b. Site Survey.
A site survey with the following items:
Property boundaries with bearings, distance, monuments, iron rods, or other markers shown; show existing and proposed lot lines.
North, date, scale, dimensions, and record boundaries of ownership.
Indicate topography by showing contours.
Location of trees at least four inches in diameter and at least 4.5 feet above ground.
Location of the existing OWTS
Wet-stamped and wet-signed by a registered civil engineer or surveyor.
The survey markers will clearly provide answers to these following questions:
1. The position of the property lines.
2. The position for the proposed fence location along the east property line.
3. The position of the proposed construction sites and distance from the property line and watershed zone.
4. The position of a 12' diameter Coastal Live Oak in relationship to the construction site.
5. The position and numbers of native toyon, coastal live oak and walnut trees (all protected species), which may be removed or uprooted during construction along the proposed property line.
806
6. The position of the watershed as it passes over the property line near Harvester Road.
7. The position of the OWTS as related to the watershed on Mr. Kent’s parcel.
Currently, the APPEAL hearing, without survey markers denies crucial information about the property rights of the neighbor's tangent parcel.
To ensure a fair and accurate visual analysis, the on-site survey markers must be properly positioned and marked. This will enable a comprehensive evaluation of the potential effects of the proposed development on our surrounding environment.
I respectfully request that the Planning Department require the applicant to correct this issue by positioning survey markers in full compliance with the city’s specifications, as outlined on page 3 of the CDP - 8. Survey.
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 by requiring survey markers.
Dawn N Ericson
Harvester Road
807
City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road · Malibu, California · 90265-4861 Phone (310) 456-2489 · Fax (310) 456-3356 · www.malibucity.org June 2, 2023
Steve Kent
Reference: 30053 Harvester Road, Malibu, CA 90265
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (CDP) No. 23-019
New Single-Family Residence, attached garage, detached ADU, detached Yoga studio, pool & spa, NOWTS,
Dear Mr. Kent,
On March 15, 2023, the application listed above was submitted to the City of Malibu’s Planning Department for processing. The subject property is located at 30053 Harvester Road (APN 4469-009-010) and is zoned Rural Residential District- Two Acre (RR-2). The subject property is not within the Appeal Jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission (CCC) as depicted on the Post – Local Coastal Program Certification Permit and Appeal Jurisdiction Map of the City of Malibu.
Our Planning Department Staff has completed an initial review of the application and determined on June 2, 2023, that the application submitted was INCOMPLETE and will require further information. To continue processing the application, please address the following items.
1. Staff needs to conduct a site visit to document existing conditions.
Zoning Conformance
1. Based on the information provided, the project appears to exceed the following zoning requirements:
i. Height maximum [LIP §3.6(E)(1-2)]: The base maximum height is 18 feet; however, this can be increased to 24 feet (flat roof) or 28 feet (pitched roof) subject to an approved site plan review (SPR). A pitched roof has a minimum 3:12 pitch. An SPR was not requested as part of the CDP application and proposed/modified roof heights exceed the maximum height. Please revise to 18 feet or request an SPR for heights above 18 feet. If an SPR is requested, please submit the SPR fee of $2,658 and written findings in LIP §13.27.5. ii. Setback Requirements [LIP §3.6(F)]: It is unclear if the proposed plans do meet the setback requirements Pursuant to LIP Section 3.6(F). Rear yard setbacks shall be at least 15 percent of the lot depth or 15 feet whichever is greater. Provide setback of rear property line to stairs leading to guest suite
iii. Two-thirds rule [LIP §3.6(K)(2)]: The project appears to exceed the two-thirds requirement. In no event can the floor area above 18 feet exceed the floor area below 18 feet. Generally, this is satisfied when demonstrated that the second floor area is two-thirds of the first floor area below.
808
CDP No. 23-019
30053 Harvester Road
April 27, 2023
iv. Site of Construction [LIP §3.6(J)]: The plans show proposed development on slopes greater than 3:1. All development on slopes greater than 3:1 but less than 2.5:1 require a Site Plan Review (SPR). Development on slopes steeper than 2.5:1 requires a VAR. Please revise the plans to remove development on slopes or request the appropriate discretionary request. v. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Size: The 1,200 square foot ADU proposed is more than the 900 square feet allowed under LIP Section 3.6.
vi. Lot Legality: The site is vacant and proposed to be developed. The current Assessor’s parcel map shows some irregularities with the lot. You will need to apply for a Certificate of Compliance (COC) to legalize the lot before it can be developed.
