Chair Gannon:
So next up is agenda item 5.5 located at 607 Short Street. While the applicant team takes their positions, board, do we have ex parte?
Board Member Gibbs:
Chair, excuse me, I met with the owners and I also met with the neighbors, Allison and Miles Mahoney at 615 Short Street and that's it.
Chair Pro Tem Thalman:
Sorry. I went to the site and met with Drew Blake, Mr. and Mrs. Macintosh, Steve Kawaratani, and Mr. and Mrs. Mahoney next door.
Board Member Weil:
Met with Mr. and Mrs. Mahoney, Steve Kawaratani. I spoke on the phone with Steve McIntosh.
Board Member Coveny:
I met with the Macintoshes and also the Mahoneys and Steve Kawaratani.
Board Member Weil:
Chair, I forgot, I also met with Steve Kawaratani.
Chair Gannon:
And I too met with Steve Kawaratani and the neighbors next door, the Mahoneys, and the applicant team.
Shaveta Sharma:
Good evening chair and members of the board. Item 5.5 is Design Review and Coastal Development Permit for 607 Short Street. The project is located on the western side of Short Street in the R1 zone across from Laguna Beach High School. The existing neighborhood consists of one and two-story homes with adjacent residences being two stories. The project is an existing 1,441 square foot single family home with an attached two-car garage. The scope of work proposed for the project includes a major remodel to add a 1,033 square foot second-level addition, 52 square foot addition to the existing garage, 325 square feet of elevated decking at the first level and an 80-square foot elevated deck at the second floor. Landscaping and lighting improvements are also incorporated and there is a detached ADU in the rear that is subject to a coastal development permit but not with design review.
The second-level addition is located along the southeastern property line. The applicant has included opaque windows on the second story to preserve neighbor privacy. The proposed design, colors and materials and development are compatible with the neighborhood and existing structure. Staff has analyzed the applicant's request with respect to the city's development standards and the board's direction and determined that the project conforms to zoning codes, general plan policies and design review guidelines.
Additionally, staff believes that the CDP findings for the project can be made. Staff recommends that the board conduct a public hearing and adopt Resolution 24-0772 approving Design Review 24-0772 and Coastal Development Permit and finding said action exempt from CEQA. After publication of the agenda, staff has received public comments noting privacy and concerns, mass and scale, and view equity issues Attachment 7
134
with the project. The board can determine whether or not that affects the project's ability to meet the design review criteria. That concludes my presentation. The staff, the architect, and the applicant are also available for questions.
Chair Gannon:
Beautiful presentation. Thank you. Board, do we have questions for staff? No? Going around the room.
Okay, you have five minutes, Mr. Blake.
Drew Blake:
Okay, thank you. My name is Drew Blake and I'm the designer for the project. I wanted to thank you all again for coming out to the site. I appreciate understanding the new design that we're working on and what we're trying to accomplish out there. The project is located at 607 Short Street. This lot size is 7,110 square feet with an existing lot coverage of 23%. The new lot coverage will be 28%. The Macintoshes have lived in this house since 2002 and raised their daughter here in Laguna Beach. Since the time of the purchase of this home, my clients have always wanted to add a second story to have a little bit more of an ocean view to add to the kitchen, make it a little bit more usable and functional; a new bathroom, as now there's only one bathroom in the home that they've all had to share over these years.
Most of the homes in this area are two stories, including the residences on both sides of this home, as well as many of the homes behind this residence on Los Robles. The house is very modest in size and this existing house is 1,441 square feet. With this new remodel design, the new... will go up to approximately 2,600, well below the average size of the house in this area. We started this process with mass and scale on our minds to keep the project lower and to scale with the neighborhood compatibility. We worked hard to keep the house modest, designing the ceiling heights to the standard eight-foot plate and the roof slope to a shallow three and 12. We kept the windows on the south elevation narrow and smaller and are willing to work with the neighbors on the issues of privacy with some type of opaque glass if needed.
