Mckay, Ann Marie CC
Subject: Item 15: Oppose Design Review Efficiency Ordinance From: Trish Sweeney
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2026 12:00 PM
To: McKay, Ann Marie CC <[email protected]>
Subject: Item 15: Oppose Design Review Efficiency Ordinance Hi, Ann Marie.
Would you please forward this to the Council and enter my letter into the public record? Thank you, Trish I'm puzzled as to why the Design Review Efficiency Ordinance is still being advanced.
According to a recent video interview with the Director of Community Development, projects timelines are coming down. Previously, they were 60-days. The 30-day State target seems to be reachable under current operations. It's great that the public is being served with a 24/7 portal and periodic extended evenings.
The DREO seems to prioritize staff over residents by limiting public input. That's an issue, not only because of foreseeable legal implications but because of the unfair financial burden being placed on residents without a sufficient means to address basic issues. For example, drawings for proposed projects cannot be viewed online.
Expecting residents (median age here is 53.9) to know what's being proposed by going to city hall during normal business hours rather than a DR meeting isn't realistic. Many of us work or have childcare arrangements and what if you're out of town on vacation? The postcard notice of just 15 days to respond must assume nobody ever goes on vacation. If nobody responds, an automatic approval? The litigation surface grows.
Many of us remember the missing blueprints from a few years back and it's not uncommon. The reality is, there are many instances of missing records, environmental reports, database transition issues, lost or misplaced documents, etc. The assumption that everything is there and accurate isn't true.
The $2,500 cost to appeal a decision is unreasonable.
A home is the largest asset most of us will ever have. The desire to protect it, after years of mortgage payments, is understandable.
Please do not approve the Design Review Efficiency Ordinance as currently written. It prioritizes the wrong things is unfair, especially to longtime residents, and could create legal exposure for the City.
Trish Sweeney
1 McKay, Ann Marie CC
Subject: City Council Agenda 15 on July 21, 2026
From: mefegraus
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2026 6:45 PM
To: McKay, Ann Marie CC <[email protected]>
Subject: City Council Agenda 15 on July 21, 2026
Mayor Orgill and the City Council Members,
RE: 15. SECOND READING OF DESIGN REVIEW EFFICIENCY ORDINANCE AND
EFFICIENCY ORDINANCE, AND AN INTERIM LAND USE ORDINANCE/URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 2026-1339 STREAMLINING THE DESIGN REVIEW AND OTHER
PERMIT PROCESSES
I am not qualified to comment on all the details of this agenda item but want to share with you our personal experience with Design Review during the last few years.
The knoll in our Upper Bluebird Canyon is now owned by some of those who want to develop the lots for a financial gain. The neighborhood experienced working with Design Review for development of three lots. One proposed development did not split the lot and worked with the neighborhood for an appropriate design meeting neighborhood compatibility. The other two proposed development split their lots and presented designs that were not compatible with our neighborhood. With all three lots Design Review was the place where we as residents could go to present our concerns.
Sadly, the one project the neighborhood approved of is being held up by lawsuits from the adjacent landowners. One project, with two homes was denied by Design Review but then appealed to the city council. It was a terrible blow to our neighborhood when the city council disregarded all the reasons the projects were denied and approved the appeal. One of those lots is being developed now and is of great safety concern to our neighborhood.
Please go carefully with changing the Design Review guidelines. We learned during our DR experiences that city staff does not always consider the impacts on the neighborhood.
Thank you,
Mary and Clark Fegraus
Morningside Drive
LAGUNA
To preserve and enhance the unique village character of Laguna Beach Honorable Mark Orgill and City Council RE: DRB EFFICIENCY ORDINANCE Village Laguna understands that the common-sense amendments suggested at prior meetings have not yet been incorporated. Please make the recommended amendments to the ordinance as follows:
Administrative Design Review: We understand the city's intentions to reduce workloads and simplify the process, however, there are proposed revisions to the process that are problematic for public input.
