McIntosh 607 Short St. Project 12/3/2025
Denial Appeal
DRB Member Comments and Contradictions
When building the upper floor to the back end of our house on the South side, to capture the view corridor towards the north coastline, and bird rock, the secondary view to the hills from our neighbor’s spare bedroom / office to the South would be impacted, along with a center bedroom. The jest of the 1st DRB hearing recommendations, were to “pull back some” to help with the side window view from that room. Our neighbors the Mahoneys, hired “lobbyist” Steve Kawaritani to help limit us from developing our property.
Some DRB members have expressed personal, and subjective opinions, well outside DRB guidelines, before and at the 1st hearing and then made contradictory statements at the 2nd and or 3rd hearings.
Board Member / Chair Jessica Gannon
Then Chair Gannon was invited to our house before the February 27, 2025 hearing. I spotted her in front of our house and went out to say introduce myself and to say hello.
I asked if she was coming in and she said she didn’t need to, as she had spoken to our Architect Drew Blake. I could see Board Member Coveny, who did visit the day before, talking with Steve Kawaritani, next door. I stated to Gannon that she really needed to see our home, to hear what we have to say, since they were listening to Kawaritani.
She left saying she would try and come back later. She did come back in a few hours.
One of the first things she stated was that our design would dramatically reduce the value of the Mahoney’s property. This is an absolute, personal opinion, extremely subjective and way outside of any Design Review guidelines that we have found.
At the First design review hearing on February 27, 2025, at the beginning of Board Comments, Chair Gannon stated in response to a quote about privacy and the DRB Guidelines we made;
“I'm ready for comments so also included in the design review guidelines is uh view blockage that includes not only the ocean but a Hillside and the photo that I took in that that primary room which is now being used as an office yes it has that peekaboo view of the ocean but the for me that I noticed that it has a phenomenal and I I should have submitted this to the city and and I will after tonight's meeting so it's on public record but that Hillside is absolutely gorgeous and it would completely and I'm saying everything that I'm going to say now I said to you and when we met that would signific significantly devalue that property next door” Gannon references view blockage as part of the DRB guidelines. We could not find that anywhere. Other than Don’t block Primary Views.
The “Primary Room” she is referring to is a back corner guest bedroom / office where Mrs. Mahoney works ALONE in. This room has a great PRIMARY ocean view out the very large back window. Quite a bit more substantial than peekaboo. (Photos later below)
Gannon again, doubled down on the devaluing of the neighboring property.
Before the 2nd DRB hearing June 26, 2025, Gannon submitted a photo to our architect Drew Blake, taken from the Mahoney’s back corner, guest bedroom / office, out the secondary side window. She drew a red line, saying that we needed to build behind it in order to get her approval. This would allow us only 10’ from the line to the loadbearing wall to build on. We would have to demo the chimney, the wall, etc. At that point it would be easier to demolish the house and rebuild.
The orange lines are
load bearing walls.
Outside them are
porch overhangs.
Gannon also
sent over her
idea of what
our house
should look
like and we
should build.
During the 2nd June 26 hearing, Gannon stated the following:
“I'll start with the red line that you presented tonight i stand by that red line it would still not preserve that mountain view it would be a taking but at least it would be a compromise uh in my viewpoint my professionalism um the way that I view property and evaluate property if if it devalues somebody else's property then something needs to change and I think that uh where that red line is I'm going to stand strong on that red line because it won't preserve all of that uh mountain view but it'll protect the majority of it it'll also help with light and air.” Gannon also doubles down on her red line, even after we made a presentation showing that we would have a very narrow area to build on, so it’s not feasible.
Also, for the third time, she uses subjective, property values as a guideline.
She Continues:
“the other issue I have is the articulation on that side there you have a two story straight up and down wall there's no articulation facing the the house the neighbor's house so view equity hasn't been achieved the articulation hasn't been achieved um I don't find it neighborhood compatible because of the articulation that house you're in the village so I think uh a def a different design also you presented a design of another house that stretched across um as I recommended in the first meeting that's something that would be neighborhood compatible”
Our South wall facing the Mahoneys, has stucco on the lower floor, horizontal, wide Hardie board siding on the upper, with a large eyebrow separating them. There is a 10’ step and front articulation that is seen from the side. We were asked to reduce the amount of windows and sizes, for privacy and did that, which of course makes the wall more plain. Almost half of the wall is obscured by the Mahoney’s large hedge, that is sometimes as tall as halfway up where the upper floor would be. In addition, there is a lower separating fence / wall. (There will be gutters, downspouts, electrical boxes, added)
The following are some exterior walls in the neighborhood that have less articulation than ours would. This shows that low articulation side walls are common in our neighborhood.
615 Short Backyard with the
wall to their South that is 53’
long, with little articulation
Front of 615 Short St. Next Door
Neighborhood Houses
Several times during the 2nd hearing, Gannon interrupted now Chair Gibbs and stated she did not think we should have a 3rd hearing.
3rd Hearing October 10, 2025:
Gannon comes out aggressive from the start, stating the following:
“Overall, um, this doesn't meet the minimum requirements for design integrity, design articulation, neighborhood compatibility, or view equity.” Gannon’s subjective assessment that our design does not meet any of the minimum requirements is just not accurate. This statement is 180 degrees off from other board members and the professional City staff who have consistently stated the opposite.
“Um, the removal of the tree in the front was for your benefit as the homeowner. It it was a negative impact on your foundation. Um, although I do recognize that it also opens up that view with the secondary bedroom.”
Gannon acknowledges that the side view from the front bedroom is opened up by the giant tree removal after saying the removal was for our benefit. “As far as um neighborhood compatibility, design articulation and integrity, they kind of all go hand in hand. Uh this design does a disservice to the neighborhood.” A heavily heavily trafficked neighborhood by both out of towners and residents.” Gannon’s open and unprofessional attacks on our design is indicative of the attitude she has had towards us from the first minute we met. The statement that the neighborhood is used by out of towners and residents is trying to set us up for future claims to inhibit the development of our property.
