Laguna Beach City Council
January 27, 2026

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date:

January 27, 2026
APPEAL
B
SUBJECT: 31731 SEACOVE DRIVE: APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 24-1151 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-1152

FOR ADDITIONS AND REMODEL OF AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY

DWELLING, NEW TWO-CAR GARAGE, ELEVATED DECK ADDITIONS,

GRADING, LANDSCAPING, NEW POOL AND SPA, AND A NEW ATTACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, AND VARIANCE 24-1153 FOR ADDITIONS

INTO THE FRONT YARD, REAR YARD, AND ADDITIONAL BUILDING SETBACKS, AND A NEW POOL IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK IN THE R-1,

RESIDENTIAL LOW-DENSITY ZONE, AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION

UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15301 (CLASS 1)
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:

1. Continue to conduct the public hearing that was opened at the September 23, 2025 City Council meeting, including receiving an updated staff report and taking public testimony and all evidence relating to the consideration of Design Review 24-1151, Coastal Development Permit 24-1152, and Variance 24-1153, and the California Environmental Quality Act exemption under Section 15301 of the state CEQA Guidelines; and

2. Adopt a Resolution titled, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL AND SUSTAINING THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD’S APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 24-1151 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-1152 FOR THE ADDITION AND REMODEL OF A SINGLEFAMILY DWELLING, A NEW TWO-CAR GARAGE, ELEVATED DECK ADDITIONS,

GRADING, LANDSCAPING, NEW POOL AND SPA, AND AN ATTACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, AND VARIANCE 24-1153 FOR ADDITIONS INTO THE FRONT YARD,

REAR YARD, AND ADDITIONAL BUILDING SETBACKS, AND A NEW POOL IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AT 31731 SEACOVE DRIVE LOCATED IN THE R-1,

RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY ZONE, AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15301,” upholding the Design Review Board’s conditional approval of Design Review 24-1151, Coastal Development Permit 24-1152, and Variance 24-1153 and finding the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.

SUMMARY OF THE MATTER
The property owner, Joseph Praner1 (“Applicant”), of 31731 Seacove Drive (the “Property”) (see aerial map included as Figure 1) applied for Design Review (“DR”) 24-1151, Coastal Development Permit (“CDP”) 24-1152, and Variance (“VAR”) 24-1153 for the addition and remodel of a single-family dwelling, a new two-car garage, elevated decks, grading, landscaping, new pool, and an attached accessory dwelling unit 1 The Project’s agents are David Parker and Steve Kawaratani, who are within the definition of Applicant.

APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 24-1151, CDP 24-1152, AND VAR 24-1153 AT 31731

SEACOVE DRIVE
January 27, 2026

(“ADU”) in the R-1 (Residential Low Density) zone. Design review is required for additions that exceed a height of 15 feet above the adjacent ground elevation, decks more than three feet above adjacent grade, grading in excess of 20 cubic yards outside the building footprint, landscaping associated with building additions that exceed a height of 15 feet above the adjacent ground elevation, and a swimming pool and its associated equipment pursuant to Laguna Beach Municipal Code (“LBMC”) Section 25.05.040(B)(1). A variance is required for additions within the proposed 20-foot front yard setback [LBMC

25.10.008(E)(2)(a)] and 10-foot rear yard setback [LBMC Section 25.50.004(E)(3)], encroachments within the required additional building setback [LBMC Section 25.50.004(D)], and a swimming pool within the 20-foot front yard setback [LBMC Section 25.50.016]. A coastal development permit is required for the above-described improvements [LBMC Section 25.07.008(A)(1)(c)], including the proposed attached ADU [LBMC Section 25.17.030(B)(1)].

On January 9, 2025, the Design Review Board (“Board”) held a duly noticed public hearing and considered the project that consisted of the addition and remodel of a single-family dwelling, a new two-car garage, elevated decks, grading, landscaping, new pool, and an attached ADU (the “Original Project”). After receiving input from staff, the Applicant, and public comments, the Board discussed the Original Project and continued the item with a 3-0 vote. The Board primarily discussed concerns related to the size of the elevated deck and requested that the Applicant revise the Original Project to reduce the size of the deck and provide landscaping as privacy screening for the neighbor to the north. The Board continued the Original Project to March 13, 2025. The applicant subsequently requested continuances from March 13, 2025, to March 27, 2025, and again to May 22, 2025.
(The January 9, 2025 Staff Report, Plans, Public Comments, Minutes, and Transcript, are attached as Attachments 7 through 11, respectively.)
On February 6, 2025, the Applicant submitted revised plans to City staff with the following modifications (the “Revised Project”):

1. Reduced the upper-level deck area by 135.2 square feet (from 733 square feet to 597.8 square feet).

2. Relocated the upper-level deck railing 4 feet, 6 inches to the east and a portion of the northern railing to the south.

3. Revised the landscape plan to add a hedge of Pittosporum “Silver Sheen”, approximately 15 feet along the north property line, to be maintained at a height of 16 feet, 4 inches for privacy.

On May 22, 2025, the Board held a public hearing to consider the Revised Project and received public testimony expressing continued concerns related to the proposed design and size of the elevated deck, and potential impacts to privacy. During the Board’s deliberation, the Board discussed concerns including maintaining existing trees and the type of landscaping to be installed; noise and privacy impacts associated with the proposed deck and pool; privacy impacts associated with the proposed upper-level windows; and the size of the proposed deck. With a 5-0 vote, the Board continued the Revised Project to the July 24, 2025, meeting with direction to frost the windows on the north elevation at the upper level, further reduce the deck area, revise the landscaping to utilize Carolina Cherry for the hedge along the north property line, and to provide a 10-foot-wide driveway.

APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 24-1151, CDP 24-1152, AND VAR 24-1153 AT 31731

SEACOVE DRIVE
January 27, 2026

(The May 22, 2025 Staff Report, Plans, Public Comments, Minutes, and Transcript, are attached as Attachments 12 through 16, respectively.)
On June 4, 2025, the Applicant submitted revised plans to City staff with the following modifications (the “Second Revised Project”):

1. The elevated deck was reduced by 70 s.f., from 597.8 to 527.8 (the original submittal was 733 s.f.) and the firepit was removed. The deck railing was pulled back to be even with the edge of the pool.

2. The glass along the rear yard at the stair was frosted, up to 24" from the mitered corner.

3. Proposed screening trees along the north property line were replaced with Carolina Cherry (Prunus carolinian), to be maintained at a height of 9' above the deck surface (El. 123').

4. Existing hedge of screening podocarpus along the north property line proposed to be preserved or replaced, and maintained at a height of 9' above the deck surface (El. 123'). An existing tree along the north property line, to the east of the proposed additions, was proposed be maintained.

5. The podocarpus hedge in front of the pool, from the midpoint of the pool east, was noted to be maintained at 5' above the deck surface (El. 119'), and the hedge from the midpoint of the pool west was noted to be maintained at pool height (El. 113’).

6. The driveway entry was widened to 10 feet.

On July 24, 2025, the Board held a public hearing to consider the Second Revised Project. The Board voted 3-2 (Chair Gibbs and Board member Coveny in dissent) to approve the Second Revised Project subject to the conditions of approval presented in the staff report, including a finding that the Project is exempt from CEQA (the “Board Approval”).
(The July 24, 2025 Board-adopted Resolution No. 24-1151, Staff Report, Plans, Public Comments, Minutes, and Transcript, are attached as Attachments 6, and 17 through 21, respectively.) On August 4, 2025, Steven and Nona Everhart (“Appellant 1”) of 31674 Seacove Drive, filed an appeal of the Board Approval (“Appeal 1”) (Attachment 2). Appeal 1 appeals all the Board’s determinations, findings, and resolutions in favor of the Second Revised Project for the following reasons, as summarized by staff:

1. Citing comments from Chair Gibbs and Board member Coveny, Appellant 1 contends that the deck is too large, there are privacy impacts, and there is an egregious abuse of variances.

2. Design Review Criterion No. 11 (Privacy) has not been met.

3. The Applicant has not taken neighbor concerns into consideration, nor a request to reduce the deck size from 35 to 16 feet deep.

4. The deck will change the neighborhood, characterized by small houses and small decks, in a negative way.

5. Appellant 1’s property value will decrease due to privacy impacts and impacts to their north-facing view.

6. The proposed roof deck on the ADU is prohibited by City ordinance; the variance findings cannot be made; the ADU does not comply with the required 20-foot front yard setback; and the CDP APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 24-1151, CDP 24-1152, AND VAR 24-1153 AT 31731

SEACOVE DRIVE
January 27, 2026

findings cannot be made because the Second Revised Project does not comply with the City’s Local Coastal Plan.

7. This proposed deck has been referred to as a “party deck” throughout the hearings.

8. “One of the Board members stated that if the Second Revised Project is approved, he would feel really sorry for the residents of Seacove.”

9. If the deck were reduced in size as suggested (16 feet deep), most of their concerns would be mitigated and they would be supportive of the project.

