The Malibu Planning Commission turned down, in a 3 to 2 vote, a request by singer/actor Cher to increase the height of two walls surrounding her property on Pacific Coast Highway at Monday night’s meeting.
The walls surround a portion of the singer’s property that has a tennis court. Cher’s representative, Alan Block, asked for a variance or a grandfathering designation to increase the height of two walls on the north and east sides of the residence to provide safe sports court fencing for the previously approved tennis court.
“We could not make the necessary findings for granting a variance,” said Ed Lipnick, commission chair, in a later interview. “She didn’t show this would not constitute a special privilege.”
The property already has higher walls than normally allowed. The entertainer was permitted high walls by the county and “now she wants even higher walls,” said Lipnick.
As an alternative, she could put up some kind of temporary netting for when the tennis courts are used, said Lipnick in response to concerns that tennis balls may fly onto Pacific Coast Highway and cause accidents.
But not all commissioners agreed. Commissioners David Fox and Ted Vaill voted in favor of the height, despite reservations.
“I voted to approve it with the condition that landscaping would screen the wall on the PCH side and on the east side,” said Vaill, who is concerned that the application was a vested right from county days.
“After cityhood came into play, requiring the garage to be under the tennis court, it pushed the courts up by 18 inches,” explained Vaill in a later interview.
Some commissioners questioned the reasoning behind the request for higher walls, because this is the second time the issue has come before the commission, but with a different reason. A year ago, Cher’s representatives said she needed bigger walls to protect her privacy. Now they say she needs walls that would follow the regulation height for tennis courts, which is 12 feet high.
Though the wall on the north side is 10 feet on the inside, on the outside a berm was put up so it does not appear that high on the PCH side. However, the east side presents a huge looming wall.
“We do not want to have wall fortresses around properties in Malibu,” said Vaill, who still thought that in this case, Block had plausible explanations despite the after-the-fact variance request.
- In other matters, the commission approved, 4 to 1, a new 4,000 square foot house on Zumirez Drive. The project has repeatedly come before the commission for the past year.
Roof height, floor elevation, incorrect story pole placements and back-and-fourth debates between neighbors and property owner representatives culminated in two-hour testimonies to help the commission reluctantly finalize its decision on the matter.
The owner, Agnes Itzahki, and her representative, Marny Randall, came in force with an architect, surveyor, civil engineer and others, to answer the commission’s questions.
They presented an alternate plan that eliminated the need for minor modifications, which were previously requested, thereby hoping to simplify the decision-making process for the commission.
One primary concern was that a neighbor’s view was affected by the project. However, the section of the home blocking the view was not over 18 feet and the commission decided that, despite these valid concerns, they could not turn down the proposal based on that matter.
The homeowner met the objections by eliminating the minor modifications.
The commission found that legitimate attempts were made by the property owner to reduce the floor elevation of the house and she made other efforts to minimize the view impact on the neighbor.
- The commission also approved a project on Porterdale Road despite initial concerns about illegal grading.
They approved an after-the-fact variance because the pad, though illegally graded, and the house built on it, would have been approved if it had been presented as proposed in the first place.
Commissioner Carrigan said the way it was done was not intelligent, but the results were.
At the last planning meeting, the property owner, David Traub, initially offered to donate 2 acres to the city and $25,000 in an effort to make amends to the city for the illegal activities on the property.
On Monday night, this proposal had changed to solely a monetary contribution instead, because the 2-acre property Traub intended to donate was located off a private road and neighbors would have been impacted negatively.
The $25,000 to be donated by Traub, pending the City Council’s approval, would be available to the city for beautification projects. But the commission said they would not take the donation into consideration, only the project as presented.