Attach 6 -June 3, 2026 Public Correspondence — Laguna Beach City Council, July 7, 2026

1 Beier, Samantha CD
Subject: FW: I support plans for 28 units of affordable housing and a new spiritual center in Laguna Beach!
From: NCC Project < >
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2026 7:17 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: I support plans for 28 units of affordable housing and a new spiritual center in Laguna Beach! [NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I support Neighborhood Congregational Church’s (NCC) plans for approximately 28 units of affordable housing (+ one resident manager unit) in Laguna Beach while rejuvenating one or both of the church’s existing buildings—Bridge Hall and the Sanctuary!
Four years ago, the City of Laguna Beach General Plan Housing Element (2021-2029) identified NCC’s property as one of four sites with the potential to yield new affordable housing units. Now is the time to make this affordable housing project a reality.

Of these, 198 units are needed for extremely low, very low and low-income households or those earning from about $35,550 to $109,300 a year, depending on family size. This project allows the City of Laguna Beach to make progress toward its affordable housing goals.

I, Mary Jeanne Walker, encourage the City Council to approve this much-needed project.

Address 1 Temple Hills Drive, Laguna Beach, CA, 92651
Email
Attachment 6
198
Laguna Beach Community Land Trust
380 Third Street
Laguna Beach, California 92651
February 3, 2026
To the Laguna Beach City Council and Planning Commission:

Re: Letter of Support for the Affordable Housing Development at Neighborhood Congregational Church (340 St. Ann’s Drive)
Dear Honorable Members of the City Council and Planning Commission, I am writing to express my strong support for the proposed affordable housing development on the property of the Neighborhood Congregational Church, to be developed by Bill Witte and Related California. As a newly formed Community Land Trust non-profit organization in Laguna Beach, our mission is dedicated to addressing Laguna Beach’s housing affordability challenges.

On behalf of the Board of Directors, we unanimously believe this project represents a thoughtful, responsible, and much-needed step forward for our city.

Laguna Beach faces significant challenges in providing affordable housing for local workers, families, seniors, and essential employees who contribute so much to our community but struggle to live here due to high costs. This proposal directly addresses that need by creating critically important affordable units—currently planned as 28 affordable apartments plus an onsite manager’s unit—in a fully or predominantly affordable project. With a mix of studio, one-, two-, and three-bedroom options, it would serve a range of households, including families, and prioritize Laguna Beach workers where possible. This aligns with the city’s state-mandated housing goals and helps ensure our community remains inclusive and vibrant.

I particularly appreciate the project team’s responsiveness to community input and evolving circumstances. The revisions—from the original concepts down to the current scaled-back 29- unit design—demonstrate a commitment to balancing housing needs with neighborhood considerations, including density, architectural fit, views, privacy, and integration with the surrounding area. The inclusion of a rejuvenated or new spiritual center preserves the site’s role as a community and spiritual hub, while thoughtful design elements (such as elevation use, courtyards, and buffers) aim to blend harmoniously with the neighborhood. Partnering with an experienced developer like Bill Witte, a longtime Laguna Beach resident and founder of Related California, brings proven expertise in delivering high-quality affordable housing that respects local contexts.
199
This development is not only feasible under state laws like SB 4 but also fiscally pragmatic, relying on available public funding to make 100% affordability viable. It replaces underutilized, aging structures with something that benefits the broader community—providing homes for those who need them most while supporting the church’s mission and financial stability.

In short, this project advances housing equity, strengthens our local workforce, and honors Laguna Beach’s spirit of compassion and forward-thinking stewardship. I urge the City Council and Planning Commission to approve the entitlements and support this important initiative.

Thank you for your consideration and for your ongoing efforts to address our community’s housing needs. I am happy to discuss our organization’s support further if needed.

Sincerely,
Kristine Thalman
President
Laguna Beach Community Land Trust
cc: Community Land Trust Board of Directors
200
201
202
1 Beier, Samantha CD
From: NCC Project
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2026 9:42 AM
To: Beier, Samantha CD
Subject: I support plans for affordable housing at the Neighborhood Congregational Church site!
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Dear Planning Commissioners,
I support Neighborhood Congregational Church’s (NCC) plans for 29 units (28 affordable units + one resident manager unit) in Laguna Beach while rejuvenating one or both of the church’s existing buildings—Bridge Hall and the Sanctuary! Five years ago, the City of Laguna Beach General Plan Housing Element (2021-2029) identified NCC’s property as one of four sites with the potential to yield new affordable housing units. Now is the time to make this affordable housing project a reality.

Mandated by the State of California, the City of Laguna Beach is required to encourage its “fair share” of housing with the addition of 394 housing units—affordable to all economic segments—over the next five years. Of these, 198 units are needed for extremely low, very low and low-income households or those earning from about $35,550 to $125,490 a year, depending on family size. This project allows the City of Laguna Beach to make progress toward its affordable housing goals.

I, Susan Cross, encourage the Planning Commissioners to approve this much-needed project.

Address 1 Shorebreaker Drive, Laguna Niguel, CA, 92677-9334 Email
203
1 Beier, Samantha CD
From: NCC Project
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2026 6:42 PM
To: Beier, Samantha CD
Subject: I support plans for affordable housing at the Neighborhood Congregational Church site!
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Dear Planning Commissioners,
I support Neighborhood Congregational Church’s (NCC) plans for 29 units (28 affordable units + one resident manager unit) in Laguna Beach while rejuvenating one or both of the church’s existing buildings—Bridge Hall and the Sanctuary! Five years ago, the City of Laguna Beach General Plan Housing Element (2021-2029) identified NCC’s property as one of four sites with the potential to yield new affordable housing units. Now is the time to make this affordable housing project a reality.

I, John Dombrink , encourage the Planning Commissioners to approve this much-needed project.

Address 6 Catalina Street, Laguna Beach, CA, 92651
Email
204
From: Katie Milette
To: Sharma, Shaveta CD
Cc: Kirk Milette
Subject: NCC Project and Our Blocked Ocean View.

Date: Thursday, May 21, 2026 3:55:29 PM
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Hi Shaveta,
My name is Katie Milette. My husband Kirk and I live at 4 Saint Ann’s Drive. If you are not the correct person to send this to, would you please give us guidance on who to contact.

We have lived in this house since 1987 and enjoy small sit down ocean views from our living room, dining room, kitchen and back deck. This ocean view corridor would be completely blocked by the new building’s roof as currently proposed.

The story poles are now in place and unfortunately, if built, the structure will permanently block our horizon, winter sunset and ocean view corridor. The proposed roof height will negatively impact our home’s ocean view and value.

Barry and Craig from Related came to our house and saw the problem first hand. They are exploring possible options to lower or flatten the roof and possibly lowering the parking level. We are asking for your consideration and expertise to protect our ocean view corridor, and find a solution.

We met with Bill Witte at the open house on Tuesday night and he doesn’t have a problem changing the roof line and suggested we contact you as well. We understand the intent to be in keeping with a beach/village look with the current roofline. However, the added height would permanently block our view.

Besides the pictures attached, we invite you to stop by our home. Are you available before 5/28? 205
Our current ocean view corridor at 4 St. Ann’s Drive.

The story poles and roof outline.

We would appreciate your expertise and effort to find a solution.

Thank you.

Kirk and Katie Milette
949
949
206
1 Beier, Samantha CD
From: NCC Project
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2026 11:01 AM
To: Beier, Samantha CD
Subject: I support plans for affordable housing at the Neighborhood Congregational Church site!
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Dear Planning Commissioners,
I support Neighborhood Congregational Church’s (NCC) plans for 29 units (28 affordable units + one resident manager unit) in Laguna Beach while rejuvenating one or both of the church’s existing buildings—Bridge Hall and the Sanctuary! Five years ago, the City of Laguna Beach General Plan Housing Element (2021-2029) identified NCC’s property as one of four sites with the potential to yield new affordable housing units. Now is the time to make this affordable housing project a reality.

We desperately need more affordable housing in Laguna Beach, Orange County and all of California. Middle income families cannot afford to live where they work and spend then spend excessive money on gas. They are being forced to decide whether to eat or pay rent.

I, Kathleen Victor, encourage the Planning Commissioners to approve this much-needed project.

Address 1 Glenneyre St, Laguna Beach, CA, 92651
Email
207
1 Beier, Samantha CD
From: NCC Project
Sent: Monday, May 25, 2026 9:35 AM
To: Beier, Samantha CD
Subject: I support plans for affordable housing at the Neighborhood Congregational Church site!
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Dear Planning Commissioners,
I support Neighborhood Congregational Church’s (NCC) plans for 29 units (28 affordable units + one resident manager unit) in Laguna Beach while rejuvenating one or both of the church’s existing buildings—Bridge Hall and the Sanctuary! Five years ago, the City of Laguna Beach General Plan Housing Element (2021-2029) identified NCC’s property as one of four sites with the potential to yield new affordable housing units. Now is the time to make this affordable housing project a reality.

I, Linda Leahy, encourage the Planning Commissioners to approve this much-needed project.

Address 6 Lombardy Ln, Laguna Beach, CA, 92651
Email
208
1 Beier, Samantha CD
From: NCC Project
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 11:16 AM
To: Beier, Samantha CD
Subject: I support plans for affordable housing at the Neighborhood Congregational Church site!
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Dear Planning Commissioners,
I support Neighborhood Congregational Church’s (NCC) plans for 29 units (28 affordable units + one resident manager unit) in Laguna Beach while rejuvenating one or both of the church’s existing buildings—Bridge Hall and the Sanctuary! Five years ago, the City of Laguna Beach General Plan Housing Element (2021-2029) identified NCC’s property as one of four sites with the potential to yield new affordable housing units. Now is the time to make this affordable housing project a reality.

As a renter for the past 25 years in Laguna, I see the critical need for affordable housing in Laguna Beach. The cost of living in Laguna is so high that many of our teachers, emergency personnel, artists, restaurant and hotel staff, etc. have been priced out of the rental market and forced to move. We see the traffic impacts of this every day. The NCC project could enable some of these individuals and families to live in the community where they work.

I, Kim Bailey, encourage the Planning Commissioners to approve this much-needed project.

Address 4 Park Avenue, Laguna Beach, CA, 92651
Email
209
1 Beier, Samantha CD
From: NCC Project
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 9:33 AM
To: Beier, Samantha CD
Subject: I support plans for affordable housing at the Neighborhood Congregational Church site!
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Dear Planning Commissioners,
I support Neighborhood Congregational Church’s (NCC) plans for 29 units (28 affordable units + one resident manager unit) in Laguna Beach while rejuvenating one or both of the church’s existing buildings—Bridge Hall and the Sanctuary! Five years ago, the City of Laguna Beach General Plan Housing Element (2021-2029) identified NCC’s property as one of four sites with the potential to yield new affordable housing units. Now is the time to make this affordable housing project a reality.

I do believe we need to have affordable housing and diversity in our village. I support the building in Laguna Beach. Thank you. Sarah Campbell Besso, 1 Park Avenue, LB, 92651
I, Sarah Campbell Besso, encourage the Planning Commissioners to approve this muchneeded project.

Address 1 Park Avenue, Laguna Beach, CA, 92651
Email
210
1 Beier, Samantha CD
From: NCC Project
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 11:42 AM
To: Beier, Samantha CD
Subject: I support plans for affordable housing at the Neighborhood Congregational Church site!
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Dear Planning Commissioners,
I support Neighborhood Congregational Church’s (NCC) plans for 29 units (28 affordable units + one resident manager unit) in Laguna Beach while rejuvenating one or both of the church’s existing buildings—Bridge Hall and the Sanctuary! Five years ago, the City of Laguna Beach General Plan Housing Element (2021-2029) identified NCC’s property as one of four sites with the potential to yield new affordable housing units. Now is the time to make this affordable housing project a reality.

I, Donald Crevier, encourage the Planning Commissioners to approve this much-needed project.

Address 1 Moss Street, Laguna Beach, CA, 92651
Email
211
1 Beier, Samantha CD
From: NCC Project
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 9:25 AM
To: Beier, Samantha CD
Subject: I support plans for affordable housing at the Neighborhood Congregational Church site!
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Dear Planning Commissioners,
I support Neighborhood Congregational Church’s (NCC) plans for 29 units (28 affordable units + one resident manager unit) in Laguna Beach while rejuvenating one or both of the church’s existing buildings—Bridge Hall and the Sanctuary! Five years ago, the City of Laguna Beach General Plan Housing Element (2021-2029) identified NCC’s property as one of four sites with the potential to yield new affordable housing units. Now is the time to make this affordable housing project a reality.

There is never going to be a perfect solution, someone will always want it smaller, farther away from their backyard. This largely scaled back project is just a start for what Laguna needs to begin to address the below market rate housing need. Let's show it can GET DONE. Thank you!
I, Carrie Reynolds, encourage the Planning Commissioners to approve this much-needed project.

Address 2 Fairview St, LAGUNA BEACH, CA, 92651
Email
212
1 Beier, Samantha CD
From: NCC Project
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 3:47 PM
To: Beier, Samantha CD
Subject: I support plans for affordable housing at the Neighborhood Congregational Church site!
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Dear Planning Commissioners,
I support Neighborhood Congregational Church’s (NCC) plans for 29 units (28 affordable units + one resident manager unit) in Laguna Beach while rejuvenating one or both of the church’s existing buildings—Bridge Hall and the Sanctuary! Five years ago, the City of Laguna Beach General Plan Housing Element (2021-2029) identified NCC’s property as one of four sites with the potential to yield new affordable housing units. Now is the time to make this affordable housing project a reality.

This Project is a unique opportunity to create workforce housing in Laguna with a willing owner and a experienced Developer.

The applicant has signficantly modified the project to address the neighborhood issues to limit the size and scope of the project.

The neigborhood should be aware that as an affordable project there are more restrictions on th project enfroced by an onsite manager such as : limits occpancy and enforce all aspects of the leases.

I, Elisa Stipkovich, encourage the Planning Commissioners to approve this much-needed project.

Address 5 High Drive, Laguna Beach, CA, 92651
Email
213
2 214
From: John Campbell
To: McKay, Ann Marie CC
Cc: Korlan Buxtion; LIsa Barreth
Subject: Copy of my letter to the Planning Commission on May 20, 2026 Date: Wednesday, May 27, 2026 1:28:45 PM
Attachments: image001.png
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Dear Commissioners, first, thank you very much for using your personal time to help guide our community. I attended the open forum yesterday at the Susie Q regarding the proposed affordable housing project at the NCC. They are proposing 29 units with only 41 parking spaces. Of those 29, 14 units will be 2 or 3 bedroom units which you would need to assume 2 cars per unit or 28 vehicles and one car per unit for the studio and one bedroom units or 15 vehicles at a minimum, for a total of 43 parking spaces needed. Of course, the one NCC Board member I spoke to said that, “poor people don’t have as many cars”.

Well, even homeless people have cars so that argument doesn’t hold water. Next, I asked this member, where are the church members going to park. Well they have set aside 8 parking spaces for the Montessori school people to park M-F 8-5 so then where do the 8 displaced residents park out of an estimated 43 vehicles, Yep, in the neighborhood. Where do the church goers park on Sunday, in the Montessori School parking spaces and where do the other Church goers park along with the 8 displaced residents park on Sunday, Yep in the neighborhood. Currently, on St. Anns Dr. there are very few garages being used even if they have a garage it is used for storage, playrooms, personal gym’s, or is just too small to accommodate today’s vehicles, etc. So, there is limited parking to start with and then you compound that with restaurant & hotel employees parking in the neighborhood and then you add the beachgoers. Also, of the 29 units where will their friends park when they come to visit them in beautiful Laguna Beach, Yep, in the neighborhood. My feeling is that this project, being dead 215
216
1 Beier, Samantha CD
From: Charlie Craig
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2026 9:25 PM
To: Beier, Samantha CD
Subject: NCC development project
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open a"achments unless you are sure the content is safe.]
I am emailing to register my support of the project. Please approve it! I’ve been a Laguna resident and homeowner since 1993.

Charlie Craig
Entertainment Chairman
217
1 Beier, Samantha CD
From: NCC Project
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2026 1:09 PM
To: Beier, Samantha CD
Subject: I support plans for affordable housing at the Neighborhood Congregational Church site!
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Dear Planning Commissioners,
I support Neighborhood Congregational Church’s (NCC) plans for 29 units (28 affordable units + one resident manager unit) in Laguna Beach while rejuvenating one or both of the church’s existing buildings—Bridge Hall and the Sanctuary! Five years ago, the City of Laguna Beach General Plan Housing Element (2021-2029) identified NCC’s property as one of four sites with the potential to yield new affordable housing units. Now is the time to make this affordable housing project a reality.

There is such a need for this housing. For city employees, hotel workers, and school employees this could be a way to stay in town and support our community.

I, Maya Dunne, encourage the Planning Commissioners to approve this much-needed project.

Address 6 Catalina, Laguna Beach, CA, 92651
Email
218
From: steve singh
To: McKay, Ann Marie CC
Subject: 340 St Ann’s
Date: Wednesday, May 27, 2026 10:20:13 AM
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.]
Hi I am a property owner of 3 –3 Cleo St. I am located immediately next-door to the new housing project. I noticed on the new Landscaping plan they have reduced the height of the block wall that separates our property from 6 feet to 5 feet. Also, along the property line they have reduced the number of trees that they had initially shown would be planted along the property line. Is there somebody I can talk to in the city and discuss if these items can be changed accommodate us and so that we can maintain some privacy please let me know at your earliest convenience how to proceed thank you.

S.Jhawar
Sent from my iPhone
219
1 Sharma, Shaveta CD
From: kirk milette
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2026 11:55 AM
To: McKay, Ann Marie CC
Subject: Re: NCC and Related’s building proposal.
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Hi again,
I’ve been encouraged to send you pictures from our property at 4 St. Ann’s Dr. so you may Include them with any communications you relay about our view concerns. See below. 220
2 Our main view corridor looking
Southwest.
221
3 The location of the proposed building showing the height and outline of the roof when we are seated on 222
4 our deck.

Above is our sit down horizon and ocean view from inside our living room and dining room . 223
5 The trees will grow and can be trimmed, the building will be there forever.

Thank you,
Kirk Milette
On May 27, 2026, at 8:57 AM, kirk milette > wrote:

Hello, We own and live at 4 St. Ann’s Dr. my wife, Katie, and I have lived here for over 30 years.
224
6 The Story Poles for the low income housing have been erected showing the roof height and outline of the proposed buildings. We are opposed to the height of the roof. Related’s proposed building will block a large portion of our ocean view, from our living room, dining room, kitchen and rear deck. The ridge height is above our horizon line elevation, and would eliminate our winter sunsets. It sits in our ocean view corridor to the Southwest of our home directly across Catalina Street between us and the beach. To preserve that section of our ocean view there are two viable solutions. 1• Lower the structure starting at the ground level, make the entry driveway closer to a 15 degrees slope instead of the proposed +-5 degrees.
2• Flatten the roof, Related was receptive to the idea, they would need to redesign the roof truss supports.

We have some hope that a solution can be found to preserve our home’s ocean view. We will be grateful for your consideration and effort to alter the project’s height enough to prevent it from blocking our ocean view corridor.

We will not be able to attend the June 3rd meeting as we will be out of the country.

Thank you,
Kirk Milette
225
1 Beier, Samantha CD
From: Mary Jo Winefordner
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2026 2:30 PM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Neighborhood Congregational Church Affordable Housing Project [NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.]
To the City of Laguna Beach Planning Commission:

I am writing in support of the proposed Neighborhood Congregational Church's SB4 affordable housing project. While no development proposal is ever perfect, I appreciate the significant effort that has gone into scaling this project down and thoughtfully addressing neighborhood concerns. I am aware that Bill Witte, a member of our community along with his associates, have made an extensive effort to communicate directly with nearby residents and revise the proposal accordingly. I don't know Bill personally, but I believe that kind of engagement deserves recognition. It is also worth noting the success of Bill's previous affordable housing project here in town, Alice Court, that typically has an extensive waiting list.