Gannon defiantly claims:
“Nowhere in this neighborhood is there a design where the upper level overloads one side of the home.”
Had she actually done research, she would have seen several homes that have second floors built to one side. Including the one right next door! (Our second floor plan is 66% across the width of the house, not just on one side) Neighbor to the North, right next door
Or this one around the corner on El Camino Del Mar
Board Member Louis Weil
Weil was invited to visit our house but did not respond.
We contacted him by getting his number through a former DRB member, before the first hearing.
On the phone Weil stated he can get most of what he needs from Google Earth. This is after he had met with Steve Kawaritani and the neighbors next door to the South.
First DRB Hearing - February 27, 2025
Louis Weil Statement from meeting transcript:
“You've got an architect that really embodied the style of the existing home and really tried to bring the characteristics to life and enhance it so I can see that and those careful components into the design….”
“At times in a lot of areas in town we try to encourage this kind of “popup” design but I think the way the extension is on just the one side I think it is creating some impacts especially into the rear side of the lot….” “Looking at the aerial from the two lots neighboring you've got kind of the momies (Mahoneys) on one side and the property on the other, their second level doesn't quite extend nearly as far as the one you're proposing so what I was trying to look at was kind of a reasonable string line so you kind of keep that opening available for not only the momies (Mahoneys) but the other side, but then it affords you the reasonable development kind of beyond that lack of better term stringline. I'd like to see something closer to that doesn't mean you have to get to that exact line I'm just saying that's where I'm kind of drawing reasonability within the design at this point”
Translating, Weil stated that while we encourage the “Pop-Up” in other areas of town, just not in this case. He just needed to visit the neighbor to the North to see that a pop up is exactly what they built! Stating that they are not as far back as we wanted to build. They added their second floor as close to their lot line as possible, with setbacks. Our lot is 20 to 35’ deeper than theirs.
Weil uses that second floor to the North, as reference for a loosely, hand drawn, angled, “stringline” to the Mahoneys. Saying he would like to see something closer to that, but that doesn’t mean we have to get to that exact line.
Weil’s “Stringline”
Below is an accurate stringline we created, referencing off the same 2nd floor neighbor, showing how all the other homes were able to use the depth of their lots and built well beyond “the stringline”. Our original design was approx. 5’ beyond this straight stringline.
2nd Hearing – June 26, 2025
We made adjustments to our design based on the recommendations of board members at our February Hearing. We pulled our Master bedroom back 5’ from the original design. This shortened the South side by 2’ and shifted towards the street 3’.
We removed a large South facing lower window from the stairwell for privacy for the Mahoneys. We removed a massive tree, from the SE corner of our house. This opened up never before seen views to the hills above Park, etc. Not to mention light and air.
Weil was invited again and this time he did visit our home, saw our proposed revisions of a 5’ additional pullback, and suggested a design through a hand drawn sketch. (See below) He suggested we move our Master back an additional 10’. Totally contradicting his statement in the first hearing and well behind “his stringline”. He suggested making the center family room section bigger by enlarging towards the street and to the North.
Saying “we have a lot of area to build on.” He promptly went next door, met with Kawaratani and afterwards, they drove off together. Not good optics.
LOUIS WEIL’S DRAWING FROM THE 2nd JUNE 26 HEARING, OVERLAYED ON OUR UPPER FLOORPLAN SHOWING OUR 5’ PULLBACK:
Enlarged family room.
Our 5’ pullback from
June 26 DRB.
Weil added the Green arrow showing the neighbor’s view from the side window along the view corridor, which they have from all the back windows and deck. (Again, as we retreat back, we move out of the view corridor)
Weil makes the following confusing, contrary to the statement about the “POP UP” at the June 26th 2nd hearing.
“Um the pop-up uh direction that you're going is absolutely the right way to go i just think there's some massaging or some characteristics that we were looking for from the first direction”
“I just kind of want to give you some more specifics like the 5’ reduction wasn't enough” At the same hearing, he then states later, in discussion; “i just I just strike the five foot comment because it could just be you know it's still directional directional i mean there changes need to occur and other impacts could be created different privacy concerns if the decking becomes you know different but I think there's a lot of balance and stuff and availability that they can they can work on the right solution” Again, more statements that are contradictory, and confusing. Members to recall.
Talked about the impact if the deck is exposed.
3rd Hearing - October 9, 2025
Following Board Member guidelines, we pulled the master bedroom back an additional 5’, for a total of 10’ from our original design. Shortening the upper South side to 39’.
We moved our stairwell to the front of the home and enlarged the family room to the North and East. Exactly what some Weil and some Board Members wanted, and basically matching Weil’s drawing. While not pulled back as much his drawing showed, we looked to be within a few feet and certainly behind his original Stringline drawing!
At the third hearing, Weil stated the following:
“Um it's the rear of the property that is the concern
and the issue and um I I tend to be more in favor that you know that four to five more feet. You know I think at the last hearing I said five plus feet and we came back just at five and I think that's just a little too tight of a margin” Again confusing. His drawing showed quite a bit more than a 5’ pull back, which we did. Apparently, 5’ was not enough for Weil after stating it.
Below left is our upper plan with a 10’ pull back, presented at the 3rd DRB hearing, with Weil’s drawing overlayed on the right.
Weil Goes on to say;
“I think when we discuss the middle part of the property, that's just something that we can't protect because it would eliminate your complete right to build. And so that that that middle window is just that's just part of the middle of the lot. and we let that one go.” This realization of the board treading on our right to build got other board members’ attention, so Coveny comments to that as well in the 3rd meeting.
