This transcript was exported on Aug 15, 2025 - view latest version here.
May 22 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 08/15/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Thomas Gibbs:
We go back to 5.4. Applicant, please come to the table. The project is for 31731 Seacove Drive. Design review 24-1151. Coastal Development Permit 24-1152. Variance 24-1153. Ex parte, please Jessica Gannon:
Chair, I had a site visit with David Parker and Steve Kawaratani.
MJ Coveny:
I also had a site visit with David Parker and Steve Kawaratani, and I also met with the neighbors across the street. Mario Vaughan was the representative for the Everhearts and the Grays. And I also met with Mr. Burke.
Jessica Gannon:
And I previously, first time this came around, I met with some of the neighbors.
Thomas Gibbs:
Okay. Yeah, this is a continuance. Imer, please.
Imer Bauta:
I met with Steve Kawaratani, David Parker, Jim Burnes, and Mario Vaughan.
Thomas Gibbs:
Louis?
Louis Weil:
Same as Imer.
Thomas Gibbs:
I met with Mr. Parker. Mr. Kawaratani. I met with Mario Vaughan representing two homeowners. I met with Jim Burnes and I met with Ralph Bertolino. Heather, you're on.
Heather:
Thank you. Good evening. Item 5.4 is a request for design review, coastal development permit, and variance at 31731 Seacove Drive in the R1 zone. The project was continued from the January 9th, 2025 Design Review Board hearing, so this is the second hearing.
The site consists of two lots with a 10-foot wide private road easement across the south frontage of both lots. The site is developed with a single-family dwelling, attached one-car garage on one lot, and a swimming pool and cabana on the second lot at the western portion of the site. Each lot is 60-feet wide and 40-feet deep, not including the private road easement, which does not conform to the minimum lot dimensions of the R1 zone.
The applicant is proposing a conversion of the one-car garage to living area. Additions totaling 641 square feet, including two new lower levels, a new 469 square foot two-car garage at the lowest level, with a new driveway at the western portion of the site. Elevated deck, grading landscaping, and a new Attachment 16
449
This transcript was exported on Aug 15, 2025 - view latest version here.
May 22 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 08/15/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
swimming pool. An attached 928 square foot two-bedroom ADU is proposed at the mid-level, which does not require design review.
At the previous design review board hearing at the direction of the board, the applicant was asked to reduce the size of the proposed elevated deck and to add screening, such as silver sheen, to improve privacy. The applicant has reduced the size of the elevated deck from 733 to 597.8 square feet, which is the reduction of 135.2 square feet by moving the location of the railings. The western railing wall was moved 4'6" to the east, with the corners pulled back further to 45 degree angles, which also eliminates a small deck area on the northern elevation. The landscape plan has been revised to add a hedge of pittosporum silver sheen approximately 15 feet along the north property line to add screening. The hedge would be maintained at a height of 16'4", which is an elevation of 120 feet.
Four neighbors have provided written comments expressing concerns regarding the potential impact from the proposed project. Their concerns include neighborhood compatibility, privacy and view equity, mostly as related to the proposed elevated deck. 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 within the setbacks. This will match the setbacks of the existing structure. 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 a swimming pool to be constructed within the front yard setback area. And the orange area on this slide shows the actual building envelope that's allowed without the variances. Staff believe that all findings can be made to grant the variance requests. Staff is also recommending the addition of a condition of approval to require the private access driveway to be increased from 8 feet to 10 feet in width pursuant to municipal code section
25.52.008(I)(2).
If the Design Review Board determines that the project is consistent with the design criteria and finds that all findings can be made, then it is recommended that the board adopt resolution 24-1151, approving the design review coastal development permit and variance applications, with the addition of the condition as noted. And finding said action exempt from CEQA. This concludes our presentation.
Available for any questions.
Thomas Gibbs:
Any questions of staff? Real quick, Heather, just explain briefly what the condition is exactly that you're proposing. Widening the...
Heather:
The driveway as shown is 8 feet wide and it needs to be 10 feet wide, pursuant to our code. So it's a little hard to see on the... There we go. You can see itThomas Gibbs:
So is that at the entrance you're talking, [inaudible 00:05:40]- Heather:
Yeah, at the entrance from where it connects to the private road and goes down into the driveway area.
It just needs to be widened by 2 feet.
Thomas Gibbs:
Thank you. With that I open the public hearing. Applicant, you have five minutes. 450
This transcript was exported on Aug 15, 2025 - view latest version here.
May 22 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 08/15/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
David Parker:
Good evening, board members. I'm David Parker, the architect for this project. I'm here with my clients, Joseph Praner and Mitchell Friedman. And thank you for taking the time to meet with us and thanks as well to staff for all their work. We've met with the neighbors numerous times and we've observed the views from to and from the properties, we've listened to their concerns. So tonight I want to talk about the modifications we've made in response to the concerns. Can I have the next slide, please? This slide shows the reductions we made to the deck in response to the neighbors on the board.
Thomas Gibbs:
I think you have the wrong slide.
David Parker:
Not this one but the next one. Yes. The yellow area is the reduced deck, 598 square feet down from 733.
The corner is clipped to better avoid Mr. Burn's sight lines coming from his house and his deck. Next slide.
This image compares the existing usable outdoor areas with the proposed. The combined elevated decks and on-grade decks and patios are 2278 square feet. Our proposed 598 square foot deck is the only usable area and is only a quarter of what is existing. Next.
This image shows the existing elevated areas, including the terrace off the great room and a raised deck below. The combined existing elevated areas are 659 square feet, which is 61 square feet more than what we are proposing at 598 square feet. Next.
This image shows the existing elevated terrace, which is 470 square feet. The pole on the left is the great room extension. Next.
Another view of this existing terrace, which is 470 square feet. We are asking to move this area out with the addition, and enlarge it slightly to make up for the loss of the existing usable areas. The other raised deck is below and to the right. Next.
This is a view of the existing pool, activity areas, and the lower deck. These are the areas that are being given up for the sake of having a garage and an ADU and landscaping on the property. Next.
Our survey of the area revealed eight elevated decks larger than ours, ranging from 716 to 1698 square feet. Ours is 598 square feet. Homes are typically on small lots with reduced setbacks in close proximity to each other. We happen to be on a double lot, which I believe justifies a slightly larger deck. Next.
We're proposing a row of silver sheen trees to replace the existing ficus on the north side, which provides a visual screen for Mr. Burnes. These trees will be 6 feet above the deck surface. On the other side is a row of podocarpus in front of the pool, at the railing height to the midpoint of the pool and at the deck level beyond to provide privacy on Seacove. It should be noted that our proposed deck has been described by some as a party deck. The term party deck is often used to mischaracterize the use of decks and create a false impression. The owners wish to use the proposed deck for outdoor dining, to access the pool, and to enjoy sunset views, but not for entertainment or parties.
