Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 1 - February 27, 2025
MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
REGULAR MEETING AND NOTICED HEARING
February 27, 2025
A regular noticed meeting of the Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board of the City of Laguna Beach, California, convened at 5:00 P.M. on February 27, 2025.
Present: Chair Jessica Gannon, Board Members Tom Gibbs, Kristine Thalman, MJ Coveny, and Louis Weil
Absent: None.
Staff Present: Jim Campbell, Interim Planning Manager; Patrick Donegan, City Attorney’s Office; Daniel Latham, Associate Planner; Sarah Olsen, Planning Technician; Shaveta Sharma, Senior Planner; and Maria Ballard, Senior Office Specialist.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PUBLIC COMMUNICATION - At this time, members of the public may address the Design Review Board regarding any items not on the agenda but within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Design Review Board. No action may be taken on off-agenda items unless authorized by law. Comments shall be limited to two (2) minutes each and fifteen (15) minutes for all comments, unless extended for good cause by the Design Review Board.
3. MODIFICATION OF AGENDA ORDER
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
5. REGULAR
5.1. 1550 BLUEBIRD CANYON DRIVE (LOT A) (DYRNAES), APN: NOT ASSIGNED – CONTINUED TO MAY 8, 2025
DESIGN REVIEW 24-2586, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-2588, AND REVOCABLE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT 24-2587 AND CATEGORCIAL EXEMPTION [Sections 15303] City Staff: Nancy Balmer-Csira, Planner (949) 715-1284 [email protected].
Project Applicant: David Parker, Architect (949) 872-6616 [email protected] Chair Gannon opened the public hearing
Public Testimony: None.
Chair Gannon closed the public hearing
Ms. Thalman made a motion, seconded by Ms. Gannon, to continue item 5.1 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive to the May 8, 2025, Design Review Board meeting. The motion passed 5-0.
Attachment 6
106
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 2 - February 27, 2025 Motion KT Second JG Action CONTINUED TO MAY 8, 2025
Coveny __Y__ Gibbs ___Y___ Weil ___Y___ Thalman ___Y___ Gannon ___Y___
5.2. 614 SEAVIEW STREET (LEAMY), APN 644-093-29 - APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW 24-2265, AND CATEGORCIAL EXEMPTION [Section 15301] City Staff: Sarah Olsen, Planning Technician (949) 715-1149 ext. 149 [email protected]
Project Applicant: Warren Hutcherson, Designer, (949) 338-6905, [email protected]
The applicant requests Design Review 24-2265. The proposed project includes a 95- square-foot lower-level addition underneath an existing second-story deck, in which said addition results in the property exceeding the maximum allowable building site coverage. As set forth by Laguna Beach Municipal Code (LBMC) Section
25.10.008(E)(1)(c), the building site coverage requirement shall only be modified by the Design Review Board when it is necessary to preserve views, preserve privacy, reduce heights or to maintain neighborhood development pattern
Disclosures: Ms. Thalman stated that she would not participate in this item as she owns property within the 500-foot of the project site and she left the room. Ms. Coveny stated that she spoke with Warren. Mr. Gibbs stated that he exchanged emails with Warren.
Mr. Weil stated that he attempted to call Warren. Chair Gannon stated that she spoke with Warren.
Mr. Gibbs suggested proceeding on an expedited basis.
Chair Gannon agreed.
Staff Presentation: Planning Technician, Sarah Olsen, described the project and staff’s recommendations provided in the report.
Chair Gannon opened the public hearing
Project Representative: Warren Hutcherson presented the project.
Public Testimony: None.
Rebuttal: None.
Board Questions: None.
Chair Gannon closed the public hearing
Board Comments: Mr. Weil stated that the project meets the Design Review criteria, aligns with staff analysis, and expressed full support for both the analysis and the project.
107
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 3 - February 27, 2025 Chair Gannon echoed Mr. Weil’s comments.
Mr. Gibbs described the project as modest, noting it only requires review due to exceeding the maximum allowable building site. He stated that the findings can be easily made, as the increase in site coverage is minimal and preferable to adding a second story.
He concluded that the project meets the criteria and expressed his support.
Ms. Coveny concurred with her colleagues, noting that the coverage adjustment is minor. While not generally in favor of exceeding coverage, she supported the project because it sits below the decking and is integrated into the existing house.
Mr. Gibbs made a motion, seconded by Mr. Weil, to adopt Resolution 24-2265 attached to the staff report approving Design Review 24-2265 for a lower-level addition that results in the property exceeding the maximum building site coverage and finding said action exempt from CEQA under Section 15301. The motion passed 4-0.
Motion KT Second LW Action APPROVED
Coveny __Y__ Gibbs ___Y___ Weil ___Y___ Thalman ___RECUSED___ Gannon ___Y___
5.3. 2894 ZELL DRIVE (DUNCAN), APN 641-125-03 APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS DESIGN REVIEW 25-0044 AND CATEGORCIAL EXEMPTION [Section 15301] City Staff: Daniel Latham, Associate Planner (949) 464-6612 [email protected] Project Applicant: Piotr Dudarenka, (612) 226-5730, [email protected]
The applicant requests Design Review 25-0044. The proposed project includes additions 15 feet above grade.
Disclosures: Ms. Coveny stated that she spoke with the applicant. Mr. Gibbs stated that she met with the applicant on the site. Ms. Thalman stated that she drove by the site. Mr.
Weil stated that he visited the site. Chair Gannon stated that she spoke with the applicant.
Ms. Thalman requested an expedited hearing.
Staff Presentation: Planning Technician, Sarah Olsen, described the project and staff’s recommendation.
Board Questions: Mr. Gibbs inquired whether the height limitation for landscaping in the back is included in the plans or if it was something raised separately.
Associate Planner Latham clarified that the height limit for landscaping was raised by a neighbor in the correspondence.
Chair Gannon opened the public hearing
108
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 4 - February 27, 2025 Project Representative: Piotr Dudarenka presented the project.
Public Testimony: None.
Rebuttal: None.
Board Questions: Ms. Coveny asked Mr.Dudarenka, if he had read the neighbors letter.
Mr. Dudarenka mentioned that the existing issue involves the neighbor wanting the back hedge maintained between 10 and 12 feet, and that this was a point of concern.
Ms. Coveny asked if all the details in the letter would be agreed upon on a condition of approval.
Mr. Dudarenka stated yes and that he spoke with the neighbor about that.
Mr. Gibbs asked the applicant if he was okay with making the hedge height requirement of 10 to 12 feet a condition of approval.
Mr. Duarenka stated yes.
Chair Gannon asked whether the hedge height limit was already included or if it needed to be added as a condition of approval.
Associate Planner Latham stated that the condition would need to be put in place.
Mr. Gibbs explained that the condition is necessary because the landscaping plan is part of the application.
Chair Gannon closed the public hearing
Board Comments: Mr. Gibbs stated that the project meets all design criteria and is very modest. He noted that since the landscaping plan is part of the application, a 10 to 12- foot hedge-height is reasonable. With that condition, he expressed his support for the project.
Ms. Coveny concurred with Mr. Gibbs, stating that the dormers are a nice addition and compatible with the neighborhood. She expressed her support for the project.
Chair Gannon agreed with the comments made by her fellow Board Members.
Ms. Thalman expressed agreement with her Board Members.
Mr. Weil agreed with his fellow Board Members and acknowledged that the project meets the design review criteria.
109
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 5 - February 27, 2025 Mr. Gibbs made a motion, seconded by Mr. Weil, to adopt Resolution 25- 0044 (Attachment 1) approving Design Review 25-0044 for additions 15 feet above grade in the R-1 (Residential Low Density) zone and finding said action exempt from CEQA under Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. With the condition that the trees at the back of the property, as outlined in the landscaping plan, be limited to a height of 10 to 12 feet. The motion passed -0.
