STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date:
May 12, 2026
NON APPEAL
22 SUBJECT: FIRST READING OF DESIGN REVIEW EFFICIENCY ORDINANCE AND
EFFICIENCY ORDINANCE
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:
1. Waive full reading and introduce by title only an Ordinance titled, "AN ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ITS LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND MUNICIPAL CODE TO MODIFY TITLE 25 (ZONING), TITLE 21 (SUBDIVISIONS), AND TITLE 22 (EXCAVATING, GRADING, AND FILLING) TO STREAMLINE THE DESIGN REVIEW AND OTHER PERMIT PROCESSES; AND FINDING
SAID ACTION EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT UNDER CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15301;
2. Waive full reading and introduce by title only an Ordinance titled, "AN ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ITS MUNICIPAL CODE TO MODIFY CHAPTER 7.25 (NOISE), 12.08 (PRESERVATION OF HERITAGE TREES), 12.16 (VIEW PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION), AND 17.50 (PRIVATE SEWER LATERALS) TO IMPROVE CONSISTENCY WITHIN THE CODE; AND
FINDING SAID ACTION EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT UNDER CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15301”;
3. Direct staff to return with the Ordinances, identified in recommendations 1 and 2, above, for a second reading and adoption at the May 26, 2026, City Council meeting;
4. Direct City staff to present an urgency version of the Design Review Efficiency Ordinance at the May 26, 2026, City Council meeting;
5. Direct City staff to return with proposed City Council resolution with revisions to the Design Guidelines – A Guide to Residential Development that are consistent with the revisions to the Design Review Efficiency Ordinance;
6. Give further direction as to the policy regarding concept review for certain capital improvement program projects, direct City staff to draft a Resolution memorializing the City staff policy for such concept reviews, and direct City staff to bring the draft Resolution to the May 26, 2026, City Council meeting for adoption; and
7. Find that the recommended actions are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301.
SUMMARY OF THE MATTER
The processing of development applications in the City of Laguna Beach (“City”) has always been complex, but in recent years, changes in State law, which direct a faster and more objective pathway to approval, as well as poor customer service concerns regarding the burdensome Zoning Plan Check process, have highlighted the need to improve the City’s plan review procedures. In response, City staff has been Attachment 5
302
FIRST READING OF DESIGN REVIEW EFFICIENCY ORDINANCE AND EFFICIENCY
ORDINANCE
May 12, 2026
evaluating measures to improve efficiency within the Community Development Department. As part of that effort, staff prepared a Design Review Efficiency Ordinance (“DR Efficiency Ordinance”). (Attachment 1, Exhibit A.) A high-level summary of the DR Efficiency Ordinance and the changes it proposes to make is attached. (Attachment 2.)
Before arriving at this version of the DR Efficiency Ordinance, the City held a community workshop on October 1, 2024 to gain feedback on the development of the DR Efficiency Ordinance. City staff then released to the public a cover letter summarizing the DR Efficiency Ordinance changes and the DR Efficiency Ordinance itself for purposes of gathering feedback to incorporate into the ordinance. Then the City Council, the Planning Commission, and the Design Review Board all met in a joint session on Wednesday, March 12, 2025 to discuss a revised version of the DR Efficiency Ordinance, based on feedback from the public. Based on the joint session, City staff presented further revisions to the draft ordinance to the City Council for additional feedback on April 8, 2025, July 22, 2025, and November 18, 2025.
While City staff was updating the DR Efficiency Ordinance after the July 22, 2025 City Council meeting, City staff identified that some of the needed revisions are not part of the City’s certified Local Coastal Program (“certified LCP”) and therefore should be removed from the DR Efficiency Ordinance and put into an ordinance that only amends the City’s Municipal Code (the “Efficiency Ordinance”). (Attachment
3.) Also, after the July 22, 2025 City Council meeting, City staff submitted the draft DR Efficiency Ordinance to California Coastal Commission staff for review and comment.
