clarify the advice I gave to my friends and clients, the Philipsons, and to which they referred in their correspondence on this matter.

When I first saw the site plan for the proposed project and looked at the elevations, it did, in fact, seem "innocuous", in that most of the structure up against the joint property line with the Philipsons was seemingly one story, and there were no large windows that would be peering into their home.

Not being in favor of torpedoing residential projects in Malibu, I painted a rather sympathetic view of the architect and the project to the Philipsons.

But when I saw the story poles I realized that this project will have severe impacts on the Pilipsons, while the owner of the new house will never even know that there is a house next door.

The problem is that neither the survey nor the site plan shows the Philipson's house, which is required per the CDP checklist. Had the Philipson's house appeared on the plans, the problem would have been obvious. This could have led to a real Feasible Design Alternatives study, as opposed to the boilerplate dismissal that appears in the staff report.

I am not saying that the project as designed violates any codes. However, it is my opinion that the staff report is flawed, as it failed to require the Philipson's house to be delineated on both the survey and site plan, and that no meaningful feasible alternative designs were required of the applicant. Had these two items been part of the process, I think the Philipsons would have had the possibility of a more neighborly design next door.

LT
--
Lester Tobias, Principal
Tobias Architecture, Incorporated
29160 Heathercliff, Suite 400
Malibu, California 90265
(310) 317-0507
NCARB #101162
California Architect's License C22552
Montana Architect's License ARC-20223
448
From: Stacy Clunies-Ross >
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 8:59 AM
To: K__ malibu planning
<[email protected]>
Subject: 30053 Harvester Rd. - Malibu Planning Commission Hearing Item #5A 3/4/24
RE: 30053 Harvester Rd. - Malibu Planning Commission Hearing Item #5A Dear Planning Commissioners,
We are writing in support of Steven Kent and the building of his new home on Harvester Rd.

We've known Steve for over 10 years. Craig met Steve through mutual friends and over the years has traveled extensively with him. We have all formed a very close friendship. We have also been fortunate enough to have him design two homes for us. One is a fire rebuild on Harvester, very near to Steve’s project, that will soon be our new family home. He has also designed a new home for my parents on Trancas Beach. Both home designs are exquisite.

We have seen the plans and renderings for Steve’s new home. We feel he is building a beautiful house appropriate for the Malibu Park neighborhood. I have lived in Malibu Park my entire life and my husband and I have raised our children here for the last 30 years. As long time Malibu residents, specifically Malibu Park, we appreciate the more rural aspects of our community. Steve been incredibly sensitive to keep his projects as aesthetically pleasing as possible, and to make sure they fit into the natural surroundings of Malibu Park. We believe that Steve’s house will complement the surrounding areas.

We hope you support this project, which will enable his family to live in our beautiful neighborhood.

Sincerely,
Craig and Stacy Clunies-Ross
Harvester Rd.

Malibu CA 90265
449
Stacy Clunies-Ross
Westside Estate Agency
CalBRE#01980245
Realtor®
Cell Phone:3
Email:
450
1 Planning Commission
From: Steve Kent <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 6:34 PM
To: Planning Commission
Cc: malibu planning
Subject: 30053 Harvester Rd. - 3/18/24 Malibu Planning Commission Hearing Item #5A Attachments: 30053 Harvester - ARCH Plans.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Commissioners,
I would appreciate the opportunity to meet with you on site to review the attached plans.

Please let me know what day and time works best for you.

Best,
Steve
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

S T E V E N K E N T A R C H I T E C T
310.293.3222
www.StevenKentAIA.com
451
452
453
DINING LIVING OPEN TREAD STAIR fireplace up cabinet BATH 1 wardrobe storage work bench mech. KITCHEN ENTRY bbq DRIVEWAY HALL POWDER planter GARAGE POOL SPA oven oven wine 20'-0" 14'-5" 10'-0" 32'-0" 8'-0" 30'-2" 10'-0" 32'-7" 23'-2" 3'-1" 26'-0" 2'-11" 8'-2" 4'-6" 10'-0" 7'-6" 8'-0" 10'-0" 2'-7" 10'-0" 13'-3" 5'-10" 4'-6"
8'-2" 51'-2" 21'-2"
6" step
6" step
6" step dn. mech. & pool equip. pad planter ref frez books fire
wood showerplanter planter BEDROOM 1 EL. +292.5 EL. +294.0 EL. +293.5 EL. +292.5 conc. steps on grade conc. deck conc. deck conc. deck see sheet A-3.1 for equip enclosure fencing detail pantry mech. A-2.1SCALE: 3/16"= 1'-0" 1st Floor Plan 1st FLOOR PLAN 1 REVISIONS Steven Kent Architects DATE: 18 August 2023 30053 Harvester Rd. MALIBU ARCHITECT Steven Kent 310.293.3222 [email protected] CA Lic. #C27000 APN 4469-009-010 North 454
OPEN TREAD STAIR dn. PRIMARY BEDROOM PRIMARY BATHROOM CLOSET 2 tub shower CLOSET 1 cabinet BATH 2 shower BEDROOM 2 HALL LAUNDRY planter BATH 3 DECK 20'-5" 15'-8" 19'-6" 5'-4" 6'-4" 8'-0"3'-8" 32'-0" 8'-0" 23'-8" 12'-8" 27'-5" 30'-0" 29'-6" 8'-0" 14'-6" 7'-6" 53'-2" A.D. A.D. shwr. skylight planter wardrobe 40'-1" 7'-6" BUILT-UP FLAT ROOF CLASS 'A' (TYP.) EL. +305.0 EL. +305.0 14"per ft. slope BEDROOM 3 A-2.2 SCALE: 3/16"= 1'-0" 2nd Floor Plan 2nd FLOOR PLAN 1 REVISIONS Steven Kent Architects DATE: 12 September 2023 30053 Harvester Rd. MALIBU ARCHITECT Steven Kent 310.293.3222 [email protected] CA Lic. #C27000 APN 4469-009-010 North 455
A-2.3 SCALE: 3/16"= 1'-0" Basement & Foundation Plan BASEMENT & FOUNDATION PLAN 1 REVISIONS Steven Kent Architects DATE: 18 August 2023 30053 Harvester Rd. MALIBU ARCHITECT Steven Kent 310.293.3222 [email protected] CA Lic. #C27000 APN 4469-009-010 North FOUNDATION up planter & window well pool table equip. closet emergency escape windows 44" above finish floor (as required by building & safety) projection screen
26'-4" 33'-1"
6'-8" 19'-4" 12'-9" MEDIA/GAME ROOM basement level EL. +282 emergency escape ladder 456
26'-8" 53'-2"
19'-6" 8'-0"3'-8" 32'-0" 8'-0" 53'-2" 12'-8" 27'-5"
30'-0" BUILT-UP FLAT ROOF CLASS 'A' (TYP.) 40'-1" skylight skylight TUBE STEEL PERGOLA ROOF EL. +305.0 GRADE EL. +291.1 ROOF EL. +315.5 GRADE EL. +295.75 ROOF EL. +315.5 GRADE EL. +303.9 ROOF EL. +315.5 GRADE EL. +304.9 ROOF EL. +315.5 GRADE EL. +294.0 ROOF EL. +305.0 GRADE EL. +289.4 ROOF EL. +315.5 GRADE EL. +292.5 ROOF EL. +315.5 GRADE EL. +294.0 ROOF EL. +315.5 GRADE EL. +293.5 ROOF EL. +315.5 GRADE EL. +304.0 LOW ROOF EL. +305.0 LOW ROOF EL. +305.0 NOTE: GRADE ELEVATIONS GIVEN ARE THE LOWEST OF EXISTING OR NEW EL.+315.5 14"per ft. slope (typ.) 14"per ft. slope (typ.) 14"per ft. slope (typ.) PERGOLA LOW ROOF EL. +305.0 A-2.4 SCALE: 3/16"= 1'-0" Roof Plan ROOF PLAN 1 REVISIONS Steven Kent Architects DATE: 18 August 2023 30053 Harvester Rd. MALIBU ARCHITECT Steven Kent 310.293.3222 [email protected] CA Lic. #C27000 APN 4469-009-010 North 457
YOGA STUDIO DECK storage closet cab. 17'-6" 10'-0"
23'-0" EL. +280
5' STEPS dn. GARAGE dn. LIVING ROOF
5' STEPS storage planter EL. +292 shwr. KITCHEN ref. LIVING oven fp deskDINING EL. +282.5 BEDROOM BATH EL. +282.5 up breezeway bbq planter planter wardrobe
19'-3" 33'-3"8'-0" 18'-0" 16'-8" 23'-10"
21'-0" w d Flat Roof 14"per ft. slope conc. deck A-2.5 SCALE: 3/16"= 1'-0" ADU & Accessory Plans SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" ADU 1st Floor Plan 1 REVISIONS Steven Kent Architects DATE: 18 August 2023 30053 Harvester Rd. MALIBU ARCHITECT Steven Kent 310.293.3222 [email protected] CA Lic. #C27000 APN 4469-009-010 North SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" ADU 2nd Floor Plan SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" Yoga Studio Floor Plan 458
FOUNDATION 32'-9"
19'-9" 18'-0"8'-0" LIVING ROOF BELOW FLAT ROOF 18'-0" 10'-0" 24'-0" LIVING ROOF 18'-0"
24'-0" 67'-10" NOTE: GRADE ELEVATIONS GIVEN ARE THE LOWEST OF EXISTING OR NEW ROOF EL. +303.5 GRADE EL. +289.3 ROOF EL. +303.5 GRADE EL. +282.5 ROOF EL. +294.5 GRADE EL. +288.6 ROOF EL. +294.5 GRADE EL. +282.5 ROOF EL. +294.5.5 GRADE EL. +282.5 TOP OF PLANTER WALL EL. +296.0 ROOF EL. +294.5 GRADE EL. +287.3 EL. +294.0 EL. +203.0 23'-10" 21'-0"
19'-3" 33'-3"8'-0" 15'-7" ROOF EL. +303.5 GRADE EL. +298.8 14"per ft. slope (typ.) ROOF EL. +303.5 GRADE EL. +282.5 A-2.6 SCALE: 3/16"= 1'-0" ADU-Accessory 1 REVISIONS Steven Kent Architects DATE: 18 August 2023 30053 Harvester Rd. MALIBU ARCHITECT Steven Kent 310.293.3222 [email protected] CA Lic. #C27000 APN 4469-009-010 North ADU Roof Plan ADU Foundation Plan Founadation & Roof Plans Yoga Studio Plan Yoga Studio Foundation Plan 459
460
461
462
SHEET
OF
SCALE:

DRAWN:

JOB No.: SUBMITTAL / REVISION Civil Engineering Land Surveying 4859 West Slauson Unit 625 Los Angeles, California 310.645.3205 whitsonengineers.com 1"=20'
MB
4621.00
C1.14 30053 HARVESTER ROAD CONCEPTUAL GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLANS FOR A PROPOSED SFR DRIVEWAY PLAN AND PROFILE SHEET MALIBU, CA 90265 APN 4469-009-010 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 5/23/23 MB MALIBU PLANNING & LACFD FIRE ACCESS & WATER E I N E S O N E W N I T H S G R FIRE DEPT. HAMMER-HEAD TURN-AROUND
463
Biological Inventory
30053 Harvester Rd
Malibu, CA
June 28, 2023
Prepared For:

Steven Kent
11906 Gorham Ave
Los Angeles, CA 90049
Prepared By:

Edith Read, PhD
E Read and Associates, Inc.

Orange, CA
(714) 366-8857
[email protected]
464
Biological Inventory 30053 Harvester Rd, Malibu
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROJECT DESCRIPTION.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 METHODS .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE.................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 SPECIAL STATUS HABITATS AND SPECIES ................................................................................................................................................................. 3 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................................................................................... 4 Figures (all follow Text)
Figure 1. Property Location ................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 2. Site Photographs of Vegetation.......................................................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 4a. Historical Topography and Current Conditions: West Side ...................................................................................................... 7 Figure 4b. Historical Topography and Current Conditions: East Side.......................................................................................................... 8 Figure 5. ESHA Boundaries Relative to Property Location.............................................................................................................................. 9

465
Biological Inventory 30053 Harvester Rd, Malibu
3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This report provides an inventory of biological resources on 30053 Harvester Road in the City of Malibu (APN 4469-009-010; Figure 1). The property is currently vacant.

METHODS
Review of resource information relevant to evaluating biological resources and potential for special status species was conducted for guidance in the field and discussion in this report. This information consisted of aerial photographs, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) maps, the City’s database of locations of sensitive habitat in the region, and the June, 2023 update of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). Regional CNDDB data were overlaid onto a map using Geographic Information System (GIS) software.

The field survey was conducted by E. Read on June 15, 2023.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Vegetation and Wildlife
Vegetation on the property consists of non-native annual grassland dominated by wild oats (Avena spp.). Sometime prior to the survey, this vegetation had been mowed for fire hazard abatement purposes, so species were identified based on leaves and fruiting material. Figure 2 provides photographs representing vegetation on the property and more detail regarding plant species observed.

Wildlife detected during the survey consisted of pocket gopher (Thomoys bottae, evidenced by burrows), coyote (Canis latrans, evidenced by scat), eastern fox squirrel (Sciurus niger), and spotted towhee (Pipilo maculatus). No raptor nests were observed in the trees adjacent to the property.

Special Status Habitats and Species
Streambeds. Figures 4a and 4b show two off-site gullies. These gullies are not indicated as “blueline” streambeds on the historical USGS map and their hydrologic regimes are best characterized as ephemeral. No wetland conditions were observed during the survey, and with the exception of an immature sycamore and toyon in the west gully, the dominant vegetation consists of non-native landscape species. Flows from these gullies are conveyed through small underground culverts into storm drains on the property to the south. Openings of the culverts were observed to be clear on the day of the survey, and it can be expected that these culverts are routinely kept clear to avoid flooding.

As can be seen in the figures, the USGS map shows an unnamed “blue-line” intermittent streambed east of the property but its location is more than 1,000 feet from the property line.

Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA). Figure 5 shows the City-mapped ESHA relative to the property location. No ESHA or feature qualifying as ESHA is located on or within 200 feet of the property.
466
Biological Inventory 30053 Harvester Rd, Malibu
4 Special Status Species. No special status species would be expected to occur on the property due to lack of suitable habitat. Similarly, no raptors would be expected to nest on the property. No native or protected trees are present on the property itself.

POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Development of the property, including landscaping with a fuel modification zone, would not impact special status species or protected habitats, including wetlands. Measures that the City already requires as conditions of development, such as controlling runoff and trash, and avoiding planting invasive vegetation, will be sufficient to protect the adjacent off-site gullies and biological resources of the area. No additional surveys or studies are warranted at this time. 467
Biological Inventory 30053 Harvester Rd, Malibu
5 Figure 1. Property Location
468
Biological Inventory 30053 Harvester Rd, Malibu
6 Above: views north and east from Harvester Rd. The shrubby plant in the foreground is castor bean (Ricinis communis), an invasive non-native species. Eucalyptus trees in the background are on the adjacent property.

Below: views south and west from northern property line. As in the other photographs, mature vegetation consisting primarily of eucalyptus is on the adjacent property. The small pruned shrub in middle photograph is castor bean.

See Figure 3 for additional photographs related to adjacent (off-site) conditions.

Figure 2. Site Photographs of Vegetation
469
Biological Inventory 30053 Harvester Rd, Malibu
7 Top photo shows an immature western sycamore (Platanus racemosa) and toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia) associated with a gully off-site on the adjacent property and upslope from a small culvert (bottom photo). No wetland vegetation was observed.

Figure 4a. Historical Topography and Current Conditions: West Side 470
Biological Inventory 30053 Harvester Rd, Malibu
8 Photo above left is a view to the north showing the eastern off-site gully. No wetland was observed.

Figure 4b. Historical Topography and Current Conditions: East Side 471
Biological Inventory 30053 Harvester Rd, Malibu
9 Brown polygons indicate City-mapped ESHA boundaries. Arrow indicates property location.

Figure 5. ESHA Boundaries Relative to Property Location 472
473
From: Steve Kent
To: Planning Commission
Subject: 30053 Harvester #5A
Date: Monday, March 18, 2024 3:49:33 PM
Attachments: 30053 Harvester topo site plan.pdf
Dear Commissioners,
This in response to the letter just received by Lester Tobias regarding my project, and also the letter received today by the Philipsons.

First of all, the Philipson's house footprint was shown on my topo site plan throughout the entire planning process for the past year, and the subject never came up. This is because my project 100% meets the required setbacks per the Malibu zoning code.

The fact that the Philipsons got a break with a reduced setback should not penalize me and inhibit my ability to build within the planning code. The houses are nearly 30 ft. apart and nothing unique to Malibu Park, where there are dozens of examples of homes with less distance apart.

Although the Philipson's are pleading their case for separating the houses more because of fire danger, they have asked me several times if I would consider keeping the large eucalyptus and pine trees in the side yard separating our homes. Of course, these trees are a big fire hazard, so I do not believe the Philipson's claims are sincere.

When I made the final PDF prints of the plans for the hearing tonight and gave them to planning, the layer showing the Ericsons house was inadvertently turned off. Attached is the topo site plan with their house shown as it was during the entire planning approval process.

Please note that according to my survey, the Philipson's house is 1 ft. further from the property line than shown on Lester Tobias's plan.

Best,
Steve

S T E V E N K E N T A R C H I T E C T
310.293.3222
www.StevenKentAIA.com
474
475
From: Steve Kent
To: Planning Commission
Subject: 30053 Harvester #5A
Date: Monday, March 18, 2024 4:35:34 PM
Dear Commissioners,
This is in response to the letter received today by Dawn Ericson maliciously trying to derail my project on very questionable grounds, which amounts to a bunch of nonsense.

Ms. Ericson stated that she had a landscaper friend walk the property with a GPS phone app.

This is a complete joke and I hope that you do not take this sort of thing seriously. Of course I have a very accurate survey done by a professional licensed surveyor, who actually knows where the property corners are and where the fence is located.

My surveyor checked the information and said the fence is very close to the property line, and nowhere near being 4 ft. off, as Ms. Ericson's landscaper friend and his GPS phone app assert (just FYI, handheld GPS devices are routinely off by several feet and can have tolerances of 10' and greater). My surveyor also has aerial imagery of the trees, and where the trunks are in relation to the property line.

The bottom line is that my property has no protected trees, and that fact has not changed.

When my very well respected registered biologist Edith Read did her inventory, it was focused on my property and not the neighbors. Edith found no native protected trees on my property and no ESHA or stream.

The Malibu city biologist has also confirmed that there is no ESHA or stream and is not mapped as ESHA or stream. It would be a grave mistake for the city to change its mind on this after I have done all of my due diligence purchasing the property and getting approvals/ entitlements.

Best,
Steve

S T E V E N K E N T A R C H I T E C T
310.293.3222
www.StevenKentAIA.com
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
From: andrea slosberg-philipson
To: Rebecca Evans; Planning Commission
Cc: Paul Philipson
Subject: 30053 Harvester continuance
Date: Tuesday, March 19, 2024 1:37:57 PM
Dear Planning Commission,
Thank you for your service in addressing the many interests in Malibu. I attended the ZOOM meeting last night and sent a letter earlier in the day.

The difficulty for residents who are not steeped in the knowledge, language or vast requirements needed to acquire a building permit, we were not fully aware of either our rights or our ability to comment on how our neighborhood is developing and we sought guidance. A 5 day window to respond to the staff report is a narrow window if you are not fully educated on these matters. We hope this addresses the comments about receiving things at the last minute and we are afraid our information was not completely read, digested or held weight for last night's meeting.

We love Malibu Park, we love our home and feel the utmost respect for the environment and community. Our 3 children all graduated from Malibu High School and I have been a credential substitute teacher in the district for 13 years. This connection to Malibu is something we all share and appreciate for so many reasons.

I would like to respond to some of the issues that arose last night and resulted in a continuance for 30053 Harvester Rd.

The issue of the neighbor's ESHA took most of the discussion and our simple request was barely even acknowledged. The submitted plan "approved" by the Staff Report was not complete and did NOT include the required site plan showing our home and you were not aware of the true situation that exists on our common border. We have stated we are not opposed to the plans to build, but that our existing structure should bear some equity in this situation. The regulations were not followed and no-one acknowledged that the details/plans submitted were not the full story here.

I implore you all to please arrange a convenient time to come out to Harvester and walk the line on our common border with us to actually see and understand our concerns. Please grant us equity in your valuable time before you make any decisions at the next meeting.

I have researched the homes in our area as to the shared setbacks of neighbors and there are 0 (zero) that are under 30'. In fact, our home would be the only situation which would exist if we are not granted a larger setback. We requested the side of

20.3" to be applied on our border, a mere 7' extra space in a neighborhood of nothing under 60'. This plan, unless adjusted, is not in keeping with the "neighborhood character" and would in fact be outrageously out of place. Again, we are simply asking for a setback adjustment on our common border which would be completely 493
warranted.

We experienced some flickerings of disdain when defensible space was mentioned and it is disheartening to feel that the commissioners would not provide the sensitivity to the many sides and experiences of residents who support a thriving Malibu. Of course, everyone feels their situation is unique, but we are requesting equity and for you to come out to see the situation in real life, as they say.

Mr. Kent misrepresented what Lester Tobias said at the meeting. Lester wrote a letter you may not have had a chance to review before the meeting, which was the true assessment of the plans. Please review his letter in context as you have allowed more consideration for the proposed project at 30053 Harvester.

We support Mr. Kent, we welcome him to our neighborhood, however we are here now and we deserve the same consideration and ability to continue to live happily and feel safe in our home. We look forward to meeting you at Harvester, at your earliest convenience and we look forward to supporting our community in making thoughtful and equitable decisions for Malibu.

We understand the unresolved issue of the other neighbor's opposition and we do not want to be brushed aside because this was the only item really discussed. We are requesting a way to be kept in the loop about any resolutions that may come on that border and how it will impact the proposed plans so that we may address any changes made.

We also are requesting Mr. Kent have a construction plan for staging, set-up & workers' parking in place due to the already stated issue of NO street parking on that narrow area on Harvester Rd.

Thank you again for your time and please confirm when we can meet.

Kind Regards,
Andrea & Paul Philipson
(cell)
494
From: andrea slosberg-philipson
To: Richard Mollica; Rebecca Evans; Planning Commission; Paul Philipson; Tyler Eaton Subject: Neighborhood character
Date: Monday, March 25, 2024 1:40:45 PM
Dear Mr. Eaton and Mr. Mollica,
We are responding to the continuance of the proposed building permit at 30053 Harvester Rd.

It is our understanding that proposed structures over 18 feet in height require a Site Plan review, and to approve the project, three findings must be made. One of those findings is that the project does not adversely affect neighborhood character.

We would first like to note that in your final report, you have eliminated the findings in your discussion of the site plan review, and we find that concerning.However, in the original staff report, you state that, "Based on the existing development within the surrounding neighborhood, the proposed project is expected to blend with the surrounding built environment."
We disagree with this assertion on three "characteristics".The first is the size of the project.The second is the number of buildings on the site.The third is the orientation of the proposed structures.

STRUCTURE SIZE(S):

The proposed development is 6,852 square feet of Total Development Square Footage. Including the 940 square foot basement yields a total development size of 7,792 square feet.

Regarding the 6,852 square feet of TDSF, that number is just shy of the maximum developable square footage of 7,043 square feet.It is 97% of TDSF max.

A one hour surf of the city's ONBASE portal and the LA County GIS website yielded 8 neighboring properties in the immediate vicinity whose sizes could be easily determined. All of them are SIGNIFICANTLY less than the 7,800 square feet that is being proposed, yet you assure us that a compound of buildings more than 3X larger than most of the surrounding homes will "blend in".

We disagree.

NUMBER OF STRUCTURES:

The proposed project contains either 4 or 5 structures, depending on how the ADU is ultimately parceled out.No other neighboring residence has more than two independent structures.

Again, how does this blend in?
STRUCTURE ORIENTATION:

An aerial tour of the neighborhood via the LA County GIS portal suggests that most, if not all of the homes in that area are oriented with the varied topography running through Malibu Park.

The proposed project is aligned with the property lines, completely ignoring the topography.

It will not blend in, especially if you consider our
house.
495
Regarding our house, although it was "accidentally" removed from every one of Mr.

Kent's site plans, the civil plans in the staff report do show our house.The relationship of Mr. Kent's long box, oriented with no concern or respect for either the natural contours of the site or our house is shocking.Mr. Kent stated that you had seen the relationship of the two houses during the entire review process. If that is true, are you not concerned about an architect, with an entire buildable envelope at his disposal (and now unknown ESHA status?, no unbuildable slopes) who would ignore both the natural contours of the site and the only neighbor within a hundred feet when designing his home?
We must insist that you require Mr. Kent to provide the commission with a neighborhood character analysis.It will show that:

1. The project is not a house.It is a compound, and the site is not suitable for a compound.

2. The project is substantially larger than the surrounding homes, and that it will not blend in, but rather will stand out, and remarkably so.

3. The project fails to design with the natural contours, which is not in keeping with the character of the other homes in the surrounding vicinity.

In Malibu, structures higher than 18 feet are not a right.

They are a privilege that
requires findings.If the findings can not be made, the height of the structure must come down to 18 feet.

We think that it is obvious that in order to bring this project into compliance with the findings, the project must be redesigned to have fewer structures, be significantly reduced in size, and be relocated on the property in a manner that respects our house, which has been part of the neighborhood character for 50 years.

Please address our concerns about the proposed permit and we would appreciate a response.

Kind Regards,
Andrea and Paul Philipson
496
March 5, 2024
To City of Malibu,
My name is Bruce Bates and I live at Cuthbert Road, Malibu with my family. I have been a resident of Malibu since 1971 and we recently completed our fire rebuild a�er losing our home in the Woolsey Fire.

I am wri�ng in support of our prospec�ve new neighbor Steve Kent who is applying for a permit to construct his home on 30053 Harvester Road. His property borders mine and sits directly in front. With the loss of so many homes in our neighborhood due to the fire there has been a concern that our family centered community would be undermined by lots purchased by investors who would replace the homes with mansions to be sold for profit. I was pleasantly surprised to learn that Jack would be construc�ng a reasonable sized home that he planned to live in. Jack shared his plans with me, and his home is beau�fully designed and fits harmoniously into the hillside. I believe that this type of project, with its size and aesthe�cs, contributes to the family community that Malibu Park is struggling to maintain. I encourage you to approve the project and support the return of our neighborhood.

