RESOLUTION NO. 26.XXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL AND
SUSTAINING THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD’S APPROVAL OF
DESIGN REVIEW 25-1883 FOR DEMOLITION OF THE
EXISTING STRUCTURE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW
SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING, NEW TWO-CAR GARAGE,
VEHICULAR ACCESS, SKYLIGHTS, GRADING, AND
LANDSCAPING, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 25-1884
FOR NON-EXEMPT DEVELOPMENT IN THE COASTAL ZONE,
AND REVOCABLE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT 25-1885 FOR A
WALKWAY WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AT 30801
DRIFTWOOD DRIVE LOCATED IN THE R-1, RESIDENTIAL
LOW-DENSITY ZONE, AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION
UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
GUIDELINES SECTION 15303
WHEREAS, the property owner, Amir and Susan Loloi (“Applicant”), of 30801 Driftwood Drive (the “Property”), applied for Design Review (“DR”) 25-1883 for demolition of the existing structure and construction of a new single-family dwelling, two-car garage, vehicular access, skylights, grading, and landscaping, Coastal Development Permit (“CDP”) 25-1884 for such non-exempt development in the coastal zone, and Revocable Encroachment Permit 25-1885 for a walkway within the public right-of-way in the R-1 (Residential Low Density) zone pursuant to Laguna Beach Municipal Code (“LBMC”) Section 25.05.040, Section 25.07.004, and Section 11.50.030 (the “Project”); 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 adopted Board Resolution No. 25-1883, by a 5-0 vote, conditionally approving the Project, and finding the Project categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines Section 15303 (the Attachment 1
21 -2- Reso. #
“Board Approval”); and
WHEREAS, on December 1, 2025, Joyce and Henry Brodt and Anthony and Roberta Speranzo (“Appellants”) of 21562 Ocean Vista Drive and 30782 Driftwood Drive, respectively, filed an appeal of the Board Approval (“Appeal”); and
WHEREAS, 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; and WHEREAS, on January 27, 2026, the City Council held a public hearing on the appeals and continued the hearing to the April 28, 2026 City Council meeting; and WHEREAS, on April 28, 2026, the City Council held a public hearing on the Appeal and carefully considered the oral and documentary evidence and arguments presented.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH DOES RESOLVE:
SECTION 1. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution by this reference.
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby makes the following findings in response to grounds for the Appeal stated in Appellants’ notice of Appeal:
1. “Failure to Apply View Equity Guidelines”
City Council’s Response
The Board applied the City’s view equity standards and relevant Design Guidelines, which require balancing the protection of neighboring views with a property owner’s right to reasonable development. The Design Guidelines do not guarantee preservation of existing views. The Board considered view impacts, massing, roof configuration, setbacks, and site context and determined that the Project achieves an acceptable balance consistent with the intent of the design guidelines. 22 -3- Reso. #
Specifically, the Board found that the Project complied with Finding No. 1, Criteria No. 16 (View Equity) as follows:
“As designed, the proposed one-story structure is intended to provide for views for the adjacent neighbors. The relocated multi-trunk palm tree would reach a mature height of 15 feet which would be below the maximum roof height of the structure.” The hearing record reflects that Board members visited the site, reviewed sightlines from surrounding properties, and evaluated photographic and illustrative evidence presented by both the Applicant and the public. The hearing record also reflects that view equity was a central focus of the Board’s review. Indeed, a majority of the Board specifically deliberated Criteria No. 16 (View Equity) and reached consensus that view equity was achieved. Board member Coveny observed that view impacts were minimal compared to existing conditions, contrary to neighbors’ concerns about significant obstruction. Chair Pro Tem Gannon noted that most neighbors would experience minimal view impacts, observing that existing rooflines already limit certain skyline views. Chair Pro Tem Gannon noted that the only potential impact identified was in the kitchen view of Appellants Speranzo’s home, which was considered minor. She suggested a slight reduction of the eaves by about a foot to further minimize any impact. Board member Weil observed that view impacts were minimal, with minor adjustments suggested only for the roof above the living room, which could be slightly lowered to better respect downhill neighbors. Chair Gibbs emphasized that the issue is view equity, not absolute view preservation, noting that the Project’s minor view intrusions are within acceptable limits under the Design Review Guidelines. He acknowledged neighbors’ concerns, including terracing and changes to views, but confirmed that the Project complies with view equity standards and that the Board must apply the criteria fairly and consistently. Chair Gibbs agreed with slight roof modifications suggested by colleagues. 23 -4- Reso. #
After discussion, the Board concluded that while the Project would result in some view intrusion, those impacts were limited in scope, did not eliminate primary horizon lines, and remained consistent with prior interpretations of view equity under the Design Guidelines. The Board further exercised its discretion to impose an additional condition requiring the reduction of the north side eave to eliminate encroachment into the side yard setback, thereby addressing a specific concern raised during the hearing. (See COA No. 28.) As demonstrated by the approved plans Figure 3 in the agenda report, the proposed residence is located on a relatively flat portion of the site and would maintain a single level of building program below a pitched roof, which is typical of development in the surrounding area.
