Agenda packet, regular meeting, second session — Laguna Beach City Council, December 9, 2025 (part 11 of 11)

Figure 3: Proposed West Elevation
The Designee appropriately determined that the proposed deck extension qualified for a categorical exemption from CEQA under the Class 1 exemption for existing facilities. Section 15301 of the State CEQA Guidelines states, in pertinent part:
“Class 1 consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. The types of “existing facilities” itemized below are not intended to be all-inclusive of the types of projects which might fall within Class

1. The key consideration is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of use.

Appeal of the Approval of DR 25-0891 at 31421 Holly Drive December 9, 2025

Page 11 of 17 ends

(1) 50 percent of the floor area of the structures before the addition, or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less; or
(2) 10,000 square feet if:
(A) The project is in an area where all public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum development permissible in the General Plan and (B) The area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive.” Here, the proposed project is an approximately 58-square-foot extension of an existing deck on a lot developed with an existing single-family residence, resulting in negligible or no expansion of use, and the lot does not contain environmentally sensitive resources.

Further, as discussed below, none of the exceptions to the CEQA Class 1 exemption apply.

3. The plans were not available at the building counter.

Staff’s Response
The hardcopy plans for the previously approved project, for which a building permit has been issued, are customarily stored in a room at City Hall upon permit issuance. In this instance, the plans had been misfiled within the room, which may explain why they were not immediately located when the Appellant inquired at the public counter. They were subsequently located by the City’s Records Management Coordinator, who confirmed that the plans had been placed in an incorrect location and they were provided for the appellant to review. Both the Applicant and Appellant agree that the plans approved by the DRB showed a 10-foot extension, which is also what is shown on the building permit plans. The elevated deck, which is more than three feet out of grade, cannot be enlarged without administrative design review approval in accordance with LBMC Section 25.05.040(B)(3)(a)(ii), which occurred on June 4, 2025 at a duly noticed ADR hearing.

Furthermore, staff has verified that the Applicant is requesting a two-foot deck extension, not 28 inches as shown the plans prepared for the ADR hearing. This was clarified by the Applicant at the ADR hearing. (Attachment 5 [Transcript], page 2 of 9). After the ADR hearing, the Applicant submitted plans clarifying the deck extension is smaller than originally understood and that match the actual, as-built deck (the corrected plans are included as Attachment 7).

DESIGN REVIEW
Pursuant to the Laguna Beach Municipal Code, the City Council shall conduct a de novo review and is free to deliberate without being limited to the Designee’s findings, but is limited to considering the evidence that was presented to the Designee, including the ADR-approved plans. Because this is a de novo review, staff has prepared suggested findings for the Council’s consideration:

Finding No. 1: Physical improvements and site developments related to the Project are designed and located in a manner in overall consistency with the design review criteria specified in Section 25.05.040(H), as set forth below:

Appeal of the Approval of DR 25-0891 at 31421 Holly Drive December 9, 2025

Page 12 of 17 ends

1. Access. Conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians and other modes of transportation should be minimized by specifically providing for each applicable mode of transportation. Handicapped access shall be provided as required by applicable statutes.

N/A. The proposed deck extension does not change access to the property.

2. Design Articulation: Within the allowable building envelope, the appearance of building and retaining wall mass should be minimized. Articulation techniques including, but not limited to, separation, offsets, terracing and reducing the size of any one element in the structure may be used to reduce the appearance of mass.

Yes. The proposed deck does not add significant additional mass as it is a two-foot cantilevered extension of the previously approved deck area. The expanded deck is located near the middle of the lot on the southfacing elevation of the residence, and would maintain a setback from the south property line ranging from approximately 47 to 60 feet.

3. Design Integrity: Consistency with the applicant’s chosen style of architecture should be achieved by the use of appropriate materials and details. Remodels should be harmonious with the remaining existing architecture.

Yes. The proposed deck extension matches the materials used for the approved portion of the deck.

4. Environmental Context: Development should preserve and, where possible, enhance the city’s scenic natural setting. Natural features, such as existing heritage trees, rock out-cropping, ridgelines and significant watercourses should be protected. Existing terrain should be utilized in the design and grading should be minimized.

Yes. The proposed Project does not require grading as it is a cantilevered extension of a previously approved elevated deck.

5. General Plan Compliance: The development shall comply with all applicable policies of the General Plan, including all of its elements, applicable specific plans, and the certified local coastal program.

Yes. The proposed deck extension is consistent with the applicable General Plan policies as discussed below.

LUE Policy 2.10 Maximize the preservation of coastal and canyon views (consistent with the principle of view equity) from existing properties and minimize blockage of existing public and private views. Best efforts should be made to site new development in locations that minimize adverse impacts on views from public locations (e.g., roads, bluff top trails, visitor-serving facilities, etc.) The project proposes extending an elevated deck two feet beyond the existing approved elevated deck.

Public views are not impacted as the project is above Coast Highway and due to the elevation and placement of the deck in relation to Ocean View Street.

Appeal of the Approval of DR 25-0891 at 31421 Holly Drive December 9, 2025

Page 13 of 17 ends

LUE Policy 3.10 Require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated with natural topographic features, minimize significant alteration of natural topography or other significant on-site resources, and protect public views as specified in the Design Guidelines and Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document by maintaining the low-profile character of structures. Require use of appropriate landscaping, special architectural treatments, and siting considerations for projects visible from major highways and arterial streets. Best efforts should be made to site new development in locations that minimize adverse impacts on views from public locations (e.g., roads, bluff-top trails, visitor-serving facilities, etc.)
The Project does not require grading and public views are not impacted as the Project is not in close proximity and visible from a public viewing location such as a trail, park, or lookout. The architecture complies with the design integrity and articulation design review criteria as discussed above.

LUE Policy 7.3 Design and site new development to protect natural and environmentally sensitive resources, such as areas of unique scenic quality, public views, and visual compatibility with surrounding uses and to minimize natural landform alterations. (Same as Policy 10.2.) GOAL: Protect, preserve, and enhance the community’s natural resources.

The project site does not include environmentally sensitive areas and public views are not impacted as the project is not visible from Coast Highway and due to the elevation and placement of the deck in relation to Ocean View Street.

LUE Policy 10.2 Design and site new development to protect natural and environmentally sensitive resources such as areas of unique scenic quality, public views, and visual compatibility with surrounding uses and to minimize landform alterations. (Same as Policy 7.3) GOAL: Ensure that proposals for new development, subdivisions, and major remodels are sufficiently evaluated to protect public health and safety and natural resources.

The project site does not include environmentally sensitive areas and public views are not impacted as the project is not visible from a public viewing location such as a trail, park, or lookout and due to the elevation and placement of the deck in relation to Ocean View Street.

6. Historic Preservation: Destruction or alteration to historic resources should be avoided whenever possible. See Chapter 25.45 for more information.

N/A. The project site does not contain historic structures within its boundaries or in the immediate vicinity that would be affected by the proposed Project.

7. Landscaping: Landscaping shall be incorporated as an integrated part of the structure’s design and relate harmoniously to neighborhood and community landscaping themes. View equity shall be an important consideration in the landscape design. The relevant landscaping guidelines contained in the City’s “Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document” should be incorporated, as appropriate, in the design and planned maintenance of proposed landscaping.

Appeal of the Approval of DR 25-0891 at 31421 Holly Drive December 9, 2025

Page 14 of 17 ends

N/A. No landscaping is proposed with the Project.

8. Lighting and Glare: Adequate lighting for individual and public safety shall be provided in a manner which does not significantly impact neighboring properties. Reflective materials and appurtenances that cause glare or a negative visual impact (e.g., skylights, white rock roofs, high-gloss ceramic tile roofs, reflective glass, etc.) should be avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance in those locations where those surfaces are visible from neighboring properties.

Yes. No lighting is proposed with the Project and the proposed railings do not result in glare impacts.

9. Neighborhood Compatibility: Development shall be compatible with the existing development in the neighborhood and respect neighborhood character. Neighborhood character is the sum of the qualities that distinguish areas within the City, including historical patterns of development (e.g., structural heights, mass, scale or size), village atmosphere, landscaping themes and architectural styles.

Yes. The proposed mid-level elevated deck is compatible with neighboring decks for homes between Holly Drive and Ocean View Street, which commonly feature elevated decks along the south building elevations, oriented to capture ocean views.

10. Pedestrian Orientation: Commercial development design shall enhance and encourage pedestrian uses.

Incorporation of articulated building masses, compact open spaces and courtyards, mixed use developments, use of landscaping as part of design, and orientation to pedestrian access should be maximized.

N/A. This criterion is related to commercial projects.

11. Privacy: The placement of activity areas (e.g., decks, picture windows and ceremonial or entertainment rooms) in locations that would result in a substantial invasion of privacy of neighboring properties should be minimized.

Yes. The proposed deck extension does not result in a substantial privacy impact for neighboring properties as the deck is oriented towards the ocean, is similar to neighboring decks, and does not extend the entire width of the home. At the middle floor level, the habitable area directly adjacent to the deck is approximately 42 feet wide, while the deck measures 28’-6” wide.

12. Public Art: Public art is encouraged and shall be displayed where feasible or required by the Art in Public Places ordinance.

N/A. This criterion is related to commercial projects.

13. Sign Quality: Signs shall be incorporated into the architecture of the structure and shall be made of high quality materials, be simple in design and be visually compatible with the surrounding physical environment in terms of color, scale and size. Use of natural materials in the construction of signs is encouraged.

Appeal of the Approval of DR 25-0891 at 31421 Holly Drive December 9, 2025

Page 15 of 17 ends

N/A. This criterion is related to commercial projects.

14. Sustainability: New development should consider architecture and building practices which minimize environmental impacts and enhance energy efficiency by: (a) reducing energy needs of buildings by proper site and structural design; (b) increasing the building’s ability to capture or generate energy; (c) using low-impact, sustainable and recycled building materials; (d) using the latest Best Management Practices regarding waste and water management; and (e) reducing site emissions.

Yes. The proposed Project will be required to meet Title 24 requirements related to energy efficiency and to recycle at least 65 percent of construction materials per the California Building Code.

15. Swimming Pools, Spas, and Water Features: Swimming pools, spas and water features shall be located, designed and constructed where: (a) geology conditions allow; (b) noise produced by circulatory mechanical pumps and equipment is mitigated; and (c) any associated fencing or other site improvements are compatible with neighboring properties.

N/A. The Project does not involve a new swimming pool or spa.

16. View Equity: The development, including its landscaping, shall be designed to protect existing views from neighboring properties without denying the subject property the reasonable opportunity to develop as described and illustrated in the City’s “Design Guidelines.” The “Design Guidelines” are intended to balance preservation of views with the right to develop property.

Yes. The Project does not result in view impacts that substantially degrade the existing views of the coast from neighboring properties. Properties abutting the Project to east and west are similarly oriented to the south to capture ocean views. As such, the deck extension does not significantly encroach into scenic viewsheds enjoyed by neighboring properties.

Finding No. 2. The physical improvements and site developments related to the Project are designed and located in a manner in overall consistency with all other applicable design guidelines.

N/A. No additional design guidelines apply to this Project.

Finding No. 3. The physical improvements and site developments related to the Project are characterized by appropriately scaled development, diverse and unique architectural designs, pedestrian orientation, and sensitivity to the natural conditions of the site.

Yes, the Project is appropriately scaled as discussed under the design articulation and neighborhood compatibility design review criteria above.

Finding No. 4. The project is consistent with any specific plan or any other specific zoning design review criteria.

N/A. The proposed Project is not located in a specific plan or subject to additional design review criteria.

Appeal of the Approval of DR 25-0891 at 31421 Holly Drive December 9, 2025

Page 16 of 17 ends

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolution denying the appeal and sustaining the Designee’s approval of Design Review 25- 0891, and finding the Project exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301.

FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The recommended action has no financial impact to the budget.

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The Project is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1, Existing Facilities, in that the Project consists of the repair, maintenance, or minor alteration of existing structures or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. Here, the Project includes a 58-square-foot deck addition to an existing elevated deck associated with an existing singlefamily residence. Further, none of the exceptions outlined in CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2 apply. The project site does not contain any environmentally sensitive areas, in that the site is fully developed with an existing single-family residence with an attached one-car garage, patios, and ornamental landscaping, and is surrounded on all sides by public streets and developed properties, and the City’s environmentally sensitive maps do not identify any such areas on-site or within the immediate Project vicinity. There will be no cumulative impact resulting from successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time in that the Project includes a scope of work that is consistent with the allowed uses in the residential lowdensity zone, and elevated decks are common features in the area. There are no unusual circumstances resulting in a significant impact on the environment. There will be no damage to scenic resources, including trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. The project is not located on a hazardous waste site or any other site included on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. The project will not result in significant adverse impacts to historical resources as defined by CEQA in that there are no such resources on site or within the immediate vicinity that would be impacted by the Project. Consequently, additional environmental analysis is not necessary to meet the requirements of the CEQA.

