STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date:
June 9, 2026
APPEAL
A
SUBJECT: 31565 EAGLE ROCK WAY: PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 2025-0407 FOR A NEW
SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING, ATTACHED TWO-CAR GARAGE, ELEVATED
DECK, GRADING, POOL, SPA, LANDSCAPING, HARDSCAPE, NEW
VEHICULAR ACCESS, PUBLIC STREET IMPROVEMENTS, AND
DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING STORAGE BUILDING, AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2025-0408 FOR A DETACHED ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNIT AT 31565 EAGLE ROCK WAY IN THE VC (VILLAGE
COMMUNITY) ZONE, SUBJECT TO IMPOSING A MORE RESTRICTIVE
CONDITION OF APPROVAL, AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3)
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:
1. Conduct a Public Hearing, including receiving a staff report and taking public testimony and evidence relating to the consideration of Design Review 2025-0407 and Coastal Development Permit 2025-0408 and the California Environmental Quality Act exemption under Section 15303 of the state CEQA Guidelines; and
2. Adopt the Resolution titled, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL AND SUSTAINING THE
DECISION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TO CONDITIONALLY APPROVE DESIGN REVIEW 2025-0407 FOR A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING, ATTACHED TWO-CAR
GARAGE, ELEVATED DECK, GRADING, POOL, SPA, LANDSCAPING, HARDSCAPE,
NEW VEHICULAR ACCESS, PUBLIC STREET IMPROVEMENTS, AND DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING STORAGE BUILDING, AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2025-0408 FOR A DETACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AT 31565 EAGLE ROCK WAY IN THE
VC (VILLAGE COMMUNITY ZONE), SUBJECT TO IMPOSING A MORE RESTRICTIVE
CONDITION OF APPROVAL, AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3),” upholding the Design Review Board’s conditional approval of Design Review 2025-0407 and Coastal Development Permit 2025-0408, and finding the Project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.
SUMMARY OF THE MATTER
Stan Andrade, Architect (“Applicant”)1, for 31565 Eagle Rock Way (the “Property”) (see aerial map included as Figure 1) applied for Design Review 2025-0407 to construct a new two-story, single-family residence, attached two-car garage, elevated deck, grading, pool, spa, landscaping, hardscape, and new vehicular access, and demolish an existing storage building, pursuant to Laguna Beach Municipal Code (“LBMC”) Section 25.05.040(B)(1), and Coastal Development Permit 2025-0408 for a new detached 1 The Project’s owner is David Davutoglu, who is within the definition of Applicant.
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2025-0407 AND CDP 2025-0408 AT 31565 EAGLE ROCK WAY
June 9, 2026
accessory dwelling unit (“ADU”), pursuant to LBMC Section 25.07.008(A)(1)(a)3 (the “Original Project”).
Design review is not required for the proposed ADU.
On October 23, 2025, the Design Review Board (“Board”) held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Original Project. During the hearing, the Board evaluated the proposed design and received public testimony, which focused primarily on concerns regarding mass and scale, neighborhood compatibility, privacy, and view equity.
The Board discussed the Original Project and voted 5–0 to continue the hearing to March 26, 2026, with direction to revise the project and to work with the neighbors before returning to the Board. Specifically, the Board provided the following direction to the Applicant:
1. Address light and air, privacy, and view equity issues for neighbors;
2. Reduce the upper-level program at the rear;
3. Minimize the glazing on the south and north sides of the upper level to provide increased view/open space and privacy for the immediate neighbors.
The October 23, 2025 Staff Report, Plans, Public Correspondence, Minutes, and Transcript are attached as Attachments 9 through 13, respectively.4
On March 26, 2026, the Board held a public hearing to consider the Applicant’s plan revisions (the “Revised Project” or “Project”). In response to the Board’s prior direction, the Applicant revised the project design as follows:
1. Reduced the upper-level living area by approximately 262 square feet;
2. Reduced the number of windows on the north and south elevations;
3. Reduced the upper-level terrace area by 220 square feet.
The Board received public testimony, which included neighbors who expressed concerns related to privacy and view impacts, and regarding the species of trees proposed in the front yard of the property.
