This transcript was exported on Aug 14, 2025 - view latest version here.
July 24 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 08/14/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Thomas Gibbs:
5.9 31731 Seacove Drive. Design Review 24-1151. Coastal Development Permit 24-1152. Variance 24- 1153. May the applicant take the front desk here.
Jessica Gannon:
Ex parte.
Thomas Gibbs:
Here comes Mr. Parker. And let's do ex parte please.
Jessica Gannon:
Chair, I spoke with Steve Kawaratani. I previously visited the site with David Parker. And previously visited the home of Mr. Burnes.
Thomas Gibbs:
MJ? Nothing else.
Louis Weil:
Visited the site and spoke with Steve Kawaratani.
Thomas Gibbs:
Imer?
Imer Bauta:
Visited site with Steve Kawaratani.
Thomas Gibbs:
I visited the site with Steve Kawaratani and I also met with Jim Burnes and Mario Vaughn.
MJ Coveny:
Yeah. And I went to the site, met with Mr. Burnes and Mister, I can't remember that gentleman. And spoke with Steve.
Thomas Gibbs:
Okay. With that said, Heather.
Heather Steven:
Good evening. Thank you, Chair Gibbs and board members. I'm Heather Steven. Item 5.9 is the request for Design Review, Coastal Development Permit and a Variance at 31731 Seacove Drive. This project was continued from the May 22nd design review board hearing, and this will be the third hearing. There we go. Let's see. The site consists of two lots with a 10' wide private road easement across the southern frontage. The 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 at the western portion of the site. Each lot Attachment 21
571
This transcript was exported on Aug 14, 2025 - view latest version here.
July 24 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 08/14/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
is substandard to the minimum lot dimensions required in the R1 zone. I'm sorry? Oh, ready to go. I don't know what happened. Sorry. I don't know what's going on.
Okay. Sorry about that. And, again, the applicant is proposing the conversion of the one-car garage to a living area. It's not... There we go. Okay. And 641 square feet of additions on the main level and then two new lower levels. And a new 469 square foot two car garage at the lowest level. And the project plans have been revised to show a 10' wide driveway at the western portion of the site. There's, again, an elevated deck, grading, landscaping and a new pool. There will be an ADU on the middle level which does not require design review but does require a coastal development permit.
At the previous two hearings, direction was given to reduce the deck size so the applicant has again moved the railing back to even with the edge of the pool to reduce the deck area by an additional 70 square feet. Also, as directed, the fire pit has been removed. It was requested that frosted glass be used on the windows on the north elevation and that the applicant maintain the existing Podocarpus hedge and substitute Carolina cherry for a new hedge and again widen the driveway to 10'. The landscaping plan has been revised to specify the retention of the existing Podocarpus hedge which is shown in green and a tree that will be retained, also shown in green.
And then again, as requested, the Carolina cherry will be on the northern property line shown in yellow.
And hedges in front of the pool, along the front, will be kept at specified heights. On one half, to the west, will be the height of the deck elevation and on the east will be the height of the pool. And the hedges on the northern property line will be maintained at 9' above the upper level finished floor elevation, which will be an elevation of 123'. Staff has received letters from two different neighbors which were forwarded to the design review board expressing concerns regarding the potential impacts to privacy and view equity as well as neighborhood compatibility. These concerns are mostly related to the elevated deck.
Again, variances are requested for additions into the front yard setback, the rear setback, the additional building setback and to allow a swimming pool within the front yard setback and staff believes that all variance findings can be made for the project. So we've added conditions of approval. Condition 15 specifies that the landscaping will comply with the plans and also specifying the heights of the various hedges and the elevations at which they will be maintained. And also we've added a condition requiring the driveway to be a minimum of 10' in width even though it is also shown on the plans. So if the board finds that the project meets all the design criteria, staff recommends the Adopt Resolution 24-1151 approving Design Review 24-1151, Coastal Development Permit 24-1152 and Variance 24-1153, and finding the action exempt from CEQA. This concludes our presentation and I'm available if you have any questions.
Thomas Gibbs:
Thank you for an excellent presentation. And any questions of staff? Seeing none, applicant, you have five minutes.
David Parker:
Can we have the slide up please?
Heather Steven:
Yeah, hold on one second. Okay.
David Parker:
572
This transcript was exported on Aug 14, 2025 - view latest version here.
July 24 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 08/14/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Thank you. Well good evening, board members. I'm David Parker, the architect for this project. And I'd like to thank all of you for your careful consideration of our design and I'd like to thank staff as well for a very well done presentation. Since the last hearing, we've made a number of modifications to the design at the request of the board. Next slide please. The deck was reduced an additional 70 square feet, down to 527.8 square feet, and the fire pit was removed. Next slide please. This landscape plan shows that the silver sheen row for privacy on the north side is being replaced with a robust and dense Carolina cherry and also indicated to be 9' above the deck surface, which is more than what we had before. The Podocarpus hedge that exists along the rear will be preserved or, if necessary, replaced and maintained at 9' above the deck surface. It's a very dense hedge as well.
