Laguna Beach City Council
July 28, 2026

Thomas Gibbs:

Congratulations. Alrighty. We'll call the last item for tonight. It is 5.9 950 Baja Street Design Review 2025-1195 Coastal Development Permit 2026-0057. So we'll get the applicant up. Why don't we let the people go? Start X party, please. Debbie.

Debbie Neev:

Okay. I met with Steve Kawaratani and with Hugo, the designer, also with... Just a second. With Dr.

Emilia Borrelli and with Mr. Glenn Ito and tried to meet with Albert and Kathleen and they were not home.

Thomas Gibbs:

That is a try but fail.

Debbie Neev:

A tried but... A couple tried but failed.

Thomas Gibbs:

A couple tries but failed. If I could list all the tried but failed.

Debbie Neev:

I know.

Thomas Gibbs:

MJ. [inaudible 00:02:17].

MJ Coveny:

I spoke with Steve Kawaratani and reviewed the correspondence.

Thomas Gibbs:

All right. Imer?
Imer Bauta:

Chair, I visited the site and I met with Steve Kawaratani and the neighbor at 960 Baja, Emilia Borrelli.

Thomas Gibbs:

I met Steve Kawaratani at the site. I met with Emilia Borrelli and Glen Ito. Kate, you're up.

Kate:

Okay. The last item before you tonight is a request for a new single family residence and attached ADU located at 950 Baja Street. The slide before you is an aerial and street view of the project site and surrounding area. The 5,000 square foot property is located on the uphill side of Baja Street within the Arch Beach Heights specific plan area. The project site is currently vacant and has no prior development history.

Attachment 8
150
150 of 623

The project was originally approved by the board on March 28th, 2024. That approval was subsequently appealed by surrounding property owners and on July 9th of that same year the city council overturned the board's decision and remanded the project with direction to address design articulation, neighborhood compatibility, privacy, and view equity concerns. The image on the left shows the previously approved street elevation. Key direction from the council included pulling back the third level, avoiding window placements directly facing neighboring windows, reducing the overall building height, and relocating the garage to the south side of the property. In response, the applicant has revised the design as shown on the right. Notable changes include stepping back all floor levels from the street to varying degrees, relocating the garage from the north to the south side of the property, and removing the front entry stairway with primary access now shifted to the side elevation.

The overall building height has been reduced by one foot with the top of roof lowered by two feet. The primary dwelling floor area has been reduced by 370 square feet and the garage has been reduced by 74 square feet. At the same time, the ADU on the lowest level has increased by 560 square feet and a mechanical room was added at the rear as well. The combined elevated deck areas have increased by 84 square feet. Both the quantity and size of glazed openings have been reduced. Lastly, 560 cubic yards of additional grading export is proposed to support the height reduction and mechanical room addition at the lowest level. This slide compares both front and rear elevations of the proposed and revised design.

I'd like to note that there was a discrepancy in some of the figures reported in the staff report. The corrected figures are shown on this table. Specifically, the reduction in primary dwelling area was stated in the staff report as 799 square feet. However, the correct reduction is 368 square feet. The mechanical storage area was stated as an increase of 604 square feet, but the correct increase is 135 square feet.

The elevated deck area increase was stated as 44 square feet. The correct increase is 85. And lastly, the grading export increase was stated as 476 cubic yards. The correct increase is 559. These corrections do not affect staff's overall findings and recommendation, and staff continues to find that the revised project complies with applicable development standards and design review criteria, response to city council direction, and would not result in any environmental impacts. A total of seven public comments have been received.

The concerns raised primarily relate to design articulation, neighborhood compatibility, privacy and view equity. And to conclude, staff's recommendation is to adopt the attached resolution approving the requested entitlements. This concludes my presentation. I'm available for any questions.

Thomas Gibbs:

Thank you. Any questions? Seeing none, open to public hearing. Applicant, five minutes.

Hugo Soria:

Thank you, Kate. My name is Hugo Soria and I'm representing Mr. David Lu tonight on this project. Since the city council meeting and hearing this project has been meaningfully revised and I'd like to review those changes directly. Respond to the council's direction. Can I have the next slide? Most importantly, the project has improved in the areas that the council emphasized: design articulation, neighborhood, compatibility, privacy and view equity. They also emphasize making this project an L-shaped design, which we accomplished now. The project complies with all applicable development standards with it and the ADU meets coastal development permit requirements. Staff has also concluded that the project is appropriately scaled for the lot and neighborhood and recommends approval. Can I get the next slide? Thank you.

Looking at the north and south renderings on this slide, you can see how the massing has been stepped back at each level. In response to council direction, several key revisions were made. All levels of the 151
151 of 623

structure have been set back further from the street. The overall building height has been lowered. The garage has been relocated to the south side of the property. That's something that the neighbors had requested. The window and door openings have been reduced and carefully placed to avoid directly facing neighborhood properties, improving privacy. And the solid roof overheads have been revised to a trellised element, which lightens the architectural projection. Can I get the next slide? Oh, you got it. Sorry. All levels have been pulled back with the third level now set back 13 feet four inches from the street. The roof height has been reduced by two feet and the primary residence floor area has been reduced by nearly 300 square feet. Can I have the next slide? When we look at the third level comparisons, the project is consistent with the neighborhood pattern of development. There are at least four nearby properties with similar third level massing, scale and setbacks. Can I get the next slide? Finally, the combined setback analysis of the adjacent properties at 950 and 940 shows that the street facing setbacks are comparable and the third level alignment is equal for both properties. We believe that these revisions demonstrate our good faith response to the city council direction. The project is now better articulated, more compatible with the neighborhood, protecting the privacy, and respectful of the equity. Thank you.

Steve Kawaratani:

Could we get the final slide? There we go. Is it all right, Hugo? Hugo Soria:

Sure. Go for it.

Steve Kawaratani:

I was asked by the board to take what was probably not accurately depicted as a void, but actually was a vaulted ceiling. And so what we've done is we've lowered it down by three feet. So there are windows that act like a clerestory window to allow light down to the bedroom. But as you can see, the roof is a shed roof and there's no possibility of putting a floor there. And anyway, that is what we have done.

Thank you.

Thomas Gibbs:

And that lowers the whole roof down?
Steve Kawaratani:

Correct.

Thomas Gibbs:

Okay. Thank you. Are you done? All right. Public speakers, you'll each have three minutes. So if you could come up one right after the other. Appreciate it.

Speaker 9:

Hi, good evening and thank you for your time. The city council unanimously rejected this project with very specific direction. Reduce massing, pull back the upper floor, improve articulation, protect neighbors' privacy and preserve water views. Tonight, I would like to explain why the current proposal fails to meet that standard. While the applicant presents a slight reduction in total livable square footage, the most consequential parts of the structure, the upper floors have not been meaningfully 152
152 of 623

reduced. In fact, the top two floors are larger than in the rejected design. These are the floors with the most effect on neighbors' views, lights, and privacy. And that is precisely where the reduction was required by the council. There's also a problem with how those reductions are being characterized. The third floor includes, well, this was the design they were going to present in February, included the mechanical room and the storage space at the rear, neither of which is living space.

In February's design, these were clearly labeled as such, but they are now being rebranded as void areas. That change in terminology does not change what they are. It's an attempt to obscure bulk that was already identified as a problem and would then mislead the board. The fix is straightforward. Return the non-living spaces to the lower level. The third floor can be pulled back from the street without losing a single square foot of living space.

Just that one change would reduce visible mass, improve articulation, and better protect neighboring views and privacy. One option that has not been exhausted is, this is for the houses in the back, which is where we are, 945 Katella, is lowering the finished floor elevation itself, which can be achieved through sewage ejector or lift pumps. Unlike adjusting ceiling heights or roof details, this approach drops the entire structure down, not just one component. It can yield 12 to 24 inches of overall height reduction without changing the design at all. That is a significant difference and it is a readily available solution.

After nearly five years, my son was five at the time when we started this project, it's deeply frustrating for us to be addressing the same issues the council already directed to be corrected. Had those directions been followed, this project would likely have been built already.

I close this with, the council gave clear direction and rejected this project and it's our role tonight to ensure that direction was actually been followed. The upper level mass has not been meaningfully reduced and the third floor can be pulled back without any loss of living space. And thank you for your time.

Thomas Gibbs:

Thank you very much. Next speaker.

Anne Kane:

Anne Kane. And I'm reading a letter from Paige Lydell, who could not be here tonight. She says, "Thank you, members, that visited my home this week. I have the same concerns with these plans: mass, neighborhood compatibility, lack of articulation and overall design. This house has the same issues as the 2024 plans the city council voted 5-0 in agreement with the neighbors. They have not addressed these issues. The addition of void areas on the top level in the back are wasted space that is contributing to the mass, but conveniently no square footage is added. But these void areas are directly above the main level bedrooms and attached bathrooms. Who is to say there won't be a request to convert these void areas to living quarters in the future? Excuse me. The south side of the house closely aligns the balconies and house with my home on a 2,500-foot lot.

Other neighborhood homes on upside of 5,000 square foot lots, the garage and first floor are closer to the street with a top level pushed back farther than a couple of feet, thereby creating articulation and stepping down the hill. The void areas should be eliminated and the top level should be pushed back 10 or 11 feet, which allows for stepping down the hill and added privacy for my home, 960 Baja. I am hopeful that members of the DRB agree with the neighbor's objections. These plans are not compatible with the neighborhood for the reasons we've all expressed. Thank you.

Thomas Gibbs:

Thank you very much. Next speaker.
153
153 of 623

Emilia Borrelli:

Hi, my name is Emilia Borrelli and I live in 960 Baja on the north side of the 950. So this project was rejected by the city council by five to zero because of major problem of mass, scale, loss of articulation, and infringement of privacy. So now two years later, this project has been presented and I show this slide simply to point also to the side. If you look on the left side, this is the wall of my house. I don't think you can see it, which means that in case of fire, there is not even a space for the firemen to go into my house. Then in the next slide in this, the project that has been presented, this last one shows and now we talk about privacy. Privacy was a big issue because the decks and the windows and everything look into my house. And in this project, there is a window.

I don't know if you can see it on the right side that has been added that face north, so face my house and has not even been labeled on the project. So to finish, and that's my last slide. I just want to point out to the size of what it was in '24. So the total living area was indicated there and now it has been reduced by less than 400 square feet, but at the same time, the mechanical room have been increased as well as the decks. And the decks was a major problem of privacy. So with that, I conclude what I have to say. Thank you.

Thomas Gibbs:

Thank you much. Any other speakers?
Oz Aksoy:

Good evening, chair and design review board members. My name is Os Aksoy. I live 945 Katella Street behind the project. So our main concern is still the mass and scale of the building. Even with the new design, it remains too large for this lot and continues to block our city and whitewater ocean views. This is the first design review after the city council denied the project with five to zero votes and clearly asked for reduction in mass and scale. However, when comparing this design to the 2024 version, it has not been reduced in a meaningful way. In some areas, it has actually increased and the building still appears very box-like with limited articulation. We are not against building a home here. We are simply asking for a design that better fits the neighborhood and respects equity. We respectfully ask the board to ensure the project truly reflects the city council's direction. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thomas Gibbs:

Thank you very much. Next speaker.

Susan Bonn:

Hello. My name is Susan Bonn and I live directly behind the 950 project at 955 Katella Street. And I echo the same concerns as all of my neighbors have already discussed today and through all their letters that have been addressed. I'm also concerned about the ADU project. I see that this has now been on the agenda. I don't know anything about the plans. I haven't seen the project of the ADU. It's the ADU, as far as I'm concerned, of what I thought is sitting right in front of my backyard. So no one has reached out. I don't know what they are. And also I expressed the same concerns. That is a privacy concern is what I meant to say. [inaudible 00:20:32].

Imer Bauta:

The ADU is adjacent to the garage on the lowest level.
154
154 of 623

Susan Bonn:

Before it was behind.

Imer Bauta:

Yeah.

Susan Bonn:

Adjacent to it.

Imer Bauta:

If you take a look at sheet A1 when you get a chance, it's adjacent to the garage on the lowest level.

Susan Bonn:

Okay. So there goes that one. I'll take a look at it. Maybe I'll be back. I'm also concerned just over view equity because it blocks off all of our views. It's such huge mass and scale and I don't think it fits the neighborhood pattern. Thank you.

Thomas Gibbs:

Thank you much. Any other speakers? Seeing none, I returned it to the applicant for three minutes.

Steve Kawaratani:

Thank you, Chair Gibbs. And hello again, board members. My name is Steve Kawaratani. And listen, forget staff. Hey, Patrick. Paula. A vacant lot is one of the toughest type of project both for the board to review but also for neighbors to accept. We recognize that. We also recognize the fact that the council was very specific on their direction. And as staff has stated and as Hugo presented, we followed to a T exactly what they requested. If you had a chance to look at the polls up in the site, what's remarkable is we have moved the project back considerably and it's better articulated. So I'll go on the record today, even though we garnered an approval the last time we were before the board, we have a better project this evening. As far as view equity from the neighbors from Katella, when the board looked at this project a couple years ago, the board said view equity had been achieved.

Since that time, we have lowered the roof by two feet. So if you've had a chance to look back there, we have greatly improved the project. Because we swapped the garage, we've had to put in a sump pump.

We actually went down an additional foot into the ground. And we're not looking at the February application. We're looking at the April 2026 application. So there is no mechanical room up top. There is no storage on the top. We've increased the grading to put all of these items down at the bottom. And then lastly, I think it was a poor choice on the applicant team's part. Again, as I spoke earlier, that's not a void. It is a vaulted ceiling above the rear bedroom. We've lowered it another three feet. So it's actually two feet and actually seven feet below the other roof line. So it's simply a device to bring in a little bit more light into the bedroom.

So we believe that we have followed the council direction precisely and we look forward to your anticipated support this evening. Thank you.

Thomas Gibbs:

Thank you very much. Any questions?
155
155 of 623

MJ Coveny:

I have a question. Dr. Borrelli brought up a window that's not labeled.

Hugo Soria:

Can I add something on this matter?
Thomas Gibbs:

Was the time up or did he have some more time? 10 seconds.

Hugo Soria:
10 seconds. Okay.

Thomas Gibbs:
[inaudible 00:24:13]-
Hugo Soria:

All I want to say is I designed this house to please my neighbor on the north side because that house was designed in an angle.

Thomas Gibbs:

Okay. I limited the public comment to their time. I'm going to limit you to your time. If we have any questions, I appreciate that, Hugo. All right. Any questions? Let me ask. I've just got a couple questions.

Two questions. One is the void area on the upper level. It's on both sides of the house. Both of those, you're going to have the roof lowered for both sides?
Steve Kawaratani:

Yes.

Thomas Gibbs:

Okay. And the second question I had is, one of the issues is neighborhood compatibility. And you go with the third story setback to setback. And I've looked at your charts and I know those homes. I didn't see any that went from third story setback to setback. Are you aware of any, Steve, in the compatible neighborhood? Baja, Katella? I drove around. I couldn't find one.

Steve Kawaratani:

Right. What we've done, we have an increased setback, Tom, particularly on Dr. Borrelli's side. We increased that setback before we went to council because you had mentioned this before. So we do have a larger setback on that side than we do on the self elevation. Again, the way Hugo has laid the project out this time, the project isn't stacked in front like it was before. It goes back 13 feet from where it was before. It's very similar to Dr. Borrelli's where we step back on that side next to Dr. Borrelli to not only getThomas Gibbs:

No, I get it.
156
156 of 623

Steve Kawaratani:

You follow that. Okay.

Thomas Gibbs:

Yeah. You might remember the presentation that I made. I went through all the different 5,000 square foot lots and showed that they weren't treated like the 2,500 square foot lots. And that was something that the city council agreed with me on. And that's why I want to give a full hearing. And I looked at the houses you had. You're using the whole mass on the third floor. I appreciate you pulled it back. I just want to make sure if there's any other houses up in that area.

Steve Kawaratani:

No, the design is the design, Tom. And we believe with that 13-foot additional setback from our past approval that we really don't appear, looking at the house from the front where most peopleThomas Gibbs:

I'm talking about the side yard setbacks.

Steve Kawaratani:

Right.

Thomas Gibbs:

Aren't they at the five feet?
Steve Kawaratani:

Right.

Thomas Gibbs:

Yeah.

Steve Kawaratani:

Well, the side yard setback is, I think it's six and four.

Thomas Gibbs:

Six and four?
Steve Kawaratani:

Right.

Thomas Gibbs:

All right. Thanks. That's all the questions I had.

Imer Bauta:
157
157 of 623

I've got a question. Pertaining to the fire access question that Dr. Borrelli brought up, have you guys considered potentially staggering that top of wall on the north side of the property? Would you be amenable to it?
Steve Kawaratani:

Could you repeat that question? I'm sorry.

Imer Bauta:

Dr. Borrelli raised a safety concern pertaining to fire access on her existing site. There is access because there's no retaining wall. With the addition of the north wall, there's a pinch point that comes down to about two feet or so.

Steve Kawaratani:

Okay. Before you were on the board, Dr. Borrelli was asking and the board was asking for those walls.

Emilia Borrelli:
[inaudible 00:28:09]-
Steve Kawaratani:

Dr. Borrelli, it's my turn. Thank you. We don't have to have the wall there if that's what you're asking.

The board, and despite the protestation, were requested and that's why they're there.

Imer Bauta:

Yeah. So the question is, [inaudible 00:28:26] would you consider staggering? Would consider staggering?
Steve Kawaratani:

We could stagger it, yes.

Imer Bauta:

Okay. Thank you.

Thomas Gibbs:

So I understand, what do you mean by stagger? Because the wall was put there in the prior design review board.

Imer Bauta:

Yeah. I've got no concerns with the wall. It comes to a pinch point because there's an existing wall. You can't really see it on this plan view.

MJ Coveny:

Doesn't that all have to be approved by fire anyway?
Imer Bauta:
158
158 of 623

Yeah. [inaudible 00:28:51].

MJ Coveny:

So essentiallyThomas Gibbs:

I'm just not sure what staggered means.

MJ Coveny:

Yeah. Essentially anything you build is going to have to have a fire approval to be accessible to both homes.

Imer Bauta:
[inaudible 00:28:58].

MJ Coveny:

I'm not concerned there.

Steve Kawaratani:

As far as fire, I think that Imer is referring to Dr. Borrelli's property, not ours.

Imer Bauta:

It is, but we're creating a condition, I think. So I just want to be able toSteve Kawaratani:

We have no problem offsetting so we don't have that pinch point. It's just for our project to be compliant, we have to have a three-foot width, but we can do it.

Imer Bauta:

Right. You're at six right now.

Steve Kawaratani:

Yeah.

Imer Bauta:

Yeah.

Steve Kawaratani:

Yeah, we can do it.

Imer Bauta:

Okay.
159
159 of 623

MJ Coveny:

Then I have a quick question about height. Looking from the street, the Paige's and Dr. Borrelli's, you're in the middle. How do you stack up height-wise at the finished height of each home? I see it... I know how I see it. I just want you to confirm that.

Steve Kawaratani:

Right. So that's why I prepared that exhibit 940, which is Paige's property and ours, which is 950. So her garage is a little closer to the street than we are, but it's still compliant as far as being able to park two cars on theThomas Gibbs:
[inaudible 00:30:06] third story.

Steve Kawaratani:

Yeah.

Thomas Gibbs:
[inaudible 00:30:08] on the third story.

MJ Coveny:

I'm just talking about the finished roof heights.

Steve Kawaratani:

Oh, the finished. Okay.

MJ Coveny:

For mass and scale and just overall height.

Steve Kawaratani:

Right. Because the lot slopes down, we are actually lower than Paige's roof even though her house is lower than ours. And the front face of the property, we are exactly even. Now, if you look at Dr.

Borrelli's and ours, her program is a lot different. It's a very unique design, which has created some issues for us. Her third level is considerably higher than ours, but it is set further back. I'm on record for saying I really like Dr. Borrelli's house. I think it's a cool house.

MJ Coveny:

Okay. That's what I need to know. Thank you. I'm good.

Thomas Gibbs:

Debbie, do you have any?
Debbie Neev:

I don't have any questions.
160
160 of 623

Thomas Gibbs:

All right. Any other questions? Hearing none, I close the public hearing. Who would like to begin? You want to begin? You don't want to begin?
Imer Bauta:

Yeah, I'll give it a go.

Thomas Gibbs:

Me?
Imer Bauta:

Chair, I think the city council was pretty clear on their requests pertaining to design articulation, neighborhood compatibility, privacy, and view equity. I think the one piece that I'm going to need some convincing on for privacy is the windows. Being that it is an empty lot, I think that when we're comparing existing neighbors in the past, we've seen some other applicants present a elevation against an elevation. I wish we did that here tonight. I wish I asked sooner. Steve, I think reading council's direction, I think it was super clear that they wanted to see that the windows were offsetting. And I know you did a good job of reducing them. That one window that was added to the proposed north elevation has me concerned. I did look at it. It is a bit away from Dr. Borrelli, so I wouldn't completely rule it out.

I just don't think I have enough information to make the finding that the privacy is being maintained pertaining to the windows as council directed. With that said, I just want to be sure that we have another hearing if needed, or is this the final?
Thomas Gibbs:

We have another hearing? Because this is on remand from the city council.

Patrick Donegan:

Correct. It's on remand. No, well, I would want, first of all, defer to the applicant. I think if they're in agreement, this is the first time I believe we have heard this substantively in the year 2026, therefore the new policy.

Thomas Gibbs:

So we can have two hearings.

Patrick Donegan:

That is my understanding.

Thomas Gibbs:

That could be important to my comments.

Patrick Donegan:

Correct. But I would also advise the chair to get confirmation from the applicant if they just agree just to get that on the record.
161
161 of 623

Thomas Gibbs:

No. Okay.

Steve Kawaratani:

Imer, we're kind ofThomas Gibbs:
[inaudible 00:33:11].

Steve Kawaratani:

I'm sorry. I thought...

Imer Bauta:

Yeah.

Steve Kawaratani:

Okay.

Imer Bauta:

So that'd be my one concern. I think this home is neighborhood compatible. I think they did do a good job of design articulation on this go around, bringing some of the elements forward. I understood the reduction in height of that rear roof line. I think that's advisable. So we appreciate you coming to the hearing with that today. I think view equity is achieved for this site, considering it's an empty lot, new build. One other item that I just wanted to bring to everyone else's attention, I just noticed that the view, the lot coverage increased from the 2024 hearing. So I wanted to understand why that was. I'd love to open it back up to public hearing and get the feedback from the applicant if you're open to it, Chair.

Thomas Gibbs:

Sure.

Imer Bauta:

Go ahead.

Thomas Gibbs:

Wait, before you goImer Bauta:

It increased about four percent.

Thomas Gibbs:

Before you go there, let me...

Imer Bauta:
162
162 of 623

Yeah.

Thomas Gibbs:

I have one issue before you go. They're not seekingImer Bauta:

They're not seeking more, but they've [inaudible 00:34:22] increased it and they were asked to reduce mass.

Thomas Gibbs:

They're under the maximum. Just so it's clear. Go ahead.

Imer Bauta:

Yeah.

Thomas Gibbs:

I open the public hearing for the response to that question.

Steve Kawaratani:

Well, that is our answer, Imer. We are compliant.

Imer Bauta:

But what increased?
Steve Kawaratani:

The garage got shifted.

Imer Bauta:

Okay.

Steve Kawaratani:

So we went from, for some reason, we went from the left to the right.

Imer Bauta:

Okay.

Steve Kawaratani:

What we needed to do because we lost a parking space, we needed mechanical and we needed storage so it got a little bit bigger on the bottom, but it has no impact on anything because it does not increase the height of the second or third level and we are compliant as the chair noted.

Imer Bauta:

Okay. I appreciate that response. We'll close public hearing. 163
163 of 623

Thomas Gibbs:

Okay. Let me go second since I was... You go. [inaudible 00:35:15].

Debbie Neev:

Okay. I was just going to go because I agree with my colleague. I think that having gone back and looked at the history and even though this is my first hearing on this project, looking at the history and the comments from the resolution from the council, I do feel that this is definitely the design is articulated considerably more than the first application. I believe that with lowering it two feet, from what I saw to address what you were saying, MJ, I think that it is much lower than your neighbors. And so I think that you've really worked hard to do that. And I think that that also achieves additional view equity for the individuals up on Katella. I think that to address... And as far as privacy with Ms. Borrelli's conversation, I know which window she's talking about and that's the one that's off of the deck on A3, you can see that window.

And it was interesting, if you look there's a window from the current neighbor, I think Paige, from her, there's that window and then now there's your house and you'll be basically where that location of that window is. And I think that you've reduced so many windows from before. My question would be if there's considerable privacy, I would hate that you eliminate the light. So if you could make it opaque and maintain that window, I think that that would address that potential privacy issue, although it's quite far away, but anyway.

Thomas Gibbs:

The two main windows are opaque on the Borrelli side.

Debbie Neev:

They are?
Thomas Gibbs:

Yeah, those two, but not the other window.

Debbie Neev:

That's not the window I'm talking about.

Thomas Gibbs:

No, I know. That window. I agree.

Debbie Neev:

Okay. I guess to wrap it up, I think the one thing that has been said that when you look at an empty lot, everything seems so impactful because something is going to be there. And I know now I think actually across the street they're just now constructing something that I opined on probably 10 years ago or something like that. And because it was an empty lot and it was very, very difficult to really work with the applicant and to really continue to push and push and push that house down. So I think that looking at the overall neighborhood, looking at the notes from the council, I think that you have met...

According to staff report, I agree with the staff. They did a good job and I think that you have complied in every way that you possibly can. So with that, I can support your project. 164
164 of 623

Imer Bauta:

Chair, can I jump back in?
Thomas Gibbs:

Why don't we make the rounds and then you can follow up.

Imer Bauta:

Okay.

Thomas Gibbs:

Let me go. So I was against this project and I kind of laid out the reasons why. I went back and listened to the council hearing and they largely agreed with the reasons set forth. I think one of the members of the public put my comments in an email. The problem with the resolution is it's so few words, but it has the background of the city council meeting and what their concerns were. I think George Weiss started...

He and I don't always agree, but on this one he did. He agreed with my comments. And Bob Whalen, he agreed with George Weiss and we went through it. So I'm trying to understand what the remand is to us. So the concerns I had with the project was that there is a significant difference of treatment between the 2,500 and the 5,000 square foot lots up in Arch Beach Heights and it was done for a reason. You don't see similar architecture, which is setback to setback box type architecture. And if you look at the previously proposed project, it's much more boxy than what is being proposed today.

And what I suggested, and I think at least two council members agreed, was that the upper third floor needs to be significantly reduced. It was not significantly reduced, although again, I think the reduction significantly, it wasn't done nominally either. So it's somewhere between there. It was reduced, as I understand it, and my understanding is it was reduced 388 square feet. Is that about right? Yeah. So that is a reduction. Also, the problem with the original design was that it went straight across, whereas if you look at the 5,000 square foot lots, very much like Borrelli's lots next door, they add more architectural features. So the city council had a bigger problem with the lack of articulation. And I agree with board member Neev that there's a lot more articulation with this.

So I kind of in my mind say, "Okay, did the city council on remand say you can't go setback to setback?" And I'm kind of with you there. I don't think that they said that, but I don't think they said that it could be done either. They wanted it the articulation, they wanted reduced it in size and all that. I think that where I am is that I think it's a long way toward meeting the city council's remand, but I think the void spaces, even though you reduce the building height, I'd like to see that one side go back further and I think you have the room to make it go back further to create even a bigger offset. I think it's about 12 feet right now. So if I had my preference, it would be to have the left side of the building go further back to create more of an articulation consistent with the other 5,000 square foot lots in Arch Beach Heights.

And I think that's a couple more feet is all. If that's done, I could support the project.

MJ Coveny:

Are you talking about this already indented portion?
Thomas Gibbs:

Where the indented portion.

Debbie Neev:
165
165 of 623

Where the family room is? Is that where you're talking about? Thomas Gibbs:

Yeah, I think that's where... I can pull up the plans, but yeah, that's where the family... It's on the other side of [inaudible 00:42:53] the ADU and there's a room so you can do it, but I think the... And you've got the deck and everything else that on the right side over the garage that gives the view. Yeah, pull this up. It's where the family room is, to bring that back, fill the void, and create more of an articulation of space that would make it more consistent. I thought, well, you got to get rid of the setback to setback. I think I'm of the view, particularly hearing the other board members, that if you pulled that back to fill that void, I could support the project subject to the other comments that were made by my other board members, which I agree with.

MJ Coveny:

They expanded. They filled that in with decking. What do you want them to do? Push everything come back, even the deck?
Imer Bauta:
[inaudible 00:43:45].

MJ Coveny:
[inaudible 00:43:45].

Thomas Gibbs:

Yeah, I would be fine leaving the deck there if the mass of the family room went back. It's still a lot of deck, but I'd be fine with that. It's the mass of the building that's my big issue. There's two reasons why, so everybody understood why I made the comments. I didn't want to create a precedent for Arch Beach Height's 5,000 square foot to create the mansion-ization, the next one and the next one, which city council agreed with as well, that we wanted to draw a distinction between the 5,000 and the 2,000, 2,500 for future projects as well as this project. So that's where I am on it. Other than that, I believe view equity has been achieved. If you make the windows... I was going to comment on that side windows. Now that I see where you're talking about, it's on the other side of the deck, that that needs to be screened as well for privacy.

But I think that privacy has been taken care of. I'm less concerned with window placement given that there are opaque windows on that side, but maybe you can convince me otherwise.

Imer Bauta:

Yeah, that was what I was questioning. Kate, can we flip to A9 and A10? Thomas Gibbs:

I haven't forgot about you.

MJ Coveny:

That's okay.

Thomas Gibbs:
166
166 of 623

Before we go into that, we need to let MJMJ Coveny:

It's all right. I like this. I [inaudible 00:45:08].

Imer Bauta:

Yeah, I just wanted to [inaudible 00:45:09]-
Thomas Gibbs:

You defer to his question?
MJ Coveny:
[inaudible 00:45:11].

Thomas Gibbs:

Okay, there you go. What page?
Imer Bauta:

I wanted to adjust my question earlier pertaining to the windows. I think this is very clear on A9, I believe.

Thomas Gibbs:

That's the other side. That's on Paige's side.

Imer Bauta:

The adjacent windows. Yeah. So you had mentioned, I think Debbie had mentioned that some of these were opaque, but it wasn't clear to me on A10, which ones are opaque? The ones facing Dr. Borrelli's office?
Steve Kawaratani:

Go to A10 [inaudible 00:45:42].

Thomas Gibbs:

These two are [inaudible 00:45:42].

Imer Bauta:

Okay. Because it'sThomas Gibbs:

I confirmed that with Steve.

Imer Bauta:
167
167 of 623

All right. It's not called out on this plan. Steve, can you confirm on A10 that the two upper level windows are opaque?
Thomas Gibbs:

Designated three on A [inaudible 00:45:54]-
Steve Kawaratani:

Imer, I'm looking at it right now. So that window is not adjacent to Dr. Borrelli's. It's onThomas Gibbs:

You told me at the site that those are opaque.

Steve Kawaratani:

It's on the far side. It's on the master bedroom. There's no window on the corner.

Thomas Gibbs:

Look at where it's highlighted, circled with the yellow ink. Those two windows are not opaque. That looks right into her patio area.

Steve Kawaratani:

WellDebbie Neev:

No, that's not the one she's talking about.

