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:
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:
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 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.
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 23 -7- Reso. #
above Coast Highway and due to the elevation and placement of the deck in relation to Ocean View Street.
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 24 -8- Reso. #
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.
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.
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 26 -10- Reso. #
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.
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 27 -11- Reso. #
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, 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