Malibu City Council
February 18, 2026

D. Demolition Permit (MMC Chapter 17.70)

1. Conditions ofapproval included for this application ensure that the project will not create significant adverse environmental impacts.

2. The application is approved pursuant to MMC Section 17.70.030(B). which allows the concurrent processing ol" a demolition permit if all the other discretionary applications necessary for the proposed construction on the site are approved.

SECTION 4. Planning Commission Action.

Based on the foregoing findings and evidence contained within the record. the Planning Commission hereby approves CDPWF N0. 23-004. SPR No. 23-026 and DP No. 24—020, subject to the following conditions. that are applicable to the project. as noted below.

SECTION 5. Conditions ofApproval.

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 ofthis application is to allow for the following:
a. 4,620 square foot additions to the previously approved residence; i. Total development square footage (TDSF) is 8.492—square feet.

Expansion ofthe swimming pool and spa;
Associated pool equipment (to be fully screened);
Re-configuration ofthe existing driveway;
Resurfacing existing tennis court;
New 1.085 square foot outdoor seating area with trellis (less than 18 feet in height) for tennis court;
New 132 square foot accessory structure;
New 3.060 square foot permeable outdoor garden; New hardscape;

10.134 square feet ofnew landscape;
New view permeable vehicular gate (up—to six feet in height); New fence (up-to six feet in height);
m. New OWTS.
waowo‘
L—‘O‘QJ
ew
—'.
r
Discretionary Requests:
n. SPR No. 23—026 to allow for construction ofthe addition up to 24 feet in height for a flat roof; and
o. DP No. 24—020 for the demolition ofexisting hardscape and landscape. 145
Resolution NO 24—39

Except as specifically changed by conditicns Ofapproval‘ the proposed development shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the approved scope ofwork. as described in Condition No. 2 and depicted on plans on tile with the Planning Department date stamped May 23, 2024. The proposed development shall further comply with all conditions ofapproval stipulated in this resolution and Department Review Sheets attached hereto. In the event project plans conflict with any condition of approval. the condition shall take precedence.

Pursuant to LIP Section 13.182, 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.

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

The CDP shall expire ifthe project has not commenced within three (3) years after issuance of the permit, unless a time extension has been granted. Extension ofthe 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 ofthe three—year period and shall set forth the reasons for the request. In the event ofan appeal. the CDP shall expire ifthe project has not commenced within three years from the date the appeal is decided by the decision—making body or withdrawn by the appellant.

Any questions of intent or interpretation ofany condition of approval will be resolved by the Planning Director upon written request ofsuch interpretation.

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 consultant reviewers. City Public Works Department. WD29 and LACFD. as applicable. Notwithstanding this review. all required permits shall be secured.

Minor changes to the approved plans or the conditions ofapproval may be approved by the Planning Director. provided such changes achieve substantially the same results and the project is still in compliance with the Malibu Municipal Code and the Local Coastal Program. Revised plans reflecting the minor changes and additional fees shall be required.

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 coastal development permit approved by the City is void.

The applicant must submit payment for any outstanding fees payable to the City prior to issuance ofany building permit. including grading or demolition. 146
Resolution NO 24-39

Cultural Resaurces

12. 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 l l and those in MMC Section 17.54.040(D)(4)(b) shall be followed. l3. If human bone is discovered during geologic testing or during construction. work shall immediately cease, and the procedures described in Section 7050.5 ofthe California Health and Safety Code shall be followed. Section 7050.5 requires notification ofthe coroner. If the coroner determines that the remains are those ofa Native Americair 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 ofthe California Public Resources Code shall be followed.

Lighting

14. Exterior lighting must comply with the Dark Sky Ordinance and 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); 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.

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

16. 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 prope1ty(ies) shall not produce an illumination level greater than one—foot candle.

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 ofnatural habitat areas. High intensity lighting ofthe shore is prohibited. l8. String lights are allowed in occupied dining and entertainment areas only and must not exceed 3.000 Kelvin. 147
Resolution NO 24—39

19. Motion sensor lights shall be programmed to extinguish ten minutes after activation.

20. Three Violations ofthe conditions by the same property owner will result in a requirement to permanently remove the outdoor light tixture(s) from the site.

Fencing am! Walls

21. The height offences 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 oftwo or more walls.

Demolition/Solid Waste

22. Prior to demolition activities. the applicant shall receive Planning Department approval for compliance with conditions ofapproval.

23. The applicant/property owner shall contract with a City approved hauler to facilitate the recycling of all recoverable/recyclable material. Recoverable material shall include but shall not be limited to asphalt. dirt and earthen material. lumber, concrete, glass. metals. and drywall.

24. Prior to the issuance of a building/demolition permit. an Affidavit and Celtiflcation to implement waste reduction and recycling shall be signed by the Owner or Contractor and submitted to the Environmental Sustainability Department. The Affidavit shall indicate the agreement ofthe applicant to divert at least 65 percent (in accordance with CalGreen) of all construction waste from the landfill.

25. Upon plan check approval of demolition plans. the applicant shall secure a demolition permit from the City. The applicant shall comply with all conditions related to demolition imposed by the Building Official.

26. No demolition permit shall be issued until building permits are approved for issuance.

Demolition ofthe existing structure and initiation ofreconstruction must take place within a six—month period. Dust control measures must be in place if construction does not commence within 30 days.

27. The project developer shall utilize licensed subcontractors and ensure that all asbestos— containing materials and lead—based paints encountered during demolition activities are removed. transported. and disposed of in full compliance with all applicable federal. state and local regulations.

28. Any building or demolition permits issued for work commenced or completed without the benefit of required permits are subject to appropriate “investigation Fees" as required in the Building Code.

29. Upon completion ofdemolition activities. the applicant shall request a final inspection by the Building Safety Division.
148
RCSOIution No 24-39

Canstruction / Framing

30. Prior t0 the commencement ofwork. the applicant shall submit a copy oftheir Construction Management Plan. The Construction Management Plan shall include a dedicated parking location for construction workers, not within the public right ofway.

31. A construction staging plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Building Official prior to plan check submittal.

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 0r City—designated holidays.

Construction management techniques, including minimizing the amount ofequipment 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. ln addition, construction vehicles shall be covered when necessary; and their tires rinsed prior to leaving the property.

Bi0logy/Landscaping

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

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 MMC Chapter 17.53. 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 Chapter 17.53.

36. Prior to a final plan check approval. the property owner /applicant must provide a landscape water use approval from the Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 29.

37. Vegetation forming a view impermeable condition serving the same function as a fence or wall (also known as a hedge) located within the side or rear yard setback shall be maintained at or below a height of six feet. A hedge located within the front yard setback shall be maintained at or below a height of 42 inches. Three violations of this condition will result in a requirement to permanently remove the vegetation from the site.

Construction fencing shall be placed within five feet of the southern limits of grading. Construction fencing shall be installed prior to the beginning ofany construction and shall be maintained throughout the construction period to protect the site‘s sensitive habitat areas.

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

40. Invasive plant species. as determined by the City ofMalibu, are prohibited. 149
Resolution NO 24-39

4]. Vegetation shall be situated 0n the property so as not to significantly obstruct the primary View from private property at any given time (given consideration ofits future growth).

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

43. Except as permitted pursuant to the provisions in LUP policies 3.18 and 3.20, throughout the City ofMalibu. development that involves the use ofpesticides, including insecticides. herbicides. rodenticides, or any other similar toxic chemical substances. shall be prohibited in cases where the application ot‘such substances would have the potential to significantly degrade Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas or coastal water quality or harm wildlife.

Herbicides may be used for the eradication of invasive plant species or habitat restoration. but only if the use of non—chemical methods for prevention and management such as physical. mechanical. cultural. and biological controls are infeasible. Herbicides shall be restricted to the least toxic product and method. and to the maximum extent feasible. shall be biodegradable. derived from natural sources. and used for a limited time.

44. The use of wood chips and shredded rubber is prohibited anywhere on the site. Flammable mulch material. including shredded bark, pine needles, and artificial turf. are prohibited between zero and five feet of a structure. Non-continuous use of flammable mulch (excluding wood chips and shredded rubber) is allowed between 5 and 3O feet from the eave/overhang of a structure with limited application areas. Any mulch materials (excluding wood chips and shredded rubber) are allowed 30 feet or more from a structure with no limitation on application area.

45. Any site preparation activities. including removal ofvegetation. between February l and September 15 will require nesting bird surveys by a qualified biologist at least five days prior to 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 nesting bird surveys shall be submitted to the City within two business days ofcompleting the surveys.

46. Grading and/or demolition shall be scheduled only during the dry season from April l — October 31. If it becomes necessary to conduct grading activities from November 1 ~ March 31. a comprehensive erosion control plan shall be submitted for approval prior to issuance of a grading permit and implemented prior to initiation of vegetation removal and/or grading activities.

47. No planting or landscaping is permitted within the banks ofthe mapped blue line stream.

The area between the banks lies within the jurisdiction of California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the bottom ofthe drainage is in the jurisdiction of US Army Corps of Engineers and Regional Water Quality Control Board. Any proposed changes in the drainage would require permits from each ofthe associated agencies.

48. Prior to issuing A Certificate ofOccupancy. the City Biologist shall inspect the project site and determine that all planning conditions to protect natural resources are in compliance with the approved plans.
150
Resolution NO 24—39

Gealogy

49. All recommendations of the consulting certified engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer and/or the City geotechnical consultant reviewers 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 consultant reviewers prior to the issuance ofa grading permit.

50. Final plans approved by the City geotechnical consultant reviewers 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

51. 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. lfthe 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).

52. Final OWTS Design Report. Plans. and System Specifications: Ifthe OWTS design and/or bedroom/drainage fixture unit counts are modified in any way subsequent to the Planning— stage review. then a final OWTS design report and large set ofconstruction drawings with system specifications (four sets) shall be submitted to describe the OWTS design basis and all components (i.e.. alarm system, pumps. timers. flow equalization devices. backfiow devices. etc.) proposed for use in the construction ofthe 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).

53. The final design report shall contain the following information (in addition to the items listed above). a. Required treatment capacity for wastewater treatment and disinfection systems.

The treatment capacity shall be specified in terms offlow 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; Sewage and effluent pump design calculations (as applicable). c. Description of proposed wastewater treatment and/or disinfection system equipment. State the proposed type oftreatment system(s) (e.g.. aerobic treatment. 151
Resolution NO 24-39

textile filter ultraViOIet 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 ofthe 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/inf]ltration tests to the projected subsurface effluent acceptance rate, including any unit conversions or safety factors. Average and peak rates ofhydraulic 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.r 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 ofthe OWTS designer. lfthe scale ofthe plan is such that more space is needed t0 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: For OWTS final designs. full—size plans are required for review by the Building Safety Division and/or the Planning Department.

54. Existing OWTS to be Abandoned: Final plans shall clearly show the locations of all existing OWTS components (serving pre—existing development) to be abandoned and provide procedures for the OWTS” proper abandonment in conformance with the MMC.

55. Worker Safety Note and Abandonment of Existing OWTS: The following note shall be added to the plan drawings included with the OWTS final design: “Prior to commencing work to abandon. remove. or replace the existing Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS) components. an ‘OWTS Abandonment Permit‘ shall be obtained from the City of Malibu. All work performed in the OWTS abandonment. removal or replacement area shall be performed in strict accordance with all applicable federal. state. and local environmental and occupational safety and health regulatory requirements. The obtainment ofany such required permits or approvals for this scope of work shall be the responsibility of the applicant and their agents."

56. Reference Plans: Reference architectural and grading/drainage plans shall be submitted to Environmental Health during building plan check review of the proposed OWTS. Approvable building plans will show a single—family residence with no more than 8 bedrooms and 122 drainage fixture units. and a new tennis pavilion 0 bedrooms and 9 drainage fixture units.

57. Proof of Ownership: Proofofownership ofsubject property shall be submitted to the City Environmental Health Administrator. 152
Resolution NO 24—39

58. Operations and Maintenance Manual: An operations and maintenance manual specified by the OWTS designer shall be submitted to the property owner and maintenance provider of the proposed OWTS.

59. Maintenance Contract: A maintenance contract executed between the owner ofthe subject property and an entity qualified in the opinion of the City of Malibu to maintain‘the proposed onsite wastewater disposal system after construction shall be submitted. Note only original “wet signature” documents are acceptable.

60. Advanced OWTS Covenant: Prior to final Environmental Health approval. a covenant running with the land shall be executed between the City of Malibu and the holder ofthe fee simple absolute as to subject real property and recorded with the Office of the Los Angeles County Recorder. Said covenant shall serve as constructive notice to any future purchaser for value that the onsite wastewater treatment system serving subject property is an advanced method ofsewage disposal pursuant to the City of’MMC. Said covenant shall be provided by the City ofMalibu Environmental Health Administrator.

61. Project Geologist/Geotechnical Consultant Approval: Project Geologist/Geotechnical Consultant final approval of the OWTS plan shall be submitted to the Environmental Health Administrator.

62. City ofMalibu Public Works Approval: City ofMalibu Public Works final approval ofthe OWTS plan shall be submitted to the Environmental Health Administrator.

63. City of Malibu Geologist/Geotechnical Approval: City of Malibu geotechnical staff final approval ofthe OWTS plan shall be submitted to the Environmental Health Administrator.

64. City ofMalibu Planning Approval: City ofMalibu Planning Department final approval of the OWTS plan shall be obtained.

65. Environmental Health Final Review Fee: A final fee in accordance with the adopted fee schedule at the time of the final approval shall be paid to the City of Malibu for Environmental Health review ofthe OWTS design and system specification.

66. Operating Permit Application and Fee: ln accordance with MMC, an application shall be made to the Environmental Health office for an OWTS 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.

Grading/Drainage/Hydrologv

67. 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 proposed work within the City‘s right—of-way. For projects on Dume Drive. Grayfox Street, Fernhill Drive and Wildlife Road the City received a Safe Routes to School Grant for improving pedestrian safety. Any proposed street improvements along these streets shall consider the potential impact on the existing conditions. such as but not limited to decomposed granite and wood ties.
153
ResolutiOn NO 24—39

68. The applicant shall obtain encroachment permits from the Public Works Depamnent prior to the commencement of any work within the public right—of—way. The driveway shall be constructed of either six inches of concrete over four inches of aggregate base. or four inches ofasphalt concrete over six inches ofaggregate base. The driveway shall be flush with the existing grades with no curbs.

69. The non—exempt grading for the project shall not exceed a total of 1.000 cubic yards. cut and fill.

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

71. A digital drawing (AutoCAD) of the project‘s private storm drain system. public storm drain system within 250 feet ofthe 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. postconstruction BMPs and other applicable facilities. The digital drawing shall also show the subject property. public or private street. and any drainage easements.

72. 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 prohibits the discharge of any waste. including stormwater runoff. directly into the ASBS. 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 stormwater 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.

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 ofnon-storm water discharges.

73. A Water Quality Mitigation Plan (WQMP) shall be submitted for review and approval of the Public Works Director. 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 WQMP shall meet all the requirements ofthe City‘s current Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer System (M84) permit. The following elements shall be included within the WQMP:
a. Site Design Best Management Practices (BMPs): b. Source Control BMPs; c. Treatment Control BMPs that retain on-site Stormwater Quality Design Volume (SWQDv). Or where it is technically infeasible to retain on—site. the project must bioflltrate 1.5 times the SWQDv that is not retained on—site; Drainage improvements;
e. A plan for the maintenance and monitoring ofthe proposed treatment BMPs for the expected life ofthe structure;
154
Resolution NO 24—39

f. Methods ofonsite percelatiom site re-vegetation and an analysis f0r off—site project Impacts; g. Measures to treat and infiltrate runoff from impervious areas; l1. A copy of the WQMP shall be l‘iled against the property to provide constructive notice to future property owners of their obligation to maintain the water quality measure installed during construction prior to the issuance ofgrading or building permits; and
The WQMP shall be submitted to the Public Works Department and the fee applicable at the time of submittal for review ofthe WQMP shall be paid prior to the start ofthe technical review. The WQMP shall be approved prior the Public Works Department‘s approval of the grading and drainage plan and/or building plans. The Public Works Department will tentatively approve the plan and will keep a copy until the completion of the project. Once the project is completed, the applicant shall verify the installation of the BMPs. make any revisions to the WQMP. and resubmit to the Public Works Department for approval. The original signed and notarized document shall be recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorder. A certified copy ofthe WQMP shall be submitted to the Public Works Department prior to the issuance ofthe certificate ofoccupancy.

74. A grading and drainage plan containing the following information shall be approved. and submitted to the Public Works Department. prior to the issuance ofgrading 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. lfthe property contains trees that are to be protected they shall be highlighted on the grading plan; 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 as 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 inches 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 plan shall be approved by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance ofthe grading permit.

75. A Local Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (LSWPPP) shall be provided prior to issuance of grading/building permits. This plan shall include an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) that includes. but is not limited to:
155
Resolution NO 24-39

All Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be in accordance with 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.

76. A Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) is required for this project. Storm drainage improvements are required to mitigate increased runoff generated by property development. The applicant shall have the choice ofone method specified within the City‘s Local Implementation Plan Section 17.3.2.B.2. The SWMP 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 of the site. The SWMP shall identify the Site design and Source control Best Management Practices (BMP‘s) that have been implemented in the design ofthe project (See LIP Chapter 17 Appendix A). The SWMP shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of the grading/building permits for this project.

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

78. The developer‘s consulting engineer shall sign the final plans prior to the issuance of permlts.

Fuel Modificatian

79. Prior to the issuance offinal building permits. the project shall receive LACFD approval ofa Final Fuel Modification Plan.

Erosion Controls Scheduling Erosion Controls Scheduling Preservation of Existing Vegetation
Sediment Controls
Silt Fence
Sandbag 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
156
Resolution NO 24—39

Screen ing

80. Any above-ground equipment 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).

Swimming P00! /Spa / Mechanical Equipment

81. Onsite noise. including that which emanates from swimming pool and air conditioning equipment. shall be limited as described in MMC Chapter 8.24 (Noise).

82. All swimming pools shall contain double walled construction with drains and leak detection systems capable ofsensing a leak ofthe inner wall.

83. 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 ifthe following items are met:
a. The discharge water is dechlorinated. debrominated or ifthe water is disinfected usmg ozonation;
b. There are sufficient BMPs in place to prevent soil erosion; and c. The discharge does not reach into the M84 or to the ASBS (including tributaries)

84. Discharges not meeting the above—mentioned methods must be trucked to a Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Works.

85. 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. Prior to the issuance of any permits. the applicant shall indicate the method of disinfection and the method of discharging.

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

Water Service

87. Prior to the issuance ofa building permit. the applicant shall submit an updated Will Serve Letter from WD29 indicating the ability ofthe property to receive adequate water service.

Deed Restrictians

88. 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. 14—20.

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

89. Prior to final Planning Department approval. the applicant shall be required to execute and record a private party deed restriction to prevent an alcohol. drug or psychiatric recovery 157
Resolution NO 24—39

0r sober living rehabilitation facility from being located on the property in the future. The property owner shall provide a copy ofthe recorded document to the Planning Department prior to final Planning Department approval. This condition was offered by the applicant and was not requested by the Planning Commission nor was the condition required for the Commission‘s approval ofthe project.

90. Prior to final Planning Department approval. the applicant shall be required to execute and record a deed restriction reflecting that property shall not be rented leased or otherwise made available for occupancy for a duration of less than 3O days at any time (referred to as short term rental). The property owner shall provide a copy ofthe recorded document to the Planning Department prior to flnal planning Department approval. This condition was offered by the applicant and was not requested by the Planning Commission nor was the condition required for the Commission‘s approval ofthe project.

Site Specific Camlitions

91. No furniture or other attachment. whether temporary or flxed. may be placed on the roof top deck overnight.

92. All rooftop deck lighting must be limited to a single light fixture that meets Dark Sky compliant standards. This fixture must direct light downward and minimize light pollution. ensuring it does not contribute to skyglow or disrupt natural nighttime environments.

93. The tennis court lights. lights fixture. and light poles shall be removed prior to final planning inspection.

94. Prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. Restoration of Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area to the satisfaction ofthe California Department of Fish and Wildlife shall be completed and approval. A copy ofthe approval shall be provided to Planning Department.

Prior t0 Occupancy

95. Prior to a final Building inspection. the applicant shall provide a Recycling Summary Report (Summary Report) and obtain the approval from the Environmental Sustainability Department. Applicant must provide haul tickets and diversion information. The final Summaiy Report shall designate the specific materials that were land filled or recycled and state the facilities where all materials were taken.

96. The applicant shall request a final Planning Department inspection prior to final inspection by the City of Malibu Building Safety Division. A Certificate ofOccupancy shall not be issued until the Planning Department has determined that the project complies with this CDP.

97. 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 ifapplicable. the issuance ofthe certificate ofoccupancy. 158
Rc501uti0n NO 24—39

Fixed Canditions

98. This coastal development permit shall run with the land and bind all future owners ofthe property.

99. Violation of any of the conditions of this approval may be cause for revocation of this permit and termination ofall rights granted there under.

SECTION 6. The Planning Commission shall certify the adoption ofthis resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 51h day of Au ust 2024.

JOHN G. MAZZA, Plannin/{Con nis on Chair
ATTEST:
@0
REBECCA EVANS.

A9
Recording Secretary
LOCAL APPEAL — Pursuant to Local Coastal Program Local Implementation Plan (LIP) Section 13.20.] (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.malibucityorg, in person at City Hall. or by calling (310) 456—2489. ext. 246.

COASTAL COMMISSION APPEAL ~ An aggrieved person may appeal the Planning Commission‘s approval to the Coastal Commission within 10 working days ofthe issuance ofthe City’s Notice of Final Action. Appeal forms may be found online at www.coastal.ca.gov or in person at the Coastal Commission South Central Coast District office located at 89 South California Street in Ventura. or by calling (805) 585—1 800. Such an appeal must be filed with the Coastal Commission. not the City.

Any action challenging the final decision ofthe City made as a result ofthe public hearing on this application must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section 1.12.01 0 ofthe 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. 159
Resolutien NO 24—39

I CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION NO. 24-39 was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Malibu at the Regular meeting held on the 5‘“ day of August 2024 by the following vote:

AYES: Commissioners: Hill. Peak. Smith. Leonard. Mazza NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT: OOOUw
REBECCA EVANS, Recording Secretary
160
From: Bill Sampson
To: Planning Commission
Cc: Charlotte Frieze
Subject: Item 5A, June 3, 2024 agenda
Date: Sunday, June 2, 2024 5:39:52 PM
Commissioners:

I have read the detailed letter from Charlotte Frieze to you concerning the proposed project. Although I do not live in the neighborhood I have enjoyed Charlotte's home and understand her concern. I'll adopt as my own the comments she has made and her request to deny the project - it is out of place in that it violates the letter and spirit of our Mission and Vision Statements also known as the Law of our Land.

Bill Sampson
06/03/24 06/03/24 7:30 AM 06/03/24 5A1
161
From: SKYLAR PEAK
To: Rebecca Evans
Subject: Fwd: 29738 Cuthbert
Date: Monday, June 3, 2024 6:33:06 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links,reply or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

FYI.

Just saw this.

Skylar
Begin forwarded message:

From: Charlotte Frieze < >
Date: June 3, 2024 at 12:03:02 PM PDT
To: SKYLAR PEAK >
Subject: 29738 Cuthbert
Dear Skylar,
You kindly supported our efforts a year ago.

The owners and architect have not responded to our opposition by making significant changes to the plan.

And as Jo has pointed out the water use is 1/3 that of Big Rock's annual usage.

We have a tiny water tank that went dry during the fire.

Malibu Park is near the high school. It is meant to be a family community. Why improve the high school if there are no students?
Please read my email sent to all of you as well as all the other letters of objection.

It is interesting to read all the different views.

We would appreciate your continued support in saving the essence of Malibu Park.

Hope you are well.

Warmly,
Charlotte
06/03/24 06/03/24 6:33 PM 06/03/24 5A2
162
--
Charlotte M. Frieze
Malibu, CA
163
 


 




!"
#$%&'() *+,-.,/0/1./2+13 4'25678
98!"
#$%&'() :;;<==>?@<AB>AC>D 
EFGHIJKLMNOPOQRSTMNOPOUVSWNXYRZS[
\]^_I`abMcdWefKWeghfihijklgkmK nGIoNRaWMdKZXXNRWQMSZXXNRWUSWXNpbRNqeYZMV[ \rst]u_IoOlivwgkJbqapOMqoZWd 
xyzA{|<}~€Cyz=BD zABz‚‚<Aƒz=„>?
>=†>‚<‡
y€?y<}?>‡<}‚Bz@@=>C€z
>|<}==>zCy€Aˆ<}

<
y>:‚zAA€Aˆ ;<‰‰€??€<A
<C<A
€A}>
y€?€
>‰D

xyzA{|<}„>=|‰}Cy~ ;yz=‚<

>Š‹=€>Œ> Ž‘Ž’

“>A
”=<‰‰|€:y<A> •AŠz|–—~‘—‘˜~z
™š˜›:Š~€Cyz=BŠ<‚‚€Czœ=‰<‚‚€Cz‰z‚€†}C€
|D<=ˆž‡=<
>š ƒ€;yz=‚<

>~ 
xyzA{|<}”<==>zCy€Aˆ<}
~z@<‚<ˆ€Œ>
yz
‡>C<}‚BA<
@}†‚€?y
y>@zC{>
zCC<=B€Aˆ
<<}=A<=‰z‚@=zC
€C>~†}
}A”<=
}Az
>‚|~yz„>z?
z””€Aˆ€??}>=€ˆy
A<‡D 
ƒ<‡>„>=~?€AC>€
yz?†>>A@}†‚€?y>B~
y>B>
>=‰€Az
€<A
<C<A
€A}>
y>€
>‰=>?
? ‡€
y
y>:‚zAA€Aˆ;<‰‰€??€<AD‹<=>Ÿz‰@‚>~‡y>A”€AB?<‰>
y€AˆC<AC>=A€Aˆ‡€
y z@=< >C
z”
>=@}†‚€?y€Aˆ~‰z{>z=>¡}>?

<
y>;yz€=
<C<A
€A}>
y>€
>‰D”|<} ‚€{>‡<}‚B†>yz@@|
<?yz=>|<}==>¡}>?
zAB=>z?<A‡€
y
y>‰”<=
y>€= C<A?€B>=z
€<AD 
:‚>z?>zB„€?>~ €Cyz=B €Cyz=BŠ<‚‚€Cz~¢;: :‚zAA€Aˆ£€=>C <= ;€
|<”Šz‚€†} –Ž—D˜™¤D‘˜’>Ÿ
–˜¤ 
EFGHIJaWMXZ¥OLMNOPOQRSTMNOPOUVSWNXYRZS[
\]^_I`abMcdWefKWeghfihij¦lhkmK 5/31/24
164




 

  



 !"#$%&



'()*+,-.)*/0 1.(23)4567*89(:;<=749.(=>(4/)67*9.(?@4(A*/B((9,4>C(*(479*(3()5(/ @49,3DEB741@(5/)F9.(GH9.I  J(4(,>.K7*5C7@3/)22*(-,)9()2759274(:(49579.)9C(:,>.9.)L()4 7227*9@4,9F9759@/F9.(597*F273(5)4/23)45I 

1.)4MF7@67*F7@*-745,/(*)9,74I +(>)*/5N O.)*3799(P*,(Q(?74(5  00O.)*3799(BIP*,(Q( B)3,K@NO= DRS0DGD0DDRH
05/31/24 7:30AM 06/03/24 5A2
165
From: Dawn Ericson
To: Planning Commission; Richard Mollica; Patricia Salazar; Dennis Smith; Skylar Peak; Kraig Hill; John Mazza Subject: DENY proposal; Agenda Item No. 5A - 29738 Cuthbert Road Date: Sunday, June 2, 2024 6:57:56 PM
Attachments: PLANNING COMMISSION-29738 Cuthbert .pdf
Please review attached letter:

Dawn N Ericson
06/03/24 06/03/24 7:30 AM 06/03/24 5A2
166
To: Members of the Planning Commission
From: Malibu Park Resident for 48 years - Dawn N. Ericson June 2, 2024
RE: Planning Commission Meeting
Agenda Item No. 5A - 29738 Cuthbert Road.

Coastal Development Permit-Woolsey Fire No. 22-003
Honorable Commissioners,
May I request your attention to my concerns?
And, may I request that you deny this project as currently designed for the following reasons:

1. Malibu Park is historically and uniquely one of Malibu’s family neighborhood where children could walk to the school or ride a horse to Malibu’s only public equestrian center. Before the Woolsey Fire, it had a quiet rural character and peaceful lifestyle for the residents and wildlife.

The proposed structure at 29738 Cuthbert more than doubles the pre-Woolsey Fire residential structure on the site. This is NOT a single-family house, but a huge multi -purpose structure for possible usage by corporations or acitivties other than a family home..

2. The proposed structure is within an ESHA Stream without setbacks. A portion of this proposed residence is within the mapped blueline stream buffer area. It needs to be relocated outside the area to meet Malibu’s LCP a 100-foot setback.

Since the lot is mostly flat, to relocate the residence outside the buffer is a reasonable request.

Thank you for your commitment
and responsibility
to the City of Malibu
as Planning Commissioners,
With regards,
Dawn N Ericson
167
1 Planning Commission
From: Daphne Murphy
Sent: Monday, June 3, 2024 6:22 PM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Fwd: Item 5A, June 3, 2024 agenda
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Daphne Murphy < >
Date: Mon, Jun 3, 2024 at 6:16 PM
Subject: Fwd: Item 5A, June 3, 2024 agenda
To: <[email protected]>
Cc: Charlotte Frieze < >
Honorable Commissioners:

It has come to our attention that the property behind our property 29725 Harvester Road is requesting a permit to build their home.

Our main concerns are they do not exceed the maximum height of 24 ft and that it does not turn into a rehab.

We are just finishing rebuilding our house due to the fires and look forward to moving back in after 5 1/2 years. I believe everyone is entitled to build their dream home but work within the rules we had to follow.

Please be sure to follow the Malibu Mission Statement and keep the rules the same for all.

Regards,
Daphne & Gary Murphy
Malibu, CA 90265
06/04/24 06/04/24 7:30AM 06/03.24 5A1
168










 

 !"#$!%
&'!"#$!%
()*'
$+,-*
+*./+!"0 12
3454565789:5;< =!9;>

-
?@!""-..-!
&A>

-
?+!""-..-!
("
>-#2+-*B/!$?0C;
*$-+-
1
>
D
$&A.
>
D
$("
>-#2+-*B/!$?0CE

.,1,
, &
.,
,("
>-#2+-*B/!$?0 @+9<-+,
>F!>!2$&#!>!2$.(A
+#
>>/

*0CE$.-

,F
?,!!"-

&
$.-

,()*'
$+,-*
+*./+!"0
G
**
+,"

*.H5IJKFL 5IJM8@2*,#
$*N!
'>*$./!O.2AA!$*+!
*-?2!2.

-?,#!$./A'O/A'OC P!
!$
#>
@!""-..-!

$.Q ;>

.
.



-?,#!$.RS
**
$.!O12AA!$*O!$


%,!"

*5IJM8@2*,#
$*N!
'/=,
>
**
$.
$
O$!" *%!+!
*-?2!2.

-?,#!$.

'O$!"

-?,#!$
+$!..*,
.*$

*T2A,->>/ U!$= E$+,-*
+*.Q TTVWXYZ[\]^_\`Wabcb d_eXfegWh4Vi[bjklcimkinoppppqrstuvwuxuvysvz{|}~rstuvwux€‚ƒ‚„ †‡ˆ‰Š‹Œ‡ bŽXf‘b’’e’‘WX‘d_\“Y’’\_“\_‘”Yd_Wf‘efY\“b_f”e‘Yf‘_Y4•nk4‘–—˜™š›–›œ––—˜o“–—˜™š›žžžš 6/3/24
169
CONTIGUOUS EAST 29718 Cuthbert Road------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CONTIGUOUS WEST 29756 Cuthbert Road ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ACROSS THE STREET UP-HILL NORTH 29759 Cuthbert Road ------------------------------------------------------------------- 6/3/24 7:30AM 6/3/24 5A2
170
From: Janek - Public
To: Planning Commission; Patricia Salazar; Aakash Shah
Cc: Janek Dombrowa; Arsineh Baghoomian
Subject: Re: 29738 Cuthbert Road - letters of support from neighbors Date: Monday, June 3, 2024 9:12:29 AM
Attachments: Outlook-An image o.png
Thank you for forwarding the neighbors’ emails.

Can you please forward this exhibit to the planning commissioners as well - thank you, Janek Dombrowa
From: "Tang, Victoria@Wildlife" <[email protected]> Date: June 3, 2024 at 8:45:06 AM PDT
To: Arsineh Baghoomian < >, Janek - Public
<[email protected]>
Cc: "Aitken, Andrew@Wildlife" <[email protected]>, "Rieman, Frederic@Wildlife" <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 29738 Cuthbert- restore blueline stream
Hi Arsineh and Janek,
Thanks for your email and phone call. I have CC’d our staff who should be the point of contact for this project. Unfortunately we will not be able to provide a response regarding your specific project by today. However, here is some general information that might be helpful to you:

California Law, Fish and Game Code Section 1602, requires an entity to notify CDFW prior to commencing any activity that may:

Substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of any river, stream, or lake;
Substantially change or use any material from the bed,
channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake; or
Deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other materials containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it may pass into any river, stream, or lake.

The notification requirement applies to anyriver, stream, or lake, including those that are dry for periods of time
(ephemeral/episodic) as well as those that flow year round (perennial). This includes ephemeral streams, desert washes, and watercourses with a subsurface flow.

If someone is not sure if their project will impact a river, stream, or 06/03/24 06/03/24 9:12 AM 06/03/24 5A3
171
lake, our general guidance is that they should submit a Notification for Lake or Streambed Alteration. This affords them the opportunity to describe their project in detail and creates a written record.

Here are some helpful links that may assist in submitting a Notification for Lake or Streambed Alteration.

1. Here is a link to the current Fee
Schedule:https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/EnvironmentalReview/LSA#55227743-fees

2. Here is a link to Lake and Streambed Alteration Program homepage:https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/EnvironmentalReview/LSA#55227742-notify-online

3. Here is a link to various beneficial resources that may assist in submitting a
Notification:https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/EnvironmentalReview/LSA#55227746-resources

4. Here is a link to the Environmental Permit Information Management System (EPIMS) where you can submit a
Notification:https://epims.wildlife.ca.gov/index.do
Thank you.

