Chair Gibbs:
We’re going to call 5.8, can the applicant come up please? Ex parte.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
I had a meeting with Steve Kawaratai, met with the neighbors next door as well, and conversed with Drew Blake.
Board Member Weil:
Same for me.
Board Member Coveny:
Same as well.
Chair Gibbs:
Met with Drew and Steve on site and met with Alison and Steve Kawaratani.
Shaveta Sharma:
Good evening Design Review Board item 5.8 you may remember is a design review and coastal development permit for a project located at 607 Short Street. The project is located within the R-1 zone and is a major remodel of the existing one-story single-family residence with a proposed upstairs addition of 840 square feet with an elevated deck. There is also a lower level addition of 226 square feet, and a garage addition of 52 square feet. There is a detached ADU located in the rear of the property that is subject to a coastal development permit, but not design review.
This is the third and final hearing for the project. The project applicant has reduced the lower level square footage and pulled back the upper level addition by 10 feet. In addition, they've also removed a large tree at the front of the property, as well as removing a stairwell window for privacy. In conclusion, the proposed improvements are not located within an environmentally sensitive area, the project is in compliance with design review guidelines and developmental standards and will not substantively impair views and privacy's, and is compatible with the existing development in the residential neighborhood.
Staff's recommendation is that the board adopt resolution 24-0772 approving sign review, and coastal development permit and finding said action exempt from CEQA. I'm available for any questions, as is the applicant.
Louis Weil:
Chair, I've got one question for staff.
Thomas Gibbs:
Go ahead.
Attachment 15
281
Louis Weil:
Shaveta, you mentioned it was a 10-foot reduction. Was that a 10-foot reduction from the initial hearing or from our last hearing?
Shaveta Sharma:
So, 10 foot total. It's a 5-foot additional reduction from the last hearing, which was a 5-foot reduction, so for a total of 10 feet.
Louis Weil:
Okay, thank you.
Thomas Gibbs:
Any other questions? Okay, I open the public hearing. Applicant, you have five minutes.
Drew Blake:
Thank you board members for coming by, and the calls, and your support, and I really, really appreciate it. We just wanted to let you know that we have been working on the project. I did meet with the neighbors at 615 Short Street in the upper bed, I think it's an office there, and saw some of their concerns, and I understand. We did look at some different options in terms of shifting the project, doing a flop over, mirroring it to the other side, which created some issues with privacy looking back directly at the 615 Short Street project, and we feel as though by pulling back an additional 5 more feet and for a total of 10 does open up that window in that office to allow for some nice views up the coast to Bird Rock.
And by removing the big tree at the front of the project, we feel as though they also have some hillside views, which I know that they were hoping to have. So, as long as both projects or both rooms can't have ocean and mountain, one at the rear has the ocean and the one at the front has the mountain. So, I didn't want to take too much time but I think we all know the project, and turn the time over to Steve.
Steve McIntosh:
Good evening, Chair Gibbs and board. I wanted to add a little bit more about some of the changes we made. We also pulled the deck back a little bit to help maintain privacy for all, and the length of the upper floor on the south side has now been reduced to 39 feet. Along with this reduction we have horizontal siding on the upper floor and a smooth stucco on the bottom floor, and it's separated by an ample eyebrow to visually break up the wall, all of which were concerns by some of you. Some board members mentioned the upper design felt overloaded to one side, so we moved the family room towards Short Street to connect it to the new stairwell that had been moved. We extended it more across the front of the home to add a few feet to eliminate the appearance of just building on just one side.
A hip roof was added to that section to ease the design. The new stairwell and roof line give much more articulation to the front of the house. I want to talk a little bit about why we wanted to build where we proposed in the first place. As I've mentioned before, there's a great view corridor with views of Main Beach, Bird Rock, north end Catalina sunsets. The more we pulled our master bedroom back towards the street, we have lost that corridor view. These were the exact primary views down that corridor that the Mahoneys enjoy from their master bedroom deck, master bathroom, and yes, out the back of the guest bedroom office, and now out the side window. That's really not that much view equity for us. 282
Privacy, by building further backwards towards the back in the first place on the left side also provided privacy for our master bedroom, the deck, family room and our backyard. As we pulled towards the front, that also changes.