Sincerely,
Bruce Bates
497
March 5, 2024
To City of Malibu,
My name is Bruce Bates and I live at Cuthbert Road, Malibu with my family. I have been a resident of Malibu since 1971 and we recently completed our fire rebuild a�er losing our home in the Woolsey Fire.

I am wri�ng in support of our prospec�ve new neighbor Steve Kent who is applying for a permit to construct his home on 30053 Harvester Road. His property borders mine and sits directly in front. With the loss of so many homes in our neighborhood due to the fire there has been a concern that our family centered community would be undermined by lots purchased by investors who would replace the homes with mansions to be sold for profit. I was pleasantly surprised to learn that Steve would be construc�ng a reasonable sized home that he planned to live in. Steve shared his plans with me, and his home is beau�fully designed and fits harmoniously into the hillside. I believe that this type of project, with its size and aesthe�cs, contributes to the family community that Malibu Park is struggling to maintain. I encourage you to approve the project and support the return of our neighborhood.

Sincerely,
Bruce Bates
498
From: Dawn Ericson
To: Planning Commission; Patricia Salazar
Subject: FACTS: Developer Kent Steven vs Resident Dawn Ericson Date: Monday, April 1, 2024 7:52:38 AM
Good morning Rebecca,
Please immediately forward this email communications to the Planning Commissioners, With regards, Dawn Ericson
From: Dawn Ericson and Dominique Navarro

HARVESTER ROAD
Subject: ESHA SETBACKS
To: PLANNING COMMISSION,
FACTS for your consideration for the April 15 meeting.
30053 Developer Kent Stevens vs
Residents Ericson & Navarro
Commissioners, this is your choice between the Developer and our Malibu natural environment:
#1. FACT: The City of Malibu determined in 2020-2023 that the 1.7 acre parcel – 30069 Harvester Road, required ESHA setbacks for rebuilding after the Woolsey Fire. These ESHA setbacks requirements are recorded within email communications between City Planners, the Architect and the property owners.These ESHA setbacks requirements are recorded on building site plans and within the final approved and ESHA restoration maps for the Fire Department.

In 2022 the City approved Building Plans with ESHA setbacks for the home of residents Ericson & Navarro.
#2. FACT: The Fire Department requested ESHA restoration with a diagram and native plant list.

In 2019 -2023 the Fire Department, at our first meeting and thereafter, and on-site, required us to clean and clear the ESHA (approximately 345 feet x 30 feet - 1 acre) of the Woolsey Fire burnt trees and debris before construction. Soil damage caused by the fire required tractor under tilling, suggested by the Fire Department and County of Los Angeles Weed Abatement. #3. FACT: ESHA restoration and clearing at Harvester Rd. is on-going, as requested by the FIRE DEPARTMENT.
#4. FACT: There are no survey makers between 30053 and Harvester Rd. to indicate which native plants are on both sides or which side of the adjacent ESHA. #5. FACT: Developer Steven’s ADU diagram/plan does not show the Fire Department's easement ways or the required fire clearances within the ESHA area.

QUESTION: Is the Fire Department requiring mandatory fire clearance of native trees in the Steven’s ESHA?
499
#6. FACT: the ADU’s leach field drains directly into the ESHA’s watershed where water pools during heavy rains, next to Harvester Road and on Developer Steven’s property. #7. FACT: Skylar Peaks visited the Harvester Road, ESHA site on March 26. #8: FACT: Richard Mollica met with Dawn N Ericson and Dominique Navarro for a 30 minute meeting on March 28.
#9. FACT: Richard Mollica and Skylar Peaks recommended Dawn Ericson speak to Developer Steven via a phone call or in person. Mr. Mollica was give permission to provide Mr. Steven with D. Ericson phone number.

Dawn N Ericson
Resident of Malibu for 50 years
Harvester Road
2019-2023 Woolsey Fire Rebuild
500
From: Dawn Ericson
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Fire Department ESHA map Harveter Road
Date: Monday, April 1, 2024 10:35:12 AM
From: Dawn Ericson and Dominique Navarro

HARVESTER ROAD
Subject: ESHA SETBACKS
To: PLANNING COMMISSION,
FIRE DEPARTMENT expectation:
30053 Developer Kent Stevens vs
Residents Ericson & Navarro
Commissioners, this is your choice between the Developer and our Malibu natural environment:
#2. FACT: The Fire Department requested ESHA restoration with a diagram and native plant list.

In 2019 -2023 the Fire Department, at our first meeting and thereafter, and on-site, required us to clean and clear the ESHA (approximately 345 feet x 30 feet - 1 acre) of the Woolsey Fire burnt trees and debris before construction. Soil damage caused by the fire required tractor under tilling, suggested by the Fire Department and County of Los Angeles Weed Abatement. #3. FACT: ESHA restoration and clearing at Harvester Rd. is on-going, as requested by the FIRE DEPARTMENT.
501
502
From: Dawn Ericson
To: Richard Mollica; Tyler Eaton; Courtney McCammon; Frank Angelat Cc: Planning Commission
Subject: Follow-up, Mc Cammon visit to Harvester Road
Date: Monday, April 1, 2024 2:35:48 PM
Attachments: CITY ESHA MAP Disclaimer.png
Hello Richard,
We were expecting Courtney Mc Cammon to review the whole ESHA on-site this week at Harvester Road, as you suggested at Thursday’s meeting.

I would like to make an acquaintance with Courtney, but a premature - counter meeting (below email) may only validate Edith Read’s report from a one-sided ESHA viewpoint.

May we request more than one unbiased professional biology inventory reports of the whole ESHA on both parcels, a report with diagrams of (1) location and (2) sizes of native plants such as the Oak trees, Toyons, Sycamores and the Walnut trees? This is required to clarify and document the ESHA’s protected plant species for the April 15 meeting.

I have spoken to two more Planning Commissioners who need whole ESHA reports and detailed FACTS to determine this issue.

As we also discussed, the CITY ESHA MAP_ Disclaimer (clip below:)*Boundaries of ESHAs may change location over time due to varying circumstances. This map is not intended to depict fixed boundaries of ESHAs or marine resources and may not include all areas that are ESHA. This map does not establish any final boundary lines or constraints on the Commission's ability to identify, map and regulate ESHAs and Marine Resources in the City of Malibu.

Again, thank you for your on-going attention to this Malibu ESHA issue.

With regards,
Dawn Ericson
Harvester Road
503
On Apr 1, 2024, at 12:52 PM, Courtney McCammon
<[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Dawn,
Thank you for your email and notes. Please feel free to come into any counter hours on Tuesdays from 9-11AM to meet with me.

Thank you,
c
-----Original Message-----
From: Dawn Ericson < >
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2024 5:28 PM
To: Courtney McCammon <[email protected]>
Cc: Richard Mollica <[email protected]>; Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>; Frank Angelat <[email protected]>; Cooper Kass <[email protected]>
Subject: Follow-up visit to Harvester Road
Hello Courtney,
504
We are sorry not to have had the opportunity to meet you yesterday with Richard.

I understand your one-day a week schedule..not easy to fit everything in.

Thank you for your visit to 30053, but i suspect you did not have the opportunity to walk along the fence “boundary” line due to heavy grasses and large plant obstacles.

Richard suggested you may visit the ESHA site at 3 Harvester Road, and see our viewpoint of this riparian corridor. On this side of the twisted fence is a friendly well used trail. We hope to meet you soon.

May we please bring to your attention, the ADU which is proposed by Mr. Steven has it’s leach-field within the wettest area of the watershed. Heavy rains, such as this year, delayed drainage and the small stream area remains wet. Water often pools next to the Harvester Rd at this drainage site and on the Steven’s property.

You will see many plants flourishing here. With a leach field only a few yards away… plants may grow year round?
With regards,
Dawn Ericson
505
1 Recycled Paper
City of Malibu

M E M O R A N D U M
To: Tyler Eaton, City of Malibu Planning
From: Courtney McCammon; Contract City Biologist
Date: March 26, 2024
Re: 30053 Harvester Road; CDP 23-019, Biology Review
The purpose of this memo is to provide an independent review of the biological resources on the project site, 30053 Harvester Road, following a site visit as requested by the Planning Commission.

The Contract City Biologist was required to visit the site following a Planning Commission hearing for the aforementioned project site. The site visit was conducted on the morning of Tuesday, March 26th, 2024, by Contract City Biologist, Courtney McCammon. The purpose of the site visit was to reconcile two differing biological opinions of the sites resources and provide an independent review.

Some caveats about this site visit include: no formal jurisdictional delineation was requested nor conducted; no formal tree survey was requested nor conducted (i.e. tree DBH was not taken).

Stream and ESHA Determination
City of Malibu Definition of a stream is “a topographic feature that at least periodically conveys water through a bed or channel having banks. This includes watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation”. Based on the site visit conducted at the 30053 Harvester Road project site, the area in question was not determined to be a stream by the City Biologist. The topographic feature likely “periodically conveys water” simply based on site characteristics of culverts at the presumably beginning and end of the feature (Cuthbert and Harvester). There is a culvert at the top of the topographic feature off Cuthbert where the runoff enters (Figure 1). Similarly, there is a culvert at the bottom of the topographic feature off Harvester Road (Figure 2). There is no indication of a stream northwest of Cuthbert nor is there indication of a stream southeast of Harvester. Though it may periodically covey water, no definable “bed or channel having banks” was observed during the site visit. Instead, the area where the water travels was observed as being contiguous with surrounding non-native vegetation (Figure 3). The majority of the vegetation found on site and in the immediate vicinity was non-native and certainly not riparian vegetation. Species observed included castor bean (highly invasive), Malva (mallow), carnation spurge, and black mustard (highly invasive). They are not considered riparian plants and are not restricted to areas with water.

EXHIBIT E
506
April 2, 2024
2 Recycled Paper
Figure 1. Looking southeast standing on Cuthbert onto the property (30053 Harvester). No definable bed and bank can be seen.

Figure 2. Looking southeast standing on Harvester Road. There is no indication of a stream on the adjacent property.

Story
Poles
507
April 2, 2024
3 Recycled Paper
Figure 3. The topographic feature that does not have a definable “bed or channel having banks” but instead is contiguous with the surrounding non-native grasses.

Native Protected Trees
Based on the site visit conducted by the City Biologist, a majority of the native tree species are on the adjacent property (30069 Harvester). For reasons explained below in the review of Frank Angel’s memo, the City Biologist does not believe that the native trees are naturally occurring save for one (1) coast live oak tree. This coast live oak tree (Figure 6 & 7) still exists on the adjacent property, 30069 Harvester, but the dripline extends into 30053 Harvester. The measurement shown in Figure 6 is from the trunk of the coast live oak to the closest corner of the proposed accessory structure at approximately 19.5 feet. There is one (1) sapling that is on the 30053 Harvester property that is likely not of a protected size (assumption based on size of tree).

The City Biologist only had access to the 30053 Harvester property so the trees existing on the adjacent property were not evaluated but could be seen from across the fence line. The trees are on the fence line between the properties or wholly within the 30069 Harvester property. However, they are also saplings and likely not of a protected size. Again, the City Biologist did not take DBH measurements and did not have access to the adjacent property. 508
April 2, 2024
4 Recycled Paper
Figure 4. Valley oak on the 30069 Harvester property as shown by the fencing. Valley oaks are not naturally occurring in the Santa Monica Mountains.

Figure 5. Two (2) sapling western sycamore trees on the 30069 Harvester property as shown by the fence line.
509
April 2, 2024
5 Recycled Paper
Figure 6 & 7. On the left, the measurement from the trunk of the coast live oak on the 30069 Harvester property (19.5 feet). On the right, the coast live oak tree with the sapling in the foreground.

Review of Biological Inventory prepared by Edith Read dated June 28, 2023 The Biological Inventory by Edith Read could have provided a complete plant list and inventory of all species observed on the project site. A Biological Inventory does not have the same requirements as a Biological Assessment and is not as detailed due to the lack of presence of ESHA and/or streams adjacent to a project site. The Biologist could have also mapped the tree species seen on the Project site and adjacent to the project site to make it abundantly clear.

Review of Memo prepared by Angel Law dated March 18, 2024 The memo prepared by Angel Law including a brief biological memo, tree map, and ESHA restoration plan was reviewed and evaluated by the City Biologist. Several of the comments on ESHA/stream and native protected trees are discussed above. Specifically, the biological memo is lacking detailed site information and concludes “I believe this area may qualify as an ESHA (Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area) due to its nature as an ephemeral stream”. The memo lacks any evidence that led the biologist to that conclusion such as water being present, a channel with banks, riparian vegetation, etc.

The ”ESHA Zone” as identified in the map shows several native protected species but fails to show measurements of the DBH for said species so it is unknown if they are of a protected size. Further, there are some labeled as “toyon cutting” but it is not addressed in the biological memo. The ESHA is drawn as a straight column down the center of the two properties, which is usually not how habitat or plants behave (in a straight line).
510
April 2, 2024
6 Recycled Paper
Lastly, the “2021-2022 Landscaping and ESHA Restoration” Map included in the memo appears to have been created and completed by the owner of the adjacent property at 30069 Harvester. The ESHA is again depicted in a similar column as the biologist’smap as well has a similar planting plan as the plants identified on site by the biologist. As you can see from the photos taken on site by the City Biologist, the trees that are native are very young in age which would correspond with a 2021- 2022 landscaping. I believe that the native trees on the adjacent property (except for one) have been planted.
511
FNC N V EN o. A C CE
5 9 4 8
512

EXHIBIT F

NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER

AERIAL MAP
Several adjacent homes with similar TDSF
Several 2-story homes higher than 28'h.
(subject house is less than 24'h.)
Several homes with multiple detached structures
(subject project is 3 buildings)
30000 Cuthbert Rd
28'H.
3960 sf. House
699 sf. Garage
1464 sf. Accessory
+10% Allowable
TOTAL TDSF 6735 sf.
30033
2-story
29958
2-story
5819
2-story
30000
2-story
5838
2-story
29956
1-story
29934
2-story
30053
2-story
30069
2-story
30040
2-story
5810
2-story
29960
1-story
5838
1-story
30103
2-story
29715
2-story
29934 Cuthbert Rd.
32'-6"H.
5560 sf. House
1012 sf. Garage
1000 sf. Accessory
pool, basketball court,
volleyball court
TOTAL TDSF 7572 sf.
29958 Harvester Rd.
28'H.
5640 sf. House
840 sf. Second Unit
743 sf. Garage
1274 sf. Accessory
pool/spa
TOTAL TDSF 8497 sf.
5819 Filaree Heights Rd.
30'-6"H. + Basement 10'H.
7096 sf. House
1488 sf. Guesthouse
1227 sf. Garage
989 sf. Basement
Barn, pool/spa
TOTAL TDSF 8120 sf.
29958 Harvester Rd.
28'H.
4261 sf. House
600 sf. Garage
870 sf. Basement
pool/spa
TOTAL TDSF 5221 sf.
29934 Cuthbert Rd.
4 Detached Buildings
TOTAL TDSF 4954 sf.
29715 Cuthbert Rd.
5547 sf. House +4 Stall Barn (?) sf.
5838 Deerhead Rd.
4420 House
613 sf. Guesthouse
1227 sf. Garage
pool/spa
TOTAL TDSF 5967 sf.
30130
2-story
30130
2-story
30020
2-story
29943
2-story
29941
2-story
29951
2-story
29964
2-story
29944 Harvester Rd.
28'H.
5800 sf. House
1260 sf. Second Unit
408 sf. Garage
165 sf. Cabana
pool/spa
TOTAL TDSF 7833 sf.

EXHIBIT G
513
514
30053 HARVESTER BUILING PAD VIEW
(Natural Orientation of the Topography)
515

SUBJECT

PROPERTY
516
From: Richard Mollica <[email protected]
Subject: 30069 Harvester Rd
Date: March 30, 2021 at 4:52 AM
To: michael burke Dominique Navarro, Dawn Ericson
On Mar 30, 2021, at 4:52 PM, Richard Mollica <[email protected]> wrote:

Good Afternoon,
Thank you for the additional information, Philip will add it to the file. That will be fine and we will continue to move forward as proposed.

Have a good afternoon, Richard
Richard Mollica, AICP Planning Director
City of Malibu 310-456-2489 Ext. 346
__________________________________________________________________________________ From: Dominique Navarro
Subject: Re: Dawn Ericson Home 30069 Harvester Road - Fire Rebuild - Forms and Supporting Materials Date: March 10, 2021 at 2:42 PM
To: Philip Coronel [email protected], Richard Mollica [email protected] Cc: Dawn N. Ericson , Michael Burke
Dear Richard,
Thank you so much for your prompt reply and helpful explanation.

Dawn and I will consult with Michael, our architect, already cc'd on this email, about the suggestion about the footprint and house setback, which is really quite minimal.

Thanks again and we'll be in touch, Dominique
517

EXHIBIT H
Richard Mollica March 29, 2021
City of Malibu
Planning Director
Dear Richard,
We are extremely concerned, and request your advice or directions on how to move forward with our rebuild project and to receive our Building Permit asap.

Briefly; the Planner’s main concern is a rebuild setback issue. To meet the Fire Department request for a wider setback, we altered the footprint of the rebuild plans. Due to the natural slope of the land, moving the house footprint to the east will require additional grading and a more complex structural foundation. This would also push the driveway into a steeper cross-slope and closer to the ESHA.

Therefore, we only altered the original footprint slightly by changing the angle of the house. This solution increased the setback on all but one corner of the structure. This small corner area, less than 10 square feet, is now in a previously unbuilt area just outside the original house footprint Michael Burke informed us that he spoke with you on 3/12 and you informed him that the 21 foot setback could be modified to 20% less, or 17 feet. If that is possible it puts only a tiny corner of the new structure into question. We’ve attached below a diagram of that relationship indicating the 21 foot and 17 foot setback.

As Planning requested, we have communicated the best we can with our neighbor, Bessie Zhang to inform and discuss this setback issue. Please see a communications calendar on last page. Bessie has not indicated any disapproval of our Building Plans or the setback during our recent three weeks of communications about this issue.

We highly value a positive and friendly relationship with neighbors. Bessie and her family have been great neighbors for five years and we have often communicated. But, at this time Bessie, her husband and three children are not living in the country. They hope to return soon to start construction, as they have their approved Building Plans. But, at this present time communications is chaotic, confusing and inconsistent with Bessie as she cannot easily communicate with wireless service disrupted by long distances and time zones.

Additionally, Bessie Zhang did not seek approval from us or neighbors for their rebuild plans, which may include changes to the height of their house, and a new large second story deck which directly infringes into the privacy of our rear houses and yards. We must bring this to the Planning Department attention because of the delays resulting from this small setback issue and the Department’s requested for approval from our neighbor, Bessie Zhang.

Again, may we request a resolution to this setback issue? Warm regards,
Dawn Ericson & Dominique Navarro

518
REBUILD footprint - blue
HISTORIC house footprint - gray
SETBACK issue - bright yellow
519
February – March TIMELINE of communications:

REBUILD PERMIT request; ERICSON
Feb 23- 26, 2021– Emails and phone conversation with Michael Burke and Philip Coronel about recalculations and side yard setback.

FIRST WEEK:

March 3, 2021– Dawn Ericson has phone conversation with Bessie Zhang to explain Mr. Coronel requests for neighbor communications.

SECOND WEEK:

March 8, 2021 – Email letter to Bessie with three pdf diagrams, as requested Mr. Coronel March 10, 2021 – Email letter from Dominique to Richard requesting clarification about setback.

March 12, 2021 – Richards setback diagram email to Michael.

March 13, 2021 – Richard and Michael phone conversation (Friday) THIRD WEEK:

March 15, 2021 – PDF Letters to Bessie with setback diagrams and signature form pdf.

March 16, 2021 – Bessie email letter to Richard and Dawn requesting time to review setback.

March 16, 2021 – Dawn text message to Bessie; “please look at email pdfs.” March 16, 2021 – Bessie text to Dawn, “Ok, I will see.” March 17, 2021 – Dawn phone call to Bessie with text message, “Please respond with signed form… March 19,2021 Text message from Bessie, “Hi Dawn, so sorry my phone doesn’t work consistently while overseas. I have forwarded the charts to my architect but he is sick from a blood transfer issue. I will get back to you as soon as I can.”
March 22, 2021 – Dawn text messages Bessie, “Can we talk on the phone? March 22, 2021 – Bessie relay email, “I cannot talk today.” March 23, 2021 – Dawn text messages Bessie a reminder, “Will we hear from you soon?” FOUTH WEEK:

March 29, 2021 – No communications since March 22 from Bessie Zhang. 520
From: Bessie Zhang
Subject: Re: Phone call
Date: March 22, 2021 at 8:25 AM
To: Dawn Ericson
Sorry Dawn, today is not a good day.

On Mar 22, 2021, at 11:20 AM, Dawn Ericson wrote:

Hello Bessie,
I am hoping we can talk via a phone call today? OK?
Dawn
Sent from my iPad
___________________________________________________________________________ From: Dawn Ericson
Subject: Re: Ericson Navarro HomeDate: March 16, 2021 at 2:42 PM To: Bessie Zhang
Thank you so much Bessie,
Look forward to hearing back from you soon, Dawn
_______________________________________________________________ From: Bessie Zhang
Subject: Re: Phone call
Date: March 16, 2021 at 2:23AM
To: Dawn Ericson , Richard Mollica <[email protected]

Dear Dawn and Richard,
I am the owner of . Thank you for sending us the below information. Dawn, thank you also for sending me the heights comparison chart of of the old vs new construction, just from the first look, the new construction looked much higher than the old construction, but I am not 100% confident on my 521
own interpretation since I am not familiar with the concepts and indications of the variance or setbacks or the height comparison of the old vs new construction. So is that ok if I forward the below chart and the height comparison chart you sent before to my architect? I will get back to you as soon as we get my heads around. Is that ok?
Thank you so much!
Best Bessie
_________________________________________________________________________________________ From: Dawn Ericson
Subject: Fwd: Ericson Navrarro HomeDate: March 16, 2021 at 12:12 PM To: Bessie Zhang
Hello Bessie,
30099 Harvester Road
Last week the City clarified their requirements for our Building Permit.

The City is concerned with the new setback (as requested by the Fire Department) and the corner area of the rebuild house. We need approvals to use a small area within the setback. Or we must apply for a variance.

Richard Mollica, the City’s Planning Director, is helping us to resolve this last small issue. His email to architect Michael Burke is shown below.

We are asking our neighbors to review and approve the setback diagrams for our rebuild project.

The city needs approval from neighbors on the small setback infringement, highlighted on the diagram in a dashed circle. We included here a 2016 satellite imagery of your old house and property in conjunction with our house design, so you can understand the arrangement more clearly.

May I please request your response to this?
Your response will help us avoid a “variance” and further delays.

I have attached a pdf response letter for your signature, below, to return to me or to Richard Mollica.
522
Thank you so much for your time, Dawn N. Ericson

__________________________________________________________________________________________ March 16, 2021
To: Bessie Zhang,
From: Dawn N. Ericson,
523
CC: Richard Mollica <[email protected]>
Richard Mollica,
City of Malibu
Planning Director
Dear Mr. Mollica
I understand that the City of Malibu has requested that the residence at approve and /or comment on the setback diagrams that the resident provided. This diagram shows the footprint of the old house (gray) and the proposed footprint for the rebuild (blue), and the setback highlighted on the diagram in a dashed circle.

Most of the new rebuild home is within the original building footprint, and moved further away from the property line. The fireplace and chimney is removed. The new footprint is rotated with one small portion, along the western property line, slightly inside the setback area – which has the lowest sloped portion of the new one-story gable roof.

Thank you,
SIGNATURE______________________________________
Bessie Zhang,
Please sign and return to;
Dawn n. Ericson
and/or
Richard Mollica [email protected]
On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 10:22 AM Richard Mollica <[email protected]> Michael,
The portion in blue is my concern, that area is within the required setback and outside the mass of the previous structure. Construction of the home in this area would require a variance. Is there no way to shift the home away from the side yard or this portion of the home?
524
Thank you
Thank you
Richard Mollica, AICP Planning Director
City of Malibu 310-456-2489 Ext. 346
_____________________________________________________________________________ March 8, 2021
To: Bessie Zhang,
March 8, 2021
From:

Dawn N. Ericson,
Cc: Mr. Philip Coronel, City of Malibu, Planning Department [email protected] Dear Bessie,
As we briefly discussed on the phone, March 3, to assure that neighbors are communicating, City Planner, Mr. Philip Coronel has requested an email confirmation from you (30099 Harvester Road), the eastsouth neighbor of Ericson – to verify that you have read this letter and reviewed these diagrams and photos. Can you please confirm, with an email to Philip Coronet, that you have seen these comparison sketches, and the old houses photos.

As you can see, while the 2021 design is a bit different from the prior home, it is very similar in shape and overall massing. New construction is around 2,360 sq. ft, and height at about 21 ft. Additionally, as requested 525
by the Fire Department, the rebuild position is setback a few more feet away from the west-north property line. The 30069 Harvester Rd rebuild retains all it’s historical ocean views – all south, west, north and east.

DIAGRAM 1: shows the old 1953 structure, its size and height. DIAGRAM 2: is the comparison to the 2021 rebuild structure. Notice the same relative size, around 2,315 sq feet, and height.

DIAGRAM 1 DIAGRAM 2

Built in
1953
30069
Harvester
Rd.

Facing
southwesterly.
526
30099-30069 Harvester Rd. House sizes, views and sites:
30099
Harvester Rd
&
30069
Harvester Rd
– with
historical
landscaping
blocking east
sight of
neighbor
houses.

Ericson studio
Up-stairs view,
looking north at
527
30099 Neighbor.

PHOTOS of 30099 Harvester
Rd.:

We have included these photos showing the primary view for 30099 Harvester Road, built in the mid 1970’s, remodeled in mid 1980’s and 1990’s. This demonstrate that our 2021 rebuild structure does not infringe on any neighbor’s historical views.

These 2015 historic pre-fire images were taken off Zillow.

1.The 30099 Harvester Road 1970’s historic south west view from the deck. 528

2. The 30099
Harvester Road
front house
entrance facing
south west with
dense
landscaping, and
next to the west
side deck as
seem in photo
#1.

3. The 30099
Harvester Road
second story
window views,
looking south
and east
showing dense
landscaping.
529
From: Subject: Date: To:
michael burke
Re: Dawn Ericson Home - Fire Rebuild - Forms and Supporting Materials February 26, 2021 at 7:49 AM
Philip Coronel [email protected], Dawn Ericson , Dominique Navarro Good Morning Philip,
Thank you for your comments.

I will recalculate the side yard setback from the ESHA based on your comments.

