This transcript was exported on Oct 22, 2025 -
July 11 2024 (Item 5.7) (Completed 10/22/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
July 11, 2024, DRB Meeting, Item 5.7
Jessica Gannon:
Moving on, Item 5.7 located at 31526 Valido Road. This is for Design Review 24-0658 with a Coastal Development Permit 24-0657. Do we have the applicant team? Board ex parte? MJ Coveny:
I went to the site, walked it twice, met with Steve Kawaratani and also left a message for architect but never was reached.
Mr. Thomas Gibbs:
I went to the site, met with Steve Kawaratani. I also met with Sophia and Jeff Chamberlain and I met with Diana and Stan Leeman.
MJ Coveny:
And I just want to add to mine that I also met with several of the neighbors. Do I need to name them specifically? Hold on. There's a lot of them. Oh, heck. Where did my notes go? Oh, here we go. The homeowners at 31538 West Street, the Boshnacks. At 31532 West Street, it was the white house, I don't know who owns that and then 31532 Valido Street.
Jessica Gannon:
And I can read, while we're here, I was on the site visits with Ms. Coveny.
MJ Coveny:
And Jeff Chamberlain. The Leemons.
Jessica Gannon:
Leemons.
Debbie Neev:
Yes. I had site visit and met with the Chamberlains, met with Mr. and Mrs. Leeman and the Boshnacks and Steve Kawaratani and also Mr. Kawaratani let me into two other neighbor's homes, and we walked around the property.
Louis Weil:
I spoke with Steve Kawaratani and the applicant team over the phone. Walked the site and I spoke with, I'm sorry, I forgot to write it down. Diane Leeman, yes. I spoke with her on the phone and then I trespassed through a few different sites.
MJ Coveny:
Okay, great. Mr. Wank.
Garrett Wank:
Attachment 18
508
This transcript was exported on Oct 22, 2025 -
July 11 2024 (Item 5.7) (Completed 10/22/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Thank you. Item 5.7 is a request for design review and a coastal development permit at 31526 Valido Road located in the R1 zone. The site is currently developed with a single family dwelling and attached two car garage. Design review is required for a new single family residence, elevated decks, grading, landscaping, tandem parking, and a third covered parking space. The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing 1,278 square foot single family residence, construct a new 4,002 square foot single family residence with 461 square feet of elevated decks, grading, landscaping, tandem parking, and a third covered parking space. Staff has received neighbor concerns regarding the size of the structure, neighborhood compatibility, privacy, and view equity. The Board should consider whether these impacts affect the project's ability to meet the design view criteria. That will conclude my staff summary and I'm available for any questions.
MJ Coveny:
Board, do you have questions of staff? All right. The public hearing is now open.
Adele Chang:
Hello commissioners and Chair Gannon. My name is Adele Chang. I'm with LCRA Architects, the architect for the project. My office is up in Pasadena and our client lives in San Marino right next door and they had hoped that this would be a summer home for their family to escape the heat up in the San Gabriel Valley. They love this lot and it is a flag lot surrounded by five houses and all of those houses are twostory homes, a variety of styles, they're a mix of styles. So, the client wanted a more contemporary looking home and that's what we designed for them. We also designed a house that would fit her family's needs. This is our first project in Laguna Beach, so I'm here to learn. We did contact the neighbors and held a neighbor meeting. I've had a Zoom meeting with the Chamberlains and their architect as well as having met them on the site.
We have been in conversation with the owner of the easement, the access easement, to make sure we understand what he wants and doesn't want on that access driveway because the land belongs to him.
I've been in email conversation, exchanged a few emails with the owners of 31538. So, I've heard a number of neighbor concerns and I'm here to also listen to any comments and input that you have. After hearing the neighbor's comments, we have some thoughts and ideas on how to address them, including rotating the home, making the second floor more compact to allow for views from the upper neighbor.
And I think the rotation of the home will provide more privacy for the downhill neighbors. But I do want to mention that the current house, and if you were to stand in the backyard of the current house, which is pretty rundown by the way, already looks into the backyard of 31532. There's really no avoiding it because it's downhill and the other uphill neighbors can also look into their backyard.
