Laguna Beach City Council
July 28, 2026

Chair Gibbs:

All right. Let me call the next item, if the applicant can come up. 5.4399, Pearl Street design review 25- 1819, Coastal Development Permit 25-1820. Ex parte, please.

Chair Pro Tem Gannon:

Chair, I had a site visit with the applicant team, including the homeowner. I also met with all the neighbors down below.

Board Member Weil:

Met with neighbor John Gutweiler and Steve Kawaratani and visited the project.

Board Member Bauta:

Chair, I visited a site with the applicant team and Steve Kawaratani.

Board Member Coveny:

I met at the site with the applicant team, the owner, and with Steve Kawaratani.

Chair Gibbs:

Jess, did you do it already? Okay. And I met with the applicant team, including Mr. Kawaratani, and then I met with Linda Fluent, next door neighbor.

All right. Can we have it quiet, please? Daniel, you're up.

Speaker 9:

Can't hear.

Chair Gibbs:

Quiet, please. Staff will be giving the staff presentation right now.

Speaker 9:

It's very difficult to hear with all of the talking outside [inaudible 00:04:16] I think some of the noise is coming from.

Chair Gibbs:

Well, with the door closed is the best we can do. I can't tell people to quiet. Is that better? Speaker 9:
[inaudible 00:04:25].

Speaker 10:

Yeah, they just closed it.

Board Member Weil:

Yeah, there's always some motionAttachment 17
326
326 of 355
This transcript was exported on May 06, 2026 - view latest version here.

Meeting Date 11.13 (Completed 05/06/26)
Transcript by Rev.com

Chair Gibbs:

It's worse at council meets.

Board Member Weil:

Once we change items, it settles down.

Chair Gibbs:

Yeah. All right. So Daniel, you're on.

Daniel Besinaiz:

Perfect. All right. Good evening, commissioners. Good to see you all again. My name is Daniel Besinaiz.

Item 5.4 tonight is Design Review and Coastal Development Permit at 399 Pearl Street.

So this project is located in an existing neighborhood zoned as R1 residential low density. The site is bordered on all sides by residential properties and is on the corner of Pearl Street and Catalina Street.

The project is for a remodel, upper and lower level additions, elevated decks, landscaping, and construction of an attached ADU. Design review approval is required to exceed the building site coverage, upper level additions, elevated decks, and landscaping. The attached ADU is exempt from design review, but does require a coastal development permit. At the October 9th DRB meeting, the item was continued to today's agenda to ensure the project was staked prior to the hearing date in accordance with the timeline required per city code.

On this slide, you'll see the renderings of the project. The upper right-ish rendering shows the project from Pearl Street. The other three renderings are more so from the Catalina side. This slide shows the architectural site plan. You may want to take note that the setback on the lowest part of the slide is four feet, which is consistent with our ADU ordinance.

So the applicant is requesting approval to exceed building site coverage requirements. The maximum BSC for the project site is 39.5%, whereas the applicant is proposing 52.5%. The existing BSC is 35.8%.

Pursuant to the code, the maximum BSC requirement may be modified by the board when it is necessary to preserve views, preserve privacy, reduce heights, or to maintain neighborhood development patterns. The project retains a largely single story profile with garage massing below street grade and the ADU attached to the existing second story massing to avoid new view equity impacts.

The applicant provided justification for this in one of the attachments. It stated that this approach protects key ocean views, minimizes privacy concerns through thoughtful window placement, and minimizes privacy concerns through though... Sorry. And minimizes privacy concerns through window placement and balcony orientation and aligns with established drilling patterns in the Woods Cove neighborhood.

Staff has received one public comment in opposition and concern. Concerns include privacy related to the height of the structure and neighborhood compatibility related to the size of the structure. The ADU is not subject to design review, only coastal development permit. Design review is required for the addition to elevated decks, landscaping, and to exceed building site coverage. Staff finds that the project is in compliance with the Design Review guidelines, that it complies with all code standards and that the project does not substantially impair public views, privacy, and is compatible with the neighborhood.

Therefore, staff recommends adopting the attached resolution, approving design review and CDP and findings that action exempt from CEQA.

Chair Gibbs:
327
327 of 355
This transcript was exported on May 06, 2026 - view latest version here.

Meeting Date 11.13 (Completed 05/06/26)
Transcript by Rev.com

Thank you very much. Any questions of staff? Seeing none. Open the public hearing. Applicant, you have five minutes.

Chris LeTourneau:

Thank you board members.

Chair Gibbs:

You got to push the button. There you go.

Chris LeTourneau:

Thank you, board members. Chris LeTourneau, project architect representing the project at 399 Pearl Street. Alongside of me is Jason Mueller, the owner of the property, good lifelong friend. Maybe something, it was great to meet you guys at the site, but I didn't get a chance to let everyone know I grew up two houses down from the street, so I know the neighborhood quite well. And it's been actually a unique process and project to work alongside of a house that I've spent my entire lifehood as a child kind of playing and enjoying it. So it's a unique project for me.

This project was really about creating a larger 1,000 square foot ADU for Jason, and doing so, placing it in an appropriate location. That was really important to us. We know that ADUs have been weaponized in the past. On a project like this, we had the opportunity to place it on the second story, bypass the entire design review process, but that just wasn't the right thing to do. Again, I obviously live in the community and wanted to create a proposed ADU that was in a more appropriate location, one that allowed view preservation and the view corridor for the uphill residence to be adhered to.

So some of the findings that I believe we're looking for and to add to the building site coverage component, I was able to kind of go back through and notice there was an error in the building site coverage, and I can kind of verify that with staff. Instead of being at that sort of lower 52s, it's in fact

47.78, still over the allowable. And I could kind of hand sort of the tabulation for Tom if you wanted to potentially see that at a later point.

Chair Gibbs:

I don't think it's necessary. If any of the board members want, they can ask.

Chris LeTourneau:

Okay. So I believe one of the main findings for the overage in the building site coverage on this particular project was in fact view preservation and maintaining the single story massing along Catalina and Pearl Street. I think it's neighborhood compatible, the articulation, the architecture, the preservation of the more historical portion of the site remains intact. And I'm looking forward to getting project feedback.

Chair Gibbs:

Thank you very much. All right, members of the public, I see we have one up there. If you could, you'll have two I loveJohn Gutweiler:

I hae a pile of notes because I'm 75 and I have to read. 328
328 of 355
This transcript was exported on May 06, 2026 - view latest version here.

Meeting Date 11.13 (Completed 05/06/26)
Transcript by Rev.com

Chair Gibbs:

Okay.

John Gutweiler:

My name's JohnChair Gibbs:

Hold on a second. State your name and then you'll have two minutes.

John Gutweiler:

Minutes. My name is John Gutweiler. I live at 409 Pearl Street. I happen to live on the corner of Pearl and Catalina, and I'm very fortunate because I have ocean views from my living room, kitchen, and bedrooms. And I look directly down on Jason's property and down to the ocean. I'm completely in favor of this property, this project. It will take away a bit of my view, but what I'll get is a beautiful home to look at along with the ocean. I met with Board Member Weil and he brought up about the chimney movement, but actually the new chimney, from my view, will be smaller, be not as big. And I don't have an issue with it at all being moved at all. So I really think this would be incredible for me now to look at, after 27 years, to look at a beautiful home and the ocean. And that's all I have to say.

Chair Gibbs:

Thank you. Next speaker. I liked the brief.

Justine Fluent:

Hi. Thank you for allowing me to speak. My name is Justine Fluent. I'm the daughter-in-law of Linda Fluent who lives in the neighboring house at 367 Pearl Street. She's 83 years old and has lived there for 36 years. This is the property below. She loves her home neighbors and the City of Laguna Beach. She's at peace there. However, due to the proposed ADU, she has been distraught, anxious, and upset for many months. With a house with only 800 square feet and a lot that is just 3,000 square feet, Linda has a small spot that she can call her own. Please put a stop to the stress and anguish that has caused her by disallowing the building of 399 Pearl Street ADU as proposed.

It is currently planned as a two-story structure, the end of which overwhelms Linda's patio. The windows on that side will look directly into Linda's private patio, where she spends a lot of time, and house windows, in direct violation of your desire for neighbor's privacy to not be violated by another's construction. At night, any interior lights on the second story of the ADU will fully illuminate Ms. Fluent's private patio and shine into the windows of her house. Though they are interior, they will shine outward and in violation of the spirit of the City's Good Neighbor Outdoor Lighting ordinance.

To remedy this, I propose limiting the ADU to one story or at least the rear half of that that looks over the patio and house windows, that that be one story. Based on the hearing document, the City has already taken great care to ensure that the proposed construction not damage or have significant impact on the environment. I ask that the same attention be paid to any potential damage to the human beings who live immediately next to the property, and surely the impact on somebody's privacy and emotional wellbeing can have as least as much attention.

Linda Fluent's privacy and ability to enjoy her home will be severely affected by the construction as the ADU. It constitutes a substantial invasion of privacy and a disregard for her enjoyment of her own home. 329
329 of 355
This transcript was exported on May 06, 2026 - view latest version here.

Meeting Date 11.13 (Completed 05/06/26)
Transcript by Rev.com

So I ask that the ADU be limited to one story, only at least the back half that overlooks her patio and windows. Thank you for your time.

Chair Gibbs:

Thank you very much. Next speaker. Don't approach. You can give it to our senior office specialist.

Mark Fluent:

All right. My name is Mark Fluent. I am Linda's son. I purchased this house 37 years ago and had a very great relationship with Jason's father and Jason's been a great neighbor. But we have some concerns about the scale of the project and the loss of privacy and just the looming, massive overhang nature of the design, and we would like to have some of those elements visited.

As my wife said, it looks right into the patio, into the bedroom of 367. If you go to the third page, you can see that this... As you all know, this neighborhood is built a long time ago, little cottages. Most of them are single wall construction. Our house is a little over 800 square feet. Jason's house is already by leaps and bounds the largest house on the street. If you add the proposed amount of square footage, it'll be 217 times larger than the average house on the street, and almost three times larger than our house. It's just an inappropriate scale for this neighborhood. It already enjoys the highest rooftops on the street.

And what else do we have here? Like my wife said, we'd like to have the height visited, the overhangs, the balcony, look at moving more of the square footage to the lower level, also reducing the amount of windows and orienting the windows away from our patio and bedroom area. Thank you for your time today.

Chair Gibbs:

Thank you very much. Any other speakers?
Linda Fluent:

Well, you don't know my name, but you know how old I am. That's not fair. Thank you. I'm Linda Fluent and Mark is my son, of course. Justine is my daughter. Mark bought this property, as he mentioned, 36 years ago when he got out of college and started working in Orange County. He then moved to New York and guess who moved in? Mom. Mom's been there ever since. As Mark mentioned, we knew Jason's family, mother, dad, Jason's sister, and they're lovely people. And I wish Jason the best of luck, but I don't wish him to put a structure right up next to my house.

He told me that he wanted to put an ADU. I didn't quite know what ADU meant, but I don't think it matters. I looked outside one day. Mr. Gibbs came to the property, and as you know, you can look up on that elevated hill. I looked up there and right up against my fence were several poles. I think they were three stories high and against the fence. And it was overwhelming. It brought tears to my eyes, believe it or not. I don't cry a lot. I met with Chris and Jason, we had a good meeting. I expressed my concerns and they have made adjustments to the plan. And I know Mark will acknowledge that. But I'm asking the Design Board not to approve this. We had major construction going on one side of my house. I look out that side and I'm looking right at 12 feet into my neighbor... Where'd he go? There he is.

Chair Gibbs:

Thank you. Thank you. Your time's up.
330
330 of 355
This transcript was exported on May 06, 2026 - view latest version here.

Meeting Date 11.13 (Completed 05/06/26)
Transcript by Rev.com

Linda Fluent:

Delightful people. Anyway, please don't approve this. Thank you.

Chair Gibbs:

Thank you for your time. Any other speakers?
Speaker 17:

Yes. I'm Linda's neighbor, and I'm aware of her concerns. I'm also highly aware of two rights here, the right to build up on your property and improve it, but also the right of privacy. And in my life, I'm 72, everything look great on paper, all the rules are followed, guidelines are in place. But your privacy is affected greatly. So I hope you'll take that into account in terms of your decision on this project, because I know how much Linda loves sitting in that garden, and it means a lot to her. Thank you.

Chair Gibbs:

Thank you very much. Any other speakers? Returning to the applicant, you have three minutes.

Chris LeTourneau:

Yes, thank you. We met with the Fluents down below a few times and been collaborating closely with Linda. And per the site section that I believe I shared with most of you on site, the ADU is placed, as you can see on our screen here, the ADU is placed 20 feet setback from that side property line. Obviously, we did everything we could to pull that back as much as possible. Also, in that diagram, the site topography, which naturally goes up about 12 feet, our starting point is a whole story, almost story and a half higher just by nature of that. So the optics down in that ravine, which it is, it's a natural watercourse that many of these homes were kind of built in, as we look up at Jason's property, there is that tendency of it feeling towering, is the word that they've been using.

So again, the location of this ADU has been cited in its best place possible for the site. We believe that there were far worse places that this ADU could have been located that would have much more disturbances on surrounding neighbors' view preservation. And so this is one of those situations where we did study the context quite a bit. We pulled back as much as possible. We designed cantilevering trellises with landscape to try to preserve the fact that there would not be a line of sight with Linda's patio. I should note that there really already is that privacy situation between the two properties, and it's always existed for quite some time. This is sort of nothing new that we're actually creating. Any questions for the board? Thank you.

Chair Gibbs:

Okay. Thank you very much. Any questions?
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:

Just have a clarification question for the planners or for staff. So this is an ADU, so the 16 commandments, the DR commandments, we can't use for this project? Daniel Besinaiz:

That's correct. The ADU is exempt from Design Review.
331
331 of 355
This transcript was exported on May 06, 2026 - view latest version here.

Meeting Date 11.13 (Completed 05/06/26)
Transcript by Rev.com

Chair Pro Tem Gannon:

Okay.

Chair Gibbs:

I'll address that in the comments. Any other questions? Board Member Coveny:

I have a quick question. I don't know if you're privy to this printout. So this pole right here, the story pole reflects the awning, correct?
Chair Gibbs:

What are you looking at, MJ? Yeah.

Board Member Coveny:

This is the awning from the upper story?
Chris LeTourneau:

The fascia, the roof.

Board Member Coveny:

Roof. Yes.

Chris LeTourneau:

Yes. Absolutely.

Board Member Coveny:

I would call it an awning. But yeah, I guess it's a roof.

Chris LeTourneau:

And the poles denote the corner of the ADU footprint.

Board Member Coveny:

So that's where the actual building begins back there where the glass would be. Okay.

Chris LeTourneau:

Correct. 20 feet back from the property line.

Board Member Coveny:

Okay. That's all I have.

Chair Gibbs:

All right. I'll close the public hearing and I'll begin. The ADU, and this is for the neighbors and to know our hands are tied. We can't really consider subjective factors about it. This is a large ADU by our 332
332 of 355
This transcript was exported on May 06, 2026 - view latest version here.

Meeting Date 11.13 (Completed 05/06/26)
Transcript by Rev.com

standards, by our experience, better way of saying it, a very large ADU. Usually they come 300 to about 600, maybe 700. Occasionally they get this big. But what sets this project apart from others is the large request for increasing the building site coverage, which is within our purview. And it's going from 35.8, originally it was 52.5, but a nominal 47.78. In my experience on the board, I've not seen a request for that significant of an increase.

Moreover, this is, and I walked the neighborhood, one of the biggest houses already in the neighborhood. So you're asking for a significant increase in building site coverage. That rule is there for a purpose. And the purpose is particularly significant in the Woods Cove area, where it has a historic feel all its own. Any improvement and increased remodeling or what have you, it's important it stays within character. And by and large, the projects that we've gotten have stayed within character, which includes building within the footprint that's allowed. Where there's a little bit of increase to maintain a single story rather than going up, we might consider it, but that's not the case here.

The standard is when it's necessary to preserve views. I could see it potentially could preserve views from people that are not... Where the second story is not built on one side, but it has the same impact on people on the other side. And I haven't seen convincing evidence that you need to go 600 additional square feet to preserve anybody's views. We had one witness, but I just don't see significant substantial evidence to justify this kind of increase. With respect to preserving privacy, if anything, I think allowing the building there impacts the privacy of the neighbor. I don't see how it reduces height.

And by the way, I'm reading from the rule. It has to be, quote, "necessary to preserve views, preserve privacy, reduce heights, or maintain neighborhood development patterns." So I don't see how it's necessary to reduce heights. I don't see how it's necessary to maintain neighborhood development patterns. So while I would otherwise... And I'll get to the non ADU portion in a second. But while we can't consider design criteria for the ADU, I just don't think that this project justifies a building site coverage. And for that reason, and I'll have an open mind hear what my colleagues say, my mind may be changed, but my inclination is not to approve it on that basis. With respect to the non ADU portions, I think they meet all the design review criteria. In fact, overall, the design's fine. It's a very interesting house. I think you're staying within the design of the house.

Then with respect to the coastal development permit, and this kind of goes to your question, MJ, we can consider the criteria for finding one for this CDP, including criteria six, "The proposed development will be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas and, where feasible, will restore and enhance visual quality and visually degraded areas." I don't find factual basis to make that finding. And the reason is I think that structure, two-story significant ADU, is not visually compatible with the neighborhood, given its location and size vis-a-vis the next door neighbor. And also given the amount of mass that already exists on that property, adding additional mass takes it out of visual compatibility.

So those are my comments. My hope is that redesign it to kind of bring it within the character of the neighborhood with consideration of privacy concerns. Who wants to go next? Board Member Bauta:

I'll take a stab at it, Chair. I think this is a really interesting one pertaining to the ADU. There are a lot of elements that I believe that were very thoughtful during the design. I applaud the applicant. I think their application is going for additional site coverage, which I think is a reviewable course for us. The one thing I wanted to add was that if they were to take that ADU and plop it onto the existing footprint, that's an approvable project, but it may hinder view equity for the neighbors to the rear. So I'd like to deliberate that. But I think given the location of the ADU, I think it's least impactful pertaining to view equity. I do also think that while there is a vocalized privacy concern, I think that that's not from a ceremonial room corridor, that's a garden. And while we can understand the impacts to outdoor space, I 333
333 of 355
This transcript was exported on May 06, 2026 - view latest version here.

Meeting Date 11.13 (Completed 05/06/26)
Transcript by Rev.com

also don't think that governs in this case. I think it does meet the Design Review criteria in addition to what you were saying, and I could definitely approve this project tonight.

Chair Gibbs:

Next, Jess?
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:

I'm going to be a combination of the two. I'm kind of teetering on this one. As great of a design as it is, something really bothers me about this one, and Chair Gibbs had a few great points, but also Board Member Bauta also, I follow his viewpoints as privacy. Privacy, it doesn't create a bigger privacy than what already exists. For that upper level, the fact that it's so far away and you have plants mitigating the view impact and the fact that it's a trellis, it's not a walkout deck, I'd be hard pressed to think that somebody could push their face against the glass and look down onto that deck. Whereas when I was standing on the deck that's currently there, I was able to see onto the neighbor's deck. And so there's already a privacy that already exists.

View equity, I concur with Bauta that this position, it mitigates the view equity. If you were to locate it over what's already existing, the deck that wraps around, it would probably take the view of the neighbor in the back. And then yeah, as far as it being neighborhood compatible, I agree. I'm split. I agree with Chair Gibbs that it doesn't fit within the neighborhood. It's very towering onto Pearl Street.

Yeah, I got to sit with this one. I got to hear what the other board members have to say.

Chair Gibbs:

Louis, go ahead.

Board Member Weil:

Let me take a stab at this. I concur with my colleagues in terms of the main house and the main structure and the little improvements you're trying to do there. Very thoughtful, very well articulated. I think it keeps to the lower level. It enhances it quite a bit. The upper level, it stays tucked to the existing raised second floor. And it maintains that view going down the street for the uphill neighbors. I think as I went further into the canyon, the view blockage of just the trees and the homes down the run are part of it.

So to Board Member Gannon and Bauta, and even Chair Gibbs, the location of the ADU I think is the more appropriate side of the lot to utilize in order to achieve it. I think to make the lot coverage finding, I'd want to see the ADU portion dropped a bit, so you create a little bit of more of a differentiation between the ADU structure and the high peak of the upper level. I think if it was to come down a bit, three, maybe six feet somewhere, play with the grade, because the way I'm looking at your cross sections is the garage is a little subterranean and dug out. You could come down a little bit in grading under the ADU because I think there's a little bit of mechanical and crawl space.

If they were to reasonably lower that, I think we could probably make the findings, that because of the lowering of it, that the second two story ADU could afford that lot coverage. And it would also give some more articulation to the project and make it a little bit stairstepped as it follows kind of more the canyon that's dropping on that side of the house. It would also reduce the massing for the one neighbor on the side because it won't quite be as high. But I do agree that by not putting an upper floor deck on the ADU, that would have been problematic for me. So I'd want to make sure that that stays the trellis 334
334 of 355
This transcript was exported on May 06, 2026 - view latest version here.

Meeting Date 11.13 (Completed 05/06/26)
Transcript by Rev.com

component. But I think there was a lot of thoughtful design in trying to make this work. I'd just like to see the ADU portion dropped and then I think it could be supported.

Chair Gibbs:

Real quick, let me just make kind of two comments because I appreciate the comments of the board.

Board Member Coveny:
[inaudible 00:33:27].

Chair Gibbs:

No, no, no. I'm just kind of responding to the two points. Is that okay? Yeah, real quick. The size of this is driven by a 1,000 square foot ADU. That's a big ADU with a big lot site coverage. I don't think that they could come up with a compatible 1,000 square foot on top of the current house. So with respect to location of the ADU, it's the only place for that big of an ADU. Let's be real about it. And they want a big ADU rather than a smaller ADU, which would be, I think, more in line with the visual compatibility of the neighborhood because they want the additional space. I think lowering it is helpful, but once it's built, it's there. And it's not only... Patios, we have protected patios from privacy before, but it's also her bedroom is facing right in there, which, yeah, from cross ways from the house, you might be able to see into it, but this tower's over it. And it's not just visual privacy, it's light and air.

And if you look at the story poles, and I think it was shown by the neighbors in their public comments, they're right up there. I mean, I think Lin, the young 85-year-old, Linda, said it best, has a similar reaction that I had when I went out there. And I don't know if the applicant team went out there, it's pretty powerful. So I would urge, and again, I'm very interested to see what MJ has to think and what the others, anything would improve this. I would make it a one story to make it justify the additional significant lot coverage and also finding visual compatible under criteria six. But at least reduce it and move back those overhangs. Anyway, go ahead, MJ.

Board Member Coveny:

Okay. Well, when I first heard about you wanting more lot coverage, I'm like, "No way." And then I went and looked at it and I looked at your design and I thought the way you thoughtfully designed this was very impressive. So I was sort of then started to open my mind up to actually seeing what you were doing. And I think about what Board Member Bauta said was like, "Well, what if you end up putting this over on the other side, then you would use the garage, bolt it up, then we'd have view issues from other neighbors."
So you say you looked at different places and my assumption is this was one of the most efficient ways to do it from the criteria as well as costs, I imagine. So I think I can get beyond the size because I think the way you've designed this and the materials you've used are really subtle and organic to the environment. So I feel like it sort of keeps it from feeling massive and the use of windows and some of your decking. I think the problem is on the backside and the privacy component that just isn't quite following the CDP.

So if you could pull that upper level back, I think that would relieve that concern. I think your lower decking is already consistent with your existing decking, so any of that was sort of already there. And I feel like with the shrubberies there, that that would mitigate any privacy issues from that lower area.

And even though you only have a little Juliet deck-ish up top, that feeling of that roof or awning feels 335
335 of 355
This transcript was exported on May 06, 2026 - view latest version here.

Meeting Date 11.13 (Completed 05/06/26)
Transcript by Rev.com

very heavy to the lower home below. So I think that that would help on the mass and scale of the building and it would help on the privacy.

I think that filling the footprint is okay, especially when you're not maxing out. Often we get people that want to overdo it or fill out to the max and go up two or three stories and max out their height, and then it becomes a whole nother town. So that's where we have to... And if we have the flexibility with criteria, then we utilize that. You've really articulated this well. You've added different roof lines. You've opened up your view for your neighbor across the street and allowed him to continue to have a view.

And like he mentioned, it's nice to have an upgraded home in the neighborhood. It elevates the whole feeling of the town. And again, yours is in very good keeping with our cottage, modern cottage organic vibe.

I just think that if you could relieve some of that privacy and you'd lose some square footage on the upper, I think I can allow you to keep the lower, but if you can just... Privacy is my biggest one, and I think that's what they articulated. So I think that's an easy fix. You still get your ADU. It's still a decent size. We don't have to rework this thing. So I don't know how that, and if that could be conditioned or something we could deliberate on here.

Board Member Bauta:

Yeah. I think that's a great suggestion. I think it's worth hearing maybe what the applicant could come up with here. I'd love to hear them out. We had a suggestion of three to six feet, three to six feet and a drop and a pullback.

Board Member Coveny:
[inaudible 00:38:52].

Chair Gibbs:

I would be very interested. So you've got two ideas, and we call this deliberations so that we can kind of hear what each other has to say. So what about lowering it and pulling back the second story? Chris LeTourneau:

Yeah, I think pulling back would be a good option. And then just to engage the building site coverage, Steve did a study of the surrounding area and came up with 46% as the average building site coverage in the area. So we're getting pretty close. So when I can share that document with you, maybe that would help to kind of understand truly what the building site coverage and pattern of development is in that area. I have a tabulation that I kind of broke through because I know, Tom, obviously this is an important finding and breaking down building site coverage into its different delineations. And yeah, the total building site coverage really is more in the 47.7, still obviously a little too... And I get that.

Chair Gibbs:

We haven't had a chance to study that. I think you were going to send it to me and I didn't get it. So let's keep it on the issues. Talking about lowering it by three feet and moving the second story back. Is that something you're amenable to moving?
Chris LeTourneau:

We can definitely... Well, lowering it336
336 of 355
This transcript was exported on May 06, 2026 - view latest version here.

Meeting Date 11.13 (Completed 05/06/26)
Transcript by Rev.com

Chair Gibbs:

Okay, let me ask you, what are the plate heights for the...

Chris LeTourneau:

So we have, right now, what's shown is a 10 foot lower. We could lower that down a foot, but that's for a 12 inch package. We have to soft it, but there's probably room to lower the whole house.

Chair Gibbs:
10 foot, is it 10 foot upstairs too?
Chris LeTourneau:

No, it's about like eight feet.

Chair Gibbs:

Eight feet. So you can lower it down a foot by reducing the plate height to nine.

Chris LeTourneau:

We could reduce plate height by a foot. One of the challenges with subterranean is it just... Well, the reason we didn't do it initially when we started this process is any kind of grading for an ADU trigger design review, right? So there's kind of been a moving target as to what we could do with an ADU and it actually was more incentivized for an ADU just to remain on site. So we've placed it right at natural grade currently. Shifting it down does become really problematic. It's hugely expensive, shoring walls, underpinning the existing house, drainage issues fromBoard Member Coveny:

Chair, if IChair Gibbs:
[inaudible 00:41:08] we could do eight foot plate heights two feet. I don't know if that solves your issue.

Board Member Coveny:

Chair, if I may. I'm just thinking that rather than do a lot of back and forth, if they're going to come back for the another hearing as opposed to any condition of approval right now, because we'd have to restake it and everything, I think, because of the privacy issue. So I'm wondering if we could just consider agreeing that the lot coverage isn't a concern? Chair Gibbs:

I won't agree to that.

Board Member Coveny:

Okay.

Chair Gibbs:
337
337 of 355
This transcript was exported on May 06, 2026 - view latest version here.

Meeting Date 11.13 (Completed 05/06/26)
Transcript by Rev.com

It would have to be... For me to justify the lot coverage, it would have to address the issues that we've talked about.

Board Member Coveny:

Well, that's what I'm getting at. So it's like, let's stick with what our concerns are. A number one concern is privacy. If we all agree on that, then I think that that would inform the lot coverage. In this case, I'm suggesting that we consider keeping the lot coverage so that you can keep your square footage, but releasing the upper level, which is not part of lot coverage, to allow for the privacy component to be fixed.

Chair Gibbs:

Let me suggest this and see if they get any traction from you guys. Why don't we continue this with direction to lower the building two feet and move back the second floor and reduce the overhangs, the eaves. And in that connection, work with the neighbor and see if you can reduce the anxiety, number one, and also to come up with a compromise that works. I think you've heard, neighbor, Linda, that at least four members of this board are going to approve this project with a second story there. So I think given the relationships, I mean, it sounds like the relationships go way back, I would like to see, with the direction I've described, them go back and see if they can come up with a solution that could be kind of a win-win.

Board Member Coveny:

And Chair, can I ask the reason you want to drop it two feet? If they're able to relieve the privacy component from the upper level, what's the purpose of the drop? Chair Pro Tem Gannon:

It won't be so looming.

Board Member Coveny:

You feel like that'llChair Gibbs:

It's so massive. When I was in the patio, it's just massive. And it's so out of character of Woods Cove.

You just don't have that... I have a lot of friends who live in Woods Cove, been to a lot of homes, and you just don't have that kind of massive overhang into somebody's... And she's just got a little house and a little patio. AndBoard Member Coveny:

You're referring to the upper cover.

Chair Gibbs:

Yeah, the upper to move it back.

Board Member Coveny:

Okay.
338
338 of 355
This transcript was exported on May 06, 2026 - view latest version here.

Meeting Date 11.13 (Completed 05/06/26)
Transcript by Rev.com

Chair Pro Tem Gannon:

And it's massive from that street as well.

Board Member Coveny:

That's why I don't know if itBoard Member Weil:

May I just ask the applicant a couple questions?
Chris LeTourneau:

Would could pull the roof back.

Board Member Weil:

I mean, your approach has been to try to soften, and I think you're really close with the total design. I think we're kind of nitpicking a few finite details. Do you want to take another stab at just trying to fine tune this based on the conversation that we've had, or do you want us to try toChris LeTourneau:

I could make some proposals and we can do a deal and get everyone comfortable.

