nonagendized public comment — Laguna Beach City Council, September 23, 2025

7:22PM Sat Sep 20
98%

RECEIVED
CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC COMMUN - FORM NEIGHBORS.pdf E+
SEP 23 2025
LAGUNA BEACH City Clerk's Office
RalphA. BertoliNo 949- City of Laguna Beach, CA

NAME CITY OF RESIDENCE PHONE NUMBER
PUBLIC COMMENT /or/ AGENDA ITEM NUMBER AND MEETING DATE (please list the subject matter and whether it is Public Comment OR the Agenda Item Number) To aid the timely completion of business, we are asking that all below written comments be limited to 200 words or less.

NON - AGENDA ITEM - PUBLIC COMMENT. 9/23/2025 Council Meeting

I REQUEST THAT THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL INSTRUCT THE CITY'S COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT & DRB TO COMPLY WITH THE ROOF-DECK PROBITION IN THE CITY'S ADU ORDINANCE Sec. 25. 17.040(E)(5)(c)). I request that Council repeal the ADU Developers' Roof-Deck Loophole in LBMC Sec. 25.17,020(5)(B) of the Dec. 2024 ADU Ordinance.

Community Development staff is approving ADUs with roof decks atop of them and a split DRB is going along with it. Council should reverse those decisions.

Laguna homeowners do NOT want roof decks atop ADUs that can be 25 feet high and 4 feet from their property lines. Extreme privacy invasions and view obstructions are caused by such roof decks. CA ADU law is already generous enough to ADU Developers.

There is nothing in CA ADU law which requires the City to allow roof decks atop ADUs.

Ralph A Betalino 9-21-2025

SIGNATURE DATE
1 RECEIVED
Hidden Valley Estates Corporation SEP 22 2025
PO Box 1715
Laguna Beach, CA 92652 City Clerk's Office
City of Laguna Beach, CA!
September 18, 2025
Mayor Rounaghi and Members of the City Council City of Laguna Beach 505 Forest Ave.

Laguna Beach, CA 92651
Re: Request to Reinstate Parallel Parking Along Park Avenue Above Hidden Valley Canyon Road
Dear Mayor Rounaghi and Members of the City Council:

On behalf of the residents of Hidden Valley Canyon and the Hidden Valley Estates Corporation of Residents, we respectfully submit this request for your consideration regarding a critical safety concern arising from the recent restriping of Park Avenue adjacent to our homeowners' association community.

For many years, the parallel parking spaces along Park Avenue have served as essential overflow parking for residents and emergency vehicles during events such as fires, floods, street repairs, and other disruptions. However, this restriping has eliminated these vital spaces, posing a significant risk to public safety and resident accessibility in our community.

We kindly request the reinstatement of parallel parking along Park Avenue above Hidden Valley Canyon Road. This proposed restriping would align seamlessly with the recent updates to Park Avenue from Wendt Terrace uphill to Donna Drive, and downhill from Tahiti Avenue.

To support this request, we have attached the following materials for your review:
- An illustration of requested changes;
- An aerial photo of the area in question;
- PTC Action Request Form
- A petition signed by affected residents.

We appreciate your attention to this matter and are available to discuss it further at your convenience. Thank you for your commitment to enhancing safety and circulation in Laguna Beach.

Respectfully submitted,
Hidden Valley Estates Corporation
Howard Childers, President
Cliff Todd, Vice President
Brandon Smith, Secretary/Treasurer

CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH

PARKING, TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION COMMITTEE

ACTION REQUEST FORM
Public Works Department
479 Ocean Avenue, Laguna Beach, CA 92651, Phone: (949) 497-0338 Please Print or fill out on-line (If additional space is required, please attach a separate piece of paper) Requestor's Name: Robin Young Date: 9/18/25
Requestor's Address:

Phone Number Email Address:

Location of Request or Concern:

Park Avenue above Hidden Valley Canyon Road
What is (are) your general concern(s) (Check one or more):
• Pedestrian/Bicyclist Safety - Vehicular Speed Parking _ Driveway Egress/Ingress Sight Distance Issues • Difficult to Cross Street Other (please explain)
Description of Concern (including specific problems that have occurred) Recent restriping of Park Avenue eliminated necessary overflow parking for residents and emergency vehicles in the case of fire, flood, street repair, etc. (If additional space is required, please attach a separate piece of paper) Describe the specific actions you are requesting and how those actions will resolve the problems described above.

Restore parallel parking on Park Avenue above Hidden Valley Canyon Road What time of day do the concerns you have seem most noticeable? Holiday, weekends, and emergencies such as fires, floods, street repairs, etc.

Expected Results:

Parallel parking restored on Park Avenue above Hidden Valley Canyon Road (PTC Form Rev. 1/13/20)

PTC ACTION REQUEST FORM

Page 2 ends

What potential negative im pact would the suggested actions have on any adjacent residents or streets (noise, signs in views, loss of parking)?
NA
Has this concern previously been presented to the PTC? Yes or No If yes, approx. date(s)
Requestor's Signature: Robin Young
Response Preferred: • Phone Call or • Letter or X Email NOTE: The Public Works Department staff will review this request and, if warranted, this matter will appear as an agenda item for a PTC meeting. If a meeting is held, you will be encouraged to attend so that you may state your concern.

Please return the completed form to:

Parking Traffic and Circulation Committee, Attn: Joshua McDonald City of Laguna Beach, Public Works Department
505 Forest Avenue, Laguna Beach, CA 92651
Email: [email protected] For Questions call: Joshua McDonald at: (949) 497-0728 This request and all communications related to this request are public records covered under the California Public Records Act. Copies are made available to the public upon request or may be posted on the City's website.

Meeting Orientation

1. The Chair will open an item for public comment.

2. Anyone may speak on an item for 3 minutes.

3. Public discussion is then closed. Please be respectful of the end of public comments.

4. Committee will discuss an item and may ask speakers for clarification of additional information.

5. New Business items will have a 2 minute applicant clarification and question period.

6. The Committee will make a motion regarding an item and then vote on that item.

7. The Committee may vote to:

1. Deny the request at the first hearing.

2. Request further information and continue the item as a New Business item

3. Direct that the item is noticed for public hearing for a future meeting.

4. Take any other action that the Committee deems appropriate based on the information and testimony provided.

8. If the Committee votes to recommend no action, the matter is concluded.

9. Items may be heard again 2 years after the final vote or after a demonstrable change in condition.

10. Recommendations are presented to the City Council approximately once per quarter.

11. Note: items in the Coastal Zone (beachward of Coast Highway) require a Coastal Development Permit and may take longer to be implemented after Council approval. (PTC Form Rev. 1/13/20)
Petition to: Reinstate Necessary Parking along Park Avenue Adjacent to Hidden Valley Canyon Road We, the undersigned, urge the City of Laguna Beach to reconsider the recent restriping of Park Avenue above Hidden Valley Canyon Road, which has eliminated essential overflow parking used for over 30 years.

