Chair Gibbs:
Well, let me get this on the record and then we'll wait for the staff report. Okay. I'm just calling the item. 607 Short Street Design Review 24-1572 and Coastal Development Permit 24-1688. Ex parte please.
Board Member Bauta:
I met with the applicant team and the neighbors next door as well, and I visited the sites, both sites.
Board Member Coveny:
I met with the applicant team and the Mahoney's, and I think that's it.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
Met with the applicant team and the Mahoney's next door as well.
Board Member Weil:
Same. And Steve Kawaratani, he was part of that.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
Right. And I spoke with Steve Kawaratani.
Board Member Bauta:
Likewise, forgot about Steve.
Chair Gibbs:
I met with Steve McIntosh who's the owner at the site, and I also met with Allison Mahoney. So we're waiting for the planner. So with that, everyone sit tight.
Why don't we take a five-minute break? We've done all the introductions, while we find the staff.
The meeting is called back to order. Applicant take the seat, and, Shaveta, could you give the staff report?
Shaveta Sharma:
Okay, good evening, Chair and Members of the Board. Item 5.7 is a request for design review and Coastal Development Permit for 607 Short Street. The project is located on the western side of Short Street across from Laguna Beach High School and is in the R-1 zone. The existing neighborhood consists of one and two-story homes with the adjacent residents as being two stories. The project is a major remodel of the residence and the scope proposes a two-story addition, a 52-square-foot addition to the existing garage, 325-square-foot addition to the elevated deck, and elevated deck at the second floor, landscaping, and lighting improvements. The proposed upstairs addition is 760 square feet, the lowerlevel addition is 226 square feet, and the lower-level deck is 325 square feet. There is a detached ADU in the rear that is not subject to design review but does have a Coastal Development Permit associated with it.
The project has been revised based on neighbor and board member comments at the original hearing on February 27th, 2025, and includes a reduction of the upper-level addition from 807 square feet to 760 square feet. There's been a reduction of 169 square feet of the lower level and a reduction of 260 square feet of living area. The upper-level addition has been pulled back an additional 5 feet from the Attachment 12
239
rear property line, and a large tree has been removed from the front yard. There has also been the removal of the stairwell window to increase privacy for adjoining residences.
The proposed improvements are not located in environmentally sensitive area and the project is in compliance with both Design Review Guidelines and all developmental standards. The project does not subsequently impair views and privacy and will be compatible with the scale of development present in the neighborhood. Staff has analyzed this request and finds that the project is in conformance and believes that the CDP findings for the project can be made. Staff's recommendation is that the board adopt resolution 24-1572, approving Design Review 24-0772, and Coastal Development Permit 24-0773, and finding said action exempt from CEQA. Staff has received correspondence since the publication of the agenda with neighbors having concerns regarding the mass and scale of the project and privacy and view impacts. The board should consider whether these impacts affect the project's ability to meet the Design Review criteria.
That concludes my presentation, and I'm available for any questions as is the applicant.
Chair Gibbs:
Thank you. Excellent presentation. Any questions?
All right, I open the public hearing. Applicant has five minutes.
Drew Blake:
Okay, thank you. My name is Drew Blake, and I'm the designer for the modest remodel on Short Street.
Thank you all for coming out, I appreciate meeting you guys and out there and answering your questions. To save time, I'm just going to move quickly through the bullet points that have been highlighted for the changes that we made and then I'll leave a little more time for Steve.
We pulled back the rear wall which is really just the main problem with the project in terms of view equity for the neighbors. So we moved that rear wall back 5 feet at this point; reduced the upper-level living space from 807 to 760, so a little 47-square-foot reduction; removed the front large tree which allowed a little more increased light and openness for the upper bedroom, look up towards the hillside; we changed out the south-facing bedroom, bathroom, and stairwell window to be opaque for better privacy for them; and we also reduced the closet size to a little bit smaller, that was from Christine from last time, so we tried to take the points that you all gave us and massage things around a little bit and see if we can work out at something positive tonight.
So I'll turn the time over to Steve [inaudible 00:09:14].
Steve McIntosh:
Good evening, everyone. So I want to do a quick recap of board comments from our February 27th DRB meeting. Board Member Gibbs objectively went through each design review criteria and was ready to approve the project that evening. Gibbs stated, "View equity was achieved in primary views of 615 Short or in the back towards the ocean." Member Coveney stated our upper bedroom needed to be retreated and the deck should remain obscured. We did both of those. Member Thalman said design looked to be in line with the DR guidelines, liked the idea of tweaking the design and pushing the master bedroom back and reduce the front closet size. We did that as well.
Slide please.
Member Weil commented the design could work but the extension on just one side may have unintended issues and compared to two lots basically drawn on a string line. And then I redid the string 240
line here a little straighter and what we heard you say is that pull it back, it means you don't have to get to that exact line, but our five-foot got us real close.
Slide please.