ATTACHMENTS

1. City Council Resolution (Pgs. 18-31)

2. Appeal (Pgs. 32-51)

3. June 4, 2025 Admin CDD Meeting Plans (Pgs. 52-55)

4. June 4, 2025 Admin CDD Meeting Public Comments (Pgs. 56-86)

5. June 4, 2025 Admin CDD Meeting Transcript (Pgs. 87-95)

6. Public Notice (Pg. 96)

7. Corrected Plans (Pgs. 97-100)

8. February 23, 2023 DRB Staff Report (Pgs. 101-117)

9. February 23, 2023 DRB Plans (Pgs. 118-133)

10. February 23, 2023 DRB Meeting Minutes (Pgs. 134-135)

11. February 23, 2023 DRB Public Correspondence (Pg. 136)

12. Certified Staking Plan from February 23, 2023 DRB Meeting (Pg. 137)

13. Order of Testimony (Pg. 138)
Appeal of the Approval of DR 25-0891 at 31421 Holly Drive December 9, 2025

Page 17 of 17 ends

Submitted By: Matthew Schneider Approved: .David A Kiff Matthew Schneider, Director of
Community Development
Dave Kiff, City Manager
Report Prepared By: Coordinated With:

Daniel Latham, Associate Planner Anthony Viera, Deputy Director of Community Development
Patrick Donegan, Assistant City Attorney
RESOLUTION NO. 25.XXX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE DECISION
OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR’S
DESIGNEE TO APPROVE DESIGN REVIEW 25-0891 FOR AN
ELEVATED DECK ADDITION AT 31421 HOLLY DRIVE IN
THE R-1, RESIDENTIAL LOW-DENSITY ZONE AND

FINDING THE ACTION EXEMPT FROM THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

PURSUANT TO STATE CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION
15301
WHEREAS, the applicant, Dave Frith (“Applicant”) sought Design Review (“DR”) 25- 0891 for an elevated deck addition at 31421 Holly Drive in the R-1 (Residential Low Density) zone (the “Project”). The Project requires ADR under Laguna Beach Municipal Code (“LBMC”) Section 25.05.040(B)(3)(a)(ii); and
WHEREAS, on June 4, 2025, the Community Development Director’s Designee (the “Designee”) held a duly-noticed public hearing on the Project, received public testimony, and approved DR 25-0891 and found the Project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1); and WHEREAS, on June 18, 2025 an appeal was filed by the neighboring property owner, Lori Austin (the “Appeal”); and
WHEREAS, on August 12, 2025 City Council held a duly-noticed public hearing on the Appeal and continued the public hearing to September 23, 2025; and WHEREAS, on September 23, 2025 City Council held a duly-noticed public hearing on the Appeal and continued the public hearing to October 28, 2025; and WHEREAS, on October 28, 2025 City Council held a duly-noticed public hearing on the Appeal and continued the public hearing to November 18, 2025; and WHEREAS, on November 18, 2025 City Council held a duly-noticed public hearing on Attachment1
18 -2- Reso. #
the Appeal and continued the public hearing to December 9. 2025; and WHEREAS, on December 9. 2025 City Council held a duly-noticed public hearing on the Appeal and carefully considered the oral and documentary evidence and arguments presented.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH DOES RESOLVE:

SECTION 1. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution by this reference.

SECTION 2. The City Council hereby makes the following findings in response to the grounds for appeal stated in the Appellant’s notice of Appeal:

1. The proposed deck extension was incorrectly described as either a 24- or 28-inch extension. The deck was constructed with an approximately four-foot extension.

City Council Finds:

The constructed deck extends two feet beyond the 10-foot deck dimension originally staked for the DRB hearing held on February 23, 2023. The certified staking plan prepared for the DRB hearing is provided as Attachment 12 to the agenda report. In response to this discrepancy, the applicant submitted an Administrative Design Review application to address the additional two feet beyond the originally proposed 10-foot deck, resulting in a total depth of 12 feet from the rear of the residence (58 square feet of additional deck area). As further clarification, the applicant also submitted a video to staff measuring the depth of the deck to be 144 inches (12 feet). Furthermore, the surveyor of record will verify that the deck was built per plan. This verification will be required before the City will pass a final building inspection.
19 -3- Reso. #

2. There are CEQA impacts from alterations and excavations and topographical features.

City Council Finds:

The construction of the proposed elevated deck addition does not require any grading. While excavation is required for the installation of support posts, the proposed two-foot extension to the previously approved deck will not require additional posts, as it is designed to cantilever.

The Designee appropriately determined that the proposed deck extension qualified for a categorical exemption from CEQA under the Class 1 exemption for existing facilities.

Section 15301 of the State CEQA Guidelines states, in pertinent part:
“Class 1 consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. The types of “existing facilities” itemized below are not intended to be all-inclusive of the types of projects which might fall within Class 1. The key consideration is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of use.

Examples include but are not limited to:
(a) Interior or exterior alterations involving such things as interior partitions, plumbing,
…
(e) Additions to existing structures provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than:
(1) 50 percent of the floor area of the structures before the addition, or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less; or
(2) 10,000 square feet if:
(A) The project is in an area where all public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum development permissible in the General Plan and
(B) The area in which the project is located is not environmentally 20 -4- Reso. #
sensitive.”
Here, the proposed project is an approximately 58-square-foot extension of an existing deck on a lot developed with an existing single-family residence, resulting in negligible or no expansion of use, and the lot does not contain environmentally sensitive resources.

3. The plans were not available at the building counter.

City Council Finds:

The hardcopy plans for the previously approved project, for which a building permit has been issued, are customarily stored in a room at City Hall upon permit issuance. In this instance, the plans had been misfiled within the room, which may explain why they were not immediately located when the Appellant inquired at the public counter. They were subsequently located by the City’s Records Management Coordinator, who confirmed that the plans had been placed in an incorrect location and they were provided for the appellant to review. Both the Applicant and Appellant agree that the plans approved by the DRB showed a 10-foot extension, which is also what is shown on the building permit plans. The elevated deck, which is more than three feet out of grade, cannot be enlarged without administrative design review approval in accordance with LBMC Section

25.05.040(B)(3)(a)(ii), which occurred on June 4, 2025 at a duly noticed ADR hearing.

Furthermore, staff has verified that the Applicant is requesting a two-foot deck extension, not 28 inches as shown the plans prepared for the ADR hearing. This was clarified by the 21 -5- Reso. #
Applicant at the ADR hearing. (Attachment 5 of the agenda report [Transcript], page 2 of 9). After the ADR hearing, the Applicant submitted plans clarifying the deck extension is smaller than originally understood (the revised plans are included as Attachment 7 to the agenda report).

SECTION 3. The City Council hereby makes the following findings with respect to Design Review 25-0891:

1. Access. Conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians and other modes of transportation should be minimized by specifically providing for each applicable mode of transportation.

Handicapped access shall be provided as required by applicable statutes.

N/A. The proposed deck extension does not change access to the property.

Yes. The proposed deck does not add significant additional mass as it is a two-foot cantilevered extension of the previously approved deck area. The expanded deck is located near the middle of the lot on the south-facing elevation of the residence, and would maintain a setback from the south property line ranging from approximately 47 to 60 feet.

3. Design Integrity: Consistency with the applicant’s chosen style of architecture should 22 -6- Reso. #
be achieved by the use of appropriate materials and details. Remodels should be harmonious with the remaining existing architecture.

Yes. The proposed deck extension matches the materials used for the approved portion of the deck.

4. Environmental Context: Development should preserve and, where possible, enhance the city’s scenic natural setting. Natural features, such as existing heritage trees, rock outcropping, ridgelines and significant watercourses should be protected. Existing terrain should be utilized in the design and grading should be minimized.

Yes. The proposed Project does not require grading as it is a cantilevered extension of a previously approved elevated deck.

Yes. The proposed deck extension is consistent with the applicable General Plan policies as discussed below.

LUE Policy 3.10 Require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated with natural topographic features, minimize significant alteration of natural topography or other significant on-site resources, and protect public views as specified in the Design Guidelines and Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document by maintaining the low-profile character of structures. Require use of appropriate landscaping, special architectural treatments, and siting considerations for projects visible from major highways and arterial streets. Best efforts should be made to site new development in locations that minimize adverse impacts on views from public locations (e.g., roads, bluff-top trails, visitor-serving facilities, etc.) The Project does not require grading and public views are not impacted as the Project is not in close proximity and visible from a public viewing location such as a trail, park, or lookout. The architecture complies with the design integrity and articulation design review criteria as discussed above.

The project site does not include environmentally sensitive areas and public views are not impacted as the project is not visible from Coast Highway and due to 24 -8- Reso. #
the elevation and placement of the deck in relation to Ocean View Street.

6. Historic Preservation: Destruction or alteration to historic resources should be avoided whenever possible. See Chapter 25.45 for more information.

N/A. The project site does not contain historic structures within its boundaries or in the immediate vicinity that would be affected by the proposed Project.

7. Landscaping: Landscaping shall be incorporated as an integrated part of the structure’s design and relate harmoniously to neighborhood and community landscaping themes.

View equity shall be an important consideration in the landscape design. The relevant landscaping guidelines contained in the City’s “Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document” should be incorporated, as appropriate, in the design and planned maintenance of proposed landscaping.

N/A. No landscaping is proposed with the Project.

8. Lighting and Glare: Adequate lighting for individual and public safety shall be 25 -9- Reso. #
provided in a manner which does not significantly impact neighboring properties. Reflective materials and appurtenances that cause glare or a negative visual impact (e.g., skylights, white rock roofs, high-gloss ceramic tile roofs, reflective glass, etc.) should be avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance in those locations where those surfaces are visible from neighboring properties.

Yes. No lighting is proposed with the Project and the proposed railings do not result in glare impacts.

10. Pedestrian Orientation: Commercial development design shall enhance and encourage pedestrian uses. Incorporation of articulated building masses, compact open spaces and courtyards, mixed use developments, use of landscaping as part of design, and orientation to pedestrian access should be maximized.

N/A. This criterion is related to commercial projects.

12. Public Art: Public art is encouraged and shall be displayed where feasible or required by the Art in Public Places ordinance.

N/A. This criterion is related to commercial projects.

Yes. The proposed Project will be required to meet Title 24 requirements related to energy efficiency and to recycle at least 65 percent of construction materials per the 27 -11- Reso. #
California Building Code.

N/A. The Project does not involve a new swimming pool or spa.

Finding No. 2. The physical improvements and site developments related to the Project are designed and located in a manner in overall consistency with all other applicable design guidelines.

N/A. No additional design guidelines apply to this Project.

Finding No. 3. The physical improvements and site developments related to the Project are characterized by appropriately scaled development, diverse and unique architectural designs, 28 -12- Reso. #
pedestrian orientation, and sensitivity to the natural conditions of the site.

Yes, the Project is appropriately scaled as discussed under the design articulation and neighborhood compatibility design review criteria above.

Finding No. 4. The project is consistent with any specific plan or any other specific zoning design review criteria.

N/A. The proposed Project is not located in a specific plan or subject to additional design review criteria.

SECTION 4. Based on its review of the entire record before it, the City Council hereby finds and determines that the Project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Section 15301 - Existing Facilities, in that the Project consists of the repair, maintenance, or minor alteration of existing structures or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. Here, the Project includes a 58- square-foot deck addition to an existing elevated deck associated with an existing single-family residence. Further, none of the exceptions outlined in CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2 apply.

The project site does not contain any environmentally sensitive areas, in that the site is fully developed with an existing single-family residence with an attached one-car garage, patios, and ornamental landscaping, and is surrounded on all sides by public streets and developed properties, and the City’s environmentally sensitive maps do not identify any such areas on-site or within the immediate Project vicinity. There will be no cumulative impact resulting from successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time in that the Project includes a scope of work that is consistent with the allowed uses in the residential low-density zone, and elevated decks are common features in the area. There are no unusual circumstances resulting in a significant impact 29 -13- Reso. #
on the environment. There will be no damage to scenic resources, including trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. The project is not located on a hazardous waste site or any other site included on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. The project will not result in significant adverse impacts to historical resources as defined by CEQA in that there are no such resources on site or within the immediate vicinity that would be impacted by the Project.

Consequently, additional environmental analysis is not necessary to meet the requirements of the CEQA.

SECTION 5. The City Council hereby upholds the Designee’s decision on Design Review 25-0891.

ADOPTED this 9th day of December, 2025.

Alex Rounaghi, Mayor
ATTEST:

Ann Marie McKay, City Clerk
30 -14- Reso. #
I, Ann Marie McKay, City Clerk of the City of Laguna Beach, certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 25.XXX was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City held on December 9, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

City Clerk, City of Laguna Beach, CA
31 Attachment 2
32 33
34 35
36 37
38 39
40 41
42 43
44 45
46 47
48 49
50 51

ZONING SUBMITTAL
DELTA 1 01.20.2022
DELTA 2 04.27.2022
DELTA 3 08.22.2022
PERMIT PLAN CHECK 03.23.2023
PERMIT SET 05.08.2023
DELTA 4 08.06.2024
DELTA 5 01.02.2025
DELTA 6 04.29.2025

08.05.2021
DAVID B. FRITH
349 THIRD STREET
LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651
949.376.3080

AINA & GORDON MCBEAN

MCBEAN RESIDENCE
31421 HOLLY DR
LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651
PROJECT:

CLIENT:

PROFESSIONAL SEAL:

ARCHITECT OF RECORD:

SIGNATURE DATE

SUBMISSION DATE
SCALE: AS NOTED
PROJECT NO: 21110

PROJECT SUMMARY TABLES
USE SFR ZONE R1 LOT SLOPE (%) 27%

ZONING STANDARDS

DESCRIPTION REQUIRED EXISTING PROPOSED CONFORMS
LOT AREA 6,000 S.F. 6,874 S.F. NO CHANGE YES
LOT WIDTH 70'-0" 54'-5" NO CHANGE NO
LOT DEPTH 80'-0" 126'-2" NO CHANGE YES
MAX BUILDING HEIGHT 30'-0" 20'-2" NO CHANGE YES
MAX HEIGHT FROM CURB 15'-0" 9'-8" NO CHANGE YES
SETBACKS:

FRONT YARD
5'-0" GARAGE
10'-0" HOUSE
7'-1" GARAGE
26'-11" HOUSE NO CHANGE YES
REAR YARD 20'-0" 50'-0" NO CHANGE YES
SIDE YARDS (E) 54.22' FRONT + 60' REAR = 114.22'
/ 2 = 57.11' AVERAGE WIDTH
* 20%=11.42' TOTAL S.Y.S.B. (11'-5")
4'-4" (4'-9" EXISTING) NO CHANGE YES
SIDE YARDS (W) 7'-1" NO CHANGE YES

LOT COVERAGE
(BSC)
BSC %: 35 + (8000-6874) x 9
/ 4000 = 38%
2,124 S.F. 2,149 S.F. YES 31% 31%

LANDSCAPE OPEN SPACE
1,532 S.F. 4,316 S.F. 4,037 S.F. YES 22% MIN. 63% 59%
PARKING 2 COVERED SPACES 1 COVERED NO CHANGE NO

PROJECT DATA

DESCRIPTION EXISTING PROPOSED TOTAL REMODEL
LIVING AREA:

BASEMENT 602 S.F. 351 S.F. 953 S.F. 140 S.F.