In response to that feedback and prior feedback from the City Council, staff made minor revisions and presented an updated draft of the DR Efficiency Ordinance to the Planning Commission on March 18, 2026.1 At that meeting, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt the draft ordinance with the modifications presented by staff during the staff presentation,2 and with the following additional modifications:
Planning Commission-Recommended Changes
(1) The Community Development Director is authorized to refer a project that is exempt from Design Review to the appropriate Design Review authority;
1 In accordance with California Government Code Sections 65853–65857, the Planning Commission is generally required to conduct a review of a proposed zoning ordinance or an amendment to a zoning ordinance. Because the Efficiency Ordinance does not amend Title 25 (Zoning), the Planning Commission’s review was limited to consideration of the draft DR Efficiency Ordinance.
2 The changes proposed by staff at the meeting, which were incorporated into the Planning Commission’s motion recommending City Council adoption of the DR Efficiency Ordinance, include the following: (1) for the design review triggers, building height would be measured consistent with the definition for building height in Chapter 25.08 of the Municipal Code; (2) fill terraces more than three feet above grade would require Administrative Design Review, consistent with the requirements for elevated decks more than three feet above grade; (3) the public hearing waiver process for projects that require Administrative Design Review would not apply to alterations to historic resources nor to elevated decks, terraces, or similar features more than three feet above grade; and (4) Heritage Committee review would be required when Administrative Design Review is required for minor alterations to a historic resource.
303
FIRST READING OF DESIGN REVIEW EFFICIENCY ORDINANCE AND EFFICIENCY
ORDINANCE
May 12, 2026
(2) The Design Review requirements for certain building and landscape improvements at or above 16 feet shall be modified to set the threshold at 15 feet or higher; (3) Incorporate a Design Review requirement for roof alterations that change the roof dimensions or roof pitch; and
(4) Remove the proposed new allowances for luminous tube signs.
All of the above-mentioned Planning Commission-recommended changes have been implemented into the ordinance.
As discussed further below, the Planning Commission also recommended that all capital improvement projects (“CIP”), except for “de minimis” development, be presented to the Planning Commission for concept review prior to entitlement. Such policy direction to City staff by the City Council would be memorialized by City Council resolution, presented at a future meeting (at second reading and adoption). (The March 18, 2026 Planning Commission staff report, public comments, and adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 2026-0381 with the Planning Commission’s recommended redlined changes to the DR Efficiency Ordinance are attached as Attachments 4 through 6, respectively.) Following the March 18, 2026 Planning Commission meeting, staff received a third set of comments from California Coastal Commission staff. While revising the DR Efficiency Ordinance to address the third set of Coastal Commission staff comments, staff also identified additional modifications that could appropriately be incorporated into the ordinance. To distinguish these revisions from the version recommended by the Planning Commission, staff prepared a redlined draft showing all changes made since the version of the ordinance that the Planning Commission recommended (Attachment 1), which is recommended for introduction and first reading.
City staff is recommending that the City Council: (1) introduce and waive the first reading of the DR Efficiency Ordinance and the Efficiency Ordinance; (2) direct City staff to return with urgency version of the DR Efficiency Ordinance for consideration by the City Council at the second reading of the non-urgency version; (3) give further direction as to the policy regarding concept review for certain capital improvement program projects and direct City staff to draft a Resolution memorializing the City staff policy for such concept reviews; and (4) find the actions exempt under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301.
DISCUSSION
In an attempt to both meet the goals of the City's Housing Element and to address larger concerns about delays and the slow pacing of project approvals, City staff has identified changes to specific parts of the Laguna Beach Municipal Code (“LBMC”) that relate to the Community Development Department’s processing of applications. The DR Efficiency Ordinance does four primary things:
1. Common Practices not yet in the Code.
In some cases, staff has procedures and interpretations that are not clearly outlined in the Zoning Code. This effort attempts to codify these approaches, such as the concept of “Zoning Clearance,” 304
FIRST READING OF DESIGN REVIEW EFFICIENCY ORDINANCE AND EFFICIENCY
ORDINANCE
May 12, 2026
whereby a project that does not require a planning entitlement may be approved by a planner to authorize the next step in the permit process, typically culminating in the issuance of a building permit.