And Member Gannon had a red line and wanted us to move back behind that so it created a lot of privacy issues and then we'd have a narrow spot to construct and we'd have a lot of demo.
Slide please.
That's the same thing you just looked at.
Slide please. Next slide.
No, not going? Oh, got to get some time back, yeah. There it is. So we took a large twisted juniper in the front yard out as you can see on the left and then really opened it up on the right.
Slide please.
One back please. From the back it had big views that it opened up so... Wait, you can stay there. Yeah, see on the right it really opened that up.
Okay, next slide please.
So the primary views are... 615 are out the back towards the ocean and the coastline. Rooms with the primary views are master bathroom, master bedroom, large deck, spare bedroom, all out of the back of the house as you can see.
Slide please.
This is the previous use of the back corner guest room at 615 Short. Note, the window sizes are massive on the left, 12 by 4, 48 square feet while the secondary side windows total only 21 feet. Note the hedge growing up in front of the window.
Slide please.
At a recent DRB hearing for a project, it was stated by a board member that the window on the left is a view towards Main Bach and the window on the right is a secondary view. Both windows here are the same dimension.
Slide please.
There's a comparison here. There's a lot of similarities in this. Similar circumstances, so we like the same precedent should be followed, we feel.
Slide please.
What you have here is the front, same bedroom looking out. That's a five-foot pull back, that red line, and a lot of the ocean view to the left.
Slide please.
And a five-foot pull back from the center bedroom, as you can see is quite a view.
Slide please.
And here's a scope of the views from 615 Short. The range of the views from 615 Short after the tree removal, including in our addition, the Mahoney's would still have 100% of their primary ocean views in the back and some ocean views of the coastline views from secondary windows plus a major gain of never before views out the side. View equity, a property may enjoy specific views today and that experience may change as surrounding properties developed. The Mahoney's enjoyed a well over 100 degrees of view in their second floor for 6 years, with the giant tree removed, it's now 160 degrees. 241
Chair Gibbs:
Mr. McIntosh.
Steve McIntosh:
Yes.
Chair Gibbs:
Your time's up. You'll have three more minutes at the end if you want to resume. I'm going to open it up to the public.
Steve McIntosh:
Okay.
Chair Gibbs:
It's time to speak, if members of the public come up to the podium.
Chair Gibbs:
You have three minutes each.
Miles Mahoney:
Okay.
Thank you again, and thanks Board for hearing our position for a second time. What can I say that really hasn't been said or asked by all of you from us so far? This is our second go-round. And we met with the McIntoshes three times before the first meeting with all of you. And I think from a neighborhood compatibility standpoint, the idea was could we provide input and would they consider that input? None of which was considered, no other options, no other alternatives. We then met with all of you about two months ago and have since met with them two times. Provided again our input.
There's multiple options here that have not been considered. They didn't take any of our input or considerations at all. In fact, I think I sent all of you some of the correspondence and feedback from the last board meeting. And again, it feels like we're kicking the can down the road for a second time. The entire mass was moved five feet forward. So the massing, the view equity, the air and light, none of that has changed, none of it has changed. It's the same story, just five feet moved towards the street and a tree that's been removed, which was part of the overall plan to begin with. So as I stand up here and think to myself, we're back for a second time for five feet of movement. I just don't understand how this gets to a reasonable conclusion.
So I'd appreciate the consideration of reworking this in a way that considers options of moving it to the other side of the property, moving it to the front of the property. I think, Jessica, you or CJ had made the recommendation in the last board meeting to make that a consideration, none of which has been even presented. So, again, I am disappointed by the fact that we're back here again with you talking about changes that have been made and the net result is five feet of movement. Thank you.
Chair Gibbs:
Next speaker.
242
Allison Mahoney:
All right, I am going to read because this is just hard.
Thank you, Board Members, for visiting our property this week and for the thoughtfulness that each of you brought to the discussions, I think it's been a progressive discussion in terms of where to focus. And in the last couple of weeks I also met again with Vicki following the recent restaking so that we could try to continue a direct and constructive dialogue to convey our concerns.
Our most impactful concern is the massing and one single flat plane of wall across the entire depth of our house. To restate, Miles and I fully support our neighbor's right to improve their homes, we want to be clear we're not opposed to the McIntosh's rebuild. However, based on the updated design, we remain deeply concerned by the significant impacts to our privacy, light, and views, given the unchanged 40-foot-plus flat wall massing, which will block our house in on two sides of our property. Our homes sit at the same elevation. The proposed second level would affect all three of our upstairs rooms' spaces that are actively used by our family throughout the day for work, school, and personal time. The design compromises not only our enjoyment but its privacy, functionality, and financial value. Even from private areas of our home such as our master bathroom, the visibility into the proposed structure presents an uncomfortable intrusion.
Our historic home, built in 1937, was carefully designed to maximize the light and privacy. We have maximized our landscaping for screening, but landscaping cannot mitigate the design's impact. As a family of five, we rely on each room's functionality, especially upstairs, which is used for work, like I've described, study, family business. And we use all these rooms during daytime hours. It's clear to us based on what we've learned through this lengthy process starting last year in September, that there are feasible, less impactful design alternatives, but unfortunately none appear to be under consideration.
