This transcript was exported on Aug 14, 2025 - view latest version here.
January 9 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 08/14/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Jessica Gannon:
Seven located at 31731 Seacove Drive. 31731 Seacove Drive. While the applicants take their positions, we have ex parte. I had a site visit with the applicant team including Steve Kawaratani. I also visited the home of Mr. Burnes and that's my ex parte.
Kristine Thalman:
And I visited the site, met with David Parker, Steve Kawaratani, neighbors, Ralph Bertolino and James Burnes.
Jessica Gannon:
Excuse me, sir.
Thomas Gibbs:
Keep it down please.
Jessica Gannon:
We're running a meeting.
Thomas Gibbs:
Okay. I'm the site visit with Dave Parker and Steve Kawarantani. I met with Dave Gray, Dave Roman, Ralph Bertolino, Mario Vaughn, and Jim Burnes.
Jessica Gannon:
Wow, you're showing us up.
Thomas Gibbs:
I know.
Jessica Gannon:
Heather?
Heather:
Thank you.
Jessica Gannon:
Your fabulous presentation, please.
Heather:
Thank you so much. Tonight, item 5.7 is a request for design review coastal development permit and at 31731 Seacove Drive in the R1 zone. Next slide.
The site consists of two lots and has a 10-foot wide private road easement across the southern frontage of both lots. The existing site is developed with a single-family dwelling and an attached one-car garage on one of the lots with a swimming pool and cabana on the second lot on the western portion of the Attachment 11
377
This transcript was exported on Aug 14, 2025 - view latest version here.
January 9 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 08/14/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
site. Each lot is 60 feet wide and 40 feet deep, not including the 10-foot road easement, which does not conform to the minimum 70-foot wide and 80 foot deep lot dimensions of the R1 zone. Next slide.
The applicant is proposing conversion of the one car garage into living area, 641 square feet of additions, which would be located on the main level of the home, plus two additional levels below, a new 469 square foot two car garage on the lowest level with a new driveway at the western portion of the site and 733 square foot elevated deck, grading landscaping, and a new swimming pool. Next slide.
An attached 928.4 square foot two-bedroom ADU is proposed at the mid-level of the structure, which does not require design review. The ADU would be located below the proposed elevated deck for the main dwelling. The city's ADU ordinance prohibits roof decks on ADUs. The proposed elevated deck is not considered a roof deck. The city has historically viewed roof decks as decks above the uppermost story of a building. In this case, the deck would not be located above the uppermost story. Rather, it would be at the same level of the primary dwelling and access only from the primary dwelling's great room on the upper level. Since the deck can only be accessed from the primary dwelling, it's clearly intended to be only used by occupants of the primary dwelling and not as a roof deck for the ADU. Next slide.
Staff believes that most of the design criteria can be met by the current design. However, concerns have been raised by three surrounding property owners regarding potential privacy impacts from the proposed elevated deck and pool. In addition, concerns have been raised regarding potential impacts to coastal views from the project. Staff is requesting the design review board consider whether all applicable design criteria have been met. Next slide.
The existing residence encroaches into the required 20-foot front and 10-foot rear yard setbacks. As stated, the applicant is requesting variances to allow the proposed additions to be constructed at 4 feet, 10 inches from the front property line and 4 feet, 6 inches from the rear property line. This will match the setbacks of the existing residence. A variance is also requested to allow the structure to encroach into the required additional building setback area. And lastly, a variance is requested to allow the swimming pool to be constructed within the front yard setback area. Staff believes that all the required findings can be made to grant the requirements. Next slide.
The project is comprised of two separate lots. The project proposes construction across the common lot line. Therefore, a condition of approval has been added to require approval of a lot line adjustment by the city council to merge the two lots into one prior to issuance of any building permits or grading permits for the project. Next slide.
If the design review board determines that the project is consistent with the design criteria and all findings can be made, then it's recommended that the board adopt resolution 24-1151 approving Design Review 24-1151, Coastal Development Permit 24-1152 and Variance 24-1153 and finding that this said action is exempt from CEQA. Staff is available for any questions. Thank you.
Jessica Gannon:
I have one question. Is the lot line adjustment and with the staff report and any of the attachments or do we have to make that a condition of approval?
Heather:
It's already included as a condition...
Jessica Gannon:
Okay, thank you. Any other questions? No? Okay. You have five minutes. 378
This transcript was exported on Aug 14, 2025 - view latest version here.
