STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date:
January 27, 2026
APPEAL
A
SUBJECT: 225 VIEJO STREET: PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL OF 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 IN THE R-2 (RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY) ZONE,
AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3) RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:
1. Conduct a public hearing, including receiving a staff report and taking public testimony and all evidence relating to the consideration of Design Review 25-1490 and Coastal Development Permit 25-1516 for a detached structure with two accessory dwelling units and elevated decks and the California Environmental Quality Act exemption under Section 15303 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines; and
2. Adopt a Resolution titled, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE 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,” upholding the Design Review Board’s conditional approval of Design Review 25-1490 and Coastal Development Permit 25-1516 and finding the Project exempt from CEQA.
SUMMARY OF THE MATTER
The applicant, Lance Polster, Architect (“Applicant”)1, for 225 Viejo Street (the “Property”) (see aerial map included as Figure 1) 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”). 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.
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)). (The August 13, 2025, Staff Report is attached as Attachment 4.) 1 The Project’s owner is Paul Kalemkiarian, who is within the definition of Applicant.
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-1490 AND CDP 25-1516 AT 225 VIEJO STREET January 27, 2026
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 vote under Board Resolution No. 25-1490. (The November 13, 2025, Staff Report, Board Resolution No. 25-1490, and Transcript are attached as Attachments 5 through 7, respectively.)
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”) (Attachment 2). The Appellant submitted the Appeal on the grounds that the approval and CEQA determination violate the LBMC, ADU Ordinance, Coastal Act, Local Coastal Program (“LCP”), and the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) for the following reasons:
1. Multimodal Safety Hazards on a 24% Grade
2. Emergency Access & Hazard-Area Impacts
3. Coastal Access & Visitor-Serving Parking Impacts
4. Scenic Resource & Community Character Impacts
5. CEQA Cumulative & Unusual Circumstances Exceptions to Exemptions LBMC Section 25.05.070 requires certain forms of public notice for an appeal. Public notice was duly provided to consider the Appeal of the Project at the January 27, 2026 City Council meeting in accordance with LBMC Section 25.05.065. Notices were mailed to owners and occupants within a 300-foot and 100- foot radius of the Property, respectively, posted on the Property, and published in a newspaper of general circulation (Attachment 8).
To facilitate the City Council’s consideration of this matter, this agenda report provides an overview of the City Council appeal procedures; the Board’s public hearing; and City staff’s responses to the Appellant’s contentions in the Appeal.
A. Standards of Review
Pursuant to LBMC Section 25.05.070, all DR and CDP decisions of the Board may be appealed to the City Council by the applicant or any owner of property within 300 feet of the subject property.
The City Council may uphold, reverse, or remand any appealed decision. (LBMC § 25.05.070(E)(3)(a).) In particular, in reversing a decision, there must be three affirmative votes approving the reversal by adoption of a resolution that sets forth in writing the findings relied on to conclude that the appealed decision was in error or an abuse of discretion.3 (LBMC § 25.05.070(E)(3)(a).) Further, pursuant to LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(2)(d), the City Council’s review is limited to “the plans that were the subject of the decision or determination by the approval authority”; if new plans are submitted, the City Council “shall not consider or act on” them but may determine to remand those plans to the approval authority “for further proceedings pursuant to such direction as may be given the City Council.” 3 An abuse of discretion is defined as the following: (1) the City has “not proceeded in the manner required by law”; (2) the City “decision is not supported by the findings”; or (3) the “findings are not supported by the evidence.” (Civil Code § 1094.5.) APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-1490 AND CDP 25-1516 AT 225 VIEJO STREET January 27, 2026
1. Coastal Development Permit and CEQA
LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(1) sets forth the procedures and review criteria for non-design review appeals, such as a coastal development permit and CEQA. For that review, the City Council shall not be limited to the grounds stated for the appeal and shall not be limited to the evidence that was presented to the Board.