The Seacove area has a pattern of development of small lots, reduced setbacks, and narrow streets. This results in many homes very close to one another. Most of these homes enjoy decks for outdoor living and the enjoyment of fine weather in the views of the ocean. It is unreasonable in such a community to expect complete privacy and complete mitigation of noise and views to and from these properties. We believe we had taken all reasonable steps possible to address these concerns. We've also been encouraged to achieve equity among neighbors regarding privacy. Equity does not mean zero impact, 451
This transcript was exported on Aug 15, 2025 - view latest version here.
May 22 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 08/15/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
but it means that there is a balance between the applicant's right to reasonably develop their property and the right of neighbors to reasonably maintain their views and privacy. In other words, give and take should be expected to be fair to all concern. We believe that our proposed project has achieved such an equity. Thank you and I look forward to your comments.
Thomas Gibbs:
Okay. At this time, members of the public can come up and speak. Come to the podium now, you have three minutes each. Oh, yeah, begin by stating your name and, if you'd like, the address so we know where you are.
Jim Burnes:
Good evening. My name is Jim Burnes. I live at 31672 Sea Bluff Lane, which is directly north and adjacent to the project.
Thomas Gibbs:
Speak more directly into the microphone please.
Jim Burnes:
Is this better?
Thomas Gibbs:
Yeah. You can pull it down.
Jim Burnes:
Well, I appreciate the applicant's steps towards ameliorating the concerns and problems that were noticed at the last DR meeting. It falls short of what the neighbors and I were actually expecting.
Discussions were had about pulling the western projection of the deck back substantially, some made reference to 50% or more. And he pulled it back from 35 feet to 30.4 feet, a 13% reduction. That's not the substantial we are looking for. And that westward projection is what causes a lot of the problems with his deck, including the noise activity, privacy intrusion, acoustic intrusion.
And to give you an idea, in my particular case, my main concern is privacy, including into my master bedroom and I will say is including to my bedside. Those of you who came to my house could see the red string line with the blue flag at the foot of my bed. If privacy protection means anything, it means people shouldn't be building roof decks that can allow direct sight lines into someone's bedroom and bed. And in this case that exists.
Here it is. This was taken but a few feet from my bed, master bedroom deck. This is the northwest corner of the deck. You can see it clearly. The silver sheen is represented by this 15-foot purple stretch here. It stops at that black flag and it begins at this yellow flag. You can see all of this northwestern corner is exposed. And when this ficus tree is removed, I'm convinced there is also going to be view intrusions from the southwest portion of this deck. The deck is 15 feet high and this privacy screen does little to avoid it being a party deck, and that's what it is with the jacuzzi pool, waterfall, fire pit, and large size. You just have to walk down Seacove so you can see it.
Worse yet, I discovered in this last go-around that from this yellow flag forward, all of this privacy screen, the applicant is intending to eliminate and put floor to ceiling view windows that stretch 11.6 452
This transcript was exported on Aug 15, 2025 - view latest version here.
May 22 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 08/15/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
feet wide and peer over my deck and literally every room on the western side of my home. You can see my bathroom, my bedroom, everything from the view windows on the other side is what his great room is right here and they will be looking directly into my private areas of my home. For that reason, I oppose it and I think there are solutionsThomas Gibbs:
Your time is up, Mr. Burnes. Thank you for your comments. Next.
Mike Gray:
Good evening. My name is Mike Gray. I live directly across Seacove from the property. If you look at the picture in your staff report and you see the swimming pool, my house is the one immediately across the street. I want to point out that all of the adjacent homeowners are here tonight I believe, and they're all opposed to the deck, okay? I'm going to go through some of these things quickly. I've been out of the country, I wasn't able to prepare. I was originally told the meeting was going to be in June. There's a mention that this is going to be exempt from CEQA on the basis that there's only minor alterations and negligible expansion. I find it hard to believe that 3,000 square feet is a negligible expansion, okay? Going on to the MIG issue for me, which is privacy. I want to give you a little bit of a feel. My bedroom is approximately no further than from me to you, and that deck they're proposing will be up there. And that deck will be the size of a small one-bedroom apartment. Now, they say they're not going to use it, they just said they're not going to use it for entertainment and stuff like that. Well, then they don't need it, okay? And they had also originally talked about a jacuzzi and a pool and a fire pit. Now, does that sound like just dining outside? No. It talks like an area where they're going to have parties and stuff. And that will make it... In other words, they're going to look directly into my master bedroom. And I would like to ask you if any of you would like that next door to you, okay? So I'm asking you to consider that, okay? The impact to me was not even mentioned in the staff report.
I'm going to talk a little bit about the view equity. This one, they have existing very good views comparison with, for example, the people behind me, the Everhearts. The Everhearts are going to lose the majority of their view. And what you're doing here is you're giving them a benefit and taking it from them, and I think that is not the intention of what a design review is supposed to do in terms of balancing equity.
There are two other issues that are not mentioned in, and I know a little bit why, but they're adding a two-bedroom ADU in addition to this... included in this 3000 square feet. They are not adding any parking, okay? I understand that has a little bit to do with the ADU, but there really was a two-car garage there. They're saying it's a one-car garage. They're going to replace two spaces and they're going to add another two units. The only other thing I would like to add is they haven't mentioned about construction. You put a concrete truck on there and I have no way to get to my house. Finally, I am a developer. I am been very involved in projects, large projects, getting them improved, and so I'm very knowledgeable about how people try to object to properties. We would like to come to a deal. Our company never has any litigation because weThomas Gibbs:
Your time is up.
Mike Gray:
453
This transcript was exported on Aug 15, 2025 - view latest version here.
May 22 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 08/15/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Okay. I would just suggest that you listen to the neighbors and they come and try to make a deal that would be good. If theyThomas Gibbs:
Your time's up. Thank you for your comments. Next.
David Rowan:
I'm sorry. Hello, I'm David Rowan. I live at 31673 Seacove Drive, directly behind the subject property, to the east. I've resided there for over 38 years now, so I'm pretty familiar with the area. Our street is a tiny street. It often gets very congested. Especially since the city added a public parking lot at the top of the street, we have traffic that goes up and down. The concerns of my neighbors of congestion and view equity and of the privacy issue, the privacy issue for me personally isn't really a factor because I am behind them. However, congestion has been a problem on this street ongoing, and I feel that not adding additional parking for a 600 square foot deck, I assume that there are going to be people on that deck, and this seems to be an issue.
Also adding additional trees to help aid the privacy of the other neighbors would be directly in front of my house. And currently, the trees that are there aren't maintained, they're overgrown. I've spoken to the homeowner regarding this probably a year ago, and the trees just keep growing. So I have concerns about this new screen for privacy just ending up going up and up and up and causing more invasion into the views of the neighbors. So thank you very much.