Victoria Tang (She/Her)
Phone Number: (562) 233-6324
Janek Dombrowa, AIA
Principal / J T D A R C H I T E C T S / 1111 N Topanga Canyon Blvd. Topanga, CA 90290/ t 310 842 7616
Adjunct Assistant Professor for the Practice of Architecture / U S C / t 213 740 2723/ f 213 740 8884
On Jun 3, 2024, at 8:19 AM, Planning Commission
<[email protected]> wrote:

Good morning,
Correspondence has been forwarded to commissioners for their 172
consideration.

Best,
<OutlookLogo An
i.png>
Ana Veitia (She/Her)
Administrative Assistant | Planning
Office: 310.456.2489
23825 Stuart Ranch Road | Malibu, CA 90265
<Outlook-An image o.png>
<Outlook-An image o.png>
<Outlook-An image o.png>
From: Janek Dombrowa <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, June 2, 2024 8:51 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]>; Patricia Salazar <[email protected]>; Aakash Shah <[email protected]> Cc: Michel Bolour <[email protected]>; Arsineh Baghoomian <[email protected]>
Subject: 29738 Cuthbert Road - letters of support from neighbors Honorable Commissioners,
Please see neighbors' Letters of Support for a new home at 29738 Cuthbert Road.

The letters are from two contiguous neighbors and from neighbor across the street - uphill.

For JTD Architects,
--
Janek Dombrowa, AIA
Principal / J T D A R C H I T E C T S / 1111 N Topanga Canyon Blvd. Topanga, CA 90290/ t 310 842 7616 Adjunct Assistant Professor for the Practice of Architecture / U S C / t 213 740 2092 x 213 / f 213 740 8884
173





 !"# $$
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`2/34&&56&*7J'&(1+3S641(&aUP1E4I&)(-,EG641(&2/34&&56&*7 bcdcefghijkflemfnnffdophfddldqjcrrlsslcdt ukivecvcsioswexywxeifwfhrcswz{{{s|}iiwls~uf}leieigxlhogxwlsfveiyioidwsiwwldq ykfdqiwcmfhlgxpfe€sdilqkgcekccoykfefywiefdo‚lchfwiswkiƒdilqkgcekccoswfdofeos„ ycoild iywlcd†‡ˆc}mfhlgx‰sŠ‹p‡ uklslsrceiwkfdubŒu‹m wkislnic}rŽcdkcxsiwkfw}lws‚ieŽycr}cewfghŽfdo qidiecxshŽcxe}frlhŽc}}l‚ivhxscxeocq‡uklsvecvcsfhlsdcwf}frlhŽkcrigildqyeifwiogxw fycrvhifdofvec}lwrf€ldqld‚iswridwwkfwycxhovcsslghŽkcxsifeikfgyidwiecerxhwlvhi vfewlis‘i‚idwsfdo‚fyfwlcdwidfdwsldwkls|xliwdilqkgcekccowkfwlswkiyhcsiswwcmfhlgxblqk‡ dvfqi’c}wkiswf}}eivcewwkisxeecxdoldqxsisfeiolsvhfŽioŽiw“”•–—˜™š›œžŸš  ¡¡˜ž¢š¡ šž£™™¡¤šce}ceriekcricdwkihcws‡ukif‚iefqis|xfei}ccwfqic}eiyceoio fssissce‚fhxisc}wkisi}l‚isxeecxdoldqkcrisls~Š¥¦§¨©›œ šš˜ªukfwlsubŒ«~¬« b«Š­u‹m 
m«ŠŠŒwkfdwklsvecvcsioswexywxei‡uklslsdcwi‚id¬®¯Š‹~°wkif‚iefqi kcrislnigxw¤¡Ÿš˜™ž±˜Ÿ²³´²±¢²˜twkieigŽykfdqldqwkidilqkgcekccoykfefywiet‚lchfwldq dilqkgcekccoswfdofeosfdo‹ ~uldhldilwkcxejlwŽsµlslcdfdomlsslcd
wfwiridw‡ ¶iskcxhogiidycxefqldqhl€i}cehl€ivhxs·{¸eigxlhoswkfweiqxhfe}frlhliskclhhfwwido cxesykcchsyfdf}}ceofdodcwycdwldxcxshŽykfdqicxecdyiexefht|xfldwfdo|xliw dilqkgcekccoslwkwkisiriqfrfdslcdvecviewliswkfwcdhŽfdihlwi}iyfdgxŽfsrcswhl€ihŽ fdld‚iswridwfdo‘cesiycdodcd¹velrfeŽeisloidyi‡­ecrºxswcdic}wkieidoieldqs»fwwfykio }ecrv·{c}wkiswf}}eivcew¼lwhcc€shl€ifbuŠŒ Œufdo~uf}frlhŽkcri‡‹wyfd sifwgiwiid·½fdo¾¿vicvhifwwkioldldqwfghisfhcdi‡«dowkiei‰sfwhifsw¿gioeccrsfdo ·¾gfwkeccrsÀphxsfƒ‚lildqqfhhieŽ„gŽwkiwiddlsycxews‡uklsvecºiywlhhfhscgixsldqc‚ie ’†{{{qfhhcdsc}fwievieŽife¹wkfwlsrceiwkfd·‘†c}wkiidwleiycrrxdlwŽc}¯lqŒcy€‰s fwiexsfqitcdic}wkihfeqiswdilqkgcekccosldmfhlgxlwkc‚ie½{{eisloidws‡‹w‰svhfddiowc gif‚idxidcwfkcri‡ «hscm ulrvcewfdwhŽfdoc}widlqdceiorlswf€idhŽlswklsvecºiywls¶‹ub‹~frfvvioghxi hldisweifrgx}}iefeif‡‹wdiioswcgisiwgfy€·{{}iiw}ecrwkls b«klyklsvcsslghicd wklshfeqi}hfwhcwtisviylfhhŽlwklwsdihfeqiesivwlysŽswirfdokxqivcwidwlfhfwiexsfqi‡« Š«Œ°vcewlcdc}wklskcxsils¶‹ub‹~wkigx}}iefeiffdowkieiskcxhogi~Ámpu‹~ }cewkls‡ ¯iwiidfhhwklsfdowkiecc}wcvoiy€‘skclhhvifyigirfldwfldio}cewkilhohl}ifdo dilqkgces ~cslwivhfdei‚liyfdgiqefdwio}cefdŽkcrifhwieldqwkidilqkgcekccoykfefywiefswkls cdilhhoc‡«vecvcsiokxqiycrvhihl€iwklsfqfldtfhsc‚lchfwiscxeeisloidwlfhoi‚ihcvridw swfdofeos‡bcwklsc‚iegxlhwvecºiywyfdgifvvec‚iosc|xly€hŽgi}ceisi‚iefhrcoiswhl€i}ce hl€ivhxs·{¸}leieigxlhosfeiswlhhldvhfddldqlsfwef‚iswŽ‡ 06/03/24 174
 



















 















  !
06/03/24 9:46AM 06/03/24 5A2
175
From: Architectural Sculpture
To: Planning Commission
Cc: Patricia Salazar; Richard Mollica
Subject: 29738 Cuthburt Road project
Date: Sunday, June 2, 2024 6:26:45 PM
Dear Commissioners,
I just wanted to write in support of Charlotte Frieze's letter to you with regard to 29738 Cuthbert Road. The proposed project does not seem to fit the environment at all, and the time given for review by the affected parties is too short to be proper.

Please support the neighbors, as well as neighborhood character, in your review of this project and insist on due diligence by the applicant.

Respectfully,
Lotte Cherin
06/03/24 06/03/24 7:30 AM 06/03/24 5A1
176
1 Planning Commission
From: LSGLA
Sent: Monday, June 3, 2024 11:59 AM
To: Planning Commission; Richard Mollica; Patricia Salazar; Steve McClary Cc: Bruce Silverstein; Steve Uhring; Kelsey Pettijohn
Subject: Item 5A: An Institution Masquerading as a Residence! 29738 Cuthbert Item 5A - 29738 Cuthbert Road. Coastal Development Permit-Woolsey Fire No. 22-003 Hello:

The proposed structure at almost 9000 sq feet is NOT a fire rebuild but is a precedent setting change to Malibu Park's neighborhood character and violates the “neighborhood standards” code in Section

3.6 of Malibu’s LIP. In addition to other objections!
It’s positively ‘institutional’ in its hideous design, an unconscious, excessive size, and a blight on the lovely, country feel of rural Malibu Park.

When will you finally stop giving Carte Blanche to mega developers and do what’s right? While this home is not a Woolsey fire rebuild, have you checked the number of Woolsey fire “rebuilds” that have been flipped? Strictly — investments for profit.

We live here — full time. Give residents a break!
LS
Lynn Saunders
Malibu, CA 90265
CONFIDENTIAL: The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reproduction, dissemination or distribution of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.
06/03/24 06/03/24 11:59AM 06/03/24 5A1
177







!"#$%#%&'()%#%&'*+,- )"##./"01
%/234356574869:
;%8:#-///<=%>>**%/(,#-///< %>>**%/+>-#)& 0?.%'<1 @ABCDEFCBG HBCIJKELMCNOMMOAKJPMJJKELMCNKCPKQRBKSBRTCMUMJRCLKJEMCOMCRVAOW @ABCDE XRPAKTYMTMZJ FLLTRPBCO 
[\]^_`TBCCRCVHMSSREERMCaLTBCCRCVPMSSREERMCbSBTRcZPROdeMJVf ghij_XMCNBdGkZCKlGmnmompoq`X r]_XRPAKTYMTMZJacMTMZJEbLBPcKTTeCKOf gstuhvj_wKpkZCKlGmnmowKVZTBJ`TBCCRCVHMSSREERMCSKKxCVGIOKSyMEezeFe  {||}~€‚ƒ||ƒ„
|‚‚†‡|ƒ}ƒˆ‰~†Šƒ|‚‹~‚}}€|ˆ|ŒŒ††|ƒ‚†|‚€‰‚ˆ|ƒ†}‚~€|ƒŽ †€„ ‘’“”•–•’—˜‰™š‚› œ}Œƒ†€‚~€œ†††€~ƒ€žŸ ~ƒƒƒ¡ ¢ˆ£¤¥¦Ž§¨©Žª§«¬ ª¤«ª¨˜€­~‚€®~ƒˆ‰®|~}ž¯~ Š­„ œ¬¦ª©¨     
[\]^_XRPAKTYMTMZJacMTMZJEbLBPcKTTeCKOf
ghij_XMCNBdGkZCKlGmnmompmq`X r]_SBJDbcMTMZJBEEMPRBOKEePMSaSBJDbcMTMZJBEEMPRBOKEePMSf °v_`TBCCRCVHMSSREERMCaLTBCCRCVPMSSREERMCbSBTRcZPROdeMJVf±²kBCKD³MScJMUB² aNMScJMUBb´ONBJPAROKPOEePMSf gstuhvj_µ¶pkZCKlGmnmowKVZTBJ`TBCCRCVHMSSREERMCSKKxCVGIOKSyMEezeFe  ³KBJPMZERCXBJDG IAMLKdMZBCNdMZJ·BSRTdBJKRCVMMNAKBTOABCNELRJROeIOABEcKKCBUARTKERCPKMZJTBEO·BSRTdJKZCRMCe FEdMZSRVAODCMUGIABQKcKKCOJdRCVOMJKcZRTNMZJ·BSRTdAMZEKRCXBTRcZ·MJOAKTBEOzdKBJEe¶KABQKB LTBCCRCVPMSSREERMCAKBJRCVOMNBdBOn¸pln`Xe FLLBJKCOTdB·KUCKRVAcMJEOARCDOABOSd·BSRTdBCNIBJKEMSKAMUPMCCKPOKNOMYMTMZJ¹FEEMPRBOKEºLTKBEK JK·KJOMLBVKlM·OAKB»BPAKN¼BCNOABOOAREAMZEKJKcZRTNREBNKQKTMLSKCOLJM´KPOM·dMZJPMSLBCde `TKBEKPMC½JScdJKLTdRCVOMOAREKSBRTº\h¾¿Àj]Á¿¿¼OABOCKROAKJIºXRPAKTYMTMZJ¼CMJÂMSBYMTMZJµBCRCMJÂBQB YMTMZJwBARSRBCCMJXBTRcMGÃÃHBJKBÄTRBOKNUROAYMTMZJ¹FEEMPRBOKELTZEOABOdMZJPMSLBCdABECMRCOKJKEORC OARELJM´KPOe @ABCDE 06/03/24 178
 







!"
#$%&$'(')*+)', -./ 0"
%&$'(')1

2$34
5
,
#5


67889::97;<=:> ?@@ABC<D9:B7==<:E7;D<;B<=<FA=D9;FG@<8H7:IJI?A;DJI6I7;@C9:<K<;9;FL:AF<;DAI M<FA=D:> NOPOQQRSTRUV WXYZ[\]^_ZYZ`a\bcdX]Ybef`aghebYYZYi jklXmnopqrstuvwsxyXza{wsu woxwtWa|b\a}bYl~}[b^gbeZ€|‚]yqwut ?;98AF<7ƒ@C<G;:@AF=A8„7F7> 9@CC†E<=„9;‡@7@C<69@†7ƒ ˆA„9‰ŠG;:@AF=A8ABB7Š;@I  ?;98AF<7ƒ@C<‹7ŠŒŠ‰<„7F7> 9@CC†E<=„9;‡@7@C<69@†7ƒ ˆA„9‰Š‹7ŠŒŠ‰<ABB7Š;@I   ~ • ._________
CD
06/03/24 3:05PM 06/03/24 5A2
179
1 Planning Commission
From: Mark Bolour < >
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2024 12:01 AM
To: Michel Bolour
Cc: Planning Commission; 'Janek Dombrowa'
Subject: Re: June 3, 2024 Regular Planning Commission meeting, Item Nos. 5.A.

Michel good to hear from you. Rebecca Michel is my cousin and we have absolutely no business relationship nor does Bolour Associates Inc or any affiliates associated with Bolour Associates Inc have any interest in the Malibu land referenced below. Michel, Homa and Hava Bolour have absolutely no relationship to Bolour Associates Inc. Furthermore I have no relationship to Malibo LLC.

I am copying my General Council Michael Black on the e mail trail. If you need confirmation on anything else please let us know.

Thanks
Mark Bolour
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
Get Outlook for Android
Mark Bolour
Principal
BOLOUR
8383 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 460
Beverly Hills, CA 90211

BOLOURASSOCIATES.COM
CA BRE Corporate License No: 01918696
This correspondence is not intended or written to bind Bolour Associates, Inc. or any affiliate (“Bolour”) to an enforceable agreement, nor shall it constitute a commitment to lend or an agreement to undertake or deliver such a commitment by Bolour. Bolour does not consent to this communication being used as an electronic equivalent for written execution. Only a written agreement or debt instrument executed by the hand of Bolour’s President or an officer he expressly authorizes shall be binding on Bolour. This message and any attachments is intended solely for the addressees and is confidential. If you receive this message in error, please delete it and immediately notify the sender. Any use not in accord with its purpose, any dissemination or disclosure, either whole or partial, is prohibited except formal approval.

From: Michel Bolour t>
Sent: Monday, June 3, 2024 2:27:48 PM
To: Mark Bolour >
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; 'Janek Dombrowa' 06/04/24
180
2 >
Subject: FW: June 3, 2024 Regular Planning Commission meeting, Item Nos. 5.A.

Dear cousin Mark,
I hope you and your family are in good health and spirit. It has been a while since our last family reunion.

As you might know, I have been trying to rebuild our family house in Malibu for the last 5 years. We have a planning commission hearing today at 06:30 PM.

Apparently a few neighbors think that my family and I are somehow connected to Bolour & Associates (please refer to page 3 of the attached) and that this house rebuild is a development project of your company.

Please confirm by replying to this email (reply to all) that neither I (Michel Bolour) nor Homa Bolour Fani nor Hava Bolour Rahimian nor Malibo, LLC are affiliated with Bolour & Associates plus that your company has no interest in this project.

Thanks
Michel
From: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 3, 2024 9:42 AM
Subject: June 3, 2024 Regular Planning Commission meeting, Item Nos. 5.A. and 5.C.

Commissioners,

Attached is correspondence regarding Item Nos. 5.A. and 5.C. on this evening’s agenda.

Regards,

Rebecca Evans
Senior Administrative Analyst | Planning
Office: (310) 456-2489 ext. 246
23825 Stuart Ranch Road | Malibu, CA 90265

06/04/24 7:30AM 06/03/24 5A2
181
1 Rebecca Evans
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, June 2, 2024 11:46 PM
To: John Mazza; Dennis Smith; Skylar Peak; Drew Leonard; Kraig Hill; Patricia Salazar; Richard Mollica; Rebecca Evans
Subject: item 5A 6-3-24 meeting Cuthbert
Attachments: pc item 5A 6-3-24 29738 Cuthbert Road ff.pdf Commissiones , attached are my comments on the above referenced project. 06/03/24 06/03/24 7:30 AM 06/03/24 5A2
182
Honorable Commissioners,
Please deny this project for the following reasons:

The staff report is deficient in that it failed to list the required findings and whether they can be met. Clearly, this addition is not the least environmentally damaging alternative. A smaller project in keeping with the neighborhood character, less glass, a lower height would meet this requirement. .

The size of this proposed addition 4620 sq ft is more than double the size of the original residence’s 3872 sq ft. and is clearly out of character with the surrounding homes which are all smaller.

The rooftop deck must be eliminated. Decks of this nature create a nuisance. The only thing allowed on roofs are chimneys and antennas . It is clearly not the intention of the LCP to allow rooftop decks.

Tennis court’s are not allowed to be lit and the current property lighting doesn’t meet the dark sky ordinance.

Site Plan review allows staff to recommend a structure be increased in height from 18 ft to 24 ft tall. However, the Planning Commission has the discretion to keep the height at 18 ft. Deny the height increase to 24 ft.

The Dark Sky ordinance doesn’t control interior lighting. With a glass structure such as this the interior lighting can be so bright it defeats the purpose of the Dark Sky Ordinance. To mitigate such an impact, require that the project be heavily landscaped to block out the impacts of the interior lighting from this structure.

No development should be allowed within the 100 ft buffer of the stream. The 100 ft buffer area needs to be restored with native riparian plants.

Respectfully,
Patt Healy
183
From:

To:

Peter C Jones
Charlotte Frieze; Planning Commission; Richard Mollica; Patricia Salazar; Steve Uhring; Bruce Silverstein; Rebecca Evans; jmazza dleonard
Re: Agenda Item 5# Planning Commission meeting Meeting June 3, 2024 dsmith
Subject:

Date: Sunday, June 2, 2024 5:51:27 PM
Attachments: 2024-6-2 Planning Commission 29738 Cuthbert Signed.pdf ; khil
Dear Malibu Planning Commissioners,
Attached please find my wife Charlotte Frieze's letter addressing the proposed development at 29738 Cuthbert Road.

Please also find an additional photograph of the proposed building site location on Cuthbert Road.

I am in total and complete agreement with Charlotte's letter.

Please deny this project and record my request the records.

Sincerely,
Peter C. Jones
Mobile:

Dear Rebecca,
I would appreciate your distributing this letter to the Planning Commissioners prior to tomorrow evening's meeting. Please also attach it to the meeting notes.

Thank you very much,
Charlotte M. Frieze
Malibu
Harvester Rd
06/03/24 06/03/24 7:30 AM 06/03/24 5A10
184
--
Charlotte M. Frieze
Malibu, CA
--
Charlotte M. Frieze
Malibu, CA
185
186
CHARLOTTE M FRIEZE 1
Planning Commission
Malibu, CA 90265
RE: Planning Commission Meeting of June 3, 2024
Agenda Item No. 5A - 29738 Cuthbert Road
Sent Via Email: Planning [email protected]
Cc: Richard Mollica [email protected]
Patricia Salazar <[email protected]>
June 2, 2024
Please note: The plans were not released until 9 PM on Tuesday night, May 28th providing little time for those who own the adjacent parcels to review the documents and view the story poles. The properties to the east and west have not been rebuilt. The owners live elsewhere. The owners to the south only just returned to the country on June 1.

Honorable Commissioners:

Please direct the Planning Department to adhere to the Malibu Vision and Mission Statements:

VISION STATEMENT
Malibu is a unique land and marine environment and residential community whose citizens have historically evidenced a commitment to sacrifice urban and suburban conveniences in order to protect that environment and lifestyle, and to preserve unaltered natural resources and rural characteristics. The people of Malibu are a responsible custodian of the area's natural resources for present and future generations.

Malibu Municipal Code Section 17.02.030

MISSION STATEMENT
Malibu is committed to ensure the physical and biological integrity of its environment through the development of land use programs and decisions, to protect the public and private health, safety and general welfare. Malibu will plan to preserve its natural and cultural resources, which include the ocean, marine life, tide pools, beaches, creeks, canyons, hills, mountains, ridges, views, wildlife and plant life, open spaces, archaeological, paleontological and historic sites, as well as other resources that contribute to Malibu's special natural and rural setting. 187

CHARLOTTE M FRIEZE
Malibu will maintain its rural character by establishing programs and policies that avoid suburbanization and commercialization of its natural and cultural resources.

The Bolour Family of developers are known primarily for urban development. Malibu is not URBAN. We in Malibu strive to maintain the rural character of each neighborhood.

BOLOUR

REAL ESTATE

FINANCE LINVESTMENT I DEVELOPMENT
Malibu Park is historically an equestrian neighborhood that is treasured by residents of all ages for its quiet rural character and peaceful lifestyle. The properties are flyways for migrating birds and welcome natural wildlife. Malibu respects and preserves ESHA.

SIZE
With the proposed addition of 4,620 square feet for a total of 8,492 sq ft., the proposed structure at 29738 Cuthbert more than doubles the pre-Woolsey Fire residential structure on the site. The proposed house would adversely affect our quiet neighborhood's friendly character as it is substantially larger than the nearby properties on Harvester and Cuthbert.

The existing neighboring homes are substantially smaller:
29755 Harvester is 3,400 sf
29745 Harvester is 1,680 sf
29735 Harvester is 7,246 sf (per Zillow)
28725 Harvester's final sf is 4,600 sf and the Planning Commission required the owners to reduce the size of their guest house by 90sf
29800 Cuthbert is under construction and will be less than 5,500 sf. 29824 Cuthbert is less than 4,000sf
2 188
CHARLOTTE M FRIEZE 3
With 8 ensuite bedrooms, interior hallway ramps and an elevator and intrusive balconies overlooking the neighbors to the east, one also questions the use for this building. It is hard to imagine this as a single family house. Rumors have spread that it will be a re-hab, Airbnb, or a Party Rental house. This would shatter our quiet, equestrian neighborhood. Haven't we suffered enough since the Woolsey Fire?
Before the Woolsey Fire we had dark skies in Malibu Park. With the construction of so many homes with glass walls, the area is aglow.

HEIGHT
The roof height has not been changed. It is still 24 ft high which is 6 ft above the code. Please enforce the existing height restrictions as you did for 29800 Cuthbert.

PARTY DECKS and FIRE HAZARDS.

Plans for 29738 Cuthbert clearly show a large roof deck accessible from the second-floor gym as well as a staircase from the pool terrace. One need not ring the door bell to reach the roof deck.

Roof decks encourage outdoor gatherings attract loud party goers. The sound from such gatherings would shatter the nighttime peace and quiet for which Malibu Park is known.

Our neighborhood was almost completely destroyed by the Woolsey Fire.

All construction should be designed to prevent fires.

This roof deck would be a magnet for portable fire pits, grills, tiki lights, heaters and other items that could send sparks into the wind and onto the proposed mulch including fireworks on July 4th. Nowadays people set off fireworks at all times of the year.

As you are aware the velocity of the winds in our neighborhood has increased since the loss of thousands of trees. (We alone lost 300 trees on our property).

Without trees, not only sparks but sound travels unimpeded throughout the canyon.
189

CHARLOTTE M FRIEZE
Having just been through the Woolsey Fire, it is astonishing that the Planning Department would even consider approving such menacing outdoor spaces.

Last April the Planning Commission denied a roof deck at 29846 Harvester Road. This one at 29738 Cuthbert should also be denied. Like the roof deck at 29846 Harvester, this roof deck would be adjacent to a horse corral and stable that has yet to be rebuilt.

Roof decks are a threat to Malibu's peaceful lifestyle and clearly not in line with the Malibu Vision and Mission Statement. They also intrude upon neighbors' privacy as people can look down into neighboring properties.

TENNIS COURT PAVILION
Labeling this 1,085 square foot outdoor seating area is misleading. It is actually An entertainment pavilion with dining area with seating for 14, kitchenette/bar with sink, toilet and shower.

This pavilion, which will undoubtedly be illuminated at night, should be denied as the noise will shatter the peaceful canyon setting.

TENNIS COURT LIGHTS
The tennis court existing tennis court lights remain on the plans. These tennis court lights should be removed to comply with Malibu's Dark Skies ordinance not restored and the fixtures re-lamped.
4 This excessive outdoor lighting should be denied. It will not only disturb the neighboring homes and horse corrals but also the wildlife especially the owls that make this canyon their home.

The Dark Skies ordinance was approved for a reason!

DRIVEWAY
The driveway plan (from F1) is perplexing.
190
CHARLOTTE M FRIEZE 5
Firstly, they have placed the kitchen staircase and unloading area in ESHA.

To achieve a flat off-loading area will require grading into ESHA.

One always tries to grade away from a structure.

The driveway at this point is at 5%.

The driveway between the house and east property line alternates between 1% and 15%. One of the 12% panels begins its descent partially in front of the entrance court. Perhaps there is a planting area and this is a walkway not a drive-in entry.

One cannot back cars out of the three-car garage. One needs at least the length of a car before one can even begin to turn the wheels. The driveway is just 20ft wide. 42 feet is standard; 35 ft if there is enough room for a three-point turn. Honestly, with the size of SUVs and luxury vehicles this garage is only good for golf carts and minis. Additionally, the grade opposite the garage is on a steep slope. Are they planning to re-purpose the garage stalls after receiving their Certificate of Occupancy?
What is fascinating to me is how the fire department approved the entrance drive and parking. There is not enough room for parking for this number of bedrooms and staff. There is no parking on Cuthbert.

How will they evacuate?
As before there is a planting strip adjacent to the east property line.

Instead of the spreading trees drawn on the east elevation A9.0, the planting plan shows Podocarpus that grow upright and generally narrow (6-8 ft). or most often maintained as a hedge.
191

CHARLOTTE M FRIEZE

NIGHT SKIES
This building will indeed have an effect on the environment.

The glass box will light up the sky especially on foggy nights. Attached are photographs of a 5,500 sf house also on Cuthbert. Before its construction there were families of owls in the trees. Now I rarely hear the owls.

Where on the landscape plan are the large trees that would reduce the impact of this monumental lightbox on our dark skies?
6 192
CHARLOTTE M FRIEZE 7

PUBLIC VIEW CORRIDOR
The view will be mostly of mulch and tennis court!
Mulch is flammable!
Sadly, I know from experience.

The non-native ornamentals are being removed from the ESHA areas but the native plants are not being restored.

Please respect our peaceful lifestyle and preserve the rural character of Malibu Park as per the Malibu Vision and Mission statement.

Please DENY this project.

Thank you,
lrabith M.Fйzе
Charlotte M. Frieze
193
 





 
!"# $

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` X)-4/N'G,104(6/-,'3I+/''26'*7 a),I[)55(+-02 &'()*+,-) b98'9cEG9<c=>=?+J^A?:C8E'F,G**'901HI'J-0,G**'903I+/''26'*7[,'J)A defeghijklmhngohpphhfqrjhffnfslettnuunefv wmkxgexeukquygz{yzgkhyhjteuy|}}}u~kkynu€whngkgkiznjqizynuhxgk{kqkfyukyynfs {mhfskyeohjnizrhg‚ƒufknsmiegmeeq{mhgh{ykghfq„nejhykuymk fknsmiegmeequyhfqhgqu† {eqknf‡k{ynefˆ‰Šeohjniz‹uŒr‰ wmnunutegkymhfwdŽwo‡ymkunpkete‘fmezukymhynyu„kg{etegyhijhfq skfkgezujezghtnjen„kxjzuezgqes‰wmnuxgexeuhjnufeyhhtnjmetkiknfs{gkhykq izyh{etxjk’hfqhxgenyth‚nfsnf„kuytkfyymhy{ezjqxeuunijmezukhgkmhi{kfykgeg tzjynxjkxhgynku“k„kfyuhfq„h{hynefykfhfyunfymnu~znkyfknsmiegmeeqymhynuymk{jeukuyye ohjnizdnsm‰ fxhsk”eymkuyhgkxegyymkuzggezfqnfszukuhgkqnuxjhkqky•–—˜™š›œžŸ ¡œ ¢££š ¤œ£¢œ ¥››£¦œegegtkgmetkefymkjeyu‰wmkh„kghsku~zhgkeeyhskegk{egqkq huukuueg„hjzkueymkukn„kuzggezfqnfsmetkunu€Œ§¨©ª«ž¢œœš¬wmhynuwdŽ­€® ­d­Œ¯wo‡‡o­ŒŒŽymhfymnuxgexeukquygz{yzgk‰wmnunufeyk„kf®°±Œ€²ymk h„kghskmetkunpkizy¦£¡œš› ³š¡´µ¶´³¤´švymkgki{mhfsnfsymkfknsmiegmeeq{mhgh{ykgv „nejhynfsfknsmiegmeequyhfqhgquhfq‡€wnfjnfk‘nymezglnyƒu·nunefhfqonuunef ‡yhyktkfy‰ ¸kumezjqikkf{ezghsnfsjn‚kegjn‚kxjzu¹}ºgkiznjquymhygkszjhghtnjnku‘me‘njjhyykfq ezgu{meeju{hfhegqhfqfey{efynfzezuj{mhfskezgef{kgzghjv~zhnfyhfq~znky fknsmiegmeequ‘nymymkuktkshthfunefxgexkgynkuymhyefjhfkjnykk‘{hfizhuteuy jn‚kjhfnf„kuytkfyhfq“eguk{efqfef»xgnthggkunqkf{k‰¯get¼zuyefkeymkgkfqkgnfsu ½hyyh{mkqgetx¹}eymkuyhgkxegy¾nyjee‚ujn‚khdwŒŽ‡Žwhfq€whhtnj metk‰y{hfukhyiky‘kkf¹¿hfqÀÁxkexjkhyymkqnfnfsyhijkuhjefk‰­fqymkgk‹uhyjkhuyÁ ikqgeetuhfq¹ÀihymgeetuÂrjzuh „nk‘nfsshjjkg†iymkykffnu{ezgyu‰wmnuxge¼k{y‘njj hjueikzunfse„kg”ˆ}}}shjjefue‘hykgxkgkhg»ymhynutegkymhf¹“ˆeymkkfyngk {ettzfnye±nsŽe{‚‹u‘hykgzuhskvefkeymkjhgskuyfknsmiegmeequnfohjniz‘nyme„kg ¿}}gkunqkfyu‰y‹uxjhffkqyeikh„kfzkfeyhmetk‰ ­jueo‡wntxegyhfyjhfqeykfnsfegkqtnuyh‚kfjnuymnuxge¼k{ynu¸wd€hthxxkqijzk jnfkuygkhtizkghgkh‰yfkkquyeikukyih{‚¹}}kkygetymnu‡d­‘mn{mnuxeuunijkef ymnujhgskjhyjeyvkuxk{nhjj‘nymnyufk‘jhgskgukxyn{uuykthfqmzskxeykfynhj‘hykgzuhsk‰06/03.24 194










  

  



 

 
!




 
"#$!!
"%




 
!





& ' 


 (
!"
& 


 
)%


&


& " "
 

 
!
 &"%*
#

&

+(

  



(%



 !

( 

 ,"
"
 (-
"#)
 (  %

#
 
#./0

 
 





&

(
)

)

 ,"




"#


&
  
&

% % %
 ,"




&


%
)%+!


1 
"#


 
 
#)+
23 %%
 RENDERING Of THE BUILDING
------____ ------------/
------/

GENERAL NOTES BUILDING SETBACKS
CUTHBERT ROAD 29

SCOPE OF WORK
=-.. - .... ~ ... .. ..,.. .. ,-~·!-·-
$:"-.----
:::-·--·-
~==-~ ~::;:_,::···
=---·--
C:."'C =-~.:::=::_:::::.-:=.."-..:--:::. ..
:.:..--:.~:.=::-.:=::.:..-:.-:::=.:::.-::· 1, _______ -_..,._,.. __ ,..,.,_=:.:::-0=·---

LEGEND KEY
------
(,)
jtd
06/03/24 11:37AM 06/03/24 5A2
195
From: Richard Stutsman
To: Planning Commission
Subject: 29738 Cuthbert plans
Date: Sunday, June 2, 2024 5:55:31 PM
We have just now (Sunday, June 2nd) been made aware of this proposal coming before the Commission. We live at Harvester, directly below this project. This is the property that did boring and perc testing several months ago right above our house. About 6 hours after they filled the holes, water began to free flow down the hillside above us, on to our property. I videoed the event and forwarded it to the City geology department. This house MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE BUILT AS DRAWN. It is so out of scale for our neighborhood and is obviously being built as ANOTHER spec house. I am not normally one to complain about someone else’s private affairs but this project is above and beyond reasonable. It will become another barnacle we will be forced to deal with (noise, parties, lights, etc)and contribute nothing to the community. Like the boondoggle house at Harvester and Busch (29600 Harvester) that has been vacant for years and is lit up like a shopping mall all night long, this project is ill conceived. We URGE you to stop this foolishness of bigger is always better.

Respectfully yours, Richard & Laurel Stutsman Harvester Rd. 06/03/24 06/03/24 7:30 AM 06/03/24 5A1
196
1 Planning Commission
From: DARLENE LUSKIN >
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2024 11:02 PM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Object to permit continuous building
We in Malibu do not want conƟnuous building of homes, hotels that will only become increase traffic, etc.

Let’s try to leave Malibu with less traffic and not increase it.

Becomes inconvenient for residents and brings more people.

The billionaires don’t need to control our city.

Speaking out as a resident.

Darlene Addesso
Not to menƟon what the city did not do to prevent another death July 4th.

Nobu should not be fined but closed down for a length of Ɵme.

The license company ABC should take acƟon. Just as if someone leŌ a residence and an accident occurred they are supposed to be responsible.

It just goes to show it’s all about the $$$$$$. You know who you are and hope you sleep at night.

