Protect the Cottage, Not the Box
Dear Council Members,
The desire to "streamline" the Design Review Board (DRB) process is a logical response to administrative backlog. However, as currently drafted, the DRB Efficiency Ordinance risks sacrificing the very soul of Laguna Beach, our unique cottage character in favor of administrative speed.
I support bypassing the DRB for homeowners who choose to build responsibly. If a resident proposes a small, one-story cottage with double the required setbacks, they are contributing to the preservation of our village scale. That resident should be rewarded with an expedited "administrative" path. However, the current proposal creates a "one-size-fits-all" streamlining that treats a charming 1,200 sq. ft. cottage the same as a 3,500 sq. ft. modern "square box." Without specific protections for mass and scale, we are effectively incentivizing developers to build to the maximum allowable envelope without the public oversight that has kept Laguna from looking like every other coastal suburb.
Why Height and Mass Matter :To put the stakes in perspective, consider the physical impact on a typical Laguna street:
• The "Village" Standard: A classic Laguna cottage often sits at roughly 12 to 14 feet in height. This allows for sunlight, air circulation between neighbors, and a "human scale" at the street level.
• The "Box" Threat: Under the proposed "efficiency" standards, a developer could potentially push a structure to the 15-foot maximum with no articulation, a flat roof, and up to the setbacks only slightly increased with 20%.
A 15-foot wall is not just a building; it is a "massing event" that changes the character of a neighborhood forever. If we are to allow "Administrative Design Review," it should be reserved for projects that voluntarily stay 20% below the maximum height and 25% above the minimum setbacks and a cottage design.
My Recommendation:
1. Postpone the Vote: This ordinance is too significant to rush. Please agree to a 60-day postponement to allow for a stakeholder workshop involving local designers and residents who understand the nuance of Laguna’s topography and village character.
2. Tiered Streamlining: Create a "Green Track" for cottages. If a project is single-story and under a certain square footage, under the 15’ height, and has cottage mass and scale then bypass the DRB; all others must remain under the scrutiny of the DRB.
3. Define "Charming" through Code: Codify specific design elements—such as pitched roofs and recessed roof lines—that qualify for streamlining, rather than allowing flat-roofed "cubes" to bypass public review.
Laguna Beach did not become world-famous because of its "efficient" permit processing; it became famous because it was meticulously protected.
Let us streamline the right kind of growth, not just any growth.
Respectfully,
Joy Berry
1 McKay, Ann Marie CC
From: Laguna Beach City Clerk
Subject: Item #22
-----Original Message-----
From: Anne Caenn
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2026 9:07 AM
To: City Council <[email protected]>; Laguna Beach City Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: Item #22
Mayor Orgill and Councilmembers,
It is easy to understand why you are looking to streamline the design review board process. In reading the staff reports, it seems like problems will occur, parƟcularly that it will be easier for developers to bypass the scruƟny that keeps Laguna charming. As a long Ɵme, resident with concerns about keeping our town beauƟful, I request that you postpone the vote and allow Ɵme for a town meeƟng to receive input and suggesƟons from those who will be working with the system such as developers, designers and architects, as well as residents before, changing the rules that protect our village.
Best,
Anne
Anne Caenn
xxx Katella Street
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
1 McKay, Ann Marie CC
Subject: Regular Business Item #22 - DESIGN REVIEW EFFICIENCY ORDINANCE AND EFFICIENCY
ORDINANCE
From: Mike
Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2026 3:57 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Regular Business Item #22 - DESIGN REVIEW EFFICIENCY ORDINANCE AND EFFICIENCY ORDINANCE Dear City Council:
As a homeowner who has lived with the consequences of the earlier efforts at "DRB Streamlining", I would ask you to approach this latest effort with extreme caution. There are always unintended consequences that accompany streamlining, especially when developers have such a strong financial incentive to exploit grey areas to their advantage.
