Design Review Meeting, April 10, 2025
Hearing Transcript
Design Review Board Meeting, April 10, 2025
Design Review of Project located at 2058 Crestview Drive.
Chair Gibbs:
The next one, just rattling right through here, 5.3, which is 2058 Crestview Drive. And while they're coming up, can we do...
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
Yes.
Chair Gibbs:
Where are they?
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
Let me do it.
Chair Gibbs:
Yeah, do ex-parte.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
So my ex-parte is I met with the applicant team. I believe his name was Mike. And I met with Steve Kawaratani and his client. What was his name?
Board Member Coveny:
Is the applicant team here?
Chair Gibbs:
His name isChair Pro Tem Gannon:
Whoever the neighbor is above.
Chair Gibbs:
Evgenii Krasko.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
Yes, I'm not even going to try to pronounce that name.
Attachment 9
282
Design Review Meeting, April 10, 2025
Hearing Transcript
Board member Bauta:
I met with the same people as Jessica.
Chair Gibbs:
There he is. Come on up, Mike, you're on. Okay, go ahead Miss Coveny.
Board member Coveny:
Okay, so I'll do my ex parte. I'm Crestview, okay? I went by the site, I met with the neighbor.
Gosh, sorry, it's a very interesting name, and I can't ever say it right. Oh, Evgenii Krasko.
Chair Gibbs:
Oh.
Board member Coveny:
And I also spoke with the applicant, and emailed.
Chair Gibbs:
Imer?
Board member Bauta:
I met with the neighbor, Evgenii Krasko. Steve Kawaratani, and Mike the owner. *in audible*
Board member Weil:
This is a reoccurring hearing. I'd seen the site prior, and I saw it before I left town. I spoke to Steve Kawaratani, and I received correspondence.
Chair Gibbs:
All right, finally, I met the architect at the site. I also met with Mr. Krasko, and I spoke to Mr.
Kawaratani by telephone. With that said, could we have a staff report please? Shehriyar Khan (Associate Planner):
Hi, good afternoon, board members. This is item number 5.3 for Design Review 25-0431, Variance 25-0432, and Coastal Development Permit 25-0433.
Chair Gibbs:
283
Design Review Meeting, April 10, 2025
Hearing Transcript
Hold on a second till Ms. Gannon comes in.
Shehriyar Khan (Associate Planner):
Sure.
Chair Gibbs:
Forgot that she wasn't here. It was so quiet, I should've known.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
It's a party out there.
Chair Gibbs:
Okay, go ahead, thank you.
Shehriyar Khan (Associate Planner):
All right, I'll restart. Good afternoon, board members. This is item number 5.3 for Design Review 25-0431, Variance Number 25-0432, and Coastal Development Permit 25-0433 for a new single-family dwelling located at 2058 Crestview Drive. A concept review hearing took place for this project on the 9th of May, 2024. And this evening's hearing is the second meeting on the project. To provide a recap, 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. For some reason, there's a delay in the slides. I quickly just wanted to point out that the walls that you see at the southern portion of the image being shared are not entirely accurate in the rendering, and I'll touch upon that later in the presentation.
So, at the concept review hearing last year, the board directed the applicant to explore colors and materials to make the project more rustic to promote neighborhood compatibility, to increase landscaping as a solution to address privacy concerns, and increase grading excavation to better integrate the project into the hillside and reduce the overall appearance of mass of the development. The board also conveyed that the variance request to encroach into the significantly modified water core setback was reasonable as there was no environmental value to protect. In response to board feedback, the applicant has revised a previously proposed exterior color of the residence to the previous white exterior color of the residence to Cape Cod Blue, an earthy bluish-green color, and the lower-level garage face now features a limestone veneer with parched concrete at each 284
Design Review Meeting, April 10, 2025
Hearing Transcript
side. The applicant has also proposed additional landscaping along the south property line, highlighted here in yellow, to address the respective adjoining neighbors' privacy concerns, and these landscape changes consist of two strawberry trees 15 feet in height which will provide screening. Staff would like to provide clarification regarding some language used in the staff report that regretfully presented information inaccurately on page six of the staff report. Staff states that the design is further pushed into the hillside as requested. Staff understands that this language may have implied that this siting had been altered, which it hasn't. In actuality, the applicant utilized a software program that provides a more accurate representation of the amount of grading taking place, in that the updated calculation is a correction representing an increase of 327 cubic yards of net export from the previously calculated volume. The applicant has provided a grading exhibit that shows approximately 54% of the volume of the project being above grade, and 46% below grade, thus demonstrating that a significant portion of the project is below grade and has been appropriately graded.
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 DCSP 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, and privacy and neighborhood character. Current site conditions indicate the presence of a manmade V gutter ditch, which is a remnant of a drain system that was installed more than 40 years ago as a temporary measure. In order to develop near the edge of the ditch, it is necessary for the permitted height to be exceeded, and the request for the increased height is limited to an area where the development approaches the existing V ditch. With the concurrently sought variances, the project is consistent and complies with the Design Review Criteria, General Plan, Design Guidelines for a Hillside Development, and Diamond-Crestview Specific Plan.
A mapped water course runs along the north of the property line. The existing water course has been significantly modified due to the installation of a city storm drain constructed on the adjacent contiguous property. Based on hydrology reports for the subject property, no impacts to the significant modified water course are anticipated. At prior hearings, board members indicated that they could make the findings for the water course encroachment variance.
One significant change that has taken place that has been made since the concept review hearing is the addition of a variance request to not provide the required Diamond-Crestview Specific Plan on-street public parking space. To satisfy the requirement, the applicant had proposed two on-street public parking spaces at different locations. The first parking space shown here towards the left, upper left, was found infeasible due to the inadequate 285
Design Review Meeting, April 10, 2025
Hearing Transcript
pavement width by the Public Works Department. After coordination with the Public Works Department and Planning Division, the applicant proposed a second potential parking space, shown on the top right, and, my apologies, will identify further to the west of the site, and was close to the hairpin turn on Crestview Drive. The revised location and other potential locations along the hairpin turn were ultimately found infeasible due to insufficient pavement width. Additionally, any reduction in lane width with a provision of a new public on-street parking space would impede emergency fire access based on input from the City Fire Marshal. Potential public parking space was identified across the subject property, approximate to 2025 Crestview, was also examined, and also deemed infeasible due to the need to construct a pretty high retaining wall and the loss of existing vegetation creating privacy issues for that property owner. No other potential locations to accommodate the on-street parking have been identified within 200 feet of the subject property, already significantly far from the property's line of sight. The project design provides code-required covered parking in a two-car garage, and it can accommodate two parking spaces on the driveway, which is a standard parking space and an additional compact parking space. So all possible 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.
