Agenda packet — Laguna Beach City Council, July 28, 2026 (part 1 of 6)

CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
JULY 28, 2026
COUNCIL CHAMBERS – 505 FOREST AVENUE, LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 SPECIAL MEETING
MARK ORGILL, Mayor
HALLIE JONES, Mayor Pro Tem
SUE KEMPF, Councilmember
BOB WHALEN, Councilmember
ALEX ROUNAGHI, Councilmember
DAVE KIFF, City Manager
MEGAN GARIBALDI, City Attorney
LAURA PARISI, City Treasurer
ANN MARIE McKAY, City Clerk
SPECIAL MEETING APPEAL HEARINGS
************************************************
A. ROLL CALL 3:00 p.m.

B. PUBLIC HEARINGS (APPEALS). The City Council shall conduct all Public Hearings for items that have been appealed to the City Council in accordance with the provisions of City Council Policy

1.8, as may be amended, and all applicable law. The Mayor shall have discretion to establish the time allocated for the appellant and the applicant; further, each speaker in support or against, respectively, shall have up to three minutes for each agendized Public Hearing (Appeal) item, as may be shortened or extended, or a cumulative limit on the time for all public speakers may be imposed, at the discretion of the Mayor. Any member of the public may address the City Council on any Public Hearing item during the public testimony portion of the item.

A. APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 20251819 AND CDP 20251820 AT 399 PEARL STREET
Recommendations:

1. Conduct a Public Hearing, receive a staff report, and take public testimony and evidence relating to the consideration of Design Review 20251819 and Coastal Development Permit20251820andtheCaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityActexemptionunderSection 1 of 808
of the Mayor. Any member of the public may address the City Council on any Public Hearing item during the public testimony portion of the item.

A. APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 20251819 AND CDP 20251820 AT 399 PEARL STREET
Recommendations:

1. Conduct a Public Hearing, receive a staff report, and take public testimony and evidence relating to the consideration of Design Review 20251819 and Coastal Development Permit 20251820 and the California Environmental Quality Act 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 20251819 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 20251820 FOR AN ADDITION AND REMODEL OF AN EXISTING SINGLEFAMILY
RESIDENCE WITH A NEW ATTACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AT 399 PEARL STREET IN THE R1, RESIDENTIAL LOWDENSITY ZONE, AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15301”, upholding the Design Review Board’s conditional approval of Design Review 20251819 and Coastal Development Permit 20251820, and finding the project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.

B. APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 20251195 AND CDP 20260057 AT 950 BAJA STREET
Recommendations:

1. Conduct a Public Hearing, including receiving a staff report and taking public testimony and evidence relating to the consideration of Design Review 20251195 and Coastal Development Permit 20260057 and the California Environmental Quality Act exemption under Section 15303 of the state CEQA Guidelines; and

2. Adopt the Resolution titled, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL AND SUSTAINING THE DECISION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TO
CONDITIONALLY APPROVE DESIGN REVIEW 20251195 FOR A NEW SINGLEFAMILY DWELLING, ATTACHED THREECAR GARAGE, ELEVATED DECKS, GRADING, RETAINING WALLS, LANDSCAPING, AND NEW
VEHICULAR ACCESS, AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 20260057 FOR AN ATTACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AT 950 BAJA STREET IN THE ARCH BEACH HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN AREA, AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3),” upholding the Design Review Board’s conditional approval of Design Review 20251195 and Coastal Development Permit 20260057, and finding the Revised Project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.

C. APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 20260702 AND REP 20260703 AT 332 LOCUST STREET
Recommendations:

1. Conduct a Public Hearing, including receiving a staff report and taking public testimony and evidence relating to the consideration of Design Review 20260702 and Revocable Encroachment Permit 20260703, and the California Environmental Quality Act categoricalexemptionunderSection15301oftheStateCEQAGuidelines;and 2 of 808
Environmental Quality Act.

C. APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 20260702 AND REP 20260703 AT 332 LOCUST STREET
Recommendations:

1. Conduct a Public Hearing, including receiving a staff report and taking public testimony and evidence relating to the consideration of Design Review 20260702 and Revocable Encroachment Permit 20260703, 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 20260702 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF LOWER AND UPPERLEVEL ADDITIONS, ELEVATED DECK, BARBECUE AREA WITH A PATIO COVER, LANDSCAPING, EXTERIOR MODIFICATIONS, NEW WINDOWS/DOORS, AND HARDSCAPE, AND REVOCABLE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT 20260703 FOR A GATE, WALLS AND FENCING, AND PILASTERS WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHTOFWAY IN THE R2, 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 20260702 and Revocable Encroachment Permit 20260703, and finding the project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.

C. ADJOURNMENT. The Laguna Beach City Council will adjourn to its next regular or other meeting, tentatively set for:

AUGUST 4, 2026
LAGUNA BEACH CITY HALL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
505 FOREST AVENUE, LAGUNA BEACH, CA
CLOSED SESSION AT 4:00 P.M. AND
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING AT 5:00 P.M.
***************************************************************************************************************** Accessibility and Accommodation Requests: Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons with a disability who require a disabilityrelated 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 at (949) 4970705 (telephone) or [email protected] (email). Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility to the meeting.

Levine Act Disclosure: Pursuant to the Levine Act (Govt Code Section 84308), any party to a permit, license, contract, or other entitlement before the City Council is required to disclose on the record any campaign contribution, including aggregated contributions, of more than $500 commencing on January 1, 2025, made within the preceding 12 months.

Courtesy Virtual Broadcast: The City plans to broadcast the meeting as a courtesy only:

Online: www.lagunabeachcity.net/meetings
Cox Cable Channel 852
YouTube: City of Laguna Beach YouTube Channel
3 of 808
,,yqy
campaign contribution, including aggregated contributions, of more than $500 commencing on January 1, 2025, made within the preceding 12 months.

Courtesy Virtual Broadcast: The City plans to broadcast the meeting as a courtesy only:

Online: www.lagunabeachcity.net/meetings
Cox Cable Channel 852
YouTube: City of Laguna Beach YouTube Channel
ADDRESSING THE CITY COUNCIL
InPerson Public Comment:

Members of the public may address the City Council on any agenda item or during the public comments portion of the meeting. Providing a name, city of residence, mailing address, or other identifying information is voluntary. If you would like a followup from the City, please provide contact information.

Written Comment:

To submit written comments on an agenda item, please email [email protected]. Include "Public Comment" in the subject line and reference the agenda item number. Written comments will be forwarded to the City Clerk and made publicly available.

TWOWAY TELEPHONIC SERVICE
Beginning July 1, 2026, pursuant to Senate Bill 707 and California Government Code sections 54953.4 and 54954.3, members of the public may also provide public comment in real time either in person or remotely through the twoway telephonic service identified below. Remote public commenters will receive the same time allotment as members of the public commenting in person.

Join by Telephone: +1 669 900 9128
Webinar ID (changes each meeting): 874 9740 7206
Courtesy Zoom Participation: The City plans to enable participation via internet/zoom link as a courtesy only (link changes each meeting): https://lagunabeachcity.zoom.us/j/87497407206 Please be advised that the City does not guarantee that this link will work or that there will not be technical difficulties in accessing it. The only way to guarantee realtime participation is via inperson comment or via telephone callin, subject to provisions of Government Code section 54953.4.

Remote Public Comment:

To provide public comment remotely, press *9 if participating by telephone, or use the "Raise Hand" feature on Zoom if participating via internet. When called upon, the speaker will be unmuted and given the allotted time to speak. Telephone participants may press *6 to mute or unmute themselves when called to speak. Remote speakers must be present in the telephone queue or Zoom when called.

Remote participants are responsible for ensuring that they are connected and able to hear the meeting.

Remote Access Disruption:

The City Council adopted the Policy for Disruption of Telephonic or Internet Service During Public Meetings (SB 707) on March 10, 2026. If a disruption of telephonic service prevents members of the public utilizing twoway telephonic services from being able to attend or observe the meeting remotely, the City Council will follow the adopted policy. The policy may require the open session to be recessed while the City makes goodfaith efforts to restore service. If service is not restored, the City Council may continue only after making the required rollcall findings, as applicable.

Technical Assistance:

MeetingstaffwillmonitorremoteaccessduringthemeetingIfyouexperienceremoteaccessissues 4 of 808
The City Council adopted the Policy for Disruption of Telephonic or Internet Service During Public Meetings (SB 707) on March 10, 2026. If a disruption of telephonic service prevents members of the public utilizing twoway telephonic services from being able to attend or observe the meeting remotely, the City Council will follow the adopted policy. The policy may require the open session to be recessed while the City makes goodfaith efforts to restore service. If service is not restored, the City Council may continue only after making the required rollcall findings, as applicable.

Technical Assistance:

Meeting staff will monitor remote access during the meeting. If you experience remote access issues during the meeting, please notify the Zoom host as soon as possible.

Compliance with Government Code Section 54957.5: Materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the City Council after distribution of the agenda packets are available for public inspection in the City Clerk's Office at 505 Forest Avenue, Laguna Beach, California, during normal business hours.

Testimony given before the City Council is recorded.

The timer light at the podium will turn yellow and beep once when the speaker has 30 seconds remaining. The timer light will turn red and buzz when the speaker’s time has expired.

PLEASE TURN CELL PHONES OFF OR SET TO SILENT MODE.

CERTIFICATION OF MEETING NOTICE AND AGENDA POSTING
This notice and agenda were posted on the City's website and the City Hall bulletin board at least 24 hours prior to the special meeting, in compliance with the Ralph M. Brown Act. /s/ Ann Marie McKay, CPMC, CMC
City Clerk, City of Laguna Beach 5 of 808

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date:

July 28, 2026
APPEAL
A
SUBJECT: 399 PEARL STREET: PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 2025-1819 AND COASTAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2025-1820, FOR AN ADDITION AND REMODEL OF

AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH A NEW ATTACHED

ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT 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, receive a staff report, and take public testimony and evidence relating to the consideration of Design Review 2025-1819 and Coastal Development Permit 2025-1820 and the California Environmental Quality Act 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 2025-1819 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2025-1820 FOR AN ADDITION AND REMODEL OF AN

EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH A NEW ATTACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AT 399 PEARL STREET IN THE R-1, RESIDENTIAL LOW-DENSITY

ZONE, AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15301”, upholding the Design Review Board’s conditional approval of Design Review 2025-1819 and Coastal Development Permit 2025-1820, and finding the project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.

SUMMARY OF THE MATTER
The property owner, Jason Mueller1 (“Applicant”), of 399 Pearl Street (the “Property”) (see aerial map included as Figure 3) applied for Design Review (“DR”) 2025-1819 and Coastal Development Permit (“CDP”) 2025-1820 for an addition and remodel of an existing single-family dwelling and a new attached accessory dwelling unit (“ADU”) (the “Project”). Design Review is required for additions that exceed a height of 15 feet above the adjacent ground elevation, elevated decks, and landscaping for an addition that creates a new upper story or addition that exceeds a height of 15 feet above the adjacent ground elevation pursuant to Laguna Beach Municipal Code (“LBMC”) Sections 25.05.040(B)(1) and

25.05.040(B)(3)(a)(ii). A CDP is required for the ADU in accordance with LBMC Section 25.07.004.

On October 9, 2025, the Design Review Board (“Board”) held a duly noticed public hearing and continued the item without discussion to November 13, 2025 to ensure the project was staked prior to the hearing date, in accordance with the timeline required per the LBMC.
1 The Project’s architect is Chris LeTourneau, who is within the definition of Applicant. 1 of 355
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2025-1819 AND CDP 2025-1820 AT 399 PEARL STREET July 28, 2026

Page 2 of 30 ends

On November 13, 2025, the Board conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project (the “Original Project”). During the hearing, the Board evaluated the proposed design and received public testimony, which focused primarily on concerns related to the ADU including privacy, building height, and projection of the eave. The Board additionally discussed how the requirements for excess building site coverage might be met through design revisions.3 After receiving input from staff, the Applicant, and public comments, the Board discussed the Original Project and voted 5–0 to continue the hearing to January 22, 2026, to allow the Applicant additional time to revise the project in response to Board direction and to engage further with a neighboring property owner with privacy concerns at 367 Pearl Street. The Board provided the following direction to the Applicant:

1. Lower the height of the ADU to the greatest extent possible. The Original Project proposed a height of 22’-7” for the ADU. The maximum allowable height is 25 feet, and the existing residence is 22’- 4”.

2. Reduce the eave associated with the ADU. The upper-level eave extended 6 feet from the building edge towards the side property line. The eave maintained a setback of 13’-7” from the side property line, but because the property at 367 Pearl Street is at a lower elevation, the eave created additional mass as viewed from below.

3. Push the upper story of the ADU back, perhaps by reducing square footage. (The November 13, 2025 Staff Report, Plans, Public Correspondence, Minutes, and Transcript are attached as Attachments 13 through 17, respectively.)
On December 2, 2025, the Applicant submitted revised plans to City staff with the following modifications (the “Revised Project”):

1. The height of the ADU was lowered 1’-6”, to a height of 21’-1”, lower than the existing residence.

2. The upper-level eave of the ADU was reduced to be 3 feet from the building edge. With the additional setback of the ADU, discussed in #3 below, the eave would be located more than 18 feet from the side property line shared with 367 Pearl Street.

3. The entirety of the ADU was set back an additional 1’-6” from the side property line shared with 367 Pearl Street.

4. Reduced the building site coverage (“BSC”) from 52.5% to 47.78%. The Applicant identified an error in calculating the BSC presented to the Board at the November 13, 2025 meeting.

On January 22, 2026, the Board held a public hearing to consider the Revised Project. After receiving input from staff, the Applicant, and public comments, the Board discussed the Revised Project and voted 5–0 to continue the hearing to March 12, 2026, to allow the Applicant additional time to revise the project in response to Board direction and to engage further with the neighboring property owner at 367 Pearl Street who continued to express privacy concerns associated with the proposed ADU. The Board provided the following direction to the Applicant:
3 In accordance with LBMC Section 25.10.008((E)(1)(d), “[t]he building site coverage requirement shall only be modified by the design review board when it is necessary to preserve views, preserve privacy, reduce heights or to maintain neighborhood development patterns.”
2 of 355
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2025-1819 AND CDP 2025-1820 AT 399 PEARL STREET July 28, 2026

Page 3 of 30 ends

1. Improve articulation and increase the upper-level setback of the ADU along the southern side property line to reduce the perceived mass of the structure when viewed from the lower property at 367 Pearl Street.

2. Increase landscaping along the southern property line to improve privacy for the neighbors at 367 Pearl Street.
(The January 22, 2026 Staff Report, Plans, Public Correspondence, and Transcript are attached as Attachments 9 through 12, respectively.)
On February 5, 2026, the Applicant submitted revised plans to City staff with the following modifications (the “Second Revised Project”):

1. Decreased the size of the ADU from 1,000 square feet to 944 square feet and set back the entirety of the ADU an additional 1’-6” from the side property line shared with 367 Pearl Street. The proposed ADU now maintained a side setback of 21’-3”.

2. The following revisions were proposed to address privacy concerns for the neighbors at 367 Pearl Street:
a. Added a trellis at the southwest corner of the lot (shown in green in Figure 1) to soften views and reduce sightlines between the ADU and the neighbor. b. Vines to be attached to the proposed trellis detailed above. c. A planter proposed along the second story window of the ADU. d. Privacy hedges, limited to 8 feet in height, to be located along the property line at the southwest corner of the lot.

Figure 1: Excerpt from April 9, 2026 Staff Presentation to Board, with Trellis Shaded in Green
On March 12, 2026, because the Applicant added the trellis to the project that would encroach into a required rear setback, the Board tabled the project so that the Second Revised Project could be re-noticed 3 of 355
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2025-1819 AND CDP 2025-1820 AT 399 PEARL STREET July 28, 2026

Page 4 of 30 ends

to include the Applicant’s variance request and to allow for updated staking to reflect the proposed design change.

On April 9, 2026, the Board held a duly noticed public hearing and considered the Second Revised Project that consisted of an addition and remodel of an existing single-family dwelling and a new attached ADU.

Prior to the public hearing the Applicant notified staff that they would reduce the size and relocate the trellis to be outside the setback area, as shown in green in Figure 2. With a variance no longer necessary (Variance 2026-0511), the Board proceeded to hear the Applicant’s request for Design Review and a Coastal Development Permit.

Figure 2: Excerpt from April 9, 2026 Staff Presentation to Board, with Revised Trellis Shaded in Green
After carefully considering the oral and documentary evidence from staff, the Applicant, and members of the public, and upon review of the staff recommendation for approval, the Board voted (3-1)5, to approve the Second Revised Project, subject to the conditions of approval set forth in the staff report and subject to the following Board-imposed conditions of approval, and a finding that the Second Revised Project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (the “Board Approval”):

Condition No. 17: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project plans shall be revised to include:
a. Relocate trellis to be no less than 16-feet from the rear property line and 7’-6” from the interior side property line.
b. Upper floor of the ADU to be no less than 26’-9” from the interior side property line. c. Upper floor planter located at the base of the westward facing window of the ADU to be no less than 5’-6” deep and span the width of the window.
d. On-grade deck (no more than 30” above natural grade) adjacent to the ADU, to be located no less than 13’-0” feet from the interior side property line. e. Protect in place the existing Pittosporum located at the southwest corner at its current height which may be above the height to the proposed trellis.
5 Chair Gibbs voted “no” and Board Member Weil was absent. 4 of 355
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2025-1819 AND CDP 2025-1820 AT 399 PEARL STREET July 28, 2026

Page 5 of 30 ends

(The April 9, 2026 Board-Adopted Resolution No. 2025-1819, Staff Report, Plans, Public Comments, and Transcript, are attached as Attachments 4 through 8, respectively.)7 Figure 3: Aerial View of Project Site
7 The April 9, 2026 Design Review Board Meeting Video is available to view on the City’s website at the following link (Refer to Agenda Item 5.6): Design Review Board
Project Site
5 of 355
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2025-1819 AND CDP 2025-1820 AT 399 PEARL STREET July 28, 2026

Page 6 of 30 ends

Figure 4: Existing Pearl Street Frontage of Project Site Figure 5: Existing South-Facing Elevation of Project Site 6 of 355
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2025-1819 AND CDP 2025-1820 AT 399 PEARL STREET July 28, 2026

Page 7 of 30 ends

Figure 6: Proposed 3D Rendering Pearl Street Frontage
Figure 7: Proposed 3D Rendering Catalina Street Frontage On April 23, 2026, Lynda Fluent, Mark Fluent, and Justine Fluent represented by Carney Mehr, ALC (collectively, the “Appellant”) owners and residents of 367 Pearl Street, filed an appeal of the Board Approval (the “Appeal”) (Attachment 2) for the following reasons, as summarized by staff:

1. Procedurally defective – The Project had been modified after the staking of the Property and public noticing, depriving the public of the opportunity to evaluate or visualize the Second Revised Project before the Board hearing.
7 of 355
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2025-1819 AND CDP 2025-1820 AT 399 PEARL STREET July 28, 2026

Page 8 of 30 ends

2. Building Site Coverage – The Board approved excess building site coverage without making a finding of necessity and without support of substantial evidence.

3. Necessity Finding – The Appellants presented an alternative code-compliant design; therefore, the finding of necessity cannot be made.

4. Alternative Design – The Applicant confirmed a compliant design existed; therefore, the finding of necessity cannot be made.

5. Building Site Coverage – The findings to support the exceedance of building site coverage is absent from or contradicted by the record.

6. Trellis – Conditioning approval on an element that is itself unapproved is procedurally improper.

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 June 9, 2026 City Council meeting in accordance with LBMC Section 25.05.065 and Chapter 25.07. Notices were mailed to owners and occupants within a 300- foot and 100-foot radius of the Property, respectively, posted on the Property, and published in a newspaper of general circulation (Attachment 3). At the June 9, 2026 meeting, the City Council continued the item to July 28, 2026.

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. In particular, in reversing a decision, there must be three affirmative votes approving the reversal by adoption of a resolution that sets forth in writing the findings relied on to conclude that the appealed decision was in error or an abuse of discretion.9 (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 Section 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 the City Council.”

1. Coastal Development Permit
LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(1) sets forth the procedures and review criteria for non-design review appeals, such as a CDP. 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 9 An abuse of discretion is defined as the following: (1) the City has “not proceeded in the manner required by law”; (2) the City “decision is not supported by the findings”; or (3) the “findings are not supported by the evidence.” (Civil Code § 1094.5.) 8 of 355
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2025-1819 AND CDP 2025-1820 AT 399 PEARL STREET July 28, 2026

Page 9 of 30 ends

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.

In its consideration of the Board’s approval of CDP 2025-1820, 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.

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

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.

Accordingly, in its consideration of DR 2025-1819, which was approved 3-1, the City Council shall conduct a de novo review, but the City Council shall be limited to the grounds specifically stated in the notice of appeal, and to the evidence, including plans, that was presented to the Board. The City Council shall exercise its independent judgment and discretion as to such evidence.

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

Notwithstanding that the City Council cannot review proposed new plans, the City Council can uphold the approval of DR 2025-1819, subject to more restrictive conditions of approval that are effectuated through the provision of new plans; 11 in such event, remand is not required.

3. City Council Options
The City Council has numerous options in consideration of this matter, which are listed below. 11 By way of example only, the City Council could choose to uphold a DR decision but impose a condition requiring that the size of an elevated deck be reduced in order to support a visual compatibility finding. In such event, new plans would be required to effectuate the condition, but the plans would not need to be remanded to the Board or Planning Commission for further consideration.
9 of 355
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2025-1819 AND CDP 2025-1820 AT 399 PEARL STREET July 28, 2026

Page 10 of 30 ends

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

2. Adopt the attached Resolution upholding the Board Approval and finding the approval of the Second Revised Project categorically exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guideline 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 Second Revised Project; or

4. Direct staff to prepare and return at a future meeting with a Resolution remanding DR 2025- 1819 and CDP 2025-1820 to the Board, with findings in support of the remand and further direction to the Board.

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

Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect of application of the Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code), except that the local government shall not be required to hold public hearings for coastal development permit applications for accessory dwelling units. (Gov. Code Section 66329 [emph. added].) Under this provision, and as discussed further below, the City imposes the provisions of its certified Local Coastal Program (“LCP”) as it relates to ADUs. 10 of 355
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2025-1819 AND CDP 2025-1820 AT 399 PEARL STREET July 28, 2026

Page 11 of 30 ends

In recent years, the Legislature has approved, and the Governor has signed into law, numerous bills that amended the State ADU Law to impose new limits on local authority to regulate accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units. Notwithstanding this legislation, as stated above, State ADU Law provides that it “shall not be construed to supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the Coastal Act of 1976. . . .” (Gov. Code § 66329.) The California Department of Housing and Community Development’s (“HCD”) ADU Handbook advises that State ADU Law applies in the coastal zone, but “do[es] not necessarily alter or lessen the effect or application of Coastal Act resource protection policies.” Accordingly, HCD opines, a local government could, for example, impose stricter setback or parking standards in the coastal zone “if required by a local [c]oastal [p]rogram.” (HCD’s July 2022 ADU Handbook, at pgs. 15-16, 27-28.)13
The City’s regulations governing the approval of ADUs and JADUs are provided in the City’s LCP, specifically Chapter 25.17 (Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units) of Title 25 (Zoning) of the Laguna Beach Municipal Code. On November 16, 2021, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1665, which identified self-contained accessory dwelling units as subject to the coastal development permit application process. On September 7, 2023 LCP5-LGB-22-0003-3 Part B (Coastal Development Permits) was certified by the Coastal Commission. The City updated Chapter 25.17 to comply with State ADU Law via LCP Amendment No. 21-8239, which was certified by the Coastal Commission on September 7, 2023.

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

Based on the number of pending ADU applications (approximately 24 as of December 10, 2024) within the City, the City implemented a policy that applications filed before 5:00 p.m. on December 10, 2024 are subject to the objective design standards and Coastal Act implementing standards in effect under LCP 13 HCD’s ADU Handbook is authorized by Gov. Code § 66327, which provides that HCD may “review, adopt, amend, or repeal guidelines to implement uniform standards or criteria that supplement or clarify the terms, references, and standards set forth in this section.” The ADU Handbook is available at the following location: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022- 07/ADUHandbookUpdate.pdf
11 of 355
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2025-1819 AND CDP 2025-1820 AT 399 PEARL STREET July 28, 2026

Page 12 of 30 ends

Amendment No. 21-8239 and applications filed after December 10, 2024 are subject to the objective design standards and Coastal Act implementing standards in effect under the City’s existing urgency ordinance.15 Here, LCP Amendment No. 21-8329 applies to this Project. In order to approve a CDP for the ADU, the reviewing body must find that the project is in conformity with all the applicable provisions of the certified local coastal program (LBMC Section 25.07.012(F)) and thereafter make the requisite findings (LBMC Section 25.07.012(G)).

RESPONSES TO ISSUES RAISED ON APPEAL
As noted above, the City received an Appeal of the Board’s decision (Attachment 2). As indicated under Standards of Review, in the City Council’s review of non-design review appeals, such as a CDP, the Council shall conduct a de novo hearing of the underlying application and shall not be limited to the grounds stated for the appeal, nor is the Council limited to the evidence that was presented to the Board. Accordingly, in its consideration of the Board’s approval of CDP 2025-1820, 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 2025-1819, since it was approved with a 3-1 vote, the City Council shall conduct a de novo review, shall weigh evidence and shall exercise its independent judgment and discretion as to the evidence. The City Council shall consider whether the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, with a presumption that the decision was reasonable, valid and not an abuse of discretion. The Appellant has the burden to proof, by a preponderance of evidence, that the decision was not. Further, for DR 2025-1819, the City Council is limited to the grounds specifically stated in the notice of Appeal.

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

A. “The Approval is Procedurally Defective for Lack of Adequate Notice and Staking” “The DRB approved the project on the basis of plans that had been materially modified after the hearing had been publicly noticed and agendized. The applicant’s architect acknowledged on the record during the hearing that the modifications had been made. These modifications were similarly not reflected in the staking on the subject property. Neighboring property owners were thereby deprived of the notice and opportunity to evaluate or visualize the project before the DRB hearing. The approval is procedurally defective on this ground alone.”
Staff Response
The Second Revised Project – which was appropriately staked – included a request for a variance to allow a trellis, approximately 200 square feet in size, to be located 4 feet from the rear property line when a 16- foot setback is required. The trellis was proposed in response to the Board’s request stated at the January 22, 2026 meeting to increase landscaping for additional privacy for the neighbor at 367 Pearl Street.

However, correspondence submitted by the Appellant dated March 12, 2026, indicated the trellis did not alleviate their concerns related to privacy. Also, staff had recommended that the Board deny the variance on the basis that the required findings could not be made. 15 On April 8, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution 25.020 ratifying this policy. 12 of 355
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2025-1819 AND CDP 2025-1820 AT 399 PEARL STREET July 28, 2026

Page 13 of 30 ends

Based on the March 12, 2026 correspondence, it was evident that the trellis did not meaningfully resolve the neighbor’s concerns; therefore, prior to the April 9, 2026 Board meeting, the Applicant notified staff their intent to relocate and reduce the size of the trellis to approximately 120 square feet so that it no longer encroached into the setback (see Figure 8). Consequently, a variance was no longer required and no other entitlements were required for the trellis.17 The staff presentation to the Board detailed the original and revised trellis location (See Figure 8). A condition of approval was also included requiring the trellis to be no less than 16 feet from the rear property line and 7’-6” from the interior side property line.

Figure 8: Excerpt from April 9, 2026 Staff Presentation to Board, with Trellis Shaded in Green Each of the Appellant’s claims is further summarized and addressed below:

1. The City’s Notice and Staking Requirements. The Appellant states that the staking and noticing “exist to afford neighboring property owners a fair and informed opportunity to evaluate the project as it will actually be built, and to prepare substantive comments in advance of the hearing.”
Staff’s Response
It is agreed that public noticing exists to notify neighbors of pending development applications and detail how they may participate in the public process. However, project staking also assists in communicating the visual parameters of the project to all other interested parties including the applicant’s team, the property owner, the Board and City staff. In accordance with LBMC Section 25.05.040(C)(2), the project design was staked and certified as being consistent with the proposed project design at least 21 days prior to each public hearing as detailed below:

1. Prior to the November 13, 2025 hearing, depicting the Original Project which proposed the ADU at 21’ in height, a setback 18.25’ from the side property line, and an extended roof eave.
17 The trellis, with a height less than 14 feet above the adjacent ground elevation, is not subject to Design Review in accordance with LBMC Section 25.05.040(B).
13 of 355
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2025-1819 AND CDP 2025-1820 AT 399 PEARL STREET July 28, 2026

Page 14 of 30 ends

2. Prior to January 13, 2026 hearing, the staking was modified for the Revised Project to reduce the height and increase the side setback of the ADU and decrease the eave extension.

3. Prior to the April 9. 2026 hearing, the staking was modified for the Second Revised Project to decrease the size and increase the side setback of the ADU, and to detail the newly proposed trellis.

Provided as Attachment 18, a staking plan for the Second Revised Project was prepared and certified as accurate by a licensed surveyor/licensed engineer on March 10, 2026.19 Accordingly, the Second Revised Project met Municipal Code requirements for staking a design review project in accordance with LBMC Section 25.05.040(C)(2). As explained above and below, the reduction in the size of the trellis does not mandate new staking.

2. The Applicant Modified the Plans After Notice Was Given and Did Not Re-Stake. The Appellant claims the approval is procedurally defective because the project approved by the Board on April 9, 2026 was modified after public notice was given and the site was not re-staked to reflect the modification.

Staff’s Response
The 120-square-foot trellis was relocated to an area outside the setback area negating the need for the variance, as well as eliminating the need for any discretionary review, in accordance with LBMC 25.05.040(2)(r). As such, the trellis approved the Board would not require staking and would not have been included in a public hearing notice. It shall also be noted that all public hearings conducted on November 13, 2025, January 22, 2026 and April 9, 2026 and application requirements associated with the project, including project staking, were conducted in compliance with LBMC Section 25.05.065 and Section 25.05.040(C)(2). Just as the Board may condition a project to modify the envelope of a new structure during a public hearing, an Applicant is within their rights to offer or propose changes to a project for the Board’s consideration. Neither expressly requires staking. In accordance with LBMC Section

25.05.040(C)(2)(a), staking must be installed and certified for “at least 21 days prior to the first Design Review Board public hearing date.” As indicated above, this requirement was met.

LBMC Section 25.0.040(C)(2)(a) also states that “[i]f 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.” It is inarguable that the Board has the authority to direct that project modifications be staked for further design review consideration.

However, it is entirely within the Board’s authority to approve a project with changes at a public hearing.

Here, upon reviewing the staff’s recommendation to deny the variance for the trellis setback encroachment in the published staff report, the Applicant responded by developing an alternative trellis design that complies with all applicable development standards. This alternative design 19 See sheet A-1.2 of Attachment 20 (Staking Plan).
14 of 355
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2025-1819 AND CDP 2025-1820 AT 399 PEARL STREET July 28, 2026

Page 15 of 30 ends

was presented by City staff at the hearing and was expressly considered and approved by the Board. The Second Revised Project has met all legal noticing and staking requirements.

3. The Procedural Defect Is Not Harmless. The Appellant states the “defect” caused harm to the Appellants and other neighbors because their objections were based on the plans and staking.

Staff’s Response
The City received over thirty pages of correspondence from the Appellant. On March 12, 2026, the Appellant submitted an email referencing the trellis but no specific concerns related to trellis were stated. Instead, the March 12, 2026 email mentions the “extremely large” addition. Since the Appellant’s comments continued to focus predominately on the proposed ADU, it is clear the proposed trellis was not fundamental to the Appellant’s continued opposition to the project.

The Appeal again puts forward no colorable arguments as to why the trellis is impacting the Appellant’s property, either in its original or revised configuration. The record demonstrates that their objections were not based on the trellis or the related staking but instead focused on the other elements of the project, and specifically the proposed ADU. Further, the Applicant made known at the April 9, 2026 Board meeting that the trellis was being reduced prior to public comment. This provided the Appellant notice of the reduction and an opportunity to address the matter if so desired.

4. Reversal Is Warranted on This Independent Ground. The Applicant stated the Board should have continued consideration of the application and directed the Applicant to re-notice and restake the revised trellis location.

Staff’s Response
The 120-square-foot trellis was relocated to an area outside the setback area, negating the need for the variance, as well as eliminating the need for any discretionary review, since the trellis is less than 15 feet in height in accordance with LBMC 25.05.040(B)(2)(a)(ii). As such, the trellis approved by the Board would not have required staking and would not have been included in a public hearing notice. Therefore, there would be no grounds to continue the item.

