RESOLUTION NO. 26.XXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL AND
SUSTAINING THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD’S APPROVAL OF
DESIGN REVIEW 24-1151 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT 24-1152 FOR THE ADDITION AND REMODEL OF A
SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING, A NEW TWO-CAR GARAGE,
ELEVATED DECK ADDITIONS, GRADING, LANDSCAPING, NEW
POOL AND SPA, AND AN ATTACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING
UNIT, AND VARIANCE 24-1153 FOR ADDITIONS INTO THE
FRONT YARD, REAR YARD, AND ADDITIONAL BUILDING
SETBACKS, AND A NEW POOL IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK
AT 31731 SEACOVE DRIVE LOCATED IN THE R-1, RESIDENTIAL
LOW-DENSITY ZONE, AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION
UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
GUIDELINES SECTION 15301
WHEREAS, the property owner, Joseph Praner (“Applicant”), of 31731 Seacove Drive (the “Property”), applied for Design Review (“DR”) 24-1151, Coastal Development Permit (“CDP”) 24-1152, and Variance (“VAR”) 24-1153 for the addition and remodel of a singlefamily dwelling, a new two-car garage, elevated deck additions, grading, landscaping, new pool and spa, and a new attached accessory dwelling unit (“ADU”) , and Variance 24-1153 for additions into the front yard, rear yard, and additional building setbacks, and a new pool in the front yard setback in the R-1 (Residential Low Density) zone pursuant to Laguna Beach Municipal Code (“LBMC”) Section 25.05.040 and Section 25.07.004 (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, on January 9, 2025, the Design Review Board (“Board”) held a duly noticed public hearing and considered the project that consisted of the addition and remodel of a singlefamily dwelling, a new two-car garage, elevated decks, grading, landscaping, new pool, and an attached ADU (the “Original Project”). After receiving input from staff, the Applicant, and public comments, the Board discussed the Original Project and continued the item with a 3-0 vote; and WHEREAS, on May 22, 2025, the Board held a public hearing to consider a revised Attachment 1
35 -2- Reso. #
project consisting of various changes (the “Revised Project”). Following the public hearing, a majority of the Board did not think the findings for approval could be made and the Board voted 5-0 to continue the Revised Project to the July 24, 2025 Board meeting; and WHEREAS, on June 4, 2025, the Applicant submitted revised plans to City staff with modifications (the “Second Revised Project”); and
WHEREAS, on July 24, 2025, the Board held a duly noticed public hearing and considered the Second Revised Project. Following the public hearing, the Board voted 3-2 to adopt Resolution No. 24-1151, conditionally approving the Project, including the approval of a categorical exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines Section 15301 (the “Board Approval”); and
WHEREAS, on August 4, 2025, Steven and Nona Everhart (“Appellant 1”) of 31674 Seacove Drive, filed an appeal of the Board Approval (“Appeal 1”); and WHEREAS, on August 4, 2025, Jim Burnes (“Appellant 2”) of 31672 Sea Bluff Lane, filed an appeal of the Board’s Approval (“Appeal 2”); and WHEREAS, on August 6, 2025, D. Michael Gray (“Appellant 3”) of 31676 Seacove Drive, filed an appeal of the Board’s Approval (“Appeal 3”); and WHEREAS, public notice was duly provided to consider the appeals of the Second Revised Project at the September 23, 2025 City Council meeting in accordance with LBMC Section 25.05.065; and
WHEREAS, on September 23, 2025, the City Council held a public hearing on the appeals and continued the hearing to the October 28, 2025 City Council meeting; and WHEREAS, on October 28, 2025, the City Council held a public hearing on the appeals and continued the hearing to the November 18, 2025 City Council meeting; and 36 -3- Reso. #
WHEREAS, on November 18, 2025, the City Council held a public hearing on the appeals and continued the hearing to the January 27, 2026 City Council meeting; and WHEREAS, on January 27, 2026, the City Council held a public hearing on the Appeal and carefully considered the oral and documentary evidence and arguments presented.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH DOES RESOLVE:
SECTION 1. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution by this reference.
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby makes the following findings in response to grounds for Appeal 1 stated in Appellants’ notices of Appeal:
1. “Huge Deck [Not] Neighborhood Compatible” – “Immense Privacy Issue” – “Egregious Abuse of Variances.”
