RESOLUTION NO. 26.XXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE
DECISION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TO APPROVE
DESIGN REVIEW 25-1490 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT 25-1516 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED
STRUCTURE WITH TWO ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
AND ELEVATED DECKS AT 225 VIEJO STREET, AND
FINDING THE ACTION EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO STATE
CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15303
WHEREAS, the applicant, Lance Polster, Architect (“Applicant”)1, for 225 Viejo Street (the “Property”) applied for Design Review (“DR”) 25-1490 and Coastal Development Permit (“CDP”) 25-1516 to construct a detached structure with two accessory dwelling units (“ADUs”) and elevated decks in the R-2 (Residential Medium Density) zone (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, DR is required for the elevated decks pursuant to Laguna Beach Municipal Code (“LBMC”) Section 25.05.040(B)(3)(a)(ii), and a CDP is required for detached ADUs and elevated decks under LBMC Section 25.07.004; and
WHEREAS, on August 13, 2025, the Project was brought to the Administrative Community Development Director meeting for a public hearing. Staff received public comments concerning view equity (private views), public views, and neighborhood compatibility. Based on community interest, the Community Development Director referred the Project to the Design Review Board (pursuant to LBMC Section 25.05.040(B)(2)); and WHEREAS, on November 13, 2025, the Design Review Board (“Board”) held a duly noticed public hearing and considered the Project. After receiving input from staff, the Applicant, and public comments, the Board discussed the Project and approved the Project with a 5-0 Attachment 1
26 -2- Reso. #26.XXX
vote under Board Resolution No. 25-1490; and
WHEREAS, on December 1, 2025, John Requa of 229 Viejo Street (the “Appellant”) filed an appeal of the Board’s approval and CEQA determination of the Project (the “Appeal”); and
WHEREAS, on January 27, 2026, the City Council held a noticed public hearing to consider an 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 stated in Appellants’ notice of Appeal:
1. Multimodal Safety Hazards on a 24% Grade with Severe Parking Impacts City Council’s Response
Finding No. 1, Criteria No. 1
The Board found that the Project complied with Finding No. 1, Criteria No. 1 as follows:
“The proposed structure and the elevated decks do not encroach upon any existing physical accessway legally utilized by the public or any proposed public accessway identified in the adopted local coastal program land use plan because the project is located on private property and improvements are proposed within the buildable area of the lot.” Here, the Project does not interfere with public access in that the existing parking spaces 27 -3- Reso. #26.XXX
and site access will be maintained, and the Project would not change the movement of bicycles and pedestrians, thereby maintain existing multimodal movement and access. Existing driveway access points would be maintained, and the proposed Project would not introduce any improvements that would create visual obstructions affecting vehicle ingress or egress. According to the Applicant’s plans, the street segment abutting the Applicant’s property features a street grade of approximately 10 percent, not 24 percent as indicated by the Appellant. Additionally, the Project is not located within an access-impaired neighborhood per the 2021 Wildfire Egress Study. At the November 13, 2025, Board hearing, the Board deliberated on the bike path, the on-street parking, and the ADU parking requirements. Based on the evidence, the Board proceeded in the manner required by law and the decision is supported by substantial evidence.
Finding No. 1, Criteria No. 3
The Board found that the Project complied with Finding No. 1, Criteria No. 3 as follows:
“The Project site is located in a developed area within the City in the R-2 zone. The proposed development will not adversely affect recreational or visitor serving facilities because there are no recreational or visitor-serving facilities on the project site.” Here, the Project site is located in a neighborhood with characteristics typical of other Laguna Beach residential neighborhoods – no sidewalks and street parking used by residents, beach goers, and visitors, likely increasing during peak summer season. Viejo Street also includes bike sharrows in both directions. The use of Viejo Street as a bike route does not create unusual circumstances; even North Coast Highway is used regularly by cyclists. The proposed Project does not change these characteristics or street features. Furthermore, the Board discussed the parking requirements for ADUs, which are regulated by State law. In this case, the proposed two ADUs 28 -4- Reso. #26.XXX
are located roughly 300 feet from a public bus stop. Both State law and the City’s local ADU ordinance provide exceptions to providing parking for ADUs in this instance.
The California Coastal Commission published a memo dated January 21, 2022 titled Updates Regarding the Implementation of New ADU Laws. The memo provides guidance for parking in Coastal Zones related to ADUs including:
“Government Code [State law] limits the circumstances when a local government can require a J/ADU project to address its parking needs onsite.” (Page 8 of the Memo.) “In order to avoid conflicts regarding parking requirements for J/ADUs as they may impact public access, local governments are encouraged to work with Commission staff to identify or map specific neighborhoods and locations where there is high visitor demand for public on-street parking needed for coastal access and to specify parking requirements for each such area that harmonizes Government Code requirements with the Coastal Act (and any applicable LCP policies)…. However, harmonizing the distinct priorities between the Coastal Act’s protection of public coastal access and the J/ADU provisions on parking requirements will require a case-bycase consideration of the specific circumstances of each jurisdiction.” (Page 8 of the Memo.) It is important to note that the California Coastal Commission approved the City’s ADU Ordinance that, in the Coastal Zone, requires replacement parking for a single-family residence or multifamily dwelling (LBMC Section 25.17.040(6)(a)) but does not require parking for ADUs located less than 0.5 miles from a public bus stop. As part of the California Coastal Commission’s approval was the consideration of when onsite parking should be required for ADUs. The proposed Project would not remove existing parking for the existing duplex. Thus, replacement parking is not required, by State law or the City’s ADU Ordinance. Furthermore, an existing surface parking 29 -5- Reso. #26.XXX
area will remain at the front of the property along Viejo Street, in addition to the existing two-car garage that is proposed to remain. Finally, properties located in close proximity to Coast Highway commonly experience competition for on-street parking from beach visitors and nearby commercial uses. These conditions do not preclude a Project from qualifying for an ADU parking exemption.