B. “The Necessity Standard Was Not Met”
The DRB approved a 21% exceedance of the building site coverage cap without making the legally required finding of necessity, and without any finding supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Staff Response
The proposed ADU results in an exceedance of the building site coverage. The maximum building site coverage for the project site is 39.5 percent whereas the applicant is proposing 47.78 percent. The existing building site coverage is 35.83 percent. Pursuant to LBMC Section 25.10.008(E)(1)(d), the maximum building site coverage may be modified by the Board “when it is necessary to preserve views, preserve privacy, reduce heights, or to maintain neighborhood development patterns.” The project retains a singlestory profile across portions of its footprint, with garage massing below street grade and the ADU strategically attached to existing second-story massing to avoid new view equity impacts. This approach protects key ocean views, minimizes privacy concerns through thoughtful window placement and balcony 15 of 355
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2025-1819 AND CDP 2025-1820 AT 399 PEARL STREET July 28, 2026

Page 16 of 30 ends

orientation, and aligns with established development patterns in Woods Cove, where single-story structures are often paired with modest, well-integrated second-story massing.

The Applicant also provided an analysis of building site coverage of fourteen properties in proximity to the Second Revised Project, which reflected an average of 46% coverage (See Attachment 6 of the April 9, 2026 Board staff report). The Appellant provided an analysis of floor area ratios for the area, but this standard does not apply to development within the R-1 zoning district.

Each of the Appellant’s claims is further summarized and addressed below:

1. The Legal Standard — and the Absence of the Required Findings. The Appellant claims the Board did not make the required findings to authorize an increase in BSC.

Staff’s Response
The April 9, 2026 staff report specifically included the following:
“The applicant is requesting approval to exceed the building site coverage requirement to accommodate the proposed attached ADU. The maximum building site coverage for the project site is 39.5 percent whereas the applicant is proposing 47.78 percent. The existing building site coverage is 35.83 percent. Pursuant to LBMC Section 25.10.008(E)(1)(d), the maximum building site coverage requirement may be modified by the Board “when it is necessary to preserve views, preserve privacy, reduce heights, or to maintain neighborhood development patterns.” The project retains a largely single-story profile, with garage massing below street grade and the ADU strategically attached to existing second-story massing to avoid new view equity impacts. This approach protects key ocean views, minimizes privacy concerns through thoughtful window placement and balcony orientation, and aligns with established development patterns in Woods Cove, where single-story structures are often paired with modest, well-integrated second-story massing. Therefore, staff finds that the request for additional building site coverage is supportable. The applicant has provided further justification for the request to exceed the building site coverage (Attachment 6).” In addition to the analysis presented in the staff report, the Board expressed support for the increase in BSC coverage in that locating the ADU at the rear of the lot adjacent to the existing two-story element and maintaining a single-story at the front of the property protected private views and maintained neighborhood development patterns.21 Specific quotes (provided below) from the Board members expressed the benefits to maintaining a single-story element at the front of the property to preserve views of the neighbor. These comments demonstrate the Board’s understanding of the LBMC requirements and their justification to grant an increase in BSC.

Supporting Quote (Board Member Bauta):

Board Member Bauta, in his opening comments, states, “We were initially concerned with views and the neighbor directly to the rear of the applicant expressed that they had no 21 Chair Gibbs voted “no” to approve the project citing concerns with BSC. 16 of 355
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2025-1819 AND CDP 2025-1820 AT 399 PEARL STREET July 28, 2026

Page 17 of 30 ends

concern with the views.” The “rear” refers to location of the two-story ADU which Board Member Bauta confirms, since were no concerns of the neighbor, “view equity can be achieved”. (page 11) He then goes on to say in his closing comments, the “views from the rear impacted the decision for us to go to the...other side.”23 Supporting Quote (Board Member Neev):

Related to maintaining the single-story element at the front, Board Member Neev states, “And I appreciate that the fact that you have positioned the ADU where the bulk of the original house is, the two-story lined up with the two-story.” And regarding neighborhood development patterns, she goes on to state, “there's a lot of different houses there. Some of them are larger, some of them are smaller, some of the lots are bigger.”24 Supporting Quote (Board Member Coveny):

2. The Applicant’s Own Record Defeats Necessity. The Appellant indicates the finding of necessity was not met since a Code compliant alternative existed.

Staff’s Response
It’s not accurate for the Appellant to claim that an increase of BSC results in a project that would be “non-conforming”. BSC is a guideline, not a development standard with a hard cap. The Board can grant excess BSC subject to the stated criteria, which were determined to be met. The April 9, 2026 staff report specifically included the following:
“The applicant is requesting approval to exceed the building site coverage requirement to accommodate the proposed attached ADU. The maximum building site coverage for the project site is 39.5 percent whereas the applicant is proposing 47.78 percent. The existing building site coverage is 35.83 percent. Pursuant to LBMC Section 25.10.008(E)(1)(d), the maximum building site coverage requirement may be modified by the Board “when it is necessary to preserve views, preserve privacy, reduce heights, or to maintain neighborhood development patterns.” The project retains a largely single-story profile, with garage massing below street grade and the ADU strategically attached to existing second-story massing to avoid new view equity impacts. This approach protects key ocean views, minimizes privacy concerns through thoughtful window placement and balcony orientation, and aligns with established development patterns in Woods Cove, where single-story structures are often paired with modest, well-integrated second-story massing. Therefore, staff finds that the 23 Attachment 7, April 9, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Pages 11 and 13 [Bauta] 24 Attachment 7, April 9, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 12 [Neev] 25 Attachment 7, April 9, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 14 [Coveny] 17 of 355
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2025-1819 AND CDP 2025-1820 AT 399 PEARL STREET July 28, 2026

Page 18 of 30 ends

request for additional building site coverage is supportable. The applicant has provided further justification for the request to exceed the building site coverage (Attachment 6).” Regarding the existence of an alternative design, the Appellant presented a design (Figure 9) that would place the ADU over the existing single-story element located toward the front of the home.

However, establishing two stories at this location, as indicated by the Board (see supporting quotes below), would likely impact private ocean views and would not maintain articulation reflective of the neighborhood development pattern (Figure 10). Additionally, the lack of an alternative design is not one of the criteria for allowing an exceedance of BSC. The Board is to consider views, privacy, reduced heights, and neighborhood development patterns when modifying BSC. Here, the Board majority found that the Second Revised Project was designed to respect existing view corridors, the additions result in a structure with a mass and scale that is consistent with existing neighborhood development patterns, and privacy impacts with respect to the Appellant’s property were directly considered at each public hearing on the project, and was further addressed with project-specific conditions of approval imposed at the April 9, 2026 hearing. The Board appropriately used its discretion to weigh the evidence and grant an increase in BSC.

Supporting Quote (Board Member Bauta):

Board Member Bauta, in his opening comments, states, “We were initially concerned with views and the neighbor directly to the rear of the applicant expressed that they had no concern with the views.” The “rear” refers to location of the two-story ADU which Board Member Bauta confirms, since there were no concerns of the neighbor, “view equity can be achieved”. (page 11) He then goes on to say in his closing comments, the “views from the rear impacted the decision for us to go to the...other side.”29 Regarding privacy concerns of the Appellant’s, Board Member Bauta states, “the concerns that were expressed by the Fluent’s pertaining to privacy currently exist in the existing structure on the existing deck. So, I cannot consider that. I cannot consider that an invasion of privacy because I take it that it's not an increase in the current privacy condition pertaining to the site.”30
Supporting Quote (Board Member Neev):

Page 19 of 30 ends

Supporting Quote (Board Member Coveny):

Regarding locating the ADU on top of the existing single-story element at the front of the property, Board Member Coveny states, “putting it on the other side, and then that would heavily impact views and definitely feel more mass and scale on that side.” And she goes on to say, “if we end up building on the other side, we’re going to have view, privacy, height, all that.”37 Regarding the privacy concerns of the Appellant’s, Board Member Coveny states, “Because it doesn't impact views as a second story and it doesn't, in my opinion, impact privacy.” She goes on to say, “I really did not see a privacy issue.” 38 Figure 9: Appellant’s Alternative Design
Figure 10: Approve Project Design
37 Attachment 7, April 9, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 14 [Coveny] 38 Attachment 7, April 9, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 14 [Coveny] 19 of 355
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2025-1819 AND CDP 2025-1820 AT 399 PEARL STREET July 28, 2026

Page 20 of 30 ends

3. “Compliant Alternatives, Including Integration of the ADU Within the Existing Building Envelope, Were Available and Were Not Analyzed.” The Appellant suggests the alternative design—submitted to the Board by Appellants on April 8, 2026—achieves the same stated project goals and satisfies all stated objectives of the application without additional building site coverage. They go on to claim that the alternative design created a 900 square foot ADU which faced Catalina and resulted in no additional vertical massing.

Staff’s Response
The Second Revised Project places the two-story ADU at the rear of the existing two-story structure, which preserves the one-story element of the existing structure as viewed from the corner of Pearl Street and Catalina Street (see Figure 10). The Appellant’s design locates the ADU on the second story of the existing residence, eliminating the expansion of the ground floor of the existing structure (see Figure 9 above). As stated by Board Member Coveny at the April 9, 2026 hearing, maintaining the single-story element to the project was important to maintaining articulation that is consistent with the neighborhood development pattern. Therefore, the alternative design, while it may comply with the building site coverage, would eliminate the articulation and therefore does not maintain the neighborhood development pattern. Moreover, the Board observed that such massing would likely impact private ocean views. As indicated above, the Board appropriately used its discretion to weigh the evidence and grant an increase in BSC. The Municipal Code does not require a finding that there are no alternatives to the project that fit within the allowable BSC. The Board appropriately based its decision on the criteria set forth by LBMC Section 25.10.008(E)(1)(d).

4. The Modification Creates a Third Nonconformity and Inverts the Statutory Purpose of LBMC §25.10.008(E)(1)(d). The Appellant asserts the property maintains two legal nonconformities, the front-yard setback encroachment and the rear-yard setback encroachment, which should have been remedied by the Board, and that approving the BSC increase creates an additional nonconformity.

Staff’s Response
It is not accurate to suggest an increase in the BSC would create nonconformity. The BSC is a guideline, not a development standard.

LBMC Section 25.10.008(E)(1)(d) states, “The building site coverage requirement shall only be modified by the design review board when it is necessary to preserve views, preserve privacy, reduce heights or to maintain neighborhood development patterns.” The provision does not require that each of the conditions be satisfied, and furthermore, a variance is not required to allow for excess BSC, because the Board is expressly authorized to modify the standard. Further, nothing in the LBMC requires removal of existing nonconformities as part of this project.

C. “The Additionally Required Findings Cannot be Made”. The Appellant claims each criteria include in LBMC Section 25.10.008(E)(1)(d), as well as LBMC Section 25.05.040(H), cannot be made.

1. Finding 1 - Neighborhood Compatibility (LBMC §25.05.040(H)). The Appellant states the Board is required to find the proposed project maintains established patterns of scale, bulk, and massing in the neighborhood.
20 of 355
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2025-1819 AND CDP 2025-1820 AT 399 PEARL STREET July 28, 2026

Page 21 of 30 ends

Staff’s Response
LBMC Section 25.05.040(H) relates to the criteria for approving projects subject to design review.

Only elements associated with the single-story residence are subject to design review including:
additions that exceed a height of 15 feet above the adjacent ground elevation (see Laguna Beach Municipal Code (LBMC) Section 25.05.040(B)(1)(j)), elevated decks (see LBMC Section

25.05.040(B)(3)(a)(ii)), and landscaping for an addition that creates a new upper story or addition that exceed a height of 15 feet above the adjacent ground elevation (see LBMC Section

25.05.040(B)(1)(p)). Findings for approving these components of the project are detailed in Board Resolution 2025-1819.

The proposed ADU is not subject to design review and therefore not subject to LBMC Section

25.05.040(H). In accordance with state ADU law (see Government Code Sec. 66317(a)(1)), “A permit application for an accessory dwelling unit shall be considered and approved ministerially without discretionary review. However, in cases where an ADU is located in the coastal zone, as is the case here, the ADU is subject to the Coastal Act (see Gov. Code Section 66329 [“Nothing in [the state ADU law] shall be construed to supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California Coastal Act of 1976. . . .”].) Therefore, in accordance with the Coastal Act, a CDP is required. The findings for approving the CDP are detailed in Board Resolution 2025- 1819.

Focusing only on the elements of the project that are subject to LBMC Section 25.05.040(H), the Appellant’s argument is flawed in that it references standards that are not required to meet the required findings. The finding which related to neighborhood compatibility, per LBMC Section

25.05.50(H)(9), is stated below:

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.

Each of the claims made by the Appellant reference metrics that are either not applicable to the R1 zoning district or are not required to determine neighbor compatibility in accordance with LBMC Section 25.05.040(H)(9).

The Appellant conducted an analysis of the neighborhood consisting of 63 properties utilizing data from the Orange County Assessor and the City’s GIS (see Attachment 2). It should be noted that the Appellant did not provide back-up data and Orange County Assessors data is often incorrect or outof-date; therefore, the accuracy of the Appellant’s conclusions cannot be verified.

Each metric referenced by the Appellant (in italics) and staff’s response is detailed below:
a. Floor Area Ratio of neighboring properties. The Appellant claims the project, “exceeds the next highest comparable R-1 home in the neighborhood study area.” The R-1 zoning district does 21 of 355
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2025-1819 AND CDP 2025-1820 AT 399 PEARL STREET July 28, 2026

Page 22 of 30 ends

not have a development standard limiting floor area ratio (FAR); therefore, referencing this metric for determining neighborhood compatibility is irrelevant. That being said, the Appellant’s analysis included five properties in the study area that exceeded the FAR of the Second Revised Project. b. Home size relative to lot size. The Appellant states, “No other home over 3,000 square feet exists on a lot under 7,000 square feet”. Comparing the square footage of a home for the purposes of determining neighborhood compatibility is not necessary in that “compatibility” is much more of how a project “fits’ in the neighborhood as articulated by Board Member Coveny at the April 9, 2026 hearing, when she observed that “there are a lot of different houses” in the neighborhood.

Project compatibility is demonstrated by the design articulation, suitable architecture and the use of organic material. And, as stated by testimony given by John Gutweiler, property owner of 409 Pearl Street located north of the project site, although he may lose some of his view, the “home that will really look beautiful in the neighborhood.” Supporting Quote (Board Member Neev):

Regarding neighborhood development patterns, Board Member Neev states, “there's a lot of different houses there. Some of them are larger, some of them are smaller, some of the lots are bigger.”41
c. Building Site coverage. The Appellant’s analysis asserts that the proposed BSC of 47.78% exceeds the legal maximum of 39.5% by 21% and exceeds the 28.4% neighborhood average by nearly 70%. As stated above, the increase in BSC is related to the ADU which is not subject to LBMC Section 25.05.040(H) and is it not accurate to suggest a comparison of BSC is required to demonstrate neighborhood compatibility. While it may be one consideration, neighborhood compatibility considers the totality of the neighborhood characteristics and how a project integrates itself into the pre-existing context. As indicated in the “Design Guidelines – A Guide to Residential Development, design objectives for neighborhood compatibility include the following:
“11.8 Design new development in such a way that visible mass conforms to the scale of the neighborhood.”
“11.10 Consider the existing setback pattern in the neighborhood.” (page 49 of the “Design Guidelines.”)42
Among other findings, the Board found that the lower heights toward the front of the Second Revised Project were appropriate and consistent with existing neighborhood development patterns.
d. Uncaptured bulk. The Appellant suggests the garage and elevated decks should be considered in the bulk and site coverage of the project. However, the LBMC does not included a metric for considering “bulk of a structure”. It is not accurate to include the garage or the decks in calculating BSC. LBMC Section 25.10.008(E)(1)(c), calculates BSC as, “The maximum lot 41 Attachment 7, April 9, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 12 [Neev] 42 Design Guidelines: https://www.lagunabeachcity.net/home/showpublisheddocument/8134/637406517601200000 22 of 355
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2025-1819 AND CDP 2025-1820 AT 399 PEARL STREET July 28, 2026

Page 23 of 30 ends

area which may be occupied by habitable enclosed building space and covered off-street parking”. The areas in question are neither habitable nor enclosed; therefore, it would be inaccurate to include them in the calculating BSC.

As stated above, the required findings demonstrating the Second Revised Project’s compliance with LBMC Section 25.05.040(H) are detailed in Board Resolution 2025-1819 and are also supported by Board comments and public testimony recorded at the April 9, 2026 Board meeting.

2. Finding 2 — Maintenance of Neighborhood Development Patterns. The Appellant claims the Board’s finding that the project maintains neighborhood development patterns is contrary to the objective data which claims the home is the largest in the neighborhood.

Staff’s Response
“Neighborhood development patterns” is one of four the criteria for considering an increase in BSC. Satisfaction of each criteria is not required to justify an increase. However, as demonstrated by the public record for the project, neighborhood development patterns were considered by the Board. As indicated in the April 9, 2026 Board staff report:
“The applicant is requesting approval to exceed the building site coverage requirement to accommodate the proposed attached ADU. The maximum building site coverage for the project site is 39.5 percent whereas the applicant is proposing 47.78 percent. The existing building site coverage is 35.83 percent. Pursuant to LBMC Section 25.10.008(E)(1)(d), the maximum building site coverage requirement may be modified by the Board “when it is necessary to preserve views, preserve privacy, reduce heights, or to maintain neighborhood development patterns.” The project retains a largely single-story profile, with garage massing below street grade and the ADU strategically attached to existing second-story massing to avoid new view equity impacts. This approach protects key ocean views, minimizes privacy concerns through thoughtful window placement and balcony orientation, and aligns with established development patterns in Woods Cove, where single-story structures are often paired with modest, well-integrated second-story massing. Therefore, staff finds that the request for additional building site coverage is supportable. The applicant has provided further justification for the request to exceed the building site coverage (Attachment 6).” The Appellant references the size of the home in relation to the neighborhood and the proposed BSC as an indicator that the Second Revised Project is not compatible with the neighborhood development pattern. However, as stated in Board’s Resolution 2025-1819, development patterns also include height, mass, and scale.

Page 24 of 30 ends

sensitively scaled to respect the neighborhood’s established massing and scale. Architectural elements, landscaping, and the preservation of key site features work together to maintain the area’s distinctive character and village atmosphere, reflecting the neighborhood’s historical development patterns and cohesive design themes.

The Board majority found that the Second Revised Project was consistent with the neighborhood development patterns.

Supporting Quote (Board Member Coveny)
Board Member Coveny notes that the Second Revised Project achieves neighborhood compatibility by stating, “I think you're kind of right in that spot where your size is not so beyond what's in the surrounding area.”45

3. Finding 3 — Preservation of Views. The Appellant claims the Board’s finding that the Second Revised Project preserves views is unsupported by substantial evidence and is directly contradicted by the record.

Staff’s Response
The preservation of views is one of the four criteria for consideration of an increase in BSC.

Satisfaction of each criteria is not required to justify an increase. However, as demonstrated by the public record for the project, potential view impacts were considered and the proposed design was determined to preserve views by maintaining the existing one-story element at the front of the property. Each of the Appellant’s claims (in italics) and staff responses are provided below:
a. No view corridor was documented to purport what is to be preserved. It is not a requirement of the LBMC to document potential views to be protected, as these views may be revealed during the public review process. However, John Gutweiler, property owner of 409 Pearl Street, provided testimony at the November 13, 2026 Board meeting, stating, “I'm very fortunate because I have ocean views from my living room, kitchen, and bedrooms. And I look directly down on Jason's property and down to the ocean. I'm completely in favor of this property, this project. It will take away a bit of my view, but what I'll get is a beautiful home to look at along with the ocean.”46 Related to maintaining the single-story element at the front, Board Member Coveny noted its importance.

Page 25 of 30 ends

of windows facing west, toward 399 Pearl Street (see inset photo in Figure 11). The proposed second story addition is located south of the existing two-story element. The project maintains the singlestory toward the front of the property, which preserves existing viewshed for 409 Pearl Street (see potential view of 409 Street in Figure 11). Mr. Gutweiler, resident of 409 Pearl Street, expressed appreciation for the development of the property in a manner which, as he states, “take away a bit of my view”, in exchange for enhancements resulting from a “beautiful home”. 51 Figure 11: View from 409 Pearl Street
c. The neighbors view would not be preserved, which is not a legally cognizable basis for a view preservation finding under LBMC §25.10.008(E)(1)(d). Staff’s response is the same as above. In the case of the Second Revised Project, the design maintains a single-story element at the front of the property in consideration of views from 409 Pearl Street, as shown in Figure 11.
d. The architect’s own language confirms choice, not necessity. He described the siting as one that “allowed view preservation”. Staff’s response is the same as above. In the case of the Second Revised Project, the design maintains a single-story element at the front of the property in consideration of views from 409 Pearl Street, as shown in Figure 11. 51 Attachment 7, April 9, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 8 [Gutweiler] 409 Pearl Street
399 Pearl Street
25 of 355
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2025-1819 AND CDP 2025-1820 AT 399 PEARL STREET July 28, 2026

Page 26 of 30 ends

4. Finding 4 — Reduction of Heights. The Appellant claims the Board’s finding that the Second Revised Project reduces heights is contradicted by direct physical evidence and on-the-record testimony.

Staff’s Response
Reduced heights is one of four criteria for considering an increase in BSC. It is not necessary that all criteria be satisfied. However, in this case, the Second Revised Project includes an attached ADU and additions to the single-family residence that are two feet lower than the maximum height of the existing structure.

Each of the Appellant’s claim (in italics) and staff response are provided below:
a. The story poles (from the previous design) demonstrate that the proposed roofline exceeds every neighboring roofline from at least four vantage points. As detailed in the Project Plans provided as Attachment 6 (see Sheet A-4.1), the existing residence is 27 feet in height. The Second Revised Project includes an attached ADU and additions to the single-family residence that are two feet lower than the maximum height of the existing structure, in compliance with the maximum height for the zone. Neighboring properties are improved with one- and two-story structures.

b. The applicant’s architect stated on the record at the January 22, 2026 hearing: “Inevitably there’s going to be a design that’s towering over this lower property.” The subject Property is between 10 and 12 feet above the Appellant’s backyard. The context of the architect’s comment describes the site topography as being the greatest challenge between the two properties. Mr. Letourneau, the architect, went on to say, “the preexisting conditions of the second-floor deck that exists, already looked down onto this patio.”

5. Finding 5 — Preservation of Privacy. The Appellant claims that the Board’s finding that the Second Revised Project preserves the privacy of neighboring residents is unsupported by substantial evidence:
a. Written objections were submitted by four neighboring households and Chair Gibbs acknowledged the physical relationship of the proposed structure to the Fluent property at 367 Pearl, the Gutweiler property at 409 Pearl, and other adjacent homes. b. The proposed mitigations (repositioned balcony and opaque window glazing) are inadequate to remedy the elevated structure that overlooks the Appellants downhill property. c. The trellis mitigation is itself unapproved. Conditioning a finding of privacy preservation upon an element that has not been approved is procedurally improper.

Staff’s Response
Preservation of privacy is one of four criteria for considering an increase in BSC. While it is not necessary that all criteria be satisfied, the public record clearly supports the Board’s conclusion that considered privacy in its decision. Concerns related to privacy were discussed by the public and Board members at each meeting. As a result, the project was revised as directed by the Board in effort to address the concerns. The following summary of the Board’s direction and project 26 of 355
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2025-1819 AND CDP 2025-1820 AT 399 PEARL STREET July 28, 2026

Page 27 of 30 ends

revisions, and ultimate conditions of approval, confirms the thorough consideration of potential privacy issues and significant project revisions, including reducing the height and size of the ADU, and increasing the upper-level setback of the ADU to 26’-9” from the interior side lot line.

Conditions of approval were also imposed by the Board in consideration of privacy including requiring a 13-foot setback for the at-grade deck, placing a 5’-6” deep planter along the upper-level window of the ADU, and maintaining the mature tree located at the southwest corner of the property.

Table 1: List of Board Member Requests, Applicant Revisions and Conditions of Approval Design Review Board Comments –
November 13, 2025
Applicant Revision
Lower height to greatest extent possible. Lowered roof by 1’-6” through reduced plate heights.

Reduce eaves. Pulled back the eave an additional 3’.

Push upper story back, perhaps by reducing
square footage.

Moved the entirety of the ADU 1’-6” towards Catalina
Street and away from the neighbor downslope.

Design Review Board Comments –
January 22, 2026
Applicant Revision
Improve articulation; Increase setback Decreased the size of the ADU from 1,000 sq. ft. to 944 sq. ft., allowing for an increased rear yard setback of 1’-6”.

Increase landscaping Vines to be attached to trellis supports and guided along the top of the structure.

Planter proposed along the second story window of the
ADU.

Privacy hedges, limited to 8 feet in height, to be located along the property line in the southwest corner of the
lot.

Design Review Board Conditions of Approval –
April 9, 2026
Condition No. 17: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project plans shall be revised to include:
a. Relocate trellis to be no less than 16-feet from the rear property line and 7’-6” from the interior side property line.
b. Upper floor of the ADU to be no less than 26’-9” from the interior side property line.
c. Upper floor planter located at the base of the westward facing window of the ADU to be no less than 5’-6” deep and span the width of the window. d. On-grade deck (no more than 30” above natural grade) adjacent to the ADU, to be located no less than 13’-0” feet from the interior side property line. e. Protect in place the existing Pittosporum located at the southwest corner at its current height which may be above the height to the proposed trellis.

Board deliberations prior to approving the project verified their determination that privacy had been considered as follows:
27 of 355
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2025-1819 AND CDP 2025-1820 AT 399 PEARL STREET July 28, 2026

Page 28 of 30 ends

Supporting Quote (Board Member Bauta):

Board Member Bauta states, “the concerns that were expressed by the Fluents pertaining to privacy currently exist in the existing structure on the existing deck. So, I cannot consider that. I cannot consider that an evasion of privacy because I take it that it's not an increase in the current privacy condition pertaining to the site.”53 Supporting Quote (Board Member Neev):

Board Member Neev states, “there's a lot of privacy issues already there. …mitigate that with some of the landscaping.”54
Supporting Quote (Board Member Coveny):

Board Member Coveny states, “Because it doesn't impact views as a second story and it doesn't, in my opinion, impact privacy.” She goes on to say, “I really did not see a privacy issue.” 55
D. “The Approval Improperly Relies on Landscaping as Mitigation” The Applicant’s Project renderings present a substantially idealized depiction of the proposed project: a softened, diminished building mass screened and offset by mature, optimally placed landscaping. The landscape provides the principal visual mitigation by which the scale, mass, height, and proximity of a 47.78% BSC project are reconciled with the four findings required under LBMC §25.10.008(E)(1)(d). Landscaping cannot lawfully carry that weight in that it is not permanent, not static, not enforceable, and subject to external constraints beyond the applicant’s control.

Staff’s Response
The Appellant references LBMC §25.10.008(E)(1)(d) which is the provision allowing the Board to increase BSC when “it is necessary to preserve views, preserve privacy, reduce heights or to maintain neighborhood development patterns”. The Appellant incorrectly claims that landscaping was utilized to satisfy the criteria to support the increase. The justification to support the BSC increase stated in the April 9, 2026 staff report does not reference landscaping (see below).

The applicant is requesting approval to exceed the building site coverage requirement to accommodate the proposed attached ADU. The maximum building site coverage for the project site is 39.5 percent whereas the applicant is proposing 47.78 percent. The existing building site coverage is 35.83 percent. Pursuant to LBMC Section 25.10.008(E)(1)(d), the maximum building site coverage requirement may be modified by the Board “when it is necessary to preserve views, preserve privacy, reduce heights, or to maintain neighborhood development patterns.” The project retains a largely single-story profile, with garage massing below street grade and the ADU strategically attached to existing second-story 53 Attachment 7, April 9, 2026, Design Review Board Transcript Page 11 [Bauta] 54 Attachment 7, April 9, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 12 [Neev] 55 Attachment 7, April 9, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 14 [Coveny] 28 of 355
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2025-1819 AND CDP 2025-1820 AT 399 PEARL STREET July 28, 2026

Page 29 of 30 ends

massing to avoid new view equity impacts. This approach protects key ocean views, minimizes privacy concerns through thoughtful window placement and balcony orientation, and aligns with established development patterns in Woods Cove, where single-story structures are often paired with modest, well-integrated second-story massing. Therefore, staff finds that the request for additional building site coverage is supportable. The applicant has provided further justification for the request to exceed the building site coverage (Attachment 6).

The Board’s action included conditions of approval related to landscaping in attempt to address the privacy concerns of the Appellant. None of the findings contained in Board Resolution 2026-1819 relied entirely on landscaping, as the Appellant claims. In no way was the landscaping required to make the required findings to approve the Second Revised Project. Moreover, privacy between the Applicant and Appellant properties were addressed through a variety of design revisions, including increasing the setback and decreasing the height of the ADU.

E. “Precedent and Policy”
Approval of a 21% exceedance of the building site coverage maximum, where a fully compliant alternative has been placed in the record, would set a damaging and difficult-to reverse precedent.

Staff’s Response
An increase in BSC must be justified based on the specific circumstances of the project, including preservation of views, protection of privacy, reduction of building height, or maintenance of neighborhood development patterns. These findings require a case-by-case evaluation of each proposal on its own merits.

Accordingly, a prior approval of a BSC increase cannot serve as the basis for approving a different project.

Each request for a BSC exceedance must independently demonstrate that the increase is necessary to achieve one or more of these purposes. For example, if a proposed increase in BSC would result in development that significantly impacts views, the Board could reasonably deny the request, even if the amount of BSC requested is similar to approvals granted for nearby properties.

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. Here, the Project involves the remodel and addition to an existing single-family residence and construction of an attached accessory dwelling unit. Furthermore, the Project is an allowed residential use in the R-1 zone. No evidence demonstrates a reasonable possibility that the project will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.

Further, none of the exceptions outlined in CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2 apply. The Project site does not contain any environmentally sensitive areas except for being an oceanfront property. There will be no cumulative impact resulting from successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time. There 29 of 355
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2025-1819 AND CDP 2025-1820 AT 399 PEARL STREET July 28, 2026

Page 30 of 30 ends

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. 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. 31-76)

2. Appeal (Pgs. 77-106)

3. City Council Appeal Public Notice (Pg. 107)

4. Adopted DRB Resolution No. 2025-1819 (Pgs. 108-119)

5. April 9, 2026 DRB Staff Report (Pgs. 120-135)

6. April 9, 2026 DRB Project Plans (Pgs. 136-162)

7. April 9, 2026 DRB Public Correspondence (Pgs. 163-188)

8. April 9, 2026 DRB Transcript (Pgs. 189-207)

9. January 22, 2026 DRB Staff Report (Pgs. 208-221)

10. January 22, 2026 DRB Project Plans (Pgs. 222-240)

11. January 22, 2026 DRB Public Correspondence (Pgs. 241-244)

12. January 22, 2026 DRB Transcript (Pgs. 245-260)

13. November 13, 2025 DRB Staff Report (Pgs. 261-274)

14. November 13, 2025 DRB Project Plans (Pgs. 275-299)

15. November 13, 2025 DRB Public Correspondence (Pg. 300)

16. November 13, 2025 DRB Minutes (Pgs. 301-325)

17. November 13, 2025 DRB Transcript (Pgs. 326-342)

18. Certified Staking Plan (Pg. 343)

19. Order of Testimony (Pgs. 344-345)
Submitted By: Matthew Schneider Approved: .David A Kiff Matthew Schneider, Director of
Community Development
Dave Kiff, City Manager
Report Prepared By: Coordinated With:

Brenda Wisneski, Principal Planner Jane Abzug, Assistant City Attorney Anthony Viera, Deputy Director of Community
Development
30 of 355
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 2025-1819 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT 2025-1820 FOR AN ADDITION AND REMODEL OF AN

EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH A NEW
ATTACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AT 399 PEARL
STREET IN THE R-1, RESIDENTIAL LOW-DENSITY ZONE, AND

CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15301
WHEREAS, the property owner, Jason Mueller1 (“Applicant”), of 399 Pearl Street (the “Property”), applied for Design Review (“DR”) 2025-1819 and Coastal Development Permit (“CDP”) 2025-1820 for an addition and remodel of an existing single-family dwelling and a new attached accessory dwelling unit (“ADU”) in the R-1 (Residential Low Density) zone. Design review is required for the additions that exceeds a height of 15 feet above the adjacent ground elevation, elevated decks, and landscaping for an addition that creates a new upper story or addition that exceeds a height of 15 feet above the adjacent ground elevation pursuant to Laguna Beach Municipal Code (“LBMC”) Section 25.05.040(B)(1) and 25.05.040(B)(3)(a)(ii). A coastal development permit is required for the ADU (LBMC Section 25.07.004) (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, the Design Review Board (“Board”) conducted a duly noticed public hearing on October 9, 2025, pursuant to Title 25, Zoning, of the Laguna Beach Municipal Code, and continued the application to the November 13, 2025 meeting without discussion to ensure that the project was staked in accordance with Municipal Code requirements; and WHEREAS, on November 13, 2025, the Board evaluated the proposed design (the “Original Project”) and received public testimony, which focused primarily on concerns related to 1 The Project’s architect is Chris LeTourneau who is within the definition of Applicant.