The City Council shall exercise its independent judgment and discretion as to the evidence presented at its hearing. Nevertheless, there shall be a presumption that the decision or determination made by the Board was reasonable, valid, and not an abuse of discretion; and the appellant shall have the burden of proof of demonstrating otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence presented.
In its consideration of the Board’s approval of CDP 25-1516 and a Class 3 categorical exemption from CEQA, the City Council is not limited to either the evidence in the record or the deliberations of the Board.
The Applicant or members of the public may present new evidence for the City Council’s consideration, and the City Council is free to deliberate without being limited to the Board’s findings – in other words, a de novo hearing.
2. Design Review
LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(2) sets forth the procedures and review criteria for City Council requests for review of design review decisions. With respect to the standard of review for those decisions, subsection (E)(2)(a) provides:
If the decision or determination was supported by four or more affirmative votes of the approval authority, upon hearing the appeal or request for review, the city council shall be limited to the grounds specifically stated in the notice of appeal, if an appeal was filed, and to the evidence that was presented to the approval authority. The city council shall not conduct a de novo hearing, shall not reweigh the evidence, and shall not exercise its independent judgment and discretion as to the evidence. The city council shall consider whether the approval authority proceeded in the manner required by law and whether the decision or determination is supported by substantial evidence. There shall be a presumption that the decision or determination made by the approval authority was reasonable, valid, and not an abuse of discretion. The appellant, if there is one, shall have the burden of proof of demonstrating otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence, including plans, presented.
Accordingly, in its consideration of DR 25-1490, which was approved 5-0, the City Council shall not conduct a de novo hearing. Rather, the City Council shall consider whether the Board proceeded in the manner required by law and whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence.
3. City Council Options
The City Council has numerous options in consideration of this matter, which are listed below.
1. Adopt the attached Resolution upholding the Board approval, and finding the approval of the Project categorically exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303; APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-1490 AND CDP 25-1516 AT 225 VIEJO STREET January 27, 2026
2. Adopt the attached Resolution upholding the Board approval, and finding the approval of the Project categorically exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, but modifying the Resolution to include more restrictive conditions of approval;
3. Direct staff to prepare and return at a future meeting with a Resolution overturning the Board approval, with findings in support of overturning the Board approval and denying the Project; or
4. Direct staff to prepare and return at a future meeting with a Resolution remanding DR 25-1490 and CDP 25-1516 to the Board, with findings in support of the remand and further direction to the Board.
LEGAL LANDSCAPE
Below is an overview of the applicable state housing laws and the Coastal Act carve outs.
A. HAA
1. Overview of the HAA
The HAA requires a city to notify a developer if the proposed housing development project is inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provisions (to objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria) within 30 days of the date that the application is determined to be complete and failure to take such action will result in the project being deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision (to objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria). (Gov. Code Section 65589.5(j)(2).) When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, the city must make certain written findings to deny a project that (1) the housing development project “would have a ‘specific, adverse impact’5 upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density”; and (2) there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the identified adverse impact, other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density. (Gov. Code Section 65589.5(j)(1).) The HAA also has a Coastal Act carve out:
Nothing in this section shall be construed to relieve the local agency from complying with . . . the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code).
5 A “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. (Gov. Code Section 65589.5(j)(1)(A).)
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-1490 AND CDP 25-1516 AT 225 VIEJO STREET January 27, 2026
(Cal. Gov't Code § 65589.5(e).)
2. Application of the HAA to this Property
The HAA applies to the Project and the Board has determined that it is consistent with the applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete. Accordingly, in order to deny the Project or decrease the density, including the livable square footage, the City Council should make the specific, adverse impact findings referenced above.
