1 Beier, Samantha CD
From: j .net
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2026 1:48 AM
To: Beier, Samantha CD
Subject: Agenda Item 5.2.2b
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open a"achments unless you are sure the content is safe.]
Hi, Planning Manager Beier -
Just a note regarding the proposed free pass on reviews for 16’ tall structures and foliage.
This is nuts!
People spend millions of dollars for homes with views.
This free pass could slash hundreds of thousands of dollars off of their home values just based on a neighbor’s whim.
Please rethink this and put some restric3ons or other limits on this item to ensure some kind of responsibility for individual homeowners.
Many thanks!
Jerome Pudwill
39-Year Resident
Attachment 5
97 1
Beier, Samantha CD
From: Amy Hundhausen < @gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2026 1:14 AM
To: Beier, Samantha CD; Amy Hundhausen; Allan Hundhausen; Sadler, Ken Subject: Concerns Regarding Proposed Design Review Efficiency Ordinance [NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Dear Members of the Planning Commission,
I recently became aware of the proposed Design Review Efficiency Ordinance scheduled for discussion at the January 18, 2026 Planning Commission meeting. I appreciate the City’s goal of reducing the Design Review Board backlog. I cannot attend the meeting in person, but I have several concerns regarding this proposal's potential unintended consequences. I have included the contact information that I saw for the Planning Manager; I hope it is correct. (I have included others on blind copy who may prefer not to have their contact information shared.)
1. Administrative modification of approved Design Review projects My primary concern is ensuring that clear guardrails exist to prevent modification of previously approved Design Review projects without public notice or hearing.
Design Review approvals—particularly those that are extensively negotiated—create reasonable reliance by neighboring property owners. Allowing material elements of an approved project to be altered overthe-counter risks undermining the integrity of the Design Review process and could invite disputes or legal challenges.
The draft ordinance introduces ambiguity in this area. For example, what constitutes a feature that was “specifically addressed”? Does this include all items shown on approved plans? Does it include all matters discussed during the Design Review hearings?
Also, the current code provides examples of minor landscape modifications that can bypass design review, specifically those that do not increase the height, width, or spacing of vegetation. Please retain at least this example if not a few others for clarity and predictability.
The Community Development Director may authorize minor changes to an approved permit without a public hearing, where the Director first finds that the changes: a. Are consistent with the requirements of the City’s Zoning Code; and b. Do not involve a feature of the project that was a basis for findings for an exemption, negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report for the project; and c. Do not involve a feature of the project that was specifically addressed or was the subject 98 2
of a condition(s) of approval for the project or that was a specific consideration by the applicable review authority in the project approval; and d. Do not result in an expansion or change in operational characteristics of the use; and e. Do not alter the facts in support of the findings required by Section
25.07.012(G). (ii) The Director may choose to refer any requested change to the original review authority for review and final action.
2. Very significant expansion of ministerial (“over-the-counter”) approvals, including hardscape and softscape less than 16 feet in height
The proposed “Zone Clearance” category substantially expands the scope of projects eligible for overthe-counter approval—encompassing mutliple dozens of categories, including new primary dwelling units, pools, telecommunications facilities, hardscape, and landscaping.
Of particular concern is the automatic allowance for structures and landscaping up to 16 feet high to be approved over-the-counter. A 16-foot element represents approximately two stories of visual mass and can materially impact views, privacy, and neighborhood character—especially in hillside areas.
This appears inconsistent with the intent of Laguna Beach’s View Preservation and Restoration Ordinance (Chapter 12.16) and may introduce internal inconsistencies within the Municipal Code, potentially leading to legal conflicts if and when over-the-counter approvals impact views. If a height limit is defined at all for over-the-counter approvals, it should be consistent with the 6 foot limit for the rear and side yard setbacks.
Instead of broadly expanding over-the-counter approvals, why not eliminate the Zone Clearance category and transfer those items to an expansion of the Administrative Design Review (ADR). This approach could reduce backlog for non-controversial projects while preserving:
• Transparency
• Neighbor notice
• Opportunity for input.
Over the counter approvals don't allow anyone to view the impacts of projects on neighbors, and I think this is a fundamental shortcoming of that approach.
3. Scope of changes and reduced emphasis on view protection The proposed ordinance significantly restructures the Design Review framework, yet public awareness appears limited given the scope of these changes.