I'm especially concerned with the proposition of exempting the following from Design Review entirely:
a) changes that do not constitute a major remodel
b) new primary dwelling units that do not exceed a height of 15 feet and a single story, with greater setbacks than those required by the underlying zone as specified, and otherwise complying with all applicable objective development standards in the Zoning Code
Speculators will expand what is intended under (a) and will likewise push projects to be covered under (b), which, when viewed in their entirety, they should not be.
The previous "streamlining" changes resulted in a 6-year tsunami of projects in my lower Mystic Hills area, with ever larger projects competing to outdo the next.
If delays in the DRB process are the impetus for this current effort might I suggest that the DRB be expanded, perhaps establishing a 2nd DRB panel so that greater throughput is possible. To achieve a reduced DRB backlog by reducing the projects that are required to go before DRB is a bad idea that will accelerate the loss of the unique charm that Laguna Beach is supposed to embody. Please do not move forward with this approach to reducing the DRB backlog.
Regards,
Michael Morris
1 McKay, Ann Marie CC
Subject: Request delay regarding streamlining the Design Review Board From: Susan Skinner
Sent: Saturday, May 9, 2026 2:26 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Request delay regarding streamlining the Design Review Board Dear Laguna Beach City Council,
I would like to request that you delay the decision regarding the Design Review Board streamline process in order to give the community more of an opportunity to weigh in on these changes.
A decision to change the process may well have unintended consequences that haven't been considered and allowing a more vigorous debate from the community gives the council that input to consider before making the decision.
Thank you,
Susan Skinner
31561 Table Rock Dr., #419
1 McKay, Ann Marie CC
Subject: Agenda Item 22 and Agenda Item #23
From: Darrylin Girvin
Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2026 4:24 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Agenda Item 22 and Agenda Item #23
Dear City Council members
I am writing to ask you to postpone the vote on Item# 22 and let the community of residents, architects and local designers to weigh in on the DRB process change.
The reason DRB exists is to maintain and preserve Laguna Beaches Village character from its very inception.
This includes any building affecting our community from downtown to new homes or remodels.
If you put this in the hands of personnel who may not have the knowledge of Laguna's history or know codes or have an opportunity to know the applicant this could be devastating to all concerned.
DRB is vital to our building process.
Also, if this is a way to garner more funds for inappropriate City ordinances I'm totally against this.
Item #23
The new DRB fees that are being suggested for the appeals are unreasonable and ridiculous and discourage opponents to a project.
I received a notice for a property north of me and was shocked to see the cost if I was to appeal it.
This is discouraging to any neighbor who may not have funds to appeal.
This is just one more way the City needs money to pay for all the personnel that have been hired.
Darrylin Girvin
Laguna Beach resident
1 McKay, Ann Marie CC
Subject: DRB Streamlining
Attachments: Protect the Cottage.pdf
Dear Council Members,
The desire to "streamline" the Design Review Board (DRB) process is a logical response to administrative backlog. However, as currently drafted, the DRB EƯiciency Ordinance risks sacrificing the very soul of Laguna Beach, our unique cottage character in favor of administrative speed.
I support bypassing the DRB for homeowners who choose to build responsibly. If a resident proposes a small, one-story cottage with double the required setbacks, they are contributing to the preservation of our village scale. That resident should be rewarded with an expedited "administrative" path. However, the current proposal creates a "one-size-fitsall" streamlining that treats a charming 1,200 sq. ft. cottage the same as a 3,500 sq. ft. modern "square box." Without specific protections for mass and scale, we are eƯectively incentivizing developers to build to the maximum allowable envelope without the public oversight that has kept Laguna from looking like every other coastal suburb.
Why Height and Mass Matter :To put the stakes in perspective, consider the physical impact on a typical Laguna street:
The "Village" Standard: A classic Laguna cottage often sits at roughly 12 to 14 feet in height. This allows for sunlight, air circulation between neighbors, and a "human scale" at the street level.
