Design Review Meeting, December 11, 2025
Hearing Transcript
Design Review Board Meeting, December 11, 2025
Design Review of Project located at 2058 Crestview Drive.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
Is the applicant even here for the 2058 Crestview Road? Please come to the table.
So after 5.16 we will return to 5.11. OK, ex-parte.
Board Member Weil:
I spoke with Mike, the applicant owner, visited the site, magically saw Horst while we were visiting the site but we really didn’t talk about the project but I just want to give a shout out to Horst.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
Ms. Coveny, ex parte? This is for Crestview.
Board member Coveny:
Almost, good, thank you. That's what I was searching for. Nothing, I just reviewed past meetings and spoke to City about a few things.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
Yes, and I drove by the site and previously met with the neighbor above, Mr. Kraskow and Steve Kawaratani
Board member Bauta:
I visited the site and spoke with Steve Kawaratani
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
One of your fabulous presentations.
Shehriyar Khan (Associate Planner):
Thank you. Good evening, Chair Pro Tem Gannon and fellow board members. This is item number 5.16 for Design Review Variance, and Coastal Development Permit, and Revocable Encroachment Permit for a new single family dwelling and associated improvements located at 2058 Crestview Drive. The project was previously considered at a concept review hearing last year and at the Design Review Board meeting of April 10th earlier this year. This is the project's third and final hearing. To provide a brief recap, the proposed single-family Attachment 13
376
Design Review Meeting, December 11, 2025
Hearing Transcript
dwelling is a four level structure, which includes a two car attached garage, an attached ADU, the primary residence across two levels and three elevated decks. At the Design Review Board hearing on April 10th, the Board directed the applicant to move the uppermost level towards the rear to help address privacy and view equity concerns, modify the driveway to accommodate two standard parking spaces on site, explore more rustic colors for the exterior, increase landscaping to enhance privacy, and explore solutions regarding the neighboring wall encroaching into the public right of way. The Board also conveyed that the variance request to encroach into the significantly modified watercourse setback was reasonable, as there were no environmental... There was no environmental value to protect. In response to board feedback, the applicant revised the plans to move the uppermost level toward the rear by three feet to address view equity concerns, and move the garage back by two feet to create more area for on-site parking. These shifts result in the decks and second level of the residence being pulled back as well. As you can see, the changes provide more area for on-site parking. However, one parking space is just slightly beyond the property line. The project does comply with the required covered parking and a variance is being requested to not provide the on-street public parking space required by the Diamond Crestview-Specific Plan area. In response to Board feedback, the applicant has revised the previously proposed Cape Cod blue color of the residence to Sage Green, and an additional limestone veneer has been added to the garage face. In addition, the applicant has also replaced the proposed siding with smooth stucco at select areas. Regarding privacy concerns, the applicant has provided two additional trees, highlighted in green, one on the north side of the structure and the other at the south. The project requires a new 10 foot high retaining wall and wall-mounted foldable fire access ladder within the public right of way. Existing emergency access stairs for 2100 Crestview Drive, the adjacent neighbor to the south, extend into the right of way and must be removed due to necessary site excavation. In response to Board direction to preserve emergency access, the applicant proposes replacing the stairs with an extendable fire access ladder mounted on the wall, which extends out towards the public right of way. The wall will also retain soil supporting the remaining portion of the neighbors access area. The Community Development Department, Public Works, and fire department have reviewed the solution and are supportive. Again, just to reiterate, at prior hearings, the Board indicated that the findings for the watercourse encroachment variance can be made. Regarding the parking variance, at the previous hearing, staff introduced a variance request to not provide the required Diamond Crestview-Specific Plan on-street public parking space. As a brief recap, the project initially proposed on-street public parking spaces in close vicinity to the property which were deemed infeasible due to emergency access concerns. All possible 377
Design Review Meeting, December 11, 2025
Hearing Transcript
alternatives within a reasonable distance of the project site have been exhausted.
Therefore, a variance is being sought with the payment of an in-lieu fee as established by the City Council, which is incorporated as a condition of approval. The project design provides code, required covered parking in a two-car garage. And it can accommodate two private parking spaces on the driveway. In conclusion, with the concurrently sought variances, the project is consistent with the DR criteria and findings, Diamond CrestviewSpecific Plan, Coastal Development Permit findings, and REP findings, staff recommends to conduct a public hearing and adopt resolution number 25-0431, approving the requested entitlements subject to the conditions of approval, including the payment of the parking in-lieu fee and findings said action exempt from CEQA. That concludes staff's report, thank you.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
Wonderful, fabulous staff report, you... Oh, any questions by the Board to staff? Ms.
Coveny?
Board member Coveny:
No questions, Chair.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
All right, you have five minutes.