The upper deck is set back as to not impede anyone's views. Again, keeping the privacy and exposure to a minimum. We are adding 390 square feet to the lower level in the rear yard and 807 square feet on the upper level addition. We wanted to keep the beautiful open space of the site intact. We have worked hard to be sensitive to the neighbors by keeping the house as low as possible with the eight-foot plate and the shallow roof. The design of the new house will be in the beach house vernacular with architectural details and accent trims and keeping with the look and feel of the early Laguna Beach homes. We know there's been some concern from adjoining neighbors, and we're willing to make some small adjustments to accommodate their concerns. We understand that all of us in the neighborhood need to compromise and we're willing to do so as well. In the end, we hope this new addition will be beautiful to the neighborhood as well as offered to the Macintoshes the space and added square footage they have been longing for years. Thank you.
Chair Gannon:
Thank you. You still have time? Yeah, if you'd like to speak.
Steve Macintosh:
Yes, please. Thank you. Thank you board, and I'd like to thank everyone for coming out, taking a look. But as Drew said, we've owned the house, my wife Vicki and I and daughter. She was a newborn when we bought the house in 2002 and basically we're 20 years in on a three-year remodel and one thing after another got in the way. So we tried to keep this really scaled back for everybody to fit the neighborhood.
It's a great neighborhood, great neighbors, and we've always been really good neighbors to everyone and 135
continue to be so and do so. But we want to plan on multi-generational living and to age in place. Oh, next slide please. Yeah, thank you. Sorry, if you could. That's that. Next.
The lot adjoins five different properties, and all five are two-story houses with views and decks and one of them has three decks. So basically, we're just trying to achieve that. We're trying to reduce and eliminate impact on neighbors and modestly take care of that. Next slide please. This is some of the neighbor concerns and mitigations that we've had, and we sent this to you guys so you have it. So next please. This is, for instance, the privacy for the folks behind us at 480. This is the proposed views from the proposed master bedroom towards 480 and the kind of thing that we talked about was that's five foot below our grade and put a lattice on the wall with vines for privacy. You see on the right-hand side, they did that. Next please.
Same thing with 472 Los Robles. That's the view corridor. That's from the proposed deck and that's about 50 feet from the fence. And so you can see behind her pool deck there and then on the right-hand side a little bit of shrubbery in that gap and then you can see that that goes a long ways throughout this. Next please. Same thing there. She was kind enough to send these from her perspective. That's about 80 feet away. You see on the right, its bush is in the way. Next please. Same thing there. Next. And same thing there, see. This is some of the mitigations that we were talking about.
Chair Gannon:
In conclusion.
Steve Macintosh:
Okay.
Chair Gannon:
Okay. You'll have three minutes to speak later.
Steve Macintosh:
All right. Thank you.
Chair Gannon:
At this time, any members of the public wish to speak on 607 Short Street? Miles Mahoney:
Is that my turn?
Chair Gannon:
That's your turn. Yes, please
Miles Mahoney:
Thank you to the board and to our neighbors for hearing our input on the Macintosh proposed plan. We've met with the Macintoshes on three occasions and finding ourselves at an impasse, we're here to really seek to preserve the relationship that we have with the Macintoshes. Miles and I believe all our neighbors should be able to make improvements to their home and want to state we're not against the Macintoshes making improvements.
136
From the point in time the Macintoshes let us know that they had a plan and asked for our input, we've given consideration and met with them within 24 hours of each request. They've been on an urgent timeframe. We've been willingly supportive and kept pace with their meeting requests. Once the stakes went up at Thanksgiving, it was even more clear how impactful the proposed plan would be for our home.
Each time we met, we thoughtfully shared our concerns for privacy, light, lifestyle, blocking mass, and the proposed front-to-back wall completely along one side of our home.
It was even more clear once we saw the stakes. So we invited them over to take a look at this impact.
They both took photos, we described our concerns. Our lot and theirs have a smaller easement and our homes stand at the same elevation. So their proposed plan represents a significant impact to our privacy and also enjoyment of our home. When we bought our home, we had been searching for over four years.
Our home was built in 1937, and it was thoughtfully designed to maximize the privacy, light, and the functionality for the size of each room. We needed a four-bedroom home for our family of five and space to work during daytime hours. We have conference video calls, we have corporate employers, plus run a family business from our home. We spend about 12 hours every weekday in these rooms working and conducting business with the door closed so that we don't impact the rest of our family and living space.
So in terms of using our bedrooms upstairs, they're not just for sleeping. We picked our house so that we could work and also our kids work and study from these rooms. Even from our master bathroom, toilet and bathtub, we can see their proposed home and they can see ours. It's an intrusion of privacy. During the years, we have been next door neighbors and friends. We've enjoyed a close relationship with the Macintoshes and we even got speed bumps put in on our street together.
