Concept Review 23-2048, May 9, 2024
Hearing Transcript
Design Review Board Meeting, May 9, 2024
Concept Review of Project located at 2058 Crestview Drive.
Chair Pro Tem Neev:
Thank you, okay, now we'll move to regular business. The first item on our agenda is the application for 2058 Crestview Drive. This is going to be presented by Mark? Amber Dobson (Planning Manager):
Yes. We have a contract planner, Mr. Shehriyar Khan is with us tonight and this is his first presentation to the Design Review Board.
Chair Neev:
Well, welcome. We'll, we're going to be really hard on you now, you know? That's kind of the thing, but welcome and is the applicant here? If you'd come up to the front, make sure your mic's working. Everything that's said has to be said through the mic so that we can make sure that we get it recorded for the record, okay? And would you please pronounce your name again so I get it right?
Shehriyar Khan (Contract Planner):
Sherry-Yaar
Chair Pro Tem Neev:
Shehriyar, okay. Shehriyar, take it away.
Shehriyar Khan (Contract Planner):
Thank you. Good evening, board members. This is item 5.1 for concept review 23-2048 for a new, single-family dwelling located at 2058 Crestview Drive. The site is within the Diamond/Crestview Specific Plan area and is currently vacant. As you can see, a mapped watercourse runs along the length of the north property line and a watercourse encroachment variance is included as a part of this request. Previous submittals for site development were made as early as 2004, with prior concept review hearings conducted in 2005, 2006, 2012 and 2013. In July, 2013, after conducting three public hearings on the previous project, the board ultimately denied the application. Primary contention at the time was related to the placement of the structure at the rear of the lot. In August, 2013, the applicant appealed the board's decision and in September, the city council sustained the board's denial of the application. Subsequently, the applicant initiated litigation against Attachment 5
177
Concept Review 23-2048, May 9, 2024
Hearing Transcript
the city in a trial court, which ultimately affirmed the city council's decision. The proposed new single-family dwelling is a four-level structure, which includes an attached two-car garage, an attached ADU, the primary residence across two levels and three elevated decks. The garage is set back 12 feet from the front property line and the highest level of the structure set back 46 feet from the rear property line. The proposed project is in compliance with all of the development standards of the Diamond/Crestview Specific Plan, with the exception of the permitted height and the on-street public parking space. Staff wanted to point out that the project plans include discrepancies related to grade elevations at property corners and lot slope calculations. The plans note a slope of 34.2%, but staff calculations put the slope over 40%. Staff will require these inconsistencies to be corrected before the project returns to the board for approval. A lot slope of 35% and higher would allow a height of 29 feet to be proposed. As you can see on the north elevation, part of the structure is 31.2 feet in height, exceeding the permitted height by 2.2 feet. The Diamond/Crestview Specific Plan allows the board to modify the height requirement when site topography makes such modification unavoidable and when the proposed development maintains view sheds, air, light, privacy and neighborhood character. As detailed in the report, this part of the structure is located on top of an existing v-ditch. Staff has also received concerns from neighbors regarding massing, privacy and view equity impacts that these sides of the structures may cause. As you can see from the streetfacing west elevation, the roof line is flat and the architectural style is not entirely compatible with the rustic character of the neighborhood. The staff report details how the project is not in compliance with some design review criteria, applicable residential design guidelines and does not meet a couple of Diamond/Crestview findings. As pointed out earlier, a mapped watercourse runs along the north of the property line. The existing watercourse has been significantly modified due to the installation of a city storm drain constructed on the adjacent contiguous property. Based on previous hydrology reports for the subject property, no impacts to significant modified watercourse are anticipated, but an updated hydrology report will be required prior to design review. At prior hearings, board members indicated that they could make the findings for the watercourse encroachment variance. As detailed in the report and indicated earlier, staff has identified issues with access, design integrity, neighborhood compatibility and roof form. At the time this report was published, staff had received public comments concerning mass and scale privacy, view equity and neighborhood compatibility. Since the report was published, staff has received additional public comments related to the same concerns. Staff recommends that the board review and provide comments regarding the proposed project's concept design. And that concludes staff's report.
178
Concept Review 23-2048, May 9, 2024
Hearing Transcript
Chair Pro Tem Neev:
Thank you, very well done. And now I will open the public hearing and you have five minutes to present your project.
David Freeland (Architect):
Thank you very much. Are there slides, possibly that? Oh, fantastic, thank you so much.
That was a great staff report there and I think effectively describes the project. What I'd like to be able to do now is talk a little bit about some of those concerns that were brought up.
First of all, we've been working on the development of this design for several years now to ensure that responds to the Diamond/Crestview Specific Plan and the interest and concerns of the community. And we're happy to have this opportunity to hear what those further concerns might be. As noted, this design is quite different from the earlier one, which was sited at the top of the property and had all sorts of other kind of view concerns and conflicts with the specific plan. The alterations we made are specifically in response to those concerns. I won't go through the details since you've done such a nice job of explaining that, beyond to mention that the size of the house is 1,971 square feet, which is quite less than the allowable amount, which is 3,225 square feet. So it's quite modest in size. It is three levels over the garage, but only has a lot coverage of 26%, whereas the allowable is 35% and it's quite narrow lot. So we do go all the way to the side yard setbacks, but where the front yard setback is five feet, we're providing 12 feet. So the intention here is that the house is modestly sized and carefully placed in the site so as not to interfere with view shed and other aspects of the community. You can go to the next slide, thank you.
