Agenda packet, regular meeting, first session — Laguna Beach City Council, December 9, 2025 (part 9 of 11)

Pipelines – Recommended rehabilitation includes cured-in-place lining, open trench replacement, and excavation point repairs including improvements for North Coast Interceptor Reaches 1–4. Quantities of each rehabilitation/repair method recommended are summarized below.

Rehabilitation Description Number of Segments Quantity (LF or EA) CIPP Lining, 6”, 8”, or 10” Pipe 87 16,581 LF
CIPP Lining, 15” or 18” Pipe 9 2,235 LF
Excavation Point Repair, 6”, 8”, or 10” Pipe 41 EA
Excavation Point Repair and Lining, 8” Pipe 2 258 LF
Replacement, 8” or 10” Pipe 24 4,667 LF
Cut Liner Obstructing Lateral 1 94 LF
Heavy Clean 3 978 LF
Manholes – Rehabilitation recommended through geopolymer mortar, cured-in-place manhole liners, or a combination of both. Quantities of each rehabilitation/repair method recommended are summarized below.

Rehabilitation Description Number of Manholes
Mortar Repair and CIPM Liner 16
CIPM Manhole Liner 13
Mortar Repair with Geopolymer Mortar 137
Lift Stations – All 26 lift stations were inspected; three are recommended for full replacements and the remaining 23 lift stations will include rehabilitation.

Stormwater Diversion Structures – All 25 structures are generally in good condition; minor maintenance will be handled through operations, and no capital projects are recommended for inclusion.

Systemwide Data & GIS Updates – Complete remaining manhole surveys, full system hydraulic model, additional manhole condition scans, and force main GIS updates.

The WMP identifies system needs and recommends capital improvements to address deficiencies, improve reliability, and ensure long-term performance of the City’s wastewater system. Estimated costs are summarized below.

Estimated Costs
The WMP identifies a need for approximately $109.6 million in system-wide capital improvements. This amount includes future cost escalation, using ENR Construction Cost Index and a 4% annual construction inflation rate applied to each project timeframe. The planned timeframes are Near-Term (0 – 5 years), MidTerm (5-15 years), and Long-Term (15+ years). Projects are prioritized based on condition, capacity, and risk to ensure the most critical needs are addressed and to guide phased reinvestment in the wastewater system.
2 of 459
ADOPTION OF THE 2025 WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN
December 9, 2025

Page 3 of 4 ends

Component Project Estimated Cost
Hydraulic Capacity Smart Manhole Installation and Maintenance $85,000 Pipelines Level 1 Priority Pipeline Rehabilitation
Complete Pipe Replacement
Excavation Point Repairs
Excavation Point Repairs and Full CIPP Lining
CIPP Lining
NCI Reach 1 – Reach 4
$2,547,000
$5,482,000
$5,791,000
$490,000
$12,257,000
$31,878,000
Manholes Mortar Repair and CIPM Lining
CIPM Lining
Mortar Repair
$1,215,000
$991,000
$6,970,000
Lift Stations McKnight Lift Station Reconstruction1
Brooks Street Lift Station Reconstruction1
Thousand Steps Lift Station Reconstruction1
Targeted Rehabilitation for all other lift stations
$2,032,000
$1,172,000
$281,000
$34,086,000
Stormwater
Diversion Structures
Existing timeframe (0-5 years)
Near-Term timeframe (5-15 years)
$652,000
$711,000
Systemwide Data &
GIS Updates
Complete System Manhole Survey (2,610 manholes)
Complete System Manhole Scan (2,510 manholes)
Full System Model Update
Force Main GIS Update
$1,316,000
$236,000
$1,165,000
$212,000
Near-Term timeframe (0-5 years)
Mid-Term timeframe (5-15 years)
Long-Term timeframe (15+ years)
Total Estimated Cost
$39,798,000
$60,077,000
$9,694,000
$109,569,000

1Lift station full replacement.

The following major wastewater projects are currently budgeted and already underway:
• Construction for the replacement of the Anita Street Sewer Lift Station with completion anticipated in December 2026.
• Construction for the rehabilitation of the Old Top of the World Sewer Lift Station – Phase 1 with completion anticipated in March 2026.
• Design for the replacement of the Bluebird Canyon Sewer Lift Station with construction anticipated to begin in September 2026.
3 of 459
ADOPTION OF THE 2025 WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN
December 9, 2025

Page 4 of 4 ends

• Design for the rehabilitation of the Victoria II Sewer Lift Station with construction anticipated to begin in September 2026.
• Design and Permitting for the NCI Reach 5 Replacement with construction anticipated to begin in late 2026 or early 2027.

FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
There is no immediate fiscal impact associated with the adoption of the 2025 Wastewater Master Plan.

However, the Plan identifies approximately $109.6 million in recommended capital improvements to be phased over multiple years. These improvements will inform the ongoing Sewer Rate Study and future budget planning processes. Individual projects will return to the City Council for funding approval as part of the Capital Improvement Program and annual budget cycles.

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The adoption of the 2025 Wastewater Master Plan is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3.

Adoption of the WMP does not authorize construction or result in any physical environmental changes.

Individual projects identified in the plan will undergo separate CEQA review at the appropriate stage of development.

ATTACHMENTS

1. 2025 Wastewater Master Plan with Appendices
https://www.lagunabeachcity.net/home/showdocument?id=24206&t=639005453956024838 Submitted By: Mark McAvoy Approved: .David A Kiff
Mark McAvoy, Director of Public
Works & Utilities Dave Kiff, City Manager
Report Prepared By: Coordinated With:

Ulises Escalona, Senior Project Manager Thomas Perez, City Engineer Pierre Sawaya, Capital Program Manager
4 of 459

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date:

December 9, 2025
APPEAL
A
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DENIAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 24-1572 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-1688 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, LOCATED AT 607 SHORT STREET IN THE R-1,

RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY ZONE, AND STATUTORY EXEMPTION UNDER

THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15270(A)
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:

1. Conduct a Public Hearing, including receiving a staff report and taking public testimony and evidence relating to the consideration of Design Review 24-1572 and Coastal Development Permit 24-1688, and the California Environmental Quality Act exemption under Section 15270 of the state CEQA Guidelines; and

2. Following deliberation, take action to either adopt a Resolution upholding the decision of the Design Review Board to deny the project (Option A), or adopt a Resolution granting the appeal and overturning the Design Review Board’s denial of the project (Option B):
a. Option A – Uphold Design Review Board Denial: Adopt a Resolution titled, “A

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH,

CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TO DENY DESIGN REVIEW 24-1572 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-1688

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”), FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 607 SHORT STREET IN THE R-1, RESIDENTIAL LOW-DENSITY

ZONE, AND DETERMINE THAT THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DOES NOT APPLY TO PROJECTS THAT ARE DISAPPROVED”, upholding the Design Review Board’s denial of Design Review 24-1572 and finding the denial of the Project exempt from CEQA.
b. Option B – Overturn Design Review Board Denial: Adopt a Resolution titled, “A

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH,

CALIFORNIA, OVERTURNING THE DECISION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TO DENY DESIGN REVIEW 24-1572 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24- 1688 FOR MODIFICATIONS FOR A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING (MAJOR REMODEL WITH ADDITIONS EXCEEDING 50%, INCLUDING UPPER-LEVEL 1 of 425
APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF DR 24-1572 AND CDP 24-1688 AT 607 SHORT STREET December 9, 2025

Page 2 of 23 ends

ADDITIONS), EXTERIOR CHANGES, ELEVATED DECKS, AND LANDSCAPE

IMPROVEMENTS TO AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING AND NEW DETACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT (“ADU”), FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 607 SHORT STREET IN THE R-1, RESIDENTIAL LOW-DENSITY ZONE, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 24-1572 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-1688, AND FINDING THE PROJECT CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM

THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO STATE CEQA GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15303 (CLASS 3) AND 15304 (CLASS 4)”, overturning the Design Review Board’s denial of Design Review 24-1572 and finding the approval of the Project exempt from CEQA.

SUMMARY OF THE MATTER
The property owners, Steve and Vicki McIntosh (“Applicant ”)1, of 607 Short Street (the “Property”) applied for Design Review (“DR”) 24-1572 and Coastal Development Permit (“CDP”) 24-1688 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 singlefamily dwelling, and new detached accessory dwelling unit (“ADU”) associated with an existing singlefamily dwelling, pursuant to Laguna Beach Municipal Code (“LBMC”) Section 25.05.040(B)(1). Design review is required for the new single-family dwelling (major remodel with additions exceeding 50%, including upper-level additions), exterior changes, elevated decks, and landscape improvements pursuant to LBMC Section 25.05.040(B)(1), and a CDP is required for the new development, including a new singlefamily dwelling and detached ADU, under LBMC Sections 25.07.004 and 25.07.006.

On February 27, 2025, the Design Review Board (“Board”) held a duly noticed public hearing and considered the project. (The February 27, 2025 Staff Report, Minutes, Public Comments, Plans, and Transcript, are attached as Attachments 4 through 8, respectively.) After receiving input from staff, the Applicant, and public comments, the Board discussed the project, provided direction to the Applicant, and continued the hearing to a date certain of May 22, 2025 with a 5-0 vote. The Board identified the following issues with the proposed project:
• Neighborhood compatibility as it relates to the upper-level addition. • Neighborhood compatibility relating to the size, mass, and articulation of the home with the upperlevel addition being primarily along the eastern elevation of the existing residence. • The impacts to views of the neighboring property to the south.

After the first hearing in February, the applicant requested an additional continuance to a date certain of June 26, 2025, to allow the applicant additional time to revise the plans. This further continuance requested by the applicant was granted by the Board at the May 22, 2025 Board hearing. On June 26, 2025, the Board held a duly noticed public hearing to consider a revised project. A summary of the changes that Applicant made to the Project are noted below:
1 The Project’s designer is Drew Blake, who is also within the definition of Applicant. 2 of 425
APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF DR 24-1572 AND CDP 24-1688 AT 607 SHORT STREET December 9, 2025

Page 3 of 23 ends

• Floor Area Reduction: Upper-level addition reduced by 47 sq. ft., from 807 sq. ft. to 760 sq. ft. • Floor Area Reduction: Lower-level reduced by 169 sq. ft. • Pulled the upper-level addition back 5’-0” from the rear property line • Proposed removal of an existing large tree at the front of the site to improve views of the hillsides and canyons
• The large window at the lower stairwell was eliminated to improve privacy for the neighbor to the south
Following the public hearing, the Board made a motion to grant a third and final hearing for the project, and voted to continue the project to a date certain of September 11, 2025 by a 5-0 vote. (The June 26, 2025 Staff Report, Minutes, Public Comments, Plans, and Transcript, are attached as Attachments 9 through 13, respectively.) Prior to the September 11, 2025 hearing, the Applicant requested a continuance to a date certain of October 9, 2025 in order to work with neighbors on the project’s design. The further continuance requested by the Applicant was granted by the Board at the September 11, 2025 Board hearing. On October 9, 2025, the Board held a duly-noticed public hearing to consider a revised project (the “Project”). A summary of the changes that the Applicant made to the Project after the second hearing are noted below:
• The upper-level addition was pulled back an additional 5’-0” (10’-0” total as compared to the design presented at the first hearing) from the rear property line • Massing of the upper-level addition was shifted towards the street elevation and away from adjoining neighbors
The Board considered all public testimony on the proposed Project, relevant public comments and documents, and evidence submitted, including but not limited to the staff report, attachments, and materials submitted by the Applicant and other parties, and adopted Resolution No. 24-1572 denying DR 23-1572, by a 3-2 vote, (the “Board Denial”). (The October 9, 2025 Board Staff Report, Resolution No. 24-1572, Plans, Elevations, Transcript, and Public Comments are attached as Attachments 14-19, respectively.) Because the Board could not make the required findings for DR 23-1572, the Board did not make any substantive decision on CDP 24-1688 as both entitlements were required for approval.

On October 22, 2025, the Applicant filed an appeal of the Board’s denial of the Project (the “Appeal”) (Attachment 3). The Applicant contends that the Board erred in denying the application for the following reasons:

2. “We contend and will show that the statements (findings) below, resulting in our denial, are incorrect, bias (sic), contradictory and fully subjective.

3. The 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).)
3 of 425
APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF DR 24-1572 AND CDP 24-1688 AT 607 SHORT STREET December 9, 2025

Page 4 of 23 ends

…
We assert the guidelines have been applied subjectively to not allow us to build and develop on our property. There has been a disregard for much of what we have presented, the changes we have made and board directions we have complied with. Board members have issued conflicting statements and directions, contradicting themselves one meeting to the next, which shows an inability to understand the seriousness and importance of continuity of applications and judgements. …
In conclusion, we feel we have met the design review guidelines as outlined in Municipal Code section 25.05.040(H) and that our Design Review and Coastal Development Permit should be approved.”
This staff report provides a response to the Appellant’s contentions raised in the Appeal.

LBMC Section 25.05.070 requires certain forms of public notice for an appeal. Public notice was duly provided to consider the Appeal of the Project for the December 9, 2025 City Council meeting in accordance with LBMC Section 25.05.065. 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 20.)

CITY COUNCIL APPEAL PROCEDURES
A. Standards of Review
Pursuant to LBMC Section 25.05.070, decisions of the Board may be appealed to the City Council by the applicant or any owner of property within 300 feet of the subject property.

The City Council may uphold, reverse, or remand any appealed decision. (LBMC § 25.05.070(E)(3)(a).) In particular, in reversing a decision, there must be three affirmative votes approving the reversal by adoption of a resolution that sets forth in writing the findings relied on to conclude that the appealed decision was in error or an abuse of discretion.3 (LBMC § 25.05.070(E)(3)(a).) 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 the City Council.”

1. Coastal Development Permit
LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(1) sets forth the procedures and review criteria for non-design review appeals, such as a coastal development permit. For that review, the City Council shall not be limited to the grounds stated for the appeal and shall not be limited to the evidence that was presented to the Board. The City 3 An abuse of discretion is defined as the following: (1) the City has “not proceeded in the manner required by law”; (2) the City “decision is not supported by the findings”; or (3) the “findings are not supported by the evidence.” (Civil Code § 1094.5.) 4 of 425
APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF DR 24-1572 AND CDP 24-1688 AT 607 SHORT STREET December 9, 2025

Page 5 of 23 ends

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 Board 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.

In its consideration of CDP 24-1688, the City Council is not limited to either the evidence in the record or the deliberations of the Board. 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 Board’s findings – in other words, a de novo hearing.

2. Design Review
LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(2) sets forth the procedures and review criteria for City Council requests for review of design review decisions. With respect to the standard of review for those decisions, subsection (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.

Accordingly, in its consideration of DR 24-1572, which was denied 3-2, the City Council shall conduct a de novo review, but is limited to considering the evidence that was presented to the Board and to the grounds specifically stated in the notice of appeal. Nevertheless, given the lack of four affirmative votes, the City Council exercises its independent judgment on the evidence.

3. City Council Options
The City Council has numerous options in consideration of this matter, which are listed below.

1. Adopt the attached Resolution upholding the Board Denial, and determining that the CEQA does not apply to the denial of the Project under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15270; 5

2. Adopt the attached Resolution granting the appeal and overturning the Board Denial, with findings in support of overturning the Board Denial and approving the Project, subject to conditions of approval;6 or
5 This option is identified as Option A under Recommendation No. 2 on page one of this agenda report. 6 This option is identified as Option B under Recommendation No. 2 on page one of this agenda report. 5 of 425
APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF DR 24-1572 AND CDP 24-1688 AT 607 SHORT STREET December 9, 2025

Page 6 of 23 ends

Direct staff to prepare and return at a future meeting with a Resolution remanding DR 24-1572 and CDP 24-1688 to the Board, with findings in support of the remand and further direction to the Board.

DISCUSSION
The Board held three public hearings on February 27, 2025, June 26, 2025, and October 9, 2025 and adopted a Resolution denying the Project on October 9, 2025. A summary of the public hearings is set forth below.9 A. February 27, 2025 Board Hearing

1. Staff Report
The Project is located on the western side of Short Street across from Laguna Beach High School. The neighborhood consists of both one- and two-story single-family residences with a variety of traditional architectural styles.

PROPERTY AERIAL PHOTO
9 The summaries and charts within this staff report are not exhaustive of all commentary or deliberations, but are intended to be a tool to aid the City Council in its review of the evidence. 6 of 425
APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF DR 24-1572 AND CDP 24-1688 AT 607 SHORT STREET December 9, 2025

Page 7 of 23 ends

PROPERTY SITE PHOTO
Figure 1: Aerial View and Street Frontage of Project Site Figure 2: Colored elevation of project

2. Staff Presentation
Staff summarized the proposed improvements to the existing residence and construction of a detached ADU, and presented the recommendation in the staff report. Staff acknowledged public comments received after the publication of the agenda and generally relating to privacy concerns, mass and scale, and view equity concerns with the Project. Staff recommended the Board consider these comments as part of the Board’s evaluation of the project’s compliance with the Design Review criteria. 7 of 425
APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF DR 24-1572 AND CDP 24-1688 AT 607 SHORT STREET December 9, 2025

Page 8 of 23 ends

3. Board Ex Parte Disclosures
Board
Member
Ex Parte Disclosure Transcript
Page Nos.

Jessica
Gannon
Met with Steve and Vicki McIntosh, Alison and Miles Mahoney, and Steve Kawaratani.
p. 1 of 16
MJ Coveny Met with Steve and Vicki McIntosh, Alison and Miles Mahoney, and Steve Kawaratani.
p. 1 of 16
Louis Weil Spoke with Alison and Miles Mahoney, and Steve Kawaratani, and spoke with Steve McIntosh.
p. 1 of 16
Thomas
Gibbs
Met with Steve and Vicki McIntosh, Alison and Miles Mahoney, and Steve Kawaratani.
p. 1 of 16
Christine
Thalman
Met with Drew Blake, Steve and Vicki McIntosh, Alison and Miles Mahoney, and Steve Kawaratani.
p. 1 of 16

4. Applicant Presentation
Mr. Blake, the project designer, and Mr. McIntosh, the property owner, both provided comments during the Applicant presentation. Mr. Blake noted that the second-story addition at 607 Short Street was designed to provide functional space, an improved kitchen, and better ocean views. He noted the home is smaller than most in the neighborhood and that the design was intentionally kept low in height, with shallow roof slopes, narrow windows, and setbacks to reduce view and privacy impacts. The remodel would bring the home to about 2,600 square feet, still below the neighborhood average. Blake emphasized efforts to maintain neighborhood compatibility, preserve open space, and address neighbor concerns, including being open to adjustments such as opaque glass. He concluded that the goal is a sensitive, beach-style design that benefits both the Macintoshes and the neighborhood.

Mr. McIntosh stated that the remodel was intended to support multi-generational living and aging in place.

He emphasized their long history of being good neighbors and noted that their lot is surrounded by five two-story homes with decks and views. He stated that the goal is to modestly achieve similar functionality while minimizing impacts. He reviewed neighbors’ concerns and described the project’s privacy mitigations including landscaping, lattice, and setbacks illustrated through site photos and view comparisons.

5. Public Testimony
During the public hearing, four individuals provided public testimony. The public testimony is summarized below:

Commenter Summary of Comment Transcript
Page Nos.

Miles
Mahoney
Expressed concerns that the proposed upstairs addition would significantly affect their privacy, light, and views. Although they appreciated past cooperation with the Macintoshes, they were disappointed that the Macintoshes had not reduced the scale of the design to address their concerns.
p. 3-4 of 16
8 of 425
APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF DR 24-1572 AND CDP 24-1688 AT 607 SHORT STREET December 9, 2025

Page 9 of 23 ends

Alison
Mahoney
Expressed support for the Applicant’s right to build but opposed the project because it would significantly reduce their privacy, natural light, views, and overall quality of life. They noted the second-story addition would block sunlight and air, create intrusive overlook into their home and yard, and set an unfavorable community precedent. They asked the Board to make a balanced decision that protects both households. p. 4-5 of 16
Steve
Kawaratani
Noted that the issues with the proposed second-story addition are its excessive length and its proximity to the Mahoney property. He recommended shortening and shifting the upper floor to reduce impacts on the neighbors. He noted that the design would significantly affect the Mahoneys’ air, light, and views, and emphasized that the McIntoshes’ desire for a view should not override their neighbors’ rights. While second stories are common in the area, he said the concern is the scale and placement of this one, and suggested relocating the upper level or spanning it across the lot for better neighborhood compatibility. p. 5-6 of 16
Jeff Amos Expressed concern that the proposed second-story addition behind his home would significantly reduce his privacy and openness he and his husband have valued for 25 years. He explained that the new second floor would overlook their backyard and patio, creating a more enclosed feeling and blocking views of the hill. He asked whether the design could be modified to lessen these impacts and better fit the neighborhood. He noted that both he and his neighbor Jeanne Myers submitted letters to the Board outlining these concerns and encouraged finding a compromise that respects both the remodel goals and neighbors’ privacy. p. 6-7 of 16

6. Applicant Rebuttal
Steve McIntosh addressed neighbor concerns by walking through view and privacy comparisons, noting there is 16 feet between the homes and that both properties already experience some mutual visibility. They described proposed mitigations, including removing a tree to improve the Mahoneys’ views and adjusting design elements to reduce privacy impacts. They also showed how each of the Mahoneys’ rooms would retain some views of sky or ocean. The Applicant opposed suggestions to shift the entire second-story mass across the width of the lot, arguing it would create significant privacy conflicts for both households and violate design review guidelines. (Attachment 7 [Transcript], p. 7 of 16).

7. Board Questions and Responses
Topic Question and Response Transcript
Page Nos.
[Commenter]
Project Siting Asked about the feasibility of moving the addition to the opposite elevation of the residence. The Applicant responded that it would be challenging due to the existing floor plan and location of utilities.
p. 8 of 16
[Gibbs, Steve
McIntosh]
9 of 425
APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF DR 24-1572 AND CDP 24-1688 AT 607 SHORT STREET December 9, 2025

Page 10 of 23 ends

8. Board Deliberation
Topic Discussion Transcript
Page Nos.
[Commenter]
View Equity,
Privacy;
Neighborhood
Compatibility;
Expressed concerns that addition would impact both hillside and ocean views for the property to the south.

Recommended considering a redesign that shifted more of the addition across the residence, rather than along just the northeastern elevation. Recommended minimizing the length of the addition away from the rear lot line to be in line with the home to the south in order to minimize privacy and view impacts. Coveny and Thalman concurred with Weil regarding the reduction of the length of the upper-level addition.
p. 6, 8-10, 13
of 16 [Gannon,
Weil, Coveny,
and Thalman]
Mass and Scale;
Neighborhood
Compatibility
Clarified that the neighborhood has many two-story homes, but that the project’s addition is not balanced. Stated that development must respect both community context and the lot’s inherent limitations. p. 15 of 16
[Weil,
Coveny]
Design
Articulation,
Mass and Scale,
Privacy
Stated that the project is well-designed, with appropriate articulation and addresses privacy through opaque second-story windows. The proposed two-story structure was compatible with the
neighborhood, noting that nearby homes, including the Mahoneys’ have larger mass and scale. Concluded that the 16-foot separation between homes provides adequate light and air and that the massing is consistent with development patterns in the area.
p. 9-10 of 16
[Gibbs]

9. Board Action
The Board voted 5-0 to continue the project to a date certain of May 22, 2025. Subsequently, the Applicant requested a further continuance to June 26, 2025 to have additional time to prepare the revised plans. The Board granted the further continuance at the May 22, 2025 public hearing.

B. June 26, 2025 Board Review

1. Staff Report
In the published staff report to the Board, staff noted changes the Applicant had made to the project since the original hearing and provided the following summary of changes to the project:
• Floor Area Reduction of the upper-level addition by 47 sq. ft. from 807 sq. ft. to 760 sq. ft. • Floor Area Reduction of 169 sq. ft. of the lower-level • Total reduction of 216 sq. ft. of living area
• Pulled the upper-level addition back 5’-0” from the rear property line • Proposed removal of a large existing tree at the front of the site to improve views of the hillsides and canyons
10 of 425
APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF DR 24-1572 AND CDP 24-1688 AT 607 SHORT STREET December 9, 2025

Page 11 of 23 ends

• The large window at the lower stairwell was eliminated to improve privacy for the neighbor to the south

2. Staff Presentation
Staff presented the revised Project on Short Street, highlighting modifications made since the first hearing, updated elevations, and proposed improvements. Staff acknowledged public concerns received on the project regarding the mass and scale of the project and privacy and view impacts. Staff noted the Board should consider whether these impacts affect the project's ability to meet the Design Review criteria.