The Project does not interfere with public access in that the existing parking spaces and site access will be maintained, and the Project would not change the movement of bicycles and pedestrians, thereby maintain existing multimodal movement and access. Existing driveway access points would be maintained, and the proposed Project would not introduce any improvements that would create visual obstructions affecting vehicle ingress or egress. According to the Applicant’s plans, the street segment abutting the Applicant’s property features a street grade of approximately 10 percent, not 24 percent as indicated by the Appellant. Additionally, the Project is not located within an access-impaired neighborhood per the 2021 Wildfire Egress Study. At the November 13, 2025, Board hearing, the Board deliberated on the bike path, the on-street parking, and the ADU parking requirements. Based on the evidence, the Board proceeded in the manner required by law and the decision is supported by substantial evidence.
2. Emergency Access & Hazard-Area Impacts
City Council’s Response
In short, Appellant contends that the Project does not comply with CDP Finding 1, Criteria No. 8 [“The proposed development will be provided with adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities”], Criteria No. 9 [“Other public services, including, but not limited to, solid waste and public roadway capacity have been considered and are adequate to serve the 30 -6- Reso. #26.XXX
proposed development”], and Criteria No. 5 [“The proposed development will minimize the alterations of natural landforms and will not result in undue risks from geological and erosional forces and/or flood and fire hazards”]. (See Appeal for entirety of Appeal Contention No. 2.) Finding No. 1, Criteria No. 8
The Board found that the Project complied with Finding No. 1, Criteria No. 8 as follows:
“The Project consists of construction of a detached structure consisting of two ADUs and elevated decks. The proposed development will be provided with adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities because the Project site is already served by adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, and other necessary facilities and the ADU will not overburden those facilities at an additional 655.4 square feet of living space for each ADU.” Here, the Project site is in a developed area with sufficient access. Indeed, the Project site is located on Viejo Street, which is one street east of Coast Highway—the main road for ingress and egress out of the City. Although Viejo Street is developed without sidewalks, like many other streets within the City, it is sufficiently accessible by pedestrians, bicyclists, passenger vehicles, and emergency vehicles. Further, the Project does not change the access road. It adds two ADUs that will access Viejo Street through the same driveway apron that currently exists on the Property.
No additional vehicles will be stored on the Property, so the additional units will result in additional individuals on foot or bicycle accessing Viejo Street.
Finding No. 1, Criteria No. 9
The Board found that the Project complied with Finding No. 1, Criteria No. 9 as follows:
“The Project consists of construction of a detached structure consisting of two ADUs and elevated decks. Other public services, including, but not limited to, solid waste and public roadway 31 -7- Reso. #26.XXX
capacity have been considered and are adequate to serve the proposed development. Because the Project site is already properly served by public services, including solid waste and roads, the ADUs will not overburden those services at an additional 655.4 square feet of living space for each ADU.”
Here, the Project site is located within an established residential neighborhood and is entirely surrounded by existing residential development, improved public streets, and alleys. The property is a corner lot with frontage on Viejo Street and two alleys, providing adequate access for service vehicles, including solid waste collection and emergency services.
All necessary public services and facilities are already available to the site and are adequate to serve the proposed development. These services include, but are not limited to, water, wastewater, electricity, natural gas, and solid waste collection. Because the site is currently developed and properly served by existing infrastructure, the proposed construction of two accessory dwelling units will rely on and benefit from these existing public services.
Finding No. 1, Criteria No. 5
The Board found that the Project complied with Finding No. 1, Criteria No. 5 as follows:
“The proposed development, which consists of a detached structure consisting of two ADUs, involves minimal grading (4.49 cubic yards of net export outside the building footprint and
2.69 cubic yards of net import inside the building footprint) and therefore does not pose undue risks of geological and erosional forces or flood and fire hazards.” Here, although portions of Viejo Street are located within the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (“VHFHSZ”) like many other areas within the City, the Project site is not in the VHFHSZ and will be developed in accordance with the applicable Fire Code requirements. The 32 -8- Reso. #26.XXX
architectural plans have been reviewed by the Community Development Department Deputy Director for the Building Division, who confirmed that the site access and other Project design features will be Fire Code-compliant. Further, the Project site is not located within an accessimpaired neighborhood per the 2021 Wildfire Egress Study. Lastly, it is sufficiently accessible by pedestrians, bicyclists, passenger vehicles, and emergency vehicles. Under the State ADU Law, ADUs do not constitute added density.
3. Coastal Access & Visitor-Serving Parking Impacts
City Council’s Response
In short, Appellant contends that the Project does not comply with CDP Finding 1, Criteria No. 3 [“The proposed development will not adversely affect recreational or visitor-serving facilities or coastal scenic resources”] and CDP Finding No. 2 [“Any development located between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea is in conformity with the certified local coastal program and with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act”]. (See Appeal for entirety of Appeal Contention No. 3.) Finding No. 1, Criteria No. 3
The Board found that the Project complied with Finding No. 1, Criteria No. 3 as follows:
“The Project site is located in a developed area within the City in the R-2 zone. The proposed development will not adversely affect recreational or visitor serving facilities because there are no recreational or visitor-serving facilities on the project site.” Here, Project site is located in a neighborhood with characteristics typical of other Laguna Beach residential neighborhoods – no sidewalks and street parking used by residents, beach goers, and visitors, likely increasing during peak summer season. Viejo Street also includes bike sharrows 33 -9- Reso. #26.XXX
in both directions. The use of Viejo Street as a bike route does not create unusual circumstances; even North Coast Highway is used regularly by cyclists. The proposed Project does not change these characteristics or street features. Furthermore, the Board discussed the parking requirements for ADUs, which are regulated by State law. In this case, the proposed two ADUs are located roughly 300 feet from a public bus stop. Both State law and the City’s local ADU ordinance provide exceptions to providing parking for ADUs in this instance.
