Staff Report — Laguna Beach City Council, December 9, 2025

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date:

December 9, 2025
APPEAL
A
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DENIAL OF 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, LOCATED AT 607 SHORT STREET IN THE R-1,

RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY ZONE, AND STATUTORY EXEMPTION UNDER

THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15270(A)
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:

1. Conduct a Public Hearing, including receiving a staff report and taking public testimony and evidence relating to the consideration of Design Review 24-1572 and Coastal Development Permit 24-1688, and the California Environmental Quality Act exemption under Section 15270 of the state CEQA Guidelines; and

2. Following deliberation, take action to either adopt a Resolution upholding the decision of the Design Review Board to deny the project (Option A), or adopt a Resolution granting the appeal and overturning the Design Review Board’s denial of the project (Option B):
a. Option A – Uphold Design Review Board Denial: Adopt a Resolution titled, “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”, upholding the Design Review Board’s denial of Design Review 24-1572 and finding the denial of the Project exempt from CEQA.
b. Option B – Overturn Design Review Board Denial: Adopt a Resolution titled, “A

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH,

CALIFORNIA, OVERTURNING 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 APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF DR 24-1572 AND CDP 24-1688 AT 607 SHORT STREET December 9, 2025

Page 2 of 23 ends

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, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 24-1572 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-1688, AND FINDING THE PROJECT CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM

THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO STATE CEQA GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15303 (CLASS 3) AND 15304 (CLASS 4)”, overturning the Design Review Board’s denial of Design Review 24-1572 and finding the approval of the Project exempt from CEQA.

SUMMARY OF THE MATTER
The property owners, Steve and Vicki McIntosh (“Applicant ”)1, of 607 Short Street (the “Property”) applied for Design Review (“DR”) 24-1572 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 singlefamily dwelling, and new detached accessory dwelling unit (“ADU”) associated with an existing singlefamily dwelling, pursuant to Laguna Beach Municipal Code (“LBMC”) Section 25.05.040(B)(1). Design review is required for the new single-family dwelling (major remodel with additions exceeding 50%, including upper-level additions), exterior changes, elevated decks, and landscape improvements pursuant to LBMC Section 25.05.040(B)(1), and a CDP is required for the new development, including a new singlefamily dwelling and detached ADU, under LBMC Sections 25.07.004 and 25.07.006.

On February 27, 2025, the Design Review Board (“Board”) held a duly noticed public hearing and considered the project. (The February 27, 2025 Staff Report, Minutes, Public Comments, Plans, and Transcript, are attached as Attachments 4 through 8, respectively.) After receiving input from staff, the Applicant, and public comments, the Board discussed the project, provided direction to the Applicant, and continued the hearing to a date certain of May 22, 2025 with a 5-0 vote. The Board identified the following issues with the proposed project:
• Neighborhood compatibility as it relates to the upper-level addition. • Neighborhood compatibility relating to the size, mass, and articulation of the home with the upperlevel addition being primarily along the eastern elevation of the existing residence. • The impacts to views of the neighboring property to the south.

After the first hearing in February, the applicant requested an additional continuance to a date certain of June 26, 2025, to allow the applicant additional time to revise the plans. This further continuance requested by the applicant was granted by the Board at the May 22, 2025 Board hearing. On June 26, 2025, the Board held a duly noticed public hearing to consider a revised project. A summary of the changes that Applicant made to the Project are noted below:
1 The Project’s designer is Drew Blake, who is also within the definition of Applicant.

APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF DR 24-1572 AND CDP 24-1688 AT 607 SHORT STREET December 9, 2025

Page 3 of 23 ends

• Floor Area Reduction: Upper-level addition reduced by 47 sq. ft., from 807 sq. ft. to 760 sq. ft. • Floor Area Reduction: Lower-level reduced by 169 sq. ft. • Pulled the upper-level addition back 5’-0” from the rear property line • Proposed removal of an existing large tree at the front of the site to improve views of the hillsides and canyons
• The large window at the lower stairwell was eliminated to improve privacy for the neighbor to the south
Following the public hearing, the Board made a motion to grant a third and final hearing for the project, and voted to continue the project to a date certain of September 11, 2025 by a 5-0 vote. (The June 26, 2025 Staff Report, Minutes, Public Comments, Plans, and Transcript, are attached as Attachments 9 through 13, respectively.) Prior to the September 11, 2025 hearing, the Applicant requested a continuance to a date certain of October 9, 2025 in order to work with neighbors on the project’s design. The further continuance requested by the Applicant was granted by the Board at the September 11, 2025 Board hearing. On October 9, 2025, the Board held a duly-noticed public hearing to consider a revised project (the “Project”). A summary of the changes that the Applicant made to the Project after the second hearing are noted below:
• The upper-level addition was pulled back an additional 5’-0” (10’-0” total as compared to the design presented at the first hearing) from the rear property line • Massing of the upper-level addition was shifted towards the street elevation and away from adjoining neighbors
The Board considered all public testimony on the proposed Project, relevant public comments and documents, and evidence submitted, including but not limited to the staff report, attachments, and materials submitted by the Applicant and other parties, and adopted Resolution No. 24-1572 denying DR 23-1572, by a 3-2 vote, (the “Board Denial”). (The October 9, 2025 Board Staff Report, Resolution No. 24-1572, Plans, Elevations, Transcript, and Public Comments are attached as Attachments 14-19, respectively.) Because the Board could not make the required findings for DR 23-1572, the Board did not make any substantive decision on CDP 24-1688 as both entitlements were required for approval.