We'll go past this one, actually. So to address exactly that, the siting, the project is sunk down significantly into the site and I think this is an elevation. It's a little bit difficult to see. I hope that you can see on the left-hand side is an elevation. On the right-hand side is a section, so you can see that there's two aspects to slope here. One is along the direction, the long ways of the site, but there's also quite a significant cross-slope here. So I think that's important to note, also that approximately, depending how it's measured, 30 to 40% of the house is actually below grade. So really doing the best we can to minimize presence on the site. And noting here that the top of the roof is at least eight feet below the rear property line. And to address that concern about the corner that was identified, not that diagram specifically here, but in the elevation on the left-hand side, the upper left-hand corner, there's a small slice that does exceed the height limit as was identified. I just want to point out that is by no means the majority of the house, it's really quite a small portion, which is of concern and it's the difficult cross-slope topography which is really making that necessity. You can see how much the house has already sunk down below grade. Okay, we 179
Concept Review 23-2048, May 9, 2024
Hearing Transcript
can go to the next slide. Here's the renderings. There's definitely a kind of minimal scale that we're trying to bring to the house in relation to the surroundings. The building is broken up into a series of different volumes and these volumes are rotated to create different kinds of orientations, both to allow a diversity of views from the interior, but also unimpeded view access by surrounding houses and easy accessibility to natural light. We're also working with different materials to further minimize the scale. So the garage is a kind of concrete base, breaks down this kind of single mass as a four-story volume. You can go to the next slide. The articulation of the siding is also used to produce variation. So we're working with an idea related to board and batten siding, you can go to the next slide. This is a siding that has a long history in building construction first in Europe and later in the US, when it was introduced in the 19th century. I would put this in the category. This house was built in Missouri recently. It's straight off the Hardie board website, which is the material that's considering being used. I would put this in the category of modern farmhouse. And our project is really meant to reinterpret this and to bring a kind of rustic quality to the project.
In, am I out of time?
Chair Pro Tem Neev:
So that was five minutes.
David Freeland (Architect):
Oh, it was five minutes, okay.
Chair Pro Tem Neev:
Is that five?
David Freeland (Architect):
There is more things to say. I'll just show one last image and then I apologize for taking more time. This is actually completed, a project that I made several years ago in the Los Angeles area working with that same kind of technique and so it gives a kind of sense of what the material qualities are as it's built.
Chair Pro Tem Neev:
Okay, thank you. And you'll also have three minutes after the, you know, after any public comment.
David Freeland (Architect):
Sure.
180
Concept Review 23-2048, May 9, 2024
Hearing Transcript
Chair Pro Tem Neev:
And I might ask, could you set the timer so you get a 30-second warning? Oh, did it? Okay, I wasn't paying attention, okay.
David Freeland (Architect):
My fault.
Chair Pro Tem Neev:
Okay, both of us. We should have paid attention. Anyway, all right, so I know, okay, so at this time is there anyone that would like to speak from the audience that'd like to speak on this project?
Edward Sotto (Neighbor):
I have slides. So my name is Edward Sottoo. I sent my slides to you, so hopefully those slides can be loaded. I don't want my, I don't want that affecting my time yet.
Chair Pro Tem Neev:
Of course not, you know, and no.
Edward Sotto (Neighbor):
I've never done this before, you guys.
Chair Pro Tem Neev:
Don't worry about that.
Edward Sotto (Neighbor):
Go easy on me.
Chair Pro Tem Neev:
Just be sure that the mic is working for me.
Edward Sotto (Neighbor):
The mic is working.
Chair Pro Tem Neev:
Okay, that's great.
181
Concept Review 23-2048, May 9, 2024
Hearing Transcript
Edward Sotto:
Okay, do you have the slides?
Chair Pro Tem Neev:
We'll get that loaded.
Edward Sotto (Neighbor):
Perfect. Okay, let's go play
Chair Pro Tem Neev:
All right, now your time does start.