The California Coastal Commission published a memo dated January 21, 2022 titled Updates Regarding the Implementation of New ADU Laws. The memo provides guidance for parking in Coastal Zones related to ADUs including:
• “Government Code [State law] limits the circumstances when a local government can require a J/ADU project to address its parking needs onsite.” (Page 8 of the Memo.) • “In order to avoid conflicts regarding parking requirements for J/ADUs as they may impact public access, local governments are encouraged to work with Commission staff to identify or map specific neighborhoods and locations where there is high visitor demand for public on-street parking needed for coastal access and to specify parking requirements for each such area that harmonizes Government Code requirements with the Coastal Act (and any applicable LCP policies)…. However, harmonizing the distinct priorities between the Coastal Act’s protection of public coastal access and the J/ADU provisions on parking requirements will require a case-by-case consideration of the specific circumstances of each jurisdiction.” (Page 8 of the Memo.) It is important to note that the California Coastal Commission approved the City’s ADU Ordinance that, in the Coastal Zone, requires replacement parking for a single-family residence or 34 -10- Reso. #26.XXX
multifamily dwelling (LBMC Section 25.17.040(6)(a)) but does not require parking for ADUs located less than 0.5 miles from a public bus stop. As part of the California Coastal Commission’s approval was the consideration of when onsite parking should be required for ADUs. The proposed Project would not remove existing parking for the existing duplex. Thus, replacement parking is not required, by State law or the City’s ADU Ordinance. Furthermore, an existing surface parking area will remain at the front of the property along Viejo Street, in addition to the existing two-car garage that is proposed to remain. Finally, properties located in close proximity to Coast Highway commonly experience competition for on-street parking from beach visitors and nearby commercial uses. These conditions do not preclude a Project from qualifying for an ADU parking exemption.
The Project does not interfere with public access in that the existing parking spaces and site access will be maintained, and the Project would not change the movement of bicycles and pedestrians, thereby maintaining existing multimodal movement and access. Existing driveway access points would be maintained, and the proposed Project would not introduce any improvements that would create visual obstructions affecting vehicle ingress or egress. According to the Applicant’s plans, the street segment abutting the Applicant’s property features a street grade of approximately 10 percent, not 24 percent as indicated by the Appellant. Additionally, the Project is not located within an access-impaired neighborhood per the 2021 Wildfire Egress Study. At the November 13, 2025, Board hearing, the Board deliberated on the bike path, the on-street parking, and the ADU parking requirements. Based on the evidence, the Board proceeded in the manner required by law and the decision is supported by substantial evidence.
The Board found that the Project complied with Finding No. 2 as follows:
35 -11- Reso. #26.XXX
“The project site is not located between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea. As detailed above in the facts supporting Finding Number 1, the proposed development is in conformity with the certified local coastal program.”
The project site is not located between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea.
In this area, the first public road paralleling the ocean is Cliff Drive. The proposed Project is located approximately 600 feet inland of Cliff Drive. In addition, there are two public roads running generally parallel to the ocean that are oceanward of the project site—Cliff Drive and North Coast Highway.
Because the project site is not situated between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea, Finding No. 2 does not apply.
4. Scenic Resource & Community Character Impacts
In short, Appellant contends that the Project does not comply with CDP Finding 1, Criteria No. 3 [“The proposed development will not adversely affect recreational or visitor-serving facilities or coastal scenic resources”] and CDP Finding No. 1, Criteria No. 6 [“The proposed development will be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and where feasible, will restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas”]. (See Appeal for entirety of Appeal Contention No. 3.)
City Council’s Response
Finding No. 1, Criteria No. 3
The Board found that the Project complied with Finding No. 1, Criteria No. 3 as follows:
“The Project site is located in a developed area within the City in the R-2 zone. The proposed development will not adversely affect recreational or visitor serving facilities because 36 -12- Reso. #26.XXX
there are no recreational or visitor-serving facilities on the project site.
Project staking indicated the proposed ADU would infringe on the view of ocean when looking southernly from Viejo Street. While Viejo Street maintains a dedicated bike route, the local street has no sidewalks and no dedicated public space. Additionally, views of the ocean looking west and northerly from Viejo Street would not be impacted by the proposed project.
Therefore, the project would not adversely affect coastal scenic resources.” The Coastal Act requires new development to be located within or near existing developed areas, where it will not have significant adverse effects, either individually or cumulatively, on coastal resources:
(a) New residential, commercial, or industrial development, except as otherwise provided in this division, shall be located within, contiguous with, or in close proximity to, existing developed areas able to accommodate it or, where such areas are not able to accommodate it, in other areas with adequate public services and where it will not have significant adverse effects, either individually or cumulatively, on coastal resources. In addition, land divisions, other than leases for agricultural uses, outside existing developed areas shall be permitted only where 50 percent of the usable parcels in the area have been developed and the created parcels would be no smaller than the average size of surrounding parcels.
(b) Where feasible, new hazardous industrial development shall be located away from existing developed areas.
(c) Visitor-serving facilities that cannot feasibly be located in existing developed areas shall be located in existing isolated developments or at selected points of attraction for visitors. (Public Resources Code Section 30250.)
37 -13- Reso. #26.XXX
The Coastal Act also sets forth the following requirements for new development to minimize adverse impacts:
New development shall do all of the following:
(a) Minimize risks to life and property in areas of high geologic, flood, and fire hazard. (b) Assure stability and structural integrity, and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs.
(c) Be consistent with requirements imposed by an air pollution control district or the State Air Resources Board as to each particular development.
(d) Minimize energy consumption and vehicle miles traveled. (e) Where appropriate, protect special communities and neighborhoods that, because of their unique characteristics, are popular visitor destination points for recreational uses. (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 30253.)