Motion TG Second LW Action APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS
Coveny __Y__ Gibbs ___Y___ Weil ___Y___ Thalman ___Y___ Gannon ___Y___
5.4. 446 HOLLY STREET (BARRETT)APN: 496-155-23 APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW 24-2367 AND CATEGORCIAL EXEMPTION [Sections 15301] City Staff: Sarah Olsen, Planning Technician (949) 715-1149 ext. 149 [email protected]
Project Applicant: Marshall Ininns, Architect, (949) 376-1794, [email protected]
The applicant requests Design Review 24-2367. The proposed project includes modifications to prior approvals granted to the property specifically an upper-level addition, a lower-level addition, new windows and doors, installation of a swimming spa, and updated landscaping
Disclosures: Mr. Gibbs announced that he would recuse himself from the discussion due to owning property within 500 feet of the project site and he left the room. Ms.
Thalman and Chair Gannon stated that they spoke with Marshall Ininns, Steve Kawaratani, and Gina Watson. Mr. Weil stated that he spoke with Steve Kawaratani, Momi Bartholmew, Larry Nokes and Marshall Ininns. Chair Gannon followed up, stating that she spoke with Larry Nokes. Ms. Coveny stated that she spoke with Ms.
Watson, Steve Kawaratani, Ms. Barrett and Marshall.
Staff Presentation: Planning Technician, Sarah Olsen , described the project and staff’s recommendation.
Chair Gannon opened the public hearing
Project Representative: Marhsall Ininns and Larry Nokes presented the project.
Public Testimony: Gina Watson of 452 Holly Street shared her concerns about the proposed remodel of her neighbor's property. She emphasized that she has lived in Laguna for 30 years and has a modest view that she values. Ms. Watson explained that in 2020, she filed a View Preservation request with the city, which was accepted and documented. After noticing the staking on her neighbor's roof, she attempted to discuss the project with them but was unable to reach a compromise. She raised concerns about an overgrown tree blocking her view and requested it be trimmed to restore her view and better understand the project's full scope. Ms. Watson also expressed worries about a rooftop structure that affects her home's equity, privacy, and the quality of life, particularly as it looms over her main living area. She voiced concerns about the removal 110
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 6 - February 27, 2025 of trees to accommodate a pool and spa, which would expose her, and her family’s bedroom windows, to the alley and nearby apartment storage. Ms. Watson suggested replacing the removed trees with something of similar height to maintain privacy. She asked that these concerns be considered while reviewing the project.
Lucas of 452 Holly Street shared that his family has lived in the home for 10 years, choosing it for its yard and view. He expressed concerns that the proposed construction would block their view and overshadow their yard. Since his father's passing, Lucas and his mother have worked hard to protect their property, and he stated that this project negatively impacts their efforts. He asked the Board to consider how the project affects their property value and make a fair decision.
Bob McMahon, an attorney representing Gina Watson, expressed appreciation for the efforts made on the project but argued that it could be improved. He referred to the hearing as a de novo hearing, highlighting concerns with the second-story addition, which he believed negatively impacts view equity, massing, and privacy. Mr. McMahon stated that the addition, particularly the master closet on the roof, was not suitable for the Holly Street neighborhood. He also noted that while Gina Watson's property had a variance, it shouldn't negate her view rights, as she did not seek the variance herself. Mr.
McMahon requested that more trimming of foliage be done to reveal the full scope of the project, as some stakes were not visible during his site visit. He emphasized that the project should better address issues of view equity, privacy, design integrity, neighborhood compatibility, and vegetation. He submitted additional materials to illustrate his concerns and asked the Board to consider these factors when reviewing the project.
Rebuttal: Mr. Nokes addressed several points related to the project, presenting photos to illustrate his concerns. He noted that the view issue had been addressed with the variance granted for the upstairs room. He clarified that the photos he presented showed views from the Barretts' property and were not taken with a zoom effect, unlike the ones shared by Bob McMahon. Mr. Nokes emphasized that the record of view, obtained under the View Ordinance, was meant to address vegetation, not structural impacts, and thus had no bearing on the project. He stressed that view equity had been objectively achieved, particularly because the views in question were made possible by the variance granted to the previous property owners. He urged the Board to approve the project, highlighting the Barretts' cooperative nature throughout the process. Mr. Nokes pointed out that the Barretts had been considerate neighbors, even rebuilding a retaining wall damaged during Ms. Watson's pool construction. He argued that the project was compliant with property development standards and had already been adjusted to accommodate the neighbor's concerns.
Board Questions: Ms. Coveny noted that the existing building height is 22 feet, while the proposed height is 20 feet.
Mr. Ininns noted that the existing second story is higher than the proposed closet. 111
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 7 - February 27, 2025 Ms. Coveny clarified that the proposed height is only 2 feet above the existing ridge height of the master or primary bedroom below.
Mr. Weil inquired about the removal of trees in the backyard to accommodate the pool, expressing concerns about potential privacy issues. He asked whether there are any plantings in place or how the issue of the significant trees being removed was addressed.
Mr. Ininns explained that the trees were originally planted to protect privacy, as the neighbor's windows looked directly into the den and bedrooms. He noted that when standing in the backyard, the windows cannot be seen unless lights are on at night and blinds are open. He also mentioned that due to the pool construction, the trees would be removed, but blinds would be used to maintain privacy. He further explained that planting new trees near the pool is difficult because the leaves would clog the pool, and the root balls could interfere with the pool’s construction.
Mr. Weil asked if there would be a fence.
Mr. Ininns stated that there would be a fence.
Chair Gannon closed the public hearing
Board Comments: Mr. Weil reflected on previous adjustments made to the project and his analysis, noting that the chimney line was considered to ensure no significant view was blocked. He mentioned that the closet’s angle was designed to minimize view obstruction, and he believes that the project still balances the rights to build with view equity. He confirmed that there are no privacy issues with the closet as there are no windows. Regarding view equity, he emphasized that limiting views through someone's lot can restrict property rights. He expressed support for the project, stating that the pool design meets safety requirements, and there are no new privacy concerns in the backyard.
Ms. Thalman expressed sympathy for Ms. Watson’s desire to preserve her view but noted that the obstruction was a small percentage of the view. She observed that large trees and landscaping across the way could potentially improve the view if trimmed.
Ms. Thalman stated that the project meets all Design Review guidelines, highlighted that the size of the master closet was reduced, and saw no reason why the project could not be approved. She expressed her support for the project.
Chair Gannon stated that she can support the project, provided there is a conditional approval that the View Preservation for the neighbor be addressed within a reasonable time frame, suggesting 30 days. She asked if the applicant would be amenable to this condition.
Chair Gannon opened the public hearing
Mr. Ininns asked for clarification.
112
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 8 - February 27, 2025 Chair Gannon clarified that she was referring to the overgrown tree that is covering the chimney.
Mr. Ininns mentioned that the tree in question was the one the neighbors didn't want removed, but they are willing to lace it out.
Chair Gannon asked about the tree that is part of the View Preservation filed in 2022.
Discussion ensued regarding trees and view preservation.
Chair Gannon opened the public hearing and requested that Ms. Watson’s attorney go to the podium.
Mr. McMahon stated that the official record of view was submitted as Exhibit 2 in correspondence to the city. He mentioned that it is part of the public record and could provide the Board with additional information for consideration.
Mr. Ininns requested to know what trees they are referring to.
Mr. McMahon stated that he believed it was the tree to the left of the chimney.
Discussion ensued regarding the location of tree.
Mr. Nokes stated that issues related to View Preservation are typically handled by Code Enforcement, which has a department specifically for this purpose. He mentioned that if Bob and Gina believe the Barretts are in violation, Code Enforcement can address the matter. He said that this issue should not be a condition of approval, as it’s unclear what exactly is being dealt with. He concluded by saying that Code Enforcement can handle it, he felt the Board would be unable to make a motion with precision tonight.
Chair Gannon agreed with Mr. Nokes, stating that without the exact identification of the tree as part of the record of view, there is no way for the Board to include it as a condition of approval.
