STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date:
December 9, 2025
APPEAL
B
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPEAL OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR’S DESIGNEE’S APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 25-0891 FOR AN ELEVATED DECK ADDITION AT 31421 HOLLY DRIVE IN THE R-1,
RESIDENTIAL LOW-DENSITY ZONE, AND FINDING THE PROJECT
CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15301 (CLASS 1)
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:
1. Conduct a public hearing, including receiving a staff report and taking public testimony and all evidence relating to the consideration of Design Review 25-0891, and the California Environmental Quality Act exemption under Section 15301 of the state CEQA Guidelines; and
2. Adopt a Resolution titled, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR’S DESIGNEE TO APPROVE DESIGN REVIEW 25-0891 FOR AN ELEVATED DECK ADDITION AT 31421 HOLLY DRIVE IN THE R-1, RESIDENTIAL
LOW DENSITY ZONE AND FINDING THE ACTION EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO STATE CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15301,” upholding the Community Development Director’s designee’s approval of Design Review 25-0891 and finding the project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.
SUMMARY OF THE MATTER
The applicant, Dave Frith (“Applicant”), sought Administrative Design Review (“ADR”) for an elevated deck addition at 31421 Holly Drive in the R-1 (Residential Low Density) zone (the “Project”). The Project requires ADR under Laguna Beach Municipal Code (“LBMC”) Section 25.05.040(B)(3)(a)(ii).
On June 4, 2025, the Community Development Director’s designee (the “Designee”) held a public hearing, received public testimony, and approved the Project, including the approval of a categorical exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines Section 15301 (the “Designee Approval”). The June 4, 2025 ADR-approved plans, public comments, and transcript are attached as Attachments 3 through 5, respectively.
On June 18, 2025, Lori Austin (the “Appellant”), the neighboring property owner of 31425 Holly Drive, filed a notice of appeal of the Designee Approval (the “Appeal”) (Attachment 2) .
The project was previously continued several times at City Council Meetings on August 12, 2025, September 23, 2025, October 28, 2025 and most recently the November 18, 2025 City Council meeting.
LBMC Section 25.05.070(D)(2) requires that the City Clerk set the appeal for a public hearing before the City Council no less than 14 days, nor more than 60 calendar days, after the receipt of the appeal. Therefore, Appeal of the Approval of DR 25-0891 at 31421 Holly Drive December 9, 2025
the Appeal was scheduled for the August 12, 2025, City Council meeting. 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 6). At the August 12, 2025 City Council meeting, the Appeal was continued to the September 23, 2025 City Council meeting.
The Appellant contends that the deck extension and the staking from when the deck was originally reviewed and approved were inaccurate, that there are CEQA impacts from alterations, excavations, and topographical features, and that the plans were not available at the building counter when the previously approved projects were under construction.
To facilitate the City Council’s consideration of this matter, this agenda report provides an overview of the City Council appeal procedures; the Designee’s public hearing; and City staff’s responses to the Appellant’s contentions in the Appeal.
CITY COUNCIL APPEAL PROCEDURES
A. Administrative Design Review
Pursuant to LBMC Section 25.05.070, all decisions regarding administrative design review (Section 25.05.040(B)(3)) of the Director (or designee) may be appealed to the City Council by the applicant or any owner of property within three hundred feet of the subject property.
LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(2) sets forth the procedures and review criteria for design review appeals.
Specifically, subsection 25.05.070(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.”
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 by the City Council.” Accordingly, in its consideration of the appeal of the Designee Approval, the City Council conducts a de novo review and is free to deliberate without being limited to the Designee’s findings, but is limited to considering the evidence that was presented to the Designee.
B. Non-Design Review (i.e., CEQA Determination)
LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(1) sets forth the procedures and review criteria for non-design review appeals.
The City Council shall not be limited to the grounds stated for the appeal, if an appeal was filed, and shall Appeal of the Approval of DR 25-0891 at 31421 Holly Drive December 9, 2025
not be limited to the evidence that was presented to the approval authority. The City Council shall exercise its independent judgment and discretion as to the evidence presented at its hearing.