Edward Sotto (Neighbor)
I'm Edward Sotto. Our family lives at 2100, adjoining the home proposed. We chose Diamond/Crestview two years ago for its higher design standards. Having said that, the concept that was reviewed with us seems to be driven not by compliance with those standards, but almost an ignorance of context at all. To that end, we beg the city to examine this design closely as to its compliance to this area, but also to the safety and access issues it creates in being a mature neighborhood. Our home, next slide please. Our home out of context. This home seems out of context, creating an impression of urban density, not diverse design nestled in rustic green Passersby, actually this is true, actually ask me when I'm in my driveway, if it is that close. Is that a room addition you're building? That's what they asked. So the board and batten materials don't seem to be compliant with the quality standards either of surrounding homes. Even in concept, minimalism appears to be budget driven. Anyway, given the failed attempts to build higher up, the project's been shoehorned next to our home. In order to create access, Mike's hoping to revoke our permit and demolish parts of a retaining wall driveway, thus reshaping Crestview Drive as our wall would be then in the right of way and that goes, there goes our driveway as well, essentially losing our setback and changing the compositional balance of the exterior of our home. To me, this is huge. Mike has owned the plan since 1998 before the home existed. So, design issues should be kind of raised then. This was all avoidable though by just adjusting the angle of access. Again, ignoring context. The Crestview guidelines, the next slide please, depict how homes should be embedded in the hillside, not perched atop it, destroying ours and others' privacy and blocking views of the canyon from our upper patio with a window staring right into the fire pit. Next slide, please. Needless to say, this project affects all of Diamond/Crestview, construction staging in a hairpin turn congests the sole access to a 182
Concept Review 23-2048, May 9, 2024
Hearing Transcript
mature neighborhood of over 30 homes. Years of drilling foundation and street closures await everyone. And this year, we had a street closure for like six hours just to put one vault in for the underground job. You couldn't get an emergency vehicle up the hill. And we see, unfortunately, you see EMTs going to the top of the hill in this neighborhood very frequently.
You know, anyway, preventing emergency services. Noise, vibration, potential disturbance to our own homes, foundations, which kind of scares me. And dirt removal can be disruptive for years. So what's my point? Last slide, please. A home can be built here but the price of admission is compliance with the higher Diamond/Crestview standards, which means lower, maybe more subterranean, centered to allow more green space and designed in a way as to not alter existing homes in street. The concept should be reimagined to enhance the Diamond/Crestview experience, not degrade it. So thank you very much for your attention. I appreciate that.
Chair Pro Tem Neev:
Thank you.
Edward Sotto (Neighbor):
Nine seconds left there.
Chair Pro Tem Neev:
Perfect timing. Thank you. I was just reminded that we did not give our ex parte and I, shame on me. So we'll just do that right now. Dive right in.
Board member Gibbs:
Okay, I met with the owner, Mike Cjakowski. I also met with Mr. Krasko and with Edward Sottoo and I had a conversation with Matt Lawson.
Board member Coveny:
Okay, and I met with Mr. Krasko and I took numerous pictures, which I have here as well.
And I read all the public commentary and spent some time in the neighborhood.
Board member Weil:
I met with Eddie Sotto and Mr., how do you say your name again? Evgenii, sorry. And I did call to the architect's company but I didn't get a response, and visited the site.
Chair Pro Tem Neev:
183
Concept Review 23-2048, May 9, 2024
Hearing Transcript
And I called the architect as well. Didn't get a response, but I did visit the site and walked the neighborhood and tried to walk above and couldn't find any access above but walked around the other side. Okay, now we can continue. Is there anyone else that would like to speak? Okay.
Evgenii Kraskow (Neighbor):
Yes, can I have my slides on display? All right, good evening members of the Design Review Board. My name is Evgenii Krasko. I own the property at 785 Gainsborough Drive, directly adjacent to the proposed construction. When I purchased this property in 2022, I was well aware of the existence of an empty lot next to me and that something will be built there sooner or later. However, the current proposal is something I definitely did not expect. The proposal is to erect an essentially tower leg structure with a massive garage and three levels on top of it. Next slide, please. The first floor has just a 200 square feet ADU on it.
And I believe the reason, nothing else is located on this floor is to raise the rest of the building for view at the expense of my view and privacy. Two upper floors will be stacked vertically with no attempts to blend with the hillside. The wall facing my property is going to be three stories tall. It's a wide siding wall with no terracing and multiple windows on it.
These windows are facing my bedrooms and no landscaping or privacy walls are included in the design in order to fix that. Next slide, please. The applicant even requests a height variance to invade my privacy and block the view. Regarding views, there is a canonical example of what a great view is documented right in the Diamond/Crestview Specific Plan.
Next slide, please. In fact, the main reason I purchased my house is that it possesses a view that's very similar to what's shown. I get to enjoy it from my master bedroom and backyard every day. Next slide, please. The proposal is essentially to take this view away from me, putting a massive wall that would block Catalina Island, while the Specific Plan guidelines explicitly suggest to protect the views of such prominent objects. My impression is that the proposed construction was not evaluated from a variety of angles as the guidelines suggest. The materials are reflective and bright and the entire design totally lacks natural materials. It's not up to the quality standards of the neighborhood. Next slide, please. The design is not well thought through, not harmonious with other structures around. It digs into the hillside minimally and orients the building towards the ocean to capture the views at the expense of the existing views of the neighbors and of their privacy.
This is not view equity. I want to separately mention that the neighborhood communication was quite poor. We weren't given any option to express concerns or opinions and we were just faced with the fact that this is how the project would go to the Design Review. The next slide please. I tried my best by sending a letter with my comments and suggestions to the owner, but I haven't heard back and I don't see any of them incorporated in the current 184
Concept Review 23-2048, May 9, 2024
Hearing Transcript
proposal. I would welcome a building on this lot, but the plan needs to respect the same exact rules that the city applied to every other building in the area. The plan should be driven by care for the neighborhood, not by neglect for it. Thank you.