January 9 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 08/14/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
David Parker:
Good evening board members. I'm David Parker. I'm the architect for this project and we're very happy to present it to you tonight. I'm here with my clients Joseph Prehner and Mitch Friedman. I want to thank the board for spending time with us and the staff also for all the time they spent and for an excellent staff report. This was a minor addition to a small one-story home with a one car attached garage. The house is at the top of a very shallow lot which steps down toward the ocean. The existing house is 1227 square feet with 8-foot ceilings. The garage is 182 square feet. The rear yard is mostly decks, patios, and a full-size pool. There's almost no landscaping and there's no driveway, so cars must back out onto sea cove. Where are the slides? I need to see the slides please, but I'll continue. There is a special circumstance which requires a variance to build anything due to the shallow lot.
There's only a 10-foot wide strip between the setbacks. There's a typical, this is typical of Seacove and Seacliff. Nearly every lot is shallow and nearly every house has reduced setbacks as built shown by the red lines on your exhibit. A variance is required to be able to improve and enlarge the very small and substandard house. For our addition, the owners directed us to build up and not down out of consideration for the neighbor's views, the design maintains a low profile and steps down the slope. The mid-century design was maintained and enhanced and a two-car garage was added at the lowest level with a driveway and turnaround, and there are several benefits to this project. Can I have skip through a few slides please? Keep going. Keep going, keep going. Next. One more. One more after this one. This is the proposed design. Benefits include removing trees which block views, improving parking with the two-car garage, providing landscape along the front and removing that solid wall and reducing the amount of the activity area in the rear yard by a third. Now, next slide please.
These are before-and-after pictures. If you can zoom out and you can see how the low profile has been maintained and the height of the roof is comparable to the houses across the street and the general low profile of these smaller houses. Next slide please.
This compares the existing rear yard with the proposed rear yard, which really is a terrace, which is really a rear yard because it's their only activity area, it's been reduced by a third and the pool has been reduced also by a third. Next slide please.
There are several other decks in the area comparable with ours. Ours is 733 square feet and we fall pretty much at the middle of some of the decks in this area. Next slide please.
This is a graphic presentation of some of the decks. Now I'm not even counting the rear yard. Several of these houses actually have a yard in addition to that. Next slide please.
So this is our final design again. I feel like we've worked very hard to design a sensitive, modest and neighborhood compatible project, which will enhance the neighborhood, and we look forward to hearing your comments. But first I'd like to introduce Mr. Praner, he has a few things to say.
Joseph Praner:
Hello. Hello. Just want to first of all, thank you for taking the time to consider the project and the staff and the board. I know it takes a lot of time and everything like that. Make my mother happy. I have a 95- year-old mother who's going to be moving into the ADU, so she's happy and anxious to see that happen too. But I want to also enhance on the deck area. It's really the backyard for the house and the whole concept of living by the beach is to be able to go out on your deck, get the ocean breeze, have a cocktail or coffee in the morning. I mean, it's just an extension of the house as a backyard. And because we've cut it back, I feel it's a very important thing for the access from the house, the backyard. It's really the only common. Anyway, but pleasure meeting you.
379
This transcript was exported on Aug 14, 2025 - view latest version here.
January 9 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 08/14/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Jessica Gannon:
Good to meet you as well.
David Parker:
We look forward to your comments.
Jessica Gannon:
Okay, does that conclude your presentation?
David Parker:
That concludes our presentation.
Jessica Gannon:
Okay. At this time, any member of the public wish to speak on? Jim Burnes:
Good evening?
Jessica Gannon:
What is it? Oh, hello.
Jim Burnes:
Yep. I'm Jim Burnes. Thanks for visiting my house. I live to the house directly north to this project. I've been there for 20 years with my family and I have a number of concerns, most of which I addressed in letter to you. Please take a look at it. January 6th and the pictures. But tonight my limited time, I just wanted to go over my points of opposition because the privacy intrusion caused by the roof deck and then the related view obstruction, the southwestern ocean view corridor for my family room, kitchen and deck and so forth. To illustrate the extent scope of magnitude of the view intrusion into my home, please take a look at this picture. This is taken two feet from my bedroom and my master deck, and here you'll see the red flags. That's the railing, the proposed roof deck. The green flags are the bottom of it, so you can see clearly that anyone standing on that roof deck has a large view scape, a privacy intrusion right into my bedroom and the entirety of my bedroom.
