Thank you to the Board and our neighbors for hearing our input on the McIntoshes proposed plan.
We have met with the McIntoshes on three occassions and finding ourselves at an impasse, and want to preserve the relationship we have.
Miles and believe all our neighbors should be able to make improvements to their homes and are not against an improvement.
From the point the McIntoshes let us know they had a plan and asked us for our input, we have given consideration and met with them within 24 hours of each request. They have been on an urgent timeframe and we have willingly supported and kept pace with their meeting requests. Once the stakes went up at Thansksgiving, it was clear how impactful their proposed plan would be to us. Each time we met, we thoughtfully shared our concerns for privacy, light and how the large flat wall and mass of their proposed front-to-back wall will impact us, our privacy and lifestyle, plus block light and view. Our lot and theirs have a smaller easement, and our homes stand at the same elevation. Their proposed plan represents a significant impact to our privacy and our enjoyment of our home.
When we bought our home, we had been searching for 4 years. Our home was built in 1937 and thoughtfully designed to maximize the privacy, light and functionality for the size of each room. We make our living and function only by having full use of these rooms during daytime. We needed a 4 bedroom home for our family of five, and space to work during daytime hours on conference/video calls for our corporate employers, plus run our family Real Estate business plus. We spend about 12 hours a week day, or about 65% of our time working upstairs in two of the three rooms. We don’t use our upstairs space for sleeping only. In addition, our teenage kids work and study from their rooms. Our adult daughter has been displaced from LA and living with us. Even from our Master Bedroom bathtub and toilet, we can see their proposed home and this is an intrusion of our privacy.
During the years we have been next door neighbors and friends, we have enjoyed a close relationship with the McIntoshes, they have been a part of many holiday events, parties and we collaborated to get speed bumps put in on our street. I am hopeful that there is a productive and thoughtful way forward for us.
To close - When we had our third conversation, one of the points that the McIntoshes mentioned was that they fully expected to push back the position of their upstairs design, but were not prepared to discuss any expectations with us and were waiting for the Board meeting so that they would not unecessarily reduce the size/scale of their upstairs in advance or tolerate more delays to starting their major rebuild. The McIntoshes also said in conversation that changing their plan might impact the privacy they are seeking, and that their design preference was not the perspective of viewing the proximity and mass of our home. Both these conversation points are examples acknowledge and substantiate the value of privacy and mass/proximity of our homes as important to each of us. We are counting on the Board to help us navigate a plan that will take this into consideration, and not reduce or take away our homes’ privacy and function in order to support theirs. Lastly, there is also the consideration of the equity and value of our home which is significant to us.
Attachment 16
299
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Dear Design Review Board Members,
Thanks again for your continued service and consideration of our input throughout this review process. As Alison mentioned in her statement to this committee and documented in our prior written comments (submitted 2/27 and attached in Alison email) and reiterated at the last DRB meeting, we want to state clearly: while we support the McIntosh’s’ right to improve their property, we simply cannot and will not support the current proposed design which is inconsistent with key neighborhood compatibility and privacy principles outlined in the community’s design review standards and they are unwilling to work with us on a suitable solution.
As we have stated and shown in prior DRB meetings, the design positions a single, continuous 42-foot-long flat wall along our north exposure — exceeding the scale and proportion appropriate for this neighborhood and creating a permanent loss of privacy, light, and open view from every north-facing room in our home.
During the prior DRB meeting, four of five Board Members provided explicit feedback recommending reductions in massing, improved articulation, and design adjustments to minimize privacy impacts and a few of you even asked for consideration of an alternative design altogether. These directives have not been incorporated in the revised submission. The minor four-foot reduction now shown in the staking is superficial and does not address the underlying design conflict — the structure remains visually dominant, monolithic, and inconsistent with the established architectural rhythm of adjacent homes.
In its current form, the project:
• Conflicts with the intent of neighborhood compatibility standards requiring massing transitions and respect for adjacent sightlines.