B. State ADU Law / City’s ADU Ordinance
1. Overview of the State ADU Law / City’s ADU Ordinance As noted above, the Applicant is proceeding under the State ADU Law, which allows ministerial accessory dwelling units under certain qualifying conditions, subject to the California Coastal Act. (See Government Code § 66329(a)[“. . . nothing in this article shall be construed to supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the [Coastal Act], except that the local government shall, pursuant to Section 66317, either approve or deny a coastal development permit application for an accessory dwelling within 60 days of receiving a completed application, and shall not be required to hold public hearings for coastal development permit applications for accessory dwelling units. The process to approve or deny a coastal development permit application under this subdivision shall happen concurrently with the process to approve or deny an application for an accessory dwelling unit under Section 66317”].) The Coastal Act7 is a comprehensive scheme to govern land use planning for the state’s entire coastal zone.
As part of its enactment, the Legislature made several findings related to the Act’s purpose: (1) the coastal zone “is a distinct and valuable natural resource of vital and enduring interest to all the people”; (2) that permanent protection of the state’s natural and scenic resources is of paramount concern; (3) that “it is necessary to protect the ecological balance of the coastal zone”; and (4) that “existing developed uses, and future developments that are carefully planned and developed consistent with the policies of [the Coastal Act], are essential to the economic and social well-being of the people of this state. . . .”8 The Coastal Act is to be “liberally construed to accomplish its purposes and objectives.”9 The Coastal Act mandates that local governments within the coastal zone develop local coastal programs (“LCPs”), comprised of a land use plan and implementing ordinances, to promote the Coastal Act’s objectives.10 Unless subject to an exemption, almost all development within the coastal zone requires a coastal 7 Pub. Res. Code, § 30000 et seq.
8 Pub. Res. Code, § 30001, subds. (a) and (d).
9 Pub. Res. Code, § 30009.
10 Id.; see also Pub. Res. Code, §§ 30001.5; 30500–526.
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-1490 AND CDP 25-1516 AT 225 VIEJO STREET January 27, 2026
development permit.11 After Coastal Commission’s certification of a local coastal program, a coastal development permit
11 Pub. Res. Code § 30600, subd. (a).
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-1490 AND CDP 25-1516 AT 225 VIEJO STREET January 27, 2026
is obtained from the local government, except in the appealable jurisdiction area and retained jurisdiction area, for which the Coastal Commission maintains jurisdiction, because the Coastal Commission delegates its development review authority to the local government.17 The delegation of authority is intended to ensure that the state policies prevail over local government concerns—regardless of the involvement of the local government in the Coastal Act’s implementation18:
Although local governments have the authority to issue coastal development permits, that authority is delegated by the Commission. The Commission has the ultimate authority to ensure that coastal development conforms to the policies embodied in the state's Coastal Act. In fact, a fundamental purpose of the Coastal Act is to ensure that state policies prevail over the concerns of local government. (See City of Chula Vista v. Superior Court (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 472, 489 [Commission exercises independent judgment in approving [local coastal program] because it is assumed statewide interests are not always well represented at the local level].) The Commission applies state law and policies to determine whether the development permit complies with the [local coastal program].19 On January 13, 1993, the Coastal Commission certified the City’s LCP. The coastal zone in the City of Laguna Beach represents approximately 4.78 square miles of land, encompassing the entire city limits except for Sycamore Hills. Sycamore Hills consists of 522 acres at the intersection of Laguna Canyon and El Toro Roads, inland of the city.20
The City’s Land Use Plan component of its LCP centers on five principal subjects: (1) recreation and visitor-serving facilities and use; (2) parking and circulation; (3) environmentally sensitive areas; (4) shoreline access; and (5) undeveloped lands. Because the subjects are closely related to many of the issues in the City’s General Plan, the Land Use Plan is physically integrated into the City’s General Plan.21 The Land Use Plan represents a descriptive text and evaluation of coastal problems and issues.22 The Land Use Element and Open Space/Conservation Elements of the General Plan set forth the actual solutions or responses to these issues in the form of city policies.23 The LCP is further implemented through development regulations, specific plans, special studies, and permitting procedures, including, but not limited to, the Laguna Beach Municipal Code Title 25. Under 17 Pub. Res. Code §§ 30600(d), 30519(emphasis added), 30600.5(emphasis added). 18 City of Dana Point v. California Coastal Com. (2013) 217 Cal. App. 4th 170, 186. 19 City of Dana Point, supra, 217 Cal. App. 4th at 186; Charles A. Pratt Construction Co., Inc. v. California Coastal Com. (2018) 162 Cal. App. 4th 1068, 1075-76.