On October 22, 2025, the Applicant filed an appeal of the Board’s denial of the Project (the “Appeal”) (Attachment 3). The Applicant contends that the Board erred in denying the application for the following reasons:

2. “We contend and will show that the statements (findings) below, resulting in our denial, are incorrect, bias (sic), contradictory and fully subjective.

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).)
APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF DR 24-1572 AND CDP 24-1688 AT 607 SHORT STREET December 9, 2025

Page 4 of 23 ends

…
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 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.”
This staff report provides a response to the Appellant’s contentions raised in the Appeal.

LBMC Section 25.05.070 requires certain forms of public notice for an appeal. Public notice was duly provided to consider the Appeal of the Project for the December 9, 2025 City Council meeting in accordance with LBMC Section 25.05.065. Notices were mailed to owners and occupants within a 300-foot and 100- foot radius of the Property, respectively, posted on the Property, and published in a newspaper of general circulation. (Attachment 20.)

CITY COUNCIL APPEAL PROCEDURES
A. Standards of Review
Pursuant to LBMC Section 25.05.070, decisions of the Board may be appealed to the City Council by the applicant or any owner of property within 300 feet of the subject property.

The City Council may uphold, reverse, or remand any appealed decision. (LBMC § 25.05.070(E)(3)(a).) In particular, in reversing a decision, there must be three affirmative votes approving the reversal by adoption of a resolution that sets forth in writing the findings relied on to conclude that the appealed decision was in error or an abuse of discretion.3 (LBMC § 25.05.070(E)(3)(a).) Further, pursuant to LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(2)(d), the City Council’s review is limited to “the plans that were the subject of the decision or determination by the approval authority”; if new plans are submitted, the City Council “shall not consider or act on” them but may determine to remand those plans to the approval authority “for further proceedings pursuant to such direction as may be given the City Council.”

1. Coastal Development Permit
LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(1) sets forth the procedures and review criteria for non-design review appeals, such as a coastal development permit. For that review, the City Council shall not be limited to the grounds stated for the appeal and shall not be limited to the evidence that was presented to the Board. The City 3 An abuse of discretion is defined as the following: (1) the City has “not proceeded in the manner required by law”; (2) the City “decision is not supported by the findings”; or (3) the “findings are not supported by the evidence.” (Civil Code § 1094.5.) APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF DR 24-1572 AND CDP 24-1688 AT 607 SHORT STREET December 9, 2025

Page 5 of 23 ends

Council shall exercise its independent judgment and discretion as to the evidence presented at its hearing.

Nevertheless, there shall be a presumption that the decision or determination made by the Board was reasonable, valid, and not an abuse of discretion; and the appellant shall have the burden of proof of demonstrating otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence presented.

In its consideration of CDP 24-1688, the City Council is not limited to either the evidence in the record or the deliberations of the Board. The Applicant or members of the public may present new evidence for the City Council’s consideration, and the City Council is free to deliberate without being limited to the Board’s findings – in other words, a de novo hearing.

2. Design Review
LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(2) sets forth the procedures and review criteria for City Council requests for review of design review decisions. With respect to the standard of review for those decisions, subsection (E)(2)(b) provides:

If the decision or determination was not supported by four or more affirmative votes of the approval authority, upon hearing the appeal or request for review, the city council shall conduct a de novo review of the underlying application but shall be limited to the grounds specifically stated in the notice of appeal, if an appeal was filed, and to the evidence, including plans, that was presented to the approval authority. The city council shall exercise its independent judgment and discretion as to such evidence. Nevertheless, there shall be a presumption that the decision or determination made by the approval authority was reasonable, valid, and not an abuse of discretion; and the appellant, if there is one, shall have the burden of proof of demonstrating otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence, including plans, presented.

Accordingly, in its consideration of DR 24-1572, which was denied 3-2, the City Council shall conduct a de novo review, but is limited to considering the evidence that was presented to the Board and to the grounds specifically stated in the notice of appeal. Nevertheless, given the lack of four affirmative votes, the City Council exercises its independent judgment on the evidence.

3. City Council Options
The City Council has numerous options in consideration of this matter, which are listed below.

1. Adopt the attached Resolution upholding the Board Denial, and determining that the CEQA does not apply to the denial of the Project under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15270; 5

2. Adopt the attached Resolution granting the appeal and overturning the Board Denial, with findings in support of overturning the Board Denial and approving the Project, subject to conditions of approval;6 or
5 This option is identified as Option A under Recommendation No. 2 on page one of this agenda report. 6 This option is identified as Option B under Recommendation No. 2 on page one of this agenda report.

APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF DR 24-1572 AND CDP 24-1688 AT 607 SHORT STREET December 9, 2025

Page 6 of 23 ends

Direct staff to prepare and return at a future meeting with a Resolution remanding DR 24-1572 and CDP 24-1688 to the Board, with findings in support of the remand and further direction to the Board.