Documentation
To submit revised plans and documents in response to this letter, please submit through the Planning Department’s Online Portal at www.MalibuCity.org/PlanningSubmittalPortal. Upon receiving your request to submit, the Submittal Administrator will send a link to you to submit documents. Once documents are received, fees will be calculated, which can be paid online.
2. Full Title Reports are required for projects proposed on vacant land. The Title Report should contain information regarding a COC for the parcel. Should the Title Report not contain COC information, please submit evidence that the parcel is a legal parcel. If no COC exists for the parcel a COC can be applied for as part of the Planning application. Please contact your Planner immediately with questions regarding the COC application process. Please note that this process can take a substantial amount of time and should be started if it hasn’t been already.
3. A Will Serve Letter is required for all new construction, including additions and swimming pools.
Submit a Will Serve Letter from the Los Angeles County Waterworks District 29. This office is located at 23533 Civic Center Way, Malibu, California 90265. Los Angeles County Waterworks District 29 has counter hours Monday through Thursday from 8:00AM to 11:00AM and on Fridays from 8:30AM to 11:00AM and may be reached at (310) 317-1388.
4. Total Grading Yardage Verification Certificate. Please find, complete, and return the Total Grading Yardage Verification Certificate for the grading or excavation the foundation of the proposed project will necessitate.
5. The proposed project includes development over 18 feet in height. Pursuant to MMC Section
17.62.040(A)(1) a site plan review is required for development over 18 feet in height with a maximum height of up to 24 feet with a flat roof or 28 feet with a pitched roof. To apply for a site plan review please submit the following items to the Planning Department during public counter hours:
a. A form of payment for $3,329.00.
Plan Revisions
Plan Submittals: Plans shall be grouped and named by discipline (e.g. architectural, grading, civil, etc.). • 24” x 36” size digital set dimensioned to ¼” = 1’ or ⅛” = 1’ scale
6. Cover Sheet
809
CDP No. 23-019
30053 Harvester Road
April 27, 2023
a. Within the project description, include all proposed development, for example, swimming pool, spa, ground mounted pool-equipment, pool equipment enclosure, yoga studio accessory building, wood deck, and safety fence.
b. List the General Plan Land Use Designation for the parcel. The General Plan Land Use Designation is Rural Residential – Two Acre (RR-2).
c. Revise the total development square footage (TDSF) calculation on the cover sheet. Refer to the enclosed TDSF calculation sheet for further direction.
d. Revise the breakdown of the impermeable coverage. Impermeable coverage is anything that water cannot “permeate” through. This includes, but is not limited to, building footprints, driveways, walkways, patios, decks surrounding pools, etc. Swimming pools and spas are not counted in impermeable coverage calculations. Refer to the enclosed impermeable coverage calculation sheet for further direction.
7. Site Plan
a. Indicate the type of materials that will be used for the deck surrounding the pool and structures. b. Pool Equipment/Enclosure: pursuant to LCP LIP Section 3.5.3(B)(8)(a), Accessory Structures and Equipment located in the rear and side yards subject to the following limitations: Ground mounted pool and air conditioning equipment must be screened by a solid wall or fence on all sides, except in cases where the equipment is located next to a dwelling, in which case the equipment must be screened on the three sides not adjacent to the dwelling. Clearly show the location of the proposed pool equipment screening on the plans.
c. Depict the location of proposed ground mounted equipment, if any. d. Depict the setback stairs behind the primary residence garage will be from rear property line.
8. Survey
a. Site Survey. The site survey needs to include topography showing approximate contours throughout the property.
b. Submit a site survey with the following items:
i. Property boundaries with bearings, distance, monuments, iron rods, or other markers shown; show existing and proposed lot lines.
ii. North, date, scale, dimensions, and record boundaries of ownership. iii. Indicate topography by showing contours.
iv. All easements, OTDs, deed restrictions, and description of adjacent uses. v. Location of trees at least four inches in diameter and at least 4.5 feet above ground. vi. Location of the existing OWTS
i. Wet-stamped and wet-signed by a registered civil engineer or surveyor.