Board Member MJ Coveney:
Came to our home before the Feb 27, 1st DRB meeting. Walking our yard, we looked up and were surprised to see that the Neighbors to the South had moved a desk in front of their spare bedroom window instead of a couch back. Coveny responded, “you wouldn’t believe what we see….”
At that 1st hearing she said we should pull our Master Bedroom back to help views from Mahoney’s corner guest bedroom / office. Stating, we should pull it back, but do not expose your deck.
She agreed with Member Tom Gibbs’ comment, that articulation on the South side is fine, saying; Which she later contradicts.
“I I agree with Mr Gibbs on design articulation I think along the side you're fine there.” Coveny also goes on to say;
I think the house is neighborhood compatible um I think your biggest problem is is really view Equity um and if you can work on that um I think you're you're really going to be closer you know than you are right now um yeah so is your issue the same as Lewis's issue that it's just the the back the the the the room that's the closest to the backyard needs to open up a little bit Yeah needs to retreat thanks oh but let me just add to that and keep this in mind as you Retreat hopefully Retreat this upper bedroom um that you're decking that you're adding stays sort of obscured because you certainly don't want to you know and then you have to deal with that component”
The terms, “open up a little bit” and “needs to retreat” the upper, we assumed to be like many other DRB hearings where that kind of language is heard with numbers like 6” to 8”, or maby a foot.
Second hearing, June 26, 2025:
We listened to board direction given at that first hearing and pulled the Master Bedroom back 5’ and also pulled the deck back as to not expose it. Coveny had warned against exposing the deck, as “you would have to deal with that component”.
Seemingly referring to the DRB Guidelines of not building an exposed deck, for privacy.
Also at the second hearing, Coveny flips and seems to now have a problem with articulation. Coveny states;
“um I also agree with the mass and scale articulation i don't think the size is a problem necessarily”.
“um we can work around articulation mass and scale those are usually easy, privacy you pull a shade those kind of things can be handled really easily view equity is the big one so I feel like by I don't feel like and it might just be me, I might not be accurate but I don't feel like we really looked at options with the other side.” This is after we have spent countless hours exploring ALL building options all over our lot and house, going over those with the neighbors and board members if or when they visited. In fact at the first and second hearings, we presented photos and renderings showing where and why building on the “other side” was challenging, plus it would still block the hill view from the back corner guest room / office at 615 Short and would create privacy issues for both us and the Mahoneys, by our windows directly facing them and a totally exposed deck.
Coveny also presented a “drawing” pulling not only our Master back and eliminating the family room, but turning the deck into a “Juliet Balcony”. Writing on the drawing, that we could move the stairs into the walk-in closet area to open a deck option.
She apparently does not understand, that by moving stairs in the upper unit into the closet, that would also put them in the middle of a bedroom downstairs, eliminating it altogether!
This shows a larger problem of Board Members having no understanding of design and or construction, making decisions that dramatically affect their lives.
Coveny stated when referring to the Mahoney’s back corner spare bedroom / office:
“I think it's very clear that this is a split view uh out this back area you actually took the picture from the corner which kind of shows this is our view it's it's hillside and it's ocean um the the view of the ocean is further away”
Coveny stated “our view” as if the view is actually her’s. The Ocean is actually, 1,500 ft away and the “hill” is 4,500 ft away.
During the 2nd hearing we presented the following:
Previous owner back corner guest room at 615 Short. Back PRIMARY Ocean view windows on left are 48 sq ft, while the SECONDARY side windows total only 21 sq ft. Note Hedge growing in front of side window.
At a recent hearing for DRB project on Poplar, Board Member Coveny stated that the window on the left has THE PRIMARY view out the front. (Alluding the Window on the right was not a primary view, even though it is a big window). The Board approved the remodel to the right, above. Both these windows are the same size, unlike 615 Short St, and are in an actual Ceremonial Living Room. The window on the right even has a view of Catalina which Coveny did not feel compelled to save.”
Here is the excerpt from the April 24, 2025 DRB hearing transcript for the project on Poplar:
Coveny:
“My big concern was the pointy corner there that was blocking the corridor. Not so much the Catalina view, but more of just a a breath of ease there. I don't think it's a primary, even though it's a big window. Their primary view is out the front. Um, I think uh if six inches makes a difference, um, I think that that would be a nice courtesy to make a concession on behalf if it doesn't jeopardize the integrity of your home, which doesn't to me anything under a foot is like, yeah.”
In the case of our Southern neighbors at 615 Short, the “Primary View is out the back of the windows that are over twice the size of the side windows. (See the photo above) The secondary view is of the hill 4,500 ft away. In the case of this Poplar build, the Board talked about moving 6”, then the architect says he would have to redesign to do that. The project passed. While we have moved 10’ and redesigned but got denied.
This is indicative of a clear application of personal, SUBJECTIVE OPINION, not an equal, consistent and objective fact of a Primary View.
During discussions, Coveny back-peddles some about View Equity and the Mahoney’s middle bedroom after realizing they were inhibiting our right to build; “My concern wasn't with the middle bedroom it was only with the um study den uh office um as far as view equity uh center bedroom is is is not not important or uh to me viable in this particular in our parameters um yeah so I just want to be clear about that.” When Coveny addresses the removal of the giant tree in our front yard, she like two of the other members always say, it benefitted us, (McIntoshes) so it’s no big deal. And almost like a second thought, It helped the view for the Mahoneys. Here is her statement:
“When it comes to some other concepts your tree is great but that was a concession that benefited you as well and it's a great thing it's it's going to help their view from the front to Laguna High School but it wasn't it never really blocked from what I could see.”
FRONT BEDROOM WINDOW MIDDLE BEDROOM WINDOW
As you can see, there was mojor blockage of view by the tree. Coveny, obviously does not know what she’s looking at or remember what she’s seen! Weil and Gannon downplayed the treee removal as well.
October 9, 2025 3rd Hearing
At our 3rd hearing Oct 9, 2025, Coveny came out challenging and aggressive.