DISCUSSION
The Board held three public hearings on February 27, 2025, June 26, 2025, and October 9, 2025 and adopted a Resolution denying the Project on October 9, 2025. A summary of the public hearings is set forth below.9 A. February 27, 2025 Board Hearing

1. Staff Report
The Project is located on the western side of Short Street across from Laguna Beach High School. The neighborhood consists of both one- and two-story single-family residences with a variety of traditional architectural styles.

PROPERTY AERIAL PHOTO
9 The summaries and charts within this staff report are not exhaustive of all commentary or deliberations, but are intended to be a tool to aid the City Council in its review of the evidence.

APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF DR 24-1572 AND CDP 24-1688 AT 607 SHORT STREET December 9, 2025

Page 7 of 23 ends

PROPERTY SITE PHOTO
Figure 1: Aerial View and Street Frontage of Project Site Figure 2: Colored elevation of project

2. Staff Presentation
Staff summarized the proposed improvements to the existing residence and construction of a detached ADU, and presented the recommendation in the staff report. Staff acknowledged public comments received after the publication of the agenda and generally relating to privacy concerns, mass and scale, and view equity concerns with the Project. Staff recommended the Board consider these comments as part of the Board’s evaluation of the project’s compliance with the Design Review criteria.

APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF DR 24-1572 AND CDP 24-1688 AT 607 SHORT STREET December 9, 2025

Page 8 of 23 ends

3. Board Ex Parte Disclosures
Board
Member
Ex Parte Disclosure Transcript
Page Nos.

Jessica
Gannon
Met with Steve and Vicki McIntosh, Alison and Miles Mahoney, and Steve Kawaratani.
p. 1 of 16
MJ Coveny Met with Steve and Vicki McIntosh, Alison and Miles Mahoney, and Steve Kawaratani.
p. 1 of 16
Louis Weil Spoke with Alison and Miles Mahoney, and Steve Kawaratani, and spoke with Steve McIntosh.
p. 1 of 16
Thomas
Gibbs
Met with Steve and Vicki McIntosh, Alison and Miles Mahoney, and Steve Kawaratani.
p. 1 of 16
Christine
Thalman
Met with Drew Blake, Steve and Vicki McIntosh, Alison and Miles Mahoney, and Steve Kawaratani.
p. 1 of 16

4. Applicant Presentation
Mr. Blake, the project designer, and Mr. McIntosh, the property owner, both provided comments during the Applicant presentation. Mr. Blake noted that the second-story addition at 607 Short Street was designed to provide functional space, an improved kitchen, and better ocean views. He noted the home is smaller than most in the neighborhood and that the design was intentionally kept low in height, with shallow roof slopes, narrow windows, and setbacks to reduce view and privacy impacts. The remodel would bring the home to about 2,600 square feet, still below the neighborhood average. Blake emphasized efforts to maintain neighborhood compatibility, preserve open space, and address neighbor concerns, including being open to adjustments such as opaque glass. He concluded that the goal is a sensitive, beach-style design that benefits both the Macintoshes and the neighborhood.

Mr. McIntosh stated that the remodel was intended to support multi-generational living and aging in place.

He emphasized their long history of being good neighbors and noted that their lot is surrounded by five two-story homes with decks and views. He stated that the goal is to modestly achieve similar functionality while minimizing impacts. He reviewed neighbors’ concerns and described the project’s privacy mitigations including landscaping, lattice, and setbacks illustrated through site photos and view comparisons.

5. Public Testimony
During the public hearing, four individuals provided public testimony. The public testimony is summarized below:

Commenter Summary of Comment Transcript
Page Nos.

Miles
Mahoney
Expressed concerns that the proposed upstairs addition would significantly affect their privacy, light, and views. Although they appreciated past cooperation with the Macintoshes, they were disappointed that the Macintoshes had not reduced the scale of the design to address their concerns.
p. 3-4 of 16
APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF DR 24-1572 AND CDP 24-1688 AT 607 SHORT STREET December 9, 2025

Page 9 of 23 ends

Alison
Mahoney
Expressed support for the Applicant’s right to build but opposed the project because it would significantly reduce their privacy, natural light, views, and overall quality of life. They noted the second-story addition would block sunlight and air, create intrusive overlook into their home and yard, and set an unfavorable community precedent. They asked the Board to make a balanced decision that protects both households. p. 4-5 of 16
Steve
Kawaratani
Noted that the issues with the proposed second-story addition are its excessive length and its proximity to the Mahoney property. He recommended shortening and shifting the upper floor to reduce impacts on the neighbors. He noted that the design would significantly affect the Mahoneys’ air, light, and views, and emphasized that the McIntoshes’ desire for a view should not override their neighbors’ rights. While second stories are common in the area, he said the concern is the scale and placement of this one, and suggested relocating the upper level or spanning it across the lot for better neighborhood compatibility. p. 5-6 of 16
Jeff Amos Expressed concern that the proposed second-story addition behind his home would significantly reduce his privacy and openness he and his husband have valued for 25 years. He explained that the new second floor would overlook their backyard and patio, creating a more enclosed feeling and blocking views of the hill. He asked whether the design could be modified to lessen these impacts and better fit the neighborhood. He noted that both he and his neighbor Jeanne Myers submitted letters to the Board outlining these concerns and encouraged finding a compromise that respects both the remodel goals and neighbors’ privacy. p. 6-7 of 16

6. Applicant Rebuttal
Steve McIntosh addressed neighbor concerns by walking through view and privacy comparisons, noting there is 16 feet between the homes and that both properties already experience some mutual visibility. They described proposed mitigations, including removing a tree to improve the Mahoneys’ views and adjusting design elements to reduce privacy impacts. They also showed how each of the Mahoneys’ rooms would retain some views of sky or ocean. The Applicant opposed suggestions to shift the entire second-story mass across the width of the lot, arguing it would create significant privacy conflicts for both households and violate design review guidelines. (Attachment 7 [Transcript], p. 7 of 16).