That was brought up as a concern, but I just wanted to make that point. Otherwise, I'm here to answer questions and listen to your comments. Oh, one thing I did want to bring up is that in an effort to create something that is lower, we are proposing to grade the site down. It varies depending on where you are on the site from around eight feet close to the uphill side down to meet the grade at the lowest point of the site, not the entire site, but the lowest point of the pad.
Also by doing that, we are lowering and I heard that from staff that there was some question about the staking, the story post, and that's because it's based on the final elevation and the ground plane would be several feet below because we're ramping down or sloping down further into the site just so that we're tucked in more. Maybe one last thing is that we are not asking for any variances. We worked with staff extensively and Garrett can verify that. At one time we were having weekly Zoom meetings with him and so we did not want to deviate from the zoning ordinance. Was that the beep to stop? 509
This transcript was exported on Oct 22, 2025 -
July 11 2024 (Item 5.7) (Completed 10/22/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Jessica Gannon:
Yes.
Adele Chang:
Okay. I made it.
Jessica Gannon:
Was that or 30 seconds? Yep, 30 seconds.
Adele Chang:
That's it, that's all I have to say, I tried to be quick.
Jessica Gannon:
Okay, so then we are moving on to public commentary. Any member from the public wish to speak on this project? Mr. Kawaratani?
Steve Kawaratani:
Ms. Gannon, can you queue me up please, Garrett? My name is Steve Kawaratani and I do represent three adjacent neighbors. Before I start with my comments, welcome to Laguna Adele. You'll certainly learn a lot tonight.
The existing home is 1,276 square feet and the neighborhood average is 2,283 square feet. This project is being proposed at 4,002. We believe that it's too large. However, as the architect stated, it's going to be a two-story home, it would be unfair otherwise. I believe that if the architect would consider reducing the house to less than 3,600 square feet, we would lose that tandem parking condition and that area could be used for program. Maintaining the existing site orientation as the architect stated and adding the second story and the considerable glazing and deck is problematic to both my clients. I believe that the project does need to be rotated, the project lowered. I heard some good things that Adele mentioned and even pulled back from the rear would be very helpful. And of course redesigning the decks and the glazing and perhaps even taller hedging as Tom and Debbie brought up. If the hedge was allowed to go up, that would probably provide more ample protection. Next slide please.
So, that is the view impact from the Bernardi residence and I'm glad Adele's here to see how it's towering over their project. Next slide please. And this is the project directly behind. Currently, as designed, the house will have a great view into my client's master bedroom, so we're going to have to reorient the house. I think that'd be very helpful, very encouraged by what the project architect has said. And in closing, Adele Dave Whitaker who lives at 31532, has said he's willing to listen to you to perhaps lower the driveway, which would help if you're grading. Thank you very much Board.
Jessica Gannon:
Thank you Steve. Anyone else? Mrs, is it Leemon?
Mrs. Leemon:
Yes, Leemon.
Jessica Gannon:
510
This transcript was exported on Oct 22, 2025 -
July 11 2024 (Item 5.7) (Completed 10/22/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Yes. Leemon.
Mrs. Leemon:
It's like lemon with another E because we're sweeter.
Jessica Gannon:
I love...
Mrs. Leemon:
Thank you all so much for taking the time to make me feel better because I have lived in, I'm starting to speak tonight about our house at 31521 Toto Loma Ln. Our view equity will be taken away by the current plans for the new build at 31526 Valido Road. As you can see by the photos that I have previously sent you and on the visit to our home, that these views will be blocked anywhere between 50% to a 100% depending upon where you are on our property. Please consider that we have had these views for 34 years and moved to Laguna because we love it, because of the neighborhood and because of the view. I also would like to mention our privacy too because of the height of the house, their lights will be shining directly into our bedroom and they will also be able to see us. So, thank you so much for all the work that you've done.
Jessica Gannon:
Thank you Mrs. Leemon. Next speaker. Mr. Chamberlain, right? Mr. Chamberlain:
Yes, thank you.
Jessica Gannon:
Okay.