You see these red flags from every part of my bedroom, most of the parts of my bathroom, two feet out of my shower stall, two feet out of my bath. You can see these red flags, which means the people on the deck have a direct line of vision, a direct line of sight to me. Same with the kitchen, same with the family room, same with the dining room and the lower deck as well. And what's the cause of all of this? The cause of all of this is the applicants insisting upon having a deck that takes their existing 143 square foot deck, expanding it five times to 733 square feet, taking their existing deck that goes at about 10 feet and pushing it westward, contrary to the pattern of decks in the neighborhood. 35 feet, 35 feet westward, all the way up to here.
So at any time, they can turn around and look into my house. This yellow pole there, that indicates the entire area where this ficus tree is removed, this will all open into an intrusive viewscape into my home.
It shouldn't be allowed. It can't meet the requirements of the zoning rules. There's a prohibition on roof decks. The variance, they have to show that this roof deck satisfies the variance. It is injurious to my 380
This transcript was exported on Aug 14, 2025 - view latest version here.
January 9 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 08/14/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
home. And here's proof. This is injurious to my home. Variance finding can't be found. And finally, for the CDP, you have to find that this complies with a general plan. The general plan, guideline five says, "As to the existing neighbors views and privacy, they must be preserved to the maximum extent possible." The maximum extent feasible, actually.
Jessica Gannon:
In conclusion...
Jim Burnes:
That's the opposite.
Jessica Gannon:
Okay, thank you, Mr. Burnes. Next speaker.
Mike Gray:
My name is Mike Gray. I live at 31676 Seacove. There are basically two cottages or cottage-sized houses to the south of this property, which is two lots. I also lived in Santa Barbara and there's been a horrible problem up there with Airbnbs and things like that because people rent them and have parties. And my really biggest objection is that deck. That says, "Let's have a party." Okay. You don't need 950 square feet or what it is, as a deck. I understand how they might want it, but I think it's really going to impact the neighborhood. I think that you have these two...
My house is 1500 square feet. I'm a one-story house. I have a big two-story house below me and I have another cottage behind me that's in sort of the same situation. When we bought these houses, we pay a lot of money for some view and so views, we hope that they're protected. And if someone were to, the house in front of me, that's two stories were to add a story, I would have no view. And I'm only one story. So I just think it's important to remember that, that views are important to people and that I just think that they should be able to have a deck, but nowhere near the size of this. Anyway, that's my comment. Thank you.
Jessica Gannon:
Thank you. Next speaker.
David Rowan:
Hi, I'm David Rowan. I live at 31673 Seacove Drive. It would fall directly behind the subject property, between my house and the ocean would be his. I have concerns over the view. They are extending the roof on this existing rather small home and it seems like they're more than doubling the envelope or the footprint of the home. So some of my view will be taken away from me. Also, the privacy concerns that each of the other residents in the area have. Also, the street right now, the city added a parking lot on Seacove Drive, I don't know, 10 years ago. And the congestion on our street and the density of that area is very high. And that concerns me as well. Thank you.
Jessica Gannon:
Thank you. I like your stache, by the way.
Mario Vaughn:
381
This transcript was exported on Aug 14, 2025 - view latest version here.
January 9 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 08/14/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Good evening, board members. I'm Mario at 31674 Seacoast Drive. Thanks for hearing us this evening on the matter. My client couldn't make it, but thank you for coming down and seeing our little charming community down there. Some of their concerns are all these variances that they're trying to get shoved through on the quick path. And then we're concerned about this deck that's so far forward. It looks back into our house and we're sitting on the couch and you've got glass railing. Not to mention that the height of the glass railing, there's going to probably be furniture out there, umbrellas that could obstruct our view going north. Mr. Gibbs had come out and took some pictures for you guys. I didn't get a chance to meet the two of you, but I encourage you guys to come down and have a look. From our perspective, we're concerned about the impact of this construction. There's a lot of dirt that's going to be excavated out of there. The road, you could almost join two hands together and touch the PLs side to side.
It's a very tight road, so I don't know how all this material is going to get pulled out. There's an older gentleman just behind us that's in his 90s. We owned a house over on Seacliff and it's invasive to have a big project like this. I know they're entitled to build something, but our neighbors are old and ready to check out any time now and I want his mom to come down and stay at their house, obviously. But so the impact of the construction, the close proximity of everybody. I'm concerned about, there's a water feature apparently, in the pool, so we're wondering if there's going to be any noise associated to that. It looked like a water wall, so we're concerned about that and any landscaping we'd like to look at. When they bought the house that they'd had it rented for, I think close to a decade.