Steve Kawaratani:

Just so I understand, ImerThomas Gibbs:

Well, that's what Imer was talking about, right?
Steve Kawaratani:

You're looking at that window on the far side, correct? Thomas Gibbs:

No, we need to be talking apples to apples here.

Steve Kawaratani:

Yeah.

Thomas Gibbs:

No, it's the two windows to the left of that.
168
168 of 623

Steve Kawaratani:

The two windows to the left.

Thomas Gibbs:

Look where [inaudible 00:46:43] it's yellow.

Steve Kawaratani:

Ah, okay. Okay. Those windows, you can't see through them. They're almost like clerestory window.

How many feet off the... They're six feet, aren't they? Emilia Borrelli:

Yeah.

Steve Kawaratani:

They're six feet off the floor. They're necessary for light. Now, they're already opaque as well, I believe.

Thomas Gibbs:

Yeah, you told me they were opaque.

Imer Bauta:

It's not called out as opaque. The rear elevation calls out opaque.

Steve Kawaratani:

They're opaque windows and the only person who could see out those windows up here, not even you can, unless you're on a stepladder.

Imer Bauta:

Her upper level looks slightly down into that level, but they're opaque.

Steve Kawaratani:

They're opaque.

Imer Bauta:

Confirmed?
Steve Kawaratani:

And if you look at the elevation carefully, I've never seen a house with such few windows, truly. Unless it's a condo. This is not a condo.

Thomas Gibbs:

No, we don't need a lot of discussion. It's opaque, right? So we're there.

Imer Bauta:
169
169 of 623

Yeah. We're there.

Steve Kawaratani:

Okay. As far as Tom, did you open the public hearing? I'm sorry.

Imer Bauta:

No, you're good.

Thomas Gibbs:

No, we didn't. I want to hear [inaudible 00:47:54] we got to hearMJ Coveny:

Yeah, I'll do my remarks. I'm looking at the renders now. So when I look at Paige's house, I see that as limited articulation from the front. It's just windows and stacked. And even Dr. Borrelli's, I find her house, even though it's curved and stuff, it's one of these, just like these stucco homes that are going to, I guess, going to start building up in that area. I'm not a fan. I have to be honest with you, I'm not a fan of this design. I think it could have been more thought out and a little bit more creative, but that's kind of mean. I didn't mean it like that. You're a very good designer. I'm sorry I said that.

Steve Kawaratani:

We have thick skin.

MJ Coveny:

I know. Thank you. You got to be tough. I just feel like especially with some of the direction, but I do think you answered the council's call to articulate. I think you did that. I think the side next to Dr. Borrelli looks great when you have those little planter boxes that give it a little shape and dimension. I think I maybe would have liked to have seen something like that in the front to give it a little less just window, but I think it's definitely neighbor compatible. Now, to Tom's point about the lot build size based on the three story, it doesn't look like the mass and scale of this house is any different than any of the other houses. So I don't feel like we can tell you have to make yours appear smaller because of... I just don't think we can. I think it fits in the neighborhood. It is compatible.

Privacy, I think has been extremely achieved. I don't think you have to even consider anything else there. And I think view equity has been achieved. I never thought there was an issue from the back. I think it was almost like if you gave up another couple feet, it wasn't going to make a difference and it was just going to make a big difference for the house as far as the quality of living in the house. That's it.

So I can support it based on you having fulfilled the council's request and I can approve it tonight.

Thomas Gibbs:

Okay.

Imer Bauta:

Chair, I may want to make an adjustment. I think I was requesting more of a continuance earlier on with the clarity we got from sheet A9 and further deliberation with fellow board members. I could also see this project through approval for tonight with maybe one or two conditions. 170
170 of 623

Thomas Gibbs:

All right. The question is to get my vote, it needs to go back on the left side there. Steve is willing to move it back equal to the amount of that void space?
Steve Kawaratani:

You request a two feet, Chair?
Thomas Gibbs:

I don't know. The void space I think is more than that.

MJ Coveny:

You want to bring it back up on the screen?
Thomas Gibbs:

Yeah. Why don't you figure out what the depth of that is? MJ Coveny:
re you talking because you have to see the master bedroom? Imer Bauta:

Mike.

Thomas Gibbs:

Oh, wait. I can tell you exactly what it's... It's 5.9 inches. Five feet, nine inches.

MJ Coveny:

So itThomas Gibbs:

It's not asking you to reduce any square footage. It's just asking you to move it back.

Steve Kawaratani:

So you're asking us to shift it back.

Thomas Gibbs:

Shift it back.

Imer Bauta:

I'm not following.

Thomas Gibbs:

Okay. Look at sheet... If you look at sheet A3, you move the building back171 171 of 623

Debbie Neev:

So you're saying where that bathroom and pantry is, put that inThomas Gibbs:

Yeah, the pantry goes toDebbie Neev:

Put that in the void space?
Thomas Gibbs:

Yeah, it goes to the back of the void.

MJ Coveny:

So get rid of the void and putThomas Gibbs:

You get rid of the void totally.

MJ Coveny:

And then bring the front.

Thomas Gibbs:

They can leave the void on the other side, but that gets rid of the void and it moves theImer Bauta:

Does that void go full height or is that the lowered void that's being suggested? Debbie Neev:

No, it's the upper.

Thomas Gibbs:

You see this one right here?
Imer Bauta:

Yeah. So is this void at the same... What's the elevation of that void under northThomas Gibbs:
[inaudible 00:51:42] lowered it [inaudible 00:51:43].

Imer Bauta:
... east corner?
Thomas Gibbs:
172
172 of 623

The building can go back to fill that and move the front side back. It creates more of an offset for the third story so the third story doesn't look like it is going setback to set back on the street, which is out of neighborhood character.

Debbie Neev:

I see what you're saying.

Thomas Gibbs:

You see what I'm saying?
MJ Coveny:

And just confirming it's just the family room side. You're not talking about the master.

Thomas Gibbs:

Yeah. If you look at even the footprints of that houses that he gave, show that the houses are designed in the 5,000 to not be looking like the 2,500. And so while I would like to see that whole left side redesigned along your lines, I'm willing to go and give my vote and get four votes tonight if we can just move it back and really create an offset so we don't set so much of the precedent of changing the design of the 5,000 into what's at 2,500 square foot lots.

Debbie Neev:

Just a question, but you could basically... So it's reducing the program, but if you eliminated the void, just for conversation hereThomas Gibbs:

Really not reducing the program.

Debbie Neev:

But what I'm saying is if you scoot that back, you could basically, it wouldn't have to be the whole six feet. It could be three feet or whatever. Does it have to be... You know what I'm saying? Thomas Gibbs:

They have the room. They have theDebbie Neev:

Because that's more for the vaulting and for the light.

Thomas Gibbs:

Yeah. They originally had that void with a higher ceiling, which tells me they can move it the whole feet seven. There's no reason why it shouldn't. Their view is over the garage from the other side. They're still getting a great view. So their deck is recessed an additional five feet, still a great view. And it creates, I think, more articulation that's appropriate for the 5,000 square foot lot.

Debbie Neev:
173
173 of 623

But I guess what I'm saying is because since he had lowered it, I'm saying keep it at the same height so you can still have those windows coming in above the powder room now. You know what I mean? Because you're notThomas Gibbs:

Yeah.

Debbie Neev:

You know what I'm saying?
Thomas Gibbs:

If you move it back, the windows can stay in the powder room.

Debbie Neev:

Then you wouldn't have to lower it. Right. You could keep it.

Thomas Gibbs:

Right. You wouldn't have to lower it.

Debbie Neev:

Yeah.

Thomas Gibbs:

Keep the windows and put them in the powder room and the pantry bar.

Debbie Neev:

We don't mean to be designing your home.

Thomas Gibbs:

Yeah. I don't mean to be.

Debbie Neev:

No.

Thomas Gibbs:

I just want the program moved back five feet, seven inches. That'll get my vote.

Steve Kawaratani:

May I address that, Chair?
Thomas Gibbs:

Sure.
174
174 of 623

Steve Kawaratani:

Okay.

Thomas Gibbs:

I open the public hearing and let you do that.

Steve Kawaratani:

So here's the problem. If you look at the floor plan, we have the deck, the family room, and then on the opposite side we have the master bedroom and the door [inaudible 00:54:20] with the door going in there.

MJ Coveny:

Yeah, I was just going to say.

Steve Kawaratani:

And the elevator.

Debbie Neev:

And the elevator.

Steve Kawaratani:

Yeah.

MJ Coveny:

Yeah, you're going to have to reSteve Kawaratani:

It is really going to create havoc. Now, I'll remind the board and counselor, we're at hearing five right now and we're at hearing five and if we go to another hearing, we're at hearing six and that's contrary to the state law.

MJ Coveny:

That's true.

Steve Kawaratani:

So I would like to get this done tonight so we don't get into lawyer talk and I would like to getThomas Gibbs:

Let me cut you off there. Patrick, is that true? Because we have a remand from the city council. And what if it gets appealed again? How does that work?
Patrick Donegan:
175
175 of 623

Correct. Yeah. So that state housing law that prohibits it to five hearings doesn't necessarily contemplate and isn't explicit for a situation like this that we've gave a decision at the design review board, it then goes to city council, it then comes back. Hearing the applicant say that they're going to say that this is the fifth hearing, I would encourage then you all to make a decision. And if that results in a denial, so be it. That's why I was inquiring as to the willingness of the applicant to agree, but if we do not have thatThomas Gibbs:

So it requires your agreement.

Patrick Donegan:

But if not, we can't get [inaudible 00:55:42].

MJ Coveny:

Before weThomas Gibbs:

I know Hugo's good. I know he can design it and make it all work.

MJ Coveny:

Yeah. Let me justHugo Soria:

Tom, I have a question. I have a problem with getting into the bedroom if I move five feet. Can I just do three feet so I can get a single door in there?
Thomas Gibbs:

So you want three feet?
Hugo Soria:

Yeah.

MJ Coveny:

Can I just offer one other suggestion that may or may not work? Your concern is the side yard setbacks primarily?
Thomas Gibbs:

No. Well, no. My concern, which is not going to be addressed, is the side yard setback. I don't like this building going from setback to setback.

MJ Coveny:

Well, as I say, can'tThomas Gibbs:
176
176 of 623

Let me finish. I think that's out of character for the community. However, I think that it addresses part of the concern. I'm willing to give a vote given where you guys stand, notwithstanding that it's setback to setback if there's more differentiation on the left side.

MJ Coveny:

Okay. So let me finish my thought and then you tell me if this would get both your side yard setback is if where the fireplace is and the planter on this side, they come off that setback just to a portion leaving space to get into the powder room. If you just came over two feet there or foot there, would that give you the setback you feel better about for this kind of precedent setting? Thomas Gibbs:

No, it's more design element that it doesn't... In other words, the articulation was to make it... I don't want to say it doesn't help. It's not a big enough help to really address the setback issue.

Imer Bauta:

Chair, I'd be concernedThomas Gibbs:

My view is if they can move it three feet further back...

MJ Coveny:

You're okay with the setback component.

Imer Bauta:

Chair, IMJ Coveny:

Because that seemed to be your point. So I was concerned. Go ahead, Imer. Sorry.

Thomas Gibbs:

I'm just not sure if it helps that much [inaudible 00:57:33].

Imer Bauta:

Chair, I'd be concerned on the requirements for restaking if we were to suggest a rear shift.

Thomas Gibbs:

I don't think you need to restake.

Imer Bauta:

If there's a reduction in program, I'd be for it, but I wouldn't be for the shifting without restaking.

Thomas Gibbs:

Oh no, the staking already goes to the void. So there's already staking in the back there. 177
177 of 623

Imer Bauta:

But the void is a pitch down. It's at different elevation.

MJ Coveny:
[inaudible 00:57:56] request to do three feet.

Thomas Gibbs:

I see what you're saying.

Imer Bauta:

Yeah.

Thomas Gibbs:

Well, I'm not going to vote for it in the present. I think it looks too much like a box. I don't think it complies with the city council's recommendation.

Imer Bauta:

Well, can we discuss the other items?
Thomas Gibbs:

Well, the question is, do you want to go to another hearing to address this issue? Steve Kawaratani:

I don't want to go to a sixth hearing. That's contrary to state law.

Thomas Gibbs:

Okay. WellSteve Kawaratani:

So what we are willing to do in the spirit of compromise, again, in the spirit of compromise and to keep our program working, we'll move it back three feet. We'll forego the double door into the bedroom and make it a single door if that works for you, Tom.

Imer Bauta:

It's not Tom. We're all deliberating.

Thomas Gibbs:

The question is, does it work forImer Bauta:

It doesn't work for me. I think it would require restaking because the height of the third level would be brought back into where there's currently open air. So it's currently not staked with that condition. So if you take a look, Kate, if you could pull up A5.
178
178 of 623

Steve Kawaratani:

Yeah. Imer, respectfullyImer Bauta:

Steve, hang on. It's closed.

Steve Kawaratani:

Yeah.

Kate:

Yeah. Oh I see [inaudible 00:59:16]-
Imer Bauta:

A5, on the top portion of this, on the top right portion of this section, if we were to shift that program back, that right corner was never staked. So I wouldn't be for a shift in the program. I'd be for a reduction in program of three feet. I think it warrants it in this case and I think maybe Tom would be behind that and then we could have four votes.

Thomas Gibbs:

Yeah, I would be behind that definitely because anything that reduces the mass and scale of this house, particularly given it's probably the largest 5,000 square foot lot house.

Steve Kawaratani:

Imer, I'm not following your logic looking at that top level. Pulling it backImer Bauta:

We're not pulling it back, Steve.

Steve Kawaratani:
... as Tom suggestedImer Bauta:

We're moving on from that. So we're requesting if you're amendable to it, a three-foot reduction.

Steve Kawaratani:

Well, I'd like to revisit so I understand your thinking. So if we look at that section and we move it back as Tom suggested, that's actually opening up more space for Dr. Borrelli. It's not creating a bigger impediment. I don't understand why you would have to see it staked because it's going to improve it.

Thomas Gibbs:

No. The staking is for the rear yard and the impact it may have on tenants up the hill.

Steve Kawaratani:
179
179 of 623

Okay. You're worried aboutThomas Gibbs:

And let me give a counterpoint there, even though I'd like to see the mass and scale... I think we're close. I don't think having that is going to impact any views up the hill because actually the portion of the house that impacts views is further toward the ocean. Does that change your view on that? Imer Bauta:

My concern is this has already gone to council. I think we just need to be consistent on the staking and the procedure. I think if we make this, we don't re-stake it, I think it could be problematic for us.

Thomas Gibbs:

Okay. So this is kind of where we are. I'm willing to go three feet further back with a three feet further back of the deck just to create the similar articulation and more articulation consistent with the 5,000 square foot lots. And I can go either way on moving the whole program back or just eliminating three feet of program. So that's my final position. So it's up to you guys.

Steve Kawaratani:

Let me make thisThomas Gibbs:

No, I think we're done kind of talking.

Steve Kawaratani:

Yeah. Let me make this easy. We'll pull back the front by three feet and not shift the house.

MJ Coveny:

You're going to lose three feet of program in the front.

Steve Kawaratani:

We'll lose three feet of program.

Thomas Gibbs:

If you're willing to do that.

Steve Kawaratani:

I've already said so, Chair.

Thomas Gibbs:

No, I say... Maybe I should have used since. I can support the project with the other changes. Are we all there?
MJ Coveny:

Yes.
180
180 of 623

Thomas Gibbs:

Okay. Any other questions or changes before...

Imer Bauta:

Just a little clarity. So the family room wall is being pulled back or is the family room wall and deck edge being pulled back?
Thomas Gibbs:

It's the deck and the building three feet back.

Steve Kawaratani:

Correct. And we'll figure out how we'll do it internally.

Thomas Gibbs:

Super.

Steve Kawaratani:

Okay. Is that good, Imer?
Imer Bauta:

Yes.

Thomas Gibbs:

And the internal, it would be subject to staff approval and then going on to building.

MJ Coveny:

I'm sorry. I know we beat this up, but I just want to be clear. So the deck is also going to come back three feet? I thought you were going to allow them to take that program and make it deck.

Thomas Gibbs:

I have the opportunity to rethink that.

MJ Coveny:

No, you don't. I'm sorry. No, [inaudible 01:03:02].

Thomas Gibbs:

My thinking is let's move the program back three feet. The deck and the house creating more offset consistent with the 5,000. I think the decks need to be similar size to have the articulation. So I think it improves the whole project consistent with the 5,000. So I changed my mind on that and I think the applicant is agreeable to that.

Imer Bauta:

The deck and the west wall.
181
181 of 623

Thomas Gibbs:

Yep.

Imer Bauta:

Right?
Thomas Gibbs:

All right. So I didn't take notes on the other thing since I thought I was going to not vote for this project.

So you want to do it, Imer?
Imer Bauta:

The other thing was the fire access. You're going to work to...

Steve Kawaratani:

We'll work with staff on that.

Imer Bauta:

Great.

Steve Kawaratani:

Okay.

Imer Bauta:

Okay. So I'll make a motion. I'll make a motion to approve and adopt resolution 2025-1195, approving design review 2025-1195 and Coastal Development Permit 2026-0057 for the property located at 950 Baja Street with the following conditions: adjacent fire access be coordinated with staff to accommodate fire law for the adjacent property at Dr. Borrelli's at 960 Baja Street. In addition, the reduction in program for the family room, it's going to be reduced by three feet toward the east and the deck is also going to be reduced by three feet to the east for that portion of the home and finding said action categorically exempt from CEQA guidelines section 15303.

Thomas Gibbs:

Real quick, that is the east, you sure?
Imer Bauta:

Yes.

MJ Coveny:

It's reduced [inaudible 01:05:11].

Thomas Gibbs:

Yeah. It's from the front toward the back.

MJ Coveny:
182
182 of 623

I second that.

Thomas Gibbs:

I'll second that.

Speaker 4:

Sorry about that. Board member Neev?
Debbie Neev:

Yes.

Speaker 4:

Board member Bauta?
Imer Bauta:

Yes.

Speaker 4:

Board member Coveny?
MJ Coveny:

Yes.

Speaker 4:

Chair Gibbs?
Thomas Gibbs:

Yes.

Speaker 4:

Motion has passed four to zero.

Steve Kawaratani:

Thank you, board.

Thomas Gibbs:

Good luck. Alrighty. Seeing no other business, we stand adjourned to our next meeting on April 23, 2026.
183
183 of 623

AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date
July 9, 2024
Appeal
D
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF APPROVAL DESIGN REVIEW 23-1274 FOR A NEW SINGLEFAMILY RESIDENCE (3,525 SQUARE FEET), ATTACHED FOUR-CAR GARAGE (889 SQUARE FEET), ELEVATED DECKS (519 SQUARE FEET), GRADING,

RETAINING WALLS, ADDITIONAL TANDEM PARKING SPACES,
LANDSCAPING, AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AT 950 BAJA STREET IN THE ARCH BEACH HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN AREA OF THE R-1,

RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY ZONE
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council open the public hearing, take public testimony, close the public hearing, and adopt a Resolution titled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL AND SUSTAINING THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD'S DECISION TO APPROVE DESIGN REVIEW 23- 1274 FOR A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE (3,525 SQUARE FEET), ATTACHED FOUR-CAR GARAGE (889 SQUARE FEET), ELEVATED DECKS (519 SQUARE FEET), GRADING, RETAINING

WALLS, ADDITIONAL TANDEM PARKING SPACES, LANDSCAPING AND TO FIND THE

ACTION CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO STATE CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15303".

Appropriation: ____________ Fund Name: ____________ _
Submitted By: &w.d ~Q1cr_~ Approved:-----:5~ ~ J":e _..:::........:..:: ~ :....:\4A~ ~ ,--- David Contreras, Director of Dave Kiff, City 'ifanager
Community Development

SUMMARY OF THE MATTER
The property owner, David Liu ("Applicant"), of the property located at 950 Baja Street (the "Property") applied for Design Review 23-1274 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, additional tandem parking spaces, and landscaping pursuant to Laguna Beach Municipal Code ("LBMC") Section 25. 05. 040 on a vacant lot within the Arch Beach Heights Specific Plan Area of the R-1 (Residential Low Density) zone. 1
On March 28, 2024, the Design Review Board ("Board") conditionally approved the project by a 3-2 vote, including the approval of a categorical exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines Section 15303. (See March 28, 2024 Board staff report and resolution included as Attachment 1 ).

On April 11, 2024, the neighboring property owner, Paige Lyall ("Appellant"), of property located at 940 B~ja Street, filed an appeal (Attachment 2) of the Board's approval of the project (the "Appeal"). The 1 Pursuant to Categorical Exclusion Order E-93-1 and LBMC Section 25.07.010, the project consisting of single-family residential development is exempt from coastal development permit requirements due to its location within a categorical exclusion area.

Attachment 9
184
184 of 623
Appeal of Approval of DR 23-1274 at 950 Baja Street
July 9, 2024

Appellant's Appeal details the reasons for the appeal, which are analyzed in this staff report. In summary, the Appellant contends 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 contends 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 at the hearing without revised staking or neighborhood communication; that landscaping modifications were proposed without the ability for neighbors or the City's landscape consultant to review; and that overall proper neighborhood communication did not occur by the Applicant team.

This staff report provides an overview of the project and the three prior public hearings before the Board and provides staffs response to the issues raised by the Appellant in Appeal. >

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The subject property is a 5000-square-foot lot located on the eastside of Baja Street between Capistrano A venue and Cortez A venue within the Arch Beach Heights specific plan area. The property is currently vacant and has no prior development history.

CAPISTRANO AVE
Figure I: Vicinity Map
185
185 of 623
Appeal of Approval of DR 23-1274 at 950 Baja Street
July 9, 2024

CITY COUNCIL APPEAL PROCEDURES
A. Design Review
LBMC Section 25.05.70(E)(2) sets forth the procedures and review criteria for design review appeals.

Subsection (2)(b) provides, "If the decision or determination was not supported by four or more affirmative votes of the approval authority, upon hearing the appeal or request for review, the city council shall conduct a de novo review of the underlying application but shall be limited to the grounds specifically stated in the notice of appeal, if an appeal was filed, and to the evidence, including plans, that was presented to the approval authority. The city council shall exercise its independent judgment and discretion as to such evidence. Nevertheless, there shall be a presumption that the decision or determination made by the approval authority 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, including plans, presented."
B. Non-Design Review
LBMC Section 25.05.70(E)(l) sets forth the procedures and review criteria for non-design review appeals.

The City Council 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 approval authority. 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 approval authority 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.

C. City Council Options

1. Adopt the Resolution (Attachment 3) denying the appeal and sustaining the Board's decision to approve the project, either as proposed in the Resolution, or as may be modified by the City Council by imposing more restrictive conditions of approval; or

2. Direct staff to prepare a resolution granting the appeal and overturning the Board's decision to approve the project with findings in support of overturning the decision and denial; or

3. Direct staff to prepare a resolution granting the appeal, overturning the Board's decision to approve the project, and remanding the project to the Board with findings in support of overturning and remanding the decision.

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD'S PROJECT REVIEW
A. November 9, 2023 Public Hearing

1. Project Overview (November 9, 2023)
On November 9, 2023, the Board held a public hearing on the application for the project which required design review for the new residential structure, elevated decks, grading, retaining walls, additional tandem 186
186 of 623
Appeal of Approval of DR 23-1274 at 950 Baja Street
July 9, 2024

covered parking spaces, and landscaping. (See November 9, 2023 Board staff report and resolution included as Attachment 4).

The submitted project plans illustrate three levels of living area, visible from the street with the first level consisting of a four-car tandem garage, trash storage area, storage room, mechanical room, elevator access to the primary unit on the upper levels, and a 430 square foot attached accessory dwelling unit (subject to administrative review). The second (middle) level consists of an open concept entry, kitchen, living, and dining area, two bedrooms with a jack and jill bathroom, a den, and powder room. The second level also features 335 feet of elevated deck area off the entry area. The third (upper) level features an additional family room, master bedroom with en-suite bath and closet, two additional bedrooms, and a second powder room. 184 square feet of elevated deck areas is also proposed off the third level family room.

Proposed Street Elevation (JSt Hearing)
187
187 of 623
Appeal of Approval of DR 23-1274 at 950 Baja Street
July 9, 2024

Proposed Rear Elevation (JSt Hearing)
In staffs presentation, staff noted the following concerns based on public comments received: (1) Design Articulation; (2) Neighborhood Compatibility; (3) Privacy; and (4) View Equity.

2. Applicant Presentation (November 9, 2023)
The Applicant's representative, Steve Kawaratani (hereinafter also referred to as "Applicant"), presented the project on behalf of the property owner, and the project architect, and proposed the following modifications to the project: (1) revise the exterior building color from grey to a deep tan color, and (2) remove the spa on the third level deck.

3. Public Comments (November 9, 2023)
The Board opened the public hearing and took public testimony from all persons wishing to provide public comments and testimony. Public comments from the following were heard at the November 9, 2023 public hearing: Souri Amirani, Ayse McGuire, Emiliana Borrelli, Anthony Smith, Paige Lyall, Osman Tune Aksoy, and Glenn Etow. Their public testimony is summarized below. a. Souri Amirani (975 La Mirada Street)
Ms. Amirani indicated that she learned about the project in June 2021 but was out of town for the neighborhood meeting. She indicated that she had sent an e-mail to the Applicant noting the staking was blocking her view, but no changes to the design were subsequently made by the Applicant to address her concerns.
b. Ayse McGuire (945 Katella Street)
Ms. McGuire indicated that she lives directly behind the proposed project and when the Applicant's architect visited her two years ago to discuss the project, she expressed concerns related to the proposed height of the structure and privacy impacts. She further stated that the stakes are very high and looming into her lower bedroom, creating a privacy problem. She recommended the following changes be made: less parking, a smaller structure, and lower building height. 188
188 of 623
Appeal of Approval of DR 23-1274 at 950 Baja Street
July 9, 2024

c. Emiliana Borrelli (960 Baja Street)
Ms. Borrelli expressed concern with the following design criteria: view equity, privacy, and design articulation. She indicated that the garage and decks are proposed too close to the street and that on the east side of Baja Street, houses are developed 24-feet from the street; therefore, the proposed project should be setback 24-feet from the street as well. She noted, the proposed height and width of the project will obscure her blue water views from her living room, master bedroom, and top floor level; that the project should be scaled back for less massing and improved view equity; that the proposed driveway is elevated resulting in a towering house and should slope downwards instead, that the proposed decks would obstruct her view and create privacy and noise issues; that the decks should be incorporated into the building, rather than cantilever; and that the windows and doors on north side of door should be frosted to address privacy concerns on her property.
d. Anthony Smith (955 Katella Street)
Mr. Smith indicated that while his primary view on the upper level is not significantly impacted, his secondary ocean view on the lower garden patio will be lost entirely. He requested that the Applicant consider lowering the structure to maintain some of his ocean horizon view. e. Paige Lyall (940 Baja Street)
Ms. Lyall expressed concern with the proposed house size, and requested the Applicant scale back the proposed design and push the structure further into the hillside. f. Osman Tune Aksoy (945 Katella Street)
Mr. Aksoy indicated the Applicant's architect visited two years ago, acknowledged the view impacts from the deck, kitchen, bedrooms, and garden, and indicated the building design would be reduced in size and height, but Mr. Aksoy was later surprised when he saw the staking. He indicated his family spends a lot of time on their deck and with the proposed structure his ocean and city view would be lost. g. Glenn Etow (930 Baja Street)
Mr. Etow indicated his concern with the project is neighborhood compatibility. He indicated that the Applicant stated in his presentation that the proposed project was similar to other properties with 3,700 square foot homes, but noted that those homes are on 10,000 square foot lots and the Applicant's project is a 4,000 square foot home on a 5,000 square foot lot. He stated that he has a 3,000 square foot home on a 5,000 square foot lot, as does his neighbor and the Applicant's neighbor at 960 Baja Street. He further stated that these homes fit the environment of the neighborhood, but the proposed project's 4,000 square foot mass would not be compatible with the neighborhood.

4. Applicant Response (November, 9, 2023)
After hearing the public testimony, the Applicant presented an additional exhibit and indicated that the Applicant is prepared to make the following modifications: (1) remove the front landscape planters and reposition them; (2) push back the second level to align with the neighbor's building setbacks as outlined in purple in his submitted exhibit (See Figure 2 below); (3) push back the third level further; (4) lower the structure to the greatest extent possible to improve view equity, although limited by the required driveway slope and desire for non-mechanical drainage; (5) reduce the square footage of the home to meet neighborhood compatibility comparable homes; (6) incorporate additional obscuring of the windows as 189
189 of 623
Appeal of Approval of DR 23-1274 at 950 Baja Street
July 9, 2024

requested by the neighbors; (7) eliminate the spa on the upper-level as mentioned earlier in the Applicant's presentation; and (8) modify the exterior building color to a deep tan color.

U2..r.,,
U E: or P~£\IIOVS OE'SIGN
--------,
\
\
/ ·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-'-·
PjL
'
·--- ---- -.! ✓ : (/ I
I . ~
/ ., ( ./ ,✓✓
i
/~ '
I
I
t-oFigure 2: Applicant's proposed modifications during second hearing

5. Board Questions (November 9, 2023)
----- --- HAU.

SATH.
-
Board Member Gibbs verified how much the house would be lowered. The Applicant stated he was seeking direction from the Board but was hoping to reduce the structure by 18-inches, and that he would reduce the structure lower but is limited by the positive flow of drainage.

Board Member Gibbs further verified whether the overall building height could be reduced by lowering plate heights. The Applicant clarified that the proposed height is six feet below the maximum allowable building height; that the project was reduced earlier in the design phase by 3.75-feet; that the upper plate height is nine-feet, the middle plate height is nine-feet and the lower plate height is eight-feet, which is the lowest plate height for a modern design; and that any additional reduction would have to come from lowering the garage slab rather than plate height reductions. 190
190 of 623
Appeal of Approval of DR 23-1274 at 950 Baja Street
July 9, 2024

Board Member Thalman noted a significant amount of glazing being proposed and verified if glazing can be reduced on each level, particularly on the garage door. The Applicant confirmed that glazing on the garage doors would be opaque, and that the garage lights would primarily remain off; and that glazing can be reduced or proposed with VT tint, but that it is his opinion the proposed glazing is not excessive for the proposed style of the home and is consistent with the amount of glazing seen within the neighborhood.

6. Board Deliberations (November 9, 2023)
Chair Pro Tern Gannon stated that the project is close in her opinion with the Applicant's proposed modifications, but that she is not sure how the project could achieve an 18-inch height reduction. She stated that the need to lower the home has more to do with addressing mass and scale rather than view equity, because even a one-story home would impact views for the neighbors behind. She indicated that she noticed the properties behind have a great view of the coastline, and if the proposed structure were lowered then that could be helpful for the neighbors. Regardless, she stated, the appearance of massing is large and should be reduced. She further stated that with regard to privacy, the proposed windows on both sides of the structure are minimal and would be opaque. As such, she stated that the Arch Beach Heights Specific Plan requirements were met; that the proposed glazing is consistent with the style of the home and surrounding area and is intended to capture the views straight out of homes; that the glazing isn't taking up the entire frontage; that she supports the amount of parking proposed consisting of four covered parking spaces and two driveway spaces which would be especially helpful with the proposed accessory dwelling unit; and that the proposed modification to push the house back would help with massing and improve view equity for the northerly neighbor.

