1 McKay, Ann Marie CC
Subject: 5/26/26 Joint Meeting CC, DRB and PC: Please distribute to CC, DRB & PC members.
From: Susan Whitin
Sent: Monday, May 25, 2026 3:07 PM
To: Beier, Samantha CD <[email protected]>; McKay, Ann Marie CC <[email protected]> Subject: 5/26/26 Joint Meeting CC, DRB and PC: Please distribute to CC, DRB & PC members.
May 26, 2026
Re: Joint Session of the City Council, Design Review Board, and Planning Commission — Objective Design Standards
Dear Mayor, Council Members, Design Review Board Members, and Planning Commissioners:
I am unable to attend the entire meeting and wanted to provide my thoughts regarding the Objective Design Standards submittal.
I confess to approaching this process with a mindset of not wanting Laguna Beach to be hampered by outside agencies requiring a streamlined process through objective design standards. My concern has been that objective standards could gradually reduce Laguna’s wide variety of architectural styles and detailing, which are central to the town’s unique character and identity.
However, after reviewing the material, that does not appear to be the case.
The proposed Objective Design Standards identify a broad range of architectural and detailing options, including an illustrated glossary of terms, within the four identified architectural styles. The checklist format appears to facilitate the process for both applicants and the City. Frankly, with or without the state requirement to create objective design standards, these standards simplify the process for everyone involved while still allowing the City to retain an important degree of regulatory control.
In addition, if a proposed project falls outside the requirements for ministerial approval, the option remains to proceed through the Design Review Board process. That distinction is important and reassuring.
I do have several questions regarding the proposed standards:
1. How did the consultant narrow the previously identified six architectural styles down to the four styles included in the Objective Design Standards?
2. Using the “box within a box” approach, projects without discretionary design review appear limited to a single story, not exceeding 15 feet in height, and subject to increased setbacks beyond the minimum requirements of the underlying zone. How are those increased setbacks calculated?
3. For additions to an existing house where the addition differs in architectural style and color from the existing structure, would the project be required to go through the DRB process?
4. What is the anticipated turnaround time for ministerial approval using the objective standards and checklist format?
2 5. Will project submittals still require building elevations, plans, details, and similar materials as required today? There has also been discussion about requiring a 3-D street-view representation as part of project submittals. Will that become part of the application requirements?
6. Regarding building colors, Section 3A.6 states that all colors must be approved by the Community Development Director. Would this approval requirement be considered subjective?
7. Questions regarding the Form Group Standards:
FORM GROUP A
Page 38, Section 3A.4.1 — Entry Elements: stamped concrete and stone columns are not identified in the checklist. Are they permitted?
Page 40, Section 3A.6.1 — Treads/Risers: solid stone stairs are not identified. Are they permitted?
FORM GROUP B
Page 43, Sections 3B.1.1, 3B.1.2, and 3B.1.3 — Roofs: is a flat roof surrounded by a parapet permitted? If so, could the roofing material consist of built-up roofing or hot-mop roofing? Thank you to the consultants and staff for the considerable work that has gone into preparing these standards and for continuing to balance state requirements with preservation of Laguna Beach’s character.
Regards,
Susan Whitin