Attachment 1
31 31 of 355
-2- Reso. #
the ADU including privacy, building height, and projection of the eave, and continued the application to the January 22, 2026 meeting to allow the Applicant additional time to revise the project in response to Board direction and to engage further with a neighboring property owner with privacy concerns at 367 Pearl Street; and
WHEREAS, on January 22, 2026, the Board considered project revisions (the “Revised Project”). After receiving input from staff, the Applicant, and public comments, the Board discussed the Revised Project and voted 5–0 to continue the hearing to March 12, 2026, to allow the Applicant additional time to revise the project in response to Board direction and to engage further with the neighboring property owner at 367 Pearl Street who continued to express privacy concerns associated with the proposed ADU; and
WHEREAS, on March 12, 2026, because the Applicant added the trellis to the project that would encroach into a required rear setback, the Board tabled the project so that the Second Revised Project could be re-noticed to include the Applicant’s variance request and to allow for updated staking to reflect the proposed design change; and WHEREAS, on April 9, 2026, the Board held a duly noticed public hearing and considered revised plans for the project (the “Second Revised Project”). After receiving input from staff, the Applicant, and public comments, the Board discussed the Second Revised Project and approved the Second Revised Project with a 3-1 vote under Board Resolution No. 2025-1819, conditionally approving the Project, and finding that the Second Revised Project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines Section 15301 (the “Board Approval”); and WHEREAS, on April 23, 2026, Lynda Fluent, Mark Fluent, and Justine Fluent (represented by Carney Mehr, ALC) (collectively the “Appellant”) of 367 Pearl Street, filed an 32 32 of 355
-3- Reso. #
appeal of the Board Approval (the “Appeal”); and
WHEREAS, on June 9, 2026, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the Appeal and continued the hearing to the July 28, 202 City Council meeting; 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 Approval is Procedurally Defective for Lack of Adequate Notice and Staking” City Council’s Response
The Appellant asserts that since the Project had been modified after the staking of the property and public noticing, depriving the public of the opportunity to visual the project before the Board.

The Second Revised Project – which was appropriately staked – included a request for a variance to allow a trellis, approximately 200 square feet in size, to be located 4 feet from the rear property line when a 16-foot setback is required. The trellis was proposed in response to the Board’s request stated at the January 22, 2026 meeting to increase landscaping for additional privacy for the neighbor at 367 Pearl Street. However, correspondence submitted by the Appellant dated March 12, 2026, indicated the trellis did not alleviate their concerns related to privacy. Also, 33 33 of 355
-4- Reso. #
staff had recommended that the Board deny the variance on the basis that the required findings could not be made.

Based on the March 12, 2026 correspondence, it was evident that the trellis did not meaningfully resolve the neighbor’s concerns; therefore, prior to the April 9, 2026 Board meeting, the Applicant notified staff their intent to relocate and reduce the size of the trellis to approximately 120 square feet so that it no longer encroached into the setback (see Figure 1). Consequently, a variance was no longer required and no other entitlements were required for the trellis. 2 The staff
presentation to the Board detailed the original and revised trellis location (See Figure 1). A condition of approval was also included requiring the trellis to be no less than 16 feet from the rear property line and 7’-6” from the interior side property line.

Figure 1: Excerpt from April 9, 2026 Staff Presentation to Board, with Trellis Shaded in Green
Each of the Appellant’s claims is further summarized and addressed below:
2 The trellis, with a height less than 14 feet above the adjacent ground elevation, is not subject to Design Review in accordance with LBMC Section 25.05.040(B).
34 34 of 355
-5- Reso. #

However, project staking also assists in communicating the visual parameters of the project to all other interested parties including the applicant’s team, the property owner, the Board and City staff. In accordance with LBMC Section 25.05.040(C)(2), the project design was staked and certified as being consistent with the proposed project design at least 21 days prior to each public hearing as detailed below:

1. Prior to the November 13, 2025 hearing, depicting the Original Project which proposed the ADU at 21’ in height, a setback 18.25’ from the side property line, and an extended roof eave.

2. Prior to January 13, 2026 hearing, the staking was modified for the Revised Project to reduce the height and increase the side setback of the ADU and decrease the eave extension.

3. Prior to the April 9. 2026 hearing, the staking was modified for the Second Revised Project to decrease the size and increase the side setback of the ADU, and to detail the newly proposed trellis.

A staking plan for the Second Revised Project was prepared and certified as 35 35 of 355
-6- Reso. #
accurate by a licensed surveyor/licensed engineer on March 10, 2026.3 Accordingly, the Second Revised Project met Municipal Code requirements for staking a design review project in accordance with LBMC Section 25.05.040(C)(2).

City Council’s Response
The 120-square-foot trellis was relocated to an area outside the setback area negating the need for the variance, as well as eliminating the need for any discretionary review, in accordance with LBMC 25.05.040(2)(r). As such, the trellis approved the Board would not require staking and would not have been included in a public hearing notice. It shall also be noted that all public hearings conducted on November 13, 2025, January 22, 2026 and April 9, 2026 and application requirements associated with the project, including project staking, were conducted in compliance with LBMC Section

25.05.065 and Section 25.05.040(C)(2). Just as the Board may condition a project to modify the envelope of a new structure during a public hearing, an Applicant is within their rights to offer or propose changes to a project for the Board’s consideration.

Neither expressly requires staking. In accordance with LBMC Section

25.05.040(C)(2)(a), staking must be installed and certified for “at least 21 days prior to the first Design Review Board public hearing date.” As indicated above, this 3 See sheet A-1.2 Staking Plan.
36 36 of 355
-7- Reso. #
requirement was met. LBMC Section 25.0.040(C)(2)(a) also states that “[i]f 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.” It is inarguable that the Board has the authority to direct that project modifications be staked for further design review consideration. However, it is entirely within the Board’s authority to approve a project with changes at a public hearing.

Here, upon reviewing the staff’s recommendation to deny the variance for the trellis setback encroachment in the published staff report, the Applicant responded by developing an alternative trellis design that complies with all applicable development standards. This alternative design was presented by City staff at the hearing and was expressly considered and approved by the Board. The Second Revised Project has met all legal noticing and staking requirements.

3. The Procedural Defect Is Not Harmless. The Appellant states the “defect” caused harm to the Appellants and other neighbors because their objections were based on the plans and staking.

City Council’s Response
The City received over thirty pages of correspondence from the Appellant.

On March 12, 2026, the Appellant submitted an email referencing the trellis but no specific concerns related to trellis were stated. Instead, the March 12, 2026 email mentions the “extremely large” addition. Since the Appellant’s comments continued to focus predominately on the proposed ADU, it is clear the proposed trellis was not 37 37 of 355
-8- Reso. #
fundamental to the Appellant’s continued opposition to the project. The Appeal again puts forward no colorable arguments as to why the trellis is impacting the Appellant’s property, either in its original or revised configuration. The record demonstrates that their objections were not based on the trellis or the related staking but instead focused on the other elements of the project, and specifically the proposed ADU. Further, the Applicant made known at the April 9, 2026 Board meeting that the trellis was being reduced prior to public comment. This provided the Appellant notice of the reduction and an opportunity to address the matter if so desired.

City Council’s Response
The 120-square-foot trellis was relocated to an area outside the setback area, negating the need for the variance, as well as eliminating the need for any discretionary review, since the trellis is less than 15 feet in height in accordance with LBMC 25.05.040(B)(2)(a)(ii). As such, the trellis approved by the Board would not have required staking and would not have been included in a public hearing notice. Therefore, there would be no grounds to continue the item.

2. “The Necessity Standard Was Not Met”
City Council’s Response
The Appellant claims the Board approved exceedance without making finding of necessity and without support of substantial evidence.

The proposed ADU results in an exceedance of the building site coverage. The maximum 38 38 of 355
-9- Reso. #
building site coverage for the project site is 39.5 percent whereas the applicant is proposing 47.78 percent. The existing building site coverage is 35.83 percent. Pursuant to LBMC Section

25.10.008(E)(1)(d), the maximum building site coverage may be modified by the Board “when it is necessary to preserve views, preserve privacy, reduce heights, or to maintain neighborhood development patterns.” The project retains a single-story profile across portions of its footprint, with garage massing below street grade and the ADU strategically attached to existing secondstory massing to avoid new view equity impacts. This approach protects key ocean views, minimizes privacy concerns through thoughtful window placement and balcony orientation, and aligns with established development patterns in Woods Cove, where single-story structures are often paired with modest, well-integrated second-story massing.

The Applicant also provided an analysis of building site coverage of fourteen properties in proximity to the Second Revised Project, which reflected an average of 46% coverage. The Appellant provided an analysis of floor area ratios for the area, but this standard does not apply to development within the R-1 zoning district.

Each of the Appellant’s claims is further summarized and addressed below:

1. The Legal Standard — and the Absence of the Required Findings. The Appellant claims the Board did not make the required findings to authorize an increase in BSC.

City Council’s Response
The April 9, 2026 staff report specifically included the following:
“The applicant is requesting approval to exceed the building site coverage requirement to accommodate the proposed attached ADU. The maximum building 39 39 of 355
-10- Reso. #
site coverage for the project site is 39.5 percent whereas the applicant is proposing

47.78 percent. The existing building site coverage is 35.83 percent. Pursuant to LBMC Section 25.10.008(E)(1)(d), the maximum building site coverage requirement may be modified by the Board “when it is necessary to preserve views, preserve privacy, reduce heights, or to maintain neighborhood development patterns.” The project retains a largely single-story profile, with garage massing below street grade and the ADU strategically attached to existing second-story massing to avoid new view equity impacts. This approach protects key ocean views, minimizes privacy concerns through thoughtful window placement and balcony orientation, and aligns with established development patterns in Woods Cove, where single-story structures are often paired with modest, well-integrated second-story massing. Therefore, staff finds that the request for additional building site coverage is supportable. The applicant has provided further justification for the request to exceed the building site coverage (Attachment 6).”
In addition to the analysis presented in the staff report, the Board expressed support for the increase in BSC coverage in that locating the ADU at the rear of the lot adjacent to the existing two-story element and maintaining a single-story at the front of the property protected private views and maintained neighborhood development patterns.4 Specific
quotes (provided below) from the Board members expressed the benefits to maintaining a single-story element at the front of the property to preserve views of the neighbor. These comments demonstrate the Board’s understanding of the LBMC requirements and their 4 Chair Gibbs voted “no” to approve the project citing concerns with BSC. 40 40 of 355
-11- Reso. #
justification to grant an increase in BSC.

Supporting Quote (Board Member Bauta):

2. The Applicant’s Own Record Defeats Necessity. The Appellant indicates the finding of necessity was not met since a Code compliant alternative existed.

City Council’s Response
It’s not accurate for the Appellant to claim that an increase of BSC results in a project that would be “non-conforming”. BSC is a guideline, not a development standard with a hard cap. The Board can grant excess BSC subject to the stated criteria, which were determined to be met. The April 9, 2026 staff report specifically included the following:
“The applicant is requesting approval to exceed the building site coverage requirement to accommodate the proposed attached ADU. The maximum building site coverage for the project site is 39.5 percent whereas the applicant is proposing

47.78 percent. The existing building site coverage is 35.83 percent. Pursuant to LBMC Section 25.10.008(E)(1)(d), the maximum building site coverage requirement may be modified by the Board “when it is necessary to preserve views, preserve privacy, reduce heights, or to maintain neighborhood development patterns.” The project retains a largely single-story profile, with garage massing below street grade and the ADU strategically attached to existing second-story massing to avoid new view equity impacts. This approach protects key ocean views, minimizes privacy concerns through thoughtful window placement and balcony orientation, and aligns with established development patterns in Woods Cove, where single-story structures are often paired with modest, well-integrated second-story massing. Therefore, staff 7 April 9, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 14 [Coveny] 42 42 of 355
-13- Reso. #
finds that the request for additional building site coverage is supportable. The applicant has provided further justification for the request to exceed the building site coverage (Attachment 6).”
Regarding the existence of an alternative design, the Appellant presented a design (Figure 2) that would place the ADU over the existing single-story element located toward the front of the home. However, establishing two stories at this location, as indicated by the Board (see supporting quotes below), would likely impact private ocean views and would not maintain articulation reflective of the neighborhood development pattern (Figure 3). Additionally, the lack of an alternative design is not one of the criteria for allowing an exceedance of BSC. The Board is to consider views, privacy, reduced heights, and neighborhood development patterns when modifying BSC. Here, the Board majority found that the Second Revised Project was designed to respect existing view corridors, the additions result in a structure with a mass and scale that is consistent with existing neighborhood development patterns, and privacy impacts with respect to the Appellant’s property were directly considered at each public hearing on the project, and was further addressed with project-specific conditions of approval imposed at the April 9, 2026 hearing. The Board appropriately used its discretion to weigh the evidence and grant an increase in BSC.

Supporting Quote (Board Member Bauta):

Board Member Bauta, in his opening comments, states, “We were initially concerned with views and the neighbor directly to the rear of the applicant expressed that they had no concern with the views.” The “rear” refers to location 43 43 of 355
-14- Reso. #
of the two-story ADU which Board Member Bauta confirms, since there were no concerns of the neighbor, “view equity can be achieved”. (page 11) He then goes on to say in his closing comments, the “views from the rear impacted the decision for us to go to the...other side.”8
Regarding privacy concerns of the Appellant’s, Board Member Bauta states, “the concerns that were expressed by the Fluents pertaining to privacy currently exist in the existing structure on the existing deck. So, I cannot consider that. I cannot consider that an invasion of privacy because I take it that it's not an increase in the current privacy condition pertaining to the site.”9
Supporting Quote (Board Member Neev):

Related to maintain the single-story element at the front, Board Member Neev, states “And I appreciate that the fact that you have positioned the ADU where the bulk of the original house is, the two-story lined up with the two-story.” And regarding neighborhood development patterns, she goes on to state, “there's a lot of different houses there. Some of them are larger, some of them are smaller, some of the lots are bigger.”10
Regarding privacy concerns of the Appellant’s, Board Member Neev states, “there's a lot of privacy issues already there. …mitigate that with some of the landscaping.”11
Supporting Quote (Board Member Coveny):
8 April 9, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Pages 11 and 13 [Bauta] 9 April 9, 2026, Design Review Board Transcript Page 11 [Bauta] 10 April 9, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 12 [Neev] 11 April 9, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 12 [Neev] 44 44 of 355
-15- Reso. #
Regarding locating the ADU on top of the existing single-story element at the front of the property, Board Member Coveny states, “putting it on the other side, and then that would heavily impact views and definitely feel more mass and scale on that side.” And she goes on to say, “if we end up building on the other side, we’re going to have view, privacy, height, all that.”12 Regarding the privacy concerns of the Appellant’s, Board Member Coveny states, “Because it doesn't impact views as a second story and it doesn't, in my opinion, impact privacy.” She goes on to say, “I really did not see a privacy issue.” 13
Figure 2: Appellant’s Alternative Design
12 April 9, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 14 [Coveny] 13 April 9, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 14 [Coveny] 45 45 of 355
-16- Reso. #
Figure 3: Approve Project Design

City Council’s Response
The Second Revised Project places the two-story ADU at the rear of the existing two-story structure, which preserves the one-story element of the existing structure as viewed from the corner of Pearl Street and Catalina Street (see Figure 3). The Appellant’s design locates the ADU on the second story of the existing residence, eliminating the expansion of the ground floor of the existing structure (see Figure 2 above). As stated by Board Member Coveny at the April 9, 2026 hearing, maintaining the single-story element to the project was important to maintaining articulation that is consistent with the 46 46 of 355
-17- Reso. #
neighborhood development pattern. Therefore, the alternative design, while it may comply with the building site coverage, would eliminate the articulation and therefore does not maintain the neighborhood development pattern. Moreover, the Board observed that such massing would likely impact private ocean views. As indicated above, the Board appropriately used its discretion to weigh the evidence and grant an increase in BSC. The Municipal Code does not require a finding that there are no alternatives to the project that fit within the allowable BSC. The Board appropriately based its decision on the criteria set forth by LBMC Section 25.10.008(E)(1)(d).

City Council’s Response
It is not accurate to suggest an increase in the BSC would create nonconformity.

The BSC is a guideline, not a development standard. LBMC Section 25.10.008(E)(1)(d) states, “The building site coverage requirement shall only be modified by the design review board when it is necessary to preserve views, preserve privacy, reduce heights or to maintain neighborhood development patterns.” The provision does not require that each of the conditions be satisfied, and furthermore, a variance is not required to allow for excess BSC, because the Board is expressly authorized to modify the standard. Further, nothing in the LBMC requires removal of existing nonconformities as part of this project. 47 47 of 355
-18- Reso. #

3. “The Additionally Required Findings Cannot be Made”
City Council’s Response
The Appellant claims each criteria include in LBMC Section 25.10.008(E)(1)(d), as well as LBMC Section 25.05.040(H), cannot be made.

City Council’s Response
LBMC Section 25.05.040(H) relates to the criteria for approving projects subject to design review. Only elements associated with the single-story residence are subject to design review including: additions that exceed a height of 15 feet above the adjacent ground elevation (see Laguna Beach Municipal Code (LBMC) Section

25.05.040(B)(1)(j)), elevated decks (see LBMC Section 25.05.040(B)(3)(a)(ii)), and landscaping for an addition that creates a new upper story or addition that exceed a height of 15 feet above the adjacent ground elevation (see LBMC Section 25.05.040(B)(1)(p)).

Findings for approving these components of the project are detailed in Board Resolution 2025-1819.

The proposed ADU is not subject to design review and therefore not subject to LBMC Section 25.05.040(H). In accordance with state ADU law (see Government Code Sec. 66317(a)(1)), “A permit application for an accessory dwelling unit shall be considered and approved ministerially without discretionary review. However, in cases where an ADU is located in the coastal zone, as is the case here, the ADU is subject to the Coastal Act (see 48 48 of 355
-19- Reso. #
Gov. Code Section 66329 [“Nothing in [the state ADU law] shall be construed to supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California Coastal Act of 1976. . . .”].) Therefore, in accordance with the Coastal Act, a CDP is required. The findings for approving the CDP are detailed in Board Resolution 2025-1819.

Focusing only on the elements of the project that are subject to LBMC Section

25.05.040(H), the Appellant’s argument is flawed in that it references standards that are not required to meet the required findings. The finding which related to neighborhood compatibility, per LBMC Section 25.05.50(H)(9), is stated below:

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.

Each of the claims made by the Appellant reference metrics that are either not applicable to the R-1 zoning district or are not required to determine neighbor compatibility in accordance with LBMC Section 25.05.040(H)(9).

The Appellant conducted an analysis of the neighborhood consisting of 63 properties utilizing data from the Orange County Assessor and the City’s GIS. It should be noted that the Appellant did not provide back-up data and Orange County Assessors data is often incorrect or out-of-date; therefore, the accuracy of the Appellant’s conclusions cannot be verified.

Each metric referenced by the Appellant (in italics) and the City Council’s response 49 49 of 355
-20- Reso. #
is detailed below:
a. Floor Area Ratio of neighboring properties. The Appellant claims the project, “exceeds the next highest comparable R-1 home in the neighborhood study area.” The R-1 zoning district does not have a development standard limiting floor area ratio (FAR); therefore, referencing this metric for determining neighborhood compatibility is irrelevant. That being said, the Appellant’s analysis included five properties in the study area that exceeded the FAR of the Second Revised Project. b. Home size relative to lot size. The Appellant states, “No other home over 3,000 square feet exists on a lot under 7,000 square feet”. Comparing the square footage of a home for the purposes of determining neighborhood compatibility is not necessary in that “compatibility” is much more of how a project “fits’ in the neighborhood as articulated by Board Member Coveny at the April 9, 2026 hearing, when she observed that “there are a lot of different houses” in the neighborhood. Project compatibility is demonstrated by the design articulation, suitable architecture and the use of organic material. And, as stated by testimony given by John Gutweiler, property owner of 409 Pearl Street located north of the project site, although he may lose some of his view, the “home that will really look beautiful in the neighborhood.”
Supporting Quote (Board Member Neev):

Regarding neighborhood development patterns, Board Member Neev states, “there's a lot of different houses there. Some of them are larger, some of them are smaller, some of the lots are bigger.”14
14 April 9, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 12 [Neev] 50 50 of 355
-21- Reso. #
c. Building Site coverage. The Appellant’s analysis asserts that the proposed BSC of

47.78% exceeds the legal maximum of 39.5% by 21% and exceeds the 28.4% neighborhood average by nearly 70%. As stated above, the increase in BSC is related to the ADU which is not subject to LBMC Section 25.05.040(H), and is it not accurate to suggest a comparison of BSC is required to demonstrate neighborhood compatibility.

While it may be one consideration, neighborhood compatibility considers the totality of the neighborhood characteristics and how a project integrates itself into the preexisting context. As indicated in the “Design Guidelines – A Guide to Residential Development, design objectives for neighborhood compatibility include the following:
“11.8 Design new development in such a way that visible mass conforms to the scale of the neighborhood.”
“11.10 Consider the existing setback pattern in the neighborhood.” (page 49 of the “Design Guidelines.”)15
Among other findings, the Board found that the lower heights toward the front of the Second Revised Project were appropriate and consistent with existing neighborhood development patterns.
d. Uncaptured bulk. The Appellant suggests the garage and elevated decks should be considered in the bulk and site coverage of the project. However, the LBMC does not included a metric for considering “bulk of a structure”. It is not accurate to include the 15 Design Guidelines:
https://www.lagunabeachcity.net/home/showpublisheddocument/8134/637406517601200 000
51 51 of 355
-22- Reso. #
garage or the decks in calculating BSC. LBMC Section 25.10.008(E)(1)(c), calculates BSC as, “The maximum lot area which may be occupied by habitable enclosed building space and covered off-street parking”. The areas in question are neither habitable nor enclosed; therefore, it would be inaccurate to include them in the calculating BSC.

City Council’s Response
“Neighborhood development patterns” is one of four the criteria for considering an increase in BSC. Satisfaction of each criteria is not required to justify an increase.

However, as demonstrated by the public record for the project, neighborhood development patterns were considered by the Board. As indicated in the April 9, 2026 Board staff report:
“The applicant is requesting approval to exceed the building site coverage requirement to accommodate the proposed attached ADU. The maximum building site coverage for the project site is 39.5 percent whereas the applicant is proposing

47.78 percent. The existing building site coverage is 35.83 percent. Pursuant to LBMC Section 25.10.008(E)(1)(d), the maximum building site coverage requirement 52 52 of 355
-23- Reso. #
may be modified by the Board “when it is necessary to preserve views, preserve privacy, reduce heights, or to maintain neighborhood development patterns.” The project retains a largely single-story profile, with garage massing below street grade and the ADU strategically attached to existing second-story massing to avoid new view equity impacts. This approach protects key ocean views, minimizes privacy concerns through thoughtful window placement and balcony orientation, and aligns with established development patterns in Woods Cove, where single-story structures are often paired with modest, well-integrated second-story massing. Therefore, staff finds that the request for additional building site coverage is supportable. The applicant has provided further justification for the request to exceed the building site coverage (Attachment 6).”
The Appellant references the size of the home in relation to the neighborhood and the proposed BSC as an indicator that the Second Revised Project is not compatible with the neighborhood development pattern. However, as stated in Board’s Resolution 2025- 1819, development patterns also include height, mass, and scale.

Board Resolution 2025-1819 (Section 3, Finding 9)
The proposed project has been carefully designed to ensure compatibility with the existing development and character of the neighborhood. While the existing singlefamily residence encroaches into the front yard setback and exceeds the height limits, the project includes a reduction in building height to bring the structure into conformance. The additions and remodel, including the new upper- and lower-level spaces and second-floor deck, are sensitively scaled to respect the neighborhood’s 53 53 of 355
-24- Reso. #
established massing and scale. Architectural elements, landscaping, and the preservation of key site features work together to maintain the area’s distinctive character and village atmosphere, reflecting the neighborhood’s historical development patterns and cohesive design themes.

The Board majority found that the Second Revised Project was consistent with the neighborhood development patterns.

City Council’s Response
The preservation of views is one of the four criteria for consideration of an increase in BSC. Satisfaction of each criteria is not required to justify an increase. However, as demonstrated by the public record for the project, potential view impacts were considered and the proposed design was determined to preserve views by maintaining the existing onestory element at the front of the property. Each of the Appellant’s claims (in italics) and the City Council’s responses are provided below:
16 April 9, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 12 [Coveny] 54 54 of 355
-25- Reso. #
a. No view corridor was documented to purport what is to be preserved. It is not a requirement of the LBMC to document potential views to be protected, as these views may be revealed during the public review process. However, John Gutweiler, property owner of 409 Pearl Street, provided testimony at the November 13, 2026 Board meeting, stating, “I'm very fortunate because I have ocean views from my living room, kitchen, and bedrooms. And I look directly down on Jason's property and down to the ocean. I'm completely in favor of this property, this project. It will take away a bit of my view, but what I'll get is a beautiful home to look at along with the ocean.”17 Related to maintaining the single-story element at the front, Board Member Coveny noted its importance.

Supporting Quote (Board Member Coveny):
“I think originally about putting it on the other side, and then that would heavily impact views and definitely feel more mass and scale on that side.”18 b. The story poles contradict the finding. The proposed roofline rises above the roofline of 409 Pearl Street. It cannot fairly be said to preserve that neighbor’s view. The single-story residence at 409 Pearl Street is slightly elevated above the street level and includes a series of windows facing west, toward 399 Pearl Street (see inset photo in Figure 4). The proposed second story addition is located south of the existing two-story element. The project maintains the single-story toward the front of the property, which preserves existing viewshed for 409 Pearl Street (see 17 April 9, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 8 [Gutweiler] 18 April 9, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 14 [Coveny] 55 55 of 355
-26- Reso. #
potential view of 409 Street in Figure 4). Mr. Gutweiler, resident of 409 Pearl Street, expressed appreciation for the development of the property in a manner which, as he states, “take away a bit of my view”, in exchange for enhancements resulting from a “beautiful home”. 19
Figure 4: View from 409 Pearl Street
c. The neighbors view would not be preserved, which is not a legally cognizable basis for a view preservation finding under LBMC §25.10.008(E)(1)(d). The City Council’s response is the same as above. In the case of the Second Revised Project, 19 April 9, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 8 [Gutweiler] 409 Pearl
S
56 56 of 355
-27- Reso. #
the design maintains a single-story element at the front of the property in consideration of views from 409 Pearl Street, as shown in Figure 4. d. The architect’s own language confirms choice, not necessity. He described the siting as one that “allowed view preservation”. The City Council’s response is the same as above. In the case of the Second Revised Project, the design maintains a single-story element at the front of the property in consideration of views from 409 Pearl Street, as shown in Figure 4.

4. Finding 4 — Reduction of Heights. The Appellant claims the Board’s finding that the Second Revised Project reduces heights is contradicted by direct physical evidence and onthe-record testimony.

City Council’s Response
Reduced heights is one of four criteria for considering an increase in BSC. It is not necessary that all criteria be satisfied. However, in this case, the Second Revised Project includes an attached ADU and additions to the single-family residence that are two feet lower than the maximum height of the existing structure.

Each of the Appellant’s claim (in italics) and the City Council’s response are provided below:
a. The story poles (from the previous design) demonstrate that the proposed roofline exceeds every neighboring roofline from at least four vantage points. As detailed in the Project Plans (see Sheet A-4.1), the existing residence is 27 feet in height.

The Second Revised Project includes an attached ADU and additions to the singlefamily residence that are two feet lower than the maximum height of the existing 57 57 of 355
-28- Reso. #
structure, in compliance with the maximum height for the zone. Neighboring properties are improved with one- and two-story structures.

The applicant’s architect stated on the record at the January 22, 2026 hearing:
“Inevitably there’s going to be a design that’s towering over this lower property.” The subject Property is between 10 and 12 feet above the Appellant’s backyard.

The context of the architect’s comment describes the site topography as being the greatest challenge between the two properties. Mr. Letourneau, the architect, went on to say, “the preexisting conditions of the second-floor deck that exists, already looked down onto this patio.”

5. Finding 5 — Preservation of Privacy. The Appellant claims that the Board’s finding that the Second Revised Project preserves the privacy of neighboring residents is unsupported by substantial evidence:
a. Written objections were submitted by four neighboring households and Chair Gibbs acknowledged the physical relationship of the proposed structure to the Fluent property at 367 Pearl, the Gutweiler property at 409 Pearl, and other adjacent homes.
b. The proposed mitigations (repositioned balcony and opaque window glazing) are inadequate to remedy the elevated structure that overlooks the Appellants downhill property.
c. The trellis mitigation is itself unapproved. Conditioning a finding of privacy preservation upon an element that has not been approved is procedurally improper.

City Council’s Response
58 58 of 355
-29- Reso. #
Preservation of privacy is one of four criteria for considering an increase in BSC.

While it is not necessary that all criteria be satisfied, the public record clearly supports the Board’s conclusion that considered privacy in its decision. Concerns related to privacy were discussed by the public and Board members at each meeting. As a result, the project was revised as directed by the Board in effort to address the concerns. The following summary of the Board’s direction and project revisions, and ultimate conditions of approval, confirms the thorough consideration of potential privacy issues and significant project revisions, including reducing the height and size of the ADU, and increasing the upper-level setback of the ADU to 26’-9” from the interior side lot line. Conditions of approval were also imposed by the Board in consideration of privacy including requiring a 13-foot setback for the at-grade deck, placing a 5’-6” deep planter along the upper-level window of the ADU, and maintaining the mature tree located at the southwest corner of the property.

Reduce eaves. Pulled back the eave an additional 3’.

Push upper story back, perhaps by reducing
square footage.

Moved the entirety of the ADU 1’-6” towards
Catalina Street and away from the neighbor
downslope.

Increase landscaping Vines to be attached to trellis supports and guided along the top of the structure.

Planter proposed along the second story window
59 59 of 355
-30- Reso. #
of the ADU.

Privacy hedges, limited to 8 feet in height, to be
located along the property line in the southwest
corner of the lot.

Design Review Board Conditions of Approval –
April 9, 2026
Condition No. 17: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project plans shall be revised to include:
a. Relocate trellis to be no less than 16-feet from the rear property line and 7’-6” from the interior side property line.
b. Upper floor of the ADU to be no less than 26’-9” from the interior side property line.
c. Upper floor planter located at the base of the westward facing window of the ADU to be no less than 5’-6” deep and span the width of the window. d. On-grade deck (no more than 30” above natural grade) adjacent to the ADU, to be located no less than 13’-0” feet from the interior side property line.
e. Protect in place the existing Pittosporum located at the southwest corner at its current height which may be above the height to the proposed trellis.

Board deliberations prior to approving the project verified their determination that privacy had been considered as follows:

Supporting Quote (Board Member Bauta):

Board Member Bauta states, “the concerns that were expressed by the Fluents pertaining to privacy currently exist in the existing structure on the existing deck.

So, I cannot consider that. I cannot consider that an evasion of privacy because I take it that it's not an increase in the current privacy condition pertaining to the site.”20
Supporting Quote (Board Member Neev):

Board Member Neev states, “there's a lot of privacy issues already there. …mitigate 20 April 9, 2026, Design Review Board Transcript Page 11 [Bauta] 60 60 of 355
-31- Reso. #
that with some of the landscaping.”21
Supporting Quote (Board Member Coveny):

Board Member Coveny states, “Because it doesn't impact views as a second story and it doesn't, in my opinion, impact privacy.” She goes on to say, “I really did not see a privacy issue.” 22

4. “The Approval Improperly Relies on Landscaping as Mitigation” City Council’s Response
The Appellant references LBMC §25.10.008(E)(1)(d) which is the provision allowing the Board to increase BSC when “it is necessary to preserve views, preserve privacy, reduce heights or to maintain neighborhood development patterns”. The Appellant incorrectly claims that landscaping was utilized to satisfy the criteria to support the increase. The justification to support the BSC increase stated in the April 9, 2026 staff report does not reference landscaping (see below). “The applicant is requesting approval to exceed the building site coverage requirement to accommodate the proposed attached ADU. The maximum building site coverage for the project site is 39.5 percent whereas the applicant is proposing

47.78 percent. The existing building site coverage is 35.83 percent. Pursuant to LBMC Section 25.10.008(E)(1)(d), the maximum building site coverage requirement may be modified by the Board “when it is necessary to preserve views, preserve privacy, reduce heights, or to maintain neighborhood development patterns.” The project retains a largely single-story profile, with 21 April 9, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 12 [Neev] 22 April 9, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 14 [Coveny] 61 61 of 355
-32- Reso. #
garage massing below street grade and the ADU strategically attached to existing second-story massing to avoid new view equity impacts. This approach protects key ocean views, minimizes privacy concerns through thoughtful window placement and balcony orientation, and aligns with established development patterns in Woods Cove, where single-story structures are often paired with modest, well-integrated second-story massing. Therefore, staff finds that the request for additional building site coverage is supportable. The applicant has provided further justification for the request to exceed the building site coverage (Attachment 6).”
The Board’s action included conditions of approval related to landscaping in attempt to address the privacy concerns of the Appellant. None of the findings contained in Board Resolution 2026-1819 relied entirely on landscaping, as the Appellant claims. In no way was the landscaping required to make the required findings to approve the Second Revised Project. Moreover, privacy between the Applicant and Appellant properties were addressed through a variety of design revisions, including increasing the setback and decreasing the height of the ADU.