On August 4, 2025, Jim Burnes (“Appellant 2”) of 31672 Sea Bluff Lane, filed an appeal of the Board Approval (“Appeal 2”) (Attachment 3). Appeal 2 appeals all of the Board’s determinations, findings, and resolutions in favor of the Second Revised Project for the following reasons, as summarized by staff:

1. City staff confirmed that the deck over the ADU roof is not considered part of the ADU, and as such, is not afforded the legal considerations that otherwise apply to ADUs. The deck over the ADU roof requires variances.

2. Citing comments from Chair Gibbs and Board member Coveny, Appellant 2 contends that the deck is too large, there are privacy impacts, and there is an egregious abuse of variances.

3. The Second Revised Project, and in particular the proposed elevated deck over the proposed attached ADU, would result in extreme visual and acoustic privacy intrusions into several sensitive areas, including the master bedroom, living room, and dining area on his deck, and is incompatible with the narrow-width decks in the neighborhood, all of which are several times smaller than the Applicant’s proposed deck.

4. The proposed roof deck on the ADU is prohibited by the City’s ordinance.

5. The variance findings cannot be met.

6. The proposed attached ADU does not satisfy the requirements that apply to ADUs due to the encroachment into the required 20-foot front yard, and as such, the ADU cannot be processed as an ADU.

7. The requested CDP cannot be approved because the Second Revised Project does not comply with the City’s LCP.

8. The Second Revised Project will obstruct ocean views from key areas of Appellant 2’s home, such as the living room and deck.

9. The Second Revised Project does not meet the criteria for a CEQA exemption and it has not been shown that the exceptions to the CEQA exemptions do not apply.

10. Appellant 2 incorporates by reference all of his submissions to the Board and the City Council on this project.

On August 6, 2025, D. Michael Gray of 31676 Seacove Drive, filed an appeal of the Board Approval (“Appeal 3”) (Attachment 4). Appeal 3 appeals all the Board’s determinations, findings, and resolutions in favor of the Second Revised Project for the following reasons, as summarized by staff:

1. The deck would create privacy impacts.

2. According to former Community Development Director Marc Wiener, roof decks are prohibited on top of ADUs.

APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 24-1151, CDP 24-1152, AND VAR 24-1153 AT 31731

SEACOVE DRIVE
January 27, 2026

3. The variance findings cannot be made. There are no special circumstances, and the Second Revised Project would result in a substantial adverse impact (visual and acoustic). Additionally, City regulations stipulate that variances cannot grant owners special privileges and substantial property rights that other owners do not have.

4. The CDP findings cannot be made because the Second Revised Project is incompatible with the neighborhood and does not satisfy the view equity and privacy protections of the City’s LCP.

5. The property owner refused all of their attempts to meet and discuss the project.

LBMC Section 25.05.070 requires certain forms of public notice for an appeal. Public notice was duly provided to consider the Appeal of the Project at the January 27, 2026 City Council meeting in accordance with LBMC Section 25.05.065. Notices were mailed to owners and occupants within a 300-foot and 100- foot radius of the Property, respectively, posted on the Property, and published in a newspaper of general circulation. (Attachment 5.) The project was previously continued from the September 23, 2025 City Council meeting to the October 28, 2025 City Council meeting, then to the November 18, 2025 meeting, and later to this January 27, 2026 City Council meeting.

A. Standards of Review
Pursuant to LBMC Section 25.05.070, decisions of the Board may be appealed to the City Council by the applicant or any owner of property within 300 feet of the subject property.

The City Council may uphold, reverse, or remand any appealed decision. (LBMC § 25.05.070(E)(3)(a).) In particular, in reversing a decision, there must be three affirmative votes approving the reversal by adoption of a resolution that sets forth in writing the findings relied on to conclude that the appealed decision was in error or an abuse of discretion.3 (LBMC § 25.05.070(E)(3)(a).) Further, pursuant to LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(2)(d), the City Council’s review is limited to “the plans that were the subject of the decision or determination by the approval authority”; if new plans are submitted, the City Council “shall not consider or act on” them but may determine to remand those plans to the approval authority “for further proceedings pursuant to such direction as may be given the City Council.”

1. Coastal Development Permit and Variance
LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(1) sets forth the procedures and review criteria for non-design review appeals, such as a coastal development permit and variance. For that review, the City Council shall not be limited to the grounds stated for the appeal and shall not be limited to the evidence that was presented to the Board.

The City Council shall exercise its independent judgment and discretion as to the evidence presented at its hearing. Nevertheless, there shall be a presumption that the decision or determination made by the Board was reasonable, valid, and not an abuse of discretion; and the appellant shall have the burden of proof of demonstrating otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence presented. 3 An abuse of discretion is defined as the following: (1) the City has “not proceeded in the manner required by law”; (2) the City “decision is not supported by the findings”; or (3) the “findings are not supported by the evidence.” (Civil Code § 1094.5.) APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 24-1151, CDP 24-1152, AND VAR 24-1153 AT 31731

SEACOVE DRIVE
January 27, 2026

In its consideration of the Board’s approval of CDP 24-1152 and VAR 24-1153, the City Council is not limited to either the evidence in the record or the deliberations of the Board. The Applicant or members of the public may present new evidence for the City Council’s consideration, and the City Council is free to deliberate without being limited to the Board’s findings – in other words, a de novo hearing.

2. Design Review
LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(2) sets forth the procedures and review criteria for City Council requests for review of design review decisions. With respect to the standard of review for those decisions, subsection (E)(2)(b) provides:

If the decision or determination was not supported by four or more affirmative votes of the approval authority, upon hearing the appeal or request for review, the city council shall conduct a de novo review of the underlying application but shall be limited to the grounds specifically stated in the notice of appeal, if an appeal was filed, and to the evidence, including plans, that was presented to the approval authority. The city council shall exercise its independent judgment and discretion as to such evidence. Nevertheless, there shall be a presumption that the decision or determination made by the approval authority was reasonable, valid, and not an abuse of discretion; and the appellant, if there is one, shall have the burden of proof of demonstrating otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence, including plans, presented.

Accordingly, in its consideration of DR 24-1151, which was approved 3-2, the City Council shall conduct a de novo review, but is limited to considering the evidence that was presented to the Board and to the grounds specifically stated in the notice of appeal. Nevertheless, given the lack of four affirmative votes, the City Council exercises its independent judgment on the evidence.

If the Applicant proposes new plans that result in a redesign, the City Council shall not consider such plans; however, the City Council may (but is not required to) remand such plans to the Board for further review.

Notwithstanding that the City Council cannot review proposed new plans, the City Council can uphold the approval of DR 24-1151 subject to more restrictive conditions of approval that are effectuated through the provision of new plans; 5 in such event, remand is not required.

3. City Council Options
The City Council has numerous options in consideration of this matter, which are listed below.

1. Adopt the attached Resolution upholding the Board Approval, and finding the Second Revised Project categorically exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301;

2. Adopt the attached Resolution upholding the decision of the Board to conditionally approve DR 24-1151, and finding the Second Revised Project categorically exempt from CEQA under State 5 By way of example only, the City Council could choose to uphold a DR decision but impose a condition requiring that a wall be moved in three feet (3’) in order to support a view equity finding. In such event, new plans would be required to effectuate the condition, but the plans would not need to be remanded to the Board or Planning Commission for further consideration.

APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 24-1151, CDP 24-1152, AND VAR 24-1153 AT 31731

SEACOVE DRIVE
January 27, 2026

CEQA Guideline Section 15301, but modifying the Resolution to include more restrictive conditions of approval;

3. Direct staff to prepare and return at a future meeting with a Resolution overturning the Board Approval, with findings in support of overturning the Board Approval and denying the Second Revised Project; or

4. Direct staff to prepare and return at a future meeting with a Resolution remanding DR 24-1151, CDP 24-1152, and VAR 24-1153 to the Board, with findings in support of the remand and further direction to the Board.

DISCUSSION
The Board held three public hearings on January 9, 2025, May 22, 2025, and July 24, 2025, and adopted a Resolution approving the Second Revised Project on July 24, 2025. A summary of the public hearings is set forth below.7
A. January 9, 2025 Board Hearing

1. Staff Report
The Original Project is located on the north side of Seacove Drive, west of Coast Highway. The site consists of two lots and has a 10-foot-wide private road easement across the southern frontage of both lots. The existing site is developed with a single-family dwelling and attached one-car garage which were constructed under Orange County jurisdiction. The neighborhood consists of single-family residences. 7 The summaries and charts within this staff report are not exhaustive of all commentary or deliberations, but are intended to be a tool to aid the City Council in its review of the evidence.

APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 24-1151, CDP 24-1152, AND VAR 24-1153 AT 31731

SEACOVE DRIVE
January 27, 2026

Figure 1: Aerial View and Street Frontage of Project Site Figure 2: Proposed South Elevation of the Original Project

2. Staff Presentation
City staff noted that the site contains two lots with a 10-foot wide private road easement across the southern frontage of both lots. Each lot is 60 feet wide and 40 feet deep, not including the 10-foot road easement, which does not conform to the minimum 70-foot wide and 80-foot deep minimum lot dimensions for the APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 24-1151, CDP 24-1152, AND VAR 24-1153 AT 31731

SEACOVE DRIVE
January 27, 2026

R-1 zone. The eastern lot is developed with a single-family dwelling and attached one-car garage; the western lot is developed with a swimming pool and cabana. Staff noted the proposed additions and improvements would cross the existing property line and that a condition of approval was included to require a lot line adjustment prior to issuance of building permits. Staff noted concerns were raised regarding potential impacts on privacy and coastal views.