9. Color Coded Slope Analysis
810
CDP No. 23-019
30053 Harvester Road
April 27, 2023
a. To verify that this project does not qualify for the Hillside Residential Development Standards (MMC 17.02.060 – Definition and MMC 17.40.040(A)(20)), please submit a color coded slope analysis based on 10 foot contour lines. You only need to show two categories (> than 30% slopes and < 30% slopes). If development is proposed on slopes steeper than 30%, an SPR can be applied for to exempt the project from the Hillside Standards given the fact that the project will not be visible from a scenic area.
b. Show the proposed scope of work on each slope analysis. The regular slope analysis (nonhillside) should use 5 foot contours.
10. Floor Plans
a. Revise second floor plans to comply with two-thirds rule b. Remove sink from guest suite living area
c. The basement lightwell does not appear meet the City’s basement policy attached. Please revise accordingly.
11. Roof Plan
a. Any new roof must have at least a 3:12 slope to be considered pitched. Indicate the proposed pitch of roofs.
12. Elevations
a. Pursuant to M.M.C. Section17.40.040(2), every residence shall have an exterior siding of brick, wood, stucco, metal, concrete or other similar material, except that reflective, gloss, polished and/or roll-formed type metal siding is prohibited. Revise the plans to note all metal being used will be non-reflective and non-glossy.
b. Revise section drawings to include dimensions from the top of roof to the lowest grade. c. Provide the dimensions and elevations of the pool equipment and screening materials. d. Provide a detail of the proposed safety fence, gate, and footings if applicable.
13. Outdoor Lighting Plan
a. Provide an outdoor lighting plan that complies with the City of Malibu’s Dark Sky Ordinance and includes a site plan for the proposed exterior lighting and manufacture specifications containing the Kelvin and Lumens counts and exhibits showing the outdoor light fixture.
Outstanding Agency Approvals
14. Approval from the City Environmental Health Administrator is required. Please contact the department for submittal requirements or review status.
15. Approval from the City of Malibu Public Works Department’s Senior Civil Engineer is required. Please contact the department for submittal requirements and review status. 811
CDP No. 23-019
30053 Harvester Road
April 27, 2023
16. Approval from the City Biologist is required. Please contact the department for submittal requirements and review status.
17. Approval from the City Geologist is required. Please contact the department for submittal requirements and review status.
18. Approval from the Los Angeles County Fire Department is required. I have attached the Fire Department referral sheet, the contact information can be found at the bottom of the attached referral.
19. Approval from the Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 29 is required. I have attached the Waterworks District referral sheet, the contact information can be found at the bottom of the attached referral.
Further Processing
20. Notice of Coastal Development Permit Posting Affidavit. The notice is available for pickup at the front counter, please complete and return the Notice of Coastal Development Permit Posting Affidavit, prepared for the subject application, any time during the Planning Department’s Public Counter Hours.
The Planning Department’s Public Counter Hours are Monday through Friday, 7:30am to 12:30pm.
21. Upon approval from all interdepartmental specialists, a Story Pole Plan must be submitted showing the location and heights of all proposed new structures. Please coordinate the timing and submittal of your plan with your Planner.
22. Certified property owner and occupant addresses will be required upon approvals from the interdepartmental specialist. Please coordinate with your Planner on the timing of the mailing labels.
Certified property owner and occupant addresses. Property owner and applicant addresses on mailing labels will not be accepted. Mailing addresses and radius maps shall be submitted in digital format.
Following are the guidelines:
▪ The addresses of the property owners and occupants within the mailing radius shall be provided in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. The radius map (8½” x 11”) shall show a 500 foot radius from the subject property and must show a minimum of 10 developed properties. A digital copy of the map shall be submitted on the same cd as the mailing addresses. ▪ The spreadsheet shall have the following column headers in row one: 1) name, 2) address, 3) city, state & zip code, and 4) parcel (for APN). The owners should be listed first followed by the occupants. The project applicant’s mailing address should be added at the end of the list. ▪ An additional column for “arbitrary number” may be included if the supplied radius map utilizes such numbers for the purpose of correlating the addressee to their map location.