7. Board Questions and Responses
Topic Question and Response Transcript
Page Nos.
[Commenter]
Project Siting Asked about the feasibility of moving the addition to the opposite elevation of the residence. The Applicant responded that it would be challenging due to the existing floor plan and location of utilities.
p. 8 of 16
[Gibbs, Steve
McIntosh]
APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF DR 24-1572 AND CDP 24-1688 AT 607 SHORT STREET December 9, 2025

Page 10 of 23 ends

8. Board Deliberation
Topic Discussion Transcript
Page Nos.
[Commenter]
View Equity,
Privacy;
Neighborhood
Compatibility;
Expressed concerns that addition would impact both hillside and ocean views for the property to the south.

Recommended considering a redesign that shifted more of the addition across the residence, rather than along just the northeastern elevation. Recommended minimizing the length of the addition away from the rear lot line to be in line with the home to the south in order to minimize privacy and view impacts. Coveny and Thalman concurred with Weil regarding the reduction of the length of the upper-level addition.
p. 6, 8-10, 13
of 16 [Gannon,
Weil, Coveny,
and Thalman]
Mass and Scale;
Neighborhood
Compatibility
Clarified that the neighborhood has many two-story homes, but that the project’s addition is not balanced. Stated that development must respect both community context and the lot’s inherent limitations. p. 15 of 16
[Weil,
Coveny]
Design
Articulation,
Mass and Scale,
Privacy
Stated that the project is well-designed, with appropriate articulation and addresses privacy through opaque second-story windows. The proposed two-story structure was compatible with the
neighborhood, noting that nearby homes, including the Mahoneys’ have larger mass and scale. Concluded that the 16-foot separation between homes provides adequate light and air and that the massing is consistent with development patterns in the area.
p. 9-10 of 16
[Gibbs]

9. Board Action
The Board voted 5-0 to continue the project to a date certain of May 22, 2025. Subsequently, the Applicant requested a further continuance to June 26, 2025 to have additional time to prepare the revised plans. The Board granted the further continuance at the May 22, 2025 public hearing.

B. June 26, 2025 Board Review

1. Staff Report
In the published staff report to the Board, staff noted changes the Applicant had made to the project since the original hearing and provided the following summary of changes to the project:
• Floor Area Reduction of the upper-level addition by 47 sq. ft. from 807 sq. ft. to 760 sq. ft. • Floor Area Reduction of 169 sq. ft. of the lower-level • Total reduction of 216 sq. ft. of living area
• Pulled the upper-level addition back 5’-0” from the rear property line • Proposed removal of a large existing tree at the front of the site to improve views of the hillsides and canyons
APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF DR 24-1572 AND CDP 24-1688 AT 607 SHORT STREET December 9, 2025

Page 11 of 23 ends

• The large window at the lower stairwell was eliminated to improve privacy for the neighbor to the south

2. Staff Presentation
Staff presented the revised Project on Short Street, highlighting modifications made since the first hearing, updated elevations, and proposed improvements. Staff acknowledged public concerns received on the project regarding the mass and scale of the project and privacy and view impacts. Staff noted the Board should consider whether these impacts affect the project's ability to meet the Design Review criteria.

3. Board Ex Parte Disclosures
Board
Member
Ex Parte Disclosure Transcript
Page Nos.

Bauta Met with Steve and Vicki McIntosh, Alison and Miles Mahoney, and Steve Kawaratani.
p. 1 of 18
Coveny Met with Steve and Vicki McIntosh, and Alison and Miles Mahoney. p. 1 of 18 Weil Met with Steve and Vicki McIntosh, Alison and Miles Mahoney, and Steve Kawaratani.
p. 1 of 18
Gannon Met with Steve and Vicki McIntosh, Alison and Miles Mahoney. p. 1 of 18 Gibbs Met with Steve McIntosh and Alison Mahoney. p. 1 of 18

4. Applicant Presentation
Mr. Blake, the designer for the project, presented the revised project, highlighting key changes made in response to Board feedback from the initial hearing. He shared key changes made including pulling back the rear wall by five feet, reducing the upper-level square footage, removing a large front tree to improve light and views, adding opaque windows for privacy, and reducing a closet size. Steve McIntosh then summarized prior Board comments and explained how each was addressed, emphasizing that the revised design maintains the Mahoneys’ primary ocean views, improves some secondary views due to tree removal, and aligns with the design review guidelines. They argued that view equity is preserved and that the neighbors retain full primary views along with expanded side views.

5. Public Testimony
During the public hearing, five individuals provided public testimony. The public testimony is summarized below:

Commenter Summary of Comment Transcript
Page Nos.

Miles
Mahoney
Expressed frustration that, despite multiple meetings and offering alternatives, none of their input was incorporated into the revised design.