3. Board Ex Parte Disclosures
Board
Member
Ex Parte Disclosure Transcript
Page Nos.

Jessica
Gannon
Conducted a site visit with Steve Kawaratani and project team, and visited the home of Jim Burnes.
p. 1 of 15
Kristine
Thalman
Visited the site and met with David Parker, Steve Kawaratani, neighbors, Ralph Bertolino, and Jim Burnes.
p. 1 of 15
Thomas
Gibbs
Conducted a site visit with David Parker and Steve Kawaratani, and met with Dave Gray, Dave Roman, Ralph Bertolino, Mario Vaughn, and Jim Burnes.
p. 1 of 15

4. Applicant Presentation
Mr. Parker, the project architect, and Mr. Praner, the property owner, both provided comments during the Applicant presentation. Mr. Parker introduced the existing 1,227-square-foot one-story home with a 182- square-foot garage and a rear yard with decks, patios, and a full-size pool. He explained that shallow lots and reduced setbacks are typical of Seacove and Seacliff, and that the requested Variance is required to improve and enlarge the small, substandard house. Mr. Parker noted that the design maintains a low profile, the roof height is comparable to nearby houses, and there are several benefits to the Original Project. Mr.

Parker also noted that there are several other comparable decks in the area, and the Original Project was designed to be sensitive, modest, and compatible with the neighborhood.

Mr. Praner noted the ADU is for his mother and emphasized that the proposed deck is the backyard for the house.

5. Public Testimony
During the public hearing, four individuals provided public testimony. The public testimony is summarized below:

Commenter Summary of Comment Transcript
Page Nos.

Jim Burnes Noted he lives in the house directly north of the project and submitted a letter with several concerns. He cited concerns about privacy intrusions from the proposed roof deck and obstructions to ocean views. He emphasized that the roof deck is larger than the pattern of decks in the neighborhood and will provide a direct line of sight into his bedroom, bathroom, kitchen, family room, dining room, and lower deck. He p. 4-5 of 15
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 24-1151, CDP 24-1152, AND VAR 24-1153 AT 31731

SEACOVE DRIVE
January 27, 2026

mentioned that there is a prohibition on roof decks, that the roof deck has to satisfy the variance, and the variance findings cannot be found. He also mentioned that the CDP and General Plan requires that existing neighbors’ views and privacy must be preserved to the maximum extent feasible.

Mike Gray Expressed objection to the proposed deck. He noted that the size of the deck implies parties that will impact the neighborhood. He also noted that there is a mix of one- and two-story homes, the homes were a lot of money, and he hoped views were protected when considering additions to homes.

He expressed support for a deck but not for the size of the proposed deck. p. 5 of 15
David
Rowan
Noted the subject property is between Mr. Rowan’s house and the ocean and cited concerns about views. He noted the project would more than double the building footprint and take away some of his views. He expressed concerns about privacy from other neighbors, congestion on his street, and that the density of the area is very high.
p. 5 of 15
Mario
Vaughn
Cited concerns about shoving variances through on a quick path and the location of the proposed deck. He noted the deck looks back at his house and umbrellas on the deck could obstruct his view. He also expressed concerns about excavating dirt and how the material will be pulled out. He noted that there could be noise associated with a water wall feature of the pool. He also noted that he would like to look at the proposed landscaping due to concerns that landscaping would block his ocean views. p. 6-7 of 15

6. Applicant Rebuttal
David Parker noted that they met with Mr. Burnes and understand his privacy concerns. Mr. Parker explained that given the density of the area, along with all the decks and windows, that one hundred percent privacy is not guaranteed. He noted, however, that they provided handouts to the Board that showed some potential improvements. Reducing the deck and adding screen trees could help the privacy situation but would reduce his clients’ views and the functionality of the deck. Mr. Parker emphasized that the Original Project is not a large development, that the proposed home is only 1,973 square feet and steps down with the slope. He noted that they have a plan to manage the construction staging and turnaround area. Mr. Parker emphasized that they can add screen trees for privacy but the trees would impact ocean views for the neighbors and his clients.

7. Board Deliberation
Topic Discussion Transcript
Page Nos.
[Commenter]
View Equity;
Privacy
Board member Gibbs noted that the City considers view equity, not view protection, and that he believes the project achieves view equity.

He expressed concerns about privacy, trees, and the deck, noting that there are no decks on that street of similar size to the proposed deck. p. 8-10 of 15
[Gibbs]
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 24-1151, CDP 24-1152, AND VAR 24-1153 AT 31731

SEACOVE DRIVE
January 27, 2026

Also noted the neighborhood is tight and the deck would be visible from several neighboring homes. Mr. Gibbs recommended reducing the size of the deck. He also recommended that the Applicant return with a specific tree height that would satisfy privacy concerns for Mr.

Burnes from his bedroom and bathroom.

Privacy Chair Gannon disagreed that there were privacy issues because you have to stand in very particular places in Mr. Burnes’ home to see the privacy issue. She agreed that landscaping could help mitigate privacy concerns.
p. 10 of 15
[Gannon]
Privacy Board member Thalman expressed concerns about privacy and the large size of the deck. She supported reducing the deck and the addition of landscape screening.
p. 10-11 of 15
[Thalman]

8. Board Action
The Board voted 3-0 to continue the project to the March 13, 2025 Board meeting.

B. May 22, 2025 Board Review

1. Staff Report
In the published staff report to the Board, staff noted that for the Revised Project, the Applicant revised the plans by proposing the following modifications:
• Reduced the upper-level deck area by 135.2 square feet (from 733 square feet to 597.8 square feet) (Figure 3 below)
• Relocated the upper-level deck railing 4 feet, 6 inches to the east and a portion of the northern railing to the south
• Revised the landscape plan to add a hedge of Pittosporum “Silver Sheen”, approximately 15 feet along the north property line, to be maintained at a height of 16 feet, 4 inches for privacy (Figure 4 below)
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 24-1151, CDP 24-1152, AND VAR 24-1153 AT 31731

SEACOVE DRIVE
January 27, 2026

Figure 3: Project Revisions Showing Reduction of Deck
Figure 4: Project Revisions Highlighting Landscape Screening for Privacy

2. Staff Presentation
Staff presented the Revised Project, highlighting previous Board direction, plan revisions, and public comments. Staff noted that the Board directed the Applicant to reduce the size of the deck and add landscape APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 24-1151, CDP 24-1152, AND VAR 24-1153 AT 31731

SEACOVE DRIVE
January 27, 2026

screening to improve privacy. Staff noted that the deck was reduced by 135.2 square feet, and a 16-foot, 4- inch high, approximately 15-foot long hedge of pittosporum silver sheen was added for privacy. Staff noted four neighbors provided written comments expressing concerns about neighborhood compatibility, privacy, and view equity, mostly related to the proposed deck.

3. Board Ex Parte Disclosures
Board
Member
Ex Parte Disclosure Transcript
Page Nos.

Gannon Had a site visit with David Parker and Steve Kawaratani, and met with some neighbors.
p. 1 of 31
Coveny Had a site visit with David Parker and Steve Kawaratani, and met with neighbors across the street, Mario Vaughn representing the Everharts and the Grays, and Mr. Burke.
p. 1 of 31
Bauta Met with Steve Kawaratani, David Parker, Jim Burnes, and Mario Vaughn.
p. 1 of 31
Weil Met with Steve Kawaratani, David Parker, Jim Burnes, and Mario Vaughn.
p. 1 of 31
Gibbs Met with Mr. Parker, Mr. Kawaratani, Mario Vaughn representing two homeowners, Jim Burnes, and Ralph Bertolino.
p. 1 of 31

4. Applicant Presentation
Mr. Parker, the architect for the Revised Project, presented the revised plans, highlighting key changes made in response to Board direction from the initial hearing. He shared comparisons of the existing usable outdoor area with the proposed deck area, noting the proposed deck area is only a quarter of the existing outdoor area. He also shared images of existing and proposed elevations and additions and shared a survey of other decks in the area that range from 716 to 1,698 square feet. Mr. Parker explained that the row of silver sheen will provide a visual screen from Mr. Burnes’ property and be six feet above the proposed deck surface. He emphasized that view equity means 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, and that they believe the Revised Project achieves such equity.

5. Public Testimony
During the public hearing, four individuals provided public testimony. The public testimony is summarized below:

Commenter Summary of Comment Transcript
Page Nos.

Jim Burnes Expressed that the project revisions fall short of expectations and that the deck will result in noise activity, privacy intrusion, and acoustic intrusion.

Mr. Burnes noted that the deck would still allow sight into his bedroom and bed. He noted that the proposed privacy screen would still expose a portion of the deck. He expressed concerns that the deck would still be a p. 4-5 of 31
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 24-1151, CDP 24-1152, AND VAR 24-1153 AT 31731

SEACOVE DRIVE
January 27, 2026

party deck and that the Applicant is intending to eliminate screening and install large windows with views into all of the rooms on the western side of Mr. Burnes’ home.

Mike Gray Noted that all of the adjacent neighbors are opposed to the deck.