Board Member Gibbs stated that he does not see a view equity issue but a mass, scale and privacy issue; that view equity has been achieved, but that neighborhood compatibility for the project area is a two-story home; that the proposed changes would help address his concerns but may not be enough. He stated that the proposed house appears too close to street; that the garage location is fine because it is set back, but that the problem begins with the second and third story balcony; that the second story needs to be pulled back some and the third story pulled back even further; that the project needs to be more consistent with the 5,000 square foot lots in the area in terms of house size; that the Applicant must view the properties down the street as a guide; that the Applicant should consider the balcony location of 960 Baja Street as to not tower over them; that the third level does not need such a large balcony off the master bedroom, which threatens the privacy of 960 Baja Street; and that pushing back the third level would create additional articulation.

Board Member Weil stated that he was not supportive of the project that evening but was supportive of providing direction to the Applicant; that the program is too close to street; that setbacks should be aligned with the neighboring properties; that Baja Street has many three-story homes and therefore he felt the project to be neighborhood compatible in that regard; that he would like to see the house lowered by one-foot; that the balconies need to be balanced; that he appreciates the balcony planter element because it creates privacy; that the windows facing the rear and any bathroom windows should be frosted; and that the project was headed in the right direction with the Applicant's additional modifications and the Board's direction.

Board Member Thalman stated that she agrees with Board Member Gibbs comments regarding the second and third level massing and its impact to the neighbor's directly north and south, particularly as it relates to 191
191 of 623
Appeal of Approval of DR 23-1274 at 950 Baja Street
July 9, 2024

privacy; that she supports the number of proposed parking spaces; and that glazing should be reduced due to the large size of the proposed structure.

Chair Sheridan stated that he would like the building lowered by 24-inches; that he did a comparative study of 50-foot lots in the area and agrees with Mr. Etow that the average size of homes on 50-foot lots is 2,850 square feet, and would therefore like to see the project scaled back. He further stated that Board Member Gibbs' and Gannon's direction was clear and that he had nothing more to add.

Chair Pro Tern Gannon requested that the motion include a condition to remove the project staking during the holidays to which the Applicant confirmed the stakes would be removed before Thanksgiving.

7. Board Motion (November 9, 2023)
Board Member Weil made a motion to continue the public hearing to January 25, 2024. The motion passed unanimously. On November 9, 2023, the Board continued the public hearing to January 25, 2024.

B. January 25, 2024 Public Hearing

1. Project Overview (January 25, 2024)
On January 25, 2024, staff presented the following most notable revisions to the Board: ( 1) reduction of the building setback on the second level by removing the elevated planter area, reconfiguring the deck, and adjusting the building walls (approximate 5'-8"~ 6'-1 0" reduction from varying wall planes); (2) reduction of the third level (approximate 6'-2" reduction) by pushing back the building walls and reducing the size of the deck; 3) removal of the spa on the third level deck; 4) one-foot reduction at the south (side) of structure; 5) reduction of the gross floor area by approximately 495 square feet with the aforementioned reductions; 6) incorporation of opaque glazing at the north-facing bathroom window; and 7) modification of the exterior building color to a deep tan. (See January 25, 2024 Board staff report and resolution included as Attachment 5).
192
192 of 623
Appeal of Approval of DR 23-1274 at 950 Baja Street
July 9, 2024

Street Facing Elevation (2,u1 Hearing)
Rear Elevation (2nd Hearing)

2. Applicant presentation (January 25, 2024)
The Applicant indicated that the square footage of the home had been reduced by 2% for better compatibility with neighborhood comparable homes; that after consulting with their Civil Engineer, lowering of the structure is limited by the allowable driveway slope and mechanical drainage; that the plate heights for the upper and middle levels are 9-feet and 8-feet for the lowest level, which is the lowest possible for a 193
193 of 623
Appeal of Approval of DR 23-1274 at 950 Baja Street
July 9, 2024

contemporary design; that additional obscuring of windows was included; that the spa was removed, that the exterior building color was revised to a deep tan color; that the decks were reduced with the uppermost deck stepping back from the second level and built-in landscape planter area removed; that the building was moved back 3.5-feet from the street and one-foot from the southside; and that all levels were reduced in size with an overall reduction of approximately 500 square feet.

3. Public Comments (January 25, 2024)
a. Ayse McGuire (945 Katella Street)
Ms. McGuires stated that very little was revised to address her concerns; that the project is still substantially inconsistent with the pattern of development in the neighborhood resulting in impacts to view, privacy, and mass and scale; that her ocean, white water, and downtown views would be impacted; that the garage should be relocated to the southwest corner of the site to allow the entire structure to be lowered; and that if the driveway were designed with a downward slope rather than an upward slope then this would result in a lower building height.
b. Emiliana Borrelli (960 Baja Street)
Ms. Borrelli presented a series of photos taken from her home demonstrating the view and privacy impacts created by the proposed project. She indicated that the proposed setback at the north side yard is very minimal and that the proposed stairs in this area would impact her privacy; that the building needs to be set back further away from her property to ensure her privacy; that the windows on the north elevation would look into her home; and that overall, the project needs to be reevaluated. c. Paige Lyall (940 Baja Street)
Ms. Lyall indicated she did not believe enough modifications were proposed to address neighborhood concerns. She noted that the building height is still the same; that she evaluated approximately 34 separate 5,000 square foot lots along Baja Street, Katella Street, Cortez Avenue, Capistrano Avenue, and Del Mar Avenue and that the average square footage of these homes are 2,397 square feet; that the design guidelines for hillside development says to step down the house with the hillside; that the rear roof line height should be different from the front roofline height; and that there is a street in front of the project site (Bonnie Brae Avenue) that people assume is a driveway, but is a street; therefore, there will never be future development in front of the subject property to block the Applicant's view in the future. d. Glenn Etow (930 Baja Street)
Mr. Etow stated that he lives three doors south of the project; that the project did not follow the design guidelines for hillside development which encourages designs that step back with the hillside; that the proposed decks do not follow the same setbacks as the other properties on Baja Street, but project further, which would cause view impacts; that the Applicant was not cooperative with the neighbors in discussing the project.
e. Ant/tony Smitlt (955 Katella Street)
Mr. Smith stated the proposed project would obstruct his horizon view from his lower patio and requested that the project to be lowered; that the slope of driveway be reversed to lower the building height; and that there appears to be no change in staking from the first hearing in terms of height. 194
194 of 623
Appeal of Approval of DR 23-1274 at 950 Baja Street
July 9, 2024

f. Osman Tune Aksoy (945 Katella Street)
Mr. Aksoy stated the proposed project impedes their ocean and downtown view, and that no changes to height were made since the first hearing. He requested that the project be lowered in order to preserve his views; that the garage be relocated to the southwest comer to lower the structure; that a three-to-four-foot height reduction would allow his ocean and downtown views to be preserved. He further presented a contextual height analysis of the neighborhood demonstrating that the neighborhood consisted of a balance of two to three story homes but based on an analysis of the gross floor area to lot size ratio of 16 prope1iies, the proposed home is much larger than the surrounding homes. Lastly, he stated that not enough neighborhood communication occurred from the Applicant. g. Anne. Kane (965 Katella Street)
Ms. Kane requested that the project be re-designed to be neighborhood compatible and less oversized. h. David Howe (934 Baja Street)
Mr. Howe stated that he agrees with all of neighbor's concerns, but his main concerns are with the massing and privacy impacts due to the proposed balconies; and that he would like the garage to bet set back further. i. Souri Amirani (975 La Mirada Street)
Ms. Amirani stated that she believed the second proposal was worse than the initial proposal after viewing the revised staking, and that the project needs to be revised to address the neighbors' concerns.

4. Applicant Response (January 25, 2024)
After hearing the public testimony, the Applicant responded that with respect to reversing the driveway slope, the proposed length of the driveway is 21-feet with the Municipal Code allowing a maximum driveway slope of 10%; therefore, the structure can be lowered two-feet at most, rather than the four to five feet suggested by the neighbors; that in consulting with their Civil Engineer it was preferable to place the driveway on the upper side of the lot in terms of drainage and to prevent vehicles from bottoming out; that if the garage and entry to the home were reversed then this would further impact the privacy of 960 Baja Street (Borrelli Residence); that he believed neighborhood compatibility had changed through the decades in terms of floor area ratio to lot size; and that the proposed stairs along the side and rear of the home were required for fire access.

5. Board Questions (January 25, 2024)
Board Member Thalman verified whether high performance glass was being proposed to address her glazing concerns to which the Applicant responded that high performance glass is the next generation for glazing; that it can significantly cut down glare and is being proposed on the west (street facing) elevation.

6. Board Deliberation (January 25, 2024)
Board Member Gibbs stated that after reviewing the Board's deliberation from the first hearing, he did not believe the Board's concerns were adequately addressed with the proposed modifications; that the issue does not lie with the proposal for three levels, but with the overall mass and scale, which hasn't been substantially modified; that he specifically requested the third level be pulled back significantly to follow the topography of the site, to improve neighborhood compatibility, and to provide more articulation, but this was not completed; that other 5,000 square foot lots within the neighborhood have substantially less 195
195 of 623
Appeal of Approval of DR 23-1274 at 950 Baja Street
July 9, 2024

square footage than the proposed project; that this project proposes a 25% increase in terms of square footage; that constructing a larger house would alter the neighborhood compatibility and change the standard for 5,000 square foot lots; that the proposed mass and scale of the structure cannot be found elsewhere in the neighborhood; that the solution is to reduce the size of the third level; that the views from Katella Street were not an issue because white water views would be eliminated from the first floor levels regardless, but if the third level were pulled back this could open up views for the Katella neighbors; that privacy is an issue and if the project were to come back for a third hearing, the windows should be reoriented to minimize direct privacy impacts to the neighbors; and that the privacy issues with 960 Baja Street created by the proposed entry way should be resolved with a wall or screen.

Chair Pro Tern Gannon stated that lowering the house changes nothing for properties on Katella Street because the only way to maintain the existing views for those properties is to eliminate the entire upper floor, which would not be a reasonable request. She stated that she concurs with Board Member Gibbs in that view equity has been achieved; that with regard to privacy, 960 Baja Street was built at an angle to capture the side angle view, but such a design would never be approved today; that the proposed windows appear to be positioned to maximize privacy, but should be reviewed for further improvement if possible; that privacy has been achieved for the downhill abutting neighbor; that the proposed design has been further articulated to reduce appearance of mass; that the project does exhibit Arch Beach Heights neighborhood compatibility; that the proposed design is consistent with the existing pattern of development in the area; that a screening material should be added along the stairs on northside to ensure privacy and security for northerly neighbor; and that it appears that north coast view would be preserved from every house on Katella Street along with horizon and Catalina views.

Board Member Thalman stated that she still has concerns; that she appreciates the high performance glass to address her glazing concerns; that the structure should be pushed back and lowered not to achieve view equity but to be neighborly and to allow those with ceremonial views to preserve them; that she understands that vacant lots can be challenging for neighbors; that the proposed stairs on north side need to be redesigned to ensure privacy for the northerly neighbor; that with regard to neighborhood compatibility she has concerns with mass and scale based on the proposed square footage on a 5,000 square foot lot; that she understands the need for bigger homes, but would like the Applicant to consider reducing plate heights and pulling in the house further to help with massing concerns.

Board Member Weil stated that the Arch Beach Heights specific plan area is generally boxy in design by nature, especially on the uphill side; that in viewing the stringlines from behind the subject property, the stringlines appear compatible with the uphill and downhill neighboring property although this is not a code requirement; that Catalina and ocean horizon views are maintained for the properties behind and that pulling in the south elevation helped open up views for the rear neighbors; that privacy impacts with the windows have been addressed properly for the southerly neighbor with opaque windows but additional window modifications can be made for the northerly neighbor; that pulling in the structure on upper level can provide for better articulation and potentially open up views for the northerly neighbor; that overhanging eaves could affect views; that the Applicant should consider additional grading or swapping the garage location; and that overall, reductions need to occur and be considered more carefully. 196
196 of 623
Appeal of Approval of DR 23-1274 at 950 Baja Street
July 9, 2024

Chair Sheridan stated that while the project height should be lowered, no amount of lowering would be enough to preserve the views for the properties behind the project site; that views are shared and view equity has been achieved; that the privacy issue for 960 Baja Street needs to addressed; that the project should be lowered to the greatest extent possible to help protect the ocean horizon views for the neighbors behind on Katella Street; and that by lowering the structure a bit and addressing the neighbor's privacy concerns he could be supportive of the project.

The Applicant requested to forego a third hearing and offered to lower the structure by one-foot by proposing plate heights of eight-feet on the middle and lower levels and nine-feet on the upper level, but stated that it would be unreasonable to reduce the plate heights further for a contemporary design; that he would push back the upper level back by an additional two-feet; that he would work with staff to reduce glazing on the north elevation by 20% and raise the window sills; and that he would be willing to work with the northerly neighbor at 960 Baja Street to install a privacy wall or fence along the proposed stairway in the side yard. Further, the Applicant requested guidance from the Board on how much the third level should be reduced and that the City's code does not dictate maximum gross floor area but rather the appearance of mass and scale.

Board Member Thalman and Chair Sheridan stated that the Applicant should work with the neighbor to determine the appropriate height of the wall or fence, and that further communication and cooperation with neighbors is necessary.

Chair Pro Tern Gannon indicated the third level should match the adjacent downhill property's setbacks.

Board Member Gibbs stated that the Applicant should not refer to the downhill property for compatibility because it is a smaller lot, but should refer to the uphill property located at 960 Baja Street because it is also a 5,000 square foot lot; that the Applicant must work with the neighbors in revising the project; and that the proposed balconies must be in line with the other homes on the street for compatibility.

Board Member Weil stated that the Applicant should review the windows on the third level north elevation to improve privacy for the northerly neighbor; and that further reductions should be proposed on the third level at the north (side) and west (front) elevations for additional articulation and relief for the northerly neighbor.

Board Member Gibbs objected to conditional approval of the project and believed the Applicant has additional work to do to address mass and scale issues to which Board Member Weil and Chair Sheridan concurred.

7. Board Motion (January 25, 2024)
The Board collectively agreed that the Applicant had attempted to address the Board's concerns in good faith thus far, and believed the Applicant would continue to do so with a third hearing, and therefore determined the finding for a third hearing could be made. 197
197 of 623
Appeal of Approval of DR 23-1274 at 950 Baja Street
July 9, 2024

Board Member Weil made a motion to grant a third hearing and continue the public hearing to March 28, 2024. The motion passed unanimously. On January 25, 2024, the Board continued the public hearing to March 28, 2024.

C. March 28, 2024 Public Hearing

1. Project Overview (March 28 2024)
On March 28, 2024, staff presented the following most notable revisions to the Board:
1) Reduction of overall building height by one-foot due to a 6-inch plate height reduction on the middle and upper-level); 2) reduction of the west (front) building wall on the middle and upper level; 3) additional obscuring of windows on the upper-level north (side) elevation with frosted glass; 4) additional obscuring of windows on the east (rear) elevation with opaque glass at the hallway and bathrooms; and 5) incorporation of a 2' -6" frosted glass privacy buffer on top of the 3 '-6" high wall along the north (side) property line. A condition of approval was included to lower the height of the wall to a maximum height of 4-feet within the front yard setback for compliance with code standards. Additionally, staff provided the Board with the table below outlining the changes to the proposed project across the three hearings:

Development Required pt Hearing Change 2nd Hearing Change 3rd Hearing Standard (11/9/23) (1/25/24) (3/28/24)
Building Site 41.75% 39.17% -1.81 % 37.36% No change 37.36% Coverage maximum Landscape 19.17% 21.15% +0.38% 21.53% No change 21.53% Open Space .. mm1mum Height
(Lowest floor 30' -0" 30' -0" No change 30' -0" 1 '-0" 29' -0" to top of roof)
Height
(Rear Lot Line 15'-0" 11 '-6" No change 11 '-6" 1 '-0" 10'-6" above Street)
Setbacks
Front 5' -0" 21 '-0" No change 21 '-0" No change 21 '-0" (garage) (garage) (garage) (garage)
10' -0" 10'-9" No change 10'-9" No change 10'-9"
(house) (house) (house) (house)
Side (North) 6' -0" 6' -0" No change 6'-0" No change 6'-0" Side (South) 4'-0" 4' -0" + 1 '-0" 5 '-0" No change 5' -0" 10 '-0"
(combined)
Rear 20' -0" 20' -0" No change 20' -0" No change 20' -0" 198
198 of 623
Appeal of Approval of DR 23-1274 at 950 Baja Street
July 9, 2024

Proposed Street Elevation (3rd Hearing)

2. Applicant Presentation (March 28, 2024)
The Applicant presented additional information to the Board indicating a surveyor had come out to the project site to verify that the setback of the proposed structure would be identical in terms of edge of structure and edge of deck to the neighboring properties. Additionally, as shown in exhibits below, he noted that the entry stairs would be pushed back as far back as possible (17-feet) to provide more relief to the northerly neighbor; that planters with hedges would be installed along the side property line to provide privacy for the northerly neighbor; that the wrap around aspect of the third level deck would be pulled back by four-feet and the structure reduced by four-feet; and that three trees (Pittosporums) would be installed at the rear elevation to reduce massing and maintained at the height of the proposed building eaves. 199
199 of 623
Appeal of Approval of DR 23-1274 at 950 Baja Street
July 9, 2024

17'-0"
' / i
EQUISETU 1 HYEMAfE - ~ORSETAiL GRASS - 4' h x 1
("1,;t_'a ;,},:~1~~=.""J,~\':1;:;
r,l:) INENSI 11=-~~-~w-- ---.:-----~.-,~~~ >I.I
@----+-----.J(r--i·-f··-··--·-·· ---~---------t·
I F,S.O. jB•JILOltJG)! :, , . . 1 : ! ---- I I I - - - ' 5'-(1 ' ' ..-- ~ c!'-,--'1-t/,.;._---+------<- Jt-rf --~- - ------- , OARMJ ---•r"-;;. _________ ---- .

I - - • 1 '-<f
-<", j rs.
,ob
L -... ~
I
Proposed Reductions to Street Floor Level
200
200 of 623
Appeal of Approval of DR 23-1274 at 950 Baja Street
July 9, 2024

REMOVE 3' X 12' OF DECK
r··-··- ··-··- ··-··-
, -----,··-· I • • : i i I . •
•• . ··-··-+··-··-+··-·· I , ,
: i i I , :
: I
I : I T.O.RAI
I : 11 s.2·
I

LINE OF FLOOR BELOW
~,'----- ----~
"~
---- -- -j·- --~-- !
-· - .. -----·--·- - ·- - - --.. ·-··--·-
KI TCHEN !
l_o~j DINING!
i
i
I
===B=D=RM=#::;:j:::I~ ,OSMI'
rtProposed Reductions to Middle Floor Level
T. I
"6'+i
201
201 of 623
Appeal of Approval of DR 23-1274 at 950 Baja Street
July 9, 2024

I
I _/ :
: I I ---7---·- '-·----:·------·--· •• ••
; ,o1o- . I

FAMILY ROOM
F.F. 121.5'
I FS 9. (D~ILOltiG} ; MASTER
; S',O' l BEDROON I G.t.lV.CE l\. :
: I
! I I
I _ _j
f .S,
121.2·
I . ,
--, --t ~1.-. _-_-__ ~ ~--t!:_= __ t;_=_t!: __ ~_e" __ ;;;:;-;:;;;; _-_;_~~~~~-~--=-~--~---~ --~-! __=_~_~.-~.~ ....... ~ .. ti _ _ ·-·--·--··- ., - ··- --·--·----:__· __ __ j _ I j
L . ·-··-··-··-··- ··----··-··--·-··- ··--·-··- ··-··-··-··-··-·-;-k--·- ··-·~ ·- ··-··-··-··-··-··- ··- - Proposed Reductions to Upper Floor Level

3. Public Comments and Board Deliberation (March 28, 2024) Nine members of the public spoke in opposition to the project expressing concerns related to the following design review criteria: neighborhood compatibility, design articulation, privacy, and view equity. The Board proceeded to deliberate whether the Applicant's proposed modifications adequately satisfied the Board's prior direction to demonstrate greater consistency with design articulation, neighborhood compatibility, privacy, and view equity.

Board Members Gibbs and Weil indicated concerns with design articulation and neighborhood compatibility particularly as it relates to mass and scale still remained and that the additional modifications were not substantial enough to make the findings that evening. Further, Board Member Gibbs expressed fear that approving this project would set a new precedent for mass and scale and alter the pattern of development within the neighborhood.

In contrast, Chair Sheridan, Chair Pro Tern Gannon, and Board Member Thalman generally agreed that with the additional modifications presented by the Applicant at the third hearing, the project could be found consistent with the design articulation, neighborhood compatibility, privacy, and view equity design criteria in that the proposed project characterizes Arch Beach Heights architectural style, mass and scale; that proper 202
202 of 623
Appeal of Approval of DR 23-1274 at 950 Baja Street
July 9, 2024

articulation techniques referenced within the City's Design Guidelines were incorporated into the project's design; that privacy concerns have been sufficiently addressed by the Applicant; that the proposed project would not umeasonably impact neighbor's views and that views for surrounding properties would be maintained; that the project demonstrates compliance with development standards (i.e., lot coverage requirement) and that design articulation does not govern floor area ratios for projects.

See Attachment 6 for an AI generated transcript of the meeting. A video of that meeting is posted on the City's website at the following link:
https://lagunabeachcity.granicus.com/player/clip/2311 ?view id=3&redirect=true

4. Board Motion (March 28, 2024)
Chair Pro Tern Gannon made a motion to approve the project subject to the conditions contained in Board Resolution 23-1274 with the added condition that final building plans incorporate all modifications shown in the exhibit submitted to staff and presented to the Board on March 28, 2024, and be reviewed for compliance with all LBMC requirements.

RESPONSES TO ISSUES RAISED ON APPEAL
Below is a summary of the numbered grounds for Appellants' appeal as set forth in Appellants' notice of appeal and staffs responses to such grounds:

1. Mass and scale of the proposed structure were not accurately shown in proper context.

Staff response:

The Applicant provided architectural plans, including scaled and dimensioned elevations drawings and scaled renderings to illustrate the design of the proposed structure (see Attachment 7). As required by LBMC

25.05 .040(C)(2) staking was installed and certified by a licensed surveyor prior to each DRB hearing. The LBMC requires the following with respect to staking: "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 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).) Attached is the certification for the staking before the first hearing, second hearing, and third hearing (Attachment 8).

During the Applicant's presentation at the third hearing, the Applicant indicated that the staking at the front of the property was inadvertently installed incorrectly for the second hearing; therefore, the project did not appear to be setback as far as actually designed to be setback. In other words, the staking at the second public hearing showed a bigger project than the project actually designed. The staking had been corrected and revised to reflect the additional, further modifications prior to the third hearing. As a result, before the Board made its decision at the third public hearing, it reviewed accurate staking of the Applicant's proposed design, which cured any issues.
203
203 of 623
Appeal of Approval of DR 23-1274 at 950 Baja Street
July 9, 2024

The Board considered many public comments relating to the square footage of homes and of lots of neighboring properties. The Board discussed the project design, including mass and scale, and found the project to be consistent with the Design Articulation and Neighborhood Compatibility criteria with the proposed modifications and as outlined below:

Design Articulation
Design Review Criterion, 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 Design Guidelines are intended to clarify the findings and criteria that members of the community, design professionals, and the City use in the Design Review process. Chapter 4 of the Design Guidelines addresses Design Articulation. (See Attachment 9 for City's Design Review Guidelines.) The Board adopted Resolution No. 23-1274 in which the Board found that the proposed project is consistent with Design Review criteria related to Design Articulation as outlined in the Design Review section of the staff report. (See Section 3 of Board Resolution No. 23-1274.) The Design Review section of the staff report addresses Design Articulation and cites to the following supportive facts:
"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 proposed design incorporates articulation techniques including offset wall planes, balconies, built-in landscape planters, glazing of varied sizes, and contrasting building materials and colors. The required four parking spaces are proposed within an attached garage in a tandem configuration. Due to the tandem design, the proposed garage appears as a two-car garage from the exterior.

Additionally, the proposed garage is recessed further than the rest of the ground level to further reduce the perceived mass of the building and garage. The revised design reduces the appearance of mass and bulk by reducing the overall height of the structure by one foot by lowering the plate heights on the middle and upper levels. Additional reductions include further offsetting the north (front) building wall on the middle and upper levels of the home to match the building wall setback of the property directly north, built-in landscape planters have been removed from both middle and upper levels, the deck size on the third level has been reduced along with the removal of the spa, and the building has been pushed in by one-foot along the southside of the structure. Overall, approximately 495 square feet of gross floor area has been removed. Additionally, the proposed exterior building color has been modified to a deep tan color." 204
204 of 623
Appeal of Approval of DR 23-1274 at 950 Baja Street
July 9, 2024

Street Facing Elevation (JS1 Hearing)
Street Facing Elevation (3rd Hearing)
Neighborhood Compatibility
Street Facing Elevation (211d Hearing)
Design Review Criterion, 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 Design Guidelines issues design objectives based on site analysis, architectural compatibility without conformity, historical presence, lot coverage, building mass, height, and setbacks, landscape and hardscape design, and garage design, placement, and scale.
205
205 of 623
Appeal of Approval of DR 23-1274 at 950 Baja Street
July 9, 2024

The Board adopted Resolution No. 23-127 4 in which the Board found that the proposed project is consistent with Design Review criteria related to Neighborhood Compatibility as outlined in the Design Review section of the staff report. (See Section 3 of Board Resolution No. 23-1274.) The Design Review section of the staff report addresses Neighborhood Compatibility and cites to the following supportive facts:
"The pattern of development in the surrounding neighborhood primarily consists of 25 to 50 foot wide lots developed with three-story structures and many contemporary designs similar to that of the proposed project. The proposed design is consistent with the neighborhood's pattern of development in that other contemporary styles exist in the neighborhood and conforms to the visual scale of the neighborhood consisting of many three- story structures. While the entry stairs for the proposed dwelling shows an approximate IO-foot setback, the proposed ADU on southside of the street level would be setback approximately 14' -1 0" from the front property line and the garage on the northside would be setback approximately 21 '-0" from the front property line. On the second level, the decks would be setback approximately 14' from the front property line and habitable area would begin approximately 23 to 26-feet from the property line. Lastly, on the third level, the elevated deck would provide an approximate 18-foot front setback and habitable area would be setback approximately 25 to 27-feet from the front property line. The neighboring property to the north provides an approximate 10-foot front setback from the entry stairway while the dwelling structure begins 20-feet from front property line. The neighboring property to the south provides an approximately 14-foot setback from the upper decks to the property line, while the habitable space on the second-floor level begins approximately 21-feet from property line. Overall, the front of the proposed dwelling has been revised to incorporate additional articulation with multiple wall planes to reduce the appearance of bulk and mass, and the height of the overall structure was reduced by one foot for better neighborhood compatibility."
Therefore, staff finds that the mass and scale of the proposed structure was accurately shown in proper context.

2. Privacy concerns were not addressed.

Staff response:

Several of the surrounding neighbors raised privacy concerns across the three hearings. The Board discussed privacy concerns at length through the hearings, and directed the Applicant to make modifications to directly address the neighbor's concerns. The Board found the project to be consistent with the Privacy criteria as outlined below:

Privacy
Design Review Criterion, 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 Design Guidelines are intended to clarify the findings and criteria that members of the community, design professionals, and the City use in the Design Review process. Chapter 12 of the Design Guidelines addresses Privacy.
206
206 of 623
Appeal of Approval of DR 23-1274 at 950 Baja Street
July 9, 2024

The Board adopted Resolution No. 23-1274 in which the Board found that the proposed project is consistent with Design Review criteria related to Privacy as outlined in the Design Review section of the staff report. (See Section 3 of Board Resolution No. 23-1274.) The Design Review section of the staff report addresses Privacy and cites to the following supportive facts:

The proposed project places outdoor activity areas including decks at the front of the property and a larger setback is proposed along the north side yard in areas adjacent to the proposed kitchen, dining, and family room area of the dwelling. Additionally, the ABHSP 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. Windows proposed within 10 feet of adjacent buildings have incorporated opaque glazing. The revised project eliminates the spa on the third level balcony, provides an additional l '-0" distance along the south side setback, and incorporates opaque glazing for the bathroom along the north elevation, frosted glass has been incorporated on the upper-level north facing bathrooms and windows sills have been raised 42- inches, and opaque glass has been incorporated on the east (rear) facing windows at the hallway and bathrooms. Additionally, a 2'-6" frosted glass privacy buffer is proposed on top of the 3'-6" high wall along the north property line to address the privacy concerns from the northerly neighbor. Staff has been made aware of concerns from neighboring properties related to privacy concerns. The Board should evaluate the revised design and project staking to ensure that privacy impacts have been minimized."
With the revisions to the proposed design including reductions to the structure, decks, incorporation of additional glazing, privacy wall, and landscaping, the Board found that the privacy criterion has been met.

Therefore, staff finds that the privacy concerns were addressed.

3. Neighborhood compatibility was not properly addressed.

Staff response:

As discussed above in response to Appeal Contention No. 1, the Board found that the Neighborhood Compatibility Criterion had been met. Therefore, staff finds that neighborhood compatibility was properly addressed.

4. View equity was not represented fairly for neighbors most impacted by the proposed structure.

Staff response:

As required by LBMC 25.05.040(C)(2) staking was installed and certified by a licensed surveyor prior to each DRB hearing. The LBMC requires the following with respect to staking: "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 the 207
207 of 623
Appeal of Approval of DR 23-1274 at 950 Baja Street
July 9, 2024

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).) Attached is the certification for the staking before the first hearing, second hearing, and third hearing.

During the Applicant's presentation at the third hearing, the Applicant indicated that the staking at the front of the property was inadvertently installed incorrectly for the second hearing; therefore, the project did not appear to be setback as far as actually designed to be setback. In other words, the staking at the second public hearing showed a bigger project than the project actually designed. The staking had been corrected and revised to reflect the additional, further modifications prior to the third hearing. As a result, before the Board made its decision at the third public hearing, it reviewed accurate staking of the Applicant's proposed design, which cured any issues.

View Equity:

Design Review Criterion, View Equity: "The development, including its landscaping, shall be designed to protect existing views from neighboring properties without denying the subject property the reasonable opportunity to develop as described and illustrated in the City's 'Design Guidelines.' The 'Design Guidelines' are intended to balance preservation of views with the right to develop property." The Design Guidelines are intended to clarify the findings and criteria that members of the community, design professionals, and the City use in the Design Review process. Chapter 15 of the Design Guidelines addresses View Equity.

The Board adopted Resolution No. 23-1274 in which the Board found that the proposed project is consistent with Design Review criteria related to View Equity as outlined in the Design Review section of the staff report. (See Section 3 of Board Resolution No. 23-1274.) The Design Review section of the staff report addresses View Equity and cites to the following supportive facts:
"Staff has not received any new public comments as of the date of this report was written from neighbors describing view equity concerns based upon the revised project staking. The Board should evaluate the revised design and project staking to ensure that view equity has been achieved." The subject property is currently vacant and the rear property line site approximately 20-feet above the front property line. The proposed structure is one foot below the maximum allowable height at the front of the structure and 2-3.75-feet below the maximum allowable height in the rear half of the structure.

Throughout the three hearings, the Board's deliberation included comments indicating view equity had been achieved and that the proposed structure would not unreasonably impact views for the abutting properties.