They argued that moving the second-story mass five feet forward and removing a tree did not meaningfully address concerns about massing, view equity, light, or air. He urged the Board to require exploration of other design options—such as shifting the addition to a different part of p. 4 of 22
APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF DR 24-1572 AND CDP 24-1688 AT 607 SHORT STREET December 9, 2025

Page 12 of 23 ends

the property—which they felt had been previously suggested but not pursued.

Alison
Mahoney
Stated the main concern remained the unchanged 40-foot flat wall massing proposed next door, which would significantly impact their privacy, light, and views by enclosing their home on two sides. Their homes were at the same elevation, and the second-story design would directly affect all three upstairs rooms, including private areas like the master bathroom. Alison Mahoney stated that landscaping cannot mitigate these impacts, and believed feasible, less intrusive alternatives exist but had not been explored. Alison Mahoney requested a balanced approach that protected their privacy, home value, and use while still allowing their neighbors to improve their property.
p. 5 of 22
Steve
Kawaratani
Stated that Chair Gannon noted that the project would completely block a significant view and recommended a more traditional design with the second story spanning the full roof width, rather than concentrating mass on the left side. Board Member Gibbs supported the project, but the other members raised concerns. Board Member Weil flagged the extension’s impact, advised pulling it back, and emphasized that cost isn’t part of design review. Member Coveny suggested the addition might be better placed on the opposite side and expressed concern about blocking the Mahoneys’ back bedroom views and hillside vistas. Despite minor revisions, the design still resulted in substantial view loss. Given this, the findings for a third hearing which requires good-faith responsiveness to prior direction did not appear to have been met.
p. 5-6 of 22
Vicki
McIntosh
Noted that City staff has consistently supported the project, noting that this should carry significant weight. They pointed out that the home is a one-story house surrounded by two-story homes and that denying the project seems inconsistent with what others in the neighborhood already have. They felt the project is compatible with the area, has been restaked and revised multiple times, and that the applicants have already made substantial accommodations, including removing a large tree and reducing square footage. They commended staff’s work and encouraged consideration of their support.
p. 6-7 of 22
Speaker #15 Stated that City staff had consistently supported the project and believed this should carry significant weight. They argued the proposed two-story home is compatible with a neighborhood already full of two-story houses and isn’t blocking beach views. They expressed concern that the project remains stalled despite multiple revisions and accommodations, including tree removal and reduced square footage.
p. 7 of 22

6. Applicant Rebuttal
Mr. McIntosh, property owner, emphasized that the Project would provide a primary ocean view while only affecting roughly 25 degrees of their neighbor’s secondary hillside views, an impact offset by the additional 25 degrees of view they regained with removal of the tree. Mr. McIntosh opined that the Project represented APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF DR 24-1572 AND CDP 24-1688 AT 607 SHORT STREET December 9, 2025

Page 13 of 23 ends

fair view equity, meaning a balanced and reasonable accommodation for both parties. He stated that he evaluated all alternatives suggested by the Mahoneys, but they were deemed infeasible due to view and privacy issues. Mr. McIntosh asserted that despite past conversations where neighbors expressed that owners should generally be free to build on their property, and earlier indications that the Mahoneys would ultimately accept the design, they are now opposing it. The addition is not too large as it represents about 31% of their total home, which is smaller than comparable ratios for neighboring properties, including the Mahoneys’ home. He concluded by stating that the project is fair, reasonable, code compliant, and respectfully requested approval.

7. Board Questions and Responses
Topic Question and Response Transcript
Page Nos.
[Commenter]
Project Design Asked if the Applicant was open to modifying the upper-level addition by pulling it back further. Mr. McIntosh responded that they were generally amenable to some reduction.
p. 8-9 of 22
[Bauta, Mr.

McIntosh]

8. Board Deliberation
Topic Discussion Transcript
Page Nos.
[Commenter]
View Equity, Design
Articulation,
Nieghborhood
compatibility
Noted the Project’s long expansive massing and that the fivefoot reduction was insufficient to protect existing views. The Board members stated that the lack of articulation was
inconsistent with the village and that a different design may be more suitable.
p. 9-10 of 40
[Gannon, Weil]
View Equity, Mass and
Scale, Design
Articulation
Directed the Applicant to evaluate the potential to shift the massing to the other side and towards the street elevation, as this would help pull the addition further away from the rear of the lot and help preserve view equity.
p. 11-13 of 22
[Coveny,
Bauta]
Views Stated that the concern is with views from the neighbor’s office.
p. 13 of 22
[Coveny,
Bauta]
View Equity The central unresolved issue is the view impact of the second-story addition and indicated that an additional 5–6 feet of retreat would meaningfully improve view equity.

Noted that privacy concerns are manageable and that the Mahoneys’ primary ocean-facing views would remain
unaffected.
p. 11-12 of 22
[Bauta, Gibbs]

9. Board Action
The Board voted 5-0 to continue the hearing to a date certain of September 11, 2025. The Applicant subsequently requested a further continuance to October 9, 2025 to allow the Applicant to have additional APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF DR 24-1572 AND CDP 24-1688 AT 607 SHORT STREET December 9, 2025

Page 14 of 23 ends

conversations with neighbors regarding the redesign of the project. The Board granted this continuance at the September 11, 2025 public hearing.

