TERRY ♦MUDGE, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1201 Dove Street, Suite 625
Newport Beach, CA 92660
WWW.TERRYMUDGELLP.COM
__________________________
December 8, 2025
Mayor Alex Rounaghi
[email protected]
Mayor Pro Tem Mark Orgill
[email protected]
Councilmember Bob Whalen
[email protected]
Councilmember Sue Kempf
[email protected]
Councilmember Hallie Jones
[email protected]
Re: Appeal Of Design Review Board Denial Of Design Review 24-1572 And Coastal Development Permit 24-1688
Project Address: 607 Short Street, Laguna Beach (McIntosh) Our Clients: Miles and Alison Mahoney, 615 Short Street, Laguna Beach Date of Council Meeting: December 9, 2025
Dear Mayor Rounaghi, Mayor Pro Tem Orgill and Council Members Whalen, Kempf and Jones:
This office represents Miles and Alison Mahoney at 615 Short Street, the neighbors immediately on the south (left) side of the Project. This letter supports denying the appeal and upholding the Design Review Board (“DRB”) decision to deny Design Review 24-1572 and Coastal Development Permit 24-1688 at 607 Short Street.
I. Appellants Provide No Evidence The DRB’s Decision Was An Abuse of Discretion The Appellants have not met their significant burden to submit evidence demonstrating the DRB’s decision was the product of an abuse of discretion. Instead, the Appellants offer their opinion they have been treated unfairly, and they offer the staff recommendations in the Staff Reports prepared for the three DRB hearings, but Appellants offer no objective facts to justify a decision by the Council determining the DRB’s decision should be considered an “abuse of discretion” as defined by Civil Code § 1094.5. [Staff Report p. 4 at fn. 3.]
LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(2) defines the standard of review for appeals of decisions by the DRB where the decision was not supported by four or more affirmative votes. While Council does conduct a de novo review and exercises its independent judgment and discretion, Council must nevertheless presume that the decision or determination made by the DRB was reasonable, valid, and not an abuse of discretion. The Appellants have the burden of proof of demonstrating otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence presented. [LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(2).] [email protected]
WRITER’S DIRECT LINE:
(949) 204-3463
CARTER A. MUDGE, ESQ.
Appeal of DRB Denial of DR 24-1572 And Coastal Development Permit 24-1688 607 Short Street, Laguna Beach
December 8, 2025
________________________
As noted in Schreiber v. City of Los Angeles (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 549, 558, in analyzing this appeal, the Council must “review the entire administrative record for substantial evidence to support the agency's decision.” The Council does not reweigh the evidence; it must indulge all presumptions and resolve all conflicts in favor of the DRB’s decision. The DRB’s findings come before the Council “with a strong presumption as to their correctness and regularity.” Council may reverse the DRB’s decision only if, based on the evidence before it, a reasonable person could not have reached such decision. Appellants have the burden to demonstrate that insufficient evidence supports the DRB’s determination. [Id., and LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(2).] Appellants opine the DRB was wrong in concluding there was [LBMC § 25.05.040(H)] (2) insufficient design articulation; (9) lack of neighborhood compatibility; and (16) no view equity.
Yet Appellants offer only their subjective opinion and the staff recommendations in the underlying Staff Reports which the DRB expressly declined to adopt. In making these arguments, Appellants do not meet their obligation to “summarize the evidence on each point, favorable and unfavorable, and show how and why it is insufficient.”1 Rather, Appellants concentrate only on the evidence favoring their position and do not present “a fair summary of the evidence bearing on the challenged findings.” [Huong. at pp. 409–410.] Accordingly, Appellants have not met their burden of demonstrating error by the DRB. [Id.]
II. The Project Is Not In Conformity With the Requirements of the City’s Land Use Element
The Project is not in conformity with the requirements of the City’s Land Use Element which is why the DRB could not make the required findings to approve the project.
LUE GOAL 2: Preserve, enhance and respect the unique character and identity of Laguna’s residential neighborhoods.
LUE Policy 2.1 aims to “Maintain the diversity and uniqueness of individual neighborhoods.
