DRB 3-26-26_Item 5 (Completed 04/07/26)
Transcript by Rev.com
March 26, 2026, DRB Meeting, Item 5.11 (31565 Eagle Rock Way) Chair Gibbs:
All right. The last item on the agenda is 5.11, which is 31565 Eagle Rock Drive Design Review 2025-0407, Coastal Development Permit 2025-0408. Let's do our ex parte.
Jessica Gannon:
Chair, I had a site visit with Steve Kawaratani. I met with a neighbor, Kenneth Snyder.
MJ Coveny:
I did the same on site.
Imer Bauta:
I did a site visit, met with Ken Snyder, the neighbor, and I spoke with Steve Kawaratani.
Louis Weil:
Same. And I met with both of the neighbors.
Chair Gibbs:
And I did a site inspection and I met with Ken Snyder and I spoke with Stan Andrade by telephone. So with that, Heather, you're up.
Heather Steven:
Thank you. Good evening, Chair Gibbs and board members. Item 5.11 is a request for design review and coastal development permit at 31565 Eagle Rock Way in the Village Community Zone. Next slide. The 35-foot by 181 foot project site contains an existing 330 square foot storage building, walkways, landscaping, and fencing, which will be demolished. The surrounding neighborhood is developed with one and two story residences. Next slide.
The applicant is requesting design review for a new two-story single family dwelling with an attached garage, elevated deck, grading, pool, spa, landscape, hardscape, new vehicular access and public street improvements. The rear portion of the structure will have a flat roof that will extend over a detached ADU. The roofed area between the house and ADU will create a covered patio. A coastal development permit is required for the ADU. However, the ADU is not subject to design review. This project was previously heard on October 23rd, 2025 and continued to tonight's hearing to provide the applicant time to address the concerns that were raised by surrounding property owners. Next slide.
Access to the property will be provided from Eagle Rock Way to a two-car garage and a four-foot high gate is proposed across the driveway at the front. Next slide. The issues raised by the neighboring property owners included air and light, privacy, and view equity. The board directed that the applicant reduce the upper level program at the rear and to minimize the glazing on the north and south sides of the upper level to provide increased view and open space and privacy to the immediate neighbors. The revised north and south elevations are shown on this slide. It's a bit pale, but ... Back to that slide.
So the orange hatched area illustrates the original project design, which was revised prior to the first design review board hearing based on input from the neighbors. The green hatched area illustrates the extent of the project as it was proposed in October, and the current proposal is the unhatched area.
Attachment 8
125
DRB 3-26-26_Item 5 (Completed 04/07/26)
Transcript by Rev.com
Next slide. And again, this one's a bit pale. As in the previous slide, the area in orange crosshatch shows the extent of the original design of the upper living area. The previous floor plan from October meeting is shown at the bottom of the slide. And on the current revised upper level plan at the top of the slide, the area in green crosshatch indicates the living area that was removed from the upper level, which is approximately 262 square feet by removing a bedroom and a bathroom. The western wall has been moved 11 feet six inches to the east and the 220 square foot elevated deck with glass railings will be accessed from the main bedroom. This deck has been reduced by about 245 square feet and the railing has been relocated approximately 21 feet to the east. Next slide. Next slide.
Okay. Missing a slide. Okay. Let's see. Go back one slide please. Okay. The current roof plan is shown at the top of the slide and the green crosshatched area indicates a 135 square feet of slope roof that ...
Oops, not the right slide. Sorry. Can we go to the roof slide? There we go. On the top plan shows a green hatched area, which is 135 square feet of sloped roof that has been changed to a flat roof. Okay. Next slide. Oh, backwards. Sorry. Previous. There we go. Okay. So the lower level plan has not been modified since the previous meeting. A condition of approval has been added to the resolution to reduce the overall floor area by approximately 33 square feet to conform to the floor area ratio requirement of the zone. This includes the square footage of the ADU. Next slide. Next slide.
Okay. So again, to summarize, based on the direction from the board to address privacy and view equity, the applicant has reduced glazing on the south elevation from eight windows to three. On the north elevation, reduced from five windows down to three. And the upper level living area was reduced by 262 square feet. And the wall was moved 11 feet, six inches to the east. The deck was reduced by 245 square feet by relocating the guardrail approximately 21 feet. And again, 135 square feet of pitched roof was made into a flat roof. Next slide. The project was still maintaining the contemporary design, incorporating light stucco, wood siding, vertical siding elements, dark gray standing seam roof, and other decorative metal louvre accents. Next slide.
