Laguna Beach City Council
December 9, 2025

Board Members within a
500’ Radius: None
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The Applicant, Drew Blake, is requesting approval of Design Review (DR) 24-1572 and Coastal Development Permit (CDP) 24-1688. The proposed project is a major remodel where the proposed additions exceed 50 percent of the existing home’s square footage, elevated decks, new exterior materials, windows, and landscaping, and a new detached ADU (the “Project”). The existing 1,441-square-foot single-family dwelling and 375-square-foot attached, two-car garage would be expanded with a 1,033-square-foot secondstory addition over the southeastern portion of the existing residence, 52-square-foot addition to the existing garage, 325 square feet of elevated decking at the first floor within the rear yard, and an 80-square-foot elevated deck at the second floor along the western elevation in the rear yard.

While not subject to design review, a proposed detached, 412-square-foot ADU is subject to a Coastal Development Permit. This ADU is not appealable to the California Coastal Commission and is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Sections 15303, Class 3(a) (New Construction), and 15304, Minor Alterations to Land, of the state CEQA Guidelines, which allows construction of an ADU in a residential zone.

Staff recommends that the Board approve the Project. Staff has analyzed the Applicant’s request and finds that facts to support each of the findings for approval can be made. 189
DR 24-1572, CDP 24-1688
June 26, 2025

PROPERTY AERIAL PHOTO

SITE PHOTO

PROPERTY INFORMATION
Land Use Designation Village Low Density (1-7 DU/AC)
190
DR 24-1572, CDP 24-1688
June 26, 2025

SITE PHOTO

PROPERTY INFORMATION
Zoning Designation R-1 Residential Low Density

ZONING REVIEW
The proposed project complies with applicable zoning standards and guidelines as shown in the summary table below:

Development Standard Required Existing Proposed Conforms Site Coverage 39.5% 23% 34% Yes
Landscape Open Space 22.7% 35% 32% Yes
Height (Lowest floor to top of roof) 25’-0” 16’-4” 24’-1” Yes Setbacks (primary dwelling)
Front
Side (West)
Side (East)
Rear
20’-0”
6’-6”
6’-6”
20’-0”
25’-0”
8’-0”
8’-0”
26’-9”
25’-0”
8’-0”
8’-0”
26’-9 ”SFR
4’ ADU
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:

Site History
The subject site is developed with a single-story detached single-family residence that was constructed in 1945. A permit to construct an iron and brick fence was issued in 1974.

Proposed Project
The Design Review Board (“Board”) previously heard this Project on February 27, 2025. The Board received public testimony from adjoining property owners identifying concerns regarding the proposed upper-level addition, particularly with respect to privacy, views, the mass and scale of the new home, and neighborhood compatibility. The Board gave direction to: 1) reduce the size of the upper-level addition 2) reduce privacy impacts to adjoining neighbors, and 3) improve view equity for the neighbor to the south.

The February 27, 2025, Design Review Board meeting minutes and staff report (minus attachments) are provided as Attachments 6 and 7, respectively.
191
DR 24-1572, CDP 24-1688
June 26, 2025

The Applicant has revised the Project and staff’s review determined that the applicable zoning standards and guidelines prescribed for the R-1 zone have been met.

Changes to the Project since the original hearing on February 27, 2025, include:
• Reduction of the upper-level addition by 47 sq. ft. from 807 sq. ft. to 760 sq. ft. • Reduction of 169 sq. ft. of the lower level
• Total reduction of 216 sq. ft. of living area
• Pulled the upper-level addition back additional 5’-0” from the rear property line • Removed the large tree at the front of the site to improve views of the hillsides and canyons to the east
• The lower stairwell large window has been eliminated to improve privacy Staff finds that the proposed modifications are consistent with the Board’s direction regarding privacy, view impacts, and neighborhood compatibility.

The proposal requires Design Review (DR) because the project is considered a major remodel since the additions exceed 50 percent of the home’s existing square footage. Additionally, Design Review is needed to consider elevated decks, new exterior materials, windows, and landscaping.

While not subject to design review, a proposed, detached, 412-square-foot ADU is subject to a Coastal Development Permit (CDP). This ADU is not eligible for appeal to the California Coastal Commission.

Both aspects of the project are categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Sections 15303, Class 3(a) (New Construction) and 15304, Minor Alterations to Land, of the state CEQA Guidelines.

ENTITLEMENTS: Included within this staff report is an analysis of the following entitlements: Design Review and Coastal Development Permit.

Design Review
The following elements require Design Review: major remodel to an existing structure where the additions exceed 50 percent of the existing home, elevated decks, new exterior materials, windows, and landscaping. (see Laguna Beach Municipal Code (LBMC) Section 25.05.040(B)(1)). Design Review is governed by LBMC Section 25.05.040. Design Review is considered by the Design Review Board at a duly noticed public hearing where the following findings are considered in relation to the proposed development:

Finding No. 1: Physical improvements and site developments related to the Project are designed and located in a manner in overall consistency with the design review criteria specified in Section 25.05.040(H), as set forth below:

1. Access. Conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians and other modes of transportation should be minimized by specifically providing for each applicable mode of transportation. Handicapped access shall be provided as required by applicable statutes.

The proposed project does not affect site access. The site is improved with an attached two-car garage with a driveway to an improved street. The site maintains vehicular access from Short Street 192
DR 24-1572, CDP 24-1688
June 26, 2025

and no changes to this vehicular access are being proposed. An existing sidewalk along the property frontage will be maintained.

2. Design Articulation: Within the allowable building envelope, the appearance of building and retaining wall mass should be minimized. Articulation techniques including, but not limited to, separation, offsets, terracing and reducing the size of any one element in the structure may be used to reduce the appearance of mass.

Yes. The proposal includes a new second story addition, which, through the proposed colors and materials and design will result in a well-articulated building. When complete, the home will be compatible with existing development in the neighborhood. Nearby homes consists of a mixture of one- and two-level residences with varying architectural styles and exteriors, including contemporary and traditional styles. The project’s sloping roofs and varied building materials that include stucco and siding will effectively reduce the appearance of mass.

3. Design Integrity: Consistency with the applicant’s chosen style of architecture should be achieved by the use of appropriate materials and details. Remodels should be harmonious with the remaining existing architecture.

Yes. The colors and materials are appropriate for the traditional architectural style chosen for this Project and will harmonize with and complement the existing home. The colors and materials for the project will match existing exterior siding walls and the proposed siding for the new upper-level addition will add a new visual component, provide visual relief to the structure, and is compatible with the overall design.

4. Environmental Context: Development should preserve and, where possible, enhance the city’s scenic natural setting. Natural features, such as existing heritage trees, rock out-cropping, ridgelines and significant watercourses should be protected. Existing terrain should be utilized in the design and grading should be minimized.

The relatively flat site is located in a fully developed neighborhood that includes single-family dwellings, multi-family units, Laguna Beach High School, and school district office nearby. and Neither the project site nor the immediate area contains heritage trees, rock outcroppings, ridgelines, or significant water courses. There are occasional views of distant hillsides across portions of the subject property from neighboring parcels. To enhance these views, the applicant has removed a large tree from the front yard.

5. General Plan Compliance: The development shall comply with all applicable policies of the General Plan, including all of its elements, applicable specific plans, and the certified local coastal program.

Yes. The project complies with the General Plan polices as explained below:

Land Use Element (LUE) Policy 2.8 Require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated with natural topographic features, minimize significant alteration of natural topography and/or other significant onsite resources, and protect public views as specified in the Design Guidelines and the Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document. 193
DR 24-1572, CDP 24-1688
June 26, 2025

The proposal adds to the existing home and proposes minor site improvements (i.e., approximately

2.5 foot tall retaining walls) to create modest level yard areas. The existing site tends to step down from the street (i.e., front) to back and the proposed improvements do not substantially change this.

As a result, the project works with the existing topography to avoid significant alterations that would otherwise be inconsistent with the neighborhood.

LUE Policy 2.10 Maximize the preservation of coastal and canyon views (consistent with the principle of view equity) from existing properties and minimize blockage of existing public and private views. Best efforts should be made to site new development in locations that minimize adverse impacts on views from public locations (e.g., roads, bluff top trails, visitor-serving facilities, etc.).

The design of the new second-story addition to the residence maximizes the preservation of coastal views by its siting on the property and distance from the rear property line. The development would not impact any public or private coastal views as the addition is lower than structures to the north and east of the property and would not impinge upon the coastal views from those properties.

LUE Policy 3.10 Require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated with natural topographic features, minimize significant alteration of natural topography or other significant onsite resources, and protect public views as specified in the Design Guidelines and Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document by maintaining the low-profile character of structures.

Require use of appropriate landscaping, special architectural treatments, and siting considerations for projects visible from major highways and arterial streets. Best efforts should be made to site new development in locations that minimize adverse impacts on views from public locations (e.g., roads, bluff-top trails, visitor-serving facilities, etc.).

The home is positioned toward the middle of a lot in the middle of an existing residential neighborhood. The addition is compatible with the neighborhood in terms of size, mass and design as nearby properties are also improved with two-story homes. Given that this is an older residential neighborhood, the natural topography has been altered to accommodate residential development and streets. Notwithstanding this, the scope of the proposed addition does not seek substantial alterations to the existing topography.

LUE Policy 7.3 Design and site new development to protect natural and environmentally sensitive resources, such as areas of unique scenic quality, public views, and visual compatibility with surrounding uses and to minimize natural landform alterations. (Same as Policy 10.2.) GOAL:

Protect, preserve, and enhance the community’s natural resources.

The project site does not contain environmentally sensitive resources and does not significantly adversely impact public or private views. The addition to the single-family home is compatible with the surrounding single-family home uses and minimizes alterations to the existing topography.

LUE Policy 7.10 Require new construction and grading to be located in close proximity to preexisting development to minimize environmental impacts and growth-inducing potential. 194
DR 24-1572, CDP 24-1688
June 26, 2025

The proposed construction and associated grading are within the previously disturbed building site and located in a developed neighborhood of single-family residences on a lot that has an existing single-family home. The environmental impact of the project will be insignificant with no growthinducing potential as the project is not extending or increasing the capacity of any infrastructure to support the addition.

6. Historic Preservation: Destruction or alteration to historic resources should be avoided whenever possible. See Chapter 25.45 for more information.

The property is not listed on the City’s Historic Register.

7. Landscaping: Landscaping shall be incorporated as an integrated part of the structure’s design and relate harmoniously to neighborhood and community landscaping themes. View equity shall be an important consideration in the landscape design. The relevant landscaping guidelines contained in the City’s “Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document” should be incorporated, as appropriate, in the design and planned maintenance of proposed landscaping.

Yes. The proposed project is located within the Arroyo Chico area as described in the City’s Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document. This document includes a set of policies and maintenance guidelines to address the issues of tree maintenance, fire safety, heritage tree preservation, view preservation, scenic highways, water conservation, soil stability, invasive plants and neighborhood landscape character. The submitted landscape plans are consistent with the policies and guidelines for the Arroyo Chico area as determined by the City’s landscape reviewer.

Additionally, the proposed landscape plan have been reviewed and approved by the City’s landscape reviewer for compliance and does not contain plant species that are incompatible with fire safety considerations. The proposed plans are also compatible with a residential palette and will not grow to heights that would impact view equity.

8. Lighting and Glare: Adequate lighting for individual and public safety shall be provided in a manner which does not significantly impact neighboring properties. Reflective materials and appurtenances that cause glare or a negative visual impact (e.g., skylights, white rock roofs, highgloss ceramic tile roofs, reflective glass, etc.) should be avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance in those locations where those surfaces are visible from neighboring properties.

Yes. The proposed exterior lighting plan for the house is shown on sheet A-20 and includes a total of 31 light fixtures, such as can lights, wall mounted lights, and path lights. Overall, the plan provides low level lighting where needed for safety and efficient operation in outdoor activities, terraces, stairs and walkways. All proposed lighting is compliant with the City’s Good Neighbor Outdoor Lighting Ordinance (LBMC Chapter 7.70).

9. Neighborhood Compatibility: Development shall be compatible with the existing development in the neighborhood and respect neighborhood character. Neighborhood character is the sum of the qualities that distinguish areas within the City, including historical patterns of development (e.g., structural heights, mass, scale or size), village atmosphere, landscaping themes and architectural styles.
195
DR 24-1572, CDP 24-1688
June 26, 2025

Yes. The existing development in the neighborhood consists of a mixture of one- and two-level residences with varying architectural styles and exteriors, including contemporary and traditional styles. As described in the “Design Articulation” criterion above, the applicant proposes a traditional design that is compatible in terms of style and scale with the surrounding development pattern.

10. Pedestrian Orientation: Commercial development design shall enhance and encourage pedestrian uses. Incorporation of articulated building masses, compact open spaces and courtyards, mixed use developments, use of landscaping as part of design, and orientation to pedestrian access should be maximized.

Design Review Criteria for Pedestrian Orientation is related to commercial development. As a residential development, this project is not subject to complying with this criteria.

11. Privacy: The placement of activity areas (e.g., decks, picture windows and ceremonial or entertainment rooms) in locations that would result in a substantial invasion of privacy of neighboring properties should be minimized.

Yes. The design review guidelines stipulate that any development incorporate “a reasonable degree of residential privacy and will be compatible with other improvements in the neighborhood.” The applicant has worked with their neighbors to address privacy concerns by incorporating opaque windows on the second story addition and no substantial privacy impacts are anticipated to result from the proposed upper-level addition on adjoining properties.

12. Public Art: Public art is encouraged and shall be displayed where feasible or required by the Art in Public Places ordinance.

Design Review Criteria for Public Art is related to commercial development. As a residential development, this project is not subject to compliance with public art criteria.

13. Sign Quality: Signs shall be incorporated into the architecture of the structure and shall be made of high quality materials, be simple in design and be visually compatible with the surrounding physical environment in terms of color, scale and size. Use of natural materials in the construction of signs is encouraged.

Design Review Criteria for Signage is related to commercial development. As a residential development, this project is not subject to signage criteria. project.

14. Sustainability: New development should consider architecture and building practices which minimize environmental impacts and enhance energy efficiency by: (a) reducing energy needs of buildings by proper site and structural design; (b) increasing the building’s ability to capture or generate energy; (c) using low-impact, sustainable and recycled building materials; (d) using the latest Best Management Practices regarding waste and water management; and (e) reducing site emissions.

Yes. New construction is required to meet Title 24 energy and Building Code requirements, which include insulated windows and energy efficient lighting. The applicant will be required to provide proof of compliance. Further, the applicant will be required to reuse, recycle, or divert at least 65 196
DR 24-1572, CDP 24-1688
June 26, 2025

percent of the project’s construction and demolition debris. Finally, to promote future installation of solar panels, a minimum of 250 square-feet of “solar ready” roof area will be provided. For these reasons, this criterion has been met.

15. Swimming Pools, Spas, and Water Features: Swimming pools, spas and water features shall be located, designed and constructed where: (a) geology conditions allow; (b) noise produced by circulatory mechanical pumps and equipment is mitigated; and (c) any associated fencing or other site improvements are compatible with neighboring properties.

The project does not propose or include a pool, spa or water feature.

16. View Equity: The development, including its landscaping, shall be designed to protect existing views from neighboring properties without denying the subject property the reasonable opportunity to develop as described and illustrated in the City’s “Design Guidelines.” The “Design Guidelines” are intended to balance preservation of views with the right to develop property.

Yes. As designed, the proposed addition has reasonably considered views from neighboring properties in the project’s design. The design of the house maximizes the preservation of coastal views of neighboring houses due to impacts to views from the adjacent residence on the east side of the property have been improved from the current condition by the project design. The project has removed a large tree from the front of the property site and improved canyon views for the adjoining properties. The design achieves view equity by locating major building masses and outdoor space to maintain primary views through and across the site from other properties. The landscaping palette does not include any new plantings that will impact existing views.

Finding No. 2. The physical improvements and site developments related to the Project are designed and located in a manner in overall consistency with all other applicable design guidelines.

Yes. The project is consistent with the Residential Design Review Guidelines, as described above.

Finding No. 3. The physical improvements and site developments related to the Project are characterized by appropriately scaled development, diverse and unique architectural designs, pedestrian orientation, and sensitivity to the natural conditions of the site.

Yes. The project design and architecture are appropriately scaled and diverse, as described in the design integrity and neighborhood compatibility design criteria above.

Finding No. 4. The project is consistent with any specific plan or any other specific zoning design review criteria.

The project site is not located within a specific plan area and the R-1 zoning does not contain any additional specific design review criteria. The project conforms to the Architectural Guidelines, including avoiding major disparities of height and bulk with adjacent structures, use of appropriate colors, and appropriate scale, detail and articulation of the structure. 197
DR 24-1572, CDP 24-1688
June 26, 2025

Coastal Development Permit
A Coastal Development Permit is required for a major remodel to an existing home where the additions exceeds 50 percent, elevated decks, new exterior materials, windows, and landscaping, and also for the proposed detached 412-square-foot accessory dwelling unit (ADU).

The CDP for the new single-family residence and ADU are not eligible for appeal to the California Coastal Commission and is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Sections 15303, Class 3(a) (New Construction) and 15304, Minor Alterations to Land, of the state CEQA Guidelines. The following findings are considered in relation to the proposed development of the ADU and major remodel of an existing singlefamily residence:

Finding No. 1: The project is in conformity with all the applicable provisions of the certified local coastal program, including the following review criteria:

1. The proposed development will not encroach upon any existing physical accessway legally utilized by the public or any proposed public accessway identified in the adopted local coastal program land use plan.

The proposed development will not modify any existing physical accessway utilized by the public or identified in the adopted local coastal program land use plan in that the subject property contains no existing accessways legally utilized by the public, no such public accessways are identified in the adopted land use plan.

2. The proposed development will not adversely affect marine resources, environmentally sensitive areas, or archaeological or paleontological resources.

The proposed development will not adversely affect marine resources, environmentally sensitive resources or archeological or paleontological resources in that the project site is located within an established residential neighborhood, and no such resources are known to exist in the immediate project area.

3. The proposed development will not adversely affect recreational or visitor-serving facilities or coastal scenic resources.

The proposed development will not adversely affect recreational or visitor-serving facilities or coastal scenic resources in that the project site is located within an established residential neighborhood and is not located near any recreational or visitor-serving facilities.

4. The proposed development will be sited and designed to prevent adverse impacts to environmentally sensitive habitats and scenic resources located in adjacent parks and recreation areas, and will provide adequate buffer areas to protect such resources.

The proposed development will have no adverse impacts to environmentally sensitive habitats and scenic resources located in adjacent parks and recreation areas in that the project site is located within an established residential neighborhood, no such areas abut the project site, and no buffer areas are needed to protect such resources.
198
DR 24-1572, CDP 24-1688
June 26, 2025

5. The proposed development will minimize the alterations of natural landforms and will not result in undue risks from geological and erosional forces and/or flood and fire hazards.

The proposed development will not cause or contribute to the alteration of natural landforms or create undue risks from geological and erosional forces and/or flood and fire hazards in that the proposed development includes grading of 10.25 cubic yards outside the building footprint, which as described in the “environmental context” criterion above, is considered minimal and intended to create a modest level yard area. The landscaping plan has been reviewed for fire safety.

6. The proposed development will be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and where feasible, will restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas.

The analysis provided in Design Review criteria #9 (neighborhood compatibility) is incorporated herein by reference.

7. The proposed development will not have any adverse impacts on any known archaeological or paleontological resource.

The proposed development will not have any adverse impacts on any known archaeological or paleontological resources in that such resources are not known to exist in the project area, and the project site is located within an established residential neighborhood.

8. The proposed development will be provided with adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities.

The proposed major remodel to the existing single-family dwelling and new detached ADU do not involve any changes to existing utilities, access roads, drainage, or other necessary facilities, and such facilities will remain adequate to serve the dwelling units.

9. Other public services, including, but not limited to, solid waste and public roadway capacity have been considered and are adequate to serve the proposed development.

The site is located in an existing developed neighborhood, which is considered adequate to provide solid waste service and the roadways are considered adequate to serve the proposed development.

The additional trips generated from the ADU would not exceed the capacity of nearby local and collector roadways and the solid waste generation from the ADU can be accommodated by the regional landfill capacity.

Finding No. 2. Any development located between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea is in conformity with the certified local coastal program and with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act.

The project is consistent with all applicable policies of the Certified LCP. The development is not located between the sea and first public road paralleling the sea. Additionally, the subject site is zoned residential and is not suitable for recreational uses identified in Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. 199
DR 24-1572, CDP 24-1688
June 26, 2025

Finding No. 3. The proposed development will not have any significant adverse impact on the environment within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act.

As described above, the project does not have adverse environmental impacts. The project will not cause any significant adverse impacts on the environment and qualifies for a categorical exemption (as described in the Environmental Impact section below) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines.

LCP DOCUMENTS
The project conforms with all the following applicable documents of the Certified LCP.

Land Use and Open Space/Conservation General Plan Elements Zoning Map
Title 25 (Zoning Code)
2010 Design Guidelines – A Guide to Residential Development ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, the project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15303 (New Construction) and 15304 (Minor Alterations to Land).

There is no evidence of any unusual or special conditions that would result in a significant effect on the environment. The subject property is located within a developed neighborhood with all facilities provided and access existing to the parcel. This project fits within the Class 3 and 4 exemptions because it is a singlefamily dwelling with one proposed accessory dwelling unit and related site improvements including grading, landscape, hardscape, and retaining walls on an existing legal building site.

Further, none of the exceptions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply. The project site does not contain any environmentally sensitive areas. There will be no cumulative impact resulting from successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time. The project site does not contain any environmentally sensitive areas in that the site is fully developed with an existing single-family dwelling and is surrounded on all sides by public streets and developed residential and institutional properties, and the City’s environmentally sensitive areas maps do not identify any such areas on-site or within the immediate Project vicinity. There are no unusual circumstances resulting in a significant impact on the environment. There will be no damage to scenic resources, including trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. The project is not located on a hazardous waste site or any other site included on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. The project will not result in significant adverse impacts to historical resources as defined by CEQA. Consequently, additional environmental analysis is not necessary to meet the requirements of the CEQA.

RECOMMENDATION:

Conduct a public hearing and, by motion, adopt Resolution 24-1572 (Attachment 1) approving Design Review 24-1572 and Coastal Development Permit 24-1688, and finding said action exempt from CEQA. 200
DR 24-1572, CDP 24-1688
June 26, 2025

NOTIFICATION:

Pursuant to Title 25 (Zoning) Public Notice, a public hearing notice was mailed on February 3, 2025 and posted on the project site on February 12, 2025.

CORRESPONDENCE:

At the time that the Design Review Board agenda was published, staff did not receive any correspondence about this project.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1 – Resolution No. 24-1572
Attachment 2 – Plans
Attachment 3 – Colored Elevations
Attachment 4 – Color and Material Board
Attachment 5 – Certified Staking Plan
Attachment 6 – February 27, 2025 Design Review Board Minutes Attachment 7 – February 27, 2025 Design Review Board Staff Report 201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
Attachment 11
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238

Chair Gibbs:

Well, let me get this on the record and then we'll wait for the staff report. Okay. I'm just calling the item. 607 Short Street Design Review 24-1572 and Coastal Development Permit 24-1688. Ex parte please.

Board Member Bauta:

I met with the applicant team and the neighbors next door as well, and I visited the sites, both sites.

Board Member Coveny:

I met with the applicant team and the Mahoney's, and I think that's it.

Chair Pro Tem Gannon:

Met with the applicant team and the Mahoney's next door as well.

Board Member Weil:

Same. And Steve Kawaratani, he was part of that.

Chair Pro Tem Gannon:

Right. And I spoke with Steve Kawaratani.

Board Member Bauta:

Likewise, forgot about Steve.

Chair Gibbs:

I met with Steve McIntosh who's the owner at the site, and I also met with Allison Mahoney. So we're waiting for the planner. So with that, everyone sit tight.

Why don't we take a five-minute break? We've done all the introductions, while we find the staff.

The meeting is called back to order. Applicant take the seat, and, Shaveta, could you give the staff report?
Shaveta Sharma:

Okay, good evening, Chair and Members of the Board. Item 5.7 is a request for design review and Coastal Development Permit for 607 Short Street. The project is located on the western side of Short Street across from Laguna Beach High School and is in the R-1 zone. The existing neighborhood consists of one and two-story homes with the adjacent residents as being two stories. The project is a major remodel of the residence and the scope proposes a two-story addition, a 52-square-foot addition to the existing garage, 325-square-foot addition to the elevated deck, and elevated deck at the second floor, landscaping, and lighting improvements. The proposed upstairs addition is 760 square feet, the lowerlevel addition is 226 square feet, and the lower-level deck is 325 square feet. There is a detached ADU in the rear that is not subject to design review but does have a Coastal Development Permit associated with it.

The project has been revised based on neighbor and board member comments at the original hearing on February 27th, 2025, and includes a reduction of the upper-level addition from 807 square feet to 760 square feet. There's been a reduction of 169 square feet of the lower level and a reduction of 260 square feet of living area. The upper-level addition has been pulled back an additional 5 feet from the Attachment 12
239

rear property line, and a large tree has been removed from the front yard. There has also been the removal of the stairwell window to increase privacy for adjoining residences.

The proposed improvements are not located in environmentally sensitive area and the project is in compliance with both Design Review Guidelines and all developmental standards. The project does not subsequently impair views and privacy and will be compatible with the scale of development present in the neighborhood. Staff has analyzed this request and finds that the project is in conformance and believes that the CDP findings for the project can be made. Staff's recommendation is that the board adopt resolution 24-1572, approving Design Review 24-0772, and Coastal Development Permit 24-0773, and finding said action exempt from CEQA. Staff has received correspondence since the publication of the agenda with neighbors having concerns regarding the mass and scale of the project and privacy and view impacts. The board should consider whether these impacts affect the project's ability to meet the Design Review criteria.

That concludes my presentation, and I'm available for any questions as is the applicant.

Chair Gibbs:

Thank you. Excellent presentation. Any questions?
All right, I open the public hearing. Applicant has five minutes.

Drew Blake:

Okay, thank you. My name is Drew Blake, and I'm the designer for the modest remodel on Short Street.

Thank you all for coming out, I appreciate meeting you guys and out there and answering your questions. To save time, I'm just going to move quickly through the bullet points that have been highlighted for the changes that we made and then I'll leave a little more time for Steve.

We pulled back the rear wall which is really just the main problem with the project in terms of view equity for the neighbors. So we moved that rear wall back 5 feet at this point; reduced the upper-level living space from 807 to 760, so a little 47-square-foot reduction; removed the front large tree which allowed a little more increased light and openness for the upper bedroom, look up towards the hillside; we changed out the south-facing bedroom, bathroom, and stairwell window to be opaque for better privacy for them; and we also reduced the closet size to a little bit smaller, that was from Christine from last time, so we tried to take the points that you all gave us and massage things around a little bit and see if we can work out at something positive tonight.

So I'll turn the time over to Steve [inaudible 00:09:14].

Steve McIntosh:

Good evening, everyone. So I want to do a quick recap of board comments from our February 27th DRB meeting. Board Member Gibbs objectively went through each design review criteria and was ready to approve the project that evening. Gibbs stated, "View equity was achieved in primary views of 615 Short or in the back towards the ocean." Member Coveney stated our upper bedroom needed to be retreated and the deck should remain obscured. We did both of those. Member Thalman said design looked to be in line with the DR guidelines, liked the idea of tweaking the design and pushing the master bedroom back and reduce the front closet size. We did that as well.