Mr. McMahon stated that the issue will be addressed and pointed out that they are once again encountering a situation where something is obstructing the view.
Chair Gannon mentioned that a violation complaint regarding View Preservation would need to be filed, referencing a prior case where the tree was laced.
Chair Gannon closed the public hearing
Ms. Coveny stated that, as someone reviewing the project with fresh eyes, she agrees with the previous decision to approve it. She doesn't see a significant privacy issue, although there may be a minor impact on the view, which she believes will diminish once the project is completed. She feels that the project meets the criteria for privacy, 113
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 9 - February 27, 2025 and while the removal of trees is unfortunate, it is necessary to avoid pool maintenance issues. She believes privacy concerns can be managed by simply closing shades if necessary. Overall, she supports the project, noting that it is a smaller scale than the previous approval.
Mr. Weil inquired about the interpretation of View Preservation in relation to someone's right to build. He mentioned that public comments suggested view preservation pertains only to foliage and trees, and asked staff to clarify how it is applied when it involves the right to build.
Associate Planner Latham clarified that View Preservation is intended for vegetation purposes only. He stated that if the Board were to condition a tree to remain at a certain height, it would supersede the View Preservation, but that would apply only in that specific case.
Mr. Weil mentioned that during his visit to the property, he was able to clearly see the stakes, like how visible they were five or six years ago. He suggested that a straw vote could acknowledge that the stakes were clearly visible during his walk around the property.
Chair Gannon mentioned that the photo showing the peekaboo view, which she cannot locate at the moment, was maintained and has even improved since the first approval. She explained that she was trying to accommodate the neighbor by suggesting the addition of foliage.
Ms. Thalman made a motion, amended by Mr. Weil, to approve the project at 446 Holly Street to approve Design Review 24-2367 for modifications to a prior approval that include an upper-level addition, new windows and doors, a new swimming spa, landscaping, and finding project approval exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. The motion passed 4-
0. Motion KT Second LW Action APPROVED
Coveny _Y_ Gibbs __RECUSED__ Weil _Y_ Thalman ___Y___ Gannon ___Y___
5.5. 607 SHORT STREET (MCINTOSH)APN: 644-044-02 CONTINUED TO MAY 22, 2025 DESIGN REVIEW 24-1572, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24- 1688, AND CATEGORCIAL EXEMPTION [Section 15303 & 15304]
City Staff: Shaveta Sharma, Senior Planner, (949) 715-0958, [email protected] Project Applicant: Drew Blake, 949-235-3739 | [email protected]
The applicant requests Design Review 24-1572 and Coastal Development Permit 24- 1688. The proposed project includes a new single-family residence (major remodel to an existing structure with additions exceeding 50%), elevated decks, new exterior materials, windows, and landscaping, and a new detached ADU. The existing 1,441-square-foot 114
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 10 - February 27, 2025 single-family dwelling and 375-square-foot attached, two-car garage would be expanded with a 1,033-square-foot two-story addition, 52- square-foot addition to the existing garage, 325 square feet of elevated decking at the first floor, and an 80-squarefoot elevated deck at the second floor. While not subject to design 5.5 4 review, a proposed detached, 412-square-foot ADU is subject to a coastal development permit.
This ADU is not appealable to the California Coastal Commission and is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to section 15303, Class 3(a) (New Construction) of the state CEQA Guidelines, which allows construction of an ADU in a residential zone.
Disclosures: Mr. Gibbs stated that he met with owners, the neighbors Allison and Miles Mahoney of 615 Short Street and Steve Kawaratani. Ms. Thalman stated that she visited the site and met with Drew Blake, Mr. and Mrs. McIntosh, Steve Kawaratani, Mr. and Mrs. Mahoney. Mr. Weil stated that he met with Mr. and Mrs. Mahoney, Steve Kawaratani and spoke with Mr. McIntosh over the phone. Ms. Coveny stated that she met with the McIntosh’s, Mahoney’s, and Steve Kawaratani. Chair Gannon stated that she met with Steve Kawaratani, the neighbors next door the Mahoney’s and the applicant team.
Staff Presentation: Senior Planner, Shaveta Sharma, described the project and staff’s recommendations provided in the report.
Chair Gannon opened the public hearing
Project Representative: Drew Blake and Steve McIntosh presented the project.
Public Testimony: Speaker 1 thanked the Board and neighbors for considering their input on the Macintosh's proposed plan. They emphasized their desire to maintain a positive relationship with the Macintosh’s but expressed concerns about the impact of the proposed changes. The speaker stated that they were not opposed to the Macintosh’s making improvements but were concerned about the significant privacy and lifestyle impacts caused by the proposed front-to-back wall, which would affect their home. The speaker explained that after meeting with the Macintosh’s, they highlighted concerns about privacy, light, and the proposed design's impact on their home. The speaker described how they had searched for a home for over four years and chose their current house for its design, which maximized privacy, light, and functionality. They work from home, with their children studying and working in the bedrooms, making the upstairs rooms critical to their daily routines. The speaker also shared that even from the master bathroom, the proposed changes would intrude on their privacy. The speaker expressed appreciation for their previous relationship with the Macintosh’s, including joint efforts like installing speed bumps on their street. However, during a third meeting, the Macintosh’s indicated they were not prepared to discuss reducing the scale of their upstairs design, which the speaker felt could address privacy concerns. The speaker concluded by calling on the Board to help navigate the situation, noting that the Macintosh’s had acknowledged seeking privacy from their home as well.
Speaker 2 thanked the Board for listening and shared that the process regarding the second-story addition of the Macintosh home has been challenging. They emphasized 115
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 11 - February 27, 2025 that what’s at stake is not just the addition itself but their right to privacy, views, and peace of mind, as well as the potential precedent it could set in the community. They acknowledged supporting the Macintosh's desire to improve their property but not at the expense of their own quality of life. They explained how the proposed structure would block sunlight and air from their home, particularly affecting the area where they spend most of their time. The second-story addition would obstruct their views and significantly impact the natural light in their living space, which is essential to their daily life. They further highlighted the importance of their view, not just as a luxury, but as a key element that makes their home special. They recounted an encounter where they invited the Macintosh’s over to see the impact of the proposed project on their property, and when asked how Steve would feel if the situation were reversed, Steve expressed that he would be upset. Additionally, they expressed concerns about the loss of privacy, citing the potential invasiveness of a structure overlooking their home and backyard, which cannot simply be solved by window coverings or frosting. Finally, they thanked the Board for their consideration and urged them to make a decision that would create a mutually beneficial living situation.
Steve Kawaratani discussed the design issues of the proposed second-story addition, emphasizing that the upper floor's length and proximity to the Mahoney’s' property are problematic. He suggested shortening the upper floor and moving it further away to resolve the issue. Mr. Kawaratani also addressed the view equity concerns, explaining how the proposed design would greatly compromise air, light, and views from the affected room. He emphasized that while the MacIntosh’s' desire for a view is understandable, it should not come at the expense of the neighbors' rights. Additionally, he touched on neighborhood compatibility, noting that while many homes in the area have second stories, the main issue is the size and positioning of the upper level in relation to the Mahoney’s. He recommended moving the upper level and potentially spanning it across the entire width of the property for a more balanced appearance.
Jeff Amos of 480 Los Robles expressed concerns about the proposed second-story addition at the Macintosh property, located directly behind his and his husband Todd's home. Mr. Amos stated that they have had a positive relationship with the Macintosh family but are worried about the impact of the addition on their privacy and enjoyment of their backyard. Having lived in their home for 25 years, they value the privacy and openness of their backyard, which is carefully designed for seclusion. The proposed second-story addition, being very close to their property, would significantly impact privacy, especially as the second floor would loom over their back patio, creating a more enclosed feeling and blocking their view of the hill. They inquired whether there is flexibility in the design that could mitigate these effects, such as pulling back certain elements to maintain privacy and ensure a smoother blend with surrounding properties.
