Shocked and amazed by the size of a home that was approved by planning staff, the Planning Commission upholds an appeal by a nearby commercial property owner and architect.
By Sylvie Belmond/Staff Writer
The Planning Commission at Monday night’s meeting turned down on appeal a massively sized house that was about to fly through the planning process .
The commission scrutinized plans for a 10,217 square foot house to be built on a bluff above Malibu Road, just west of Bluffs Park, that incorporated structural additions that were not counted in the total square footage.
The house plans included decks, colonnades, and a basement with a six-car garage, a bowling alley and four bedrooms. Looking at the plans, these structures visibly add to the bulk of the house and make the property appear even bigger than it already was, said Ron Goldman, the architect who appealed the approval of the home.
The structures, however, were not included in the square footage equation because the law does not require they be counted in the formula.
The project was ultimately turned down on another technicality.
Goldman said the home did not meet the two-thirds ratio rule. The rule requires the second story of a home to be no bigger in height than two-thirds of the first story.
Goldman owns a commercial building across Pacific Coast Highway from the planned home.
Some neighbors did not like the idea of having such a massive house pass through the legal loopholes of the city code without objection.
One neighbor supported Goldman, though he had not joined in the appeal.
“I feel a bit suckered,” said Mark Zucker, who lives directly west of the proposed house.
Though he owns an 8,000 square foot house on a four-acre lot, the size and scale of the house, said Zucker, “makes my house look like it’s a shack.”
Initially, an approval in concept was given for the home because the applicant had met city-mandated requirements and the plans conformed to the zoning code.
At that time, the project went before the California Coastal Commission for review and the plans came back to the city’s planning department for final approval.
“It was a baked cake. It was done,” said Andy Stern, commission chair.
“But an approval in concept can be rescinded,” said Sheila Powers, assistant planner for Malibu.
In this case, when the appeal came up, errors in calculations for the two-thirds ratio were found.
“They caught it after the approval in concept,” said Powers. “But the appeal was already in process too.”
“It’s ridiculous,” said Goldman, who was upset that the plans he had reviewed had been altered on multiple occasions.
“Being an architect in Malibu, I don’t choose to do this lightly,” he said, referring to his appeal. “But this house is 95 percent second story.”
Attorney Alan Block, who recently handled an application for singer Cher in front of the commission, spoke on behalf of owners Art and Kimberly Silver, and Mike Barsocchini, the applicant. He said the Silvers have gone out of their way to try to accommodate the appellant.
Block indicated the house would be below Pacific Coast Highway and landscaping would be used to screen whatever would have been visible from the highway.
But the Planning Commission concluded that the appellant had cause to appeal.
Although the home was turned down because of the two-thirds rule, commissioners had something to say about the ultimate size of the proposed home.
“You want it to be a structure when it’s convenient to you and you don’t when it’s not,” said Commissioner David Fox, as he prepared to vote on the matter.
“It’s got a basement larger than many homes in Malibu,” concurred Commissioner Ted Vaill.