Some of you want us to move the design back to behind the chimney of the Mahoneys, which totally exposes our master bedroom to their side window, also exposes our deck, all which goes against the DRB guidelines of building that maintains privacy. It's been stated by members of the board that it doesn't seem we have explored options, other designs, and there's a lot of area that you can build on the second floor on. Just because you haven't seen that what we've considered doesn't mean that we haven't exhausted every idea and concept. We have spent countless hours working on every conceivable design, crawling on the roof, around the roof, staring at the house for 22 years. Some mention again, building on the north side, as Drew mentioned. This was even after my presentation showing the reasons why not, why that doesn't work. Let me explain again.
First off, it's only 30 feet away from the current proposed placement. Building there still blocks the view of the hills from the Mahoneys window. Not only is there no view corridor on that side, there's a significant blockage of the views, not to mention privacy issues for our neighbor on the north. All of our side bedroom windows then would face the Mahoneys, and the deck in addition to it. All these again are actions that violate the DRB guidelines. Equity, view equity. As stated in the DRB guidelines, the view you have today, you may not have it tomorrow. With the removal of the huge tree in front of our house, this has opened up the views to the hills above the Park Street, never before seen in years.
This now gives over 165 degrees of view for the Mahoneys. As I mentioned before, we have zero degrees. Our proposed addition would block approximately 25 degrees of their secondary side views, which is about 15%. They would still have all their primary views towards the back, and that we have never blocked any of. Because of the additional five-foot pullback, the coastline and hill views in the northwest have been opened up from the back corner side window.
Thomas Gibbs:
Thank you very much. Now members of the public can come up to the podium, you'll each have three minutes. State your name, please.
Alison Mahoney:
Alison Mahoney. This process has been really difficult for me personally and for our family. I'll say probably I'm going to end up reading just to keep myself on track with time. I want to first say thank you to the board and to our neighbors for hearing all the input on the Macintosh's proposed plan. Miles wanted to be here tonight, but he's taking care of some urgent medical issues and wanted to also say thank you. He's with his dad tonight. So, we've made a lot of efforts. I think collectively we're finding ourselves at an impasse here, and I want to restate that Miles and I believe all of our neighbors have the right to make improvements or rebuilds. We're not against an improvement or a second story, a lot of our neighbors have done things, and it's this particular design that we have a challenge with.
So, going back to the direction from the board on June 27th, after this meeting we did request the Macintosh's to meet with us and see if we could come up with a better understanding. And instead of meeting with us, they proposed to send Drew to meet with Miles and I, and also with Steve Boritani.
When Drew arrived, he was pressed for time. He said he had 15 or 20 minutes for the meeting. So, we stood upstairs in the rooms that you all have seen, and we are understanding that building the second story is going to impact every bit of the north facing windows in our home. When we walked and looked at the stakes from our windows and discussed the flat continuous wall in massing, the articulation, the 283
light and the privacy, in addition to the view equity concerns, the view has been the high topic but this is going to be a 39-foot flat wall against every window of our north-facing window of our home.
So, we wanted the Macintoshes to see for themselves how the five-foot pullback does not solve any of these issues. It does not improve the hillside view. And Drew did bring up at that meeting that other options were considered that the Macintoshes weren't going to consider changing their upstairs master with the pullback, that their alternative was an ADU design so that if they're denied they don't have to comply with board requirements. Today I called Vicki just to make sure that the lines of communication were open in case between the board members, Drew, Steve, we were missing something, and I said, "If there were a way, was there a possibility to discuss a pullback?" And she said no.
Thomas Gibbs:
Okay, thank you. Your time is up.