Slide please.

Member Weil commented the design could work but the extension on just one side may have unintended issues and compared to two lots basically drawn on a string line. And then I redid the string 240

line here a little straighter and what we heard you say is that pull it back, it means you don't have to get to that exact line, but our five-foot got us real close.

Slide please.

And Member Gannon had a red line and wanted us to move back behind that so it created a lot of privacy issues and then we'd have a narrow spot to construct and we'd have a lot of demo.

Slide please.

That's the same thing you just looked at.

Slide please. Next slide.

No, not going? Oh, got to get some time back, yeah. There it is. So we took a large twisted juniper in the front yard out as you can see on the left and then really opened it up on the right.

Slide please.

One back please. From the back it had big views that it opened up so... Wait, you can stay there. Yeah, see on the right it really opened that up.

Okay, next slide please.

So the primary views are... 615 are out the back towards the ocean and the coastline. Rooms with the primary views are master bathroom, master bedroom, large deck, spare bedroom, all out of the back of the house as you can see.

Slide please.

This is the previous use of the back corner guest room at 615 Short. Note, the window sizes are massive on the left, 12 by 4, 48 square feet while the secondary side windows total only 21 feet. Note the hedge growing up in front of the window.

Slide please.

At a recent DRB hearing for a project, it was stated by a board member that the window on the left is a view towards Main Bach and the window on the right is a secondary view. Both windows here are the same dimension.

Slide please.

There's a comparison here. There's a lot of similarities in this. Similar circumstances, so we like the same precedent should be followed, we feel.

Slide please.

What you have here is the front, same bedroom looking out. That's a five-foot pull back, that red line, and a lot of the ocean view to the left.

Slide please.

And a five-foot pull back from the center bedroom, as you can see is quite a view.

Slide please.

And here's a scope of the views from 615 Short. The range of the views from 615 Short after the tree removal, including in our addition, the Mahoney's would still have 100% of their primary ocean views in the back and some ocean views of the coastline views from secondary windows plus a major gain of never before views out the side. View equity, a property may enjoy specific views today and that experience may change as surrounding properties developed. The Mahoney's enjoyed a well over 100 degrees of view in their second floor for 6 years, with the giant tree removed, it's now 160 degrees. 241

Chair Gibbs:

Mr. McIntosh.

Steve McIntosh:

Yes.

Chair Gibbs:

Your time's up. You'll have three more minutes at the end if you want to resume. I'm going to open it up to the public.

Steve McIntosh:

Okay.

Chair Gibbs:

It's time to speak, if members of the public come up to the podium.

Chair Gibbs:

You have three minutes each.

Miles Mahoney:

Okay.

Thank you again, and thanks Board for hearing our position for a second time. What can I say that really hasn't been said or asked by all of you from us so far? This is our second go-round. And we met with the McIntoshes three times before the first meeting with all of you. And I think from a neighborhood compatibility standpoint, the idea was could we provide input and would they consider that input? None of which was considered, no other options, no other alternatives. We then met with all of you about two months ago and have since met with them two times. Provided again our input.

There's multiple options here that have not been considered. They didn't take any of our input or considerations at all. In fact, I think I sent all of you some of the correspondence and feedback from the last board meeting. And again, it feels like we're kicking the can down the road for a second time. The entire mass was moved five feet forward. So the massing, the view equity, the air and light, none of that has changed, none of it has changed. It's the same story, just five feet moved towards the street and a tree that's been removed, which was part of the overall plan to begin with. So as I stand up here and think to myself, we're back for a second time for five feet of movement. I just don't understand how this gets to a reasonable conclusion.

So I'd appreciate the consideration of reworking this in a way that considers options of moving it to the other side of the property, moving it to the front of the property. I think, Jessica, you or CJ had made the recommendation in the last board meeting to make that a consideration, none of which has been even presented. So, again, I am disappointed by the fact that we're back here again with you talking about changes that have been made and the net result is five feet of movement. Thank you.

Chair Gibbs:

Next speaker.
242

Allison Mahoney:

All right, I am going to read because this is just hard.

Thank you, Board Members, for visiting our property this week and for the thoughtfulness that each of you brought to the discussions, I think it's been a progressive discussion in terms of where to focus. And in the last couple of weeks I also met again with Vicki following the recent restaking so that we could try to continue a direct and constructive dialogue to convey our concerns.

Our most impactful concern is the massing and one single flat plane of wall across the entire depth of our house. To restate, Miles and I fully support our neighbor's right to improve their homes, we want to be clear we're not opposed to the McIntosh's rebuild. However, based on the updated design, we remain deeply concerned by the significant impacts to our privacy, light, and views, given the unchanged 40-foot-plus flat wall massing, which will block our house in on two sides of our property. Our homes sit at the same elevation. The proposed second level would affect all three of our upstairs rooms' spaces that are actively used by our family throughout the day for work, school, and personal time. The design compromises not only our enjoyment but its privacy, functionality, and financial value. Even from private areas of our home such as our master bathroom, the visibility into the proposed structure presents an uncomfortable intrusion.

Our historic home, built in 1937, was carefully designed to maximize the light and privacy. We have maximized our landscaping for screening, but landscaping cannot mitigate the design's impact. As a family of five, we rely on each room's functionality, especially upstairs, which is used for work, like I've described, study, family business. And we use all these rooms during daytime hours. It's clear to us based on what we've learned through this lengthy process starting last year in September, that there are feasible, less impactful design alternatives, but unfortunately none appear to be under consideration.

The McIntoshes indicated they expected feedback to push their design back but intentionally waited for the board meeting rather than initiating a dialogue or revising their plans in advance of this review.

So just to conclude, we're simply asking for a balanced approach here. One that respects our family's right to privacy, use, and value of our home, as well as the McIntosh's desire to build. And there are design constraints about flat wall massing and articulation that we assert should be considered. Thank you.

Chair Gibbs:

Thank you very much.

Next speaker.

Steve Kawaratani:
[inaudible 00:18:58], can you cue me up?
Thank you.

Good evening, Chair Gibbs, Board Members, and staff. My name is Steve Kawaratani, and I represent the Mahoneys. It's disappointing that we have to return here again from February to see basically lipstick...

Well, I won't finish that thought, but basically we still have concerns with design articulation, view equity, and neighborhood compatibility.

If you look at the lower image, we're not objecting to a second-story program. What we are objecting to is having the entire upper-floor program moved up next to the neighbors.

Next slide.
243

So I have a bit more of a comprehensive board comment for your review. Basically Chair Gannon said that there's a gorgeous view that would be completely blocked. She also recommended a more traditional-style house with the second story going across the entire width of the roof, and she doesn't support a program that is entirely on the left-hand side of the property. Board Member Gibbs was a bit of an outlier from his four colleagues. He was ready to support the project. Board Member Weil basically expressed concern about the impact of the proposed extension. He reinforced the cost as not part of the design review process. He recommended pulling the extension back and suggested a reasonable string line for development to avoid an extensive extension. Board Member Covney said the location choice might be better on the opposite side. She also had concern about the upper structure blocking the Mahoney's back bedroom views. And finally, she stated the importance of preserving the view of the hillsides for the Mahoney's. And I'll skip over Chris'.

Next slide.

So we're disappointed, if you look at the top image, that is what was presented, and as Miles said, it was pulled back five feet.

Next slide please.

That is what will happen at the back bedroom if the project is built as designed.

And final slide please.

Basically, the municipal code allows a third hearing if the board can make the finding that the applicant follow the authority's direction from the initial hearing in good faith. I don't believe that has occurred.

Thank you.

Chair Gibbs:

Thank you, Mr. Karacami.

Any other speakers?
Go ahead.

Vicki McIntosh:

Thank you. Thank you, Board. My name's Vicki McIntosh. We all met. I'd like to thank you for your time, thank you for coming to our home, seeing our project, and listening to our thoughts and concerns.

As a CPA, I'm not a creative person, but instead I'm a data-driven person. I operate with integrity using the facts that are available. Steve mentioned the last board hearing several times, I see our neighbors have mentioned that, but what I'd like to do is when it comes down to me, we've looked through those comments, looked at the hearing, we've reviewed and re-reviewed them. The neighbors collectively were concerned with privacy, air light, and views. I'm a bottom-line kind of person and I really think it comes down to view equity. We can talk about privacy, air, and light, but I feel all those things have been taken care of.

Equity is synonymous, excuse me, with fairness and partiality, honest integrity balance, and that's why we're here taking your time. It's not about deceitfulness, lies, favoritism, or subjectivity. We pulled five feet back from the back to widen the view for Mrs. Mahoney's home office window. This is in addition to her existing beautiful primary ocean view shared in that same room, which is much greater than the side view.

They purchased their home next to the only undeveloped one-story home in the area. Steve mentioned earlier about a property may enjoy a specific view today, but that experience may change as surrounding properties are developed. That's under chapter 16 of the Design Review Guidelines. A 244

balance of interest should be achieved in which all those who enjoy the view, new or existing, retain some access to it. And I find that that's in the same situation we're in today. They bought the home next to the only one story in the neighborhood. Were not taking away their ocean view, but instead a small portion of their hillside view. It also says in the Design Review Code, "Avoid blocking neighbor's primary views." Our proposed design doesn't block the primary view, we're only asking for equity. And when I say equity, we're asking for way less than 50% of their existing views.

I just like to say thank you again for taking the time to listen to us. Thank you.

Chair Gibbs:

Thank you very much.

Any other members of the public?
Speaker 15:

Hi. Just wanted to add something brief. I know these projects are a lot to think about and a lot of different angles on them. Just as a resident of Laguna Beach. I observed on the online and also last time, both the first time and the second time through the staff said it supports this project. I think that's highly worthy of consideration. I sit in a lot of the city council meetings and that's important.

The second thing is, what got me to come down here is to paraphrase what you guys said earlier tonight, somebody said on another project that something to the effect of, "To deny this is to deny what everyone else has." This is a one-story house that's surrounded by two-story homes, and this is Laguna Beach, and it's not blocking the beach, it's not blocking the beach view. I just find that a bit troubling that it's stuck in this process a little bit. The proposed home I would say is neighborhood compatible, it's been staked multiple times. I've seen the stakes move multiple times. Extensive accommodations have already been made, include cutting down a massive tree that was in the front, reducing the square footage, and other things that were mentioned.

So anyway, I just wanted to come down and say that, and I think the work the staff has done is really strong on this and so I think it's important.

Chair Gibbs:

Thank you very much.

Any other speakers?
Seeing none, applicant has three-minute rebuttal.

Steve McIntosh:

To continue on, the Mahoney's have enjoyed a well over 100 degrees of view from their second floor for 6 years, with the giant tree removed it's now approximately 160 degrees. We have absolutely zero degrees of view. In the spirit of view equity, our gain of primary ocean view only blocks roughly 25 degrees of their secondary hill views. However, the tree removal, they've gained another 25 degrees back towards the front. View equity means achievement of a fair, reasonable, balanced accommodation of view. We think we've achieved exactly that and urge you to approve our project tonight.

And in response to Mr. Mahoney, we have spent countless hours studying all their ideas they passed, and we've talked to them about it, why they're not feasible, how they have privacy issues, and they're not hearing what they want to hear so they've just ignored it. 245

So over the past 20 years, we've designed, redesigned, massaged, and planned our dream home. We sought input for several architects, the city, neighbors, and former DRB members. Resoundingly the feedback we received was that we'll have no problem with this design. There's no one for you to block.

We have been told dozens of times over the years that our plans do not affect primary ocean views of 615. In fact, DRB member Steve Kawaratani, who came to our house to look at our landscape in '04, said about this exact addition to our home that, "This design would not be a problem because there's no blocking of primary views." I guess he just forgot that too. In fact, when he and I spoke this past December when he called to say he was hired by the Mahoney's, he's stated, "You're in control here, Steve." He said, "I'd like to see you pull it back a few feet." I guess he forgot that too. So we've done just that.

So in my 10-plus discussions with Miles Mahoney in 5-and-a-half years, he always said, "I can never understand how anyone can tell someone they can or cannot build on their property." I guess he forgot that as well. So there's a lot of amnesia going on here, including last September when I showed him the plans, he also said his wife would not like it but she'd get over it, yet here we are.

At the last DRB meeting, Miles said when he asked me what I'll feel if I were in their shoes was not exactly how it wentChair Gibbs:

I'm going to break in, Mr. McIntosh. I want to hear about your project. I don't want to hear statements about what people said in the past, it doesn't make any difference to us, we can't verify it. So focus on your project please.

And for my comments, I'll restore 30 seconds to his time, but I'm not going to listen to what he said, she said.

Steve McIntosh:

Okay, that's a rebuttal. Anyway. So basically, we got to the point where our neighbors... Okay, we're not even going to talk about that. So I'm going to address something about the mass and scale. One of the neighbors had said that his upstairs is 36% of his and that ours is massive. Did the math, ours is 31%, so we're well beneath everybody, including the Mahoney's, including people behind us, including all the places behind us. So that's it. Thank you.

Chair Gibbs:

Okay. First of all, I know this is emotional, it's understandable. We're here objectively to hear the evidence and make deliberations. So let everybody understand that.

Okay, questions of the applicant or the public.

Board Member Bauta:

Yeah, I've got a question. I think that the elephant in the room is pertaining to that view. Are you prepared with anything to modify the leading edge? I think pulling it back was a creative solution, but it seems like there's still some conflict on that leading edge. Are you ready to present something that's maybe pulls back that leading edge a bit?
246

Steve McIntosh:

Yeah, I think we're willing to do a little bit of something here, but we need some guidance on what we're talking about. One person says one thing and one person's 5 feet is another person's 20 feet. So we're just trying to get an idea of what that means in your case.

Board Member Bauta:

Thank you.

Steve McIntosh:

Yeah, we're open to do someChair Gibbs:

Okay, any other questions?
All right, I close the public hearing. Who would like to begin? Chair Pro Tem Gannon:

I can probably kick off on this one. I'll be brave.

I'll start with the red line that you presented tonight. I stand by that red line. It would still not preserve that mountain view, it would be a taking, but at least it would be a compromise. In my viewpoint, my professionalism, the way that I view property and evaluate property, if it devalues somebody else's property, then something needs to change. And I think that where that red line is, I'm going to stand strong on that red line because it won't preserve all of that mountain view but it'll protect the majority of it. It'll also help with light and air.

The other issue I have is the articulation on that side, you have a two-story, straight-up-and-down wall, there's no articulation facing the house, the neighbor's house. So view equity hasn't been achieved, the articulation hasn't been achieved. I don't find the neighborhood compatible because of the articulation that house, you're in the village, so I think a different design, also you presented a design of another house that stretched across as I recommended in the first meeting. That's something that would be neighborhood compatible. You definitely have the right as a homeowner to have a second story, I'm not saying that, it's just this isn't it. I can't approve this project tonight, it doesn't meet neighborhood compatibility, view equity, or articulation.

Chair Gibbs:

All right, who would like to go next? [inaudible 00:32:13] Louis.

Board Member Weil:

There's a lot of positives with your project in general, but I think to Jessica's point, the view equity is really the bigger concern, and I think we talked about it a lot at the first hearing was there's a lot of availability on your second level that the board's unanimously discussed that there's availability for square footage up there. And it's definitely the right to your property and the right enjoyment for you to have a second story on this project, to have a balcony that looks at the ocean. Those are all factors in the design review criteria that you read. You have the ability to achieve a view as well as balance the rights of preserving views of others. The pop-up direction that you're going is absolutely the right way to go. I just think there's some massaging or some characteristics that we were looking for from the first 247

direction, and in first hearing is to typically try to give it a little bit more broad, a little bit more leeway for the architect to really do his magic.

I was having a discussion with Drew that just kind of top line... Shaveta, can you pull up the image for me? And I just want to give you some more specifics. The five-foot reduction wasn't enough. And these are just rough sketches just to help articulate the discussion points. The view equity we all know is that corner that the rear, bathroom sitting area are all in. Now, the areas in red could be areas of reduction to get that back into a light. It's not to scale or anything, but I think you could have that element where you have a little bit more of an enclosed deck, just very similar to the neighbors.

But areas in yellow and even other areas on the other side could be expanded to you. But if the closet were to be moved to the other side, you're ripping down that level, the roof, and all those components otherwise. I'd just be encouraged to see that maybe the sitting area maintains but the bathroom and the closet get moved maybe to the other side, giving maybe some more space across the middle part of that H that you could have a little bit better bedroom and components with this. I don't see where that would wreck your project. And I think if we can find this kind of balance, if there's willingness on the parties to come together, I think we have a good project that both parties mutually leave with some uncomfortableness. But I know this is your dream to improve your property and I'm not wanting to stand in the way, but I think there's more balanced ways we could achieve that.

And again, I'm just putting up this as an idea of how I was wrapping around where the issues were and where I thought availability was. But I'm totally open to Drew's expertise in characteristics. The issues of the long, expansive wall still exist with the five-foot reduction. There could be some articulation on that side, but addressing a couple of these things may make it a much better home and a much better usable spot. And for me, I'd need to take a look at it again. If there's some better discussion and dialogue I could support a third hearing, but this is kind of where I'm at. I'm not supportive of it tonight, but I want it. There is a good project in this house.

Chair Gibbs:

All right.

Board Member Coveny:

Okay.

Chair Gibbs:

MJ.

Board Member Coveny:

Can I go?
Chair Gibbs:

Yeah.

Board Member Coveny:

So this is always difficult, and I know it's been hard for both of you guys. I actually took a stab, I sent it to Drew as well because I felt that there had to be a solution here. And I usually don't do the cocktail drawing but I think mine was a little better than yours, Louis. I'm just saying. It was very similar in nature though.
248

So every lot's different, every angle's different, every view's different. So that's how we look at it. That's why everything has to be looked at as we do, very uniquely from our points of view. We do have our criteria that we follow. There's nuances rarely, but normally it's very clear, but there's always different points of view. In this case, I think it's very clear that this is a split view out this back area. You actually took the picture from the corner, which kind of shows, this is our view, it's hillside and it's ocean. The view of the ocean is further away. I know you zoomed in on some to give it the impression it was closer, but it's actually further away. So when we have all this, we have to look with our own eyes and we did.

And I saw that there is a view equity issue which is definite.

I also agree with the mass and scale articulation. I don't think the size is a problem necessarily. And I didn't drill down on this I think in the last meeting because I was really focused on view equity. That's the moneymaker here in Laguna. Everybody wants to hold onto their views. We can work around articulation, mass scale, those are usually easy; privacy, you pull a shade. Those kinds of things can be handled really easily. View equity's the big one.

So I don't feel like, and I might not be accurate, but I don't feel like we really looked at options with the other side. Also, your back setback, you have so much space below back there to extend for if you need square footage and then you can build on the other side towards the front and a little bit... I think I had it in line almost with the chimney of the Mahoney's house, so that you didn't encroach into that view on the hillside.

If I didn't feel like there were options, I'd be all up and... We're really stuck. We'd be really in a tough place, but I feel like there's options here to come up with the design that can support your desire to have a lovely master suite, sitting, dressing area, access from that section of the house, which I still think you can access possibly from the other side, and build your suite over there and it would be great. But you're going out the back ending off the dining room and using that as your lift up. But again, I'm not an architect, but I do know that there's ways, having built my own house.

So view equity, mass, and articulation. Also, when it comes to some other concepts, your tree is great but that was a concession that benefited you as well and it's a great thing. It's going to help their view from the front to Laguna High School, but it never really blocked, from what I could see, the canyon view that substantially. But it's great if you guys can work together with things like that because every little bit helps and you give a little, they give a little, and that's the great way to find those compromises. So I think there's something here, to Louis' point, it's a property that has... You have a lot of space going forward and back, I think you've got setback opportunities there. View equity is what you really need to put your energy into.

I also think sort of the house kind of stopping halfway at the top there's a little funky. The beautiful illustration you had of the double dormer and then the center meeting was beautiful, especially if it came back in line with, maybe not the Jessica line, but the chimney line, would be just lovely. But that's out of my purview. But anyway, I digress. That's it. Thank you.

Chair Gibbs:

Thank you, MJ.

Imer.

Board Member Bauta:

Yeah, thank you, Chair.

I had a chance to watch the previous meeting and go into depth on some of the comments, and I think what I'm hearing from some of my fellow board members is that they left it up to the team to come up 249

with another solution. I had a chance to review the drawings, and I think that there is something here, there's definitely a project here. I think we should definitely give them a third hearing. I think that's a fair shake here. I'd like to see that wall pull back. What that looks like, I think the design team has substantial input between Louis and MJ and Jessica going through and just giving you the clean slate to come up with something that's going to work.

From my personal view, I think they can come back. I think that view equity was preserved in two circumstances, obviously the ocean line and then also the coastline, there's a piece that you could see in this, but the third piece is the hillside. And I understand the tree removal was added into the radius of viewport, and we can appreciate that. But for this particular case it sounds like there's the need for the third. I think there was a good attempt, but I think that we got to get something that's going to work for this design team.

Chair Gibbs:

Thank you, Imer.

Well, I expressed my views last time and reductions were made, so my views haven't changed. Bottom line, my view is that the issue is really view equity because privacy can be dealt with, and we're talking view equity from secondary bedrooms. And the most important, their prize bedroom, the Mahoney's, is the corner room, which is the study. Secondary bedrooms, we rarely give any view equity considerations, particularly where the house has other great views, which the house does from the master and the deck upstairs. The study has a much bigger picture window facing toward the ocean, and on the side window the building was put back five feet. So, I feel for the applicants here, but I totally respect the different views of my colleagues. You heard what they have to say. Basically, they're asking you to redesign to protect views from two subsidiary bedrooms and a study that has a really terrific view that's not being impinged. With all of that said, I would support a third hearing.

The other comment I would have about that is the board members are asking the parties to work together to come up with a... They've offered their own designs, so if they were doing their designs that's what they would do. But they're asking the parties to get together and try to redesign the McIntoshes' house. I see that's going to be a real problem here. And there's so much emotion and it's legitimate emotion. I'm talking both with the McIntoshes and the Mahoneys. And it's tough to get around that. I was a judicial mediator for many years and one of the reasons you have mediation is because the parties can't talk to one another. I don't know if you can do that directly or do that through an intermediary. Because you're entitled to have a house and you're entitled to have a second story.

And the one thing I do agree with with my colleagues is there is a house here to be designed that could meet the approval of this board. And I think our job here is to approve projects that meet the guidelines.

I would love to see here a solution.

And since this project's not going to be approved, I would hope this board continues it to a third hearing.

I would hope you guys can put aside the emotions. You guys were once friends, go back to being friends.

Sit down with... Drew, you're good architect, sit down, pencil it out, and do some give and take. Realize that you've enjoyed a single story house next to you which unique in that neighborhood for a long time and it's not meant to stay forever. Understand the concerns that the McIntoshes have about the location of the second story. By the same token, you've heard the board, you're going to need to protect their canyon and their side views. There is a solution here. So with that saidBoard Member Coveny:

Chair, may I have one comment before you close?
250

Chair Gibbs:

Go ahead.

Board Member Coveny:

I just want to make a clarification because I know they want direction. I want to make sure that we were all clear enough. So one thing you said, my concern wasn't with the middle bedroom, it's only with the study den office, as far as view equity. Center bedroom is not important or not to me viable in this particular, in our parameters. Yeah, so I just want to be clear about that.

Board Member Bauta:

Yeah, I wanted to echo that too. I think it's just that front bedroom, and I think it's not the entirety of the view, I think it's at least a partial view of the hill.

Chair Gibbs:

How much would youChair Pro Tem Gannon:
[inaudible 00:45:41].

Chair Gibbs:

Listen, listen, I can do whatever. I'm the chair, I have the floor.

Chair Pro Tem Gannon:

I recommend not putting a number on it, it needs to be restaked.

Chair Gibbs:

I have the floor.

Chair Pro Tem Gannon:

Okay.

Chair Gibbs:

Then you can comment, Jess, let me have the floor then I'll give it to you.

Both of you indicated that your concern is the side window in the study. It was pulled back five feet, which increased that view. How much further back would you want it to be able to approve this project? Chair Pro Tem Gannon:

The red line as I suggested, so whateverBoard Member Coveny:

And I also sent a drawing to Drew saying this is where I think we could be, somewhere in here. So I'm not going to give him a number.
251

Board Member Weil:

Can we see that drawing by any chance?
Chair Gibbs:

That's my next question. Can I see the drawing, so we can... I want to see if we can at least narrow the issues for the third hearing because what I was hearing from both, and maybe I misunderstood, this is called deliberations. This is good. What I was hearing from Louis and from Jess was basically a redesign.

And, Jess, I saw your redesign I think in photos that were shown to me that you had given to the applicant. And I saw your redesign on the screen, Louis, which was much more than just dealing with that study, that corner study. If MJ and Imer can improve the project by pulling back that house to give a little bit more view from that side window, I think we need to look at that. So with that said, can you pull up yourBoard Member Coveny:

How do I pull it up though? It's on my... Can I [inaudible 00:47:25]? Board Member Weil:

Chair, while we do that, I articulated in that drawing, it's probably like eight more feet to get back there, but my question was going to be to the applicant. If they have a few specific questions for where we're at in the discussion.

Chair Gibbs:

I'm want us to explore this before we open it to the applicant. Looking at it, you just want it so you can't see the build hit the second story at all from that side window. Is that your view, Louis? Board Member Weil:

I think it just needs to be tucked back. I think there's two things into the equation. One is the availability of space that are less impactful that could be utilized while still achieving their results. And even though I suggested the closets moving and that kind of stuff, what they do in the inside of the space, that's completely up to them. But there was just that's where the drawings were now and those kinds of swaps could make sense, but it's up to them.

Chair Gibbs:

My view is it's just not fair to say that that whole side window has to have an unobstructed view. That is such an impingement on the right of the applicant that built. That's my personal view.

Board Member Bauta:

Yeah, I agree with you, Chair Gibbs.

Chair Gibbs:

Okay, can I see that chart and then we can talk about this? City Attorney Donegan:

Chair, I still think we're working on the tech side to get it to252

Chair Pro Tem Gannon:

And, Chair, while we're waiting can you make the findings because I can't make the findings for a third hearing. Can you provide the findings?
Chair Gibbs:

We're not there yet. I want to see what the issues are.

Drew Blake:
[inaudible 00:49:03].

Board Member Bauta:

Yeah, Chair, just the guidance. I think from what I could tell, five to six feet, somewhere in that range, pulling that wall back would go a long way. I think it would open up the corridor. I also think it would give a nice view of that coastline and partial hillside, from what I could tell fromChair Gibbs:

I'm sorry, I don't want to miss... Five to six feet did you say? Board Member Bauta:

Yeah, I think five to six feet would help a ton.

Chair Gibbs:

Pulling back the building. So for the benefit of the side window in that study? Board Member Bauta:

That's right.

Chair Gibbs:

Okay.

MJ, is that something you could support as well?
Board Member Coveny:
[inaudible 00:49:47] I was busy with technology [inaudible 00:49:53].

Chair Gibbs:

Okay. Imer said, I don't want to use words, that he said that heBoard Member Coveny:
[inaudible 00:49:56].

Chair Gibbs:

I'm sorry?
253

Board Member Coveny:

I could not put a actual number on it. I'd have to look at my plan and what I sent and then do the calculation. But my plan is very close, might be a little further than it needs to go.

Chair Gibbs:

So we would need to look at your chart. On your chart, does it indicate how many feet back it would go? Board Member Coveny:

If you want to put a floor plan up, I can show you where I colored it in.