Here, in its consideration of a categorical exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, the City Council is not limited to either the evidence in the record or the deliberations of the Designee at the April 2, 2025, public hearing. In other words, this is a de novo hearing – i.e., 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 Designee’s determination.
C. City Council Options
The City Council has numerous options in consideration of this matter, which are as follows:
1. Adopt the attached Resolution upholding the Designee Approval, and finding the Project categorically exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301;
2. Adopt the attached Resolution upholding the Designee Approval, and finding the Project categorically exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, but modifying the Resolution to include more restrictive conditions of approval; and
3. Direct staff to prepare and return at a future meeting with a Resolution overturning the Designee Approval, with findings in support of overturning the decision and denial of the Project.
Direct staff to prepare and return at a future meeting with a Resolution remanding DR 25-0891 to the Designee, with findings in support of the remand and further direction to the reviewing body.
DISCUSSION
A. Project Site
The project is located in South Laguna within the Residential Low-Density Zone. The property contains an existing single-family residence with an attached two-car garage. The site slopes downward from Holly Drive toward Ocean View Street.
Appeal of the Approval of DR 25-0891 at 31421 Holly Drive December 9, 2025
Figure 1: Aerial View Figure 2: Google Street View (April 2025) B. February 23, 2023 Design Review Board Hearing
On February 23, 2023, the Design Review Board (“DRB”) approved Design Review 22-2245 and Variance 22-2266 for a 760-square-foot addition to the single-family dwelling, a 300-square-foot elevated deck addition, door and window replacements, exterior building materials, and spa. A variance was requested to enlarge a single-family dwelling with legal, nonconforming parking (one covered space provided, two covered spaces required). The project was approved 3-0 (Board members Sheridan and Weil absent), with the conditions of approval recommended by staff. Lori Austin and Mike Austin, property owners of 31425 Holly Drive,1 provided public testimony at the hearing, expressing concerns that certain proposed windows would impact their privacy. Mike Austin also submitted written correspondence prior to the public hearing, expressing concerns including HVAC placement and noise, window privacy concerns, lack of fence details, lack of clarity regarding pool equipment, and that the plans do not reflect their correct address. The February 23, 2023 staff report, plans, meeting minutes and public correspondence are attached as Attachments 8 through 11, respectively.
As shown on the DRB-approved plans (Attachment 9), the prior project involved an elevated deck addition extending 10 feet beyond the plane of the south building elevation at the middle floor level.
C. Construction Deviation
Subsequent to this approval, the deck was constructed with an additional two feet in length, resulting in a total length of 12 feet and an increase of approximately 58 square feet beyond the approved size. An application for Administrative Design Review was thereafter submitted to address the additional deck area (Attachment 3).
1 Lori Austin is also the Appellant.
Appeal of the Approval of DR 25-0891 at 31421 Holly Drive December 9, 2025
Figure 3: DRB-Approved Deck Floor Plan
Figure 4: DRB-Approved Deck Elevation
Appeal of the Approval of DR 25-0891 at 31421 Holly Drive December 9, 2025
Figure 5: ADR-Approved Deck Extension Floor Plan (Revised Plan) Figure 6: ADR-Approved Proposed Deck Extension Elevation (Revised Plan) D. June 4, 2025 Administrative Design Review Hearing
1. Staff Presentation
City staff noted that they had received public comments regarding the deck extension.
Appeal of the Approval of DR 25-0891 at 31421 Holly Drive December 9, 2025
2. Applicant Presentation
Applicant Summary of Comment Transcript
Page Nos.
[Commenter]
Dave Frith
(Applicant)
Explained that a contractor mistakenly built the deck two feet farther out than the original approval allowed, due to a misunderstanding about measurement points. The certified staking plan showed the deck was intended to be measured from the house, not the previous deck. The asbuilt deck has been in place for months without known complaints, measures 12 feet from the house (slightly less than the requested 12'-4"), and is positioned to minimize neighbor impact. He believed the requested two-foot extension did not have an adverse neighborhood impact. pgs. 1-2 of 9
[Frith]
3. Public Testimony
Commenter Summary of Comment Transcript
Page Nos.