Chair Pro Tem Neev:
Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak on this project? Come on up.
Speaker X:
Hi. I live on 2025 Crestview Drive and so my main issue is regarding the landscaping. The project also destroys a valuable hillside habitat that is a migration route of many animals in the area, as outlined in the Diamond/Crestview Specific Plan. In fact, despite that development hasn't started yet, the multitude of native trees has been cut down on the lot in quite a barbaric manner. I was working and just heard noise of trees being bulldozed down and looked outside the house and saw all the trees just completely destroyed. And I know this project hasn't gone into effect. I also agree with everyone else regarding the design aspect, but that's also something I wanted to bring to your attention because we do need to protect our native land here in Laguna. Thank you.
Chair Pro Tem Neev:
Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak? Going once, okay, thank you. All right, so now you have three minutes.
David Freeland (Architect): Sure. The first thing I want to say to each of those that came up to speak is that construction in your neighborhood is a disturbance and that's something that we recognize and appreciate your comments and concerns, and are interested to do our best to minimize that disturbance. I heard a few different categories of comment here.
One had to do with access and the hairpin turn at Crestview at this point. I think that as part of the development, it's required that the street be expanded and this will actually increase the accessibility both for emergency vehicles and those that are driving. And so the existing retaining wall that's in place that was spoken about is actually I think going to be modified at the, at Mr. Cjakowski's expense in order to further that street improvement. As I mentioned in my presentation, the house already is sunk into the site a great deal and its overall mass has been minimized. We're far under the square footage threshold and also minimizing the footprint of the house. And I think that goes to maybe the third comment which is about landscaping. The footprint is a primary way that we can minimize the impact on the site. And we're doing that. There's also an intention to incorporate landscaping into the project itself. And so if you look on those different volumes as they rotate and step up 185
Concept Review 23-2048, May 9, 2024
Hearing Transcript
the hill, there's planting there and that's meant to connect with the surrounding natives and to produce more of integrated appearance for the house overall.
Chair Pro Tem Neev:
Anything else you'd like to add?
David Freeland (Architect):
Oh, I'm sorry that I did not get your calls from the, I did not realize that you would be reaching out.
Chair Pro Tem Neev:
That we would be calling, okay.
David Freeland (Architect):
Apologies for that.
Chair Pro Tem Neev:
Okay, we'll have another chance.
David Freeland (Architect):
Okay, good.
Chair Pro Tem Neev:
Okay, all right. Is there, at this time then, well, I have a question of order. Do I close the public hearing before we ask questions of the applicant or do? Assistant City Attorney:
The public hearings shall only be closed once you're going to begin deliberations.
Chair Pro Tem Neev:
Okay, thank you, okay. So at this time if any of the board, any members of the board would like to ask questions of either the applicant or staff, now is the time to do that.
Board member Weil:
Two questions. One, you in your presentation and in the staff report, it alludes that the project's not in conformance with the elements of the DCSP. Is that still accurate? Shehriyar Khan (Contract Planner):
186
Concept Review 23-2048, May 9, 2024
Hearing Transcript
That is correct.
Board Member Weil:
Okay, and then for the, what's proposed for that driveway expansion from a right of way encroachment, is Public Works driving that or is it just solely the applicant's needs? Is it a public benefit-driven project or is it just for the benefits of access? Board member Weil:
It's a requirement within the Diamond/Crestview Specific Plan Area for street improvements to take place in front of the property. That includes street widening and paving.
Board member Gibbs:
Excuse me, Chair or Board Member Weil, I just have a related question if I can ask that, 'cause the question I had is how is, one of the neighbor, Mr. Sottoo had a concern about redoing the driveways which go over the public right of way. How is that going to, because we want it safe. Is that something that planning or Public Works are going to determine how that's going to be done in a safe way, or how is that going to be dealt with? 'Cause that's all in the public right of way and it's going to require some modification including, as best I can tell, to Mr. Sotto's property.
Shehriyar Khan (Contract Planner):
Yes, planning and Public Works will coordinate the process for the removal for a portion of that retaining wall that's encroaching into the public right of way.
Board member Gibbs:
And will come up with the safe solution to Mr. Sotto's issue regarding the, it was more of an issue he raised on my site inspection regarding how those cars are going to exit from each side, his, Sotto's garage and the applicant's garage so that we don't have cars running into each other?
Amber Dobson (Planner Manager):
The arrangement for the whatever work needs to happen to Mr. Sotto's wall, there needs to be an agreement with Mr. Sotto and that is on, that is within the right of way, that is on the public right of way area.
187
Concept Review 23-2048, May 9, 2024
Hearing Transcript
Board member Gibbs: I guess is that something that we need to be worried about here or is that something that's going to be resolved by Public Works and planning? Amber Dobson (Planning Manager):
We can run these plans and this comment by Public Works. The comments that we had received from Public Works earlier related only to the replacement parking space. I don't believe that they made comments on this, the removal of this wall. So that is something that we will bring forward to them.
Board member Gibbs:
Thanks.