The Coastal Act requires an analysis as to whether new development has “significant adverse impacts” to coastal scenic resources. For example, LT-WR v. California Coastal Commission (2007) 152 Cal. App. 4th 770, 797-99 demonstrates the type of evidence relied upon to establish a significant adverse impact. In LT-WR, supra, the court upheld the Coastal Commission’s finding that a project, consisting of an existing mobile home, storage trailer, two metal gates with fence, and signs, and a new septic system, water well, grading, and road, located in the Santa Monica mountains atop Castro peak, created significant adverse impacts on coastal scenic resources based on the visibility of the project area from public parklands and trails, its 38 -14- Reso. #26.XXX
location on a designated significant ridgeline, and the cumulative impact of grading and removal of chaparral habitat for building pads and fuel modification. The court found that “the aerial photographs relied upon by the Coastal Commission reasonably support the inference that the property is visible from hiking trails in the Santa Monic Mountains and the development would have significant adverse impacts on visual resources from the public viewing areas” and constituted substantial evidence, which supported the Coastal Commission’s finding of a significant adverse impact to coastal scenic resources. (Id.) The court emphasized that it is not the task of a court to reweigh evidence that the Coastal Commission considered. (Id.) While the City’s certified LCP, including the criteria and findings for a coastal development permit, does not use the term “significant” when directing the City to analyze adverse impacts to coastal scenic resources (like the Coastal Act in Public Resources Code Section 30250), the City’s certified LCP also does not direct the City to analyze “any” impact; the City’s certified LCP directs the City to analyze “adverse impacts” to coastal scenic resources. In the CEQA context—which may provide some analogous authority—a court distinguished between adverse impacts and positive impacts and affirmed that adverse impacts are akin to negative impacts. (See Cnty. Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. Cnty. of Kern (2005) 127 Cal. App. 4th 1544, 1558.) In other words, “adverse” is equivalent to “negative.”
The City’s Land Use Plan has policies for visual and scenic resources. The City identifies that the principal focus concerns property situated adjacent to the major transportation systems in the City (i.e., Laguna Canyon Road and Pacific Coast Highway) since it is along those roadways that a majority of residents and non-residents view the community and have visual access to scenic corridors.
39 -15- Reso. #26.XXX
The Open Space and Conservation Element, which is part of the City’s certified LCP, defines visual resources, including coastal visual resources or “coastal scenic resources” as shoreline features or the natural appearance of the coast, and hillside visual resources as undeveloped hillside lands:
Coastal Visual Resources: With few exceptions, such as Main Beach Park, the City’s 4.2 miles of shoreline is characterized by prominent headlands, pocket beaches or coves, wave-cut cliffs, and associated sea arches, caves and blow-holes. These shoreline features are largely a product of erosional forces that have shaped and formed their particular characteristics over centuries of time. Some of these features are more susceptible to erosion than others by virtue of their geologic formation and exposure to erosional elements, which contribute to and enhance the natural appearance of the coast.
Hillside Visual Resources: Nearly 30% of the City consists of undeveloped hillside lands.
These lands support a great diversity of visual resources, with prominent exposure from both public and private property. Generally, these features include: (1) unique topographic forms - vertically exposed rock faces, bluffs, headlands and noticeably steep slopes; (2) unique vegetative forms, including stands of oak, sycamore and eucalyptus trees, and riparian or canyon land plant communities; (3) natural watercourses and associated canyon bottoms; (4) special land features such as prominent ridgelines, escarpments and rock outcroppings; and (S) visual edges or boundaries consisting of contrasting features where rock outcroppings may meet with surrounding vegetation or man-made features such as roads and buildings. (OSCE, p. 33.) The OSCE further states that “an important aspect of hillside and coastal land features is their visibility from public roadways”—supporting that the OSCE does apply to 40 -16- Reso. #26.XXX
the Project. (OSCE, p. 35.) The City implements the following policy in its OSCE: “7-A Preserve to the maximum extent feasible the quality of public views from hillsides and along the city’s shorelines.”
Here, in evaluating the Project’s impact on coastal scenic resources, such as views from the public road of the ocean, the Board found that the impact is minimal—and does not rise to the level of an adverse or negative impact. The Project proposed an approximately 1,300-square-foot detached structure with two ADUs and approximately 175 square feet of elevated decking, and with a peak height of 18 feet, which in comparison with other residences in the neighborhood, this Project is not out of scale and does not significantly diminish the view of the coast.
Viejo Street is designated as a City bike route; however, it is not located within a scenic view corridor. The bike route traverses a residential neighborhood characterized by a mix of oneand two-story development on both sides of the street, where partial views of the ocean are available. The views are not unobstructed due to existing vegetation and the density and scale of existing development in the Project vicinity. Furthermore, public ocean views along the bike route occur primarily when traveling directly down Viejo Street toward the coast, rather than from within the immediate Project frontage. The Project is not of a scale that would significantly diminish the public views in a manner out of character with existing proportions and surrounding properties.
Several properties along the same block contain existing structures positioned closer to the street, many of which are two stories in height.
Although the OSCE recognizes that scenic value can be diminished when its visual continuity is disrupted, the Project's intrusion does not create an adverse or negative impact that would justify denying the Project. A standard such as this (i.e., an impingement whatsoever on a 41 -17- Reso. #26.XXX
public coastal view from anywhere in the public right-of-way) without a more holistic view of the coastal scenic resource may create an extremely prohibitive development standard. In some cases, such a standard could deny the right to develop on a parcel entirely. Staff does not believe that such a standard is legally supported. The Project’s scale, siting, and setbacks are consistent with the surrounding development pattern and would not substantially degrade or obstruct public coastal views. Further, views of the coast from various other locations within the right-of-ways surrounding the Project area would remain unobstructed.
Lastly, although Viejo Street functions as one of several potential routes to arrive at the trailhead to the Dartmoor Trail, the Project would not obstruct or otherwise affect public views of coastal scenic resources from the trail itself. Public views from the trail would remain unchanged.
Finding No. 1, Criteria No. 6
The Board found that the Project complied with Finding No. 1, Criteria No. 6 as follows:
“The proposed development will be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas because it consists of both one- and two-story homes. The Project site is not located within a visually degraded area, but the Project will restore and enhance the visual quality of the Project site given that the original duplex was constructed in 1948 and is improved with an approximate 1,689 square-foot duplex and approximate 450 square-foot, attached, two-car garage.” The site contains an existing two-story duplex set back from the front property line along Viejo Street. The Project would add a detached structure consisting of two ADUs. The height of the structure was reduced to 18 feet to comply with height requirements for ADUs. The neighborhood consists of a mix of one- and two-story structures; most of the structures are built towards the front of the property (see aerial image below). The proposed Project is atypical in that 42 -18- Reso. #26.XXX
the existing structures are located substantially farther from Viejo Street than the majority of development along the 200 block of Viejo Street. The Project would introduce two detached ADUs with a 20-foot setback from Viejo Street and a two-story street-facing appearance, which is consistent with the established development pattern along the street. Based on the evidence, the Board proceeded in the manner required by law and the decision is supported by substantial evidence.