City Council Finds:
The deck area was reduced by 135.2 square feet initially and further reduced by an additional 70 square feet with the approved Second Revised Project, for a total reduction of approximately 28 percent (733 to 527.8 square feet). The Second Revised Project also eliminated the fire pit, widened the driveway to 10 feet, and includes revised landscaping and screening measures in the form of opaque windows and a new Carolina Cherry hedge to be maintained at a specified height to screen the deck from neighboring properties and mitigate privacy impacts.
Based on these changes, the Board found that the Second Revised Project was consistent with the prevailing pattern of development in the surrounding neighborhood. The record demonstrates that the Board carefully considered neighborhood character and privacy concerns and imposed conditions to address them, balancing competing interests of the Applicant and appellants. 37 -4- Reso. #
As indicated by adopting findings for VAR 24-1153, the lot’s unusually shallow depth, presence of a 10-foot-wide private road easement, and required front and rear setbacks make it infeasible to build or expand a single-family home under R-1 zoning regulations. Because the usable depth is only 40 feet after a road easement, the required setbacks would leave no useful area to develop, necessitating variances. Other properties on Seacove Drive are similar with limiting property dimensions given the required setbacks but were allowed to develop with reduced setbacks. As such, the approval of the Second Revised Project does not constitute an egregious abuse of variances.
2. Design Review Criteria 11 has not been met.
City Council Finds:
Design Review Criterion 11 states: “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.” Findings contained in the staff reports, resolution, and meeting minutes identify how this criterion is met. As reflected in Resolution No. 24-1151, the Board was able to find that the privacy criterion could be made as follows:
“The Project proposes windows on the north elevation and an elevated deck and pool area, which as an activity area, could impact privacy of neighboring properties. The applicant has revised the plans to specify the new windows on the upper-level of the north elevation will be frosted glass to eliminate privacy concerns for the property to the north. In response to privacy concerns, the deck area has been further reduced in size from the previous design. The westernmost railing was relocated a further 4 feet, 5 inches eastward from the previous location to align with the edge of the pool. In addition, the landscape plan has been revised to maintain or replace 38 -5- Reso. #
the existing podocarpus trees and install a Caroline Cherry hedge along the northern property line to screen the view of the deck from the neighbor to the north (31672 Sea Bluff Lane). The project has been conditioned to maintain the hedges at a maximum height at 9 feet above the upper-level finished floor elevation (123’ elevation) to provide privacy to the adjacent property.” The appeal does not specify how Criterion 11 is allegedly unmet, nor does it point to specific findings or plan elements lacking consistency with that criterion. In contrast, the Board’s resolution, supported by the staff reports, transcripts, minutes, and public record, identifies how the project meets applicable Design Review Criteria, including overall compatibility, scale, massing, and the mitigation of visual and privacy impacts through landscaping, glazing, and deck reductions. Although two Board members could not find that the Second Revised Project satisfied the Privacy criterion, a majority of the Board found that the plan revisions sufficiently mitigated for privacy impacts.
3. “Our concerns, as well as our neighbors, have basically been ignored by the Applicant, David Parker, Architect.”
City Council Finds:
In response to Board direction, which was based on all evidence in the record, including but not limited to a review of the plans, site visits, public testimony, and staff reports, the Applicant revised the plans for the second and third Board hearings, including reduction of the elevated deck, relocation of the deck railing, window glazing modifications, elimination of the fire pit, driveway widening, and incorporation of landscape screening to be maintained at specified heights. As reflected in the record, the plans were revised to address concerns raised by the neighbors. The Board’s deliberations explicitly recognized these changes and weighed them as satisfactory mitigation of previously raised concerns to satisfy the design review criteria. The claim that 39 -6- Reso. #
concerns were “ignored” is not borne out by the record. Further, the subjective feelings that an applicant is dismissive or ignoring concerns of neighbors is not grounds to deny a project – the required entitlement(s) criteria are.
4. “The deck will change the neighborhood (small houses/small decks) in a negative way and destroy the cottage feel we all enjoy.”
City Council Finds:
The neighborhood is a mix of smaller and larger homes. The subject property contains two lots and, with a lot line adjustment, supports a larger footprint than some of the smaller homes.
While the neighborhood has a certain character, the Board found that the Second Revised Project is compatible with the pattern of development in the area, especially given the small lot sizes, existing substandard lot dimensions, and other nearby properties with similar or larger decks. The deck reductions and screening measures adequately respond to the neighborhood character and mitigate the potential privacy impacts. The Board’s decision reflects a balancing of property rights and neighborhood context under the Design Review standards.