Board member Coveny:
I had just a quick question. I don't know if this is for now or later. Sorry, I'm still learning. As far as the placement of the building, I think I called you about this earlier today. If it was moved back and skewed differently, is there enough setbacks left and right if it came back, let's say 10 feet? Are you able to look into that?
Shehriyar Khan (Contract Planner)
Yes. So within the Diamond/Crestview Specific Plan area, setbacks are supposed to be distributed 40% of the lot depth. So that provides the applicant with roughly 56 feet to work with to distribute, with an eight feet minimum setback from the front of the property line.
That leaves 46 feet and some change towards the rear. So there may be some opportunity to negotiate replacement, but I would defer to the architect to elaborate on that.
Board member Coveny:
And then would that change the placement of the garage, which then might not affect Mr.
Sotto's property at all? Do you know if by pushing it back, skewing it north would open that area up or is it still a problem because of the road having to change? Shehriyar Khan (Contract Planner):
I think skewing the garage, maybe it's going to be complex due to the steep topography right in front of the property. But again, I would defer to the architect to elaborate on that.
Board member Coveny:
Thank you, thank you, Chair.
188
Concept Review 23-2048, May 9, 2024
Hearing Transcript
Board member Gibbs:
I have no further questions.
Chair Pro Tem Neev:
I had a question. I know that there's a huge discrepancy on the slope, the actual percentage of the slope and is that just because of the way the drainage has been in the past and the old waterway? Because it also, you know, goes in and down. Or is it just the calculations that there's this huge thing, or is it really like the topographic elevations? Shehriyar Khan (Contract Planner):
There's a discrepancy in the calculations.
Chair Pro Tem Neev:
Okay.
Shehriyar Khan (Contract Planner):
Staff calculation bring the lot slope to over 40%, which would allow the applicant to propose a height of 29 feet.
Chair Pro Tem Neev:
Right. Yeah. Okay, that's what I was getting to. Thank you, okay, I don't have any other questions either. So with that, we will move on to our comments. Oh, what? That I need to close the public hearing before I do that. There may be another question.
Board member Gibbs:
Yeah, if it's okay with the Chair, I'd like to start, I put a lot of time into this.
Chair Pro Tem Neev:
Of course. At this time I will close the public hearing and now we will begin our deliberation, so.
Board member Gibbs:
Okay, I spent a lot of time on this project. I found it challenging and so I'll start with it's a very challenging site and I am not prepared to say it's not buildable. It's a buildable site and it's been vacant. We have a little bit of the vacant lot syndrome. It's also looking at the history, it's moved up. I mean, it's moved back. It's moved up and so it presented some 189
Concept Review 23-2048, May 9, 2024
Hearing Transcript
complications. So this is my analysis and I'll go through the guidelines in general, not all of them specific, some overlap. The first issue is mass and scale and is this consistent with the neighborhood? The square footage is small, it's 17, I think 16 with a 22, or 222 foot ADU on a relatively small lot for that area. I think that you could have asked for a lot more square feet, which would've had a lot more impact on a lot of the neighbors. Should it be more in keeping with the topography? We heard that from Mr. Krasko and Mr. Sotto. So on that, I looked at a lot of the other houses. I see this, your building as somewhat of a block building, but with articulation. The lower levels set forward, that prior upper two levels are set back. So if you could show the photos. Amber, are you going to be doing it? So let's go with the first photo. You've already seen what the applicant's house is going to look like. So let's look at the first photo. Okay, this is, can you do full screen or is that the? I guess you can see it. I prefer, you know, we're not seeing the full picture. This is Mr. Sotto's house. So I think from looking at it, you can tell what I'm about to tell. This house is closer to the street and if you could scroll down, scroll the other way. You can see it has a similar block formation. Yes, it's got some articulation. I wish we could see the whole house at one time. Is there any way you can do that? You can see it has a similar block construction with, and this time essentially a three-story look from the ground up with a setback at the upper story, which is kind of the opposite of what the applicant has, which is a ground floor up close with the rest of the house setback. Go to the next one. This should be the house on the other side of the street or the other side of the building. There it goes. This one is a very large house and yes, it's up the hill. Keep in mind that the applicant's house is set back from Mr. Sotto's house and this one has a similar block construction. Yes, there's some articulation but it's, it has a, I would say a comparable mass and scale to the applicant. Go to the next one please. And this one is the next house to the north and you can see there, that's essentially four story. Again it's similar, block-type construction. By block, I'm not in any way using a term of art. I mean just the floors are stacked at one another without a great deal of recess. Go to the next one please. And this is a house that's up the hill and this one's much wider, much bigger helm but again, similar what I've been calling block construction. So I think the block construction itself is the next slide we'll get to in a second. Amber, I think the block-type construction, that kind of elevated construction is neighborhood compatible and given the site constraints with this lot, I think the mass and scale is appropriate. Now with respect to the design being contemporary, and that was hit by the staff, I also see contemporary design in the neighborhood. If you go to the next slide please. And there's more than this one, but I just took this one as an example. No, next slide please. I'm sorry, I forgot I had two of that house but we don't need to see more of it. That's just another one, a few of the big house. Yeah, scroll up on this. You can see the house on 190
Concept Review 23-2048, May 9, 2024
Hearing Transcript
the top to the right is very modern. However, notwithstanding it being modern and by the way, this is a concept review so we're going to not be voting tonight. We're going to be giving you our comments. On the point the staff makes and I agree with is that a white, modern house is not consistent with the neighborhood. The neighborhood uses rustic materials and colors, as even this modern house shows. I think that the way you have it, the materials and the color being you know, kind of white-white, while I think that's maybe somewhat of a trademark of yours from the other house and I totally love the house, don't get me wrong, it needs to have rustic character. And notwithstanding that one, the one house you're looking at, the modern, it is primarily more craftsman and I don't think particularly architecturally attractive. I know people in Diamond/Crestview may disagree with me, but it definitely has, you know, the browns and the bricks, you know, the not modern brick but you know, rocklooking bricks very much like you see in Mr. Sotto's house. And so for me to approve this and find it neighborhood compatible, I would need a different vibe with that house that brings in the rustic colors and materials. With respect to location and orientation, you can take this off now. I looked at the footprint of the house and the property lines and I don't see moving it within the setbacks that you've set. You have the house set back further from the street than Mr. Sotto's house and it does not interfere with, you know, Sotto's view from the front at all because it's set back. It is, you've got a lot of room in the back but if you go up the hill, you're going to potentially be bringing in more view issues including with Mr. Krasko.
