Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Design board asks for more photo simulations, reduces trellis massing and continues Seacliff house to staff review
Summary
The Single Family Design Board continued a conceptual review of a proposed 6,493 sq ft hillside home with a detached ADU and oversized garage, asking the applicant for public‑view photo simulations, ways to reduce second‑story trellis massing, wall screening details and materials before the staff hearing officer; the board also supported a garage size modification.
The Single Family Design Board on May 18 continued review of a proposed split‑level 6,493‑square‑foot single‑family residence and detached ADU, directing the applicant to provide additional visual materials and to study ways to reduce the apparent mass of an upper‑level covered patio.
At the hearing staff described the scope as demolition of the existing house and construction of a multi‑level residence with a 1,142‑square‑foot detached accessory dwelling unit and a detached garage that exceeds 750 square feet, requiring a floor‑area modification. The board agreed the requested garage modification was supportable given the site layout and the tandem garage configuration but declined to grant final approvals at the meeting.
The board’s motion, moved by the chair and seconded by a board member, continued the item indefinitely to the staff hearing officer and listed specific follow‑up items: a photo simulation of the proposal from public viewpoints including Douglas Preserve and Cliff Drive; alternatives to reduce the perceived bulk of the upper‑level covered patio/trellis on the east elevation; resolution of retaining‑wall heights and landscape screening at the pool and circular yard area; and completion of a materials and color board and dark‑sky‑compliant exterior lighting selections. The motion also called for alignment of window and door headers on the north elevation and more detail at a cantilevered wall condition.
Architects for the project said they sought to maintain existing specimen trees and to step the buildings into the hillside so the upper massing would read lower from distant viewpoints. During technical exchanges the project team provided measurements for board review: at one point the architect said the highest new ridge is about "5 feet 7 inches" above the existing roof line and that the overall rise from the building edge to the top of the roof is approximately "27 feet 6 inches." Board members pressed for additional images from high‑traffic public vantage points so they could better assess whether the proposed finish palette and trellis treatments would minimize a looming effect on the ridgeline.
A nearby resident, Cy Lyon, testified that he was not notified of the meeting and said the proposed height could affect his ocean view; staff told Lyon they would follow up to confirm mailing addresses and noticing. In response, the board added a direction to the motion to ensure neighbors are adequately informed and to provide clearer context in the supplemental materials.
The board’s continuance preserves staff and board options for recommending adjustments; the staff hearing officer will consider the board’s comments and any additional materials before scheduling a subsequent action.