Alison Mahoney:
That's my summary. Yeah, sorry.
Thomas Gibbs:
Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Next, Steve?
Steve Kawaratani:
Thank you. Can you queue me up, Shaveta? Thank you. Good evening, Chair Gibbs, board members and staff. My name is Steve Kawaratani. And I want to start off, first, I don't envy the board being at a third hearing. You have another one following this as well, and I want to thank the Macintoshes for allowing Drew to meet with us. And as Drew said, we're stuck. My clients feel they've given enough, and I believe that I've been very consistent up here, along with my clients over two hearings, that we still believe that there's a view equity issue. And if you look at that photograph that I took when board member Weil visited, and photograph was taken right in the center of the window, not to the right, not to the left, but in the center you can still see that we have an issue.
The board members have been reasonably consistent. There's a view equity issue here, there's a articulation issue, there is an issue with massing, and they've made a number of good suggestions. And I understand, so I'm standing here away from my wife, I don't like to be told what to do. Nobody likes to be told what to do. And I can understand that the applicants want their project to suit their needs, but at the same time, as the chair said, every applicant has the right to develop reasonably, but at the same time you have to consider the needs of your neighbors. And I think that's where we're stuck. Next slide.
Thank you. This is the progression of how the project has morphed. So, if you look at the top, it was built all the way to the end, and Mr. Macintosh gave the reasons why they pursued that program, and I respect that. But the board did ask them to try to open up the view. So, if we look at the middle slide, they actually did not reduce their program, they just slid it forward five feet, but that did not aid in view equity at all. And now, if we look at the third slide, this iteration, it has moved 10 feet. But if we go back to the first slide that I showed, it hasn't been enough sadly. And I am proud of my client, Alison, for reaching out to Vicki. I thought it was a gesture in good faith. Maybe it came a little bit late, butThomas Gibbs:
Steve, your time's up.
284
Steve Kawaratani:
But thank you.
Thomas Gibbs:
Thank you very much. All right, any other people wish to speak? Seeing none, I return it to the applicant for three minutes.
Steve McIntosh:
Okay, thank you. At the suggestion of the Board chair Gibbs, in the spirit of communication, we did have Drew go over because he hadn't been there and thought it'd be important for him to actually see what they were talking about, because when we did it, it was just an impasse. So, that was the reason why.
So, some of that stuff was said, Drew said that really wasn't what happened. So anyway, Drew brought back their comments and suggestions, and we discussed at length with Drew and my wife Vicki, and myself. Anyway, our proposed design has complied with all objective city zoning development standards and design review criteria. The city staff reports the following. Neighborhood compatibility, the applicant proposes a traditional design that is compatible in terms of style and scale with the surrounding development pattern. View equity, the design achieves view equity by locating major building masses and outdoor space to maintain primary views through and across the site from other properties.
And lastly, conduct a public hearing and adopt resolution is their recommendation. 24, whatever it is, sorry, I didn't have it here, approving a design review and coastal development permit for a single-family dwelling, and a major remodel with additions exceeding 50%. Elevated decks, new exterior materials, windows, landscaping, and for a new 412-foot square foot one-story ADU, accessory dwelling unit, located in the rear yard for the property located at 607 Short Street. This is the third approval from the city planning department asking for the DRB approval, and acknowledging that we are indeed in compliance with all city and DRB regulations.
We urge you to use objective criteria as per the California Housing and Accountability Act. Their definition, objective standards, are those that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official. We have diligently listened to the DR board as well as to all of our neighbors, and feel we have made a huge effort through many major revisions that reflect our sincere desire to balance our design with neighbor concerns, all the while following DRB guidelines. We feel we have done just that, and hope for an approval tonight. And believe me, if there was a way that we could have all been happy, we would've been there. I don't enjoy this, it's ridiculous. And we have worked to make our situation happy, and this is a compromise that I think meets all of the city criteria. So, thank you.