We've been down there for 20 years. Not to mention the house that we had over on Seacliff, but all the foliage just got out of control. And over time, brush just slowly kind of creeps and slowly but surely, you're losing your view, but you take it back and go, "Gosh, remember that ocean view we had and now we don't have it." But they were kind enough over the years to eventually cut it back just recently before the flagging. Why not? But I appreciate you guys for your time, your consideration. Mr. Gibbs, thank you for coming out and meeting with me. Very generous and got to hear everything that we had to say. So thank you very much.
Jessica Gannon:
Mario, are you at 31674?
Mario Vaughn:
Yes ma'am.
Jessica Gannon:
Is that house located behind this? Where's that located? Mario Vaughn:
It's directly next door to that.
Jessica Gannon:
Next door to it. Okay.
Mario Vaughn:
It's very tight down there.
Jessica Gannon:
382
This transcript was exported on Aug 14, 2025 - view latest version here.
January 9 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 08/14/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Okay.
Mario Vaughn:
I don't know if you've been down. Well, I'm sure you've been down. Anyway...
Jessica Gannon:
You know it though? Okay.
Mario Vaughn:
We'd love to open up the home for you guys and even if your other board members come back into town, I'd love to show them.
Thomas Gibbs:
During deliberations, I'll describe what I saw.
Mario Vaughn:
Thank you, sir.
Jessica Gannon:
Thanks Mario. Anyone else? Anyone in the public wish to speak on this project? Going once, going twice.
Oh wait, you're out of turn.
David Parker:
Correct? Yes.
Jessica Gannon:
Oh yeah. Okay. So anyone else from the public? No, you're okay now it's your turn. Sorry. Logistics.
Logistics. So you have three minutes for a rebuttal.
David Parker:
Okay, thank you. And we do appreciate the neighbor's comments. And I did meet with Mr. Burnes. We had a very nice conversation. We're not unsympathetic to his privacy concerns at all and we've discussed ways that we might be able to address them. However, no one is guaranteed a hundred percent privacy, especially in an area that's as dense as the Seacove area where there are so many decks and windows. There's really no way to completely eliminate people looking into houses and looking onto decks. However, we do understand that privacy is a serious concern and we have come up with some possible solutions at least to improve the situation. And some of those solutions are on the handouts I gave you and we've discussed it privately. Possibly reducing the deck, pulling it back slightly or adding some screen trees between the properties. I think either of those will help the situation.
It might not make it perfect and it certainly will be a sacrifice to my clients because the trees can block their view and pulling the deck back reduces their view also up the coast and the functionality of it. So I would like to have a dialogue with the board . we can discuss what the board thinks might be a good solution after you've had a chance to look at our exhibits. Regarding the house, someone mentioned that and there's an impression that it's a very large development, but it really isn't. It's very modest. The 383
This transcript was exported on Aug 14, 2025 - view latest version here.
January 9 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 08/14/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
proposed home is only 1,973 feet total and 258 square feet of that is just to access the garage through stairways and a hallway. So the main house's upper level is really only 1,715 square feet. All the ceilings are only eight feet high except for where they slope up to a maximum height of about nine and a half, almost 10 feet, which is very modest and I really feel like it's still very much in character with the neighborhood.
It steps down the slope as the design guidelines require. And regarding construction staging, what we normally do in these situations is at the garage level, we have to carve out a turnaround area and carve out an excavated area for the garage itself. That's going to be the staging area. That's where the equipment can go and stage during construction and build up. It's not at all uncommon in Laguna Beach to have a tight squeeze for construction. Builders know how to do it and we are committed to doing it with the minimum amount of impact to the neighborhood. Steve or Joseph or Mitch, do you want to add anything?
I want to call your attention to the photographs that I took from Mr. Burnes. It shows without trees and with trees and I think it can provide a screen. Our only reluctance is whether or not that screen will impact our view and his view as well. But there's a panoramic view and you can kind of see just proportionally whatever small amount of ocean view. And with all due respect, everybody values every single bit of their ocean view, but sometimes there has to be a compromise and we're willing to consider some of the proposals that you have before you. Thank you.
Jessica Gannon:
Thank you. Does that conclude your rebuttal?
David Parker:
Yes.