This overflow area is not a convenience — it's a lifeline. During flooding, road repairs, or slurry sealing, it has provided the only accessible parking for residents. Without it, residents are left without the ability to leave home for basic needs such as groceries, medical care, or work.

The loss of this parking threatens the safety, mobility, and well-being of the community. We respectfully request that the City take immediate steps to restore overflow parking in this area and preserve the accessibility and Livability of our neighborhood.

Name Home Address Signature Email Address
1 Aran Bowers Hidden Valen Can le
Whither RueD
3 Lisa Gant
4 Vealan Rider
5 Aran Rider
6 DON CIANO • Helden Vka Cyr
7 VauriL Sil
india Valay ja Ka
8 Brandon Smith
9 LEAChedas 3 Hiddenese,
10 Howard Childers Hidden Vallarg
11 Emily Kungl lidden Valley lane - Cor
12 TYLER LUNGL HODEN VALLEY CAUT
13 LICE TODD DARN VALLEY CANNON A и .

Beth Borkask
ledi
17 " - Cor
18 LOPIN YOUNG HIDDEN VALE om
19 20
21 22
23 24
26 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 July 2025
CONSTRUCTION NOTES (THIS SHEET): R81 (CA) 8]
NOTES 6. 7. AND 13 NOT USED THIS SHEET
пробе. 1 b
1 - REMOVE, BY WET SANDBLASTING, ALL CONFLICTING STRIPING (‡3,300 S.F. TOTAL). @ PARK AVENUE - INSTALL PAINTED 6" DOUBLE YELLOW SOLID STRIPE PER CALTRANS STD. PLAN A20A, DETAIL 22(‡2,200 LF. TOTAL). 8 R3-7 - INSTALL PAINTED 6" WHITE RIGHT EDGEINE, DETAIL 27B (11,300 LF.). 4 INSTALL PAINTED 6 WHilE BIKE LANE SIRIPE. DElAIL 39 (1/.200 L.r. 101AL), RB1 (CA) B]
FURNISH AND INSTALL SIGNS) AND POST (10 EA. TOTAL).
- FURNISH AND INSTALL SIGNS) ON EXISTING SIGN POST OR STREET LIGHT (8 EA. TOTAL). 10 - PAINT 6" SKIP WHITE BIKE LANE STRIPE, DETAIL 39A (÷800 L.F. TOTAL) WITH GREEN BIKEWAY MARKINGS (+900 S.F. TOTAL). SEE DETAIL "A" ON SHEET 1. - INSTALL PAINTED TYPE IV(L) OR (R) ARROW PER CALTRANS STD. PLANS A24A (3 EA. TOTAL). - INSTALL PAINTED SLOW SCHOOL XING PAVEMENT LEGEND PER CALIRANS SID. PLAN A24D (1 EA. 10 AL) REMOVE EXISTING DELINEATORS.
- REMOVE AND SALVAGE EXISTING SIGN. PROTECT IN PLACE REMAINNG SIGNS. - REFRESH EXISTING STRIPING IN-KIND (‡600 S.F. TOTAL).. - INSTALL PAINTED 6" YELLOW CENTER LINE EXTENSION, DETAIL 41 (#70 LF. TOTAL). LEGEND — PAINT RED CURB (150 L.F. TOTAL)
19] - INSTALL PAINTED 6" WHITE DASHED LINE, DETAIL 39A (#1,250 LF. TOTAL). EXISTING PARKING 8'W 20 - INSTALL PAINTED 6" WHITE SOLID DIAGONAL LINE AT 20' ON-CENTER (#700 L.F. TOTAL). 8 R81 (CA), R28S (CA) EXISTING BIKE LANE 6'W

RE-INSTATE
R285 (CA) [8 STANDARD PARALLEL PARKING
15 SPACES @ 8'Wx22'L

EX W1-2R.SW4-1 (CA)(MOD)
•EX SR4-1 (CA) STANDARD BIKE LANE RE-STRIPE 6'W
R28 (CA)(MOD) |15

EX WIT-S
121 120
120 [B R81 (CA)
[]RB1 (CA),R2BS (CA)

EX R28 (CA)(N

EX RB AND, YOUNG

PARK BUILDINC

CORPORATION
AVENUE MOUNT EACH CA 92652
CANS 350321

DI EX WRET (CA)
1201
[B ]R81 (CA) R28S (CA) PARK AVENUE STRIPING
LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651
SA100

PARK AVENUE

GATE HIDDEN VALLE
W R28S (CA) L ANYON ROAL
EW R285 (CA) 9 SCALE: 1" = 40°

PARK AVENUE STRIPING PLAN
HEVISIONS PLAN PREPARED BY: RECOMMENDED BY: CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH BY APP'D 3/13/24 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT eN #

YVI ENCINER

AGA PARK AVENUE BIKE LANE SIGNING-STRIPING

APPROVED BY
See Sheet 1 PARK AVENUE
A1.0
RAMPORTATION CONSULTING ENGINES ROE B PERALES, P.E, ESTIK, P.E. FROM STA 34+00 TO STA 57+00 Tahiti Ave Bridge Rd
Park Ave park Ave
Hidden Valley(
Park Ave Park Ave
Donna Dr
Donna Dr
Google
Imagery ©2025

CALIFORNIA

CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH

PUBLIC COMMUNICATION FORM

YOU MAY SUBMIT COMMENTS ON ANY AGENDA ITEM OR ONANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA BY COMPLETING THE BELOW FORM AND RETURNING BY EMAIL TO: [email protected], OR BY MAIL TO THE CITY CLERK AT: 505 FOREST AVE., LAGUNA BEACH, CA. 92651. ALL COMMUNICATION MUST BE RECEIVED NO LATER THAN 12:00 P.M., THE DAY OF THE MEETING.

PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS FORM TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL, or CITY COMMISSION, COMMITTEE OR BOARD

ALL COMMUNICATIONS MUST BE RECEIVED BY NOON THE DAY PRIOR TO THE MEETING Nora/StarE EveRAL AGUNA BEACH

NON - AGENDA ITEM - PUBLIC COMMENT. 9/23/2025 Council Meeting

I REQUEST THAT THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL INSTRUCT THE CITY'S COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT & DRB TO COMPLY WITH THE ROOF-DECK PROHBITION IN THE CITY'S ADU ORDINANCE Sec. 25. 17.040(E)(5)(c)). I request that Council repeal the ADU Developers' Roof-Deck Loophole in LBMC Sec. 25.17,020(5)(B) of the Dec. 2024 ADU Ordinance.