They acknowledged the effort put into the remodel but stressed the importance of finding a compromise that considers both the improvements and the privacy of their home. Mr. Amos also mentioned that his neighbor Jeanne Myers shares similar concerns and had sent a letter to the Board. He had also sent a letter that morning, voicing their concerns.
Rebuttal: Mr. McIntosh responded to the concerns raised, particularly about privacy 116
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 12 - February 27, 2025 and the proposed second-story addition. He clarified that there are 16 feet between the properties, which he does not consider a particularly close distance. Addressing Mr.
Amos's concerns, he acknowledged the views from the affected space and mentioned efforts to reduce the impact by eliminating certain elements, such as removing a tree to improve the view from the Mahoney’s front bedroom. He also discussed the potential privacy issues caused by the proposed design, particularly regarding views into private spaces. He explained that the new design aims to address these concerns by ensuring privacy for both properties. He emphasized that they were following design guidelines and were mindful of privacy, pointing out that no one should be able to see into the Mahoney’s' backyard because of existing trees. Mr. McIntosh concluded by stating their willingness to work collaboratively with neighbors to find amicable solutions and refine the design to balance privacy with the improvements they wish to make.
Board Questions: Mr. Gibbs asked Mr. McIntosh about the feasibility of moving the second story to the other side of the property, as suggested by the neighbors at 615 Short Street and Steve Kawaratani, their consultant. He inquired about the potential issues or challenges with this proposed change.
Mr. McIntosh explained the challenges of moving the second story to the other side of the property, as suggested by the neighbors. He clarified that the existing floor plan limits their options, as they are not starting from scratch with a new building. Moving the second story would require relocating the stairs, plumbing, and electrical systems, which would be costly and involve extensive concrete work. He also pointed out that the new design would result in a massive structure across the front of the house and create privacy issues, as seven windows on the second story would look directly into the neighbor's windows, which goes against design review guidelines. Additionally, this change would impact their view corridor and make their deck fully exposed, violating privacy for both properties.
Chair Gannon closed the public hearing
Board Comments: Chair Gannon discussed the Design Review guidelines, specifically regarding view blockage, which includes not only ocean views but also views of the hillside. She emphasized the beauty of the hillside visible from the primary room, now being used as an office, and expressed concern that the proposed second-story addition would significantly devalue the property next door by blocking this view. She recommended shifting the house to a more traditional two-story design that spans the width of the property while maintaining the articulation, which she believes can be done with the expertise of the architect. Chair Gannon also mentioned concerns about an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) but clarified that this wasn't the focus. While she expressed support for the project overall and appreciated the materials used, she did not support overloading the left side of the property. She concluded by offering her support if the design could be adjusted to address these concerns.
Mr. Gibbs shared his thoughts on the project by reviewing the Design Review guidelines and considering the distinct interests of both neighbors involved. He found the project to be well-designed and attractive, with sufficient articulation on the northeast-facing 117
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 13 - February 27, 2025 second-story elevation. He also noted that second stories are common throughout the neighborhood, including larger ones than what is proposed. The proposed second story does not extend across the entire property, reducing its mass and scale compared to other nearby homes. He addressed the concern of moving the second story to the other side of the property, stating that this would create significant feasibility issues, such as working around the existing floor plan, plumbing, and electrical systems. He also pointed out that switching the second story would lead to similar privacy issues on the other side due to the neighboring courtyard patio. Mr. Gibbs emphasized that the mass and scale of the project aligned with neighborhood standards and praised the applicant for providing adequate spacing to mitigate light and air concerns. Regarding privacy, he suggested making the second-story windows opaque to maintain privacy for the neighboring property. He also stated that view equity was adequately achieved, as the primary views in the neighborhood are toward the back and the ocean. In conclusion, Mr. Gibbs expressed support for the project as proposed, stating that he could approve it tonight, despite the Mahoney’s seeking more significant changes. He acknowledged that modifications might be needed but did not see the necessity for major adjustments, though he welcomed input from fellow Board Members.
Mr. Weil expressed appreciation for the applicant’s efforts to align with the Design Review guidelines and for the architect’s work in enhancing the existing home’s style.
He acknowledged that the project reflects a thoughtful approach but pointed out that the design guidelines require balancing both the right to achieve a view and the need to address privacy concerns and impacts on neighbors. He noted that while the secondstory design could work, the extension on just one side may create unintended impacts on the rear of the lot. Mr. Weil suggested that a larger program could be achieved by shifting the design, potentially extending across the front or focusing on the middle or rear portions of the house. He emphasized that cost, while a consideration, should not dictate the design when it comes to meeting the guidelines. In comparing the project to neighboring properties, he mentioned that the second-story designs of neighboring houses do not extend as far as the proposed design and suggested aligning the extension with a more reasonable "string line" to balance development and preserve view corridors for neighboring properties. Regarding privacy, Mr. Weil acknowledged concerns about a neighboring property downhill, noting that future construction of an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) would mitigate some of these concerns, as the new structure would block some of the views and provide privacy naturally. Mr. Weil further explained his concerns by referring to a picture he had of the neighboring properties.
While the picture wasn't to scale, he mentioned that he was trying to draw a line based on the extensions of the neighboring homes on both the right and left sides. He noted that the challenge for him was the way the proposed design extends in a long, H-shaped fashion into the rear of the property. This long extension, he felt, contributed to the impact on the view and privacy, which needed to be addressed for a more balanced design. In conclusion, Mr. Weil felt the project was a strong start but required further adjustments. He expressed a need for more work to achieve a balanced design that respects both the applicant's goals and the privacy and view concerns of neighboring properties.
Ms. Coveny began by expressing hope that the applicant and neighbors could resolve 118
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 14 - February 27, 2025 their concerns in upcoming hearings. She noted that she would not be able to approve the project tonight and provided some feedback for improvement. She agreed with Mr.
Gibbs on design articulation, particularly on the side, but expressed concern about the upper floor extension, which she felt blocked the back bedroom of the Mahoney property. She emphasized that this issue needed to be addressed thoroughly. Ms.
Coveny appreciated the effort to open the front bedroom window by removing a large tree, which would provide the Mahoney’s with a better view. However, she acknowledged that they would lose their view from the middle bedroom, which she felt was a significant visual loss, despite the room not being a ceremonial space. She further emphasized the need to address privacy, particularly regarding the Mahone property, and supported the idea of opaque windows, though not necessarily heavy opacity.
Regarding the property at 480 Paso Robles, she felt the applicant’s proposal with the lattice extension and hedging would likely be sufficient but suggested that the details should be reviewed in future plans, and that she would like to visit the site to better understand the situation. Ms. Coveny concluded that while she felt the house was compatible with the neighborhood, the primary issue was view equity. She advised the applicant to focus on addressing this concern to bring the project closer to approval.
Mr. Gibbs asked if the issue was the same as Mr. Weil’s, specifically referring to the room closest to the backyard that needed to be opened a little bit.
Ms. Coveny agreed that the upper bedroom needed to be retreated and added that the decking being added should remain obscure. She emphasized that the applicant should avoid any issues related to visibility from the deck.
Ms. Thalman initially found the plans reasonable and in line with the Design Review guidelines. However, after visiting the neighbors next door, she noted concerns with the master bedroom, especially the blockage of light and air, despite the offer to add privacy windows. She supported the idea of pushing the master bedroom back, even suggesting that reducing the walk-in closet size could help alleviate the issue. She also mentioned that there is a view from the office window and suggested tweaking the design to address light and air concerns. Ms. Thalman stated that she did not get to see the view from 480 Robles with Mr. Amos but agreed that there shouldn’t be a problem with the landscaping that’s there. Ms. Thalman felt that with a few minor adjustments, the project could be close to approval.
City Attorney Donegan asked the Board if they would require re-staking for the redesigned elements.
Chair Gannon stated that she would like to see the project re-staked.
Mr. Gibbs stated that he did not need re-staking but based on the comments re-staking would be necessary.