Development standards and design review guidelines shall minimize the scale and bulk of new construction and/or renovation and require development to be compatible with the surrounding residences.” Policy 2.1 is partially implemented by Action 2.1.1, which requires that the building scale of proposed development be compatible in scale and mass with surrounding residences. A project may be found inconsistent when its massing or height is significantly out of rhythm or visual pattern with surrounding homes.
That is exactly the situation with the proposed Project. The Project does not respond to the Board’s concerns about existing upper-level massing and articulation and is neighborhood- incompatible.
LUE Policy 2.10 intends to “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.” This policy supports the design review criteria requiring protection of 1 Huong Que, Inc. v. Luu (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 400, 409, some italics and internal quotation marks omitted) (“Huong”).
Appeal of DRB Denial of DR 24-1572 And Coastal Development Permit 24-1688 607 Short Street, Laguna Beach
December 8, 2025
________________________
ocean, coastline, hillside and canyon views: Development should minimize view impairment from neighboring properties, and houses should be sited and articulated to reduce view obstruction.
In this case, the DRB found the project failed to meet the following required elements of LBMC § 25.05.040: (2) insufficient design articulation; (9) lack of neighborhood compatibility; and (16) no view equity.
Lack of Articulation: The DRB found, “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.” The Project presents large, unbroken wall planes on the South side of the property, does not adequately vary planes, materials or rooflines, and introduces a monolithic or imbalanced appearance inconsistent with neighborhood development on Short Street. The appeal must be denied because the Project conflicts with LUE Goal 2 and LUE Policy 2.1, and the DRB design articulation guidelines.
Incompatible with Neighborhood Character: The DRB found, “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 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.” The Project seeks to introduce height/bulk which are inconsistent with the established pattern of development in the Short Street neighborhood. The Project results in reduced visual separation of residences. The appeal must be denied because the Project conflicts with LUE Goal 2 and LUE Policy 2.1 and DRB neighborhood compatibility guidelines.
Fails to Protect Views: The DRB found, “The upper-level addition creates view impacts to neighboring properties by blocking existing views toward the hillside/canyon area and some ocean views. The addition also has view impacts from Laguna Beach High School to the east of Short Street.”
The proposed Project eclipses public and private views of the ocean, coastal hills and ridgelines from the Mahoney’s home. It introduces mass above or within an existing view corridor, fails to adequately step back or articulate upper levels and does not demonstrate a reasonable effort to balance development potential with neighboring view expectations. The appeal must be denied because the Project conflicts with LUE Goal 2 and specifically LUE Policy 2.10 Appeal of DRB Denial of DR 24-1572 And Coastal Development Permit 24-1688 607 Short Street, Laguna Beach
December 8, 2025
________________________
III. The Staff Report is Correct- The Housing Accountability Act Does Not Apply to This Project
A. HAA Does Not Apply to Projects to Build Individual Single Family Homes Appellants contend the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”) applies to this Project, asserting, “[t]he 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).).”
It is true that under the HAA, “[w]hen a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria,’ the project cannot be denied or reduced in density without the specified health and safety findings.” 2 Thus, under the HAA, an agency cannot “use what might be called a ‘subjective’ development ‘policy’ (for example, ‘suitability’)” to avoid making the findings otherwise required to disapprove a housing development project.” 3
Staff went to great lengths to consult with the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”), which declined to insert itself in this case. With a detailed analysis, the Staff Report correctly concludes at pp. 20-21, the HAA does not apply to this project.
Staff is entirely correct, and they are correct not just as a matter of opinion but as a matter of law.
The Court of Appeal in Reznitsky v. County of Marin (2022) 79.Cal.App.5th 1016, 2021 held, “the HAA does not apply to a project to build an individual single-family home.” One of the principal purposes of the HAA is to increase affordable housing stock. [California Renters at p. 835.] Here, the Appellants seek to remodel an existing single-family home and add a detached ADU. The Project proposes one new housing unit- the detached ADU. The Reznitsky court held that as a matter of law and fact that the HAA does not apply where, as here, a project seeks to build an individual unit. [Reznitsky at p. 1022.]
B. The Project is Not Exempt From CDP Requirements Involving Detached ADUs A Coastal Development Permit is required because this is a major remodel to an existing home where the additions exceeds 50 percent and for the proposed detached 412-square-foot ADU.