Community Development staff is approving ADUs with roof decks atop of them and a split DRB is going along with it. Council should reverse those decisions.

There is nothing in CA ADU law which requires the City to allow roof decks atop ADUs. 9/22/25

SIGNATURE DATE

CALIFORNIA

CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH

PUBLIC COMMUNICATION FORM

PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS FORM TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL, or CITY COMMISSION, COMMITTEE OR BOARD

ALL COMMUNICATIONS MUST BE RECEIVED BY NOON THE DAY PRIOR TO THE MEETING

JIM BURNES LAGUNA BEACH

NAME CITY OF RESIDENCE

PHONE NUMBER
PUBLIC COMMENT /or/ AGENDA ITEM NUMBER AND MEETING DATE (please list the subject matter and whether it is Public Comment OR the Agenda Item Number) To aid the timely completion of business, we are asking that all below written comments be limited to 200 words or less.

NON - AGENDA. ITEM - PUBLIC

COMMENT

I REQUEST THAT THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL INSTRUCT THE CITY'S COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT & DRB TO COMPLY WITH THE ROOF-DECK PROBITION IN THE CITY'S ADU ORDINANCE Sec. 25. 17.040(E) (5)(c)). I request that Council repeal the ADU Developers' Roof-Deck Loophole in LBMC Sec. 25.17,020(5)(B) of the Dec. 2024 ADU Ordinance.

Community Development staff is approving ADUs with roof decks atop of them and a split DRB is going along with it. Council should reverse those decisions.

SEE MY 9/19/2025 LETTER. SUBMITTED CONCURRENTLY HEREWITH.

JIM BURNE 9/19/2025

SIGNATURE DATE
1 Jim Burnes
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
REQUEST: INSTRUCT THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DEPARTMENT & DRB TO STOP APPROVING ADUS THAT VIOLATE

THE ROOF-DECK PROHIBITION & CLOSE THE ADU DEVELOPERS'

ROOF - DECK LOOPHOLE IN THE CITY'S ADU ORDINANCE
September 19, 2024
Via Email
Alex Rounaghi, Mayor
Mark Orgill, Mayor Pro Tem
Bob Whalen
Sue Kempf
Hallie Jones
Re: CITY'S ALLOWANCE OF ROOF DECKS ATOP ADUS
Dear Councilmembers:
(1) City Council Should Instruct the Community Development Department and DRB to Stop Allowing Roof Decks On ADUs and Amend the City's 2024 ADU Ordinance to Close the ADU DEVELOPERS' ROOF - DECK LOOPHOLE - IT'S NOT REQUIRED BY CA ADU LAW.

I request that the City Council instruct the Community Development Department ("CDD") and the DRB to stop approving ADU projects (especially those governed by the pre-December 2024 ADU Ordinance (the "Old Ordinance")) that include roof decks on top of ADUs. In addition, I request that the City Council amend its December 2024 ADU Ordinance (the "Current Ordinance") so as to eliminate a potential loophole for allowance of roof decks on attached ADUs since the allowance of such ADU roof decks is NOT REQUIRED UNDER CA ADU LAW and is therefore simply a valuable gift by the City to all ADU developers that is a clear detriment to existing Laguna homeowners like me. That loophole is found in section 25.27.020(5) on the very last page (p. 26) of the emergency ADU Ordinance that was passed on December 10, 2024 without any discussion - just two weeks before Christmas 2024. See exhibit 1.
(2) Community Development Department & 3 DRB Members Have Approved A Roof Deck on Top of ADU - Dissenting DRB Chairman: "Very Sad - The Neighborhood Will NEVER BE THE SAME"
The harm to neighborhoods caused by the City's allowance of roof decks on top of ADUs is not theoretical or abstract - it is real and palpable as evidenced by a 15 foot high ADU roof deck placed as close as 4'6" to neighbors' property lines that may soon blight the Sea Cove Dr. and Sea Bluff neighborhoods in South Laguna. The CDD and 3 DRB members (over the passionate dissent of 2 DRB Members) approved that project (31731 Sea Cove Dr.) despite the objections of all five (5) of the surrounding adjacent neighbors and the fact that the ROOF DECK REQUIRED THREE VARIANCES. That approval was issued notwithstanding those objections and the fact that the project was governed by the Old Ordinance's simple, unqualified prohibition (that the City Planner acknowledged as being applicable) that:
"Roof decks shall be prohibited." Old Ord. Sec. 25.17.040(E)(5) (c) - exhibit 2.
(3)The Old Ordinance and the Current Ordinance.

As was indicated above, the roof deck prohibition in the Old Ordinance was simple and to the point and should, as promised by former CDD Director, Marc Wiener (exhibit 3), leave no doubt that no decks may be built atop any ADUs. However, the assigned City Planner nevertheless decided that ROOF DECKS MAY BE ALLOWED ON ADUs even under the Old Ordinance. She decided to have Zoning/Planning APPROVE ROOF

DECKS ON ADUS WHERE ACCESS TO THE ROOF DECK IS GAINED FROM SOMEWHERE (EG., THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE) OTHER THAN THE ADU ITSELF.

However, her self-made access-exception to the Roof - Deck Prohibition does not exist in the Old Ordinance and, therefore, is in violation of the ordinance. She has effectively read into the statute an exception that does not exist. Since CA ADU law does NOT require cities to grant ADU Developers the right to build roof decks atop ADUs, her self-made exception is simply an unwarranted gift to those developers the cost of which will be borne by the surrounding Laguna homeowners. I request that the City Council instruct the CDD and DRB to apply the roof deck prohibition without applying that non-existent exception.

As was indicated above, on December 10, 2024, the City Council passed on an emergency basis the Current Ordinance which repeats the prohibition in the Old Ordinance:
"Roof decks shall be prohibited." However, the Ordinance incorporates a loophole for ADU developers to build roof decks on ADUs by giving a very narrow and confusing definition of a roof deck that is easily exploitable by those developers. See exhibit 1. The City Council should REPEAL THE ADU DEVELPERS' ROOF DECK LOOPHOLE IN THE ORDINANCE. Furthermore, the repealing amendment should incorporate the straightforward definition of a roof deck found in the CA Building Code, to wit:
2 "[BS] ROOF DECK. The flat or sloped surface constructed on top of the exterior walls of a building or other supports for the purpose of enclosing the story below, or sheltering an area, to protect it from the elements, not including its supporting members or vertical supports." Sec. 202 CA Building Code.