The "Box" Threat: Under the proposed "eƯiciency" standards, a developer could potentially push a structure to the 15-foot maximum with no articulation, a flat roof, and up to the setbacks only slightly increased with 20%.
A 15-foot wall is not just a building; it is a "massing event" that changes the character of a neighborhood forever. If we are to allow "Administrative Design Review," it should be reserved for projects that voluntarily stay 20% below the maximum height and 25% above the minimum setbacks and a cottage design.
My Recommendation:
1. Postpone the Vote: This ordinance is too significant to rush. Please agree to a 60-day postponement to allow for a stakeholder workshop involving local designers and residents who understand the nuance of Laguna’s topography and village character.
2. Tiered Streamlining: Create a "Green Track" for cottages. If a project is single-story and under a certain square footage, under the 15’ height, and has cottage mass and scale then bypass the DRB; all others must remain under the scrutiny of the DRB. 2 3. Define "Charming" through Code: Codify specific design elements—such as pitched roofs and recessed roof lines—that qualify for streamlining, rather than allowing flatroofed "cubes" to bypass public review.
Laguna Beach did not become world-famous because of its "eƯicient" permit processing; it became famous because it was meticulously protected. Let us streamline the right kind of growth, not just any growth.
Respectfully,
Joy Berry
5/11/26
To City Council and City Manager,
On behalf of our membership and South Laguna neighborhood residents, the South Laguna Civic Association (SLCA) writes regarding the proposed Design Review Efficiency Ordinance and related amendments currently before the Council.
SLCA supports efforts to improve the efficiency, predictability, fairness, and consistency of Laguna Beach’s development review process for all parties, including both applicants and impacted neighbors. We recognize the State’s increasing push toward streamlined and objective standards and the legitimate need to reduce unnecessary delay. We also believe that Administrative Design Review can be an appropriate and efficient path for many smaller or straightforward projects.
We are concerned, however, that portions of the current proposal weaken important community protections without addressing the actual sources of delay in the City’s development process. In our experience, significant project slowdowns more often stem from inconsistent interpretations, repeated administrative review cycles, shifting staff direction, and fragmented coordination between departments—not from the Design Review Board itself.
This concern is especially important in South Laguna, where unique zoning protections and carefully developed community standards are proposed to be repealed or weakened as part of this ordinance. SLCA strongly objects to the proposed repeal of the South Laguna Village Commercial Zone performance standards contained in Section 25.25.010.
While the City may seek more objective standards, the existing South Laguna provisions were intentionally crafted to preserve compatibility between commercial development and surrounding residential neighborhoods, which in South Laguna frequently exist in unusually close proximity with limited separation. These standards address issues fundamental to South Laguna’s character, including pedestrian orientation, neighborhood scale, landscaping, traffic impacts, architectural compatibility, protection of views, and the relationship between commercial and residential uses. These are not abstract or unnecessary provisions, but placespecific protections developed through years of public planning and community input.
We are also concerned that a broad expansion of Administrative Design Review, paired with increasingly high appeal costs, risks undermining one of Laguna Beach’s defining strengths:
meaningful community participation in shaping neighborhood character. Issues involving neighborhood compatibility and community character should default to public forums whenever possible, not become matters residents must challenge through costly appeals in response to staff-level determinations. The growing cost of appeals risks placing meaningful public participation increasingly out of reach for average residents. The Design Review Board —with all of its flaws—continues to serve an important civic function by providing transparency, accessibility, and a fair, standardized public process.
SLCA supports thoughtful reforms that improve efficiency and reduce unnecessary delay. Yet in pursuing these goals, we respectfully urge the Council to retain the South Laguna Village performance standards and ensure that any expansion of Administrative Design Review preserves meaningful public participation, transparent noticing procedures, and accessible oversight for projects with broader community impacts.
Thank you for your consideration.