So in conclusion, this project meets ... The program was modified to address the board's direction and the project complies with the design review guidelines, the Laguna Beach development standards and is compatible with the neighborhood and meets view equity requirements. Next slide.
So staff recommends that the board adopt resolution 25-0407, approving design review 25-0407 and Coastal Development Permit 25-0408 and finding the project categorically exempt pursuant to section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines. This concludes our presentation and we're available if you have any questions.
Chair Gibbs:
Thank you. Does any of the board have questions of the staff? Seeing none, I open the public hearing.
Stan, you have five minutes.
Stan Andrade:
Thank you. Good evening. I'm Stan Andrade. I'm here with Steve Kawaratani. We're working together to see if we can get approval tonight. I think Heather did a great job at outlining everything. It's pretty straightforward. You saw all the elements. I just wanted to emphasize that we took your comments very seriously and I took great note to them and I feel that we've done a great job at getting a response to those comments that it's palatable, I think, for all of us. We really truly believe that we heard what you said, we reacted to it, we've adjusted the plan, and we feel that it's an approvable project. So I'm just going to keep it at that. We'll answer questions when you have them and do some response to the other comments, and that's it. Thank you.
126
DRB 3-26-26_Item 5 (Completed 04/07/26)
Transcript by Rev.com
Chair Gibbs:
Thank you much. Okay. How many people plan to speak from the audience? Could you move up and begin speaking? You'll each have three minutes. Start with your name, if you could.
Ken Snyder:
I guess I'll go first. My name's Ken Snyder. Yes, we had the meeting last time. It got revised. There's some conversation there. I don't believe there was direction from the board of what to do. The conversation I think was to get all the parties together, have a compromise, have a discussion.
Unfortunately, for whatever reasons, architect and myself and the other people have never met, and this was a perspective that they got from the last meeting. But you guys have all been out there. Thank you.
But for the public record, I acknowledge that a house will be built, but a no vote today, I think we need it. And even if we have to kick the can down the road, because all options and issues have not been exhausted. Residents did not have a chance to put input with the architect at this time. Views and privacy concerns exist.
The giant plan that was put out there first, my thing was like the Empire State Building was there first and they dropped it down to a 10-story building. Still does not comply with view equity or privacy.
Reasoning, a no vote could get a reset and we could talk about all the water blockage, blue water that I have from my house. Three of the four ceremonial rooms have complete blockage. One of them is about 50%. I acknowledge that there's trees, but trees come and go, but the building does not.
Privacy is a bigger concern to the neighbors. I do have solutions. On the top green lines that you guys all saw, that blocks the whole ocean. If that was dropped down, so the level was with the lower green new flags. I block all the buildings out, all the greenery down below, but the ocean remains. That's one solution. Another solution is someone brought up, we talked about it, moving the whole second story, which blocks everybody's view and privacy to the back of the lot. Maybe even getting a ... I don't know if it's a variance or what do you call it with the exception, instead of 20 feet start five feet for setbacks and build it that way and then a whole front will be low. It'll cover the view equity and it'll cover the privacy.
I think you can get two birds with one stone on that.
There are pools in the front, but it won't be on the street. There'd be a two car garage blocking it. They can move all that stuff and just flip it. That would solve a lot of problems. So there are solutions. There's conversation to be had. Privacy is a big issue with everybody else. My view is three quarters block still, no fixes on that. And I think we got a chance for the DRB to do what they're supposed to do is come up with a compromise, which didn't happen this time. So I don't think we're going to get a straight no on the whole project, but I think we could get a no for tonight and kick it down the road until we can have one-on-one conversations and come up with solutions like we were supposed to the first time. Thank you.
Chair Gibbs:
Thank you much. Next speaker.
Melinda Wren:
Hi. I'm directly next door to the lot. You know that. Okay. So I'm here tonight because the first time we met about this project, it wasn't approved. You suggested Stan the architect work on the design, make it more open, different elevations, and more light, not a solid wall right up against the fence. I'm going to show you this first photo. This was from last time because that is still the view from my house. Fence, 127
DRB 3-26-26_Item 5 (Completed 04/07/26)
Transcript by Rev.com
wall. Because the entire length of my house has a building 25 feet high next to the fence, I cannot see the sky from any of the windows in my house. I'm still concerned because I've heard that my house is going to mold because of lack of sunlight. And then I just listened to another resident here whose house had fungus and it just scares me. That concerns me a lot and I have to go outside my house to see the sky.