5. “As it stands now, our privacy as well as our north facing view will be severely impacted which will directly cause a decrease in value of our home.” City Council Finds:
In regards to privacy, as noted above, the Second Revised Project includes glazing and landscaping measures to mitigate visual intrusion; the combination of frosted/obscure glass and a dense hedge maintained at specified height constitutes reasonable mitigation. The Board concluded these measures satisfy view-privacy balancing consistent with the Municipal Code.
Regarding view equity and property value, the City’s policy is one of view equity, not view protection. The Board found that the Second Revised Project achieves view equity under existing site conditions and constraints, meaning that the Second Revised Project does not unreasonably 40 -7- Reso. #
deprive neighbors of ocean views beyond what is reasonably expected in this tightly spaced neighborhood. Lastly, economic impacts or market value effects are not among the criteria for approval under the Municipal Code.
6. “The Proposed Roof Deck on the ADU Is Prohibited By City’s Ordinance.” “20-Foot Setback Requirement for ADU Not Satisfied.” “Requirements Necessary For Variances Cannot be Met.” “A CDP Cannot Be Issued Because the Required LCP - Compliance Findings Cannot Be Made.”
City Council Finds:
In regard to the roof deck and ADU, the Board’s approval did not include any roof-deck; instead, the Second Revised Project includes an elevated deck associated with the main dwelling, not an ADU roof deck. While the applicable ADU design standards prohibit roof decks (LBMC Section 25.17.040(E)(5)(c)), the City views roof decks as decks above the uppermost story of a building. In this case, the deck would not be located above the uppermost story of the building; rather the deck would be the same level of the as the primary dwelling. In addition, since the deck can only be accessed from the primary dwelling, it is clearly intended to only be used by the primary dwelling, not as roof deck for the ADU. The current ADU ordinance (Ord. No. 1713) defines a “roof deck” as “a deck above the uppermost story of a building, with no access from interior living space at that same floor level”. The proposed deck is accessed from the interior living space of the main dwelling, therefore, it is not considered an ADU roof deck. This is consistent with another reference to roof decks in the Zoning Code in the Arch Beach Heights Specific Plan, and a figure included in the Design Guidelines for Hillside Development, which depicts a “terraced deck” as a deck over the roof of a lower floor level. The conditions of approval and the final plan set (Exhibits A and B) must be read carefully; the absence of a roof-deck on the ADU means that the appeal’s assertion is factually incorrect. 41 -8- Reso. #
In regard to the setback variances requested – encroachment into the 20-foot front yard setback and 10-foot rear yard setback, additional building setback encroachments, and a pool within the front yard setback – were evaluated by the Board. The Board made findings under the variance standards (that granting the variance will not be detrimental to public health, safety, convenience or welfare; will not injure property or improvements in the vicinity; and will not be contrary to the objectives of the zoning ordinance or general plan) as required by the with the Municipal Code.
In regard to there being no “special circumstances” justifying the variances, the project site is the same depth as the adjacent properties along Seacove Drive. All the properties which take access from Seacove Drive are nonconforming to the required front yard and rear yard setbacks of the R-1 zone. In addition, variances for encroachments into the front yard and rear yard setbacks have been granted for the existing residences at 31672, 31676, and 31678 Seacove Drive.
The project site is comprised of two legal building sites, therefore, it has a larger lot area than other lots in the vicinity. This provides justification for a larger home and larger deck to be constructed than on nearby smaller lots. A variance is not required for the westward deck projection as the deck complies with the required 19-foot side yard setback, The proposed swimming pool will replace an existing larger at-grade swimming pool on the property. The existing pool encroaches into the front and rear setbacks.
In regard to the ADU structure not in compliance with the required 20-foot front yard setback, the Municipal Code does not prohibit granting a variance for the reduction of the front yard setback for an ADU when all required findings are made.