3. Board Ex Parte Disclosures
Board
Member
Ex Parte Disclosure Transcript
Page Nos.

Bauta Met with Steve and Vicki McIntosh, Alison and Miles Mahoney, and Steve Kawaratani.
p. 1 of 18
Coveny Met with Steve and Vicki McIntosh, and Alison and Miles Mahoney. p. 1 of 18 Weil Met with Steve and Vicki McIntosh, Alison and Miles Mahoney, and Steve Kawaratani.
p. 1 of 18
Gannon Met with Steve and Vicki McIntosh, Alison and Miles Mahoney. p. 1 of 18 Gibbs Met with Steve McIntosh and Alison Mahoney. p. 1 of 18

4. Applicant Presentation
Mr. Blake, the designer for the project, presented the revised project, highlighting key changes made in response to Board feedback from the initial hearing. He shared key changes made including pulling back the rear wall by five feet, reducing the upper-level square footage, removing a large front tree to improve light and views, adding opaque windows for privacy, and reducing a closet size. Steve McIntosh then summarized prior Board comments and explained how each was addressed, emphasizing that the revised design maintains the Mahoneys’ primary ocean views, improves some secondary views due to tree removal, and aligns with the design review guidelines. They argued that view equity is preserved and that the neighbors retain full primary views along with expanded side views.

5. Public Testimony
During the public hearing, five individuals provided public testimony. The public testimony is summarized below:

Commenter Summary of Comment Transcript
Page Nos.

Miles
Mahoney
Expressed frustration that, despite multiple meetings and offering alternatives, none of their input was incorporated into the revised design.

They argued that moving the second-story mass five feet forward and removing a tree did not meaningfully address concerns about massing, view equity, light, or air. He urged the Board to require exploration of other design options—such as shifting the addition to a different part of p. 4 of 22
11 of 425
APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF DR 24-1572 AND CDP 24-1688 AT 607 SHORT STREET December 9, 2025

Page 12 of 23 ends

the property—which they felt had been previously suggested but not pursued.

Alison
Mahoney
Stated the main concern remained the unchanged 40-foot flat wall massing proposed next door, which would significantly impact their privacy, light, and views by enclosing their home on two sides. Their homes were at the same elevation, and the second-story design would directly affect all three upstairs rooms, including private areas like the master bathroom. Alison Mahoney stated that landscaping cannot mitigate these impacts, and believed feasible, less intrusive alternatives exist but had not been explored. Alison Mahoney requested a balanced approach that protected their privacy, home value, and use while still allowing their neighbors to improve their property.
p. 5 of 22
Steve
Kawaratani
Stated that Chair Gannon noted that the project would completely block a significant view and recommended a more traditional design with the second story spanning the full roof width, rather than concentrating mass on the left side. Board Member Gibbs supported the project, but the other members raised concerns. Board Member Weil flagged the extension’s impact, advised pulling it back, and emphasized that cost isn’t part of design review. Member Coveny suggested the addition might be better placed on the opposite side and expressed concern about blocking the Mahoneys’ back bedroom views and hillside vistas. Despite minor revisions, the design still resulted in substantial view loss. Given this, the findings for a third hearing which requires good-faith responsiveness to prior direction did not appear to have been met.
p. 5-6 of 22
Vicki
McIntosh
Noted that City staff has consistently supported the project, noting that this should carry significant weight. They pointed out that the home is a one-story house surrounded by two-story homes and that denying the project seems inconsistent with what others in the neighborhood already have. They felt the project is compatible with the area, has been restaked and revised multiple times, and that the applicants have already made substantial accommodations, including removing a large tree and reducing square footage. They commended staff’s work and encouraged consideration of their support.
p. 6-7 of 22
Speaker #15 Stated that City staff had consistently supported the project and believed this should carry significant weight. They argued the proposed two-story home is compatible with a neighborhood already full of two-story houses and isn’t blocking beach views. They expressed concern that the project remains stalled despite multiple revisions and accommodations, including tree removal and reduced square footage.
p. 7 of 22

6. Applicant Rebuttal
Mr. McIntosh, property owner, emphasized that the Project would provide a primary ocean view while only affecting roughly 25 degrees of their neighbor’s secondary hillside views, an impact offset by the additional 25 degrees of view they regained with removal of the tree. Mr. McIntosh opined that the Project represented 12 of 425
APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF DR 24-1572 AND CDP 24-1688 AT 607 SHORT STREET December 9, 2025

Page 13 of 23 ends

fair view equity, meaning a balanced and reasonable accommodation for both parties. He stated that he evaluated all alternatives suggested by the Mahoneys, but they were deemed infeasible due to view and privacy issues. Mr. McIntosh asserted that despite past conversations where neighbors expressed that owners should generally be free to build on their property, and earlier indications that the Mahoneys would ultimately accept the design, they are now opposing it. The addition is not too large as it represents about 31% of their total home, which is smaller than comparable ratios for neighboring properties, including the Mahoneys’ home. He concluded by stating that the project is fair, reasonable, code compliant, and respectfully requested approval.

7. Board Questions and Responses
Topic Question and Response Transcript
Page Nos.
[Commenter]
Project Design Asked if the Applicant was open to modifying the upper-level addition by pulling it back further. Mr. McIntosh responded that they were generally amenable to some reduction.
p. 8-9 of 22
[Bauta, Mr.

McIntosh]

8. Board Deliberation
Topic Discussion Transcript
Page Nos.
[Commenter]
View Equity, Design
Articulation,
Nieghborhood
compatibility
Noted the Project’s long expansive massing and that the fivefoot reduction was insufficient to protect existing views. The Board members stated that the lack of articulation was
inconsistent with the village and that a different design may be more suitable.
p. 9-10 of 40
[Gannon, Weil]
View Equity, Mass and
Scale, Design
Articulation
Directed the Applicant to evaluate the potential to shift the massing to the other side and towards the street elevation, as this would help pull the addition further away from the rear of the lot and help preserve view equity.
p. 11-13 of 22
[Coveny,
Bauta]
Views Stated that the concern is with views from the neighbor’s office.
p. 13 of 22
[Coveny,
Bauta]
View Equity The central unresolved issue is the view impact of the second-story addition and indicated that an additional 5–6 feet of retreat would meaningfully improve view equity.

Noted that privacy concerns are manageable and that the Mahoneys’ primary ocean-facing views would remain
unaffected.
p. 11-12 of 22
[Bauta, Gibbs]

9. Board Action
The Board voted 5-0 to continue the hearing to a date certain of September 11, 2025. The Applicant subsequently requested a further continuance to October 9, 2025 to allow the Applicant to have additional 13 of 425
APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF DR 24-1572 AND CDP 24-1688 AT 607 SHORT STREET December 9, 2025

Page 14 of 23 ends

conversations with neighbors regarding the redesign of the project. The Board granted this continuance at the September 11, 2025 public hearing.

C. October 9, 2025 Board Denial

1. Staff Report
In the published staff report to the Board, staff noted changes the Applicant had made to the Project since the second hearing and provided the following summary of changes to the Project:
• The upper-level addition was pulled back an additional 5’-0” (10’-0” total as compared to the design presented at the first hearing) from the rear property line • Massing of the upper-level addition has been shifted towards the street elevation and away from adjoining neighbors

2. Staff Presentation
Staff presented the revised Project on Short Street, highlighting modifications made since the second hearing and presenting updated elevations.

3. Board Ex Parte Disclosures
Board
Member
Ex Parte Disclosure Transcript
Page Nos.

Jessica
Gannon
Met with Drew Blake, neighbors, and Steve Kawaratani. p. 1 of 18 Louis Weil Met with Drew Blake, neighbors, and Steve Kawaratani. p. 1 of 18 MJ Coveny Met with Drew Blake, neighbors, and Steve Kawaratani. p. 1 of 18 Thomas
Gibbs
Met with Drew Blake, Steve McIntosh, Alison Mahoney, and Steve Kawaratani.
p. 1 of 18

4. Applicant Presentation
Mr. Blake, the designer for the Project, presented the revised Project, highlighting key changes made in response to Board feedback from the second hearing. He stated he met with the neighbors at 615 Short Street, reviewed their view concerns from an upstairs office, and explored design alternatives such as shifting or mirroring the project. Those alternatives, according to Mr. Blake, created privacy issues. Instead, the project was pulled back an additional five feet, for a total of ten feet, to reopen coastal views toward Bird Rock from the neighbor’s office. Removing the large front tree also restored some hillside views for them. Since both rooms cannot have both ocean and mountain views, the rear room will retain ocean views while the front gains mountain views.

The property owner, Steve McIntosh, noted several design changes to address privacy and massing concerns, including shortening the upper floor, pulling the deck back, and adding materials and roof articulation to break up the façade. The family room and stairwell were shifted to balance the upper-level layout and eliminate the appearance of building only on one side. Mr. McIntosh asserted that the proposed master bedroom location preserves a key view corridor toward Main Beach, Bird Rock, and Catalina, views the neighbors enjoy, while moving it back would eliminate those views and create major privacy issues. 14 of 425
APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF DR 24-1572 AND CDP 24-1688 AT 607 SHORT STREET December 9, 2025

Page 15 of 23 ends

Mr. McIntosh stated that suggestions to shift the addition north or behind the Mahoneys’ chimney were thoroughly studied over many years but would still block views, offer no view corridor, and violate privacy guidelines for multiple neighbors. According to Mr. McIntosh, with the removal of the large front tree, the neighbor’s view was increased. Mr. McIntosh stated that the proposed Project would impact only about 25 degrees of the neighbor’s secondary hillside views, and that the additional five-foot pullback also restores coastal and hillside views for the neighbors.

5. Public Testimony
During the public hearing, two individuals provided public testimony. The public testimony is summarized below:

Commenter Summary of Comment Transcript
Page Nos.

Alison
Mahoney
Stated that they support home improvements and second stories in general, but they oppose this particular design. After the June 27th DRB direction, they met only with Drew. During that visit, they observed that the proposed second story would create a continuous 39-foot wall affecting all their north-facing windows that would impact massing, light, privacy, and view equity, and that the five-foot pullback did not meaningfully reduce these impacts. Ms. Mahoney also noted that Drew mentioned the Macintoshes were not willing to alter their masterbedroom placement and could pursue an ADU alternative if denied.

When they reached out again to discuss further pullback possibilities, they were told there was no willingness to reconsider.
p. 3 of 18
Steve
Kawaratani
Appreciated the owners arranging a meeting with Drew, but both sides remain at an impasse. His clients still believe the project creates a significant view-equity problem. A photo taken during a board member’s site visit showed that even from the center of the affected window, the view impact remains clear. The board has consistently identified issues with view equity, articulation, and massing, and while the applicants understandably want to design their home to fit their needs, they must also reasonably consider their neighbors. Noted that the original design extended fully to the rear, the next version shifted the mass forward five feet without improving view equity, and the current 10-foot pullback still does not sufficiently resolve the impact to views.
p. 5 of 18

6. Applicant Rebuttal
Mr. McIntosh, property owner, noted that at the Board chair’s suggestion, Drew visited the neighbors’ home to better understand their concerns, though some details of that meeting are disputed. After reviewing the feedback with Drew and Vicki, he emphasized that their design fully complies with all objective city zoning standards and design-review requirements. Mr. McIntosh submitted that City staff determined the Project to be compatible with the neighborhood, maintained primary views consistent with view-equity guidelines, and recommended approval of the design review and coastal development permit applications. According to Mr. McIntosh, this would be the third time the planning department had confirmed the Project met all 15 of 425
APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF DR 24-1572 AND CDP 24-1688 AT 607 SHORT STREET December 9, 2025

Page 16 of 23 ends

city and DRB regulations. The Applicant urged the Board to rely on objective standards under the California Housing and Accountability Act and noted they have made substantial revisions to address concerns while following all guidelines. Mr. McIntosh concluded that they have sought compromise in good faith and hoped the Board will grant approval.

7. Board Questions and Responses
Topic Question and Response Transcript
Page Nos.
[Commenter]
Project Design Asked if the ten-foot reduction was the total from the original design or the revised design. Staff clarified that the ten-foot reference was the total reduction from the original design. p. 1-2 of 18
[Weil]
Views Asked whether the image of the view impacts from the neighbor’s study was accurately depicted in Steve Kawaratani’s presentation.

The project representative, Drew Blake, responded he hoped so. p. 6-7 of 18
[Coveny]
Project Design Questioned why the project was not feasible to be moved towards the other side. Drew Blake responded that due to existing vegetation, and addition on that elevation would not enjoy the same views as compared the proposed location,
p. 7-8 of 18
[Coveny]

8. Board Deliberation
Topic Discussion Transcript
Page Nos.
[Commenter]
View Equity, Design
Articulation,
Nieghborhood
compatibility
Noted the Project’s long expansive massing impacted the neighbor’s hillside views and that you cannot create a view by impacting another’s view. The addition was overloaded to one side of the home with no articulation, which was not neighborhood compatible.
p. 8 of 18
[Gannon]
Views The upper-level massing needed to be reduced further to help preserve view equity.
p. 10 of 18
[Weil]
Neighborhood
Compatibility, Design
Articulation
Stated that there was no articulation in the design and the Project was not neighborhood compatible.
p. 13-14 of 18
[Coveny]
Views The second-floor addition created view impacts for neighboring properties and from the High School.
p. 16 of 18
[Weil, Gannon]
Mass and Scale, View
Equity, Design
Articulation,
Nieghborhood
Compatibility
Stated that the applicant’s ten-foot pullback sufficiently mitigated impacts, noting that additional movement would yield only minimal additional hillside view—and that the overall design and materials were thoughtful and compatible with the neighborhood. Concluded that the Applicant had made meaningful efforts over three hearings, and that the p. 5, 10-11 of
18 [Bauta,
Gibbs]
16 of 425
APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF DR 24-1572 AND CDP 24-1688 AT 607 SHORT STREET December 9, 2025

Page 17 of 23 ends

Project now achieved an appropriate balance of view equity.

Emphasized that the project met the Design Review
Guidelines, noting that the Mahoneys’ primary ocean views remain fully intact, and that the protected view in dispute is a secondary, side-facing office window not typically
afforded high protection. Characterized the Project as
modest, well-designed, neighborhood-compatible, and
properly articulated, and stated that requiring further redesign would unfairly restrict the applicants’ right to develop their home and therefore supported approval and voted against denial, finding no basis to require additional concessions.

9. Board Adoption of Resolution Denying the Application The Board voted 3–2 to adopt Resolution No. 24-1572 (Attachment 17), thereby denying the Project. Board Members Bauta and Gibbs dissented. The revised findings for denial were read into the record prior to the vote.

RESPONSES TO ISSUES RAISED ON APPEAL
As noted above, the Applicant submitted an Appeal of the Board’s decision (Attachment 3). As indicated under Standards of Review, in the City Council’s review, 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 CDP 24-1688, the Council is free to deliberate without being limited to the Board’s findings – in other words, a de novo hearing. For the consideration of DR 24-1572, the City Council shall conduct a de novo review, but is limited to considering the evidence that was presented to the Board and may exercise its independent judgment on such evidence. Further, for DR 24-1572, the City Council is limited to the grounds specifically stated in the notice of Appeal.

Below are the grounds for Appeal and City staff’s response.

1. “We are appealing on the grounds that we do not feel the decision of the Design Review Board (DRB) majority followed DRB stated OBJECTIVE guidelines and municipal codes as outlined in Laguna Beach Municipal Code Section 25.05.040(H).”
Staff’s Response
The Applicant’s Project requires two entitlements from the City: (1) DR 25-1572 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, pursuant to LBMC Section 25.05.040(B)(1); and (2) CDP 24-1688 for the new development, which includes a new singlefamily dwelling, and detached ADU, under LBMC Sections 25.07.004 and 25.07.006. Below is an overview of the findings and facts relied upon by the Board to deny DR 25-1572 and an analysis supporting that the Board majority followed relevant Design Review Criteria. 17 of 425
APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF DR 24-1572 AND CDP 24-1688 AT 607 SHORT STREET December 9, 2025

Page 18 of 23 ends

As reflected in Board Resolution 24-1572 (Attachment 17) and directly below, the Board denied DR 24- 1572 based on its inability to make Finding 1 for the Project under Laguna Beach Municipal Code Section

25.05.040 (Design Review):

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.

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.

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.
(Attachment 17 [Resolution No. 25-1572].) While the Board Resolution speaks for itself, the Board did deny DR 25-1572 based on its inability to make the required findings and justified such inability to make the findings on the details of the Project presented at the third and final hearing. Because the Board could not make the required Design Review findings, the Board did not substantively reach a conclusion on the CDP.
18 of 425
APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF DR 24-1572 AND CDP 24-1688 AT 607 SHORT STREET December 9, 2025

Page 19 of 23 ends

In light of the split 3-2 vote, which reflects divergent viewpoints that were nearly evenly split among the Board and requires a de novo review, staff respectfully requests that the Council consider either adopting a resolution upholding the denial, based on the Board’s findings noted above, or, as alternative option, adopting a resolution overturning the denial and approving the Project. Draft City Council resolutions upholding or overturning the Board’s decision are both being provided as attachments to this agenda report (Attachments 1 and 2, respectively). Should the Council wish to grant the appeal and overturn the Board denial, revised findings in support of the Project are provided below:

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.

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.

Page 20 of 23 ends

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.

2. “We contend and will show that the statements (findings) below, resulting in our denial, are incorrect, bias (sic), contradictory and fully subjective.” Staff response:

The Board in their deliberations considered all design review criteria and found that the Project did not meet the required findings for design articulation, neighborhood compatibility, and view equity, and voted 3-2 to deny the Project. Most of the City’s Design Review criteria are subjective by their nature and the Board in its review of the Project details, public testimony, and deliberations determined that the Project did not comply with criteria related to Design Articulation, Neighborhood Compatibility, and View Equity after weighing all evidence and as explained in its resolution.

3. “The 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).)
HAA Requirements:

The HAA limits a local agency and requires compliance with objective standards: Our project complies with all applicable objective standards in the city's general plan, zoning, and ordinances. Objective standards are those that are definite and non-subjective, involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official.
…………
We assert the guidelines have been applied subjectively to not allow us to build and develop on our property. There has been a disregard for much of what we have presented, the changes we have made and board directions we have complied with. Board members have issued conflicting statements and directions, contradicting themselves one meeting to the next, which shows an inability to understand the seriousness and importance of continuity of applications and judgements.
……….

In conclusion, we feel we have met the design review guidelines as outlined in Municipal Code section 25.05.040(H) and that our Design Review and Coastal Development Permit should be approved.”
20 of 425
APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF DR 24-1572 AND CDP 24-1688 AT 607 SHORT STREET December 9, 2025

Page 21 of 23 ends

Staff response:

Among other things, the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”) is a state housing law meant to limit the City’s ability to disapprove or condition a “housing development project.” Under the HAA, when a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, the City cannot (1) deny the project or (2) impose a condition that could be seen as requiring a “lower density” by reducing the home size, unless it can make required findings. Pertinent to this item tonight is how the HAA defines “housing development project:” “(h) The following definitions apply for the purposes of this section: . . . (2)“Housing development project” means a use consisting of any of the following:
(A) Residential units only.”
(emphasis added)
Staff believes that the plain language of the statute and its use of the plural “residential units” means the project must be creating more than just one residential unit; indeed, the term of art, "housing development project" contemplates one project that is developing a use of at least two residential units.

Thus, for a project like this one – with an existing use of one unit (plus an addition) and the development of a use of a second unit (i.e., the ADU) – the HAA would not apply, as the only “residential unit” being developed or created is the ADU and thus it is not a project consisting of “residential units only.” As a matter of due diligence, on November 5, 2025, City staff submitted a request for technical assistance from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) on this very issue of whether the HAA applies to a project that only involves an addition to an existing singlefamily home and an ADU.

On November 17, 2025, HCD responded that they had reviewed the inquiry, but would not be able to provide technical assistance on the matter “[d]ue to limited staff resources and fluctuating caseloads.” While HCD did posit that this refusal to answer should not be interpreted as an endorsement or rejection on the merits of the City’s inquiry, HCD’s refusal to posit that the HAA does apply to these types of projects does provide City staff a modicum of confidence in our position. HCD is typically not shy about staking out broad and expansive positions regarding the application of State housing laws to certain projects. Thus, HCD’s refusal to do so here may be instructive. Accordingly, staff’s position that the project does not qualify as a housing development project under the HAA because it adds only a single new residential unit to the property remains unchanged.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council take one of the following actions after conducting a public hearing:

Option A: Adopt the Resolution upholding the decision of the Design Review Board to deny Design Review 24-1572 and Coastal Development Permit 24-1688 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, residential low-density zone, and categorical 21 of 425
APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF DR 24-1572 AND CDP 24-1688 AT 607 SHORT STREET December 9, 2025

Page 22 of 23 ends

exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to State CEQA guidelines Section 15270.

Option B: Adopt the Resolution overturning the decision of the Design Review Board to deny Design Review 24-1572 and Coastal Development Permit 24-1688 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, residential low-density zone, and finding the Project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to state CEQA Guidelines sections 15303 (Class 3) and 15304 (Class 4).

FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The recommended action has no financial impact to the budget.

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The appeals do not encompass the Board’s CEQA determination. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, the project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15270(a), CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves. Alternatively, if the City Council decides to sustain the appeal and reverse the decision of the Board, the Council should find that the Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Sections 15303- New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures and 15304 - Minor Alterations to Land. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, the project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15303 and 15304. 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 single-family dwelling with one accessory dwelling 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. Staff will cause to be filed a Notice of Exemption (NOE) with the County Recorder’s Office within 5 days of adoption of this Resolution. 22 of 425
APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF DR 24-1572 AND CDP 24-1688 AT 607 SHORT STREET December 9, 2025

Page 23 of 23 ends

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution upholding the Design Review Board denial (Pgs. 24-32)

2. Resolution overturning the Design Review Board denial (Pgs. 33-56)

3. Appeal (Pgs. 57-67)

4. February 27, 2025 Design Review Board Report (Pgs. 68-80)

5. February 27, 2025 Design Review Board Project Plans (Pgs. 81-105)

6. February 27, 2025 Design Review Board Minutes (Pgs. 106-133)

7. February 27, 2025 Design Review Board Transcript (Pgs. 134-149)

8. February 27, 2025 Design Review Board Public Comments (Pgs. 150-187)

9. June 26, 2025 Design Review Board Report (Pgs. 188-201)

10. June 26, 2025 Design Review Board Project Plans (Pgs. 202-226)

11. June 26, 2025 Design Review Board Minutes (Pgs. 227-238)

12. June 26, 2025 Design Review Board Transcript (Pgs. 239-260)

13. June 26, 2025 Design Review Board Public Comments (Pgs. 261-267)

14. October 9, 2025 Design Review Board Report (Pgs. 268-280)

15. October 9, 2025 Design Review Board Transcript (Pgs. 281-298)

16. October 9, 2025 Design Review Board Public Comments (Pgs. 299-312)

17. Adopted Design Review Board Resolution No. 24-1572 (Pgs. 313-316)

18. Design Review Board-Denied Project Plans (Pgs. 317-342)

19. Project Elevations (Pgs. 343-344)

20. City Council Public Hearing Notice (Pg. 345)

21. Order of Testimony (Pg. 346)
Submitted By: Matthew Schneider Approved: .David A Kiff Matthew Schneider, Director of
Community Development
Dave Kiff, City Manager
Report Prepared By: Coordinated With:

Shaveta Sharma, Senior Planner Patrick Donegan, Assistant City Attorney Anthony Viera, Deputy Director of Community
Development
23 of 425
RESOLUTION NO. 25.XXX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE DECISION
OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TO DENY DESIGN REVIEW 24-
1572 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-1688 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”), FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 607 SHORT STREET IN THE R-1, RESIDENTIAL

LOW-DENSITY ZONE, AND DETERMINE THAT THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DOES NOT

APPLY TO PROJECTS THAT ARE DISAPPROVED
WHEREAS, the property owners, Steve and Vicki McIntosh (“Applicant”), of 607 Short Street (the “Property”), applied for Design Review (“DR”) 24-1527 and Coastal Development Permit (“CDP”) 24-1688 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 an existing single-family residence in the R-1 (Residential Low Density) zone pursuant to Laguna Beach Municipal Code (“LBMC”) Section 25.05.040(B)(1) and LBMC Sections 25.07.004 and 25.07.006 (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board conducted a duly-noticed public hearing on February 27, 2025 pursuant to Title 25, Zoning, of the Laguna Beach Municipal Code. The Design Review Board considered all public testimony on the proposed Project and all relevant public comments and all documents and evidence submitted, including but not limited to the staff report, attachments, and materials submitted by the Applicant and continued the project with direction to May 22, 2025; and
Attachment 1
24 24 of 425
-2- Reso. #
WHEREAS, on May 22, 2025, at the request of the applicant, the Design Review Board continued this project to June 26, 2025; and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board conducted a duly-noticed public hearing on June 26, 2025 pursuant to Title 25, Zoning, of the Laguna Beach Municipal Code. The Design Review Board considered all public testimony on the proposed Project and all relevant public comments and all documents and evidence submitted, including but not limited to the staff report, attachments, and materials submitted by the Applicant and continued the project with direction to September 11, 2025; and
WHEREAS, on September 11, 2025, at the request of the Applicant, the Design Review Board continued this project to October 9, 2025; and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board conducted a duly-noticed public hearing on October 9, 2025 pursuant to Title 25, Zoning, of the Laguna Beach Municipal Code. The Design Review Board considered all public testimony on the proposed Project and all relevant public comments and all documents and evidence submitted, including but not limited to the staff report, attachments, and materials submitted by the Applicant and denied Design Review 24-1572, finding the action statutorily exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to State CEQA guidelines Section 1527 ; and
WHEREAS, on October 22, 2025, Steve and Vicki McIntosh (“Appellant”) of 607 Short Street, filed an appeal of the Board’s Approval (the “Appeal”); and WHEREAS, on December 9, 2025, the City Council1 held a noticed public hearing to consider an Appeal and carefully considered the oral and documentary evidence and arguments presented. and carefully considered the oral and documentary evidence and arguments presented. 25 25 of 425
-3- Reso. #

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH DOES RESOLVE:

SECTION 1. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution by this reference.