After carefully considering the oral and documentary evidence from staff, the Applicant, and members of the public, and upon review of the staff recommendation for approval, the Board voted 5-0 to adopt Resolution No. 2025-0407, approving the Project, subject to the conditions of approval set forth in the resolution and subject to four Project-specific conditions, and a finding that the Project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Section 15303 (the “Board Approval”). Below are the four Project-specific conditions imposed by the Board:
3 Pursuant to Categorical Exclusion Order E-93-1 and Laguna Beach Municipal Code Section 25.07.010, the proposed singlefamily residential development and certain public improvements are excluded from the CDP requirements due to its location within a categorical exclusion area. However, according to the California Coastal Commission, the ADU is not exempt pursuant to Categorical Exclusion Order E-93-1.
4 The October 23, 2025 Design Review Board Meeting Video is available to view on the City’s website at the following link (Refer to Agenda Item 5.7): https://lagunabeachcity.granicus.com/player/clip/2811?view_id=3&redirect=true APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2025-0407 AND CDP 2025-0408 AT 31565 EAGLE ROCK WAY
June 9, 2026
Condition No. 29: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall cause a Boundary Survey of the property to be prepared by a California-licensed land surveyor and recorded in the official records of the County of Orange.
Condition No. 30: The two Arbutus Marina (Strawberry Tree) in the front yard shall be replaced with Eucalyptus (Corymbia) ficifolia (Red Flowering Gum) and this change shall be reflected in the landscape plan approved by the City prior to permit issuance.
Condition No. 31: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a planter box shall be added along the full length of the south side of the upper-level deck. The planter box shall be 18 inches high and 18 inches deep. Plants planted in this planter box shall not exceed the height of the deck railing.
Condition No. 32: The proposed gate across driveway shall be removed from the plan set prior to the issuance of building permits.
The March 26, 2026 Board-Adopted Resolution 2025-0407, Staff Report, Plans, Public Correspondence, and Transcript are included as Attachments 5 through 8 respectively.7 Figure 1 – Aerial Photo
7 The March 26, 2026 Design Review Board Meeting Video is available to view on the City’s website at the following link (Refer to Agenda Item 5.11): https://lagunabeachcity.granicus.com/player/clip/2947?view_id=3&redirect=true APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2025-0407 AND CDP 2025-0408 AT 31565 EAGLE ROCK WAY
June 9, 2026
Figure 2 – Front elevation rendering. Note that in accordance with Condition No. 32, the driveway gate will not be constructed.
Figure 3 – Revisions to proposed upper level (north elevation). Orange cross-hatched area indicates the initial project design not reviewed by Board (staked by Applicant, redesigned by Applicant after neighbor feedback); green cross-hatched area indicates the extent of the “Original Project”; white area indicates the extent of the “Revised Project”.
On April 2, 2026, Ken & Denise Snyder (“Appellant”) of 31561 Eagle Rock Way, filed an appeal of the Board Approval (the “Appeal”) (Attachment 2). The Appeal seeks review and compromise on the architectural plans to address impacts to the Appellant’s views and privacy, as summarized below:
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2025-0407 AND CDP 2025-0408 AT 31565 EAGLE ROCK WAY
June 9, 2026
1. Protocol was not followed. While the Board requested the architect meet with all neighbors in opposition to the “Original Project” to come up with a compromised plan, the Applicant did not meet with neighbors prior to the hearing on the “Revised Project” to address concerns.
2. The Board changed the trees specified on the proposed landscaping plan for trees with no height restrictions. The Appellant requests reversion to the original landscape plan with all trees limited to 15 feet maximum height.
3. The Appellant requests the City Council reduce the height of the rooflines on the second story, revert to the original landscape plan trees, and require windows facing their property be changed to frosted glass.
LBMC Section 25.05.070 requires certain forms of public notice for an appeal. Public notice was duly provided to consider the Appeal of the Project at the May 26, 2026 City Council meeting in accordance with LBMC Section 25.05.065 and Chapter 25.07. Notices were mailed to owners and occupants within a 300-foot and 100-foot radius of the Property, respectively, posted on the Property, and published in a newspaper of general circulation (Attachment 3). On May 26, 2026, the City Council continued the public hearing to June 9, 2026.
CITY COUNCIL APPEAL PROCEDURES
A. Standards of Review
Pursuant to LBMC Section 25.05.070, decisions of the Board may be appealed to the City Council by the Applicant or any owner of property within 300 feet of the subject property.