David Freeland (Architect):
Hi, my name is David Freeland. Good evening, thank you for this third opportunity to present the design proposal for 2850 Crestview on behalf of Mike Czakowski. And this is an amazing presentation by Sherry, thank you. Maybe a reminder about the overall context of this parcel, if you want to start the slideshow. This parcel is a deep and narrow lot and is surrounded by five houses, which puts it in unique situation and having to satisfy the concerns of many different adjacent property owners. And we that we've been able to address those here with the revised design, and that this is a beautiful, yet now modest home that balances the, all of these different interests of multiple neighbors. The project was previously reviewed by the Board in 2012. This current design is much downsized from that, from 3,000 square feet to 1,800 square feet, and is now far undersized for the lot. We can go to the next one. Oh, one before this, actually. Thanks so much. So I wouldn't dwell on this because I think most of you're familiar with the lot or visited it. But I want to emphasize the difficulty of the topography here. And this you'll see is a result in the design, the topography slope steeply in two directions, both up slope and cross-slope. And this 378
Design Review Meeting, December 11, 2025
Hearing Transcript
makes it quite difficult to deal with, certainly from a gradient foundation situation. This is a viewshed and a diagram that we're providing here for reference. This is taken from the lowest level of 785 Gainsborough. There is no view encroachment we found based on our estimation from the main level of the neighboring house. And it's our intention here to respect the view equity criteria as described in the code. The design has been revised based on the Board request and neighbor concerns expressed at the last meeting to preserve fair views from neighboring properties, while affording fair view from from this property as well. And also, a reminder that the previous house design was sited much higher on the slope. Comments from the Board at that time in 2012 were to move the house down on the lot into the narrow and more steep part of the site, which sacrifices a great deal in terms of Mike's view, viewshed. But this has been done with this design. And the result is the square footage of the house that's been reduced by over 40%. These slides, I think you've shown the, adequately the way that the design has been adjusted. I want to just point out that red circle up there, that is the corner that encroaches into the viewshed at the lowest level. But I point that out because I'm, that circle is going to appear again in other moments. We can go forward here to the next one as well. Oh, let's go with the previous one. I wanted to make one other comment here. So this is the grade at the south elevation. You can see the house as seen from this side of the property is primarily underground. And this has been a significant concession also because of the planting to provide privacy from the adjacent house has resulted in quite unfavorable condition when it comes to sunlight, but one that we're willing to accept as a compromise given the concerns of neighbors. Again, the highlighted portion is where it's been moved back. We can go to the next. And the next one again. Yeah, here we go. Going back to the previous. So that red circle, previously in the meeting, we identified a corner of the house that was outside of the height limitation that has been changed. I wanted to be clear about that because the house has been moved back into the site. Increasing, this is just the increase in grading numbers, which comes at significant cost. The exterior color and finishes have been adjusted to the light green to blend in with canyon shades and the new vegetation. We can continue going through here. Stone was added on the north side to produce more of a rustic look. Smooth stucco has been replaced as well in several different areas where there was concerns. Just skipping ahead to the REP, if you would please. So this is something that came up and the reason for the continuance in the last meeting. Thank you for covering the situation with the stair. We believe that this has enhancing safety along this difficult turn, while also improving the egress angle.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
379
Design Review Meeting, December 11, 2025
Hearing Transcript
We'll have three minutes to hit that very topic. At this time, any members of the public wish to speak on 2058 Crestview Road?
Evgenii Kraskow (Neighbor):
Can I have my slides please? Yes . You ready to start? May I start? Okay. Good evening, my name is Evgenii Krasko. And I'm speaking on this project for the third time. Next slide, please. My concerns remain the same. The project breaks my horizon line and obstructs a significant portion of the Catalina Island view from my master bedroom. At the first hearing, the Board gave clear directions to address this issue through measures such as grading and terracing. Only nominal changes have been made. For example, a surge cubic yard increase in grading, which is very noticeable. I believe that mutually acceptable solutions to this issue were possible and weren't particularly hard to implement. The applicant just refused work with me and refused to follow the spirit of the Board directions. Next slide, please. Another concern is neighborhood compatibility and building quality. My ocean view is currently framed by two rustic homes with charming details, like chimneys and vanes.
The new project resembles a shipping container. Again, the board directed the applicant to make the building more rustic, but very little has changed. Stone material was added to the facade of the garage, but not to the rest of the structure, an approach explicitly discouraged by the DCSP. Next slide, please. For a year and a half, my neighbors and I have been making the same arguments again and again. Here's the spring 2024 plan compared to the current one. At last hearing, the architect said that they would work with us to address privacy concerns. But no one has reached out to me since then. The windows remain unscreened.
They overlook adjacent homes. And the wall height is excessive, exactly at the maximum 29 feet allowed by the DCSP, which also states that most homes should be lower than that.