Board Member Weil:

Okay.

Chris LeTourneau:

Yeah. So we have a six foot overhang right now, which I think was being looked at as problematic. Why don't we cut that in half to three? Why don't we push the building back two feet entirely, like shift it back towards Catalina, so we now alleviate it by two feet, and then why don't we take the 10 foot plate that's down low and take that to a nine foot plate, and then maybe try to get that shed down another six inches, because we're already at an eight foot plate up top? I am working with a 12-inch floor package, so that is kind of little minimal. It's typically you're probably seeing 14 and 16-inch packages. So the plate heights are going to sound a little taller on the lower level. So we've reduced down, we've pulled back and we pulled back fascia or overhang.

Chair Pro Tem Gannon:

And how about grading? Can you grade down a foot? What does that look like? Chair Gibbs:

I would like to see that upper level pull back more than that. I think you're in the right track. I could even get behind it if I could get you to pull it back.

Board Member Weil:

I think you've got a good idea and I think you are a problem solver for this design. So I'd be encouraged to just kind of let you take the discussion points and come back to us. And I mean, I think we're all willing to work on really close to where you're at. I think a little fine tuning could just make this a really 339
339 of 355
This transcript was exported on May 06, 2026 - view latest version here.

Meeting Date 11.13 (Completed 05/06/26)
Transcript by Rev.com

good project all around and make a few tiny little improvements to make it overall better. If you're willing for a continuance, I think we can take that direction.

Chair Gibbs:

I would like to get behind this project. I think the neighborhood would like to. So this is how I would describe it if we're going to do a continuance. Go down as far as you can, reduce the height at least to the nine foot if you get a foot. If you can do more than a foot, great. Reduce those eaves. I'd like to see them even less, but I think you're close than three feet and push the upper story back. By moving the building back, that's a great plus and maybe making it a little smaller and then talking to your neighbor and go through it and maybe there can be some compromises and they come back. So I think that's a great idea, Louis, I support that.

Board Member Weil:

How quick can we get this back?
Chair Gibbs:

Yeah, this is not major stuff.

Board Member Weil:

These are just some fine tuned things.

Chris LeTourneau:

Yeah, immediately.

Board Member Weil:

Okay.

Chris LeTourneau:

Yeah.

Chair Gibbs:

The next hearing is already huge, this December 11th. So it'd be the first hearing in January, which is when?
Speaker 18:

That would be January 22nd.

Chair Gibbs:
22nd.

Speaker 18:

I will say there are already 13 items scheduled, so this would be the 14th.

Chair Gibbs:
340
340 of 355
This transcript was exported on May 06, 2026 - view latest version here.

Meeting Date 11.13 (Completed 05/06/26)
Transcript by Rev.com

I'd be willing to add this to the agenda for that. I don't think it's going to be huge. I'm very optimistic that this is going to be a quick one.

Chris LeTourneau:

Yeah. You like that? Okay. That sounds great. Thank you.

Chair Gibbs:

And I appreciate it, applicant, I appreciate you being receptive to these ideas rather than try to come up with something tonight, which would have been, I think, more difficult and I'd like to give you a 5-0 vote.

All right. With that saidSpeaker 18:

If I could make one more point, chair, just for the applicant's benefit. We would need the plans back by December 3rd. So you've got about two and a half weeks.

Board Member Weil:

Jan 22nd?
Speaker 18:

No, December 3rd.

Board Member Weil:

No, the meetingSpeaker 18:

For January 22nd.

Board Member Weil:

January 22nd. So I'll move item number...

Chair Gibbs:

5.4. Board Member Weil:

5.4 at 399 Pearl Street to be continued to January 22nd.

Chair Pro Tem Gannon:

Second that.

Chair Gibbs:

Call the roll.

Paula:
341
341 of 355
This transcript was exported on May 06, 2026 - view latest version here.

Meeting Date 11.13 (Completed 05/06/26)
Transcript by Rev.com

Board Member Bauta?
Board Member Bauta:

Yes.

Paula:

Board Member Coveny?
Board Member Coveny:

Yes.

Paula:

Board Member Weil?
Board Member Weil:

Yes.

Paula:

Chair Pro Tem Gannon?
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:

Yes.

Paula:

Chair Gibbs?
Chair Gibbs:

Yes.

Paula:

Motion has passed 5-0.
342
342 of 355
135.77 7.83'
SEWER MANHOLE ELEV 126.97

THOMAS TERWILLIGER
3-3-26
139.88 3.72'
123.35 21.65'
145.00 0.00' (roof)
121.30 13.13'
120.25 14.18'
125.10 13.90'
133.20 5.80'
125.12 9.31'
125.12 9.31'
143.50 0.00'(roof)
118.70 24.80'
117.60 24.42'
120.40 21.62'
141.03 2.18'
117.59 15.41'
116.29 16.71'
Thomas Terwilliger L.S.

L.S. 9091 Exp. 03/31/26
March 10, 2026
343
343 of 355
Created 12/28/20

CITY COUNCIL ORDER OF TESTIMONY FOR APPEALS

AND REQUESTS FOR REVIEW OF PROJECTS
Purpose: The City Council is committed to assuring that members of the public have the opportunity to speak to any meeting agenda item before final action on projects.

This Order of Testimony establishes the right of persons who specifically wish to speak on projects appealed to or otherwise reviewed by the City Council.

Procedures: There are three types of hearings conducted by the City Council: 1) the appellant is person opposed to the project, 2) the appellant is the applicant, and 3) the project was called up for review by a member of the City Council or the City Manager. The procedures below provide the order in which testimony is considered and the allotted time for public comment. The procedure for each hearing shall be provided as the first attachment to the agenda bill.

I. Appellant is Person Opposed to Approved Project:

1. Staff report summary provided.

2. The appellant has 5 minutes for opening remarks.

3. Any persons in support of the appeal may speak for 3 minutes each.

4. The applicant has 5 minutes to speak in opposition to the appeal.

5. Any other persons in opposition to the appeal may speak for 3 minutes each.

6. The appellant has 2 minutes to speak in rebuttal.

II. Appellant is Applicant for Denied or Conditionally Approved Project:

1. Staff report summary provided.

2. The applicant has 5 minutes for opening remarks.

3. Any other persons in support of the appeal may speak for 3 minutes each.

4. Any persons in opposition to the appeal may speak for 3 minutes each.

5. The applicant has 2 minutes to speak in rebuttal.

Attachment A 16 ttachment 19
344
344 of 355
Created 12/28/20
III. City Council or City Manager Review of Decision:

1. Staff report summary provided.

2. The City Manager may comment on the reason for review. City Council members will usually comment after hearing comments from the applicant and members of the public.

3. The applicant has 5 minutes to present the project.

4. Any persons in support of or in opposition to the project may speak for 3 minutes each.

5. The applicant has 2 minutes to speak in rebuttal.
345
345 of 355
Kendra L. Carney Mehr
23 Corporate Plaza Drive, Suite 150
Newport Beach, CA
(949) 629-4676
[email protected]
July 13, 2026
City Council of Laguna Beach
c/o City Clerk
City of Laguna Beach
505 Forest Avenue
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
Filed via hand delivery and electronic mail
Re: First Supplemental Letter in Support of Appeal of Design Review Board Approval of Item 5.6 Dated April 9, 2026
399 Pearl Street, APN 644-267-16
Design Review 2025-1819
Coastal Development Permit 2025-1820
Variance 2026-0511
Appellants: Lynda Fluent, Mark Fluent, and Justine Fluent, 367 Pearl Street City Council Hearing: July 28, 2026 at 3:00 p.m.

Dear Mayor Orgill and Members of the Laguna Beach City Council:

This firm represents Appellants of 367 Pearl Street1, in the above-referenced appeal, filed April 22, 2026. This letter supplements that appeal in two respects2: (1) it adds an independent ground for appeal and reversal specific to the findings and approval of Coastal 1 The Notice of Appeal form filed April 22, 2026 inadvertently lists the Appellants’ address, on the form only, as “379 Pearl Street” in the Appeal Background Information section. The correct address is 367 Pearl Street, Laguna Beach. Appellants respectfully request that the City Clerk correct the record accordingly.
2 As of the time of submittal, neither the minutes nor the Resolution passed by the Design Review Board’s April 9, 2026 have been made available for review. Similarly, it is our understanding that a further staff report is pending. As such, we reserve the right to submit a further supplemental letter in support of the appeal upon review of additional documents made available by the City.
346 of 355
2 Development Permit 2025-1820; and (2) it reconciles two figures across Appellants’ exhibits so that a single, consistent record is before the Council. Appellants hereby incorporate by reference their April 22, 2026 appeal letter and all attached exhibits in its entirety.

I. Background Summary
This project is unique in that the existing home is already non-conforming and largely built by variances. The development history reflects the City’s repeated failure to enforce its own Code to the detriment of the neighborhood. The existing residence already encroaches into the required front-yard and rear-yard setback; the proposed addition and ADU disregard the height and setback limits established by the property’s actual topography; and the application depends on a parking variance it never outright requests. The project now proposes to layer yet another non-compliant, over-massed addition on top of that history. These are not incidental details but the conditions the Council must necessarily confront.

Additionally, the underlying project presents an unusual procedural posture that frames the issues presented in the appeal and supplemental correspondence. Because the project site lies within the excludable area of the Coastal Zone, no Coastal Development Permit is required for the proposed modifications to the existing single-family residence. Yet, a Coastal Development Permit is required for the proposed, attached ADU, pursuant to LBMC §

25.07.004. But the ADU is not independently subject to design review. Here, the single component that triggers the City’s coastal permitting authority is therefore the component the City has scrutinized least, even though it is largely the ADU’s added mass that contributes to the project’s incompatibility with the neighborhood. Importantly, that posture does not relieve the Council, as the final decision-maker on the Coastal Development Permit, of its duty to make the mandatory visual-compatibility and building-site-coverage findings on the actual, complete project. On this record, those findings simply cannot be made.

II. Property Development Background
On October 28, 1971, the Laguna Beach Planning Commission adopted Resolution P.C. 71-25 which granted a lot split that created a variance condition for Parcel 2; a parcel with a substandard lot area and dimensions. As conditioned, Parcel 1, which is 399 Pearl, would be the conforming parcel. In order to be a conforming parcel and not create additional variance conditions, the home on Parcel 1 required a 16-foot-deep front yard. Since the existing front yard had only a 10 foot setback, the lot split conditions were conditioned upon the removal of six feet of the existing home to establish the required front yard setback. Despite the conditional approval, the home was never modified.

In 1978, the then-owner of 399 Pearl Street obtained variance relief through Variance Application No. 3023 and Board of Adjustment Resolution No. 78-64, authorizing two legal nonconformities: continuation of the existing front-yard encroachment, permitting a 10-foot front setback where 16 feet was required, and additional construction encroaching a further four feet into the required 20-foot rear-yard setback.

The front-yard variance contributed to a nonconforming condition on the adjoining lot, 347 of 355
3 which in turn was used to justify the further variance at the rear. In granting the rear relief, the City relied on the parcel’s mature landscaping to support its findings and required the back corner of the lot be maintained as open space that was to remain free of development. The City has failed to enforce that condition for the benefit of the adjacent neighbor at 367 Pearl—the very neighbor the open-space condition was meant to protect.

The significance of that history is not merely that nonconformities exist. The City’s prior relief was expressly justified on the ground that the project would maintain open space and remain compatible with the surrounding neighborhood character — the same values protected today by the CDP visual-compatibility requirement and the lot coverage modification criteria.

The current proposal spends down that same open-space value: it would add approximately 600 square feet of new ADU ground coverage and proposed cantilevered deck that looms over the grade, rather than being terraced down the slope and covers nearly the entire lot. This to a lot already carrying two setback nonconformities, in the very area the City once designated to remain open. These nonconformities bear directly on whether still further discretionary relief is necessitated.

III. Grounds to Deny the Coastal Development Permit and Related Approvals The requested relief remains the same: grant the appeal and deny the Coastal Development Permit and related approvals or, at minimum, remand with direction that any revised project be evaluated against the actual development proposed on the lot, including the ADU and its physical contribution to bulk, mass, and site coverage.

A. The City Cannot Make the Required Findings by Ignoring a Material Part of the Proposed Development
The project before the City is a single, integrated development: an expansion of the existing single-family residence, a building site coverage modification, and an attached ADU that requires a Coastal Development Permit under LBMC § 25.07.004. The City cannot review that project piece by piece or evaluate parts of the project as though the ADU did not exist merely because the ADU is not subject to ordinary design review.

That distinction is important. Appellants do not ask the City to impose discretionary design-review standards on the ADU; state ADU law forbids that. The point is narrower. When the City exercises its discretion over the Coastal Development Permit and the building site coverage modification, it must weigh the actual, complete development project proposed on the lot. The ADU is not a legal abstraction: it is the feature that requires the CDP, and it is a feature that contributes to the building site coverage overage identified in the record.

California law requires an agency’s findings to rest on the actual evidence and to connect that evidence to the governing legal standards. In Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles, the California Supreme Court held that an agency granting a zoning variance must make findings that “bridge the analytic gap” between the evidence and its decision. Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles, 11 Cal.3d 506 (1974). That rule has particular force here, because the required findings turn on 348 of 355
4 physical site conditions: bulk, scale, coverage, visual compatibility, neighborhood pattern, privacy, views, and open space.

The Court of Appeal applied the same principle in Orinda Assn. v. Board of Supervisors, invalidating a development approval and height variance because the agency’s findings did not justify the nonconforming development. An agency may not effectively amend its zoning standards or approve nonconforming development through inadequate findings. Orinda Assn. v.

Board of Supervisors, 182 Cal.App.3d 1145 (1986). Desirability, design preference, or generalized compatibility language cannot substitute for findings that address the actual project and the actual standards.

Government Code section 65906 reflects the same rule for variances, permitting relief only where special circumstances applicable to the property justify it and where the relief does not grant a special privilege denied to other, similarly situated properties. The City’s building site coverage relief is governed by the same principle: discretionary relief from a dimensional standard must rest on the actual conditions of the property and the actual intensity of the development, not on an incomplete version of the project or a single component viewed in isolation.

Here, the ADU is material to every required finding:

It is the element requiring the CDP. The existing single-family residence lies within the Coastal Zone excludable area, but the attached ADU requires a CDP under LBMC § 25.07.004.

It contributes to the coverage overage. The record attributes the increase in building site coverage in large part to the ADU footprint.

It contributes to changes to the mass, bulk, scale, and site intensity of the property. The proposed residence would reach 3,766 square feet on a 5,998-square-foot lot, with a proposed Floor Area Ratio (“FAR”) of 62.8% and a proposed Building Site Coverage of the lot (“BSC”) of 47.78%.

It affects the precise values protected by the applicable findings. The CDP finding requires visual compatibility; the BSC modification findings require analysis of views, privacy, height, and neighborhood pattern; and the prior entitlement history preserved open space and compatibility on this same parcel.

The City cannot, then, treat the ADU as invisible when it makes the CDP and lot coverage findings. Findings that analyze the remodel and expansion while ignoring the ADU’s visual contribution would fail Topanga, because they would not bridge the analytic gap between the evidence and the required findings, and they would create the very problem Orinda warns against: relief from an adopted standard granted through findings that never confront the facts that make the relief necessary.

The Applicant may respond that the ADU is not subject to design review. That is not the question. The question is whether the City, as the final decision-maker on the CDP and on 349 of 355
5 discretionary coverage relief, may make its mandatory findings while excluding the very component that triggers the CDP and contributes to the excess coverage. It cannot.

B. The Coastal Development Permit Must Be Denied Because the Mandatory Visual-Compatibility Finding Cannot Be Made
The City Council is the final decision-maker on the Coastal Development Permit and reviews the application de novo. It is not bound by the Design Review Board’s conclusion; it must make the required CDP findings itself, on the record before it.

The dispositive CDP issue is visual compatibility. Coastal Act § 30251 requires that the scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas be protected and that permitted development be visually compatible with the character of its surroundings. The City’s CDP Criterion 6 carries that requirement into the certified Local Coastal Program. The finding is discretionary and evidence-base. The Council need not find a separate numerical code violation to deny the CDP; it need only conclude, on the record, that the project’s mass, scale, bulk, and visual character are incompatible with the surrounding area.

State ADU law does not displace that coastal authority. Government Code § 65852.2(j) preserves the application of the Coastal Act to ADUs within the coastal zone. The Applicant is entitled to pursue a lawful ADU, but not to obtain a CDP for an ADU design that cannot satisfy the mandatory LCP visual-compatibility findings.

The record here does not merely suggest incompatibility; it compels denial.

1. The Project Is an Outlier Under Every Objective Measure of Bulk and Scale The neighborhood data in the record is not generalized opposition; it is empirical evidence drawn from OC Assessor public records, City GIS data, and the Applicant’s own plans. For the Woods Cove area surrounding 399 Pearl Street, that data shows the approved project to be roughly double the neighborhood norm on every meaningful measure of bulk and scale.

Every independent metric converges on the same conclusion: the project does not fit the surrounding development pattern. The Council therefore cannot make the mandatory finding that the project is visually compatible with the character of the surrounding area.

2. The ADU Component Is the CDP Project, and It Is the Component That Produces the Incompatibility
Because the CDP is required only for the attached ADU, the Council’s CDP decision necessarily turns on that component and its relationship to the rest of the site and the neighborhood.

The ADU cannot be separated from its physical consequences. Its footprint contributes to the property’s 47.78% BSC; its design consumes additional open area on a lot already 350 of 355
6 burdened by nonconforming setbacks; and its configuration lets the Applicant preserve certain height and view arguments while shifting the burden into ground coverage, bulk, and site intensity. The Council may not decline to evaluate whether the ADU’s resulting mass and coverage are visually compatible under the LCP.

3. The Record Includes Direct Evidence from the Board and the Applicant Corroborating the Mass-and-Scale Concern
This is not a case in which the only evidence is neighbor preference. The record contains direct evidence from the Board and from the Applicant’s own architect.

Prior DRB Chair Gibbs dissented on compatibility and building site coverage grounds, warning that the overage was not nominal and that the project did not maintain neighborhood development patterns. Chair Gibbs also identified the practical precedent concern: “What’s the next project that comes along at 52%? You set a standard at 47 and then the next one at 55 and maybe the next one at 59.”
The Applicant’s own architect likewise confirmed the design tradeoff. The architect’s written justification states that the design “prioritizes reduced vertical massing,” “maintains the pedestrian scale and open feel of the intersection,” and avoids “pursuing a taller structure that would remain within standard lot coverage.” Those statements confirm that the Applicant deliberately selected a design that exceeds the building site coverage standard in order to avoid a taller alternative. But CDP Criterion 6 does not ask whether one form of incompatibility is preferable to another; it asks whether the proposed development is visually compatible with the surrounding area. On this record, it is not.

4. A Compliant Alternative Exists, So Denial Does Not Foreclose Reasonable Use or an ADU
Appellants submitted an alternative ADU design that would add approximately 900 square feet, require no additional building site coverage, comply with the objective ADU criteria, preserve the existing single-story corner volume, protect the identified blue-water view, orient windows away from the objecting neighbors, and increase permeable surface area. The existence of that alternative is significant for two reasons.

First, it demonstrates that denial of this CDP does not deny an ADU; it simply requires a redesign that better fits the lot and the neighborhood.

Second, it undercuts any contention that the 47.78% BSC outcome is necessary. The Applicant may prefer the approved footprint, but preference is not necessity. Where a feasible alternative avoids the very coverage and visual-compatibility problems that preclude the CDP finding, the Council has a sound evidentiary basis to deny the CDP and to direct a redesign or denial.
351 of 355
7 5. The Correct CDP Disposition
The Council can and should make a project-specific finding along the following lines:

The Council finds that CDP Finding No. 1 and Criterion 6 cannot be made because the ADU component and associated development pattern are not visually compatible with the character of the surrounding Woods Cove area. The record demonstrates that the proposed development would result in a 47.78% building site coverage on a lot-specific cap of 39.5%, creating the largest home below median-lot; a 62.8% Floor Area Ratio, approximately twice the neighborhood median; and a 3,766 square-foot home on a 5,998 square-foot lot, a configuration with no comparable precedent in the surveyed neighborhood. The project’s mass, scale, and bulk are inconsistent with the immediate streetscape and surrounding development pattern. CDP 2025-1820 is denied.

This disposition also largely moots the separate BSC-findings dispute. A project redesigned to fit within the neighborhood’s established envelope resolves the coverage issue without requiring the Council to adjudicate every coverage calculation.

C. The Initial Appeal Grounds Remain Independently Sufficient for Reversal The following grounds independently support granting the appeal.

1. Approving a 21% Exceedance of the BSC Cap Where a Fully Compliant Alternative Exists Would Set a Damaging and Difficult-to-Reverse Precedent The proposed lot coverage is 47.78% against a lot-specific maximum of 39.5%—an exceedance of approximately 8.28 percentage points, or roughly 496 to 497 square feet. In practical terms, that is a 21% exceedance of the cap. This is not a nominal adjustment.

The building site coverage cap exists to protect the character, scale, privacy, open space, drainage, and neighborhood pattern of established residential areas. The City may not convert that adopted standard into a negotiable preference through approval findings that do not confront the record. Orinda holds that discretionary approvals may not be used to effectively amend zoning standards without legislative action. Orinda Assn. v. Board of Supervisors, 182 Cal.App.3d 1145 (1986). Topanga likewise requires findings sufficient to demonstrate that the legal standard is actually satisfied, not merely recited. Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v.

County of Los Angeles, 11 Cal.3d 506 (1974).

Chair Gibbs stated the practical consequence plainly: “What’s the next project that comes along at 52%? You set a standard at 47 and then the next one at 55 and maybe the next one at 59.” That concern is legally significant, not merely rhetorical. If the Council affirms a

47.78% coverage approval where a conforming alternative appears in the record, the next applicant will reasonably ask why a comparable or greater exceedance should be denied.

The precedent problem is especially acute because the Applicant has not shown that the overage is necessary. A compliant alternative is in the record: it provides an ADU, avoids 352 of 355
8 additional BSC, preserves the corner massing, protects the identified view and privacy interests, and eliminates the need for discretionary relief. Approving the larger footprint in these circumstances would signal that the BSC cap may be exceeded whenever an applicant prefers greater ground coverage and can characterize the tradeoff as design sensitive.

That is not how adopted zoning standards operate. If the City believes that Woods Cove lots should be permitted to exceed the BSC cap by 21% for ADU-related projects, that policy choice belongs in a legislative amendment, not in the adjudicatory approval of a single project.

2. The Approved Project Would Create the Largest Home in the Neighborhood on a Below-Median Lot, Despite a Viable Alternative
The record establishes that the approved project would create a 3,766 square-foot home on a 5,998 square-foot lot. The home would be approximately 2.3 times the neighborhood median home size of 1,620 square feet, while the lot itself falls below the neighborhood median of 6,091 square feet. No comparable property in the surveyed neighborhood pairs a home exceeding 3,000 square feet with a lot smaller than 7,000 square feet.

This is the core neighborhood-compatibility problem. In this Woods Cove study area, large homes sit on large lots. The proposed 399 Pearl project breaks that pattern: it would become the largest home in the study area by floor area while occupying a below-median lot.

The FAR and BSC metrics confirm the same result—62.8% Floor Area Ratio and a Building Site Coverage that exceeds its property-specific cap by 21%.

The Council is not required to approve the largest, most intensive version of an ADU project where a viable alternative appears in the record. Denial would not prevent an ADU; it would require the Applicant to pursue an ADU configuration that fits the existing envelope, the lot, and the surrounding Woods Cove development pattern.

3. The Project Exceeds the Height and Setback Limits Established by the Property’s Actual Topography
The same pattern appears in the proposed addition and ADU, which do not account for the height and setback limits that the property’s topography imposes. LBMC § 25.50.005 limits building height to 30 feet, “measured from the finished or natural grade, whichever is more restrictive.” LBMC § 25.50.004(D) separately requires that any portion of a new building or addition exceeding fifteen feet in height above the natural grade of the required setback provide one additional foot of setback for every foot of height above fifteen feet, “measured at every point along the setback line.”
Both provisions are keyed to natural grade—the property’s actual topography. The application, however, does not measure height or setback against the actual topography as the lot falls toward the property line bordering 367 Pearl. Because the lot slopes, the natural grade is more restrictive than the application assumes, and it is the natural grade that establishes the true building envelope. Measured correctly—from natural grade, and at every point along the setback line as the Code requires—the addition and the ADU appear to exceed the 30-foot 353 of 355
9 height limit and to fall short of the additional setback that § 25.50.004(D) mandates for the portions rising above fifteen feet. At a minimum, the application has not demonstrated compliance with either provision, because the topography provided stops at the property’s driveway, not the property boundary, and it does not measure against the controlling natural grade.

4. The Application Requires, but Does Not Request, a Parking Variance The application also depends on relief it never requests. Adding the ADU as a separate dwelling unit triggers the requirement, under LBMC § 25.17.040(E)(6)(b), of one additional off-street parking space. The property cannot provide it. The existing driveway measures 20 feet 7 inches—too short to accommodate the 8-foot by 22-foot tandem parking space required by LBMC § 25.52.008(A)(2). The project therefore depends on a de facto parking variance that the application neither discloses nor justifies, and that the Council has never been asked to grant.

Taken together, this history and these deficiencies confirm the theme of this appeal. This is a home built by variances, repeatedly excused from the standards that bind its neighbors. The Council should not compound that record by granting another discretionary approval—coastal, coverage, height, setback, or parking—that the project cannot satisfy on its own terms.

IV. Reconciliation of Exhibit Figures
Appellants identify and correct two inconsistencies across the appeal record, so that a single, consistent set of figures is before the Council. A simplified chart summarizing the Assessor Parcel data only, is attached hereto for the administrative record.

A. Existing Building Site Coverage
The appeal letter states the Applicant’s asserted existing BSC as 35.83%. Appellants’ Exhibit B independently calculates the existing BSC from OC Assessor records (2,254 sq ft home ÷ 5,998 sq ft lot) at 37.6%. Appellants rely on the Exhibit B figure of 37.6%—drawn directly from the public assessor records—as the accurate existing condition; the 35.83% figure reflects only the Applicant’s own unverified assertion.

B. Building Site Coverage Cap
LBMC § 25.10.008 sets Building Site Coverage on a sliding scale between 35% (lots ≥ 8,000 sq ft) and 44% (lots ≤ 4,000 sq ft), calculated individually for each lot: BSC Cap % = 35 + [(8,000 − Lot Area) × 9 ÷ 4,000], bounded between 35% and 44%. For 399 Pearl’s 5,998 sq ft lot, this formula yields a cap of 39.5%, consistent with the figure used throughout Appellants’ exhibits. This is a lot-specific cap, not a flat citywide maximum. The Floor Area Ratio presented significantly exceeds all comparables in the surrounding neighborhood. Appellants do not rely on any alternative calculation of Building Site Coverage that includes elevated terrace or deck area and withdraw any such calculation to the extent it appears in the record, in favor of the Building Site Coverage figures set forth in this paragraph and in the April 22, 2026 appeal letter.
354 of 355
10 V. Requested Action
For the reasons set forth above and in the initial appeal, Appellants respectfully request that the City Council grant the appeal and (i) deny the Coastal Development Permit, because the required LCP conformity and visual-compatibility findings cannot be made; and (ii) set aside the building site coverage modification approval, because its findings are unsupported by the record and a compliant alternative exists.

In the alternative, Appellants request that the Council remand the project, with direction that any revised application be evaluated on the actual development proposed for the lot— including the ADU’s contribution to building site coverage, bulk, scale, privacy, views, drainage, and neighborhood pattern—and that any revised ADU or CDP proposal be designed to fit within the property’s established envelope and the surrounding Woods Cove neighborhood pattern.

The Council need not reject ADUs to grant this appeal. The opposite is true: granting the appeal preserves the Applicant’s ability to build a lawful ADU while requiring the design to meet the same coastal visual-compatibility and neighborhood-pattern standards that protect every other property in Woods Cove.

Finally, Appellants reiterate the invitation extended in their initial appeal for the Council to view the project in person. The mass and scale at issue are best appreciated on site, and Appellants would welcome the opportunity to meet with any Councilmember at their home at 367 Pearl Street, from which the project’s bulk, its effect on the identified blue-water view, and its relationship to the surrounding streetscape are directly visible.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please direct all correspondence and notices regarding this appeal to the undersigned.

Respectfully submitted,
Kendra L. Carney Mehr
Carney Mehr, ALC
Attorney for Appellants
Lynda Fluent, Mark Fluent, and Justine
Fluent
355 of 355

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date:

July 28, 2026
APPEAL
B
SUBJECT: 950 BAJA STREET: PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 2025-1195 FOR A NEW SINGLEFAMILY DWELLING, ATTACHED THREE-CAR GARAGE, ELEVATED DECKS,

GRADING, RETAINING WALLS, LANDSCAPING, AND NEW VEHICULAR ACCESS, AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2026-0057 FOR AN ATTACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AT 950 BAJA STREET IN THE

ARCH BEACH HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN AREA, AND CATEGORICAL

EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3)
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:

1. Conduct a Public Hearing, including receiving a staff report and taking public testimony and evidence relating to the consideration of Design Review 2025-1195 and Coastal Development Permit 2026-0057 and the California Environmental Quality Act exemption under Section 15303 of the state CEQA Guidelines; and

2. Adopt the Resolution titled, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL AND SUSTAINING THE

DECISION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TO CONDITIONALLY APPROVE DESIGN REVIEW 2025-1195 FOR A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING, ATTACHED THREE-CAR

GARAGE, ELEVATED DECKS, GRADING, RETAINING WALLS, LANDSCAPING, AND NEW VEHICULAR ACCESS, AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2026-0057 FOR AN ATTACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AT 950 BAJA STREET IN THE ARCH BEACH

HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN AREA, AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3),” upholding the Design Review Board’s conditional approval of Design Review 2025-1195 and Coastal Development Permit 2026-0057, and finding the Revised Project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.