We have not shown the proposed design to the neighbors. I was informed that the neighbor to the west has been outside of the country and have issues with returning due to Covid. Dawn Ericson has informed me that the site has views mainly to the southwest and not facing her property. The neighbor to the north has a much higher elevation pad and as this new design is the same height and very near the old location, it should not be an issue. The eastern neighbor is quite far away (on the other side of the ESHA) and at a higher elevation. While this new design is different from the prior home it has a very similar in shape and overall massing.

When the neighbors are consulted, what documentation would you require as to any approvals/comments? Would any photo documentation be helpful in this effort?
I'm making the suggested revisions now including the size of the garage. I will resubmit those drawings answer any remaining questions early next week.
_____________________________________________________________________ Thank You
On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 9:02 PM Philip Coronel <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Michael,
Richard and I looked over the proposal and determined that we can keep this as a Planning Verification. What he would like to see is for you to re-calculate the required setbacks for only the flat portion of the property (most likely only the building pad) and exclude the rest of the slopes since it is considered ESHA.

Secondly, have you shown the proposal to the immediate neighbors? Richard would like for them to be informed of the proposal so that they aren’t surprised when construction starts since you are proposing a slightly different footprint. If they have issues with the slight changes, we might need to do a formal Site Plan Review for the reduced side yard setbacks even though the house is moving farther away from the property line but still within the required setbacks.

Moving forward, please provide the revised site plan with the new setback calculations and we can wrap up the Planning Verification for the rebuild. Hopefully the neighbors won’t have an issue with the proposal. Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Thanks!
Philip Coronel | Assistant Planner | City of Malibu
Connect with the City of Malibu!
530
1 Recycled Paper
City of Malibu

M E M O R A N D U M
To: Tyler Eaton, City of Malibu Planning
From: Courtney McCammon; Contract City Biologist
Date: March 26, 2024
Re: 30053 Harvester Road; CDP 23-019, Biology Review
The purpose of this memo is to provide an independent review of the biological resources on the project site, 30053 Harvester Road, following a site visit as requested by the Planning Commission.

The Contract City Biologist was required to visit the site following a Planning Commission hearing for the aforementioned project site. The site visit was conducted on the morning of Tuesday, March 26th, 2024, by Contract City Biologist, Courtney McCammon. The purpose of the site visit was to reconcile two differing biological opinions of the sites resources and provide an independent review.

Some caveats about this site visit include: no formal jurisdictional delineation was requested nor conducted; no formal tree survey was requested nor conducted (i.e. tree DBH was not taken).

Stream and ESHA Determination
City of Malibu Definition of a stream is “a topographic feature that at least periodically conveys water through a bed or channel having banks. This includes watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation”. Based on the site visit conducted at the 30053 Harvester Road project site, the area in question was not determined to be a stream by the City Biologist. The topographic feature likely “periodically conveys water” simply based on site characteristics of culverts at the presumably beginning and end of the feature (Cuthbert and Harvester). There is a culvert at the top of the topographic feature off Cuthbert where the runoff enters (Figure 1). Similarly, there is a culvert at the bottom of the topographic feature off Harvester Road (Figure 2). There is no indication of a stream northwest of Cuthbert nor is there indication of a stream southeast of Harvester. Though it may periodically covey water, no definable “bed or channel having banks” was observed during the site visit. Instead, the area where the water travels was observed as being contiguous with surrounding non-native vegetation (Figure 3). The majority of the vegetation found on site and in the immediate vicinity was non-native and certainly not riparian vegetation. Species observed included castor bean (highly invasive), Malva (mallow), carnation spurge, and black mustard (highly invasive). They are not considered riparian plants and are not restricted to areas with water.

Exhibit H
531
April 2, 2024
2 Recycled Paper
Figure 1. Looking southeast standing on Cuthbert onto the property (30053 Harvester). No definable bed and bank can be seen.

Figure 2. Looking southeast standing on Harvester Road. There is no indication of a stream on the adjacent property.

Story
Poles
532
April 2, 2024
3 Recycled Paper
Figure 3. The topographic feature that does not have a definable “bed or channel having banks” but instead is contiguous with the surrounding non-native grasses.

Native Protected Trees
Based on the site visit conducted by the City Biologist, a majority of the native tree species are on the adjacent property (30069 Harvester). For reasons explained below in the review of Frank Angel’s memo, the City Biologist does not believe that the native trees are naturally occurring save for one (1) coast live oak tree. This coast live oak tree (Figure 6 & 7) still exists on the adjacent property, 30069 Harvester, but the dripline extends into 30053 Harvester. The measurement shown in Figure 6 is from the trunk of the coast live oak to the closest corner of the proposed accessory structure at approximately 19.5 feet. There is one (1) sapling that is on the 30053 Harvester property that is likely not of a protected size (assumption based on size of tree).

The City Biologist only had access to the 30053 Harvester property so the trees existing on the adjacent property were not evaluated but could be seen from across the fence line. The trees are on the fence line between the properties or wholly within the 30069 Harvester property. However, they are also saplings and likely not of a protected size. Again, the City Biologist did not take DBH measurements and did not have access to the adjacent property. 533
April 2, 2024
4 Recycled Paper
Figure 4. Valley oak on the 30069 Harvester property as shown by the fencing. Valley oaks are not naturally occurring in the Santa Monica Mountains.

Figure 5. Two (2) sapling western sycamore trees on the 30069 Harvester property as shown by the fence line.
534
April 2, 2024
5 Recycled Paper
Figure 6 & 7. On the left, the measurement from the trunk of the coast live oak on the 30069 Harvester property (19.5 feet). On the right, the coast live oak tree with the sapling in the foreground.

Review of Biological Inventory prepared by Edith Read dated June 28, 2023 The Biological Inventory by Edith Read could have provided a complete plant list and inventory of all species observed on the project site. A Biological Inventory does not have the same requirements as a Biological Assessment and is not as detailed due to the lack of presence of ESHA and/or streams adjacent to a project site. The Biologist could have also mapped the tree species seen on the Project site and adjacent to the project site to make it abundantly clear.

Review of Memo prepared by Angel Law dated March 18, 2024 The memo prepared by Angel Law including a brief biological memo, tree map, and ESHA restoration plan was reviewed and evaluated by the City Biologist. Several of the comments on ESHA/stream and native protected trees are discussed above. Specifically, the biological memo is lacking detailed site information and concludes “I believe this area may qualify as an ESHA (Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area) due to its nature as an ephemeral stream”. The memo lacks any evidence that led the biologist to that conclusion such as water being present, a channel with banks, riparian vegetation, etc.

The ”ESHA Zone” as identified in the map shows several native protected species but fails to show measurements of the DBH for said species so it is unknown if they are of a protected size. Further, there are some labeled as “toyon cutting” but it is not addressed in the biological memo. The ESHA is drawn as a straight column down the center of the two properties, which is usually not how habitat or plants behave (in a straight line).
535
April 2, 2024
6 Recycled Paper
Lastly, the “2021-2022 Landscaping and ESHA Restoration” Map included in the memo appears to have been created and completed by the owner of the adjacent property at 30069 Harvester. The ESHA is again depicted in a similar column as the biologist’smap as well has a similar planting plan as the plants identified on site by the biologist. As you can see from the photos taken on site by the City Biologist, the trees that are native are very young in age which would correspond with a 2021- 2022 landscaping. I believe that the native trees on the adjacent property (except for one) have been planted.
536
1 Recycled Paper
City of Malibu

M E M O R A N D U M
To: Tyler Eaton, City of Malibu Planning
From: Courtney McCammon; Contract City Biologist
Date: August 6, 2024
Re: 30053 Harvester Road; CDP 23-019, Biology Review
The purpose of this memo is to provide an independent review of the biological resources on the project site, 30053 Harvester Road, following a site visit as requested by the Planning Commission.

The Contract City Biologist was required to visit the site following a Planning Commission hearing for the aforementioned project site. The site visit was conducted on the morning of Tuesday, August 6 th
, 2024, by Contract City Biologist, Courtney McCammon. The purpose of the site visit was to visit the adjacent property at 30069 Harvester where the biologically controversial area exists and to understand the owner of 30069 Harvester’s concerns regarding the proposed project on the adjacent lot. Some caveats about this site visit include: no formal jurisdictional delineation was requested nor conducted; no formal biological assessment was requested nor conducted; no formal tree survey was requested nor conducted (i.e. tree DBH was not taken).

Stream and ESHA Determination
The determination made by the City Biologist in the March 26th, 2024 memo (attached at the end of this memo) has not changed following a site visit to 30069 Harvester. The site visit to the adjacent property did not lend any new insights that the City Biologist did not gather during the first visit. The area in questions remains discernable features that would qualify it as being a stream and therefore, ESHA.

Native Protected Trees
The determination made by the City Biologist in the March 26th, 2024 memo has not changed following a site visit to 30069 Harvester. The City Biologist believes that they one (1) coast live oak tree is likely naturally existing and assumed to be on the property of 30069 Harvester based on the existing fence line. There still appear to be saplings and newly planted material in the area.

Exhibit I
537
1 City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Rd. ∙ Malibu, California ∙ 90265-4816 Phone (310) 456-2489 ∙ Fax (310) 456-7650 ∙ www.malibucity.org

PLANNING DEPARTMENT

PRIMARY VIEW DETERMINATION
Primary View Determination: 30033 Harvester Road – Paul and Andrea Philipson On April 5, 2024, staff conducted a primary view determination at 30033 Harvester Road. Pursuant to Malibu Municipal Code Sections 17.40.040(A)(17) and 17.45.050,staff captured the primary view in the living room of the single-family residence, facing southwest, a location chosen by the property owner. The property and recorded view are denoted in the neighborhood map (Exhibit1) below.

Exhibit 1: Neighborhood map showing 30033 Harvester Road and recorded view. (Source: City of Malibu GIS, 2024)
538
Exhibit J
2 A total of five photographs were captured in sequence from the southeast to the northwest.The nature of the view determination consisted of blue water views of the Pacific Ocean and the Santa Monica Mountains. The specific location of the view determination was within the living room, a primary living area. The photos were taken inside of the single-family residence in front of patio doorsleading out to the western side yard at an elevation of five feet. The Philipson’s are requesting the PVD in response to proposed development at 30053 Harvester Road (CDP No. 23-019) which is on the westerly adjacent parcel. A detailed key map showing the specific location where the view was observed, the 180 degree view axis, and corresponding views are denoted in Exhibit 2 below.

Exhibit 2: Detailed Key Map of the Primary View Determination; 30033 Harvester Road (Source: City of Malibu GIS, 2024)
1 2
3 4
5 539
3 The five photos that combine to reflect the property’s primary view, are provided below.

View 1 –Looking Southeast.

View 2 – Looking South.
540
4 View 3 – Looking Southwest.

View 4 – Looking West.
541
5 View 5 – Looking Northwest.
542
6 View 6 – Photos taken in front of patio doors of the main viewing area (living room). The location is indicated by yellow measuring tape on the floor.
543
7 View 7 – Photos taken five feet from the floor (living room). 544

NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER

AERIAL MAP
Several adjacent homes with similar TDSF
Several 2-story homes higher than 28'h.
(subject house is less than 24'h.)
Several homes with multiple detached structures
(subject project is 3 buildings)
30000 Cuthbert Rd
28'H.
3960 sf. House
699 sf. Garage
1464 sf. Accessory
+10% Allowable
TOTAL TDSF 6735 sf.
30033
2-story
29958
2-story
5819
2-story
30000
2-story
5838
2-story
29956
1-story
29934
2-story
30053
2-story
30069
2-story
30040
2-story
5810
2-story
29960
1-story
5838
1-story
30103
2-story
29715
2-story
29934 Cuthbert Rd.
32'-6"H.
5560 sf. House
1012 sf. Garage
1000 sf. Accessory
pool, basketball court,
volleyball court
TOTAL TDSF 7572 sf.
29958 Harvester Rd.
28'H.
5640 sf. House
840 sf. Second Unit
743 sf. Garage
1274 sf. Accessory
pool/spa
TOTAL TDSF 8497 sf.
5819 Filaree Heights Rd.
30'-6"H. + Basement 10'H.
7096 sf. House
1488 sf. Guesthouse
1227 sf. Garage
989 sf. Basement
Barn, pool/spa
TOTAL TDSF 8120 sf.
29958 Harvester Rd.
28'H.
4261 sf. House
600 sf. Garage
870 sf. Basement
pool/spa
TOTAL TDSF 5221 sf.
29934 Cuthbert Rd.
4 Detached Buildings
TOTAL TDSF 4954 sf.
29715 Cuthbert Rd.
5547 sf. House +4 Stall Barn (?) sf.
5838 Deerhead Rd.
4420 House
613 sf. Guesthouse
1227 sf. Garage
pool/spa
TOTAL TDSF 5967 sf.
30130
2-story
30130
2-story
30020
2-story
29943
2-story
29941
2-story
29951
2-story
29964
2-story
29944 Harvester Rd.
28'H.
5800 sf. House
1260 sf. Second Unit
408 sf. Garage
165 sf. Cabana
pool/spa
TOTAL TDSF 7833 sf.

Exhibit K
545
546
30053 HARVESTER BUILING PAD VIEW
(Natural Orientation of the Topography)
547

SUBJECT

PROPERTY
548
To Chair Hill and Members of the Planning Commission:

Re: new home plan for 30053 Harvester Road
We appreciate this opportunity to be heard. Our home @ 30033 Harvester Road is adjacent to the proposed new home construction plan. We moved here in 2003 and were able to repair the damages to our home from the Woolsey fire and return in 2022. Although damaged, our home was the sole surviving structure from the Woolsey Fire in the nearest enclave of 7) neighboring homes that include; 29972, 30021, & 30060 Harvester (around us) and 29956 & 30000 & 30036 Cuthbert (above us). We believe this was primarily due to the defensible space around our home Our home was designed by the noted architect, Marshall Lewis around 1970. In addition, when our house was originally constructed it was granted a variance to bring it even closer to the property line. Our home sits only 12' from the property line instead of the 16' that would be required today.

We believe a map showing the neighboring structures within 15 feet of the newly proposed plan at 30053 Harvester will illustrate the reality of how close the new build will be to us.

We are not opposed to a new home being built. We are opposing the current plan for this home to be built with a setback of only 13 ½ ‘ from our shared property line.

The plan for 30053 Harvester calls for 24’ roof line, 13.6’ from the property line and only 25.6' from our dwelling. If built to that plan, that new structure will engulf our home on the Eastern side. We will not have any visibility, including afternoon sunlight on that side of the house. The defensible space around our home will be affected and our home made significantly less safe.

Our objection to the current build plan as submitted and approved in the Staff Report provided by the City Council is that the new structure is too close in proximity and needs to be positioned using the largest setback shown as 20’3”. This will increase the distance between our existing dwelling and the newly proposed structure to 32.3”. This slight adjustment will at least provide better defensible space between structures and as the land slopes downward towards the western side yard, the impact of the highest roofline of 24’ will be less consuming.

Lester Tobias is a friend of ours and helped us with our fire rebuild. Originally he thought that the new house would be “innocuous” until he saw the story poles and pulled up our site plan in his office. He was the one who guided us to the feasible alternatives portion of the code, discussed the lack of designing with the contours of the site, the increased grading required by the proposed project, and the “wild” (his words, not ours) notion to slam a linear house up against the property line of the only house within 500 feet.

We have witnessed numerous new home construction projects and understand the positive and negative effects that growth and development bring to our neighborhood and community.

We are requesting a thorough review of the plans based on the information we have provided and a thoughtful review of the loss and impact of what is proposed as to the specifics of our particular Exhibit L
549
situation, site plan orientation and views. This is a unique situation with an existing home of 50 years.

Please see the attached photos for reference. Our existing home should be a major concern in considering how close the proposed new setbacks are applied or adjusted or create a plan that limits the massive impact to the only existing structure in such close proximity.

Thank you for your consideration.

Kindest Regards,
The Philipsons
550
551
552
553
HARVESTER ROAD 1 6 2 5 3 7 9 2 2 5 8 5 4 3 F.Y.S.B. 205'-2 1/4" R.Y.S.B. 79'-3 3/4" EAST S.Y.S.B.
83'-10 3/4"
LOT WIDTH 158' LOT DEPTH 374' 10 11 PIT 1 PIT 2
16'-2" SETBACK INCREASED TO 10% 123 TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 12 D.G. DRIVEWAY 3 EXISTING WOOD DECK PERIMETER PLANTER/ OVERFLOW CATCHMENT 45 PLANTED AREA 6 EXISTING SITE STAIRS EXISTING 1500 GALLON SEPTIC TANK AND APPROXIMATE PIT LOCATIONS. 7 8 EXISTING WATER FEATURE 9 NEW SLIDING GATE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS DEVELOPMENT ITEM EXISTING PROPOSED CONFORMITY T.D.S.F. 2,632 S.F. 2,632 S.F. COMPLIES SETBACKS FRONT YARD 205' 205' COMPLIES EAST SIDE YARD 83'-10" 83'-10" COMPLIES WEST SIDE YARD 12'-0" 12'-0" COMPLIES REAR YARD 79' 79' COMPLIES HEIGHT MAX HEIGHT 25'-1" 25'-1" COMPLIES PARKING 2-COVERED 2-UNCOVERED 2-COVERED 2-UNCOVERED COMPLIES SITE WALLS FRONT YARD 42" SOLID 6'-0" MAX. 12" SOLID 5' COMPLIES SIDE YARD 6'-0" MAX. 6'-0" COMPLIES REAR YARD 6'-0" MAX. 6'-0" COMPLIES GRADING SLOPE CONST. 3:1 & FLATTER 3:1 & FLATTER COMPLIES IMPERMEABLE SURFACE 2,926 S.F. 2,926 S.F. COMPLIES ESHA N/A N/A N/A BUILDING ANALYSIS IMPERMEABLE ANALYSIS FOOTPRINT: DRIVEWAY/FRONT WALK: SIDE YARD WALKWAY: TOTAL: 2,700 SQ. FT. UNPAVED 226 SQ. FT. 2,926 SQ. FT. SITE ANALYSIS LOT AREA: GROSS LOT AREA: NET LOT DEPTH: LOT WIDTH: 56,902 SQ. FT. 56,902 SQ. FT. 374'-0" 158'-0" MAIN LEVEL: GARAGE: TOTAL: 2,132 SQ. FT. 500 SQ. FT. 2,632 SQ. FT. SHEET NOTES 10 MASONRY WALKWAY 11 BBQ AREA SYMBOLS LEGEND ORIGINAL FOOTPRINT 554

A N G E L L AW
2 6 0 1 O c e a n P a r k B l v d . , S u i t e 2 0 5
S a n t a M o n i c a , C A 9 0 4 0 5 - 5 2 6 9
T e l : ( 3 1 0 ) 3 1 4 - 6433
a n g e l l a w . c o m
March 18, 2024
City of Malibu
Attn: Kaneca Pompey, Contract Planner
Tyler Eaton, Senior Planner
Richard Mollica, Planning Director
City of Malibu Planning Commission
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, California 90265
Via Email to [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Re: Objections to Staff’s Recommended Approval of Coastal Development Permit No. 23-019; Site Plan Review No. 23-024; & CEQA Exemption for 30053 Harvester Road Project Planning Commission Meeting of March 18, 2024, Item 5.A.

Dear Planning Commissioners, Ms. Pompey, Mr. Eaton, and Mr. Mollica:

We are legal counsel for and write on behalf of Dawn Ericson, the immediate neighbor to the west of the project proposed at 30053 Harvester Road (Project). We strongly object to the approval of the Project, as sited and designed (scaled). For the reasons explained below, the Project cannot be found consistent with the Malibu Local Costal Program (MLCP). Nor can it be found categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. (CEQA; Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.)
Several MLCP consistency findings proposed for approval by the Planning Commission (Commission) in the February 20, 2024 Commission Agenda Report (Staff Report) and the March 13, 2024 Supplemental Commission Agenda Report (Supplemental Staff Report) rest on faulty evidence, a woefully incomplete description of the baseline plant and biological conditions on 555
Kaneca Pompey, Contract Planner
Tyler Eaton, Senior Planner
Richard Mollica, Planning Director
Planning Commission
March 18, 2024

the ground, and scientifically indefensible assumptions of no harm to coastal resources adversely impacted by the Project. These resources include native wildlife habitat straddling the boundary between the Project site and the adjacent Ericson property at 30069 Harvester Road.

Accordingly, we demand that the Commission deny Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 23- 019 and the CEQA exemption. Alternatively, at a minimum, we request that the Commission continue this item to a date uncertain, to allow the City biologist to visit the site together with our client’s biological consultant and the applicant’s biological consultant, and, in full cooperation with both, to adequately inventory all potentially impacted native trees and environmentally sensitive habitat on and adjacent to the Project site, and to fully analyze the Project’s adverse impacts on the same.
1 Either way, the Project must be scaled back for the Planning Commission to be able to make a legally defensible finding under section 13.9 (C) of the MLCP, i.e., that “The Project is the least environmentally damaging alternative.” The mandate of section 13.9 of the MLCP is clear: the Planning Commission has no discretion to approve a CDP for a project unless it is the least environmentally damaging alternative.

Native Trees
The Malibu Local Implementation Plan’s (MLIP) native tree protections “apply to those areas containing one or more native oak (Quercus species), California Walnut (Juglans californica), Western Sycamore (Platanus racemosa), Alder (Alnus rhombifolia), or Toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia) tree, that has at least one trunk measuring six inches or more in diameter, or a combination of any two trunks measuring a total of eight inches or more in diameter, measured at four and one-half feet above natural grade.” (MLIP, § 5.2.) The Staff Report’s discussion of native trees is demonstrably inconsistent with the applicant-submitted June 28, 2023 biological inventory by Edith Read and Associates, Inc. (Read Inventory), as well as with the October 5, 2023 Biology Review Sheet completed by City Biologist Courtney McCammon (City Biologist Review).

The Staff Report states:
1 This requires the City biologist to understand, among other things, that trees have root zones, and that for some species, the root zone extends substantially beyond the dripline -- the widest reaching branches around the tree.
556
Kaneca Pompey, Contract Planner
Tyler Eaton, Senior Planner
Richard Mollica, Planning Director
Planning Commission
March 18, 2024

“There are no native trees on or adjacent to the subject parcel. Therefore, the findings of LIP Chapter 5 do not apply.”
(Staff Report at p. 12, italics added.) However, the Read Inventory explicitly identified “an immature western sycamore (Platanus racemosa) and toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia) associated with a gully off-site on the adjacent property.” (Supplemental Staff Report at p. 58.) The City Biologist Review accepted that Ms. Read had “identified a sycamore and toyon on the adjacent property.” (Staff Report at p. 55.) The Staff Report statement that there are no native trees adjacent to the Project site is false.

Only after Ms. Ericson objected did staff prepare the Supplemental Staff Report, which was released a mere five days before the public hearing, last Wednesday. Unfortunately, the Supplemental Staff Report is still deficient and conclusory. The Supplemental Staff Report obfuscates Ms. Ericson’s objections to the adequacy of the Read Inventory as asserting the presence of “Toyons and California Black Walnuts [that] are within the area of concern.” (Id. at p.

3.) However, Ms. Ericson alerted staff that there are not only protected toyon and black walnut trees, but also protected oak and sycamore trees adjacent to and/or on the Project site.

Downplaying the native tree issues raised, staff contends that (1) “[t]he City’s Biologist reviewed the [Read] report and concurred with the findings”; (2) Ms. Read referred to the adjacent toyon and sycamore as “ ‘immature’ ”; (3) “the project applicant suggests that the protected tree species within the area are not the minimum size to be considered protected”; and (4) even though “[s]taff was not able to confirm the size of the native trees within the area,” “the proposed development is set back far enough that it would meet the protected zone requirements of the LIP” because “[b]oth the neighbor and applicant agree that the tree canopy stops at the property line,” and the Project “would be both more than 15 feet from the trunk of the tree and five feet from the edge of the dripline canopy of the tree.” (Supplemental Staff Report at p. 3, italics added.) All of these contentions are questionable at best.

On the first point, how could the city biologist independently concur with Ms. Read’s findings if all she did was a desktop review of the Read Inventory? The Read Inventory -- which was not submitted to the Planning Department until March 11, 2024, i.e., not until after the Staff Report was released to the public and this Commission -- doesn’t even map the one toyon and sycamore Ms.

Read observed, indicating their specific location onsite. Nor does it show the parcel boundaries and the native plant species potentially impacted by the Project, including development footprint, as well as the area impacted by grading, construction staging and other construction activity. 557
Kaneca Pompey, Contract Planner
Tyler Eaton, Senior Planner
Richard Mollica, Planning Director
Planning Commission
March 18, 2024

Second, the Read Inventory states that there is “an immature western sycamore (Platanus racemosa) and toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia) … on the adjacent property.” (Supplemental Staff Report at p. 58.) From this sentence, it is only clear that Ms. Read considers the sycamore to be immature -- the toyon is not clearly modified by the word “immature.” Regardless, Ms. Read does not define the word “immature,” nor does she include measurements of these trees in her report.

Ms. Read fails to provide substantial evidence to conclude that the trees she identified fall outside the protections of the MLIP’s Native Tree Protection Ordinance (NTPO).

Third, why would the Project applicant’s suggestion regarding the size of these trees hold any weight?
As pointed out in the concurrently submitted comments and biological inventory map (Exhibit 1) from Lauren Harris, our biological consultant, the Project site is home to multiple Toyon, Western Sycamore, and Oak individuals actually meeting size requirements (six inches or more in diameter, or a combination of any two trunks measuring a total of eight inches or more in diameter, measured at four and one-half feet above natural grade) under the NTPO.

And fourth, Ms. Ericson certainly does not agree that the tree canopy stops at the property line.

Why was staff not able to confirm the size of the native trees within the area? When staff concludes that the Project “would be more than 15 feet from the trunk of the tree and five feet from the edge of the dripline canopy of the tree” (Supplemental Staff Report at p. 3, italics added), which tree is staff referring to? What about the other protected trees? Neither Ms. Read nor planning staff have measured the dripline canopy or distance from development of protected trees on and/or adjacent to the property, so it is impossible to conclude that the Project is sited appropriately under MLIP section 5.3.