Expressed concerns about the deck being close to his bedroom, the deck being used for parties, and views into his bedroom. He also expressed concerns that the project would eliminate most of the Everharts’ view. Mr.

Gray also expressed concerns about not adding parking for the ADU and the construction.
p. 5 of 31
David
Rowan
Expressed concerns about congestion on the tiny street and not adding parking for the proposed deck. Mr. Rowan also expressed concerns that the proposed screening would impact the views of other neighbors. p. 6 of 31
Mario
Vaughn
Noted he is speaking for the Everharts and noted concerns about parking issues. Expressed concerns that the deck seating faces his clients’ living room and would like to see the deck reduced. Stated that the fire pit will cause a shimmering glare into windows and his clients will not be able walk out because of the proximity of the proposed deck. p. 6 of 31

6. Applicant Rebuttal
Mr. Parker noted that they met with the neighbors, observed their views, and tried to make reasonable responses. The area has houses close together, reduced setbacks, substandard lots, and narrow streets, making it impossible to protect everyone’s views and privacy one hundred percent. He emphasized they are adding privacy screening, have reduced the deck, and there are other decks in the area. The Revised Project adds more parking and landscaping to the site and will remove some trees that may improve views.

7. Board Deliberation
The Board asked questions clarifying the location, length, height, and species of the privacy screen, large windows and window frosting, the fire pit location, and the driveway dimensions.

Topic Discussion Transcript Page
Nos. [Commenter]
Privacy; Findings Board member Gannon noted the project was approvable at the initial Board meeting and with the
deck reductions the project is more approvable. Did
not observe any privacy concerns and the new
screening will be better than the existing screening.

Noted that the findings can be made for the project.
p. 21 of 31 [Gannon]
Privacy; Findings Board member Bauta agreed with Board member Gannon’s comments. Expressed that the windows
should be frosted or additional vegetation should be
added to reduce privacy concerns.
p. 22 of 31 [Bauta]
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 24-1151, CDP 24-1152, AND VAR 24-1153 AT 31731

SEACOVE DRIVE
January 27, 2026

Privacy; Deck Size Board member Coveny noted that there does not appear to be a view equity issue but there is a privacy issue. Noted the need to weigh the Applicant’s right to build with the neighbors’ quality of privacy.

Expressed concerns about the quality of the hedge for
privacy, that the hedging will not fully mitigate the
issue of privacy, and that the deck should be shrunk
down.
p. 22-23 of 31
[Coveny]
Findings; Deck Size;
Driveway; Privacy
Board member Weil noted support for the request and
that the findings can be made. Expressed that the deck
should be reduced further, the driveway should be
further redesigned, and that the landscaping needs to
be bolstered. Noted that privacy is limited in
condensed areas.
p. 23-24 of 31 [Weil]
Deck Size; Privacy Chair Gibbs emphasized the need for a substantial reduction in the deck size, not a modest reduction.

Noted that the elevated deck creates privacy concerns.

Supported landscape screening and window frosting
to reduce privacy concerns. Recommended that the
Applicant come back with a further deck reduction
and a clarified landscape plan.
p. 24-25 of 31 [Gibbs]

8. Board Action
The Board voted 5-0 to continue the item to July 24, 2025.

C. July 24, 2025 Board Approval

1. Board Ex Parte Disclosures
Board
Member
Ex Parte Disclosure Transcript
Page Nos.

Gannon Spoke with Steve Kawaratani. Previously visited site with David Parker and previously visited the home of Mr. Burnes.
p. 1 of 20
Weil Visited the site and spoke with Steve Kawaratani. p. 1 of 20 Bauta Visted the site with Steve Kawaratani. p. 1 of 20 Gibbs Visited the site with Steve Kawaratani and met with Jim Burnes and Mario Vaughn.
p. 1 of 20
Coveny Visited the site, met with Mr. Burnes, and spoke with Steve Kawaratani. p. 1 of 20

2. Staff Presentation
Staff noted that this is the third hearing. Staff explained the plans for the Second Revised Project were revised to show a 10-foot wide driveway. Staff also explained that the plans were revised to reduce the deck area by an additional 70 square feet (Figure 5 below, shown in light pink), eliminate the fire pit, retain the existing Podocarpus hedge and a tree, and provide a Carolina cherry hedge to be maintained at a height of APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 24-1151, CDP 24-1152, AND VAR 24-1153 AT 31731

SEACOVE DRIVE
January 27, 2026

nine feet above the upper-level finished floor elevation. Staff noted two neighbors submitted written comments expressing concerns mostly related to the elevated deck. Staff also noted that conditions of approval were added to require landscaping to comply with plans and be maintained at specific heights and elevations, and to require a 10-foot wide driveway.

Figure 5: Second Revised Upper-Level Deck

3. Applicant Presentation
Mr. Parker presented the revisions made at the request of the Board. The deck was reduced an additional 70 square feet, the fire pit was removed, and the landscape screen was changed to a dense Carolina cherry at 9 feet above the deck surface. In addition, the existing hedge at the rear would be preserved, or replaced if necessary, and the windows at the front will be frosted or obscure glass. The driveway entry was widened to 10 feet and a three-foot curved radius was added on either side. Mr. Parker explained that the proposed deck was comparable in size to other decks, especially when comparing to lots of similar size to the subject site. He concluded with emphasizing the neighborhood homes are close together, and the Second Revised Project achieved view and privacy equity and was neighborhood compatible.

4. Public Testimony
During the public hearing, four individuals provided public testimony. The public testimony is summarized below:

APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 24-1151, CDP 24-1152, AND VAR 24-1153 AT 31731

SEACOVE DRIVE
January 27, 2026

Commenter Summary of Comment Transcript
Page Nos.

Jim Burnes Continued to oppose the project even with the reductions. Noted the problem is privacy intrusion into his home, bedroom, living room, deck, and bed. Privacy criteria should not result in people being able to see into your bedroom. The deck could not be built without setback variances. p. 4 of 20
Mike Gray Emphasized how small the street is. Noted that the project will block views from other houses or the project will look down into other houses, including Mr. Gray’s bedroom. He also noted that the applicants do not need a huge deck.
p. 5 of 20
Mario
Vaughn
Stated that he represented the Everharts, and that the current design would allow the applicant to look up and back into the living room. Suggested the deck be reduced. He also noted that the project intrudes into two bedrooms and the living room.
p. 5-6 of 20
David Rowan Noted that the deck is more massive than anything on their street, which seems to add to privacy concerns and people looking into others’ homes.

Expressed concerns about trees blocking views and noted that he spoke to the property owner about cutting overgrown trees in front of Mr.

Rowan’s house.
p. 6 of 20

5. Applicant Rebuttal
Mr. Parker explained they are losing the Podocarpus tree by the telephone pole which will help people’s views and the Ficus tree. He explained that the Second Revised Project is proposing to maintain the new trees at nine feet above the deck which is approximately the height of the eaves. He emphasized that neighbors can look back and forth and see each other now. He noted that they have taken significant steps to mitigate the concerns.

6. Board Deliberation
Topic Discussion Transcript Page Nos.
[Commenter]
Findings; Privacy Board member Gannon noted the project was approvable at the initial Board meeting and with the
additional deck reductions the project is more
approvable. Also noted the landscaping is
adequately planned to protect privacy and views.

Ms. Gannon also stated that the current deck creates
the same privacy issue as the proposed deck, and that
the proposed deck meets the pattern of development.

Ms. Gannon also noted that 31678 Seacove Drive
has a wraparound deck, and in comparison, the
Applicant’s proposed deck was modest.
p. 9 of 20, 13-14 of 20
[Gannon]
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 24-1151, CDP 24-1152, AND VAR 24-1153 AT 31731

SEACOVE DRIVE
January 27, 2026

Findings; Deck Size;
Privacy;
Neighborhood
Compatibility
Board member Coveny noted that the variance to
expand the small house’s footprint to maximize
living space made sense because the lot is unique,
but that adding addition features in the form of a
large outdoor area and pool went too far and was not
appropriate for this specific lot and neighborhood..

She stated that the deck and pool were not
neighborhood compatible. Ms. Coveny did not see
a view issue but there was a privacy issue. She noted
that the project was not neighborhood compatible
because the deck and pool would sit perched up in
the middle of the area.
p. 10 of 20, 17 of 20
[Coveny]
Project Revisions Board member Bauta noted that the Applicant had made several adjustments to the project, including
landscaping changes, redesigning the deck,
proposing frosted glass windows, and widening the
driveway, and that he would support approval of the
project. He also pointed out that the mass of the
project is partially due to the ADU.
p. 11 of 20, 14 of 20
[Bauta]
Privacy Board member Weil recognized there was a similar privacy dynamic with the existing deck at the
property. He noted that the landscaping had been
adjusted and the privacy issue would be balanced.