The proposed crawl space is mostly below the existing grade, and the proposed 3:12 roof pitch is generally considered to be a low- to moderately-sloping roof form. The proposed residence does not step down with the hill because the lot is generally flat, with very little change in the topographic conditions within the building footprint.
Based on the record, the Board proceeded in the manner required by law and the decision is supported by substantial evidence.
2. “Disproportionate Harm to Adjacent Properties”
City Council’s Response
The City Council’s Response to Appeal Contention No. 1 relating to View Equity is hereby incorporated by reference to the City Council’s Response to Appeal Contention No. 2. With respect to massing considerations, the Board found that the Project complied with Finding No. 1, Criteria No. 2 (Design Articulation) as follows:
The residence is designed with four gable roof sections, each having a 3:12 slope and oriented parallel to the street, joined at the center by a flat foot element over the main 24 -5- Reso. #
entry. As viewed from the street, the proposed highest roof ridge elevation (219.06') is approximately 2.9 feet higher than the existing ridge elevation (216.6'), remaining well below the maximum permitted building height of 25 feet above curb level. The home is less than 15 feet above the curb.
Further with respect to massing, the Board found that the Project complied with Finding No. 1, Criteria No. 9 (Neighborhood Compatibility) as follows:
The surrounding area is characterized primarily by one- and two-story cottages and ranchstyle residences, with a few contemporary homes in the vicinity. The proposed one-story design, reflecting a mid-century beach vernacular, is compatible with the existing neighborhood context, as its height, scale, and massing are consistent with the established development patterns in the area.
As reflected in the record, the Board evaluated the Project’s visual impacts from neighboring properties within the framework of the Design Guidelines, which recognize that new development may result in changes to existing views. Testimony regarding alleged view loss, massing, and privacy impacts including impacts to Appellant Brodt residence was carefully considered alongside site observations, renderings, and comparisons between the existing and proposed conditions.
With respect to Appellant Brodt’s property, the Board considered concerns regarding roof height, massing along the north side, extended eaves, and potential view and privacy impacts. The Applicant explained that the Project incorporates articulated building modules, shallow roof pitches, variable setbacks, limited and angled fenestration on the north elevation, and existing landscaping to reduce perceived bulk and maintain privacy. Based on these design features and independent site visits, Board members concluded that the Project does not create excessive 25 -6- Reso. #
massing relative to Appellant Brodt’s residence. Indeed, Board member Weil commended the Project’s careful design, articulation, and material choices, noting that the breaking up of masses and single-story configuration were handled in a unique and sensitive way.
During deliberations, the Board specifically addressed the north side eave adjacent to the Brodt property. The Applicant confirmed that the eave could be reduced, and the Board imposed a condition of approval requiring that the north side eave be reduced so that it does not encroach into the side yard setback. (Board-Adopted Resolution No. 25-1883, Condition No. 28.) This modification was determined to further mitigate potential visual impacts.
Board members stated on the record that the magnitude of view impacts asserted by neighbors was not supported by the evidence or their observations, and that any remaining impacts are limited, consistent with the range anticipated by the Design Guidelines, and do not constitute a disproportionate burden under view equity when balanced against the Applicant’s right to develop the property in compliance with applicable standards. Based on the evidence, the Board proceeded in the manner required by law and the decision is supported by substantial evidence.
3. “Recorded Easement and Inequity”
City Council’s Response
The City Council’s Response to Appeal Contention No. 1 relating to View Equity is hereby incorporated by reference to the City Council’s Response to Appeal Contention No. 3.