Sent from my iPhone
07/15/24 07/15/24 8AM07/15/24 2A1
197
From: Sales Only
To: Planning Commission
Subject: 29738 Cuthbert
Date: Tuesday, July 9, 2024 9:17:36 PM
Hello,
I’m a resident of Malibu Park and I’m writing to express my concerns about the very questionable potential build at 29738 Cuthbert. As it is, we are inundated with horrendous speeding all day long while city council, fully aware of this fact, does absolutely nothing to stop it from happening even though this is a well known problem and now we’re being told there’s a potential rehabilitation center being built using Busch as a main road. This is an unacceptable build, and you folks in the planning commission cannot let this pass. Our neighborhood is being destroyed by morons who can’t drive as it is on top of major construction traffic from the rebuilds that starts as early as 5:30am, and this would make matters significantly worse. Please do the right thing.

Thank you
7/9/24 7/9/24 9:17 PM 7/15/24 4A
198
1 From: andrea slosberg-philipson
To: Rebecca Evans; Planning Commission
Subject: Re:July 15, 2024 Regular Meeting ITEM 4A-Coastal Development Permit-Woolsey Fire No. 23-004 / 29738 Cuthbert Road
Date: Wednesday, July 10, 2024 4:15:12 PM
Attachments: Malibu Planning Commission.docx
Hi Rebecca and Planning,
Please find my attached letter to the commissioners.

Thank you,
Andrea
7/10/24 4:15 PM 7/15/24 4A2
7/10/24
199
July 10, 2024
City of Malibu Planning Commission
Re: July 15, 2024 Regular Meeting ITEM 4A-Coastal Development Permit-Woolsey Fire No. 23-004 / 29738 Cuthbert Road
Dear Commissioners,
It seems that Malibu Park has become designated as a Gold Rush for developers since the Woolsey fire.

As a Malibu Park resident for the last 21 years, we know the joys and challenges of returning to our precious neighborhood. I specifically say neighborhood, because Malibu Park has unique areas within its boundaries, but it was a place where families lived, engaged with the local elementary and High School and uniquely experienced a rural life with horses and trails. Our rural residential community and wildlife ecosystem is seriously being wiped away and now we get to this specific proposal at 29738 Cuthbert Road receiving city staff approval with multiple variances that threaten everything that Malibu Park has left.

Developers have taken on rebuilds and super-sized them to at least 2-3X larger than their neighbors only to then flip, lease, Airbnb or worse. While families, residents and wildlife must fight to survive the threats by these “ghostly neighbors”. The current proposal on Cuthbert is without regard for what is being lost.

As a resident, I question the decision-making by the planning staff which appears to ignore residents’ real concerns and gives a blind eye to monied developers who have no intention of inhabiting their overly lit, massively built, grand proposals. It ignores dark skies requirements and so many other code requirements and endangers our neighborhood character and community. Is our city only giving favor to profit over everything else? Apparently, there is gold in the hills.

The size and scope of this project is not in keeping with the neighborhood and it does not adhere to a slow growth commitment and maintenance of our rural residential community.

Malibu lost so many families after the fire and the schools are struggling to maintain enrollment. The size of the proposed “single-family” home stamped for approval despite clear and desperate cries from neighbors and residents who object to losing our unique neighborhood rural life is a gross deviation from what the residential community deserves and repeatedly must plead for. There seems to be NO objection by the city to how neighbors are being adversely affected by these inappropriate proposals.

Please deny this proposal and stop this precedent of size and variances or REQUIRE the proposal to adhere to the dark sky lighting, height and ESHA requirements, adding native plants replacements, roof terrace removal and reduce the overall detrimental impact to our neighborhood.

As stewards of Malibu’s future, I hope you will listen to the residents of Malibu Park and support our desire to make Malibu a safer, stronger and more environmentally sensitive place for all.

Kind Regards,
Andrea Philipson
Malibu Park
200
From: Bryan Abrams
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Item 4A - Deny 29738 Cuthbert Drive
Date: Tuesday, July 9, 2024 9:06:33 PM
To whom it may concern,
I'm writing to object to the proposed variance for 29738 Cuthbert Dr. The square feet prior to the fire was 2,235 square feet (3 bedroom, 2 bath) per the tax records. The proposed 8,492 sqft is significantly larger than the previous 2,235 sqft home, almost 4 times larger!!! Please DO NOT APPROVE this variance. They should only be allowed to build 2,235 plus 10%.

PLEASE SAVE OUR MALIBU PARK NEIGHBORHOOD.

Sincerely,
Bryan Abrams
7/9/24 9:06 PM 7/15/24 4A1
7/9/24
201
From: Bill Sampson
To: Planning Commission; John Mazza; Kraig Hill; Jo Drummond Cc: Charlotte Frieze; Patt Healy; R. Y. A. N.; Ann Doneen; Rosemarie Ihde; Sam Hall Kaplan; Scott Dittrich; Dru Ann Jacobson; Charlotte Drummond
Subject: Re: Item 5A - 29738 Cuthbert Road. Coastal Development Permit-Woolsey Fire No. 22-003 Date: Monday, July 15, 2024 8:01:30 AM
I second Ms. Drummond's analysis. I've previously sent my own remarks Bill Sampson
44+ year Malibu resident and citizen
On Monday, July 15, 2024 at 06:48:57 AM PDT, Jo Drummond wrote:

Attention Chair Mazza and Planning Commission,
In addition to the letter below please note the following:

1. In the Geoconcepts report dated Jan 10, 2022, it states under “Drainage” on p 5, “Much of this water drains as sheet flow, down descending slopes to low lying areas, the creek bed, and lower areas offsite.” Given the MASSIVE amount of water and effluent, this project will release, this is UNACCEPTABLE so close to ESHA and a creek bed.

2. This project has already come and gone in its practically identical form to the Planning Commission and has been DENIED once already in February of 2023. It was NEVER a fire rebuild as it is TRIPLING the former home's size and therefore CANNOT be allowed in ESHA. It is NOT on the original footprint and should not have ANY parking so close to ESHA.

3. The full bath and kitchen area in the tennis pavilion also need to be calculated into the TDSF which has been omitted for some reason,

4. The walls of glass and rooftop decks will disturb all the wildlife creatures and neighbors with the major light emission, noise, etc. coming out from this design.

Therefore, the height should also not be more than 18 ft.

5. The application after the original denial was withdrawn so that the applicant could "try again" with the planning commission - this can not be allowed and must be denied. This is a WASTE of the planning department's time and money. This should have NEVER been brought back to the Planning Commission. 7/15/24 8:01AM 7/15/24 4A4
7/15/24
202

6. The pool is very large and is a hazard to small children or pets staying on the property as guests and should be fenced in and covered. Covering it would also keep it warm and conserve water.

7. The findings CAN NOT be made for a home this size as it is out of the neighborhood's character and standards. An addition also CAN NOT be made onto a structure that has NOT been built yet.

Please send this back for a redesign to a much smaller home that is not more than two times the original home. We are TRYING to attract FAMILIES back to Malibu, not sober living/rehab/vacation/event rentals.

Thank you very much for your consideration,
Jo Drummond
Begin forwarded message:

From: Jo Drummond
Date: June 3, 2024 at 12:46:11 PM EDT
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]>, "K. Hill" . John Mazza
<[email protected]>, Patricia
Cc: Patt Healy
Charlotte Frieze
Sampson
Drummond
>, Rebecca Evans
Salazar <[email protected]>
"R. Y. A. N."
Dawn Ericson
Dru Ann Jacobson
,Ann Doneen
>. Bill
Colin
Scott Dittrich
Gerhardt & Rosemarie Ihde
>, Robert Wolff
, Dorina Schiro - Neighbour
Bob
Subject: Item 5A - 29738 Cuthbert Road. Coastal Development PermitWoolsey Fire No. 22-003 Honorable Chair Mazza and Planning Commission,
The proposed structure at almost 9000 sq feet is NOT a fire rebuild but is a precedent-setting change to Malibu Park's neighborhood character and violates the "neighborhood standards" code in Section 3.6 of Malibu's LIP.

This is more than THREE TIMES the size of my own house that fits very comfortably and generously our family of five plus our dog. This proposal is not a family home being created but a complex and profit-making investment that could house a rehab center or multiple parties/events and vacation tenants in this quiet neighborhood that is the closest to Malibu High.
203
On page 5 of the staff report the surrounding uses are displayed yet OMITS the square footage of each home or former home on the lots. The average square footage of recorded assessor values of these five surrounding homes is ONLY 2476 sq feet. That is THREE AND A HALF TIMES SMALLER than this proposed structure.

This is not even DOUBLING the average home size but more than tripling it, thereby changing the neighborhood character, violating neighborhood standards, and IS NOT in line with our City's Vision and Mission Statement.

We should be encouraging like-for-like plus 10% rebuilds that regular families who will attend our schools can afford and not continuously change our once rural, quaint, and quiet neighborhoods with these mega mansion properties that only an elite few can buy as most likely an investment and/or second non-primary residence. From just one of the renderings (attached from p 10 of the staff report) it looks like a HOTEL RESORT and NOT a family home. It can seat between 14 and 28 people at the dining tables alone. And there are at least 8 bedrooms and 12 bathrooms! Plus a “viewing gallery” by the tennis courts. This project will also be using over 53000 gallons of water per year - that is more than 1/3 of the entire community of Big Rock’s water usage, one of the largest neighborhoods in Malibu with over 400 residents. It’s planned to be a venue, not a home.

Also MOST importantly and often ignored mistakenly is this project is WITHIN a mapped blue line stream buffer area. It needs to be set back 100 feet from this ESHA which is possible on this large flat lot, especially with its new larger septic system and huge potential water usage. A LARGE portion of this house is WITHIN the buffer area and there should be NO EXEMPTION for this.

Between all this and the rooftop deck/s how will peace be maintained for the wildlife and neighbors?
No site plan review can be granted for any home altering the neighborhood character as this one will do. A proposed huge complex like this again, also violates our residential development standards. How this overbuilt project can be approved so quickly before several modest like-for-like plus 10% fire rebuilds that are still in planning is a travesty.

Please deny this project and send it back to planning for the redesign of a smaller more modest project that is designed to be a family home, without ANY rooftop decks and NOT a lit-up hotel.

Thank you,
Jo Drummond
204

CUTHBERT ROAD
29738 CUTHBERT RD. MALIBU, CA 9026
205
From: Bill Sampson
To: Planning Commission
Subject: July 15, 2024 Item 4A
Date: Sunday, July 7, 2024 6:17:41 PM
29738 Cuthbert. The proposed development is as anti-Malibu as you can get. Please deny this attack on Malibu and its families.

Bill Sampson
07/08/24 07/08/24 7:30 AM 07/15/24 4A1
206
From: B. Wadkins
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2024 9:02 PM
To: malibu planning <[email protected]>
Cc: Marianne Riggins <[email protected]>; Doug Stewart <[email protected]>; Bruce Silverstein <[email protected]>; Paul Grisanti <[email protected]>; Steve Uhring <[email protected]>
Subject: DENY 29738 Cuthbert Road
Honorable Planning Commissioners:

The following has been brought to the attention of all Malibu residents who are fed up with over development in our town.

With the proposed addition of 4,620 square feet for a total of 8,492 sq ft., the proposed structure at 29738 Cuthbert more than doubles the pre-Woolsey Fire residential structure on the site. The proposed house would adversely affect our quiet neighborhood’s friendly character as it is dramatically larger than the nearby properties on Harvester and Cuthbert.

The existing neighboring homes are substantially smaller: 29756 Cuthbert Road was approximately 1,225 sf prior to the fire. Even if the rebuild is 3,000 sf., 29738 Cuthbert would be close to 300% larger than its neighbor. 28725 Harvester’s final sf is 4,600 sf 29745 Harvester is 1,680 sf 29748 Harvester Rd is 1900 sf 29735 Harvester is 7,246 sf (per Zillow) 29755 Harvester is 3,400 sf 29800 Cuthbert is 5,500 sf. 29824 Cuthbert is less than 3,000sf (Per Zillow) With 9 ensuite bedrooms including the ADU, interior hallway ramps and an elevator, one also questions the use for this building. It is hard to imagine this as a single-family residence. Rumors have spread that it will be a rehab, Airbnb, or a Party Rental house. This would shatter our quiet, residential neighborhood in which one hears the music of birds not DJ’s. As the height is in excess of the code height of 18’, the building will cast more nighttime light effecting the neighbors, dark skies and wildlife in ESHA. The Planning Commission has the discretion to keep the height at 18 ft. PLEASE DENY THE EXCESSIVE 24’ HEIGHT. The rooftop deck and exterior staircase must be eliminated.

Decks of this nature create a nuisance. The only thing allowed on roofs are chimneys and antennas. It is clearly not the intention of the LCP to allow rooftop decks and entertaining areas. PLEASE REQUIRE THE REMOVAL OF THE ROOFTOP DECK AND EXTERIOR STAIRCASE. When the planning department analyzed the size and impact of the building, they were only considering the ocean view impact on the buildings above the property on Cuthbert Road. This building has much greater impact on the residents of Harvester Road who live downhill. Its size, glass walls and large outdoor entertaining areas are excessive.

The walls of glass, will illuminate the canyon at night. When neighbors on Harvester look up at the mountains they will be looking into a glistening wall of reflective glass. The noise from party goers will resound throughout the neighborhood. Nothing that would diminish the impact of this structure has been included on the plans. The trees that are currently screening the story poles will be demolished and not replaced as per L-5.1. The trees on the elevations are deceptive. They do not appear on the planting plan (L-3.1). Only three ornamental trees with a maximum height of between 12-20 feet will be planted. The hedge on the eastern property line will be maintained at 6’. A majority of the plants are low growing shrubs, roses, perennials and succulents. Wouldn’t it be better for wildlife as well 7/15/24 8:51AM 7/15/24 4A2
7/15/24
207
as the neighborhood to include native trees such as oaks and toyons on the landscape plan? Mulch and crushed stone are the predominant groundcovers. Mulch is only permitted to temporarily control erosion into ESHA areas during construction. The plans should include the planting of NATIVE VEGETATION to replace the mulch in ESHA. The Lighting Plan (LT 1) illuminates the whole property. Although the plans no longer note the relamping of the tennis court lights, the light poles remain on the plans. THE TENNIS COURT LIGHT POLES MUST BE REMOVED FROM ALL PLANS. Additional exterior lighting also includes: A light that illuminates the staircase that ascends over ESHA. This would cast light over ESHA. PLEASE REQUIRE THE REMOVAL OF THIS LIGHT. Over 20 39 ½” tall bronze finished bollards are shown on the steps to the tennis court as well as the herb garden, ornamental garden, and decorative garden. Bollards are not appropriate for area lighting to tend gardens at night. If the tennis court is not illuminated and the tennis viewing pavilion is not illuminated, why would they need these lights that would augment the night time illumination of the entire property. This is the antithesis of the Dark Skies guidelines.

PLEASE REQUIRE THE REMOVAL OF THESE LIGHTS. The tennis court rises up dramatically at the southwest corner of the property where it meets the neighboring properties. (See the post Woolsey Fire aerial photograph.) Many of the shielding trees have since been removed. PLEASE REQUIRE THAT THE TENNIS COURT BE PLANTED OUT TO ENHANCE PRIVACY TOWARD HARVESTER ROAD AND TO REDUCE NOISE.

Malibu parking code for single-family dwellings requires two enclosed and two unenclosed spaces per unit. The garage does not meet minimum building construction standards. The garage stalls on A5.0 measure 9’ x 18’. An average garage stall is min 12 ft wide by 22ft Common sizes are 14 x 22 and 16 x 24 especially with today’s SUV’s. Perhaps they plan to convert this space after receiving the Certificate of Occupancy. Please confirm that the developer may not convert this space. The standard minimum back out distance required is 35’. (The car must clear the garage walls before turning). The adjacent driveway shown on A1.0 measures just 25’ between the house and the edge of the planting. Ten feet less than the minimum required to back out and turn to head out the driveway. There is not enough outdoor parking space for the cars that would accompany 9 bedrooms and the necessary staff. They should not be allowed to depend on parking on Cuthbert. If they stack up in the driveway, a swift exit would be impossible during an emergency. Please ensure that Malibu Park remains a tranquil, friendly, equestrian neighborhood. PLEASE DENY THIS PROJECT. Thank you
208
1 Planning Commission
From: Charlotte Frieze
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2024 5:44 PM
To: Planning Commission; Rebecca Evans; Patricia Salazar Subject: Planning Commission Meeting of July 15, 2024 Agenda Item No. 4A - 29738 Cuthbert Road TO: Planning Commission
Malibu, CA 90265
RE: Planning Commission Meeting of July 15, 2024
Agenda Item No. 4A - 29738 Cuthbert Road
Recommendation: Deny Project
Sent Via Email
Date: July 12, 2024
Honorable Planning Commissioners:

Reviewing the February 21, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting video, it seemed appropriate to update my July 8, 2024 correspondence.

It is clear that three of the Commissioners – Mr. Hill, Mr. Mazza and Mr. Peak - agreed that the proposed 8500 sf house is too big for the neighborhood. All three questioned how this project was allowed to develop from a Fire Rebuild + 10% into a structure that is substantially larger than the neighboring houses.

My notes from the February 21, 2023 meeting follow:
• Richard Mollica: “The applicant will be required to comply with Dark Skies.”
• The first plans approved were for an In Kind Rebuild which is why the building was permitted to be put back in ESHA.
• Hill: The Total Development Square Footage is in question. • There were many unpermitted additions to the house prior to the Woolsey Fire. The square footage allowed for the Rebuild is questionable. 07/15/24 07/15/24 8AM07/15/24 4A3
209
2 • Mollica: “As Commissioners, if you feel you cannot make the findings and you would like to see a smaller home on the site and you feel it is out of character …that is where the Commission has its discretion here. You have the ability to say you can’t make the findings. It is out of character. As a Commission you can always ask for less.”
• Mazza: “When they got the first permit there was no roof deck. No light mitigation was needed.
• Mazza: “This house should not be before us. They have a permit” (for 110% Rebuild).
• Mazza: At 110% they can build in the same footprint in ESHA. Coastal cautioned us to not do any more at 150%. Over 200% requires a CDP. CDPs cannot be serial.
• Mazza: “If they want an 8500sf house, they start and build an 8500sf house. This is no way a Woolsey Fire Rebuild!”
• Mazza: “We have a big house going in where a not big 1-story house was”. • Mazza: “You can’t take a Woolsey Fire Rebuild, take advantage of all you get with just a review and no Planning Commission approval and in two steps convert it into a giant house …It is not allowed.” • Mazza: “This is what Kraig asked. How did this go from a number we don’t know for sure was the original burnout to 8000 something almost 9000sf without us being able to look at it?
• Peak: “I have a lot of the same concerns that John has and would like to make a motion to deny this project”.
• Mazza: I would second this motion.
• Attorney Donegan: I just want to be clear. The draft resolution is for one of approval. You must direct Staff to come back with a draft resolution for denial.
• Mollica: This is a CDP for an Addition to a Fire Rebuild.

Only minor changes have been made to the Plans since the February Meeting. The building and site design must all adhere to the Dark Sky Ordinance. The TDSF must be recalculated to include the tennis pavilion full bath and other areas not listed. The roof deck must be omitted as it not only is in ESHA but also would create noise and lighting issues.
210
3 The video reveals how the owners have tried to parlay an approximately 2000 sf home into an almost 9000 sf home with a 1085 sf tennis pavilion that comprises a full bath and kitchen area, a substantially larger swimming pool, Baja pool and spa.

Clearly this project should be denied and reviewed as one new project. As the Rebuild has not been constructed, you cannot request approval for an addition. The two sets of plans should be merged into one set of plans to be reviewed as one new, smaller project that is not in the ESHA Buffer.

This project is not in keeping with the quiet, equestrian neighborhood. Perhaps the Applicant can find a more appropriate site for this building design in amongst other large homes.

For the above reasons, I respectfully urge the Commission to deny this project.

Thank you,
Charlotte M. Frieze

--
Charlotte M. Frieze
Malibu, CA
211
From: Dru Ann Jacobson
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Malibu Park
Date: Monday, July 8, 2024 8:30:03 AM
Dear Members of Malibu Planning Commission,
I want to state my total opposition to the plans for the one/two mega mansions/rehabs/ industrial style buildings… whatever they may be…asking to be built in the quite, rural, neighborhood of Malibu Park! Please tell me “why” such a huge “home” would even be considered in an area that was was already ravaged by the Woolsey Fire.

I grew up in Malibu Park…as a young girl, riding our horses, all the way from our home on Busch Dr. to Little Trancas market, no fences, no walked in mansions, only freedom and the friendship of wonderful neighbors and friends…
Malibu needs to preserve the little bit of “neighborhood” we have left… Please don’t allow this request to be granted!
Thank you,
Dru Ann Jacobson
Sent from my iPhone
07/08/24 07/08/24 8:30 AM 07/15/24 4A1
212
1 Planning Commission
From: Rebecca Evans
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2024 2:42 PM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: FW: 29738 Cuthbert Rd
From: Aakash Shah <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2024 2:39 PM
To: Rebecca Evans <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: 29738 Cuthbert Rd
Hey,
Some correspondence for this project.

Thank you,
Aakash Shah | Contract Planner | City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road, Malibu CA, 90265
Phone: (310) 456-2489 ext. 385
From: Doug Burdge
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2024 2:03 PM
To: Aakash Shah <[email protected]>
Cc: Yuliatmo Upadi <
Subject: 29738 Cuthbert Rd
Greetings.. want to offer our full support for this well designed project .. besides being in full compliance to all local codes & regulations, this project has gone ‘above and beyond’ in being sympathetic to the local ESHA conditions .. and should be a considered a model project on how best to work together with the Malibu Biology Department on the restoration efforts along the adjacent natural drainage course Thanks for your consideration
Douglas W Burdge AIA
Douglas W. Burdge, AIA Principal
aia.com
07/15/24 07/15/24 2:39PM 07/15/24 4A2
213
Malibu CA 90265
2 214
1 Planning Commission
From: DANA CHRISTIAANSEN
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2024 1:15 PM
To: Rebecca Evans; Planning Commission
Subject: Item 4A - DENY: 29738 Cuthbert Road
Please distribute this to all Planning Commissioners.

I live at . and would be adversely affected by any commercial development beyond what we already have allowed in this neighborhood.

My contact info is below.

Thank you,
Dana

DANA CHRISTIAANSEN
07/15/24 07/15/24 1:15PM 07/15/24 4A1
07/15/24 1:15PM 07/15/24 4A1
07/15/24 1:15PM 07/15/24 4A1
215
1 Planning Commission
From: Debra Cole >
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2024 1:52 PM
To: Rebecca Evans; Planning Commission
Subject: Item 4A - DENY - 29738 Cuthbert Road
I am wriƟng to object to the proposed project at 29738 Cuthbert Road. I ask that you DENY approval of this project.

Thank you
Debra Cole
e
Sent from my iPad
07/12/24 07/12/24 1:52PM 07/15/24 4A
216
1 To: Members of the Planning Commission
From: Malibu Park Resident for 48 years - Dawn N. Ericson July 14, 2024
RE: Planning Commission Meeting
Item 4A -29738 Cuthbert Road.

Coastal Development Permit-Woolsey Fire No. 23-004
Honorable Commissioners,
May I request that you deny this project as currently designed for the following reasons:

1. I disagree with: C. Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area Overlay (LIP Chapter 4).

The proposed structure is within an ESHA Stream without setbacks. A portion of this proposed residence is within the mapped blueline stream buffer area. It needs to be relocated outside the area to meet Malibu’s LCP a 100-foot setback.

Since the lot is mostly flat, relocating the residence outside the buffer is a simple and reasonable solution for meeting the City’s building guidelines.

2. Before the Woolsey Fire, it had a quiet rural character and peaceful lifestyle for the residents and wildlife. This proposed structure at 29738 Cuthbert more than doubles the preWoolsey Fire residential structure on the site. This is NOT a single-family house, but a huge multi -purpose structure for possible usage by corporations or acitivties other than a family home..

Thank you for your commitment
and responsibility
to the City of Malibu
as Planning Commissioners,
With regards,
Dawn N Ericson
7/9/24 7/9/24 9:15AM 7/15/24 4A
217
1 From: Dominick Guillemot
To: Planning Commission
Cc: *Dominick Guillemot
Subject: RE: Planning Commission Meeting of July 15, 2024 Agenda Item No. 4A - 29738 Cuthbert Road Date: Wednesday, July 10, 2024 4:22:43 PM
Honorable Planning Commissioners:

At the June meeting a representative of the Bolour family yelled at me “what are you complaining about? You won’t see this building.” Actually, I will. As will others who live on Harvester Road.

We would not only see it, but we would also hear the endless activity threatening the calm tranquility that pervades Malibu Park.

With the proposed addition of 4,620 square feet for a total of 8,492 sq ft., the proposed structure at 29738 Cuthbert more than doubles the preWoolsey Fire residential structure on the site. The proposed house would adversely affect our quiet neighborhood’s friendly character as it is dramatically larger than the nearby properties on Harvester and Cuthbert.

The existing neighboring homes are substantially smaller:
29756 Cuthbert Road was approximately 1,225 sf prior to the fire. Even if the rebuild is 3,000 sf., 29738 Cuthbert would be close to 300% larger than its neighbor.
28725 Harvester’s final sf is 4,600 sf
29745 Harvester is 1,680 sf
29748 Harvester Rd is 1900 sf
29735 Harvester is 7,246 sf (per Zillow)
29755 Harvester is 3,400 sf
29800 Cuthbert is 5,500 sf.
29824 Cuthbert is less than 3,000sf (Per Zillow)
With 9 ensuite bedrooms including the ADU, interior hallway ramps and an elevator, one also questions the use for this building. It is hard to imagine this as a single-family residence. Rumors have spread that it will be a rehab, Airbnb, or a Party Rental house. This would shatter our quiet, residential neighborhood in which one hears the music of birds not DJ’s.

As the height is in excess of the code height of 18’, the building will cast 7/10/24 7/10/24 4:20 PM 7/15/24 4A4
218
more nighttime light effecting the neighbors, dark skies and wildlife in ESHA. The Planning Commission has the discretion to keep the height at 18 ft. PLEASE DENY THE EXCESSIVE 24’ HEIGHT.

The rooftop deck and exterior staircase must be eliminated. Decks of this nature create a nuisance. The only thing allowed on roofs are chimneys and antennas. It is clearly not the intention of the LCP to allow rooftop decks and entertaining areas.

PLEASE REQUIRE THE REMOVAL OF THE ROOFTOP DECK AND
EXTERIOR STAIRCASE.

When the planning department analyzed the size and impact of the building, they were only considering the ocean view impact on the buildings above the property on Cuthbert Road.

This building has much greater impact on the residents of Harvester Road who live downhill. Its size, glass walls and large outdoor entertaining areas are excessive. The walls of glass, will illuminate the canyon at night. When neighbors on Harvester look up at the mountains they will be looking into a glistening wall of reflective glass.

The noise from party goers will resound throughout the neighborhood.

Nothing that would diminish the impact of this structure has been included on the plans. The trees that are currently screening the story poles will be demolished and not replaced as per L-5.1. The trees on the elevations are deceptive. They do not appear on the planting plan (L-3.1).

Only three ornamental trees with a maximum height of between 12-20 feet will be planted. The hedge on the eastern property line will be maintained at 6’. A majority of the plants are low growing shrubs, roses, perennials and succulents. Wouldn’t it be better for wildlife as well as the neighborhood to include native trees such as oaks and toyons on the landscape plan?
Mulch and crushed stone are the predominant groundcovers. Mulch is only permitted to temporarily control erosion into ESHA areas during construction. The plans should include the planting of NATIVE VEGETATION to replace the mulch in ESHA.

The Lighting Plan (LT 1) illuminates the whole property. Although the plans no longer note the re-lamping of the tennis court lights, the light poles remain on the plans. THE TENNIS COURT LIGHT POLES MUST BE REMOVED FROM ALL PLANS.
219
Additional exterior lighting also includes:

A light that illuminates the staircase that ascends over ESHA. This would cast light over ESHA. PLEASE REQUIRE THE REMOVAL OF THIS LIGHT.

Over 20 39 ½" tall bronze finished bollards are shown on the steps to the tennis court as well as the herb garden, ornamental garden, and decorative garden. Bollards are not appropriate for area lighting to tend gardens at night. If the tennis court is not illuminated and t he tennis viewing pavilion is not illuminated, why would they need t hese lights t hat would augment t he night t ime illuminat ion of t he ent ire property. This is t he antit hesis of the Dark Skies guidelines.

PLEASE REQUIRE THE REMOVAL OF THESE LIGHTS.

The tennis court rises up dramatically at the southwest corner of the property where it meets the neighboring properties. (See the post Woolsey Fire aerial photograph.) Many of the shielding trees have since been removed. PLEASE REQUIRE THAT THE TENNIS COURT

BE PLANTED OUT TO ENHANCE PRIVACY TOWARD HARVESTER
ROAD AND TO REDUCE NOISE.

Malibu parking code for single-family dwellings requires two enclosed and two unenclosed spaces per unit.

The garage does not meet minimum building construction standards.

The garage stalls on AS.0 measure 9' x 18'.

An average garage stall is min 12 ft wide by 22ft
Common sizes are 14 x 22 and 16 x 24 especially with today's SUV's.

Perhaps they plan to convert this space after receiving the Certificate of Occupancy. Please confirm that the developer may not convert this space.

The standard minimum back out distance required is 35'. 220
(The car must clear the garage walls before turning).

The adjacent driveway shown on A 1.0 measures just 25' between the house and the edge of the planting. Ten feet less than the minimum required to back out and turn to head out the driveway.

There is not enough outdoor parking space for the cars that would accompany 9 bedrooms and the necessary staff. They should not be allowed to depend on parking on Cuthbert. If they stack up in the driveway, a swift exit would be impossible during an emergency.

Please ensure that Malibu Park remains a tranquil, friendly, equestrian neighborhood.

PLEASE DENY THIS PROJECT.

Thank you
Dominick Guillemot.
- Clover Heights avenue
Malibu. Ca. 90265
221
1 Planning Commission
From: Rebecca Evans
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2024 2:20 PM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: FW: Item 4A DENY: 29738 Cuthbert Rd
-----Original Message-----
From: Debra Weir
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2024 1:06 PM
To: Rebecca Evans <[email protected]>
Subject: Item 4A DENY: 29738 Cuthbert Rd
Save our neighborhood. Save our school. VOTE NO Thank you Sent from my iPad 07/15/24 8AM07/15/24 4A1
222
From: Emily Goodman
To: Rebecca Evans
Cc: Planning Commission
Subject: Item 4A - DENY: 29738 Cuthbert Road
Date: Monday, July 8, 2024 8:13:43 AM
Save our neighborhood. Save our school. Vote No.

Thank you,
Emily Scher
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
07/08/24 07/08/24 8:13 AM 07/15/24 4A1
223
From: Gayle Abrams
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Item 4A - Deny: 29738 Cuthbert
Date: Monday, July 8, 2024 9:23:11 PM
To whom it may concern,
I'm writing to object to the proposed variance for 29738 Cuthbert. Please save our neighborhood. Thank you!
Sincerely,
Gayle Abrams
7/8/24 9:23PM 7/15/24 4A1
7/8/24
224
1 Planning Commission
From: Geraldine Chollet
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2024 1:14 PM
To: Rebecca Evans; Planning Commission
Cc: Gregory Lefevre
Subject: Item 4A - Development Permit No. 23-004 - DENY: 29738 Cuthbert Road Honorable Planning Commissioners,
Please deny this rebuild.

We live in Malibu Park at 5617 Busch Drive and are firmly against the large construction project planned at 29738 Cuthbert Road composed of 9 ensuite bedrooms including the ADU, interior hallway ramps and an elevator… We do not want new rehab centers in Malibu Park. Please save our neighborhood! Thank you for your understanding,
Geraldine Chollet & Gregory Lefevre
Malibu, CA 90265
07/12/24 07/12/24 1:14PM 07/15/24 4A
225
1 1
Planning Commission
From: Gail Fuhrman >
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2024 2:56 PM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Item 4A-DENY 29738 Cuthbert Road
Please save our neighborhood. Vote NO.

Sent from my iPhone
07/12/24 07/12/24 2:56PM 07/15/24 4A1
226
1 Planning Commission
From:

Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2024 3:48 PM
To: Planning Commission
Cc: Rebecca Evans
Subject: Item 4A Coastal Development Permit-Woolsey Fire No. 23-004 / 29738 Cuthbert Road Attachments: Comment. Planning Commission. Cuthbert (2) 24.07.13.docx Dear Commissioners,
Please see attached comment and DENY this project.

Georgia Goldfarb
07/15/24 07/15/24 8AM07/15/24 4A
227
2 Dear Commissioners,
Creative math and a wink and a nod:

This house is significantly over the limits established for rebuilds in Malibu. It significantly exceeds the 110% rebuild that was permitted. How does the 2000 sq foot burnout become a 9000 sq ft house? By planners not following our codes. This makes a mockery of Malibu regulations and codes that we have agreed upon.

An enlarged house would further encroach on ESHA and would be out of neighborhood character. I oppose any further encroachment on ESHA and any degradation of community character. These too, are Malibu and coastal codes or regulations that have been grossly flaunted by Planning.

The roof deck must be omitted. It encroaches on ESHA and its use will emit light prohibited by our Dark Skies ordinance. It should be removed. Lighting for tennis courts must be eliminated.

Landscape plantings must be included in the petition and must indicate native plants including trees.

The approval of this project which so flagrantly violates Malibu codes and mission once again raises the question: Why are we paying for planners who refuse to apply the codes? Where is the oversight? A development this inappropriate should not encounter its first critique at the level of the Planning Commission.

Georgia Goldfarb
228
From: Gina Odian
To: Planning Commission; Rebecca Evans
Subject: Item 4A -- DENY: 29738 Cuthbert Rd
Date: Wednesday, July 10, 2024 2:04:54 PM
Please do not allow a rehab facility posing as a SFR to be approved. Please do not allow them any variances. We do not need a commercial venture with employees and trucks racing through our neighborhood.

Thank you,
Gina Odian
Harvester Rd
7/10/24 2:04 PM 7/15/24 4A1
7/10/24
229
From: Steve Uhring
To: Planning Commission; Planning Commissioners
Subject: FW: 29738 Cuthbert Rd. (Development Project)
Date: Sunday, July 14, 2024 7:03:37 PM
This should have been sent to you.
steveU
From: George Poptsis
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2024 6:55 PM
To: Doug Stewart <[email protected]>; Marianne Riggins <[email protected]>; Steve Uhring <[email protected]>; Bruce Silverstein <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Subject: 29738 Cuthbert Rd. (Development Project)
I am a resident of Cuthbert Rd. Myself and my wife just moved back into our new home 3 weeks ago after 5.5 years of planning, development and city code laws. We followed all the rules and city requirements to complete our rebuild after the Woolsey fire.