At the same time, removing explicit view preservation language weakens a long-standing policy priority.
While “view equity” remains, the shift appears to reduce the emphasis on protecting existing views.
Laguna Beach’s character and desirability are closely tied to preserving views and privacy. Changes of this magnitude warrant broader public awareness and discussion. 99 3
I respectfully urge the Commission to consider substantial revisions to this ordinance and to consider broader community outreach, such as a Town Hall, before moving forward.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Amy Hundhausen
100
101
102
103
1 Beier, Samantha CD
From: photobykristie < .net>
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2026 1:25 PM
To: Beier, Samantha CD; Sadler, Ken
Subject: Concerns Regarding Proposed Design Review Efficiency Ordinance [NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Dear Members of the Planning Commission,
I recently learned about the proposed Design Review Efficiency Ordinance scheduled for an upcoming meeting. While I appreciate the goal of reducing backlog, I have a few concerns about potential unintended consequences and am unable to attend in person.
1. Modifications to approved projects
There should be clear guardrails to prevent changes to previously approved Design Review projects without public notice. Neighbors rely on those approvals, and allowing material changes over-the-counter could undermine the process and lead to disputes. The draft language is unclear—for example, what qualifies as a feature “specifically addressed”? I would also encourage retaining clear examples (such as minor landscape changes) for consistency and predictability.
2. Expansion of over-the-counter approvals
The proposed “Zone Clearance” category significantly broadens what can be approved administratively, including structures and landscaping up to 16 feet high. That scale can meaningfully impact views, privacy, and neighborhood character—particularly in hillside areas—and may conflict with existing view protection policies. A lower, more consistent height limit (such as 6 feet in rear and side yards) would be more appropriate.
Alternatively, expanding Administrative Design Review instead could help reduce backlog while preserving transparency, neighbor notice, and input.
3. Scope and public awareness
104
2 The ordinance represents a substantial shift in the Design Review framework, yet public awareness seems limited. At the same time, reducing emphasis on view preservation weakens an important community priority. Changes of this scale would benefit from broader outreach and discussion.
I respectfully urge the Commission to consider revisions and additional community engagement, such as a town hall, before moving forward.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Thanks!
Kristie Decker
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
105
1 Beier, Samantha CD
From: B <b .com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2026 3:40 PM
To: Beier, Samantha CD
Subject: comment for March 18, 2026 Agenda Item No. 5.2 [NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Hello
This is a reference to the March 18, 2026 Agenda Item No. 5.2 Case No:
Municipal Code Amendment 2026-0381
Local Coastal Program Amendment 2026-0382
I am a resident of Laguna Beach
Bryan Dominick
Santa Ana street
Please do not adopt this resolution
This 16 foot exemption effectively exempts a lot of construction that municipalites across the country typically review as standard procedure. 16 feet of construction is more than enough to adversely imapct a neighborhood. This is not streamlining, which would be reasonable, this is a dereliction of duty.
Thank you
106
107
108
2 processes easier. Understanding that design review can sometimes be a laborious process, it is equally laborious for all by design, so that it can be fair to everyone. It is there for the equal protection of all of the city’s residents’ quality of life and preservation of value. A change of this nature benefits only those making changes, to the detriment of those around them. It helps the one by injuring many, many others.
A city’s job is to help the many. Not the few.
While there is a value in streamlining processes, eliminating controls to such a degree that there is no control, is unconscionable in this city. This is a very unique place.
This revision should not be allowed to pass.
Streamlining is best done by improving administrative issues. The planning commission could meet more regularly. Every week, for example. All of the applications could be streamlined by putting them all online so that nobody has to go to City Hall during their limited open hours to put in applications or communicate with the planning commission. I have had to do this myself, and it has been a challenge.
Most of the problems with this process, like any other process run by any other municipal body, are administrative.
Small things like internal renovations should not require any sort of review at all besides permits, unless it is a historic structure. Many of the other suggestions in this plan (such as suggestions for low lying foliage revisions) make perfect sense. All of those things could be enacted to decrease the rigamarole of the design review process without diminishing residents’ quality of life.
There should never be a change so dramatic that it negatively impacts property values, quality of life, and the reason we are here in the first place.