The Staff Report notes at p. 3 that “the Board did not make any substantive decision on CDP 24- 1688” because it could not make the findings to approve the Design Review application. If Council makes the findings to overturn the DRB decision on the DR 24-1572 then the Council considers CDP 24-1688 in a de novo hearing. [Staff Report p. 5.]
2 California Renters Legal Advocacy & Education Fund v. County of San Mateo (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 820, 835 (California Renters”).
3 Honchariw v. County of Stanislaus (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1066, 1076-1077.
Appeal of DRB Denial of DR 24-1572 And Coastal Development Permit 24-1688 607 Short Street, Laguna Beach
December 8, 2025
________________________
Assistant City Attorney Patrick Donegan was lead counsel in Riddick v. City of Malibu (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 492 which discussed at length the issue of whether the City of Malibu’s Local Coastal Plan and the requirement for Coastal Development Permits applied to attached ADUs. There was no disagreement in that case that a CDP was required for a detached ADU, and though Appellants in this case contend (erroneously) that the HAA applies to the Project, they do not and cannot contend they are exempt from obtaining a CDP for the entire project.
Appellants’ appeal contends their “Coastal Development Permit should be approved” but does not address the findings required to approve the CDP. Appellants have offered no evidence which justifies why their CDP application should be approved. For these reasons, the Council should uphold the decision of the DRB denying the Appellants’ CDP application.
IV. The Project Does Not Meet The Requirements For Issuance of a CDP Under the City’s certified Local Coastal Program (LCP), the City must make several required findings before issuing a CDP. [LBMC §§ 25.07.004, 25.07.012, 25.05.040(A)(8).] A project that fails the design review criteria cannot satisfy these required findings.
A. CDP Finding – Conformity with the Certified Local Coastal Program A project must be consistent with the City’s:
• Land Use Element
• Land Use Plan policies relating to neighborhood compatibility The DRB found the Project lacked design articulation, was incompatible with the neighborhood character, and failed to protect significant coastal views. [LBMC § 25.05.040(H)(2), (9) and (16).] Lack of Articulation: The DRB found, “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.” Incompatible with Neighborhood Character: The DRB found, “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 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.” Appeal of DRB Denial of DR 24-1572 And Coastal Development Permit 24-1688 607 Short Street, Laguna Beach
December 8, 2025
________________________
Fails to Protect Views: The DRB found, “The upper-level addition creates view impacts to neighboring properties by blocking existing views toward the hillside/canyon area and some ocean views. The addition also has view impacts from Laguna Beach High School to the east of Short Street.”
The fact that the DRB could not make these findings combined with the Appellants not providing any actual evidence that there was abuse of discretion in the DRB making these findings yields the conclusion Council must deny the appeal of the Design Review Board’s decision to deny the Coastal Development Permit.
V. Conclusion
The Appellants provide no evidence the considered decision of the Design Review Board, which was reached after three long hearings, was arrived at because the DRB did not proceed in a manner required by law, or its decision was not supported by the findings, or the findings were not supported by the evidence. In other words, that the DRB abused its discretion. Instead, the Appellants passionately argue their feelings and opinions that the deliberate decision of the Board must be overturned. Opinion is not evidence and the Council is required to give deference to the DRB’s decision and overrule it only if it finds the Appellants have proven abuse of discretion by a preponderance of the evidence.
The DRB justifiably could not make the objective required findings because the Project is inconsistent with the City’s Land Use Element and does not meet the criteria for issuance of a Coastal Development Permit. Mr. and Mrs. Mahoney respectfully request the Council adopt Option A in the Staff Report and uphold the decision of the Design Review Board denying Design Review 24-1572 and Coastal Development Permit 24-1688 at 607 Short Street.
Very truly yours,
CARTER A. MUDGE
/gus
cc:
client
Dave Kiff, City Manager
[email protected]
Megan Garibaldi, City Attorney
[email protected]
Appeal of DRB Denial of DR 24-1572 And Coastal Development Permit 24-1688 607 Short Street, Laguna Beach
December 8, 2025
________________________
Patrick Donegan, Assistant City Attorney
[email protected]
Matthew Schneider, Director of Community Development
[email protected]
Anthony Viera, Deputy Director of Community Development [email protected]
Shaveta Sharma, Senior Planner
[email protected]
Ann Marie McKay, City Clerk
[email protected]