Mr. Weil also indicated that the project would
provide more off-street parking.
p. 11-12 of 20 [Weil]
Neighborhood
Compatibility;
Privacy
Chair Gibbs explained how the proposed elevated
deck and pool were incompatible with the Seacove
neighborhood, which was characterized by close
homes, small decks, privacy, and a village-like
atmosphere. He stated that the large elevated deck
and pool would significantly change the
neighborhood, create noise and privacy issues, and
disrupt its character. While acknowledging some
minor design concessions, Mr. Gibbs indicated that
these changes were insufficient. He stated that the
issue of privacy is both of neighbors seeing into the
deck and from noise.
p. 12 of 20, 15 of 20
[Gibbs]

7. Board Adoption of Resolution Denying the Application The Board voted 3-2 (Chair Gibbs and Board member Coveny dissenting) to adopt Resolution No. 24-1151, which includes the conditions of approval provided with the staff report, approving the Second Revised Project.

APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 24-1151, CDP 24-1152, AND VAR 24-1153 AT 31731

SEACOVE DRIVE
January 27, 2026

RESPONSES TO ISSUES RAISED ON APPEAL
As noted above, the City received three appeals of the Board’s decision (Attachments 2, 3, & 4). As indicated under Standards of Review, in the City Council’s review of non-design review appeals, such as a coastal development permit and variance, the Council shall conduct a de novo review of the underlying application and shall not be limited to the grounds stated for the appeal, nor is the Council limited to the evidence that was presented to the Board. Accordingly, in its consideration of the Board’s approval of CDP 24-1152 and VAR 24-1153, the Council is free to deliberate without being limited to the Board’s findings – in other words, a de novo hearing. For the consideration of DR 24-1151, the City Council shall conduct a de novo review, but is limited to considering the evidence that was presented to the Board and may exercise its independent judgment on such evidence. Further, for DR 24-1151, the City Council is limited to the grounds specifically stated in the notice of Appeals.

Appeal 1 (Everhart). Below are the grounds for Appeal 1 and City staff’s response.

1. “Huge Deck [Not] Neighborhood Compatible” – “Immense Privacy Issue” – “Egregious Abuse of Variances.”
Staff’s Response
The deck area was reduced by 135.2 square feet initially and further reduced by an additional 70 square feet with the approved Second Revised Project, for a total reduction of approximately 28 percent (733 to 527.8 square feet). The Second Revised Project also eliminated the fire pit, widened the driveway to 10 feet, and includes revised landscaping and screening measures in the form of opaque windows and a new Carolina Cherry hedge to be maintained at a specified height to screen the deck from neighboring properties and mitigate privacy impacts. Based on these changes, the Board found that the Second Revised Project was consistent with the prevailing pattern of development in the surrounding neighborhood. The record demonstrates that the Board carefully considered neighborhood character and privacy concerns and imposed conditions to address them, balancing competing interests of the Applicant and appellants.

As indicated by adopting findings for VAR 24-1153, the lot’s unusually shallow depth, presence of a 10- foot-wide private road easement, and required front and rear setbacks make it infeasible to build or expand a single-family home under R-1 zoning regulations. Because the usable depth is only 40 feet after a road easement, the required setbacks would leave no useful area to develop, necessitating variances. Other properties on Seacove Drive are similar with limiting property dimensions given the required setbacks but were allowed to develop with reduced setbacks. As such, the approval of the Second Revised Project does not constitute an egregious abuse of variances.

2. Design Review Criteria 11 has not been met.

Staff’s Response
Design Review Criterion 11 states: “Privacy. The placement of activity areas (e.g., decks, picture windows and ceremonial or entertainment rooms) in locations that would result in a substantial invasion of privacy of neighboring properties should be minimized.”
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 24-1151, CDP 24-1152, AND VAR 24-1153 AT 31731

SEACOVE DRIVE
January 27, 2026

Findings contained in the staff reports, resolution, and meeting minutes identify how this criterion is met (Attachments 17, 6, and 20). As reflected in Resolution No. 24-1151, the Board was able to find that the privacy criterion could be made as follows:
“The Project proposes windows on the north elevation and an elevated deck and pool area, which as an activity area, could impact privacy of neighboring properties. The applicant has revised the plans to specify the new windows on the upper-level of the north elevation will be frosted glass to eliminate privacy concerns for the property to the north. In response to privacy concerns, the deck area has been further reduced in size from the previous design.

The western-most railing was relocated a further 4 feet, 5 inches eastward from the previous location to align with the edge of the pool. In addition, the landscape plan has been revised to maintain or replace the existing podocarpus trees and install a Caroline Cherry hedge along the northern property line to screen the view of the deck from the neighbor to the north (31672 Sea Bluff Lane). The project has been conditioned to maintain the hedges at a maximum height at 9 feet above the upper-level finished floor elevation (123’ elevation) to provide privacy to the adjacent property.”
The appeal does not specify how Criterion 11 is allegedly unmet, nor does it point to specific findings or plan elements lacking consistency with that criterion. In contrast, the Board’s resolution, supported by the staff reports, transcripts, minutes, and public record, identifies how the project meets applicable Design Review Criteria, including overall compatibility, scale, massing, and the mitigation of visual and privacy impacts through landscaping, glazing, and deck reductions. Although two Board members could not find that the Second Revised Project satisfied the Privacy criterion, a majority of the Board found that the plan revisions sufficiently mitigated for privacy impacts.

3. “Our concerns, as well as our neighbors, have basically been ignored by the Applicant, David Parker, Architect.”
Staff’s Response
In response to Board direction, which was based on all evidence in the record, including but not limited to a review of the plans, site visits, public testimony, and staff reports, the Applicant revised the plans for the second and third Board hearings, including reduction of the elevated deck, relocation of the deck railing, window glazing modifications, elimination of the fire pit, driveway widening, and incorporation of landscape screening to be maintained at specified heights. As reflected in the record, the plans were revised to address concerns raised by the neighbors. The Board’s deliberations explicitly recognized these changes and weighed them as satisfactory mitigation of previously raised concerns to satisfy the design review criteria. The claim that concerns were “ignored” is not borne out by the record. Further, the subjective feelings that an applicant is dismissive or ignoring concerns of neighbors is not grounds to deny a project – the required entitlement(s) criteria are.

4. “The deck will change the neighborhood (small houses/small decks) in a negative way and destroy the cottage feel we all enjoy.”
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 24-1151, CDP 24-1152, AND VAR 24-1153 AT 31731

SEACOVE DRIVE
January 27, 2026

Staff’s Response
The neighborhood is a mix of smaller and larger homes. The subject property contains two lots and, with a lot line adjustment, supports a larger footprint than some of the smaller homes. While the neighborhood has a certain character, the Board found that the Second Revised Project is compatible with the pattern of development in the area, especially given the small lot sizes, existing substandard lot dimensions, and other nearby properties with similar or larger decks. The deck reductions and screening measures adequately respond to the neighborhood character and mitigate the potential privacy impacts. The Board’s decision reflects a balancing of property rights and neighborhood context under the Design Review standards.

5. “As it stands now, our privacy as well as our north facing view will be severely impacted which will directly cause a decrease in value of our home.”
Staff’s Response
In regards to privacy, as noted above, the Second Revised Project includes glazing and landscaping measures to mitigate visual intrusion; the combination of frosted/obscure glass and a dense hedge maintained at specified height constitutes reasonable mitigation. The Board concluded these measures satisfy view-privacy balancing consistent with the Municipal Code. Regarding view equity and property value, the City’s policy is one of view equity, not view protection. The Board found that the Second Revised Project achieves view equity under existing site conditions and constraints, meaning that the Second Revised Project does not unreasonably deprive neighbors of ocean views beyond what is reasonably expected in this tightly spaced neighborhood. Lastly, economic impacts or market value effects are not among the criteria for approval under the Municipal Code.

6. “The Proposed Roof Deck on the ADU Is Prohibited By City’s Ordinance.” “20-Foot Setback Requirement for ADU Not Satisfied.” “Requirements Necessary For Variances Cannot be Met.” “A CDP Cannot Be Issued Because the Required LCP - Compliance Findings Cannot Be Made.” Staff’s Response
In regard to the roof deck and ADU, the Board’s approval did not include any roof-deck; instead, the Second Revised Project includes an elevated deck associated with the main dwelling, not an ADU roof deck. While the applicable ADU design standards prohibit roof decks (LBMC Section 25.17.040(E)(5)(c)), the City views roof decks as decks above the uppermost story of a building. In this case, the deck would not be located above the uppermost story of the building; rather the deck would be the same level of the as the primary dwelling. In addition, since the deck can only be accessed from the primary dwelling, it is clearly intended to only be used by the primary dwelling, not as roof deck for the ADU. The current ADU ordinance (Ord. No. 1713) defines a “roof deck” as “a deck above the uppermost story of a building, with no access from interior living space at that same floor level”. The proposed deck is accessed from the interior living space of the main dwelling, therefore, it is not considered an ADU roof deck. This is consistent with another reference to roof decks in the Zoning Code in the Arch Beach Heights Specific Plan,9 and a figure included 9 LBMC Section 25.35.080(B)(9): “Roof decks should not be permitted above the uppermost story, nor should parapets, walls, protective roof deck railings or stair enclosures exceed the roof height of the uppermost story, except as approved by design review.” (Emphasis added.)
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 24-1151, CDP 24-1152, AND VAR 24-1153 AT 31731

SEACOVE DRIVE
January 27, 2026

in the Design Guidelines for Hillside Development, which depicts a “terraced deck” as a deck over the roof of a lower floor level. The conditions of approval and the final plan set (Exhibits A and B) must be read carefully; the absence of a roof-deck on the ADU means that the appeal’s assertion is factually incorrect.