As detailed in the staff report, the project is in compliance with all of the development standards of the Diamond-Crestview Specific Plan, with the exception of the permitted height, for which a height modification is being requested, and the on-street public parking space, for which a variance is being sought. Findings for all respective variances can be made. The project is in conformance with all applicable provisions of the certified local coastal program. Staff recommends that the board conduct a public hearing and that the board adopt Resolution Number 25-0431, approving Design Review 25-0431, Variance 25- 0432, CDP 25-0433, and finding said action exempt from CEQA. Staff has also received multiple correspondence, which has been made available to the board, regarding view activity, privacy concerns, and concerns regarding the proposed demolishing of the wall along the south property line that encroaches into the public right of way. This concludes staff's report, and we are available to answer questions, thank you.
Chair Gibbs:
Okay, board, any questions of staff? MJ, none?
Board member Weil:
Chair.
286
Design Review Meeting, April 10, 2025
Hearing Transcript
Chair Gibbs:
Louis, go ahead.
Board member Weil:
So, just to be clear, the project didn't, like itself, didn't change a whole lot in comparison to where it was in our first hearing, in the concept review. The coloring really changed, and the stonework changed the exterior, but from square footage and location on the lot, can you help me? I was struggling to see those changes.
Shehriyar Khan (Associate Planner):
Yes, overall, yeah, the siding has not changed, the setbacks remain the same, and the project has not shifted. The significant changes that have taken place are the change in color and material, increased the provision of the additional landscaping, and the addition of the variance request for the parking space.
Board member Weil:
Okay, thank you.
Chair Gibbs:
Is there any lack of clarity regarding the interface between the property to the south and the applicant's property regarding the retaining wall and the parking? Shehriyar Khan (Associate Planner):
Yes, so staff did some research regarding the existing wall that's encroaching into the public right of way. The applicant is proposing to demolish a portion of the wall that encroaches into the right of way in order to expand the existing lane width and paving, which is part of the requirements of Diamond-Crestview Specific Plan when you're constructing a new project, which requires carving out from the topography, so just to sort of keep it in line. In this case, the existing wall is proving to be a little problematic, considering it holds up the neighbor at 2100 Crestview's fire access. So staff has been discussing this internally, and we will not be in support of demolishing the wall, considering it would be impacting fire access for the neighbor to the south. However, after discussing with the Public Works Department and Building and Safety, the consensus is that there would need to be a mutual agreement between the two parties on how to address this problem. Public Works has signed off on the possibility of the wall not being demolished and paving being provided around the wall, thereby just maintaining the existing condition. 287
Design Review Meeting, April 10, 2025
Hearing Transcript
And part of that would essentially require the applicant to then propose a wall, sort of on his side of the property line, to encroach into the public right of way, to be in line and maintain the structural integrity of the existing wall.
Chair Gibbs:
And that would preserve the parking from Mr. Sotto's property to the south and allow the two-car parking, the standard and the compact, in the applicant's property? Shehriyar Khan (Associate Planner):
That is correct.
Chair Gibbs:
Okay, I would like you to address that in your comments as well, please. So I hopeShehriyar Khan (Associate Planner):
I would like to, if you'll allow me, we're prepared to add that as a condition for the revocable encroachment permit for the applicant, and in addition to, unless they come to a mutual agreement, and I can defer to the planning manager to elaborate on that.
Chair Gibbs:
Just so it's clear, and we'll get on with the hearing, the condition that you are suggesting would be that they come to a mutual agreement on how that works? Shehriyar Khan (Associate Planner):
The condition we would be placing is for the applicant to propose a revocable encroachment permit at a later date that we can process through the admin DR process, and that, unless they come to a mutual agreement, which would involve demolishing the wall and certain design changes to Mr. Sotto's property, unless they come to an agreement, we would be asking for an REP.
Chair Gibbs:
Okay, thank you.
Board member Coveny:
I have one quick question, and related to this. The Sottos' property, that wall, it's obviously in public area then if it's, does it have a revocable encroachment permit related to it or... 288
Design Review Meeting, April 10, 2025
Hearing Transcript
Shehriyar Khan (Associate Planner):
No, so staff did some background research, and we could not locate any REP that was processed and/or approved for it. However, some building plans do indicate the presence of that wall, implying that it was reviewed, and it was, city was fine with them constructing the wall.
Chair Gibbs:
Yeah, part of the problem is the fire access to keep that. All right, any other questionsBoard member Weil:
Patrick, so just because someone built into the right of way, and whether they have an encroachment permit or not, it's still the public space, right? The public can take it back and widen the street, is that correct, Patrick?
Patrick Donegan (Assistant City Attorney):
Correct, yeah, just because someone builds it does not alter its fundamentalBoard member Weil:
Location.
Patrick Donegan (Assistant City Attorney):
Correct, yeah.
Chair Gibbs:
Alrighty, any other questions of staff? With that, I open the public hearing. We'll start with the applicant. You have five minutes.
David Freeland (Architect):
Okay, and you have slides, yes? First, thank you so much for that very detailed report. It actually takes much of the burden off my presentation, and I think that actually some of the slides are exact duplicates of yours, so we maybe can skip through a few things, but wanna address that wall, of course. My name is David Freeland. I'm the architect for the project.
Owner sitting just behind me. If any questions come up, I'm sure we can also call his expertise to this. And so I think that the, okay, but I was gonna simply start, and we don't need a slide for this, that we've been working on the developments of this design for a number of years to assure that it responds to the Diamond-Crestview Specific Plan, and 289
Design Review Meeting, April 10, 2025
Hearing Transcript
the interest and concerns of the community. The project was first reviewed in 2013, has been modified multiple times since then in response to public comment and the board, and reduced from an initial 3,600 square feet to only 2,000 square feet thereabouts. So definitely responsive and attentive to these concerns. And then I was going to point out in the second slide, which was a survey, just that, again, that the site is quite constrained.
Yeah, here's the slide. It's a super constrained site, in part because of the cross slope, which is unusual, so high on the south side, low on the north side. So this is something that makes this project unusual. Also, the width of the parcel is only 40 feet at the street. This is to point out that constrained situation. And sure, I don't know if you can zoom in actually on the wall. We can address that condition right now, possibly on this slide. If you zoom in, yeah, south all the way to the left, you can see the presence of that wall, and also marked here is the fire access for the adjacent property to the south. This is the condition right here. And so I think the indication that the wall can remain, you can see the angle that it takes, and the way it restricts in some ways the width of the required drive, but that this encroachment on the width of the drive is actually quite minor. And my understanding is this would have to be reviewed as part of the Building and Safety plan check process, and also approved by Public Works, so this is not a final say on this matter is my understanding, but that shows that that condition also, they needed fire access that needs to be maintained. We can keep going here. This is a slide that I had showed in the last presentation, also points out just how sunk into the site the house is. So these are, this is the front elevation on the left, and on the right is a section taken through the middle of the site, and you can see exactly what it means. Those percentages that have been shown, by the percentage of the house that is below grade, it really is buried substantially into the ground, which carries with it diminished opportunities for sight lines, of course, but also increased cost in terms of export of dirt. Can go to the next. Yeah, and there's definite design intention here to minimize the scale in relation to the surrounding houses, and break up the scale also through a series of volumes instead of a single massive one. And the materials that were used, that was noted, the stone on the face of the garage, also acts to further diminish that scale. There's been notes about the contemporary sort of aesthetics and style, and just wanted to point out that this is a character that's not unfamiliar to the area, and these are two adjacent neighbors at 812 and 831 Gainsborough that have similar kind of qualities to them, so not foreign to the neighborhood at all. Go to the next slide. This is showing side-by-side the changes from the previous presentation.