SUMMARY OF THE MATTER
Hugo Soria, designer on behalf of David Liu, property owner (“Applicant”),1 for 950 Baja Street (the “Property”) (see aerial map included as Figure 1) applied for Design Review (“DR”) 2025-1195 to construct a new three-story, single-family residence, attached three-car garage, elevated decks, grading, retaining walls, landscaping, and new vehicular access, pursuant to Laguna Beach Municipal Code (“LBMC”) Section 25.05.040(B)(1), and Coastal Development Permit (“CDP”) 2026-0057 for a new attached accessory dwelling unit (“ADU”), pursuant to LBMC Section 25.07.008(A)(1)(a)2. Design review is not 1 The Project’s agent is Steve Kawaratani, who is within the definition of Applicant. 2 Coastal Commission-issued Exclusionary Order E-93-1 (the “Exclusionary Order”) excludes single family residential development from the coastal development permit requirement in certain geographic areas of the City. The Coastal Commission staff has taken the position that the Exclusionary Order does not extend to ADUs, and therefore the City cannot apply the Exclusionary Order to exclude ADUs from the coastal development permit requirement. Through a process pursued by the 1 of 623
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2025-1195 AND CDP 2026-0057 AT 950 BAJA STREET July 28, 2026

required for the proposed ADU. The subject property is currently vacant and has no prior development history.3
On March 28, 2024, the Design Review Board (“Board”) held a duly noticed public hearing and conditionally approved Design Review (DR) 23-1274 by a 3-2 vote for construction of a new single-family residence (3,525 square feet), attached four-car garage (889 square feet), elevated decks, (519 square feet), grading, retaining walls, and landscaping, including the approval of a categorical exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines Section 15303 (the “Original Project”). The Original Project contained an attached ADU that the City treated as excluded from the CDP requirement under the Exclusionary Order (like the remaining single family residential development) and subject to administrative review. The total livable square footage for the Original Project was approximately 3,955 square feet (3,525 square feet for the primary unit and 430 square feet for the ADU).

On April 11, 2024, the neighboring property owner of 940 Baja Street filed an appeal of the Board’s approval of the Original Project. The appeal contended that the project did not comply with the following Design Review Criteria and Design Guidelines: (1) Design Articulation, (2) Neighborhood Compatibility, (3) Privacy, and (4) View Equity. In addition, the appellant contended that the staking was installed incorrectly and was not revised to show the Applicant’s proposed changes; that additional modifications were proposed during the Applicant’s presentation during the prior Board hearing without revised staking or neighborhood communication; that landscaping modifications were proposed without the ability for neighbors or the City to review prior to hearing; and that overall proper neighborhood communication did not occur by the applicant team.

On July 9, 2024, the City Council conducted an appeal hearing and unanimously directed staff to prepare a resolution granting the appeal in part, which would overturn the Board’s decision to approve the Original Project, and to remand the Original Project in part back to the Board to address the City Council’s direction to improve neighborhood compatibility, design articulation, privacy, and view equity. Specific recommendations included further stepping back the third level from the street to reduce the perception of massing, avoiding the placement of windows directly facing neighboring windows, further reducing the overall height of the building, and relocating the garage and vehicular access from the north side of the property to the south side. On July 23, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 24.062 memorializing their July 9, 2024 direction on the Original Project to staff. (Attachment 10.) After the City Council remand, on November 25, 2024, the Coastal Commission concluded that the Exclusionary Order does not apply to ADUs but does apply to other single family residential development.

The Applicant then revised the Original Project to remove the ADU. This revised project was noticed for the September 11, 2025 Board meeting. On September 11, 2025, the public hearing on the revised project was continued to December 11, 2025 per the Applicant’s request. On December 11, 2025, the public hearing on the revised project was continued to January 22, 2026 also at the Applicant’s request. The Applicant then revised the project to add back into the project an attached ADU (the “Revised Project”). Because an applicant, the Coastal Commission concurred with the interpretation of the Coastal Commission Executive Director at its November 15, 2024 meeting. The Applicant does not agree with this position and this question is the subject of a current lawsuit.

Nevertheless, the City has required a CDP. Notably, the Coastal Commission can revoke the Exclusionary Order at any time if the conditions of exclusion are violated. (Public Resources Code Section 30610.5(b).) 2 of 623
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2025-1195 AND CDP 2026-0057 AT 950 BAJA STREET July 28, 2026

ADU is not considered excludable development within Exclusionary Order No. E-93-1 of the Coastal Zone (like the remainder of the project), City staff had to re-notice the public hearing to address the CDP for the ADU. Accordingly, on January 22, 2026, the Board continued the public hearing on the revised project to its February 12, 2026 meeting.

On February 12, 2026, the Board opened the public hearing on the Revised Project and granted a continuance to their meeting on April 9, 2026 per the Applicant’s request. On April 9, 2026, the Board held a public hearing to consider the Applicant’s Revised Project. In response to the City Council direction, the Applicant revised the project by proposing the modifications noted below:
• Pulled all floor levels back from the street by varying distances for various wall and deck elements across the front facade;
• Relocated the proposed garage from north side of structure to south side, with the attached ADU now located on the north side;
• Reduced the overall height of the structure by one foot; • Reduced the top of roof height by two feet through additional excavation; • Reduced the primary dwelling floor area by 368 square feet; • Reduced the garage floor area by 73 square feet;
• Increased the ADU floor area by 558 square feet;
• Increased the storage and mechanical areas by 135 square feet through additional excavation; • Increased the elevated deck area by 85 square feet;
• Increased the total grading export by approximately 536 cubic yards; • Removed the front entry stairway and relocated access to the south side elevation; • Revised the roof design from solid overhangs to slatted overhangs; and • Reduced the quantity and size of window and door openings.

The Board received public testimony, which included neighbors who expressed concerns related to design articulation, neighborhood compatibility, privacy, and view equity.

After carefully considering the oral and documentary evidence from staff, the Applicant, and members of the public, and upon review of the staff recommendation for approval, the Board voted 4-0 (Board member Weil absent) to adopt Resolution No. 2025-1195, approving the Revised Project, subject to the conditions of approval set forth in the resolution and subject to three additional project-specific conditions, and a finding that the Revised Project is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15303 of the State CEQA Guidelines (the “Board Approval”). Below are the three additional Project-specific conditions imposed by the Board:

Condition No. 29: Taken as a single unit, the deck and west wall of the family room shall be reduced by 3 feet to the east to create more articulation of the home’s front elevation at the upper level.

Condition No. 30: That fire access shall be coordinated with staff to also accommodate access to the neighboring property at 960 Baja Street in compliance with applicable Fire Code Regulations. 3 of 623
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2025-1195 AND CDP 2026-0057 AT 950 BAJA STREET July 28, 2026

Condition No. 31: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the changes presented by the applicant at the hearing shall be incorporated into the final approved building construction plan set. Said change(s) include:
• Lowering the shed roof that extends across Bedroom 3, the wine closet, and Bedroom 2 closet and en-suite at the back of the home by 3 feet, from an elevation of 125.45 to 122.45.

The April 9, 2026 Board-Adopted Resolution 2025-1195, Staff Report, Plans, Public Correspondence, and Transcript are included as Attachments 4 through 8 respectively.6 The total livable square footage for the Revised Project is 4,145 square feet (3,157 square feet for the primary unit and 988 square feet for the ADU).

Figure 1 – Aerial Photo
6 The April 9, 2026 Board Meeting Video is available to view on the City’s website at the following link (Refer to Agenda Item

5.9): https://lagunabeachcity.granicus.com/player/clip/2960?view_id=3&redirect=true 4 of 623
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2025-1195 AND CDP 2026-0057 AT 950 BAJA STREET July 28, 2026

Figure 2 – Original Project Street Rendering
Figure 3 – Revised Project Street Rendering. Note that in accordance with Condition No. 29, the left portion of the upper level, which is already recessed along the front, would be pulled back by an additional three feet to create more articulation.
5 of 623
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2025-1195 AND CDP 2026-0057 AT 950 BAJA STREET July 28, 2026

On April 23, 2026, Ayse McGuire (“Appellant”) of 945 Katella Street, filed an appeal of the Board Approval (the “Appeal”) (Attachment 2). The Appeal is summarized by staff below:

1. The revised design does not comply with Council direction.

2. The Board was pressured by the five-hearing limit and Applicant postponement were counted towards the hearing limit.

3. Last-minute design changes were proposed on the day of the hearing.

4. Stakes were not corrected.

5. The upper floors of the revised design are larger than the project denied by the City Council.

6. Non-living spaces were relabeled as “void” areas.

7. The finished floor elevation was not lowered.

8. The proposed plan is still “too bulky”, “too boxy” and “too unarticulated” for the neighborhood.

LBMC Section 25.05.070 requires certain forms of public notice for an appeal. Public notice was duly provided to consider the Appeal of the Project at the July 28, 2026 City Council meeting in accordance with LBMC Section 25.05.065 and Chapter 25.07. Notices were mailed to owners and occupants within a 300- foot and 100-foot radius of the Property, respectively, posted at three locations including at the Property, and published in a newspaper of general circulation (Attachment 3).

CITY COUNCIL APPEAL PROCEDURES
A. Standards of Review
Pursuant to LBMC Section 25.05.070, decisions of the Board may be appealed to the City Council by the Applicant or any owner of property within 300 feet of the subject property.

The City Council may uphold, reverse, or remand any appealed decision. (LBMC § 25.05.070(E)(3)(a)). In particular, in reversing a decision, there must be three affirmative votes approving the reversal by adoption of a resolution that sets forth in writing the findings relied on to conclude that the appealed decision was in error or an abuse of discretion.8 (LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(3)(a).) In upholding a decision, the City Council may also choose to “modify the proposed project or conditions of project approval, by making them more restrictive or may add more restrictive conditions of approval upon the adoption of a resolution and without the need for a finding of error or an abuse of discretion.” (LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(3)(b).) Further, pursuant to LBMC 25.05.070(E)(2)(d), the City Council’s review is limited to “the plans that were the subject of the decision or determination by the approval authority”; if new plans are submitted, the City Council “shall not consider or act on” them but may determine to remand those plans to the approval authority “for further proceedings pursuant to such direction as may be given the City Council.”

1. Design Review
LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(2) sets forth the procedures and review criteria for City Council requests for review of design review decisions. With respect to the standard of review for those decisions, subsection (E)(2)(b) provides:
8 An abuse of discretion is defined as the following: (1) the City has "not proceeded in the manner required by law"; (2) the City "decision is not supported by the findings"; or (3) the "findings are not supported by the evidence." (Civil Code § 1094.5.) 6 of 623
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2025-1195 AND CDP 2026-0057 AT 950 BAJA STREET July 28, 2026

If the decision or determination was supported by four or more affirmative votes of the approval authority, upon hearing the appeal or request for review, the city council shall be limited to the grounds specifically stated in the notice of appeal, if an appeal was filed, and to the evidence that was presented to the approval authority. The city council shall not conduct a de novo hearing, shall not reweigh the evidence, and shall not exercise its independent judgment and discretion as to the evidence. The city council shall consider whether the approval authority proceeded in the manner required by law and whether the decision or determination is supported by substantial evidence. There shall be a presumption that the decision or determination made by the approval authority was reasonable, valid, and not an abuse of discretion. The appellant, if there is one, shall have the burden of proof of demonstrating otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence, including plans, presented.

Accordingly, in its consideration of DR 2025-1195, which pertains to the new single-family dwelling and associated improvements,10 which was approved 4-0, the City Council shall not conduct a de novo hearing.

Rather, the City Council shall consider whether the Board proceeded in the manner required by law and whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence.

If the Applicant proposes new plans that result in a redesign, the City Council shall not consider such plans; however, the City Council may (but is not required to) remand such plans to the Board for further review.

Notwithstanding that the City Council cannot review proposed new plans, the City Council can uphold the approval of DR 2025-1195, subject to more restrictive conditions of approval that are effectuated through the provision of new plans; 11 in such event, remand is not required.

2. Coastal Development Permit and CEQA
LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(1) sets forth the procedures and review criteria for non-design review appeals.

The City Council shall conduct a de novo review of the underlying application and shall not be limited to the grounds stated for the appeal, if an appeal was filed, and shall not be limited to the evidence that was presented to the Board. The City Council shall exercise its independent judgment and discretion as to the evidence presented at its hearing. Nevertheless, there shall be a presumption that the decision or determination made by the Board was reasonable, valid, and not an abuse of discretion; and the appellant, if there is one, shall have the burden of proof of demonstrating otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence presented.

In its consideration of the Board’s approval of CDP 2026-0057, which pertains to the attached ADU only, and a Class 3 categorical exemption from CEQA, the City Council is not limited to either the evidence in the record or the deliberations of the Board. The Applicant or members of the public may present new evidence for the City Council’s consideration, and the City Council is free to deliberate without being limited to the Board’s findings – in other words, a de novo hearing. 10 The proposed attached ADU was designed to meet the requirements of the City’s ADU regulations and is therefore exempt from Design Review.
11 By way of example only, the City Council could choose to uphold a DR decision but impose a condition requiring that a wall be moved in three feet (3’) in order to support a view equity finding. In such event, new plans would be required to effectuate the condition, but the plans would not need to be remanded to the Board or Planning Commission for further consideration. 7 of 623
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2025-1195 AND CDP 2026-0057 AT 950 BAJA STREET July 28, 2026

B. City Council Options
The City Council has numerous options in consideration of this matter, which are as follows:

1. Adopt the attached Resolution upholding the Board Approval, and finding the Project categorically exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guideline Section 15303;

2. Adopt the attached Resolution upholding the decision of the Board to conditionally approve DR 2025- 1195 and CDP 2026-0057, and finding the Project categorically exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guideline Section 15303, but modifying the Resolution to include more restrictive conditions of approval;

3. Direct staff to prepare and return at a future meeting with a Resolution overturning the Board Approval, with findings in support of overturning the Board approval and denying the Project; or

4. Direct staff to prepare and return at a future meeting with a Resolution remanding DR 2025-1195 and CDP 2026-0057 to the Board, with findings in support of the remand and further direction to the Board.

APPLICABLE STATE HOUSING LAWS
A. Housing Accountability Act
The Housing Accountability Act (HAA) requires a city to notify a developer if the proposed housing development project is inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provisions (to objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria) within 30 days of the date that the application is determined to be complete and failure to take such action will result in the project being deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision (to objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria). (Gov. Code Section 65589.5(j)(2).)
When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, the city must make certain written findings to deny a project that (1) the housing development project “would have a ‘specific, adverse impact’14 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:
14 A “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. (Gov. Code Section 65589.5(j)(1)(A).)
8 of 623
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2025-1195 AND CDP 2026-0057 AT 950 BAJA STREET July 28, 2026

Nothing in this section shall be construed to relieve the local agency from complying with . . . the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code).
(Cal. Gov't Code § 65589.5(e).)
Here, based on HCD guidance, the City treats development of a single family residence and ADU as subject to the HAA.

The Housing Crisis Act (HCA) also provides that a local government may not hold more than five hearings on a complete application. After the September 11, 2025 Board meeting, the Applicant revised the project to include an attached ADU and sought an additional entitlement, a CDP. Because these changes resulted in a different project, the five-hearing limit began anew. Excluding continuances requested by the Applicant, the City Council’s July 28, 2026 hearing constitutes the third hearing on the project.

B. The State ADU Law
Under the “State ADU Law” (codified at Government Code § 66310, et seq.), an “ADU is defined to mean “an attached or a detached residential dwelling unit that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons and is located on a lot with a proposed or existing primary residence. . . .” (Gov. Code § 66313(a).) An ADU must contain “permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as the single-family or multifamily dwelling is or will be situated.” (Id.) A city is authorized to “provide for the creation of ADUs in areas zoned to allow single-family or multifamily dwelling residential use” by way of ordinance. (Gov. Code Section 66314.) Any ordinance governing the creation of an ADU must provide an approval process that includes only ministerial provisions for the approval of ADUs and must not include any discretionary processes, provisions, or requirements for those ADUs, except as otherwise allowed by the State ADU Law. (Gov. Code Section 66316.) A permit application for an ADU or JADU must be considered and approved ministerially without discretionary review or hearing. (Gov. Code Section 66317.) Notwithstanding the above provisions, the State ADU Law does not supersede or alter the application of the Coastal Act, except that a city is not required to hold a public hearing on coastal development permit applications for ADUs:

Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect of application of the Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code), except that the local government shall not be required to hold public hearings for coastal development permit applications for accessory dwelling units. (Gov. Code Section 66329 [emph. added].) Under this provision, and as discussed further below, the City imposes the provisions of its certified Local Coastal Program (“LCP”) as it relates to ADUs.

In recent years, the Legislature has approved, and the Governor has signed into law, numerous bills that amended the State ADU Law to impose new limits on local authority to regulate ADUs and junior ADUs.

Notwithstanding this legislation, as stated above, State ADU Law provides that it “shall not be construed 9 of 623
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2025-1195 AND CDP 2026-0057 AT 950 BAJA STREET July 28, 2026

to supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the Coastal Act of 1976. . . .” (Gov.

Code § 66329.) The California Department of Housing and Community Development’s (“HCD”) ADU Handbook advises that State ADU Law applies in the coastal zone, but “do[es] not necessarily alter or lessen the effect or application of Coastal Act resource protection policies.” Accordingly, HCD opines, a local government could, for example, impose stricter setback or parking standards in the coastal zone “if required by a local [c]oastal [p]rogram.” (HCD’s July 2022 ADU Handbook, at pgs. 15-16, 27-28.)16 The City’s regulations governing the approval of ADUs and JADUs are provided in the City’s LCP, specifically Chapter 25.17 (Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units) of Title 25 (Zoning) of the Laguna Beach Municipal Code. On November 16, 2021, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1665, which identified self-contained ADUs as subject to the coastal development permit application process. On September 7, 2023 LCP5-LGB-22-0003-3 Part B (Coastal Development Permits) was certified by the Coastal Commission. The City updated Chapter 25.17 to comply with State ADU Law via LCP Amendment No. 21-8239, which was certified by the Coastal Commission on September 7, 2023.

In 2024, the California Legislature approved, and the Governor signed into law, Assembly Bill 2533 (“AB 2533”) and Senate Bill 1211 (“SB 1211”), which further amended State ADU Law and came into effect on January 1, 2025. Below is an overview of the City Council’s most recent actions relating to its requirements for ADUs and JADUs, in part, in response to AB 2533 and SB 1211:
• On December 10, 2024, the City Council found that there was a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare and adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 1707. • On January 14, 2025, the City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 1709 extending Urgency Ordinance No. 1707 and implementing certain modifications to Chapter 25.17 and directed staff to consider additional modifications.
• On March 11, 2025, the City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 1713, implementing additional minor modifications to Chapter 25.17.
• On March 25, 2025, the City adopted non-urgency Ordinance No. 1715 to mirror the ADU and JADU requirements reflected in Urgency Ordinance No. 1713. The City also submitted Ordinance No. 1715 to the Coastal Commission for certification.

Based on the number of pending ADU applications (approximately 24 as of December 10, 2024) within the City, the City implemented a policy that applications filed before 5:00 p.m. on December 10, 2024 are subject to the objective design standards and Coastal Act implementing standards in effect under LCP Amendment No. 21-8239 and applications filed after December 10, 2024 are subject to the objective design standards and Coastal Act implementing standards in effect under the City’s existing urgency ordinance.17 Here, Urgency Ordinance No. 1713 applies to this Project. In order to approve a CDP for the ADU, the reviewing body must find that the project is in conformity with all the applicable provisions of the certified 16 HCD’s ADU Handbook is authorized by Gov. Code § 66327, which provides that HCD may “review, adopt, amend, or repeal guidelines to implement uniform standards or criteria that supplement or clarify the terms, references, and standards set forth in this section.” The ADU Handbook is available at the following location:
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-07/ADUHandbookUpdate.pdf 17 On April 8, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution 25.020 ratifying this policy. 10 of 623
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2025-1195 AND CDP 2026-0057 AT 950 BAJA STREET July 28, 2026

local coastal program (LBMC Section 25.07.012(F)) and thereafter make the requisite findings (LBMC Section 25.07.012(G)).

RESPONSES TO ISSUES RAISED ON APPEAL
As noted above, the City received an Appeal of the Board’s decision (Attachment 2). As indicated under Standards of Review, in the City Council’s review of non-design review appeals, such as a CDP for the ADU, the Council shall conduct a de novo review of the underlying application and shall not be limited to the grounds stated for the appeal, nor is the Council limited to the evidence that was presented to the Board.

Accordingly, in its consideration of the Board’s approval of CDP 2026-0057, the Council is free to deliberate without being limited to the Board’s findings – in other words, a de novo hearing.

In the Council’s review of DR appeals, such as the DR for the new single family dwelling and attached three-car garage, elevated decks, grading, retaining walls, landscaping, and new vehicular access, the City Council shall not conduct a de novo review, shall not reweigh evidence and shall not exercise its independent judgement and discretion as to the evidence. The City Council shall consider whether the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, with a presumption that the decision was reasonable, valid and not an abuse of discretion. The Appellant has the burden to proof, by a preponderance of evidence, that the decision was not. Further, for DR 2025-0407, the City Council is limited to the grounds specifically stated in the notice of Appeal.

Below is a summary of the appeal contentions and City staff’s response.

1. “The revised design still does not comply with Council direction.” Staff’s response:

At the July 9, 2024 City Council meeting, the Council remanded the Original Project back to the Board with direction to reconsider neighborhood compatibility (mass and scale), design articulation, privacy, and view equity. Specific recommendations included further stepping back the third level to reduce upper massing and create more articulation to the overall building form, avoiding the placement of windows directly facing neighboring windows, further reducing the overall building height, and relocating the garage and vehicular access from the north side of the property to the south side.

In response to the City Council's direction, the Applicant revised the project by increasing front setbacks at all floor levels from the street with varying setbacks for walls and decks across each level, relocating the garage and vehicular access from the north side to the south side of the property, reducing the overall building height by one foot as measured from the lowest finished floor of the building, lowering the top-ofroof elevation by two feet, as measured from the rear lot line, through additional excavation, reducing the quantity and size of window and door openings, revising the roof design from solid overhangs to slatted overhangs. These changes modify the building mass and floor plan configuration to create greater variation in wall planes and reduce the perception of mass and scale. In addition, during the April 9, 2026 hearing, the Applicant proposed lowering the rear shed roof element by an additional three feet to further reduce massing and eliminate the possibility of future conversion of the vaulted ceiling area to habitable third-floor 11 of 623
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2025-1195 AND CDP 2026-0057 AT 950 BAJA STREET July 28, 2026

space. The Board incorporated this modification as Condition No. 31. All of these aforementioned changes, including Condition No. 31 are reflected in Figures 4 and 5 below.

Figure 4 – Proposed Reductions on South Elevation
Figure 5 – Proposed Reductions on North Elevation
12 of 623
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2025-1195 AND CDP 2026-0057 AT 950 BAJA STREET July 28, 2026

The Board specifically considered whether the Revised Project adequately responded to the City Council's remand direction. During deliberations, Board members proposed additional modifications to further articulate the home’s street façade at the upper level and improve neighborhood compatibility by reducing the deck and west wall of the family room by three feet on the uppermost level. To address neighbor concerns related to fire access, the Board also proposed a condition to ensure fire access is coordinated with staff to accommodate fire access to the neighboring property at 960 Baja Street.

With these additional conditions included, the Board determined that the Revised Project demonstrated substantially greater articulation, improved privacy protections, and reduced apparent mass and scale compared to the previously approved design. Although some Board members indicated that additional modifications could have been made, the Board ultimately found that the Revised Project with the additional changes proposed during the hearing adequately addressed the City Council's concerns and unanimously approved the Revised Project. Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the Board's determination that the Revised Project adequately responded to the City Council's direction regarding neighborhood compatibility, design articulation, privacy, and view equity.

2. “The Board was pressured by the five-hearing threat.” Staff response:

The record does not support the contention that the Board's decision was improperly influenced by either the State's five-hearing limitation under the Housing Crisis Act or the City's hearing limit policy adopted per Resolution No. 25.087. The Board conducted a public hearing, received testimony from staff, the Applicant, and members of the public, deliberated on the evidence presented, and imposed three additional Revised Project-specific conditions of approval to further address concerns related to design articulation, neighborhood compatibility, and fire access prior to voting 4-0 to approve the Revised Project. While the Board may have felt it necessary to act on the application at the April 9, 2026 Board meeting based on the Board’s belief that the Revised Project was at its fifth hearing, Assistant City Attorney Donegan made it clear that the Board’s options included approval or denial of the Revised Project.20 The Board deliberated extensively regarding the merits of the Revised Project, including design articulation, neighborhood compatibility, privacy, and view equity, before unanimously voting 4-0 to approve the Revised Project subject to additional conditions of approval to add further articulation to the street facing façade and improve neighborhood compatibility related to mass and scale.21 The Board's deliberations demonstrate that the Board based its decision on the evidence presented and the applicable findings and Design Review criteria, rather than on procedural hearing limitations.

3. “Applicant postponements being counted toward the hearing limit.” Staff response:

The scheduling and continuance of public hearings are procedural matters administered by the City in accordance with applicable City policies and procedures. The record reflects that the project was continued on multiple occasions to provide the Applicant the opportunity to further refine the project to better address 20 Attachment 8, April 9, 2026 Board Transcript Pages 26-27 [Donegan]. 21 Attachment 8, April 9, 2026 Board Transcript Pages 12-33 [Neev, Bauta, Coveny, Gibbs]. 13 of 623
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2025-1195 AND CDP 2026-0057 AT 950 BAJA STREET July 28, 2026

Council direction and neighbor and Board concerns, and for revised noticing associated with the introduction of the CDP for the ADU. The Board ultimately considered the Revised Project at a duly noticed public hearing on April 9, 2026. Based on the introduction of the CDP for the ADU, the application was not complete until the public hearing before the Board on February 12, 2026, when it was continued to the public hearing before the Board on April 9, 2026—when the Board conditionally approved the Revised Project. Accordingly, the Board considered the Revised Project at two public hearings. The public hearing before the City Council on this appeal is the third public hearing.

The Appellant has not identified any procedural error or demonstrated how the hearing schedule affected the Board's ability to fully and properly consider the Revised Project. Staff also incorporates by reference its response to Contention No. 2 regarding the Board’s careful and deliberate consideration of the Revised Project, regardless of any understanding that the matter may not have been eligible for a continuance to a future meeting for additional direction.

4. “Last minute design changes on the day of the hearing.” Staff response:

During the April 9, 2026 Board hearing, the Applicant clarified that the vaulted ceiling area at the rear of the structure, extending between the second- and third-floor levels to create a nearly double-height ceiling for a second-floor bedroom and bathroom, had been mislabeled on the proposed third-floor plan as void space. In response to public testimony regarding unnecessary massing and concerns that the vaulted area could be converted into additional third-floor habitable space in the future, the Applicant proposed an additional modification to lower the rear shed roof element by three feet, resulting in a ceiling height ranging from approximately 11.5 to 12.5 feet.

It is appropriate for the Board to consider modifications proposed during a public hearing, and to impose conditions of approval to address issues raised through public testimony and during Board deliberation.

Accordingly, the Board incorporated this modification into Condition No. 31, requiring the revised roof configuration to be reflected in the final construction plans.

Additionally, as indicated in staff’s response to Contention No. 1, the Board incorporated Condition Nos. 29 and 30 to further improve articulation of the upper level, reduce the perception of massing, and ensure adequate fire access for the neighboring property. These modifications and conditions of approval were included in direct response to public testimony and the City Council's remand direction and were intended to further reduce the Revised Project's apparent mass and potential safety impacts. The Board appropriately applied the City’s adopted design review criteria in the manner required by the Design Guidelines, evaluated the Revised Project in accordance with the City Council’s direction, and imposed conditions necessary to make all required findings, as reflected in the Board record. The approval, as conditioned and mitigated, represents a lawful exercise of discretion.

5. “Stakes not being corrected.”
14 of 623
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2025-1195 AND CDP 2026-0057 AT 950 BAJA STREET July 28, 2026

Staff response:

In accordance with LBMC Section 25.05.040(C)(2), a staking plan must be prepared, staking poles and connecting ribbons, which accurately represent the full extent of the proposed structure, including decks and eaves, must be constructed and certified by a registered land surveyor or registered civil engineer licensed to conduct surveys in the state of California at least 21 calendar days prior to the first public hearing:

A staking plan shall be prepared as specified on the most current zoning and design review submittal checklist. Staking poles and connecting ribbons, which accurately represent the full extent of the proposed structure, including decks and eaves, shall be constructed at least 21 calendar days prior to the first public hearing. At least 21 calendar days prior to the first public hearing, the location and height of the staking poles must be certified as accurate by a registered land surveyor or registered civil engineer licensed to conduct land surveys in the State of California. If complete and certified project staking is not in place at least 21 calendar days prior to the first Design Review Board public hearing date or 14 calendar days prior to the administrative design review public hearing, the project shall be continued to a later date. Neither the applicant, a relative of the applicant, nor any other person possessing a financial interest in the property or the project may certify the location and height accuracy of the staking poles. If the project is modified during the design review process because of a view consideration, privacy or other concerns that the Board determines is necessary to restake, the project shall be re-staked and re-certified at least 14 calendar days prior to any subsequent public hearing (LBMC Section 25.05.040(C)(2).).

A staking poles and connecting ribbons were constructed and certified by a registered professional engineer 21 days prior to the February 12, and April 9, 2026 Board public hearings on the Revised Project.24 The Appellant has not demonstrated any specific deficiencies in the staking process.

Further, it should be noted that the Board’s evaluation did not depend on story poles alone. The Board considered the full evidentiary record, including the Revised Project plans, elevations, sections, visual materials presented at hearings, and extensive testimony, and Board members conducted site visits. The Board’s approval required additional design changes that directly addressed the neighborhood compatibility and privacy issues discussed during the hearings. The Appellant has not demonstrated that any deficiencies in the staking affected the Board's evaluation of the Revised Project or the substantial evidence supporting the Board's decision.