Notices: A 15-day period for notices is too brief for residents to have any meaningful involvement. The provision that projects will be approved unless a recipient of a notice requests a public hearing does not serve the public interest. A simpler solution would be to hold the hearing as noticed. If there are no objections the project would be approved at that time.
Notices of Administrative Design Review cases should be posted on the city's website at the same time as they are mailed out to those in the noticing area.
Appeals and Referrals The possibility of an Administrative Hearing Officer's referral of an unresolved case to DRB or Planning Commission without requiring an appeal should be spelled out and we suggest clarifying this interim step. See Attachment. The Design Review Board or Planning Commission could resolve most issues, avoiding an appeal to City Council. Requiring an expensive ($2500) and convoluted appeal process is onerous and unnecessary.
Section 5 Landscaping: The height of plantings should not be the only consideration in exempting landscape plans from Design Review. The landscape guidelines of the "Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document" should be considered. We should not be encouraging landscape plans without trees. They are important components of village character and it would be preferable not to exempt any landscape plans from discretionary review if encouraging treeless landscapes is the only non- discretionary alternative.
Section 22. Landscaping: It provides that trees cannot exceed 4' in the front yard, 6' in the rear yard, 15' within the buildable area. (Can 4' tall plants really be considered trees?) Provisions to allow trees at normal heights need to be provided in order to maintain our city's landscape.
Respectfully,
Merrill Anderson
President Village Laguna, Inc.
June 22, 2026
ATTACHMENT
Suggested Copy for Section 25.05.040(B)(3) (b)(iv) and 25.05.040(B)(3)(c)(ii) which spells out the actions the appeal officer can take
After consideration of all testimony and evidence presented at the public hearing and the Design Review Findings specified in subsection (I) of this section, the Director of Community Development or his or her designee shall determine whether items raised by the public testimony and the applicant have been resolved. In that case he or she can either approve, or conditionally approve, the application in writing. If unresolved items remain, the Director of Community Development or his or her designee shall refer the project to the appropriate hearing body, the Planning Commission or the Design Review Board or deny the project. An appeal of a decision on an administrative design review application is subject to the provisions of Section 25.05.070 and Section 25.07.016 when a coastal development permit is required and may also be appealed to the Planning Commission or Design Review Board at no cost.
June 22, 2026
McKay, Ann Marie CC
From: Laguna Beach City Clerk
Subject: Agenda Item 15
From: Anne Caenn
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2026 1:30 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]›; Laguna Beach City Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: Agenda Item 15
Mayor Orgill and Councilmembers:
It is disappointing to learn that variances are frequently being issued that override zoning code regulations of lot setbacks, height and required open space. Rather than respecting the controls of mass and scale of new construction, these variances expand the allowable floor area and can create very large houses on very small lots.
Additionally, with a $2500 fee to appeal non-neighborhood compatible projects, staff puts the burden on residents instead of following the zoning codes in the first place.
While I appreciate a desire for efficiency, the theme of this report seems to be make it easier for staff, push projects through and let the burden fall on residents and our neighborhoods.
The Design Review Board provides guardrails to protect the ambience of our town that Administrative Design does not. Please consider revising this document to better meet the needs of residents as well as staff.
Thank you,
Anne
Anne Caenn
Katella Street
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
1 McKay, Ann Marie CC
Subject: Design Review Efficiency Ordinance #15
From: Marion Staggs
Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2026 4:10 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Design Review Efficiency Ordinance
City Council Members:
I oppose the adoption of the Design Review Efficiency Ordinance.
As a resident/homeowner it is important to me that the appeal process to protect variances, codes, height limits, setbacks and open space be a reasonable and accessible process.
I do not want more mansionization projects and approvals to become easier to get and start changing our wonderful neighborhoods and the atmosphere we cherish.
Don't approve an expensive appeal process to discourage us from protecting our rights to be heard and save our town from changing drastically.