Board Member Weil:

It's directional at best, and I just want to make sure that... Even though I drew something on this thing, that's just directional guidance, I still reserve the right to review the project if we hear this again and have a full different opinion. Putting specific markings on what I'm going to accept or not. I'm not accepting of the project in its current form.

Chair Gibbs:

I think let me cut to the chase here because I agree with what Louis said, we're not bound to anything that we indicate tonight, although I think we should try to be clear. They pulled back that five feet. I think that shows good faith toward reaching a resolution. I know. So I support a third hearing on that basis, particularly given I think at least three board members would support the project if the second story is pulled further back to enhance the view of the side window in the upstairs study. Because of that, because they made the move to do five feet, I think good faith exists to address the issue that is troubling at least three members of the... Well, two members of the board, it's not troubling me. And that therefore there's good cause to put this over to a third hearing if the applicant desires a third hearing, is willing to follow that direction.

Jess, you have the floor.

Chair Pro Tem Gannon:

Oh, I have no further comments.

Chair Gibbs:

All right.

Board Member Weil:

I'd just strike the five-foot comment because it's still directional. Changes need to occur and other impacts could create a different privacy concerns if the decking becomes different, but I think there's a lot of balance and stuff and availability that they can work on the right solution. But I'm not going to be held to five feet.

Chair Gibbs:

Okay, but before I ask the applicant if he's interested in a third hearing, can I get just a straw vote on who's willing to support a third hearing?
Imer, what's your feeling?
254

Board Member Bauta:

Yeah, absolutely.

Chair Gibbs:

Louis?
Board Member Weil:

Yeah, just want to get the willingness from the applicant.

Chair Gibbs:

Yeah, I'll get to that. So I think we have at least the majority to do that. So the question to you, Mr.

McIntosh, is whether you're willing to go back to the... You've heard three board members to talk about the issue being the view from Mahoney's side window in the study. I'm sure there's two others that want probably more. So do you want us to vote a yay or any tonight or do you want to go over to a third hearing and try to get this thing through on the third hearing? Drew Blake:

This is Drew, just for the record. We did do some studies and I do have a plan here on the floor plan that back additional three feet, so it'd be a total of eight. So I'm not sure if that moves the marker at all any? Chair Gibbs:

I'm not hearing it. I think Louis' point is he needs to see it. I'd like to get at least a four vote, hopefully a five vote the next time. You heard Imer say that maybe five to six feet, you heard MJ saying she can't commit to it, she needs to see it. So I don't think that's going to work.

Drew Blake:

Okay.

Chair Gibbs:

I know it's an important decision and I don't mean to rush you, butVicki McIntosh:
[inaudible 00:54:06].

Chair Gibbs:

What?
Board Member Weil:

That's MJ's scribble, just for the record, or notes.

Board Member Coveny:

It's not scribble. Look [inaudible 00:54:19] sitting area. [inaudible 00:54:22] now you walk into the mirror255

Chair Pro Tem Gannon:

Speak.

Board Member Coveny:

I actually laid it out nicer.

Board Member Weil:

Yeah, but again, just beyondChair Gibbs:

Yeah, we're beyond that.

Board Member Weil:

The interior is not within the Design Review Guidelines.

Board Member Coveny:

I know. I'm just sayingBoard Member Weil:

Very nice drawings.

Board Member Coveny:

I want them to show them that they could get everything they wanted, which was stillChair Gibbs:

I know. We're beyond that. I don't want to be talking about interior. We're not going to approve the [inaudible 00:54:45].

Board Member Coveny:

You asked to see my drawing, it's there. Thank you whoever put it up.

Board Member Bauta:

Chair, I think it'sBoard Member Weil:

MJ, I apologize. I asked for it butBoard Member Bauta:

Got it.

Board Member Weil:

I know, I love it.
256

Board Member Bauta:

I think it's worth noting to the applicant team that MJ's sketch was probably substantially more than the five or six, just for guidance.

Chair Gibbs:

Does the applicant have it?
Board Member Coveny:

Yes.

Chair Gibbs:

Okay, good.

Board Member Bauta:

So that'll go into their decision.

Chair Pro Tem Gannon:

Chair, I move to continue. Do you guys want to have a vote or a continuance? Chair Gibbs:

No, I want to hear back from them.

Chair Pro Tem Gannon:

Okay.

Chair Gibbs:

They have to decide if they want a continuance.

Board Member Weil:

A voter continuance. And how soon could we get them back if we were to expedite getting them back? Steve McIntosh:

Sorry.

Chair Gibbs:

Hold on a second.

Drew Blake:

Can we ask one question? Oh, sorry. A question of how long until we could come back? Board Member Weil:

That's what I just asked.
257

Drew Blake:

Oh.

Board Member Weil:

That's usually the first question.

Chair Gibbs:

Yeah, go ahead, Bill.

Board Member Weil:

But if we can try to get this back.

Bill:

Yeah, so, Chair, in part, it depends on how much time you think you'll need to incorporate the revisions.

But at this point, if we're trying to expedite return, I would suggest maybe August 14th, which would be highly expedited. Or perhaps September 11th.

Board Member Weil:

There's only one meeting in August, soChair Gibbs:

Yeah, my suggestion is that you've come a long road on this. Do this September 11. I'll give you a little bit more time. And again, you guys got to be neighbors. I encourage you guys, sit down, put the emotions aside, get somebody in there that you both feel comfortable with to help get this project through.

Board Member Weil:
[inaudible 00:56:18] September 11?
Chair Gibbs:

Oh, 9/11.

Drew Blake:

Okay, we'd like to have a vote for the continuance, please.

Chair Gibbs:

Okay, I moveDrew Blake:

September 11th.
258

Chair Gibbs:

Yeah, I move that item 5.7... I don't have my glasses. 607 Short Street be continued to September 11, 2025, with the finding that the prior changes in the plans for the second hearing showed good faith and that there is adequate cause to proceed to a third hearing to resolve the issues as described by the board.

Board Member Coveny:

I second that.

Chair Gibbs:

Roll call please.

Speaker 4:

Board Member Bauta?
Board Member Bauta:

Yes.

Speaker 4:

Board Member Covney?
Board Member Coveny:

Yes.

Speaker 4:

Board Member Weil?
Board Member Weil:

Yes.

Speaker 4:

Chair Pro Tem Gannon?
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:

Yes.

Speaker 4:

Chair Gibbs?
Chair Gibbs:

Yes.

Good luck to you.
259

Drew Blake:

Thank you, guys, really appreciate it.

Board Member Coveny:

And, Drew, you feel like you have enough from us, right? You good? Drew Blake:

Yeah.

Board Member Coveny:

Because I don't want to be accused of not giving you clear direction.

Drew Blake:

All's good. [inaudible 00:57:41].

Chair Gibbs:

Okay. Thank you very much.

Next item, please.
260
From: steve kawaratani
To: Gibbs, Thomas; Gannon, Jessica; Coveny, Mary Jo; Bauta, Imer; Weil, Louis Cc: Sharma, Shaveta CD; Balmer-Csira, Nancy CD; Rodrigues, Bill CD Subject: 5.7 607 Short Street & 5.8 31112 Holly Drive
Date: Saturday, June 21, 2025 9:17:22 AM
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.]
Good morning, Chair Gibbs and Board members,
I hope that the first weekend of summer finds you doing or planning something fun.

This week I represent Alison and Miles Mahoney, who reside next door to the proposed project at 607 Short Street, and Frank Giacobetti, who is the property owner at 31112 Holly Drive.

The Mahoneys continue to have concern over their neighbor’s application that falls short of the clear direction provided by the Board during the first hearing. The proposed reductions are not a good faith effort to mitigate the continuing issues of excessive massing, view equity and loss of air and light.

The applicant team is grateful for Nancy Csira’s recommendation for approval for Frank’s modest project on Holly Drive.

I am available to meet in advance of the Design Review meeting, most anytime from Tuesday through Thursday. I understand that Tom and MJ have reached out to my clients for Monday meetings and I can be contacted later if questions arise.

Please enjoy your weekends!
Best,
Steve
949.290.0210
Attachment 13
261
From:

To: Design Review Board; Gibbs, Thomas; Coveny, Mary Jo; [email protected]; Gannon, Jessica; Campbell, James CD; Rodrigues, Bill CD; Sharma, Shaveta CD Cc: "Alison Mahoney";
Subject: 607 Short Street McIntosh rebuild - Mahoney Family submitting comments here...

Date: Friday, June 20, 2025 12:45:56 PM
Attachments: MacIntosh Remodel Miles v.2.docx
Board Review statement Alison 2025-02-22.docx
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] From: Alison Mahoney
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2025 11:28 AM
To: Miles Mahoney
Subject: Fw: McIntosh rebuild - Mahoney Family submitting comments here...

From: Alison Mahoney < >
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2025 11:19 AM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Thomas Gibbs <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Louis Weil <[email protected]>; To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Campbell, James CD <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Sharma, Shaveta CD <[email protected]> Cc:

Subject: McIntosh rebuild - Mahoney Family submitting comments here...

Dear Design Review Board Members -
Thank you all for the time and careful consideration of our input in the Design Review process. As we have stated before in comments submitted and the prior DRB meeting, we are in no way against the McIntoshes improving their home however their proposed design represents a significant impact to our privacy.

Please see our first comments and statements attached from 2/27. Miles and I are submitting our comments again here in advance of the 6/26 Board Meeting so that we can clearly state our concerns about privacy, massing and how the McIntoshes proposed design will impact our home significantly. 262
We cannot reorient our 88 year old historic home, and each upstairs room window on the North side will be forced to face looking at a single, massive flat wall running 42 feet, well beyond the length of our home.

In the last Board meeting, Four out of Five board members gave specific feedback on the design and suggested changes which have been disregarded. The new design staking shows a reduction of about 4 feet, but does not impact the massing and a complete loss of privacy, light and views. In addition it's not aesthetically attractive and will devalue our home.

Here are some of the relevant and specific comments made in the Board meeting:

Jessica Gannon -
So, also included in the design review guidelines is view blockage that includes not only the ocean but a hillside. And the photo that I took in that primary room, which is now being used as an office, is-has that peekaboo view of the ocean, but for me, I noticed that it has a phenomenal—and I should have submitted this to the city and I will after tonight’s meeting so it’s on public record. But that hillside is absolutely gorgeous and it would completely—and I’m saying—everything that I’m going to say now I said to you when we met. That would significantly devalue that property next door. My suggestion—what I recommend is having —I understand the stairs needing to be located where they are—keep the stairs there, but drag the house completely—like a more traditional style house —two-story house where it goes across the width of the roof and then keep the articulation—you have a brilliant architect there—I’m sure he can figure it out. . I just don’t support overloading the left side, but I understand why—you explained really well why you have to have the stairs on the left side, so if you can work that out to take the program across the width, you could have my support.

Louis Weil -
But when you read the design review guidelines, you get to sides to this conversation in that whole document. You have the right to achieve a view with your building, but on the other side of that statement you’ve got to balance the views, and the privacy, and the other things that come with it. So there’s two sides to almost every single statement in the document. I think as it applies to this house, right—and a lot of times in a lot of areas in town we try to encourage this kind of pop-up design. But I think the way the extension is on just the one side, I think it is creating some impacts, especially to the rear side of the lot. 263
But I’m not saying that a larger program couldn’t be achieved on that second story, given the neighborhood compatibility of the second stories that surround the high school area of the vicinity. And, looking at your house now, it’s kind of the shape of an H on the bottom floor, right, and you’re trying to just run it on the one side. I think if you were to look more at the H part and work more toward the middle part back, you probably could achieve more program. I know board member Gibbs talked about feasibility, but when it comes to design review guidelines, cost isn’t part of analysis, right? Yes, it is some part of the equation overall, but in terms of trying to achieve what you want and still achieve your view, I think it’s still well-afforded in your second level availability? But I don’t think in the current layout, it kind of meets that balancing nature of the view impact from the length that it extends from the one side. So, in short, if you pull it back I can be much more approvable of the program extending across the front or making bigger sections in the middle part. Or over the garage. So, Dana, did you—also looking at the aerial of the two lots neighboring you’ve got kind of the Mahoneys on one side and the property on the other. Their second level doesn’t extend nearly as far as the one you’re proposing? So what I was trying to look at was kind of a reasonable string line, so you kind of keep that opening available? For not only the Mahoneys but the other side. But then it affords you a reasonable development, kind of, for lack of a better word, string line. I’d like to see something closer to that? It doesn’t mean that you have to get to that exact line, but that’s where I’m drawing reasonability within the design, kind of at this point in the discussion. And I think that might be a much more balanced equation and maybe achieve some of what board member Gannon was discussing.

MJ Coveny -
I think that, kind of, if you had tried to do it on the other side, it would have been a slam/dunk, but you’re here and this is where you want it and we’ll see if we can make it fit, based on what you’ve got. I agree with Mr. Gibbs on design articulation. I think along the side, you’re fine there. I think that the upper coming out so far and blocking the back bedroom of the Mahoneys is something that just can’t happen. That has to be looked at very thoroughly. I appreciate you opening up that front bedroom window by removing that large tree that’s sort of there now, so they’re going to gain view there, and—but they’re definitely going to lose that middle bedroom. I don’t think light is an issue. I don’t think breeze and that kind of stuff is an issue. I think it’s really visually—it’s just—it’s a big loss. Even though this isn’t a super ceremonial space, it’s an active space. I mean, I could feel that just by how the house is set up. So I really feel that that needs to be addressed; that they need to have that, as Ms. 264
Gannon pointed out, that amazing view of the hillside, which hopefully will continually stay pristine for them. So really look at that.

Dana Thalman -
Okay. Well, my first reaction when I came to the McIntoshes and saw the plans and took a look at the stakes, it looked very reasonable. It looked to be in line with all the design review guidelines. But then after going to the neighbors’ next door, the—especially the master bedroom upstairs—that had a sort of in-yourface blockage, even though I know you’ve opted to put in privacy windows, which I think is a good idea. I think board member Coveney’s idea about pushing that master bedroom back—and I hate to say this to you—but then you have to reduce your walk-in closet. It’s a beautiful closet. I’m jealous. But maybe pushing everything back might alleviate some of that—it’s the light and air; it’s not so much privacy—it’s light and air, and there is a view from their office window.

Steve McIntosh saying they cannot change the design based on their budget and existing limitations of their home's structure. This is not the focus of the Design Review Board.

And so what happens when we do that—we’re working around an existing floor plan. There’s very little that we can do. We’re not tearing it down, we’re not building from a new—so what ends up happening—that shows it flipped over.

We have one spot for the stairs, which is basically in—where it was, and it’s been suggested that we just build all the way across then, and that’s what we end up with. But we’re just limited on where we can put stairs. We’ve got issues with plumbing, electrical. It’s cost-prohibitive. We’ve got to work on concrete—a lot more concrete to build all the way across.

Thank you for the sincere consideration of our concerns, Alison and Miles Mahoney
<Board Review statement Alison 2025-02-22.docx>
265
From: Jeffrey Amos
To: Gannon, Jessica; Gibbs, Thomas; Coveny, Mary Jo; Bauta, Imer; Weil, Louis Cc: Campbell, James CD; Rodrigues, Bill CD; Sharma, Shaveta CD; Design Review Board; Todd Brooks Subject: Feedback on McIntosh Residence Plans - Short Street Project Date: Thursday, June 19, 2025 5:16:22 PM
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Dear Design Review Board Members,
Thank you for your time and dedication to reviewing the proposed addition on Short Street. My name is Jeff Amos, and I live with my husband, Todd Brooks, at just behind the property in question. We’re longtime residents and truly value the charm and sense of community that defines this neighborhood.

We also want to express our appreciation for the McIntosh family, who’ve been wonderful neighbors for many years. We fully support their desire to improve their home and are glad to see the thoughtful effort they’ve already put into their plans.

We want to acknowledge the changes that the McIntoshes have made in response to earlier feedback— specifically the almost five-foot setback on the second floor. It’s a step in the right direction, and we appreciate their willingness to make adjustments. That said, we still have a few concerns about privacy and the overall scale of the project that we’d like to respectfully share.

The three large second-story windows that will be their master bedroom continue to have a direct line of sight into our backyard and our back bedroom. This area serves as our only private outdoor space, and unfortunately, the proposed layout would leave us fully exposed on that side of the yard. While landscaping has been proposed as a privacy solution, our narrow yard makes it challenging to implement plantings tall enough (likely 15 feet or more) without creating a canyon-like effect. We’re also unsure how such plantings would be monitored over time for effectiveness.

We understand the desire to expand, and we’re supportive of reasonable growth that fits the neighborhood context. What we’re struggling with is the footprint of the second-story addition, which seems quite large relative to the size of the home and surrounding properties. For comparison, our upstairs makes up about 36% of the ground floor, which helps our home feel balanced. Perhaps, the design could be scaled back yet a bit more? Alternatively, if the second story were flipped to the other side of the house, we believe much of the privacy impact on our yard and bedroom could be virtually eliminated without sacrificing the functionality of the space.

We’re committed to working within the process and will of course respect the board’s decision. We simply ask that you take a close look at how this addition might affect the daily experience of neighbors like us. If any board members would find it helpful to view the proposed sightlines from our property, we would gladly make our backyard available for a quick visit.

With appreciation,
Jeff Amos & Todd Brooks
_____________________
266
267

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT
October 9, 2025
Agenda Item No. 5.8
Case No: Design Review 24-1572
Coastal Development Permit 24-1688
Request: A new single-family residence (major remodel to an existing structure with additions exceeding 50%), elevated decks, new exterior materials, windows, and landscaping, and a new detached ADU in the R-1 (Residential Low Density) zone.

Location: 607 Short Street | APN: 644-044-02
Applicant: Drew Blake
949-235-3739 | [email protected]
Owner: Steve and Vicki McIntosh
Staff: Community Development Department
Shaveta Sharma | Senior Planner
(949) 715-0958 | [email protected]
Recommendation:

Conduct a public hearing and adopt Resolution 24-1572 approving Design Review 24-1572 and Coastal Development Permit 24-1688 for a new single-family dwelling (major remodel with additions exceeding 50%), elevated decks, new exterior materials, windows, and landscaping, and for a new 412-square-foot, one-story detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) located in the rear yard for the property located at 607 Short Street, and finding said action categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15303 - New Construction, and 15304 - Minor Alterations to Land.

CEQA:

The project qualifies for a categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15303 – New Construction and 15304 – Minor Alterations to Land, as the project involves improvements to a single-family dwelling with one new accessory dwelling unit (ADU) and related site improvements including grading, landscape, hardscape, and retaining walls.

Coastal Development Permit:

The proposed single-family home and detached ADU require the approval of a coastal development permit pursuant to Laguna Beach Municipal Code (LBMC) Section 25.07.004.

Board Members within a 500’ Radius: None
Attachment 14
268
DR 24-1572, CDP 24-1688
October 9, 2025

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Design Review (DR) 24-1572 and Coastal Development Permit (CDP) 24-1688 propose a major remodel where the proposed additions exceed 50 percent of the existing home’s square footage, elevated decks, new exterior materials, windows, and landscaping, and a new detached ADU.

The existing 1,441-square-foot single-family dwelling and 375-square-foot attached two-car garage would be expanded to include a 1,033-square-foot second-story addition over the southeastern portion of the existing residence, a 52-square-foot garage extension, 325 square feet of elevated decking at the first floor within the rear yard, and an 80-square-foot elevated deck at the second-floor along the western elevation in the rear yard.

While not subject to design review, a proposed detached, 412-square-foot ADU is subject to a Coastal Development Permit. The CDP for the ADU is not appealable to the California Coastal Commission and is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Sections 15303, Class 3 - New Construction and 15304 - Minor Alterations to Land, of the state CEQA Guidelines, which allows construction of an ADU in a residential zone.

Staff recommends that the Board approve the Project. Staff has analyzed the Applicant’s request and finds that facts to support each of the findings for approval can be made.

PROPERTY AERIAL PHOTO
269
DR 24-1572, CDP 24-1688
October 9, 2025

PROPERTY SITE PHOTO

PROPERTY INFORMATION
Land Use Designation Village Low Density (1-7 DU/AC)
Zoning Designation R-1 Residential Low Density

ZONING REVIEW
The proposed project complies with applicable zoning standards and guidelines as shown in the summary table below:

Development Standard Required Existing Proposed Conforms Site Coverage 39.5% 23% 34% Yes
Landscape Open Space 22.7% 35% 32% Yes
Height (lowest floor to top of roof) 25’-0” 16’-4” 24’-1” Yes Setbacks (primary dwelling)
Front 20’-0” 25’-0” 25’-0” Yes
Side (west) 6’-6” 8’-0” 8’-0” Yes
Side (east) 6’-6” 8’-0” 8’-0” Yes
Rear 20’-0” 26’-9” 26’-9” Yes
Setbacks (ADU)
Front 20’-0” N/A 78’-8” Yes
Side (west) 4’-0” N/A 36’-4.25” Yes
Side (east) 4’-0” N/A 4’-4” Yes
Rear 4’-0” N/A 4’-0” Yes
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:

Site History
The project site is Lot 3 of Tract 870. It was developed with a single-story detached single-family 1,441 square foot residence and attached two car garage in 1945. A permit to construct an iron and brick fence in the front yard was issued in 1974. There are no pending code enforcement issues on the property. 270
DR 24-1572, CDP 24-1688
October 9, 2025

Proposed Project
The Design Review Board previously heard this project on February 27, 2025 (see Attachments 6 and 7), and June 26, 2025 (see Attachment 8 and 9). The Board received public testimony from adjoining property owners identifying concerns regarding the proposed upper-level addition, particularly with respect to privacy, views, mass and scale, and neighborhood compatibility. The Board gave direction to 1) reduce the size of the upper-level addition, 2) reduce privacy impacts to adjoining neighbors, and 3) improve view equity for the neighbor to the south.

In response, the project has been revised and staff has confirmed that the modified design complies with all applicable zoning standards and guidelines of the R-1 zone.

Changes to the project since the hearings on February 27, and June 26, 2025, include:
• The upper-level addition was pulled back an additional 10’-0” from the rear property line • Massing of the upper-level addition has been shifted towards the street elevation and away from adjoining neighbors
• The large tree at the front of the site was removed to improve views for adjacent neighbors of the hillsides and canyons to the east
• The large window at the lower stairwell has been eliminated to improve privacy for the neighbor to the south
Staff finds that the proposed modifications are consistent with the Board’s direction regarding privacy, view equity, mass and scale, and neighborhood compatibility.

ENTITLEMENTS: Following is an analysis of the projects Design Review and Coastal Development Permit applications.

Design Review
The following elements require Design Review: major remodel to an existing structure where the additions exceed 50 percent of the existing home, elevated decks, new exterior materials, windows, and landscaping. (see Laguna Beach Municipal Code (LBMC) Section 25.05.040(B)(1)). Design Review is governed by LBMC Section 25.05.040. Design Review is considered by the Design Review Board at a duly noticed public hearing where the following findings are considered in relation to the proposed development:

Finding No. 1: Physical improvements and site developments related to the Project are designed and located in a manner in overall consistency with the design review criteria specified in Section 25.05.040(H), as set forth below:

1. Access. Conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians and other modes of transportation should be minimized by specifically providing for each applicable mode of transportation. Handicapped access shall be provided as required by applicable statutes.

The proposed project does not affect site access. The site is improved with an attached two-car garage with a driveway to an improved street. The site maintains vehicular access from Short Street 271
DR 24-1572, CDP 24-1688
October 9, 2025

and no changes to this vehicular access are being proposed. An existing sidewalk along the property frontage will be maintained, providing pedestrian access and minimizing potential conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians.

2. Design Articulation: Within the allowable building envelope, the appearance of building and retaining wall mass should be minimized. Articulation techniques including, but not limited to, separation, offsets, terracing and reducing the size of any one element in the structure may be used to reduce the appearance of mass.

The proposal includes a new second story addition, which, through the proposed colors and materials and design will result in a well-articulated building. Upon completion, the home will be compatible with existing development in the neighborhood. Nearby homes consist of a mixture of one- and twostory residences with varying architectural styles and exteriors, including contemporary and traditional styles. The project’s sloping roofs and varied building materials, which include stucco and hardy board vertical siding, will effectively reduce the appearance of mass. Additionally, the proposed upper-level addition is off set from the lower-level roof between 2’2” and 6’5” from the street elevation and one foot from the east elevation creating additional articulation and reducing the appearance of mass and bulk.

3. Design Integrity: Consistency with the applicant’s chosen style of architecture should be achieved by the use of appropriate materials and details. Remodels should be harmonious with the remaining existing architecture.

Yes. The proposed colors and materials are consistent with the traditional architectural style of the residence and will harmonize with and complement the existing structure. The exterior finishes for the new addition have been selected to match the existing traditional style of the home siding and trim, thereby ensuring continuity in materials and appearance. The use of horizontal siding on the new upper-level addition introduces a compatible variation that provides visual articulation and reduces the overall massing of the structure. This differentiation contributes to visual relief while maintaining cohesion with the existing design. Collectively, the proposed colors and materials reinforce the architectural integrity of the residence and are compatible with the established character of the property.

4. Environmental Context: Development should preserve and, where possible, enhance the city’s scenic natural setting. Natural features, such as existing heritage trees, rock out-cropping, ridgelines and significant watercourses should be protected. Existing terrain should be utilized in the design and grading should be minimized.

The relatively flat site is located in a fully-developed neighborhood that includes single-family dwellings, multi-family units, Laguna Beach High School, and school district office nearby. and Neither the project site nor the immediate area contains heritage trees, rock outcroppings, ridgelines, or significant water courses. There are occasional views of distant hillsides across portions of the subject property from neighboring parcels. To enhance these views, the applicant has removed a large tree from the front yard.
272
DR 24-1572, CDP 24-1688
October 9, 2025

5. General Plan Compliance: The development shall comply with all applicable policies of the General Plan, including all of its elements, applicable specific plans, and the certified local coastal program.

The project complies with the General Plan polices as explained below:

Land Use Element (LUE) Policy 2.8 Require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated with natural topographic features, minimize significant alteration of natural topography and/or other significant onsite resources, and protect public views as specified in the Design Guidelines and the Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document.

The proposal adds to the existing home and proposes minor site improvements (i.e., approximately

2.5 foot tall retaining walls) to create modest level yard areas. The existing site tends to step down from the street (i.e., front) to back and the proposed improvements do not substantially change this.

As a result, the project works with the existing topography to avoid significant alterations that would otherwise be inconsistent with the neighborhood.

LUE Policy 2.10 Maximize the preservation of coastal and canyon views (consistent with the principle of view equity) from existing properties and minimize blockage of existing public and private views. Best efforts should be made to site new development in locations that minimize adverse impacts on views from public locations (e.g., roads, bluff top trails, visitor-serving facilities, etc.).

By pulling the second story addition further back in response to Design Review Board direction, the new upper level addition preserves coastal views. The property to the southeast were impacted in a prior iteration of the project. Staff finds that this revision returns that view consistent with the City’s view equity standard.

LUE Policy 3.10 Require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated with natural topographic features, minimize significant alteration of natural topography or other significant onsite resources, and protect public views as specified in the Design Guidelines and Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document by maintaining the low-profile character of structures.

Require use of appropriate landscaping, special architectural treatments, and siting considerations for projects visible from major highways and arterial streets. Best efforts should be made to site new development in locations that minimize adverse impacts on views from public locations (e.g., roads, bluff-top trails, visitor-serving facilities, etc.).