This one, the difference in color, the difference in materials, and that new kind of Cape Cod Blue. Thank you for showing the slide already, and just showing further detail about those materials, and the cement board siding that's being shown here as well. One thing that 290
Design Review Meeting, April 10, 2025
Hearing Transcript
wasn't mentioned is the concern about privacy that had come up in the last meeting, and in response to that, several different landscape elements have been added. And this was in concern particularly to 785 Gainsborough and 2100 Crestview. It's a little hard to see, but 785 Gainsborough, which is northeast of the site, is over 50 feet away, soChair Pro Tem Gannon:
And in conclusion? Sorry.
Chair Gibbs:
Light go off?
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
Yes.
David Freeland (Architect):
Oh, I did this last time as well.
Chair Gibbs:
Oh, I didn't notice it.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
You'll have three minutes to speakChair Gibbs:
At the end.
David Freeland:
Okay, very good.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
It did, twice.
David Freeland (Architect):
I think we covered most everything.
Chair Gibbs:
291
Design Review Meeting, April 10, 2025
Hearing Transcript
Okay, yeah, all right, so now I open it to the public. Each person has three minutes to speak, and try to keep your comments to three minutes. Okay, come on up.
Evgenii Kraskow (Neighbor):
Can I have my slides?
Shehriyar Khan (Associate Planner):
Just wanted to bring to everyone's attention that there is a slight delay due to the internet being a little weak. So there might be a slight delay in shifting to the slides.
Patrick Donegan (Assistant City Attorney):
But yes, if you just want to hang tight until your slides come up.
Chair Gibbs:
Yeah, your time won't start until the slide's up. Okay, go ahead.
Evgenii Kraskow (Neighbor):
Okay, good evening, Chair, and good evening, members of the Design Review Board. My name is Evgenii Krasko, and I own the property at 785 Gainsborough Drive, directly adjacent to the proposed construction. I have three main concerns regarding this building, views, privacy, and neighborhood compatibility. Next slide, please. Regarding views, the building will block the beautiful view of Catalina Island from my master bedroom. The DiamondCrestview Specific Plan guidelines mentioned Catalina as a prominent object whose views are to be preserved. Moreover, another guideline says avoid catching the horizon line if possible. Is it possible here? Absolutely, this could be achieved by relatively minor changes, such as relocating the building some 10 feet back, increasing grading, or reducing the height of the structure by adjusting the slope of the driveway or lowering the 16-foot-tall garage. Many of these suggestions were made by the board during the concept review hearing. The next issue is privacy. Next slide, please. The building includes four windows on its north elevation, placed on a large siding wall. All of them directly face my guest bedroom. I had to get this slide from the concept review plans because the rendering was removed from the new deck, presumably to hide the non-compliance with the guideline against using large expanses of a single material. It is still accurate because despite the extensive DRB comments, nothing has changed aside from the building's color. Next slide, please. The choice of materials still does not meet the quality and style of the surrounding buildings. Only the front facade received some brick treatment. Again, the DiamondCrestview Specific Plan characterizes such an approach as unacceptable. So I was 292
Design Review Meeting, April 10, 2025
Hearing Transcript
wondering why would the applicant not make the changes requested by the DRB given that they're not difficult to implement? And I think I know the answer. This project is not being designed here. It has already been designed, and it was not designed for DiamondCrestview. This house already exists. It is located in Mount Washington in LA. Next slide.
Here it is. You can easily find it on Google Maps. The current project is not a similar house, it is the same house. Next slide. While there is nothing inherently wrong with building a copy of a successful project, do you think the designers of the 2018 LA building on the left considered the Diamond-Crestview Specific Plan, or did they have the foresight to place the windows and organized spaces in a way that would preserve the privacy of the property surrounding this Crestview lot in Laguna Beach? Next slide. It is a bold and interesting building, but it was designed for an entirely different setting, with no buildings in close proximity, with no privacy concerns for neighbors, and not for a rustic neighborhood. By building a direct copy, the applicant is cutting corners, not relocating even a single window or balcony, and separately, not even maintaining the staking properly, which is constantly losing string lines or bending. Next slide. Therefore I urge you to enforce the guidelines of Laguna Beach, and request that the applicant makes an honest effort to actually design this building with consideration for the specific context of this site and in accordance with the neighborhood's guidelines. Thank you.
Chair Gibbs:
Thank you, next.
Edward Sotto (Neighbor):
Congratulations, by the way. Don't start the time yet, thank you. I'm going to put these documents here. This is the letter I sent. I don't knowChair Gibbs:
Give it to the clerk, please.
Edward Sotto (Neighbor):
Here you go. Just so you can refer in greater detail, 'cause three minutes, not a lot of time.
Chair Gibbs:
Okay, please begin.
Edward Sotto (Neighbor):
293
Design Review Meeting, April 10, 2025
Hearing Transcript
Hello, I'm Edward Sotto. I represent the family, oh, first slide, please. I have to have my slides up. There we go. Just leave it right there. Hello, I'm Edward Sotto, I represent the family of four that lives at 2100 Crestview Drive. Next slide, please. The closest neighbor to the proposed development at 2058. Well, the board conditionally approved the advancement of the design in the last meeting. We've only seen a few minor things addressed, and still believe not enough has been done to comply with the higher standards of the Diamond-Crestview design guidelines. While we did meet in good faith with the homeowner recently at the site, it was clear that little had changed beyond the board's directives in compliance with guidelines, at least that's what we saw. The call, I still feel the angled sighting, next slide, please, of the home is driving an unnecessary impact, revoking the permit to a driveway, resulting in loss of two parking spaces. Next slide, please. There, you can see the cars in the driveway there. The red represents the loss there, and the guidelines say driveways provide the majority of the parking for residents, which, in addition to the removal of eight feet, according to them, of retaining wall that creates a sense of place and separation of our two homes. I never dreamed that accommodating a neighbor would mean the destruction and loss of parking and facade to my own home. To lose the driveway is to make it virtually impossible for a family with four vehicles to even live here. It's kind of a do-or-die situation. I believe that adjusting the garage sighting to perhaps not cross our exit path, next slide, please, at the functional turning and radius of the fire.
Please, next slide. I know I'm going quickly there. Yeah, I just looked at a fire chart there, and it looks like everything widens in the turn, not on the straightaway, so maybe this could be studied. Obviously, we're not going to solve it here. Colors and materials have changed.