6. “The upper floors being larger than the rejected design.” Staff response:

The Revised Project reduced the overall building height by one foot, lowered the top-of-roof elevation by two feet through additional excavation, reduced the floor area of the primary residence, including a reduction of approximately 478 square feet at the upper level, and increased the setback at all floor levels from the street frontage. While portions of the lower-level program were reconfigured to accommodate the relocated garage, mechanical room, and ADU, the additional floor area was achieved through further excavation into the hillside and to not increase the apparent mass or bulk of the structure. 24 Attachment 6, Board plans, sheet ST-1. The staking plan was certified on March 20, 2026. 15 of 623
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2025-1195 AND CDP 2026-0057 AT 950 BAJA STREET July 28, 2026

Additionally, during the Board's deliberations, Condition No. 29 was incorporated to further reduce a portion of the upper level and elevated deck area by three feet to create additional articulation and further reduce the perception of massing from the street frontage.

In evaluating neighborhood compatibility, the Board considered the overall building mass, bulk, scale, and articulation of the Revised Project rather than relying solely on comparisons of individual floor areas. After reviewing the revised plans, public testimony, and the evidence contained in the record, the Board concluded that the Revised Project adequately responded to the City Council's direction regarding neighborhood compatibility, mass and scale, and design articulation. While the total livable square footage increased compared to the Original Project considered by the City Council on July 9, and 23, 2024, the Board found that the redesign appropriately addressed the City Council’s direction based on other changes reflected in the Revised Project, as conditioned.

7. “Non-living spaces being relabeled as “void” areas.” Staff response:

During the April 9, 2026 hearing, the Applicant clarified that the area identified as "void space" on the third-floor plans represented vaulted ceiling space above the second-floor bedrooms rather than additional third-floor area. In response to concerns raised by neighboring property owners regarding massing and the potential for future conversion of the vaulted ceiling area into additional third-floor habitable area, the Applicant proposed reducing the height of the rear shed roof element by three feet while retaining clerestory windows to provide natural light to the second-floor bedrooms and bathrooms. The Board incorporated this modification into Condition No. 31. While the demarcation of the non-living space as “void” may have confused members of the public, this issue was addressed and resolved by the Board during the public hearing on April 9, 2026.

8. “The finished floor elevation not being lowered.”
Staff response:

Based on the applicant’s Revised Project plans included as Attachment 6, the Revised Project has been modified to reduce the overall building height by one foot, from 29 feet to 28 feet, as measured from the finished floor. In addition, the top of roof elevation has been lowered by two feet relative to the rear property line, from 131 feet to 129 feet, through additional excavation. The Board evaluated the revised design as proposed and determined that the Revised Project adequately addressed the City Council's remand direction regarding building height and massing and meets the applicable design review criteria.

9. “The proposed plan is still “too bulky”, “too boxy” and “too unarticulated” for our neighborhood aesthetics.”
Staff response:

The Board specifically considered concerns related to building mass, scale, articulation, and neighborhood compatibility during the April 9, 2026 hearing. In evaluating these issues, the Board considered the Revised Project plans and additional design modifications, staff analysis, public testimony, and the City's Design Review criteria.
16 of 623
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2025-1195 AND CDP 2026-0057 AT 950 BAJA STREET July 28, 2026

The Revised Project incorporated numerous modifications intended to reduce the perception of mass and scale and improve articulation, including increasing setbacks at all floor levels from the street frontage, relocating the garage and vehicular access to the south side of the property, reducing the overall building height and top-of-roof elevation, reducing the quantity and size of window and door openings, revising the roof design from solid overhangs to slatted overhangs, and modifying the floor plan configuration to create greater variation in wall planes and roof forms. In addition, the Board imposed Condition Nos. 29 and 31 to further reduce upper-level massing and improve articulation.

Although members of the public continued to express concerns that the revised design remained overly bulky, boxy, or insufficiently articulated, the Board concluded that the Revised Project, as conditioned, adequately addressed the City Council's remand direction regarding mass and scale and adequately satisfied the applicable Design Review criteria relating to neighborhood compatibility and design articulation. The Board's determination was based on substantial evidence contained within the administrative record, including the revised plans, staff analysis, public testimony, and the Board's deliberations.

FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The recommended action has no financial impact to the budget.

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, the Revised Project qualifies for a categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15303 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, in that the project consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small structures There is no evidence of any unusual or special conditions that would result in a significant effect on the environment. Here, the Revised Project involves the construction of a new single-family dwelling and attached three car garage, attached ADU, elevated decks, grading, retaining walls, landscaping, and new vehicular access in a residential area. Therefore, it qualifies for the exemption.

Further, none of the exceptions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply. The Revised Project site does not contain any environmentally sensitive areas. There will be no cumulative impact resulting from successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time. The zone in which the property is located allows for construction of one primary unit per lot. There are no unusual circumstances resulting in a significant impact on the environment. There will be no damage to scenic resources, including trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway as no such resources exist on the property. The Revised Project is not located on a hazardous waste site or any other site included on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. The Revised Project will not result in significant adverse impacts to historical resources as defined by CEQA. Consequently, additional environmental analysis is not necessary to meet the requirements of the CEQA.

ATTACHMENTS

1. City Council Resolution (Pgs. 19-51)

2. Appeal (Pgs. 52-53)

3. City Council Appeal Public Notice (Pg. 54)

4. Adopted Board Resolution No. 2025-1195 (Pgs. 55-72)
17 of 623
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2025-1195 AND CDP 2026-0057 AT 950 BAJA STREET July 28, 2026

5. April 9, 2026 Board Staff Report (Pgs. 73-92)

6. April 9, 2026 Board Project Plans (Pgs. 93-127)

7. April 9, 2026 Public Correspondence (Pgs. 128-149)

8. April 9, 2026 Board Meeting Transcript (Pgs. 150-183)

9. July 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report (Pgs. 184-214)

10. City Council Resolution 24.062 (Pgs. 215-221)

11. Prior Board Approved Project Plans (Pgs. 222-253)

12. July 9, 2024 City Council Meeting Transcript (Pgs. 254-267)

13. Order of Testimony (Pg. 268)
Submitted By: Matthew Schneider Approved: .David A Kiff Matthew Schneider, Director of
Community Development
Dave Kiff, City Manager
Report Prepared By: Coordinated With:

Kate Kazama, Senior Planner Jane Abzug, Assistant City Attorney Anthony Viera, Deputy Director of Community
Development
18 of 623
RESOLUTION NO. 26.XXX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL AND

SUSTAINING THE DECISION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
TO CONDITIONALLY APPROVE DESIGN REVIEW 2025-1195
FOR A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING, ATTACHED THREECAR GARAGE, ELEVATED DECKS, GRADING, RETAINING

WALLS, LANDSCAPING, AND NEW VEHICULAR ACCESS, AND
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2026-0057 FOR AN
ATTACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AT 950 BAJA

STREET IN THE ARCH BEACH HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN AREA,

AND A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15303
(CLASS 3)
WHEREAS, Hugo Soria, Designer on behalf of David Liu, Property Owner (“Applicant”), for 950 Baja Street (the “Property”), applied for Design Review (“DR”) 2025-1195 for a new single-family dwelling, attached three-car garage, elevated decks, grading, retaining walls, landscaping, and new vehicular access, and Coastal Development Permit (“CDP”) 2026-0057 for an attached Accessory Dwelling Unit (“ADU”) in the Arch Beach Heights Specific Plan Area, pursuant to Laguna Beach Municipal Code (“LBMC”) Section 25.05.040 and Section 25.07.004 (the “Original Project”); and
WHEREAS, on March 28, 2024, the Design Review Board (“Board”) conditionally approved the Original Project by a 3-2 vote, including the approval of a categorical exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines Section 15303, pursuant to Board Resolution 23-1274 (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, on April 11, 2024, the neighboring property owner, Paige Lyall, of the property located at 940 Baja Street, filed an appeal of the Board’s approval of the Project (the “Appeal”); and
Attachment 1
19 19 of 623
-2- Reso. #
WHEREAS, on July 9, 2024, the City Council held a public hearing on the Appeal and directed staff to prepare a resolution granting the appeal in part, overturning the Board decision on the Original Project reflected in Board Resolution 23-1274 and remanding the Project back to the Board for a new hearing with direction to reconsider neighborhood compatibility, privacy, view equity, and design articulation criteria by a 5-0 vote; and WHEREAS, on July 23, 2024, the City Council adopted resolution #24.062 overturning the Board decision on the Project reflected in Board Resolution 23-1274 and remanding the Project back to the Board for a new hearing with direction to reconsider neighborhood compatibility, privacy, view equity, and design articulation criteria by a 5-0 vote; and WHEREAS, on September 11, 2025, the Board opened a public hearing on and granted a continuance of the request to December 11, 2025; and
WHEREAS, on December 11, 2025, the Board opened a public hearing on and granted a continuance of the request to January 22, 2026; and
WHEREAS, on January 22, 2026, the Board opened a public hearing on and granted a continuance of the request to February 12, 2026; and
WHEREAS, on February 12, 2026, the Board opened a public hearing on and granted a continuance of the request to April 9, 2026; and
WHEREAS, on April 9, 2026, the Board held a duly noticed public hearing and received public testimony regarding the revised project in response to prior City Council direction (the “Revised Project”). After deliberation, the Board voted 4-0 to adopt Resolution No. 25-1195, conditionally approving the Revised Project, including finding the Project categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines Section 15303 (the “Board Approval”); and
20 20 of 623
-3- Reso. #
WHEREAS, on April 23, 2026, property owner Ayse McGuire of 945 Katella Street (“Appellant”) filed an appeal of the Board Approval (the “Appeal”); and WHEREAS, on July 28, 2026, the City Council held a public hearing on the Appeal and carefully considered the oral and documentary evidence and arguments presented.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH DOES RESOLVE:

SECTION 1. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution by this reference.

SECTION 2. The City Council hereby makes the following findings in response to grounds for the appeal stated in Appellants’ notice of Appeal:

1. “The revised design still does not comply with Council direction.” City Council’s Response
At the July 9, 2024 City Council meeting, the Council remanded the Original Project back to the Board with direction to reconsider neighborhood compatibility (mass and scale), design articulation, privacy, and view equity. Specific recommendations included further stepping back the third level to reduce upper massing and create more articulation to the overall building form, avoiding the placement of windows directly facing neighboring windows, further reducing the overall building height, and relocating the garage and vehicular access from the north side of the property to the south side.

In response to the City Council's direction, the Applicant revised the project by increasing front setbacks at all floor levels from the street with varying setbacks for walls and decks across each level, relocating the garage and vehicular access from the north side to the south side of the property, reducing the overall building height by one foot as measured from the lowest finished 21 21 of 623
-4- Reso. #
floor of the building, lowering the top-of-roof elevation by two feet, as measured from the rear lot line, through additional excavation, reducing the quantity and size of window and door openings, revising the roof design from solid overhangs to slatted overhangs. These changes modify the building mass and floor plan configuration to create greater variation in wall planes and reduce the perception of mass and scale. In addition, during the April 9, 2026 hearing, the Applicant proposed lowering the rear shed roof element by an additional three feet to further reduce massing and eliminate the possibility of future conversion of the vaulted ceiling area to habitable third-floor space. The Board incorporated this modification as Condition No. 31. All of these aforementioned changes, including Condition No. 31 are reflected in Figures 1 and 2 below.

Figure 1 – Proposed Reductions on South Elevation
22 22 of 623
-5- Reso. #
Figure 2 – Proposed Reductions on North Elevation
The Board specifically considered whether the Revised Project adequately responded to the City Council's remand direction. During deliberations, Board members proposed additional modifications to further articulate the home’s street façade at the upper level and improve neighborhood compatibility by reducing the deck and west wall of the family room by three feet on the uppermost level. To address neighbor concerns related to fire access, the Board also proposed a condition to ensure fire access is coordinated with staff to accommodate fire access to the neighboring property at 960 Baja Street.

With these additional conditions included, the Board determined that the Revised Project demonstrated substantially greater articulation, improved privacy protections, and reduced apparent mass and scale compared to the previously approved design. Although some Board members indicated that additional modifications could have been made, the Board ultimately found that the Revised Project with the additional changes proposed during the hearing adequately addressed the City Council's concerns and unanimously approved the Revised Project. 23 23 of 623
-6- Reso. #
Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the Board's determination that the Revised Project adequately responded to the City Council's direction regarding neighborhood compatibility, design articulation, privacy, and view equity.

2. “The Board was pressured by the five-hearing threat.” City Council’s Response
The record does not support the contention that the Board's decision was improperly influenced by either the State's five-hearing limitation under the Housing Crisis Act or the City's hearing limit policy adopted per Resolution No. 25.087. The Board conducted a public hearing, received testimony from staff, the Applicant, and members of the public, deliberated on the evidence presented, and imposed three additional Revised Project-specific conditions of approval to further address concerns related to design articulation, neighborhood compatibility, and fire access prior to voting 4-0 to approve the Revised Project. While the Board may have felt it necessary to act on the application at the April 9, 2026 Board meeting based on the Board’s belief that the Revised Project was at its fifth hearing, Assistant City Attorney Donegan made it clear that the Board’s options included approval or denial of the Revised Project.1 The Board deliberated extensively regarding the merits of the Revised Project, including design articulation, neighborhood compatibility, privacy, and view equity, before unanimously voting 4-0 to approve the Revised Project subject to additional conditions of approval to add further articulation to the street facing façade and improve neighborhood compatibility related to mass and scale. 2 The
Board's deliberations demonstrate that the Board based its decision on the evidence presented and the applicable findings and Design Review criteria, rather than on procedural hearing limitations. 1 April 9, 2026 Board Transcript Pages 26-27 [Donegan]. 2 April 9, 2026 Board Transcript Pages 12-33 [Neev, Bauta, Coveny, Gibbs]. 24 24 of 623
-7- Reso. #

3. “Applicant postponements being counted toward the hearing limit.” City Council’s Response
The scheduling and continuance of public hearings are procedural matters administered by the City in accordance with applicable City policies and procedures. The record reflects that the project was continued on multiple occasions to provide the Applicant the opportunity to further refine the project to better address Council direction and neighbor and Board concerns, and for revised noticing associated with the introduction of the CDP for the ADU. The Board ultimately considered the Revised Project at a duly noticed public hearing on April 9, 2026. Based on the introduction of the CDP for the ADU, the application was not complete until the public hearing before the Board on February 12, 2026, when it was continued to the public hearing before the Board on April 9, 2026—when the Board conditionally approved the Revised Project.

Accordingly, the Board considered the Revised Project at two public hearings. The public hearing before the City Council on this appeal is the third public hearing.

The Appellant has not identified any procedural error or demonstrated how the hearing schedule affected the Board's ability to fully and properly consider the Revised Project. City Council also incorporates by reference its response to Contention No. 2 regarding the Board’s careful and deliberate consideration of the Revised Project, regardless of any understanding that the matter may not have been eligible for a continuance to a future meeting for additional direction.

4. “Last minute design changes on the day of the hearing.” City Council’s Response
During the April 9, 2026 Board hearing, the Applicant clarified that the vaulted ceiling area at the rear of the structure, extending between the second- and third-floor levels to create a nearly double-height ceiling for a second-floor bedroom and bathroom, had been mislabeled on the 25 25 of 623
-8- Reso. #
proposed third-floor plan as void space. In response to public testimony regarding unnecessary massing and concerns that the vaulted area could be converted into additional third-floor habitable space in the future, the Applicant proposed an additional modification to lower the rear shed roof element by three feet, resulting in a ceiling height ranging from approximately 11.5 to 12.5 feet.

It is appropriate for the Board to consider modifications proposed during a public hearing, and to impose conditions of approval to address issues raised through public testimony and during Board deliberation. Accordingly, the Board incorporated this modification into Condition No. 31, requiring the revised roof configuration to be reflected in the final construction plans.

Additionally, as indicated in staff’s response to Contention No. 1, the Board incorporated Condition Nos. 29 and 30 to further improve articulation of the upper level, reduce the perception of massing, and ensure adequate fire access for the neighboring property. These modifications and conditions of approval were included in direct response to public testimony and the City Council's remand direction and were intended to further reduce the Revised Project's apparent mass and potential safety impacts. The Board appropriately applied the City’s adopted design review criteria in the manner required by the Design Guidelines, evaluated the Revised Project in accordance with the City Council’s direction, and imposed conditions necessary to make all required findings, as reflected in the Board record. The approval, as conditioned and mitigated, represents a lawful exercise of discretion.

5. “Stakes not being corrected.”
City Council’s Response
In accordance with LBMC Section 25.05.040(C)(2), a staking plan must be prepared, staking poles and connecting ribbons, which accurately represent the full extent of the proposed structure, including decks and eaves, must be constructed and certified by a registered land 26 26 of 623
-9- Reso. #
surveyor or registered civil engineer licensed to conduct surveys in the state of California at least 21 calendar days prior to the first public hearing:

A staking plan shall be prepared as specified on the most current zoning and design review submittal checklist. Staking poles and connecting ribbons, which accurately represent the full extent of the proposed structure, including decks and eaves, shall be constructed at least 21 calendar days prior to the first public hearing. At least 21 calendar days prior to the first public hearing, the location and height of the staking poles must be certified as accurate by a registered land surveyor or registered civil engineer licensed to conduct land surveys in the State of California. If complete and certified project staking is not in place at least 21 calendar days prior to the first Design Review Board public hearing date or 14 calendar days prior to the administrative design review public hearing, the project shall be continued to a later date. Neither the applicant, a relative of the applicant, nor any other person possessing a financial interest in the property or the project may certify the location and height accuracy of the staking poles. If the project is modified during the design review process because of a view consideration, privacy or other concerns that the Board determines is necessary to restake, the project shall be re-staked and recertified at least 14 calendar days prior to any subsequent public hearing (LBMC Section

25.05.040(C)(2).).

A staking poles and connecting ribbons were constructed and certified by a registered professional engineer 21 days prior to the February 12, and April 9, 2026 Board public hearings on the Revised Project. The Appellant has not demonstrated any specific deficiencies in the staking process.

Further, it should be noted that the Board’s evaluation did not depend on story poles alone.

The Board considered the full evidentiary record, including the Revised Project plans, elevations, 27 27 of 623
-10- Reso. #
sections, visual materials presented at hearings, and extensive testimony, and Board members conducted site visits. The Board’s approval required additional design changes that directly addressed the neighborhood compatibility and privacy issues discussed during the hearings. The Appellant has not demonstrated that any deficiencies in the staking affected the Board's evaluation of the Revised Project or the substantial evidence supporting the Board's decision.

6. “The upper floors being larger than the rejected design.” City Council’s Response
The Revised Project reduced the overall building height by one foot, lowered the top-ofroof elevation by two feet through additional excavation, reduced the floor area of the primary residence, including a reduction of approximately 478 square feet at the upper level, and increased the setback at all floor levels from the street frontage. While portions of the lower-level program were reconfigured to accommodate the relocated garage, mechanical room, and ADU, the additional floor area was achieved through further excavation into the hillside and to not increase the apparent mass or bulk of the structure.

Additionally, during the Board's deliberations, Condition No. 29 was incorporated to further reduce a portion of the upper level and elevated deck area by three feet to create additional articulation and further reduce the perception of massing from the street frontage.

In evaluating neighborhood compatibility, the Board considered the overall building mass, bulk, scale, and articulation of the Revised Project rather than relying solely on comparisons of individual floor areas. After reviewing the revised plans, public testimony, and the evidence contained in the record, the Board concluded that the Revised Project adequately responded to the City Council's direction regarding neighborhood compatibility, mass and scale, and design articulation. While the total livable square footage increased compared to the Original Project 28 28 of 623
-11- Reso. #
considered by the City Council on July 9, and 23, 2024, the Board found that the redesign appropriately addressed the City Council’s direction based on other changes reflected in the Revised Project, as conditioned.

7. “Non-living spaces being relabeled as “void” areas.” City Council’s Response
During the April 9, 2026 hearing, the Applicant clarified that the area identified as "void space" on the third-floor plans represented vaulted ceiling space above the second-floor bedrooms rather than additional third-floor area. In response to concerns raised by neighboring property owners regarding massing and the potential for future conversion of the vaulted ceiling area into additional third-floor habitable area, the Applicant proposed reducing the height of the rear shed roof element by three feet while retaining clerestory windows to provide natural light to the second-floor bedrooms and bathrooms. The Board incorporated this modification into Condition No. 31. While the demarcation of the non-living space as “void” may have confused members of the public, this issue was addressed and resolved by the Board during the public hearing on April 9, 2026.

8. “The finished floor elevation not being lowered.”
City Council’s Response
Based on the applicant’s Revised Project plans, the Revised Project has been modified to reduce the overall building height by one foot, from 29 feet to 28 feet, as measured from the finished floor. In addition, the top of roof elevation has been lowered by two feet relative to the rear property line, from 131 feet to 129 feet, through additional excavation. The Board evaluated the revised design as proposed and determined that the Revised Project adequately addressed the City Council's remand direction regarding building height and massing and meets the applicable 29 29 of 623
-12- Reso. #
design review criteria.

9. “The proposed plan is still “too bulky”, “too boxy” and “too unarticulated” for our neighborhood aesthetics.”
City Council’s Response
The Board specifically considered concerns related to building mass, scale, articulation, and neighborhood compatibility during the April 9, 2026 hearing. In evaluating these issues, the Board considered the Revised Project plans and additional design modifications, staff analysis, public testimony, and the City's Design Review criteria.

The Revised Project incorporated numerous modifications intended to reduce the perception of mass and scale and improve articulation, including increasing setbacks at all floor levels from the street frontage, relocating the garage and vehicular access to the south side of the property, reducing the overall building height and top-of-roof elevation, reducing the quantity and size of window and door openings, revising the roof design from solid overhangs to slatted overhangs, and modifying the floor plan configuration to create greater variation in wall planes and roof forms. In addition, the Board imposed Condition Nos. 29 and 31 to further reduce upperlevel massing and improve articulation.

Although members of the public continued to express concerns that the revised design remained overly bulky, boxy, or insufficiently articulated, the Board concluded that the Revised Project, as conditioned, adequately addressed the City Council's remand direction regarding mass and scale and adequately satisfied the applicable Design Review criteria relating to neighborhood compatibility and design articulation. The Board's determination was based on substantial evidence contained within the administrative record, including the revised plans, staff analysis, public testimony, and the Board's deliberations.
30 30 of 623
-13- Reso. #
SECTION 3. The City Council hereby makes the following findings and facts supporting findings for Design Review 2025-1195:

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.

The revised project provides a total of five off-street parking spaces. Pursuant to the Arch Beach Heights Specific Plan (ABHSP), a total of four off-street parking spaces is required with a minimum of two covered spaces. Additionally, two uncovered parking spaces may be located within the required front setback. The revised project proposes three spaces within the attached garage and two uncovered spaces located in the front setback/driveway.

The five spaces are proposed in a tandem configuration. New vehicular access to the garage is proposed at the front of the property with a driveway length of 23’-5”. Additionally, a minimum three-foot wide pedestrian access path would be provided around the perimeter of the home for safe emergency access. Condition of Approval No. 28 is included to require proposed site walls adjacent to the driveway and within the corner cutback area, as defined in LBMC Section 25.50.006, to be reduced to a three-foot maximum height to ensure safe visibility for vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Additionally, new rolled curb and gutter will be installed in the public right-of-way for consistency with neighboring properties.

2. Design Articulation: Within the allowable building envelope, the appearance of building and retaining wall mass should be minimized. Articulation techniques including, but not 31 31 of 623
-14- Reso. #
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 project site contains an average slope of 18% with the rear property line sitting above the front. The proposed design features three levels of living area visible from the street with the structure stepping back with the slope of the site to reduce the appearance of mass and scale. The first-floor level is proposed entirely within the existing hillside. To further break up the building form, the proposed design incorporates articulation techniques such as offset wall planes, balconies, integrated landscape planters, glazing of varied sizes, and a mix of contrasting building materials and colors. Of the four required parking spaces, three are proposed within an attached garage in a tandem configuration so that it reads as a two-car garage from the street; the other two spaces will be located on a driveway at the front of the property. The revised design also relocates the garage from north side of the structure to the south side, consistent with City Council direction, and eliminates an additional entry stairway at the front of the property to simplify the street elevation.

Additional efforts to reduce massing include reducing the overall height of the structure by one foot, lowering the total height by two feet with further excavation into the existing grade, and pulling back all floor levels at the street elevation,

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 proposed architectural style features a contemporary design with a variety of materials and finishes, including slatted metal roofing, stucco siding in a deep tan color, wood soffits, a combination of metal and smooth stucco railings, and opaque glass for the garage door. 32 32 of 623
-15- Reso. #
A consistent design concept is proposed throughout the project with an earthtone color palette, wood soffits and entry gate, and a flat roof design. Additionally, the proposed decks are designed with slight terracing to reduce the visual prominence of the structure from the street level.

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

The subject property does not contain significant natural features, such as heritage trees, rock outcroppings, ridgelines, or watercourses. The project includes 559 cubic yards of cut outside the building footprint and 1,027 cubic yards of cut within the building footprint after grading. Six-foot-high retaining walls will be constructed along the side property lines and will maintain a 3.5 to 4 feet height within the front yard setback. The property is not located near any high value habitat or environmentally sensitive areas. Additionally, a geotechnical report was submitted concluding that the site is adequate for the proposed project and makes recommendations to be incorporated during site preparation, grading, and construction of the foundation and drainage elements of the project.

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.

General Plan Policies
The proposed project complies with the goals and policies of the General Plan below as evidenced in the findings below:
33 33 of 623
-16- Reso. #
Land Use (LU) Policy 2.8 Require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated with natural topographic features, minimize significant alteration of natural topography and/or other significant onsite resources, and protect public views as specified in the Design Guidelines and the Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document.

The project has been designed to tuck the proposed home into the hillside to minimize the appearance of mass while the proposed perimeter retaining walls and side access paths follow the natural topography. Grading is limited to that necessary for site preparation and foundation construction, and no significant natural features (heritage trees, rock outcroppings, or watercourses) are located on-site. The purpose of lowering the building’s height is to improve views from surrounding properties.

LU Policy 2.10 Maximize the preservation of coastal and canyon views (consistent with the principle of view equity) from existing properties and minimize blockage of existing public and private views. Best efforts should be made to site new development in locations that minimize adverse impacts on views from public locations (e.g., roads, bluff top trails, visitor-serving facilities, etc.).

Due to the hillside configuration of the neighborhood, uphill properties would maintain views over the proposed residence. The project has been designed to tuck the proposed home into the existing hillside and minimize overall perception of height and massing by lowering the structure into the existing grade. Decks and habitable areas are stepped back progressively from the front property line to further minimize view impacts.

LU Policy 3.10 Require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated with natural topographic features, minimize significant alteration of natural topography or other significant on-site resources, and protect public views as specified in the Design Guidelines 34 34 of 623
-17- Reso. #
and Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document by maintaining the low-profile character of structures. Require use of appropriate landscaping, special architectural treatments, and siting considerations for projects visible from major highways and arterial streets. Best efforts should be made to site new development in locations that minimize adverse impacts on views from public locations (e.g., roads, bluff-top trails, visitor-serving facilities, etc.).

The project sets the proposed structure into the existing hillside to minimize the appearance of mass. Additional lowering of the structure into the existing grade is intended to better protect public views impacts No onsite resources exist on the property. Landscaping is integrated into the design through planters and a combination of trees and shrubs to complement and soften views of the structure. The contemporary design incorporates articulation, glazing, and contrasting materials that reduce bulk and mass. The project is not visible from major highways or scenic arterial roadways and therefore does not create adverse public view impacts.

LU Policy 7.3 Design and site new development to protect natural and environmentally sensitive resources, such as areas of unique scenic quality, public views, and visual compatibility with surrounding uses and to minimize natural landform alterations. (Same as Policy 10.2.) GOAL: Protect, preserve, and enhance the community’s natural resources.

The subject property does not contain environmentally sensitive resources or areas of unique scenic quality. The design respects the existing neighborhood character by tucking the residence into the hillside and articulating the street façade consistent with other nearby multi-level residences. Public views are maintained over the structure to the extent possible 35 35 of 623
-18- Reso. #
by lowering the structure into the existing grade.

LU Policy 7.10 Require new construction and grading to be located in close proximity to pre-existing development to minimize environmental impacts and growth-inducing potential.

The project site is located within a developed residential neighborhood and surrounded by existing homes on similar hillside lots. The proposed grading is intended to reduce the appearance of mass and allow for views over the single-family dwelling by tucking the proposed structure into the hillside and placing a floor level below the existing grade. No new roadways, infrastructure, or utilities are required, and the project does not induce further growth beyond the single-family residential use permitted by zoning.

LU Policy 10.2 Design and site new development to protect natural and environmentally sensitive resources such as areas of unique scenic quality, public views, and visual compatibility with surrounding uses and to minimize landform alterations. (Same as Policy

7.3) GOAL: Ensure that proposals for new development, subdivisions, and major remodels are sufficiently evaluated to protect public health and safety and natural resources.

The proposed development does not impact sensitive habitats, scenic resources, or historic resources. The design preserves neighborhood visual compatibility through its contemporary style and articulated façade, which is consistent with nearby structures.

Public views are maintained, and grading is consistent with that of single-family development in the area.

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

The property is a vacant lot and not listed in the City’s Historic Register. 36 36 of 623
-19- Reso. #

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 landscaping plan has been reviewed by the City’s Landscaping Consultant and the proposed landscaping is consistent with the City’s requirements. The height of proposed shrubs is not expected to obstruct views for neighboring properties. A condition of approval has been included requiring the removal of all existing and proposed Target Species from the final landscape plans, including the proposed Pennisetum Fountain grass, except, if desired, one individual plant of an existing target species may remain.

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, high-gloss 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.

The project proposes 16 pathway lights, 29 step lights, and recessed wall lights. All lighting will be low wattage LED, shielded and directed downward, consistent with the City’s Good Neighbor Lighting Ordinance. No up lights are proposed.