In regard to the LCP / CDP findings, with respect to the required findings for a coastal development permit under the City’s certified Local Coastal Program, the Board’s resolution 42 -9- Reso. #
includes a CEQA exemption finding (State CEQA Guidelines § 15301) and implicitly finds consistency with LCP policies given the scale, use, and design features (setbacks, landscaping, privacy screening, no new subdivision, etc.). In regard to the project being visually incompatible with the Seacove Drive neighborhood, the Board found the proposed development to be visually compatible with the character of the surrounding area (CDP Finding 6) in that other properties on Seacove Drive have similar or the same setbacks. Additionally, view equity and privacy are not analyzed for the purposes of the City’s coastal development permit requirements. Those criteria are analyzed under the design review entitlement. There are no specific coastal resource impacts, including impacts to coastal scenic resources. Since the appeal does not explicitly call out any specific LCP policies, it is difficult to recognize and address what policy is at issue. However, the CDP for the Second Revised Project evaluated the LCP policies.
7. “This proposed deck has been referred to as a “party deck” throughout the hearings.” City Council Finds:
This appeal contention does not present new arguments concerning the required findings for approval, allege any procedural errors, or challenge whether substantial evidence in the record supports the Board’s decision, nor does it raise other issues within the City Council’s scope of review on appeal. Ms. Gannon articulated the basis for her vote to approve the Second Revised Project, which was grounded in the required findings for approval.
8. “One of the board Members said if the proposal is passed, he feels really sorry for the residents of Seacove.”
City Council Finds:
The statement, made in the course of deliberation, does not constitute a binding legal finding or condition; it reflects personal concern, not part of the Board’s adopted resolution. What 43 -10- Reso. #
matters are the findings as memorialized in the resolution and conditions of approval — which, in this case, commit the applicant to modifications that mitigate neighborhood impacts. Personal remarks outside the resolution do not invalidate the approval. As stated above, this appeal contention does not raise issues within the City Council’s scope of review on appeal.
9. “In summary, we are in favor of the property owners’ right to make improvements, but not when our rights are negatively impacted.”
City Council Finds:
The City’s regulatory framework, through the Design Review, CDP, and Variance processes, is designed to reconcile competing property rights, the applicant’s right to improve and use their property, and neighbors’ rights to privacy, view equity, and neighborhood character. The Board’s action and conditions reflect exactly that balancing. The approval, as conditioned and mitigated, represents a lawful exercise of discretion intended to respect both the Applicant’s rights and the community context.
SECTION 3. The City Council hereby makes the following findings in response to grounds for Appeal 2 stated in Appellants’ notices of Appeal:
1. “The project includes a non-ADU expansion, new attached ADU, new 528sf roof deck with 15 foot height at railing on top of the ADU, 2 car garage, and elevated spa, pool, fountain, and waterfall”. “The additions would more than double the existing size of the living space”. “Roof deck could not be built without the requested 3 setback variances”. “The deck will be a few times larger than any other deck on Seacove Dr.”. "Because DRB granted the variances, the deck will be only 4’6” (at a height of 15 feet) from that property line which results in privacy-intrusive direct sight lines into master bedroom, living room, and deck”. “Roof deck must independently satisfy the requirements for the 3 requested setback variances”. “All 5 adjoining neighbors oppose the project.” City Council Finds:
In regard to the size of the proposed addition, the living area of the main dwelling would be increased from 1,332.5 square feet to 1,973.3 square feet which is a 48 percent increase. The 44 -11- Reso. #
proposed ADU is not subject to design review and the area of the ADU is not included in the living area of the main residence. The ADU totals 928.4 square feet. The ADU was reviewed against the CDP findings, and the Board found that the Second Revised Project met the design review findings (main residence only) and the CDP findings (main residence and ADU).
As indicated by adopting findings for VAR 24-1153, the lot’s unusually shallow depth, presence of a 10-foot-wide private road easement, and required front and rear setbacks make it infeasible to build or expand a single-family home under R-1 zoning regulations. Because the usable depth is only 40 feet after a road easement, the required setbacks would leave no useful area to develop, necessitating variances. Other properties on Seacove Drive are similar with limiting property dimensions given the required setbacks but were allowed to develop with reduced setbacks. Variances for reduced front yard and rear yard setbacks have been granted for properties at 31673, 31676, and 31678 Seacove Drive.
In regard to the size of the proposed deck in comparison to other decks on Seacove Drive, the Second Revised Project proposes a 527.8 square foot deck. Decks on properties in the vicinity of the project site range in size from 184 square feet to 742 square feet, with an average size of 407.6 square feet (see Comparison Table in the agenda report).