MAIN LEVEL 1,273 S.F. 409 S.F. 1,682 S.F. 200 S.F.

TOTAL 1,875 S.F. 760 S.F. 2,635 S.F. 340 S.F.

GARAGE 279 S.F. NO CHANGE 279 S.F.

ELEVATED DECK 0 S.F. 367 S.F. 367 S.F.

MECHANICAL / STORAGE 351 S.F. -351 S.F. 0 S.F.

DEMOLITION EXISTING REMOVED REMAINING DEMO TOTAL
FLOOR AREA:

BASEMENT 602 S.F. 0 S.F. 602 S.F. 0%
MAIN LEVEL 1,273 S.F. 0 S.F. 1,273 S.F. 0%
ROOF AREA 2,124 S.F. 374 S.F. 1,750 S.F. 18%
TOTAL EXTERIOR WALL 337'-6" L.F. 110'-3" L.F. 227'-3" L.F. 33% FOUNDATION 197'-4" L.F. 49'-10" L.F. 147'-6" L.F. 25%
TOTAL WALL + ROOF +

FOUNDATION
25%

SITE WORK

GRADING (CUBIC YARDS) OUTSIDE BUILDING

FOOTPRINT

INSIDE BUILDING

FOOTPRINT
TOTAL
CUT 0 CUBIC YARDS 0 CUBIC YARDS 0 CU. YD.

FILL 0 CUBIC YARDS 0 CUBIC YARDS 0 CU. YD.

NET EXPORT 0 CUBIC YARDS 0 CUBIC YARDS 0 CU. YD.

IMPERVIOUS SURFACES
LOT AREA % OF LOT AREA

EXISTING PROPOSED EXISTING PROPOSED
STRUCTURE 2,124 S.F. 2,149 S.F. 31% 31%

HARDSCAPE
(INCL. DRIVEWAY) 430 S.F. 702 S.F. 6% 10%
TOTAL 2,554 S.F. 2,851 S.F. 37% 41%

EXTERIOR BUILDING LIGHTING
EXISTING EGRESS DOORS 3 PROPOSED EGRESS DOORS 6
EXISTING FIXTURE COUNT 3 PROPOSED FIXTURE COUNT 15

FIXTURE TYPE WATTAGE LUMUNES QUANTITY COMMENTS
RECESSED STAIR LIGHT 0 365 10
WALL SCONCE 3 365 4
RECESSED SOFFIT LIGHT 0 365 1
TOTAL 15

LANDSCAPE LIGHTING
EXISTING FIXTURE COUNT 10 PROPOSED FIXTURE COUNT 10

FIXTURE TYPE WATTAGE LUMUNES QUANTITY COMMENTS
GARDEN LIGHT 10 365 10
TOTAL 10
COMBINED TOTAL 25

ARCHITECT

BEACH BUS STUDIOS
349 THIRD STREET
LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651
(949) 376-3080
CONTACT: DAVE FRITH
[email protected]

STRUCTURAL ENGINEER
CORE STRUCTURE, INC.
23172 PLAZA POINTE DR., SUITE 145
LAGUNA HILLS, CA 92653
(949) 954-7244
CONTACT: AMIR DEIHIMI
[email protected]
TITLE 24 ENERGY CONSULTANT

CARSTAIRS ENERGY CALCULATIONS
2238 BAYVIEW HEIGHTS DR, SUITE E
LOS OSOS, CA 93402
(805) 904-9048
CONTACT: TIMOTHY CARSTAIRS
[email protected]

PROJECT CONSULTANTS

PROJECT ADDRESS
31421 HOLLY DR
LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651
OWNERS

AINA & GORDON MCBEAN
(949) 376-3080
LEGAL DESCRIPTION N TR 713 BLK LOT 205
ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. (APN) 056-061-16
PARCEL ID NO. (PIN) 1036

COUNTY OF ORANGE
ZONE DISTRICT R1

CONSTRUCTION TYPE V-B

BUILDING DOES NOT HAVE A FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM

PROJECT INFORMATION

SUMMARY OF EXTERIOR ARCHITECTURAL IMPROVEMENTS

1. ENCLOSE OUTDOOR PATIO, CONVERT TO 396 S.F. OF HABITABLE AREA

2. MAIN LEVEL DECK ADDITION OF 300 S.F.

3. THREE BAY WINDOWS

4. REPLACE AT GRADE EXTERIOR STAIR AT SIDE YARD AND ENTRY

5. NEW STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF TO REPLACE EXISTING

6. NEW HORIZONTAL SIDING

7. NEW DOORS AND WINDOW TO REPLACE EXISTING

8. NEW ROOF AT EXISTING ENTRYWAY

9. NEW NEW 6'Ø PRE-FABRICATED, FREESTANDING, SELF CONTAINED JACUZZI.

10. NEW AC COMPRESSOR

10.5 67 SF ADDITION TO AN EXISTING APPROVED 300 SF DECK

SUMMARY OF INTERIOR ARCHITECTURAL IMPROVEMENTS

11. KITCHEN AND BATHROOM REMODEL

12. REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING WIRING FOR NEW FIXTURES

13. ADDITIONAL DRYWALL REMOVAL TO MATCH DEMO CALCS REV. 1 NOTE:

APPROVED THROUGH DESIGN REVIEW 22-2245 & VARIANCE 22-2266

SCOPE OF WORK

COVER SHEET
A001

SHEET INDEX

GENERAL NOTES

ARCHITECTURAL
A001 COVER SHEET
A002 CAL GREEN (NOT USED)
A003 CAL GREEN (NOT USED)
A004 FIRE DEPARTMENT SITE ACCESS PLAN (NOT USED)
A005 CONSTRUCTION STAGING PLAN (NOT USED)
A006 SITE PLANS
AD00 BASEMENT & GARAGE DEMOLITION PLANS (NOT USED)
AD01 MAIN LEVEL DEMOLITION PLAN (NOT USED)
A100 BASEMENT & GARAGE NEW WORK PLANS (NOT USED)
A101 MAIN LEVEL NEW WORK PLAN
A150 BASEMENT & GARAGE POWER PLANS (NOT USED)
A151 MAIN LEVEL POWER PLAN (NOT USED)
A200 BASEMENT & GARAGE REFLECTED CEILING PLANS (NOT USED) A201 MAIN LEVEL REFLECTED CEILING PLAN (NOT USED)
A300 ROOF PLANS (NOT USED)
A500 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS (NOT USED)
A501 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS (NOT USED)
A502 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
A503 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS (NOT USED)
A600 BUILDING SECTIONS (NOT USED)
A601 BUILDING SECTIONS (NOT USED)
A700 STAIR DETAILS (NOT USED)
A800 EXTERIOR DETAILS (NOT USED)
A900 DOOR & WINDOW SCHEDULES (NOT USED)
A901 DOOR & WINDOW DETAILS (NOT USED)
TITLE 24
T-24.1 T-24 ENERGY ANALYSIS (NOT USED)
T-24.2 T-24 ENERGY ANALYSIS (NOT USED)
T-24.3 T-24 ENERGY ANALYSIS (NOT USED)

STRUCTURAL
S-0.10 GENERAL NOTES & REQUIREMENTS (NOT USED)
S-0.11 GENERAL NOTES & REQUIREMENTS (NOT USED)
S-0.20 TYPICAL DETAILS (NOT USED)
S-1.0 FOUNDATION PLAN (NOT USED)
S-2.0 FRAMING PLAN (NOT USED)
SD1.0 FOUNDATION DETAILS (NOT USED)
SD1.1 FOUNDATION DETAILS (NOT USED)
SD2.0 STRUCTURAL DETAILS (NOT USED)
SD3.0 STRUCTURAL DETAILS (NOT USED)
SD4.0 STRUCTURAL DETAILS (NOT USED)

1. ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITH, BUT SHALL NOT BE LIMITED TO THE LATEST EDITION AND ORDINANCES OF:

A. CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE 2022
B. CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE 2022
C. CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE 2022
D. CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE 2022
E. CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE 2022
F. CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE 2022
G. CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE
H. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, TITLE 24 I. 2022 CALIFORNIA BUILDING ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS

2. A STAMPED SET OF APPROVED PLANS SHALL BE KEPT AT THE JOB SITE AT ALL TIMES.

3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VISIT THE JOB SITE AND VERIFY ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS AND DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION.

4. ANY DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE DRAWINGS AND ACTUAL SITE CONDITIONS SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT AND THE OWNER

PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CORRECTING ANY ERRORS AFTER THE START OF CONSTRUCTION WHICH IS NOT BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT.

5. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESP0NSIBLE FOR PROTECTING ANY ON-SITE UTILITIES FROM DAMAGE DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION.

6. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS.

7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ALL NECESSARY PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS, OTHER THAN PLAN CHECK & BUILDING PERMIT FEES PROVIDED BY THE OWNER.

8. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ALL MATERIALS, LABOR, EQUIPMENT, TRANSPORTATION AND SERVICES NECESSARY FOR SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF THE WORK ALL EQUIPMENT, WORK AND MATERIALS SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE CODES AND GOVERNING AGENCIES.

9. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN LIABILITY INSURANCE TO PROTECT HIMSELF AND HOLD THE ARCHITECT AND OWNER HARMLESS FROM ANY AND ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FOR PERSONAL, BODILY INJURY, DEATH OR PROPERTY DURING THE COURSE OF THE CONTRACT. FIRE INSURANCE SHALL BE MAINTAINED BY THE OWNER.

10. TEMPORARY POWER AND WATER, WORKERS' TOILET FACILITIES, PARKING AND MATERIAL STORAGE SHALL BE PROVIDED BY THE CONTRACTOR.

11. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT ALL FINISHED WORK AND ADJACENT SURFACES FROM DAMAGE DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION AND SHALL REPLACE AND/OR REPAIR ANY AND ALL DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE WORKERS.

12. ALL CONSTRUCTION WASTE & DEBRIS MUST BE CONTAINERIZED AT ALL TIMES. UPON COMPLETION OF THE WORK, ALL AREAS SHALL BE LEFT BROOM CLEAN AND ALL DEBRIS SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE.

13. RECESSED BOXES, EQUIPMENT, CABINETS AND THE LIKE, 8" X 8" OR LARGER, IN "1 - HOUR RATED WALLS", SHALL MAINTAIN A 1-HOUR CONSTRUCTION RATING.

14. DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON FLOOR PLANS, SECTIONS AND DETAILS ARE TO FACE OF STUDS, CENTERLINE OF COLUMN, FACE OF MASONRY, FACE OF CONCRETE UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.

15. DOOR LOCATIONS NOT ESTABLISHED BY DIMENSIONS SHALL BE CENTERED IN WALL OR BE LOCATED 4 1 2" FROM ADJACENT WALL TO ALLOW FOR DOOR CASING.

16. ANY DRILLING OR NOTCHING OF STUDS FOR ELECTRICAL WIRING, UTILITY LINES, BRACING ETC. SHALL CONFORM TO LOCAL CODE.

17. ALL GUARDRAILS SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 42" HIGH. INTERMEDIATE MEMBERS SHALL NOT ALLOW A 4" DIAMETER OBJECT TO PASS THROUGH.

18. PROVIDE A MINIMUM STUD SIZE OF 2 X 6 WHERE USING 2" PLUMBING FIXTURES.

19. PROVIDE FULLY TEMPERED IMPACT GLAZING AT SHOWER/TUB ENCLOSURES AND AT WINDOWS ADJACENT TO BATHTUBS.

20. ALL NEW GLAZING SHALL COMPLY WITH STANDARDS OF THE U.S. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION. MANUFACTURER TO SUPPLY CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE TO THE OWNER.

21. ALL TOILETS SHALL BE "ULTRA FLUSH" TYPE AS REQUIRED BY STATE. ALL SHOWER HEADS AND LAVATORY FAUCETS TO BE LOW FLOW.

22. GARAGE DOOR SPRINGS TO BE STATE APPROVED WITH BREAK RETAINERS AND MANUFACTURERS LABELS.

23. ALL INTERIOR FINISH MATERIALS SHALL MEET CLASS III FLAME SPREAD CLASSIFICATION, PER LOCAL CODE.

24. NAILING INSPECTION IS REQUIRED FOR ALL DRYWALL AND LATH AFTER INSTALLATION BEFORE TAPING AND FINISHING. CORNER BEADS TO BE NAILED.

DRYWALL BOARD SPACING TO BE 3/8" MAXIMUM.

25. THE CONSTRUCTION SHALL NOT RESTRICT A FIVE-FOOT CLEAR AND UNOBSTRUCTED ACCESS TO WATER OR POWER DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES (POWER POLES, PULL-BOXES,TRANSFORMERS, VAULTS, PUMPS, VALVES, METERS, APPURTENANCES, ETC.) OR TO THE LOCATION OF THE HOOK-UP. THE CONSTRUCTION SHALL NOT BE WITHIN TEN FEET FROM ANY POWER LINES - WHETHER OR NOT THE LINES ARE LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY. FAILURE TO COMPLY MAY CAUSE CONSTRUCTION DELAYS AND/OR ADDITIONAL EXPENSES.

26. EQ EMERGENCY GAS SHUT OFF VALVES TO BE INSTALLED ON ALL GAS FUEL LINES.

27. THE ARCHITECT SHALL BE PROVIDED A KEY OR COMBINATION TO THE LOCK ON JOB SITE GATES FOR ACCESS TO THE CONSTRUCTION SITE AT ALL TIMES.

28. MECHANICAL SUBCONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE THE ARCHITECT WITH A SCHEMATIC LAYOUT FOR ALL MECHANICAL UNITS, DUCT RUNS, AND REGISTER LOCATIONS AND SIZES FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO ANY MECHANICAL ROUGH IN.

