RESOLUTION NO. 26.XXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL
AND SUSTAINING THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD’S
APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW SINGLEFAMILY RESIDENCE WITH AN ATTACHED TWO-CAR
GARAGE, ELEVATED DECKS, GRADING, AND
LANDSCAPING, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 25-0433
FOR THIS NON-EXEMPT DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE
COASTAL ZONE, INCLUDING AN ATTACHED ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNIT, VARIANCE 25-0432 TO ENCROACH INTO
A SIGNIFICANT MODIFIED WATERCOURSE SETBACK
AREA AND TO NOT PROVIDE A PUBLIC PARKING SPACE IN
THE DIAMOND/CRESTVIEW SPECIFIC PLAN AREA, AND
REVOCABLE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT 25-2285 FOR
RETAINING WALL AND FIRE ACCESS LADDER WITHIN
THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND CATEGORICAL
EXEMPTION UNDER CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3)
WHEREAS, David Freeland, Architect (“Applicant”)1, for 2058 Crestview Drive (the “Property”) applied for Design Review (“DR”) 25-0431 for a new single-family residence with an attached two-car garage, elevated decks, retaining walls, grading, landscaping, Coastal Development Permit (“CDP”) 25-0433 for this non-exempt development within the coastal zone and an attached accessory dwelling unit (“ADU”), Variance (“VAR”) 25-0432 for encroachment into a significant modified watercourse setback area2 and to not provide a public parking space3, and Revocable Encroachment Permit (“REP”) 25-2285 for a 10-foot-high retaining wall and fire access ladder within the public right-of-way.
WHEREAS, on May 9, 2024, the Design Review Board (“Board”) held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project at the conceptual plan stage (the “Conceptual Project”). 1 The Project’s owner is Mike Czajkowski, who is within the definition of Applicant. 2 Laguna Beach Municipal Code Section 25.50.030(D)(4).
3 Diamond/Crestview Specific Plan (“DCSP”) Section IV(J)(1).
Attachment 1
42 -2- Reso. #26.XXX
During the hearing, the Board evaluated the proposed design and received public testimony, which focused primarily on view equity, neighborhood compatibility, and privacy concerns. Following discussion, the Board directed the Applicant to explore alternative colors and materials to improve neighborhood compatibility and achieve a more rustic character, increase landscaping to address privacy impacts, and increase grading to better integrate the structure into the hillside and reduce its apparent mass. The Board also indicated that the requested variance to encroach into the significant modified watercourse setback was reasonable, given the altered condition of the watercourse and the absence of environmental resources.
WHEREAS, on April 10, 2025, the Board held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the entitlement applications, consisting of Design Review 25-0431, Coastal Development Permit 25-0433, Variance 25-0432, and Revocable Encroachment Permit 25-2285 (the “Original Project”). In the published staff report, staff summarized revisions made by the Applicant in response to prior Board direction, including the addition of landscaping along the south side of the structure to address privacy concerns associated with 2100 Crestview Drive, modifications to exterior colors and materials, and updated grading calculations demonstrating greater integration of the structure into the hillside. As indicated in the staff report, the Applicant requested an additional variance request to allow deviation from the Diamond/Crestview Specific Plan requirement to provide an on-street public parking space. After receiving input from staff, the Applicant, and public comments, the Board discussed the Original Project and voted 5–0 to continue the hearing to July 10, 2025, to allow the Applicant additional time to revise the project in response to Board direction and to engage further with neighboring property owners. The Board provided the following direction to the Applicant: (1) shift the uppermost level toward the rear to 43 -3- Reso. #26.XXX
help address view equity concerns; (2) modify the driveway to accommodate two standard parking spaces outside of the public right-of-way; (3) adjust the proposed exterior color to a more rustic tone; (4) incorporate additional landscaping to enhance privacy; and (5) explore solutions regarding the neighboring wall encroaching into the public right-of-way, which currently protects the adjacent (southern) property’s emergency access stairs.
WHEREAS, the Applicant subsequently requested additional continuances to September 11, 2025 and then to October 9, 2025. At the October 9, 2025 hearing, upon discovering that the application did not include a request for the required Revocable Encroachment Permit, the Board decided not to deliberate on the merits of the project and instead continued the item to December 11, 2025.
WHEREAS, on November 18, 2025, the Applicant submitted revised plans to City staff with the following modifications (the “Revised Project”): (1) The setback between the garage and the street has been increased by 2 feet to better accommodate two cars parking on the driveway.
One space in the driveway is 18 feet deep (i.e., a standard space). The second space is about 16 feet deep (i.e., a compact space)4
; (2) the third (uppermost) level was shifted 3 feet toward the rear, 4 Section IV(J)(1) of the DCSP states: “Upon development of a building site, one (1) on-street public parking space shall be provided. If the provision of on-street parking is found to be infeasible, an equivalent parking space shall be provided on-site. Only upon exhaustion of all possible alternatives to provide a parking space either on-street or onsite and with approval of a variance, an in-lieu fee as established by City Council, shall be paid to fund the future construction of parking in the neighborhood.” Here, the Revised Project satisfies this requirement with the imposition of COA No. 21 in Board-adopted Resolution No. 25-0431, which requires the payment of a $23,000 in-lieu fee. The in-lieu fee was imposed because the Board found that it was infeasible for the Revised Project to provide a public parking space. The in-lieu fee is in addition to the two covered parking spaces that will be provided in the garage to satisfy the parking required for the single-family home. The ADU is exempt from the parking requirements due to its proximity to a public transit stop. The driveway parking spaces would provide additional, non-required off-street parking on the Applicant’s Property for the Applicant’s exclusive use. Although the second space in the driveway (fourth off-street space overall) is too shallow to meet the criteria for a standard parking space, it exceeds the minimum depth required for a compact parking space (15 feet), and as such would be usable by smaller vehicles without encroachment into the right-of-way.
44 -4- Reso. #26.XXX
resulting in a corresponding shift and slight enlargement of the second level, to address views over the building; (3) exterior color was updated to Sage Green and additional limestone veneer was added to the garage face; (4) vertical siding was removed in two areas on the front elevation and replaced with stucco to soften the structure’s box-like appearance; (5) additional landscaping along the north and south-side property lines, including two Arbutus unedo (Strawberry trees), was included to address privacy concerns; (6) the structure was also further embedded into the hillside to reduce the appearance of mass; and (7) Revocable Encroachment Permit application was submitted, requesting the construction of a 10-foot-high retaining wall and the installation of a 10- foot-high wall mounted foldable metal ladder.