Mr. Weil made a motion, seconded by Chair Gannon, to continue item 5.5 at 607 Short Street to May 22, 2025, Design Review Board hearing, pending the Board’s discussion and deliberation. The motion passed 5-0.
119
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 15 - February 27, 2025
Motion LW Second JG Action CONTINUED TO MAY 22, 2025
Coveny __Y__ Gibbs ___Y___ Weil ___Y___ Thalman ___Y___ Gannon ___Y___
5.6. 514 POPLAR STREET (SAUNDERS) APN: 496-161-04 CONTINUED TO APRIL 24, 2025 DESIGN REVIEW 24-1847, VARIANCE 24-1850, AND CATEGORCIAL EXEMPTION [Section 15303] City Staff: Daniel Latham, Associate Planner (949) 464-6612 [email protected] Project Applicant: Chris Baxter, 307-690-5860 |[email protected] The applicant requests Design Review and Variance for the demolition of an existing single-family residence and the construction of a new single-family dwelling, elevated decks, additional building site coverage, retaining walls, spa, water feature, new vehicular access, grading and landscaping. A Variance is requested to exceed the driveway slope requirement of 10% within the first 20 feet from the street (Laguna Beach Municipal Code (LBMC) 25.52.008(I)(3)(a).
Disclosures: Mr. Gibbs announced that he would recuse himself from the discussion due to being within 500 feet of the project. Ms. Coveny stated that she met with Saunders, Jeannie Bailey, and Steve Kawaratani. Ms. Thalman mentioned meeting with the Saunders and the neighbors next door, whom she believed to be Jeannie and Steve Kawaratani. Mr. Weil stated that he met with Steve Kawaratani and Jeannie. Chair Gannon noted that she also met with Jeannie, Steve Kawaratani, and spoke with Danny Botros and the Saunders.
Staff Presentation: Associate Planner, Daniel Latham, described the project and staff’s recommendations provided in the report.
Chair Gannon opened the public hearing.
Project Representative: Chris Baxter presented the project.
Public Testimony: Mr. Kawaratani reviewed the Design Review Guidelines and noted that while the neighbors appreciate the architecture and have a positive relationship with the applicants, there are concerns regarding the project's impact on views. He pointed out that the project is increasing in height and extending further toward the street, thereby encroaching on the view corridor of Danny and Kathy, which he emphasized as an important consideration. He recommended that the project be pulled back and lowered to mitigate these impacts. In discussing view equity, he presented slides showing the view from Danny and Kathy’s living room, highlighting its significance as a primary ceremonial space. He also noted that the view of Catalina Island and sunsets should be preserved as they are protected features under design guidelines. Regarding neighborhood compatibility, he stated that the neighboring house he represents was built in 1938, while the applicant’s home was built in 1950. He contended that the proposed design violates an implicit agreement between the two properties that has preserved the view for 75 years. Mr. Kawaratani also raised concerns about the variance request for the driveway, which would exceed the maximum slope. He cited Finding #3, which states that a variance should not be 120
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 16 - February 27, 2025 detrimental to adjacent properties and expressed his belief that this requirement could not be met. In conclusion, he encouraged the applicant to work with the neighbors to resolve these concerns, reiterating that while the project is architecturally impressive, adjustments should be made to maintain view equity.
Kathy Botros of 528 Poplar St stated that she and her husband own the neighboring property, which is currently occupied by their tenant, Janine. She shared that they plan to move to Laguna in the future as a retirement home. She emphasized that they purchased the property primarily for its stunning, unobstructed views of the ocean, Catalina Island, and breathtaking sunsets, which were a central factor in their decision to buy the home. While she acknowledged that Mr. and Mrs. Saunders' plans for their home are beautiful, she expressed serious concerns that the proposed construction would significantly obstruct their views once the story poles went up. She affirmed their support for the Saunders' right to build but asked the Board to carefully consider the impact of the project on their property's view. Ms. Botros expressed appreciation for the Board’s efforts in balancing property owners' rights and view equity and hoped for an equitable solution that respects both parties' interests.
Rebuttal: Mr. Baxter acknowledged that the primary issue with the project is the impact on views, noting that the site presents significant challenges. He expressed concern that alternative design schemes could potentially impact other neighboring properties, emphasizing that they do not want to take away anyone’s view. He stated that the design team has spent considerable time deliberating over these issues. Regarding view equity, Mr. Baxter pointed out that the Saunders currently do not have a Catalina Island view due to their adjacent neighbor. He noted that if the project is approved, both 528 and 514 would share the same stunning views of the ocean, the city of Laguna, and the shoreline.
He concluded his comments unless additional input was needed from Keith Lee.
Mr. Lee stated that he had nothing further to add at that point. He expressed his appreciation for the design, describing it as amazing, elegant, and understated. He noted that the project adheres to all required setbacks and remains well within the allowable building envelope. Mr. Lee also emphasized that the design aligns with hillside guidelines, utilizes high-quality materials, and would fit well within the neighborhood while meeting the needs of the Saunders.
Board Questions: Ms. Thalman asked Chris about the possibility of eliminating the variance for the driveway and inquired about what that would entail.
Mr. Baxter explained that lowering the garage floor elevation would reduce the steepness of the driveway slope. However, this adjustment would require additional excavation and hauling of material.
Ms. Thalman asked if that would pull the house down as well.
Mr. Baxter stated that it would not change the house.
Ms. Thalman inquired about the plate heights on the upper level. 121
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 17 - February 27, 2025 Mr. Baxter confirmed that the plate height was 8 feet 6 inches.
Mr. Weil inquired about the plate heights on the garage.
Discussion ensued regarding the plate heights of the garage.
Mr. Weil stated that the front part, where the small railing is, has a height of 10 feet, and then it rises to about 12 feet. He asked the applicant if that sounded correct.
Mr. Baxter stated that was correct.
Mr. Weil asked what would be required to grade down in order to be in compliance with the 10% slope requirement.
Mr. Baxter clarified that they would only need to take out about 12 inches.
Mr. Weil asked if the garage was lowered by a foot, would that mean extending the garage even higher.
Mr. Baxter clarified that they want to keep the second floor at the same elevation due to the depth of the site on the back side.
Mr. Weil inquired about the reason for shifting the access from Harold to Poplar, noting that the current access is on Harold.
Mr. Baxter clarified that the existing garage access is on Harold, which is the auto access, but the primary entry is on Poplar.
Mr. Weil asked if there will no longer be a garage from Harold, and if the existing garage will be removed along with the entire site for new construction.
Mr. Baxter said yes.
Ms. Thalman asked why the applicant did not use the existing access to the garage, and whether having the garage on the upper level would have provided more leeway in the design of the house.
Mr. Baxter explained that the reason for not using the upper garage access is that the lower garage provides a closer connection to the living space. The upper garage would require navigating a steep slope and a longer path of travel. Additionally, the upper garage does not meet the program requirements for a larger garage, as it is smaller and lacks space for bikes, surfboards, and other items.
Ms. Thalman suggested that pushing the whole program back or reducing the eaves, which are currently five feet and jutting into the neighbor’s view, could help alleviate the issue for the neighbor. She asked the applicant to consider this adjustment. 122
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 18 - February 27, 2025 Mr. Baxter explained that lowering the building by three feet and pushing it back five feet would preserve the neighbor's Catalina view from their seated position. He mentioned that they had previously offered to lower the house by 12 inches, but the neighbor felt that wasn't enough. He acknowledged the difficulty in fully understanding the view impact, as he had not been inside the neighbor's house to see where the photos were taken from.
Ms. Thalman asked if the lot configuration was the reason, it was difficult to push the program back.
Mr. Baxter explained that because the lot is a wedge, they have already compressed everything onto that one level.
Ms. Thalman asked if reducing square footage in some of the rooms would help.
Mr. Baxter explained that they are already at a minimum size for many of the rooms, including the primary bedroom, living room, and kitchen, without including a dining area.
Ms. Thalman said she understood.
