Laguna Beach — Consultants presenting to the Planning Commission and Design Review Board on Nov. 19 urged a two‑phase approach to objective design standards that would satisfy recent state housing laws while trying to preserve the city’s neighborhood character.

“We are still in the preliminary stages,” Wendy Jeong, the city’s principal planner, told the joint session as she outlined a 26‑month zoning code update that prioritizes objective design standards. Jeong said Phase 1 will focus on measurable form and massing rules to enable an expedited ministerial path for certain projects, and Phase 2 will layer architectural style and neighborhood character guidance.

The consultant team from JKA and De Novo presented findings that Laguna Beach is architecturally eclectic and that many neighborhoods lack a single identifiable style. The consultants recommended ‘‘style groupings’’ — for example Spanish Revival, Arts & Crafts, Beach Cottage and contemporary menus — so applicants could select from measurable options. The team also recommended a constrained building envelope for an administrative ‘‘box‑in‑a‑box’’ track that staff has proposed to limit heights (staff cited a 16‑foot example) and increase setbacks for projects that opt into the expedited pathway.

“The state law now requires the use of objective design standards for certain projects,” Jeong said, explaining the background that prompted the work. Consultants told the board that objective language (‘‘shall’’) can be used for verifiable items such as setbacks, heights and material percentages, while design guidelines (‘‘should’’) remain subjective.

Commissioners and board members applauded the effort to create predictable, defensible rules but pressed staff and consultants to build explicit protections into the objective standards for the issues that most commonly generate neighbor objections: view equity, privacy, mass and scale, and landscaping. Several members said those protections must be defensible under state streamlining laws such as SB 9 and related statutes.

“View equity, privacy, neighborhood compatibility — those are the things we deal with primarily on design review,” Tom Gibbs, a design review board member, said during deliberations. Gibbs and others urged objective metrics (for example, limiting the percentage of a primary room’s view that can be obstructed) and clearer definitions for ‘‘primary rooms’’ and orientations used in view assessments.

Public commenters urged caution. Architect Morris Gondarian told the panel the city’s existing 2010 residential design guidelines remain useful and stressed that context and accurate submittals — not prescriptive style mandates — lead to better outcomes. Penelope Milne of the Canyon Alliance asked for more interactive public workshops, corrected neighborhood map errors cited by consultants, and flagged the need to integrate canyon and hillside policies.

Staff and consultants said the expedited pathway would be voluntary: applicants could choose the ministerial, objective track if they accept the stricter envelope and objective rules, or they could pursue discretionary design review if they want different massing or a larger building. De Novo’s project manager said the new pathway would not eliminate existing discretionary review options.

No new ordinance was adopted at the meeting. Commissioners asked staff to return with drafts and additional analysis, including clearer definitions of view equity, exploration of remodeling scenarios (the consultants initially scoped ODS to new construction and demolitions), and additional public workshops. The item was concluded for the evening and the body adjourned to its next regular meeting on Dec. 3, 2025.

What’s next: staff and the consultants will prepare administrative drafts that incorporate the Phase 1 objective parameters and the Phase 2 character work described tonight, then return to the commissions and the council for further review, public outreach and possible ordinances to implement the ministerial pathway in compliance with state law.