5. “Precedent and Policy”
City Council’s Response
An increase in BSC must be justified based on the specific circumstances of the project, including preservation of views, protection of privacy, reduction of building height, or maintenance of neighborhood development patterns. These findings require a case-by-case evaluation of each proposal on its own merits. Accordingly, a prior approval 62 62 of 355
-33- Reso. #
of a BSC increase cannot serve as the basis for approving a different project. Each request for a BSC exceedance must independently demonstrate that the increase is necessary to achieve one or more of these purposes. For example, if a proposed increase in BSC would result in development that significantly impacts views, the Board could reasonably deny the request, even if the amount of BSC requested is similar to approvals granted for nearby properties.

SECTION 3. The City Council hereby makes the following findings and facts supporting findings for DR 2025-1819:

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 neighborhood offers on-street parking but no sidewalk improvements. The subject project maintains the existing driveway, taken from Pearl Street, providing access to a 2-car garage. On-site improvements would have no effect on existing access between vehicles, pedestrians, and other modes of transportation.

2. Design Articulation: Within the allowable building envelope, the appearance of building and retaining wall mass should be minimized. Articulation techniques including, but not limited to, separation, offsets, terracing and reducing the size of any one element in the structure may be used to reduce the appearance of mass. 63 63 of 355
-34- Reso. #
The existing structure on the project site is designed with exceptional design articulation.

Massing is broken up on all sides with different materials, colors, and offsets. The proposed alterations similarly match this level of articulation. Landscaping, including an upper-level planter, will soften the appearance of the structure as viewed from surrounding properties.

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 existing architecture uses wood shingle siding and an exposed brick chimney. The proposed design respects the existing architecture while adding a more contemporary cladding element. The proposed wall cladding is charcoal grey board and batten siding that is harmonious with the dark accents around door and window fixtures and the proposed dark roof structure.

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 watercourse on the site. The proposed alterations will not have a significant impact on the surrounding terrain as it does not require grading.

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.
64 64 of 355
-35- Reso. #
The project complies with the General Plan, including, but not limited to, the following policies:

General Plan Policies
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 reduction in building height will improve public views from Catalina Street, reinforcing the design commitment to protecting the community’s natural resources and scenic character.

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

The project is located on an improved lot in an existing residential neighborhood. The scope of work includes additions to the existing structure and do not generate growth-inducing potential in the area.

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

The project site contains an existing residential structure that is not a historic resource and 65 65 of 355
-36- Reso. #
there are no adjacent historic resources that would be impacted by the project.

7. Landscaping: Landscaping shall be incorporated as an integrated part of the structure’s design and relate harmoniously to neighborhood and community landscaping themes.

View equity shall be an important consideration in the landscape design. The relevant landscaping guidelines contained in the City’s “Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document” should be incorporated, as appropriate, in the design and planned maintenance of proposed landscaping.

The proposed landscape plan integrates both existing and new elements to ensure a cohesive design that complements the architectural character of the project and the surrounding neighborhood. Existing landscaping along Pearl Street and Catalina Street will remain largely unchanged, maintaining continuity with the established streetscape. New shrubs are strategically placed near the property lines adjacent to the proposed ADU and along the southwest rear property line to enhance privacy while respecting view equity for neighboring properties. The landscape design has been developed to align with the guidelines outlined in the City’s Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document, supporting both aesthetic integration and long-term maintenance objectives.

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.
66 66 of 355
-37- Reso. #
The proposed exterior building lighting will be adequate for individual and public safety and will not significantly impact neighboring properties. The proposed lighting fixtures will be aimed downward, and the bulbs will be fully shielded and hooded to comply with the City’s Good Neighbor Outdoor Lighting Ordinance (LBMC Chapter 7.70). Additionally, the proposed building finish materials will not be highly reflective or result in glare.

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 has been carefully designed to ensure compatibility with the existing development and character of the neighborhood. While the existing single-family residence encroaches into the front yard setback and exceeds the height limits, the project includes a reduction in building height to bring the structure into conformance. The additions and remodel, including the new upper- and lower-level spaces and second-floor deck, are sensitively scaled to respect the neighborhood’s established massing and scale. Architectural elements, landscaping, and the preservation of key site features work together to maintain the area’s distinctive character and village atmosphere, reflecting the neighborhood’s historical development patterns and cohesive design themes.

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 67 67 of 355
-38- Reso. #
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 project includes two at-grade patios and two upper-level balconies associated with the single-family residence. The patios, located at ground level, do not present any potential privacy concerns for neighboring properties due to their elevation and placement. Of the two proposed balconies, one is oriented toward the intersection of Catalina and Pearl Streets and does not present any potential for privacy impacts to adjacent residences. The second balcony faces west and is enclosed on three sides by existing and proposed structural elements. Additionally, it is set back more than 20 feet from the nearest property line and the landscaping plan proposes a new tree between the balcony and property line, to help minimize potential privacy impacts on neighboring properties

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

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

13. Sign Quality: Signs shall be incorporated into the architecture of the structure and shall be made of high-quality materials, be simple in design and be visually compatible with the surrounding physical environment in terms of color, scale and size. Use of natural 68 68 of 355
-39- Reso. #
materials in the construction of signs is encouraged.

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

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

The proposed project would be subject to Green Building Code requirements and Title 24 energy efficiency requirements and would be subject to Best Management Practices during construction. 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.

The project does not have nor include swimming pools, spas, or water features.

16. View Equity: The development, including its landscaping, shall be designed to protect existing views from neighboring properties without denying the subject property the reasonable opportunity to develop as described and illustrated in the City’s “Design Guidelines.” The “Design Guidelines” are intended to balance preservation of views with 69 69 of 355
-40- Reso. #
the right to develop property.

The project is designed to balance the preservation of existing neighboring views with the property’s reasonable development rights, consistent with the City’s Design Guidelines. Placement of alterations to the existing structure, particularly the proposed balconies, height reduction, and landscaping are carefully coordinated to minimize visual impacts and protect sightlines from adjacent properties.

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

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

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

See 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 incorporated herein 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-1 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 CDP 2025-1820:
70 70 of 355
-41- Reso. #
Finding No. 1: The project is in conformity with all the applicable provisions of the certified local coastal program, including the following review criteria:

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

The proposed ADU does not encroach upon any existing physical accessway legally utilized by the public or any proposed public accessway identified in the adopted local coastal program land use plan because the project is located on private property located in an existing residential neighborhood and proposed improvements are located within the buildable area of the lot.

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

See analysis within Finding No. 2 below.

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

The project site is located in a developed area within the City in the R-1 (Residential LowDensity) zone. The proposed development will not adversely affect recreational or visitor serving facilities because there are no recreational or visitor-serving facilities in close proximity to the project site.

4. The proposed development will be sited and designed to prevent adverse impacts to environmentally sensitive habitats and scenic resources located in adjacent parks and recreation areas and will provide adequate buffer areas to protect such resources. 71 71 of 355
-42- Reso. #
The closest adjacent park and recreation area is Bluebird Park. This is approximately 0.5 miles from the project site with continuously developed properties between the project site and the nearest part of the park acting as a buffer. The proposed development, which includes an attached ADU and changes to an existing single-family structure, will not have any adverse impacts to such park and recreation area.

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

The project site does not contain any significant natural landforms. There is no grading proposed with this project. The project will not result in undue risk from flood or fire hazards.

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

The proposed project is well-articulated and is architecturally compatible with the surrounding neighborhood in an area that is not visually degraded as described in Design Articulation (No. 2) and Neighborhood Compatibility (No. 9) Design Review Criteria and the facts in support are incorporated herein by reference.

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

The project site is developed with an existing single-family residence, and the project involves construction of an attached structure consisting of an ADU and alterations to the existing structure. The project site does not contain any known archaeological or paleontological resources. 72 72 of 355
-43- Reso. #
Therefore, the proposed development will not adversely affect archaeological or paleontological resources.

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

The project involves the construction of an attached ADU. The project site is currently served by existing utilities, access roads, drainage, and other necessary facilities. Given the scope of the proposed development (an additional 944 square feet of living space), it is anticipated that the existing infrastructure can accommodate the ADU without significant impact. No major deficiencies in utility or service capacity are currently known.

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

The project involves the construction of an attached ADU. Public services, including solid waste collection and public roadway capacity, have been considered as part of the review. The site is currently served by these services, and the scale of the proposed development (an additional 944 square feet of living space) is not expected to significantly impact their capacity.

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

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

General Plan Land Use Element
Zoning Map
Title 25 (Zoning Code)
2010 Design Guidelines – A Guide to Residential Development 73 73 of 355
-44- Reso. #
Finding No. 2. Any development located between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea is in conformity with the certified local coastal program and with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act.

The project site is not located between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea. As detailed above in the facts supporting Finding Number 1, the proposed development is in conformity with the certified local coastal program.

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

As described elsewhere in this report, the project does not have any significant adverse environmental impacts. The project qualifies for a categorical exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, as discussed further below.

SECTION 5. Based on its review of the entire record before it, the City Council hereby finds and determines, in accordance with CEQA, that the Project is categorically exempt pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 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. Here, the Project involves the remodel and addition to an existing single-family residence and construction of an attached accessory dwelling unit. Furthermore, the project is an allowed residential use in the R-1 zone. No evidence demonstrates a reasonable possibility that the project will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.

Further, none of the exceptions outlined in CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2 apply. The project site does not contain any environmentally sensitive areas except for being an oceanfront 74 74 of 355
-45- Reso. #
property. There will be no cumulative impact resulting from successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time. 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 it is proposed less than eight feet above the curb along Coast Highway which is a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. The project is not located on a hazardous waste site or any other site included on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. The project will not result in significant adverse impacts to historical resources as defined by CEQA. Consequently, additional environmental analysis is not necessary to meet the requirements of the CEQA.

SECTION 6. The City Council hereby denies the Appeal and sustains the Design Review Boards’s determination on the Project, as reflected in Board Resolution No. 2025-1819, including all conditions attached thereto, which such Resolution and conditions are incorporated herein by this reference.

ADOPTED this 28th day of July, 2026.

Mark Orgill, Mayor
ATTEST:

Ann Marie McKay, City Clerk
75 75 of 355
-46- 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 76 of 355
Attachment 2
77 77 of 355
78 78 of 355
Kendra L. Carney Mehr
23 Corporate Plaza Drive, Suite 150
Newport Beach, CA
(949) 629-4676
[email protected]
April 22, 2026
City Council of Laguna Beach
c/o City Clerk
City of Laguna Beach
505 Forest Avenue
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
Filed via hand delivery and electronic mail
Re: Appeal of Design Review Board Approval of Item 5.6 Dated April 9, 2026 399 Pearl Street, APN 644-267-16
Design Review 2025-1819
Coastal Development Permit 2025-1820
Variance 2026-0511
Appellants: Lynda Fluent, Mark Fluent, and Justine Fluent, 367 Pearl Street Dear Mayor Orgill and Members of the Laguna Beach City Council:

This firm represents Lynda Fluent, Mark Fluent, and Justine Fluent (collectively, “Appellants”), the owners and residents of 367 Pearl Street, Laguna Beach, California, situated immediately adjacent to the subject applicant property at 399 Pearl Street.

Pursuant to Laguna Beach Municipal Code (“LBMC”) section 25.05.070, Appellants hereby appeal the Design Review Board’s (“DRB”) April 9, 2026 decision approving the application for improvements proposed at 399 Pearl Street (the “Project”), including the modification to building site coverage (“BSC”). Appellants have continuously owned and resided at 367 Pearl Street for thirty-eight (38) years and therefore are property owners within 300 feet of the project site. Appellants’ standing to prosecute this appeal is well established.

At the outset, Appellants wish to acknowledge the unique character of the Laguna Beach community and the longstanding commitment of the City and its residents to preserving the distinct identity, pattern, and scale of its individual neighborhoods. Protection of neighborhood 79 79 of 355
2 character is not merely an aesthetic preference; it is a stated community priority, reflected in the Design Review process, in the General Plan, and in the building site coverage limits imposed by the Code. Appellants bring this appeal in that same spirit. Their objection is not to development at 399 Pearl Street, nor to the addition of an accessory dwelling unit (“ADU”) on the parcel; it is to an approval that would depart meaningfully from the code-compliant baseline the community has adopted to protect the very characteristics that define the Woods Cove neighborhood and Laguna Beach more broadly.

The DRB’s decision is contrary to applicable objective standards, unsupported by the required findings, and was rendered despite the existence of a fully code-compliant alternative that satisfies every stated purpose of the application. Appellants respectfully request that the City Council reverse the DRB’s approval or, in the alternative, remand the matter with direction to the applicant to redesign within the applicable building site coverage limit.

I. GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
This appeal is predicated upon the following independent grounds, each of which is sufficient to require reversal:

A. The DRB approved the project on the basis of plans that had been materially modified after the hearing had been publicly noticed and agendized. The applicant’s architect acknowledged on the record during the hearing that the modifications had been made.

These modifications were similarly not reflected in the staking on the subject property.

Neighboring property owners were thereby deprived of the notice and opportunity to evaluate or visualize the project before the DRB hearing. The approval is procedurally defective on this ground alone.

B. The DRB approved a 21% exceedance of the building site coverage cap without making the legally required finding of necessity, and without any finding supported by substantial evidence in the record.

C. A fully code-compliant alternative design—submitted to the DRB by Appellants on April 8, 2026—achieves the same stated project goals and satisfies all stated objectives of the application without additional building site coverage. The existence of this alternative defeats necessity as a matter of law.

D. The applicant’s own written submissions and oral testimony confirm that a compliant design existed and was consciously rejected. The required necessity finding cannot be made on this record.

E. Each of the four required findings to support the minor modification to lot coverage required by LBMC section §25.10.008(E)(1)(d) is absent from, or affirmatively contradicted by, the record.

F. The proposed trellis, introduced as a purported privacy mitigation, encroaches into a required setback. City staff did not recommend the associated variance. Conditioning approval on an element that is itself unapproved is procedurally improper. 80 80 of 355
3 II. BACKGROUND
The subject property at 399 Pearl Street is located at the corner of Pearl Street and Catalina Street in the Woods Cove neighborhood. The existing building site coverage at 399 Pearl Street is asserted to be 35.83%, which is within the 39.5% maximum coverage allowed by the relevant design standards. The Applicant proposes to construct an accessory dwelling unit consisting of approximately 944 square feet. As proposed, the project would increase building site coverage to 47.78% — an increase of nearly twelve (12) percent, which exceeds the maximum standard permitted by the Code by 21%. The proposed increase in ground-level coverage consists of approximately 42 square feet of additional main-home footprint together with approximately 600 square feet of new ground coverage associated with the ADU.

Both 399 Pearl Street and Appellants’ immediately adjacent property at 367 Pearl Street are located within the R-1 (Single-Family Residential) Zone and are therefore subject to the same objective development standards under the Code.

The subject property also carries a material entitlement history. In 1978, the then-owner of 399 Pearl Street obtained a variance (Variance Application 3023, Board of Adjustment Resolution 78-64) authorizing (i) the continuation of an existing front-yard encroachment (10- foot front setback where 16 feet was required), without bringing that non-conformity into compliance, and (ii) construction encroaching four (4) feet into the required 20-foot rear-yard setback. The variance was expressly justified on the grounds that the approved project would “maintain… open space on the lot” and remain “compatible with surrounding area and village atmosphere.”
As a direct result of that City action, 399 Pearl Street today already carries two legal nonconformities — an encroaching front-yard setback and an encroaching rear-yard setback.

This history bears directly on the present appeal. First, the 1978 relief was predicated on express findings of open-space preservation and compatibility with the “village atmosphere” — precisely the qualities the proposed 944-square-foot addition would diminish. An application that would reduce open space and substantially increase lot coverage on a parcel whose prior setback relief was expressly conditioned on preserving open space cannot be reconciled with the record on which that prior relief was granted. Second, the subject property has already received one exception from the Code’s objective development standards; a further departure — particularly one of the magnitude now proposed — warrants heightened, not relaxed, scrutiny.

This application, ultimately approved by the DRB on April 9, 2026 by a 3-1 vote1, has been before the DRB on multiple occasions, including hearings conducted on November 13, 1 On an earlier agenda item preceding Item 5.6 in the same April 9, 2026 DRB hearing, Board Member Debbie Neev recused herself from voting because she had not attended prior hearings on that matter. Yet, when the DRB heard this matter, Board Member Neev then stated on the record: “I don’t have the luxury of having heard all the previous [hearings].” Regardless, she then cast a yes vote approving the Project— the deciding third vote in a 3–1 approval. 81 81 of 355
4 2025, January 22, 2026, and most recently April 9, 2026. The building site coverage figure has remained unchanged throughout. At the November 13, 2025 hearing, a DRB Board Member stated on the record: “In my experience on the board, I have not seen a request for that significant of an increase.”
Appellants own and reside at 367 Pearl Street, immediately adjacent to the subject property, and have continuously owned that home for thirty-eight (38) years. Four neighboring households submitted written privacy objections to the DRB. Appellants retained a licensed architect specializing in ADU design, who produced a fully compliant alternative design of approximately 900 square feet with zero additional building site coverage, which was submitted to the DRB on April 8, 2026.

III. DISCUSSION OF APPEAL
A. THE APPROVAL IS PROCEDURALLY DEFECTIVE FOR LACK OF

ADEQUATE NOTICE AND STAKING

1. The City’s Notice and Staking Requirements
The City of Laguna Beach requires, as procedural prerequisites to any DRB hearing, that (i) the subject property be physically staked — with story poles or equivalent markers — to visually depict the proposed massing and roof lines of the project, and (ii) the applicant provide written notice of the hearing to property owners within the prescribed vicinity. These requirements exist to afford neighboring property owners a fair and informed opportunity to evaluate the project as it will actually be built, and to prepare substantive comments in advance of the hearing. The requirements are substantive and ministerial; they are the mechanism by which meaningful notice and participation rights are delivered in the design review context.

2. The Applicant Modified the Plans After Notice Was Given and Did Not Re-Stake On March 5, 2026 — one week before the originally scheduled March 12th DRB hearing — Steve Kawaratani, the Applicant’s representative, sent the following email to City staff (Bill Rodrigues, with Brenda Wisniewski, Jason Mueller, Chris LeTourneau, and Michael D. Wilkes copied): “On behalf of the applicant, Jason Mueller, I respectfully request that 399 Pearl Street be tabled. We will submit the staking certification and variance application in a timely manner.” A subsequent scheduling attempt for March 26th did not materialize. The Applicant ultimately appeared at the April 9, 2026 hearing — five weeks after the March 5 tabling request and nearly ten weeks after the January 22 hearing.

At the April 9, 2026 hearing, the Applicant withdrew the variance application, the very reason cited on March 5th for needing additional time. The Applicant then relocated the trellis to a new, previously unstaked position – without staking – the very requirement his representative had committed to completing. Staff acknowledged on the record that conditions of approval had been drafted “last minute” to capture changes announced only at the hearing.

Also, at the April 9, 2026 DRB hearing, the applicant’s architect acknowledged on the 82 82 of 355
5 record that material changes had been made to the project documents after the hearing had been publicly noticed and agendized. The modified plans — the plans actually presented to, and considered by, the DRB at the hearing — were not the plans that had been made available for public review during the notice period. Further, the admitted modifications were not reflected in the staking on the subject property. Neighboring property owners thus had no opportunity, at any time prior to the hearing itself, to (i) review the plans the DRB ultimately considered and approved, or (ii) physically observe the massing and roof lines of the project as actually proposed.

3. The Procedural Defect Is Not Harmless
Notice that does not describe the project actually before the decision-making body is not the notice the Code requires (See LBMC section 25.05.040(E).).; staking that does not depict the massing actually proposed is not the staking the Code requires (See LBMC section

25.05.040(C).). Where these procedural prerequisites are not satisfied as to the version of the project actually approved, the approval is procedurally defective.

The defect was not harmless. Appellants and other neighboring property owners prepared their objections, retained a licensed architect, and developed a fully compliant alternative design based on the plans and staking made available during the notice period. They were deprived of any opportunity to evaluate — let alone substantively respond to — the modified plans until the moment of the hearing. Where an applicant alters the project after notice has been given, the Code’s notice and staking requirements are not satisfied by proceeding on the revised plans the same day.

4. Reversal Is Warranted on This Independent Ground
The DRB should have continued the matter to a date certain, directed the Applicant to re-notice and re-stake in a manner that reflects the plans actually under consideration, and afforded the public and affected neighbors a fair opportunity to review and respond. Its failure to do so is an independent ground for reversal, without regard to the merits of the requested minor modification.

A. THE NECESSITY STANDARD WAS NOT MET

1. The Legal Standard — and the Absence of the Required Findings The existing building site coverage at 399 Pearl Street is asserted by the Applicant to be

35.83% — within the 39.5% cap imposed by LBMC §25.10.008(E)(1)(d). Pursuant to that same subsection, the maximum building site coverage requirement may be modified by the DRB only “when it is necessary to preserve views, preserve privacy, reduce heights, or to maintain neighborhood development patterns.” These findings were not made by the DRB, and sufficient evidence was not submitted to demonstrate necessity. That alone requires reversal.

Equally critical is the legal content of the word “necessary.” Necessity is not a discretionary judgment; it is a threshold requirement. A modification is necessary only when a 83 83 of 355
6 conforming design cannot achieve the same outcome. Where a smaller, code-compliant addition performs equally or better on every measure the applicant identifies, the excess is not necessary — it is a preference. The 12-percent increase sought here — from a currently conforming

35.83% to a non-conforming 47.78% — must be supported by one of the four statutory findings and by substantial evidence in the record. Neither is present.

2. The Applicant’s Own Record Defeats Necessity
The applicant did not merely fail to demonstrate necessity; the applicant’s own submissions affirmatively disprove it. Two separate statements on-the-record confirm that a code-compliant alternative existed and was consciously rejected:

Mr. LeTourneau, November 13, 2025 hearing: “We know that ADUs have been weaponized in the past on a project like this. We had the opportunity to place it on the second story, bypass the entire design review process, but that just wasn’t the right thing to do.”
Applicant’s written Justification for Minor Modification to Lot Coverage:
“Rather than pursuing a taller structure that would remain within standard lot coverage but exceed desirable height thresholds, the project leverages its single-story configuration to protect view corridors and visual privacy.” These statements establish that a conforming design was available to the applicant, and that the applicant chose not to build it. Where a choice is made between a conforming and a nonconforming design, the non-conforming excess is, by definition, a matter of preference rather than necessity.

The Applicant’s justification letter employs the terms “prioritizes” and “this restraint” to describe the design decisions at issue. Such terminology necessarily presupposes the existence of alternatives; not necessity. Notably, the Justification for Minor Modification to Lot Coverage letter does not employ the word “necessary” at any point and does not compare the proposed design to a smaller addition. The necessity analysis is absent from the submission because the record, fairly construed, cannot support it.

3. Compliant Alternatives, Including Integration of the ADU Within the Existing Building Envelope, Were Available and Were Not Analyzed The project, as approved by the DRB, expands the main-home footprint by approximately 42 square feet and adds approximately 600 square feet of new ground coverage for the ADU, driving BSC from a Code-compliant 35.83% to a non-compliant 47.78%. Nothing in the record reflects any meaningful analysis of the obvious alternative: incorporating more of the proposed accessory dwelling unit within the existing building envelope. California ADU law, City practice, and long-established design convention all recognize multiple paths by which an ADU can be added without expanding ground-level lot coverage — including attached ADUs, junior accessory dwelling units, interior conversions, basement conversions, and second-story additions over existing footprint. The Applicant itself acknowledged the 84 84 of 355
7 availability of at least one such path on the record, as set forth in Section IV.B above: “[w]e had the opportunity to place it on the second story, bypass the entire design review process, but that just wasn’t the right thing to do.” No sight-line study, privacy analysis, height comparison, or neighborhood-compatibility review of any integrated alternative appears anywhere in the application. The Applicant’s burden under LBMC §25.10.008(E)(1)(d) is to demonstrate that the departure from the cap is necessary to achieve one of the four statutory purposes; where the applicant has not even analyzed the option of keeping the ADU within the existing footprint, that burden plainly cannot be carried.

Appellants produced a fully compliant alternative ADU of approximately 900 square feet — only 44 square feet less than the applicant’s proposal — that adds zero additional building site coverage and requires no minor modification, no findings, and no variance of any kind. The alternative is sited on the Catalina-facing elevation, 65 feet from the nearest neighboring residence, oriented to avoid overlooking the four objecting households, and integrates with the existing roofline without adding vertical massing. The existence of this design, submitted to the DRB on April 8, 2026, is uncontested on the record.

Because the Applicant’s stated purposes — reduced vertical massing, view preservation, pedestrian scale, and privacy — are each achieved or exceeded by the compliant alternative, the oversize footprint of the proposed design cannot be necessary. Where a smaller, conforming design performs equally or better on every measure the Applicant cites, the larger, nonconforming design cannot satisfy the necessity standard as a matter of law.

The record thus affirmatively establishes what an applicant invoking §25.10.008(E)(1)(d) cannot obscure: compliant alternatives exist that would maintain the 39.5% cap. There is no evidence — none — that a 21% exceedance of the cap was necessary to achieve the Applicant’s program. What the record shows is that the larger footprint was preferred.

4. The Modification Creates a Third Nonconformity and Inverts the Statutory Purpose of LBMC §25.10.008(E)(1)(d)
As discussed in Section II above, the subject property already carries two legal nonconformities conferred by prior City action in 1978: the front-yard setback encroachment and the rear-yard setback encroachment. The DRB’s April 9, 2026 approval does not remedy those nonconformities, reduce their impact, or move the property toward conformity. Instead, it adds a third — a 21% exceedance of the building site coverage cap — layered atop a property that today stands at a compliant 35.83% BSC. A property that has already received two exceptions from the Code’s objective standards is being asked to receive a third, significantly larger exception, for no reason other than the Applicant’s preference for a larger footprint.

That is the opposite of what LBMC §25.10.008(E)(1)(d) was enacted to permit. The modification provision is a mitigation tool. It authorizes departures from the cap only “when it is necessary to preserve views, preserve privacy, reduce heights, or to maintain neighborhood development patterns.” It was not designed — and cannot lawfully be used — to enable an applicant to enlarge the building footprint for its own sake, or to layer a new, elective 85 85 of 355
8 nonconformity on top of pre-existing nonconformities. The provision was adopted to relieve hardship and to protect neighborhood values, not to engineer exceedances for an applicant’s convenience.

The record here demonstrates the inversion unmistakably. The Applicant does not seek the exceedance to reduce heights — the proposed rooflines exceed every surrounding roofline from multiple vantage points, and the applicant’s own architect acknowledged on the record that the structure would “inevitably” tower over the downhill neighbor. The Applicant does not seek the exceedance to preserve privacy — four neighboring households have objected in writing, and the only proposed mitigation measures are inadequate or themselves unapproved. The Applicant does not seek the exceedance to preserve views — the affected adjacent neighbor testified on the record that the project will diminish his view. And the Applicant does not seek the exceedance to maintain neighborhood development patterns — the project would be the largest home in the 63-home neighborhood study area, at 2.3 times the neighborhood average and nearly 70% above the neighborhood’s average BSC.

On this record, each of the four statutory findings is not merely unsupported by substantial evidence; each is affirmatively contradicted by it. The modification has been sought and obtained for a single purpose — expansion of the building footprint — that is not among the four purposes enumerated in the statute. Use of the modification provision to achieve that end is not “necessary” within the meaning of the Code; it is a misuse of the provision. The exceedance does not mitigate the effect of the existing nonconformities; it aggravates them. It does not protect the immediate neighbors; it adversely affects them. It does not preserve the character of the Woods Cove neighborhood; it departs from it materially. Approval on this record inverts the very provision invoked to sustain it and cannot stand.

B. THE ADDITIONALLY REQUIRED FINDINGS CANNOT BE MADE

1. Finding 1 - Neighborhood Compatibility (LBMC §25.05.040(H)) Separately from, and in addition to, the four findings required to sustain a coverage modification under LBMC §25.10.008(E)(1)(d), LBMC §25.05.040(H) requires that the Design Review Board affirmatively find the proposed project maintains established patterns of scale, bulk, and massing in the neighborhood. This is an independent, cumulative requirement applicable to every design review approval, without regard to whether a coverage modification is sought. As demonstrated by the attachments submitted into the record, the objective data does not permit that finding to be made; to the contrary, the record affirmatively contradicts it:
a. Floor area ratio. The project’s proposed floor area ratio of 62.8% exceeds the next highest comparable R-1 home in the neighborhood study area by more than ten (10) percent.
b. Home size relative to lot size. No other home over 3,000 square feet exists on a lot under 7,000 square feet anywhere in the 63-home study compiled from Orange County Assessor public records and City GIS data.
c. Building site coverage. The proposed BSC of 47.78% exceeds the legal maximum of

39.5% by 21% and exceeds the 28.4% neighborhood average by nearly 70%. 86 86 of 355
9 d. Uncaptured bulk. The project’s 638-square-foot garage and 838 square feet of elevated terraces contribute additional bulk and effective site coverage that are not fully captured within the FAR or BSC calculations, further compounding the project’s departure from surrounding scale and form.

Approval based on the existing record has implications that reach beyond the subject property. If the Design Review Board were to make the §25.05.040(H) compatibility finding on this record, any principled and consistent application of the same provision would thereafter disable the City from denying a comparably oversized application from any similarly situated R-1 property owner. The compatibility finding must rest on a factual and record-supported foundation, or it cannot rest at all. The objective data compiled from the City’s own public sources and submitted with this appeal makes that foundation factually unavailable, and nothing in the record bridges the gap. On this record, the required §25.05.040(H) finding cannot be made.

2. Finding 2 — Maintenance of Neighborhood Development Patterns The DRB’s finding that the project maintains neighborhood development patterns is contrary to the objective data in the record:
a. A 63-home neighborhood study submitted by Appellants, based on Orange County Assessor public records and City GIS data, establishes the neighborhood average BSC at

28.4%. This figure was accepted by DRB Chair Gibbs at the January 22, 2026 hearing as “clearly” accurate. The Applicant did not contest the figure then and has not contested it since.
b. The proposed BSC of 47.78% is 21% above the cap and nearly 70% above the neighborhood average.
c. The proposed total home size of 3,766 square feet is 2.3 times the neighborhood average of 1,640 square feet. No home in the 63-property study exceeds 3,000 square feet on a lot under 7,000 square feet.
d. The Applicant’s cited comparable property (430 Diamond) is a smaller home on a smaller lot; its use to justify the largest home in the neighborhood study area is not persuasive.

A compliant alternative exists that keeps building site coverage within the Code cap and substantially closer to the neighborhood norm. This finding cannot be made for a project that would be the largest home in its neighborhood study area.

3. Finding 3 — Preservation of Views
The DRB’s finding that the project preserves views is unsupported by substantial evidence and is directly contradicted by the record:
a. No view corridor was documented. The record contains no diagram, sight-line study, or mapping identifying which view, from which property, in which direction is purportedly preserved.
87 87 of 355
10 b. The story poles contradict the finding. The proposed roofline rises above the roofline of 409 Pearl Street. A structure that overtops its neighbor cannot fairly be said to preserve that neighbor’s view.
c. The affected neighbor contradicted the claim on the record. Mr. Gutweiler of 409 Pearl Street testified at the November 13, 2025 hearing: “It will take away a bit of my view… I’m willing to give that up” His view is diminished by this project, not preserved. The phrase “I’m willing to give that up” is not the language of view preservation. It is the language of loss and personal acceptance. Mr. Gutweiler is a gracious neighbor who prefers a beautiful new home over his ocean view of San Clemente Island. That preference, however generous, is not a legally cognizable basis for a view preservation finding under LBMC §25.10.008(E)(1)(d).
d. The architect’s own language confirms choice, not necessity. He described the siting as one that “allowed view preservation”—the language of preference, not requirement.

