Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 1 - January 9, 2025
MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
REGULAR MEETING AND NOTICED HEARING
January 9, 2025
A regular noticed meeting of the Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board of the City of Laguna Beach, California, convened at 5:00 P.M. on January 9, 2025.
Present: Jessica Gannon, Tom Gibbs, Kristine Thalman
Absent: MJ Coveny, Louis Weil
Staff Present: Wendy Jung, Patrick Donegan, Daniel Latham, Heather Steven, Garrett Wank, Kate Kazama, Maria Ballard
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PUBLIC COMMUNICATION - At this time, members of the public may address the Design Review Board regarding any items not on the agenda but within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Design Review Board. No action may be taken on off-agenda items unless authorized by law. Comments shall be limited to two (2) minutes each and fifteen (15) minutes for all comments, unless extended for good cause by the Design Review Board.
3. MODIFICATION OF AGENDA ORDER
3.1. 629 BALBOA AVENUE (O’BRIEN)APN: 656-058-07 CONTINUE TO JANUARY 23, 2025 DESIGN REVIEW 24-1841 AND CATEGORCIAL EXEMPTION [Section 15303] City Staff: Daniel Latham, Associate Planner (949) 464-6612 [email protected] Project Applicant: Reza Dadashi, Designer (949) 232-5550 [email protected] Ms. Gannon modified the agenda to remove item 5.6 – 629 Balboa Avenue from the Regular Business. The applicant requested to continue the project to the January 23, 2025, meeting. Ms. Gannon opened the item for public comment in reference to the continuance.
Ms. Jung clarified that the applicant made a late request for a continuance to the January 23, 2025 Design Review Board meeting, asking for a full board to be present for the project.
Mr. Gibbs stated that he was concerned about the fairness of a late continuance request and wanted to hear if any residents object before deciding how to vote.
Ms. Gannon acknowledged that the continuance is being requested because the Board is short on members and the applicant wants all five members present. She understood this reasoning and suggested that the delay is the Board’s fault.
Mr. Gibbs asked staff whether the public or the applicant was informed in advance about the short Board or if they only found out today.
Attachment 10
372
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 13 - January 9, 2025 improvements within the public right-of-way including a public pedestrian access path, private vehicular gate and driveway, and public parking space, and a new attached ADU, Revocable Encroachment Permit 24-0023 to construct minor structures, including a private driveway, private electronic driveway gate, and private retaining walls in the Ruby Street and Crestview Place public rights-of-way, and Variance 24-0025 to maintain an existing structure undergoing a major remodel in the front yard setback [Diamond/Crestview Specific Plan, page IV-5, Section (E)(1)(a)] and in the additional building setback [Diamond/Crestview Specific Plan, page IV-5, Section (B)(4)] and to exceed the maximum allowable driveway grade of 10% within a street or alley [D/CSP, page IV-9, Section (J)(1)(c)] and finding said action exempt from CEQA under Section 15303. . The motion passed 3-0.
Motion TG Second JG Action APPROVED
Coveny __ABSENT__ Gibbs ___Y___ Weil ___ABSENT___ Thalman ___Y___ Gannon ___Y___
5.7. 31731 SEACOVE DRIVE (PRANER) APN: 658-101-04 CONTINUED TO MARCH 13, 2025
DESIGN REVIEW 24-1151, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-1152, VARIANCE 24-1153, AND CATEGORCIAL EXEMPTION [Section 15301]
City Staff: Heather Steven, Senior Planner (949) 497-0332 [email protected] Project Applicant: David Parker, Architect (949) 872-6616 [email protected]
The applicant requests Design Review (“DR”) 24-1151, Coastal Development Permit (“CDP) 24-1152, and Variance (“VAR”) 24- 1153. The proposed project includes the addition to and remodel of an existing single-family dwelling and new two-car garage, elevated decks, grading, landscaping, pool, and accessory dwelling unit (ADU) in the R1 (Residential Low Density) zone. The proposed ADU is subject to a CDP.