Additional comments may be forthcoming upon receipt of revised plans and/or new information. If new materials are not submitted within 45 days, staff may take action to close out the application due to inactivity.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (714) 568-1010, extension 2752 or at [email protected] Sincerely,
Kaneca Pompey
Kaneca Pompey
Contract Planner
812
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 chainlink fence used as a survey marker and as a property line. 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.
8. Survey
b. Site Survey.
A site survey with the following items:
Property boundaries with bearings, distance, monuments, iron rods, or other markers shown; show existing and proposed lot lines.
North, date, scale, dimensions, and record boundaries of ownership.
Indicate topography by showing contours.
Location of trees at least four inches in diameter and at least 4.5 feet above ground.
Location of the existing OWTS
Wet-stamped and wet-signed by a registered civil engineer or surveyor.
The survey markers will clearly provide answers to these following questions:
1. The position of the property lines.
2. The position for the proposed fence location along the east property line.
3. The position of the proposed construction sites and distance from the property line and watershed zone.
4. The position of a 12' diameter Coastal Live Oak in relationship to the construction site.
5. The position and numbers of native toyon, coastal live oak and walnut trees (all protected species), which may be removed or uprooted during construction along the property line.
6. The position of the watershed as it passes over the property line near Harvester Road.
813
Currently, the APPEAL hearing, without survey markers denies crucial information about the property rights of the neighbor's tangent parcel.
To ensure a fair and accurate visual analysis, the on-site survey markers must be properly positioned and marked. This will enable a comprehensive evaluation of the potential effects of the proposed development on our surrounding environment.
I respectfully request that the Planning Department require the applicant to correct this issue by positioning survey markers in full compliance with the city’s specifications, as outlined on page 3 of the CDP - 8. Survey.
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 by requiring survey markers.
Dawn N Ericson
Harvester Road
814
From: Dawn Ericson
To: Gail Duncan; Maureen Tamuri
Subject: Re: 30053 Harvester Rd / CDP 23-019 - City Council Notice of Public Hearing - April 28, 2025 Date: Thursday, April 3, 2025 4:15:57 PM
Attachments: image003.png
image006.png
image005.png
image004.png
image001.png
30053 Harvester_AP of CDP 23-019_PHN.pdf
image002.png
REQUEST for Survey Marker.pdf
Hello again Maureen,
May I please bring to your attention again, this letter send this past week address the lack of on-site survey markers on the Kent property 30053 Harvester Rd, which is under APPEAL.
Thank you for attention,
Dawn N Ericson
On Apr 3, 2025, at 3:17 PM, Gail Duncan <[email protected]> wrote:
You have received this email because you are on file with the City of Malibu Planning Department as an interested party for a project to be considered at the April 28, 2025 City Council meeting.
On April 28, 2025, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the below item. Please see the attached public hearing notice for the City Council Hearing date/time and project details.
Appeal Nos. 24-004 and 24-005 of Coastal Development Permit No. 23- 019
For more information, you may contact the case planner listed on the notice, or visit
https://www.malibucity.org/
Sign up for the City of Malibu’s e-notifications to stay up-to-date on emergency and traffic alerts, public meetings and City events at www.malibucity.org/news.
Regards,
Gail Duncan (She/Her)
Administrative Assistant | Planning
Office: 310.456.2489, ext. 309
23825 Stuart Ranch Road | Malibu, CA 90265
815
816
From: Dawn Ericson
To: Gail Duncan; Maureen Tamuri
Subject: Re: 30053 Harvester Rd / CDP 23-019 - City Council Notice of Public Hearing - April 28, 2025 Date: Thursday, April 3, 2025 4:15:57 PM
Attachments: image003.png
image006.png
image005.png
image004.png
image001.png
30053 Harvester AP of CDP 23-019 PHN.pdf
image002.png
REQUEST for Survey Marker.pdf
Hello again Maureen,
May I please bring to your attention again, this letter send this past week address the lack of on-site survey markers on the Kent property 30053 Harvester Rd, which is under APPEAL.