C. October 9, 2025 Board Denial

1. Staff Report
In the published staff report to the Board, staff noted changes the Applicant had made to the Project since the second hearing and provided the following summary of changes to the Project:
• The upper-level addition was pulled back an additional 5’-0” (10’-0” total as compared to the design presented at the first hearing) from the rear property line • Massing of the upper-level addition has been shifted towards the street elevation and away from adjoining neighbors

2. Staff Presentation
Staff presented the revised Project on Short Street, highlighting modifications made since the second hearing and presenting updated elevations.

3. Board Ex Parte Disclosures
Board
Member
Ex Parte Disclosure Transcript
Page Nos.

Jessica
Gannon
Met with Drew Blake, neighbors, and Steve Kawaratani. p. 1 of 18 Louis Weil Met with Drew Blake, neighbors, and Steve Kawaratani. p. 1 of 18 MJ Coveny Met with Drew Blake, neighbors, and Steve Kawaratani. p. 1 of 18 Thomas
Gibbs
Met with Drew Blake, Steve McIntosh, Alison Mahoney, and Steve Kawaratani.
p. 1 of 18

4. Applicant Presentation
Mr. Blake, the designer for the Project, presented the revised Project, highlighting key changes made in response to Board feedback from the second hearing. He stated he met with the neighbors at 615 Short Street, reviewed their view concerns from an upstairs office, and explored design alternatives such as shifting or mirroring the project. Those alternatives, according to Mr. Blake, created privacy issues. Instead, the project was pulled back an additional five feet, for a total of ten feet, to reopen coastal views toward Bird Rock from the neighbor’s office. Removing the large front tree also restored some hillside views for them. Since both rooms cannot have both ocean and mountain views, the rear room will retain ocean views while the front gains mountain views.

The property owner, Steve McIntosh, noted several design changes to address privacy and massing concerns, including shortening the upper floor, pulling the deck back, and adding materials and roof articulation to break up the façade. The family room and stairwell were shifted to balance the upper-level layout and eliminate the appearance of building only on one side. Mr. McIntosh asserted that the proposed master bedroom location preserves a key view corridor toward Main Beach, Bird Rock, and Catalina, views the neighbors enjoy, while moving it back would eliminate those views and create major privacy issues.

APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF DR 24-1572 AND CDP 24-1688 AT 607 SHORT STREET December 9, 2025

Page 15 of 23 ends

Mr. McIntosh stated that suggestions to shift the addition north or behind the Mahoneys’ chimney were thoroughly studied over many years but would still block views, offer no view corridor, and violate privacy guidelines for multiple neighbors. According to Mr. McIntosh, with the removal of the large front tree, the neighbor’s view was increased. Mr. McIntosh stated that the proposed Project would impact only about 25 degrees of the neighbor’s secondary hillside views, and that the additional five-foot pullback also restores coastal and hillside views for the neighbors.

5. Public Testimony
During the public hearing, two individuals provided public testimony. The public testimony is summarized below:

Commenter Summary of Comment Transcript
Page Nos.

Alison
Mahoney
Stated that they support home improvements and second stories in general, but they oppose this particular design. After the June 27th DRB direction, they met only with Drew. During that visit, they observed that the proposed second story would create a continuous 39-foot wall affecting all their north-facing windows that would impact massing, light, privacy, and view equity, and that the five-foot pullback did not meaningfully reduce these impacts. Ms. Mahoney also noted that Drew mentioned the Macintoshes were not willing to alter their masterbedroom placement and could pursue an ADU alternative if denied.

When they reached out again to discuss further pullback possibilities, they were told there was no willingness to reconsider.
p. 3 of 18
Steve
Kawaratani
Appreciated the owners arranging a meeting with Drew, but both sides remain at an impasse. His clients still believe the project creates a significant view-equity problem. A photo taken during a board member’s site visit showed that even from the center of the affected window, the view impact remains clear. The board has consistently identified issues with view equity, articulation, and massing, and while the applicants understandably want to design their home to fit their needs, they must also reasonably consider their neighbors. Noted that the original design extended fully to the rear, the next version shifted the mass forward five feet without improving view equity, and the current 10-foot pullback still does not sufficiently resolve the impact to views.
p. 5 of 18

6. Applicant Rebuttal
Mr. McIntosh, property owner, noted that at the Board chair’s suggestion, Drew visited the neighbors’ home to better understand their concerns, though some details of that meeting are disputed. After reviewing the feedback with Drew and Vicki, he emphasized that their design fully complies with all objective city zoning standards and design-review requirements. Mr. McIntosh submitted that City staff determined the Project to be compatible with the neighborhood, maintained primary views consistent with view-equity guidelines, and recommended approval of the design review and coastal development permit applications. According to Mr. McIntosh, this would be the third time the planning department had confirmed the Project met all APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF DR 24-1572 AND CDP 24-1688 AT 607 SHORT STREET December 9, 2025

Page 16 of 23 ends

city and DRB regulations. The Applicant urged the Board to rely on objective standards under the California Housing and Accountability Act and noted they have made substantial revisions to address concerns while following all guidelines. Mr. McIntosh concluded that they have sought compromise in good faith and hoped the Board will grant approval.