The McIntoshes indicated they expected feedback to push their design back but intentionally waited for the board meeting rather than initiating a dialogue or revising their plans in advance of this review.
So just to conclude, we're simply asking for a balanced approach here. One that respects our family's right to privacy, use, and value of our home, as well as the McIntosh's desire to build. And there are design constraints about flat wall massing and articulation that we assert should be considered. Thank you.
Chair Gibbs:
Thank you very much.
Next speaker.
Steve Kawaratani:
[inaudible 00:18:58], can you cue me up?
Thank you.
Good evening, Chair Gibbs, Board Members, and staff. My name is Steve Kawaratani, and I represent the Mahoneys. It's disappointing that we have to return here again from February to see basically lipstick...
Well, I won't finish that thought, but basically we still have concerns with design articulation, view equity, and neighborhood compatibility.
If you look at the lower image, we're not objecting to a second-story program. What we are objecting to is having the entire upper-floor program moved up next to the neighbors.
Next slide.
243
So I have a bit more of a comprehensive board comment for your review. Basically Chair Gannon said that there's a gorgeous view that would be completely blocked. She also recommended a more traditional-style house with the second story going across the entire width of the roof, and she doesn't support a program that is entirely on the left-hand side of the property. Board Member Gibbs was a bit of an outlier from his four colleagues. He was ready to support the project. Board Member Weil basically expressed concern about the impact of the proposed extension. He reinforced the cost as not part of the design review process. He recommended pulling the extension back and suggested a reasonable string line for development to avoid an extensive extension. Board Member Covney said the location choice might be better on the opposite side. She also had concern about the upper structure blocking the Mahoney's back bedroom views. And finally, she stated the importance of preserving the view of the hillsides for the Mahoney's. And I'll skip over Chris'.
Next slide.
So we're disappointed, if you look at the top image, that is what was presented, and as Miles said, it was pulled back five feet.
Next slide please.
That is what will happen at the back bedroom if the project is built as designed.
And final slide please.
Basically, the municipal code allows a third hearing if the board can make the finding that the applicant follow the authority's direction from the initial hearing in good faith. I don't believe that has occurred.
Thank you.
Chair Gibbs:
Thank you, Mr. Karacami.
Any other speakers?
Go ahead.
Vicki McIntosh:
Thank you. Thank you, Board. My name's Vicki McIntosh. We all met. I'd like to thank you for your time, thank you for coming to our home, seeing our project, and listening to our thoughts and concerns.
As a CPA, I'm not a creative person, but instead I'm a data-driven person. I operate with integrity using the facts that are available. Steve mentioned the last board hearing several times, I see our neighbors have mentioned that, but what I'd like to do is when it comes down to me, we've looked through those comments, looked at the hearing, we've reviewed and re-reviewed them. The neighbors collectively were concerned with privacy, air light, and views. I'm a bottom-line kind of person and I really think it comes down to view equity. We can talk about privacy, air, and light, but I feel all those things have been taken care of.
Equity is synonymous, excuse me, with fairness and partiality, honest integrity balance, and that's why we're here taking your time. It's not about deceitfulness, lies, favoritism, or subjectivity. We pulled five feet back from the back to widen the view for Mrs. Mahoney's home office window. This is in addition to her existing beautiful primary ocean view shared in that same room, which is much greater than the side view.
They purchased their home next to the only undeveloped one-story home in the area. Steve mentioned earlier about a property may enjoy a specific view today, but that experience may change as surrounding properties are developed. That's under chapter 16 of the Design Review Guidelines. A 244
balance of interest should be achieved in which all those who enjoy the view, new or existing, retain some access to it. And I find that that's in the same situation we're in today. They bought the home next to the only one story in the neighborhood. Were not taking away their ocean view, but instead a small portion of their hillside view. It also says in the Design Review Code, "Avoid blocking neighbor's primary views." Our proposed design doesn't block the primary view, we're only asking for equity. And when I say equity, we're asking for way less than 50% of their existing views.
I just like to say thank you again for taking the time to listen to us. Thank you.
Chair Gibbs:
Thank you very much.
Any other members of the public?
Speaker 15:
Hi. Just wanted to add something brief. I know these projects are a lot to think about and a lot of different angles on them. Just as a resident of Laguna Beach. I observed on the online and also last time, both the first time and the second time through the staff said it supports this project. I think that's highly worthy of consideration. I sit in a lot of the city council meetings and that's important.
The second thing is, what got me to come down here is to paraphrase what you guys said earlier tonight, somebody said on another project that something to the effect of, "To deny this is to deny what everyone else has." This is a one-story house that's surrounded by two-story homes, and this is Laguna Beach, and it's not blocking the beach, it's not blocking the beach view. I just find that a bit troubling that it's stuck in this process a little bit. The proposed home I would say is neighborhood compatible, it's been staked multiple times. I've seen the stakes move multiple times. Extensive accommodations have already been made, include cutting down a massive tree that was in the front, reducing the square footage, and other things that were mentioned.