Her following statement has no merit particularly after we had again shown photos, and presentations, showing how building on the “other side” is outside the view corridor for us, causes major privacy issues for all parties which violates DRB Guidelines about privacy.
She subjectively states:
“I'm not sure I'm buying the whole concept of uh view uh loss on the other side of the uh a home to build on the other side of the home”
“There's limited views from this home. (615) Um this uh when we look at each home individually, look at how much of the view is being taken. Um that's a concern. Um you're gaining everything. You're getting everything. You're getting canyon, you're getting ocean, you're getting big deck, you're getting everything.”
Coveny basically ignores the 3 presentations that we gave pertaining to the issues of building on the “other side” of our house.
There are major Ocean views from the master bedroom and bath, the large deck and the corner spare bedroom / office at 615 Short, not “limited views”.
To chastise and attack us, by saying “You’re gaining everything. You’re getting everything. You’re getting canyon you’re getting ocean, you’re getting big deck, you’re getting everything”, is absolutely subjective, bias and unprofessional. It is an attempt to convince other board members to go against us to take away our ability to develop our property.
Coveny:
“And it just feels like for for you to offer up another four feet to allow them to have something is limited for what you're still going to gain. I think the overall design of this home feels lopsided to me. I could give you that. Um, knowing that I was giving the homeowner who's been living there with a beautiful canyon view from a active area of their home. Um, I could give you that. Let that go. Even though I don't understand why you stopped halfway,” Coveny subjectively declares our house is “now” lopsided. It is actually 66% across the width and not 100%. She is asking for an additional 4’ of pull-back on top of the 10’ we had already come back. Stating that she would “let that go” if we agreed to pull back 4 more feet, sounds like blackmail. The room she is speaking about is a spare bedroom / office that only 1 person uses. Not what would be called “an active area”. Since we pulled back 10’, we majorly reduced our master bedroom. 4 more feet would make it unworkable.
Coveny:
“I think the articulation on the side,(South side) I know that it was mentioned many times before, you didn't achieve. I' I'd almost be willing to give you that. I feel like I'm negotiating on behalf of the homeowner next door. Um, but again, my big thing is view, and they have very limited view.”
Coveny’s mention of the “articulation” of the South Side, is 180 deg from her earlier statements agreeing with Member Tom Gibbs at the first hearing, that the articulation on that side is fine. This is even after we reduced the length from 46’ to 39’, and removed large stairwell windows, helping the cries of privacy. Stating what seemed to be a personal, change in direction with no basis, except that she claimed “I would almost be willing to give you that”, if you pull back even more. 615 Short has great primary ocean views from all the rooms in the back of the house, not limited.
Coveny makes the statement at the end of the meeting, trying to clean up her conditional, “I could give you that” if you agree, to my conditions”. “If I may just so I can clarify my comments because I was being uh trying to be sort of negotiating prior to giving my remarks originally. Um, when I was saying that I felt like, you know, I'll give you the the neighbor compatibility even though I don't think it is. you know, I'll give you no articulation on the side, even though it should be articulated in order to try to get to a solution of a 4-foot reduction in that upper level in order to approve this tonight. And I just want to be clear that I I would not if if I would have said it's not it's not neighbor compatible. It's it's articulation is not uh proper. So, I just want to make sure I'm clear about that.”
This statement is another back-peddle to try and get out of something that should never have been said. She either believes our project is neighborhood compatible, or there is enough articulation, or not. She originally stated in the first hearing she agreed with Gibbs that all that was fine there. Then later she said it wasn’t, then used it to try and coerce a decision from us to pull back another 4 feet. This leads us to believe the articulation is fine and we are neighborhood compatible. If she is saying it does not meet neighborhood criteria, and does not have articulation, we have a big problem with a Board that “looks the other way” to get what they want. It’s pretty evident here.
Coveny then proceeded to vote to deny our project, since we did not agree to her “conditions”.
Board Member Christine Thalman
At the 1st hearing, Feb 27, 2025, Thalman stated the following; “um okay well my first reaction when I came to the to macintoshes and saw the uh the plans and took a look at the stakes it looked very reasonable it looked to be uh in line with all the design review guidelines”
“I think uh board member um coven's idea about pushing that master bedroom back and I hate to say this to you but maybe you have to reduce your walk-in closet it's a beautiful closet I'm Jealous”
“I I think just a couple of tweaks and you're almost there I'd like to say this is a one an done but I think there might be just a few minor changes”
Thalman was only on the board for our 1st hearing. She echoed the need to pull back our master bedroom to open up the view more out of the corner guest bedroom / office and to make our closet storage room smaller. We did both.
Board Member Imer Bauta
Bauta took Thalman’s place on the board. He started at our 2nd hearing. Bauta visited our house before the hearing. As a builder, he seemed to understand the process and what it takes to build and develop a project. As a very new Member, he kind of went along with the rest of the board, but was in favor of a 3rd hearing. His statements:
“I had a chance to review the drawings and you know I think that there is something here there's definitely a project here i think they we should definitely give them a third hearing i think that's a fair fair fair fair shake here.”
“From my personal view I think that can come back i think that view equity was preserved um you know in two in two circumstances obviously the ocean line and then also the coastline there's a piece um that that you could see in this uh but the third piece is the hillside and I understand the tree removal um was was added and you know into the radius of of viewport and we can appreciate that.” Chair Gibbs stated the Following;
“it's just not fair to say that that whole side window has to have an unobstructed view that is such an impingement on the right of the applicant”
To which Bauta responded;
“Yeah I I agree with you.”
“yeah chair just uh kind of guidance i think you know from what I could tell five to six feet somewhere in that range pulling that wall back would go a long way um I think it would open up the corridor i also think it would give a you know nice view of that uh coastline and partial hillside view” (Out the side window)
At the 3rd Hearing Oct 2025, Bauta stated the following:
“Thank you, chair. Um, so I think that, you know, with third hearings, we always we always tend to look at the progression and the efforts that were made. And I think that the efforts have been made to mitigate the view and balance the view.