To reiterate, there is nothing in CA ADU law that would prevent the City from prohibiting roof decks on ADUs so Council's repealing the Roof Deck Loophole and rejecting ADU projects with roof deck should not pose the type of litigation risks that Council has recently relied upon in voting on ADU projects. That point is reinforced by the fact that there are rational bases for prohibiting such roof decks. See Section 5, below.
(4) Former CDD Director, Mare Wiener, Represented That Roof Decks On ADUs Subject to the ADU Roof Deck Prohibition.

I have been voicing to the City Council, CDD, and the DRB my objections about ADU Developers violating the Roof Deck Prohibition since early 2023 via voluminous emails, letters, multiple counter visits to the CDD, DRB appearances, and an appearance at a City Council Meeting. See for example the excerpts of my letters to Council dated May 1, 2023, November 7, 2023, and May 24, 2024 attached hereto as exhibits 4, 5, and 6, respectively.

During my presentation at the May 2, 2023 Council meeting (in which I specifically referenced the Sea Cove Dr. ADU), members of the public (including myself) and some Council members expressed serious objections to the allowance of any roof decks on ADUs. In response, Mr. Wiener assured all concerned that roof decks on ADUs would not be allowed and to reinforce that point, in fact read into the record (see video of meeting) the applicable statutory prohibition, to wit:
"(c) Outdoor Living Space. ... Roof decks shall be prohibited." Laguna Beach Municipal Code Sec. 25.17.040 (E)(5)(c).

After that meeting, Mr. Wiener provided me with additional assurances that the proposed Sea Cove Dr. roof deck would fall within the Roof Deck Prohibition by sending me the May 12, 2023 email and ADU handout at exhibit 3. In his email, he restates that prohibition; that handout also states that prohibition.

Notwithstanding those assurances, the CDD staff subsequently decided to allow the roof deck instead of abiding by Mr. Wiener's assurances. In so doing, she attempted to assuage my concerns by stating that the DRB would have to approve any roof deck and it may not do so.

Well, guess what: three members of the DRB did approve the roof deck notwithstanding strong neighborhood objections, the fact that the roof deck required 3 variances, and the impassioned pleas for rejection by 2 DRB Members, including the DRB Chairperson. 3 During my 2-plus years' efforts to stop roof decks on ADUs, I have repeatedly warned City personnel that it is not following the law and that the City has no obligation to under CA ADU law to allow roof decks on top of ADUs. The result of my efforts thus far are:
(a) The City's CDD and a split DRB approving a 15 foot high roof deck on top of my neighbor's ADU 4'6" from my property line; and (b) The City Council's passing the Current Ordinance that includes on its last page the ADU Developers' Roof-Deck Loophole.

I again urge the City Council to disapprove roof decks on ADUs. I also ask it to repeal the Roof - Deck Loophole.
(5) Laguna Homeowners Do Not Want Roof Decks on 18' - 25' High ADUs 4 Feet From Their Property Lines - Massive Privacy Invasion and View Obstructions.

It's beyond speculation that NO neighborhood of Laguna homeowners wants roof decks on top of ADUs, particularly in light of the facts that under the very generous/liberal ADU development standards, ADUs can be built up to 25 feet high and as close as 4 feet from the neighboring homeowners' property lines. See, LBMC Sec. 25.17.010(f)(2)(D) Height "may not exceed 25 feet in height ..."; LBMC Sec. 25.17.010(g)(2)(A) "four foot side and rear setbacks". No homeowner will tolerate that without fiercely contesting it as they did against the Sea Cove Dr. ADU project. To state the obvious, such roof decks would subject neighbors to intolerably intrusive, up close, expansive visual and acoustic privacy invasions to the interiors of their neighbors' homes, including ceremonial rooms. In addition, extreme view blockage is also very probable given the heights and proximity of the roof decks. To say the least, the neighbors will be furious, as are the Sea Cove Dr. neighbors, if the City allows roof decks atop ADUs in their neighborhoods
Again, this roof-deck risk TO ALL LAGUNA HOMEOWNERS is not theoretical or abstract in light of the CDD Staff's and 3 DRB Members' approval of a 15 foot high roof deck 4'6" from neighbors' homes on Sea Cove Dr. By failing to reverse DRB determinations allowing roof decks on ADUs and failing to repeal the ADU Developers' Roof - Deck Loophole, the Council would be directly aiding the establishment of a precedent that encourages and fosters the building of such roof decks throughout Laguna and will thereby effectively be giving those developers a gift at the expense of the adversely-impacted neighborhoods. To reiterate, there is nothing in CA ADU law that requires the City allow roof decks on ADUs and there are rational bases for prohibiting such decks, including the 4 foot setbacks generously afforded ADUs.

I wish to close by emphasizing that I have a high regard for the dedication and responsiveness of all City personnel (including the personnel with whom I dealt on this matter), particularly for those who work in the Zoning and Community Development Department even though I disagree with them on certain points. They have always treated me professionally and 4 politely. However, I have concerns as to how they have enforced the ADU ordinance sections referenced above and feel compelled to bring it to your attention and seek compliance with that ordinance and California's ADU law.

If you have any questions regarding the above, please contact me at your convenience.

Thank you.

JIM BURNES
5 (III) Located in the setback - but not a watercourse or bluff edge setback - if it is located at least 3 feet from all property lines. (iv) The replacement parking must also be located entirely on the private property and may not be located within a required on-site turnaround area.
(3) Pedestrian Access. An all-weather firefighter access path must be provided from the right-of-way to the front door of the ADU or JADU. The access must be a minimum of 3 feet wide and non-combustible. Stairs must be provided for any slope greater than 10 percent.
(4) Vehicular Access. An ADU or JADU must utilize the same vehicular access that serves the primary dwelling unless the Fire Department and the Public Works Department find that secondary access will not degrade existing safety or traffic concerns. New vehicular access to streets or alleys is subject to discretionary design review approval and potentially other entitlements.
(5) Outdoor Living Space Requirements.
(A) Covered exterior porches, decks, patios, and other outdoor living spaces that are attached to an ADU must comply with the same height and setbacks that apply to the ADU.
(B) Roof decks are prohibited. For purposes of this subsection, a "roof deck" is defined to mean a deck above the uppermost story of a building, with no access from interior living space at the same floor level. (d) Applicable Provisions of the Certified Local Coastal Program. (1) There are provisions in the City's certified LP that apply to residential development generally. No ADU or JADU may cause a violation of any provision in the certified LCP.
(2) ADUs and JADUs under this section do not count toward the calculation for major remodel projects, except as necessary to comply with section 30253 of the Coasta Act limiting alterations of existing bluff top, beachfront, and coastal canyons. anc to determine applicability of section 30253 of the Coastal Act and equivalent LCP policies and ensure compliance with the same.