I'm not prepared to say that you need to experiment more with that site location. I think given the impacts, I'm going to talk about the view and the other impacts on Mr. Sotto, I am good with the location so let's go to view. I think that you have it set forward, which impacts the view of your house, the applicant's house. And so it's justified to go up and I don't have a problem with a couple of feet 'cause I don't think that couple of feet materially interferes either with the views from the uphill houses including Mr. Krasko's, or for that matter any other house. And it's such a nominal increase that I think given what you've done in terms of reducing the size of this and bringing the house forward to protect the views from the uphill neighbors that I'm fine with that. Now what's the view with Mr. Sotto's house? You know, I do not see any significant view impacts. I think view equity is achieved. Mr. Sotto has awesome views that are totally not hindered. He's got a back area and we'll talk a little bit about with privacy. That is kind of a nice area, stand, you know, sitting area up above that your house goes right up next to, and I'll get to that with privacy. But again, you're entitled to build there and that's kind of, you know, kind of goes with the territory that it does have some impact and we'll talk about minimizing that in a second with respect to privacy. But I'm not prepared to say you can't build there because of its close proximity to Mr. Sotto's house. With respect to the Krasko house, I think view equity is also achieved. I 191
Concept Review 23-2048, May 9, 2024
Hearing Transcript
went both on the upstairs, which the view has no impact on. He's got an awesome view from up there and that's from the primary area, the living room and kitchen area. With respect to downstairs, he's got two rooms, he's got the master and he's got the second bedroom. The second bedroom's view is obstructed more by his trees than by what your building is. With respect to the bedroom, to protect his view there, again his trees would, he has views to the right but to otherwise protect his view would mean you can't build it.
Certainly can't, you'd have to reduce a whole story. And again, I'm not prepared to go there.
I think given all the other views that he has in his house, view equity is achieved. Now privacy, I think privacy, I'd like to see some work on privacy with respect to Mr. Sotto's house. The closeness of your building to that backyard area in particular is, and it raises privacy concerns, particularly with two windows that you have overlooking that as best I can tell. Since it's going to come back to us, what I would like to see is his privacy in that back area protected and to the extent you can, soften the look there with landscaping. I also know Mr. Sotto, that when this thing's built, you have some room there to soften it as well with landscaping. So I don't think that's a perfect solution to the issue but I think, you know, that we've got a balance and the balance says that you can build your house but you need to do something with privacy, even to the extent of doing something about making those windows opaque. Finally, the watercourse, as I read it, is not an issue and nor is based upon my understanding the parking. Lemme talk a second about parking. There's no way you can put a parking space for public parking in front of your house. It's a blind turn.
That'd be grossly unsafe. I am prepared to approve assuming it complies with code and the Diamond/Crestview Specific Plan to approve the location where you're proposing to put the public parking space and to widen the road, which makes that whole area safe. One of the problems with Diamond/Crestview is that so many blind, narrow turns makes it very difficult for fire equipment to get up there. So any improvement, I think, is positive. Plus, I think the location of that parking space makes all the sense in the world. I am concerned about the parking issues with your house and Mr. Sotto's house. I don't have a visual as to how that's going to work, which led to both Board Member Weil's and my questions to staff, that has got to be solved before I could approve this house. And I don't know whether Mr.