The home is positioned toward the middle of a lot in the middle of an existing residential neighborhood. The addition is compatible with the neighborhood in terms of size, mass and design as nearby properties are also improved with two-story homes. Given that this is an older residential neighborhood, the natural topography has been altered to accommodate residential development and streets. Notwithstanding this, the scope of the proposed addition does not seek substantial alterations to the existing topography.

LUE Policy 7.3 Design and site new development to protect natural and environmentally sensitive resources, such as areas of unique scenic quality, public views, and visual compatibility with 273
DR 24-1572, CDP 24-1688
October 9, 2025

surrounding uses and to minimize natural landform alterations. (Same as Policy 10.2.) GOAL:

Protect, preserve, and enhance the community’s natural resources.

The project site does not contain environmentally sensitive resources and does not significantly adversely impact public or private views. The addition to the single-family home is compatible with the surrounding single-family home uses and minimizes alterations to the existing topography.

LUE Policy 7.10 Require new construction and grading to be located in close proximity to preexisting development to minimize environmental impacts and growth-inducing potential.

The proposed construction and associated grading are within the previously disturbed building site and located in a developed neighborhood of single-family residences on a lot that has an existing single-family home. The environmental impact of the project will be insignificant with no growthinducing potential as the project is not extending or increasing the capacity of any infrastructure to support the addition.

6. Historic Preservation: Destruction or alteration to historic resources should be avoided whenever possible. See Chapter 25.45 for more information.

The property is not listed on the City’s Historic Register.

7. Landscaping: Landscaping shall be incorporated as an integrated part of the structure’s design and relate harmoniously to neighborhood and community landscaping themes. View equity shall be an important consideration in the landscape design. The relevant landscaping guidelines contained in the City’s “Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document” should be incorporated, as appropriate, in the design and planned maintenance of proposed landscaping.

The proposed project is located within the Arroyo Chico area as described in the City’s Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document. This document includes a set of policies and maintenance guidelines to address the issues of tree maintenance, fire safety, heritage tree preservation, view preservation, scenic highways, water conservation, soil stability, invasive plants and neighborhood landscape character. The submitted landscape plans are consistent with the policies and guidelines for the Arroyo Chico area as determined by the City’s landscape reviewer.

Additionally, the proposed landscape plan have been reviewed and approved by the City’s landscape reviewer for compliance and does not contain plant species that are incompatible with fire safety considerations. The proposed plans are also compatible with a residential palette and will not grow to heights that would impact view equity.

8. Lighting and Glare: Adequate lighting for individual and public safety shall be provided in a manner which does not significantly impact neighboring properties. Reflective materials and appurtenances that cause glare or a negative visual impact (e.g., skylights, white rock roofs, highgloss ceramic tile roofs, reflective glass, etc.) should be avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance in those locations where those surfaces are visible from neighboring properties.

The proposed exterior lighting plan for the house is shown on Sheet A-20 and includes a total of 31 light fixtures, such as can lights, wall mounted lights, and path lights. Overall, the plan provides low level lighting where needed for safety and efficient operation in outdoor activities, terraces, stairs 274
DR 24-1572, CDP 24-1688
October 9, 2025

and walkways. All proposed lighting is compliant with the City’s Good Neighbor Outdoor Lighting Ordinance (LBMC Chapter 7.70).

9. Neighborhood Compatibility: Development shall be compatible with the existing development in the neighborhood and respect neighborhood character. Neighborhood character is the sum of the qualities that distinguish areas within the City, including historical patterns of development (e.g., structural heights, mass, scale or size), village atmosphere, landscaping themes and architectural styles.

The existing development in the neighborhood consists of a mixture of one- and two-level residences with varying architectural styles and exteriors, including contemporary and traditional styles. As described in the “Design Articulation” criterion above, the applicant proposes a traditional design that is compatible in terms of style and scale with the surrounding development pattern.

10. Pedestrian Orientation: Commercial development design shall enhance and encourage pedestrian uses. Incorporation of articulated building masses, compact open spaces and courtyards, mixed use developments, use of landscaping as part of design, and orientation to pedestrian access should be maximized.

Design Review Criteria for Pedestrian Orientation is related to commercial development. As a residential development, this project is not subject to this criteria.

11. Privacy: The placement of activity areas (e.g., decks, picture windows and ceremonial or entertainment rooms) in locations that would result in a substantial invasion of privacy of neighboring properties should be minimized.

The design review guidelines stipulate that any development incorporate “a reasonable degree of residential privacy and will be compatible with other improvements in the neighborhood.” The applicant has worked with their neighbors to address privacy concerns by incorporating opaque windows on the second story addition and no substantial privacy impacts are anticipated to result from the proposed upper-level addition on adjoining properties.

12. Public Art: Public art is encouraged and shall be displayed where feasible or required by the Art in Public Places ordinance.

Design Review Criteria for Public Art is related to commercial development. As a residential development, this project is not subject to compliance with public art criteria.

13. Sign Quality: Signs shall be incorporated into the architecture of the structure and shall be made of high quality materials, be simple in design and be visually compatible with the surrounding physical environment in terms of color, scale and size. Use of natural materials in the construction of signs is encouraged.

Design Review Criteria for Signage is related to commercial development. As a residential development, this project is not subject to signage criteria. 275
DR 24-1572, CDP 24-1688
October 9, 2025

14. Sustainability: New development should consider architecture and building practices which minimize environmental impacts and enhance energy efficiency by: (a) reducing energy needs of buildings by proper site and structural design; (b) increasing the building’s ability to capture or generate energy; (c) using low-impact, sustainable and recycled building materials; (d) using the latest Best Management Practices regarding waste and water management; and (e) reducing site emissions.

New construction is required to meet Title 24 energy and Building Code requirements, which include insulated windows and energy efficient lighting. The applicant will be required to provide proof of compliance. Further, the applicant will be required to reuse, recycle, or divert at least 65 percent of the project’s construction and demolition debris. Finally, to promote future installation of solar panels, a minimum of 250 square-feet of “solar ready” roof area will be provided. For these reasons, this criterion has been met.

15. Swimming Pools, Spas, and Water Features: Swimming pools, spas and water features shall be located, designed and constructed where: (a) geology conditions allow; (b) noise produced by circulatory mechanical pumps and equipment is mitigated; and (c) any associated fencing or other site improvements are compatible with neighboring properties.

The project does not currently have nor propose a pool, spa, or water feature.

16. View Equity: The development, including its landscaping, shall be designed to protect existing views from neighboring properties without denying the subject property the reasonable opportunity to develop as described and illustrated in the City’s “Design Guidelines.” The “Design Guidelines” are intended to balance preservation of views with the right to develop property.

As designed, the revised proposed addition has been pulled farther away and has reasonably balanced the view interests of neighboring properties in the project’s design. The design of the house preserves coastal views of neighboring houses. Additionally, the project has removed a large tree from the front of the property site and improved canyon views for the adjoining properties. The design achieves view equity by locating major building masses and outdoor space to maintain primary views through and across the site from other properties. The landscaping palette does not include any new plantings that will impact existing views.

Finding No. 2. The physical improvements and site developments related to the Project are designed and located in a manner in overall consistency with all other applicable design guidelines.

The project is consistent with the Residential Design Review Guidelines, as described above.

Finding No. 3. The physical improvements and site developments related to the Project are characterized by appropriately scaled development, diverse and unique architectural designs, pedestrian orientation, and sensitivity to the natural conditions of the site.

The project design and architecture are appropriately scaled and diverse, as described in the Design Integrity and Neighborhood Compatibility design criteria discussed above. 276
DR 24-1572, CDP 24-1688
October 9, 2025

Finding No. 4. The project is consistent with any specific plan or any other specific zoning design review criteria.

The project site is not located within a specific plan area and the R-1 zoning does not contain any additional specific design review criteria. The project conforms to the Architectural Guidelines, including avoiding major disparities of height and bulk with adjacent structures, use of appropriate colors, and appropriate scale, detail and articulation of the structure.

Coastal Development Permit
A Coastal Development Permit is required for a major remodel to an existing home where the additions exceeds 50 percent and for the proposed detached 412-square-foot accessory dwelling unit (ADU).

The CDP for the new single-family residence and ADU is not eligible for appeal to the California Coastal Commission and the overall project categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Sections 15303, Class 3 (New Construction) and 15304, Class 4 (Minor Alterations to Land), of the state CEQA Guidelines. The following findings are considered in relation to the proposed development of the ADU and major remodel of an existing single-family residence:

Finding No. 1: The project is in conformity with all the applicable provisions of the certified local coastal program, including the following review criteria:

1. The proposed development will not encroach upon any existing physical accessway legally utilized by the public or any proposed public accessway identified in the adopted local coastal program land use plan.

The proposed development will not modify any existing physical accessway utilized by the public or identified in the adopted local coastal program land use plan in that the subject property contains no existing accessways legally utilized by the public, no such public accessways are identified in the adopted land use plan.

2. The proposed development will not adversely affect marine resources, environmentally sensitive areas, or archaeological or paleontological resources.

The proposed development will not adversely affect marine resources, environmentally sensitive resources or archeological or paleontological resources in that the project site is located within an established residential neighborhood, and no such resources are known to exist in the immediate project area.

3. The proposed development will not adversely affect recreational or visitor-serving facilities or coastal scenic resources.

The proposed development will not adversely affect recreational or visitor-serving facilities or coastal scenic resources in that the project site is located within an established residential neighborhood and is not located near any recreational or visitor-serving facilities. 277
DR 24-1572, CDP 24-1688
October 9, 2025

4. The proposed development will be sited and designed to prevent adverse impacts to environmentally sensitive habitats and scenic resources located in adjacent parks and recreation areas, and will provide adequate buffer areas to protect such resources.

The proposed development will have no adverse impacts to environmentally sensitive habitats and scenic resources located in adjacent parks and recreation areas in that the project site is located within an established residential neighborhood, no such areas abut the project site, and no buffer areas are needed to protect such resources.

5. The proposed development will minimize the alterations of natural landforms and will not result in undue risks from geological and erosional forces and/or flood and fire hazards.

The proposed development will not cause or contribute to the alteration of natural landforms or create undue risks from geological and erosional forces and/or flood and fire hazards in that the proposed development includes grading of 10.25 cubic yards outside the building footprint, which as described in the “environmental context” criterion above, is considered minimal and intended to create a modest level yard area. The landscaping plan has been reviewed for fire safety.

6. The proposed development will be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and where feasible, will restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas.

The existing development in the neighborhood consists of a mixture of one- and two-level residences with varying architectural styles and exteriors, including contemporary and traditional styles. As described in the “Design Articulation” criterion above, the applicant proposes a traditional design that is compatible in style and scale with the nearby development.

7. The proposed development will not have any adverse impacts on any known archaeological or paleontological resource.

The proposed development will not have any adverse impacts on any known archaeological or paleontological resources in that such resources are not known to exist in the project area, and the project site is located within an established residential neighborhood.

8. The proposed development will be provided with adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities.

The proposed major remodel to the existing single-family dwelling and new detached ADU do not involve any changes to existing utilities, access roads, drainage, or other necessary facilities, and such facilities will remain adequate to serve the dwelling units.

9. Other public services, including, but not limited to, solid waste and public roadway capacity have been considered and are adequate to serve the proposed development.

The site is located in an existing developed residential neighborhood that is currently served by the full range of infrastructure and public services. The ADU will add a nominal amount of additional trips and solid waste that is not expected to adversely affect roadway or landfill capacity. 278
DR 24-1572, CDP 24-1688
October 9, 2025

Finding No. 2. Any development located between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea is in conformity with the certified local coastal program and with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act.

The project is consistent with all applicable policies of the Certified LCP. The development is not located between the sea and first public road paralleling the sea. Additionally, the subject site is zoned residential and is not suitable for recreational uses identified in Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act.

Finding No. 3. The proposed development will not have any significant adverse impact on the environment within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act.

As described above, the project does not have adverse environmental impacts. The project will not cause any significant adverse impacts on the environment and qualifies for a categorical exemption (as described in the Environmental Impact section below) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines.

LCP DOCUMENTS
The project conforms with all the following applicable documents of the Certified LCP.

Land Use and Open Space/Conservation General Plan Elements Zoning Map
Title 25 (Zoning Code)
2010 Design Guidelines – A Guide to Residential Development ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, the project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15303 (New Construction) and 15304 (Minor Alterations to Land).

There is no evidence of any unusual or special conditions that would result in a significant effect on the environment. The subject property is located within a developed neighborhood with all facilities provided and access existing to the parcel. Therefore, this project fits within the Class 3 and 4 exemptions because it is a single-family dwelling with one proposed accessory dwelling unit and related site improvements including grading, landscape, hardscape, and retaining walls on an existing legal building site.

Further, none of the exceptions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply. The project site does not contain any environmentally sensitive areas. There will be no cumulative impact resulting from successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time. The project site does not contain any environmentally sensitive areas in that the site is fully developed with an existing single-family dwelling and is surrounded on all sides by public streets and developed residential and institutional properties, and the City’s environmentally sensitive areas maps do not identify any such areas on-site or within the immediate Project vicinity. There are no unusual circumstances resulting in a significant impact on the environment. There will be no damage to scenic resources, including trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. The project is not located on a hazardous waste site or any other site included on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. The project will not result in significant adverse impacts to historical 279
DR 24-1572, CDP 24-1688
October 9, 2025

resources as defined by CEQA. Consequently, additional environmental analysis is not necessary to meet the requirements of the CEQA.

RECOMMENDATION:

Conduct a public hearing and adopt Resolution 24-1572 approving Design Review 24-1572 and Coastal Development Permit 24-1688 for a new single-family dwelling (major remodel with additions exceeding 50%), elevated decks, new exterior materials, windows, and landscaping, and for a new 412-square-foot, one-story detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) located in the rear yard for the property located at 607 Short Street, and finding said action categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15303 - New Construction, and 15304 - Minor Alterations to Land.

NOTIFICATION:

Pursuant to Title 25 (Zoning) Public Notice, a public hearing notice was mailed on February 3, 2025 and posted on the project site on February 12, 2025 in advance of the project’s first hearing. The February hearing and all subsequent hearings were continued to dates certain, which does not require additional public noticing.

CORRESPONDENCE:

At the time that the Design Review Board agenda was published, staff had not received any correspondence for this project.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1 – Resolution No. 24-1572
Attachment 2 – Plans
Attachment 3 – Colored Elevations
Attachment 4 – Color and Material Board
Attachment 5 – Certified Staking Plan
Attachment 6 – February 27, 2025 Design Review Board Minutes Attachment 7 – February 27, 2025 Design Review Board Staff Report Attachment 8 – June 26, 2025 Design Review Board Minutes Attachment 9 – June 26, 2025 Design Review Staff Report 280

Chair Gibbs:

We’re going to call 5.8, can the applicant come up please? Ex parte.

Chair Pro Tem Gannon:

I had a meeting with Steve Kawaratai, met with the neighbors next door as well, and conversed with Drew Blake.

Board Member Weil:

Same for me.

Board Member Coveny:

Same as well.

Chair Gibbs:

Met with Drew and Steve on site and met with Alison and Steve Kawaratani.

Shaveta Sharma:

Good evening Design Review Board item 5.8 you may remember is a design review and coastal development permit for a project located at 607 Short Street. The project is located within the R-1 zone and is a major remodel of the existing one-story single-family residence with a proposed upstairs addition of 840 square feet with an elevated deck. There is also a lower level addition of 226 square feet, and a garage addition of 52 square feet. There is a detached ADU located in the rear of the property that is subject to a coastal development permit, but not design review.

This is the third and final hearing for the project. The project applicant has reduced the lower level square footage and pulled back the upper level addition by 10 feet. In addition, they've also removed a large tree at the front of the property, as well as removing a stairwell window for privacy. In conclusion, the proposed improvements are not located within an environmentally sensitive area, the project is in compliance with design review guidelines and developmental standards and will not substantively impair views and privacy's, and is compatible with the existing development in the residential neighborhood.

Staff's recommendation is that the board adopt resolution 24-0772 approving sign review, and coastal development permit and finding said action exempt from CEQA. I'm available for any questions, as is the applicant.

Louis Weil:

Chair, I've got one question for staff.

Thomas Gibbs:

Go ahead.

Attachment 15
281

Louis Weil:

Shaveta, you mentioned it was a 10-foot reduction. Was that a 10-foot reduction from the initial hearing or from our last hearing?
Shaveta Sharma:

So, 10 foot total. It's a 5-foot additional reduction from the last hearing, which was a 5-foot reduction, so for a total of 10 feet.

Louis Weil:

Okay, thank you.

Thomas Gibbs:

Any other questions? Okay, I open the public hearing. Applicant, you have five minutes.

Drew Blake:

Thank you board members for coming by, and the calls, and your support, and I really, really appreciate it. We just wanted to let you know that we have been working on the project. I did meet with the neighbors at 615 Short Street in the upper bed, I think it's an office there, and saw some of their concerns, and I understand. We did look at some different options in terms of shifting the project, doing a flop over, mirroring it to the other side, which created some issues with privacy looking back directly at the 615 Short Street project, and we feel as though by pulling back an additional 5 more feet and for a total of 10 does open up that window in that office to allow for some nice views up the coast to Bird Rock.

And by removing the big tree at the front of the project, we feel as though they also have some hillside views, which I know that they were hoping to have. So, as long as both projects or both rooms can't have ocean and mountain, one at the rear has the ocean and the one at the front has the mountain. So, I didn't want to take too much time but I think we all know the project, and turn the time over to Steve.

Steve McIntosh:

Good evening, Chair Gibbs and board. I wanted to add a little bit more about some of the changes we made. We also pulled the deck back a little bit to help maintain privacy for all, and the length of the upper floor on the south side has now been reduced to 39 feet. Along with this reduction we have horizontal siding on the upper floor and a smooth stucco on the bottom floor, and it's separated by an ample eyebrow to visually break up the wall, all of which were concerns by some of you. Some board members mentioned the upper design felt overloaded to one side, so we moved the family room towards Short Street to connect it to the new stairwell that had been moved. We extended it more across the front of the home to add a few feet to eliminate the appearance of just building on just one side.

A hip roof was added to that section to ease the design. The new stairwell and roof line give much more articulation to the front of the house. I want to talk a little bit about why we wanted to build where we proposed in the first place. As I've mentioned before, there's a great view corridor with views of Main Beach, Bird Rock, north end Catalina sunsets. The more we pulled our master bedroom back towards the street, we have lost that corridor view. These were the exact primary views down that corridor that the Mahoneys enjoy from their master bedroom deck, master bathroom, and yes, out the back of the guest bedroom office, and now out the side window. That's really not that much view equity for us. 282

Privacy, by building further backwards towards the back in the first place on the left side also provided privacy for our master bedroom, the deck, family room and our backyard. As we pulled towards the front, that also changes.

Some of you want us to move the design back to behind the chimney of the Mahoneys, which totally exposes our master bedroom to their side window, also exposes our deck, all which goes against the DRB guidelines of building that maintains privacy. It's been stated by members of the board that it doesn't seem we have explored options, other designs, and there's a lot of area that you can build on the second floor on. Just because you haven't seen that what we've considered doesn't mean that we haven't exhausted every idea and concept. We have spent countless hours working on every conceivable design, crawling on the roof, around the roof, staring at the house for 22 years. Some mention again, building on the north side, as Drew mentioned. This was even after my presentation showing the reasons why not, why that doesn't work. Let me explain again.

First off, it's only 30 feet away from the current proposed placement. Building there still blocks the view of the hills from the Mahoneys window. Not only is there no view corridor on that side, there's a significant blockage of the views, not to mention privacy issues for our neighbor on the north. All of our side bedroom windows then would face the Mahoneys, and the deck in addition to it. All these again are actions that violate the DRB guidelines. Equity, view equity. As stated in the DRB guidelines, the view you have today, you may not have it tomorrow. With the removal of the huge tree in front of our house, this has opened up the views to the hills above the Park Street, never before seen in years.

This now gives over 165 degrees of view for the Mahoneys. As I mentioned before, we have zero degrees. Our proposed addition would block approximately 25 degrees of their secondary side views, which is about 15%. They would still have all their primary views towards the back, and that we have never blocked any of. Because of the additional five-foot pullback, the coastline and hill views in the northwest have been opened up from the back corner side window.

Thomas Gibbs:

Thank you very much. Now members of the public can come up to the podium, you'll each have three minutes. State your name, please.

Alison Mahoney:

Alison Mahoney. This process has been really difficult for me personally and for our family. I'll say probably I'm going to end up reading just to keep myself on track with time. I want to first say thank you to the board and to our neighbors for hearing all the input on the Macintosh's proposed plan. Miles wanted to be here tonight, but he's taking care of some urgent medical issues and wanted to also say thank you. He's with his dad tonight. So, we've made a lot of efforts. I think collectively we're finding ourselves at an impasse here, and I want to restate that Miles and I believe all of our neighbors have the right to make improvements or rebuilds. We're not against an improvement or a second story, a lot of our neighbors have done things, and it's this particular design that we have a challenge with.

So, going back to the direction from the board on June 27th, after this meeting we did request the Macintosh's to meet with us and see if we could come up with a better understanding. And instead of meeting with us, they proposed to send Drew to meet with Miles and I, and also with Steve Boritani.

When Drew arrived, he was pressed for time. He said he had 15 or 20 minutes for the meeting. So, we stood upstairs in the rooms that you all have seen, and we are understanding that building the second story is going to impact every bit of the north facing windows in our home. When we walked and looked at the stakes from our windows and discussed the flat continuous wall in massing, the articulation, the 283

light and the privacy, in addition to the view equity concerns, the view has been the high topic but this is going to be a 39-foot flat wall against every window of our north-facing window of our home.

So, we wanted the Macintoshes to see for themselves how the five-foot pullback does not solve any of these issues. It does not improve the hillside view. And Drew did bring up at that meeting that other options were considered that the Macintoshes weren't going to consider changing their upstairs master with the pullback, that their alternative was an ADU design so that if they're denied they don't have to comply with board requirements. Today I called Vicki just to make sure that the lines of communication were open in case between the board members, Drew, Steve, we were missing something, and I said, "If there were a way, was there a possibility to discuss a pullback?" And she said no.

Thomas Gibbs:

Okay, thank you. Your time is up.

Alison Mahoney:

That's my summary. Yeah, sorry.

Thomas Gibbs:

Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Next, Steve?
Steve Kawaratani:

Thank you. Can you queue me up, Shaveta? Thank you. Good evening, Chair Gibbs, board members and staff. My name is Steve Kawaratani. And I want to start off, first, I don't envy the board being at a third hearing. You have another one following this as well, and I want to thank the Macintoshes for allowing Drew to meet with us. And as Drew said, we're stuck. My clients feel they've given enough, and I believe that I've been very consistent up here, along with my clients over two hearings, that we still believe that there's a view equity issue. And if you look at that photograph that I took when board member Weil visited, and photograph was taken right in the center of the window, not to the right, not to the left, but in the center you can still see that we have an issue.

The board members have been reasonably consistent. There's a view equity issue here, there's a articulation issue, there is an issue with massing, and they've made a number of good suggestions. And I understand, so I'm standing here away from my wife, I don't like to be told what to do. Nobody likes to be told what to do. And I can understand that the applicants want their project to suit their needs, but at the same time, as the chair said, every applicant has the right to develop reasonably, but at the same time you have to consider the needs of your neighbors. And I think that's where we're stuck. Next slide.

Thank you. This is the progression of how the project has morphed. So, if you look at the top, it was built all the way to the end, and Mr. Macintosh gave the reasons why they pursued that program, and I respect that. But the board did ask them to try to open up the view. So, if we look at the middle slide, they actually did not reduce their program, they just slid it forward five feet, but that did not aid in view equity at all. And now, if we look at the third slide, this iteration, it has moved 10 feet. But if we go back to the first slide that I showed, it hasn't been enough sadly. And I am proud of my client, Alison, for reaching out to Vicki. I thought it was a gesture in good faith. Maybe it came a little bit late, butThomas Gibbs:

Steve, your time's up.
284

Steve Kawaratani:

But thank you.

Thomas Gibbs:

Thank you very much. All right, any other people wish to speak? Seeing none, I return it to the applicant for three minutes.

Steve McIntosh:

Okay, thank you. At the suggestion of the Board chair Gibbs, in the spirit of communication, we did have Drew go over because he hadn't been there and thought it'd be important for him to actually see what they were talking about, because when we did it, it was just an impasse. So, that was the reason why.

So, some of that stuff was said, Drew said that really wasn't what happened. So anyway, Drew brought back their comments and suggestions, and we discussed at length with Drew and my wife Vicki, and myself. Anyway, our proposed design has complied with all objective city zoning development standards and design review criteria. The city staff reports the following. Neighborhood compatibility, the applicant proposes a traditional design that is compatible in terms of style and scale with the surrounding development pattern. View equity, the design achieves view equity by locating major building masses and outdoor space to maintain primary views through and across the site from other properties.

And lastly, conduct a public hearing and adopt resolution is their recommendation. 24, whatever it is, sorry, I didn't have it here, approving a design review and coastal development permit for a single-family dwelling, and a major remodel with additions exceeding 50%. Elevated decks, new exterior materials, windows, landscaping, and for a new 412-foot square foot one-story ADU, accessory dwelling unit, located in the rear yard for the property located at 607 Short Street. This is the third approval from the city planning department asking for the DRB approval, and acknowledging that we are indeed in compliance with all city and DRB regulations.

We urge you to use objective criteria as per the California Housing and Accountability Act. Their definition, objective standards, are those that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official. We have diligently listened to the DR board as well as to all of our neighbors, and feel we have made a huge effort through many major revisions that reflect our sincere desire to balance our design with neighbor concerns, all the while following DRB guidelines. We feel we have done just that, and hope for an approval tonight. And believe me, if there was a way that we could have all been happy, we would've been there. I don't enjoy this, it's ridiculous. And we have worked to make our situation happy, and this is a compromise that I think meets all of the city criteria. So, thank you.

Thomas Gibbs:

All right, any questions from the board? Okay, I'm not going to go first but I want to respond to one thing. Staff make recommendations on virtually all applications. Our job, we were appointed by the city council to make independent evaluations based upon our objective and impartial review of the project and knowledge of the guidelines. We are the ones who actually go out and see the projects, we see them across the city. So, I just want to understand, it's helpful to hear what the staff recommends, but it is not as a substitute for our independent evaluation. With that said, Jess, do you want to begin? Jessica Gannon:

Sure, I'll take this one. Oh.
285

MJ Coveny:

Can we ask questions?
Thomas Gibbs:

Yes.

MJ Coveny:

Can we ask questions yet?
Thomas Gibbs:

I asked questions, you didn't ask.

MJ Coveny:

Sorry.

Jessica Gannon:

Go ahead, you can ask questions.

Thomas Gibbs:

Yeah, you go ahead.

MJ Coveny:

Two quick questions.

Thomas Gibbs:

Go ahead.

MJ Coveny:

One, was the image that Mr. Kawaratani put up of the showing the impact, do you consider that an accurate image? Do you have any dispute with that?
Drew:

Well, I think it looked like it was straight on, it seems likeMJ Coveny:

Right, but as far as when you look the one fromThomas Gibbs:

The one from the second bedroom? The photograph?
MJ Coveny:

The one from the study. That wasn't from the second bedroom. 286

Jessica Gannon:

It looks very similar to one that I took.

Thomas Gibbs:

Well, the study. I meant the study.

Drew:

I think when you come into the room it's more of a north view, so I think he's doing thisMJ Coveny:

Straight on.