And it will start changing if variances are more easily granted and more precedents then set.
I also oppose development on very steep hillsides and lots. l've written to you about this before.
I call upon you to step up to the plate and protect what Laguna is.
Not make way for the almighty dollar to fill city coffers which you are mismanaging and overspending with.
I am so dismayed at so many things that are happening.
Especially the trees on Forest Ave. That was really tragic.
Marion Staggs
Scenic Drive So. Laguna
65 year resident and 46 year homeowner
RECEIVED
To: Laguna Beach City Council Members
JUL 20 2026
Re: Agenda Item 16 Design Review Efficiency Ordinance
Date: July 21, 2026 City of Laguna Beach, CA City Clerk's Office Dear Councilmembers:
I am writing in response to Agenda Item 16 on the Design Review Efficiency Notice. I read Ann Christoff's letter in the Independent with some concern. Is it true that the appeal of any administratively approved waiver will require a $2,500 fee to appeal? I definitely understand the desire for staff to be more efficient. I often find myself singing that very tune. However, it is also a primary obligation of any government body in this Country to ensure that the rights of its citizens are protected. Streamlining workflows should not come at the expense of abrogating citizens' rights.
Citizens have the right to expect City officials will follow the established guidelines when approving residential changes. By definition, a waiver is something that falls outside of those approved guidelines. Allowing staff, who ultimately report to Council, to approve waivers, and then requiring a challenger to pay a $2,500 fee to have that waiver decision reviewed by Council, does not provide citizens with fair due process (they have to pay), nor does it protect their rights.
Staff can streamline its process by limiting the number of waivers it issues. Perhaps a more equitable policy would be for the City to charge a fee for every waiver requested as part of a project. That would compensate staff for the additional time spent reviewing the project.
Conversely, a project that is proposed in accordance with City guidelines, by virtue of adhering to City building and zoning regulations, reduces the amount of required staff review time and makes it a good candidate for the quicker administrative review approval process.
Serendipitously, this also may result in projects requesting fewer waivers, ultimately providing the streamlining effects and reduced costs the City is seeking.
In any event, any approved project that includes a waiver from established regulations, should require review in a full Design Review Board hearing. Only after Design Review renders a decision, should an appeal of an approval be subject to any kind of fee.
With Regards,
Mary Locatelli
McKay, Ann Marie CC
Subject: FW: Design Review Efficiency Ordinance Public Comment: Please Require Notice for Modifications to Approved Projects
From: Amy Hundhausen
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2026 12:32 PM
To: Schneider, Matthew CD <[email protected]>; Allan Hundhausen <[email protected]>; Rounaghi, Alex <[email protected]>; Whalen, Bob <[email protected]>; Kempf, Sue <[email protected]>; Jones, Hallie <[email protected]>; Orgill, Mark <[email protected]>; McKay, Ann Marie CC <[email protected]>
Cc: Donegan, Patrick AO <[email protected]>; Viera, Anthony CD <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Design Review Efficiency Ordinance Public Comment: Please Require Notice for Modifications to Approved Projects
PS --> I have one additional question for the City Attorney.
Shouldn't section 25.05.040(B)(2) specifically state that the list of projects exempt from design review does NOT include modifications of prior design review approvals, and that those are addressed in
25.05.060?
Otherwise, those two sections could appear to be contradictory, again giving openings for causes of action.
Amy
On Mon, Jul 20, 2026 at 12:15 PM Amy Hundhausen wrote:
Thanks for your detailed email, Matt.
Comments inline, and some community members have been blind copied.