EXHIBIT
.1. 3W
-26-
33 Pre- 2025 ADU OrdiNaNce -"OLD=
Sec. 25.17.040(E)(5) (c)
(a) Architectural Standards. The exterior materials and finish, color scheme, and roof design, and pitch of an ADU above 12' in height shall be similar to the primary dwelling building if an ADU is visible from any public or private roadways, excluding alleys.
(b) Lighting. Outdoor lighting must be hooded, fully shielded, and aimed downward. Light trespass that results in glare is prohibited. (c) Outdoor Living Space. Covered exterior porches, decks, patios, and other outdoor living spaces attached to the ADU shall comply with the height, setbacks, and design standards above and are limited to 20% maximum floor area of the ADU. Elevated decks more than 3' above adjacent existing grade shall require design review. Roof decks shall be prohibited. (6) Parking
(a) Replacement of Existing Parking. When a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished in conjunction with the construction of an ADU or converted to an ADU/JADU, those off-street parking spaces need not be replaced. (b) On-Site ADU Parking. One parking space per ADU shall be provided. Parking spaces for ADUs must comply with the following requirements:
i. May be tandem parking on a driveway.
ii. Minimum 3' from side property lines. Larger setbacks may be required based on site specific or fire and life safety conditions, as determined by the

EXHIBIT
Fire Department and/or the Building Division, whichever is more restrictive. 2 iii. Not within a required on-site turnaround area.
iv. If the Single-Family or Two-Family Dwelling unit has less than two covered spaces per dwelling unit plus an additional covered or uncovered space

9/16/25, 2:14 PM AOL Mail - RE: ADU ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - 50% EXISTING PRIMARY DWELLING / ROOF DECK PROHIBITION / Plan #2...

RE: ADU ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - 50% EXISTING PRIMARY DWELLING / ROOF DECK PROHIBITION / Plan #2022-1857
From: Wiener, Marc CD ([email protected])
To:

Cc: [email protected]
Date: Friday, May 12, 2023 at 10:13 AM PDT
Hello Jim,
I have attached the ADU Handout used by my department, which summarizes the regulations.

In accordance with the Ordinance, it states that roof decks are prohibited. It also states the size 850/1000 sf, or 50% of the primary unit, whichever is less. While it does specifically say "existing" it is implied, and as I confirmed with my staff, is being implemented this way.

Thank you for bringing this to our attention.

Marc Wiener, AICP
Community Development Director
City of Laguna Beach
Phone: (949) 497-0361
Email: [email protected]

EXHIBIT
LAGUNA
BEACH 3

CALIFORNIN
From: BURNES
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2023 9:44 AM
To: Wiener, Marc CD <[email protected]>; Steven, Heather CD < [email protected]> Subject: Fwd: ADU ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - 50% EXISTING PRIMARY DWELLING / ROOF DECK PROHIBITION / Plan #2022-1857
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach - DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Marc:
about:blank 1/7

CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH ADU QUICK GUIDE
Updated January 2023
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (ADUs) and JUNIOR ADUs
Major Remodel ADUs or JADUs that are code compliant are not counted towards the calculation for major remodel projects.

Space Between Min. 10' separation between attached or detached ADUs and any other building. This building separation can be reduced to 3', Buildings provided there are no health or safety concerns, as set forth in the Building Code.

Outdoor Living Covered exterior porches, decks, patios, and other outdoor living spaces attached to the ADU shall comply with the height, setbacks, Space and design standards above and are limited to 20% maximum floor area of the ADU. Elevated decks more than 3' above adjacent existing grade shall require design review. Roof decks shall be prohibited Attached ADUs, converted ADUs, and JADUs proposed to structure listed on the California Register of Historic Resources of the City's Lighting Outdoor lighting must be hooded, fully shielded, and aimed downward Nonconforming ADUs created in the same location as an existing legally non-conforming structure may maintain the nonconforming setbacks and Structure height. Any expansions beyond the footprint of the legally non-conforming structure shall comply with the above requirements.

Vehicular Access Utilize the same vehicular access that serves the primary buildings, unless the Fire and Public Works Department finds that a secondary access will not degrade existing safety or traffic concerns. Secondary access requires Design Review.

CDP Administrative Coastal Development Permit is required for ATTACHED and DETACHED ADUs located on a lot within the Appealable Area of the Coastal Zone. The City's decision will be subject to a 10-working day appeal period once the California Coastal Commission acknowledges receipt of the notice. If no appeal is filed, the City's decision is final.

Fees Sewer Connection Fees apply to ATTACHED/DETACHED ADUs. School Fees apply to ATTACHED/DETACHED ADUs above 500 sqft.

Additional Development Standards Applicable to ATTACHED OR DETACHED ADUS LARGER THAN 800 sqft Design The exterior materials and finish, color scheme, and roof design, and pitch of an ADU above 12' in height shall be similar to the Standards primary dwelling building if an ADU is visible from any public or private roadway (including alleys).

Parking Replacement of Existing Parking for the Primary Residence is not required when a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is de- molished to construct an ADU or converted to an ADU/JADU One Parking Space per ADU Required and shall comply with the following:
• May be provided on a driveway.
by the fire Depate pen any lines Build set i , be ree de e 1 Try conditions, as determined by the Fire Department and/or the Building Division, whichever is more restrictive • Not within a required on-site turnaround area
DU Parking is Not Required in any of the following circumstances EXHIBIT Converted ADU or JADU 3
ADU is deed restricted as an affordable housing unit.
• ADU is an ADA-compliant housing unit.
3 • ADU is located within 1/2-mile walking distance of public transit (includes Trolley) or within the Downtown Specific Plan area. • ADU is located on a lot within 100' of free on-street parking, in a neighborhood with adequate on-street parking supply, and does not degrade the existing emergency vehicle access as determined by the City. • ADU is located within a structure listed on the California Register of Historic Resources or the City's Historic Register. • ADU is located on a property within a locked gate community. • On-street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupant of the ADU • A car share vehicle is located within one block of the ADU. • The ADU project is submitted with an application for a new primary structure on the same lot.