• Fails to mitigate direct privacy intrusion, as required under DRB design principles. • Negatively impacts the character, light, and value of our historic property.
In addition to the above, in the last DRB meeting, Tom Gibb, specifically asked the McIntosh’s to sit down with us to explore a viable solution, we reached out and they declined, instead we met for 30 minutes with Drew, their architect, where he informed us that they will not negotiate on their position or make any further concessions and if we don’t agree they will side step the DRB approval oversight and make it an ADU.
We ask the Board to exercise its responsibility to uphold fairness, consistency, and compliance with adopted standards in this decision. The current design, as presented, remains incompatible with the surrounding architectural context and should not proceed and we therefore respectfully request that the Board deny the current design application.
Thank you for your time, diligence, and attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Miles Mahoney
300
From: Drew Andelin Blake <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 8, 2025 9:50 PM
To: Sharma, Shaveta CD <[email protected]>
Subject: From Drew Blake - DRB Meeting for Oct. 9th, 2025 [NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Hi Shaveta...
Can you please forward the following to the DR Board members :
From Drew Blake
I did not say that the McIntosh's would not negotiate on the their position or make any concessions on the project, or that we would side step the DRB approval process and make it an ADU.
I did meet with Miles and Allie for any hour, and listened to their concerns, heard their input, and understood their ideas for a redesign of the project, according to their wishes.
I DID say that I would go back to the McIntosh's and give Steve and Vicki a report on what Miles and Allie would like to see from us, and I would let the McIntosh's make a decision on their own.
I did, some days later, text Steve K. to let him know that an ADU upstairs could be an alternative design idea to the free standing ADU that has been designed for the rear yard. That it could be an option for the McIntosh's.
I just wanted to make clear that the statement letter filed from Miles and Allie, is not correct... just as he states that we only pulled back 4 ft, but a full 5 ft, as he very well knows and understands, as it's on the drawings and is very clearly shown.
Thank you Shaveta... I just don't feel it's right to be mis-quoted and not be completely truthful.
Drew Blake
301
302
From: Drew Andelin Blake
Sent: Wednesday, October 8, 2025 9:50 PM
To: Sharma, Shaveta CD <[email protected]>
Subject: From Drew Blake - DRB Meeting for Oct. 9th, 2025 From Drew Blake
I did not say that the McIntosh's would not negotiate on the their position or make any concessions on the project, or that we would side step the DRB approval process and make it an ADU.
I did meet with Miles and Allie for any hour, and listened to their concerns, heard their input, and understood their ideas for a redesign of the project, according to their wishes.
I DID say that I would go back to the McIntosh's and give Steve and Vicki a report on what Miles and Allie would like to see from us, and I would let the McIntosh's make a decision on their own.
I did, some days later, text Steve K. to let him know that an ADU upstairs could be an alternative design idea to the free standing ADU that has been designed for the rear yard. That it could be an option for the McIntosh's.
I just wanted to make clear that the statement letter filed from Miles and Allie, is not correct... just as he states that we only pulled back 4 ft, but a full 5 ft, as he very well knows and understands, as it's on the drawings and is very clearly shown.
Thank you Shaveta... I just don't feel it's right to be mis-quoted and not be completely truthful.
Drew Blake
303
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Dear Design Review Board Members,
Thanks again for your continued service and consideration of our input throughout this review process. As Alison mentioned in her statement to this committee and documented in our prior written comments (submitted 2/27 and attached in Alison email) and reiterated at the last DRB meeting, we want to state clearly: while we support the McIntosh’s’ right to improve their property, we simply cannot and will not support the current proposed design which is inconsistent with key neighborhood compatibility and privacy principles outlined in the community’s design review standards and they are unwilling to work with us on a suitable solution.
As we have stated and shown in prior DRB meetings, the design positions a single, continuous 42-foot-long flat wall along our north exposure — exceeding the scale and proportion appropriate for this neighborhood and creating a permanent loss of privacy, light, and open view from every north-facing room in our home.