Next slide, please. This building is a copy and paste version of an existing structure in Los Angeles shown on the left. But if you look closely beyond the color difference, there is one subtle but important change between the two homes, the building height, particularly a raised garage and a steeper driveway slope in the current plan. Why did they do that? To raise the building for the view at the expense of the neighbors' views. Next slide, please.
Another way to see that the height is unreasonable is that the story poles extend much higher than the neighboring house, even above its chimney, despite the lot being on the lower part of the street. This is what creates the view obstruction for me. The renderings photo on the right are misleading and depict the planned building as much shorter. I do want to be a good neighbor. And I would gladly support this project if I saw the same good neighbor attitude from the applicant. But in my opinion, it's not fair to capture a view at the 380
Design Review Meeting, December 11, 2025
Hearing Transcript
expense of a neighbor's, especially where solutions such as grading and height reduction are so easy to find and have been pointed out multiple times. I don't believe that DRB should reward such an attitude either. Thank you.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
Thank you, any other speakers? Mr. Kawaratani?
Steve Kawaratani:
Could you queue me up please, Shay? Ah, there we go. Good evening, Board, Chair Gannon, staff, Shay, everyone. Merry Christmas, happy holidays as well. I was here on Tuesday saying that I got no love, but it's okay. I would really like to see Mike's project approved. He's making it hard. The last time I was here and the project wasn't heard, you know, I made the comment that Mike should probably reach out to Mr. Kraskow and to see if we could reach an accommodation. But as Evgenii said that no call came. So that is a concern. And what I want to talk about real briefly now is the DCSP, which is a guideline, and view equity, which is a guideline, and then the Land Use Element Policy 2.1. So starting with the DCSP, this project continues to be in violation of the view equity portion. As Evgenii said, it's blocking the majority of his Catalina of view from his ceremonial master bedroom.
It's also in violation of the design review guideline of view equity for the same reason. And then policy 2.1 of the Land Use Element basically says that coastal views should be protected to the greatest extent. So what I had brought up previously, and Evgenii just brought it up now, the plate of the garage is 15 feet high. And I understand that Mike's trying to get his project up the hill as much as possible, but a typical plate for a garage is eight feet. And I've spoken to Louis and Jessica and Imir about this. If the project could be lowered four to five feet, I think that we'd be able to support the project. So again, when you have a project that prioritizes one's individual view at the expense of a neighboring property, it really can't be approved. Thank you.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
Any other speakers? 2058 Crestview Road. Does the fire marshal, do you want to speak? Patrick Donegan (Assistant City Attorney):
No, Madam Acting Chair, the fire marshal was just here in case the Board or any members of the public had questions that he had the expertise to answer, particularly as it pertained to the fire access stair.
381
Design Review Meeting, December 11, 2025
Hearing Transcript
Board member Weil:
We'll get one question to him.
Patrick Donegan (Assistant City Attorney):
Okay, got it.
Board member Weil:
It's just 'cause he's here.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
Okay, you have. You have three minutes.
David Freeland (Architect):
Oh, can you cue the slides back up? And actually advance to the one that shows the view.
So we care about producing view equity and so did our best to simulate and understand how our house as proposed today may affect the view from 785 Gainsborough. And so, we've made some approximations. Just a forward a few slides. We made some approximations for the different elevations using a wide angle camera from the back of the property to try and understand what those are. So this is towards the end, slide number 17.
Keep go, there we go. Okay. And so, this image, and this is the red circle appearing. Again, this is the corner of the house that was described in plan. This is our best approximation of the upper level viewpoint that would be found from 785 Gainsborough. We can go to the next slide. This then is the... Oh, one back. Yeah, okay. This being the view from the main level of that house. This is the living and dining rooms at elevation 148.3. We can go one more. And this is at their lowest level. So this is where the, where the bedrooms are located. And the resulting view corridor, it's our estimation that approximately 10% of the viewshed is being affected by the proposed house at this time. And that this is that corner that I was talking about in plan. We can go to the next one. The intent of the design review with regard to views is to balance preservation of views with the right to develop property. It is recognized that each property is a part of the view dynamic. A property may enjoy a specific view today, but that experience may change as surrounding properties are developed. And that's what's happening here. A balance of interest should be achieved in which all those who enjoy the view, new or existing, retain some access to it. Each property owner may seek to maximize view opportunity opportunities. But these opportunities must be balanced with the rights of others already in the neighborhood and those that have that 382
Design Review Meeting, December 11, 2025
Hearing Transcript
are yet to come. And that's what the objective is here with this encroachment. And this, again, is the view from the main level, which we don't think actually encroaches at all on that existing viewshed.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
Does that conclude your comments?