Jack, would you mind please? So after you go outside the back door onto the patio, you can see where the flags that are lowered are green now. So that does benefit without not just being a solid wall, but it still doesn't do anything for my privacy, for my ... I mean, that's my house and I can't even see anything.
So I just hope that we can all talk about it more and get something more compliant for everybody.
Chair Gibbs:
Thank you very much. Next speaker.
Anne Klokow:
Okay. Three minutes. You know, Tom, that's not going to happen. So my biggest thing is, and it's a civil matter supposedly, because I went in to look at the plans that were made and I'll say the same thing as everybody else did. You said talk to all of them and work it out. There was no conversations, no attempts to talk to us. I tried to email and when I found out the meeting, I didn't know you don't get noticed after the first one.
Anyway, so my concerns are, it definitely is an improvement that there's not nine windows. And it also looks like maybe they're moved to the right, but I can't tell from the plans, which now are posted because Stan said they were private, so that's why I can't see them. Privacy reasons. I don't know what you were saying.
Heather Steven:
Due to copyright, we couldn't email them to you without the architect's permission, but you were able to come in and view them.
Anne Klokow:
Well, I did at the counter and it was hard. But anyway, so if there's three windows, but there's really four. You said there's only three on my side, the south side. There's three [inaudible 00:14:24]- Jessica Gannon:
You have to speak to the Chair.
Chair Gibbs:
Anne, you do need to address the board. If you have questions, you can ask us and we might direct them later.
Anne Klokow:
I'm sorry.
Chair Gibbs:
So go ahead.
128
DRB 3-26-26_Item 5 (Completed 04/07/26)
Transcript by Rev.com
Anne Klokow:
Sure. My three minutes. I need to talk about the property line and the windows. The color attachment four that's on the agenda, that shows nine windows. And so the plans that were shown that shows three over to closer to Eagle Rock and then one looking like it looks right into my house.
Imer Bauta:
The revised plans will apply, right? Yeah. So you can disregard the color elevations for the purposes of windows, the revised plans and attachment too will apply.
Anne Klokow:
Okay. Okay. I just want to make sure.
Chair Gibbs:
Giving Anne one more minute. We'll get [inaudible]-
Anne Klokow:
Okay. So the survey where the five-foot step back was done, it's a topographic. It's not a boundary survey. So I called Peter Geisler, Laguna Surveying, because it's a civil matter that you guys don't care about. So what I don't understand though is if the five ... The claim is a foot of my property [inaudible].
It's not a survey. He's setting the five feet with no proper survey that shows the true property lines. I asked how much a survey would cost to do my property, and he said 22 grand because the monuments are so far out.
So all I'm saying is, I just want to know what the property line is. I have a 10,000 square foot property. I pay my property taxes on that. And if somebody comes along with a non-binding topical ... Nobody's actually measured the true property line. Who's right?
Jessica Gannon:
That happened to youChair Gibbs:
You have 30 seconds more.
Anne Klokow:
So do I have to hire a lawyer and sue somebody or what? Chair Gibbs:
We don't answer questions. Anne, we don't answer questions. Just your time to give us evidence.
Anne Klokow:
Okay. Well, and then that's all there really is. I was pretty okay. And then there's a deck that's right in my kitchen. The upper deck is like five feet from my kitchen, which feels ...
Chair Gibbs:
All right. Thank you, Anne. All right. Any other speakers? 129
DRB 3-26-26_Item 5 (Completed 04/07/26)
Transcript by Rev.com
Amy Burke:
Hi, my name is Amy Burke. I live at 31559 Eagle Rock Way. Before the project, I was contacted by Stan.
He told me that they're going to be building on the lot. He came out and we had conversations. I showed him my view. And when the flags first went up, I was a bit ... It was disconcerting because they were completely blocking my view. I called him, he picked the phone right up, was very friendly. We discussed it and he moved everything back. And as of the last design hearing, I wasn't able to attend, but I watched it. And since then, he has moved it to the degree that it does not block my view anymore. So I personally have no issues with it.