Mr. Chamberlain:
Thanks for the time. I'm just going to reread some of the stuff that I've already sent to you and I'll be as quick as I can. My name is Jeff Chamberlain and I live at 31551 Toto Loma with my wife Sophie and our two kids. We are directly next door to the proposed new home at 31526 Valido Road. While we welcome our new neighbors to the neighborhood, we would also like to express the following concerns with their current plans that don't yet seem to meet the criteria of design review guidelines. Some of them we've covered in our original letter to you and others in our personal meetings at our house, thanks for coming by yesterday by the way, but I'd like to repeat them here so that they are put on record. One, overall the height partially blocks portions of our view from several locations.
Their covered upper floor master bedroom deck particularly blocks our view from multiple points of our house including the living room, den and bedrooms. This roof over the upper deck seems unnecessary and could easily be removed without any change to the overall design. Two, the house has not been staked properly. They currently outline only the upper floor and their plans show that the first floor extends even closer to our house. Without proper and complete staking, it's impossible to understand the true impact of the designs mass and scale. Three, there is a lack of design articulation to the project overall. For example, there is one consistent roof parapet elevation all around the whole house. They seem to have filled the buildable envelope with the house rather than plan and accommodate views 511
This transcript was exported on Oct 22, 2025 -
July 11 2024 (Item 5.7) (Completed 10/22/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
over the house. Four, the overall massing of the house seems inconsistent with our understanding of the design review guidelines.
In particular, neighborhood compatibility rather than feeling like a well articulated single-family home, it appears similar to a multifamily apartment block. There is simply nothing like this in the immediate surroundings. Five, there are two windows facing our home which will impact our privacy due to their location and proximity to our house and outdoor living areas. These windows are for the downstairs bathroom and the upstairs walk-in closet. Both are close to and immediately opposite our living room windows, our kids' bedroom windows, and our main outdoor living area. Our home will be impacted by the adjacency of these spaces.
Bathrooms and dressing areas are intimate places of a home and I'm sure that discretion with those areas would serve us both well. Six, the plans do not indicate where the air conditioning condensers will be located. We would like for them to not be close to our property, particularly our main outdoor living area, living room and children's bedrooms. Seven, landscaping is an important tool in good neighbor design. We don't think they've adequately addressed that yet in terms of side yard screening. Overall we're looking forward to meeting our new neighbors. I know it might not sound like it, but we are, but we ask Design Review Board to take into consideration our concerns. Thank you.
Jessica Gannon:
Thank you. Anybody else? Anders, you've been sitting back there a long time. You're not going to speak.
Anders:
I'm just chilling tonight.
Jessica Gannon:
All right.
Anders:
I'm here for moral support.
Jessica Gannon:
I love it.
Anders:
You designed the one that's under construction right there, right? Jessica Gannon:
Yes. He's representing Mr. Chamberlain. And then Mrs. Chung, did you have something you wanted to say earlier? No? Okay. Anyone else from the public like to speak on this project? All right, you have three minutes for rebuttal.
Adele Chang:
I'll address the last comments first. Regarding the staking, we realized that when Anders actually pointed that out to us, and I think I went to the site and I measured, so if story poles were up, they would be two feet to 30 inches above current grade because that's how far we have dug down, 512
This transcript was exported on Oct 22, 2025 -
July 11 2024 (Item 5.7) (Completed 10/22/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
especially on that side of the property. So anyway, it would be below the height of their railing, of their rear deck, of the Chamberlain's rear deck. In terms of the windows that face their property, we're very happy to turn those into frosted glass, obscure glass windows. One is or maybe move the bathroom window. We just didn't want to have a blank wall, then the building would feel not articulated. In fact, the building has a lot of ins and outs.
If the Whitakers are willing to allow us to grade down a driveway approach slightly, then we would be able to start to have variations in parapet heights. We would be able to start to do that and I'm so happy to hear that he's willing to talk because he wasn't willing to allow us to do anything on the easement originally, besides to put up a six-inch curb to keep the driveway clean from the planting areas, that was all we were allowed to do. So I'm glad he's willing to listen to that. That may allow us to push the building down a little bit more.
And in terms of AC, I already talked with Garrett about where we proposed to put them and in the next round we'll go ahead and locate them. In terms of house size, we are the largest property in the area and we are within what's allowable in the code. Garrett told me that he would do a verification of neighboring sizes, so that would help us decide what to do. Am I forgetting? View equity, yes, we do plan on shrinking the second floor and adding frosted glass windows wherever we think is going to impact anyone's privacy.