Figure 6. Excerpt from the Design Guidelines for Hillside Development (1989), page A-4, encouraging the use of terraced decks as a means to better integrate building program into the natural slope and to reduce the perceived mass of a building (as opposed to a cantilevered or overhanging deck).

In regard to the setback variances requested – encroachment into the 20-foot front yard setback and 10-foot rear yard setback, additional building setback encroachments, and a pool within the front yard setback – were evaluated by the Board. The Board made findings under the variance standards (that granting the variance will not be detrimental to public health, safety, convenience or welfare; will not injure property or improvements in the vicinity; and will not be contrary to the objectives of the zoning ordinance or general plan) as required by the with the Municipal Code.

In regard to there being no “special circumstances” justifying the variances, the project site is the same depth as the adjacent properties along Seacove Drive. All the properties which take access from Seacove Drive are nonconforming to the required front yard and rear yard setbacks of the R-1 zone. In addition, variances for encroachments into the front yard and rear yard setbacks have been granted for the existing residences at 31672, 31676, and 31678 Seacove Drive.

The project site is comprised of two legal building sites, therefore, it has a larger lot area than other lots in the vicinity. This provides justification for a larger home and larger deck to be constructed than on nearby smaller lots. A variance is not required for the westward deck projection as the deck complies with the required 19-foot side yard setback, The proposed swimming pool will replace an existing larger at-grade swimming pool on the property. The existing pool encroaches into the front and rear setbacks.

APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 24-1151, CDP 24-1152, AND VAR 24-1153 AT 31731

SEACOVE DRIVE
January 27, 2026

In regard to the ADU structure not in compliance with the required 20-foot front yard setback, the Municipal Code does not prohibit granting a variance for the reduction of the front yard setback for an ADU when all required findings are made.

In regard to the LCP / CDP findings, with respect to the required findings for a coastal development permit under the City’s certified Local Coastal Program, the Board’s resolution includes a CEQA exemption finding (State CEQA Guidelines § 15301) and implicitly finds consistency with LCP policies given the scale, use, and design features (setbacks, landscaping, privacy screening, no new subdivision, etc.). In regard to the project being visually incompatible with the Seacove Drive neighborhood, the Board found the proposed development to be visually compatible with the character of the surrounding area (CDP Finding 6) in that other properties on Seacove Drive have similar or the same setbacks. Additionally, view equity and privacy are not analyzed for the purposes of the City’s coastal development permit requirements.

Those criteria are analyzed under the design review entitlement. There are no specific coastal resource impacts, including impacts to coastal scenic resources. Since the appeal does not explicitly call out any specific LCP policies, it is difficult to recognize and address what policy is at issue. However, the CDP for the Second Revised Project evaluated the LCP policies.

7. “This proposed deck has been referred to as a “party deck” throughout the hearings.” The appellant requests that Ms. Gannon recuse herself from this matter and that she be sanctioned.

Staff’s Response
This appeal contention does not present new arguments concerning the required findings for approval, allege any procedural errors, or challenge whether substantial evidence in the record supports the Board’s decision, nor does it raise other issues within the City Council’s scope of review on appeal. Ms. Gannon articulated the basis for her vote to approve the Second Revised Project, which was grounded in the required findings for approval.

8. “One of the board Members said if the proposal is passed, he feels really sorry for the residents of Seacove.”
Staff’s Response
The statement, made in the course of deliberation, does not constitute a binding legal finding or condition; it reflects personal concern, not part of the Board’s adopted resolution. What matters are the findings as memorialized in the resolution and conditions of approval — which, in this case, commit the applicant to modifications that mitigate neighborhood impacts. Personal remarks outside the resolution do not invalidate the approval. As stated above, this appeal contention does not raise issues within the City Council’s scope of review on appeal.

9. “In summary, we are in favor of the property owners’ right to make improvements, but not when our rights are negatively impacted.”
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 24-1151, CDP 24-1152, AND VAR 24-1153 AT 31731

SEACOVE DRIVE
January 27, 2026

Staff’s Response
The City’s regulatory framework, through the Design Review, CDP, and Variance processes, is designed to reconcile competing property rights, the applicant’s right to improve and use their property, and neighbors’ rights to privacy, view equity, and neighborhood character. The Board’s action and conditions reflect exactly that balancing. The approval, as conditioned and mitigated, represents a lawful exercise of discretion intended to respect both the Applicant’s rights and the community context.

Appeal 2 (Burnes). Below are the grounds for Appeal 2 and City staff’s response.

1. “The project includes a non-ADU expansion, new attached ADU, new 528sf roof deck with 15 foot height at railing on top of the ADU, 2 car garage, and elevated spa, pool, fountain, and waterfall”. “The additions would more than double the existing size of the living space”. “Roof deck could not be built without the requested 3 setback variances”. “The deck will be a few times larger than any other deck on Seacove Dr.”. "Because DRB granted the variances, the deck will be only 4’6” (at a height of 15 feet) from that property line which results in privacy-intrusive direct sight lines into master bedroom, living room, and deck”. “Roof deck must independently satisfy the requirements for the 3 requested setback variances”. “All 5 adjoining neighbors oppose the project.” Staff’s Response
In regard to the size of the proposed addition, the living area of the main dwelling would be increased from 1,332.5 square feet to 1,973.3 square feet which is a 48 percent increase. The proposed ADU is not subject to design review and the area of the ADU is not included in the living area of the main residence. The ADU totals 928.4 square feet. The ADU was reviewed against the CDP findings, and the Board found that the Second Revised Project met the design review findings (main residence only) and the CDP findings (main residence and ADU).

As indicated by adopting findings for VAR 24-1153, the lot’s unusually shallow depth, presence of a 10- foot-wide private road easement, and required front and rear setbacks make it infeasible to build or expand a single-family home under R-1 zoning regulations. Because the usable depth is only 40 feet after a road easement, the required setbacks would leave no useful area to develop, necessitating variances. Other properties on Seacove Drive are similar with limiting property dimensions given the required setbacks but were allowed to develop with reduced setbacks. Variances for reduced front yard and rear yard setbacks have been granted for properties at 31673, 31676, and 31678 Seacove Drive.

In regard to the size of the proposed deck in comparison to other decks on Seacove Drive, the Second Revised Project proposes a 527.8 square foot deck. Decks on properties in the vicinity of the project site range in size from 184 square feet to 742 square feet, with an average size of 407.6 square feet (see Comparison Table below).

In regard to the proximity of the proposed deck to the property line, the 4 foot, 10 inch setback is in line with the setback of the existing residence. The Board adopted a condition of approval requiring the existing podocarpus hedge and a proposed Carolina Cherry hedge be maintained at 9 feet above the upper-level finished floor elevation (elevation of 123 feet) to screen the deck from neighboring properties and mitigate APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 24-1151, CDP 24-1152, AND VAR 24-1153 AT 31731

SEACOVE DRIVE
January 27, 2026

privacy impacts.

In regard to neighbor opposition, while staff acknowledges neighborhood concerns, opposition alone is not a basis for denial; the decision must be grounded in review standards and supported findings. The Board weighed the concerns, required multiple revisions (deck reduction, glazing changes, and landscaping), and concluded that the Second Revised Project with the conditions of approval satisfied all applicable findings.

Comparison Table of Properties on Seacove Drive
Address Lot size Living Area
(Main
Residence)
Deck / Terrace
Area
Garage Area Pool/Spa
31731 Seacove
(subject
property)
5,912 s.f. 1,332.5 s.f.
(existing)
1,973.3 s.f.
(proposed)
336 s.f.
(existing)
527.8 s.f.
(proposed)
181.8 s.f.
(existing)
469.5 s.f.
(proposed)
Demolish
existing at-grade
pool, new
elevated pool
and spa
31672 Seacove 2,999 s.f. 1,453 s.f. 375 s.f. 195 s.f. No 31673 Seacove
(VAR 8541)
3,000 s.f. 1,698 s.f. 302 s.f. s.f 609 s.f. Spa on elevated deck
31674 Seacove 3,250 s.f. 1,064 s.f. 184 s.f. 260 s.f. No 31676 Seacove
(VAR 7133)
3,738 s.f. 1,489 s.f. 435 s.f. 240 s.f. No
31678 Seacove
(oceanfront)
(VAR 1825)
9,900 s.f. 1,933 s.f. 742 s.f. 462 s.f. No
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 24-1151, CDP 24-1152, AND VAR 24-1153 AT 31731

SEACOVE DRIVE
January 27, 2026

Figure 7: Aerial View of Seacove Drive neighborhood

2. “Per DRB Chairman Gibbs and Member Coveny: “[The] huge deck [is not] remotely neighborhood compatible.” “[It’s an] immense privacy issue …. [and a] egregious abuse of variances.”” Staff’s Response
Board comments were part of deliberations, but the adopted findings and conditions, not individual remarks, govern the action. The Board required substantial revisions prior to approval, including deck reduction, removal of the fire pit, driveway modifications, and privacy screening, which were specifically imposed to address compatibility and privacy concerns. The final action represents a reasoned balancing of competing interests; isolated statements do not constitute grounds for overturning the decision. Moreover, a decision is not required to be unanimous. A three-member majority of the Board found that the required findings for approval could be made.