-
James T. Burnes
REGULAR 11
May 1, 2023
AGENDA ITEM #11 - MAY 2, 2023 CITY COUNCIL MEETING

POTENTIAL CITY VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA

ADU LAW - CITY'S ALLOWANCE OF ADU-SIZES

THAT EXCEED LIMITATIONS PRESCRIBED UNDER

THAT LAW
Via Email - [email protected]
Bob Whalen, Mayor
Sue Kempf, Mayor Pro Tem
Mark Orgill
Alex Rounaghi
George Weiss
Re: MAY 2, 2023 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA ITEM 11 - ADU AMENDEMNT
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 21-8238 AND LOCAL
COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT 21-823
Dear Council Members:

I have been blessed to have realized my childhood dream of living in Laguna Beach - I have now lived here for 33 years, over 20 years of which with my family at the above address.

Community Development Department will allow, or has allowed, ADUs IN EXCESS OF

THE MAXIMUM SIZE LIMITATION ALLOWED UNDER CALIFORNIA'S ADU STATUTE and is thereby placing the City at risk of violating California ADU law, specifically 4S 0% 7 i (4): I request he eDit Council and Mayor ake Steps eassure that those violations do not occur.
1) The Attached - ADU Size Limitation is 50% of "EXISTING" (NOT "PROPOSED"') Primary Dwelling.

It is extremely clear that under the applicable California ADU statute, the size limitation 1 Ltr. City council 5.2.23

EXHIBIT
Ordinance (sec. 25.17.010), ), to "bring the City's ADU ordinance into conformity with the state's current ADU laws." (the California Coastal Commission's March 9, 2023 letter on that Ordinance to Marc Wiener (p. 1)), and "The modifications were primarily intended to bring the City's ADU ordinance into better conformity with State Laws [Sec. 65852.2]." (Staff Report (pages 1-2).
(5) Even if City's ADU Ordinance Allows Consideration of "Proposed Primary Dwelling" Square Footage, California Law Supersedes that Ordinance.

Even if the City thinks its Ordinance allows the 50% - size limitation for ADUs to be applied to existing and PROPOSED primary dwelling square footage, that ordinance would be superseded by the controlling California law under Gov't.

Sec. 65852.2. The support for that conclusion includes the following provision of said section:
"(8) (A) This subdivision establishes the maximum standards that local agencies shall use to evaluate a proposed accessory dwelling unit on a lot that includes a proposed or existing single- family dwelling. No additional standards, other than
those provided in this subdivision, shall be used or
imposed."
"(9) A local agency may amend its zoning ordinance or general plan to incorporate the policies, procedures, or other provisions applicable to the creation of an accessory dwelling unit if these provisions are consistent with the limitations of this
subdivision."
(6) City Has Indicated that Decks Placed on the Roofs of ADUs are NOT Prohibited by the "Roof Deck" Prohibition In the ADU Ordinance.

I have been informed in writing by the City's Community Development Department that ADU developers may be allowed to place decks on top of the roofs of ADUs notwithstanding the following roof-deck prohibition in the ADU Ordinance "(c) Outdoor Living Space. .... Roof decks shall be prohibited." Proposed Laguna Beach Municipal Code Sec. 25.17.040 (E)(5)(c).

Notwithstanding the clear, unqualified prohibition in the ordinance and the fact that ADU developers are NOT afforded any rights to roof-top decks under CA ADU law, I was told by the Community Development Department that such roof-decks directly on top of an ADU may be allowed "depend[ing] on the design and whether the deck is accessible only from the ADU or 4 Ltr. City council 5.2.23

EXHIBIT
4 only from the main dwelling." I am concerned that such an interpretation is effectively creating an unwritten exception to the statutory prohibition based on access to the deck - and that exception does not exist in the unqualified, absolute prohibition in the ordinance. If the City effectuates its "access" exception to the prohibition, architects will use creative designs to qualify for that exception so as to give their clients roof decks on their ADUs. I am concerned that that will result in a proliferation of ADU's with decks being placed directly on top of them with the resultant privacy invasions and view blockage to the neighbors.

In addition, in the case of attached ADUs, ADU developers will find it easy to exploit that "access" exception because in most cases, access to the deck will make more design-sense if taken from the adjoining primary dwelling instead of through the ADU - owners will not want or be able to gain roof-top access from a roof hatch or side stairs. So the access exception could be applied in a lot of attached-ADU projects.

I request that the City Council and Mayor take steps to assure that the roof-deck prohibition in the Ordinance is administered in accordance with text of that Ordinance.

I wish to close by emphasizing that I have a high regard for the dedication, responsiveness, and competency of all City personnel (including the personnel with whom I dealt on this matter), particularly for those who work in the Zoning and Community Development Department. They have always treated me professionally, politely, an considerately - I respect their input and knowledge-base. However, I have concerns as to hov they will enforce the ADU ordinance sections referenced above and feel compelled to bring it to your attention in light of the scheduled May 2, 2023 vote on the ADU ordinance.

If you have any questions regarding the above, please contact me at your convenience.

JAMES T. BURNES
cc: Mare Wiener, Director of Community Development
5 Ltr. City council 5.2.23

EXHIBIT
4 James and Fatemeh Burnes
Lagum Reath, CA 02651
REQUEST: THAT THE ZONING DEPARTMENT ENFORCE CITY'S ADU ORDINANCE

AND PROHIBIT ALL ROOF DECKS ON ADUS - DEPARTMENT SHOULD NOT APPROVE ROOF-DECK PLANS AND THEN SEND PROJECT TO DRB.

November 7, 2023
Via Email
Bob Whalen, Mayor
Sue Kempf, Mayor Pro Tem
Mark Orgill
Alex Rounaghi
George Weiss
Re: Statutory Prohibition of ADU Roof Decks
31731 Seacove Dr., Laguna Beach, CA 92651
APN: 658-101-04
Plan #2022-1857

VIA EMAIL
Dear Councilmembers:

This letter is to request that you assure that the prohibition of roof decks in ADU Ordinance Sec. 25.17.040(E)(5)(c) is enforced by the Community Development Department.

That prohibition succinctly states, without exception or precondition, that:
"ROOF DECKS SHALL BE PROHIBITED."1
Notwithstanding that clear prohibition, staff members of the City's planning/zoning department have notified me in writing that ROOF DECKS MAY BE ALLOWED ON ADUs.