Next slide, please. And while the stone is a welcome addition, the color seems out of compliance with the guideline that seeks to enhance the rustic nature of the neighborhood, and materials should not be artificial. I feel that the facade, while is modern, is almost in defiance of the goals, in that they visually look more like shipping containers than something that seeks to blend into the terrain, and material, as is Hardie board, which is a cement panel that simulates wood, another deviation from the authenticity called for. Item four, a harmonious mixture of materials, colors, and forms that was used in the natural hillsides. It also calls out artificial surfaces in that code. As for privacy, next slide, please, windows looking directly into my fire pit area is the only thing we have. I was told additional planting would be provided. I mean it's an incredibly tiny planter, but no material change, even though the board identified these things as concern to be resolved. I'll just jump to the chase here. We all have a right to develop land, doing so in a way that enhances the nature of the neighborhood per its own higher standards is part of the stewardship of the city. I look forward to progress being made in bringing this project 294
Design Review Meeting, April 10, 2025
Hearing Transcript
into compliance with the rustic nature of the Diamond-Crestview area, and I apologize for reading so fast.
Chair Gibbs:
Thank you.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
Coming from New York, I love it.
Edward Sotto (Neighbor):
Huh?
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
I said, "Coming from New York, I love it."
Edward Sotto (Neighbor):
Thank you.
Chair Gibbs:
And you got everything in.
Edward Sotto (Neighbor):
I tried.
Chair Gibbs:
Mr. Kawaratani, please. Go ahead.
Steve Kawaratani:
Could you cue me? Oh, you already queued me up. Steve Kawaratani, good evening, Chair Gibbs, board members, staff. I consulted with Mike about 12 or 13 years ago, and I'm very relieved that we're both still alive. You know, it's a good thing. This project, as far as massing, is superior to what he presented all those years ago, but there is always room for improvement, and basically, my concerns have to do with view and privacy. So without getting into a lot of detail, I don't believe that the project is in compliance with the Diamond-Crestview Specific Plan design guidelines. I don't believe that it meets the DRB design guidelines, specifically, view. It violates Land Use Policy 2.10, and I'll read the quote.
You need to make a finding that basically coastal views are not compromised. And finally, 295
Design Review Meeting, April 10, 2025
Hearing Transcript
I'm not sure that the board can make the finding, I know that I can't, allow 2.25, or 2.2 feet, in excess of the maximum allowed in Diamond-Crestview because it is not protecting coastal views nor privacy. Next slide. What I'd like to suggest is that the architect and Mike consider moving the upper level back. As Evgenii said before, it's not a real difficult fix to get most of that program out of his Catalina view. So I do recommend that that upper level move back, and it will be in greater compliance with the hillside guidelines. Last slide. I looked at the landscape plan pretty carefully, and although I think that the applicant addressed some of the privacy concerns for the property to the south, for us, if you look at the landscape plan carefully, there really isn't ample room for the landscape architect to provide any kind of mitigation, both to the massing and to the windows. So if there could be a slight shift to allow room other than the firefighters' access, I think that would go a long way as to satisfying the view concerns. Thank you.
Chair Gibbs:
Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak? All right, applicant, you have a three-minute reply.
David Freeland (Architect):
Thank you. Actually, are there, can we go back to the slides again? And I'm glad that you showed that landscape plan because that's why I was going to return to. There were five strawberry trees that were added subsequent to the last review to address those privacy concerns. You can skip to there, and also actually to the rendered slide that is just before it, or after, my apologies. There we go. So here you'll see the proposal before and after, and the additional trees have been provided along the south side. There are also, if you go back to the plan, three strawberry trees, large ones, across the backside of the property, which is meant to mitigate the view for property owners to the east, including 785 Gainsborough, which is, I mentioned, is over 50 feet away from the house. I think that the concerns about the height of the house can also be addressed in relation to the drainage course that was constructed there. That terrace drain actually raised the grade across the north side of the site. And so the measurement taken from that raised grade, as a result of that construction in the easement, should not really impact negatively the property owner, at least so says the document on title for this parcel. And addressing, finally, this question of difficult sites is something that I've worked on quite a bit. I appreciate the recognition of other previous work, but this site is a phenomenally difficult one at only 40 feet in width, and with such a difficult cross slope. And I think that the concerns that have been raised here were actively part of the design process and things that were considered. And I can only say that we're doing our best to mitigate all of these different pressures on the project, as is the case with any of these kinds of difficult sites. Thank you.
296
Design Review Meeting, April 10, 2025
Hearing Transcript
Chair Gibbs:
Okay, at this time, board questions of the applicant or staff.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
I have a question. What are your plate heights for each floor? David Freeland (Architect):
In relation to the garage, or?
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
I couldn't see when I was looking at the plans. I couldn't see, I tried to go to each floor to see where the plate heights, what your plate heights. Are they 10 feet, 9 feet, 8.5? David Freeland (Architect):
They're 10 feet, with the exception of the garage, which, because the site is so steep, we need a taller floor-to-floor there.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
Okay.
Board member Weil:
That's the chair orDavid Freeland (Architect):
The top, yeah, the top.
Chair Gibbs:
Mister, just a second. Mr. Weil, please, your questions? Board member Weil:
I was going to ask that same question that Ms. Gannon was asking. I think, is it on a 8.0? If that can be brought up, I mean, I think the plate heights I'm seeing are 16' 1" for the garage level, 9' 10 5/8" for the first level, 9' 10 5/8" for the second level, and 8' 6" for the third level, or the fourth level. I just wanted to get that verified.
David Freeland (Architect):
297
Design Review Meeting, April 10, 2025
Hearing Transcript
Yeah, that is correct. So as I mentioned, the floor-to-floor from the garage to the next level up, for the first level, is over the 10 feet, and then the other two are just under 10 feet. The top one has been lowered because of height concerns.
Chair Gibbs:
All right, I have two questions. First, what's the amount of export that I think was shown, but I wasn't sure what the right figure was, total amount of export do you anticipate? Is it, I saw the number 13.
David Freeland (Architect):
Yeah, it's also civil, 1,300 cubic yards.
Chair Gibbs:
Okay, then the second, do your plans call for any change or impact on the retaining wall with the Sottos to the, you know, to the south of the property? We saw, I think it was a picture you showed, with the existing retaining wall, and you heard Sotto's comments about losing a parking place there, which I don't understand if you're not touching the retaining wall, so could you comment on that?
David Freeland (Architect):
So we're taking the existing grade at the property line and retaining everything from that elevation down. It's not meant to impede the existing retaining wall that's in place. And that would be the intention as we were to lay the wall out onsite. Structurally speaking, it's meant to retain the earth and anything behind it, including the adjacent house.
Chair Gibbs:
All right, again, I'm not sure I understood. There's an existing retaining wall that's just, you know, adjacent to the Sottos' driveway. Is that being touched in your plans? David Freeland (Architect):
No.
Chair Gibbs:
Okay, so, I assume, based on that, you're not going to impede the two-car parking that he has in front of his garage?
David Freeland (Architect):
298
Design Review Meeting, April 10, 2025
Hearing Transcript
No, I think that wall, and staff mentioned that that was going to remain in place.
Chair Gibbs:
Is that correct?