At some point, as a community, we must decide whether we truly believe Laguna Beach should remain a place where people of varying incomes and backgrounds can continue to live and contribute — or whether we are becoming a city accessible only to the wealthy.

Affordable housing is not an abstract issue. It affects the teachers who educate our children, the restaurant workers and hotel employees who support our local economy, the artists and creatives who shape Laguna’s culture, the seniors hoping to remain near friends and family, and the young adults who grew up here but see no path to staying. If we value the character and soul of Laguna Beach, we must also value the people who make this community function every day.

Laguna Beach has long prided itself on being economically and culturally diverse. That diversity is part of what makes this town special. Without thoughtful housing opportunities, we risk losing not only essential workers, but also future generations who would otherwise continue contributing to the community they love.

I also hope we can approach these conversations with a greater sense of unity and perspective. Reasonable people can disagree about design details, scale, traffic, and impacts. Those discussions are important. But opposition should not become reflexive resistance to every attempt to create housing for people who already serve and enrich our community. Endless division erodes the very sense of community many residents say they are trying to protect.

This project has already undergone meaningful compromise and reduction. I believe it represents a goodfaith effort to balance neighborhood concerns with the urgent need for affordable housing in Laguna Beach.

I encourage you to support it.

Sincerely,
Mary Jo Winefordner
Laguna Beach
226
1 Beier, Samantha CD
From: NCC Project
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2026 12:44 PM
To: Beier, Samantha CD
Subject: I support plans for affordable housing at the Neighborhood Congregational Church site! [NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.]
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I support Neighborhood Congregational Church’s (NCC) plans for 29 units (28 affordable units + one resident manager unit) in Laguna Beach while rejuvenating one or both of the church’s existing buildings—Bridge Hall and the Sanctuary! Five years ago, the City of Laguna Beach General Plan Housing Element (2021-2029) identified NCC’s property as one of four sites with the potential to yield new affordable housing units. Now is the time to make this affordable housing project a reality.

Dear Planning Commissioners,
I strongly support Neighborhood Congregational Church’s proposed affordable housing development, which includes 29 residential units (28 affordable units and one resident manager unit) while thoughtfully revitalizing one or both of the church’s historic buildings— Bridge Hall and the Sanctuary.

This project represents an important opportunity for Laguna Beach to address a critical community need while preserving and reinvigorating a meaningful civic and spiritual landmark. Five years ago, the City of Laguna Beach General Plan Housing Element (2021– 2029) identified NCC’s property as one of four sites with the potential to help meet the City’s affordable housing goals. The time has come to transform that vision into reality.

Laguna Beach faces a growing challenge in maintaining a diverse and sustainable community where working individuals, families, seniors, artists, service workers, and younger generations can continue to live and contribute to the character of the city. Projects such as this help ensure that Laguna Beach remains an inclusive and vibrant community rather than one accessible only to the wealthiest residents. 227
2 In accordance with California State housing requirements, the City of Laguna Beach must plan for the addition of 394 housing units affordable to all economic segments over the coming years, including 198 units designated for extremely low-, very low-, and low-income households. NCC’s proposal would make meaningful progress toward these obligations while providing thoughtfully integrated housing within an established community setting.

Equally important, this proposal demonstrates how housing development and historic preservation can work together. The rejuvenation of Bridge Hall and the Sanctuary offers an opportunity to preserve the cultural and architectural significance of these buildings while adapting them to serve present and future community needs.

I respectfully encourage the Planning Commissioners to support this vital affordable housing development and help advance a project that reflects compassion, responsibility, preservation, and community stewardship for Laguna Beach.

Sincerely,

I, Susan Brown, encourage the Planning Commissioners to approve this much-needed project.

Address 3 Tablerock Dr, Laguna Beach, Ca, 92651
Email
228
1 Beier, Samantha CD
From: NCC Project
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2026 9:37 AM
To: Beier, Samantha CD
Subject: I support plans for affordable housing at the Neighborhood Congregational Church site! [NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.]
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I support Neighborhood Congregational Church’s (NCC) plans for 29 units (28 affordable units + one resident manager unit) in Laguna Beach while rejuvenating one or both of the church’s existing buildings—Bridge Hall and the Sanctuary! Five years ago, the City of Laguna Beach General Plan Housing Element (2021-2029) identified NCC’s property as one of four sites with the potential to yield new affordable housing units. Now is the time to make this affordable housing project a reality.

It amazes me that in the world of Affordable Housing, $125,490 income for a family is LOW income. I guess I'm old enough to remember that level of income would afford a family to own a house, a couple of cars, and take 1-2 family vacations each year. I've also lived in Laguna Beach long enough (34 years) to watch the cost of a normal family home go from $200,000 to $1-2million and apartment rents go from $800/mo to $2000+ for a 1 bedroom, and in some areas of town, a studio. The city streamlined being able to build ADUs that, let's be real, are not "affordable" or are being used personally by the owners as home offices/grandma suites. The city has also helped police and fire with loans to be able to live here...in case of emergency. Now it's time for the city to support housing for other workers, for seniors who've lived here for years and want to stay, and for kids who want to come back after college. Thank you for supporting NCC's efforts on this housing project.

I, Shanna George, encourage the Planning Commissioners to approve this much-needed project.

Address 8 Acapulco St, Laguna Beach, CA, 92651
Email
229
2 230
From: Diane Harrison
To: Sharma, Shaveta CD
Subject: Support 340 St. Ann"s Drive Project
Date: Thursday, May 28, 2026 2:44:58 PM
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Good afternoon. I sent the following email per the website to AnnMarie McKay, but also wished for you to have a copy. Per the notice concerning the upcoming Planning Commission meeting on June 3, I fully support this project. Over the past few years, NCC and Related have proven to be good neighbors in revising the project size and in being very cognizant of view concerns. This is the only project in the works for affordable housing. The City is woefully behind on any progress towards the mandates of the Housing Element concerning affordable housing. It is imperative that this project goes through, particularly since the church and builder have scaled the project down. A vibrant, diverse City needs to support housing for all income levels. We have artists, workforce, adult children of residents and other groups who are priced out of living here. This project will show that Laguna Beach is making an effort to change that.

Diane Harrison
3 Holly Drive
231
1 Beier, Samantha CD
From: NCC Project
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2026 10:57 AM
To: Beier, Samantha CD
Subject: I support plans for affordable housing at the Neighborhood Congregational Church site! [NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.]
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I support Neighborhood Congregational Church’s (NCC) plans for 29 units (28 affordable units + one resident manager unit) in Laguna Beach while rejuvenating one or both of the church’s existing buildings—Bridge Hall and the Sanctuary! Five years ago, the City of Laguna Beach General Plan Housing Element (2021-2029) identified NCC’s property as one of four sites with the potential to yield new affordable housing units. Now is the time to make this affordable housing project a reality.

I’m writing to express my strong support for the NCC Project. California faces a critical shortage of housing, and this thoughtfully designed project will provide much-needed homes for people who might otherwise be priced out of the community. By creating affordable housing opportunities for local workers, seniors, and families, the project will help ensure that Laguna Beach remains economically and culturally diverse. It will also create opportunities for future generations to continue living and contributing to the community they call home. Please vote in favor of this project on Wednesday, June 3. Thank you kindly.

I, karen hunt, encourage the Planning Commissioners to approve this much-needed project.

Address 1 Whites Canyon Way, Silverado, CA, 92676
Email
232
1 Beier, Samantha CD
From: NCC Project
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2026 9:09 AM
To: Beier, Samantha CD
Subject: I support plans for affordable housing at the Neighborhood Congregational Church site! [NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.]
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I support Neighborhood Congregational Church’s (NCC) plans for 29 units (28 affordable units + one resident manager unit) in Laguna Beach while rejuvenating one or both of the church’s existing buildings—Bridge Hall and the Sanctuary! Five years ago, the City of Laguna Beach General Plan Housing Element (2021-2029) identified NCC’s property as one of four sites with the potential to yield new affordable housing units. Now is the time to make this affordable housing project a reality.

Dear Commissioners - I have been a resident of Laguna Beach for 28 years (Arch Beach Heights rocks!) Laguna desperately needs affordable housing. I have watched as the NCC has scaled down their original plans, to accommodate neighborhood requests. Glenneyre already has businesses and apartments; in other words, it is not just a street reserved for single family homes. Please support NCC's proposal for housing - just one step towards the 394 units that should be in Laguna. Thank you.

Shauna McFadden
I, Shauna McFadden, encourage the Planning Commissioners to approve this much-needed project.

Address 8 Acapulco Street, Laguna Beach, CA, 92651
Email
233
1 Beier, Samantha CD
From: NCC Project
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2026 5:38 AM
To: Beier, Samantha CD
Subject: I support plans for affordable housing at the Neighborhood Congregational Church site! [NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.]
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I support Neighborhood Congregational Church’s (NCC) plans for 29 units (28 affordable units + one resident manager unit) in Laguna Beach while rejuvenating one or both of the church’s existing buildings—Bridge Hall and the Sanctuary! Five years ago, the City of Laguna Beach General Plan Housing Element (2021-2029) identified NCC’s property as one of four sites with the potential to yield new affordable housing units. Now is the time to make this affordable housing project a reality.

I support the NCC Project because it is badly needed. Now is the time to do what we can to stem the housing shortage, however modest this project is. Please give it your unanimous approval to demonstrate that Laguna Beach understands that it can be part of the solution.

I, Barbara McMurray, encourage the Planning Commissioners to approve this much-needed project.

Address 6 Diamond Street, Laguna Beach, California, 92651 Email
234
1 Beier, Samantha CD
From: Monika Merchan
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2026 7:59 AM
To: Sharma, Shaveta CD; Beier, Samantha CD
Cc: William Babe; Kelly Brochu
Subject: Complaint Regarding the Proposed Development at 340 St. Anns Drive [NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.]
RE: Complaint Regarding the Proposed Development at 340 St. Anns Drive (NCC Project) Impact on Neighboring Property at 3 St. Anns Drive
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:

I am the owner of the property located at 3 St. Anns Drive, and I am writing to raise my strong opposition to the current scope and massing of the proposed affordable housing development located next door at 340 St. Anns Drive (the “NCC Project”).

While I recognize and support our broader community's need for affordable housing, the project as it is currently designed with 29 units concentrated entirely within the existing parking lot poses an unreasonable and disproportionate burden on my neighborhood and specifically my property adjacent to the development. I urge the Planning Commission and the City Council to deeply scrutinize the severe, immediate impacts this project is already having on property owners like myself, specifically regarding view obstruction, direct financial harm, and neighborhood disruption.

1. Ocean Visual Obstruction and Out-of-Scale Massing
As demonstrated by the story poles recently erected on the project site, the proposed massing of this development is wholly out of scale with our neighborhood. Because the revised plans seek to retain the existing Sanctuary and Montessori school buildings, the entirety of the new development is being forced into the church’s parking lot footprint. The story poles clearly illustrate that the proposed height and density will create a massive visual barrier. The story poles prove that the proposed buildings will severely obstruct my established sightlines and ocean views, permanently altering the market value and enjoyment of my home.

2. Verifiable and Immediate Economic Harm
The looming threat of this over-densified project is not speculative; it is already causing demonstrable financial damage and driving down property values. Prospective buyers and occupants are actively discouraged by the anticipated multi-year construction disruption, loss of neighborhood parking, and the sheer scale of the development next door.

The public listing history for my home serves as quantifiable proof of this chilling effect. When attempting to sell the property, I was forced to repeatedly lower the asking price, ultimately lowering it by more than $650,000 to offset concerns about the neighboring project. After my home wouldn’t even be considered at a depleted value because of this cloud of low income housing next door, we eventually had to pull the home off the market entirely without a sale after 7 months. This inability to sell the property is a direct result of the proposed development and represents an undeniable loss of property value. 235
2 3. Unmitigated Traffic and Parking Congestion
By eliminating the church's existing parking lot to accommodate 29 new housing units, while simultaneously maintaining operations for the Sanctuary, Bridge Hall, and the Montessori school, the project will undeniably overwhelm our local infrastructure. St. Anns Drive is not equipped to handle the exponential increase in daily vehicle trips, drop-offs, and street parking demands that this high-density configuration will generate. I have grave concerns regarding traffic bottlenecks, pedestrian safety, and emergency vehicle access on our street.

Conclusion
I understand that the applicant has submitted this project pursuant to State affordable housing streamlining laws (SB 4). However, the mandate to provide housing should not mean developers can devastate the property values, ocean views, and infrastructure of the existing community without consequence.

I formally request that the Planning Commission thoroughly evaluate these grievances during your upcoming meetings. I also request that the City Council reconsider any municipal financial participation or funding requests for a project that relies on a site plan actively harming the financial well-being of Laguna Beach residents. I strongly urge the Commission to require significant design modifications to mitigate the project's massing, step back the rooflines to preserve neighboring ocean views, and conduct a transparent, comprehensive traffic impact analysis.

I look forward to addressing these points in further detail during the upcoming public hearings. Please ensure this letter is entered into the official public record for the 340 St. Anns Drive project.

Sincerely,
Monika and William Merchan
(Homeowner, 3 St. Anns Drive)
236
1 Beier, Samantha CD
From: NCC Project
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2026 12:47 PM
To: Beier, Samantha CD
Subject: I support plans for affordable housing at the Neighborhood Congregational Church site! [NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.]
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I support Neighborhood Congregational Church’s (NCC) plans for 29 units (28 affordable units + one resident manager unit) in Laguna Beach while rejuvenating one or both of the church’s existing buildings—Bridge Hall and the Sanctuary! Five years ago, the City of Laguna Beach General Plan Housing Element (2021-2029) identified NCC’s property as one of four sites with the potential to yield new affordable housing units. Now is the time to make this affordable housing project a reality.

As a resident for the past 40 years and an artist in the Sawdust Festival for the last 15 years, I am on the verge of having to move out of my town due to the insane cost or lack of affordable rentals in Laguna Beach. The high cost of everything is contributing to this problem and I am not a beneficiary of generational wealth, an inheritance, or the IT generation. Laguna Beach seriously doesn't cater to artists' in any way, especially in the area of any semblance of 'Live/Work' , low cost or senior housing. Nothing is 'affordable' for an artist, or one cannot even get on a waiting list. NCC is following through and I support their efforts whole heartedly. Who else is doing this? No one. I applaud them and am behind them 100%.

I, Patsee Ober, encourage the Planning Commissioners to approve this much-needed project.

Address 4 Oak St., Laguna Beach, CA, 92651
Email
237
2 238
1 Beier, Samantha CD
From: Sarah Weinstein
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2026 8:18 PM
To: Beier, Samantha CD
Subject: Support housing efforts
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.]
Hello,
I’m writing to express my support of the NCC Project. There is a critical need for more housing throughout California, and this modest project is thoughtfully designed to accommodate people who would otherwise be priced out. Please vote in favor of this project on Wednesday, June 3.

Thank you for your work,
Sarah Weinstein
239
1 Beier, Samantha CD
From: NCC Project
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2026 2:05 PM
To: Beier, Samantha CD
Subject: I support plans for affordable housing at the Neighborhood Congregational Church site! [NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.]
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I support Neighborhood Congregational Church’s (NCC) plans for 29 units (28 affordable units + one resident manager unit) in Laguna Beach while rejuvenating one or both of the church’s existing buildings—Bridge Hall and the Sanctuary! Five years ago, the City of Laguna Beach General Plan Housing Element (2021-2029) identified NCC’s property as one of four sites with the potential to yield new affordable housing units. Now is the time to make this affordable housing project a reality.

I, Kelley Yasbek, encourage the Planning Commissioners to approve this much-needed project.

Address 2 Latigo Canyon Road, SILVERADO, CA, 92676-9630 Email
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321

www.coxcastle.com Los Angeles | Orange County | San Francisco Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP
3121 Michelson Drive, Suite 200 C
I r v i n e, C a l if o r n i a 9 2 6 1 2 - 5 6 7 8
P: 949.260.4600 F: 949.260.4699
Eric J. Cohn
310.284.2295
[email protected]
June 2, 2026
VIA E-MAIL @ [email protected]
Chairperson Steven Kellenberg ([email protected]) Chair Pro Tem Steven Goldman ([email protected]) Commissioner Jorg Dubin ([email protected])
Commission Susan McLintock Whitin ([email protected]) Commissioner Ken Sadler ([email protected])
City of Laguna Beach
505 Forest Avenue
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
Re: SB 4 Project at 340 St. Ann’s Drive – Response to Housing Accountability Act Inconsistency Letter Dated May 28, 2026 – June 3, 2026 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Item No. 5.2
Dear City of Laguna Beach Planning Commission:

We write on behalf of our client The Related Companies of California, LLC (“Applicant”), the applicant, working with the Neighborhood Congregational Church, for a proposed Senate Bill (“SB”) 4 project (the “Project”) located at 340 St. Ann’s Drive (the “Property”) in the City of Laguna Beach (the “City”). On May 28, 2026, City staff issued a letter (the “Inconsistency Letter”), pursuant to the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”), determining the Project inconsistent with specified standards and requirements. We write in response to the Inconsistency Letter.

The Applicant first wants to express its appreciation for City staff’s recommended approval of the Project and confirmation that “all required findings can be made.” (See June 3, 2026 Planning Commission Staff Report for Agenda Item No. 5.2 (the “Staff Report”)—attached hereto as Exhibit A, pp. 2–4.) As explained further below, staff’s own 57-page Staff Report actually resolves each item flagged in the Inconsistency Letter, clarifying and demonstrating that the Planning Commission can indeed make the very findings the Inconsistency Letter suggests may be in doubt. Applicant, therefore, respectfully requests that this Planning Commission implement City staff’s recommended approval of the Project.

1. Each Item Identified in the Inconsistency Letter is Resolved by the Staff Report The Inconsistency Letter identifies nine inconsistent items. The nine items divide neatly into two categories—(a) seven items which the Inconsistency Letter acknowledges are satisfied through the use of State Density Bonus Law (“SDBL”) benefits (the “SDBL Bucket”) and (b) 322
City of Laguna Beach Planning Commission
June 2, 2026

Page 2 ends

two items resting on discretionary coastal development permit (“CDP”) findings (the “Discretionary CDP Bucket”)1.

The Staff Report addresses each bucket.

First, the Staff Report acknowledges that the Project is consistent with each item raised in the SDBL Bucket through use of SDBL benefits. (See Staff Report, pp. 11–13, 18–23.) For good reason, the benefits of SDBL (such as a density bonus, incentives, waivers, and parking standards) are expressly preserved in SB 4 and in the HAA—and, thus, are ineligible grounds to determine the Project is inconsistent with applicable standards. (Gov. Code, § 65913.16, subd. (j)(1)(C), (j)(2)(C); Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (j)(3), (f)(1).) Second, while the Inconsistency Letter posits that the Project’s height “would adversely impact coastal scenic resources by affecting identified public coastal views” (third CDP criterion) and “is not consistent with the prevailing neighborhood character, which is primarily defined by one- and two-story single-family residential development” (sixth CDP criterion), the Staff Report makes the opposite findings for each item raised in the Discretionary CDP Bucket2.

As it relates to the third CDP criterion, the Staff Report determines that the Project is consistent with that criterion and concludes that “[t]he proposed development will not adversely affect recreational or visitor-serving facilities or coastal scenic resources.” (See Staff Report, pp. 44, 52; see also id., p. 26 [due to the site’s inland location, existing topography, and surrounding intervening development, the project will not obstruct or impair identified public coastal views or visual access to the shoreline”].) As it relates to the sixth CDP criterion, the Staff Report determines that the Project is consistent with that criterion and concludes that “[t]he proposed development will be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and where feasible, will restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas.” (Staff Report, pp. 46, 53.) In other words, the Staff Report makes the very CDP findings the Inconsistency Letter suggests may be in doubt.
* * * * *
1 Although this Firm continues to maintain that the imposition of any discretionary process within the SB 4 framework is contrary to the clear intention of SB 4 and its “use by right” streamlined, ministerial approach, Applicant does not desire to engage in any such debate here. Indeed, the point need not be resolved here. The Staff Report demonstrates that, even under a discretionary review framework, the City can arrive at the same conclusion—approval of the Project.