20 LCP Technical Appendix.
21 Id.
22 Id.
23 Id.
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-1490 AND CDP 25-1516 AT 225 VIEJO STREET January 27, 2026
Title 25, a coastal development permit is required for all proposed development within the coastal zone except for development that is specifically exempted and excepted under Sections 25.07.008 and
25.07.010.31 New, detached ADUs require a coastal development permit. (LBMC Section
25.07.008(A)(1)(a).)
2. Application of the City’s ADU Ordinance to this Property The City’s regulations governing the approval of ADUs and JADUs are provided in the City’s LCP, specifically Chapter 25.17 (Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units) of Title 25 (Zoning) of the Laguna Beach Municipal Code. On November 16, 2021, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1665, which identified self-contained accessory dwelling units as subject to the coastal development permit application process. On September 7, 2023 LCP5-LGB-22-0003-3 Part B (Coastal Development Permits) was certified by the Coastal Commission. The City updated Chapter 25.17 to comply with State ADU Law via LCP Amendment No. 21-8239, which was certified by the Coastal Commission on September 7, 2023.
In 2024, the California Legislature approved, and the Governor signed into law, Assembly Bill 2533 (“AB 2533”) and Senate Bill 1211 (“SB 1211”), which further amended State ADU Law and came into effect on January 1, 2025. Below is an overview of the City Council’s most recent actions relating to its requirements for ADUs and JADUs, in part, in response to AB 2533 and SB 1211:
• On December 10, 2024, the City Council found that there was a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare and adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 1707. • On January 14, 2025, the City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 1709 extending Urgency Ordinance No. 1707 and implementing certain modifications to Chapter 25.17 and directed staff to consider additional modifications.
• On March 11, 2025, the City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 1713, implementing additional minor modifications to Chapter 25.17.
• On March 25, 2025, the City adopted non-urgency Ordinance No. 1715 to mirror the ADU and JADU requirements reflected in Urgency Ordinance No. 1713. The City also submitted Ordinance No. 1715 to the Coastal Commission for certification.
Based on the number of pending ADU applications (approximately 24 as of December 10, 2024) within the City, the City implemented a policy that applications filed before 5:00 p.m. on December 10, 2024 are subject to the objective design standards and Coastal Act implementing standards in effect under LCP Amendment No. 21-8239 and applications filed after December 10, 2024 are subject to the objective design standards and Coastal Act implementing standards in effect under the City’s existing urgency ordinance.32 Accordingly, LCP Amendment No. 21-8329 applies to this Project. 31 LBMC § 25.07.004.
32 On April 8, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution 25.020 ratifying this policy.
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-1490 AND CDP 25-1516 AT 225 VIEJO STREET January 27, 2026
DISCUSSION
The Board held a public hearing on November 13, 2025, and adopted a Resolution approving the Project.
A summary of the public hearing and meeting is set forth below.35 A. November 13, 2025 Board Hearing
1. Staff Report
The Project is located on the east side of Viejo Street, separated from North Coast Highway by a commercial property and alley. The site is adjacent to residential properties on three sides. The neighborhood contains a mix of one- and two-story structures. The Project is proposing the construction of an 18-foot two-story detached structure with two ADUs and elevated decks.
Figure 1: Aerial View and Street Frontage of Project Site
2. Staff Presentation
City staff noted the ADUs are exempt from design review but do require a CDP. Staff further noted that design review is required for the elevated decks. City staff also noted that the Director referred the Project 35 The summaries and charts within this staff report are not exhaustive of all commentary or deliberations, but are intended to be a tool to aid the City Council in its review of the evidence.