29. PROVIDE STRUCTURAL OBSERVATION PER CITY OF LOS ANGELES REQUIREMENTS.

30. DRAFT STOPPING (AT 10' INTERVALS HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL SHALL BE PROVIDED WITHIN A CONCEALED FLOOR/CEILIING ASSEMBLY FORMED OF

COMBUSTIBLE CONSTRUCTION, ATTICS, MANSARDS, OVERHANGS, OPENINGS AROUND VENTS, PIPES, DUCTS, CHIMNEYS, BETWEEN ATTIC AND CHIMNEY CHASE, AT STAIR STRINGERS, AND SIMILAR CONCEALED SPACES FORMED OF COMBUSTIBLE CONSTRUCTION PER LOCAL CODE.

31. ENCLOSED USEABLE SPACE UNDER INTERIOR STAIRS REQUIRES 1-HOUR FIRE RESISTIVE CONSTRUCTION ON THE ENCLOSED SIDE PER LOCAL CODE.

32. THERE SHALL BE NO TRENCHES OR EXCAVATIONS 5 FEET OR MORE IN DEPTH INTO WHICH A PERSON IS REQUIRED TO DESCEND; OR OBTAIN A NECESSARY PERMIT FROM STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DIVISION OF OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH (CAL/OSHA, 714-558-4451). THIS PERMIT AND ANY OTHER SAFETY PERMIT SHALL BE OBTAINED PRIOR TO COMMENCE OF ANY WORK.

NORTH
31421 HOLLY DR
LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651

VICINITY MAP REFERENCE ONLY

MCBEAN RESIDENCE
31421 HOLLY DR,
LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651

1. THE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR THIS PROJECT IS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN EXPIRED 180 DAYS AFTER THE DATE FILING .

CONTACT COUNTY BUILDING DEPARTMENT TO OBTAIN WRITTEN 180-DAY EXTENSION(S). [CRC R105.3.2]

2. THERE SHALL BE NO TRENCHES OR EXCAVATIONS 5 FEET OR MORE IN DEPTH INTO WHICH A PERSON IS REQUIRED TO DESCEND; OR OBTAIN A NECESSARY PERMIT FROM STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DIVISION OF OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH (CAL/OSHA, 714-558-4451). THIS PERMIT AND ANY OTHER SAFETY PERMIT SHALL BE OBTAINED PRIOR TO COMMENCE OF ANY WORK.

3. NEW ONE-FAMILY DWELLINGS SHALL HAVE AN AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CRC SECTION R313.3 OR NFPA 13D. SUBMIT 3 SETS OF AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER PLANS TO OFCA FOR APPROVAL (714) 573-6100 [CRC R313]

4. THE SUPPORTING CONSTRUCTION OF FLOOR ASSEMBLIES WITH FIRE RESISTANCE RATED BY SECTION R302.3 SHALL BE OF EQUAL OR GREATER FIRE-RESISTANCE RATING THAN THE FIRE-RATED ASSEMBLY BEING SUPPORTED. [CRC R302.3.1]

5. THROUGH PENETRATIONS OF FIRE-RESISTANCE-RATED CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CRC R302.4.1.1 OR R302.4.1.2.

6. MEMBRANE PENETRATIONS OF FIRE-RATED CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CRC SECTION R302.4.2.

7. FIREBLOCKING IS REQUIRED IN CONCEALED SPACES 10' O.C. HORIZONTAL, VERTICALLY AT THE CEILING AND FLOOR

LEVELS, CONNECTIONS BETWEEN HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL SPACES, CONCEALED SPACES BETWEEN STAIR AND LANDING, OPENINGS AROUND VENTS, PIPES, DUCTS, CABLES, WIRES, CHIMNEY'S AND FIREPLACES. [CRC R302.11]

8. ALL WOOD FRAMING MEMBERS THAT REST ON CONCRETE OR MASONRY EXTERIOR FOUNDATION WALLS AND ARE LESS THAN 8" TO THE EXPOSED GROUND SHALL BE PRESSURE TREATED OR NATURALLY DURABLE TO DECAY. [CRC R317.1, ITEM 1]

9. SILLS AND SLEEPERS IN DIRECT CONTACT WITH CONCRETE OR MASONRY THAT IS IN DIRECT CONTACT WIHT THE GROUND AND GIRDERS WITH LESS THAN 1/2" CLEARANCE TO MASONRY AND CONCRETE SHALL BE PRESSURE TREATED OR NATURALLY DURABLE TO DECAY. [CRC R317.1, ITEM 3&4]

10. FIELD CUTTING ENDS, NOTCHES AND DRILLED HOLES OF PRESERVATIVE-TREATED WOOD SHALL BE TREATED IN THE FIELD IN ACCORDANCE WITH AWAP M4. [CRC R317.1.1]

11. THE MIN. WIDTH OF HALLWAYS SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 36". [CRC R311.6]

12. AN ELEVATOR PERMIT WILL BE REQUIRED FROM THE ELEVATOR DIVISION OF CAL/OSHA.

13. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR OR OWNER RESPONSABILITY TO PROVIDE ONE HARD SET OF PLANS WITH THE COUNTY APPROVAL STAMP IN THE FIELD FOR THE INSPECTOR TO VIEW.

GENERAL NOTES

1. IN CASE OF EMERGENCY CALL DAVE FRITH, 949-370-3723

2. SEDIMENT FROM AREAS DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE RETAINED ON SITE USING STRUCTURAL CONTROLS TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE.

3. STOCKPILES OF SOIL SHALL BE PROPERLY CONTAINED TO MINIMIZE SEDIMENT TRANSPORT FROM THE SITE TO STREETS, DRAINAGE FACILITIES OR ADJACENT PROPERTIES VIA RUNOFF, VEHICLE TACKING, OR WIND.

4. APPROPRIATE BMP'S FOR CONSTRUCTION-RELATED MATERIALS, WASTES, SPILLS SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED TO

MINIMIZE TRANSPORT FROM THE SITE TO STREETS, DRAINAGE FACILITIES, OR ADJOINING PROPERTIES BY WIND OR RUNOFF.

5. RUNOFF FROM EQUIPMENT AND VEHICLE WASHING SHALL BE CONTAINED AT CONSTRUCTION SITES UNLESS TREATED TO REDUCE OR REMOVE SEDIMENT AND OTHER POLLUTANTS.

6. ALL CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR AND SUBCONTRACTOR PERSONNEL ARE TO BE MADE AWARE OR THE REQUIRED

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND GOOD HOUSEKEEPING MEASURES FOR THE PROJECT SITE AND ANY ASSOCIATED CONSTRUCTION STAGING AREAS.

7. AT THE END OF EACH DAY OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY ALL CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS AND WASTE MATERIALS SHALL BE COLLECTED AND PROPERLY DISPOSED IN TRASH OR RECYCLE BINS.

8. CONSTRUCTION SITES SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN SUCH A CONDITION THAT AN ANTICIPATED STORM DOES NOT CARRY WASTES OR POLLUTANTS OFF THE SITE. DISCHARGES OF MATERIAL OTHER THAN STORMWATER ONLY

WHEN NECESSARY FOR PERFORMANCE AND COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES AND WHERE THEY DO NOT: CAUSE OR CONTRIBUTE TO A VIOLATION OF ANY WATER QUALITY STANDARD; CAUSE OR THREATEN TO CAUSE POLLUTION, CONTAMINATION, OR NUISANCE; OR CONTAIN A HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE IN A QUANTITY REPORTABLE UNDER FEDERAL REGULATIONS 40 CFR PARTS 117 AND 302.

9. POTENTIAL POLLUTANTS INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO: SOLID OR LIQUID CHEMICAL SPILLS; WASTES FROM PAINTS, STAINS, SEALANTS, GLUES, LIMES, PESTICIDES, HERBICIDES, WOOD PRESERVATIVES AND SOLVENTS; ASBESTOS FIBERS, PAINT FLAKES OR STUCCO FRAGMENTS; FUELS, OILS, LUBRICANTS, AND HYDRAULIC, RADIATOR OR BATTERY FLUIDS; FERTILIZERS, VEHICLE/EQUIPMENT WASH WATER AND CONCRETE WASH WATER; CONCRETE, DETERGENT OR FLOATABLE WASTES; WASTES FROM ANY ENGINE/EQUIPMENT STEAM CLEANING OR CHEMICAL DEGREASING AND SUPERCHLORINATED POTABLE WATER LINE FLUSHING.

DURING CONSTRUCTION, PERMITTEE SHALL DISPOSE OF SUCH MATERIALS IN A SPECIFIED AND CONTROLLED

TEMPORARY AREA ON-SITE, PHYSICALLY SEPARATED FROM POTENTIAL STORMWATER RUNOFF, WITH ULTIMATE DISPOSAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS.

10. DEWATERING OF CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER, OR DISCHARGING CONTAMINATED SOILS VIA SURFACE EROSION IS PROHIBITED. DEWATERING OF NON-CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER REQUIRES A NATIONAL POLLUTANT

DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT FROM THE RESPECTIVE STATE REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD.

NPDES NOTES

EXHIBIT 'B'

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Standard Conditions:

1. The conditions of approval shall be and hereby are obligations of and binding upon the applicant and his/her heirs, successors, assigns, agents and representatives. The conditions shall constitute a covenant running with and binding the land in accordance with the provisions of California Civil Code Section 1468. Failure to comply with such conditions, and each of them, and any other related federal, state and local regulations may be grounds for revocation of the approval, in addition to other remedies that may be available to the City.

2. The applicable Certificate of Use and/or Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until City staff has verified compliance with all conditions of approval.

3. Prior to Building Permit issuance, the owner, his architect/designer/structural engineer, and contractor of the subject property shall sign an Affidavit of Plan Consistency, whereby the signees affirm that the structural plans are consistent with the Zoning Division-approved set of plans and any modification will require subsequent review and approval.

4. In the absence of specific provisions or conditions herein to the contrary, the application and all relevant plans and exhibits are incorporated and made a part of this approval. It is required that such plans and exhibits be complied with and implemented in a consistent manner with the approved use and other conditions of approval. Such plans and exhibits for which this approval has been granted shall not be substantially changed or substantially amended except pursuant to a subsequent approval as might otherwise be required or granted pursuant to the terms of Title 25 of the City of Laguna Beach Municipal Code.

5. The permittee shall defend, hold harmless and indemnify, at his/her/its expense, the City, the City Council and other City bodies and members thereof, officials, officers, employees, agents and representatives (collectively, the City) from and against any and all third-party claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul this approval, or any associated determination made pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. This obligation shall encompass all costs and expenses incurred by the City in defending against any claim, action or proceeding, as well as costs, expenses or damages the City may be required by a court to pay as a result of such claim, action or proceeding.

6. Expiration. This approval shall lapse and become void two years following the effective date if the privileges authorized by design review are not executed or utilized or, if construction work is involved, such work is not commenced within such two-year period and diligently pursued to completion. The approval authority may grant a two-year extension of time and, after that initial extension of time, a final one-year extension of time. Such time extensions shall be requested in writing by the applicant or authorized agent prior to the expiration of the beginning two-year approval period or a subsequently approved extension of time.

7. Reapplication Waiting Period. After denial of a project, no application for a project located on the same parcel or building site may be filed or accepted for filing for two months.

8. Light trespass that results in glare is prohibited.

9. Outdoor lighting must be hooded, fully shielded, and aimed downward.

10. Modifications. Additions or enlargements of structures upon property for which a variance has been granted shall not be allowed except pursuant to a subsequent variance as might otherwise be required or granted pursuant to the terms of Title 25 of the City of Laguna Beach Municipal Code.

Project Specific Special Conditions:

1. The five-foot fence proposed along Holly Drive shall be constructed according to the 2022 California Building Code requirements for a non-climbable fence that secures a swimming pool/spa, and include the self-latching requirements for the front access gate.

DRAFT DRB RESOLUTION 22-2245

A RESOLUTION OF THE OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 22-2245, AND VARIANCE 22-2266, FOR A 760 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION, A 300 SQUARE FOOT BALCONY, A VARIANCE FOR NOT MEETING THE REQUIRED

PARKING ONSITE AND APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.
31421 Holly Drive | APN: 056-061-16
WHEREAS, on January 31, 2023, a notice was mailed to all property owners within a 300' radius and tenants within a 100' radius announcing the February 23, 2023, public hearing of the Design Review Board for the proposed project; and WHEREAS, on February 23, 2023, the Design Review Board carefully considered the oral and documentary evidence and arguments presented at the duly noticed hearing.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1: Design Review 22-2245, and Variance 22-2266 for a 760 square foot addition (first level: 351 SF; second level:
409 SF) to an existing 1,875 square foot single-family residence, the removal of an existing chimney, a new 300 square foot second-level rear balcony, new doors/windows, a new bay window, a new above ground spa, a 340 square foot internal remodel that includes the conversion of a bedroom into a new master bathroom, new metal roofing, a new AC unit, replacement of siding, and a variance for the proposed addition without meeting the required parking onsite ("Proposed Project") is approved. The proposed project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 - Existing Facilities, in that the project consists of the repair, maintenance, or minor alteration of existing structures or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use.; and
Section 2: The proposed project is consistent with the applicable Laguna Beach Municipal Code Title 25 development standards and guidelines as outlined in the Zoning Review section of the Staff Report.

Section 3: The proposed project is consistent with the Design Review criteria related to access, design articulation, design integrity, environmental context, general plan compliance, landscaping, lighting, neighborhood compatibility, privacy, sustainability, and view equity as outlined in the Design Review section of the Staff Report.

Section 4: The Variance findings can be made for the Proposed Project for the reasons and factual basis set forth in the Variance section of the Staff Report.

Section 8: Terms and Conditions Run with the Land. These terms and conditions shall be perpetual, and it is the intention of the approval authority and the permittee to bind all future owners and possessors of the subject property to the terms and conditions.