More specifically, Chair Pro Tern Gannon expressed that lowering the house would achieve little in terms of preserving existing views for the properties directly behind without eliminating an entire floor level which would be an unreasonable request, and that even with the proposed project, ocean horizon and north coast views would be preserved for many of the surrounding properties. Board Member Gibbs, Thalman, and Weil echoed the same in that views would be maintained for the properties behind on Katella Street and for the properties adjacent to the project on Baja Street. Additionally, Chair Sheridan shared photos during the 208
208 of 623
Appeal of Approval of DR 23-1274 at 950 Baja Street
July 9, 2024

deliberation that he had taken during his site visits with several neighboring properties demonstrating that existing views would be maintained for those neighbors and expressed that views must be shared between neighbors.

Therefore, staff finds that view equity was represented fairly for neighbors.

5. There is little to no evidence of additional changes to design articulation of the elevations.

Staff response:

As discussed above in response to Appeal Contention No. 1, the Board found that the Design Articulation Criterion had been met.

Based on the Board's direction to improve design articulation and neighborhood compatibility at the first hearing, the Applicant revised the project by: 1) providing a greater offset on the second level (approximate 5 '-8" ~ 6' -1 0" reduction from varying wall planes) by removing the elevated planter area, reconfiguring the deck, and adjusting the building walls; 2) providing a greater offset on the third level (approximate 6'-2" reduction) by pushing back the building walls and reducing the size of the deck; 3) removing the spa on the third level deck; 4) reducing the structure by 1-foot on the southside of the dwelling; 5) reducing the gross floor area by approximately 495 square feet with the aforementioned reductions; 6) incorporating opaque glazing for the north-facing bathroom window; and 7) modifying the building color to a deep tan.

At the second hearing, the Board provided additional direction to further improve design articulation and neighborhood compatibility. In response, the Applicant further revised the project by: 1) lowering the overall height of the structure by one-foot by reducing the plate heights on the middle and upper-level; 2) further reducing the west (front) building wall on the middle and upper level; 3) obscuring the windows on the upper-level north (side) elevation with frosted glass; 4) obscuring the windows on the east (rear) elevation with opaque glass at the hallway and bathrooms; and 5) incorporating a frosted glass privacy buffer on top of the proposed wall along the north (side) property line.

As required by LBMC 25.05.040(C)(2) staking was installed and certified by a licensed surveyor prior to each DRB hearing. The LBMC requires the following with respect to staking: "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 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).) Attached is the certification for the staking before the first hearing, second hearing, and third hearing. (LBMC Section

25.05.040(C)(2).)
During the Applicant's presentation at the third hearing, the Applicant indicated that the staking at the front of the property was inadvertently installed incorrectly for the second hearing; therefore, the project did not appear 209
209 of 623
Appeal of Approval of DR 23-1274 at 950 Baja Street
July 9, 2024

to be setback as far as actually designed to be setback. In other words, the staking at the second public hearing showed a bigger project than the project actually designed. The staking had been corrected and revised to reflect the additional, further modifications prior to the third hearing. As a result, before the Board made its decision at the third public hearing, it reviewed accurate staking of the Applicant's proposed design, which cured any issues.

Therefore, staff finds there is sufficient evidence of changes to design articulation of the elevations.

6. Staking was installed incorrectly and was not revised to show the Applicant's proposed modifications.

Staff response:

As required by LBMC 25.05.040(C)(2) staking was installed and certified by a licensed surveyor prior to each DRB hearing. The LBMC requires the following with respect to staking: "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 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).) Attached is the certification for the staking before the first hearing, second hearing, and third hearing. (LBMC Section

25.05.040(C)(2).)
During the Applicant's presentation at the third hearing, the Applicant indicated that the staking at the front of the property was inadvertently installed incorrectly for the second hearing; therefore, the project did not appear to be setback as far as actually designed to be setback. In other words, the staking at the second public hearing showed a bigger project than the project actually designed. The staking had been corrected and revised to reflect the additional, further modifications prior to the third hearing. As a result, before the Board made its decision at the third public hearing, it reviewed accurate staking of the Applicant's proposed design, which cured any issues.

Therefore, Staff finds that although there is evidence that the staking may have been installed incorrectly before the second public hearing, there is evidence that the staking was installed correctly before the third public hearing. Since the Board made its decision after the third public hearing, any such error with staking at the second public hearing was cured.

7. Additional modifications were proposed to the DRB at the third hearing without revised staking or neighborhood communication.

Staff response:

The City's Municipal Code requires restaking before each public hearing if the project is modified and the Board determines it is necessary to restake. It does not require restaking for every change to the project imposed 210
210 of 623
Appeal of Approval of DR 23-1274 at 950 Baja Street
July 9, 2024

by the Board at a public hearing. LBMC Section 25.05.040(a) states the following: "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 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." Attached is the certification for the staking before the first hearing, second hearing, and third hearing.

Prior to the third hearing, the Applicant met with several neighbors and Board members to review the revised project design. Upon hearing the neighbor and Board's remaining concerns, the Applicant presented additional modifications to the Board with a request for the changes to be included as conditions of approval. The changes included reduction to the entry stairs at the north side of the property, incorporation of privacy hedges at the north side property line, reduction in deck size at the middle and upper levels, and incorporation of three Pittosporums trees at the rear of the property. The Board reviewed the proposed modifications and approved the project with the added condition that all modifications shown in the exhibit submitted to staff and presented to the Board on March 28, 2024, be incorporated into final building plans and reviewed for compliance with all LBMC requirements. As referenced above, the Board approved the project subject to such condition of approval and did not find it necessary to hold another hearing or restake the project.

Therefore, staff finds that the additional modifications proposed to the DRB at the third hearing did not need to be restaked nor was Applicant required to communicate further with the neighborhood.

8. Landscaping modifications were proposed without the ability for the neighbors or City's landscape consultant to review.

Staff response:

The submitted landscape plan for the first hearing was submitted to the City's landscape consultant. The submitted landscape plans for the second and third hearing did not include landscape modifications except for removal of built-in landscape planters on the proposed elevated decks to address Design Articulation (mass and scale) concerns. The removal of the landscape planters did not require additional review by the City's landscape reviewer because landscaping that previously reviewed and cleared for hearing were being removed and no new additional landscaping was being proposed to warrant an additional review. During the third hearing, the Applicant proposed installation of three Pittosporum trees in the rear yard to break up the perceived mass of the structure at the rear and the incorporation of planters and hedges along the north side property line to provide additional privacy for the northerly neighbor. The landscape modifications were conditionally approved subject to City review during the Building Plan Check process.

Landscaping
Design Review Criterion, 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 211
211 of 623
Appeal of Approval of DR 23-1274 at 950 Baja Street
July 9, 2024

the City's "Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document" should be incorporated, as appropriate, in the design and planned maintenance of proposed landscaping." The Design Guidelines are intended to clarify the findings and criteria that members of the community, design professionals, and the City use in the Design Review process. Chapter 7 of the Design Guidelines addresses Landscaping.

The Board adopted Resolution No. 23-1274 in which the Board found that the proposed project is consistent with Design Review criteria related to Landscaping as outlined in the Design Review section of the staff report. (See Section 3 of Board Resolution No. 23-1274.) The Design Review section of the staff report addresses Landscaping and cites to the following supportive facts:
"Yes. 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 impact any public views. 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."
Therefore, staff finds that the changes made to the landscape plan following the first public hearing did not need to be reviewed by the City's landscape consultant. Further, staff finds that the neighbors were able to participate during the three public hearings to comments on the landscape plan.

9. Proper neighborhood communication did not occur by the Applicant and architect.

Staff response:

As part of the application submittal, LBMC requires early neighbor communication for all Design Review projects ("Early Neighbor Communication"). (See LBMC Section 25.05.040 (C)(l).) In summary, the Municipal Code requires the following:
• The applicant must communicate with owners of property within 300 feet of the applicant's property notifying them of the proposed project (the "Early Neighbor Notice"). • The applicant should provide the Early Neighbor Notice prior to deciding on a final design to help resolve potential conflicts, but must provide the Early Neighbor Notice prior to being scheduled for a hearing date.
• The Early Neighbor Notice must be prepared by a professional listing services, on behalf of the applicant, and must be mailed to the owners of property within 300 feet of the applicant's property. • The Early Neighbor Notice must include the following information:
o Applicant contact information
o Location of the proposed project
o A description of the proposed project
o Information on how to participate in the design review process 212
212 of 623
Appeal of Approval of DR 23-1274 at 950 Baja Street
July 9, 2024

The Early Neighborhood Communication Certification forms (Attachment 10) submitted by the Applicant verifies that reasonable steps to contact neighbors within 300 feet of the proposed project has occurred prior to hearing. Additionally, staff was copied on e-mails sent by the Applicant team to several surrounding neighbors prior to the third hearing offering to meet and discuss the revised design.

As required by LBMC 25.05.040(C)(2) staking was installed and certified by a licensed surveyor prior to each DRB hearing. The LBMC requires the following with respect to staking: "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 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).) Attached is the certification for the staking before the first hearing, second hearing, and third hearing. (LBMC Section

25.05.040(C)(2).)
During the Applicant's presentation at the third hearing, the Applicant indicated that the staking at the front of the property was inadvertently installed incorrectly for the second hearing; therefore, the project did not appear to be setback as far as actually designed to be setback. In other words, the staking at the second public hearing showed a bigger project than the project actually designed. The staking had been corrected and revised to reflect the additional, further modifications prior to the third hearing. As a result, before the Board made its decision at the third public hearing, it reviewed accurate staking of the Applicant's proposed design, which cured any issued.

Further, City has confirmed that the City provided public notice subject to the provisions of Section 25.05.065, including mailing the public hearing notice as required and posting the public hearing notice as required. Lastly, staff has confirmed that the agendas for the three Board meetings were posted at least 72 hours in advance of such meetings.

Therefore, staff finds that the Applicant complied with the City's Early Neighbor Communication rules and staking requirements.

PUBLIC COMMENTS
Staff has received supplemental comments from the appellant since the original filing of the appeal included as Attachment 11. For purposes of the design review permit, the City Council is limited to the grounds specifically stated in the notice of appeal. (LBMC Section25.05.070(E)(2).)

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolution to deny the appeal and sustain the Board's approval of Design Review 23-1274.

FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The recommended action has no financial impact.
213
213 of 623
Appeal of Approval of DR 23-1274 at 950 Baja Street
July 9, 2024

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The Project qualifies for a Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15303 of the State CEQA Guidelines - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures (Class 3), which "consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small structures, such as a single-family residence in a residential zone.

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 to the exemptions set forth under State CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2 apply. There are no cumulative impacts because there will be no successive projects of the same type on this same site over time. There are no unusual circumstances that apply to the Project that would result in a reasonable possibility for a significant effect on the environment. There are no scenic resources within an officially designated scenic highway on or near the Project site that would result in damage to those scenic resources as a result of the Project. The Project site is not included on any list compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. There are no historical resources on or near the Project site such that there would be a substantial adverse change in the significance of such historical resource. Thus, the Project is exempt pursuant to Class 3, and no further environmental review is required.

The Public Notice and Order of Testimony are provided as Attachments 12 and 13.

ATTACHMENTS

1. DRB Staff Report March 28, 2024 Hearing, Resolution (Pgs. 32-50)

2. Appeal (Pgs. 51-53)

3. City Council Resolution (Pgs. 54-80)

4. DRB Staff Report November 9, 2023 Hearing (Pgs. 81-94)

5. DRB Staff Report January 25, 2024 Hearing (Pgs. 95-111)

6. AI Generated Transcript of March 28, 2024 DRB Hearing from MP4 Video (staff does not certify the completeness of the data (Pgs. 112-125)

7. Project Plans and Renderings (Pgs. 126-164)

8. Certified Staking Plans (Pgs. 165-168)

9. City's Design Review Guidelines:
https ://www.lagunabeachcity.net/home/ showpublisheddocument/ 12 9 8 9 / 6380013 31177400000

10. Early Neighborhood Communication Certification Form (Pgs. 169-170)

11. Supplemental Appellant Narrative (Pgs. 171-203)

12. Public Notice (Pgs. 204-205)

13. Order of Testimony (Pgs. 206-207)
Report Prepared By: Coordinated With:

Kate Kazama, Associate Planner Jane Azbug, Deputy City Attorney 214
214 of 623
Attachment 10
215
215 of 623
216
216 of 623
217
217 of 623
218
218 of 623
219
219 of 623
220
220 of 623
221
221 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 ........ DOLUH]D KDJKLJKDW DOLUH]D KDJKLJKDW cover sheet/summary table POOL/SPA DETAILS 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 DIMENSIONS (L x W x D) VOLUME/GALLONS 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 DEMOLITION (Non-Coastal Appealable Area) EXISTING SF or LF DEMOLISHED SF or LF LEVEL PERCENT OF DEMO DEMO or = 50% (Yes or No) > ? 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 222
DRAWN BY: REVISION BY: SHEET NO.: ISSUED DATE: PLOT DATE: NO. DATE DESCRIPTION. REVISIONS hugo
soria
& company 950 baja st.
laguna beach, ca 92651 ........ 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 2016 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.
223
DRAWN BY: REVISION BY: SHEET NO.: ISSUED DATE: PLOT DATE: NO. DATE DESCRIPTION. REVISIONS hugo
soria
& company 950 baja st.
laguna beach, ca 92651 ........ DOLUH]D KDJKLJKDW DOLUH]D KDJKLJKDW proposed site plan 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. LONGITUDINAL LINE

TRANSVERSAL LINE
6'-0"
S.S.B. 4'-0"
S.S.B. 20'-0" REAR S.B. SEWER PIPE 5'-0" EAVE 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" 224
DRAWN BY: REVISION BY: SHEET NO.: ISSUED DATE: PLOT DATE: NO. DATE DESCRIPTION. REVISIONS hugo
soria
& company 950 baja st.
laguna beach, ca 92651 ........ 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"
6'-0"
S.S.B.
4'-0"
S.S.B. 20'-0" REAR S.B. PROJECT NORTH MAGNETIC NORTH
225
DRAWN BY: REVISION BY: SHEET NO.: ISSUED DATE: PLOT DATE: NO. DATE DESCRIPTION. REVISIONS hugo
soria
& company 950 baja st.
laguna beach, ca 92651 ........ 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 planscale 1/4"=1'-0" PROJECT NORTH MAGNETIC NORTH 226
DRAWN BY: REVISION BY: SHEET NO.: ISSUED DATE: PLOT DATE: NO. DATE DESCRIPTION. REVISIONS hugo
soria
& company 950 baja st.
laguna beach, ca 92651 ........ DOLUH]D KDJKLJKDW DOLUH]D KDJKLJKDW proposed upper level floor plan 5'-0" GARAGE S.B. 10'-0" F.S.B. (BUILDING) 20'-0" REAR S.B. proposed upper level floor plan scale 1/4"=1'-0" 6'-0"
S.S.B.
4'-0"
S.S.B. PROJECT NORTH MAGNETIC NORTH
227
DRAWN BY: REVISION BY: SHEET NO.: ISSUED DATE: PLOT DATE: NO. DATE DESCRIPTION. REVISIONS hugo
soria
& company 950 baja st.
laguna beach, ca 92651 ........ DOLUH]D KDJKLJKDW DOLUH]D KDJKLJKDW proposed roof plan &
solar ready roof area plan 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. 5'-0" EAVE proposed roof plan scale 1/4"=1'-0" Legend : proposed solar ready roof area plan scale 1/8"=1'-0" Legend : PROJECT NORTH MAGNETIC NORTH 228
DRAWN BY: REVISION BY: SHEET NO.: ISSUED DATE: PLOT DATE: NO. DATE DESCRIPTION. REVISIONS hugo
soria
& company 950 baja st.
laguna beach, ca 92651 ........ DOLUH]D KDJKLJKDW DOLUH]D KDJKLJKDW proposed section a-a proposed section "A-A" scale 1/4"=1'-0" 229
DRAWN BY: REVISION BY: SHEET NO.: ISSUED DATE: PLOT DATE: NO. DATE DESCRIPTION. REVISIONS hugo
soria
& company 950 baja st.
laguna beach, ca 92651 ........ DOLUH]D KDJKLJKDW DOLUH]D KDJKLJKDW proposed section b-b proposed section "B-B" scale 1/4"=1'-0" 230
DRAWN BY: REVISION BY: SHEET NO.: ISSUED DATE: PLOT DATE: NO. DATE DESCRIPTION. REVISIONS hugo
soria
& company 950 baja st.
laguna beach, ca 92651 ........ DOLUH]D KDJKLJKDW DOLUH]D KDJKLJKDW proposed section c-c proposed section "C-C" scale 1/4"=1'-0" 231
DRAWN BY: REVISION BY: SHEET NO.: ISSUED DATE: PLOT DATE: NO. DATE DESCRIPTION. REVISIONS hugo
soria
& company 950 baja st.
laguna beach, ca 92651 ........ 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 232
DRAWN BY: REVISION BY: SHEET NO.: ISSUED DATE: PLOT DATE: NO. DATE DESCRIPTION. REVISIONS hugo
soria
& company 950 baja st.
laguna beach, ca 92651  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 233
DRAWN BY: REVISION BY: SHEET NO.: ISSUED DATE: PLOT DATE: NO. DATE DESCRIPTION. REVISIONS hugo
soria
& company 950 baja st.
laguna beach, ca 92651 ........ DOLUH]D KDJKLJKDW DOLUH]D KDJKLJKDW proposed section d-d proposed section "D-D" scale 1/4"=1'-0" 234
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 ........ DOLUH]D KDJKLJKDW DOLUH]D KDJKLJKDW proposed south elevation
Keyed Notes : Smooth trowel stucco Metal roofing
built-up roofing
Metal railing Metal eave
235
DRAWN BY: REVISION BY: SHEET NO.: ISSUED DATE: PLOT DATE: NO. DATE DESCRIPTION. REVISIONS hugo
soria
& company 950 baja st.
laguna beach, ca 92651 ........ 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 236
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 ........ DOLUH]D KDJKLJKDW DOLUH]D KDJKLJKDW proposed east elevation
Keyed Notes : Smooth trowel stucco Metal roofing
built-up roofing
Metal railing Metal eave
237
DRAWN BY: REVISION BY: SHEET NO.: ISSUED DATE: PLOT DATE: NO. DATE DESCRIPTION. REVISIONS hugo
soria
& company 950 baja st.
laguna beach, ca 92651 ........ DOLUH]D KDJKLJKDW DOLUH]D KDJKLJKDW calcs.
proposed street level floor plan scale 1/8"=1'-0" proposed main level floor planscale 1/8"=1'-0" proposed upper level floor plan scale 1/8"=1'-0" 6'-0"
S.S.B.
4'-0"
S.S.B. 5'-0" GARAGE S.B. 10'-0" F.S.B. (BUILDING) 20'-0" REAR S.B. 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. 12'-1 3/4"
25'-1 7/8" 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. PROJECT NORTH MAGNETIC NORTH
238
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. LONGITUDINAL LINE

TRANSVERSAL LINE
6'-0"
S.S.B. 4'-0"
S.S.B. 20'-0" REAR S.B. SEWER PIPE 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 ........ DOLUH]D KDJKLJKDW DOLUH]D KDJKLJKDW proposed exterior lighting plan
proposed exterior lighting planscale 1/4"=1'-0" PROJECT NORTH MAGNETIC NORTH 239
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 ........ 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 full- size 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 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 alsorecognized 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. 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. 5'-0" EAVE PROJECT NORTH MAGNETIC NORTH 240
241
DRAWN BY: REVISION BY: SHEET NO.: ISSUED DATE: PLOT DATE: NO. DATE DESCRIPTION. REVISIONS hugo
soria
& company 950 baja st.
laguna beach, ca 92651 ........ DOLUH]D KDJKLJKDW DOLUH]D KDJKLJKDW

RECORD OF SURVEY
242
243
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. LONGITUDINAL LINE

TRANSVERSAL LINE
6'-0"
S.S.B. 4'-0"
S.S.B. 20'-0" REAR S.B. SEWER PIPE DRAWN BY: REVISION BY: SHEET NO.: ISSUED DATE: PLOT DATE: NO. DATE DESCRIPTION. REVISIONS hugo
soria
& company 950 baja st.
laguna beach, ca 92651 ........ 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) 6'-0"
S.S.B.
4'-0"
S.S.B. 20'-0" REAR S.B. LONGITUDINAL LINE

TRANSVERSAL LINE
6'-0"
S.S.B. 4'-0"
S.S.B. 20'-0" REAR S.B. SEWER PIPE
244
DRAWN BY: REVISION BY: SHEET NO.: ISSUED DATE: PLOT DATE: NO. DATE DESCRIPTION. REVISIONS hugo
soria
& company 950 baja st.
laguna beach, ca 92651 ........ 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 SPECSLANDSCAPE 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. LONGITUDINAL LINE

TRANSVERSAL LINE
6'-0"
S.S.B. 4'-0"
S.S.B. 20'-0" REAR S.B. SEWER PIPE PROJECT NORTH MAGNETIC NORTH 245
DRAWN BY: REVISION BY: SHEET NO.: ISSUED DATE: PLOT DATE: NO. DATE DESCRIPTION. REVISIONS hugo
soria
& company 950 baja st.
laguna beach, ca 92651 ........ 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 2016 CFC AND 2016 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 2016 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%. 64' 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. LONGITUDINAL LINE

TRANSVERSAL LINE
6'-0"
S.S.B. 4'-0"
S.S.B. 20'-0" REAR S.B. SEWER PIPE 63' FIRE HOSE PULL FROM ENGINE PROJECT NORTH MAGNETIC NORTH 246
DRAWN BY: REVISION BY: SHEET NO.: PROJECT NUMBER: ISSUED DATE: PLOT DATE: NO. DATE DESCRIPTION. REVISIONS A.N.  EARTHWORK QUANTITIES GRADING Outside of Structural Footprint Inside of Structural Footprint TOTAL 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.
247
DRAWN BY: REVISION BY: SHEET NO.: PROJECT NUMBER: ISSUED DATE: PLOT DATE: NO. DATE DESCRIPTION. REVISIONS A.N.  LEGEND 6" ATRIUM GRATE (NDS 90) AREA DRAIN PER DETAIL ON SHT GD-4 6"PVC, SCH. 40, DRAIN PIPE (ASTM D1785) @ MIN. 2% SLOPE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, 4" PERFORATED PVC SUBDRAIN ,(ASTM D1785) @ MIN 1% 4" PVC CLEANOUT NEW RETAINING WALL DRAIN, CONNECT TO DRIANGE SYSTEM 1/4 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. 1. PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OF ANY DRAINAGE SYSTEM, VERIFY ITS OUTLET ELEVATION TO ASSURE POSITIVE DRAINAGE. IN CASE OF ANY DISCREPANCIES, CONTACT THE ENGINEER. 2. 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. 3. IN CASE OF ANY DISCREPANCIES WITH THE SHOWN DRAIN INLETS TOPS AND FLOWLINES, OR IN CASE OF ANY DIFFERING SITE CONDITIONS, CONTACT THE ENGINEER. 4. BEFORE BACKFILLING ANY DRAINAGE SYSTEM CONTACT THE ENGINEER FOR FIELD INSPECTION AND APPROVAL. 5. CONNECT NEW AND ACTIVE ROOF DOWNSPOUTS, DECK DRAINS, PLANTER DRAINS, AND RETAINING WALLS SUB-DRAINS TO THE NEAREST LANDSCAPED AREA, MORE THAN 10' FEET AWAY FROM THE BUILDING, OTHERWISE, TO THE NEW DRAINAGE SYSTEM , WHERE OCCURS. 6. CONNECT EXISTING DRAINAGE SYSTEM TO NEW DRAINAGE WHERE OCCURS. 7. DRAINAGE SHALL BE MAINTAINED AND CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE AND THE 2022 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 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.   248
DRAWN BY: REVISION BY: SHEET NO.: PROJECT NUMBER: ISSUED DATE: PLOT DATE: NO. DATE DESCRIPTION. REVISIONS A.N.  LEGEND CUT AREA FILL AREA 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. CUT CUT CUT     249
DRAWN BY: REVISION BY:

SHEET NO.:

ISSUED DATE:

PLOT DATE:

NO. DATE DESCRIPTION.

REVISIONS
hugo
soria
& company 950 baja st.
laguna beach, ca 92651
02-07-24
alireza haghighat alireza haghighat QSPQPTFETUSFFUMFWFMGMPPSQMBO 5'-0"
GARAGE S.B.
10'-0"
F.S.B. (BUILDING)
QSPQPTFETUSFFUMFWFMGMPPSQMBO
TDBMF
’±
6'-0"
S.S.B.
4'-0"
S.S.B.
20'-0"
REAR S.B.

PROJECT
NORTH

MAGNETIC
NORTH
17'-0"

STREET LEVEL RECONFIGURED STAIRWAY & LANDSCAPE
ARBUTUS 'COMPACTA' - DWARF STRAWBERRY TREE - 6' H X 4' W MISCANTHUS SINENSIS - CHINESE SILVER GRASS - 3' H X 3' W EQUISETUM HYEMALE - HORSETAIL GRASS - 4' h x 1.5' W
GATE
250
250 of 623
DRAWN BY: REVISION B
SHEET NO.:

ISSUED DATE:

PLOT DATE:

NO. DATE DESCRIPT

REVISIONS
hugo
soria
& company 950 baja st.
laguna beach, ca 92651
02-07-24
alireza haghighat alireza haghig
QSPQPTFENBJOMFWFMGMPPSQMBO
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.

QSPQPTFENBJOMFWFMGMPPSQMBO
TDBMF
’±

PROJECT
NORTH

MAGNETIC
NORTH

MID LEVEL DECK REMOVAL
REMOVE 3' X 12' OF DECK
251
251 of 623
4'-0" 9'-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
02-07-24
alireza haghighat alireza haghighat QSPQPTFEVQQFSMFWFMGMPPSQMBO 5'-0"
GARAGE S.B.
10'-0"
F.S.B. (BUILDING)
20'-0"
REAR S.B.

QSPQPTFEVQQFSMFWFMGMPPSQMBO
TDBMF
’±
6'-0"
S.S.B.
4'-0"
S.S.B.

PROJECT
NORTH

MAGNETIC
NORTH
4' - 0"
REMOVE 4'
REDUCED 4'
DECK
UPPER LEVEL FAMILY ROOM & DECK ARTICULATED BACK 4'
252
252 of 623
Pittosporum 'Silver Sheen' 15' H x 7' W Maintain to roof eave 253
253 of 623

Mayor Sue Kempf:

Let's get started. Okay. This is appeal of approval design review for new single family residenceMayor Sue Kempf:

At 950 Baja Street in the Arch Beach Heights specific plan area. I'll turn this over to David Contreras and Kate for staff report.

Kate Kazama:

Good evening, Mayor Kempf and council members. I'm Kate Kazama, an associate planner with the Community Development Department. And the last item before you tonight is an appeal of the approval of Design Review 23-1274 for a new single family residence at 950 Baja Street. The slide before you is an aerial of the project site and surrounding area. The 5,000 square foot subject property is located on the east side of Baja Street between Capistrano and Cortez Avenue within the Arch Beach Heights specific plan area. The project site is currently vacant and has no prior development history.

The applicant requests design review to construct a new 3,525 square foot dwelling with an attached four car garage, 520 square feet of elevated deck area across the second and third levels of the home, and an attached ADU on the first level that is not subject to design review. The Design Review Board initially heard this project on November 9th, 2023, and during the hearing the board received public testimony from seven surrounding neighbors expressing concerns related to neighborhood compatibility, view equity and privacy. After discussing the concerns raised by the members of the public and evaluating the project's consistency with the design review criteria, the board continued the project with direction for the applicant to, one, reduce the mass and scale of the building by lowering the overall height and pushing the dwelling further away from the street. Two, remove the spa from the third level deck. Three, reduce the amount of glazing, and four, ensure opaque windows are incorporated for all bathrooms facing a neighboring property.

The applicant returned to the board on January 25th, 2024 for a second hearing and addressed the board's concerns by pushing back the second level by removing the elevated planter area, reconfiguring the deck and adjusting the building walls. The third level was reduced as well by pushing back the third level living area, eliminating the spa and reducing the overall deck size. The width of the structure was reduced by one foot on the south side of the dwelling. Additional opaque glazing was added to the north facing bathroom window, and the building color was modified to a tan color. Overall, 490 square feet of floor area was eliminated for the second hearing.

During the second hearing, the board received public testimony from nine residents expressing concerns related to neighborhood compatibility, view equity and privacy, and the board provided additional direction to the applicant to make further reductions to the third level on the north and west ends of the structure, to reduce the overall height of the structure. Three, further reduce the overall square footage of the structure. Four, incorporate additional frosted glass greening material on top of the perimeter wall along the north property line for privacy and security purposes, and five, mitigate any privacy concerns created by proposed window locations.

The applicant returned for the third and final hearing on March 28th, 2024 with the following modifications. They reduced the overall building height by one foot with plate height reductions. They reduced the west building wall on the middle and upper level. Additional obscuring of windows on the upper level north side elevation was added with frosted glass. Additional obscuring of windows on the east rear elevation with opaque glass was included and a frosted glass privacy buffer on top of the three and a half foot wall on the north side property line was included as well. During the hearing, the applicant presented additional changes to the project to push back the stairway at the north side, Attachment 12
254
254 of 623

reduce the middle level deck at the north side by 36 square feet, push back the upper level deck by four feet at the front and incorporate additional landscaping at the north side and rear yard.

After discussing the concerns raised by the members of the public and evaluating the project's consistency with the design review criteria, the board voted 3-2 to conditionally approve the project and include the changes presented by the applicant during the third hearing. An appeal was filed by a property owner within 300 feet of the subject property indicating eight points of contention. The following slides will provide the contentions and staff's response to each contention. It should be noted that greater detail for each contention has been provided in the agenda report.

Appeal Contention 1 states mass and scale of the proposed structure were not accurately shown in proper context. The applicant provided architectural plans, including scaled and dimension elevation drawings and scaled renderings to illustrate the design of the proposed structure. As required by the city's municipal code, staking was installed and certified by a licensed surveyor prior to each DRB hearing. The board considered many public comments relating to the square footage of homes and of lots of neighboring properties. The board discussed the project design, including mass and scale and found the project to be consistent with the design articulation and neighborhood compatibility criteria with the proposed modifications as outlined in the staff report.

Contention 2 states that privacy concerns were not addressed. Several of the surrounding neighbors raised privacy concerns across the three hearings. The board discussed privacy concerns at length during the hearings and directed the applicant to make modifications to directly address the neighbors' concerns. The board found the project to be consistent with the privacy criteria as outlined in the staff report.

Contention 3 state's neighborhood compatibility was not properly addressed. With respect to neighborhood compatibility design review criteria, the city's residential design guidelines states, "Development shall be compatible with the existing development in the neighborhood and respect to neighborhood character. Neighborhood character is the sum of the qualities that distinguish areas within the city, including historical patterns of development, village atmosphere, landscaping themes and architectural styles. The guidelines issues design objectives based on site analysis, architectural compatibility, historical presence, lot coverage, building mass, height, setbacks, landscape and hardscape design, and garage design placement and scale." The board adopted resolution 23-1274, in which the board found that the proposed project is consistent with the neighborhood compatibility design criteria, as outlined in the Design Review section of the staff report.

Contention 4 states view equity was not represented fairly for neighbors most impacted by the proposed structure. As required by the municipal code, staking was installed and certified prior to each DRB hearing. With respect to view equity, the design guideline states that development, including its landscaping, shall be designed to protect existing views from neighboring properties without denying the subject property the reasonable opportunity to develop it 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. Throughout the three hearings, the board's deliberation included discussion indicating view equity had been achieved and that the proposed structure would not unreasonably impact views for the abutting properties. The board adopted resolution 23-1274, in which the board found that the proposed project is consistent with the view equity design criteria as outlined in the Design Review section of the staff report.