During the prior DRB meeting, four of five Board Members provided explicit feedback recommending reductions in massing, improved articulation, and design adjustments to minimize privacy impacts and a few of you even asked for consideration of an alternative design altogether. These directives have not been incorporated in the revised submission. The minor four-foot reduction now shown in the staking is superficial and does not address the underlying design conflict — the structure remains visually dominant, monolithic, and inconsistent with the established architectural rhythm of adjacent homes.
In its current form, the project:
• Conflicts with the intent of neighborhood compatibility standards requiring massing transitions and respect for adjacent sightlines.
• Fails to mitigate direct privacy intrusion, as required under DRB design principles. • Negatively impacts the character, light, and value of our historic property.
In addition to the above, in the last DRB meeting, Tom Gibb, specifically asked the McIntosh’s to sit down with us to explore a viable solution, we reached out and they declined, instead we met for 30 minutes with Drew, their architect, where he informed us that they will not negotiate on their position or make any further concessions and if we don’t agree they will side step the DRB approval oversight and make it an ADU.
We ask the Board to exercise its responsibility to uphold fairness, consistency, and compliance with adopted standards in this decision. The current design, as presented, remains incompatible with the surrounding architectural context and should not proceed and we therefore respectfully request that the Board deny the current design application.
Thank you for your time, diligence, and attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Miles Mahoney
304
Hello and Thank you for hearing our point of view on the Second Story addition of the MacIntosh home.
This has been a very difficult process for our family as we have enjoyed a friendship with the MacIntosh’s for over 5 years now. What’s at stake here is not just the addition of a second story on their home, but the fundamental right to privacy, to our views, to our peace of mind. I also want to underscore, we understand and support them making improvements to their property and enhance their living space, but NOT at the expense of our privacy, our views, the lighting and quality of life.
As some of you had the chance to tour our home, specifically see the area impacted by the second story addition, our family spends 60-70% of our waking and sleeping hours in the north run of our home directly impacted and affected by the second story additions they are proposing.
First, the new structure will block the sunlight and open airspace that provides privacy and quality to our daily lives and yes, we transition to working in 2 of the 3 rooms on that side of our home every day. We cherished the natural light and air that fills our home from the northwest side of our home, and without it, it will feel much darker, very closed off and less inviting.
Secondly, the proposed second story addition will obstruct our views and light, from every room along the north facing side of our property, which we’ve always considered a significant benefit of living, working and spending time in this run of our home. IT REALLY is our main living space. The view of the water and hillside has been a peaceful aspect of our daily life, and it would be really disheartening to see it just disappear. I wanted to express how important this view is to our family, not just as a luxury, but as a part of what makes our home special. In fact on one occasion, we asked Vicky and Steve, just like all of you did, to come over and see for themselves the massive impact their proposed project will have on that entire side of our home. I asked Steve….” how would you feel if you were in my shoes and I was proposing what you 305
are proposing” and Steve responded, “I would be upset” This is truly significant to the quality of our living space and the value of our home.
But it’s not only our views that are under threat. The addition of the second story has led to a lack of privacy in certain areas of our property.
Privacy is NOT addressed by putting window coverings or frosting the windows themselves, it’s the impact and unknown of a structure looking into our living space and back yards, frosted windows or not- it feels like an invasion of privacy.
Let me be absolutely clear: This is about mass and scale and the impact it will have on our home and our lives. I know these are significant choices and considerations for the Board and I want to restate, we want to be a good neighbors as I believe we have been, I’m hoping with your support that they can find an alternative way to have their remodel without changing our entire home experience, our privacy and happiness we get from the current layout of both homes.
Thank you for taking the time to listen to my concerns. I appreciate your understanding.
306
Thank you to the Board and our neighbors for hearing our input on the McIntoshes proposed plan.
We have met with the McIntoshes on three occassions and finding ourselves at an impasse, and want to preserve the relationship we have.