The City Council may uphold, reverse, or remand any appealed decision. (LBMC § 25.05.070(E)(3)(a)). In particular, in reversing a decision, there must be three affirmative votes approving the reversal by adoption of a resolution that sets forth in writing the findings relied on to conclude that the appealed decision was in error or an abuse of discretion.9 (LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(3)(a).) In upholding a decision, the City Council may also choose to “modify the proposed project or conditions of project approval, by making them more restrictive or may add more restrictive conditions of approval upon the adoption of a resolution and without the need for a finding of error or an abuse of discretion.” (LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(3)(b).) Further, pursuant to LBMC 25.05.070(E)(2)(d), the City Council’s review is limited to “the plans that were the subject of the decision or determination by the approval authority”; if new plans are submitted, the City Council “shall not consider or act on” them but may determine to remand those plans to the approval authority “for further proceedings pursuant to such direction as may be given the City Council.” 9 An abuse of discretion is defined as the following: (1) the City has "not proceeded in the manner required by law"; (2) the City "decision is not supported by the findings"; or (3) the "findings are not supported by the evidence." (Civil Code § 1094.5.) APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2025-0407 AND CDP 2025-0408 AT 31565 EAGLE ROCK WAY
June 9, 2026
1. Design Review
LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(2) sets forth the procedures and review criteria for City Council requests for review of design review decisions. With respect to the standard of review for those decisions, subsection (E)(2)(b) provides:
If the decision or determination was supported by four or more affirmative votes of the approval authority, upon hearing the appeal or request for review, the city council shall be limited to the grounds specifically stated in the notice of appeal, if an appeal was filed, and to the evidence that was presented to the approval authority. The city council shall not conduct a de novo hearing, shall not reweigh the evidence, and shall not exercise its independent judgment and discretion as to the evidence. The city council shall consider whether the approval authority proceeded in the manner required by law and whether the decision or determination is supported by substantial evidence. There shall be a presumption that the decision or determination made by the approval authority was reasonable, valid, and not an abuse of discretion. The appellant, if there is one, shall have the burden of proof of demonstrating otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence, including plans, presented.
Accordingly, in its consideration of DR 2025-0407, which pertains to the new single-family dwelling and associated improvements,11 which was approved 5-0, the City Council shall not conduct a de novo hearing.
Rather, the City Council shall consider whether the Board proceeded in the manner required by law and whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence.
If the Applicant proposes new plans that result in a redesign, the City Council shall not consider such plans; however, the City Council may (but is not required to) remand such plans to the Board for further review.
Notwithstanding that the City Council cannot review proposed new plans, the City Council can uphold the approval of DR 2025-0407, subject to more restrictive conditions of approval that are effectuated through the provision of new plans; 12 in such event, remand is not required.
2. Coastal Development Permit and CEQA
LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(1) sets forth the procedures and review criteria for non-design review appeals.
The City Council shall conduct a de novo review of the underlying application and shall not be limited to the grounds stated for the appeal, if an appeal was filed, and shall not be limited to the evidence that was presented to the Board. The City Council shall exercise its independent judgment and discretion as to the evidence presented at its hearing. Nevertheless, there shall be a presumption that the decision or determination made by the Board was reasonable, valid, and not an abuse of discretion; and the appellant, if there is one, shall have the burden of proof of demonstrating otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence presented.
11 The proposed detached ADU was designed to meet the requirements of the City’s ADU regulations and is therefore exempt from Design Review.
12 By way of example only, the City Council could choose to uphold a DR decision but impose a condition requiring that a wall be moved in three feet (3’) in order to support a view equity finding. In such event, new plans would be required to effectuate the condition, but the plans would not need to be remanded to the Board or Planning Commission for further consideration.
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2025-0407 AND CDP 2025-0408 AT 31565 EAGLE ROCK WAY
June 9, 2026
In its consideration of the Board’s approval of CDP 25-0408, which pertains to the detached ADU only, and a Class 3 categorical exemption from CEQA, the City Council is not limited to either the evidence in the record or the deliberations of the Board. The Applicant or members of the public may present new evidence for the City Council’s consideration, and the City Council is free to deliberate without being limited to the Board’s findings – in other words, a de novo hearing.
