Board continues Seacliff conceptual review after neighbors raise view and garage concerns

The Single Family Design Board on July 13 continued consideration of a proposed demolition and new residence at 3029 Seacliff after neighbors and board members raised concerns about scale, an accessory garage and impacts to private views.

At the meeting staff described the project as a demolition and replacement with a new two‑story main residence of about 6,462 square feet and an accessory program that includes a 1,142‑square‑foot detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) and an attached garage for the ADU. Staff noted the ADU itself is not within the board’s purview but said the ADU’s attached garage exceeds the 750‑square‑foot threshold that triggers review of a floor area modification and asked the board for comment on project design supportability.

Liz Hughes, presenting for the project team, said the design response aims to “nestle” the new house into the hillside, keep plate heights low, preserve mature trees including an avocado orchard and reduce the apparent mass with a darker natural palette. She showed photo simulations from Hendry’s Beach and other public viewpoints and said the team revised the deck support from stone to steel and simplified window and mullion details after earlier board comments.

Two neighbors who testified in person urged changes. Cy Lyon, a north neighbor, said he had met with the architect and appreciated the outreach but warned the larger footprint and hip roof would materially reduce his ocean view and visibility of the shipping channel. Ron Lincoln, an adjacent property owner, said his concern centers on the ADU and its attached garage: he described the garage as unusually large (about 800 square feet and roughly 12½ feet to the ridge) sited higher on the slope and closer to the shared property line, and proposed moving it 6 to 8 feet west to reduce visibility.

Board members pressed the applicant for technical clarifications: how the project’s floor area ratio (FAR) compares with the 20 nearest homes (the applicant pointed to several nearby homes that exceed 100% FAR), the highest ridge elevation (presenter cited roughly 25 feet 6 inches at the peak), and specific garage plate and ridge heights (applicant said an 8‑foot plate with an approximately 11 feet 3 inches ridge in one orientation). Staff also flagged multiple FAR figures in the record and confirmed the 142% number in the agenda scope excludes the ADU, while larger percentages shown in supplemental materials include different accessory calculations.

In deliberations members praised design moves (lower plate heights, palette choices and neighbor coordination) but said the project pushes bulk and scale guidelines in a highly visible location. The board asked the applicant to study ways to reduce the main residence square footage, to add additional screening and tree planting around the most visible two‑story element, and to provide clearer FAR calculations and comparative photos of other high‑FAR houses in the area.

Chair Sherry moved — and the board seconded — an indefinite continuance to the staff hearing officer with direction for the project to return to the full board afterward and with the comments summarized above. The motion passed with a majority in favor and one dissent (Board member Grafati voted no). The staff hearing officer will receive the board’s comments and the applicant will return after addressing the requested studies and material refinements.

The project will next proceed to the staff hearing officer for the floor area modification review and supplemental submittals required by the board.