WHEREAS, on December 11, 2025, the Board held a public hearing to consider the Revised Project and received public testimony expressing continued concerns related to view equity and neighborhood compatibility. The Board voted 4-0 (Chair Gibbs absent) to adopt Resolution 25-0431, approving the Revised Project and finding the Revised Project exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, subject to the standard conditions of approval and the following Board-imposed condition of approval (COA No. 32) (the “Board Approval”):
Condition No. 32: “At the Design Review Board meeting of December 11, 2025, the project was approved subject to the following conditions, which shall be incorporated into the final plans and implemented as part of the proposed development: the project program shall be shifted a minimum of two (2) feet toward the rear of the lot; the maximum height of the proposed structure shall be reduced and shall not exceed the 135-foot elevation mark; and, at the City’s discretion, a fall protection railing shall be installed along the exposed portions of the neighboring property’s fire access pathway at the front of the property to be 45 -5- Reso. #26.XXX
located on the Applicant’s southerly retaining wall along the property line.”5 WHEREAS, on January 2, 2025, Evgenii Krasko (the “Appellant”), the neighboring property owner of 785 Gainsborough Drive, filed a notice of appeal of the Board Approval (the “Appeal”). The Appellant contends that the Board failed to adequately protect view equity, citing six contentions.
WHEREAS, LBMC Section 25.05.070 requires certain forms of public notice for an appeal. Public notice was duly provided to consider the Appeal of the Project at the February 24, 2026 City Council meeting in accordance with LBMC Section 25.05.065.
WHEREAS, on February 24, 2026, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Appeal and carefully considered the oral and documentary evidence and arguments presented.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH DOES RESOLVE:
SECTION 1. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution by this reference.
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby makes the following findings in response to grounds for appeal stated in Appellants’ notice of Appeal:
1. “Failure to Adequately Protect View Equity: The Design Review Board approval failed to adequately protect view equity for the appellant, Evgenii Krasko, as required by the City’s Design Guidelines, Land Use Element Policy 2.10 of maximizing the preservation 5 Implementation of COA No. 32 would have the effect of increasing the depth of the non-required offstreet parking spaces located on the Applicant’s Property within the driveway to meet the minimum depth for standard residential parking spaces.
46 -6- Reso. #26.XXX
of coastal views from existing properties, and Design Standards, Diamond Crestview Specific Plan (D/CSP). The approval relied on flawed and unreliable evidence that prevented an accurate evaluation of the project’s impact to Mr. Krasko’s view. Under the D/CSP, the horizon line is the most sensitive element of a view. Blockage of important and recognizable physical features, including Catalina Island, is significantly more difficult to approve than blockage of lesser elements. In this case, the project’s massing, particularly along the side of the structure associated with story poles 8 and 10, encroaches into the most important portion of Mr. Krasko’s view, affecting both the horizon line and Catalina Island. The DRB record does not demonstrate that this impact was adequately avoided, minimized, or fairly balanced against the applicant’s desire to capture views. The story pole deficiencies are significant because they undermined the City’s ability to properly evaluate view equity, which should have been the primary focus of the DRB review.
Although the poles were reportedly corrected a day before the hearing, Mr. Krasko believes that the condition of the poles during site inspections did not allow for an accurate or fair evaluation of view impacts from his home.”
City Council Response
The Board found that the Project complied with Design Review Finding No. 1, Criteria No. 16 (View Equity) as follows:
“Due to the hillside setting and orientation of uphill and downhill homes, significant impacts to private views are not anticipated. The project proposes a rear setback of 51 feet and the roof of the highest level would be approximately 12 feet to 22 feet below the homes above. Three strawberry trees are proposed to be approximately 14 feet from the rear 47 -7- Reso. #26.XXX
property line, which with a maintained height of 15’ should not impede public or private views over the project site. Prior to the Concept Review Hearing on May 9, 2024, and the Design Review Board hearing on April 10, 2025, the City received view equity concerns from the neighbor located north of the subject property. Based on a site visit, it appears the neighbor’s existing landscaping effectively screens the proposed project and already impedes the ocean view. However, in response to the Board direction to increase screening to address the privacy concerns of the neighbors located to the south and north of the subject property, the Applicant proposed additional landscaping consisting of four (4) Arbutus Unedo ‘Strawberry Trees’ as shown on the updated landscape plan (Sheet A-1.5).
Furthermore, in response to the Board’s direction, the third level (uppermost) has been shifted toward the rear by 3 feet, effectively addressing the neighbor’s concerns.” Further, the Board imposed the following project-specific condition of approval, in part, addressing view equity:
Condition No. 32: At the Design Review Board meeting of December 11, 2025, the project was approved subject to the following conditions, which shall be incorporated into the final plans and implemented as part of the proposed development: the project program shall be shifted a minimum of two (2) feet toward the rear of the lot; the maximum height of the proposed structure shall be reduced and shall not exceed the 135-foot elevation mark; and, at the City’s discretion, a fall protection railing shall be installed along the exposed portions of the neighboring property’s fire access pathway at the front of the property to be located on the Applicant’s southerly retaining wall along the property line.
The City’s Design Guidelines – A Guide to Residential Development (the “Design 48 -8- Reso. #26.XXX
Guidelines”)6 requires that “development, including its landscaping… be designed to protect existing views from neighboring properties without denying the subject property the reasonable opportunity to develop…” (Pg. 63.) Land Use Element Policy 2.10 similarly directs the City to “maximize the preservation of coastal and canyon views (consistent with the principle of view equity) from existing properties and minimize blockage of existing public and private views.” The Diamond/Crestview Specific Plan (“DCSP”)7 further recognizes that “view protection is more important for major ‘ceremonial’ rooms (living, dining, kitchen, deck) than for secondary rooms (bedroom, bathroom, family room, etc.)” (Pg. A-35); that the “horizon line is the most sensitive part of a view” (Pg. A-36); and that “blockage of any important objects in the view (Catalina Island, city lights, etc.) is more difficult to accept than blockage of other, less well-known elements” (Pg. A-37).
The Board’s record demonstrates that view impacts and view equity were not only considered, but were a central focus of Board discussion across all three hearings, including specific discussion of Catalina Island views, the horizon line, and the extent and location of any view obstruction. For example, at the Concept Review hearing, Board members evaluated potential view impacts to adjacent properties. Chair Gibbs expressly concluded that view equity was achieved with respect to the Appellant’s property at 785 Gainsborough Drive. At the April 10, 2025 Board hearing, Board members again discussed view impacts and view equity, including the relative importance of views from primary versus secondary rooms and whether additional 6 Design Guidelines, adopted by the City Council on December 7, 2010 as set forth by Resolution No.
10.117:
https://www.lagunabeachcity.net/home/showpublisheddocument/12989/638001331177400000 7 DCSP, last amended by Ordinance No. 1532 on August 31, 2010:
https://www.lagunabeachcity.net/home/showpublisheddocument/260/637360447937670000 49 -9- Reso. #26.XXX
modifications were warranted to reduce view blockage. While Appellant contends that portions of the structure associated with story poles 8 and 9 affect the most important portion of his views (i.e., the horizon line and Catalina), these views appear to be from the secondary rooms in his home – the master bedroom and a second bedroom – as opposed to the major ceremonial rooms. At the December 11, 2025 hearing, multiple Board members identified view equity, Catalina Island, and the horizon line as key issues, and the Board’s discussion directly informed the project revisions that were ultimately incorporated into approval conditions. Specifically, Condition No. 32 of Board-adopted Resolution No. 25-0431 requires that the following changes be incorporated into the final plans and implemented as part of the proposed development: (1) “the project program shall be shifted a minimum of two (2) feet toward the rear of the lot”; and (2) “the maximum height of the proposed structure shall be reduced and shall not exceed the 135-foot elevation mark.” The Board found that with these changes, the Revised Project satisfied the View Equity design review criterion.