So anyway, I just wanted to come down and say that, and I think the work the staff has done is really strong on this and so I think it's important.
Chair Gibbs:
Thank you very much.
Any other speakers?
Seeing none, applicant has three-minute rebuttal.
Steve McIntosh:
To continue on, the Mahoney's have enjoyed a well over 100 degrees of view from their second floor for 6 years, with the giant tree removed it's now approximately 160 degrees. We have absolutely zero degrees of view. In the spirit of view equity, our gain of primary ocean view only blocks roughly 25 degrees of their secondary hill views. However, the tree removal, they've gained another 25 degrees back towards the front. View equity means achievement of a fair, reasonable, balanced accommodation of view. We think we've achieved exactly that and urge you to approve our project tonight.
And in response to Mr. Mahoney, we have spent countless hours studying all their ideas they passed, and we've talked to them about it, why they're not feasible, how they have privacy issues, and they're not hearing what they want to hear so they've just ignored it. 245
So over the past 20 years, we've designed, redesigned, massaged, and planned our dream home. We sought input for several architects, the city, neighbors, and former DRB members. Resoundingly the feedback we received was that we'll have no problem with this design. There's no one for you to block.
We have been told dozens of times over the years that our plans do not affect primary ocean views of 615. In fact, DRB member Steve Kawaratani, who came to our house to look at our landscape in '04, said about this exact addition to our home that, "This design would not be a problem because there's no blocking of primary views." I guess he just forgot that too. In fact, when he and I spoke this past December when he called to say he was hired by the Mahoney's, he's stated, "You're in control here, Steve." He said, "I'd like to see you pull it back a few feet." I guess he forgot that too. So we've done just that.
So in my 10-plus discussions with Miles Mahoney in 5-and-a-half years, he always said, "I can never understand how anyone can tell someone they can or cannot build on their property." I guess he forgot that as well. So there's a lot of amnesia going on here, including last September when I showed him the plans, he also said his wife would not like it but she'd get over it, yet here we are.
At the last DRB meeting, Miles said when he asked me what I'll feel if I were in their shoes was not exactly how it wentChair Gibbs:
I'm going to break in, Mr. McIntosh. I want to hear about your project. I don't want to hear statements about what people said in the past, it doesn't make any difference to us, we can't verify it. So focus on your project please.
And for my comments, I'll restore 30 seconds to his time, but I'm not going to listen to what he said, she said.
Steve McIntosh:
Okay, that's a rebuttal. Anyway. So basically, we got to the point where our neighbors... Okay, we're not even going to talk about that. So I'm going to address something about the mass and scale. One of the neighbors had said that his upstairs is 36% of his and that ours is massive. Did the math, ours is 31%, so we're well beneath everybody, including the Mahoney's, including people behind us, including all the places behind us. So that's it. Thank you.
Chair Gibbs:
Okay. First of all, I know this is emotional, it's understandable. We're here objectively to hear the evidence and make deliberations. So let everybody understand that.
Okay, questions of the applicant or the public.
Board Member Bauta:
Yeah, I've got a question. I think that the elephant in the room is pertaining to that view. Are you prepared with anything to modify the leading edge? I think pulling it back was a creative solution, but it seems like there's still some conflict on that leading edge. Are you ready to present something that's maybe pulls back that leading edge a bit?
246
Steve McIntosh:
Yeah, I think we're willing to do a little bit of something here, but we need some guidance on what we're talking about. One person says one thing and one person's 5 feet is another person's 20 feet. So we're just trying to get an idea of what that means in your case.
Board Member Bauta:
Thank you.
Steve McIntosh:
Yeah, we're open to do someChair Gibbs:
Okay, any other questions?
All right, I close the public hearing. Who would like to begin? Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
I can probably kick off on this one. I'll be brave.
I'll start with the red line that you presented tonight. I stand by that red line. It would still not preserve that mountain view, it would be a taking, but at least it would be a compromise. In my viewpoint, my professionalism, the way that I view property and evaluate property, if it devalues somebody else's property, then something needs to change. And I think that where that red line is, I'm going to stand strong on that red line because it won't preserve all of that mountain view but it'll protect the majority of it. It'll also help with light and air.
The other issue I have is the articulation on that side, you have a two-story, straight-up-and-down wall, there's no articulation facing the house, the neighbor's house. So view equity hasn't been achieved, the articulation hasn't been achieved. I don't find the neighborhood compatible because of the articulation that house, you're in the village, so I think a different design, also you presented a design of another house that stretched across as I recommended in the first meeting. That's something that would be neighborhood compatible. You definitely have the right as a homeowner to have a second story, I'm not saying that, it's just this isn't it. I can't approve this project tonight, it doesn't meet neighborhood compatibility, view equity, or articulation.