Please reconsider what you are planning to do to completely change the tenor of our lives in Laguna Beach.
Finally, before I sign off, I would like to point out text on page 6 of the proposal that looks like, it could potentially be a typo. In the section where revisions suggest suggested by the coastal commission are laid out in a bulleted list, this text is found:
“City exempt roof alterations that are 16 feet in height or greater and exempt roof alterations that are less than 16 feet in height.”
The two clauses in the statement appear to be saying that both roof alterations, whether it is above 16 feet in height or below 16 feet in height, are exempt. Given the text of the rest of the document, it appears that it should probably be saying that roof alterations 16 feet in height or greater are not exempt from review.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Margot Goodkin
Arch Beach Heights resident
Santa Ana Street
Get Outlook for iOS
109
110
1 Beier, Samantha CD
From: Trish Sweeney <t zone>
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2026 2:21 PM
To: Beier, Samantha CD
Subject: Public Comment for the proposed Design Review Efficiency Ordinance, Item 5.2 [NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Hi, Samantha. Would you please attach this letter to Item 5.2, put it into the public record, and send it to the Planning Commission members in advance of tomorrow night’s meeting? Many thanks, Trish and Mike Sweeney
Dear Commissioners:
Thank you for your service.
We’re writing with respect to the proposed DR E*iciency Ordinance, Item 5.2 for this Wednesday’s meeting. While we rarely write in, we felt compelled to do so after reading the Sta* Report.
We understand the desire of applicants to get projects moving. But whether it’s someone building a second home or a family new to town, it appears that the majority of applicants are not long term residents.
It would seem that the needs of existing neighborhoods would take precedence since the vast majority of the taxpaying public have been here for some time. Instead, the proposed ordinance seems geared to the much smaller segment of new applicants who may not have considered the impact of new viewblocking projects.
While Section 3 (page 3 of 62) of the draft ordinance amending the LCPA asks “that development review process consider the public and private views,” the types of projects exempt from Design Review as outlined in 5.2 B of the sta* report include: “Improvements that do not exceed a height of 16 feet above adjacent ground elevation.”
Due to Laguna’s history, many homes are single story in neighborhoods like North Laguna, the Village, Canyon Acres, Sun Valley Castle Rock and many others. It seems possible that by permitting over the counter approval of projects up to 16 feet, views could, in fact, be blocked by hardscape, trees, and many other things. Privacy could be impacted. The look and feel of a neighborhood could be irreversibly and negatively influenced.
We understand that the State has imposed some constraints on local oversight re housing. But what will happen as a result of diluting View Preservation when an applicant is inevitably granted approval for a project that blocks someone else’s views? Will more lawsuits be in the City’s future? By shifting to Administrative Design Review instead of DR, things would certainly be streamlined. 111
2 However, no detail is provided in terms of notification to residents to see if they’d like a hearing. Some have complained that a small postcard is easily lost. Would this be the only notification method? If so, is this su*icient in a town of multimillion dollar homes where the value of properties are often predicated on dramatic views?
How many residents even realize projects occurring in their neighborhoods up to 16 feet could be in their future if this is eventually approved by Council?
In their post to the community on NextDoor four days ago, The City of Laguna Beach neglected to include anything regarding this important proposed ordinance. The Planning Commission post focused solely on the Ocean Avenue Streetscape Project.
This proposed ordinance needs work and greater public outreach is warranted.
Trish and Mike Sweeney
Top of the World
112
1 Beier, Samantha CD
From: Anne Caenn <a com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2026 11:08 AM
To: Beier, Samantha CD
Subject: Item 5.2
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open a"achments unless you are sure the content is safe.]
Dear Commissioners,
Although I can appreciate a desire to streamline development requirements, please consider the nega)ve impact on Laguna Beach residents. Exemp)ng any structure 16 feet and under from Design Review may speed up development, but has the poten)al of blocking views for exis)ng homeowners.
Please support that all development requires Design Review approval, unless explicitly exempted by LBMC and deny the DR Efficiency Ordinance.