In regard to the proximity of the proposed deck to the property line, the 4 foot, 10 inch setback is in line with the setback of the existing residence. The Board adopted a condition of approval requiring the existing podocarpus hedge and a proposed Carolina Cherry hedge be maintained at 9 feet above the upper-level finished floor elevation (elevation of 123 feet) to screen the deck from neighboring properties and mitigate privacy impacts.
In regard to neighbor opposition, while staff acknowledges neighborhood concerns, opposition alone is not a basis for denial; the decision must be grounded in review standards and 45 -12- Reso. #
supported findings. The Board weighed the concerns, required multiple revisions (deck reduction, glazing changes, and landscaping), and concluded that the Second Revised Project with the conditions of approval satisfied all applicable findings.
2. “Per DRB Chairman Gibbs and Member Coveny: “[The] huge deck [is not] remotely neighborhood compatible.” “[It’s an] immense privacy issue …. [and a] egregious abuse of variances.””
City Council Finds:
Board comments were part of deliberations, but the adopted findings and conditions, not individual remarks, govern the action. The Board required substantial revisions prior to approval, including deck reduction, removal of the fire pit, driveway modifications, and privacy screening, which were specifically imposed to address compatibility and privacy concerns. The final action represents a reasoned balancing of competing interests; isolated statements do not constitute grounds for overturning the decision. Moreover, a decision is not required to be unanimous. A three-member majority of the Board found that the required findings for approval could be made.
3. “Summary of Opposition to Project.”
City Council Finds:
The appeal reiterates opposition expressed at hearings. The Board considered all testimony, incorporated changes requested by the Board, and imposed conditions mitigating privacy and visual concerns. Opposition, without identification of specific findings that are unsupported or inconsistent with code, does not provide a sufficient basis to reverse or deny the Second Revised Project.
4. “Acoustic and Visual Privacy Intrusions Into My Master Bedroom, Living Room, and Deck.”
City Council Finds:
46 -13- Reso. #
The Second Revised Project incorporates privacy glazing, window orientation changes, and dense landscape screening along the affected property line. Conditions require maintenance of screening to preserve privacy. Noise and acoustic impacts were considered, and elimination of the fire pit and reduced deck area address concerns regarding outdoor gathering intensity. With these design features, the Board found impacts reduced to an acceptable level under the Design Review criteria.
5. “The Proposed Roof Deck Violates the Roof-Deck Prohibition In ADU Ordinance and Guidelines.”
City Council Finds:
As noted above, the approved plans do not include a roof deck; instead, the Second Revised Project includes an elevated deck associated with the main dwelling, not an ADU roof deck. While the applicable ADU design standards prohibit roof decks (LBMC Section 25.17.040(E)(5)(c)), the City views roof decks as decks above the uppermost story of a building. In this case, the deck would not be located above the uppermost story of the building; rather the deck would be the same level of the as the primary dwelling. In addition, since the deck can only be accessed from the primary dwelling, it is clearly intended to only be used by the primary dwelling, not as roof deck for the ADU. The current ADU ordinance (Ord. No. 1713) defines a “roof deck” as “a deck above the uppermost story of a building, with no access from interior living space at that same floor level”. The proposed deck is accessed from the interior living space of the main dwelling, is integrated into the project’s stepped design, and is not located above the uppermost level of the structure. Thus, no roof-deck was approved. This is consistent with another reference to roof decks in the Zoning Code in the Arch Beach Heights Specific Plan that discourages roof decks above the uppermost story, and a figure included in the Design Guidelines for Hillside Development, which 47 -14- Reso. #
depicts a “terraced deck” as a deck over the roof of a lower floor level, which is a preferred deck design as a means to better integrate building program into the natural slope and to reduce the perceived mass of a building (as opposed to a cantilevered or overhanging deck). The appeal misstates the project description. City ADU standards were reviewed by staff and by the Board, and the deck is not proposed above the uppermost level of the structure. The claim of violation is not supported by the record.
6. “Applicant Cannot Meet Legal Requirements for the FOUR (4) Variances Which He Is Requesting.”
City Council Finds:
Staff prepared draft variance findings pursuant to Municipal Code requirements, identifying unique site characteristics, existing setback patterns, and topographic conditions specific to this parcel. The Board made all required variance findings based on substantial evidence in the record, as follows.
1. There are special circumstances applicable to the property involved, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings which cause the strict application of the zoning ordinance to deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification.