[Commenter]
Mike Austin Stated he is the neighbor to the south and that the original staking plan matched the approved design review, which called for a 10-foot measurement from the house that, due to elevation changes, resulted in an eight-foot deck. He noted the staking measurements were clear, but the deck was built larger than what was approved.
He stated deck was already built about two feet beyond the approved staking plan and is now proposed to extend another two feet, resulting in roughly a 12-foot deck. He expressed concerns about deviations from the approved plan, potential impacts on privacy, views, and neighbor proximity, and the precedent of building over a slope. He feels the matter should return to full design review, where all project elements and impacts are considered together.
pgs. 3-4 of 9
[Mike Austin]
Lori Austin
(Appellant)
Stated that they originally accepted the deck design shown during the initial flag staking and design review, as it appeared reasonable and considerate of their side. However, the deck was later built extending farther out than originally proposed and approved, creating greater impact than expected. Photos were taken from their deck to document the change. She initially believed the deck was positioned to avoid impacting either side, staying within the line of the nearby stucco house and not extending toward their property. At that size and location, it wouldn’t have overshadowed their home or overlooked their master bedroom.
However, the newly built deck extends much farther, beyond the house line and over new footings, creating a direct line of sight into their bedroom and living space. This change is more significant than a simple 28-inch extension from the original design. She shared comparison pgs. 5-7 of 9
[Lori Austin]
Appeal of the Approval of DR 25-0891 at 31421 Holly Drive December 9, 2025
photos from their deck showing the stucco gray house as the point where the deck should have ended. She also indicated that the images reveal the new deck extends well beyond that point, contradicting claims that it only exceeds the approved size by two feet, four inches. From inside their family room, she showed how the new deck extends past where it was originally supposed to end, stating it is impacting their view. They believe the construction exceeds the approved plans by far more than the stated 28 inches and want the matter brought to a formal design review hearing.
4. Applicant Rebuttal
Commenter Summary of Comment Transcript
Page Nos.
[Commenter]
Dave Frith
(Applicant)
Disputed claims that the deck was not built in accordance with the staking, stating that the certified staking plan shows a 10-foot depth and matches the site conditions. He acknowledged the deck was built two feet longer than approved but emphasized it has been in place for months without prior complaints, and they are proactively seeking administrative approval to correct the mistake. He argued privacy concerns and excavation issues are unrelated to the deck, photographs can be misleading, and the extension is minor. He believed only one neighbor has concerns, and a full design review would be unnecessary and costly. pgs. 8-9 of 9
[Frith]
5. Designee Deliberation
Topic Discussion Transcript
Page Nos.
[Commenter]
View Equity
and Privacy
Design
Review
Criteria
Considered only the additional 24–28 inches (about 67 sq. ft.) of deck built beyond the approved plans. After reviewing testimony, plans, and records, the Designee found no significant view equity or privacy concerns. The project was approved as presented, with a 14-day appeal period.
p. 9 of 9
[CDD
Designee]
6. Designee Decision
After closing the public hearing, the Designee found that the Project was consistent with the design review criteria, approved the Project, and found the Project exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301. The Designee noted that the additional 24 or 28 inches of deck complied with the view equity and privacy criteria. While acknowledging neighbors’ frustration, the decision focused solely on the extension, and the Designee confirmed it met the requirements to be approved administratively.
Appeal of the Approval of DR 25-0891 at 31421 Holly Drive December 9, 2025
RESPONSES TO ISSUES RAISED ON APPEAL
As noted above, the Appellant submitted an Appeal of the Designee’s decision (Attachment 2). As stated above, regarding the request for ADR, the City Council shall conduct a de novo review of the underlying application but is limited to the grounds stated for the appeal, if an appeal was filed, and is further limited to the evidence that was presented to the approval authority. The City 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 approval authority 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.