They have decided to have Zoning/Planning APPROVE ROOF DECKS ON ADUS WHERE Note that there is nothir
ng in the Caliomia ABUSE I B fis allowanee of roof docks on ADU 5 ACCESS TO THE ROOF DECK IS GAINED FROM SOMEWHERE (EG., THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE) OTHER THAN THE ADU ITSELF. This violation of the Roof-Deck Prohibition by reading into the statute an exception that does not exist is the very concern that I and other homeowners and Council Members expressed to the Council and Mr. Wiener at the 5/2/2023 In the above -referenced project, the proposed plans include a 733 SF deck being built directly on top of (on the roof of a planned attached ADU. Yet, Planning staff has opined that such an obvious roof deck may be allowed by the Department based on an unwritten access- exception to the statutory roof-deck prohibition. The staff wrote:
"Please note that the prohibition of roof decks on an ADU does not necessarily preclude an upper-level deck for the single-family residence. If a deck is proposed, a determination of whether the deck is part of the ADU or the SFD would depend on the design and whether the deck is accessible only from the ADU or only from the main dwelling. That will be evaluated once revised plans are resubmitted. Any upper-level deck proposed for a single-family dwelling requires approval by the Design Review Board "
At the May 2, 2023 council meeting, members of the public (including myself) and some council members expressed serious objections to the allowance of any roof decks on ADUs. In response, Mr. Wiener assured all concerned that roof decks on ADUs would not be allowed and in fact read into the record the applicable statutory prohibition, to wit:
"(c) Outdoor Living Space. .... Roof decks shall be prohibited." Proposed Laguna Beach Municipal Code Sec. 25.17.040 (E)(5)(c).

In light of those assurances to the Council, public, and myself, I was surprised to see that Planning staff members, after the 5/2/23 Council meeting, are adhering to the position that the roof-deck prohibition may not be enforced where the unwritten access-exception (above) applies.

Instead, the Planning Department may just approve of the roof decks on ADUs and then send those projects to DRB and let the DRB decide whether a roof deck should be allowed.

The Planning Department's sending an ADU project to DRB after it approve a roof deck DOES NOT rectify, cure, or justify the Department's approval of the roof deck in violation of the clear prohibition in the statute and it is very little consolation to the surrounding neighbors who are having their privacy / views seriously impacted by that deck. The obvious concern of adversely-impacted neighbors is the risk that the DRB approves the roof deck in violation of the statutory roof-deck prohibition. The Planning Department should simply follow the statute's prohibition and deny the roof deck at the outset without "passing the buck" to DRB.

EXHIBIT
5 In summary, 1 request that you have the Planning Department follow through with Mr.

Wiener's assurances by having his Department NOT ALLOW OR APPROVE ANY ROOF DECKS ON ADUs - no matter where access to that deck is obtained.

I wish to close by emphasizing that I have a high regard for the dedication, responsiveness, and competency of all City personnel (including the personnel with whom I dealt on this matter), particularly for those who work in the Zoning and Community Development Department. They have always treated me professionally, politely, and considerately - I respect their input and knowledge-base. However, I have concerns as to how they will enforce the ADU ordinance section referenced above and feel compelled to bring it to your attention and seek compliance with that ordinance.

If you have any questions regarding the above, please contact me at your convenience.

Thank you.

JAMES T. BURNES
CC:

Marc Wiener,
Director of Community Development
Heather Steven, Senior Planner
[email protected]

EXHIBIT
5 Jim Burnes
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
REQUEST: STOP THE ZONING DEPARTMENT FROM APPROVING
ADUs THAT (1) VIOLATE THE ROOF-DECK PROHIBITION & (2)
EXCEED THE 50%-ADU - SIZE LIMITATION.

May 24, 2024
Via Email
Sue Kempf, Mayor
Alex Rounaghi, Mayor Pro Tem
Bob Whalen
Mark Orgill
George Weiss
Re: CITY'S ALLOWANCE OF ADU ROOF DECKS &
ADUS THAT EXCEED THE 50% SIZE - LIMITATION
31731 Seacove Dr., Laguna Beach, CA 92651
APN: 658-101-04
Plan #2022-1857
Dear Councilmembers:

This letter is yet another request that the City Council take steps to assure that Community Development Department does not allow ADUs that violate California's and the City's ADUs laws. I want to respectfully share once more with the Council Members my concerns that the City's Community Development Department will allow, or has allowed:
(a) ROOF DECKS ON ADUs: ADUs with roof decks in violation of the Roof- Deck Prohibition in the City's ADU ordinance (Sec. 25. 17.040(E)(5)(c)); and (b) ADUS THAT VIOLATE THE 50% SIZE LIMITATION. ADU that violate the 50% - size limitation for attached ADUs set forth in Government Code Section

EXHIBIT
6 66314(d)(4) (formerly, 65852.2(a)(1)(D)(iv)) and City Ordinance Sec. 25.17.40 (E) (1)(c)(ii)(2) .

On prior occasions (including at the May 2, 2023 Council meeting). I requested that the City Council and Mayor take steps to assure that those violations of the ADU laws do not occur. At that May 2nd Council Meeting, Marc Weiner stated that there would be no such violations. Moreover, he confirmed that in his attached May 12, 2023 email restating the Roof- Deck Prohibition and the 50%-Size Limitation. However, as recently as this week, personnel in his department have informed me via email (see attached May 22, 2024 email) that his Department has taken the position on projects that allow roof decks on ADUs and allow ADUS in excess of the 50% - size limitation.

I thought these compliance issues were resolved by Mr. Wiener's following May 12, 2023 responsive email (attached hereto) to me:
... the ADU Handout ..... states that roof decks are prohibited. It also states the size 850/1000 sf, or 50% of primary unite, whichever is less. While it does specifically say "existing" it is implied, and as I confirmed with my staff, is being implemented this wav." City's ADU Ordinance, or California's ADU statute.
(1) THE ROOF-DECK PROHIBITION UNDER THE CITY'S ADU ORDINANCE.

I request that Council and the Mayor again direct the Community Development Department to comply with and enforce the Roof-Deck Prohibition in the City's ADU Ordinance at Sec. 25. 17.040(E)(5)(c). That prohibition succinctly states, without exception or precondition, that:
"ROOF DECKS SHALL BE PROHIBITED."1
At the May 2, 2023 council meeting, members of the public (including myself) and some council members expressed serious objections to the allowance of any roof decks on ADUs. In response, Mr. Wiener assured all concerned that roof decks on ADUs would not be allowed and in fact read into the record (see video of meeting) the applicable statutory prohibition, to "(c) Outdoor Living Space. .... Roof decks shall be prohibited." Proposed Laguna Beach Municipal Code Sec. 25.17.040 (E)(5)(c). 1 Note that there is nothing in the California AD Cry's allowance of roof decks on ADUS. 6 Notwithstanding that assurance and clear prohibition, staff members of the City's planning/zoning department have notified me orally and in writing that ROOF DECKS MAY BE ALLOWED ON ADUs and, in fact, that ADUs with roof decks will be allowed. They have decided to have Zoning/Planning APPROVE ROOF DECKS ON ADUS WHERE ACCESS TO THE ROOF DECK IS GAINED FROM SOMEWHERE (EG., THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE) OTHER THAN THE ADU ITSELF. See attached April 6, 2023 and May 22, 2024 emails However, their self-made access-exception to the Roof - Deck Prohibition does not exist in the ADU statute and, therefore, is in violation of the ordinance. They have effectively read into the statute an exception that does not exist. That violation of the Roof-Deck Prohibition is the very concern that I and other homeowners and Council Members expressed to the Council and Mr. Wiener at the 5/2/2023 Meeting.