Um, I understand uh uh that there are some concerns pertaining to the hillside, but I I can't come around to preserving the full hillside view. I think that would be a complete limitation.
Uh but when we look at the specifics of this particular site and we look at the views out of the windows of the neighbors, um if we were to push that wall back, you know, you're maybe getting another palm tree or two or three or maybe some bamboo. So I I can't come around having them pull it back anymore. I think that what they've done suffices. You get a portion of hillside view. Um, you know, I think the design is very thoughtful to the community and the use of materials is very thoughtful as well. Um, and I I do think the vision is appropriate for the neighbor neighborhood. Um, and I do understand that the desire to get a get a ocean view is what this um homeowner is going for. And I can see this project for approval tonight.” Board Member / Chair Tom Gibbs
From the first meeting on February 27, 2025, Gibbs objectively uses the DRB guidelines, and states, “guidelines which bind us um and what we're supposed to be applying.”
“I've thought a lot about this project and I'm going to go through my the guidelines which bind us um and what we're supposed to be applying and I'm doing this you know from an uninvolved this is two neighbor that have distinct interests so it's important to understand where I'm coming from.
um I start with design articulation and I think that the project is well designed it's an attractive project um I think even the Second Story elevation Northeast facing uh the Mone is sufficiently articulated uh it has the same essential articulation as the m property on that side with the exception of smaller Windows which I would require beec that are done to preserve privacy.
Neighborhood compatibility uh you know I walked the whole neighborhood I took pictures everywhere second stories are totally neighborhood compatible throughout the whole neighborhood uh indeed a lot of the second stories including the Mahones are larger than what's being proposed here uh so I find the two story is neighborhood compatible um and this second story doesn't extend all the way across so it has less of a mass and scale from the front and the back and it extends about the same distance as the Mahones whereas the Moonies go all the way across so they have a much larger mass and scale house than what's being proposed and that's not atypical I it's a beautiful home I love their home uh and there's a lot of beautiful Second Story in fact that is the norm to have significant you know on this scale Second Story mass and scale um so that's the issue and but,
I'll get to privacy and view Equity um the mass and scale I find meets the criteria uh it's consistent with the neighborhood uh the fact that there is a building along a property line is also consistent throughout that neighborhood the 16 feet is a I think a decent spread to preserve light and air and to reduce uh the mass and scale and as I said if you look at the two sides between 615 and the and the applicant 607 um the mass and scale is I think kind of tilts toward 615 having a larger mass and scale than what's being proposed and again I find it articulated
on all sides uh and the least articulated is is on the side facing the Mahon but uh on that side it is against another their property which has equal you know minimal articulation so I think it meets the standards there
Um with respect to switching the Second Story to the other side uh I think that that does create a lot of feasibility problems uh you know in addition to uh having the garage articulated where it is and having it balanced the the Second Story Balan the way it does presents I think a far better project so I'd have to find a real compelling need to force that switch moreover the neighbor on the other side has has a courtyard patio so if you move the project over there you'll have similar mass scale.
Privacy uh issues uh unfor uh unfortunately when there's a building you had a you know a smaller scale single story home for a long long time in this location where two story is uh the the you know the standard there now and neighborhood compatible it's going to have some some mass and scale impact and I I I commend the applicant for uh moving it back and and providing decent spacing and I was particularly compelled by the photos shown on the on the uh the reply that shows what I saw which was not withstanding there's going to be a building there it is not like it's you know 5et or even 10t away which can create some light and air problems.
I think the overall the balance justifies the uh uh this project with respect to mass scale light and air with respect to privacy uh the uh views I'll get to the views in a second the Privacy issue ises are an issue which is in my mind totally resolved by making the Second Story Windows OPC there's if they are and they're minimal to begin with on that side you have a couple of small Windows a Stairway window and then two additional windows.
I because there's you know because the way that they built the Mahoney's house where they put a lot of you know rooms with Windows along that side expecting it would always be a single story there I guess um uh I think it does call for opaque windows on that side to provide them the kind of privacy that they should have with those rooms.
Um so that leaves view Equity um The View equity in my mind is uh is achieved in this property or in this project uh and that's because the views the primary views are in the back and that's true of the houses were at the neighborhood toward the ocean not surprising yes there's side views those side views may be a little less impacted if you build the Second Story further away uh but in my mind not significantly uh I think Vue Equity is achieved um so I mean with all of that said I would approve the project tonight.
I'm not sure that the modifications that you're willing to make and I appreciate you saying I'll do modifications are the kind of modifications that uh the Mahones are looking for they're looking for a major remodel which is uh either moving the whole second story to go along the face of your property so it's one big Second Story one one story Second Story house which I would have some mass and scale issues with and neighborhood compatibility or uh you know moving it in a lateral way along the other side of the property line um and you know I barring that I do not see any minor tweaks although I'm be interested in what my fellow board members have to say uh that are necessary so for all those reasons I can approve the project tonight”
June 26, 2025 2nd Hearing
At the second hearing on June 26, 2025, Gibbs was Chair and had a rough time keeping the process on track and trying to come to a decent consensus, with board member Gannon interrupting. Part of his statement here;
I I expressed my views last time and reductions were made so my views haven't changed um you know I kind of bottom line my view is that the issue is really view equity because privacy can be dealt with and we're talking view equity from secondary bedrooms uh and the the most important I mean the the kind of their prize bedroom the the Mahoney's is the corner room which is the study uh secondary bedrooms we rarely give any view equity considerations particularly where the house has other you know great views which the house does from the master and the deck upstairs um the study has the much bigger picture window facing toward the ocean uh and on the side window the building was put back 5 feet so I feel for the applicants here.
uh but I totally respect the different views of my colleagues you heard what they have to say um basically they're asking you to redesign to protect views from two subsidiary bedrooms and a study that has a really terrific view that's not being impinched.