2. Triggers for Design Review.
These changes focus on reducing the level of design review required for various project types. a. Inverting the Design Review relationship. Today, all development requires Design Review approval, unless explicitly exempted by the LBMC. The DR Efficiency Ordinance would instead state that Design Review is required only for those projects clearly identified by the LBMC as requiring Design Review.
b. Adding to the Types of Projects that are Exempt from Design Review. These include, but are not limited to:
• Changes that do not constitute a major remodel
• Improvements that do not exceed a height of 15 feet above adjacent ground elevation • Re-roofing of buildings, except for white roofing materials or materials that result in glare
• Annual weed abatement and fuel modification
• Certain hardscape and landscaping improvements
• Swimming pools and spas no more than three feet above adjacent ground elevation, and portable spas that do not exceed 600 gallons
• Mechanical equipment that meet certain noise standards and other requirements • Above-ground utility structures less than four feet in height when incorporating colors, finishes, and landscaping to minimize visual impact
• 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
• De Minimis capital improvement projects, as defined.
c. Reducing the Level of Design Review to Administrative Design Review. These changes add to the types of Design Review projects that can be heard by City staff rather than the Design Review Board or Planning Commission. Staff is also proposing to institute a public hearing waiver process where staff will issue public notice to determine if neighbors would like for a hearing to be held on a proposed application.5 If the noticed neighbors do not respond by requesting a public hearing, the project would be approved without a public hearing. Projects subject to Administrative Design Review would include, but are not limited to the following:
5 The public hearing waiver process would not apply to minor alterations to historic resources nor to decks, slabs, terraces, or patios elevated more than three feet above grade. Such projects would require both public hearings and certified staking. 305
FIRST READING OF DESIGN REVIEW EFFICIENCY ORDINANCE AND EFFICIENCY
ORDINANCE
May 12, 2026
• Certain landscaping
• Decks more than three feet above adjacent ground elevation • Minor alterations to historic resources, provided that such alterations have been reviewed for conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings
• Mechanical equipment that does not meet certain objective development standards • Minor capital improvement projects, as defined
The Community Development Director would be authorized to refer Exempt from Design Review (Zone Clearance) and Administrative Design Review projects to the Design Review Board or Planning Commission if the Director deems it appropriate.
Staff acknowledges that some community members have expressed concern regarding the proposal to reduce the level of design review required for certain types of projects. Chief among these concerns is that decisions would be made by a single staff member rather than by the full fivemember Design Review Board or Planning Commission. Some have also noted that, as a matter of past practice at Administrative Design Review hearings, projects that generated public opposition were often referred to the Design Review Board or Planning Commission for consideration.
Staff recognizes that this practice has occurred in the past; however, it has functioned as an informal protocol rather than a codified requirement. In staff’s view, a more nuanced approach is warranted.
The presence of public opposition alone does not necessarily justify elevating a project to a higher review body. In staff’s opinion, to maintain the integrity of all discretionary reviews, the decisionmaking authority – whether an individual like the Community Development Director or their designee, or an appointed body like the Design Review Board or Planning Commission, or the City’s legislative body, the City Council – should weigh the evidence and make a decision based on the required findings. In practice, even a single opponent, regardless of the merit of their concerns, could trigger the additional time and expense associated with a review by the Design Review Board or Planning Commission, and otherwise delay a project needlessly that complies with the City’s design guidelines, General Plan, and Zoning Ordinance.
Under the current framework, the hearing administrator, serving as an independent decision-maker over Administrative Design Review applications, reviews the record and renders a determination, which is subject to appeal. This process provides an appropriate balance between efficiency and accountability.