B. City Council Options
The City Council has numerous options in consideration of this matter, which are as follows:
1. Adopt the attached Resolution upholding the Board Approval, and finding the Project categorically exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guideline Section 15303;
2. Adopt the attached Resolution upholding the decision of the Board to conditionally approve DR 2025- 0407 and CDP 2025-0408, and finding the Project categorically exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guideline Section 15303, but modifying the Resolution to include more restrictive conditions of approval;
3. Direct staff to prepare and return at a future meeting with a Resolution overturning the Board Approval, with findings in support of overturning the Board approval and denying the Project; or
4. Direct staff to prepare and return at a future meeting with a Resolution remanding DR 2025-0407 and CDP 2025-0408 to the Board, with findings in support of the remand and further direction to the Board.
APPLICABLE STATE HOUSING LAWS
A. HAA
The HAA requires a city to notify a developer if the proposed housing development project is inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provisions (to objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria) within 30 days of the date that the application is determined to be complete and failure to take such action will result in the project being deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision (to objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria). (Gov. Code Section 65589.5(j)(2).) When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, the city must make certain written findings to deny a project that (1) the housing development project “would have a ‘specific, adverse impact’15 upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower 15 A “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. (Gov. Code Section 65589.5(j)(1)(A).)
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2025-0407 AND CDP 2025-0408 AT 31565 EAGLE ROCK WAY
June 9, 2026
density”; and (2) there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the identified adverse impact, other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density. (Gov. Code Section 65589.5(j)(1).) The HAA also has a Coastal Act carve out:
Nothing in this section shall be construed to relieve the local agency from complying with . . . the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code).
(Cal. Gov't Code § 65589.5(e).)
Here, based on HCD guidance, the City treats development of a single family residence and ADU as subject to the HAA.
B. The State ADU Law
Under the “State ADU Law” (codified at Government Code § 66310, et seq.), an “ADU is defined to mean “an attached or a detached residential dwelling unit that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons and is located on a lot with a proposed or existing primary residence. . . .” (Gov. Code § 66313(a).) An ADU must contain “permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as the single-family or multifamily dwelling is or will be situated.” (Id.) A city is authorized to “provide for the creation of ADUs in areas zoned to allow single-family or multifamily dwelling residential use” by way of ordinance. (Gov. Code Section 66314.) Any ordinance governing the creation of an ADU must provide an approval process that includes only ministerial provisions for the approval of ADUs and must not include any discretionary processes, provisions, or requirements for those ADUs, except as otherwise allowed by the State ADU Law. (Gov. Code Section 66316.) A permit application for an ADU or JADU must be considered and approved ministerially without discretionary review or hearing. (Gov. Code Section 66317.) Notwithstanding the above provisions, the State ADU Law does not supersede or alter the application of the Coastal Act, except that a city is not required to hold a public hearing on coastal development permit applications for ADUs:
Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect of application of the Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code), except that the local government shall not be required to hold public hearings for coastal development permit applications for accessory dwelling units. (Gov. Code Section 66329 [emph. added].) Under this provision, and as discussed further below, the City imposes the provisions of its certified Local Coastal Program (“LCP”) as it relates to ADUs.
In recent years, the Legislature has approved, and the Governor has signed into law, numerous bills that amended the State ADU Law to impose new limits on local authority to regulate accessory dwelling units APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2025-0407 AND CDP 2025-0408 AT 31565 EAGLE ROCK WAY
June 9, 2026
and junior accessory dwelling units. Notwithstanding this legislation, as stated above, State ADU Law provides that it “shall not be construed to supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the Coastal Act of 1976. . . .” (Gov. Code § 66329.) The California Department of Housing and Community Development’s (“HCD”) ADU Handbook advises that State ADU Law applies in the coastal zone, but “do[es] not necessarily alter or lessen the effect or application of Coastal Act resource protection policies.” Accordingly, HCD opines, a local government could, for example, impose stricter setback or parking standards in the coastal zone “if required by a local [c]oastal [p]rogram.” (HCD’s July 2022 ADU Handbook, at pgs. 15-16, 27-28.)17
The City’s regulations governing the approval of ADUs and JADUs are provided in the City’s LCP, specifically Chapter 25.17 (Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units) of Title 25 (Zoning) of the Laguna Beach Municipal Code. On November 16, 2021, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1665, which identified self-contained accessory dwelling units as subject to the coastal development permit application process. On September 7, 2023 LCP5-LGB-22-0003-3 Part B (Coastal Development Permits) was certified by the Coastal Commission. The City updated Chapter 25.17 to comply with State ADU Law via LCP Amendment No. 21-8239, which was certified by the Coastal Commission on September 7, 2023.