This has been a long hard process which required major financial, physical and mental efforts to complete the project successfully. We are still working to finish the final details for our home. Looking back before the fire we experienced a large influx of drug rehab. housing in our neighborhood. We personally experience break-ins to our parked vehicles and actually had one of the patients try to enter our home on a Saturday morning. Since the Woolsey fire had burned down a lot of the housing in our neighborhood, we are now able to rebuild in a more responsible fashion and not allow unchecked drug housing or oversized structures to be approved on new development projects. There is a lot of money being made by irresponsible investors along with the city collecting large fees from these projects. I disapprove of the city allowing any new over sized housing development projects that create more drug rehab centers. We as long time Malibu residents don't deserve this after all we have gone through to remain in our precious Malibu neighborhood. Please vote against this project.

George Poptsis
7/15/24 8:00AM 7/15/24 4A1
7/15/24
230
1 Planning Commission
From: Hugh Arian
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2024 4:25 PM
To: Rebecca Evans; Planning Commission
Subject: Item 4A - DENY: 29738 Cuthbert Road
Save our neighborhood.

Save our school.

Vote No.

Hugh ArIan
Malibu, Ca 90265
07/15/24 07/15/24 8AM07/15/24 4A1
231
From: John Paul
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Fw: July 15, 2024 Regular Meeting ITEM 4A-Coastal Development Permit-Woolsey Fire No. 23-004 / 29738 Cuthbert Road
Date: Monday, July 8, 2024 2:17:00 PM
Planning Commission
Malibu, CA 90265
RE: Planning Commission Meeting of July 15, 2024
Agenda Item No. 4A - 29738 Cuthbert Road
Sent Via Email: Planning [email protected] July 8, 2024 Honorable Planning Commissioners:

At the June meeting a representative of the Bolour family yelled at me “what are you complaining about? You won’t see this building.” Actually, I will. As will others who live on Harvester Road.

We would not only see it, but we would also hear the endless activity threatening the calm tranquility that pervades Malibu Park.

With the proposed addition of 4,620 square feet for a total of 8,492 sq ft., the proposed structure at 29738 Cuthbert more than doubles the preWoolsey Fire residential structure on the site. The proposed house would adversely affect our quiet neighborhood’s friendly character as it is dramatically larger than the nearby properties on Harvester and Cuthbert.

The existing neighboring homes are substantially smaller:
29756 Cuthbert Road was approximately 1,225 sf prior to the fire. Even if the rebuild is 3,000 sf., 29738 Cuthbert would be close to 300% larger than its neighbor.
28725 Harvester’s final sf is 4,600 sf
29745 Harvester is 1,680 sf
29748 Harvester Rd is 1900 sf
29735 Harvester is 7,246 sf (per Zillow)
29755 Harvester is 3,400 sf
29800 Cuthbert is 5,500 sf.
29824 Cuthbert is less than 3,000sf (Per Zillow)
07/08/24 07/08/24 2:17 PM 07/15/24 4A4
232
With 9 ensuite bedrooms including the ADU, interior hallway ramps and an elevator, one also questions the use for this building. It is hard to imagine this as a single-family residence. Rumors have spread that it will be a rehab, Airbnb, or a Party Rental house. This would shatter our quiet, residential neighborhood in which one hears the music of birds not DJ’s.

As the height is in excess of the code height of 18’, the building will cast more nighttime light effecting the neighbors, dark skies and wildlife in ESHA. The Planning Commission has the discretion to keep the height at 18 ft. PLEASE DENY THE EXCESSIVE 24’ HEIGHT.

The rooftop deck and exterior staircase must be eliminated. Decks of this nature create a nuisance. The only thing allowed on roofs are chimneys and antennas. It is clearly not the intention of the LCP to allow rooftop decks and entertaining areas.

PLEASE REQUIRE THE REMOVAL OF THE ROOFTOP DECK AND
EXTERIOR STAIRCASE.

When the planning department analyzed the size and impact of the building, they were only considering the ocean view impact on the buildings above the property on Cuthbert Road.

This building has much greater impact on the residents of Harvester Road who live downhill. Its size, glass walls and large outdoor entertaining areas are excessive. The walls of glass, will illuminate the canyon at night. When neighbors on Harvester look up at the mountains they will be looking into a glistening wall of reflective glass.

The noise from party goers will resound throughout the neighborhood.

Nothing that would diminish the impact of this structure has been included on the plans. The trees that are currently screening the story poles will be demolished and not replaced as per L-5.1. The trees on the elevations are deceptive. They do not appear on the planting plan (L-3.1).

Only three ornamental trees with a maximum height of between 12-20 feet will be planted. The hedge on the eastern property line will be maintained at 6’. A majority of the plants are low growing shrubs, roses, perennials and succulents. Wouldn’t it be better for wildlife as well as the neighborhood to include native trees such as oaks and toyons on the landscape plan?
Mulch and crushed stone are the predominant groundcovers. Mulch is 233
only permitted to temporarily control erosion into ESHA areas during construction. The plans should include the planting of NATIVE VEGETATION to replace the mulch in ESHA.

The Lighting Plan (LT 1) illuminates the whole property. Although the plans no longer note the re-lamping of the tennis court lights, the light poles remain on the plans. THE TENNIS COURT LIGHT POLES MUST BE REMOVED FROM ALL PLANS.

Additional exterior lighting also includes:

A light that illuminates the staircase that ascends over ESHA. This would cast light over ESHA. PLEASE REQUIRE THE REMOVAL OF THIS LIGHT.

Over 20 39 12" tall bronze finished bollards are shown on the steps to the tennis court as well as the herb garden, ornamental garden, and decorative garden. Bollards are not appropriate for area lighting to tend gardens at night. If the tennis court is not illuminated and the tennis viewing pavilion is not illuminated, why would they need these lights that would augment the night time illumination of the entire property. This is the antithesis of the Dark Skies guidelines.

PLEASE REQUIRE THE REMOVAL OF THESE LIGHTS.

The tennis court rises up dramatically at the southwest corner of the property where it meets the neighboring properties. (See the post Woolsey Fire aerial photograph.) Many of the shielding trees have since been removed. PLEASE REQUIRE THAT THE TENNIS COURT

BE PLANTED OUT TO ENHANCE PRIVACY TOWARD HARVESTER
ROAD AND TO REDUCE NOISE.

Malibu parking code for single-family dwellings requires two enclosed and two unenclosed spaces per unit.

The garage does not meet minimum building construction standards. 234
The garage stalls on A5.0 measure 9’ x 18’.

An average garage stall is min 12 ft wide by 22ft
Common sizes are 14 x 22 and 16 x 24 especially with today’s SUV’s.

Perhaps they plan to convert this space after receiving the Certificate of Occupancy. Please confirm that the developer may not convert this space.

The standard minimum back out distance required is 35’. (The car must clear the garage walls before turning).

The adjacent driveway shown on A1.0 measures just 25’ between the house and the edge of the planting. Ten feet less than the minimum required to back out and turn to head out the driveway.

There is not enough outdoor parking space for the cars that would accompany 9 bedrooms and the necessary staff. They should not be allowed to depend on parking on Cuthbert. If they stack up in the driveway, a swift exit would be impossible during an emergency.

Please ensure that Malibu Park remains a tranquil, friendly, equestrian neighborhood.

PLEASE DENY THIS PROJECT.

Thank you
-- John Densmore
Harvester Rd.

Malibu, Ca
235
From: Janek Dombrowa
To: Planning Commission
Cc: Richard Mollica; Aakash Shah
Subject: 29738 CUTHBERT ROAD
Date: Monday, July 15, 2024 12:21:42 PM
Dear Commissioners and Planning Department,
Please share this with Ms. Frieze. I do not have her email.

Thank you,
Janek Dombrowa, Architect
Applicant will present 10 concessions requested by Ms. Charlotte Frieze

1. Site lighting – none - safety step lights only (may add ramp near pool)

2. Balcony lighting - none

3. Dining room and family room glass has louvers that break up the incoming and outgoing light

4. Dining room and family room glass to receive special light spillage limiting film

5. (9) large landscape screens to contain any light spillage (native planting)

6. PERMITTED TENNIS COURT LIGHTS to be REMOVED

7. NO VARIANCES EVER REQUESTED

8. Building size meets MMC - for context, see slide of Malibu Park development (home size 5.6% to 22% of lot area. Proposed project 9.6%)

9. HEIGHT of 24’ PERMITTED by MMC 17.40.40(A)(5)(c) by director’s determination following site plan review findings – 6 findings have been made:

Finding 1. The project is consistent with policies and provisions of the Malibu LCP.

Finding 2. The project does not adversely affect neighborhood character.

Finding 3. The project provides maximum feasible protection to significant public views as required by Chapter 6 of the Malibu LIP.

Finding 4. The proposed project complies with all applicable requirements of State and local law.

Finding 5. The project is consistent with the City's general plan and local coastal program.

Finding 6. The portion of the project that is in excess of 18 feet in height does not obstruct visually impressive scenes of the Pacific Ocean, off-shore islands, Santa Monica Mountains, canyons, valleys or ravines from the main viewing area of any affected principal residence as defined in MMC Section 17.40.040(A)(17)

10. DEED RESTRICTION – house will not be used as a substance abuse rehabilitation or mental health clinic
--
Janek Dombrowa, AIA
Principal / J T D A R C H I T E C T S /
Adjunct Assistant Professor for the Practice of Architecture / U S C / 7/15/24 12:21PM 7/15/24 4A2
7/15/24
236
237
From: Jo Drummond
To: Planning Commission; John Mazza; Kraig Hill
Cc: Charlotte Frieze; Patt Healy; R. Y. A. N.; Ann Doneen; Bill Sampson; Rosemarie Ihde; Sam Hall Kaplan; Scott Dittrich; Dru Ann Jacobson; Charlotte Drummond
Subject: Fwd: Item 5A - 29738 Cuthbert Road. Coastal Development Permit-Woolsey Fire No. 22-003 Date: Monday, July 15, 2024 6:49:05 AM
Attention Chair Mazza and Planning Commission,
In addition to the letter below please note the following:

1. In the Geoconcepts report dated Jan 10, 2022, it states under “Drainage” on p 5, “Much of this water drains as sheet flow, down descending slopes to low lying areas, the creek bed, and lower areas offsite.” Given the MASSIVE amount of water and effluent, this project will release, this is UNACCEPTABLE so close to ESHA and a creek bed.

2. This project has already come and gone in its practically identical form to the Planning Commission and has been DENIED once already in February of 2023. It was NEVER a fire rebuild as it is TRIPLING the former home's size and therefore CANNOT be allowed in ESHA. It is NOT on the original footprint and should not have ANY parking so close to ESHA.

3. The full bath and kitchen area in the tennis pavilion also need to be calculated into the TDSF which has been omitted for some reason,

4. The walls of glass and rooftop decks will disturb all the wildlife creatures and neighbors with the major light emission, noise, etc. coming out from this design.

Therefore, the height should also not be more than 18 ft.

5. The application after the original denial was withdrawn so that the applicant could "try again" with the planning commission - this can not be allowed and must be denied. This is a WASTE of the planning department's time and money. This should have NEVER been brought back to the Planning Commission.

6. The pool is very large and is a hazard to small children or pets staying on the property as guests and should be fenced in and covered. Covering it would also keep it warm and conserve water.

7. The findings CAN NOT be made for a home this size as it is out of the neighborhood's character and standards. An addition also CAN NOT be made onto a structure that has NOT been built yet.

Please send this back for a redesign to a much smaller home that is not more than two times the original home. We are TRYING to attract FAMILIES back to Malibu, not sober living/rehab/vacation/event rentals.

Thank you very much for your consideration,
7/15/24 7/15/24 8:00AM 7/15/24 4A4
238
Jo Drummond
Begin forwarded message:

From: Jo Drummond
Date: June 3, 2024 at 12:46:11 PM EDT
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]>, "K. Hill" John Mazza
<[email protected]>, Patricia
Cc: Patt Healy
Charlotte Frieze
Sampson
Drummond
Rebecca Evans
Salazar <[email protected]>
"R. Y. A. N."
>. Dawn Ericson
Dru Ann Jacobson
Ann Doneen
Scott Dittrich
>. Gerhardt & Rosemarie Ihde
, Robert Wolff
Dorina Schiro - Neighbour
Bob
>. Bill
Colin
Subject: Item 5A - 29738 Cuthbert Road. Coastal Development PermitWoolsey Fire No. 22-003 Honorable Chair Mazza and Planning Commission,
The proposed structure at almost 9000 sq feet is NOT a fire rebuild but is a precedent-setting change to Malibu Park's neighborhood character and violates the "neighborhood standards" code in Section 3.6 of Malibu's LIP.

This is more than THREE TIMES the size of my own house that fits very comfortably and generously our family of five plus our dog. This proposal is not a family home being created but a complex and profit-making investment that could house a rehab center or multiple parties/events and vacation tenants in this quiet neighborhood that is the closest to Malibu High.

On page 5 of the staff report the surrounding uses are displayed yet OMITS the square footage of each home or former home on the lots. The average square footage of recorded assessor values of these five surrounding homes is ONLY 2476 sq feet. That is THREE AND A HALF TIMES SMALLER than this proposed structure.

This is not even DOUBLING the average home size but more than tripling it, thereby changing the neighborhood character, violating neighborhood standards, and IS NOT in line with our City's Vision and Mission Statement.

We should be encouraging like-for-like plus 10% rebuilds that regular families who will attend our schools can afford and not continuously change our once rural, quaint, and quiet neighborhoods with these mega mansion properties that only an elite few can buy as most likely an investment and/or second non-primary residence. From just one of the renderings (attached from p 10 of the staff report) it looks like a HOTEL 239
RESORT and NOT a family home. It can seat between 14 and 28 people at the dining tables alone. And there are at least 8 bedrooms and 12 bathrooms! Plus a "viewing gallery" by the tennis courts. This project will also be using over 53000 gallons of water per year - that is more than 1/3 of the entire community of Big Rock's water usage, one of the largest neighborhoods in Malibu with over 400 residents. It's planned to be a venue, not a home.

Also MOST importantly and often ignored mistakenly is this project is WITHIN a mapped blue line stream buffer area. It needs to be set back 100 feet from this ESHA which is possible on this large flat lot, especially with its new larger septic system and huge potential water usage. A LARGE portion of this house is WITHIN the buffer area and there should be NO EXEMPTION for this.

Between all this and the rooftop deck/s how will peace be maintained for the wildlife and neighbors?
No site plan review can be granted for any home altering the neighborhood character as this one will do. A proposed huge complex like this again, also violates our residential development standards. How this overbuilt project can be approved so quickly before several modest like-for-like plus 10% fire rebuilds that are still in planning is a travesty.

Please deny this project and send it back to planning for the redesign of a smaller more modest project that is designed to be a family home, without ANY rooftop decks and NOT a lit-up hotel.

Thank you,
Jo Drummond

GENERAL NOTES BUILDING SETBACKS

CUTHBERT ROAD
240
241
1 Planning Commission
From: James Ludwig
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2024 12:43 PM
To: Planning Commission; Rebecca Evans
Cc: James Ludwig
Subject: Please Deny - Item 4A Coastal Development Permit ("CDP") - Woolsey fire No. 23-004/29738 Cuthbert Rd.

Honorable Planning Commissioners and Staff, My family and I are 48 year residents of Malibu Park. We raised our family here and are staunch supporters of our local community and public schools. We lost our home in the Woolsey Fire, were fortunate to rebuild, and once again occupy our quiet neighborhood. The above referenced project has all the appearances of a re-hab facility and not a single family home. It appears to be totally out of character of our local neighborhood and not conducive to the restoraƟon of our family friendly environment. We thus request denial of the CDP in hopes the owners will seek build a more appropriate family friendly home which will contribute to the restoraƟon of our neighborhood. Thank you for your consideraƟon, James Ludwig, , Malibu 07/15/24 07/15/24 12:43PM 07/15/24 4A
242
1 1
Planning Commission
From: Jennifer Pietro >
Sent: Saturday, July 6, 2024 11:48 AM
To: Planning Commission
Cc: Charlotte Frieze; Brian Pietro; Carol Bretonne
Subject: Item 4A - Deny
Please do your job is planning commission members, and deny item 4A regarding a large “home”proposed for Malibu Park.

Our community is counƟng on you to protect one of Malibu‘s oldest rural neighborhoods.

Thank you,
Jennie and Brian Pietro
Fire survivors, and Malibu Park residents for over three decades (and witnesses to the destrucƟon of our neighborhood with permiƩed projects that have become lucraƟve commercial enterprises).

Sent from my iPhone
07/08/24 07/08/24 8AM07/15/24 4A1
243
From: Candace Brown
To: Planning Commission; Rebecca Evans
Subject: Item 4A - DENY: 29738 Cuthbert Road
Date: Monday, July 15, 2024 3:20:18 PM
Dear Planning Commissioners,
The project before you is for an expansive, over-average for the neighborhood standards, complex that should be denied and reevaluated for a smaller home.

The denial should be based on standings not considering potential commercial rehab.

Again, you cannot deny on prospective use of the property, but on the nature of 9000 square feet in a 4000-5000 sq ft neighborhood.

Please add my statement of denial to the many that you will receive soon.

Thanks,
Jefferson Wagner
Former 2-time council member
A.S.
7/15/24 3:20PM 7/15/24 4A1
7/15/24
244
From: Steve Uhring
To: Kim Devane
Cc: Planning Commissioners
Subject: RE: Opponent to 29738 Cuthbert Rd Malibu, CA 90265 : Proposed Neighborhood Over Build Date: Sunday, July 14, 2024 7:21:57 PM
Thank you Kim
steveU
From: Kim Devane
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2024 7:13 PM
To: Doug Stewart <[email protected]>; Marianne Riggins <[email protected]>; Steve Uhring <[email protected]>; Bruce Silverstein <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Subject: Opponent to 29738 Cuthbert Rd Malibu, CA 90265 : Proposed Neighborhood Over Build I have lived in Malibu for over 30 years and own a home at Cuthbert Rd. I strongly oppose the over build of the proposed 9000 sq ft monstrosity at 29738 Cuthbert Rd Malibu, CA 90265 which was already denied once for all the correct reasons.

The house is too large for the neighborhood and has proposed numerous variances outside of our neighborhood and City codes and seeks to cheat the system and rules in place for rebuild criteria and protocol following the Woolsey fire: "one must build the same structure in the same place and it can be no larger than 10% of the previous building.The footprint of the building must remain the same, but the architectural style may be updated or changed." My home burned down in the Woolsey fire as did many of my neighbors and friends' homes. We all followed the strict rules that were in place and painstakingly underwent the permitting process and thankfully 6 years later many of us have finished the long arduous experience.

The City of Malibu should unilaterally deny any building permit that is not in keeping with the rules and protocols of the City and neighborhood and abjectly attempts to supersede and subvert the laws and rules to safeguard against such an overbuild.

To NOT deny this is a slap in the face to all those that endured the hardship and limitations of rebuilding our homes after Woolsey and to those homes 7/15/24 7/15/24 8:00AM 7/15/24 4A2
245
and homeowners that survived the fire and do not want to be subjected to unlawful, out-of-scope building in our bucolic neighborhood.

Sincerely,
Kim Devane
Cuthbert Rd. Malibu CA 90265
Kimberly Devane, President
Divine is Open for Business!!
Divine Imaging Inc. | A SMALL, WOMAN-OWNED, BUSINESS
Phone: Fax:
246
1 Planning Commission
From: Kelly Flor >
Sent: Saturday, July 6, 2024 1:39 PM
To: Rebecca Evans; Planning Commission
Subject: Coastal Development Permit-Woolsey fire No. 23-004/29738 Cuthbert Road Dear Planning Commissioners,
My home thankfully did not burn down during the Woolsey fire and I have gratefully witnessed my neighborhood rebuild and flourish. My home is a modest original 1950’s Malibu bungalow totaling about 1900 square feet. I bought my home in 1997 and raised my family here in this sweet beauƟful neighborhood. My children walked to Juan Cabrillo and Malibu High. We have cherished our neighbors and loved the beauty of Malibu Park.

When I learned of the proposed rebuild (single family dwelling on 29738 Cuthbert) I was shocked at the size and proposed interior of eight ensuite bedrooms, meeƟng rooms and hallways. This is clearly not an intended single family dwelling and does not fit the character and charm of our rural coastal Malibu Park. I hope that you do not approved this ridiculous rebuild plan in our beloved community.

Sincerely,
Kelly Flor
Malibu, CA 90265
07/08/24 07/08/24 07/08/24 8AM07/15/24 4A1
247
1 Planning Commission
From: Katharine Marinaro >
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2024 1:44 PM
To: Planning Commission
Cc: Rebecca Evans
Subject: Item 4A DENY Please 23-400/29738 Cuthbert Road Please help keep our neighborhoods full of families and not big corporate rehabs.

Warmly,
Katharine
07/12/24 07/12/24 07/15/24 07/15/24 4A1
248
1 Planning Commission
From: Architectural Sculpture
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2024 12:34 PM
To: Planning Commission
Cc: Steve Uhring; Bruce Silverstein
Subject: re: 🚩SAVE MALIBU PARK! 🚩DENY BOLOUR OVERREACH 29738 CUTHBERT ROAD Attachments: PC240715_Item4A_Correspondence_LSaunders.pdf Dear Commissioners,
I just received the attached correspondence and think it states more clearly than I could my own objection to this project.

Please reject this project. The poor residents in this neighborhood deserve better, and have certainly suffered enough between fires, flooding, and rebuilds; on top of everything they do not need this monster in their vicinity.

Malibu does not need another rehab, or hotel, or whatever this is proposed to be. Please do not let it happen.

Respectfully,
Lotte Cherin
07/11/24 07/11/24 12:34PM 07/15/24 4A
249
5 1
Planning Commission
From: LSGLA >
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2024 10:39 AM
To: Planning Commission; Rebecca Evans
Cc: Steve McClary; Bruce Silverstein; Steve Uhring; Doug Stewart; Kelsey Pettijohn Subject: 🚩SAVE MALIBU PARK! 🚩DENY BOLOUR OVERREACH 29738 CUTHBERT ROAD Item 4A뢈뢉
Coastal Development Permit-Woolsey Fire No. 23-004 / 29738 Cuthbert Road Honorable Planning Commissioners:

I am forwarding a friend’s correspondence regarding 29738 Cuthbert Road, as we are in complete agreement with him. Please deny this project and save Malibu Park! By Sam Hall Kaplan
There are fire rebuilds and then there is 29738 Cuthbert Road, a proposed questioned rebuild with all the frills of a rehab facility posing as a singlefamily residence in a compromised Malibu Park.

And just as the Woolsey disaster laid to waste most of the Park’s pastoral ambience, turning homes into ash, 29738 as proposed would further unwarrantably and tragically damage the community, as well as property values.

It should be rejected.

The dubious proposal before the Commission calls for the reasonable rebuilding of the previous residence of 3872 sq. ft., but with an unreasonable questioned addition of 4620 sq. ft., for a total project of 8492 sq. ft.

This is more than double the size of the original residence and clearly an abuse of neighborhood standards and character, an architectural conceit infringing on an environmentally sensitive buffer zone, requiring several variances, including exceeding the height limitation.

These design issues and questionable variances are typically proposed by avaricious developers and compliant architects, and tend to be greeted favorably by a covetous city staff and its chummy consultants. 250
2 But what makes the proposal for 29738 so egregious and deserving a slap down rejection is not noted in the reams of City Hall’s bureaucratic babble and boilerplate, which identifies the project as a single-family residence.

And this when the plans reveal the addition to feature eight ensuite bedrooms, several auxiliary meeting rooms, served by an interior hallway, ramps and an elevator. This architectural program suggests one of three uses:

A motel, which would be a patently zoning violation in Malibu Park’s designation as a rural residential equestrian community.

A house of ill repute, the addition’s eight bedrooms commonly called cribs and housed prostitutes in the mining towns of the historic West.

This leaves the third use, a drug and alcohol addiction rehab center or sober living facility. Publicly decried by the city and impacted neighborhoods, the fact is that these facilities are protected by State law that super cedes local zoning, and cannot be barred per se.

Still, whatever the proposal is called, 29738, a residential or rehab structure, it fails to meet local building codes, and as indicated by the variances requested and a simple reading of neighborhood character.

But the prospects of profits have made the rehab community guileful, and local governments and their consultants wary, particularly of the prospects of appeals, given the history of its legal representation.

To be sure, at the urging of select neighborhoods where rehab centers have in the past located in Malibu, the city has spent thousands of dollars hiring lobbyists and underwriting numerous forays to Sacramento.

Whatever, it has been no matching the deep pocketed, politically connected facility developers and operators, especially of the exclusive luxury archetype models with Malibu addresses catering to the rich and famous to the tune of astronomical prices.

As for the fate of the proposed Cuthbert rebuild, the vote will be a moment of truth for the Planning Commission, and the future of Malibu Park. You would think it has suffered enough from the Woolsey Fire.

This sham project sets a dangerous, damning precedent for Malibu Park, and should be rejected
251
3 Lynn Saunders Guilburt
David Guilburt
252

253
1 Planning Commission
From: Rebecca Evans
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2024 2:14 PM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: FW: Item 4A - DENY: 29738 Cuthbert Road
From: Leanne Hirsh < >
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2024 10:45 PM
To: Rebecca Evans <[email protected]>
Subject: Item 4A - DENY: 29738 Cuthbert Road
[email protected] and [email protected] Please ask your neighbors to write.

Ask everyone in your household to write. Inspire your children to write. All they need to say is: Save our neighborhood. Save our school. Vote No. Thank you!"

LEANNE HIRSH
Emmy Winning MAKE UP ARTIST
Leanne Hirsh Beauty
WEB | SOCIAL
07/15/24 07/15/24 8AM07/15/24 4A2
254
2 Founder / CEO
Perfumera Curandera
"Woman who Heals with Fragrant Plants"
WEB | SOCIAL
Phone:

Email:
255
From:

To: Planning Commission
Cc: Rebecca Evans
Subject: Item 4A DENY 29738 Cuthbert Road
Date: Monday, July 8, 2024 3:50:18 AM
Please vote NO on planning permission to this project!
We very much would like to bring back the family neighborhood that existed before the Woolsey fire devastated our neighborhood, this over sized building in no way contributes in manner to that objective, quite the opposite if it is then used as a Rehab.

Kind regards
Lisa and Mike McKean
Harvester Road
07/08/24 07/08/24 7:30 AM 07/15/24 4A1
256
1 Planning Commission
From: LSGLA >
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2024 7:01 PM
To: Planning Commission; Kelsey Pettijohn; Steve McClary; Patricia Salazar; Yolanda Bundy Cc: Bruce Silverstein; Steve Uhring
Subject: DENY PLANNING AGENDA ITEM 4A! NO WAY!
Dear Commissioners:

Please find below correspondence from Charlotte Frieze, Malibu Park resident, friend and neighbor.

Enough is enough. Please follow the codes and stop with all the variances.

May I suggest that the Mission and Vision Statement be read at the beginning of each meeting.

Please respect the rural character of our neighborhoods! C’mon sheesh. ###
RE: Planning Commission Meeting of July 15, 2024
Agenda Item No. 4A - 29738 Cuthbert Road
Recommendation: Deny Project
Sent Via Email: [email protected] July 12, 2024 Honorable Planning Commissioners:

Reviewing the February 21, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting video, it seemed appropriate to update my July 8, 2024 correspondence.

It is clear that three of the Commissioners – Mr. Hill, Mr. Mazza and Mr. Peak - agreed that the proposed 8500 sf house is too big for the neighborhood. All three questioned how this project was allowed to develop from a Fire Rebuild + 10% into a structure that is substantially larger than the neighboring houses.

My notes from the February 21, 2023 meeting follow:
• Richard Mollica: “The applicant will be required to comply with Dark Skies.”
07/15/24 07/15/24 8AM07/15/24 4A3
257
2 • The first plans approved were for an In Kind Rebuild which is why the building was permitted to be put back in ESHA.
• Hill: The Total Development Square Footage is in question. • There were many unpermitted additions to the house prior to the Woolsey Fire. The square footage allowed for the Rebuild is questionable. • Mollica: “As Commissioners, if you feel you cannot make the findings and you would like to see a smaller home on the site and you feel it is out of character …that is where the Commission has its discretion here. You have the ability to say you can’t make the findings. It is out of character. As a Commission you can always ask for less.”
• Mazza: “When they got the first permit there was no roof deck. No light mitigation was needed.
• Mazza: “This house should not be before us. They have a permit” (for 110% Rebuild).
• Mazza: At 110% they can build in the same footprint in ESHA. Coastal cautioned us to not do any more at 150%. Over 200% requires a CDP. CDPs cannot be serial.
• Mazza: “If they want 8500sf house they start and build an 8500sf house. This is no way a Woolsey Fire Rebuild!”
• Mazza: “We have a big house going in where a not big 1-story house was”. • Mazza: “You can’t take a Woolsey Fire Rebuild, take advantage of all you get with just a review and no Planning Commission approval and in two steps convert it into a giant house …It is not allowed.” • Mazza: “This is what Kraig asked. How did this go from a number we don’t know for sure was the original burnout to 8000 something almost 9000sf without us being able to look at it?
• Peak: “I have a lot of the same concerns that John has and would like to make a motion to deny this project”.
• Mazza: I would second this motion.
• Attorney Donegan: I just want to be clear. The draft resolution is for one of approval. You must direct Staff to come back with a draft resolution for denial.
• Mollica: This is a CDP for an Addition to a Fire Rebuild.

Only minor changes have been made to the Plans since the February Meeting. The building and site design must all adhere to the Dark Sky Ordinance. The TDSF must be recalculated to include the tennis pavilion full bath and other areas not listed. The roof deck must be omitted as it not only is in ESHA but also would create noise and lighting issues.

The video reveals how the owners have tried to parlay an approximately 2000 sf home into an almost 9000 sf home with a 1085 sf tennis pavilion that comprises a full bath and kitchen area, a substantially larger swimming pool, Baja pool and spa. 258
3 Clearly this project should be denied and reviewed as one new project. As the Rebuild has not been constructed you cannot request approval for an addition. The two sets of plans should be merged into one set of plans to be reviewed as one new, smaller project that is not in the ESHA Buffer.

This project is not in keeping with the quiet, equestrian neighborhood. Perhaps the Applicant can find a more appropriate site for this building in amongst other large homes.

For the above reasons, I respectfully urge the Commission to deny this project.

Thank you,
Charlotte M. Frieze

Sincerely,
Lynn Saunders
Malibu, CA 90265
CONFIDENTIAL: The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reproduction, dissemination or distribution of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.
259
1 Planning Commission
From: LSGLA >
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2024 10:39 AM
To: Planning Commission; Rebecca Evans
Cc: Steve McClary; Bruce Silverstein; Steve Uhring; Doug Stewart; Kelsey Pettijohn Subject: 🚩SAVE MALIBU PARK! 🚩DENY BOLOUR OVERREACH 29738 CUTHBERT ROAD Item 4A뢈뢉
Coastal Development Permit-Woolsey Fire No. 23-004 / 29738 Cuthbert Road Honorable Planning Commissioners:

I am forwarding a friend’s correspondence regarding 29738 Cuthbert Road, as we are in complete agreement with him. Please deny this project and save Malibu Park! By Sam Hall Kaplan
There are fire rebuilds and then there is 29738 Cuthbert Road, a proposed questioned rebuild with all the frills of a rehab facility posing as a singlefamily residence in a compromised Malibu Park.

And just as the Woolsey disaster laid to waste most of the Park’s pastoral ambience, turning homes into ash, 29738 as proposed would further unwarrantably and tragically damage the community, as well as property values.

It should be rejected.

The dubious proposal before the Commission calls for the reasonable rebuilding of the previous residence of 3872 sq. ft., but with an unreasonable questioned addition of 4620 sq. ft., for a total project of 8492 sq. ft.

This is more than double the size of the original residence and clearly an abuse of neighborhood standards and character, an architectural conceit infringing on an environmentally sensitive buffer zone, requiring several variances, including exceeding the height limitation.

These design issues and questionable variances are typically proposed by avaricious developers and compliant architects, and tend to be greeted favorably by a covetous city staff and its chummy consultants. 07/11/24
260
2 But what makes the proposal for 29738 so egregious and deserving a slap down rejection is not noted in the reams of City Hall’s bureaucratic babble and boilerplate, which identifies the project as a single-family residence.

And this when the plans reveal the addition to feature eight ensuite bedrooms, several auxiliary meeting rooms, served by an interior hallway, ramps and an elevator. This architectural program suggests one of three uses:

A motel, which would be a patently zoning violation in Malibu Park’s designation as a rural residential equestrian community.

A house of ill repute, the addition’s eight bedrooms commonly called cribs and housed prostitutes in the mining towns of the historic West.

This leaves the third use, a drug and alcohol addiction rehab center or sober living facility. Publicly decried by the city and impacted neighborhoods, the fact is that these facilities are protected by State law that super cedes local zoning, and cannot be barred per se.

Still, whatever the proposal is called, 29738, a residential or rehab structure, it fails to meet local building codes, and as indicated by the variances requested and a simple reading of neighborhood character.

But the prospects of profits have made the rehab community guileful, and local governments and their consultants wary, particularly of the prospects of appeals, given the history of its legal representation.

To be sure, at the urging of select neighborhoods where rehab centers have in the past located in Malibu, the city has spent thousands of dollars hiring lobbyists and underwriting numerous forays to Sacramento.

Whatever, it has been no matching the deep pocketed, politically connected facility developers and operators, especially of the exclusive luxury archetype models with Malibu addresses catering to the rich and famous to the tune of astronomical prices.

As for the fate of the proposed Cuthbert rebuild, the vote will be a moment of truth for the Planning Commission, and the future of Malibu Park. You would think it has suffered enough from the Woolsey Fire.

This sham project sets a dangerous, damning precedent for Malibu Park, and should be rejected
261
3 Lynn Saunders Guilburt
David Guilburt
262
Malibu, CA 90265
CONFIDENTIAL: The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reproduction, dissemination or distribution of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.
4 07/11/24 10:39 AM 07/15/24 4A4
263
From:

To:

Subject:

Date:

Good morning,
Mariela
Rebecca Evans; Planning Commission
Item 4A - DENY: 29738 Cuthbert Road
Monday, July 15, 2024 7:54:51 AM
SA VE om neighborhood. SA VE om school. Do not allow this project to grow through.

Western Malibu has been one of the rnral neighborhoods, quiet and peaceful. This 9,000 soft project can be built in the mountains not in a family area. It is not a mega-mansion area and most neighbors intend to keep it lower scale. Already some ve1y large houses had been approved and built after the fires.

Please work with us - the community of Malibu- and help us keep the low key character we envision There is enough land in many other places.

Thanks for suppo1iing the vision we want to maintain.