Section 9: Indemnification. The permittee shall defend, hold harmless and indemnify, at his/her/its expense, the City, the City Council and other City bodies and members thereof, officials, officers, employees, agents and representatives (collectively, the City) from and against any and all third-party claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul the approval of this application for Design ReviewDesign Review, or any associated determination made pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. This obligation shall encompass all costs and expenses incurred by the City in defending against any claim, action or proceeding, as well as costs, expenses or damages the City may pay as a result of such claim, action or proceeding. In the event an action or proceeding is filed in court against the City, the Design Review, or any associated determination, the permittee shall promptly be required to execute a formal indemnification agreement with the City, in a form approved by the City Attorney, which shall include, among other things, that the City will be defended by the counsel of its choice, and that the permittee shall deposit with the City sufficient funding, and thereafter replenish the funding, to ensure that the City's defense is fully funded, by the permittee. The deposit amount and replenishment schedule shall be established by the City.

Section 10: Plan Reliance and Modification Restriction. In the absence of specific provisions or conditions herein to the contrary, the attached Staff Report and its Exhibits 'A', and 'B', are incorporated and made a part of this Resolution. It is required that the Exhibits 'B' be complied with and implemented in a manner consistent with the approved use and other conditions of approval. Such exhibits for which this permit has been granted shall not be changed or amended except pursuant to a subsequent amendment to the permit or new permit as might otherwise be required or granted pursuant to the terms of Title 25 of the Laguna Beach Municipal Code.

Section 11: Grounds for Revocation or Modification. Failure to abide by and faithfully comply with Exhibits 'B' and 'C' attached to the granting of the proposed project may constitute grounds for revocation or modification of the permit.

Section 12: Right of Appeal and Effective Date. The applicant or any other owner of property within three hundred feet of the subject property aggrieved by the Design Review Board's decision on Design Review 22-1451 or Variance 22-1928 may appeal such decision to the City Council. The Design Review Board's determination to approve a Categorical Exemption under CEQA may be appealed by any person to the City Council. Any appeal shall be in written form filed with the City Clerk within fourteen calendar days of the decision and shall specifically state each and every ground for the appeal and be accompanied by payment of the required appeal fee. If no appeal is filed timely, the Design Review Board decision will be effective 14 calendar days after the date of the decision.

1. Section 13: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report, Minutes and records of proceedings, the Design Review Board of the City of Laguna Beach hereby approves the proposed project, subject to the conditions of approval and plans in the attached Exhibits 'B'.

PASSED on February 23, 2023, by the following vote:
6 6
6 Daniel Latham
Digitally signed by Daniel Latham
DN: C=US,
[email protected],
CN=Daniel Latham
Date: 2025.05.06 16:32:39-07'00'

ZONING SUBMITTAL
DELTA 1 01.20.2022
DELTA 2 04.27.2022
DELTA 3 08.22.2022
PERMIT PLAN CHECK 03.23.2023
PERMIT SET 05.08.2023
DELTA 4 08.06.2024
DELTA 5 01.02.2025
DELTA 6 04.29.2025

08.05.2021
DAVID B. FRITH
349 THIRD STREET
LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651
949.376.3080

AINA & GORDON MCBEAN

MCBEAN RESIDENCE
31421 HOLLY DR
LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651
PROJECT:

CLIENT:

PROFESSIONAL SEAL:

ARCHITECT OF RECORD:

SIGNATURE DATE

SUBMISSION DATE
SCALE: AS NOTED
PROJECT NO: 21110
190'
180'
170'
200'
1 2:12
1:12
1:12 126'-2" LOT DEPTH
31421 HOLLY DRIVE
4'-4"
7'-1"
S.Y.S.B.

S.Y.S.B.
7'-1" 5'-1"
7'-4"
4'-9"
20'-0" R.Y.S.B. 7'-1" 26'-11"
TERRACED LANDSCAPE AREA 50'-0" 73'-0"
1 2:12
31441 HOLLY DRIVE
31411 HOLLY DRIVE
℄ HOLLY DRIVE
℄ OCEAN VIEW STREET

EXISTING AREA OF

ROOF TO BE

DEMOLISHED

SHOWN DASHED

EXISTING CHIMNEY

TO BE REMOVED

54.22' 139.52'
60' 113.81' 17'-6"
17'-6"

EXISTING STAIRS

AND GATE TO BE

REPLACED

EXISTING STAIRS

TO BE REPLACED

EXISTING TERRACED

LANDSCAPE WALLS TO BE
CUTBACK FOR NEW STAIR 10'-0" F.Y.S.B. 5'-0" REDUCED GARAGE F.Y.S.B. 10'-0" F.Y.S.B.

EXISTING

STONE PATH

EXISTING

RETAINING WALL
T.O. EXISTING

NON-STRUCTURAL

RETAINING WALL
= 185'-6"

TO BE REMOVED

AND REPLACED
T.O. EXISTING
WALL = 208'-6"
T.O. EXISTING
WALL = 202'-6"
T.O. EXISTING
CURB = 206'-0"
T.O. EXISTING
WALL = 199'-6"
T.O. EXISTING
WALL = 204'-0"
T.O. MAIN LEVEL F.F.
197'-3"
T.O. BASEMENT F.F.
188'-7"
T.O. GARAGE F.F.
206-3"
T.O. EXISTING
WALL = 201'-0" T.O. PATIO F.S.
196'-10"

EXISTING CHIMNEY

TO BE REMOVED
54'-5" LOT WIDTH 139'-0
1 2
"
T.O. EXISTING
WALL = 188'-3"
190'
180'
170'
200'
x x x x x x
1'-0"
13'-2" 19'-5" 10'-0" F.Y.S.B. 73'-0" 50'-0" 26'-11"
4'-9"
7'-4"
5'-1"
S.Y.S.B.

S.Y.S.B.
7'-1"
4'-4"

CANTILEVERED
BAY WINDOW 113.81'
60' 139.52'

54.22'
NEW 5' HIGH WOOD

FENCE AND GATE

NEW AT GRADE
STAIR
NEW 6'-0" HIGH

WOOD FENCE

1. GENERAL CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY AND REVIEW

EXISTING SITE DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS WITH

ARCHITECT TO DETERMINE IF THE SYSTEM
PROVIDES ADEQUATE SITE DRAINAGE.

2. OBTAIN A SEPARATE PERMIT FOR RETAINING
WALLS, GRADING, AND SHORING (IF REQUIRED).

3. VERIFY EXACT HARDSCAPE AND PLANT MATERIAL

LAYOUTS, MATERIALS AND SPECIFICATIONS WITH
THE ARCHITECT AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.

4. SUBMIT ACTUAL SAMPLES OF ALL FINISH

MATERIALS TO THE OWNER AND ARCHITECT FOR

REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO PURCHASE AND
INSTALLATION.

5. FIELD VERIFY WITH ARCHITECT ALL SITE POWER
AND FINISHED SITE LIGHTING LOCATIONS.

GENERAL NOTES
℄ OCEAN VIEW STREET
31411 HOLLY DRIVE
31441 HOLLY DRIVE
℄ HOLLY DRIVE 3:12 3:12

TERRACED LANDSCAPE AREA
31421 HOLLY DRIVE
1:12
1:12
1 2:12

BUILDING SETBACK

SITE WALL
FENCE

PROPERTY LINE

SITE PLAN LEGEND
20'-0" R.Y.S.B. 7'-1" 17'-6"
17'-6"
TRASH
STORAGE 5'-6"

AC UNIT NOISE ANALYSIS
SOUND RATING OF EQUIPMENT 76 dB
+ EQUIPMENT LOCATION FACTOR <3 dB>
- BARRIER SHIELDING FACTOR <--->
- DISTANCE FACTOR <23.5>
- SOUND ATTENUATION REDUCTION <6dB>
TOTAL 76-26.5 = 49.5 dB (COMPLIES WITH CITY OF LB REQ.) 5'-0" REDUCED GARAGE F.Y.S.B.

REFERENCE SHEET A501
DETAIL #3 FOR SOUND

ATTENUATION TECHNIQUES
REFERENCE SHEET A501
DETAIL #4 FOR

MANUFACTURER'S

SPECIFICATION SHEET
7'-3"
PARKING SPACE #1
8'-8"x18'-0"

EXISTING

STONE PATH

EXISTING

RETAINING WALL
T.O. EXISTING WALL
BELOW = 188'-3"
T.O. NEW WALL =
185'-6" TO REPLACE
(E) NON-STRUCTURAL
WALL

NEW AT GRADE
STAIR
NEW 4' HIGH WOOD

FENCE AND GATE
T.O. MAIN LEVEL F.F.
197'-3"
T.O. BASEMENT F.F.
188'-7"
T.O. GARAGE F.F.
206-3"
T.O. EXISTING
WALL = 208'-6"
T.O. EXISTING
CURB = 206'-0"
4'-0"
T.O. PATIO F.S.
196'-10"
PROVIDE 5' HIGH WOOD POOL SECURITY
FENCING PER LBMC 25.50.016 AND LBMC

25.50.012 (A). THE FENCE SHALL HAVE

SELF-CLOSING GATES AT LEAST FIVE FEET
HIGH WITH SELF-LATCHING MECHANISM.

LATCHES SHALL BE INSTALLED AT LEAST
FOUR FEET ABOVE GROUND LEVEL.

NEW 6'Ø PRE-FABRICATED,

FREESTANDING, SELF CONTAINED
JACUZZI. JACUZZI TO BE COVERED

WITH LOCKABLE COVER WHEN NOT
IN USE. AN AUTOMATIC FILL DEVICE
IS NOT TO BE USED.
17" HIGH STEP / SEAT
AROUND 6' Ø JACUZZI
5'-0"
54'-5" LOT WIDTH 139'-0
1 2
"
F.G. = 185-9"
DN
(N) 6'-0" RETAINING WALL
DETAIL 6/S-0.20
(N) V-DITCH FOR

DRAINAGE

EXISTING APPROVED
28" DECK EXPANSION
4T @ 12"
5R @ 6" 10'-0"
7'-1" S.Y.S.B. 126'-2" LOT DEPTH

SITE PLANS
A006
1 1/8" = 1'-0"

EXISTING SITE PLAN
NORTH
2 1/8" = 1'-0"

PROPOSED SITE PLAN
NORTH
6 5
6 DOOR & FRAME REFERENCE,

REFER TO DOOR & FRAME
SCHEDULE ON A900

NEW DOOR

EXISTING WALL &

DOOR TO REMAIN

NEW PARTITION WALL

FLOOR PLAN LEGEND

ROOM NUMBER

ROOM NAME ROOM
NAME
100

ELEVATION REFERENCE

SHEET NUMBER

VIEW NUMBER

KEYNOTES
MECHANICAL / PLUMBING (INSTALL PER MFR. REQUIREMENTS)
P1 WATER CLOSET - MAXIMUM 1.28 GALLON PER FLUSH. CONFIRM WITH OWNER AND ARCHITECT FOR FLOOR MOUNT OR WALL MOUNT SPEC.

P2
SINK & FAUCET - VERIFY MFR. & MODEL WITH OWNER & ARCHITECT.

CONFIRM MOUNTING STYLE WITH OWNER AND ARCHITECT. PROVIDE GARBAGE DISPOSAL WHERE REQUIRED. INSTALL PER MFR. SPEC'S P3
SHOWER VALVE - VERIFY HEAD QUANTITY, LOCATION, MFR. & MODEL WITH OWNER AND ARCHITECT. INSTALL PER MFR'S SPECIFICATIONS.

CONTROL VALVE FOR SHOWER SHALL BE OF THE PRESSURE BALANCE OR THERMOSTATIC MIXING VALVE TYPE (418 CPC)

SHOWER DRAIN TO BE INFINITY LINEAR DRAIN
P4
SOAKING TUB & VALVE, VERIFY MFR. & MODEL WITH OWNER. INSTALL PER MFR'S SPEC'S. CONTROL VALVE FOR BATHTUB SHALL BE OF THE PRESSURE BALANCE OR THERMOSTATIC MIXING VALVE TYPE (418 CPC)
P5 HOSE BIB - MOUNT IN RECESSED CABINET, CONFIRM LOCATIONS WITH

OWNER AND ARCHITECT
P6 OUTDOOR SHOWER
P7 POT FAUCET
P8

WATER HEATER - AMERICAN WATER HEATERS RESIDENTIAL GAS
HIGH-EFFICANCY POWER DIRECT VENT 75 GAL., MODEL VG6275T100NV, PER T-24. PROVIDE RECIRCULATING PUMP. WATER HEATER MUST BE STRAPPED TO WALL. PROVIDE AIR FOR COMBUSTION & VENTILATION PER CMC 701, INSTALL PER MFR'S SPEC'S. SEE A151 LOWER LEVEL POWER PLAN FOR MORE INFORMATION. PROVIDE 3 INCH CLEARANCE ON ALL SIDES, BACK AND TOP AND 6 INCHES IN FRONT. ALL WATER HEATER

INSTALLATION LOCATIONS, REGARDLESS OF PROPOSED WATER HEATING SYSTEM, SHALL HAVE: (BEES 150.0(n)1A-D)
P9
AC PRO ALLIED #4AC16L36P-50A 14 SEER CONDENSING UNIT. AC UNIT TO MAINTAIN A 5-FOOT CLEARANCE FROM ALL PROPERTY LINES. MAXIMUM DECIBEL LEVEL TO BE 60 DB DURING THE DAY AND 50 DB AT NIGHT.

PROVIDE SOUND ATTENUATION AND SHOCK ABSORBENT BASE AS
REQUIRED., INSTALL PER MFR'S SPEC'S. (13.00 SEER/10.00 EER, MIN.) P10

CARRIER INDOOR DUCTED HEATING & COOLING MULTI-ZONE AIR HANDLER UNIT, (95% AFUE, MIN.) PER T-24, PROVIDE AIR FOR COMBUSTION & VENTILATION PER CMC 701, INSTALL PER MFR'S SPECS. PROVIDE 3" CLEARANCE ON ALL SIDES, BACK AND TOP AND 6" IN FRONT. ANCHOR FAU PER CMC 303.4 AND MFR'S INSTRUCTIONS
P11

HIGH EFFICIENCY TANKLESS WATER HEATER - WATER HEATER TO BE WALL MOUNTED. PROVIDE AIR FOR COMBUSTION & VENTILATION PER CMC 701, INSTALL PER MFR'S SPEC'S.