Contention 5 states there is little to no evidence of additional changes to design articulation of the elevations. The project design was modified for the second and third hearing, as discussed earlier in staff's presentation. These changes were reflected in the submitted project plans and revised staking at the property.
255
255 of 623

Contention 6 states that staking was installed incorrectly and was not revised to show the applicant's proposed modifications. As required by the municipal code, staking was installed and certified by a licensed land surveyor prior to each DRB hearing. During the applicant's presentation at the third hearing, the applicant indicated that the staking at the front of the property was inadvertently installed incorrectly for the second hearing. Therefore, the project did not appear to be setback as far as actually designed to be set back. In other words, the staking at the second hearing showed a bigger project than the project actually designed. The staking had been corrected and updated to reflect the additional modifications prior to the third hearing. As a result, before the board made its decision at the third hearing, they reviewed accurate staking of the applicant's proposed design.

Contention 7 states additional modifications were proposed to the DRB at the third hearing without revised staking or neighborhood communication. The city's municipal code requires restaking before each public hearing if the project is modified and the board determines it is necessary to restake. The applicant revised the staking prior to the third hearing based on the revised project plans for that hearing. Before the hearing, the applicant met with several neighbors and board members to review the revised project design. Upon hearing the neighbor and board's remaining concerns, the applicant presented additional modifications to the board with a request for the changes to be included as conditions of approval. The board reviewed the proposed modifications and approved the project with the added condition that all modifications shown in the exhibit submitted to staff and presented to the board on March 28th, 2024 be incorporated into final building plans and reviewed for compliance with all code requirements. The board approved the project subject to such condition and did not find it necessary to hold another hearing or restake the project.

I'll also add that since the third hearing, the applicant has installed additional staking to reflect the changes that were conditioned. They've left the original staking from the third hearing as well as the new staking for comparison purposes.

And lastly, Contention 8 states that the landscaping modifications were proposed without the ability for the neighbors or city's landscape consultant to review. During the third hearing, the applicant proposed installation of three pittosporum trees in the rear yard to break up the perceived mass of the structure at the rear and the incorporation of hedges along the north side property line to address privacy concerns for the northernly neighbor. The landscape modifications were conditionally approved subject to city review during the building plan check process. Therefore, the changes to the landscape plans are still subject to review.

Further, staff finds that the neighbors were able to participate during the three hearings to comment on the landscape plan. And then this last slide provides a street elevation comparison across all three hearings. The first hearing street elevation is on the...

Mayor Sue Kempf:

What is that yelling? Yeah.

George Weiss:
[Inaudible 00:12:13].

Mayor Sue Kempf:

Okay, sorry. Kate, go ahead. It's just weird.

Kate Kazama:
256
256 of 623

The top left is the street elevation from the first hearing, below that is for the second, and to the right is the third hearing. You'll see the largest changes between the first and second hearing is the removal of the planters, the landscape planters, reduction of the deck sizes and pulling the building walls back.

Between the second and third hearings, the changes are more subtle, but the building height has been reduced by a foot and building walls and decks have been slightly reduced as well.

Based on the facts stated in the agenda report, staff believes that the board's approval of the project was based on substantial evidence. Therefore, staff is recommending that the City Council deny the appeal and sustain the board's decision to approve the project and find the project categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA. This concludes my presentation.

Mayor Sue Kempf:

Thank you. Question, Megan, so it's a de novo, it was a 3-2 vote, right? Megan Garibaldi:

Yes, ma'am. Same as the last item.

Mayor Sue Kempf:

Yeah. Thank you. And then Kate, do you have a slide that shows the staking? Kate Kazama:

The actual staking?
Mayor Sue Kempf:

The staking is extremely confusing on this project. I couldn't tell like... I don't know. I couldn't tell. We had a lot of discussion about the staking. It was just there were some old ribbons and there were some brand new pink ribbons and then there was some steak with red on the side. I mean, I had a really hard time figuring what the hell had been going on there. Okay, so anyway, it was kind of hard to figure out.

Okay. I'll ask for council comments or questions for staff. Anybody? No? Okay. Okay, so I'll open the public hearing. So Paige is the appellant, Paige Lyle is appellant and so you have five minutes. And anybody else who wants to speak on behalf of the appellant, you have three minutes.

Paige Lyle:

Good evening, City Council, members, staff, and neighbors. Thank you for visiting our homes and listening to our concerns. My name is Paige Lyle and I live at 940 Baja. I've lived in my home 22 years and attended many DRB meetings specifically for 935 Baja across the street. Throughout the many projects proposed, there were communications and conversations with the architects and property owners. Our request for meetings with this project team were ignored, except for the last minute meeting the day prior to the third DRB meeting, as they scrambled to make last minute changes. There are many issues with this project. Mass and scale are obvious walking up to it.

For the second DRB meeting, we analyze the information on all 5,000 square foot lots on Baja, Katella, Cortez, Capistrano, and Del Mar for a total of 33 5,000 square foot lots, with an average square foot of 2,385. Many were built in the '60s and '70s, but 65 to 70% of those have been renovated. For the appeal, we have pared-down the list down to only 5,000 square foot lots on the upside of the street, which is the location of this house. The list I provide is 15 homes, the largest is 3,082 square feet and an average of 2,256 square feet. This house is significantly larger. 257
257 of 623

Four DRB members were concerned about the mass and scale, three even in the final DRB meeting.

Some of the comments. The first, Tom Gibbs, "The problem starts with the second floor and third floor balcony in particular. It looks like a big mass from the street." Don Sheridan, "Find more than 18 inches. 24 inches would be very helpful, especially to the neighbors behind." Kristine Thalman, "Privacy for 940 and 960 Baja." She was also concerned about the window glazing.

For the second DRB meeting, the house was reduced approximately 500 square feet, which included moving the south wall north one foot and minor changes in front. They agreed to reduce the height one foot during the second DRB meeting. These changes had minimal impact to the mass and scale. All suggestions by the neighbors to reduce the size and height were ignored or we were told it couldn't be done, including moving the garage entrance from the north to the south and sloping the driveway downward. We were told by other architects and engineers it could be done. They didn't want to do it.

Some of the comments during the second meeting, Tom Gibbs, "Issue isn't three story, but overall mass hasn't changed. The third story has to be pulled back significantly to match the terrain and compatibility and articulation that is neighborhood compatible, especially in light of the information on 5,000 square foot lots that have substantially less square footage than the project." Kristine, "Push back and push down." Don Sheridan. "Project has to come down somewhat." Shared views, privacy issues for Dr.

Borrelli.

Actually, Tom Gibbs presented a pretty detailed analysis of the mass, and I emailed that to all of you per the request of Mr. Rounaghi and also Mr. Weiss. This house requires only three parking spaces. They have four and an ADU in the garage which contributes to the mass. If one parking space is removed, the ADU and house could be pushed back. Our block is unique with four large lots on the west side of Baja, which provides plenty of parking. The balconies on both floors closely online with my home, but I have a 2,500 square foot lot. It looks to me like they took my home and placed it on that lot twice side by side and moved one of the upper balconies back a few feet in their minor concessions. This house lacks any articulation. This house is not compatible with the neighborhood.

DRB member, Tom Gibbs stated, "This house would forever change Arch Beach Heights," and he is right.

Any home on a 5,000 square foot lot will be at risk of being purchased by an outside investor. A spec home this size will be built only to be sold to the highest bidder. For these reasons, we ask you approve our appeal. Thank you for your time.

Alex Rounaghi:

The parking thing, can you say that again, what you said about that? Paige Lyle:

The parking requirements for this sized house is only three. They have four.

Alex Rounaghi:

Okay.

Paige Lyle:

I had another person that used to be on the DRB say that if you reduce one of the parking spaces, then you can actually possibly move the ADU back a little bit farther, which means that the mass can also be reduced.

Alex Rounaghi:
258
258 of 623

Because the ADU is at the same level as the garage?
Paige Lyle:

The ADU is in the garage.

Alex Rounaghi:

Okay. Thank you.

Mayor Sue Kempf:

Thank you. Anybody else want to speak? Okay. You have three minutes.

Emiliana Borrelli:

Good evening. I am Emiliana Borrelli and I live at 960 Baja. I have been living there for the last 17 years.

So my major issue with this project is my privacy. They have been requested by the different member of the DRB to reduce the mass, to push back the house to do something to preserve my privacy, but nothing was made. And what I have in particular is that there are two decks on their second and third floor that directly impact into my house on my ceremonial room and my master bedroom and guest bedroom.

Furthermore, there are windows on the side of the house that face my house, and these windows are exactly in front of mine, and therefore the privacy in my house is totally lost on the two floors. So we have had hardly any discussion with Mr. Soria or Mr. Kawaratani. And there are problems, for example, even on my deck in terms of noise, in terms of there is a kitchen on the other side, so in terms of smell, and I really don't know anymore what to say and how to convince... For instance, on the design, there is a fountain that is just facing my deck. And so there, again, there will be noise all the time. So nothing of this has been modified or, my opinion, has been even asked to kind of find a common ground for both.

So after the project was accepted at 3/22, I have been looking at the rules that govern the City of Laguna Beach, the Residential Design Guidelines, and it's really stated in different chapter that, for example, "Give design consideration to outdoor areas as to indoor areas considering existing development." This is not done. "Avoid excessive building mass," not done. "Avoid the roof hanging at [inaudible 00:22:48] level," not done. "Where privacy is a concern, consider alternative design. For window, consider a clear story or obscure window." Not done. "Minimize the impact of decks and balconies," and it's not done.

So I hope that... The project as it is impacts my house and my life as well as that of our neighbors. Thank you.

Mayor Sue Kempf:

Thank you.

Anne Cain:

Anne Cain. Good evening, Mayor and Council. I'm reading part of the letter Chris Ito sent you. She and her husband arranged plans to attend the June meeting and when it was postponed, they were unable to reschedule. So she wrote, "It is unfortunate that an appeal had to be filed as a result of the March 28 DRB approval for the 950 Baja Street project. I'm urging the City Council to reverse this irregular DRB decision since it does not adhere to the crucial criteria cited in the Laguna Beach Residential Development Guidelines and is in direct conflict of the design standards particular to the Arch Beach Heights specific plan, such as building mass and density, privacy and view equity." 259
259 of 623

Excuse me.
"Both Hugo Soria and Steve Kawaratani chose to ignore very clear and direct instructions by the DRB members, yet at the third hearing, this project was approved after negligible design change." You've already received the quotes from the commissioners and from the January 25 DRB meeting, so I'll just skip those.
"Additionally, the inappropriate conduct of Mr. Kawaratani at the hearing was extremely disconcerting.

After nine residents of Lower Arch Beach Heights shared their specific concerns of the Baja project due to its egregious lack of neighborhood compatibility, overall mass, the absence of design articulation, privacy issues, and significant loss of view equity for foreign neighboring homes, he began his three minute rebuttal and when time ran out, requested additional time that Chairman Sheridan granted. He spoke well beyond the additional time, attempting to bargain directly with individual DRB members, offering to make minimal and vague changes if he or she voted to approve the project that evening. "This cajoling and unethical behavior continued until finally one of the DRB members said, 'We are not going to approve this tonight. Come back with the changes that were suggested.' The Baja Project does not follow development standards, nor does it meet the design review criteria. I hope you carefully and objectively consider all the facts that have been presented by the many upset and concerned residents of Lower Arch Beach Heights." Thank you.

Mayor Sue Kempf:

Thank you, Anne. Come on up.

Susan Bond:

Someone's got to go. Hi, my name is Susan Bond, and I live at 955 Katella Street, and I'm directly above the 950 Baja project. And essentially, I just echo what everyone else has already said, so nothing really new. Just that we're all very concerned over this project because it compromises a lot of different issues that have been discussed. It does not fit the neighborhood. It's not compatible. It's too large for the square footage. If one looks at the surrounding homes, this house is too large for the lot size as compared to the majority of homes in the neighborhood.

Tom Gibbs recognized this in the prior DRB meetings. There has been no consideration on lowering the height of the house, which would assist with our view preservation. There are many options that should have been considered addressing that. If the project were allowed to continue as is, this would set a precedent that would affect the overall characteristics of Arch Beach Heights. People from all over the world visit Laguna Beach. It's known for idyllic settings. This will harm Laguna Beach reputation if the project is allowed to continue, my concern. Thank you very much.

Mayor Sue Kempf:

Thank you.

Anthony Smith:

Good evening, council members. My name's Anthony Smith and I live with my wife, Susan Bond at 955 Katella Street. What I'd like to say is that I think we've been speaking this evening about the neighborhood compatibility, but I don't really see how this development is compatible with the neighborhood. I think the sheer volume and size of this particular house is just way too much for the actual size of the plot that it's on. We've spoken with various people in the past at the various meetings, 260
260 of 623

Design Review Board meetings, to actually ask whether the architect, Hugo Soria could take on board the recommendations that both the board and the neighbors had.

But it seems within that dialogue period that we haven't really achieved an awful lot and I don't know whether that's because people have listened and not really actually taken any action to correct things, or if indeed those corrections were not actually voiced or communicated directly with the neighbors themselves. And I think that's been one of the big issues here is that we've not had enough communication and it's been very sparse and it's been very remedial in the sense of really giving out accurate information.

We spoke a little bit about the stake poles. The poles have been appearing at different points, different heights, and it has been confusing. And at times, because our house sits directly behind this property, it's difficult really to see anything other than the poles. And I think there really needs to be a discussion here as to actually what we can really do to really resolve some of these issues that have been discussed in the past. And again, I think the sheer size and mass is just too extreme for the actual plot size. But thank you very much. Thank you.

Mayor Sue Kempf:

Thank you.

Vince Dibiasi:

Good evening, Mayor, Council, staff, neighbors. My name is Vince Dibiasi. I live in the neighborhood with my wife and I've lived there for 25 years. We're at 1207 La Mirada. We're not adjacent directly to this, but Arch Beach Heights is my stomping grounds and we live there and we love it. I'm one of the few architects around, I guess, that I actually like the design review process. I think it does exactly what it's supposed to do in this town because it's tight and it has views and it has values and it's unique. So I like it and I always do the best that I can to fit within those things.

I think you should deny it. I think this thing should be appealed and the appeal should be upheld. Arch Beach Heights itself has a whole set of its own set of rules. If you've seen the guidelines for Arch Beach Heights, it's crazy because of the size lots, 25 foot lots, 50 foot lots, et cetera. 19 foot wide houses, 40 foot wide houses. One of the things you have to realize on when you get these 50 foot wide lot, when you're building a 40 foot wide house and it's still straight up like the 19 foot houses, it's a solid wall. It's a solid facade no matter what you do with it. If you look at most of the 50 foot lots up there, the houses are pretty much L shaped. There's pieces of them pushed back and pulled forward. By pushing decks back and forth and planters in and out, that's not changing the facade of the real structure back there.

That's what you need to work with. So having just a wall of glass being disguised by planters going in and out is not what you're trying to do for proper articulation.

One of the things I wanted to bring up too, because it's been brought up in the past here is that one of the questions was, can the house be lowered? So I took a look at it and one of the neighbors brought it up, "What about if we move the garage to the south side?" You know what? It works. You can drop the house three feet. That's a lot because when you're looking at each one of these lots, you have to look at them as individual lots, especially in Arch Beach Heights. Actually, one of the interesting things here, your guiding principles and this is part of the policy manual, not the rest of it, it says, "Ensure development is responsive to the individual site restraints." This is an individual site restraint.

The people around there, they're already living there. You don't want to just plop something there that isn't being sensitive to those things. And I think that's what is supposed to happen here. I face it all the time. I'm an architect. I do this stuff. It's fine to have guidelines, but you also have to be sensitive to the street, the neighbors, what's going to happen, all of those things. Say they decide not to build it, even 261
261 of 623

though they have a design review approval, well, that doesn't do any good. But if you actually appeal this thing and stop it and make it look, go back and take a look at it from a real aesthetic standpoint, you can at least establish something that is going to be consistent, long term and fit in the neighborhood, right? Thanks very much.

Mayor Sue Kempf:

Thank you. Anybody else speaking on behalf of the appellant? Okay. The applicant has five minutes.

Steve, are you going to talk for the applicant?
Steve Kawaratani:

Could you cue me up again, IT? Thank you. Steve Kawaratani representing the applicant, David Lou, who's with me this evening. Good evening. You guys are looking pretty perky. I know this is your favorite thing to do, being Design Review Board. These two slides show the project as it was approved by the Design Review Board, and the second image is from the back with the landscaping that I discussed with all five of you. We're respectfully requesting that the council adopt the staff's recommendation to deny the appeal for the following grounds.

Before I get into that, this is our second empty vacant lot of the evening, and I'm sure the council appreciates that what the board looks at is tough. It's tough for the neighbors as well. They've enjoyed 10, 15, 20 years of no development and suddenly someone is putting up story poles. To go to Sue's point, I did pass over an image where I took out those offending stakes that were creating a problem for you, Sue, and I put a little black line. And so what you're seeing, those little black lines were all moved back four feet, and the two colors. Hopefully that eliminates some of the confusion.

It's being claimed that our project's not neighborhood compatible. However, if you went to the rear, as the board did, the proposed project is similar in height and size and setbacks to all the adjacent properties. Four properties in the Baja Street neighborhood are either larger or similar in size.

Next slide, please. We drew this exhibit to where you see the blue line. That's a string line from the street moved back, and you're going to see that the upper level of 950 Baja is either even or further back of all the upper story structures in the neighborhood. There was a view equity contention. I did go to each of the neighbors early in the process and admittedly, there is some view obstruction from the bottom. But on the upper floors there is unlimited view possibilities. We did bring the project down a foot. Vince is someone I've known for 25 years and he really is an excellent architect. He's not a civil engineer. So the document that I gave you from a licensed civil engineer says that without the aid of a pump, which would be unfair, the maximum we could lower the slab would be a foot, and that's what we've done.

There was a contention that the staking was done incorrectly. Kate gave a very elegant explanation of that. Unfortunately, our story pole guy, and I won't reveal his name so applicants won't perhaps not use him, but instead of staking the walls, he staked the eave. So the project looked like it was four foot further out. That was corrected before the third hearing.

As far as last minute presentations, can we go to the next slide? It is true, if you look at the areas in red, we did drop the project the foot. We pulled it back four feet. We obscured a number of windows. None of these because they were reductions or glazing needed to have story poles again. And I do apologize to the neighbors because they really are nice people. I said that at the very first DRB hearing that it was refreshing not to hear my name taken in vain with every other comment.

Next slide please. And the landscape plan only changed once despite the assertion that it was changed multiple times. This was all done to the benefit of Dr. Borrelli. We pulled back the stairway, as Kate 262
262 of 623

mentioned, and we added the three trees. As far as a lack of communication, I did meet with the neighbors twice. Dr. Borrelli was kind enough to let me into her house twice and we saw the impacts.

We respectfully request that the council support the Design Review Board and deny the appeal. Thank you.

Alex Rounaghi:

Steve, just one question.

Steve Kawaratani:

Yes.

Alex Rounaghi:

Is there something in our code that says that drainage pumps are not possible to do? Steve Kawaratani:

There is nothing that says that. They're discouraged, Alex. Mainly because you're becoming reliant on not just one pump, you have to have two pumps in case one fails.

Alex Rounaghi:

So have you seen other houses that you've worked on do drainage pumps? Steve Kawaratani:

They've had no choice but to do so. In this case, we can use positive gravity flow.

Alex Rounaghi:

Yeah, but the letter, this from the civil engineer is about the question of whether... That this is the lowest it can go without the need for a drainage pump. So that's my question. That was why I asked about whether that was a requirement. So you answered it.

Steve Kawaratani:

Yeah. I think the main topic here, if our house was too high and if you had the opportunity to go to Katella, we're even with either homes on the adjacent side. So if we were sitting two feet above them, I would recommend that we have a sump pump to get down that additional two feet. That's not the case here.

Alex Rounaghi:

Thank you. I was just curious. So thank you.

Steve Kawaratani:

Yeah.

Bob Whalen:

Steve, one follow-up question. Did I hear you right, did you say that this home is smaller than other homes on Baja? Did I hear that correctly?
263
263 of 623

Steve Kawaratani:

Yeah. The one directly across the street, you did hear me correctly.

Bob Whalen:

So downhill, the downhill properties?
Steve Kawaratani:

Downhill, right. It's on Baja, Bob. One is larger. There's another house that is over 3,000 square feet similar to ours, and there are two at 2,800 square feet. We're not at 4,000 square feet. We're at about 3,400 square feet. And of course we have an ADU which is not added into the calculation.

Mark Orgill:

But the house is built around an ADU? And you could put the garage on the downhill side. Has that been explored?
Steve Kawaratani:

It has been exploredMark Orgill:

You wouldn't need a sump pump, but it would lower and it would also give you the ability to architecturally terrace different elements of the houseSteve Kawaratani:

Right. The neighbors did ask us to look into that, and we did. There's two pages on that report from the civil engineer that was passed out to you. One was opining what the minimum slab was. Then he looked at reversing the garage mark and he came to the same conclusion. Even if we moved it to the other side, we wouldn't gain anything and we'd still need a pump. So he stamped his statementMark Orgill:

I need to talk to him one of these days.

Steve Kawaratani:

And please look at it.

Mark Orgill:

All right.

Steve Kawaratani:

Thank you.

Mark Orgill:

Yeah.

Mayor Sue Kempf:
264
264 of 623

Thank you, Steve. Anybody else want to speak on behalf of the applicant? No? Okay. Paige, you have three minutes for any rebuttal, if you like.

Paige Lyle:

Just a couple of things. I don't recall ever meeting with Mr. Kawaratani. We requested many times.

Especially from a neighborhood perspective, we asked to meet with him, with all the neighbors so that we could just get all of our questions answered at once. He didn't want to do that. Mr. Soria never responded to any emails. And if he did, shouldn't say never, he always deferred to Mr. Kawaratani.

As for moving the driveway from the north to the south, I'm not sure if we got a second opinion from his different civil engineer. We might have a different opinion on that. That's my only comment. And one thing also is Dr. Borrelli's home, the front of it is at an angle and she has a side patio. If her house was straight on the side as mine is, I don't think we would be having the discussion about the lower level patio doors and the upper windows looking directly into her windows because they would not have a view up the coast from those particular areas. Thank you.

Mayor Sue Kempf:

Okay. I'll close the public hearing and bring it back to council. Who would like to start? Anybody? George Weiss:

Well, I'll start. I think I did read over Tom Gibbs' review of this project April 2nd and I found a lot of what he said very compelling after going to the site, looking at the site, meeting with the neighbors, looking at the viewscapes from their house. The views lost were significant and the impacts on privacy were significant. I went in the back and the same issue of the first floor of Mr. Smith's house would be absolutely blocked. Obviously, there's got to be a project there. But I don't find this to be neighborhood compatible.

And Tom Gibbs said a number of things here. Let me just read one for you because I think he hit it. This is a third hearing, he mentioned, and it's going to be a neighborhood compatibility for him, he says, in mass and scale. "This project's been through three hearings. The first was mass and scale was the primary issue. The second mass and scale was the primary issue." And he made it very clear that this project was too big for the 5,000 square foot lot, that the minimum upper story needed to be pulled back and it was too big for mass and scale. I agree with that when I see the project and think about it, especially seeing the drawings and the pictures of it.

So he also goes on to say, "Each project should be designed to contribute distinctively to the character of the neighborhood..." I'll wait for you. Thank you. Okay. Let me repeat that one. "Each project should be designed to contribute distinctively to the character of the neighborhood and avoid negative impact on the surrounding properties, that result should be a rich variety of unique architectural landscaping, sharing the qualities common to the neighborhood." I think those are things that he hit on and it's really about the mass and scale, like it was for the previous project, based on what was intended for those 5,000 square foot lots not to be big... That fill up the property. And that's my problem with it, and I wait to hear my colleagues, what they have to say.

Mayor Sue Kempf:

Anybody have anything?
Bob Whalen:
265
265 of 623

I think I agree with a lot of what George said in terms of the neighborhood compatibility question. I did find compelling the analysis of the 5,000 square foot lots and the square footages. Even if you exclude all the ADU square footage in this house, it's still significantly larger than the other homes in the immediate area on Baja and Katella on the 5,000 square foot lots, the uphill ones. Additionally, design articulation, I think it's sort of similar to the last hearing we had, even looking at the first hearing image and the third hearing image, from a street perspective, it really doesn't look much different. I mean, it's a foot lower, but it still looks monolithic in the front. I think, as one of the speakers said, a lot of what happens on these larger lots up there is you have some kind of articulation back from the street on a third level, almost an L shape or some impression of that kind of L shape. So I do have concerns on those two levels.

Then on the privacy on the home to the north, the code makes pretty clear you're supposed to avoid having windows directly opposite other windows, neighbor windows that would cause a privacy issue.

And I know Steve told me some of the, and I could see it on the plan, some of the windows have been obscured but, and maybe staff can speak to this, it seems like there are still some windows that line up here that would be partially obscured by the wall and the two foot obscured glass in the wall but not fully obscured. So I have some lingering privacy concerns as well, but mostly it's the neighborhood compatibility and the need for further articulation.

Mayor Sue Kempf:

Yeah. And I agree with Bob. So when I look at the design review criteria, number two, design articulation, I don't think it meets the requirement. I don't think it meets on neighborhood compatibility and on privacy. And then view equity, the people behind, they do lose some of their... They still have a really big view. You're going to lose, of course, no matter what, if there's a house there, you're going to lose your very bottom floor. But I think if you took the house down, and I talked to Steve about this, taking it down a couple feet, it would help that. But given that it's a lot of program in a 5,000 square foot lot, I think that's part of the neighborhood compatibility problem. That is the neighborhood compatibility problem. That's where I am. Come on, man.

Mark Orgill:

I would agree with your points and Bob's points. The articulation, neighborhood compatibility, I would like to see the garage on the other side personally, but whatever they can come up with.

Alex Rounaghi:

I think my four colleagues articulated it all better than I could at this hour, so thank you.

Mayor Sue Kempf:

So I think we're all of the agreement this needs to be remanded back to design review. Are there any other direction we want to give?
George Weiss:

Well, I'd like to see them use some of the neighborhood compatibility based on the square footage of these lots that were identified, I think by Paige here, and maybe use... The downhill side has some big houses, but they're hidden away. You can't even see them. So you don't even know houses there if you look at some places. So it's not fair to use that because it's not really a neighborhood on that side, not yet anyway. So I think we have to use the criteria we have or direct staff or DRB to look at different criteria for the neighborhood compatibility.
266
266 of 623

Mayor Sue Kempf:

Okay. Can I have a motion, Council?
George Weiss:

I don't know what that would be.

Bob Whalen:

I guess we're really just asking staff to prepare a resolution, right? Mayor Sue Kempf:

Yeah.

Bob Whalen:

Granting the appeal in part on the basis of the neighborhood compatibility concerns, the design articulation concerns and the privacy concerns that were articulated in the discussion up here.

Mayor Sue Kempf:

And view equity.

Bob Whalen:

And view equity on the height.

Mayor Sue Kempf:

Yeah.

Bob Whalen:

With making an effort to reduce it somewhat.

Mayor Sue Kempf:

Mm-hmm. Okay. That's a motion, Bob?
Bob Whalen:

Yeah.

Mayor Sue Kempf:

I'll second. All in favor?
Council:

Aye.

Mayor Sue Kempf:

Okay. Thanks for hanging in, everyone. Have a nice evening. 267
267 of 623

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.

Attachment 13
268
268 of 623

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date:

July 28, 2026
APPEAL
C
SUBJECT: 332 LOCUST STREET: PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 2026-0702 FOR LOWER- AND

UPPER-LEVEL ADDITIONS, ELEVATED DECK, BARBECUE AREA WITH A

PATIO COVER, LANDSCAPING, HARDSCAPING, EXTERIOR

MODIFICATIONS, AND NEW WINDOWS/DOORS, AND REVOCABLE
ENCROACHMENT PERMIT 2026-0703 FOR A GATE, WALLS AND FENCING, AND PILASTERS WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY IN THE R-2,

RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY ZONE, AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION

UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15301 (CLASS 1)
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 2026-0702 and Revocable Encroachment Permit 2026-0703, and the California Environmental Quality Act categorical exemption under Section 15301 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 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD'S APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 2026-0702 FOR

CONSTRUCTION OF LOWER- AND UPPER-LEVEL ADDITIONS, ELEVATED DECK,

BARBECUE AREA WITH A PATIO COVER, LANDSCAPING, EXTERIOR

MODIFICATIONS, NEW WINDOWS/DOORS, AND HARDSCAPE, AND REVOCABLE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT 2026-0703 FOR A GATE, WALLS AND FENCING, AND PILASTERS WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY IN THE R-2, RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM

DENSITY ZONE, AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15301 (CLASS 1)", upholding the Design Review Board's approval of Design Review 2026-0702 and Revocable Encroachment Permit 2026-0703, and finding the project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.

SUMMARY OF THE MATTER
Matthew Gummow, Architect ("Applicant"), of 332 Locust Street (the "Property") (see aerial map included as Figure 1) applied for Design Review ("DR") 2026-0702 for the construction of lower- and upper-level additions to the existing single-family residence, extension of an elevated deck of the existing second unit, a barbecue area with a patio cover, landscaping, hardscape, exterior modifications to both the primary residence and second unit, and new windows and door openings, and Revocable Encroachment Permit ("REP") 2026-0703 for a gate, walls and fencing, and pilasters within the public right-of-way.1 The 1 The proposed development is exempt from a coastal development permit under LBMC Section 25.07.008(A)(1)- (2).
1 of 803
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0702 AND REP 2026-0703 AT 332 LOCUST STREET July 28, 2026

2 of 803
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0702 AND REP 2026-0703 AT 332 LOCUST STREET July 28, 2026

proposed residential additions are limited to a 31-square-foot expansion at the lower level and a 637-squarefoot addition to create a new second story for the single-family residence. Additionally, approximately 311 square feet of the existing first floor will be demolished to increase open space. A 6-square-foot expansion of the existing deck is proposed at the rear of the property. The expansion would extend the existing deck further toward the rear. A revocable encroachment permit was requested for a gate, walls and fencing, and pilasters located within the public right-of-way. The height of the improvements are limited to three feet tall (collectively the “Project”).

On May 14, 2026, the Design Review Board ("Board") held a duly noticed public hearing and received public testimony expressing concerns related to view equity, privacy, and access to light. After carefully considering the oral and documentary evidence from staff, the Applicant, and members of the public, the Board voted 5-0 to adopt Resolution No. 2026-0702, approving the Project and finding the Project categorically exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, subject to the standard conditions of approval and the following Board-imposed condition of approval to address a privacy impact between the subject Property and certain existing bedroom and bathroom windows at 334 Locust Street (the "Board Approval"):

Condition No. 24: “Prior to the issuance of building permits, the proposed north elevation upperlevel window, which is closest to the property at 334 Locust Street, on Sheet A211, Section A2, shall be noted as being translucent and allowing for no more than a 4-inch awning-style opening.” (The May 14, 2026 Board-Adopted Resolution No. 2026-0702, Staff Report, Plans, Public Comments, Transcript, and Encroachment Plan are attached as Attachments 4 through 9, respectively.)3 3 The May 14, 2026 Board Meeting Video is available to view on the City’s website at the following link (Refer to Agenda Item No. 5.2): https://lagunabeachcity.granicus.com/player/clip/3002?view_id=3&redirect=true 3 of 803
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0702 AND REP 2026-0703 AT 332 LOCUST STREET July 28, 2026

Figure 1 – Aerial View of Project Site (332 Locust Street) Figure 2 – Existing Street Frontage (single-family residence) and Alley Frontage (second unit over four-car garage)
4 of 803
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0702 AND REP 2026-0703 AT 332 LOCUST STREET July 28, 2026

Figure 3 – Proposed Site Plan
Figure 3 depicts the Project site plan illustrating the proposed development and relevant site conditions.