SECTION 2. The City Council hereby makes the following findings in response to grounds for appeal stated in Appellants’ notice of Appeal:

The Applicant’s Project requires two entitlements from the City: (1) DR 25-1572 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 singlefamily dwelling, pursuant to LBMC Section 25.05.040(B)(1); and (2) CDP 24-1688 for the new development, which includes a new single-family dwelling, and detached ADU, under LBMC Sections 25.07.004 and 25.07.006. Below is an overview of the findings and facts relied upon by the Board to deny DR 25-1572 and an analysis supporting that the Board majority followed relevant Design Review Criteria.

As reflected in Board Resolution 24-1572 (Attachment 17) and directly below, the Board denied DR 24-1572 based on its inability to make Finding 1 for the Project under Laguna Beach Municipal Code Section 25.05.040 (Design Review):

26 26 of 425
-4- Reso. #

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 27 27 of 425
-5- Reso. #
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.

While the Board Resolution speaks for itself, the Board did deny DR 25-1572, based on its inability to make the required findings and justified such inability to make the findings on the details of the Project presented at the third and final hearing. Because the Board could not make the required Design Review findings, the Board did not substantively reach a conclusion on the CDP.

2. “We contend and will show that the statements (findings) below, resulting in our denial, are incorrect, bias (sic), contradictory and fully subjective.” 28 28 of 425
-6- Reso. #
City Council Finds:

The Board in their deliberations considered all design review criteria and found that the Project did not meet the required findings for design articulation, neighborhood compatibility, and view equity, and voted 3-2 to deny the Project. Most of the City’s Design Review criteria, are subjective by their nature and the Board in its review of the Project details, public testimony, and deliberations determined that the Project did not comply with criteria related to Design Articulation, Neighborhood Compatibility, and View Equity after weighing all evidence and as explained in its resolution.

The HAA limits a local agency and requires compliance with objective standards: Our project complies with all applicable objective standards in the city's general plan, zoning, and ordinances. Objective standards are those that are definite and non-subjective, involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official. …………
We assert the guidelines have been applied subjectively to not allow us to build and develop on our property. There has been a disregard for much of what we have presented, the changes we have made and board directions we have complied with. Board members have issued conflicting statements and directions, contradicting themselves one meeting to the next, which shows an inability to understand the seriousness and importance of 29 29 of 425
-7- Reso. #
continuity of applications and judgements.
……….

Among other things, the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”) is a state housing law meant to limit the City’s ability to disapprove or conditions a “housing development project.” Under the HAA, when a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, the City cannot (1) deny the project or (2) impose a condition that could be seen as requiring a “lower density” by reducing the home size, unless it can make required findings. Pertinent to this item tonight is how the HAA defines “housing development project:”
“(h) The following definitions apply for the purposes of this section: . . . (2)“Housing development project” means a use consisting of any of the following:
(A) Residential units only.”
(emphasis added)
The plain language of the statute and its use of the plural “residential units” means the project must be creating more than just one residential unit; indeed, the term of art, "housing development project" contemplates one project that is developing a use of at least two residential units. Thus, for a project like this one – with an existing use of one unit (plus an addition) and the 30 30 of 425
-8- Reso. #
development of a use of a second unit (i.e., the ADU) – the HAA would not apply, as the only “residential unit” being developed or created is the ADU and thus it is not a project consisting of “residential units only.”
As a matter of due diligence, on November 5, 2025, City staff submitted a request for technical assistance from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) on this very issue of whether the HAA applies to a project that only involves an addition to an existing single-family home and an ADU.

SECTION 3. The City Council hereby finds and determines, in accordance with CEQA, that the Project is categorically exempt pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15270(a)– CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves. 31 31 of 425
-9- Reso. #
SECTION 4. The City Council hereby denies the Appeal and sustains the Design Review Boards’s determination on the Project, as reflected in Resolution No. 24-1572 based on the findings and facts set forth in this Resolution for Design Review 24-1572.

ADOPTED this 9th day of December, 2025.

Alex Rounaghi, Mayor
ATTEST:

Ann Marie McKay, City Clerk
I, Ann Marie McKay, City Clerk of the City of Laguna Beach, certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 25.XXX was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City held on December 9, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

City Clerk, City of Laguna Beach, California
32 32 of 425
RESOLUTION NO. 25.XXX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, OVERTURNING THE DECISION

OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TO DENY DESIGN REVIEW
24-1572 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-1688 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”), FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 607 SHORT STREET IN THE R-1, RESIDENTIAL
LOW-DENSITY ZONE, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 24-1572
AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-1688, AND FINDING

THE PROJECT CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15303 (CLASS 3) AND
15304 (CLASS 4)
WHEREAS, the property owners, Steve and Vicki McIntosh (“Applicant”), of 607 Short Street (the “Property”), applied for Design Review (“DR”) 24-1527 and Coastal Development Permit (“CDP”) 24-1688 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 an existing single-family residence in the R-1 (Residential Low Density) zone pursuant to Laguna Beach Municipal Code (“LBMC”) Section 25.05.040(B)(1) and LBMC Sections 25.07.004 and 25.07.006 (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board conducted a duly-noticed public hearing on February 27, 2025 pursuant to Title 25, Zoning, of the Laguna Beach Municipal Code. The Design Review Board considered all public testimony on the proposed Project and all relevant public comments and all documents and evidence submitted, including but not limited to the staff report, attachments, and materials submitted by the Applicant and continued the Project with Attachment 2
33 33 of 425
-2- Reso. #
direction to May 22, 2025; and
WHEREAS, on May 22, 2025, at the request of the applicant, the Design Review Board continued this project to June 26, 2025; and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board conducted a duly-noticed public hearing on June 26, 2025 pursuant to Title 25, Zoning, of the Laguna Beach Municipal Code. The Design Review Board considered all public testimony on the proposed Project and all relevant public comments and all documents and evidence submitted, including but not limited to the staff report, attachments, and materials submitted by the Applicant, and continued the Project with direction to September 11, 2025; and
WHEREAS, on September 11, 2025, at the request of the Applicant, the Design Review Board continued this Project to October 9, 2025; and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board conducted a duly-noticed public hearing on October 9, 2025 pursuant to Title 25, Zoning, of the Laguna Beach Municipal Code. The Design Review Board considered all public testimony on the proposed Project and all relevant public comments and all documents and evidence submitted, including but not limited to the staff report, attachments, and materials submitted by the Applicant, and denied Design Review 24-1572, finding the action statutorily exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to State CEQA guidelines Section 15270; and
WHEREAS, on October 22, 2025, Steve and Vicki McIntosh (“Appellant”) of 607 Short Street, filed an appeal of the Board’s Approval (the “Appeal”); and WHEREAS, on December 9, 2025, the City Council held a noticed public hearing to consider an Appeal and carefully considered the oral and documentary evidence and arguments presented. and carefully considered the oral and documentary evidence and arguments presented. 34 34 of 425
-3- Reso. #

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH DOES RESOLVE:

SECTION 1. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution by this reference.

SECTION 2. The City Council hereby overturns the Design Review Board’s denial of Design Review 24-1572 and approves Design Review 24-1572 and Coastal Development Permit 24-1688, approving the Project by making the following findings, and subject to conditions of approval in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

Design Review 24-1572:

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 twocar garage with a driveway to an improved street. The site maintain vehicular access from Short Street 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 35 35 of 425
-4- Reso. #
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 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,

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.

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 36 36 of 425
-5- Reso. #
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 outcropping, 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 singlefamily 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.

37 37 of 425
-6- Reso. #
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 38 38 of 425
-7- Reso. #
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 on-site 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. 39 39 of 425
-8- Reso. #

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 growth-inducing 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 40 40 of 425
-9- Reso. #
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, high-gloss 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.
41 41 of 425
-10- Reso. #
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).

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. 42 42 of 425
-11- Reso. #

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 criterion.

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 43 43 of 425
-12- Reso. #
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.

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. 44 44 of 425
-13- Reso. #

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.

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 ort shoreline located west of the property, as the High School is at a higher elevation and existing development already limits ocean 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.

45 45 of 425
-14- Reso. #
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.

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 24-1688:

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 46 46 of 425
-15- Reso. #
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.

47 47 of 425
-16- Reso. #

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 48 48 of 425
-17- Reso. #
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 49 49 of 425
-18- Reso. #
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.

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. 50 50 of 425
-19- Reso. #

Land Use and Open Space/Conservation General Plan Elements Zoning Map
Title 25 (Zoning Code)
2010 Design Guidelines – A Guide to Residential Development SECTION 3. Based on its review of the entire record before it, the City Council hereby finds and determines that the Project is categorically exempt pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15303- New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures and 15304 - Minor Alterations to Land. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, the Project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15303 and 15304. 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 single-family dwelling with one accessory dwelling 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 51 51 of 425
-20- Reso. #
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. Staff will cause to be filed a Notice of Exemption (NOE) with the County Recorder’s Office within 5 days of adoption of this Resolution.

SECTION 4. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution has been based are located at City Hall, 505 Forest Avenue Laguna Beach, CA 92651. The custodian of the record of proceedings is the Director of Community Development.

SECTION 5. If any provision of this Resolution is held invalid, the remainder of this Resolution shall not be affected by such invalidity, and the provisions of the Resolution are severable.

SECTION 6. This Resolution shall become effective immediately.

ADOPTED this 9th day of December, 2025.

Alex Rounaghi, Mayor
ATTEST:

Ann Marie McKay, City Clerk
52 52 of 425
-21- Reso. #
I, Ann Marie McKay, City Clerk of the City of Laguna Beach, certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 25.XXX was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City held on December 9, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

City Clerk, City of Laguna Beach, California
53 53 of 425

EXHIBIT A

CITY COUNCIL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESOLUTION NO. 25-XXX
Standard Conditions:

1. Design Review 24-1572 and Coastal Development Permit 24-1688 are granted for 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 (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-squarefoot two-story addition, 52-square-foot addition to the existing garage, 325 square feet of elevated decking at the first floor, and an 80-square-foot elevated deck at the second floor. While not subject to design review, a proposed detached, 412-square-foot ADU.

Approval is granted based on the development plans and landscape plans submitted by Drew Blake on September 10, 2025 and received by City on September 10, 2025. Said plans are approved as submitted and conditioned herein and shall not be altered unless reviewed and approved in accordance with Title 25 of the Laguna Beach Municipal Code.

2. That the conditions of approval contained herein, shall be made part of the construction drawings for the proposed development. Construction drawings shall not be accepted for Plan Check without the conditions of approval incorporated into the construction drawings.

3. In the event that exhibits and written conditions are inconsistent, the written conditions shall prevail. If there are any disparities between these conditions and the plans or final revised plans that are approved for any subsequent phase, the conditions and/or plans as stipulated in the later approval shall prevail.

4. All plans, specifications, studies, reports, calculations, maps, notes, legal documents, and designs shall be prepared, signed, and stamped (when required) only by those individuals legally authorized to do so.

5. Approval of this application does not relieve the applicant from complying with other applicable Federal, State, County or City regulations or requirements.

6. The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Laguna Beach and its officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Laguna Beach, its officers, employees, or agents to attack, set aside, void, or annul any approval or condition of approval of the City of Laguna Beach concerning this Project, including but not limited to any approval or condition of approval of the City Council, Planning Commission, Design Review Board, Community Development Director, or City Planner. The City shall promptly notify the Applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding concerning the Project and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. The City reserves the right, at its own option, to choose its own attorney to represent the City, its officers, employees, and agents in the defense of the matter.
54 54 of 425
-2- Reso. #

7. The Applicant shall be responsible for informing all subcontractors, consultants, engineers, or other business entities providing services related to the project of their responsibilities to comply with these conditions of approval and all pertinent requirements in the Laguna Beach Municipal Code, including the requirement that a business license be obtained by all entities doing business in the City.

8. The Applicant shall pay all fees at the time fees are determined payable and comply with all requirements of the applicable federal, state, and local agencies. The duty of inquiry as to such requirements shall be upon the applicant.

9. Failure to comply with any of these conditions of approval is grounds for revocation of the entitlement(s) and is subject to any other available remedies to the City.

10. The Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until City staff has verified compliance with all conditions of approval.

11. The effective date of the entitlements granted herein do not commence until all appeals, including those to the California Coastal Commission, have been exhausted, statutes of limitation have expired, and any lawsuits, filed within the statutes of limitation, have concluded.

Standard Conditions of Approval for Design Review – Community Development Department

12. The approval granted by this Resolution shall lapse and automatically become void two years following the effective date if the privileges authorized by design review are not executed or utilized or, if construction work is involved, such work is not commenced within such two-year period and diligently pursued to completion, unless an extension of time is granted pursuant to the provisions of the Laguna Beach Municipal Code.

Extensions of time shall be requested in writing by the applicant or authorized agent prior to the expiration of the entitlements.

13. Landscaping Conditions. Include conditions for mature growth height limits and maintenance schedules (type and frequency of pruning) for all vegetation that potentially impacts views. The landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the approved landscape plans. Thereafter, the landscaping shall be continuously maintained (including replanting, as necessary) in compliance with the approved landscaping plans, unless such plans are subsequently revised pursuant to a subsequent Design Review approval. Minor landscaping changes which does not have the potential to impact views at mature growth height may be exempt from Design Review

14. Light trespass that results in glare is prohibited.

15. Outdoor lighting must be hooded, fully shielded, and aimed downward.

55 55 of 425
-3- Reso. #
Standard Conditions of Approval – Building Division

16. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the contractor of record shall have a preconstruction meeting with the Building Official. The purpose of the meeting shall be to review the requirements for parking, construction hours, fencing, dust control, monitoring, any documentation from engineers and geologists, etc.

17. The Project shall be required to comply with the City’s Construction hours, which are:
7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. weekdays only; Hauling Hours: 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

Construction activity shall not be permitted on weekends or any Federal Holiday.

Construction hours for the Diamond Crestview Specific Plan area may vary.

18. The Project must comply with the California Green Building Code (Title 24: Part 11) and include Best Management Practices (BMPs) throughout the construction phase, including but not limited to dust and sediment control, erosion control, and other measures as required by the Building Official.

19. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant may be required to present to the Building Official an asbestos abatement plan and appropriate documentation.

20. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a construction staging plan shall be submitted to the Building Official for review and approval. The plan shall include a site plan that identifies construction material storage areas, construction parking, site access, etc. Refer to the informational guide for Construction Staging:
https://www.lagunabeachcity.net/home/showpublisheddocument/8878/6375158904303 00000. Any recommendations made by the Board regarding staging plans or construction management will be forwarded to the Building Official for review and consideration.

21. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a drainage plan prepared by a licensed civil engineer to the Building Official for review and approval.

22. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a grading plan must be submitted to the Building Official for review and approval. Elevations or height must be certified by a licensed surveyor. The compaction of grade must be certified by a licensed Engineer. The Building Official may also require a shoring plan when necessary. A Geotechnical Engineer shall be required to conduct onsite monitoring of the site during excavation and grading activities; and shall document any ground movement and notify the Building Official of any such movement.
56 56 of 425
Attachment 3
57 57 of 425
58 58 of 425
59 59 of 425
60 60 of 425
61 61 of 425
62 62 of 425
63 63 of 425
64 64 of 425
65 65 of 425
66 66 of 425
67 67 of 425

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT
February 27, 2025
Agenda Item No. 5.5
Case No: Design Review 24-1572
Coastal Development Permit 24-1688
Project Location: 607 Short Street | APN: 644-044-02
Applicant: Drew Blake
949-235-3739 | [email protected]
Property Owner: Steve McIntosh
Prepared By: Community Development Department
Shaveta Sharma | Senior Planner
(949) 715-0958 | [email protected]
Board Members within a
500’ Radius: None
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 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) in the rear yard, and finding said action exempt from CEQA under Sections 15303.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The Applicant, Drew Blake, is requesting Design Review 24-1572 and Coastal Development Permit 24- 1688. The proposed project includes 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 (the “Project”). The existing 1,441-square-foot single-family dwelling and 375-squarefoot attached, two-car garage would be expanded with a 1,033-square-foot two-story addition, 52-squarefoot addition to the existing garage, 325 square feet of elevated decking at the first floor, and an 80-squarefoot elevated deck at the second floor. While not subject to design review, a proposed detached, 412-squarefoot 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 section 15303, Class 3(a) (New Construction) of the state CEQA Guidelines, which allows construction of an ADU in a residential zone.

Attachment 4
68 68 of 425
DR 24-1572, CDP 24-1688
February 27, 2025

Page 2 ends

Staff recommends that the Board approve the Project. Staff has analyzed the Applicant’s request and believes that all of the findings of fact necessary for approval can be made for the requested entitlements.

PROPERTY AERIAL PHOTO
69 69 of 425
DR 24-1572, CDP 24-1688
February 27, 2025

Page 3 ends

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% 29% Yes
Landscape Open Space 22.7% 35% 27% 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 ”
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:

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

Proposed Project
The proposed project requires Design Review for a new single-family residence (major remodel to an existing structure with additions exceeding 50%), 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 and 70 70 of 425
DR 24-1572, CDP 24-1688
February 27, 2025

Page 4 ends

is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to section 15303, Class 3(a) (New Construction) of the state CEQA Guidelines, which allows construction of an ADU in a residential zone.

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

Design Review
The following elementsrequire Design Review: a new single-family residence (major remodel to an existing structure with additions exceeding 50%), 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:

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.

N/A. The proposed project does not affect site access. The site is improved with an attached two-car garage with access to an improved street. The site maintains vehicular access from Short Street and no changes to access are being proposed. An existing sidewalk along the property frontage will be maintained.

Yes. The building addition includes a new second story approximately half the size of the expanded ground floor, which will create a well-articulated building appearance. The existing development in the neighborhood consists of a mixture of single- and two-level residences with varying architectural styles and exteriors, including contemporary and traditional styles. Sloping roofs and variation of building materials that include stucco and siding will effectively reduce the appearance of mass.

Therefore, the criterion has been met.

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 71 71 of 425
DR 24-1572, CDP 24-1688
February 27, 2025

Page 5 ends

addition will add a new visual component and provide visual relief to the structure and is compatible with the overall design. Therefore, this criterion has been met.

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.

N/A. The relatively flat site is fully developed with a single-family dwelling and ornamental landscaping, and does not contain heritage trees, rock outcroppings and ridgelines, or significant water courses. Minimal grading is proposed, with only 10.25 cubic yards outside the building footprint proposed for the project.

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

The proposed design avoids significant alteration of the natural topography and has minimal grading as part of the design. The applicant is adding low retaining walls, approximately two and a half feet in height in the front yard to create a level area.

The design of the house maximizes the preservation of coastal views of neighboring houses due to the existing topography and its location south of the existing Laguna Beach High School. The development would not impact any public or private coastal views as a result of the location being below the elevation of the structures to the north and east of the property with coastal views that could potentially be impacted.

Require use of appropriate landscaping, special architectural treatments, and siting considerations 72 72 of 425
DR 24-1572, CDP 24-1688
February 27, 2025

Page 6 ends

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 design of the project is compatible with the neighborhood in terms of size, mass and design.

The alteration to the natural topography is minimal as the house complies with the residential zone guidelines and creates a structure that minimizes the appearance of mass and is oriented for access from Short Street.

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

The project site does not contain environmentally sensitive resources and does not impact public views. The single-family home use is compatible with the surrounding single-family home uses and minimizes alterations to the natural topography while constructing a larger home that is compatible with the neighborhood.

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 there are existing two-story single-family dwellings in the immediate project vicinity.

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

N/A. The property is not listed on the City’s Historic Register and is not associated with events or persons important to local, regional, or national history. The structure also does not represent the work of a master, nor does it exhibit high artistic values. Finally, the building does not embody the distinctive characteristics of a particular type, period, region, or method of construction.

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 73 73 of 425
DR 24-1572, CDP 24-1688
February 27, 2025

Page 7 ends

preservation, view preservation, scenic highways, water conservation, soil stability, invasive plants and neighborhood landscape character. The submitted plans are consistent with the policies and guidelines for the Arroyo Chico area. Additionally, the proposed landscape plan has been reviewed and approved by the City’s landscape reviewer for compliance and does not contain target species for fire safety considerations. The proposed plans are compatible with the development of the neighborhood and will not impact view equity. Therefore, this criterion can be met.

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 in compliance with the City’s Good Neighbor Outdoor Lighting Ordinance (LBMC Chapter 7.70). Therefore, this criterion can be met.

Yes. The existing development in the neighborhood consists of a mixture of single- 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 consistent with the surrounding pattern of development. Therefore, this criterion can be met.

N/A. Design Review Criteria for Pedestrian Orientation is related to commercial development and is not applicable to the proposed project.

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 74 74 of 425
DR 24-1572, CDP 24-1688
February 27, 2025

Page 8 ends

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.

N/A. Design Review Criteria for Public Art is related to commercial development and is not applicable to the proposed project.

N/A. Design Review Criteria for Signage is related to commercial development and is not applicable to the proposed project.

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 50 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.

N/A. The project does not involve a pool, spa or water feature.

Page 9 ends

Yes. The project designer took into consideration the views of the neighboring properties in the design of the new program. The design of the house maximizes the preservation of coastal views of neighboring houses due to the existing topography and its location south of the existing Laguna Beach High School. Views from the adjacent residence on the east side of the property may be impacted by the project. Staff have not had the benefit of a site visit observing the view from the interior of the units. 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 explained above.

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.

N/A. The project site is not located within a specific plan and the R-1 zoning does not contain any 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
The project includes 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 412-square-foot accessory dwelling unit (ADU), while not subject to design review, requires a Coastal Development Permit (CDP 24-1688).

The CDP for the ADU is not eligible for appeal to the California Coastal Commission and is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to section 15303, Class 3(a) (New Construction) of the state CEQA Guidelines, which allows construction of an ADU in a residential zone. 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:
76 76 of 425
DR 24-1572, CDP 24-1688
February 27, 2025

Page 10 ends

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.