CABINETS
C1 CLOSET MILLWORK - VERIFY LAYOUT, STYLE & FINISH WITH OWNER AND ARCHITECT.

FLOOR & WALL MOUNTED CABINETS & MILLWORK, VERIFY LAYOUT, STYLE & FINISH WITH OWNER AND ARCHITECT. AT BASE CABINETS PROVIDE

STONE SLAB COUNTERTOP & BACK SPLASH, VERIFY SPECIFICATION WITH

OWNER & ARCHITECT

APPLIANCES (INSTALL PER MANUFACTURER REQUIREMENTS)
A1 WASHER - PROVIDE RECESSED PAN & FLOOR DRAIN
A2
DRYER - 4" MIN. VENT TO OUTSIDE, EQUIPPED WITH A BACK-DRAFT DAMPER. MAX DUCT LENGTH 14' WITH (2) 90° BENDS FOR MTL. DUCT, INSTALL PER CMC 504.3.1.2 & MFR'S SPEC'S.

A3 DISHWASHER - INSTALL PER MFR'S SPEC'S
A4 SUB-ZERO REFRIGERATOR/FREEZER
A5

RANGE & HOOD - WOLF DUAL FUEL RANGE & WOLF PRO WALL DUCTED EXHAUST HOOD. MINIMUM 100 CFM PER CMC 504.2 & ASHRA 62.2. MAX.

SOUND RATING OF 2 SONE @ 100 CFM. INSTALL PER MFR'S SPEC'S.

PROVIDE SMOOTH METAL SURFACE ON INTERIOR OF DUCTED EXHAUST HOOD.

A6 WOLF MICROWAVE OVEN DRAWER
A7 WOLF 30" BUILT-IN OVEN
A8 UNDERCOUNTER SUBZERO REFRIGERATOR

FINISHES
F1 TILE SHOWER WALLS & FLOOR - VERIFY SIZE, PATTERN & STYLE WITH

OWNER AND ARCHITECT, INSTALL PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATION F2

STONE TILE FLOOR - VERIFY SIZE, PATTERN & STYLE WITH OWNER AND

ARCHITECT, INSTALL PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATION
F3 WOOD FLOORING - CONFIRM SPECIFICATION WITH OWNER AND

ARCHITECT
F4 NOT USED

MISCELLANEOUS
M1 FRAMELESS GLASS - PROVIDE SAFETY GLASS
M2 DRYER COMPARTMENT MAKEUP AIR VENT, 100 SQ. IN. PER CMC 504.3.1 M3 CABLE HANDRAIL/GUARDRAIL - 42" HIGH, CONFIRM FINISH AND STYLE

WITH OWNER AND ARCHITECT
M4 NOT USED
M5

GARAGE SHALL BE SEPARATED FROM THE RESIDENCE AND IT'S ATTIC, STRUCTURE(S) SUPPORTING FLOOR/CEILING ASSEMBLIES BY 5
8" GYPSUM
BOARD APPLIED TO THE GARAGE SIDE, PER CRC R302.6.

M6 PROVIDE SCHLUTER-DITRA-HEAT ELECTRIC FLOOR WARMING SYSTEM AT THE ENTIRE BATHROOM AREA, INSTALL PER MFR'S SPEC'S.

AT ENCLOSED ACCESSIBLE SPACES UNDER STAIRS THE WALLS,

UNDER-STAIR SURFACE & SOFFITS SHALL BE PROTECTED ON THE ENCLOSED SIDE BY 5
8" GYPSUM BOARD.
001
XXXX
X

ZONING SUBMITTAL
DELTA 1 01.20.2022
DELTA 2 04.27.2022
DELTA 3 08.22.2022
PERMIT PLAN CHECK 03.23.2023
PERMIT SET 05.08.2023
DELTA 4 08.06.2024
DELTA 5 01.02.2025
DELTA 6 04.29.2025

08.05.2021
DAVID B. FRITH
349 THIRD STREET
LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651
949.376.3080

AINA & GORDON MCBEAN

MCBEAN RESIDENCE
31421 HOLLY DR
LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651
PROJECT:

CLIENT:

PROFESSIONAL SEAL:

ARCHITECT OF RECORD:

SIGNATURE DATE

SUBMISSION DATE
SCALE: AS NOTED
PROJECT NO: 21110
190' ENTRY BENCH
BAR
5'-5" X 2'-0"

LINE OF EXISTING

GARAGE ABOVE

EXISTING

RIDGE ABOVE

EXISTING

BEAM ABOVE

ROOF ABOVE
PLANTER 5'-7" 9'-8" 4'-5
1 2
" 5'-9
1 2
"
4'-5
1 2
"
4'-5"
MASTER
CLOSET
110
POWDER
103
ENTRY
101
MASTER

BATHROOM
109
MASTER

BEDROOM
108
LIVING
ROOM
104
DINING
ROOM
105

KITCHEN
106
PANTRY
107
DECK

BUILT-IN

WINDOW SEAT
11 1
2 " 2'-3"
8'-6" 2'-6"

CANTILEVERED

BAY WINDOW

CANTILEVERED
BAY WINDOW 13'-3"
28'-6" 10'-0"
T.O. MAIN LEVEL F.F.
197'-3"
T.O. DECK F.S.
197'-1"
A500
2 A501
2 A502
2 A503
2 A600
1 BUILT-IN
DESK
UP UP
A600
2 T.O. PATIO F.S.
196'-10"
T.O. LANDING
198'-1"
T.O. LANDING
200'-7"
T.O. LANDING
203'-1"
T.O. LANDING
206'-3"

LANDING AT EXISTING GRADE
4'-0"
⅊
4'-4" S.Y.S.B.
7'-1" S.Y.S.B. 10'-0" F.Y.S.B
⅊
NEW 6'Ø PRE-FABRICATED,

FREESTANDING, SELF
CONTAINED JACUZZI. BUILT-IN

SEATING
17" HIGH STEP /
SEAT AROUND 6' Ø

JACUZZI
5'-0" A601
#
BENCH
103
110
A
110
B
109
A
108
A
108
D
108
E
108
F
108
G
105 104
A
105
B
106
F
106
E
106
D
106
C
106
B
106
A
107
101
A
108
C
108
B
101
C
DN
P1
P1
C2
C2
P2
C2
P2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2 C2
C2
P2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C1
P3 F1
P4
P5
P7
A3
A5
A6
A7
A4
A8
F2
F2
F3
F3
M1
M3
M3
M6
109
C
109
D
109
E
109
F

REFERENCE STAIR

DETAILS PLAN ON
1/A700 1'-6"
1'-6"
6'-11
1 2 5'-0 " 1
2 " 16'-6" 3'-7"
5'-8
1 2
" 9'-10
1 2
" 12'-5"
110
B 3'-4
1 2
" 6'-4
1 2
"
2'-7
1 2 2'-5 " 1
2 " EQ. EQ.
2'-3"
4'-11
1 2
"
2'-6
1 2
"
110
B
109
G
3'-6
1 2
" 1'-6" 3'-5
1 2 1'-6 " 12
"
110
B EQ. EQ.
4'-3
1 2
" EQ. EQ.

EQ. EQ.
4'-0" 6'-1" 4'-8"

FUR WALL TO FLUSH WITH
SLIDING DOOR FRAME 3'-0"
28" DECK EXPANSION

EXISTING APPROVED

MAIN LEVEL NEW

WORK PLAN
A101
1 1/4" = 1'-0"

MAIN LEVEL NEW WORK PLAN
NORTH
6 6

ZONING SUBMITTAL
DELTA 1 01.20.2022
DELTA 2 04.27.2022
DELTA 3 08.22.2022
PERMIT PLAN CHECK 03.23.2023
PERMIT SET 05.08.2023
DELTA 4 08.06.2024
DELTA 5 01.02.2025
DELTA 6 04.29.2025

08.05.2021
DAVID B. FRITH
349 THIRD STREET
LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651
949.376.3080

AINA & GORDON MCBEAN

MCBEAN RESIDENCE
31421 HOLLY DR
LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651
PROJECT:

CLIENT:

PROFESSIONAL SEAL:

ARCHITECT OF RECORD:

SIGNATURE DATE

SUBMISSION DATE
SCALE: AS NOTED
PROJECT NO: 21110 9'-0"
T.O. GARAGE F.F.
206-3" 8'-8"
T.O. BASEMENT F.F.
188'-7"
T.O. MAIN LEVEL F.F.
197'-3" ⅊
10'-0"
F.Y.S.B.
15' MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT ABOVE UPPER CURB
5'-0"

REDUCED
GARAGE F.Y.S.B.EXISTING HEIGHT ABOVE CURB 9'-8"
T.O. UPPER CURB
206'-0"
40'-0" 13'-0"
30' BUILDING

ENVELOPE ABOVE
EXISTING GRADE 2 5 3 3 4 4 1 4

EXISTING GRADE

EXISTING RETAINING
WALLS
FLOOR LINE BEYOND HEIGHT ABOVE GRADE EXISTING HEIGHT ABOVE GRADE 18'-2" 20'-2" EXISTING HEIGHT ABOVE CURB 9'-8" T.O. RAILING
3'-6" A.F.S. 9'-0"
T.O. GARAGE F.F.
206-3" 8'-8"
T.O. BASEMENT F.F.
188'-7"
T.O. MAIN LEVEL F.F.
197'-3"
15' MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT ABOVE UPPER CURB ⅊
10'-0"
5'-0"

REDUCED
GARAGE F.Y.S.B.

T.O. UPPER CURB
206'-0" 13'-0"
F.Y.S.B.

T.O. ROOF
210'-6"
40'-0" 30'-0"
30' BUILDING

ENVELOPE ABOVE
EXISTING GRADE 6 7 9

EXISTING GRADE

STAIR LANDING AT

EXISTING GRADE

EXISTING RETAINING
WALLS
NEW 6'Ø PRE-FABRICATED,

FREESTANDING, SELF
CONTAINED JACUZZI.

REMOVE EXISTING

RETAINING WALLS

FLOOR LINE BEYOND
17" HIGH STEP / SEAT
AROUND 6' Ø JACUZZI
(N) 6'-0" RETAINING WALL
PER DETAIL 6/S-0.20
(N) V-DITCH FOR

DRAINAGE
10'-0" 28" DECK EXPANSION

EXISTING APPROVED

ELEVATION KEYNOTES
EXISTING ROOFING TO BE REPLACED WITH CLASS 'A' STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF.

PROVIDE GUTTERS AND DOWNSPOUTS TIED INTO EXISTING DRAINAGE SYSTEM

EXISTING ROOF TO BE REPLACED WITH NEW ENTRY ROOF

EXISTING STAIR TO BE REPLACED, REFERENCE NEW WORK PLANS

EXISTING WINDOWS / DOOR TO BE REMOVED, REFERENCE NEW WORK PLANS FOR

REVISED OPENING

EXISTING CHIMNEY TO BE REMOVED

CUT OPENING FOR NEW DOOR OR WINDOW, REFERENCE NEW WORK PLANS

NEW RAISED ROOF AT ENTRY, REFERENCE NEW WORK PLANS

PROPOSED EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURE, REFERENCE EXTERIOR LIGHTING PLAN FOR MORE INFORMATION. LIGHT FIXTURES MUST BE DOWN LIT OR SHIELDED TO PREVENT GLARE. TOP OF FIXTURE TO BE OPAQUE.

NEW HORIZONTAL SIDING, REFERENCE DETAILS 3-5/A800

NEW BAY WINDOW
NEW SELF CLOSING WOOD GATE WITH SELF-LATCHING MECHANISM. REFER TO SITE PLAN FOR HEIGHT 123456789
10 11

EXTERIOR

ELEVATIONS
A502 2 1/4" = 1'-0"
PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION 1 1/4" = 1'-0"
EXISTING WEST ELEVATION 6 6
1 From: L Austin
Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2025 2:01 PM
To: Latham, Daniel CD <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Design Review 25-0891 31421 Holly Drive
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Dear Mr. Daniel Latham,
I have forwarded you the e mail we discussed. Please let me know if you have any problems opening any of the information and that you are able to expand the pictures for review. From the pictures of the before and actual, you will see the actual built deck is far beyond the on 28 inches (2 feet 4 inches) that is referenced on the Notice of Public Hearing. Aside from that, there are privacy concerns, cantilevered concerns, social gatherings impact on our living areas, and our view being compromised. The purpose of the original comprehensive design review is to address these types of issues and concerns prior to any construction and as one whole project.

Thank you,
Lori Austin
Begin forwarded message:

From: L Austin
Subject: Design Review 25-0891 31421 Holly Drive
Date: June 3, 2025 at 12:44:32 PM PDT
Attachment 4
56 2
To:

Dear Mr. Daniel Latham, Associate Planner,
As requested, we are submitting comments to the upcoming Design Review mentioned above. I am hopeful I can provide the information within one e mail. I will follow up with you after the documentation is sent. I have outlined in pictorial format some of our concerns. Please let me know if I have failed to meet the requirements for comments, or if I have been unclear with the information provided.

Thank You for your time in this matter.

Lori Austin
Original staking 2-23-2023 looking down from our deck
57 3
Original staking 2-23-2023 from our deck .