5. CEQA Cumulative & Unusual Circumstances Exceptions to Exemptions In short, Appellant contends that the following exceptions to the categorical exemptions apply and preclude the use of a CEQA exemption: (a) cumulative impact; (b) significant effect. (See Appeal for entirety of Appeal Contention No. 5.)
City Council’s Response
In analyzing the applicability of a CEQA exemption, the City must analyze the required findings for the exemption and whether facts support the use of the exemption. A challenger to the City’s use of the exemption has the burden of demonstrating based on substantial evidence that the exemption does not apply or exceptions to the exemption apply. The exceptions to the categorical exemptions are outlined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2. Two of those exceptions are as follows: (a) cumulative impact; (b) significant effect.
Cumulative Impact
The language of the exception is as follows: “All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant.”
This exception requires the City to look at the area where the environmental impact will 43 -19- Reso. #26.XXX
occur and the affected area will depend on the nature of the environmental impact. For an example of “in the same place,” if evaluating aesthetic cumulative impacts, then “same place” might mean the project plus related projects all on one street that impact the same views of the Pacific Ocean.
The City would not need to look at other pending approvals two blocks down that are not impacting the same views. For an example of the “same type,” for a single-family residential project, the City would not consider commercial or other type of projects, and likely limit the scope to just singlefamily residential projects. Speculation that there may be a significant cumulative impact simply by identifying other projects occurring in the area is insufficient to trigger this exception. The cumulative impacts exception applies when (1) there is evidence of a cumulative impact, and (2) there is evidence that the cumulative impact is significant. In terms of finding a cumulative impact “significant,” the City has the discretion to apply a threshold in determining whether an impact is significant or not.
Here, the City evaluated whether there are successive projects of the same type in the same place that would result in a significant cumulative impact on public views from the coast. One nearby project of the same type is located at 239 Viejo Street, two lots north of the subject property.
That project was approved by the Design Review Board on October 9, 2025, and involves demolition of existing structures and construction of a new two-story single-family residence with an elevated deck and an accessory dwelling unit. Similar to the proposed Project, the 239 Viejo Street development will be built to the 20-foot front yard setback and includes an elevated deck at the front of the residence.
Based on a comparative review of the approved plans for 239 Viejo Street and the proposed Project, both developments exhibit similar setbacks, scale, and massing along the Viejo Street 44 -20- Reso. #26.XXX
frontage. While these projects represent successive residential development along the same street, they do not introduce building forms or heights that are inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood pattern, nor do they cumulatively obstruct or degrade public views of the ocean from public rights-of-way in a significant manner. Public coastal views will continue to be available from multiple vantage points within the surrounding street and alley network.
Accordingly, although the projects are of the same general type and located in proximity, there is no substantial evidence demonstrating that their combined visual effects result in a significant cumulative impact. Therefore, the cumulative impacts exception to the categorical exemption does not apply.
Significant Effect
The language of the exception is as follows: “A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.” There is a two-step process to determine whether unusual circumstances exist. The evaluation considers whether: (1) the circumstances of the particular project differ from the general circumstances of projects covered by a particular categorical exemption, and (2) those circumstances create an environmental risk that does not exist for the general class of exempt projects. Here, the structure with two ADUs is consistent in terms of size and location of other structures in the neighborhood. The Property has an unusually large front yard to accommodate the new structure when compared to other properties in the vicinity.
Additionally, its height of 18 feet is similar to structures on other properties within the vicinity.
While the Project has sloped streets, has no sidewalks, is near pedestrians and bicyclists and onstreet parking used by visitors, these circumstances exist for the remainder of the street and also 45 -21- Reso. #26.XXX
many areas within the City of Laguna Beach. Further, there are no environmentally sensitive areas or environmentally sensitive habitat areas on or around the site, as demonstrated in the City’s GIS.
Indeed, the Property and the neighborhood is already developed.
Here, the Board considered the evidence, including the site and neighborhood characteristics and public testimony, but did not find any unusual circumstances. Based on the evidence, the Board proceeded in the manner required by law and the decision is supported by substantial evidence.
SECTION 3. Based on its review of the entire record before it, the City Council hereby finds and determines that the Project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15303 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, in that the project consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small structures. There is no evidence of any unusual or special conditions that would result in a significant effect on the environment in that the proposed detached structure consisting of two accessory dwelling units and elevated decks are located on a developed site and is consistent with surrounding development.
Further, none of the exceptions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply.
The project site does not contain any environmentally sensitive areas according to the City’s records. There will be no cumulative impact resulting from successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time.
In accordance with CEQA guidelines, the project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15303 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, in that the project consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small structures. There is no evidence of 46 -22- Reso. #26.XXX
any unusual or special conditions that would result in a significant effect on the environment in that the proposed detached structure consisting of two accessory dwelling units and elevated decks are located on a developed site and is consistent with surrounding development.
Further, none of the exceptions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply.
The project site does not contain any environmentally sensitive areas according to the City’s records. There will be no cumulative impact resulting from successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time.
Here, the City evaluated whether there are successive projects of the same type in the same place that would result in a significant cumulative impact on public views from the coast. One nearby project of the same type is located at 239 Viejo Street, two lots north of the subject property.