As indicated under Standards of Review, in the City Council’s review of non-design review appeals, such as CEQA, 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 the Designee’s decision to adopt a categorical exemption from CEQA, the Council is free to deliberate without being limited to the Board’s findings – in other words, a de novo hearing.
Below is a summary of the appeal contentions and the staff response.
1. The proposed deck extension was incorrectly described as either a 24- or 28-inch extension. The deck was constructed with an approximately four-foot extension.
Staff’s Response
The constructed deck extends two feet beyond the 10-foot deck dimension originally staked for the DRB hearing held on February 23, 2023. The certified staking plan prepared for the DRB hearing is provided as Attachment 12. In response to this discrepancy, the applicant submitted an Administrative Design Review application to address the additional two feet beyond the originally proposed 10-foot deck, resulting in a total depth of 12 feet from the rear of the residence (58 square feet of additional deck area). As further clarification, the applicant also submitted a video to staff measuring the depth of the deck to be 144 inches (12 feet). Furthermore, the surveyor of record will verify that the deck was built per plan. This verification will be required before the City will pass a final building inspection.
2. There are CEQA impacts from alterations and excavations and topographical features.
Staff’s Response
The construction of the proposed elevated deck addition does not require any grading. While excavation is required for the installation of support posts, the proposed two-foot extension to the previously approved deck will not require additional posts, as it is designed to cantilever, as illustrated in Figure 3 below.
Appeal of the Approval of DR 25-0891 at 31421 Holly Drive December 9, 2025
Figure 3: Proposed West Elevation
The Designee appropriately determined that the proposed deck extension qualified for a categorical exemption from CEQA under the Class 1 exemption for existing facilities. Section 15301 of the State CEQA Guidelines states, in pertinent part:
“Class 1 consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. The types of “existing facilities” itemized below are not intended to be all-inclusive of the types of projects which might fall within Class
1. The key consideration is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of use.
Examples include but are not limited to:
(a) Interior or exterior alterations involving such things as interior partitions, plumbing, …
(e) Additions to existing structures provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than:
Appeal of the Approval of DR 25-0891 at 31421 Holly Drive December 9, 2025
(1) 50 percent of the floor area of the structures before the addition, or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less; or
(2) 10,000 square feet if:
(A) The project is in an area where all public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum development permissible in the General Plan and (B) The area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive.” Here, the proposed project is an approximately 58-square-foot extension of an existing deck on a lot developed with an existing single-family residence, resulting in negligible or no expansion of use, and the lot does not contain environmentally sensitive resources.
Further, as discussed below, none of the exceptions to the CEQA Class 1 exemption apply.
3. The plans were not available at the building counter.
Staff’s Response
The hardcopy plans for the previously approved project, for which a building permit has been issued, are customarily stored in a room at City Hall upon permit issuance. In this instance, the plans had been misfiled within the room, which may explain why they were not immediately located when the Appellant inquired at the public counter. They were subsequently located by the City’s Records Management Coordinator, who confirmed that the plans had been placed in an incorrect location and they were provided for the appellant to review. Both the Applicant and Appellant agree that the plans approved by the DRB showed a 10-foot extension, which is also what is shown on the building permit plans. The elevated deck, which is more than three feet out of grade, cannot be enlarged without administrative design review approval in accordance with LBMC Section 25.05.040(B)(3)(a)(ii), which occurred on June 4, 2025 at a duly noticed ADR hearing.
Furthermore, staff has verified that the Applicant is requesting a two-foot deck extension, not 28 inches as shown the plans prepared for the ADR hearing. This was clarified by the Applicant at the ADR hearing. (Attachment 5 [Transcript], page 2 of 9). After the ADR hearing, the Applicant submitted plans clarifying the deck extension is smaller than originally understood and that match the actual, as-built deck (the corrected plans are included as Attachment 7).