Mariela Guastavino
7/15/24 8:00AM 7/15/24 4A1
7/15/24
264
1 Planning Commission
From: Mark Hutman
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2024 2:11 PM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Voting no on Cuthbert 9000 sq ft proposal again Please confirm having received this.

Sent from my iPhone
07/15/24 07/15/24 8AM07/15/24 4A1
265
1 Planning Commission
From: Mark Hutman <
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2024 2:15 PM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Fwd: Item 4a deny: 29738 Cuthbert rd.

Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

From: Mark Hutman
Date: July 14, 2024 at 2:14:49 PM PDT
To: [email protected]
Subject: Fwd: Item 4a deny: 29738 Cuthbert rd.

Save our neighborhood.

Save our school.

Voting no again.

Please confirm having received this.

Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

From: Mark Hutman
Date: July 7, 2024 at 6:48:17 PM PDT
To: [email protected], [email protected] Subject: Item 4a deny: 29738 Cuthbert rd.

Sent from my iPhone
07/15/24 07/15/24 8AM07/15/24 4A1
266
1 Planning Commission
From: Margaret Maglione
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2024 12:08 PM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: DENY 29738 Cuthbert Road
Enough with the approval of variances! Please deny this monstrosity for the sake of Malibu.

Malibu needs to become a ZERO variance town, like many other towns that emphasize preservation over development.

Please ensure that Malibu Park remains a tranquil, friendly, equestrian neighborhood.

PLEASE DENY THIS PROJECT.

Thank you,
Margaret
07/15/24 07/15/24 12:08PM 07/15/24 4A1
267
Planning Commission
From:

Sent:

To:

Peter C Jones
Saturday, July 6, 2024 12:39 PM
Planning Commission; Rebecca Evans
Subject: 29738 Cuthbert Road
Attachments: 2024-07-06 - 29738 Cuthbert Road.docx
Dear Ms. Evans,
Please distribute my attached letter regarding 29738 Cuthbert Road to the Planning Commissioners.

With many thanks,
Peter C. Jones
July 6, 2024
1 07/08/24
268
Honorable Commissioners:

Question: When is a nine bedroom, 8,500 square foot home not a home? Answer: When the occupants would rather be any place else.

If the variances are granted future residents of 29738 Cuthbert Road will have been sent there by someone: a judge, a doctor, a sibling, a parent, even a friend. At best this building would be a rehabilitation facility cloaked in residential clothing.

Clearly, this 8,492 square foot, nine en suite bedroom behemoth with ramps instead of stairs, a light up tennis court, a light up outdoor dining facility with a light up kitchen, and a light up dinner table with chairs for twenty-two, plus a light up roof deck does not comply with the Malibu residential code. The code requires that new construction be in keeping with the scale of the immediate neighborhood where the largest building is 40% smaller and properties are dark in the quiet of the night:

The proposed structure is clearly an abuse of neighborhood standards and character, an architectural conceit infringing on an environmentally sensitive buffer zone, requiring several variances, including the right to exceed the height limitation.

The residents of Western Malibu live peacefully with each other, send their children to school, and take care of their neighbors in times of distress.

The residents of Western Malibu do not snort coke at the dinner table or drench their brains with alcohol or scream and rant about their addictions while pretending to play tennis at night. They do not race their cars through this lovely neighborhood at seventy miles per hour.

But they do go horseback riding.

Planning Commission Director Richard Mollica has unexpectedly resigned amid a swirl of rumored allegations. Assistant City Planner Adrian Fernandez discredited himself with his disingenuous testimony before the City Council about the application to build The Malibu Inn on PCH. Mr. Mollica championed the proposed Malibu Inn but, without explanation, failed to attend the hearing.

Mr. Fernandez wrote a letter to the City Council in which, according to The Malibu Times, he “alleged personal harassment from two city council members and from 269
members of the public during a council meeting concerning an application to build a property in mid-Malibu right across from the Malibu Pier called the Malibu Inn.

Indeed, his letter stated that he had experienced death threats, public attacks, and private verbal abuse from many sides."
The application to build the Malibu Inn on PCH was also championed by Mr.

Fernandez but defeated by a City Council vote of four to one. The lone holdout was Paul Grisanti who claimed that the massive coastal bluff is actually a hill.

Now Malibu is faced with a Planning Department with no Director, a staff plagued by heavy turnover, and a department compromised by the imminent departure of Mr. Mollica and the uncertain future of Mr. Fernandez.

To assist those seeking the position, Malibu has created a dedicated telephone number: 310-456-2489. Applicants are encouraged to call in.

While the heart of Malibu is it's beaches, Western Malibu is its soul.

Do we really want to entrust the soul of Malibu to the Bolour Family of Real Estate Developers:

1. Bolour Family News: https://bolourassociates.com/bolour-closesconstruction-take-out-loan/

2. Bolour Family News: https://bolourassociates.com/bolour-completes-latestinvestment-on-pico-boulevard-with-4-45-million-retail-center-acquisition/

3. Bolour Family News: https://bolourassociates.com/bolour-provides-over20m-in-debt-for-three-site-southern-california-portfolio/ Sincerely,
Peter C. Jones, Arts Commissioner
M
E.

July 6, 2024
07/08/24 8AM07/15/24 4A3
270
1 Planning Commission
From:

Sent: Friday, July 12, 2024 3:59 PM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Fw: 29738 Cuthbert item 4A
Attachments: pc 29758 cuthbert 7-15-24 ff.pdf
Commissioners attached are Slow Growth's comments on the above refereed project 07/12/24 07/12/24 3:59PM 07/15/24 4A
271
11 1
To: Members of the Planning Commission
From: Malibu Coalition for Slow Growth (MCSG)
Agenda Item: 4A
Date: 7-15-24
Recommendation :Deny Project
Honorable Members of the Planning Commission,
The Malibu Coalition for Slow Growth asks that you deny this project for the following reasons.

Slow Growth’s Comments
Modifications to original project
Staff was very helpful in providing us with the changes made in the previously 2- 21-23 denied project which are reflected in the current proposed project. They are minimal “The design of the house is not changing much or at all. 1.They are removing few trees from the front of the property, so they can open the view towards the ocean for public. 2, They are going to remove those lights and poles from the tennis court to follow dark sky ordinance. 3.Changes to the landscape and hardscape.

4.The are no internal or external design changes to the residence.” One new project
It is puzzling to Slow Growth how the Commission can be asked to approve an addition to a fire rebuild when the rebuild has not been constructed. The Commission would be approving plans to be added onto the fire rebuild plans. In essence, since nothing has been constructed , these 2 sets of plans should be merged into one set of plans to be renewed as one new project. And should be considered as such.

Neighborhood Character
This project should be denied and required to be made smaller to fit into the neighborhood character.

ESHA
Since this is one new project, the portions of the project in the ESHA setback should be required to be moved out of the ESHA buffer.
272
2 Roof Decks
Roof Decks are not allowed under LIP 3.6.E Height 1. Only chimney’s and antenna are allowed on structures 18 feet or higher. Therefore , roof deck must be removed not only because it is not allowed but also these decks create safety, noise and lighting nuisances to both the neighbors and the wildlife in the vicinity.

LIP 3.6.E Height reads1. Non-beachfront lots. Every residence and every other building or structure associated with a residential development, including satellite dish antenna, shall not be higher than 18 feet above natural or finished grade, including rooftop, parapet and deck walls and railings, whichever results in a lower building height, except for chimneys and rooftop antenna other than satellite dish antenna.

Lighting
Not only should the Tennis Courts not be lit but the whole projects lighting must adhere to the Dark Sky Ordinance.

Hearing of Project Previously Denied
This project is substantially the same project that the Commission denied at the February 21, 2023 hearing.

We urge the Commission to look at that meeting deliberations to refresh your memory as to the reasons given to deny.

Only minor changes were made in the project before you.

The project before you on July 15, indicates that the residence is the same size, bulk and height as it was in the February hearing .As Commission Peak pointed out at the previous hearing, the project doesn’t conform to the neighborhood character. To conform to the neighborhood character a smaller project is required. Portions of the project is still located in the ESHA buffer which is not allowed.

View Video of 2-21-23 hearing
What the Planning Commission decided previously regarding this project can be found under item 5A on 2-21-23 agenda. The hearing video starts at 2:01, at 2.20 applicant presents project, at 2:27 Commission deliberations begin ,at 2.38 273
3 Richard Mollica states the Commission has the discretion to require a smaller project if the Commission finds it is out of the neighborhood character .

Findings for Denial 2-21-24 Hearing
The city attorney wrote down eleven reasons the Commission talked about which would be the basis for the findings for denial of the project.

Some of them are: project out of character of neighborhood, square footage to large , to close to streambed, tennis courts lighting doesn’t adhere to Dark Sky ordinance , 2/3 rule violated if count stairwell, not setback far enough from stream , roof deck within ESHA creating noise ,lighting issues., not an addition it’s a new project,
The project before you should be denied this time for the same reasons you voted for denial at the 2-21-23 hearing for nothing has changed except for the removal of the tennis court lighting
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above we respectfully urge the Commission to deny this project. Thank you for considering our comments.
274
4 275
5 276
6 277
7 278
8 279
9 fire rebuild has yet to be built. Don’t additions have to be to existing buildings rather than to plans for a future structure.

Since the fire rebuild doesn’t exist this project should be looked at as a whole and as one new project.

This project is in an ESHA setback which is not allowed especially when the project can be moved outside the ESHA set back.
280
10 281
1 Planning Commission
From:

Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2024 7:05 PM
To: Planning Commission; Patricia Salazar
Subject: Fw: 29738 Cuthbert Item 4A 7-15-24
Honorable Commissioners,

Please deny this project for the following reasons:

Clearly, this addition is not the least environmentally damaging alternative. A smaller project in keeping with the neighborhood character, with less glass and a lower height would meet this requirement. The Commission has the discretion to reduce the size and bulk of the project to a size that is in keeping with the neighborhood character.

Richard Mollica confirmed this fact at the 2-21-23 hearing.

The size of this proposed addition 4620 sq ft is far larger than the size of the original residence’s 3872 sq ft. and is clearly out of character with the surrounding homes which are all smaller.

The rooftop deck must be eliminated. Decks of this nature create a nuisance. The only thing allowed on roofs are chimneys and antennas. It is clearly not the intention of the LCP to allow rooftop decks.

Tennis court lights are not allowed to be lit at night and the current property lighting doesn’t meet the Dark Sky Ordinance. The plans show bollard lights along the path to the tennis court The applicant has removed the note about re-lamping the tennis court lights but not the lamp posts. Please require that the lamp posts be removed. Keeping the poles is an invitation for the Applicant to bootleg lighting at a later date. Should you want to approve this project, the poles as well as the bollard lighting, should be removed. There is no reason to have bollard lights leading to a dark tennis court and it is questionable if the Bollard lights meet the dark Sky Ordinance

Site Plan review allows staff to recommend a structure be increased in height from 18 ft to 24 ft tall. However, the Planning Commission has the discretion to keep the height at 18 ft. Deny the height increase to 24 ft.

The Dark Sky Ordinance doesn’t control interior lighting. With a glass structure such as this the interior lighting can be so bright it defeats the purpose of the Dark Sky Ordinance. If you are going to approve this project, to mitigate such an impact, require that the project be heavily landscaped with tall trees and shrubs to block out the impact of the interior lighting from this structure.

No development should be allowed within the 100 ft buffer of the stream. The 100 ft buffer area needs to be restored with native riparian plants. Mulch is being placed within the 100ft steam buffer. Not only can mulch runoff into the stream, but it is highly flammable and should not be allowed in the buffer.

Please note there will most likely be construction intrusion into the 100 ft buffer by the removal of existing nonnative plants. If you allow the demolition permit to remove all plants and trees on site, the impact of the heavy construction equipment will intrude into the ESHA Buffer which should not be allowed.

07/12/24 07/12/24 8AM07/15/24 4A
282
2 2
Heavy equipment whether for demolition, grading, or construction should not be permitted within the ESHA Buffer. Construction equipment should approach from the south side of the plan to limit disturbance within ESHA.

Respectfully,
Patt Healy
July 10,2024
283
1 Planning Commission
From: ROBERT BRINKMANN
Sent: Monday, July 8, 2024 2:39 PM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Agenda Item No. 4A - 29738 Cuthbert Road
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I am wriƟng to urge you to vote against the proposed development at 29738 Cuthbert Road. I am a resident of Malibu Park, who is dismayed about the way our neighborhood has changed in the aŌermath of the Woolsey Fire. The reason we and many of our neighbors moved here was the rural character of this area of Malibu. It is what sets Malibu Park apart. Our neighbors have horses, donkeys, chickens, and pigs - and we even have the Thorne Family Farm. There are no sidewalks in our neighborhood, nor is there street lighƟng, which makes it a real get away from the urban areas that surround us.

Many of the fire rebuilds have been rebuilt bigger than before. Most only by 10% to fall under the expedited rebuild guidelines, but there are a few that are clearly changing the character of the neighborhood; this is one of them. An even greater concern is that the eventual home(?) / facility will not be residenƟal at all, but a business. InviƟng more traffic into our neighborhood, which already requires us to take our life into our hands when we only want to walk our dog on Harvester or Cuthbert is a serious safety issue. Rumor has it that this might become a rehab facility or a “party house” - aŌer all, which family really needs 9 bedrooms with ensuite baths? We already lost our local elementary school, Juan Cabrillo, because too many families were forced to move out aŌer the fire. Allowing this type of development will make it even more difficult for families to come back and fundamentally changes the character of this idyllic neighborhood - not to menƟon the serious safety concerns of inviƟng ever more traffic into an area not built for it. Please don’t let that happen.

Thank you,
Robert Brinkmann
07/08/24 07/08/24 2:39PM 07/15/24 4A1
284
1 Planning Commission
From: Rosie Strickland
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2024 9:34 PM
To: Planning Commission; Rebecca Evans
Subject: Item 4A-Deny
I urge the Planning Commission to deny Item 4A as it is shocking that the home at 29738 Cuthbert Rd. was previously approximately 2,000 sq. Ō and the current “Fire Rebuild” plans are for a home that is almost 9,000 sq. Ō. This is not a fire rebuild!
When we lost our home in the 1993 Malibu fire, we were very strictly allowed to rebuild with no more than a 10 percent increase. This insured, among other things, that our new home would conform to the neighborhood.

Malibu Park is a quiet, residenƟal neighborhood and this new project seems to be not only illegal, but really out of place with surrounding homes.

It seems likely that it is possibly being developed as a rehab facility, and in addiƟon is not accordance with the Dark Sky requirements.

Please Item DENY 4A!
Thank you,
Rosalie Strickland
07/15/24 07/15/24 8AM07/15/24 4A1
285
1 Planning Commission
From: Rosie Strickland < >
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2024 9:53 PM
To: Bob Strickland
Cc: Planning Commission; Rebecca Evans
Subject: Item 4A
I’m wriƟng to urge the Planning Commission to DENY Item 4 A, the property at 29738 Cuthbert Rd.

It is appalling that this project with it’s more than quadrupled increase in square footage is being dubbed a Fire Rebuild.

Malibu Park is a quiet, equestrian community and this proposed home is out of sync with, and will destroy the peaceful, rural feeling of the neighborhood.

It seems very likely that this enormous project, with its roof top deck, tennis pavilion, enlarged pool and extensive out of compliance outdoor lighƟng, is being developed to become a rehab facility.

Please prevent Malibu mansionizaƟon and DENY Item 4A!
Sincerely,
Robert Strickland
07/15/24 07/15/24 8AM07/15/24 4A1
286
1 Planning Commission
From: Beloquartz >
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2024 10:02 PM
To: Planning Commission; Rebecca Evans
Subject: Item 4A
I am writing to urge the Planning Commission to DENY item 4A, the property at 29738 Cuthbert Rd. It is appallilng that this project with its more than quadrupled increase in square footage is being dubbed a Fire Rebuild.

Malibu Park is a quiet equestrian community and this proposed home is out of sync with, and with destroy the peaceful, rural feeling of the neighborhood.

It seems very likely that this enormous project with its roof top deck tennis pavilion, enlarged pool and extensive out of compliance outdoor lighting, is being developed to become a rehab facility.

Please prevent Malibu mansionization and DENY Item 4A!
Sincerely,
Robert Strickland
07/15/24 07/15/24 7:30AM 07/15/24 4A
287
1 From: Rena Patterson
To: Rebecca Evans; Planning Commission; Bill Patterson
Subject: Item 4A - DENY 29738 Cuthbert Road
Date: Saturday, July 6, 2024 1:57:09 PM
Address: 29738 Cuthbert Road
Commissioners,
We live in Malibu Park, on Deerhead. We were stunned to hear of the enormous structure proposed for 29738 Cuthbert Road. We already have so many rehab facilities in Malibu Park, especially up Horizon. I understand these are allowed by state law, but the proposal for this facility, with almost 9,000 square feet and 8 bedrooms, is not at all in keeping with our neighborhood character. So many of our neighbors could not afford to rebuild after Woolsey and moved away. We would love to see families return to Malibu Park.

I've included Sam Hall Kaplan's letter in our email. He has expressed very eloquently what we feel.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
William and Rowena Patterson
Deerhead Road
Malibu, CA 90265
Honorable Commissioners:

There are fire rebuilds and then there is 29738 Cuthbert Road, a proposed questioned rebuild with all the frills of a rehab facility posing as a single-family residence in a compromised Malibu Park.

And just as the Woolsey disaster laid to waste most of the Park’s pastoral ambience, turning homes into ash, 29738 as proposed would further unwarrantably and tragically damage the
community, as well as property values.

It should be rejected.

The dubious proposal before the Commission calls for the reasonable rebuilding of the previous residence of 3872 sq. ft., but with an unreasonable questioned addition of 4620 sq. ft., for a total project of 8492 sq. ft.

This is more than double the size of the original residence and clearly an abuse of neighborhood standards and character, an architectural conceit infringing on an environmentally sensitive buffer zone, requiring several variances, including exceeding the 07/08/24 07/15/24 7:30 AM 07/15/24 4A
288
3 height limitation.

These design issues and questionable variances are typically proposed by avaricious developers and compliant architects, and tend to be greeted favorably by a covetous city staff and its chummy consultants.

But what makes the proposal for 29738 so egregious and
deserving a slap down rejection is not noted in the reams of City Hall’s bureaucratic babble and boilerplate, which identifies the project as a single-family residence.

And this when the plans reveal the addition to feature eight ensuite bedrooms, several auxiliary meeting rooms, served by an interior hallway, ramps and an elevator. This architectural program suggests one of three uses:

A motel, which would be a patently zoning violation in Malibu Park’s designation as a rural residential equestrian community.

A house of ill repute, the addition’s eight bedrooms commonly called cribs and housed prostitutes in the mining towns of the historic West.

This leaves the third use, a drug and alcohol addiction rehab center or sober living facility. Publicly decried by the city and impacted neighborhoods, the fact is that these facilities are protected by State law that super cedes local zoning, and cannot be barred per se.

Still, whatever the proposal is called, 29738, a residential or rehab structure, it fails to meet local building codes, and as indicated by the variances requested and a simple reading of neighborhood character.

But the prospects of profits have made the rehab community guileful, and local governments and their consultants wary, particularly of the prospects of appeals, given the history of its legal representation.

To be sure, at the urging of select neighborhoods where rehab centers have in the past located in Malibu, the city has spent thousands of dollars hiring lobbyists and underwriting numerous forays to Sacramento.

Whatever, it has been no matching the deep pocketed, politically 289
connected facility developers and operators, especially of the exclusive luxury archetype models with Malibu addresses catering to the rich and famous to the tune of astronomical prices.

As for the fate of the proposed Cuthbert rebuild, the vote will be a moment of truth for the Planning Commission, and the future of Malibu Park. You would think it has suffered enough from the Woolsey Fire.

This sham project sets a dangerous, damning precedent for Malibu Park, and should rejected.
290
From: Sal Fish
To: Rebecca Evans
Subject: Item 4A-Deny.29738 Cuthbert Rd.

Date: Monday, July 8, 2024 4:55:44 PM
Save our neighborhood. Save our School. Vote NO.

Thank you,
Sal&Barbara Fish
Dr. Malibu, Cal. 90265
07/08/24 07/08/24 4:55 PM 07/15/24 4A1
291
From: Shelleylyn Brandler
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Malibu Park
Date: Monday, July 15, 2024 9:04:13 AM
As a long time resident and property owner, I’m writing to express my concern for development in Malibu Park.

I’m in favor of less development in Malibu.

PCH can’t handle any more traffic.

Please vote for no more development at Malibu Park, or anywhere.

Keep Malibu country living. Thank you.

Sending good vibes Shelleylyn Brandler’s iPhone
7/15/24 9:04AM 7/15/24 4A1
7/15/24
292
From: STEVEN COLE
To: Planning Commission
Cc: Debra Cole
Subject: 29738 Cuthbert Road Project.

Date: Tuesday, July 9, 2024 12:30:09 PM
Planning Commission
Malibu, CA 90265
RE: Planning Commission Meeting of July 15, 2024
Agenda Item No. 4A - 29738 Cuthbert Road
Dear Planning Commissioners.

We have lived on Clover Heights Ave, off of Harvester in Malibu Park for 39 years. We are concerned about the size and scope of the proposed new structure at 29738 Cuthbert Road. We will be able to see this structure from our house and we are concerned that it will alter the quiet residential nature of our Malibu Park community.

The existing neighboring homes are substantially smaller. With the proposed addition of 4,620 square feet for a total of 8,492 sq ft., the proposed structure at 29738 Cuthbert more than doubles the pre-Woolsey Fire residential structure on the site. The proposed house would adversely affect our quiet neighborhood’s character as it is dramatically larger than the nearby properties on Harvester and Cuthbert.

With 9 ensuite bedrooms including the ADU, interior hallway ramps and an elevator, we question the purported use for this building. It is hard to imagine this as a single-family residence. We are concerned that it will become a rehab, Airbnb, or a Party Rental house.

As the height is in excess of the code height of 18’, the building will cast more nighttime light effecting the neighbors, dark skies and wildlife in ESHA. The Planning Commission has the discretion to keep the height at 18 ft.

The rooftop deck and exterior staircase must be eliminated. Decks of this nature create a visual and noise nuisance. The only thing allowed on roofs are chimneys and antennas. It is clearly not the intention of the LCP to allow rooftop decks and entertaining areas.

When the planning department analyzed the size and impact of the building, they were only considering the ocean view impact on the buildings above the property on Cuthbert Road.This building has much greater impact on the residents of Harvester Road and Clover Heights who live downhill. Its size, glass walls and large outdoor entertaining areas are excessive. The walls of glass, will illuminate the canyon at night. When neighbors on Harvester look up at the mountains they will be looking into a wall of reflective glass. The noise from parties will be heard throughout the neighborhood.

The Lighting Plan (LT 1) illuminates the whole property. Tennis court light poles remain on the plans.

Additional exterior lighting also includes a light that illuminates the staircase that ascends over an ESHA.

This would cast light over the ESHA.
7/9/24 12:30PM 7/15/24 4A2
7/9/24
293
Over 20 39 ½” tall bronze finished bollards are shown on the steps to the tennis court as well as the herb garden, ornamental garden, and decorative garden.Bollards are not appropriate for area lighting to tend gardens at night. If the tennis court is not illuminated and the tennis viewing pavilion is not illuminated, why would these lights that would augment the night time illumination of the entire property be necessary? This is not in keeping with Dark Skies guidelines.

The tennis court rises up dramatically at the southwest corner of the property where it meets the neighboring properties. (See the post Woolsey Fire aerial photograph.) Many of the shielding trees have since been removed.

There is not enough outdoor parking space for the cars that would accompany 9 bedrooms and the necessary staff. They should not be allowed to depend on parking on Cuthbert. If they stack up in the driveway, a swift exit would be impossible during an emergency.

Please ensure that Malibu Park remains a tranquil, friendly neighborhood and vote to deny this project as it is currently planned.

Sincerely,
Steven and Debra Cole
Malibu
294
From: Scott Dittrich
To: Jo Drummond; Planning Commission
Cc: Rebecca Evans; Patricia Salazar; Charlotte Frieze; Patt Healy; R. Y. A. N.; Ann Doneen; Bill Sampson; Rosemarie Ihde; Sam Hall Kaplan; Dru Ann Jacobson; Charlotte Drummond; Georgia Goldfarb; Mari Ellen Subject: Re: Item 4A and 5B
Date: Monday, July 15, 2024 9:00:27 AM
Dear Commissioners,
Both on Cuthbert and Las Flores Mesa the staff has ignored neighborhood standards. If we do not want Malibu to become a town of mansions, both of these projects should be rejected. There is something seriously wrong with staff moving such development forward. You guys end up arguing about other defects in such proposals but by neighborhood standards they should be rejected by staff and never waste your time and then the expected appeals to Council.

Thanks
Scott Dittrich
7/15/24 9:00AM 7/15/24 4A1
7/15/24
295
1 Planning Commission
From: Sam Hall Kaplan
Sent: Saturday, July 6, 2024 8:15 AM
To: Planning Commission
Cc: Steve McClary; Steve Uhring; Bruce Silverstein; Doug Stewart Subject: Item 4A July 15th hearing, Coastal Development Permit-Woolsey Fire No. 23-004 / 29738 Cuthbert Road\
Honorable Commissioners:

There are fire rebuilds and then there is 29738 Cuthbert Road, a proposed questioned rebuild with all the frills of a rehab facility posing as a single-family residence in a compromised Malibu Park.

And just as the Woolsey disaster laid to waste most of the Park’s pastoral ambience, turning homes into ash, 29738 as proposed would further unwarrantably and tragically damage the community, as well as property values.

It should be rejected.

The dubious proposal before the Commission calls for the reasonable rebuilding of the previous residence of 3872 sq. ft., but with an unreasonable questioned addition of 4620 sq. ft., for a total project of 8492 sq. ft.

This is more than double the size of the original residence and clearly an abuse of neighborhood standards and character, an architectural conceit infringing on an environmentally sensitive buffer zone, requiring several variances, including exceeding the height limitation.

These design issues and questionable variances are typically proposed by avaricious developers and compliant architects, and tend to be greeted favorably by a covetous city staff and its chummy consultants.

But what makes the proposal for 29738 so egregious and deserving a slap down rejection is not noted in the reams of City Hall’s bureaucratic babble and boilerplate, which identifies the project as a single-family residence. 07/08/24
296
2 And this when the plans reveal the addition to feature eight ensuite bedrooms, several auxiliary meeting rooms, served by an interior hallway, ramps and an elevator. This architectural program suggests one of three uses:

A motel, which would be a patently zoning violation in Malibu Park’s designation as a rural residential equestrian community.

A house of ill repute, the addition’s eight bedrooms commonly called cribs and housed prostitutes in the mining towns of the historic West.

This leaves the third use, a drug and alcohol addiction rehab center or sober living facility. Publicly decried by the city and impacted neighborhoods, the fact is that these facilities are protected by State law that super cedes local zoning, and cannot be barred per se.

Still, whatever the proposal is called, 29738, a residential or rehab structure, it fails to meet local building codes, and as indicated by the variances requested and a simple reading of neighborhood character.

But the prospects of profits have made the rehab community guileful, and local governments and their consultants wary, particularly of the prospects of appeals, given the history of its legal representation.

To be sure, at the urging of select neighborhoods where rehab centers have in the past located in Malibu, the city has spent thousands of dollars hiring lobbyists and underwriting numerous forays to Sacramento.

Whatever, it has been no matching the deep pocketed, politically connected facility developers and operators, especially of the exclusive luxury archetype models with Malibu addresses catering to the rich and famous to the tune of astronomical prices.

As for the fate of the proposed Cuthbert rebuild, the vote will be a moment of truth for the Planning Commission, and the future of Malibu Park. You would think it has suffered enough from the Woolsey Fire.

This sham project sets a dangerous, damning precedent for Malibu Park, and should rejected.
07/08/24 8AM07/15/24 4A2
297
From: SHARI HAYNES
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Item 4A - DENY: 29738 Cuthbert Road
Date: Monday, July 15, 2024 8:37:56 AM
My husband and I live in the house I grew up in at Calpine drive. My father built it in 1960. I still ride horses in the Malibu Park neighborhood and on the Zuma trail. Please keep Malibu Park just for families with no commercial activity. Thank you. Shari and Tony Haynes.

Sent from my iPhone
7/15/24 8:37AM 7/15/24 4A1
7/15/24
298
From: Stephanie Kuluva
To: Rebecca Evans; Planning Commission
Subject: Item 4A - DENY: 29738 Cuthbert Road
Date: Monday, July 15, 2024 12:25:56 AM
To Whom It May Concern,
Please vote NO. Please, 9,000 sf monstrosity estates have no place in our neighborhood! Please save Malibu Park, our family and residential neighborhood and community. Please respect and preserve the quiet, rural, family- and environmentally-friendly small town character of our neighborhood. Please do the right thing and uphold the Malibu City Mission Statement. Please VOTE NO on Item 4A Coastal Development Permit-Woolsey Fire No. 23- 004 / 29738 Cuthbert Road.

Thank you.

Stephanie Kuluva
7/15/24 8:00AM 7/15/24 4A1
7/15/24
299
From: STEPHANIE STEPHENS
To: Planning Commission
Cc: Stephanie Stephens
Subject: Item 4A- DENY 29738 Cuthbert"s egregious plan
Date: Monday, July 15, 2024 8:55:25 AM
Thank you for your service on behalf of the city of Malibu and its residents.

Protecting what makes Malibu special, while still allowing property owners to have some freedom in creating unique properties I know is a constant balance.

I’m writing to share that everything I’m seeing related to the huge structure designed for 29738 Cuthbert is not only grossly out of proportion for the neighborhood… it’s clearly designed for a business.

A neighborhood killing, for-profit drug rehab most likely.

There are already enough rehabs opening in Malibu West and all over the city.

Neighbors constantly having to jump out of roadways to avoid speeding residents and visitors, break ins suspiciously happening near the rehabs and more.

Most ardently, taking properties designated for single family use and allowing them to become businesses … pulls, very directly, support from local schools and businesses like restaurants/dry cleaners/nurseries/and more.

A refocus on encouraging properties to be residents, single family homes will help Malibu get back so much of the community nature and local business support - that was lost in the Woolsey disaster and since.

This property is not even hiding its intent.

Please deny all requests for this property.
(Noted that a contractor has bought the property next door and I hear is in agreement with its ridiculous requests. That makes sense as a contractor is not a family and they will not be living there. They are simply pushing that issue down the road to whoever they sell to.) Please do the right thing for Malibu West and its concerned home owners.

Thank you,
Stephanie Stephens
7/15/24 8:55AM 7/15/24 4A1
7/15/24
300
From:

To:

Thomas Trafalski
Planning Commission
Cc: Tom Trafalski; Amanda Parrish-Trafalski
Subject:

Date:

Please no 9000 sq Foot rehab facilities in Malibu Park
Monday, July 15, 2024 11:28:56 AM
Please no 9000 sq Foot rehab facilities in Malibu Park
Tom Trafalski & Amanda Parrish
Tom Trafalski
Trancas Canyon Rd.

Malibu CA 90265
Cell:
07/15/24 07/15/24 11:29 AM 07/15/24 4A1
301
From: Yvonne EsquerraBard
To: Rebecca Evans
Subject: Request they DENY 29738 Cuthbert Road
Date: Monday, July 15, 2024 8:11:11 AM
Please do not ruin our neighborhood. We already have a rehab on our street on Morning View. Let's protect our neighborhood for families and future generations.

DENY 29738 Cuthbert Road
Thank you,
Yvonne Esquerra Bard
07/15/24 07/15/24 8:11 AM 07/15/24 4A1
302
29738 CUTHBERT RD
JTD ARCHITECTS. 06.03.2024
1111 N TOPANGA CYN BLVD | TOPANGA CA 90290

MALIBU PLANNING COMMISSION PRESENTATION

PROPRIETARY & CONFIDENTIAL

EXHIBIT D
303
JTD ARCHITECTS 2024

1. CONTIGUOUS NEIGHBORS IN SUPPORT

2. ACTIVIST AND REMOTE COMMUNITY MEMBERS IN OPPOSITION

3. SUPPOSITIONS AND RUMORS

4. SIZE

5. HEIGHT

6. PARTY DECKS AND FIRE HAZARDS

7. TENNIS COURT PAVILION & TENNIS COURT LIGHTS

8. DRIVEWAY SLOPE AND BACKUP

9. NIGHT SKIES

10.PUBLIC VIEW CORRIDOR
304
NEIGHBORS IN SUPPORT JTD ARCHITECTS 2024

1. CONTIGUOUS NEIGHBORS IN SUPPORT
305
NEIGHBOR VIEWS JTD ARCHITECTS 2024
306
NEIGHBOR VIEWS JTD ARCHITECTS 2024
307
RESPONSE TO OPPOSITION JTD ARCHITECTS 2024

NOT OUR APPLICANT
PRE-FIRE 5,500 SF
* IN BLUELINE ZONE
*
*

12.8% VS. 9.6%. 30% LARGER

ON BUILT-UP PLATFORM, HOVERS IN NEIGHBORHOOD
308
RESPONSE TO OPPOSITION JTD ARCHITECTS 2024

SUPPOSITIONS AND RUMORS

SUPPOSITIONS
29800 CUTHBERT ON LARGE BUILT-UP

PLATFORM APPLICANT FOLLOWS

EXISTING GRADE
ACOUSTICS – NOT A CANYON
300 TREES? REALLY?
309

ACCESS WAS CLOSE TO STREET
– APPLICANT’S ACCESS HIDDEN

SUPPOSITIONS
– NO CORRAL / NO STABLES

REMOVED

DRIVEWAY MATERIALS PERMEABLE
WHERE PERMITTED BY FIRE DEPT.

RESPONSE TO OPPOSITION JTD ARCHITECTS 2024
310
KITCHEN DOOR 75 FT FROM BLUE LINE
REPLACING PRE-FIRE DOOR.

NORM: 12-25 FT
BACKUP PROVIDED 25’6”
FALSE

APPLICANT HAS PRIVACY HEDGE

WORKING ON TREES W/ NEIGHBOR
RESPONSE TO OPPOSITION JTD ARCHITECTS 2024
311

SUN CONTROL DEVICES USED

TO BREAK UP INTERIOR LIGHTING
– NO DIRECT SOURCE LIGHTING

EXCEPT KITCHEN AND BATHROOMS
APPLICANT’S PROJECT NOT

ON RAISED PLATFORM
RESPONSE TO OPPOSITION JTD ARCHITECTS 2024
312

HABITAT TO BE RESTORED

PUBLIC VIEW WILL BE OF

RESTORED HABITAT
RESPONSE TO OPPOSITION JTD ARCHITECTS 2024
313
RELATIVE SIZE AND BLUE LINE JTD ARCHITECTS 2024
314
NEIGHBOR VIEWS | SOURCE: GOOGLE EARTH JTD ARCHITECTS 2024 VIEW OF BUILDING SITE FROM 29755 HARVESTER RD.