To close, when we had our third conversation, one of the points the Macintosh mentioned that they expected to be asked to potentially push back the upstairs design, but were not prepared to discuss any expectations with us. They didn't want to discuss in advance and unnecessarily reduce the size and scale of their upstairs or tolerate more delays before their major rebuild.
Chair Gannon:
In conclusion.
Miles Mahoney:
They said they're changing their plans might impact the privacy they're seeking. So basically, to wrap up, we're counting on the board to help us navigate the Macintoshes have acknowledged that they're also seeking privacy and don't want to view the mass of our home so we know there's a way forward.
Chair Gannon:
Thank you.
Miles Mahoney:
Thank you.
Speaker 10:
Thank you. Hello, board, and thanks 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've enjoyed a friendship with the Macintoshes over the last five years. What's at stake 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 and the precedent it sets in our community going forward. I also want to underscore we understand and support the Macintoshes 137
making improvements to their property and improving and enhancing their living space, but not at the expense of our privacy, our views, the lighting and the quality of life. Have some of you had the chance to visit our home, specifically see the area impacted by the second story addition? We spend about 70% of our waking, working and sleeping hours in the north run of our home directly impacted and affected by the second story addition that they're proposing.
First, the new structure will block the sunlight in the open air space that provides privacy and quality in our daily lives. And yes, we transition to working in two of the three rooms on that side of the home each and every day. We cherish the natural light in the air that fills our home from the northwest side of our house. Without it would feel dark, closed off and pretty uninviting. Secondly, the proposed second story addition will obstruct our views and our view equity and the light from every room along the north-facing side of the property, which we've considered a significant benefit of living, working, and spending time in this area of our home. It really is our main living space. The view of the water and the hillside have been a peaceful aspect of our daily life and it would be really disheartening to see that aspect just disappear.
I want to express how important this view is to our family, not just as a luxury, but a part of what makes our home special. In fact, on one occasion we had Vicki and Steve, just like some of you did, come over to our home and see for themselves the impact their proposed project would have on the entire side of our home. I asked Steve, "How would you feel if you were in my shoes and I was proposing what you're proposing?" Steve responded, "I'd be upset." This is truly significant. It's not a neighborly spat. We love the Macintoshes. This has a true impact to our quality of life and the value of our property.
But it's not only the views that are at risk. The addition to the second story led to a lack of privacy in areas of our property that probably still haven't even been explored. Privacy's not about addressing and putting window coverings or frostings on the windows themselves. It's the impact and the unknown of a structure looking into our living space, our backyards. Frosted windows or not, it feels invasive. So I want to thank you guys for your consideration and I hope the board can make some recommendations that make the living space that we've been accompanied to and the improvements that they want to make mutually beneficial. Thank you.
Chair Gannon:
Thank you. Any other comments? Mr. Kawaratani?
Steve Kawaratani:
Shaveta, could you queue me up please? Thank you. My name's Steve Kawaratani and I see, since I've last seen board member Coveny and Chair Gannon, they've been to the salon. Good job, guys. Okay. So I'm oftenSteve Kawaratani:
You know what? Both your hairs are thinning. So that being said, the board members often ask me if I look at design articulation, look at the upper floor there. And we're getting to the crux of the problem. It's 45 and a half feet of unremitting program and it's jammed right next to the Mahoneys. The solution here really is to shorten the length of the upper story and move it further away. Next slide. Next slide please.
So I'd like to talk about view equity really quickly. This particular image shows what the impact would be from this room. And view, air, and light really are going to be greatly compromised and that's what I want to remind the board. You all visited the site, you saw the story poles. This is what it's going to look like, and I believe that although Drew said they're trying to capture a little view, and it's fair that the Macintoshes are, that should not be at the expense of the neighbor. Next slide. 138
Another example of the view equity issue, Steve McIntosh mentioned that there's probably going to be compromise, and we do understand and we appreciate it, but at this point the project, as presented, is truly unacceptable. Next slide. I'd like to talk about neighborhood compatibility. As the applicants have pointed out, many homes have second stories in the general vicinity and the Macintoshes have every right to pursue that. That's really not our issue. However, when you're stacking almost the entire program against the Mahoneys, therein lies the problem. So again, I believe that that upper level should not necessarily be reduced, but it should be moved over and it should probably span the entire width of the property to have a more balanced look. Thank you.
