Citizen Portal
Sign In

Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows

Laguna Beach design review board approves metal roof, rejects view objections at 152 Macaulay Place

Laguna Beach Design Review Board · February 12, 2026

Loading...

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Laguna Beach Design Review Board approved design-review 2025‑2529 to change roofing to standing‑seam metal and to fill a notch at 152 Macaulay Place, finding view equity achieved after neighbor objections about an unpermitted roof extension. Vote: 3–0.

The Laguna Beach Design Review Board on Feb. 12 approved a proposal to change the roof at 152 Macaulay Place to standing‑seam metal and to enclose a small southeastern “notch” on the front of the house. The board adopted staff’s recommendation and approved design‑review resolution 25‑2529 by a 3–0 vote.

City staff planner Isadora Serna told the board the application met design‑review guidelines and did not “substantially impair views,” recommending adoption of the resolution and a categorical CEQA exemption. At the hearing, the applicant’s representative emphasized the roofing product’s reflectivity, saying the material has “a solar reflective index of 0.29%,” and described the enclosed patio as a minor, function‑serving change.

Neighbors at the meeting said they believed the roof was extended earlier without permits and that their ocean views were affected. Chris O’Donnell, a neighbor who described his ownership at 160 Macaulay, stated he had not seen the change and asked the board to deny the application. Dan Sugg said the roof extension was constructed "without a permit, without design review" and urged removal.

Board members reviewed Laguna Beach’s view‑equity standard and examined the photographs and site visit findings. Chair Gibbs said the board treats unpermitted work as if it did not yet exist for the purposes of the review but must evaluate present impacts on the record. After deliberation, Gibbs said he finds "view equity achieved" for this project and that it meets the design‑review criteria. Board members MJ and another member agreed, citing neighborhood compatibility and the limited degree of view impact. The motion to approve passed on roll call 3–0.

Next steps: The resolution was adopted and the decision can be appealed within 14 days by a resident within 300 feet of the project, per the board’s standard procedures.