David Freeland (Architect):
It does.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
Okay.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
Mr. Weil, do you want to ask the fire marshal a question? Board member Weil:
We will. All right, so one of the questions that came up with the last hearing when we were talking about the ladder component. Oh, sorry. One of the questions that came up at the last hearing was the ladder component. And there was a... There were two different options given to us at the time. One was like an extended ladder that was permanent well out into the right of way. This one's more of a, I guess a retractable one that fixes to the wall but can be put out. So does this application that they're proposing tonight work and minimize the risk in the right of way, given the reduction?
Robert Montaghami (Fire Marshall):
Good evening, thank you for that question. Chair Pro Tem Gannon and and members of the Board, I did review the proposed access for firefighter access for the property next door. I actually made a site visit. And I also had one of our captains to go ahead and go with me to ensure that... I like to do my Is and cross my Ts when it comes to these type of access. So not only my expertise in in firefighter access, but also an actual firefighter who would actually respond to the scene. So we did look at a couple of options with development department staff. And what they propose does meet it. I like the fact that there was one condition that I did ask for and they said it was no problem was that when the ladder does retract back and when it's in a locked position, that a breakaway lock gets installed on that. 383
Design Review Meeting, December 11, 2025
Hearing Transcript
So that way the firefighters don't have a special tool or key or anything like that to be able to utilize that ladder. And that ladder should really support up to 300 pounds in weight.
Because the firefighters with their hose packs or any tools that they need to access the side of the structure for firefighting, and cutting a line or anything like that, it would accommodate that type of weight. And they said that they would meet those standards. So in fact, looking at the current staircase that supplies or provides the firefighter access, this current staircase is very dilapidated. I'm very uncomfortable, hesitant to allow any firefighters go up that staircase. So this would be a improvement to what's currently there.
Board member Weil:
For both properties?
Robert Montaghami (Fire Marshall):
Correct.
Board member Weil:
Thank you very much.
Robert Montaghami (Fire Marshall):
You're welcome.
Board member Weil:
Thank you very much, oh.
Board member Coveny:
I have one. I have one quick question just about maintenance on it. Who maintains that? And doe it need a lot of maintenance?
Robert Montaghami (Fire Marshall):
That type, it doesn't. It should be the paint and the stainless steel or the metal that's there, it's all weather. And that's what it's designed for. If you see these emergency exits on the old hotels or old apartment complexes, they'll last for years. The only maintenance is very nominal, would be just painting every five to 10 years, if that.
Patrick Donegan (Assistant City Attorney):
Correct, and then that would be the property owner. And once again, in conjunction with the city, it'd be a collaborative process. Hey, this is what we're looking for, X, Y, and Z. 384
Design Review Meeting, December 11, 2025
Hearing Transcript
Robert Montaghami (Fire Marshall):
Right. Okay.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
Any more questions for the fire marshal?
Board member Weil:
Diamond Crestview just in and of itself is a pretty hard access for the fire department.
Robert Montaghami (Fire Marshall):
It is overall. This the street is, that area. In its entirety, it is, yes.
Board member Bauta:
I've got a question for theRobert Montaghami (Fire Marshall):
Oh, any improvement we get for firefighter access to structures is a plus. It's a benefit to us.
Board member Weil:
Awesome.
Robert Montaghami (Fire Marshall):
You're welcome, thank you.
Board member Bauta:
I got a question for city staff, Chair. On the leading edge of that walkway, would fall protection be required along that wall? I know it's at grade. But it looks like on some of the renderings, there was a steep drop off. And I just wanted to make sure that it's considered here, if there were a necessity for it.
Shehriyar Khan (Associate Planner):
I believe at the top of the ladder after a few feet, there is a gate at the neighboring property that sort of blocks access. So that's one precaution that's already in place. But in terms of fall protection, I defer to management.
Patrick Donegan (Assistant City Attorney):
385
Design Review Meeting, December 11, 2025
Hearing Transcript
Yeah, I mean, I don't... I mean, the point's well taken. But yeah, we didn't. That necessarily wasn't considered. I'm trying to think of what ideas that the Board may have. But recall that the point of that is for the fire department to be able to get out there up there quickly. So we can't, you know, can't have guard railings and stuff like that kind of, you know, impede that goal.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
Right, and so that brings me to my question. So it shows as it's identified as parking lot C in the driveway, is still in the front setback. And I asked that... I pointed out that the two applicants on the street above you, Gainsborough, were required to move their parking out of that right of way. Are you ready to... What do you... Are you guys prepared to push the house further back, so that your two parking spaces when you pull in, they're not in the right of way?
Mike Czajkowski (Applicant/Owner):
I think the shorter parking space is 18 feet.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
It's identified as C in front of the garage.