Chair Gannon closed the public hearing
Board Comments: Mr. Weil stated that the design is beautiful, with good neighborhood compatibility and thoughtful elements. He mentioned that his initial concern was the access, but since the area only services about 18 homes, it’s not a major thoroughfare. He expressed that lowering the garage and placing it on the other level works. However, the main issue is the corner at the bottom right of the design, where the building flares out, which is impacting the view. He suggested adjusting the roofline at this corner, potentially reshaping it and shifting some program elements to reduce the view impact.
Mr. Weil acknowledged the view impact is significant but could be mitigated with adjustments. He also noted that the front decking might be a little too large and recommended tweaking the angles of the decking to preserve privacy. Overall, he felt that with these adjustments, he could support the project.
Ms. Coveny concurred with Mr. Weil’s comments, stating that her main concern was the front height at the corner, which is blocking a primary view for the neighbors. She suggested eliminating that corner or adjusting it, as the existing house seems to have a good position with its current corner. She mentioned that while height is not a major issue, the corner and its impact on the view is significant. Regarding the variance, she deferred to her colleagues for guidance. She also suggested that the decking might become more visible from the neighbor's view if adjustments aren't made. Ms. Coveny noted that there is a dead hedge present, and it would be helpful to clarify if the hedge is necessary and specify its required height in the future. She complimented the design, calling the house beautiful and appreciating its elegance. 123
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 19 - February 27, 2025 Ms. Thalman agreed with the Board's general consensus and mentioned that she couldn't make the finding for the variance regarding the driveway, particularly since it was mentioned as a relatively simple fix. She expressed the need for the driveway issue to be resolved before moving forward. Regarding the design, she pointed out that the right corner of the house was the main concern for the neighbor, as it blocks their Catalina views, especially from a particular window. She emphasized the importance of preserving these views for the neighbor. Ms. Thalman concluded that if the two issues— the driveway variance and the right corner—were adjusted, she would be able to support the project.
Chair Gannon shared the same general perspective as the other Board Members. She agreed with Mr. Weil’s point that access off Poplar makes more sense than from the street. She also noted that having the garage at the top level would not be practical, as it would require walking downstairs, especially in bad weather or while carrying groceries. Chair Gannon expressed her opposition to the variance, emphasizing that there was an alternative option that would improve the view by incorporating a one foot drop and suggested adjustments to the eaves as well.
Chair Gannon opened the public hearing
Mr. Baxter clarified that those are two different things.
Chair Gannon asked if, to remove the variance, the garage would need to be lowered.
Mr. Baxter explained that lowering the garage by one foot does not change the roofline; it simply involves additional digging.
Chair Gannon stated she misunderstood.
Mr. Weil explained that lowering the garage could impact the height of the second level.
He pointed out that the board has the authority to require the second level to be lowered as well, but the applicants have suggested that doing so would complicate their design.
Mr. Baxter stated that the roof can be lowered without changing the garage floor height.
Chair Gannon remarked that 8 foot 6 is a pretty modest height.
Mr. Baxter explained that they can lower the finished floor height of the main level and have offered to reduce it by 12 inches, without changing the depth of their excavation.
Chair Gannon mentioned that pushing the building back could help mitigate the view obstruction for the neighbor. She agreed with Ms. Coveny's point that it's not necessarily a height issue, but rather how the program is pushed toward the street. She suggested considering reducing the large 5-foot eaves, as they are among the largest seen, and perhaps bringing them back to 2 or 3 feet. Chair Gannon also praised the project, noting it is very handsome and will look great on that corner, and agreed with the points made by others. Chair Gannon asked the applicant if they had any clarification questions. 124
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 20 - February 27, 2025 Mr. Baxter asked if pulling the corner back does not provide the Catalina view, would that mean the project would not receive approval at the next hearing? Chair Gannon closed the public hearing
Chair Gannon emphasized the importance of protecting the Catalina view, noting that the existing house currently does this very well. She pointed out that the 1950s house was designed with that view in mind. Chair Gannon mentioned that while the design criteria may allow for a building envelope, the uniqueness of the location requires balancing property rights with the preservation of views. She stressed that one cannot create a view by taking someone else's view.
Ms. Coveny expanded on the topic, emphasizing the concept of "view equity." She explained that while it’s important to preserve views, one cannot entirely preserve their own view at the expense of someone else's. Ms. Coveny highlighted the need to find a balance between property rights and protecting significant views like Catalina, noting that a compromise must be reached. She added that while she is not confirming how she will vote in the future, it’s essential to respect this balance.
Mr. Latham requested clarification for staff, asking if the Board would like the project to be re-staked.
Chair Gannon stated that it was correct.
Mr. Weil made a motion, seconded by Ms. Thalman, to continue item 5.6 at 514 Poplar Street to April 24, 2025, Design Review Board meeting. The motion passed 4-0.
Motion LW Second KT Action CONTINUED TO APRIL 24, 2025
Coveny __Y__ Gibbs ___RECUSED___ Weil ___Y___ Thalman ___Y___ Gannon ___Y___
5.7. 167 CHIQUITA STREET (COLAGROSSI & POLZIN) APN: 053-152-14 DENIED DESIGN REVIEW 24-0772, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24- 0773 AND CATEGORCIAL EXEMPTION [Section 15303]
City Staff: Shaveta Sharma, Senior Planner, (949) 715-0958, [email protected] Project Applicant: Liz Howell, 949-963-4600; [email protected] The applicant requests Design Review and a Coastal Development Permit to demolish an existing single-family dwelling and detached garage and construct a new, singlefamily dwelling with attached garage.
Disclosures: Ms. Coveny mentioned that she visited the site, spoke with the applicant, and met with the neighbor, Anne Earhart. Mr. Gibbs noted that he met with the applicant team, including the owners and Anne Earhart. Ms. Thalman shared that she visited the site and spoke with Pam and Peter Polzin, as well as the architect, Liz Howell. Mr. Weil stated that he visited the site and spoke with Larry Nokes. Chair Gannon confirmed that 125
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 21 - February 27, 2025 she also spoke with Larry Nokes and visited the site with the applicant team.
Staff Presentation: Senior Planner, Shaveta Sharma, described the project and staff’s recommendations provided in the report.
Chair Gannon opened the public hearing
Project Representative: Liz Howell presented the project.
Chair Gannon announced that comments would be limited to two minutes each.
Speaker 1 requested three minutes as he stated that he had not previously spoken to before on this issue.
City Attorney Donegan stated that the time limit for each speaker needs to be set, suggesting that two or three minutes would be reasonable. He emphasized that they cannot weigh each speaker individually.
Chair Gannon suggested that due to the number of speakers, the Board should set a twominute time limit for each speaker. The Board agreed on a two-minute limit.
Public Testimony: Pat Wiseman, a resident of 170 Chiquita Street, expressed concerns about the project, citing two main issues. First, he argued that the project was too large, suggesting it should be reduced by at least 300 square feet. Second, he accused the applicants of using trickery and deception to gain neighbor support. He explained that they had signed letters in support of the project, believing it would be smaller, but after the story poles went up, they realized the house was much larger than anticipated. He also disputed the claims of support from several individuals who had spoken in favor of the project during previous board meetings, stating that they were not Chiquita Street neighbors and did not have a direct stake in the project's impact on the community. Mr.
Wiseman recommended that the project either be rejected or the applicants be required to reduce the size by 300 square feet and return for a fourth meeting.
Speaker 2, a resident of North Laguna for 35 years, spoke in support of the project. They shared the story of the applicants, explaining that they purchased an older home in North Laguna with a view of the hills and homes beyond PCH. However, a large twostory commercial building was built on PCH, blocking their view. As their house aged and required repairs, they decided to design a new home that met their needs and desires. The neighborhood consists of larger homes with various architectural styles.
After obtaining all necessary approvals and no variances, their design was presented to the Design Review Board. This was the third meeting, with suggestions given at the previous meetings, resulting in two redesigns that made the home smaller and less tall.
Despite this, the applicants still seek approval for the redesigned, beautiful home.