Shehriyar Khan (Associate Planner):
I can clarify. So there is a proposal to remove the portion of the wall that's encroaching into the public right of way. And the applicant proposed that for the street widening and paving.
However, after consulting with Public Works, they would be fine with that wall remaining and the paving taking place around that wall. I think what Mr. Sotto perhaps may be alluding to, regarding the loss of parking spaces, because technically, the parking spaces that he's referring to in the driveway, they're non-compliant. Half of them are within the public right of way. But if this wall is demolished, that would require changes to their fire safety access stairs. And if those are tilted towards Mr. Sotto's driveway, that may have a potential of blocking access to one of his garage spaces. However, as I mentioned earlier, there, I think staff believes there's room for a mutual understanding to take place between the two property owners. Staff would like that wall to remain. However, if they come to an understanding that requires some sort of redesigning of the fire access stairs and also demolishing part of the wall within the public right of way, we would be in support of that.
Chair Gibbs:
So the condition which we can impose is that that retaining wall be maintained as is, and that condition would be subject to a mutual agreement between the homeowners? Shehriyar Khan (Associate Planner):
Sure, and I can defer to the planning manager regarding that. We had aChair Gibbs:
That would work.
James Campbell (Interim Planning Manager):
Sure, maybe we'll take a quick step back here. You know, that wall was created when the house next door was constructed several decades ago. A portion of that wall extends out into the public right of way. And I think the plans are difficult to see exactly what's going on, but I think there was a proposal at the time maybe to cut it off at the property line. And what 299
Design Review Meeting, April 10, 2025
Hearing Transcript
we've learned is that the existing wall holds up, you know, the fire access stairway that leads to the Sottos' house, so it needs to remain. And so I think the applicant's proposal, the wall that they're proposing, needs to extend all the way out to cover and to support that existing access stair. And that plan for that wall extension, if you will, isn't really part of the plans, at least it's not very clear that it's part of the plans. And the construction of that wall extension, again, to hold up the Sottos' property and that staircase, would require a revocable encroachment permit, which is not part of our application here today.
Chair Gibbs:
Okay, we haven't seen any plans with this wall, but would that wall in any way encroach or interfere with the current parking on Mr. Sotto's property? James Campbell (Interim Planning Manager):
It wouldn't, it would be in front of the applicant's property.
Chair Gibbs:
So, and also in front of the access stairs, you know, in other words, north of the access stairs.
James Campbell (Interim Planning Manager):
Yeah, it would be parallel to the access stairs and on the applicant's property or in the public right of way in front of the applicant's property. And that wall extension, if you will, to support that stairway, really needs to be there because, again, it's a fire access stair for the neighbor's property. And while that design isn't here, we feel it's a pretty minor component, Public Works is acceptable to have that, and if that wall were created, it wouldn't have an effect on the parking and the driveways of either property, the Sottos' property or the applicant's property. The thought about maybe modifying and pulling that wall back, if that were to happen, we really would need both property owners to agree to that change. They would need a permit from the city to remove the wall, but the hard part is getting the access stairs to turn around and allow access for the fire department. Now, if that was an alternative, sure, we can explore that in the future, but I think, for today, to make it simpler, you know, we just have to make sure the wall is part of the final construction drawings, supports the Sottos' wall, that the wall wouldn't be changed from the perspective of the Sottos, and parking in both driveways would be provided for, and I think we can move forward with this project tonight with a minor condition change, that the applicant get a revocable encroachment permit. It would be an administrative Design Review, and that the design of that wall be consistent with the project that you see before you today. And we 300
Design Review Meeting, April 10, 2025
Hearing Transcript
have a draft condition for that if you would like to see it. And then we can, in essence, deal with the design of that small, little wall encroachment in the public right of way, you know, prior to the issuance of a building permit. Now if the board wants to continue this item, we can include that with the next hearing.
Chair Gibbs:
Okay, we'll deal with that in deliberations. Thank you for a very clear and thorough, you know, explanation that's answered my questions. Any other questions before we close the public hearing? Go ahead.
Board member Weil:
Sorry if it sounds like I'm interrupting, I'm just trying to, there's no like, raise hand button.
On that same line of questioning, like it's a bit of a challenge, and I think in my own processing on this, I get the old house was built the way it was, there was all this undeveloped neighboring properties. They're holding up the hillside at the time of their development. However, there's still a component that it encroaches into the right of way, and these are still impaired streets up in Diamond-Crestview that, yes, there needs to be a better evaluation of that. But, sorry, where I'm going with the question is, just because the wrong component of the past developments, it shouldn't hinder the right kind of development for the right of ways as we go forward. How does Public Works kind of evaluate that component, you know, with regards to this kind of wall and/or the application of this project? I mean, they shouldn't develop out into the right of way, or I guess where I'm coming from is this new project shouldn't build a wall to go catch up to that one, and now we still have these bigger impairments. Does that make sense? I'm not articulating thatChair Gibbs:
I'm not sure I, I understand, but staff, have any comment on that? I mean, I think it's very clear that to do the retaining wall on the applicant's side is going to require a revocable encroachment permit. The one on the right that's existing either had one or is grandfathered in for some reason, that's how I read it. Go ahead.
James Campbell (Interim Planning Manager):
I'll take a crack at a response. I really can't respond for Public Works, but, you know, we have a situation where the Sottos' property, that house was built, the wall was necessary at the time to hold up the adjacent property, right, to hold up the slope, and the fire access were provided in that location, and it was permitted by the city, although there was no revocable encroachment permit done at the time. This was about two decades ago or so. 301
Design Review Meeting, April 10, 2025
Hearing Transcript
And so, in this respect, while it does now become an impediment to kind of cleaning up the right of way, I agree with Board Member Weil, it would be preferable to not have these encroachments widen the whole street. But I think, in this case, you know, it exposes those parking spaces. They would actually then be backing out into maybe a future travel lane.
And we do need to maintain that staircase in order to provide safety for the Sottos' property.
And so, we did have a conversation with Public Works staff. They are agreeable to just leave it in place. Now, clearly, that requires the applicant to retain the earth that's under that staircase on their property, as well as in front of their property in the right of way, so that the staircase hits the ground. And in that design, we've got, you know, in essence, driveways for both properties side-by-side, and we can have, you know, two parking spaces in each one.
And I think it's a design that Public Works is agreeable to, and while it's not ideal, I think, you know, it represents the best we can do with the existing condition, and we support that change.
Chair Gibbs:
Yeah, let me, the bottom line is this is existing condition, and we don't have anything else in front of us for an alternative condition. Maybe this answers your question, Louis. So I think we address this in deliberations.
Board member Coveny:
And let me just add to that, Chair, that it sounds like it's important then that we try to find a solution tonight, assuming we approve the project, that's amenable to both parties, as opposed, 'cause the city could just come in and say we're just going to take it all up and, you know, but they're making a compromise. So it's just something to consider.
Chair Gibbs:
Let's address that in deliberation.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
I can start with comments, okay.