Jessica Gannon:
Okay. Any questions to the applicant? All right, Kristine? Kristine Thalman:
The water feature, is that the pool on the edge of the pool and spa? Is that an infinity? David Parker:
Not facing the Seacove. There is an infinity edge at the narrow end of the spa, but it's not facing Seacove. And we do, I think I forgot to mention we have landscaping in front and we've raised some of the trees to try to maintain privacy from the neighbor across the street and you can see that in the exhibits there.
Jessica Gannon:
Any other questions? No? All right. Public hearing is now closed. We'll move into board comments.
Yeah. I see you itching over there.
Thomas Gibbs:
Oh yeah. Let me first talk about what I like. I think it's a modest project. I think you're entitled to build there. Construction is always a problem in a highly condensed area. That doesn't mean that people in 384
This transcript was exported on Aug 14, 2025 - view latest version here.
January 9 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 08/14/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
there can't do home improvements. It needs to be staged and done correctly. I think staff and architects, particularly David, you've been around a long time, they'll do it right and we're not going to disapprove a project because it has construction in a highly dense community. With respect to view equity, I find your project achieves view equity. I went in all the different homes and the impacts are minor and the views, where they are impacted, the views of those homes, including Mr. Burnes, are amazing. We don't have view preservation in this town. We have view equity. I believe this project achieves view equity.
The high density and then mass and scale, as I said, I think it meets those guidelines. In fact, I think the whole project meets the guidelines with exception of privacy relating to the trees and overall, the deck.
And I'll just be candid. I mean I'll be interested to hear what my colleagues say. They could change my mind, but I'm not prepared to approve the project tonight. That deck has to be substantially reduced for two reasons. One is it creates intrusion. This is a highly dense community and there's no decks. I walked up and down that street. I don't know about other streets or on PCH, but no one has a deck remotely that size. I'm willing to give you a deck and to quote every neighbor that I went to concerned about a party deck. And to me it's different than having a backyard that's below the house.
You can still have parties there, but it's not right off the kitchen higher elevation, which causes a lot more noise and spread and particularly from the houses that I saw, including known as Everhart's house at 31674 that Mario Vaughn was nice enough to show me. There's so many houses that can see this deck directly and that big of a deck I just cannot approve particularly given the tightness of the community and the visualness of this deck from so many different houses. I mean one person, I forget his name, is in bed up above and it's right there. So I need to see what this deck's going to look like. And I doubt you're going to get rid of the deck. The ADU under it is in my view, appropriate. And I'll talk about the Coastal Development Permit. Let me talk about that briefly. Coastal Development Permit, I think we can make all the findings for that ADU including finding one, Criteria 6, that is visually compatible with the community.
It's low. You have two lots. You're entitled to build the structure if you're going to combine the lot to do, to include that ADU. But again, I go back to the deck, the fact that you have a roof to build a big deck on doesn't mean that the deck is neighborhood compatible. I find that it is not. So what I'd like to see when it comes back is a couple of things. One is I want to see that deck reduce substantially. I can't tell you exactly where, but I don't want to say half. I would look at the other decks on Seacove and make it commensurate. And I think you could maybe go a little bit bigger because it is off your primary living area. But I mean you look at Mr. Gray, I said Dave Gray, maybe it's Mike Gray, I'm not sure your first name, but a lot of the homes that have views facing the ocean have decks. I think we can go bigger but not majorly bigger.
I'd also look at it from the standpoint of privacy from the other homes. You make a case for a larger deck that is with landscaping works from a privacy standpoint for visual from the other homes. And I went to other homes putting in landscaping that blocks the deck is not going to impair anybody's views from Seacove. Talk about Mr. Burnes next. I think that Mr. Burnes, well, I don't agree with his view issues. I think he has privacy issues from the bedroom and his master bath, which happened to be on your side of the property. I think it's appropriate that the deck cannot be seen from his master bath or bedroom.
You accomplish that. Well, I'd like you guys to work that out, but maybe you can't. So what I'd like you to do in return is to come up with a recommendation rather than saying, "Maybe we could do this, maybe you could do that." With a height for those trees that would give us some standard to look at to make sure that your project, again, in a highly dense pocketed community, satisfies the board that the privacy guideline criteria is met.
385
This transcript was exported on Aug 14, 2025 - view latest version here.