David Freeland (Architect): It's this one.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
It's on page nine of 28.
*inaudible*
Mike Czajkowski (Applicant/Owner):
Yeah, it's shown as 18 feet long.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
FD-1. Right, there you go. So this corner is a very tight blind corner. It's very unsafe as it is.
So for cars to pull into that spot and pull out it's very dangerous. And for a car, 'cause most cars are ginormous these days. So for a car to pull in and be partially in that right of way, it could be a problem. It's a public safety situation.
Mike Czajkowski (Applicant/Owner):
What's the... There is a parking.
386
Design Review Meeting, December 11, 2025
Hearing Transcript
Board member Bauta:
I could probably jump into the deliberation if you want, Jess.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
Yeah, we can go into deliberation.
Mike Czajkowski (Applicant/Owner):
I think the shortest parking that has been approved, shortest length there has been approved was 16 feet for the other house that you mentioned.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
On Gainsborough?
David Freeland (Architect):
Yeah, I think what he's pointing out, this one, C, is 18 feet.
Mike Czajkowski (Applicant/Owner):
Yeah, it shows eight 18 feet. But I think the shortest could be 16.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
Right.
Board member Weil:
I guess I got one more question. Shehriyar, can you pull up A9? Or 0.0. And I guess, I mean, you showed the... In your presentation, you articulated how one set of the property's completely subterranean, the other side's open. I guess, I have two challenges. I mean, I think since the concept review and then the last hearing, we all talked about trying to bring the overall height of that second structure down in height. And we talked about how the garage has kind of an excessive plate height of being 15 feet or more. And then kind of the crawl space that's existing between the ADU and then the main house being at like six feet on this side. And so, the question was, could the back part of the house just be lowered and leave your front, or can the whole thing come down a bit to open up that horizon view for the neighbor to maintain Catalina, maintain the high horizon? 'Cause those were the things we were looking for.
Mike Czajkowski (Applicant/Owner):
387
Design Review Meeting, December 11, 2025
Hearing Transcript
The house is dug in already. The house is dug in into the hillside about 40% already. And given the length and the size of the lot, it was brought in front of it down to the narrower part.
Board member Weil:
I wasn't asking for kind of like excuses. I was like, can we do it? I mean, can we like... Can we actually physically do it?
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
Can you reduce the garage from 15 feet to 10 feet, or 11 feet? Board member Weil:
Bring the whole structure down. I mean, Diamond Crestview, tons of the houses are buried 60, 70% into the hillside.
Mike Czajkowski (Applicant/Owner):
But again, if we do that, then the south side of the house will be almost buried to the roof.
And we will lose sunlight and the view.
Board member Weil:
The south side of the house will butt like a retaining wall entirely.
Mike Czajkowski (Applicant/Owner):
Yeah, but it hides behind the hill. So if you bring this down, it's a south side.
Board member Weil:
But you're already...
Mike Czajkowski (Applicant/Owner):
Yeah, can we see the south, south side?
Board member Weil:
But you're already under grade.
Mike Czajkowski (Applicant/Owner):
The south side, the exhibit.
David Freeland (Architect):
388
Design Review Meeting, December 11, 2025
Hearing Transcript
Elevation?
Mike Czajkowski (Applicant/Owner):
Yeah, elevation. What it shows the grade.
David Freeland (Architect):
In the slideshow.
Board member Weil:
Yeah, I mean even in the deck, A8, I mean, it shows the grade just fine, the south side of your house.
Mike Czajkowski (Applicant/Owner):
Yeah, the grade doesn't change.
Board member Weil:
80, 90% of it's already under grade.
Mike Czajkowski (Applicant/Owner):
Yes, and...
Board member Weil:
You're building a retaining wall. So a few more feet doesn't change most of your house.
Mike Czajkowski (Applicant/Owner):
We'll basically lower the house below the existing grade.
Board member Weil:
I understand. But we also have to protect the views of Diamond Crestview in the specific plan.
Board member Bauta:
Chair, can we move to deliberation?