Chair Gibbs:
All right, who would like to go next? [inaudible 00:32:13] Louis.
Board Member Weil:
There's a lot of positives with your project in general, but I think to Jessica's point, the view equity is really the bigger concern, and I think we talked about it a lot at the first hearing was there's a lot of availability on your second level that the board's unanimously discussed that there's availability for square footage up there. And it's definitely the right to your property and the right enjoyment for you to have a second story on this project, to have a balcony that looks at the ocean. Those are all factors in the design review criteria that you read. You have the ability to achieve a view as well as balance the rights of preserving views of others. The pop-up direction that you're going is absolutely the right way to go. I just think there's some massaging or some characteristics that we were looking for from the first 247
direction, and in first hearing is to typically try to give it a little bit more broad, a little bit more leeway for the architect to really do his magic.
I was having a discussion with Drew that just kind of top line... Shaveta, can you pull up the image for me? And I just want to give you some more specifics. The five-foot reduction wasn't enough. And these are just rough sketches just to help articulate the discussion points. The view equity we all know is that corner that the rear, bathroom sitting area are all in. Now, the areas in red could be areas of reduction to get that back into a light. It's not to scale or anything, but I think you could have that element where you have a little bit more of an enclosed deck, just very similar to the neighbors.
But areas in yellow and even other areas on the other side could be expanded to you. But if the closet were to be moved to the other side, you're ripping down that level, the roof, and all those components otherwise. I'd just be encouraged to see that maybe the sitting area maintains but the bathroom and the closet get moved maybe to the other side, giving maybe some more space across the middle part of that H that you could have a little bit better bedroom and components with this. I don't see where that would wreck your project. And I think if we can find this kind of balance, if there's willingness on the parties to come together, I think we have a good project that both parties mutually leave with some uncomfortableness. But I know this is your dream to improve your property and I'm not wanting to stand in the way, but I think there's more balanced ways we could achieve that.
And again, I'm just putting up this as an idea of how I was wrapping around where the issues were and where I thought availability was. But I'm totally open to Drew's expertise in characteristics. The issues of the long, expansive wall still exist with the five-foot reduction. There could be some articulation on that side, but addressing a couple of these things may make it a much better home and a much better usable spot. And for me, I'd need to take a look at it again. If there's some better discussion and dialogue I could support a third hearing, but this is kind of where I'm at. I'm not supportive of it tonight, but I want it. There is a good project in this house.
Chair Gibbs:
All right.
Board Member Coveny:
Okay.
Chair Gibbs:
MJ.
Board Member Coveny:
Can I go?
Chair Gibbs:
Yeah.
Board Member Coveny:
So this is always difficult, and I know it's been hard for both of you guys. I actually took a stab, I sent it to Drew as well because I felt that there had to be a solution here. And I usually don't do the cocktail drawing but I think mine was a little better than yours, Louis. I'm just saying. It was very similar in nature though.
248
So every lot's different, every angle's different, every view's different. So that's how we look at it. That's why everything has to be looked at as we do, very uniquely from our points of view. We do have our criteria that we follow. There's nuances rarely, but normally it's very clear, but there's always different points of view. In this case, I think it's very clear that this is a split view out this back area. You actually took the picture from the corner, which kind of shows, this is our view, it's hillside and it's ocean. The view of the ocean is further away. I know you zoomed in on some to give it the impression it was closer, but it's actually further away. So when we have all this, we have to look with our own eyes and we did.
And I saw that there is a view equity issue which is definite.
I also agree with the mass and scale articulation. I don't think the size is a problem necessarily. And I didn't drill down on this I think in the last meeting because I was really focused on view equity. That's the moneymaker here in Laguna. Everybody wants to hold onto their views. We can work around articulation, mass scale, those are usually easy; privacy, you pull a shade. Those kinds of things can be handled really easily. View equity's the big one.
So I don't feel like, and I might not be accurate, but I don't feel like we really looked at options with the other side. Also, your back setback, you have so much space below back there to extend for if you need square footage and then you can build on the other side towards the front and a little bit... I think I had it in line almost with the chimney of the Mahoney's house, so that you didn't encroach into that view on the hillside.
If I didn't feel like there were options, I'd be all up and... We're really stuck. We'd be really in a tough place, but I feel like there's options here to come up with the design that can support your desire to have a lovely master suite, sitting, dressing area, access from that section of the house, which I still think you can access possibly from the other side, and build your suite over there and it would be great. But you're going out the back ending off the dining room and using that as your lift up. But again, I'm not an architect, but I do know that there's ways, having built my own house.
So view equity, mass, and articulation. Also, when it comes to some other concepts, your tree is great but that was a concession that benefited you as well and it's a great thing. It's going to help their view from the front to Laguna High School, but it never really blocked, from what I could see, the canyon view that substantially. But it's great if you guys can work together with things like that because every little bit helps and you give a little, they give a little, and that's the great way to find those compromises. So I think there's something here, to Louis' point, it's a property that has... You have a lot of space going forward and back, I think you've got setback opportunities there. View equity is what you really need to put your energy into.