On Mon, Jul 20, 2026 at 10:37 AM Schneider, Matthew CD < [email protected]> wrote:
Ms. Hundhausen,
Thank you for taking the time to share your comments regarding the proposed Design Review Efficiency Ordinance. We appreciate your continued engagement throughout this process and your thoughtful input both during the Planning Commission hearings and in your correspondence to the City. I also wanted to note that several revisions to the ordinance were made in response to comments you previously raised, particularly regarding modifications to previously approved Design Review projects. We appreciated those comments and believe they helped improve the final ordinance by providing clearer guidance on when modifications should continue through the Design Review process rather than being handled administratively.
[Amy] I went back to review my email to the planning commission from March 2026 and included it below. Can you help me understand in what way the ordinance was revised since March in terms of CDD 1 change authorization? It seems substantially the same if not identical to the attachment on https://lagunabeachcity.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateld=943.
BOTTOM LINE
To save people some reading, I want to make sure I'm clear about my proposal.
I request that if the Community Development Director (CDD) encounters a modification to a previously approved Design Review Plan (or an ADR approved plan) that the CDD believes adheres to the conditions defining it as "minor" (such as not involving features that were specifically addressed or were conditions of approval), notification must be sent to neighbors explaining the change, with a link to the plan scanned online. Then, if a neighbor has proof that the modification does in fact violate the specific conditions allowing it to be deemed minor, that neighbor has a window (3 weeks, for example, to send that evidence to the CDD.
This would mitigate potential legitimate causes of action resulting from City Staff making erroneous decisions based on, for example, mis-filed or incomplete information, saving the City taxpayers money on adjudication and saving neighbors conflict and stress.
Again, to reiterate what I believe to be a legal principle (though I'm not a lawyer).
Design Review approvals are carefully negotiated in (sometimes multiple) public hearings to balance development rights with neighbor privacy and views. Any changes to these approvals should receive the same transparency and scrutiny as the original authorization.
Concerns Regarding Proposed Design Review Efficiency Ordinance Inbox x Amy Hundhausen <[email protected]>
Dear Members of the Planning Commission,
I recently became aware of the proposed Design Review Efficiency Ordinance scheduled for discussion at the January 18, 2026 Planning Commis:
cannot attend the meeting in person, but I have several concerns regarding this proposal's potential unintended consequences. I have included the c (I have included others on blind copy who may prefer not to have their contact information shared.)
1. Administrative modification of approved Design Review projects My primary concern is ensuring that clear guardrails exist to prevent modification of previously approved Design Review projects without public notice Design Review approvals-particularly those that are extensively negotiated-create reasonable reliance by neighboring property owners. Allowing n integrity of the Design Review process and could invite disputes or legal challenges.
The draft ordinance introduces ambiguity in this area. For example, what constitutes a feature that was "specifically addressed"? Does this include all Review hearings?
Also, the current code provides examples of minor landscape modifications that can bypass design review, specifically those that do not increase the others for clarity and predictability.
The Community Development Director may authorize minor changes to an approved permit without a public hearing, where the Director first finds tha not involve a feature of the project that was a basis for findings for an exemption, negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmen:
specifically addressed or was the subject of a condition(s) of approval for the project or that was a specific consideration by the applicable review autl characteristics of the use; and e. Do not alter the facts in support of the findings required by Section 25.07.012(G). (i) The Director may choose to ret 2 Current proposal
(3) Minor Changes Approved by the Community Development Director without a Public Hearing.
(i) The Community Development Director may authorize minor changes to an approved permit without a public hearing, where the Director first finds that the changes:
Are consistent with the requirements of the City's Zoning Code; and
b. Do not involve a feature of the project that was a basis for indings for an exemption, negative declaration, mitigates legative declaration, or environmental impact report for th project; and
C. Do not involve a feature of the project that was specifically d. Do not result in an expansion or change in operational characteristics of the use; and
e. Do not alter the facts in support of the findings required by Section 25.07.012(G).