Regarding the Appellant’s claim that the Board relied on flawed and unreliable evidence due to story pole deficiencies, the City’s Municipal Code requires the following:
“A staking plan shall be prepared as specified on the most current zoning and design review submittal checklist. Staking poles and connecting ribbons, which accurately represent the full extent of the proposed structure, including decks and eaves, shall be constructed at least 21 calendar days prior to the first public hearing. At least 21 calendar days prior to the first public hearing, the location and height of the staking poles must be certified as accurate by a registered land surveyor or registered civil engineer licensed to conduct land surveys in the State of California. If complete and certified project staking is not in place 50 -10- Reso. #26.XXX
at least 21 calendar days prior to the first Design Review Board public hearing date . . ., the project shall be continued to a later date. Neither the applicant, a relative of the applicant, nor any other person possessing a financial interest in the property or the project may certify the location and height accuracy of the staking poles. If the project is modified during the design review process because of a view consideration, privacy or other concerns that the Board determines is necessary to restake, the project shall be re-staked and re-certified at least 14 calendar days prior to any subsequent public hearing.” (LBMC Section 25.05.040(C)(2)(a).)
As an initial matter, upon receipt of the Appeal and evaluating the contentions, the City closely re-reviewed the story poles and ribbons that were installed by contractors hired by Applicant and the certification, which is required to be done by a registered land surveyor, or registered civil engineer licensed to conduct land surveys in the State of California, who is not the applicant, relative of the applicant, or any other person with a financial interest. The intent of this requirement is to ensure integrity in the process and accurate representation of the design review project.
Applicant, who is a licensed civil engineer, certified the staking on July 10, 2024 for the Original Project (see Sheet A-1.4 of the April 10, 2025 Board plans) and on June 18, 2025 for the Revised Project. (See Sheet A-1.4 of the December 11, 2025 Board plans.) While this certification was done within 21 calendar days prior to the first public hearing, the certification did not fully comply with the Municipal Code because it was certified by Applicant. In response to the Appeal, Applicant retained a third party registered civil engineer licensed to conduct land surveys in the State of California, Cynthia A De Leon, to review the staking. On January 8, 2026, Ms. De Leon 51 -11- Reso. #26.XXX
certified the story pole height and location of the Revised Project (as it existed before the conditions imposed by the Board in the Board Approval). According to Ms. De Leon’s certification, there was not a discrepancy of the pole and ribbon locations and the plans for the Revised Project, which was reviewed by the Board before the Board Approval. This subsequent verification cures the concern that the staking inaccurately represented the Revised Project’s height or massing, which was further mitigated by the Board through the imposition of additional projectspecific conditions of approval on December 11, 2025. Furthermore, the City Council in its review of the Appeal will have the benefit of assessing the merits of the Appeal in reliance on an appropriately certified staking plan, for the version of the project (the Revised Project) that was reviewed by the Board before the Board imposed conditions of approval to further minimize impact of the project, among other evidence in the record.
Further, it should be noted that the Board’s evaluation did not depend on story poles alone.
The Board considered the full evidentiary record, including the project plans, elevations, sections, visual materials presented at hearings, and extensive testimony, and Board members conducted site visits. In addition, Board members expressly raised view-related concerns during deliberations and directed measurable modifications to address them, including adjustments intended to reduce horizon and Catalina Island impacts. The Board’s approval required additional design changes that directly addressed the view equity issues discussed during the hearings, consistent with the City’s and DCSP’s balancing approach and the directive to avoid cutting into a neighbor’s horizon line whenever possible.
For these reasons, the City Council finds that the Board appropriately applied the City’s adopted view equity standards and policies, evaluated view equity in the manner required by the 52 -12- Reso. #26.XXX
Design Guidelines, the Land Use Element, and the DCSP, and imposed conditions responsive to view impacts as reflected in the Board record. The approval, as conditioned and mitigated, represents a lawful exercise of discretion intended to respect both the Applicant’s rights and the Appellant’s view concerns.
2. “Reliance on an Improper Survey Basis: The Design Review Board’s findings relied on a topographic survey rather than a certified boundary survey. Without a boundary survey, particularly on a vacant lot, the Board and City staff lacked a verifiable baseline to confirm accurate height, massing, and setback compliance. This deficiency undermined the approval related to project conformance with the approved plans and impacts to adjacent properties.”
City Council Response
The Appellant asserts that the Board improperly relied on a topographic survey rather than a certified boundary survey, thereby undermining the Board’s ability to evaluate height, massing, and setback compliance.
A boundary survey and a topographic survey serve distinct but complementary purposes.
A boundary survey is intended to establish the precise horizontal location of property lines and legal boundaries. By contrast, a topographic survey documents existing site conditions, including grades, contours, slopes, and elevation data, and is the appropriate technical basis for evaluating building height, massing, slope conditions, and visual impacts on a site. In the context of design review, particularly within the DCSP area where topography is a critical factor, a topographic survey is necessary and appropriate to assess how a structure relates to existing grades, hillside conditions, and view impacts. Height calculations, story pole placement, and evaluations of 53 -13- Reso. #26.XXX
massing and visual prominence rely on elevation data that is provided through a topographic survey rather than a boundary survey.
The Board’s review appropriately relied on the project’s topographic information to evaluate compliance with height limits, massing, and visual impacts, including view equity considerations. The absence of a certified boundary survey at the design review stage did not preclude the Board from conducting a meaningful and accurate evaluation of the project’s design, as the Board’s findings were not dependent on final boundary verification but rather on the relationship of the proposed structure to existing grades and surrounding development.
Because boundary surveys are typically completed during the building permit application process that follows the discretionary entitlement phase, they are not usually used to inform the design review plans, which instead rely on the information contained in the topographic survey.
Importantly, the City addressed the need for final boundary verification through a Building Division Condition of Approval in Board-adopted Resolution No. 25-0431. Condition No. 20 requires that, “prior to issuance of a building permit, a record of survey shall be submitted to verify the location of all property lines. If the record of survey reflects property lines that are different than the site plan approved by the [Board], submittal of a new Zoning Plan Check will be required to verify consistency with the Board’s approval and the Zoning Code. Additionally, any project modifications may be subject to Design Review approval.” This condition ensures that final construction will be based on verified property boundaries and provides a clear procedural safeguard to address any discrepancies before building permits are issued and construction commences. In addition to the requirement for a boundary survey prior to building permit issuance, the City’s process involves numerous City inspections throughout the construction process to 54 -14- Reso. #26.XXX
ensure compliance with the approved plans, and notably, the City requires a Building Height and Location Certification prepared by a licensed surveyor for a newly built residential structure at roof sheathing inspection, which ensures that the building is correctly sited on the lot and built to the appropriate height. This certification is required before the City passes a final inspection for the building permit. Thus, if the property lines depicted on the Board-approved plans are inaccurate, the Applicant will be required to submit a Zoning Plan Check application, and the changes to the site plan may require design review approval. No evidence has been presented that the boundaries have been improperly located on the plans.