Chair Gibbs:
Yeah, why don't you go ahead, Jess.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
-Okay, so that brings302
Design Review Meeting, April 10, 2025
Hearing Transcript
Chair Gibbs:
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. I close the public hearing, go ahead.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
Need a little hammer. So back to Jim Campbell's comments, that gives me the access. This board had already made the precedents with 806 Gainsborough to require two standard parking spaces. And this location is a hairier turn than what is in front of the 806 Gainsborough. So for me, access for public safety, for whoever lives in that home's safety, I'm going to require two 18-feet parking spaces. And then also for the character of the neighborhood, I agree with the neighbor, it looks like two stacked containers or three stacked containers. It's not really compliant with the Design Review guidelines for that neighborhood. So I'd like to take another look at that. View consideration, the master bedroom, in my view, my point of view is when your construction significantly covers a primary view like a Catalina view, in my mind, that devalues the property of the neighbor. So I'd like to see that corrected, and leave it to the board to say whatever.
Board member Coveny:
Okay, you finished, Jessica?
Board member Weil:
You'reChair Gibbs:
Right before you go, Louis.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
Well, let Louis talk 'cause he is the board. Okay.
Chair Gibbs:
I've got a question for you before we go on. My recollection of 806 is they were not standard, and I heard that from Steve and I heard from you, and those, in my recollection, that was one of the problems I had is they were not standard, soChair Pro Tem Gannon:
Right, but we made them make it standard.
Chair Gibbs:
303
Design Review Meeting, April 10, 2025
Hearing Transcript
No.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
They pushed the house back five feet to make it standard.
Chair Gibbs:
No, they pushed it back, and it still was not standard, but it allowed two feet, you know, enough for two relatively small cars. Just for the record, they're not standard, but that was my recollection. You have a different one, but...
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
They were standard 18 feet.
Chair Gibbs:
Anyway, go ahead Mr. Louis, or Mr. Weil.
Board member Weil:
I mean, that site, I mean, yeah, there's a lot of similarities between that site that Board Member Gannon's referring, and I think it's something that really needs to kind of be looked at 'cause obviously, we tried to make some things work, but I recall that that project was maybe only 22 feet wide, not, you know, 40, so similar kind of pie shape component in the design of this lot, but yeah, I do concur with Board Member Gannon that the driveway really does need to accommodate the parking, especially if there is no off-street parking, you know, afforded in the area. I'd like to see a better review of that or, in exchange, see public benefit done, where the widening of the street does create some improvements. This turn is a really tight turn I think for the fire trucks, the Amazon trucks, the garbage trucks. It's a really good hairpin turn up in Diamond-Crestview, and it does need the right improvements as more homes come in there. It doesn't mean that's entirely the burden of just this one application, but I definitely need to see that better laid out in order to move forward with this project. That also concurs with kind of the access and the concerns with the Sotto project. I just think there's too much gray in the way it's being proposed or what's written in front of us of how you're going to solve this problem. I'd like to see a much stronger review or some creative solutions and/or some potential agreements amongst the two property owners for what works for them. I do want to see the street widen, but I do recognize that the non-conformity exists on the neighboring property, and at this hearing, I can't, you know, condition things that affect a neighboring parcel. Obviously, we can affect the right of way, but I don't think that's well spelled out and solved. And I think one component that 304
Design Review Meeting, April 10, 2025
Hearing Transcript
also is driving that is the way the garage is oriented. I almost think the garage needs to be oriented a little bit more towards the curve of the street to kind of provide that better angling. I don't know if in that encroachment area, we can do the driveways. I'm assuming the pipe's underground 'cause it runs under the road, that you could make some maybe access improvements in that space that I think benefits the public, your access, and that kind of that as well. It was mentioned in the applicant's beginning that like grading was significant. I mean my challenge with that is like the cost of the grading isn't part of our Design Review criteria. It's how do we fit the right structure in the right zone. So I mean I think we gave pretty clear direction last time that there were grading that needed to be addressed, and I don't see that in this second hearing to have been fixed for the rear portion of this structure. You kind of have an offset, as I look at the cross-sections of this, that, you know, maybe lowering plate heights, the garage plate height's too significant, you know, more of the house could sit into the hillside and better follow the hillside guidelines to preserve those views. Diamond-Crestview as a specific plan has more spelled out that those views are more protected in this zone, and that conversation was well articulated I think in the first hearing. And I don't think that's addressed in the second one. Plus we have the neighbor comments. Letters were pretty much identical to what the first hearing was for the neighbors up on Gainsborough, and I don't see that addressed here. I need that fixed. Staking concerns were an issue last time. You know, when I went up there, it was a little loose. I'd like to see if this does come back for a third hearing if it's warranted, that that stake can be really cleanly done to really help the lines because there is a close analysis of that view preservation. Yeah, so I think, in conclusion, I'm not supportive of the project this evening. It needs more dialing, it needs more issues fixed. There wasn't enough from the first hearing to the second hearing.
Chair Gibbs:
Okay, MJ.
Board member Coveny:
Thank you. I concur with that, to the most part. I don't think moving the driveway will make a difference in how you enter it on that hairpin. That's a hairpin, everybody drives up there pretty slow because that whole area is tough. I think that Sotto's house, their cars actually are in the right of way when they park in their driveway. So everybody's gotta give a little in this world up there, and I don't think you should be heavily penalized for that. It'd be great if you can get two standard cars on the driveway, whether that takes pushing it back, eating something out of the AD, whatever's behind there, or grading a little more just to get a couple more feet is all I think you need. Otherwise, side-by-side's fine, and you're out of the 305
Design Review Meeting, April 10, 2025
Hearing Transcript
right of way. You're not impeding into the street at all. That's access. Views, the upper bedroom or the upper section, the way you've kind of built, first of all, I think this is a great design. I should start with something positive. I think it's, originally, I thought it was a great thing in the wrong place, but now you've sort of chilled it out a little bit, kind of fitted in, and I think it's really kind of unique and fun, and I think it fits. I mean, I think you have such a point of view on one side with the Tuscany and, you know, and this, you can't, there's no way you're gonna not feel sort of like you got a little fluorescent hair there, but it's gonna be okay. I do think that the paint is still questionable. That was sort of my thing. I was a newbie when you came before the board before, so I maybe didn't articulate it very well, but I do think the color could be still adjusted. I know you wrote Cape Cod Blue, and we're not really supposed to comment on this, but it is part of the architecture in my opinion because of the way you're doing your board and batten. It's kind of tight, so it gives that sort of container feel, and then you also have it used in a different way, which is really cool, but the tightening of it gives it sort of a graphic approach, so the paint will affect how that kind of fits into the hillside. So I do look at it as more of an architectural element and a design integrity. Color, you know, I know you're looking at the Hardie boards, and that's fine. As far as a non-organic material, it's utilized throughout Laguna, and it looks like it has a barktype vibe, is that what I think you're using rather than the flat kind. But they do have colors like a Mountain Sage, and they have like a Navajo Beige, something that's a little more subtle. It's not as cool and graphic. I get what you're going for, but I think, because you have to fit into this area, you might want to consider that. But as far as view preservation, from Mr. Krasko, I said last time that I felt like it wasn't insurmountable for you to kind of give us a little bit there. I do think some of his shrubbery can be cut and cleaned up to give him a better view expanding to the right. So there is one area in his home, the lower section there, that is obscured by that extended front upper. And so I'm hoping that you can maybe just, rather than have to excavate out to move the whole house back, that you can kind of cantilever that one upper deck, that upper room, I guess it's the master and a bedroom, though. And I see you have the curving going on inside, which is cool, so I hope that doesn't structurally cause any issue, but you'd have to push, if you could push that back, I'm not allowed to tell you how much, but I think I'm about how tall? So I think that you need to give him something there. Parking, we talked about outdoor space, fine. Mass and scale, I think your mass and scale's fine. I don't have a problem with it. I think it seems to be in line with the Sottos' house, and the other house is very large in back, and the house to the south of it, no, the north of it, is very large as well, and I think yours sort of just tucks in there nicely.