Sotto needs approval to do what you're doing there. I do note, Mr. Sotto, you have a stairway that goes to nowhere right there and it is darn unsightly and I don't think it's safe. I mean, you know, I know you don't use it. You get some kid up there, thinks it might be fun to try to climb up there. It gives a chance to remodel the front of your house on that side. I mean remodel, not the house, but remodel that area to make it attractive 'cause I don't think it's very attractive now, in a way that you work with the neighbor to make something that will work for both of you. I know there's a solution to be had. I don't know what it is 192
Concept Review 23-2048, May 9, 2024
Hearing Transcript
'cause that's not my expertise. So, but just so you know, the way it looks now, I'm not at all convinced it's safe or appropriate. I would need to get experts to tell us that and I want that and I expect that and from what I've heard, it will be vetted by both planning and public works. It's in a public right of way, which means the city owns it. So I think they have a lot of say over what that's going to look like and that needs to be corrected. And then the watercourse, I think there's a geology report that needs to be done. I assume that's not going to be a problem. I looked at the watercourse. It's complicated but there's solution there. I think there's been much more difficult watercourse issues resolved with a house in a situation like that. So those are my comments. Sorry I was a little long-winded but there was a lot of issues on this house.
Chair Pro Tem Neev:
No, that's great. Who wants to go next?
Board member Weil:
- Yeah, so I agree with a fair amount of Board Member Gibbs' comments but I'll try to, I put down a fair amount of notes as well, but I'll try to be a little more succinct. As far as the watercourse, I agree with prior boards and council, it's a modified watercourse. There's other homes in the area that have been built through it. So, reasonable elements can apply to your site and you can encroach into that, or I can find that reasonable as outlined in the staff report. As far as the height variance, I am challenged 'cause there is some view blockage and I don't think it respects, you know, the Diamond/Crestview Specific Plan in its entirety and I think there's some modifications that could be done that can achieve your results better. Doesn't mean that Mr., I'm sorry, I can't say the last, Krasko isn't gonna have some obstructions, there potentially will be, but I think as I go into more comments I'll try to articulate that a little bit better. Articulation, I don't find it as compatible with the Diamond/Crestview. It's a little too boxy, a little too modern in shape and I think that adds to some of your impacts 'cause of your choice. I'm not one to necessarily say that any one style is more significant or the other. That's you and your homeowner's choice. But I do know that, you know, some styles do create more impacts as you lay them out into different, especially difficult sites. And I do think the boxy nature of the modern scope may be hurting some of those elements, especially for view corridors being remained open there. There might be some roof elements that could enhance that capability. As far as access, you know, Diamond/Crestview is always tough. Board Member Gibbs talked about it, it's a choke point curve. This is a feeder street to 30 some-odd homes beyond this point.
You know, staff did a good job outlining that the parking, you know, it's going to be difficult but I can work with you on a reasonable site for parking. But I do need to see improvements 193
Concept Review 23-2048, May 9, 2024
Hearing Transcript
into that corner to try to get, you know, the best benefits and width for the curve is my primary focus for granting this. And as that kind of relates to your access component, I am challenged with the component of trying to create a driveway that potentially creates, you know, backing into situations. So I want to see that be kind of addressed and/or, you know, come to some sort of agreement or just general plan that works with staff, city and potentially the neighbor. I understand that it won't always come to an agreement but I'd like to see that access line improved and re-thought out 'cause I don't think it's quite safe in accordance with the guidelines. That one's that one, the general plan, I agree with staff. It's you know, the LU policy 2.10, maximize the preservation of coastal views. I don't, I do see the view blockage as shown in some of the photos and I can submit mine to staff for your review as well. I do think some of the components could be mitigated with grading for some, for most, actually, of the uphill streets, uphill from streetside, the grading that you're proposing is extremely minimal for Diamond/Crestview. Most of the homes have four, six, even one had 7,000 cubic yards of being exported. I'm not saying you got to go to that extent, but in the 1,000 range I think more could be achieved by grading into the hill and it would preserve your buildable pad to achieve the square footage that you're seeking. Also when it comes to the driveway, putting it back to give more room for the driveway is something that has been more encouraged with more of our recent challenged sites that are in the curve or bend in Diamond/Crestview. So I encourage you to take a look at some of those applications to find some compatibility because we have been concerned for the safety, not only for your ingress and egress but the ingress and egress of the street. As far as the DCSP findings, I was challenged with number one and two. Staff really articulated number five as being the challenge. For number one, it's proposed is compatible to the surrounding. I think the color and the style doesn't necessarily, wait, hold on, I got offset.
Proposed compatible to surrounding issues land use constraint with the intent and purpose to establish the specific plan minimal grading. So I touched on that. I think more grading is necessary. The site is adequate in size and shape. Number two, the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate proposed development, not compliant to the current design. I think reductions may be necessary in different levels, but you can try to blend it and maybe push it back a little bit more. I know in prior approvals they wanted you to come forward and you came forward quite a bit. So I do think there is some room to play that can give you more of a stair-step component and I'd like to see that. And then I did agree with number five. Yeah and that's what I've got. So I'm challenged with it. There's a lot of things to go figure out and I'm looking forward to seeing what you can do to come back.
Also when you do come back, the staking does need to be much more accurate than what I saw when I was up there. I don't think there's a single straight line string that ran across. 194
Concept Review 23-2048, May 9, 2024
Hearing Transcript
And so if that was the case and we were hearing this tonight, I couldn't approve it if even if we could, given that complexity. But since this is concept, you know, I got enough to get adjusted to where we're at.
Chair Pro Tem Neev:
Thank you, Board Member Weil.