Accordingly, reliance on a topographic survey at the design review stage was appropriate and consistent with standard practice for evaluating height, massing, and hillside development.
Further, the condition of approval requiring a certified record of survey prior to permit issuance adequately addresses boundary verification. Lastly, the City’s requirement for a certificate of elevation clearance during construction will ensure that the new construction complies with the City’s approvals for the Revised Project.
3. “Inaccurate story pole installation; Exhibit A—Staking Investigation Letter (December 24, 2025): The letter confirms that the story poles did not match the approved plans, with measured deviations both above and below the proposed elevations. These inconsistencies—whether higher or lower—demonstrate that the story pole installation failed to accurately represent the submitted design and therefore could not serve as a reliable basis for the DRB approval findings. These deviations are material in a hillside environment where fractions of a foot significantly impact views. The DRB approval relied substantially on the physical story pole installation. The subsequent investigation 55 -15- Reso. #26.XXX
demonstrates that the story poles did not accurately represent the approved design, rendering those findings unreliable.”
City Council Response
The Appellant contends that the Board’s approval relied on inaccurate story pole installation, citing a December 24, 2025 “Staking Investigation Letter” prepared by G.J. Design & Development. For the following reasons, this letter does not negate the validity of the Board’s findings or approval.
First, the letter itself has limited evidentiary value in the context of the Board’s decision making. The document does not identify whether the preparer, Garo of GJ Design & Development, is a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer authorized under California law to perform boundary, elevation, or construction staking verification. The letter does not include a professional stamp or certification.
Second, the methodology used to prepare the letter is not explained. The letter does not describe how reference elevations were established, what control points were used, whether measurements were taken from approved plan benchmarks, or whether the measurements accounted for site conditions such as slope. The absence of this information makes it impossible to determine whether the reported deviations are accurate. Without a clear methodology, the reported differences do not provide a reliable basis to conclude that the story poles materially misrepresented the proposed design. As such, the City Council cannot verify the technical reliability of the conclusions presented or determine whether the measurements were prepared in accordance with accepted surveying or engineering practices.
Third, even if the reported deviations were assumed to be accurate, the letter identifies 56 -16- Reso. #26.XXX
variations both above and below the proposed elevations, generally on the order of a few tenths of a foot. The Board’s evaluation of view equity and massing was not based on a single story pole or precise fractional measurements, but on the overall relationship of the structure to the site, surrounding development, topography, and viewshed, as reflected in the full project record. The concept of view equity requires a balancing of both a property owner’s right to develop with the rights of others already in the neighborhood to continue to enjoy views, which was accomplished here through several Board-directed changes over the course of three public hearings, including shifting the uppermost level toward the rear by three feet and the garage level toward the rear by two feet in response to direction provided to the Applicant at the April 10, 2025 Board hearing, and conditions of approval to require further reductions in building height and a requirement that the building be set back further into the hillside in response to conditions of approval imposed by the Board at the December 11, 2025 Board hearing, which reduce the Revised Project’s height and massing relatively below what was depicted by the story poles.
Fourth, as indicated further above, and in response to Appellant’s December 24, 2025 Staking Investigation Letter, the Applicant retained a registered civil engineer to re-certify and attest to the accuracy of the previously installed story poles. There are also safeguards in place to assure that construction is in conformance with the approved plans. The condition of approval requiring a certified record of survey prior to building permit issuance adequately addresses boundary verification, and the City’s requirement for a certificate of elevation clearance during construction will ensure that the new construction complies with the City’s approvals for the Revised Project.
For these reasons, the December 24, 2025 staking investigation letter does not demonstrate 57 -17- Reso. #26.XXX
that the Board relied on inaccurate or unreliable evidence, nor does it establish that the Board’s findings are unsupported by the record. Accordingly, this appeal contention does not provide a basis to overturn the approval.
4. “Lack of survey pole hub locations invalidates story pole accuracy: As documented in Exhibit A, the story poles were installed without survey stakes or ground hubs, a fundamental requirement for accurate staking. Without fixed control points tied to a certified survey, the placement and elevation of the poles could not be verified. This deficiency alone invalidates the story pole installation as a meaningful representation of the approved project.”
City Council Response
The City’s staking requirements are intended to ensure that story poles accurately depict the height and envelope of a proposed structure for Design Review purposes, not to require permanent survey monuments, which will occur when the boundary survey is prepared and reviewed and recorded by the County Surveyor. The story pole elevations are tied to a fixed datum benchmark location, in this case a sewer manhole near the Revised Project’s front lot line, as required by the City’s Planning Application form.8 Furthermore, in response to the Appeal contentions, the Applicant retained a registered civil engineer to re-certify and attest to the accuracy of the previously installed story poles. The LBMC does not require the use of permanent ground hubs at every pole location. Fixed control for elevation and horizontal reference may be established using existing, identifiable datum points reflected in the topographic survey. Here, the fixed datum was derived from a topographic survey prepared by a registered civil engineer. 8 https://www.lagunabeachcity.net/home/showpublisheddocument/23183/638925948831600000 58 -18- Reso. #26.XXX
Accordingly, the City Council finds that the absence of permanent survey hubs does not, by itself, invalidate the story pole installation or negate the Board’s findings. The Board’s decision was supported by substantial evidence in the record.
5. “Poles erected off-plumb further compromised reliability: Field observations further confirm that many of the poles were erected off plumb, introducing additional distortion in the perception of height and massing. Off-plumb poles may understate apparent height depending on viewing angle and slope, particularly on a hillside site such as Crestview Drive. This condition further undermined the value of the story poles.” City Council Response
The Appellant asserts that certain story poles were erected off plumb and therefore failed to accurately represent the approved project. The City agrees that story poles are required to be installed accurately so they can reliably depict the proposed building height, massing, and envelope for design review purposes. However, the record does not support the conclusion that the story poles were erected off-plumb.
As discussed in the responses to Appeal Contentions Nos. 1 through 4, the Appellant’s contention is based on a document prepared by Garo of GJ Design & Development. That document does not identify whether the preparer is a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer authorized under California law to perform boundary, elevation, or construction staking verification. The letter does not include a professional stamp or certification. The Applicant, however, did retain a registered civil engineer qualified to certify the accuracy of the story poles, who confirmed that the poles were accurately set to represent the Revised Project. As such, the record demonstrates that the story poles were not installed off-plumb. In addition, even after the staking period, the 59 -19- Reso. #26.XXX
Board required further reductions in height and massing and required the structure to be shifted further into the hillside, resulting in an approved project that is more conservative than what was depicted by the story poles.