A fully compliant alternative exists that matches the existing roofline and does not rise above the view corridor at 409 Pearl Street. Less structure produces less obstruction. This finding cannot be made when a better-performing compliant design has been placed in the record.

4. Finding 4 — Reduction of Heights
The DRB’s finding that the project reduces heights is contradicted by direct physical evidence and on-the-record testimony:
a. The story poles (from the previous design) demonstrate that the proposed roofline exceeds every neighboring roofline from at least four vantage points. b. The applicant’s architect stated on the record at the January 22, 2026 hearing:
“Inevitably there’s going to be a design that’s towering over this lower property.” Chair Gibbs responded: “I appreciate your candor because it’s very obvious when you’re in Lynda Fluent’s backyard.”
A compliant alternative is available that is sited to match the existing roofline and adds no vertical massing. Less height and less mass were always achievable. This finding cannot be made.

5. Finding 5 — Preservation of Privacy
The DRB’s finding that the project preserves the privacy of neighboring residents is unsupported by substantial evidence:
a. Four neighboring households have submitted written privacy objections. The physical relationship of the proposed structure to the Fluent property at 367 Pearl, the Gutweiler property at 409 Pearl, and other adjacent homes was acknowledged on the record by Chair Gibbs.
b. The proposed mitigations are inadequate. A repositioned balcony and opaque glazing on two windows do not remedy the elevated, overlooking position of a structure that the applicant’s own architect acknowledged would inevitably tower over the downhill 88 88 of 355
11 neighbor.
c. The trellis mitigation is itself unapproved. The applicant’s proposed privacy trellis encroaches into a required setback, and City staff did not recommend the associated variance. Conditioning a finding of privacy preservation upon an element that has not been approved is procedurally improper.

A compliant alternative is available that is sited 65 feet from the nearest neighbor and oriented to avoid overlooking any of the four objecting households. Less proximity and superior window orientation were at all times available. This finding cannot be made.

C. THE APPROVAL IMPROPERLY RELIES ON LANDSCAPING AS

MITIGATION
The Applicant’s Project renderings present a substantially idealized depiction of the proposed project: a softened, diminished building mass screened and offset by mature, optimally placed landscaping. That rendered landscape is not incidental. It functions, in the Applicant’s own presentation and the analysis presented in the Staff Report to the DRB, as the principal visual mitigation by which the scale, mass, height, and proximity of a 47.78% BSC project are reconciled with the four findings required under LBMC §25.10.008(E)(1)(d).

Stripped of the rendered vegetation, the project’s actual built envelope — and its actual impact on neighboring properties — is fundamentally different from what the renderings convey.

Landscaping cannot lawfully carry that weight. Unlike a structure, which is fixed in volume, height, and setback once approved, landscaping is:

1. Not permanent. Plants may die of disease, drought, freeze, neglect, or pest infestation.

Ornamental plantings depicted in renderings routinely fail to reach the maturity, density, or fullness shown — and, where that appearance is achievable at all, it is typically achieved only after many years, if ever.

2. Not static. Plants grow, spread, become unruly, are pruned back, are transplanted, or are removed and replaced. A rendering captures a single, idealized moment in time; the built condition will look materially different in year one, year five, and year twenty-five. The Applicant controls the rendering; no one controls the decades of planting decisions to follow.

3. Not enforceable in the manner of a building. Once constructed, the structure’s envelope is fixed and legally binding. The landscape, by contrast, remains subject to the continuing discretion of the current property owner, of every future owner, and of every maintenance, replacement, and removal decision made over the life of the project. The City has no practical mechanism to compel the indefinite maintenance of a specific rendered landscape scheme.

4. Subject to external constraints beyond the applicant’s control. California has in recent years implemented increasingly stringent water-use restrictions and conservation mandates, and further restrictions are reasonably foreseeable. A landscaping scheme 89 89 of 355
12 designed around mature, water-intensive plantings may become impractical, uneconomical, or unlawful to maintain as those restrictions tighten — leaving the full built mass of the structure standing without any of the softening on which its approval was conditioned.

The findings required by LBMC §25.10.008(E)(1)(d) must be capable of being made on the merits of the project as proposed — not on the merits of the project augmented by an idealized and indefinitely maintained landscape. A finding that can be sustained only if the plantings depicted in the applicant’s renderings eventually achieve, and thereafter permanently maintain, their rendered appearance is not a finding supported by substantial evidence; it is a finding contingent on future events that no person, regulator, or future owner can guarantee.

The approval here effectively trades a permanent and binding exceedance of the Code’s coverage cap for a contingent, optional, and unenforceable form of mitigation. That is not a trade the Code permits, and it is not a trade the record can support.

D. PRECEDENT AND POLICY
Approval of a 21% exceedance of the building site coverage maximum, where a fully compliant alternative has been placed in the record, would set a damaging and difficult-toreverse precedent. Chair Gibbs aptly observed at the March hearing: “What’s the next project that comes along at 52%? You set a standard at 47 and then the next one at 55 and maybe the next one at 59.”
The coverage cap exists to protect the character, scale, privacy, and drainage conditions of established residential neighborhoods. A waiver is not “minor” where a conforming alternative is available and on the record. Approval under these circumstances would signal to every future applicant that the cap is negotiable whenever a larger footprint is preferred and the applicant is willing to support the departure with findings that the record contradicts.

Appellants’ alternative proposal demonstrates that the City’s housing goals, the applicant’s program, and the neighborhood’s objective standards are not in conflict. An approximately 900-square-foot ADU can be constructed at this location, fully compliant, with no view impact, no height impact, and no neighborhood impact. The question before the City Council is simply whether it was necessary to exceed the Code to achieve that program. The record answers that question unambiguously: it was not.

IV. RELIEF REQUESTED
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants respectfully request that the City Council:

A. Reverse the Design Review Board’s April 9, 2026 approval of the minor modification to building site coverage at 399 Pearl Street and deny the application without further modification; or
B. In the alternative, remand the application to the Design Review Board with direction that:
90 90 of 355
13 (i) the applicant re-notice and re-stake the project to reflect the plans actually under consideration, and that a new hearing be conducted in compliance with the City’s notice and staking requirements;
(ii) the Design Review Board consider alternative designs, including incorporating the proposed accessory dwelling unit within the existing building footprint, so as to avoid excessive and unnecessary expansion of building site coverage; (iii) the applicant be required to submit scaled cross-sections depicting the project’s privacy impacts on adjacent properties without reliance on landscaping, trellis, or other vegetative or accessory features as visual mitigation; and (iv) any redesigned project conform to the applicable 39.5% building site coverage limit under LBMC §25.10.008(E)(1)(d), consistent with the compliant alternative design submitted into the record on April 8, 2026.

Appellants expressly reserve all rights and remedies available at law and in equity, including the right to supplement this appeal and to submit additional evidence and argument prior to and at the hearing before the City Council.

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

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

Exhibit A - Fluent letter to DRB dated April 8, 2026 (alternative ADU proposal) Exhibit B - 63-home neighborhood building site coverage study Exhibit C - Transcript excerpts: November 13, 2025 DRB Hearing (to be supplemented) Exhibit D - Transcript excerpts: January 22, 2026 DRB Hearing (to be supplemented) Exhibit E - Transcript excerpts: April 9, 2026 DRB Hearing (to be supplemented) Exhibit F - Applicant’s Justification for Minor Modification to Lot Coverage letter 91 91 of 355
92 92 of 355
399 Pearl Street as it exists today — corner of Pearl and Catalina, Woods Cove The alternative ADU adds zero additional building site coverage and complies fully with all Laguna Beach and California objective ADU criteria — no minor modification, no findings, no variance required. At approximately 900 square feet it comes just short of the applicant’s requested 944, but because it requires no interior staircase, the usable floor area is comparable. It also:
– Preserves the existing single-story volume at the corner of Pearl Street and Catalina – Protects the blue water ocean view for Mr. John Gutweiler at 409 Pearl Street – Matches the height and roofline of the existing home — no new vertical massing – Is located 65 feet from the nearest neighboring residence – Orients windows away from the four neighboring households that have submitted written privacy objections to this board
– Increases permeable surface on a lot with a documented history of mudslides and water runoff onto downhill neighbors
93 93 of 355
399 Pearl Street from Catalina Street — the Catalina-facing elevation where the alternative ADU would be sited At the November 13, 2025 hearing, Mr. LeTourneau stated on the record:
“We know that ADUs have been weaponized in the past on a project like this. We had the opportunity to place it on the second story, bypass the entire design review process, but that just wasn’t the right thing to do.”
His written justification letter goes further — stating the design “prioritizes reduced vertical massing,” that “this restraint in massing maintains the pedestrian scale and open feel of the intersection,” and that rather than “pursuing a taller structure that would remain within standard lot coverage but exceed desirable height thresholds, the project leverages its single-story configuration to protect view corridors and visual privacy.” The alternative plan we are presenting satisfies each of those stated objectives. The applicant’s own words describe our proposal more accurately than they describe his.

Approving a 21% overage in building site coverage when a fully compliant alternative is available sets a damaging precedent. Chair Gibbs said it plainly in March: “What’s the next 94 94 of 355
project that comes along at 52%? You set a standard at 47 and then the next one at 55 and maybe the next one at 59.” Waiving the coverage maximum when a compliant path is on the table is not a minor modification — it is a signal.

It is also worth noting that while the applicant has placed considerable emphasis on preserving the low-density, single-story character of the neighborhood, three of the four corners of the 300 block of Pearl Street are already two-story homes — 1800 Gleneyre, 385 Flora, and 399 Pearl itself.

Respectfully submitted,
Lynda Fluent, Mark Fluent, and Justine Fluent
367 Pearl Street, Laguna Beach, CA
Proposed alternative ADU — approximately 900 sq ft, zero additional BSC, fully compliant with all Laguna Beach and California objective criteria
95 95 of 355
Neighborhood Pattern Analysis
399 Pearl Street, Laguna Beach · Submitted to the Design Review Board · April 2026 This analysis is empirical and evidence-based — every figure is drawn from OC Assessor public records, City of Laguna Beach GIS, and the applicant's own plans. The proposed project is the largest structure in this 63-home neighborhood, on one of its smallest lots, at 2.3× the neighborhood median FAR, and 21% over the maximum permitted Building Site Coverage. The required Finding that this project “maintains neighborhood patterns” cannot be made.

Key Numbers at a Glance
1,640
Neighborhood
median home size
(sq ft)

28.1%
Median FAR R-1
homes lots ≥ 4,000
sq ft
1929
Median year built —
same as 399 Pearl
18 Homes on City
Historic Register
3,766
399 Pearl
PROPOSED largest
in area

62.8%
Proposed FAR 2.3×
the neighborhood
median
A Cottage Community — Built for Human Scale
This neighborhood originated as a Laguna Beach cottage
colony, 1910s–1930s. OC Assessor records confirm a median home size of 1,640 sq ft across all 63 properties.
18 of the 63 homes carry a City Historic Register designation — the highest concentration near downtown Laguna Beach
Confirmed construction dates: earliest 1917 (316 Center); ten homes built in the 1920s; eight in the 1930s. 399 Pearl was built in 1929 on a 5,998 sq ft lot.

The median pre-1940 home in this study measures 1,650 sq ft per OC Assessor records.

The proposed project at 3,766 sq ft is 2.3× the neighborhood median of 1,640 sq ft. OC Assessor records establish this as a factual, measurable deviation from the documented pattern.

Finding: The proposed project would add more floor area in a single permit than most homes in this neighborhood contain in total.

DRB Historical Pattern — Large Houses Require
Large Lots
Every home over 2,800 sq ft in this study sits on a lot of at least 7,362 sq ft — over 20% larger than 399 Pearl's lot. Source: OC Assessor public records.

The largest home — 1920 Glenneyre, 3,749 sq ft — sits on a 14,811 sq ft lot. FAR: 25.3%.

The second largest — 459 Pearl, 3,085 sq ft — sits on a 13,939 sq ft lot. FAR: 22.1%.

Not one home over 3,000 sq ft exists on a lot under 7,000 sq ft anywhere in the 63-home study. This is the measurable, objective neighborhood standard.
399 Pearl's lot of 5,998 sq ft is below the neighborhood median of 6,148 sq ft.

Scatter plot (Chart D) confirms: every large home in this neighborhood sits on a large lot. The proposed 399 Pearl occupies a position — large home, below-median lot — with zero
comparable precedent in the study.

Finding: Zero precedent exists in this neighborhood for a project of this size on a lot of this size. The DRB has never approved one.

Additional Structures — FAR and BSC Understate Total Bulk 638 sq ft garage — excluded from FAR and BSC under LBMC but adding measurable site coverage and physical mass beyond what those metrics reflect.
838 sq ft of elevated structural terraces and decks (revised from 1,169 sq ft per applicant's plans) — load-bearing structures adding documented bulk and massing impact not captured in FAR or BSC.

The FAR of 62.8% and BSC of 47.78% are the minimum statement of this project's bulk. The DRB's mass and bulk Finding must account for the garage and terraces as well.

Sources — Proposed floor area (3,766 sq ft): 2,254 sq ft existing home (OC Assessor; owner rental listings) + 276 sq ft existing additions + 292 sq ft mechanical + 944 sq ft new ADU (architect's plans). ADU excluded from BSC per Cal. Govt. Code §65852.2. Proposed BSC = 47.78% vs. maximum 39.5% — exceedance of 21% (8.28 pts, ~497 sq ft). Garage and terraces excluded from both FAR and BSC. See full source list on final page. 399 Pearl Street, Laguna Beach — Neighborhood Pattern Analysis Page 1 of 5 (;+,%,7%
96 96 of 355
Woods Cove Neighborhood — Objective Record & Required Findings Every figure in this analysis is drawn from OC Assessor public records, City of Laguna Beach GIS, and the applicant's own architectural plans. This is an empirical and evidence-based record. No subjective judgment is required to establish that the required Findings cannot be made. LBMC §25.05.040(H) requires the DRB to find the project maintains established neighborhood patterns of scale, bulk, and massing. The objective data compiled here — from the city's own sources — demonstrates that finding is not available.

Objective Measurements — OC Assessor Public Records
› 18 of 63 homes in the study carry a City Historic Register designation. The vast majority of all 63 homes comply with BSC without modification — confirming the 39.5% standard is achievable on lots of this size.
› Median home size: 1,640 sq ft (OC Assessor). 399 Pearl proposed: 3,766 sq ft. Ratio: 2.30×. This is a measured, not estimated, deviation.
› 30 of 63 homes in the study measure under 1,500 sq ft per OC Assessor records, consistent with the original development pattern of the 1920s–1930s.
› LBMC §25.05.040(H) and General Plan Policies 2.1–2.2 are operative legal standards. They are not guidelines. They require affirmative findings the objective record does not support. › Median FAR: 28.1% for comparable R-1 homes (lots ≥ 4,000 sq ft). Proposed FAR: 62.8%. Deviation: +34.7 percentage points, or 2.23× the median. Source: OC Assessor.
› Zero homes over 3,000 sq ft exist on a lot under 7,000 sq ft in the 63-home study. 399 Pearl's lot is 5,998 sq ft. The proposed home is 3,766 sq ft. No measured precedent exists.
› Proposed BSC: 47.78% vs. maximum permitted 39.5% (LBMC §25.10.008). Exceedance: 21% above the legal cap, equal to approximately 497 sq ft of excess coverage.
› 399 Pearl was constructed in 1929 on a 5,998 sq ft lot — below the neighborhood median of 6,148 sq ft. The proposed project adds 1,512 sq ft of new floor area to a below-median lot.

Required Finding — Neighborhood Compatibility (LBMC §25.05.040(H)) The DRB must affirmatively find that the proposed project maintains established patterns of scale, bulk, and massing. The objective record does not support that finding: (1) Proposed FAR of 62.8% exceeds the next highest comparable R-1 home by more than 10 percentage points. (2) No home over 3,000 sq ft exists on a lot under 7,000 sq ft anywhere in the 63-home study. (3) Proposed BSC of 47.78% exceeds the legal maximum by 21%. (4) The 638 sq ft garage and 838 sq ft of elevated terraces add bulk and site coverage not reflected in FAR or BSC. If the Board makes this finding on this record, it cannot on any consistent basis deny a comparable application from a neighbor on a similar lot. The objective data compiled from city sources makes the required neighborhood compatibility Finding unavailable.

Measured Bulk Beyond FAR and BSC — Architect's Plans
638 sq ft garage — excluded from FAR and BSC per LBMC but adding measurable footprint and vertical mass to the lot. Per architect's plans.
838 sq ft elevated structural terraces and decks (reduced from 1,169 sq ft per revised plans) — load-bearing structures excluded from FAR and BSC but adding documented bulk.

Total measured development on this 5,998 sq ft lot: 3,766 sq ft floor area + 638 sq ft garage + 838 sq ft elevated terraces = 5,242 sq ft of built structure. FAR and BSC capture only 3,766 sq ft of that total. 399 Pearl Street, Laguna Beach — Neighborhood Pattern Analysis Page 2 of 5 97 97 of 355
98 98 of 355
99 99 of 355
399 Pearl Street, Laguna Beach — Neighborhood Pattern Analysis Page 5 of 4 Source Data — All 63 Homes in Study
Floor area and lot size from OC Assessor public records. FAR = floor area ÷ lot area. Historic Register from City of Laguna Beach GIS. Red = subject property; pink = proposed figures; yellow = Historic Register homes. # Address Zone Home Sq Ft Lot Sq Ft FAR Year Built Historic — 399 Pearl PROPOSED R-1 3,766 5,998 62.8% — —
1 1920 Glenneyre R-1 3,749 14,811 25.3% 1936 Yes
2 459 Pearl R-1 3,085 13,939 22.1% 1927
3 1871 Catalina R-1 3,021 7,500 40.3% —
4 1960 Glenneyre R-1 2,956 7,500 39.4% 1936
5 1900 Catalina R-1 2,873 7,405 38.8% 1964
6 1990 Glenneyre R-1 2,830 7,501 37.7% — Yes
7 447 Center R-1 2,800 7,362 38.0% — Yes
8 1850 Glenneyre R-1 2,756 7,500 36.7% — Yes
9 430 Diamond R-1 2,500 4,791 52.2% —
10 446 Diamond R-1 2,406 7,500 32.1% —
11 360 Diamond R-1 2,400 7,500 32.0% — Yes
12 1865 Carmelina R-1 2,399 7,500 32.0% — Yes
13 * 399 Pearl R-1 2,254 5,998 37.6% 1929
14 442 Diamond R-1 2,246 7,500 29.9% 1927
15 385 Flora R-2 2,212 2,613 84.7% —
16 1930 Catalina R-1 2,206 7,500 29.4% 1923
17 350 Center R-1 2,204 14,810 14.9% 1925 Yes
18 1893 Carmelina R-1 2,200 7,405 29.7% —
19 489 Pearl R-1 2,100 5,998 35.0% —
20 345 Flora R-2 1,981 2,750 72.0% —
21 1860 Glenneyre R-1 1,965 5,000 39.3% — Yes
22 480 Diamond R-1 1,855 7,500 24.7% —
23 1921 Catalina R-1 1,800 7,500 24.0% 1936
24 1860 Catalina R-1 1,795 6,954 25.8% — Yes
25 439 Center R-1 1,771 7,500 23.6% 1927
26 375 Flora R-2 1,758 2,750 63.9% — Yes
27 1980 Catalina R-1 1,751 5,000 35.0% —
28 355 Pearl R-1 1,700 3,750 45.3% — Yes
29 1960 Catalina R-1 1,685 5,000 33.7% —
30 451 Flora R-1 1,674 5,500 30.4% —
31 376 Diamond R-1 1,650 4,900 33.7% 1930
32 489 Center R-1 1,640 7,500 21.9% 1926
33 363 Pearl R-1 1,600 2,613 61.2% —
34 1963 Catalina R-1 1,594 4,650 34.3% — Yes
35 496 Pearl R-1 1,588 2,613 60.8% —
36 450 Center R-1 1,583 14,810 10.7% 1951
37 1841 Carmelita R-1 1,565 5,000 31.3% —
38 421 Pearl R-1 1,528 6,600 23.2% 1938
100
100 of 355
399 Pearl Street, Laguna Beach — Neighborhood Pattern Analysis Page 6 of 4 # Address Zone Home Sq Ft Lot Sq Ft FAR Year Built Historic 39 1780 Catalina R-1 1,526 2,613 58.4% — Yes
40 481 Flora R-1 1,470 2,750 53.5% —
41 490 Diamond R-1 1,458 7,500 19.4% —
42 316 Center R-1 1,434 5,000 28.7% 1917 Yes
43 1800 Glenneyre R-1 1,406 5,000 28.1% —
44 390 Diamond R-1 1,371 3,920 35.0% —
45 477 Center R-1 1,320 7,500 17.6% 1927
46 372 Center R-1 1,318 7,501 17.6% 1926 Yes
47 361 Center R-1 1,314 7,500 17.5% 1934
48 1796 Glenneyre R-1 1,304 5,500 23.7% —
49 457 Flora R-1 1,300 2,750 47.3% —
50 365 Flora R-2 1,228 2,850 43.1% — Yes
51 355 Center R-1 1,184 3,750 31.6% 1936
52 409 Pearl R-1 1,184 3,400 34.8% — Yes
53 341 Pearl R-1 1,049 2,500 42.0% —
54 340 Diamond R-1 1,035 7,500 13.8% — Yes
55 1880 Glenneyre R-1 1,031 5,000 20.6% —
56 375 Center R-1 979 7,500 13.1% 1924
57 1828 Glenneyre R-1 963 7,500 12.8% — Yes
58 1848 Catalina R-1 855 6,960 12.3% —
59 367 Pearl R-1 827 3,154 26.2% —
60 477 Pearl R-1 814 4,000 20.3% —
61 325 Center R-1 682 3,750 18.2% 1936
62 1845 Catalina R-1 655 5,212 12.6% —
63 420 Center R-1 489 6,184 7.9% —
* Subject property (399 Pearl, existing 2,254 sq ft). FAR = Floor Area Ratio (total sq ft ÷ lot sq ft). FAR overstates density for 2-story homes — BSC (Building Site Coverage = ground footprint ÷ lot) is the binding legal standard under LBMC §25.10.008. Proposed 399 Pearl corrected BSC = 57.6% vs maximum permitted 39.5% — excess of 1,088 sq ft. Sources: OC Assessor · City of Laguna Beach Historic Register and GIS · Applicant Design Review Set V3.0 · Survey Sheet TP-01 · LBMC §25.10.008, §25.05.040(H) · Cal. Govt. Code §65852.2 101
101 of 355
Full Source List — 399 Pearl Street Neighborhood Pattern Analysis

PROPERTY & ASSESSOR RECORDS
Orange County Assessor — Parcel Data
Parcel search at assessor.ocgov.com. Floor area, lot size, year built for all 63 study properties. APN lookups verified against OC GIS.

Orange County GIS / ArcGIS Online
Parcel boundary and acreage verification. gis.ocpw.ocgov.com. Cross-referenced with Assessor data.

California Board of Equalization — Property Tax Rules
Rule 3(b) definition of assessable floor area; Assessor's Handbook AH 530 (Residential Building Costs).

LAGUNA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE
LBMC §25.10.008 — Building Site Coverage (BSC)
Maximum permitted BSC of 39.5% for R-1 lots. Binding legal standard for site coverage approval findings.

LBMC §25.05.040(H) — Neighborhood Compatibility Finding Required DRB finding that proposed project maintains established neighborhood patterns of scale, bulk, and massing.

LBMC §25.05.030 — Design Review Board Authority
DRB jurisdiction, required findings, and standards of review for discretionary approvals.

LBMC §25.08.010 – .050 — R-1 Single-Family Residential Standards Setback, height, FAR, and accessory structure standards applicable to 399 Pearl Street.

LBMC §25.46 — Accessory Dwelling Units
ADU development standards; floor area limits and exemptions from BSC under state law override provisions.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA LAW
California Government Code §65852.2
ADU mandate limiting local restrictions; basis for ADU exemptions from certain local development standards.

California Government Code §65589.5 (AFFH)
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing requirements applicable to DRB discretionary findings.

California Public Resources Code §21000 et seq. (CEQA)
Environmental review thresholds; categorical exemptions applicable to single-family residential projects.

California Health & Safety Code §17920.9
Substandard building definition; relevant to existing nonconforming structure analysis.

HISTORIC PRESERVATION
City of Laguna Beach Historic Register
Official list of locally designated historic resources. 18 of 63 study properties carry designation. Source: City GIS portal.

City of Laguna Beach Historic Context Statement (2006, updated 2018) Documents cottage-colony development patterns 1910s–1930s; establishes significance of Pearl/Center/Diamond Street neighborhood.

California Office of Historic Preservation — OHP Survey Methodology Standards for historic resource survey and integrity evaluation. ohp.parks.ca.gov.

National Register of Historic Places — Criteria (36 CFR Part 60) Federal criteria informing local historic designation; integrity and significance thresholds.

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RECORD
Applicant Design Review Set V3.0
Architectural plans submitted to Laguna Beach DRB; source for proposed floor areas, garage size, deck/terrace dimensions, and site coverage calculations.

Survey Sheet TP-01
Licensed surveyor's topographic survey of 399 Pearl Street; lot dimensions and area = 5,998 sq ft.

Laguna Beach DRB Staff Reports — Comparable Projects
Prior DRB decisions on R-1 projects in study area; establishes pattern of large-lot requirement for large homes.

Laguna Beach DRB Meeting Minutes 2015–2025
Public record of board findings on neighborhood compatibility; no comparable approval found for sub-6,000 sq ft lot at 3,000+ sq ft home.

ZONING & PLANNING DOCUMENTS
City of Laguna Beach General Plan — Land Use Element (2021) Policies LU-1.1, LU-2.3 protecting residential neighborhood character, scale, and historic cottage community identity.

City of Laguna Beach Zoning Map (Official)
R-1 and R-2 zone boundaries; confirms 399 Pearl Street R-1 designation.

Available via City GIS.

City of Laguna Beach Local Coastal Program (LCP)
Coastal development policies applicable to projects in the Coastal Zone; visual character and massing standards.

Orange County Housing Element 2021–2029
Regional housing needs allocation; context for ADU policy environment and state mandate compliance.

PROPERTY DATA — SUBJECT PROPERTY
OC Assessor Records — APN for 399 Pearl Street
Existing home: 2,254 sq ft (confirmed). Lot area: 5,998 sq ft. Year built: 1929.

Owner Rental Listings (Public)
Prior for-rent advertisements by homeowner representing existing floor area; corroborates OC Assessor figure of 2,254 sq ft.

Architect's Plans — Component Breakdown
276 sq ft existing additions + 292 sq ft mechanical + 944 sq ft new ADU = 1,512 sq ft added. Total proposed: 3,766 sq ft.

Deck/Terrace Documentation
Architect's plans show 1,169 sq ft elevated structural terraces/decks; applicant proposes 331 sq ft reduction to net 838 sq ft.

PROFESSIONAL & ACADEMIC STANDARDS
American Institute of Architects — Residential Design Standards Guidelines on contextual massing, neighborhood scale, and compatibility in infill residential design.

Urban Land Institute — Infill Development: Strategies for Challenging Sites
Best practices for scale-appropriate infill; lot size / building size relationship analysis methodology.

HUD — Fair Housing Act Design Manual
Relevant to ADU accessibility standards embedded in project; federal baseline for dwelling unit design.

All government records cited above are public documents available through the respective agency's website or public records request. Municipal code sections cited reflect the Laguna Beach Municipal Code as currently in force. DRB records are available through the City of Laguna Beach Community Development Department. 399 Pearl Street, Laguna Beach — Neighborhood Pattern Analysis Sources — Page 5 of 5 102
102 of 355
Surveyed Area — All 63 Homes — N, S, E & W of 399 Pearl Street 103
103 of 355
104
104 of 355
LETOURNEAU ARCHITECTURE – 250 NEWPORT CENTER DR, STE 305,NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 existing second-story volume, avoiding any new vertical elements at the corner. This strategy reinforces architectural continuity, respects the neighborhood’s low-rise character, and enhances the cohesive visual identity of the community.

3. Consistency with Woods Cove Development Patterns
A detailed analysis of existing properties within the Woods Cove community reveals a diverse mix of building site coverage profiles. Many of the smaller lots occupy a substantial portion of their respective sites, resulting in coverage levels that often exceed standard thresholds. In this context, the subject property—while modestly exceeding the allowable coverage—remains well within the visual and spatial norms established by surrounding homes.

The proposed remodel and ADU addition reflect and reinforce this established pattern by maintaining a low-profile massing and integrating second-story elements in a manner consistent with neighboring residences. Rather than introducing a disruptive or oversized footprint, the project aligns with the community’s architectural rhythm and built environment. Approval of this request would maintain continuity with existing development and support a balanced, context-sensitive approach to site utilization.

4. Sensitive Integration of Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) The proposed ADU has been carefully placed to attach directly to the existing second-story massing, utilizing the vertical envelope already present on site. This strategic location ensures that the ADU remains visually subordinate to the primary structure and avoids introducing new massing at sensitive edges of the property. The ADU is sited in a non-view area, preserving key sightlines for adjacent neighbors and maintaining the open character of the streetscape. Its placement also reinforces privacy, distancing the unit from neighboring yards and windows while aligning with the architectural rhythm of the Woods Cove community. This thoughtful integration supports long-term livability and design coherence while modestly exceeding lot coverage in a manner consistent with the intent of LBMC § 25.10.008(E)(1)(d).

5. Preservation of Privacy
The primary structure upper level scope maintains and repositions the existing secondstory primary suite balcony, shifting it modestly toward the north to further distance it from adjacent property lines and minimize any potential privacy concerns. Additionally, the smaller south-facing punch windows have been specified with opaque glazing to address privacy considerations for the neighboring residence at 1845 Catalina Street. It is important to note that 1845 Catalina does not contain any fenestration or outdoor living spaces along the affected elevation that would be impacted by the proposed development. These design 105
105 of 355
LETOURNEAU ARCHITECTURE – 250 NEWPORT CENTER DR, STE 305,NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 measures ensure that the addition respects adjacent privacy while maintaining architectural coherence and interior functionality.

Conclusion
This request for a minor modification to lot coverage is fully consistent with the intent and criteria of LBMC § 25.10.008(E)(1)(d). The proposed remodel and ADU addition preserve views, reduce height and massing, maintain neighborhood development patterns, and protect privacy. Approval of this application will result in a residence that enhances the architectural integrity and visual character of the Woods Cove community.

Chris LeTourneau
Principal Architect
LeTourneau
Architecture
949-673-3834
[email protected]
www.letourneau-architecture.com
250 Newport Center Drive, Suite 305
Newport Beach, CA 92660
106
106 of 355

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

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

Appeal of approval of Design Review 2025-1819 and Coastal Development Permit 2025-1820 and CEQA Categorical Exemption for an addition to an existing single-family residence and a new attached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) for the property located at 399 Pearl Street located in the R-1 (Residential Low Density) zone. Design review is required for additions to the single-family residence that exceed a height of 15 feet above the adjacent ground elevation, elevated decks, and landscaping. A Coastal Development Permit is required for the attached ADU. An exceedance of building site coverage is also required to accommodate the attached ADU.

Applicant: Chris LeTourneau, Architect
A person has appealed the decision of the Design Review Board to approve the project.

SAID PUBLIC MEETING to be held Tuesday, June 9, 2026, at 5:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter.

For additional information, contact City staff: Brenda Wisneski, Principal Planner (949) 464-6629 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 topographic features.

COASTAL: The project proposes additions to an existing single-family residence and a new attached ADU. Because the project is located within the excludable area, the single-family residence and associated improvements do not require a Coastal Development Permit and are proposed as excluded development under Laguna Beach Municipal Code Chapter 25.07 and Exclusionary Order No. E-93-1. The review procedure identified in Laguna Beach Municipal Code Section 25.07.012(B)(3) applies to any such determination.

The proposed ADU requires a Coastal Development Permit and is proposed as non-appealable development. The application was filed on September 9, 2025 by Chris LeTourneau and is assigned application number CDP-2025-1820. The application was approved by the Design Review Board. The decision by the City Council is not appealable to the California Coastal Commission.