Chair Gannon:
Thank you, Mr. Kawaratani. Any other speakers? Okay.
Jeff Amos:
Hello, my name's Jeff Amos, my husband Todd Brooks and I live at 480 Los Robles, the house directly behind the proposed house. We appreciate the opportunity to share our perspective. As we know, these decisions require careful thought. We've had a good relationship with the Macintosh family since they moved in, fully support their desire to improve their home. However, we have concerns about the addition, how it affects our property and particularly in terms of privacy. We've lived in our home for 25 years. One of the things we've valued is the privacy and openness of our backyard carefully configured so that it has a private spot within that backyard.
The proposed second story addition is very close to our property. Their placement significantly impacts both the sense of privacy and overall enjoyment of our outdoor space. The second floor, in particular, looms directly over our back patio, creating a much more enclosed feeling than we've had before. It also blocks our view of the hill. So from upstairs we can see the hill. We won't see the lights of the hill anymore, which has been an important cherished feature of our home. We wonder if there's any flexibility in the plans that could help us mitigate these efforts, perhaps a pullback of certain elements might make a meaningful difference and maintaining privacy and keep the new structural blend more smoothly with the surrounding properties.
We know Stephen and his family put a great deal of thought into the remodel. We respect that. We hope that some compromise can be found to allow them to move forward with their improvements while also considering the long-standing character and privacy of our home. There's some proposed plants to put in place, but it would really just create a canyon. As close as the structure is to our house, just create a canyon feel in our backyard. My neighbor that we share the back with 607, Jeannie Myers, I believe also sent a letter to the board. I sent a letter this morning to the board voicing these concerns.
Board Member Weil:
What was your address again?
Jeff Amos:
480-
Board Member Weil:
480.
139
Jeff Amos:
... Los Robles and 472 Los Robles also sent a message, but she's out of town today. We have similar issues.
Thanks.
Chair Gannon:
Any other speakers? Okay, you have three minutes for a rebuttal.
Steve Macintosh:
Very good. Shaveta, could you pull up the slide please? Basically, nice to hear everybody speak and some of these things we've talked to them about. There's actually 16 feet between the houses. I've been in Laguna a long time and I don't think that's very close in that. Everybody talks about privacy. We'll get to that. One of the things that we're going to bring up here was next slide I think is where we're at. Oh, yeah, one more. Oh, no, up back. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Back a couple more, please, Shaveta. One more. Yes. So there we were. We'd covered those issues. Could you go back a couple more so I could address Mr. Amis? Keep going. One more. One more. I know I'm burning my time. A little more. One more. There it is. Oh, back. That's where he was talking about. That's the view that he was talking about in his window. Back one more please, Shaveta.
There we go. So his space is back there. I see that. And also, the neighbor looks into his space as well there, and we're going to try to eliminate that. So then moving on here. Keep going if you would please.
Keep going. We need a few more. Here we go, front bedroom. We're going to remove that tree so that front bedroom at 615, the Mahoneys will be taken care of. Next slide. This is the view out of the middle bedroom. So a little different than Mr. Kawaratani's. You can see our poles there and then you see a lot of blue light above and you can still see an ocean view there.
And to the right, you can see when we take that tree out, that middle bedroom will have a hill view. Next slide please. And that's the back views. Next slide from 615. That's their previous owner back corner bedroom. You can see their primary view out the back and then their side view. Next slide. This is the current one with the desks with the primary view out the back and the side view with the couch backed up against it. You can see our poles there and that couch is moved for the design review purposes and a desk put there. Next slide.
This is the back corner office. You can see to the left of the poles, there's still an ocean view and sky above it. Next slide. And this is the problem we would have with the big mass all the way across. This is what we're looking at, and it's been talked about. Let's flip it to the other side. Basically, that goes against every design review guideline that there is, a building to look into someone. So I'd be looking from those windows up above, seven of them, towards those three sets of windows there and the deck would be fully exposed to them. So there's absolutely zero privacy for either of us. So that was suggested by the Mahoneys several times and they talk about privacy here and I think we're doing everything for privacy that could be happening.
Chair Gannon:
In conclusion.
