Courtesy of Dave Kiff – Laguna Beach City Manager – Sat. Oct. 3, 2026

I’m writing this in between Council meetings because there seems to be confusion suddenly about “Residential Hillside/Protection” (RHP) properties.

Your “TL/DR” Version:

• No, the City didn’t newly require open space easements over residential hillside properties.
• No, the City doesn’t direct private property owners to install public trails.
• No, the City didn’t newly classify properties with 30% slopes as environmentally sensitive areas.
• Yes, we did add a 90-day response period for applications that are deemed incomplete – in large part because this is a recommended State standard and because sometimes folks just don’t get back to us at all.  Respond with something, please

In Greater Detail:

First, this email is primarily about properties zoned RHP.   If you don’t know how your property is zoned, you can always look it up here.  Use the map to find your property, then click on the parcel.  A window will pop up with parcel information.  It usually has two sections – on one of the two sections, you’ll find something that says “Zone District: R1” or “Zone District: R2” or “Zone District: RHP” or similar.

Let’s get back to the DR Efficiency Ordinance and the RHP Zone.  The RHP zone has a lot of acreage but is small in terms of the number of lots citywide – this zoning applies generally to large parcels that contain steep hillsides or canyons.  Typically these are parcels where at most one can have a single-family home, a yard, and related hardscape – and a lot of canyon or hillside.

Our new DR Efficiency Ordinance, which has been in the works since October 2024 (and has had at least 10 workshops), generally does these three things:

• It made changes to which projects require Design Review. Many project types now require a lower level of review. Certain new single-family homes may qualify for an exemption if they are single-story, do not exceed 15 feet in height, and meet other requirements.
• It reduced the number of Design Review criteria. The ordinance reduces the criteria used to evaluate projects from 16 to 11.
• It put in place a hearing waiver option for Administrative Design Review. An application may be approved without a hearing if no hearing is requested through the waiver process.

You can view the full ordinance here (it’s item #20).

Here’s the kicker: the Ordinance did something that threw folks for a loop – it mirrored things that are in other parts of the Code and our General Plan.

In other words, aspects of the Ordinance simply reiterated current law.  Why would we do this?  Well, too many innocent applicants weren’t aware of certain existing zoning restrictions because they only looked at the Zoning Code, not the General Plan.  And they had early hopes/expectations for their projects solely based on the Zoning Code, not realizing that General Plan requirements apply, too.

Given how complex our codes and General Plan are, you need to look at both.  So the DR Efficiency Ordinance picked up the SAME LANGUAGE that’s in our General Plan – it didn’t revise, undo, or create new limitations for the RHP Zone.

So, as a Q&A:

1 – Did the City create a new requirement for residential hillside properties to dedicate land as permanent open space?  No. That was there under current law.  The ordinance links an existing General Plan requirement to the Zoning Code to make it easier for applicants in the RHP zone to find and understand.  For many years, Policy 14-J of the City’s Open Space/Conservation Element (see page 66) has required an offer of a permanent open space easement as a condition of approval for new development in certain hillside areas. The Open Space/Conservation Element is part of the City’s General Plan, which guides land-use decisions.  The City already applies this policy to new development in the Residential Hillside/Protection (RHP) zone, typically when reviewing a proposal for a new single-family home. Because development approvals must be consistent with the General Plan, the City includes the required offer of an easement as a condition of approval.

2 – What land is covered by the easement?   The easement generally covers portions of the RHP property that will remain in their natural state. It does not include areas used for your home, garage, hardscape, or other improvements, such as a landscaped backyard.  Many RHP properties are among the City’s larger developable lots. Preserving their undeveloped areas helps protect hillside open space over the long term (which is why the requirement is in the General Plan).

3 – Does the City take ownership of the land within the easement or require public trails?  No!  The property remains privately owned. An open space easement limits how the covered area may be used to preserve it as open space.  The City does not require owners to build public trails or other improvements within these easement areas, because we don’t own the property – the resident does. If someone wanted to do those improvements on their own land (hmmm – and I can’t see why they would), they’d have to initiate it herself or himself.

4 – Does the ordinance newly classify slopes greater than 30 percent as environmentally sensitive areas?  No. The Zoning Code already grouped slopes greater than 30 percent with environmentally sensitive areas when determining whether a project requires Design Review. The ordinance did not add or change that requirement.  The ordinance provides a way for a project to qualify for an exemption from this Design Review requirement if a licensed professional certifies that the proposed development will not affect an environmentally sensitive area, including a slope greater than 30 percent.

5 – Why do applicants now have 90 days to resubmit materials after the Planning Division finds an application incomplete?  Remember, this affects the first step that an applicant takes – she or he files a project application with the City, and we check all of the boxes to make sure that the submittal itself – before we even crack it open for analysis – is “complete” (i.e. all there), with the dozens of things that our complex code requires.  The 90-day requirement – which starts AFTER we’ve let an applicant know that something(s) is/are missing – helps keep applicants and the City on time with project approvals.

If someone wants to avoid coming up against the 90-day deadline, we’re happy to help you file the most complete application as you can BEFORE the clock starts and of course to work with you as you’re completing your submittal – just ask!  We’re simply trying to avoid the scenario where we get crickets back when we deem an application incomplete (crickets = bad).  The requirement also aligns with California Department of Justice guidance on 90-day resubmittal periods for housing development applications.

Thanks for reading and for helping us rebut confusion.  If you have any questions about this at all, please ask me, Matt Schnieder, or Anthony Viera.