We are proposing a Podocarpus hedge in front of the pool and from the midpoint of the pool going east, we'll maintain it at 5' above the deck surface for privacy. Next slide please. The blue area is the glass across the windows at the front, which actually is at a stairwell, that blue area we are proposing to be frosted or obscure glass. Next slide please. The driveway entry was widened to 10' and we also agreed, at the board's request, to have a curved entry on either side with a 3' radius. We're going to curve the curb 3'. Next slide please. Now our proposed raised deck is actually smaller than the existing deck and terraces, which are shown in yellow. We actually are 131 square feet less than the upper and lower decks that are existing. Next slide please. This is the existing terrace right now that comes off the great room, just like we're proposing coming off our expansion. Next slide.
This is looking down from the terrace, and you can see the raised wood deck. So the combined floor areas of the upper and lower existing decks are larger than the deck that we're proposing. Next slide please. The purple area indicates the existing outdoor usable space, including the pool. At the top and at the bottom it shows what we're proposing and you can see how much we've lost, how much we're giving up. We're actually 24% of what's existing. Next slides please. This shows the neighborhood and I do want to talk about the comparable deck size. People have been saying that the deck sizes on CEQA are smaller than what we're proposing, and that is true. However, those four houses in green are very small lot, they're two-thirds the size of ours are less, so they're really too small to have a deck of any appreciable size.
We have a double lot and if you look over at the neighborhood on Seacliff, the lots are more comparable to our lot. So we're really not comparing apples to apples when we compare our property to these smaller lots which are so constrained and restricted by their size that they're really limited in the size of decks they can have. So if you look at the larger lots over on Seacliff, they have larger decks. There are six that are 700 square feet or larger and three that are over 1,000 square feet. So we really should be comparing apples to apples by comparing our property to the larger properties on Seacliff. Next slide please.
So in conclusion, this is a neighborhood of homes that are very close to one another. The homes all enjoy decks, enjoy the ocean views and fine weather and outdoor living, and it's really unreasonable in such a community to expect everyone to have complete privacy. However, we've really taken many reasonable steps to address the neighbor's privacy concerns. And finally, we've been encouraged to achieve equity among neighbors regarding privacy. Equity does not mean zero impact, but it means that there's a balance between the applicant's right to reasonably develop their property and the right of neighbors to reasonably maintain their views and privacy. We believe that our proposed project has achieved this equity and we believe it is neighborhood compatible. This concludes our presentation and we look forward to your comments. Thank you.
Thomas Gibbs:
Thank you. Okay. Members of the public, you can approach now. You have two minutes each. 573
This transcript was exported on Aug 14, 2025 - view latest version here.
July 24 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 08/14/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Jim Burnes:
My name is Jim Burnes, I live at 31672 Sea Bluff Lane. And I have a continuing opposition even as the plans were revised by reducing it the westward projection, which really is the focal point for all the neighbors. They moved it back 4'4" to 26 plus feet, that's the problem with the privacy intrusion to our homes. In my specific case, the intrusion goes into the ceremonial rooms in my home, my bedroom, my living room, as well as my deck. And this photograph is taken a few feet from my master bedroom, from my bed itself, and you can see even with the pullback of the deck, 4' I think it was, there's a northwest corner that people standing there can see not only my master bedroom, most of it, my bed. My bed.
If the privacy criteria for the DRB means anything, should mean construction projects should not result in people being able to see into your bedroom. And that's particularly true with a variance dependent project like this. This deck could not be built without the setback variances. It couldn't. The railings couldn't be big, it wouldn't exist. And I had that with a discussion with Ms. Stevens. Finally, in terms of the size that Mr. Parker mentioned reducing the existing decks, the existing elevated deck is only 147' approximately on that project. They're taking it from 147 to 528', 15' in the air and with a 26' projection.
Compare apples to apples.
Louis Weil:
Can I ask a question about the photo real quick?
David Parker:
Yes.
Louis Weil:
So this photo is taken from your master bedroom looking down across at the story poles, correct? David Parker:
It is taken a few feet from the foot of my bed. So people standing there, we'll see my bed.
Louis Weil:
And are you able to see other homes decks clearly and visibly from your bedroom? David Parker:
Yes. This is a Julian deck.
Louis Weil:
From across the street, right?
David Parker:
Correct. I haven't seen anyone on this deck except a repair person in 20 plus years, and that was probably less than three times. This jet deck is a little Juliet, I think you call it a Juliet.
Louis Weil:
Thank you.
574
This transcript was exported on Aug 14, 2025 - view latest version here.