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.

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 level yard. 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. 77 77 of 425
DR 24-1572, CDP 24-1688
February 27, 2025

Page 11 ends

The analysis provided in Design Review criteria #9 (neighborhood compatibility) is incorporated herein by reference. Based upon this analysis, the finding can be made.

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 resource 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.

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 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 impacts on the environment within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act.

As described in the staff report, 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
78 78 of 425
DR 24-1572, CDP 24-1688
February 27, 2025

Page 12 ends

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 and 15304. 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 single-family dwelling with one accessory dwelling and related site improvements including grading, landscape, hardscape, and retaining walls on an existing legal building site.

Staff will cause to be filed a Notice of Exemption (NOE) with the County Recorder’s Office should the Project receive final approval.

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.

NOTIFICATION:

Pursuant to Title 25 (Zoning) Public Notice, a public hearing notice has been mailed at least twenty-one (21) days prior to the hearing date in accordance with Title 25. In addition, a public hearing notice has been posted on the project site at least 10 days in advance of the hearing date.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

No comments were received on the project as of the time of preparation of this report. 79 79 of 425
DR 24-1572, CDP 24-1688
February 27, 2025

Page 13 ends

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
80 80 of 425
81 82
83 84
85 86
87 88
89 90
91 92
93 94
95 96
97 98
99 100
101
102
103
104
105
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 1 - February 27, 2025

MINUTES

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD

REGULAR MEETING AND NOTICED HEARING
February 27, 2025
A regular noticed meeting of the Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board of the City of Laguna Beach, California, convened at 5:00 P.M. on February 27, 2025.

Present: Chair Jessica Gannon, Board Members Tom Gibbs, Kristine Thalman, MJ Coveny, and Louis Weil

Absent: None.

Staff Present: Jim Campbell, Interim Planning Manager; Patrick Donegan, City Attorney’s Office; Daniel Latham, Associate Planner; Sarah Olsen, Planning Technician; Shaveta Sharma, Senior Planner; and Maria Ballard, Senior Office Specialist.

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. PUBLIC COMMUNICATION - At this time, members of the public may address the Design Review Board regarding any items not on the agenda but within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Design Review Board. No action may be taken on off-agenda items unless authorized by law. Comments shall be limited to two (2) minutes each and fifteen (15) minutes for all comments, unless extended for good cause by the Design Review Board.

3. MODIFICATION OF AGENDA ORDER

4. CONSENT CALENDAR

5. REGULAR

5.1. 1550 BLUEBIRD CANYON DRIVE (LOT A) (DYRNAES), APN: NOT ASSIGNED – CONTINUED TO MAY 8, 2025
DESIGN REVIEW 24-2586, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-2588, AND REVOCABLE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT 24-2587 AND CATEGORCIAL EXEMPTION [Sections 15303] City Staff: Nancy Balmer-Csira, Planner (949) 715-1284 [email protected].

Project Applicant: David Parker, Architect (949) 872-6616 [email protected] Chair Gannon opened the public hearing
Public Testimony: None.

Chair Gannon closed the public hearing
Ms. Thalman made a motion, seconded by Ms. Gannon, to continue item 5.1 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive to the May 8, 2025, Design Review Board meeting. The motion passed 5-0.

Attachment 6
106
106 of 425
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 2 - February 27, 2025 Motion KT Second JG Action CONTINUED TO MAY 8, 2025
Coveny __Y__ Gibbs ___Y___ Weil ___Y___ Thalman ___Y___ Gannon ___Y___

5.2. 614 SEAVIEW STREET (LEAMY), APN 644-093-29 - APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW 24-2265, AND CATEGORCIAL EXEMPTION [Section 15301] City Staff: Sarah Olsen, Planning Technician (949) 715-1149 ext. 149 [email protected]
Project Applicant: Warren Hutcherson, Designer, (949) 338-6905, [email protected]

The applicant requests Design Review 24-2265. The proposed project includes a 95- square-foot lower-level addition underneath an existing second-story deck, in which said addition results in the property exceeding the maximum allowable building site coverage. As set forth by Laguna Beach Municipal Code (LBMC) Section

25.10.008(E)(1)(c), the building site coverage requirement shall only be modified by the Design Review Board when it is necessary to preserve views, preserve privacy, reduce heights or to maintain neighborhood development pattern

Disclosures: Ms. Thalman stated that she would not participate in this item as she owns property within the 500-foot of the project site and she left the room. Ms. Coveny stated that she spoke with Warren. Mr. Gibbs stated that he exchanged emails with Warren.

Mr. Weil stated that he attempted to call Warren. Chair Gannon stated that she spoke with Warren.

Mr. Gibbs suggested proceeding on an expedited basis.

Chair Gannon agreed.

Staff Presentation: Planning Technician, Sarah Olsen, described the project and staff’s recommendations provided in the report.

Chair Gannon opened the public hearing
Project Representative: Warren Hutcherson presented the project.

Public Testimony: None.

Rebuttal: None.

Board Questions: None.

Chair Gannon closed the public hearing

Board Comments: Mr. Weil stated that the project meets the Design Review criteria, aligns with staff analysis, and expressed full support for both the analysis and the project.
107
107 of 425
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 3 - February 27, 2025 Chair Gannon echoed Mr. Weil’s comments.

Mr. Gibbs described the project as modest, noting it only requires review due to exceeding the maximum allowable building site. He stated that the findings can be easily made, as the increase in site coverage is minimal and preferable to adding a second story.

He concluded that the project meets the criteria and expressed his support.

Ms. Coveny concurred with her colleagues, noting that the coverage adjustment is minor. While not generally in favor of exceeding coverage, she supported the project because it sits below the decking and is integrated into the existing house.

Mr. Gibbs made a motion, seconded by Mr. Weil, to adopt Resolution 24-2265 attached to the staff report approving Design Review 24-2265 for a lower-level addition that results in the property exceeding the maximum building site coverage and finding said action exempt from CEQA under Section 15301. The motion passed 4-0.

Motion KT Second LW Action APPROVED
Coveny __Y__ Gibbs ___Y___ Weil ___Y___ Thalman ___RECUSED___ Gannon ___Y___

5.3. 2894 ZELL DRIVE (DUNCAN), APN 641-125-03 APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS DESIGN REVIEW 25-0044 AND CATEGORCIAL EXEMPTION [Section 15301] City Staff: Daniel Latham, Associate Planner (949) 464-6612 [email protected] Project Applicant: Piotr Dudarenka, (612) 226-5730, [email protected]

The applicant requests Design Review 25-0044. The proposed project includes additions 15 feet above grade.

Disclosures: Ms. Coveny stated that she spoke with the applicant. Mr. Gibbs stated that she met with the applicant on the site. Ms. Thalman stated that she drove by the site. Mr.

Weil stated that he visited the site. Chair Gannon stated that she spoke with the applicant.

Ms. Thalman requested an expedited hearing.

Staff Presentation: Planning Technician, Sarah Olsen, described the project and staff’s recommendation.

Board Questions: Mr. Gibbs inquired whether the height limitation for landscaping in the back is included in the plans or if it was something raised separately.

Associate Planner Latham clarified that the height limit for landscaping was raised by a neighbor in the correspondence.

Chair Gannon opened the public hearing
108
108 of 425
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 4 - February 27, 2025 Project Representative: Piotr Dudarenka presented the project.

Public Testimony: None.

Rebuttal: None.

Board Questions: Ms. Coveny asked Mr.Dudarenka, if he had read the neighbors letter.

Mr. Dudarenka mentioned that the existing issue involves the neighbor wanting the back hedge maintained between 10 and 12 feet, and that this was a point of concern.

Ms. Coveny asked if all the details in the letter would be agreed upon on a condition of approval.

Mr. Dudarenka stated yes and that he spoke with the neighbor about that.

Mr. Gibbs asked the applicant if he was okay with making the hedge height requirement of 10 to 12 feet a condition of approval.

Mr. Duarenka stated yes.

Chair Gannon asked whether the hedge height limit was already included or if it needed to be added as a condition of approval.

Associate Planner Latham stated that the condition would need to be put in place.

Mr. Gibbs explained that the condition is necessary because the landscaping plan is part of the application.

Chair Gannon closed the public hearing
Board Comments: Mr. Gibbs stated that the project meets all design criteria and is very modest. He noted that since the landscaping plan is part of the application, a 10 to 12- foot hedge-height is reasonable. With that condition, he expressed his support for the project.

Ms. Coveny concurred with Mr. Gibbs, stating that the dormers are a nice addition and compatible with the neighborhood. She expressed her support for the project.

Chair Gannon agreed with the comments made by her fellow Board Members.

Ms. Thalman expressed agreement with her Board Members.

Mr. Weil agreed with his fellow Board Members and acknowledged that the project meets the design review criteria.
109
109 of 425
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 5 - February 27, 2025 Mr. Gibbs made a motion, seconded by Mr. Weil, to adopt Resolution 25- 0044 (Attachment 1) approving Design Review 25-0044 for additions 15 feet above grade in the R-1 (Residential Low Density) zone and finding said action exempt from CEQA under Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. With the condition that the trees at the back of the property, as outlined in the landscaping plan, be limited to a height of 10 to 12 feet. The motion passed -0.

Motion TG Second LW Action APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS
Coveny __Y__ Gibbs ___Y___ Weil ___Y___ Thalman ___Y___ Gannon ___Y___

5.4. 446 HOLLY STREET (BARRETT)APN: 496-155-23 APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW 24-2367 AND CATEGORCIAL EXEMPTION [Sections 15301] City Staff: Sarah Olsen, Planning Technician (949) 715-1149 ext. 149 [email protected]
Project Applicant: Marshall Ininns, Architect, (949) 376-1794, [email protected]

The applicant requests Design Review 24-2367. The proposed project includes modifications to prior approvals granted to the property specifically an upper-level addition, a lower-level addition, new windows and doors, installation of a swimming spa, and updated landscaping
Disclosures: Mr. Gibbs announced that he would recuse himself from the discussion due to owning property within 500 feet of the project site and he left the room. Ms.

Thalman and Chair Gannon stated that they spoke with Marshall Ininns, Steve Kawaratani, and Gina Watson. Mr. Weil stated that he spoke with Steve Kawaratani, Momi Bartholmew, Larry Nokes and Marshall Ininns. Chair Gannon followed up, stating that she spoke with Larry Nokes. Ms. Coveny stated that she spoke with Ms.

Watson, Steve Kawaratani, Ms. Barrett and Marshall.

Staff Presentation: Planning Technician, Sarah Olsen , described the project and staff’s recommendation.

Chair Gannon opened the public hearing
Project Representative: Marhsall Ininns and Larry Nokes presented the project.

Public Testimony: Gina Watson of 452 Holly Street shared her concerns about the proposed remodel of her neighbor's property. She emphasized that she has lived in Laguna for 30 years and has a modest view that she values. Ms. Watson explained that in 2020, she filed a View Preservation request with the city, which was accepted and documented. After noticing the staking on her neighbor's roof, she attempted to discuss the project with them but was unable to reach a compromise. She raised concerns about an overgrown tree blocking her view and requested it be trimmed to restore her view and better understand the project's full scope. Ms. Watson also expressed worries about a rooftop structure that affects her home's equity, privacy, and the quality of life, particularly as it looms over her main living area. She voiced concerns about the removal 110
110 of 425
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 6 - February 27, 2025 of trees to accommodate a pool and spa, which would expose her, and her family’s bedroom windows, to the alley and nearby apartment storage. Ms. Watson suggested replacing the removed trees with something of similar height to maintain privacy. She asked that these concerns be considered while reviewing the project.

Lucas of 452 Holly Street shared that his family has lived in the home for 10 years, choosing it for its yard and view. He expressed concerns that the proposed construction would block their view and overshadow their yard. Since his father's passing, Lucas and his mother have worked hard to protect their property, and he stated that this project negatively impacts their efforts. He asked the Board to consider how the project affects their property value and make a fair decision.

Bob McMahon, an attorney representing Gina Watson, expressed appreciation for the efforts made on the project but argued that it could be improved. He referred to the hearing as a de novo hearing, highlighting concerns with the second-story addition, which he believed negatively impacts view equity, massing, and privacy. Mr. McMahon stated that the addition, particularly the master closet on the roof, was not suitable for the Holly Street neighborhood. He also noted that while Gina Watson's property had a variance, it shouldn't negate her view rights, as she did not seek the variance herself. Mr.

McMahon requested that more trimming of foliage be done to reveal the full scope of the project, as some stakes were not visible during his site visit. He emphasized that the project should better address issues of view equity, privacy, design integrity, neighborhood compatibility, and vegetation. He submitted additional materials to illustrate his concerns and asked the Board to consider these factors when reviewing the project.

Rebuttal: Mr. Nokes addressed several points related to the project, presenting photos to illustrate his concerns. He noted that the view issue had been addressed with the variance granted for the upstairs room. He clarified that the photos he presented showed views from the Barretts' property and were not taken with a zoom effect, unlike the ones shared by Bob McMahon. Mr. Nokes emphasized that the record of view, obtained under the View Ordinance, was meant to address vegetation, not structural impacts, and thus had no bearing on the project. He stressed that view equity had been objectively achieved, particularly because the views in question were made possible by the variance granted to the previous property owners. He urged the Board to approve the project, highlighting the Barretts' cooperative nature throughout the process. Mr. Nokes pointed out that the Barretts had been considerate neighbors, even rebuilding a retaining wall damaged during Ms. Watson's pool construction. He argued that the project was compliant with property development standards and had already been adjusted to accommodate the neighbor's concerns.

Board Questions: Ms. Coveny noted that the existing building height is 22 feet, while the proposed height is 20 feet.

Mr. Ininns noted that the existing second story is higher than the proposed closet. 111
111 of 425
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 7 - February 27, 2025 Ms. Coveny clarified that the proposed height is only 2 feet above the existing ridge height of the master or primary bedroom below.

Mr. Weil inquired about the removal of trees in the backyard to accommodate the pool, expressing concerns about potential privacy issues. He asked whether there are any plantings in place or how the issue of the significant trees being removed was addressed.

Mr. Ininns explained that the trees were originally planted to protect privacy, as the neighbor's windows looked directly into the den and bedrooms. He noted that when standing in the backyard, the windows cannot be seen unless lights are on at night and blinds are open. He also mentioned that due to the pool construction, the trees would be removed, but blinds would be used to maintain privacy. He further explained that planting new trees near the pool is difficult because the leaves would clog the pool, and the root balls could interfere with the pool’s construction.

Mr. Weil asked if there would be a fence.

Mr. Ininns stated that there would be a fence.

Chair Gannon closed the public hearing
Board Comments: Mr. Weil reflected on previous adjustments made to the project and his analysis, noting that the chimney line was considered to ensure no significant view was blocked. He mentioned that the closet’s angle was designed to minimize view obstruction, and he believes that the project still balances the rights to build with view equity. He confirmed that there are no privacy issues with the closet as there are no windows. Regarding view equity, he emphasized that limiting views through someone's lot can restrict property rights. He expressed support for the project, stating that the pool design meets safety requirements, and there are no new privacy concerns in the backyard.

Ms. Thalman expressed sympathy for Ms. Watson’s desire to preserve her view but noted that the obstruction was a small percentage of the view. She observed that large trees and landscaping across the way could potentially improve the view if trimmed.

Ms. Thalman stated that the project meets all Design Review guidelines, highlighted that the size of the master closet was reduced, and saw no reason why the project could not be approved. She expressed her support for the project.

Chair Gannon stated that she can support the project, provided there is a conditional approval that the View Preservation for the neighbor be addressed within a reasonable time frame, suggesting 30 days. She asked if the applicant would be amenable to this condition.

Chair Gannon opened the public hearing
Mr. Ininns asked for clarification.
112
112 of 425
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 8 - February 27, 2025 Chair Gannon clarified that she was referring to the overgrown tree that is covering the chimney.

Mr. Ininns mentioned that the tree in question was the one the neighbors didn't want removed, but they are willing to lace it out.

Chair Gannon asked about the tree that is part of the View Preservation filed in 2022.

Discussion ensued regarding trees and view preservation.

Chair Gannon opened the public hearing and requested that Ms. Watson’s attorney go to the podium.

Mr. McMahon stated that the official record of view was submitted as Exhibit 2 in correspondence to the city. He mentioned that it is part of the public record and could provide the Board with additional information for consideration.

Mr. Ininns requested to know what trees they are referring to.

Mr. McMahon stated that he believed it was the tree to the left of the chimney.

Discussion ensued regarding the location of tree.

Mr. Nokes stated that issues related to View Preservation are typically handled by Code Enforcement, which has a department specifically for this purpose. He mentioned that if Bob and Gina believe the Barretts are in violation, Code Enforcement can address the matter. He said that this issue should not be a condition of approval, as it’s unclear what exactly is being dealt with. He concluded by saying that Code Enforcement can handle it, he felt the Board would be unable to make a motion with precision tonight.

Chair Gannon agreed with Mr. Nokes, stating that without the exact identification of the tree as part of the record of view, there is no way for the Board to include it as a condition of approval.

Mr. McMahon stated that the issue will be addressed and pointed out that they are once again encountering a situation where something is obstructing the view.

Chair Gannon mentioned that a violation complaint regarding View Preservation would need to be filed, referencing a prior case where the tree was laced.

Chair Gannon closed the public hearing
Ms. Coveny stated that, as someone reviewing the project with fresh eyes, she agrees with the previous decision to approve it. She doesn't see a significant privacy issue, although there may be a minor impact on the view, which she believes will diminish once the project is completed. She feels that the project meets the criteria for privacy, 113
113 of 425
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 9 - February 27, 2025 and while the removal of trees is unfortunate, it is necessary to avoid pool maintenance issues. She believes privacy concerns can be managed by simply closing shades if necessary. Overall, she supports the project, noting that it is a smaller scale than the previous approval.

Mr. Weil inquired about the interpretation of View Preservation in relation to someone's right to build. He mentioned that public comments suggested view preservation pertains only to foliage and trees, and asked staff to clarify how it is applied when it involves the right to build.

Associate Planner Latham clarified that View Preservation is intended for vegetation purposes only. He stated that if the Board were to condition a tree to remain at a certain height, it would supersede the View Preservation, but that would apply only in that specific case.

Mr. Weil mentioned that during his visit to the property, he was able to clearly see the stakes, like how visible they were five or six years ago. He suggested that a straw vote could acknowledge that the stakes were clearly visible during his walk around the property.

Chair Gannon mentioned that the photo showing the peekaboo view, which she cannot locate at the moment, was maintained and has even improved since the first approval. She explained that she was trying to accommodate the neighbor by suggesting the addition of foliage.

Ms. Thalman made a motion, amended by Mr. Weil, to approve the project at 446 Holly Street to approve Design Review 24-2367 for modifications to a prior approval that include an upper-level addition, new windows and doors, a new swimming spa, landscaping, and finding project approval exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. The motion passed 4-

0. Motion KT Second LW Action APPROVED
Coveny _Y_ Gibbs __RECUSED__ Weil _Y_ Thalman ___Y___ Gannon ___Y___

5.5. 607 SHORT STREET (MCINTOSH)APN: 644-044-02 CONTINUED TO MAY 22, 2025 DESIGN REVIEW 24-1572, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24- 1688, AND CATEGORCIAL EXEMPTION [Section 15303 & 15304]
City Staff: Shaveta Sharma, Senior Planner, (949) 715-0958, [email protected] Project Applicant: Drew Blake, 949-235-3739 | [email protected]

The applicant requests Design Review 24-1572 and Coastal Development Permit 24- 1688. The proposed project includes 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. The existing 1,441-square-foot 114
114 of 425
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 10 - February 27, 2025 single-family dwelling and 375-square-foot attached, two-car garage would be expanded with a 1,033-square-foot two-story addition, 52- square-foot addition to the existing garage, 325 square feet of elevated decking at the first floor, and an 80-squarefoot elevated deck at the second floor. While not subject to design 5.5 4 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 section 15303, Class 3(a) (New Construction) of the state CEQA Guidelines, which allows construction of an ADU in a residential zone.

Disclosures: Mr. Gibbs stated that he met with owners, the neighbors Allison and Miles Mahoney of 615 Short Street and Steve Kawaratani. Ms. Thalman stated that she visited the site and met with Drew Blake, Mr. and Mrs. McIntosh, Steve Kawaratani, Mr. and Mrs. Mahoney. Mr. Weil stated that he met with Mr. and Mrs. Mahoney, Steve Kawaratani and spoke with Mr. McIntosh over the phone. Ms. Coveny stated that she met with the McIntosh’s, Mahoney’s, and Steve Kawaratani. Chair Gannon stated that she met with Steve Kawaratani, the neighbors next door the Mahoney’s and the applicant team.

Staff Presentation: Senior Planner, Shaveta Sharma, described the project and staff’s recommendations provided in the report.

Chair Gannon opened the public hearing
Project Representative: Drew Blake and Steve McIntosh presented the project.

Public Testimony: Speaker 1 thanked the Board and neighbors for considering their input on the Macintosh's proposed plan. They emphasized their desire to maintain a positive relationship with the Macintosh’s but expressed concerns about the impact of the proposed changes. The speaker stated that they were not opposed to the Macintosh’s making improvements but were concerned about the significant privacy and lifestyle impacts caused by the proposed front-to-back wall, which would affect their home. The speaker explained that after meeting with the Macintosh’s, they highlighted concerns about privacy, light, and the proposed design's impact on their home. The speaker described how they had searched for a home for over four years and chose their current house for its design, which maximized privacy, light, and functionality. They work from home, with their children studying and working in the bedrooms, making the upstairs rooms critical to their daily routines. The speaker also shared that even from the master bathroom, the proposed changes would intrude on their privacy. The speaker expressed appreciation for their previous relationship with the Macintosh’s, including joint efforts like installing speed bumps on their street. However, during a third meeting, the Macintosh’s indicated they were not prepared to discuss reducing the scale of their upstairs design, which the speaker felt could address privacy concerns. The speaker concluded by calling on the Board to help navigate the situation, noting that the Macintosh’s had acknowledged seeking privacy from their home as well.

Speaker 2 thanked the Board for listening and shared that the process regarding the second-story addition of the Macintosh home has been challenging. They emphasized 115
115 of 425
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 11 - February 27, 2025 that what’s at stake is not just the addition itself but their right to privacy, views, and peace of mind, as well as the potential precedent it could set in the community. They acknowledged supporting the Macintosh's desire to improve their property but not at the expense of their own quality of life. They explained how the proposed structure would block sunlight and air from their home, particularly affecting the area where they spend most of their time. The second-story addition would obstruct their views and significantly impact the natural light in their living space, which is essential to their daily life. They further highlighted the importance of their view, not just as a luxury, but as a key element that makes their home special. They recounted an encounter where they invited the Macintosh’s over to see the impact of the proposed project on their property, and when asked how Steve would feel if the situation were reversed, Steve expressed that he would be upset. Additionally, they expressed concerns about the loss of privacy, citing the potential invasiveness of a structure overlooking their home and backyard, which cannot simply be solved by window coverings or frosting. Finally, they thanked the Board for their consideration and urged them to make a decision that would create a mutually beneficial living situation.

Steve Kawaratani discussed the design issues of the proposed second-story addition, emphasizing that the upper floor's length and proximity to the Mahoney’s' property are problematic. He suggested shortening the upper floor and moving it further away to resolve the issue. Mr. Kawaratani also addressed the view equity concerns, explaining how the proposed design would greatly compromise air, light, and views from the affected room. He emphasized that while the MacIntosh’s' desire for a view is understandable, it should not come at the expense of the neighbors' rights. Additionally, he touched on neighborhood compatibility, noting that while many homes in the area have second stories, the main issue is the size and positioning of the upper level in relation to the Mahoney’s. He recommended moving the upper level and potentially spanning it across the entire width of the property for a more balanced appearance.