7. Board Questions and Responses
Topic Question and Response Transcript
Page Nos.
[Commenter]
Project Design Asked if the ten-foot reduction was the total from the original design or the revised design. Staff clarified that the ten-foot reference was the total reduction from the original design. p. 1-2 of 18
[Weil]
Views Asked whether the image of the view impacts from the neighbor’s study was accurately depicted in Steve Kawaratani’s presentation.

The project representative, Drew Blake, responded he hoped so. p. 6-7 of 18
[Coveny]
Project Design Questioned why the project was not feasible to be moved towards the other side. Drew Blake responded that due to existing vegetation, and addition on that elevation would not enjoy the same views as compared the proposed location,
p. 7-8 of 18
[Coveny]

8. Board Deliberation
Topic Discussion Transcript
Page Nos.
[Commenter]
View Equity, Design
Articulation,
Nieghborhood
compatibility
Noted the Project’s long expansive massing impacted the neighbor’s hillside views and that you cannot create a view by impacting another’s view. The addition was overloaded to one side of the home with no articulation, which was not neighborhood compatible.
p. 8 of 18
[Gannon]
Views The upper-level massing needed to be reduced further to help preserve view equity.
p. 10 of 18
[Weil]
Neighborhood
Compatibility, Design
Articulation
Stated that there was no articulation in the design and the Project was not neighborhood compatible.
p. 13-14 of 18
[Coveny]
Views The second-floor addition created view impacts for neighboring properties and from the High School.
p. 16 of 18
[Weil, Gannon]
Mass and Scale, View
Equity, Design
Articulation,
Nieghborhood
Compatibility
Stated that the applicant’s ten-foot pullback sufficiently mitigated impacts, noting that additional movement would yield only minimal additional hillside view—and that the overall design and materials were thoughtful and compatible with the neighborhood. Concluded that the Applicant had made meaningful efforts over three hearings, and that the p. 5, 10-11 of
18 [Bauta,
Gibbs]
APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF DR 24-1572 AND CDP 24-1688 AT 607 SHORT STREET December 9, 2025

Page 17 of 23 ends

Project now achieved an appropriate balance of view equity.

Emphasized that the project met the Design Review
Guidelines, noting that the Mahoneys’ primary ocean views remain fully intact, and that the protected view in dispute is a secondary, side-facing office window not typically
afforded high protection. Characterized the Project as
modest, well-designed, neighborhood-compatible, and
properly articulated, and stated that requiring further redesign would unfairly restrict the applicants’ right to develop their home and therefore supported approval and voted against denial, finding no basis to require additional concessions.

9. Board Adoption of Resolution Denying the Application The Board voted 3–2 to adopt Resolution No. 24-1572 (Attachment 17), thereby denying the Project. Board Members Bauta and Gibbs dissented. The revised findings for denial were read into the record prior to the vote.

RESPONSES TO ISSUES RAISED ON APPEAL
As noted above, the Applicant submitted an Appeal of the Board’s decision (Attachment 3). As indicated under Standards of Review, in the City Council’s review, the Council shall conduct a de novo review of the underlying application and shall not be limited to the grounds stated for the appeal, nor is the Council limited to the evidence that was presented to the Board. Accordingly, in its consideration of CDP 24-1688, the Council is free to deliberate without being limited to the Board’s findings – in other words, a de novo hearing. For the consideration of DR 24-1572, the City Council shall conduct a de novo review, but is limited to considering the evidence that was presented to the Board and may exercise its independent judgment on such evidence. Further, for DR 24-1572, the City Council is limited to the grounds specifically stated in the notice of Appeal.

Below are the grounds for Appeal and City staff’s response.

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).”
Staff’s Response
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 single-family dwelling, pursuant to LBMC Section 25.05.040(B)(1); and (2) CDP 24-1688 for the new development, which includes a new singlefamily 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.

APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF DR 24-1572 AND CDP 24-1688 AT 607 SHORT STREET December 9, 2025

Page 18 of 23 ends

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):

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 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.
(Attachment 17 [Resolution No. 25-1572].) 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.

APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF DR 24-1572 AND CDP 24-1688 AT 607 SHORT STREET December 9, 2025

Page 19 of 23 ends

In light of the split 3-2 vote, which reflects divergent viewpoints that were nearly evenly split among the Board and requires a de novo review, staff respectfully requests that the Council consider either adopting a resolution upholding the denial, based on the Board’s findings noted above, or, as alternative option, adopting a resolution overturning the denial and approving the Project. Draft City Council resolutions upholding or overturning the Board’s decision are both being provided as attachments to this agenda report (Attachments 1 and 2, respectively). Should the Council wish to grant the appeal and overturn the Board denial, revised findings in support of the Project are provided below:

The proposal includes a new second story addition, which, through the proposed colors and materials and design will result in a well-articulated building. Upon completion, the home will be compatible with existing development in the neighborhood. Nearby homes consist of a mixture of one- and two-story residences with varying architectural styles and exteriors, including contemporary and traditional styles. The project’s sloping roofs and varied building materials, which include stucco and hardy board vertical siding, will effectively reduce the appearance of mass.

Additionally, the proposed upper-level addition is off set from the lower-level roof between 2’2” and 6’5” from the street elevation and one foot from the east elevation creating additional articulation and reducing the appearance of mass and bulk. The step-backs and architectural features appropriately break up the vertical and horizontal planes.