The blue shading identifies the footprint of the 637-square-foot upper-level addition above the existing single-story residence. The green shading identifies the 31-square-foot first-floor addition proposed at the front and rear of the residence to expand the existing kitchen and a bedroom. Based on these modifications, the total floor area of the single-family residence is 1,903 square feet5. As part of the Project, approximately 311 square feet of the existing first floor at the rear of the structure is demolished to reduce the building footprint and comply with open space requirements. With the addition of the upper level, the height of the residence will increase from approximately 16 feet to approximately 23 feet.

The orange shading identifies the 6-square-foot elevated deck expansion for the existing second unit located above the four-car garage at the rear of the property, adjacent to the alley. The deck will increase from 61 to 67 square feet and will continue to serve as an entry deck to the unit. No habitable expansion is proposed.

The open area between the single-family residence and garage/second unit serves as the primary location for backyard improvements. Proposed improvements include decks less than three feet above grade, new hardscape, fencing, and a barbecue area with a 10.5-foot-tall trellis. 5 1,546 square feet existing, minus 311 square feet demolished, plus 31 square feet added at the lower level, and 637 square feet added at the upper level.
5 of 803
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0702 AND REP 2026-0703 AT 332 LOCUST STREET July 28, 2026

Figure 4 – Proposed Street-Facing Rendering of the Project Figure 5 – Proposed South Elevation, with the Single-Family Residence and Locust Street to the Right, and Garage with Second Unit to the Left
Both the single-family residence and the detached garage with the second unit above will undergo exterior improvements as seen in Figures 4 and 5, including new roofing, windows and doors, paint, and stucco finishes. The proposed roofing consists primarily of cedar shake, with a limited portion of metal copper roofing used as an accent at the front of the residence. 6 of 803
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0702 AND REP 2026-0703 AT 332 LOCUST STREET July 28, 2026

Figure 6 – Proposed Landscape Plan
Landscaping is proposed throughout the site and includes a combination of trees, shrubs, and groundcover as seen in Figure 6. Five olive trees are proposed—four in the front yard and one in the rear yard—and will be maintained at a maximum height of 15 feet. The remainder of the landscaping consists of shrubs and low-growing trees.

Figure 7 – Revocable Encroachment Permit Plan
7 of 803
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0702 AND REP 2026-0703 AT 332 LOCUST STREET July 28, 2026

Figure 8 – Revocable Encroachment Permit Elevation
Right-of-way improvements highlighted in blue in Figure 7 include pilasters, a gate, and a wall capped by a low fence. The masonry wall combined with wood fencing details on top will be limited to a maximum height of three feet, consistent with the development standards for a revocable encroachment permit. The gate and pilasters are also limited to three feet in height.

On May 28, 2026, Gregg Homer ("Appellant") of 361 Locust Street, filed an appeal of the Board Approval (the "Appeal") (Attachment 2) for the following reasons, as summarized by staff:

1. The Board failed to meaningfully evaluate feasible view mitigation alternatives.

2. The Board approved design disproportionately concentrates massing into established view corridors.

3. The Board approved the Project when findings regarding view mitigation are unsupported by substantial evidence.

4. The Board appeared to interpret the appellants' testimony as seeking complete preservation of existing views, when the appellant instead sought additional mitigation of view impacts.

5. The Board found the Project to be a comparatively minor alteration eligible for a categorical CEQA exemption, notwithstanding concerns that the Project would result in substantial visual and view impacts.

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. 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 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 8 of 803
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0702 AND REP 2026-0703 AT 332 LOCUST STREET July 28, 2026

abuse of discretion. (LBMC § 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 § 25.05.070(E)(3)(b).) Further, pursuant to LBMC Section 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 by the City Council."

1. Design Review
LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(2) sets forth the procedures and review criteria for appeals of design review decisions. With respect to the standard of review for those decisions, subsection (E)(2)(a) provides:

If the decision or determination was supported by four or more affirmative votes of the approval authority, upon hearing the appeal or request for review, the city council shall be limited to the grounds specifically stated in the notice of appeal, if an appeal was filed, and to the evidence that was presented to the approval authority. The city council shall not conduct a de novo hearing, shall not reweigh the evidence, and shall not exercise its independent judgment and discretion as to the evidence. The city council shall consider whether the approval authority proceeded in the manner required by law and whether the decision or determination is supported by substantial evidence.

There shall be a presumption that the decision or determination made by the approval authority was reasonable, valid, and not an abuse of discretion. The appellant, if there is one, shall have the burden of proof of demonstrating otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence, including plans, presented.

Accordingly, in its consideration of DR 2026-0702, which was approved 5-0, the City Council shall not conduct a de novo hearing. Rather, the City Council shall consider whether the Board proceeded in the manner required by law and whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence.

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

Notwithstanding that the City Council cannot review proposed new plans, the City Council can uphold the approval of DR 2026-0702, subject to more restrictive conditions of approval that are effectuated through the provision of new plans; in such event, remand is not required.

2. Revocable Encroachment Permit and CEQA
LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(1) sets forth the procedures and review criteria for non-design review appeals, such as an REP and CEQA. For that review, the City Council shall not be limited to the grounds stated for the appeal 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 shall have the burden of proof of demonstrating otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence presented.
9 of 803
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0702 AND REP 2026-0703 AT 332 LOCUST STREET July 28, 2026

In its consideration of the Board's approval of REP 2026-0703 and a Class 1 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.

3. City Council Options
The City Council has numerous options in consideration of this matter, which are listed below:

1. Adopt the attached Resolution upholding the Board Approval, and finding the Project categorically exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301;

2. Adopt the attached Resolution upholding the Board Approval, and finding the Project categorically exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, 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 Design Review 2026-0702 and Revocable Encroachment Permit 2026-0703, with findings in support of the remand and further direction to the Board.

RESPONSES TO ISSUES RAISED ON APPEAL
As noted above, the City received an Appeal of the Board Approval (Attachment 2). As indicated under Standards of Review above, in the City Council’s review of non-design review appeals, such as the REP and the CEQA determination, the Council shall conduct a de novo review and shall not be limited to the grounds stated for the appeal or to the evidence presented to the Board. Accordingly, in its consideration of the Board’s approval of REP 2026-0703 and a categorical exemption from CEQA, the Council is free to deliberate without being limited to the Board’s findings – in other words, a de novo hearing. For the consideration of DR 2026-0702, the City Council shall conduct a de novo review, but is limited to considering the evidence that was presented to the Board and may exercise its independent judgment on such evidence. Further, for DR 2026-0702, the City Council is limited to the grounds specifically stated in the notice of the Appeal.

Below are the grounds for the Appeal and City staff’s response.

1. “The DRB Failed to Meaningfully Evaluate Feasible View Mitigation Alternatives” The Appellant contends that the Board approved the Project without meaningfully evaluating feasible view-mitigation alternatives, despite repeated requests from neighboring residents to consider design modifications that could reduce impacts to ocean views while still allowing reasonable development of the Property. The Appellant points to requests for alternatives including reduced second-story massing, a narrower upper-floor configuration, increased upper-level setbacks, alternate roof orientation, reduced 10 of 803
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0702 AND REP 2026-0703 AT 332 LOCUST STREET July 28, 2026

roof pitch, relocation of portions of the program to the lower level, and other design changes intended to preserve meaningful ocean view corridors. The Appellant argues that neither the Staff Report nor the Resolution provides a substantive analysis of these alternatives or explains why less view-intrusive designs were rejected. Instead, the Appellant contends that the record relies primarily on the facts that some ocean views remain and that other two-story homes exist in the neighborhood, without adequately evaluating whether the approved design reasonably minimized avoidable view impacts consistent with Laguna Beach's view-equity principles. The Appellant therefore maintains that the findings are not supported by substantial evidence demonstrating that view-equity objectives were achieved.

Staff’s Response
Design Review 2026-0702, Finding No. 16
The Board found that the Project complied with DR Finding No. 1, Criteria No. 16 (View Equity) as follows:
“The proposed development has been evaluated for consistency with the City’s View Equity criteria, which seeks to balance the protection of existing views from neighboring properties with the reasonable opportunity for development of the subject site.

The Project results in impacts to private views, particularly from adjacent properties with secondstory vantage points. Specifically, the Project narrows private views, particularly from adjacent uphill properties, that have second-story vantage points. Staff [sic] notes that the applicable design review criteria is the concept of view equity rather than view preservation and that ocean views from neighboring properties would remain toward the southeast. The figure below shows the view corridor from 352 Locust’s elevated deck.

Figure 2: View corridors from 352 Locust Street’s deck looking south 11 of 803
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0702 AND REP 2026-0703 AT 332 LOCUST STREET July 28, 2026

As shown in Figure 2 above, the proposed Project, as represented through staking, does not obstruct the entire ocean horizon. The Project primarily affects views to the west; however, this western view corridor is [sic] a number of vertical visual obstructions.

As seen in the figure, mature vegetation—including a large centrally located tree within the view corridor—along with surrounding landscaping and the rooftops of neighboring structures, already partially interrupt and frame the ocean view. Specifically, the multi-story properties at 460 Cypress Drive and 470 Cypress Drive, located south of the subject site, obstruct portions of the western ocean view. As a result, ocean views from Locust Street and adjacent properties are already experienced as segmented and narrowed view corridors rather than a continuous panoramic ocean vista. Within this existing context, the proposed Project does overlap portions of the western view corridors and would further reduce certain view openings. However, these views are already constrained and fragmented by existing development and vegetation conditions.

Furthermore, the applicant has proposed an upper-level addition at approximately 23.78 feet in height, which is more than one foot below the maximum allowable height of 25 feet. By maintaining a building height below the permitted maximum and aligning the upper-level massing with the reduced first-story building footprint, the development is consistent with the established neighborhood scale of predominantly one- and two-story homes. This design approach helps ensure that impacts to neighboring sightlines remain within a reasonable and anticipated range associated with residential development.

Lastly, while the proposed Project intersects portions of existing view corridors, the Project does not extend across the full extent of the visible ocean horizon. Ocean views to the southeast (left of the Project) remain. Accordingly, the proposed Project does not encompass or fully obstruct the existing ocean views experienced from the referenced vantage points. Therefore, while a narrowing of private views, particularly from adjacent uphill properties that have second-story vantage points would occur, staff [sic] notes that the applicable design review criteria is the concept of view equity rather than view preservation and that ocean views from neighboring properties would remain to the southeast.”
As indicated above, the Board concurred with the findings made in the May 14, 2026 staff report for view equity. The proposed Project would not completely obstruct existing ocean views. Ocean views to the southeast (left of the Project) remain available, and the Project does not extend across the full visible ocean horizon.

During Board deliberation, the Board considered the overall extent of remaining ocean views from neighboring properties, including Appellant’s residence. The Board appropriately drew their observations from the whole of the record, including their review of the staff report, plans, staking, and site visits with several affected neighbors, including Appellant (361 Locust Street), Mariner (334 Locust Street), and Baskevitch (352 Locust Street). The following is summary and discussion of each Board members’ comment about view equity. The hearing transcript is also attached as Attachment 8. 12 of 803
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0702 AND REP 2026-0703 AT 332 LOCUST STREET July 28, 2026

Board Member Gibbs emphasized that the applicable Design Review standard is view equity rather than view preservation. He noted that two-story homes are common within the neighborhood and that the proposed Project was smaller in scale than many existing second-story developments. After reviewing the views from neighboring properties, he concluded that substantial ocean views would remain and that the Project appropriately balanced neighboring view interests with the Applicant's development rights.

Supporting Quote:
"It's view equity, it's not view preservation... if you look at the full view parameter, you will see... that view equity has been achieved."7 He further stated that from Appellant’s property, "I saw as much ocean that's not impacted... as is in fact less is being impacted."8 Chair Pro Tem Neev acknowledged that neighboring property owners naturally focus on the portions of views affected by the proposed structure when observing story poles. However, after evaluating the broader view corridor from neighboring decks and properties during site visits, she concluded that meaningful ocean views would remain and that the Project satisfied the City's view equity principles.

Supporting Quote:
"When you stand on a deck, certainly your eyes are going to go to those story poles and you see what you're losing. But... when you really look beyond that, and we think about view equity, I believe that view equity is achieved."9
Board Member Coveny found that the Project had been carefully positioned to reduce impacts on neighboring properties while maintaining the Applicant's ability to construct a reasonable second-story addition. She observed that primary ocean views from affected properties would remain available and that requiring further reductions would not provide an equitable balance between view impacts and development rights.

Supporting Quote:
"The way you've positioned it... is really making the best for the view impact that it has on 352 and 361 (Locust Street)."10 She further stated that reducing the upper-story addition "doesn't provide you the proper equity that you deserve to build your home."11 Board Member Weil characterized the Project as a sharing of views rather than a complete loss of views.

He concluded that the proposal represented a carefully designed effort to minimize view impacts while allowing the Applicant to reasonably utilize development rights that are common throughout the neighborhood.
7 Attachment 8, May 14, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 12 [Gibbs]. 8 Attachment 8, May 14, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 12 [Gibbs]. 9 Attachment 8, May 14, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 11 [Neev]. 10 Attachment 8, May 14, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 10 [Coveny]. 11 Attachment 8, May 14, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 10 [Coveny]. 13 of 803
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0702 AND REP 2026-0703 AT 332 LOCUST STREET July 28, 2026

Supporting Quote:
"I think it's more of a sharing of the view than a total elimination."17 He further stated that the Project "really does try to minimize the impacts from view equity as best it can while still trying to achieve the two-story element."18
Chair Bauta concluded that the Project was thoughtfully designed, compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and consistent with the established pattern of development. He also noted that existing vegetation and surrounding structures already partially obstruct portions of the affected views.

Supporting Quote:
"I think this Project meets the pattern of development. I think it's a thoughtfully designed home. It is neighborhood compatible."19 He further noted that "all of the view impacts are partial... between a lot of the trees and other structures beyond."20
Additionally, the City’s Design Guidelines – A Guide to Residential Development (the “Design Guidelines”) explains view equity as follows: “it is recognized that each property is a part of the view dynamic. A property may enjoy a specific view today, but that experience may change as surrounding properties are developed. A balance of interests should be achieved in which all those who enjoy the view (new or existing) retain some access to it.”21 This Project is consistent with that definition, as it balances the interests of both existing and future property owners while preserving access to views, as reflected in the Design Guidelines and supported by the Board's deliberations.

The Appellant further contends that the Board failed to adequately consider alternative design measures that could further preserve neighboring views. However, the hearing record demonstrates that both the Applicant and Board members specifically discussed design modifications, including roof pitch, building placement, and upper-story massing, and evaluated whether additional changes would meaningfully reduce view impacts while maintaining a reasonable residential design.

The Applicant explained that the proposed roof design had already been reduced to a practical minimum and that certain roof pitches were designed at approximately 2.5:12, which represented the lowest feasible pitch without moving to a flat roof. The Applicant further explained that while portions of the roof utilize a steeper 7:12 pitch, the plate height was intentionally kept low to maintain neighborhood character while minimizing overall building height, with seven-foot plates proposed at the second floor addition.22
17 Attachment 8, May 14, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 10 [Weil]. 18 Attachment 8, May 14, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 10 [Weil]. 19 Attachment 8, May 14, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 11 [Bauta]. 20 Attachment 8, May 14, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 12 [Bauta]. 21 Design Guidelines Page 63, adopted by the City Council on December 7, 2010 as set forth by Resolution No. 10.117:
https://www.lagunabeachcity.net/home/showpublisheddocument/12989/638001331177400000. 22 Attachment 6, Project Plans, Sheet A221 (Building Sections) 14 of 803
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0702 AND REP 2026-0703 AT 332 LOCUST STREET July 28, 2026

Supporting Quote:
"Our high roof slope on the dormers [is] two and a half in 12, which is the lowest you can go for a standard roofing material before you go to something like a built-up or TPO... we're using the 7 and 12 to create the appearance of that character, but keeping it really low on purpose."29 Board Member Weil concluded that the Project's siting and massing had been carefully designed to reduce impacts on neighboring views. He specifically noted that the upper-story addition had been placed to the left (i.e., south), preserving angled view corridors from uphill properties. He further found that the Project represented a thoughtful effort to minimize view impacts while still accommodating a reasonable second-story addition consistent with the surrounding neighborhood.

Supporting Quote:
"By shifting the building to the left on the upper story addition, it really leaves views and angled views for the homeowners up the hill."30 He further stated that the Project "really does try to minimize the impacts from view equity as best it can while still trying to achieve the two-story element."31
Chair Pro Tem Neev considered whether additional reductions to the roof height or pitch could further preserve views and concluded that meaningful view preservation would require a substantially different building form that would be an unreasonable imposition. She noted that lowering the roof pitch would not materially improve views unless the overall structure height were significantly reduced.

Supporting Quote:
"You'd have to dig down five or six feet and have a flat roof... in order to preserve this section that you'll be blocking."32 She further stated that reducing the roof pitch "really wouldn't make a difference unless you really lower the whole structure,"33 and concluded that such an approach was ‘just not reasonable.’"34
The Board’s record demonstrates that view impacts and view equity were not only considered, but were a central focus of Board discussion. The Design Guidelines require that “development, including its landscaping… be designed to protect existing views from neighboring properties without denying the subject property the reasonable opportunity to develop…”35 (Emphasis added.) Based on testimony from the Applicant, observations made during site visits, and evaluating the proposed plans, the Board concluded that the proposed design had already incorporated measures to reduce view impacts, including its minimal 637-square-foot size, minimizing roof heights where feasible, and shifting the upper-story addition to preserve angled ocean views. The Board ultimately determined that further 29 Attachment 8, May 14, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 6 [Matt (Applicant)]. 30 Attachment 8, May 14, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 10 [Weil]. 31 Attachment 8, May 14, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 10 [Weil]. 32 Attachment 8, May 14, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 11 [Neev]. 33 Attachment 8, May 14, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 11 [Neev]. 34 Attachment 8, May 14, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 11 [Neev]. 35 Design Guidelines Page 63, adopted by the City Council on December 7, 2010 as set forth by Resolution No. 10.117:
https://www.lagunabeachcity.net/home/showpublisheddocument/12989/638001331177400000. 15 of 803
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0702 AND REP 2026-0703 AT 332 LOCUST STREET July 28, 2026

modifications would not meaningfully reduce view impacts without requiring unreasonable reductions to the Project's size, functionality, or architectural design, and that the Project was a reasonable proposal to achieve a second story over the existing single-family residence. As Board member Gibbs observed, “[n]umerous houses on Locust have much more program on the second story including the 352 Locust project.”

2. “The approved design disproportionately concentrates massing into established view corridors.” The Appellant contends that the approved Project disproportionately concentrates building mass into established ocean-view corridors by removing approximately 311 square feet of lower-level floor area while adding approximately 637 square feet to a new second-story addition, thereby shifting the Project's bulk upward into a more view-sensitive portion of the Property.

The Appellant argues that the Board improperly relied on the existence of other two-story homes in the neighborhood as evidence that the Project minimizes view impacts, asserting that neighborhood compatibility is a separate issue from whether a specific design reasonably avoids unnecessary obstruction of neighboring views. The Appellant further claims that staff and the Board overstated the prevalence of front-facing second-story development along the block, maintaining that many neighboring properties with second-story components are configured toward the rear of their lots above garages adjacent to the alley rather than within the primary ocean-view plane. According to the Appellant, these existing development patterns are materially different from the approved Project and therefore do not support the conclusion that the proposed second-story addition appropriately minimizes view impacts.

The Appellant also disputes statements made during the hearing that removal of lower-level floor area was necessary to comply with open-space requirements, arguing that no supporting calculations or analysis were provided in the record.

The Appellant concludes that less view-intrusive alternatives were not meaningfully evaluated prior to approval.

Staff’s Response
Response to Appellant's Claim Regarding Improper Shift of Massing into Views:

Staff incorporates by reference the staff’s response to Contention No. 1 regarding the Board’s view equity analysis.

Response to Appellant's Claim Regarding Neighborhood Compatibility:

The Board found that the Project complied with DR Finding No. 1, Criteria No. 9 (Neighborhood Compatibility) as follows:
“The proposed project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, which is characterized by a mix of one- and two-story single-family residences exhibiting both traditional and contemporary architectural styles. The exterior remodel incorporates materials and design elements that are 16 of 803
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0702 AND REP 2026-0703 AT 332 LOCUST STREET July 28, 2026

consistent with this neighborhood character, including smooth finish stucco and shake roofing, which are commonly found on nearby properties.

The project also introduces subtle contemporary elements, such as a metal roof accent, which enhances the architectural design while remaining compatible with the surrounding context. Overall, the combination of traditional and modern materials reflects the existing development pattern and contributes to a cohesive neighborhood appearance.

The addition of a new second story is also consistent with the neighborhood, as two-story residences are common in the vicinity. The placement of the second-story elements toward the front of the lot further reflects a pattern observed on nearby properties along the street.” The Appellant contends that second-story development within the neighborhood is generally confined to the rear portions of lots. As indicated by the Board’s neighborhood compatibility finding above, the Board separately and appropriately found that the Project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. As indicated above, the Board found that “[t]he placement of the second-story elements toward the front of the lot further reflects a pattern observed on nearby properties along the street.” While some properties contain second-story elements located toward the rear of the lot, as indicated by the Appellant, there are several properties on the 300-block of Locust Street that include second-story massing at the front or street-facing portion of the residence. Examples include 352 Locust Street, 370 Locust Street, and 380 Locust Street as seen in Figures 9 and 10. These properties, which are located within 200 feet of the Applicant’s Property, demonstrate that front-facing second-story development is an established feature of the block and is not limited to rear-yard locations. Accordingly, the approved Project is consistent with the surrounding pattern of development and does not represent an unusual concentration of upper-story massing within the neighborhood. While the specific design and placement of second-story elements vary among properties, the presence of existing two-story residential development throughout the vicinity, including several examples with second-story massing located at the front of the property, supports the Board's finding that the proposed second-story addition is compatible with the established neighborhood context. Therefore, the Appellant's characterization of the neighborhood as being predominantly comprised of rear-lot second stories is incomplete and does not accurately reflect the existing development pattern along the 300 block of Locust Street and the surrounding area.
17 of 803
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0702 AND REP 2026-0703 AT 332 LOCUST STREET July 28, 2026

Figure 9 – Site overview of properties with second stories 18 of 803
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0702 AND REP 2026-0703 AT 332 LOCUST STREET July 28, 2026

Figure 10 –Two-story residential structures fronting Locust Street. The properties pictured are located within 200 feet of the Property.

Although Board members noted that two-story development is common along Locust Street, those observations were made in the context of evaluating neighborhood compatibility and development patterns and were not the sole basis for the Board's view equity determination. The hearing record demonstrates that the Board separately considered view impacts, Project massing, building placement, alternative design constraints, and observations from neighboring properties before concluding that the Project reasonably minimizes view impacts and achieves view equity and neighborhood compatibility with the Design Guidelines. The following statements from the hearing record demonstrate the Board's independent analysis supporting its finding of neighborhood compatibility.

Board Member Weil found that the Project is architecturally compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. He noted that the proposed residence is modest in size compared to other homes along Locust Street and concluded that the Project satisfies the Design Review criteria for neighborhood compatibility.

Supporting Quote:
"For me, it meets the design review components architecturally. It's very compatible with the Tree Streets and quite an enhancement to it. The colors really keep it soft and minimalistic. It's a 1,900 square-foot total program for this front unit and I think that's well compatible if not on the smaller side for some of the homes up and down Locust Street. So for me, this meets the design review criteria."43
Board Member Coveny concluded that the Project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and found that the proposed siting appropriately balances neighborhood compatibility with minimizing impacts to adjacent properties.

Supporting Quote:
"This is definitely neighborhood compatible and you have every right to build a two story and the way you've positioned it, as Louis mentioned, is really making the best for the view impact that it has on 352 and 361." 44
"Your articulation is great. Your mass and scale is great. Your consistent materials to help tell that story architecturally is really good. It really upgrades this home and fits really well into the neighborhood." 45
Chair Bauta found that the Project is consistent with the existing pattern of development and determined that its design, mass, and scale are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. 43 Attachment 8, May 14, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 10 [Weil]. 44 Attachment 8, May 14, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 10 [Coveny]. 45 Attachment 8, May 14, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 10 [Coveny]. 19 of 803
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0702 AND REP 2026-0703 AT 332 LOCUST STREET July 28, 2026

Supporting Quote:
"I think this project meets the pattern of development. I think it's a thoughtfully designed home. It is neighborhood compatible. I don't see an issue with mass or scale."49 Board Member Gibbs found that the Project is compatible with the established pattern of development along Locust Street. He observed that numerous nearby residences contain larger second-story elements than the proposed Project and explained that the surrounding neighborhood context should be considered when evaluating the Project's scale and compatibility.

Supporting Quote:
"Numerous houses on Locust have much more program on the second story including the 352 Locust project. So you really need to put that in perspective in evaluating this project."50 Chair Pro Tem Neev found that the Project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood because two-story homes are common along Locust Street. She further concluded that the applicant had carefully positioned and limited the upper story to minimize impacts while remaining consistent with the existing pattern of development.

Supporting Quote:
"And I think that considering this home in the neighborhood, there are so many two-story homes and this property now, I think you've been very modest as far as and very carefully positioning your upper story in order to minimize the impact." 51
Response to Appellant's Claim Regarding Open Space Requirements:

The Appellant disputes statements made during the hearing that removal of 311 square feet of lowerlevel floor area was necessary to comply with open space requirements, arguing that no supporting calculations or analysis were provided in the record. However, open space calculations were provided with the Board-approved plans attached as Attachment 6.52 As explained further below, the proposed 637-square-foot second-story addition would not have met open space requirements if the single-story portion was maintained at its existing size, or if the proposed second-story addition, which is designed and oriented capture a private ocean view, was added to the ground floor of the structure.

The removal of 311 square feet of existing single-family residence helps to meet the required open space. With the 637-square-foot second-floor addition, the Project is required to provide approximately 1,134 square feet of open space for the site. The proposed Project provides a total of 1,286 square feet, exceeding the minimum requirement by approximately 152 square feet. 49 Attachment 8, May 14, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 11 [Bauta]. 50 Attachment 8, May 14, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 12 [Gibbs]. 51 Attachment 8, May 14, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 12 [Neev]. 52 Sheet G006, Open Space Plan.
20 of 803
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0702 AND REP 2026-0703 AT 332 LOCUST STREET July 28, 2026

Table 1. Open Space Requirements
Required Existing Proposed Conforms
Overall site open space
(LBMC 25.50.010)
1,134.40 sf 1,006 sf 1,286 sf Yes
60% of total required
Open Space open to sky
(LBMC 25.50.010 (B)
680.64 sf 1,006 sf 1,286 sf Yes
25% of total required
Open Space shall be
immediately accessible to
each living unit on the lot
(LBMC 25.50.010 (E)
283.6 sf 1,006 sf 1,002 sf directly accessible
for single family residence.
284 sf directly accessible
for second unit.

Yes
If the Applicant had instead placed the entirety of the proposed floor area addition at ground level, the available open space would have been reduced to approximately 649 square feet (1,286 square feet minus 637 square feet), which would not satisfy the minimum 1,134-square-foot open space requirement. To compensate for the resulting loss of open space, the Applicant would likely have needed to construct an upper-level deck or other outdoor living area above the residence to satisfy the overall site open space standard. (LBMC Section 25.50.010(A).) However, rooftop decks are strongly discouraged by the Design Guidelines,57 and locating the entire addition on the ground floor would not have been consistent with the Applicant’s goals for the Project, which reasonably include adding a second floor of habitable building area in a neighborhood that already features two-story residential structures.

As Board member Weil observed, “I think several of the neighbors that were walking us through their homes, they all have two-story buildings. So to say that this one can't be a two-story building really deprives the owner of that right of enjoyment that is well-observed across the lots that have been developed going up and down the street.”58
The Board’s view equity analysis did not depend on a conclusion that the addition had to be configured as a new second story in order to satisfy open-space requirements. Rather, the record reflects that the Board began from the premise that a second-story addition was a reasonable component of the Project given the existing development pattern in the immediate area, and then engaged in extensive deliberation regarding view equity based on Project staking, site visits with neighbors, and other relevant evidence.

Response to Appellant's Claim Regarding Less View-Impacting Alternatives:

Lastly, the Appellant contends that the record does not demonstrate that less view-impacting alternatives were meaningfully evaluated prior to approval. The hearing record, however, reflects that both the Applicant and the Board considered Project constraints, alternative design approaches, and whether 57 Desing Guidelines Page 20: “use lower-story rooftops as deck areas for upper floors and avoid top-story rooftop decks.” 58 Attachment 8, May 14, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 10 [Weil]. 21 of 803
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0702 AND REP 2026-0703 AT 332 LOCUST STREET July 28, 2026

additional modifications would meaningfully reduce view impacts while maintaining a reasonable residential design.

The record demonstrates that the Board specifically considered whether the proposed second-story addition had been designed to reasonably minimize view impacts. The Applicant explained that the roof forms, plate heights, and building placement were intentionally configured to reduce the building's perceived mass and preserve view opportunities where feasible.

Board Member Weil specifically found that the Project's siting minimized impacts to uphill properties, stating, "By shifting the building to the left on the upper story addition, it really leaves views and angled views for the homeowners up the hill."61 He further concluded that the Project "really does try to minimize the impacts from view equity as best it can while still trying to achieve the two-story element."62
Likewise, Chair Pro Tem Neev considered whether further reductions to the roof form would meaningfully improve neighboring views and concluded that they would not, stating that preserving the affected portion of the view would require a substantially different building form: "You'd have to dig down five or six feet and have a flat roof... in order to preserve this section that you'll be blocking."63 She further stated that reducing the roof pitch "really wouldn't make a difference unless you really lower the whole structure,"64 concluding that such an approach was "just not reasonable."65 Furthermore, the view equity DR criterion does not require that the Board exhaustively document and study every possible permutation of a proposed Project to find that view equity is met. Here, the Board found that the view equity design review criterion, cited above, was achieved, concluding that the second-story addition represented a reasonable design that appropriately balanced the Applicant’s development rights with neighboring interests by preserving some access to preexisting ocean views.