Jeff Amos of 480 Los Robles expressed concerns about the proposed second-story addition at the Macintosh property, located directly behind his and his husband Todd's home. Mr. Amos stated that they have had a positive relationship with the Macintosh family but are worried about the impact of the addition on their privacy and enjoyment of their backyard. Having lived in their home for 25 years, they value the privacy and openness of their backyard, which is carefully designed for seclusion. The proposed second-story addition, being very close to their property, would significantly impact privacy, especially as the second floor would loom over their back patio, creating a more enclosed feeling and blocking their view of the hill. They inquired whether there is flexibility in the design that could mitigate these effects, such as pulling back certain elements to maintain privacy and ensure a smoother blend with surrounding properties.

They acknowledged the effort put into the remodel but stressed the importance of finding a compromise that considers both the improvements and the privacy of their home. Mr. Amos also mentioned that his neighbor Jeanne Myers shares similar concerns and had sent a letter to the Board. He had also sent a letter that morning, voicing their concerns.

Rebuttal: Mr. McIntosh responded to the concerns raised, particularly about privacy 116
116 of 425
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 12 - February 27, 2025 and the proposed second-story addition. He clarified that there are 16 feet between the properties, which he does not consider a particularly close distance. Addressing Mr.

Amos's concerns, he acknowledged the views from the affected space and mentioned efforts to reduce the impact by eliminating certain elements, such as removing a tree to improve the view from the Mahoney’s front bedroom. He also discussed the potential privacy issues caused by the proposed design, particularly regarding views into private spaces. He explained that the new design aims to address these concerns by ensuring privacy for both properties. He emphasized that they were following design guidelines and were mindful of privacy, pointing out that no one should be able to see into the Mahoney’s' backyard because of existing trees. Mr. McIntosh concluded by stating their willingness to work collaboratively with neighbors to find amicable solutions and refine the design to balance privacy with the improvements they wish to make.

Board Questions: Mr. Gibbs asked Mr. McIntosh about the feasibility of moving the second story to the other side of the property, as suggested by the neighbors at 615 Short Street and Steve Kawaratani, their consultant. He inquired about the potential issues or challenges with this proposed change.

Mr. McIntosh explained the challenges of moving the second story to the other side of the property, as suggested by the neighbors. He clarified that the existing floor plan limits their options, as they are not starting from scratch with a new building. Moving the second story would require relocating the stairs, plumbing, and electrical systems, which would be costly and involve extensive concrete work. He also pointed out that the new design would result in a massive structure across the front of the house and create privacy issues, as seven windows on the second story would look directly into the neighbor's windows, which goes against design review guidelines. Additionally, this change would impact their view corridor and make their deck fully exposed, violating privacy for both properties.

Chair Gannon closed the public hearing
Board Comments: Chair Gannon discussed the Design Review guidelines, specifically regarding view blockage, which includes not only ocean views but also views of the hillside. She emphasized the beauty of the hillside visible from the primary room, now being used as an office, and expressed concern that the proposed second-story addition would significantly devalue the property next door by blocking this view. She recommended shifting the house to a more traditional two-story design that spans the width of the property while maintaining the articulation, which she believes can be done with the expertise of the architect. Chair Gannon also mentioned concerns about an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) but clarified that this wasn't the focus. While she expressed support for the project overall and appreciated the materials used, she did not support overloading the left side of the property. She concluded by offering her support if the design could be adjusted to address these concerns.

Mr. Gibbs shared his thoughts on the project by reviewing the Design Review guidelines and considering the distinct interests of both neighbors involved. He found the project to be well-designed and attractive, with sufficient articulation on the northeast-facing 117
117 of 425
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 13 - February 27, 2025 second-story elevation. He also noted that second stories are common throughout the neighborhood, including larger ones than what is proposed. The proposed second story does not extend across the entire property, reducing its mass and scale compared to other nearby homes. He addressed the concern of moving the second story to the other side of the property, stating that this would create significant feasibility issues, such as working around the existing floor plan, plumbing, and electrical systems. He also pointed out that switching the second story would lead to similar privacy issues on the other side due to the neighboring courtyard patio. Mr. Gibbs emphasized that the mass and scale of the project aligned with neighborhood standards and praised the applicant for providing adequate spacing to mitigate light and air concerns. Regarding privacy, he suggested making the second-story windows opaque to maintain privacy for the neighboring property. He also stated that view equity was adequately achieved, as the primary views in the neighborhood are toward the back and the ocean. In conclusion, Mr. Gibbs expressed support for the project as proposed, stating that he could approve it tonight, despite the Mahoney’s seeking more significant changes. He acknowledged that modifications might be needed but did not see the necessity for major adjustments, though he welcomed input from fellow Board Members.

Mr. Weil expressed appreciation for the applicant’s efforts to align with the Design Review guidelines and for the architect’s work in enhancing the existing home’s style.

He acknowledged that the project reflects a thoughtful approach but pointed out that the design guidelines require balancing both the right to achieve a view and the need to address privacy concerns and impacts on neighbors. He noted that while the secondstory design could work, the extension on just one side may create unintended impacts on the rear of the lot. Mr. Weil suggested that a larger program could be achieved by shifting the design, potentially extending across the front or focusing on the middle or rear portions of the house. He emphasized that cost, while a consideration, should not dictate the design when it comes to meeting the guidelines. In comparing the project to neighboring properties, he mentioned that the second-story designs of neighboring houses do not extend as far as the proposed design and suggested aligning the extension with a more reasonable "string line" to balance development and preserve view corridors for neighboring properties. Regarding privacy, Mr. Weil acknowledged concerns about a neighboring property downhill, noting that future construction of an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) would mitigate some of these concerns, as the new structure would block some of the views and provide privacy naturally. Mr. Weil further explained his concerns by referring to a picture he had of the neighboring properties.

While the picture wasn't to scale, he mentioned that he was trying to draw a line based on the extensions of the neighboring homes on both the right and left sides. He noted that the challenge for him was the way the proposed design extends in a long, H-shaped fashion into the rear of the property. This long extension, he felt, contributed to the impact on the view and privacy, which needed to be addressed for a more balanced design. In conclusion, Mr. Weil felt the project was a strong start but required further adjustments. He expressed a need for more work to achieve a balanced design that respects both the applicant's goals and the privacy and view concerns of neighboring properties.

Ms. Coveny began by expressing hope that the applicant and neighbors could resolve 118
118 of 425
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 14 - February 27, 2025 their concerns in upcoming hearings. She noted that she would not be able to approve the project tonight and provided some feedback for improvement. She agreed with Mr.

Gibbs on design articulation, particularly on the side, but expressed concern about the upper floor extension, which she felt blocked the back bedroom of the Mahoney property. She emphasized that this issue needed to be addressed thoroughly. Ms.

Coveny appreciated the effort to open the front bedroom window by removing a large tree, which would provide the Mahoney’s with a better view. However, she acknowledged that they would lose their view from the middle bedroom, which she felt was a significant visual loss, despite the room not being a ceremonial space. She further emphasized the need to address privacy, particularly regarding the Mahone property, and supported the idea of opaque windows, though not necessarily heavy opacity.

Regarding the property at 480 Paso Robles, she felt the applicant’s proposal with the lattice extension and hedging would likely be sufficient but suggested that the details should be reviewed in future plans, and that she would like to visit the site to better understand the situation. Ms. Coveny concluded that while she felt the house was compatible with the neighborhood, the primary issue was view equity. She advised the applicant to focus on addressing this concern to bring the project closer to approval.

Mr. Gibbs asked if the issue was the same as Mr. Weil’s, specifically referring to the room closest to the backyard that needed to be opened a little bit.

Ms. Coveny agreed that the upper bedroom needed to be retreated and added that the decking being added should remain obscure. She emphasized that the applicant should avoid any issues related to visibility from the deck.

Ms. Thalman initially found the plans reasonable and in line with the Design Review guidelines. However, after visiting the neighbors next door, she noted concerns with the master bedroom, especially the blockage of light and air, despite the offer to add privacy windows. She supported the idea of pushing the master bedroom back, even suggesting that reducing the walk-in closet size could help alleviate the issue. She also mentioned that there is a view from the office window and suggested tweaking the design to address light and air concerns. Ms. Thalman stated that she did not get to see the view from 480 Robles with Mr. Amos but agreed that there shouldn’t be a problem with the landscaping that’s there. Ms. Thalman felt that with a few minor adjustments, the project could be close to approval.

City Attorney Donegan asked the Board if they would require re-staking for the redesigned elements.

Chair Gannon stated that she would like to see the project re-staked.

Mr. Gibbs stated that he did not need re-staking but based on the comments re-staking would be necessary.

Mr. Weil made a motion, seconded by Chair Gannon, to continue item 5.5 at 607 Short Street to May 22, 2025, Design Review Board hearing, pending the Board’s discussion and deliberation. The motion passed 5-0.
119
119 of 425
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 15 - February 27, 2025

Motion LW Second JG Action CONTINUED TO MAY 22, 2025
Coveny __Y__ Gibbs ___Y___ Weil ___Y___ Thalman ___Y___ Gannon ___Y___

5.6. 514 POPLAR STREET (SAUNDERS) APN: 496-161-04 CONTINUED TO APRIL 24, 2025 DESIGN REVIEW 24-1847, VARIANCE 24-1850, AND CATEGORCIAL EXEMPTION [Section 15303] City Staff: Daniel Latham, Associate Planner (949) 464-6612 [email protected] Project Applicant: Chris Baxter, 307-690-5860 |[email protected] The applicant requests Design Review and Variance for the demolition of an existing single-family residence and the construction of a new single-family dwelling, elevated decks, additional building site coverage, retaining walls, spa, water feature, new vehicular access, grading and landscaping. A Variance is requested to exceed the driveway slope requirement of 10% within the first 20 feet from the street (Laguna Beach Municipal Code (LBMC) 25.52.008(I)(3)(a).

Disclosures: Mr. Gibbs announced that he would recuse himself from the discussion due to being within 500 feet of the project. Ms. Coveny stated that she met with Saunders, Jeannie Bailey, and Steve Kawaratani. Ms. Thalman mentioned meeting with the Saunders and the neighbors next door, whom she believed to be Jeannie and Steve Kawaratani. Mr. Weil stated that he met with Steve Kawaratani and Jeannie. Chair Gannon noted that she also met with Jeannie, Steve Kawaratani, and spoke with Danny Botros and the Saunders.

Staff Presentation: Associate Planner, Daniel Latham, described the project and staff’s recommendations provided in the report.

Chair Gannon opened the public hearing.

Project Representative: Chris Baxter presented the project.

Public Testimony: Mr. Kawaratani reviewed the Design Review Guidelines and noted that while the neighbors appreciate the architecture and have a positive relationship with the applicants, there are concerns regarding the project's impact on views. He pointed out that the project is increasing in height and extending further toward the street, thereby encroaching on the view corridor of Danny and Kathy, which he emphasized as an important consideration. He recommended that the project be pulled back and lowered to mitigate these impacts. In discussing view equity, he presented slides showing the view from Danny and Kathy’s living room, highlighting its significance as a primary ceremonial space. He also noted that the view of Catalina Island and sunsets should be preserved as they are protected features under design guidelines. Regarding neighborhood compatibility, he stated that the neighboring house he represents was built in 1938, while the applicant’s home was built in 1950. He contended that the proposed design violates an implicit agreement between the two properties that has preserved the view for 75 years. Mr. Kawaratani also raised concerns about the variance request for the driveway, which would exceed the maximum slope. He cited Finding #3, which states that a variance should not be 120
120 of 425
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 16 - February 27, 2025 detrimental to adjacent properties and expressed his belief that this requirement could not be met. In conclusion, he encouraged the applicant to work with the neighbors to resolve these concerns, reiterating that while the project is architecturally impressive, adjustments should be made to maintain view equity.

Kathy Botros of 528 Poplar St stated that she and her husband own the neighboring property, which is currently occupied by their tenant, Janine. She shared that they plan to move to Laguna in the future as a retirement home. She emphasized that they purchased the property primarily for its stunning, unobstructed views of the ocean, Catalina Island, and breathtaking sunsets, which were a central factor in their decision to buy the home. While she acknowledged that Mr. and Mrs. Saunders' plans for their home are beautiful, she expressed serious concerns that the proposed construction would significantly obstruct their views once the story poles went up. She affirmed their support for the Saunders' right to build but asked the Board to carefully consider the impact of the project on their property's view. Ms. Botros expressed appreciation for the Board’s efforts in balancing property owners' rights and view equity and hoped for an equitable solution that respects both parties' interests.

Rebuttal: Mr. Baxter acknowledged that the primary issue with the project is the impact on views, noting that the site presents significant challenges. He expressed concern that alternative design schemes could potentially impact other neighboring properties, emphasizing that they do not want to take away anyone’s view. He stated that the design team has spent considerable time deliberating over these issues. Regarding view equity, Mr. Baxter pointed out that the Saunders currently do not have a Catalina Island view due to their adjacent neighbor. He noted that if the project is approved, both 528 and 514 would share the same stunning views of the ocean, the city of Laguna, and the shoreline.

He concluded his comments unless additional input was needed from Keith Lee.

Mr. Lee stated that he had nothing further to add at that point. He expressed his appreciation for the design, describing it as amazing, elegant, and understated. He noted that the project adheres to all required setbacks and remains well within the allowable building envelope. Mr. Lee also emphasized that the design aligns with hillside guidelines, utilizes high-quality materials, and would fit well within the neighborhood while meeting the needs of the Saunders.

Board Questions: Ms. Thalman asked Chris about the possibility of eliminating the variance for the driveway and inquired about what that would entail.

Mr. Baxter explained that lowering the garage floor elevation would reduce the steepness of the driveway slope. However, this adjustment would require additional excavation and hauling of material.

Ms. Thalman asked if that would pull the house down as well.

Mr. Baxter stated that it would not change the house.

Ms. Thalman inquired about the plate heights on the upper level. 121
121 of 425
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 17 - February 27, 2025 Mr. Baxter confirmed that the plate height was 8 feet 6 inches.

Mr. Weil inquired about the plate heights on the garage.

Discussion ensued regarding the plate heights of the garage.

Mr. Weil stated that the front part, where the small railing is, has a height of 10 feet, and then it rises to about 12 feet. He asked the applicant if that sounded correct.

Mr. Baxter stated that was correct.

Mr. Weil asked what would be required to grade down in order to be in compliance with the 10% slope requirement.

Mr. Baxter clarified that they would only need to take out about 12 inches.

Mr. Weil asked if the garage was lowered by a foot, would that mean extending the garage even higher.

Mr. Baxter clarified that they want to keep the second floor at the same elevation due to the depth of the site on the back side.

Mr. Weil inquired about the reason for shifting the access from Harold to Poplar, noting that the current access is on Harold.

Mr. Baxter clarified that the existing garage access is on Harold, which is the auto access, but the primary entry is on Poplar.

Mr. Weil asked if there will no longer be a garage from Harold, and if the existing garage will be removed along with the entire site for new construction.

Mr. Baxter said yes.

Ms. Thalman asked why the applicant did not use the existing access to the garage, and whether having the garage on the upper level would have provided more leeway in the design of the house.

Mr. Baxter explained that the reason for not using the upper garage access is that the lower garage provides a closer connection to the living space. The upper garage would require navigating a steep slope and a longer path of travel. Additionally, the upper garage does not meet the program requirements for a larger garage, as it is smaller and lacks space for bikes, surfboards, and other items.

Ms. Thalman suggested that pushing the whole program back or reducing the eaves, which are currently five feet and jutting into the neighbor’s view, could help alleviate the issue for the neighbor. She asked the applicant to consider this adjustment. 122
122 of 425
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 18 - February 27, 2025 Mr. Baxter explained that lowering the building by three feet and pushing it back five feet would preserve the neighbor's Catalina view from their seated position. He mentioned that they had previously offered to lower the house by 12 inches, but the neighbor felt that wasn't enough. He acknowledged the difficulty in fully understanding the view impact, as he had not been inside the neighbor's house to see where the photos were taken from.

Ms. Thalman asked if the lot configuration was the reason, it was difficult to push the program back.

Mr. Baxter explained that because the lot is a wedge, they have already compressed everything onto that one level.

Ms. Thalman asked if reducing square footage in some of the rooms would help.

Mr. Baxter explained that they are already at a minimum size for many of the rooms, including the primary bedroom, living room, and kitchen, without including a dining area.

Ms. Thalman said she understood.

Chair Gannon closed the public hearing
Board Comments: Mr. Weil stated that the design is beautiful, with good neighborhood compatibility and thoughtful elements. He mentioned that his initial concern was the access, but since the area only services about 18 homes, it’s not a major thoroughfare. He expressed that lowering the garage and placing it on the other level works. However, the main issue is the corner at the bottom right of the design, where the building flares out, which is impacting the view. He suggested adjusting the roofline at this corner, potentially reshaping it and shifting some program elements to reduce the view impact.

Mr. Weil acknowledged the view impact is significant but could be mitigated with adjustments. He also noted that the front decking might be a little too large and recommended tweaking the angles of the decking to preserve privacy. Overall, he felt that with these adjustments, he could support the project.

Ms. Coveny concurred with Mr. Weil’s comments, stating that her main concern was the front height at the corner, which is blocking a primary view for the neighbors. She suggested eliminating that corner or adjusting it, as the existing house seems to have a good position with its current corner. She mentioned that while height is not a major issue, the corner and its impact on the view is significant. Regarding the variance, she deferred to her colleagues for guidance. She also suggested that the decking might become more visible from the neighbor's view if adjustments aren't made. Ms. Coveny noted that there is a dead hedge present, and it would be helpful to clarify if the hedge is necessary and specify its required height in the future. She complimented the design, calling the house beautiful and appreciating its elegance. 123
123 of 425
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 19 - February 27, 2025 Ms. Thalman agreed with the Board's general consensus and mentioned that she couldn't make the finding for the variance regarding the driveway, particularly since it was mentioned as a relatively simple fix. She expressed the need for the driveway issue to be resolved before moving forward. Regarding the design, she pointed out that the right corner of the house was the main concern for the neighbor, as it blocks their Catalina views, especially from a particular window. She emphasized the importance of preserving these views for the neighbor. Ms. Thalman concluded that if the two issues— the driveway variance and the right corner—were adjusted, she would be able to support the project.

Chair Gannon shared the same general perspective as the other Board Members. She agreed with Mr. Weil’s point that access off Poplar makes more sense than from the street. She also noted that having the garage at the top level would not be practical, as it would require walking downstairs, especially in bad weather or while carrying groceries. Chair Gannon expressed her opposition to the variance, emphasizing that there was an alternative option that would improve the view by incorporating a one foot drop and suggested adjustments to the eaves as well.

Chair Gannon opened the public hearing
Mr. Baxter clarified that those are two different things.

Chair Gannon asked if, to remove the variance, the garage would need to be lowered.

Mr. Baxter explained that lowering the garage by one foot does not change the roofline; it simply involves additional digging.

Chair Gannon stated she misunderstood.

Mr. Weil explained that lowering the garage could impact the height of the second level.

He pointed out that the board has the authority to require the second level to be lowered as well, but the applicants have suggested that doing so would complicate their design.

Mr. Baxter stated that the roof can be lowered without changing the garage floor height.

Chair Gannon remarked that 8 foot 6 is a pretty modest height.

Mr. Baxter explained that they can lower the finished floor height of the main level and have offered to reduce it by 12 inches, without changing the depth of their excavation.

Chair Gannon mentioned that pushing the building back could help mitigate the view obstruction for the neighbor. She agreed with Ms. Coveny's point that it's not necessarily a height issue, but rather how the program is pushed toward the street. She suggested considering reducing the large 5-foot eaves, as they are among the largest seen, and perhaps bringing them back to 2 or 3 feet. Chair Gannon also praised the project, noting it is very handsome and will look great on that corner, and agreed with the points made by others. Chair Gannon asked the applicant if they had any clarification questions. 124
124 of 425
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 20 - February 27, 2025 Mr. Baxter asked if pulling the corner back does not provide the Catalina view, would that mean the project would not receive approval at the next hearing? Chair Gannon closed the public hearing
Chair Gannon emphasized the importance of protecting the Catalina view, noting that the existing house currently does this very well. She pointed out that the 1950s house was designed with that view in mind. Chair Gannon mentioned that while the design criteria may allow for a building envelope, the uniqueness of the location requires balancing property rights with the preservation of views. She stressed that one cannot create a view by taking someone else's view.

Ms. Coveny expanded on the topic, emphasizing the concept of "view equity." She explained that while it’s important to preserve views, one cannot entirely preserve their own view at the expense of someone else's. Ms. Coveny highlighted the need to find a balance between property rights and protecting significant views like Catalina, noting that a compromise must be reached. She added that while she is not confirming how she will vote in the future, it’s essential to respect this balance.

Mr. Latham requested clarification for staff, asking if the Board would like the project to be re-staked.

Chair Gannon stated that it was correct.

Mr. Weil made a motion, seconded by Ms. Thalman, to continue item 5.6 at 514 Poplar Street to April 24, 2025, Design Review Board meeting. The motion passed 4-0.

Motion LW Second KT Action CONTINUED TO APRIL 24, 2025
Coveny __Y__ Gibbs ___RECUSED___ Weil ___Y___ Thalman ___Y___ Gannon ___Y___

5.7. 167 CHIQUITA STREET (COLAGROSSI & POLZIN) APN: 053-152-14 DENIED DESIGN REVIEW 24-0772, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24- 0773 AND CATEGORCIAL EXEMPTION [Section 15303]
City Staff: Shaveta Sharma, Senior Planner, (949) 715-0958, [email protected] Project Applicant: Liz Howell, 949-963-4600; [email protected] The applicant requests Design Review and a Coastal Development Permit to demolish an existing single-family dwelling and detached garage and construct a new, singlefamily dwelling with attached garage.

Disclosures: Ms. Coveny mentioned that she visited the site, spoke with the applicant, and met with the neighbor, Anne Earhart. Mr. Gibbs noted that he met with the applicant team, including the owners and Anne Earhart. Ms. Thalman shared that she visited the site and spoke with Pam and Peter Polzin, as well as the architect, Liz Howell. Mr. Weil stated that he visited the site and spoke with Larry Nokes. Chair Gannon confirmed that 125
125 of 425
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 21 - February 27, 2025 she also spoke with Larry Nokes and visited the site with the applicant team.

Staff Presentation: Senior Planner, Shaveta Sharma, described the project and staff’s recommendations provided in the report.

Chair Gannon opened the public hearing
Project Representative: Liz Howell presented the project.

Chair Gannon announced that comments would be limited to two minutes each.

Speaker 1 requested three minutes as he stated that he had not previously spoken to before on this issue.

City Attorney Donegan stated that the time limit for each speaker needs to be set, suggesting that two or three minutes would be reasonable. He emphasized that they cannot weigh each speaker individually.

Chair Gannon suggested that due to the number of speakers, the Board should set a twominute time limit for each speaker. The Board agreed on a two-minute limit.

Public Testimony: Pat Wiseman, a resident of 170 Chiquita Street, expressed concerns about the project, citing two main issues. First, he argued that the project was too large, suggesting it should be reduced by at least 300 square feet. Second, he accused the applicants of using trickery and deception to gain neighbor support. He explained that they had signed letters in support of the project, believing it would be smaller, but after the story poles went up, they realized the house was much larger than anticipated. He also disputed the claims of support from several individuals who had spoken in favor of the project during previous board meetings, stating that they were not Chiquita Street neighbors and did not have a direct stake in the project's impact on the community. Mr.

Wiseman recommended that the project either be rejected or the applicants be required to reduce the size by 300 square feet and return for a fourth meeting.

Speaker 2, a resident of North Laguna for 35 years, spoke in support of the project. They shared the story of the applicants, explaining that they purchased an older home in North Laguna with a view of the hills and homes beyond PCH. However, a large twostory commercial building was built on PCH, blocking their view. As their house aged and required repairs, they decided to design a new home that met their needs and desires. The neighborhood consists of larger homes with various architectural styles.

After obtaining all necessary approvals and no variances, their design was presented to the Design Review Board. This was the third meeting, with suggestions given at the previous meetings, resulting in two redesigns that made the home smaller and less tall.

Despite this, the applicants still seek approval for the redesigned, beautiful home.

Speaker 2 urged the Board to approve the project so that they can build their new home in Laguna.