Thomas Gibbs:
Thank you. Any other speakers? After this gentleman, are there any other speakers? Are you the last? Mario Vaughn:
Yes, sir.
Thomas Gibbs:
Okay, good. Go ahead.
Mario Vaughn:
Council members, Chair Gibbs. I'm speaking for the Everhearts, 31674 Sea Cliff Drive. As you guys know, thank you all for coming down and taking a look at the property. We've got a really narrow little street.
It was all county long ago and it's congestion. Parking is an issue down there. And parking's an issue.
Anyway, to the size of the deck. My client feels invaded by the size of the deck. You can propose a swimming pool that they're proposing actually has seating facing back at our picture window that they're going to be people sitting in the pool looking back at my clients in their living room.
Furthermore, we're concerned about this... We'd like to pull it back, like the council requested back in January, pull it back, pull it way back. I think that was some of the verbiage that was explained to them.
Furthermore, the fire pit seems intrusive because you're going to have a shimmering glare into the windows. And my clients are going to be able to walk out because the deck is right in your face. I think you've all been down there. And I respect you guys' opinion on what you guys do. And I'm pro builder, I'm a builder as well, and I built homes in the community. But it just seems excessively in size. You could 454
This transcript was exported on Aug 15, 2025 - view latest version here.
May 22 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 08/15/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
put a helicopter on it, as I talked to some of the board members. But I appreciate all of you for coming down. And the guy in the sky as well, he was great to talk to as well. So I thank you guys.
Thomas Gibbs:
Thank you very much.
Mario Vaughn:
Thank you.
Thomas Gibbs:
Okay, with that, I turn it back to the applicant for three minutes.
David Parker:
Thank you very much. And we have met with all the neighbors and we have observed their views. We have tried to make reasonable responses. And as I mentioned before, in an area like this where the houses are so close together, having reduced setbacks, having substandard lots, having narrow streets between them, it's impossible to protect everyone's views and everyone's privacy 100%. I feel like the privacy trees that we're proposing will go a long way to doing that. I also feel like that the deck is a reasonable size compared to other decks in the area. As I mentioned, we found eight decks in very close proximity, which were larger than our deck. And some of these decks are visible from our property as well. And as a matter of fact, the existing terrace that we have already looks into the windows right now.
So it's just the nature of a very dense beach community.
People that live in areas like this have a right to enjoy outdoor living. It's part of something that beach cities, particularly Laguna Beach, have as something that is an aspect of enjoyment. And the project also has benefits to the neighborhood, including moving the garage down below and providing more parking, more landscaping across the front, replacing that really ugly wall, and also creating more open space.
Some of the trees are going to be removed or trimmed down, which will likely open up views for people, Regarding construction, there are places that we can park and minimize the impact of the neighborhood during construction. We're also amenable to suggestions of the Board as to things that we might do to help the neighbors out a little bit more if it's possible. Look forward to your comments.
Thomas Gibbs:
Thank you. Questions for the applicant?
Jessica Gannon:
Question. Would you be amenable for condition of approval to have height limits on the landscaping, on the privacy landscaping, the hedges?
David Parker:
Dimensions of the landscaping?
Jessica Gannon:
Just conditions of approval to cap them at height limits. 455
This transcript was exported on Aug 15, 2025 - view latest version here.
May 22 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 08/15/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
David Parker:
I'm sorry, Jessica, I couldn't quite understand the last thing you said.
Jessica Gannon:
Would you be amenable to height limit conditions for the trees? David Parker:
Yes. We would be amenable to that, yeah.
Jessica Gannon:
Okay. That's my question.
David Parker:
MJ?
MJ Coveny:
Yeah, I have a question. When you were designing the home, did you take into consideration extending the home out more and with the more bifold doors or whatever those cool Catalina doors, whatever sliders, in order to extend the interior to provide an indoor outdoor aspect? David Parker:
Well, my clients were very specific. Joseph is an interior designer, he's a design professional. And they were very specific in directing me to give them a modest addition for economic reasons and just because they don't want to take the house, which is already very small, and make it into something large. We didn't try to go up, we didn't try to go out farther. Our program is actually going down. It's a one-level house now and we're going down, and the site slopes downward so the garage is at the bottom. So we just, were trying to balance the addition with the indoor outdoor enjoyment.
MJ Coveny:
Okay, great. And the coverage for the patio, because that'll be a hot box, what is your plan to cover that? Are you going to awning it, umbrella it, sails? Have you looked at what your options are there in order to protect?
David Parker:
Coverage of the patio? We haven't discussed that, but we're open to discussing it, sure.
Jessica Gannon:
Nothing to propose at this time.
David Parker:
I'm sorry?
Jessica Gannon:
456
This transcript was exported on Aug 15, 2025 - view latest version here.
May 22 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 08/15/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
I said no awnings are proposed at this time?
David Parker:
Correct.
Imer Bauta:
Right. I've got a question pertaining to the north elevation, the proposed north elevation at the upper level. It appears in the elevation there's about four or maybe even five glass windows that are shown. Is the proposed new vegetation going to cover those windows or is the idea that there's going to be visibility through those windows?
David Parker:
That's a good question, and we spent some time looking at that this week. We are amenable to having part or most of the windows facing the side frosted. We're amenable to maintaining the existing row of trees there. Or if that's not possible due to construction, we're amenable to replacing them to screen it and provide Mr. Burnes with privacy as well.
Thomas Gibbs:
Let me ask, because that was my question, too. If you could pull up your landscape... and then you can resume your question. But since you're on it, pull up your landscaping plan that we looked at during your subject that showed the trees. I mean, this is obviously raised by Mr. Burnes' chart showing windows looking directly into his backyard and rooms.
David Parker:
We don't have a viewThomas Gibbs:
Hold a second, because I want to think about what you're talking about here in terms of mitigating that privacy concern. And I appreciate. This is what I was talking about.
David Parker:
We can do something there.
Joseph Praner:
So the edge of the house, this is where the window starts.
Jessica Gannon:
[inaudible 00:26:30].
Joseph Praner:
Sorry.
Thomas Gibbs:
457
This transcript was exported on Aug 15, 2025 - view latest version here.
May 22 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 08/15/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
If you could blow this up please, Heather. The green at the north elevation or north side of the... There we go. So the way I understand it, your landscaping stops before really the house begins. So all of those windows, which is rather substantial, would all be looking into Mr. Burnes' backyard, right? And so your proposal, you would be willing to extend the trees or the landscaping all the way back and to frost all the windows on that side?
David Parker:
We could do that. Is there any reason why we couldn't do that? Joseph Praner:
I'm not understanding what windows he's talking about. What windows? David Parker:
Talking about the windows at the stairwell.
Joseph Praner:
Oh, at the stairwell.
David Parker:
Yeah.
Joseph Praner:
Yeah.
Thomas Gibbs:
Well, if it goes back... If you look at the elevation, we can go back to that, it shifts quite a bit of windows on that side at the upper story.