The Appeal includes as an attachment an easement granted by the property owners of 30832 Marilyn Drive to the property owners of 30801 Driftwood for a right of unobstructed access to light, air, and view of a described area. Marilyn Drive is located below Driftwood Drive, and the easement thereby restricts the rights of 30832 Marilyn Drive to develop higher and obstruct the views of 30801 Driftwood. The referenced view easement is a private property matter 26 -7- Reso. #
negotiated between private landowners and does not expand or limit the City’s land use authority.
The Board’s review appropriately focused on compliance with City regulations and Design Guidelines, including View Equity.
View equity requires the development to be designed “to protect views from neighboring properties without denying the subject property the reasonable opportunity to develop.” (LBMC Section 25.05.040(H)(16)(italic emphasis added).) Here, the views of 30832 Marilyn Drive are not at issue, and the Board focused on the Applicant’s reasonable opportunity to develop in the context of proposing a new, single-story home and the views of the neighboring properties, including those of Appellants Brodt and Spenzano. Board members stated on the record that the magnitude of view impacts asserted by neighbors was not supported by the evidence or their observations, and that any remaining impacts are limited, consistent with the range anticipated by the Design Guidelines, and do not constitute a disproportionate burden under view equity when balanced against the Applicant’s right to develop the property in compliance with applicable standards. Based on the evidence, the Board proceeded in the manner required by law and the decision is supported by substantial evidence.
4. “Inconsistency with Neighborhood Character”
City Council’s Response
The Board found that the Project complied with Finding No. 1, Criteria No. 9 (Neighborhood Compatibility) as follows:
“The surrounding area is characterized primarily by one- and two-story cottages and ranch-style residences, with a few contemporary homes in the vicinity. The proposed one-story design, reflecting a mid-century beach vernacular, is compatible with the existing neighborhood context, as its height, scale, and massing are consistent with the 27 -8- Reso. #
established development patterns in the area.”
As reflected in the record, the Board evaluated the Project’s visual impacts from neighboring properties within the framework of the Design Guidelines, which recognize that new development may result in changes to existing views. Testimony regarding alleged view loss, massing, and privacy impacts including impacts to Appellant Brodt residence was carefully considered alongside site observations, renderings, and comparisons between the existing and proposed conditions.
With respect to Appellant Brodt’s property, the Board considered concerns regarding roof height, massing along the north side, extended eaves, and potential view and privacy impacts. The Applicant explained that the Project incorporates articulated building modules, shallow roof pitches, variable setbacks, limited and angled fenestration on the north elevation, and existing landscaping to reduce perceived bulk and maintain privacy. Based on these design features and independent site visits, Board members concluded that the Project does not create excessive massing relative to Appellant Brodt’s residence. Indeed, Board member Weil commended the Project’s careful design, articulation, and material choices, noting that the breaking up of masses and single-story configuration were handled in a unique and sensitive way.
During deliberations, the Board specifically addressed the north side eave adjacent to the Brodt property. The Applicant confirmed that the eave could be reduced, and the Board imposed a condition of approval requiring that the north side eave be reduced so that it does not encroach into the side yard setback. (Board-Adopted Resolution No. 25-1883, Condition No. 28.) This modification was determined to further mitigate potential visual impacts.
Board members stated on the record that the magnitude of view impacts asserted by neighbors was not supported by the evidence or their observations, and that any remaining impacts 28 -9- Reso. #
are limited, consistent with the range anticipated by the Design Guidelines, and do not constitute a disproportionate burden under view equity when balanced against the Applicant’s right to develop the property in compliance with applicable standards. Based on the evidence, the Board proceeded in the manner required by law and the decision is supported by substantial evidence.
5. “Procedural Deficiencies”
City Council’s Response
The Project satisfied all procedural requirements of the Design Review process, including early neighborhood communication [LBMC Section 25.05.040(C)(1)], staking [LBMC Section
25.05.040(C)(2)], Fire Department review [LBMC Section 25.05.040(C)(4)], public notice [LBMC Section 25.05.040(E)], a noticed public hearing, and the opportunity for public testimony. The record reflects that numerous speakers were heard, written correspondence was reviewed, and the Applicant responded to questions from both the public and the Board.
While neighbors expressed dissatisfaction with the extent of informal outreach and prehearing coordination, City regulations do not require agreement between applicants and neighbors as a condition of approval. The Board’s decision was based on the totality of the record developed through the public process.