Jessica Gannon:
Thank you.
Adele Chang:
Oh, one more thing.
Jessica Gannon:
Yes.
Adele Chang:
A hedge was planted last year and I think it needs to be allowed to grow, that will also help.
Jessica Gannon:
Okay, can you identify that plant?
Adele Chang:
The hedge? I believe your slides.
Jessica Gannon:
Is it in the plans?
Adele Chang:
The photos this gentleman took also show the beginning of that hedge.
Jessica Gannon:
Okay. Oh yes, I recall.
513
This transcript was exported on Oct 22, 2025 -
July 11 2024 (Item 5.7) (Completed 10/22/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Adele Chang:
Yeah, it should be allowed to grow. Once it does, I think it will also help the privacy issue.
Jessica Gannon:
Great. So Board. Any questions for the applicant? No questions? All right, so that officially closes out the public communication. Comments Mr. Gibbs, would you like to lead off? Mr. Thomas Gibbs:
Sure. First of all, I appreciate your comments tonight because you're putting a house in between five homes that are all closely impacted by your project and this goes to early neighbor communications.
Doing a lot of this thing to accommodate them, and your willingness to do that is really important to Laguna Beach. I know you're new here, but it's really important to DRB, it's design review, it's really important to the neighbors and the fact that you're willing to do that gives me a lot of confidence that the next round is going to be supported by neighbors rather than opposed. And I think you understand the concerns and from what I've heard, but let me go through my thoughts on the concerns.
First staking's really important and it's important to lay out the staking so that it matches the footprint of the building, both the first floor, second floor for view impacts and also privacy concerns so they can match up the 3D modeling that you've done to the staking so they can see where the windows are going to be, where the decks are going to be. Second, the mass and scale. I would need to be convinced that the, well first of all, I think you're entitled to a second-story home. The square footage, I need to see more data. It's not really, I think it's beyond the scope of this one, but it could be very important in the next one. So, it'd be important to potentially work with Mr. Kawaratani about square footages and see, you don't have to agree with him, but just to get an idea of what the data that we will look at in the next round. Again, I don't have a problem with the second story for this project. It's certainly neighborhood compatible.
With respect to privacy. The fact that you're willing to reorient the building to go out toward the canyon and toward the... In fact I think you'll have a better ocean view that way and better canyon view that way is important. At the same time, keep in mind that anytime you put a second story in particularly where it's been a one story and you're looking into people's backyards, it's important to think in terms of orientation, to minimize, there's going to be some impacts neighbors, you're going to have some impacts with respect to privacy issues. But the extent you can minimize them in your design, which it sounds like you're willing to do, and I think it's in everybody's interest to lower this building. And so whoever owns that easement needs to be more, not needs to, if the neighbors collectively could get that person to be more cooperative, and it doesn't sound like he has been, it doesn't have to be, there's no legal requirement, but that would solve a lot of people's problems and concerns both up and down from your project.
So, it sounds to me like private... And particularly the fact that you're going to make windows opaque that look into people's property, that's important too. Also, window location. I think in working with the neighbors and when you are able to get your building reoriented, I think you can solve all of those with these neighbors. I think their neighbors sounded me to be pretty reasonable. Also, in connection with privacy, landscaping could be a useful tool and I think in the next round focus more on landscaping, let's see if we can get this project approved the next round.
Articulation is my last comment. I think it does look like a duplex in some aspects or multifamily. I think a little bit more articulation. I think you can have that with respect to when you do some shrinkage with the second story to make it and use of articulation within the elevations, particularly elevations facing 514
This transcript was exported on Oct 22, 2025 -
July 11 2024 (Item 5.7) (Completed 10/22/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
the neighbors in the front and the back. I think it used a little bit more, I think it's a pretty attractive modern building, but I think, you know the tools to make it a little bit more attractive because again, they're going to be looking at it. Those are my comments.
Jessica Gannon:
Great. Thank you Mr. Gibbs. Mrs. Coveny.
MJ Coveny:
May I go board?
Jessica Gannon:
You have the floor.