Thank you for attention,
Dawn N Ericson
On Apr 3, 2025, at 3:17 PM, Gail Duncan <[email protected]> wrote:
You have received this email because you are on file with the City of Malibu Planning Department as an interested party for a project to be considered at the April 28, 2025 City Council meeting.
On April 28, 2025, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the below item. Please see the attached public hearing notice for the City Council Hearing date/time and project details.
Appeal Nos. 24-004 and 24-005 of Coastal Development Permit No. 23- 019
For more information, you may contact the case planner listed on the notice, or visit
https://www.malibucity.org/
Sign up for the City of Malibu’s e-notifications to stay up-to-date on emergency and traffic alerts, public meetings and City events at www.malibucity.org/news.
Regards,
Gail Duncan (She/Her)
Administrative Assistant | Planning
Office: 310.456.2489, ext. 309
23825 Stuart Ranch Road | Malibu, CA 90265
817
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 chainlink fence used as a survey marker and as a property line. 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.
8. Survey
b. Site Survey.
A site survey with the following items:
Property boundaries with bearings, distance, monuments, iron rods, or other markers shown; show existing and proposed lot lines.
North, date, scale, dimensions, and record boundaries of ownership.
Indicate topography by showing contours.
Location of trees at least four inches in diameter and at least 4.5 feet above ground.
Location of the existing OWTS
Wet-stamped and wet-signed by a registered civil engineer or surveyor.
The survey markers will clearly provide answers to these following questions:
1. The position of the property lines.
2. The position for the proposed fence location along the east property line.
3. The position of the proposed construction sites and distance from the property line and watershed zone.
4. The position of a 12' diameter Coastal Live Oak in relationship to the construction site.
5. The position and numbers of native toyon, coastal live oak and walnut trees (all protected species), which may be removed or uprooted during construction along the property line.
6. The position of the watershed as it passes over the property line near Harvester Road.
818
Currently, the APPEAL hearing, without survey markers denies crucial information about the property rights of the neighbor's tangent parcel.
To ensure a fair and accurate visual analysis, the on-site survey markers must be properly positioned and marked. This will enable a comprehensive evaluation of the potential effects of the proposed development on our surrounding environment.
I respectfully request that the Planning Department require the applicant to correct this issue by positioning survey markers in full compliance with the city’s specifications, as outlined on page 3 of the CDP - 8. Survey.
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 by requiring survey markers.
Dawn N Ericson
Harvester Road
819
From: Steve Kent
To: Rebecca Evans; Doug Stewart; Marianne Riggins; Haylynn Conrad; Steve Uhring; Bruce Silverstein Cc: Tyler Eaton; Patricia Salazar; Maureen Tamuri
Subject: Re: City Council Appeal 30053 Harvester Rd. - Compliance with Story Pole Installation Requirements Date: Tuesday, April 1, 2025 9:43:58 AM
Attachments: SP letter 3.29.25.pdf
Dear Members of the Malibu City Council,
It has come to our attention that the Philipsons are complaining about the story poles. For the record, the story poles were erected in full compliance with the City of Malibu approved plans, certified by our licensed surveyor, verified by city planning and seen in person by all five planning commissioners prior to our hearing last year.
The eighteen foot height and one-foot increments were clearly marked as evidenced by the attached photos. I met with Andrea Philipson prior to the hearing and specifically pointed out to her the eighteen foot height on the pole closest to her house, but perhaps she has forgotten in the year that has elapsed since the Philipsons filed their appeal.
Here is yet another example of the neighbor’s frivolous claims wasting all of our time.
Best,
Steven Kent
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
On Fri, Mar 28, 2025 at 12:18 AM Rebecca Evans <[email protected]> wrote:
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Maureen Tamuri <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2025 12:15:28 AM
To: Kelsey Pettijohn <[email protected]>; Rebecca Evans <[email protected]> Subject: Fw: City Council Appeal 30053 Harvester Rd. - Compliance with Story Pole Installation Requirements
Did this come to you've. Are we good on acknowledging an appeal? Can't recall but I think I sent this on... Thanks! M
Get Outlook for iOS
820
From: andrea slosberg-philipson >
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 11:02:55 AM
To: Haylynn Conrad <[email protected]>; Marianne Riggins <[email protected]>; Bruce Silverstein <[email protected]>; Doug Stewart <[email protected]>; Steve Uhring <[email protected]>; Maureen Tamuri <[email protected]>; Joseph Toney <[email protected]>; Rebecca Evans <[email protected]>; 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
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.