July 24 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 08/14/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
David Parker:
Thank you.
Thomas Gibbs:
All right, let's go to the next person. Please state your name, and you have two minutes.
Mike Gray:
I want to just make one point first before I start. I think the staff report said the street is 20' wide, it is only 10' wide. Two cars cannot go down that street, okay, it's an alley. Okay. I just want to make sure that you understand how small that street is. Okay. My name is Mike Gray, I live directly across the street from the subject property. I'm sorry that I wasn't able to get the paperwork you needed to see my house. Several of you have been through it before in the previous iteration, I think you know where it is.
I'm immediately to the south of the property. You've been talking about view equity here. Their view to the west is unobstructed basically. What is happening here is you're talking about the north and south where, as they extend, they block the other houses or they look down into them. Extending out, they will completely block the Eberhart's view essentially. And if they build a big enough deck, they will look into my bedroom as well.
What they get comes from us, it's strictly a zero-sum game. So if you approve a deck that allows them, you're basically saying it's all right for them to look into our bedrooms and block our view even though they already have a view. It seems to me an unfair equity. I want to talk a little bit about, I'm sorry, this deck that they want is a desire, not a need. They don't need this deck. They said their deck right now is much smaller. To give you a little proportion. You take about six of these rows, this is what we have proposed as a compromise, the depth. That's plenty of deck. They want a huge deck. That isn't a deck for people, nobody's going to use a deck deeper than this. And that's why we're opposed to it. And we have tried to compromise with them. You suggested that we meet them. They have not been willing to meet with us. I have reached out to the architect... Anyway, I thank you.
Thomas Gibbs:
Thank you very much.
Jessica Gannon:
Thank you.
Thomas Gibbs:
Next speaker.
Mario Vaughn:
Hi, board. My name's Mario, I represent 31674 Everhart. Like one of my neighbors were saying, we've reached out to them a couple of times. They did walk through the property once. But your board's asked for them to pull the deck back, pull it way back, and they just do it in clipping the sides and bringing some off the back to get their numbers down. From the deck that they're now proposing, if they look up and back into our living room, it's a direct line of sight regardless of where you are on the deck. We would propose, and we put it forth to the staff here, that from the face of the building moving forward, we would be acceptable to about 17'6" from the finished face of the wall straight out. It gives them a great size of deck, still livable, they can enjoy company out there, so on and so forth. 575
This transcript was exported on Aug 14, 2025 - view latest version here.
July 24 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 08/14/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
But once again, it's just intruding into Mr. Gray's, two of his bedrooms, and our living room at 31674.
They're entitled to build, I'm a builder and I know that they're going to get their project through some way. We even wanted to talk to them about removing the telephone pole, but they haven't come over and talked to us about scope of their project. And so we all collectively want to remove the telephone pole. But anyway, the size of the deck is the issue. It was nice that they did some improvements with the foliage and stuff like that. I think that does help. But we would ask them to consider the 17'6 from finished face of the wall moving forward. And you got a great deck. Thank you guys.
Thomas Gibbs:
Thank you very much. Anyone?
Speaker 11:
Tom, I like your shirt.
Thomas Gibbs:
Good color, yeah. I like the kind of plaid-ish. Well, yours is boring Lewis. All right, next speaker. Two minutes.
David Rowan:
Hello, I'm David Rowan. And I live at 31673 Seacove Drive. I've lived there since 1987 as a resident of Seacove. My concerns aren't necessarily for my privacy. I do respect my neighbors as we've been neighbors for many, many years, a lot of us. The deck is much more massive than anything on our tiny alley like street, as they've said, and it seems to add to the problems of the privacy and people looking into others' homes. To mitigate this, they seem like they want to put up more trees. Currently, the trees that are on the property, and I did speak to Joe, I don't see him here tonight, who is the property owner.
They haven't lived in the property. And I spoke to him on the property about a year and a half ago about cutting the overgrown trees that currently are right in front of my house. And he said, "Ah, don't worry about it." And here we are, we're going to add more trees.
So I don't really have faith that they're going to now somehow maintain them at a level that's kind of acceptable, as we normally work together with the neighbors to mitigate the problems with the view. So anyhow, that's what I have to say. Thank you.
Thomas Gibbs:
Thank you very much. Anyone else? All right. I return it to the applicant for three minutes.
David Parker:
Thank you. Regarding the trees, we are losing the huge Podocarpus tree by the telephone pole, which is going to help people's views, and we're also losing the massive ficus tree. All the trees that we're proposing to add are being maintained at 9' above the deck, which is approximately at the height of the eve of the house that we're adding. So we're actually improving views in the neighborhood and not making them worse. So I really feel like our deck at 528 square feet is not a huge deck. And I want to clarify something about the existing concrete deck that's off the house.