In practical terms, we anticipate that any proposed modification will undergo multiple levels of staff review before any determination is made. A project planner would first evaluate the request; often, depending on the timing of the modification, this would be the same planner who processed the original Design Review application and is familiar with the project's history. That planner would then make a recommendation to their supervisor, typically a Planning Manager or Deputy Director, who would in turn make a recommendation to me as the Community Development Director. Throughout that process, staff would review the project's history, approved plans, conditions of approval, prior staff reports, meeting minutes, and other relevant records before determining whether a modification can appropriately be handled administratively or should instead be referred back to the Design Review Board. The intent behind the ordinance is to provide staff with the flexibility to elevate projects whenever circumstances warrant additional public review. As reflected in the proposed ordinance, one of the factors specifically identified for consideration is whether issues were raised during prior Design Review proceedings. That provision was included specifically to allow staff to consider situations where prior hearings identified concerns such as privacy, views, landscaping, or other neighborhood compatibility issues that may justify returning a proposed modification to the Design Review Board.
[Amy] Human discretion is not perfect, and it's also only as good as the record keeping, which also is never going to be perfect.
A few concrete examples
• Our neighbor's design review approved pool was routed to ADR for a "minor" change in shape that actually raised it 9 feet. We were out of the country during the ADR and didn't think there would be an issue since it was supposedly minor. However, this has been a view and privacy issue ever since. • Some records recently went missing from the online records for our neighbor's property after the database transition a few months back, which could have been a software issue.
There are other examples, but I don't think email is the right venue.
From a practical standpoint, staff is trying to address two very common, but very different, situations. The first is where relatively minor modifications become the subject of significant opposition, not because of the merits of the proposed change, but because the Design Review process itself can sometimes become contentious. Unfortunately, we have seen instances where otherwise innocuous modifications are opposed primarily to create delay and additional cost for the applicant, which does not advance the integrity or purpose of the Design Review process.
[Amy] There are equally common cases where people grow their design review board approved project through successive administrative approvals that in aggregate create a project that would never have been approved in the first place. I remember hearing from Toni Iseman that some property on Flamingo Road grew several thousand square feet based on over-the-counter approvals years back.
Conversely, we also encounter many situations where a modification is genuinely minor, enjoys little or no neighborhood opposition, and has no meaningful impact on the findings that supported the original approval. Under the existing code, these changes can nevertheless require a lengthy and costly amendment process that provides little public benefit.
[Amy] | do undestand the idea that you don't want to burden Design Review with truly unopposed projects. That makes total sense. In fact, I thought that was part of the point of having Administrative Design Review, which is basically staff led and doesn't require Design Review Board resources. Why not then defer "minor" modifications of approved plans to ADR? Lacking that, the next best and only fair approach is to allow neighbors the opportunity to present proof if the proposed change contradicts items that were specifically addressed.
Our objective with the ordinance is to strike an appropriate balance between these two circumstances.
We want to preserve meaningful public review when a proposed modification has the potential to affect issues that were previously considered during Design Review, while also allowing truly minor modifications to proceed administratively when they do not create those impacts. Because Design Review approvals occur at the conceptual stage of a project, before detailed construction drawings are prepared, it is not uncommon for some level of refinement or modification to occur as plans advance. The proposed ordinance is intended to acknowledge that reality by providing staff with an appropriate level of administrative flexibility while preserving the ability and the discretion to refer projects back to the Design Review Board whenever the nature of the proposed changes warrants additional public review.
Thank you again for taking the time to share your perspective and for your continued involvement in helping improve the City's Design Review process.
P.S. I have BCC'd the members of the City Council on this email solely for informational purposes and to avoid any potential Brown Act concerns. No response is requested.