Having said that, the suggestion to then lower it for everybody else to be able to see and then put it up in the back of the property would completely block my view. So I do have an issue with that. I also do not agree with the fact that trees come and go because when a tree is taken down and a pool is put there, the trees go and they don't come back. So I do feel that there's going to be a big view opening up, which I had 12 years ago before that block grew up. I didn't know about view preservation back then, unfortunately, but now I have all those trees blocking, and once I didn't, and I will be quite happy when those are gone. So I just wanted you to know that he did listen to my concerns. I can't speak for the others, but as far as I'm concerned, I'm happy with the project and I thought he was very professional.
Chair Gibbs:
Thank you very much. All right. Any other ... Oh, Ann Christophe, you're up.
Ann Christophe:
Ann Christophe, I'm looking at the staff report and the evaluation of the design review criteria, and I think the comments here tonight bear witness to the issue of neighborhood compatibility. Eagle Rock, especially that lower part of Eagle Rock has a certain character and many of the houses are one story and this particular lot has one-story houses on both sides and the houses are not severe contemporary.
If you look at that slide that he had with this really angular, exaggerated perspective, that is not the look of Eagle Rock Way in any part of it.
And I think this would be solved with a one-story solution, and I don't think that's unreasonable. This is a long lot. This is 180 feet long. It doesn't have to be a two-story, and that would address all these neighbors' concerns. It also would address how this street appears to the general public. And that's one of the reasons the Civic Association wrote the letter to you.
As viewed from the street, this will be incompatible for sure. It does not look ... There's this beautiful little cottage across the street, the brown one with the green trim, and there's another house across the street that's also one story, and the next one is like a story and a half. And they're little houses that have a lot of village character, and this solution has none of that. And so I believe this should be rejected and come back with a village looking house. It doesn't have to be exactly a cottage, but it needs to not look like it belongs somewhere else.
I object to the fence on the driveway. I think where is that gate going to open to? There's no place for it to slide over if you look at how it is, and it'll be a barrier. Perhaps no one is really even parking there.
And it's standoffish. Regarding the trees, the trees on Eagle Rock are very, very special. They were planted during the Depression with the Work Progress Agency and the South Laguna Civic Association's volunteers. And it's one of the few streets that is a consistent street pattern with the eucalyptus ficifolia, the red flowering gum. And so the tree should be those trees along the street.
Chair Gibbs:
130
DRB 3-26-26_Item 5 (Completed 04/07/26)
Transcript by Rev.com
Thank you, Anne. Your time's up.
Ann Christophe:
I know they agreed to it. Staff is saying it has to have a height limit. The trees do not have to have a height limit. They will naturally grow to the same height as the other trees on the street.
Chair Gibbs:
Anne, your time's up. Thank you very much.
Ann Christophe:
Thank you.
Chair Gibbs:
All right. Any other speakers? Seeing none, return to the applicant. You have three minutes.
Louis Weil:
They can collect their boards. If you guys would come up and collect your boards, we don't need to have those up.
Stan Andrade:
Well ...
Chair Gibbs:
Hold on a second. Why don't you wait till they collect the boards? Louis Weil:
Just for the reference, digital photos are fine to submit via email.
Ken Snyder:
I know, but you guys have 11 meetings today.
Chair Gibbs:
It's okay. I don't mind the blowups. I use them in my trials. So any event, three minutes.
Stan Andrade:
Okay. I really just want to say thatChair Gibbs:
I'm dating myself.
Stan Andrade:
... I have, for the record, always believed in this process and there are particulars about the process that sometimes don't make sense from this side of the table, but generally I understand the process, I've 131
DRB 3-26-26_Item 5 (Completed 04/07/26)
Transcript by Rev.com
been doing it quite a long time and I do believe that we followed the process through here. And I respect all your opinions. I really just want to hear what you think. You all went and saw it. You have your own perspective. I trust what you guys believe.
So if you believe that this project is acceptable tonight, great. If you don't, then I'm going to accept that and you're going to tell me what you think would be acceptable and I'm going to work towards that.
That's what I do. So I just want to hear what you think. And I could go through every item that was said here. I could try to debate it back. I don't think that's necessary. I think the process speaks for itself. So please tell me what you think so I know where to go with this.
Chair Gibbs:
All right. Thank you very much. With that, any questions? Louis Weil:
Let me just ask to you. Oh, sorry. It's your last night.
MJ Coveny:
No, I had a question, but you ...
Chair Gibbs:
We're going to questions.
Louis Weil:
My questions, I have two questions.
MJ Coveny:
Oh, you go first.
Louis Weil:
One, you've agreed to swap the front treesMJ Coveny:
You go first. I'll go after you.
Louis Weil:
I'm already going.