The entire area of that deck does not meet the strict definition of an elevated deck, but it is a terrace.
Half of it's on grade, which is raised a level above the pool deck below, and half of it extends beyond the retaining wall and over the cabana. So we're only allowed to count part of that, but the entire area of 576
This transcript was exported on Aug 14, 2025 - view latest version here.
July 24 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 08/14/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
that is 470 square feet. So what we're proposing is only slightly larger than that really, it's only 58' larger than that terrace that we are using and enjoying now. And, I mentioned it before, neighbors can look back and forth and see each other even now. So, as I said before, I feel like we have a right to develop our property. There's equity of privacy, there's equity of views. We've taken pretty significant steps to mitigate the concerns. Steve, do you have anything to add? Okay. We do have some ideas about maybe some things that we could do to help.
Thomas Gibbs:
All right, you through? Are you done?
David Parker:
Yes.
Thomas Gibbs:
Okay. You have a little time left. Okay. With that said, questions? MJ Coveny:
I have a couple questions. Thank you. You said at one point midpoint of pool Podocarpus, it will start at the midpoint of pool, what were you referencing?
David Parker:
A good question. We're proposing a hedge of Podocarpus along the entire length of the pool, but we're splitting it at the midpoint of the pool to a higher level and a lower level. The lower level goes out towards the ocean and it's at the level of the deck and then it's 5' from the midpoint going back the other direction. And the reason is because if we extended it any more towards the ocean, then we'd start to lose some of our views as well.
MJ Coveny:
So you're talking about the south side of the building? David Parker:
The south side, correct.
MJ Coveny:
Okay. So that isn't going all the way up to the railing that used to be there? David Parker:
Well, that half is going higher. It's going up to 5'.
MJ Coveny:
Only the one halfDavid Parker:
Yeah, only the one half.
577
This transcript was exported on Aug 14, 2025 - view latest version here.
July 24 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 08/14/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
MJ Coveny:
... but the other half is staying at deck height. Okay. And then it said that you reduced the size of the deck by moving the railing that was on the south side of the pool to the other side of the pool, which made it a reduce deck. Is that how you got to that?
David Parker:
No. We didn't move the railing on the north and south sides. We moved the railing on the ocean side back.
MJ Coveny:
Just that one?
David Parker:
Yeah.
MJ Coveny:
Okay. So it wasDavid Parker:
It was kind of an octagon, we straightened it out.
Thomas Gibbs:
Even with theMJ Coveny:
And why isn't there a railing on the south side?
David Parker:
Because there's a pool.
MJ Coveny:
And you don't need anything there? Someone canDavid Parker:
We don't because the pool is elevated more than 5' out of grade and the building department would consider that to be a barrier to keep people from getting into the pool.
MJ Coveny:
What about falling out of the pool onto the ground below, which is more what I'm thinking.
David Parker:
It's possible that the building department may have us do something there. 578
This transcript was exported on Aug 14, 2025 - view latest version here.
July 24 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 08/14/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
MJ Coveny:
Yeah, it seems very precarious. But, okay, I'll leave that to building. Okay, I think that was all I needed to clarification.
Thomas Gibbs:
Any other questions? Seeing none, I close the public hearing. Who would like to begin? Jessica Gannon:
I'll lead on this one. I thought this was an adequate proposal the first time around. So with the deck being reduced even further, in my mind, I haven't seen or heard any deterrent to approve this project. I remember the first go around standing in Mr. Burnes home. He took me to his master bedroom. There were other people in the house, so I felt safe. He took me to his master bedroom, we stood on the deck and you could see the edge of the deck but it didn't create a privacy issue. And then he placed me at his bed. I willingly went to his bed. Stood at his bed facing outward towards the ocean, didn't see any deck protrusion, didn't see the white flags, or pink flags I think they are. Because at the time he was claiming there was a privacy issue from his bathroom. So then I went into his bathroom, again, didn't see any privacy issues.
So I concluded that there's no privacy issues except for the deck, which a person would've had to have stood in the corner like it's a Titanic, had their Titanic moment, and then turned around to look back.
And then as far as 31673 and 31674. You guys are uphill, you're behind. If anything, you guys have a view of their deck. It's a privacy issue for the applicant. The landscape, it's adequately planned to protect privacy and views. The way we're going to protect the views is to cap how high they can go. So if they go any higher than what's proposed, you just call code enforcement and that's how you can get them to cut it. Yeah. So privacy, landscape, view equity, there's no view impact. Swimming pool, spa. Is it a trough? Does the water flow into a trough?
David Parker:
Yes, in the front.
Jessica Gannon:
And it's a two or 3' trough?
David Parker:
Closer to 2'.
Jessica Gannon:
Right?
David Parker:
It's on the ocean side by the way, it's not on the street side.
Jessica Gannon:
Right. So it's not going to make any noise.