Further, the Staff Report, Supplemental Staff Report, Read Inventory, and City Biologist Review all fail to identify or discuss the oak trees on and/or adjacent to the Project site. Ms. Ericson provided staff clear evidence of at least one oak tree near the Project’s story poles. (Staff Report at pp. 77-

78.) See the photos below:
558
Kaneca Pompey, Contract Planner
Tyler Eaton, Senior Planner
Richard Mollica, Planning Director
Planning Commission
March 18, 2024

(Staff Report at p. 78.) Despite this evidence, the Supplemental Staff Report, which was apparently prepared in part to address Ms. Ericson’s concerns over proper Project setbacks from native trees, did not mention or assess the oak trees. Neither the Read Inventory or the desktop City Biologist Review discuss the oak trees on and/or adjacent to the Project site. The public and this Commission now don’t know what the dripline canopies of these protected trees are because Ms.

Read, the City Biologist, and planning staff all ignored their existence.

Coast live oak (Quercus agrifoli) grow up to 70 feet high.2 A majority of coast live oaks that fail are on residential sites, and they “fail[] most frequently at the root system.” 3 Human activity, including
“both cutting and filling, [are] frequently associated with the failures of native oaks.”4“Reduced gas exchange under compacted soil or fill conditions has been shown to correlate with decline symptoms in oaks (MacDonald et al. 1993)… . . . Cut roots as a result of grade modification operations may also expose entry avenues for disease organisms.”5Importantly, “many oak roots are relatively shallow and extend outward from the root crown, reaching some distance beyond the tree’s drip line.” (Italics added.)6It is advised to estimate an oak’s root zone “as extending out at least one-third farther than the distance to the drip line.” 7 Considering the above information, as
2 Roger Edberg & Alison Berry. 1999. Patterns of Structural Failures in Urban Trees: Coast Live Oak (Quercus Agrifolia). Journal of Arboriculture 25(1) pp. 48-55, available at <request-libre.pdf (d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net)> (as of March 18, 2024). 3 Id.
4 Id.
5 Id.
6 Douglas D. McCreary. 2011. Living Among the Oaks: A Management Guide for Woodland Owners and Managers. University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California Oak Woodland Conservation Workgroup, available at <https://anrcatalog.ucanr.edu/pdf/21538.pdf> (as of March 18, 2024). 7 Id.
559
Kaneca Pompey, Contract Planner
Tyler Eaton, Senior Planner
Richard Mollica, Planning Director
Planning Commission
March 18, 2024

well as the MLIP’s purpose “to provide for the protection and preservation of…native trees” including oak tree species (MLIP, § 5.1), Ms. Read’s, the City Biologist’s, and planning staff’s failure to identify or discuss the oak trees present on and/or adjacent to the Project site cries out loudly for due diligence. An adequate, science-based biological study must be performed before any CDP application for the 30053 Harvester Road is presented to this Commission. Desktop site “surveys” lead to Mickey Mouse mitigation measures. This is not what the MLCP intended or requires.

As noted earlier, before this Commission may approve a CDP, MLIP section 13.9 requires that the project presented to it be the least environmentally damaging alternative. The Staff Report claims to have considered an “Alternative Location Onsite,” but it only suggests that “[t]he applicant could have proposed a smaller, single-story home to avoid the SPR [site plan review] for height over 18 feet.” (Staff Report at p. 9.) The Staff Report then summarily concludes that “there are no project alternatives that would provide a significant benefit to the environment compared to the proposed project.” (Id.) This alternatives “review” does not even come close to court-mandated reasonableness standards. The notion that there exists no environmentally less damaging alternative beside a one-story house makes no sense. How about an alternative where development is scaled back enough from onsite and offsite protected trees to avoid harm or loss thereof and allow them to continue to function as habitat for the wildlife species that have been observed onsite and in the vicinity? Neither the Staff Report nor the Supplemental Staff Report address this simple alternative because planning staff and the City Biologist failed to independently verify the information contained in the applicant-funded Read Inventory.

ESHA
The Staff Report (at p. 2) relies on Ms. Read’s conclusion that “no ESHA, including a stream, exists on or adjacent to the property.” The Staff Report also concludes, for purposes of the MLIP section

13.9 findings, that “[t]he subject property is not in a designated ESHA or ESHA buffer as shown on the LCP ESHA and Marine Resources Map [and] [t]hus, review by the Environmental Review Board was not required.” (Id. at p. 10.) However, the MLIP provides that “those areas not mapped as ESHA, but found to be ESHA under the provisions of Section 4.3,” are also protected as ESHA under Chapter 4 of the MLIP. (MLIP, § 4.2, italics added.) As shown by emails on file with planning staff and meeting minutes (Exhibits 2, 3, and 4), in 2020 and 2021, when Ms. Ericson and her architect, Michael Burke, were planning to rebuild Ms.

Ericson’s house at 30069 Harvester Road after the Woolsey Fire, Assistant Planner Philip Coronel and Planning Director Richard Mollica asked Mr. Burke to avoid the sloped portion on the eastern 560
Kaneca Pompey, Contract Planner
Tyler Eaton, Senior Planner
Richard Mollica, Planning Director
Planning Commission
March 18, 2024

border of the property because “it is considered ESHA.” Now, for this Project bordering on the same ESHA, planning staff rely entirely on the deficient Read Inventory to conclude that the same area is not ESHA -- “Our Biologist, Courtney McCammon, issued preliminary approval on the project stating that no ESHA exists on the subject parcel.” (Supplemental Staff Report at p. 43.) But the City Biologist did not visit the site. What has changed in the space of just a couple of years other than the identity of the Project applicant?
CEQA
Finally, the Staff Report (at p. 15) asserts that “the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Sections 15303(a) and (e) - New Construction [and] [t]he Planning Department has further determined that none of the six exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption apply to this project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2).” The Staff Report offers no clue why none of the six exceptions to this Class 3 CEQA categorical exemption apply to the Project. Of particular note is the following exception:
“(a) Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located--a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply in all instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies.”
(CEQA Guidelines, § 15300.2, subd. (a), italics added.) It is important to note that the CEQA Guidelines describe the Santa Monica Mountains Zone and the California Coastal Zone, both of which are designated, mapped, and adopted by the state, as “areas of critical environmental sensitivity.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15206, subd. (b)(4)(B) & (C).) The Project lies within both the Santa Monica Mountains Zone and the California Coastal Zone. How, then, did staff determine that this exception to the Class 3 CEQA categorical exemption does not apply to this Project? Conclusion
We have herein documented several of city staff’s analytical and observational deficiencies and unsupported conclusions bearing on the Project’s compliance with the MLCP and CEQA. It will be inappropriate for the Commission to approve CDP No. 23-019 for the current Project’s design and setbacks in relation to the ignored and unanalyzed native trees, streambed and ESHA. We ask that the Commission either deny the CDP or continue the Item to a date uncertain to allow for 561
Kaneca Pompey, Contract Planner
Tyler Eaton, Senior Planner
Richard Mollica, Planning Director
Planning Commission
March 18, 2024

comprehensive biological study and full consideration of alternative site planning to prevent damage to the native trees and protect ESHA.

Sincerely,

ANGEL LAW
Frank Angel
Cooper Kass
cc: Kraig Hill, Chair
John Mazza, Vice Chair
Drew Leonard
Skylar Peak
Dennis Robert Smith
562
March 17, 2024
To whom it may concern:

I visited, observed, and documented the habitat and species along the unclear property line between 30053 and 30069 Harvester Road in Malibu on the morning of March 15, 2024. Over the course of approximately

1.5 hours, I observed numerous native plant and animal species including multiple native trees which are protected by the City of Malibu. Additionally, I believe this area may qualify as an ESHA (Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area) due to its nature as an ephemeral stream. I urge you to consider soliciting a more indepth biological survey of the area to better quantify its resources and determine any applicable protections.

During my site visit I identified various native and non-native species present. Native plant species included Toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), Southern black walnut (Juglans californica), Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia), Sycamore (Platanus racemosa), Elderberry (Sambucus mexicana/caerulea), Wild cucumber (Marah sp.), Holly Leaf Cherry (Prunus illicifolia), Prickly pear (Opuntia sp.), and Laurel sumac (Malosma laurina). The first four species of this list are protected by the Native Tree Protection Ordinance (NTPO) of the City of Malibu LCP Local Implementation Plan. The biological inventory conducted by E Read and Associates, Inc., concluded that only a singular immature toyon and sycamore were found on the property, which implies that they are too small to be protected by the NTPO. However, my visit to the 30053 Harvester Road property showed that it is home to multiple species and multiple individuals meet the size requirement1 to be protected by the NTPO. I suggest that a new inventory is conducted using more accurate property lines and land surveying, and data is collected on tree size for every individual. I approve of the ESHA zone plant inventory map on page 4 of the attachment here.

Native animal species I observed on site include the Cooper’s Hawk, American Crow, multiple Monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus), Swallowtail butterfly (Papilio sp.), Cabbage white butterfly (Pieris rapae), Blues (Subfamily Polyommatinae), and a unidentified rodent sp. This area acts as breeding habitat for birds, as I observed an American Crow exhibiting nesting behavior by carrying sticks into the tree canopy. This site has previously provided habitat to some listed species2 such as mountain lions, as the neighboring Ericson family has reported visitation by them in the past. The presence of monarch butterflies and eucalyptus trees may suggest overwintering monarch populations in years past. The moist habitat makes it potentially suitable for amphibians. From the species assemblage I observed over a small fraction of the day, I believe that this is important habitat for a variety of native species.

This site acts as a drainage for the higher elevation parts of the watershed to the north of the property.

Despite some drainage diversions implemented over the past few years, this area likely still acts as a seasonal, ephemeral catchment and supports some riparian vegetation. This may meet the Malibu LIP definition of “stream”3 which would qualify the site as an ESHA. Due to the biological value of this area, I strongly encourage you to reevaluate the site and its protections in the face of urbanization.

Please consider my credentials and experience in the environmental field as as support for my claims. I am Staff Ecologist at Channel Islands Restoration, a nonprofit for planning and implementing ecological restoration projects in and around the counties of Santa Barbara, Ventura, and Los Angeles as well as the Channel Islands. CIR is currently working in LA County at the Ballona Wetlands, the Angeles National Forest, and the Malibu Jewish Center. I hold a Bachelors in Ecology and Evolution (UCSB 2021) and a Masters in Environmental Science in Management (Bren School at UCSB, 2023).

Sincerely,
Lauren Harris, Staff Ecologist, Channel Islands Restoration 563

1. “At least one trunk measuring six inches or more in diameter, or a combination of any two trunks measuring a total of eight inches or more in diameter, measured at four and one-half feet above natural grade.” Chapter 5, Native Tree Protection Ordinance (NTPO), City of Malibu LCP Local Implementation Plan

2. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). January 2024. State and Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Animals of California. California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Sacramento, CA

3. “STREAM - is a topographic feature that at least periodically conveys water through a bed or channel having banks. This includes watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation.” Chapter 2, Definitions, City of Malibu LCP Local Implementation Plan
564
565
Michael Burke & Associates Architects 6079 Paseo Canyon Dr.

Malibu, CA 90265
(909) 557-3052
[email protected]
1 Meeting Minutes
To: Dawn Ericson, Dominique Navarro, Richard Mollica, Aakash Shah From: Michael Burke, Architect
CC: Date: 5/26/20
Re: Fire Rebuild Planning Meeting Minutes 30069 Harvester Road, Malibu Attendees: Dawn Ericson
Dominique Navarro
Richard Mollica
Aakash Shah
Michael Burke
Location: 30069 Harvester Road ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ These minutes represent what was stated at the introductory meeting, and what actions are suggested prior to the next meeting.

Michael Burke explained the project as a replacement home for the prior residence destroyed by the Woolsey Fire in 2018. The owners are just getting started on the design and wanted to review the process with Malibu Planning.

Richard Mollica stated the mass of the home is grand-fathered into the site and the new design should be as similar as possible to the original. Dawn Ericson stated she would like the home to be the same square footage.

Dawn Ericson stated she would like to move the house further to the east at the suggestion of the fire department. The fire department informed her the prior home was very close to the western property line and power lines to properly defend. MB suggested the house should be moved at least 10 feet to the east, any further would put the home on a slope. The slope would require more complex engineering. The house could also be made thinner to help increase the distance to the western property line with a minimal push toward the east.

Richard stated a sideyard setback of 10% is usually required, but due to the 350 foot lot width, and ESHA, that would be problematic.

Richard explained they would need to have the driveway widened to 20 feet to meet LA Fire regulations. Other regulations for the driveway would also apply regarding slope and materials used per the fire dept. Due to the length, a turn-around might need to be provided. Richard stated a sketch should be sent to Chris or Jackie at LA Fire.

Dawn Ericson stated that a Fire Department meeting took place at the City last spring 2019, and we were told that a 15 foot driveway may be acceptable for our property, but that a turn around is needed.

Richard stated we also need to do a Water and Access Submittal. A fire flow may be required from the nearest hydrant. The water provider would need to be contacted for that issue. 566
Michael Burke & Associates Architects 6079 Paseo Canyon Dr.

Malibu, CA 90265
(909) 557-3052
[email protected]
2 The new house will need to be fire-sprinklered.

Richard stated we would need to meet with Environmental Health to discuss the amount of plumbing fixtures that are allowed in the proposed home. *A written program for the house was provided at this meeting and a recent survey was recently done and provided at the meeting for discussion.

Next Steps:

MB to develop the drawings for a Planning Submittal.

DE and DN will need to contact Water District regarding a fire flow test.

MB will contact LA Fire for a preliminary review of the site for access.

The foregoing represents our understanding of the matters discussed and the conclusions reached. Please review these minutes and notify me in writing of any error or omission within five (5) days.

Michael Burke, NCARB
Architect
Michael Burke and Associates Architects
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
From: Lester Tobias
To: Rebecca Evans; Paul Philipson; andrea slosberg-philipson Subject: 30053 HARVESTER: clarification
Date: Monday, March 18, 2024 11:07:00 AM
Dear Commissioners,
I wanted to clarify the advice I gave to my friends and clients, the Philipsons, and to which they referred in their correspondence on this matter.

When I first saw the site plan for the proposed project and looked at the elevations, it did, in fact, seem "innocuous", in that most of the structure up against the joint property line with the Philipsons was seemingly one story, and there were no large windows that would be peering into their home.

Not being in favor of torpedoing residential projects in Malibu, I painted a rather sympathetic view of the architect and the project to the Philipsons.

But when I saw the story poles I realized that this project will have severe impacts on the Pilipsons, while the owner of the new house will never even know that there is a house next door.

The problem is that neither the survey nor the site plan shows the Philipson's house, which is required per the CDP checklist. Had the Philipson's house appeared on the plans, the problem would have been obvious. This could have led to a real Feasible Design Alternatives study, as opposed to the boilerplate dismissal that appears in the staff report.

I am not saying that the project as designed violates any codes. However, it is my opinion that the staff report is flawed, as it failed to require the Philipson's house to be delineated on both the survey and site plan, and that no meaningful feasible alternative designs were required of the applicant. Had these two items been part of the process, I think the Philipsons would have had the possibility of a more neighborly design next door.

LT
--
Lester Tobias, Principal
Tobias Architecture, Incorporated
29160 Heathercliff, Suite 400
Malibu, California 90265
(310) 317-0507
NCARB #101162
California Architect's License C22552
Montana Architect's License ARC-20223
574
From: Stacy Clunies-Ross >
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 8:59 AM
To: K__ malibu planning
<[email protected]>
Subject: 30053 Harvester Rd. - Malibu Planning Commission Hearing Item #5A 3/4/24
RE: 30053 Harvester Rd. - Malibu Planning Commission Hearing Item #5A Dear Planning Commissioners,
We are writing in support of Steven Kent and the building of his new home on Harvester Rd.

We've known Steve for over 10 years. Craig met Steve through mutual friends and over the years has traveled extensively with him. We have all formed a very close friendship. We have also been fortunate enough to have him design two homes for us. One is a fire rebuild on Harvester, very near to Steve’s project, that will soon be our new family home. He has also designed a new home for my parents on Trancas Beach. Both home designs are exquisite.

We have seen the plans and renderings for Steve’s new home. We feel he is building a beautiful house appropriate for the Malibu Park neighborhood. I have lived in Malibu Park my entire life and my husband and I have raised our children here for the last 30 years. As long time Malibu residents, specifically Malibu Park, we appreciate the more rural aspects of our community. Steve been incredibly sensitive to keep his projects as aesthetically pleasing as possible, and to make sure they fit into the natural surroundings of Malibu Park. We believe that Steve’s house will complement the surrounding areas.

We hope you support this project, which will enable his family to live in our beautiful neighborhood.

Sincerely,
Craig and Stacy Clunies-Ross
Harvester Rd.

Malibu CA 90265
575
Stacy Clunies-Ross
Westside Estate Agency
CalBRE#01980245
Realtor®
Cell Phone:3
Email:
576
1 Planning Commission
From: Steve Kent <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 6:34 PM
To: Planning Commission
Cc: malibu planning
Subject: 30053 Harvester Rd. - 3/18/24 Malibu Planning Commission Hearing Item #5A Attachments: 30053 Harvester - ARCH Plans.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Commissioners,
I would appreciate the opportunity to meet with you on site to review the attached plans.

Please let me know what day and time works best for you.

Best,
Steve
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

S T E V E N K E N T A R C H I T E C T
310.293.3222
www.StevenKentAIA.com
577
578
579
DINING LIVING OPEN TREAD STAIR fireplace up cabinet BATH 1 wardrobe storage work bench mech. KITCHEN ENTRY bbq DRIVEWAY HALL POWDER planter GARAGE POOL SPA oven oven wine 20'-0" 14'-5" 10'-0" 32'-0" 8'-0" 30'-2" 10'-0" 32'-7" 23'-2" 3'-1" 26'-0" 2'-11" 8'-2" 4'-6" 10'-0" 7'-6" 8'-0" 10'-0" 2'-7" 10'-0" 13'-3" 5'-10" 4'-6"
8'-2" 51'-2" 21'-2"
6" step
6" step
6" step dn. mech. & pool equip. pad planter ref frez books fire
wood showerplanter planter BEDROOM 1 EL. +292.5 EL. +294.0 EL. +293.5 EL. +292.5 conc. steps on grade conc. deck conc. deck conc. deck see sheet A-3.1 for equip enclosure fencing detail pantry mech. A-2.1SCALE: 3/16"= 1'-0" 1st Floor Plan 1st FLOOR PLAN 1 REVISIONS Steven Kent Architects DATE: 18 August 2023 30053 Harvester Rd. MALIBU ARCHITECT Steven Kent 310.293.3222 [email protected] CA Lic. #C27000 APN 4469-009-010 North 580
OPEN TREAD STAIR dn. PRIMARY BEDROOM PRIMARY BATHROOM CLOSET 2 tub shower CLOSET 1 cabinet BATH 2 shower BEDROOM 2 HALL LAUNDRY planter BATH 3 DECK 20'-5" 15'-8" 19'-6" 5'-4" 6'-4" 8'-0"3'-8" 32'-0" 8'-0" 23'-8" 12'-8" 27'-5" 30'-0" 29'-6" 8'-0" 14'-6" 7'-6" 53'-2" A.D. A.D. shwr. skylight planter wardrobe 40'-1" 7'-6" BUILT-UP FLAT ROOF CLASS 'A' (TYP.) EL. +305.0 EL. +305.0 14"per ft. slope BEDROOM 3 A-2.2 SCALE: 3/16"= 1'-0" 2nd Floor Plan 2nd FLOOR PLAN 1 REVISIONS Steven Kent Architects DATE: 12 September 2023 30053 Harvester Rd. MALIBU ARCHITECT Steven Kent 310.293.3222 [email protected] CA Lic. #C27000 APN 4469-009-010 North 581
A-2.3 SCALE: 3/16"= 1'-0" Basement & Foundation Plan BASEMENT & FOUNDATION PLAN 1 REVISIONS Steven Kent Architects DATE: 18 August 2023 30053 Harvester Rd. MALIBU ARCHITECT Steven Kent 310.293.3222 [email protected] CA Lic. #C27000 APN 4469-009-010 North FOUNDATION up planter & window well pool table equip. closet emergency escape windows 44" above finish floor (as required by building & safety) projection screen
26'-4" 33'-1"
6'-8" 19'-4" 12'-9" MEDIA/GAME ROOM basement level EL. +282 emergency escape ladder 582
26'-8" 53'-2"
19'-6" 8'-0"3'-8" 32'-0" 8'-0" 53'-2" 12'-8" 27'-5"
30'-0" BUILT-UP FLAT ROOF CLASS 'A' (TYP.) 40'-1" skylight skylight TUBE STEEL PERGOLA ROOF EL. +305.0 GRADE EL. +291.1 ROOF EL. +315.5 GRADE EL. +295.75 ROOF EL. +315.5 GRADE EL. +303.9 ROOF EL. +315.5 GRADE EL. +304.9 ROOF EL. +315.5 GRADE EL. +294.0 ROOF EL. +305.0 GRADE EL. +289.4 ROOF EL. +315.5 GRADE EL. +292.5 ROOF EL. +315.5 GRADE EL. +294.0 ROOF EL. +315.5 GRADE EL. +293.5 ROOF EL. +315.5 GRADE EL. +304.0 LOW ROOF EL. +305.0 LOW ROOF EL. +305.0 NOTE: GRADE ELEVATIONS GIVEN ARE THE LOWEST OF EXISTING OR NEW EL.+315.5 14"per ft. slope (typ.) 14"per ft. slope (typ.) 14"per ft. slope (typ.) PERGOLA LOW ROOF EL. +305.0 A-2.4 SCALE: 3/16"= 1'-0" Roof Plan ROOF PLAN 1 REVISIONS Steven Kent Architects DATE: 18 August 2023 30053 Harvester Rd. MALIBU ARCHITECT Steven Kent 310.293.3222 [email protected] CA Lic. #C27000 APN 4469-009-010 North 583
YOGA STUDIO DECK storage closet cab. 17'-6" 10'-0"
23'-0" EL. +280
5' STEPS dn. GARAGE dn. LIVING ROOF
5' STEPS storage planter EL. +292 shwr. KITCHEN ref. LIVING oven fp deskDINING EL. +282.5 BEDROOM BATH EL. +282.5 up breezeway bbq planter planter wardrobe
19'-3" 33'-3"8'-0" 18'-0" 16'-8" 23'-10"
21'-0" w d Flat Roof 14"per ft. slope conc. deck A-2.5 SCALE: 3/16"= 1'-0" ADU & Accessory Plans SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" ADU 1st Floor Plan 1 REVISIONS Steven Kent Architects DATE: 18 August 2023 30053 Harvester Rd. MALIBU ARCHITECT Steven Kent 310.293.3222 [email protected] CA Lic. #C27000 APN 4469-009-010 North SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" ADU 2nd Floor Plan SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" Yoga Studio Floor Plan 584
FOUNDATION 32'-9"
19'-9" 18'-0"8'-0" LIVING ROOF BELOW FLAT ROOF 18'-0" 10'-0" 24'-0" LIVING ROOF 18'-0"
24'-0" 67'-10" NOTE: GRADE ELEVATIONS GIVEN ARE THE LOWEST OF EXISTING OR NEW ROOF EL. +303.5 GRADE EL. +289.3 ROOF EL. +303.5 GRADE EL. +282.5 ROOF EL. +294.5 GRADE EL. +288.6 ROOF EL. +294.5 GRADE EL. +282.5 ROOF EL. +294.5.5 GRADE EL. +282.5 TOP OF PLANTER WALL EL. +296.0 ROOF EL. +294.5 GRADE EL. +287.3 EL. +294.0 EL. +203.0 23'-10" 21'-0"
19'-3" 33'-3"8'-0" 15'-7" ROOF EL. +303.5 GRADE EL. +298.8 14"per ft. slope (typ.) ROOF EL. +303.5 GRADE EL. +282.5 A-2.6 SCALE: 3/16"= 1'-0" ADU-Accessory 1 REVISIONS Steven Kent Architects DATE: 18 August 2023 30053 Harvester Rd. MALIBU ARCHITECT Steven Kent 310.293.3222 [email protected] CA Lic. #C27000 APN 4469-009-010 North ADU Roof Plan ADU Foundation Plan Founadation & Roof Plans Yoga Studio Plan Yoga Studio Foundation Plan 585
586
587
588
SHEET
OF
SCALE:

DRAWN:

JOB No.: SUBMITTAL / REVISION Civil Engineering Land Surveying 4859 West Slauson Unit 625 Los Angeles, California 310.645.3205 whitsonengineers.com 1"=20'
MB
4621.00
C1.14 30053 HARVESTER ROAD CONCEPTUAL GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLANS FOR A PROPOSED SFR DRIVEWAY PLAN AND PROFILE SHEET MALIBU, CA 90265 APN 4469-009-010 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 5/23/23 MB MALIBU PLANNING & LACFD FIRE ACCESS & WATER E I N E S O N E W N I T H S G R FIRE DEPT. HAMMER-HEAD TURN-AROUND
589
Biological Inventory
30053 Harvester Rd
Malibu, CA
June 28, 2023
Prepared For:

Steven Kent
11906 Gorham Ave
Los Angeles, CA 90049
Prepared By:

Edith Read, PhD
E Read and Associates, Inc.

Orange, CA
(714) 366-8857
[email protected]
590
Biological Inventory 30053 Harvester Rd, Malibu
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROJECT DESCRIPTION.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 METHODS .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE.................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 SPECIAL STATUS HABITATS AND SPECIES ................................................................................................................................................................. 3 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................................................................................... 4 Figures (all follow Text)
Figure 1. Property Location ................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 2. Site Photographs of Vegetation.......................................................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 4a. Historical Topography and Current Conditions: West Side ...................................................................................................... 7 Figure 4b. Historical Topography and Current Conditions: East Side.......................................................................................................... 8 Figure 5. ESHA Boundaries Relative to Property Location.............................................................................................................................. 9

591
Biological Inventory 30053 Harvester Rd, Malibu
3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This report provides an inventory of biological resources on 30053 Harvester Road in the City of Malibu (APN 4469-009-010; Figure 1). The property is currently vacant.

METHODS
Review of resource information relevant to evaluating biological resources and potential for special status species was conducted for guidance in the field and discussion in this report. This information consisted of aerial photographs, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) maps, the City’s database of locations of sensitive habitat in the region, and the June, 2023 update of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). Regional CNDDB data were overlaid onto a map using Geographic Information System (GIS) software.

The field survey was conducted by E. Read on June 15, 2023.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Vegetation and Wildlife
Vegetation on the property consists of non-native annual grassland dominated by wild oats (Avena spp.). Sometime prior to the survey, this vegetation had been mowed for fire hazard abatement purposes, so species were identified based on leaves and fruiting material. Figure 2 provides photographs representing vegetation on the property and more detail regarding plant species observed.