Consistent with the City’s established process, final compliance with approved building heights and setbacks will be verified through conditions of approval that require a certified record of survey prior to building permit issuance and a building height and location certification during construction. These requirements will ensure that the constructed project will accurately reflect the Board Approval.
Accordingly, while accurate story pole installation is required, the Appellant has not demonstrated with substantial evidence that any story poles were erected off-plumb, or that any such inaccuracies resulted in inaccurate Board findings or deprived the Board of the ability to properly evaluate height, massing, or view impacts. The Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record and reflects a reasoned application of the City’s Design Review standards.
6. “Applicant-certified Staking Does Not Constitute Substantial Evidence: The staking was certified by the applicant, rather than independently verified. Applicant certification of inconsistent and inaccurately installed story poles cannot support DRB findings related to view, height and massing impacts. Taken together, the lack of an accurate survey basis and inconsistent story pole elevations, whether higher or lower, demonstrate that the story poles were not a reliable basis for evaluating compliance with the Design Guidelines of View equity and Neighborhood Compatibility.”
60 -20- Reso. #26.XXX
City Council Response
The Appellant contends that the story pole installation does not constitute substantial evidence because the staking was certified by the Applicant rather than independently verified, and therefore cannot support the Board’s findings related to view, height, and massing impacts.
The City’s Municipal Code requires the following with respect to staking for design review:
A staking plan shall be prepared as specified on the most current zoning and design review submittal checklist. Staking poles and connecting ribbons, which accurately represent the full extent of the proposed structure, including decks and eaves, shall be constructed at least 21 calendar days prior to the first public hearing. At least 21 calendar days prior to the first public hearing, the location and height of the staking poles must be certified as accurate by a registered land surveyor or registered civil engineer licensed to conduct land surveys in the State of California. If complete and certified project staking is not in place at least 21 calendar days prior to the first Design Review Board public hearing date . . ., the project shall be continued to a later date. Neither the applicant, a relative of the applicant, nor any other person possessing a financial interest in the property or the project may certify the location and height accuracy of the staking poles. If the project is modified during the design review process because of a view consideration, privacy or other concerns that the Board determines is necessary to restake, the project shall be re-staked and re-certified at least 14 calendar days prior to any subsequent public hearing. (LBMC Section 25.05.040(C)(2)(a).)
As an initial matter, upon receipt of the Appeal and evaluating the contentions, the City 61 -21- Reso. #26.XXX
closely re-reviewed the story poles and ribbons that were installed by contractors hired by Applicant and the certification, which is required to be done by a registered land surveyor, or registered civil engineer licensed to conduct land surveys in the State of California, who is not the applicant, relative of the applicant, or any other person with a financial interest. The intent of this requirement is to ensure integrity in the process and accurate representation of the design review project.
Applicant, who is a licensed civil engineer, certified the staking on July 10, 2024 for the Original Project (see Sheet A-1.4 of the April 10, 2025 Board plans) and on June 18, 2025 for the Revised Project. (See Sheet A-1.4 of the December 11, 2025 Board plans.) While this certification was done within 21 calendar days prior to the first public hearing, the certification did not fully comply with the Municipal Code because it was certified by Applicant. In response to the Appeal, Applicant retained a third party registered civil engineer licensed to conduct land surveys in the State of California, Cynthia A De Leon, to review the staking. On January 8, 2026, Ms. De Leon certified the story pole height and location of the Revised Project (as it existed before the conditions imposed by the Board in the Board Approval). According to Ms. De Leon’s certification, there was not a discrepancy of the pole and ribbon locations and the plans for the Revised Project, which was reviewed by the Board before the Board Approval. This subsequent verification cures the concern that the staking inaccurately represented the Revised Project’s height or massing, which was further mitigated by the Board through the imposition of additional projectspecific conditions of approval on December 11, 2025. Furthermore, the City Council in its review of the Appeal will have the benefit of assessing the merits of the Appeal in reliance on an appropriately certified staking plan, for the version of the project (the Revised Project) that was 62 -22- Reso. #26.XXX
reviewed by the Board before the Board imposed conditions of approval to further minimize impact of the project, among other evidence in the record.
Further, it should be noted that the Board’s evaluation did not depend on story poles alone.
The Board considered the full evidentiary record, including the project plans, elevations, sections, visual materials presented at hearings, and extensive testimony. In addition, Board members expressly raised view-related concerns during deliberations and directed measurable modifications to address them, including adjustments intended to reduce horizon and Catalina Island impacts.
The Board’s approval required additional design changes that directly addressed the view equity issues discussed during the hearings, consistent with the City’s and DCSP’s balancing approach and the directive to avoid cutting into a neighbor’s horizon line whenever possible.
Accordingly, while the staking may have been defective because it was certified by a licensed civil engineer with a financial interest in the Revised Project (i.e., the Applicant), there was other evidence in the record that the Board relied upon that constitutes substantial evidence supporting the decision. The certification by Ms. De Leon, which confirms that the story pole placement and ribbons accurately reflected the Revised Project also supports that the original certification by Applicant (as opposed to a person without a financial interest) was harmless error.
SECTION 3. The City Council hereby makes the following findings and facts supporting findings for DR 25-0431:
Finding No. 1: Physical improvements and site developments related to the Project are designed and located in a manner in overall consistency with the design review criteria specified in Section
25.05.040(H), as set forth below:
1. Access. Conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians and other modes of transportation 63 -23- Reso. #26.XXX
should be minimized by specifically providing for each applicable mode of transportation.
Handicapped access shall be provided as required by applicable statutes.
The Project includes an attached two-car garage which is accessed from an uphill sloping driveway, providing sufficient vehicular back-up distance. There is no area within 200 feet of the property that can accommodate a public parking space. Accordingly, the applicant is concurrently seeking a variance from the D/CSP requirement to provide one on-street public parking space. In addition, the Project design accommodates one (1) conforming private parking space and one substandard private parking space onsite in the driveway leading to the code compliant 2-car garage.
These driveway parking spaces would not impede vehicle travel in the abutting public right-ofway. There are no public sidewalks. Adequate vehicle sight distance exists to access the on-site parking spaces based on the proposed site plan reviewed by Public Works staff.
2. Design Articulation: Within the allowable building envelope, the appearance of building and retaining wall mass should be minimized. Articulation techniques including, but not limited to, separation, offsets, terracing and reducing the size of any one element in the structure may be used to reduce the appearance of mass.
The proposed terraced project steps up from Crestview Drive and appears as a four-level structure, consisting of a lower-level garage and three upper levels, including the ADU. The front (west) elevation is articulated through terracing, varied projections, and offsets. The angled garage is set back 16 feet and 26 feet from the front property line at its shortest and longest points, respectively. There will be only one publicly visible retaining wall along the south property line between the garage and the street. The wall will slope up from the street and will be no taller than 16 feet at the face of the garage remaining pedestrian in scale. The first-level deck is located 64 -24- Reso. #26.XXX
directly above the garage, and the ADU at this level is set back approximately 42 feet from the front property line. The second-level deck is above the ADU, with the primary residence set back approximately 63 feet. The third (uppermost) level is set back an additional 3 feet, bringing its setback to approximately 66 feet. With a terraced form and a compact building footprint of 1,569 square feet, the design reduces visual massing and is appropriately articulated.