Imer Bauta:
Sheet A9.
Thomas Gibbs:
Go back to sheet A9. I think we have some concerns about this obviously, so I want to make sure I understand what you're willing to do.
David Parker:
We've discussed the possibility of frosting those windows to the extent that our view isn't impacted.
And the windows that are closest to the fence there at the stairwell, it doesn't appear that there's any view loss if we were to do that.
Thomas Gibbs:
It's sheet A-201. It strikes me, David, that those are view windows, those were designed to be view windows. They're big windows. The problem is that no one thought about it looking into Mr. Burnes' backyard, which means that would need to be changed if... I mean, actually, because I'm not 458
This transcript was exported on Aug 15, 2025 - view latest version here.
May 22 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 08/15/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
deliberating, I'm saying what are you proposing to address his privacy concerns? I think you indicated frosting and landscaping.
David Parker:
Frosting.
Thomas Gibbs:
So are you talking about frosting all of those windows at the upper story? Speaker 13:
[inaudible 00:28:32].
Thomas Gibbs:
We'll get it up here in a second.
Imer Bauta:
Yeah, it's windows denoted by numbers three and four on sheet A9.
Thomas Gibbs:
Yep.
Heather:
A9.
David Parker:
Talking about the windows right here.
Thomas Gibbs:
Yeah, you can see them in the upper elevation, there's just a ton of windows there. And I'm looking at your colored elevations and it can see it there as well.
Jessica Gannon:
Does he block that?
David Parker:
No. Could we have a moment to powwow?
Thomas Gibbs:
Yeah. Yes, I think that's a good idea.
Speaker 12:
Actually, no, we're good. [inaudible 00:29:23].
There's too many rooms there. Needs to be [inaudible 00:29:46]. 459
This transcript was exported on Aug 15, 2025 - view latest version here.
May 22 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 08/15/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Jessica Gannon:
Oh. That may be arranged then to protect views.
Speaker 12:
Right. So I'm not sure [inaudible 00:29:50] tonight. [inaudible 00:29:52].
Louis Weil:
Chair, I might suggest we just this goThomas Gibbs:
No, go ahead. I want hear Mr. Parker's response. Go ahead.
David Parker:
Thanks for the time to discuss this. We're willing to extend a hedge row, a tall hedge row sufficient to protect Mr. Burnes from looking into his property all the way back to cover all that glass.
Thomas Gibbs:
But you're not willing to frost the glass?
David Parker:
But we're willing to do that as well.
Thomas Gibbs:
To frost all the second-story glass?
David Parker:
Just the windows that are facing his property.
Thomas Gibbs:
That's what we're looking at, we're looking at theDavid Parker:
Yeah, that are closest as well.
Imer Bauta:
North elevation.
Thomas Gibbs:
Can you describe those windows?
Imer Bauta:
North elevation windows, what denotes three and four.
460
This transcript was exported on Aug 15, 2025 - view latest version here.
May 22 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 08/15/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Thomas Gibbs:
Okay. Any other questions Mr... first of all, Mr. Bauta, do you have any more? Imer Bauta:
I do have one more question pertaining to the fireplace. Some neighbors raised concerns about it being toward the front of the house. Would you be amenable to it being closer toward the house with obviously taken into safety concerns?
David Parker:
I'm sorry, could you repeat that, please?
Imer Bauta:
Would you be amenable to relocating the fireplace slightly closer to the house so that it maintains privacy between the neighbors to the south?
David Parker:
Relocating the fire pit on the deck.
Speaker 12:
It's not a permanent fire?
Jessica Gannon:
It has to be 10 feet from the structure, I think, right? Imer Bauta:
Yeah, 10 feet from the structure. That's right.
Thomas Gibbs:
How far is it? Is it more?
Speaker 12:
We'll eliminate the fire pit.
David Parker:
Okay. We're willing to eliminate the fire pit.
Jessica Gannon:
Eliminate you said?
Thomas Gibbs:
Okay.
Jessica Gannon:
461
This transcript was exported on Aug 15, 2025 - view latest version here.
May 22 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 08/15/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
To eliminate the fire pit? Okay.
Thomas Gibbs:
All righty. Any other questions, Mr. Bauta?
Imer Bauta:
The seating for the new pool, I think one of the neighbors raised a concern about it being toward the visibility location from their bedroom. Would you be open to adjusting the location away from where visible when seated?
Jessica Gannon:
I think they proposed privacy hedges, right? That's theImer Bauta:
On the south side.
Jessica Gannon:
The silver sheen.
Imer Bauta:
Private [inaudible 00:32:06].
Jessica Gannon:
The silver sheen. Yeah, that's what the silver sheen is proposed for. Oh, my computer just went kaput.
Thomas Gibbs:
Yeah. From looking at that site plan with the landscaping, it looked like it went all the way along the pool area. Is that correct?
David Parker:
Yes.
Thomas Gibbs:
Mr. Parker, we don't have in front, but the hedge goes all the way along. What is your proposed minimum and maximum height for that hedge along the pool side facing the alley? David Parker:
We're proposing that... You're correct, it does go along the entire length of the pool. We're proposing that from the midpoint of the pool back to the house, that those trees can grow up to the height of the deck railing. And from the midpoint towards the ocean at the level of the deck, there could be some flexibility there as well.
Imer Bauta:
462
This transcript was exported on Aug 15, 2025 - view latest version here.
May 22 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 08/15/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
That's great. Thank you, David.
Thomas Gibbs:
Any other questions?
Louis Weil:
Chair?
Thomas Gibbs:
Wait, Mr. Weil. I just want to make sure Mr. Bauta is finished. I think he is. All right, Louis, go ahead.
Louis Weil:
Sorry, I thought you were asking that across the board.
Thomas Gibbs:
No.
Louis Weil:
So my question did pertain to the driveway access. As I asked staff that question earlier in the week, what was the minimum? Right now it was drawn at 8 feet. I appreciate the condition. I do think it does need to be at 10 feet. But I also think that there needs to be kind more the triangle access towards the alley that allows for an easier ingress, and ingress it's a common thing amongst driveways. I think that needs to be incorporated. Right now I think you have plantings, but whether you do that with a DG and a brick thing, I think that needs to be incorporated to make what is a difficult street more accessible into that down and around turn to get into your driveway. Are you following me? Can you hear me? Thomas Gibbs:
Yeah, we can hear you. We got you.
Louis Weil:
Yeah, so that's what I'd like to see in the design from the access [inaudible 00:34:13].
Thomas Gibbs:
Okay. Any other questions?