That project was approved by the Design Review Board on October 9, 2025, and involves demolition of existing structures and construction of a new two-story single-family residence with an elevated deck and an accessory dwelling unit. Similar to the proposed Project, the 239 Viejo Street development will be built to the 20-foot front yard setback and includes an elevated deck at the front of the residence. Based on a comparative review of the approved plans for 239 Viejo Street and the proposed Project, both developments exhibit similar setbacks, scale, and massing along the Viejo Street frontage. While these projects represent successive residential development along the same street, they do not introduce building forms or heights that are inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood pattern, nor do they cumulatively obstruct or degrade public views of the ocean from public rights-of-way in a significant manner. Public coastal views will continue to be available from multiple vantage points within the surrounding street and alley network.
There are no unusual circumstances resulting in a significant impact on the environment in 47 -23- Reso. #26.XXX
that the project site is developed and the project is not located in an environmentally sensitive area.
Here, the structure with two ADUs is consistent in terms of size and location of other structures in the neighborhood. The Property has an unusually large front yard to accommodate the new structure when compared to other properties in the vicinity. Additionally, its height of 18 feet is similar to structures on other properties within the vicinity. While the Project has sloped streets, has no sidewalks, is near pedestrians and bicyclists and on-street parking used by visitors, these circumstances exist for the remainder of the street and also many areas within the City of Laguna Beach. Further, there are no environmentally sensitive areas or environmentally sensitive habitat areas on or around the site, as demonstrated in the City’s GIS. Indeed, the Property and the neighborhood is already developed. 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 those resources do not occur on or near the project site. 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 according to Cortese List. The project will not result in significant adverse impacts to historical resources as defined by CEQA in that there are no historical resources located on the project site. Consequently, additional environmental analysis is not necessary to meet the requirements of the CEQA.
SECTION 4. The City Council hereby makes the following findings and facts supporting findings for DR 25-1490:
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:
48 -24- Reso. #26.XXX
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.
Vehicular access to the existing two-family dwelling provided from the rear alley and access and the paved area from Viejo Street would not be affected by the proposed project. The proposed elevated decks are located entirely within private property and allowable building envelope, therefore, the improvements would not conflict with vehicles, pedestrians and other modes of transportation . Handicapped access is not required for this project type.
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.
The project incorporates a cohesive and well-integrated design for both decks. The second story is stepped back from the first story, providing sufficient building footprint area to accommodate the proposed decks as part of the primary structure rather than as cantilevered elements. The portion of the structure containing the decks is oriented toward commercially zoned properties along Coast Highway and overlooks the adjacent alley.
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.
The proposed decks are designed in conjunction with the accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and will incorporate similar materials and architectural detailing to ensure visual consistency with 49 -25- Reso. #26.XXX
the primary structure. The decks are partially integrated into the building massing through the stepback of the second story, resulting in a terraced configuration rather than a cantilevered design.
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.
The proposed project is located within a developed residential neighborhood, and there are no existing heritage trees, ridgelines, rock outcroppings, or significant watercourse on the site. The decks will not have a significant impact on the surrounding terrain as the proposed decks are elevated and do not require grading.
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.
The project complies with the following applicable General Plan policies.
General Plan Policies
Land Use (LU) Policy 2.8 Require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated with natural topographic features, minimize significant alteration of natural topography and/or other significant onsite resources, and protect public views as specified in the Design Guidelines and the Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document.
As discussed in the environmental context above, the proposed decks would not result in any grading export and will therefore have minimal alteration of the existing topography. The proposed decks are oriented toward the adjacent alley and commercial development along Coast 50 -26- Reso. #26.XXX
Highway. The structures are set back more than 20 feet from the front property line and maintain an elevation generally consistent with the existing hedge height along the public alley. Given these conditions, the decks are not anticipated to result in any obstruction or alteration of existing public view corridors from Viejo Street.
LU 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 proposed decks are partially integrated into the second floor of the proposed detached structure minimizing their visual prominence. Placement on the side of the structure opposite adjacent residential properties ensures that views from surrounding properties are preserved.
6. Historic Preservation: Destruction or alteration to historic resources should be avoided whenever possible. See Chapter 25.45 for more information.
The Project site contains an existing duplex and attached two-car garage that are not considered historic resources and there are no adjacent historic resources that would be impacted by the 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. 51 -27- Reso. #26.XXX
New landscaping is not proposed with the Project and existing landscaping is proposed to remain.
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, highgloss 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.
The proposed exterior building lighting will be adequate for individual and public safety and will not significantly impact neighboring properties. The proposed lighting fixtures will be aimed downward, and the bulbs will be fully shielded and hooded to comply with the City’s Good Neighbor Outdoor Lighting Ordinance (LBMC Chapter 7.70). The proposed building finish materials will not be highly reflective or result in glare.
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.
The proposed decks will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, in that it is common for nearby properties to utilize outdoor space with distant ocean views through at-grade decks, elevated decks, and balconies.
10. Pedestrian Orientation: Commercial development design shall enhance and encourage pedestrian uses. Incorporation of articulated building masses, compact open spaces and 52 -28- Reso. #26.XXX
courtyards, mixed use developments, use of landscaping as part of design, and orientation to pedestrian access should be maximized.
Design Review Criteria for Pedestrian Orientation is related to commercial development and is not applicable to the proposed project.
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.
The proposed decks are south-facing and situated on the side of the proposed structure opposite the adjacent residential properties. Adjacent commercial properties to the south contain no windows or features that directly interface with the project site, minimizing potential impacts on privacy or visual intrusion.
12. Public Art: Public art is encouraged and shall be displayed where feasible or required by the Art in Public Places ordinance.
Design Review Criteria for Public Art is related to commercial development and is not applicable to the proposed project.
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.
Design Review Criteria for Signage is related to commercial development and is not applicable to the proposed project.
14. Sustainability: New development should consider architecture and building practices 53 -29- Reso. #26.XXX
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.
The Project will be required to meet Title 24 Energy and Building Code requirements.
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.
The Project does not include swimming pools, spas, or water features.
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.
The project is not anticipated to impact view equity, as the proposed elevated decks are located on the side of the proposed structure opposite the adjacent residential 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.
The project is consistent with the Residential Design Review Guidelines, as explained above.
54 -30- Reso. #26.XXX
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.