The proposed design has the upper-level addition’s mass located on the southeastern portion of the existing residence, therefore reducing the appearance of massing along the street elevation. By concentrating the new upper-level additions on the southeastern portion of the residence, the project minimizes massing and is consistent with the neighborhood’s established character, as all neighboring properties are developed with two-story residences. The existing development in the neighborhood consists of a mixture of architectural styles and exteriors, including contemporary and traditional styles. As described in the “Design Articulation” criterion above, the applicant proposes a traditional design that is compatible in terms of style and scale with the surrounding development pattern.

APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF DR 24-1572 AND CDP 24-1688 AT 607 SHORT STREET December 9, 2025

Page 20 of 23 ends

The upper-level addition maintains view equity for neighboring properties by minimizing view impacts to existing canyon and ocean views from the primary windows in primary bedrooms and ceremonial rooms. The addition would not create any view impacts to the ocean or shoreline located west of the property, as the High School is at a higher elevation and existing development already limits ocean views.

2. “We contend and will show that the statements (findings) below, resulting in our denial, are incorrect, bias (sic), contradictory and fully subjective.” Staff response:

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 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.”
APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF DR 24-1572 AND CDP 24-1688 AT 607 SHORT STREET December 9, 2025

Page 21 of 23 ends

Staff response:

Among other things, the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”) is a state housing law meant to limit the City’s ability to disapprove or condition 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)
Staff believes that 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 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 singlefamily 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.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council take one of the following actions after conducting a public hearing:

Option A: Adopt the Resolution 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”), located at 607 Short Street in the R-1, residential low-density zone, and categorical APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF DR 24-1572 AND CDP 24-1688 AT 607 SHORT STREET December 9, 2025

Page 22 of 23 ends

exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to State CEQA guidelines Section 15270.

Option B: Adopt the Resolution overturning 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”), located at 607 Short Street in the R-1, residential low-density zone, and finding the Project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to state CEQA Guidelines sections 15303 (Class 3) and 15304 (Class 4).

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

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The appeals do not encompass the Board’s CEQA determination. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, the project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15270(a), CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves. Alternatively, if the City Council decides to sustain the appeal and reverse the decision of the Board, the Council should find that the Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Sections 15303- New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures and 15304 - Minor Alterations to Land. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, the project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15303 and 15304. There is no evidence of any unusual or special conditions that would result in a significant effect on the environment. The subject property is located within a developed neighborhood with all facilities provided and access existing to the parcel. This project fits within the Class 3 and 4 exemptions because it is a single-family dwelling with one accessory dwelling and related site improvements including grading, landscape, hardscape, and retaining walls on an existing legal building site.

Further, none of the exceptions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply. The project site does not contain any environmentally sensitive areas. There will be no cumulative impact resulting from successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time. The project site does not contain any environmentally sensitive areas in that the site is fully developed with an existing single-family dwelling and is surrounded on all sides by public streets and developed residential and institutional properties, and the City’s environmentally sensitive areas maps do not identify any such areas on-site or within the immediate Project vicinity. 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. Consequently, additional environmental analysis is not necessary to meet the requirements of the CEQA. Staff will cause to be filed a Notice of Exemption (NOE) with the County Recorder’s Office within 5 days of adoption of this Resolution.

APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF DR 24-1572 AND CDP 24-1688 AT 607 SHORT STREET December 9, 2025

Page 23 of 23 ends

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution upholding the Design Review Board denial (Pgs. 24-32)

2. Resolution overturning the Design Review Board denial (Pgs. 33-56)

3. Appeal (Pgs. 57-67)

4. February 27, 2025 Design Review Board Report (Pgs. 68-80)

5. February 27, 2025 Design Review Board Project Plans (Pgs. 81-105)

6. February 27, 2025 Design Review Board Minutes (Pgs. 106-133)

7. February 27, 2025 Design Review Board Transcript (Pgs. 134-149)

8. February 27, 2025 Design Review Board Public Comments (Pgs. 150-187)

9. June 26, 2025 Design Review Board Report (Pgs. 188-201)

10. June 26, 2025 Design Review Board Project Plans (Pgs. 202-226)

11. June 26, 2025 Design Review Board Minutes (Pgs. 227-238)

12. June 26, 2025 Design Review Board Transcript (Pgs. 239-260)

13. June 26, 2025 Design Review Board Public Comments (Pgs. 261-267)

14. October 9, 2025 Design Review Board Report (Pgs. 268-280)

15. October 9, 2025 Design Review Board Transcript (Pgs. 281-298)

16. October 9, 2025 Design Review Board Public Comments (Pgs. 299-312)

17. Adopted Design Review Board Resolution No. 24-1572 (Pgs. 313-316)

18. Design Review Board-Denied Project Plans (Pgs. 317-342)

19. Project Elevations (Pgs. 343-344)

20. City Council Public Hearing Notice (Pg. 345)

21. Order of Testimony (Pg. 346)
Submitted By: Matthew Schneider Approved: .David A Kiff Matthew Schneider, Director of
Community Development
Dave Kiff, City Manager
Report Prepared By: Coordinated With:

Shaveta Sharma, Senior Planner Patrick Donegan, Assistant City Attorney Anthony Viera, Deputy Director of Community
Development

Laguna Beach City CouncilDecember 9, 2025

Laguna Beach City Council
December 9, 2025