REVERSE VIEW ONTO 3-STORY TOWER
315
PRE-FIRE TDSF JTD ARCHITECTS 2024

PRE-FIRE SF
316
PROPOSED TDSF JTD ARCHITECTS 2024

PROPOSED SF
317
PERCENTAGES:

Up to ½ acre: 21,780 x .177 = 3,855 + 1,000 =
½ acre to 1 acre: 43,560 – 21,780 = 21,780 x .10 =
1 acre to 1 ½ acres: 65,340 – 43,560 = 21,780 x .05 =
1 ½ acres or more: remaining acres – 65,340 = (square footage) x .02 = 29738 CUTHBERT:

Our parcel to be developed has a total net area of 2.023 acres (or 88,156 square feet).

To determine the maximum allowable square footage for the parcel, we used the formula above.

Up to ½ acre: 21,780 x .177 = 3,855 + 1,000 = 4,855
½ acre to 1 acre: 43,560 – 21,780 = 21,780 x .10 = 2,178 1 acre to 1 ½ acres: 65,340 – 43,560 = 21,780 x .05 = 1,089 1 ½ acres or more: 88,156 – 65,340 = 22,816 x .02 = 456 The total maximum allowable square footage of our parcel is 8,578.

MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE

TOTAL DEVELOPMENT SQUARE FOOTAGE (TDSF)

FOR A RESIDENTIAL PARCEL
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT SQUARE FOOTAGE (TDSF) JTD ARCHITECTS 2024

TOTAL DEVELOPMENT SQUARE FOOTAGE
318
29738 CUTHBERT RD
JTD ARCHITECTS. 07.15.2024
1111 N TOPANGA CYN BLVD | TOPANGA CA 90290

MALIBU PLANNING COMMISSION PRESENTATION

PROPRIETARY & CONFIDENTIAL
319
0 OBJECTIONS FROM COASTAL COMMISSION
0 VARIANCES REQUESTED
0 CLINICS PLANNED
(site use will be deed restricted as a guarantee)
JTD ARCHITECTS 2024
320
NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER:

MIX of LARGE and SMALL
LOTS VARY FROM 20,081 TO 181,348
HOMES VARY FROM 2,824 TO 9,315
HOME SIZE TO LOT SIZE 4.7% TO 22.5%
NO TRANSITIONAL ZONING – ALL MIXED
JTD ARCHITECTS 2024
321
LARGE & SMALL LOTS MIXED 20,081 TO 181,348
322
16 HOMES MORE THAN 9.6% (OUT OF 27)
323

PROJECT

9.6%
324
JTD ARCHITECTS 2024
325
JTD ARCHITECTS 2024
326
327
328
329
• 29623 Cuthbert Rd, Malibu, CA 90265
• Lot 63,547
• 7,732.5 SF
JTD ARCHITECTS 2024
330
331
332
333
334
335
• 29600 Harvester Rd
• Lot 145,926 SF
• 9315 SF
JTD ARCHITECTS 2024
336
337
338
339
340
HEIGHT VARIES. AT LEAST 5 HOMES 24FT OR TALLER
IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA.
341
HEIGHT 24’
Finding 1. The project is consistent with policies and provisions of the Malibu LCP.

Finding 2. The project does not adversely affect neighborhood character.

Finding 3. The project provides maximum feasible protection to significant public views as required by Chapter 6 of the Malibu LIP.

Finding 4. The proposed project complies with all applicable requirements of State and local law.

Finding 5. The project is consistent with the City's general plan and local coastal program.

Finding 6. The portion of the project that is in excess of 18 feet in height does not obstruct visually impressive scenes of the Pacific Ocean, off-shore islands, Santa Monica Mountains, canyons, valleys or ravines from the main viewing area of any affected principal residence as defined in MMC Section 17.40.040(A)(17)
LCP: Assure orderly, balanced utilization and conservation of coastal zone resources, taking into account the social and economic needs of the people of this City and of the State.

General Plan: Footnote 6 Table 7-24 For non-beachfront lots, heights of 24 feet for flat roof structures and 28 feet for pitched roof structures may be permitted by site plan review. JTD ARCHITECTS 2024 342

BALANCED SITE, NO EXPORT, NO BASEMENT
CREATING A BASEMENT OF 1,000 SF = 45 TRUCKS
POOL
WATER STORED ON SITE 20,000 GALLONS / STANDARD POOL COVER OWTS
PRETREATMENT - 3,000 GALLON SYSTEM

PARKING
10’x18’ PER TABLE 7-26 WITH 25’-6” BACKUP
JTD ARCHITECTS 2024
343
JTD ARCHITECTS 2024

LOUVERS, GLASS FILM
344
• PROJECT ADHERES TO CODE
• PROJECT PROPOSES TO REPAIR A SENSITIVE
ENVIRONMENTAL AREA – WITH THE PARTICIPATION OF CA.

FISH AND WILDLIFE
• PROJECT HAS BEEN VETTED WITH CONTIGUOUS

NEIGHBORS - EAST, WEST AND NORTH
• PROJECT PROVIDES A PUBLIC BENEFIT BY CREATING A

PUBLIC VIEW CORRIDOR TO THE OCEAN
• PROJECT STRUCTURE IS SHIELDED FROM DAILY VIEW
• PROJECT STRUCTURE IS SHIELDED FROM NIGHT LIGHT

SPILLAGE
JTD ARCHITECTS 2024
345
JTD ARCHITECTS 2024
346
JTD ARCHITECTS 2024
0 OBJECTIONS FROM COASTAL COMMISSION
0 VARIANCES REQUESTED
0 CLINICS PLANNED
(site use will be deed restricted as a guarantee)
347
29738 CUTHBERT ROAD

REASONS FOR APPEAL
1 APPLICANT RESPONSE:

PART ONE
Project Being Appealed
Coastal Development Permit-Woolsey Fire No. 23-004, An
application to allow for the construction of a 4,620 square-foot addition to a destroyed single-family residence approved under Planning Verification-Woolsey Fire No. 21-034,
extension of the existing swimming pool and spa,
reconfiguration of the existing driveway, hardscape, landscape, grading, improvements to the existing tennis
court; tennis pavilion; demolition of existing hardscape and landscape, and installation of a new onsite wastewater treatment system; including a site plan review for construction of the residence over 18 feet in height not to exceed 24 feet in height.

Background Summary
Owner's 2,276sf (2,499sf) residence, garage 484sf (488 sf), guest house 484sf (592 sf) and pool house 276sf (367sf) and barn 1,500sf were destroyed in the Woolsey Fire. Owner applied for a Planning Verification to build 3,872sf (3,520sf plus 10%) which was approved on 9-28-2021. A 1,520sf portion of the main house - the proposed kitchen - was located in the ESHA buffer of a mapped blue line stream. See Planning Verification Plans AO.0 (8492sf residence); A0.00 Portion in red is 1520sf kitchen area portion in ESHA buffer) and A0.8 (Open roof deck and raised kitchen roof in ESHA buffer).

Planning Verifications are granted if an Owner is rebuilding their new home in the same location as the destroyed home plus 10%. In this instance the original home was located in the ESHA buffer. The Planning Commission and Public were under the impression that this was a fire rebuild and the only reason it was allowed in the ESHA buffer was because the new residence was grandfathered.

The Planning Verification process is designed to expedite approval if in-kind and up to 10% expansion of the building envelope (bulk, height, and square footage) for fire rebuilds. The Planning Verification approval for this project is consistent with all applicable regulations.

What was never revealed to the Commissioners and the Public was that the Planning Verification was not for a new "like for like" residence but rather for the kitchen area of a new 8,492sf residence which is what the Owner always planned to build. The Owner never intended to rebuild the former residence plus 10%.

EXHIBIT E
348
29738 CUTHBERT ROAD

REASONS FOR APPEAL
2 The Appellants’ speculation as to the Owner’s intent in this case is misguided. The project has been completely and fully described throughout the City approval processes. The Owner has been transparent with its intentions regarding the project, and City staff and the Planning Commission are in agreement as to the propriety of the processes pursued in this case. The Owner has applied for an addition to the approved in-kind replacement of the home that burned in the Woolsey Fire. The current Coastal Development Permit is the correct process for approval of the requested addition.

After the Planning Commission approval, the Appellant, when prepping for this appeal, discovered the Planning Verification was not for a fire rebuild but for the kitchen area of a much larger 8,492sf structure.

This was never a fire-rebuild. Nothing should have been grandfathered. This is a new house and cannot be built in ESHA buffer per code.

If this information had been known to the Planning Commission, they would have most likely denied this Addition and the project as a whole. We are asking the Council to deny this Addition and uphold this appeal.

The Planning Verification approval is for the fire rebuild, which was issued in compliance with all applicable regulations. The current CDP application is for the addition to the previously approved fire rebuild.
349
29738 CUTHBERT ROAD

REASONS FOR APPEAL
3 PART TWO
Denial Required
A denial of this so-called Addition is required for the following reasons:

1. This is Not a Fire Rebuild. Correct. The fire rebuild was previously approved via the Planning Verification. The pending CDP is for approval of an addition to the previously approved fire rebuild.

Rebuilds must meet all the requirements described in the City of Malibu LCP Local ImplementationPlan 13.4.6 Structures Destroyed by Natural Disaster.

The replacement of any structure, other than a public works facility, destroyed by a disaster provided that the replacement structure meets all the following criteria:

A. It is for the same use as the destroyed structure;
B. It does not exceed either the floor area, height, or bulk of the destroyed structure by more than 10 percent, and
C. It is sited in the same location on the affected property as the destroyed structure.

As used in this section, "Structure" includes landscaping and any erosion control structure or device which is similar to that which existed prior to the occurrence of the disaster.

This replacement structure exceeds the size of the structure destroyed by the Woolsey Fire, a Natural Disaster.

A. Above cannot be met. It is not the same use as the destroyed structure. The destroyed structure was a rebuild of the residence and this is a 1,520sf kitchen.

B. These cannot meet the requirements. The proposed structure at 29738 Cuthbert exceeds the floor area, height and bulk of the destroyed structure by more than 10%.

C. This is not located in the same location. The proposed structure cannot meet the footprint of the pre-fire building, pool, terraces and driveway. This exceeds that of the original structure in excess of 10%.

This is not a like for like fire rebuild.

The CDP for this Addition project must be denied.

The above requirements do not apply to the requested addition.

2. This Is Not An Addition.

In more than one instance in the July 15, 2024 staff report The Project was described as an Addition,
350
29738 CUTHBERT ROAD

REASONS FOR APPEAL
4 An example: "the project is for additions to the existing residence approved under the Planning Verification and other exterior site improvements"(7-15-24 Staff Report page 9).

It is important to note additions are made to an existing structure and in this instance, there is no existing residence for the Addition to be added on to. For this reason, this is not an approval of an Addition but rather one for a new 8,492sf residence.

The Appellant claims that additions to an existing structure may only be considered if the structure physically exists at the time of the application. There is no basis in law for this claim. The Applicant’s election to proceed with construction of the fire rebuild and the proposed addition simultaneously is a benefit to its neighbors, who otherwise would be inconvenienced by two separate construction phases.
351
29738 CUTHBERT ROAD

REASONS FOR APPEAL
5 Even if one determines that it doesn't have to be an existing structure, this Addition cannot be approved because it is to be attached not to a fire rebuild of a destroyed residence but rather to the kitchen area of the 8,492sf residence which is not grandfathered to be in the ESHA buffer.

The kitchen, dining, and living areas remain in the same location as they were prior to the fire. The previously scattered structures, including the pool room, garage, and storage, have been reconfigured into a more consolidated layout. This enhances overall site efficiency and functionality.

3. It Is a New Project.

This property is in the same ownership both pre and post Woolsey fire. If it were the intention of the Owners to rebuild just their former residence plus the allowable 10%, it would be a 2,276sf fire rebuild plus 10% and could be constructed in the same buffer location as the original house.

As you can see in the original Fire rebuild plans approved 9-28-21, this so-called 4,620sf Addition, was always part of a much larger 8,492sf residence and was on the plans submitted with the Woolsey Fire Planning Verification portion of the residence which is located in the ESHA buffer This was always to be an 8,492sf residence with the kitchen area located in the ESHA buffer (See PVWF page A0.0). Thus, this is not an Addition and therefore it must be denied.

The proposed addition is a new project, as evidenced by the fact that it is the subject of the pending CDP. The fire rebuild portion of the project was previously approved consistent with all applicable regulations by Planning Verification.

The addition and total floor area have been properly calculated based on the lot size and fully comply with all applicable Malibu City codes and regulations.

4. Necessary Findings for a CDP Cannot Be Made. Project Must be Denied.

In order to approve a Coastal Development Permit for this proposed addition, all of the 4 findings set forth in LIP 13.9 must be made.

13.9. FINDINGS are:

All decisions on Coastal Development Permits shall be accompanied by written findings:

A. That the project as described in the application and accompanying materials, as modified by any conditions of approval, conforms with certified City of Malibu Local Coastal Program; and
B. If the project is located between the first public road and the sea, that the project is in conformity with the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act of 1976 (commencing with Sections 30200 of the Public Resources
Code).
352
29738 CUTHBERT ROAD

REASONS FOR APPEAL
6 C. The project is the least environmentally damaging alternative.

D. If the project is located in or adjacent to an environmentally sensitive habitat area pursuant to Chapter 4 of the Malibu LIP (ESHA Overlay), that the project conforms with the recommendations of the Environmental Review Board, or if it does not conform with the recommendations, findings explaining why it is not feasible to take the recommended action.

The following 2 necessary findings cannot be made:

Finding A. That the project as described in the application and accompanying materials, as modified by any conditions of approval, conforms with certified City of Malibu Local Coastal Program.
353
29738 CUTHBERT ROAD

REASONS FOR APPEAL
7 The portion of the residence was allowed in ESHA buffer because it was supposed to be a rebuild of the original home in that location. However, this was never intended to be a fire rebuild. It was designed to be the kitchen area of an 8,492sf residence.

In fact, the application for the Planning Verification says:
'The project proposes a single-family residence using a combination of existing house footprint and a new footprint" (page 1 Fire rebuild plans approved 9-28- 21). The original foot print is the portion of the residence in the ESHA buffer and the new footprint is the so-called Addition.

The Owner is taking advantage of the Woolsey Fire Verification procedure to obtain approval of the kitchen area portion of an 8,492sf proposed residence under the guise of the reconstruction of the residence destroyed in a fire. This kitchen area and the steps leading to the proposed kitchen roof deck clearly are not a fire rebuild and therefore are not allowed in the buffer setback from a blue line stream.

Since this, in reality, is not a fire rebuild of the existing residence, the kitchen portion of the 8,492sf proposed residence is not allowed in the buffer. It, therefore, doesn't conform to the certified Malibu Local Coastal Program.

The Planning Commission properly found that the project, as modified by the conditions of approval, conforms with certified City of Malibu Local Coastal Program.

The project is located in the RR-2 residential zoning district, an area designated for residential uses. The proposed project additions to the residence approved under the Planning Verification and other exterior site improvements. The Planning Department, City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City Public Works Department, and WD29 reviewed the project for conformance with the LCP.

As discussed in detail in the Planning Commission's staff report, the project as conditioned conforms to the LCP in that it meets all applicable residential development standards inclusive of the site plan review.

The Appellant seems to take issue with the fact that the Applicant has elected to proceed with the construction of the fire rebuild and addition portions of the project simultaneously rather than as independent construction projects. The Applicant’s election in this regard is entirely permissible under the City’s applicable codes and regulations, and in fact reduces any inconveniences to its neighbors that may be caused by the construction phase of the project.

Finding C. The project is the least environmentally damaging alternative.

This project is not the least environmentally damaging. To qualify as such, the portion of the structure in the ESHA Buffer must be taken out of the buffer and a smaller project be designed that conforms to the neighborhood character.

The Technical Review Sheet dated January 17, 2024 indicates they are grading almost the entire site except in ESHA and the tennis court. 354
29738 CUTHBERT ROAD

REASONS FOR APPEAL
8 And a smaller project would require less grading so it would be less environmentally damaging.

The Planning Commission properly found that the project is the least environmentally damaging alternative. As detailed in the Planning Commission staff report, the project meets the development policies of the LCP and MMC, inclusive of the requested SPR, and has been determined to be the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative. The project has been sited and designed to limit disturbance of the property. The addition that is the subject of this CDP is located away from the stream.

The project does include the replacement of the pre-fire septic system, relocated away from the stream. In addition, the project has been developed in collaboration with the Department of Fish and Wildlife to enhance the condition of the stream, protect its habitat, and remove nonnative materials.

Additionally, the project has been designed in a thoughtful manner to follow the contour lines of the land, stepping down gradually to minimize grading. The concentrated layout allows for more open space and landscaping, contributing to an environmentally sustainable design.

Since 2 of the four necessary findings can't be made, the CDP for this addition project must be denied.

A new application has to be submitted for a new project that is not in the ESHA buffer. Since it was always the Owners' intention to rebuild one 8,492sf house, this Addition also has to be denied because it would be attached to a proposed kitchen structure which is not allowed in an ESHA buffer. In the future, when the Owner applies for a new residential project, no portion of it can be constructed in the ESHA buffer.

But the intention of the Owner was always to construct an 8,492sf structure which they have said is allegedly for family gatherings and use by family members.

The Owner took advantage of the fire rebuild rules to have the kitchen area portion of the residence built in the pre-fire home's location in an ESHA Buffer.

Under the LIP, construction is not allowed in an ESHA Buffer when a project can be built outside the buffer in a different location on the site.

In reality, this is the construction of a new 8,492sf residence, a portion of which is being constructed in ESHA buffer in violation of the Malibu Local Coastal Program.

The Applicant has followed all applicable rules and regulations in obtaining a Planning Verification for the fire rebuild portion of the project and pursuing a CDP for the proposed addition. While the overall project approvals have followed a two-step process, there is no requirement that the construction similarly be done in two separate phases.
355
29738 CUTHBERT ROAD

REASONS FOR APPEAL
9 5. Piecemealing Development
This is one residence being processed in 2 stages. Stage one is the kitchen and stage two is the Addition. This should not be allowed especially since 1,520sf are to be constructed in an ESHA buffer which is prohibited under these circumstances. A Planning Verification should have never been issued for this kitchen area since it is not a Fire Rebuild.

The kitchen, dining, and living areas remain in the same location as they were prior to the fire. The Applicant has followed all applicable rules and regulations in obtaining a Planning Verification for the fire rebuild portion of the project and pursuing a CDP for the proposed addition. While the overall project approvals have followed a two-step process, there is no requirement that the construction similarly be done in two separate phases.

6.Smaller Project is Allowed Under LIP.

The total maximum allowable square footage is the maximum size residence allowed. It is not guaranteed by right. The LIP says a structure can be "up to" the maximum TMSF. The Planning Commission and the Council always have the discretion to deny this addition and require a smaller project.

Then planning director Richard Mollica, stated in the first hearing on this project on February 21, 2023 that the project could be smaller and could be denied on the basis it is too large.

Mr. Mollica said at 2:38 on the video ''As Commissioners you feel you cannot make the findings and you would like to see a smaller home on the site and you feel it is out of character, that is where the Commission has its discretion. You have the ability to say you can't make the findings for it is out of character." In fact, a smaller project is required to meet the Character of the Neighborhood.

The Applicant has provided a neighborhood context analysis that demonstrates that the project is consistent with the character of the existing neighborhood. This analysis shows that the neighborhood is truly mixed in terms of lot size, which vary from 20,081 to 181,348 square feet in size, size of the homes upon those lots, which vary from 2,824 to 9,305 square feet in size, and lot coverage of those homes, which varies from 4.7% to

22.5%.

Here, the project site consists of an 88,406 square foot lot, and the 8,492 TDSF represents only 9.6% of the lot.

7. Neighborhood Character
Preservation of neighborhood character is another reason for this project to be denied. Neighborhood character refers to the 'look and feel of an area'. 356
29738 CUTHBERT ROAD

REASONS FOR APPEAL
10 Prior to the Woolsey Fire, the residence was 2,276sf. With the addition of the square feet of the garage, guest house and pool house, the area totaled 3,520sf. The 10% brought the rebuild total to 3,872sf.

This 4,620sf proposed Addition to a yet to be constructed 3,872sf Woolsey Fire rebuild will result in an 8,492sf residence that is out of character with the neighborhood and should be denied.

Malibu Park is made up of many different neighborhoods. Among the properties that make up this particular Malibu Park neighborhood are the following:

The existing neighboring homes are substantially
smaller: 29755 Harvester is 3,400 sf plus a guest
house 900sf 29748 Harvester is 1,944 sf
29745 Harvester is 1,680 sf
29735 Harvester is 7,246 sf (per Zillow)
28725 Harvester's final sf is 4,600 sf and the Planning Commission required the owners to reduce the size of their guest house by 90sf
29756 Cuthbert was 1,720sf prior to the
Woolsey Fire 29718 Cuthbert was 3,827sf
prior to the Woolsey Fire 29800 Cuthbert is
5,500 sf.
29824 Cuthbert is less than 4,000sf
The average size of these nearby homes is 3,868.55sf.

The proposed house is more than two times the neighborhood average.

The Applicant has provided a neighborhood context analysis that demonstrates that the project is consistent with the character of the existing neighborhood. This analysis shows that the neighborhood is truly mixed in terms of lot size, which vary from 20,081 to 181,348 square feet in size, size of the homes upon those lots, which vary from 2,824 to 9,305 square feet in size, and lot coverage of those homes, which varies from 4.7% to

22.5%.

Here, the project site consists of an 88,406 square foot lot, and the 8,492 TDSF represents only 9.6% of the lot. That the project exceeds the size of the home that burned in the fire is irrelevant in terms of its consistency with neighborhood character. 357
29738 CUTHBERT ROAD

REASONS FOR APPEAL
11 With the proposed Addition of 4,620sf for a total of 8,492sf, the proposed structure at 29738 Cuthbert more than doubles the pre-Woolsey Fire residential structure on the site. The proposed house would adversely affect the quiet neighborhood's friendly character as it is substantially larger than the nearby properties on Harvester, Cuthbert, and Clover Heights.

Structures like this are destroying the quiet, rural character of this equestrian neighborhood. If this residence is approved others of similar size will follow.

The Applicant has provided a neighborhood context analysis that demonstrates that the project is consistent with the character of the existing neighborhood. This analysis shows that the neighborhood is truly mixed in terms of lot size, which vary from 20,081 to 181,348 square feet in size, size of the homes upon those lots, which vary from 2,824 to 9,305 square feet in size, and lot coverage of those homes, which varies from 4.7% to

22.5%.

Here, the project site consists of an 88,406 square foot lot, and the 8,492 TDSF represents only 9.6% of the lot. That the project exceeds the size of the home that burned in the fire is irrelevant in terms of its consistency with neighborhood character. 358
29738 CUTHBERT ROAD

REASONS FOR APPEAL
12 There is insufficient parking on the property for the number of bedrooms and the number of people who would be working on the property. Cuthbert is too narrow to allow street parking.

This plan more than doubles the number of bedrooms and has 6 times the number of bathrooms. This will put excessive strain on the water tank on Busch that failed the morning of the Woolsey Fire.

The number of bedrooms proposed is designed to meet the Applicant’s needs. The Applicant’s testimony at the Planning Commission hearing included that the home is designed to meet the needs of a multi-generational family, some of whom are elderly and require wheelchair access. The number of parking spaces proposed by the project meet City requirements and will meet the specific needs of the Applicant.

A structure this size does not allow for the re-planting of native trees and shrubs that were lost during the Woolsey Fire and would help provide habitat for wildlife.

The TDSF for the project represents only 9.6% of the project site. The project’s thoughtful design allows for extensive open space and landscaping.

A much smaller footprint would be in character with the neighborhood. The Owners can still have their family gatherings in a smaller structure. Afterall, prior to the Woolsey Fire, these gatherings were held in a residence that was 2,276 sf with a 484sf guest house.

8. This Project Previously Denied
This project was heard by the Planning Commission twice. At the first Commission hearing on February 21, 2023 the project was denied.

After the denial, the Owner withdrew the application on July 17, 2023, almost 5 months after denial according to the Geotechnical Report contained in the 7-15- 24 staff report. "The scope of the project has not changed from that reviewed and accepted by the City's geotechnica/ consultants in the referenced review letter dated 4-21-2022." (There was no resolution for denial written. Does it take five months to write a resolution of denial? Staff told Appellant that the findings for denial were never made. This seems odd to the Appellants, considering the project was denied on February 21, 2023
359
29738 CUTHBERT ROAD

REASONS FOR APPEAL
13 according to the Geotechnical Report. Then, the same project was brought before the Commission to be reheard a second time on July 15, 2024 in the hope of getting a different result.

It was the same project because the scope of the project had not changed from that which was reviewed previously and accepted by the City's Geotechnical consultants, the City Biologist and Environment Health.

This second hearing should never have been allowed once the project was denied by the Commission on February 21, 2023. Stare decisis applies. This is settled law. Every resident deserves certainty as applies to the City's decisions.

Once a project is denied, an Owner should not be allowed a second hearing on essentially the same project in the hope of getting a positive result. The first decision of denial by the Planning Commission should have been the final and only decision.

The project before you is the same project that was previously denied on a 3-2 vote. It is in the exact same location, the same size and the same design.

Commissioner Peak made the motion to deny the project giving these reasons for denial: he wasn't comfortable with the lighting, or with an 8,500sf house where a portion of the house was in the ESHA Buffer. He agreed with Commissioner Mazza that just because you can get "up to" the TDSF doesn't mean you get it and that the house doesn't fit the neighborhood. Commissioners Mazza, Hill and Peak agreed that a CDP could not be serial.

At the second hearing, without explanation, Commissioner Peak voted to approve the project stating the entire project was within the allowable TDSF. All of his previous reasons for denial miraculously no longer existed.

We ask that the first Planning Commission decision be upheld. Stare decisis applies. The Council must deny this project. It should not have been heard a second time.

The previous iteration of the project was withdrawn and never formally acted upon by the Planning Commission. The project that is the subject of the current CDP includes many features that were not considered by the Planning Commission in 2023. The project as currently proposed creates view corridors that are beneficial to the neighborhood. Additionally, the project includes improvements to the condition of the stream. The tennis court lights have been eliminated and the project’s lighting design was otherwise revised to comply with the City’s Dark Sky Ordinance.

PART THREE
360
29738 CUTHBERT ROAD

REASONS FOR APPEAL
14 Resolutions with Conditions of Approval: Inaccuracies We would like to point out the following to the Council:

1. Recital A is not accurate for it states: "that the Planning Varication for this project was approved for the in-kind replacement of a single-family residence." This is inaccurate. The PVWF was for the kitchen area of an 8,492sf residence.

Moreover, this kitchen area PVWF was located in an ESHA buffer which is not permitted. It would have been permitted if it were a replacement of the original house.

The Planning Verification approved the in-kind replacement of the home destroyed in the Woolsey Fire. That approval is not the subject of the pending CDP application. 361
29738 CUTHBERT ROAD

REASONS FOR APPEAL
15 2. Recital Resolution: History fails to state that project was previously before the Commission for the first time on February 21,2023 and was denied.

Under Section 2 Environmental Review
The previous iteration of the project was withdrawn prior to final action by the Planning Commission.

3. A. General Coastal Development Permit
It is inaccurate to state: "the proposed project is/or an addition to an existing residence" The approval was for the kitchen area of a proposed 8,492sf Residence and not an existing residence.

The proposed project is an addition to the previously approved fire rebuild. Despite the two-step application process for the project as a whole, there is no requirement that the project be built in two phases. Construction of the project in one phase reduces construction inconveniences for the project’s neighbors.

Add these Conditions of Approval
It is the Applicant’s position that the Planning Commission incorporated all appropriate conditions of approval.

Should the Council deny this appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's second decision on this project, please add the following to the Conditions of Approval:

Add a condition to deny rooftop decks because they create a noise nuisance that will disturb neighbors and wildlife. One of the decks is on top of the kitchen structure in the ESHA buffer and must be denied. The noise emanating from the deck could be harmful to wildlife especially as this is a migratory flyway.

Add that all lighting shall be 3000 Kelvin or less.

Add all windows including clerestory windows, skylights and glass doors to be covered with film to diminish the impact and spillage of interior lighting. The city biologist recommended interior night lighting be minimized.

Add condition that there be no lighting or light spill in the ESHA and ESHA buffer and that all lighting is not reflected off site.

Add a condition that the use of rodenticides is prohibited at all times on the property. The dumpsters must be rodent proofed. Include Poison Free Malibu guidelines.
362
29738 CUTHBERT ROAD

REASONS FOR APPEAL
16 Add a condition that surface water runoff will be directed away from the OWTS.

Add a condition, if needed, an underground storm water detention basin will be installed.

Add condition that no parking either during or after construction shall be permitted in ESHA.

After the July 15, 2024 decision, the owner's architect on August 13, 2024 proposed the following landscape plan:
363
29738 CUTHBERT ROAD

REASONS FOR APPEAL
17 er�.
.,._
�� �E-·r',/t.e
�'-;� SE?IS-.4Trvzs
- :a.
-- �.

JPUB,t...10
/IIGW
Ce:,µ1t:JOr,.
�M 6'T1! .
71::> If(;�,�
J.
(i,-,............................. •
8,h-.P{- �--
�- GI/� PUJ6..

IN �Z>/Ety q;,�
Tb tfll,tA/I/Yf12:/!:.., "'tfS.,(,/Jti. ,t1'1
e,vr,;-rce t-1�
Add condition to remove the pre-fire swimming pool from ESHA.

Add a condition that all landscaping in the ESHA buffer shall include all native plants and trees.

Add condition that all plants used to landscape the banks of the blueline stream thrive in a riparian habitat buffer.

Add condition that the tennis court is to be screened with native trees such as Toyon.

Add condition that padded windscreen is to be added around the tennis court to reduce noise.

PART FOUR
Lack of a Fair and Impartial Hearing
The hearing was not fair because the Commission did not have critical information to make an informed decision and the Public did not have this 364
29738 CUTHBERT ROAD

REASONS FOR APPEAL
18 information either. The
365
29738 CUTHBERT ROAD

REASONS FOR APPEAL
19 missing information was the Planning Verification file that the Appellant obtained for this appeal. If the Commission and the Public had had this information, most likely a different Decision would have been reached.

Since this information was not presented in the staff report, the Decision was not impartial. The lack of this information favored the Applicant over the Public.

What was unknown was that the plans for an 8,492sf structure was what the Owner had intended to build from the beginning. The Planning Verification was for just a portion of this huge residence. The Owner never intended to rebuild the grandfathered residence destroyed in the fire even though it was in the ESHA buffer but rather to build the kitchen and roof deck areas of the new residence in the ESHA buffer which is prohibited.

The Commission were not aware that the Addition was not to be attached to a fire rebuild but that it was just the kitchen area of a larger structure. If this had been known, this Addition would have been denied.

The Planning Verification approved the fire rebuild of the home destroyed by the Woolsey Fire. That approval is not at issue in the pending CDP. The only issue before the Council on this appeal is whether all of the required findings can be made for issuance of a CDP for the proposed addition. As detailed above and in the Planning Commission staff report, those findings can be, and have been, made.

PART FIVE
Decision was Contrary to Law.

This Addition didn't meet the requirements of the Local Coastal Program because a CDP was approved when 2 of the 4 necessary findings couldn't be made.

As detailed above and in the Planning Commission staff report, the required findings can be, and have been, made.

This project was never intended to be a fire rebuild but rather a large new 8,492sf residence. No portion of the structure was eligible for the Planning Verification process. The kitchen portion of the house was planned to be built in the ESHA buffer which is prohibited when there are other locations on the site the residence could be built. If there are no other locations on the property to locate the proposed residence, a smaller residence would have to be constructed.

It violates the General Plan which describes the character of Malibu Park as rural residential and this proposed project is urban in nature. 366
29738 CUTHBERT ROAD

REASONS FOR APPEAL
20 It violates the Mission and Vision Statement of the City set forth below:

Vision Statement
"Malibu is a unique land and marine environment and residential community whose citizens have historically evidenced a commitment to sacrifice urban and suburban conveniences in order to protect that environment and lifestyle, and to preserve unaltered natural resources and rural characteristics. The people of Malibu are a responsible custodian of the area's natural resources for present and future generations."
Malibu Municipal Code Section 17.02.030
Mission Statement
367
29738 CUTHBERT ROAD

REASONS FOR APPEAL
21 "Malibu is committed to ensure the physical and biological integrity of its environment through the development of land use programs and decisions, to protect the public and private health, safety and general welfare. Malibu will plan to preserve its natural and cultural resources, which include the ocean, marine life, tide pools, beaches, creeks, canyons, hills, mountains, ridges, views, wildlife and plant life, open spaces, archaeological, paleontological and historic sites, as well as other resources that contribute to Malibu's special natural and rural setting.

Malibu will maintain its rural character by establishing programs and policies that avoid suburbanization and commercialization of its natural and cultural resources.

Malibu will gradually recycle areas of deteriorated commercial development that detract from the public benefit or deteriorate the public values of its natural, cultural and rural resources.

Malibu will provide passive, coastal-dependent and resource-dependent visitorserving recreational opportunities (at proper times, places and manners) that remain subordinate to their natural, cultural and rural setting, and which are consistent with the fragility of the natural resources of the area, the proximity of the access to residential uses, the need to protect the privacy of property owners, the aesthetic values of the area, and the capacity of the area to sustain particular levels of use".

Malibu Municipal Code Section 17.02.030

CONCLUSION
This is a new 8,492sf structure and requires a totally new CDP.

Instead of applying for the kitchen area in ESHA as a fire rebuild and then asking for this 4,620 Addition, the owner should have applied for a CDP for an 8,492 sf residence located out of the ESHA Buffer.

The proposed 8,492sf structure is not a 3,872sf Woolsey Fire Re-build plus a 4,620sf Addition. The rebuild was never intended to be constructed.

At 8,492sf, more than double the size of neighboring houses, the structure is out of keeping with the neighborhood character. Since the Woolsey Fire, the neighborhood character is being eroded by developers who ignore the rural character and peaceful lifestyle enjoyed by residents and wildlife alike.