MJ Coveny:
No, I know that. I was just making sure everybody else understood that.
Chair Gibbs:
Louis, go ahead. He wants to ask the question first.
MJ Coveny:
132
DRB 3-26-26_Item 5 (Completed 04/07/26)
Transcript by Rev.com
That's all right. The girl will go second.
Louis Weil:
The trees in the front, you guys, the neighbor said you agreed to a swap of switching them to the eucalyptus red gum. Is that accurate?
Stan Andrade:
Yeah. Landscaping is super flexible.
Louis Weil:
The landscape swap of those front two trees to be eucalyptus? Stan Andrade:
100%. Yeah. Not a problem.
Louis Weil:
Okay. And then the other question was kind of the topographic survey versus the boundary survey.
Would you be amenable to conditioning the boundary survey being provided prior to a building permit being approved?
Stan Andrade:
I believe that will ... if I'm notLouis Weil:
I mean, it's ground up construction.
Stan Andrade:
Yeah. We already have a quote to do it. It's automatically going to happen. And what I tried to explain was, don't spend any money. That's the onus on our property.
Louis Weil:
It is.
Stan Andrade:
We're going to pay for that boundary survey and that'll dictate it.
Louis Weil:
I think with the known discrepancies of the old fence and those things, I think it'sStan Andrade:
The record survey will handle all that.
Louis Weil:
133
DRB 3-26-26_Item 5 (Completed 04/07/26)
Transcript by Rev.com
The right to do that. So if we're agreeable on those two things, those answer my two questions.
Chair Gibbs:
Okay. MJ.
MJ Coveny:
I had a question about the gate on the driveway that Ann mentioned. Tell me what's ...
Stan Andrade:
I mean, we have it swinging in basically away from the street.
MJ Coveny:
In? Away from the street.
Stan Andrade:
Into the property. Yeah.
MJ Coveny:
Okay. So it's a double swing.
Stan Andrade:
We've done that before and it's actually, it's worked really well. I haven't had any issue with it.
MJ Coveny:
Okay. And then the lower green flag, what was the height on that lower green flag? Stan Andrade:
That's the rail height. It's 42 inches above floor level. So that lower green flag represents the railing.
MJ Coveny:
From ground up to ... Because that's what you're saying.
Stan Andrade:
I can tell you that's nine, 10.
MJ Coveny:
But that would beStan Andrade:
Three and a half ... It's 13 and a half feet.
MJ Coveny:
You have to move that green flag to meet the green flag to which Stan [inaudible 00:25:29]- 134
DRB 3-26-26_Item 5 (Completed 04/07/26)
Transcript by Rev.com
Stan Andrade:
You'd have to dig a hole six foot deep to lower the whole thing or don't have a second story.
MJ Coveny:
Okay. And I think we discussed the back of the property. And then the other question, the whole onestory concept of leaving things at one story, that's not even ...
Chair Gibbs:
That's deliberation.
Louis Weil:
Yeah. Save that for comments.
Chair Gibbs:
Yeah, save it for comments.
MJ Coveny:
Okay. I'm just curious to know if that's like the ...
Chair Gibbs:
Yeah. Okay. I'm seeing no other questions.
Jessica Gannon:
Leave with comments. Ms. StevenChair Gibbs:
I got to close the public hearing. That's what I do. I close the public hearing just.
Jessica Gannon:
Heather, do you have the photos that I submitted?
Heather Steven:
Yes.
Jessica Gannon:
I submitted them on the last hour, so ...
Heather Steven:
Yeah, we put them into a PowerPoint, so we can show them.
Jessica Gannon:
Oh, perfect. Nice. Because I'm going to focus on the view equity because that seems to be the most contentious. So in this photo ... Oh, so this is where the neighbor Kenneth was so135 DRB 3-26-26_Item 5 (Completed 04/07/26)
Transcript by Rev.com
Chair Gibbs:
Ken Snyder.
Jessica Gannon:
Ken Snyder. Well, he went by Kenneth. I showed up unannounced and he welcomed me in. So this is, I believe it's the start of the hallway or something. Yeah, so overlooks the stairwell. This is where I believe he said that his wife likes to watch the whales go by. And then the next one is the zoomed in photo. So if you go to the next ... Oh no, that's the view from the balcony. I sent them out of order. So that's the view over the stairwell when you're sitting at his kitchen island where they like to sit for breakfast and look out. So the view equity, in my opinion, I don't see any view equity there. Next photo, please.