I also think sort of the house kind of stopping halfway at the top there's a little funky. The beautiful illustration you had of the double dormer and then the center meeting was beautiful, especially if it came back in line with, maybe not the Jessica line, but the chimney line, would be just lovely. But that's out of my purview. But anyway, I digress. That's it. Thank you.
Chair Gibbs:
Thank you, MJ.
Imer.
Board Member Bauta:
Yeah, thank you, Chair.
I had a chance to watch the previous meeting and go into depth on some of the comments, and I think what I'm hearing from some of my fellow board members is that they left it up to the team to come up 249
with another solution. I had a chance to review the drawings, and I think that there is something here, there's definitely a project here. I think we should definitely give them a third hearing. I think that's a fair shake here. I'd like to see that wall pull back. What that looks like, I think the design team has substantial input between Louis and MJ and Jessica going through and just giving you the clean slate to come up with something that's going to work.
From my personal view, I think they can come back. I think that view equity was preserved in two circumstances, obviously the ocean line and then also the coastline, there's a piece that you could see in this, but the third piece is the hillside. And I understand the tree removal was added into the radius of viewport, and we can appreciate that. But for this particular case it sounds like there's the need for the third. I think there was a good attempt, but I think that we got to get something that's going to work for this design team.
Chair Gibbs:
Thank you, Imer.
Well, I expressed my views last time and reductions were made, so my views haven't changed. Bottom line, my view is that the issue is really view equity because privacy can be dealt with, and we're talking view equity from secondary bedrooms. And the most important, their prize bedroom, the Mahoney's, is the corner room, which is the study. Secondary bedrooms, we rarely give any view equity considerations, particularly where the house has other great views, which the house does from the master and the deck upstairs. The study has a much bigger picture window facing toward the ocean, and on the side window the building was put back five feet. So, I feel for the applicants here, but I totally respect the different views of my colleagues. You heard what they have to say. Basically, they're asking you to redesign to protect views from two subsidiary bedrooms and a study that has a really terrific view that's not being impinged. With all of that said, I would support a third hearing.
The other comment I would have about that is the board members are asking the parties to work together to come up with a... They've offered their own designs, so if they were doing their designs that's what they would do. But they're asking the parties to get together and try to redesign the McIntoshes' house. I see that's going to be a real problem here. And there's so much emotion and it's legitimate emotion. I'm talking both with the McIntoshes and the Mahoneys. And it's tough to get around that. I was a judicial mediator for many years and one of the reasons you have mediation is because the parties can't talk to one another. I don't know if you can do that directly or do that through an intermediary. Because you're entitled to have a house and you're entitled to have a second story.
And the one thing I do agree with with my colleagues is there is a house here to be designed that could meet the approval of this board. And I think our job here is to approve projects that meet the guidelines.
I would love to see here a solution.
And since this project's not going to be approved, I would hope this board continues it to a third hearing.
I would hope you guys can put aside the emotions. You guys were once friends, go back to being friends.
Sit down with... Drew, you're good architect, sit down, pencil it out, and do some give and take. Realize that you've enjoyed a single story house next to you which unique in that neighborhood for a long time and it's not meant to stay forever. Understand the concerns that the McIntoshes have about the location of the second story. By the same token, you've heard the board, you're going to need to protect their canyon and their side views. There is a solution here. So with that saidBoard Member Coveny:
Chair, may I have one comment before you close?
250
Chair Gibbs:
Go ahead.
Board Member Coveny:
I just want to make a clarification because I know they want direction. I want to make sure that we were all clear enough. So one thing you said, my concern wasn't with the middle bedroom, it's only with the study den office, as far as view equity. Center bedroom is not important or not to me viable in this particular, in our parameters. Yeah, so I just want to be clear about that.
Board Member Bauta:
Yeah, I wanted to echo that too. I think it's just that front bedroom, and I think it's not the entirety of the view, I think it's at least a partial view of the hill.
Chair Gibbs:
How much would youChair Pro Tem Gannon:
[inaudible 00:45:41].
Chair Gibbs:
Listen, listen, I can do whatever. I'm the chair, I have the floor.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
I recommend not putting a number on it, it needs to be restaked.
Chair Gibbs:
I have the floor.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
Okay.
Chair Gibbs:
Then you can comment, Jess, let me have the floor then I'll give it to you.
Both of you indicated that your concern is the side window in the study. It was pulled back five feet, which increased that view. How much further back would you want it to be able to approve this project? Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
The red line as I suggested, so whateverBoard Member Coveny:
And I also sent a drawing to Drew saying this is where I think we could be, somewhere in here. So I'm not going to give him a number.
251
Board Member Weil:
Can we see that drawing by any chance?