In 2024, the California Legislature approved, and the Governor signed into law, Assembly Bill 2533 (“AB 2533”) and Senate Bill 1211 (“SB 1211”), which further amended State ADU Law and came into effect on January 1, 2025. Below is an overview of the City Council’s most recent actions relating to its requirements for ADUs and JADUs, in part, in response to AB 2533 and SB 1211:
• On December 10, 2024, the City Council found that there was a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare and adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 1707. • On January 14, 2025, the City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 1709 extending Urgency Ordinance No. 1707 and implementing certain modifications to Chapter 25.17 and directed staff to consider additional modifications.
• On March 11, 2025, the City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 1713, implementing additional minor modifications to Chapter 25.17.
• On March 25, 2025, the City adopted non-urgency Ordinance No. 1715 to mirror the ADU and JADU requirements reflected in Urgency Ordinance No. 1713. The City also submitted Ordinance No. 1715 to the Coastal Commission for certification.
Based on the number of pending ADU applications (approximately 24 as of December 10, 2024) within the City, the City implemented a policy that applications filed before 5:00 p.m. on December 10, 2024 are subject to the objective design standards and Coastal Act implementing standards in effect under LCP 17 HCD’s ADU Handbook is authorized by Gov. Code § 66327, which provides that HCD may “review, adopt, amend, or repeal guidelines to implement uniform standards or criteria that supplement or clarify the terms, references, and standards set forth in this section.” The ADU Handbook is available at the following location:
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-07/ADUHandbookUpdate.pdf APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2025-0407 AND CDP 2025-0408 AT 31565 EAGLE ROCK WAY
June 9, 2026
Amendment No. 21-8239 and applications filed after December 10, 2024 are subject to the objective design standards and Coastal Act implementing standards in effect under the City’s existing urgency ordinance.19 Here, LCP Amendment No. 21-8329 applies to this Project. In order to approve a CDP for the ADU, the reviewing body must find that the project is in conformity with all the applicable provisions of the certified local coastal program (LBMC Section 25.07.012(F)) and thereafter make the requisite findings (LBMC Section 25.07.012(G)).
RESPONSES TO ISSUES RAISED ON APPEAL
As noted above, the City received an Appeal of the Board’s decision (Attachment 2). As indicated under Standards of Review, in the City Council’s review of non-design review appeals, such as a CDP for the ADU, the Council shall conduct a de novo review of the underlying application and shall not be limited to the grounds stated for the appeal, nor is the Council limited to the evidence that was presented to the Board.
Accordingly, in its consideration of the Board’s approval of CDP 2025-0408, the Council is free to deliberate without being limited to the Board’s findings – in other words, a de novo hearing.
In the Council’s review of design review appeals, such as the DR for the single family dwelling, attached two-car garage, elevated deck, grading, pool, spa, landscaping, hardscaping, new vehicular access, public street improvements20, and demolition of an existing storage building, the City Council shall conduct a de novo review, shall not reweigh evidence and shall not exercise its independent judgement and discretion as to the evidence. The City Council shall consider whether the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, with a presumption that the decision was reasonable, valid and not an abuse of discretion. The Appellant has the burden to proof, by a preponderance of evidence, that the decision was not. Further, for DR 2025-0407, the City Council is limited to the grounds specifically stated in the notice of Appeal.
Below is a summary of the appeal contentions and City staff’s response.
1. “Neighbors did not get a meeting with the architect, as recommended by first DRB meeting, to discuss compromising.”; “Protocol was not followed.”; “There was no contact and no meetings with the architect, merely a submittal of plans and staking of the property.” In short, the Appellant states that the Board asked the architect to contact all neighbors who were at the first hearing for the project to meet to resolve issues. The Appellant alleges that there was no attempt by the architect to contact the neighbors; merely a submittal of plans to the City and staking of the Property for the Revised Project. Further, the Appellant states the Board’s decision did not take into consideration the neighbors’ concerns on privacy and views.
Staff’s response:
At the October 23, 2025, Board meeting, Chair Gibbs and Board Member Weil recommended the architect collaborate with the neighbors to address articulation, view, and privacy concerns, and to revise the project 19 On April 8, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution 25.020 ratifying this policy. 20 Public street improvements include the addition of pavement to construct a new driveway approach along the property frontage.