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
Yeah, okay, public commentary is over. The Board can go into their deliberation, Imer? 389
Design Review Meeting, December 11, 2025
Hearing Transcript
Board member Bauta:
Yeah, I'll give it... I'll give it a stab. You know, we've gone... In multiple hearings, we were very clear on direction and what we're looking for. And I think at the current moment, this project doesn't meet the design review criteria. There are some challenges pertaining to view equity. There are some challenges pertaining to some privacy concerns from neighbors. And then there are definitely some challenges pertaining to egress that I could see from safety standpoint, and also parking. It seems like all of these could have been resolved prior to this hearing. You know, in my understanding of the previous direction, we were pretty clear on dropping some elevations and working through those elements. But for those reasons, I cannot approve this project tonight.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
Yeah, for me, it's safety. And we held the two neighbors above to the highest standard of safety. And that was with a road that was not on a blind curve. It was a wider road. So I've gotta hold this to the same safety level. And as far as views, you know, Catalina is a major view. It should be protected at all costs. If you lowered the plate heights of the garage, that would remedy that from what I could tell. The staking wasn't complete when I went out there the two times. When the previously scheduled meeting was on the schedule, I went out and the staking was incomplete. So I'm just eyeballing, guessing that a few feet, whether it's four feet, five feet, lowering the garage plate height would mitigate the, that primary Catalina view. And then also for the safety of the neighbors, the people driving up and down that road, it's a blind corner. It's tiny. Yeah, access needs to be improved. And I can concur with Board Member Bauta. Miss Coveny, voice in the sky? Board member Coveny:
Yeah, okay. I was ready to kind of approve this last time. And I could approve it again this time. I feel like this is a very difficult lot to build on. I didn't think views were enough obscured to warrant that being an issue. I think by having pulled back the upper level, and subsequently, the second level based... I think it was three, two or three feet, I can't... Three feet, I recall, showed signs of wanting to try to solve that portion of the problem. As far as the parking on the driveway, I did a quick Google range. Rovers are 16 feet. Bentley GTS are
15.9. So everything else is secondary in the car world. So I think that the parking spaces accommodate the requirements for the two spaces off road and out of the right of way. So 390
Design Review Meeting, December 11, 2025
Hearing Transcript
privacy, don't see that as an issue. I think this is a... Everything up there is pretty tight, tucked in. People are looking into each other's patios. And it's a real congested area. So I feel like he's got a modest home here. And to make any more concessions would really take away his right to build. And I appreciate the fire marshal approving the remedy that they came up with for access for the fire department. So I can approve the project tonight.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
Okay. Louis?
Board member Weil:
Yeah, I knew we threw a lot at the project throughout the three hearings to address quite a bit. And I think you did work towards a majority of them. I know the parking, the neighboring wall, the old dirt kind of right there to create the fire access component was a big challenge, originally, Moving the garages back were a big win. I think overall it is a minimalistic design. I think the kind of coloring palettes and a few of the articulation components that you added softened it and made it a little bit more unique. Those things are all good. I think it comes down to that view equity component for me that asking to try to get the program a bit lower. And it stayed constant the whole time. That's been my biggest challenge. If we could come up with an agreement to lower it like four to five feet. I think she was recommending five, but I'm trying to get four where we can maintain that horizon line and the Catalina view for the behind neighbor. I've been there, I've seen the... I have my own photos. I know exactly what we're looking at. I mean, having the staking been a little bit more tighter, that could have been a little bit more definitive. But I could try to work on if we can red line to go down four feet on that upper story, whether it comes out of the crawl space and just that side of the program, or it comes out the garage and the whole thing comes down, we could work on that tonight. But right now, I think we're a little split.
So 2-2 leaves in a denial. But we might be able to sway if we have some concessions.
Board member Bauta:
Do we want to give the applicant a chance to present something, an alternative? Board member Weil:
Well, it's got to be like pretty simple and dry to work with us, or then we vote. 'Cause we still have a lot of items to go.
Mike Czajkowski (Applicant/Owner):
391
Design Review Meeting, December 11, 2025
Hearing Transcript
I feel like the house has been downsized and moved a lot down the hill, considering the shape and the size of the lot. And I feel like the view equity has been compromised and the sunlight has been compromised. And so, could I... We could possibly... If could we could move two feet down somehow, working with the garage and the stories, which I think that would be a big compromise, you know, considering that the size of the house. And we'll like to have some view. I mean, some view from the house as well. So we don't have a Catalina view right now. And there is a giant pine tree on the west side that is growing very fast. So pretty much we're going to... We're going to... We're going to lose the sunlight almost completely. And the south side per 2100 Crestview owner, we provided more trees and just to accommodate the privacy. So this is south side, those trees going to grow. So basically sunlight view, we are just like, I feel like we compromised a lot. So if they board... If they board could give us maybe a limit instead of four feet, go to two feet, we could maybe. If you board could consider that two feet, that we could work with this. We'd be happy to work with this.
Board member Weil:
Okay, well, let me ask. Does two feet get either one of you to move? Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
I'm still stuck on the safety aspect.
Board member Weil:
Yeah, same here. We'd also like the front part, you know, access-wise to be brought back a little bit.
Mike Czajkowski (Applicant/Owner):
And we can move the garage.
Patrick Donegan (Assistant City Attorney)
Hang on, hang on, hang on. Once again, let them ask you... Sorry, go ahead, Madam Chair.