9. Neighborhood Compatibility: Development shall be compatible with the existing development in the neighborhood and respect neighborhood character. Neighborhood 37 37 of 623
-20- Reso. #
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.

The surrounding neighborhood is primarily composed of 25- to 50-foot wide lots developed with three-story residences, many of which feature contemporary architectural styles. The proposed design is largely consistent with this established pattern of development, both in style and scale, with upper levels stepped back to reduce visible bulk and height from the street. The revised project improves compatibility by eliminating the previously proposed front entry staircase and relocating the garage to the south side of the property, set back approximately 23’-5” from the front property line. The second-level decks are set back approximately 15’-4” with habitable space beginning 23 to 28 feet from the property line. On the third level, the elevated deck is set back 18 to 28 feet, with habitable space beginning 25 to 36 feet from the front property line. These setbacks align with or exceed the development pattern of adjacent properties, which provide front setbacks ranging between 10 and 21 feet. The revised design further enhances neighborhood compatibility by introducing offset wall planes at each level, reducing the overall building height by one foot, and lowering the structure by two feet through additional excavation.

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.

Design Review Criteria for Pedestrian Orientation is related to commercial development 38 38 of 623
-21- Reso. #
and this residential project is not subject to these criteria.

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 proposed project places outdoor activity areas, including decks, at the front of the property to minimize privacy impacts on neighboring residences. A larger setback is also provided along the north side yard adjacent to the kitchen/dining area and bedroom #2 on the main floor level and family room on the upper most floor level. To further reduce privacy impacts to adjacent properties, the revised project reduces the window quantity along both side elevations and lowers window heights on the upper level facing north. The Arch Beach Heights Specific Plan requires that the vertical plane of glazed openings, when projected horizontally to an adjacent building within ten feet, be no closer than six feet to any glazed opening in the adjacent building, which are effectively all of the windows proposed on the south elevation. Condition of Approval No. 27 is recommended to ensure windows along the south elevation incorporate opaque glazing if located within ten feet of the neighboring property’s windows. Additionally, a perimeter retaining wall is proposed along both side property lines to provide additional separation and privacy to neighboring properties.

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

Design Review Criteria for Public Art is related to commercial development and this residential project is not subject to these criteria.

13. Sign Quality: Signs shall be incorporated into the architecture of the structure and 39 39 of 623
-22- Reso. #
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.

Design Review Criteria for Signage is related to commercial development and this residential project is not subject to these criteria.

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.

New construction is required to meet Title 24 energy and Building Code requirements, which include insulated windows and energy efficient lighting. The applicant will be required to provide proof of compliance during the building permit plan check review phase if the project is approved. Furthermore, the applicant will be required to reuse, recycle, or divert at least 65 percent of the project’s construction and demolition debris.

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.

No pool, spa, or water features are proposed as part of this application.

16. View Equity: The development, including its landscaping, shall be designed to protect existing views from neighboring properties without denying the subject property the 40 40 of 623
-23- Reso. #
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.

Due to topography of the area, the surrounding neighborhood is configured so that uphill properties maintain viewsheds over downhill properties on each successive street leading down the hill. The proposed Project is set into the site to allow for some views over and across the proposed residence.

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.

The project is consistent with the Residential Design Review Guidelines, as explained above.

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.

See Findings above under Design Review Criteria 1, 2, 3, 4, and 9 for access, design articulation, environmental context, and neighborhood compatibility, respectively.

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

ARCH BEACH HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN STANDARDS
No. 1 | All designs shall demonstrate an individuality of design, which should be achieved primarily through a manipulation of the volume of the structure rather than by means of nonessential architectural details.

See Design Review Criterion No. 2 for design articulation. 41 41 of 623
-24- Reso. #
No. 2 | While individuality of design should be achieved, the thrust should be scaling down rather than duplication of existing bulk and size of existing structures.

The proposed three-level structure is tucked into the existing hillside, incorporates offset wall planes and balconies, and has been lowered into the existing grade by two feet to further reduce its scale. These features avoid duplication of bulk and result in a design that is appropriately scaled to its lot and neighborhood context.

No. 3 | Lot coverage shall not exceed that specified in the zoning ordinance for R-1 development.

The lot coverage does not exceed the R-1 zone coverage allowance as identified in the Zoning Review table above.

No. 4 | All designs shall limit areas of large blank walls by carefully planned windows, porches, and smaller volumes.

The proposed design limits areas of large blank walls with the incorporation of windows of varied sizes, balconies along the street facing elevations, built in landscape planters, and offset walls planes as described within Design Review Criterion No. 2 for design articulation.

No. 5 | Harsh boxlike structures, and structures which make extensive use of glossy surfaces, or strong, glaring colors, shall be avoided.

See Design Review Criteria No. 2 and 8 for design articulation and lighting and glare.

No. 6 | On downhill homes, all designs shall avoid vertical repetitive detailing which adds to the illusion of height.

Though this is an uphill lot, the project conforms to this pursuant to the description provided in Design Review Criterion No. 2 for design articulation. 42 42 of 623
-25- Reso. #
No. 7 | All designs shall minimize roof penetration by grouping all plumbing vents and ducts together.

During Building Plan Check, the roof plan will be required to show groupings of roof penetrations to ensure compliance with this criterion, as applicable.

No. 8 | All vents, gutters, downspouts, louvers, exposed flashings, and service doors shall be treated as architectural design elements and shall be painted to coordinate with the color scheme of the structure.

The proposed structure has been designed with consideration of these elements and will be painted to coordinate with the color scheme of the structure.

No. 9 | Roof decks should not be permitted above the uppermost story, nor should parapets, walls, protective roof deck railings or stair enclosures exceed the roof height of the uppermost story, except as approved by design review.

A roof deck is not proposed with the project, nor does the request include parapets, walls, protective roof deck railings or stair enclosures that exceed the height of the uppermost story.

No. 10 | All exterior lighting should relate to the design of the structure, and the light emitted shall not adversely affect neighboring properties, exceed that reasonably necessary for security purposes, nor detract from the aesthetics of the property.

See Design Review Criterion No. 8 for lighting and glare.

No. 11 | All landscape plans shall address the functional aspects of landscaping such as drainage, erosion prevention, wind barriers, shade, sound absorption, dust abatement, and reduction of glare.

The proposed landscape plan has considered these functional aspects within their design. 43 43 of 623
-26- Reso. #
See plan sheet L-1 of the proposed project plans for reference of the proposed plantings and installation details.

No. 12 | Landscaping shall be used in front and rear yards to relieve solid, unbroken elevations and to soften continuous wall expanses.

Landscaping has been incorporated into the front, rear yards, and within the landscape planters attached to the building to further soften the design of the proposed single-family dwelling.

No. 13 | All designs shall incorporate the use of shrubbery and trees to reduce the appearance of height.

The landscape design includes planting species of differing heights and planters built into the design of the structure to reduce the appearance of height, as well as meets the City’s Fuel Modification requirements regarding spacing and distances between groupings.

No. 14 | The area between the underside of the building and finished grade should be completely enclosed, except as approved by design review.

If any void spaces are incorporated into the foundation design of the structure, they are skirted to hide the underside of the structure.

No. 15 | There shall be provided a storage area for at least two garbage and trash containers, minimum forty-gallon capacity each, completely enclosed from view, easily accessible to the street. Such areas shall be protected by at least one-hour fire rating.

The trash storage area is proposed within the oversized attached garage located at the front of the property.

No. 16 | A general storage area of at least four hundred cubic feet, completely enclosed from view, shall be provided within each garage or carport, except as approved by design 44 44 of 623
-27- Reso. #
review.

The proposed project provides 563 cubic feet of concealed storage area in the garage.

No. 17 | All developments should seek to minimize the difference between the natural grade and the finished project height by such methods as split level or stepping down the building along with the grade.

The proposed three-level building is designed into the hillside to promote the project’s neighborhood compatibility.

SECTION 4. The City Council hereby makes the following findings and facts supporting findings for Coastal Development Permit 2026-0057:

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 development will not modify any existing physical accessway utilized by the public or identified in the adopted local coastal program land use plan in that the subject property contains no existing accessways legally utilized by the public, no such public accessways are identified in the adopted land use plan.

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

The proposed development will not adversely affect marine resources, environmentally sensitive resources or archeological or paleontological resources in that the project site is located within an established residential neighborhood, and no such resources are known 45 45 of 623
-28- Reso. #
to exist in the immediately abutting area.

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

The proposed development will not adversely affect recreational or visitor-serving facilities or coastal scenic resources in that the project site is located within an established residential neighborhood and is not located near any recreational or visitor-serving facilities.

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 development will have no adverse impacts to environmentally sensitive habitats and scenic resources located in adjacent parks and recreation areas in that the project site is located within an established residential neighborhood, no such areas abut the project site, and no buffer areas are needed to protect 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 development will minimize the alteration of natural landforms and will not create undue risks from geological and erosional forces and/or flood and fire hazards in that the proposed attached ADU would be located within the footprint of the single-family residence, all construction will comply with required life safety requirements, and the proposed project including landscape plans has been reviewed for fire safety.

6. The proposed development will be visually compatible with the character of surrounding 46 46 of 623
-29- Reso. #
areas, and where feasible, will restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas.

The proposed attached ADU would be located within the footprint of single-family residence on the lowest level, which has been designed to be compatible with the character of the surrounding areas as described under Design Review Criterion No. 9. Further, while the project site and surrounding area are not visually degraded, the proposed development would enhance visual quality by replacing a vacant property with a well-articulated residential structure.

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

The proposed development will not have any adverse impacts on any known archaeological or paleontological resource in that such resources are not known to exist in the project area, and the project site is located within an established residential neighborhood.

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

The subject site has existing road access and other facilities. The ADU would tie into existing utilities which are adequate to serve the ADU. Utilities may be extended to the site, as the site is located within an established residential neighborhood.

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 site is located in an existing developed neighborhood, which is considered adequate to provide solid waste service and the roadways are considered adequate to serve the proposed development.
47 47 of 623
-30- Reso. #
The project is consistent with all applicable policies of the Certified LCP.

LCP COASTAL VIEW POLICIES (CDP)
Land Use Element (LUE) Policy 2.8 Require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated with natural topographic features, minimize significant alteration of natural topography and/or other significant on-site resources, and protect public views as specified in the Design Guidelines and the Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document.

The proposed attached ADU would be located entirely within the footprint of a new singlefamily residence proposed on the site. The project site is characterized by moderately steep terrain, and grading of approximately 1,500 cubic yards of cut is proposed to accommodate the residence and required access. The grading has been designed to follow the existing slope to the extent feasible, and minimize retaining wall heights. Additionally, no known significant on-site resources would be affected. Because the ADU is located on the lowest floor level of the residence and does not add to the building envelope or grading beyond what is required for the primary structure, the proposed development would not interfere with public views and is consistent with the intent of LUE Policy 2.8.

LCP DOCUMENTS
The project conforms with all the following applicable documents of the Certified LCP.

Design Guidelines – A Guide to Residential Development (2010) Title 22 – Excavation, Grading and Filling (2004)
Title 25 – Zoning Code
Design Guidelines for Hillside Development (as adopted by Resolution 89.104) 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 48 48 of 623
-31- Reso. #
recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act.

The project is consistent with all applicable policies of the Certified LCP. The development is not located between the sea and first public road paralleling the sea. Additionally, the subject site is zoned residential and is not suitable for recreational uses identified in Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act.

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 does not have adverse environmental impacts. The project will not cause any significant adverse impacts on the environment and qualifies for a categorical exemption (as described in the Environmental Impact section below) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines.

SECTION 5. Based on its review of the entire record before it, the City Council hereby finds and determines, in accordance with CEQA, that the Project is categorically exempt pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15303 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, in that the project consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small structures Here, the Project involves the construction of a new single-family dwelling and attached three car garage, attached ADU, elevated decks, grading, retaining walls, landscaping, and new vehicular access in a residential area.

Further, none of the exceptions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply.

The project site does not contain any environmentally sensitive areas. There will be no cumulative impact resulting from successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time. The zone in which the property is located allows for construction of one primary unit per lot. There are no unusual circumstances resulting in a significant impact on the environment. There will be no 49 49 of 623
-32- Reso. #
damage to scenic resources, including trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway as no such resources exist on the property. The project is not located on a hazardous waste site or any other site included on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. The project will not result in significant adverse impacts to historical resources as defined by CEQA. Consequently, additional environmental analysis is not necessary to meet the requirements of the CEQA.

SECTION 6. The City Council hereby denies the Appeal and sustains the Design Review Boards’s determination on the Project, as reflected in Resolution No. 2025-1195, including all conditions attached thereto, which such Resolution and conditions are incorporated herein by this reference.

ADOPTED this 28th day of July, 2026.

Mark Orgill, Mayor
ATTEST:

Ann Marie McKay, City Clerk
50 50 of 623
-33- Reso. #
I, Ann Marie McKay, City Clerk of the City of Laguna Beach, certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 26.XXX was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City held on July 28, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

City Clerk, City of Laguna Beach, California
51 51 of 623
Attachment 2
52 52 of 623
53 53 of 623

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

LAGUNA BEACH CITY COUNCIL
The Laguna Beach City Council will hold an in-person Public Hearing in the City Council Chambers, located in City Hall at 505 Forest Avenue, Laguna Beach, to consider:

Appeal of approval of Design Review 2025-1195 and Coastal Development Permit 2026-0057, and CEQA Categorical Exemption for a new single-family residence on a vacant lot located at 950 Baja Street in the Arch Beach Heights Specific Plan Area. Design review is required for the new single-family dwelling and attached three-car garage, elevated decks, retaining walls, landscaping, and new vehicular access. A Coastal Development Permit is required for the attached accessory dwelling unit.

Related Project Cases on the property include but are not limited to: Design Review 23-1274 Applicant: Hugo Soria (Architect) for David Liu (Property Owner) A person has appealed the decision of the Design Review Board (DRB) to approve the project.

SAID PUBLIC MEETING to be held Tuesday, July 28, 2026, at 3:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter.

For additional information, contact City staff: Kate Kazama, Senior Planner (949) 497-0748 or [email protected]. Comments may be made in writing prior to the hearing (when emailed or mailed to the City Clerk’s office) or in-person in Council Chambers during the public hearing. In order to allow sufficient time for members of the City Council and staff to review and consider your comments, written comments will be accepted for consideration up until the close of business (i.e., 5:30 p.m.) on the business day before the date on which this public hearing is scheduled; however, it is recommended they be submitted to the City Clerk’s office on or before 5:00 p.m. five days prior to the scheduled hearing.

Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65009(b), if you challenge this application in court, the issues raised shall be limited to those raised in the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Laguna Beach prior to, or at, the public hearing.

CEQA: This project is categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, Section 15303 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, in that the project consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small structures.

COASTAL ZONE: The project site is located in the Coastal Zone and is located within the excludable area of the coastal zone.

The single-family dwelling and associated improvements are proposed as excluded development under Laguna Beach Municipal Code Chapter 25.07 and Exclusionary Order No. E-93-1 and therefore do not require a Coastal Development Permit. The review procedure identified in Laguna Beach Municipal Code Section 25.07.012(B)(3) applies to any such determination.

The attached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) requires a Coastal Development Permit and is proposed as non-appealable development.

The application was filed on November 7, 2024, by Hugo Soria & Company and is assigned application number CDP 26-0057. The application was approved by the Design Review Board. The decision by the City Council is not appealable to the California Coastal Commission.

Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons with a disability who require a disability-related modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, may request such modification or accommodation from the City Clerk’s Office at (949) 497-0705 (telephone) or (949) 497-0771 (facsimile). Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility to the meeting.

Notice posted 10 days prior to hearing date at the following three public places (CA Government Code Section 65090 and 65091):
950 Baja Street, Laguna Beach, CA; 505 Forest Ave., Laguna Beach, CA; and 380 3rd St., Laguna Beach, CA; and Property Owners within 300 ft./ Tenants within 100 ft./ California Coastal Commission/ Interested Persons List/ Publish Date: 7/17/26 Attachment 3
54 54 of 623
Attachment 4
55 55 of 623
56 56 of 623
57 57 of 623
58 58 of 623
59 59 of 623
60 60 of 623
61 61 of 623
62 62 of 623
63 63 of 623
64 64 of 623
65 65 of 623
66 66 of 623
67 67 of 623
68 68 of 623
69 69 of 623
70 70 of 623
71 71 of 623
72 72 of 623

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT
April 9, 2026
Agenda Item No. 5.9
Case No: Design Review 2025-1195 & Coastal Development Permit 2026-0057 Request: New single-family residence with an attached accessory dwelling unit and an attached three-car garage in the Arch Beach Heights Specific Plan Area.

Location: 950 Baja Street | APN: 644-437-12
Applicant: Hugo Soria, Designer
(949)497-7112 | [email protected]
Owner: David Liu for DALI V LLC
Staff: Community Development Department
Kate Kazama, Associate Planner
(949) 497-0748 | [email protected]
Recommendation:

Conduct a public hearing and adopt Resolution 2025-1195, approving Design Review 2025-1195 and Coastal Development Permit 2026-0057 for the property located at 950 Baja Street and find said action categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303.

CEQA:

The project qualifies for a categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15303 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, because the project consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small structures.

Coastal Development Permit:

The proposed single-family dwelling and related site improvements are proposed as excluded development under Laguna Beach Municipal Code (LBMC) Chapter 25.07 and Exclusionary Order No. E-93-1. The proposed attached ADU, while not subject to Design Review, does require a Coastal Development Permit (CDP). The CDP for the ADU is not appealable to the California Coastal Commission.

Board Members within a 500’ Radius: None
Attachment 5
73 73 of 623
Design Review 2025-1195 & Coastal Development Permit 2026-0057 4/9/2026

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The proposed project includes construction of a new single-family residence, attached ADU, and an attached three-car garage. Design review is required for the new primary dwelling unit and attached garage, elevated decks, new vehicular access, grading, retaining walls, and landscaping. A Coastal Development Permit is required for the attached ADU. The project was previously approved by the Design Review Board (“Board”) on March 28, 2024, but that approval was appealed. On July 23, 2024, the City Council moved to overturn the Board’s decision to approve the project and remanded the project in part back to the Board to address design articulation, neighborhood compatibility, privacy, and view equity design review criteria.

Revisions made in response to prior City Council direction, include setting back all levels of the structure from the street, lowering the overall building height, relocating the garage to the south side of the property, reducing window and door openings, and improving design articulation, neighborhood compatibility, privacy, and view equity. The project complies with all applicable development standards and the ADU meets Coastal Development Permit requirements without affecting public access or scenic resources.

With the proposed revisions, staff finds that the project is appropriately scaled for the lot and neighborhood.

Staff has analyzed the project and finds that facts to support approval can be made for the requested entitlements. Accordingly, staff recommends that the Board approve the project.

PROPERTY AERIAL PHOTO
74 74 of 623
Design Review 2025-1195 & Coastal Development Permit 2026-0057 4/9/2026

SITE PHOTOS

PROPERTY INFORMATION
Land Use Designation Village Low Density (1-7 DU/AC)
Zoning Designation R-1 Residential Low Density
Specific Plan Area Arch Beach Heights (ABH)

ZONING REVIEW
The proposed project complies with applicable zoning standards and guidelines as shown in the summary table below:

Development Standard Required
City Council
Hearing
(7/9/24)
Change
Current
Request
DRB Hearing
(2/12/26)
Building Site Coverage 41.75%
maximum 37.36% +4.25% 41.61%
Landscape Open Space 19.17% minimum 21.53% +2.47% 24%
Height
(Lowest floor to top of roof) 30’ 29’ -1’ 28’
Height
(Rear Lot Line above Street) 15’ 10’-6” -2’ 8'-6”
Setbacks
Front (garage)
Front (house)
Front (decks)
Side (North)
5’
10’
8’
6’
21’
10’-9”
14’
6’
+2’-5”
+13’-4”
+1’-4”
+2”
23’-5”
23’-5”
15’-4”
6’-2”
75 75 of 623
Design Review 2025-1195 & Coastal Development Permit 2026-0057 4/9/2026

ZONING REVIEW
The proposed project complies with applicable zoning standards and guidelines as shown in the summary table below:

Side (South)
Rear
4’
or 10’
(combined)
20’
5’
or 11’
(combined)
20’
-8”
or -6”
(combined)
No change
4’-4"
or 10’-6”
(combined)
20’
Parking 4 spaces
(minimum 2
covered)
4 covered
& 2 uncovered -1 covered 3 covered & 2 uncovered
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:

Site History
The subject property is currently vacant and has no prior development history.

On March 28, 2024, the Board conditionally approved Design Review (DR) 23-1274 by a 3-2 vote for construction of a new single-family residence (3,525 square feet), attached four-car garage (889 square feet), elevated decks, (519 square feet), grading, retaining walls, and landscaping, including the approval of a categorical exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines Section 15303.

On April 11, 2024, the neighboring property owner of 940 Baja Street filed an appeal of the Board’s project approval. The appeal contended that the project did not comply with the following Design Review Criteria and Design Guidelines: (1) Design Articulation, (2) Neighborhood Compatibility, (3) Privacy, and (4) View Equity. In addition, the appellant contended that the staking was installed incorrectly and was not revised to shows the applicant’s proposed changes; that additional modifications were proposed during the applicant’s presentation during the prior Design Review Board hearing without revised staking or neighborhood communication; that landscaping modifications were proposed without the ability for neighbors or the City to review prior to hearing; and that overall proper neighborhood communication did not occur by the applicant team.

On July 9, 2024, the City Council conducted an appeal hearing and unanimously directed staff to prepare a resolution granting the appeal in part, which would partially overturn the Board’s decision to approve the project, and to remand the project in part back to the Board to address the City Council’s direction to improve neighborhood compatibility, design articulation, privacy, and view equity. Specific recommendations included further setting back the third level, avoiding placement of windows directly facing neighboring windows, further reducing the overall height of the building, and relocating the garage and vehicular access from the north side of the property to the south side.

On July 23, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 24.062 memorializing their July 9, 2024 direction to staff.
76 76 of 623
Design Review 2025-1195 & Coastal Development Permit 2026-0057 4/9/2026

The revised project was re-noticed for the September 11, 2025, Design Review Board meeting. At that meeting, the Board opened the public hearing and granted a continuance to their meeting of December 11, 2025.

Following the September 11, 2025 public hearing, for which the original notice was prepared in response to the City Council remand, the applicant expanded the project scope to include an accessory dwelling unit (ADU). Because an ADU is not considered excludable development within Exclusionary Order No. E-93- 1 of the Coastal Zone, revised public noticing was required to reference a Coastal Development Permit application for the ADU. Accordingly, the Board continued the item to from December 11, 2025 hearing to its January 22, 2026 meeting.

On January 22, 2026, the Board opened the public hearing and granted a continuance to their meeting on February 12, 2026. And on February 12, 2026 the Board again continued this project to its April 9, 2026 meeting.

In response to the City Council direction, the applicant has revised the project by proposing the modifications noted below:
• Pulled all floor levels back from the street;
• Relocated the proposed garage from north side of structure to south side, with the attached ADU now located on the north side;
• Reduced the overall height of the structure by one-foot; • Reduced the top of roof height by two-feet (with additional excavation); • Reduced the primary dwelling floor area by 799 square feet; • Increased the ADU floor area by 558 square feet;
• Increased the non-habitable enclosed areas (i.e., storage and mechanical areas) by 604 square feet; • Increased the elevated deck area by 44 square feet;
• Additional grading export of approximately 476 cubic yard; • Removed the front entry stairway and relocated access to the south side elevation; • Revised the roof design from solid overhangs to slatted overhangs; and • Reduced the quantity and size of window and door openings. • Added a mechanical room at the rear of the first floor level with additional excavation Proposed Project
The subject property is located in Arch Beach Heights Tract 24, Block 15, Lots 8 and 9. The project site consists of a 5,000-square-foot vacant lot situated on the uphill side of Baja Street between Capistrano Avenue and Cortez Avenue. Properties along Baja Street slope downward in a southerly direction. The rectangular project site contains moderately steep terrain, with an overall lot slope of approximately 18 percent. A ten-foot elevation change occurs within the first 25-feet of the property, followed by a more gradual slope across the remainder of the lot depth, with an additional ten-foot elevation change. 77 77 of 623
Design Review 2025-1195 & Coastal Development Permit 2026-0057 4/9/2026

The proposed project is for the construction of a 3,158-square-foot primary dwelling unit, a 988 square foot attached ADU, and an 816 square foot attached three-car garage. The project also includes 603 square feet of elevated deck area, new vehicular access, grading, retaining walls, and landscaping.

The proposed structure would contain three levels of living area, visible from the street with the first level consisting of a three-car garage (which appears as a two-car garage when viewed from the street due to a tandem parking arrangement), trash storage area, storage room, two mechanical rooms, and both elevator and stairway access to the primary unit on the upper levels. An approximate 988 square foot ADU is proposed within the north half of the first level. The ADU is not subject to Design Review and complies with all applicable ADU development standards; however, discretionary action is required for the CDP.

The second-level would consist of an entryway, an open concept kitchen, living room, and dining area, two bedrooms with en-suite bathrooms, and a powder room. This level also features a 280-square-foot elevated deck extending across the front of the home and accessed from the living and dining areas.

The third-level includes a family room, a primary bedroom with an en-suite bathroom and walk-in closet, and a powder room. This level also features an elevated deck totaling 324 square feet, accessed from the family room and primary bedroom.

As previously noted, the City Council provided specific direction during the appeal hearing, including setting the third level further back, avoiding the placement of windows that directly face neighboring windows, further reducing the overall building height, and relocating the garage and vehicular access from the north side of the property to the south side.
78 78 of 623
Design Review 2025-1195 & Coastal Development Permit 2026-0057 4/9/2026

Previously Proposed Street Elevation
Proposed Street Elevation
79 79 of 623
Design Review 2025-1195 & Coastal Development Permit 2026-0057 4/9/2026

ENTITLEMENTS: Included within this staff report is an analysis of the project’s Design Review and Coastal Development Permit applications
Design Review
The following elements requires design review: new primary dwelling unit, elevated decks, new vehicular access, grading, retaining walls, and landscaping (see LBMC Section 25.05.040). Design review is governed by Laguna Beach Municipal Code Section 25.05.040. Design Review is considered by the Design Review Board 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.

The revised project provides a total of five off-street parking spaces. Pursuant to the Arch Beach Heights Specific Plan (ABHSP), a total of four off-street parking spaces is required with a minimum of two covered spaces. Additionally, two uncovered parking spaces may be located within the required front setback. The revised project proposes three spaces within the attached garage and two uncovered spaces located in the front setback/driveway. The five spaces are proposed in a tandem configuration. New vehicular access to the garage is proposed at the front of the property with a driveway length of 23’-5”. Additionally, a minimum three-foot wide pedestrian access path would be provided around the perimeter of the home for safe emergency access. Condition of Approval No. 28 is included to require proposed site walls adjacent to the driveway and within the corner cutback area, as defined in LBMC Section 25.50.006, to be reduced to a three-foot maximum height to ensure safe visibility for vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Additionally, new rolled curb and gutter will be installed in the public right-of-way for consistency with neighboring properties.

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 project site contains an average slope of 18% with the rear property line sitting above the front.

The proposed design features three levels of living area visible from the street with the structure stepping back with the slope of the site to reduce the appearance of mass and scale. The first-floor level is proposed entirely within the existing hillside. To further break up the building form, the proposed design incorporates articulation techniques such as offset wall planes, balconies, integrated landscape planters, glazing of varied sizes, and a mix of contrasting building materials and colors.

Of the four required parking spaces, three are proposed within an attached garage in a tandem 80 80 of 623
Design Review 2025-1195 & Coastal Development Permit 2026-0057 4/9/2026

configuration so that it reads as a two-car garage from the street; the other two spaces will be located on a driveway at the front of the property. The revised design also relocates the garage from north side of the structure to the south side, consistent with City Council direction, and eliminates an additional entry stairway at the front of the property to simplify the street elevation. Additional efforts to reduce massing include reducing the overall height of the structure by one foot and lowering the total height by two feet with further excavation into the existing grade.

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 proposed architectural style features a contemporary design with a variety of materials and finishes, including slatted metal roofing, stucco siding in a deep tan color, wood soffits, a combination of metal and smooth stucco railings, and opaque glass for the garage door. A consistent design concept is proposed throughout the project with an earthtone color palette, wood soffits and entry gate, and a flat roof design. Additionally, the proposed decks are designed with slight terracing to reduce the visual prominence of the structure from the street level.

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 subject property does not contain significant natural features, such as heritage trees, rock outcroppings, ridgelines, or watercourses. The project includes 559 cubic yards of cut outside the building footprint and 1,027 cubic yards of cut within the building footprint after grading. Six-foothigh retaining walls will be constructed along the side property lines and will maintain a 3.5 to 4 feet height within the front yard setback. The property is not located near any high value habitat or environmentally sensitive areas. Additionally, a geotechnical report was submitted concluding that the site is adequate for the proposed project and makes recommendations to be incorporated during site preparation, grading, and construction of the foundation and drainage elements of the project.

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.

General Plan Policies
The proposed project complies with the goals and policies of the General Plan below as evidenced in the findings below:

Land Use (LU) Policy 2.8 Require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated with natural topographic features, minimize significant alteration of natural topography and/or other significant onsite resources, and protect public views as specified in the Design Guidelines and the Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document.
81 81 of 623
Design Review 2025-1195 & Coastal Development Permit 2026-0057 4/9/2026

The project has been designed to tuck the proposed home into the hillside to minimize the appearance of mass while the proposed perimeter retaining walls and side access paths follow the natural topography. Grading is limited to that necessary for site preparation and foundation construction, and no significant natural features (heritage trees, rock outcroppings, or watercourses) are located on-site. The purpose of lowering the building’s height is to improve views from surrounding properties.

LU Policy 2.10 Maximize the preservation of coastal and canyon views (consistent with the principle of view equity) from existing properties and minimize blockage of existing public and private views. Best efforts should be made to site new development in locations that minimize adverse impacts on views from public locations (e.g., roads, bluff top trails, visitor-serving facilities, etc.).