MJ Coveny:
Thank you Chair, thank you Chair. Thank you very much for being here. I had many ditto the notes here that Tom just gave. As far as the size of the building on this lot, I believe it's a 14,000 plus square foot lot. Now I know that must be the slope down and some of it's not completely buildable, but when you look at it overlaid with the old building, it doesn't feel like you're expanding that much over. But it would be great as we all work together here in order to alleviate some of the neighbor's concerns and still provide what's required for the homeowner, if you can scale that down a bit. The couple things I noticed on the plan specifically your renders here, let's see, the left elevation here, which I believe faces the 31538 West Street quite a bit. You have a bedroom off of an existing, excuse me, a deck off an existing bedroom. That deck is viewable. I got my East and Souths and Norths kind of confused on this sort of flag lot.
Adele Chang:
Yeah, because it's at an angle.
MJ Coveny:
Yeah, so basically I feel like, it is a suggestion you do what your next steps are, but it feels a little excessive from a privacy perspective if that could be a Juliet deck or if it could just become part of the program of the house, it's obviously would give you more square footage and would be enhancing that space and it would provide privacy to the neighbors. Also, the large wraparound deck, the majority of it wraps on the canyon side, which is awesome. The portion that if you're choosing to re-articulate seems like that would really relieve some of the privacy issues there for that wraparound deck that faces the...
Adele Chang:
More or less north.
MJ Coveny:
Right. Okay, thank you.
Adele Chang:
More or less.
515
This transcript was exported on Oct 22, 2025 -
July 11 2024 (Item 5.7) (Completed 10/22/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
MJ Coveny:
And then the one area, the side of that, that would look over at the West Street homes, if there was a way to trellis that or something to make it not so straight in to that, rather than have to reduce the deck in any way. It feels like if you can just keep your L but block that one side might be a good option there.
The other Juliet deck off the other bedroom doesn't seem... Because it gets in a position, especially when you allow some of these hedgings to grow. You have a corner window in one of the rooms. As long as that's not creating, again, the hedging I think might protect the other home from that being a privacy issue. But that was something I noticed as well. And overall mass and scale, if I'm hoping again to Tom's point that the neighbor will work for the neighborhood.
I mean something's going to be built here. This is part of the empty lot syndrome. Even though there's an old home there, it's basically been an empty lot forever. So, when you try to drop something in it, it's overwhelming to the neighborhood. All of a sudden it's just becomes this thing. And so, dropping it down a little bit would relieve the mass and scale. I think your articulation's okay, in my opinion. Fixing the windows to glare and put them, glaze them or I can't think of the term when you fog it so the bathroom doesn't see out, the light isn't quite as strong on that one side.
The overall materials on the house, I don't think we're really allowed to comment, but a suggestion that if you would like to consider is when you do something in a white as opposed to more of an earth tone.
If you use more textural materials, it doesn't feel so antiseptic and big. If you can look at considering new materials on that, I think Mr. Chamberlain's home might have some good colors that warm it into the environment organically because white, sort of like jeans, you prefer black ones because you look thinner, white ones, anything white just feels larger.
That I think is enough to get you going but, overall I think is a really good first step. I didn't really look at landscaping. I will tell you that that will be a big thing the next round. Height, maintenance, privacy, that's going to become a big deal and I'll look at that much more thoroughly next round as well as lighting. People love to light these white things up, watch that. You just need enough to let people get in the door and walk around, but it can't become Hollywood Hills, so you have to be really careful on how much lighting you add to that. And that's all my little suggestions, thank you.
Adele Chang:
So that tell me I need to bring the landscape architect here next time.
Jessica Gannon:
Thank you, Mrs. Coveny. Yeah. Okay, thank you. Mrs. Neev.
Debbie Neev:
Yes. Well, I think you guys hit on many of the same issues that I had and not only, well first of all I think your comment about rotating and moving closer to that canyon is going to make a big difference I think, because you're so impacting that side, the West Street side and looming really looming from Mr.
Kawaratani's presentation really looming over the one neighbor. So I think, because that wrap around deck, I do believe considering reducing your program overall is something that you should really consider and I think there are a lot of places that you can, because even though the livable areas, 4,000 square feet with your storage and your garage, you're over 5,000 square feet. So that's a lot of program.