Board member Weil:
So if you can move the garage back, what two feet would accommodateMike Czajkowski (Applicant/Owner):
Yeah, we can slide in into the hillside garage two feet. 392
Design Review Meeting, December 11, 2025
Hearing Transcript
Board member Weil:
Tuck the garage in two feet, you can lower the uppermost roof by two feet? Mike Czajkowski (Applicant/Owner):
Yes.
Board member Weil:
I'm trying to workChair Pro Tem Gannon:
He's saying to push the garage, the whole program, into the hillside so it clears the right of way.
Board member Bauta:
Yeah, I think that's a good move for both the applicantChair Pro Tem Gannon:
Is that enough, two feet?
Board member Bauta:
And the public, yeah.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
I resort to the contractor. He says two feet will work.
Board member Weil:
Okay, and then what about the height? Do you need three or do you need four? Board member Bauta:
Yeah.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
I need four at least, it's a Catalina view.
Board member Weil:
393
Design Review Meeting, December 11, 2025
Hearing Transcript
Can we get it at three? We're split.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
It's hard without looking at the staking.
Board member Weil:
We got our photos. I mean, it's right in the line. So a foot or two makes it better if we... Can we get to three on the roof?
David Freeland (Architect):
Well, I think that as the house gets pushed back into the slope, it will also open up more viewshed at the same time. So I'm not sure ifChair Pro Tem Gannon:
That is true.
David Freeland (Architect):
Both is..
- [Board Member] Yeah, I reChair Pro Tem Gannon:
'Cause it was just the little bit that poked out, that top floor that poked out that was taking the Catalina view. So if it's pushed back two feet...
Board member Weil:
And lowered by two feet.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
Yeah, that should do it. Would you lower the garage two feet? Or wherever you wanna lower it.
Board member Weil:
Where would the height come out of? Just come out of the whole program? Mike Czajkowski (Applicant/Owner):
394
Design Review Meeting, December 11, 2025
Hearing Transcript
The total program, two feet, and push the garage two feet.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
That would work.
Board member Bauta:
I also just want to address those retaining walls on the, was it south side? So if we can pull up rendering two on attachment four. I feel like this might come up again somewhere down the line. So I just want to make sure we get it captured in this review.
Board member Weil:
Oh, I'll make sure that's clear.
Board member Bauta:
Rendering two on attachment four for the...
Board member Weil:
I lost track of where we were.
Board member Bauta:
Rendering two on attachment four for the project.
Board member Weil:
The coloring?
Board member Bauta:
Yeah.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
You said the retaining wall?
Board member Bauta:
Page two of six. So if we're able to pull it up, yeah. Yeah, so... -[Participant]: It's the next one,
Board member Bauta:
395
Design Review Meeting, December 11, 2025
Hearing Transcript
So on the right side of that wall, the way terrace is up, you can tell the top of that retaining wall, it looks like there would be some kind of a railing or something there. You know, as is currently shown right now, that would be a fall hazard, you know, for the project. So right now, that's not shown in the design. I think it behooves us to look at that. With that said, you know, it's not staked. So potential neighbor concerns could come up down the road if there is a railing put there. So I don't know if we want to address that in the grades, where maybe we bring down those stairs further if we have the ability to do so, so that the retaining wall will provide fall protection.
Patrick Donegan (Assistant City Attorney):
And so, just so I want to make sure that staff's following it, Mr. Board Member. And so, we're looking at... So are you looking at kind of the retaining wall where I can see the staircase rendering to the left or to the right in this?
Board member Bauta:
Yeah, on the right side of the page where, above where the ladder is.
Patrick Donegan (Assistant City Attorney):
So to the right of the ladder or to the left of the ladder? Board member Bauta:
To the left of the ladder.
Patrick Donegan (Assistant City Attorney):
Okay, got it.
Board member Bauta:
Yeah, so as you're going up the hill there, that that exposes a fall.
Patrick Donegan (Assistant City Attorney):
And so, where these stairs start, that is, that is kind of the property line. So we can't have any permanent improvements. That was kind of the need for this flexible kind of erector set ladder and all kinds of stuff like that. So we can't extend those anymore. But, of course, if the board thinks there should be some kind of fall protection device on the property owner's retain wall, that would be within the board's discretion.
Board member Weil:
396
Design Review Meeting, December 11, 2025
Hearing Transcript
Recommending just like a metal rail with like cable rails? Board member Bauta:
Yeah, I just think it's...I think whatever we do there could, you know, come up in the future.
So it's better to address it now and it looks like... Or we just say bring it back, you know.
Patrick Donegan (Assistant City Attorney):
Well, so yeah, so this isChair Pro Tem Gannon:
Cross that roadPatrick Donegan (Assistant City Attorney):
Yeah, this is the third hearing.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
So they would have to cross that road when they get there? Board member Bauta:
Yeah.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
Yeah.