3. “Summary of Opposition to Project.”
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 24-1151, CDP 24-1152, AND VAR 24-1153 AT 31731

SEACOVE DRIVE
January 27, 2026

Staff’s Response
The appeal reiterates opposition expressed at hearings. The Board considered all testimony, incorporated changes requested by the Board, and imposed conditions mitigating privacy and visual concerns.

Opposition, without identification of specific findings that are unsupported or inconsistent with code, does not provide a sufficient basis to reverse or deny the Second Revised Project.

4. “Acoustic and Visual Privacy Intrusions Into My Master Bedroom, Living Room, and Deck.” Staff’s Response
The Second Revised Project incorporates privacy glazing, window orientation changes, and dense landscape screening along the affected property line. Conditions require maintenance of screening to preserve privacy. Noise and acoustic impacts were considered, and elimination of the fire pit and reduced deck area address concerns regarding outdoor gathering intensity. With these design features, the Board found impacts reduced to an acceptable level under the Design Review criteria.

5. “The Proposed Roof Deck Violates the Roof-Deck Prohibition In ADU Ordinance and Guidelines.” Staff’s Response
As noted above, the approved plans do not include a roof deck; instead, the Second Revised Project includes an elevated deck associated with the main dwelling, not an ADU roof deck. While the applicable ADU design standards prohibit roof decks (LBMC Section 25.17.040(E)(5)(c)), the City views roof decks as decks above the uppermost story of a building. In this case, the deck would not be located above the uppermost story of the building; rather the deck would be the same level of the as the primary dwelling. In addition, since the deck can only be accessed from the primary dwelling, it is clearly intended to only be used by the primary dwelling, not as roof deck for the ADU. The current ADU ordinance (Ord. No. 1713) defines a “roof deck” as “a deck above the uppermost story of a building, with no access from interior living space at that same floor level”. The proposed deck is accessed from the interior living space of the main dwelling, is integrated into the project’s stepped design, and is not located above the uppermost level of the structure. Thus, no roof-deck was approved. This is consistent with another reference to roof decks in the Zoning Code in the Arch Beach Heights Specific Plan that discourages roof decks above the uppermost story, and a figure included in the Design Guidelines for Hillside Development, which depicts a “terraced deck” as a deck over the roof of a lower floor level, which is a preferred deck design as a means to better integrate building program into the natural slope and to reduce the perceived mass of a building (as opposed to a cantilevered or overhanging deck). The appeal misstates the project description. City ADU standards were reviewed by staff and by the Board, and the deck is not proposed above the uppermost level of the structure. The claim of violation is not supported by the record.

6. “Applicant Cannot Meet Legal Requirements for the FOUR (4) Variances Which He Is Requesting.” Staff’s Response
Staff prepared draft variance findings pursuant to Municipal Code requirements, identifying unique site characteristics, existing setback patterns, and topographic conditions specific to this parcel. The Board made all required variance findings based on substantial evidence in the record, as follows.

APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 24-1151, CDP 24-1152, AND VAR 24-1153 AT 31731

SEACOVE DRIVE
January 27, 2026

Finding No. 1: There are special circumstances applicable to the property involved, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings which cause the strict application of the zoning ordinance to deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification.

Yes. The lot shape with its limited depth, coupled with the minimum required front and rear yard setback standards, is a special circumstance that deprives the property owner of the ability to construct a single-family residence consistent with similarly zoned properties in the vicinity. The subject property has a nonconforming lot depth of 50 feet where 80 feet is required. The first 10 feet of Lots 4 and 5 are a dedicated private road easement. With a resulting property depth of 40 feet, the R-1 zone development standards require a 20-foot front setback coupled with the 10-foot rear setback which would leave no useful area to develop. It is not feasible to construct a single-family home, add on to an existing home, construct significant accessory improvements like a pool or construct an ADU within a 10-foot deep area and relief from the front and rear setbacks is necessary to develop the property consistent with the allowed use of the property. Other properties on Seacove Drive are similar with limiting property dimensions given the required setbacks but were allowed to develop with reduced setbacks. Allowing variances for a 4-foot, 10-inch front setback, a 4-foot, 6-inch rear setback, and to allow the structure to encroach into the required additional building setback area will allow the property owners to enjoy privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification.

Finding No. 2: Such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, which right is possessed by other property owners under like conditions in the same vicinity and zone.

Yes. The substantial property right in this case is the ability to construct a single-family home, or add to an existing single-family home including an ADU consistent with the allowed use of the property as designated by the Land Use Element of the General Plan and Zoning Code. It is not possible to construct or expand a single-family home or an ADU within a 10-foot-deep buildable area consistent with the front and rear setback standards. The existing single-family dwelling on the property is constructed with a 5-foot, 2-inch setback (4-foot, 10-inch garage setback) from the edge of the Seacove Drive easement and a 4-foot, 6-inch setback at the rear of the property. Applying the required 20-foot front and 10-foot rear setbacks to the property would result in a 10-foot-deep buildable area on the site. Other properties on Seacove Drive were allowed to develop with reduced setbacks. There are seven other homes on Seacove Drive all of which are developed with reduced setbacks at the front, side, and rear property lines. Approval of the proposed variances is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, which right is possessed by other property owners under like conditions in the same vicinity and zone.

Finding No. 3: The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, convenience and welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity in which the property is located.

APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 24-1151, CDP 24-1152, AND VAR 24-1153 AT 31731

SEACOVE DRIVE
January 27, 2026

Yes. The variance request for encroachments into the required front and rear yard setbacks, encroachment into the additional building setback, and a pool in the front yard setback would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, convenience and welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity in which the property is located, because the proposed additions will not interfere with the use of the private road easement, the new driveway and two-car garage will be located such that vehicles will be able to exit without having to back out into the private road easement, and existing neighboring properties are constructed within setbacks with structures ranging from one-story to three-stories, and containing elevated decks. The proposed elevated deck and pool at the site will be approximately 30 feet from the residence to the southeast. Relocating the existing at-grade pool to the front yard will increase the separation from the properties to the west and north. The existing structure is developed with reduced setbacks similar to the proposed project and the development pattern has not proven detrimental to the community.

Finding No. 4: The granting of such a variance would not be contrary to the objectives of the zoning ordinance or the general plan.

Yes. The objective of the zoning code is to provide for the orderly and safe development of land resources consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Setbacks are intended to promote safety while providing separation and access to structures, light, air and privacy. Setbacks also provide usable open space. The granting of such a variance would not be contrary to the objectives of the zoning ordinance or the general plan in that the proposed setbacks align with the existing setbacks of other properties on Seacove Drive in the vicinity and under identical zoning standards. The Zoning Code also provides a path for relief when special circumstances exist that would otherwise deprive property owners of the right to develop their lot consistent with the General Plan.

7. “The Requested CDP Should Not Be Granted Because the Project Does Not Comply With the City’s LCP and Therefore Required Legal Findings Cannot Be Made.” Staff’s Response
The Board considered relevant LCP policies and determined that the Second Revised Project, as conditioned, was consistent with the certified LCP. The appeal does not identify any specific LCP policy that is violated, nor provides evidence demonstrating non-compliance. The Board reviewed the CDP in the context of all required CDP findings, including finding that the project complies with all applicable LCP policies. Specifically, the Board found that the project complies with all applicable General Plan policies, Design Review criteria, and CDP criteria, including that the proposed development is visually compatible with the character of the surrounding area (CDP Finding 6) in that other properties on Seacove Drive have similar or the same setbacks. Additionally, view equity and privacy are not analyzed for the purposes of the City’s coastal development permit requirements. Those criteria are analyzed under the design review entitlement. There are no specific coastal resource impacts, including impacts to public views of coastal scenic resources.

APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 24-1151, CDP 24-1152, AND VAR 24-1153 AT 31731

SEACOVE DRIVE
January 27, 2026

8. “Noncompliance With CEQA.”
Staff’s Response
Staff reviewed the Second Revised Project under CEQA and determined it qualifies for a Class 1 categorical exemption from CEQA (Existing Facilities - minor alterations of existing structures) based on the scope of work and the absence of unusual circumstances that would preclude the use of the exemption. The Class 1 exemption applies when additions to existing structures are proposed, and the project additionally meets one of two criteria: (1) the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition, or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less; or (2) the addition will not result in an increase of more than 10,000 square feet if the project is in an area where all public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum development permissible in the General Plan, and the area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive.

In the July 24, 2025 Board staff report and the Board-adopted Resolution No. 24-1151, the analysis for the Class 1 exemption referenced the 2,500-square-foot/50% threshold. Because ADUs do not count toward the calculation for a major remodel, which is similarly triggered when the size of an addition crosses the 50% threshold, staff did not count the size of the attached ADU (928.4 square feet). Although the cumulative additions exceed 50 percent of the existing structure, the total added living area is only 1,569 square feet and does not approach the 10,000-square-foot threshold. Accordingly, the Second Revised Project independently qualifies for the Class 1 exemption under the second criterion.