And again, if you can kind of get the architectural color balanced, it will even seem less large. The white definitely going away was a big help. Your articulations there, privacy. I had 306
Design Review Meeting, April 10, 2025
Hearing Transcript
emailed back and forth a bit today with the owner, trying to get a sense of where those windows are, but if there is some element of, excuse me, I'm having trouble today. If there is some element of landscape that could be put in, whether it's an extended box of, you know, trees. I don't really, I couldn't quite, maybe another board member will have some input on privacy, 'cause I wasn't able to capture exactly how much that would be an active, like someone sitting at the window, looking out at Krasko's home. I didn't see any issue over at the Sottos with the addition of the trees that you have now. So I think privacy will be achieved with that slight adjustment, and that's all. I think I might have something else, but that gives you kind of a general idea, but I think you're super close. I think there's some wiggle room here, but that's it.
Chair Gibbs:
Imer?
Board member Bauta:
Thank you. I wanted to address the Sottos' wall. I think that's a feature that was there, and I don't think they should be penalized as part of this development. I understand it's in the right of way, and at some point, it was approved, it sounds like, you know, per city staff. And I think it's definitely a feature that is part of their home, and it seems like a valuable feature for their home. So I would just, wanted to present that. One of the items early on the staff presented was the volume calculation. Was that taken across the entire volume of the site? It's not so much a question but maybe just deliberation. When I got there and I looked up, you kind of get a sense for the volume, and it doesn't really appear to be being excavated as much. It seems like a lot of it is exposed. So from a mass and scale, I think there is some compatibility, but I also think that the height might need to be considered on, you know, the limitation, especially since they're asking for a variance on the height. So I think it's worth deliberating that. Those two feet could probably go a long way with some of the neighbors' concerns and, you know, just establishing kind of guidance for the project. I did have some concerns about the distinctness of the design, being that there was a photo of another design that seemed like a replica. You know, I think when you have the time to go through the Design Review Board process here in Laguna, I think there should be thoughtful consideration and time well spent going through that design. To me, that photo looked like a copy-and-paste, and I don't know to what extent we can comment on that, but I think it's worth considering because there are a lot of home builder types that would love nothing more than to do the same thing here in Laguna, just copy and paste the next project, the next project. We want to avoid that as a board, so I just wanted to establish that, but yeah, I think it makes sense to sort of put the Sottos' wall to bed tonight if we can. So he doesn't 307
Design Review Meeting, April 10, 2025
Hearing Transcript
have to come back to a further hearing, but I don't think I can approve this design as is currently tonight.
Chair Gibbs:
Thank you. All right, so this is definitely gonna be continued. So I'm gonna give you my views. You heard some differing views, and I'll see if I can synthesize. Your issues are parking, height, some privacy concerns, and related to height, the view issue from the Krasko house. And oh, before we, you know, put it to the continuance, all board members will be able to comment on what I have to say. So take notes if you want, make sure I'm getting this correct. Alrighty, so with respect to parking, I feel very strongly that that retaining wall needs to stay, and that there be no encroachment or change to the Sottos.
The second thing is, I do not recall 806 being standard lane parking. In fact, it was very squeezed in. I wasn't happy about it, but we went along with it. I think there's adequate parking for two parking spaces in front, which, unfortunately, because you can't get any, you know, on-street public parking in this area, which is crazy, I could not approve a project like 806. I couldn't approve it unless I felt comfortable that two cars could park in front of that driveway. I feel comfortable. Now, I think you heard comments from two board members who weren't so comfortable, and I think if you could orient that building, and I don't know what your constraints are, 'cause you're coming back, so that you can address Mr. Weil's concern, and to the extent you can make them two standard rather than one standard and one compact, I think you'd be looking for a, you know, a unanimous vote.
With respect to view equity from the Kraskos, I said last time, and I'll say it again this time, I think view equity's achieved, I think it complies with the Diamond-Crestview Specific Plan, and that the views from the primary, or you know, the ceremonial rooms, which are upstairs kitchen and living room, are amazing and untouched. The major touch is the second bedroom on the first floor, and that is primarily blocked with landscaping. And the impact from the applicant's house, it would even achieve, in my view, view equity as to that second bedroom. The master bedroom, to really preserve any kind of view, you couldn't build your top story, which I think would not be appropriate given what I'll talk about in a second about neighborhood compatibility, the overall design. So I, but you know, you've heard what other people said, you know, to the extent that you could assist in reducing the height or cantilevering that side to improve Mr. Krasko's first floor, second bedroom view, it might help you get a majority vote. But I think, from my point of view, view equity's achieved.
Privacy, I do not see a privacy issue from the Kraskos. They're 50 feet away. The orientation of the windows are not looking at Kraskos. If anything, you have the side of the house going north, I guess it is, is not looking at Krasko, and your backyard is not oriented towards Krasko. It's kind of a catty corner to the building. So I'm more concerned about the Sottos' 308
Design Review Meeting, April 10, 2025
Hearing Transcript
property, and I appreciate the two strawberry trees, is that right? And I didn't hear from, I tried to read Mr. Sotto's comments, and I couldn't really tell whether there's privacy. But since you're coming back, I would encourage you to work with the Sottos to come up with a landscaping solution. This was talked about by MJ here, a landscaping solution for both the Kraskos and for the Sottos, and have it clear 'cause it's hard for me to tell whether landscaping does that, but with privacy, landscaping is always the easiest solution, and it actually could be win-win. Height, you know, I think it's neighborhood-compatible. I don't have a problem with the height for the same reason I don't have view equity. Mass and scale, I don't have a problem with. The one problem I have, and I talked about it last time, is I have a real concern whether this is neighborhood-compatible from a design standpoint.
To me, it looks like a bunch of containers, and I think we talked about it last time is, there's a rustic look. And I think several board members, in addition to me, talked about rustic, even the modern, and I showed a bunch of slides. I don't know if you remember. At the first hearing, I showed a bunch of slides, including the modern, that all had a rustic element.