2 The Project’s height is expressly authorized under SB 4. (See Gov. Code, 65913.16, subd. (j)(1)(A)– (B); see also Staff Report, p. 18 [discussing same].) Using the Project’s expressly authorized height to determine the Project fails to meet these CDP criteria would frustrate operation of the statute rather than harmonizing it with the Coastal Act.
323
City of Laguna Beach Planning Commission
June 2, 2026

Page 3 ends

For the foregoing reasons, Applicant respectfully requests that the Planning Commission implement City staff’s recommended approval of the Project. Applicant remains excited about bringing the Project—and its 28 units affordable to lower-income households—to the City.

Applicant hopes the Planning Commission is likewise excited by the Project, as the Project would make meaningful progress toward—by satisfying over 1/3rd of—the City’s lower-income Regional Housing Needs Allocation (“RHNA”) obligation.

Sincerely,
Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP
Eric J. Cohn
cc: Shaveta Sharma, Senior City Planner ([email protected]) Jane Abzug, City Attorney ([email protected])
Megan K. Garibaldi, City Attorney ([email protected]) Jeremy Frimond, Assistant City Manager ([email protected]) Bill Witte, Related California
Craig Farmer, Related California )
Liane Takano, Related California )
David Miller, Nossaman LLP (
Maya K. Dunne (
Sue Cross (
Reverend Rodrick Echols, Neighborhood Congregational Church Sean Matsler, Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP
324

EXHIBIT A
325

PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
June 3, 2026
Agenda Item No. 5.2
Case No: Ministerial Design Review 2026-1135, Design Review 2026- 0863, and Coastal Development Permit 2026-0864; and
Tentative Parcel Map 2026-0865 and Coastal Development
Permit 2026-0954
Request: Ministerial Design Review 2026-1135 for demolition of an existing parsonage building and existing surface parking lot and construction of a three-story, 30,690 sq. ft. multi-family residential building (28 affordable housing rental units and 1 manager’s unit) and 41-stall parking garage in the R-2
(Residential Medium Density) and Local Business Professional (LBP) zones. Design Review 2026-0863 for more than 20 cubic yards of grading outside the building footprint, retaining walls with more than 5 feet of exposed height, landscaping, and elevated deck. Coastal Development Permit 2026-0864 for such non-exempt development in the Coastal Zone.

A Tentative Parcel Map 2026-0865 to merge four parcels into two parcels in the Local Business Professional (LBP) and Residential Medium Density (R-2) zones. Coastal Development Permit 2026-0954 for such non-exempt development in the Coastal Zone.

Project Location: 340 St. Ann’s Drive | APNs: 644-034-05, 644-034-09 Applicant: Liane Takano, The Related Companies of California, LLC [email protected] | 949-660-7272
Property Owner: Neighborhood Congregational Church
Prepared By: Community Development Department
Shaveta Sharma, Senior Planner
(949) 715-0958 | [email protected]
Planning Commissioners
within a 500’ Radius: None
326
PC Staff Report
June 3, 2026

Page 2 of 57 ends

CEQA:

The Project is within the scope of the development capacity and environmental analysis previously considered in the adopted Housing Element Initial Study/Negative Declaration.

The Project would result in fewer residential units than the capacity analyzed for the site in the Housing Element, and the City has not identified substantial changes to the Project, substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project would be undertaken, or new information of substantial importance that would require major revisions to the previously adopted Initial Study/Negative Declaration due to new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.

Accordingly, no subsequent or supplemental environmental review is required pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.

As an independent and alternative basis for the City’s CEQA determination, the Housing Development Project component of the Project qualifies for streamlined, ministerial treatment under the Affordable Housing on Faith and Higher Education Lands Act of 2023, Government Code section 65913.16, because the Housing Development Project satisfies the eligibility criteria and objective development standards as allowed by that statute and the Density Bonus Law. A qualifying housing development project approved as a “use by right” under Government Code section 65913.16 is not a “project” for purposes of CEQA. (Gov. Code, §65913.16(c), (b)(12)(B).) In addition, the Merger component is statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to Government Code section 65913.16, subdivision (l)(7), because the Merger is consistent with the objective subdivision standards in Chapter 21.08 of the Laguna Beach Municipal Code and Density Bonus Law.

Coastal Development Permit:

The Project is located within a non-appealable area of the Coastal Zone.

Recommendation:

Conduct a public hearing and adopt the following two resolutions:
(1) Resolution No. 2026-1135 (Attachment 1), approving Ministerial Design Review 2026-1135 for demolition of an existing parsonage building and existing surface parking lot and construction of a multi-family residential building (28 affordable housing rental units and 1 manager’s unit) and 41-stall parking garage, Design Review 2026-0863 for site improvements associated with the multi-family residential building, including grading, retaining walls, landscaping, and elevated deck, and Coastal Development Permit 2026-0864 for such non-exempt development within the coastal zone at 340 St. Ann’s Drive in the Local Business Professional (LBP) and Residential Medium Density (R-2) zones; and finding that no further environmental review is required under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 or alternatively is not a project or is exempt under Government Code Sections 65913.16(c) and (b)(12)(B) and 65913.16(l)(7), respectively; and
(2) Resolution No. 2026-0865 (Attachment 2), recommending the City Council approve Tentative Parcel Map 2026-0865 to merge four parcels into two parcels and Coastal Development Permit 2026-0954 for such non-exempt development within the 327
PC Staff Report
June 3, 2026

Page 3 of 57 ends

coastal zone at 340 St. Ann’s Drive in the Local Business Professional (LBP) and Residential Medium Density (R-2) zones; and finding that no further environmental review is required under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 or alternatively is not a project or is exempt under Government Code Sections 65913.16(c) and (b)(12)(B) and 65913.16(l)(7), respectively.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The applicant, Liane Takano, is requesting approval of the following:

1. Ministerial Design Review (DR) under SB 4 for demolition of an existing parsonage building and existing surface parking lot and construction of a three-story, 30,690 sq. ft. multi-family residential building (28 affordable housing rental units and 1 manager’s unit) and 41-stall parking garage in the R-2 (Residential Medium Density) and Local Business Professional (LBP) zones (the “Housing Development Project”).

2. Design Review for more than 20 cubic yards of grading outside the building footprint, retaining walls with more than 5 feet of exposed height, landscaping, and elevated deck (collectively, the “Site Improvements”).

3. Coastal Development Permit (CDP) for the non-exempt development, consisting of the Housing Development Project and Site Improvements, within the coastal zone.

4. Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) to allow consolidation of four existing parcels that together comprise the Neighborhood Congregational Church (“NCC”) site into two parcels, one zoned LBP and consisting of the NCC uses for exclusive use of the religious institution, and a second parcel for the Housing Development with a split LBP and R-2 zoning designation Project (the “Merger”).

5. Coastal Development Permit for the non-exempt development, consisting of the Merger, within the coastal zone (collectively, the “Project”).

The Applicant is proceeding under the Affordable Housing on Faith and Higher Education Lands Act of 2023 (“SB 4”)1, which establishes a ministerial, by-right approval pathway for qualifying affordable housing projects. The Planning Commission is tasked with applying the specific development standards within SB 4 regarding density, height, parking, and ancillary uses and the objective City planning standards and “reasonable [City] objective standards” that were in effect when the application was submitted and that are “broadly applicable to developments” 2to the Housing Development Project (or the multi-family residential building itself). The Planning Commission is not applying discretionary (or subjective) design review findings and criteria to the Housing Development Project.

The Planning Commission is further tasked with applying the discretionary (or subjective) design review findings and criteria to the Site Improvements, consisting of more than 20 cubic yards of 1 SB 4 was amended by AB 130 (effective June 30, 2025) and shall be collectively referred to herein as SB 4 for ease of reference.
2 See Gov. Code, § 65913.16, subd. (l)(5) (emphasis added). 328
PC Staff Report
June 3, 2026

Page 4 of 57 ends

grading outside the building footprint, retaining walls with more than 5 feet of exposed height, landscaping, and elevated deck. As such, the Planning Commission will consider whether the Site Improvements meet the design review findings and criteria set forth in Laguna Beach Municipal Code Section 25.05.040(H) and (I).

Given that the Property is located in the coastal zone, the City must harmonize SB 4 and the Coastal Act, including the City’s Local Coastal Program (“LCP”), which has been certified by the California Coastal Commission (the “certified LCP”). Since the Project site is located outside of the Coastal Commission’s area of original permit jurisdiction and is also outside of the Coastal Commission’s appealable jurisdiction, the City has delegated the authority to issue coastal development permits for the Project. The Planning Commission is tasked with applying discretionary (or subjective) coastal development permit findings and criteria to the non-exempt development consisting of the Housing Development Project and Site Improvements within the coastal zone. As such, the Planning Commission will consider whether the Housing Development Project and Site Improvements comply with the coastal development permit findings and criteria set forth in Laguna Beach Municipal Code Sections 25.07.012(F) and (G).

The Planning Commission is also tasked with applying the discretionary (or subjective) findings for a tentative parcel map under the California Subdivision Map Act and Laguna Beach Municipal Code for the Merger. As such, the Planning Commission will consider whether the Merger complies with the discretionary (or subjective) findings under Government Code Sections 66473.5 and 66474 and Laguna Beach Municipal Code Section 21.08.040 for the Merger. Given that the Property is located in the coastal zone, as discussed above, the Planning Commission is also tasked with applying discretionary (or subjective) coastal development permit findings and criteria to the non-exempt development consisting of the Merger within the coastal zone. As such, the Planning Commission will consider whether the Merger complies with the coastal development permit findings and criteria set forth in Laguna Beach Municipal Code Sections 25.07.012(F) and (G). In accordance with LBMC Section 21.08.040, the Planning Commission acts in an advisory capacity and shall make a recommendation to the City Council.

Staff has analyzed the Applicant’s requests and believes that all required findings can be made, as detailed in the discussion below.

BACKGROUND
General Location: 340 St. Ann’s Drive
Assessor’s Parcel Numbers: 644-034-05, 644-034-09
Related Cases: DR 74-76, CUP 76-7, CUP 00-49, VAR 460 and VAR 1498 Existing General Plan Land
Use Designation:

Zoning Designation:

Use of Property:

Local Business Professional and Village Medium Density
Local Business Professional and R-2 Residential Medium Density Religious Institution and Montessori school
329
PC Staff Report
June 3, 2026

Page 5 of 57 ends

Surrounding General Plan Land Uses Designations, Zoning Districts, and Use of Properties:

Direction General Plan Land Use Zoning Use
North Local Business Professional and
Village Medium Density
Local Business Professional
and R-2 Residential Medium
Density
Residential
South Local Business Professional and
Village Medium Density
Local Business Professional
and R-2 Residential Medium
Density
Commercial
and Residential
East Village Medium Density R-2 Residential Medium
Density
Residential
West Local Business Professional and
Commercial tourist Corridor
R/HP Residential Hillside
Protection
Commercial
Figure 1 - Location Map
330
PC Staff Report
June 3, 2026

Page 6 of 57 ends

Figure 2a - Existing Project Frontage, Glenneyre Street

Figure 2b - Existing Project Frontage, Catalina Street
The Existing Project Site
The Project site is irregularly shaped and comprised of four parcels owned by NCC, a religious institution. It is bounded by Glenneyre Street on the west and Catalina Street on the east. The total site is approximately 1.2 acres, and the affordable Housing Development Project will be constructed on a portion of this site, totaling 0.66 acres. The site contains three buildings and a surface parking lot with 69 spaces and is located within the LBP and R-2 zones. The parsonage, which is used for programming for the Montessori school and proposed to be demolished, was constructed in 1948, the parish hall, which is not proposed to be demolished, was constructed in 1950, and the church sanctuary, which is not proposed to be demolished, was constructed in 1963. To be eligible for ministerial approval under SB 4, a housing development project cannot require the demolition of a historic structure that was “placed on a national, state, or local historic 331
PC Staff Report
June 3, 2026

Page 7 of 57 ends

register.”3Here, none of the structures on the site are placed on the national, state, or local historic register. Further, despite the age of these structures, the City’s decision-makers have not previously found the structures on the Property to be discretionary historic resources under CEQA.

The property is not subject to any known environmental constraints and has an average lot slope of approximately 2.1 percent.

Prior Entitlements
Previous entitlements for the property include, but are not limited to, Variance (“VAR”) 460, and VAR 1498, Conditional Use Permit (“CUP”) 76-7, and CUP 00-49.

VAR 460: On May 19, 1947, the Planning Commission granted a Variance for construction of a church and parsonage, subject to the following conditions of approval:

1. Said variance, and any uses, buildings, improvements, or parcels authorized by it, are hereby declared non-conforming as defined by Ordinance No. 209, as amended, and are subject to all provisions of said Ordinance governing non-conforming uses, buildings, parcels, and improvements.

2. The required setback for buildings shall be 20 feet from the property lines along Glenneyre Street and St. Ann’s Drive. No building shall be located less than 10 feet from any side or rear lot line other than street facing property lines.

3. The building height limit is tentatively set not to exceed 30 feet. Any height above 30 feet shall be subject to Planning Commission approval upon completion of final plans for the church buildings.

4. Off-street parking for 40 automobiles shall be provided on the property VAR 1498: On August 17, 1961, the Planning Commission approved a Variance for the addition of a sanctuary to the church and to grant a waiver of the parking requirements, subject to the following conditions of approval:

1. Outdoor lighting shall be fully shielded and will be subject to Planning Commission review.

2. The Variance shall be reviewed after two years, at which time additional parking may be required.

3. Ingress and egress to all parking areas shall be submitted to the City Traffic Commission for review.

4. Additional parking spaces shall be provided whenever feasible through development of the property to the west.

CUP 76-7: On October 21, 1976, the Board of Adjustment approved the operation of a childcare center (Montessori Method) in the existing Sunday School classrooms, operating five days a week from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
3 Gov. Code, § 65913.16, subd. (c)(4); Gov. Code, § 65913.4, subd. (a)(7)(C).) 332
PC Staff Report
June 3, 2026

Page 8 of 57 ends

CUP 00-49: On September 27, 2000, the Planning Commission approved an amendment to CUP 76-7 to expand an existing private preschool to include an elementary school for Kindergarten and 1 st grade, increase enrollment from 40 to 55 students, and expand the hours of operation from 7:30 a.m. through 6:00 p.m. The following condition of approval for the Montessori School shall continue to apply to, and be complied with as part of, the proposed development pursuant to Resolution No. 2026-1135.
• Eleven on-site parking spaces shall be provided, designated with signs and maintained for the duration of the Conditional Use Permit.

Housing Element Site
The project site is identified in the City’s Housing Element as Site No. 1, a location suitable for redevelopment and future housing opportunities. Housing Element Action 5.21(e) specifically encourages incentives for 100-percent affordable housing projects on institutional properties, including those owned or operated by religious organizations.

The proposed development would also help the City meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) obligations for lower income housing. To date, none of the 80 low-income units allocated to the City for the current Housing Element cycle have been approved or constructed. The addition of 28 affordable units through this Project would represent meaningful progress toward fulfilling the City’s RHNA requirements and advancing broader housing affordability goals.

A city must make written findings or identify additional site capacity if a development is allowed with a lower density than what was assumed in the sites inventory of the Housing Element.4A lower residential density may result from a jurisdiction either approving a development with residential units less than what was assumed for the site or affordable to a different income category than the site was assumed to accommodate.5
At the time of approval of a development project at a lower residential density that anticipated, a city must make the following written findings supported by substantial evidence in the record6:

1. Remaining sites identified in the Housing Element are adequate to meet the jurisdiction’s remaining RHNA for the planning period by income category.

2. The findings should include a quantification of the remaining unmet need for the jurisdiction’s RHNA at each income level and the remaining capacity of sites identified in the Housing Element, to accommodate that need by income level.

If the approval of a development at a lower residential density results in the remaining sites capacity becoming inadequate to accommodate the RHNA by income category, a jurisdiction has up to 180 days from the approval to identify, or rezone, “sufficient additional, adequate, and available sites” to accommodate the remaining RHNA for each income category.7 4 Gov. Code, § 65863, subd. (c).
5 Id.
6 Id.
7 Id.
333
PC Staff Report
June 3, 2026

Page 9 of 57 ends

Below are the findings and staff’s analysis:

1. Remaining sites identified in the Housing Element are adequate to meet the jurisdiction’s remaining RHNA for the planning period by income category.

Here, the City’s Housing Element, which was certified by the Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”), anticipated a redevelopment potential for 31 low-income units at the Property. Based on the current iteration of the Project, which proposed 28 low-income units, the City has a deficit of 3 low-income units. Per Table 4-5 of the Housing Element (Summary of Sites Inventory for 2021-2029), the proposed new sites for RHNA, pipeline residential projects, and the City’s ADU potential demonstrates that the City has adequately zoned land for 80 lowincome units, or a potential surplus of 23 units. Here, while this Project is producing 3 fewer lowincome units than anticipated, the identified surplus in the City’s Housing Element covers the deficit and the City is still exceeding the RHNA target when considering all of the inventory sites (plus ADUs) listed in the certified Housing Element.

The City continues to have a substantial remaining RHNA obligation for the 6th Cycle, consisting of 118 very low-income units, 80 low-income units, and 36 moderate-income units. Although the certified Housing Element identifies limited remaining capacity to accommodate these allocations, additional housing production remains necessary to demonstrate progress toward State housing requirements. The proposed Project would help reduce this unmet need by providing deed-restricted low-income units on a site identified in the Housing Element, thereby supporting implementation of the certified Housing Element and narrowing the gap between the City’s RHNA allocation and units constructed to date.

The City’s remaining unmet RHNA need and the remaining capacity of Housing Element sites by income category, after accounting for this approval, are described below and are shown in Table 1, which incorporates and is supported by the site inventory data in Table 4-5 of the Housing Element.

As reflected in these tables, the remaining site capacity for each income category equals the RHNA allocation plus the identified surplus. When compared to the remaining unmet need, the site inventory provides the following capacity: very low income with 140 units of remaining capacity compared to 118 units of remaining need, low income with 103 units of remaining capacity compared to 80 units of remaining need, moderate income with 82 units of remaining capacity compared to 36 units of remaining need, and above moderate income with 121 units of remaining capacity compared to a need that has already been met, as 397 units have been permitted against a 117-unit allocation. The identified site capacity therefore meets or exceeds the remaining RHNA need in every income category, including both lower-income categories. 334
PC Staff Report
June 3, 2026

Page 10 of 57 ends

The Project will provide 28 deed-restricted low-income units. Following this approval, the City’s remaining low-income RHNA need will decrease from 80 units to 52 units, while the remaining low-income site capacity of 103 units will continue to exceed that need. Approval of the Project at 28 low-income units, which is three fewer than the 31 units assumed for this site in the Housing Element, does not render the City’s remaining site inventory inadequate to meet its remaining RHNA obligations by income category. As a result, the City is not required to identify or rezone additional sites within 180 days under Government Code Section 65863, subdivision (b).