Thank you,
Anne Caenn
9 Katella Street
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
113
114
This proposed change to cut the Heritage Committee out of project review is outrageous. Just look at what constitutes “minor alterations”:
a) replacement or modification of doors and windows;
b) addition of first floor porches and decks
c) the replacement of roofing material or building siding; d) minor improvements to landscaping, hardscape, walls, fences, arbors, and other landscape features;
e) similar minor site or building alterations
Alterations a, b, c (building siding), are not trivial; they can quickly disintegrate the historic fabric of a property and thus a property's qualification as historic. Alteration e, based on “similarity,” is meaningless. Even in cities that have qualified preservation staff changes of these substance would go to a Heritage committee or commission. In Laguna, there is no staff member who is qualified to make determinations of conformity with the Standards. The Heritage Committee has frequently found egregious errors in the evaluations and recommendations of the City’s consultants, while staff treat the consultants’ evaluations as gospel (full speed ahead!). Any consultant report of Standard compliance needs to be reviewed by the Heritage Committee with an opportunity for public comment.
Please note that under the proposed change to ADR process, only neighbors will receive public notice of projects; the rest of the public is cut out from notification unless a neighbor objects and they notice it on the ADR hearing agenda. Thus disclosure of projects on historic resources subject to CEQA will only be available to property owners within 300 feet of a projects, not the public that is the intended beneficiary of the CEQA process. This flies in the face of CEQA’s intent and is a terrible change.
But it’s not really a change at all. The Director has already put this into practice (see staff report, p. 3), even though nothing in the current Code allows ADR hearings to be handled in this way. The City now notifies only neighbors of ADR projects, and those projects are not noticed to the public and do not get a hearing (and appear on an agenda) unless a neighbor has objected. Please remember that ADR has no staff reports; just plans are posted. If there are no objections, projects sail through in an instant. Why not notify the public? The amount of work is minimal—the import of the codified changes, dramatic.
The solution to this change is obvious. Heritage should make a recommendation to the Director about the so-called “minor” alterations.
115
2) Here is another enormous change, which the public would never know is proposed; I could not find it red-lined; it simply disappeared. Under Section 25.05.040 (B) (1) of the current Code:
"Exceptions. The following improvements shall be exempt from the design review process. The Director of Community Development has the discretion to refer applications to the appropriate design review authority for consideration and final action.” This language is proposed for removal. The upshot is that projects that are now discretionary, because they are subject to the DCD’s discretion, are now uniformly and unequivocally ministerial projects. Thus they are exempt from CEQA. It is worth pointing out that the existing language was inserted at the behest of community members, because of the CEQA implications, when the DR code was revised not all that long ago to allow many more exemptions from DR. How many times has the Director intervened and brought something through design review that was exempt? Each and every exemption should be explored to ensure that they really should be exempt from design review without any possibility for a DR process.
3) Projects would be exempt from Design Review unless the Code specifically requires they go through Design Review
I agree with DRB member Tom Gibbs: it is a bad idea to change the rules so that if a project is not specifically called out as requiring design review, it slides by without any design review at all. If staff can reasonably foresee all the types of projects that might be proposed as well as their impacts, then write them into the Code and specify the level of review (if any) required.
But of course that is not possible. Unless state law forbids it, the City should err in favor of maintaining protections not reducing them. By eliminating design review for undisclosed future projects, the city would eliminate protections by creating a new and unknowable category of ministerial approvals.
The time for CEQA objections will be at the Coastal Commission. But you should reject these changes because they are bad policy and planning.
Thank you for your consideration. I wrote this in haste and apologize for any typos. Best, Cathy 116
117
________________________________________________________________________________ --
Nancy Balmer-Csira
Architect
3 Bern Drive
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
(949) 2 -6
118
DR Efficiency Ordinance NBC comments in red. Morris comments in blue. 3-18-2026
PC Staff Report
Request: PC recommendation to CC
2. Triggers for Design Review
b. Adding to …. Exempt from Design Review.
• Changes that do not accumulatively constitute a major remodel. • Improvements that do not exceed a height of 16 feet above adjacent ground elevation.
Now 15 feet, proposed 16 feet to be consistent with allowable height for detached ADU? What if view impairment? Could be Admin or view no longer an issue? • Re-reroofing of buildings, except for white roofing materials or materials that result in glare.
Change in roof material no longer requires DR?
Is a shiny painted metal or stainless steel roof constitutes glare? • Swimming pools and spas no more than 3 feet above adjacent ground level.
