From: steve kawaratani
To: Gibbs, Thomas; Gannon, Jessica; Coveny, Mary Jo; Bauta, Imer; Weil, Louis Cc: Sharma, Shaveta CD; Balmer-Csira, Nancy CD; Rodrigues, Bill CD Subject: 5.7 607 Short Street & 5.8 31112 Holly Drive
Date: Saturday, June 21, 2025 9:17:22 AM
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.]
Good morning, Chair Gibbs and Board members,
I hope that the first weekend of summer finds you doing or planning something fun.
This week I represent Alison and Miles Mahoney, who reside next door to the proposed project at 607 Short Street, and Frank Giacobetti, who is the property owner at 31112 Holly Drive.
The Mahoneys continue to have concern over their neighbor’s application that falls short of the clear direction provided by the Board during the first hearing. The proposed reductions are not a good faith effort to mitigate the continuing issues of excessive massing, view equity and loss of air and light.
The applicant team is grateful for Nancy Csira’s recommendation for approval for Frank’s modest project on Holly Drive.
I am available to meet in advance of the Design Review meeting, most anytime from Tuesday through Thursday. I understand that Tom and MJ have reached out to my clients for Monday meetings and I can be contacted later if questions arise.
Please enjoy your weekends!
Best,
Steve
949.290.0210
Attachment 13
261
From:
To: Design Review Board; Gibbs, Thomas; Coveny, Mary Jo; [email protected]; Gannon, Jessica; Campbell, James CD; Rodrigues, Bill CD; Sharma, Shaveta CD Cc: "Alison Mahoney";
Subject: 607 Short Street McIntosh rebuild - Mahoney Family submitting comments here...
Date: Friday, June 20, 2025 12:45:56 PM
Attachments: MacIntosh Remodel Miles v.2.docx
Board Review statement Alison 2025-02-22.docx
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] From: Alison Mahoney
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2025 11:28 AM
To: Miles Mahoney
Subject: Fw: McIntosh rebuild - Mahoney Family submitting comments here...
From: Alison Mahoney < >
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2025 11:19 AM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Thomas Gibbs <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Louis Weil <[email protected]>; To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Campbell, James CD <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Sharma, Shaveta CD <[email protected]> Cc:
Subject: McIntosh rebuild - Mahoney Family submitting comments here...
Dear Design Review Board Members -
Thank you all for the time and careful consideration of our input in the Design Review process. As we have stated before in comments submitted and the prior DRB meeting, we are in no way against the McIntoshes improving their home however their proposed design represents a significant impact to our privacy.
Please see our first comments and statements attached from 2/27. Miles and I are submitting our comments again here in advance of the 6/26 Board Meeting so that we can clearly state our concerns about privacy, massing and how the McIntoshes proposed design will impact our home significantly. 262
We cannot reorient our 88 year old historic home, and each upstairs room window on the North side will be forced to face looking at a single, massive flat wall running 42 feet, well beyond the length of our home.
In the last Board meeting, Four out of Five board members gave specific feedback on the design and suggested changes which have been disregarded. The new design staking shows a reduction of about 4 feet, but does not impact the massing and a complete loss of privacy, light and views. In addition it's not aesthetically attractive and will devalue our home.
Here are some of the relevant and specific comments made in the Board meeting:
Jessica Gannon -
So, also included in the design review guidelines is view blockage that includes not only the ocean but a hillside. And the photo that I took in that primary room, which is now being used as an office, is-has that peekaboo view of the ocean, but for me, I noticed that it has a phenomenal—and I should have submitted this to the city and I will after tonight’s meeting so it’s on public record. But that hillside is absolutely gorgeous and it would completely—and I’m saying—everything that I’m going to say now I said to you when we met. That would significantly devalue that property next door. My suggestion—what I recommend is having —I understand the stairs needing to be located where they are—keep the stairs there, but drag the house completely—like a more traditional style house —two-story house where it goes across the width of the roof and then keep the articulation—you have a brilliant architect there—I’m sure he can figure it out. . I just don’t support overloading the left side, but I understand why—you explained really well why you have to have the stairs on the left side, so if you can work that out to take the program across the width, you could have my support.
Louis Weil -
But when you read the design review guidelines, you get to sides to this conversation in that whole document. You have the right to achieve a view with your building, but on the other side of that statement you’ve got to balance the views, and the privacy, and the other things that come with it. So there’s two sides to almost every single statement in the document. I think as it applies to this house, right—and a lot of times in a lot of areas in town we try to encourage this kind of pop-up design. But I think the way the extension is on just the one side, I think it is creating some impacts, especially to the rear side of the lot. 263
But I’m not saying that a larger program couldn’t be achieved on that second story, given the neighborhood compatibility of the second stories that surround the high school area of the vicinity. And, looking at your house now, it’s kind of the shape of an H on the bottom floor, right, and you’re trying to just run it on the one side. I think if you were to look more at the H part and work more toward the middle part back, you probably could achieve more program. I know board member Gibbs talked about feasibility, but when it comes to design review guidelines, cost isn’t part of analysis, right? Yes, it is some part of the equation overall, but in terms of trying to achieve what you want and still achieve your view, I think it’s still well-afforded in your second level availability? But I don’t think in the current layout, it kind of meets that balancing nature of the view impact from the length that it extends from the one side. So, in short, if you pull it back I can be much more approvable of the program extending across the front or making bigger sections in the middle part. Or over the garage. So, Dana, did you—also looking at the aerial of the two lots neighboring you’ve got kind of the Mahoneys on one side and the property on the other. Their second level doesn’t extend nearly as far as the one you’re proposing? So what I was trying to look at was kind of a reasonable string line, so you kind of keep that opening available? For not only the Mahoneys but the other side. But then it affords you a reasonable development, kind of, for lack of a better word, string line. I’d like to see something closer to that? It doesn’t mean that you have to get to that exact line, but that’s where I’m drawing reasonability within the design, kind of at this point in the discussion. And I think that might be a much more balanced equation and maybe achieve some of what board member Gannon was discussing.