He states, addressing the Mahoneys:
“Realize that you've enjoyed a single story house next to you which is unique in that neighborhood for a long time and you're not it's not meant to stay forever understand the concerns the the that the you know that the Macintoshes have about the location of the second story.”
While spending over 20 minutes trying to have a discussion about what would make board members happy, to get closer together for a consensus, Member Gannon interrupted, trying to insist there were no “findings” for a 3rd hearing. Gibbs said they weren’t there yet. During that discussion, Gibbs makes the statement concerning our rights to build;
“My view is it's just not fair to say that that whole side window has to have an unobstructed view that is such an impingement on the right of the applicant to build” Chair Thomas Gibbs said it best in our last hearing on Oct 9, 2025:
(excerpt from hearing transcript)
Chair Gibbs. Okay. Um
you know, first of all, this is a modest project and I think it's well designed. Uh I think it's neighborhood compatible.
I think the wall facing the Mahonies is articulated. Indeed, there's so many flat walls, including on their house, that are less articulated. I think this is otherwise an eminently approvable project. I think the privacy issues were designed were um resolved, including with the change that was made from the last hearing.
So, we're at View Equity, and I wanted I went up there. I think everybody's acting in good faith.
The Mahonies were very forthcoming. Uh the same thing with the applicant. I don't like to see negative or bad blood on this thing, but to my view, you know, I'm I'm sorry. You know, when you say that the u uh what the the the Macintoshes are getting everything and the Mahonies are getting nothing or something to that effect.
Well, the Mahonies have a full-on ocean view. They have a hugely wide house. They've got a deck there. The view is it. Hear me. Hear me out and then I'll I'll hear you. (board member Jessican Gannon tried to talk over Gibbs. He continues) The view is toward the ocean. They happen to have a secondary bedroom that they use as an office that happens to have a side window that sees some mountain views. You know, that is not a protect. I It's not certainly not entitled to s the significant protection that this board is giving it. It's not a ceremonial room. It is a side window, the main view window, which is actually a larger window, faces the ocean.
So, I mean, I I think it's unfortunate that uh this board and I dis I have the right to disagree. I love them all and I respect them all immensely, but I hugely disagree with this one. you they you are giving the you're you're you're really impacting the right of this applicant to develop their house in a way that is actually less massive than the next door neighbor's house. including the location of their bedroom to avoid privacy issues that you get from pulling it back to maximize ocean views which the um the Mahonies have throughout the backside of their house with windows and decks at the second floor. All to preserve a secondary bedroom/off side window. I can't stomach that. So, I would hope that my comments might move the board.
If not, I think it would be a tragedy to deny the project.
Gibbs says it all.
He was ready to approve from our first meeting, saying that our project meets all the DRB guidelines. This was even before many redesigns, reductions, tree removal, etc.
In conclusion, it is very clear by their derogatory statements and actions that certain members of the board were against us from the start. We feel there is more than business relationship between Kawaritani, and some board members.
Riding together to and from projects and attending events like the Pageant together, is cause for concerns about impartiality.
We feel the conflicting statements, selective understanding and the ignoring of presentations, show a lack of professionalism and focus with some Board Members and their arbitrary, and subjective interpretations are way outside DRB Guidelines.
We respectfully request the Denial of our project to be overturned by CC at the Dec. 9 City Council meeting.
McIntosh 607 Short St.
Appeal of DRB Denial
WE PURCHASED THE HOME 10 / 2002 WITH INTENTIONS OF
REMODELING IN 3 YRS, WHICH TURNED INTO 23……
CURRENT FOOTPRINT IS 3 BEDROOMS, 1 BATHROOM
MAJOR REMODEL INCLUDES:
DOWNSTAIRS EXTENDS LIVING, KITCHEN, DINING ROOM,
LOWER DECK AND ADDS A BATHROOM.
UPSTAIRS ADDITION ADDS A MASTER BEDROOM, CLOSET,
MASTER BATH AND FAMILY ROOM WITH DECK.
413 SQ FT Detached ADU
HOUSE IS 1,440 SQ FT ON A 6900 SQ FT LOT
ABOUT 607 SHORT ST
TO DESIGN AND REMODEL OUR HOME THAT IS MODEST IN SIZE,
FOLLOWS THE EXISITNG FOOTPRINT, NOT FILLING UP THE
PROPERTY AND ONE THAT FITS IN WELL WITHIN THE HISTORIC
NEIGHBORHOOD
NOT TO WASTE EVERYONE’S TIME INCLUDING THE DRB, BY
SUBMITTING AN “OVER-DESIGN”, JUST TO SCALE BACK TO WHAT
WE ACTUALLY WANT
TO ADD ON MODESTLY AND OBTAIN AN OCEAN VIEW AS OTHERS IN
THE NEIGBORHOOD HAVE ENJOYED FOR MANY YEARS
TO REDUCE OR ELIMINATE IMPACT ON NEIGHBORS
GOALS - 607 SHORT ST.
DRB DENIAL
Design Articulation
2. Design Articulation: Within the allowable building envelope, the appearance of building and retaining wall mass should be minimized. Articulation techniques including, but not limited to, separation, offsets, terracing and reducing the size of any one element in the structure may be used
to reduce the appearance of mass.
No. The appearance of the upper-level addition is not adequately minimized when viewed from adjoining properties. The upper-level massing remains visually prominent and does not incorporate meaningful wall offsets, step-backs, or other architectural techniques to break up the vertical and horizontal planes, and this results in a bulky appearance that is inconsistent with the surrounding development pattern. The design lacks substantial wall articulation or additional step-backs from the side setback lines that would otherwise help reduce the perceived bulk and scale of the upper level.