Drew:
... as opposed toMJ Coveny:

Okay. But it's accurate for where he took it. Okay.

Drew:

I would hope so.

MJ Coveny:

And then, you said you mentioned wanting to build, you looked at building on the other side, which we talked about from the very beginning is from mass and scale perspective, from balance, from public views, from all that it seemed that that kept that corridor open. What was your big ... Originally it was money. Now I'm trying to get a sense of why.

Drew:

Moving it that way you're looking the wrong way. It's like if the ocean was there but you're going looking this way or something.

MJ Coveny:

No, parallel. It's parallel.

Drew:

Right, but there's a humongous hedge. It'sSteve:

There's trees and the houseDrew:
... bamboo that's on that side. So, the master suite would be looking straight at, there's a big wall of trees287

Steve:

Trees, hedge.

Drew:

So, there is a little bit of a view going down a corridor, which is on the south side closer to the Mahoneys.

Louis Weil:

You said it's bamboo, right?
Drew:

I think it's a tall bamboo, isn't it? AlongSteve:

The bamboo is to our north, but beyond that there's more hedge, more trees, and several trees actually that create a huge blockage there. And that's one of the issues. If all that stuff were cleared out it would be a different story, but we still have to maintain some privacy there. That'sLouis Weil:

It would be a different story, and Bamboo, from my knowledge, is an invasive specie in Laguna. And if there is a remodel and a landscape plan to the neighbor's property, all that bamboo would have to be removed.

Steve McIntosh:

That's to the side, that's to the north side. So, it's really not the ocean view.

Thomas Gibbs:

Any other questions? Not hearing any. Wait, I closed the public hearing again. And Jess, you're up.

Jessica Gannon:

Overall, this doesn't meet the minimum requirements for design integrity, design articulation, neighborhood compatibility or view equity. As far as view equity goes, views are not only ocean views but hillside views. City light views are just as valuable as ocean views. The removal of the tree in the front was for your benefit as the homeowner, it was a negative impact on your foundation, although I do recognize that it also opens up that view with the secondary bedroom. The view from the primary bedroom in this case, which is utilized as an office, that's where we have an issue with view equity.

You're taking 100% of their hillside views, not 80%, just a full 100%. And if you would be willing to cut even 30%, or give them 30, 40%, I'm not even asking for 50%, I would be able to say that you met the view criteria.

As far as neighborhood compatibility, design articulation and integrity, they all go hand-in-hand. This design does a disservice to the neighborhood, a heavily trafficked neighborhood by both out-of-towners and residents. Nowhere in this neighborhood is their design where the upper level overloads one side of 288

the home. There is zero articulation facing the neighbor's house. In the first meeting I asked for you to pull the, so it's not a straight up-and-down wall. So, we cannot take into consideration how much a project will cost, that's cited by the applicant in the first hearing regarding why they chose to build on the upper level heavily geared towards the left side. You cannot create a view by taking somebody else's view. And I think that's pretty much I covered it. Yeah.

Thomas Gibbs:

All right. Imir, do you want to go next?
Imer Bauta:

Thank you, Chair. So, I think that with third hearings we always tend to look at the progression and the efforts that were made, and I think that the efforts have been made to mitigate the view and balance the view. I understand that there are some concerns pertaining to the hillside, but I can't come around to preserving the full hillside view. I think that would be a complete limitation. But when we look at the specifics of this particular site and we look at the views out of the windows of the neighbors, if we were to push that wall back you're maybe getting another palm tree, or two, or three, or maybe some bamboo. So, I can't come around having them pull it back anymore. I think that what they've done suffices, you get a portion of hillside view.

I think the design is very thoughtful to the community, and the use of materials is very thoughtful as well. And I do think the vision is appropriate for the neighborhood, and I do understand that the desire to get a ocean view is what this homeowner is going for, and I can see this project for approval tonight.

Thomas Gibbs:

MJ.

MJ Coveny:

I have to go. This one's been a tough one. Sometimes I look at these and I think, "Now, how do we get here?" Doesn't feel like we should get here like this. I feel like there are many solutions prior to getting to this point, solutions that would've been amenable to everyone, including what you guys are trying to achieve. I'm not sure I'm buying the whole concept of view loss on the other side of a home to build on the other side of the home. I'm sticking with what our original conversations were about, and this is the maintaining of this particular view. There's limited views from this home.

When we look at each home individually, look at how much of the view is being taken, that's a concern.

You're gaining everything. You're getting everything. You're getting Canyon, you're getting ocean, you're getting big deck, you're getting everything, and it just feels like for you to offer up another four feet to allow them to have something is limited for what you're still going to gain. I think the overall design of this home feels lopsided to me. I could give you that knowing that I was giving the homeowner who's been living there with a beautiful canyon view from an active area of their home. I could give you that, let that go, even though I don't understand why you stopped halfway, but I think by the time you finish, by the time you put your finishings on there and you landscape it, my hope is that it will feel compatible.

It's a little wonky right now, but it's Laguna so I can turn my head slightly on that one and give you that. I think the articulation on the side, I know that it was mentioned many times before, you didn't achieve.

I'd almost be willing to give you that. I feel like I'm negotiating on behalf of the homeowner next door.

But again, my big thing is view, and they have very limited view at all. They have the ocean view far away, the pictures you've shared are all tight shots, and they have the same foliage disruptions as you do. So, I cannot support this project tonight based on view equity specifically. 289

I feel like if you can give them the four feet that would help them maintain a sliver of Canyon, it would still allow you to have a beautiful family room upstairs, a stunning master, extraordinary large closet, good ship bath area, great view, amazing deck that you will be able to enjoy. You might have to compensate that deck a little so that you're not poking out, but it's still a very large deck right now, in order to balance the shift. That would be an answer. And perhaps to Imir's point that since this is the third hearing, perhaps there's a way to come to some sort of a, I don't know how that works from the condition of approval with something specific to this measurement, but I would be willing to support it if we could come to some sort of agreement on that sort of adjustment.

Thomas Gibbs:

Excuse me. Louis?
Louis Weil:

Thanks, guys. I wrote down some notes, but let me just wing this one and I'm sorry. I feel like in just short, I feel like this has been more difficult than it's needed to be, and I feel for both the applicant and the neighbors in this scenario. As I got on the board, there was a lot more of this animosity between neighbors and it was constant from almost every project. And through time it's gone through ups and downs where people work together a little bit more that were not, and in this case it was a tough position for both parties. And so, I understand the frustrations and the heartache, and everything that's gone for both parties, and I do feel for you guys.

With that said, I think we've been trying to give the applicant a lot of direction to achieve their square footage and their design as best as possible on that upper level, because we've deemed definitely at the beginning of the first hearing that a second story is appropriate for this house. It's the rear of the property that is the concern and the issue, and I tend to be more in favor that that four to five more feet, I think at the last hearing I said five plus feet and we came back just at five, and I think that's just a little too tight of a margin. I'd like to see it work where we could condition maybe a five more foot reduction and maybe make some affordable space available. I think the deck can remain where it is. It's still tucked back and it has the same view components that the neighbors have. Those things would be intact.

I think there's room in the program for that reduction without overly compromising the overall scope of what you're trying to accomplish. It would balance the components of the views that are on the rear of the property for the neighbor. I think when we discuss the mid-part of the property, that's just something that we can't protect because it would eliminate your complete right to build. And so, that middle window is just, that's just part of the middle of the lot and we let that one go. I think the front of the lot, as articulated by Board Gannon, yeah, the tree did come out. It's mutually beneficial.

You wouldn't be able to build your second story with that tree in that current location, and potential foundation issues as mentioned. But I think it was a mutual beneficial sacrifice, and yes, it did open up some views but it does create some structure that's in that space. I think it's more secondary, and I think that location of that closet area is okay. But I think if we can make a deal, I could entertain it tonight. If not, then I don't think we did enough to fully achieve it. So, I'll leave it with Chair Gibbs.

Thomas Gibbs:

Okay. First of all, this is a modest project and I think it's well-designed, I think it's neighborhood compatible. I think the wall facing the Mahoneys is articulated. Indeed, there's so many flat walls, including on their house, that are less articulated. I think this is otherwise an eminently approvable project, I think the privacy issues were resolved, including the change that was made from the last 290

hearing. So were view equity. And I went up there, I think everybody's acting in good faith. The Mahoneys were very forthcoming, the same thing with the applicant. I don't like to see negative or bad blood on this thing, but to my view, I'm sorry, when you say that the Macintoshes are getting everything and the Mahoneys are getting nothing, or something to that effect, well, the Mahoneys have a full-on ocean view. They have a hugely wide house, they've got a deck there. The view is, hear me out and then I'll hear you, the view is toward the ocean. They happen to have a secondary bedroom that they use as an office that happens to have a side window that sees some mountain views.

It's certainly not entitled to the significant protection that this board is giving it. It's not a ceremonial room, it is a side window. The main view window, which is actually a larger window, faces the ocean. So I mean, I think it's unfortunate that this board, and I have the right to disagree, I love them all and I respect them all immensely, but I hugely disagree with this one. You're really impacting the right of this applicant to develop their house in a way that is actually less massive than the next-door neighbor's house, including the location of their bedroom to avoid privacy issues that you get from pulling it back to maximize ocean views, which the Mahoneys have throughout the backside of their house with windows and decks at the second floor, all to preserve a secondary bedroom/office side window. I can't stomach that. So, I would hope that my comments might move the board. If not, I think it would be a tragedy to deny the project, and I wouldJessica Gannon:

Chair, with all due respect, they have alternatives.

Thomas Gibbs:

No, hear me out. Let me get done.

MJ Coveny:

We heard you [inaudible 00:32:54]
Thomas Gibbs:

No you didn't. You didn't. So Jess, stop for a second. Hear me out. So, if I haven't moved another member, because I think Imir and I agree, then I would put it to the applicant to see if the board will agree to a condition to move the bedroom back, do four feet. And if that's something, again, assuming I haven't changed any minds, and I clearly haven't, would the board be willing to condition approval on moving the side or the bedroom second floor back four feet chair.

Louis Weil:

Chair, let me ask you, is there interest in the applicant to negotiate on that upper floor this evening? Steve:

No.

Louis Weil:

Okay. Then on that note, I'll move item number 5.8, project location 607 Short Street for denial.

MJ Coveny:

I second that.
291

Patrick Donegan:

Hang on. And so, since this is the third meetingMJ Coveny:

Oh, yeah.

Patrick Donegan:
... and in the interest of time for the applicant, I believe I did hear some justifications. It may be ideal for you guys to articulate those, me and Bill can put together just a substance of the resolution of denial, and that way the applicant doesn't have to wait another two weeks to come back. Our code says three hearings, yeah, excuse me, three hearings. If we put it on consent, probably okay. But I think if it's okay with the board, I'd rather just do it tonight and that way we can do thatJessica Gannon:

For me, it doesn't meet the minimum requirements for design integrity, design articulation, neighborhood compatibility or view equity. For view equity, it takes the neighbor's primary, or one of the hillside views, 100% of theirImer Bauta:

Chair, Chair.

Jessica Gannon:
... city light hillside views and it takes the public's view from the high school.

Imer Bauta:

Chair, before we move forward, I don't think the applicant was aware he's facing likelyJessica Gannon:

Oh, he's aware.

Imer Bauta:
... denial. Can we ask of the question again?
Thomas Gibbs:

Yeah, let me just point out to you, your choice at this point, since it's the third hearing, there will not be a continuance. It will be a denial unless we can work out a condition that can get three votes.

Steve McIntosh:

Yeah, I'm aware of that. It's fine.

Thomas Gibbs:

I figured he was.
292

Patrick Donegan:

And so, and once again, 100% your call.

Steve McIntosh:

Appreciate it.

Patrick Donegan:

You are permitted to appeal either the denial or the approval if you do not agree with the condition. But once again, 100% your decision. I'm not trying to put my finger on the scale one iota.

Steve McIntosh:

Okay.

Thomas Gibbs:

All right. I think everybody stated their position. Do you want them to restate? Patrick Donegan:

Well, I just wanted ...

Louis Weil:

I'll adopt Vice ChairJessica Gannon:

Chair pro tem.

Louis Weil:
... Gannon. Sorry, Gibbs, Gannon, gets a little tongue twisted.

Patrick Donegan:

Got it.

Louis Weil:

I'll adopt, givePatrick Donegan:

And so, in the interest of total transparency, and since I suspect we will go for a break, what I would advise is to take that break right now. When we come back, we will have the language here so we can put on the screen, and that way we do it that way. Once again, I don't want to put words into the mouth of the applicant. It appears that this may be appealed and I just want to make sure that there's that sound solid record [inaudible 00:36:22]
MJ Coveny:
293

And Chair, if I may, just so I can clarify my comments because I was trying to be negotiating prior to giving my remarks originally when I was saying that I felt like I'll give you the neighbor compatibility, even though I don't think it is. I'll give you no articulation on the side even though it should be articulated, in order to try to get to a solution of a four-foot reduction in that upper level in order to approve this tonight. And I just want to be clear that I would've said it's not neighbor compatible, the articulation is not proper. So, I just want to make sure I'm clear about that.

Thomas Gibbs:

Okay. With that said, why don't we take aLouis Weil:

Are we done?
Patrick Donegan:

We'll take a 10-minute breakLouis Weil:
10 minute break, and then we'll adopt the new resolution.

Patrick Donegan:

Correct. But there's one thing I must insist. Usually we take breaks in between items, this item is still open. I implore you all, do not speak on the item, do not speak to the applicant, do not speak to anyone.

Truly I'm going to play this card very sparingly, don't talk to anyone.

MJ Coveny:

Can I get some almonds?
Patrick Donegan:

You got it. Absolutely, thank you.

Thomas Gibbs:

Okay, I am calling the design review board meeting back to order. I believe there's a motion, but you have some language. SoPatrick Donegan:

I just wantedThomas Gibbs:
... I turn it over to Mr. Louis and Mr. Donegan.

Patrick Donegan:
294

And Board Member Weil, if I may. So, of course all of the whereases will be updated to reflect the date, the time, so on and so forth. And of course, whatever the vote happens to be further, I just want to make sure that the board understands what we put here is kind of thesis statements for what we understand that the board's direction to be. What we are seeking for is, if you guys agree with this language, is then to give the staff that, not discretion, but the direction to fill in with more of the testimony and explicit language. It was probably a little bit too much to bite off to try to draft it entirely right here and now.

That being said, I'm comfortable that if the board views those believes that we hit, as I said before, the design articulation, neighborhood compatibility and view equity. As I said before, view those statements as just the thesis statements, at which point we will go back, listen to the meeting to ensure that the details are more filled in. And once again, for the applicant, we are doing this just so you guys don't have to wait. I understand you're probably unhappy with the decision, I understand that, but that's why we're doing this right now so you guys don't have to wait two weeks or however many long.

Louis Weil:

Did you augment the view equity one?
Patrick Donegan:

Correct, yeah. So, as of right now we would say the second floor addition creates view impacts to neighboring properties by blocking existing canyon and ocean views. You can get rid of that and.

Thomas Gibbs:

I'm not seeing it on the screen, is why I ask.

Patrick Donegan:

Oh, could you scroll down a little bit, down to three?
Louis Weil:

There we go. Okay, that's neighborhood compatibility. And go down.

Patrick Donegan:

And then keep scrolling down there.

Louis Weil:

Next page.

Patrick Donegan:

Yep. Right there.

Louis Weil:

Oh, too far. Too far295

Jessica Gannon:

Too far.

Louis Weil:
... too far.

Patrick Donegan:

Perfect.

Louis Weil:

You got to go up. Oh, there it is. Second floor additions creates view impacts for neighboring properties by blocking existing canyon.

Jessica Gannon:

Can you also include that it takes away the view from the high school? Patrick Donegan:

Yep.

Jessica Gannon:

So, that's public views.

Patrick Donegan:

Please.

Louis Weil:

Okay, all right.

Thomas Gibbs:

You misspelled view.

Patrick Donegan:

I know, wait, wait.

Louis Weil:

He's typing.

Patrick Donegan:

I am, yes.

Louis Weil:

Okay.
296

Thomas Gibbs:

Anything further?
Patrick Donegan:

The view equity.

Louis Weil:

And then, the motion for denial is in the resolution?
Patrick Donegan:

Correct.

Louis Weil:

Up at the top?
Patrick Donegan:

At the top it's denial. And then of course, theLouis Weil:

Go all the way to the top. I just want to make sure that that part's there.

Patrick Donegan:

And then, of course it's a different CEQA finding for, they're both exempt and that will be reflected in the whereases.

Louis Weil:

Okay. Okay, I'll adopt the resolution as proposed by the city attorney and staff. Into the motion? MJ Coveny:

I'll second that.

Thomas Gibbs:

Call the roll, please.

Shaveta Sharma:

Board Member Bauta?
Imer Bauta:

No.

Shaveta Sharma:
297

Board Member Coveny?
Louis Weil:

You're voting for denial. Or against denial.

Patrick Donegan:

A yes vote is a vote of denial.

MJ Coveny:

Yes.

Shaveta Sharma:

Board Member Weil?
Louis Weil:

Yes.

Shaveta Sharma:

Chair Pro Tem Gannon?
Jessica Gannon:

Yes.

Shaveta Sharma:

Chair Gibbs?
Thomas Gibbs:

No. All right.
298
Thank you to the Board and our neighbors for hearing our input on the McIntoshes proposed plan.

We have met with the McIntoshes on three occassions and finding ourselves at an impasse, and want to preserve the relationship we have.

Miles and believe all our neighbors should be able to make improvements to their homes and are not against an improvement.

From the point the McIntoshes let us know they had a plan and asked us for our input, we have given consideration and met with them within 24 hours of each request. They have been on an urgent timeframe and we have willingly supported and kept pace with their meeting requests. Once the stakes went up at Thansksgiving, it was clear how impactful their proposed plan would be to us. Each time we met, we thoughtfully shared our concerns for privacy, light and how the large flat wall and mass of their proposed front-to-back wall will impact us, our privacy and lifestyle, plus block light and view. Our lot and theirs have a smaller easement, and our homes stand at the same elevation. Their proposed plan represents a significant impact to our privacy and our enjoyment of our home.

When we bought our home, we had been searching for 4 years. Our home was built in 1937 and thoughtfully designed to maximize the privacy, light and functionality for the size of each room. We make our living and function only by having full use of these rooms during daytime. We needed a 4 bedroom home for our family of five, and space to work during daytime hours on conference/video calls for our corporate employers, plus run our family Real Estate business plus. We spend about 12 hours a week day, or about 65% of our time working upstairs in two of the three rooms. We don’t use our upstairs space for sleeping only. In addition, our teenage kids work and study from their rooms. Our adult daughter has been displaced from LA and living with us. Even from our Master Bedroom bathtub and toilet, we can see their proposed home and this is an intrusion of our privacy.

During the years we have been next door neighbors and friends, we have enjoyed a close relationship with the McIntoshes, they have been a part of many holiday events, parties and we collaborated to get speed bumps put in on our street. I am hopeful that there is a productive and thoughtful way forward for us.

To close - When we had our third conversation, one of the points that the McIntoshes mentioned was that they fully expected to push back the position of their upstairs design, but were not prepared to discuss any expectations with us and were waiting for the Board meeting so that they would not unecessarily reduce the size/scale of their upstairs in advance or tolerate more delays to starting their major rebuild. The McIntoshes also said in conversation that changing their plan might impact the privacy they are seeking, and that their design preference was not the perspective of viewing the proximity and mass of our home. Both these conversation points are examples acknowledge and substantiate the value of privacy and mass/proximity of our homes as important to each of us. We are counting on the Board to help us navigate a plan that will take this into consideration, and not reduce or take away our homes’ privacy and function in order to support theirs. Lastly, there is also the consideration of the equity and value of our home which is significant to us.

Attachment 16
299
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Dear Design Review Board Members,
Thanks again for your continued service and consideration of our input throughout this review process. As Alison mentioned in her statement to this committee and documented in our prior written comments (submitted 2/27 and attached in Alison email) and reiterated at the last DRB meeting, we want to state clearly: while we support the McIntosh’s’ right to improve their property, we simply cannot and will not support the current proposed design which is inconsistent with key neighborhood compatibility and privacy principles outlined in the community’s design review standards and they are unwilling to work with us on a suitable solution.

As we have stated and shown in prior DRB meetings, the design positions a single, continuous 42-foot-long flat wall along our north exposure — exceeding the scale and proportion appropriate for this neighborhood and creating a permanent loss of privacy, light, and open view from every north-facing room in our home.

During the prior DRB meeting, four of five Board Members provided explicit feedback recommending reductions in massing, improved articulation, and design adjustments to minimize privacy impacts and a few of you even asked for consideration of an alternative design altogether. These directives have not been incorporated in the revised submission. The minor four-foot reduction now shown in the staking is superficial and does not address the underlying design conflict — the structure remains visually dominant, monolithic, and inconsistent with the established architectural rhythm of adjacent homes.

In its current form, the project:
• Conflicts with the intent of neighborhood compatibility standards requiring massing transitions and respect for adjacent sightlines.
• Fails to mitigate direct privacy intrusion, as required under DRB design principles. • Negatively impacts the character, light, and value of our historic property.

In addition to the above, in the last DRB meeting, Tom Gibb, specifically asked the McIntosh’s to sit down with us to explore a viable solution, we reached out and they declined, instead we met for 30 minutes with Drew, their architect, where he informed us that they will not negotiate on their position or make any further concessions and if we don’t agree they will side step the DRB approval oversight and make it an ADU.

We ask the Board to exercise its responsibility to uphold fairness, consistency, and compliance with adopted standards in this decision. The current design, as presented, remains incompatible with the surrounding architectural context and should not proceed and we therefore respectfully request that the Board deny the current design application.

Thank you for your time, diligence, and attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
Miles Mahoney
300
From: Drew Andelin Blake <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 8, 2025 9:50 PM
To: Sharma, Shaveta CD <[email protected]>
Subject: From Drew Blake - DRB Meeting for Oct. 9th, 2025 [NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Hi Shaveta...

Can you please forward the following to the DR Board members :

From Drew Blake

I did not say that the McIntosh's would not negotiate on the their position or make any concessions on the project, or that we would side step the DRB approval process and make it an ADU.

I did meet with Miles and Allie for any hour, and listened to their concerns, heard their input, and understood their ideas for a redesign of the project, according to their wishes.

I DID say that I would go back to the McIntosh's and give Steve and Vicki a report on what Miles and Allie would like to see from us, and I would let the McIntosh's make a decision on their own.

I did, some days later, text Steve K. to let him know that an ADU upstairs could be an alternative design idea to the free standing ADU that has been designed for the rear yard. That it could be an option for the McIntosh's.

I just wanted to make clear that the statement letter filed from Miles and Allie, is not correct... just as he states that we only pulled back 4 ft, but a full 5 ft, as he very well knows and understands, as it's on the drawings and is very clearly shown.

Thank you Shaveta... I just don't feel it's right to be mis-quoted and not be completely truthful.

Drew Blake
301

302
From: Drew Andelin Blake
Sent: Wednesday, October 8, 2025 9:50 PM
To: Sharma, Shaveta CD <[email protected]>
Subject: From Drew Blake - DRB Meeting for Oct. 9th, 2025 From Drew Blake
I did not say that the McIntosh's would not negotiate on the their position or make any concessions on the project, or that we would side step the DRB approval process and make it an ADU.

I did meet with Miles and Allie for any hour, and listened to their concerns, heard their input, and understood their ideas for a redesign of the project, according to their wishes.

I DID say that I would go back to the McIntosh's and give Steve and Vicki a report on what Miles and Allie would like to see from us, and I would let the McIntosh's make a decision on their own.

I did, some days later, text Steve K. to let him know that an ADU upstairs could be an alternative design idea to the free standing ADU that has been designed for the rear yard. That it could be an option for the McIntosh's.

I just wanted to make clear that the statement letter filed from Miles and Allie, is not correct... just as he states that we only pulled back 4 ft, but a full 5 ft, as he very well knows and understands, as it's on the drawings and is very clearly shown.

Thank you Shaveta... I just don't feel it's right to be mis-quoted and not be completely truthful.

Drew Blake
303
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Dear Design Review Board Members,
Thanks again for your continued service and consideration of our input throughout this review process. As Alison mentioned in her statement to this committee and documented in our prior written comments (submitted 2/27 and attached in Alison email) and reiterated at the last DRB meeting, we want to state clearly: while we support the McIntosh’s’ right to improve their property, we simply cannot and will not support the current proposed design which is inconsistent with key neighborhood compatibility and privacy principles outlined in the community’s design review standards and they are unwilling to work with us on a suitable solution.

As we have stated and shown in prior DRB meetings, the design positions a single, continuous 42-foot-long flat wall along our north exposure — exceeding the scale and proportion appropriate for this neighborhood and creating a permanent loss of privacy, light, and open view from every north-facing room in our home.

During the prior DRB meeting, four of five Board Members provided explicit feedback recommending reductions in massing, improved articulation, and design adjustments to minimize privacy impacts and a few of you even asked for consideration of an alternative design altogether. These directives have not been incorporated in the revised submission. The minor four-foot reduction now shown in the staking is superficial and does not address the underlying design conflict — the structure remains visually dominant, monolithic, and inconsistent with the established architectural rhythm of adjacent homes.

In its current form, the project:
• Conflicts with the intent of neighborhood compatibility standards requiring massing transitions and respect for adjacent sightlines.
• Fails to mitigate direct privacy intrusion, as required under DRB design principles. • Negatively impacts the character, light, and value of our historic property.

In addition to the above, in the last DRB meeting, Tom Gibb, specifically asked the McIntosh’s to sit down with us to explore a viable solution, we reached out and they declined, instead we met for 30 minutes with Drew, their architect, where he informed us that they will not negotiate on their position or make any further concessions and if we don’t agree they will side step the DRB approval oversight and make it an ADU.

We ask the Board to exercise its responsibility to uphold fairness, consistency, and compliance with adopted standards in this decision. The current design, as presented, remains incompatible with the surrounding architectural context and should not proceed and we therefore respectfully request that the Board deny the current design application.

Thank you for your time, diligence, and attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
Miles Mahoney
304
Hello and Thank you for hearing our point of view on the Second Story addition of the MacIntosh home.

This has been a very difficult process for our family as we have enjoyed a friendship with the MacIntosh’s for over 5 years now. What’s at stake here is not just the addition of a second story on their home, but the fundamental right to privacy, to our views, to our peace of mind. I also want to underscore, we understand and support them making improvements to their property and enhance their living space, but NOT at the expense of our privacy, our views, the lighting and quality of life.

As some of you had the chance to tour our home, specifically see the area impacted by the second story addition, our family spends 60-70% of our waking and sleeping hours in the north run of our home directly impacted and affected by the second story additions they are proposing.

First, the new structure will block the sunlight and open airspace that provides privacy and quality to our daily lives and yes, we transition to working in 2 of the 3 rooms on that side of our home every day. We cherished the natural light and air that fills our home from the northwest side of our home, and without it, it will feel much darker, very closed off and less inviting.

Secondly, the proposed second story addition will obstruct our views and light, from every room along the north facing side of our property, which we’ve always considered a significant benefit of living, working and spending time in this run of our home. IT REALLY is our main living space. The view of the water and hillside has been a peaceful aspect of our daily life, and it would be really disheartening to see it just disappear. I wanted to express how important this view is to our family, not just as a luxury, but as a part of what makes our home special. In fact on one occasion, we asked Vicky and Steve, just like all of you did, to come over and see for themselves the massive impact their proposed project will have on that entire side of our home. I asked Steve….” how would you feel if you were in my shoes and I was proposing what you 305
are proposing” and Steve responded, “I would be upset” This is truly significant to the quality of our living space and the value of our home.