579
This transcript was exported on Aug 14, 2025 - view latest version here.
July 24 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 08/14/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
David Parker:
It's just a sieve flow.
Jessica Gannon:
Right. And the pool equipment's vaulted. I don't see any reason to not approve this project.
Thomas Gibbs:
MJ.
MJ Coveny:
You knew I wanted to go next.
Thomas Gibbs:
I did.
Jessica Gannon:
She's the counter to my comment.
MJ Coveny:
Yeah, this is girl fight. I mean, I appreciate your efforts. But it's still, in my opinion, not even my opinion based on criteria not fulfilling what's required. The variance for the home makes total sense. This is a very unique lot. Everything in this type of an environment is lot specific because it's such a funky little road, funky little neighborhood. Comparables are very difficult here because everything's very unique.
So the variance for this small house on this narrow lot to extend to get them more footprint makes total sense. To have a big outdoor active area with a pool and ADU down below, it's like they're getting everything in this little itty-bitty lot. And I don't think that that should be appropriate for this particular neighborhood, this particular lot. Their home and their living space, absolutely give them as much as we possibly can.
I'm always happy to extend that because it still is not mass and scale issue at that point. There's generally no privacy issue building that house with windows because of how it's placed further back.
And that's something we can mitigate with the type of windows we use. But when you have an open deck, the way it extends out as I mentioned last time, it's like a fishbowl. And once you get all the activity and the gap out there that will fill that up, literally, it's like looking into somebody's house. And I feel like there's no way to mitigate that by pulling out a shade or adding something to protect it. You're kind of doing it with the Carolina cherry and somewhat with the Podocarpus, but you're not taking it above an area that blocks the view for your neighbors so it's like you're staggering it.
So everybody in the pool when they start to fall out on the side, to which I mentioned, are literally looking into the neighbors life. I was very unsettled when I looked at it. I thought this just doesn't seem good. I know there's a solution. And one is making it smaller, possibly not doing such a large pool but having a wade party pool with a little hot tub and you can have some activity and get some coolness from that. But the excessiveness of this deck and the excessiveness of the pool is not neighborhood compatible. It's an immense privacy issue. I don't see a view equity in the sense that it's blocking ocean view or canyon view, but it definitely is from a huge privacy perspective. And I think that covers my notes. And I'll just wait and hear what the rest of my board says, but580 This transcript was exported on Aug 14, 2025 - view latest version here.
July 24 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 08/14/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Thomas Gibbs:
All right.
MJ Coveny:
... I can't support it.
Thomas Gibbs:
Imer, you're up.
Imer Bauta:
Thank you, Chair. Seeing this project through these iterations, I come to recognize that definitely the design team has gone above and beyond. In this case they have adjusted to Carolina cherries, they redesigned the deck multiple times, they frosted the glass on the north side, they widened the driveway.
We have this process so we can go through, from what I'm hearing in the community, I think generally they're trying to not make this go through. And I had rather just see this get approved because I think that they're accommodating the comments, they're going through and they're being diligent. And we're giving them clear direction and they're following it. And I appreciate that. I appreciate the design team's diligence and staff for going through and making sure that these things are being done that we're asking of the applicant. I can definitely approve this tonight and I appreciate you guys' effort.
Thomas Gibbs:
Louis.
Louis Weil:
Yeah. Appreciate the comments from my colleagues. I think at the last hearing there was a lot of deliberation about where these lines of balance for view, for privacies, and those kinds of components.
And I do believe the applicant followed the spirit of the discussion. As far as the decks, there is a deck currently on that level right now that does have a very similar, granted this one's a little larger, but it has a similar level of privacy dynamic that exists in the current form between the neighbors. I think for the one uphill neighbor, it's significantly looking down. Yes, they can see a small corner of that. I think we're trying to mitigate that with the landscaping that's kind of been adjusted. So I think the privacy component will be balanced. I mean, development is not that I can't see just elements of the development.
It just really has to create a significant impact of that privacy. And for that uphill neighborhood, I don't see that dynamic, especially since we can see other decks and other decks can see that bedroom.
There's a level of privacy between decks that is just shared within the neighborhood and to be established with the proximity of a lot of these homes. And I find that to be consistent. I appreciate the changes for the frost in the windows and those components. I think the most significant part of this project is really creating a much more appropriate access for this home that will have a benefit for the street. It'll provide the right parking within the scope of the project. It'll also provide more additional offstreet parking than exists now. So those are benefits to the overall community.
I do get that that alley is pretty narrow, but I think those improvements are significant to warrant the variances and the components associated with this lot. As far as this neighbor across the way from this home, I think those privacy dynamics exist in the current form and I don't see it to be significantly more impacted. But because the pool does create a buffer of the usable space, pools aren't used 24/7, it limits 581
This transcript was exported on Aug 14, 2025 - view latest version here.