What about neighborhood compatibility, size, location, hillside, geo., etc.? Pools can be incompatible with neighbor locations, windows, noise, geologic issues. 3 ft above the adjacent
• Mechanical equipment that meets certain noise standards and other requirements.
No setback to PL? Note, electric heat pumps are quiet.
Heat pumps are electric and quiet. Typical condensers can be quiet when installed but get nosier over time. Having some separation from property line at a minimum should be considered.
Example: 5 ft same for swimming pool equipment. If side yard is only 5 ft. need clearance for fire and 30” or so for condenser. Consider side yards ok as long as 5 ft from PL? • New primary dwelling ….
No landscaping plan or design criteria?
Landscape is often questionable and causes view issues. View is primary concern of all neighbors. c. Reducing the level of DR to Admin DR.
• Certain landscaping.
Hedges, trees, etc.
• Decks more than three feet above adjacent ground elevation.
Decks must be staked.
Proposed plans must be available for neighbors as soon as PH notice mailed. Depending on lot size, decks can be as close as 3 ft to a property line. Decks 30” and above require 42” railings.
Above than can be umbrellas, chairs, tables, awnings, trellises etc. Should at least be Admin.
3. Consolidation of Design Review Criteria
Do not eliminate Swimming Pools, Spas and Water Features. Agreed. 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.
Changes Based on Coastal Commission Staff Comments:
• City specify measuring height from the existing “legal grade’” adjacent ground elevation.
MAJOR CONCERN: Mansionization Ordinance (2003 Implementation) after 27 hearings changed the measurement to lowest finished floor due to massing issues – ABS at rear, 3rd covered parking space, no decks in required side setbacks, etc. 119
Height should be measured from lowest finish floor. Years of complaints from resulting 4-5 story buildings caused this change some 30 years ago. Rear additional building setback was part of change.
Chart DR Efficiency Ordinance Changes (Summary of Design Review Streamlining Ordinance) Administrative Design Review 25.05.040(B)(3)
If hearing requested applicant provides another listing (cost approx. $400).
Staking Requirements 25.07.012
Staking for CDPs only for ADUs over 16 feet?
Environmentally Sensitive Area 25.08.010
Provide legible CC mapped ESAs and call out the ESAs.
Residential Site Coverage Development Standard
Pattern of development, document prior privilege so cannot come back w/upper-level addition. If expanded lot coverage is allowed due to lowering of building to protect neighboring views, there is no process to document this limitation of height for future owner or neighbors. - 5% could be considered minimal however, is 5% takes it from 35 to 40% or is it 5% increase of 35% which is 1.75%? Diamond/Crestview Specific Plan 25.49
Specific Plan includes unique DR Criteria and Hillside Guidelines. Major effort to change D/CSP.
Suggest deleting concept review prior to actual Design review as doubles the time and burden on neighbors.
PC Resolution No. 26-0381
Exhibit A
LBMC Section 25.05.040(B)(3)(a)(iii)
Include terraces/filled yards more than three feet above adjacent grade elevation. These areas are often lawn areas that allow chairs, umbrellas, etc. Building Code only requires a railing is a walking surface adjacent to 30-inch drop.
Is limited to 6 ft maximum before stepping to avoid filling rear year completed. No filling of yards to within 3 ft of property lines?
LBMC Section 25.05.040(B)(3)(a)(xiv)
Include trash storage fencing limited to 3 feet high in front setbacks on corner lots.
Corner lot requirement is 3 ft max for certain distance in both directions of corner then can rise to 4 ft which is max fence height?
LBMC Section 25.05.040(B)(3)(c)(i)
Require staking (ADR) for decks/terraces greater than three feet above adjacent grade elevation.
LBMC Section 25.05.070(B)(1)(i) Allowed Appeals/CDD Decisions Only ADR? How do find out all decisions?
LBMC Section 25.05.070(D) Hearing on Appeal
(1) Clarify ADR and de novo hearing?
(2) Clarify PC/DRB and de novo hearing?
With majority vote or 4-0 or 5-0, of DRB or PC, appeal to CC is for Abuse of Discretion only not de novo? LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(2) Action on Appeal/Deadlocked Vote (i) & (ii) Can applicant or appellant continue for a full Board, Commission or Council? Continuance of hearing to obtain full board in the event of only 4 members or even 3 members? 120