But it’s not only our views that are under threat. The addition of the second story has led to a lack of privacy in certain areas of our property.

Privacy is NOT addressed by putting window coverings or frosting the windows themselves, it’s the impact and unknown of a structure looking into our living space and back yards, frosted windows or not- it feels like an invasion of privacy.

Let me be absolutely clear: This is about mass and scale and the impact it will have on our home and our lives. I know these are significant choices and considerations for the Board and I want to restate, we want to be a good neighbors as I believe we have been, I’m hoping with your support that they can find an alternative way to have their remodel without changing our entire home experience, our privacy and happiness we get from the current layout of both homes.

Thank you for taking the time to listen to my concerns. I appreciate your understanding.
306
Thank you to the Board and our neighbors for hearing our input on the McIntoshes proposed plan.

We have met with the McIntoshes on three occassions and finding ourselves at an impasse, and want to preserve the relationship we have.

Miles and believe all our neighbors should be able to make improvements to their homes and are not against an improvement.

From the point the McIntoshes let us know they had a plan and asked us for our input, we have given consideration and met with them within 24 hours of each request. They have been on an urgent timeframe and we have willingly supported and kept pace with their meeting requests. Once the stakes went up at Thansksgiving, it was clear how impactful their proposed plan would be to us. Each time we met, we thoughtfully shared our concerns for privacy, light and how the large flat wall and mass of their proposed front-to-back wall will impact us, our privacy and lifestyle, plus block light and view. Our lot and theirs have a smaller easement, and our homes stand at the same elevation. Their proposed plan represents a significant impact to our privacy and our enjoyment of our home.

When we bought our home, we had been searching for 4 years. Our home was built in 1937 and thoughtfully designed to maximize the privacy, light and functionality for the size of each room. We make our living and function only by having full use of these rooms during daytime. We needed a 4 bedroom home for our family of five, and space to work during daytime hours on conference/video calls for our corporate employers, plus run our family Real Estate business plus. We spend about 12 hours a week day, or about 65% of our time working upstairs in two of the three rooms. We don’t use our upstairs space for sleeping only. In addition, our teenage kids work and study from their rooms. Our adult daughter has been displaced from LA and living with us. Even from our Master Bedroom bathtub and toilet, we can see their proposed home and this is an intrusion of our privacy.

During the years we have been next door neighbors and friends, we have enjoyed a close relationship with the McIntoshes, they have been a part of many holiday events, parties and we collaborated to get speed bumps put in on our street. I am hopeful that there is a productive and thoughtful way forward for us.

To close - When we had our third conversation, one of the points that the McIntoshes mentioned was that they fully expected to push back the position of their upstairs design, but were not prepared to discuss any expectations with us and were waiting for the Board meeting so that they would not unecessarily reduce the size/scale of their upstairs in advance or tolerate more delays to starting their major rebuild. The McIntoshes also said in conversation that changing their plan might impact the privacy they are seeking, and that their design preference was not the perspective of viewing the proximity and mass of our home. Both these conversation points are examples acknowledge and substantiate the value of privacy and mass/proximity of our homes as important to each of us. We are counting on the Board to help us navigate a plan that will take this into consideration, and not reduce or take away our homes’ privacy and function in order to support theirs. Lastly, there is also the consideration of the equity and value of our home which is significant to us. 307
From: steve kawaratani
To: Gibbs, Thomas; Jessica Gannon; Bauta, Imer; Coveny, Mary Jo; Weil, Louis Cc: Sharma, Shaveta CD; Khan, Shehriyar CD; Besinaiz, Daniel CD; Rodrigues, Bill CD Subject: 5.8 - 607 Short Street, 5.9 - 2058 Crestview Drive & 5.10 - 31502 Coast Highway Date: Monday, October 6, 2025 6:45:20 AM
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Good morning, Chair Gibbs and Board members,
I hope you enjoyed your weekends!
I represent Alison and Miles Mahoney, Evgeniy Krasko and Paul Kraft, who all continue to oppose neighboring projects due to view impacts. It is readily apparent that their opposition remains as the applicants have substantially ignored Board comment and direction to mitigate view issues by reducing or relocating architectural program.

Alison and Miles Mahoney , reside next door at Short street to the proposed project at 607 Short Street.

Evgeniy Krasko lives at Gainsborough Dr, above 2058
Crestiview Drive.

Paul Kraft lives at Catalina Ave, behind 31502 Coast
Highway.

All three spoke at earlier DRB hearings to voice their concerns and the Board minutes clearly reflect Board comment to protect views through reasonable shifting or reduction of program .

I am available to meet from 9am to1045am and from 230p to 5p on Tuesday, and anytime on Wednesday and anytime up to 130pm on Thursday.

If these times don’t work for you, please contact my clients and copy me to arrange a meeting with them
Enjoy a splendid week!
Best,
Steve
308
309
310
311
312
Attachment 17
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
Sept. 15, 2025 Kyle Morgheim - Lic. Engineer
104.72 0.30' 104.87 -0.12' 107.62 1.68' 103.62 5.63' 92.55 12.20' 105.37 -0.62' 103.62 0.88' - 106.34 10.24' 107.25 7.49' 104.52 10.22' 104.07 10.67' 106.69 9.89' - 103.62 5.88' 103.68 5.82' 106.28 10.30' - 103.66 11.08' 103.72 11.02' - 107.27 7.47' 106.25 9.83' 106.90 9.18' 104.78 9.96' 104.92 9.82' 106.92 2.17' 104.86 -0.12' 104.92 -0.17' - 103.06 3.76' 104.88 0.18' 103.06 2.00' 107.92 1.32' 103.08 11.66' 107.27 7.47' 103.12 11.62' - 103.08 12.67' 107.38 8.37' Kyle Morgheim - Lic. Engineer Lic. No. 71736 Exp. 12/31/25 Sept. 15, 2025 Certified on Sept. 15, 2025 342
343
344

NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING

LAGUNA BEACH CITY COUNCIL
The Laguna Beach City Council will hold an in-person Public Hearing in the City Council Chambers, located in City Hall at 505 Forest Avenue, Laguna Beach, to consider:

Appeal of denial of Design Review 24-1572 and Coastal Development Permit 24-1688, and CEQA Categorical Exemption for modifications for a new single-family dwelling (major remodel with additions exceeding 50%, including upper-level additions),exterior changes, elevated decks, and landscape improvements to an existing single-family dwelling and new detached accessory dwelling unit (“ADU”), located at 607 Short Street in the R-1 zone. Design review is required for a major remodel to an existing structure where the additions exceed 50 percent of the existing home, elevated decks, new exterior materials, windows, and landscaping. A coastal development permit is required for the major remodel and for the proposed detached ADU.

Applicant: Drew Blake, Designer
One party has appealed the decision of the Design Review Board (DRB) to deny the project.

SAID PUBLIC MEETING to be held Tuesday, December 9, 2025, at 5:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter.

For additional information, contact City staff: Shaveta Sharma, Senior Planner (949) 715-0958 or [email protected]. Comments may be made in writing prior to the hearing (when emailed or mailed to the City Clerk’s office) or in-person in the Council Chambers during the public hearing. In order to allow sufficient time for members of the City Council and staff to review and consider your comments, written comments will be accepted for consideration up until the close of business (i.e., 5:30 p.m.) on the business day before the date on which this public hearing is scheduled; however, it is recommended they be submitted to the City Clerk’s office on or before 5:00 p.m. five days prior to the scheduled hearing.

Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65009(b), if you challenge this application in court, the issues raised shall be limited to those raised in the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Laguna Beach prior to, or at, the public hearing.

CEQA: This project is categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, Sections 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) and 15304 (Minor Alterations to Land).

COASTAL: This project is located in the Coastal Zone. This project is located within a non-appealable area of the Coastal Zone.

The project is proposed as non-appealable development. The application was filed on August 10, 2023 by Drew Blake and is assigned application number CDP 24-1688. The application was denied by the Design Review Board. The decision by the Design Review Board is appealable to the City Council upon the payment of $2,500 and in accordance with Laguna Beach Municipal Code Section

25.05.070. The decision by the City Council is not appealable to the California Coastal Commission.

Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons with a disability who require a disability-related modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, may request such modification or accommodation from the City Clerk’s Office at (949) 497-0705 (telephone) or (949) 497-0771 (facsimile). Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility to the meeting.

Property Owners within 300 ft. /Tenants within 100 ft./Property Posted /California Coastal Commission /Interested Persons List /Publish Date: 11/28/2025
Attachment 20
345

McIntosh 607 Short St. Project 12/3/2025
Denial Appeal
DRB Member Comments and Contradictions
When building the upper floor to the back end of our house on the South side, to capture the view corridor towards the north coastline, and bird rock, the secondary view to the hills from our neighbor’s spare bedroom / office to the South would be impacted, along with a center bedroom. The jest of the 1st DRB hearing recommendations, were to “pull back some” to help with the side window view from that room. Our neighbors the Mahoneys, hired “lobbyist” Steve Kawaritani to help limit us from developing our property.

Some DRB members have expressed personal, and subjective opinions, well outside DRB guidelines, before and at the 1st hearing and then made contradictory statements at the 2nd and or 3rd hearings.

Board Member / Chair Jessica Gannon
Then Chair Gannon was invited to our house before the February 27, 2025 hearing. I spotted her in front of our house and went out to say introduce myself and to say hello.

I asked if she was coming in and she said she didn’t need to, as she had spoken to our Architect Drew Blake. I could see Board Member Coveny, who did visit the day before, talking with Steve Kawaritani, next door. I stated to Gannon that she really needed to see our home, to hear what we have to say, since they were listening to Kawaritani.

She left saying she would try and come back later. She did come back in a few hours.

One of the first things she stated was that our design would dramatically reduce the value of the Mahoney’s property. This is an absolute, personal opinion, extremely subjective and way outside of any Design Review guidelines that we have found.

At the First design review hearing on February 27, 2025, at the beginning of Board Comments, Chair Gannon stated in response to a quote about privacy and the DRB Guidelines we made;
“I'm ready for comments so also included in the design review guidelines is uh view blockage that includes not only the ocean but a Hillside and the photo that I took in that that primary room which is now being used as an office yes it has that peekaboo view of the ocean but the for me that I noticed that it has a phenomenal and I I should have submitted this to the city and and I will after tonight's meeting so it's on public record but that Hillside is absolutely gorgeous and it would completely and I'm saying everything that I'm going to say now I said to you and when we met that would signific significantly devalue that property next door” Gannon references view blockage as part of the DRB guidelines. We could not find that anywhere. Other than Don’t block Primary Views.

The “Primary Room” she is referring to is a back corner guest bedroom / office where Mrs. Mahoney works ALONE in. This room has a great PRIMARY ocean view out the very large back window. Quite a bit more substantial than peekaboo. (Photos later below)
Gannon again, doubled down on the devaluing of the neighboring property.

Before the 2nd DRB hearing June 26, 2025, Gannon submitted a photo to our architect Drew Blake, taken from the Mahoney’s back corner, guest bedroom / office, out the secondary side window. She drew a red line, saying that we needed to build behind it in order to get her approval. This would allow us only 10’ from the line to the loadbearing wall to build on. We would have to demo the chimney, the wall, etc. At that point it would be easier to demolish the house and rebuild.

The orange lines are
load bearing walls.

Outside them are
porch overhangs.

Gannon also
sent over her
idea of what
our house
should look
like and we
should build.

During the 2nd June 26 hearing, Gannon stated the following:
“I'll start with the red line that you presented tonight i stand by that red line it would still not preserve that mountain view it would be a taking but at least it would be a compromise uh in my viewpoint my professionalism um the way that I view property and evaluate property if if it devalues somebody else's property then something needs to change and I think that uh where that red line is I'm going to stand strong on that red line because it won't preserve all of that uh mountain view but it'll protect the majority of it it'll also help with light and air.” Gannon also doubles down on her red line, even after we made a presentation showing that we would have a very narrow area to build on, so it’s not feasible.

Also, for the third time, she uses subjective, property values as a guideline.

She Continues:
“the other issue I have is the articulation on that side there you have a two story straight up and down wall there's no articulation facing the the house the neighbor's house so view equity hasn't been achieved the articulation hasn't been achieved um I don't find it neighborhood compatible because of the articulation that house you're in the village so I think uh a def a different design also you presented a design of another house that stretched across um as I recommended in the first meeting that's something that would be neighborhood compatible”
Our South wall facing the Mahoneys, has stucco on the lower floor, horizontal, wide Hardie board siding on the upper, with a large eyebrow separating them. There is a 10’ step and front articulation that is seen from the side. We were asked to reduce the amount of windows and sizes, for privacy and did that, which of course makes the wall more plain. Almost half of the wall is obscured by the Mahoney’s large hedge, that is sometimes as tall as halfway up where the upper floor would be. In addition, there is a lower separating fence / wall. (There will be gutters, downspouts, electrical boxes, added)
The following are some exterior walls in the neighborhood that have less articulation than ours would. This shows that low articulation side walls are common in our neighborhood.
615 Short Backyard with the
wall to their South that is 53’
long, with little articulation

Front of 615 Short St. Next Door
Neighborhood Houses

Several times during the 2nd hearing, Gannon interrupted now Chair Gibbs and stated she did not think we should have a 3rd hearing.
3rd Hearing October 10, 2025:

Gannon comes out aggressive from the start, stating the following:
“Overall, um, this doesn't meet the minimum requirements for design integrity, design articulation, neighborhood compatibility, or view equity.” Gannon’s subjective assessment that our design does not meet any of the minimum requirements is just not accurate. This statement is 180 degrees off from other board members and the professional City staff who have consistently stated the opposite.

“Um, the removal of the tree in the front was for your benefit as the homeowner. It it was a negative impact on your foundation. Um, although I do recognize that it also opens up that view with the secondary bedroom.”
Gannon acknowledges that the side view from the front bedroom is opened up by the giant tree removal after saying the removal was for our benefit. “As far as um neighborhood compatibility, design articulation and integrity, they kind of all go hand in hand. Uh this design does a disservice to the neighborhood.” A heavily heavily trafficked neighborhood by both out of towners and residents.” Gannon’s open and unprofessional attacks on our design is indicative of the attitude she has had towards us from the first minute we met. The statement that the neighborhood is used by out of towners and residents is trying to set us up for future claims to inhibit the development of our property.

Gannon defiantly claims:
“Nowhere in this neighborhood is there a design where the upper level overloads one side of the home.”
Had she actually done research, she would have seen several homes that have second floors built to one side. Including the one right next door! (Our second floor plan is 66% across the width of the house, not just on one side) Neighbor to the North, right next door
Or this one around the corner on El Camino Del Mar
Board Member Louis Weil
Weil was invited to visit our house but did not respond.

We contacted him by getting his number through a former DRB member, before the first hearing.

On the phone Weil stated he can get most of what he needs from Google Earth. This is after he had met with Steve Kawaritani and the neighbors next door to the South.

First DRB Hearing - February 27, 2025
Louis Weil Statement from meeting transcript:
“You've got an architect that really embodied the style of the existing home and really tried to bring the characteristics to life and enhance it so I can see that and those careful components into the design….”
“At times in a lot of areas in town we try to encourage this kind of “popup” design but I think the way the extension is on just the one side I think it is creating some impacts especially into the rear side of the lot….” “Looking at the aerial from the two lots neighboring you've got kind of the momies (Mahoneys) on one side and the property on the other, their second level doesn't quite extend nearly as far as the one you're proposing so what I was trying to look at was kind of a reasonable string line so you kind of keep that opening available for not only the momies (Mahoneys) but the other side, but then it affords you the reasonable development kind of beyond that lack of better term stringline. I'd like to see something closer to that doesn't mean you have to get to that exact line I'm just saying that's where I'm kind of drawing reasonability within the design at this point”
Translating, Weil stated that while we encourage the “Pop-Up” in other areas of town, just not in this case. He just needed to visit the neighbor to the North to see that a pop up is exactly what they built! Stating that they are not as far back as we wanted to build. They added their second floor as close to their lot line as possible, with setbacks. Our lot is 20 to 35’ deeper than theirs.

Weil uses that second floor to the North, as reference for a loosely, hand drawn, angled, “stringline” to the Mahoneys. Saying he would like to see something closer to that, but that doesn’t mean we have to get to that exact line.

Weil’s “Stringline”
Below is an accurate stringline we created, referencing off the same 2nd floor neighbor, showing how all the other homes were able to use the depth of their lots and built well beyond “the stringline”. Our original design was approx. 5’ beyond this straight stringline.
2nd Hearing – June 26, 2025
We made adjustments to our design based on the recommendations of board members at our February Hearing. We pulled our Master bedroom back 5’ from the original design. This shortened the South side by 2’ and shifted towards the street 3’.

We removed a large South facing lower window from the stairwell for privacy for the Mahoneys. We removed a massive tree, from the SE corner of our house. This opened up never before seen views to the hills above Park, etc. Not to mention light and air.

Weil was invited again and this time he did visit our home, saw our proposed revisions of a 5’ additional pullback, and suggested a design through a hand drawn sketch. (See below) He suggested we move our Master back an additional 10’. Totally contradicting his statement in the first hearing and well behind “his stringline”. He suggested making the center family room section bigger by enlarging towards the street and to the North.

Saying “we have a lot of area to build on.” He promptly went next door, met with Kawaratani and afterwards, they drove off together. Not good optics.

LOUIS WEIL’S DRAWING FROM THE 2nd JUNE 26 HEARING, OVERLAYED ON OUR UPPER FLOORPLAN SHOWING OUR 5’ PULLBACK:

Enlarged family room.

Our 5’ pullback from
June 26 DRB.

Weil added the Green arrow showing the neighbor’s view from the side window along the view corridor, which they have from all the back windows and deck. (Again, as we retreat back, we move out of the view corridor)
Weil makes the following confusing, contrary to the statement about the “POP UP” at the June 26th 2nd hearing.
“Um the pop-up uh direction that you're going is absolutely the right way to go i just think there's some massaging or some characteristics that we were looking for from the first direction”
“I just kind of want to give you some more specifics like the 5’ reduction wasn't enough” At the same hearing, he then states later, in discussion; “i just I just strike the five foot comment because it could just be you know it's still directional directional i mean there changes need to occur and other impacts could be created different privacy concerns if the decking becomes you know different but I think there's a lot of balance and stuff and availability that they can they can work on the right solution” Again, more statements that are contradictory, and confusing. Members to recall.

Talked about the impact if the deck is exposed.
3rd Hearing - October 9, 2025
Following Board Member guidelines, we pulled the master bedroom back an additional 5’, for a total of 10’ from our original design. Shortening the upper South side to 39’.

We moved our stairwell to the front of the home and enlarged the family room to the North and East. Exactly what some Weil and some Board Members wanted, and basically matching Weil’s drawing. While not pulled back as much his drawing showed, we looked to be within a few feet and certainly behind his original Stringline drawing!
At the third hearing, Weil stated the following:
“Um it's the rear of the property that is the concern
and the issue and um I I tend to be more in favor that you know that four to five more feet. You know I think at the last hearing I said five plus feet and we came back just at five and I think that's just a little too tight of a margin” Again confusing. His drawing showed quite a bit more than a 5’ pull back, which we did. Apparently, 5’ was not enough for Weil after stating it.

Below left is our upper plan with a 10’ pull back, presented at the 3rd DRB hearing, with Weil’s drawing overlayed on the right.

Weil Goes on to say;
“I think when we discuss the middle part of the property, that's just something that we can't protect because it would eliminate your complete right to build. And so that that that middle window is just that's just part of the middle of the lot. and we let that one go.” This realization of the board treading on our right to build got other board members’ attention, so Coveny comments to that as well in the 3rd meeting.

Board Member MJ Coveney:

Came to our home before the Feb 27, 1st DRB meeting. Walking our yard, we looked up and were surprised to see that the Neighbors to the South had moved a desk in front of their spare bedroom window instead of a couch back. Coveny responded, “you wouldn’t believe what we see….”
At that 1st hearing she said we should pull our Master Bedroom back to help views from Mahoney’s corner guest bedroom / office. Stating, we should pull it back, but do not expose your deck.

She agreed with Member Tom Gibbs’ comment, that articulation on the South side is fine, saying; Which she later contradicts.
“I I agree with Mr Gibbs on design articulation I think along the side you're fine there.” Coveny also goes on to say;
I think the house is neighborhood compatible um I think your biggest problem is is really view Equity um and if you can work on that um I think you're you're really going to be closer you know than you are right now um yeah so is your issue the same as Lewis's issue that it's just the the back the the the the room that's the closest to the backyard needs to open up a little bit Yeah needs to retreat thanks oh but let me just add to that and keep this in mind as you Retreat hopefully Retreat this upper bedroom um that you're decking that you're adding stays sort of obscured because you certainly don't want to you know and then you have to deal with that component”
The terms, “open up a little bit” and “needs to retreat” the upper, we assumed to be like many other DRB hearings where that kind of language is heard with numbers like 6” to 8”, or maby a foot.

Second hearing, June 26, 2025:

We listened to board direction given at that first hearing and pulled the Master Bedroom back 5’ and also pulled the deck back as to not expose it. Coveny had warned against exposing the deck, as “you would have to deal with that component”.

Seemingly referring to the DRB Guidelines of not building an exposed deck, for privacy.

Also at the second hearing, Coveny flips and seems to now have a problem with articulation. Coveny states;
“um I also agree with the mass and scale articulation i don't think the size is a problem necessarily”.
“um we can work around articulation mass and scale those are usually easy, privacy you pull a shade those kind of things can be handled really easily view equity is the big one so I feel like by I don't feel like and it might just be me, I might not be accurate but I don't feel like we really looked at options with the other side.” This is after we have spent countless hours exploring ALL building options all over our lot and house, going over those with the neighbors and board members if or when they visited. In fact at the first and second hearings, we presented photos and renderings showing where and why building on the “other side” was challenging, plus it would still block the hill view from the back corner guest room / office at 615 Short and would create privacy issues for both us and the Mahoneys, by our windows directly facing them and a totally exposed deck.

Coveny also presented a “drawing” pulling not only our Master back and eliminating the family room, but turning the deck into a “Juliet Balcony”. Writing on the drawing, that we could move the stairs into the walk-in closet area to open a deck option.

She apparently does not understand, that by moving stairs in the upper unit into the closet, that would also put them in the middle of a bedroom downstairs, eliminating it altogether!
This shows a larger problem of Board Members having no understanding of design and or construction, making decisions that dramatically affect their lives.

Coveny stated when referring to the Mahoney’s back corner spare bedroom / office:
“I think it's very clear that this is a split view uh out this back area you actually took the picture from the corner which kind of shows this is our view it's it's hillside and it's ocean um the the view of the ocean is further away”
Coveny stated “our view” as if the view is actually her’s. The Ocean is actually, 1,500 ft away and the “hill” is 4,500 ft away.

During the 2nd hearing we presented the following:

Previous owner back corner guest room at 615 Short. Back PRIMARY Ocean view windows on left are 48 sq ft, while the SECONDARY side windows total only 21 sq ft. Note Hedge growing in front of side window.

At a recent hearing for DRB project on Poplar, Board Member Coveny stated that the window on the left has THE PRIMARY view out the front. (Alluding the Window on the right was not a primary view, even though it is a big window). The Board approved the remodel to the right, above. Both these windows are the same size, unlike 615 Short St, and are in an actual Ceremonial Living Room. The window on the right even has a view of Catalina which Coveny did not feel compelled to save.”
Here is the excerpt from the April 24, 2025 DRB hearing transcript for the project on Poplar:

Coveny:
“My big concern was the pointy corner there that was blocking the corridor. Not so much the Catalina view, but more of just a a breath of ease there. I don't think it's a primary, even though it's a big window. Their primary view is out the front. Um, I think uh if six inches makes a difference, um, I think that that would be a nice courtesy to make a concession on behalf if it doesn't jeopardize the integrity of your home, which doesn't to me anything under a foot is like, yeah.”
In the case of our Southern neighbors at 615 Short, the “Primary View is out the back of the windows that are over twice the size of the side windows. (See the photo above) The secondary view is of the hill 4,500 ft away. In the case of this Poplar build, the Board talked about moving 6”, then the architect says he would have to redesign to do that. The project passed. While we have moved 10’ and redesigned but got denied.

This is indicative of a clear application of personal, SUBJECTIVE OPINION, not an equal, consistent and objective fact of a Primary View.

During discussions, Coveny back-peddles some about View Equity and the Mahoney’s middle bedroom after realizing they were inhibiting our right to build; “My concern wasn't with the middle bedroom it was only with the um study den uh office um as far as view equity uh center bedroom is is is not not important or uh to me viable in this particular in our parameters um yeah so I just want to be clear about that.” When Coveny addresses the removal of the giant tree in our front yard, she like two of the other members always say, it benefitted us, (McIntoshes) so it’s no big deal. And almost like a second thought, It helped the view for the Mahoneys. Here is her statement:
“When it comes to some other concepts your tree is great but that was a concession that benefited you as well and it's a great thing it's it's going to help their view from the front to Laguna High School but it wasn't it never really blocked from what I could see.”

FRONT BEDROOM WINDOW MIDDLE BEDROOM WINDOW

As you can see, there was mojor blockage of view by the tree. Coveny, obviously does not know what she’s looking at or remember what she’s seen! Weil and Gannon downplayed the treee removal as well.

October 9, 2025 3rd Hearing
At our 3rd hearing Oct 9, 2025, Coveny came out challenging and aggressive.

Her following statement has no merit particularly after we had again shown photos, and presentations, showing how building on the “other side” is outside the view corridor for us, causes major privacy issues for all parties which violates DRB Guidelines about privacy.

She subjectively states:
“I'm not sure I'm buying the whole concept of uh view uh loss on the other side of the uh a home to build on the other side of the home”
“There's limited views from this home. (615) Um this uh when we look at each home individually, look at how much of the view is being taken. Um that's a concern. Um you're gaining everything. You're getting everything. You're getting canyon, you're getting ocean, you're getting big deck, you're getting everything.”
Coveny basically ignores the 3 presentations that we gave pertaining to the issues of building on the “other side” of our house.

There are major Ocean views from the master bedroom and bath, the large deck and the corner spare bedroom / office at 615 Short, not “limited views”.

To chastise and attack us, by saying “You’re gaining everything. You’re getting everything. You’re getting canyon you’re getting ocean, you’re getting big deck, you’re getting everything”, is absolutely subjective, bias and unprofessional. It is an attempt to convince other board members to go against us to take away our ability to develop our property.

Coveny:
“And it just feels like for for you to offer up another four feet to allow them to have something is limited for what you're still going to gain. I think the overall design of this home feels lopsided to me. I could give you that. Um, knowing that I was giving the homeowner who's been living there with a beautiful canyon view from a active area of their home. Um, I could give you that. Let that go. Even though I don't understand why you stopped halfway,” Coveny subjectively declares our house is “now” lopsided. It is actually 66% across the width and not 100%. She is asking for an additional 4’ of pull-back on top of the 10’ we had already come back. Stating that she would “let that go” if we agreed to pull back 4 more feet, sounds like blackmail. The room she is speaking about is a spare bedroom / office that only 1 person uses. Not what would be called “an active area”. Since we pulled back 10’, we majorly reduced our master bedroom. 4 more feet would make it unworkable.