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-1490 AND CDP 25-1516 AT 225 VIEJO STREET January 27, 2026
to the Board at the August 13, 2025, Administrative Community Development Director hearing. Staff described that the elevated decks are oriented to the ocean, overlooking the alley and commercial property to the south. Staff highlighted that three public comments were received expressing opposition or concern, addressing alleged inconsistencies with the City’s LCP and General Plan, obstruction to public coastal views, obstruction to private views, and neighborhood compatibility. Staff explained that the Project is in compliance with the design review guidelines, complies with all Municipal Code standards, would not substantially impair public views or privacy, and would be compatible with the neighborhood.
3. Board Ex Parte Disclosures
Board
Member
Ex Parte Disclosure Transcript
Page Nos.
Bauta Visited the site and spoke with Lance Polster p. 1 of 13 Gannon Visted the site and spoke with Lance Polster p. 1 of 13 Coveny Visted the site and spoke with Lance Polster p. 1 of 13 Weil Visited the site and spoke with Laurie Brigham and Lance Polster. p. 1 of 13 Gibbs Visited the site and spoke to Lance Polster. p. 1 of 13
4. Applicant Presentation
Mr. Polster, the Project architect, provided comments during the Applicant presentation. Mr. Polster explained the Project was expected to go to just the administrative hearing, but the Project is now at the Board because of neighbor concerns. He explained the process has been long. Mr. Polster explained that they did a trial staking, had a neighborhood meeting, and talked with neighbors. They changed the Project design, made the viewshed better for the neighbors, and made it the lowest height possible for a two-story structure at 18 feet.
Mr. Polster addressed concerns raised by neighbors, by offering that the Project does not affect the bike path, that the proposed two-story structure is compatible with the area and lower than other two-stories nearby, and that the Project has adequate access and parking.
5. Public Testimony
During the public hearing, four individuals provided public testimony. The public testimony is summarized below:
Commenter Summary of Comment Transcript
Page Nos.
John Requa Located at 229 Viejo, up the hill. Cited concerns that the Project would obliterate his view and is a loss of view equity. Also cited concerns about neighborhood impacts. Suggested that the Project be limited to one story to preserve his views.
p. 3 of 13
Rena
Sukhov
Resident on Viejo Street for 40 years. Explained how the Project conflicts with findings and the code: the applicant cannot rely on the ADU parking exemption because there are significant parking impacts and traffic; the p. 3 of 13
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-1490 AND CDP 25-1516 AT 225 VIEJO STREET January 27, 2026
ADU cannot be in front of the existing building; and the Project will infringe on ocean views from Viejo Street.
Laurie
Brigham
Expressed concern that the proposed decks impede her view and will introduce privacy issues for neighbors. Also expressed concerns that the mass and scale is inappropriate for the neighborhood. Emphasized that the Project will impact the public view from the bike path. p. 4 of 13
Sunjana
Supekar
Attorney speaking on behalf of Viejo Speaks for Laguna. Explained their letter states the reasons why neighbors are opposed to the Project.
Expressed concerns that the Project would create the only fourplex on the street. Suggested the Project be redesigned to a single, one-story ADU to preserve views, and be compatible with and preserve aesthetic of the neighborhood.
p. 4-5 of
13 6. Applicant Rebuttal
Mr. Polster explained that even with a one-story structure, the front part of the adjacent neighbor’s view would still be blocked. He explained that parking is not under review but that the site has more parking than other properties in the neighborhood. He also explained that the decks are not a privacy concern because the decks are located away from the residential neighbors. Mr. Polster reminded the Board that the Coastal Act questions have been answered and they have lowered the building as much as possible. He emphasized the compatibility of the proposed structure because there are other two stories that are taller and in the front yard. (Attachment 7 [Transcript], p. 5 of 13).