In the above -referenced project, the proposed plans include a 733 SF roof deck being built directly on top of (on the roof of a planned attached ADU. Yet, Planning staff opined in the attached April 6, 2023 email that such an obvious roof deck will be allowed by the Department based on an unwritten access-exception to the statutory roof-deck prohibition. The staff wrote:
"Please note that the prohibition of roof decks on an ADU does not necessarily preclude an upper-level deck for the single-family residence. If a deck is proposed, a determination of whether the deck is part of the ADU or the SFD would depend on the design and whether the deck is accessible only from the ADU or only from the main dwelling. That will be evaluated once revised plans are resubmitted. Any upper-level deck proposed for a single-family dwelling requires approval by the Design Review Board."
To illustrate the blatancy of the violation of the Roof-Deck Prohibition, I have attached for your viewing pictures of the staking plan for the ADU on the project. Under the plans:
(a) the referenced green - flagged string lines (highlighted in green) are the roof of the ADU AND the floor of the deck on top of that ADU roof, and (b) the referenced red-flagged string lines (highlighted in orange) are the top of the deck - railing of the roof deck.

It is respectfully submitted that there is no reasonable, plausible, or supportable manner to interpret or perceive those pictures as being other than a "deck" on top of the ADU's "roof" - with the roof of the ADU also serving as the bottom of the deck on top of it - hence a "ROOF DECK" And that applies even if the project's architect devises access to the deck via the primary residence or elsewhere. The only viable / compliant determination is that the allowance of such a roof deck violates the ADU Roof Deck Prohibition.

When I recently requested Department personnel for her justification/authority for

EXHIBIT
6 allowing the proposed deck, the justification provided by her was that (paraphrasing) "the proposed deck does not fall within the definition of a 'roof deck' under DRB guidelines." When İ asked Department personnel for citations for her "roof deck" definition, the only authority cited was the following DRB standard at sec. 25.35.080 B(9):
"Roof decks should not be permitted above the uppermost story, nor should parapets, walls, protective roof deck railings or stair enclosures exceed the roof height of the uppermost story, except as approved by design review." See attached May 22, 2024 email.

Even a quick reading of that section shows that it DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY DEFINITION OF A "ROOF DECK" as represented by the personnel. More importantly, that section actually SUPPORTS THE CHARACTERIZATION OF THE PROPOSED DECK AS A ROOF DECK since it clearly recognizes that it is physically possible for a single structure with 2 or more roof heights to have two or more roof decks: (1) one "roof deck" on the highest / uppermost roof ("not.... permitted"); and (2) another "roof deck" not "exceed[ing] the roof height of the uppermost story...." that may be allowed (for non-ADU additions). Contrary to the representation of the Department personnel, the fact that a deck is not higher than the "uppermost story" does not mean that it is not a roof deck. In fact, the section's reference to the railings on allowed lower-level decks uses the term "roof deck railings" which clearly shows that such lower level decks are "roof decks" which are barred when the structure under those decks are ADUs.

THE PROPOSED ROOF DECK MEETS THE DEFINITION OF THE
TERM "ROOF DECK" UNDER THE CALIFORNIA BUIDLING CODE.

Although I could not find any definition of the term "roof deck" under the City's Ordinances or DRB literature, there is a definition of that term in the California Building Code and the proposed roof deck clearly falls within that definition. That definition is:
"[BS] ROOF DECK. The flat or sloped surface constructed on top of the exterior walls of a building or other supports for the purpose of enclosing the story below, or sheltering an area, to protect it from the elements, not including its supporting members or vertical supports." Sec. 202 CA Building Code.

EXHIBIT
6 Contrary to the Department's apparently self-made definition of "roof deck", the CA Building Code's definition does NOT exclude from that definition decks on a home's roof that is lower than the uppermost story of that home.

Even if the proposed deck would not fall within the definition of a "roof deck" as applied to non-ADU residences, it should nevertheless be considered a roof deck for purposes of the Roof-Deck Prohibition since ADUs are not subject to the normal set back and similar limitations/requirements applicable to non-ADU residences and as such, putting roof decks on them results in more view - obstruction and privacy invasion since they can be built much closer to the neighbors' homes than non-ADU residences. The subject project (see attached pictures) is an example of such close-up privacy invasion / view obstruction.

The Planning Department's sending an ADU project to DRB after it approves a roof deck DOES NOT rectify, cure, or justify the Department's approval of an ADU roof deck in violation of the clear prohibition in the City's ADU ordinance and it is very little consolation to the surrounding neighbors who are having their privacy / views seriously impacted by that deck The obvious concern of adversely-impacted neighbors is the risk that the DRB approves the roof deck in violation of the statutory roof-deck prohibition. The Planning Department should simply follow the statute's prohibition and deny the roof deck at the outset without "passing the buck" to DRB.

In summary, I request that you have the Community Development Department follow through with Mr. Wiener's assurances by having his Department NOT ALLOW OR APPROVE ANY ROOF DECKS ON ADUS (INCLUDING ON Plan #2022-1857) - no matter where access to that deck is obtained.
(2) The Attached - ADU Size Limitation is 50% of "EXISTING" (NOT "PROPOSED") Primary Dwelling.

The Community Development Department plans to allow ADUs even if the ADU's square footage violates the 50% - Size Limitation in California's ADU statute and the City's ADU Ordinance. I voiced this concern over such violations at the May 2, 2023 Council Meeting. After that meeting, Mr. Weiner assured me that that 50% - Size Limitation would be applied based on the "existing" square footage of the primary residence. See his attached May 12, 2023 email. Yet, in Plan # 2022-857, the Department is allowing an ADU that exceeds that limitation by approximately 350 SF due to its applying the 50% - Size Limitation to BOTH existing and proposed SF of the primary dwelling.

It is extremely clear that under the applicable California ADU statute, the 50% - Size Limitation DOES NOT INCLUDE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF A "PROPOSED" primary dwelling. That statute states that:
"(4) If there is an existing primary dwelling, the total floor area of an

EXHIBIT
6

Laguna Beach City CouncilSeptember 23, 2025

Laguna Beach City Council
September 23, 2025