The Board-approved plans include a second-floor addition over an existing single-family residence to create a new primary bedroom suite with a bathroom and walk-in closet, as well as a secondary bedroom with a full bathroom. As demonstrated by Figure 11 below, the 637-square-foot second floor addition is approximately half the size of the ground floor, which is proposed at 1,266 square feet for a total area of 1,903 square feet for the single-family residence.66 In effect, the addition functions as a “pop-up,” situated within the footprint of a substantially larger ground floor. The Board found the addition to be modest in scale and sensitively designed and sited to achieve view equity. The Board also noted that, unlike other two-story residences in the immediate area, this second-story “pop-up” does not fully occupy the available building envelope.
61 Attachment 8, May 14, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 10 [Weil]. 62 Attachment 8, May 14, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 10 [Weil]. 63 Attachment 8, May 14, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 11 [Neev]. 64 Attachment 8, May 14, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 11 [Neev]. 65 Attachment 8, May 14, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 11 [Neev]. 66 A smaller, 668-square-foot unit over the detached garage is not proposed to be enlarged except for a six-square-foot deck addition.
22 of 803
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0702 AND REP 2026-0703 AT 332 LOCUST STREET July 28, 2026

Figure 11 – First and second floor footprint comparison

3. “Several findings regarding alleged view mitigation are unsupported by substantial evidence.” The Appellant contends that the Board's findings regarding view mitigation are not supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, the Appellant argues that design features cited during the hearing and referenced in the Board resolution, such as articulated roof forms, offsets, varied rooflines, and openings, do not meaningfully preserve neighboring ocean views and that the remaining views were characterized in a manner that understate the extent of the Project's impacts. The Appellant maintains that the Project would substantially reduce ocean views from primary living areas and bedrooms of adjacent residences and that photographic evidence demonstrates greater view obstruction than reflected in the Board's deliberations. The Appellant further asserts that the Board relied on incomplete assumptions regarding the nature and significance of the affected views and did not adequately consider feasible design alternatives, including modifications to building height, orientation, massing, and roof design, that could have reduced view impacts while still allowing reasonable development of the property.

Staff’s Response
The hearing record demonstrates that the Board's findings were supported by substantial evidence, including staff analysis, Applicant testimony, Project plans, story-pole observations, site visits to neighboring properties, and extensive Board deliberation regarding view equity. Staff incorporates by reference the staff’s responses to Contention Nos. 1 and 2 regarding the Board’s view equity analysis.

Furthermore, independent from its view equity analysis, the Board found that the Project complied with DR Finding No. 1, Criteria No. 2 (Design Articulation) as follows:
23 of 803
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0702 AND REP 2026-0703 AT 332 LOCUST STREET July 28, 2026

“The proposed improvements are within the allowable building envelope. The second-story addition has a maximum height of approximately 23 feet, which is below the 25-foot height limit. The project incorporates architectural articulation to reduce the perceived building mass. Varied roof forms and changes in building planes create visual separation and avoid large, uninterrupted façades. Windows and doors are distributed across all elevations, providing additional visual relief. The use of various materials, including smooth stucco, cedar shake roofing, and standing seam metal roofing, along with contrasting colors and trim, further breaks up the mass of the structure.” Design articulation and view equity are separate and distinct design review criteria, and as demonstrated above, the Board found that the Project satisfies both.

4. "The record does not support the suggestion that appellants sought complete view preservation." The Appellant asserts that his position regarding view impacts has been mischaracterized in the hearing record. Specifically, the Appellant states that he does not oppose second-story development outright, nor does he seek absolute preservation of existing views. Rather, the Appellant contends that he acknowledged the City's “view equity” framework and requested that the Project be redesigned to more reasonably balance development rights with the level of view impacts created by the approved secondstory configuration. The Appellant further argues that testimony presented by the Applicant’s representative overstated his position by suggesting the Appellant would only accept a single-story development, which the Appellant disputes as an inaccurate characterization of his testimony. Instead, the Appellant maintains that his appeal focuses on the specific design and placement of the approved second-story addition and asserts that feasible alternative designs exist that could reduce view impacts while still allowing second-story development.

Staff’s Response
The hearing record does not support the assertion that the Board relied on any such mischaracterization of the Appellant’s testimony regarding view impacts and the concept of view equity in reaching its decision. Rather, the Board’s decision was based on its evaluation of the full evidentiary record, including the Project plans, public testimony, the staff report, and site visits to assess the story pole staking and meet with affected neighbors at their properties. Board members expressly deliberated on the Project’s compliance with the view equity DR criterion.

During the public hearing, the Board repeatedly confirmed that its evaluation was based on an independent review of the Project, including site visits, review of the plans, and consideration of all public testimony under the City's view equity framework. Chair Bauta expressly noted that the Board’s decision-making was grounded in the hearing record, stating, "our judgment is based on this hearing here tonight."73 In addition, Board Member Weil emphasized that no conclusions were predetermined, explaining that he does not make "any statements of predetermination until I get to fully see the sites, discuss it with the architects, discuss it with the neighbors,"74 and further confirming that "the determinations aren't made until we get here."75
73 Attachment 8, May 14, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 4 [Bauta]. 74 Attachment 8, May 14, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 9 [Weil]. 75 Attachment 8, May 14, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 10 [Weil]. 24 of 803
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0702 AND REP 2026-0703 AT 332 LOCUST STREET July 28, 2026

The record also demonstrates that the Board understood and considered the Appellant’s concerns regarding view impacts and potential design alternatives. However, the Board did not interpret those concerns as requiring different action. Instead, the Board evaluated view equity and found it was supported by substantial evidence. Staff incorporates by reference the staff’s responses to Contention Nos. 1-3.

5. “The practical impacts of the project appear inconsistent with the characterization of the work as a comparatively “minor” alteration.”
The Appellant contends that the Resolution’s determination that the Project is categorically exempt from CEQA under Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) mischaracterizes the scope and effects of the approved Project. While the Resolution describes the Project as a “minor alteration” involving “negligible or no expansion” of existing use, the Appellant argues that the Project in fact includes a substantial new second-story addition and results in material changes to building massing and rooflines.

The Appellant further asserts that the Project significantly affects surrounding conditions by compressing existing ocean views and altering the visual relationship between the subject property and adjacent residences. Although the Appellant acknowledges that residential additions may be appropriately reviewed under categorical exemptions in certain circumstances, the Appellant maintains that the scale and practical impacts of the approved Project exceed what is contemplated by the Class 1 exemption and are not accurately reflected in the Resolution’s characterization.

Staff’s Response
The Board found that the Project qualified for a categorical exemption from CEQA under the Class 1 exemption (Existing Facilities), as follows:

In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, the project qualifies for a categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15301 - Existing Facilities, in that the project consists of the repair, maintenance, or minor alteration of existing structures or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. There is no evidence of any unusual or special conditions that would result in a significant effect on the environment. Here, improvements are limited to additions, elevated deck, fences, barbecue area with a patio cover, landscaping, exterior modifications, hardscape, and right-of-way improvements.

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 in that the improvements are proposed on a property containing an existing single-family residence with a second unit on top of a garage within an established residential neighborhood. 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 features exist on or adjacent to the property. The project is not located on a hazardous waste site or any other site included on a list 25 of 803
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0702 AND REP 2026-0703 AT 332 LOCUST STREET July 28, 2026

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.

The Appellant contends that the approved Project cannot properly be characterized as a "minor alteration" under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 because it includes upper- and lower-level additions, modifications to the building massing and rooflines, and alleged impacts to neighboring views. Staff disagrees.

The Project qualifies for a Class 1 Categorical Exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Section 15301 applies to the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. The subject Property is developed with an existing single-family residence and a second unit within an established residential neighborhood. The proposed improvements consist of lower- and upper-level additions, an elevated deck, barbecue area with a patio cover, landscaping, exterior modifications, replacement and installation of windows and doors, hardscape improvements, and associated right-of-way improvements. The Project does not change the property's residential use, increase the intensity of use beyond that customarily associated with a single-family residence, or introduce any new land use.

The Appellant's argument improperly equates the physical size of the proposed residential additions with an expansion of use that renders the Project ineligible for a Class 1 exemption. However, Section 15301(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that additions to existing structures may fall within a Class 1 categorical exemption, provided that the following criteria are met:
(e) Additions to existing structures provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than:
(1) 50 percent of the floor area of the structures before the addition, or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less; or
(2) 10,000 square feet if:
(A)The project is in an area where all public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum development permissible in the General Plan and (B) The area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301.)
Here, the Project meets the criteria above because the Project satisfies the criteria under Section 15301(e)(2), which allows additions up to 10,000 square feet when the project is located in an area where all public services and facilities are available to allow for the maximum development permissible under the General Plan and the area is not environmentally sensitive. The proposed addition is less than 10,000 square feet, and the Project site is located within an established residential neighborhood that is served by existing public services and facilities, including water, sewer, and other municipal services.

Also, the Project site is not located within an environmentally sensitive area, but rather, is located within 26 of 803
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0702 AND REP 2026-0703 AT 332 LOCUST STREET July 28, 2026

a residential area surrounded on all sides by developed residential property and improved streets and alleys. The Project does not involve development within designated open space areas, environmentally sensitive habitat areas, or other identified sensitive environmental resources.

Even if the Project did not meet the criteria under Subsection (e)(2), which it does, the Project also satisfies Subsection (e)(1). The proposed addition is less than 50 percent of the existing floor area of the structure prior to the addition, or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less. The existing single-family residence contains approximately 1,546 square feet of floor area. The proposed Project includes a total addition of approximately 668 square feet, consisting of a 31-square-foot lower-level addition and a 637-square-foot upper-level addition. The proposed addition represents approximately 43 percent of the existing residence’s floor area, which is below the 50 percent threshold identified in Section 15301(e)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines.

The proposed improvements maintain the residential use of the Property and do not alter the fundamental nature, function, or intensity of that use. Residential additions and exterior improvements to existing homes are routinely found to fall within the scope of the Class 1 exemption where, as here, they occur on a developed residential lot.

Further, the Appellant's assertions regarding building massing, roofline changes, and alleged view impacts do not establish that the exemption is inapplicable. CEQA is concerned with physical changes to the environment that may result in significant environmental effects. The Appellant provides no substantial evidence demonstrating that the proposed residential improvements would result in a significant environmental impact. The Project is located in an urbanized area surrounded on all sides by developed residential property, a public street, and an alley. Allegations regarding private view impairment or changes in visual relationships between neighboring properties do not, by themselves, constitute evidence that a Project falls outside the scope of the Class 1 exemption.

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

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the Project qualifies for a categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15301 - Existing Facilities, in that the Project consists of the repair, maintenance, or minor alteration of existing structures or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. There is no evidence of any unusual or special conditions that would result in a significant effect on the environment. Here, improvements are limited to additions, elevated deck, fences, barbecue area with a patio cover, landscaping, exterior modifications, hardscape, and right-of-way improvements. The Project will not change the existing residential use of the property or result in an expansion of use beyond that customarily associated with a single-family residence. Specifically, the Project qualifies under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(e) because the proposed addition is approximately 668 square feet, representing approximately 43% of the existing 1,546-square foot residence, which is below the 50 percent threshold identified in Section 15301(e)(1). In addition, the Project site is located within an established residential neighborhood that is fully served by existing public services and facilities 27 of 803
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0702 AND REP 2026-0703 AT 332 LOCUST STREET July 28, 2026

and is not located within an environmentally sensitive area, thereby also satisfying the criteria of Section 15301(e)(2).

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 in that the improvements are proposed on a property containing an existing single-family residence with a second unit on top of a garage within an established residential neighborhood. 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 features exist on or adjacent to 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.

ATTACHMENTS

1. City Council Resolution (Pgs. 28-76)

2. Appeal (Pgs. 77-87)

3. City Council Appeal Public Notice (Pg. 88)

4. Board Approval Resolution No. 2026-0702 (Pgs. 89-103)

5. May 14, 2026 Design Review Board Staff Report (Pgs. 104-120)

6. May 14, 2026 Design Review Board Project Plans (Pgs. 121-149)

7. May 14, 2026, Design Review Board Public Correspondence (Pgs. 150-161)

8. May 14, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript (Pgs. 162-175)

9. Encroachment Plan (Pg. 176)

10. Order of Testimony (Pgs. 177-178)
Submitted By: Matthew Schneider Approved: .David A Kiff Matthew Schneider, Director of
Community Development
Dave Kiff, City Manager
Report Prepared By: Coordinated With:

Claire Park, Assistant Planner Jane Abzug, Assistant City Attorney Anthony Viera, Deputy Director of Community
Development
28 of 803
RESOLUTION NO. 26.XXX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL AND
SUSTAINING THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD’S APPROVAL OF
DESIGN REVIEW 2026-0702 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF LOWERAND UPPER-LEVEL ADDITIONS, ELEVATED DECK, BARBECUE

AREA WITH A PATIO COVER, LANDSCAPING, EXTERIOR

MODIFICATIONS, NEW WINDOWS/DOORS, AND HARDSCAPE,
AND REVOCABLE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT 2026-0703 FOR A

GATE, WALLS AND FENCING, AND PILASTERS WITHIN THE
PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY IN THE R-2, RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM

DENSITY ZONE, AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES
SECTION 15301 (CLASS 1)
WHEREAS, the property owner, Aquaterra Capital, LLC1 (“Applicant”), of 332 Locust Street (the “Property”), applied for Design Review ("DR") 2026-0702 and Revocable Encroachment Permit ("REP") 2026-0703 for the construction of lower- and upper-level additions to the existing single-family residence, extension of an elevated deck of the existing second unit, a barbecue area with a patio cover, landscaping, hardscape, exterior modifications to both the primary residence and second unit, and right-of-way improvements in the R-2 (Residential Medium Density) zone. Design review is required for the upper-level additions pursuant to Laguna Beach Municipal Code (“LBMC”) Section 25.05.040(B)(1)(j), elevated deck pursuant to Section

25.05.040(B)(3)(a)(ii), landscaping pursuant to Section 25.05.040(B)(1)(p), exterior modifications pursuant Section 25.05.040(B)(1), and new window and door openings pursuant to Section

25.05.040(B)(3)(a)(xi)(3). A revocable encroachment permit is required for a new gate, walls and fencing, and pilasters located within the public right-of-way pursuant to LBMC Chapter 11.50 (the “Project”); and
1 The Project’s architect is Matthew Gummow, who is within the definition of Applicant.

Attachment 1
28 29 of 803
-2- Reso. #
WHEREAS, on May 14, 2026, the Design Review Board (“Board”) held a duly noticed public hearing pursuant to Title 25, Zoning, of the Laguna Beach Municipal Code. After receiving input from staff, the Applicant, and public comments, the Board discussed the Project and approved the Project with a 5-0 vote under Board Resolution No. 2026-0702, conditionally approving the Project, and including the approval of a categorical exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines Section 15301 (the “Board Approval”); and
WHEREAS, on May 28, 2026, Gregg Homer (“Appellant”) of 361 Locust Street, filed an appeal of the Board Approval (“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 DRB Failed to Meaningfully Evaluate Feasible View Mitigation Alternatives.” City Council’s Response
Design Review 2026-0702, Finding No. 16
The Board found that the Project complied with DR Finding No. 1, Criteria No. 16 (View Equity) as follows:
29 30 of 803
-3- Reso. #
“The proposed development has been evaluated for consistency with the City’s View Equity criteria, which seeks to balance the protection of existing views from neighboring properties with the reasonable opportunity for development of the subject site.

The Project results in impacts to private views, particularly from adjacent properties with second-story vantage points. Specifically, the Project narrows private views, particularly from adjacent uphill properties, that have second-story vantage points. Staff [sic] notes that the applicable design review criteria is the concept of view equity rather than view preservation and that ocean views from neighboring properties would remain toward the southeast. The figure below shows the view corridor from 352 Locust’s elevated deck.

Figure 2: View corridors from 352 Locust Street’s deck looking south As shown in Figure 2 above, the proposed Project, as represented through staking, does not obstruct the entire ocean horizon. The Project primarily affects views to the west; however, this western view corridor is [sic] a number of vertical visual obstructions. 30 31 of 803
-4- Reso. #
As seen in the figure, mature vegetation—including a large centrally located tree within the view corridor—along with surrounding landscaping and the rooftops of neighboring structures, already partially interrupt and frame the ocean view. Specifically, the multistory properties at 460 Cypress Drive and 470 Cypress Drive, located south of the subject site, obstruct portions of the western ocean view. As a result, ocean views from Locust Street and adjacent properties are already experienced as segmented and narrowed view corridors rather than a continuous panoramic ocean vista. Within this existing context, the proposed Project does overlap portions of the western view corridors and would further reduce certain view openings. However, these views are already constrained and fragmented by existing development and vegetation conditions.

Furthermore, the applicant has proposed an upper-level addition at approximately 23.78 feet in height, which is more than one foot below the maximum allowable height of 25 feet.

By maintaining a building height below the permitted maximum and aligning the upperlevel massing with the reduced first-story building footprint, the development is consistent with the established neighborhood scale of predominantly one- and two-story homes. This design approach helps ensure that impacts to neighboring sightlines remain within a reasonable and anticipated range associated with residential development.

Lastly, while the proposed Project intersects portions of existing view corridors, the Project does not extend across the full extent of the visible ocean horizon. Ocean views to the 31 32 of 803
-5- Reso. #
southeast (left of the Project) remain. Accordingly, the proposed Project does not encompass or fully obstruct the existing ocean views experienced from the referenced vantage points. Therefore, while a narrowing of private views, particularly from adjacent uphill properties that have second-story vantage points would occur, staff [sic] notes that the applicable design review criteria is the concept of view equity rather than view preservation and that ocean views from neighboring properties would remain to the southeast.”
As indicated above, the Board concurred with the findings made in the May 14, 2026 staff report for view equity. The proposed Project would not completely obstruct existing ocean views. Ocean views to the southeast (left of the Project) remain available, and the Project does not extend across the full visible ocean horizon.

During Board deliberation, the Board considered the overall extent of remaining ocean views from neighboring properties, including Appellant’s residence. The Board appropriately drew their observations from the whole of the record, including their review of the staff report, plans, staking, and site visits with several affected neighbors, including Appellant (361 Locust Street), Mariner (334 Locust Street), and Baskevitch (352 Locust Street). The following is summary and discussion of each Board members’ comment about view equity.

Board Member Gibbs emphasized that the applicable Design Review standard is view equity rather than view preservation. He noted that two-story homes are common within the 32 33 of 803
-6- Reso. #
neighborhood and that the proposed Project was smaller in scale than many existing secondstory developments. After reviewing the views from neighboring properties, he concluded that substantial ocean views would remain and that the Project appropriately balanced neighboring view interests with the Applicant's development rights.

Supporting Quote:
"It's view equity, it's not view preservation... if you look at the full view parameter, you will see... that view equity has been achieved."2 He further stated that from Appellant’s property, "I saw as much ocean that's not impacted... as is in fact less is being impacted."3 Chair Pro Tem Neev acknowledged that neighboring property owners naturally focus on the portions of views affected by the proposed structure when observing story poles. However, after evaluating the broader view corridor from neighboring decks and properties during site visits, she concluded that meaningful ocean views would remain and that the Project satisfied the City's view equity principles.

Supporting Quote:
"When you stand on a deck, certainly your eyes are going to go to those story poles and you see what you're losing. But... when you really look beyond that, and we think about view equity, I believe that view equity is achieved."4
2 May 14, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 12 [Gibbs]. 3 May 14, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 12 [Gibbs]. 4 May 14, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 11 [Neev]. 33 34 of 803
-7- Reso. #
Board Member Coveny found that the Project had been carefully positioned to reduce impacts on neighboring properties while maintaining the Applicant's ability to construct a reasonable second-story addition. She observed that primary ocean views from affected properties would remain available and that requiring further reductions would not provide an equitable balance between view impacts and development rights.

Supporting Quote:
"The way you've positioned it... is really making the best for the view impact that it has on 352 and 361 (Locust Street)."5 She further stated that reducing the upper-story addition "doesn't provide you the proper equity that you deserve to build your home."6 Board Member Weil characterized the Project as a sharing of views rather than a complete loss of views. He concluded that the proposal represented a carefully designed effort to minimize view impacts while allowing the Applicant to reasonably utilize development rights that are common throughout the neighborhood.

Supporting Quote:
"I think it's more of a sharing of the view than a total elimination."7 He further stated that the Project "really does try to minimize the impacts from view equity as best it can while 5 May 14, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 10 [Coveny]. 6 May 14, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 10 [Coveny]. 7 May 14, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 10 [Weil]. 34 35 of 803
-8- Reso. #
still trying to achieve the two-story element."8
Chair Bauta concluded that the Project was thoughtfully designed, compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and consistent with the established pattern of development. He also noted that existing vegetation and surrounding structures already partially obstruct portions of the affected views.

Supporting Quote:
"I think this Project meets the pattern of development. I think it's a thoughtfully designed home. It is neighborhood compatible."9 He further noted that "all of the view impacts are partial... between a lot of the trees and other structures beyond."10 Additionally, the City’s Design Guidelines – A Guide to Residential Development (the “Design Guidelines”) explains view equity as follows: “it is recognized that each property is a part of the view dynamic. A property may enjoy a specific view today, but that experience may change as surrounding properties are developed. A balance of interests should be achieved in which all those who enjoy the view (new or existing) retain some access to it.”11 This Project is consistent with that definition, as it balances the interests of both existing and future property owners while preserving access to views, as reflected in the Design Guidelines and supported 8 May 14, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 10 [Weil]. 9 May 14, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 11 [Bauta]. 10 May 14, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 12 [Bauta]. 11 Design Guidelines Page 63, adopted by the City Council on December 7, 2010 as set forth by Resolution No.

10.117: https://www.lagunabeachcity.net/home/showpublisheddocument/12989/638001331177400000. 35 36 of 803
-9- Reso. #
by the Board's deliberations.

The Appellant further contends that the Board failed to adequately consider alternative design measures that could further preserve neighboring views. However, the hearing record demonstrates that both the Applicant and Board members specifically discussed design modifications, including roof pitch, building placement, and upper-story massing, and evaluated whether additional changes would meaningfully reduce view impacts while maintaining a reasonable residential design.

The Applicant explained that the proposed roof design had already been reduced to a practical minimum and that certain roof pitches were designed at approximately 2.5:12, which represented the lowest feasible pitch without moving to a flat roof. The Applicant further explained that while portions of the roof utilize a steeper 7:12 pitch, the plate height was intentionally kept low to maintain neighborhood character while minimizing overall building height, with seven-foot plates proposed at the second floor addition. 12 Supporting Quote:
"Our high roof slope on the dormers [is] two and a half in 12, which is the lowest you can go for a standard roofing material before you go to something like a built-up or TPO... we're using the 7 and 12 to create the appearance of that character, but keeping it really low on purpose."13
12 Project Plans, Sheet A221 (Building Sections) 13 May 14, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 6 [Matt (Applicant)]. 36 37 of 803
-10- Reso. #
Board Member Weil concluded that the Project's siting and massing had been carefully designed to reduce impacts on neighboring views. He specifically noted that the upper-story addition had been placed to the left (i.e., south), preserving angled view corridors from uphill properties. He further found that the Project represented a thoughtful effort to minimize view impacts while still accommodating a reasonable second-story addition consistent with the surrounding neighborhood.

Supporting Quote:
"By shifting the building to the left on the upper story addition, it really leaves views and angled views for the homeowners up the hill."14 He further stated that the Project "really does try to minimize the impacts from view equity as best it can while still trying to achieve the two-story element."15
Chair Pro Tem Neev considered whether additional reductions to the roof height or pitch could further preserve views and concluded that meaningful view preservation would require a substantially different building form that would be an unreasonable imposition. She noted that lowering the roof pitch would not materially improve views unless the overall structure height were significantly reduced.

Supporting Quote:
14 May 14, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 10 [Weil]. 15 May 14, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 10 [Weil]. 37 38 of 803
-11- Reso. #
"You'd have to dig down five or six feet and have a flat roof... in order to preserve this section that you'll be blocking."16 She further stated that reducing the roof pitch "really wouldn't make a difference unless you really lower the whole structure,"17 and concluded that such an approach was ‘just not reasonable.’"18
The Board’s record demonstrates that view impacts and view equity were not only considered, but were a central focus of Board discussion. The Design Guidelines require that “development, including its landscaping… be designed to protect existing views from neighboring properties without denying the subject property the reasonable opportunity to develop…”19 (Emphasis added.) Based on testimony from the Applicant, observations made during site visits, and evaluating the proposed plans, the Board concluded that the proposed design had already incorporated measures to reduce view impacts, including its minimal 637- square-foot size, minimizing roof heights where feasible, and shifting the upper-story addition to preserve angled ocean views. The Board ultimately determined that further modifications would not meaningfully reduce view impacts without requiring unreasonable reductions to the Project's size, functionality, or architectural design, and that the Project was a reasonable proposal to achieve a second story over the existing single-family residence. As Board member Gibbs observed, “[n]umerous houses on Locust have much more program on the second story including the 352 Locust project.”
16 May 14, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 11 [Neev]. 17 May 14, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 11 [Neev]. 18 May 14, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 11 [Neev]. 19 Design Guidelines Page 63, adopted by the City Council on December 7, 2010 as set forth by Resolution No.

10.117: https://www.lagunabeachcity.net/home/showpublisheddocument/12989/638001331177400000. 38 39 of 803
-12- Reso. #

2. “The approved design disproportionately concentrates massing into established view corridors.”
City Council’s Response
Response to Appellant's Claim Regarding Improper Shift of Massing into Views:

City Council incorporates by reference the staff’s response to Contention No. 1 regarding the Board’s view equity analysis.

Response to Appellant's Claim Regarding Neighborhood Compatibility:

The Board found that the Project complied with DR Finding No. 1, Criteria No. 9 (Neighborhood Compatibility) as follows:
“The proposed project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, which is characterized by a mix of one- and two-story single-family residences exhibiting both traditional and contemporary architectural styles. The exterior remodel incorporates materials and design elements that are consistent with this neighborhood character, including smooth finish stucco and shake roofing, which are commonly found on nearby properties.

The project also introduces subtle contemporary elements, such as a metal roof accent, which enhances the architectural design while remaining compatible with the surrounding context. Overall, the combination of traditional and modern materials reflects the existing development pattern and contributes to a cohesive neighborhood appearance.

The addition of a new second story is also consistent with the neighborhood, as two-story 39 40 of 803
-13- Reso. #
residences are common in the vicinity. The placement of the second-story elements toward the front of the lot further reflects a pattern observed on nearby properties along the street.” The Appellant contends that second-story development within the neighborhood is generally confined to the rear portions of lots. As indicated by the Board’s neighborhood compatibility finding above, the Board separately and appropriately found that the Project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. As indicated above, the Board found that “[t]he placement of the second-story elements toward the front of the lot further reflects a pattern observed on nearby properties along the street.” While some properties contain second-story elements located toward the rear of the lot, as indicated by the Appellant, there are several properties on the 300-block of Locust Street that include second-story massing at the front or street-facing portion of the residence. Examples include 352 Locust Street, 370 Locust Street, and 380 Locust Street as seen in Figures 9 and 10. These properties, which are located within 200 feet of the Applicant’s Property, demonstrate that front-facing second-story development is an established feature of the block and is not limited to rear-yard locations. Accordingly, the approved Project is consistent with the surrounding pattern of development and does not represent an unusual concentration of upper-story massing within the neighborhood. While the specific design and placement of second-story elements vary among properties, the presence of existing two-story residential development throughout the vicinity, including several examples with second-story massing located at the front of the property, supports the Board's finding that the proposed second-story addition is compatible with the established neighborhood context. Therefore, the Appellant's characterization of the neighborhood as 40 41 of 803
-14- Reso. #
being predominantly comprised of rear-lot second stories is incomplete and does not accurately reflect the existing development pattern along the 300 block of Locust Street and the surrounding area.

Figure 9 – Site overview of properties with second stories 41 42 of 803
-15- Reso. #
Figure 10 –Two-story residential structures fronting Locust Street. The properties pictured are located within 200 feet of the Property.

Although Board members noted that two-story development is common along Locust Street, those observations were made in the context of evaluating neighborhood compatibility and development patterns and were not the sole basis for the Board's view equity determination.

The hearing record demonstrates that the Board separately considered view impacts, Project massing, building placement, alternative design constraints, and observations from neighboring properties before concluding that the Project reasonably minimizes view impacts and achieves view equity and neighborhood compatibility with the Design Guidelines. The following statements from the hearing record demonstrate the Board's independent analysis supporting its finding of neighborhood compatibility.
42 43 of 803
-16- Reso. #
Board Member Weil found that the Project is architecturally compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. He noted that the proposed residence is modest in size compared to other homes along Locust Street and concluded that the Project satisfies the Design Review criteria for neighborhood compatibility.

Supporting Quote:
"For me, it meets the design review components architecturally. It's very compatible with the Tree Streets and quite an enhancement to it. The colors really keep it soft and minimalistic. It's a 1,900 square-foot total program for this front unit and I think that's well compatible if not on the smaller side for some of the homes up and down Locust Street. So for me, this meets the design review criteria."20
Board Member Coveny concluded that the Project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and found that the proposed siting appropriately balances neighborhood compatibility with minimizing impacts to adjacent properties.

Supporting Quote:
"This is definitely neighborhood compatible and you have every right to build a two story and the way you've positioned it, as Louis mentioned, is really making the best for the view impact that it has on 352 and 361." 21
20 May 14, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 10 [Weil]. 21 May 14, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 10 [Coveny]. 43 44 of 803
-17- Reso. #
"Your articulation is great. Your mass and scale is great. Your consistent materials to help tell that story architecturally is really good. It really upgrades this home and fits really well into the neighborhood." 22
Chair Bauta found that the Project is consistent with the existing pattern of development and determined that its design, mass, and scale are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.

Supporting Quote:
"I think this project meets the pattern of development. I think it's a thoughtfully designed home. It is neighborhood compatible. I don't see an issue with mass or scale."23 Board Member Gibbs found that the Project is compatible with the established pattern of development along Locust Street. He observed that numerous nearby residences contain larger second-story elements than the proposed Project and explained that the surrounding neighborhood context should be considered when evaluating the Project's scale and compatibility.

Supporting Quote:
"Numerous houses on Locust have much more program on the second story including the 352 Locust project. So you really need to put that in perspective in evaluating this 22 May 14, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 10 [Coveny]. 23 May 14, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 11 [Bauta]. 44 45 of 803
-18- Reso. #
project."24
Chair Pro Tem Neev found that the Project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood because two-story homes are common along Locust Street. She further concluded that the applicant had carefully positioned and limited the upper story to minimize impacts while remaining consistent with the existing pattern of development.

Supporting Quote:
"And I think that considering this home in the neighborhood, there are so many two-story homes and this property now, I think you've been very modest as far as and very carefully positioning your upper story in order to minimize the impact." 25 Response to Appellant's Claim Regarding Open Space Requirements:

The Appellant disputes statements made during the hearing that removal of 311 square feet of lower-level floor area was necessary to comply with open space requirements, arguing that no supporting calculations or analysis were provided in the record. However, open space calculations were provided with the Board-approved plans26. As explained further below, the proposed 637-square-foot second-story addition would not have met open space requirements if the single-story portion was maintained at its existing size, or if the proposed second-story addition, which is designed and oriented capture a private ocean view, was added to the ground 24 May 14, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 12 [Gibbs]. 25 May 14, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 12 [Neev]. 26 Sheet G006, Open Space Plan. 45 46 of 803
-19- Reso. #
floor of the structure.

The removal of 311 square feet of existing single-family residence helps to meet the required open space. With the 637-square-foot second-floor addition, the Project is required to provide approximately 1,134 square feet of open space for the site. The proposed Project provides a total of 1,286 square feet, exceeding the minimum requirement by approximately 152 square feet.

