Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 3102 Seacliff Adu topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board asks for more neighborhood study, photos before deciding on Seacliff ADU front‑yard modification
Summary
The board deferred action on a proposed detached garage with an ADU at 3102 Seacliff, asking the applicant to return with street‑level photos, a Sea Cliff‑only study of nearby floor‑area ratios, tree details and clearer site photos; board members agreed the storage in the front yard triggered review.
The Single Family Design Board on Sept. 8 reviewed the conceptual plans for a new detached garage with an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) at 3102 Seacliff and deferred the item to a later full‑board hearing after requesting additional contextual information.
The proposal calls for converting an existing attached garage into habitable space, building a new detached garage (661 sq ft) and storage structure (282 sq ft) in the front yard, and constructing a two‑story, 1,180‑square‑foot ADU above the garage. Staff noted the ADU meets administrative design criteria when built entirely over a new detached garage, but the storage structure in the front yard requires a front‑yard modification and is within the board’s purview for comment. The staff hearing officer had previously found the modification supportable pending design review comments.
Board members repeatedly asked for clearer street‑level context. The board moved — and unanimously approved — a continuance requiring the applicant to return with: street photos showing how the proposal would appear from public rights‑of‑way; photographs of comparable detached garages on the street; a focused FAR (floor‑area ratio) comparison limited to Sea Cliff properties; clearer tree/landscape plans identifying trees to be removed and proposed replacements; and additional neighborhood context so the board can judge massing and compatibility. The board also asked staff and the applicant to confirm whether the storage element is technically within the front yard (not a front setback) and to clarify which elements remain subject to staff (administrative) review versus SFDB review.
No public commenters spoke on the item during the meeting. The motion to continue was seconded and passed unanimously (Board Members Moslahi, Grafati, Richards and Vice Chair Sherry voted yes).