Matt Schneider
Director Community Development
505 Forest Avenue
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
(949) 497-0318
4 McKay, Ann Marie CC
Subject: Design Review Efficiency Ordinance Public Comment: Please Require Notice for Modifications to Approved Projects
From: Amy Hundhausen
Sent: Sunday, July 19, 2026 5:41 PM
To: Allan Hundhausen; Rounaghi, Alex <[email protected]>; Whalen, Bob <[email protected]>; Kempf, Sue <[email protected]>; Jones, Hallie < [email protected]>; Orgill, Mark <[email protected]>; McKay, Ann Marie CC <[email protected]>; Amy Hundhausen Subject: Design Review Efficiency Ordinance Public Comment: Please Require Notice for Modifications to Approved Projects Dear Members of the Laguna Beach City Council,
My family and I have been Laguna Beach residents on Tahiti Avenue for 25 years. I am writing regarding the proposed Design Review Efficiency Ordinance, scheduled for a second reading on July 21, 2026. While I support reducing the Design Review backlog, I request that you address one narrow but critical issue prior to adoption: how the ordinance treats modifications to prior design review approvals.
I previously raised this concern at the January 18, 2026 Planning Commission hearing and also in my May 12, 2026 email titled "Design Review Efficiency Ordinance". Because the current draft still allows these modifications to be approved administratively without notice, I ask the Council to address this before final approval.
Under the current code ($ 25.05.040(B)(1)(q) and 25.05.040(B)(2)(b)), modifications to an approved Design Review plan return to Design Review by default, with narrow exceptions accompanied by concrete examples such as a stipulation that landscape heights may not change. The proposed ordinance (new §
25.05.060(B)(3)) replaces this default approach with language allowing the Community Development Director to approve "minor" changes without notice to affected neighbors.
This creates two primary issues:
1. Vague Language: References to features "specifically addressed" or "subject to a condition of approval" can be unclear. It is uncertain if this applies to all hearing discussions and all items listed in approved plans.
2. Lack of Notification and Individual Discretion: Decisions would be made without neighbor notification, based solely on the City's files and a single individual's discretion. From my own direct experience, I know that City records are sometimes incomplete, entirely missing, or subject to misinterpretation. Acting on an incomplete or misinterpreted record without notifying neighbors could allow the Community Development Directorto inadvertently override prior Design Review Board authorizations, including features specifically addressed or conditions of approval. Then, what is the remedy? Design Review approvals are carefully negotiated in (sometimes multiple) public hearings to balance development rights with neighbor privacy and views. Any changes to these approvals should receive the same transparency and scrutiny as the original authorization.
The Request: I respectfully request that before the Director deems a change to be "minor," mailed notice be sent to neighbors describing the modification and allowing a short window for public comment.
Additionally, reduced-size plans should be scanned and made available online for all levels of design review 1 (full, administrative, modification) to eliminate the need for in-person counter visits.
These modest adjustments will preserve the ordinance's intended efficiencies while maintaining the transparency and fairness of the Design Review process.
Thank you for your time and service to our community.
Sincerely,
Amy Hundhausen
Excerpts from Current City Code
) Development Subject to Design Review. Development subject to Design Review, Administrative Design Review, or exempt fri sian Review may still require Coastal Development Permits oursuant to the provisions of Chapter 25.t 1) All new buildings, structures and physical improvements and relocations, additions, extensions and exterior changes of o o existing buildings, structural and non-structural improvements, Including landscaping and grading, shall be subject t lesign review, except as otherwise provided in Section 25.05.040(B) (2) and 25.05.040(B) (3). Examples of physica improvements and site developments subject to a design review hearing with the Design Review Board or Plannin Commission include, but are not limited to, the following:
(a) Commercial or Industrial parking and loading areas; (b) New vehicular access to streets or alleys;
(c) Retaining walls in excess of five feet in exposed height; (d) Signs, as specified in Chapter 25.54 ("Sign Regulations"); (e) Permanent chain link or similar type of woven metal fences, and vinyi fences that do not simulate natural material; (f) Telecommunication facilities subject to the provislons of Chapters 11.06 and 25.55; (g) Trash enclosures associated with a commercial use;