Coveny:
“I think the articulation on the side,(South side) I know that it was mentioned many times before, you didn't achieve. I' I'd almost be willing to give you that. I feel like I'm negotiating on behalf of the homeowner next door. Um, but again, my big thing is view, and they have very limited view.”
Coveny’s mention of the “articulation” of the South Side, is 180 deg from her earlier statements agreeing with Member Tom Gibbs at the first hearing, that the articulation on that side is fine. This is even after we reduced the length from 46’ to 39’, and removed large stairwell windows, helping the cries of privacy. Stating what seemed to be a personal, change in direction with no basis, except that she claimed “I would almost be willing to give you that”, if you pull back even more. 615 Short has great primary ocean views from all the rooms in the back of the house, not limited.

Coveny makes the statement at the end of the meeting, trying to clean up her conditional, “I could give you that” if you agree, to my conditions”. “If I may just so I can clarify my comments because I was being uh trying to be sort of negotiating prior to giving my remarks originally. Um, when I was saying that I felt like, you know, I'll give you the the neighbor compatibility even though I don't think it is. you know, I'll give you no articulation on the side, even though it should be articulated in order to try to get to a solution of a 4-foot reduction in that upper level in order to approve this tonight. And I just want to be clear that I I would not if if I would have said it's not it's not neighbor compatible. It's it's articulation is not uh proper. So, I just want to make sure I'm clear about that.”
This statement is another back-peddle to try and get out of something that should never have been said. She either believes our project is neighborhood compatible, or there is enough articulation, or not. She originally stated in the first hearing she agreed with Gibbs that all that was fine there. Then later she said it wasn’t, then used it to try and coerce a decision from us to pull back another 4 feet. This leads us to believe the articulation is fine and we are neighborhood compatible. If she is saying it does not meet neighborhood criteria, and does not have articulation, we have a big problem with a Board that “looks the other way” to get what they want. It’s pretty evident here.

Coveny then proceeded to vote to deny our project, since we did not agree to her “conditions”.

Board Member Christine Thalman
At the 1st hearing, Feb 27, 2025, Thalman stated the following; “um okay well my first reaction when I came to the to macintoshes and saw the uh the plans and took a look at the stakes it looked very reasonable it looked to be uh in line with all the design review guidelines”
“I think uh board member um coven's idea about pushing that master bedroom back and I hate to say this to you but maybe you have to reduce your walk-in closet it's a beautiful closet I'm Jealous”
“I I think just a couple of tweaks and you're almost there I'd like to say this is a one an done but I think there might be just a few minor changes”
Thalman was only on the board for our 1st hearing. She echoed the need to pull back our master bedroom to open up the view more out of the corner guest bedroom / office and to make our closet storage room smaller. We did both.

Board Member Imer Bauta
Bauta took Thalman’s place on the board. He started at our 2nd hearing. Bauta visited our house before the hearing. As a builder, he seemed to understand the process and what it takes to build and develop a project. As a very new Member, he kind of went along with the rest of the board, but was in favor of a 3rd hearing. His statements:
“I had a chance to review the drawings and you know I think that there is something here there's definitely a project here i think they we should definitely give them a third hearing i think that's a fair fair fair fair shake here.”
“From my personal view I think that can come back i think that view equity was preserved um you know in two in two circumstances obviously the ocean line and then also the coastline there's a piece um that that you could see in this uh but the third piece is the hillside and I understand the tree removal um was was added and you know into the radius of of viewport and we can appreciate that.” Chair Gibbs stated the Following;
“it's just not fair to say that that whole side window has to have an unobstructed view that is such an impingement on the right of the applicant”
To which Bauta responded;
“Yeah I I agree with you.”
“yeah chair just uh kind of guidance i think you know from what I could tell five to six feet somewhere in that range pulling that wall back would go a long way um I think it would open up the corridor i also think it would give a you know nice view of that uh coastline and partial hillside view” (Out the side window)
At the 3rd Hearing Oct 2025, Bauta stated the following:
“Thank you, chair. Um, so I think that, you know, with third hearings, we always we always tend to look at the progression and the efforts that were made. And I think that the efforts have been made to mitigate the view and balance the view.

Um, I understand uh uh that there are some concerns pertaining to the hillside, but I I can't come around to preserving the full hillside view. I think that would be a complete limitation.

Uh but when we look at the specifics of this particular site and we look at the views out of the windows of the neighbors, um if we were to push that wall back, you know, you're maybe getting another palm tree or two or three or maybe some bamboo. So I I can't come around having them pull it back anymore. I think that what they've done suffices. You get a portion of hillside view. Um, you know, I think the design is very thoughtful to the community and the use of materials is very thoughtful as well. Um, and I I do think the vision is appropriate for the neighbor neighborhood. Um, and I do understand that the desire to get a get a ocean view is what this um homeowner is going for. And I can see this project for approval tonight.” Board Member / Chair Tom Gibbs
From the first meeting on February 27, 2025, Gibbs objectively uses the DRB guidelines, and states, “guidelines which bind us um and what we're supposed to be applying.”
“I've thought a lot about this project and I'm going to go through my the guidelines which bind us um and what we're supposed to be applying and I'm doing this you know from an uninvolved this is two neighbor that have distinct interests so it's important to understand where I'm coming from.
um I start with design articulation and I think that the project is well designed it's an attractive project um I think even the Second Story elevation Northeast facing uh the Mone is sufficiently articulated uh it has the same essential articulation as the m property on that side with the exception of smaller Windows which I would require beec that are done to preserve privacy.

Neighborhood compatibility uh you know I walked the whole neighborhood I took pictures everywhere second stories are totally neighborhood compatible throughout the whole neighborhood uh indeed a lot of the second stories including the Mahones are larger than what's being proposed here uh so I find the two story is neighborhood compatible um and this second story doesn't extend all the way across so it has less of a mass and scale from the front and the back and it extends about the same distance as the Mahones whereas the Moonies go all the way across so they have a much larger mass and scale house than what's being proposed and that's not atypical I it's a beautiful home I love their home uh and there's a lot of beautiful Second Story in fact that is the norm to have significant you know on this scale Second Story mass and scale um so that's the issue and but,
I'll get to privacy and view Equity um the mass and scale I find meets the criteria uh it's consistent with the neighborhood uh the fact that there is a building along a property line is also consistent throughout that neighborhood the 16 feet is a I think a decent spread to preserve light and air and to reduce uh the mass and scale and as I said if you look at the two sides between 615 and the and the applicant 607 um the mass and scale is I think kind of tilts toward 615 having a larger mass and scale than what's being proposed and again I find it articulated
on all sides uh and the least articulated is is on the side facing the Mahon but uh on that side it is against another their property which has equal you know minimal articulation so I think it meets the standards there
Um with respect to switching the Second Story to the other side uh I think that that does create a lot of feasibility problems uh you know in addition to uh having the garage articulated where it is and having it balanced the the Second Story Balan the way it does presents I think a far better project so I'd have to find a real compelling need to force that switch moreover the neighbor on the other side has has a courtyard patio so if you move the project over there you'll have similar mass scale.

Privacy uh issues uh unfor uh unfortunately when there's a building you had a you know a smaller scale single story home for a long long time in this location where two story is uh the the you know the standard there now and neighborhood compatible it's going to have some some mass and scale impact and I I I commend the applicant for uh moving it back and and providing decent spacing and I was particularly compelled by the photos shown on the on the uh the reply that shows what I saw which was not withstanding there's going to be a building there it is not like it's you know 5et or even 10t away which can create some light and air problems.

I think the overall the balance justifies the uh uh this project with respect to mass scale light and air with respect to privacy uh the uh views I'll get to the views in a second the Privacy issue ises are an issue which is in my mind totally resolved by making the Second Story Windows OPC there's if they are and they're minimal to begin with on that side you have a couple of small Windows a Stairway window and then two additional windows.

I because there's you know because the way that they built the Mahoney's house where they put a lot of you know rooms with Windows along that side expecting it would always be a single story there I guess um uh I think it does call for opaque windows on that side to provide them the kind of privacy that they should have with those rooms.

Um so that leaves view Equity um The View equity in my mind is uh is achieved in this property or in this project uh and that's because the views the primary views are in the back and that's true of the houses were at the neighborhood toward the ocean not surprising yes there's side views those side views may be a little less impacted if you build the Second Story further away uh but in my mind not significantly uh I think Vue Equity is achieved um so I mean with all of that said I would approve the project tonight.

I'm not sure that the modifications that you're willing to make and I appreciate you saying I'll do modifications are the kind of modifications that uh the Mahones are looking for they're looking for a major remodel which is uh either moving the whole second story to go along the face of your property so it's one big Second Story one one story Second Story house which I would have some mass and scale issues with and neighborhood compatibility or uh you know moving it in a lateral way along the other side of the property line um and you know I barring that I do not see any minor tweaks although I'm be interested in what my fellow board members have to say uh that are necessary so for all those reasons I can approve the project tonight”
June 26, 2025 2nd Hearing
At the second hearing on June 26, 2025, Gibbs was Chair and had a rough time keeping the process on track and trying to come to a decent consensus, with board member Gannon interrupting. Part of his statement here;
I I expressed my views last time and reductions were made so my views haven't changed um you know I kind of bottom line my view is that the issue is really view equity because privacy can be dealt with and we're talking view equity from secondary bedrooms uh and the the most important I mean the the kind of their prize bedroom the the Mahoney's is the corner room which is the study uh secondary bedrooms we rarely give any view equity considerations particularly where the house has other you know great views which the house does from the master and the deck upstairs um the study has the much bigger picture window facing toward the ocean uh and on the side window the building was put back 5 feet so I feel for the applicants here.
uh but I totally respect the different views of my colleagues you heard what they have to say um basically they're asking you to redesign to protect views from two subsidiary bedrooms and a study that has a really terrific view that's not being impinched.

He states, addressing the Mahoneys:
“Realize that you've enjoyed a single story house next to you which is unique in that neighborhood for a long time and you're not it's not meant to stay forever understand the concerns the the that the you know that the Macintoshes have about the location of the second story.”
While spending over 20 minutes trying to have a discussion about what would make board members happy, to get closer together for a consensus, Member Gannon interrupted, trying to insist there were no “findings” for a 3rd hearing. Gibbs said they weren’t there yet. During that discussion, Gibbs makes the statement concerning our rights to build;
“My view is it's just not fair to say that that whole side window has to have an unobstructed view that is such an impingement on the right of the applicant to build” Chair Thomas Gibbs said it best in our last hearing on Oct 9, 2025:
(excerpt from hearing transcript)
Chair Gibbs. Okay. Um
you know, first of all, this is a modest project and I think it's well designed. Uh I think it's neighborhood compatible.

I think the wall facing the Mahonies is articulated. Indeed, there's so many flat walls, including on their house, that are less articulated. I think this is otherwise an eminently approvable project. I think the privacy issues were designed were um resolved, including with the change that was made from the last hearing.

So, we're at View Equity, and I wanted I went up there. I think everybody's acting in good faith.

The Mahonies were very forthcoming. Uh the same thing with the applicant. I don't like to see negative or bad blood on this thing, but to my view, you know, I'm I'm sorry. You know, when you say that the u uh what the the the Macintoshes are getting everything and the Mahonies are getting nothing or something to that effect.

Well, the Mahonies have a full-on ocean view. They have a hugely wide house. They've got a deck there. The view is it. Hear me. Hear me out and then I'll I'll hear you. (board member Jessican Gannon tried to talk over Gibbs. He continues) The view is toward the ocean. They happen to have a secondary bedroom that they use as an office that happens to have a side window that sees some mountain views. You know, that is not a protect. I It's not certainly not entitled to s the significant protection that this board is giving it. It's not a ceremonial room. It is a side window, the main view window, which is actually a larger window, faces the ocean.

So, I mean, I I think it's unfortunate that uh this board and I dis I have the right to disagree. I love them all and I respect them all immensely, but I hugely disagree with this one. you they you are giving the you're you're you're really impacting the right of this applicant to develop their house in a way that is actually less massive than the next door neighbor's house. including the location of their bedroom to avoid privacy issues that you get from pulling it back to maximize ocean views which the um the Mahonies have throughout the backside of their house with windows and decks at the second floor. All to preserve a secondary bedroom/off side window. I can't stomach that. So, I would hope that my comments might move the board.

If not, I think it would be a tragedy to deny the project.

Gibbs says it all.

He was ready to approve from our first meeting, saying that our project meets all the DRB guidelines. This was even before many redesigns, reductions, tree removal, etc.

In conclusion, it is very clear by their derogatory statements and actions that certain members of the board were against us from the start. We feel there is more than business relationship between Kawaritani, and some board members.

Riding together to and from projects and attending events like the Pageant together, is cause for concerns about impartiality.

We feel the conflicting statements, selective understanding and the ignoring of presentations, show a lack of professionalism and focus with some Board Members and their arbitrary, and subjective interpretations are way outside DRB Guidelines.

We respectfully request the Denial of our project to be overturned by CC at the Dec. 9 City Council meeting.

McIntosh 607 Short St.

Appeal of DRB Denial
WE PURCHASED THE HOME 10 / 2002 WITH INTENTIONS OF
REMODELING IN 3 YRS, WHICH TURNED INTO 23……
CURRENT FOOTPRINT IS 3 BEDROOMS, 1 BATHROOM
MAJOR REMODEL INCLUDES:

DOWNSTAIRS EXTENDS LIVING, KITCHEN, DINING ROOM,
LOWER DECK AND ADDS A BATHROOM.

UPSTAIRS ADDITION ADDS A MASTER BEDROOM, CLOSET,
MASTER BATH AND FAMILY ROOM WITH DECK.
413 SQ FT Detached ADU
HOUSE IS 1,440 SQ FT ON A 6900 SQ FT LOT
ABOUT 607 SHORT ST

TO DESIGN AND REMODEL OUR HOME THAT IS MODEST IN SIZE,

FOLLOWS THE EXISITNG FOOTPRINT, NOT FILLING UP THE

PROPERTY AND ONE THAT FITS IN WELL WITHIN THE HISTORIC

NEIGHBORHOOD
NOT TO WASTE EVERYONE’S TIME INCLUDING THE DRB, BY
SUBMITTING AN “OVER-DESIGN”, JUST TO SCALE BACK TO WHAT

WE ACTUALLY WANT

TO ADD ON MODESTLY AND OBTAIN AN OCEAN VIEW AS OTHERS IN

THE NEIGBORHOOD HAVE ENJOYED FOR MANY YEARS

TO REDUCE OR ELIMINATE IMPACT ON NEIGHBORS
GOALS - 607 SHORT ST.

DRB DENIAL
Design Articulation

2. Design Articulation: Within the allowable building envelope, the appearance of building and retaining wall mass should be minimized. Articulation techniques including, but not limited to, separation, offsets, terracing and reducing the size of any one element in the structure may be used
to reduce the appearance of mass.

No. The appearance of the upper-level addition is not adequately minimized when viewed from adjoining properties. The upper-level massing remains visually prominent and does not incorporate meaningful wall offsets, step-backs, or other architectural techniques to break up the vertical and horizontal planes, and this results in a bulky appearance that is inconsistent with the surrounding development pattern. The design lacks substantial wall articulation or additional step-backs from the side setback lines that would otherwise help reduce the perceived bulk and scale of the upper level.

Front view 607 Short St. with articulation. Built 66%
across the width of the home. “Not all on one side”
Current look of 607 Short from Google Earth Street View Note Upper Unit of neighbor to the right. “Only on one side” New design of 607 in place to show the “mass and scale” compared to neighbors.

South Facing Articulation
At board direction, concerned with
privacy, we eliminated windows, made
them narrower and “opaque”. Now
they are saying the walls are too plain
with no articulation.

Gutters, downspouts,
electrical service, gas meter,
etc. will be added.
607 Short St. South Elevation
Large hedge that covers over
25’ of the wall and much of
second floor , depending on
height.

Lower level also blocked by
brick and wooden fence
Despite some board members’ statements, many 2 story homes with side elevations, with little articulation, within 2 blocks.

The proposal includes a new second story addition, which, through the proposed colors and materials and design will result in a well-articulated building. Upon completion, the home will be compatible with existing development in the neighborhood. Nearby homes consist of a mixture of one- and two-story residences with varying architectural styles and exteriors, including contemporary and traditional styles. The project’s sloping roofs and varied building materials, which include stucco and hardy board vertical siding, will effectively reduce the appearance of mass.

Additionally, the proposed upper-level addition is off set from the lower-level roof between 2’2” and 6’5” from the street elevation and one foot from the east elevation creating additional articulation and reducing the appearance of mass and bulk. The step-backs and architectural features appropriately break up the vertical and horizontal planes.

DESIGN ARTICULATION

CITY STAFF RESPONSE
I start with design articulation and I think that the project is well designed it's an attractive project um I think even the Second Story elevation facing uh the Mahoney’s is sufficiently articulated. It has the same essential articulation as the property on that side with the exception of smaller Windows which I would require that are done to preserve privacy.

Indeed, there's so many flat walls, on their house, that are less articulated. I think this is otherwise an eminently approvable project.

DRB CHAIR GIBBS’ RESPONSE

DESIGN ARTICULATION

9. Neighborhood Compatibility: Development shall be compatible with the existing development in the neighborhood and respect neighborhood character.

Neighborhood character is the sum of the qualities that distinguish areas within the City, including historical patterns of development (e.g.,structural heights, mass, scale or size), village atmosphere, landscaping themes and architectural styles.

No. The proposed design has the upper-level addition’s mass focused on the southeastern portion of the existing residence thereby creating a visual imbalance and a sense of bulk that is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood’s scale and character. By concentrating the new upper-level additions on the southeastern portion of the residence, the project introduces massing that appears excessive and inconsistent with the neighborhood’s established character.

NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY

DRB DENIAL
Member Gannon said, “Nowhere in this neighborhood is there a design where the upper-level overloads one side of the home” The photo below shows 3 houses within 100’, including one next door, with the upper built on one side.

UPPER UNIT RIGHT NEXT
DOOR

POP UP TYPE ON ONE SIDE
The proposed design has the upper-level addition’s mass located on the southeastern portion of the existing residence, therefore reducing the appearance of massing along the street elevation.

By concentrating the new upper-level additions on the southeastern portion of the residence, the project minimizes massing and is consistent with the neighborhood’s established character, as all neighboring properties are developed with two-story residences.

The existing development in the neighborhood consists of a mixture of architectural styles and exteriors, including contemporary and traditional styles.

As described in the “Design Articulation” criterion above, the applicant proposes a traditional design that is compatible in terms of style and scale with the surrounding development pattern.

NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY

CITY STAFF RESPONSE
“I walked the whole neighborhood I took pictures everywhere.

Second stories are totally neighborhood compatible throughout the whole neighborhood. Indeed, a lot of the second stories, including the Mahoney’s are larger than what's being proposed here so I find the two story is neighborhood compatible.”
“This second story doesn't extend all the way across so it has less of a mass and scale from the front and the back and it extends about the same distance as the Mahoneys whereas the Mahoney’s goes all the way across, so they have a much larger mass and scale house than what's being proposed”
“This is a modest project, and I think it's well designed. I think it's neighborhood compatible.”
CHAIR GIBBS’ RESPONSE AT HEARINGS

NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY

VIEW EQUITY

16. View Equity: The development, including its landscaping, shall be designed to protect existing views from neighboring properties without denying the subject property the reasonable opportunity to develop as described and illustrated in the City’s “Design Guidelines.”
The “Design Guidelines” are intended to balance preservation of views with the right to develop property.

No. The upper-level addition creates view impacts to neighboring properties by blocking existing canyon and ocean views. The addition also has public view impacts from Laguna Beach High School to the east of Short Street.

DRB DENIAL
615 Short St. is a single property (not properties), to our South that has PRIMARY ocean views from the master bedroom, master bathroom, a large deck and the rear, corner guest bedroom / office.

On the North side of the house there are two bedrooms and the back corner guest bedroom that is used an office by Mrs. Mahoney. That room has been the point of contention.

We contend that view equity was achieved with our initial design, and then particularly with what we have incorporated over several design changes and actions.

We have always maintained that we are not blocking any PRIMARY VIEWS but have been very accommodating while also trying to protect our right to build and develop our property.

As the DRB Guidelines state: 15.2 Avoid blocking neighbors’ primary views.
615 SHORT ST. - BACK CORNER BEDROOM PREVIOUS OWNERS

PRIMARY OCEAN VIEWS FROM LARGE BACK WINDOW ON LEFT

SECONDARY VIEW WINDOW ON RIGHT - NOTE HEDGE GROWTH
At a recent DRB hearing for a project on Poplar, board member Coveny stated that the window on the left has THE PRIMARY view out the front. (Even though it is a big window, she stated “I don’t think the one on the right is a primary view”). Both these windows are the same size, unlike 615 Short St, and are in an actual Ceremonial Living Room. The window on the right even has a view of Catalina which Coveny did not feel compelled to save. The Board approved the remodel to the right, above.

Watch For
Lowered
Blinds To Hide
View
615 Short St. Back
Guest Bedroom /
Office
Secondary north
facing window
Note couch below
window. Photo
taken January
2025. See story
poles in
background.

Magically, the
couch is removed
and a desk moved
to window to give
the appearance
that someone is
sitting staring out
the window.

This happened one
week before 1st
DRB Hearing, Feb
27, 2025

VIEWS FROM BACK DECK BEFORE CURRENT OWNER
PLANTED LARGE TROPICAL PLANTS 2 YEARS AGO, WHICH

ARE NOW LIMITING THEIR OWN VIEWS (SEE PHOTO ON RIGHT)

VIEW FROM DECK

NOW AFTER

PLANTINGS
REAR DECK VIEWS FROM 615 SHORT
Rendering showing
possible “flipping”
our design to the
other side”, which
board members kept
saying. Even after
presenting this slide,
showing that the
hillside view would
be blocked, and this
design violates a
DRB Guideline on
Privacy. Board
members ignored
that. Then
contradicted
themselves when
asking us to pull
back, saying don’t
expose your deck.

Flipped Design To Right Side View Issues
Building on the
right takes the
view not only
out of the
corridor, but
totally
eliminates any
view to the
Northwest &
Coastline. One
board member
said she didn’t
believe there
was an issue.

Narrow Coastline View From Left Side – Original Design
As we pulled
back, we lost
this
Coastline,
cliff, and
rock view,
because of
the trees on
the right.

Some DRB hearings have People moving projects back 6” to 8”.

We moved back 5’ at the recommendations from the board to move back a bit, or a little, or were shown a “Stringline” to come close to.

Were then told that is not enough.

At our 1st DRB hearing, Board Member Louis Weil Drew a “Rough Stringline” from referencing off of our neighbor to the North upper unit, to 615 short to our South. Saying, you don’t have to pull back to it, but something close”.
2nd hearing we pulled back 5’ getting us within a few feet of a straight “stringline. Weil then said that is not enough, submitting a drawing, overlayed on the next slide.

A true stringline off the face of the same upper unit next door.

Shows how other houses on the street were able to use the depth of their lots.
5’Pullback
10’Pullback
Straightened “Stringline”
Weil’s “Rough Stringline”
Weil’s 2nd Hearing New Target
Line
Coveny’s Line
Gannon’s Line
Our Pullbacks vs Louis Weil’s Changing Target

At our 3rd DRB Hearing,
Jessica Gannon rattled off
all the items for our denial.

Including a brand-new
issue, that we would block
public views from the High
School. And that out of
towners use the area.

As you can see in the photo
here, taken from the high
school, our flags fall quite a
bit short of blacking views.

Nothing like 615 on the left.

The claim is like baseless,
frivolous and uncalled for.
607
Range of views from
615 Short St.

After tree removal &
including our upper floor
the Mahoneys would still
retain 100% of their
Primary Ocean Views in
the back and some ocean
and coastline views from
secondary windows.

Plus, major gain of never-
before-seen hill views to
the NE from secondary
bedrooms.

DRB Guidelines state:

A property may enjoy a specific view today, but that experience may change as surrounding properties are developed
The Mahoneys at 615 have enjoyed well over 100 degrees of view from their 2nd floor for 6 years.

With the giant tree removed, it’s now 160 deg plus. We have absolutely Zero deg of views.

In the spirit of View Equity, our gain of Primary ocean views, only blocks roughly 25 Degrees of their secondary window, hill views. However, with the tree removal, they have gained another 25 plus Degrees of view back!
Our project has been carefully designed to avoid blocking Primary views as stated in the Design Review Guidelines.

15.2 Avoid blocking neighbors’ primary views.

Locate major building masses and outdoor space to maintain primary views through and across the site from other properties.

View equity means achievement of a fair, reasonable and balanced accommodation of views I think we have achieved exactly that and urge you to approve our project tonight.

VIEW EQUITY

VIEW EQUITY

CITY STAFF RESPONSE

16. View Equity: The development, including its landscaping, shall be designed to protect existing views from neighboring properties without denying the subject property the reasonable opportunity to develop as described and illustrated in the City’s “Design Guidelines.” The “Design Guidelines” are intended to balance preservation of views with the right to develop property.

The upper-level addition maintains view equity for neighboring properties by minimizing view impacts to existing canyon and ocean views from the primary windows in primary bedrooms and ceremonial rooms. The addition would not create any view impacts to the ocean or shoreline located west of the property, as the High School is at a higher elevation and existing development already limits ocean views.

VIEW EQUITY CHAIR GIBBS’ RESPONSE AT HEARINGS
The View equity in my mind achieved in this property and that's because the views the primary views are in the back and that's true of the houses in the neighborhood, toward the ocean.

We rarely give any view equity considerations particularly where the house has other you know great views which the house does from the master and the deck upstairs um the study has the much bigger picture window facing toward the ocean uh and on the side window the building was put back 5 feet so I feel for the applicants here.

They're asking you to redesign to protect views from two subsidiary bedrooms and a study that has a really terrific view that's not being impinged.

We rarely give any view equity considerations particularly where the house has other you know great views which the house does from the master and the deck upstairs um the study has the much bigger picture window facing toward the ocean uh and on the side window the building was put back 5 feet so I feel for the applicants here.

They're asking you to redesign to protect views from two subsidiary bedrooms and a study that has a really terrific view that's not being impinged.

Well, the Mahonys have a full-on ocean view. They have a hugely wide house. They've got a deck there.

The view is toward the ocean. They happen to have a secondary bedroom that they use as an office that happens to have a side window that sees some mountain views. You know, that is not a protect. I It's not certainly not entitled to the significant protection that this board is giving it. It's not a ceremonial room. It is a side window, the main view window, which is actually a larger window, faces the ocean.

TERRY ♦MUDGE, LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1201 Dove Street, Suite 625
Newport Beach, CA 92660
WWW.TERRYMUDGELLP.COM
__________________________
December 8, 2025
Mayor Alex Rounaghi
[email protected]
Mayor Pro Tem Mark Orgill
[email protected]
Councilmember Bob Whalen
[email protected]
Councilmember Sue Kempf
[email protected]
Councilmember Hallie Jones
[email protected]
Re: Appeal Of Design Review Board Denial Of Design Review 24-1572 And Coastal Development Permit 24-1688
Project Address: 607 Short Street, Laguna Beach (McIntosh) Our Clients: Miles and Alison Mahoney, 615 Short Street, Laguna Beach Date of Council Meeting: December 9, 2025
Dear Mayor Rounaghi, Mayor Pro Tem Orgill and Council Members Whalen, Kempf and Jones:

This office represents Miles and Alison Mahoney at 615 Short Street, the neighbors immediately on the south (left) side of the Project. This letter supports denying the appeal and upholding the Design Review Board (“DRB”) decision to deny Design Review 24-1572 and Coastal Development Permit 24-1688 at 607 Short Street.