Yes. The lot shape with its limited depth, coupled with the minimum required front and rear yard setback standards, is a special circumstance that deprives the property owner of the ability to construct a single-family residence consistent with similarly zoned properties in the vicinity. The subject property has a nonconforming lot depth of 50 feet where 80 feet is required. The first 10 feet of Lots 4 and 5 are a dedicated private road easement. With a resulting property depth of 40 feet, the R-1 48 -15- Reso. #
zone development standards require a 20-foot front setback coupled with the 10-foot rear setback which would leave no useful area to develop. It is not feasible to construct a single-family home, add on to an existing home, construct significant accessory improvements like a pool or construct an ADU within a 10-foot deep area and relief from the front and rear setbacks is necessary to develop the property consistent with the allowed use of the property. Other properties on Seacove Drive are similar with limiting property dimensions given the required setbacks but were allowed to develop with reduced setbacks. Allowing variances for a 4-foot, 10-inch front setback, a 4-foot, 6-inch rear setback, and to allow the structure to encroach into the required additional building setback area will allow the property owners to enjoy privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification.
2. Such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, which right is possessed by other property owners under like conditions in the same vicinity and zone.
Yes. The substantial property right in this case is the ability to construct a single-family home, or add to an existing single-family home including an ADU consistent with the allowed use of the property as designated by the Land Use Element of the General Plan and Zoning Code. It is not possible to construct or expand a singlefamily home or an ADU within a 10-foot-deep buildable area consistent with the front and rear setback standards. The existing single-family dwelling on the property is constructed with a 5-foot, 2-inch setback (4-foot, 10-inch garage setback) from the edge of the Seacove Drive easement and a 4-foot, 6-inch setback at the rear of the property.
Applying the required 20-foot front and 10-foot rear setbacks to the property would 49 -16- Reso. #
result in a 10-foot-deep buildable area on the site. Other properties on Seacove Drive were allowed to develop with reduced setbacks. There are seven other homes on Seacove Drive all of which are developed with reduced setbacks at the front, side, and rear property lines. Approval of the proposed variances is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, which right is possessed by other property owners under like conditions in the same vicinity and zone.
3. The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, convenience and welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity in which the property is located.
Yes. The variance request for encroachments into the required front and rear yard setbacks, encroachment into the additional building setback, and a pool in the front yard setback would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, convenience and welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity in which the property is located, because the proposed additions will not interfere with the use of the private road easement, the new driveway and two-car garage will be located such that vehicles will be able to exit without having to back out into the private road easement, and existing neighboring properties are constructed within setbacks with structures ranging from one-story to three-stories, and containing elevated decks. The proposed elevated deck and pool at the site will be approximately 30 feet from the residence to the southeast. Relocating the existing at-grade pool to the front yard will increase the separation from the properties to the west and north. The existing structure is developed with reduced setbacks similar to the proposed project and the development pattern has not proven detrimental to the community.
50 -17- Reso. #
4. The granting of such a variance would not be contrary to the objectives of the zoning ordinance or the general plan.
Yes. The objective of the zoning code is to provide for the orderly and safe development of land resources consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Setbacks are intended to promote safety while providing separation and access to structures, light, air and privacy. Setbacks also provide usable open space. The granting of such a variance would not be contrary to the objectives of the zoning ordinance or the general plan in that the proposed setbacks align with the existing setbacks of other properties on Seacove Drive in the vicinity and under identical zoning standards. The Zoning Code also provides a path for relief when special circumstances exist that would otherwise deprive property owners of the right to develop their lot consistent with the General Plan.
7. “The Requested CDP Should Not Be Granted Because the Project Does Not Comply With the City’s LCP and Therefore Required Legal Findings Cannot Be Made.” City Council Finds:
The Board considered relevant LCP policies and determined that the Second Revised Project, as conditioned, was consistent with the certified LCP. The appeal does not identify any specific LCP policy that is violated, nor provides evidence demonstrating non-compliance. The Board reviewed the CDP in the context of all required CDP findings, including finding that the project complies with all applicable LCP policies. Specifically, the Board found that the project complies with all applicable General Plan policies, Design Review criteria, and CDP criteria, including that the proposed development is visually compatible with the character of the surrounding area (CDP Finding 6) in that other properties on Seacove Drive have similar or the 51 -18- Reso. #
same setbacks. Additionally, view equity and privacy are not analyzed for the purposes of the City’s coastal development permit requirements. Those criteria are analyzed under the design review entitlement. There are no specific coastal resource impacts, including impacts to public views of coastal scenic resources.