6. “Errors in the DRB Hearing Record”
City Council’s Response
The City Council’s Response to Appeal Contention No. 1 relating to View Equity is hereby incorporated by reference to the City Council’s Response to Appeal Contention No. 6.
The hearing record reflects the Board’s deliberate consideration of the Project’s view impacts and the design options presented during the review process. The Board retains discretion to determine which design alternatives, if any, are appropriate and is not required to adopt 29 -10- Reso. #
modifications proposed during the hearing. Statements made by Board members reflect their evaluation of the evidence in the record, and the Board need not condition the Project to reduce the building height if the Board finds that the proposed Project height satisfies the View Equity design review criterion and other applicable criteria.
The hearing transcript demonstrates a thorough and detailed discussion of the Project’s design elements, including roof height, floor elevation, eaves, setbacks, crawl space design, ceiling heights, and roof pitch. The Applicant acknowledged potential view impacts and confirmed that certain modifications were feasible, including reduction of the north side eave.
The Board evaluated these options, questioned the Applicant regarding feasibility, and ultimately imposed a condition of approval requiring the north side eave to be reduced so that it does not encroach into the side yard setback. Additional proposals to further reduce overall roof height were discussed but ultimately not required, based on the Board’s determination that the Project already satisfied the View Equity criterion.
The Project also satisfied all requirements for Fire Department review [LBMC Section
25.05.040(C)(4)]. Concerns regarding fire safety, crawl space design, and construction materials were raised during rebuttal. These matters are governed by the California Building Code and Fire Code and are reviewed during plan check and permitting. The Applicant’s design plans – which include a Fire Department site access plan and fuel modification plan – were reviewed by the City’s Fire Code Official during the planning application review process, who found the Project feasible from a Fire Code and Building Code perspective. The Project must comply with these codes, including requirements for fire sprinklers, use of dual pane windows, and use of ignitionresistant exterior finishes. Additional reviews will take place once construction drawings are prepared and submitted for permitting, and compliance will be confirmed as part of the building 30 -11- Reso. #
inspection process following the issuance of building permits. Based on the evidence, the Board proceeded in the manner required by law and the decision is supported by substantial evidence.
SECTION 3. The City Council hereby makes the following findings and facts supporting findings for DR 25-1883:
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:
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.
A new vehicular access with a code-compliant driveway is proposed from Driftwood Drive to a two-car garage located at the northern portion of the frontage. This configuration allows for a nose-in approach and replaces the existing southern driveway that served a side-entry garage. Road improvements will be required, including curb and gutter, pavement, and utility extensions.
Driftwood Drive is classified as a local street, so an onsite turnaround is not required. Although not consistent with the existing pattern of development a 3-foot wide sidewalk is proposed along the frontage that offsets at the driveway behind the driveway apron. A portion of the offset sidewalk at the driveway will require a grant of easement to the city for public use. As such, the project will not result in conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians, and other modes of transportation.
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.
31 -12- Reso. #
The residence is designed with four gable roof sections, each having a 3:12 slope and oriented parallel to the street, joined at the center by a flat roof element over the main entry. As viewed from the street, the proposed highest roof ridge elevation (219.06’) is approximately 2.9 feet higher than the existing ridge elevation (216.6’), remaining well below the maximum permitted building height of 25 feet above curb level. The home is less than 15 feet above the curb.
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 design draws significant inspiration from the mid-century beach vernacular, reflected in its scale, materiality, and structural expression. Proposed materials include warm-colored aggregate built-up roofing, exposed overhang beams, vertical timber batten siding, and dark bronze anodized aluminum windows and doors.
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. The existing site is relatively flat with no existing rock outcroppings, ridgelines, or significant watercourses.
The proposed grading includes 400 cubic yards of export mostly to create a crawl space under the building and lower the garage finished floor. This is a nominal amount of grading that will not significantly alter the existing terrain.
32 -13- Reso. #
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 General Plan including, but not limited to, the following 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.
The existing site is generally flat. The project proposes approximately 400 cubic yards of export grading to accommodate a crawl space beneath the one-story single-family dwelling and associated site improvements. The project will not result in substantial alteration of natural or existing landforms, as the property is located within a developed neighborhood and contains no remaining natural landforms.