Miles and believe all our neighbors should be able to make improvements to their homes and are not against an improvement.
From the point the McIntoshes let us know they had a plan and asked us for our input, we have given consideration and met with them within 24 hours of each request. They have been on an urgent timeframe and we have willingly supported and kept pace with their meeting requests. Once the stakes went up at Thansksgiving, it was clear how impactful their proposed plan would be to us. Each time we met, we thoughtfully shared our concerns for privacy, light and how the large flat wall and mass of their proposed front-to-back wall will impact us, our privacy and lifestyle, plus block light and view. Our lot and theirs have a smaller easement, and our homes stand at the same elevation. Their proposed plan represents a significant impact to our privacy and our enjoyment of our home.
When we bought our home, we had been searching for 4 years. Our home was built in 1937 and thoughtfully designed to maximize the privacy, light and functionality for the size of each room. We make our living and function only by having full use of these rooms during daytime. We needed a 4 bedroom home for our family of five, and space to work during daytime hours on conference/video calls for our corporate employers, plus run our family Real Estate business plus. We spend about 12 hours a week day, or about 65% of our time working upstairs in two of the three rooms. We don’t use our upstairs space for sleeping only. In addition, our teenage kids work and study from their rooms. Our adult daughter has been displaced from LA and living with us. Even from our Master Bedroom bathtub and toilet, we can see their proposed home and this is an intrusion of our privacy.
During the years we have been next door neighbors and friends, we have enjoyed a close relationship with the McIntoshes, they have been a part of many holiday events, parties and we collaborated to get speed bumps put in on our street. I am hopeful that there is a productive and thoughtful way forward for us.
To close - When we had our third conversation, one of the points that the McIntoshes mentioned was that they fully expected to push back the position of their upstairs design, but were not prepared to discuss any expectations with us and were waiting for the Board meeting so that they would not unecessarily reduce the size/scale of their upstairs in advance or tolerate more delays to starting their major rebuild. The McIntoshes also said in conversation that changing their plan might impact the privacy they are seeking, and that their design preference was not the perspective of viewing the proximity and mass of our home. Both these conversation points are examples acknowledge and substantiate the value of privacy and mass/proximity of our homes as important to each of us. We are counting on the Board to help us navigate a plan that will take this into consideration, and not reduce or take away our homes’ privacy and function in order to support theirs. Lastly, there is also the consideration of the equity and value of our home which is significant to us. 307
From: steve kawaratani
To: Gibbs, Thomas; Jessica Gannon; Bauta, Imer; Coveny, Mary Jo; Weil, Louis Cc: Sharma, Shaveta CD; Khan, Shehriyar CD; Besinaiz, Daniel CD; Rodrigues, Bill CD Subject: 5.8 - 607 Short Street, 5.9 - 2058 Crestview Drive & 5.10 - 31502 Coast Highway Date: Monday, October 6, 2025 6:45:20 AM
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Good morning, Chair Gibbs and Board members,
I hope you enjoyed your weekends!
I represent Alison and Miles Mahoney, Evgeniy Krasko and Paul Kraft, who all continue to oppose neighboring projects due to view impacts. It is readily apparent that their opposition remains as the applicants have substantially ignored Board comment and direction to mitigate view issues by reducing or relocating architectural program.
Alison and Miles Mahoney , reside next door at Short street to the proposed project at 607 Short Street.
Evgeniy Krasko lives at Gainsborough Dr, above 2058
Crestiview Drive.
Paul Kraft lives at Catalina Ave, behind 31502 Coast
Highway.
All three spoke at earlier DRB hearings to voice their concerns and the Board minutes clearly reflect Board comment to protect views through reasonable shifting or reduction of program .
I am available to meet from 9am to1045am and from 230p to 5p on Tuesday, and anytime on Wednesday and anytime up to 130pm on Thursday.
If these times don’t work for you, please contact my clients and copy me to arrange a meeting with them
Enjoy a splendid week!
Best,
Steve
308
309
310
311
312