8. “Noncompliance With CEQA.”
City Council Finds:
Staff reviewed the Second Revised Project under CEQA and determined it qualifies for a Class 1 categorical exemption from CEQA (Existing Facilities - minor alterations of existing structures) based on the scope of work and the absence of unusual circumstances that would preclude the use of the exemption. The Class 1 exemption applies when additions to existing structures are proposed, and the project additionally meets one of two criteria: (1) the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition, or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less; or (2) the addition will not result in an increase of more than 10,000 square feet if 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 the area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive.
In the July 24, 2025 Board staff report and the Board-adopted Resolution No. 24-1151, the analysis for the Class 1 exemption referenced the 2,500-square-foot/50% threshold. Because ADUs do not count toward the calculation for a major remodel, which is similarly triggered when the size of an addition crosses the 50% threshold, staff did not count the size of the attached ADU (928.4 square feet). Although the cumulative additions exceed 50 percent of the existing structure, the total added living area is only 1,569 square feet and does not approach the 10,000-square-foot 52 -19- Reso. #
threshold. Accordingly, the Second Revised Project independently qualifies for the Class 1 exemption under the second criterion.
In addition, the project site is not environmentally sensitive. It is fully developed with an existing single-family residence, ornamental landscaping, and hardscape; it is not located on an oceanfront lot; and it is entirely surrounded by existing residential development and improved public streets. All necessary public services and facilities—including water, wastewater, electricity, natural gas, and solid waste—are available and adequate to serve the proposed development and support the maximum development permitted by the General Plan. The subject property carries a land use designation of VLD, Village Low Density. As indicated in the Land Use Element, “[t]hese lands provide for single-family residential development at urban densities in areas that are predominantly developed and support existing detached single-family residences…Building density ranges from 1 to 7 dwelling units per acre and limits development to one house per parcel. The Second Revised Project includes additions to the existing singlefamily dwelling. In accordance with state ADU law, the proposed attached ADU is “deemed to be an accessory use or an accessory building and shall not be considered to exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which it is located, and shall be deemed to be a residential use that is consistent with the existing general plan and zoning designations for the lot.” The Second Revised Project is located within an established residential neighborhood and involves the remodel and expansion of an existing single-family dwelling, construction of one attached ADU, and construction of an elevated pool, spa, and deck. These improvements represent a negligible expansion of an existing residential use. The appeal does not present substantial evidence demonstrating the applicability of any exception to the Class 1 categorical exemption. 53 -20- Reso. #
The City Council resolution revises the analysis for the Class 1 categorical exemption adopted by the Board – for which the Second Revised Project continues to qualify for – by omitting the reference to the 2,500-square-foot/50-percent threshold and including additional analysis citing the applicable 10,000-square-foot threshold. The appeal does not cite substantial evidence of an exception to the exemption.
9. “Incorporation of Appellant’s Submissions to the DRB.” City Council Finds:
Materials submitted to the Board are already included in the administrative record and were reviewed by the Board. The Board’s decision reflects consideration of those submittals along with site visits, staff analysis, public comment, and revised plans. Incorporating previously submitted material does not create new grounds for reversal nor demonstrate that the Board erred in its findings.
SECTION 4. The City Council hereby makes the following findings in response to grounds for Appeal 3 stated in Appellants’ notice of Appeal:
1. “528 Square Foot Deck on top of a pool which both require variances.” City Council Finds:
The Second Revised Project includes an elevated deck and a pool, both of which require variances due to existing setback conditions. The Board reviewed the variance requests and made findings consistent with Municipal Code standards, noting the lot’s substandard dimensions, topographic constraints, and existing patterns of development. The record demonstrates that the variances were not granted arbitrarily but after substantial review, including multiple plan revisions (deck reduction, landscape screening, glazing changes, and elimination of fire pit) to 54 -21- Reso. #
mitigate potential impacts. Thus, the approval of the deck and pool variances does not constitute a legal defect or abuse of discretion.
2. “View Equity: Inappropriate Size and Neighborhood Privacy Intrusions.” City Council Finds:
As described in the Design Guidelines – A Guide to Residential Development, the View Equity design review criterion is intended to balance the applicant’s right to develop their property with the neighbors’ rights to maintain reasonable views. The Board considered the site conditions, adjacent structures, and project revisions, including deck size reductions, landscaping screening (Carolina Cherry hedge at a specified height), and frosted/obscure glazing. The Board found that the Second Revised Project satisfies the View Equity criterion.