Construction Prep for deck
58 4
Construction prep for deck continues
59 5
Actual deck with
new staking of the proposed 28 inches (2 feet, 4 inches) of deck extension. This newest staking does not accurately reflect the original staking of 2-23-2023. 60 6
Picture from our master bedroom. Our master bedroom is directly below our deck. 61 7
View obstruction from our main living space. The open window depicts the placement of the original staked flags of
2-23-2023
62 From: L Austin
Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2025 4:28 PM
To: Latham, Daniel CD <dlatham@lagunabeachcity net>; L Austin ; Michael Austin Subject: DR 25-0891 2-23-2023 original staking from our main living space 63 [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 ] 64 From: L Austin
Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2025 4:21 PM
To: Latham, Daniel CD <dlatham@lagunabeachcity net>; L Austin Michael Austin Subject: DR 25-0891 picture from our master bedroom Our bedroom is directly below our deck anyone on the deck can see into our bedroom 65 [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 ] 66 From: L Austin
Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2025 4:14 PM
To: Latham, Daniel CD <dlatham@lagunabeachcity net>; L Austin ; Michael Austin Subject: DR 25-0891 New staking of deck showing its overhang cantilever of deck 67 [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 ] 68 From: L Austin
Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2025 4:04 PM
To: Latham, Daniel CD <[email protected]>; L Austin Michael Austin Subject: DR 25-0891 construction prep for deck continues 69 [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.] 70 From: L Austin
Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2025 3:52 PM
To: Latham, Daniel CD <dlatham@lagunabeachcity net>; L Austin ; Michael Austin Subject: DR 25-0891 Original staking 2-23-2023 from our deck 71 [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 ] 72 From: L Austin
Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2025 3:45 PM
To: Latham, Daniel CD <dlatham@lagunabeachcity net>; L Austin ; Michael Austin Subject: Original staking 2-23-2023 looking down from our deck 73 [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 ] 74 1
Nasman, Jordan CD

From: L Austin
Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2025 4:31 PM
To: Latham, Daniel CD <[email protected]>; L Austin ; Michael Austin Subject: DR 25-0891 view obstruction from our main living space. The open window depicts the placement of the 2-23- 2023 original stakes
75 2
76 3
[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.]
77 1
Nasman, Jordan CD

From: L Austin
Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2025 4:08 PM
To: Latham, Daniel CD <[email protected]>; L Austin ; Michael Austin Subject: DR 25-0891 New staking of proposed 28 inches (2 feet, 4 inches) of deck extension. Not accurate to original staking 2-23-2023
78 2
79 3
[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.]
80 1
Nasman, Jordan CD

From: L Austin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2025 4:01 PM
To: Latham, Daniel CD <[email protected]>; L Austin ; Michael Austin Subject: DR 25-0891 2-23-2023 lower section of original staking poles 81 2
82 3
[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.]
83 1
Nasman, Jordan CD

From: L Austin
Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2025 3:58 PM
To: Latham, Daniel CD <[email protected]>; L Austin ; Michael Austin Subject: DR-25-0891 construction prep for deck
84 2
85 3
[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.]
86 This transcript was exported on Aug 14, 2025 - view latest version here.

Clipped video_31421 Holly Drive (Completed 08/14/25)
Transcript by Rev.com

Page 1 of 9 ends

CDD Designee:
31421 Holly Drive. Does the staff planner have any comments? Daniel Latham:

Sure. Similar to the previous project, there were comments regarding the deck extension. It's a 28-inch elevated deck extension, which totals 67 square feet of additional deck. There was a prior approval to implement the deck and there is one neighbor with concerns about the project, the adjacent neighbor.

CDD Designee:

Okay. I will now open the item for public hearing. Does the project applicant have any comments? Dave Frith:

I do. Good afternoon. It's Steve Frith, project architect here on behalf of my friends Ina and Gordon McBean, who after two years are getting close to wrapping their house construction up, which I think will be welcome news for the neighborhood.

I don't know if you have access to the letter that was submitted by the one neighbor that had expressed some concern. Do you guys have that?
CDD Designee:

Yes.

Dave Frith:

Okay.

CDD Designee:

Staff has received that comment letter and I believe it's been posted to the website as well, yes.

Dave Frith:

Okay, great. So I just basically I printed a picture of that. I can't tell if there is a question over the staking approval. So, why don't I start with that and then finish with the fact that in my personal opinion, 24 inches, two-foot-four inches should be administratively approved. There's no impact on anybody.

The neighbors may disagree, but there were no comments about the size of the deck specifically with the original DRV approval. But why don't I start with basically a copy of the certified staking plan? The confusion and the reason that we're here today, if you look at the picture that they submitted, is there was a two-foot-four inch deck here off of the McBeans' home. This is taken from the neighbors that I think had some concerns.

And the mistake that the general contractor made is our deck approval is 10 feet, and he went ahead and framed it 10 feet from the existing deck that's basically two feet off of the face of the house. So, just from a matter of explanation, we certainly weren't thumbing our nose at the process. This is an honest mistake that was made by a contractor that I think is doing a great job.

He misunderstood that the 10-foot deck extension per my plan, which is my responsibility as the architect, was to be taken from the home but not from the deck that was removed. So, that's point one, Attachment 5
87 This transcript was exported on Aug 14, 2025 - view latest version here.

Clipped video_31421 Holly Drive (Completed 08/14/25)
Transcript by Rev.com

Page 2 of 9 ends

why we're here. Point two, there's a radius retaining wall that clearly shows from the neighbor's view where the stakes are and the stake comes down behind the radius retaining wall.

I went ahead and brought a copy of the certified staking plan. That shows exactly where that stake is, 10 feet off of the face of the house, and the curved retaining wall. And so if you look here, this is just a copy of the certified staking plan. This is a copy of the stake and the curved wall.

And so, from that point, we... This is another drawing that shows the curved retaining wall. The deck was supposed to come here on this row of columns, and you can kind of see in the plan that basically that row of columns is in line with the adjacent neighbor to the south that I think is expressing some concerns. And so, what we did is we went ahead and restaked it another two-foot-four inches out per our proposed plan.

It's actually constructed right now, and I hadn't heard that there were any concerns until we sent out the notification. It's actually been constructed that way for many, many months. But I went ahead and basically was on site today with a tape measure. I know that you can't see this, but if anybody would like this for the record, it shows that the deck is 12 feet deep from the face of the house.

So it's actually four inches less than what we're proposing. And I don't know if there's any benefit for the record to ask for a two-foot deck extension instead of our original two-foot-four proposal. But essentially we're here that asking for administrative review, administrative design review board approval for a deck that was inadvertently built two feet farther than the approved plan.

Last, I don't know if I'm running short on time, but I'm almost done. Last comment is just this is where the column is and then where the deck, you can see basically from the neighbor standpoint, the as-built deck condition that we're asking for approval. And then lastly, just two pictures of the neighborhood.

This is my client's house, the McBeans, this is the house directly to the north.

All of the views here are spectacular, but essentially the primary view is directly towards the ocean. This is the house directly to the north. This is the as-staked, as-built deck that's two feet larger than the approved plan that clearly has no impact here. And a picture of the homeowners to the south that are concerned, this is their deck and their home.

This is the as-built. The deck is actually located to the north of the property, opposite, and that was actually by design so that it would have minimal impact on the neighbors to the south. So, again, hopefully that clarifies the fact that I have documentation that it was staked appropriately. It's been built for many, many months without concern or any concern that I was aware of, and we're actually asking for a two-foot extension to match what's in the field.

Hopefully this isn't a matter that needs to go to design review board. As I said, I don't think there's any noticeable impact or detriment to the neighborhood and hopefully you agree. Thank you.

CDD Designee:

Thank you for providing that project background and history.

Dave Frith:

You're welcome.

CDD Designee:

If there are any members of the public that'd like to address this item, please come to the podium and state your name.
88 This transcript was exported on Aug 14, 2025 - view latest version here.

Clipped video_31421 Holly Drive (Completed 08/14/25)
Transcript by Rev.com

Page 3 of 9 ends

Mike Austin:

Hello. Hi, my name is Mike, Mike Austin. I'm the neighbor to the south that the architect is referring to.

The staking plan did follow the original plan. It was staked according to the design review plan, and that's what we were expecting.

So there was an overhang and the staking plan for design review calls for 10 feet at the face of the house, but on the bottom it's very clear in the design review, they take that staking measurement out and then go up and it results in about an eight-foot deck.

And that's just how it was designed that that's in the original design review. That measurement on the staking plan is crystal clear. So, what has happened is that the deck was builtLori Austin:
[inaudible 00:07:46]-
Mike Austin:

Oh, I don't know if he wants to seeLori Austin:
... for the house.

Mike Austin:
... the... It's not a deck, it's just some two-by-four shading.

Lori Austin:

There's noDave Frith:

Make sure to talk upLori Austin:

Yes, I'll wait track [inaudible 00:08:04].

Dave Frith:

And you're in session.

Mike Austin:

So, thereDave Frith:

Mike, this is a larger one. I don't know if you want to share that, but it's the same pictureLori Austin:

Oh, we have that89
This transcript was exported on Aug 14, 2025 - view latest version here.

Clipped video_31421 Holly Drive (Completed 08/14/25)
Transcript by Rev.com

Page 4 of 9 ends

Mike Austin:

Yeah.

Lori Austin:
... we can do that.

Mike Austin:

SoDave Frith:

It's just a larger print.

Mike Austin:
... so the original, that shows the original staking plan, so the request is not for two feet, 24 inches. It was already built two feet beyond the staking, and now they're going another two feet beyond that to result in roughly a 12-foot deck. So we do have concerns about the overall process not following the staking plan, not considering the neighbor's privacy impact, or view, or congregation of living space nearby our living space.

Overall, it's just a little frustrating that it was built. I did try to come in a couple of times, but the plans were not available to double-check some things. But now we've got a deck that has been constructed at roughly two feet outside the staking, and now they're asking for another two feet. So, I just think that this should go back to design review.

One thing I would mention about design review is that it's comprehensive. So you kind of look at all the pieces at once and this plan was 700 square feet of addition and a deck, and you kind of look at it all, and you're there at the forum and you make your comments based on what's presented on the staking plan and the overall plan and the design review.

And if it varies, I just think it's impactful because just one component, "Oh, well we'll fix that." It's just we looked at this whole thing as neighbors in the design review process and now it's come down to, "Oh, oops, we made a mistake, and we constructed 10 feet instead of the staking," and, "Oops, we made another mistake and now we're 24 inches plus four, 28 inches beyond that." It does start to get impactful. So, that's all I wanted to say on that. Just overall view, privacy, congregation, building a deck out on over a slope, which is discouraged on the design process. So, that's all I have to say.

CDD Designee:

Thank you for your comment. If anyone else would like to, please state your name for the record? Lori Austin:

Yes, hi, I'm Lori Austin, and aside from the things that he's already discussed, I do want to point out that when you look at... Can I bring this to you?
CDD Designee:

Sure.
90 This transcript was exported on Aug 14, 2025 - view latest version here.

Clipped video_31421 Holly Drive (Completed 08/14/25)
Transcript by Rev.com

Page 5 of 9 ends

Lori Austin:

You need toCDD Designee:

Have youLori Austin:
... have the other one.

CDD Designee:
... previously provided these exhibits to the staff planner? Lori Austin:

Yeah, so I can justCDD Designee:

Are they the record?
Lori Austin:
... show it, I can show it to you, but when youCDD Designee:

Sure.

Lori Austin:
... do the initial flag staking, you assume that that is going to be the deck, which is what we made the assumption on. So and then the original design review, we were fine with that. That was a reasonable deck, in that space. And I know that they built it on that side to be more cognizant of our side, because we sit on our deck a lot.

And the other deck on the other side extended much farther out, so they weren't impacted because that extended much farther out. However, when they built it, and I will show you on these photos here, they are much farther out than it was originally proposed and approved at that time. We did not have any comments about that because we felt it was, at the size it was at that time reasonable.

So, I will show you this. He has that larger photo that you can show if you'd like, but besides the flagging one that he had, here's this from our deck. So first I took a picture from the top.

Speaker 6:

Make sure this is a picture of MikeLori Austin:

I'm sorrySpeaker 6:
91 This transcript was exported on Aug 14, 2025 - view latest version here.

Clipped video_31421 Holly Drive (Completed 08/14/25)
Transcript by Rev.com

Page 6 of 9 ends

... [inaudible 00:11:47]-
Lori Austin:

Oh, okay. So I can show you this from here? Okay, so the original, I don't know where it went, but I took a picture from up top, and here's a picture directly from our deck, and you can clearly see the house right here, right?
The stucco house right here. The deck does not extend past that stucco house and it goes over and it goes in. Right? And so I thought, "Okay, well that's good. It wouldn't have affected the neighbors on the other side because what you don't see, but I'll show you, is they have a top deck and a lower deck, but this deck is tucked in, not affecting the neighbor on the other side." And to me it's like, "Okay, it's tucked in enough, it's not going to be protruding past my house. We can kind of be like neighborly this way or what have you, but not have you right there." Also, at that space that it is, it isn't overshadowing by another four feet. And this whole space right here, right below that is my master bedroom and my windows and everything because my deck is not cantilevered.

So, my bedroom downstairs, it encompasses not only the family room or our main living space, but also this deck. So now they can see right into my bedroom. Plus, we have a bedroom that's on a raised foundation. Okay? So, you would think that, "Okay, but it's so far down you won't notice it." However, my floor is raised up. So, when I'm standing in my bedroom in that space, my master bedroom, the height, I feel like the height up top of my head is equal to the deck height. But that's for me looking from afar. I don't actually know that to be the case, but we are on a raised foundation, so, and our windows are such that when I'm standing in my bedroom, the bottom of my window goes to about right here, and then it goes up to about right here.

So, that's our window. And when I'm standing there, they're right there. I can show you as well, if you look at this house as the guideline for where that deck should be, then you go to the footings that they have. Here's the end process of the amount of dirt moving for that deck. And as he described this deck right here, that's not a deck.

There's no physical access to that little structure. There's nothing, you don't sit on that. You don't go on that. There's fixed windows over there, and these are kitchen windows over here. So it wasn't ever a deck. And then this is the footings that they prepared for that new deck. And here is the house right here that ends those flags.

So you can see that just by that, the footings are way past that house and then the deck cantilevers over these footings. Okay? So, this is not just a 28-inch deck extension off of the original design. When you look here, now, from our deck and you saw it beforeCDD Designee:

There is aLori Austin:
... from our deckCDD Designee:
... three-minute time limit, soLori Austin:
92 This transcript was exported on Aug 14, 2025 - view latest version here.