Chair Gibbs:
That's my next question. Can I see the drawing, so we can... I want to see if we can at least narrow the issues for the third hearing because what I was hearing from both, and maybe I misunderstood, this is called deliberations. This is good. What I was hearing from Louis and from Jess was basically a redesign.
And, Jess, I saw your redesign I think in photos that were shown to me that you had given to the applicant. And I saw your redesign on the screen, Louis, which was much more than just dealing with that study, that corner study. If MJ and Imer can improve the project by pulling back that house to give a little bit more view from that side window, I think we need to look at that. So with that said, can you pull up yourBoard Member Coveny:
How do I pull it up though? It's on my... Can I [inaudible 00:47:25]? Board Member Weil:
Chair, while we do that, I articulated in that drawing, it's probably like eight more feet to get back there, but my question was going to be to the applicant. If they have a few specific questions for where we're at in the discussion.
Chair Gibbs:
I'm want us to explore this before we open it to the applicant. Looking at it, you just want it so you can't see the build hit the second story at all from that side window. Is that your view, Louis? Board Member Weil:
I think it just needs to be tucked back. I think there's two things into the equation. One is the availability of space that are less impactful that could be utilized while still achieving their results. And even though I suggested the closets moving and that kind of stuff, what they do in the inside of the space, that's completely up to them. But there was just that's where the drawings were now and those kinds of swaps could make sense, but it's up to them.
Chair Gibbs:
My view is it's just not fair to say that that whole side window has to have an unobstructed view. That is such an impingement on the right of the applicant that built. That's my personal view.
Board Member Bauta:
Yeah, I agree with you, Chair Gibbs.
Chair Gibbs:
Okay, can I see that chart and then we can talk about this? City Attorney Donegan:
Chair, I still think we're working on the tech side to get it to252
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
And, Chair, while we're waiting can you make the findings because I can't make the findings for a third hearing. Can you provide the findings?
Chair Gibbs:
We're not there yet. I want to see what the issues are.
Drew Blake:
[inaudible 00:49:03].
Board Member Bauta:
Yeah, Chair, just the guidance. I think from what I could tell, five to six feet, somewhere in that range, pulling that wall back would go a long way. I think it would open up the corridor. I also think it would give a nice view of that coastline and partial hillside, from what I could tell fromChair Gibbs:
I'm sorry, I don't want to miss... Five to six feet did you say? Board Member Bauta:
Yeah, I think five to six feet would help a ton.
Chair Gibbs:
Pulling back the building. So for the benefit of the side window in that study? Board Member Bauta:
That's right.
Chair Gibbs:
Okay.
MJ, is that something you could support as well?
Board Member Coveny:
[inaudible 00:49:47] I was busy with technology [inaudible 00:49:53].
Chair Gibbs:
Okay. Imer said, I don't want to use words, that he said that heBoard Member Coveny:
[inaudible 00:49:56].
Chair Gibbs:
I'm sorry?
253
Board Member Coveny:
I could not put a actual number on it. I'd have to look at my plan and what I sent and then do the calculation. But my plan is very close, might be a little further than it needs to go.
Chair Gibbs:
So we would need to look at your chart. On your chart, does it indicate how many feet back it would go? Board Member Coveny:
If you want to put a floor plan up, I can show you where I colored it in.
Board Member Weil:
It's directional at best, and I just want to make sure that... Even though I drew something on this thing, that's just directional guidance, I still reserve the right to review the project if we hear this again and have a full different opinion. Putting specific markings on what I'm going to accept or not. I'm not accepting of the project in its current form.
Chair Gibbs:
I think let me cut to the chase here because I agree with what Louis said, we're not bound to anything that we indicate tonight, although I think we should try to be clear. They pulled back that five feet. I think that shows good faith toward reaching a resolution. I know. So I support a third hearing on that basis, particularly given I think at least three board members would support the project if the second story is pulled further back to enhance the view of the side window in the upstairs study. Because of that, because they made the move to do five feet, I think good faith exists to address the issue that is troubling at least three members of the... Well, two members of the board, it's not troubling me. And that therefore there's good cause to put this over to a third hearing if the applicant desires a third hearing, is willing to follow that direction.
Jess, you have the floor.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
Oh, I have no further comments.
Chair Gibbs:
All right.
Board Member Weil:
I'd just strike the five-foot comment because it's still directional. Changes need to occur and other impacts could create a different privacy concerns if the decking becomes different, but I think there's a lot of balance and stuff and availability that they can work on the right solution. But I'm not going to be held to five feet.
Chair Gibbs:
Okay, but before I ask the applicant if he's interested in a third hearing, can I get just a straw vote on who's willing to support a third hearing?
Imer, what's your feeling?
254
Board Member Bauta:
Yeah, absolutely.
Chair Gibbs:
Louis?
Board Member Weil:
Yeah, just want to get the willingness from the applicant.
Chair Gibbs:
Yeah, I'll get to that. So I think we have at least the majority to do that. So the question to you, Mr.