Thomas Gibbs:
All right, any questions from the board? Okay, I'm not going to go first but I want to respond to one thing. Staff make recommendations on virtually all applications. Our job, we were appointed by the city council to make independent evaluations based upon our objective and impartial review of the project and knowledge of the guidelines. We are the ones who actually go out and see the projects, we see them across the city. So, I just want to understand, it's helpful to hear what the staff recommends, but it is not as a substitute for our independent evaluation. With that said, Jess, do you want to begin? Jessica Gannon:
Sure, I'll take this one. Oh.
285
MJ Coveny:
Can we ask questions?
Thomas Gibbs:
Yes.
MJ Coveny:
Can we ask questions yet?
Thomas Gibbs:
I asked questions, you didn't ask.
MJ Coveny:
Sorry.
Jessica Gannon:
Go ahead, you can ask questions.
Thomas Gibbs:
Yeah, you go ahead.
MJ Coveny:
Two quick questions.
Thomas Gibbs:
Go ahead.
MJ Coveny:
One, was the image that Mr. Kawaratani put up of the showing the impact, do you consider that an accurate image? Do you have any dispute with that?
Drew:
Well, I think it looked like it was straight on, it seems likeMJ Coveny:
Right, but as far as when you look the one fromThomas Gibbs:
The one from the second bedroom? The photograph?
MJ Coveny:
The one from the study. That wasn't from the second bedroom. 286
Jessica Gannon:
It looks very similar to one that I took.
Thomas Gibbs:
Well, the study. I meant the study.
Drew:
I think when you come into the room it's more of a north view, so I think he's doing thisMJ Coveny:
Straight on.
Drew:
... as opposed toMJ Coveny:
Okay. But it's accurate for where he took it. Okay.
Drew:
I would hope so.
MJ Coveny:
And then, you said you mentioned wanting to build, you looked at building on the other side, which we talked about from the very beginning is from mass and scale perspective, from balance, from public views, from all that it seemed that that kept that corridor open. What was your big ... Originally it was money. Now I'm trying to get a sense of why.
Drew:
Moving it that way you're looking the wrong way. It's like if the ocean was there but you're going looking this way or something.
MJ Coveny:
No, parallel. It's parallel.
Drew:
Right, but there's a humongous hedge. It'sSteve:
There's trees and the houseDrew:
... bamboo that's on that side. So, the master suite would be looking straight at, there's a big wall of trees287
Steve:
Trees, hedge.
Drew:
So, there is a little bit of a view going down a corridor, which is on the south side closer to the Mahoneys.
Louis Weil:
You said it's bamboo, right?
Drew:
I think it's a tall bamboo, isn't it? AlongSteve:
The bamboo is to our north, but beyond that there's more hedge, more trees, and several trees actually that create a huge blockage there. And that's one of the issues. If all that stuff were cleared out it would be a different story, but we still have to maintain some privacy there. That'sLouis Weil:
It would be a different story, and Bamboo, from my knowledge, is an invasive specie in Laguna. And if there is a remodel and a landscape plan to the neighbor's property, all that bamboo would have to be removed.
Steve McIntosh:
That's to the side, that's to the north side. So, it's really not the ocean view.
Thomas Gibbs:
Any other questions? Not hearing any. Wait, I closed the public hearing again. And Jess, you're up.
Jessica Gannon:
Overall, this doesn't meet the minimum requirements for design integrity, design articulation, neighborhood compatibility or view equity. As far as view equity goes, views are not only ocean views but hillside views. City light views are just as valuable as ocean views. The removal of the tree in the front was for your benefit as the homeowner, it was a negative impact on your foundation, although I do recognize that it also opens up that view with the secondary bedroom. The view from the primary bedroom in this case, which is utilized as an office, that's where we have an issue with view equity.
You're taking 100% of their hillside views, not 80%, just a full 100%. And if you would be willing to cut even 30%, or give them 30, 40%, I'm not even asking for 50%, I would be able to say that you met the view criteria.
