1 Steven, Heather CD
From: David Gray <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 3:48 AM
To: Steven, Heather CD; Jung, Wendy CD
Subject: DRB Hearing: 31731 Seacove Drive
Attachments: Document.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] My name is David Michael Gray. I am the owner of 31676 Seacove Drive.
My home and the Everhart’s home are immediately to the south of the subject property across Seacove Drive. My bedroom is in the northeast corner of my home which will be directly impacted from any increased noise coming from a large deck, and my view from my office will be diminished to the north.
There is a huge privacy issue for me. They will look directly into my bedroom from the proposed deck.
I was told the hearing was going to be delayed so I hope you will give some leeway to my responding on my phone. I would have liked to have been more participatory. I left Laguna on May 2nd and am in the UK and Ireland until May 21st. I plan to attend the hearing.
I have authorized Mario Vaughn to act as my representative and to host you to visit my home while I am away. See attached Agreement.
I am a retired real estate developer very knowledgeable about land use issues with 40 years of residential development experience and well versed in the issues and politics of design review. I hope these issues can be resolved amicably as neighbors. The large deck is not an essential component of their project and developments should provide sufficient on site parking.
I reached out several times to the project architect but my calls were not returned.
To the best of my knowledge, there is universal agreement among the surrounding neighbors regarding the proposed oversized deck. None of the houses surrounding the property have large decks. My lot is only 2,000 SF and my house 1,500 SF.
We are not trying to prevent development and I believe are only asking for changes that every impacted owner would request.
The second issue upon we agree is the impact on parking. The subject property had a garage which they plan to eliminate. They are proposing to move those spaces but are adding an ADU unit and should be required to provide a parking space for that unit. They most often park in front of the garage extending into the fire lane. When there are multiple or service vehicles it can be impossible to get to my driveway, not even considering fire trucks. Where will the occupant of the ADU park? The few spaces in the small lot are limited to a few hours.
Attachment 14
437
2 What restrictions will be imposed during construction? How will they deliver materials to the site.
Seacove is a narrow driveway and a fire lane and should be severely or completely limited for construction. A concrete truck would make Seacove impassable.
I believe our requests for changes are reasonable and modest. We hope the DRB will respect the privacy, and views of the existing homes, and the need to provide sufficient on site parking.
Let me also repeat this: All of the surrounding owners are uniformly in agreement on the changes that need to be made for you to approve this project.
Thank you.
D. Michael Gray
438
To: Heather Steven, Senior Planner
City of Laguna Beach
Community Development
Planning Division
From: Nona and Steve Everhart
Owners and residents 31674 Seacove Dr. Laguna Beach
Subject: 31731 Seacove Dr. Laguna Beach - DRB Hearing
Dear Heather,
Since 2010 we have owned and reside in the home directly across the street from the subject property. Our living room and 5 Ō deck look north directly at the property. The purpose of this email is to formally voice our objecƟons to the improvements under consideraƟon. Our concerns are primarily two-fold and center on the parking and the privacy issues involving the size of the proposed deck, fire pit and pool. If this development is permiƩed as proposed the place potenƟally becomes a party house with likely 4 or more residents with vehicles which would negaƟvely impact the peace and serenity of our beach coƩage community. AddiƟonally, the improvements as proposed would result in a material impairment of value to our property caused by the obscured view looking north up the coast to Long Beach, Palos Verdes peninsula and sunsets during certain Ɵmes of the year.
First the parking issue:
Seacove Dr. is a privately owned street approximately 15 Ō in width and beƩer described as an alley. The owners of the subject property live elsewhere having rented it the enƟre Ɵme we have been here. The long-term renters have been delighƞul and very quiet in keeping with the vibe of the community on Seacove. Up unƟl the decision to make improvements to the property the single car garage had been converted to living space and the tenants parked in front of the property and in the public parking up the street. Their vehicles were parked in the alley way (street) in that there is essenƟally no set back from the house to the edge of the street. When parked in front of the subject property, we are oŌen unable to back out of our driveway. So, adding an ADU with tenants will only add to the parking issue on Seacove.
Moreover, regarding the proposed two car garage, ingress and egress seems untenable given the narrowness of the alley/street and no way to turnaround at the boƩom of the street without encroaching onto the neighboring property owners’ driveway(s).
A soluƟon is the imposiƟon of a city condiƟon requiring that all tenant vehicles must be parked inside the now exisƟng one car garage and the proposed two car garage and no overnight parking allowed on Seacove. This condiƟon should have required compliance providing for sancƟons in the event of non-compliance. If parking on the street is allowed it will be an 439
incredible eyesore for us and other nearby owners and a sleepy alley becomes a parking lot.
This outcome is totally unacceptable to us and our neighbors who reside here.
Secondly the deck:
Our objecƟon shared by all other affected property owners on Seacove is not having a deck, it is the sheer size of the deck. Thirty plus feet in length with approximately 700 square feet in surface area is unreasonable and causes all of us concern. Really, my home is only a few hundred feet larger! It is the size and length of the deck and the posiƟoning of the fire pit on the outer edge that’s wholly objecƟonable to us and other neighbors. People siƫng around the pit will be directly in our line of sight and invasive. A simple soluƟon we suggested to the architect when he visited us at our home is to halve the size of the deck to a length of 15 feet (which would sƟll a sizeable deck much larger than any other property owners’ deck on Seacove). With that length it wouldn’t impact our view, line of sight up the coast line and our privacy. Seems to us and our neighbors a reasonable request, but apparently there is an agenda that requires a massive deck that we find objecƟonable.
We have aƩached a few pictures and have formally requested an on-site visit from you that will clearly substanƟate our concerns and objecƟons.
We appreciate the opportunity to voice our concerns related to the proposed development and plan on aƩending the upcoming public hearing in person. We are flying back from Denver that day and if our travel plans don’t allow us to aƩend, we have requested Mario Vaughn to represent us.
Respecƞully,
Nona and Steve Everhart
440
Rendering of proposed deck with a party-like atmosphere.
View from our dining/living area through picture window. 441
View from chairs on deck. Property flags clearly show the proposed view obstrucƟon. 442