That said, staff notes that the DR Efficiency Ordinance includes an appeal procedure that allows a member of the City Council, on his or her own initiative, to review a decision of the Community Development Director or designee by filing a written request with the City Clerk within fourteen days of the decision, in which case the “request for review” will be scheduled on the following City Council agenda for consideration as to whether the City Council should schedule a public hearing 306
FIRST READING OF DESIGN REVIEW EFFICIENCY ORDINANCE AND EFFICIENCY
ORDINANCE
May 12, 2026
to hear the merits of the decision (which requires an affirmative majority vote of the City Council members). (See DR Efficiency Ordinance [Modifications to Section 25.05.070].) It should also be noted that the DR Efficiency Ordinance modifies the appeal procedures to establish that any decision by the Community Development Director or designee on a discretionary permit may be appealed to the Design Review Board or Planning Commission, as applicable.7 In conclusion, under the proposed ordinance, projects with a greater potential to generate neighborhood interest would continue to require review and approval by the Design Review Board or Planning Commission. The proposed ordinance reflects broader changes in State law, which increasingly favor a more objective and streamlined entitlement process, with shorter timelines for action on development applications. The ordinance is also intended to respond to longstanding concerns regarding the pace and complexity of the City’s entitlement process. In addition, Planning Division management remains concerned that, absent meaningful process improvements, the City may face increasing difficulty in recruiting and retaining planning staff. Recent changes in State housing law have contributed to a more adversarial and litigious development review environment, placing planners in an increasingly difficult position. A decade ago, these changes would not have been necessary and likely would not have been recommended by staff. Given the current legal and operational environment, however, staff is asking the City Council to reaffirm the proposed direction of the DR Efficiency Ordinance.
3. Consolidation of Design Review Criteria.
The 16 design review criteria have been consolidated into the following 10 criteria. These changes help staff operate more efficiently and reduce the potential for mistakes and delays.
1. Access
2. Design Articulation
3. Environmental Context
4. Historic Preservation
5. Landscaping
6. Lighting and Glare
7. Neighborhood Compatibility
8. Pedestrian Orientation
9. Privacy
10. View Equity
7 On May 12, 2026, staff will be presenting a draft fee schedule to the City Council for adoption, which would take effect on July 1, 2026 with the start of the new fiscal year. As discussed at the April 14, 2026 City Council study session regarding the fee schedule update, staff is proposing to increase the appeal fee. Currently, the appeal fee applies only to appeals to the City Council, as administrative decisions cannot be appealed to the Design Review Board or Planning Commission. Because a new category of appeal is proposed to be established with the DR Efficiency Ordinance, the appeal fee to the Design Review Board or Planning Commission, as appropriate, and the appeal fee to the City Council will be discussed at the separate fee schedule discussion on the agenda. 307
FIRST READING OF DESIGN REVIEW EFFICIENCY ORDINANCE AND EFFICIENCY
ORDINANCE
May 12, 2026
This consolidation of the design review criteria will necessitate corresponding changes to the Design Guidelines - A Guide to Residential Development, which will be presented to the City Council on May 26, 2026 in conjunction with the second reading of the DR Efficiency Ordinance.
4. Other and Miscellaneous Changes.
In some cases, the City's processes can add to inefficiencies that slow project considerations. In other cases, design review criteria appear in multiple sections of the LBMC within neighborhood reference sections, where they are arguably not needed. These changes would remove duplicative language that is redundant to the design review criteria and would also re-word certain development standards and other key code provisions for clarity to improve consistency in how planning staff and design professionals are interpreting and applying requirements to projects.
5. Public Works Projects.
With labor and materials costs significantly increasing in the recent past (all indications are that this will continue), any delay or longer-term review process causes a project's budget to often be significantly below the final bid costs. As such, staff proposes the following changes:
Proposed
Item
Exempt
from
DR
Admi
n DR
DRB,
PC, or
CC
What Code
Says Now
City of Laguna Beach Public Works
Projects/ CIP Items
De Minimis. (i) Fuel modification project
or program; (ii) emergency projects; (iii)
roadway or trail improvements within
existing rights-of-way; (iv) pipeline, such
as storm drain and sewer, installation,
repair and maintenance; minor alterations
to utilities; (v) alterations and repairs to
parking lots; (vi) small habitat restoration
projects as defined in Section 15333 of the
CEQA Guidelines; (vii) sign replacements
in the same size with similar materials, at
the determination of the Community
Development Director; (viii) in kind
replacement of improvements for repair
and maintenance; (ix) similar projects as
determined by the Community
Development Director in consultation with
other affected department heads.
X
Admin DR
for repair
and
maintenance
308
FIRST READING OF DESIGN REVIEW EFFICIENCY ORDINANCE AND EFFICIENCY
ORDINANCE
May 12, 2026
Minor. (i) alterations to existing facilities
resulting in exterior changes; (ii) roadway
or trail extensions within existing rightsof-way; (iii) replacement or renovation of damaged facilities or structures resulting in
exterior design changes; (iv) small
additions to existing structures resulting in
exterior changes); (v) construction or
demolition of small structures resulting in
site or building design changes; (vi) slope
and wall repair for public infrastructure.