And that's what I was trying to influence you with, and simply putting rock by the garage and changing it to blue, to get my vote, I need to see it blend in more, even with, look at the modern, the modern, the house, not the Kraskos', but the one to, I think it's on Crestview, but the one to the, as you're facing the house to the left and up the hill. You know, that has a lot more kind of rustic modern features. I don't mean to design it, but I'm just telling you, it sticks out in my mind like a sore thumb. It's what I said last time, and I'll say it again this time. So, and then access parking, I would find the variance and everything if you could, given the current parking that you're proposing, so long as you don't impact the Sottos' parking at all. And the way, just so the record, I would've required to come back to us to show the solution. I don't want to leave it. I'm not a big fan of leaving it to working out or administrative design review. The parking is so critical in Diamond-Crestview from a safety standpoint that I think it's incumbent upon me, in my view, incumbent upon the board to review and approve the final parking design, particularly where the houses are too close together. So when you come back, try to work with Mr. Sotto, come up with a solution that accomplishes, you know, what we talked about, where he gets his parking, you get your parking, they can accommodate two cars each in front of the garage. He'll get his four with the garage, you'll get your four, and then I think you'd have at least a majority vote from the board. So those are my comments. Any board member wish to further tell me how I'm wrong or right or...
Board member Coveny:
No, it was brilliant, brilliant, Chair, well done. I just have one quick clarification. The height, you said the height, in order to get Mr. Krasko's view, more of that view back, but not all. I 309
Design Review Meeting, April 10, 2025
Hearing Transcript
don't think it needs to be cleared completely, but I don't think it was the height. I think it was more how it was extending out, not so much the height of the building of that upper deck, of the upper floor. I think it was really how it extended out, so.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
Right, I have in my comments, listening to Tom Gibbs, Chair Gibbs, that that top floor, it could be, 'cause we don't protect views from secondary bedrooms, it's primary bedrooms, and that top floor doesn't have to be much, but it's just pushed back just a little bit. I don't think height, don't mess with the plate heights, I don't think. That's not my concern either.
Just that top floor needs to be pushed back into the hillside. Yeah, that's pretty much. Oh, and then, for safety, I'm surprised that you're not demanding 18 feet standard parking because everybody, it's an American tradition that we want bigger and better.
Chair Gibbs:
Remember, I caved on 806 for less than that. You don't remember that.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
I'm pretty sure we made them put two standard-sized parking spaces.
Chair Gibbs:
Nope.
Board member Weil:
It wasChair Gibbs:
That was like, I almost voted no on that, and that was it. We squeezed them in, yeah.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
But still two standard-sized parking spaces.
Chair Gibbs:
No, anyway, I'm not going to debate the point. I'm telling you the parking, in my view, the parking solution here is much better than 806. That being said, I'm evaluating, just a second, Louis, I'm evaluating parking based upon this project.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
310
Design Review Meeting, April 10, 2025
Hearing Transcript
Okay.
Chair Gibbs:
Louis?
Board member Weil:
No, I'm good.
Chair Gibbs:
Imer?
Board member Bauta:
No further comments from me.
Chair Gibbs:
All right, thank you very much. That was a good discussion. When's the next available hearing date? And you can tell us how long you think you need, but why don't we start with the next available hearing date?
James Campbell (Interim Planning Manager):
Excuse me, we could schedule this theoretically in, we really need to be looking at June, but I would really want to know from the applicant, based on the input that's been received here and then through the, you know, any public comments, how long it would take to, you know, make a design that is responsive to what you're hearing, and then we can schedule accordingly, so.
Chair Gibbs:
Yeah, how long, do you, June date, July?
David Freeland (Architect):
Well, I guess enough time to reach out to the neighbors. Let's say a month should be fine. Is that? Yeah, a month.
Chair Gibbs:
Why don't we put the first meeting in June to give you a little bit, what time do they have to submit plans if it's the first meeting in June?
James Campbell (Interim Planning Manager):
311
Design Review Meeting, April 10, 2025
Hearing Transcript
We'd really need to see the plans in a couple of weeks. So I don't really think that's a good idea. We should be looking at July.
Chair Gibbs:
Why don't we do the first meeting in July, which I think is July 10th.
James Campbell (Interim Planning Manager):
July 10th, we'd need to see some, you know, revisions by the 21st of May. So that's basicallyChair Gibbs:
That should give you enough time to work with the neighbors. Does that work for you? James Campbell (Interim Planning Manager):
That's like six weeks.
Chair Gibbs:
Yeah. All right, do I have a motion, please?
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
Chair, I'll make a motion to continue Project 5.3, located at 2058 Crestview Drive to June 10th, 2025, or to July 10th.
Board member Bauta:
Second the motion.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
Is it June or July?
James Campbell (Interim Planning Manager):
July.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
July 10th, 2025.
Board member Bauta:
I second that motion.
312
Design Review Meeting, April 10, 2025
Hearing Transcript
Chair Gibbs:
Can we call the roll?
Board member Weil:
Chair, may I make a point of discussion? This is technically the second hearing, correct? Chair Gibbs:
Yes, second hearing.
Board member Weil:
Do we have to make a finding that the applicant'sChair Gibbs:
No, we don't. That's for the third hearing.
Board member Weil:
This is the second hearing.
Chair Gibbs:
No, this is the first hearing. We, no, the concept review, we didn't vote. This is the first full hearing.
James Campbell (Interim Planning Manager):
Chair, the concept hearing by code is counted as your first hearing.
Chair Gibbs:
Oh, really?
James Campbell (Interim Planning Manager):
We did review that, so this is the second hearing. So Mr. Weil is correct, we do need to make those findings in the code that, you know, the applicant has been responsive to the prior comments and that we can continue forward with the next hearing. So you're more familiar with those findings than I am, actually.
Chair Gibbs:
I am, but Louis, I stand corrected, thank you. I, yeah, yeah, I, in connection with this motion, we're going to find, who made the motion, you did? 313
Design Review Meeting, April 10, 2025
Hearing Transcript
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
That the applicant is moving in the right direction, I can make the findings to grant the third hearing.
Chair Gibbs:
Okay, and that the applicant's acting in good faith toward resolving and achieving project approval. And Imer, you have a second to that?
Board member Bauta:
I second that.
Chair Gibbs:
All right, could you call the roll please?
Clerk:
Board member Bauta?
Board member Bauta:
Yes.
Clerk:
Board member Coveny?
Board member Coveny:
Yes.
Clerk: Board member Weil?
Chair Gibbs:
Weil?
Board member Weil:
Yes. Sorry, it was a delay, yes.
Clerk:
Chair Pro Tem Gannon?
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
314
Design Review Meeting, April 10, 2025
Hearing Transcript
Yes.
Clerk:
And Chair Gibbs.
Chair Gibbs:
Yes.
Board member Coveny:
And Chair, before we move on, I did not thank Shehriyar for his extraordinary staff report. It helped me a lot, and for all the extra work you guys did to investigate.
Chair Gibbs:
That was very well done. Thank you very much. On a rather tough project. Alrighty, the next item is, anyone wanna take a break or just plow through? 315