Wildlife detected during the survey consisted of pocket gopher (Thomoys bottae, evidenced by burrows), coyote (Canis latrans, evidenced by scat), eastern fox squirrel (Sciurus niger), and spotted towhee (Pipilo maculatus). No raptor nests were observed in the trees adjacent to the property.

Special Status Habitats and Species
Streambeds. Figures 4a and 4b show two off-site gullies. These gullies are not indicated as “blueline” streambeds on the historical USGS map and their hydrologic regimes are best characterized as ephemeral. No wetland conditions were observed during the survey, and with the exception of an immature sycamore and toyon in the west gully, the dominant vegetation consists of non-native landscape species. Flows from these gullies are conveyed through small underground culverts into storm drains on the property to the south. Openings of the culverts were observed to be clear on the day of the survey, and it can be expected that these culverts are routinely kept clear to avoid flooding.

As can be seen in the figures, the USGS map shows an unnamed “blue-line” intermittent streambed east of the property but its location is more than 1,000 feet from the property line.

Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA). Figure 5 shows the City-mapped ESHA relative to the property location. No ESHA or feature qualifying as ESHA is located on or within 200 feet of the property.
592
Biological Inventory 30053 Harvester Rd, Malibu
4 Special Status Species. No special status species would be expected to occur on the property due to lack of suitable habitat. Similarly, no raptors would be expected to nest on the property. No native or protected trees are present on the property itself.

POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Development of the property, including landscaping with a fuel modification zone, would not impact special status species or protected habitats, including wetlands. Measures that the City already requires as conditions of development, such as controlling runoff and trash, and avoiding planting invasive vegetation, will be sufficient to protect the adjacent off-site gullies and biological resources of the area. No additional surveys or studies are warranted at this time. 593
Biological Inventory 30053 Harvester Rd, Malibu
5 Figure 1. Property Location
594
Biological Inventory 30053 Harvester Rd, Malibu
6 Above: views north and east from Harvester Rd. The shrubby plant in the foreground is castor bean (Ricinis communis), an invasive non-native species. Eucalyptus trees in the background are on the adjacent property.

Below: views south and west from northern property line. As in the other photographs, mature vegetation consisting primarily of eucalyptus is on the adjacent property. The small pruned shrub in middle photograph is castor bean.

See Figure 3 for additional photographs related to adjacent (off-site) conditions.

Figure 2. Site Photographs of Vegetation
595
Biological Inventory 30053 Harvester Rd, Malibu
7 Top photo shows an immature western sycamore (Platanus racemosa) and toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia) associated with a gully off-site on the adjacent property and upslope from a small culvert (bottom photo). No wetland vegetation was observed.

Figure 4a. Historical Topography and Current Conditions: West Side 596
Biological Inventory 30053 Harvester Rd, Malibu
8 Photo above left is a view to the north showing the eastern off-site gully. No wetland was observed.

Figure 4b. Historical Topography and Current Conditions: East Side 597
Biological Inventory 30053 Harvester Rd, Malibu
9 Brown polygons indicate City-mapped ESHA boundaries. Arrow indicates property location.

Figure 5. ESHA Boundaries Relative to Property Location 598
599
From: Steve Kent
To: Planning Commission
Subject: 30053 Harvester #5A
Date: Monday, March 18, 2024 3:49:33 PM
Attachments: 30053 Harvester topo site plan.pdf
Dear Commissioners,
This in response to the letter just received by Lester Tobias regarding my project, and also the letter received today by the Philipsons.

First of all, the Philipson's house footprint was shown on my topo site plan throughout the entire planning process for the past year, and the subject never came up. This is because my project 100% meets the required setbacks per the Malibu zoning code.

The fact that the Philipsons got a break with a reduced setback should not penalize me and inhibit my ability to build within the planning code. The houses are nearly 30 ft. apart and nothing unique to Malibu Park, where there are dozens of examples of homes with less distance apart.

Although the Philipson's are pleading their case for separating the houses more because of fire danger, they have asked me several times if I would consider keeping the large eucalyptus and pine trees in the side yard separating our homes. Of course, these trees are a big fire hazard, so I do not believe the Philipson's claims are sincere.

When I made the final PDF prints of the plans for the hearing tonight and gave them to planning, the layer showing the Ericsons house was inadvertently turned off. Attached is the topo site plan with their house shown as it was during the entire planning approval process.

Please note that according to my survey, the Philipson's house is 1 ft. further from the property line than shown on Lester Tobias's plan.

Best,
Steve

S T E V E N K E N T A R C H I T E C T
310.293.3222
www.StevenKentAIA.com
600
601
From: Steve Kent
To: Planning Commission
Subject: 30053 Harvester #5A
Date: Monday, March 18, 2024 4:35:34 PM
Dear Commissioners,
This is in response to the letter received today by Dawn Ericson maliciously trying to derail my project on very questionable grounds, which amounts to a bunch of nonsense.

Ms. Ericson stated that she had a landscaper friend walk the property with a GPS phone app.

This is a complete joke and I hope that you do not take this sort of thing seriously. Of course I have a very accurate survey done by a professional licensed surveyor, who actually knows where the property corners are and where the fence is located.

My surveyor checked the information and said the fence is very close to the property line, and nowhere near being 4 ft. off, as Ms. Ericson's landscaper friend and his GPS phone app assert (just FYI, handheld GPS devices are routinely off by several feet and can have tolerances of 10' and greater). My surveyor also has aerial imagery of the trees, and where the trunks are in relation to the property line.

The bottom line is that my property has no protected trees, and that fact has not changed.

When my very well respected registered biologist Edith Read did her inventory, it was focused on my property and not the neighbors. Edith found no native protected trees on my property and no ESHA or stream.

The Malibu city biologist has also confirmed that there is no ESHA or stream and is not mapped as ESHA or stream. It would be a grave mistake for the city to change its mind on this after I have done all of my due diligence purchasing the property and getting approvals/ entitlements.

Best,
Steve

S T E V E N K E N T A R C H I T E C T
310.293.3222
www.StevenKentAIA.com
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
From: andrea slosberg-philipson
To: Planning Commission; Rebecca Evans; Paul Philipson; Richard Mollica; Tyler Eaton Subject: Objections to 30053 Harvester
Date: Friday, April 5, 2024 8:26:59 AM
Attachments: story poles.png
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I contacted you yesterday to invite you, again, to visit our home in order to discuss the proposed new home build on the adjacent property at 30053 Harvester. I appreciate your time and willingness to engage in this situation.

It has come to our attention that the Planning Commissioners were told Mr. Kent's structures were not over 18ft in height. I have attached a copy of his story poles which clearly indicate that his structure is over that height. We are now getting a Primary View Corridor recorded to object to Mr. Kent's plans as we will be dramatically affected.

We want to show you why we strongly disagree with the staff's findings that Mr. Kent's proposed plans meet the criteria of keeping with the neighborhood character despite his skewed survey.

Fact 1:

Mr. Kent's proposal is at least 20% larger than the surrounding structures.

This is not in dispute but these questions remain:

1. What percent of overbuild is acceptable?

2. How many recently built houses in the Malibu Park area are over 20% larger than their surrounding homes?
We want to know this number to determine whether the Planning Commission has decided to no longer honor the previously set square footage limits for residential structures in this neighborhood, if not built in the last five years.

Fact 2:

Mr. Kent's survey of homes in his size range "in the area" have all been built in the last five years.

1. As he only addressed newly built homes, we have to ask if this is the 619
current criteria for PC building approvals.

2. If so, we believe the Planning Commission is not using its best judgment to protect and serve homeowners and homes built prior to 2019.

We are asking that Mr. Kent's current plan be denied approval, and he is required to design a more reasonable plan that considers our home and orientation. Our 20-year residence as upstanding Malibu homeowners must be valued on an equal basis to Mr. Kent's statement that he may "potentially" inhabit this structure himself in the future. There is always the possibility that he could sell this newly approved or built property for a large margin, never ending up in personal residence at all, which is, of course, his choice. However, we would still be left living not more than 25 feet from an approved home and/or building plan that would swallow our existing home and view and significantly reduce our own property value.

Fact 3:

Mr. Kent did not consult or confer with either neighbor on both respective property borders until days before the original planning meeting.

1. This is in stark contrast to the homeowner on Zumirez, who spoke during the last planning meeting on April 1st. That applicant mentioned how they and their architect consulted and included their neighbors in creating their home.

2. The exact opposite occurred in our situation.

3. Your job in directing and approving the kinds of proposals that have major objections from both neighbors, citing significant issues, is extremely problematic and does not align with best practices to protect our neighborhood and ecosystem.

Despite these valid objections, Mr. Kent hasn't offered to change, adapt, or adjust his plans. In fact, the letters you received in favor of Mr. Kent are not from any directly impacted neighbors and are, instead, all from clients or friends or those who are both friends AND clients of Mr. Kent.

I have attached a video of your last Planning Meeting on April 1st, where at 3:20:20 the applicant is speaking and then later, at 3:28:00 where Mr. Peak and other commissioners are commenting about the importance and respect that was given in this situation.
620
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1KDb7_mfTc
It appears that Mr. Kent is getting more than a pass, or if not, then at least a "wave" that indicates a belief that our neighborhood and his neighbors are just in the way. We argue that this is a tunnel vision approach.

To simply consider his "potential" home and not consider anything beyond the property borders is exactly our issue. The important sense of neighborhood and community is missing from this process. This appears to be a purely developmental mindset that believes in using every square foot available, combined with maximizing the actual number of structures allowed on a residential property, which, in this case, will ultimately place his "home" literally in our faces while dramatically devaluing our much-loved home and property. This is unacceptable.

The Planning Commission can make a positive difference by taking actions now that will backup your public statements describing how Malibu should grow and expand thoughtfully and respectfully, including all the inhabitants and wildlife.

Fact 4:

Mr. Kent's photos in the staff report misrepresent the impact of his project.

Fact 5:

Our understanding is that No staff member had previously visited the site in person before the original staff report or supplemental report, including the biologist.

Fact 6:

Mr. Kent did not originally include our home on his submitted plans.

1. What determination supported the fact that no alternative plan requirement was made to account for our home and orientation by staff? If no staff had seen the situation before the story poles were erected, it would have been a dereliction not to require any other alternative plans. There are multiple ways to plan a home that provides limited impact in blocking light, views, or impact on neighbors — but the fact that none was required is shameful, especially when we have expressed our objections.
621

2. Not visiting the site has allowed Mr. Kent to proceed undeterred to maximize his plans.

We are asking the Planning Commission to consider the very limited space between structures and asking that Mr. Kent submit alternative plans to offset the size and impact.

Fact 7:

Mr. Kent must have a detailed plan for his construction site, onsite parking, trailer and construction storage and the requirement for NO street parking.

The construction issue in Malibu Park is ongoing, and the impact must be minimized as much as possible for our neighbors and us.

Fact 8:

We have not gotten a clear understanding of the valuable trees Mr. Kent will have to remove on our border. We are demanding, in writing, that Mr. Kent replaces any tree removed, including natives, and Mr. Kent must pay for and plant (coming in from his property) at the beginning of construction to provide shelter and privacy, which we are losing. This will benefit both of us.

We deserve the privacy and protection we have had for over 20 years.

Fact 9:

Our goal is to work with Mr. Kent to create a non-adversarial relationship.

We leave the door open for communication should there be more issues down the road.

Kind Regards,
Andrea Slosberg Philipson
622
623
April 8, 2024
Planning Department
Planning Commission
City of Malibu
Dear Tyler,
Thank you for coming out last Friday, April 5th to record our Primary View Determination (PVD). I read the staff report published on Friday and it was not mentioned, and I did not see any confirmation of the PVD being recorded and added into the file. You verified that our Primary Views are blocked, and we are losing views of the Santa Monica Mountains by the proposed story poles at 30053 Harvester. How does your report reflect this and what are the steps taken by the city to protect our PVD that is affected by Mr. Kent’s proposed plan? We assert that our existing historic sited home has not been granted any recognition in order to preserve our existing uses granted under prior residential permit. In regard to Mr. Kent’s proposed plans on his large parcel of undeveloped land, it appears Mr. Kent has not been required to preserve our existing siting. New development's siting of structures is constrained by the existing neighbors/neighborhood standards.

The opportunity to adjust the Applicant's project is now because we cannot be moved to accommodate the Applicant's proposed new construction siting/plot plan. How are you requiring the Applicant to preserve our existing siting and PVD?
New development's siting must respect the existing uses on the neighbors' parcels. That is how new development "respects" the existing environment AND the existing/adjacent BUILT environment. How is the city protecting and serving us at this time and any existing or future homeowners?
As the homeowners at Harvester Rd, we are requesting that our PVD rights and our existing-neighbor with known-developed‐home‐footprint rights are being asserted today and is being SUPERSET to Staff to be processed NOW before further processing/stance/evaluating of criteria occurs.

Please confirm our PVD is recorded. Will there be a supplemental report sent out before the hearing on April 15th?
Can you also please calculate what our side yard setback would be for our parcel if it was historically vacant, a tear-down/rebuild not grandfathered by disaster rebuild? What is being done to confirm that our existing rights are being adjusted into any formula to calculate Mr.

Kent’s setbacks plans? Please provide this promptly so we can verify independently.

Please let me know if you have any further questions and please confirm you’ve received this.

Kind Regards,
Andrea Slosberg Philipson
624
From: andrea slosberg-philipson
To: Tyler Eaton; Richard Mollica; Rebecca Evans; Planning Commission; Paul Philipson Subject: PVD on record
Date: Tuesday, April 9, 2024 11:34:24 AM
Hi Tyler,
I am confirming again, today that our Primary View Determination is in effect. You confirmed the site in my living room met all requirements to qualify with the code:

The primary view corridor shall be assessed from a single fixed location and direction within only one of the selected main viewing areas, at an elevation of five feet as measured from the room floor or on an abutting outdoor deck or patio at any one point within ten (10) feet of the nearest outside wall of the building as selected by the affected property owner and the city.

The “main viewing area” shall be limited to the ground floor of the principal residence, or the primary living area (excluding bedrooms) if not located on the ground floor, or abutting outdoor deck or patio area at relatively the same elevation as the ground floor of the principal residence whichever has the superior view corridor. Hallways, closets and mechanical rooms shall not be considered main viewing areas.

You took the relevant pictures and confirmed on Friday, it would be recorded as it qualified and acknowledged it clearly blocked our views of the Santa Monica Mountains. I spoke with you in length again on Monday evening and again requested that the PVD be recorded promptly. I asked if we were required to pay a fee for determination to be made and both you and Alex, confirmed that we were not required to pay a fee for the PVD to be recorded.

I am strongly pushing back on Mr. Kent's assertion that his structure is not required to meet the code that I read. Can you please elaborate on how his proposed plan should be permitted here? His story poles clearly show he does not meet the requirements for a permit and our views of the Santa Monica Mountains are clearly infringed upon. They are visibly and demonstrably obstructed and disturbed.

The width of the primary view corridor shall extend the entire width of the protected primary view not to exceed a maximum of one hundred eighty (180) degrees in width from the selected fixed location and direction. The primary view corridor shall exclude the first eighteen (18) feet of the proposed building height as measured from the existing natural grade or finish grade whichever results in a lower building height. No view obstruction within blue-water ocean, mountain or canyon-view elements per project shall be permitted. Existing foliage shall be considered to have no visual impact to the primary view corridor. New foliage shall not be placed in a manner that creates visual impacts to the primary view corridor and shall meet all landscaping requirements as outlined in this section.

We are exploring all our options to protect our unique home, our views and neighborhood community.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.
625
Kind Regards,
Andrea
626
627
Tyler Eaton
Senior Planner | Planning
Office: (310) 456 2489 ext. 273
23825 Stuart Ranch Road | Malibu, CA 90265

628
629
630
631
632
From: andrea slosberg-philipson
To: Tyler Eaton; Richard Mollica; Planning Commission; Paul Philipson; Rebecca Evans; Lester Tobias; Kim Wong; Gardia Fox; Dawn Ericson
Subject: PVD series 1
Date: Monday, April 15, 2024 8:27:58 AM
Attachments: angle of PVD.png
Hi Tyler and Richard,
Please refer to our recorded PVD and the series of photos I am sending. They are too large to send in 1 email.

The additional photos and evidence clearly show Mr. Kent's 24ft poles are obstructing our PVD. I know there has been little time to thoroughly evaluate this situation, however, I must insist on an accurate and fair evaluation of the city's code and the proposed plans at 30053 Harvester Rd. be revised now.

Please provide a supplemental staff report to correct the record and represent it accurately.

Your current staff report omits relevant information and recommends this proposal for approval. It is based on inaccurate, incomplete, misrepresented information and we, the public, and the commissioners deserve a report that is not biased, skewed or misrepresenting facts and evidence.

You provided a skewed photo to me to show how Mr. Kent had "convinced" you both that what he had proposed was in fact permitted. I do not know how you came to that conclusion, but I do know that you must use evidence that is relevant, accurate and is a fair representation of this project. Mr. Kent provided a skewed, self-serving interpretation to assure his project would move forward.

We deserve and expect fair representation for us, our home and neighborhood.

I have been told the commissioners rely heavily on your findings in the staff report and if they are not given accurate information and evidence then we are not being equally treated. I have been told that some solely base their decisions on such findings and your stamp of approval.

Apparently, the commissioners need to have a reason to oppose your recommendation. So which is it? You provide an accurate report that shows that Mr. Kent's proposal does not meet the criteria for approval and include evidence and facts or you provide an inaccurate report which does not fairly represent us or the proposed plan, based on Mr. Kent's false assertions? We have provided the reason, our PVD and it must be included in your staff report which should be revised and updated to accurately determine if Mr. Kent's proposal fits the criteria for approval. You have both stated to me that your intention is to fairly represent everyone in Malibu.

Therefore, how will you be explaining and defending your findings and staff approval given our evidence, photos and PVD before the hearing? How will this evidence be presented during the hearing? Will you present photos at the hearing? How are you defending or explaining Mr. Kent's 24ft poles should be permitted under the city's current code? Are you stating that Mr. Kent's proposal should be approved based on the evidence that is in front of you now? The public and the commissioners should be presented with the accurate facts. What independent review have you used to enforce our PVD? We have provided photos and 633
evidence.

Communication should be provided before the hearing to the public and the commissioners as to why Mr. Kent's proposal meets the findings when we are clearly objecting, asserting and providing evidence to the exact opposite.

Thank you for your prompt attention.

Best,
Andrea
634
635
636
637
638
639
From: Charlotte Frieze
To: Planning Commission; Rebecca Evans; Richard Mollica Subject: Dark Skies
Date: Saturday, April 13, 2024 4:10:45 PM
Attachments: 2024-4-13 Planning Commission - 30053 Harvester-signed.pdf Dear Rebecca,
Thank you for including my letter in the meeting prep package and notes.

Best regards,
Charlotte
--
Charlotte M. Frieze
Malibu, CA
640
641
642
643
From: Dawn Ericson
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Woolsey Fire Biological RECOVERY
Date: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 2:42:39 PM
From: Dawn Ericson and Dominique Navarro

HARVESTER ROAD
Subject: ESHA SETBACKS
To: PLANNING COMMISSION,
FACTS for your consideration for the April 15 meeting.
30053 Developer Kent Stevens vs
3 Residents Ericson & Navarro
Genlemen,
May I answer your question as to why we didn't provide a Biological Inventory during the planning stage of our Woolsey Rebuild- Harvester Road, to validate the ESHA?.

One answer is shown in this photo. The riparian corridor, the watershed and the ESHA zone looked burnt, black & ashy and needed time to recover from the fire. We immediately began clearing and cleaning debris before construction began in 2021.

Today, five years later many plants are recovering, still black - burn scarred..but growing anew.

And seeds have sprouted for the CA Walnut trees.

Notice the California Coast Oak in this photo taken in 2019.

Today it is thriving at 25 feet with a 20 foot canopy - 20 feet away from Steven Kent’s ADU story poles.
644
645
646
Old Walnut tree that regrew after the fire is 20 feet from Kent’s ADU, which does not have STORY POLES.
#16. FACT: Denise Gonzales, CCC Coast Program Analyst ,"I suggest you contact the City of Malibu Planning Department if they have a list of environmental biologists who work in the Malibu-area.
#17. FACT: The Ericson house was build without a “flat pad”, the adjacent development which required ESHA setbacks.

3.1.22 -Malibu City Planning, FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES REPORT 30053 Harvester Rd. Malibu This is to confirm that there are no other feasible locations for the proposed building. The house is located on a flat pad. Other areas of the site would be difficult.

Best, Steve
#18. FACT: The LEACH field lines are only 5 feet deep.

Placed within the Kent property's watershed riparian stream, and near Harvester Road. #18. FACT: More FACTS next week….

Dawn N Ericson
Resident of Malibu for 50 years
Harvester Road
2019-2023 Woolsey Fire Rebuild
647
648
1 Planning Commission
From: Dawn Ericson >
Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2024 2:15 PM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Letter to PC regarding Steven Kent from Dawn N Ericson Attachments: 2024-04-09 FPA Ltr to Steve Kent.pdf
Please distribute this leƩer to the Planning Commissioners, For the April 15th hearing, Thank you,
Dawn N Ericson
649

2601 Ocean Park Blvd. | Suite 205 | Santa Monica, CA 90405 (310) 314-6433 | www.angellaw.com | [email protected] April 9, 2024
Steven Kent, Architect
11906 Gorham Ave.

Los Angeles, CA 90049
Via Email to [email protected]; and [email protected] Re: Application for Coastal Development Permit No. 23-019; Site Plan Review No. 23- 024; & CEQA Exemption for 30053 Harvester Road Project
Dear Mr. Kent:

As you are aware, this law firm represents Ms. Dawn N. Ericson, the owner of the home and property located immediately to the west of the 1.13-acre lot at 30053 Harvester Road you propose to develop pursuant to the above-referenced applications (Project).

I emailed you on March 29, informing you that Ms. Ericson asked me to contact you to explore resolution of her objections to the Project as currently designed. Last Thursday, April 4, you responded by email stating that our client can send her proposal via email.

The following proposal has my client’s approval. I have discussed and reviewed it with Ms. Ericson.

We offer to withdraw our objections to your Project in return for your agreement to either eliminate the 900 ft² detached second unit and 500 ft² detached garage; or, alternatively, to relocate the second unit and garage south or north of the main residential complex (e.g., redesign it and connect it as an ADU to the main residential complex on the front or rear side). Any such outcome serves to avoid hardscape and development west of the onsite access driveway and prevent degradation of the riparian habitat zone between the Project and Ms. Ericson’s own residence. Should you choose 650
Steven Kent, Architect
April 9, 2024

to keep the second unit (e.g., redesigned as an attached ADU), we would not oppose a front or rear yard minor modification or variance assuming a minor modification or variance will be necessary due to such redesign.

We have three ancillary demands, all in the form of a binding commitment that (1) construction-related staging, vegetation clearance and activities, as well as landscape maintenance (after completion of the Project) preserve all native vegetation west of the proposed driveway; (2) the landscaping plan include the planting under the supervision of a certified arborist of at least 20 coast live oak (Quercus Agrifolia) trees (48’’ Box Shrub/Trees, 10’ – 12’ tall), spaced irregularly along the westerly property boundary, between approximately 3’ to 8’ east of the boundary; and (3) any south-north running fence west of the proposed driveway be configured and designed such as to maximize permeability for wildlife crossings between the two properties.

If this proposal is acceptable, I suggest we notify the Planning Commission on April 15.

In that case, you and Ms. Ericson should enter into a duly executed, written agreement that will include these terms.

This does not necessarily require a continuance of the April 15, 2024, public hearing.

For example, if you choose to simply eliminate the 900 ft² detached second unit and 500 ft² detached garage from the Project, I believe the Planning Commission may take approval action subject to the party-agreed conditions.

In return for a settlement agreement based on these terms, Ms. Ericson offers to waive her right to appeal to the City Council a possible approval by the Planning Commission of the Project as now proposed, and her right to seek writ of mandate relief in court from a possible subsequent City Council approval of the Project.

We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest opportunity. Feel free to call me at (310) 924-1416 if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

ANGEL LAW
Frank Angel
cc: Dawn Ericson
651
From: Dawn Ericson
To: Planning Commission; Rebecca Evans
Subject: 30053 Harvester Rd, HOUSE DIA. for Planning Commissioners_April 15.

Date: Sunday, April 14, 2024 5:21:22 PM
Rebecca,
Please submit this 30053 Harvester Road, House DIAGRAM for the Planning Commissions review.

Thank you
Dawn Ericson
652
From: 50 year Resident of Malibu Park - Dawn Navarro Ericson To: The City of Malibu’s
Planning Commission
Re: Item 4A 30053 Harvester
Date: April 15, 2024
May I make it clear, in these legal records for the April 15 proceeding, I bear witness to these facts: the City of Malibu’s staff and the City Planning Commissioners collectively disregarded the personal welfare and legal rights of numberous Malibu Park RESIDENTS by empowering DEVELOPER Steven Kent. Collectively, except for a small minority, they flaunted project favors, contributed to misinformation, disregardsed the City LCP guidelines for reasonable building standards, violated the Coastal Commission laws about ESHA protections, ignored the letters of objection from the community, and granted unnessary variances to DEVELOPER Steven Kent’s project in the middle of Malibu Park.

Dawn Navarro Ericson
________________________________________________________________________________ The City is granting to Developer Steven Kent a Building Permit on April 15. Tyler Eaton told us this on April 18 when visiting our ESHA with stream site at Harvester Road. Skylar Peaks implied that he will vote for Kent, when visiting our ESHA site and he did not walk the stream area.

My name is Dawn Navarro Ericson and I have lived in Malibu Park for 50 years. We rebuilt in 2023, after the Woolsey fire, on the adjacent property at Harvester Road to Developer Steven Kent at 30053 Harvester Road. Our properties both have an ESHA with a stream that flows to the ocean at Zuma Beach.

1. The Planning Manager approved Developer Kent’s House Plans without ESHA setbacks. We were required to apply ESHA setbacks in our House Plans when we rebuilt in 2022 on the adjacent westerly property.

2. Developer Steven Kent hired Edith Read to write his Biological Inventory to refute an ESHA stream that flows to the ocean. Ms. Read’s report was incomplete in details and scope but approved by the City Planning Manager and three of the Planning Commissioners.

3. We hired Professional Biologist; Lauren Harris’s excellent report on the ESHA and stream was discredited by the Planner Manager and three of the Planning Commissioners and the City Biologist.

4. The Planning Commissioners visited Developer Kent’s property. But some refused to visit our property to review the ESHA plants and stream.