DESIGN REVIEW
Pursuant to the Laguna Beach Municipal Code, the City Council shall conduct a de novo review and is free to deliberate without being limited to the Designee’s findings, but is limited to considering the evidence that was presented to the Designee, including the ADR-approved plans. Because this is a de novo review, staff has prepared suggested findings for the Council’s consideration:
Finding No. 1: Physical improvements and site developments related to the Project are designed and located in a manner in overall consistency with the design review criteria specified in Section 25.05.040(H), as set forth below:
Appeal of the Approval of DR 25-0891 at 31421 Holly Drive December 9, 2025
1. Access. Conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians and other modes of transportation should be minimized by specifically providing for each applicable mode of transportation. Handicapped access shall be provided as required by applicable statutes.
N/A. The proposed deck extension does not change access to the property.
2. Design Articulation: Within the allowable building envelope, the appearance of building and retaining wall mass should be minimized. Articulation techniques including, but not limited to, separation, offsets, terracing and reducing the size of any one element in the structure may be used to reduce the appearance of mass.
Yes. The proposed deck does not add significant additional mass as it is a two-foot cantilevered extension of the previously approved deck area. The expanded deck is located near the middle of the lot on the southfacing elevation of the residence, and would maintain a setback from the south property line ranging from approximately 47 to 60 feet.
3. Design Integrity: Consistency with the applicant’s chosen style of architecture should be achieved by the use of appropriate materials and details. Remodels should be harmonious with the remaining existing architecture.
Yes. The proposed deck extension matches the materials used for the approved portion of the deck.
4. Environmental Context: Development should preserve and, where possible, enhance the city’s scenic natural setting. Natural features, such as existing heritage trees, rock out-cropping, ridgelines and significant watercourses should be protected. Existing terrain should be utilized in the design and grading should be minimized.
Yes. The proposed Project does not require grading as it is a cantilevered extension of a previously approved elevated deck.
5. General Plan Compliance: The development shall comply with all applicable policies of the General Plan, including all of its elements, applicable specific plans, and the certified local coastal program.
Yes. The proposed deck extension is consistent with the applicable General Plan policies as discussed below.
LUE Policy 2.10 Maximize the preservation of coastal and canyon views (consistent with the principle of view equity) from existing properties and minimize blockage of existing public and private views. Best efforts should be made to site new development in locations that minimize adverse impacts on views from public locations (e.g., roads, bluff top trails, visitor-serving facilities, etc.) The project proposes extending an elevated deck two feet beyond the existing approved elevated deck.
Public views are not impacted as the project is above Coast Highway and due to the elevation and placement of the deck in relation to Ocean View Street.
Appeal of the Approval of DR 25-0891 at 31421 Holly Drive December 9, 2025
LUE Policy 3.10 Require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated with natural topographic features, minimize significant alteration of natural topography or other significant on-site resources, and protect public views as specified in the Design Guidelines and Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document by maintaining the low-profile character of structures. Require use of appropriate landscaping, special architectural treatments, and siting considerations for projects visible from major highways and arterial streets. Best efforts should be made to site new development in locations that minimize adverse impacts on views from public locations (e.g., roads, bluff-top trails, visitor-serving facilities, etc.)
The Project does not require grading and public views are not impacted as the Project is not in close proximity and visible from a public viewing location such as a trail, park, or lookout. The architecture complies with the design integrity and articulation design review criteria as discussed above.
LUE Policy 7.3 Design and site new development to protect natural and environmentally sensitive resources, such as areas of unique scenic quality, public views, and visual compatibility with surrounding uses and to minimize natural landform alterations. (Same as Policy 10.2.) GOAL: Protect, preserve, and enhance the community’s natural resources.
The project site does not include environmentally sensitive areas and public views are not impacted as the project is not visible from Coast Highway and due to the elevation and placement of the deck in relation to Ocean View Street.
LUE Policy 10.2 Design and site new development to protect natural and environmentally sensitive resources such as areas of unique scenic quality, public views, and visual compatibility with surrounding uses and to minimize landform alterations. (Same as Policy 7.3) GOAL: Ensure that proposals for new development, subdivisions, and major remodels are sufficiently evaluated to protect public health and safety and natural resources.