July 24 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 08/14/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
some of that functionality. Yes, a pool can be used. But in terms of a noise ordinance, the equipment's proposed in the right location. And so for these changes to this home, I find design review compatible and I can support the project.
Thomas Gibbs:
All right. I feel about this one a little sad. I look at neighborhood compatibility and I look at the fact that this is an elevated deck. If you look at that street, and that's the relevant neighborhood. It's not a street down the way. If you go up the way to Sea Bluff, they're all huge houses. The neighborhood is Seacove.
And it is distinct in close houses, small decks, conducive to you call it privacy, but it's a neighborhood compatibility village atmosphere. And I thought that MJ's comments were, well, you put this big huge elevated deck right in the middle of the neighborhood. Your neighborhood will never be the same, I'm just telling you. Seacove is changed. Not only is it a huge deck, it's a huge pool on top of a huge deck.
And while I agree with Lewis that pools are not used 24/7, they're often used on weekends and evenings and, welcome to the neighborhood, a big party on that deck.
It changes the neighborhood. And maybe that's the way it goes. I mean you see a lot of neighborhoods sometimes that it changes because like Hillcrest becomes Corona del Mar. Diamond Crestview has big homes, other areas have this and other areas have that. In a cottage area, putting in an elevated deck in Woods Cove. Can you imagine? And I respect everyone's opinion, I want them to hear mine. I urged more than a ham sandwich in pulling back that deck. And what we got is minimal, incremental. And thank you for pulling it back 4', which doesn't come close to really what's necessary to make that even remotely neighborhood compatible. So I don't know if my comments are going to change the three board members are going to support this project, but I feel sad about this one.
I don't feel sad about very many of them, but I feel very sad about this one because your neighborhood's going to change. You've got a YMCA size deck and swimming pool right on top of everybody on that street. And I would not in any way be cynical about the neighbor's views here. I think they're sincerely felt, strongly felt, and deeply concerned. And I think you dealt with a lot of the privacy concerns on the north side to deal with Mr. Burnes. But he didn't deal with any of the privacy concerns or the real concerns about the changing of the neighborhood. Going 5' above for half of the pool just doesn't fly in my mind. So I regret the vote that's about to be taken, I don't know if any of them have changed, but I feel for your neighborhood now. And it's just too bad that thisJessica Gannon:
I have more comments.
Thomas Gibbs:
... real quick, that this applicant could not accommodate the neighbors by putting in a reasonable size deck. They had to go for the moon and by incremental short comebacks they were able to get 90% of the moon. So anywayImer Bauta:
I've got some comments again as well.
Thomas Gibbs:
... I'm a vote against this. I voted against it the first time, I would've voted against it the second time.
And I'm adamantly against this project the third time.
582
This transcript was exported on Aug 14, 2025 - view latest version here.
July 24 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 08/14/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
MJ Coveny:
Chair, I think both Ms. Gannon and myself both have additional comments. You may go first.
Thomas Gibbs:
Yeah, we're not done yet.
MJ Coveny:
Right.
Thomas Gibbs:
So everybody hasMJ Coveny:
Because I'd like to find solutions here.
Thomas Gibbs:
... all the comments.
MJ Coveny:
I'd rather try to find a solution if we can rather than... So let's see.
Thomas Gibbs:
Well, I don't know, I'm hearing three affirmative votes. But, anyway, let's hear what people haveJessica Gannon:
So if you look at the pattern of development on Seacove, you have little cottage, little cottage, and then this house. So you have 31673, 31674, and then you have this house which is the front house. So those two cottages in the back have small decks in relation to the property. And then on the other side of the street, to Mr. Wiles point, there's noLouis Weil:
Deck. You don't see a deck.
Jessica Gannon:
... the current deck creates a privacy issue the same that's proposed tonight. There's no greater privacy that's created by bringing that deck forward. 31678, across the street, is the front house to a row of tiny cottages which are bigger in relation to this applicant. And so that has wraparound decks. Wraparound decks. The front house on that row has wraparound decks. You guys are proposing a modest deck in front of your main living space, I don't understand where the privacy. I mean, put down your curtains.
You guys are across the street, put down your curtains if you have a concern. You live in a high density neighborhood.
Thomas Gibbs:
583
This transcript was exported on Aug 14, 2025 - view latest version here.
July 24 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 08/14/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Wait, wait, this is not audience interaction. She's stating her views, they're sincerely held. Let's listen to them and then listen to other views and see where we come out.
Jessica Gannon:
So my point is, to me, pattern of development and to talk about the deck and the privacy. It meets the pattern of development. Whereas 31678 Seacove Drive has a wraparound deck. They're not proposing a wraparound deck. It's a modest deck. Privacy is protected. There's a street, Seacove as tiny as it is, whether it's 10', 15', it's definitely not 20'. There's no privacy that I can tell unless you're standing on the deck and you guys are looking at each other.