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2025-0407 AND CDP 2025-0408 AT 31565 EAGLE ROCK WAY
June 9, 2026
accordingly (Attachment 12), however, the Board, as a body, did not direct the applicant to meet with the neighbors in their motion.
At the March 26, 2026 Board meeting, the Applicant stated that they took the Board’s previous comments very seriously and felt the Revised Project was approvable. During the public comments, the Appellant stated that the architect did not meet with the neighbors prior to the hearing. During rebuttal, the Applicant indicated his belief that they followed the process (Attachment 8, pgs. 2-3, and 7-8).
During ex parte, Board Members Gannon, Coveny, Bauta, Weil, and Chair Gibbs stated they met with the Appellant prior to the hearing23. During deliberations, Board member Gannon shared and discussed her photographs of the project staking taken from inside the Appellant’s home, and stated “Objectively, I can make the findings for view consideration and privacy” and she supported all the other findings stated in the report.24 Board member Coveny suggested adding planter boxes with plants along the upper level terrace railing to limit views directly from the terrace into the neighbor’s property to the west, thereby achieving additional privacy.25 In addition, Board member Bauta26 and Chair Gibbs27 found that view equity had been achieved with the Revised Project. Board member Weil made a motion to approve the project with additional conditions.28 As such, the Board gave due consideration to the Appellant’s privacy and view equity concerns.
Although the Applicant did not meet with neighbors to discuss proposed changes to the project design prior to the March 26, 2026 hearing, the Board voted unanimously to approve the Revised Project and adopt the Resolution with additional conditions of approval. With those conditions in place, the Board found that all required findings for approval could be made.
The LBMC does not require an applicant to meet with neighbors regarding project revisions between hearings. It is reasonable to interpret the Board’s recommendation as an effort to improve the likelihood that the Applicant’s revisions would address relevant Design Review considerations, including privacy and view equity. While the Applicant did not meet with neighbors between the first and second hearings, the record shows that the Board specifically considered privacy, view equity, and neighborhood compatibility in its review.
2. “DRB unilaterally changing landscape plan for trees with no height restrictions, not in architect plans”
In short, the Appellant objects to the Board’s condition of approval to change the proposed redbud trees proposed in the front yard area of the project to Eucalyptus trees with no limitation on the height. 23 Attachment 8 March 26, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 1 [Gannon, Coveny, Bauta, Weil, Gibbs]. 24 Attachment 8 March 26, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 12 [Gannon]. 25 Attachment 8 March 26, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Pages 12-15 [Coveny]. 26 Attachment 8 March 26, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 16 [Bauta]. 27 Attachment 8 March 26, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 17 [Gibbs]. 28 Attachment 8 March 26, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 18 [Weil].
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2025-0407 AND CDP 2025-0408 AT 31565 EAGLE ROCK WAY
June 9, 2026
Staff response:
During the public comments, speaker Ann Christoph stated the trees on Eagle Rock Way are very special, and that Eagle Rock Way is one of the few streets that has a consistent street pattern with the Eucalyptus ficifolia, the “red flowering gum”. Ms. Christoph suggested that this species be planted on the site without a height limit. The Applicant agreed to replace two proposed redbud trees at the front of the property with Eucalyptus red gum trees (Attachment 8, pgs. 6-9). As such, the Board imposed the following projectspecific condition of approval:35 Condition No. 30: The two Arbutus Marina (Strawberry Tree) in the front yard shall be replaced with Eucalyptus (Corymbia) ficifolia (Red Flowering Gum) and this change shall be reflected in the landscape plan approved by the City prior to permit issuance.
The Eucalyptus ficifolia tree is the suggested street tree for Eagle Rock Way in the Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document36 (pg. 164). This species typically grows to approximately 30 to 40 feet tall.
Although the Applicant was not proposing to plant trees within the public right-of-way, they agreed to replace the two proposed trees, which would grow to 15 feet tall, with the Eucalyptus trees in the front yard of the site consistent with the recommendations of the LSHRD. As noted by Ms. Christoph and the LSHRD, this species was planted along Eagle Rock Way during the Great Depression and remains a common feature of the street today. A site visit confirmed the presence of many mature specimens along the street frontage and, as conditioned, that established pattern would be continued along the Property’s frontage.