In partnership,
Greg O’Loughlin
President
South Laguna Civic Association
To preserve and enhance the unique village character of Laguna Beach May 6, 2026
Re: Design Efficiency Ordinance and Fee Schedule
City Council:
Village Laguna supports retaining the existing structure, scope and responsibilityofour Design Review Board and recommends reconsidering revising the scope of the Administrative Design Review process.
While we understand that the state has imposed new requirements emphasizing ministerial approvals we question the need for such extensive changes to the Design Review requirements and processes to address chronic “delays and slow pacing of project approvals.” We seriously question whether such extensive changes to the Design Review process are the appropriate solution to these very real problems. We are concerned that public participation and tools for maintaining the appreciated character of our city will suffer as a result of these proposed changes.
Design Review is an Asset
It is critical that we preserve our unique village character. San Francisco isnot East Hampton, Marfa is not Palm Springs, Carmel is not Martha's Vineyard, Laguna Beach is not Irvine.
Design Review maintains our unique character by providingaforumtoensure adherence to our carefully thought-out zoning, planning and design guidelines. It does not need to be restructured/"streamlined" to encourage circumventing these. By sending more projects to Administrative Design Review with appeal an onerously expensive option, important factors can remain unaddressed.
Fromitsinception the Design ReviewBoard hasmonitored and provided guidance for remodels, revisions and newconstruction. It hasdonethissuccessfullythrough many members' terms. It provides residents assurance that barbeques and decks won't belocated adjacent totheir bedrooms, that a purely decorative non-functioning chimney will not block their primary view, thatlandscapingwill beappropriate - neither growing into views nor being too scanty to provide a visual connection to the earth. It assures a fair and reasonable hearing and all ofthis done in a non-confrontationalsetting where both applicants and concerned residents are heard. The Board facilitates those win-win situations with mid-century moderns adjacent to"Laguna Charmers" inour acclaimed eclectic neighborhoods. To move these important itemsfrom the Board's purviewtoacasual and abbreviated hearing before various (possibly rotating)staff members in the Administrative Design Review process is a serious mistake and does a disservice to all parties.
More Items Sent to Administrative Design Review?
Adding considerably more items to Administrative Design Review will most likely cause a commensurate delay in that process. Hearings are inconveniently held during working hours rather than in the evening. The proposed ordinance provides that hearings are to be requested by anyone with concerns within 15 days of date of mailing. Allowing for mail delivery time which is not reliable, that can mean ten days or less to respond and this doesn't take into account that vacations away from home typically last for two weeks. Failure by a person to request a public hearing will result in an automatic approval, according to the proposal. If someone does request a hearing then a hearing date must be set and the noticing repeated. It seems that it would be more efficient and fair to continue with the present system which allows for more time for neighbors to respond and would not require repeat noticing.
While the ordinance does provide for the Administrative Design Review hearing officer to refer projects to the regular Design Review Board (DRB), in practice this rarely happens. The referral is completely at the discretion of the hearing officer/Director of Community Development and it is not in the interest of the department work load to do such a referral. It’s just easier to ignore community requests for hearing at DRB and to tell the requesting members of the public, “You can appeal to DRB or Planning Commission.” Such an appeal is very costly, and the appeal fee seems to increase every year. Now an appeal fee of $2500 is being proposed.
This is extremely unfair to our residents.
The previous system was so much better. CDD staff invited concerned parties to a conference room where the plans were laid out. Staff asked if there were any questions or concerns.
Staff, applicant and neighbors looked at the plans together and often most questions were resolved and the applicant agreed to some adjustments. If there were outstanding issues that could not be agreed on, staff would refer the item to DRB. Now the hearings are unnecessarily formal, there is no forum to look at the plans together and the CCD decisions are final without an expensive appeal. Please reinstate the previous method.