Front view 607 Short St. with articulation. Built 66%
across the width of the home. “Not all on one side”
Current look of 607 Short from Google Earth Street View Note Upper Unit of neighbor to the right. “Only on one side” New design of 607 in place to show the “mass and scale” compared to neighbors.
South Facing Articulation
At board direction, concerned with
privacy, we eliminated windows, made
them narrower and “opaque”. Now
they are saying the walls are too plain
with no articulation.
Gutters, downspouts,
electrical service, gas meter,
etc. will be added.
607 Short St. South Elevation
Large hedge that covers over
25’ of the wall and much of
second floor , depending on
height.
Lower level also blocked by
brick and wooden fence
Despite some board members’ statements, many 2 story homes with side elevations, with little articulation, within 2 blocks.
The proposal includes a new second story addition, which, through the proposed colors and materials and design will result in a well-articulated building. Upon completion, the home will be compatible with existing development in the neighborhood. Nearby homes consist of a mixture of one- and two-story residences with varying architectural styles and exteriors, including contemporary and traditional styles. The project’s sloping roofs and varied building materials, which include stucco and hardy board vertical siding, will effectively reduce the appearance of mass.
Additionally, the proposed upper-level addition is off set from the lower-level roof between 2’2” and 6’5” from the street elevation and one foot from the east elevation creating additional articulation and reducing the appearance of mass and bulk. The step-backs and architectural features appropriately break up the vertical and horizontal planes.
DESIGN ARTICULATION
CITY STAFF RESPONSE
I start with design articulation and I think that the project is well designed it's an attractive project um I think even the Second Story elevation facing uh the Mahoney’s is sufficiently articulated. It has the same essential articulation as the property on that side with the exception of smaller Windows which I would require that are done to preserve privacy.
Indeed, there's so many flat walls, on their house, that are less articulated. I think this is otherwise an eminently approvable project.
DRB CHAIR GIBBS’ RESPONSE
DESIGN ARTICULATION
9. Neighborhood Compatibility: Development shall be compatible with the existing development in the neighborhood and respect neighborhood character.
Neighborhood character is the sum of the qualities that distinguish areas within the City, including historical patterns of development (e.g.,structural heights, mass, scale or size), village atmosphere, landscaping themes and architectural styles.
No. The proposed design has the upper-level addition’s mass focused on the southeastern portion of the existing residence thereby creating a visual imbalance and a sense of bulk that is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood’s scale and character. By concentrating the new upper-level additions on the southeastern portion of the residence, the project introduces massing that appears excessive and inconsistent with the neighborhood’s established character.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY
DRB DENIAL
Member Gannon said, “Nowhere in this neighborhood is there a design where the upper-level overloads one side of the home” The photo below shows 3 houses within 100’, including one next door, with the upper built on one side.
UPPER UNIT RIGHT NEXT
DOOR
POP UP TYPE ON ONE SIDE
The proposed design has the upper-level addition’s mass located on the southeastern portion of the existing residence, therefore reducing the appearance of massing along the street elevation.
By concentrating the new upper-level additions on the southeastern portion of the residence, the project minimizes massing and is consistent with the neighborhood’s established character, as all neighboring properties are developed with two-story residences.
The existing development in the neighborhood consists of a mixture of architectural styles and exteriors, including contemporary and traditional styles.
As described in the “Design Articulation” criterion above, the applicant proposes a traditional design that is compatible in terms of style and scale with the surrounding development pattern.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY
CITY STAFF RESPONSE
“I walked the whole neighborhood I took pictures everywhere.
Second stories are totally neighborhood compatible throughout the whole neighborhood. Indeed, a lot of the second stories, including the Mahoney’s are larger than what's being proposed here so I find the two story is neighborhood compatible.”
“This second story doesn't extend all the way across so it has less of a mass and scale from the front and the back and it extends about the same distance as the Mahoneys whereas the Mahoney’s goes all the way across, so they have a much larger mass and scale house than what's being proposed”
“This is a modest project, and I think it's well designed. I think it's neighborhood compatible.”
CHAIR GIBBS’ RESPONSE AT HEARINGS
NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY
VIEW EQUITY
16. View Equity: The development, including its landscaping, shall be designed to protect existing views from neighboring properties without denying the subject property the reasonable opportunity to develop as described and illustrated in the City’s “Design Guidelines.”
The “Design Guidelines” are intended to balance preservation of views with the right to develop property.
No. The upper-level addition creates view impacts to neighboring properties by blocking existing canyon and ocean views. The addition also has public view impacts from Laguna Beach High School to the east of Short Street.
DRB DENIAL
615 Short St. is a single property (not properties), to our South that has PRIMARY ocean views from the master bedroom, master bathroom, a large deck and the rear, corner guest bedroom / office.
On the North side of the house there are two bedrooms and the back corner guest bedroom that is used an office by Mrs. Mahoney. That room has been the point of contention.
We contend that view equity was achieved with our initial design, and then particularly with what we have incorporated over several design changes and actions.
We have always maintained that we are not blocking any PRIMARY VIEWS but have been very accommodating while also trying to protect our right to build and develop our property.
As the DRB Guidelines state: 15.2 Avoid blocking neighbors’ primary views.
615 SHORT ST. - BACK CORNER BEDROOM PREVIOUS OWNERS
PRIMARY OCEAN VIEWS FROM LARGE BACK WINDOW ON LEFT
SECONDARY VIEW WINDOW ON RIGHT - NOTE HEDGE GROWTH
At a recent DRB hearing for a project on Poplar, board member Coveny stated that the window on the left has THE PRIMARY view out the front. (Even though it is a big window, she stated “I don’t think the one on the right is a primary view”). Both these windows are the same size, unlike 615 Short St, and are in an actual Ceremonial Living Room. The window on the right even has a view of Catalina which Coveny did not feel compelled to save. The Board approved the remodel to the right, above.