Imer Bauta:
Can I add to something else or, MJ, did you want to go first? MJ Coveny:
You can go. I'm going to go, but you can go.
Imer Bauta:
Yeah. What I wanted to add was a big portion of this massing that you're concerned about, Chair, big portion of that is the ADU. And whether they put that deck on top or not, that volume it's going to be there whether it's a pool or whatever. I mean, they're utilizing that ADU to get that volume underneath.
I'm hoping that would alleviate some of your concerns. The deck, as I was mentioning before, they definitely brought it back substantially. If there's something that we could do to mitigate some privacy, maybe we could offer up a trellis, right? Maybe that's something we would want to consider forMJ Coveny:
We tried that last time.
Imer Bauta:
... additional privacy, but I think it's worth a consideration.
Thomas Gibbs:
Well, let me just respond briefly to your point and then we'll turn it over to MJ. I don't have a problem with the ADU, it's below level.
MJ Coveny:
Yeah, that's right.
Thomas Gibbs:
I have a problem with a giant elevated deck.
MJ Coveny:
Exactly.
Thomas Gibbs:
584
This transcript was exported on Aug 14, 2025 - view latest version here.
July 24 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 08/14/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
And I don't have a problem with the backyard that's down below. But if you turn all of the space above the ADU into a deck, and I realized they pulled it back I think this time 4'6" or something, it's still a big deck and it's a party deck. When you talk about privacyJessica Gannon:
Is it a party deck because it's two gay men?
MJ Coveny:
Oh, come on.
Thomas Gibbs:
Hold on, hold on. Let me finish.
MJ Coveny:
Jessica.
Thomas Gibbs:
Wait, wait.
MJ Coveny:
Jessica.
Thomas Gibbs:
Jess, let me finish. I let you finish. And I'm going to let everybody finish. He asked me a question.
Jessica Gannon:
It's a valid question.
MJ Coveny:
No it's not.
Thomas Gibbs:
Well, we're going to go in order here. But very quickly, the issue isn't whether you block off any neighbors from seeing into the deck, which you don't in this project anyway, but it creates noise activity that everybody in the neighborhood gets to enjoy. So it's a privacy in a broader sense, including being able to see into important private spaces. With that said, Louis, do you want to go before MJ? Louis Weil:
I'd like to just know where MJ's line of reasonability is as she was kind of describing.
Thomas Gibbs:
Yes, I'd like to hear that too.
585
This transcript was exported on Aug 14, 2025 - view latest version here.
July 24 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 08/14/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
MJ Coveny:
I just have two questions for city staff, just to kind of clarify a couple things. This is a front yard pool according to your statement, correct?
Heather Steven:
Correct. The swimming pool is encroaching into the front yard setback becauseMJ Coveny:
Okay. But it's not a front yard pool or just encroaching into it on the one side? Heather Steven:
The pool is located in the front yard setbackMJ Coveny:
Okay.
Heather Steven:
... and that's one of the variance requests because the code requires pools outside of the front yard setback.
MJ Coveny:
Front yard setback. So it's need a variance for that. Is the house variance affecting the size of the deck? Heather Steven:
No. Being by virtue of the fact that it's above living space, that living area and the roof and therefore the elevated deck, are encroaching within the front yard setback as well. So that's an additional variance request.
MJ Coveny:
So both the deck and the pool are encroaching into the front yard setback and the side yard or just theHeather Steven:
No. The project meets the side yard setbacks. But due to the shallowness of the lot, when we apply the 20' required front yard setback and because of a reduced lot depth, they can have a 10' rear yard setback, that leaves them with a 10' deep buildable area on the lot.
MJ Coveny:
Correct.
Heather Steven:
So we have living area and by virtue of the fact the deck is on the roof, technically at that lower level, we have an encroachment into the rear yard setback, encroachment into the front yard setback. 586
This transcript was exported on Aug 14, 2025 - view latest version here.
July 24 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 08/14/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
MJ Coveny:
Okay. I guess kind of what I'm getting at is I see the need for it for the house because it's so limited in the width there and you can't have a 10-foot hallway at the house, but if that's adding to the excessiveness of the deck because they're encroaching in front and rear, that's a concern. So that's where I'm thinking is just the overall scale wouldn't normally be allowed but because of the restrictions of this lot, they're getting it because we're giving it to the house. Which makes total sense to give it to the house. So that's my thing is this wouldn't be a deck that would be allowed on this house if we built to the proper setbacks. No. Okay, I'm wrong. So that's wrong. All right. But let me then stick with what I believe, and what I believe that the criteria states, is that you're encroaching a pool into the front yard setback, which is not normally acceptable.
