The celebrity couple said the new home would block their view of the Santa Monica Mountains. However, city says the primary view is the ocean, not the mountains.
By Jonathan Friedman/Special to Malibu Times
A Malibu couple has won another round in their ongoing feud with celebrity couple Barbra Streisand and James Brolin. The Planning Commission voted 4-0, to deny an appeal by Douglas W. Burdge on behalf of the Brolins of Cheryl and Eric Jacobson’s plan to build a new home on their Zumirez Drive property.
Burdge claimed the Jacobsons’ home would block the Brolins’ primary view of the Santa Monica Mountains. The celebrities’ attorney, Frank Angel, said he would appeal the decision to the City Council.
Last June, the Jacobsons’ architect, Robert Leese, received a permit to demolish the 2,058-square foot home on their property to construct a two-story, 4,833 square-foot residence. Burdge filed the Brolins’ appeal later that year. The item was brought to the commission in March, but it was continued with an expectation the two families would resolve the situation. That never happened.
Senior Planner Scott Albright said Burdge’s claim the new home would block the Brolins’ view of the mountains was insufficient because the mountains are not the primary view of the residence, the ocean is. Cheryl Jacobson further contended that the Brolins’ view of the mountains was blocked by vegetation anyway. Leese added that to prevent total blockage of every residence would be a nightmare for the Planning Department.
“If the city tried to protect everybody’s view 360-degrees around the property, it would be absolutely impossible to build anything in Malibu,” he said.
Angel, who spoke on behalf of the Brolins at the meeting, said the proposed property also violated the city code’s Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) setback requirements. He said it was within the parameters of the same area that had caused problems for his clients went they through the planning process to add a structure to their property.
“Either it is an ESHA for both, or it is an ESHA for nobody …” he said. “You can’t call balls strikes and strikes balls depending on who the applicant is.”
But Eric Jacobson said the area of discussion was not the same coastal bluff as the one on the Brolin property. He said the nearest ESHA was 100 feet from the proposed development site, and what Angel was considering was actually nothing more than a small lateral drainage. His hired consultant and the city’s biologist had backed up that claim. But Angel disputed the findings, saying that to call this area not an ESHA didn’t hold water. He further contended the whole situation was unfair.
“This applicant has had no requirement imposed on him to compromise with the neighbors to the south,” he said. “Yet we have gone through plan after plan … compromised and revised our plans … yet the same bluff for the Jacobsons is not an ESHA.”
Eric Jacobson said Angel’s contention was an attempt to make an issue where none existed. Cheryl Jacobson added that, when examined, his concept was silly because it would mean that every lateral drainage off a coastal bluff would be defined as an ESHA.
“You would have the ridiculous result that coastal bluffs run all the way up to the Santa Monica Mountains,” she said.
Planning confirms resolution to recommend MBC denial
Also at the meeting, the commission approved its resolution to recommend a denial of the Malibu Bay Company Development Agreement. Company spokesperson David Reznick spoke at the meeting, contending many of the findings were not based on fact. Although, the commission made some changes to the final resolution, it did not accept all of Reznick’s points. The City Council is expected to begin public hearings on the agreement at its June 9 meeting.
The commission also approved the application for the construction of an eight-unit condominium at Pacific Coast Highway near Carbon Canyon Road. The area had been in dispute for several years, as the owner of the property had received approval from the county to build a 16-unit condominium on the land prior to cityhood. Although construction began in 1991, it was stopped later that year because of the economic downturn. In 1999, the landowner, Gerald Gibbs, wanted to continue with the construction under the county-approved guidelines, but the city challenged his right to do that. Gibbs brought the issue to court, with an out-of-court settlement made in 2001 in which he was granted the right to build an 8-unit condominium, with some entitlements given to accommodate for the structure. In return, the property owner, which is now DS Ventures LLC, will pay the city $30,000 per the sale of each unit for litigation expenses and affordable housing.