January 9 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 08/14/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
It's the best guidance I can give you. These are easy things. It's not overall project, it's reducing the deck and making sure that the trees, which you've already talked about in the handout, we just got, have correct heights that work. In the first instance, it'd be great if you could work with the neighbors and come up with those heights. If not, come up with something that we can look at and you submit it. Then if neighbors have any objection, we'll go look and make a privacy determination. I somehow suspect that's not going to be a problem. It's not going to happen if you come up with fair heights for those trees to protect the privacy interests that I've talked about. So those are my views.
Jessica Gannon:
Okay, well I'll follow that up. I agree with 90% of what Mr. Gibbs had to say. I don't agree with his evaluation on privacy. I'm looking at my pictures and when I visited Mr. Burnes house, I don't see a privacy issue at all. You have to stand in very particular places to be able to see the privacy issue and that could be easily mitigated with, I'm going to go with option... Or whatever option is to get rid of that ficus tree 'cause I think that would improve your neighbor's views and then add the silver sheen and then have height limitations.
But yeah, when I was at Mr. Burnes' house, you could see the flags, but I had to stand very close to the balcony and at the foot of his bed to see the flags. I couldn't see the flags from, I don't have a picture from the bathroom because I couldn't see the flags. So I don't agree that there's a privacy issue. I think that could be mitigated with a silver sheen and everything else I agree with. Okay, let Kristine have her comment. I'll come back to you.
David Parker:
Why don't she speak and then I'm going to respond.
Kristine Thalman:
Okay, thank you. Visiting all the properties, I think the privacy issue, of course it's a very subjective issue because privacy is what you see and it's also what you hear. And I think the deck is quite large for this area. I would support a reduction in that deck. And I think with the screening that helps but that is an awfully large deck where there could be other accoutrements such as furniture umbrellas as someone pointed out. I think that's something to take into consideration as an impact on the neighbors. The pool is kind of an interesting, it looks very narrow and deep. What are the dimensions of the pool and spa? David Parker:
It's 8 by 24, is the water dimension.
Kristine Thalman:
So that would be on a timer, I'm assuming and would not be run, the filter and filtration system would not be after...
David Parker:
Yeah, it wouldn't be running 24-7, only when it's being used.
Kristine Thalman:
And that was more from the neighbor over on. Mr. Bertolino was concerned about the noise and access from a pool and the noise comes from that. So I guess my summation is... 386
This transcript was exported on Aug 14, 2025 - view latest version here.
January 9 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 08/14/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
David Parker:
I want to address the noise issue. There's space underneath the pool because it's a shallow pool, to locate the pool equipment. So it's going to be basically in a vault.
Kristine Thalman:
That helps. Yes.
David Parker:
That will help with that.
Kristine Thalman:
Yes. Thank you.
David Parker:
Sorry.
Kristine Thalman:
But other than that, I lost my train of thought here. I think that's the outdoor area is the deck is the main concern. And I think if you pulled it back or made a portion of it, a deck, the other portion, a green roof or whatever you want to do with that remainder of the roof. And the other thing is you said this is the only outdoor area, really, for the home. There is another outdoor area by the ADU, but I understand access is only from the ADU and I don't know if there's an opportunity to put in a stairway to that area as an additional outdoor area, but it's just not a recommendation but just a thought as far as when you come back with any changes. So I hope that was clear.
Steve Kawaratani:
Thank you very much. Kris, if I, would you mind if I ask a question? Chair Gannon? Jessica Gannon:
I've closed the hearing. If it's okay with the other board members to reopen the hearing? Steve Kawaratani:
Just for clarification.
Jessica Gannon:
Yes.
Steve Kawaratani:
Neither you or Tom were specific on the distance the deck would be brought back to garner your approval? What are you thinking?
Jessica Gannon:
Five feet?
387
This transcript was exported on Aug 14, 2025 - view latest version here.
January 9 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 08/14/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Patrick Donegan:
Well, just to be clear, there's no requirement that the board provide that level of specificity.
Steve Kawaratani:
I understand, Councilman.
Patrick Donegan:
Hang on, hang on. Let me finish. So you are free to express your position if you feel comfortable, but you're under no obligation to give him an exact dimension.
Kristine Thalman:
Well, I had suggested six feet less. Bring it back six feet.
Steve Kawaratani:
What about four feet?
Thomas Gibbs:
I actually think more I need to see it flagged. The dimension is, if I'm not mistaken, why don't you tell me the dimension? I'm not seeing it in my notes. The current dimensions of the deck.