Yeah, so that's the stairwell that I was mentioning. So just on the other side of that, I was sitting at the island or standing at the island looking out, and then the previous photo was the zoomed in one. So next photo, please. This is standing in the living room. You can see that view equity has been achieved. View consideration. This is the main primary living space. Next photo, please. And this is a zoomed in from the main living space. Next photo, please.
There's one from the bedroom balcony. From the bedroom, you can't see ... All you see is trees when you're going to see a house, but if you stand on the balcony, you can see the ocean view, but it cuts across the middle of the property. Oh, maybe it didn't go through. Oh, anyway. So what I observed is from the bedroom, there's no view. It just faces towards the front of the house. There's currently trees there that will now be a house. So it's the front of the house. And then when I stood on the balcony, the view was across the property towards the right. And there is a view impact from that, but again, it's from the balcony and they maintain the horizon view, but it does take a significant ocean view. But for the main living space, including where they sit and eat, I believe view equity has been achieved.
So the next portion of ... What was ... View consideration. Privacy, the house next door, it's a single story home. Your back patio area, people look into back patios all the time, decks, porches. I don't see a privacy concern that's not already there. Obviously, there's going to be a two-story house with a balcony that's going to be able to look into your backyard, but I think the windows are well articulated enough that you won't be able to really get eye to eye contact. Plus there's going to be a privacy fence to protect the privacy between the two neighbors, the single story home. And as far as the privacy from Ken's house, I did see a privacy concern the first go around, but this second rendition, I think that the applicant corrected that and mitigated that privacy.
As far as neighborhood compatibility goes, this is a subjective finding of the design review criteria, but objectively you can say there are other two-story properties on this street, including two doors up and continuing on. There's multiple two-story properties. Objectively, I can make the findings for neighborhood compatibility. Objectively, I can make the findings for view consideration and privacy. And I think, Heather, you did a fabulous job with the staff report and I support all the other findings that you stated and I can approve this project.
Chair Gibbs:
All right. MJ, you want to go next?
MJ Coveny:
Oh, sure. I guess, I'm sort of in another head space. But I think that this is approvable, so that will help you kind of listen. But I do have one request. For the privacy component, the terrace, is there something to put so that people can't sit and lean on the terrace? Is there flower boxes you could put in at the 136
DRB 3-26-26_Item 5 (Completed 04/07/26)
Transcript by Rev.com
edges just so that people can't just stand and hang out and look over at the neighbors? Because I think the window situation has been handled because you took down those windows. But is there something that can keep it from feeling so open to the neighbors? Stan Andrade:
Some sort of buffer.
MJ Coveny:
Yeah. It doesn't have to be a high hedge. It's just keeping people from being able to lean and hang out and look down at the neighbor's yard.
Stan Andrade:
Yeah. Fortunately, this is a master, so it's not like a living room balcony, so that helps. But yeah, certainly there is. I'm not sure exactly how we would achieve that because ultimately, would the planter be raised or be dropped?
MJ Coveny:
On the decking upstairs.
Stan Andrade:
On the decks area.
MJ Coveny:
Yeah.
Stan Andrade:
Yeah. I'm not sure how to ...
MJ Coveny:
I mean, do you feel like that looking down from that deck that you're not looking down in their neighbors?
Stan Andrade:
No, you clearly are. But I don't know how to ... Even if you're two feet back, I'm not sure that it changes anything.
MJ Coveny:
Oh, it does, because it keeps you from literally hanging out.
Stan Andrade:
Yeah.
MJ Coveny:
Yeah.
137
DRB 3-26-26_Item 5 (Completed 04/07/26)
Transcript by Rev.com
Stan Andrade:
No, I see what you're getting at. I don't mind the idea.
MJ Coveny:
It just keeps it as a buffer.
Stan Andrade:
I'm not sure.
MJ Coveny:
As opposed to putting a trellis up or something that would block your view. Uh-oh, what's happening? What did I do?
Steve Kawaratani:
Just do a raised planter, 18-inches high.
Stan Andrade:
Yeah.
Steve Kawaratani:
MJ, what we could do is run a 18-inch-high planter that, let's say, is 18 inches deep, 18 inches high, deep, and run it the length.
MJ Coveny:
Run it the length. Put some succulents in there and you'll look great and it'll give you ... It'd be fine. It'll keep you from actually beingSteve Kawaratani:
But whatever's in there won't be taller than 42 inches total. No higher than the rail, but that will keep people from getting right to the edge.