3. Design Integrity: Consistency with the applicant’s chosen style of architecture should be achieved by the use of appropriate materials and details. Remodels should be harmonious with the remaining existing architecture.
One of the policies of the D/CSP seeks to ensure that “the proposed new residences and modifications to existing residences are compatible with the rustic character of the neighborhood by requiring varied and eclectic architectural styles and moderate scale and mass with low-profile design that respect the topography of the land…” (Policy No.1. pg. III-2.). The proposed project is terraced and built into the hillside and provides contemporary design with rustic colors and materials. The lower-level garage features a limestone veneer. Board-and-batten siding is used on the first level and portions of the third level, while stucco is applied to the second level and parts of the third to soften the structure’s appearance. The exterior is finished in a rustic Sage Green color. The proposed eclectic architectural style is compatible with the more modern character of the neighborhood.
4. Environmental Context: Development should preserve and, where possible, enhance the city’s scenic natural setting. Natural features, such as existing heritage trees, rock outcropping, ridgelines and significant watercourses should be protected. Existing terrain should be utilized in the design and grading should be minimized. 65 -25- Reso. #26.XXX
The site is devoid of significant natural features such as heritage trees, rock outcroppings, ridgelines or natural watercourses. The proposed project includes a net grading export of 1,343 cubic yards, which is consistent with new home development on steep hillside building sites. The amount of grading facilitates a reasonable balance of above and below grade structure thereby reducing the appearance of mass. Impervious surfaces are less than 50% which the City has found to be an acceptable amount for steep hillside lots of this size. Further, based on hydrology reports for the subject property, and a Hydrology Technical memo prepared in 2022, no impacts to the significant modified watercourse are anticipated.
5. General Plan Compliance: The development shall comply with all applicable policies of the General Plan, including all of its elements, applicable specific plans, and the certified local coastal program.
With the concurrently sought variances to encroach into the watercourse, and to not provide the required one on-street public parking space, the proposed project complies. More specifically, the Project complies with goals and policies of the General Plan below, and as evidenced below:
General Plan Policies
Land Use (LU) Policy 2.8 Require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated with natural topographic features, minimize significant alteration of natural topography and/or other significant onsite resources, and protect public views as specified in the Design Guidelines and the Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document.
The subject property is located within the D/CSP area, which features steep topography.
The proposed project is compatible and integrated with the natural topographic features as it incorporates articulation techniques such as offsets and terracing into the design. The watercourse 66 -26- Reso. #26.XXX
on site has been significantly modified through a City installed storm drain and an easement has been established to protect the infrastructure. The proposed project does not have an impact on public views based on the location of the structure built into the hillside. Public views from the abutting roadway are away from the subject property to the south and public views from the street above (Gainsborough) are not affected due to the project being at a much lower elevation.
LU Policy 2.10 Maximize the preservation of coastal and canyon views (consistent with the principle of view equity) from existing properties and minimize blockage of existing public and private views. Best efforts should be made to site new development in locations that minimize adverse impacts on views from public locations (e.g., roads, bluff top trails, visitor-serving facilities, etc.).
The proposed project siting considers previous privacy and view equity concerns and has minimized potential impacts by providing a terraced design, landscaping and siting the building appropriately from the rear setback. The Project has no impact on public views because the public right-of-way (Gainsborough Drive) uphill from the subject property, is at a significantly higher elevation. Public comment with view equity concerns was received by a neighbor located at 785 Gainsborough Drive above the Project site prior to the Concept Review hearing on May 9, 2024, and the Design Review Board hearing on April 10, 2025. Based on a site visit, it appears the neighbor’s existing landscaping effectively screens the proposed project and already blocks a portion of their ocean view. Furthermore, in response to the Board’s direction, the third level (uppermost) has been shifted toward the rear by 3 feet to partially address view equity concerns.
LU Policy 3.10 Require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated with natural topographic features, minimize significant alteration of natural topography or other 67 -27- Reso. #26.XXX
significant on-site resources, and protect public views as specified in the Design Guidelines and Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document by maintaining the low-profile character of structures. Require use of appropriate landscaping, special architectural treatments, and siting considerations for projects visible from major highways and arterial streets. Best efforts should be made to site new development in locations that minimize adverse impacts on views from public locations (e.g., roads, bluff-top trails, visitor-serving facilities, etc.).
The site is devoid of significant natural features such as heritage trees, rock outcroppings, ridgelines or natural watercourses. The current project siting is a result of multiple project iterations, and the building design and siting is compatible and integrated with the natural topographic features. The excavation into the hillside makes the 4-level terraced design more low profile and reduces above grade mass. The proposed project includes a net grading export of 1,343 cubic yards which is consistent with new home development on steep hillside building sites.
Impervious surfaces are less than 50% which the Board has found to be an acceptable amount for steep hillside lots of this size. The watercourse on site has been significantly modified through a City installed storm drain and an easement has been established to protect the infrastructure. In addition, based on hydrology reports for the subject property, and a Hydrology Technical memo prepared in 2022, no impacts to the significant modified watercourse are anticipated. Public views from the abutting roadway are away from the subject property to the south and public views from the street above (Gainsborough) are not affected due to the project being at a much lower elevation.
LU Policy 7.3 and 10.2 Design and site new development to protect natural and environmentally sensitive resources, such as areas of unique scenic quality, public views, and visual compatibility with surrounding uses and to minimize natural landform alterations. (Same as 68 -28- Reso. #26.XXX
Policy 10.2.) GOAL: Protect, preserve, and enhance the community’s natural resources.
The proposed project meets this policy and the facts are discussed in the Environmental Context (No.4) and View Equity (No.16) Design Review criteria and LU Policy 10.2 (Coastal Development Permit Section) and they are incorporated herein by reference.
LU Policy 7.10 Require new construction and grading to be located in close proximity to preexisting development to minimize environmental impacts and growth-inducing potential.
The proposed construction and associated grading is within a mostly developed neighborhood of single-family residences and has no growth inducing potential.
6. Historic Preservation: Destruction or alteration to historic resources should be avoided whenever possible. See Chapter 25.45 for more information.
The subject property is a vacant building site and not listed on the City’s Historic Register.
7. Landscaping: Landscaping shall be incorporated as an integrated part of the structure’s design and relate harmoniously to neighborhood and community landscaping themes.
View equity shall be an important consideration in the landscape design. The relevant landscaping guidelines contained in the City’s “Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document” should be incorporated, as appropriate, in the design and planned maintenance of proposed landscaping.