Table 1. Progress Towards Meeting 6th Cycle RHNA 2021-2029 Income Level RHNA
Allocation
by Income
Level
Total Units to
Date
(2021-2025)
Total Remaining
RHNA
by Income Level
RHNA
Potential
Surplus8
Very Low 118 0 118 22
Low 80 0 80 23
Moderate 79 43 36 3
Above Moderate 117 397 -- 4
Total RHNA 394 -- -- 52
Affordable Housing on Faith and Higher Education Lands Act of 2023 (“SB 4”) SB 4, also known as the Affordable Housing on Faith and Higher Education Lands Act of 2023, is a state law that established a new streamlined, ministerial approval process for qualifying affordable housing projects located on land owned by an independent institution of higher education or a religious institution on or before January 1, 2024.9
Under SB 4, eligible projects are considered a “use by right,” which means that the local government10 cannot require a conditional use permit, a planned unit development permit, or any other discretionary local government review.11 Additionally, eligible projects are not considered “projects” under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and are therefore exempt from CEQA review.12
8 Table 4-5 of the City of Laguna Beach General Plan Housing Element (2021–2029) identifies a 52-unit surplus above the City’s 394-unit RHNA, drawn from the overall sites inventory rather than any single parcel. This surplus supports No Net Loss compliance (Gov. Code § 65863) by ensuring replacement units are available when a project yields fewer units than assumed for its income category. 9 Gov. Code, § 65913.16, subds. (a), (c), & (l).
10 SB 4 defines a “local government” to mean “a city, including a charter city, county, including a charter county, or city and county, including a charter city and county.” Gov. Code § 65913.16, subd. (b)(8). 11 Gov. Code, § 65913.16, subd. (b)(12)(A).
12 Gov. Code, § 65913.16, subd. (b)(12)(B).
335
PC Staff Report
June 3, 2026

Page 11 of 57 ends

SB 4 is codified in Government Code section 65913.16. It took effect on January 1, 2024, and sunsets on January 1, 2036.13 To qualify as an SB 4 project, the project must meet all eligibility criteria in Government Code Section 65913.16(c) and is then considered a “use by right.” Here, the Housing Development Project14 qualifies as a “use by right” because it: (i) is proposed on land owned by a qualifying religious institution; (ii) is located on an eligible site within an urbanized area; (iii) is located on an eligible site that is not an environmentally sensitive site, such as certain farmland, wetlands, certain sites within a very high fire hazard severity zone, hazardous waste sites, sites within a delineated earthquake fault zone, sites within certain special flood hazard areas, sites within a regulatory floodway, certain conservation areas or easements, or sites that serve as habitat for protected species; (iv) is located on an eligible site that does not require demolition of certain protected housing; (v) is located on an eligible site that does not adjoin any site where more than one-third of the square footage on the site is dedicated to light industrial use; (vi) is located on an eligible site that is not within a certain distance of an existing or recent heavy industrial use; (vii) is located on an eligible site that is not within a certain distance of an existing or recent Title V industrial use; (viii) is located on an eligible site that is not within a certain distance of an existing or recent facility that actively extracts or refines oil or natural gas; (ix) is a housing development project, subject to certain levels of affordability; (x) complies with all objective development standards; (xi) does not require demolition of existing residential dwelling units without replacement; (xii) meets applicable labor standards; (xiii) complies with an environmental assessment; (xiv) is located on an eligible site that is not within 500 feet of a freeway; and (xv) is not located on a vacant site.15
Based upon the SB 4 checklist and application, the Housing Development Project is eligible as a use by right and is afforded the benefits and protections of the Affordable Housing on Faith and Higher Education Lands Act of 2023, Density Bonus Law, 16 the Housing Accountability Act, 17 and the Coastal Act.18
State Density Bonus Law
Pursuant to LBMC Section 25.12.008(B) and 25.18.002(Q), the maximum density for the R-2 zone is one dwelling unit per 2,000 square feet of net lot area, with a maximum density of 21 units per acre. The LBP zone also allows for one dwelling unit per 2,000 square feet of net lot area. As both the R-2 and LBP zones allow residential uses, Government Code Section §65913.16(j)(1)(A) provides that the housing development shall be allowed a density consistent with the applicable density deemed appropriate to accommodate housing for lower income households identified in Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(3)(B)(iv), which is 30 units per acre. Under California’s Density Bonus Law (Government Code Section 65915), qualifying affordable housing projects may 13 Gov. Code, § 65913.16, subd. (p).
14 Under SB 4, a “housing development project” has the same meaning as a “housing development project in the Housing Accountability Act: “residential units only.” (See Gov. Code Section 65913.16(b)(5); see also Gov. Code Section 65589.5(h)(2).)
15 Gov. Code, § 65913.16, subd. (c).
16 See Gov. Code, § 65913.16, subd. (j)(1)(C).
17 See Gov. Code, § 65913.16, subd. (m) [“[SB 4] shall not prevent a development from also qualifying as a housing development project entitled to the protections of Section 65589.5”].) 18 Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (m); Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (e). 336
PC Staff Report
June 3, 2026

Page 12 of 57 ends

request up to an 80-percent density bonus. As the proposed affordable housing development is 100 percent affordable at the low-income level, excluding one manager’s unit, it is eligible for an 80 percent bonus. The Applicant is requesting a 46 percent density bonus, which is less than the maximum bonus allowed under State law, allowing for 29 housing units on the 0.66-acre site.

Concessions and Waivers
Additionally, under California’s Density Bonus Law, qualifying affordable housing projects are entitled to concessions (incentives) and waivers or reductions of development standards intended to remove regulatory barriers and improve project feasibility. Concessions are modifications to development standards or regulatory requirements that result in identifiable cost reductions for the project, examples include reduced setbacks or lot coverage requirements, open space, landscaping, or design standards. Waivers are for eliminating or reducing development standards that would physically preclude the construction of the project as proposed and include reductions in setbacks or lot dimensions.

Concessions and waivers may be requested in addition to applicable SB 4 standards, which include parking reductions and increased height of one-story above the allowance in the Zoning Code. The City is required to grant such requests unless specific written findings can be made demonstrating a significant, unmitigable impact to public health, safety, or the environment, or a conflict with state or federal law. The applicant is requesting concessions from certain development standards applicable to the proposed development, including reductions to the required front yard setback, lot size limitations within the Local Business Professional (LBP) zone, density standards applicable to the R-2 and LBP zones, and open space requirements, in order to facilitate the feasibility of the project and the construction of affordable housing units.

Under California’s Density Bonus Law, the proposed Project which is a deed-restricted 100% affordable housing project, as required by the included condition of approval in Resolution No. 2026-1135 (i.e., a project in which all units, exclusive of a manager’s unit, are restricted to lowerincome households) is entitled to five (5) concessions (incentives) allowed by statute.19 In addition to the five concessions, a 100% affordable project may also request unlimited waivers or reductions of development standards and are entitled to a waiver of any and all development standards that would physically preclude the development at the density permitted and with the incentive(s) granted. The applicant is eligible for and is requesting the following concessions and waivers from the City’s development standards:

Concessions:

1. Reduction of the Required Immediately Accessible Open Space. Pursuant to LBMC Section 25.50.010(E) which requires that 25% of that open space shall be immediately accessible to each living unit, and shall be designed to be used primarily for the occupants of the living unit (private open space). The applicant is requesting to not provide any private open space for the Project.
19 Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (d)(2)(D).
337
PC Staff Report
June 3, 2026

Page 13 of 57 ends

2. Front Yard Setback. Pursuant to LBMC Section 25.12.008(C)(2), a front yard setback of at least 20 feet is required for the R-2 zone. The applicant requests a reduction of the front yard setback along Catalina Street from 20 feet to 10 feet.

3. Additional Building Setback. Pursuant to LBMC Section 25.50.004 (D), an additional foot of distance for every foot of height in excess of fifteen feet. The applicant is requesting relief from this requirement so that the structure can be stacked horizontally.

4. Required Parking Spaces. Government Code 65913.16(k)(1) provides “the proposed development shall provide off-street parking of up to one space per unit, unless a state law or local ordinance provides for a lower standard of parking, in which case the law or ordinance shall apply.” The applicant is requesting a reduction in parking requirements as a development incentive. The requested reduction includes a parking ratio for Studio and 1-bedroom units at 0.5 spaces per unit instead of 1 space per unit.

The resulting total parking space requirement for the multi-family residential structure would decrease from 29 spaces to 23 spaces.

Waiver:

1. Lot area and dimension standards of the LBP Zone. Pursuant to LBMC Section

25.28.008(A), parcels in the LBP zone shall not be merged together for development purposes that exceed ten thousand sq. ft. The LBP portion of the site is already considered existing nonconforming due to its size at 37,640 sq. ft. The proposed affordable housing parcel is proposed to be 28,937 sq. ft. in size and will continue to be a split-zone parcel with 14,781 sq. ft. in the R2 zone, and 14,156 sq. ft. in the LBP.

2. Open Space Requirements. Pursuant to LBMC Section 25.50.010(A), a minimum area of forty percent of the total gross living area on the lot shall be open space. The applicant requests a reduction from the required 11,620 sq. ft. total open space to 4,595 sq. ft.

The Density Bonus Law “does not supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code). Any density bonus, concessions, incentives, waivers or reductions of development standards, and parking ratios to which the applicant is entitled under this section shall be permitted in a manner that is consistent with [Density Bonus Law and the Coastal Act].” (Gov. Code Section 65915(m).)
Housing Accountability Act
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).) 338
PC Staff Report
June 3, 2026

Page 14 of 57 ends

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’20 upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower 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).21
Given that the Housing Development Project consists of “residential units,” the HAA applies.

Additionally, the HAA affords the protections of the Coastal Act. (Cal. Gov't Code § 65589.5(e).) Coastal Act
The Coastal Act22 is a comprehensive scheme to govern land use planning for the state’s entire coastal zone. As part of its enactment, the Legislature made several findings related to the Act’s purpose: (1) the coastal zone “is a distinct and valuable natural resource of vital and enduring interest to all the people”; (2) that permanent protection of the state’s natural and scenic resources is of paramount concern; (3) that “it is necessary to protect the ecological balance of the coastal zone”; and (4) that “existing developed uses, and future developments that are carefully planned and developed consistent with the policies of [the Coastal Act], are essential to the economic and social well-being of the people of this state. . . .”23 The Coastal Act is to be “liberally construed to accomplish its purposes and objectives.”24 The protections are codified in Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act, entitled “Coastal Resources Planning and Management Policies” (the “Chapter 3 Policies”).25 In addition to the above-identified coastal resource protections, the Coastal Act contains its own housing protections:

Nothing in this division shall exempt local governments from meeting the requirements of state and federal law with respect to providing low- and moderate-income housing, replacement housing, relocation benefits, or any other obligation related to housing imposed by existing law or any law hereafter enacted.26 20 Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (d).)
21 Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (e).)
22 Pub. Res. Code, § 30000 et seq.
23 Pub. Res. Code, § 30001, subds. (a) and (d).
24 Pub. Res. Code, § 30009.
25 Pub. Res. Code, § 30512.
26 Pub. Res. Code, § 30007.
339
PC Staff Report
June 3, 2026

Page 15 of 57 ends

Accordingly, City staff recommends that the Planning Commission harmonize the state housing laws with the Coastal Act. In doing so, the Commission should apply the objective standards of the certified Local Coastal Program and make the required Chapter 3 findings, while approving the affordable housing at the density and intensity the State housing laws mandate and limiting any conditions of approval to those that protect coastal resources without precluding or rendering the housing development infeasible.

DISCUSSION
Proposed Project Design
The Project design is shown below in Figures 3-9:

Figure 3 - Proposed Site Plan
340
PC Staff Report
June 3, 2026

Page 16 of 57 ends

Figure 4 - Proposed Parking Layout
Figure 5 – 3D Rendering of Proposed Project, Glenneyre Street frontage

341
PC Staff Report
June 3, 2026

Page 17 of 57 ends

Figure 6 - 3D Rendering of Proposed Project, Catalina Street frontage Figure 7 - Proposed East Building Elevation, St. Ann’s Drive Figure 8 - Proposed West building Elevation, Cleo Street Figure 9 - Proposed Colors and Materials
342
PC Staff Report
June 3, 2026

Page 18 of 57 ends

Ministerial Design Review – SB 4
As discussed above, the Housing Development satisfies the eligibility criteria contained in SB 4 (Government Code Section 65913.16(c)) and therefore qualifies as a use by right. The applicant has submitted a completed SB 4 checklist along with their application to establish that the Housing Development Project complies with the SB 4 specified development standards regarding density, height, parking, and ancillary uses. Additionally, the submitted SB 4 checklist and application establish that the Housing Development Project complies with the City’s objective planning standards and “reasonable [City] objective standards” outlined in LBMC Chapter 25.12 (R-2) and LBMC Chapter 25.18 (LBP), as discussed in more detail below.

Density and Height under SB 4
State law requires SB 4 projects in zones that allow residential uses to have a density up to the greater of the following: (1) the permitted density on an adjoining parcel; or (2) the “Mullin densities” (generally, 30 units per acre in urban areas).27 Here, the adjacent R-2 zone only allows for one unit for every 2,000 sq ft of net lot area (or about 21 units per acre). Accordingly, the Mullin density of 30 units per acre applies to the Project.

SB 4 projects may also build to a height of one story or 11 feet above the maximum height for the site.28 Under the City’s development standards, the maximum height above grade for the structure is 25 feet for both the R-2 and LBP zones. In addition, both zones have a height limit of 25 feet above upper curb and finished or natural grade, whichever is the most restrictive. The project design has utilized the allowed additional one-story, resulting in a two-story residential building over the parking garage, with a maximum height of 36 feet above grade.

Additionally, SB 4 projects are eligible for a density bonus, incentives, concessions, and waivers or reductions of development standards and parking ratios under the State’s Density Bonus Law (“DBL”).29 Projects in zones that allow any residential use may use DBL’s incentives, concessions, and waivers.30 This is discussed in further detail below.

Ancillary Uses under SB 4
Ancillary uses for any SB 4 project may include religious institutional use or any use that was previously existing and legally permitted by the city or county on the project site, provided certain criteria is met, as specified in SB 4.31 Here, the existing religious institutional use Montessori Use may continue as it is previously existing and legally permitted by the City on the Project site under CUP 00-49.

Parking under SB 4 (and AB 2244 and Density Bonus)
SB 4 projects need only provide one off-street parking space per unit, unless state or local law provides for a lower standard.32 Under SB 4, the Housing Development Project must provide 29 27 See Gov. Code, § 65913.16, subd. (j)(1)(A)—(B).
28 Gov. Code, § 65913.16, subd. (j)(1)(A).
29 Gov. Code, § 65915.
30 Gov. Code, § 65913.16, subd. (j)(1)(C).
31 Gov. Code, § 65913.16, subd. (i).
32 Gov. Code, § 65913.16, subd. (k)(1).
343
PC Staff Report
June 3, 2026

Page 19 of 57 ends

parking spaces (for the proposed 29 units). The Project proposes a parking garage with 41 parking stalls.

Under state law (AB 2244), a developer of a religious institution affiliated housing development project may request a reduction in required parking for the existing religious-use parking. Such request shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the number of religious-use parking spaces that are available at the time the request is made.33 There are currently 69 parking spaces provided on-site that are available to NCC. The applicant has requested a fifty percent reduction in the number of religious-use parking spaces, which would result in 35 religious-use parking spaces available. The Project proposes a parking garage with 41 parking stalls which covers the 35 religious-use parking spaces. Under state law (AB 2244), the City is further required to allow the number of religious-use parking spaces that will be available to count toward the number of parking spaces otherwise required for approval of the housing development project. Here, under SB 4, the Housing Development Project must provide 29 parking spaces (for the proposed 29 units). Therefore, the 35 religious use parking spaces are allowed to count for the 29 parking spaces for the Housing Development Project.

Under State Density Bonus law, the applicant is requesting a reduction in parking requirements as a development concession. This will reduce costs and will maintain parking spaces for the religious institution and Montessori use. The requested reduction includes a parking ratio for Studio and 1- bedroom units at 0.5 space per unit instead of 1 space per unit. The resulting total parking space requirement for the multi-family residential structure would decrease from 29 spaces to 23 spaces. This would leave 18 spaces for religious use, including Montessori use. Accordingly, based upon the City’s Coastal Act authority, City staff recommends the following condition of approval:

The church and school shall maintain coordinated operating hours such that no overlap occurs between the church’s formal Sunday services and the school’s approved hours of operation. The school’s hours shall remain limited to Monday through Friday, 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., unless otherwise approved through an amendment to CUP 00-49.

City’s Objective Standards
Applicable local development standards may be applied only to the extent they are objective and do not conflict with SB 4. For example, discretionary design criteria (e.g., “neighborhood compatibility” or “view equity”) do not apply to the affordable housing development under SB 4.

The Housing Development Project complies with the following State and City objective standards:

Standard Analysis
Senate Bill 4
Definitions for religious institution,
applicant, qualified developer.

Page 20 of 57 ends

Deed Restricted. All units, exclusive of
managers’ units, are subject to a recorded
deed restriction for at least the following time
periods: 55 years for rental units, and 45 years
for owner-occupied units. (Gov. Code Section
65913.16(c)(9).)
The application included a draft Regulatory
Agreement for the affordable housing
development for review by the City Attorney’s
Office.

Therefore, based on the information and
documents provided to date in the Application,
the City finds the Application consistent with
this standard.

Environmental Site Assessment. An
applicant must conduct a Phase I
environmental assessment to determine if a
hazardous substance has been released on
the proposed project site. (Gov. Code Section
65913.16(c)(13).) If warranted, a Phase II
environmental assessment must also be
conducted. (Id.) If a hazardous substance is
found, then the applicant must contract with
an environmental assessor to determine if it
poses any danger to future residents. (Id.) If it
does, then the hazard must be removed or
mitigated to a level complying with state and
federal requirements. (Id.)
The Application provided a Phase I ESA report
that concludes there were no recognized
environmental conditions on the project site
and that a Phase II ESA was not warranted.

Therefore, based on the information and
documents provided to date in the Application,
the City finds that the Application is consistent
with this standard.

Density. Parcels located in a zone that allows
residential use. The minimum density varies
based on the type of jurisdiction: 30 units per
acre in a metropolitan county.

As the proposed affordable housing
development is 100 percent affordable at the
low-income level, excluding one manager’s
unit, it is eligible for an 80 percent bonus. The
Applicant is requesting a 46 percent density
bonus, less the what is allowed under State
law, allowing for 29 housing units on the 0.66-
acre site.

Height. The permitted height is one story
above the otherwise-allowed local height
limits. If the local government allows for
greater density on the parcel, or greater
density or height is allowed on an adjoining
parcel, the greater density or building height
shall apply. A development also qualifies for
the provisions of State Density Bonus Law,
including incentives, concessions, or waivers
or reductions of development standards and
parking ratios.

The project complies with the applicable
height limits and allowances established
under the LBMC for the R2 and LBP zoning
districts, which permit a maximum building
height of 25 feet. Pursuant to the applicable
height allowance provisions, the proposed
building may exceed the base height limit by up
to 11 feet and has a proposed maximum height
of 36 feet.

Parking. One off-street parking space per unit
is required, unless a state or local law allows
There are currently 69 parking spaces provided
on-site that are available to NCC. Applicant
345
PC Staff Report
June 3, 2026

Page 21 of 57 ends

less, except that no parking is required if the
project is located within 0.5-mile walking
distance of either a high-quality transit
corridor or major transit stop or within 1 block
of a car share vehicle.
requests a fifty percent reduction in the
number of religious-use parking spaces, which
would result in 35 religious-use parking spaces
available. The Project proposes a parking
garage with 41 parking stalls which covers the
35 religious-use parking spaces. Under SB 4,
the Housing Development Project must
provide 29 parking spaces (for the proposed 29
units). Therefore, the 35 religious use parking
spaces are allowed to count for the 29 parking
spaces for the Housing Development Project.

Under State Density Bonus law, the applicant
is requesting a reduction in parking
requirements as a development concession.

Ancillary and Previous Uses. Projects
located in a single-family residential zone may
include childcare centers and recreational,
social, or educational facilities operated by
community-based organizations. All other
zones may include commercial uses that are
permitted without a conditional use permit or
planned unit development permit. The
development project can include any previous
use that existed and was legally permitted if
certain criteria are met (e.g., the project
features the same operational conditions).

The existing Montessori school, originally
approved in 2000 through Conditional Use
Permit No. 00-49, will continue to operate on
the religious institution site.

Prevailing Wage and Labor Requirements.

