RESOLUTION NO. 25.XXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE DECISION
OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TO DENY DESIGN REVIEW 24-
1572 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-1688 FOR
MODIFICATIONS FOR A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING
(MAJOR REMODEL WITH ADDITIONS EXCEEDING 50%,
INCLUDING UPPER-LEVEL ADDITIONS), EXTERIOR CHANGES,
ELEVATED DECKS, AND LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS TO AN
EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING AND NEW DETACHED
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT (“ADU”), FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 607 SHORT STREET IN THE R-1, RESIDENTIAL
LOW-DENSITY ZONE, AND DETERMINE THAT THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DOES NOT
APPLY TO PROJECTS THAT ARE DISAPPROVED
WHEREAS, the property owners, Steve and Vicki McIntosh (“Applicant”), of 607 Short Street (the “Property”), applied for Design Review (“DR”) 24-1527 and Coastal Development Permit (“CDP”) 24-1688 for modifications for a new single-family dwelling (major remodel with additions exceeding 50%, including upper-level additions), exterior changes, elevated decks, and landscape improvements to an existing single-family dwelling and new detached accessory dwelling unit an existing single-family residence in the R-1 (Residential Low Density) zone pursuant to Laguna Beach Municipal Code (“LBMC”) Section 25.05.040(B)(1) and LBMC Sections 25.07.004 and 25.07.006 (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board conducted a duly-noticed public hearing on February 27, 2025 pursuant to Title 25, Zoning, of the Laguna Beach Municipal Code. The Design Review Board considered all public testimony on the proposed Project and all relevant public comments and all documents and evidence submitted, including but not limited to the staff report, attachments, and materials submitted by the Applicant and continued the project with direction to May 22, 2025; and
Attachment 1
24 -2- Reso. #
WHEREAS, on May 22, 2025, at the request of the applicant, the Design Review Board continued this project to June 26, 2025; and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board conducted a duly-noticed public hearing on June 26, 2025 pursuant to Title 25, Zoning, of the Laguna Beach Municipal Code. The Design Review Board considered all public testimony on the proposed Project and all relevant public comments and all documents and evidence submitted, including but not limited to the staff report, attachments, and materials submitted by the Applicant and continued the project with direction to September 11, 2025; and
WHEREAS, on September 11, 2025, at the request of the Applicant, the Design Review Board continued this project to October 9, 2025; and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board conducted a duly-noticed public hearing on October 9, 2025 pursuant to Title 25, Zoning, of the Laguna Beach Municipal Code. The Design Review Board considered all public testimony on the proposed Project and all relevant public comments and all documents and evidence submitted, including but not limited to the staff report, attachments, and materials submitted by the Applicant and denied Design Review 24-1572, finding the action statutorily exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to State CEQA guidelines Section 1527 ; and
WHEREAS, on October 22, 2025, Steve and Vicki McIntosh (“Appellant”) of 607 Short Street, filed an appeal of the Board’s Approval (the “Appeal”); and WHEREAS, on December 9, 2025, the City Council1 held a noticed public hearing to consider an Appeal and carefully considered the oral and documentary evidence and arguments presented. and carefully considered the oral and documentary evidence and arguments presented. 25 -3- Reso. #
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 grounds for appeal stated in Appellants’ notice of Appeal:
1. “We are appealing on the grounds that we do not feel the decision of the Design Review Board (DRB) majority followed DRB stated OBJECTIVE guidelines and municipal codes as outlined in Laguna Beach Municipal Code Section 25.05.040(H).” City Council Finds:
The Applicant’s Project requires two entitlements from the City: (1) DR 25-1572 for a new single-family dwelling (major remodel with additions exceeding 50%, including upper-level additions), exterior changes, elevated decks, and landscape improvements to an existing singlefamily dwelling, pursuant to LBMC Section 25.05.040(B)(1); and (2) CDP 24-1688 for the new development, which includes a new single-family dwelling, and detached ADU, under LBMC Sections 25.07.004 and 25.07.006. Below is an overview of the findings and facts relied upon by the Board to deny DR 25-1572 and an analysis supporting that the Board majority followed relevant Design Review Criteria.
As reflected in Board Resolution 24-1572 (Attachment 17) and directly below, the Board denied DR 24-1572 based on its inability to make Finding 1 for the Project under Laguna Beach Municipal Code Section 25.05.040 (Design Review):
26 -4- Reso. #
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.
No. The appearance of the upper-level addition is not adequately minimized when viewed from adjoining properties. The upper-level massing remains visually prominent and does not incorporate meaningful wall offsets, step-backs, or other architectural techniques to break up the vertical and horizontal planes, and this results in a bulky appearance that is inconsistent with the surrounding development pattern. The design lacks substantial wall articulation or additional step-backs from the side setback lines that would otherwise help reduce the perceived bulk and scale of the upper level.