The proposal inverts the Design Review relationship—listing uses requiring Design Review providing that anything not listed as requiring Design Review is exempt. Exemptions under MC
25.05.040 (B)(2) are clearly listed as A through Z. With constant changes in processes, materials, etc., occurring, it seems clearer, more specific and more efficient to continue to list exemptions as those surface rather than listing those subject to Design Review, or stating that the list of those subject to Design Review is not conclusive and may be added to based on the findings of the Community Development Director.
The following items need further consideration, clarification or amendment:
Section 3. Code Amendment(B)(2)(i) Exempt from Design Review (b) (i) (ii) Any improvement or building that does not exceed a height of 15 feet above the adjacent, legal ground elevation and provides 20% greater setbacks than normally required.
This change should be examined with some examples to be sure there are not unintended consequences. For example, in a project like the Shopoff house north of the West St. stairs there is a very large lot so increasing the setbacks would be no problem. But a 15’ height limit would stll have allowed a very large house, and one that would completely block views from Coast Highway and the neighbors across the street. Design Review approved a large house but one that is completely below the Coast Highway. It is very risky to exempt any new house from Design Review.
Exempt from Design Review (o) and (p) and (iii) Landscaping that does not exceed 16 feet in height. The height of plantings is not the only consideration in approving landscaping. The landscape guidelines of the “Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document” should also be required as noted in Section 3. Code Amendment (H) (6). The landscape plans should not be exempt just based on height limits.
Exempt from Design Review (u) Swimming pools and spas no more than three (3) feet above adjacent, legal ground surface. The height of a pool above grade could be a factor in potential impact on neighbors, but impact is more likely to be related to size, placement, type of water feature and noise potential. Pools should not be exempt solely because of their height above grade.
Section 3. Code Amendment(B)(3)(b) The Community Development Department director grant permits if no request is made for a hearing after noticing to neighbors, allowing 15 days from the date of sending the notice. This requires neighbors to access the plans at the city “during normal operating hours.” Omit this system for automatic approval if no request for hearing is made within 15 days.
Section 18. Design Criteria. In changing Design Criteria to Standards, many important topics have been omitted—references to the general plan, effect on environment, mass and scale, building size, architectural style, grading, landscaping…This one example of items that relate to preservation of the community environment being removed from the code. Reconsider.
Section 22 South Laguna Village Commercial Zone Performance Standards are repealed. The ability to include performance standards is an important part of having this separate and unique zone. Do not repeal.
Section 23 Institutional zone, Section 24 and 25 Arch Beach Heights , Section 26 Sarah Thurston Park, Section 27 Three Arch Bay standards are modified. A great deal of public attention was given to drafting the details in these zones as parts of specific plans and other efforts and they should not be summarily changed or repealed.
Section 32 Historic Preservation requirements are modified. Section 25.45.010 (C)Heritage Committee review should be included in the review of historic resource report assessments.
Section 39 Luminous tube signs. Village Laguna supports the Planning Commission’s deletion of these signs (neon is one example) from the list of allowed signage.
Noticing and appeals. The ordinance assumes that members of the public who live within the 300’ noticing area are the only relevant parties to notice, and they are the only ones who can appeal. We should consider that there are items of general public interest that may surface as part of project review, especially related to public works projects, public views, tree protection and historic preservation. The ordinance should provide for broader noticing and rights to appeal to protect community features of public interest.
Fee Increases for appeals Village Laguna objects to increasing the fees for appeals (now staff suggests $4500!) and asks the Council to restore the more reasonable fee of $750 to appeal to Council. Many of these appeals are in the public interest and provide the benefit of community knowledge to the public discussion. Appeals elevate the public discussion and raise important issues for council consideration. Appellants should not be penalized for dedicated participation in the city process.
Administrative Design Review appeals should be free, or better yet if there are outstanding issues remaining after Admin DR testimony, the hearing officer should just forward the item to the DRB or Planning Commission as discussed above.
Please consider these comments and ask staff to revise the proposal.
Sincerely,
Merrill Anderson, President