MJ Coveny:
That's pretty much ...
Steve Kawaratani:
[inaudible].
Jessica Gannon:
That's a fantastic compromise.
MJ Coveny:
That's fine.
138
DRB 3-26-26_Item 5 (Completed 04/07/26)
Transcript by Rev.com
Stan Andrade:
Are we talking the entire edge or just the side?
MJ Coveny:
I think it's the sides that look down. I don't think you have to do it towards the back necessarily. I mean, maybe do an L. Maybe I'll come up with something like that. I don't want it to look too funky though.
Jessica Gannon:
That's a fabulous consideration.
Stan Andrade:
I like that.
MJ Coveny:
Thank you. All right. So that would work to give a little privacy because that is going to be somewhat of active area. I think your windows are fine. I think the height is great. I mean, I will say, and this is me doing what I do, I scold occasionally and I think Stan mentioned it, is start with a huge thing and then say, "Look, we gave you all this." It's like, you know how we don't like that. I'm just throwing it out there to keep it in your little hat. But we saw through it and I do believe where we're at now is great. It would've been great if you started here.
And I think you've reached view equity and neighborhood compatibility. There's a lot of funky little houses throughout this place and there's definitely two stories. There's one, just a couple stories up that is this weird mish-mosh of a modern mixed with a cottage. So I think you're fine and I think using the materials you're using keep it sort of understated. So organically, I think you're okay there. Lighting, you're fine. Shrubs, you're good. The tree change is perfect. That's it.
Chair Gibbs:
Louis?
Louis Weil:
Yeah. So I touched on the two issues earlier. MJ, I think the planter idea is fine for the side yards. I think that's a good idea. So the red gum tree swap and then the boundary survey recorded before permits issued is part of what I need. As far as neighborhood compatibility came up as a question, neighborhood compatibility is not defined by the immediate two houses next to a property. It's defined by the up and down the street. And I think as I walk up and down Eagle Rock, there's two-story houses. There's lots of ... Granted, it's one of the slower streets to gentrify, so to say, but there are two-story houses that exist in this zone, whether it's Eagle Rock or these other streets. So to deprive this owner of that right would be a disservice to them, especially since they have a buildable envelope that allows for a two-story building on the lot.
I think when it comes to the two-story application, the applicant has followed the board's direction by minimizing that upper floor and not extending it the full length of the lot. I think that provides the biggest benefit to all the neighbors up the street. I think it actually works in favor to the development pattern of the few houses going up the street because they each kind of slowly progress further and further back into the lot. So it gives everyone just a little bit more view as you continue to go up that hill.
So I think this one's carefully crafted.
139
DRB 3-26-26_Item 5 (Completed 04/07/26)
Transcript by Rev.com
As far as the design integrity and the design look, this is absolutely stunning. It is a modern rendition of where South Laguna funky meets its historical characteristics. So I am supportive of that development in this style because there is such an eclectic mix and some of these newer homes do have some of this flare and this is quite in line with that. As far as the other design review criteria, it's been well outlined by Heather and staff. I am supportive of this project and will be supporting it this evening.
Chair Gibbs:
Imer?
Imer Bauta:
I agree with the fellow board members. I think initially when we gave feedback for the upper level, I was hoping for maybe a little bit more off of that master bedroom. I think there could have been a little bit more consideration done. I do believe though that the view equity was achieved in the reduction, however there was definitely a balance. I'm not a fan of the fence for the driveway. I think it'll limit that surface parking because it opens in. I think you're less likely to park surface parking and it's also not really neighborhood like in South Laguna. I think having that driveway with access will go a long way and just pulling that whole fence line out. That would be my suggestion. If I had to suggest the number for the master bed to pulling it back, I would say pull that master bedroom back toward the master closet and line that wall up. I'd be open to that if the rest of the board is thinking about it. Those are my comments.
Chair Gibbs:
All right. Well, the two issues really, or three, mass scale, privacy and view equity. On mass and scale, which is really neighborhood compatibility, that's what we look at. And I echo Board Member Weil's comments. We look at the whole neighborhood and there is second story. I mean, Ken Snyder's house two-story. And to deprive this owner, the applicant of a two-story would deprive him of a right that other owners in the area have. And I don't know whether there's gentrification, but the old houses that are one-story get impacted by two-story, particularly on a vacant lot.