David Parker:
The depth of the deck? It's approximately...
Thomas Gibbs:
From the kitchen toward the ocean.
David Parker:
I'm sorry?
Jessica Gannon:
The depth. That's depth.
Thomas Gibbs:
The depth.
David Parker:
The depth of the deck. It's 20 feet.
Thomas Gibbs:
Yeah.
David Parker:
I think 21 feet.
388
This transcript was exported on Aug 14, 2025 - view latest version here.
January 9 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 08/14/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Thomas Gibbs:
My view is at least half. But that's my, there's no deck that's even 10 feet there and it's so out of character. I think it remains a party deck at five feet. I think it creates the same privacy problems with only five feet. So you may have a difference of opinion among board members, but my view is it needs to be substantially reduced. May be okay in my mind, if it's a half or a few feet over a half, I need to see it staked. And I also think you need to communicate with the people in the neighborhood. You may get buy-off at a bigger deck than I would otherwise approve, but that's my view.
Jessica Gannon:
It sounds like you're going to get a continuance. I recommend getting rid of that ficus tree just to enhance views for your neighbors. And then sticking with that silver sheen.
Kristine Thalman:
I would agree with that too. I was going to just mention.
Thomas Gibbs:
Can I make one other point?
Jessica Gannon:
Yes, please.
Thomas Gibbs:
Chair and I were talking kind of like, why Thalman was giving the best views of the three of us about exactly what the view impairment was from Mr. Burnes' bedroom and bath. So it's clear, my recollection of my photos are a little different than hers. So it's clear if it's protected not from the deck but from the interior of his bedroom so he can't see the deck or somebody can't, if they're leaning over, turning around, that's one thing but just standing on the deck, turning around, can't see into his bedroom or master bed or master bath, that would satisfy my concerns regarding privacy. So I hope that's helpful.
Whether it's by using screening or whatever else. I think the ficus probably should go too. But that created a, I was kind of visualizing the ficus being gone, opening up the deck's view into his bedroom too. So whatever it is. And I think I told David and you Steve this, just in my mind, you need to come up with a solution that protects the privacy of Mr. Burnes' bedroom and bathroom.
Kristine Thalman:
And just to add onto to that, Tom, the privacy is also noise as well, which...
Thomas Gibbs:
And the noise goes to the size of the deck. Yeah. I think we all agree on that.
Jessica Gannon:
So back to the ficus tree because you drew a good point that it does enhance privacy. If there's a way, I'll leave it up to you guys if you want to keep maintaining that ficus tree and then we can make a condition of approval on a height variance for that tree to further protect the views for the people in the back. I'll leave that up to you guys.
389
This transcript was exported on Aug 14, 2025 - view latest version here.
January 9 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 08/14/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Thomas Gibbs:
David, I have confidence you'll come up with a solution and I'm not asking for agreement, I'm asking for a solution.
Jessica Gannon:
Wendy, when can we get them back here?
Wendy Jung:
So originally I was considering the next available could be February 27th, but the submittals were due yesterday.
Jessica Gannon:
Of course.
Wendy Jung:
So we're looking at March, March 13th. The design review board hearing submittals would be due January 22nd.
David Parker:
Sorry, what was the date? March?
Wendy Jung:
March 13th.
David Parker:
That's fine with me.
Wendy Jung:
With submittals due January 22nd. But if you need more time, there's a March 27th hearing. Submittals due February 5th.
David Parker:
I think March 13 will give us enough time.
Wendy Jung:
Okay.
David Parker:
We'd like to be expeditious.
Thomas Gibbs:
All right, Chair, I move that we continue item 5.7 at 31731 Seacove Drive to March 13th, 2025. 390
This transcript was exported on Aug 14, 2025 - view latest version here.
January 9 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 08/14/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Jessica Gannon:
I'll second that.
Wendy Jung:
Board Member Weil?
Jessica Gannon:
He's absent.
Wendy Jung:
Oh, sorry. Board member Gibbs. Was on autopilot. Board member Gibbs? Thomas Gibbs:
What do I look like? Yes.
Wendy Jung:
Chair Pro Temp Thalman?
Kristine Thalman:
Yes.
Wendy Jung:
And Chair Gannon?
Jessica Gannon:
Yes.
Wendy Jung:
Thank you. Motion passes 3-0 for continuance to the March 13th design review board hearing.
Jessica Gannon:
All right, we are moving on to.
391