The housing development project must abide
by prevailing wage requirements (Labor Code
sections 1720-1861), including noticing in
accordance with Labor Code section 1773.35.

The project applicant shall provide prevailing
wages for all labor utilized in the construction
of the project, in accordance with applicable
State labor requirements. Compliance with
this requirement is further ensured through
the inclusion of a condition of approval in
Resolution No. 2026-1135.

Standard Analysis
General Plan
SE Policy S-4.2 Require new developments
and major remodels to retain onsite storm
flows at or below existing conditions.

The project application included a Hydrology
and Hydraulics Study and Water Quality
Management Plan which were reviewed and
approved and ensure the development will
retain storm flows onsite.
346
PC Staff Report
June 3, 2026

Page 22 of 57 ends

OSCE Policy 4F Water Conservation and
Native Plants Ensure that development
encourage water conservation, efficient
irrigation practices and the use of native or
drought tolerant non-invasive plants
appropriate to the local habitat to minimize the
need for fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides and
excessive irrigation. Prohibit the use of invasive
plants, and require native plants appropriate to
the local habitat where the property is in or
adjacent to Environmentally Sensitive Areas
(ESAs).

The landscape plans include a palette
consisting of only native and low-water usage
plants.

SE Policy S-3.1 Require the preparation of a
geotechnical investigation for applicable
development projects as specified in the
Municipal Code.

The application includes a Geotechnical
Report that was peer reviewed by the City’s
geotechnical consultant. The report concludes
that development of the site is feasible,
provided its recommendations are
incorporated into the final design and
construction.

Transportation, Circulation and Growth
Management Element (TCGME) Policy 2E
Require subdivisions, new commercial
developments and major commercial
renovations to include a traffic impact analysis
which identifies measures to mitigate any
identified impacts.

The application included a Traffic Report
memorandum that was peer reviewed by the
City’s traffic consultant. The analysis and
conclusions of the report support the finding
that the proposed housing development would
not result in significant traffic impacts to the
existing roadway network serving the project
site.

Standard Analysis
Municipal Code
LBMC Title 19 Water Efficient Landscape
Ordinance (WELO). For applicable landscape
installation or rehabilitation projects subject to
Section 19.01.004(a), the estimated applied
water use allowed for the landscaped area
shall not exceed the MAWA calculated using
an ET adjustment factor of 0.55 for residential
areas and 0.45 for nonresidential areas, except
for special landscaped areas where the MAWA
is calculated using an ET adjustment factor of

1.0; or the design of the landscaped area shall
otherwise be shown to be equivalently waterefficient in a manner acceptable to the city; as provided in the Guidelines.

The proposed project plans submitted with the
Application demonstrate that the proposed
project meets WELO requirements, including
landscaping, irrigation, and calculations.

Therefore, based on the information shown on
Sheet L-1 of the submitted plans provided in
the Application, the City finds the Application
consistent with this standard.
347
PC Staff Report
June 3, 2026

Page 23 of 57 ends

LBMC Title 7 Health and Sanitation.

Outdoor lighting must be hooded, fully
shielded, and aimed downward. (LBMC
Section 7.70.050(b).)
Fixtures not fully shielded shall be allowed
only if less than three thousand Kelvin and/or
seven hundred fifty lumens. (LBMC Section

7.70.060(a).)
The proposed project plans submitted with the
Application depict identified light sources as
shielded and directed downward, as required
by the City’s Good Neighbor Outdoor Lighting
ordinance that requires shields for lights
exceeding 750 lumens.

Therefore, based on the information shown on
Sheets L-2, ELP-1, ELP,-2, and ELP-3 of the
submitted plans provided in the Application,
the City finds the Application consistent with
this standard.

Standard Analysis
Residential Design Guidelines

9.10 Eliminate irrigation runoff by providing onsite infiltration.The proposed project plans submitted with the Application demonstrate that the proposed
project eliminates irrigation runoff by providing
on-site infiltration.

Based on the report information and
documents provided to date in the Application
which was peer-reviewed by the City’s
consultant, GMU Geotechnical Inc., the City
finds the Application consistent with this
standard.

9.14 Locate mechanical equipment inside of
the structure or at the rear or sides of a
property, observing required setbacks.

Ensure [noise from mechanical equipment]
does not exceed City maximums (see
Municipal Code §7.25)
The proposed project plans submitted with the
Application provide calculations that
demonstrate that the mechanical equipment
in the proposed plans do not exceed City
maximums.

Therefore, based on the information as shown
on Sheet A2.4 of the submitted plans in the
Application, the City finds the Application
consistent with this standard.

9.15 Use low-lumen fixtures.

Use full-cutoff baffles and hood accessories
to direct light.

The proposed project plans submitted with the
Application depict identified light sources as
shielded and directed downward.

Therefore, based on the information shown on
Sheets L-2, ELP-1, ELP,-2, and ELP-3 of the
submitted plans provided in the Application,
the City finds the Application consistent with
this standard.
348
PC Staff Report
June 3, 2026

Page 24 of 57 ends

Design Review
The Site Improvements more specifically described as (i) 480 cubic yards of grading outside the building footprint; (ii) 150 feet of retaining walls exceeding five feet in height along the rear property line; (iii) landscaping improvements including groundcover, shrubs, trees, and lighting; (iv) a 180 sq. ft. elevated deck serving the second-floor residential area. The Project’s site improvements are shown below in Figures 11-14:

Figure 11 - Proposed Grading Exhibit
349
PC Staff Report
June 3, 2026

Page 25 of 57 ends

Figure 12 - Retaining Wall Detail
Figure 13 – Landscape Plan
350
PC Staff Report
June 3, 2026

Page 26 of 57 ends

Figure 14 - Elevated Deck
Coastal Development Permit
The Housing Development Project and Site Improvements require a coastal development permit.

The project site is located inland between Glenneyre Street and Catalina Street within an already urbanized area and, as such, the proposed development will not adversely impact coastal resources. Additionally, due to the site’s inland location, existing topography, and surrounding intervening development, the project will not obstruct or impair identified public coastal views or visual access to the shoreline.

Potential impacts associated with the proposed development were evaluated through the applicant’s submitted technical studies and corresponding peer reviews, including analyses addressing geotechnical, hydrological, sewer capacity, water quality, and traffic considerations.

The findings and conclusions of these reports demonstrate that the project can be adequately served by existing infrastructure and developed without creating adverse impacts to surrounding properties or coastal resources. The submitted technical analyses and their conclusions are discussed in further detail below.

Technical Studies
As part of the applicant’s application, several technical reports and studies were prepared, including a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), which is explicitly required by SB 4, to confirm that the no recognized environmental conditions existed on the property. The findings and analysis of the required studies are summarized below.

Environmental Site Assessment
A Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) dated April 10, 2026, and prepared by Altec (Attachment 5) was submitted for the City’s review. The prepared assessment determined that no recognized environmental conditions (RECs), controlled RECs, or historical RECs are present on Elevation Site Plan
351
PC Staff Report
June 3, 2026

Page 27 of 57 ends

the project site (p. 4 and 50). Accordingly, a Phase II ESA is not warranted. The Phase I ESA also identifies certain “Potential Issues” for which additional testing is recommended, including naturally occurring radon and the possible presence of lead-based paint or asbestos-containing materials within existing structures. These items do not constitute RECs and do not require further investigation. However, such testing is recommended as a best practice. The applicant has indicated that any recommended testing will be conducted during the construction phase of the project.

Geotechnical Review
A preliminary Geotechnical Report dated December 2, 2025, and prepared by LGC Geotechnical (Attachment 6) was submitted and peer reviewed by the City’s third-party consultant, who confirmed the analysis and conclusions of the report. According to regional geologic mapping, the site is underlain by a veneer of Quaternary terrace deposits over Tertiary Topanga Formation bedrock. The report concludes that development of the site is feasible, provided its recommendations are incorporated into the final design and construction.

The report further indicates that the subject site is not located within a designated Seismic Hazard Zone, including areas susceptible to earthquake-induced landslides or liquefaction (CDMG, 2006), nor within a State of California Earthquake Fault Zone (CGS, 2018). No faults were encountered during the site investigation, and none are mapped across the site based on reviewed regional geologic data. These findings support the site’s physical suitability for the proposed Housing Development Project, Site Improvements, and Merger.

Hydrology and Hydraulics Study
The Hydrology and Hydraulics Study dated February 2025 and prepared by KES (Attachment 7), determined that there are no existing water quality treatment devices on the subject site. Runoff within the Catalina Street right-of-way currently flows along the northerly property boundary and is directed west; this historic drainage pattern will be maintained under post-development conditions.

The proposed development will capture surface flows through a system of area drains located around the perimeter of the podium and within the structure. All water quality flows will be conveyed to a subsurface chamber system located at the lower level of the podium for treatment and detention. Post-construction conditions are anticipated to be similar to existing conditions, with both maintaining approximately 13 percent pervious area. The analysis concludes that the increase in 100-year peak flow rates would be less than one percent and does not require mitigation.

The study further concludes that the proposed improvements are designed in accordance with County of Orange Flood Control standards, and the drainage system is capable of accommodating runoff from a 100-year storm event. Building pads will be set above the theoretical 100-year flood elevation identified in the study, and the proposed development and parcel map will not create additional drainage impacts beyond the project boundaries.34 34 It should also be noted that the site is not located within a special flood hazard area as defined by FEMA. 352
PC Staff Report
June 3, 2026

Page 28 of 57 ends

Sanitary Sewer Analysis
The applicant submitted a Sanitary Sewer Analysis, dated December 2025, prepared by KES (Attachment 8). The prepared analysis was reviewed by the City’s Public Works Department, and the findings and conclusions were confirmed. The proposed Project, consisting of 29 residential units and a five-unit laundry facility, is estimated to generate approximately 7,250 gallons per day, equivalent to 0.008 cubic feet per second (cfs), or 3.6 gallons per minute (gpm), of wastewater discharge.

The project site is served by one dedicated sewer lateral exiting the south side of the proposed building and connecting to an existing 8-inch sanitary sewer line within Glenneyre Street. The existing 8-inch sewer line has a calculated capacity of 1.874 cfs at 50 percent flow depth. The project’s contribution of 0.008 cfs represents an approximate 0.42 percent increase in flow.

Based on the sewer analysis, which utilized methodologies from Orange County Sanitation District and Manning’s equation, the project’s incremental increase in flow is minimal and would not be expected to adversely impact the capacity or operation of the existing sanitary sewer system.

Accordingly, the project can be adequately served by the existing sewer infrastructure without the need for system improvements, subject to final review and approval by the City Engineer.

Water Quality Management Plan
The applicant submitted a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), dated December 2025, prepared by KES (Attachment 9). The analysis was reviewed by the City’s Water Quality Division, which confirmed the report’s findings and conclusions. Stormwater from the site will be collected via area drains and conveyed to a subsurface storage system. Landscape and planter areas will include internal drains that discharge by gravity to the proposed chamber system located at the basement level. All hardscape surfaces, including concrete areas, will similarly drain to the subsurface chamber system. Roof runoff will be captured by roof drains and directed to the same system. Treated flows will be discharged to the public right-of-way, including the curb and gutter along Glenneyre Street for fronting hardscape areas, and to the easterly storm drain system.

Discharge will occur following treatment through the planter, and then conveyed via gravity piping and curb core/under-walk drains.

The WQMP concludes that post-construction conditions are comparable to existing conditions, with both maintaining approximately 13 percent pervious area. As a result, the increase in the 100- year peak flow rate is less than one percent and does not require additional mitigation.

Traffic and Circulation
The applicant submitted a Traffic Memo, dated November 26, 2025, prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc (Attachment 10). The submitted report was peer reviewed by the City’s third-party consultant who concurred with the analysis and findings in the memo. Vehicular access to the site is provided from Glenneyre Street, which is classified as a primary arterial, and no new streets or off-site circulation improvements are proposed as part of the residential development or parcel map. The proposed residential project includes a 20-ft. wide driveway leading to an underground parking garage with 41 parking spaces. In order to estimate the generated traffic volumes of the 353
PC Staff Report
June 3, 2026

Page 29 of 57 ends

proposed Project, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 12th Edition was used to estimate trips for the site. As shown in Table 2 below, the proposed Project is anticipated to generate approximately 140 two-way vehicle trips per day (in actual vehicles) with 11 AM peak hour trips and 14 PM peak hour trips.

Table 2. Project Trip Generation
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use Quantity In Out Total In Out Total
Affordable Housing 29 units 3 8 11 8 6 14
The Project’s addition to daily and peak hour vehicle trips to the City’s arterials, local roadways, and intersections are less-than-significant and would not require additional improvements to the roadways or intersections. The two roadways, Glenneyre Street and St. Ann’s Drive, currently operate at Level of Service (LOS) A and will continue to operate at LOS A after construction of the proposed development. Consequently, the proposed residential development and parcel map would not alter the previously reviewed circulation pattern, exceed existing roadway capacity, and would not result in any significant change to traffic or circulation conditions in the surrounding neighborhood.

Tentative Parcel Map
The purpose of the parcel map is to eliminate the existing fragmented condition by merging the four lots into two legal parcels, one for the religious institution and the other for the Housing Development Project. In doing so, the proposed parcel map improves conformity with the lot area, lot width, and lot depth requirements of the R-2 and LBP zones and allows for the parcels to function as two distinct building sites.

Pursuant to LBMC § 25.12.008, property in the R-2 Zone must maintain a minimum lot area of 6,000 sq. ft., a minimum lot width of 70 feet, and a minimum lot depth of 80 feet. Properties in the LBP zone, pursuant to LBMC § 25.12.008, have a maximum lot area of 10,000 sq. ft.

As noted above, the applicant is requesting a waiver of this requirement as combining the existing lots such that the proposed Housing Development Project is located on a single parcel is required to comply with applicable California Building Code requirements, which prohibit structures from crossing property lines. Additionally, the existing LBP parcel is already non-conforming at 37,640 sq. ft. and the resulting split-zoned R-2 and LBP parcel will be 28,937 sq. ft. in size. The proposed Tentative Parcel Map would merge the four existing contiguous parcels into two legal parcels, and will not create additional parcels. The subject property consists of Lots 2,4,6,8,10,12, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and with portions of lots 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, of Block 73 of Laguna Terrace, now addressed as 340 St. Ann’s Drive (APNs: 644-034-05, 644-034-09).

As shown on the tentative parcel map, the resulting Parcel 1 for the religious institution site would be 29,027 sq. ft. in size and zoned LBP, and Parcel 2 for the affordable housing development would be split-zoned with a 14,781 sq. ft. R-2 portion and 14,156 sq. ft. LBP portion (28,937 sq. ft. total), exceeding the maximum lot area of 10,000 sq. ft. allowed in the LBP Zone. 354
PC Staff Report
June 3, 2026

Page 30 of 57 ends

In terms of access, the proposed parcel map would not alter the site’s approved access configuration. The merged parcels would continue to take vehicular access from Glenneyre Street, consistent with the existing religious institution site. The site is currently served by safe and direct vehicular and pedestrian access from Glenneyre Street, including a 20-foot-wide driveway leading to the existing surface parking lot which minimize conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians. The proposed project also ensures adequate site visibility for ingress and egress and provides 41 parking spaces in the underground garage.

Because the current application will lead to lot consolidation and does not create additional development pads or driveways, no new access points are proposed. Accordingly, the proposed lot consolidation would not modify the existing circulation pattern.

Figure 10 – Proposed Tentative Parcel Map

ENTITLEMENT REVIEW PROCESS
Ministerial Design Review
The Housing Development Project, or residential units, consisting of the multi-family residential building requires the approval of design review under SB 4. (Gov. Code Section 65913.16(l).) Such design review must be objective and be strictly focused on assessing compliance with criteria required for streamlined, ministerial review of projects, as well as any reasonable objective design 355
PC Staff Report
June 3, 2026

Page 31 of 57 ends

standards published and adopted by ordinance or resolution by the City before submittal of the development to the local government and must be broadly applicable to developments within the City.

Standard Reason
Senate Bill 4
Definitions for religious institution,
applicant, qualified developer.

The application has submitted documentation
that the project meets all of the definitions under
SB 4, including the definitions of “religious
institution,” “applicant,” and “qualified
developer.”
Deed Restricted. All units, exclusive of
managers’ units, are subject to a recorded
deed restriction for at least the following
time periods: 55 years for rental units, and
45 years for owner-occupied units. (Gov.

Code Section 65913.16(c)(9).)
The application included a draft Regulatory
Agreement for the affordable housing
development for review by the City Attorney’s
Office.

Therefore, based on the information and
documents provided to date in the Application,
the City finds the Application consistent with this
standard.

Environmental Site Assessment. An
applicant must conduct a Phase I
environmental assessment to determine if a
hazardous substance has been released on
the proposed project site. (Gov. Code
Section 65913.16(c)(13).) If warranted, a
Phase II environmental assessment must
also be conducted. (Id.) If a hazardous
substance is found, then the applicant must
contract with an environmental assessor to
determine if it poses any danger to future
residents. (Id.) If it does, then the hazard
must be removed or mitigated to a level
complying with state and federal
requirements. (Id.)
The Application provided a Phase I ESA report
that concludes there were no recognized
environmental conditions on the project site and
that a Phase II ESA was not warranted.

Therefore, based on the information and
documents provided to date in the Application,
the City finds that the Application is consistent
with this standard.

Density. Parcels located in a zone that
allows residential use. The minimum density
varies based on the type of jurisdiction: 30
units per acre in a metropolitan county.

As the proposed affordable housing
development is 100 percent affordable at the
low-income level, excluding one manager’s unit,
it is eligible for an 80 percent bonus. The
Applicant is requesting a 46 percent density
bonus, less the what is allowed under State law,
allowing for 29 housing units on the 0.66-acre
site.
356
PC Staff Report
June 3, 2026

Page 32 of 57 ends

Height. The permitted height is one story
above the otherwise-allowed local height
limits. If the local government allows for
greater density on the parcel, or greater
density or height is allowed on an adjoining
parcel, the greater density or building height
shall apply. A development also qualifies for
the provisions of State Density Bonus Law,
including incentives, concessions, or
waivers or reductions of development
standards and parking ratios.

The project complies with the applicable height
limits and allowances established under the
LBMC for the R2 and LBP zoning districts, which
permit a maximum building height of 25 feet.

Pursuant to the applicable height allowance
provisions, the proposed building may exceed
the base height limit by up to 11 feet and has a
proposed maximum height of 36 feet.

Parking. One off-street parking space per
unit is required, unless a state or local law
allows less, except that no parking is
required if the project is located within 0.5-
mile walking distance of either a high-quality
transit corridor or major transit stop or within
1 block of a car share vehicle.

There are currently 69 parking spaces provided
on-site that are available to NCC. Applicant
requests a fifty percent reduction in the number
of religious-use parking spaces, which would
result in 35 religious-use parking spaces
available. The Project proposes a parking garage
with 41 parking stalls which covers the 35
religious-use parking spaces. Under SB 4, the
Housing Development Project must provide 29
parking spaces (for the proposed 29 units).

Therefore, the 35 religious use parking spaces
are allowed to count for the 29 parking spaces
for the Housing Development Project.

Under State Density Bonus law, the applicant is
requesting a reduction in parking requirements
as a development concession.

Ancillary and Previous Uses. Projects
located in a single-family residential zone
may include childcare centers and
recreational, social, or educational facilities
operated by community-based
organizations. All other zones may include
commercial uses that are permitted without
a conditional use permit or planned unit
development permit. The development
project can include any previous use that
existed and was legally permitted if certain
criteria are met (e.g., the project does not
increase total nonresidential square footage
or total parking and features the same
operational conditions).

The existing Montessori school, originally
approved in 2000 through Conditional Use
Permit No. 00-49, will continue to operate on the
religious institution site.
357
PC Staff Report
June 3, 2026

Page 33 of 57 ends

Prevailing Wage and Labor Requirements.

The housing development project must
abide by prevailing wage requirements
(Labor Code sections 1720-1861), including
noticing in accordance with Labor Code
section 1773.35.

