Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Objective Design Standards topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Laguna Beach study session weighs objective design standards to respond to SB 9
Summary
Consultants and staff presented neighborhood analysis and proposed 'style groupings' to help draft phase 2 objective design standards; commissioners and the design review board pressed for measurable protections for view equity, privacy, massing and landscape and for clearer appeal pathways. Staff said an expedited 'box‑within‑a‑box' ministerial option (phase 1) is being pursued as an urgency ordinance.
Laguna Beach officials and their consultants presented early findings on Nov. 19 as they work to develop objective design standards for single‑ and two‑family homes that comply with recent state housing laws while protecting neighborhood character. The joint study session of the Planning Commission and the Design Review Board focused on how to translate subjective design guidelines into measurable “shall” standards that can be applied to projects subject to state streamlining laws such as Senate Bill 9.
Wendy Jeong, the city’s principal planner, told commissioners the comprehensive zoning code update — contracted to De Novo Planning Group in October 2024 and expanded in July 2025 — has an anticipated 26‑month timeline, with a standalone objective design standards document expected in 2026–2027. Jeong said tonight’s work corresponds to phase 2 (architectural style and neighborhood character) while phase 1 will establish objective form and massing parameters for an expedited ministerial path.
Consultant John Kalisky of JKA said the team found Laguna Beach to be “eclectic” rather than dominated by any single style: many houses combine features from multiple traditions. Kalisky and colleague Ami Bhatt proposed a two‑part approach: retain measurable phase 1 standards (height, setbacks, massing) that could qualify for ministerial review, and develop phase 2 “style groupings” (for example Spanish revival, arts & crafts, beach cottage, contemporary) that provide menu‑style, measurable choices for materials, colors and details.
Ashley Brodkin of De Novo said the objective standards are intended as an additional pathway, not a replacement for design review. “It would give you another pathway and another option that would also be in line with what the state requirements are,” Brodkin said, adding applicants who want unique architecture could still go through the Design Review Board.
Commissioners and board members pressed for specifics. Several asked whether remodels — not just new builds or lot splits under SB 9 — would be covered; consultants said the current scope focuses on new construction and SB 9 applicability, with remodels to be considered later. Questions centered on how to make inherently subjective protections — especially view equity and privacy — objectively enforceable. One example discussed by board members: defining view equity by limiting the percentage of a primary room’s view that a project could block, or by explicitly defining which rooms qualify as “primary” for view protections.
Public commenters urged caution. Architects and neighborhood advocates asked consultants to incorporate the city’s earlier 2010 residential design guidance and noted neighborhood maps and canyon boundaries in the consultant materials need correction. Several speakers warned that expanding administrative review could reduce meaningful appeals for neighbors and stressed the need to protect trees and landscape as part of neighborhood character.
Staff and board members described phase 1 as a protective, blunt tool intended to limit the building envelope for applicants who opt into the ministerial path; staff noted a proposed maximum height of 16 feet in that envelope (aligned to state ADU height limits) and wider setbacks. Those projects would remain subject to coastal development permit requirements where applicable. The phase 1 proposal is being pursued as an urgency ordinance so the city can move quickly while phase 2 adds architectural detail and measurable options.
Board members differed on whether objective standards should be uniform across the city or context‑sensitive. Options discussed included a single set of generic objective characteristics (mass, articulation, glazing proportions), zone‑ or neighborhood‑specific criteria, or a lot‑by‑lot method similar to South Pasadena’s parcel‑level approach. Staff said they are exploring technology tools, including GIS and 3‑D modeling, to support view analysis in the longer term.
No formal recommendation or ordinance was adopted at the meeting. Staff and consultants will prepare administrative drafts and return for additional study sessions; the Planning Commission and Design Review Board gave detailed input to guide that next phase.
The commission adjourned to its next regularly scheduled meeting on Dec. 3, 2025.