The project site does not include environmentally sensitive areas and public views are not impacted as the project is not visible from a public viewing location such as a trail, park, or lookout and due to the elevation and placement of the deck in relation to Ocean View Street.
6. Historic Preservation: Destruction or alteration to historic resources should be avoided whenever possible. See Chapter 25.45 for more information.
N/A. The project site does not contain historic structures within its boundaries or in the immediate vicinity that would be affected by the proposed Project.
7. Landscaping: Landscaping shall be incorporated as an integrated part of the structure’s design and relate harmoniously to neighborhood and community landscaping themes. View equity shall be an important consideration in the landscape design. The relevant landscaping guidelines contained in the City’s “Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document” should be incorporated, as appropriate, in the design and planned maintenance of proposed landscaping.
Appeal of the Approval of DR 25-0891 at 31421 Holly Drive December 9, 2025
N/A. No landscaping is proposed with the Project.
8. Lighting and Glare: Adequate lighting for individual and public safety shall be provided in a manner which does not significantly impact neighboring properties. Reflective materials and appurtenances that cause glare or a negative visual impact (e.g., skylights, white rock roofs, high-gloss ceramic tile roofs, reflective glass, etc.) should be avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance in those locations where those surfaces are visible from neighboring properties.
Yes. No lighting is proposed with the Project and the proposed railings do not result in glare impacts.
9. Neighborhood Compatibility: Development shall be compatible with the existing development in the neighborhood and respect neighborhood character. Neighborhood character is the sum of the qualities that distinguish areas within the City, including historical patterns of development (e.g., structural heights, mass, scale or size), village atmosphere, landscaping themes and architectural styles.
Yes. The proposed mid-level elevated deck is compatible with neighboring decks for homes between Holly Drive and Ocean View Street, which commonly feature elevated decks along the south building elevations, oriented to capture ocean views.
10. Pedestrian Orientation: Commercial development design shall enhance and encourage pedestrian uses.
Incorporation of articulated building masses, compact open spaces and courtyards, mixed use developments, use of landscaping as part of design, and orientation to pedestrian access should be maximized.
N/A. This criterion is related to commercial projects.
11. Privacy: The placement of activity areas (e.g., decks, picture windows and ceremonial or entertainment rooms) in locations that would result in a substantial invasion of privacy of neighboring properties should be minimized.
Yes. The proposed deck extension does not result in a substantial privacy impact for neighboring properties as the deck is oriented towards the ocean, is similar to neighboring decks, and does not extend the entire width of the home. At the middle floor level, the habitable area directly adjacent to the deck is approximately 42 feet wide, while the deck measures 28’-6” wide.
12. Public Art: Public art is encouraged and shall be displayed where feasible or required by the Art in Public Places ordinance.
N/A. This criterion is related to commercial projects.
13. Sign Quality: Signs shall be incorporated into the architecture of the structure and shall be made of high quality materials, be simple in design and be visually compatible with the surrounding physical environment in terms of color, scale and size. Use of natural materials in the construction of signs is encouraged.
Appeal of the Approval of DR 25-0891 at 31421 Holly Drive December 9, 2025
N/A. This criterion is related to commercial projects.
14. Sustainability: New development should consider architecture and building practices which minimize environmental impacts and enhance energy efficiency by: (a) reducing energy needs of buildings by proper site and structural design; (b) increasing the building’s ability to capture or generate energy; (c) using low-impact, sustainable and recycled building materials; (d) using the latest Best Management Practices regarding waste and water management; and (e) reducing site emissions.
Yes. The proposed Project will be required to meet Title 24 requirements related to energy efficiency and to recycle at least 65 percent of construction materials per the California Building Code.
15. Swimming Pools, Spas, and Water Features: Swimming pools, spas and water features shall be located, designed and constructed where: (a) geology conditions allow; (b) noise produced by circulatory mechanical pumps and equipment is mitigated; and (c) any associated fencing or other site improvements are compatible with neighboring properties.