The project applicant shall provide prevailing
wages for all labor utilized in the construction of
the project, in accordance with applicable State
labor requirements. Compliance with this
requirement is further ensured through the
inclusion of a condition of approval in
Resolution No. 2026-1135.

Standard Reason
General Plan
SE Policy S-4.2 Require new developments
and major remodels to retain onsite storm
flows at or below existing conditions.

The project application included a Hydrology
and Hydraulics Study and Water Quality
Management Plan which were reviewed and
approved and ensure the development will
retain storm flows onsite.

The landscape plans include a palette
consisting of only native and low-water usage
plants.

SE Policy S-3.1 Require the preparation of a
geotechnical investigation for applicable
development projects as specified in the
Municipal Code.

Page 34 of 57 ends

Standard Reason
Municipal Code
LBMC Title 19 Water Efficient Landscape
Ordinance (WELO). For applicable landscape
installation or rehabilitation projects subject to
Section 19.01.004(a), the estimated applied
water use allowed for the landscaped area
shall not exceed the MAWA calculated using
an ET adjustment factor of 0.55 for residential
areas and 0.45 for nonresidential areas, except
for special landscaped areas where the MAWA
is calculated using an ET adjustment factor of

1.0; or the design of the landscaped area shall
otherwise be shown to be equivalently waterefficient in a manner acceptable to the city; as provided in the Guidelines.

The proposed project plans submitted with the
Application demonstrate that the proposed
project meets WELO requirements, including
landscaping, irrigation, and calculations.

Therefore, based on the information shown on
Sheet L-1 of the submitted plans provided in
the Application, the City finds the Application
consistent with this standard.

LBMC Title 7 Health and Sanitation.

Therefore, based on the information shown on
Sheets L-2, ELP-1, ELP,-2, and ELP-3 of the
submitted plans provided in the Application,
the City finds the Application consistent with
this standard.

Standard Reason
Residential Design Guidelines

Page 35 of 57 ends

9.14 Locate mechanical equipment inside of
the structure or at the rear or sides of a
property, observing required setbacks.

Therefore, based on the information as shown
on Sheet A2.4 of the submitted plans in the
Application, the City finds the Application
consistent with this standard.

9.15 Use low-lumen fixtures.

Use full-cutoff baffles and hood accessories
to direct light.

The proposed project plans submitted with the
Application depict identified light sources as
shielded and directed downward.

Therefore, based on the information shown on
Sheets L-2, ELP-1, ELP,-2, and ELP-3 of the
submitted plans provided in the Application,
the City finds the Application consistent with
this standard.

Design Review
The proposed Site Improvements require the approval of discretionary design review. (See LBMC Section 25.05.040(B)(1).) Specifically, discretionary design review is required for more than 20 cubic yards of grading outside the building footprint, retaining walls with more than 5 feet of exposed height, landscaping, and an elevated deck. Design review is governed by Laguna Beach Municipal Code Section 25.05.040. Design review is considered by the Planning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing where the following findings are considered in relation to the proposed development:

Finding No. 1: Physical improvements and site developments related to the Project are designed and located in a manner in overall consistency with the design review criteria specified in Section

25.05.040(H), as set forth below:

1. Access. Conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians and other modes of transportation should be minimized by specifically providing for each applicable mode of transportation. Handicapped access shall be provided as required by applicable statutes.

No changes are proposed to the vehicular access to the site and off-street parking would continue to be provided along Glenneyre Street. The grading and retaining walls of the Site Improvements are designed to enhance overall circulation and ensure safe and efficient movement of vehicles, pedestrians, and other modes of transportation throughout the development. The design emphasizes clear wayfinding, visibility, and safe transitions between parking, residential, and common areas. The landscaping and the elevated deck of the Site Improvements does not result in any conflicts with access. In addition, all site improvements will be designed and constructed 360
PC Staff Report
June 3, 2026

Page 36 of 57 ends

in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), ensuring accessible routes of travel, appropriately located accessible parking spaces, and barrier-free access to building entries and key site amenities.

2. Design Articulation: Within the allowable building envelope, the appearance of building and retaining wall mass should be minimized. Articulation techniques including, but not limited to, separation, offsets, terracing and reducing the size of any one element in the structure may be used to reduce the appearance of mass.

The proposed Site improvements consisting of grading, retaining walls, landscaping, and elevated deck collectively serve to reduce the perceived massing of the project and enhance its overall visual integration with the surrounding development. By locating the parking garage underground through site grading, the perceived height and bulk of the development are significantly minimized, ensuring compatibility with the surrounding built environment. Furthermore, the incorporation of retaining walls with metal fencing along Catalina Street, as well as six-foot-high decorative block walls along interior property lines, contributes to the reduction of perceived bulk by providing visual screening.

Additionally, the proposed landscaping along the Glenneyre Street and Catalina Street frontages, as well as along interior property lines, provides a layered visual buffer that softens views of the building from adjacent public rights-of-way and neighboring properties. This combination of planting materials and site design elements helps to break up building mass and provide a softer edge to the development. Combined, these elements work together to minimize the overall visual impact of the development.

3. Design Integrity: Consistency with the applicant’s chosen style of architecture should be achieved by the use of appropriate materials and details. Remodels should be harmonious with the remaining existing architecture.

The grading of the Site Improvements allows for the parking to be located below grade and allows the site to focus the visual interest on the overall design of the site rather than on utilitarian elements. The retaining walls of the Site Improvements are given architectural treatments through the use of compatible materials, these walls are designed to complement the architectural style of the site. The landscaping of the Site Improvements is used as an additional design element and are strategically located to screen utilitarian components, and highlight key architectural features, thereby strengthening the overall design. The elevated deck of the Site Improvements is similarly integrated into the architectural design and utilizes materials, proportions, and detailing consistent with the overall site design. This ensures that the deck is a seamless extension of the overall architectural concept.

Consequently, the Site Improvements consisting of the proposed grading, retaining walls, landscaping, and elevated deck are integral components of the project’s overall design strategy and achieves a harmonious and cohesive development that is visually compatible with the intended architectural style.
361
PC Staff Report
June 3, 2026

Page 37 of 57 ends

4. Environmental Context: Development should preserve and, where possible, enhance the city’s scenic natural setting. Natural features, such as existing heritage trees, rock out-cropping, ridgelines and significant watercourses should be protected. Existing terrain should be utilized in the design and grading should be minimized.

The project proposes grading and retaining walls of the Site Improvements, which allows the parking garage to be placed below grade, minimizes the need for grading or alteration of the existing terrain. The proposed parking garage utilizes the site’s existing steep downward slope along Catalina Street for the parking garage. Additionally, the proposed landscaping of the Site Improvements is consistent with the existing developed site and neighborhood. The Site Improvements do not involve removal of heritage trees, modification of ridgelines, or encroachment on watercourses. Thus, the project preserves and enhances the City’s scenic natural setting by concentrating development where infrastructure already exists.

5. General Plan Compliance: The development shall comply with all applicable policies of the General Plan, including all of its elements, applicable specific plans, and the certified local coastal program.

The Project complies with all applicable policies in the City’s General Plan and Local Coastal Program. The project site is not located within any Specific Plan.

Housing Element Policy HE-1.11 Ensure that new housing will be aesthetically compatible with the surrounding environment and compatible with the size, scale and character of development in the neighborhood in which it is located.

The project’s proposed grading, elevated deck, landscaping, and retaining walls contribute to a cohesive site design that ensures aesthetic compatibility with the surrounding residential and commercial uses in the vicinity. These elements are carefully integrated to soften building massing, provide visual transitions, and reinforce a consistent architectural and landscape character along adjacent street frontages and property lines.

Accordingly, the project supports and is consistent with Policy HE-1.11 by ensuring that new development is visually compatible with the existing neighborhood context, maintaining a balanced relationship between the proposed improvements and the existing neighborhood context.

Housing Element Policy HE-2.7 Encourage the production of privately sponsored low- and moderate-income housing projects in residential and mixed-use developments.

The proposed site improvements facilitate the development of an affordable housing project that will add 28 rental units to the City’s housing inventory. The project supports and is consistent with Policy HE-2.7 by encouraging and advancing private development of low362 PC Staff Report
June 3, 2026

Page 38 of 57 ends

income housing units, thereby contributing to the City’s overall housing goals and affordability objectives.

Housing Element Policy HE-2.8 Provide incentives (e.g., density bonus, fee reductions/exemptions, assistance with federal and other funding applications, liberalized development standards, fast-tracking) to developers of projects that include extremely-low-, verylow- and low-income housing units.

The requested incentives for the project facilitate the development of 28 low-income affordable rental housing units. The project is consistent with Policy HE-2.8 by encouraging the production of new housing units through regulatory flexibility that reduces unnecessary development constraints and helps avoid significant cost burdens, thereby supporting the feasibility of affordable housing development.

HE-2.13: Encourage the expansion of rental housing opportunities in the City.

The proposed site improvements will facilitate the addition of 28 new low-income deedrestricted rental units on an existing developed site, thereby increasing the City’s rental housing inventory. The project directly supports Policy HE-2.13 by expanding rental housing opportunities through the redevelopment efficient use of an infill site.

HE-2.17: Foster opportunities for small scale infill development as a means to expand housing opportunities and incrementally provide affordable housing.

The proposed site improvements will facilitate infill development through the addition of 28 new low-income deed-restricted rental units on an existing developed site, thereby increasing the City’s rental housing inventory. The project is consistent with Policy HE-2.17 by making efficient use of an underutilized site and introducing new housing units without the need for significant expansion of existing infrastructure or public services.

Infill development contributes to the City’s overall housing supply by supporting residential use within an urbanized area already served by transit, utilities, and municipal services. The incremental addition of 28 units enhances housing diversity within the community, expands availability, and provides increased options for a range of household types, thereby supporting broader affordability objectives.

HE-3.6: Promote the expansion of housing opportunities throughout the City.

The proposed site improvements will facilitate infill development of 28 low-income affordable rental housing units, resulting in a net increase in the City’s overall housing supply. By introducing residential units within an already developed neighborhood, the project expands housing availability in a manner that is compatible with surrounding land uses and the capacity of existing infrastructure and public services.
363
PC Staff Report
June 3, 2026

Page 39 of 57 ends

Land Use Element Goal 6 Provide a diversity of land uses that enhance the community.

The site improvements will allow for infill development of a multi-family affordable housing building within an established business and residential corridor. By providing affordable rental units within an urbanized area, the development expands housing availability in a manner that is compatible with surrounding land uses and existing infrastructure and enhances the community.

6. Historic Preservation: Destruction or alteration to historic resources should be avoided whenever possible. See Chapter 25.45 for more information.

There are no historic resources on the property or that would be impacted by the Site Improvements consisting of grading, retaining walls, landscaping, and an elevated deck and therefore this criterion does not apply. The existing structures on the site have not been placed on the National Register, California Register, or Laguna Beach Register and therefore the Project site is eligible for SB 4.

7. Landscaping: Landscaping shall be incorporated as an integrated part of the structure’s design and relate harmoniously to neighborhood and community landscaping themes. View equity shall be an important consideration in the landscape design. The relevant landscaping guidelines contained in the City’s “Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document” should be incorporated, as appropriate, in the design and planned maintenance of proposed landscaping.

The proposed landscaping in the Site Improvements is integrated into the overall design of the Project, serving as both a functional and aesthetic component that enhances the site and creates visual interest. Landscaping is strategically located throughout the site to frame architectural elements, define pedestrian pathways, and relate harmoniously to neighborhood. In addition, the proposed landscaping emphasizes sustainability through the use of low-water-use, droughttolerant plant species that are well adapted to the local climate.

The plant palette is diverse and incorporates six different tree species totaling 41 trees, along with 27 varieties of shrubs and groundcover. Of the proposed trees, the Arbutus Marina (Strawberry Tree) is the largest species, reaching a mature height of approximately 40 to 50 feet, and is located exclusively along the interior property lines to provide screening while minimizing view impacts across the site. In addition, two Eucalyptus ficifolia (Red Flowering Gum) and two Agonis flexuosa (Peppermint Tree), each with a mature height of up to approximately 40 feet, are proposed at the site entrance along the primary driveway leading to the parking garage, where they will help define the entry sequence and enhance visual character. Furthermore, nine Podocarpus henkelii (Long Leaf Yellowwood), also reaching heights of approximately 40 feet at maturity, are distributed along the northern, eastern, and southern property lines to provide additional buffering and landscape continuity around the site perimeter.

Collectively, these trees have been carefully sited and spaced to balance the provision of screening and aesthetic enhancement with the preservation of existing view corridors. Their 364
PC Staff Report
June 3, 2026

Page 40 of 57 ends

placement is intended to maintain view equity by minimizing potential impacts to coastal and canyon views across and beyond the project site, while still achieving the desired landscape massing, privacy, and visual integration with the surrounding environment. Because the proposed landscaping does not raise view concerns, there is no limitation on height of mature trees or maintenance schedules.

8. Lighting and Glare: Adequate lighting for individual and public safety shall be provided in a manner which does not significantly impact neighboring properties. Reflective materials and appurtenances that cause glare or a negative visual impact (e.g., skylights, white rock roofs, highgloss ceramic tile roofs, reflective glass, etc.) should be avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance in those locations where those surfaces are visible from neighboring properties.

As part of the Site Improvements, six landscape lighting fixtures have been included and designed to meet applicable safety and security standards. The fixtures are fully shielded and directed downward to provide effective illumination of pedestrian pathways and key site areas while minimizing light spillover, glare, or adverse visual impacts to the surrounding neighborhood.

9. Neighborhood Compatibility: Development shall be compatible with the existing development in the neighborhood and respect neighborhood character. Neighborhood character is the sum of the qualities that distinguish areas within the City, including historical patterns of development (e.g., structural heights, mass, scale or size), village atmosphere, landscaping themes and architectural styles.

Within the context of the existing development pattern, the Site Improvements consisting of grading, retaining walls, landscaping, and an elevated deck maintains a neighborhood compatibility. The proposed grading, landscaping, and retaining walls reduce the overall massing and visibility from surrounding public vantage points and helps transition the new improvements into the surrounding neighborhood character. The perimeter landscaping and walls provide visual buffering and soften the transition between the project and adjacent residential uses. Furthermore, the Site Improvements are sited behind the existing two-story church buildings located at the higher elevation portion of the site, helping further screen and transition the Site Improvements into the surrounding neighborhood context. Collectively, these elements enhance compatibility with the surrounding context while minimizing perceived bulk and visual contrast.

10. Pedestrian Orientation: Commercial development design shall enhance and encourage pedestrian uses. Incorporation of articulated building masses, compact open spaces and courtyards, mixed use developments, use of landscaping as part of design, and orientation to pedestrian access should be maximized.

Parking and vehicular access would continue to be provided from Glenneyre Street. The Site Improvements enhance pedestrian circulation along the driveway through the incorporation of corner cutbacks on both sides of the 20-foot-wide drive aisle, improving visibility, safety, and pedestrian-vehicle separation at key conflict points. The Site Improvements create pedestrian access paths to and from the site that make it easy to access the parking garage, multifamily 365
PC Staff Report
June 3, 2026

Page 41 of 57 ends

residential building, and the range of resident-serving amenities in the area, including retail, dining, and shopping destinations.

11. Privacy: The placement of activity areas (e.g., decks, picture windows and ceremonial or entertainment rooms) in locations that would result in a substantial invasion of privacy of neighboring properties should be minimized.

The Site Improvements, including the landscaping and perimeter retaining walls, provide effective screening and reduce impacts to existing privacy conditions between the project and adjacent residential uses located along the northern, eastern, and southeastern property lines. The installation of approximately 35 trees along these property edges provides further visual separation and enhances privacy between neighboring properties and the proposed development.

The project also includes a 180 sq. ft. elevated deck oriented toward Glenneyre Street, which is set back more than 55 feet from the property line. Given this substantial setback and its street-facing orientation, the deck is not anticipated to create privacy impacts to adjacent properties along the frontage. Overall, there is sufficient separation distance between the proposed development and surrounding residential uses, and combined with the proposed landscaping and retaining walls, the project effectively minimizes potential privacy impacts and maintains compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood context.

12. Public Art: Public art is encouraged and shall be displayed where feasible or required by the Art in Public Places ordinance.

The Project does not trigger the art in public places requirement pursuant to LBMC Section

1.09.040(b)(5), which exempts low-income housing construction from providing public art.

13. Sign Quality: Signs shall be incorporated into the architecture of the structure and shall be made of high quality materials, be simple in design and be visually compatible with the surrounding physical environment in terms of color, scale and size. Use of natural materials in the construction of signs is encouraged.

The Site Improvements do not include any proposed signs.

14. Sustainability: New development should consider architecture and building practices which minimize environmental impacts and enhance energy efficiency by: (a) reducing energy needs of buildings by proper site and structural design; (b) increasing the building’s ability to capture or generate energy; (c) using low-impact, sustainable and recycled building materials; (d) using the latest Best Management Practices regarding waste and water management; and (e) reducing site emissions.

The proposed grading of the Site Improvements minimizes alteration of the existing site topography by locating the residential improvements at the rear portion of the property, where the site naturally slopes downward from Catalina Street. Utilizing the site’s existing grade allows the project to accommodate the proposed residential density while reducing the extent of cut and grading 366
PC Staff Report
June 3, 2026

Page 42 of 57 ends

necessary for construction. This approach helps integrate the development into the natural terrain, minimizes visual impacts associated with massing and height, and limits disturbance to the existing terrain. Additionally, the project must comply with the California Green Building Code (Title 24: Part 11) and include Best Management Practices (BMPs) throughout the construction phase, including but not limited to dust and sediment control, erosion control, and other measures as required and enforced through the standard Building Department condition of approval for the development.

15. Swimming Pools, Spas, and Water Features: Swimming pools, spas and water features shall be located, designed and constructed where:
(a) geology conditions allow;
(b) noise produced by circulatory mechanical pumps and equipment is mitigated; and (c) any associated fencing or other site improvements are compatible with neighboring properties.

The Site Improvements do not include any pools, spas, or water features.

16. View Equity: The development, including its landscaping, shall be designed to protect existing views from neighboring properties without denying the subject property the reasonable opportunity to develop as described and illustrated in the City’s “Design Guidelines.” The “Design Guidelines” are intended to balance preservation of views with the right to develop property.

The Site Improvements consisting of the retaining walls and landscaping will not result in adverse view equity impacts due to their siting and overall design integration. The retaining wall along the interior property line is a maximum of six feet in height, while the retaining wall along Catalina Street ranges from approximately 42 to 72 inches in height and is topped with a tubular steel fence varying from three to five feet. These elements are designed at a scale and massing that are consistent with typical residential and institutional site improvements and are not anticipated to obstruct public or private view corridors.

The proposed landscape palette has been carefully sited to provide privacy and visual buffering while minimizing impacts to coastal and canyon views across the project site. The Arbutus ‘Marina’ (Strawberry Tree), the largest proposed species, reaches a mature height of approximately 40 to 50 feet and is located exclusively along interior property lines to provide screening within the site.

In addition, two Eucalyptus ficifolia (Red Flowering Gum) and two Agonis flexuosa (Peppermint Tree), each reaching up to 40 feet at maturity, are located at the site entrance along the driveway leading to the parking garage, where they help define entry and enhance site character. Further, nine Podocarpus henkelii (Long Leaf Yellowwood), also reaching approximately 40 feet in height at maturity, are distributed along the northern, eastern, and southern property lines to reinforce perimeter screening. Collectively, these trees are intentionally sited to maintain privacy between adjacent residential uses while preserving existing coastal and canyon views across and beyond the site. Because the proposed landscaping does not raise view concerns, there is not limitation on height of mature trees or maintenance schedules.
367
PC Staff Report
June 3, 2026

Page 43 of 57 ends

Finding No. 2. The physical improvements and site developments related to the Project are designed and located in a manner in overall consistency with all other applicable design guidelines.