Inge Bunn of 1157 North Coast Highway stated that she has owned the property since 126
126 of 425
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 22 - February 27, 2025 1978 and expressed objections to the project. Ms. Bunn stated that the design is too massive, especially considering that most homes on Chiquita Street are around 2,500 square feet. Ms. Bunn also mentioned that their ocean view from the balcony upstairs would be obstructed by the proposed project, which would have an economic impact, as it could affect the property value. Ms. Bunn stated that the current tenant has lived at the location for over 11 years.

Larry Laird, a Laguna Beach resident for over 50 years and a general contractor and residential designer, expressed his support for the project. He praised the design, noting that it has been well-executed from the start. He highlighted that the applicants have already made adjustments, lowering the house and moving it back twice to address concerns. He warned that further adjustments to the project would only draw attention to the size of the three-story commercial building next door. Mr. Laird pointed out that the project fits well with the neighborhood, where other homes of similar or larger size exist. He concluded by stating that the applicants have made the necessary efforts, and the project should be approved.

Connie Sanchez, a Laguna Beach resident of 50 years, thanked the Board for allowing her to speak. She noted that when the project was first presented, it complied with the strict requirements of the city, even being below the maximum allowable footage for the lot. She pointed out that no variances were requested to exceed city requirements. Ms.

Sanchez explained that the Design Review Board made a series of recommendations to alter the original plan, which the applicants complied with. She emphasized that these changes were subjective and not technical corrections, as the original plan already met all city requirements. She concluded by recommending approval of the project.

Leslie Laird, a resident of approximately 14 years, shared her observations after visiting the neighborhood. She was surprised by the scope of some of the houses, noting that many neighbors had concerns about the size, height, and proximity of the new project.

She pointed out that the renderings of the proposed project closely resembled the commercial building next door and other homes in the area. Ms. Laird mentioned that she did not notice many cottages in the neighborhood, and she was particularly struck by the size of a new project further down the street. She concluded by thanking the Board for their time.

Seal Sharman, a resident for over 50 years, thanked the Board for their work in preserving Laguna's beauty. She shared that she had moved from Tahiti Avenue to the Tree Streets after the fire. She described the Tree Streets as a highly desirable and eclectic neighborhood, with a mix of Spanish-style two-story houses, contemporary apartment buildings, and original cottages. Ms. Sharman acknowledged the applicants' efforts to downscale the size and adjust the setbacks of the project based on the Board's recommendations. She concluded by recommending the approval of the project.

Bob Buettner clarified that the building was dropped by 20 inches, not 2 feet 11 inches.

He requested the Board to pull up Exhibit One, which shows a view from an office at 1191 North Coast Highway. He explained that the office, which had a clear ocean view for 13 years, now has its view obstructed by the growth of large trees on the applicant's 127
127 of 425
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 23 - February 27, 2025 property. He showed the Board how the vegetation, which has grown to nearly 30 feet, has gradually blocked the ocean view. In Exhibit One, the yellow line represented the ocean horizon, while the red outline indicated the applicant's building. The shading in the image shows that the view, currently blocked by the foliage, will be permanently obstructed if the project is approved. Mr. Buettner continued by showing Exhibit Two, which illustrated how the ocean view had diminished over time and would be permanently lost if the project proceeded. In the final image (Exhibit Three), Mr.

Buettner pointed out that small glimpses of the ocean could still be seen through the foliage, but the view had significantly diminished. He also noted that, despite the changes in the building design (such as a slight shift in the deck and glazing), there had been no significant reduction in the mass and scale of the project.

Anne Earhart stated that the applicants had responded to the Board's previous comments and suggestions, but concerns remained regarding the mass, scale, and verticality of the project. Despite adjustments, the house had only been reduced by 208 square feet, less than 6%, which the speaker did not consider significant. Ms. Earhart noted that while projects often try to maximize square footage, this could lead to a change in the neighborhood character, which is why people choose to live in Laguna.

Ms. Earhart felt that the project resembled a commercial building rather than a residential cottage. In mid-December, Ms. Earhart noticed that large bird-of-paradise plants near the applicant's garage were obstructing her ocean view. These plants were at least 27 feet high and wide, and their continued presence would block what little view she had left. Ms. Earhart requested that the plants be trimmed, but there had been no response from the applicants or architect, and the plants remained in place. Ms. Earhart emphasized that while plants are not permanent, the proposed building would be, and she argued that, as a neighbor, her concerns should be considered.

Chair Gannon stated that this was the third meeting and requested the speaker to conclude her comments.

Ms. Earhart continued and expressed a desire to see the project completed, citing frustration with the flapping tarps they had been looking at for years. She stated that they were never contacted by the applicants prior to the project and had not received any response to the letters they had sent. Despite offering what they believed to be a win-win solution, they had heard nothing back from the applicants.

Chair Gannon requested the speaker to conclude her comments. Mentioning that in the previous hearing, the speaker had taken four minutes and requested guidance from City Attorney Donegan.

City Attorney Donegan requested that the speaker conclude their remarks, pointing out that they had exceeded three minutes.

Ms. Earhart continued noting that only exceedingly small changes had been made in response to the Board's requests and neighbors' concerns. They concluded by requesting that the project be denied.

128
128 of 425
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 24 - February 27, 2025 Mia Davidson of 122 Chiquita, also spoke on behalf of Bonita Solo of 109 Chiquita, who was unable to attend. She stated that she has known the applicants, Peter and Pamela, for nearly two decades and considers them friends. However, she did not sign their petition last year—not out of opposition but because she did not anticipate their project affecting her. She noted that several neighbors who signed the petition now regret doing so but believe it is too late to take action. Ms. Davidson expressed concerns that many supporters of the project do not live on Chiquita Street and questioned whether this process had become a personality contest. Her primary concerns have been the mass and scale of the project from the street, which she believes have not been adequately addressed despite previous hearings. She noted that lowering the roof by seven inches does little to reduce the impact, as the front facade remains significantly higher than the existing home. She cited direction from prior hearings to reduce the appearance of mass and scale along the street elevation but argued that minimal progress has been made toward this goal. Additionally, Ms. Davidson cautioned against relying on vegetation to mitigate the structure’s blocky appearance, calling it a short-term solution to a long-term problem. She concluded by stating that this should not be a factor in approving the project and thanked the Board for their time.

Shay Watson, a resident of 157 Chiquita, directly next to 167 Chiquita, stated opposition to the project. Ms. Watson expressed continued concerns about the massing at the front of the property. Additionally, they mentioned feeling deceived by documents that were previously signed and clarified that they do not support the project. Ms. Watson affirmed standing with neighbors on Chiquita Street and the surrounding area, noting that others had articulated the concerns more effectively.

Ms. Coveny asked a clarifying question about the applicant's property, inquiring if she was positioned to the right when facing it. She also asked if the individual's daughter had been present in the past.

Ms. Watson answered yes to both questions.

Larry Nokes stated that he is working with Ann Earhart and those opposing the project, expressed concerns about the impact on the neighborhood. He noted that while many supporters of the project spoke, they were largely friends of the applicants rather than immediate neighbors. Mr. Nokes pointed out that several direct neighbors, including Pat, Inga, Mia, Shay, and Bob, had voiced opposition. He emphasized that Chiquita Street remains a neighborhood characterized by cottage-style houses, and the proposed project does not align with that aesthetic. He argued that the building still extends from setback to setback, has not been significantly reduced in height, and continues to negatively impact Anne’s property, which was previously forced to be built below the allowable height. He also drew a parallel to a prior discussion about Hawthorne, emphasizing that Chiquita Street has a distinct architectural style that the proposed project does not fit. Mr. Nokes concluded by stating that view equity has not been achieved, and that the Board's previous direction has not been adequately followed.

Rebuttal: Ms. Howell clarified that before submitting plans to the city, the applicants engaged in early neighborhood communication by sharing their plans with neighbors 129
129 of 425
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 25 - February 27, 2025 for review, allowing them ample time to study them. Ms. Howell emphasized that there was no deception involved in this process. Addressing concerns, Ms. Howell noted that the proposed project is set back further from the alley than most neighboring buildings, including Inga’s, whose balconies extend further into the setback. They highlighted several modifications made in response to feedback, including moving back the second story to improve privacy, light, and air circulation, adding articulation to the front corner, incorporating a tree for more curb appeal, and lowering the building by three feet. Ms. Howell also pointed out that a recently approved property nearby features similar or greater heights and massing. In response to Anne’s concerns about the project being too large, they argued that Anne's own building maximizes its lot, has high ceilings, and features large window headers. In contrast, the proposed project has less lot coverage, a lower plate height, and maintains greater distance from the alley. Ms.

Howell, concluded by emphasizing that the design takes into account neighbors' privacy and light concerns.

Pamela Polzin expressed concerns about the concept of view equity, stating that what was once a beautiful view of goats grazing on the hillside is now obstructed by a wall.

She highlighted that the view across the alleyway has completely eliminated any view of the hillside that they previously enjoyed.

Board Questions: None.

Chair Gannon closed the public hearing
Board Comments: Chair Gannon expressed her support for the project, describing it as a perfect blend between commercial and residential areas. She mentioned the suggestion made by Mr. Weil in the previous meeting to plant a dwarf tree to soften the building's presence when turning into Chiquita Street. She provided comparisons to nearby properties, emphasizing how the project aligns with the development pattern in the area.

She highlighted the lack of light and air intrusion, the proper placement of the building off the alley, and the articulation of the upper floor. She also noted the adequacy of the landscaping and the addition of a dwarf tree to soften the front facade. Chair Gannon stated that the project meets the requirements of view equity and privacy and noted that it matches the scale and character of other buildings in the neighborhood. She concluded by stating her support for the project, praising the applicants for following the Board's direction.

Ms. Thalman began by thanking the applicants for addressing all the concerns raised by the Board over the course of the past three hearings, particularly regarding mass and scale. She emphasized that while some had mentioned reducing square footage, the key to reducing the appearance of mass is design, not just size. She noted that the side coverage increased slightly from 35% to 38%, a change she found insignificant from a property standpoint. Ms. Thalman agreed that view equity has been achieved and that there are no privacy issues. She expressed support for the project's design, stating that it provides a natural transition between the cottages and more contemporary designs in the neighborhood. Finally, she mentioned that the Bird of Paradise plants would 130
130 of 425
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 26 - February 27, 2025 eventually be removed, and she voiced her support for approving the project, as she felt it met the Design Review guidelines.

Ms. Coveny began by expressing that she could not support the project that night, starting with her concerns about mass and scale. She felt that the changes made did not adequately address the Board’s feedback, particularly regarding how the house is processed and built. She noted that the houses on Chiquita Street have a certain setback and articulation, which the current design lacked. She mentioned that while the design materials were fine, the overall size of the home felt too big for the context of the neighborhood. Ms. Coveny acknowledged that while the project met zoning and planning requirements, she felt it did not respect the unique characteristics of the neighborhood. She also emphasized that the issue was not about design style, but about fitting better within the mass and scale context. She addressed the issue of view equity, pointing out that while the applicants had removed a tree, there was still a view impact, and suggested that the house design could be adjusted to improve it. Ms. Coveny praised the landscaping changes, especially the removal of certain lighting, but reiterated that the massing of the project still felt out of place in the neighborhood.

Chair Gannon asked Ms. Coveny if she was saying that the project did not have articulation.

Ms. Coveny responded that while the project does have articulation, the issue lies with the span of the design. She mentioned that when looking at the project from the plan view or the rendering, the length of the structure creates a visual impact.

Chair Gannon expressed confusion, stating that she doesn't understand how the project could be more articulated.

Ms. Coveny responded that she is not an architect and doesn't know either.

Chair Gannon pointed out that all the articulation is visible in the plans, suggesting that it can be seen in the designs presented.

Discussion continued regarding project articulation.

Mr. Gibbs expressed that he cannot support the project, emphasizing that the mass and scale are still too large for the neighborhood, a concern he raised during the first hearing.

He explained that there was no significant reduction in the mass or scale of the building, despite the board's suggestions. He pointed out that the setback of the two-story mass is not compatible with the neighborhood, particularly in comparison to Chiquita Street.

Although he acknowledged the design's articulation and its potential in a different location, he stated that it is not suitable for this neighborhood due to its block-like appearance. He noted that the second story wasn't pulled back as suggested, and the overall design still appears too large.

Chair Gannon opened the public hearing
131
131 of 425
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 27 - February 27, 2025 Ms. Howell explained that the bathroom, shower, and walk-in closet were made smaller in order to bring back the corner of the front of the house.

Chair Gannon closed the public hearing
Mr. Gibbs stated that while the corner of the house may have been pulled back slightly, the change was not substantial enough to address his concerns from the second hearing.

He emphasized that the house still did not meet his direction for reducing mass and scale. Despite his willingness to approve the house, he couldn't support it due to these issues. Regarding height, he acknowledged that the applicant had reduced it somewhat but still felt the plate height of 10 feet for the second story was too high for the community, especially with potential impacts on views and light. He noted that, if the height was the only concern, he likely would have approved it, but ultimately, mass and scale remained his primary issue.

Mr. Weil acknowledged the challenges the project has faced, with efforts from both the neighbors and the applicant to reach a workable solution. He noted that while there have been many changes and concessions made since the first hearing, these changes have been incremental rather than substantial. He agreed with Mr. Gibbs that the Board had been hoping for more significant adjustments to some corners and angles, especially in relation to mass, scale, and views. Although the project is close and many improvements have been made, Mr. Weil felt that further adjustments would require more design work, which could lead to more changes that might not satisfy either the applicant or the neighbors.

Chair Gannon suggested that if the plate heights were lowered, it could potentially be included as a condition of approval for the project.

Mr. Weil explained that he is not in favor of lowering the plate heights as a solution. He believes the mass and scale, along with the overall end-to-end structure of the building, still needs significant adjustments. He noted that while the design is unique for the alleyway, there are still elements that need tweaking to gain his full support. Specifically, he mentioned the need for adjustments to the opening towards the front side of Chiquita and the rear decks, eaves, and bedroom, which still feel too end-to-end. These changes are crucial for his support of the project.

Chair Gannon asked Mr. Gibbs if lowering the plate heights could be considered a condition of approval for the project.

Mr. Gibbs expressed that he would have loved to approve the house at the third hearing but his main issue was with the mass and scale. He noted that while he had suggested lowering the plate height, his primary concern was that the second story was not reduced significantly enough. He mentioned that to approve the project, the Board would need to design it, which is not within their prerogative. He also stated that he had never encountered a situation where they denied a project after multiple hearings.

City Attorney Donegan clarified that since staff did not prepare a resolution of denial, 132
132 of 425
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 28 - February 27, 2025 the Board would need to direct staff to adopt one. He mentioned that the resolution would be brought back, but it would only reflect whether the decisions made during the meeting were accurately captured. He asked if that made sense.

Mr. Weil stated that if the project is denied, there will be no resolution.

City Attorney Donegan confirmed that the applicant requires written findings for the project. If the project is denied, a resolution of denial would be required. The applicant could potentially appeal the decision, and they would need a written record of what occurred during the meeting.

Mr. Gibbs stated that the record laid out during the meeting provides the reasons for the denial.

Mr. Gibbs made a motion, seconded by Mr. Weil, to direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial based on the project not meeting the mass and scale and neighborhood compatibility guidelines. The motion passed 3-2.

Motion TG Second LW Action DENIED
Coveny __Y__ Gibbs ___Y___ Weil ___Y___ Thalman ___N___ Gannon ___N___

6. OTHER BUSINESS
None.

7. ADJOURNMENT
Adjournment at 8:10 p.m. to the regularly scheduled Design Review Board meeting on March 13, 2025, at 5:00 p.m.
133
133 of 425

Page 1 of 16 ends

Chair Gannon:

So next up is agenda item 5.5 located at 607 Short Street. While the applicant team takes their positions, board, do we have ex parte?
Board Member Gibbs:

Chair, excuse me, I met with the owners and I also met with the neighbors, Allison and Miles Mahoney at 615 Short Street and that's it.

Chair Pro Tem Thalman:

Sorry. I went to the site and met with Drew Blake, Mr. and Mrs. Macintosh, Steve Kawaratani, and Mr. and Mrs. Mahoney next door.

Board Member Weil:

Met with Mr. and Mrs. Mahoney, Steve Kawaratani. I spoke on the phone with Steve McIntosh.

Board Member Coveny:

I met with the Macintoshes and also the Mahoneys and Steve Kawaratani.

Board Member Weil:

Chair, I forgot, I also met with Steve Kawaratani.

Chair Gannon:

And I too met with Steve Kawaratani and the neighbors next door, the Mahoneys, and the applicant team.

Shaveta Sharma:

Good evening chair and members of the board. Item 5.5 is Design Review and Coastal Development Permit for 607 Short Street. The project is located on the western side of Short Street in the R1 zone across from Laguna Beach High School. The existing neighborhood consists of one and two-story homes with adjacent residences being two stories. The project is an existing 1,441 square foot single family home with an attached two-car garage. The scope of work proposed for the project includes a major remodel to add a 1,033 square foot second-level addition, 52 square foot addition to the existing garage, 325 square feet of elevated decking at the first level and an 80-square foot elevated deck at the second floor. Landscaping and lighting improvements are also incorporated and there is a detached ADU in the rear that is subject to a coastal development permit but not with design review.

The second-level addition is located along the southeastern property line. The applicant has included opaque windows on the second story to preserve neighbor privacy. The proposed design, colors and materials and development are compatible with the neighborhood and existing structure. Staff has analyzed the applicant's request with respect to the city's development standards and the board's direction and determined that the project conforms to zoning codes, general plan policies and design review guidelines.

Additionally, staff believes that the CDP findings for the project can be made. Staff recommends that the board conduct a public hearing and adopt Resolution 24-0772 approving Design Review 24-0772 and Coastal Development Permit and finding said action exempt from CEQA. After publication of the agenda, staff has received public comments noting privacy and concerns, mass and scale, and view equity issues Attachment 7
134
134 of 425

Page 2 of 16 ends

with the project. The board can determine whether or not that affects the project's ability to meet the design review criteria. That concludes my presentation. The staff, the architect, and the applicant are also available for questions.

Chair Gannon:

Beautiful presentation. Thank you. Board, do we have questions for staff? No? Going around the room.

Okay, you have five minutes, Mr. Blake.

Drew Blake:

Okay, thank you. My name is Drew Blake and I'm the designer for the project. I wanted to thank you all again for coming out to the site. I appreciate understanding the new design that we're working on and what we're trying to accomplish out there. The project is located at 607 Short Street. This lot size is 7,110 square feet with an existing lot coverage of 23%. The new lot coverage will be 28%. The Macintoshes have lived in this house since 2002 and raised their daughter here in Laguna Beach. Since the time of the purchase of this home, my clients have always wanted to add a second story to have a little bit more of an ocean view to add to the kitchen, make it a little bit more usable and functional; a new bathroom, as now there's only one bathroom in the home that they've all had to share over these years.

Most of the homes in this area are two stories, including the residences on both sides of this home, as well as many of the homes behind this residence on Los Robles. The house is very modest in size and this existing house is 1,441 square feet. With this new remodel design, the new... will go up to approximately 2,600, well below the average size of the house in this area. We started this process with mass and scale on our minds to keep the project lower and to scale with the neighborhood compatibility. We worked hard to keep the house modest, designing the ceiling heights to the standard eight-foot plate and the roof slope to a shallow three and 12. We kept the windows on the south elevation narrow and smaller and are willing to work with the neighbors on the issues of privacy with some type of opaque glass if needed.

The upper deck is set back as to not impede anyone's views. Again, keeping the privacy and exposure to a minimum. We are adding 390 square feet to the lower level in the rear yard and 807 square feet on the upper level addition. We wanted to keep the beautiful open space of the site intact. We have worked hard to be sensitive to the neighbors by keeping the house as low as possible with the eight-foot plate and the shallow roof. The design of the new house will be in the beach house vernacular with architectural details and accent trims and keeping with the look and feel of the early Laguna Beach homes. We know there's been some concern from adjoining neighbors, and we're willing to make some small adjustments to accommodate their concerns. We understand that all of us in the neighborhood need to compromise and we're willing to do so as well. In the end, we hope this new addition will be beautiful to the neighborhood as well as offered to the Macintoshes the space and added square footage they have been longing for years. Thank you.

Chair Gannon:

Thank you. You still have time? Yeah, if you'd like to speak.

Steve Macintosh:

Yes, please. Thank you. Thank you board, and I'd like to thank everyone for coming out, taking a look. But as Drew said, we've owned the house, my wife Vicki and I and daughter. She was a newborn when we bought the house in 2002 and basically we're 20 years in on a three-year remodel and one thing after another got in the way. So we tried to keep this really scaled back for everybody to fit the neighborhood.

It's a great neighborhood, great neighbors, and we've always been really good neighbors to everyone and 135
135 of 425

Page 3 of 16 ends

continue to be so and do so. But we want to plan on multi-generational living and to age in place. Oh, next slide please. Yeah, thank you. Sorry, if you could. That's that. Next.

The lot adjoins five different properties, and all five are two-story houses with views and decks and one of them has three decks. So basically, we're just trying to achieve that. We're trying to reduce and eliminate impact on neighbors and modestly take care of that. Next slide please. This is some of the neighbor concerns and mitigations that we've had, and we sent this to you guys so you have it. So next please. This is, for instance, the privacy for the folks behind us at 480. This is the proposed views from the proposed master bedroom towards 480 and the kind of thing that we talked about was that's five foot below our grade and put a lattice on the wall with vines for privacy. You see on the right-hand side, they did that. Next please.

Same thing with 472 Los Robles. That's the view corridor. That's from the proposed deck and that's about 50 feet from the fence. And so you can see behind her pool deck there and then on the right-hand side a little bit of shrubbery in that gap and then you can see that that goes a long ways throughout this. Next please. Same thing there. She was kind enough to send these from her perspective. That's about 80 feet away. You see on the right, its bush is in the way. Next please. Same thing there. Next. And same thing there, see. This is some of the mitigations that we were talking about.

Chair Gannon:

In conclusion.

Steve Macintosh:

Okay.

Chair Gannon:

Okay. You'll have three minutes to speak later.

Steve Macintosh:

All right. Thank you.

Chair Gannon:

At this time, any members of the public wish to speak on 607 Short Street? Miles Mahoney:

Is that my turn?
Chair Gannon:

That's your turn. Yes, please
Miles Mahoney:

Thank you to the board and to our neighbors for hearing our input on the Macintosh proposed plan. We've met with the Macintoshes on three occasions and finding ourselves at an impasse, we're here to really seek to preserve the relationship that we have with the Macintoshes. Miles and I believe all our neighbors should be able to make improvements to their home and want to state we're not against the Macintoshes making improvements.
136
136 of 425

Page 4 of 16 ends

From the point in time the Macintoshes let us know that they had a plan and asked for our input, we've given consideration and met with them within 24 hours of each request. They've been on an urgent timeframe. We've been willingly supportive and kept pace with their meeting requests. Once the stakes went up at Thanksgiving, it was even more clear how impactful the proposed plan would be for our home.

Each time we met, we thoughtfully shared our concerns for privacy, light, lifestyle, blocking mass, and the proposed front-to-back wall completely along one side of our home.

It was even more clear once we saw the stakes. So we invited them over to take a look at this impact.

They both took photos, we described our concerns. Our lot and theirs have a smaller easement and our homes stand at the same elevation. So their proposed plan represents a significant impact to our privacy and also enjoyment of our home. When we bought our home, we had been searching for over four years.

Our home was built in 1937, and it was thoughtfully designed to maximize the privacy, light, and the functionality for the size of each room. We needed a four-bedroom home for our family of five and space to work during daytime hours. We have conference video calls, we have corporate employers, plus run a family business from our home. We spend about 12 hours every weekday in these rooms working and conducting business with the door closed so that we don't impact the rest of our family and living space.

So in terms of using our bedrooms upstairs, they're not just for sleeping. We picked our house so that we could work and also our kids work and study from these rooms. Even from our master bathroom, toilet and bathtub, we can see their proposed home and they can see ours. It's an intrusion of privacy. During the years, we have been next door neighbors and friends. We've enjoyed a close relationship with the Macintoshes and we even got speed bumps put in on our street together.

To close, when we had our third conversation, one of the points the Macintosh mentioned that they expected to be asked to potentially push back the upstairs design, but were not prepared to discuss any expectations with us. They didn't want to discuss in advance and unnecessarily reduce the size and scale of their upstairs or tolerate more delays before their major rebuild.