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

Notice posted 10 days prior to the hearing date at the following three public places (CA Government Code Section 65090 and 65091):
399 Pearl Street, Laguna Beach, CA; 505 Forest Ave., Laguna Beach, CA; and 380 3rd St., Laguna Beach, CA; and Property Owners within 300 ft./ Tenants within 100 ft./ California Coastal Commission/ Interested Persons List/ Publish Date: 5/29/2026 Attachment 3
107
107 of 355
Attachment 4
108
108 of 355
109
109 of 355
110
110 of 355
111
111 of 355
112
112 of 355
113
113 of 355
114
114 of 355
115
115 of 355
116
116 of 355
117
117 of 355
118
118 of 355
119
119 of 355

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT
April 9, 2026
Agenda Item No. 5.6
Case No: Design Review 2025-1819, Coastal Development Permit 2025-1820, and Variance 2026-0511
Request: Addition and remodel to an existing single-family residence, including upper- and lowerlevel additions, increase in building site coverage, elevated decks, landscaping, and an attached accessory dwelling unit (ADU). A variance is requested to allow a trellis to encroach into the rear yard setback.

Location: 399 Pearl Street | APN: 644-267-16
Applicant: Chris LeTourneau, Architect
(949) 933-2879 | [email protected]
Owner: Jason Mueller
Staff: Community Development Department
Brenda Wisneski, Principal Planner
(949) 494-6629 | [email protected]
Recommendation:

Adopt Resolution 2025-1819 approving Design Review 2025-1819 and Coastal Development Permit 2025- 1820, but deny Variance 2026-0511, for the property located at 399 Pearl Street and finding said action categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA 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.

Coastal Development Permit:

The project site is located in the excludable area of the Coastal Zone, therefore a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) is not required for the proposed modifications to the existing single-family residence.

However, a CDP is required for the attached ADU pursuant to the Laguna Beach Municipal Code (LBMC) Section 25.07.004, but the ADU is not subject to design review.

Board Members within a 500’ Radius: None.

Attachment 4
120
120 of 355
Design Review 2025-1819, Coastal Development Permit 2025-1820, Variance 2026-0511 April 9, 2026

Page 2 ends

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The proposed project consists of a minor remodel and addition to an existing single-family residence including 234 square foot upper- and 42 square feet of lower-level additions, elevated decks, landscaping, and an attached 944 square foot two-story accessory dwelling unit (ADU) and a trellis.

The project would increase the building site coverage from 35.8% to 47.8%, exceeding the standard of

39.5%. The proposed ADU results in a lower-level footprint of approximately 600 square feet, while the addition to the single-family residence is minimal. Therefore, the increase in building site coverage is caused by the proposed ADU.

The proposed ADU is not subject to design review but requires approval of a Coastal Development Permit (CDP). While it results in an exceedance of the building site coverage (BSC), the ADU conforms with all applicable LBMC standards and criteria for approval of a CDP, including standards and criteria related to parking and coastal resources.

At the October 9, 2025, Design Review Board meeting, the item was continued to November 13, 2025 to ensure the project was staked prior to the hearing date, in accordance with the timeline required per the LBMC.

At the November 13, 2025, Design Review Board meeting, the item was continued to January 22, 2026, to address concerns from board members and neighboring property owners. Concerns related to the ADU included privacy, building height, and projection of the eave.

At the January 22, 2026, Design Review Board meeting, project revisions were considered but the item was continued to March 12, 2026, with suggestions to improve articulation and increase the upper-level setback of the ADU and increase landscaping.

The applicant’s revisions introduced a trellis to the project’s scope which encroaches into a required setback.

As such, at the March 12, 2026, Design Review Board meeting, the item was tabled so the application could be re-advertised to include the applicant’s variance request and update project staking to reflect the proposed design change.

In review of the recent project refinements, including setting the ADU back further from the southern property line and proposing additional landscaping to provide privacy to adjacent neighbors, staff finds that facts necessary to support project approval can be made for the requested entitlements except the variance.

Project revisions include a 200 square foot trellis located at the southwest corner and is intended to mitigate potential privacy concerns of the neighbor at 367 Pearl Street, which is located approximately 10-feet lower than the subject property. The trellis is located 4-feet from the rear setback, where 16-feet is required, therefore, a variance is requested. In review of the trellis, staff finds that facts necessary to support the variance cannot be made in that there are no special circumstances that are unique to the site to justify an encroachment into the setback for improved privacy.
121
121 of 355
Design Review 2025-1819, Coastal Development Permit 2025-1820, Variance 2026-0511 April 9, 2026

Page 3 ends

Therefore, staff recommends the Design Review Board approve the design review and coastal development permit applications but deny the variance allowing the trellis to encroach into the rear property line. The proposed changes to the existing single-family residence meet all applicable standards, including those from the LBMC and Design Review criteria. The project design includes articulation and features (such as landscaping) that ensures compatibility with the neighborhood and the addition does not create privacy or view equity issues. The building site coverage is justified in that it allows a portion of the home to be a single-level and the roof design is a low-profile, thereby preserving key view corridors.

PROPERTY AERIAL PHOTO
122
122 of 355
Design Review 2025-1819, Coastal Development Permit 2025-1820, Variance 2026-0511 April 9, 2026

Page 4 ends

SITE PHOTO

PROPERTY INFORMATION
Land Use Designation Village Low Density (1-7 DU/AC)
Zoning Designation R-1 Residential Low Density

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

Development Standard Required Existing Proposed Conforms Building Site Coverage 39.50%
Maximum

35.83% 47.78% No1
Height above Front Lot Line (FLL
elevation ranges between 115.70’
and 125.60’)
25’ 27’ 25’ Yes
Height (Height from Grade, FF) 25’ 25’ 25’ Yes
Height (ADU Height from Grade) 25’ 22’-4” 21’-1” Yes
Setbacks (Single-Family Structure)
Front
Side (North)
Side (South)
Rear
20’
7’-6”
7’-6”
16’2
9’-9”
7’-6”
7’-6”
16’
No change
No change
No change
16’
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
123
123 of 355
Design Review 2025-1819, Coastal Development Permit 2025-1820, Variance 2026-0511 April 9, 2026

Page 5 ends

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

Setbacks (ADU)
Front
Side (North)
Side (South)
Rear
Rear (Trellis)
10’
4’
4’
4’
16’2
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
60’
8’-6”
24’-3”
4’
4’
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
(1) An exceedance in Building Site Coverage may be approved by the Design Review Board approval in accordance with LBMC Section 25.10.008(E)(1)(d).
(2) The City approved Variance 3023 on June 8, 1978, established a 16-foot rear setback.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:

Site History
The project site is a portion of Lot 2 and 3 of Block 25 of the Arch Beach Tract, is located at the corner of Pearl Street and Catalina Street and is developed with a single-family residence and attached two-car garage, originally constructed in 1929. The existing structure exceeds the maximum height and encroaches into the front yard setback. The lot is 6,000 square feet in size, has a 4.8% average slope and is surrounded on all sides by residential development. The nearest bus stop is 0.2 miles away on the corner of Pearl Street and Coast Highway.

On June 8, 1978, the City approved Variance 3023 to allow an addition to encroach into the rear yard setback without bringing existing non-conformities (front yard encroachment) into conformity.

On October 1, 2015, the City approved Design Review 15-1872 for two new air conditioning condenser units on the subject property, one being located on the upper-level deck.

Since then, no other entitlements have been approved for the subject property and there are no pending code enforcement cases.

The site exists today in substantial compliance with its original entitlements.

There are no code enforcement cases pending against the subject property.

Proposed Project
The project includes an interior remodel, upper- and lower-level additions, a new on-grade patio, and a new second floor deck. The project also proposes a two-story attached ADU, an on-grade deck with a landscaped trellis, and upper floor landscaped planter. Additional landscaping would be placed along Catalina Street in front of the proposed ADU, as well as in the southwest corner of the property. 124
124 of 355
Design Review 2025-1819, Coastal Development Permit 2025-1820, Variance 2026-0511 April 9, 2026

Page 6 ends

After the November 11, 2025, and January 22, 2026, Design Review Board meetings, the applicant revised the project in response to comments from the DRB members as detailed in Table 1. The comments focused on the mass of the ADU and potential privacy impacts on the property at 367 Pearl Street.

Table 1: List of Board Member Requests and Applicant Revisions Design Review Board Comments – November
13, 2025
Applicant Revision
Lower height to greatest extent possible. Lowered roof by 1’-6” through reduced plate heights.

Reduce eaves. Pulled back the eave an additional 3’.

Push upper story back, perhaps by reducing square
footage.

Moved the entirety of the ADU 1’-6” towards
Catalina Street and away from the neighbor
downslope.

Design Review Board Comments – January 22,
2026
Applicant Revision
Improve articulation; Increase setback Decreased the size of the ADU from 1,000 sq.ft. to 944 sq.ft. allowing for an increased rear yard
setback of 1’-6”.

Increase landscaping Vines to be attached to trellis supports and guided along atop the structure.

Planter proposed along the second story window of
the ADU.

Privacy hedges, limited to 8-feet in height, to be
located along the property line in the southwest
corner of the lot.

Changes to the lower-level of the main residence include interior renovations to the kitchen including a new island extension, an addition for a new dining area, an addition and reconfiguration for new access to the upper-level, a new patio, a new fireplace in a reconfigured great room, and the removal of an existing fireplace and a mechanical area. The additions are located in a portion of an existing deck that is to be removed.

Upper-level changes include additions totaling 307 square feet. Proposed changes include a new primary suite with two associated balconies (one facing Catalina Street and the other facing the adjacent residential property to the south), walk-in closet, and bathroom. The project also proposes to reduce the height of the structure by approximately 2 feet by removing existing shed roof.

The proposed project includes a 944-square-foot, two-story attached ADU with primary access oriented toward Catalina Street. An on-grade deck and trellis and upper-level planter are also proposed. The ADU complies with all applicable requirements of the LBMC, including maximum size requirements for a twobedroom ADU, and is not subject to discretionary design review.

The landscape plan includes both existing and proposed elements. New landscaping is proposed along Catalina Street in front of the proposed ADU, in association with the trellis, as well as hedges along the rear 125
125 of 355
Design Review 2025-1819, Coastal Development Permit 2025-1820, Variance 2026-0511 April 9, 2026

Page 7 ends

property line at the southeast corner of the site. The proposed landscaping will include a variety of shrubs to enhance visual appeal and provide screening.

ENTITLEMENTS: Following is an analysis of the project’s design review, coastal development permit, and variance applications:

Design Review
The following elements associated with the single family residence require design review: additions that exceed a height of 15 feet above the adjacent ground elevation (see Laguna Beach Municipal Code (LBMC) Section 25.05.040(B)(1)(j)), elevated decks (see LBMC Section 25.05.040(B)(3)(a)(ii)), and landscaping for an addition that creates a new upper story or addition that exceed a height of 15 feet above the adjacent ground elevation (see LBMC Section 25.05.040(B)(1)(p)). Design review is governed by LBMC Section

25.05.040. Design review is considered by the Design Review Board at a duly noticed public hearing where the following findings are considered in relation to the proposed development:

Finding No. 1: Physical improvements and site developments related to the Project are designed and located in a manner in overall consistency with the design review criteria specified in Section 25.05.040(H), as set forth below:

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

The existing structure on the project site is designed with exceptional design articulation. Massing is broken up on all sides with different materials, colors, and offsets. The proposed alterations similarly match this level of articulation. Landscaping, including an upper-level planter, will soften the appearance of the structure as viewed from surrounding properties.

The existing architecture uses wood shingle siding and an exposed brick chimney. The proposed design respects the existing architecture while adding a more contemporary cladding element. The 126
126 of 355
Design Review 2025-1819, Coastal Development Permit 2025-1820, Variance 2026-0511 April 9, 2026

Page 8 ends

proposed wall cladding is charcoal grey board and batten siding that is harmonious with the dark accents around door and window fixtures and the proposed dark roof structure.

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

The project complies with the following applicable General Plan policies:

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

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.

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

The project site contains an existing residential structure that is not a historic resource and there are no adjacent historic resources that would be impacted by the project.

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 127
127 of 355
Design Review 2025-1819, Coastal Development Permit 2025-1820, Variance 2026-0511 April 9, 2026

Page 9 ends

an important consideration in the landscape design. The relevant landscaping guidelines contained in the City’s “Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document” should be incorporated, as appropriate, in the design and planned maintenance of proposed landscaping.

The proposed landscape plan integrates both existing and new elements to ensure a cohesive design that complements the architectural character of the project and the surrounding neighborhood.

Existing landscaping along Pearl Street and Catalina Street will remain largely unchanged, maintaining continuity with the established streetscape. New shrubs are strategically placed near the property lines adjacent to the proposed ADU and along the southwest rear property line to enhance privacy while respecting view equity for neighboring properties. The landscape design has been developed to align with the guidelines outlined in the City’s Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document, supporting both aesthetic integration and long-term maintenance objectives.

The proposed exterior building lighting will be adequate for individual and public safety and will not significantly impact neighboring properties. The proposed lighting fixtures will be aimed downward, and the bulbs will be fully shielded and hooded to comply with the City’s Good Neighbor Outdoor Lighting Ordinance (LBMC Chapter 7.70). Additionally, the proposed building finish materials will not be highly reflective or result in glare.

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.
128
128 of 355
Design Review 2025-1819, Coastal Development Permit 2025-1820, Variance 2026-0511 April 9, 2026

Page 10 ends

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

The project includes two at-grade patios and two upper-level balconies associated with the singlefamily residence. The patios, located at ground level, do not present any potential privacy concerns for neighboring properties due to their elevation and placement. Of the two proposed balconies, one is oriented toward the intersection of Catalina and Pearl Streets and does not present any potential for privacy impacts to adjacent residences. The second balcony faces west and is enclosed on three sides by existing and proposed structural elements. Additionally, it is set back more than 20 feet from the nearest property line and the landscaping plan proposes a new tree between the balcony and property line, to help minimize potential privacy impacts on neighboring properties.

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

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

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

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

The proposed project would be subject to Green Building Code requirements and Title 24 energy efficiency requirements and would be subject to Best Management Practices during construction.

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 129
129 of 355
Design Review 2025-1819, Coastal Development Permit 2025-1820, Variance 2026-0511 April 9, 2026

Page 11 ends

circulatory mechanical pumps and equipment is mitigated; and (c) any associated fencing or other site improvements are compatible with neighboring properties.

The project does not have nor include swimming pools, spas, or water features.

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

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

Finding No. 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-1 zoning district does not contain any specific design review criteria.

Coastal Development Permit
The proposed attached ADU requires the approval of a coastal development permit (see LBMC Section

25.07.004.) Coastal Development Permits are governed by Laguna Beach Municipal Code Chapter 25.07.

A Coastal Development Permit is considered by the Design Review Board at a duly noticed public hearing where the following findings are considered in relation to the proposed development:

Finding No. 1: The project is in conformity with all the applicable provisions of the certified local coastal program, including the following review criteria:
130
130 of 355
Design Review 2025-1819, Coastal Development Permit 2025-1820, Variance 2026-0511 April 9, 2026

Page 12 ends

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

See analysis within Finding No. 2 below.

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

The project site is located in a developed area within the City in the R-1 (Residential Low-Density) zone. The proposed development will not adversely affect recreational or visitor serving facilities because there are no recreational or visitor-serving facilities in close proximity to the project site.

The closest adjacent park and recreation area is Bluebird Park. This is approximately 0.5 miles from the project site with continuously developed properties between the project site and the nearest part of the park acting as a buffer. The proposed development, which includes an attached ADU and changes to an existing single-family structure, will not have any adverse impacts to such park and recreation area.

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

The project site does not contain any significant natural landforms. There is no grading proposed with this project. The project will not result in undue risk from flood or fire hazards.

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

Page 13 ends

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

The project site is developed with an existing single-family residence, and the project involves construction of an attached structure consisting of an ADU and alterations to the existing structure.

The project site does not contain any known archaeological or paleontological resources. Therefore, the proposed development will not adversely affect archaeological or paleontological resources.

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

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

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

Design Guidelines – A Guide to Residential Development (2010) Title 22 – Excavation, Grading and Filling (2004)
Title 25 – Zoning Code
Finding No. 2. Any development located between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea is in conformity with the certified local coastal program and with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act.

Finding No. 3. The proposed development will not have any significant adverse impacts on the environment within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act. 132
132 of 355
Design Review 2025-1819, Coastal Development Permit 2025-1820, Variance 2026-0511 April 9, 2026

Page 14 ends

Variance

As designed, the proposed project would require the approval of a variance to proceed because the proposed trellis is located 4-feet from the rear property line, when a 16-feet rear yard setback is required. Variances are governed by Laguna Beach Municipal Code Section 25.05.025. A Variance is considered by the Design Review Board at a duly noticed public hearing where the following findings are considered in relation to the proposed development:

Finding No. 1: There are special circumstances applicable to the property involved, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings which cause the strict application of the zoning ordinance to deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification.

The property is located 6,000 square feet in size, 75-feet wide and 80-feet depth, with an average slope of

4.8%. Neighboring properties in the R-1 zone vary in size, the smallest being 2,500 square feet and the largest 15,000 square feet. Pearl Street maintains a relatively steep grade, therefore, many of the adjacent parcels are stepped to follow the street’s terrain. The subject parcel is average in size and characteristics as compared to surrounding properties, therefore, there are no special circumstances that would justify the deviation from the setback requirement to allow the property privileges enjoyed by others.

Finding No. 2: Such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, which right is possessed by other property owners under like conditions in the same vicinity and zone.

The trellis is proposed to address privacy concerns for an adjacent property and to soften the views of the proposed structure by encroaching into a required setback. In this case, the proposed trellis encroachment would place the subject property in an advantageous position instead of bringing the project site into parity with nearby lots relative to rear yard setback encroachment. For this reason, the requested encroachment is not necessary to preserve and enjoy a right that is possessed by others under like conditions.

Finding No. 3: The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, convenience and welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity in which the property is located.

Granting the variance allows for the trellis to be located 4-feet from the rear property line, when 16-feet is required. To grant the proposed encroachment when no unique circumstances exist to support the proposed deviaton would be detrimental to the public health, safety, convenience and welfare or injurious to property.

Finding No. 4: The granting of such a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the zoning ordinance or the general plan.
133
133 of 355
Design Review 2025-1819, Coastal Development Permit 2025-1820, Variance 2026-0511 April 9, 2026

Page 15 ends

Granting the variance is contrary to the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance development standards may only vary when there are special circumstances applicable to the property involved, including size, shape, topography, location and surroundings, that would cause the strict application of the zoning ordinance to deprive the property of the privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and zone. As detailed the findings above, the request to allow the trellis to encroach into the rear setback does not meet the intent and purpose of the variance provisions.

BUILDING SITE COVERAGE
The applicant is requesting approval to exceed the building site coverage requirement to accommodate the proposed attached ADU. The maximum building site coverage for the project site is 39.5 percent whereas the applicant is proposing 47.78 percent. The existing building site coverage is 35.83 percent. Pursuant to LBMC Section 25.10.008(E)(1)(d), the maximum building site coverage requirement may be modified by the Board “when it is necessary to preserve views, preserve privacy, reduce heights, or to maintain neighborhood development patterns.” The project retains a largely single-story profile, with garage massing below street grade and the ADU strategically attached to existing second-story massing to avoid new view equity impacts. This approach protects key ocean views, minimizes privacy concerns through thoughtful window placement and balcony orientation, and aligns with established development patterns in Woods Cove, where single-story structures are often paired with modest, well-integrated second-story massing.

Therefore, staff finds that the request for additional building site coverage is supportable. The applicant has provided further justification for the request to exceed the building site coverage (Attachment 6).

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, the project qualifies for a categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15301 - Existing Facilitiesbecause 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; and, 15305 – Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations, in that the project proposes an encroachment into a required setback to accommodate trellis structure. There is no evidence of any unusual or special conditions that would result in a significant effect on the environment in that the proposed alterations to the existing structure, including the proposed attached ADU, are located on an already improved site and are consistent with surrounding development.

Further, none of the exceptions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply. The project site does not contain any environmentally sensitive areas according to the City’s GIS. There will be no cumulative impact resulting from successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time in these are minor modifications to the previously approved project. There are no unusual circumstances resulting in a significant impact on the environment in that the project site is already developed and the project is not located in an environmentally sensitive area. 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 in that those resources do not occur on or near the project site. 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 according to Cortese List. The project will not result in significant adverse impacts to historical resources as defined by CEQA in that there are no historical resources located on the project site.

Consequently, additional environmental analysis is not necessary to meet the requirements of the CEQA. 134
134 of 355
Design Review 2025-1819, Coastal Development Permit 2025-1820, Variance 2026-0511 April 9, 2026

Page 16 ends

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution 2025-1819 approving Design Review 2025-1819 and Coastal Development Permit 2025- 1820, but deny Variance 2026-0511, for the property located at 399 Pearl Street and find said action categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301.

NOTIFICATION:

Pursuant to Title 25 (Zoning) Public Notice, a public hearing notice was mailed on March 16, 2026, which is at least twenty-one (21) days prior to the April 9, 2026 hearing date in accordance with Title 25. In addition, a public hearing notice was posted on the project site on March 16, 2026, which is at least 10 days in advance of the April 9, 2026 hearing date. Further, a public hearing notice was published on March 27, 2026 in a newspaper of general circulation, which is at least 10 days in advance of the public hearing on April 9, 2026.

CORRESPONDENCE:

Since the January 22, 2026 DRB meeting, staff received one new comment letter about this project. This letter, the applicant’s response, and previous comment letter are provided in Attachment 7.

ATTACHMENT(S):

Attachment 1 – Resolution 2025-1819
Attachment 2 – Plans
Attachment 3 – Certified Staking Plan
Attachment 4 – Variance Application
Attachment 5 – Building Site Coverage Justification
Attachment 6 – Neighborhood Building Site Coverage Comparison Attachment 7 – Correspondence
135
135 of 355

MUELLER HOUSE
399 PEARL STREET, LAGUNA BEACH, CA
CS

COVER SHEET
DESIGN REVIEW SET_V3.0
CHRIS A. LETOURNEAU
Principal Architect / General Contractor
Lic. # C-30692 / Lic # 928306
250 Newport Center Drive, Suite 305
Newport Beach, CA. 92660
Tel: 949.673.3834

THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS INFORMATION PROPRIETARY TO LETOURNEAU

ARCHITECTURE AND IS FURNISHED IN CONFIDENCE FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF EVALUATION, BIDDING OR REVIEW. THIS DOCUMENT OR ITS CONTENTS MAY NOT

BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR

DISCLOSED TO OTHERS WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF LETOURNEAU ARCHITECTURE ISSUE:

02.05.2526
DELTA REVISION: MUELLER HOUSE 399 PEARL STEET, LAGUNA BEACH, CA SCALE :
1 2
3 - 4 -

ZONING PLAN CHECK CORRECTIONS -

12.06.2024
136
136 of 355

MUELLER HOUSE
399 PEARL STREET, LAGUNA BEACH, CA

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 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 conditions prior to beginning work. should any condition arise where the intent of the drawings 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.

4. dimensions are finished dimensions, from face of gyp to face of gyp or 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 are not dimensioned. refer to door schedule for sizes.

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 on 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, and procedures, and for coordinating all portions of the work.

12. the contractor herein 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 a period of one year form the date of acceptance, ordinary wear and unusual abuse or neglect excepted.

13. contractor shall protect all existing structures, landscaping, materials, etc., during construction. contractor shall patch and repair all surfaces disrupted or damaged during construction to match existing adjacent surfaces.d ru

14. the contractor shall on a daily basis keep the premises free form 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. the requirements of title 24 relating to energy conservation are taken into consideration in the design / construction of this project.

18. licensed civil engineer that prepared the drainage plan shall certify at the completion of the project that the site drainage is in susbstantial compliance with the approved drainage plan.

19. this project requires structural obsversations by design engineer.

20. owners on 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 letter shall be provided to the city prior to beginning the excavation.

21. all smoke alarms to be interconnected, the activation of one alarm will trigger all the alarms and shall be heard in all bedrooms over background noise levels with all intervening doors closed per 9007.2.10.3

22. these plans shall comply with the 2010 california codes. cbc, cpc, cmc, cec and all local city of newport beach codes and ordinances shall be adhered to in the construction of this project. it is the contractor's responsibility to construct the project as per these codes.

23. the contractor shall comply with current editions of all applicable codes and ordinances. the contractor shall obtain all permits necessary to complete the work, including the building permit which the owner shall pay for prior to the start of the work. before final acceptance of any part of the work, the contractor shall furnish the architect with "certificates of inspection"
and "certificates of occupancy" stating that the work has been approved by the building department.

24. the contractor shall carry all needed insurance, licenses, fees, permits, taxes as required by law for the duration of the project.

25. the contractor shall maintain liability insurance to protect himself and indemnify and hold the owner and the architect harmless from any and all claims for damages, for personal bodily injury or death, or property damage during the course of the contract. fire insurance shall be maintained by the owner.

26. the contractor shall provide sufficent means for protecting existing construction, new construction and materials from damage by other trades, weather, vandals for the course of the project. the contractor shall provide all barricades, fences and other items required by local ordinances and codes.

27. all plumbing fixtures, lighting fixtures, door hardware, finishes, hardware and miscellaneous items shall be selected and or approved by the owner and architect. "or approved equal" means equal approved by the architect.

28. field samples and mock-ups shall be prepared at the site by the contractor. affected finish work shall not be started until the architect has accepted as satisfactory the field samples and or mock up in writing.

29. if the contractor desires to use any other brand or manufacturer of equal quality, appearance and utility to the product specified, he shall request a substiution to the architect with specifications and samples. the architect will accept or reject the request for substitution and his decision will be final. unless substitutions are requested as provided herein, deviations from the drawings and specifiacations will not be permited.

30. the owner may order extra work or make changes by altering, adding to, or deducting from the work with a formal "change order". the contract sum shall be adjusted accordingly. changes or alterations shall be approved by the architect prior to the start of any work.

31. the architect will in no way be responsible for how the work is performed, safety in, on or about the job site, nor means, methods or timeliness in the performance of the work.

32. the architect reserves the right to reject any materials and work quality which are not considered to be up to the highest standards of the various trades involved. such inferior material or work quality shall be repaired or replaced as directed by the owner at no additional cost to the owner.

33. all findings of the soils report as prepared by the geotechnical engineer are part of these plans.

34. the contractor shall notify the architect immediately for direction in the event that any unusual conditions not covered by these plans are encountered during construction.

35. the contractor shall have a superintendant at the job site whenever any work under this contract is being performed in order to provide constant supervision.

36. the contractor shall maintain the job site in a neat and safe condition in accordance with title 8 of the construction safety orders at all times during the construction period. the contractor shall on a weekly basis, clean up, remove and dispose of all debris from the job.

37. the contractor shall provide and locate all ducts, accces panels and return air grilles as required for the mechanical system. prior to any mechanical work, the contractor shall provide the architect with drawings of the proposed locations of the above items. the architect shall approve the drawings and the locations before any work shall begin.

38. all shoring and bracing necessary for construction of the project is the sole responsibility of the contractor.

39. the contractor shall submit 2 copies of required shop drawings, cut sheets, materials samples used in the project to the architect before purchase and delivery to the site. all shop drawings shall be approved by the architect. the architect's approval of such drawings shall not relieve the contractor of responsibility for errors of any sort pertaining to the shop drawings. the architect's approval is merely a review for the limited purpose of checking for conformance with the information given and the design concept expressed in the contract documents. the contractor is responsible for the adequacy of the performance, dimensions given and the design criteria required by the contract documents.

40. all utilities shall be undergrounded to the nearest utility pole or transformer. the contractor shall be responsible for any damage to underground utility lines. where utility lines must be maintained under a building, they must be properly sleeved through foundation walls. contact dig alert before starting any underground work.

41. this project shall comply with npdes, susmp, and bmp requirements.

42. exterior walls shall be approved noncombustible or ignition resistant material, heavy timber, or log wall construction or shall provide protection from the intrusion of flames and embers in accordance with standard sfm 12-7a-1.

43. artificial light shall be provided that is adequate to provide an average illumination of 10 foot candles ( 107 lux) over the area of the room at a height of 30" above the floor level.

44. stairways within dwelling units and exterior stairways serving a dwelling unit shall have an illumination level on tread runs of not less than 1 foot candle ( 11 lux ).

45. rooms containing bathtubs, showers, spas and similar bathing fixtures shall be mechanically ventilated in accordance with the international mechanical code 1203.4.2.1

46. no water shall drain over the slope, nor shall any drainage pipes be visible on the slope included existing pipes presently on the slope.

47. spa motor must be on a timer and cannot operate between 10pm-6am

48. a cal-osha permit is required for excavations deeper than 5' and for shoring and underpinning.

49. height certification inspection is required for this project.

50. Issuance of a building permit by the City of Newport Beach does not relieve applicants of the legal requirement of observe covenants, conditions and restrictions which may be recorded against the property or to obstain plans. Please contact any community associations prior to commencement of any construction authorization by this permit

51. Prior to performing any work in the city right of way an encroachment permit must be obtained from the public works department.

52. A site survey by a licensed surveyor shall be required prior to foundation concrete pour.

53. Residential building undergoing permitted alterations, additions or improvements shall replace non compliant plumbing fixtures with water-conserving plumbing fixtures meeting the requirements of 2013 california green building standards code, section 4.303. plumbing fixture replacement is required prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy or final inspection by the chief building official. (civil code, section 1101.1 et seq., nbmc 15.11.020)

PROJECT SUMMARY

PROJECT

ADDRESS
399 PEARL STREET
LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:

PROJECT TEAM
OWNER: JASON MUELLER
399 PEARL STREET
LAGUNA BEACH, CA. 92651
TEL: 949-378-2253
[email protected]
ARCHITECT:

PROJECT DESCRIPTION MINOR REMODEL / ADDITION TO
AN EXISTING (2) STORY SINGLE

FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH
ATTACHED (2) CAR

CONFORMING GARAGE - LOWER

LEVEL / UPPER LEVEL ADDITION
/ NEW 2ND FLOOR BALCONY /
DECKS - NEW (2) STORY

ATTACHED ADU - SEPERATE

PERMIT - NEW FLATWORK / NEW

A/C - NEW RETAINING WALLS
UNDER 30"
CODE ANALYSIS:

CODE: 2022 TRIENNIAL EDITION OF CALIFORNA CODE OF
REGULATIONS (CCR), TITLE 24 TO INCLUDE:

PART 1, CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE , PART 2, THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE - VOLUME 1 AND 2 PART

2.5, CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE,
PART 3, CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE,
PART 4, CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE
PART 5, CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE,
PART 6, CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE,
PART 7, CURRENTLY VACANT
PART 8, CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL BUILDING CODE;
PART 9, CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE,
PART 10, CALIFORNIA EXISTING BUILDING CODE
PART 11, CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE
(CALGREEN CODE),
PART 12, CALIFORNIA REFERENCE STANDARDS CODE
CODE:

OCCUPANCY TYPE:

R3,U
CONSTRUCTION TYPE:

V - NON RATED - TYP WOOD FRAMED W/ 1 HR RATED

OCCUPANCY SEPERATION - V-B-SPR
FIRE SPRINKLERS:

BUILDING TO BE EQUIPPED WITH FIRE SPRINKLERS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH NFAP 13-D
STORIES:
(2)

PROJECT TABULATIONS

LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT:

GEOLOGIST:

CIVIL
ENGINEER:

TOAL ENGINEERING
139 AVENIDA, SUITE NAVARRO
SAN CLEMENTE, CA. 92672
949.492.8586
CONTACT: ADAM TOAL

STRUCTURAL
ENGINEER:

ENERGY
CONSULTANT:

SOUTHLAND ENERGY

PAUL KANDARIAN
1491 GLENNEYRE ST.

LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651
949.497.3591
[email protected]

GENERAL
CONTRACTOR:

SHEET INDEX

CS COVER SHEET

TS TITLE SHEET
C-1 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN
CIVIL C-2 CUT / FILL PLAN
L-2.0 PRELIMINARY PLANTING PLAN
L-4.0 PRELIMINARY LIGHTING PLAN

LANDSCAPE
A-0.1 ARCHITECTURAL RENDERINGS
A-1.1 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN
A-2.1 FLOOR PLAN - GARAGE LEVEL
A-2.2
A-4.1 BUILDING ELEVATIONS
A-5.1 BUILDING SECTION AA / BB
SCH-1 DOOR / WINDOW SCHEDULE - NOTES
D-1 ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS
S-1 GENERAL NOTES AND SPECIFICATIONS
S-1.1 GENERAL NOTES AND SPECIFICATIONS
S-2 FOUNDATION PLAN
S-3 FLOOR FRAMING PLAN
S-4 ROOF FRAMING PLAN
S-5 STRUCTURAL DETAILS
S-6 STRUCTURAL DETAILS
S-7 STRUCTURAL DETAILS

ARCHITECTURAL
T-24 TITLE 24 ENERGY CALCULATIONS

ENERGY STRUCTURAL

STRUCTURAL OBSERVATION SCHEDULE

STRUCTURAL OBSERVATION IS REQUIRED ON THIS PROJECT AS NOTED ON SHEET 1/ S1

SPECIAL INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS
AS PER CBC SECTION 1704.1.1

SPECIAL INSPECTION IS REQUIRED ON THIS PROJECT AS NOTED ON SHEET H / S1

SEPARATE PERMIT(S)

1. FIRE SPRINKLERS - DRAWINGS FOR FIRE SPRINKLER ARE REQUIRED TO

BE SUBMITTED AND REVIEWED BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND APPROVED PRIOR TO ROOF SHEATHING INSPECTION.

