Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the View Equity topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board continues 186 Sunset Terrace after strong neighborhood opposition over view equity
Summary
Design Review 25‑1330 and Coastal Development Permit 25‑1331 for 186 Sunset Terrace were continued after neighbor testimony citing view equity loss, privacy and massing; board members asked the applicant to return with options to reduce the upper‑level impact.
The board continued design review 25‑1330 and coastal development permit 25‑1331 for 186 Sunset Terrace after a crowded public comment period and substantial discussion among board members.
The proposal would add an upper level (about 815 square feet) containing a primary suite and a new elevated deck, modify ground‑level spaces and create an on‑site parking space where possible. Staff reported the property already exceeded the site’s lot coverage standard (existing 59% vs permitted 44%) and that the project would increase lot coverage to about 64.6% (an additional ~130 square feet resulting from cantilevered components and a small main‑level entry expansion). The site is within the very high fire hazard severity zone and staff reported landscape/fuel‑modification plans had been reviewed.
More than a dozen people from the Sunset Terrace area spoke; several neighbors described losing significant “ribbon” horizon views (private view corridors), asked the board to require tree or building changes to preserve views, and urged the board to deny a second‑story addition. Neighbors focused on view‑equity policy (General Plan Land Use Policy 2.1) and argued the street has many single‑story homes that historically preserved views. The applicant said they reduced the project and offered to work with neighbors on plantings and privacy solutions.
After discussion the board concluded it needed more detail and recommended the applicant explore design changes to reduce the upper‑level impact (smaller footprint, different placement or reduced plate heights), and to provide clearer information on tree removal/replacement, and privacy screening options. The board continued the item for more complete submittals and outreach; the applicant asked for an October return. The board scheduled the matter for continued review so the applicant can respond to board and neighborhood concerns.