Steve Macintosh:
In conclusion, I just want to say that we are doing everything we can. We can't see into the backyard. They have trees there. So I don't know why everybody's talking about that, but we're willing to work with everybody here to try to come up with some amiable ideas and processes. 140
Chair Gannon:
Okay. Any questions for the applicant?
Board Member Gibbs:
I have one question. I mentioned this to you when I was out. The suggestion that we're hearing from your neighbors at 615, certainly from Steve Kawaratani, their consultant, is move the second story to the other side of the property. What's the feasibility and issues in your mind from doing that? Steve Macintosh:
Well, that last slide, Shaveta, if you could bring that last slide up that says it? Basically, it's several issues.
It creates a massive structure all the way across the front of the facility or the houseBoard Member Gibbs:
No, I'm talking about moving the second story to the other side of the lot.
Steve Macintosh:
Right, right. And so what happens when we do that, we're working around an existing floor plan. There's very little that we can do. We're not tearing it down, we're not building from anew. So what ends up happening, that shows it flipped over. We have one spot for the stairs, which is basically in where it was, and it's been suggested that we just build all the way across then and that's what we end up with. But we're just limited on where we can put stairs. We've got issues with plumbing, electrical, it's costprohibitive.
We got to work on concrete, a lot more concrete work to build all the way across. And then when you get on the other side, looking back, like I say there, you can see that that would be our place up there on top, seven windows looking back at them with the three windows. And we have a deck that's wide open. So some of the design review guidelines that I saw said don't build to look into someone's house, and that's what this would be. And don't build your deck to where people can see you and you can see them. And that's totally what that would be. And it's also a loss of a view corridor.
Chair Gannon:
Any other questions?
Board Member Gibbs:
That's it.
Chair Gannon:
Okay. Any questions? I'm ready for comments. So also included in the design review guidelines is a view blockage that includes not only the ocean but a hillside. And the photo that I took in that primary room, which is now being used as an office, yes it has that peek-a-boo view of the ocean. But for me, I noticed that it has a phenomenal... And I should have submitted this to the city and I will after tonight's meeting so it's on public record. But that hillside is absolutely gorgeous. And I'm saying everything that I'm going to say now, I said to you when we met. That would significantly devalue that property next door.
My suggestion, what I recommend is having... I understand the stairs needing to be located where they are. Keep the stairs there but drag the house completely like a more traditional style house, two-story 141
house where it goes across the width of the roof and then keep the articulation. You have a brilliant architect there. I'm sure you can figure it out. The ADU, I think there's a neighbor, one of your five neighbors talking about a building that was being proposed. That's an ADU. We can't depict an ADU.
What's that?
Drew Blake:
[inaudible 00:28:14].
Chair Gannon:
No. Yeah, that's pretty much it. I support the projects. I love your materials. I just don't support overloading the left side. But I understand why. You explained really well why you have to have the stairs on the left side. So if you can work that out to take the program across the width, you can have my support.
Board Member Gibbs:
Chair?
Chair Gannon:
Yeah.
Board Member Gibbs:
All right. I've thought a lot about this project and I'm going to go through the guidelines which bind us and what we're supposed to be applying. And I'm doing this from an uninvolved person. This is two neighbors that have distinct interests. So it's important to understand where I'm coming from. I start with design articulation and I think that the project is well-designed. It's an attractive project. I think even the second story elevation northeast facing the Mahoneys is sufficiently articulated. It has the same essential articulation as the Mahoneys property on that side, with the exception of smaller windows, which I would require to be opaque that are done to preserve privacy. Neighborhood compatibility. I walked the whole neighborhood, I took pictures everywhere. Second stories are totally neighborhood-compatible throughout the whole neighborhood. Indeed, a lot of the second stories, including the Mahoneys, are larger than what's being proposed here.
So I find the two-story is neighborhood-compatible. And this second story doesn't extend all the way across. So it has less of a mass and scale from the front and the back, and it extends about the same distance as the Mahoneys, whereas the Mahoneys go all the way across. So they have a much larger mass and scale house than what's being proposed. And that's not atypical. It's a beautiful home. I love their home. And there's a lot of beautiful second story. In fact that is the norm to have significant, on this scale, second story. Mass and scale. So that's the issue, but I'll get to privacy and view equity. The mass and scale I find meets the criteria. It's consistent with the neighborhood. The fact that there is a building along a property line is also consistent throughout that neighborhood. The 16 feet is, I think, a decent spread to preserve light and air and to reduce the mass and scale.