No additional design guidelines are applicable to the Site Improvements.

Finding No. 3. The physical improvements and site developments related to the Project are characterized by appropriately scaled development, diverse and unique architectural designs, pedestrian orientation, and sensitivity to the natural conditions of the site.

The Site Improvements are appropriately scaled for the size of the lot. The Site Improvements meet zoning requirements and the design review criteria as described above and is compatible with the neighborhood.

Finding No. 4. The project is consistent with any specific plan or any other specific zoning design review criteria.

There is no specific plan or other specific zoning design review criteria for the Project area.

Coastal Development Permit
The Housing Development Project and associated Site Improvements require a coastal development permit. (See LBMC Section 25.07.004.) Coastal Development Permits are governed by Laguna Beach Municipal Code Chapter 25.07. A Coastal Development Permit is considered by the Planning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing where the following findings are considered in relation to the proposed development:

Finding No. 1: The project is in conformity with all the applicable provisions of the certified local coastal program, including the following review criteria:

1. The proposed development will not encroach upon any existing physical accessway legally utilized by the public or any proposed public accessway identified in the adopted local coastal program land use plan.

The proposed Housing Development Project and associated Site Improvements will not encroach upon any existing physical accessway legally utilized by the public or any proposed public accessway identified in the adopted Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. The Project site is privately owned and does not contain any public coastal access easements, trails, stairways, walkways, or other access corridors serving the public. Additionally, the proposed Housing Development Project and associated Site Improvements do not obstruct, alter, or diminish access to nearby public streets, sidewalks, or coastal access routes. No public accessways are designated across the property in the City’s certified Local Coastal Program. Accordingly, the proposed development will not interfere with existing or planned public coastal access opportunities and is consistent with applicable Coastal Act and Local Coastal Program access policies.
368
PC Staff Report
June 3, 2026

Page 44 of 57 ends

2. The proposed development will not adversely affect marine resources, environmentally sensitive areas, or archaeological or paleontological resources.

The proposed Housing Development Project and associated Site Improvements will not adversely affect marine resources, environmentally sensitive habitat areas, or archaeological or paleontological resources as the site has been previously developed and urbanized, contains no marine resources or environmentally sensitive habitat areas, and is not identified as containing archaeological or paleontological resources.

A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment dated April 10, 2026, prepared by Altec Testing and Engineering (Attachment 5) and Geotechnical Report dated December 2, 2025, prepared by LGC Geotechnical (Attachment 6) was peer reviewed by the City’s consultant, Kling Consulting Group.

According to the Geotechnical Report, the site identified no geologic, hazardous materials, or environmental conditions that would indicate the presence of archeological or paleontological resources or constraints to development. Additionally, the site was not identified as a historic or archaeological resource in the City’s historic inventory. The proposed development is limited to infill redevelopment within an existing developed site and will not disturb any known sensitive environmental areas.

In addition, according to the Geotechnical Report, standard construction practices and regulatory requirements ensure that any previously undiscovered archaeological or paleontological resources encountered during grading or excavation activities are properly evaluated and treated in accordance with applicable regulations. Accordingly, the proposed development will not result in adverse impacts to marine resources, environmentally sensitive habitat areas, or archaeological or paleontological resources.

3. The proposed development will not adversely affect recreational or visitor-serving facilities or coastal scenic resources.

The proposed Housing Development Project and associated Site Improvements will not adversely affect recreational or visitor-serving facilities or coastal scenic resources. The site is a previously developed infill property currently occupied by a religious institution and surface parking lot and is not designated or utilized as a recreational or visitor-serving facility. The project site is located within an urbanized area surrounded by existing development and will not obstruct identified public scenic vistas or degrade visual access to coastal resources. The proposed Housing Development Project includes a parking garage with 41 parking stalls that will provide areas for parking by affordable housing residents, the religious use, and the school use. The proposed building is consistent with all applicable objective development and design standards.

In addition, the project site does not include development on a ridgeline, blufftop, or other visually prominent coastal landform and will not adversely impact scenic coastal views from public streets or viewing areas. Accordingly, the proposed development avoids adverse impacts to recreational or visitor-serving facilities and coastal scenic resources and is consistent with the applicable policies of the certified Local Coastal Program and the California Coastal Act. 369
PC Staff Report
June 3, 2026

Page 45 of 57 ends

4. The proposed development will be sited and designed to prevent adverse impacts to environmentally sensitive habitats and scenic resources located in adjacent parks and recreation areas, and will provide adequate buffer areas to protect such resources.

The proposed Housing Development Project and associated Site Improvements is compatible with the surrounding urban environment as it is located in an existing developed infill property located within an urbanized setting. The Project site does not contain any environmentally sensitive habitat areas, wetlands, native habitat communities, or significant scenic natural resources. Further, the proposed Housing Development Project and associated Site Improvements are confined to the existing disturbed and previously developed portions of the site and will not encroach upon any parks, open space areas, or recreational lands as none are located within the vicinity. Further, no environmentally sensitive habitat areas are identified on or adjacent to the property. The site improvements meet objective standards relating to hydrology and water quality management as analyzed in the Hydrology and Hydraulics and Water Quality Management Plan (Attachments 6 and 8), which reduces any indirect impacts such as erosion, runoff, or pollution onto surrounding properties. Accordingly, the proposed development avoids adverse impacts to environmentally sensitive habitats and scenic resources and is consistent with the applicable policies of the certified Local Coastal Program and the California Coastal Act.

5. The proposed development will minimize the alterations of natural landforms and will not result in undue risks from geological and erosional forces and/or flood and fire hazards.

The Site Improvements involves 480 total cubic yards of grading outside of the building footprint.

The Housing Development Project and associated Site Improvements will not result in undue risks from geological, erosional, flood, or fire hazards. The Project site is an existing developed infill property with an average slope of approximately 2.1 percent and does not contain significant natural landforms, steep slopes, or undisturbed topographic features. Physical improvements to the site will occur within previously disturbed portions of the site and therefore will not substantially alter the existing terrain.

A Geotechnical Report dated December 2, 2025, prepared by LGC Geotechnical (Attachment 5) for the project site, and peer reviewed by the City’s third-party consultant, Kling Consulting Group, concluded that the site is suitable for the proposed development provided the recommendations contained in the report are incorporated into the project design and construction. The report determined that the site is not located within a designated Seismic Hazard Zone, liquefaction zone, earthquake fault zone, or area susceptible to earthquake-induced landslides. No active faults were identified on or adjacent to the site.

In addition, the project’s Hydrology and Hydraulics Study, dated February 2025, prepared by KES (Attachment 6) and peer reviewed by the City’s third-party consultant, GMU Geotechnical Inc. assessed the proposed drainage and water quality improvements to ensure they are designed to accommodate runoff from a 100-year storm event and to comply with applicable County of Orange Flood Control standards. The analysis concluded that the project would not create additional drainage impacts beyond the project boundaries and that finished building pads will be located 370
PC Staff Report
June 3, 2026

Page 46 of 57 ends

above the theoretical 100-year flood elevation. The project includes stormwater treatment measures, subsurface drainage facilities, and erosion control measures that will minimize the potential for erosion or runoff-related impacts.

6. The proposed development will be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and where feasible, will restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas.

The Project site is located within an urbanized neighborhood characterized by a mix of institutional, multi-family residential, commercial, and residential uses. The proposed Housing Development Project and associated Site Improvements would replace an aging surface parking lot and existing parsonage building with a multi-family residential structure incorporating contemporary architectural detailing, articulated building facades, landscaped setbacks, and enhanced pedestrian-oriented improvements. The proposed landscaping, right-of-way improvements, and overall site design would improve the appearance of the property and soften views from adjacent public streets and neighboring properties. Additionally, the project site is an existing developed infill property that does not contain significant scenic natural resources, ridgelines, or visually sensitive coastal landforms. The proposed structures have been sited and designed to integrate into the surrounding urban environment without obstructing identified public scenic vistas or degrading visual access to coastal resources.

The Housing Development Project and associated Site Improvements is substantially setback from Glenneyre Street and the massing relates to the scale of the existing church buildings on the site. While the proposed multi-family residential building is three stories in height and larger in scale than many of the surrounding properties located to the north along Cleo Street and to the south along St. Ann’s Drive, there are no impacts to coastal resources, such as public views of the coast or access to the coast. The contemporary architectural style, landscaping, and design details enhance the visual quality of the site.

7. The proposed development will not have any adverse impacts on any known archaeological or paleontological resource.

The proposed Housing Development Project and associated Site Improvements will not adversely affect any known archaeological or paleontological resources. The Project site is not known to have archaeological or paleontological resources. Further, the Project site has been previously developed and urbanized.

A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment dated April 10, 2026, prepared by Altec Testing and Engineering (Attachment 5) and Geotechnical Report dated December 2, 2025, prepared by LGC Geotechnical (Attachment 6) were peer reviewed by the City’s consultant, Kling Consulting Group.

Page 47 of 57 ends

8. The proposed development will be provided with adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities.

The proposed Housing Development Project and associated Site Improvements is adequately served by existing and proposed utilities, access roads, drainage facilities, sewer connections and other necessary public infrastructure. The project site is located within an urbanized area currently served by existing public streets and utility systems, including water, sewer, storm drainage, electrical, telecommunications, and emergency services infrastructure.

Technical studies prepared for the project and reviewed by the City and third-party consultants confirm that existing infrastructure and utility facilities have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed development. These studies include:
• Geotechnical Report (LGC Geotechnical), dated December 2, 2025 (Attachment 6) • Hydrology and Hydraulics Study (KES), dated February 2025 (Attachment 7) • Sanitary Sewer Analysis (KES), dated December 2025 (Attachment 8) • Water Quality Management Plan (KES), dated December 2025 (Attachment 9) • Traffic Memo (Urban Crossroads, Inc.), dated November 26, 2025 (Attachment 10) The sewer analysis concluded that the Housing Development Project’s estimated wastewater discharge of approximately 0.008 cubic feet per second represents a negligible increase to the existing 8-inch sewer line capacity and will not adversely impact the operation of the sanitary sewer system. Similarly, the Water Quality Management Plan and Hydrology and Hydraulics Study analysis determined that the proposed stormwater facilities and subsurface chamber system are designed in accordance with applicable County of Orange Flood Control standards and are capable of accommodating runoff from a 100-year storm event without creating additional drainage impacts beyond the project boundaries.

9. Other public services, including, but not limited to, solid waste and public roadway capacity have been considered and are adequate to serve the proposed development.

Other public services, including solid waste collection and public roadway capacity, have been considered and are adequate to serve the proposed Housing Development Project and associated Site Improvements. The Project site is located within an urbanized area currently served by existing municipal infrastructure and public services. The Project site will continue to utilize established public roads which are designed and maintained to accommodate the additional residential density.
372
PC Staff Report
June 3, 2026

Page 48 of 57 ends

Based on the Traffic Memo, dated November 26, 2025, prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. (Attachment 10), the project will generate 140 two-way vehicle trips per day with 11 AM peak hour trips and 14 PM peak hour trips. The traffic volume generated by the development would not exceed the capacity of the surrounding roadway network which will retain a LOS of A pre- and postconstruction, and will not substantially alter existing circulation patterns.

Adequate areas for trash storage and collection have been included on the basement level of the parking garage as well on the first level of the development in compliance with applicable City requirements and service provider standards. The site will continue to be served by existing waste collection services, and the incremental increase in solid waste generation associated with the development does not exceed the capacity of existing facilities or services.

Accordingly, public services, including roadway capacity, solid waste service, and other municipal facilities, have been considered and are adequate to serve the proposed development, consistent with applicable policies of the certified Local Coastal Program and the California Coastal Act.

The Project is consistent with all applicable policies of the Certified LCP.

LCP COASTAL VIEW POLICIES (CDP)
Land Use Element Goal 6 Provide a diversity of land uses that enhance the community.

The Site Improvements will allow for infill development of a multi-family affordable housing building within an established business and residential corridor. By incorporating residential units into a developed neighborhood, the development expands housing availability in a manner that is compatible with surrounding land uses and existing infrastructure.

Finding No. 2. Any development located between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea is in conformity with the certified local coastal program and with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act.

The proposed development is not located between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea. The subject property is situated inland along Glenneyre Street within an established commercial and mixed multi-family and single-family residential neighborhood and is separated from the shoreline by intervening development and public streets. Accordingly, this finding does not apply. Nevertheless, the Housing Development Project and associated Site Improvements comply with the Chapter 3 Policies. As detailed in the facts supporting Finding No. 1, the proposed development is in conformity with the certified Local Coastal Program.

Finding No. 3. The proposed development will not have any significant adverse impacts on the environment within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act.

The Project is within the scope of the development capacity and environmental analysis previously considered in the adopted Housing Element Initial Study/Negative Declaration. The Project would result in fewer residential units than the capacity analyzed for the site in the Housing Element, and 373
PC Staff Report
June 3, 2026

Page 49 of 57 ends

the City has not identified substantial changes to the Project, substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project would be undertaken, or new information of substantial importance that would require major revisions to the previously adopted Initial Study/Negative Declaration due to new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Accordingly, no subsequent or supplemental environmental review is required pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.

Tentative Parcel Map
The merging of four parcels into two parcels requires a discretionary Tentative Parcel Map 2026- 0865. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of Tentative Parcel Map 2026-0865 because the subdivision satisfies all applicable requirements of the Subdivision Map Act (Government Code § 66473.5 and 66474 et seq.) and Chapter 21.08 of the Laguna Beach Municipal Code (Subdivisions), as follows:

1. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.5, the proposed subdivision is consistent with the applicable General Plan and any specific plans.

Here, the project site is designated Village Medium Density (VMD) and Local Business Professional (LBP) on the General Plan Land Use Map and is zoned R-2 (Residential MediumDensity) and Local Business Professional (LBP). The parcel map does not create any new parcels or building sites. Accordingly, the map is fully consistent with the General Plan land use designation and all applicable policies of the Land Use Element and the certified Local Coastal Program.

2. None of the mandatory denial findings set forth in Government Code Section 66474 apply to the proposed Tentative Parcel Map 2026-0865 as demonstrated by the following:
(a) The proposed map is consistent with all applicable general and specific plans as specified in Government Code Section 65451. Here, the Project site is designated Local Business Professional and Village Medium Density on the General Plan Land Use Map and is Zoned 374
PC Staff Report
June 3, 2026

Page 50 of 57 ends

LBP and R-2. No specific plan applies to the Project site and the parcel map complies with the General Plan and LBP and R-2 standards with the Density Bonus Law waiver. (b) The design and improvement of the proposed subdivision are consistent with the applicable general and specific plan. Here, the Project site is designated Local Business Professional and Village Medium Density on the General Plan Land Use Map and is Zoned LBP and R-2. No specific plan applies to the Project site and the parcel map complies with the General Plan and LBP and R-2 standards with the Density Bonus Law waiver. (c) The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed (an affordable housing development). Here, the resulting parcels are capable of accommodating the proposed development without creating adverse off-site impacts, as demonstrated through the submitted technical studies and corresponding peer reviews, including analyses addressing geotechnical, hydrological, sewer, water quality, and traffic considerations. (d) The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. Here, the proposed density is appropriate for the site as no off-site impacts were identified in the submitted technical studies and corresponding peer reviews, including analyses addressing geotechnical, hydrological, sewer, water quality, and traffic considerations. (e) The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. Here, the technical studies submitted with the application confirm that the site contains no environmentally sensitive habitat areas or special-status species. (f) The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. Here, the Project will not create any public health concerns as demonstrated through the submitted technical studies and corresponding peer reviews, including analyses addressing geotechnical, hydrological, sewer, water quality, and traffic considerations.
(g) The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of the property. Here, the existing sewage and waste line easement is preserved, and no public access rights are affected.

3. The proposed parcel map procedure is the appropriate and required mechanism under LBMC Section 21.08.030 and Government Code Section 66412(d). Here, the proposed parcel map consolidates four parcels into two parcels and will allow for two separate parcels for the proposed development and the existing religious institution; therefore, the parcel map procedure is the appropriate and required mechanism under Laguna Beach Municipal Code Section 21.08.030 and Government Code Section 66412(d).
375
PC Staff Report
June 3, 2026

Page 51 of 57 ends

Coastal Development Permit for Tentative Parcel Map
The proposed non-exempt development through the parcel map requires the approval of a coastal development permit. (See LBMC Section 25.07.004.) Coastal Development Permits are governed by Laguna Beach Municipal Code Chapter 25.07. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of Coastal Development Permit 2026-0954 because the change in the intensity of use of land meets the following findings and criteria:

Finding No. 1: The project is in conformity with all the applicable provisions of the certified local coastal program, including the following review criteria:

The proposed development consists solely of a Tentative Parcel Map to consolidate four existing lots into two legal parcels. The project will not encroach upon any existing physical accessway legally utilized by the public, nor will it affect any proposed public accessway identified in the adopted Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. The subject property is located inland of the shoreline within an established residential and commercial corridor between Glenneyre Street and Catalina Street and does not contain, adjoin, or obstruct any designated public coastal accessway.

No public access easements or shoreline access routes traverse the property, and the proposed parcel map would simply merge the existing lots without altering public access rights or affecting public circulation. Accordingly, the Project complies with this review criterion.

2. The proposed development will not adversely affect marine resources, environmentally sensitive areas, or archaeological or paleontological resources.

The proposed Tentative Parcel Map consolidates four existing lots into two legal parcels. The parcel map does not authorize any additional development beyond the separately considered Housing Development Project and does not introduce new physical disturbance to the site. The property is located inland within an established residential and commercial corridor neighborhood and is separated from the shoreline and marine environment by existing development and public streets. As confirmed during review of the City’s maps, the site does not contain any marine resources and no environmentally sensitive habitat areas are present on the property.

Because the proposed Tentative Parcel Map is limited to lot consolidation and does not expand the scope of physical development separately reviewed, the project will not adversely affect marine resources, environmentally sensitive areas, or archaeological or paleontological resource.

3. The proposed development will not adversely affect recreational or visitor-serving facilities or coastal scenic resources.

The proposed Tentative Parcel Map to consolidate four existing lots into two legal parcels will not adversely affect recreational or visitor serving facilities or coastal scenic resources. The subject property is located inland between Glenneyre Street and Catalina Street within an established 376
PC Staff Report
June 3, 2026

Page 52 of 57 ends

residential and commercial corridor and does not contain, adjoin, or interfere with any recreational or visitor serving facilities. The site is not visible from shoreline accessways and does not block or degrade any designated coastal view corridor. Because the current application is limited to lot consolidation and simply establishes two legal parcels for the housing development and the existing religious institution, the Project will not adversely affect recreational or visitor serving facilities or coastal scenic resources.

The proposed Tentative Parcel Map to consolidate four existing lots into two legal parcels will not adversely affect environmentally sensitive habitats or scenic resources located in adjacent parks or recreation areas. The subject property is not located within, and does not directly adjoin, any park, recreation area, or open space preserve. The site is bordered by developed residential and commercial properties and no sensitive habitats are on or near the property. Accordingly, the Project is sited and designed to avoid adverse impacts to environmentally sensitive habitats and scenic resources and provides adequate separation from such resources.

5. The proposed development will minimize the alterations of natural landforms and will not result in undue risks from geological and erosional forces and/or flood and fire hazards.

The proposed Tentative Parcel Map to consolidate four existing lots into two legal parcels will not alter natural landforms and will not result in undue risks from geological, erosional, flood, or fire hazards. The application is limited to lot consolidation and does not authorize any additional grading or site disturbance beyond what was reviewed for the housing development.

The site’s geotechnical conditions were evaluated in a preliminary Geotechnical Report dated December 2, 2025 (Attachment 5). According to regional geologic mapping, the site is underlain by a veneer of Quaternary terrace deposits over Tertiary Topanga Formation bedrock. The report concludes that development of the site is feasible, provided its recommendations are incorporated into the final design and construction. The report further indicates that the subject site is not located within a designated Seismic Hazard Zone, including areas susceptible to earthquakeinduced landslides or liquefaction, nor within a State of California Earthquake Fault Zone. No faults were encountered during the site investigation, and none are mapped across the site based on reviewed regional geologic data.