Due to the hillside configuration of the neighborhood, uphill properties would maintain views over the proposed residence. The project has been designed to tuck the proposed home into the existing hillside and minimize overall perception of height and massing by lowering the structure into the existing grade. Decks and habitable areas are stepped back progressively from the front property line to further minimize view impacts.

LU Policy 3.10 Require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated with natural topographic features, minimize significant alteration of natural topography or other significant onsite resources, and protect public views as specified in the Design Guidelines and Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document by maintaining the low-profile character of structures.

Require use of appropriate landscaping, special architectural treatments, and siting considerations for projects visible from major highways and arterial streets. Best efforts should be made to site new development in locations that minimize adverse impacts on views from public locations (e.g., roads, bluff-top trails, visitor-serving facilities, etc.).

The project sets the proposed structure into the existing hillside to minimize the appearance of mass.

Additional lowering of the structure into the existing grade is intended to better protect public views impacts No onsite resources exist on the property. Landscaping is integrated into the design through planters and a combination of trees and shrubs to complement and soften views of the structure. The contemporary design incorporates articulation, glazing, and contrasting materials that reduce bulk and mass. The project is not visible from major highways or scenic arterial roadways and therefore does not create adverse public view impacts.

LU Policy 7.3 Design and site new development to protect natural and environmentally sensitive resources, such as areas of unique scenic quality, public views, and visual compatibility with surrounding uses and to minimize natural landform alterations. (Same as Policy 10.2.) GOAL:

Protect, preserve, and enhance the community’s natural resources.

The subject property does not contain environmentally sensitive resources or areas of unique scenic quality. The design respects the existing neighborhood character by tucking the residence into the hillside and articulating the street façade consistent with other nearby multi-level residences. Public 82 82 of 623
Design Review 2025-1195 & Coastal Development Permit 2026-0057 4/9/2026

views are maintained over the structure to the extent possible by lowering the structure into the existing grade.

LU Policy 7.10 Require new construction and grading to be located in close proximity to preexisting development to minimize environmental impacts and growth-inducing potential.

The project site is located within a developed residential neighborhood and surrounded by existing homes on similar hillside lots. The proposed grading is intended to reduce the appearance of mass and allow for views over the single-family dwelling by tucking the proposed structure into the hillside and placing a floor level below the existing grade. No new roadways, infrastructure, or utilities are required, and the project does not induce further growth beyond the single-family residential use permitted by zoning.

LU Policy 10.2 Design and site new development to protect natural and environmentally sensitive resources such as areas of unique scenic quality, public views, and visual compatibility with surrounding uses and to minimize landform alterations. (Same as Policy 7.3) GOAL: Ensure that proposals for new development, subdivisions, and major remodels are sufficiently evaluated to protect public health and safety and natural resources.

The proposed development does not impact sensitive habitats, scenic resources, or historic resources.

The design preserves neighborhood visual compatibility through its contemporary style and articulated façade, which is consistent with nearby structures. Public views are maintained, and grading is consistent with that of single-family development in the area.

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

The property is a vacant lot and not listed in the City’s Historic Register.

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 landscaping plan has been reviewed by the City’s Landscaping Consultant and the proposed landscaping is consistent with the City’s requirements. The height of proposed shrubs is not expected to obstruct views for neighboring properties. A condition of approval has been included requiring the removal of all existing and proposed Target Species from the final landscape plans, including the proposed Pennisetum Fountain grass, except, if desired, one individual plant of an existing target species may remain.

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, high83 83 of 623
Design Review 2025-1195 & Coastal Development Permit 2026-0057 4/9/2026

gloss 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.

The project proposes 16 pathway lights, 29 step lights, and recessed wall lights. All lighting will be low wattage LED, shielded and directed downward, consistent with the City’s Good Neighbor Lighting Ordinance. No up lights are proposed.

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.

The surrounding neighborhood is primarily composed of 25- to 50-foot wide lots developed with three-story residences, many of which feature contemporary architectural styles. The proposed design is largely consistent with this established pattern of development, both in style and scale, with upper levels stepped back to reduce visible bulk and height from the street. The revised project improves compatibility by eliminating the previously proposed front entry staircase and relocating the garage to the south side of the property, set back approximately 23’-5” from the front property line. The second-level decks are set back approximately 15’-4” with habitable space beginning 23 to 28 feet from the property line. On the third level, the elevated deck is set back 18 to 28 feet, with habitable space beginning 25 to 36 feet from the front property line. These setbacks align with or exceed the development pattern of adjacent properties, which provide front setbacks ranging between 10 and 21 feet. The revised design further enhances neighborhood compatibility by introducing offset wall planes at each level, reducing the overall building height by one foot, and lowering the structure by two feet through additional excavation.

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.

Design Review Criteria for Pedestrian Orientation is related to commercial development and this residential project is not subject to these criteria.

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 proposed project places outdoor activity areas, including decks, at the front of the property to minimize privacy impacts on neighboring residences. A larger setback is also provided along the north side yard adjacent to the kitchen/dining area and bedroom #2 on the main floor level and family room on the upper most floor level. To further reduce privacy impacts to adjacent properties, the revised project reduces the window quantity along both side elevations and lowers window heights on the upper level facing north. The Arch Beach Heights Specific Plan requires that the vertical 84 84 of 623
Design Review 2025-1195 & Coastal Development Permit 2026-0057 4/9/2026

plane of glazed openings, when projected horizontally to an adjacent building within ten feet, be no closer than six feet to any glazed opening in the adjacent building, which are effectively all of the windows proposed on the south elevation. Condition of Approval No. 27 is recommended to ensure windows along the south elevation incorporate opaque glazing if located within ten feet of the neighboring property’s windows. Additionally, a perimeter retaining wall is proposed along both side property lines to provide additional separation and privacy to neighboring properties.

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

Design Review Criteria for Public Art is related to commercial development and this residential project is not subject to these criteria.

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.

Design Review Criteria for Signage is related to commercial development and this residential project is not subject to these criteria.

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.

New construction is required to meet Title 24 energy and Building Code requirements, which include insulated windows and energy efficient lighting. The applicant will be required to provide proof of compliance during the building permit plan check review phase if the project is approved.

Furthermore, the applicant will be required to reuse, recycle, or divert at least 65 percent of the project’s construction and demolition debris.

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.

No pool, spa, or water features are proposed as part of this application.

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. 85 85 of 623
Design Review 2025-1195 & Coastal Development Permit 2026-0057 4/9/2026

Due to topography of the area, the surrounding neighborhood is configured so that uphill properties maintain viewsheds over downhill properties on each successive street leading down the hill. The proposed Project is set into the site to allow for some views over and across the proposed residence.

Staff has not received any new public comments as of the date this report was written from neighbors describing view equity concerns. The Board should consider whether the revised design and project staking ensures that view equity is achieved.

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.

The project is consistent with the Residential Design Review Guidelines, as explained above.

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.

See Findings above under Design Review Criteria 1, 2, 3, 4, and 9 for access, design articulation, environmental context, and neighborhood compatibility, respectively.

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

ARCH BEACH HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN STANDARDS
No. 1 | All designs shall demonstrate an individuality of design, which should be achieved primarily through a manipulation of the volume of the structure rather than by means of nonessential architectural details.

See Design Review Criterion No. 2 for design articulation.

No. 2 | While individuality of design should be achieved, the thrust should be scaling down rather than duplication of existing bulk and size of existing structures.

The proposed three-level structure is tucked into the existing hillside, incorporates offset wall planes and balconies, and has been lowered into the existing grade by two feet to further reduce its scale.

These features avoid duplication of bulk and result in a design that is appropriately scaled to its lot and neighborhood context.

No. 3 | Lot coverage shall not exceed that specified in the zoning ordinance for R-1 development.

The lot coverage does not exceed the R-1 zone coverage allowance as identified in the Zoning Review table above.
86 86 of 623
Design Review 2025-1195 & Coastal Development Permit 2026-0057 4/9/2026

No. 4 | All designs shall limit areas of large blank walls by carefully planned windows, porches, and smaller volumes.

The proposed design limits areas of large blank walls with the incorporation of windows of varied sizes, balconies along the street facing elevations, built in landscape planters, and offset walls planes as described within Design Review Criterion No. 2 for design articulation.

No. 5 | Harsh boxlike structures, and structures which make extensive use of glossy surfaces, or strong, glaring colors, shall be avoided.

See Design Review Criteria No. 2 and 8 for design articulation and lighting and glare.

No. 6 | On downhill homes, all designs shall avoid vertical repetitive detailing which adds to the illusion of height.
hough this is an uphill lot, the project conforms to this pursuant to the description provided in Design Review Criterion No. 2 for design articulation.

No. 7 | All designs shall minimize roof penetration by grouping all plumbing vents and ducts together.

During Building Plan Check, the roof plan will be required to show groupings of roof penetrations to ensure compliance with this criterion, as applicable.

No. 8 | All vents, gutters, downspouts, louvers, exposed flashings, and service doors shall be treated as architectural design elements and shall be painted to coordinate with the color scheme of the structure.

The proposed structure has been designed with consideration of these elements and will be painted to coordinate with the color scheme of the structure.

No. 9 | Roof decks should not be permitted above the uppermost story, nor should parapets, walls, protective roof deck railings or stair enclosures exceed the roof height of the uppermost story, except as approved by design review.

A roof deck is not proposed with the project, nor does the request include parapets, walls, protective roof deck railings or stair enclosures that exceed the height of the uppermost story.

No. 10 | All exterior lighting should relate to the design of the structure, and the light emitted shall not adversely affect neighboring properties, exceed that reasonably necessary for security purposes, nor detract from the aesthetics of the property.

See Design Review Criterion No. 8 for lighting and glare. 87 87 of 623
Design Review 2025-1195 & Coastal Development Permit 2026-0057 4/9/2026

No. 11 | All landscape plans shall address the functional aspects of landscaping such as drainage, erosion prevention, wind barriers, shade, sound absorption, dust abatement, and reduction of glare.

The proposed landscape plan has considered these functional aspects within their design. See plan sheet L-1 of the proposed project plans for reference of the proposed plantings and installation details.

No. 12 | Landscaping shall be used in front and rear yards to relieve solid, unbroken elevations and to soften continuous wall expanses.

Landscaping has been incorporated into the front, rear yards, and within the landscape planters attached to the building to further soften the design of the proposed single-family dwelling.

No. 13 | All designs shall incorporate the use of shrubbery and trees to reduce the appearance of height.

The landscape design includes planting species of differing heights and planters built into the design of the structure to reduce the appearance of height, as well as meets the City’s Fuel Modification requirements regarding spacing and distances between groupings.

No. 14 | The area between the underside of the building and finished grade should be completely enclosed, except as approved by design review.

If any void spaces are incorporated into the foundation design of the structure, they are skirted to hide the underside of the structure.

No. 15 | There shall be provided a storage area for at least two garbage and trash containers, minimum forty-gallon capacity each, completely enclosed from view, easily accessible to the street.

Such areas shall be protected by at least one-hour fire rating.

The trash storage area is proposed within the oversized attached garage located at the front of the property.

No. 16 | A general storage area of at least four hundred cubic feet, completely enclosed from view, shall be provided within each garage or carport, except as approved by design review.

The proposed project provides 563 cubic feet of concealed storage area in the garage.

No. 17 | All developments should seek to minimize the difference between the natural grade and the finished project height by such methods as split level or stepping down the building along with the grade.

The proposed three-level building is designed into the hillside to promote the project’s neighborhood compatibility.
88 88 of 623
Design Review 2025-1195 & Coastal Development Permit 2026-0057 4/9/2026

Coastal Development Permit
The proposed single-family dwelling and related site improvements are proposed as excluded development under LBMC Chapter 25.07 and Exclusionary Order No. E-93-1; therefore, a CDP is not required for the proposed primary unit.

The proposed attached ADU, while not subject to Design Review, requires a Coastal Development Permit (CDP). The CDP for the ADU is not eligible for appeal to the California Coastal Commission and is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to section 15303, Class 3(a) (New Construction) of the state CEQA Guidelines, which allows construction of an ADU in a residential zone. The following findings are considered in relation to the proposed development of the ADU:

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 development will not modify any existing physical accessway utilized by the public or identified in the adopted local coastal program land use plan in that the subject property contains no existing accessways legally utilized by the public, no such public accessways are identified in the adopted land use plan.

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

The proposed development will not adversely affect marine resources, environmentally sensitive resources or archeological or paleontological resources in that the project site is located within an established residential neighborhood, and no such resources are known to exist in the immediately abutting area.

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

The proposed development will not adversely affect recreational or visitor-serving facilities or coastal scenic resources in that the project site is located within an established residential neighborhood and is not located near any recreational or visitor-serving facilities.

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 development will have no adverse impacts to environmentally sensitive habitats and scenic resources located in adjacent parks and recreation areas in that the project site is located within 89 89 of 623
Design Review 2025-1195 & Coastal Development Permit 2026-0057 4/9/2026

an established residential neighborhood, no such areas abut the project site, and no buffer areas are needed to protect 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 development will minimize the alteration of natural landforms and will not create undue risks from geological and erosional forces and/or flood and fire hazards in that the proposed attached ADU would be located within the footprint of the single-family residence, all construction will comply with required life safety requirements, and the proposed project including landscape plans has been reviewed for fire safety.

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 attached ADU would be located within the footprint of single-family residence on the lowest level, which has been designed to be compatible with the character of the surrounding areas as described under Design Review Criterion No. 9. Further, while the project site and surrounding area are not visually degraded, the proposed development would enhance visual quality by replacing a vacant property with a well-articulated residential structure.

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

The proposed development will not have any adverse impacts on any known archaeological or paleontological resource in that such resources are not known to exist in the project area, and the project site is located within an established residential neighborhood.

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

The subject site has existing road access and other facilities. The ADU would tie into existing utilities which are adequate to serve the ADU. Utilities may be extended to the site, as the site is located within an established residential neighborhood.

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 site is located in an existing developed neighborhood, which is considered adequate to provide solid waste service and the roadways are considered adequate to serve the proposed development.

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

LCP COASTAL VIEW POLICIES (CDP)
90 90 of 623
Design Review 2025-1195 & Coastal Development Permit 2026-0057 4/9/2026

Land Use Element (LUE) Policy 2.8 Require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated with natural topographic features, minimize significant alteration of natural topography and/or other significant on-site resources, and protect public views as specified in the Design Guidelines and the Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document.

The proposed attached ADU would be located entirely within the footprint of a new single-family residence proposed on the site. The project site is characterized by moderately steep terrain, and grading of approximately 1,500 cubic yards of cut is proposed to accommodate the residence and required access. The grading has been designed to follow the existing slope to the extent feasible, and minimize retaining wall heights. Additionally, no known significant on-site resources would be affected. Because the ADU is located on the lowest floor level of the residence and does not add to the building envelope or grading beyond what is required for the primary structure, the proposed development would not interfere with public views and is consistent with the intent of LUE Policy

2.8. LCP DOCUMENTS
The project conforms with all the following applicable documents of the Certified LCP.

Design Guidelines – A Guide to Residential Development (2010) Title 22 – Excavation, Grading and Filling (2004)
Title 25 – Zoning Code
Design Guidelines for Hillside Development (as adopted by Resolution 89.104) 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 project is consistent with all applicable policies of the Certified LCP. The development is not located between the sea and first public road paralleling the sea. Additionally, the subject site is zoned residential and is not suitable for recreational uses identified in Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act.

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 does not have adverse environmental impacts. The project will not cause any significant adverse impacts on the environment and qualifies for a categorical exemption (as described in the Environmental Impact section below) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, the project qualifies for a categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15303 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, in that the project consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small structures There is no evidence of any unusual or special conditions that would result in a significant effect on the environment. 91 91 of 623
Design Review 2025-1195 & Coastal Development Permit 2026-0057 4/9/2026

Here, the Project involves the construction of a new single-family dwelling, elevated decks, grading, retaining walls, and landscaping in a residential area.

Further, none of the exceptions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply. The project site does not contain any environmentally sensitive areas. There will be no cumulative impact resulting from successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time. The zone in which the property is located allows for construction of one primary unit per lot. There are no unusual circumstances resulting in a significant impact on the environment. There will be no damage to scenic resources, including trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway as no such resources exist on the property. The project is not located on a hazardous waste site or any other site included on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. The project will not result in significant adverse impacts to historical resources as defined by CEQA. Consequently, additional environmental analysis is not necessary to meet the requirements of the CEQA.

RECOMMENDATION:

Conduct a public hearing and adopt Resolution 2025-1195, approving Design Review 2025-1195 and Coastal Development Permit 2026-0057 for the property located at 950 Baja Street and find said action categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303.

NOTIFICATION:

Pursuant to Title 25 (Zoning) Public Notice, a public hearing notice was mailed on January 21, 2026, which is at least twenty-one (21) days prior to the February 12, 2026 hearing, in accordance with Title 25. In addition, a public hearing notice was posted on the project site on January 20, 2026, which is at least 10 days before the February 12, 2026 hearing date. Because the meeting was continued from February 12, 2026 to a date certain of April 9, 2026 no additional noticing is required by law.

CORRESPONDENCE:

As of the date this report has been written, and since the February 12, 2026 hearing, no new public correspondence has been received by the City. Past correspondence for this project is available on the City’s website on the Agendas, Minutes, and Meeting Videos page by hearing date listed earlier in this report.

ATTACHMENT(S):

Attachment 1 – Resolution No. 2025-1195
Attachment 2 – Plans
Attachment 3 – Certified Staking Plan
Attachment 4 – Color and Material Board
Attachment 5 – Renderings and Color Elevations
Attachment 6 – City Council Appeal Agenda Report of July 9, 2024 Attachment 7 – City Council Resolution #24.062
Attachment 8 – Geotechnical Report
92 92 of 623
DRAWN BY: REVISION BY:

SHEET NO.:

ISSUED DATE:

PLOT DATE:

NO. DATE DESCRIPTION.

REVISIONS
hugo soria & company 950 baja st.
laguna beach, ca 92651
03-12-26
DOLUH]D KDJKLJKDW DOLUH]D KDJKLJKDW cover sheet/summary table

PROJECT DATA

DESCRIPTION EXISTING

GRADING (CUBIC
YARDS)

OUTSIDE BUILDING

FOOTPRINT

INSIDE BUILDING

FOOTPRINT POOL/SPA TOTAL
IMPERVIOUS SURFACES LOT AREA % OF LOT AREA

EXISTING PROPOSED EXISTING PROPOSED

Z O N I N G S T A N D A R D S
DESCRIPTION REQUIRED EXISTING PROPOSED CONFORMS?

PROJECT SUMMARY TABLE

SITE WORK

CHANGE PROPOSED

LANDSCAPE LIGHTING

EXIST'G FIXTURE COUNT PROP FIXTURE COUNT

FIXTURE TYPE WATTAGE LUMENS QUANTITY COMMENTS

EXIST'G EGRESS DOORS

EXTERIOR BUILDING LIGHTING

PROP EGRESS DOORS

EXIST'G FIXTURE COUNT PROP FIXTURE COUNT
FIXTURE TYPE WATTAGE LUMENS QUANTITY COMMENTS ··
93 93 of 623
DRAWN BY: REVISION BY:

SHEET NO.:

ISSUED DATE:

PLOT DATE:

NO. DATE DESCRIPTION.

REVISIONS
hugo soria & company 950 baja st.
laguna beach, ca 92651
03-12-26
DOLUH]D KDJKLJKDW DOLUH]D KDJKLJKDW notes
vicinity map
General Notes:

1. All work, including materials and workmanship, shall conform to the requirements of local codes, laws, and ordinances and as specified by all governing authorities where applicable. Reference is to the latest accepted edition or revision. In the event of conflict with code requirements, that code requirement or note which establishes the higher standard shall take precedence.

2. The intention of the Contract Documents is to include all labor and materials, equipment, and transportation necessary for the complete and proper execution of the work.

3. The Contractor shall visit the job site prior to bidding any portion of the work. The Contractor shall verify all dimensions and existing conditions prior to beginning work, including but not limited to existing interior walls and roof structures. Should any condition arise where the intent of the drawing is in doubt or where there is a discrepancy between the Contract Documents and the field conditions, or within the Contract Documents, the Contractor shall notify the Architect immediately for clarification. Acceptance of these contract documents releases Architect from any liability of inaccurate portray of existing conditions whatsoever as established by consulting engineers and/or surveyors.

4. Dimensions are from face of studs or to center of wall as indicated on drawings, unless noted otherwise.

5. Written dimensions take precedence. Do not scale drawings. Walls not dimensioned are to align with existing walls or be abutted or applied to existing walls per drawings. Doors not dimensioned and shown jamb tight shall be set 3” from perpendicular wall to outer edge of door jamb.

6. Reference to any detail or drawing is for convenience only and does not limit the application of such details or drawings.

7. The design, adequacy and safety of erection bracing, shoring, temporary supports, etc., is the sole responsibility of the Contractor. The Contractor shall be responsible for the stability of the structure and provide necessary bracing prior to the application of all shear walls, roof and floor diaphragms, and finish materials. The Contractor shall be responsible for initiating, maintaining, and supervising all safety precautions and programs in connection with the work.

8. The Structural, Mechanical, Plumbing, and Electrical Drawings, as well as the drawings of other consultants, are supplementary to the Architectural drawings. It shall be the responsibility of the General Contractor to check with the Architectural Drawings before the installation of work shown in the drawings of consultants. The Contractor shall bring any discrepancy between the Architectural Drawings and the drawings of the consulting engineers to the attention of the Architect for clarification. Any work installed in conflict with the Architectural drawings and not brought to the Architect's attention shall be corrected by the Contractor at the Contractor's expense and at no expense to the Owner or Architect.

9. Prior to performance of work, the Contractor shall require each subcontractor to notify the Contractor of any work called out in the drawings for his trade that cannot be fully guaranteed.

10. Contractor shall verify the location and size of all openings with all drawings and manufactured items where applicable.

11. The Contractor shall supervise and direct the Work and be solely responsible for all construction, means, methods, techniques, sequences, procedures, safety, and for coordinating all portions of the Work.

12. The Contractor here-in agrees to repair or replace any or all work, together with any other adjacent work which may be displaced in connection with such replacement, that may prove to be defective in workmanship or materials within period of one year from the date of acceptance, ordinary wear and unusual abuse or neglect expected.

13. Contractor shall protect all existing structures, landscaping, materials, etc., during construction.

Contractor shall patch and repair all surfaces disrupted or damaged ruing construction to match existing adjacent surfaces.

14. The Contractor shall on a daily basis keep the premises free from all accumulations of waste material or rubbish caused by his employees, subcontractors, or work, and at the completion of the work shall remove all rubbish, debris, equipment, and surplus materials from in and about the building and leave the premises “broom clean.”

15. Any deviation from the Construction Documents or specifications by the Contractor or Owner without the Architect's approval releases the Architect of responsibility and liability in connection with all work so involved.

16. Clarifications on and/or inconsistencies with the drawings and specifications shall be brought to the attention of the Architect by the Contractor prior to commencement of work. Additional charges will not be granted based on claims of incomplete, inaccurate, or inconsistent drawings and specifications.

17. Prior to any excavation, a meeting will be held on site that will be attended by the project engineer, geologist, project building inspector, general and shoring contractors.

18. A CAL OSHA permit is required where excavations exceed 5ft and a copy of the permit shall be supplied to the city prior to issuing a building permit.

19. The requirements of the 2022 edition of the California Building Code (Tile 24) have been taken in consideration.

20. All new utilities will be underground to nearest utility pole.

21. Prior to commencement of any construction all applicable provisions pertaining to brush clearance contained in the Uniform Fire code shall comply with the Los Angeles Fire Department.

22. The responsible certified geotechnical engineer will inspect and approve all grading and excavations prior to placement of forms, reinforcing steel or concrete. In cases involving engineered fill, a soils engineer shall provide the inspection and approval.

23. All eaves/projections to be one hour fire resistive, heavy timber or constructed on non-combustible materials. There shall be no openings in the fire resistive construction (i.e. no eave vents).

24. All roof/eave materials to be “Class A” rated.

25. Licensed civil engineer/architect that prepared the drainage plan shall certify at the completion of the project that the site drainage is in substantial compliance with the approved drainage plan.

26. The plans shall comply with the California Codes. CBC, CPC, CMC, and CEC and all applicable Local codes and ordinances.

27. Project shall comply with NPDES, SUSMP, and BMP requirements.

28. Contact dig alert.

29. Structural observations by design engineer.

30. Owners in adjacent properties that must underpin their buildings due to the proposed excavation shall be notified in writing ten days prior to beginning the excavation. Copies of these notification letters shall be provided to the city prior to beginning the excavation.

31. Termite protection. In geographical areas where hazard of termite damage is known to be very heavy, wood floor framing shall be of naturally durable species (termite resistant) or preservative treated in accordance with AWPA U1 for the species, product preservative and end use or provided with approved methods of termite protection.

32. Wood is supported by exterior foundation walls. Wood framing members, including wood sheathing, that rest on exterior foundation walls and are less than 8 inches from exposed earth shall be of naturally durable or preservative-treated wood.

33. Fasteners for preservative treated and fire-retardant-treated wood shall be of hot dipped zinc-coated galvanized steel, stainless steel, silicon bronze or copper. The coating weights for zinc-coated fasteners shall be in accordance with ASTM A 153. 2304.9.5. Exception: Fasteners other than nails, timber rivets, wood screws and lag screws shall be permitted to be of mechanically deposited zinc coated steel with coating weights in accordance with ASTM B 695, Class 55 minimum. 2304.9.5. Fastenings for wood foundations shall be as required in AF&PA Technical Report No. 7.

34. Building to be equipped with fire sprinkler system in accordance with NFPA 13D.

35. Deferred submittals to be reviews by project architect or engineer of record and certified prior to submittal for plan check or approval by the City. ··
94 94 of 623
DRAWN BY: REVISION BY:

SHEET NO.:

ISSUED DATE:

PLOT DATE:

NO. DATE DESCRIPTION.

REVISIONS
hugo soria & company 950 baja st.
laguna beach, ca 92651
03-12-26
DOLUH]D KDJKLJKDW DOLUH]D KDJKLJKDW proposed site plan
LONGITUDINAL LINE = 100'
TRANSVERSAL LINE = 50'
20% X 50' = 10' (COMBINED S.S.B.)
6'-0" NORTH & 4'-0" SOUTH S.S.B.

Legend :

PROJECT
NORTH

MAGNETIC
NORTH
proposed site plan
scale 1/8"=1'-0"
5'-0"
GARAGE S.B.
10'-0"
F.S.B. (BUILDING)
20'-0"
REAR S.B. 4'-0" S.S.B. 6'-0" S.S.B.
20'-0"
REAR S.B.

LONGITUDINAL LINE (100')
TRANSVERSAL LINE (50')
SEWER
PIPE
3'-1" 4'-4" PROP. S.S.B.
20'-2"
PROP. GARAGE S.B.
23'-5"
PROP. F.S.B. (BLD'G) 6'-2" PROP. S.S.B.10'-6" distance from adjacent bldn'g 20'-11" distance from adjacent bldn'g 15'-4"
PROP. F.S.B. (DECK) 4'-0" PROP. S.S.B.
28'-3"
PROP. F.S.B. (BLD'G)
4'-0"
REAR S.B.
18'-0"
PROP. REAR S.B. 23'-5" PROP. S.S.B.
95 95 of 623
DRAWN BY: REVISION BY:

SHEET NO.:

ISSUED DATE:

PLOT DATE:

NO. DATE DESCRIPTION.

REVISIONS
hugo soria & company 950 baja st.
laguna beach, ca 92651
03-12-26
DOLUH]D KDJKLJKDW DOLUH]D KDJKLJKDW proposed street level floor plan 5'-0"
GARAGE S.B.
10'-0"
F.S.B. (BUILDING)
proposed street level floor plan
scale 1/4"=1'-0"
23'-5"
PROP. GARAGE S.B. 6'-0" S.S.B.
20'-0"
REAR S.B. 4'-0" S.S.B. 4'-4" PROP. S.S.B. 6'-2" PROP. S.S.B. 4'-0" PROP. S.S.B. 4'-0"
REAR S.B.
18'-0"
PROP. REAR S.B.

PROJECT
NORTH

MAGNETIC
NORTH
Legend :
96 96 of 623
DRAWN BY: REVISION BY:

SHEET NO.:

ISSUED DATE:

PLOT DATE:

NO. DATE DESCRIPTION.

REVISIONS
hugo soria & company 950 baja st.
laguna beach, ca 92651
03-12-26
DOLUH]D KDJKLJKDW DOLUH]D KDJKLJKDW proposed main level floor plan 4'-0" S.S.B. 5'-0"
GARAGE S.B.
10'-0"
F.S.B. (BUILDING) 6'-0" S.S.B.
20'-0"
REAR S.B.
proposed main level floor plan
scale 1/4"=1'-0" 4'-0" S.S.B. 4'-4" PROP. S.S.B.
23'-5"
PROP. F.S.B. (BLD'G)
15'-4"
PROP. F.S.B. (DECK) 6'-0" S.S.B.
20'-0"
REAR S.B. 6'-2" PROP. S.S.B. 4'-0" PROP. S.S.B.
4'-0"
REAR S.B.
18'-0"
PROP. REAR S.B.

PROJECT
NORTH

MAGNETIC
NORTH
Legend :
97 97 of 623
DRAWN BY: REVISION BY:

SHEET NO.:

ISSUED DATE:

PLOT DATE:

NO. DATE DESCRIPTION.

REVISIONS
hugo soria & company 950 baja st.
laguna beach, ca 92651
03-12-26
DOLUH]D KDJKLJKDW DOLUH]D KDJKLJKDW proposed upper level floor plan proposed upper level floor plan
scale 1/4"=1'-0"
5'-0"
GARAGE S.B.
10'-0"
F.S.B. (BUILDING)
20'-0"
REAR S.B. 6'-0" S.S.B. 4'-0" S.S.B.
20'-0"
REAR S.B. 4'-4" PROP. S.S.B. 6'-2" PROP. S.S.B.