And as I said, if you look at the two sides between 615 and the applicant 607, the mass and scale kind of tilts toward 615 having a larger mass and scale than what's being proposed. And again, I find it articulated on all sides, and the least articulated is on the side facing the Mahoneys. But on that side, it is against their property which has equal minimal articulation. So I think it meets the standards there. With respect to switching the second story to the other side, I think that that does create a lot of feasibility problems. In addition to having the garage articulated where it is and having it balanced, the second story balanced 142
the way it does, presents, I think, a far better project. So I'd have to find a real compelling need to force that switch. Moreover, the neighbor on the other side has a courtyard patio, so if you move the project over there, you'll have similar mass, scale privacy issues.
Unfortunately, when there's a building, you had a smaller scale single-story home for a long time in this location where two-story is the standard there now and neighborhood-compatible, it's going to have some mass and scale impact. And I commend the applicant for moving it back and providing decent spacing. And I was particularly compelled by the photos shown on the reply that shows what I saw, which was notwithstanding there's going to be a building there; it is not like it's five feet or even 10 feet away, which can create some light and air problems. I think, overall, the balance justifies this project with respect to mass, scale, light, and air. With respect to privacy, I'll get to the views in a second. The privacy issues are an issue, which is, in my mind, totally resolved by making the second story windows opaque.
If they are, and they're minimal to begin with on that side, you have a couple of small windows, a stairway window, and then two additional windows. Because the way that they built the Mahoneys house where they put a lot of rooms with windows along that side, expecting it would always be a single story there, I think it does call for opaque windows on that side to provide them the kind of privacy that they should have with those rooms. So that leaves view equity. The view equity in my mind is achieved in this property or in this project, and that's because the primary views are in the back. And that's true of the houses throughout the neighborhood toward the ocean, not surprising. Yes, they're side views. Those side views may be a little less impacted if you build the second story further away. But in my mind, not significantly.
I think view equity is achieved. So with all of that said, I would approve the project tonight.
I'm not sure that the modifications that you're willing to make, and I appreciate you saying, "I'll do modifications," are the kind of modifications that the Mahoneys are looking for. They're looking for a major remodel, which is either moving the whole second story to go along the face of your property, so it's one big one-story, second-story house, which I would have some mass and scale issues with and neighborhood compatibility, or moving it in a lateral way along the other side of the property line. And barring that, I do not see any minor tweaks, although I'm interested in what my fellow board members have to say that are necessary. So for all those reasons, I can approve the project tonight.
Chair Gannon:
Mrs. Sharma, did you receive my photo? Yes, please. For view equity. So in Laguna Beach we have two views. We have canyon views and we have... Well, three views: canyon views, hillside views, and ocean views.
Speaker X:
What are you showing us?
Chair Gannon:
The view. I'm trying to give an objective finding of what a view is. Okay. Okay. Would you like another board member to speak? Okay. Anyone else?
Speaker X:
You want to go [inaudible 00:36:52]?
143
Board Member Weil:
Okay. I appreciate a lot of what board member Gibbs said. He really went off a lot of points, but I do have a couple things and I'll try to keep it a little shorter. As far as the design review guidelines and how you guys have approached this, I really appreciate your approach. You've tried to learn the design review guides, you've got an architect that really embodied the style of the existing home and really tried to bring the characteristics to life and enhance it. So I can see that in those careful components into the design.
But when you read the design review guidelines, you get two sides to this conversation in that whole document, i.e. you have the right to achieve a view with your building, but on the other side of that statement, you've got to balance the views and the privacy and the other things that come with it. So there's two sides to almost every single statement in the document. I think as it applies to this house in a lot of times, in a lot of areas in town, we try to encourage this kind of pop-up design. But I think the way the extension is on just the one side, I think it is creating some impacts, especially into the rear side of the lot. But I'm not saying that a larger program couldn't be achieved on that second story given the neighborhood compatibility of the second stories that surround the high school area of vicinity.
You don't have to go end to end, but looking at your house now, it's kind of the shape of an H on the bottom floor, and you're trying to just run it on the one side. I think if you were to look more at the H part and work the middle part back, you probably could achieve more program. I know board member Gibbs talked about feasibility, but when it comes to the design review guidelines, cost isn't part of our analysis.