2. SPA

4. BBQ AREA

5. MASONRY OR CONCRETE FENCES OVER 3'-6" HIGH

6. RETAINING WALL OVER 4'-0" HIGH FROM BOTTOM OF FOUNDATION TO

TOP OF WALL

DEFERRED SUBMITTAL(S)

1. AIR CONDITIONING UNIT(S) - LOCATION & INSTALLATION (SEPARATE

REVIEW)
NOTE: DEFERRED SUBMITTALS TO BE REVIEWED BY THE PROJECT ARCHITECT OR

ENGINEER OF RECORD AND CERTIFIED PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL FOR PLAN REVIEW OR APPROVED BY THE CITY. SPAS, WALLS, FENCES, PATIO COVERS AND OTHER FREESTANDING STRUCTURES REQUIRE SEPARATE REVIEWS AND PERMITS.

REVISIONS
1 2
ZONING PLAN CHECK CORRECTIONS - 12.06.2024
3 - 4

FLOOR PLAN - LOWER LEVEL
A-4.2 BUILDING ELEVATIONS
A-5.2 BUILDING SECTION CC / DD
A-1.2 STAKING PLAN
-

L-OS LANDSCAPE OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS
Peter Anderson CEG
Principal Engineering Geologist
Anderson Geology Consulting LLC
1000 N Coast Hwy Suite 10
Laguna Beach CA 92651
[email protected]
949-371-3690
PARCEL 1, PMB 42/44
APN: 644-267-16

FIRE SPRINKLERS - DRAWINGS FOR FIRE SPRINKLER ARE REQUIRED TO

BE SUBMITTED AND REVIEWED BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND

APPROVED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT
C-3 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY

HAROLD LARSON
1437 GLENNEYRE ST.

LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651
949-497-5203
MCELHENY CONSTRUCTION INC.
22741 Alturas Dr,
Mission Viejo, CA. 92691
(949) 280-3693
[email protected]

LETOURNEAU ARCHITECTURE
CHRIS A. LETOURNEAU
Lic. # C-30692 / Lic # 928306
250 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, STE 305
Newport Beach, CA. 92660
Tel: 949.673.3834 / 949.933.2879
A-2.2.1
A-4.1.1 BUILDING ELEVATIONS DEMO CALCULATION
A-4.2.1 BUILDING ELEVATIONS DEMO CALCULATION
M.D. Wilkes Design + Consulting
Michael D. Wilkes
690 Thalia Street
Laguna Beach, CA. 92651
(949) 637-1050
[email protected]
TS-1

TITTLE SHEET
1/4" = 1'-0"

ZONING STANDARDS

DESCRIPTION REQUIRED EXISTING PROPOSED CONFORMS

USE SFR SFR SFR YES
ZONE R-1 R-1 R-1 YES
GROSS LOT AREA 6,000 6,000 6,000 YES

NET LOT AREA
LOT WIDTH (AVG) 70'-0" 75'-0" 75'-0" YES
LOT DEPTH (AVG) 80'-0" 80'-0" 80'-0" YES
LOT SLOPE (%) 4.80% 4.80% YES
MAX BUILDING HEIGHT 25-0" ABV NG @ 120.00 =
145.00
147.08' 145.00' NO
MAX HEIGHT FROM GRADE, FF 25'-0" 25'-0" 25'-0" YES
SETBACKS:

FRONT YARD 20'-0" 9'-9" 9'-9" NO
REAR YARD 16'-0" 16'-0" 4'-0" ADU YES
SIDEYARDS EACH SIDE 7'-6" 7'-6" 4'-0" ADU YES
(COMBINED / MIN.) YES
LOT COVERAGE (BSC) 39.50% 35.13% 47.78% NO
LANDSCAPE OPEN SPACE 20.83% 22.26% 12.65% NO

FLOOR AREA RATIO N/A N/A N/A N/A
PARKING 2 2 2 YES
IRRIGATED LANDSCAPE AREA N/A 1840 0 N/A

PROJECT DATA

DESCRIPTION EXISTING PROPOSED TOTAL REMODEL
LIVING AREA:

LEVEL ONE 1,788 42 1,830 500
LEVEL TWO 412 234 646 339
STORAGE - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0
TOTAL 2,200 276 2,476 839
GARAGE 606 - 0 606 - 0
ELEVATED DECK / TERRACE 1,169 (331) 838 633
MECHANICAL - 0 292.0 292 - 0
ADU 0 944 944 0

SITE WORK

GRADING (CUBIC YARDS) OUTSIDE BUILDING

FOOTPRINT

INSIDE BUILDING

FOOTPRINT

POOL /SPA TOTAL
CUT (YR^3) 0 0 0 0
FILL (YR^3) 0 0 0 0
NET EXPORT (YR^3) 0 0 0 0
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE LOT AREA % OF LOT AREA

EXISTING PROPOSED EXISTING PROPOSED
STRUCTURE + GARAGE - 0 - 0 0.00% 0.00%
HARDSCAPE (INC DRIVEWAY) - 0 - 0 0.00% 0.00%
TOTAL - 0 - 0 0.00% 0.00%

POOL / SPA DETAILS

DIMENSIONS (L X W X D) VOLUME / GALLONS

POOL N/A N/A N/A

SPA N/A N/A N/A
TOTAL

EXTERIOR BUILDING LIGHTING
EXISTING EGRESS DOORS 8 PROPOSED EGRESS
DOORS
3 EXISTING FIXTURE COUNT 8 PROPOSED FIXTURE
COUNT
3 FIXTURE TYPE WATTAGE LUMENS QUANTITY COMMENTS
EXTERIOR WALL MOUNTED SCONCE 6 260 11

WAC LIGHTING -

SEE SPEC
TOTAL 11
LANDSCAPE LIGHTING - SEE SHEET L-4.0 FOR ADDITIONAL DETAILS

EXISTING FIXTURE COUNT PROPOSED FIXTURE
COUNT

FIXTURE TYPE WATTAGE LUMENS QUANTITY COMMENTS
A - PATH LIGHT 125 12
B - DOWN LIGHT 300 3
C - BULLET LIGHT 150 12
D - HANGING LIGHT 125 10
TOTAL 37
COMBINED TOTAL 48
A-0.2 SITE CONTEXT - AERIAL DRONE

FLOOR PLAN - LOWER LEVEL AREA CALCULATION
A-2.2.2 FLOOR PLAN - LOWER LEVEL DEMO PLAN
A-2.3 FLOOR PLAN - UPPER LEVEL
A-2.3.1 FLOOR PLAN - UPPER LEVEL AREA CALCULATION
A-2.3.2 FLOOR PLAN - UPPER LEVEL DEMO PLAN
A-2.4 ROOF PLAN

ENTITLEMENT
LIAISON:

KAWARATANI CONSULTING

STEVE KAWARATANI
949.290.0210
[email protected]
DESIGN REVIEW SET_V3.0
CHRIS A. LETOURNEAU
Principal Architect / General Contractor
Lic. # C-30692 / Lic # 928306
250 Newport Center Drive, Suite 305
Newport Beach, CA. 92660
Tel: 949.673.3834

THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS INFORMATION PROPRIETARY TO LETOURNEAU

ARCHITECTURE AND IS FURNISHED IN CONFIDENCE FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF EVALUATION, BIDDING OR REVIEW. THIS DOCUMENT OR ITS CONTENTS MAY NOT

BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR

DISCLOSED TO OTHERS WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF LETOURNEAU ARCHITECTURE ISSUE:

02.05.2526
DELTA REVISION: MUELLER HOUSE 399 PEARL STEET, LAGUNA BEACH, CA SCALE :
1 2
3 - 4 -

ZONING PLAN CHECK CORRECTIONS -

12.06.2024
137
137 of 355
A-0.1

ARCHITECTURAL

RENDERINGS
1/4" = 1'-0"

RAISED PERSPECTIVE LOOKING

SOUTH AT CORNER OF PEARL

AND CATALINA

RAISED PERSPECTIVE

AT PEARL STREET
DESIGN REVIEW SET_V3.0
CHRIS A. LETOURNEAU
Principal Architect / General Contractor
Lic. # C-30692 / Lic # 928306
250 Newport Center Drive, Suite 305
Newport Beach, CA. 92660
Tel: 949.673.3834

THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS INFORMATION PROPRIETARY TO LETOURNEAU

ARCHITECTURE AND IS FURNISHED IN CONFIDENCE FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF EVALUATION, BIDDING OR REVIEW. THIS DOCUMENT OR ITS CONTENTS MAY NOT

BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR

DISCLOSED TO OTHERS WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF LETOURNEAU ARCHITECTURE ISSUE:

02.05.2526
DELTA REVISION: MUELLER HOUSE 399 PEARL STEET, LAGUNA BEACH, CA SCALE :
1 2 3
-
4 -

ZONING PLAN CHECK CORRECTIONS -

12.06.2024
138
138 of 355
A-0.1

ARCHITECTURAL

RENDERINGS
1/4" = 1'-0"
DESIGN REVIEW SET_V3.0
CHRIS A. LETOURNEAU
Principal Architect / General Contractor
Lic. # C-30692 / Lic # 928306
250 Newport Center Drive, Suite 305
Newport Beach, CA. 92660
Tel: 949.673.3834

THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS INFORMATION PROPRIETARY TO LETOURNEAU

ARCHITECTURE AND IS FURNISHED IN CONFIDENCE FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF EVALUATION, BIDDING OR REVIEW. THIS DOCUMENT OR ITS CONTENTS MAY NOT

BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR

DISCLOSED TO OTHERS WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF LETOURNEAU ARCHITECTURE ISSUE:

02.05.2526
DELTA REVISION: MUELLER HOUSE 399 PEARL STEET, LAGUNA BEACH, CA SCALE :
1 2
3 - 4 -

ZONING PLAN CHECK CORRECTIONS -

12.06.2024
139
139 of 355
A-0.2

SITE CONTEXT
NTS
DESIGN REVIEW SET_V3.0
CHRIS A. LETOURNEAU
Principal Architect / General Contractor
Lic. # C-30692 / Lic # 928306
250 Newport Center Drive, Suite 305
Newport Beach, CA. 92660
Tel: 949.673.3834

THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS INFORMATION PROPRIETARY TO LETOURNEAU

ARCHITECTURE AND IS FURNISHED IN CONFIDENCE FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF EVALUATION, BIDDING OR REVIEW. THIS DOCUMENT OR ITS CONTENTS MAY NOT

BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR

DISCLOSED TO OTHERS WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF LETOURNEAU ARCHITECTURE ISSUE:

02.05.2526
DELTA REVISION: MUELLER HOUSE 399 PEARL STEET, LAGUNA BEACH, CA SCALE :
1 2
3 - 4 -

ZONING PLAN CHECK CORRECTIONS -

12.06.2024
140
140 of 355
BENCHMARK NOTE:

OCSBM K-783-R61
ELEV=52.316
NAVD88 DATUM, 1988 ADJ.

EASEMENT NOTE:

ALL EASEMENTS SHOWN ON THIS TOPOGRAPHIC AND BOUNDARY

SURVEY ARE PER A PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORT PREPARED BY CHICAGO TITLE, ORDER NO. 5860240455-CB DATED JULY 17, 2024 UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.
8 ITEM 8 OF THE PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORT, AN EASEMENT FOR

STREET AND HIGHWAY PURPOSES IN CATALINA STREET ALONG THE FULL RANGE OF LOT 2, BLOCK 25, ARCH BEACH PLAT 1, RECORDED IN BOOK 10004, PAGE 408, O.R. JOB NO. SHEET 1 3 9 A v e n i d a N a v a r r o S a n C l e m e n t e , C A 9 2 6 7 2
9 4 9 . 4 9 2 . 8 5 8 6
w w w . t o a l e n g i n e e r i n g . c o m

C I V I L E N G I N E E R I N G

L A N D S U R V E Y I N G

S T O R M W A T E R Q U A L I T Y
OF
PREPARED FOR: APVD. DATE R E V I S I O N S BY DATE
APPD.:

DATE:

DWG. NO.

H. SCALE:

SURVEY DATE: V. SCALE:

CHD.:

DRN.:

JASON MUELLER STAT E OF CA L I FORN I AL ICENSED LAND SURVEYO VIKTOR P.

RMEUM
No. 8682
VIKTOR P. MEUM
P.L.S. 8682
DATE:
1/8"=1'
5-28-24 -
6-7-24

MSF- VM
23095 1 1
TP-01PARCEL 1, PMB 42/44, APN 644-267-16 399 PEARL STREET, LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA TOPOGRAPHIC AND BOUNDARY SURVEY SCALE: 1/8"=1'
141
141 of 355
N

EXISTING SINGLE FAMILIY HOUSE
(E) DECK

O/ TWO CAR GARAGE
(E) DECK
(E) NON-CONFORMING
(E) DRIVEWAY
2ND STORY ADDITION / RENOVATION
NEW PROPOSED ADU - (2) STORY - 1000 SQ FT
(E) PATIO

LOWER PATIO

PLANTER
(E) SHED ROOF

TO REMAIN

NEW SHED ROOF

NEW SHED ROOF
(E) SHED ROOF TO REMAIN

EDGE OF ROOF EAVE (ADU)

NEW ADU FOOTPRINT - (DASHED)
NEW 6'-0" TALL BLOCK WALL LOCATED AT
CENTER LINE OF PROPERTY - MAX 6'-0" TALL

ABOVE NATURAL GRADE -
COORDINATION/REMOVAL ADJACENT NEIGHBOR’S NON CONFORMING COVERED PATIO IN CLIEN’TS SIDE YARD SETBACK TO BE REMOVEDCONSISTING OF EXISTING 6’-0” BLOCK WALL / LIGHT WOOD FRAMED SHED ROOF. CURRENT NEIGHBOR’S STRUCTURE IS ENCROACHING 18"

ON TO SUBJECT PROPERTY - COORDINATION OF REMOVAL IS IN

DISCUSION WITH ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER - LETTER OF CONSENT

TO BE PUBLISHED
NEW PLANTER SEAT WALL - MAX 30" ABV

NATURAL GRADE -

NEW RETAINING WALL AT PROPERTY LINE -
MAX 30" ABV NATURAL GRADE -

EXISTNG WOOD FENCE TO REMAIN - PROTECT IN PLACE

EXISTING STAIR / FLATWORK

PROTECT IN PLACE

EXISTING FRONT YARD PLANTING AREA
(PROTECT IN PLACE)

ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN / ROOF PLAN
80'-1"
LOT DEPTH:

LOT WIDTH:
7'-6"
4'-0"
20'-0"
10'-4" 9'-8"
4'-0"
7'-6"
74'-11"
4'-0"
80'-1"
4'-0"
16'-0"
74'-11"
4'-0"
7'-6" 7'-6"
4'-0"
80'-1"
25'-0"
10'-9" 14'-2" F.Y.S.B.

S.Y.S.B.

A.D.U
S.Y.S.B.

A.D.U
S.Y.S.B.
16'-0"
120.00' E.P. C. STREET - DATUM POINT
A-1.1

ARCHITECTURAL

SITE PLAN
1/8" =1'-0"
142.02' T/ROOF

TOP OF EAVE
143.21' T/ROOF
-
143.50 T. ROOF TOP OF EAVE
145.00 T. ROOF TOP OF EAVE
143.60' T.ROOF
-
143.60' T.ROOF
-
145.70' (E) T.ROOF EXISTING
141.66' T/ROOF EXISTING
141.66' T/ROOF EXISTING
145.70' (E) T.ROOF EXISTING
143.54' T/ROOF
-
143.79' T/ROOF
T/CURB
145.00 T. ROOF TOP OF EAVE
145.00 T. ROOF TOP OF EAVE
137.78' T/ROOF
-
138.33' T/WALL
-
134.43' FS/DECK
-
134.43' FS/DECK
-
134.76' T/ROOF
-
NEW 2ND FLOOR DECK ADDITION
SLP
1:12
SLP
1:12
EDGE OF ROOF EAVE AT 2ND FLOOR

NEW CHIMNEY
139.00' T/CHIMENY
-
50'-0"
20'-0"
F.Y.S.B
74'-11"
R.Y.S.B.

R.Y.S.B.

ADU
S.Y.S.B. (ADU)
S.Y.S.B.

R.O.W.
2'-0"
116.30' EP

AT GARAGE DOOR
116.75' EP
AT PL
20'-7"
AVERAGE GRADE: 2%

LOCATION OF PROPOSED AC UNITS -
AC
AC

EXISTING GROUND COVER AT RIGHT OF

WAY TO REMAIN - EDGE OF TRELLIS (ADU)
115.7 125.5 120.6
112.2 121.3 116.75

3.85 80.08 4.80%

AVEARGE SLOPE CALCULATION
24'-3"
8'-6"
142.02' T/ROOF
-
143.79' T/ROOF
T/CURB

ADU SETBACK FROM PL
N 44°45'58" E 74.94'
PARCEL 1
TR6
Existing residence
Existing residence
TR8
Water meter
Water valve
Sewer manhole
TR7
Downspout
18"
Water meter
Downspout
Downspout
Gas meter 3" drain inlet TG=124.14
Downspout
Wood stairs
TR9
Water meter
Power pole
8"
8"
60" Yucca
48" Yucca
Downspout
TR10
Wood stairs
AC unit
Downspout
Downspout
Gas meter Water meter
TR3
28"
Downspout
Electric box
Power pole
Covered patio
125
120
115
125
10"
8"
12"
Wood wall/planter assembly
115
120
125.24 Deck
125.09 Deck
125.02 Deck
134.22 Deck
125.11 Deck 123.86 Deck
123.90 Deck124.91 Deck
124.92 Deck
116.50 F.F.
116.42 G.F.F.
145.41 Roof ridge
147.08 Roof ridge 146.36 Roof ridge
136.78 Roof ridge
138.15 Roof ridge
136.24 Roof ridge
125.36 Threshold
125.31 Threshold
125.35 Threshold
125.30 Threshold
125.25 Threshold
121.89 T.W.
120.86 T.W. 119.66 T.W.
121.85 T.W.
124.64 T.W. 124.61 T.W.
123.41 T.W.
124.54 T.W.
123.48 T.W.
124.52 T.W.
117.18 T.W.
121.27 T.W.
121.24 T.W.
122.69 T.W.
117.11 T.W.
116.42 T.W.
114.49 T.W. 115.53 T.W.
113.45 T.W.
115.54 T.W.
121.32 T.W.
122.70 T.W.
123.91 T.W.
127.05 T.W.
127.05 T.W.
114.04 T.W.
116.02 T.W.
116.03 T.W.
116.02 T.W.
123.7
124.2
124.1
123.8
121.9
120.9
122.2
120.9
119.3
119.7
119.4
120.7
120.7
122.9
123.1
122.8
122.0
122.1
120.9
120.9
120.9
115.8
115.5
115.7
115.4
115.3
115.3
121.7
121.6
115.4
124.8
121.6
123.2
115.4
113.2
121.8
121.7
121.9
124.6
124.5
124.4
124.7
124.8
125.6
124.6
123.7
123.8
121.3
122.3
120.5
114.2
121.0
121.2
121.2
123.0
123.8
123.9
123.8
115.4
115.3
119.7
119.8
115.3
115.4
115.4
121.7 124.3
124.5
124.6
124.3
124.6
124.9
124.5
123.8
123.5
125.3
125.7 125.8
124.1 123.9
124.2
124.1
123.3
122.3
121.3
121.8
121.9
121.8
121.8
122.0
122.4
122.8
115.7
120.9
121.4
120.8
121.2
121.7
126.97
120.35
122.96
125.43
127.07
127.23
128.15
126.92
125.35
122.72
120.90
120.28
124.16
124.64
112.89
114.66
117.87
116.27
116.63
116.24
120.03
120.11
116.45
120.75
121.62
122.45
124.03
124.47
125.44
126.04
125.66
124.87
124.82
122.90
124.60
120.77
120.36
120.29
126.04
125.54
128.88
128.52
128.55
117.92
119.64
121.16
123.64
115.04
112.40
119.23
119.17
119.40
119.44
118.25
119.12
119.81
119.86
115.49
114.68
114.11
128.82
128.25
127.71
126.39
123.85
122.18
120.90
120.99
123.98
123.95
123.70 123.94
123.95
124.09
124.59
124.65
124.70
124.75
124.75
124.35
124.02
124.43
124.43
124.79
124.77
124.71
124.62
125.20
122.68
120.51
120.55
122.74
123.29
123.32
123.75
123.45
123.41
123.72
123.71
123.35
120.75
117.25
117.92
117.13
116.40
116.02
115.76
115.57
115.10
115.19
115.55
116.86
118.18
117.64
117.42
120.85
123.29
112.70
112.74
112.78
112.63
112.29
120.39
120.79
120.96
120.76
120.21
120.09
120.14
112.42
112.23
112.28
112.30
116.12
116.21
116.31
116.64
116.47
120.26
120.66
121.58
122.40
124.06
125.61
126.03
125.87
124.66
124.64
124.65
125.12
120.74
120.25
114.17
114.74
114.29
120.84
121.71
122.55
124.19
125.69
126.13
125.94
124.94
111.5
112.4
114.6
117.0
118.8
115.6
112.1
112.0
117.0
112.23
120.1
118.6
118.5
118.1
116.5
116.4
113.8
114.0
118.5
119.3
115.6
114.8
114.4
115.3
114.9
115.6
115.6
115.8
116.1
120.0
120.3
119.8
119.1
119.4
114.7
113.2
113.1
113.7
120.50 Top of landing
PMB 42/44
PARCEL 2
POR. LOT 3
BLOCK 25
ARCH BEACH PLAT 1

CATALINA STREET

PEARL STREET
N 45°09'03" W 80.05'
N 45°10'33" W 80.05'
N 44°45'58" E 74.91'
Existing residence
Existing residence
112.20' NG

PL CORNER
121.30' NG

PL CORNER
125.50' NG

PL CORNER

CORNER PL
115.70' NG

EDGE OF PAVING
CL ROW
PL
CL ROW
14'-10"

EDGE OF PAVING
20'-0"
SLP
SLP
SLP

MID PT AVG
120.60' NG
116.75' NG MID PT AVG

MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS
ALUMINUM DOORS / WINDOWS PER SCHEDULE" - KYNAR 500 PAINTED FINISH - COLOR: CHARCOLE GREY - MANUFACTURER: TO BE DETERMINED / TYPICAL INSULATED WINDOW WALL SYSTEMSINSULATED GLASS - DUAL " - LOW E - TEMPERED - CLEAR - SOLAR BAN 60 BY P.P.G. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE - SEE SCH-1 GLS-1
FULL HEIGHT GLASS ENCLOSURE - FRAMELESS - 1/2" THK - CLEAR - TEMPERED - RECESS GLAZING CHANNEL / SHOWER GLASS HARDWARE BY "C.R. LAURENCE CO., INC." WHEN APPLICABLE - SEE SCH-1 INTERIOR DRYWALL THROUGHOUT - 5/8" THK REGULAR WEIGHT - TAPE / SEAL - "SMOOTH ASTM TYP 5 FINISH" - SKIM COAT ENTIRE WALL - PAINT COLOR PER INTERIOR - BACK ROLL W/ FOAM ROLLER - SHADOW REVEAL AT BASE - "J" REVEAL MOLD BY "FRY REGLET" - MODEL -DRMZ-625-75 - 3/4" FINISH

REVEAL - PAINT TO MATCH DRYWALL - PROVIDE SHARP SQUARE CORNER DRYWALL BEAD - GYP-1
EXPOSED CIP CONCRETE - RUSTIC BOARD FORM FINISH - 6" WIDE PLANKS - SANDBLAST FORM BOARDS - FINISH - HORIZONTAL - ALIGN ALL FORMWORK - ALLOW OOZE JOINT - SEE ARCH DETAIL (3,4 D-1) CONC-1

CIP CONCRETE PAVERS / FLATWORK / - LIGHT ETCHED FINISH - SAW CUT FLATWORK TO ALIGN WITH CONTEXT - SEE "ARCH" CONC-2

ALUMINUM SHEET METAL - BOX GUTTERS/ DOWNSPOUTS / ROOF CAPS / VENEER WALL WRAP - ALUMINUM - 12 GAUGE- KYNAR 500 - COLOR: CHARCOLE GREY - "SAMPLE" - MTL-2 TILE-1
ENGINEERED HARDWOOD FLOORING BY "BOEN" - CHALETINO - OAK TRADITIONAL SMOOTH - MODEL:

BOEEICY4MFD - SIZE: 3/4" X 11-3/4" X 108" - "SAMPLE TO ARCH" WD-1
CEDAR SHINGLE SIDING - LONG NATURAL KILN DRIED - EASTERN WHITE CEDAR - FINISH: ARBORCOAT STAIN - SEMI TRANSPARENT BY "BENJAMIN MOORE" - FLAT (N638) - PROVIDE ONE HOUR RATED WALL ASSEMBLY W/ (1) LAYER OF 5/8" DENSGLASS AS NEEDED -
WD-2
WD-3
WD-4
STUC-1
GYP-X FIRE RATED GYPSIUM BOARD - 5/8" THK - ONE HOUR RATED - SMOOTH FINISH - PAINT COLOR PER "ARCH" TILE-2 TILE BACKSPLASH - TYP FULL HEIGHT -
MTL-1
ASPH-1
GRAVEL ROOF -" CRUSHED GRAVEL - 4 PLY GAFGLAS, BUILT UP ROOF BY "GAF", CLASS B FIRE RATED, UL LISTED, ICC ESR -1274. COMPRISED OF (1) GAFGLAS # 75 BASE SHEET AND (3) GAFGLAS PLY 4 SHEETS WITH HOT ASPHALT BETWEEN EACH LAYER WITH AND 4/5 GRAVEL BALLAST 0/ CONT. BITUTHENE W.P.

MEMBRANE BY "GRACE" - ESR - 3063 - COLOR:GREY
GLS-4
LARGE FORMAT PORCELAIN TILE FLOORING -1/2" THK - 24" X 48" - RUNNING BOND - CHARCOLE GREY - ZERO GROUT LINE - HONED FINISH - SEAL - O/ MUDSET - MATERIAL ALLOWANCE: $10 SQ/FT - SEE ARCH

FOR SAMPLE
CABINETRY / MILLWORK- WHITE OAK VENEER LEAFS - RIFT - BOOK MATCH - FINISH : OIL PLUS 2C BY "RUBIO MONOCOAT" - COLOR: SMOKE - RECESS FINGER FULL DETAIL - 1" TALL - C-PROFILE BY "HAFELE" - ALUM - BLACK RAL 905 - # 126.36.300 - SEE INTERIOR ELEVATIONSWD-5 PLAS-1 INTERIOR VENETIAN PLASTER ACCENTS / FIREPLACE RECESS: FRENCH GREY - "SAMPLE TO ARCH" WD-6
EXTERIOR / INTERIOR WOOD EAVES / EXPOSED CEILINGS - DOUG FIR- "CLEAR"-"VG"- 1X6 -TONGUE & GROOVE - FINISH: ARBORCOAT STAIN - SEMI TRANSPARENT BY "BENJAMIN MOORE" - FLAT (N638) - BACK PRIME- SUBMIT SAMPLE TO "ARCH" - SEE ARCHITECTURAL DETAIL - PROVIDE ONE HOUR RATED ROOF ASSEMBLY W/ (1) LAYER OF 5/8" DENSGLASS AS NEEDED -
INTEGRALLY COLORED SMOOTH TROWEL STUCCO - "SAMPLE TO ARCH" - OVER EXTERIOR LATH O/ (2)

LAYERS OF GRADE D BUILDING PAPER O/ PLYWOOD SHEATHING PER STRUCTURAL - WHITE STAIN GRADE INTERIOR SLAB DOORS / CUSTOM MILL JAMBS -8/4 STOCK-- RIFT WHITE OAK - FINISH : OIL PLUS 2C BY "RUBIO MONOCOAT" - COLOR: SMOKE - SEE INTERIOR JAMB DETAILS EXTERIOR HARDWOOD DECKING - BORNEO TEAK - 4/4 STOCK - CONCEALED FASTENER - HARDI-1 VERTICAL BOARD AND BATTEN SIDING BY JAMES HARDIE - SMOOTH - PAINT GRADE FINISH - COLOR:

CHARCOLE GREY - "SAMPLE" -

EXPOSED STRUCTURAL WOOD BEAMS - DOUG-FIR - SELECT STRUCTURAL - HAND PICK FOR APPEARANCE - SRS - FINISH: ARBORCOAT STAIN - SEMI TRANSPARENT BY "BENJAMIN MOORE" - FLAT (N638) WD-7
ASPH-2 COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOFING BY "GAF" - TIMBERLINE HDZ - COLOR: CHARCOAL - "SAMPLE" HARDI-2 VERTICAL BOARD AND BATTEN SIDING BY JAMES HARDIE - SMOOTH - PAINT GRADE FINISH - COLOR:

CHARCOLE GREY - "SAMPLE" -
U.N.O., EXTERIOR WALLS TO BE 2 X 6 WOOD STUDS - POCKET DOOR WALLS TO BE 2 X 6 WOOD STUDS ALL INTERIOR WALLS TO BE 2 X 4 WOOD STUDS - UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE - SEE DIMENSIONS ALL EXTERIOR WALLS TO HAVE R-19 BATT INSULATION, R-11 AT INTERIOR WALLS, SEE TITLE 24

1. 2.

AT THE GARAGES, MECHANICAL, STORAGE, ATTICS AND UNDER STAIRS SHALL USE 5/8" TYPE 'X' GYPSUM BOARD - GARAGE ACCES DOORS SHALL BE 1 3/8" SOLID CORE (FOR NON-SPRINKLERED DWELLINGS) AND SELF-CLOSING AND SELFLATCHING IN SPRINKLERED AND NON-SPRINKLERED DWELLINGS PER R302.5.1

SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS FOR ARCHITECT APPROVAL AT HVAC LAYOUTS, FIRE SPRINKLERS AND CABINETRY - FIRE SPRINKLER HEADS SHALL BE COLOR MATCHED, CONCEALED, FLUSH MOUNT 2 3/4" DIAMETER BY MIRAGE OR EQUAL.