MJ Coveny:
I actually have one more, sorry about that. I'm struggling with the pittosporum silver sheen for a couple reasons. I know that plant probably is not as well as you, Steve, but it's a finicky plant. It's lovely, but it's also drippy. I feel like to get 6 feet above the floor of the deck there is going to make this... They barely get to 16 feet. And when they do, they're thin and they just can't hold up, they lose sections in the middle. It's just not that hardy for... If you keep it at an 8-foot hedge, it's what you want. But when you get into 16 feet, you're running into trouble and it will become an issue I feel. And I mean, I don't want to deliberate.
463
This transcript was exported on Aug 15, 2025 - view latest version here.
May 22 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 08/15/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
So I guess my question is would you and have you considered, especially with the size of this deck, is preparing on the deck itself some sort of flower box around the decking on each side specifically, not necessarily in the front, because I don't think on the west side you have any issue there, of something that from deck up you would have something 6 feet in height? Steve Kawaratani:
So MJ, I'm pretty confident if the pittosporum silver sheen is topped, it'll stay thick. But if the board prefers, there are other plants like a ficus or the podocarpus again. The problem with putting a planter box to the side of the patio is that it can only be of X amount of depth, and at some point the roots are going to overwhelm the size of that box. So I would prefer some kind of screening barrier provided by planning to be in the ground rather than in a pot. So if you would prefer a different species of a hedge, there are literally dozens that we can put there.
MJ Coveny:
Okay. Thank you. Thank you for that. The other concern I have is the actual reality of the height needing to only be 16 to get to be 6 feet above deck. From the grading down below where the garage is, looking at the height of the garage, looking at the height of the second floor and then going up, my math doesn't come out to that. Now I might be wrong. I don't know if someone has a better... I'd have to go back to your plan. I wrote it down somewhere but now I can't find it. So I'm not seeing that making it.
And I mean I kind of like the idea of that hedge being there, because it breaks up all the concrete and homes around. It kind of softens that whole area down there. But I'm struggling with that and I just wanted more clarity on the reality of what your height is and where we're at there. Because it's going to become a neighborhood thing and then it's going to come back to the city with constant code violation.
Thomas Gibbs:
Right. This is a really important issue because, and we haven't deliberated this, but we need to make sure in your proposal and I need to hear your comments of the confidence, I don't know these plants one from the other, that the height of these screens, you're calling them yourself screens, are sufficient to block the deck areas from looking into Mr. Burnes' backyard and also from protecting the houses, the areas across the street. And I'm kind of not hearing it either. I'd like your idea of 6 feet above. What can you do to kind of satisfy us that your proposal includes that? Jessica Gannon:
May I make a suggestion? We can condition approval that they put in mature trees.
Thomas Gibbs:
Absolutely. I think that's a great idea. But the trees you're putting in, will they be robust all the way up to, say, 6 feet above the deck?
David Parker:
Well, that's certainly what we want to achieve. And Steve is the landscape architect, so we would look to him to recommend a species that would be dense enough to adequately block views to and from the property.
Thomas Gibbs:
464
This transcript was exported on Aug 15, 2025 - view latest version here.
May 22 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 08/15/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Robust.
MJ Coveny:
Well, I'm looking at your plan here and I see 25 feet, I think, from the finish floor of the garage to approximately maybe 2 feet above the railing, and it's 25 feet.
David Parker:
Well, if you look at the site plan adjacent to where those trees are, I saw an elevation of 103.5, that's where the trees are going to be planted. The surface of the deck is about 114, and 6 feet above that is 120. And if you subtract, so you need 16.5 feet.
Thomas Gibbs:
16. MJ Coveny:
Can you look at, and maybe, Imer, you're stronger in this world than I am, but the A11 document that shows the finished floor of the garage, which I'm assuming, is it subterranean? Is it down underneath [inaudible 00:39:37]?
David Parker:
Yes.
MJ Coveny:
How far down?
David Parker:
The floor on the ADU is essentially adjacent to the walkway on the side yard. So yeah, the garage is all the way down.
MJ Coveny:
So the finished floor of the garage hits a walkway, which hits the grass, which means the trees will grow from there.
David Parker:
I'm sorry, say that last thing again.
Thomas Gibbs:
I think the garage is under subterranean, vis-a-vis the alley, right? David Parker:
Yeah.
Thomas Gibbs:
465
This transcript was exported on Aug 15, 2025 - view latest version here.
May 22 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 08/15/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
The grade for the alley where it's going, the trees are going to be planted areMJ Coveny:
Where from the finished floor will the trees be planted of the garage? Thomas Gibbs:
Yeah.
David Parker:
I believe the ceiling of the garage is 8 feet and then the floor is another foot, so we're looking at approximately 5 feetMJ Coveny:
Ceiling is 7'2"
David Parker:
... from the finished floor. Maybe a little less because there's a slight offset, a step-down from the ADU.
MJ Coveny:
But it's hard for me to believe that the sidewall of the garage isn't going to meet the ground level.
David Parker:
Well, I believeMJ Coveny:
Where the plants will be.
David Parker:
... it should show in a section that we cut there.
Imer Bauta:
So from what I can tell, it looks like that planter is slightly elevated, David. Does that sound right? David Parker:
Say that again, sorry.
Imer Bauta:
It appears that the planter to the north is slightly elevated. You got a top of wall elevation about 107, 107 45, 1010 at the high location.
David Parker:
466
This transcript was exported on Aug 15, 2025 - view latest version here.
May 22 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 08/15/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
The planter we're proposing to plant the silver sheen or some screen tree is at the grade level. It's not elevated out of grade. I'm trying to answer MJ's question and get the right numbers. I think I have a section cut through there.
Jim Campbell:
Mr. Gibbs, if I may, I apologize for interruption here, but it appears that the finished floor of the deck is about 114.05 based on the plans that I'm reading. It may be really close to that. And I think if you're looking for screening in front of that next to the street, I thought I heard 6 feet above the deck.
Thomas Gibbs:
6 feet above the deck, so it would need to go to 120.05. Yeah, 12005.
Jim Campbell:
When you go to the landscape plan, there are two height callouts that areThomas Gibbs:
What is the page?
Jim Campbell:
One zone is at one 117.5 and then the other one is at 113.
Thomas Gibbs:
What's the page? Is there an L-page?
Jim Campbell:
I'm sorry, that's the landscape plan L1.
Thomas Gibbs:
Let me get to it.
Jim Campbell:
If you zoom into theThomas Gibbs:
Yeah, I've got it.
Jim Campbell:
You see the row of trees there and you'll see the text. It's in the street actually, showing main train trees in the zone at elevation 117.5, and then there's another zone at 113. And so if you're looking to have it 6 feet above that deck, you would want it to beThomas Gibbs:
120.05.
467
This transcript was exported on Aug 15, 2025 - view latest version here.
May 22 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 08/15/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Jim Campbell:
Basically 120.05. So that could be a change to the landscape plan fairly easily.
Thomas Gibbs:
I think that answers that question.
MJ Coveny:
Are we good with what they have proposed here?
Louis Weil:
Yeah, over 6 feet.