Chair Gannon:

In conclusion.

Miles Mahoney:

They said they're changing their plans might impact the privacy they're seeking. So basically, to wrap up, we're counting on the board to help us navigate the Macintoshes have acknowledged that they're also seeking privacy and don't want to view the mass of our home so we know there's a way forward.

Chair Gannon:

Thank you.

Miles Mahoney:

Thank you.

Speaker 10:

Thank you. Hello, board, and thanks 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've enjoyed a friendship with the Macintoshes over the last five years. What's at stake 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 and the precedent it sets in our community going forward. I also want to underscore we understand and support the Macintoshes 137
137 of 425

Page 5 of 16 ends

making improvements to their property and improving and enhancing their living space, but not at the expense of our privacy, our views, the lighting and the quality of life. Have some of you had the chance to visit our home, specifically see the area impacted by the second story addition? We spend about 70% of our waking, working and sleeping hours in the north run of our home directly impacted and affected by the second story addition that they're proposing.

First, the new structure will block the sunlight in the open air space that provides privacy and quality in our daily lives. And yes, we transition to working in two of the three rooms on that side of the home each and every day. We cherish the natural light in the air that fills our home from the northwest side of our house. Without it would feel dark, closed off and pretty uninviting. Secondly, the proposed second story addition will obstruct our views and our view equity and the light from every room along the north-facing side of the property, which we've considered a significant benefit of living, working, and spending time in this area of our home. It really is our main living space. The view of the water and the hillside have been a peaceful aspect of our daily life and it would be really disheartening to see that aspect just disappear.

I want to express how important this view is to our family, not just as a luxury, but a part of what makes our home special. In fact, on one occasion we had Vicki and Steve, just like some of you did, come over to our home and see for themselves the impact their proposed project would have on the entire side of our home. I asked Steve, "How would you feel if you were in my shoes and I was proposing what you're proposing?" Steve responded, "I'd be upset." This is truly significant. It's not a neighborly spat. We love the Macintoshes. This has a true impact to our quality of life and the value of our property.

But it's not only the views that are at risk. The addition to the second story led to a lack of privacy in areas of our property that probably still haven't even been explored. Privacy's not about addressing and putting window coverings or frostings on the windows themselves. It's the impact and the unknown of a structure looking into our living space, our backyards. Frosted windows or not, it feels invasive. So I want to thank you guys for your consideration and I hope the board can make some recommendations that make the living space that we've been accompanied to and the improvements that they want to make mutually beneficial. Thank you.

Chair Gannon:

Thank you. Any other comments? Mr. Kawaratani?
Steve Kawaratani:

Shaveta, could you queue me up please? Thank you. My name's Steve Kawaratani and I see, since I've last seen board member Coveny and Chair Gannon, they've been to the salon. Good job, guys. Okay. So I'm oftenSteve Kawaratani:

You know what? Both your hairs are thinning. So that being said, the board members often ask me if I look at design articulation, look at the upper floor there. And we're getting to the crux of the problem. It's 45 and a half feet of unremitting program and it's jammed right next to the Mahoneys. The solution here really is to shorten the length of the upper story and move it further away. Next slide. Next slide please.

So I'd like to talk about view equity really quickly. This particular image shows what the impact would be from this room. And view, air, and light really are going to be greatly compromised and that's what I want to remind the board. You all visited the site, you saw the story poles. This is what it's going to look like, and I believe that although Drew said they're trying to capture a little view, and it's fair that the Macintoshes are, that should not be at the expense of the neighbor. Next slide. 138
138 of 425

Page 6 of 16 ends

Another example of the view equity issue, Steve McIntosh mentioned that there's probably going to be compromise, and we do understand and we appreciate it, but at this point the project, as presented, is truly unacceptable. Next slide. I'd like to talk about neighborhood compatibility. As the applicants have pointed out, many homes have second stories in the general vicinity and the Macintoshes have every right to pursue that. That's really not our issue. However, when you're stacking almost the entire program against the Mahoneys, therein lies the problem. So again, I believe that that upper level should not necessarily be reduced, but it should be moved over and it should probably span the entire width of the property to have a more balanced look. Thank you.

Chair Gannon:

Thank you, Mr. Kawaratani. Any other speakers? Okay.

Jeff Amos:

Hello, my name's Jeff Amos, my husband Todd Brooks and I live at 480 Los Robles, the house directly behind the proposed house. We appreciate the opportunity to share our perspective. As we know, these decisions require careful thought. We've had a good relationship with the Macintosh family since they moved in, fully support their desire to improve their home. However, we have concerns about the addition, how it affects our property and particularly in terms of privacy. We've lived in our home for 25 years. One of the things we've valued is the privacy and openness of our backyard carefully configured so that it has a private spot within that backyard.

The proposed second story addition is very close to our property. Their placement significantly impacts both the sense of privacy and overall enjoyment of our outdoor space. The second floor, in particular, looms directly over our back patio, creating a much more enclosed feeling than we've had before. It also blocks our view of the hill. So from upstairs we can see the hill. We won't see the lights of the hill anymore, which has been an important cherished feature of our home. We wonder if there's any flexibility in the plans that could help us mitigate these efforts, perhaps a pullback of certain elements might make a meaningful difference and maintaining privacy and keep the new structural blend more smoothly with the surrounding properties.

We know Stephen and his family put a great deal of thought into the remodel. We respect that. We hope that some compromise can be found to allow them to move forward with their improvements while also considering the long-standing character and privacy of our home. There's some proposed plants to put in place, but it would really just create a canyon. As close as the structure is to our house, just create a canyon feel in our backyard. My neighbor that we share the back with 607, Jeannie Myers, I believe also sent a letter to the board. I sent a letter this morning to the board voicing these concerns.

Board Member Weil:

What was your address again?
Jeff Amos:
480-
Board Member Weil:
480.
139
139 of 425

Page 7 of 16 ends

Jeff Amos:
... Los Robles and 472 Los Robles also sent a message, but she's out of town today. We have similar issues.

Thanks.

Chair Gannon:

Any other speakers? Okay, you have three minutes for a rebuttal.

Steve Macintosh:

Very good. Shaveta, could you pull up the slide please? Basically, nice to hear everybody speak and some of these things we've talked to them about. There's actually 16 feet between the houses. I've been in Laguna a long time and I don't think that's very close in that. Everybody talks about privacy. We'll get to that. One of the things that we're going to bring up here was next slide I think is where we're at. Oh, yeah, one more. Oh, no, up back. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Back a couple more, please, Shaveta. One more. Yes. So there we were. We'd covered those issues. Could you go back a couple more so I could address Mr. Amis? Keep going. One more. One more. I know I'm burning my time. A little more. One more. There it is. Oh, back. That's where he was talking about. That's the view that he was talking about in his window. Back one more please, Shaveta.

There we go. So his space is back there. I see that. And also, the neighbor looks into his space as well there, and we're going to try to eliminate that. So then moving on here. Keep going if you would please.

Keep going. We need a few more. Here we go, front bedroom. We're going to remove that tree so that front bedroom at 615, the Mahoneys will be taken care of. Next slide. This is the view out of the middle bedroom. So a little different than Mr. Kawaratani's. You can see our poles there and then you see a lot of blue light above and you can still see an ocean view there.

And to the right, you can see when we take that tree out, that middle bedroom will have a hill view. Next slide please. And that's the back views. Next slide from 615. That's their previous owner back corner bedroom. You can see their primary view out the back and then their side view. Next slide. This is the current one with the desks with the primary view out the back and the side view with the couch backed up against it. You can see our poles there and that couch is moved for the design review purposes and a desk put there. Next slide.

This is the back corner office. You can see to the left of the poles, there's still an ocean view and sky above it. Next slide. And this is the problem we would have with the big mass all the way across. This is what we're looking at, and it's been talked about. Let's flip it to the other side. Basically, that goes against every design review guideline that there is, a building to look into someone. So I'd be looking from those windows up above, seven of them, towards those three sets of windows there and the deck would be fully exposed to them. So there's absolutely zero privacy for either of us. So that was suggested by the Mahoneys several times and they talk about privacy here and I think we're doing everything for privacy that could be happening.

Chair Gannon:

In conclusion.

Steve Macintosh:

In conclusion, I just want to say that we are doing everything we can. We can't see into the backyard. They have trees there. So I don't know why everybody's talking about that, but we're willing to work with everybody here to try to come up with some amiable ideas and processes. 140
140 of 425

Page 8 of 16 ends

Chair Gannon:

Okay. Any questions for the applicant?
Board Member Gibbs:

I have one question. I mentioned this to you when I was out. The suggestion that we're hearing from your neighbors at 615, certainly from Steve Kawaratani, their consultant, is move the second story to the other side of the property. What's the feasibility and issues in your mind from doing that? Steve Macintosh:

Well, that last slide, Shaveta, if you could bring that last slide up that says it? Basically, it's several issues.

It creates a massive structure all the way across the front of the facility or the houseBoard Member Gibbs:

No, I'm talking about moving the second story to the other side of the lot.

Steve Macintosh:

Right, right. 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 anew. 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 costprohibitive.

We got to work on concrete, a lot more concrete work to build all the way across. And then when you get on the other side, looking back, like I say there, you can see that that would be our place up there on top, seven windows looking back at them with the three windows. And we have a deck that's wide open. So some of the design review guidelines that I saw said don't build to look into someone's house, and that's what this would be. And don't build your deck to where people can see you and you can see them. And that's totally what that would be. And it's also a loss of a view corridor.

Chair Gannon:

Any other questions?
Board Member Gibbs:

That's it.

Chair Gannon:

Okay. Any questions? I'm ready for comments. So also included in the design review guidelines is a 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, yes it has that peek-a-boo 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 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 141
141 of 425

Page 9 of 16 ends

house where it goes across the width of the roof and then keep the articulation. You have a brilliant architect there. I'm sure you can figure it out. The ADU, I think there's a neighbor, one of your five neighbors talking about a building that was being proposed. That's an ADU. We can't depict an ADU.

What's that?
Drew Blake:
[inaudible 00:28:14].

Chair Gannon:

No. Yeah, that's pretty much it. I support the projects. I love your materials. 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 can have my support.

Board Member Gibbs:

Chair?
Chair Gannon:

Yeah.

Board Member Gibbs:

All right. I've thought a lot about this project and I'm going to go through the guidelines which bind us and what we're supposed to be applying. And I'm doing this from an uninvolved person. This is two neighbors that have distinct interests. So it's important to understand where I'm coming from. I start with design articulation and I think that the project is well-designed. It's an attractive project. I think even the second story elevation northeast facing the Mahoneys is sufficiently articulated. It has the same essential articulation as the Mahoneys property on that side, with the exception of smaller windows, which I would require to be opaque that are done to preserve privacy. Neighborhood compatibility. 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 Mahoneys, are larger than what's being proposed here.

So I find the two-story is neighborhood-compatible. 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 Mahoneys, whereas the Mahoneys 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. It's a beautiful home. I love their home. And there's a lot of beautiful second story. In fact that is the norm to have significant, on this scale, second story. Mass and scale. So that's the issue, but I'll get to privacy and view equity. The mass and scale I find meets the criteria. It's consistent with the neighborhood. The fact that there is a building along a property line is also consistent throughout that neighborhood. The 16 feet is, I think, a decent spread to preserve light and air and to reduce the mass and scale.

And as I said, if you look at the two sides between 615 and the applicant 607, the mass and scale 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, and the least articulated is on the side facing the Mahoneys. But on that side, it is against their property which has equal minimal articulation. So I think it meets the standards there. With respect to switching the second story to the other side, I think that that does create a lot of feasibility problems. In addition to having the garage articulated where it is and having it balanced, the second story balanced 142
142 of 425

Page 10 of 16 ends

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 a courtyard patio, so if you move the project over there, you'll have similar mass, scale privacy issues.

Unfortunately, when there's a building, you had a smaller scale single-story home for a long time in this location where two-story is the standard there now and neighborhood-compatible, it's going to have some mass and scale impact. And I commend the applicant for moving it back and providing decent spacing. And I was particularly compelled by the photos shown on the reply that shows what I saw, which was notwithstanding there's going to be a building there; it is not like it's five feet or even 10 feet away, which can create some light and air problems. I think, overall, the balance justifies this project with respect to mass, scale, light, and air. With respect to privacy, I'll get to the views in a second. The privacy issues are an issue, which is, in my mind, totally resolved by making the second story windows opaque.

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. Because the way that they built the Mahoneys house where they put a lot of rooms with windows along that side, expecting it would always be a single story there, 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. So that leaves view equity. The view equity in my mind is achieved in this property or in this project, and that's because the primary views are in the back. And that's true of the houses throughout the neighborhood toward the ocean, not surprising. Yes, they're side views. Those side views may be a little less impacted if you build the second story further away. But in my mind, not significantly.

I think view equity is achieved. So 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 the Mahoneys are looking for. They're looking for a major remodel, which is either moving the whole second story to go along the face of your property, so it's one big one-story, second-story house, which I would have some mass and scale issues with and neighborhood compatibility, or moving it in a lateral way along the other side of the property line. And barring that, I do not see any minor tweaks, although I'm interested in what my fellow board members have to say that are necessary. So for all those reasons, I can approve the project tonight.

Chair Gannon:

Mrs. Sharma, did you receive my photo? Yes, please. For view equity. So in Laguna Beach we have two views. We have canyon views and we have... Well, three views: canyon views, hillside views, and ocean views.

Speaker X:

What are you showing us?
Chair Gannon:

The view. I'm trying to give an objective finding of what a view is. Okay. Okay. Would you like another board member to speak? Okay. Anyone else?
Speaker X:

You want to go [inaudible 00:36:52]?
143
143 of 425

Page 11 of 16 ends

Board Member Weil:

Okay. I appreciate a lot of what board member Gibbs said. He really went off a lot of points, but I do have a couple things and I'll try to keep it a little shorter. As far as the design review guidelines and how you guys have approached this, I really appreciate your approach. You've tried to learn the design review guides, 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 in those careful components into the design.

But when you read the design review guidelines, you get two sides to this conversation in that whole document, i.e. 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 in 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 into the rear side of the lot. 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 vicinity.

You don't have to go end to end, but looking at your house now, it's kind of the shape of an H on the bottom floor, 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 the middle part back, you probably could achieve more program. I know board member Gibbs talked about feasibility, but when it comes to the design review guidelines, cost isn't part of our analysis.

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 meets that balancing nature of the view impact from the length that extends on 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.

Chair Pro Tem Thalman:

What part back? What [inaudible 00:39:25] are you asking? Board Member Weil:

So also looking at the aerial from the two lots neighboring, you've got the 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 a reasonable string line, so keep that opening available for not only the Mahoneys but the other side. But then it affords you the reasonable development beyond that, lack of a better term, string line. 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 drawing reasonability within the design at this point of the discussion.

And I think that might be a much more balanced equation and maybe achieve some of what board member Gannon was discussing. As far as privacy, I know the gentleman spoke about the property downhill. I think in most applications we'd be looking for landscape in that space, but given that it's being earmarked for an ADU, we don't have any jurisdictions of it. So there will be a structure there. There'll be things there that will provide a privacy just in and of its own. But from a local jurisdiction, we have no control over where they want to put windows or whatever. And analyzing that, the fact that the structure will be there, it'll block a fair amount of what you're concerned about from the view standpoint. So for me, I need a little bit of work on this one, but I think it was a really good attempt and a really good start.

Chair Gannon:

Ms. Thalman?
144
144 of 425

Page 12 of 16 ends

Chair Pro Tem Thalman:

Oh, [inaudible 00:41:07].

Board Member Weil:

Daniel got out my picture. Again, this isn't to scale or whatnot, but I was looking at the neighbor to the right and the neighbor to the left and drawing that line, but where you're the H and extending on that lengthy into the rear, that's the part that's more the challenge for me.

Board Member Coveny:

Okay, I'll go. So first of all, it sounds like you guys have really great neighbors, and I'm certainly hoping that we can resolve all this over the next couple hearings. I won't be able to approve the project tonight, so I'll just start there. And then I'll tell you some of my points and I think that's why you've come to us tonight. I think if you had tried to do it on the other side, it would've 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 sides you're fine there. I think that the upward 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 there now. So they're going to gain view there, but they're definitely going to lose in 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 really, visually, it's a big loss.

Even though this isn't a super ceremonial space, it's an active space. I could feel that just by how the house is set up. So I really feel like that needs to be addressed, that they need to have that, as Ms. Gannon pointed out, that amazing view of the hillside, which hopefully will continually stay pristine for them. So really look at that. Privacy, I think as Mr. Gibbs and others mentioned, I don't think there's a big privacy issue on the Mahoney side.

As he mentioned, opaquing is always nice. Doesn't have to be a heavy-duty opaquing. As far as the group, the gang over there at 480 Paso Robles, I think it's Mr. Amos, I think you're probably going to be okay with what you had shown Steve McIntosh showing an extension of that wall with lattice keeping your hedging.

And I would like perhaps on condition of approval, or you guys can speak and have this on your next plan, is picking what that's going to be. And then we can see if that will do it. And I'd like to be able to have a chance to come over and look because I didn't get a chance to look at that. So I'd like to really see it from your perspective so I can be really clear about that. I think the house is neighborhood-compatible, I think your biggest problem is really view equity, and if you can work on that, I think you're really going to be closer than you are right now. Yeah.

Board Member Gibbs:

Is your issue the same as Louis's issue, that it's just the room that's the closest to the backyard needs to open up a little bit?
Board Member Coveny:

Yeah, needs to retreat.

Board Member Gibbs:

Thanks.
145
145 of 425

Page 13 of 16 ends

Board Member Coveny:

Oh, but let me just add to that and keep this in mind. As you, hopefully, retreat this upper bedroom, that your decking that you're adding, stays obscured because you certainly don't want to... and then you have to deal with that component.

Chair Gannon:

Ms. Thalman.

Chair Pro Tem Thalman:

Okay. Well, my first reaction when I came to the Macintoshes 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, especially the master bedroom upstairs, I think that had a in-yourface blockage, even though I know you've offered to put in privacy windows, which I think is a good idea.

I think board member Coveny'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. 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. So I think maybe just tweaking the master bedroom. I did not get to see the view from 480 Robles with Mr.

Amos, but I agree that I don't think you're going to have a problem with the landscaping that's there. And I guess with that, I'll leave it to the rest of the board. But I think just a couple of tweaks and you're almost there. I'd like to say this is a one and done, but I think there might be just a few minor changes.

Chair Gannon:

Do you guys have direction, clear direction? Any clarification? Drew Blake:

I think so. If you'd like to say a word about [inaudible 00:46:22]? Chair Gannon:

You don't have to say a word. If you have a question. Yeah, we're not opening the public hearing. Just if you have a question or have a clarification question.

Steve McIntosh:

Yeah. Well, a question. Kristine, you said master bedroom. That's not their master in the corner there by [inaudible 00:46:38].

Chair Gannon:

No, she was saying your master bedroom.

Steve McIntosh:

Oh, ours. Yeah.

Chair Gannon:

Yeah.
146
146 of 425

Page 14 of 16 ends

Steve McIntosh:

Okay. But yeah, light and air. Some of the photos we had, we've been pretty much living in the dark. It's a massive house andChair Gannon:

This isn't a discussion. Do you have any questions for us, any clarification questions, or a direction? Steve McIntosh:

Well, okay.

Chair Gannon:

So no further questions?
Steve McIntosh:

Clarification?
Chair Gannon:

When would you like to come back, Mr. Blake?
Drew Blake:

I think we need a little time. What's the calendar availability? Board Member Weil:

Probably looking at April.

James Campbell:

Well, a lot of this depends upon how long it will take to redesign based on the board's direction. So we have two meetings a month, and so we can slide you in when you're ready. It won't take us long to review the plans, but prepare another staff report.

Drew Blake:

You need to have it in a month before the hearing?
Drew Blake:

That would be appropriate. Yes. That would give us adequate time.

James Campbell:

I'm going to probably say maybe May, that'd be end of May or something? James Campbell:

And Chair Gannon, if I may, does the board want re-staking for any redesign elements? 147
147 of 425

Page 15 of 16 ends

Chair Gannon:

I would appreciate re-staking, yes.

James Campbell:

Is that a consensus [inaudible 00:47:47]?
Board Member Gibbs:

I don't need re-staking, but from their comments, clearly re-staking is going to be necessary. Second of all, you need to pick a meeting date and then it'll give you a time to file your plans.

James Campbell:

So Chair, May 22nd would be available.

Chair Gannon:

Okay. Does that work with you guys?
Board Member Weil:

Plans to you, roughly, April 22nd?
James Campbell:

No, we would like to see the plans in advance of that. So you'd need to have those ready by the end of April, preferably sooner.

Drew Blake:

Yeah, right. Let's give it a shot.

Board Member Weil:

Chair, I'll move item number 5.5 at 607 Short Street to continue to May 22nd, 2025 pending the board's discussion and deliberation.

Chair Gannon:

I'll second that. Board member Coveny, we're taking a vote. Board member Coveny? Board Member Coveny:

Yes.

Chair Gannon:

Board member Gibbs?
Board Member Gibbs:

Yes.
148
148 of 425

Page 16 of 16 ends

Chair Gannon:

Board member Weil?
Board Member Weil:

Yes.

Chair Gannon:

Board chair Thalman?
Chair Pro Tem Thalman:

Yes.

Chair Gannon:

Chair Gannon?
Chair Gannon:

Yes.

Chair Gannon:

Motion carries.

Board Member Gibbs:

Thank you.

Chair Gannon:

Thank you guys.

Drew Blake:

Okay. Thanks, guys. Appreciate it. Thanks for all your comments and help.

Chair Gannon:

See you in May.
149
149 of 425
From: Jeffrey Amos
To: Gannon, Jessica; Gibbs, Thomas; Coveny, Mary Jo; Thalman, Kristine; Weil, Louis Cc: Sharma, Shaveta CD; Ballard, Maria CD; Jung, Wendy CD; Campbell, James CD; [email protected]; [email protected]; Todd Brooks
Subject: Concerns Regarding the McIntosh Remodel in 607 Short Street Date: Thursday, February 27, 2025 8:57:13 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.] Dear Design Review Board Chair Gannon and Board Members, Todd and I wanted to provide our comments and perspective in advance of the Design Review meeting later today.

Thank you for taking the time to consider our concerns regarding the proposed remodel of our neighbors, the McIntosh family.

We appreciate the opportunity to share our perspective, as we know these decisions require careful thought. We’ve had a good relationship with Steve McIntosh and his family since they moved in and fully support their desire to improve their home. However, we have concerns about how the addition and ADU will affect our property, particularly in terms of privacy.

We have lived in our home for 25 years, and one of the things we’ve always valued most is the privacy and openness of our backyard. The proposed second-story addition and ADU are very close to our property, and their placement significantly impacts both the sense of privacy and the overall enjoyment of our outdoor space. The second floor, in particular, looms directly over our back patio, creating a much more enclosed feeling than we’ve ever had before. It also blocks our view of the hill, which has been an important and cherished feature of our home.

We wonder if there is any flexibility in the plans that could help mitigate these effects. Even a small pullback of certain elements might make a meaningful difference in maintaining privacy and helping the new structure blend more smoothly with the surrounding properties. We know that Steve and his family have put a great deal of thought into their remodel, and we respect that. We simply hope that a compromise can be found that allows them to move forward with their improvements while also considering the long-standing character and privacy of our home.

We have always valued being part of this neighborhood and maintaining a good relationship with our neighbors. We trust that we can work together to find a solution that respects everyone’s needs.

Thank you again for your time and consideration, and we look forward to discussing this further.

Thank you,
Jeff & Todd
_____________________
Jeffrey W. Amos, Ph.D.

Partner
Clear Oak Multifamily Investments, LLC
480 Los Robles
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
(949) 637 5983 cell
Attachment 8
150
150 of 425
View Jeffrey Amos's digital business card.
151
151 of 425
From: Julie Maison
To: Jung, Wendy CD
Subject: McIntosh remodel
Date: Monday, February 24, 2025 1:52:54 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.] Hello Ms. Jung,
We are Laguna Beach residents of 565 Legion Street, neighbors of Steve and Vicki McIntosh.

They have graciously shown us their plans to remodel and we are in support and have no objections to the project.