Board member Bauta:
Okay, we'll leave it to Shehriyar then, got it.
Board member Weil:
All right. So let me clarify two things. One, the proposal to make the garage work is to push the whole program back two more feet, or just the garage? Mike Czajkowski (Applicant/Owner):
Just the garage.
Board member Weil:
Just the garage section to two feet.
Mike Czajkowski (Applicant/Owner):
397
Design Review Meeting, December 11, 2025
Hearing Transcript
Yes.
Board member Weil:
And the ADU stays put?
Mike Czajkowski (Applicant/Owner):
Yes.
Board member Weil:
Does that work?
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
That doesn't push the upper level.
Board member Weil:
Well, but... And does is the upper level going further back? Mike Czajkowski (Applicant/Owner):
The upper level, if we are going to move down, it's going to go further up.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
So it'll be cantilevered two feet back?
Mike Czajkowski (Applicant/Owner):
It could be cantilevered, yeah.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
Let's cantilever it back since the whole structure isn't getting pushed back. So just minimize the garage two feet, so away from the access point. And so, no lowering of the garage. Just lowering the whole building two feet. Wherever you find two feet, whether you want it to be the garage or one of the floor floor plates. And then push the cantilever, the top floor back towards the back of the house two feet.
Board member Weil:
It'll be buried in the ground.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
398
Design Review Meeting, December 11, 2025
Hearing Transcript
If you push it back?
Board member Weil:
Well, can we ask the architect, can you describe that? I'm just trying to... I'm just trying to make sure that if we do make a conditioned motion to approve this, we get it really detailed enough that staffs sufficed.
David Freeland (Architect)
Yeah, I think that the third and fourth level, both of both the third and fourth level have to come at the same time.
Board member Weil:
Okay, so the whole program goes back,
David Freeland (Architect)
Would go back two feet, and then down two feet.
Board member Weil:
The roof, the upper ridge? Right now, the upper ridge is at 137, so we'd be at 135 max height. Does that work for you guys?
Board member Bauta:
So they're proposing a two foot drop and a two foot pushback. Yeah, I think that's an improvement.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
I think it'll preserve the Catalina view just by pushing it back.
Board member Weil:
MJ, are you good with it? Oh, sorry. Oh, I thought you were done.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
No, the voice in the sky. Miss Coveny, are you okay with these alterations? Board member Coveny:
Oh yeah, sure. If we can get approved tonight, absolutely.
Board member Weil:
399
Design Review Meeting, December 11, 2025
Hearing Transcript
Okay. Then I'll move Item 5.9 at 2058 Crestview Drive, that the Board adopts resolution 25- 0431 approving design review 25-0431, variance 25-0432, and coastal development permit 25-0433, and revocable encroachment permit 25-2285 for the property located at... Well, I already said that part. Project exempt from CEQA guideline section 15303 with the following conditions, that the full project be pushed back two feet away from the front property line, and that the uppermost roof be dropped two feet, and the building compressed and that aBoard member Bauta:
Fall protection.
Board member Weil:
Fall protection be minimalistically installed along the fire access railing on theBoard member Bauta:
To city's discretion, to city staff discretion.
Board member Weil:
With the city staff's discretion to install, to approve it. What's that? Shehriyar Khan (Associate Planner)
The parking in-lieu fee
Board member Weil:
The parking in-lieu fee still has to be applied 'cause there's no off-street parking.
Board member Bauta:
Correct.
Board member Weil:
The other conditions.
Patrick Donegan (Assistant City Attorney)
And then, yeah. And so, I just want to clarify. I did hear, I understand that you guys said lower two feet. I did like the idea the max height of 135. Just so that's clear, max height 135.
And then staff, is that... You guys good with that from the technical side? And I will say, I 400
Design Review Meeting, December 11, 2025
Hearing Transcript
apologize, there could be a typo in the staff. It's item 5.16, not 5.9, but we're good to go. You listed all the correct resolution numbers and address.
Board member Weil:
I'll amend with those comments.
Board member Bauta:
Yeah, I just want to add the current top of roof is 137.68. I'm okay with 135, but it would be two feet and eight inches.
Board member Weil:
Well, let's leave it at 135. Okay, I think they can make that work.
Board member Bauta:
I agree with that. I second your motion, Louis.
Clerk:
Board Member Bauta?
Board Member Bauta:
Yes.
Clerk:
Board Member Coveny?
Board Member Coveny:
Yes.
Clerk:
Board Member Weil?
Board Member Weil:
Yes.
Clerk:
Chair Pro Tem Gannon?
401
Design Review Meeting, December 11, 2025
Hearing Transcript
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
Yes.
Clerk:
Motion has passed four to zero.
402