Table 1. Open Space Requirements
Required Existing Proposed Conforms
Overall site open space
(LBMC 25.50.010)
1,134.40 sf 1,006 sf 1,286 sf Yes
60% of total required
Open Space open to sky
(LBMC 25.50.010 (B)
680.64 sf 1,006 sf 1,286 sf Yes
25% of total required
Open Space shall be
immediately accessible to
each living unit on the lot
(LBMC 25.50.010 (E)
283.6 sf 1,006 sf 1,002 sf directly accessible
for single family residence.
284 sf directly accessible
for second unit.

Yes
If the Applicant had instead placed the entirety of the proposed floor area addition at ground level, the available open space would have been reduced to approximately 649 square feet (1,286 square feet minus 637 square feet), which would not satisfy the minimum 1,134-squarefoot open space requirement. To compensate for the resulting loss of open space, the Applicant would likely have needed to construct an upper-level deck or other outdoor living area above the residence to satisfy the overall site open space standard. (LBMC Section 25.50.010(A).) 46 47 of 803
-20- Reso. #
However, rooftop decks are strongly discouraged by the Design Guidelines, 27 and locating the
entire addition on the ground floor would not have been consistent with the Applicant’s goals for the Project, which reasonably include adding a second floor of habitable building area in a neighborhood that already features two-story residential structures.

As Board member Weil observed, “I think several of the neighbors that were walking us through their homes, they all have two-story buildings. So to say that this one can't be a twostory building really deprives the owner of that right of enjoyment that is well-observed across the lots that have been developed going up and down the street.”28 The Board’s view equity analysis did not depend on a conclusion that the addition had to be configured as a new second story in order to satisfy open-space requirements. Rather, the record reflects that the Board began from the premise that a second-story addition was a reasonable component of the Project given the existing development pattern in the immediate area, and then engaged in extensive deliberation regarding view equity based on Project staking, site visits with neighbors, and other relevant evidence.

Response to Appellant's Claim Regarding Less View-Impacting Alternatives:

Lastly, the Appellant contends that the record does not demonstrate that less view-impacting alternatives were meaningfully evaluated prior to approval. The hearing record, however, 27 Desing Guidelines Page 20: “use lower-story rooftops as deck areas for upper floors and avoid top-story rooftop decks.”
28 May 14, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 10 [Weil]. 47 48 of 803
-21- Reso. #
reflects that both the Applicant and the Board considered Project constraints, alternative design approaches, and whether additional modifications would meaningfully reduce view impacts while maintaining a reasonable residential design.

The record demonstrates that the Board specifically considered whether the proposed secondstory addition had been designed to reasonably minimize view impacts. The Applicant explained that the roof forms, plate heights, and building placement were intentionally configured to reduce the building's perceived mass and preserve view opportunities where feasible. Board Member Weil specifically found that the Project's siting minimized impacts to uphill properties, stating, "By shifting the building to the left on the upper story addition, it really leaves views and angled views for the homeowners up the hill."29 He further concluded that the Project "really does try to minimize the impacts from view equity as best it can while still trying to achieve the two-story element."30 Likewise, Chair Pro Tem Neev considered whether further reductions to the roof form would meaningfully improve neighboring views and concluded that they would not, stating that preserving the affected portion of the view would require a substantially different building form: "You'd have to dig down five or six feet and have a flat roof... in order to preserve this section that you'll be blocking."31 She further stated that reducing the roof pitch "really wouldn't make a difference unless you really lower the whole structure,"32 concluding that such an approach was "just not reasonable."33 29 May 14, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 10 [Weil]. 30,May 14, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 10 [Weil]. 31 May 14, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 11 [Neev]. 32 May 14, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 11 [Neev]. 33 May 14, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 11 [Neev]. 48 49 of 803
-22- Reso. #
Furthermore, the view equity DR criterion does not require that the Board exhaustively document and study every possible permutation of a proposed Project to find that view equity is met. Here, the Board found that the view equity design review criterion, cited above, was achieved, concluding that the second-story addition represented a reasonable design that appropriately balanced the Applicant’s development rights with neighboring interests by preserving some access to preexisting ocean views.

The Board-approved plans include a second-floor addition over an existing single-family residence to create a new primary bedroom suite with a bathroom and walk-in closet, as well as a secondary bedroom with a full bathroom. As demonstrated by Figure 11 below, the 637- square-foot second floor addition is approximately half the size of the ground floor, which is proposed at 1,266 square feet for a total area of 1,903 square feet for the single-family residence.34 In effect, the addition functions as a “pop-up,” situated within the footprint of a substantially larger ground floor. The Board found the addition to be modest in scale and sensitively designed and sited to achieve view equity. The Board also noted that, unlike other two-story residences in the immediate area, this second-story “pop-up” does not fully occupy the available building envelope.
34 A smaller, 668-square-foot unit over the detached garage is not proposed to be enlarged except for a six-squarefoot deck addition. 49 50 of 803
-23- Reso. #
Figure 11 – First and second floor footprint comparison

3. “Several findings regarding alleged view mitigation are unsupported by substantial evidence.”
City Council’s Response
The hearing record demonstrates that the Board's findings were supported by substantial evidence, including staff analysis, Applicant testimony, Project plans, story-pole observations, site visits to neighboring properties, and extensive Board deliberation regarding view equity.

City Council incorporates by reference the staff’s responses to Contention Nos. 1 and 2 regarding the Board’s view equity analysis.

Furthermore, independent from its view equity analysis, the Board found that the Project complied with DR Finding No. 1, Criteria No. 2 (Design Articulation) as follows:
50 51 of 803
-24- Reso. #
“The proposed improvements are within the allowable building envelope. The secondstory addition has a maximum height of approximately 23 feet, which is below the 25-foot height limit. The project incorporates architectural articulation to reduce the perceived building mass. Varied roof forms and changes in building planes create visual separation and avoid large, uninterrupted façades. Windows and doors are distributed across all elevations, providing additional visual relief. The use of various materials, including smooth stucco, cedar shake roofing, and standing seam metal roofing, along with contrasting colors and trim, further breaks up the mass of the structure.” Design articulation and view equity are separate and distinct design review criteria, and as demonstrated above, the Board found that the Project satisfies both.

4. "The record does not support the suggestion that appellants sought complete view preservation."
City Council’s Response
The hearing record does not support the assertion that the Board relied on any such mischaracterization of the Appellant’s testimony regarding view impacts and the concept of view equity in reaching its decision. Rather, the Board’s decision was based on its evaluation of the full evidentiary record, including the Project plans, public testimony, the staff report, and site visits to assess the story pole staking and meet with affected neighbors at their properties. Board members expressly deliberated on the Project’s compliance with the view 51 52 of 803
-25- Reso. #
equity DR criterion.

During the public hearing, the Board repeatedly confirmed that its evaluation was based on an independent review of the Project, including site visits, review of the plans, and consideration of all public testimony under the City's view equity framework. Chair Bauta expressly noted that the Board’s decision-making was grounded in the hearing record, stating, "our judgment is based on this hearing here tonight."35 In addition, Board Member Weil emphasized that no conclusions were predetermined, explaining that he does not make "any statements of predetermination until I get to fully see the sites, discuss it with the architects, discuss it with the neighbors,"36 and further confirming that "the determinations aren't made until we get here."37
The record also demonstrates that the Board understood and considered the Appellant’s concerns regarding view impacts and potential design alternatives. However, the Board did not interpret those concerns as requiring different action. Instead, the Board evaluated view equity and found it was supported by substantial evidence. Staff incorporates by reference the staff’s responses to Contention Nos. 1-3.

5. “The practical impacts of the project appear inconsistent with the characterization of the work as a comparatively “minor” alteration.”
35 May 14, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 4 [Bauta]. 36 May 14, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 9 [Weil]. 37 May 14, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 10 [Weil]. 52 53 of 803
-26- Reso. #
City Council’s Response
The Board found that the Project qualified for a categorical exemption from CEQA under the Class 1 exemption (Existing Facilities), as follows:

In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, the project qualifies for a categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15301 - Existing Facilities, in that the project consists of the repair, maintenance, or minor alteration of existing structures or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. There is no evidence of any unusual or special conditions that would result in a significant effect on the environment. Here, improvements are limited to additions, elevated deck, fences, barbecue area with a patio cover, landscaping, exterior modifications, hardscape, and right-of-way improvements.

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 in that the improvements are proposed on a property containing an existing single-family residence with a second unit on top of a garage within an established residential neighborhood. 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 features exist on or adjacent to the property. 53 54 of 803
-27- Reso. #
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.

The Appellant contends that the approved Project cannot properly be characterized as a "minor alteration" under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 because it includes upper- and lower-level additions, modifications to the building massing and rooflines, and alleged impacts to neighboring views. City Council disagrees.

The Project qualifies for a Class 1 Categorical Exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Section 15301 applies to the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. The subject Property is developed with an existing single-family residence and a second unit within an established residential neighborhood. The proposed improvements consist of lower- and upper-level additions, an elevated deck, barbecue area with a patio cover, landscaping, exterior modifications, replacement and installation of windows and doors, hardscape improvements, and associated right-of-way improvements. The Project does not change the property's residential use, increase the intensity of use beyond that customarily associated with a singlefamily residence, or introduce any new land use. 54 55 of 803
-28- Reso. #
The Appellant's argument improperly equates the physical size of the proposed residential additions with an expansion of use that renders the Project ineligible for a Class 1 exemption.

However, Section 15301(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that additions to existing structures may fall within a Class 1 categorical exemption, provided that the following criteria are met:
(e) Additions to existing structures provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than:
(1) 50 percent of the floor area of the structures before the addition, or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less; or
(2) 10,000 square feet if:
(A)The project is in an area where all public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum development permissible in the General Plan and (B) The area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301.)
Here, the Project meets the criteria above because the Project satisfies the criteria under Section 15301(e)(2), which allows additions up to 10,000 square feet when the project is located in an area where all public services and facilities are available to allow for the maximum development permissible under the General Plan and the area is not environmentally sensitive.

The proposed addition is less than 10,000 square feet, and the Project site is located within an established residential neighborhood that is served by existing public services and facilities, including water, sewer, and other municipal services. Also, the Project site is not located within 55 56 of 803
-29- Reso. #
an environmentally sensitive area, but rather, is located within a residential area surrounded on all sides by developed residential property and improved streets and alleys. The Project does not involve development within designated open space areas, environmentally sensitive habitat areas, or other identified sensitive environmental resources.

Even if the Project did not meet the criteria under Subsection (e)(2), which it does, the Project also satisfies Subsection (e)(1). The proposed addition is less than 50 percent of the existing floor area of the structure prior to the addition, or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less. The existing single-family residence contains approximately 1,546 square feet of floor area. The proposed Project includes a total addition of approximately 668 square feet, consisting of a 31- square-foot lower-level addition and a 637-square-foot upper-level addition. The proposed addition represents approximately 43 percent of the existing residence’s floor area, which is below the 50 percent threshold identified in Section 15301(e)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines.

The proposed improvements maintain the residential use of the Property and do not alter the fundamental nature, function, or intensity of that use. Residential additions and exterior improvements to existing homes are routinely found to fall within the scope of the Class 1 exemption where, as here, they occur on a developed residential lot.

Further, the Appellant's assertions regarding building massing, roofline changes, and alleged view impacts do not establish that the exemption is inapplicable. CEQA is concerned with 56 57 of 803
-30- Reso. #
physical changes to the environment that may result in significant environmental effects. The Appellant provides no substantial evidence demonstrating that the proposed residential improvements would result in a significant environmental impact. The Project is located in an urbanized area surrounded on all sides by developed residential property, a public street, and an alley. Allegations regarding private view impairment or changes in visual relationships between neighboring properties do not, by themselves, constitute evidence that a Project falls outside the scope of the Class 1 exemption.

SECTION 3. The City Council hereby makes the following findings and facts supporting findings for DR 2026-0702:

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 project’s vehicular access is provided via the alley at the rear of the property. The existing garage and alley configuration will remain unchanged as part of this project. While a new fence, gate, and pilasters are proposed within the right-of-way near Locust Street, there would be no impacts to pedestrian access along Locust Street, as the improvements would remain located behind the fire hydrant, which marks the edge of the usable sidewalk width.

2. Design Articulation: Within the allowable building envelope, the appearance of building and retaining wall mass should be minimized. Articulation techniques including, but not 57 58 of 803
-31- 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 proposed improvements are within the allowable building envelope. The second-story addition has a maximum height of approximately 23 feet, which is below the 25-foot height limit.

The project incorporates various architectural elements such as varied roof forms and changes in building planes to create visual separation and avoid large, uninterrupted façades. These design choices create visual interest of the building’s massing that help it be perceived in smaller increments. Windows and doors are distributed across all elevations, providing additional visual relief. The use of various materials, including smooth stucco, cedar shake roofing, and standing seam metal roofing, along with contrasting colors and trim, further breaks up the mass of the structure.

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 exterior remodel of both the single-family residence and the second unit above the garage is designed to be cohesive, utilizing consistent materials, colors, and architectural detailing across both structures. The proposed design reflects a modern farmhouse architectural style, and the use of appropriate materials and detailing ensures consistency with this architectural approach.

Traditional elements, including shake roofing, simple gabled roof forms, and smooth stucco finishes, are combined with contemporary features such as standing seam metal roofing, dark bronze window and door trim, and clean-lined detailing. The coordinated use of light stucco, darker trim, and natural wood accents creates a balanced and unified appearance. The remodel is 58 59 of 803
-32- Reso. #
harmonious with the existing architecture on-site, as well as between the two structures, resulting in a cohesive design that is consistent with the applicant’s chosen architectural style.

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 proposed project is located within a developed residential neighborhood, and there are no existing heritage trees, ridgelines, rock outcroppings, or significant watercourse on the site. The project site is well outside any mapped habitat. No modification to the grade is proposed.

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

The project complies with the General Plan, including, but not limited to, the following policies:

General Plan Policies
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.

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 59 60 of 803
-33- Reso. #
in the Design Guidelines and the Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document.

The proposed project does not require grading, and no alternation of natural topography is proposed. Public views are protected as the project would not be readily visible from public vantage points, including Locust Street, due to many of the surrounding existing developments already developed with second stories. For example, 470 Cypress and 474 Cypress, which are located south of the property and are in line in sight to the ocean view, already establishing the available view corridors. Thus, the second story addition on the property will not introduce significant view impacts from public streets. The project would narrow private views, particularly from adjacent uphill properties, that have second-story vantage points. City Council notes that the applicable design review criteria is the concept of view equity rather than view preservation and that ocean views from neighboring properties would remain toward the southeast.

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.).

The proposed project is consistent with this policy as discussed in the Design Review Criteria for Design Articulation, Environmental Context, and Neighborhood Compatibility. The project would not be readily visible from public vantage points, including Locust Street, due to many of the surrounding existing developments already developed with second stories. For example, 470 Cypress and 474 Cypress, which are located south of the property and are in line in sight to the ocean view. Available ocean views from Locust Street and properties on Locust are already 60 61 of 803
-34- Reso. #
established within this context. The project would narrow private views, particularly from adjacent uphill properties, that have second-story vantage points. City Council notes that the applicable design review criteria is the concept of view equity rather than view preservation and that ocean views from neighboring properties would remain toward the southeast.

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 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 proposed project does not require grading, thereby maintaining the existing landform and minimizing alteration of existing topography. The subject property is located within a developed residential neighborhood, and public views from Locust Street are already influenced by existing multi-level development, mature vegetation, and intervening structures. The proposed upper-level addition, at approximately 23 feet in height, is consistent with the scale of nearby development, which features two story homes. As such, the addition would not introduce a substantial new obstruction to public views from street-level vantage points. Also, existing visual conditions— including mature trees, landscaping, and rooftops of intervening multi-story properties on Cypress Drive—already partially frame and limit ocean views from public rights-of-way. 61 62 of 803
-35- Reso. #
Additionally, to further mitigate potential impacts on immediate neighbors, the applicant has selected a low-profile landscaping plan. The proposal includes five ornamental trees a with a maximum maintained height of 15 feet along with various shrubs and low—growing trees. In the context of residential design, 15-foot trees are considered small-scale "understory" plantings that typically remain below the typical second story viewing elevation of adjacent homes. This height restriction ensures that landscaping provides aesthetic value and privacy without encroaching into the primary sightlines of neighboring properties. Lastly, there are no designated bluff-top trails, scenic highways, or visitor-serving public vantage points in the immediate vicinity of the project site.

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 project is designed to preserve and enhance the site’s natural and scenic qualities by minimizing landform alterations by not requiring any grading and ensuring visual compatibility with surrounding residential uses. The proposed upper-level addition is similar in height with the existing second unit with garage structure and is below the allowable building envelope.

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.
62 63 of 803
-36- Reso. #
The project is located on an improved lot in an existing residential neighborhood. The scope of work includes additions to the existing structure and does not generate growth-inducing potential in the area, and no grading is proposed.

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 project is designed to preserve and enhance the site’s natural and scenic qualities by minimizing landform alterations in that there is no modification of the existing grade required.

Given where the additions are proposed and how they are designed, they are visually compatible with surrounding residential uses. The proposed additions are below the required building envelope, protecting the community’s natural resources and scenic character while maintaining public views.

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

The subject property is not listed on 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 63 64 of 803
-37- Reso. #
maintenance of proposed landscaping.

Although no previously approved landscape plan exists for the property, a landscape plan is required because the proposed addition exceeds 15 feet in height. Landscaping plan has been reviewed by the City’s architect per “Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document” to ensure appropriate design and proper maintenance.

Landscaping is proposed throughout the site and includes a mix of trees, shrubs, and ground covers. Five olive trees are proposed—four in the front yard and one in the rear yard—and will be maintained at a maximum height of 15 feet. The remainder of the landscaping consists of shrubs and low-growing trees. The proposed olive trees are not anticipated to create significant potential view impacts as the coastline view is already established by the multi-story developments along Cypress Drive, which are taller than 15 feet in height. The project therefore maintains a reasonable balance between privacy and view preservation. Rest of the landscaping consists of shrubs and low-growing trees. “Little Ragu” Sweet Bay, maintained at approximately 6 feet in height, are proposed along both side property lines to provide privacy from adjacent properties.

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.

All proposed exterior materials, including metal roof, shake cedar roof, and stucco finish are non-reflective to minimize glare and visual impacts. The project includes eleven (11) new low64 65 of 803
-38- Reso. #
wattage fixtures near doorways and twenty-five (25) landscaping lights with low lumens. All exterior lighting is directed downward to provide adequate illumination while preventing light spillover onto neighboring properties All lighting will comply with the City’s Good Neighbor Outdoor Lighting Ordinance (LBMC Chapter 7.70).

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 proposed project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, which is characterized by a mix of one- and two-story single-family residences exhibiting both traditional and contemporary architectural styles. Specifically, the opposite side of the street contains more one-story homes, while the same side of the street as the project site includes a greater number of two-story residences. The exterior remodel incorporates materials and design elements that are consistent with this neighborhood character, including smooth finish stucco and shake roofing, which are commonly found on nearby properties.

The project also introduces subtle contemporary elements, such as a metal roof accent, which enhances the architectural design while remaining compatible with the surrounding context.

Overall, the combination of traditional and modern materials reflects the existing development pattern and contributes to a cohesive neighborhood appearance.

The addition of a new second story is also consistent with the neighborhood, as two-story residences are common in the vicinity. The placement of the second-story elements toward the 65 66 of 803
-39- Reso. #
front of the lot further reflects a pattern observed on nearby properties along the street.

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 north and south elevations of the property are adjacent to neighboring residential properties. The west elevation faces the alley, and the east elevation fronts the street. At the first level of the single-family residence, the number of windows along the north elevation will decrease from six to three, thereby reducing potential overlook opportunities. Additionally, shrubs maintained at approximately 6 feet in height are proposed along the shared north property line to provide visual screening and further mitigate potential privacy impacts. Along the south elevation, four new window openings are proposed at the first level; however, an existing fence along the shared property line provides screening and helps minimize potential privacy concerns.

With the upper-level addition, one new window is proposed along the north elevation, which is limited in number and not anticipated to result in significant privacy impacts. Along the south elevation, four new windows are proposed; however, the adjacent property does not have a second story in the area facing the proposed addition. Additionally, the adjoining lot contains a 66 67 of 803
-40- Reso. #
narrow side yard that extends along the length of the shared property line. Views from the proposed second story into the neighboring property would be limited and oblique and therefore do not raise privacy concerns.

The proposed deck expansion associated with the second unit serves as a small entry landing and is not designed to function as a high-activity gathering space. The deck extension would overlook the narrow side yard of the adjacent lot. However, since this deck overlooks a narrow side yard that serves as a passageway, views would be limited and not directly into living areas. Lastly, windows are proposed along the north side of the garage. Because the garage is a non-habitable space with limited and intermittent use, these windows are not expected to result in significant privacy impacts.

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 67 68 of 803
-41- Reso. #
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. Further, 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 existing or proposed swimming pool, spa, or water feature is included in the project scope.

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

The proposed development has been evaluated for consistency with the City’s View Equity criteria, which seeks to balance the protection of existing views from neighboring properties with the reasonable opportunity for development of the subject site. 68 69 of 803
-42- Reso. #
The project results in impacts to private views, particularly from adjacent properties with second-story vantage points. Specifically, the project narrows private views, particularly from adjacent uphill properties, that have second-story vantage points. Staff notes that the applicable design review criteria is the concept of view equity rather than view preservation and that ocean views from neighboring properties would remain toward the southeast. The figure below shows the view corridor from 352 Locust’s elevated deck.

Figure 2: View corridors from 352 Locust Street’s deck looking south As shown in Figure 2 above, the proposed project, as represented through staking, does not obstruct the entire ocean horizon. The project primarily affects views to the west; however, this western view corridor is a number of vertical visual obstructions.

As seen in the figure, mature vegetation—including a large centrally located tree within the view corridor—along with surrounding landscaping and the rooftops of neighboring structures, already partially interrupt and frame the ocean view. Specifically, the multi-story properties at 460 Cypress Drive and 470 Cypress Drive, located south of the subject site, obstruct portions of the western ocean view. As a result, ocean views from Locust Street and adjacent properties are already experienced as segmented and narrowed view corridors rather than a continuous 69 70 of 803
-43- Reso. #
panoramic ocean vista. Within this existing context, the proposed project does overlap portions of the western view corridors and would further reduce certain view openings. However, these views are already constrained and fragmented by existing development and vegetation conditions.

Furthermore, the applicant has proposed an upper-level addition at approximately 23.78 feet in height, which is more than one foot below the maximum allowable height of 25 feet. By maintaining a building height below the permitted maximum and aligning the upper-level massing with the reduced first-story building footprint, the development is consistent with the established neighborhood scale of predominantly one- and two-story homes. This design approach helps ensure that impacts to neighboring sightlines remain within a reasonable and anticipated range associated with residential development.

Lastly, while the proposed project intersects portions of existing view corridors, the project does not extend across the full extent of the visible ocean horizon. Ocean views to the southeast (left of the project) remain. Accordingly, the proposed project does not encompass or fully obstruct the existing ocean views experienced from the referenced vantage points. Therefore, while a narrowing of private views, particularly from adjacent uphill properties that have second-story vantage points would occur, staff notes that the applicable design review criteria is the concept of view equity rather than view preservation and that ocean views from neighboring properties would remain to the southeast.

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.
70 71 of 803
-44- Reso. #
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 the Findings above for Design Review Criteria 2, 3, 4, and 9 regarding design articulation, design integrity, environmental context, and neighborhood compatibility, with the facts provided therein incorporated here by this reference.

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

The project is not located within any specific plan area and the R-2 zoning district does not contain any specific design review criteria.

SECTION 4. The City Council hereby makes the following findings and facts supporting findings for REP 2026-0703:

Finding No. 1: It should be located in a manner that is not hazardous to the traveling public, including motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians.

The project is located and designed so as not to create hazards for motorists, bicyclists, or pedestrians. All improvements within the public right-of-way are limited in scope and have been reviewed and approved by Public Works. The proposed cement wall with wood fencing on top, pilasters, and gate are capped at 3’ in height, minor in scale. No structures obstruct sight lines, impede vehicular turning movements, or interfere with pedestrian paths as the improvements are proposed behind the fire hydrant, which is aligned with the existing sidewalk. As conditioned, the project will comply with all applicable Public Works standards, ensuring safe and orderly use of the public right-of-way.
71 72 of 803
-45- Reso. #
Finding No. 2: It should be sufficiently set back from the edge of pavement or street centerline to provide adequate travel, parking, and walking lanes.

The proposed improvements maintain appropriate setbacks from the edge of pavement and street centerline in accordance with Public Works requirements and existing roadway conditions.

The fire hydrant along the frontage serves as a visual indicator of the effective sidewalk width, and the proposed improvements are located behind the hydrant and outside of the pedestrian path of travel. As such, no impacts to pedestrian circulation are anticipated. In addition, no impacts to parking or vehicular access are expected, as the garage is accessed from the rear alley located behind the residence.

Finding No. 3: It should not conflict with preexisting public utility structures, especially hydrants, vault and service meters in any manner that necessitates relocation thereof at public expense or causes any other unacceptable interference, including impediments to the maintenance, relocation or repair of pipelines, conduits, or substructures of any public utility.

No improvements are proposed that would require the relocation of hydrants, vaults, service meters, or other public utility facilities at public expense. All work within the right-of-way will be reviewed and approved by Public Works and applicable utility providers to ensure continued access for maintenance, repair, and emergency services. As conditioned, the project will not impede utility operations or infrastructure integrity.

Finding No. 4: It will not preclude public access, use or enjoyment of any area that has historically established such access, use or enjoyment.

The proposed improvements occur in areas that are already paved and utilized for pedestrian access. No public access points, pathways, or historically used areas are obstructed or 72 73 of 803
-46- Reso. #
eliminated as a result of the project.

Finding No. 5: It is not precedent setting in nature to the extent that it creates a noticeable projection into the streetscape as established by existing construction and improvements on neighboring properties.

The proposed improvements are not precedent setting, as they do not introduce new or atypical projections into the streetscape. The proposed fencing, gate, and pilasters within the rightof-way are consistent in scale, height, and placement with similar improvements observed on neighboring properties. At least two nearby properties include comparable low-height fencing elements within the right-of-way, demonstrating an established pattern of development along the street. Additionally, the proposed improvements are limited in height and maintain visual openness, ensuring that they do not create a noticeable projection or obstruction within the streetscape.

Finding No. 5: Finding No. 6: It does not create structures of unusual or unacceptable appearance, form, shape or height that detract from the general quality of the streetscape.

The design incorporates materials and finishes, including wood fencing and gates and complementary cement finishes, that are consistent with the architectural character of the residence and surrounding neighborhood. The proposed gate, pilasters, and fencing are typical streetscape elements commonly found in residential areas and are designed at a scale and height that is compatible with neighboring properties. The improvements maintain visual cohesion with the existing development pattern and do not introduce irregular forms or excessive height.

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 73 74 of 803
-47- Reso. #
to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 - Existing Facilities, in that the Project consists of the repair, maintenance, or minor alteration of existing structures or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. There is no evidence of any unusual or special conditions that would result in a significant effect on the environment. Here, improvements are limited to additions, elevated deck, fences, barbecue area with a patio cover, landscaping, exterior modifications, hardscape, and right-of-way improvements. The Project will not change the existing residential use of the property or result in an expansion of use beyond that customarily associated with a single-family residence. Specifically, the Project qualifies under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(e) because the proposed addition is approximately 668 square feet, representing approximately 43% of the existing 1,546-square foot residence, which is below the 50 percent threshold identified in Section 15301(e)(1). In addition, the Project site is located within an established residential neighborhood that is fully served by existing public services and facilities and is not located within an environmentally sensitive area, thereby also satisfying the criteria of Section 15301(e)(2).

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 in that the improvements are proposed on a property containing an existing single-family residence with a second unit on top of a garage within an established residential neighborhood. 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 features exist on or adjacent to the 74 75 of 803
-48- Reso. #
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 Board’s determination on the Project, as reflected in Board Resolution No. 2026-0702, including all conditions attached thereto, which such Resolution and conditions are incorporated herein by this reference, based on the findings in this Resolution.

ADOPTED this 28th day of July, 2026.

Mark Orgill, Mayor
ATTEST:

Ann Marie McKay, City Clerk
75 76 of 803
-49- 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
76 77 of 803
Attachment 2
77 78 of 803
78 79 of 803
79 80 of 803
80 81 of 803
81 82 of 803
82 83 of 803
83 84 of 803
84 85 of 803
85 86 of 803
86 87 of 803
87 88 of 803

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 2026-0702 and Revocable Encroachment Permit 2026-0703, and CEQA Categorical Exemption for lower- and upper-level additions, elevated deck, barbecue area with a patio cover, landscaping, exterior modifications, new windows/doors, hardscape, and right-of-way improvements at 332 Locust Street in the R-2 zone. Design review is required for upper-level addition, elevated deck, landscaping, windows/doors, and exterior modifications. A revocable encroachment permit is required for a gate, pilasters, walls, and fencing in the public right-of-way.

Related Project Cases on the property include but are not limited to: DR 88-254.

Applicant: Alder James, Architect (949) 529-9012 [email protected] 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: Claire Park, Assistant Planner (949) 464-6632 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 15301 - Existing Facilities, in that the project consists of the repair, maintenance, or minor alteration of existing structures or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use.

COASTAL: The project is located within a non-appealable area of the Coastal Zone.

The project is proposed as exempt development under Laguna Beach Municipal Code Chapter 25.07. The review procedure identified in Laguna Beach Municipal Code Section 25.07.012(B)(3) applies to any such determination.

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):
332 Locust 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. / Publish Date: 7/17/26.

Attachment 3
88 89 of 803
Attachment 4
89 90 of 803
90 91 of 803
91 92 of 803
92 93 of 803
93 94 of 803
94 95 of 803
95 96 of 803
96 97 of 803
97 98 of 803
98 99 of 803
99 100 of 803
100
101 of 803
101
102 of 803
102
103 of 803
103
104 of 803

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT
May 14, 2026
Agenda Item No. 5.2
Case No: Design Review 2026-0702 and Revocable Encroachment Permit 2026-0703 Request: Lower- and upper-level additions, elevated deck, barbecue area with a patio cover, landscaping, exterior modifications, new windows/doors, hardscape, and right-of-way improvements in the R-2 (Residential Medium Density) zone.

Location: 332 Locust Street, APN: 496-031-16
Applicant: Alder James, Architect
(949) 529-9012, [email protected]
Owner: AQUATERRA CAPITAL LLC
Staff: Community Development Department
Claire Park, Assistant Planner
(949) 464-6632 | [email protected]
Recommendation:

Adopt Resolution 2026-0702 approving Design Review 2026-0702 and Revocable Encroachment Permit 2026-0703 for the property located at 332 Locust Street and finding said action categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Guidelines Section 15301.

CEQA:

The project qualifies for a categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15301 - Existing Facilities, in that the project consists of the repair, maintenance, or minor alteration of existing structures or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use as the project is limited to additions, elevated deck, fences, barbecue area with a patio cover, landscaping, exterior modifications, hardscape, and right-of-way improvements.

Coastal Development Permit:

The project site is located in a non-appealable area of the Coastal Zone and does not require approval of a Coastal Development Permit because the proposed action is exempt development pursuant to Laguna each Municipal Code (LBMC) Section 25.07.008, Coastal Development Permits. Proposed improvements are limited to lower-and upper-level additions, elevated deck, fences, barbecue area with a patio cover, landscaping, exterior modifications, hardscape, and right-of-way improvements.

Board Members within a 500’ Radius: None
Attachment 5
104
105 of 803
Design Review 2026-0702 and Revocable Encroachment Permit 2026-0703 5/14/2026