See Findings above under Design Review Criteria 2, 3, 4, and 9 for design articulation, design integrity, environmental context, and neighborhood compatibility, with the facts provided incorporated herein by reference.
Finding No. 4. The project is consistent with any specific plan or any other specific zoning design review criteria.
The project is not located within any specific plan and the R-2 zoning does not contain any specific design review criteria.
SECTION 5. The City Council hereby makes the following findings and facts supporting findings for CDP 25-1516:
Finding No. 1: The project is in conformity with all the applicable provisions of the certified local coastal program, including the following review criteria:
1. The proposed development will not encroach upon any existing physical accessway legally utilized by the public or any proposed public accessway identified in the adopted local coastal program land use plan.
The proposed structure and the elevated decks do not encroach upon any existing physical accessway legally utilized by the public or any proposed public accessway identified in the adopted local coastal program land use plan because the project is located on private property and improvements are proposed within the buildable area of the lot.
Here, the Project does not interfere with public access in that the existing parking spaces 55 -31- Reso. #26.XXX
and site access will be maintained, and the Project would not change the movement of bicycles and pedestrians, thereby maintain existing multimodal movement and access. Existing driveway access points would be maintained, and the proposed Project would not introduce any improvements that would create visual obstructions affecting vehicle ingress or egress. According to the Applicant’s plans, the street segment abutting the Applicant’s property features a street grade of approximately 10 percent. Additionally, the Project is not located within an access-impaired neighborhood per the 2021 Wildfire Egress Study.1
2. The proposed development will not adversely affect marine resources, environmentally sensitive areas, or archaeological or paleontological resources.
The subject property is developed with an existing duplex, and the Project consists of construction of two detached ADUs and elevated decks. The project site does not contain any known marine resources, environmentally sensitive areas, or archaeological or paleontological resources. Therefore, the proposed development will not adversely affect marine resources, environmentally sensitive areas, or archaeological or paleontological resources on or near the project site.
3. The proposed development will not adversely affect recreational or visitor-serving facilities or coastal scenic resources.
The Project site is located in a developed area within the City in the R-2 zone. The proposed development will not adversely affect recreational or visitor serving facilities because there are no recreational or visitor-serving facilities on the project site. 1 The Wildfire Egress Study prepared by KLD Engineering, P.C. and dated July, 2021 may be accessed online here: https://www.lagunabeachcity.net/live-here/emergency-management/planspolicies-reports 56 -32- Reso. #26.XXX
Here, the Project site is located in a neighborhood with characteristics typical of other Laguna Beach residential neighborhoods – no sidewalks and street parking used by residents, beach goers, and visitors, likely increasing during peak summer season. Viejo Street also includes bike sharrows in both directions. The use of Viejo Street as a bike route does not create unusual circumstances; even North Coast Highway is used regularly by cyclists. The proposed Project does not change these characteristics or street features. Furthermore, the proposed two ADUs are located roughly 300 feet from a public bus stop. Both State law and the City’s local ADU ordinance provide exceptions to providing parking for ADUs in this instance.
It is important to note that the California Coastal Commission approved the City’s ADU Ordinance that, in the Coastal Zone, requires replacement parking for a single-family residence or multifamily dwelling (LBMC Section 25.17.040(6)(a)) but does not require parking for ADUs located less than 0.5 miles from a public bus stop. As part of the California Coastal Commission’s approval was the consideration of when onsite parking should be required for ADUs. The proposed Project would not remove existing parking for the existing duplex. Thus, replacement parking is not required, by State law or the City’s ADU Ordinance. Furthermore, an existing surface parking area will remain at the front of the property along Viejo Street, in addition to the existing two-car garage that is proposed to remain. Finally, properties located in close proximity to Coast Highway commonly experience competition for on-street parking from beach visitors and nearby commercial uses. These conditions do not preclude a Project from qualifying for an ADU parking exemption.
Project staking indicated the proposed ADU would infringe on the view of ocean when looking southernly from Viejo Street. While Viejo Street maintains a dedicated bike route, the 57 -33- Reso. #26.XXX
local street has no sidewalks and no dedicated public space. Additionally, views of the ocean looking west and northerly from Viejo Street would not be impacted by the proposed project.
Therefore, the project would not adversely affect coastal scenic resources.
Here, in evaluating the Project’s impact on coastal scenic resources, such as views from the public road of the ocean, the impact is minimal—and does not rise to the level of an adverse or negative impact. The Project proposed an approximately 1,300-square-foot detached structure with two ADUs and approximately 175 square feet of elevated decking, and with a peak height of 18 feet, which in comparison with other residences in the neighborhood, this Project is not out of scale and does not significantly diminish the view of the coast.
Viejo Street is designated as a City bike route; however, it is not located within a scenic view corridor. The bike route traverses a residential neighborhood characterized by a mix of oneand two-story development on both sides of the street, where partial views of the ocean are available. The views are not unobstructed due to existing vegetation and the density and scale of existing development in the Project vicinity. Furthermore, public ocean views along the bike route occur primarily when traveling directly down Viejo Street toward the coast, rather than from within the immediate Project frontage. The Project is not of a scale that would significantly diminish the public views in a manner out of character with existing proportions and surrounding properties.
Several properties along the same block contain existing structures positioned closer to the street, many of which are two stories in height. The Project’s scale, siting, and setbacks are consistent with the surrounding development pattern and would not substantially degrade or obstruct public coastal views. Further, views of the coast from various other locations within the right-of-ways surrounding the Project area would remain unobstructed. 58 -34- Reso. #26.XXX
Lastly, although Viejo Street functions as one of several potential routes to arrive at the trailhead to the Dartmoor Trail, the Project would not obstruct or otherwise affect public views of coastal scenic resources from the trail itself. Public views from the trail would remain unchanged.
4. The proposed development will be sited and designed to prevent adverse impacts to environmentally sensitive habitats and scenic resources located in adjacent parks and recreation areas, and will provide adequate buffer areas to protect such resources.