It is within the purview of the Board to require changes to proposed project plans during a public hearing and to add conditions of approval to a project. Here, the Board added several conditions to the project, including a requirement that the two trees in the front yard be replaced with Eucalyptus red flowering gum, with no height limit, and then voted unanimously to approve the Revised Project. The Coast Royal Neighborhood Landscape Guidelines direct the City to “Preserve significant trees and respect historical street tree patterns”; and “Plant new street trees as recommended, while respecting existing views.” (Page 157.) These directives are consistent with the goals and policies of the Landscape and Scenic Highways Element. Specifically, the goal of Topic 1, Neighborhood Character, is to “Protect and improve Laguna Beach’s neighborhood landscapes,” and Action 1.2.1 directs the City to “Consult neighborhood descriptions and recommendations contained in the Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document during the development project review process.” That is precisely what occurred here. However, LBMC Section
25.05.040(F)(7) also requires certain landscaping conditions on design review permits whereby mature growth height limits and maintenance schedules are set for vegetation that potential impact views:
35 While the condition of approval indicates that the landscape plans showed two strawberry trees proposed at the front yard of the Property, staff has since confirmed that the landscape plans identify two new Cercis Canadensis ‘forest pansy’ trees (redbuds) at the front yard. The landscape plans presented to the Board also indicated that one strawberry tree would be planted to the rear of the proposed residence. Both the redbuds and strawberry trees were proposed to be maintained at a maximum 15-foot height. 36 Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document (“LSHRD”), November 2018 is available at the following location:
https://www.lagunabeachcity.net/home/showpublisheddocument/10216/637756186736200000. The Project is located in Neighborhood 12d, Coast Royal. The LSHRD notes that the “Red Flowering Gums on Monterrey and Eagle Rock Way are especially remarkable.” (Page 157.) Eucalyptus ficifolia (red flowering gum) is a recommended street tree for Eagle Rock Way (page 164).
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2025-0407 AND CDP 2025-0408 AT 31565 EAGLE ROCK WAY
June 9, 2026
Landscaping Conditions. The approval authority shall condition all landscaping approvals with mature growth height limits and maintenance schedules (type and frequency of pruning) for all vegetation that potentially impacts views. The landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the approved landscape plans. Thereafter, the landscaping shall be continuously maintained (including replanting, as necessary) in compliance with the approved landscaping plans, unless such plans are subsequently revised pursuant to subsection (B)(1)(v) of this section. Minor landscaping changes may be exempt from design review pursuant to subsection (B)(2)(b) of this section. (LBMC Section 25.05.040(F)(7).)
The Board did not find that the landscaping that is part of the Project would impact private views and therefore did not impose conditions of approval limiting mature growth heights and maintenance schedules.
The Appellant’s view concerns were focused on ocean views across the rear of the proposed structure. The design of the upper level was reduced to address the view equity concerns. No concerns were raised regarding the proposed trees in the front yard. Nevertheless, it is acknowledged that this may have been due to the fact that the Applicant’s plans showed low- and medium-height vegetation at the front yard, with a mix of groundcover, shrubs, and two redbud trees proposed to be maintained at a 15-foot height. The Appeal includes a photo taken from the Appellant’s second floor front deck which shows a blue water ocean horizon view to the south, across the Applicant’s front yard. The Eucalyptus trees, which can attain a 30- to 40-foot height, would likely encroach upon that view. It should also be noted that the canopy of the Eucalyptus ficifolia has up to a 40-foot-wide spread. While pruning could attempt to resolve the view equity concern, the large natural size of this species may require significant crown reduction to an extent that would cause harm to the tree’s health and result in a tree that does not maintain its natural appearance and form.
Regarding the Appellant’s suggestion that the City Council impose a maximum height on these trees to maintain the ocean horizon view, such a condition would likely require that the Eucalyptus trees be “topped” at a height well below their natural height at maturity. This practice is discouraged by the Landscape and Scenic Highways Element.39
39 Landscape and Scenic Highways Element, Policy 8.18: Encourage sound pruning and discourage severe pruning and topping of trees that results in unsafe branching, unsightly tree forms, excessive green waste, and excessively thick regrowth.
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2025-0407 AND CDP 2025-0408 AT 31565 EAGLE ROCK WAY
June 9, 2026
Figure 4 – Appellant’s south-facing view at the second floor deck, across the front of the subject Property.