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 design of the proposed one-story dwelling reduces massing and provides view equity for the adjacent neighbors. There are no public coastal or canyon views across the project site. As such, the project will not result in adverse impacts on views from public locations. 33 -14- Reso. #
LU Policy 3.10 Require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated with natural topographic features, minimize significant alteration of natural topography or other significant on-site resources, and protect public views as specified in the Design Guidelines and Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document by maintaining the low-profile character of structures. Require use of appropriate landscaping, special architectural treatments, and siting considerations for projects visible from major highways and arterial streets. Best efforts should be made to site new development in locations that minimize adverse impacts on views from public locations (e.g., roads, bluff-top trails, visitor-serving facilities, etc.).
The existing site is relatively flat and there are no natural topographic features, or other significant resources on or near the project site. The project proposes minimal grading for the construction of a one-story single-family dwelling which is designed to be compatible with the surrounding development in the neighborhood. The site is not visible from major highways and arterial streets. As such, the project will not result in adverse impacts on views from public locations.
LU Policy 7.3 Design and site new development to protect natural and environmentally sensitive resources, such as areas of unique scenic quality, public views, and visual compatibility with surrounding uses and to minimize natural landform alterations. (Same as Policy 10.2.) GOAL: Protect, preserve, and enhance the community’s natural resources.
The existing site is relatively flat and does not contain any natural or environmentally sensitive resources. The project proposes minimal grading for the construction of a one-story single-family dwelling which is designed to be compatible with the surrounding residential uses.
There are no public views across the project site.
34 -15- Reso. #
LU Policy 7.10 Require new construction and grading to be located in close proximity to preexisting development to minimize environmental impacts and growth-inducing potential.
The project is located in a developed residential neighborhood. The existing topography is relatively flat, and minimal grading is required to accommodate the proposed single-family dwelling. As such the project will not result in environmental impacts or growth-inducing potential.
LU Policy 10.2 Design and site new development to protect natural and environmentally sensitive resources such as areas of unique scenic quality, public views, and visual compatibility with surrounding uses and to minimize landform alterations. (Same as Policy 7.3) GOAL: Ensure that proposals for new development, subdivisions, and major remodels are sufficiently evaluated to protect public health and safety and natural resources.
The existing site is relatively flat and does not contain any natural or environmentally sensitive resources. The project proposes minimal grading for the construction of a one-story single-family dwelling and includes landscaping designed to be compatible with the surrounding residential uses. There are no public views across the project site.
6. Historic Preservation: Destruction or alteration to historic resources should be avoided whenever possible. See Chapter 25.45 for more information.
The subject property is not listed on the city’s historic register, nor is there any record of the site or surrounding properties being designated or identified as historic.
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 35 -16- Reso. #
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.
The planting plan meets both the very high fire hazard severity (VHFHSZ) and fuel modification standards. The relocated multi-trunk palm tree would reach a mature height of 15 feet which would be below the maximum roof height of the structure. All other proposed planting will not exceed 4 feet in height with most planting not higher than 18 inches.
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 project includes building-mounted lighting at seven exterior doors in addition to landscape lighting, as specified on Sheet L3.0. This sheet specifies fixture types and locations. All lighting will consist of low-wattage, shielded LED fixtures directed downward, consistent with the City’s Good Neighbor Lighting Ordinance to minimize potential impacts on adjacent properties. The project also proposes a warm gray built-up roof with a non-reflective finish, ensuring that the material will not produce glare or cause adverse visual impacts to surrounding properties.
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.
36 -17- Reso. #
The surrounding area is characterized primarily by one- and two-story cottages and ranchstyle residences, with a few contemporary homes in the vicinity. The proposed one-story design, reflecting a mid-century beach vernacular, is compatible with the existing neighborhood context, as its height, scale, and massing are consistent with the established development patterns in the area.
10. Pedestrian Orientation: Commercial development design shall enhance and encourage pedestrian uses. Incorporation of articulated building masses, compact open spaces and courtyards, mixed use developments, use of landscaping as part of design, and orientation to pedestrian access should be maximized.
Design Review Criteria for Pedestrian Orientation is related to commercial development and this residential project is not subject to these criteria.
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 window placement has been carefully designed, and primary living and entertainment areas are situated in locations like those of the existing residence. Accordingly, the project will not result in a substantial invasion of privacy for neighboring properties.
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 this residential project is not subject to these criteria.
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 37 -18- Reso. #
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 this residential project is not subject to these criteria.