The closest adjacent park and recreation area is Crescent Bay Point Park. This is approximately .30 miles from the Project site with continuously developed properties and a public road (North Coast Highway) between the project site and the nearest part of the park acting as a buffer. The proposed development, which includes a detached structure with two ADUs and elevated decks, is designed to avoid any adverse impacts to such park and recreation area.
5. The proposed development will minimize the alterations of natural landforms and will not result in undue risks from geological and erosional forces and/or flood and fire hazards.
The proposed development, which consists of a detached structure consisting of two ADUs, involves minimal grading (4.49 cubic yards of net export outside the building footprint and
2.69 cubic yards of net import inside the building footprint) and therefore does not pose undue risks of geological and erosional forces or flood and fire hazards.
Here, although portions of Viejo Street are located within the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (“VHFHSZ”) like many other areas within the City, the Project site is not in the VHFHSZ and will be developed in accordance with the applicable Fire Code requirements. The architectural plans have been reviewed by the Community Development Department Deputy Director for the Building Division, who confirmed that the site access and other Project design 59 -35- Reso. #26.XXX
features will be Fire Code-compliant. Further, the Project site is not located within an accessimpaired neighborhood per the 2021 Wildfire Egress Study. Lastly, it is sufficiently accessible by pedestrians, bicyclists, passenger vehicles, and emergency vehicles. Under the State ADU Law, ADUs do not constitute added density.
6. The proposed development will be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and where feasible, will restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas.
The proposed development will be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas because it consists of both one- and two-story homes. The Project site is not located within a visually degraded area, but the Project will restore and enhance the visual quality of the Project site given that the original duplex was constructed in 1948 and is improved with an approximate 1,689 square-foot duplex and approximate 450 square-foot, attached, two-car garage.
The site contains an existing two-story duplex set back from the front property line along Viejo Street. The Project would add a detached structure consisting of two ADUs. The height of the structure was reduced to 18 feet to comply with height requirements for ADUs. The neighborhood consists of a mix of one- and two-story structures; most of the structures are built towards the front of the property (see aerial image below). The proposed Project is atypical in that the existing structures are located substantially farther from Viejo Street than the majority of development along the 200-block of Viejo Street. The Project would introduce two detached ADUs with a 20-foot setback from Viejo Street and a two-story street-facing appearance, which is consistent with the established development pattern along the street.
7. The proposed development will not have any adverse impacts on any known archaeological or paleontological resource.
60 -36- Reso. #26.XXX
Yes. The Project site has already been developed with an existing duplex and the Project involves construction of a detached structure consisting of two ADUs and elevated decks. The project site does not contain any known archaeological or paleontological resources. Therefore, the proposed development will not adversely affect archaeological or paleontological resources.
8. The proposed development will be provided with adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities.
The Project consists of construction of a detached structure consisting of two ADUs and elevated decks. The proposed development will be provided with adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities because the Project site is already served by adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, and other necessary facilities and the ADU will not overburden those facilities at an additional 655.4 square feet of living space for each ADU.
Here, the Project site is in a developed area with sufficient access. Indeed, the Project site is located on Viejo Street, which is one street east of Coast Highway—the main road for ingress and egress out of the City. Although Viejo Street is developed without sidewalks, like many other streets within the City, it is sufficiently accessible by pedestrians, bicyclists, passenger vehicles, and emergency vehicles. Further, the Project does not change the access road. It adds two ADUs that will access Viejo Street through the same driveway apron that currently exists on the Property.
No additional vehicles will be stored on the Property, so the additional units will result in additional individuals on foot or bicycle accessing Viejo Street.
9. Other public services, including, but not limited to, solid waste and public roadway capacity have been considered and are adequate to serve the proposed development.
The Project consists of construction of a detached structure consisting of two ADUs and 61 -37- Reso. #26.XXX
elevated decks. Other public services, including, but not limited to, solid waste and public roadway capacity have been considered and are adequate to serve the proposed development. Because the Project site is already properly served by public services, including solid waste and roads, the ADUs will not overburden those services at an additional 655.4 square feet of living space for each ADU.
Here, the Project site is located within an established residential neighborhood and is entirely surrounded by existing residential development, improved public streets, and alleys. The property is a corner lot with frontage on Viejo Street and two alleys, providing adequate access for service vehicles, including solid waste collection and emergency services.
All necessary public services and facilities are already available to the site and are adequate to serve the proposed development. These services include, but are not limited to, water, wastewater, electricity, natural gas, and solid waste collection. Because the site is currently developed and properly served by existing infrastructure, the proposed construction of two accessory dwelling units will rely on and benefit from these existing public services.
Finding No. 2. Any development located between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea is in conformity with the certified local coastal program and with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act.
The project site is not located between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea.
As detailed above in the facts supporting Finding Number 1, the proposed development is in conformity with the certified local coastal program. In this area, the first public road paralleling the ocean is Cliff Drive. The proposed Project is located approximately 600 feet inland of Cliff Drive. In addition, there are two public roads running generally parallel to the ocean that are 62 -38- Reso. #26.XXX
oceanward of the project site—Cliff Drive and North Coast Highway.
Finding No. 3. The proposed development will not have any significant adverse impacts on the environment within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act.
As described further herein, the Project does not have any significant adverse environmental impacts. The Project qualifies for a categorical exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines.
SECTION 6. The City Council hereby denies the Appeal and sustains the Design Review Board’s determination on the Project, as reflected in Design Review Board Resolution No. 25- 1490, including all conditions attached thereto, which such Resolutions and conditions are incorporated herein by this reference.
SECTION 7. The City Council hereby denies the Appeal and sustains the Design Review Board’s determination on the Project, as reflected in Design Review Board Resolution No. 25- 1490, including all conditions attached thereto, which such Resolutions and conditions are incorporated herein by this reference, based upon the findings and fact supporting the findings in this Resolution.
ADOPTED this 27th day of January, 2026.
Mark Orgill, Mayor
ATTEST:
Ann Marie McKay, City Clerk
63 -39- Reso. #26.XXX
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, CA
64