5. The City Planning Manager sent the City Biologist onto the Developer Kent’s property for a second plant review. But the City Planning Manager refused to sent the City Biologist to our ESHA for a review of the stream and plants.

6. A City Planner visited our property and ESHA and stated that we did not have an ESHA, despite him having no Professional expertise to support his option.

7. The City Planner fore-warned; Developer Kent’s AUD Plans without ESHA setback was going to be approved by the Planning Commission meeting on April 15. 653

8. The City Planning Manager, suggested that I wrongly interpreted the City’s emails about the ESHA setbacks during the Planning meetings for our Woolsey rebuild. He said it was my responsibility to get a Biological Inventory ESHA report during rebuild, despite the fact that everyone could see the ESHA stream on the property despite the fire.

Roads in Malibu Park have road signage “Drains to the OCEAN” where water passes under the road as under Harvester Road. The City Planning Manager questioned that the Fire Department requested us to clear the ESHA after the Woolsey Fire and restore the ESHA, as documents show.

9. The City gave Developer Kent opportunities to hide his Development project to the neighbors. The Story Poles did not represent the size, height and scope of Developer Kent’s project and were placed on the property only a few days before the first Planning Commission hearing. Postcards from the City to inform the neighbors came 1.5 weeks before the meeting which gave us little time to question Mr. Kent’s development. My only solution was to hire a professional expert to guide us on these transgressions by the City of Malibu. Therefore, I hire an Attorney, an expert in Environment Law and an expert on Malibu’s LCP. The Attorney fees are overwhelming but necessary due to the time issues imposed on us by the City. This expense clearly conveyed my grave concerns directly to the City of Malibu Planning Department and the Planning Commissioners. Despite my counsel, the City of Malibu Planning Department and three of the Planning Commissioners were insulting, and discrediting me and other neighbors during this April 15 meeting.

At the March 8th meeting, a Planning Commissioner complained “We had been working on the Kent’s project for over a years, and the neighbors at the last moment are disruptive to this meeting.” Two or three Planning Commissioner displayed annoyance towards a residents and neighbors that attended the meeting. The City Planning Manager did not support or help the neighbors as the meeting was delayed late into the evening making it difficult to participate.

11. A Planning Commissions requested that I should be more friendly, happy and a good neighbor to Mr. Kent. WOAH! How is Mr. Kent a good neighbor as he trespassed onto our property in the summer of 2023 and cut down 3 mature, old growth Toyons that survived the fire? I wrote the City - a
COMPLAINT letter about
cutting toyons, which was
ignored. How is Mr. Kent a
good neighbor when designs
a over sized structure that
deprives his neighbor the
common law right to light and
air, and with the main structure
being located unreasonably
close to the eastern neighbor’s
property line.
654
655
FW: April 15, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting-Item 4.A-30053 Harvester Road Dear Members of the Malibu Planning Commission,
On April 9, 2024, we provided the enclosed settlement proposal to Mr. Steven Kent, the applicant for the above-referenced project. Our client, Ms. Dawn N. Ericson has authorized my law firm to share a copy of our proposal with the Commission. To date, we have not received any response from Mr. Kent.

For the reasons we’ll explain at the April 15, 2024 public hearing -- reasons already brought to your attention at March 18, 2024 hearing -- the alternative offered in our settlement proposal, which centers on a development footprint scaled back from the stream along on the project site’s westerly boundary, is the least environmentally damaging alternative. This conclusion obtains regardless of whether you agree that the stream and associated riparian habitat is ESHA.

Unquestionably, the drainage channel that runs along the project site’s boundary with our client’s property meets the Malibu LIP’s definition of a “stream,” which is “a topographic feature that at least periodically conveys water through a bed or channel having banks. This includes watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation.” In fact, the topographic feature along the westerly boundary of the project site periodically conveys water through its channel -- it does right now -- and it has supported and continues to support riparian vegetation, a well-documented fact.

See, e.g., photographs below which I took on April 8, 2024. That this stream is “not indicated as ‘blueline’ streambeds on the historical USGS map” (as the applicant’s biological consultant argues) is therefore irrelevant for purposes of proper application of the Malibu LIP and coastal development permit review. We note in passing that under the Malibu LIP, because the onsite topographic feature is a stream, it is ESHA, and this conclusion stands regardless of whether it was mapped ESHA back in 2002 (22 years ago), when the LIP was approved and certified. See LIP section 4.3.B.6.

The project’s ADU/garage component is sited in the westerly portion of the site (west of the onsite access road), that is, nearest to the stream as compared to the main residential complex located east of the onsite access road. To meet the least environmentally damaging alternative requirement of Malibu LIP section 3.9 (C), 656
the ADU/garage component of this project must be either be removed or relocated east of the onsite access road. It is axiomatic that the closer human development and uses are to a stream or riparian vegetation, the more environmentally damaging the development and uses are to those coastal resources (e.g., erosion and runoff/pollutant transport from impervious surfaces, noise and light pollution), including their associated vertebrate and invertebrate wildlife species. Conversely, the wider the buffer, the less environmentally damaging the development and uses will be to those coastal resources and associated fauna. This scientific axiom is itself embedded in the Malibu LIP. As stated in Malibu LIP section 4.6.1 (highlighting added for emphasis):
“New development adjacent to the following habitats shall provide native vegetation buffer areas to serve as transitional habitat and provide distance and physical barriers to human intrusion. Buffers shall be of a sufficient size to ensure the biological integrity and preservation of the habitat they are designed to protect. Vegetation removal, vegetation thinning, or planting of non-native or invasive vegetation shall not be permitted within buffers except as provided in Section 4.6.1 (E) or (F) of the Malibu LIP. The following buffer standards shall apply:
“A. Stream/Riparian
“New development shall provide a buffer of no less than 100 feet in width from the outer edge of the canopy of riparian vegetation. Where riparian vegetation is not present, the buffer shall be measured from the outer edge of the bank of the subject stream.” In short, the conclusion is compelling that, under Malibu LIP section 13.9 (C), the project may not be approved with its ADU/garage component sited west of the proposed onsite access road.
657
Coast Live Oak in riparian zone Western Sycamore in same riparian along project site’s west boundary zone
Best,
__________________________________________________________ Frank P. Angel | O (310) 314-6433 | C (310) 924-1416
2601 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 205, Santa Monica, CA 90405 Angel Law
angellaw.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential or legally privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication.
658

2601 Ocean Park Blvd. | Suite 205 | Santa Monica, CA 90405 (310) 314-6433 | www.angellaw.com | [email protected] April 9, 2024
Steven Kent, Architect
11906 Gorham Ave.

Los Angeles, CA 90049
Via Email to [email protected]; and [email protected] Re: Application for Coastal Development Permit No. 23-019; Site Plan Review No. 23- 024; & CEQA Exemption for 30053 Harvester Road Project
Dear Mr. Kent:

As you are aware, this law firm represents Ms. Dawn N. Ericson, the owner of the home and property located immediately to the west of the 1.13-acre lot at 30053 Harvester Road you propose to develop pursuant to the above-referenced applications (Project).

I emailed you on March 29, informing you that Ms. Ericson asked me to contact you to explore resolution of her objections to the Project as currently designed. Last Thursday, April 4, you responded by email stating that our client can send her proposal via email.

The following proposal has my client’s approval. I have discussed and reviewed it with Ms. Ericson.

We offer to withdraw our objections to your Project in return for your agreement to either eliminate the 900 ft² detached second unit and 500 ft² detached garage; or, alternatively, to relocate the second unit and garage south or north of the main residential complex (e.g., redesign it and connect it as an ADU to the main residential complex on the front or rear side). Any such outcome serves to avoid hardscape and development west of the onsite access driveway and prevent degradation of the riparian habitat zone between the Project and Ms. Ericson’s own residence. Should you choose 659
Steven Kent, Architect
April 9, 2024

to keep the second unit (e.g., redesigned as an attached ADU), we would not oppose a front or rear yard minor modification or variance assuming a minor modification or variance will be necessary due to such redesign.

We have three ancillary demands, all in the form of a binding commitment that (1) construction-related staging, vegetation clearance and activities, as well as landscape maintenance (after completion of the Project) preserve all native vegetation west of the proposed driveway; (2) the landscaping plan include the planting under the supervision of a certified arborist of at least 20 coast live oak (Quercus Agrifolia) trees (48’’ Box Shrub/Trees, 10’ – 12’ tall), spaced irregularly along the westerly property boundary, between approximately 3’ to 8’ east of the boundary; and (3) any south-north running fence west of the proposed driveway be configured and designed such as to maximize permeability for wildlife crossings between the two properties.

If this proposal is acceptable, I suggest we notify the Planning Commission on April 15.

In that case, you and Ms. Ericson should enter into a duly executed, written agreement that will include these terms.

This does not necessarily require a continuance of the April 15, 2024, public hearing.

For example, if you choose to simply eliminate the 900 ft² detached second unit and 500 ft² detached garage from the Project, I believe the Planning Commission may take approval action subject to the party-agreed conditions.

In return for a settlement agreement based on these terms, Ms. Ericson offers to waive her right to appeal to the City Council a possible approval by the Planning Commission of the Project as now proposed, and her right to seek writ of mandate relief in court from a possible subsequent City Council approval of the Project.

We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest opportunity. Feel free to call me at (310) 924-1416 if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

ANGEL LAW
Frank Angel
cc: Dawn Ericson
660
661
Best,
__________________________________________________________ Frank P. Angel | | C
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Angel Law
Twitter Facebook
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential or legally privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication.
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669

MALIBU TOWNSHIP COUNCIL
PO BOX 803
MALIBU, CA 90265
Civic Guardian Since 1947
Attention Chair Hill and Planning Commission,
Malibu Township Council has been advocating for responsible development since 1947.

A matter of concern has come to the attention of MTC regarding the 30053 Harvester Road Project, which, if approved in its present form could seriously compromise Malibu’s distinct neighborhood character.

We are specifically concerned about the clearly biased mindset of two of the planning commissioners who are set to make decisions on this case.

Commissioner Skylar Peak, an electrical contractor, is heavily biased due to his history of close personal and working relationships with the architect/applicant Mr. Steven Kent. The viewpoint of Commissioner Dennis Smith, a grading contractor, also is heavily colored due to his ties to local contractors and architects and his constant approval of large projects. He cannot possibly be objective when it comes to construction and must recuse himself.

The manner in which Commissioner Drew Leonard votes on this project will be apparent when it comes before the Planning Commission on April 15. As a very connected local general contractor he has profited from multiple fire rebuilds in the last few years.

Peak has seen the plans and been to the site. He DOES acknowledge that there is not sufficient defensible space — space that would allow homeowners a measure of safety from fire — between the applicant’s project and the homes of neighboring properties. He has also seen the panoramic ocean views that the applicants’ neighbors, Andrea & Paul Philipson, would lose.

Peak states he supports the community and neighborhood, yet he favors the applicant’s project as is, a project that, as stated above will inflict a shattering injury to these long-standing Malibu homeowners. Peak has pledged that if he felt his opinion were to be compromised, he would recuse himself and we hold him to this.

Andrea and Paul Philipson and Dawn Ericson have lived at their addresses at 30033 & 30069 for a combined 70 years. By contrast, the applicants purchased their property ONLY a year ago, long after THEIR neighbors did, and Kent is known for buying up lots and building strictly for profit, falsely claiming his family will live there forever.

Beyond these observations, here are several OTHER ways in which the direction the Planning Commission seems headed exemplifies our concerns:

1. The neighborhood character finding granting the applicant’s Site Plan Review can be found in Section 13.27.5.2 of the Malibu Local Coastal Program’s code, which states, "The project does not adversely affect neighborhood character."
April 14, 2024
670
2 This finding cannot be made because this project clearly does not meet the neighborhood character. Civic Guardian Since 1947 This project's proposed Total Development Square Footage (over 7500 TDSF) is almost three times the neighborhood average. And the three structures are spread out on all the edges of the property lines rather than clustered together in the center.

As an indication of how the city plans to circumvent this obvious excess, Malibu Planning Director, Richard Mollica, has determined that, because the project consists of three separate structures, it will not adversely affect the neighborhood character. He maintains that the three individual buildings, in effect, total only two actual buildings since the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) is the only structure with measurements that officially MUST be described as a separate building. The ADU is maximized at 900 square feet plus a 500 square-foot garage. With respect to Harvester Road’s neighborhood character is that the existing homes in the surrounding area are set back further from the property lines. The existing adjacent homes have at least 200 ft distance in front, behind and next to their other neighbors.

Would any of you Commissioners want to have a 24-foot concrete wall of an almost 7000 sq ft structure within 13 ft of your property line blocking all your ocean, hillside and canyon views? The applicant’s project should be clustered in the central portion of the lot and build at a lower height.

The Planning Commission should not only take into consideration the applicant’s property rights but the negative impacts that the applicant’s development plan will have on the property rights of the adjacent neighbor Dawn Ericson, a 50-year resident and the Philipson family, who are 20-year residents. Even though these issues are settled strictly based on property rights, it is only human to request that the planners take the neighbors’ enjoyment of their own homes into consideration as well.

2. A further example of degradation of Malibu’s equality-based neighborhood character is that the Planning Commission is holding the applicant, Kent, to less restrictive environmental standards than those imposed on their neighbors, the Ericsons. The Ericsons, whose original home burned in the Woolsey fire and as a condition to rebuild, were required to move their new modest home further from the nearby Environmental Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA). The applicants must be held to the same distance requirement as in Malibu’s LCP Section 4.6.1. ESHA Buffers and thus increase the setback.

Many longstanding and mature trees that survived the fire should remain on the site and not be removed as per plans for construction of the new house. The trees provide much needed shade with climate change and roosting and nesting areas for birds, etc. (see attached photos) ESHA areas require a minimum 100-foot clearance between structures and “from the outer edge of the canopy of riparian vegetation…and for oak or other native woodland.” (From Section 4.6.1 of the LCP). This restriction alone would prevent construction as is currently located by the applicant.

Several native California Toyon Trees that are protected under Chapter 5 of the LCP already have been removed illegally by the applicant. The applicant should not be allowed the right to destroy the Philipsons protected views nor be allowed to setback less than 100 ft from the ESHA.

Harvester is an area that without a doubt hosts an abundance of wildlife and vegetation. It must not be disturbed by allowing ESHA setbacks to be ignored. An Environmental Review should be required.

AT THE VERY LEAST, this proposed project needs additional setbacks from the neighbors’ lots as well as the existing ESHA.
671
3 3. Additionally, hillside and canyon views of neighboring homes Civic Guardian Since 1947 require protection. This means that the home’s proposed 24-foot roofline must be lowered to the present city limit of 18-feet.

4. Instead of spacing the compound’s three structures around a central driveway, they could move the driveway to one side of the lot where it could serve as a side-yard buffer that might satisfy the Phillipsons. This is what was represented in the original plans during the sale of this lot that is found on Redfin. See photo 12 at this link: https://www.redfin.com/CA/Malibu/30053-Harvester-Rd90265/home/22820918 It is possible to design a lovely new home that is sensitive to the environment by moving the ADU from the ESHA and protecting the views of all the neighbors and increasing the defensible space.

Here in Malibu, the City Planning Commission is the body that is sanctioned to protect the property rights of our existing residents. It is established to follow the rules of neighborhood character and the codes including those protecting the environment. The Planning Commission is REQUIRED to do this.

As an aside…huge new building projects like this one — on a previously untouched lot — are being fast-tracked and are coming up for consideration within only one year while it has been repeatedly shown that smaller projects and even like for like fire rebuilds usually do not receive such attention for three years or more. This disparity is a clear example of the planning department's procedural flaws that prioritize large, lucrative projects of developers and architects at the expense of smaller projects by specific individuals, otherwise known as the citizens and residents of Malibu.

We appreciate your protecting of Malibu's existing residents in this matter.

Sincerely,
Jo Drummond
President
Malibu Township Council
P.S. The NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY, INC. recently has published results of a bird census indicating that the North American bird population has decreased by 3 billion birds in the last 30 years. This means that it is time for America’s human population to take note of the proverbial “canary in the coal mine”. You, as planning commissioners, can help sustain the population of people — who are interdependent on nature — by protecting established trees and ESHA to help maintain our bird life here. (See attached photos.).
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
C. Communications with Commissioners.

1. Commissioners should request the floor from the Chair before speaking.

2. Commissioners shall avoid repetition and shall endeavor to limit their comments to the subject matter at issue. Commissioners shall limit their comments to matters within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Planning Commission. Commissioners should endeavor to express their views without engaging in lengthy discourse or debate.

3. When one Commissioner is speaking, other Commissioners shall not interrupt or otherwise disturb the speaker.

For Item 1A I hope the majority of you can set aside any false notions and allow the honor and privilege of Chair to rightly pass to Vice Chair Mazza.

He is our longest standing Commissioner and appointed by the Mayor. He is also a champion for the environment and most knowledgeable of our city codes. You will not only be disrespecting each other but the Mayor and putting the city council members in a bad light by NOT making John Mazza the Chair.

Please promote camaraderie and unity among the council and commissions. Your actions have ricocheting consequences and will be highlighted with this decision you make tonight.

Please conduct yourselves as the Rules for Planning Commisioners state and do the right thing.

Thank you,
Jo Drummond
684
From: Tyler Eaton
To: Rebecca Evans
Subject: FW: 30053 Harvester Road: neighborhood character Date: Wednesday, April 10, 2024 8:37:01 AM
Attachments: neighborhood character radius map.png
AVERAGE TDSF.pdf
I think this is meant to be shared for Monday.

From: Lester Tobias <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2024 8:01 AM
To: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>; Richard Mollica <[email protected]>; andrea slosberg-philipson >
Subject: 30053 Harvester Road: neighborhood character
Tyler,
I would like to take issue with your characterization that Mr. Kent's proposed project does not adversely affect the neighborhood character of the 27 homes that fall within the 500 foot radius from the subject property.

Your first mistake was conflating neighborhood character with neighborhood standards.

The neighborhood character finding is part of the site plan review for height, and can be found in Section 13.27.5.2 whereby the code states that, "The project does not adversely affect neighborhood character."
You have incorrectly cited the LIP section for neighborhood standards, which exists to assist projects being proposed in neighborhoods where the majority of homes (built under the county code) are bigger, taller, etc. than our LIP allows. "Neighborhood Character" was a throwaway finding until 2018 when a neighbor successfully used it to force a significant downsizing of a spec home at the top of Via Acero. That project opened up every subsequent submittal to potential scrutiny, mostly regarding structure size, as it related to the homes around it. Needless to say, it is almost always brought up by the next door neighbor(s), and applied to the entire neighborhood.

Unlike neighborhood standards, determining neighborhood character is not quantified in the LIP. There are no metrics, per se. However, I have witnessed several projects requesting a site plan review for height being downsized after being challenged by the neighbors using the neighborhood character finding and subjected to comparison to the 685
average size of the homes within the 500 foot radius. Doug Burdge and Don Schmitz come to mind as the guys forced to provide these exhibits on a regular basis.

This is the first project since the aggressive application of the neighborhood character finding that I can recall where the architect failed to take this issue into consideration prior to commencing with the design process. Everyone I know involved in designing homes in Malibu preemptively analyzes the existing neighborhood building sizes BEFORE embarking on the design process. Several of our projects were voluntarily downsized after we analyzed the neighborhood and ascertained our clients' threshold for opposition to their project. I know that you have seen this first hand over the past few years.

Notwithstanding the lack of a metric for neighborhood character, I am sure that you are well aware that we all use a modified form of the neighborhood standards process, as nothing better has been developed.

I believe that this project is no exception. However, Mr. Kent has provided, and you have bought into, a novel interpretation of the neighborhood standard metric, and it unfairly tilts the scales in Mr Kent's favor.

To begin with, you state that the analysis requires that the applicant look at a minimum of 10 lots in the 500 foot radius area. This is incorrect. LIP 3.6.L.1 states, "Neighborhood Standards apply where there are at least ten developed lots within a five hundred foot radius of the subject site." The "ten lots" is merely the threshold for applying for a neighborhood standard review.

Your misinterpretation of the actual code afforded Mr. Kent the opportunity to cherry pick the largest lots to make it seem like his project is not comparatively large.

To perform this analysis fairly, once the ten lot threshold has been established, the applicant must identify ALL lots within that radius and produce metrics for each lot. Mr.

Kent did not do that.

Cherry picking ten lots out of the 27 that actually exist in the radius allowed you to make the statement that the subject project is actually smaller than four of the ten lots and about the size of the fifth. It sounds like his project is average, for sure. Yet the actual metrics applied to the big homes in the radius would show that only 15%t of 27 existing homes are bigger than what Mr. Kent is proposing.
686
If you actually ran a neighborhood average analysis, like I just did, you would see that the actual data and actual math show that Mr. Kent is proposing to build over twice the average size of the homes in the neighborhood. I have included my work product as attachments to this email.

Finally, I would like to focus on the exact wording of finding #2 in the Site Plan Review section of the LIP. "The Planning Manager may approve or conditionally approve a site plan review application only if the Planning Manager affirmatively finds...that the project does not adversely affect neighborhood character." The spirit of this section is simple to understand. If you don't want your neighbors to have a say in your project, don't submit a project that requires a Site Plan Review. If you absolutely must have a house that requires a Site Plan Review, you need to pay attention to your neighbors and their concerns.

In the estimated two years leading up to this hearing, Mr. Kent never acknowledged the existence of the Philipsons or their home. They are the only house within 15 feet of the property lines of his parcel, yet he chose to apply the minimum setback (10%) to that adjacency. They have a single story home, oriented to the topography and stepping up the slope, yet he is proposing a rigidly orthogonal, two story structure, ignoring the orientation of the contours, and placed directly in their view.

As a friend and advocate for the Philipsons, I would argue that the project as proposed adversely affects the Philipsons, and as long standing residents of the neighborhood, it stands to reason that the project, therefore, adversely affects the neighborhood character.

If the Planning Director is going to sign off on finding #2, he must affirmatively find that a fifth large house in a neighborhood of SUBSTANTIALLY smaller homes will not adversely affect the neighborhood character. He must affirmatively find that the selected orientation and location of the proposed residence does not adversely affect the Philipsons.

By "affirmatively find", I think it means he needs to put in the record how he reached these conclusions, and how that may be applied to future projects. We would all benefit from this type of clarity.

Sincerely,
687
LT
--
Lester Tobias, Principal
Tobias Architecture, Incorporated
29160 Heathercliff, Suite 400
Malibu, California 90265
(310) 317-0507
NCARB #101162
California Architect's License C22552
Montana Architect's License ARC-20223
688

ADDRESS TDSF SOURCE
30084 HARVESTER 1,682.0 PER LA COUNTY GIS + 400 SQ. FT. GARAGE 29951 HARVESTER 1,874.0 PER LA COUNTY GIS + 400 SQ. FT. GARAGE 30060 HARVESTER 1,978.0 PER LA COUNTY GIS + 400 SQ. FT. GARAGE 30069 HARVESTER 2,362.0 PER ON BASE
30081 HARVESTER 2,508.0 PER LA COUNTY GIS + 400 SQ. FT. GARAGE 30014 HARVESTER 2,613.0 PER LA COUNTY GIS + 400 SQ. FT. GARAGE 30033 HARVESTER 2,632.0 PER MALIBU C OF O
30100 HARVESTER 2,735.0 PER ON BASE
30021 HARVESTER 2,824.0 PER LA COUNTY GIS + 400 SQ. FT. GARAGE 30103 HARVESTER 3,009.0 PER WOOLSEY PV CHECKLIST
30040 HARVESTER 3,350.0 PER ON BASE
5810 FILAREE HEIGHTS 3,526.0 PER ARCHITECT'S RECORDS
5803 FILAREE HEIGHTS 3,911.0 PER MALIBU C OF O
5480 HORIZON 3,992.0 PER LA COUNTY GIS + 400 SQ. FT. GARAGE 5540 HORIZON 4,138.0 PER WOOLSEY PV CHECKLIST
5520 HORIZON 4,170.0 PER WOOLSEY PV CHECKLIST
29979 HARVESTER 4,563.0 PER MALIBU C OF O
30111 HARVESTER 5,052.0 PER ARCHITECT'S RECORDS
5838 DEERHEAD 5,967.0 PER STAFF REPORT
30000 CUTHBERT 6,123.0 PER STAFF REPORT
29934 CUTHBERT 7,572.0 PER STAFF REPORT
5816 FILAREE NO RECORDS
5815 FILAREE NO RECORDS
5842 DEERHEAD 1,751 PER LA COUNTY GIS + 400 SQ. FT. GARAGE 5806 DEERHEAD 3,578 PER ON BASE
29660 HARVESTER 5,221 PER ON BASE
29956 CUTHBERT 4,954 PER ON BASE
AVERAGE TDSF 3,683
SUBJECT PARCEL 7,822
DELTA 4,139
PERCENTAGE OVER AVERAGE 112%
689
From: Lester Tobias
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Re: 30053 Harvester Road: neighborhood character Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 8:19:56 AM
Attachments: image001.png
Yes it is. Thank you for asking.

LT
On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 11:27 AM Planning Commission
<[email protected]> wrote:

Lester,
Please confirm if the email message you submitted to Tyler and Richard (seen below and forwarded by Andrea Slosberg-Philipson) is intended for distribution to the Planning Commissioners.

Regards,
Rebecca Evans
Senior Administrative Analyst | Planning
Office: (310) 456-2489 ext. 246
23825 Stuart Ranch Road | Malibu, CA 90265
From: andrea slosberg-philipson >
690
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2024 11:23 AM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]>; Rebecca Evans <[email protected]>; Paul Philipson >
Subject: Fwd: 30053 Harvester Road: neighborhood character Rachel, Commissioners:

Further exchange relevant to our objections to 30053 Harvester Thank you,
Andrea
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Lester Tobias <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 9:15 AM
Subject: Re: 30053 Harvester Road: neighborhood character To: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>
Cc: Richard Mollica <[email protected]>, andrea slosberg-philipson >
I think that if you want to sound objective, you should say something to the effect of, "The proposed project's TDSF is twice the neighborhood average. However, the Planning Director has determined that, because the project is divided into 3 separate structures, it will not adversely affect the neighborhood character." I would argue that the only structure that reads as a separate one is the ADU which is 1,000 square feet. So the main house will seem like a 6,800 square foot house placed between a 1,000 square foot structure (the ADU) and a 2,632 square foot structure (the Philipson's).

That is the honest way to frame it for the commission to determine if they agree with Richard or not. That way Richard can actually explain himself to the commission and the Philipsons on the record, and the commission can hear my perspective.

Also, and just as importantly, I and the other architects in this town deserve to understand the actual thought process that goes into determining neighborhood character.