As far as neighborhood compatibility, design articulation and integrity, they all go hand-in-hand. This design does a disservice to the neighborhood, a heavily trafficked neighborhood by both out-of-towners and residents. Nowhere in this neighborhood is their design where the upper level overloads one side of 288
the home. There is zero articulation facing the neighbor's house. In the first meeting I asked for you to pull the, so it's not a straight up-and-down wall. So, we cannot take into consideration how much a project will cost, that's cited by the applicant in the first hearing regarding why they chose to build on the upper level heavily geared towards the left side. You cannot create a view by taking somebody else's view. And I think that's pretty much I covered it. Yeah.
Thomas Gibbs:
All right. Imir, do you want to go next?
Imer Bauta:
Thank you, Chair. So, I think that with third hearings we always tend to look at the progression and the efforts that were made, and I think that the efforts have been made to mitigate the view and balance the view. I understand that there are some concerns pertaining to the hillside, but I can't come around to preserving the full hillside view. I think that would be a complete limitation. But when we look at the specifics of this particular site and we look at the views out of the windows of the neighbors, if we were to push that wall back you're maybe getting another palm tree, or two, or three, or maybe some bamboo. So, I can't come around having them pull it back anymore. I think that what they've done suffices, you get a portion of hillside view.
I think the design is very thoughtful to the community, and the use of materials is very thoughtful as well. And I do think the vision is appropriate for the neighborhood, and I do understand that the desire to get a ocean view is what this homeowner is going for, and I can see this project for approval tonight.
Thomas Gibbs:
MJ.
MJ Coveny:
I have to go. This one's been a tough one. Sometimes I look at these and I think, "Now, how do we get here?" Doesn't feel like we should get here like this. I feel like there are many solutions prior to getting to this point, solutions that would've been amenable to everyone, including what you guys are trying to achieve. I'm not sure I'm buying the whole concept of view loss on the other side of a home to build on the other side of the home. I'm sticking with what our original conversations were about, and this is the maintaining of this particular view. There's limited views from this home.
When we look at each home individually, look at how much of the view is being taken, that's a concern.
You're gaining everything. You're getting everything. You're getting Canyon, you're getting ocean, you're getting big deck, you're getting everything, and it just feels like for you to offer up another four feet to allow them to have something is limited for what you're still going to gain. I think the overall design of this home feels lopsided to me. I could give you that knowing that I was giving the homeowner who's been living there with a beautiful canyon view from an active area of their home. I could give you that, let that go, even though I don't understand why you stopped halfway, but I think by the time you finish, by the time you put your finishings on there and you landscape it, my hope is that it will feel compatible.
It's a little wonky right now, but it's Laguna so I can turn my head slightly on that one and give you that. I think the articulation on the side, I know that it was mentioned many times before, you didn't achieve.
I'd almost be willing to give you that. I feel like I'm negotiating on behalf of the homeowner next door.
But again, my big thing is view, and they have very limited view at all. They have the ocean view far away, the pictures you've shared are all tight shots, and they have the same foliage disruptions as you do. So, I cannot support this project tonight based on view equity specifically. 289
I feel like if you can give them the four feet that would help them maintain a sliver of Canyon, it would still allow you to have a beautiful family room upstairs, a stunning master, extraordinary large closet, good ship bath area, great view, amazing deck that you will be able to enjoy. You might have to compensate that deck a little so that you're not poking out, but it's still a very large deck right now, in order to balance the shift. That would be an answer. And perhaps to Imir's point that since this is the third hearing, perhaps there's a way to come to some sort of a, I don't know how that works from the condition of approval with something specific to this measurement, but I would be willing to support it if we could come to some sort of agreement on that sort of adjustment.
Thomas Gibbs:
Excuse me. Louis?