MJ Coveny -
I think that, kind of, if you had tried to do it on the other side, it would have been a slam/dunk, but you’re here and this is where you want it and we’ll see if we can make it fit, based on what you’ve got. I agree with Mr. Gibbs on design articulation. I think along the side, you’re fine there. I think that the upper coming out so far and blocking the back bedroom of the Mahoneys is something that just can’t happen. That has to be looked at very thoroughly. I appreciate you opening up that front bedroom window by removing that large tree that’s sort of there now, so they’re going to gain view there, and—but they’re definitely going to lose that middle bedroom. I don’t think light is an issue. I don’t think breeze and that kind of stuff is an issue. I think it’s really visually—it’s just—it’s a big loss. Even though this isn’t a super ceremonial space, it’s an active space. I mean, I could feel that just by how the house is set up. So I really feel that that needs to be addressed; that they need to have that, as Ms. 264
Gannon pointed out, that amazing view of the hillside, which hopefully will continually stay pristine for them. So really look at that.
Dana Thalman -
Okay. Well, my first reaction when I came to the McIntoshes and saw the plans and took a look at the stakes, it looked very reasonable. It looked to be in line with all the design review guidelines. But then after going to the neighbors’ next door, the—especially the master bedroom upstairs—that had a sort of in-yourface blockage, even though I know you’ve opted to put in privacy windows, which I think is a good idea. I think board member Coveney’s idea about pushing that master bedroom back—and I hate to say this to you—but then you have to reduce your walk-in closet. It’s a beautiful closet. I’m jealous. But maybe pushing everything back might alleviate some of that—it’s the light and air; it’s not so much privacy—it’s light and air, and there is a view from their office window.
Steve McIntosh saying they cannot change the design based on their budget and existing limitations of their home's structure. This is not the focus of the Design Review Board.
And so what happens when we do that—we’re working around an existing floor plan. There’s very little that we can do. We’re not tearing it down, we’re not building from a new—so what ends up happening—that shows it flipped over.
We have one spot for the stairs, which is basically in—where it was, and it’s been suggested that we just build all the way across then, and that’s what we end up with. But we’re just limited on where we can put stairs. We’ve got issues with plumbing, electrical. It’s cost-prohibitive. We’ve got to work on concrete—a lot more concrete to build all the way across.
Thank you for the sincere consideration of our concerns, Alison and Miles Mahoney
<Board Review statement Alison 2025-02-22.docx>
265
From: Jeffrey Amos
To: Gannon, Jessica; Gibbs, Thomas; Coveny, Mary Jo; Bauta, Imer; Weil, Louis Cc: Campbell, James CD; Rodrigues, Bill CD; Sharma, Shaveta CD; Design Review Board; Todd Brooks Subject: Feedback on McIntosh Residence Plans - Short Street Project Date: Thursday, June 19, 2025 5:16:22 PM
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Dear Design Review Board Members,
Thank you for your time and dedication to reviewing the proposed addition on Short Street. My name is Jeff Amos, and I live with my husband, Todd Brooks, at just behind the property in question. We’re longtime residents and truly value the charm and sense of community that defines this neighborhood.
We also want to express our appreciation for the McIntosh family, who’ve been wonderful neighbors for many years. We fully support their desire to improve their home and are glad to see the thoughtful effort they’ve already put into their plans.
We want to acknowledge the changes that the McIntoshes have made in response to earlier feedback— specifically the almost five-foot setback on the second floor. It’s a step in the right direction, and we appreciate their willingness to make adjustments. That said, we still have a few concerns about privacy and the overall scale of the project that we’d like to respectfully share.
The three large second-story windows that will be their master bedroom continue to have a direct line of sight into our backyard and our back bedroom. This area serves as our only private outdoor space, and unfortunately, the proposed layout would leave us fully exposed on that side of the yard. While landscaping has been proposed as a privacy solution, our narrow yard makes it challenging to implement plantings tall enough (likely 15 feet or more) without creating a canyon-like effect. We’re also unsure how such plantings would be monitored over time for effectiveness.
We understand the desire to expand, and we’re supportive of reasonable growth that fits the neighborhood context. What we’re struggling with is the footprint of the second-story addition, which seems quite large relative to the size of the home and surrounding properties. For comparison, our upstairs makes up about 36% of the ground floor, which helps our home feel balanced. Perhaps, the design could be scaled back yet a bit more? Alternatively, if the second story were flipped to the other side of the house, we believe much of the privacy impact on our yard and bedroom could be virtually eliminated without sacrificing the functionality of the space.
We’re committed to working within the process and will of course respect the board’s decision. We simply ask that you take a close look at how this addition might affect the daily experience of neighbors like us. If any board members would find it helpful to view the proposed sightlines from our property, we would gladly make our backyard available for a quick visit.
With appreciation,
Jeff Amos & Todd Brooks
_____________________
266
267