PROJECT
NORTH

MAGNETIC
NORTH
Legend :
98 98 of 623
proposed roof plan &
solar ready roof area plan
proposed roof plan
scale 1/4"=1'-0"
Legend : Legend :

PROJECT
NORTH

MAGNETIC
NORTH 6'-0" SIDE S.B. 4'-0" SIDE S.B.

DRAWN BY: REVISION BY:

SHEET NO.:

ISSUED DATE:

PLOT DATE:

NO. DATE DESCRIPTION.

REVISIONS
hugo soria & company 950 baja st.
laguna beach, ca 92651
03-12-26
DOLUH]D KDJKLJKDW DOLUH]D KDJKLJKDW
2'-6"
5'-0"
GARAGE S.B.
10'-0"
F.S.B. (BUILDING)
19'-11"
REAR S.B.
2'-6" 2'-6" 12"
proposed solar ready roof area plan
scale 1/8"=1'-0"
99 99 of 623
DRAWN BY: REVISION BY:

SHEET NO.:

ISSUED DATE:

PLOT DATE:

NO. DATE DESCRIPTION.

REVISIONS
hugo soria & company 950 baja st.
laguna beach, ca 92651
03-12-26
DOLUH]D KDJKLJKDW DOLUH]D KDJKLJKDW proposed section a-a proposed section "A-A"
scale 1/4"=1'-0"
Legend :
100
100 of 623
DRAWN BY: REVISION BY:

SHEET NO.:

ISSUED DATE:

PLOT DATE:

NO. DATE DESCRIPTION.

REVISIONS
hugo soria & company 950 baja st.
laguna beach, ca 92651
03-12-26
DOLUH]D KDJKLJKDW DOLUH]D KDJKLJKDW proposed section b-b proposed section "B-B"
scale 1/4"=1'-0"
Legend :
101
101 of 623
DRAWN BY: REVISION BY:

SHEET NO.:

ISSUED DATE:

PLOT DATE:

NO. DATE DESCRIPTION.

REVISIONS
hugo soria & company 950 baja st.
laguna beach, ca 92651
03-12-26
DOLUH]D KDJKLJKDW DOLUH]D KDJKLJKDW proposed section c-c proposed section "C-C"
scale 1/4"=1'-0"
Legend :
102
102 of 623
DRAWN BY: REVISION BY:

SHEET NO.:

ISSUED DATE:

PLOT DATE:

NO. DATE DESCRIPTION.

REVISIONS
hugo soria & company 950 baja st.
laguna beach, ca 92651
03-12-26
DOLUH]D KDJKLJKDW DOLUH]D KDJKLJKDW proposed section d-d proposed section "D-D"
scale 1/4"=1'-0"
Legend :
103
103 of 623
proposed south elevation
scale 1/4"=1'-0"
DRAWN BY: REVISION BY:

SHEET NO.:

ISSUED DATE:

PLOT DATE:

NO. DATE DESCRIPTION.

REVISIONS
hugo soria & company 950 baja st.
laguna beach, ca 92651
03-12-26
DOLUH]D KDJKLJKDW DOLUH]D KDJKLJKDW proposed south elevation Keyed Notes :

Smooth trowel stucco
Metal roofing
built-up roofing
Metal railing
Metal eave/ trellis
104
104 of 623
DRAWN BY: REVISION BY:

SHEET NO.:

ISSUED DATE:

PLOT DATE:

NO. DATE DESCRIPTION.

REVISIONS
hugo soria & company 950 baja st.
laguna beach, ca 92651
03-12-26
DOLUH]D KDJKLJKDW DOLUH]D KDJKLJKDW proposed north elevation proposed north elevation
scale 1/4"=1'-0"
Keyed Notes :

Smooth trowel stucco
Metal roofing
built-up roofing
Metal railing
Metal eave/ trellis
105
105 of 623
DRAWN BY: REVISION BY:

SHEET NO.:

ISSUED DATE:

PLOT DATE:

NO. DATE DESCRIPTION.

REVISIONS
hugo soria & company 950 baja st.
laguna beach, ca 92651
03-12-26
DOLUH]D KDJKLJKDW DOLUH]D KDJKLJKDW proposed west elevation proposed west elevation
scale 1/4"=1'-0"
Keyed Notes :

Smooth trowel stucco
Metal roofing
built-up roofing
Metal railing
Metal eave/ trellis
106
106 of 623
proposed east elevation
scale 1/4"=1'-0"
DRAWN BY: REVISION BY:

SHEET NO.:

ISSUED DATE:

PLOT DATE:

NO. DATE DESCRIPTION.

REVISIONS
hugo soria & company 950 baja st.
laguna beach, ca 92651
03-12-26
DOLUH]D KDJKLJKDW DOLUH]D KDJKLJKDW proposed east elevation Keyed Notes :

Smooth trowel stucco
Metal roofing
built-up roofing
Metal railing
Metal eave/ trellis
107
107 of 623
DRAWN BY: REVISION BY:

SHEET NO.:

ISSUED DATE:

PLOT DATE:

NO. DATE DESCRIPTION.

REVISIONS
hugo soria & company 950 baja st.
laguna beach, ca 92651
03-12-26
DOLUH]D KDJKLJKDW DOLUH]D KDJKLJKDW calcs.
proposed street level floor plan
scale 1/8"=1'-0"
proposed main level floor plan
scale 1/8"=1'-0"
proposed upper level floor plan
scale 1/8"=1'-0"

PROJECT
NORTH

MAGNETIC
NORTH
108
108 of 623
5'-0"
GARAGE S.B.
10'-0"
F.S.B. (BUILDING) 6'-0" S.S.B. 4'-0" S.S.B.
20'-0"
REAR S.B.

EXIST'G EGRESS DOORS

EXTERIOR BUILDING LIGHTING

PROP EGRESS DOORS

EXIST'G FIXTURE COUNT PROP FIXTURE COUNT
DRAWN BY: REVISION BY:

SHEET NO.:

ISSUED DATE:

PLOT DATE:

NO. DATE DESCRIPTION.

REVISIONS
hugo soria & company 950 baja st.
laguna beach, ca 92651
03-12-26
DOLUH]D KDJKLJKDW DOLUH]D KDJKLJKDW proposed exterior lighting plan proposed exterior lighting plan
scale 1/4"=1'-0" PROJECT
NORTH

MAGNETIC
NORTH
109
109 of 623
staking plan
scale 1/8"=1'-0"
proposed staking plan VARIES
VARIES
DRAWN BY: REVISION BY:

SHEET NO.:

ISSUED DATE:

PLOT DATE:

NO. DATE DESCRIPTION.

REVISIONS
hugo soria & company 950 baja st.
laguna beach, ca 92651
03-12-26
DOLUH]D KDJKLJKDW DOLUH]D KDJKLJKDW
SAMPLE

STORY POLE HEIGHT AND LOCATION CERTIFICATION
Instructions: The Story Pole Height and Location Certification and Story Pole Construction Notes Table or Notations must be executed by a registered land surveyor or registered civil engineer directly on a copy of the fullsize roof plan. The completed certification must be submitted to the City at least 21 days prior to the design review authority's first noticed public hearing date (or 14 days prior to administrative design review hearing or a design review continuance).

Required Certification Statement:

I hereby certify that the story poles located on the referenced site were constructed under my supervision and survey, and the story poles are in conformance with the design, height and location as shown on the approved staking plan. I further certify that 1) the story pole identification numbers, 2) story pole location base grade elevations, 3) story pole heights and 4) the proposed maximum height elevations are true and correct. I acknowledge and understand that the required project staking is for the purpose of informing the owner, architect, designer, City staff, design review authority and the public as to the accurate location and exterior dimensions of the proposed structure or addition.

Please stamp & sign below
_______________________________________________
Signature of Registered Land Surveyor or Civil Engineer _______________________________________________
Name (printed or typed)
_______________________________________________
License No./Expiration Date
_______________________________________________
Date
Sample
Story Pole Construction Notes Table
Date: _________________________________
Site Address: ______________________________________________________________ Datum Benchmark: _________________________________________________________ Name of Surveyor or Engineer: _______________________________________________ Pole Number Base Grade Elevation * Story Pole Height fromBase Grade Elevation Proposed Maximum
Elevation
*If standard base grade elevation nails are not feasible because of the existence of rocks, paving or existing structural improvements, then the surveyor or engineer may use an alternative method of establishing horizontal and vertical control for story poles that can be observed in the field. The surveyor or engineer shall describe the control method used directly on the full-size staking plan. Such alternative methods may include painted markings. It is also recognized that sometimes it may not be feasible to set poles due to unforeseen circumstances. In that case, please identify the story poles that were not established and an explanation as to the reason. 2'-6"
5'-0"
GARAGE S.B.
10'-0"
F.S.B. (BUILDING)
19'-11"
REAR S.B.
2'-6"

PROJECT
NORTH

MAGNETIC
NORTH
Sample
Story Pole Construction Notes Table
Date: _________________________________
Site Address: ______________________________________________________________ Datum Benchmark: _________________________________________________________ Name of Surveyor or Engineer: _______________________________________________ Pole Number Base Grade Elevation * Story Pole Height from Base Grade Elevation
Proposed Maximum
Elevation
*If standard base grade elevation nails are not feasible because of the existence of rocks, paving or existing structural improvements, then the surveyor or engineer may use an alternative method of establishing horizontal and vertical control for story poles that can be observed in the field. The surveyor or engineer shall describe the control method used directly on the full-size staking plan. Such alternative methods may include painted markings. It is also recognized that sometimes it may not be feasible to set poles due to unforeseen circumstances. In that case, please identify the story poles that were not established and an explanation as to the reason. 110
110 of 623
111
111 of 623
DRAWN BY: REVISION BY:

SHEET NO.:

ISSUED DATE:

PLOT DATE:

NO. DATE DESCRIPTION.

REVISIONS
hugo soria & company 950 baja st.
laguna beach, ca 92651
03-12-26
DOLUH]D KDJKLJKDW DOLUH]D KDJKLJKDW RECORD OF SURVEY
112
112 of 623

IRRIGATION NOTES

1. ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS (EXISTING AND PROPOSED) SHALL BE IRRIGATED BY A

COMBINATION OF BUBBLER HEADS, TRUE-DRIP SYSTEMS AND LOW

PRECIPITATION SPRINKLER HEADS, OPERATED BY AN AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION CONTROLLER WITH AUTOMATIC RAIN SHUT-OFF.

MAIN &

UPPER LEVEL

PLANTER
MAIN &

UPPER LEVEL

PLANTER UPPER LEVEL

PLANTER
8/20/25
H.S. H.S.

CAROLINA CHERRY PRUNUS

CAROLINIANA

MODERATE-LOW
113
113 of 623
DRAWN BY: REVISION BY:

SHEET NO.:

ISSUED DATE:

PLOT DATE:

NO. DATE DESCRIPTION.

REVISIONS
hugo soria & company 950 baja st.
laguna beach, ca 92651
03-12-26
DOLUH]D KDJKLJKDW DOLUH]D KDJKLJKDW proposed landscape open space plan Legend :
scale 1/8"=1'-0"
proposed impervious surfaces
proposed open space plan
scale 1/8"=1'-0"
IMPERVIOUS SURFACES LOT AREA % OF LOT AREA

PROPOSED
REQUIRED PROPOSED CONFORMS?

LANDSCAPE OPEN SPACE

PROPOSED

PROJECT
NORTH

MAGNETIC
NORTH
5'-0"
GARAGE S.B.
10'-0"
F.S.B. (BUILDING)
20'-0"
REAR S.B. 4'-0" S.S.B. 6'-0" S.S.B.
20'-0"
REAR S.B.
5'-0"
GARAGE S.B.
10'-0"
F.S.B. (BUILDING)
20'-0"
REAR S.B. 4'-0" S.S.B. 6'-0" S.S.B.
20'-0"
REAR S.B.

IRRIGATED SPACES

NON IRRIGATED SPACES
114
114 of 623
DRAWN BY: REVISION BY:

SHEET NO.:

ISSUED DATE:

PLOT DATE:

NO. DATE DESCRIPTION.

REVISIONS
hugo soria & company 950 baja st.
laguna beach, ca 92651
03-12-26
DOLUH]D KDJKLJKDW DOLUH]D KDJKLJKDW proposed landscape lighting plan

LIGHTING NOTES

1. MINIMUM 1.5" DIAMETER CABLE TO BE INSTALLED IN PVC SLEEVING UNDER ALL PAVEMENT.

2. ALL LIGHTING LOCATIONS TO BE VERIFIED WITH LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF RECORD PRIOR TO ANY INSTALLATION.

3. 120V OUTLET SHALL BE PROVIDED AT LOCATIONS WHERE TRANSFORMER IS PROPOSED.

4. TO EVEN LIGHTING AND VOLTAGE DROPS, MULTIPLE RUNS AT DIFFERENT VOLTAGE TAPS SHALL BE INSTALLED.

5. ALL FIXTURES SHALL BE REVIEWED AND SET UP AT AN APPROPRIATE HOUR DURING NON-LIGHT HOURS.

6. CABLE RUNS SHALL BE INSTALLED ADJACENT TO HARDSCAPE EDGES WHERE APPLICABLE.

7. FOR FUTURE ADJUSTMENTS, LEAVE 24" LOOP AT EACH FIXTURE.

8. DIRECT BURIAL CABLE SHALL BE PROVIDED (12/2 OR 10/2) AS REQUIRED FOR LOW VOLT APPLICATIONS.

LIGHTING MANUFACTURER SPECS

LANDSCAPE LIGHTING

SYMBOL FIXTURE TYPE WATTAGE LUMENS QUANTITY COMMENTS
proposed landscape lighting plan
scale 1/8"=1'-0"
5'-0"
GARAGE S.B.
10'-0"
F.S.B. (BUILDING) 6'-0" S.S.B. 4'-0" S.S.B.
20'-0"
REAR S.B.

PROJECT
NORTH

MAGNETIC
NORTH
115
115 of 623
DRAWN BY: REVISION BY:

SHEET NO.:

ISSUED DATE:

PLOT DATE:

NO. DATE DESCRIPTION.

REVISIONS
hugo soria & company 950 baja st.
laguna beach, ca 92651
03-12-26
DOLUH]D KDJKLJKDW DOLUH]D KDJKLJKDW proposed fire access plan proposed fire access plan
scale 1/8"=1'-0"
LEGEND:
3' FD access path
Fire Hose A. A SEPARATE (DEFERRED) SUBMITTAL FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS IS REQUIRED. SYSTEM DESIGN MUST COMPLY WITH THE 2022 CFC AND 2022 NFPA 13D STANDARD. PLANS

MUST BE DESIGNED AND INSTALLED BY A QUALIFIED FIRE PROTECTION CONTRACTOR. PLANS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO AND APPROVED BY THE LBFD, WITH PERMIT ISSUED AND APPROPRIATE INSPECTIONS CONDUCTED.

B. ALL EXTERIOR FIRE PLACES AND FIRE PITS MUST BE GAS FIRED ONLY. NO SOLID FUEL IS ALLOWED PER THE LBFD MUNICIPAL CODE. FIRE PLACES AND FIRE PITS MUST BE A MINIMUM OF 10 FEET FROM COMBUSTIBLE VEGETATION.

C. MAINTAIN JOBSITE SAFETY DURING CONSTRUCTION AS PER CHAPTER 33 OF THE 2022 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE.

D. COMPLETE FIREFIGHTER ACCESS AROUND THE BUILDING IS REQUIRED, AND MUST BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH DRB APPROVED PLANS. SEE THIS SHEET FOR DETAILS. THIS IS

SUBJECT TO FINAL FIRE INSPECTION AND REQUIRES APPROVAL PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY.

E. ADDRESS NUMBERS MUST BE PLACED ON THE EXTERIOR FACING THE STREET ADDRESSED TO. MINIMUM SIZE OF NUMBERS IS 4", AND THEY MUST CONTRAST WITH THE BACKGROUND.

F. FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT INSPECTIONS, CALL (949) 497-0352 AT LEAST 3 DAYS IN ADVANCE TO SCHEDULE.

G. ALL STAIRS ARE NON-COMBUSTIBLE CONSTRUCTION AND IN COMPLIANCE WITH CBC CHAPTER 10 REQUIREMENTS.

H. ALL-WEATHER SURFACE ON THE FIREFIGHTER ACCESS PATH TO BE

NON-COMBUSTIBLE CONSTRUCTIONS MATERIALS, SUCH AS GRANITE, TURFBLOCK, CRUSHED ROCK, ETC.

I. SEE SHEET FHR FOR FIRE HYDRANT REPORTS.

J. ALL ACCESS AREAS WITHOUT STAIRS DO NOT HAVE A SLOPE EXCEEDING 10%. 130' FIRE HOSE PULL

FROM ENGINE
5'-0"
GARAGE S.B.
10'-0"
F.S.B. (BUILDING) 6'-0" S.S.B. 4'-0" S.S.B.
20'-0"
REAR S.B.
142' FIRE HOSE PULL

FROM ENGINE

PROJECT
NORTH

MAGNETIC
NORTH
116
116 of 623
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER:

DRAWN BY: REVISION BY:

SHEET NO.:

PROJECT NUMBER:

ISSUED DATE:

PLOT DATE: DEVELOPER: LOCATION:

NO. DATE DESCRIPTION.

REVISIONS
A.N. 950 BAJA ST. GRADING/ DRAINAGE NOTES

PROJECT INFORMATION
SCOPE OF WORK:

OWNER
SOIL ENGINEER:

ARCHITECT/ DESIGNER
SURVEY
CIVIL
ADDRESS:

WATER QUALITY NOTES

1. Sediment from areas disturbed by construction shall be retained on site using structural drainage controls to the maximum extent practicable.

2. Stockpiles of soil shall be properly contained to minimize sediment transport from the site to streets, drainage facilities or adjacent properties via runoff, vehicle tracking, or wind.

3. Construction-related materials, wastes, spills, or residues shall be retained on site to minimize transport from the site to streets, drainage facilities, or adjoining property by wind or runoff.

4. Runoff from equipment and vehicle washing shall be contained at construction site unless treated to remove sediment and other pollutants.

5. All construction contractor and subcontractor personnel are to be made aware of the required best management practices and good housekeeping measures for the project site and any associated construction staging areas.

6. At the end of each day of construction activity all construction debris and waste materials shall be collected and properly disposed in trash or recycle bins.

7. Construction sites shall be maintained in such a condition that an anticipated storm does not carry wastes or pollutants off the site. Discharges of material other than storm-water are allowed only when necessary for performance and completion of construction practices and where they do not cause or contribute to violation of any water quality standards; cause or threaten to cause pollution, contamination or nuisance; or contain a hazardous substance in a quantity reportable under Federal Regulations 40 CFR Parts 117 and 302.

8. Potential pollutants include but are not limited to: sediments, cement products, solid or liquid chemical spills; wastes from paints, stains, sealants, glues, lime, pesticides, herbicides, wood preservatives, and solvents, asbestos fibers, paint flakes or stucco fragments, fuels, oils, lubricants, and hydraulic, radiator or battery fluids, concrete, detergent or floatable wastes; wastes from any engine /equipment steam cleaning or chemical degreasing; and super-chlorinated potable water line flushings.

9. During construction, disposal of materials and potential pollutants should occur in a specified and controlled temporary area on-site physically separated from potential storm-water runoff, with ultimate disposal in accordance with local, state and federal requirements.

10. Dewatering of contaminated groundwater, or discharging contaminated soils via surface erosion is prohibited. True dewatering of non-contaminated groundwater requires a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the respective State Regional Water Quality Control Board.

ENVIRONMENTAL NOTES

1. The permittee shall notify all general contractors, subcontractors, material suppliers, lessees.

And property owners, that dumping of chemicals into storm drain systems or the watershed is prohibited.

2. Permittee shall maintain construction site in such a condition that an anticipated storm does not carry wastes or pollutant off the site. Potential pollutants include but not limited to solid or liquid chemical spills, wastes from paints, stains, sealants, glues, limes, pesticides, herbicides, wood preservatives and solvents, asbestos fibers, paint flakes or stucco fragments; fuels, oils, lubricants, and hydraulic, radiator, or battery fluids; fertilizers, vehicle/equipment wash water and concrete wash water, concrete, detergent or floatable wastes; wastes from any engine/equipment steam cleaning or chemical degreasing and super chlorinated potable water line flushing. During construction, permittee shall dispose of such materials in a specified and controlled temporary area on-site, physically separated from potential storm water runoff, with ultimate disposal in accordance with local, state, and federal requirements.

3. Permittee may discharge material other than storm water only when necessary for performance and completion of construction practices and where they do not; cause or distribute to a violation of any water quality standard; cause or threaten to cause pollution, contamination, or nuisance; or contain hazardous substance in quantity reportable under federal 40 cfr parts 117 and 302.

4. Dewatering of contaminated groundwater or discharging contaminated soils via surface erosion is prohibited. Dewatering of non-contaminated ground water requires ground water requires a national pollutant discharge elimination system permit from respective state regional water quality control board.

NOTICE TO CONTRACTOR

1. A complete set of these plans and a complete set of Laguna beach standard drawings shall be maintained on the job throughout the construction.

2. Utilities and substructures shown heron are based on latest available records. the contractor shall verify the existence of same and shall satisfy himself on their location, and the location of any other utilities not shown.

3. Contractor shall notify utility companies affected by construction at least 2 working days prior to construction.

4. Contractor agrees that he shall assume sole and complete responsibility for the job site conditions during the course of construction of this project, including the safety of all persons and property, that this requirement shall apply continuously and not be limited to normal working hours; and the contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold the owner, the engineer, and the city of Laguna beach harmless from any and all liability, real or alleged in connection with performance of work on this project, excepting for liability arising from the sole negligence of the owner, engineer, or the city of Laguna beach.

5. Developer shall maintain adjacent streets in a neat, safe, clean and sanitary condition at all times and to the satisfaction of the city inspector. the adjacent streets shall be kept clean of debris, with dust and other nuisance being controlled at all times. developer shall be responsible for any clean up of adjacent streets affected by his construction, method shall be by dry sweeping of all paved areas on a weekly basis, or at the direction of the field inspector.

6. All construction shall comply with the standards of the city of Laguna beach and the standard specifications for public works construction, 1986 ed.

SUPPLEMENTAL NOTES

1. Utilities are already underground

2. Plans to adhere to 2013 CA. Codes and all local codes & ordinances.

Owners on adjacent properties that must underpin their buildings due to

3. The adjacent neighbors shall be notified in writing ten days prior to beginning the excavation. copies of these notification letters shall be provided to the city prior to beginning the excavation.

4. Cal OSHA permit shall be obtained for all excavations deeper than 5 feet. A cope of the permit shall be provided to the city prior to issuance of permit.

5. If shoring is required, obtain shoring permit prior to issuance of building permit

6. A bond in the amount of shoring cost is required.

GRADING NOTES

1. All work shall be in accordance with the grading code of the City of Laguna Beach and any special requirements of the permit. When referenced on the plans, a copy of EMA standard plans shall also be retained on the site.

2. Grading shall not be started without first notifying the City Building Official. A pre-grade meeting on site is required before the start of grading with the following people present: owner, grading contractor, design civil engineer, soil engineer, engineering geologist, City Building Official, and when required the archaeologist, paleontologist, and arborist. The grading contractor shall have the boundary of the grading area staked for the pre-grade meeting unless waived by the Building Official. The required inspections for grading and erosion control will be explained at the meeting.

3. Approved copies of the grading and erosion control plans shall be on the permitted site while work is in progress.

4. Cut and fill slopes shall be no steeper than 2-foot horizontal to 1-foot vertical (2:l) except where specifically approved otherwise.

5. Fills shall be compacted throughout to a minimum of 90% relative compaction. Aggregate base for asphaltic areas shall be compacted to a minimum of 95% relative compaction. Maximum density and field density shall be determined by nationally recognized standards.

6. Areas to receive fill shall be properly prepared and approved in writing by the soil engineer prior to placing fill.

7. Fills shall be benched into competent material per details or as directed by the soils engineer.

8. All existing fills shall be approved by the soils engineer or removed prior to placing additional fills.

9. Any existing irrigation lines and cisterns shall be removed, or crushed in place, and approved by soils engineer.

10. The Building Official shall approve stock piling of excess material prior to excavation.

11. All trench backfills shall be tested and approved by the soil engineer per the grading code.

12. The engineering geologist and soil engineer shall, after clearing and prior to the placement of fill in canyons, inspect each canyon for areas of adverse stability and to determine the presence or absence of subsurface water or spring flow. If needed, sub-drains will be designed and constructed prior to the placement of fill in each respective canyon.

13. All cut slopes shall be investigated both during and after grading by the engineering geologist to determine if any slope stability problem exists. Should excavation disclose any geological hazards or potential geological hazards, the engineering geologist shall submit recommended treatment to the Building Official for approval.

14. Where support or buttressing of cut and natural slopes is determined to be necessary by the engineering geologist and soil engineer, the soil engineer shall submit design, locations, and calculations to the Building Official prior to construction. The engineering geologist and soil engineer shall inspect and control the construction of the buttressing and certify to the stability of the slope and adjacent structures upon completion.

15. When cut pads are brought to near grade, the engineering geologist shall determine if the bedrock is extensively fractured or faulted and will readily transmit water. If considered necessary by the engineering geologist and soil engineer, a compacted fill blanket will be placed.

16. The engineering geologist shall perform periodic inspections and submit a complete report and map upon completion of rough grading.

17. The compaction report and approval from the soil engineer shall indicate the type of field-testing performed. East test shall be identified with the method of obtaining the in-place density, whether sand cone or drive ring and shall be so noted for each test.

18. The soil engineer and engineering geologist shall perform sufficient inspections and be available during grading and construction to verify compliance with the plans, specifications and the code within their purview.

19. The civil engineer shall be available during grading to verify compliance with the plans, specifications, code and any special conditions of the permit within their purview.

20. The permittee is responsibility for dust control measures.

21. Sanitary facilities shall be maintained on the site.

22. The location and protection of all utilities is the responsibility of the permittee.

23. Approved protective measures and temporary drainage provisions shall be used to protect adjoining properties during grading.

24. Any existing water wells shall be abandoned in compliance with the specifications approved by the City of Laguna Beach.

25. Any existing cesspools and septic tanks shall be abandoned in compliance with the Uniform Plumbing Code to the approval of the City Building Official.

26. Prior to final approval, the civil engineer shall certify to the Building Official the amount of earth moved during the grading operation.

27. All concrete structures that come in contact with the on-site soils shall be constructed with type-5 cement, unless deemed unnecessary by solvable sulphate-content tests, conducted by the soil engineer.

28. Export soil must be transported to a legal dump or to a permitted site.

29. Slopes exceeding five feet in height shall be planted with an approved plant material. In addition, slopes exceeding 15 feet in height shall be provided with an approved irrigation system, unless otherwise approved by the Building Official.

30. The grading contractor shall submit a statement of compliance to the approved grading plan prior to final approval.

31. Asphalt sections must be as follows: Parking stalls = 3" A/C over 6" A/B, drives 3" A/C over 10" (comm.) 12" (industrial) or the soil engineer shall submit, pavement section recommendations for approval based on "R" value analysis of the sub-grade soils and expected traffic indices.

32. Preliminary soil and geology and all subsequent reports as approved by the City are considered a part of the approved grading plan.

33. All existing drainage courses through this site shall remain in natural condition until facilities to handle storm water are approved by the Building Official; however, in any case, the permittee shall be held liable for any damage due to obstructing natural drainage patterns.

34. Grading operations including maintenance of equipment shall not be conducted between the hours of 6:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. daily or on Saturdays or Sundays.

35. Roof drainage systems shall be installed in a manner to minimize erosion of slopes. Roof drainage should be dissipated into the ground on the subject property whenever possible.

36. The permittee shall give reasonable notice to the owner of adjoining lands and buildings prior to beginning excavations, which may affect the lateral and subjacent support of the adjoining property. The notice shall state the intended depth of excavation and when the excavation will commence. The adjoining owner shall be allowed at least 30 days and reasonable access on the permitted property to protect his structure, if he so desires, unless otherwise protected by law.

37. The approved erosion control plan, the City of Laguna Beach Erosion Control Standards, and the City of Laguna Beach Water Quality Notes are a part of the plans.

38. Prior to final approval of the grading, the responsible civil engineer must certify that the grading was done in compliance with the approved plans.

In case of emergency call: -

EROSION CONTROL STANDARDS
Erosion control system

1. The faces of cut and fill slopes and project site shall be prepared and maintained at all times to control against erosion in accordance with these standards. Where cut slopes are not subject to erosion due to the erosion-resistant character of the materials, such protection may be omitted upon approval by the Building Official. Earth that is generated during foundation excavation must not be placed on slopes; it must either be removed from the site or stored on-site in an approved location that will not cause erosion or drainage problems.

2. Where necessary, temporary and / or permanent erosion control devices or methods, as approved by the Building Official, shall be employed to control erosion and provide safety.

Sediment shall be retained on site.

3. No building or grading -work will be allowed on any building or grading site under permit unless an erosion control system has been approved and installed or waived by the Building Official.

4. Paved streets, sidewalks, and other improvements shall be maintained in a neat and clean condition free of loose soil, construction debris and trash. Street sweeping or other equally effective means shall be used on a regular basis to prevent construction run-off of storm flows from carrying sediment and debris outside the project boundaries. Watering shall only be used to clean streets except when all storm drains are blocked and when all wash-water is recovered.

No wash-water may enter the storm drain.

5. The civil engineer or other qualified individual who prepared the grading or building plan shall be responsible for inspection and modification of the erosion control devices, as necessary.

6. A properly designed storm-water desilting basin should be used wherever possible at drainage outlets from the construction site. Desilting basins must remove all sediment prior to discharging storm water from the site.

7. Equipment and workers for emergency work shall be made available at all times. Necessary materials shall be available on-site and stockpiled at convenient locations to facilitate rapid construction of temporary devices when rain is imminent.