In addition, the project site is not environmentally sensitive. It is fully developed with an existing singlefamily residence, ornamental landscaping, and hardscape; it is not located on an oceanfront lot; and it is entirely surrounded by existing residential development and improved public streets. All necessary public services and facilities—including water, wastewater, electricity, natural gas, and solid waste—are available and adequate to serve the proposed development and support the maximum development permitted by the General Plan. The subject property carries a land use designation of VLD, Village Low Density. As indicated in the Land Use Element, “[t]hese lands provide for single-family residential development at urban densities in areas that are predominantly developed and support existing detached single-family residences…Building density ranges from 1 to 7 dwelling units per acre and limits development to one house per parcel. The Second Revised Project includes additions to the existing single-family dwelling. In accordance with state ADU law, the proposed attached ADU is “deemed to be an accessory use or an accessory building and shall not be considered to exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which it is located, and shall be deemed to be a residential use that is consistent with the existing general plan and zoning designations for the lot.”11
The Second Revised Project is located within an established residential neighborhood and involves the remodel and expansion of an existing single-family dwelling, construction of one attached ADU, and construction of an elevated pool, spa, and deck. These improvements represent a negligible expansion of an existing residential use. The appeal does not present substantial evidence demonstrating the applicability of any exception to the Class 1 categorical exemption.
11 Government Code Section 66319
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 24-1151, CDP 24-1152, AND VAR 24-1153 AT 31731

SEACOVE DRIVE
January 27, 2026

The draft City Council resolution revises the analysis for the Class 1 categorical exemption adopted by the Board – for which the Second Revised Project continues to qualify for – by omitting the reference to the 2,500-square-foot/50-percent threshold and including additional analysis citing the applicable 10,000- square-foot threshold. The appeal does not cite substantial evidence of an exception to the exemption.

9. “Incorporation of Appellant’s Submissions to the DRB.” Staff’s Response
Materials submitted to the Board are already included in the administrative record and were reviewed by the Board. The Board’s decision reflects consideration of those submittals along with site visits, staff analysis, public comment, and revised plans. Incorporating previously submitted material does not create new grounds for reversal nor demonstrate that the Board erred in its findings.

Appeal 3 (Gray). Below are the grounds for Appeal 3 and City staff’s response.

1. “528 Square Foot Deck on top of a pool which both require variances.” Staff’s Response
The Second Revised Project includes an elevated deck and a pool, both of which require variances due to existing setback conditions. The Board reviewed the variance requests and made findings consistent with Municipal Code standards, noting the lot’s substandard dimensions, topographic constraints, and existing patterns of development. The record demonstrates that the variances were not granted arbitrarily but after substantial review, including multiple plan revisions (deck reduction, landscape screening, glazing changes, and elimination of fire pit) to mitigate potential impacts. Thus, the approval of the deck and pool variances does not constitute a legal defect or abuse of discretion.

2. “View Equity: Inappropriate Size and Neighborhood Privacy Intrusions.” Staff’s Response
As described in the Design Guidelines – A Guide to Residential Development, the View Equity design review criterion is intended to balance the applicant’s right to develop their property with the neighbors’ rights to maintain reasonable views. The Board considered the site conditions, adjacent structures, and project revisions, including deck size reductions, landscaping screening (Carolina Cherry hedge at a specified height), and frosted/obscure glazing. The Board found that the Second Revised Project satisfies the View Equity criterion.

In regard to privacy intrusions, the project includes design features to mitigate privacy impacts, such as dense screening along the north property line and window glazing adjustments. The Board concluded that these measures reasonably reduce visual and acoustic privacy impacts. The final design was found compatible with neighborhood development patterns, and the appeal does not provide substantial evidence that the approved deck size or pool violates view equity or unreasonably impacts privacy.

APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 24-1151, CDP 24-1152, AND VAR 24-1153 AT 31731

SEACOVE DRIVE
January 27, 2026

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolution (Attachment 1) denying the appeal and sustaining the Board’s approval of Design Review 24-1151, Coastal Development Permit 24-1152, and Variance 24-1153 and finding the Second Revised Project exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301.

FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The recommended action has no financial impact to the budget.

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, the Second Revised Project qualifies for a categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15301 - Existing Facilities, in that the project consists of the repair, maintenance, or minor alteration of existing structures or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. Examples of projects that qualify for a Class 1 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 include interior or exterior alterations that include such things as interior partitions, plumbing, and electrical conveyances, and additions to existing structures provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than 10,000 square feet if the project is in an area where all public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum development permissible in the General Plan, and the area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive.

As aforementioned, the Second Revised Project involves the remodel of and addition to an existing singlefamily dwelling, construction of one attached accessory dwelling unit, and construction of an elevated pool, spa, and deck, with a condition to require approval of a Lot Line Adjustment (lot merger) prior to issuance of grading or building permits to reduce the number of lots from two to one. The project site is not environmentally sensitive. It is fully developed with an existing single-family residence, ornamental landscaping, and hardscape; it is not located on an oceanfront lot; and it is entirely surrounded by existing residential development and improved public streets. All necessary public services and facilities—including water, wastewater, electricity, natural gas, and solid waste—are available and adequate to serve the proposed development and support the maximum development permitted by the General Plan. The subject property carries a land use designation of VLD, Village Low Density. As indicated in the Land Use Element, “[t]hese lands provide for single-family residential development at urban densities in areas that are predominantly developed and support existing detached single-family residences…Building density ranges from 1 to 7 dwelling units per acre and limits development to one house per parcel. The Second Revised Project includes additions to the existing single-family dwelling. In accordance with state ADU law, the proposed attached ADU is “deemed to be an accessory use or an accessory building and shall not be considered to exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which it is located, and shall be deemed to be a residential use that is consistent with the existing general plan and zoning designations for the lot.”13 The Second Revised Project is located within an established residential neighborhood and involves the remodel and expansion of an existing single-family dwelling, construction of one attached ADU, and 13 Government Code Section 66319
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 24-1151, CDP 24-1152, AND VAR 24-1153 AT 31731

SEACOVE DRIVE
January 27, 2026

construction of an elevated pool, spa, and deck. These improvements represent a negligible expansion of an existing residential use.

Further, none of the exceptions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply. As indicated above, the Project site does not contain any environmentally sensitive areas in that the site is fully developed with an existing single-family residence, decks, and pool, and is adjacent to developed residential properties and streets. The City’s environmentally sensitive area maps do not identify any such areas on-site or within the immediate Project vicinity, and there are no mapped watercourses on the subject site. There will be no cumulative impact resulting from successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time in that the Project proposes one accessory dwelling unit and only a junior accessory dwelling could be permitted on the subject site in the future. There are no unusual circumstances resulting in a significant impact on the environment in that there are no historic resources or heritage trees on the site, or any other concerns with regards to the Project site. There will be no damage to scenic resources, including trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway in that the Second Revised Project would not impact trees, there are no historic buildings or rock outcroppings on the site, and the closest officially designated state scenic highway is located near Anaheim15 and therefore the Second Revised Project will not result in damage to scenic resources within or near such highway. The Second Revised Project is not located on a hazardous waste site or any other site included on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. The Second Revised Project will not result in significant adverse impacts to historical resources as defined by CEQA in that there is no historic resource on the site or immediately adjacent to the site. Consequently, additional environmental analysis is not necessary to meet the requirements of the CEQA.

ATTACHMENTS

1. City Council Resolution (Pgs. 35-58)

2. Appeal 1 (Pgs. 59-86)

3. Appeal 2 (Pgs. 87-192)

4. Appeal 3 (Pgs. 193-201)

5. City Council Appeal Public Notice (Pgs. 202-203)

6. Adopted DRB Resolution No. 24-1151 (Pgs. 204-222)

7. January 9, 2025 DRB Staff Report (Pgs. 223-243)

8. January 9, 2025 DRB Project Plans (Pgs. 244-264)

9. January 9, 2025 DRB Public Comments (Pgs. 265-371)

10. January 9, 2025 DRB Minutes (Pgs. 372-376)

11. January 9, 2025 DRB Transcript (Pgs. 377-391)

12. May 22, 2025 DRB Staff Report (Pgs. 392-415)

13. May 22, 2025 DRB Plans (Pgs. 416-436)

14. May 22, 2025 DRB Public Comments (Pgs. 437-442)

15. May 22, 2025 DRB Minutes (Pgs. 443-448)

16. May 22, 2025 DRB Transcript (Pgs. 449-479)

17. July 24, 2025 DRB Staff Report (Pgs. 480-502)
15 https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 24-1151, CDP 24-1152, AND VAR 24-1153 AT 31731

SEACOVE DRIVE
January 27, 2026

18. July 24, 2025 DRB Approved Plans (Pgs. 503-523)

19. July 24, 2025 DRB Public Comments (Pgs. 524-567)

20. July 24, 2025 DRB Minutes (Pgs. 568-570)

21. July 24, 2025 DRB Transcript (Pgs. 571-590)

22. Order of Testimony (Pgs. 591-592)
Submitted By: Matthew Schneider Approved: .David A Kiff Matthew Schneider, Director of
Community Development
Dave Kiff, City Manager
Report Prepared By: Coordinated With:

Heather Steven, Senior Planner Patrick Donegan, Assistant City Attorney Anthony Viera, Deputy Director of Community
Development