Clipped video_31421 Holly Drive (Completed 08/14/25)
Transcript by Rev.com

Page 7 of 9 ends

Okay.

CDD Designee:
... you'll need to wrap up soon.

Lori Austin:

Okay. So I'll do just a couple more. So, here's our deck and I was asked to do a similar photo, and you have them. So I tried to include the same door, the same everything, the same presentation. You can see that stucco gray house where the deck should have ended, and you can see how far it extends past that stucco gray house. So it's not two feet, four inches.

Here is another view where I am trying to be on a par with our railing to the overhang, and the cantilevering of their deck, the new deck, when it should not have been built past this gray area. So, it's much more than described as this two foot, four inches that he's saying.

CDD Designee:

If you can wrap upLori Austin:

Okay.

CDD Designee:
... your comments and summarize.

Lori Austin:

Okay, last thing is, this is from my master bedroom window and the deck, right there.

CDD Designee:

Okay.

Lori Austin:

So, and then this is the staking from the inside family room where you could see that my view, here's the other deck that I mentioned, is not as impacted. Only now, the deck extends past... I had to open the window because the reflection back into the window wouldn't let me.

But here's now where the deck is, it is built. Here's where it should have ended over here, right? So I figure this window would've been the impingement, but then there's this added space because it's, I don't know what that's called. Okay?
So, it's not as described, and we would like to present this at a formal design review hearing because this was not built to what we were given in the beginning as their comprehensive full work plan, and it's way beyond the 28-inch scope that they have described.

CDD Designee:

Okay, thank you for your comments. Would the project applicant like to respond? 93 This transcript was exported on Aug 14, 2025 - view latest version here.

Clipped video_31421 Holly Drive (Completed 08/14/25)
Transcript by Rev.com

Page 8 of 9 ends

Dave Frith:

Yes, please. Just real quickly, I'll kind of hit them in the order that Mike and Laurie had shared them. As far as Mike's comment about not following the staking, I simply respectfully disagree. This is a copy of the certified staking.

There's clearly a 10-foot dimension shown on the certified staking plan, and that's further augmented by the fact that there's kind of a curving planter wall and you can see that the stake is basically behind that curving planter wall.

So, I'm not sure where the eight feet is coming from. Our staking plan clearly shows 10 feet. Second, as far as plans not being available, both Mike and Laurie have a relationship with their next-door neighbors as well as the general contractor that I think is actually doing a pretty good job of keeping the neighborhood peace.

The plans should have been available. I'm not sure why they weren't available. I can't speak to that, but would be happy to share them. I would like to comment though that this deck has been staked, has been built for many, many months, and I didn't realize it until I was doing the railing calculations.

They sent me a sign-off on the railing shot drawings and realized that there was 12 feet of railing. And I said, "Roman, this is a 10-foot deck." And he said, "Oh, 10 feet from that deck or non-deck that was two feet."
So, it was, point is it's been constructed that way for a long time. I haven't heard about it, and I'm the one that proactively am coming back to Admin DRB to clean up a mistake that was made on site.

Mike made the comment, another mistake. "Oops, oops, oops. I'm not sure if there have been other mistakes. I'm here to talk about the fact that the deck was built two feet longer than the approved 10- foot plan." It's actually two feet, not two-foot-four, if we want to modify the admin design review application.

Lastly, as far as Laurie, her comment about seeing... Not lastly, sorry, two more. Laurie saying that you can see into my bedroom, that's the design review board's process. These homes are all blessed with a magnificent view, and there were no issues with the adjacency between the side yards. That's an existing condition. Those windows are there, both of these houses are built there.

I'm not here to talk about seeing into her bedroom, I'm here to ask for the administrative approval on a 24-inch deck extension. In my opinion, the security and the privacy and all of those issues were discussed at design review. Two last ones, the dirt moving has nothing to do with this deck. There are landscape permits, there are terraced walls that step down the project that I think Laurie made the comment that all of this excavation or dirt moving had something to do with the deck. That's simply not true.

All of the dirt moving was organized through building inspections and there are no red tags or any improprieties with that. That has nothing to do with the deck. And lastly, the comment about the stucco gray house, I have a picture, I'm not, it's hard to determine, but I have a picture that cites perfectly down where the post is, and in the distance is the front of Mike and Laurie's house.

So I just know that cameras and photographs can be a little bit misleading depending on where you're standing, this, that and the other thing. The original posts are in line with where their gray stucco house is. This cantilevered extension, which is 24 inches more than the approved plan is what we would like to ask for administrative design review board approval.

In my personal opinion, this is small potatoes and hopefully not something that we want to waste design review board's time. I know that's not my decision, but I really don't think that this will be contested and hopefully we don't need to spend a few more months and $4,000 and go through that process. 94 This transcript was exported on Aug 14, 2025 - view latest version here.

Clipped video_31421 Holly Drive (Completed 08/14/25)
Transcript by Rev.com

Page 9 of 9 ends

And we notice, I do know that Mike and Laurie are the only ones that have expressed any concern, and the deck is on the opposite side of their property. And so, I have no further comments unless you have questions.

CDD Designee:

Okay, thank youDave Frith:

Thank you.

CDD Designee:
... for that response. I will now close the public testimony. Based on the comments made and the diagrams presented and reviewing the plans and the administrative record, it appears that we before design review board for the additional 24 or 28 inches of deck that has been constructed but was not on the previous plans.

With respect to decks, the main considerations are of course, view equity and privacy concerns. Because we're only looking at the additional 28 inches, or roughly 67 square feet, it would be my finding that the project can be approved as presented. It is an administrative process to have an elevated deck, and so I am approving the project based on the plans provided in the testimony given.

I understand neighbor's frustration. But the scope before us today is just the portion of the deck that has been constructed but was not shown on the original plans. And with respect to that scope of work, there doesn't appear to be any view equity or privacy concerns. And so the project is approved as presented.

That concludes today's hearing. There is a 14-day right of appeal which will end June 20th. If you have any questions, please reach out to the project planner and that ends today's hearing. Thank you all for attending.

Lori Austin:

Thank you.

Dave Frith:

Thank you very much.

Lori Austin:

Thank you.
95 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING

LAGUNA BEACH CITY COUNCIL
The Laguna Beach City Council will hold an in-person Public Hearing in the City Council Chambers, located in City Hall at 505 Forest Avenue, Laguna Beach, to consider:

Appeal of approval of Design Review 25-0891 and CEQA Categorical Exemption for an elevated deck addition at 31421 Holly Drive in the R-1 zone.

Related Project Cases on the property include but are not limited to: DR 22-2245, VAR 22-2266 Applicant: Dave Frith
A person has appealed the decision of the Community Development Director Designee to approve the project.

SAID PUBLIC MEETING to be held Tuesday, August 12, 2025, at 5:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter.

For additional information, contact City staff: Daniel Latham, Associate Planner (949) 464-6612 or [email protected]. Comments may be made in writing prior to the hearing (when emailed or mailed to the City Clerk’s office) or in-person in Council Chambers during the public hearing. In order to allow sufficient time for members of the City Council and staff to review and consider your comments, written comments will be accepted for consideration up until the close of business (i.e., 5:30 p.m.) on the business day before the date on which this public hearing is scheduled; however, it is recommended they be submitted to the City Clerk’s office on or before 5:00 p.m. five days prior to the scheduled hearing.

Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65009(b), if you challenge this application in court, the issues raised shall be limited to those raised in the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Laguna Beach prior to, or at, the public hearing.

CEQA: This project is categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, Section 15301 (Existing Facilities).

COASTAL: This project is located in the Coastal Zone. This project is located within a non-appealable area of the Coastal Zone.

The project is proposed as exempt development under Laguna Beach Municipal Code Chapter 25.07. The review procedure identified in Laguna Beach Municipal Code Section 25.07.012(B)(3) applies to any such determination.

Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons with a disability who require a disability-related modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, may request such modification or accommodation from the City Clerk’s Office at (949) 497-0705 (telephone) or (949) 497-0771 (facsimile). Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility to the meeting.

Property Owners within 300 ft./ Tenants within 100 ft./ Property Posted/ Publish Date: 8/1/2025 Attachment 6
96 ZONING SUBMITTAL
DELTA 1 01.20.2022
DELTA 2 04.27.2022
DELTA 3 08.22.2022
PERMIT PLAN CHECK 03.23.2023
PERMIT SET 05.08.2023
DELTA 4 08.06.2024
DELTA 5 01.02.2025
DELTA 6 04.29.2025

08.05.2021
DAVID B. FRITH
349 THIRD STREET
LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651
949.376.3080

AINA & GORDON MCBEAN

MCBEAN RESIDENCE
31421 HOLLY DR
LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651
PROJECT:

CLIENT:

PROFESSIONAL SEAL:

ARCHITECT OF RECORD:

SIGNATURE DATE

SUBMISSION DATE
SCALE: AS NOTED
PROJECT NO: 21110
DELTA 7 06.04.2025

PROJECT SUMMARY TABLES
USE SFR ZONE R1 LOT SLOPE (%) 27%

ZONING STANDARDS

LOT COVERAGE
(BSC)
BSC %: 35 + (8000-6874) x 9
/ 4000 = 38%
2,124 S.F. 2,149 S.F. YES 31% 31%

LANDSCAPE OPEN SPACE
1,532 S.F. 4,316 S.F. 4,037 S.F. YES 22% MIN. 63% 59%
PARKING 2 COVERED SPACES 1 COVERED NO CHANGE NO

PROJECT DATA

DESCRIPTION EXISTING PROPOSED TOTAL REMODEL
LIVING AREA:

BASEMENT 602 S.F. 351 S.F. 953 S.F. 140 S.F.

MAIN LEVEL 1,273 S.F. 409 S.F. 1,682 S.F. 200 S.F.

TOTAL 1,875 S.F. 760 S.F. 2,635 S.F. 340 S.F.

GARAGE 279 S.F. NO CHANGE 279 S.F.

ELEVATED DECK 0 S.F. 342 S.F. 342 S.F.

MECHANICAL / STORAGE 351 S.F. -351 S.F. 0 S.F.

DEMOLITION EXISTING REMOVED REMAINING DEMO TOTAL
FLOOR AREA:

FOUNDATION
25%

SITE WORK

GRADING (CUBIC YARDS) OUTSIDE BUILDING

FOOTPRINT

INSIDE BUILDING

FOOTPRINT
TOTAL
CUT 0 CUBIC YARDS 0 CUBIC YARDS 0 CU. YD.

FILL 0 CUBIC YARDS 0 CUBIC YARDS 0 CU. YD.

NET EXPORT 0 CUBIC YARDS 0 CUBIC YARDS 0 CU. YD.

IMPERVIOUS SURFACES
LOT AREA % OF LOT AREA

EXISTING PROPOSED EXISTING PROPOSED
STRUCTURE 2,124 S.F. 2,149 S.F. 31% 31%

HARDSCAPE
(INCL. DRIVEWAY) 430 S.F. 702 S.F. 6% 10%
TOTAL 2,554 S.F. 2,851 S.F. 37% 41%

EXTERIOR BUILDING LIGHTING
EXISTING EGRESS DOORS 3 PROPOSED EGRESS DOORS 6
EXISTING FIXTURE COUNT 3 PROPOSED FIXTURE COUNT 15

FIXTURE TYPE WATTAGE LUMUNES QUANTITY COMMENTS
RECESSED STAIR LIGHT 0 365 10
WALL SCONCE 3 365 4
RECESSED SOFFIT LIGHT 0 365 1
TOTAL 15

LANDSCAPE LIGHTING
EXISTING FIXTURE COUNT 10 PROPOSED FIXTURE COUNT 10

FIXTURE TYPE WATTAGE LUMUNES QUANTITY COMMENTS
GARDEN LIGHT 10 365 10
TOTAL 10
COMBINED TOTAL 25

ARCHITECT

BEACH BUS STUDIOS
349 THIRD STREET
LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651
(949) 376-3080
CONTACT: DAVE FRITH
[email protected]

STRUCTURAL ENGINEER
CORE STRUCTURE, INC.
23172 PLAZA POINTE DR., SUITE 145
LAGUNA HILLS, CA 92653
(949) 954-7244
CONTACT: AMIR DEIHIMI
[email protected]
TITLE 24 ENERGY CONSULTANT

CARSTAIRS ENERGY CALCULATIONS
2238 BAYVIEW HEIGHTS DR, SUITE E
LOS OSOS, CA 93402
(805) 904-9048
CONTACT: TIMOTHY CARSTAIRS
[email protected]

PROJECT CONSULTANTS

PROJECT ADDRESS
31421 HOLLY DR
LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651
OWNERS

AINA & GORDON MCBEAN
(949) 376-3080
LEGAL DESCRIPTION N TR 713 BLK LOT 205
ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. (APN) 056-061-16
PARCEL ID NO. (PIN) 1036

COUNTY OF ORANGE
ZONE DISTRICT R1

CONSTRUCTION TYPE V-B

BUILDING DOES NOT HAVE A FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM

PROJECT INFORMATION

SUMMARY OF EXTERIOR ARCHITECTURAL IMPROVEMENTS

1. ENCLOSE OUTDOOR PATIO, CONVERT TO 396 S.F. OF HABITABLE AREA

2. MAIN LEVEL DECK ADDITION OF 300 S.F.

3. THREE BAY WINDOWS

4. REPLACE AT GRADE EXTERIOR STAIR AT SIDE YARD AND ENTRY

5. NEW STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF TO REPLACE EXISTING

6. NEW HORIZONTAL SIDING

7. NEW DOORS AND WINDOW TO REPLACE EXISTING

8. NEW ROOF AT EXISTING ENTRYWAY

9. NEW NEW 6'Ø PRE-FABRICATED, FREESTANDING, SELF CONTAINED JACUZZI.

10. NEW AC COMPRESSOR

10.5 58 SF ADDITION TO AN EXISTING APPROVED 300 SF DECK