I. Appellants Provide No Evidence The DRB’s Decision Was An Abuse of Discretion The Appellants have not met their significant burden to submit evidence demonstrating the DRB’s decision was the product of an abuse of discretion. Instead, the Appellants offer their opinion they have been treated unfairly, and they offer the staff recommendations in the Staff Reports prepared for the three DRB hearings, but Appellants offer no objective facts to justify a decision by the Council determining the DRB’s decision should be considered an “abuse of discretion” as defined by Civil Code § 1094.5. [Staff Report p. 4 at fn. 3.]
LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(2) defines the standard of review for appeals of decisions by the DRB where the decision was not supported by four or more affirmative votes. While Council does conduct a de novo review and exercises its independent judgment and discretion, Council must nevertheless presume that the decision or determination made by the DRB was reasonable, valid, and not an abuse of discretion. The Appellants have the burden of proof of demonstrating otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence presented. [LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(2).] [email protected]
WRITER’S DIRECT LINE:
(949) 204-3463
CARTER A. MUDGE, ESQ.

Appeal of DRB Denial of DR 24-1572 And Coastal Development Permit 24-1688 607 Short Street, Laguna Beach
December 8, 2025
________________________

As noted in Schreiber v. City of Los Angeles (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 549, 558, in analyzing this appeal, the Council must “review the entire administrative record for substantial evidence to support the agency's decision.” The Council does not reweigh the evidence; it must indulge all presumptions and resolve all conflicts in favor of the DRB’s decision. The DRB’s findings come before the Council “with a strong presumption as to their correctness and regularity.” Council may reverse the DRB’s decision only if, based on the evidence before it, a reasonable person could not have reached such decision. Appellants have the burden to demonstrate that insufficient evidence supports the DRB’s determination. [Id., and LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(2).] Appellants opine the DRB was wrong in concluding there was [LBMC § 25.05.040(H)] (2) insufficient design articulation; (9) lack of neighborhood compatibility; and (16) no view equity.

Yet Appellants offer only their subjective opinion and the staff recommendations in the underlying Staff Reports which the DRB expressly declined to adopt. In making these arguments, Appellants do not meet their obligation to “summarize the evidence on each point, favorable and unfavorable, and show how and why it is insufficient.”1 Rather, Appellants concentrate only on the evidence favoring their position and do not present “a fair summary of the evidence bearing on the challenged findings.” [Huong. at pp. 409–410.] Accordingly, Appellants have not met their burden of demonstrating error by the DRB. [Id.]
II. The Project Is Not In Conformity With the Requirements of the City’s Land Use Element
The Project is not in conformity with the requirements of the City’s Land Use Element which is why the DRB could not make the required findings to approve the project.

LUE GOAL 2: Preserve, enhance and respect the unique character and identity of Laguna’s residential neighborhoods.

LUE Policy 2.1 aims to “Maintain the diversity and uniqueness of individual neighborhoods.

Development standards and design review guidelines shall minimize the scale and bulk of new construction and/or renovation and require development to be compatible with the surrounding residences.” Policy 2.1 is partially implemented by Action 2.1.1, which requires that the building scale of proposed development be compatible in scale and mass with surrounding residences. A project may be found inconsistent when its massing or height is significantly out of rhythm or visual pattern with surrounding homes.

That is exactly the situation with the proposed Project. The Project does not respond to the Board’s concerns about existing upper-level massing and articulation and is neighborhood- incompatible.

LUE Policy 2.10 intends to “Maximize the preservation of coastal and canyon views (consistent with the principle of view equity) from existing properties and minimize blockage of existing public and private views.” This policy supports the design review criteria requiring protection of 1 Huong Que, Inc. v. Luu (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 400, 409, some italics and internal quotation marks omitted) (“Huong”).

Appeal of DRB Denial of DR 24-1572 And Coastal Development Permit 24-1688 607 Short Street, Laguna Beach
December 8, 2025
________________________

ocean, coastline, hillside and canyon views: Development should minimize view impairment from neighboring properties, and houses should be sited and articulated to reduce view obstruction.

In this case, the DRB found the project failed to meet the following required elements of LBMC § 25.05.040: (2) insufficient design articulation; (9) lack of neighborhood compatibility; and (16) no view equity.

Lack of Articulation: The DRB found, “The appearance of the upper-level addition is not adequately minimized when viewed from adjoining properties. The upper-level massing remains visually prominent and does not incorporate meaningful wall offsets, step-backs, or other architectural techniques to break up the vertical and horizontal planes, and this results in a bulky appearance that is inconsistent with the surrounding development pattern. The design lacks substantial wall articulation or additional step-backs from the side setback lines that would otherwise help reduce the perceived bulk and scale of the upper level.” The Project presents large, unbroken wall planes on the South side of the property, does not adequately vary planes, materials or rooflines, and introduces a monolithic or imbalanced appearance inconsistent with neighborhood development on Short Street. The appeal must be denied because the Project conflicts with LUE Goal 2 and LUE Policy 2.1, and the DRB design articulation guidelines.

Incompatible with Neighborhood Character: The DRB found, “The proposed design has the upper-level addition's mass focused on the southeastern portion of the existing residence thereby creating a visual imbalance and a sense of bulk that is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood's scale and character. By concentrating the new upper-level additions on the southeastern portion of the residence, the project introduces massing that appears excessive and inconsistent with the neighborhood's established character.” The Project seeks to introduce height/bulk which are inconsistent with the established pattern of development in the Short Street neighborhood. The Project results in reduced visual separation of residences. The appeal must be denied because the Project conflicts with LUE Goal 2 and LUE Policy 2.1 and DRB neighborhood compatibility guidelines.

Fails to Protect Views: The DRB found, “The upper-level addition creates view impacts to neighboring properties by blocking existing views toward the hillside/canyon area and some ocean views. The addition also has view impacts from Laguna Beach High School to the east of Short Street.”
The proposed Project eclipses public and private views of the ocean, coastal hills and ridgelines from the Mahoney’s home. It introduces mass above or within an existing view corridor, fails to adequately step back or articulate upper levels and does not demonstrate a reasonable effort to balance development potential with neighboring view expectations. The appeal must be denied because the Project conflicts with LUE Goal 2 and specifically LUE Policy 2.10 Appeal of DRB Denial of DR 24-1572 And Coastal Development Permit 24-1688 607 Short Street, Laguna Beach
December 8, 2025
________________________

III. The Staff Report is Correct- The Housing Accountability Act Does Not Apply to This Project
A. HAA Does Not Apply to Projects to Build Individual Single Family Homes Appellants contend the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”) applies to this Project, asserting, “[t]he California Housing Accountability Act (HAA) applies to our project as we have an application for both a single-family residence and an ADU which includes more than one residential unit. (Gov. Code 65589.5, subd. (h)(2).).”
It is true that under the HAA, “[w]hen a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria,’ the project cannot be denied or reduced in density without the specified health and safety findings.” 2 Thus, under the HAA, an agency cannot “use what might be called a ‘subjective’ development ‘policy’ (for example, ‘suitability’)” to avoid making the findings otherwise required to disapprove a housing development project.” 3
Staff went to great lengths to consult with the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”), which declined to insert itself in this case. With a detailed analysis, the Staff Report correctly concludes at pp. 20-21, the HAA does not apply to this project.

Staff is entirely correct, and they are correct not just as a matter of opinion but as a matter of law.

The Court of Appeal in Reznitsky v. County of Marin (2022) 79.Cal.App.5th 1016, 2021 held, “the HAA does not apply to a project to build an individual single-family home.” One of the principal purposes of the HAA is to increase affordable housing stock. [California Renters at p. 835.] Here, the Appellants seek to remodel an existing single-family home and add a detached ADU. The Project proposes one new housing unit- the detached ADU. The Reznitsky court held that as a matter of law and fact that the HAA does not apply where, as here, a project seeks to build an individual unit. [Reznitsky at p. 1022.]
B. The Project is Not Exempt From CDP Requirements Involving Detached ADUs A Coastal Development Permit is required because this is a major remodel to an existing home where the additions exceeds 50 percent and for the proposed detached 412-square-foot ADU.

The Staff Report notes at p. 3 that “the Board did not make any substantive decision on CDP 24- 1688” because it could not make the findings to approve the Design Review application. If Council makes the findings to overturn the DRB decision on the DR 24-1572 then the Council considers CDP 24-1688 in a de novo hearing. [Staff Report p. 5.]
2 California Renters Legal Advocacy & Education Fund v. County of San Mateo (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 820, 835 (California Renters”).
3 Honchariw v. County of Stanislaus (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1066, 1076-1077.

Appeal of DRB Denial of DR 24-1572 And Coastal Development Permit 24-1688 607 Short Street, Laguna Beach
December 8, 2025
________________________

Assistant City Attorney Patrick Donegan was lead counsel in Riddick v. City of Malibu (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 492 which discussed at length the issue of whether the City of Malibu’s Local Coastal Plan and the requirement for Coastal Development Permits applied to attached ADUs. There was no disagreement in that case that a CDP was required for a detached ADU, and though Appellants in this case contend (erroneously) that the HAA applies to the Project, they do not and cannot contend they are exempt from obtaining a CDP for the entire project.

Appellants’ appeal contends their “Coastal Development Permit should be approved” but does not address the findings required to approve the CDP. Appellants have offered no evidence which justifies why their CDP application should be approved. For these reasons, the Council should uphold the decision of the DRB denying the Appellants’ CDP application.

IV. The Project Does Not Meet The Requirements For Issuance of a CDP Under the City’s certified Local Coastal Program (LCP), the City must make several required findings before issuing a CDP. [LBMC §§ 25.07.004, 25.07.012, 25.05.040(A)(8).] A project that fails the design review criteria cannot satisfy these required findings.

A. CDP Finding – Conformity with the Certified Local Coastal Program A project must be consistent with the City’s:
• Land Use Element
• Land Use Plan policies relating to neighborhood compatibility The DRB found the Project lacked design articulation, was incompatible with the neighborhood character, and failed to protect significant coastal views. [LBMC § 25.05.040(H)(2), (9) and (16).] Lack of Articulation: The DRB found, “The appearance of the upper-level addition is not adequately minimized when viewed from adjoining properties. The upper-level massing remains visually prominent and does not incorporate meaningful wall offsets, step-backs, or other architectural techniques to break up the vertical and horizontal planes, and this results in a bulky appearance that is inconsistent with the surrounding development pattern. The design lacks substantial wall articulation or additional step-backs from the side setback lines that would otherwise help reduce the perceived bulk and scale of the upper level.” Incompatible with Neighborhood Character: The DRB found, “The proposed design has the upper-level addition's mass focused on the southeastern portion of the existing residence thereby creating a visual imbalance and a sense of bulk that is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood's scale and character. By concentrating the new upper-level additions on the southeastern portion of the residence, the project introduces massing that appears excessive and inconsistent with the neighborhood's established character.” Appeal of DRB Denial of DR 24-1572 And Coastal Development Permit 24-1688 607 Short Street, Laguna Beach
December 8, 2025
________________________

Fails to Protect Views: The DRB found, “The upper-level addition creates view impacts to neighboring properties by blocking existing views toward the hillside/canyon area and some ocean views. The addition also has view impacts from Laguna Beach High School to the east of Short Street.”
The fact that the DRB could not make these findings combined with the Appellants not providing any actual evidence that there was abuse of discretion in the DRB making these findings yields the conclusion Council must deny the appeal of the Design Review Board’s decision to deny the Coastal Development Permit.

V. Conclusion
The Appellants provide no evidence the considered decision of the Design Review Board, which was reached after three long hearings, was arrived at because the DRB did not proceed in a manner required by law, or its decision was not supported by the findings, or the findings were not supported by the evidence. In other words, that the DRB abused its discretion. Instead, the Appellants passionately argue their feelings and opinions that the deliberate decision of the Board must be overturned. Opinion is not evidence and the Council is required to give deference to the DRB’s decision and overrule it only if it finds the Appellants have proven abuse of discretion by a preponderance of the evidence.

The DRB justifiably could not make the objective required findings because the Project is inconsistent with the City’s Land Use Element and does not meet the criteria for issuance of a Coastal Development Permit. Mr. and Mrs. Mahoney respectfully request the Council adopt Option A in the Staff Report and uphold the decision of the Design Review Board denying Design Review 24-1572 and Coastal Development Permit 24-1688 at 607 Short Street.

Very truly yours,
CARTER A. MUDGE
/gus
cc:
client
Dave Kiff, City Manager
[email protected]
Megan Garibaldi, City Attorney
[email protected]
Appeal of DRB Denial of DR 24-1572 And Coastal Development Permit 24-1688 607 Short Street, Laguna Beach
December 8, 2025
________________________

Patrick Donegan, Assistant City Attorney
[email protected]
Matthew Schneider, Director of Community Development
[email protected]
Anthony Viera, Deputy Director of Community Development [email protected]
Shaveta Sharma, Senior Planner
[email protected]
Ann Marie McKay, City Clerk
[email protected]

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date:

December 9, 2025
APPEAL
B
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPEAL OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR’S DESIGNEE’S APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 25-0891 FOR AN ELEVATED DECK ADDITION AT 31421 HOLLY DRIVE IN THE R-1,

RESIDENTIAL LOW-DENSITY ZONE, AND FINDING THE PROJECT

CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15301 (CLASS 1)
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:

1. Conduct a public hearing, including receiving a staff report and taking public testimony and all evidence relating to the consideration of Design Review 25-0891, and the California Environmental Quality Act exemption under Section 15301 of the state CEQA Guidelines; and

2. Adopt a Resolution titled, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR’S DESIGNEE TO APPROVE DESIGN REVIEW 25-0891 FOR AN ELEVATED DECK ADDITION AT 31421 HOLLY DRIVE IN THE R-1, RESIDENTIAL

LOW DENSITY ZONE AND FINDING THE ACTION EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO STATE CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15301,” upholding the Community Development Director’s designee’s approval of Design Review 25-0891 and finding the project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.

SUMMARY OF THE MATTER
The applicant, Dave Frith (“Applicant”), sought Administrative Design Review (“ADR”) for an elevated deck addition at 31421 Holly Drive in the R-1 (Residential Low Density) zone (the “Project”). The Project requires ADR under Laguna Beach Municipal Code (“LBMC”) Section 25.05.040(B)(3)(a)(ii).

On June 4, 2025, the Community Development Director’s designee (the “Designee”) held a public hearing, received public testimony, and approved the Project, including the approval of a categorical exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines Section 15301 (the “Designee Approval”). The June 4, 2025 ADR-approved plans, public comments, and transcript are attached as Attachments 3 through 5, respectively.

On June 18, 2025, Lori Austin (the “Appellant”), the neighboring property owner of 31425 Holly Drive, filed a notice of appeal of the Designee Approval (the “Appeal”) (Attachment 2) .

The project was previously continued several times at City Council Meetings on August 12, 2025, September 23, 2025, October 28, 2025 and most recently the November 18, 2025 City Council meeting.

LBMC Section 25.05.070(D)(2) requires that the City Clerk set the appeal for a public hearing before the City Council no less than 14 days, nor more than 60 calendar days, after the receipt of the appeal. Therefore, Appeal of the Approval of DR 25-0891 at 31421 Holly Drive December 9, 2025

the Appeal was scheduled for the August 12, 2025, City Council meeting. Notices were mailed to owners and occupants within a 300-foot and 100-foot radius of the Property, respectively, posted on the Property, and published in a newspaper of general circulation (Attachment 6). At the August 12, 2025 City Council meeting, the Appeal was continued to the September 23, 2025 City Council meeting.

The Appellant contends that the deck extension and the staking from when the deck was originally reviewed and approved were inaccurate, that there are CEQA impacts from alterations, excavations, and topographical features, and that the plans were not available at the building counter when the previously approved projects were under construction.

To facilitate the City Council’s consideration of this matter, this agenda report provides an overview of the City Council appeal procedures; the Designee’s public hearing; and City staff’s responses to the Appellant’s contentions in the Appeal.

CITY COUNCIL APPEAL PROCEDURES
A. Administrative Design Review
Pursuant to LBMC Section 25.05.070, all decisions regarding administrative design review (Section 25.05.040(B)(3)) of the Director (or designee) may be appealed to the City Council by the applicant or any owner of property within three hundred feet of the subject property.

LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(2) sets forth the procedures and review criteria for design review appeals.

Specifically, subsection 25.05.070(E)(2)(b) provides, “If the decision or determination was not supported by four or more affirmative votes of the approval authority, upon hearing the appeal or request for review, the city council shall conduct a de novo review of the underlying application but shall be limited to the grounds specifically stated in the notice of appeal, if an appeal was filed, and to the evidence, including plans, that was presented to the approval authority. The city council shall exercise its independent judgment and discretion as to such evidence. Nevertheless, there shall be a presumption that the decision or determination made by the approval authority was reasonable, valid, and not an abuse of discretion; and the appellant, if there is one, shall have the burden of proof of demonstrating otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence, including plans, presented.”
Further, pursuant to LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(2)(d), the City Council’s review is limited to “the plans that were the subject of the decision or determination by the approval authority”; if new plans are submitted, the City Council “shall not consider or act on” them but may determine to remand those plans to the approval authority “for further proceedings pursuant to such direction as may be given by the City Council.” Accordingly, in its consideration of the appeal of the Designee Approval, the City Council conducts a de novo review and is free to deliberate without being limited to the Designee’s findings, but is limited to considering the evidence that was presented to the Designee.

B. Non-Design Review (i.e., CEQA Determination)
LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(1) sets forth the procedures and review criteria for non-design review appeals.

The City Council shall not be limited to the grounds stated for the appeal, if an appeal was filed, and shall Appeal of the Approval of DR 25-0891 at 31421 Holly Drive December 9, 2025

not be limited to the evidence that was presented to the approval authority. The City Council shall exercise its independent judgment and discretion as to the evidence presented at its hearing.

Here, in its consideration of a categorical exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, the City Council is not limited to either the evidence in the record or the deliberations of the Designee at the April 2, 2025, public hearing. In other words, this is a de novo hearing – i.e., the Applicant or members of the public may present new evidence for the City Council’s consideration, and the City Council is free to deliberate without being limited to the Designee’s determination.

C. City Council Options
The City Council has numerous options in consideration of this matter, which are as follows:

1. Adopt the attached Resolution upholding the Designee Approval, and finding the Project categorically exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301;

2. Adopt the attached Resolution upholding the Designee Approval, and finding the Project categorically exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, but modifying the Resolution to include more restrictive conditions of approval; and

3. Direct staff to prepare and return at a future meeting with a Resolution overturning the Designee Approval, with findings in support of overturning the decision and denial of the Project.

Direct staff to prepare and return at a future meeting with a Resolution remanding DR 25-0891 to the Designee, with findings in support of the remand and further direction to the reviewing body.

DISCUSSION
A. Project Site
The project is located in South Laguna within the Residential Low-Density Zone. The property contains an existing single-family residence with an attached two-car garage. The site slopes downward from Holly Drive toward Ocean View Street.

Appeal of the Approval of DR 25-0891 at 31421 Holly Drive December 9, 2025

Figure 1: Aerial View Figure 2: Google Street View (April 2025) B. February 23, 2023 Design Review Board Hearing
On February 23, 2023, the Design Review Board (“DRB”) approved Design Review 22-2245 and Variance 22-2266 for a 760-square-foot addition to the single-family dwelling, a 300-square-foot elevated deck addition, door and window replacements, exterior building materials, and spa. A variance was requested to enlarge a single-family dwelling with legal, nonconforming parking (one covered space provided, two covered spaces required). The project was approved 3-0 (Board members Sheridan and Weil absent), with the conditions of approval recommended by staff. Lori Austin and Mike Austin, property owners of 31425 Holly Drive,1 provided public testimony at the hearing, expressing concerns that certain proposed windows would impact their privacy. Mike Austin also submitted written correspondence prior to the public hearing, expressing concerns including HVAC placement and noise, window privacy concerns, lack of fence details, lack of clarity regarding pool equipment, and that the plans do not reflect their correct address. The February 23, 2023 staff report, plans, meeting minutes and public correspondence are attached as Attachments 8 through 11, respectively.

As shown on the DRB-approved plans (Attachment 9), the prior project involved an elevated deck addition extending 10 feet beyond the plane of the south building elevation at the middle floor level.

C. Construction Deviation
Subsequent to this approval, the deck was constructed with an additional two feet in length, resulting in a total length of 12 feet and an increase of approximately 58 square feet beyond the approved size. An application for Administrative Design Review was thereafter submitted to address the additional deck area (Attachment 3).
1 Lori Austin is also the Appellant.

Appeal of the Approval of DR 25-0891 at 31421 Holly Drive December 9, 2025

Figure 3: DRB-Approved Deck Floor Plan
Figure 4: DRB-Approved Deck Elevation
Appeal of the Approval of DR 25-0891 at 31421 Holly Drive December 9, 2025

Figure 5: ADR-Approved Deck Extension Floor Plan (Revised Plan) Figure 6: ADR-Approved Proposed Deck Extension Elevation (Revised Plan) D. June 4, 2025 Administrative Design Review Hearing

1. Staff Presentation
City staff noted that they had received public comments regarding the deck extension.

Appeal of the Approval of DR 25-0891 at 31421 Holly Drive December 9, 2025

2. Applicant Presentation
Applicant Summary of Comment Transcript
Page Nos.
[Commenter]
Dave Frith
(Applicant)
Explained that a contractor mistakenly built the deck two feet farther out than the original approval allowed, due to a misunderstanding about measurement points. The certified staking plan showed the deck was intended to be measured from the house, not the previous deck. The asbuilt deck has been in place for months without known complaints, measures 12 feet from the house (slightly less than the requested 12'-4"), and is positioned to minimize neighbor impact. He believed the requested two-foot extension did not have an adverse neighborhood impact. pgs. 1-2 of 9
[Frith]

3. Public Testimony
Commenter Summary of Comment Transcript
Page Nos.
[Commenter]
Mike Austin Stated he is the neighbor to the south and that the original staking plan matched the approved design review, which called for a 10-foot measurement from the house that, due to elevation changes, resulted in an eight-foot deck. He noted the staking measurements were clear, but the deck was built larger than what was approved.

He stated deck was already built about two feet beyond the approved staking plan and is now proposed to extend another two feet, resulting in roughly a 12-foot deck. He expressed concerns about deviations from the approved plan, potential impacts on privacy, views, and neighbor proximity, and the precedent of building over a slope. He feels the matter should return to full design review, where all project elements and impacts are considered together.
pgs. 3-4 of 9
[Mike Austin]
Lori Austin
(Appellant)
Stated that they originally accepted the deck design shown during the initial flag staking and design review, as it appeared reasonable and considerate of their side. However, the deck was later built extending farther out than originally proposed and approved, creating greater impact than expected. Photos were taken from their deck to document the change. She initially believed the deck was positioned to avoid impacting either side, staying within the line of the nearby stucco house and not extending toward their property. At that size and location, it wouldn’t have overshadowed their home or overlooked their master bedroom.

However, the newly built deck extends much farther, beyond the house line and over new footings, creating a direct line of sight into their bedroom and living space. This change is more significant than a simple 28-inch extension from the original design. She shared comparison pgs. 5-7 of 9
[Lori Austin]
Appeal of the Approval of DR 25-0891 at 31421 Holly Drive December 9, 2025

photos from their deck showing the stucco gray house as the point where the deck should have ended. She also indicated that the images reveal the new deck extends well beyond that point, contradicting claims that it only exceeds the approved size by two feet, four inches. From inside their family room, she showed how the new deck extends past where it was originally supposed to end, stating it is impacting their view. They believe the construction exceeds the approved plans by far more than the stated 28 inches and want the matter brought to a formal design review hearing.

4. Applicant Rebuttal
Commenter Summary of Comment Transcript
Page Nos.
[Commenter]
Dave Frith
(Applicant)
Disputed claims that the deck was not built in accordance with the staking, stating that the certified staking plan shows a 10-foot depth and matches the site conditions. He acknowledged the deck was built two feet longer than approved but emphasized it has been in place for months without prior complaints, and they are proactively seeking administrative approval to correct the mistake. He argued privacy concerns and excavation issues are unrelated to the deck, photographs can be misleading, and the extension is minor. He believed only one neighbor has concerns, and a full design review would be unnecessary and costly. pgs. 8-9 of 9
[Frith]

5. Designee Deliberation
Topic Discussion Transcript
Page Nos.
[Commenter]
View Equity
and Privacy
Design
Review
Criteria
Considered only the additional 24–28 inches (about 67 sq. ft.) of deck built beyond the approved plans. After reviewing testimony, plans, and records, the Designee found no significant view equity or privacy concerns. The project was approved as presented, with a 14-day appeal period.
p. 9 of 9
[CDD
Designee]

6. Designee Decision
After closing the public hearing, the Designee found that the Project was consistent with the design review criteria, approved the Project, and found the Project exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301. The Designee noted that the additional 24 or 28 inches of deck complied with the view equity and privacy criteria. While acknowledging neighbors’ frustration, the decision focused solely on the extension, and the Designee confirmed it met the requirements to be approved administratively.

Appeal of the Approval of DR 25-0891 at 31421 Holly Drive December 9, 2025

RESPONSES TO ISSUES RAISED ON APPEAL
As noted above, the Appellant submitted an Appeal of the Designee’s decision (Attachment 2). As stated above, regarding the request for ADR, the City Council shall conduct a de novo review of the underlying application but is limited to the grounds stated for the appeal, if an appeal was filed, and is further limited to the evidence that was presented to the approval authority. The City Council shall exercise its independent judgment and discretion as to the evidence presented at its hearing. Nevertheless, there shall be a presumption that the decision or determination made by the approval authority was reasonable, valid, and not an abuse of discretion; and the Appellant, shall have the burden of proof of demonstrating otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence presented.

As indicated under Standards of Review, in the City Council’s review of non-design review appeals, such as CEQA, the Council shall conduct a de novo review of the underlying application and shall not be limited to the grounds stated for the appeal, nor is the Council limited to the evidence that was presented to the Board. Accordingly, in its consideration of the Designee’s decision to adopt a categorical exemption from CEQA, the Council is free to deliberate without being limited to the Board’s findings – in other words, a de novo hearing.

Below is a summary of the appeal contentions and the staff response.

1. The proposed deck extension was incorrectly described as either a 24- or 28-inch extension. The deck was constructed with an approximately four-foot extension.

Staff’s Response
The constructed deck extends two feet beyond the 10-foot deck dimension originally staked for the DRB hearing held on February 23, 2023. The certified staking plan prepared for the DRB hearing is provided as Attachment 12. In response to this discrepancy, the applicant submitted an Administrative Design Review application to address the additional two feet beyond the originally proposed 10-foot deck, resulting in a total depth of 12 feet from the rear of the residence (58 square feet of additional deck area). As further clarification, the applicant also submitted a video to staff measuring the depth of the deck to be 144 inches (12 feet). Furthermore, the surveyor of record will verify that the deck was built per plan. This verification will be required before the City will pass a final building inspection.

2. There are CEQA impacts from alterations and excavations and topographical features.

Staff’s Response
The construction of the proposed elevated deck addition does not require any grading. While excavation is required for the installation of support posts, the proposed two-foot extension to the previously approved deck will not require additional posts, as it is designed to cantilever, as illustrated in Figure 3 below.

Appeal of the Approval of DR 25-0891 at 31421 Holly Drive December 9, 2025