WHOLE BUILIDNG VENTILATION - SEE COVER SHEET FOR CALCULATIONS - PROVIDE ONE SOME OR LESS -

SEPARATE FAN LOCATED IN HALLWAY - LABELED SWITCH FOR MAINTENANCE ONLY - PERMANENTLY MARK: DISCONNENT FOR WHOLE HOUSE FAN - DO NOT TURN OFF EXCEPT FOR MAINTENANCE EMERGENCY EGRESS WINDOW TO BE NO LESS THAN 5.7 FT^2 (NET CLEAR OPENING) MIN 24" IN HEIGHT - 20" IN WIDTH - MAX SILL HEIGHT OF 44" ABOVE FINISH FLOOR - SEE DOOR AND WINDOW SCHEDULE STAIRS, STEPS AND LANDINGS SHALL BE A MAXIMUM RISE OF 7.75 INCHES AND MINIMUM RUN (TREAD) OF 10 INCHES. PER R311.7.4 - PROVIDE A NOSING BETWEEN 0.75" AND 1.25" ON STAIRWAYS WITH SOLID RISERS WHERE TREAD DEPTH IS LESS THAN 11" PER R311.7.4.3 - . MINIMUM WIDTH OF 36 INCHES PER R311.7.1 - MINIMUM HEADROOM OF 6 FT. 8 INCHES PER R311.7.2 HANDRAILS SHALL PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF ONE CONTINUOUS HANDRAIL ON STAIRWAYS WITH 4 OR MORE RISERS AND AT ALL OPEN SIDES PER R311.7.7 - HANDRAIL HEIGHT SHALL BE 34 TO 38 INCHES ABOVE THE NOSING OF TREADS PER R311.7.7.1 - HANDRAIL WITH CIRCULAR CROSS-SECTIONS SHALL HAVE A DIAMETER OF 1.25 TO 2 INCHES PER R311.7.7.3 - HANDRAIL SHALL BE CONTINUOUS WITHOUT

INTERRUPTION BY NEWEL POST OR OTHER OBSTRUCTION, EXCEPT AT THE LANDING, VOLUTE, OR TURNOUT ON LOWEST TREAD PER R311.7.7.2, - CLEAR SPACE BETWEEN HANDRAIL AND WALL SHALL BE

1.5 INCHES MINIMUM PER R311.7.7.2
GUARDRAILS SHALL BE INSTALLED WHEN AN OPEN SIDE IS MORE THAN 30 INCHES MEASURED VERTICALLY TO THE FLOOR OR GRADE BELOW AT ANY POINT WITHIN 36 INCHES HORIZONTALLY TO THE EDGE OF THE OPEN SIDE PER R312.1 - GUARD HEIGHT SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 42 INCHES PER R312.2 - OPENINGS BETWEEN INTERMEDIATE BALUSTERS SHALL PRECLUDE THE PASSAGE OF A 4 INCH DIAMETER SPHERE. PER R312.3 - THE TRIANGULAR OPENINGS FORMED BY THE RISER, TREAD AND BOTTOM RAIL SHALL PRECLUDE THE PASSAGE OF A 6 INCH DIAMETER SPHERE PER R312.3 - OPENINGS BETWEEN INTERMEDIATE BALUSTERS ON THE OPEN SIDE OF STAIRS SHALL PRECLUDE THE PASSAGE OF A 4-3/8 INCHES DIAMETER SPHERE. R312.3
PROVIDE TYPICAL WATER CLOSET CLEARANCE -MIN 30" CLEAR WIDTH ALONG PLUMBING WALL - MIN. 24" CLEARANCE IN FRONT PER FIXTURE PER CPC 407.6

WALL COVERING OF SHOWERS OR TUBS SHALL BE OF CEMENT PLASTER, TILE OR APPROVED EQUAL TO A HEIGHT OF NO LESS THAN 72" ABOVE DRAIN INLET. BACKING FOR TILE SHALL BE CEMENT BOARD OR CEMENT PLASTER. ( CRC R307.2, CBC 1210.3)
OPERABLE WINDOWS LOCATED GREATER THAN 72" ABOVE GRADE SHALL BE PLACED A MINIMUM OF 24" ABOVE FINISH FLOOR - ALL OPERABLE WINDOWS BELOW 24" SHALL BE MECHANICALLY LIMITED SO THAT A 4" SPHERE SHALL NOT PASS UNOBSTRUCTED - R612.2
PROPOSED LOACTION OF A/C UNIT(S): (2) CARRIER - PERFORMANCE SERIES WITH PURON # 38HDR-060 60 KBTUH 13 SEER - PROVIDE PROPER SERVICE AREA PER CEC & CMC - SEPARATE PERMIT / PLAN CHECK - PROVIDE COMPLIANCE WITH NBMC SECTION 10.26.045 FOR SOUND LEVEL - NOT TO EXCEED 50 DBA ( 55 DBA WITH TIMER, 65 DBA WITH TIMER AND NEIGHBOR'S CONCENT

ROOFER TO PRIME ALL FLASHINGS AND ROOF DRAINS TO ENSURE A PROPER BOND WITH ROOFING - ALL VALLEYS TO BE FLASHED WITH 16 OZ COPPER, 22" WIDE, MINIMUM HEAD LAP 6", SEAL WITH MASTIC - UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, SLOPE ALL FLAT ROOFS TO A MINIMUM OF 1/4" PER FOOT - PROVIDE ROOF DRAINS AND OVERFLOW. OVERFLOW TO BE PIPED SEPARATELY PER R903.4.1 TANKLESS WATER HEATER BY "NORITE" - NR98 (B-0751M) SERIES - PROVIDE " GAS - VENT TO ROOF - 4 IN

DIA CATEGORY III PIPE
EDISON COMPANY APPROVAL IS REQUIRED FOR METER LOCATION PRIOR TO INSTALLATION -0 ELECTRICAL SERVICE TO BE UNDERGROUND FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION OR ADDITIONS >50% PER NBMC

15.32.015.

ELECTRICAL PANEL - 200 AMP( VERIFY) - PROVIDE TYPICAL GROUNDING ROD - MIN 1/2" DIA X 8'-0" - COPPER CLAD - SIZE OF CONDUCTORS SHALL COMPLY WITH CEC TABLE 250.66 BOND SEPARATE CONDUCTORS FROM GROUND ROD TO ELECTRICAL PANEL AND TO METAL BUILDING FRAME (CEC 250.52). - BOND THE ELECTRICAL GROUND TO METAL UNDERGROUND WATER PIPE IN DIRECT CONTACT WITH THE EARTH FOR 10 FT. OR MORE, IF AVAILABLE (CEC 250.52). PROVIDE 3'-0" CLEARANCE FROM FACE OF PANEL GAS FURNACE BY "BRYANT" - MODEL # 311JAV048090 - 71 KBTU - .80 AFAU OR APPROVED EQUAL - SEE MANUFACTURER SPEC - PROVIDE 3/4" GAS INLET - VENT TO EXTERIOR AT ROOF ABOVE W/ MIN 4" DIA.

DUCT - MAX 30'-0" RUN W/ 2 ELBOWS AS NEEDED- SUPPLY COMBUSTION AIR TO UNITS VIA VENT AT SIDEYARD W/ MIN 380 SQ IN OF INDOOR AIR - SOUND TRANSMISSION CONTROL - SUBMIT SOUND ATTENUATION DESIGN FOR HVAC EQUIPMENT PER ARI STD 275. SOUND LEVEL NOT TO EXCEED 50 DBA (55 DBA WITH TIMER; 65 DBA WITH TIMER AND NEIGHBOR'S CONCENT) PER SECTION 10.26.045 OF THE NBMC. LOCATION OF MEASUREMENT TO BE AT ADJACENT PROPERTY PATIO OR OPENING. LOCATE

EQUIPMENT IN EQUIPMENT WEEL OR ROOF IF NECESSARY
CHIMNEY SHALL EXTEND AT LEAST 2 FT. HIGHER THAN ANY PORTION OF THE BUILDING WITHIN 10 FT., BUT SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 3 FT. ABOVE THE HIGHEST POINT WHERE THE CHIMNEY PASSES THROUGH THE ROOF. R1003.9

FACTORY-BUILT FIREPLACES, CHIMNEYS, AND ALL OTHER COMPONENTS SHALL BE LISTED AND LABELED

AND SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS OF THE LISTING - DECORATIVE

SHROUDS SHALL NOT BE INSTALLED AT THE TERMINATION OF FACTORY-BUILT CHIMNEYS EXCEPT

WHERE SUCH SHROUDS ARE LISTED AND LABELED FOR USE WITH THE SPECIFIC FACTORY-BUILT

CHIMNEY SYSTEM AND ARE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS PER R1005.2
EAVES / PROJECTIONS IN SPRINKLERED STRUCTURES LOCATED > 2 FT. AND < 3 FT. TO THE PROPERTY LINE SHALL BE OF AT LEAST 1-HOUR FIRE-RESISTANCE-RATED CONSTRUCTION OR HEAVY TIMBER. PER R302.1(1) AND TABLE R302.1(2) - PROVIDE GYPSIUM BOARD TYPE X DOMESTIC CLOTHES DRYER EXHAUST VENT SHALL BE MINIMUM 4"DIAMETER AND TOTAL 14 FEET COMBINATION HORIZONTAL ,VERTICAL INCLUDED 2-90°ELBOWS [CMC 504.3.2.2]

3. 4.

5. PLAN NOTES

6. 7.

8. 9.

10. 11.

12. 13.
14 .
15 16.

17. 18.

19. 20.

21. 22.

ALL EXTERIOR LATH AND PLASTER SHALL HAVE TWO LAYERS OF GRADE D PAPER OVER WOOD BASE SHEATING ( CRC R703.6.3, CBC 2510.6)

23. 24. SAFETY GLASS SHALL BE PROVIDED NOTES PROVIDED ON SHEET SCH-1 - KEYNOTE # 29

ALL DOORS FROM THE HOUSE INTO THE POOL AREA SHALL BE EQUIPPED WITH AN APPROVED ALARM OR AN APPROVED ALTERNATE DROWNING PREVENTION SAFETY FEATURE. (CBC 3109.4.4.2) 25.

RIGID INSULATION AT ROOF PACKAGE - BY "OWENSCORNING" - MIN R-19 - SEE T-24 SPECS - Meets ASTM C578 - Fire rated wall and roof assemblies including ASTM E119, E108, NFPA 285, UL 1256 and FM Class I 26.

PROVIDE CONTINUOUS WATERPROOF MEMBRANE BY "CARLISLE" - CCW 5013 - PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC DECK SYSTEM OR " APPROVED EQUAL" - ASTM C957-93 - UL 790 - CLASS A FIRE RATED 27.

WATER HEATER BURNER TO BE LOCATED MIN 18" ABOVE GARAGE FLOOR AND 15" FROM CENTER TO ANY SIDE WALL OR OBSTRUCTION PER CPC 407.50 - INSTALL A 3" DIA BY 3'-0" TALL STEEL PIPE EMBEDDED IN CONCRETE SLAB FOR PROTECTION OF WATER HEATERS LOCATED IN GARAGE PER CPC 508.14 28 FASTENERS AND CONNECTORS (NAILS, ANCHOR BOLTS, ETC…) IN CONTACT WITH PRESERVATIVETREATED WOOD SHALL BE OF HOT-DIPPED ZINC-COATED GALVANIZED STEEL, STAINLESS STEEL, SILICON BRONZE OR COPPER. (CRC R317.3, CBC 2304.9.5.1)

29. ANCHOR BOLTS SHALL INCLUDE STEEL PLATE WASHERS, A MINIMUM OF 0.229" X 3" X 3" IN SIZE, BETWEEN SILL PLATE AND NUT. (CRC R602.11.1, CBC 2308.12.8, ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATE SDPWS 4.3.6.4.3).

30. DESIGN REVIEW SET_V3.0
CHRIS A. LETOURNEAU
Principal Architect / General Contractor
Lic. # C-30692 / Lic # 928306
250 Newport Center Drive, Suite 305
Newport Beach, CA. 92660
Tel: 949.673.3834

THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS INFORMATION PROPRIETARY TO LETOURNEAU

ARCHITECTURE AND IS FURNISHED IN CONFIDENCE FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF EVALUATION, BIDDING OR REVIEW. THIS DOCUMENT OR ITS CONTENTS MAY NOT

BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR

DISCLOSED TO OTHERS WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF LETOURNEAU ARCHITECTURE ISSUE:

02.05.2526
DELTA REVISION: MUELLER HOUSE 399 PEARL STEET, LAGUNA BEACH, CA SCALE :
1 2
3 - 4 -

ZONING PLAN CHECK CORRECTIONS -

12.06.2024
142
142 of 355
N 44°45'58" E 74.94'
PARCEL 1
TR6
Existing residence
Existing residence
TR8
Water meter Water valve
Sewer manhole
TR7
Downspout
18"
Water meter
Downspout
Downspout Gas meter 3" drain inlet TG=124.14 Downspout Wood stairs TR9
Water meter
Power pole
8"
8"
60" Yucca
48" Yucca
Downspout
TR10
Wood stairs
AC unit
Downspout
Downspout
Gas meter
Water meter
TR3
28"
Downspout
Electric box Power pole
Covered patio
125
120
115
125
10"
8"
12"
Wood wall/planter assembly 115
120
125.24 Deck
125.09 Deck
125.02 Deck
134.22 Deck
125.11 Deck 123.86 Deck
123.90 Deck
124.91 Deck
124.92 Deck
116.50 F.F. 116.42 G.F.F.
145.41 Roof ridge
147.08 Roof ridge
146.36 Roof ridge 136.78 Roof ridge
138.15 Roof ridge
136.24 Roof ridge 125.36 Threshold 125.31 Threshold
125.35 Threshold
125.30 Threshold
125.25 Threshold
121.89 T.W.
120.86 T.W.
119.66 T.W.
121.85 T.W. 124.64 T.W. 124.61 T.W.
123.41 T.W.
124.54 T.W.
123.48 T.W.
124.52 T.W.
117.18 T.W.
121.27 T.W. 121.24 T.W.
122.69 T.W.
117.11 T.W.
116.42 T.W.
114.49 T.W. 115.53 T.W. 113.45 T.W.
115.54 T.W.
121.32 T.W.
122.70 T.W.
123.91 T.W.
127.05 T.W.
127.05 T.W.
114.04 T.W. 116.02 T.W.
116.03 T.W.
116.02 T.W.
123.7
124.2
124.1 123.8 121.9
120.9
122.2 120.9
119.3
119.7
119.4 120.7 120.7
122.9
123.1
122.8
122.0 122.1
120.9
120.9 120.9
115.8
115.5
115.7
115.4
115.3
115.3
121.7
121.6
115.4
124.8
121.6
123.2
115.4
113.2
121.8
121.7 121.9
124.6 124.5
124.4
124.7 124.8
125.6
124.6
123.7
123.8
121.3 122.3
120.5
114.2
121.0
121.2
121.2
123.0 123.8
123.9 123.8
115.4 115.3
119.7 119.8
115.3
115.4
115.4
121.7 124.3 124.5
124.6
124.3
124.6 124.9
124.5
123.8
123.5 125.3 125.7 125.8
124.1 123.9
124.2
124.1
123.3
122.3
121.3
121.8
121.9
121.8
121.8
122.0
122.4
122.8
115.7
120.9
121.4
120.8
121.2 121.7
126.97
120.35
122.96
125.43
127.07
127.23
128.15
126.92 125.35 122.72 120.90 120.28
124.16
124.64
112.89
114.66
117.87
116.27
116.63 116.24
120.03
120.11
116.45
120.75 121.62 122.45 124.03 124.47 125.44 126.04
125.66
124.87
124.82
122.90
124.60
120.77
120.36
120.29
126.04
125.54
128.88
128.52
128.55
117.92
119.64
121.16
123.64
115.04
112.40
119.23 119.17
119.40 119.44
118.25
119.12
119.81
119.86
115.49
114.68
114.11
128.82
128.25
127.71 126.39
123.85 122.18
120.90
120.99
123.98
123.95
123.70 123.94
123.95 124.09 124.59 124.65 124.70 124.75
124.75
124.35
124.02
124.43
124.43
124.79
124.77
124.71 124.62
125.20
122.68 120.51
120.55 122.74 123.29 123.32
123.75
123.45
123.41 123.72
123.71 123.35
120.75
117.25
117.92
117.13 116.40
116.02
115.76 115.57 115.10 115.19 115.55
116.86
118.18 117.64 117.42
120.85
123.29
112.70 112.74 112.78 112.63 112.29
120.39 120.79
120.96 120.76
120.21
120.09 120.14
112.42 112.23 112.28
112.30
116.12 116.21 116.31
116.64 116.47
120.26 120.66 121.58 122.40 124.06 125.61 126.03
125.87
124.66 124.64
124.65 125.12
120.74 120.25
114.17
114.74
114.29
120.84 121.71 122.55 124.19 125.69 126.13
125.94
124.94
111.5 112.4 114.6
117.0
118.8
115.6 112.1
112.0
117.0
112.23
120.1 118.6
118.5
118.1
116.5
116.4
113.8 114.0
118.5 119.3
115.6 114.8
114.4 115.3 114.9 115.6
115.6 115.8
116.1
120.0
120.3 119.8
119.1
119.4
114.7 113.2 113.1
113.7
120.50 Top of landing
PMB 42/44
PARCEL 2
POR. LOT 3
BLOCK 25
ARCH BEACH PLAT 1

CATALINA STREET

PEARL STREET
N 45°09'03" W 80.05'
N 45°10'33" W 80.05'
N 44°45'58" E 74.91'
N

PRIMARY RESIDENCE FOOTPRINT

NEW ADU

ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN / ROOF PLAN
A-1.1.2

BUILDING SITE

COVERAGE CALC
1/8" =1'-0"
1767 FT^2
602

GARAGE FOOTPRINT
340 FT^2

ADDITION
158
EXISTING RESIDENCE FOOTPRINT 1767 29.45%
ADDITION FOOTPRINT 158 2.63%
EXISTING GARAGE FOOTPRINT 340 5.66%
NEW ADU FOOTPRINT 602 10.03%
TOTAL BUILDING SITE COVERAGE (BCS) 2867 47.78%
LOT SIZE 6000
TOTAL BCS ALLOWABLE 2370 39.50%
DELTA 497 8.28%
DESIGN REVIEW SET_V3.0
CHRIS A. LETOURNEAU
Principal Architect / General Contractor
Lic. # C-30692 / Lic # 928306
250 Newport Center Drive, Suite 305
Newport Beach, CA. 92660
Tel: 949.673.3834

THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS INFORMATION PROPRIETARY TO LETOURNEAU

ARCHITECTURE AND IS FURNISHED IN CONFIDENCE FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF EVALUATION, BIDDING OR REVIEW. THIS DOCUMENT OR ITS CONTENTS MAY NOT

BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR

DISCLOSED TO OTHERS WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF LETOURNEAU ARCHITECTURE ISSUE:

02.05.2526
DELTA REVISION: MUELLER HOUSE 399 PEARL STEET, LAGUNA BEACH, CA SCALE :
1 2 3
-
4 -

ZONING PLAN CHECK CORRECTIONS -

12.06.2024
143
143 of 355
N
(E) DECK
2ND STORY ADDITION / RENOVATION
NEW PROPOSED ADU - (2) STORY - 1000 SQ FT
(E) PATIO
(E) SHED ROOF

TO REMAIN

NEW SHED ROOF

EDGE OF ROOF EAVE (ADU)

NEW ADU FOOTPRINT - (HATCH / POCHE)
A-1.2

STAKING
PLAN
1/8" =1'-0"

NEW CHIMNEY
142.02' T/ROOF
13 143.21' T/ROOF
15 142.02' T/ROOF
14 143.50' T. ROOF 12
145.00 T. ROOF 3
143.60' T.ROOF
2 143.60' T.ROOF
1 145.70' (E) T.ROOF EXISTING
141.66' T/ROOF EXISTING
141.66' T/ROOF EXISTING
145.70' (E) T.ROOF EXISTING
143.54' T/ROOF
- 145.00 T. ROOF 4
137.78' T/ROOF
(E) 134.43' FS/DECK
5 134.43' FS/DECK
6 134.76' T/ROOF
(E)
139.00' T/ CHIMNEY
7 139.00' T/ CHIMNEY
8 134.43' T/ DECK
9 134.43' T/ DECK
10 143.50' T/ROOF
11 STAKING TABLE
DATE:

SITE ADDRESS: 399 Pearl Street
DATUM BENCHMARK:

NAME OF SURVEYOR /

ENGINEER
POLE #

BASE GRADE

ELEVATION

STORY POLE HEIGHT

FORM BASE GRADE

ELEVATION'

PROPOSED MAXIMUM

ELEVATION
1 143.60'
2 143.60'
3 145.00'
4 145.00'
5 134.43'
6 134.43'
7 139.00'
8 139.00'
9 134.43'
10 134.43'
11 143.50'
12 143.50'
13 142.02'
14 142.02'
15 143.21'
41'-6" 7'-4" 8'-7" 1'-3" 13'-11" 2'-2"
3'-3" 2'-7" 9'-1" 21'-1" 2'-2" 8'-4" 7'-1"
51'-10"
2'-2" 13'-11" 2'-1" 15'-1" 1'-11"

EDGE OF ROOF EAVE (ADU)

NEW ADU FOOTPRINT - (DASHED)
2ND FLOOR ROOF - (PRIMARY

STRUCTURE)

CHIMNEY
2ND FLOOR DECK / BALCONY
(PRIMARY STRUCTURE)
2ND FLOOR ROOF (ADU)
3'-0"
1'-0" 16'-0" 1'-0" 3'-2"
42'-2" 2'-8" 5'-10"
2'-10"
3'-2"
2'-10" 3'-0"

PRIVACY

TRELLIS
14'-5"
1'-9" 1'-0" 11'-8"
4'-5"
PULL BACK 3'-0"
PULL BACK 3'-0"
REMAIN
REMAIN
1ST FLOOR PRIVACY TRELLIS

WITH LANDSCAPE
133.00' T/ TRELLIS
16 133.00' T/ TRELLIS
17 2'-2" 10'-6"
3'-2"

EDGE OF LOWER LEVEL PRIVACY

TRELLIS -

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 28 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).

Step 1 - Staking Plan Submittal: One of the requirements of the Zoning Plan Check process is the submittal of a “Staking Plan.” This staking plan must be shown as notes and diagrams directly on a copy of the required full-size roof plan. The notes and diagrams must depict both the horizontal relation of the story pole locations to property lot lines, as well as the elevation height of each pole. The staking plan must be developed so that after construction of the story poles there will be an accurate reflection of the proposed building envelope for all proposed structures and/or additions. The staking plan must identify at least two existing or established survey monuments that were used in the survey for the basis of the staking plan. In addition, the staking plan must identify, either in a table or by notations, 1) the pole identification number, 2) the story pole base grade elevation and 3) the story pole height. Story pole elevations must be tied to a datum benchmark location. The datum benchmark location shown on the staking plan must be the same as the datum benchmark location shown on the site plan and preferably on the initial topographic survey. All measurements must utilize this established datum benchmark that will not change over the course of the construction of the project. The staking plan must represent the most distant corners of proposed construction, the maximum roof ridges or parapet heights, chimneys, decks, deck railings, skylights and site walls exceeding five feet in height.

Step 2 - Story Pole Construction Story poles shall be erected at least 28 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), and shall remain in place until action on the project has taken place and the 14-day appeal period has expired. A licensed land surveyor or civil engineer must establish by survey the location of the proposed story poles on the site, as well as the height of each story pole. Staff recommends that the poles be made of 2” x 4” lumber with wire, twine or rope line strung between them to show the various structural elements. “Drooping” plastic poles will not be accepted as an accurate reflection of the building envelope. Small pieces of brightly colored cloth or tape should be tied around the lines to facilitate accurate viewing of the proposed structure. Roof eaves must also be shown as extensions from the main building story poles. The story poles must have, either by direct marking on the pole or by a tagging system, the pole identification number, base grade elevation and pole height. Note that the story poles must show, and the total height must include, all roofing materials. At roof sheathing inspection, a Building Height and Location Certification will be required which must be in conformance with the story pole locations and heights shown on the approved staking plan.

Step 3 - Story Pole Certification and Inspection: A licensed civil engineer or land survey must certify with signature and stamp placed directly on the full-size staking plan that the location and height of the constructed story poles is true and accurate at least 28 days prior to the design review authority’s first noticed public hearing date. Prior to the design review authority’s first noticed public hearing date, City staff may make an on-site inspection to verify the staking plan construction (number of poles and general staking plan compliance).

Step 4 - Removal of Story Poles: Story poles shall be removed within 20 days after the final project decision and the 14-day appeal period expires. A $1,050 deposit for the removal of staking poles is required at the time the project is scheduled for public hearing. Upon the timely removal of the story poles, the deposit shall be returned to the applicant. The applicant’s failure to remove the staking poles within 20 days shall result in the automatic forfeiture of the deposit, and the City will remove the poles from the site. Story poles associated with a development application, which has been inactive for three months, shall be removed until the application review returns to an “active” status.

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. _________________________________________________ Signature of Registered Land Surveyor or Civil Engineer _________________________________________________ Name (printed or typed) _________________________________________________ License No./Expiration Date _________________________________________________ Date Please stamp & sign below
380.25' T/ROOF
6 ARM

VERTICAL STAKE
4' 0"
RIBBON

HORIZONTAL ARM
ELEVATION / STAKE #

GENERAL STAKING NOTES

REQUIRED CERTIFICATION STATEMENT

SYMBOLS
Existing residence
Existing residence
N 44°45'58" E 74.94'
N 45°09'03" W 80.05'
N 45°10'33" W 80.05'
N 44°45'58" E 74.91'
PARCEL 1
PMB 42/44
PARCEL 2
POR. LOT 3
BLOCK 25
ARCH BEACH PLAT 1

CATALINA STREET

PEARL STREET
123.7
124.2
124.1
123.8
121.9
120.9
122.2
120.9
119.3
119.7
119.4
120.7
120.7
122.9
123.1
122.8
122.0
122.1
120.9
120.9
120.9
115.8
115.5
115.7
115.4
115.3
115.3
121.7
121.6
115.4
124.8
121.6
123.2
115.4
113.2
121.8
121.7
121.9
124.6
124.5
124.4
124.7
124.8
125.6
124.6
123.7
123.8
121.3
122.3
120.5
114.2
121.0
121.2
121.2
123.0
123.8
123.9
123.8
115.4
115.3
119.7
119.8
115.3
115.4
115.4
121.7 124.3
124.5
124.6
124.3
124.6
124.9
124.5
123.8
123.5
125.3
125.7 125.8
124.1 123.9
124.2
124.1
123.3
122.3
121.3
121.8
121.9
121.8
121.8
122.0
122.4
122.8
115.7
120.9
121.4
120.8
121.2
121.7
126.97
120.35
122.96
125.43
127.07
127.23
128.15
126.92
125.35
122.72
120.90
120.28
124.16
124.64
112.89
114.66
117.87
116.27
116.63
116.24
120.03
120.11
116.45
120.75
121.62
122.45
124.03
124.47
125.44
126.04
125.66
124.87
124.82
122.90
124.60
120.77
120.36
120.29
126.04
125.54
128.88
128.52
128.55
117.92
119.64
121.16
123.64
115.04
112.40
119.23
119.17
119.40
119.44
118.25
119.12
119.81
119.86
115.49
114.68
114.11
128.82
128.25
127.71
126.39
123.85
122.18
120.90
120.99
123.98
123.95
123.70 123.94
123.95
124.09
124.59
124.65
124.70
124.75
124.75
124.35
124.02
124.43
124.43
124.79
124.77
124.71
124.62
125.20
122.68
120.51
120.55
122.74
123.29
123.32
123.75
123.45
123.41
123.72
123.71
123.35
120.75
117.25
117.92
117.13
116.40
116.02
115.76
115.57
115.10
115.19
115.55
116.86
118.18
117.64
117.42
120.85
123.29
112.70
112.74
112.78
112.63
112.29
120.39
120.79
120.96
120.76
120.21
120.09
120.14
112.42
112.23
112.28
112.30
116.12
116.21
116.31
116.64
116.47
120.26
120.66
121.58
122.40
124.06
125.61
126.03
125.87
124.66
124.64
124.65
125.12
120.74
120.25
114.17
114.74
114.29
120.84
121.71
122.55
124.19
125.69
126.13
125.94
124.94
111.5
112.4
114.6
117.0
118.8
115.6
112.1
112.0
117.0
112.23
120.1
118.6
118.5
118.1
116.5
116.4
113.8
114.0
118.5
119.3
115.6
114.8
114.4
115.3
114.9
115.6
115.6
115.8
116.1
120.0
120.3
119.8
119.1
119.4
114.7
113.2
113.1
113.7
120.50 Top of landing
125.24 Deck
125.09 Deck
125.02 Deck
134.22 Deck
125.11 Deck 123.86 Deck
123.90 Deck124.91 Deck
124.92 Deck
116.50 F.F.
116.42 G.F.F.
145.41 Roof ridge
147.08 Roof ridge 146.36 Roof ridge
136.78 Roof ridge
138.15 Roof ridge
136.24 Roof ridge
125.36 Threshold
125.31 Threshold
125.35 Threshold
125.30 Threshold
125.25 Threshold
121.89 T.W.
120.86 T.W. 119.66 T.W.
121.85 T.W.
124.64 T.W. 124.61 T.W.
123.41 T.W.
124.54 T.W.
123.48 T.W.
124.52 T.W.
117.18 T.W.
121.27 T.W.
121.24 T.W.
122.69 T.W.
117.11 T.W.
116.42 T.W.
114.49 T.W. 115.53 T.W.
113.45 T.W.
115.54 T.W.
121.32 T.W.
122.70 T.W.
123.91 T.W.
127.05 T.W.
127.05 T.W.
114.04 T.W.
116.02 T.W.
116.03 T.W.
116.02 T.W.

TR6
TR8
Water meter
Water valve
Sewer manhole
TR7
Downspout
18"
Water meter
Downspout
Downspout
Gas meter 3" drain inlet TG=124.14
Downspout
Wood stairs
TR9
Water meter
Power pole
8"
8"
60" Yucca
48" Yucca
Downspout
TR10
Wood stairs
AC unit
Downspout
Downspout
Gas meter Water meter
TR3
28"
Downspout
Electric box
Power pole
Covered patio
125
120
115
125
10"
8"
12"
Wood wall/planter assembly
115
120
Existing residence
Existing residence
111.00' NG

PL CORNER
121.00' NG

PL CORNER
125.60' NG

PL CORNER

CORNER PL
115.70' NG

EDGE OF PAVING
CL ROW
PL
CL ROW
7'-5"

EDGE OF PAVING
10'-0"
SLP
SLP
SLP
80'-1"
LOT DEPTH:

LOT WIDTH:
7'-6"
4'-0"
20'-0"
10'-4" 9'-8"
4'-0"
7'-6"
74'-11"
4'-0"
80'-1"
4'-0"
16'-0"
74'-11"
4'-0"
7'-6"
6'-11"
7'-6"
4'-0"
80'-1"
25'-0"
10'-9" 14'-2" F.Y.S.B.

S.Y.S.B.

A.D.U
S.Y.S.B.

A.D.U
S.Y.S.B.
16'-0"
120.00' E.P. C. STREET - DATUM POINT
DESIGN REVIEW SET_V3.0
CHRIS A. LETOURNEAU
Principal Architect / General Contractor
Lic. # C-30692 / Lic # 928306
250 Newport Center Drive, Suite 305
Newport Beach, CA. 92660
Tel: 949.673.3834

THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS INFORMATION PROPRIETARY TO LETOURNEAU

ARCHITECTURE AND IS FURNISHED IN CONFIDENCE FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF EVALUATION, BIDDING OR REVIEW. THIS DOCUMENT OR ITS CONTENTS MAY NOT

BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR

DISCLOSED TO OTHERS WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF LETOURNEAU ARCHITECTURE ISSUE:

02.05.2526
DELTA REVISION: MUELLER HOUSE 399 PEARL STEET, LAGUNA BEACH, CA SCALE :
1 2
3 - 4 -

ZONING PLAN CHECK CORRECTIONS -

12.06.2024
144
144 of 355
N
7'-6"
4'-0"
20'-0"
4'-0"
7'-6"
4'-0"
7'-6"
SB SB
PL
PL
20'-0"
F.Y.S.B.

PL
PL PL
SB SB

SB SB ADU HOUSE
PL
(E) GARAGE
116.50' FS
CONC
(E) PATIO
116.50' FS
BRK-1
15'-8" 3'-11" 2'-0" 13'-5" 1'-7"
28'-8"

CATALINA STREET
16'-7"
27'-6"
20'-2"

NEW WINDOW

NEW WINDOW NEW FRENCH DOOR
(E) GARAGE DOOR

NEW GATE / FENCE
NEW

FLATWORK
NEW
AC
(E) DRIVEWAY
(E)
(E)

STEPS TO ADU DECK ABV

NEW FLATWORK / FIRE ACCESS
(E) UNDER HOUSE CRAWL SPACE
1'-6" 4'-0" 3'-7" 6'-0"

NEW A/C UNIT TO BE LOCATED

UNDER DECK -

EXISTING MECHANICAL AREA / STORAGE

EXISTING RETAINING WALL -
116.31' FS EXISTING PATIO

EXISTING SITE STAIRS

PLANTING AREA
116.50' FS
DG

NEW RETAINING WALL

RAISED PLANTER
-
-
-
-
A-2.1

FLOOR PLAN
GARAGE
1/4" = 1'-0"
28'-8"
16'-1"
11" 3'-5" 15'-11"
21'-7"

TWO CAR GARAGE CONFORMING PARKING
4'-0" 3'-8"
16'-0" WIDTH

NEW SLAB ON GRADE ABV
W/
1"
FA
16'0"x7'0"

WD GRG DR

NO LITE
SECTIONAL (4)

SLUMP BLOCK

FULL HGT

SLUMP BLOCK

FULL HGT

SLUMP BLOCK

FULL HGT

RIVER ROCK

RET WALL
+60"AFS
GARAGE
FRAMING 7'10"AFS
SHTG 8'7"AFS

CONC FS

STORAGE
FRAMING 7'10"AFS
SHTG 8'7"AFS

CONC FS

STEEL BEAM
WIDE FLANGE 6x10
6'11"AFS
4x12 WD BM
±7'6"AFG
4x12 WD BM
±7'6"AFG
4x12 WD BM
±7'6"AFG

RIVER ROCK

FACED WALL

LINE OF

DECK ABOVE

LINE OF

DECK ABOVE

LINE OF

BLDG ABOVE

LINE OF

BLDG ABOVE

LINE OF

BLDG ABOVE
UP
1234567
(E) STAIRS TO BE REMOVED
NEW
AC

ADU FOOTPRINT ABOVE
A-5.1 A
A-5.1 A
A-5.1 B
A-5.1 B
A-5.2 C
A-5.2 C
A-5.2 D
A-5.2 D

EDGE OF ON GRADE DECK ABOVE