821
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.
822
S T E V E N K E N T A R C H I T E C T 310.293.3222 StevenKentAIA.com March 29, 2025
Malibu City Council
23825 Stuart Ranch Rd.
Malibu, CA 90265
RE: 30053 Harvester Rd. Story Poles
Dear Members of the Malibu City Council,
It has come to our attention that the Philipsons are complaining about the story poles. For the record, the story poles were erected in full compliance with the City of Malibu approved plans, certified by our licensed surveyor, verified by city planning and seen in person by all five planning commissioners prior to our hearing last year.
The eighteen foot height and one-foot increments were clearly marked as evidenced by the attached photos. I met with Andrea Philipson prior to the hearing and specifically pointed out to her the eighteen foot height on the pole closest to her house, but perhaps she has forgotten in the year that has elapsed since the Philipsons filed their appeal.
Here is yet another example of the neighbor’s frivolous claims wasting all of our time.
Best,
Steven Kent
823
824
825
From: Steve Kent
To: Maureen Tamuri
Cc: Rebecca Evans; Doug Stewart; Marianne Riggins; Haylynn Conrad; Steve Uhring; Bruce Silverstein; Tyler Eaton; Patricia Salazar
Subject: Re: City Council Appeal 30053 Harvester Rd. - Compliance with Story Pole Installation Requirements Date: Tuesday, April 1, 2025 11:06:38 AM
Attachments: Elevation.pdf
Good Morning Maureen,
In response to the recent accusations from the Philipsons, I would like you to know that the story poles remain in conformance to the approved plans. I met the surveyor at our property last Friday, and we verified that the poles still have the same white tape at the 18 ft. height and the black marks at one-foot increments (the same as shown in the photos I previously sent).
Unfortunately, it appears that the neighbors only sent photos of the poles under 18 feet. I am not sure if this was intentional, or if they still do not understand that only a few of the poles are taller than 18 feet. This is because 98% of the building is less than 18 feet and only a very small portion of our second story roof extends above that height (please see attached elevation drawing).
Last year prior to our planning commission hearing, Tyler Eaton met with the Phillipsons and determined that none of their primary views were obstructed by the portion of our house above 18 ft. Of course, at that time the white tape markings at the 18 ft. height were necessary for Malibu city planning to make the negative Primary View Determination. These markings were reviewed in detail with Andrea Philipson, both with Tyler Eaton and myself in separate site meetings. Since that time, the Philipsons have had over one year to study the story poles in detail.
When the city council members visit our property in the upcoming weeks before the appeal hearing, they will see for themselves that the story poles are in full compliance with the Malibu city codes, as is our proposed house.
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
On Sat, Mar 29, 2025 at 2:44 PM Rebecca Evans <[email protected]> wrote:
Get Outlook for iOS
826
From: andrea slosberg-philipson <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, March 28, 2025 5:25 PM
To: Maureen Tamuri <[email protected]>; Joseph Toney <[email protected]>; Paul Philipson ; Rebecca Evans <[email protected]>
Cc: Bruce Silverstein <[email protected]>; Marianne Riggins <[email protected]>; Doug Stewart <[email protected]>; Haylynn Conrad <[email protected]>; Steve Uhring <[email protected]>; C Frieze ; Dawn Ericson >; Dominique
Navarro >; Jo Drummond >;
Frank Angelat <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: City Council Appeal 30053 Harvester Rd. - Compliance with Story Pole Installation Requirements
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,
827
828
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.
829
830
From: Steve Kent
To: Rebecca Evans; Doug Stewart; Marianne Riggins; Haylynn Conrad; Steve Uhring; Bruce Silverstein; Tyler Eaton; Maureen Tamuri
Subject: RE: City Council Appeal 30053 Harvester Rd. - Compliance with CDP- Survey Markers Date: Wednesday, April 2, 2025 9:27:55 AM
Attachments: Survey letter 4.2.25.pdf
Dear Members of the Malibu City Council,
Unfortunately, our neighbor Dawn Ericson has forgotten what transpired prior to our last hearing and has thrown another red herring. Ms. Erickson made the same allegations regarding our survey last year and now it is déjà vu all over again. Of course, our surveyor (ironically the same surveyor hired by Ms. Erickson for her property) completed the survey in compliance with all of the Malibu city requirements.