MJ Coveny:
Over 6 feet from deck.
Thomas Gibbs:
Yeah, we haven't deliberate. I think we're just getting parameters.
MJ Coveny:
All right. Assuming that's accurate.
Thomas Gibbs:
Okay. Any other questions?
Steve Kawaratani:
If the board would indulge me, I originally selected the plants so they wouldn't go too high, right? And so MJ is correct, as they start reaching their maximum, they're going to probably get a bit more wispy. So why don't we say, particularly on Mr. Burnes' aside, we'll change the hedge to a prunus caroliniana, which can reach 25, 30 feet, but is very comfortable being kept between 12 and 16. And it's extremely thick and has good tolerance to salt air. So we'll change those plants on that side.
Jessica Gannon:
What was the name of that plant?
Jim:
What is the name of the plant?
Steve Kawaratani:
Pardon me?
Jessica Gannon:
Can you repeat the name of the plant?
468
This transcript was exported on Aug 15, 2025 - view latest version here.
May 22 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 08/15/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Steve Kawaratani:
Sure. Prunus caroliniana. Carolina Cherry.
Jessica Gannon:
Oh, okay, Carolina Cherry.
David Parker:
I found the section I was looking for, so on sheet A11. Maybe Heather can pull that up. It shows the garage, it's cut through the garage perpendicular to the property line, and it shows where the garage is in relationship to the grade on either side. It's surrounded on three sides. On one side by a pool, on the backside of the garage is underground, and then on the right side it's also underground. So you could look at the sections on sheet A11, I think that'll answer the question. Do you want to pull that up? Jessica Gannon:
I'm ready.
Thomas Gibbs:
Yeah, I think we're good on that. I don't think we need to see it. I think we've got a good handle on that.
All right, so any other questions? Louis? Anybody? Okay, with that, I close the public hearing. And I'm sensing that Jess, you'd like to begin?
Jessica Gannon:
I could start on this one. I thought this was approvable the first time around. I was fine with all of it, with the landscape plans. With the current reductions, it's even more approvable. I didn't find any privacy issues when I visited Mr. Burnes' house the first time. Of course, you can see each other if he stands out on his deck, but when I was in his bedroom, with the trees, the plants that are currently there, and then you're only going to replace them with bigger and better trees. Privacy concerns there have been no issue there. There wasn't any privacy concerns that I could see or detect with the other neighbors to the south side.
And then for the other board members that commented, I believe that you followed their direction by reducing the deck roughly 5 feet, it was just a shaving, I think I recall one board member mentioning. I think this project, it's modest in its nature, it's a modest remodel. It's a modest size deck and it improves your right to enjoy outdoor living space. And I think all the objective findings can be made for the design review criteria in the coastal development permit. And I'm ready to support this project. And I support staff's findings for the variance as well. Those are my comments.
Thomas Gibbs:
All right. Mr. BautaJessica Gannon:
Oh, and based on the information this evening, I have a bunch of little notes, with the conditions of approval stated throughout and I'll run through those lists when we get to that point.
Thomas Gibbs:
469
This transcript was exported on Aug 15, 2025 - view latest version here.
May 22 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 08/15/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Mr. Bauta.
Imer Bauta:
Yes, thank you. I agree with most of chair member Gannon's comments. The items that we discussed previously requiring the opaqueness of those windows I think are a necessity for privacy, to maintain privacy. I'm also open to it being additional vegetation along that elevation as an option. Either one would suffice. And then yeah, I would say that's probably the main item.
Thomas Gibbs:
Okay. MJ?
MJ Coveny:
I might take some time, I'm sorry. So I'm struggling a little with the project, I'll tell you that. I wasn't here on the first round, so this is my first time seeing it. I know the variance has been supported by staff with some pushback for us to look at privacy and view equity. I don't think there's a view equity specific issue.
View equity to me is super blockage of a view like the ocean or the canyon views. I see this as a privacy issue from all parties that were here and spoke tonight.
It's a fishbowl in that little area, and if it's all to me site-specific. This is a very large deck, but it's fine if it's in the right site and it doesn't get everybody's view. So not only are you looking at them, but they're looking at you. So it sort of goes both ways. When you're asking for variance for kind of an active area that's going to impede their privacy, even though I get what you want the variance, I mean, it's a very limited lot, you can still have extended your house and made your deck kind of more of a standard deck with a table, a lounge area, a grill area. And it's the pool that's really driving this because you need that, you want that. And it's an elevated pool, which is cool and everything.
But again, I have to weigh your right to build and their right to maintain their quality of privacy. So the hedging I feel like is a relatively good solution, but I'm still not trusting the quality of that hedging and I'm concerned about that becoming an issue down the road. So privacy I still think could potentially be an issue.
I'm going to speak because sometimes it takes me a minute to get all this clear in my head. And I want to hear what Louis has to say too, because he's much more experienced in this world. But I do see it as a fishbowl. I do see it as the hedging will not completely protect privacy for the Everhearts and the Grays. I do think it will for the Burke side. And also by doing your opaquing of the windows, that's going to take care of that. But when you walk to the end of that deck and look back, not that that's going to be a regular thing, when you're down at that end it is going to be sitting, leaning, looking. It's the natural thing to do is kind of look up and look back. So I don't think privacy has been fully achieved yet, even with the opportunity to mitigate some of that with hedging.
I appreciate you making the change from pittosporum to the cherry, because I do think that will... I don't know what it does to the rooting world and what that does to the street when it grows. Ficus can be a real disaster with plumbing and such, so my hope is that that's not an issue. When you start building this deck with GAC, umbrellas, I don't know if you're surfers, surfboards, it becomes a whole other room.
That's the thing. Again, I just don't think that this hedging is going to mitigate that completely.
Jessica Gannon:
That's personal property.
470
This transcript was exported on Aug 15, 2025 - view latest version here.
May 22 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 08/15/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Thomas Gibbs:
Yeah. MJ has the floor.
Jessica Gannon:
Yeah.
MJ Coveny:
And when you make this deck another room, which is how, to me, it's reading, I have a concern with that. Also, I'm hoping that the fire department is approving all this type of trees so close together. I didn't get that question in earlier. Let me see, variance. Yeah, that's really the big thing. I think if you brought the deck back 5 feet, I know that would kill... I don't know what that does to your pool and hot tub. It feels like it's just a chunk too far. I know that's not a technical term, but it's just slightly too large and it's feeling like a room. And it would be okay if you had the hedging. But as long as that is somewhat shrunk down, it also limits some of the other GAC that will go on there that will become a visual impairment to the neighbors, which I think you can't cover all with hedging. I hope that makes sense.
And reserving my right to hear the other board members before I comment on my approval.
Jessica Gannon:
I would like to make an extra comment.