This regulation by subjectivity is not fair to anyone. Not the applicant, not the staff, not commission, not the neighbors.
691
Nobody.

I look forward to a fiesty discussion tomorrow.

LT
On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 8:33 AM Tyler Eaton <[email protected]> wrote:

Lester,
I am well aware that neighborhood standards is not the same as neighborhood character.

Neighborhood standards is a very specific request while neighborhood character is more subjective. That sentence was simply put in for the reasoning as to why the applicant chose his basis for the 500 foot radius.

I recognize the proposed home is larger than the average. As I mentioned in my report “The proposed TDSF will be larger than the average of the neighborhood, within 500 feet, but it is not expected to be an outlier as the proposed project consists of multiple smaller elongated buildings. As designed, the proposed buildings do not have an imposing appearance from any public viewing areas.” Neighborhood character is a subjective argument based on the look, location, siting, and massing of the home, among other topics of argument. There are other homes in the neighborhood, including ones that you’ve worked on yourself of a similar massing and look from the road.

Nevertheless, as was done with the project you worked on, findings were made because the project, in our view, did not cause an adverse impact to the neighborhood character.

It is ok to have a differing opinion, but I did not give “Mr. Kent the opportunity to cherry pick the largest lots”. As you know, we as staff have to remain objective and consistent. There is no clearly defined area that is considered the “neighborhood” in a neighborhood character analysis, so that was just used as a starting point. It was not meant to conflate neighborhood standards with neighborhood character. The Planning Commission will ultimately decide if the project is inconsistent with the neighborhood character.
692
Thanks,
Tyler
From: Lester Tobias <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2024 8:01 AM
To: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>; Richard Mollica <[email protected]>; andrea slosberg-philipson >
Subject: 30053 Harvester Road: neighborhood character
Tyler,
I would like to take issue with your characterization that Mr. Kent's proposed project does not adversely affect the neighborhood character of the 27 homes that fall within the 500 foot radius from the subject property.

Your first mistake was conflating neighborhood character with neighborhood standards.

The neighborhood character finding is part of the site plan review for height, and can be found in Section 13.27.5.2 whereby the code states that, "The project does not adversely affect neighborhood character."
You have incorrectly cited the LIP section for neighborhood standards, which exists to assist projects being proposed in neighborhoods where the majority of homes (built under the county code) are bigger, taller, etc. than our LIP allows. "Neighborhood Character" was a throwaway finding until 2018 when a neighbor successfully used it to force a significant downsizing of a spec home at the top of Via Acero. That project opened up every subsequent submittal to potential scrutiny, mostly regarding structure size, as it related to the homes around it. Needless to say, it is almost always brought up by the next door neighbor(s), and applied to the entire neighborhood. 693
Unlike neighborhood standards, determining neighborhood character is not quantified in the LIP. There are no metrics, per se. However, I have witnessed several projects requesting a site plan review for height being downsized after being challenged by the neighbors using the neighborhood character finding and subjected to comparison to the average size of the homes within the 500 foot radius. Doug Burdge and Don Schmitz come to mind as the guys forced to provide these exhibits on a regular basis.

This is the first project since the aggressive application of the neighborhood character finding that I can recall where the architect failed to take this issue into consideration prior to commencing with the design process. Everyone I know involved in designing homes in Malibu preemptively analyzes the existing neighborhood building sizes BEFORE embarking on the design process. Several of our projects were voluntarily downsized after we analyzed the neighborhood and ascertained our clients' threshold for opposition to their project. I know that you have seen this first hand over the past few years.

Notwithstanding the lack of a metric for neighborhood character, I am sure that you are well aware that we all use a modified form of the neighborhood standards process, as nothing better has been developed.

I believe that this project is no exception. However, Mr. Kent has provided, and you have bought into, a novel interpretation of the neighborhood standard metric, and it unfairly tilts the scales in Mr Kent's favor.

To begin with, you state that the analysis requires that the applicant look at a minimum of 10 lots in the 500 foot radius area. This is incorrect. LIP 3.6.L.1 states, "Neighborhood Standards apply where there are at least ten developed lots within a five hundred foot radius of the subject site." The "ten lots" is merely the threshold for applying for a neighborhood standard review.

Your misinterpretation of the actual code afforded Mr. Kent the opportunity to cherry pick the largest lots to make it seem like his project is not comparatively large.

To perform this analysis fairly, once the ten lot threshold has been established, the applicant must identify ALL lots within that radius and produce metrics for each lot. Mr.

Kent did not do that.
694
Cherry picking ten lots out of the 27 that actually exist in the radius allowed you to make the statement that the subject project is actually smaller than four of the ten lots and about the size of the fifth. It sounds like his project is average, for sure. Yet the actual metrics applied to the big homes in the radius would show that only 15%t of 27 existing homes are bigger than what Mr. Kent is proposing.

If you actually ran a neighborhood average analysis, like I just did, you would see that the actual data and actual math show that Mr. Kent is proposing to build over twice the average size of the homes in the neighborhood. I have included my work product as attachments to this email.

Finally, I would like to focus on the exact wording of finding #2 in the Site Plan Review section of the LIP. "The Planning Manager may approve or conditionally approve a site plan review application only if the Planning Manager affirmatively finds...that the project does not adversely affect neighborhood character." The spirit of this section is simple to understand. If you don't want your neighbors to have a say in your project, don't submit a project that requires a Site Plan Review. If you absolutely must have a house that requires a Site Plan Review, you need to pay attention to your neighbors and their concerns.

In the estimated two years leading up to this hearing, Mr. Kent never acknowledged the existence of the Philipsons or their home. They are the only house within 15 feet of the property lines of his parcel, yet he chose to apply the minimum setback (10%) to that adjacency. They have a single story home, oriented to the topography and stepping up the slope, yet he is proposing a rigidly orthogonal, two story structure, ignoring the orientation of the contours, and placed directly in their view.

As a friend and advocate for the Philipsons, I would argue that the project as proposed adversely affects the Philipsons, and as long standing residents of the neighborhood, it stands to reason that the project, therefore, adversely affects the neighborhood character.

If the Planning Director is going to sign off on finding #2, he must affirmatively find that a fifth large house in a neighborhood of SUBSTANTIALLY smaller homes will not adversely affect the neighborhood character. He must affirmatively find that the selected orientation and location of the proposed residence does not adversely affect the Philipsons.
695
By "affirmatively find", I think it means he needs to put in the record how he reached these conclusions, and how that may be applied to future projects. We would all benefit from this type of clarity.

Sincerely,
LT
696
--
Lester Tobias, Principal
Tobias Architecture, Incorporated
29160 Heathercliff, Suite 400
Malibu, California 90265
(310) 317-0507
NCARB #101162
California Architect's License C22552
Montana Architect's License ARC-20223
697
From: Lester Tobias
To: Rebecca Evans; Skylar Peak; Kraig Hill; John Mazza; Dennis Smith; andrea slosberg-philipson; Dawn Ericson Subject: 30053 Harvester Road
Date: Sunday, April 14, 2024 9:18:28 AM
Attachments: 2024.04.14- commission letter.pdf
Dear Commissioners,
Please see my attached letter regarding the above address.

Thank you.

LT
--
Lester Tobias, Principal
Tobias Architecture, Incorporated
29160 Heathercliff, Suite 400
Malibu, California 90265
(310) 317-0507
NCARB #101162
California Architect's License C22552
Montana Architect's License ARC-20223
698
To: The Malibu Planning Commission
Date: April 14th, 2024
Re: 30053 Harvester Road
Dear Commissioners,
I got involved this project for two reasons. The first is that I know that it will irreparably harm my friends, Andrea and Paul Philipson’s “sense of place” in the home that they have lived in for 25 years. They raised two Malibu sons in this house. Paul stayed to save the house from the Woolsey Fire. And now they stand to lose half of their view, half of their sense of open space, and a significant portion of their equity if this project is approved.

The second reason is that, as a thirty year student of, and participant in our various and changing development standards, this project appears to deserve discussion, determination, and memorialization on the record as to whether or not there is a threshold for new infill development in established “neighborhoods” when in fact the new development is significantly larger than the surrounding homes and adversely impacts one of those homes.

Finding #2 for a Site Plan Review is that the project “will not adversely affect the neighborhood character”. This is not a policy. This is not an interpretation. This is in the written code.

The problem is that, like many sections of our LIP, it is poorly written, can be interpreted many ways, and contains no meaningful metric for making a determination one way or another.

But one cannot deny its existence.

Since the big Via Acero bruhaha back in 2018, “neighborhood character” has been invoked and dismissed and invoked and dismissed time and again.

According to our planning director, the city council has directed him to ignore this finding when determining the staffs’ recommendation for a site plan review’s approval or denial. His position is that it is up to the planning commission to decide if a project indeed will not adversely affect the neighborhood character.

So the ball is in your court.

In Malibu, a good design is won or lost during the site planning of the project. Every parcel is unique. Every parcel has its own constraints. Every parcel has elements outside the property lines to be addressed. The successful projects exhibit a response to these constraints. Those less successful seem forced onto the site.

The successful projects are not contested, or if they are it is usually a knee-jerk from the neighbor, is easily dismissed or remedied, and everyone moves on. Yet there are projects that seem to illicit last minute shock, confusion, anger, scrambling, etc. They require multiple hearings and appeals.

These are the projects that should cause us to ask, “Why?”. 29160 Heathercliff Road, Suite 400 Malibu California 90265 699
Mr. Kent’s parcel contained three obvious constraints. The first is the topography, which consists of a reasonably flat pad on the upper northeast section of the site, with slopes to the south, ending at Harvester Road, and slopes to the west, ending in a gully which apparently has been declared not ESHA, then declared ESHA, then declared not ESHA. The contours run at about a 45 degree angle to the property lines. the second constrain would be the ESHA, if it is determined to be ESHA.

The topography and ESHA/not ESHA are the first two constraints. The third constraint is the Philipson’s house, which sits at a diagonal to the property lines, follows the contours by stepping with them and being oriented to them, and is sited on the upper portion of their parcel. It presents a fairly significant design constraint for anyone analyzing Mr. Kent’s parcel.

Unless you just choose to ignore it.

So this parcel contains three significant restraints that an architect could use to help inform the location, size, height, and grading for the project. Mr. Kent paid very little attention to the topography and the neighbor. The ESHA issue is a tough one, and it appears that he went a long way to getting verification that there was no ESHA, but apparently that is now in question.

Chapter 8 of the LIP (Grading) states that, “Development shall be planned to fit the topography… existing on the site so that grading is kept to an absolute minimum.” I would just ask you to look at the proposed site plan. Notice that the house, in plan, ignores the topography. It is set parallel to the side property lines with the contours running into the house footprint at a diagonal. This is a design technique reserved for site elements, usually roads, where the designer is seeking a balanced, cut/fill grading plans and as a means of providing a code required maximum slope for roads or driveways that must negotiate a grade while minimizing earth export.

In Mr. Kent’s project, the relationship between building and site is resolved with excavation and export, not siting. He is digging out the site, setting the house into the grade, and mending the transitions. The buildings do not step with the grade, and cut/fill balance is not part of the equation.

This is not a building designed to fit the topography. It is a project that is forced into the topography.

Designing with the topography would most likely result in a smaller overall TDSF, oriented on a 45º angle to the property lines, stepping with the grades.

Regarding the Philipson’s house, when I spoke with Mr. Kent he was adamant that he respected their house by not building a taller structure along the setback (where he chose to put the minimum, 10% setback, as opposed to the greater 15% separation).

While I agree that he could have built a taller structure, I encourage you to visit the Philipsons and see for yourself the impact that his house will have on theirs. And I would also suggest that putting the 10% setback on the Philipson’s side, when Mr. Kent was certain there was no ESHA on the other side, was actually a decision of disrespect towards the Philipsons.

It’s the orientation of the Philipson’s house that matters. And the house has been there for 50 years. And it is a Marshall Lewis design, and Paul stayed and fought the fire to save it.

Surely that must count for some kind of respect from the guy designing the adjacent residence. 29160 Heathercliff Road, Suite 400 Malibu California 90265 700
Mr. Kent knew the house was there when he bought his parcel. He can’t claim that the Philipson’s house’s orientation is to blame for their current woes. His lack of concern for their house is to blame.

I have provided a square footage analysis that suggests that the proposed development will be over twice as large as the average of the homes within the radius. I provided this because it has been my experience and understanding that comparative TDSF studies were part and parcel with the Site Plan Review finding #2.

In conclusion, I look at the Site Plan review, finding #2 to mean the following.

In Malibu, a two story structure is not a right. It is a privilege. In Malibu, if you don’t want to open your project up to additional scrutiny by your neighbors, don’t design a two story house.

And in Malibu, if you absolutely must have a two story house, you better pay attention to your neighbors and the context outside your property lines.

Two weeks ago this commission approved a one story house on Point Dume. Every adjacent neighbor came and spoke in favor of this project and commended the applicants for sharing their design at an early stage.

Commissioner Peak spoke to the designer and said, “Thank you for designing an awesome house that fits the neighborhood. Seldom do we see a project that has very minimal impact on a very large piece of land.”
Commissioner Hill said, “I want to commend you for sharing plans with the neighbors. I appreciate the organic approach and it’s nice to see some variety in town.” Unfortunately for the Philipsons, Mr. Kent never shared his design with them. His approach to the site is anything but organic. And although he is a talented modernist, one could argue that the number of modern houses in Malibu Park, both good and bad, is taking over the neighborhood characteristic of variety in the area. He has done the exact opposite of what Commissioners Peak and Hill went on the record to commend as recently as two weeks ago.

Every architect starts the design with the program, or a wish list for the project. Sometimes after studying all the feasible options for the project, it becomes apparent that the site just doesn’t want to accommodate the full extent of the program. Some architects will give deference to the site and existing constraints, modifying the program so that the end result is a successful project that works with the land and context beyond the property lines.

Others may ditch the concerns for topography, ESHA and neighbors, and essentially “conquer” the site with their design.
29160 Heathercliff Road, Suite 400 Malibu California 90265 701
The question is, when you are compelled by the code to not adversely affect the neighborhood, which approach deserves approval?
It is my opinion that if you approve this project as is, there will be no future restraint on the maximum TDSF, two story structures that can block unprotected views, loom over smaller homes, and destroy the property values of existing structures owned by Malibu residents.

Like I said, it’s your call.

Sincerely,
Lester Tobias
29160 Heathercliff Road, Suite 400 Malibu California 90265 702
703
1 To: Planning Commission
From: Malibu Coalition for Slow Growth by Patt Healy
Re: Item 4A 30053 Harvester
Date: April 15, 2024

PART ONE
Under the LIP streams re ESHA. The Proposed ADU is too close to the stream and needs to setback further as required by the LIP.

Stream Definition
City of Malibu LIP Definition of a stream is “a topographic feature that at least periodically conveys water through a bed or channel having banks. This includes watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation”.

The watercourse bordering this property meets the definition of a stream under the LIP and hence is ESHA requiring a at least 100 foot set back from the stream.

Applicant’s Biologist Stream Analysis
Edith Reed the Applicant’s Biologist concluded:“ These gullies are not indicated as “blueline” streambeds on the historical USGS map and their hydrologic regimes are best characterized as ephemeral. No wetland conditions were observed during the survey, and with the exception of an immature sycamore and toyon in the west gully, the dominant vegetation consists of nonnative landscape species.” None of Ms. Reeds explanations are valid since under the LIP a Steam does not have to be a blueline stream to qualify as a stream.

Most of Malibu’s streams are ephemeral. On June 15, 2023, the date of the survey, of course, no wetland conditions were observed in the stream since the survey was done during the dry season.

Riparian habitat is not required for a stream to qualify as a stream under the LIP if it once had it. This stream burned in the Woolsey fire and is recovering. Today riparian habitat can be found in/at the stream. There is a sycamore, two coastal live oaks and a walnut , all riparian trees. As the area recovers more native riparian trees will appear. The size of the trees is irrelevant when determining the riparian habitat.

We understand that Ms. Reed was trying to help her client’s cause but not one of Ms. Reed’s stream claims are pertinent and therefore, her analysis is meaningless and has to be ignored. 704
2 City Biologist’s Analysis of Stream
The finding of the city biologist declaring the there is no stream is open to question, her analysis is flawed and can’t be determinative that this stream is not ESHA.

The staff report states: ”. Based on the site visit conducted at the 30053 Harvester Road project site, the area in question was not determined to be a stream by the City Biologist. The topographic feature likely “periodically conveys water” simply based on site characteristics of culverts at the presumably beginning and end of the feature (Cuthbert and Harvester). There is a culvert at the top of the topographic feature off Cuthbert where the runoff enters (Figure 1).

Similarly, there is a culvert at the bottom of the topographic feature off Harvester Road (Figure 2). There is no indication of a stream northwest of Cuthbert nor is there indication of a stream southeast of Harvester. Though it may periodically covey water, no definable “bed or channel having banks” was observed during the site visit. Instead, the area where the water travels was observed as being contiguous with surrounding non-native vegetation (Figure 3). The majority of the vegetation found on site and in the immediate vicinity was non-native and certainly not riparian vegetation.”
Just because the water flows through culverts under Cuthbert Rd. and under Harvester does not mean there is not a stream.

North of Cuthbert is a very steep watershed and water from above drains on to Cuthbert and through culverts ,including the culvert that enters the stream in question. Cuthbert can be considered the headwaters of the this stream.

Naturally, there is a culvert under Harvester to prevent sheet flow over Harvester Road. Once through the culvert, despite what the city biologist believes, the stream then continues flowing down stream into and through the property below. To say the stream ends at the Harvester culvert simply is not accurate. (See picture on page 274 0f staff report ) where the city biologist asserts there is no evidence of a stream downslope of Harvester.) But if you look at this picture you can see the stream course running between the 4:1 stream banks.

It appears the city biologist based her conclusion by stating there is no riparian habitat and her belief are no discernible channel having stream banks. But there is riparian habitat existing today. There is a sycamore, 2 Coastal Live Oaks and a Walnut adjacent to the stream.

The native tree size doesn’t matter when determining whether there is a stream ESHA or not.

There are surviving eucalyptus in the stream bed which although not native appear in many of Malibu’s blue line streams.

This stream’s native habitat burnt in the Woolsey fire and is still in the process of recovering.

The fact that there are invasive plants is to be expected. After a fire it is the invasives that that dominate since the natives take a longer time to recover. 705
3 Furthermore, there clearly is a stream bed or channel having stream banks through which the flows. The banks of this stream at this location are the 3:1 slopes on either side of the stream channel to which the water from Cuthbert flows before entering the Harvester culvert. Once the water crossed Harvester there are observable stream banks ( 4:1 slopes) through which water continues it trip down stream.

We googled : What should stream banks look like?
The answer: “Streams should ideally have gently sloping, fully vegetated banks”. The stream abutting 30053 Harvester meets this definition.

The internet picture below is an illustration of stream which doesn’t have discernable banks.

Other Comments
Due to the ADU’s location on a 3:1 stream slope/bank. the Commission cannot make the required finding that this project is the least environmentally damaging alternative.

The steam at this location clearly meets the LIP definition of a stream which is “a topographic feature that at least periodically conveys water through a bed or channel having banks. This includes watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation”.

In this instance the city biologist analysis cannot determine whether there is a stream (ESHA) since her analysis is flawed. The only way the situation can be resolved is by having it appealable to the Coastal Commission. We urge the Planning Commission to find that the project is appealable to the Coastal Commission so this matter can be finalized.

Development on slopes 4:1 or greater are not allowed on Point Dume streams instead of the required 100 foot setback. The same principle, although not mandatory should be considered here. The Applicant is required to set back the ADU 100 ft from the stream if 706
4 feasible or if not possible at the very least set back to a the flat portion of the property or where the slope is more gentile than 4:1.

There should be consistency in the city’s decisions. To require the neighbor to the west of the Applicant’s property to set back their residence from the stream ESHA and not require this of the Applicant to set back is not justifiable especially since the Applicant’s biological report has absolutely no merit and the city reasoning for dismissing the earlier city ESHA determination is “There was no biological study submitted for the fire rebuild application “.

The Purpose of the LIP is clearly not being followed. One of the purposes of the LIP under 1.2.E is “To protect and enhance the quality of the natural environment.” Placing the ADU on a stream bank/water course 3:1 slope clearly defeats this purpose of protecting the natural environment. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART TWO
Eastern Neighbor’s Rights Ignored and Violated

1.Once again the Purpose of the LiP isn’t being followed due to the location of the main house at 30053 Harvester. Under LIP 1.2.J, the Purpose of the LIP is to provide adequate light and air, clean ground water, and non-polluting waste disposal. The residence of the east of the proposed project is being deprived of the common law right to light and air with the main structure being located too close to the eastern neighbor’s property line. This structure, if built. at this location will deprive the neighbor’s of their right to their ocean sunset view from their property and deprive them of the light they are entitled to. All this can be resolved by and the code met by relocating the main structure at a different location on the property.

This project therefore needs to be relocated on the property and setback further from the eastern neighbors’ property line. In addition, to further protect the eastern neighbor’s light and air the structure cannot exceed 18 feet in height. It needs to be no higher than 18 feet height to protect the neighbor’s right to light.

2. It is most important to note he General Plan Is not being followed. LU Implementation Measure 9 mandates: Require that development not interfere with public and private views to the greatest extent possible and view corridors to the greatest extent feasible.

Therefore, the required finding that this project complies with the General Plan can not be made.

3. Lester Tobias’ email of April 10 ,2024 email has merit and cannot be ignored since this project doesn’t meet the neighborhood character and the required site plan finding to this effect cannot be made.
.PART THREE
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, including the fact certain findings cannot be made, this Coastal Development Permit cannot be approved.
707
5 Under the General Plan, the Local Coastal Program and the Coastal Act it is imperative that there exist a balance between private property rights and protection of the Natural Environment. In this instance the Developer is not achieving this balance. He is developing a project that is not the least environmentally damaging by building on a 3:1 stream bank when the structure can be sited elsewhere. He e is denying the neighbor to the east the right to have their private views protected and is taking away their right to light and air by building 2 stories at the current location.

In addition this project doesn’t meet the character of the neighborhood.

Thank you for considering our comments and please deny this CDP. 708
709
From:

To: Richard Mollica; Tyler Eaton; Lester Tobias; Rebecca Evans Subject: Fwd:

Date: Monday, April 15, 2024 5:11:37 PM
Attachments: scan0002.pdf
Be see below email with attachment. I am having trouble with my computer.

I attached the signed form with the checked box that we concur with the location of the PVD.

I believe if you look at Photo 10 that Tyler took from the photo reel it shows the 24 ft poles obstructing our views.

I hope that the correct form is now on file.

Please confirm
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

From: philipson
Date: April 15, 2024 at 5:04:35 PM PDT
To:
710
From:

To: Richard Mollica; Tyler Eaton; Lester Tobias; Rebecca Evans Subject: Fwd:

Date: Monday, April 15, 2024 5:11:37 PM
Attachments: scan0002.pdf
Be see below email with attachment. I am having trouble with my computer.

I attached the signed form with the checked box that we concur with the location of the PVD.

I believe if you look at Photo 10 that Tyler took from the photo reel it shows the 24 ft poles obstructing our views.

I hope that the correct form is now on file.

Please confirm
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

From: philipson
Date: April 15, 2024 at 5:04:35 PM PDT
To:
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
From: steve kent
To: [email protected]
Cc: andrea slosberg-philipson; Tyler Eaton; Planning Commission Subject: Your clients concerns about 30053 Harvester Rd.

Date: Wednesday, April 10, 2024 12:18:49 PM
Lester,
I left you a voicemail on Monday asking if we could meet, and did the same again today. I would appreciate your response.

Best,
Steve
Steven Kent Architect
310.293.3222
StevenKentAIA.com
720
From: Steve Kent
To: Planning Commission
Cc: Richard Mollica; Tyler Eaton
Subject: 30053 Harvester Rd. - April 15th Hearing Item 4A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 12:29:17 PM
Dear Commissioners,
I have gone the extra step and put up additional story poles for the exempt portions of the buildings under 18'.

Best,
Steve

S T E V E N K E N T A R C H I T E C T
310.293.3222
www.StevenKentAIA.com
721
722
Twitter Facebook
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential or legally privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication.
723
S T E V E N K E N T A R C H I T E C T 310.293.3222 StevenKentAIA.com April 14, 2024
RE: 30053 HARVESTER RD. MALIBU CDP 23-019 [RESPONSE]
Frank,
Your whole case is based on misrepresentations to the city.

The city has made it very clear that we are in full compliance with all of the codes.

We hope that Ms. Ericson can see it her way to stop harassing us. Gladys and I just want to build our home and to be left alone.