The proposed project is located within the Diamond/Crestview neighborhood as described in the City’s Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document. This document includes a set of policies and maintenance guidelines to address the issues of tree maintenance, fire safety, heritage tree preservation, view preservation, scenic highways, water conservation, soil stability, invasive plants, and neighborhood landscape character. The proposed landscape plan includes a 69 -29- Reso. #26.XXX
mix of new trees (such as Arbutus Unedo and Rhus Integrifolio) and small shrubs while avoiding target species for fire safety considerations. The required landscape open space is 21.55% (1,392 SF) and the project provides 3,299 SF, which includes as area of natural vegetation. The proposed landscape plan was approved by the City’s Landscape consultant on November 29, 2022.
8. Lighting and Glare: Adequate lighting for individual and public safety shall be provided in a manner which does not significantly impact neighboring properties. Reflective materials and appurtenances that cause glare or a negative visual impact (e.g., skylights, white rock roofs, high-gloss ceramic tile roofs, reflective glass, etc.) should be avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance in those locations where those surfaces are visible from neighboring properties.
The proposed lighting plan is shown on sheet A1.6 and includes a total of 12 light fixtures, such as lantern wall lights,and ceiling lights. Overall, the plan provides low level lighting where needed for safety and efficient operation in outdoor activities, terraces, stairs, and walkways.
9. Neighborhood Compatibility: Development shall be compatible with the existing development in the neighborhood and respect neighborhood character. Neighborhood character is the sum of the qualities that distinguish areas within the City, including historical patterns of development (e.g., structural heights, mass, scale or size), village atmosphere, landscaping themes and architectural styles.
The pattern of development in the neighborhood consists of a mixture of three-level and four-level residences that are stepped into the hillsides with varying architectural styles and rustic exteriors, including mid-century and Mediterranean styles. Similar to other residences in the neighborhood, the proposed building is integrated into the hillside. The applicant proposes a 70 -30- Reso. #26.XXX
contemporary design with rustic colors and materials that is consistent with the surrounding pattern of development.
10. Pedestrian Orientation: Commercial development design shall enhance and encourage pedestrian uses. Incorporation of articulated building masses, compact open spaces and courtyards, mixed use developments, use of landscaping as part of design, and orientation to pedestrian access should be maximized.
Design Review Criteria for Pedestrian Orientation is related to commercial development and this residential project is not subject to those criteria.
11. Privacy: The placement of activity areas (e.g., decks, picture windows and ceremonial or entertainment rooms) in locations that would result in a substantial invasion of privacy of neighboring properties should be minimized.
Prior to the Concept Review hearing on May 9, 2024, and the Design Review Board hearing on April 10, 2025, the City received a public comment from a neighbor regarding the potential privacy issues the current project may cause. The neighbor located north of the subject property, claimed that the windows on the North elevation of the building are placed directly across from their bedrooms and ocean viewing windows and would therefore infringe on their privacy.
Based on City site visits, it appears that existing landscaping at that neighbor’s property screens the Project site and promotes privacy. Moreover, in response to the Board direction to increase screening to address the privacy concerns of the neighbors located to the south and north of the subject property, the applicant proposed additional landscaping consisting of four (4) Arbutus Unedo ‘Strawberry Trees’ as shown on the updated landscape plan (Sheet A-1.5). Furthermore, in response to the Board’s direction, the third level (uppermost) has been shifted toward the rear by 71 -31- Reso. #26.XXX
3 feet, in order to address the neighbor’s concerns.
12. Public Art: Public art is encouraged and shall be displayed where feasible or required by the Art in Public Places ordinance.
Design Review Criteria for Public Art is related to commercial development and this residential project is not subject to those criteria.
13. Sign Quality: Signs shall be incorporated into the architecture of the structure and shall be made of high quality materials, be simple in design and be visually compatible with the surrounding physical environment in terms of color, scale and size. Use of natural materials in the construction of signs is encouraged.
Design Review Criteria for Signage is related to commercial development and this residential project is not subject to those criteria.
14. Sustainability: New development should consider architecture and building practices which minimize environmental impacts and enhance energy efficiency by: (a) reducing energy needs of buildings by proper site and structural design; (b) increasing the building’s ability to capture or generate energy; (c) using low-impact, sustainable and recycled building materials; (d) using the latest Best Management Practices regarding waste and water management; and (e) reducing site emissions.
New construction is required to meet Title 24 energy and Building Code requirements, which include insulated windows and energy efficient lighting. The applicant will be required to provide proof of compliance. Further, the applicant will be required to reuse, recycle, or divert at least 65 percent of the project’s construction and demolition debris. Finally, to promote future installation of solar panels, a minimum of 250 square-feet of “solar ready” roof area will be 72 -32- Reso. #26.XXX
provided.
15. Swimming Pools, Spas, and Water Features: Swimming pools, spas and water features shall be located, designed and constructed where: (a) geology conditions allow; (b) noise produced by circulatory mechanical pumps and equipment is mitigated; and (c) any associated fencing or other site improvements are compatible with neighboring properties.
No pool/spa or other water feature is proposed for this project site.
16. View Equity: The development, including its landscaping, shall be designed to protect existing views from neighboring properties without denying the subject property the reasonable opportunity to develop as described and illustrated in the City’s “Design Guidelines.” The “Design Guidelines” are intended to balance preservation of views with the right to develop property.
Due to the hillside setting and orientation of uphill and downhill homes, significant impacts to private views are not anticipated. The project proposes a rear setback of 51 feet and the roof of the highest level would be approximately 12 feet to 22 feet below the homes above. Three strawberry trees are proposed to be approximately 14 feet from the rear property line, which with a maintained height of 15’ should not impede public or private views over the project site. Prior to the Concept Review Hearing on May 9, 2024, and the Design Review Board hearing on April 10, 2025, the City received view equity concerns from the neighbor located north of the subject property. Based on a site visit, it appears the neighbor’s existing landscaping effectively screens the proposed project and already impedes the ocean view. However, in response to the Board direction to increase screening to address the privacy concerns of the neighbors located to the south and north of the subject property, the applicant proposed additional landscaping consisting of four 73 -33- Reso. #26.XXX
(4) Arbutus Unedo ‘Strawberry Trees’ as shown on the updated landscape plan (Sheet A-1.5).
Furthermore, in response to the Board’s direction, the third level (uppermost) has been shifted toward the rear by 3 feet, effectively addressing the neighbor’s concerns.
Finding No. 2. The physical improvements and site developments related to the Project are designed and located in a manner in overall consistency with all other applicable design guidelines.
Yes. The Project is consistent with the Residential Design Review Guidelines, as explained above. In addition, the Project is also consistent with Design Guidelines for Hillside Development:
The guidelines are intended to describe the City’s design philosophy for hillside development. The guidelines set forth design principles and parameters and provide the framework for the City’s Design Review process. The guidelines are intended to provide the flexibility in the design review process because the evaluation of building design includes the application of judgement, discretion and independent analysis. Furthermore, the guidelines are intended to provide assistance and direction in the design of hillside projects in a manner that is compatible with the mutual interests of the property owner and the City (Design Guidelines for Hillside Development. Pg. A-2).