Thomas Gibbs:
Let's hear from Louis and then I'm going to... I think this is one where I'm going to ask every board member to keep an open mind until you hear everyone's comments. And then we'll do another round of comments because I want to make sure everybody gets the benefit of other people's views before we start making decisions and motions. Louis, you're up.
Louis Weil:
All right. So I appreciate the board's prior comments at the prior hearing. I apologize for not being there at the January hearing. But seeing this for the first time, I'm seeing it with fresh eyes. And I think the bones of this project have a good nature to them and there's a lot of good elements to designing in this really kind of compressed, condensed, constrained lot. So I am supportive of the variances and most of the staff report findings.
I think it really just for me today, I think there's just enough stuff, and I'll go through my list that I want to give the applicant an opportunity to just clean up the plans and head towards the right approval, because I think we're really close. But I do think we do need to hear this as a continued item, just so it can all be cleaned up, understood, and to the benefit of both the applicant and the neighbors.
My issues are I do think the deck does need a further reduction. I do think as board member Coveny was talking about, reducing it to where the pool ends I think is a fair and equitable space. I know the applicant team put forward their outdoor usable space and the reduction, but in that calculation he didn't really consider that the driveway is still usable space and that does create, it's a pavered area that could still be utilized by this property owner.
I do appreciate staff's recognition of the 10-foot driveway, as I mentioned in the questions. I do think that needs to be redrawn and re-put in here, so it doesn't need to be a condition. I do think that the triangle, the access triangle as it meets the alley needs to be incorporated into this design due to the 471
This transcript was exported on Aug 15, 2025 - view latest version here.
May 22 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 08/15/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
narrowness of the alley. I think that's just truly to the benefit of the applicant to make ingress and egress so much easier. I live at a property that has a very difficult driveway for backing into and up, that these inches matter, and I think it's really to your benefit to take a second look at that.
As far as the landscaping issues, I completely agree that it does need a little bolstering. I appreciate Steve Kawaratani's efforts to kind of add that cherry laurel component or a denser foliage, and the right kind of plantings so the tree can mature and do the right screening. I appreciate the applicant's willingness to frost those windows over the staircase access, as I do think that would create a lighting and glare and a potential privacy issue to the north side of that property, and I'd like to see that incorporated into the plan set.
As for the deck, if it is reduced to that size, I think it is comparable to the neighborhood. Privacy on deckings is a two-way street. It is limited privacy, I think, in some regards, especially in these condensed areas. You can see your neighbors, the neighbors can see you in the current conditions. So that allows me to support the elevated pool in this location and the elevated outdoor space to be there as we clean up this program. But for me, I'm fairly much appreciative of the discussion that the board's had. I'd like to see it incorporated buttoned up and we move this forward to a clean approval at a next hearing.
Thomas Gibbs:
Thank you, Mr. Weil. Okay, let me give my comments and then we'll throw it back to the other members of the board. Yeah, I was at the meeting and we made it, I thought, very clear that that deck needed a substantial reduction, and what we were talking about was the length of the deck. And what you did is what I think a modest, maybe a minor reduction in length, and then to kind of bolster the number you took some of the deck off of the side.
I'm looking at what Louis was talking about and bringing the deck back to the beginning of the pool. It's a very large pool, which I think also given it's an elevated pool, should be reduced in size. I think the deck is out of character for the neighborhood for that street. I walked up and down Seacove, there's no deck remotely approaching that size. I think it's one reason why David's chart doesn't show a deck there approaching that size. It is, I think, by double the size of an appropriate deck at that height. It's different having a deck there which creates privacy concerns, noise concerns, which is also a privacy issue, than having a backyard that's down below, which is much more protective both and visually-wise. So where I am is a more substantial reduction than I'm hearing from other board members, I would reduce it in half. That said, I think more of a reduction is in order.
With respect to the landscaping, I agree with MJ's comments that this is a fishbowl. And while decks do create some privacy issues, this size of the deck in this location, even at half its size creates significantly greater privacy issues for the neighbors, which is one reason why you got, I think, a lot of neighborhood complaints, which I visited them. I think they're legitimately felt. Reducing the deck significantly, significantly reduces the privacy concerns. If the direction is to reduce it less than I would like to see, it just increases the privacy concerns.
That said, I appreciate the applicant's willingness to do what it takes to make those privacy concerns be addressed, including a screen going 6 feet above the deck and frosting the windows on Mr. Burnes' side.
I would require those two things at a minimum. I think it should come back to address to really see maximal deck reduction. And I'd be interested to see whether I moved any of my other board members to push for at least 10 feet back on that deck.
And to come back with, I think Mr. Kawaratani indicated, that the trees that were proposed in the original landscape plan were not sufficient to provide the kind of privacy that we're talking about here.
To come back with a landscape plan that shows the trees that are going to be planted both to protect 472
This transcript was exported on Aug 15, 2025 - view latest version here.
May 22 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 08/15/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Mr. Burnes' side. And I would want not either/or. I got glazed windows plus landscaping just to make sure that his privacy is protected in the backyard. And I think the applicant was willing to do that.
To come back with a well-thought-out landscaping plan on both sides with a deck reduction and I think we would be good to go. I don't think we're talking about a lot. We would be good to go. Plus having that and coming back would give the neighbors the opportunity to see what kind of privacy screening that's meaningful to them, and they were very concerned by the lack of that in the last set of plans. I think it could go a long way to alleviating neighbor concerns. You may even want to talk to them to show them your landscaping plans, get them to sign off. And those plans should show both a minimum and maximum height for the landscaping screen, so to give you some flexibility. So those are my comments.
I'd like to see it come back with a shorter deck and a clarified landscaping plan that the neighbors can get a input on.
Okay, with that said, Jess, do you have some comments?
Jessica Gannon:
No.
Imer Bauta:
I've got some comments on the deck. So it sounded like MJ, you're leaning toward a reduction of roughly 5 feet. Does that sound about right for the front of the deck? Jessica Gannon:
While she figures that outThomas Gibbs:
I did move you to go 10 feet. Are you 5 or 10 feet?
MJ Coveny:
Well, I need to double-check the length of the deck and where that falls.
Jessica Gannon:
And while she's double-checking thatThomas Gibbs:
If you look at A12-
Jessica Gannon:
Chair.
Thomas Gibbs:
[inaudible 01:00:31].
Jessica Gannon:
Okay.
473
This transcript was exported on Aug 15, 2025 - view latest version here.
May 22 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 08/15/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Thomas Gibbs:
If you look at A12, and Louis, you might want to look at A12 as well, that shows what Louis was talking about, which is moving the deck back to the edge of the pool. So I think if we have three votes here, and I'd be interested in your view, Mr. Bauta, if we have three votes here for a shorter deck, I think we should try to give some direction as to how much shorter the deck should be rather than kind of leave it to guess.
MJ Coveny:
Is that okay for us to do?
Louis Weil:
I mean, or we can just ask the applicant if they're willing to just go redraw it and come back in a month.
