Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the View Equity topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board continues contentious Short Street remodel to third hearing in September after view-equity dispute
Summary
Design Review and Coastal Development Permit for 607 Short Street were continued to a third hearing on September 11 after extensive public comment and board discussion about view equity and massing. The board found applicants had shown good faith changes and granted the continuance.
The Laguna Beach Design Review Board on June 26 continued its review of a proposed major remodel at 607 Short Street to a third hearing on September 11, directing the applicant to further revise the proposal in light of neighbor concerns about view equity and massing.
Shavita (planning staff) presented the project as a major remodel across an existing lot near Laguna Beach High School, describing a revised submittal that reduced the upper-level addition from 807 to 760 square feet, reduced lower-level and overall living-area increases, and retreated the upper-level wall five feet from the rear property line. The project also included a detached ADU (not subject to design review but requiring a coastal development permit). Staff recommended approval, noting revisions made since the original hearing in February.
Neighbors and multiple speakers at public comment objected to the proposal’s remaining two‑story massing along a single plane, saying it would reduce privacy, light and hillside views for adjacent residences; they pressed the board to require a substantially different configuration. The applicant’s team described the changes already made, including tree removal to improve sightlines and the five-foot pullback. The applicant offered a plan in the hearing to pull the structure an additional three feet (a total of eight feet pulled back) in follow-up studies.
Board members were divided: several said they believed a design could be approved but wanted additional revisions that better protected the Mahoneys’ side-study window and reduced the uninterrupted two‑story wall. Multiple members indicated they would support approval if the applicant made further pullback or articulation changes; several asked the parties to meet in good faith. The board made a finding that the applicant had shown good faith with prior changes and continued the item to September 11 to allow revised plans to be prepared. The continuance passed on a unanimous roll call.