McIntosh, is whether you're willing to go back to the... You've heard three board members to talk about the issue being the view from Mahoney's side window in the study. I'm sure there's two others that want probably more. So do you want us to vote a yay or any tonight or do you want to go over to a third hearing and try to get this thing through on the third hearing? Drew Blake:
This is Drew, just for the record. We did do some studies and I do have a plan here on the floor plan that back additional three feet, so it'd be a total of eight. So I'm not sure if that moves the marker at all any? Chair Gibbs:
I'm not hearing it. I think Louis' point is he needs to see it. I'd like to get at least a four vote, hopefully a five vote the next time. You heard Imer say that maybe five to six feet, you heard MJ saying she can't commit to it, she needs to see it. So I don't think that's going to work.
Drew Blake:
Okay.
Chair Gibbs:
I know it's an important decision and I don't mean to rush you, butVicki McIntosh:
[inaudible 00:54:06].
Chair Gibbs:
What?
Board Member Weil:
That's MJ's scribble, just for the record, or notes.
Board Member Coveny:
It's not scribble. Look [inaudible 00:54:19] sitting area. [inaudible 00:54:22] now you walk into the mirror255
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
Speak.
Board Member Coveny:
I actually laid it out nicer.
Board Member Weil:
Yeah, but again, just beyondChair Gibbs:
Yeah, we're beyond that.
Board Member Weil:
The interior is not within the Design Review Guidelines.
Board Member Coveny:
I know. I'm just sayingBoard Member Weil:
Very nice drawings.
Board Member Coveny:
I want them to show them that they could get everything they wanted, which was stillChair Gibbs:
I know. We're beyond that. I don't want to be talking about interior. We're not going to approve the [inaudible 00:54:45].
Board Member Coveny:
You asked to see my drawing, it's there. Thank you whoever put it up.
Board Member Bauta:
Chair, I think it'sBoard Member Weil:
MJ, I apologize. I asked for it butBoard Member Bauta:
Got it.
Board Member Weil:
I know, I love it.
256
Board Member Bauta:
I think it's worth noting to the applicant team that MJ's sketch was probably substantially more than the five or six, just for guidance.
Chair Gibbs:
Does the applicant have it?
Board Member Coveny:
Yes.
Chair Gibbs:
Okay, good.
Board Member Bauta:
So that'll go into their decision.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
Chair, I move to continue. Do you guys want to have a vote or a continuance? Chair Gibbs:
No, I want to hear back from them.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
Okay.
Chair Gibbs:
They have to decide if they want a continuance.
Board Member Weil:
A voter continuance. And how soon could we get them back if we were to expedite getting them back? Steve McIntosh:
Sorry.
Chair Gibbs:
Hold on a second.
Drew Blake:
Can we ask one question? Oh, sorry. A question of how long until we could come back? Board Member Weil:
That's what I just asked.
257
Drew Blake:
Oh.
Board Member Weil:
That's usually the first question.
Chair Gibbs:
Yeah, go ahead, Bill.
Board Member Weil:
But if we can try to get this back.
Bill:
Yeah, so, Chair, in part, it depends on how much time you think you'll need to incorporate the revisions.
But at this point, if we're trying to expedite return, I would suggest maybe August 14th, which would be highly expedited. Or perhaps September 11th.
Board Member Weil:
There's only one meeting in August, soChair Gibbs:
Yeah, my suggestion is that you've come a long road on this. Do this September 11. I'll give you a little bit more time. And again, you guys got to be neighbors. I encourage you guys, sit down, put the emotions aside, get somebody in there that you both feel comfortable with to help get this project through.
Board Member Weil:
[inaudible 00:56:18] September 11?
Chair Gibbs:
Oh, 9/11.
Drew Blake:
Okay, we'd like to have a vote for the continuance, please.
Chair Gibbs:
Okay, I moveDrew Blake:
September 11th.
258
Chair Gibbs:
Yeah, I move that item 5.7... I don't have my glasses. 607 Short Street be continued to September 11, 2025, with the finding that the prior changes in the plans for the second hearing showed good faith and that there is adequate cause to proceed to a third hearing to resolve the issues as described by the board.
Board Member Coveny:
I second that.
Chair Gibbs:
Roll call please.
Speaker 4:
Board Member Bauta?
Board Member Bauta:
Yes.
Speaker 4:
Board Member Covney?
Board Member Coveny:
Yes.
Speaker 4:
Board Member Weil?
Board Member Weil:
Yes.
Speaker 4:
Chair Pro Tem Gannon?
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
Yes.
Speaker 4:
Chair Gibbs?
Chair Gibbs:
Yes.
Good luck to you.
259
Drew Blake:
Thank you, guys, really appreciate it.
Board Member Coveny:
And, Drew, you feel like you have enough from us, right? You good? Drew Blake:
Yeah.
Board Member Coveny:
Because I don't want to be accused of not giving you clear direction.
Drew Blake:
All's good. [inaudible 00:57:41].
Chair Gibbs:
Okay. Thank you very much.
Next item, please.
260