MJ Coveny:
I guess we can always condition it next time.
Louis Weil:
Because if we give them a fair amount of directionThomas Gibbs:
Well, I would not be happy with a 5-foot reduction. I think it needs to beMJ Coveny:
Right now only going to the pool is 4'4". So yes, I agree with you, Chair.
Jessica Gannon:
May I speak, Chair?
Thomas Gibbs:
Yeah, you'll have [inaudible 01:01:27].
Jessica Gannon:
So the deck doesn't create any more privacy issue than it does right now.
Thomas Gibbs:
Here, I just wanted to hear MJ's comments. How far back would you think the range be? MJ Coveny:
It's my intent to never give direction like that, but is that something, Jim, that you feel is adequate in this particular instance to get to the next round?
Jim Campbell:
474
This transcript was exported on Aug 15, 2025 - view latest version here.
May 22 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 08/15/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
It's up to the Board. You can provide specific direction, but I think when you do provide specific direction, you're kind of setting up a situation that if you don't like what you see when it comes back and you want to make it further, it's really hard to go back on that.
Thomas Gibbs:
I think we've seen this twice. I'd be comfortable saying... How far is it? Can you tell... Let me see if I could tell. How far is it, the deck now from the house to the edge? 22 feet, is that right? Speaker 16:
The angles of the corner, yes.
Thomas Gibbs:
Yeah, I'm looking at total. David, I just want to make sure we have the right measurement. Is that 22 feet?
David Parker:
It's 20'6" wide by 30'6" deep.
Thomas Gibbs:
30'6" deep.
Jessica Gannon:
What is this number?
Imer Bauta:
Yeah, so 4’ 4” plus 22 plus 4'2".
Jessica Gannon:
The length is there.
Thomas Gibbs:
For me, it would have to be at least 10 feet.
Jessica Gannon:
So what is this number, this 4 by 4?
Thomas Gibbs:
That's from here to here is 4.4.
Jessica Gannon:
Oh.
Thomas Gibbs:
475
This transcript was exported on Aug 15, 2025 - view latest version here.
May 22 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 08/15/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
4'4". But overall, deck is... I mean, think about it, gang, 30 feet-plus for a deck that's big.
Imer Bauta:
I don't know.
Thomas Gibbs:
And particularly in the fishbowl that we have, MJ. And I'm going to let you respond, so why don't you respond?
Imer Bauta:
I like the privacy. I like the privacy that they're presenting. I think they're going... Due to the sides of the deck, I think they're really going above and beyond with the landscaping proposal, especially since they've proposed additional coverage. They really want to make it private for them and their neighbors.
I think that the deck, if we were to do a reduction, I think that 4'4" covers all the neighbor's concerns that I saw while I was out there. I don't think there could be anything further by taking it back even further. They've also agreed to remove the fire pit on their own terms. So I don't think this is a party deck, I just think they want space for outdoor space and use.
MJ Coveny:
It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if it's a party deck.
Thomas Gibbs:
No, no. I want to deliberate on this.
Imer Bauta:
Okay.
Jessica Gannon:
I concur with a board member Bauta.
Thomas Gibbs:
MJ, your feeling? And then I'm going to put it to you, Louis, and then we'll wrap this up.
MJ Coveny:
Yeah. I see it being, I think I'm with far as size, chair, and a 10-foot reduction.
Thomas Gibbs:
Okay. Louis, what's your feeling?
Louis Weil:
I'm still going to go back to my original statement that there's a handful of things that need to be cleaned up on this project, and I think we're giving them enough direction to come back with some guidance to redraw it and get it cleaned up.
476
This transcript was exported on Aug 15, 2025 - view latest version here.
May 22 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 08/15/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Thomas Gibbs:
Okay. So the motion I'm going to make is, I think, the findings are sufficient of good faith in this to justify a third hearing. I think the direction is fairly clear. You can take the guidance you've got on moving the deck back, but it definitely needs to be moved. I think you have the guidance to... Actually, before I get to the motion, I want to make a couple comments on consensus.
You have guidance to move the deck back. You heard the comments from each of the board members. I think you have guidance to frost the window facing the Burnes' side. I think you have guidance on putting in the landscape screening up to 6 feet. I'd like to see minimum maximum with that and to choose landscaping that would be... And I have full confidence in Steve Kawaratani knowing the landscaping and choosing ones that would be robust at that size. So with that I move forMJ Coveny:
I'm sorry to interrupt you, chair. That was very well said. I just had one thing in my head that I wanted to share because I think it's really important. It doesn't matter if this is a party deck or not, the homeowners are allowed to do whatever they want on their deck. If they have children, it could be a playground. So that's really not what's driving this. What's driving this is privacy and view for privacy from especially they have hearts and graces. So I just want to be clear about that. Enjoy your home.
Thomas Gibbs:
That's very well said, and I concur totally.
Speaker 12:
Thank you, MJ.
Thomas Gibbs:
I'm not moved by whether it's a party deck or not, I'm moved by how large the deck is. But all that said, we're kind of going over. But thank you for that comment, it is a privacy issue to me and I think it's a privacy issue to all the board members.
Okay. With that said, I make a motion that we continue... Oh, I think I've already said on the record that I can make the finding, some good faith and progress to justify a third hearing. And I move for a continuance. What is the date?
Jim Campbell:
Well, a lot of that does depend upon what the applicant can do and when they can get some plans back in. So if we just go by the normal kind of schedule that we have, if you could make the plan changes by June 4th, we can put this on July 24th.
Steve Kawaratani:
Yeah, next available, Jim.
Jim Campbell:
That would be the next available.
Steve Kawaratani:
477
This transcript was exported on Aug 15, 2025 - view latest version here.
May 22 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 08/15/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Okay.
Jim Campbell:
I mean, otherwise, we would have to have the changes now to come in for, say, a July 10th hearing date.
I don't know how fast you can kind of come up with this, but it doesn't seem like it would take too long.
Steve Kawaratani:
The changes are very simple. Could be approved.
Thomas Gibbs:
All right, we'll go with July 24th. So I make a motion that we move item 5.4 to our board meeting on July 24th, 2025.
Louis Weil:
And I'll second that.
Thomas Gibbs:
Call the role, Sarah.
Sarah:
Board member Bauta?
Imer Bauta:
Yes.
Sarah:
Board member Coveny?
MJ Coveny:
Yes.
Sarah:
Board member Weil?
Louis Weil:
Yes.
Sarah:
Chair Pro Tem Gannon?
Jessica Gannon:
Yes.
478
This transcript was exported on Aug 15, 2025 - view latest version here.
May 22 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 08/15/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Sarah:
And Chair Gibbs?
Thomas Gibbs:
Yes.
David Parker:
Thank you, board. Thank you very much.
Thomas Gibbs:
Okay. Before the next item, we're going to take a break. 479