With respect to hydrologic conditions, the peer-reviewed Hydrology and Hydraulics Study, dated February 2025, prepared by KES (Attachment 6) found that the proposed improvements are located outside the modeled 100-year floodplain, and that the project would not increase runoff at the site outlet or adversely affect the hydrologic function of the significant watercourse. Because the proposed Tentative Parcel Map does not does not create new building sites and does not expand the scope of physical improvements evaluated for the housing development, it does not increase exposure to flood, geologic, erosional, or fire hazards. Accordingly, the Project satisfies this review criterion.
377
PC Staff Report
June 3, 2026

Page 53 of 57 ends

6. The proposed development will be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and where feasible, will restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas.

The proposed Tentative Parcel Map to consolidate four existing lots into two legal parcels will not adversely affect the visual character of the surrounding area. The parcel map itself does not authorize any new visible physical improvements; rather, it establishes two legal parcels for the housing development and existing religious institutional use. The parcel map will not create any visual impacts to the surrounding neighborhood as the Project does not include any development for the site. Additionally, the scope of the project is limited to lot consolidation and does not expand the scope of the housing development, therefore the project is consistent with this review criterion.

7. The proposed development will not have any adverse impacts on any known archaeological or paleontological resource.

The proposed Tentative Parcel Map to consolidate four existing lots into two legal parcels will not have any adverse impacts on known archaeological or paleontological resources. The parcel map does not authorize any additional ground disturbance beyond what was reviewed for the housing development. As established with review of the City’s maps, no known archaeological or paleontological resources are present on the site or in the immediate vicinity and contains no identified historic or cultural resources. Because the current application is limited to lot consolidation and does not expand the scope of physical development already evaluated for the housing development, the Project will not adversely affect any known archaeological or paleontological resource.

8. The proposed development will be provided with adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities.

The proposed Tentative Parcel Map to consolidate four existing lots into two legal parcels will be served by adequate utilities, access, drainage, and other necessary facilities. As shown on the Tentative Parcel Map, the site has frontage on Glenneyre Street and Catalina Street is currently served by existing public infrastructure, including water and sewer lines, located within or adjacent to the site. The map also identifies the applicable utility purveyors, including Southern California Edison, Southern California Gas Company, the City of Laguna Beach sewer system, and the Laguna Beach County Water District. Vehicular and pedestrian access to the parcel would continue to be provided from Glenneyre Street in conjunction with the separately reviewed housing development.

In addition, the Hydrology and Hydraulics Study, dated February 2025, prepared by KES (Attachment 6) and peer-reviewed by the City determined that the site’s drainage for the approved site improvements will not increase runoff or adversely affect the hydrologic performance of the site. Because the parcel map does not create new building sites, and because all necessary utilities and infrastructure are already available to serve the approved development, the proposed lot consolidation will be provided with adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, and other necessary public facilities.
378
PC Staff Report
June 3, 2026

Page 54 of 57 ends

9. Other public services, including, but not limited to, solid waste and public roadway capacity have been considered and are adequate to serve the proposed development.

The proposed Tentative Parcel Map to consolidate four existing lots into two legal parcels will be adequately served by public services, including solid waste collection and public roadway capacity. The parcel map does not create additional lots, dwelling units, or development intensity beyond the housing development and therefore does not generate any new demand for public services beyond what has already been evaluated for the site.

The property has frontage on Glenneyre Street and Catalina Street and will continue to be served by the existing public roadway network, including the approved vehicular and pedestrian access from Glenneyre Street. The tentative map also identifies existing utility and service infrastructure available to the site, including water, sewer, electrical, communications, and storm drain facilities.

Solid waste collection and other routine municipal services are already provided to the property in the same manner as to surrounding residential development. Accordingly, public services, including roadway capacity, solid waste service, and other municipal facilities, have been considered and are adequate to serve the proposed development.

The project is furthermore consistent with all applicable policies of the Certified LCP.

LCP COASTAL POLICIES (CDP)
Land Use Element (LU) Policy 10.1. Require that all subdivisions, including parcel maps, are compatible with neighborhood character including building pad elevations, visual and physical relationships to natural topography, open space, view corridors and surrounding residences, and neighborhood access.

The proposed Tentative Parcel Map is consistent with Policy 10.1 in that it consolidates four existing lots into two legal parcel for a housing development and the existing religious institutional use and does not create additional lots or alter the development pattern on the site. The parcel map formalizes one building site that is consistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. As detailed above under Finding Nos. 4, 6, and 7, the proposed project is compatible with the site’s natural topography, neighborhood character, and access pattern. Accordingly, the proposed parcel map is compatible with neighborhood character, including building pad elevations, visual and physical relationships to topography, surrounding residences, and access.

Land Use Element (LU) Policy 10.3 Ensure that all new development, including subdivisions, the creation of new building sites and remodels that involve building additions, is evaluated to ascertain potential negative impacts on natural resources, ESHA and existing adjacent development. Proposed development shall emphasize ESHA impact avoidance over impact mitigation. Any mitigation required due to an unavoidable negative impact should be located onsite rather than off-site, where feasible. Any off-site mitigation should be located within the City’s boundaries and in close proximity to the project. (Similar to Policy 7.4) The proposed Tentative Parcel Map is consistent with Land Use Element Policy 10.3 because it consolidates four existing parcels into two legal parcels and that the site was evaluated to 379
PC Staff Report
June 3, 2026

Page 55 of 57 ends

ascertain potential negative impacts on natural resources, ESHA and existing adjacent development. No designated environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHA) are present on the site. The technical studies submitted and approved for the development (Attachments 5 through 10), concluded that the approved development would not adversely affect sensitive biological resources or negative off-site impacts.

The parcel map does not create additional building sites and allows for two legal parcels for the housing development and the existing religious institution. Accordingly, the proposed subdivision is consistent with Policy 10.3, including the Local Coastal Program’s direction to avoid adverse impacts to natural resources, ESHA, and adjacent development, with impact avoidance emphasized over mitigation.

Land Use Element (LU) Policy 10.8 Avoid creation of building sites that will result in significant adverse impacts on the community.

The proposed Tentative Parcel Map is consistent with Policy 10.8 because it does not create new building sites. Instead, it consolidates four existing parcels into two legal parcels. The parcel map creates two distinct building sites subject to the environmental, access, and site constraints evaluated above. As a result, the parcel map does not create a new building site that would result in significant adverse impacts to the community.

The proposed development is not located between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea. The subject property is situated inland between Glenneyre Street and Catalina Street and within an established commercial and residential neighborhood and is separated from the shoreline by intervening development and public streets. Accordingly, this finding does not apply.

As detailed in the facts supporting Finding No. 1, the proposed development is in conformity with the certified Local Coastal Program.

Finding No. 3. The proposed development will not have any significant adverse impacts on the environment within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act.

The proposed merger will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act. As described throughout this report, the project is statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to Government Code Section 65913.16(l)(7), and is not a project under Government Code Section 65913.16(b)(12)(B) and (b), and no evidence in the record indicates the potential for a significant environmental effect. Accordingly, the Project is consistent with this finding.
380
PC Staff Report
June 3, 2026

Page 56 of 57 ends

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The City identified the Property as the number 1 site on its inventory in the City’s adopted Housing Element:

The site is currently occupied by the Neighborhood Congregational Church. The existing buildings on site includes two church buildings built in the 1960s, a small one-story garage, surface parking lots, an interior courtyard, a small exterior patio area, and landscaping. The church leadership indicated it intends to remain as a church; however, the church requested that the City include the site and the associated parking lot in the Housing Element to potentially accommodate affordable housing, with the church remaining on site. The site for the purposes of this section does not include the parking lot, because it measures 0.35 acre in size and is zoned R-2. However, the City will work with the applicant to support appropriate zoning for the adjacent R-2 parcel and would consider this parcel as part of the overall project to encourage the redevelopment of affordable housing on this site. The expressed owner interest, age of the structures, unlimited density with a conditional use permit, and underutilized nature of the parcel make this site suitable for development during the planning period. Proposed New Residential Development Affordable units would be located on a parcel that has a zoning (Local/Business Professional) that allows unlimited density for affordable housing. With a conservative density of 45 units per acre, the site could yield at minimum 31 lower-income units:

Source: City of Laguna Beach, General Plan Housing Element 2021-2029 Here, the Project proposes 29 residential units within the Housing Development Project, associated Site Improvements, and a Merger, which were all contemplated by the Housing Element and analyzed in the City’s Initial Study/Negative Declaration. A Notice of Determination was subsequently filed on January 25, 2022, following City Council approval on January 11, 2022.

In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the Project is within the scope of the development capacity and environmental analysis previously considered in the adopted Housing Element Initial Study/Negative Declaration. The Project would result in fewer residential units than the capacity analyzed for the site in the Housing Element, and the City has not identified substantial changes to the Project, substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project would be undertaken, or new information of substantial importance that would require major revisions to the previously adopted Initial Study/Negative Declaration due to new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.

Accordingly, no subsequent or supplemental environmental review is required pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. 381
PC Staff Report
June 3, 2026

Page 57 of 57 ends

Based on the above, staff will cause the appropriate CEQA notice(s) to be filed with the County Clerk Recorder’s Office and the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation within five days of any approval by the Planning Commission.

NOTIFICATION
Pursuant to Title 25 (Zoning) Public Notice, a public hearing notice was mailed on May 12, 2026, in accordance with LBMC Section 25.05.065(D) and Section 25.07.014. In addition, a public hearing notice was posted on the project site on May 12, 2026, in accordance with LBMC Section

25.05.065(E). Further, a public hearing notice was published on May 22, 2026, in a newspaper of general circulation in accordance with LBMC Section 25.05.065(F).

ATTACHMENT(S)
Attachment 1 – Resolution No. 2026-1135 for Ministerial Design Review 2026-1135, Design Review 2026-0863, and Coastal Development Permit 2026-0864 Attachment 2 – Resolution No. 2026-0865 for Tentative Parcel Map 2026-0865 and Coastal Development Permit 2026-0954
Attachment 3 – Plans, Color and Materials, 3-D Renderings, and Colored Elevations Attachment 4 – Application and SB 4 Checklist
Attachment 5 – Phase 1 ESA, dated April 10, 2026, prepared by Altec Testing and Engineering Attachment 6 – Geotechnical Report, dated December 2, 2025, prepared by LGC Geotechnical Attachment 7 – Hydrology Study, dated February 2025, prepared by KES Attachment 8 – Sanitary Sewer Analysis, dated December 2025, prepared by KES Attachment 9 – Water Quality Management Plan, dated December 2025, prepared by KES Attachment 10 –Traffic Memo, dated November 26, 2025, prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Attachment 11 – Public Comments
382
383
1 Beier, Samantha CD
From: NCC Project < >
Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2026 11:18 AM
To: Beier, Samantha CD
Subject: I support plans for affordable housing at the Neighborhood Congregational Church site! [NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.]
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I support Neighborhood Congregational Church’s (NCC) plans for 29 units (28 affordable units + one resident manager unit) in Laguna Beach while rejuvenating one or both of the church’s existing buildings—Bridge Hall and the Sanctuary! Five years ago, the City of Laguna Beach General Plan Housing Element (2021-2029) identified NCC’s property as one of four sites with the potential to yield new affordable housing units. Now is the time to make this affordable housing project a reality.

I'll be honest. I can't afford to 're-buy' the house I currently live in. I’m writing to express my support of the NCC Project. There is a critical need for more affordable housing throughout California, and this modest project is thoughtfully designed to accommodate people who would otherwise be priced out. Please vote in favor of this project on Wednesday, June 3.

I, Timothy Ringgold, encourage the Planning Commissioners to approve this much-needed project.

Address 1 N. Dogwood St., Orange, CA, 92869
Email
384
1 Beier, Samantha CD
From: Marcella Lawson
Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2026 4:11 PM
To: Beier, Samantha CD
Subject: Affordable housing on the NCC site - Planning Commission Agenda item 5.2 [NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.]
Dear Samantha Beier,
I am writing in support of the project to build affordable housing on the site of the Neighborhood Congregational Church. Laguna Beach has very limited space to build additional housing and there is a significant need for affordable housing in the city, with housing costs being so high. I volunteer regularly in several capacities with our low-income neighbors, so I am well aware of the struggles that they face in food insecurity, housing insecurity, financial insecurity and health insecurity. We need many more affordable homes for individuals who work in our city in a wide variety of service professions.

This is a carefully thought out and planned project that will serve the community well, including being an important step toward meeting the City's affordable housing goals. I urge the Planning Commission to approve this project.

Sincerely,
Marcella Lawson
1 Katella St.

Laguna Beach, CA 92651
385
1 Beier, Samantha CD
From: Amy R. Taylor < >
Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2026 5:29 PM
To: Steven Kellenberg; Goldman, Steven; Dubin, Jorg; Whitin, Susan; Sadler, Ken; Beier, Samantha CD Cc: David J. Miller; Sharma, Shaveta CD; Abzug, Jane AO; Garibaldi, Megan AO; Frimond, Jeremy CM; ; ; ; ; c ;
Subject: SB 4 Project at 340 St. Ann’s Drive - June 3, 2026 Planning Commission Agenda Item No. 5.2 Attachments: Letter to Laguna Beach Planning Commission re SB 4 Project at 340 St. Ann’s Drive.pdf [NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.]
Dear Honorable Chair and Commissioners,
The attached is transmitted on behalf of David J. Miller, Esq., for Neighborhood Congregational Church. Please contact me should you have any di!iculties accessing the attachment.

Thank you,
Amy R. Taylor
Legal Secretary

NOSSAMAN LLP
1 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 1800
Irvine, CA 92612
T F
D

SUBSCRIBE TO E-ALERTS
nossaman.com
PLEASE NOTE: The information in this e-mail message is confidential. It may also be attorney-client privileged and/or protected from disclosure as attorney work product. If you have received this e-mail message in error or are not the intended recipient, you may not use, copy, nor disclose to anyone this message or any information contained in it. Please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message. Thank you.
386
70492812.v1
June 2, 2026
Chairperson Steven Kellenberg ([email protected]) Chair Pro Tem Steven Goldman ([email protected]) Commissioner Jorg Dubin ([email protected])
Commission Susan McLintock Whitin ([email protected]) Commissioner Ken Sadler ([email protected])
City of Laguna Beach
505 Forest Avenue
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
Re: SB 4 Project at 340 St. Ann’s Drive - Response to Housing Accountability Act Inconsistency Letter Dated May 28, 2026 - June 3, 2026 Planning Commission Agenda Item No. 5.2
Dear Honorable Chair and Commissioners:

This law firm represents Neighborhood Congregational Church (“NCC”), owners of the property at 340 St. Anne’s Drive (the “Property”) in the City of Laguna Beach (the “City”), concerning the above-referenced matter. On behalf of NCC, we submit this letter concurring in full with the Related Companies of California, LLC’s (“Applicant”) comments dated June 2, 2026.

Applicant’s comments were submitted in response to the May 28 draft letter from the City (the “Inconsistency Letter”), regarding the Applicant’s proposed Senate Bill (“SB”) 4 project (the “Project”) at the Property. Applicant’s comments are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety.

We appreciate City staff’s thorough review and analysis of the Project, and we strongly support the staff report’s recommendation to approve the Project. As reflected in that report, City staff found the Project consistent with all applicable requirements and supported the necessary findings under existing law. Those conclusions are well-founded and should be relied upon by the Planning Commission to approve the Project.

To the extent the Inconsistency Letter reaches different, conclusory determinations, NCC believes it should not be afforded controlling weight, especially considering the more detailed and substantiated analysis in the staff report.

NCC values its relationship with the City and the community, and it looks forward to continuing to work collaboratively as the Project moves forward. The Project will provide muchneeded affordable housing in the City. NCC is eager to proceed with its development.

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
18101 Von Karman Avenue
Suite 1800
Irvine, CA 92612
T 949.833.7800
David J. Miller
D 949.477.7638
[email protected]
Admitted only in California
Refer To File # 000010-0606 VIA EMAIL
387
June 2, 2026

Page 2 ends

70492812.v1
Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
David J. Miller
Nossaman LLP
DJM:art
cc: Shaveta Sharma, Senior City Planner ([email protected]) Jane Abzug, City Attorney ([email protected])
Megan K. Garibaldi, City Attorney ([email protected]) Jeremy Frimond, Assistant City Manager ([email protected]) Bill Witte, Related California
Craig Farmer, Related California
Liane Takano, Related California
Maya K. Dunne
Sue Cross
Reverend Rodrick Echols, Neighborhood Congregational Church Sean Matsler, Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP
388
1 Beier, Samantha CD
From: Bob Borthwick < >
Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2026 8:35 AM
To: Beier, Samantha CD
Subject: Fw: Item 5.2 PC meeting June 3, 2026 - Ministerial Design Review 2026 - 1135 [NCC / Related Residential Project] [NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.]
Please forward to Planning Commission. I sent yesterday, early evening, but it was sent back to me. thank you,
Bob Borthwick
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Bob Borthwick <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2026 at 07:16:33 PM PDT
Subject: Item 5.2 PC meeting June 3, 2026 - Ministerial Design Review 2026 - 1135 [NCC / Related Residential Project] Planning Commissioners:

As a 50 + year resident of the Village area and former Board member of NCC in the 1990's, we have fond memories of the church campus. We are very happy that the sanctuary and Bridge Hall are being preserved, along with the Montessori School.

Our two children were raised in the 1980's in the LBUSD, and in those days there were affordable apartments or small homes for single parents to rent and raise their kids in town, which provided a healthy demographic mix in the schools. Such affordable choices are virtually non-existent today. We support the idea of providing housing for those that cannot afford to buy a house or pay inflated rental rates, as this creates a richer community in our opinion. 28 units [as proposed] seems to fit the site and still creates a sizable array of housing opportunities.

As a landscape architect I offer the following comments:

1. Could the [1] second story unit above the clubhouse be omitted to lessen the building height and create a step-back building elevation along Glenneyre to reduce building mass?

2. Like the color palette and traditional architectural style that blends with the neighborhood.

3. The stone veneer on the materials exhibit appeared to be natural stone. If so, this is great. If the stone proposed is faux stone for cost savings, then maybe consider brick for these accent surfaces instead ?

4. The Fire Dept pedestrian access up the hill to Catalina St [north corner] at the rear of the project appears to have a gate for FD emergency use. Suggest keeping this gate "open" [or remove the gate] for use by the new residents to access the neighborhood directly...walk to high school, etc...rather than forcing residents to enter-exit the project on Glenneyre only. The residents of this new residential project should feel like they belong by not being "fenced off" from the surrounding neighborhood.

Thank you,
Bob and Vicki Borthwick
389
1 Beier, Samantha CD
From: NCC Project < >
Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2026 7:41 AM
To: Beier, Samantha CD
Subject: I support plans for affordable housing at the Neighborhood Congregational Church site! [NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.]
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I support Neighborhood Congregational Church’s (NCC) plans for 29 units (28 affordable units + one resident manager unit) in Laguna Beach while rejuvenating one or both of the church’s existing buildings—Bridge Hall and the Sanctuary! Five years ago, the City of Laguna Beach General Plan Housing Element (2021-2029) identified NCC’s property as one of four sites with the potential to yield new affordable housing units. Now is the time to make this affordable housing project a reality.

This project is a small but significant contribution to the solution of a serious problem our community. A tremendous amount of volunteer work has been invested in bringing the project to this point. Those that object should offer equally concrete alternatives. It is easy to find fault. It is difficult to offer actionable alternatives.

I, Phil Garrison , encourage the Planning Commissioners to approve this much-needed project.

Address 7 Bolsana Drive, Laguna Beach, CA, 92651
Email
390

Laguna Beach City CouncilJuly 7, 2026

Laguna Beach City Council
July 7, 2026