In regard to privacy intrusions, the project includes design features to mitigate privacy impacts, such as dense screening along the north property line and window glazing adjustments.
The Board concluded that these measures reasonably reduce visual and acoustic privacy impacts.
The final design was found compatible with neighborhood development patterns, and the appeal does not provide substantial evidence that the approved deck size or pool violates view equity or unreasonably impacts privacy.
SECTION 5. Based on its review of the entire record before it, the City Council hereby finds and determines, in accordance with CEQA, that the Project is categorically exempt pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 - Existing Facilities, in that the project consists of the repair, maintenance, or minor alteration of existing structures or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. Examples of projects that qualify for a Class 1 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 include interior or exterior alterations that include such things as interior partitions, plumbing, and electrical conveyances, and additions 55 -22- Reso. #
to existing structures provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than 10,000 square feet if 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 the area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive.
As aforementioned, the Second Revised Project involves the remodel of and addition to an existing single-family dwelling, construction of one attached accessory dwelling unit, and construction of an elevated pool, spa, and deck, with a condition to require approval of a Lot Line Adjustment (lot merger) prior to issuance of grading or building permits to reduce the number of lots from two to one. The project site is not environmentally sensitive. It is fully developed with an existing single-family residence, ornamental landscaping, and hardscape; it is not located on an oceanfront lot; and it is entirely surrounded by existing residential development and improved public streets. All necessary public services and facilities—including water, wastewater, electricity, natural gas, and solid waste—are available and adequate to serve the proposed development and support the maximum development permitted by the General Plan. The subject property carries a land use designation of VLD, Village Low Density. As indicated in the Land Use Element, “[t]hese lands provide for single-family residential development at urban densities in areas that are predominantly developed and support existing detached single-family residences…Building density ranges from 1 to 7 dwelling units per acre and limits development to one house per parcel. The Second Revised Project includes additions to the existing singlefamily dwelling. In accordance with state ADU law, the proposed attached ADU is “deemed to be an accessory use or an accessory building and shall not be considered to exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which it is located, and shall be deemed to be a residential use that is consistent with the existing general plan and zoning designations for the lot.” 56 -23- Reso. #
The Second Revised Project is located within an established residential neighborhood and involves the remodel and expansion of an existing single-family dwelling, construction of one attached ADU, and construction of an elevated pool, spa, and deck. These improvements represent a negligible expansion of an existing residential use.
Further, none of the exceptions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply.
As indicated above, the Project site does not contain any environmentally sensitive areas in that the site is fully developed with an existing single-family residence, decks, and pool, and is adjacent to developed residential properties and streets. The City’s environmentally sensitive area maps do not identify any such areas on-site or within the immediate Project vicinity, and there are no mapped watercourses on the subject site. There will be no cumulative impact resulting from successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time in that the Project proposes one accessory dwelling unit and only a junior accessory dwelling could be permitted on the subject site in the future. There are no unusual circumstances resulting in a significant impact on the environment in that there are no historic resources or heritage trees on the site, or any other concerns with regards to the Project site. 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 in that the Second Revised Project would not impact trees, there are no historic buildings or rock outcroppings on the site, and the closest officially designated state scenic highway is located near Anaheim and therefore the Second Revised Project will not result in damage to scenic resources within or near such highway. The Second Revised 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 Second Revisd Project will not result in significant adverse impacts to historical resources as defined by CEQA in that there is no historic resource on 57 -24- Reso. #
the site or immediately adjacent to the site. Consequently, additional environmental analysis is not necessary to meet the requirements of the CEQA.
SECTION 6. The City Council hereby denies the Appeal and sustains the Design Review Boards’s determination on the Second Revised Project, as reflected in Resolution No. 24-1151, including all conditions attached thereto, which such Resolution and conditions are incorporated herein by this reference.
ADOPTED this 27th day of January, 2026.
Mark Orgill, Mayor
ATTEST:
Ann Marie McKay, City Clerk
I, Ann Marie McKay, City Clerk of the City of Laguna Beach, certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 26.XXX was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City held on January 27, 2026, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
City Clerk, City of Laguna Beach, California
58