N/A. The Project does not involve a new swimming pool or spa.
16. View Equity: The development, including its landscaping, shall be designed to protect existing views from neighboring properties without denying the subject property the reasonable opportunity to develop as described and illustrated in the City’s “Design Guidelines.” The “Design Guidelines” are intended to balance preservation of views with the right to develop property.
Yes. The Project does not result in view impacts that substantially degrade the existing views of the coast from neighboring properties. Properties abutting the Project to east and west are similarly oriented to the south to capture ocean views. As such, the deck extension does not significantly encroach into scenic viewsheds enjoyed by neighboring properties.
Finding No. 2. The physical improvements and site developments related to the Project are designed and located in a manner in overall consistency with all other applicable design guidelines.
N/A. No additional design guidelines apply to this Project.
Finding No. 3. The physical improvements and site developments related to the Project are characterized by appropriately scaled development, diverse and unique architectural designs, pedestrian orientation, and sensitivity to the natural conditions of the site.
Yes, the Project is appropriately scaled as discussed under the design articulation and neighborhood compatibility design review criteria above.
Finding No. 4. The project is consistent with any specific plan or any other specific zoning design review criteria.
N/A. The proposed Project is not located in a specific plan or subject to additional design review criteria.
Appeal of the Approval of DR 25-0891 at 31421 Holly Drive December 9, 2025
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolution denying the appeal and sustaining the Designee’s approval of Design Review 25- 0891, and finding the Project exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301.
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The recommended action has no financial impact to the budget.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The Project is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1, Existing Facilities, in that the Project consists of the repair, maintenance, or minor alteration of existing structures or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. Here, the Project includes a 58-square-foot deck addition to an existing elevated deck associated with an existing singlefamily residence. Further, none of the exceptions outlined in CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2 apply. The project site does not contain any environmentally sensitive areas, in that the site is fully developed with an existing single-family residence with an attached one-car garage, patios, and ornamental landscaping, and is surrounded on all sides by public streets and developed properties, and the City’s environmentally sensitive maps do not identify any such areas on-site or within the immediate Project vicinity. There will be no cumulative impact resulting from successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time in that the Project includes a scope of work that is consistent with the allowed uses in the residential lowdensity zone, and elevated decks are common features in the area. There are no unusual circumstances resulting in a significant impact on the environment. There will be no damage to scenic resources, including trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. The project is not located on a hazardous waste site or any other site included on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. The project will not result in significant adverse impacts to historical resources as defined by CEQA in that there are no such resources on site or within the immediate vicinity that would be impacted by the Project. Consequently, additional environmental analysis is not necessary to meet the requirements of the CEQA.
ATTACHMENTS
1. City Council Resolution (Pgs. 18-31)
2. Appeal (Pgs. 32-51)
3. June 4, 2025 Admin CDD Meeting Plans (Pgs. 52-55)
4. June 4, 2025 Admin CDD Meeting Public Comments (Pgs. 56-86)
5. June 4, 2025 Admin CDD Meeting Transcript (Pgs. 87-95)
6. Public Notice (Pg. 96)
7. Corrected Plans (Pgs. 97-100)
8. February 23, 2023 DRB Staff Report (Pgs. 101-117)
9. February 23, 2023 DRB Plans (Pgs. 118-133)
10. February 23, 2023 DRB Meeting Minutes (Pgs. 134-135)
11. February 23, 2023 DRB Public Correspondence (Pg. 136)
12. Certified Staking Plan from February 23, 2023 DRB Meeting (Pg. 137)
13. Order of Testimony (Pg. 138)
Appeal of the Approval of DR 25-0891 at 31421 Holly Drive December 9, 2025
Submitted By: Matthew Schneider Approved: .David A Kiff Matthew Schneider, Director of
Community Development
Dave Kiff, City Manager
Report Prepared By: Coordinated With:
Daniel Latham, Associate Planner Anthony Viera, Deputy Director of Community Development
Patrick Donegan, Assistant City Attorney