And one trigger is you have 48% impervious surfaces, which is under 50% is the guideline, but you have a 14,000 square foot lot.
516
This transcript was exported on Oct 22, 2025 -
July 11 2024 (Item 5.7) (Completed 10/22/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
So, that's a lot of program on that lot. So, if you're considering rotating it, and I think that'll move a lot of that looming wrap around deck away and pulling that program in that, that will help a lot. And I think not only that, my colleague picked up on that, the deck that's between bathroom two and bathroom three, but there's also another balcony that's I think off of bedroom three. So even if you rotate, I think that those two balcony deck areas will still become a privacy issue. We've talked a little bit about the hedge. Normally on your side setback and your backs in your side and your rear, you're limited to six feet technically for fencing and things like that. So I think when you do your detailed landscape plan, be sure that you notate the heights of those hedges or trees and adding landscape can go a long way to help with the privacy issues.
I think that as you work that into your plans, that that can help a lot and go a long way toward some privacy concerns. So take a hard look at that. And then lighting was mentioned, frosting of the windows was mentioned. I think your plate heights are not excessive. They're nine feet plate height. So I think if you can work with your neighbor, even though you have 1,800 cubic yards of export already, I think that because there's view issues and view equity issues, I think that if you can work with them and maybe pull it again closer to the canyon and away, take a look. Please go into the Leemon's house, they have just some peekaboo views and I think so it's very, very critical as far as, I appreciate the flat roof because it could be worse, but I think that if you can lower it more and maybe look at some of the articulation, that would help a lot. So I think that's it.
Jessica Gannon:
Okay. Thank you Mrs. Neev. Mr. Weil.
Louis Weil:
Lots of comments and I want to take a moment and appreciate our conversation that this is a starting point for you guys and you wanted to come get feedback from the community and from the Board. So, I think that's the right approach for where we're at today and I appreciate the willingness to take this further and really reach out to the neighbors as I think you have over the last couple of weeks. It might've been a little eye-opening, but I think there's a lot of positives that can come from this and really yield a really positive project for this.
With that said, where we're starting with. The access component, I really think you need to look at lowering that driveway approach.
Adele Chang:
Yeah, it's a steep uphill drive.
Louis Weil:
It's a steep uphill, make it a nice little entry, make it softer. It'll also help lower the pad and I think that'll solve a handful of issues. And if you can accomplish that, I know it can create some nuisance during construction that it's more grading and a few more trucks, but keep in mind that it's just a period of time that that happens and occurs. It's not the permanent structure that stays there forever. And so it is a balance for me that if we get the right fit, the grading's appropriate. From a design articulation, it's a little boxy.
I don't have a preference of architectural style, modern, cottage, whatever, but I do want to see, if we're going to go modern, it needs to be a good fit and it needs to be softer, it's got to have some shapes and it's got to have some careful angles to support those views and the balance of privacy in that. I think this 517
This transcript was exported on Oct 22, 2025 -
July 11 2024 (Item 5.7) (Completed 10/22/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
one was more designed economically, box on box, and I think it'd be a lot clever, more creatively done, and I know your firm can do that. But use materials to help soften it and bring that modern element to life. Landscape they were touching on, definitely got to get the mins and maxes incorporated in there because there's quite a few view lines through these neighboring properties.
Windows, I can't even talk on these ones because I think re-articulating it, repositioning, it's better. I think going closer to the hillside and just leveraging the lot you have room. In that same regard, the tandem parking, I can't support that on this lot. You just have enough space, it's not a constraint. I think if you need the third car spot, you just need to creatively do it so it doesn't add mass in scale, but because it's off the street, I think there's room to play with it or it really has to come down below the 3,600 square feet.
Two stories. I know that was commented, two story structure can go on the site. I want to make that known, it can fit, we just need to get the other elements to play. I think the square footage and those kind of things, it can be balanced and achieved in a different way and I'm encouraged to see that. Lots of comments, I'm not going to go any deeper because most of them were covered, but I just wanted to clarify that grading component is a really good tool to solve some of this.
Does that make sense?
Adele Chang:
It does.
Louis Weil:
Okay.