The privacy issue for Mr. Burnes, to me, is minimal. It could be mitigated with a cornered pot then that could be tall and knocked out. Small thing. It's still neighborhood compatibility and the fact that this sits perched up in the middle of this little circle and it becomes a mass of activity and a mass of stuff that is not enclosed like a home would be. And that could then be managed with proper privacy windows and a normal-sized deck that comes off of a home. In my opinion, if you could have brought that... And the old deck, when I stood at the neighbors across the way I couldn't see that deck. I took pictures, I'm like, "Oh, there it is. There's that little curve." I had to walk down to the very point. So there were points along their homes that I could see the deck. But everywhere I walked along those homes, I saw the pool, I saw the deck. It was just like this thing.
And it's so not in keeping with the neighborhood. It's hard to believe that nobody sees that, but I'm going to accept it. So in my opinion, it's not neighbor compatible by any means and it's an egregious abuse of variance.
Thomas Gibbs:
Let me see about something that I had said at the last. What is the distance from, because you pulled back the deck some, David, what's the distance from the house to the current edge of the deck? David Parker:
26'2".
Thomas Gibbs:
26'. What I said last time is that it needs to come back at least 10'. And I was kind of estimating what I would view as the outer size of a neighborhood compatible deck. I believe even that's too big. But I would vote for this project if the deck was pulled back, you pull it back 4', not quite 10', if it pulls back to the 10' from the prior edge of the deck. I don't know if I get any traction from MJ or anyone else but IMJ Coveny:
Well, I'll say oneThomas Gibbs:
... but I at least think compared to what this board's about to approve, that's at least, I think, a better solution for the neighborhood.
MJ Coveny:
587
This transcript was exported on Aug 14, 2025 - view latest version here.
July 24 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 08/14/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
I think there is a recommendation by one of the neighbors of it being 17'6", and so I don't know where that puts you.
Thomas Gibbs:
It's very close to that.
MJ Coveny:
Okay.
Thomas Gibbs:
It'll be about 20.
MJ Coveny:
And I'm just wondering if you're actually giving more than is needed for the neighborsThomas Gibbs:
How far? You said 26?
David Parker:
26'2".
Thomas Gibbs:
Yeah. So I think what I was talking about would bringing it back to 21. For the three who would favor of the project, can I get any of you to support a 21' distance? Imer Bauta:
Chair, I'd be happy to meet you halfway if that works for you. Coming somewhere in between there and any bit counts, any bit helps reduce that mass. I'd be happy toThomas Gibbs:
I won't do that, but I appreciate it. The reason I won't is it's already at the outer limits of what I think is appropriate. So I would vote no to that.
Louis Weil:
Just for clarification. From what's proposed tonight, you're talking another 4'? Thomas Gibbs:
No, no. I had said 10' from last time. They pulled it back, how much David, 4'.
Louis Weil:
They pulled it back 4'4". So he's proposing additional 5'6" or 5'8".
Thomas Gibbs:
588
This transcript was exported on Aug 14, 2025 - view latest version here.
July 24 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 08/14/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Yeah. So I'll stand by what I said last time. Again, that's the outer limit of what I could vote for.
Jessica Gannon:
Which board member made the comment to pull it back to the pool? Louis Weil:
I mean, I did last time. And so that's where it's at.
Imer Bauta:
I think they met that. Yeah.
Louis Weil:
And so with that, I appreciate the discussion. This is a tough one. But I think, Chair, I'll call for a motion given the deliberation. For item number 5.9 at 31731 Seacove, a call to approve and adopt resolution number 24-1151 approving Design Review 24-1151, Coastal Development Permit 24-1152 and Variance 24-1153. And finding said action exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA's guidelines Section 15301 with the conditions are the red lines already incorporated with the plan? There was a few documents that showed up. How would staff like us to memorialize that? Heather Steven:
The conditions that I spoke about in the presentation are included in the resolution, as attachment one.
Louis Weil:
Okay. And that the conditions reflect attachment one.
Imer Bauta:
I second that motion.
Thomas Gibbs:
Call the roll please.
Paola Miller:
Board member Bauta?
Thomas Gibbs:
Sorry.
Imer Bauta:
Yes.
Paola Miller:
Board member Coveny?
589
This transcript was exported on Aug 14, 2025 - view latest version here.
July 24 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 08/14/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
MJ Coveny:
No.
Paola Miller:
Board member Weil?
Louis Weil:
Yes.
Paola Miller:
Chair Pro Tem Gannon?
Jessica Gannon:
Yes.
Paola Miller:
Chair Gibbs?
Thomas Gibbs:
No. All right. Let’s go to the next item.
Jessica Gannon:
Wait, did Imer? Did you call Imer? Oh, ok.
Patrick Donegan:
For the record, the motion passed 3-2.
590