Planning commission recommends approval of 29‑unit low‑income housing project at St. Ann’s Drive under SB4, drawing mixed neighborhood reaction

Laguna Beach — After a lengthy public hearing and extensive questioning of staff and the developer, the Planning Commission on June 3 voted to adopt two resolutions recommending approval of a multifamily affordable housing development at 340 St. Ann’s Drive and to forward the tentative parcel map and coastal development permit recommendation to the City Council.

Staff described the proposal as a ministerial housing development project submitted under the Affordable Housing on Faith and Higher Education Lands Act of 2023 (Senate Bill 4, or SB4). The project would retain existing church uses on site, merge four lots into two parcels and build a three‑story, approximately 29‑unit multifamily building (28 low‑income rental units plus one manager unit) with a 41‑stall parking garage. Staff said the project qualifies as a use‑by‑right SB4 development, is eligible for density bonus provisions and therefore requests concessions and waivers including reduced private open space and a reduced front setback along Catalina Street. Under the applicant’s calculations the proposed project provides 28 low‑income units (the project uses a density bonus to reach 29 units on a 0.66‑acre portion of the site).

The applicant, Related California, presented voluntary design refinements not required by SB4: two complementary color schemes to break up massing, a lowered ridge line (approximately 2'7") and a parapet/flat roof at the rear to recover certain sight lines for nearby neighbors, and a proposed palette and landscape revisions intended to reduce perceived scale. Craig Farmer of Related introduced the development team and said the company sought to respond to neighbors while still delivering feasible affordable housing. “We have a tremendous amount of experience with affordable housing,” Farmer said, noting Related’s local track record and voluntary design changes.

Public comment was divided. Supporters — including the Neighborhood Congregational Church (the project’s land partner), the Laguna Beach Land Trust, housing advocates and many residents — framed the project as a rare opportunity to produce low‑income housing in a largely built‑out coastal city and to help meet the city’s certified housing element obligations. Pastor Rod Eckles said the church’s goals were to remain on site, provide community benefit and secure financial sustainability: “We wanted to provide a community benefit including affordable housing,” he told commissioners.

Opponents and nearby residents raised several recurring concerns: parking sufficiency and neighborhood spillover, traffic and access, view obstruction (story poles and retaining walls were repeatedly cited), and unresolved private retaining‑wall impacts on adjacent properties. Resident Richard Plavatic summarized a common objection: “There’s only 41 parking spaces ... This gets cut almost in half while adding 29 residential units,” he said, and urged additional parking or restrictions to protect neighborhood streets.

Applicant and staff responses noted that the project’s parking and density calculations follow state SB4 and density‑bonus rules: the project proposes 41 spaces in total, with 23 counted for residential use under the requested concession and 11 reserved for exclusive Montasauri school use during school hours. Staff also emphasized that the city’s discretionary authority over the housing units themselves is limited under SB4; staff said the Coastal Act remains applicable but that the record did not identify a specific coastal resource impact that would justify denial or lowering the project’s density under applicable state law.

Commissioners stressed the narrow legal standard they must apply under SB4 and state density bonus law: to deny the project they would need to identify a specific, unmitigable adverse impact to public health, safety or the environment. Having found none in the record and noting the applicant’s voluntary design concessions, the Commission voted to adopt Resolution 2026‑1135 (ministerial design review, design review and CDP) and Resolution 2026‑0865 (recommendation to City Council for the tentative parcel map and associated CDP). The motion passed by roll call (Commissioners Duben, Whiten, Chair (Pro Tem) Goldman and Chair Kellenberg voted yes).

Next steps: the Commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for review of the tentative parcel map and coastal permits. The applicant and staff said construction timing will depend on tax‑credit and financing cycles (Related indicated it was targeting a July application for competitive Low‑Income Housing Tax Credits; a delay would likely push financing and construction into the next opportunity window). Several commissioners asked staff and the applicant to continue direct outreach to immediately adjacent neighbors (particularly on Cleo Street) to finalize landscape and retaining‑wall details as part of building‑permit and construction‑management review.

Votes at a glance: Resolution 2026‑1135 (ministerial design review, design review and CDP) — recommended to City Council; Resolution 2026‑0865 (tentative parcel map and CDP) — recommended to City Council. Both passed by roll call vote; tally 4–0.