7. Board Questions and Staff Responses
Topic Question and Response Transcript
Page Nos.
[Commenter]
Lot Coverage Mr. Polster stated the Project met open space.37 p. 6 of 13 [Weil]
Number of ADUs Asked about the number of ADUs and JADUs a property was allowed. Staff confirmed two detached ADUs were allowed for a property with a duplex.38
p. 6 of 13
[Gannon]
Parking Asked about parking requirements for the existing duplex and proposed two ADUs. Staff confirmed the Project can maintain the existing non-conforming parking for the existing duplex and add two ADUs without adding parking.39
p. 7 of 13
[Weil]
ADU versus
Accessory Use
Asked if the ADUs have to be incidental and subordinate. Staff confirmed that ADUs do not have to be incidental and subordinate per the LBMC.
p. 8 of 13
[Gibbs]
8. Board Deliberation
37 LBMC Sections 25.17.020 and 25.10.008(O).
38 LBMC Section 25.17.040(D)(3).
39 LBMC Section 25.17.040(E)(6)(c).
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-1490 AND CDP 25-1516 AT 225 VIEJO STREET January 27, 2026
Topic Discussion Transcript
Page Nos.
[Commenter]
Lot Coverage;
Decks;
Character
Acknowledged that the Project is thoughtful with the lot coverage and the desks are modest. Observed that the Project has a thoughtful design and matches the character of the neighborhood.
p. 9 of 13
[Bauta]
Setbacks;
Height;
Decks;
Design;
Parking
Acknowledged the structure is set further back than if it was a singlefamily home and that the structure is lower than the existing duplex.
Observed that the decks are modest and the design is in keeping with the neighborhood and existing duplex. Acknowledged some existing parking will remain.
p. 9-10 of 13
[Coveny]
Privacy;
Decks;
Parking;
Height
Expressed concurrence that there is no privacy issue and that the deck faces the ocean and Coast Highway. Did not observe view impacts and expressed support for the remaining parking spaces. Acknowledged the Project is only 18 feet high.
p. 10 of 13
[Gannon]
Height;
Views;
Neighborhood
Compatibility;
Decks
Acknowledged the ADUs are lower than the main structure and there are still views between the houses on Viejo. The location of the structure is similar to other structures on the street and the decks are minimal.
p 11 of 13
[Weil]
Height;
Parking;
Public Views;
Acknowledged that the Project is as low as possible and the parking is better than most on Viejo. Also acknowledged that the views from the bike path are in the direction of travel and the Project does not impact those views, nor views of a scenic coastal resource.
p. 11 of 13
[Gibbs]
9. Board Action
The Board voted 5-0 to adopt Resolution 25-1490 approving the Project.
RESPONSES TO ISSUES RAISED ON APPEAL
As noted above, the Appellant submitted an Appeal of the Board’s decision (Attachment 2). As indicated under Standards of Review, in the City Council’s review of non-design review appeals, such as a coastal development permit and CEQA, the Council shall conduct a de novo review of the underlying application and shall not be limited to the grounds stated for the appeal, nor is the Council limited to the evidence that was presented to the Board. Accordingly, in its consideration of the Board’s approval of CDP 25-1516 and adoption of a Class 3 categorical exemption from CEQA, the Council is free to deliberate without being limited to the Board’s findings – in other words, a de novo hearing. For the consideration of DR 25-1490, the City Council shall not conduct a de novo hearing, but is limited to considering whether the Board proceeded in the manner required by law and whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence.
Further, for DR-25-1490, the City Council is limited to the grounds specifically stated in the notice of Appeal.
Below are the grounds for Appeal and City staff’s response.