Board member Coveny:
Chair, I thank you. First of all, I want to thank staff. Mr. Khan, you did a great job. It was challenging, I appreciate it. I also want to thank the neighbors who sent in notes, and Mr.
Krasko especially for the efforts you made to get us up to speed on Diamond/Crestview's guidelines. I echo both of my board members here. I think this is a really, really cool house. I just think it's in the wrong place in the sense that this is a diverse neighborhood and there's contemporary homes there. I took a couple but I won't be redundant because a couple of 'em are the same ones that Tom took. So, and I feel like it can work. It's just the materials, as was pointed out in the staff report, specifically color and color. It's so, it just needs to be less bright and strong and contemporary. Contemporary works when it's organic, especially in a hillside. And I think you'll see a lot of those around now and they're becoming more popular. The darker tones, more earth colors, more woods, more cement. The board and batten I love, have it on my house and it's kind of a slight contemporary cottage and it sort of is boxy in a way. And I have a tower and it's in a darker green, grayish, funky color. Happy to share that color with you if you need it. But I think that's one thing to handle. I think that the, going back a touch if possible, I know there was some problems in the past with being too high for the back neighbor, but I do think there is a small view equity issue for Mr.
Krasko's property specifically that I think should be looked at to be solved. Again, I couldn't quite tell from the stakes. I did take pictures. Again for redundancy, I won't show them, but there are a couple areas, especially from the guest bedroom and a little bit from the master. I don't think it's insurmountable, but I think it can potentially be addressed with a slight adjustment. I'd like you just to take a minute to see if that's possible. Height, mass and scale. I think that overall it's not bad and I think your articulation also is good with the way your porches break this up and the staircases, that all looks great. I just think it's the brightness of the overall building that's causing it to feel massive. Access, we've talked about the parking space, so I won't repeat that. Privacy, once it's finished, I just would like to get some idea of if you're going to cover those windows with some sort of film, if they're looking directly into a bedroom or into the back patio even. And in your landscaping, if you could potentially address some sort of hedging, perhaps specifically for Mr. Sotto's property in his backyard there, that perhaps there's some sort of a landscape element that 195
Concept Review 23-2048, May 9, 2024
Hearing Transcript
could help block that feeling of being looked down from a large area. Privacy, grade, materials, we talked about parking space, hedging and I think that covers it. Is that okay? So I'm finished, thank you, thank you, Chair.
Chair Pro Tem Neev:
- Thank you, okay and the only thing I have to add, I think that, you know, with the height, I'm okay with the two feet extra height because there is that v-ditch that's so onerous. But I wanna qualify that statement by saying that you really need to work with staff on making sure you have the right percentage because that really directly will dictate your height, you know, possibilities. So be sure that is settled. We've talked a lot about Public Works and working with them as far as, I do think that there does need to be an offsite parking situation there and I think that certainly with the wall and those issues that Member Gibbs articulated, I think that working with that, you can get there as well. And if you go, you know, up and around the neighborhood, both on the Crestview side and the Diamond side, I mean you have so many different types and styles and homes and I agree that a lot of them are very blocky because they're so steep and you're trying to get, you're trying to capture that.
Your plate heights are not extensive. They're very modest and I think that, so I'm okay with the way you have your house, but I think that you can achieve some amazing articulation with materials. So take a look at that. I'm not going to dictate anything particular, but I think that by some clever use of materials that you can really achieve a lot of articulation, which you have done I think with your retaining walls lower on the garage side. The only other thing that I had, I have to comment on the watercourse and I think that there's been so much interruption and there's been so much development up there and I know that the city has already addressed it and they have, you know, they have proper drainage. So I don't think that the watercourse is an issue at all. And so I could approve that variance. And I think that's it. I do want to ask you, because I know you've gotten a lot of directions, do you have any questions from the board or anything that might be unclear? David Freeland:
No, I actually think it's quite consistent, the comments. Thank you.
Chair Pro Tem Neev:
Okay.
Board member Gibbs:
Chair, I have one comment I forgot to give.
196
Concept Review 23-2048, May 9, 2024
Hearing Transcript
Chair Pro Tem Neev:
Of course.
Board member Gibbs:
With respect to parking, I want to also comment with respect so my view on the position of the building is clear. Again, it's pushed back beyond Mr. Sotto's property and it allows for a larger driveway to park cars on, which are off that street. And the less cars that park on that street, the better. It again goes to where I think that the position of this house is appropriate. The second thing in with respect to the quantity of the excavation, I mean part of the reason it's relatively small quantity is because it's a small house. You could have gone with a lot bigger house with a lot more excavation and then we would be even more challenged. I think the neighbors would be even more challenged. However, that being said, to the extent that you can incorporate what Mr. Weil said in particular, not only do I think you'd have a better house, but also you would have neighbors that would very much appreciate that. So see what you can do. But I just wanted to point out that I do appreciate what you did with that parking area.
Chair Pro Tem Neev:
Okay, thank you. We look forward to seeing you back here soon.
David Freeland (Architect):
All right, thank you.
Chair Pro Tem Neev:
Okay, yeah, so for the neighbors, this will be renoticed for the next hearing. 197