Speaker 2 urged the Board to approve the project so that they can build their new home in Laguna.
Inge Bunn of 1157 North Coast Highway stated that she has owned the property since 126
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 22 - February 27, 2025 1978 and expressed objections to the project. Ms. Bunn stated that the design is too massive, especially considering that most homes on Chiquita Street are around 2,500 square feet. Ms. Bunn also mentioned that their ocean view from the balcony upstairs would be obstructed by the proposed project, which would have an economic impact, as it could affect the property value. Ms. Bunn stated that the current tenant has lived at the location for over 11 years.
Larry Laird, a Laguna Beach resident for over 50 years and a general contractor and residential designer, expressed his support for the project. He praised the design, noting that it has been well-executed from the start. He highlighted that the applicants have already made adjustments, lowering the house and moving it back twice to address concerns. He warned that further adjustments to the project would only draw attention to the size of the three-story commercial building next door. Mr. Laird pointed out that the project fits well with the neighborhood, where other homes of similar or larger size exist. He concluded by stating that the applicants have made the necessary efforts, and the project should be approved.
Connie Sanchez, a Laguna Beach resident of 50 years, thanked the Board for allowing her to speak. She noted that when the project was first presented, it complied with the strict requirements of the city, even being below the maximum allowable footage for the lot. She pointed out that no variances were requested to exceed city requirements. Ms.
Sanchez explained that the Design Review Board made a series of recommendations to alter the original plan, which the applicants complied with. She emphasized that these changes were subjective and not technical corrections, as the original plan already met all city requirements. She concluded by recommending approval of the project.
Leslie Laird, a resident of approximately 14 years, shared her observations after visiting the neighborhood. She was surprised by the scope of some of the houses, noting that many neighbors had concerns about the size, height, and proximity of the new project.
She pointed out that the renderings of the proposed project closely resembled the commercial building next door and other homes in the area. Ms. Laird mentioned that she did not notice many cottages in the neighborhood, and she was particularly struck by the size of a new project further down the street. She concluded by thanking the Board for their time.
Seal Sharman, a resident for over 50 years, thanked the Board for their work in preserving Laguna's beauty. She shared that she had moved from Tahiti Avenue to the Tree Streets after the fire. She described the Tree Streets as a highly desirable and eclectic neighborhood, with a mix of Spanish-style two-story houses, contemporary apartment buildings, and original cottages. Ms. Sharman acknowledged the applicants' efforts to downscale the size and adjust the setbacks of the project based on the Board's recommendations. She concluded by recommending the approval of the project.
Bob Buettner clarified that the building was dropped by 20 inches, not 2 feet 11 inches.
He requested the Board to pull up Exhibit One, which shows a view from an office at 1191 North Coast Highway. He explained that the office, which had a clear ocean view for 13 years, now has its view obstructed by the growth of large trees on the applicant's 127
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 23 - February 27, 2025 property. He showed the Board how the vegetation, which has grown to nearly 30 feet, has gradually blocked the ocean view. In Exhibit One, the yellow line represented the ocean horizon, while the red outline indicated the applicant's building. The shading in the image shows that the view, currently blocked by the foliage, will be permanently obstructed if the project is approved. Mr. Buettner continued by showing Exhibit Two, which illustrated how the ocean view had diminished over time and would be permanently lost if the project proceeded. In the final image (Exhibit Three), Mr.
Buettner pointed out that small glimpses of the ocean could still be seen through the foliage, but the view had significantly diminished. He also noted that, despite the changes in the building design (such as a slight shift in the deck and glazing), there had been no significant reduction in the mass and scale of the project.
Anne Earhart stated that the applicants had responded to the Board's previous comments and suggestions, but concerns remained regarding the mass, scale, and verticality of the project. Despite adjustments, the house had only been reduced by 208 square feet, less than 6%, which the speaker did not consider significant. Ms. Earhart noted that while projects often try to maximize square footage, this could lead to a change in the neighborhood character, which is why people choose to live in Laguna.
Ms. Earhart felt that the project resembled a commercial building rather than a residential cottage. In mid-December, Ms. Earhart noticed that large bird-of-paradise plants near the applicant's garage were obstructing her ocean view. These plants were at least 27 feet high and wide, and their continued presence would block what little view she had left. Ms. Earhart requested that the plants be trimmed, but there had been no response from the applicants or architect, and the plants remained in place. Ms. Earhart emphasized that while plants are not permanent, the proposed building would be, and she argued that, as a neighbor, her concerns should be considered.
Chair Gannon stated that this was the third meeting and requested the speaker to conclude her comments.
Ms. Earhart continued and expressed a desire to see the project completed, citing frustration with the flapping tarps they had been looking at for years. She stated that they were never contacted by the applicants prior to the project and had not received any response to the letters they had sent. Despite offering what they believed to be a win-win solution, they had heard nothing back from the applicants.
Chair Gannon requested the speaker to conclude her comments. Mentioning that in the previous hearing, the speaker had taken four minutes and requested guidance from City Attorney Donegan.
City Attorney Donegan requested that the speaker conclude their remarks, pointing out that they had exceeded three minutes.
Ms. Earhart continued noting that only exceedingly small changes had been made in response to the Board's requests and neighbors' concerns. They concluded by requesting that the project be denied.
128
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 24 - February 27, 2025 Mia Davidson of 122 Chiquita, also spoke on behalf of Bonita Solo of 109 Chiquita, who was unable to attend. She stated that she has known the applicants, Peter and Pamela, for nearly two decades and considers them friends. However, she did not sign their petition last year—not out of opposition but because she did not anticipate their project affecting her. She noted that several neighbors who signed the petition now regret doing so but believe it is too late to take action. Ms. Davidson expressed concerns that many supporters of the project do not live on Chiquita Street and questioned whether this process had become a personality contest. Her primary concerns have been the mass and scale of the project from the street, which she believes have not been adequately addressed despite previous hearings. She noted that lowering the roof by seven inches does little to reduce the impact, as the front facade remains significantly higher than the existing home. She cited direction from prior hearings to reduce the appearance of mass and scale along the street elevation but argued that minimal progress has been made toward this goal. Additionally, Ms. Davidson cautioned against relying on vegetation to mitigate the structure’s blocky appearance, calling it a short-term solution to a long-term problem. She concluded by stating that this should not be a factor in approving the project and thanked the Board for their time.
Shay Watson, a resident of 157 Chiquita, directly next to 167 Chiquita, stated opposition to the project. Ms. Watson expressed continued concerns about the massing at the front of the property. Additionally, they mentioned feeling deceived by documents that were previously signed and clarified that they do not support the project. Ms. Watson affirmed standing with neighbors on Chiquita Street and the surrounding area, noting that others had articulated the concerns more effectively.
Ms. Coveny asked a clarifying question about the applicant's property, inquiring if she was positioned to the right when facing it. She also asked if the individual's daughter had been present in the past.
Ms. Watson answered yes to both questions.
Larry Nokes stated that he is working with Ann Earhart and those opposing the project, expressed concerns about the impact on the neighborhood. He noted that while many supporters of the project spoke, they were largely friends of the applicants rather than immediate neighbors. Mr. Nokes pointed out that several direct neighbors, including Pat, Inga, Mia, Shay, and Bob, had voiced opposition. He emphasized that Chiquita Street remains a neighborhood characterized by cottage-style houses, and the proposed project does not align with that aesthetic. He argued that the building still extends from setback to setback, has not been significantly reduced in height, and continues to negatively impact Anne’s property, which was previously forced to be built below the allowable height. He also drew a parallel to a prior discussion about Hawthorne, emphasizing that Chiquita Street has a distinct architectural style that the proposed project does not fit. Mr. Nokes concluded by stating that view equity has not been achieved, and that the Board's previous direction has not been adequately followed.