X PC
Major. (i) New or substantial alterations to
parks, public buildings, community
facilities, reservoirs, or bridges; (ii) new or
substantial alterations to drainage
structures which involve significant
changes to grades, hillsides, habitats, or
views; (iii) street improvements which
involve substantial expansion of right-ofway, removal or existing facilities, removal of significant vegetation (unless
part of a fuel modification project or
program) and/or major changes to
community character.
PC PC
The Planning Commission has recommended that all Capital Improvement Program (“CIP”) projects, except those considered de minimis development, be presented to the Planning Commission for concept review before entitlement. If the City Council concurs, staff will prepare a resolution for consideration at the second reading that would establish a policy directing staff to present all non-de minimis CIP projects to the Planning Commission for concept review prior to entitlement.
To assist the City Council in considering this policy, staff has prepared a list of projects that would fall within the two categories requiring concept review hearings under the Planning Commission’s recommendation. These examples are based on recent or ongoing City projects processed by the Public Works Department.
309
FIRST READING OF DESIGN REVIEW EFFICIENCY ORDINANCE AND EFFICIENCY
ORDINANCE
May 12, 2026
Major CIP Project Minor CIP Project
• Fire Station No. 4 – new building • Mermaid Parking Lot – new planter walls and updated landscaping
• Promenade on Forest – conversion of street
to pedestrian plaza
• Ocean Avenue and Beach Street –
pedestrian improvements including curb
bulb-outs; new landscaping
• Jahraus Park – refreshing park amenities,
including hardscape repairs, retention of
existing landscaping with more limited new
plantings, accessibility upgrades, bollard
lighting, and a new bulb-out
• Bluebird Sewer Lift Station Replacement
• New enclosed lifeguard tower
As discussed above, de minimis CIP projects would be exempt from the concept review process. These projects generally include in-kind repair and replacement work involving limited alterations, fuel modification, habitat restoration, and various utility improvements. As an alternative to the Planning Commission’s recommendation, the City Council could consider directing staff to require concept review for all major CIP projects, as well as only those minor CIP projects located within defined geographic areas that may be especially prominent or sensitive within the community, such as the Downtown Specific Plan area or beach locations.
Finally, it should be noted that any policy direction regarding concept review would serve as a baseline rather than a limitation. Staff would retain the ability to exercise judgment and discretion in bringing additional projects to the Planning Commission for concept review based on factors such as known community interest or opportunities to consider alternative design approaches—particularly for projects that are not heavily constrained by functional, operational, or technical requirements and that involve architectural design considerations rather than purely engineering elements.
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The recommended action has no fiscal impact on the City other than the expenditure of City staff time.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The recommended action is exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 because it consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. Here, the recommended action meets the exemption because it involves processing of ordinances and other related actions that are affecting the organization and procedures within the city and modifications to some standards for existing uses that will not result in an expansion of the existing use. Upon taking the recommended action, city staff will cause to be filed within five calendar days a notice of exemption with the county and state clearinghouse.
310
FIRST READING OF DESIGN REVIEW EFFICIENCY ORDINANCE AND EFFICIENCY
ORDINANCE
May 12, 2026
ATTACHMENTS
1. Design Review Efficiency Ordinance (Redlined Version) (Pgs. 11-75)
2. Chart of Design Review Efficiency Ordinance (Pgs. 76-82)
3. Efficiency Ordinance (Pgs. 83-88)
4. 3/18/26 PC Staff Report (Pgs. 89-96)
5. 3/18/26 PC Public Comments (Pgs. 97-120)
6. 3/18/26 PC-Adopted Resolution No. 2026-0381 with Exhibit A, Ordinance with Redlines Recommended by PC (Pgs. 121-191)
Submitted By: Matthew Schneider Approved: .David A Kiff Matthew Schneider, Director of
Community Development
Dave Kiff, City Manager
Report Prepared By: Coordinated With:
Anthony Viera, Deputy Director of Community
Development
Jane Abzug, Assistant City Attorney
Thomas Perez, City Engineer
311