Louis Weil:
Thanks, guys. I wrote down some notes, but let me just wing this one and I'm sorry. I feel like in just short, I feel like this has been more difficult than it's needed to be, and I feel for both the applicant and the neighbors in this scenario. As I got on the board, there was a lot more of this animosity between neighbors and it was constant from almost every project. And through time it's gone through ups and downs where people work together a little bit more that were not, and in this case it was a tough position for both parties. And so, I understand the frustrations and the heartache, and everything that's gone for both parties, and I do feel for you guys.
With that said, I think we've been trying to give the applicant a lot of direction to achieve their square footage and their design as best as possible on that upper level, because we've deemed definitely at the beginning of the first hearing that a second story is appropriate for this house. It's the rear of the property that is the concern and the issue, and I tend to be more in favor that that four to five more feet, I think at the last hearing I said five plus feet and we came back just at five, and I think that's just a little too tight of a margin. I'd like to see it work where we could condition maybe a five more foot reduction and maybe make some affordable space available. I think the deck can remain where it is. It's still tucked back and it has the same view components that the neighbors have. Those things would be intact.
I think there's room in the program for that reduction without overly compromising the overall scope of what you're trying to accomplish. It would balance the components of the views that are on the rear of the property for the neighbor. I think when we discuss the mid-part of the property, that's just something that we can't protect because it would eliminate your complete right to build. And so, that middle window is just, that's just part of the middle of the lot and we let that one go. I think the front of the lot, as articulated by Board Gannon, yeah, the tree did come out. It's mutually beneficial.
You wouldn't be able to build your second story with that tree in that current location, and potential foundation issues as mentioned. But I think it was a mutual beneficial sacrifice, and yes, it did open up some views but it does create some structure that's in that space. I think it's more secondary, and I think that location of that closet area is okay. But I think if we can make a deal, I could entertain it tonight. If not, then I don't think we did enough to fully achieve it. So, I'll leave it with Chair Gibbs.
Thomas Gibbs:
Okay. First of all, this is a modest project and I think it's well-designed, I think it's neighborhood compatible. I think the wall facing the Mahoneys is articulated. Indeed, there's so many flat walls, including on their house, that are less articulated. I think this is otherwise an eminently approvable project, I think the privacy issues were resolved, including the change that was made from the last 290
hearing. So were view equity. And I went up there, I think everybody's acting in good faith. The Mahoneys were very forthcoming, the same thing with the applicant. I don't like to see negative or bad blood on this thing, but to my view, I'm sorry, when you say that the Macintoshes are getting everything and the Mahoneys are getting nothing, or something to that effect, well, the Mahoneys have a full-on ocean view. They have a hugely wide house, they've got a deck there. The view is, hear me out and then I'll hear you, the view is toward the ocean. They happen to have a secondary bedroom that they use as an office that happens to have a side window that sees some mountain views.
It's certainly not entitled to the significant protection that this board is giving it. It's not a ceremonial room, it is a side window. The main view window, which is actually a larger window, faces the ocean. So I mean, I think it's unfortunate that this board, and I have the right to disagree, I love them all and I respect them all immensely, but I hugely disagree with this one. You're really impacting the right of this applicant to develop their house in a way that is actually less massive than the next-door neighbor's house, including the location of their bedroom to avoid privacy issues that you get from pulling it back to maximize ocean views, which the Mahoneys have throughout the backside of their house with windows and decks at the second floor, all to preserve a secondary bedroom/office side window. I can't stomach that. So, I would hope that my comments might move the board. If not, I think it would be a tragedy to deny the project, and I wouldJessica Gannon:
Chair, with all due respect, they have alternatives.
Thomas Gibbs:
No, hear me out. Let me get done.
MJ Coveny:
We heard you [inaudible 00:32:54]
Thomas Gibbs:
No you didn't. You didn't. So Jess, stop for a second. Hear me out. So, if I haven't moved another member, because I think Imir and I agree, then I would put it to the applicant to see if the board will agree to a condition to move the bedroom back, do four feet. And if that's something, again, assuming I haven't changed any minds, and I clearly haven't, would the board be willing to condition approval on moving the side or the bedroom second floor back four feet chair.