Sincerely,

Steve & Gladys Kent
724
SITE ESHA MAP SLIDE 1
725

LARGE EUCALYPTUS TREES

ALONG A DRAINAGE CHANNEL
(not considered ESHA) SLIDE 2
726
FNC
FNC
FNC FNC WM SURVEYS INC. William L. Meagher 2747 Sherwin Ave. #12 Ventura, Ca. 93003 (805) 677-4850 NORTH 30053 HARVESTER RD. MALIBU, CA 90265 TREE MAP E AGH ME .ND S OR EY VRU L L I MAI L DESNECI LN o. LA N A12 - R I F L E2S- 31O I A N A S O PET ELX FSC I RE I T CE W5 9 4 8 R 4 11 B23053 SCALE: 1" = 30' FENCE F SLIDE 3
727
5' STEPS dn. GARAGE dn. LIVING ROOF
5' STEPS storage planter EL. +292 shwr. KITCHEN ref. oven fp deskDINING EL. +282.5 BATH up bbq planter planter 18'-6" 30'-0"8'-0" 17'-0" 18'-6" 23'-10"
21'-0" w d Flat Roof 14"per ft. slope conc. deck ENTRY HALL BEDROOM EL. +282.5 wardrobe 47'-11" 19'-9" LIVING PWDR SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" ADU 1st Floor Plan SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" ADU 2nd Floor Plan 2/3 CALCULATION: 2nd Floor Area 500 sf.divided by 1st Floor Area 900 sf. = 55.5% SLIDE 4 728
30053 HARVESTER BUILING PAD VIEW
(Natural Orientation of the Topography) SLIDE 5
729
SLIDE 6
730
SLIDE 7
731
oak tree SLIDE 8
732

SUBJECT

PROPERTY

MUCH LESS
THAN 30' MUCH LESS
THAN 30'
APPROX.
30'
APPROX.
30' LESS
THAN 30'
APPROX.
30'
APPROX.
30'
APPROX.
30'
UNDER
CONSTRUCTION SLIDE 9
733

NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER

AERIAL MAP
Several adjacent homes with similar TDSF
Several 2-story homes higher than 28'h.
(subject house is less than 24'h.)
Several homes with multiple detached structures
(subject project is 3 buildings)
30000 Cuthbert Rd
28'H.
3960 sf. House
699 sf. Garage
1464 sf. Accessory
+10% Allowable
TOTAL TDSF 6735 sf.
30033
2-story
29958
2-story
5819
2-story
30000
2-story
5838
2-story
29956
1-story
29934
2-story
30053
2-story
30069
2-story
30040
2-story
5810
2-story
29960
1-story
5838
1-story
30103
2-story
29715
2-story
29934 Cuthbert Rd.
32'-6"H.
5560 sf. House
1012 sf. Garage
1000 sf. Accessory
pool, basketball court,
volleyball court
TOTAL TDSF 7572 sf.
29958 Harvester Rd.
28'H.
5640 sf. House
840 sf. Second Unit
743 sf. Garage
1274 sf. Accessory
pool/spa
TOTAL TDSF 8497 sf.
5819 Filaree Heights Rd.
30'-6"H. + Basement 10'H.
7096 sf. House
1488 sf. Guesthouse
1227 sf. Garage
989 sf. Basement
Barn, pool/spa
TOTAL TDSF 8120 sf.
29958 Harvester Rd.
28'H.
4261 sf. House
600 sf. Garage
870 sf. Basement
pool/spa
TOTAL TDSF 5221 sf.
29934 Cuthbert Rd.
4 Detached Buildings
TOTAL TDSF 4954 sf.
29715 Cuthbert Rd.
5547 sf. House
+4 Stall Barn (?) sf.
5838 Deerhead Rd.
4420 House
613 sf. Guesthouse
1227 sf. Garage
pool/spa
TOTAL TDSF 5967 sf.
30130
2-story
30130
2-story
30020
2-story
29943
2-story
29941
2-story
29951
2-story
29964
2-story
29944 Harvester Rd.
28'H.
5800 sf. House
1260 sf. Second Unit
408 sf. Garage
165 sf. Cabana
pool/spa
TOTAL TDSF 7833 sf.

SLIDE 10
734
SLIDE 11 STREET VIEW
735
5819 Filaree Heights 30040 Harvester Rd. NEIGHBORS TO THE SOUTH 736
30069 Harvester Rd.
737

NEIGHBOR TO THE WEST
30021 29979 NEIGHBORS TO THE EAST
738
NEIGHBORS TO THE NORTH 29934 Cuthbert Rd. 29956 Cuthbert Rd. 739
29600 Harvester Rd.
740
29958 Harvester Rd.
741
29735 Harvester Rd.
742
29951 Harvester Rd.
743
30111 Harvester Rd.
744
30020 Cuthbert Rd.
745
30180 Cuthbert Rd.
746
5820 Philip Dr.
747
29841 Cuthbert Rd.
748
749
5700 Sea View Dr.
5938 Philip Ave.
750
5936 Filaree Heights
751
5810 Filaree Heights
752
29960 Harvester Rd.

S T E V E N K E N T A R C H I T E C T
StevenKentAIA.com
753

S T E V E N K E N T A R C H I T E C T
StevenKentAIA.com 6398 Sea Star Dr.
754
755
OCT 31, 2023
1-18-24

RECEIVED
PLANNING DEPT.
756

VIEW FROM NEIGHBORS ABOVE ON CUTHBERT
757
From: Tyler Eaton
To: andrea slosberg-philipson; Richard Mollica; Rebecca Evans; Planning Commission; Paul Philipson Subject: RE: PVD on record
Date: Tuesday, April 9, 2024 1:42:36 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
image007.png
Hi Andrea,
I will be sending your PVD and some documentation that needs to be signed in a separate email.

Once the document is completed and signed, the PVD will be official and we can share with the public, including the Commissioners.

As discussed yesterday, the eastern side of the proposed house in front of your view is 12 feet tall next to its nearest adjacent grade. The poles further west would be 24 feet from grade as that portion will have a cut into the hillside. Because the walls which are 12 feet tall would block views of the 24-foot-tall portions of the building, technically there is no view obstruction of the proposed development that is taller than 18 feet in height. See photo below. Even if the 24-foottall portions were lowered, the 12-foot-tall portions could remain and the view would remain unchanged.
758
As stated by MMC Section 17.40.040(A)(17), “The primary view corridor shall exclude the first eighteen (18) feet of the proposed building height as measured from the existing natural grade or finish grade whichever results in a lower building height.” Regards,
Tyler
Tyler Eaton
Senior Planner | Planning
Office: (310) 456-2489 ext. 273
23825 Stuart Ranch Road | Malibu, CA 90265
From: andrea slosberg-philipson >
759
Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2024 11:34 AM
To: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>; Richard Mollica <[email protected]>; Rebecca Evans <[email protected]>; Planning Commission <[email protected]>; Paul Philipson >
Subject: PVD on record
Hi Tyler,
I am confirming again, today that our Primary View Determination is in effect. You confirmed the site in my living room met all requirements to qualify with the code:

The primary view corridor shall be assessed from a single fixed location and direction within only one of the selected main viewing areas, at an elevation of five feet as measured from the room floor or on an abutting outdoor deck or patio at any one point within ten (10) feet of the nearest outside wall of the building as selected by the affected property owner and the city.

The “main viewing area” shall be limited to the ground floor of the principal residence, or the primary living area (excluding bedrooms) if not located on the ground floor, or abutting outdoor deck or patio area at relatively the same elevation as the ground floor of the principal residence whichever has the superior view corridor. Hallways, closets and mechanical rooms shall not be considered main viewing areas.

You took the relevant pictures and confirmed on Friday, it would be recorded as it qualified and acknowledged it clearly blocked our views of the Santa Monica Mountains. I spoke with you in length again on Monday evening and again requested that the PVD be recorded promptly. I asked if we were required to pay a fee for determination to be made and both you and Alex, confirmed that we were not required to pay a fee for the PVD to be recorded.

I am strongly pushing back on Mr. Kent's assertion that his structure is not required to meet the code that I read. Can you please elaborate on how his proposed plan should be permitted here? His story poles clearly show he does not meet the requirements for a permit and our views of the Santa Monica Mountains are clearly infringed upon. They are visibly and demonstrably obstructed and disturbed.

The width of the primary view corridor shall extend the entire width of the protected primary view not to exceed a maximum of one hundred eighty (180) degrees in width from the selected fixed location and direction. The primary view corridor shall exclude the first eighteen (18) feet of the proposed building height as measured from the existing natural grade or finish grade whichever results in a lower building height. No view obstruction within blue-water ocean, mountain or canyon-view elements per project shall be permitted. Existing foliage shall be considered to have no visual impact to the primary view corridor. New foliage shall not be placed in a manner that creates visual impacts to the primary view corridor and shall meet all landscaping requirements as outlined in this section.

We are exploring all our options to protect our unique home, our views and neighborhood community.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Kind Regards,
Andrea
760
From: Tyler Eaton
To: Rebecca Evans
Subject: FW: 30053 Harvester Road: neighborhood character Date: Wednesday, April 10, 2024 8:36:52 AM
Attachments: image001.png
From: Tyler Eaton
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2024 8:33 AM
To: Lester Tobias <[email protected]>; Richard Mollica <[email protected]>; andrea slosberg-philipson >
Subject: RE: 30053 Harvester Road: neighborhood character Lester,
I am well aware that neighborhood standards is not the same as neighborhood character.

Neighborhood standards is a very specific request while neighborhood character is more subjective. That sentence was simply put in for the reasoning as to why the applicant chose his basis for the 500 foot radius.

I recognize the proposed home is larger than the average. As I mentioned in my report “The proposed TDSF will be larger than the average of the neighborhood, within 500 feet, but it is not expected to be an outlier as the proposed project consists of multiple smaller elongated buildings. As designed, the proposed buildings do not have an imposing appearance from any public viewing areas.” Neighborhood character is a subjective argument based on the look, location, siting, and massing of the home, among other topics of argument. There are other homes in the neighborhood, including ones that you’ve worked on yourself of a similar massing and look from the road.

Nevertheless, as was done with the project you worked on, findings were made because the project, in our view, did not cause an adverse impact to the neighborhood character.

It is ok to have a differing opinion, but I did not give “Mr. Kent the opportunity to cherry pick the largest lots”. As you know, we as staff have to remain objective and consistent. There is no clearly defined area that is considered the “neighborhood” in a neighborhood character analysis, so that was just used as a starting point. It was not meant to conflate neighborhood standards with neighborhood character. The Planning Commission will ultimately decide if the project is inconsistent with the neighborhood character.

Thanks,
Tyler
761
From: Lester Tobias <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2024 8:01 AM
To: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>; Richard Mollica <[email protected]>; andrea slosberg-philipson
Subject: 30053 Harvester Road: neighborhood character
Tyler,
I would like to take issue with your characterization that Mr. Kent's proposed project does not adversely affect the neighborhood character of the 27 homes that fall within the 500 foot radius from the subject property.

Your first mistake was conflating neighborhood character with neighborhood standards.

The neighborhood character finding is part of the site plan review for height, and can be found in Section 13.27.5.2 whereby the code states that, "The project does not adversely affect neighborhood character."
You have incorrectly cited the LIP section for neighborhood standards, which exists to assist projects being proposed in neighborhoods where the majority of homes (built under the county code) are bigger, taller, etc. than our LIP allows. "Neighborhood Character" was a throwaway finding until 2018 when a neighbor successfully used it to force a significant downsizing of a spec home at the top of Via Acero. That project opened up every subsequent submittal to potential scrutiny, mostly regarding structure size, as it related to the homes around it. Needless to say, it is almost always brought up by the next door neighbor(s), and applied to the entire neighborhood.

Unlike neighborhood standards, determining neighborhood character is not quantified in the LIP. There are no metrics, per se. However, I have witnessed several projects requesting a site plan review for height being downsized after being challenged by the neighbors using the neighborhood character finding and subjected to comparison to the average size of the homes within the 500 foot radius. Doug Burdge and Don Schmitz come to mind as the guys forced to provide these exhibits on a regular basis.

This is the first project since the aggressive application of the neighborhood character finding that I can recall where the architect failed to take this issue into consideration prior to commencing with the design process. Everyone I know involved in designing 762
homes in Malibu preemptively analyzes the existing neighborhood building sizes BEFORE embarking on the design process. Several of our projects were voluntarily downsized after we analyzed the neighborhood and ascertained our clients' threshold for opposition to their project. I know that you have seen this first hand over the past few years.

Notwithstanding the lack of a metric for neighborhood character, I am sure that you are well aware that we all use a modified form of the neighborhood standards process, as nothing better has been developed.

I believe that this project is no exception. However, Mr. Kent has provided, and you have bought into, a novel interpretation of the neighborhood standard metric, and it unfairly tilts the scales in Mr Kent's favor.

To begin with, you state that the analysis requires that the applicant look at a minimum of 10 lots in the 500 foot radius area. This is incorrect. LIP 3.6.L.1 states, "Neighborhood Standards apply where there are at least ten developed lots within a five hundred foot radius of the subject site." The "ten lots" is merely the threshold for applying for a neighborhood standard review.

Your misinterpretation of the actual code afforded Mr. Kent the opportunity to cherry pick the largest lots to make it seem like his project is not comparatively large.

To perform this analysis fairly, once the ten lot threshold has been established, the applicant must identify ALL lots within that radius and produce metrics for each lot. Mr.

Kent did not do that.

Cherry picking ten lots out of the 27 that actually exist in the radius allowed you to make the statement that the subject project is actually smaller than four of the ten lots and about the size of the fifth. It sounds like his project is average, for sure. Yet the actual metrics applied to the big homes in the radius would show that only 15%t of 27 existing homes are bigger than what Mr. Kent is proposing.

If you actually ran a neighborhood average analysis, like I just did, you would see that the actual data and actual math show that Mr. Kent is proposing to build over twice the average size of the homes in the neighborhood. I have included my work product as attachments to this email.

Finally, I would like to focus on the exact wording of finding #2 in the Site Plan Review 763
section of the LIP. "The Planning Manager may approve or conditionally approve a site plan review application only if the Planning Manager affirmatively finds...that the project does not adversely affect neighborhood character." The spirit of this section is simple to understand. If you don't want your neighbors to have a say in your project, don't submit a project that requires a Site Plan Review. If you absolutely must have a house that requires a Site Plan Review, you need to pay attention to your neighbors and their concerns.

In the estimated two years leading up to this hearing, Mr. Kent never acknowledged the existence of the Philipsons or their home. They are the only house within 15 feet of the property lines of his parcel, yet he chose to apply the minimum setback (10%) to that adjacency. They have a single story home, oriented to the topography and stepping up the slope, yet he is proposing a rigidly orthogonal, two story structure, ignoring the orientation of the contours, and placed directly in their view.

As a friend and advocate for the Philipsons, I would argue that the project as proposed adversely affects the Philipsons, and as long standing residents of the neighborhood, it stands to reason that the project, therefore, adversely affects the neighborhood character.

If the Planning Director is going to sign off on finding #2, he must affirmatively find that a fifth large house in a neighborhood of SUBSTANTIALLY smaller homes will not adversely affect the neighborhood character. He must affirmatively find that the selected orientation and location of the proposed residence does not adversely affect the Philipsons.

By "affirmatively find", I think it means he needs to put in the record how he reached these conclusions, and how that may be applied to future projects. We would all benefit from this type of clarity.

Sincerely,
LT
764
--
Lester Tobias, Principal
Tobias Architecture, Incorporated
29160 Heathercliff, Suite 400
Malibu, California 90265
(310) 317-0507
NCARB #101162
California Architect's License C22552
Montana Architect's License ARC-20223
765
From: Tyler Eaton
To: Rebecca Evans
Subject: 3 Harvester PVD
Date: Monday, April 15, 2024 3:50:01 PM
Attachments: PVD 24-009 (Draft).pdf
Hi Rebecca,
This can be shared for 4A tonight. We are waiting on the PVD holder to return a completed acknowledgement form, so it is not yet effective. However, this is for the Commissioners’ review for tonight’s meeting. There is a “Draft” watermark indicating that this is not an official document as of yet.

Thanks,
Tyler
766
City of Malibu
23825 Stuait Ranch Rd.· Malibu, California· 90265-4816
Phone (310) 456-2489 • Fax (310) 456-7650 • www.malibucity.mg

PLANNING DEPARTMENT

PRIMARY VIEW DETE
Primaiy View Detennination: Haivester Roa
On April 5, 2024, staff conducted a primaiy view detennination (:aivester Rursuant to Malibu Municipal Code Sections 17.40.040(A)(17)and 17.45.050 captured thep • in the living room of the single-family residence, facing southwe' lo chosen by the owner. The propeity and recorded view are denoted in the neighborhood 1 xhibit 1) belo

�N"--- ·<r'
Exhibit 1: Neighborhood map showing 3XXXX Harvester Road and recorded view. (Source: City of Malibu GIS, 2024)
1 767
768
3 The five photos that combine to reflect the property’s primary view, are provided below.

View Looking Southe
Draft
View 2 – Looking South.
769
4 View Looking South st.

Draft
View 4 – Looking West.
770
5 w 5 – Looking N
Draft 771
6 View 6 – Pho aken in front of patio of the main wing area (living room). The location is indicated by yell easuring tap the floor.

Draft 772
7 View 7
Draft – Photos taken five feet from the floor (living room). 773
From: andrea slosberg-philipson
To: Haylynn Conrad; Marianne Riggins; Bruce Silverstein; Doug Stewart; Steve Uhring; Maureen Tamuri; Joseph Toney; Rebecca Evans; Paul Philipson
Cc: Jo Drummond; Jo Drummond; Dawn Ericson; Charlotte Frieze; Dominique Navarro Subject: City Council Appeal 30053 Harvester Rd. - Compliance with Story Pole Installation Requirements Date: Monday, March 24, 2025 11:03:56 AM
Attachments: photos story pole non-compliance.pdf
Appeal letter story poles.pdf
Dear Members of the City Council and Planning Department, I am writing to formally address the upcoming appeal on April 28, 2025, regarding my neighbor’s building plan application and to highlight an important issue that must be resolved before the process moves forward.

It has come to our attention that the applicant’s story pole installation does not fully comply with the city’s requirements. In fact, this resulted in a grave misrepresentation of the impact of the structure being proposed to the Planning Commission in March 2024. The required 18-foot height markings were not applied to all poles, which means the true height of the proposed structure over 18 feet was not properly indicated. The omission led to an incomplete assessment of our Primary View Determination (PVD) and the city's staff report was based on partial and incomplete information.

The story pole plan clearly outlines the following requirements:
“The top one foot of the story poles shall be painted with clearly visible black paint.

Markings shall also be made at 18 feet above finished or natural grade, whichever results in a lower building height, and at one-foot increments above 18 feet. Bright orange construction mesh, approximately one foot in width, shall be placed connecting poles to show all proposed roof and ridgelines.” Currently, the installation does not meet these specifications, which is crucial given the significant disagreement over the Primary View Determination. To ensure a fair and accurate visual analysis, the story poles must be properly marked. This will enable a comprehensive evaluation of the potential effects of the proposed development on our view and the surrounding environment.

Without the required markings and mesh, it is impossible to fully assess the visual and environmental effects of the proposed project. Therefore, I respectfully request that the Planning Department require the applicant to correct this issue by installing the story poles in full compliance with the city’s specifications, as outlined in the story pole plan.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. We trust that the Planning Department will adhere to the city's regulations, thereby facilitating a fair and transparent evaluation of the proposed application.

Sincerely,
Andrea Slosberg Philipson
Harvester Rd
Malibu, Ca. 90265
774
This is the current state of the story poles which have been out of compliance for the entire time the proposed plan has been in review.
775
776
Paul and Andrea Philipson
Harvester Rd
Malibu, Ca. 90265
March 20,2025
City Council
City of Malibu
23285 Stuart Ranch RD
Malibu, Ca. 90265
Planning Department
City of Malibu
23285 Stuart Ranch Rd
Malibu, Ca. 90265
Subject: City Council Appeal 30053 Harvester Rd. - Compliance with Story Pole Installation Requirements
Dear Members of the City Council and Planning Department, I am writing to formally address the upcoming appeal on April 28, 2025, regarding my neighbor’s building plan application and to highlight an important issue that must be resolved before the process moves forward.

It has come to our attention that the applicant’s story pole installation does not fully comply with the city’s requirements. In fact, this resulted in a grave misrepresentation of the impact of the structure being proposed to the Planning Commission in March 2024.

The required 18-foot height markings were not applied to all poles, which means the true height of the proposed structure over 18 feet was not properly indicated. The omission led to an incomplete assessment of our Primary View Determination (PVD) and the city's staff report was based on partial and incomplete information.

The story pole plan clearly outlines the following requirements:
“The top one foot of the story poles shall be painted with clearly visible black paint.

Markings shall also be made at 18 feet above finished or natural grade, whichever results in a lower building height, and at one-foot increments above 18 feet. Bright orange construction mesh, approximately one foot in width, shall be placed connecting poles to show all proposed roof and ridgelines.”
Currently, the installation does not meet these specifications, which is crucial given the significant disagreement over the Primary View Determination. To ensure a fair and accurate visual analysis, the story poles must be properly marked. This will enable a 777
comprehensive evaluation of the potential effects of the proposed development on our view and the surrounding environment.

Without the required markings and mesh, it is impossible to fully assess the visual and environmental effects of the proposed project. Therefore, I respectfully request that the Planning Department require the applicant to correct this issue by installing the story poles in full compliance with the city’s specifications, as outlined in the story pole plan.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. We trust that the Planning Department will adhere to the city's regulations, thereby facilitating a fair and transparent evaluation of the proposed application.

Sincerely,
Andrea Slosberg Philipson
Harvester Rd
Malibu, Ca. 90265
778
779
“The top one foot of the story poles shall be painted with clearly visible black paint.

Markings shall also be made at 18 feet above finished or natural grade, whichever results in a lower building height, and at one-foot increments above 18 feet. Bright orange construction mesh, approximately one foot in width, shall be placed connecting poles to show all proposed roof and ridgelines.” Currently, the installation does not meet these specifications, which is crucial given the significant disagreement over the Primary View Determination. To ensure a fair and accurate visual analysis, the story poles must be properly marked. This will enable a comprehensive evaluation of the potential effects of the proposed development on our view and the surrounding environment.

Without the required markings and mesh, it is impossible to fully assess the visual and environmental effects of the proposed project. Therefore, I respectfully request that the Planning Department require the applicant to correct this issue by installing the story poles in full compliance with the city’s specifications, as outlined in the story pole plan.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. We trust that the Planning Department will adhere to the city's regulations, thereby facilitating a fair and transparent evaluation of the proposed application.

Sincerely,
Andrea Slosberg Philipson
Harvester Rd
Malibu, Ca. 90265
This is the current state of the story poles which have been out of compliance for the entire time the proposed plan has been in review.
780
781
Paul and Andrea Philipson
Harvester Rd
Malibu, Ca. 90265
March 20,2025
City Council
City of Malibu
23285 Stuart Ranch RD
Malibu, Ca. 90265
Planning Department
City of Malibu
23285 Stuart Ranch Rd
Malibu, Ca. 90265
Subject: City Council Appeal 30053 Harvester Rd. - Compliance with Story Pole Installation Requirements
Dear Members of the City Council and Planning Department, I am writing to formally address the upcoming appeal on April 28, 2025, regarding my neighbor’s building plan application and to highlight an important issue that must be resolved before the process moves forward.

It has come to our attention that the applicant’s story pole installation does not fully comply with the city’s requirements. In fact, this resulted in a grave misrepresentation of the impact of the structure being proposed to the Planning Commission in March 2024.

The required 18-foot height markings were not applied to all poles, which means the true height of the proposed structure over 18 feet was not properly indicated. The omission led to an incomplete assessment of our Primary View Determination (PVD) and the city's staff report was based on partial and incomplete information.

The story pole plan clearly outlines the following requirements:
“The top one foot of the story poles shall be painted with clearly visible black paint.

Markings shall also be made at 18 feet above finished or natural grade, whichever results in a lower building height, and at one-foot increments above 18 feet. Bright orange construction mesh, approximately one foot in width, shall be placed connecting poles to show all proposed roof and ridgelines.”
Currently, the installation does not meet these specifications, which is crucial given the significant disagreement over the Primary View Determination. To ensure a fair and accurate visual analysis, the story poles must be properly marked. This will enable a 782
comprehensive evaluation of the potential effects of the proposed development on our view and the surrounding environment.

Without the required markings and mesh, it is impossible to fully assess the visual and environmental effects of the proposed project. Therefore, I respectfully request that the Planning Department require the applicant to correct this issue by installing the story poles in full compliance with the city’s specifications, as outlined in the story pole plan.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. We trust that the Planning Department will adhere to the city's regulations, thereby facilitating a fair and transparent evaluation of the proposed application.

Sincerely,
Andrea Slosberg Philipson
Harvester Rd
Malibu, Ca. 90265
783
From: andrea slosberg-philipson
To: Maureen Tamuri; Joseph Toney; Paul Philipson; Rebecca Evans Cc: Bruce Silverstein; Marianne Riggins; Doug Stewart; Haylynn Conrad; Steve Uhring; C Frieze; Dawn Ericson; Dominique Navarro; Jo Drummond; Frank Angelat
Subject: Re: City Council Appeal 30053 Harvester Rd. - Compliance with Story Pole Installation Requirements Date: Friday, March 28, 2025 9:25:03 AM
Hi Maureen,
I appreciate the prompt response and the orange plastic was replaced on the story poles at 30053 Harvester. However, I’ve noticed that the markings at 18 feet and above are not visible on all poles, as required by the city’s code. Given that we have a recorded Primary View Determination (PVD) that is directly impacted by these markings, it is crucial that we proceed with a full evaluation.

Unless there are clear markings showing the true height and the impact of the variance being requested, we cannot move forward with a comprehensive assessment. The analysis must be based on the real-life impact of the structures, not just the information presented on paper.

Please let me know how we can address this issue and ensure the markings comply with the necessary requirements. Your prompt attention to this matter is greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your response.

Best,
Andrea Slosberg Philipson
On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 3:43 PM andrea slosberg-philipson < > wrote:

Hi Maureen,
I want to confirm you received my email below because the Appeal date is fast approaching. We would also like to request the city biologist come out and assess the eucalyptus trees the applicant is proposing to cut down for this build and the city's adherence to ordinace 461.

We have other concerns to review before the Appeal, so can you let us know how to proceed.

Best,
Andrea Slosberg Philipson
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: andrea slosberg-philipson < >
Date: Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 11:02 AM
Subject: City Council Appeal 30053 Harvester Rd. - Compliance with Story Pole Installation Requirements
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Bruce Silverstein <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Steve Uhring 784
785
This is the current state of the story poles which have been out of compliance for the entire time the proposed plan has been in review.
786
From: Dawn Ericson
To: Dawn Ericson
Cc: Haylynn Conrad; Marianne Riggins; Bruce Silverstein; Doug Stewart; Steve Uhring; Maureen Tamuri; Joseph Toney; Rebecca Evans; Jo Drummond; Dominique Navarro; Paul Philipson; andrea slosberg-philipson; Frank Angelat
Subject: City Council Appeal 30053 Harvester Rd. - Compliance with CDP- Survey Markers.

Date: Monday, March 31, 2025 5:53:30 PM
Attachments: CDP-CDP 23-019 - 30053 HARVESTER RD - 4469-009-010 - CORRESPONDENCE - INCOMPLETE LETTER.pdf REQUEST for Survey Marker.pdf
Dear Members of the City Council and Planning Department, I am writing to formally address the upcoming appeal on April 28, 2025, regarding my neighbor’s building plan application and to highlight an important issue that must be resolved before the process moves forward: Mr. Kent's reliance on a degraded chain-link fence used as a survey marker and as a property line marker. This is unacceptable.

It has come to our attention that the applicant’ has not fully comply with the city’s requirements. As a resulted this is a misrepresentation of the impact of the proposed land development approved to the Planning Commission in March 2024. Within the CDP that was issued, in a letter June 2, 2023, on the 3rd page, it states Mr. Kent's site must be surveyed...with all site markings.

The omission of property survey markers led to an incomplete assessment of the fence line, watershed route and native vegetation growing on Mr. Kent's property and locations of the construction site from the neighbors property. The city's staff report was based on partial and incomplete information without a completed on-site survey and survey markers which will indicate the property lines.