8. Erosion protection shall consist of temporary slope stabilization material or the effective planting of all slopes in excess of five (5) feet high unless otherwise approved by the Building Official. Slopes exceeding fifteen (15) feet high may require an adequate sprinkler system, as determined by the Building Official.

9. The erosion control provisions shall take into account drainage patterns during the current and future phases of grading or building.

10. All removable protective devices shall be in place at the end of each working day when the five (5) day rain probability forecast exceeds forty (40) percent.

11. Graded areas must drain away from the face of slopes at the conclusion of each working day.

Drainage must be directed toward desilting facilities.

Erosion control plans
Erosion control measures shall be implemented each year for projects under a grading or building permit. The erosion control measures may be waived for building or grading projects on single residential lot projects providing that an erosion control system, meeting the approval of the Building Official, has been installed placed, planted, or the project does not need erosion control.

Erosion control maintenance

1. Prior to each rainstorm the erosion control system shall be inspected and deficiencies corrected.

2. After each rainstorm, silt and debris shall be removed from check berms and desilting basins and the basins pumped dry. Only clean water from the basins can be pumped to the storm drains. (Filter material may be used.)

3. After each rainstorm, the performance of the erosion control system shall be evaluated and revised and repaired as necessary.

4. Devices shall not be moved or modified without the approval of the Building Official.

5. The contractor shall be responsible and shall take necessary precautions to prevent public trespass onto areas where impounded water creates a hazardous condition.

6. The contractor and permittee or project owner shall be responsible for continual maintenance of the devices. In the event of failure or refusal by the contractor, permittee or project owner to properly maintain the devices, the Building Official may cause emergency maintenance work to be done to protect adjacent private and public property. The cost shall be charged to the owner and shall include an initial mobilization cost plus the cost of doing the work.

7. In the event the Building Official must cause emergency maintenance work to be done, he may revoke the building or grading permit in writing. The permit shall not be renewed until an erosion control system approved by the Building Official is installed and a fee of one-half the amount required for the original permit paid by the owner. The Building Official may waive installation of an erosion control system before October 1 and after April 30.

EARTHWORK QUANTITIES

GRADING
Outside of
Structural Footprint
Inside of
Structural Footprint TOTAL
117
117 of 623
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER:

DRAWN BY: REVISION BY:

SHEET NO.:

PROJECT NUMBER:

ISSUED DATE:

PLOT DATE: DEVELOPER: LOCATION:

NO. DATE DESCRIPTION.

REVISIONS
A.N.PRELIMINARY GRADING/ DRAINAGE PLAN 950 BAJA ST.

LEGEND
 ATRIUM GRATE
NDS

AREA
DRAIN PER DETAIL ON SHT GD
6"PVC, SCH. 40, DRAIN PIPE
(ASTM D1785) @ MIN. 2% SLOPE

UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED,
4" PERFORATED PVC SUBDRAIN
,(ASTM D1785) @ MIN 1%
 PVC CLEANOUT

NEW RETAINING WALL
DRAIN CONNECT TO DRIANGE
SYSTEM
/ HP NEW PUMP

BACKFLOW PREVENTOR

GRADING NOTES

1. All existing and proposed grades should be field verified.

2. No utility search was conducted. the contractor shall shall be responsible to protect utilities or structures discovered on the site and shall notify the owner/engineer immediately to resolve any conflicts or issues with the proposed grading.

3. Grading and/or landscape contractor shall grade all areas to provide positive drainage (2% minimum) and shall construct mounds and swales in a manner not to cause any ponding/low point.

4. Slope all areas to drain at minimum 2%. slope finish surfaces and drain lines at minimum 1%.

5. Any public improvements such as sidewalk, curb and gutter, alley/street pavement damaged during construction, shall be replaced in kind by the contractor.

6. An approved encroachment permit is required for all work within the public right-of-way.

7. See Architectural Plans for cross sections and elevations. . PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OF ANY DRAINAGE SYSTEM VERIFY ITS OUTLET ELEVATION TO ASSURE POSITIVE DRAINAGE. IN CASE OF ANY
DISCREPANCIES CONTACT THE ENGINEER.
. TOP OF NEW DRAIN INLETS TO BE SET BELOW THE FINISHED SURFACE/ FINISHED GRADE ELEVATIONS IN ORDER TO PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE.

IN CASE OF ANY DISCREPANCIES CONTACT THE ENGINEER.
. IN CASE OF ANY DISCREPANCIES WITH THE SHOWN DRAIN INLETS TOPS AND FLOWLINES OR IN CASE OF ANY DIFFERING SITE CONDITIONS CONTACT THE ENGINEER.
. BEFORE BACKFILLING ANY DRAINAGE SYSTEM CONTACT THE ENGINEER FOR FIELD INSPECTION AND APPROVAL.
. CONNECT NEW AND ACTIVE ROOF DOWNSPOUTS DECK DRAINS PLANTER DRAINS AND RETAINING WALLS SUBDRAINS TO THE NEAREST LANDSCAPED AREA MORE THAN 
FEET AWAY FROM THE BUILDING OTHERWISE TO THE
NEW DRAINAGE SYSTEM. WHERE OCCURS.
. CONNECT E;ISTING DRAINAGE SYSTEM TO NEW DRAINAGE WHERE OCCURS. . DRAINAGE SHALL BE MAINTAINED AND CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE AND THE  CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE.

DRAINAGE CONSTRUCTION NOTES:

FF = FINISHED FLOOR
FS = FINISHED SURFACE
FG = FINISHED GRADE
FL = FLOW LINE
TOW =TOP OF NEW WALL
TW = TOP OF EXISTING WALL
TG = TOP OF GRATE (INLET)
TC = TOP OF CURB
NG = NATURAL GROUND
TBM = TEMPORARY BENCHMARK
EP = EDGE OF PAVEMENT
(N) = NEW
(E) = EXISTING
DN = DOWN
PL = PROPERTY LINE
E.L. = NEW ELEVATION
T.S. = TOP OF STAIR
DS = ROOF DOWNSPOUT
T.B.R. = TO BE REMOVED

ABBREVIATIONS
NG = NATURAL GROUND
TSW = TOP OF SHORING WALL
SS = SANITARY SEWER
C.I.P. = CAST IRON PIPE
C/O = CLEANOUT FTN = FOUNTAIN
BW = BOTTOM OF WALL
LF = LINEAR FOOT T = TOP
NORTH

PRELIMINARY GRADING/ DRAINAGE PLAN
scale 1"=8'-0"
" S4.

NDS
GRATE OVER  PVC PIPE
INLET PER DETAIL ON SHT GD 4'-0" S.S.B. 4'-4" PROP. S.S.B. 6'-0" S.S.B. 20'-0"
REAR S.B. 6'-2" PROP. S.S.B. 4'-0" PROP. S.S.B.
4'-0"
REAR S.B.
18'-0"
PROP. REAR S.B.

CHANNEL DRAIN, "NDS-PRO" OR EQUAL
118
118 of 623
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER:

DRAWN BY: REVISION BY:

SHEET NO.:

PROJECT NUMBER:

ISSUED DATE:

PLOT DATE: DEVELOPER: LOCATION:

NO. DATE DESCRIPTION.

REVISIONS
A.N. SECTION & CUT AND FILL PLAN 950 BAJA ST.

LEGEND

CUT AREA

FILL AREA
NORTH
SECTION "A-A"
scale 1"=8'-0"(horz. & vert.) 4'-0" S.S.B. 4'-4" PROP. S.S.B. 6'-0" S.S.B. 20'-0"
REAR S.B. 6'-2" PROP. S.S.B. 4'-0" PROP. S.S.B.
4'-0"
REAR S.B.
18'-0"
PROP. REAR S.B.

CUT
CUT
CUT

EARTHWORK QUANTITIES

GRADING
Outside of
Structural Footprint
Inside of
Structural Footprint TOTAL

CUT AND FILL PLAN
scale 1"=8'-0"
119
119 of 623
staking plan
scale 1/8"=1'-0"
proposed staking plan VARIES
VARIES
DRAWN BY: REVISION BY:

SHEET NO.:

ISSUED DATE:

PLOT DATE:

NO. DATE DESCRIPTION.

REVISIONS
hugo soria & company 950 baja st.
laguna beach, ca 92651
03-12-26
DOLUH]D KDJKLJKDW DOLUH]D KDJKLJKDW
SAMPLE

STORY POLE HEIGHT AND LOCATION CERTIFICATION
Instructions: The Story Pole Height and Location Certification and Story Pole Construction Notes Table or Notations must be executed by a registered land surveyor or registered civil engineer directly on a copy of the fullsize roof plan. The completed certification must be submitted to the City at least 21 days prior to the design review authority's first noticed public hearing date (or 14 days prior to administrative design review hearing or a design review continuance).

Required Certification Statement:

I hereby certify that the story poles located on the referenced site were constructed under my supervision and survey, and the story poles are in conformance with the design, height and location as shown on the approved staking plan. I further certify that 1) the story pole identification numbers, 2) story pole location base grade elevations, 3) story pole heights and 4) the proposed maximum height elevations are true and correct. I acknowledge and understand that the required project staking is for the purpose of informing the owner, architect, designer, City staff, design review authority and the public as to the accurate location and exterior dimensions of the proposed structure or addition.

Please stamp & sign below
_______________________________________________
Signature of Registered Land Surveyor or Civil Engineer _______________________________________________
Name (printed or typed)
_______________________________________________
License No./Expiration Date
_______________________________________________
Date
Sample
Story Pole Construction Notes Table
Date: _________________________________
Site Address: ______________________________________________________________ Datum Benchmark: _________________________________________________________ Name of Surveyor or Engineer: _______________________________________________ Pole Number Base Grade Elevation * Story Pole Height fromBase Grade Elevation Proposed Maximum
Elevation
*If standard base grade elevation nails are not feasible because of the existence of rocks, paving or existing structural improvements, then the surveyor or engineer may use an alternative method of establishing horizontal and vertical control for story poles that can be observed in the field. The surveyor or engineer shall describe the control method used directly on the full-size staking plan. Such alternative methods may include painted markings. It is also recognized that sometimes it may not be feasible to set poles due to unforeseen circumstances. In that case, please identify the story poles that were not established and an explanation as to the reason. 2'-6"
5'-0"
GARAGE S.B.
10'-0"
F.S.B. (BUILDING)
19'-11"
REAR S.B.
2'-6"

PROJECT
NORTH

MAGNETIC
NORTH
Sample
Story Pole Construction Notes Table
Date: _________________________________
Site Address: ______________________________________________________________ Datum Benchmark: _________________________________________________________ Name of Surveyor or Engineer: _______________________________________________ Pole Number Base Grade Elevation * Story Pole Height from Base Grade Elevation
Proposed Maximum
Elevation
*If standard base grade elevation nails are not feasible because of the existence of rocks, paving or existing structural improvements, then the surveyor or engineer may use an alternative method of establishing horizontal and vertical control for story poles that can be observed in the field. The surveyor or engineer shall describe the control method used directly on the full-size staking plan. Such alternative methods may include painted markings. It is also recognized that sometimes it may not be feasible to set poles due to unforeseen circumstances. In that case, please identify the story poles that were not established and an explanation as to the reason. 120
120 of 623
121
121 of 623
122
122 of 623
123
123 of 623
124
124 of 623
125
125 of 623
126
126 of 623
127
127 of 623
1 Miller, Paola CD
From: Oz aksoy
Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2026 5:56 PM
To: Design Review Board
Subject: 950 Baja Street – Concerns Regarding Mass, Height, and Neighborhood Compatibility [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 Design Review Board Members,
I am writing regarding the proposed project at 950 Baja Street.

Our main concern continues to be the mass and height of the building. Even with the latest design, the structure still appears too large for this lot and out of scale with the neighborhood. It continues to block important views, including our city and white-water ocean views.

We would like to highlight an important point. This is the first design being presented after the City Council denied the project with a 5–0 vote. The direction from the City Council was clear — the project needed to reduce mass and scale.

However, when comparing the current design to the 2024 design that was denied, it does not appear that the project has been reduced in a meaningful way. In fact, some elements have increased. For example:
• The deck areas have increased
• The main level has increased in size
• The building still presents a stacked, box-like design with limited articulation This does not reflect the direction given by the City Council.

We respectfully ask the Board to focus on the original intent of those instructions — to reduce mass, lower the height, and improve articulation so the home fits within the neighborhood.

We are not opposed to a home being built on this lot. We are simply asking for a design that is more compatible with the neighborhood, respects view equity, and follows the direction already given by the City Council.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Respectfully,
Oz Aksoy
Katella Street
Laguna Beach
Attachment 7
128
128 of 623
1 Miller, Paola CD
From:

Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2026 6:47 PM
To: Design Review Board
Subject: 950 Baja
[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.] City Counsel
I echo same concerns as my fellow neighbors.

The design that is being presented on Thursday is the first one AFTER the City Council voted down (5 - 0) Hugo’s design in 2024. It appears it is an attempt trying (in the latest design) to demonstrate changes from the Feb 2026 design but that design has never been presented.

We need to compare the 2024 design to this present one. For example the 2024 plan had decks totaling 480 sqft and now it’s up to 603 sqft. Also the main level (second floor) increased by 192 sqft. The City council asked to reduce the mass not increase it.

Clearly there is no articulation with this design (as requested by the City Council). Each floor stacks on top (or overhangs) the floor below it.

The house is massive and does not accolade the design of the neighborhood as expressed before. Further we need to be assured the height has been reduced to promote a view of those behind, such as the three homes on Katella Street who are impacted.

Thank you
Susan Bond
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
129
129 of 623
1 Miller, Paola CD
From: Anne Caenn
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2026 3:58 PM
To: Design Review Board
Subject: 950 Baja Street
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 aƩachments unless you are sure the content is safe.]
Dear Design Review Board members,
Thank you for once again giving your aƩenƟon to this massive structure on the 950 Baja Street lot. I know many members of our neighborhood have wriƩen to you giving detailed explanaƟons about the inappropriateness of this project. I have been surprised and disappointed that aŌer the City Council directed the developers to decrease the mass, increase the arƟculaƟon and create a more neighborhood compaƟble project, it has not happened.

Although I am not as highly impacted as some of my neighbors, I share their concerns and also worry that if this project moves forward as designed, mansionizaƟon may spread to other parts of Arch Beach Heights and ruin the beauty of our liƩle community.

Thank you for your consideraƟon,
Anne Caenn
Katella Street
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
130
130 of 623
1 Miller, Paola CD
From: Kazama, Kate CD
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2026 8:11 AM
To: Rodrigues, Bill CD; Miller, Paola CD
Subject: FW: 950 Baja St Project DRB Case # 25-1195
From: Glenn Etow
Sent: Monday, April 6, 2026 7:24 PM
To: Glenn Etow Gibbs, Thomas <[email protected]>; Weil, Louis <[email protected]>; Coveny, Mary Jo <[email protected]>; Bauta, Imer <[email protected]>; Neev, Deborah <[email protected]>; Kazama, Kate CD <[email protected]>; Chris
Subject: Re: 950 Baja St Project DRB Case # 25-1195
[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 DRB Members,
We would like to express our concerns with the proposed 950 Baja St. design because it lacks neighborhood compatibility. We have included our Feb 8th email letter because all the same issues still apply today. The City Council rejected the 2024 design by a vote of 5 to 0 with instructions for the designer to decrease the mass, increase articulation, improve privacy and retain view equity.

The designer has addressed the excessive mass issue by increasing the main level (second floor) by 191.78 sqft. In addition the decks have increased by 122.65 sqft. These large over hanging decks increase the mass and grossly invades the privacy of adjacent neighbors. The main level square footage should be decreased from the 2024 design. The decks should be decreased and some should be eliminated because of privacy issues.

The design continues to resemble an apartment building and is not neighborhood compatible when compared to the other Baja St homes built on similar 5,000 sqft lots. Below is the designer’s color rendering of this design. Each floor stacks on top or overhangs the floor below…TOTAL LACK OF ARTICULATION. Notice in this picture the designer includes the neighbor to the south which is a home on a 2,500 sqft homes foot lot and does not show the north neighbor’s home with impressive articulation. The main level should be pulled back from the street level. On the upper level, the “voided” areas should be eliminated and the entire level pulled back 11 feet into that space.

In addition, we are disturbed that the designer appears to be playing games by comparing this design with the design that was submitted for the February 2026 meeting. That design was never presented therefore is irrelevant. When compared to the 2024 design and the Laguna Beach Design standards this current proposed design fails miserably.

Unfortunately because the applicant chose not to present at the February DRB meeting (AT THE LAST MINUTE) we are unavailable to present our concerns therefore please consider this email as our formal objections.
131
131 of 623
2 Respectfully,
Glenn and Chris Etow
Baja St
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Glenn Etow
Date: Sun, Feb 8, 2026 at 3:57 PM
Subject: 950 Baja St Project DRB Case # 25-1195
To: Thomas Gibbs <[email protected]>, Jessica Gannon <[email protected]>, Weil, Louis <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Kate CD Kazama <[email protected]> CC: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Chris
Dear DRB,
We are very concerned about the proposed 950 Baja St. design. There are small modifications from the 2024 design but overall this design falls far short of meeting the requirements made by the Laguna Beach City Council, which were specifically to decrease the mass, increase articulation, improve neighbors’ privacy and ensure neighbors’ water views.

Per Exhibit EX-4 the total livable area is 3,167 sqft (a 280 sqft decrease). Below is a chart comparing the total square footage of the top two levels of the current proposed design as to the 2024 design that the City Council rejected by a unanimous ‘5 to 0’ decision:

The upper levels have increased by 163 sqft. The mass of this project has increased not decreased as directed by the City Council.

Per Exhibit EX-4 the upper levels decreased by 388 sqft but in reality it has decreased by ONLY 29 sqft because of the addition of 138 sqft storage room and a 221 sqft mechanical room (both did not exist in the 2024 design). This proposed design shows a mechanical room and storage unit in the lower (street) level as did the 2024 plan. The proposed upper level design is 1,604 sqft making this structure box like in appearance.
132
132 of 623
3 We request that these two new non living spaces (upper level storage and upper level mechanical rooms) are eliminated and the upper level is pushed back from the street by 11 feet. These changes would meet the directions given by the City Council to preserve views, privacy, increase articulation and decrease mass.

Mr. Tom Gibbs stated at the final DRB (2024) in which this project was reviewed: “I think you can see from the first, second and third hearings that virtually nothing has been done on scale of mass and nothing was done about pulling back the third floor and nothing was done in reducing the square footage”. It’s unbelievable that this statement applies to the current proposed design.

Respectfully,
Chris and Glenn Etow
Baja St.
133
133 of 623
134
134 of 623
April 6, 2026
Design Review Board Members
City of Laguna Beach
Dear Honorable DRB members,
I am writing to express my concerns with the design for 950 Baja. I have the same concerns I expressed for the continued February 12 DRB meeting and the three prior 2023-2024 DRB meetings. This house does not fit in the neighborhood for the following reasons - mass, lack of articulation, privacy issues and overall design. The existing Baja Street homes on upside 5000 sf lots all have 3rd floor top levels that are set back from the street and the main level. See attached exhibit of homes on Baja. On upside 5000 sf lots on Katella, the same is true for those homes.

This house’s south side closely aligns with my balconies and living quarters which is on a 2500 sf lot. The north side of 950 Baja is set back minimally but this is not articulation. The house looms over the street with a huge apartment building like design.

The proposed design has approximately 468 total sf of VOID spaces which is equivalent to 25% of my 1800 sf home! The VOID spaces add to the mass of the house but conveniently do not add additional living square footage. This house is the largest sf on an upside 5000 sf lot including the VOID spaces. On pages 22- 24 of the new plans, these VOID areas are designated Mechanical and Storage – the same as the Feb 12, 2026 DRB plans. Please note, the upper level VOID (Mechanical) space on the south side closely aligns with bedroom #3 and adjoining bath directly below on the main level of the house. There are also windows in these VOID spaces! Why if they are VOID? Eliminate the VOID spaces and push the entire top level of the house back 10-11 feet to address the mass and lack of articulation. This would provide additional privacy for my home and Baja – and possible additional coastal views for a?ected Katella neighbors.

The house would also ‘step down the hill’ as instructed in the City’s Design Guidelines for Hillside Development.

The property owner and project team were instructed multiple times during prior DRB meetings and City Council review the top level must be pulled back to address mass/scale and articulation. They ignored those directions during the first DRB meetings and have 135
135 of 623
done so again. Please refer to Tom Gibbs March 24, 2024 DRB comments where he addresses these exact issues. (attached)
Even with the aforementioned changes, 950 Baja will forever have an unobstructed, blue water, Catalina Island and north coastline view from both the main level and upper level.

This property sits high on the slope of the street. Plus, located directly in front of 950 Baja is a paper street (Bonnie Brae) that cannot be modified, therefore ensuring an unchangeable ocean and sunset view.

I would like to invite all DRB members to visit my home prior to the DRB meeting April 9.

Unfortunately, I am not available to meet in person due to prior personal plans that cannot be changed. Please feel free to walk along the side of my home to view the stakes for 950 Baja.

Kind regards,
Paige Lyall
Baja Street
136
136 of 623
Exhibits of Baja homes on upside 5000 sf lots
Baja – third floor set back from second floor/garage
Baja – third floor set back from second floor/garage
137
137 of 623
Baja – third floor set back from second floor/garage
Baja – TWO floors only
138
138 of 623
Baja – 2500 sf lot
South side of 950 Baja project – aligns to Baja (2500 sf lot). This picture is deceptive – appears to be set back from my home.
139
139 of 623
140
140 of 623
141
141 of 623
1 Miller, Paola CD
From: Kazama, Kate CD
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2026 11:29 AM
Subject: FW: 950 Baja Street
From: Ayse McGuire
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2026 11:02 AM
To: Gibbs, Thomas <[email protected]>; Gannon, Jessica <[email protected]>; Weil, Louis <[email protected]>; Coveny, Mary Jo <[email protected]>; Bauta, Imer <[email protected]>; Kazama, Kate CD <[email protected]>; Orgill, Mark <[email protected]>; Jones, Hallie <[email protected]>; Rounaghi, Alex <[email protected]>; Whalen, Bob <[email protected]>; Kempf, Sue <[email protected]>
Subject: 959 Baja Street
[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 Members of the Design Review Board,
I am writing to reiterate ongoing concerns regarding the proposed design for 950 Baja.

These concerns are still consistent with those previously expressed at the three earlier meetings in 2023 and 2024. In its current form, the project remains incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood, particularly with respect to its scale, lack of architectural articulation, privacy impacts, and overall design.

Homes along Baja Street located on uphill 5,000-square-foot lots consistently feature thirdfloor levels that are stepped back from both the street and the primary façade. This same pattern is evident on comparable lots along Katella. The proposed design for 950 Baja does not reflect this established neighborhood character.

The south elevation of the proposed home closely aligns with the adjacent homeowner’s balconies and primary living spaces, which are situated on a significantly smaller 2,500- square-foot lot. Although the north side includes a minimal setback, it does not adequately mitigate the structure’s visual mass. As proposed, the residence presents an oversized and imposing appearance more consistent with a multi-unit building than a single-family home.

Further concern arises from the inclusion of approximately 468 square feet of designated “void” areas—equivalent to roughly 25% of the adjacent home’s total living area. While these spaces contribute to the overall bulk of the structure, they are not counted toward the official square footage. In the current plans (pages 22–24), these areas are labeled as mechanical and storage, consistent with the February 12 submission. Notably, the upper142 142 of 623
2 level “void” space on the south side aligns directly above Bedroom #3 and the adjoining bathroom below, and these spaces include windows, raising questions regarding their intended use.

To address these issues, it is recommended that the void spaces be eliminated and that the entire upper level be set back approximately 10–11 feet. This modification would reduce the perceived mass, improve articulation, enhance privacy for neighboring properties— including the adjacent home and Baja—and potentially preserve coastal views for nearby Katella residents. It would also bring the design into closer alignment with the City’s Hillside Development Guidelines by creating a more appropriate stepped form along the slope.

We still believe the overall height can also be reduced. Practical solutions exist, including using sewage or lift pumps to lower finished floor elevations, reducing floor-to-floor heights, consolidating mechanical equipment, eliminating unnecessary upper-level nonliving spaces, and lowering roof or parapet heights. These are reasonable adjustments that would materially lessen the impact of the structure.

It should be noted that the property owner and project team have been directed multiple times during prior DRB hearings and City Council review to reduce upper-level mass and improve articulation. These directives have not been meaningfully incorporated. Reference is also made to the March 24, 2024 comments from Tom Gibbs, which address these same concerns.

Even with the recommended revisions, the property at 950 Baja will retain unobstructed views of the ocean, Catalina Island, and the northern coastline from both the main and upper levels. Its elevated position, combined with the presence of the adjacent paper street (Bonnie Brae), ensures that these views will remain protected.

I invite members of the DRB to visit the our property prior to the April 9 meeting to better understand the context and potential impacts.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Ayse McGuire
Katella Street
143
143 of 623
1 Miller, Paola CD
From: Kazama, Kate CD
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2026 8:07 AM
To: Rodrigues, Bill CD; Miller, Paola CD
Subject: FW: DRB 950 Baja St Case # 25-1195
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
-----Original Message-----
From:

Sent: Monday, April 6, 2026 9:48 PM
To: Gibbs, Thomas <[email protected]>; Weil, Louis <[email protected]>; Coveny, Mary Jo <[email protected]>; Bauta, Imer <[email protected]>; Neev, Deborah <[email protected]>; Kazama, Kate CD <[email protected]> Subject: DRB 950 Baja St Case # 25-1195
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open aƩachments unless you are sure the content is safe.]
Dear Design Review Board,
We are once again voicing our concerns about the proposal for 950 Baja Street.

Luckily, the designers created a rendering of what their abhorrent proposal would look like in the extremely unlikely scenario of it being built due to the fact that it has to go through the Laguna Beach City Council (who voted down a LESS massive version of the project 5-0) should it pass with you all this week. We can see how it looks like an apartment building with a complete lack of arƟculaƟon and neighborhood compaƟbility. There sƟll exist view equity and privacy concerns, as well. Some notes on what should be changed:
-Main level square footage should be decreased vs 2024 design -Decks should be reduced, and some eliminated enƟrely, vs 2024 design -“Voided” areas should be eliminated -Upper level pulled back 11 feet vs 2024 design NoƟce how we repeatedly say “vs 2024 design”. This is because the designers think you all will be fooled by comparing this proposal with their never-actually-proposed February 2026 design (neither of which seem to take into account direcƟons from the City Council whatsoever). This, along with postponing their February DRB date, has shown that the designers have a complete lack of respect for this enƟre process. It made us upset to learn of the last-second postponement back in February when we had scheduled to be at the DRB hearing. For this April DRB hearing we are unfortunately unable to aƩend, so this email will have to represent our official objecƟons.

Thank you again for your Ɵme,
Albert and Katelyn Rodriguez
Baja Street
*Below is our leƩer to you all from February before the postponement of the current proposal:

Dear Design Review Board,
Regarding the proposal at 950 Baja Street.
144
144 of 623
2 We wish to lead with a quote from Mr. Gibbs that was made at the final DRB hearing from which this project was first being considered: “I think you can see from the first, second, and third hearings that virtually nothing has been done on scale of mass and nothing was done about pulling back the third floor and nothing was done in reducing the square footage.” All five of the members of our City Council agreed with Mr. Gibbs. Therefore, it would stand to reason that starƟng this process over again would see those issues be addressed in order to make the proposed project become compaƟble with the neighborhood. Instead, the City Council’s direcƟons to decrease the mass, increase arƟculaƟon, improve neighbors’ privacy, and ensure neighbors’ water views seem to have gone ignored. What did happen is that we were presented with a series of minor changes that take away and add square footage and, when combed over, result in an increase of mass to the project rather than a decrease.

Our request is that the upper level is pushed back 11 feet from the street and that the two new non-living spaces, which are the upper level storage and upper level mechanical rooms, are eliminated. We believe that these changes would meet the requirements given by City Council (preserve privacy and views, decrease mass, and increase arƟculaƟon).

Thank you for your Ɵme,
Albert and Katelyn Rodriguez
Baja Street
145
145 of 623
Exhibits of Baja homes on upside 5000 sf lots
910 Baja – third floor set back from second floor/garage 930 Baja – third floor set back from second floor/garage 146
146 of 623
960 Baja – third floor set back from second floor/garage 970 Baja – TWO floors only
147
147 of 623
940 Baja – 2500 sf lot
South side of 950 Baja project – aligns to 940 Baja (2500 sf lot). This picture is deceptive – appears to be set back from my home.
148
148 of 623
April 8, 2026
Re: 950 Baja St. Project
Dear Design Review Board Members,
This letter is in regards to the proposed new construction on 950 Baja Street, which many current DRB members are familiar with from last year when it was stuck down 5-0 by the city council. Again we do welcome the applicant and owner, Mr. Liu, to the neighborhood, but we do continue to have concern about its neighborhood compatibility and mass.

This house is now 3157.18 sq. ft., with a total of 5 BR (guest room included), 5-1/2 bath, 3 car garage but that doesn’t include voided upper level storage or 987.79 sq. ft. of ADU living space. The average living square footage of homes on 5000 sq. ft. lot around the Arch Beach Heights neighborhood is about 2500 sq. ft. The proposed size of this home is even bigger than the recommended size the city council members have voiced last year.

The 3rd level storage and mechanical rooms have been designated VOID but it is still part of the overall structure, and contribute to mass of the proposed project. Part of the 3rd level storage and mechanical room is now moved to the garage level but overall outer structure size is the same. Compared to 2024 plan, both decks have increased in size from 480 sq. ft. to 603 sq. ft. Main level has also increased by 192 sqft. Basically the applicant and his team are rearranging the interior structures in order make a case that they have done some changes.

The mass and box like structure still does not meet neighborhood compatibility. Other issues pertaining to this project include lack of articulation, privacy and noise concerns.

We hope DRB members can address our concerns about proposed new construction on 950 Baja St.

Thank you very much.

David Hou & Kat Wang
Baja St. Owners
149
149 of 623