14. Sustainability: New development should consider architecture and building practices which minimize environmental impacts and enhance energy efficiency by: (a) reducing energy needs of buildings by proper site and structural design; (b) increasing the building’s ability to capture or generate energy; (c) using low-impact, sustainable and recycled building materials; (d) using the latest Best Management Practices regarding waste and water management; and (e) reducing site emissions.
The new construction will meet Title 24 Energy and Building Code requirements, which include insulated windows and energy-efficient lighting. The applicant will be required to provide proof of compliance. The roof plan includes a minimum of 80 square feet of solar ready roof area.
Further, the applicant will be required to reuse, recycle, or divert at least 65 percent of the project’s construction and demolition debris.
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 a swimming pool, spa or water feature.
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 38 -19- Reso. #
“Design Guidelines” are intended to balance preservation of views with the right to develop property.
As designed, the proposed one-story structure is intended to provide for views for the adjacent neighbors. The relocated multi-trunk palm tree would reach a mature height of 15 feet which would be below the maximum roof height of the structure.
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 and the Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document, as explained above.
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.
The existing site is relatively flat. The proposed one-story dwelling is appropriately scaled in relation development in the surrounding neighborhood. The architectural design draws significant inspiration from the mid-century beach vernacular, reflected in its scale, materiality, and structural expression. Proposed materials include warm-colored aggregate built-up roofing, exposed overhang beams, vertical timber batten siding, and dark bronze anodized aluminum windows and doors. The proposed residence and landscaping has been designed to minimize potential view impacts for neighboring properties.
Finding No. 4. The project is consistent with any specific plan or any other specific zoning design review criteria.
39 -20- Reso. #
This project is not subject to any other specific plan or additional design review criteria.
SECTION 4. The City Council hereby makes the following findings and facts supporting findings for CDP 25-1884:
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 subject property does not contain, nor is it adjacent to, any existing or proposed public accessways identified in the adopted Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. The proposed development will not alter or encroach upon any legally utilized public accessway, as none exist on or near the site.
2. The proposed development will not adversely affect marine resources, environmentally sensitive areas, or archaeological or paleontological resources.
The site is not an oceanfront lot and will not adversely affect marine resources. There are no environmentally sensitive areas or known archaeological or paleontological resources on the site.
3. The proposed development will not adversely affect recreational or visitor-serving facilities or coastal scenic resources.
The proposed development will not adversely affect recreational or visitor-serving facilities or coastal scenic resources. The project is located within an established residential neighborhood. The proposed one-story single-family dwelling is less than 15 feet above the curb and will be set back 20 feet from the front property line. The proposed highest roof ridge is limited 40 -21- Reso. #
to 2.9 feet higher than the existing highest ridge and is consistent with the pattern of development in the neighborhood, as such, will not adversely affect recreational or visitor-serving facilities and will not obstruct or degrade views of the coast or other scenic resources.
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 proposed development will not result in adverse impacts to environmentally sensitive habitats, as none exist on or near the project site. In addition, the proposed residence is not located in proximity to parks or recreation areas. Therefore, the development will not adversely affect scenic resources.
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 existing site is relatively flat, and the project involves only a nominal amount of grading export for the construction of a one-story single-family dwelling. The project will not substantially alter any natural or existing landforms, as the site is located within a developed neighborhood and contains no natural landforms. Additionally, the development will not pose undue risks related to geological, erosional, flood, or fire hazards, as it will be required to comply with all applicable Building Code standards.
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 one-story single-family dwelling has been designed to maintain a building height more than 10 feet below the maximum allowable height limit, consistent with applicable 41 -22- Reso. #
zoning regulations. Additionally, the subject property is not located within a visually degraded area, and the proposed development would not result in adverse visual or aesthetic impacts.
7. The proposed development will not have any adverse impacts on any known archaeological or paleontological resource.
There are no known existing archeological or paleontological resources in the project area.
8. The proposed development will be provided with adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities.
The project site is a buildable lot in a developed neighborhood with adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, and other necessary facilities to serve the proposed new single-family dwelling.
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.
Other public services, including solid waste collection and roadway capacity, are adequate to serve the proposed development.
The project is consistent with all applicable policies of the Certified LCP.
LCP DOCUMENTS
The project conforms with all the following applicable documents of the Certified LCP.