Disclosures: Ms. Gannon stated that she visited the site with the applicant team including Steve Kawaratani and that she visited the home of Mr. Burnes. Ms. Thalman stated that she visited the site and met with David Parker, Steve Kawaratani, and the neighbors Ralph Bertolino and James Burnes. Mr. Gibbs stated that he had a site visit with David Paker and Steve Kawaratani and met with Dave Gray, David Rowan, Ralph Bertolino, Mario Vaughn, and Jim Burnes.
Staff Presentation: Senior Planner, Heather Steven , summarized the staff report.
Board Questions: Ms. Gannon asked whether the lot line adjustment is addressed in the staff report and attachments, or if it needs to be made a condition of approval.
Ms. Jung clarified and stated that it was already included as a condition.
Project Representative: David Parker and Joseph Praner presented the project.
373
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 14 - January 9, 2025 Public Testimony: Jim Burnes voiced concerns about privacy and view obstruction caused by the proposed roof deck. He described how the deck, which expands from 143 to 733 square feet, would intrude on his privacy and obstruct his views from his bedroom, kitchen, family room, and deck. Mr. Burnes explained that the deck would be positioned in a way that would allow people on it to directly overlook his property, particularly after the removal of a Ficus tree. He argued that the project violated zoning regulations and couldn't meet the requirements for a variance, nor did it comply with the general plan’s guidelines on preserving neighbors' views and privacy.
Mike Gray of 31676 Seacove Drive expressed concerns about the proposed deck, particularly its size and potential for parties, similar to problems seen in Santa Barbara with Airbnb rentals. He feels the large deck could negatively impact the neighborhood and the views of residents, including himself, who live in smaller homes. Mr. Gray emphasized that views are important to homeowners, and he would lose his if a nearby house added a story. While he understands the desire for a deck, he believes it should be much smaller than the proposed 950 square feet.
David Rowan of 31673 Seacove Drive, expressed concerns about the proposed project, including the loss of his ocean view due to the extension of the roof and the significant increase in the home's size, more than doubling its footprint. He also mentioned privacy concerns shared by other residents in the area. Additionally, Mr. Rowan raised issues with street congestion and the high density of the neighborhood, which has been exacerbated by the city’s parking lot added to Seacove Drive about 10 years ago.
Mario, 31674 Seacove Drive, voiced concerns about the project, particularly the proposed deck's placement, which would overlook his house and obstruct his view, especially with the potential addition of furniture and umbrellas. He mentioned the project's impact on the community, including the tight road access for construction and the difficulty of removing material. Mario also raised concerns about the noise from a potential water feature and the general disruption caused by the project. He emphasized the close proximity of neighbors, including an elderly resident, and the potential negative effects on their quality of life. He also expressed concerns about the gradual loss of ocean views over time and appreciated the opportunity to speak and meet with Mr. Gibbs to share these worries.
Rebuttal: Mr. Parker acknowledged the neighbors' concerns, particularly Mr. Burnes' privacy issues, and emphasized that while 100% privacy can't be guaranteed in the dense Seacove area, they are open to addressing the concerns. He mentioned possible solutions, such as pulling the deck back or adding screen trees, though these adjustments would impact the view and functionality of the deck. He also clarified that the proposed house is modest in size (1970 sq. ft.), with most of the space dedicated to access and a garage and fits the neighborhood's character. On construction staging, he assured that it would be managed to minimize neighborhood disruption. Finally, he suggested a compromise on the view, acknowledging the importance of ocean views but stressing that a balance may be necessary. He encouraged a dialogue with the Board to find the best solution.
374
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 15 - January 9, 2025 Board Questions: Ms. Thalman asked if the pool and spa have an infinity edge, specifically regarding the water feature on the edge.
Mr. Parker clarified that there is an infinity edge at the narrow end of the spa, but it does not face Seacove. He also mentioned landscaping in front, with some trees raised to maintain privacy from the neighbor across the street, as shown in the exhibits.