The City Council may impose more restrictive conditions of approval without finding an abuse of discretion. Based on the view equity concern, City staff recommends that the City Council require the two Eucalyptus (Corymbia) ficifolia (Red Flowering Gum) trees shall be replaced with two Arbutus Marina (Strawberry Tree) or Cercis canadensis (Redbud) trees. Such more restrictive condition is included in the draft City Council resolution (Attachment 1).
3. “City Council to address the changes from appellant”.
The Appellant is requesting the City Council consider 1) “two foot lowering of all the roof lines on second story41; 2) revert to the original landscape plan where two trees front and back of the structures would go to 15 ft. tall maximum and maintained at that level; and 3) windows that would look directly into the bedrooms at 31561 Eagle Rock be frosted glass for privacy and light pollution42”.
Staff response:
As discussed in response to Appeal Contention No. 1, the Board considered view equity and privacy and found that those criteria for design review were met. City staff hereby incorporates the response to Appeal 41 This request is related to the single-family dwelling only. 42 This request is related to the single-family dwelling only.
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2025-0407 AND CDP 2025-0408 AT 31565 EAGLE ROCK WAY
June 9, 2026
Contention Nos. 1 and 2 into this response by reference. As discussed in response to Appeal Contention No. 2, due to the potential private ocean view impacts from the planting of two Eucalyptus trees at the front yard, staff recommends that the City Council require a more restrictive condition of approval to replace the Eucalyptus trees with either two Arbutus Marina (Strawberry Tree) or Cercis canadensis (Redbud) trees, to be maintained at a maximum 15-foot height. The City Council may also consider whether privacy has been achieved and whether to impose a condition of approval that requires frosting of glass at the windows facing the bedrooms at 31561 Eagle Rock.
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The recommended action has no financial impact to the budget.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, the project qualifies for a categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15303 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, in that the project consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small structures. Here, the project is limited to the construction of a new two-story single-family dwelling and a detached ADU in a developed residential neighborhood along with associated improvements, including two-car garage, elevated deck, grading, pool, spa, landscaping, hardscaping, new vehicular access, public street improvements, and demolition of an existing storage building.
Further, none of the exceptions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply. The project site does not contain any environmentally sensitive areas because it contains ornamental landscaping and paving in a developed neighborhood. The City’s environmentally sensitive area maps do not identify any such areas on-site 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 because the Project proposes a single-family dwelling and an accessory dwelling unit and the City is unaware of plans for future development on the site. There are no unusual circumstances resulting in a significant impact on the environment in that construction of a new single-family residence and ADU within a developed neighborhood is anticipated on the 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 there are no such resources on the site. The project is not located on a hazardous waste site or any other site included on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. The project will not result in significant adverse impacts to historical resources as defined by CEQA in that there are no historic structures on the site. Consequently, additional environmental analysis is not necessary to meet the requirements of the CEQA. Staff will cause to be filed a Notice of Exemption (“NOE”) with the County Recorder's Office and state Clearinghouse within 5 days of adoption of this Resolution.
ATTACHMENTS
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2025-0407 AND CDP 2025-0408 AT 31565 EAGLE ROCK WAY
June 9, 2026
1. City Council Resolution (Pgs. 17-45)
2. Appeal (Pgs. 46-55)
3. City Council Appeal Public Notice (Pgs. 56-57)
4. Adopted DRB Resolution No. 2025-0407 (Pgs. 58-73)
5. March 26, 2026 DRB Staff Report (Pgs. 74-93)
6. March 26, 2026 DRB Project Plans (Pgs. 94-113)
7. March 26, 2026 Public Correspondence (Pgs. 114-124)
8. March 26, 2026 Transcript (Pgs. 125-143)
9. October 23, 2025 DRB Staff Report (Pgs. 144-159)
10. October 23, 2025 DRB Project Plans (Pgs. 160-179)
11. October 23, 2025 Public Correspondence (Pgs. 180-191)
12. October 23, 2025 Minutes (Pgs. 192-195)
13. October 23, 2025 Transcript (Pgs. 196-212)
14. Order of Testimony (Pg. 213)
Submitted By: Matthew Schneider Approved: .David A Kiff Matthew Schneider, Director of
Community Development
Dave Kiff, City Manager
Report Prepared By: Coordinated With:
Heather Steven, Senior Planner Jane Abzug, Assistant City Attorney Anthony Viera, Deputy Director of Community
Development