(h) Public street and sidewalk improvements;
(i) Above-ground utility structures;
otal aggregate additions that are 50% or more of the original gross floor area of the existing building or structu ditions that create a new upper story, and additions that exceed a height of 15 feet above the adjacent grout elevation;
(k) Shore protective devices;
(1) All buildings, structures and physical Improvements in environmentally sensitive areas and on lots with a slope greater than 30%, except as otherwise provided in Section 25.05.040 (B) (2) (a) (lv); (m) Grading in excess of 20 cubic yards outside the building footprint, except as specified in Section 22.10.010(e); (n) Clearing of native vegetation on undeveloped parcels and undeveloped portions of developed parcels, and native vegetation restoration plans, except for City required annual weed abatement; originally approved program;
p) Landscaping review for new development or additions that are 50% or more of the original gross floor area icitions that create a new upper story or additions that exceed a height of 15 feet above the adjacent groun elevation, and for structural improvements within environmentally sensitive habitat areas; (q) Modifications of previously approved design review plans, including approved landscape plans, except as otherwise provided in Sections 25.05.040(B) (2) and 25.05.040(B) (3); (r) Swimming pools, permanent spas (unless eligible for administrative design review) and their associated pool or spa equipment;
(s) Outlining of the cutside of buildings or portions thereof with lights. (If such outllning with lights is proposed on a building listed on the register, then the Heritage Committee shall make a recommencation to the approval authority prior to its design review); and
(t) A hedge or hedges located within front, side and/or rear yards that isjare proposed to exceed the maximum allowable fence height, as set forth in Chapter 25.50.
2 plan check process to ensure compliance with zoning standards. (a) Additions to single-family residences with no prior design review plans that:
(i) Result in aggregate additions that are less than 50% of the original gross floor area of an existing building or structure;
(ii) Do not create a new upper story and do not exceed a height of 15 feet above the adjacent ground elevation; (ilI) Are in conformance with the zoning regulations; and (iv) Are not within an environmentally sensitive area or where a licensed professional has determined, subject to peer review, that the proposed improvements do not impact the environmentally sensitive area. (b) Minor modifications to approved design review plans, including, but not limited to:
(1) Hardscape reconfigurations that do not reduce the existing open space and landscape open space; (il) Landscape plans with no increased height, width, and spacing of vegetation; and (ili) Additions or relocations of windows and glass doors with adjacent neighbor consent; Excerpts from Proposed City Code
Section 25.05,060 (Subsequent Modification to Approved Permits). (A) Subsequent Modification to Coastal Developmant Permits. (1) After a coastal development permit has been approved, modification of the approved plans andor any conditions imposed, including additions or deletions, aro subjcet to review in accordance with Chapter 25.07 (Coastal Devolopmont Permits), including Section 25.07.012(l) and Soclion
25.07.016(C).
(B) Subscquent Modification to Other Approved Permits.
Dovelopment or a uso authorized through an administrative use permit, variance, conditional uso permit, temporary use permit, and design review permit issued by the City in compliance with the City's Code shall be established only as approved by the revicw authority, and in complianco -22- Ord. XXXX
26 (2) Application. An applicant shall request a proposcd change in writing anc hall ulso furnish appropristo supporting infonnation and materials explaining the reasons for the request.
(3) thou huts Aproved by the Conuity Dordopriam Director (1) The Community Development Director may authorize minor changes to an approved permit without a public hearing, where the Dircetor first finds that the changes:
a. Aro consistent with the requirements of the City's Zoning Code; and
b. Do not involve a feature of the project that was a basis for findings for an oxemption, negative deciaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report for the project; and
Do not involve a feature of the project that was spocifically addressed or was the subject of a condition(s) of approval for the profect or that was a specific consideration by tho applicablo roviow authority in the project approval; and d. Do not result in an expansion er chango in operational characteristics of tho use; and
c. Do not alter the facts in support of the findings required by Section 25.07.012(G).
(il) The Dircetor nay choose to refer any requested change to the original roviow anthority for reviow and final action.