Yes, it is some part of the equation overall, but in terms of trying to achieve what you want and still achieve your view, I think it's still well-afforded in your second level availability. But I don't think in the current layout it meets that balancing nature of the view impact from the length that extends on the one side. So in short, if you pull it back, I can be much more approvable of the program extending across the front or making bigger sections in the middle part or over the garage.
Chair Pro Tem Thalman:
What part back? What [inaudible 00:39:25] are you asking? Board Member Weil:
So also looking at the aerial from the two lots neighboring, you've got the Mahoneys on one side and the property on the other. Their second level doesn't quite extend nearly as far as the one you're proposing.
So what I was trying to look at was a reasonable string line, so keep that opening available for not only the Mahoneys but the other side. But then it affords you the reasonable development beyond that, lack of a better term, string line. I'd like to see something closer to that. Doesn't mean you have to get to that exact line. I'm just saying that's where I'm drawing reasonability within the design at this point of the discussion.
And I think that might be a much more balanced equation and maybe achieve some of what board member Gannon was discussing. As far as privacy, I know the gentleman spoke about the property downhill. I think in most applications we'd be looking for landscape in that space, but given that it's being earmarked for an ADU, we don't have any jurisdictions of it. So there will be a structure there. There'll be things there that will provide a privacy just in and of its own. But from a local jurisdiction, we have no control over where they want to put windows or whatever. And analyzing that, the fact that the structure will be there, it'll block a fair amount of what you're concerned about from the view standpoint. So for me, I need a little bit of work on this one, but I think it was a really good attempt and a really good start.
Chair Gannon:
Ms. Thalman?
144
Chair Pro Tem Thalman:
Oh, [inaudible 00:41:07].
Board Member Weil:
Daniel got out my picture. Again, this isn't to scale or whatnot, but I was looking at the neighbor to the right and the neighbor to the left and drawing that line, but where you're the H and extending on that lengthy into the rear, that's the part that's more the challenge for me.
Board Member Coveny:
Okay, I'll go. So first of all, it sounds like you guys have really great neighbors, and I'm certainly hoping that we can resolve all this over the next couple hearings. I won't be able to approve the project tonight, so I'll just start there. And then I'll tell you some of my points and I think that's why you've come to us tonight. I think if you had tried to do it on the other side, it would've been a slam dunk. But you're here and this is where you want it and we'll see if we can make it fit based on what you've got. I agree with Mr.
Gibbs on design articulation. I think along the sides you're fine there. I think that the upward coming out so far and blocking the back bedroom of the Mahoneys is something that just can't happen. That has to be looked at very thoroughly.
I appreciate you opening up that front bedroom window by removing that large tree that's there now. So they're going to gain view there, but they're definitely going to lose in that middle bedroom. I don't think light is an issue. I don't think breeze and that kind of stuff is an issue. I think really, visually, it's a big loss.
Even though this isn't a super ceremonial space, it's an active space. I could feel that just by how the house is set up. So I really feel like that needs to be addressed, that they need to have that, as Ms. Gannon pointed out, that amazing view of the hillside, which hopefully will continually stay pristine for them. So really look at that. Privacy, I think as Mr. Gibbs and others mentioned, I don't think there's a big privacy issue on the Mahoney side.
As he mentioned, opaquing is always nice. Doesn't have to be a heavy-duty opaquing. As far as the group, the gang over there at 480 Paso Robles, I think it's Mr. Amos, I think you're probably going to be okay with what you had shown Steve McIntosh showing an extension of that wall with lattice keeping your hedging.
And I would like perhaps on condition of approval, or you guys can speak and have this on your next plan, is picking what that's going to be. And then we can see if that will do it. And I'd like to be able to have a chance to come over and look because I didn't get a chance to look at that. So I'd like to really see it from your perspective so I can be really clear about that. I think the house is neighborhood-compatible, I think your biggest problem is really view equity, and if you can work on that, I think you're really going to be closer than you are right now. Yeah.
Board Member Gibbs:
Is your issue the same as Louis's issue, that it's just the room that's the closest to the backyard needs to open up a little bit?
Board Member Coveny:
Yeah, needs to retreat.
Board Member Gibbs:
Thanks.
145
Board Member Coveny:
Oh, but let me just add to that and keep this in mind. As you, hopefully, retreat this upper bedroom, that your decking that you're adding, stays obscured because you certainly don't want to... and then you have to deal with that component.
