Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Discretionary Reviews topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission denies El Camino Del Mar deck permit after neighbor settlement dispute; approves 463 Duncan with reduced deck and privacy condition
Summary
The commission took discretionary review on two neighbor disputes. It denied the El Camino Del Mar deck application — citing the parties' prior agreement and neighborhood concerns — and approved the 463 Duncan Street project with conditions: reduce the second‑floor deck depth and add a privacy screen. Votes were unanimous (El Camino Del Mar denial) and 5–1 (463 Duncan, with one dissent).
The Planning Commission weighed two public‑initiated discretionary reviews on Dec. 6 and reached opposite outcomes.
At 610 El Camino Del Mar, neighbors (represented by Dennis Shanahier and Pam Baer) argued the owner was seeking to extend an existing deck beyond the terms of a 2011 agreement negotiated with neighbors. The parties described a prior compromise and said returning to a larger footprint would undermine neighborhood trust and the private settlement. The sponsor argued circumstances had changed (water intrusion and the conversion of a former pool to a play court) and that the 2011 agreement did not contain a successors‑and‑assigns clause binding future applicants. After deliberation the commission voted to take discretionary review and deny the permit application unanimously (6–0), citing the earlier agreement and the neighborhood’s reasonable expectation.
On 463 Duncan Street, neighbors challenged a public‑initiated proposal for a horizontal expansion, excavation and basement to create a second unit, arguing the design would create excessive lot length, encroach on mid‑block open space and harm neighborhood character. Planning staff and the project team described a series of revisions (including a 4 foot, 4 inch side setback and reduced garage/rear extension) made in response to staff and RDT guidance. Several neighbors asked the commission to require preservation of the front facade and to avoid a visible roof deck over the neighborhood.
After testimony and a staff presentation of revised designs, commissioners voted 5–1 to take discretionary review and approve the project with conditions that include reducing the Second‑Floor deck depth to about 8½ feet on the downhill (east) side and installing privacy screening to limit views into the adjacent property. The dissent cited unresolved privacy and scale concerns.