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-1490 AND CDP 25-1516 AT 225 VIEJO STREET January 27, 2026
1. Multimodal Safety Hazards on a 24% Grade with Severe Parking Impacts In short, Appellant contends, citing both pedestrian safety issues due to the high-visitor beach corridor with minimal sidewalks and bicycle safety issues on a 24% downgrade, that the Project conflicts with CDP Finding No. 1, Criteria No. 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”] and CDP Finding No. 1, Criteria No. 3 [“The proposed development will not adversely affect recreational or visitor-serving facilities or coastal scenic resources”].
Staff’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 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.43 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. 43 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/plans-policies-reports APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-1490 AND CDP 25-1516 AT 225 VIEJO STREET January 27, 2026
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, 202245 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 asthey 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 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 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 on45 https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/assets/rflg/ADU-Memo.pdf APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-1490 AND CDP 25-1516 AT 225 VIEJO STREET January 27, 2026
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
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 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.)
Staff’s Response
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 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 APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-1490 AND CDP 25-1516 AT 225 VIEJO STREET January 27, 2026
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 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 access-impaired 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
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.)
Staff’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 there are no recreational or visitor-serving facilities on the project site.” APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-1490 AND CDP 25-1516 AT 225 VIEJO STREET January 27, 2026
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 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, 202247 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 asthey 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 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 47 https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/assets/rflg/ADU-Memo.pdf APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-1490 AND CDP 25-1516 AT 225 VIEJO STREET January 27, 2026
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:
“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.) Staff’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 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:
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-1490 AND CDP 25-1516 AT 225 VIEJO STREET January 27, 2026
(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.)
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.49 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 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 49 Staff has not located case law or other authority that provides an example of evidence that fails to satisfy this “significant adverse impact” standard.
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-1490 AND CDP 25-1516 AT 225 VIEJO STREET January 27, 2026
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.51 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 the Project. (OSCE, p. 35.) 51 Public Resources Code Section 30251, which is cited above, allows for greater protection of highly scenic areas.
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-1490 AND CDP 25-1516 AT 225 VIEJO STREET January 27, 2026
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.
Figures 2 and 3. South-facing public views with story pole staking visible.
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-1490 AND CDP 25-1516 AT 225 VIEJO STREET January 27, 2026
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 one- and 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 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-ofways 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 squarefoot 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:
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-1490 AND CDP 25-1516 AT 225 VIEJO STREET January 27, 2026
Figure 4. Aerial image showing a portion of the neighborhood with structures mostly built towards front property lines
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.)
Staff’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.” APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-1490 AND CDP 25-1516 AT 225 VIEJO STREET January 27, 2026
This exception requires the City to look at the area where the environmental impact will 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 single-family 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 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 on-street APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-1490 AND CDP 25-1516 AT 225 VIEJO STREET January 27, 2026
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.
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.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolution denying the Appeal and sustaining the Board’s approval of Design Review 25-1490 and Coastal Development Permit 25-1516, and finding the approval of the Project exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303.
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The recommended action has no financial impact to the budget.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (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 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.
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-1490 AND CDP 25-1516 AT 225 VIEJO STREET January 27, 2026
There are no unusual circumstances resulting in a significant impact on the environment in 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.
ATTACHMENTS
1. City Council Resolution (Pgs. 26-64)
2. Appeal (Pgs. 65-108)
3. Project Plans (Pgs. 109-124)
4. August 13, 2025 Community Development Director Meeting Staff Report (Pgs. 125-137)
5. November 13, 2025 Board Staff Report (Pgs. 138-149)
6. November 13, 2025 Board Resolution (Pgs. 150-160)
7. November 13, 2025 Board Transcript (Pgs. 161-172)
8. January 22, 2026 City Council Notice (Pg. 173)
9. Order of Testimony (Pg. 174)
Submitted By: Matthew Schneider Approved: .David A Kiff Matthew Schneider, Director of
Community Development
Dave Kiff, City Manager
Report Prepared By: Coordinated With:
Daniel Besinaiz, Associate Planner Jane Abzug, Assistant City Attorney Anthony Viera, Deputy Director of Community
Development