Council continues appeal of two‑story ADU at 1673 Louise to July 8 for further analysis of coastal‑view impacts and feasibility of one‑story alternative

The City Council continued an appeal of the community development director’s approval of a two‑story, 810‑square‑foot accessory dwelling unit (ADU) planned for 1673 Louise Street. The hearing on the appeal was opened June 10 and then continued to July 8 to allow staff time to prepare additional legal and planning analysis.

What is under appeal: The appellant contends the ADU—an 810‑square‑foot second‑story addition to an existing single‑family house—will obstruct a public view of adjacent open hillside (Crystal Cove/Laguna Coast Wilderness Park ridgeline) visible from a Louise Street cul‑de‑sac and nearby public rights‑of‑way. The director approved a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) after finding the project met the city’s ADU and LCP standards; the appellant argues that the approval should have found an adverse impact on a protected coastal scenic view and therefore should have been denied.

Why the council continued the hearing: Councilmembers and staff asked for further targeted analysis before making a final decision. Council directed staff to return on July 8 with: - An analysis of whether the project’s view intrusion constitutes an “adverse impact” to coastal scenic resources under the certified Local Coastal Program and the Coastal Act (Public Resources Code §30251). The council asked staff to explain how the LCP applies to views from a local cul‑de‑sac versus the shoreline and scenic corridors referenced in the general plan. - A feasibility review assessing whether the same ADU program could be achieved as a one‑story or otherwise sited ADU that would avoid the claimed coastal‑view impact (including review of setbacks, lot coverage, and municipal zoning/ADU rules). - A legal risk summary, including possible consequences if the city’s interpretation conflicts with state ADU law and whether the city’s authorized approach could expose the city to challenge (staff suggested staff would consult relevant state guidance and legal counsel).

Public testimony: More than 30 members of the public spoke during the hearing. Supporters of the appeal included neighbors, arts‑community members and neighborhood organizations who said the city should use any discretion it has to protect public views of the ridgeline. Speakers opposing the appeal and supporting the property owner said the ADU conforms to the municipal ADU rules and state ADU law and that the proposed addition is modest in size and within allowable height limits.

Next steps: The public hearing stays open; staff will prepare the requested analysis and return on July 8. The council emphasized the matter’s precedential nature—that a ruling could affect future ADU approvals across the city—and asked for a clear legal and planning briefing to guide its decision.