Instead of applying for the kitchen area in ESHA as a fire rebuild and simultaneously asking for this 4,620 Addition, the owner should have applied for a CDP for an 8,492sf residence located out of the ESHA Buffer. Most importantly, the Addition before you is not an Addition to a fire rebuild. It is an Addition to a proposed kitchen area in an ESHA buffer which is not allowed. In the PVWF plans you can see that this is one residence. Therefore, the Council must deny this Addition and tell the owner he has to come back with an application for a 368
29738 CUTHBERT ROAD

REASONS FOR APPEAL
22 residence that is located out of the ESHA buffer and fits in with the neighborhood character.
369
29738 CUTHBERT ROAD

REASONS FOR APPEAL
23 The proposed construction including kitchen, adjacent terrace, staircase and a portion of the swimming pool are in the ESHA buffer. A roof deck atop the kitchen and illuminated by the kitchen's clerestory windows intrudes noise, light and human activity into the ESHA and are not allowed in the ESHA buffer.

If this structure is approved, it will open the flood gates for future, irresponsible development in Malibu Park as well as other neighborhoods in Malibu. The properties on either side of 29738 Cuthbert are also burnouts poised for reconstruction. The owners of these properties are the only neighbors to write letters of approval. There were over 50 letters requesting denial.

A structure this size will erode away at the beautiful setting at the interface of Malibu Park's residential neighborhood and the Santa Monica Mountains. It will chip away at the lifestyle that attracts people to Malibu. Malibu Park has historically been a family neighborhood comprised of residents who care profoundly about the wildlife that makes Malibu their home. l am profoundly disappointed that we neighbors have had to come together to protect our neighborhood - to protect the Malibu we love. The decisions and actions of the Planning Department and the Planning Commission have placed an unfair burden upon our community.

Please uphold the Appeal and DENY the CDP for 29738 Cuthbert for the reasons stated above.

Each of these points have been responded to in detail above. 370

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

CITY OF MALIBU

CITY COUNCIL
The Malibu City Council will hold public hearings on WEDNESDAY, February 18, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Malibu City Hall, 23825 Stuart Ranch Road, Malibu, CA on the project identified below.

APPEAL NO. 24-010 - An appeal of Planning Commission Resolution No 24-39 determining the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, and approving Coastal Development Permit-Woolsey Fire No. 23-004 for the construction of a 4,620 square foot addition to a destroyed single-family residence with an attached garage approved under Planning Verification-Woolsey Fire No. 21-034, extension of the existing swimming pool and spa, driveway reconfiguration, improvements to existing tennis court, new hardscaping, landscaping, grading, and onsite wastewater treatment system; including Demolition Permt No. 24-020 for the demolition of an existing hardscape and landscape; and Site Plan Review No. 23-026 for construction of the residence over 18 feet in height not to exceed 24 feet in height for a flat roof
Location: 29738 Cuthbert Road
APN: 4469-041-011
Zoning: Rural Residential, Two-Acre (RR-2)
Environmental Review: Categorical Exemption CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301(e) and (I), and 15303(d)
Applicant: JTD Architects
Owner: Malibo LLC
Appellant: Charlotte Frieze Jones on behalf of Malibu Park Neighbors Group Application Filed: October 26, 2023
Appeal Filed: August 15, 2024
Appealable to: California Coastal Commission
Case Planner: Aakash Shah, Contract Planner
(310) 456-2489, extension 385
[email protected]
APPEAL NO. 24-011 - An appeal of Planning Commission Resolution No 24-77 approving Coastal Development Permit No. 19-011 for the construction of a new 3,977.5 square foot, 28 foot high two-story single-family home with basement, pool, spa, retaining walls, new onsite wastewater treatment system and associated development; including Site Plan Review No. 24- 022 for construction over 18 feet up to a maximum of 28 feet in height for a pitched roof and Minor Modification No. 24-006 to reduce the required front yard setback by 50 percent Location: 33610 Pacific Coast Highway
APN(s): 4473-021-012
Zoning: Rural Residential, Two-Acre (RR-2)
Environmental Review: Categorical Exemption CEQA Guidelines Sections 15303(a), 15303(e) and 15304(b)
Applicant: Block and Block
Owner: Peaches LLC, DBA 33616 PCH
Appellant: Matthew Mark
Application Filed: March 4, 2019
Appeal Filed: December 9, 2024
Appealable to: California Coastal Commission

EXHIBIT F
371
Case Planner: Richard Greenbauer, Contract Planner
(949) 489-1442, extension 132
[email protected]
For the projects identified above with a categorical exemption for environmental review, pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Community Development Director has analyzed these proposed projects and found that they are listed among the classes of projects that have been determined not to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Therefore, the projects are categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA. The Community Development Director has further determined that none of the six exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption apply to these projects (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2).

PROCEDURE: A written staff report will be available 30 days prior to the hearing for the projects. Any written comments or audiovisual materials from the applicants, appellants, and/or their representatives, including any that they intend to present at the hearing, must be submitted ten (10) business days in advance, by 5:00 p.m. on February 3, 2026. Any written comments or audiovisual materials from members of the public, including any that they intend to present at the hearing, must be submitted three (3) business days in advance, by 4:00 p.m. on February 12, 2026. No additional materials from any party or the public will be accepted after these deadlines. All materials should be emailed to [email protected] To view and participate during the public hearing, please review the meeting agenda posted at MalibuCity.org/AgendaCenter and follow the directions for public participation. 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.

COASTAL COMMISSION APPEAL – For projects appealable to the Coastal Commission, an aggrieved person may appeal the City Council’s approval to the Coastal Commission within 10 working days of the issuance of the City’s Notice of Final Action. Appeal forms may be found online at www.coastal.ca.gov or in person at the Coastal Commission South Central Coast District office located at 89 South California Street in Ventura, or by calling 805-585-1800. Such an appeal must be filed with the Coastal Commission, not the City.

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.

If there are any questions regarding this notice, please contact the assigned case planner.

Yolanda Bundy, Community Development Director
Publish Date: January 15, 2026
372
1 Aakash Shah
From: Wolter Mehring
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2025 4:41 PM
To: Aakash Shah
Subject: Re: Appeal no 24-010
Thank you!
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 17, 2025, at 2:52 PM, Aakash Shah <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello,
The original home was destroyed in Woolsey Fire. The owner submitted a Planning Verification Application (PVWF) No. 21-034 to rebuild 3,872 sq. ft. residence with attached garage. This was approved in Sep 2020. The construction for this approved rebuild has not started.

Then the owner submitted another application, a Coastal Development Permit (CDPWF) No. 23-004, to add 4,620 sq. ft. to the approved residence under PVWF application. So, the total size of the residence with attached garage and small restroom for the tennis court is :
8,492 sq. ft.

Let me know if you have more questions.

Thank you,
<image001.png>
Aakash Shah
Contract Planner | Community Development Department
Office: (310) 456-2489 ext.385
23825 Stuart Ranch Road | Malibu, CA 90265
<image002.png>
<image003.png>
<image004.png>
<image005.png>
<image006.png>
373

EXHIBIT G
2 From: Wolter Mehring
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2025 5:04 PM
To: Aakash Shah <[email protected]>
Subject: Appeal no 24-010

Hi Aakash,
i hope this email finds you well.

i generally dont care much about what people do with their properties. But we received this notice for 29738 Cuthbert and am wondering if the 4,620 addition is actually an addition to an existing home and, if so, how bid the existing home is.

thanks for any clarification you can provide.

Regards,

Wolter Mehring
(
374

Agenda Item # 1.A.

Supplemental
Council Agenda Report
To: Mayor Riggins and the Honorable Members of the City Council Prepared by: Aakash Shah, Contract Planner
Reviewed by: Yolanda Bundy, Community Development Director Tyler Eaton, Assistant Community Development Director
Approved by: Rob Duboux, Interim City Manager
Trevor Rusin, Interim City Attorney
Date prepared: February 17, 2026 Meeting date: February 18, 2026 Subject: Appeal of Planning Commission Resolution No. 24-39 Regarding Coastal Development Permit No. 23-004 (29738 Cuthbert Road, APN 4469-041-011, Owner Malibo LLC, Appellant Charlotte Frieze Jones, for Malibu Park Neighbors Group)
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Either: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 26-05 denying Appeal No. 24-010, determining the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, and approving Coastal Development Permit-Woolsey Fire No. 23-004, Site Plan Review No. 23-026 and Demolition Permit No. 24-020, an application to allow for the construction of a 4,620 square-foot addition to a like-for like rebuild of a destroyed singlefamily residence approved under Planning Verification-Woolsey Fire No. 21-034, enlargement of the existing swimming pool and spa, reconfiguration of the existing driveway, hardscape, landscape, grading, improvements to the existing tennis court; demolition of existing hardscape and landscape, and installation of a new onsite wastewater treatment system; including a site plan review for construction of the residence over 18 feet in height not to exceed 24 feet in height located in the Rural Residential-Two acre (RR-2) zoning district at 29738 Cuthbert Road (Malibo LLC); or 2) Direct staff to bring back a resolution consistent with the City Council’s decision.

DISCUSSION: After the distribution of the agenda report, it has come to staff’s attention that correspondence submitted by the applicant on July 11, 2025, was inadvertently excluded from the agenda report. The correspondence is attached hereto.

ATTACHMENTS: Correspondence submitted by Applicant, dated July 11, 2025 City Council Meeting
02-18-26
Item

1.A.

Applicant Response to Appeal
Project: 29738 Cuthbert Road - PVWF 21-034 & CDP 23-004 Text Key:

Appellant’s Submitted Appeal
Applicant Comments/Response
______________________________________________________________________

PART ONE
Project Being Appealed
Coastal Development Permit-Woolsey Fire No. 23-004, An application to allow for the construction of a (1)4,620 square-foot addition to a destroyed single-family residence approved under Planning Verification-Woolsey Fire No. 21-034, (2)extension of the existing swimming pool and spa, (3)reconfiguration of the existing driveway, hardscape, (4)landscape, grading, (5)improvements to the existing tennis court; (6)tennis pavilion; demolition of existing hardscape and landscape, (7)and installation of a new onsite wastewater treatment system; including a site plan (8)Review for construction of the residence over 18 feet in height not to exceed 24 feet in height.

Applicant Response:

The introduction of the project by Charlotte shows she did not study the project well, and she made assumptions based on her provision and preferences.
(1) The project follows the 10% addition per code
(2) Not an extension of the pool, but changing its shape to stay 100 feet away from the water stream
(3) Not a reconfiguration of the driveway, but a replacement and comply with the fire codes
(4) The landscape stays the same except for removing the cypress trees in front to provide a view corridor from Cuthbert to the ocean (5) The surface cracks are being repaired, surrounding landscape screening burnt by fire being replaced, and permitted lighting being removed to comply with the dark sky ordinance
(6) The tennis pavilion was an existing structure
1 (7) The existing septic system adjacent to water course abandoned and removed, new planned septic system is moved away from water course (8) The project follows all the required height limits
Background Summary
The owner's 2,276sf residence, garage 484sf, guest house 484sf and pool house 276sf and barn 1,500sf were destroyed in the Woolsey Fire. Owner applied for a Planning Verification to build 3,872sf (3,520sf plus 10%) which was approved on 9-28-2021. A 1,520sf portion of the main house - the proposed kitchen - was located in the ESHA buffer of a mapped blue line stream. See Planning Verification Plans AO.0 (8492sf residence); A0.00 Portion in red is 1520 sf kitchen area portion in ESHA buffer) and A0.8 (Open roof deck and raised kitchen roof in ESHA buffer).

Planning Verifications are granted if an Owner is rebuilding their new home in the same location as the destroyed home plus 10%. In this instance the original home was located in the ESHA buffer. The Planning Commission and Public were under the impression that this was a fire rebuild and the only reason it was allowed in the ESHA buffer was because the new residence was grandfathered.

What was never revealed to the Commissioners and the Public was that the Planning Verification was not for a new "like for like" residence but rather for the kitchen area of a new 8,492sf residence which is what the Owner always planned to build. The Owner never intended to rebuild the former residence plus 10%.

Applicant Response:

Per the description of the CDP No. 23-004, the application was for an addition and not a new residence. As described in the project overview section of Page 2 of the July 15, 2024 and Page 2 of the February 21, 2023 Planning Agenda reports, the project was for additions to a previously approved residence that was approved under PVWF No. 21-034. The addition was processed as a coastal development permit application because the proposed addition did not qualify for an exemption from the Coastal Act based on the criteria contained in Chapter 13 of the City’s Local Implementation Plan (LIP), specifically sections 13.4.1 and 13.4.6. LIP Section 13.4.1 could not be applied because the project was not an addition to an existing structure and the project was also adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat area. Furthermore, the addition did not meet the criteria listed in LIP Section 13.4.6. Consistent with the requirements of LIP Section 13.3(A) the property owner filed a coastal development permit application consistent with LIP Section 13.6.1.
2 Additionally, it should be noted that the scope of work approved under PVWF No. 21-034 satisfied the criteria contained in LIP Section 13.4.6.

Specifically, consistent with LIP Section 13.4.6(A)(1), the PVWF approved a replacement structure that met the LIP’s definition of a dwelling including the required parking which was consistent with the previously existing use prior to the fire.

Consistent with LIP 13.4.6(A)(2), the approved replacement dwelling did not exceed either the floor area, height, or bulk of the destroyed structure by more than ten (10) percent. Lastly, the replacement dwelling was generally sited in the same location on the affected property as the destroyed structure and did not reduce any required ESHA or structure setbacks. It should be noted that development approved under the PVWF application met the definition of a dwelling and included the required offsite parking and did not rely on proposed addition to be built. The CDP application and the PVWF application were not functionally related.

In addition, as discussed throughout the July 15, 2023 staff report, the development that was proposed as part of the CDP application was considered and reviewed as new development per the definitions section of the LIP. Consistent with the LIP ESHA requirements for new development, the scope of work that was approved provided the required 100-foot setback buffer as required by LIP Section 4.6.1(A) and no work was approved to take place within that buffer.

The development taking place within the 100-foot riparian buffer was approved through the PVWF application and consists of the replacement of development that previously was previously approved and existed in that area. That development is not part of the CDP application.

After the Planning Commission approval, the Appellant, when prepping for this appeal, discovered the Planning Verification was not for a fire rebuild but for the kitchen area of a much larger 8,492sf structure.

This was never a fire rebuild. Nothing should have been grandfathered. This is a new house and cannot be built in ESHA buffer per code.

3 Applicant Response:

The subject property is a Woolsey Fire affected parcel and the owner did obtain a PV approval for the main residence. The application that is the subject of this appeal was reviewed as new development and was not grandfathered.

The scope of work proposed under CDP No. 23-004 is considered new development and therefore is being treated as such and is being processed as a CDP application. The development is required to comply with LIP Section 4.6.1(A). Consistent with LIP Section 4.6.1(A) the scope of work proposed under the CDP application maintains the required 100 foot buffer and no work is proposed in that area.

If this information had been known to the Planning Commission, they would have most likely denied this Addition and the project as a whole. We are asking the Council to deny this Addition and uphold this appeal.

Applicant Response:

This project involves an addition. The original 2,276 sq. ft. main house remains entirely in its original pre-fire location. No variance is requested for this project. The entire building complies with PV requirements, and the new addition fully meets all current code standards.

As discussed throughout both Planning Commission Agenda reports, the project was for an addition to a previously approved Planning Verification.

LIP Section 13.4.6 defines the criteria a rebuild application must meet to qualify for an exemption from the requirement of a CDP. The PVWF application did qualify for an exemption from 13.4.6, was processed pursuant to Malibu Municipal Code (MMC) Section 17.60.020, and that scope of work did not require review by the Planning Commission, nor was it included in the subject CDP.
_________________________________________________________ 4 PART TWO
Denial Required
A denial of this so-called Addition is required for the following reasons:

1. This is Not a Fire Rebuild
Rebuilds must meet all the requirements described in the City of Malibu LCP Local Implementation Plan 13.4.6 Structures Destroyed by Natural Disaster.

Applicant Response:

This rebuild satisfies all the requirements of LCP and Malibu Municipal Code.

As described in both the February 2023 and July 2024 applications the scope of work is for an addition to a previously approved PVWF application. Furthermore, should this application be denied it will not affect the status of PVWF No. 21-034 and the residence could commence construction.

The subject CDP is for an addition to the previously approved replacement structure and therefore not subject to LIP Section 13.4.6. LIP Section

13.4.6 is an exemption from the requirement of a CDP and therefore an exemption from meeting that standard of review.

Consistent with LIP Section 13.3 the scope of work proposed required the processing of a CDP application and one was filed pursuant to LIP Section LIP Section 13.6.1. The July 15, 2024 Planning Commission Agenda Report demonstrates the proposed addition’s consistency with the requirements contained in the City’s LCP for new development. The scope of work previously approved by the PVWF was not part of the scope of work under consideration by the Planning Commission nor does the review of the PVWF fall under the Planning Commission’s purview for review.

This project follows all Malibu Municipal Code and Local Implementation Plan requirements.

LCP 13.4.6
5 LCP 13.4.6 refers to a specific section within the Malibu Local Implementation Plan (LIP). This section outlines the requirements for replacing structures destroyed by natural disasters, according to the California Coastal Commission. Specifically, it states that the replacement of any structure (other than a public works facility) destroyed by a disaster must comply with the LCP's provisions. If any other City permits are needed, they must also be obtained. This section emphasizes that the LCP's provisions take precedence over any conflicts with the City's Zoning Ordinance, meaning the LCP's guidelines must be followed, as stated in a Malibu City Council agenda report.

The replacement of any structure, other than a public works facility, destroyed by a disaster provided that the replacement structure meets all the following criteria:

A. It is for the same use as the destroyed structure;
Applicant Comment:

Yes, it was, and it is residential use.

B. It does not exceed either the floor area, height, or bulk of the destroyed structure by more than 10 percent, and
C.It is sited in the same location on the affected property as the destroyed structure.

Applicant Comment:

The main residence, pool, garage, and landscaping remains the same.

As used in this section, "Structure" includes landscaping and any erosion control structure or device which is similar to that which existed prior to the occurrence of the disaster.

This replacement structure exceeds the size of the structure destroyed by the Woolsey Fire, a Natural Disaster.

A. Above cannot be met. It is not the same use as the destroyed structure. The destroyed structure was a rebuild of the residence and this is a 1,520sf kitchen.

Applicant Comment:

The size of the kitchen does not alter the use of the project—it was, is, and will remain a residential use.
6 These cannot meet the requirements. The proposed structure at 29738 Cuthbert exceeds the floor area, height and bulk of the destroyed structure by more than 10%.

Applicant Comment:

The fire-destroyed house maintains its original footprint, and the proposed addition complies fully with all applicable floor area and height regulations.

This is not located in the same location. The proposed structure cannot meet the footprint of the pre-fire building, pool, terraces and driveway. This exceeds that of the original structure by more than 10%.

Applicant Comment:

The PV structures and the proposed structure share the same footprint as the original PV. The additional square footage complies fully with all current code requirements, requires no variances, and satisfies all applicable regulations.

This is not a like for like fire rebuild.

The CDP for this Addition project must be denied.

Applicant Comment:

The Appellant is attempting to include the scope of work previously approved under the Planning Verification with the CDP application. The CDP application is a separate scope of work from the PVWF application.

The CDP application does not propose the development of a new residence (dwelling unit). Chapter 2 of the LIP defines a single-family dwelling, as containing a dwelling unit which is described as one or more rooms in a building or portion thereof designed, intended to be used or used for occupancy by one family for living and sleeping quarters and containing only one kitchen. The scope of the proposed addition does not constitute a dwelling but rather an addition to a dwelling because it does not contain a kitchen. Since the scope of work proposed under the CDP application is an addition, the City processed the addition as new development, and that scope of work was required to meet the requirements of the LIP for new development.

7 2. This Is Not An Addition.

In more than one instance in the July 15, 2024 staff report The Project was described as an Addition,
An example: "the project is for additions to the existing residence approved under the Planning Verification and other exterior site improvements" (7-15-24 Staff Report page 9). It is important to note additions are made to an existing structure and in this instance, there is no existing residence for the Addition to be added on to. For this reason, this is not an approval of an Addition but rather one for a new 8,492sf residence.

Applicant Response:

This is an existing permitted structure catastrophically destroyed by a wildfire. Under that existing permit the structure exists. This project is not categorized as a new development. There is a clear distinction between vacant land with no prior structure and rebuilding a structure that was lost due to fire.

The recommended action on page 1 of the July Planning Commission Agenda Report describes the project as, “Consider Coastal Development Permit-Woolsey Fire (CDPWF) No. 23-004 for the construction of a 4,620 square foot addition to a destroyed single-family residence with an attached garage approved under Planning Verification-Woolsey Fire (PVWF) No. 21-034. Furthermore, page 2 of that same report describes the project as, “The proposed additions to the previously approved residence are sited outside the 100-foot buffer from the stream.” Lastly, given that a residential structure did not physically exist, the proposed scope of work did not qualify for an exemption per LIP 13.4.1 and therefore was required to obtain a CDP and comply with the development criteria contained in the City’s LCP. The standard of review applied for the addition was not given any benefit of the exemption contained in LIP Section 13.4.6.

Even if one determines that it doesn't have to be an existing structure, this Addition cannot be approved because it is to be attached not to a fire rebuild of a destroyed residence but rather to the kitchen area of the 8,492sf residence, which is not grandfathered to be in the ESHA buffer.

8 Applicant Response:

The kitchen, dining, and living areas remain in the same location as they were prior to the fire. The previously scattered structures—such as the pool room, garage, and storage—have been reconfigured into a more consolidated layout, which reduces impact on the environment.

As discussed previously, the scope of work approved under PVWF 21-034 was consistent with the criteria contained in LIP Section 13.4.6.

Specifically, 13.4.6(A)(1) in that the approved replacement structure was for the same use as the structure that it replaces; meaning that the replacement structure met the LCP’s definition of single-family dwelling.

A single-family dwelling contains sleeping, bathing, and cooking facilities. The Appellant’s incorrect description of the project ignores the merits of the previously approved PV application and also the fact that the scope of work proposed in the CDP application is consistent with LIP Section 4.6.1(A) and provides the required 100 foot buffer between the proposed development and the onsite ESHA resource.

3. It Is a New Project.

This property is in the same ownership both pre and post Woolsey fire. If it were the intention of the Owners to rebuild just their former residence plus the allowable 10%, it would be a 2,276sf fire rebuild plus 10% and could be constructed in the same buffer location as the original house.

As you can see in the original Fire rebuild plans approved 9-28-21, this so-called 4,620sf Addition, was always part of a much larger 8,492sf residence and was on the plans submitted with the Woolsey Fire Planning Verification portion of the residence which is located in the ESHA buffer This was always to be an 8,492sf residence with the kitchen area located in the ESHA buffer (See PVWF page A0.0). Thus, this is not an Addition and therefore it must be denied.

Applicant Response:

This project is proposed for the Bolour Family to recover from the Woosley fire, and it follows the Malibu Municipal Code and Local Implementation Plan. There are no advanced comments from the Coastal Commission. The addition and total floor area have been calculated based on the lot size and fully comply with all applicable Malibu City Codes and regulations.

9 The PV application and CDP application are separate applications. The PV application determination was based on LIP Section 13.4.6 and MMC Section 17.60.020. The addition to the previously approved structure sought entitlement through the City’s CDP process. No portion of the review for the addition benefited from an exemption from the LIP or from the City’s nonconforming code allowances contained in MMC Section 17.60.020.

The addition was reviewed for conformance with the residential development standards contained in both LIP Section 3.6 and MMC

17.040.40; Furthermore, the project was also reviewed for conformance with LIP Chapters 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 15. The determinations made by the Planning Commission in Resolution No. 24-39 demonstrate that the applicable LIP findings were made in the affirmative for the addition.

4. Necessary Findings for a CDP Cannot Be Made. Project Must be Denied.

In order to approve a Coastal Development Permit for this proposed addition, all of the 4 findings set forth in LIP 13.9 must be made.

13.9. FINDINGS are:

All decisions on Coastal Development Permits shall be accompanied by written findings:

A. That the project as described in the application and accompanying materials, as modified by any conditions of approval, conforms with certified City of Malibu Local Coastal Program; and
B. If the project is located between the first public road and the sea, that the project is in conformity with the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act of 1976 (commencing with Sections 30200 of the Public Resources Code).

C. The project is the least environmentally damaging alternative.

D. If the project is located in or adjacent to an environmentally sensitive habitat area pursuant to Chapter 4 of the Malibu LIP (ESHA Overlay), that the project conforms with the recommendations of the Environmental Review Board, or if it does not conform with the recommendations, findings explaining why it is not feasible to take the recommended action.
10 The following 2 necessary findings cannot be made:

Finding A. That the project as described in the application and accompanying materials, as modified by any conditions of approval, conforms with certified City of Malibu Local Coastal Program.

The portion of the residence was allowed in ESHA buffer because it was supposed to be a rebuild of the original home in that location. However, this was never intended to be a fire rebuild. It was designed to be the kitchen area of an 8,492sf residence.

In fact, the application for the Planning Verification says:

Finding B. 'The project proposes a single-family residence using a combination of existing house footprint and a new footprint" (page 1 Fire rebuild plans approved 9-28-21).

The original footprint is the portion of the residence in the ESHA buffer and the new footprint is the so-called Addition.

The Owner is taking advantage of the Woolsey Fire Verification procedure to obtain approval of the kitchen area portion of an 8,492sf proposed residence under the guise of the reconstruction of the residence destroyed in a fire. This kitchen area and the steps leading to the proposed kitchen roof deck clearly are not a fire rebuild and therefore are not allowed in the buffer setback from a blue line stream.

Since this, in reality, is not a fire rebuild of the existing residence, the kitchen portion of the 8,492sf proposed residence is not allowed in the buffer. It, therefore, doesn't conform to the certified Malibu Local Coastal Program.

Applicant Response:

As previously explained, the project approval sequence has been properly followed, and there is no doubt that this is an addition to a fire-rebuilt structure. The fact that the original building was destroyed in the fire should not prevent the addition—especially since it fully complies with all applicable codes. The proposed kitchen remains within the original pre-fire footprint.

As described in the Planning Commission Agenda Report for the CDP application, the PV application and CDP application are separate applications. The PV application met the requirements of LIP Section

13.4.6 and MMC Section 17.60.020 in that the application approved a 11 structure the per the definition of the LIP met the criteria of a single-family dwelling and therefore the replacement structure was for the same use as the structure that was destroyed.

As discussed previously, the scope of work approved through the PV application did not rely on the approval of the CDP. The CDP for the addition was reviewed for conformance with both the LCP and MMC.

The concern that the CDP is approving development within the required ESHA buffer is erroneous in that the scope of work reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission through Resolution 24-39 demonstrates that the project is consistent with the requirements of LIP Section 4.6.1(A) and no development is being approved that will take place within the required 100-foot buffer.

Finding C. The project is the least environmentally damaging alternative.

This project is not the least environmentally damaging. To qualify as such, the portion of the structure in the ESHA Buffer must be taken out of the buffer and a smaller project be designed that conforms to the neighborhood character.

Applicant Comment:

The proposed project includes the replacement of the pre-fire septic system to ensure it is located away from the blue line stream. Additionally, the project is being developed in collaboration with Fish and Wildlife to enhance the condition of the blue line stream, protect its habitat, and remove unnatural materials.

The Technical Review Sheet dated January 17, 2024 indicates they are grading almost the entire site except in ESHA and the tennis court.

And a smaller project would require less grading so it would be less environmentally damaging.

Applicant Response:

The statement that a smaller house will necessarily be less environmentally damaging is not accurate. The thoughtfully designed project follows the contour lines of the land, stepping down gradually to minimize grading. The concentrated layout allows for more open space and landscaping, contributing to a more environmentally sustainable design.

12 The July 15, 2025 Planning Commission Agenda report discusses alternative projects to the proposed project and provides a basis for justification for why the proposed design is the least environmentally damaging alternative. As discussed in the Planning Commission Agenda Report, the site was previously developed and subsequently graded and cleared as part of the State of California’s requirements for post disaster hazards remediation. Given the actions that have taken place to date, the amount or location of grading is not significantly reduced with a smaller development footprint.

Furthermore, the proposed development will not result in the enlargement of the previously approved and disturbed pre-fire building pad. Lastly, as described in the July 15, 2024 Planning Commission Agenda Report, relocation or reorientation of the structure may result in increased site disturbance to provide the required fire department access.

In addition, the term "least environmentally damaging alternative" is a principle within the California Coastal Act and does not have a specific definition. Nevertheless, the coastal act is concerned with finding alternatives that result in the least harm to coastal resources. As demonstrated in the Planning Commission’s determinations that are contained in Resolution No. 24-39, the scope of work approved by the CDP is consistent with the City’s LCP and was determined to not harm coastal resources, specifically the scope of work provides the required 100-foot buffer from the onsite ESHA resource.

The appellant cites conformance with neighborhood character; however, neighborhood character is specifically limited by LIP Section

13.27.5(A)(2) and 13.27.5(B)(2) to a finding for either a Site Plan Review request or Minor Modification request and not a general LCP finding that applies to the project as a whole nor is it required finding for residential development that is contained in LIP Section 3.6.

Neighborhood Character as criteria to consider as part of the review process for applications was initiated by the City Council on August 28, 2019. City Staff returned to the Council on February 25, 2019 to discuss various options to address the neighborhood character finding and at that meeting, staff was directed to return with an ordinance that proposed reducing TDSF and considering the average size of surrounding homes in 13 the neighborhood. Staff returned to the Council on July 8, 2019 regarding this matter and at that meeting, the City Council did not take action on the proposed zone text amendment (ordinance) and removed the program from the City’s workplan and therefore no such criteria or ordinance was ever adopted.

Since 2 of the four necessary findings can't be made, the CDP for this addition project must be denied.

A new application has to be submitted for a new project that is not in the ESHA buffer.

Since it was always the Owners' intention to rebuild one 8,492sf house, this Addition also has to be denied because it would be attached to a proposed kitchen structure which is not allowed in an ESHA buffer. In the future, when the Owner applies for a new residential project, no portion of it can be constructed in the ESHA buffer.

But the intention of the Owner was always to construct an 8,492sf structure which they have said is allegedly for family gatherings and use by family members.

The Owner took advantage of the fire rebuild rules to have the kitchen area portion of the residence built in the pre-fire home's location in an ESHA Buffer. Under the LIP, construction is not allowed in an ESHA Buffer when a project can be built outside the buffer in a different location on the site.

Applicant Response:

Prior to the fire, the addition to the house would not have been subject to any specific requirements, meaning the kitchen would have remained within the buffer zone. Preventing the client from adding the proposed addition and maintaining the pre-fire footprint would unfairly penalize the Applicant. The appeal must be denied due to a lack of evidence as it relies on hearsay and personal preference, rather than being based on code, facts, and tangible evidence.

In reality, this is the construction of a new 8,492sf residence, a portion of which is being constructed in the ESHA buffer in violation of the Malibu Local Coastal Program.

Applicant Response:

This project is a fire rebuild, as the house was destroyed in the Woolsey Fire. The seven years of delays in the process does not change the fact that this is a fire rebuild. If the fire had never occurred, the client would have completed the addition and would already be occupying the property, rather than being stuck in this prolonged process. The appeal is not based on substantial evidence or violations of any codes. Rather, it is driven by 14 accusations, attempts to sway public opinion, and false claims that the property will be turned into a rehabilitation facility. These unfounded assertions have unfairly burdened the Applicant, leading to the imposition of restrictions on the land deed.

The appellant misstates the project. The CDP is not for a residence; it is for the addition to a previously approved residence. The work that was approved to take place within the previously existing developed pad and building footprint was approved through a PV application. Both LIP Section 13.4.6 and MMC Section 17.60.020 allow for the replacement of a structure destroyed by disaster in its previously existing location and this is what took place. The scope of work that falls under the CDP application is consistent with LIP 4.6.1(A) in that no work was proposed or approved within 100 feet of the onsite stream ESHA. The construction of the residence is independent of the proposed addition considered under the CDP application.

5. Piecemealing Development
This is one residence being processed in 2 stages. Stage one is the kitchen and stage two is the Addition. This should not be allowed especially since 1,520sf are to be constructed in an ESHA buffer which is prohibited under these circumstances. A Planning Verification should have never been issued for this kitchen area since it is not a Fire Rebuild.

Applicant Response:

As discussed previously, the scope of work approved under the PV application consists of a standalone residential structure that meets the criteria contained in LIP Section 13.4.6 and MMC Section 17.60.020.

The addition was processed as a CDP since it did not qualify for an exemption from the requirements of a CDP. Furthermore, the City’s LCP does not define the reconstruction of a structure destroyed by a disaster as New Development.

Since the replacement structure had been previously approved through a PV and did not meet the definition of new development, there were no other applications for new development pending with the City at the time that this CDP application was submitted. Lastly, had the house approved under the PV application or pre-fire house physically existed at the time 15 the CDP for the addition was submitted to the City, the standard of review would have been the same. With respect to zoning ordinances and review, the applicant, did not benefit from this being a fire affected property

6. Smaller Project is Allowed Under LIP.

The total maximum allowable square footage is the maximum size residence allowed. It is not guaranteed by right. The LIP says a structure can be "up to" the maximum TMSF.

The Planning Commission and the Council always have the discretion to deny this addition and require a smaller project.

Then planning director Richard Mollica, stated in the first hearing on this project on February 21, 2023, that the project could be smaller and could be denied on the basis it is too large. Mr. Mollica said at 2:38 on the video ''As Commissioners you feel you cannot make the findings and you would like to see a smaller home on the site and you feel it is out of character, that is where the Commission has its discretion.

Applicant Comment:

Taking former Director Mollica’s comment into consideration, the Commission made an informed decision supporting the size as submitted and approved the project.

You have the ability to say you can't make the findings for it is out of character." Applicant Comment:

The fact that this project has been approved by the Planning Commission demonstrates that it has been found to be in harmony with its surroundings. The design is tailored to meet the Applicant family’s needs, incorporating features such as a ramp for a disabled family member and a kitchen that aligns with their requirements.

In fact, a smaller project is required to meet the Character of the Neighborhood.

Applicant Response:

Neighborhood character relates to a finding that must be made for the requested Site Plan Review (SPR) for construction over 18 feet in height per LIP Section 13.27.5(A)(2) and is not a residential development standard contained in LIP Section 3.6 and therefore only applies to the requested SPR. Per the LIP, the question is, does the portion of the residence that requires the SPR fit the character of the neighborhood; the 16 square footage, siting, and layout are guided by the development standards contained in LIP Section 3.6.

Furthermore, as discussed previously, the City Council directed staff to study and develop a neighborhood character development standard on August 28, 2017. City Staff returned to the Council on February 25, 2019 to discuss various options to address the neighborhood character finding and at that meeting staff was directed to return with an ordinance that looked at reducing TDSF as a way to regulate and evaluate neighborhood character. Staff returned to the Council on July 8, 2019 and at that meeting, the City Council did not take action on the zone text amendment and removed the program from the City’s workplan and therefore no such criteria was ever adopted and neighborhood character remained only in the LIP section providing guidance on site plan review requests.