Chair Gannon:
Ms. Thalman.
Chair Pro Tem Thalman:
Okay. Well, my first reaction when I came to the Macintoshes and saw the plans and took a look at the stakes, it looked very reasonable. It looked to be in line with all the design review guidelines. But then after going to the neighbors next door, especially the master bedroom upstairs, I think that had a in-yourface blockage, even though I know you've offered to put in privacy windows, which I think is a good idea.
I think board member Coveny's idea about pushing that master bedroom back, and I hate to say this to you, but maybe you have to reduce your walk-in closet.
It's a beautiful closet. I'm jealous. But maybe pushing everything back might alleviate some of that. It's the light and air. It's not so much privacy. It's light and air and there is a view from their office window. So I think maybe just tweaking the master bedroom. I did not get to see the view from 480 Robles with Mr.
Amos, but I agree that I don't think you're going to have a problem with the landscaping that's there. And I guess with that, I'll leave it to the rest of the board. But I think just a couple of tweaks and you're almost there. I'd like to say this is a one and done, but I think there might be just a few minor changes.
Chair Gannon:
Do you guys have direction, clear direction? Any clarification? Drew Blake:
I think so. If you'd like to say a word about [inaudible 00:46:22]? Chair Gannon:
You don't have to say a word. If you have a question. Yeah, we're not opening the public hearing. Just if you have a question or have a clarification question.
Steve McIntosh:
Yeah. Well, a question. Kristine, you said master bedroom. That's not their master in the corner there by [inaudible 00:46:38].
Chair Gannon:
No, she was saying your master bedroom.
Steve McIntosh:
Oh, ours. Yeah.
Chair Gannon:
Yeah.
146
Steve McIntosh:
Okay. But yeah, light and air. Some of the photos we had, we've been pretty much living in the dark. It's a massive house andChair Gannon:
This isn't a discussion. Do you have any questions for us, any clarification questions, or a direction? Steve McIntosh:
Well, okay.
Chair Gannon:
So no further questions?
Steve McIntosh:
Clarification?
Chair Gannon:
When would you like to come back, Mr. Blake?
Drew Blake:
I think we need a little time. What's the calendar availability? Board Member Weil:
Probably looking at April.
James Campbell:
Well, a lot of this depends upon how long it will take to redesign based on the board's direction. So we have two meetings a month, and so we can slide you in when you're ready. It won't take us long to review the plans, but prepare another staff report.
Drew Blake:
You need to have it in a month before the hearing?
Drew Blake:
That would be appropriate. Yes. That would give us adequate time.
James Campbell:
I'm going to probably say maybe May, that'd be end of May or something? James Campbell:
And Chair Gannon, if I may, does the board want re-staking for any redesign elements? 147
Chair Gannon:
I would appreciate re-staking, yes.
James Campbell:
Is that a consensus [inaudible 00:47:47]?
Board Member Gibbs:
I don't need re-staking, but from their comments, clearly re-staking is going to be necessary. Second of all, you need to pick a meeting date and then it'll give you a time to file your plans.
James Campbell:
So Chair, May 22nd would be available.
Chair Gannon:
Okay. Does that work with you guys?
Board Member Weil:
Plans to you, roughly, April 22nd?
James Campbell:
No, we would like to see the plans in advance of that. So you'd need to have those ready by the end of April, preferably sooner.
Drew Blake:
Yeah, right. Let's give it a shot.
Board Member Weil:
Chair, I'll move item number 5.5 at 607 Short Street to continue to May 22nd, 2025 pending the board's discussion and deliberation.
Chair Gannon:
I'll second that. Board member Coveny, we're taking a vote. Board member Coveny? Board Member Coveny:
Yes.
Chair Gannon:
Board member Gibbs?
Board Member Gibbs:
Yes.
148
Chair Gannon:
Board member Weil?
Board Member Weil:
Yes.
Chair Gannon:
Board chair Thalman?
Chair Pro Tem Thalman:
Yes.
Chair Gannon:
Chair Gannon?
Chair Gannon:
Yes.
Chair Gannon:
Motion carries.
Board Member Gibbs:
Thank you.
Chair Gannon:
Thank you guys.
Drew Blake:
Okay. Thanks, guys. Appreciate it. Thanks for all your comments and help.
Chair Gannon:
See you in May.
149