Louis Weil:
Chair, let me ask you, is there interest in the applicant to negotiate on that upper floor this evening? Steve:
No.
Louis Weil:
Okay. Then on that note, I'll move item number 5.8, project location 607 Short Street for denial.
MJ Coveny:
I second that.
291
Patrick Donegan:
Hang on. And so, since this is the third meetingMJ Coveny:
Oh, yeah.
Patrick Donegan:
... and in the interest of time for the applicant, I believe I did hear some justifications. It may be ideal for you guys to articulate those, me and Bill can put together just a substance of the resolution of denial, and that way the applicant doesn't have to wait another two weeks to come back. Our code says three hearings, yeah, excuse me, three hearings. If we put it on consent, probably okay. But I think if it's okay with the board, I'd rather just do it tonight and that way we can do thatJessica Gannon:
For me, it doesn't meet the minimum requirements for design integrity, design articulation, neighborhood compatibility or view equity. For view equity, it takes the neighbor's primary, or one of the hillside views, 100% of theirImer Bauta:
Chair, Chair.
Jessica Gannon:
... city light hillside views and it takes the public's view from the high school.
Imer Bauta:
Chair, before we move forward, I don't think the applicant was aware he's facing likelyJessica Gannon:
Oh, he's aware.
Imer Bauta:
... denial. Can we ask of the question again?
Thomas Gibbs:
Yeah, let me just point out to you, your choice at this point, since it's the third hearing, there will not be a continuance. It will be a denial unless we can work out a condition that can get three votes.
Steve McIntosh:
Yeah, I'm aware of that. It's fine.
Thomas Gibbs:
I figured he was.
292
Patrick Donegan:
And so, and once again, 100% your call.
Steve McIntosh:
Appreciate it.
Patrick Donegan:
You are permitted to appeal either the denial or the approval if you do not agree with the condition. But once again, 100% your decision. I'm not trying to put my finger on the scale one iota.
Steve McIntosh:
Okay.
Thomas Gibbs:
All right. I think everybody stated their position. Do you want them to restate? Patrick Donegan:
Well, I just wanted ...
Louis Weil:
I'll adopt Vice ChairJessica Gannon:
Chair pro tem.
Louis Weil:
... Gannon. Sorry, Gibbs, Gannon, gets a little tongue twisted.
Patrick Donegan:
Got it.
Louis Weil:
I'll adopt, givePatrick Donegan:
And so, in the interest of total transparency, and since I suspect we will go for a break, what I would advise is to take that break right now. When we come back, we will have the language here so we can put on the screen, and that way we do it that way. Once again, I don't want to put words into the mouth of the applicant. It appears that this may be appealed and I just want to make sure that there's that sound solid record [inaudible 00:36:22]
MJ Coveny:
293
And Chair, if I may, just so I can clarify my comments because I was trying to be negotiating prior to giving my remarks originally when I was saying that I felt like I'll give you the neighbor compatibility, even though I don't think it is. I'll give you no articulation on the side even though it should be articulated, in order to try to get to a solution of a four-foot reduction in that upper level in order to approve this tonight. And I just want to be clear that I would've said it's not neighbor compatible, the articulation is not proper. So, I just want to make sure I'm clear about that.
Thomas Gibbs:
Okay. With that said, why don't we take aLouis Weil:
Are we done?
Patrick Donegan:
We'll take a 10-minute breakLouis Weil:
10 minute break, and then we'll adopt the new resolution.
Patrick Donegan:
Correct. But there's one thing I must insist. Usually we take breaks in between items, this item is still open. I implore you all, do not speak on the item, do not speak to the applicant, do not speak to anyone.
Truly I'm going to play this card very sparingly, don't talk to anyone.