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.
No. The proposed design has the upper-level addition’s mass focused on the southeastern portion of the existing residence thereby creating a visual imbalance and a sense of bulk that is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood’s scale 27 -5- Reso. #
and character. By concentrating the new upper-level additions on the southeastern portion of the residence, the project introduces massing that appears excessive and inconsistent with the neighborhood’s established character.
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.
No. The upper-level addition creates view impacts to neighboring properties by blocking existing canyon and ocean views. The addition also has public view impacts from Laguna Beach High School to the east of Short Street.
While the Board Resolution speaks for itself, the Board did deny DR 25-1572, based on its inability to make the required findings and justified such inability to make the findings on the details of the Project presented at the third and final hearing. Because the Board could not make the required Design Review findings, the Board did not substantively reach a conclusion on the CDP.
2. “We contend and will show that the statements (findings) below, resulting in our denial, are incorrect, bias (sic), contradictory and fully subjective.” 28 -6- Reso. #
City Council Finds:
The Board in their deliberations considered all design review criteria and found that the Project did not meet the required findings for design articulation, neighborhood compatibility, and view equity, and voted 3-2 to deny the Project. Most of the City’s Design Review criteria, are subjective by their nature and the Board in its review of the Project details, public testimony, and deliberations determined that the Project did not comply with criteria related to Design Articulation, Neighborhood Compatibility, and View Equity after weighing all evidence and as explained in its resolution.
3. “The California Housing Accountability Act (HAA) applies to our project as we have an application for both a single-family residence and an ADU which includes more than one residential unit. (Gov. Code 65589.5, subd. (h)(2).) HAA Requirements:
The HAA limits a local agency and requires compliance with objective standards: Our project complies with all applicable objective standards in the city's general plan, zoning, and ordinances. Objective standards are those that are definite and non-subjective, involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official. …………
We assert the guidelines have been applied subjectively to not allow us to build and develop on our property. There has been a disregard for much of what we have presented, the changes we have made and board directions we have complied with. Board members have issued conflicting statements and directions, contradicting themselves one meeting to the next, which shows an inability to understand the seriousness and importance of 29 -7- Reso. #
continuity of applications and judgements.
……….
In conclusion, we feel we have met the design review guidelines as outlined in Municipal Code section 25.05.040(H) and that our Design Review and Coastal Development Permit should be approved.”
City Council Finds:
Among other things, the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”) is a state housing law meant to limit the City’s ability to disapprove or conditions a “housing development project.” Under the HAA, when a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, the City cannot (1) deny the project or (2) impose a condition that could be seen as requiring a “lower density” by reducing the home size, unless it can make required findings. Pertinent to this item tonight is how the HAA defines “housing development project:”
“(h) The following definitions apply for the purposes of this section: . . . (2)“Housing development project” means a use consisting of any of the following:
(A) Residential units only.”
(emphasis added)
The plain language of the statute and its use of the plural “residential units” means the project must be creating more than just one residential unit; indeed, the term of art, "housing development project" contemplates one project that is developing a use of at least two residential units. Thus, for a project like this one – with an existing use of one unit (plus an addition) and the 30 -8- Reso. #
development of a use of a second unit (i.e., the ADU) – the HAA would not apply, as the only “residential unit” being developed or created is the ADU and thus it is not a project consisting of “residential units only.”
As a matter of due diligence, on November 5, 2025, City staff submitted a request for technical assistance from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) on this very issue of whether the HAA applies to a project that only involves an addition to an existing single-family home and an ADU.
On November 17, 2025, HCD responded that they had reviewed the inquiry, but would not be able to provide technical assistance on the matter “[d]ue to limited staff resources and fluctuating caseloads.” While HCD did posit that this refusal to answer should not be interpreted as an endorsement or rejection on the merits of the City’s inquiry, HCD’s refusal to posit that the HAA does apply to these types of projects does provide City staff a modicum of confidence in our position. HCD is typically not shy about staking out broad and expansive positions regarding the application of State housing laws to certain projects. Thus, HCD’s refusal to do so here may be instructive. Accordingly, staff’s position that the project does not qualify as a housing development project under the HAA because it adds only a single new residential unit to the property remains unchanged.
SECTION 3. The City Council hereby finds and determines, in accordance with CEQA, that the Project is categorically exempt pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15270(a)– CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves. 31 -9- Reso. #
SECTION 4. The City Council hereby denies the Appeal and sustains the Design Review Boards’s determination on the Project, as reflected in Resolution No. 24-1572 based on the findings and facts set forth in this Resolution for Design Review 24-1572.
ADOPTED this 9th day of December, 2025.
Alex Rounaghi, Mayor
ATTEST:
Ann Marie McKay, City Clerk
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, California
32