Last year prior to the hearing, Ms. Ericson alleged that our survey was not accurate to the fence line because her “landscaper” checked it with his phone app and thought it was four feet off. We then had to pay the surveyor to come back out to verify the property corners, the fence line and the oak tree that was on her property (please see the attached stamped survey from last year that was an exhibit during our planning commission hearing).
Despite Ms. Ericson’s references to native trees on her property, there is only one protected tree that is located far away from any proposed structures. In fact, the most predominant feature of the drainage gully bordering our property is a row of enormous eucalyptus trees that likely caused Ms. Ericson’s house to burn in the Woosley fire.
The Malibu city biologist has made three separate written determinations that there is no ESHA on Ms. Ericson’s property and that the smaller unprotected native trees appeared to be planted by Ms. Ericson. Our eminently respected biologist, Edith Read who has been working in Malibu for the past 30 years, also concluded that neither property is within environmentally sensitive habitat. And of course, there is no mapped ESHA on either property.
Prior to the planning commission hearing last year, it became apparent that Ms.
Ericson tried to create an imaginary ESHA in order to justify to the planning department pushing her house closer to her West neighbor before building her own home. The former planning director, Richard Mollica, explained during our planning commission hearing that Ms. Ericson submitted a plan by her landscape architect showing the supposed “ESHA” that has never been mapped by the city or the Coastal Commission. Richard Mollica explained that Ms. Ericson’s request to push her house closer to her neighbor’s property was subsequently rejected by city planning.
Now Ms. Ericson is trying to use the same false claims of ESHA to stop us from building our home, which is in full compliance with the Malibu LIP. Every time the neighbors throw out these bogus allegations, we are forced to spend thousands of dollars on professional consultants and additional city fees to refute complete nonsense.
831
832
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.
b. Site Survey.
A site survey with the following items:
Property boundaries with bearings, distance, monuments, iron rods, or other markers shown; show existing and proposed lot lines.
North, date, scale, dimensions, and record boundaries of ownership.
Indicate topography by showing contours.
Location of trees at least four inches in diameter and at least 4.5 feet above ground.
Location of the existing OWTS
Wet-stamped and wet-signed by a registered civil engineer or surveyor.
The survey markers will clearly provide answers to these following questions:
1. The position of the property lines.
2. The position for the proposed fence location along the east property line.
3. The position of the proposed construction sites and distance from the property line and watershed zone.
4. The position of a 12' diameter Coastal Live Oak in relationship to the construction site.
5. The position and numbers of native toyon, coastal live oak and walnut trees (all protected species), which may be removed or uprooted during construction along the proposed property line.
6. The position of the watershed as it passes over the property line near Harvester Road.
7. The position of the OWTS as related to the watershed on Mr. Kent’s parcel.
Currently, the APPEAL hearing, without survey markers denies crucial information about the property rights of the neighbor's tangent parcel.
To ensure a fair and accurate visual analysis, the on-site survey markers must be properly positioned and marked. This will enable a comprehensive evaluation of the potential effects of the proposed development on our surrounding environment.
I respectfully request that the Planning Department require the applicant to correct this issue by positioning survey markers in full compliance with the city’s specifications, as outlined on page 3 of the CDP - 8. Survey.
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 by requiring survey markers. 833
Dawn N Ericson
Harvester Road
834
April 2, 2025
Malibu City Council
23825 Stuart Ranch Rd.
Malibu, CA 90265
RE: 30053 Harvester Rd. Survey (and Imaginary ESHA)
Dear Members of the Malibu City Council,
Unfortunately, our neighbor Dawn Ericson has forgotten what transpired prior to our last hearing and has thrown another red herring. Ms. Ericson made the same allegations regarding our survey last year and now it is déjà vu all over again. Of course, our surveyor (ironically the same surveyor hired by Ms. Ericson for her property) completed the survey in compliance with all of the Malibu city requirements.