Watch For
Lowered
Blinds To Hide
View
615 Short St. Back
Guest Bedroom /
Office
Secondary north
facing window
Note couch below
window. Photo
taken January
2025. See story
poles in
background.
Magically, the
couch is removed
and a desk moved
to window to give
the appearance
that someone is
sitting staring out
the window.
This happened one
week before 1st
DRB Hearing, Feb
27, 2025
VIEWS FROM BACK DECK BEFORE CURRENT OWNER
PLANTED LARGE TROPICAL PLANTS 2 YEARS AGO, WHICH
ARE NOW LIMITING THEIR OWN VIEWS (SEE PHOTO ON RIGHT)
VIEW FROM DECK
NOW AFTER
PLANTINGS
REAR DECK VIEWS FROM 615 SHORT
Rendering showing
possible “flipping”
our design to the
other side”, which
board members kept
saying. Even after
presenting this slide,
showing that the
hillside view would
be blocked, and this
design violates a
DRB Guideline on
Privacy. Board
members ignored
that. Then
contradicted
themselves when
asking us to pull
back, saying don’t
expose your deck.
Flipped Design To Right Side View Issues
Building on the
right takes the
view not only
out of the
corridor, but
totally
eliminates any
view to the
Northwest &
Coastline. One
board member
said she didn’t
believe there
was an issue.
Narrow Coastline View From Left Side – Original Design
As we pulled
back, we lost
this
Coastline,
cliff, and
rock view,
because of
the trees on
the right.
Some DRB hearings have People moving projects back 6” to 8”.
We moved back 5’ at the recommendations from the board to move back a bit, or a little, or were shown a “Stringline” to come close to.
Were then told that is not enough.
At our 1st DRB hearing, Board Member Louis Weil Drew a “Rough Stringline” from referencing off of our neighbor to the North upper unit, to 615 short to our South. Saying, you don’t have to pull back to it, but something close”.
2nd hearing we pulled back 5’ getting us within a few feet of a straight “stringline. Weil then said that is not enough, submitting a drawing, overlayed on the next slide.
A true stringline off the face of the same upper unit next door.
Shows how other houses on the street were able to use the depth of their lots.
5’Pullback
10’Pullback
Straightened “Stringline”
Weil’s “Rough Stringline”
Weil’s 2nd Hearing New Target
Line
Coveny’s Line
Gannon’s Line
Our Pullbacks vs Louis Weil’s Changing Target
At our 3rd DRB Hearing,
Jessica Gannon rattled off
all the items for our denial.
Including a brand-new
issue, that we would block
public views from the High
School. And that out of
towners use the area.
As you can see in the photo
here, taken from the high
school, our flags fall quite a
bit short of blacking views.
Nothing like 615 on the left.
The claim is like baseless,
frivolous and uncalled for.
607
Range of views from
615 Short St.
After tree removal &
including our upper floor
the Mahoneys would still
retain 100% of their
Primary Ocean Views in
the back and some ocean
and coastline views from
secondary windows.
Plus, major gain of never-
before-seen hill views to
the NE from secondary
bedrooms.
DRB Guidelines state:
A property may enjoy a specific view today, but that experience may change as surrounding properties are developed
The Mahoneys at 615 have enjoyed well over 100 degrees of view from their 2nd floor for 6 years.
With the giant tree removed, it’s now 160 deg plus. We have absolutely Zero deg of views.
In the spirit of View Equity, our gain of Primary ocean views, only blocks roughly 25 Degrees of their secondary window, hill views. However, with the tree removal, they have gained another 25 plus Degrees of view back!
Our project has been carefully designed to avoid blocking Primary views as stated in the Design Review Guidelines.
15.2 Avoid blocking neighbors’ primary views.
Locate major building masses and outdoor space to maintain primary views through and across the site from other properties.
View equity means achievement of a fair, reasonable and balanced accommodation of views I think we have achieved exactly that and urge you to approve our project tonight.
VIEW EQUITY
VIEW EQUITY
CITY STAFF RESPONSE
16. View Equity: The development, including its landscaping, shall be designed to protect existing views from neighboring properties without denying the subject property the reasonable opportunity to develop as described and illustrated in the City’s “Design Guidelines.” The “Design Guidelines” are intended to balance preservation of views with the right to develop property.
The upper-level addition maintains view equity for neighboring properties by minimizing view impacts to existing canyon and ocean views from the primary windows in primary bedrooms and ceremonial rooms. The addition would not create any view impacts to the ocean or shoreline located west of the property, as the High School is at a higher elevation and existing development already limits ocean views.
VIEW EQUITY CHAIR GIBBS’ RESPONSE AT HEARINGS
The View equity in my mind achieved in this property and that's because the views the primary views are in the back and that's true of the houses in the neighborhood, toward the ocean.
We rarely give any view equity considerations particularly where the house has other you know great views which the house does from the master and the deck upstairs um the study has the much bigger picture window facing toward the ocean uh and on the side window the building was put back 5 feet so I feel for the applicants here.
They're asking you to redesign to protect views from two subsidiary bedrooms and a study that has a really terrific view that's not being impinged.
We rarely give any view equity considerations particularly where the house has other you know great views which the house does from the master and the deck upstairs um the study has the much bigger picture window facing toward the ocean uh and on the side window the building was put back 5 feet so I feel for the applicants here.
They're asking you to redesign to protect views from two subsidiary bedrooms and a study that has a really terrific view that's not being impinged.
Well, the Mahonys have a full-on ocean view. They have a hugely wide house. They've got a deck there.
The view is toward the ocean. They happen to have a secondary bedroom that they use as an office that happens to have a side window that sees some mountain views. You know, that is not a protect. I It's not certainly not entitled to the significant protection that this board is giving it. It's not a ceremonial room. It is a side window, the main view window, which is actually a larger window, faces the ocean.