So that's kind of the tough balancing between development rights and existing structures, but the neighborhood's so overwhelmingly two-story that it would be unfair to deprive this owner of a twostory, particularly given the size and location of the lot, which is similar to other two-story lots in the neighborhood.
The second point is given that there is the right to a second story, where it goes. Where it goes is going to impact somebody. It's just that's the nature of Eagle Rock Way. And what we look at is the impacts in such a way that they're at least balanced and it's not perfect. If we move into the back, it's going to impact somebody, if we leave it there ... And what we had asked and what I had specifically had in my mind was pulling back the house from the backyard, that opens up the privacy and the view equity for both the Snyders and for the Wrens, for Melinda Wren. And I never looked at Anne's house. I was never asked to go over there. I knocked and there was no one there, but I could kind of see the same kind of thing, that the best benefit given the two-story was pulling back the back, which the applicant did, and I think did in a way that made that project neighborhood compatible and appropriate.
On view equity, again, I echo the comments. I went up to Ken Snyder's rooms and the key ceremonial rooms that give the most protection under the guidelines are the ones that really are not impacted by the project at all. I think Jess kind of showed some of that. I took pictures too from the kitchen and from the dining room with the pullback, it really opens up those views. And again, I mean, if you put the 140
DRB 3-26-26_Item 5 (Completed 04/07/26)
Transcript by Rev.com
project forward, it's going to impact somebody else's views. And given the location, I find view equity has been met. So I'm good with what Jess said aboutImer Bauta:
Where do you stand onChair Gibbs:
Or not Jess. [inaudible 00:40:21]-
Imer Bauta:
Tom, where do you stand on ... Go ahead.
Chair Gibbs:
Yeah. I'm good with the planter. As far as further reductions go, I just don't think they're necessary. I wouldn't oppose them necessarily, but I don't think I would require it. So yeah, I just don't think ... Yeah, I think the house meets all the criteria and I just don't think requiring it be modified really makes that big a difference.
MJ Coveny:
How about the gate? I like the gate concept. I doChair Gibbs:
Oh, the gate.
Louis Weil:
Are you okay with removing the driveway gate?
Chair Gibbs:
Yeah. Are you ...
Stan Andrade:
For sure.
Chair Gibbs:
Okay. As I recall, I didn't see another gate. Okay. So I'm good with that too, Imer. Does that answer your questions?
Louis Weil:
Let me make a motion on item number 5.11 at project location 31- Imer Bauta:
Want Jess to do the last motion?
Louis Weil:
141
DRB 3-26-26_Item 5 (Completed 04/07/26)
Transcript by Rev.com
Oh, do you want to do it?
Chair Gibbs:
She gets to do it.
Jessica Gannon:
I'll do the second.
Louis Weil:
You want to do it?
Jessica Gannon:
No, no. I pass it to you.
Louis Weil:
I'm sorry.
Jessica Gannon:
No, go for it.
Louis Weil:
I jumped the gun.
Jessica Gannon:
No, jump in.
Louis Weil:
Okay.
Chair Gibbs:
Let me start over. I was asleep at the wheel. I would have saidLouis Weil:
I propose a motion for item number 5.11 at project location 31565 Eagle Rock Way that the Board adopts Resolution 25-0407, approving Design Review 2025-0407 and Coastal Development Permit 2025- 0408 for the property ... Oh, I already did that part. And that the finding said action exempt from CEQA guidelines 15303, and that the three conditions would be applied. That one, a boundary survey be recorded prior to a building permit being issued, and if any substantial changes occur, that modifications come back to the Board, or significant modifications come back to the Board per the Director. Second, that the two trees in the front yard be swapped out to eucalyptus red gum, no height limit. Planters be installed on the side yards of the upper back decking that are 18 inches high, 18 inches wide, and plants not to exceed the railing height, and that we remove the driveway gate.
Jessica Gannon:
142
DRB 3-26-26_Item 5 (Completed 04/07/26)
Transcript by Rev.com
I'll second that.
Chair Gibbs:
Call the roll.
Paola Miller:
Board member Bauta?
Imer Bauta:
Yes.
Paola Miller:
Board member Coveny?
MJ Coveny:
Yes.
Paola Miller:
Board member Weil?
Louis Weil:
Yes.
Paola Miller:
Chair Pro Tem Gannon?
Jessica Gannon:
Yes.
Paola Miller:
Chair ...
Chair Gibbs:
Yes.
Paola Miller:
Chair Gibbs. Motion is passed five to zero.
143