Adele Chang:
I understand everything you're saying.
Louis Weil:
Good.
Jessica Gannon:
You got a lot thrown at you. The only comment I have is when you do the staking, when you come back and do the staking, can you please, I think at the Chamberlains there's a... The lower floor pops out very closely to their house.
Adele Chang:
Yeah.
Jessica Gannon:
Can you stake that lower piece so we can see the impact of that? Adele Chang:
Yeah. I already started getting a proposal from the staking company to come back out. What you'll see is little stakes two feet up from the ground, because we are grading the most at the back. 518
This transcript was exported on Oct 22, 2025 -
July 11 2024 (Item 5.7) (Completed 10/22/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Jessica Gannon:
Right. I just mostly want to see the proximity that it is to the Chamberlains so we might have you reduce that. I would take a look at maybe even so you don't have to come back for a third hearing, maybe take a look at reducing that portion that sticks out close to the Chamberlains because that's their outdoor living space.
Adele Chang:
Right.
Jessica Gannon:
Yeah. And then the other comment that I have, the deck that's between bathrooms two and bathroom three, just get rid of it entirely.
Adele Chang:
Sure.
Jessica Gannon:
The Juliet balcony off of bedroom three, I'm okay with it, especially if you rotate the property and then, instead of repeating other board members, I think that's it. You've got a lot. Do you have any clarification questions for us?
Adele Chang:
No, I think I understand it will be a redesign. I'll come back with something new. It'll be different, especially on the second floor.
Jessica Gannon:
And I recommend breaking up the massing with different materials.
Adele Chang:
Yeah, we started to do that by introducing a siding material to various parts of the building but without having the entire thing be siding. And then we do have, we are proposing a stone near the entrance, where you step down to the entry court after you go by the garage. We are introducing that but maybe some color blocking will help too and softer colors instead of white.
Louis Weil:
You're the designer, we're going to let you come back with your creativity.
Mr. Thomas Gibbs:
I think the... I'm sorry, go ahead.
Louis Weil:
Sorry. I think we're all in favor of a continuance. So, if there's no other further comments, maybe we suggest some dates for you of how far out you want to be for coming back. 519
This transcript was exported on Oct 22, 2025 -
July 11 2024 (Item 5.7) (Completed 10/22/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Adele Chang:
Well some of it is contingent on being able to get a hold of Mr. Whitaker. Do we have to have... But can I discuss with staff? I need to contact Mr. Whitaker about lowering the...
MJ Coveny:
Would Steve Kawaratani be the best connection for that Steve? Adele Chang:
Well, I've been talking to him, so I have his email and phone number I believe.
Louis Weil:
For the easement?
Adele Chang:
Yeah, yeah.
Louis Weil:
I think you'll be in much better communication. Exchange numbers with Steve afterwards and you'll get the right contact.
Adele Chang:
Okay.
Jessica Gannon:
Board member Gibbs [inaudible 00:38:48].
Mr. Thomas Gibbs:
I think the neighbors collectively may help you there. I just had one follow-on comment, materials are one thing, but one of my comment and Board member Weil was, it's a boxy look and I think reducing the second floor and adding some articulation in addition to materials to bring to life the mid-century modern style that you have is really important I think for this project, given its location.
Adele Chang:
Okay, I get it.
Jessica Gannon:
Mrs. Chang, Jung.
Louis Weil:
Shouldn't be more than two months, to come back?
Adele Chang:
It shouldn't be more than two months.
520
This transcript was exported on Oct 22, 2025 -
July 11 2024 (Item 5.7) (Completed 10/22/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Mr. Thomas Gibbs:
Okay, so maybe we propose a date in September?
Wendy Jung:
Yeah, we just need to make sure we factor in time for the resubmittal and then staff time to review the revised design and prepare a staff report. There are two meetings in September.
Mr. Thomas Gibbs:
I think giving more time than two months would be helpful. I think there's some work to be done, not only with the easement but working with the neighbors. And Kawaratani is a good person, he will work with you toward coming up with solutions, and I think with the other neighbors, they're all reasonable.
So, I'd give them the time to go through that process, maybe three or four months.
Jessica Gannon:
And I like to note that I'm going to be absent for the second meeting.