Board Comments: Mr. Gibbs expressed appreciation for the project but highlighted concerns about the size of the proposed deck, which he felt would intrude on privacy and disrupt the community. He emphasized that while the project overall meets guidelines for view equity and neighborhood compatibility, the deck's size, particularly its elevation, would create significant impacts. He suggested that the deck be substantially reduced to better align with other decks in the area and prevent privacy issues. Mr. Gibbs also proposed that landscaping, such as properly sized trees, could help mitigate the privacy concerns. He requested a clear proposal for tree heights and encouraged working with neighbors to address privacy issues. He indicated that he would not approve the project until these concerns, particularly regarding the deck and landscaping, are addressed.
Ms. Gannon mostly agreed with Mr. Gibbs but disagreed with his assessment of privacy concerns. She visited Mr. Burnes' house and found that the alleged privacy issue could be easily mitigated. She noted that one would have to stand in very specific places to notice the potential privacy invasion, and she suggested removing certain features to improve views and adding silver sheen with height limitations to address the concern.
Overall, she did not see a significant privacy issue but acknowledged that adjustments could help.
Ms. Thalman expressed that privacy is a subjective issue, as it involves both what you can see and what you can hear. She noted that the deck in question seems quite large for the area and supported reducing its size. She also mentioned that screening could help mitigate privacy concerns. However, she pointed out that the large deck could potentially impact neighbors with the addition of furniture or umbrellas, which should be taken into consideration. Additionally, she asked for clarification on the dimensions of the pool and spa, commenting on their narrow and deep appearance.
Mr. Parker stated that the water dimensions of the pool and spa are 8 by 24 feet.
Ms. Thalman assumed that the pool's filtration system would be on a timer, running only when in use, to address concerns about constant noise. She mentioned that the neighbor, Mr. Bertolino, was particularly worried about the noise from the pool and its access.
Mr. Parker addressed the noise issue by explaining that the pool equipment would be located underneath the shallow pool, in a vault, to minimize noise.
Ms. Thalman expressed concern about the large deck and suggested pulling it back or converting part of it into a green roof. She also noted that while the deck is the primary 375
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 16 - January 9, 2025 outdoor area, there is another outdoor space near the ADU, although access is limited to the ADU. She proposed adding a stairway to improve access to that area as a possible solution.
Steve Kawaratani asked if he could ask a question.
Ms. Gannon re-opened the Public Hearing.
Mr. Kawaratani asked for clarification on the specific distance the deck would need to be moved back to gain approval.
Mr. Donegan clarified that the Board is not required to provide a specific distance for the deck's adjustment. He acknowledged that the Board Members are free to express their opinions but are not obligated to give an exact measurement.
Discussion ensued regarding the distance of the deck and dimensions.
Ms. Gannon suggested that the project will likely be given a continuance. She recommended removing the Ficus tree to improve the views for the neighbors and advised sticking with the silver sheen for screening.
Mr. Gibbs discussed his conversation with Chair Gannon regarding the view impairment from Mr. Burnes' bedroom and bath. He mentioned that his recollection of photos differed from others but clarified that the concern was not from the deck but from the interior of Mr. Burnes' bedroom. He stated that if the view into the bedroom and master bath from the deck is blocked, it would resolve his privacy concerns. He suggested removing the Ficus tree to prevent visual intrusion and emphasized the need for a solution that protects Mr. Burnes' privacy, especially in his bedroom and bathroom.
Discussion ensued regarding privacy and noise.
Ms. Gannon acknowledged the importance of the Ficus tree in enhancing privacy and suggested that if the tree is kept, the Board could make it a condition of approval with a height variance to further protect the views for the neighbors. She left the decision to the applicants.
Mr. Gibbs made a motion, seconded by Ms. Gannon, continued to March 13, 2025. The motion passed 3-0.
Motion TG Second JG Action CONTINUED TO MARCH 13, 2025
Coveny __ABSENT__ Gibbs ___Y___ Weil ___ABSENT___ Thalman ___Y___ Gannon ___Y___
5.8. 2800 CHATEAU WAY (MAO & WANG) APN: 641-132-03 APPROVED WITH
CONDITIONS
DESIGN REVIEW 22-1313 AND CATEGORCIAL EXEMPTION [Section 15303] 376