7. Neighborhood Character
Preservation of neighborhood character is another reason for this project to be denied.

Neighborhood character refers to the 'look and feel of an area'.

Applicant Comment:

This argument appeared before the Council before, and when it did the Council voted against size as a measure of character based on outpouring of community sentiment.

As discussed previously, on July 8, 2019 the City Council did not take action on the zone text amendment that would have made neighborhood character a general development standard that would have affected the TDSF or size of a residence, and therefore no such criteria was ever adopted and neighborhood character remained only in the LIP section providing guidance on site plan review requests. Based on the actions of the City Council, this is not a development standard to be evaluated beyond its requirement of LIP Section 13.27.5(A)(2).

Prior to the Woolsey Fire, the residence was 2,276sf. With the addition of the square feet of the garage, guest house and pool house, the area totaled 3,520sf. The 10% brought the rebuild total to 3,872sf.
17 This 4,620sf proposed Addition to a yet to be constructed 3,872sf Woolsey Fire rebuild will result in an 8,492sf residence that is out of character with the neighborhood and should be denied.

Malibu Park is made up of many different neighborhoods. Among the properties that make up this particular Malibu Park neighborhood are the following:

The existing neighboring homes are substantially smaller:
29755 Harvester is 3,400 sf plus a guest house 900sf
29748 Harvester is 1,944 sf
29745 Harvester is 1,680 sf
29735 Harvester is 7,246 sf
28725 Harvester's final sf is 4,600 sf and the Planning Commission required the owners to reduce the size of their guest house by 90sf
29756 Cuthbert was 1,720sf prior to the Woolsey Fire
29718 Cuthbert was 3,827sf prior to the Woolsey Fire
29800 Cuthbert is 5,500 sf.
29824 Cuthbert is less than 4,000sf
The average size of these nearby homes is 3,868.55sf.

The proposed house is more than two times the neighborhood average.

Applicant Response:

Many large homes are omitted for the Appellant’s list.

For example nearby:
29685 Cuthbert is 7,250 sf
29934 Cuthbert is 7,572 sf
29623 Cuthbert is 6,782 sf on a smaller lot with extreme visibility 29800 Cuthbert is 5,975 sf on a hillside lot with extreme visibility and significantly less flat buildable land
29735 Harvester is 7,246 sf (per public record)
29600 Harvester is 9,351 sf with extreme visibility and on a hillside with less flat buildable land

A fair assessment should be based on lot coverage and amounts of open space left to nature. The proposed residence is 9.6% of the lot area. The neighborhood is a mix of large and small parcels. The Applicant should not be penalized for owning a large parcel. The size of the house is determined by the lot size, both before and after the fire. An analysis of sites shows that lots range from 20,000 to 181,000 square feet, with 18 structures varying from 2,800 to 9,300 square feet. The building-to-lot ratio ranges from 4.7% to 22.5%. This project’s ratio of building to land is

9.6% - median size.

As previously discussed, the neighborhood character determination that was made by the Planning Commission was required to assess the portion of the project that required the site plan review. The portion of the project related to the site plan review were the portions of the project that are over 18 feet in height and based on Resolution No. 24-39, the Planning Commission determined that the portions of the addition over 18 feet in height were consistent with the neighborhood. No part of LIP

13.27.5(A)(2) required the Planning Commission to consider the size of surrounding development. The ordinance that would have required that type of analysis was removed from the City’s workplan and abandoned.

The analysis requested by the Appellant is contrary to the City Council’s specific direction to staff.

With the proposed Addition of 4,620sf for a total of 8,492sf, the proposed structure at 29738 Cuthbert more than doubles the pre-Woolsey Fire residential structure on the site.

The proposed house would adversely affect the quiet neighborhood's friendly character as it is substantially larger than the nearby properties on Harvester, Cuthbert, and Clover Heights.

Structures like this are destroying the quiet, rural character of this equestrian neighborhood. If this residence is approved others of similar size will follow.

Applicant Comment:

This is conjecture and opinion.

There is insufficient parking on the property for the number of bedrooms and the number of people who would be working on the property. Cuthbert is too narrow to allow street parking.

Applicant Response:

There is ample covered and on site parking. The City’s requirement for single-family residential parking has been to require two enclosed and two unenclosed parking spaces regardless of size or the number of bedrooms.

This practice is consistent with LIP Section 3.14.3 in that it requires more than the minimum of two spaces for any use or development regardless of the size or scope of the use or development. In addition, the proposed project is consistent with LIP Section 3.14.3 in that each of the four spaces 19 provided meet the minimum size for a residential parking space which is 18 feet long by 10 feet wide.

This plan more than doubles the number of bedrooms and has 6 times the number of bathrooms. This will put excessive strain on the water tank on Busch that failed the morning of the Woolsey Fire.

Applicant Response:

The City is not the subject matter expert in this area and the review for adequate water flow for fire purposes and general water service is completed by the Los Angeles County Fire Department and Los Angele County Water District 29. Based on LIP Sections 9.4(S) and (T) projects are required to demonstrate adequate fire-flow water supply in compliance with applicable fire safety regulations and demonstrate the availability of an adequate water supply for fire protection in compliance with applicable fire safety regulations. Based on the Fire Department approved plan (page 34 of the July 15, 2024 Planning Commission Agenda Report) stamped March 18, 2024 and Waterworks approval dated May 13, 2022, the project was determined to have adequate water flow as required by the LIP and as described below.

LIP Section 9.4(S). New development shall provide for emergency vehicle access and adequate fire-flow water supply in compliance with applicable fire safety regulations.

LIP Section 9.4(T). Prior to approval all new development shall demonstrate the availability of an adequate water supply for fire protection in compliance with applicable fire safety regulations.

A structure this size does not allow for the re-planting of native trees and shrubs that were lost during the Woolsey Fire and would help provide habitat for wildlife.

Applicant Response:

This statement is incorrect. There is ample space for planting of habitat support. The Applicant has already volunteered to repair habitat and in response to Appellant’s request to plant screening trees in the southwest corner of the parcel.

Per LCP ESHA Map No. 2, the only onsite ESHA resource is a stream and consistent with LIP Section 4.6.1(A) no development is taking place within the LIP’s required 100-foot buffer area. Furthermore, based on the 20 site-specific information, plans, and review of the City’s ESHA maps, no other ESHA habitat is present on the site.

Furthermore, as stated on page 10 of the July Agenda Report no native trees are or were present in the project area. As part of the CDP standard of review, LIP Chapter 5 requires an assessment for native trees and none were found.

Lastly, both the LIP and MMC ensure adequate planting area through the impermeable surface calculations contained in LIP Section 3.6(I)(1) and MMC Section 17.040.40(A)(11). The approved project results in greater softscape and planting areas than what previously existed. Based on the lot size, the code allows for 25,000 square feet of impervious surfaces (hardscape, building footprint, and driveways) and the project as approved by the Planning Commission proposes 16,932 square feet of impervious surfaces which is less than what previously existed prior to the fire. The addition as proposed results in greater landscaping opportunities than what previously existed prior to the Woolsey fire.

A much smaller footprint would be in character with the neighborhood. The Owners can still have their family gatherings in a smaller structure. Afterall, prior to the Woolsey Fire, these gatherings were held in a residence that was 2,276 sf with a 484sf guest house.

Applicant Response:

The assumption that the size of the house will result in excessive noise is not valid, as the primary residents are elderly individuals seeking a quiet place to enjoy the rural character of the site. This unfounded assumption prompted the applicant to bring Homa, one of the users with mobility issues, to the hearing. Despite her severe pain and difficult situation as a long-time and advanced Multiple Sclerosis (MS) patient, Homa attended the hearing to demonstrate that the house’s ramp was specifically designed to accommodate her needs, not for use as a rehabilitation center, as falsely suggested by the Appellant. These baseless accusations, made without evidence, caused emotional distress and confusion, and further delays of the project. The number of bedrooms is carefully tailored to meet the client’s specific needs. Similarly, the parking arrangements have been designed to accommodate the client’s requirements, and the proposed number of spaces will be more than sufficient for their use.

21 As previously discussed, the neighborhood character determination that was made by the Planning Commission was required to assess the portion of the project that required a site plan review. The footprint of the development was not the subject of the site plan review request. The portion of the project related to the site plan review were the portions of the project that were over 18 feet in height and based on Resolution No. 24-39, the Planning Commission determined that the portions of the addition over 18 feet in height were consistent with the character of the neighborhood. No part of LIP 13.27.5(A)(2) required the Planning Commission to consider the footprint size of surrounding development.

The ordinance that would have required that type of analysis was removed from the City’s workplan and abandoned. The analysis requested by the appellant is contrary to the City Council’s direction to staff.

8. This Project Previously Denied
This project was heard by the Planning Commission twice. At the first Commission hearing on February 21, 2023 the project was denied.

Applicant Comment:

The project was denied because of an unfortunate hot mike moment among the Commissioners with one of the Commissioners present via telephone only, on his way to an airport, and unable to fully participate.

On February 21, 2023, the Planning Commission considered CDP No. 22-003 which is a separate application from CDP No. 23-004.

Furthermore, per the February 21, 2023 Planning Commission Hearing Actions Memorandum, no resolution for denial of the project was adopted.

Per the action memorandum, the Planning Commission, “Directed staff to bring back a Resolution of denial…” In order to deny a project, the Planning Commission must adopt a resolution that contains findings for denial. That action did not occur. MMC 17.04.200 which addresses the required notification of a Planning Commission decisions, states that final decisions by the Planning Commission shall be made by resolution.

Furthermore, one cannot appeal direction to staff. Per 13.20.1(A) A decision or any portion of the decision made by the planning manager under the provisions of this chapter may be appealed to the planning commission by an aggrieved person as defined in Chapter 2 of the Malibu LIP (Definitions). Any decision made by the planning commission may be 22 appealed by an aggrieved person to the city council. In the case of the February 21, 2023 Planning Commission Hearing there was no decision to appeal, as the form of a decision is a resolution.

After the denial, the Owner withdrew the application on July 17, 2023, almost 5 months after denial according to the Geotechnical Report contained in the 7-15-24 staff report. "The scope of the project has not changed from that reviewed and accepted by the City's geotechnical/ consultants in the referenced review letter dated 4-21-2022." (There was no resolution for denial written. Does it take five months to write a resolution of denial? Staff told Appellant that the findings for denial were never made. This seems odd to the Appellants, considering the project was denied on February 21, 2023 according to the Geotechnical Report. Then, the same project was brought before the Commission to be reheard a second time on July 15, 2024 in the hope of getting a different result.

Applicant Comment:

To avoid embarrassment and legal consequences to the City, due to the inter-commissioner hot mike moment, the project was withdrawn and resubmitted with responses to Commission comments.

As stated previously, per the February 21, 2023 Planning Commission Hearing Actions Memorandum, no resolution for denial of the project was adopted. Per the action memorandum, the Planning Commission, “Directed staff to bring back a Resolution of denial…” In order to deny a project, the Planning Commission must adopt a resolution that contains findings for denial. That action did not occur. MMC 17.04.200 which addresses the required notification of a Planning Commission decisions, states that final decisions by the Planning Commission shall be made by resolution.

It was the same project because the scope of the project had not changed from that which was reviewed previously and accepted by the City's Geotechnical consultants, the City Biologist and Environment Health.

This second hearing should never have been allowed once the project was denied by the Commission on February 21, 2023. Stare decisis applies. This is settled law. Every resident deserves certainty as it applies to the City's decisions.

Applicant Comment:

Based on the February 21, 2023 Planning Commission Hearing Actions Memorandum no resolution of denial was approved. Furthermore, per the 23 meeting minutes it was stated that, “Vice Chair Mazza moved and Commissioner Hill seconded a motion to direct staff to bring back a resolution denying Coastal Development Permit-Woolsey Fire No. 22-003…” By making the motion and directing staff to bring back a resolution, it was made clear by the Commission that no decision was made that evening and that a resolution would be brought back at a later date for the Commission to vote on and memorialize their actions.

Once a project is denied, an Owner should not be allowed a second hearing on essentially the same project in the hope of getting a positive result. The first decision of denial by the Planning Commission should have been the final and only decision.

The project before you is the same project that was previously denied on a 3-2 vote. It is in the exact same location, the same size and the same design.

Applicant Comment:

The appeal misstates the actions of the planning commission as documented in the Planning Commission Actions Memorandum and the minutes of that meeting. The Planning Commission’s action was as follows, “Vice Chair Mazza moved and Commissioner Hill seconded a motion to direct staff to bring back a resolution denying Coastal Development Permit-Woolsey Fire No. 22-003…” and no such resolution was adopted.

The initial hearing resulted in a 2-2 vote, in which Commissioner Jennings was absent, a hot mic incident occurred, and a Commissioner elected to depart his home and re-join the meeting while driving to the airport.

The approval, which is the subject of this appeal, was based on a 3-2 vote, after changes were made to the application, including a list of conditions:
- Voluntary Deed Restriction to restrict short term rentals under 30 days
- Voluntary Deed Restriction to prevent uses falling under the category of a drug and/or alcohol rehabilitation facility - Voluntary removal of permitted tennis court lights, removal not required due to their existence predating the Dark Sky ordinance - Condition that the Applicant and adjacent property owner restore creek, per Fish and Wildlife advisory and standards
- Condition to reduce lighting on rooftop deck.
24 Commissioner Peak made the motion to deny the project giving these reasons for denial:
he wasn't comfortable with the lighting, or with an 8,500sf house where a portion of the house was in the ESHA Buffer. He agreed with Commissioner Mazza that just because you can get "up to" the TDSF doesn't mean you get it and that the house doesn't fit the neighborhood. Commissioners Mazza, Hill and Peak agreed that a CDP could not be serial.

At the second hearing, without explanation, Commissioner Peak voted to approve the project stating the entire project was within the allowable TDSF. All of his previous reasons for denial miraculously no longer existed.

We ask that the first Planning Commission decision be upheld. Stare decisis applies.

Applicant Comment:

The project includes the removal of cypress trees and the surrendering of a portion of the property to create view corridors. Additionally, the project has committed to improving the condition of the blue line stream, and the tennis court lights have been eliminated. The project’s lighting design was also revised to comply with the Dark Sky ordinance.

The Council must deny this project. It should not have been heard a second time.

Applicant Comment:

As discussed previously, no action other than to direct staff to return with a resolution of denial was taken at the February hearing and therefore no decision was adopted through a formal resolution. Furthermore, if one were to stand by things decided, then the discussion would revolve around only the Planning Commission’s direction. Direction by the Planning Commission is not a resolution and does not constitute a denial that can be appealed.
______________________________________________________________________

PART THREE
Resolutions with Conditions of Approval: Inaccuracies
We would like to point out the following to the Council:

1. Recital A is not accurate because it states: "that the Planning Verification for this project was approved for the in-kind replacement of a single-family residence." This is inaccurate. The PVWF was for the kitchen area of an 8,492sf residence.

Moreover, this kitchen area PVWF was located in an ESHA buffer which is not 25 permitted. It would have been permitted if it were a replacement of the original house.

Applicant Comment:

The appellant does not accurately describe the scope of work that was approved in the PV application. The scope of work approved under PVWF No. 21-034 satisfied the criteria contained in LIP Section 13.4.6.

Specifically, consistent with LIP Section 13.4.6(A)(1), PVWF No. 21-034 approved a structure that allowed for a residential use in that it met the LIP’s definition of a dwelling which was the previously existing use prior to the fire. Consistent with LIP 13.4.6(A)(2), the approved dwelling did not exceed either the floor area, height, or bulk of the destroyed structure by more than ten (10) percent. Lastly, the replacement dwelling was generally sited in the same location on the affected property as the destroyed structure and did not reduce any required ESHA or structure setbacks. It should be noted that because the development approved under the PVWF application met the definition of a dwelling, it was not functionally related to the scope of work proposed under the CDP and could function on its own.

2. Recital Resolution: History fails to state that the project was previously before the Commission for the first time on February 21,2023 and was denied.

Applicant Comment: The City’s practice has been to list recitals that are related to the project under consideration and past milestones that are related to that Planning Commission determination because they had a bearing on the scope of work. This was done here.

Under Section 2 Environmental Review

3. A. General Coastal Development Permit
It is inaccurate to state: "the proposed project is/or an addition to an existing residence" The approval was for the kitchen area of a proposed 8,492sf Residence and not an existing residence.

Applicant Comment:

This comment is incorrect, as explained multiple times throughout these comments, with supporting evidence, code citations and Planning Commission concurrence.
26 In the General Coastal Development Permit findings section, the project is also described as an addition to a previously approved residence (Finding A3). Furthermore, throughout the Planning Commission Agenda Report, CDP No. 23-004 was described as an application for an addition and not a new residence. As described in the project overview section of Page 2 of the July 15, 2024 Planning Agenda Report, the project was for additions to a previously approved residence that was approved under PVWF No. 21-034. The project was processed as a coastal development permit application because the proposed project did not qualify for an exemption from the Coastal Act based on the criteria contained in Chapter 13 of the City’s Local Implementation Plan (LIP), specifically sections 13.4.1 and

13.4.6. LIP Section 13.4.1 could not be applied because the project was not an addition to an existing structure and also was adjacent to an environmentally sensitive habitat area.

Furthermore, the addition did not meet the criteria listed in LIP Section

13.4.6. Consistent with the requirements of LIP Section 13.3(A) the property owner filed a coastal development permit application consistent with LIP Section 13.6.1.

Lastly, both the title of the resolution and the scope of work approved by the resolution have the project listed as an addition to a previously destroyed residence as well as an addition to a previously approved residence. Neither the project title or scope of work identify this an addition to an existing residence.

Add these Conditions of Approval:

Should the Council deny this appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's second decision on this project, please add the following to the Conditions of Approval:

Add a condition to deny rooftop decks because they create a noise nuisance that will disturb neighbors and wildlife. One of the decks is on top of the kitchen structure in the ESHA buffer and must be denied. The noise emanating from the deck could be harmful to wildlife especially as this is a migratory flyway.

Applicant Comment:

The Coastal Commission accepted the roof deck. Migratory flyway extends over the entire region, and it's not particular to this site. There would be no light on the deck which meets all City Code and LIP requirements.
27 Neither, the MMC or LCP contain criteria or development standards that would affect the location of the roof deck or govern its placement. The only development standard specific to roof decks is LIP Section 3.6(E)(3) which provides an allowance for extra height on beachfront properties to accommodate the required railing.

Add that all lighting shall be 3000 Kelvin or less.

Applicant Comment:

This is required by code, no condition is needed. MMC 17.41.040(A) requires both all properties and all new lighting to comply with the Malibu Dark Sky Ordinance and that would apply to this project.

Add all windows including clerestory windows, skylights and glass doors to be covered with film to diminish the impact and spillage of interior lighting. The city biologist recommended interior night lighting be minimized.

Applicant Comment:

There is no ordinance that addresses interior lighting. The biologist’s comments are general guidance and are included as a condition of approval. The City Council when discussing the Malibu Dark Sky Ordinance discussed regulation of interior lighting, but did not include it in the ordinance. MMC Section 17.41.040(E)(1) states that the Malibu Dark Sky Ordinance does not apply to indoor lighting.

Add conditions that there be no lighting or light spill in the ESHA and ESHA buffer and that all lighting is not reflected off site.

Applicant Comment:

This is already addressed by MMC Section 17.41.050 of the Malibu Dark Sky Ordinance and all properties in the City are required to comply with this ordinance.

Add a condition that the use of rodenticides is prohibited at all times on the property. The dumpsters must be rodent proofed. Include Poison Free Malibu guidelines.

Applicant Comment:

The project will follow Malibu guidelines - no dumpsters.

Add a condition that surface water runoff will be directed away from the OWTS. 28 Applicant Comment:

All surface flow will be directed away from the OWTS.

Add a condition, if needed, an underground stormwater detention basin will be installed.

Applicant Comment:

We will abide by the required code and city standards.

Add a condition that no parking either during or after construction shall be permitted in ESHA.

Applicant Comment:

We will abide by the required code and city standards.

After the July 15, 2024 decision, the owner's architect on August 13, 2024 proposed the following landscape plan:

Add conditions to remove the pre-fire swimming pool from ESHA.

Add a condition that all landscaping in the ESHA buffer shall include all native plants and trees.

Applicant Comment:

All future planting proposed in ESHA will be native and in compliance with California Department of Fish and Wildlife requirements. 29 Add the condition that all plants used to landscape the banks of the blueline stream thrive in a riparian habitat buffer.

Applicant Comment:

All future planting proposed in ESHA will be native and in compliance with California Department of Fish and Wildlife requirements.

The City Biologist has reviewed the proposed project including the landscaping plan and has already added the following conditions:
“No planting or landscaping is permitted within the banks of the mapped blue line stream. The area between the banks lies within the jurisdiction of California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the bottom of the drainage is in the jurisdiction of US Army Corps of Engineers and Regional Water Quality Control Board. Any proposed changes in the drainage would require permits from each of the associated agencies.”
“No non-native plant species shall be approved greater than 50 feet from the residential structure.”
In addition, the biologist reviewed the landscape plan for conformance with LIP Section 4.6.1 which prohibits the planting of non-native or invasive vegetation within the required ESHA buffer.

Add the condition that the tennis court is to be screened with native trees such as Toyon.

Applicant Comment:

This is already proposed. Please see Site Plan provided to Appellant prior to appeal.

Add condition that padded windscreen is to be added around the tennis court to reduce noise
Applicant Comment:

This is already proposed. Please see Site Plan provided to Appellant prior to appeal.
30 ______________________________________________________________________

PART FOUR
Lack of a Fair and Impartial Hearing
The hearing was not fair because the Commission did not have critical information to make an informed decision and the Public did not have this information either. The missing information was the Planning Verification file that the Appellant obtained for this appeal. If the Commission and the Public had had this information, most likely a different Decision would have been reached.

Applicant Response:

This comment is inaccurate. The PVWF file was specifically cited and fully included with the Planning Commission decision. All parties were fully notified, and there is no evidence of impropriety.

Consistent with the requirements of LIP Section 13.6 the application for the addition was properly filed with the City of Malibu. Consistent with LIP Section 13.10, the Planning Department made a determination on the notice and hearing requirements. Consistent with LIP Section 13.11 a public hearing was noticed and conducted. Pursuant to LIP Section 13.12, the required public notice was published and notifications were sent out to surrounding neighboring properties and interested parties describing the project as an addition.

At the time of the hearing, the Planning Commission Agenda Report accurately described the project as an addition and based on the City’s public record, the public hearing took place and both opponents and proponents of the project were afforded the opportunity to speak.

Furthermore, the Planning Commission debated the proposed project for over two hours.

The PV application was not the subject of the CDP application and per both the MMC and LIP, the review and consideration of the PV application is not within the Planning Commission purview. The CDP application was completely separate from the PV application, in that PV application was previously approved and could be built without the issuance of the CDP.
31 Furthermore, while the PV application is available for public viewing, the PV application contains copyrighted material that the City is unable to publish without the copyright’s owner permission.

A commissioner hot mike incident was the only inappropriate event that has occurred in relation to the initial hearing of this project.

See Planning Commission meeting dated February 13th, 2023, linked below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ey31L2eawuc&t=8834s
Time Stamp: 3:07:45
Commissioner John Mazza left his microphone on during the virtual meeting while the meeting was in recess for a 5 minute period. He was heard to be talking to an unidentified party on the phone and communicating actions to be taken on the project.

The incident raised issues of bias and unwarranted private deliberations during the conduct of a public hearing. It compromised the Commission’s impartial and independent position and decision making protocol. The end result was that the application was withdrawn and reheard at a later date.

Since this information was not presented in the staff report, the Decision was not impartial. The lack of this information favored the Applicant over the Public. What was unknown was that the plans for an 8,492sf structure was what the Owner had intended to build from the beginning. The Planning Verification was for just a portion of this huge residence. The Owner never intended to rebuild the grandfathered residence destroyed in the fire even though it was in the ESHA buffer but rather to build the kitchen and roof deck areas of the new residence in the ESHA buffer which is prohibited.

Applicant Comment:

All required information was made available. The Planning Commissioners knew the project and visited the site. The process followed was clear in both the Agenda Report and the Approval Resolution.

The application before the Planning Commission was for an addition. The CDP application was filed consistent with the requirements of LIP Section

13.6 and no part of that section requires the inclusion of the plans from the previously approved planning verification application. Lastly, the staff 32 properly described the CDP application as an addition to the previously approved PV application.

The Commission was not aware that the Addition was not to be attached to a fire rebuild but that it was just the kitchen area of a larger structure. If this had been known, this Addition would have been denied.

Applicant Comment:

This application has always been a clear CDP for an addition to a PVWF, per the Planning Department recommendation to approve, per the Planning Commission Approval Resolution, and per City Code. ______________________________________________________________________

PART FIVE
Decision was Contrary to Law.

This Addition didn't meet the requirements of the Local Coastal Program because a CDP was approved when 2 of the 4 necessary findings couldn't be made.

Applicant Comment:

This is incorrect. All 4 required findings were made and documented by the Agenda Report and Approval Resolution.

This project was never intended to be a fire rebuild but rather a large new 8,492sf residence. No portion of the structure was eligible for the Planning Verification process.

Applicant Comment:

That is incorrect. Per the City of Malibu Municipal Code, the owner is entitled to the replacement of the burned-down structures in their pre-fire positions. To build smarter and reduce environmental impact, the owner consolidated several independent structures into one. In addition, the owner removed a guest house adjoining the blue line and a 2500-gallon septic system.

The kitchen portion of the house was planned to be built in the ESHA buffer which is prohibited when there are other locations on the site the residence could be built. If there are no other locations on the property to locate the proposed residence, a smaller residence would have to be constructed.

Applicant Comment:
33 The project was intended as a consolidated footprint with reduced fuel modification impacts as reviewed and approved by the City Biologist. The project has an active PVWF permit. That permit is in effect and can be built.

Planning Commission Resolution No. 24-39 contains all of the required LIP findings and determinations pursuant to Chapter 13 for the issuance of a CDP. The majority of the Planning Commission determined that all of the required findings could be made in the affirmative.

It violates the General Plan, which describes the character of Malibu Park as rural residential and this proposed project is urban in nature.

It violates the Mission and Vision Statement of the City set forth below:

Applicant Comment:

Both the Malibu Municipal Code and the Local Implementation Plan contain development standards to implement the vision and mission statement of those documents. Specifically, MMC Sections 17.40.030 and

17.40.040 contain development standards that implement MMC Section

17.02.030. Furthermore, LIP Sections 3.5 and 3.6 as well as the associated chapters of the LIP contain development standards to implement the vision and mission statement of the Coastal Act. As demonstrated in both the determinations contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 24-39 and as described in the conformance table shown on Page 7 of the Planning Commission Agenda Report, the project is consistent with the requirements of both the MMC and LIP and no variances are requested.

The project does contain a site plan review for height, but per MMC Section 17.62.060 and LIP Section 13.27, a site plan review is not a variance. Furthermore, both MMC Section 17.62.060 and LIP Section

13.27 contain criteria that must be met to grant approval of the site plan review request; and the Planning Commission made the required findings in the affirmative per Resolution No. 24-39 to grant the site plan review request.

Vision Statement
"Malibu is a unique land and marine environment and residential community whose citizens have historically evidenced a commitment to sacrifice urban and suburban conveniences in order to protect that environment and lifestyle, and to preserve unaltered natural resources and rural characteristics. The people of Malibu are a 34 responsible custodian of the area's natural resources for present and future generations."
Malibu Municipal Code Section 17.02.030
Mission Statement
"Malibu is committed to ensure the physical and biological integrity of its environment through the development of land use programs and decisions, to protect the public and private health, safety and general welfare. Malibu will plan to preserve its natural and cultural resources, which include the ocean, marine life, tide pools, beaches, creeks, canyons, hills, mountains, ridges, views, wildlife and plant life, open spaces, archaeological, paleontological and historic sites, as well as other resources that contribute to Malibu's special natural and rural setting.

Malibu will maintain its rural character by establishing programs and policies that avoid suburbanization and commercialization of its natural and cultural resources.

Malibu will gradually recycle areas of deteriorated commercial development that detract from the public benefit or deteriorate the public values of its natural, cultural and rural resources.

Malibu will provide passive, coastal-dependent and resource-dependent visitor-serving recreational opportunities (at proper times, places and manners) that remain subordinate to their natural, cultural and rural setting, and which are consistent with the fragility of the natural resources of the area, the proximity of the access to residential uses, the need to protect the privacy of property owners, the aesthetic values of the area, and the capacity of the area to sustain particular levels of use".

Malibu Municipal Code Section 17.02.030
Applicant Comment:

As discussed previously, both the Malibu Municipal Code and the Local Implementation Plan contain development standards to implement the vision and mission statement of those documents. Specifically, MMC Sections 17.40.030 and 17.40.040 contain development standards that implement MMC Section 17.02.030. Furthermore, LIP Sections 3.5 and

3.6 as well as the associated chapters of the LIP contain development standards to implement the vision and mission statement of the Coastal Act. Planning Commission Resolution No. 24-39 demonstrates that the project meets the residential development standards contained in both the MMC and LIP.
______________________________________________________________________ 35 CONCLUSION
This is a new 8,492sf structure and requires a totally new CDP.

Applicant Comment:

This is an addition to a current and approved PVWF rebuild. The current and approved PVWF could be built at this time.

Instead of applying for the kitchen area in ESHA as a fire rebuild and then asking for this 4,620 Addition, the owner should have applied for a CDP for an 8,492 sf residence located out of the ESHA Buffer.

Applicant Comment:

The Applicant followed the process as directed by City staff and consistent with the Malibu Municipal Code.

The proposed 8,492sf structure is not a 3,872sf Woolsey Fire Re-build plus a 4,620sf Addition. The rebuild was never intended to be constructed.

At 8,492sf, more than double the size of neighboring houses, the structure is out of keeping with the neighborhood character. Since the Woolsey Fire, the neighborhood character has been eroded by developers who ignore the rural character and peaceful lifestyle enjoyed by residents and wildlife alike.

Instead of applying for the kitchen area in ESHA as a fire rebuild and simultaneously asking for this 4,620 Addition, the owner should have applied for a CDP for an 8,492sf residence located out of the ESHA Buffer. Most importantly, the Addition before you is not an Addition to a fire rebuild. It is an Addition to a proposed kitchen area in an ESHA buffer which is not allowed. In the PVWF plans you can see that this is one residence.

Therefore, the Council must deny this Addition and tell the owner he has to come back with an application for a residence that is located out of the ESHA buffer and fits in with the neighborhood character.

Applicant Comment:

The project footprint in ESHA buffer is a fire catastrophe replacement.

Additionally, the pre-fire footprint has been significantly reduced, and a functioning septic system, 75’ from blue line, is proposed to be voluntarily removed.

The proposed construction including kitchen, adjacent terrace, staircase and a portion of the swimming pool are in the ESHA buffer. A roof deck atop the kitchen and illuminated by the kitchen's clerestory windows intrudes noise, light and human activity into the ESHA and are not allowed in the ESHA buffer.
36 Applicant Comment:

As discussed previously, the CDP that was approved by the Planning Commission, does not propose any development within the required 100-foot ESHA buffer.

If this structure is approved, it will open the floodgates for future, irresponsible development in Malibu Park as well as other neighborhoods in Malibu. The properties on either side of 29738 Cuthbert are also burnouts poised for re-construction. The owners of these properties are the only neighbors to write letters of approval. There were over 50 letters requesting denial.

Applicant Comment:

Adjoining neighbors are most important to compatibility. Both adjoining neighbors have approved the project. Many of the 50 signatures are outside of this project area and are part of political organizations opposed to development.

The determination of this application is not precedent setting. As described there were no variances associated with the application. The proposed scope of work meets the criteria contained in MMC Sections

17.40.030 and 17.40.040 and LIP Sections 3.5 and 3.6 as well as other chapters as applicable. The siting or massing of the addition did not exceed the development standards that currently exist in the code. The Planning Commission’s determinations were not contrary to law. As proposed the addition is consistent with the current zoning ordinances that have been adopted by the City Council as the vehicle to achieve the City’s vision for how residential development should occur within the City.

Furthermore, the application was an addition to a previously issued PV application. The PV application met the criteria in both the MMC and LIP for rebuilds in that not only was the replacement structure within the massing and siting limitations, but the PV application also restored the pre-fire uses on the site. The PV application is independent of the CDP and does not rely on the CDP for compliance with the City’s zoning codes.

A structure this size will erode away at the beautiful setting at the interface of Malibu Park's residential neighborhood and the Santa Monica Mountains. It will chip away at the lifestyle that attracts people to Malibu. Malibu Park has historically been a family 37 neighborhood composed of residents who care profoundly about the wildlife that makes Malibu their home.

Applicant Comment:

The size of the addition and resulting structure is consistent with the requirements of LIP Section 3.6(K) and MMC Section 17.40.040(A)(13).

Furthermore, the siting of the addition is consistent with LIP Sections

3.6(F) and (J) and LIP Section 4.6.1
l am profoundly disappointed that we neighbors have had to come together to protect our neighborhood - to protect the Malibu we love. The decisions and actions of the Planning Department and the Planning Commission have placed an unfair burden upon our community.

Please uphold the Appeal and DENY the CDP for 29738 Cuthbert for the reasons stated above.

Applicant Comment:

Approval or denial of projects is based on the development standards contained in both the LIP and MMC and the Planning Commission determined that those findings can be made in the affirmative.

Furthermore, the Planning Staff does not have the ability to issue approvals for CDP applications that per LIP Chapter 13 require a public hearing. LIP Chapter 13 contains standards that must be met in order for the Planning Commission to issue an approval and Planning Commission Resolution No. 24-39 is evidence of that.
38 Request for Recusal: Councilwoman Haylynn Conrad
39 40
The Applicant requests that Councilwoman Haylynn Conrad recuse herself from participating in the hearing and City Council vote on this Appeal. As shown in the above image, Councilwoman Conrad signed the Appeal as an Appellant.

The City Council is required to uphold and execute a fair and impartial hearing when deliberating and determining the results of appeals. Councilwoman Conrad’s recusal will satisfy this requirement and ensure an absence of bias and a preconceived position on the project.

The Applicant holds Councilwoman Conrad in the utmost esteem and is greatly appreciative of her tremendous service to the City. However, the Applicant is reasonably concerned that someone who signed the Appeal as an Appellant would likely hold a preconceived bias against the project. In order to insure a fair and impartial hearing and avoid any legal conflict, Applicant respectfully requests that Councilwoman Conrad recuse herself in this matter.
41