Louis Weil:
Doesn't matter.
Wendy Jung:
So are you thinking of September or October would be preferred? Adele Chang:
I'm sure our client would prefer it to be sooner rather than later. We can work quickly, but there are elements beyond my control.
Wendy Jung:
So, an option is that to avoid re-noticing of a project, you could continue to a project or continue to a date in September, either the first meeting or the second meeting, and then if that time they require additional information, they could request a continuance.
Mr. Thomas Gibbs:
So, the second meeting's on when?
Wendy Jung:
The second, sorry, September 12th or September 26th.
Mr. Thomas Gibbs:
So the 26th and then the application would need to be in by August 26th? Wendy Jung:
Well, we would prefer probably at least five weeks in advance so that we could... 521
This transcript was exported on Oct 22, 2025 -
July 11 2024 (Item 5.7) (Completed 10/22/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Mr. Thomas Gibbs:
So what's that date?
MJ Coveny:
In October, is there two meetings in October? Perhaps the first week of October would be? Wendy Jung:
October 10th and October 24th.
MJ Coveny:
Yeah, I would think that would give you time to work with the neighbors, get through the city and get back here.
Jessica Gannon:
Well why don't we let the applicant decide. Yeah. So you want the second meeting? Adele Chang:
September?
Jessica Gannon:
Yeah, in September. Oh, staff, you can't be ready by then for the second meeting in September? Wendy Jung:
Oh, we could, I just wanted to make sure that we provide the applicant team with enough time to submit so that our staff can prepare it for the upcoming.
Adele Chang:
So you need five weeks in advance, five weeks.
Wendy Jung:
September, one, two, three.
Adele Chang:
In advance of the hearing.
Wendy Jung:
August 29th? Is that what you said?
Speaker 15:
Did you say five weeks [inaudible 00:41:55] 22nd.
Wendy Jung:
Oh, 22nd. Sorry. Oh, August 22nd, submit by.
522
This transcript was exported on Oct 22, 2025 -
July 11 2024 (Item 5.7) (Completed 10/22/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Adele Chang:
August 22nd. Okay.
Mr. Louis Weil:
If you're not in by then you can request a continuance.
Adele Chang:
Right.
Mr. Louis Weil:
So what's the meeting...
Adele Chang:
Do I have? Okay. I'll talk to staff about how to request and so forth, okay.
Jessica Gannon:
The 26th? September 26th?
Adele Chang:
That's the target, yes.
Louis Weil:
Chair on item 5.7 at 31526 Valido Road, the Board would approve a continuance to September 26.
Jessica Gannon:
Second.
Wendy Jung:
Board member Coveny?
MJ Coveny:
Yes.
Wendy Jung:
Board member Gibbs?
Mr. Thomas Gibbs:
Yes.
Wendy Jung:
Board member Weil?
Louis Weil:
523
This transcript was exported on Oct 22, 2025 -
July 11 2024 (Item 5.7) (Completed 10/22/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Yes.
Wendy Jung:
Chair Pro Tem Neev?
Debbie Neev:
Yes.
Wendy Jung:
And chair Gannon?
Jessica Gannon:
Yes.
Wendy Jung:
Thank you.
Jessica Gannon:
Thank you.
Wendy Jung:
Motion passes, five zero with a continuance to September 26. Design Review Board [inaudible 00:42:59], thank you.
MJ Coveny:
And Garrett, can I interrupt... Just, I'm sorry, Chair, can I ask Garret a quick question? I need a phone number, I don't think we had the right phone number. I just want to make sure we have the right contact info.
Jessica Gannon:
What's your phone number Love?
Adele Chang:
Can I provide my card?
Jessica Gannon:
Yes. Okay. Jessica, get us out of this.
Wendy Jung:
Can we adjourn? [inaudible 00:43:26]. No?
Jessica Gannon:
Okay. That's an adjournment.
524
This transcript was exported on Oct 22, 2025 -
July 11 2024 (Item 5.7) (Completed 10/22/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
MJ Coveny:
I second.
Jessica Gannon:
[inaudible 00:43:30] Until.
Mr. Thomas Gibbs:
What's that?
Jessica Gannon:
Joe, we're...
525