Rebuttal: Ms. Howell clarified that before submitting plans to the city, the applicants engaged in early neighborhood communication by sharing their plans with neighbors 129
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 25 - February 27, 2025 for review, allowing them ample time to study them. Ms. Howell emphasized that there was no deception involved in this process. Addressing concerns, Ms. Howell noted that the proposed project is set back further from the alley than most neighboring buildings, including Inga’s, whose balconies extend further into the setback. They highlighted several modifications made in response to feedback, including moving back the second story to improve privacy, light, and air circulation, adding articulation to the front corner, incorporating a tree for more curb appeal, and lowering the building by three feet. Ms. Howell also pointed out that a recently approved property nearby features similar or greater heights and massing. In response to Anne’s concerns about the project being too large, they argued that Anne's own building maximizes its lot, has high ceilings, and features large window headers. In contrast, the proposed project has less lot coverage, a lower plate height, and maintains greater distance from the alley. Ms.
Howell, concluded by emphasizing that the design takes into account neighbors' privacy and light concerns.
Pamela Polzin expressed concerns about the concept of view equity, stating that what was once a beautiful view of goats grazing on the hillside is now obstructed by a wall.
She highlighted that the view across the alleyway has completely eliminated any view of the hillside that they previously enjoyed.
Board Questions: None.
Chair Gannon closed the public hearing
Board Comments: Chair Gannon expressed her support for the project, describing it as a perfect blend between commercial and residential areas. She mentioned the suggestion made by Mr. Weil in the previous meeting to plant a dwarf tree to soften the building's presence when turning into Chiquita Street. She provided comparisons to nearby properties, emphasizing how the project aligns with the development pattern in the area.
She highlighted the lack of light and air intrusion, the proper placement of the building off the alley, and the articulation of the upper floor. She also noted the adequacy of the landscaping and the addition of a dwarf tree to soften the front facade. Chair Gannon stated that the project meets the requirements of view equity and privacy and noted that it matches the scale and character of other buildings in the neighborhood. She concluded by stating her support for the project, praising the applicants for following the Board's direction.
Ms. Thalman began by thanking the applicants for addressing all the concerns raised by the Board over the course of the past three hearings, particularly regarding mass and scale. She emphasized that while some had mentioned reducing square footage, the key to reducing the appearance of mass is design, not just size. She noted that the side coverage increased slightly from 35% to 38%, a change she found insignificant from a property standpoint. Ms. Thalman agreed that view equity has been achieved and that there are no privacy issues. She expressed support for the project's design, stating that it provides a natural transition between the cottages and more contemporary designs in the neighborhood. Finally, she mentioned that the Bird of Paradise plants would 130
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 26 - February 27, 2025 eventually be removed, and she voiced her support for approving the project, as she felt it met the Design Review guidelines.
Ms. Coveny began by expressing that she could not support the project that night, starting with her concerns about mass and scale. She felt that the changes made did not adequately address the Board’s feedback, particularly regarding how the house is processed and built. She noted that the houses on Chiquita Street have a certain setback and articulation, which the current design lacked. She mentioned that while the design materials were fine, the overall size of the home felt too big for the context of the neighborhood. Ms. Coveny acknowledged that while the project met zoning and planning requirements, she felt it did not respect the unique characteristics of the neighborhood. She also emphasized that the issue was not about design style, but about fitting better within the mass and scale context. She addressed the issue of view equity, pointing out that while the applicants had removed a tree, there was still a view impact, and suggested that the house design could be adjusted to improve it. Ms. Coveny praised the landscaping changes, especially the removal of certain lighting, but reiterated that the massing of the project still felt out of place in the neighborhood.
Chair Gannon asked Ms. Coveny if she was saying that the project did not have articulation.
Ms. Coveny responded that while the project does have articulation, the issue lies with the span of the design. She mentioned that when looking at the project from the plan view or the rendering, the length of the structure creates a visual impact.
Chair Gannon expressed confusion, stating that she doesn't understand how the project could be more articulated.
Ms. Coveny responded that she is not an architect and doesn't know either.
Chair Gannon pointed out that all the articulation is visible in the plans, suggesting that it can be seen in the designs presented.
Discussion continued regarding project articulation.
Mr. Gibbs expressed that he cannot support the project, emphasizing that the mass and scale are still too large for the neighborhood, a concern he raised during the first hearing.
He explained that there was no significant reduction in the mass or scale of the building, despite the board's suggestions. He pointed out that the setback of the two-story mass is not compatible with the neighborhood, particularly in comparison to Chiquita Street.
Although he acknowledged the design's articulation and its potential in a different location, he stated that it is not suitable for this neighborhood due to its block-like appearance. He noted that the second story wasn't pulled back as suggested, and the overall design still appears too large.
Chair Gannon opened the public hearing
131
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 27 - February 27, 2025 Ms. Howell explained that the bathroom, shower, and walk-in closet were made smaller in order to bring back the corner of the front of the house.
Chair Gannon closed the public hearing
Mr. Gibbs stated that while the corner of the house may have been pulled back slightly, the change was not substantial enough to address his concerns from the second hearing.
He emphasized that the house still did not meet his direction for reducing mass and scale. Despite his willingness to approve the house, he couldn't support it due to these issues. Regarding height, he acknowledged that the applicant had reduced it somewhat but still felt the plate height of 10 feet for the second story was too high for the community, especially with potential impacts on views and light. He noted that, if the height was the only concern, he likely would have approved it, but ultimately, mass and scale remained his primary issue.
Mr. Weil acknowledged the challenges the project has faced, with efforts from both the neighbors and the applicant to reach a workable solution. He noted that while there have been many changes and concessions made since the first hearing, these changes have been incremental rather than substantial. He agreed with Mr. Gibbs that the Board had been hoping for more significant adjustments to some corners and angles, especially in relation to mass, scale, and views. Although the project is close and many improvements have been made, Mr. Weil felt that further adjustments would require more design work, which could lead to more changes that might not satisfy either the applicant or the neighbors.
Chair Gannon suggested that if the plate heights were lowered, it could potentially be included as a condition of approval for the project.
Mr. Weil explained that he is not in favor of lowering the plate heights as a solution. He believes the mass and scale, along with the overall end-to-end structure of the building, still needs significant adjustments. He noted that while the design is unique for the alleyway, there are still elements that need tweaking to gain his full support. Specifically, he mentioned the need for adjustments to the opening towards the front side of Chiquita and the rear decks, eaves, and bedroom, which still feel too end-to-end. These changes are crucial for his support of the project.
Chair Gannon asked Mr. Gibbs if lowering the plate heights could be considered a condition of approval for the project.
Mr. Gibbs expressed that he would have loved to approve the house at the third hearing but his main issue was with the mass and scale. He noted that while he had suggested lowering the plate height, his primary concern was that the second story was not reduced significantly enough. He mentioned that to approve the project, the Board would need to design it, which is not within their prerogative. He also stated that he had never encountered a situation where they denied a project after multiple hearings.
City Attorney Donegan clarified that since staff did not prepare a resolution of denial, 132
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 28 - February 27, 2025 the Board would need to direct staff to adopt one. He mentioned that the resolution would be brought back, but it would only reflect whether the decisions made during the meeting were accurately captured. He asked if that made sense.
Mr. Weil stated that if the project is denied, there will be no resolution.
City Attorney Donegan confirmed that the applicant requires written findings for the project. If the project is denied, a resolution of denial would be required. The applicant could potentially appeal the decision, and they would need a written record of what occurred during the meeting.
Mr. Gibbs stated that the record laid out during the meeting provides the reasons for the denial.
Mr. Gibbs made a motion, seconded by Mr. Weil, to direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial based on the project not meeting the mass and scale and neighborhood compatibility guidelines. The motion passed 3-2.
Motion TG Second LW Action DENIED
Coveny __Y__ Gibbs ___Y___ Weil ___Y___ Thalman ___N___ Gannon ___N___
6. OTHER BUSINESS
None.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Adjournment at 8:10 p.m. to the regularly scheduled Design Review Board meeting on March 13, 2025, at 5:00 p.m.
133