Best regards,
Julie and Skip Maison
949-422-1097
152
152 of 425
From: Jeffrey Amos
To: Gannon, Jessica; Gibbs, Thomas; Coveny, Mary Jo; Thalman, Kristine; Weil, Louis Cc: Sharma, Shaveta CD; Ballard, Maria CD; Jung, Wendy CD; Campbell, James CD; [email protected]; [email protected]; Todd Brooks
Subject: Concerns Regarding the McIntosh Remodel in 607 Short Street Date: Thursday, February 27, 2025 8:57:13 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.] Dear Design Review Board Chair Gannon and Board Members, Todd and I wanted to provide our comments and perspective in advance of the Design Review meeting later today.

Thank you for taking the time to consider our concerns regarding the proposed remodel of our neighbors, the McIntosh family.

We have always valued being part of this neighborhood and maintaining a good relationship with our neighbors. We trust that we can work together to find a solution that respects everyone’s needs.

Thank you again for your time and consideration, and we look forward to discussing this further.

Thank you,
Jeff & Todd
_____________________
Jeffrey W. Amos, Ph.D.

Partner
Clear Oak Multifamily Investments, LLC
480 Los Robles
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
(949) 637 5983 cell
153
153 of 425
View Jeffrey Amos's digital business card.
154
154 of 425
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2025 2:44 PM
To: Gannon, Jessica <[email protected]>; Gibbs, Thomas <[email protected]>; Coveny, Mary Jo <[email protected]>; Thalman, Kristine <[email protected]>; Weil, Louis <[email protected]> Cc: Jung, Wendy CD <[email protected]>
Subject: 607 Short St. Remodel
[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 Chair Gannon and Board Members, Vicki and I would like to thank the board for taking a look at our remodel.

Let me just first say that I do not envy the tasks undertaken by the board. It is not easy and is difficult to weed through all the static to see what is real and what is not.

In our over 22 years in our house, it has been our dream to add onto our home and have a second floor with a ocean view. (Since we don’t have one at all) We started the process 3 years after moving in and had to put it on hold several times.

All 5 of our neighbors have 2nd stories, and all have decks, one with 3! In hopes of clearing some things up, we would like to address several statements being made or what’s being left out about us, our project, and our neighbors.

There were several conversations between Miles Mahoney and myself that were not entirely addressed correctly in the letters from the them.

In several chats over the years, including right after they moved in, I mentioned that we have had plans to remodel and add a second floor. Miles replied then and several times since, including when I showed him our final plans in September of 24, “I have never understood how people can be told what they can or cannot build on their property”. He also stated that Ali will not like it but will get over it.

When meeting with the Mahoneys, we have shown nothing but empathy for them. We explained we have had this plan and dream for over 22 years. 155
155 of 425
All of the previous owners of 615 knew about our dream. They all said, wouldn’t be our first choice, but we get it. You are our friends, and we want you to enjoy the ocean views we have. All said they will still have a great view out of the master bedroom, bathroom, deck and back bedroom.

All those great views at 615 have been left out of their letters, making it sound like the secondary, North facing bedroom windows are the only views they have.

When meeting, with the Mahoneys, they explained their concerns about views and privacy. I was never asked what would you do if I were in their shoes? I volunteered it. Several times I stated, “I get it, I wouldn’t be happy either. But I would understand that as a friend, I would want you to have your dream”.

The statement that the height and placement of the new structure allow for direct visibility into their bedrooms, bathrooms, spa and living room is just not true.

As we have stated 10 times, the windows on the upper side of our proposed addition facing the Mahoneys, are 2 small bathroom windows and 2 reduced column windows, all can be frosted and one in the stairwell, There is also a major row of their trees that block any views into their backyard spa. Their living room windows are 12” square. Just nonsense.

In fact, we cannot open our shades or blinds on our current first floor windows because they can see in from both their first floor and 2nd floor windows. In addition, their massively, scaled house blocks casts a shadow on our house most of the day. But we have lived with it, as that what good neighbors do. It is part of living in a tight, densely populated area.

Many times, we have discussed privacy with the Mahoneys and explained what we did to eliminate that issue for them.

They asked us to let another architect look at alternatives, etc. We said no thank you. What we explained is that there are very few alternatives since we are remodeling, not rebuilding.

They suggested we “flip” the design. We spoke to our architect again to see if there was any way he thought that could work. It does not work for many reasons. The irony is that in the “flipped” scenario, our small deck and all 7 of our windows would be facing the Mahony’s 3 156
156 of 425
windows! Absolutely NO privacy for either house and a violation of DRB Guidelines that say; Outdoor living spaces should not be placed to reduce privacy of nearby homes. In this “flip” suggestion, I did not say the views weren’t as good, I said the view corridor is not there. The view corridor is where we designed the addition to see.

The statement that the Mahoneys would not have bought that house had we already built years ago, does not hold water. When they described wanting that house over the years, the bedroom views never came up. The location, back ocean views, the style of house and the 4 bedrooms also did.

We decided a long time ago we would not play the over-design game and “scale back” to what we want. Trusting the system to recognize when concessions have been made outside being ordered to do so. We have done just that, to make many adjustments on our own for our neighbor’s privacy, views, etc.

While not popular with some, our addition has NO variances, and is basically within the envelope of the existing house.

The Design Review Criteria states; While a property may enjoy a specific view today, that experience may change as surrounding properties are developed. A balance of interests should be achieved in which all those who enjoy the view, retain some access to it.

When a neighbor has enjoyed primary, ocean views for years and will still maintain them, and another has none, what is a balance, when there are secondary views that will not be totally lost?
There is also a mention of buying next to an empty lot or small house, that they might be built or remodeled.

I trust the board’s understanding and fairness will recognize what we have done to make our project fit all the design criteria.

Thank you for your time.

Regards,
Steve & Vicki McIntosh
157
157 of 425
158
158 of 425
From: jeanne meyers
To: Gannon, Jessica; Gibbs, Thomas; Coveny, Mary Jo; Thalman, Kristine; Ballard, Maria CD; Jung, Wendy CD; Campbell, James CD; [email protected]; Alison Mahoney Subject: McIntosh - Design Review input for 607 Short Street...

Date: Tuesday, February 25, 2025 8:14:27 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 Chair Gannon and Board Members – Thank you for taking into consideration my POV re the Second Story addition of the MacIntosh home.

I appreciate that the neighbors want to increase the size of their home and take advantage of ocean views.

I have lived at 472 los robles since 1998. I have enjoyed privacy in my backyard until neighbors on Legion were given permission to add a small second story addition to their home renovation with the understanding that they would keep the privacy hedge between our properties.

They did not. The city enforced the ruling and they hauled in large trees / shrubs that protected our privacy.

A few years later they trimmed the scrubs and the city did not enforce the ruling.

Now this addition poses a similar but more significant impact on our backyard privacy.

Attached are images of stakes from my POV.

Appreciate the opportunity to share this info as you consider the addition. jeanne meyers
472 los robles
Laguna Beach, Ca. 92651
159
159 of 425
160
160 of 425
161
161 of 425
162
162 of 425
From: Steven Chidester <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2025 2:44 PM
To: Jung, Wendy CD <[email protected]>
Subject: 607 Short Street Remodel
[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.] Hello !
We are Steven and Margaret Chidester.

We live at 555 Legion Street, Laguna Beach.

We have known Steve & Vickie McIntosh, the owners of 607 Short Street for many years and appreciate their concern for our community.

We have met with Steve and Vickie to review the plans for their remodel and believe it will be an attractive addition to our neighborhood.

Steve and Vickie were very concerned and considerate about the privacy of all their neighbors in planning their remodel.

We support their remodel and hope it will be approved as planned.

Please contact us if you have any questions.

Thank you !
Steven R. Chidester
714 651 8687
Steven R. Chidester, Esq.

I am writing in support of the remodel of 607 Short St. My property is next to and to the North, at the corner of Legion, Park and Short.

I believe the design is wonderful and a great fit in and for the neighborhood. I feel they are entitled to do this addition to the property. I know they have wanted to do this for a long time.

The McIntoshes have been very communicative with me and have made sure I understood what they were planning. They have been careful in making sure I am happy and comfortable with my privacy.

I am in support of the project.

Thank you,
Malinda Howard
165
165 of 425
From: Alison Mahoney
To: Gannon, Jessica; Gibbs, Thomas; Coveny, Mary Jo; Thalman, Kristine; Weil, Louis Cc: Sharma, Shaveta CD; Ballard, Maria CD; Jung, Wendy CD; Campbell, James CD; Miles Mahoney Subject: McIntosh - Design Review input for 607 Short Street...

Date: Sunday, February 23, 2025 3:56:26 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 Chair Gannon and Board Members - I wanted to provide my comments and perspective in advance of our meetings this week, and the Design Review meeting on Thursday.

We have lived in Laguna for 15 years in several homes. Miles and believe all our neighbors should be able to make improvements to their homes and we are not opposed to reasonable and thoughtful improvements.

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, graduations, parties and we initiated and collaborated to get speed bumps put in on our street. I am hopeful that there is a productive and thoughtful way forward for us.

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

From the point the McIntoshes let us know they had a design plan drafted and asked usto sit down and give 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, they asked and 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 views and light. Our lot and theirs have a smaller easement, and our homes are sited at the same elevation. Their proposed plan represents a significant impact to our views, privacy and our continued 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 don’t use our upstairs space for sleeping only. 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. In addition, our teenage kids work and study from their rooms. Our adult daughter has been displaced 166
166 of 425
from LA and living with us. Even from our Master Bedroom bathtub and toilet, we can see their proposed home and they also see us. This is an intrusion of our privacy.

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 unnecessarily reduce the size/scale of their upstairs in advance or tolerate more expenses or delays to starting their major rebuild. The McIntoshes also said in conversation that making any adjustments to 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 of their acknowledgement and substantiate the value we both place on 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 these points into consideration and not reduce or take away from 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.

Please reach out for any questions or clarification, Sincerely - Alison Mahoney (949)212-6552
167
167 of 425
From: [email protected]
To: Gannon, Jessica; Gibbs, Thomas; Coveny, Mary Jo; Thalman, Kristine; Weil, Louis Cc: Sharma, Shaveta CD; Ballard, Maria CD; Jung, Wendy CD; Campbell, James CD; [email protected]; "Alison Mahoney"
Subject: McIntosh - Design Review input for 607 Short Street...

Date: Sunday, February 23, 2025 4:02:34 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 Chair Gannon and Board Members – Thank you for taking into consideration our point of view on the Second Story addition of the MacIntosh home. This has been a very difficult process for Alison, me and our children as we have enjoyed a friendship and love the McIntosh Family 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 and 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 the McIntosh’s are proposing.

Firstly, the new structure will block the sunlight and open airspace that provides privacy and quality to our daily lives. We cherished the natural light and air that fills our home from the northwest side of our house, and without it, it will feel much darker, very closed off and less inviting. I am confident that a solution can be found that allows the McIntoshs to proceed with their remodeling while also preserving our access to sunlight, which is a significant aspect of the enjoyment of living here.

Secondly, the construction will obstruct our views, for 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. (which we can argue is our main living space) The view of the water and nature has been a peaceful aspect of our daily life, and it would be really disheartening to see it disappearing. I wanted to express how important this view is to our family, not just as a luxury, but as a part of what makes my home special. In fact on one occasion, we asked Vicky and Steve, just like some 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 are proposing” and Steve responded, “I would be upset”. 168
168 of 425
But it’s not only our views that are under threat. Our privacy is and will be impeded. The addition of the second story has led to a lack of privacy in certain areas of our property. I feel that the height and placement of the new structure allow for direct visibility into our home (downstairs living room and every bedroom, including bathroom upstairs, our backyard SPA and living area). This has made us feel less comfortable and secure in our own home. I believe this was unintended, but I wanted to suggest finding a development plan that allows improvements without removing the reasons we chose our home and location. In a separate dialogue, Steve asked us if we would have purchased the home if the view from all 3 rooms upstairs was NOT available and our answer was NO….We spent nearly 5 years looking for a 4 bed property, with a view and we found it, now we are at risk to lose it all and are asking the Board to NOT allow the McIntosh’s to build a second story wall along the north side of our home, and offer suggestions of expanding their downstairs and/or simply move the existing second story structure to the other side of their home (north side). When faced with that proposal, Steve said “The Views aren’t as nice”.

Let me be absolutely clear: This addition is not a mere aesthetic change- it’s a complete violation of the quality of life that residents like us have chosen to enjoy in this very community. 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 the McIntosh’s can find an alternative way to have their remodel without changing our way of life, our privacy and happiness we get from the current layout of both homes.

Thank you for taking the time to listen to our concerns. I appreciate your understanding, and I’m looking forward to discussing how we can move forward in a way that respects both of our spaces.

Please reach out for any questions, Sincerely - Miles
(949) 482-8540
169
169 of 425
-----Original Message-----
From: steve kawaratani <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2025 2:54 PM
To: Jessica Gannon <[email protected]>; Mary Jo & Steve Coveny <[email protected]>; Gibbs, Thomas <[email protected]>; Weil, Louis <[email protected]> Cc: Olsen, Sarah CD <[email protected]>; Sharma, Shaveta CD <[email protected]>; Latham, Daniel CD <[email protected]>; Jung, Wendy CD <[email protected]>; Campbell, James CD <[email protected]> Subject: 5.4 - 446 Holly St., 5.5 - 607 Short St., 5.6 514 Poplar St. [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 afternoon, Chair Gannon and Board members,
This week, I am taking a break from being an applicant to represent neighbors who have concerns and objections regarding three projects that impact their enjoyment of views and create excessive or inappropriate massing. As the Board is aware, even the best neighbors can disagree when self-interest comes into play.

Gina Watson, who lives at 452 Holly Street, is concerned about the proposed walk-in closet, which would obstruct views from her master bedroom and create awkward massing that appears dissimilar to the existing residence. Gina requests that the Board consider reducing the size of the walk-in closet, pulling it further away from her property, and lowering it to improve view equity and reduce massing.

Alison and Miles Mahoney, residents of 615 Short Street, are significantly affected by the initial iteration of a design that places a large addition adjacent to their home, negatively impacting their views, air, and light. They urge the Board to review the excessive and inappropriate massing and encourage the applicant to take their neighbors' perspectives into account during the design process.

Lastly, Danny and Kathy Botros, who own the property at 528 Poplar Street, raise concerns regarding the proposed project that requires a variance for driveway slope. They believe that the story poles reveal a severe impact on their views from their living and dining rooms that cannot be legally justified. We believe that the Board will find that view equity has not been achieved in this case.

I would like to meet with you onsite this coming week; I am available after 930 am on Tuesday and anytime on Wednesday or Thursday. I am coordinating appointments with Gina and Danny & Kathy so please schedule appointments with me.

Enjoy a fabulous weekend!
Best,
Steve
170
170 of 425
From: jeanne meyers
To: Gannon, Jessica; Gibbs, Thomas; Coveny, Mary Jo; Thalman, Kristine; Ballard, Maria CD; Jung, Wendy CD; Campbell, James CD; [email protected]; Alison Mahoney Subject: McIntosh - Design Review input for 607 Short Street...

I appreciate that the neighbors want to increase the size of their home and take advantage of ocean views.

They did not. The city enforced the ruling and they hauled in large trees / shrubs that protected our privacy.

A few years later they trimmed the scrubs and the city did not enforce the ruling.

Now this addition poses a similar but more significant impact on our backyard privacy.

Attached are images of stakes from my POV.

Appreciate the opportunity to share this info as you consider the addition. jeanne meyers
472 los robles
Laguna Beach, Ca. 92651
171
171 of 425
172
172 of 425
173
173 of 425
174
174 of 425
From: Julie Maison
To: Jung, Wendy CD
Subject: McIntosh remodel
Date: Monday, February 24, 2025 1:52:54 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.] Hello Ms. Jung,
We are Laguna Beach residents of 565 Legion Street, neighbors of Steve and Vicki McIntosh.

They have graciously shown us their plans to remodel and we are in support and have no objections to the project.

Best regards,
Julie and Skip Maison
949-422-1097
175
175 of 425
From: malinda howard <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2025 10:50 AM
To: Jung, Wendy CD <[email protected]>
Subject: Design Review Board - 607 Short Street
[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.] Hello,
My name is Malinda Howard. I live at 585 Legion St. and have for 28 years.

I am writing in support of the remodel of 607 Short St. My property is next to and to the North, at the corner of Legion, Park and Short.

I believe the design is wonderful and a great fit in and for the neighborhood. I feel they are entitled to do this addition to the property. I know they have wanted to do this for a long time.

The McIntoshes have been very communicative with me and have made sure I understood what they were planning. They have been careful in making sure I am happy and comfortable with my privacy.

I am in support of the project.

Thank you,
Malinda Howard
176
176 of 425
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2025 2:44 PM
To: Gannon, Jessica <[email protected]>; Gibbs, Thomas <[email protected]>; Coveny, Mary Jo <[email protected]>; Thalman, Kristine <[email protected]>; Weil, Louis <[email protected]> Cc: Jung, Wendy CD <[email protected]>
Subject: 607 Short St. Remodel
[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 Chair Gannon and Board Members, Vicki and I would like to thank the board for taking a look at our remodel.

Let me just first say that I do not envy the tasks undertaken by the board. It is not easy and is difficult to weed through all the static to see what is real and what is not.

There were several conversations between Miles Mahoney and myself that were not entirely addressed correctly in the letters from the them.

When meeting with the Mahoneys, we have shown nothing but empathy for them. We explained we have had this plan and dream for over 22 years. 177
177 of 425
All of the previous owners of 615 knew about our dream. They all said, wouldn’t be our first choice, but we get it. You are our friends, and we want you to enjoy the ocean views we have. All said they will still have a great view out of the master bedroom, bathroom, deck and back bedroom.

All those great views at 615 have been left out of their letters, making it sound like the secondary, North facing bedroom windows are the only views they have.

The statement that the height and placement of the new structure allow for direct visibility into their bedrooms, bathrooms, spa and living room is just not true.

Many times, we have discussed privacy with the Mahoneys and explained what we did to eliminate that issue for them.

They asked us to let another architect look at alternatives, etc. We said no thank you. What we explained is that there are very few alternatives since we are remodeling, not rebuilding.

They suggested we “flip” the design. We spoke to our architect again to see if there was any way he thought that could work. It does not work for many reasons. The irony is that in the “flipped” scenario, our small deck and all 7 of our windows would be facing the Mahony’s 3 178
178 of 425
windows! Absolutely NO privacy for either house and a violation of DRB Guidelines that say; Outdoor living spaces should not be placed to reduce privacy of nearby homes. In this “flip” suggestion, I did not say the views weren’t as good, I said the view corridor is not there. The view corridor is where we designed the addition to see.

While not popular with some, our addition has NO variances, and is basically within the envelope of the existing house.

I trust the board’s understanding and fairness will recognize what we have done to make our project fit all the design criteria.

Thank you for your time.

Regards,
Steve & Vicki McIntosh
179
179 of 425
180
180 of 425
From: Steven Chidester <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2025 2:44 PM
To: Jung, Wendy CD <[email protected]>
Subject: 607 Short Street Remodel
[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.] Hello !
We are Steven and Margaret Chidester.

We live at 555 Legion Street, Laguna Beach.

We have known Steve & Vickie McIntosh, the owners of 607 Short Street for many years and appreciate their concern for our community.

We have met with Steve and Vickie to review the plans for their remodel and believe it will be an attractive addition to our neighborhood.

Steve and Vickie were very concerned and considerate about the privacy of all their neighbors in planning their remodel.

We support their remodel and hope it will be approved as planned.

Please contact us if you have any questions.

Thank you !
Steven R. Chidester
714 651 8687
Steven R. Chidester, Esq.

Managing Partner
Law Offices of
Margaret A. Chidester & Associates
2151 Michelson Drive, Suite 260
Irvine, CA 92612-1369
(949) 474-5040
Fax: (949) 474-8540
E-mail: [email protected]
181
181 of 425
This e-mail is from a law firm and may contain information that is privileged and/or confidential, including, without limitation, attorney-client privileged communication(s) and/or confidential attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. If you believe that you have received this e-mail message in error, please e-mail the sender and delete all copies. 182
182 of 425
-----Original Message-----
From: steve kawaratani <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2025 2:54 PM
To: Jessica Gannon <[email protected]>; Mary Jo & Steve Coveny <[email protected]>; Gibbs, Thomas <[email protected]>; Weil, Louis <[email protected]> Cc: Olsen, Sarah CD <[email protected]>; Sharma, Shaveta CD <[email protected]>; Latham, Daniel CD <[email protected]>; Jung, Wendy CD <[email protected]>; Campbell, James CD <[email protected]> Subject: 5.4 - 446 Holly St., 5.5 - 607 Short St., 5.6 514 Poplar St. [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 afternoon, Chair Gannon and Board members,
This week, I am taking a break from being an applicant to represent neighbors who have concerns and objections regarding three projects that impact their enjoyment of views and create excessive or inappropriate massing. As the Board is aware, even the best neighbors can disagree when self-interest comes into play.

Enjoy a fabulous weekend!
Best,
Steve
183
183 of 425
From: Alison Mahoney
To: Gannon, Jessica; Gibbs, Thomas; Coveny, Mary Jo; Thalman, Kristine; Weil, Louis Cc: Sharma, Shaveta CD; Ballard, Maria CD; Jung, Wendy CD; Campbell, James CD; Miles Mahoney Subject: McIntosh - Design Review input for 607 Short Street...

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

We don’t use our upstairs space for sleeping only. 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. In addition, our teenage kids work and study from their rooms. Our adult daughter has been displaced 184
184 of 425
from LA and living with us. Even from our Master Bedroom bathtub and toilet, we can see their proposed home and they also see us. This is an intrusion of our privacy.

Please reach out for any questions or clarification, Sincerely - Alison Mahoney (949)212-6552
185
185 of 425
From: [email protected]
To: Gannon, Jessica; Gibbs, Thomas; Coveny, Mary Jo; Thalman, Kristine; Weil, Louis Cc: Sharma, Shaveta CD; Ballard, Maria CD; Jung, Wendy CD; Campbell, James CD; [email protected]; "Alison Mahoney"
Subject: McIntosh - Design Review input for 607 Short Street...

Secondly, the construction will obstruct our views, for 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. (which we can argue is our main living space) The view of the water and nature has been a peaceful aspect of our daily life, and it would be really disheartening to see it disappearing. I wanted to express how important this view is to our family, not just as a luxury, but as a part of what makes my home special. In fact on one occasion, we asked Vicky and Steve, just like some 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 are proposing” and Steve responded, “I would be upset”. 186
186 of 425
But it’s not only our views that are under threat. Our privacy is and will be impeded. The addition of the second story has led to a lack of privacy in certain areas of our property. I feel that the height and placement of the new structure allow for direct visibility into our home (downstairs living room and every bedroom, including bathroom upstairs, our backyard SPA and living area). This has made us feel less comfortable and secure in our own home. I believe this was unintended, but I wanted to suggest finding a development plan that allows improvements without removing the reasons we chose our home and location. In a separate dialogue, Steve asked us if we would have purchased the home if the view from all 3 rooms upstairs was NOT available and our answer was NO….We spent nearly 5 years looking for a 4 bed property, with a view and we found it, now we are at risk to lose it all and are asking the Board to NOT allow the McIntosh’s to build a second story wall along the north side of our home, and offer suggestions of expanding their downstairs and/or simply move the existing second story structure to the other side of their home (north side). When faced with that proposal, Steve said “The Views aren’t as nice”.

Thank you for taking the time to listen to our concerns. I appreciate your understanding, and I’m looking forward to discussing how we can move forward in a way that respects both of our spaces.

Please reach out for any questions, Sincerely - Miles
(949) 482-8540
187
187 of 425

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT
June 26, 2025
Agenda Item No. 5.7
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, by motion, adopt Resolution 24-1572 (Attachment 1) 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, and finding said action exempt pursuant to 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, because the project involves modest improvements to 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 located within a developed neighborhood with all facilities provided and access existing to the parcel.

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.

Attachment 9
188
188 of 425
DR 24-1572, CDP 24-1688
June 26, 2025

Page 2 ends

Laguna Beach City CouncilDecember 9, 2025

Laguna Beach City Council
December 9, 2025