Last year prior to the hearing, Ms. Ericson alleged that our survey was not accurate to the fence line because her “landscaper” checked it with his phone app and thought it was four feet off. We then had to pay the surveyor to come back out to verify the property corners, the fence line and the oak tree that was on her property (please see the attached stamped survey from last year that was an exhibit during our planning commission hearing).
Despite Ms. Ericson’s references to native trees on her property, there is only one protected tree that is located far away from any proposed structures. In fact, the most predominant feature of the drainage gully bordering our property is a row of enormous eucalyptus trees that likely caused Ms. Ericson’s house to burn in the Woosley fire.
The Malibu city biologist has made three separate written determinations that there is no ESHA on Ms. Ericson’s property and that the smaller unprotected native trees appeared to be planted by Ms. Ericson. Our eminently respected biologist, Edith Read who has been working in Malibu for the past 30 years, also concluded that neither property is within environmentally sensitive habitat. And of course, there is no mapped ESHA on either property.
Prior to the planning commission hearing last year, it became apparent that Ms. Ericson tried to create an imaginary ESHA in order to justify to the planning department pushing her house closer to her West neighbor before building her own home. The former planning director, Richard Mollica, explained during our planning commission hearing that Ms. Ericson submitted a plan by her landscape architect showing the supposed “ESHA” that has never been mapped by the city or the Coastal Commission. Richard Mollica explained that Ms. Ericson’s request to push her house closer to her neighbor’s property was subsequently rejected by city planning.
835
S T E V E N K E N T A R C H I T E C T 310.293.3222 StevenKentAIA.com Now Ms. Ericson is trying to use the same false claims of ESHA to stop us from building our home, which is in full compliance with the Malibu LIP. Every time the neighbors throw out these bogus allegations, we are forced to spend thousands of dollars on professional consultants and additional city fees to refute complete nonsense.
We look forward to finally putting this matter to rest at the upcoming Malibu City Council hearing April 28th.
Best,
Steven Kent
836
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
837
City Of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Nගඑඋඍ ඎ Pඝඊඔඑඋ Hඍඉකඑඖඏ
Phone (310) 456-2489
www.malibucity.org
Nගඑඋඍ ඎ Pඝඊඔඑඋ Hඍඉකඑඖඏ
The Malibu City Council will hold a public hearing on Monday, April 28, 2025, at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Malibu City Hall, 23825 Stuart Ranch Road, Malibu, CA and via teleconference, for the project identified below.
APPEAL NOS. 24-004 and 24-005 - An appeal of Planning Commission Resolution No 24-21 determining the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and approving Coastal Development Permit No. 23-019 to construct a new 4,270 square foot, two-story, single-family residence with a 970 square foot basement, plus a 750 saquare foot attached three-car garage, 900 square foot detached second unit, 500 square foot detached garage, 432 square foot yoga studio, swimming pool, grading, landscaping, hardscape, and onsite wastewater treatment system, including Site Plan Review No. 23-024 to construct the residence in excess of 18 feet in height up to 24 feet for a flat roof
LOCATION / APN / ZONING: 30053 Harvester Rd / 4469-009-010 / Rural Residential-Two Acre (RR-2) APPLICANT / OWNER: Steven Kent Architects / Steven Kent APPELLANTS: Dawn N. Ericson, Paul E Philipson, and Andrea Slosberg-Philipson APPLICATION FILED: March 15, 2023
APPEALS FILED: April 25, 2024
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Categorical Exemption CEQA Guidelines Sections 15303(a) and 15303(e) CASE PLANNER: Tyler Eaton, Principal Planner, [email protected] (310) 456-2489, ext. 273
A written staff report will be available at or before the hearing for the project. All persons wishing to address the Council regarding this matter will be afforded an opportunity in accordance with the Council’s procedures. Copies of all related documents can be reviewed by any interested person at City Hall during regular business hours. Oral and written comments may be presented to the City Council on, or before, the date of the meeting.
IF YOU CHALLENGE THE CITY COUNCIL’S ACTION IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY
THOSE ISSUES RAISED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE, OR OTHERWISE HELD
BY THE CITY, OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE CITY, EITHER AT OR PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.
MAUREEN TAMURI, Interim Planning Director Date: April 3, 2025 Exhibit M
838