MJ Coveny:
Can I get some almonds?
Patrick Donegan:
You got it. Absolutely, thank you.
Thomas Gibbs:
Okay, I am calling the design review board meeting back to order. I believe there's a motion, but you have some language. SoPatrick Donegan:
I just wantedThomas Gibbs:
... I turn it over to Mr. Louis and Mr. Donegan.
Patrick Donegan:
294
And Board Member Weil, if I may. So, of course all of the whereases will be updated to reflect the date, the time, so on and so forth. And of course, whatever the vote happens to be further, I just want to make sure that the board understands what we put here is kind of thesis statements for what we understand that the board's direction to be. What we are seeking for is, if you guys agree with this language, is then to give the staff that, not discretion, but the direction to fill in with more of the testimony and explicit language. It was probably a little bit too much to bite off to try to draft it entirely right here and now.
That being said, I'm comfortable that if the board views those believes that we hit, as I said before, the design articulation, neighborhood compatibility and view equity. As I said before, view those statements as just the thesis statements, at which point we will go back, listen to the meeting to ensure that the details are more filled in. And once again, for the applicant, we are doing this just so you guys don't have to wait. I understand you're probably unhappy with the decision, I understand that, but that's why we're doing this right now so you guys don't have to wait two weeks or however many long.
Louis Weil:
Did you augment the view equity one?
Patrick Donegan:
Correct, yeah. So, as of right now we would say the second floor addition creates view impacts to neighboring properties by blocking existing canyon and ocean views. You can get rid of that and.
Thomas Gibbs:
I'm not seeing it on the screen, is why I ask.
Patrick Donegan:
Oh, could you scroll down a little bit, down to three?
Louis Weil:
There we go. Okay, that's neighborhood compatibility. And go down.
Patrick Donegan:
And then keep scrolling down there.
Louis Weil:
Next page.
Patrick Donegan:
Yep. Right there.
Louis Weil:
Oh, too far. Too far295
Jessica Gannon:
Too far.
Louis Weil:
... too far.
Patrick Donegan:
Perfect.
Louis Weil:
You got to go up. Oh, there it is. Second floor additions creates view impacts for neighboring properties by blocking existing canyon.
Jessica Gannon:
Can you also include that it takes away the view from the high school? Patrick Donegan:
Yep.
Jessica Gannon:
So, that's public views.
Patrick Donegan:
Please.
Louis Weil:
Okay, all right.
Thomas Gibbs:
You misspelled view.
Patrick Donegan:
I know, wait, wait.
Louis Weil:
He's typing.
Patrick Donegan:
I am, yes.
Louis Weil:
Okay.
296
Thomas Gibbs:
Anything further?
Patrick Donegan:
The view equity.
Louis Weil:
And then, the motion for denial is in the resolution?
Patrick Donegan:
Correct.
Louis Weil:
Up at the top?
Patrick Donegan:
At the top it's denial. And then of course, theLouis Weil:
Go all the way to the top. I just want to make sure that that part's there.
Patrick Donegan:
And then, of course it's a different CEQA finding for, they're both exempt and that will be reflected in the whereases.
Louis Weil:
Okay. Okay, I'll adopt the resolution as proposed by the city attorney and staff. Into the motion? MJ Coveny:
I'll second that.
Thomas Gibbs:
Call the roll, please.
Shaveta Sharma:
Board Member Bauta?
Imer Bauta:
No.
Shaveta Sharma:
297
Board Member Coveny?
Louis Weil:
You're voting for denial. Or against denial.
Patrick Donegan:
A yes vote is a vote of denial.
MJ Coveny:
Yes.
Shaveta Sharma:
Board Member Weil?
Louis Weil:
Yes.
Shaveta Sharma:
Chair Pro Tem Gannon?
Jessica Gannon:
Yes.
Shaveta Sharma:
Chair Gibbs?
Thomas Gibbs:
No. All right.
298