Design Guidelines - A Guide to Residential Development
Land Use Element
Title 22 - Excavation and Grading
Title 25 - Zoning Code
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 42 -23- Reso. #
access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act.
The development is not located between the sea and the first public road. As detailed above in the facts supporting Finding Number 1, the proposed development is in conformity with the certified local coastal program.
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 5. The City Council hereby makes the following findings and facts supporting findings for REP 25-1885:
Finding No. 1: It should be located in a manner that is not hazardous to the traveling public, including motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians.
The proposed encroachment is designed and located to not interfere with existing and proposed public street improvements. The walkway is located behind the existing curb and designed for entry into the property adjacent to the driveway, thereby minimizing potential vehicle conflicts.
Finding No. 2: It should be sufficiently set back from the edge of pavement or street centerline to provide adequate travel, parking, and walking lanes.
The proposed encroachment is on grade between the existing curb and property line and does not affect travel, parking, and walking lanes. Public parking spaces located along the street frontage will be preserved. Therefore, this finding can be made. 43 -24- Reso. #
Finding No. 3: It should not conflict with preexisting public utility structures, especially hydrants, vault and service meters in any manner that necessitates relocation thereof at public expense or causes any other unacceptable interference, including impediments to the maintenance, relocation or repair of pipelines, conduits, or substructures of any public utility.
The proposed encroachments would not conflict with any preexisting or proposed utility structures as all utilities are located below grade on this site.
Finding No. 4: It will not preclude public access, use or enjoyment of any area that has historically established such access, use or enjoyment.
The proposed improvements will not preclude public access or use of the street. Public parking will remain along the street frontage.
Finding No. 5: It is not precedent setting in nature to the extent that it creates a noticeable projection into the streetscape as established by existing construction and improvements on neighboring properties.
Neighboring properties on the street have similar encroachments. Furthermore, the proposed encroachments are not a noticeable projection as they are located behind or in line with the existing curb. Therefore, the proposed encroachment would not be precedent setting.
Finding No. 6: It does not create structures of unusual or unacceptable appearance, form, shape or height that detract from the general quality of the streetscape.
The proposed encroachment would not detract from the general quality of the streetscape because the walkway is customary and typical, pedestrian in scale and on grade.
SECTION 6. Based on its review of the entire record before it, the City Council hereby finds and determines, in accordance with CEQA, that the Project is categorically exempt pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 – New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, 44 -25- Reso. #
in that the project consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small structures.
Examples of projects that qualify for a Class 3 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 include one single-family residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences may be constructed or converted under this exemption. This project fits within the Class 3 exemption because it is construction of a singlefamily dwelling on an existing legal building site and no structures are proposed within any open space overlay or environmentally sensitive area.
Further, none of the exceptions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply.
As indicated above, the Project site does not contain any environmentally sensitive areas in that the site is fully developed with an existing single-family residence and is adjacent to developed residential properties and streets. The City’s environmentally sensitive area maps do not identify any such areas on-site or within the immediate Project vicinity, and there are no mapped watercourses on the subject site. There will be no cumulative impact resulting from successive projects of the same type in the same place over time in that the Project proposes to replace the existing single-family dwelling with a new single-family dwelling that will similarly maintain a single-story building height. There are no unusual circumstances resulting in a significant impact on the environment in that there are no historic resources or heritage trees on the site, or any other unusual circumstances with regards to the Project site. There will be no damage to scenic resources, including trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway in that the Project would not impact trees, there are no historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources on the site, and the closest 45 -26- Reso. #
officially designated state scenic highway is located near Anaheim1 and therefore the Project will not result in damage to scenic resources within or near such highway. The Project is not located on a hazardous waste site or any other site included on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. The Project will not result in significant adverse impacts to historical resources as defined by CEQA in that there is no historic resource on the site or immediately adjacent to the site. Consequently, additional environmental analysis is not necessary to meet the requirements of the CEQA.
SECTION 7. The City Council hereby denies the Appeal and sustains the Design Review Boards’s determination on the Project, as reflected in Board Resolution No. 25-1883, including all conditions attached thereto, which such Resolution and conditions are incorporated herein by this reference.
ADOPTED this 28th day of April, 2026.
Mark Orgill, Mayor
ATTEST:
Ann Marie McKay, City Clerk
1 https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa 46 -27- Reso. #
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 April 28, 2026, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
City Clerk, City of Laguna Beach, California
47