The hillside guideline suggests terraced walls with landscape incorporated to break up the appearance of mass. The Project is designed to be terraced into the hillside and is graded appropriately. The applicant proposes elevated decks that are set back and integrated with the topography, and planter areas to soften the structure’s appearance from street view. Open space between the properties has been provided by providing substantial planter area along the south property line. Furthermore, the setback on the north side was increased due to the sewer easement which allows for additional planting.
74 -34- Reso. #26.XXX
Finding No. 3. The physical improvements and site developments related to the Project are characterized by appropriately scaled development, diverse and unique architectural designs, pedestrian orientation, and sensitivity to the natural conditions of the site.
Yes. See Findings above under Design Review Criteria 2, 3, 4, and 9 for design articulation, design integrity, environmental context, and neighborhood compatibility, with the facts provided incorporated herein by reference.
Finding No. 4. The project is consistent with any specific plan or any other specific zoning design review criteria.
The Project is consistent with the Diamond Crestview Specific Plan findings, as detailed below, and based on the concurrently sought variance from the one on-street public parking space.
DIAMOND CRESTVIEW SPECIFIC PLAN FINDINGS.
No. 1 | The proposed use is compatible with surrounding land uses and is consistent with the intent and purpose established in the specific plan; The intent of the D/CSP is to preserve and enhance this unique area by creating special land use development standards that protect and promote the rustic character of the neighborhood, and that allow for safe and orderly development. The site is designated for single family use including ADUs. The proposed use is that of a single-family dwelling with an attached two-car garage and is consistent with surrounding single family uses on adjacent properties in the D/CSP area.
No. 2 | The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed development; The subject property is 6,450 square-feet and is “fan-like shape”. The proposed program conforms to the maximum allowable building area of the site and the proposed design appears to 75 -35- Reso. #26.XXX
be neighborhood compatible in terms of mass and scale relative to the natural topography. The overall living and elevated deck areas are consistent with the pattern of development. The design also conforms to development standards (e.g. setbacks, parking, building coverage, etc.) the Board is comfortable with the watercourse setback variance and the design accommodates additional onsite private parking.
No. 3 | All necessary public improvements have been provided or will be required as conditions of approval;
All necessary and required public access improvements have been incorporated in the design and will require separate street improvement plans submitted and approved by Public Works prior to building permit issuance, which is reflected in a condition of approval on this project. The street frontage will be widened along the frontage of the property, providing a greater than the minimum for a 10’ travel lane and 2’ reserve shoulder. The initially proposed on-street parking space along Gainsborough Drive is no longer available and a parking variance has been requested. DCSP Section IV(J)(1) states that upon the development of a building site, “one (1) onstreet public parking space shall be provided”. The development standard further adds that “if the provision of on-street parking is found to be infeasible, an equivalent parking space shall be provided on-site. Only upon exhaustion of all possible alternatives to provide a parking space either on-street or on-site and with the approval of a variance, an in-lieu fees as established by the City Council, shall be paid to fund the future construction of parking in the neighborhood”.
To satisfy the requirement, two on-street public parking spaces were proposed. The first parking space, near the intersection of Crestview Drive and Diamond Street, was found infeasible due to inadequate pavement width by the Public Works Department. Adding a designated space in 76 -36- Reso. #26.XXX
that location would force oncoming cars into one another, increasing the risk of accidents. After coordination with the Public Works Department and the Planning Division, a second potential parking location was identified further to the west of the site close to ‘hairpin’ turn on Crestview Drive. The revised location (and other potential locations along the ‘hairpin’ turn) were ultimately found infeasible due to insufficient pavement width even with creating retaining walls within the public right-of-way. Additionally, any reduction in lane width with the provision of a new public on-street parking space would impede emergency fire access based on input from the City Fire Marshall. A potential public parking space across from the subject property proximate to 2025 Crestview was also examined and deemed infeasible due to the need to construct 6-8-foot-high retaining walls and the loss of existing vegetation creating privacy issues for that property owner.
Additionally, that potential space is close to the hairpin curve in Crestview Drive and existing vegetation can create sight distance constraints and additional safety risks. No other potential locations to accommodate the on-street parking have been identified within 200 feet of the subject property, already significantly far from the property’s line-of-sight.
The Project design provides code-required covered parking in a two-car garage, and it can accommodate two parking spaces on the driveway (a conforming parking space and an additional sub-standard parking space) but these spaces could not accommodate the public as it would prevent access to the garage. The driveway spaces will reduce street parking demands for residents and their guests. All possible alternatives within a reasonable distance of the project site have been exhausted. Therefore, a variance is being sought with the payment of an in-lieu fee as established by the City Council.
No. 4 | The project will not cause any significant environmental impact and appropriate 77 -37- Reso. #26.XXX
mitigation measures, if any, have been incorporated into the project or are attached as conditions of approval;
The site is devoid of significant natural features such as heritage trees, rock outcroppings, ridgelines or natural watercourses. Based on previous hydrology reports for the subject property, and a Hydrology Technical memoprepared in 2022, no impacts to the significant modified watercourse are anticipated. The property is not located within any sensitive biological overlay, and a geotechnical study shall be required during the building plan check review phase.
No. 5 | The project complies with the development standards and design guidelines of the specific plan; and
With the concurrently sought variance for not providing the required on-street public parking space (D/CSP Section IV(J)(1)), as discussed in more detail under the variance entitlements herein, the project complies with the development standards and design guidelines of the specific plan. The project complies with the Lot Coverage, Setback, Allowable Building Area and Landscape Open Space requirements and meets the Hillside Design Guidelines as it is designed to be terraced and integrated into the hillside, with an appropriate amount of grading to reduce the appearance of mass.
No. 6 | The project mitigates or avoids environmental constraints of the lot as identified in the site-specific studies and/or overlay maps of high and very high value habitats and unique geological features (Figures 5 & 7).
The site is devoid of significant natural features such as heritage trees, rock outcroppings, ridgelines or natural watercourses. The subject property is not included within any sensitive biological area that would warrant additional review or studies. The site is within the 78 -38- Reso. #26.XXX
“Undifferentiated Uncertified and Certified Fill” geologic overlay. The vacant lot features a westfacing slope. In general, the Seismic and Public Safety Element of the General Plan designates the specific plan area as having high probability for slope instability due to particular types of geologic formation. Historically, the unstable slopes in the Plan area are the steep, south facing slopes underlain by weak bedrock. A geotechnical study, which is a standard requirement for hillside development shall be required during the building plan check review phase to ensure that the proposed construction design and slope remain stable. The site constraints include steep topography, which the proposed design embraces, and a significant modified watercourse which is already protected and preserved through the establishment of an easement.
SECTION 5. The City Council hereby makes the following findings and facts supporting findings for CDP 25-0433:
Finding No. 1: The project is in conformity with all the applicable provisions of the certified local coastal program, including the following review criteria
1. The proposed development will not encroach upon any existing physical accessway legally utilized by the public or any proposed public accessway identified in the adopted local coastal program land use plan.
The proposed development will occur on vacant private property (currently only improved with an underground sewer and terrace drains), which is accessible from an improved public street.
The public street will be widened slightly and no public sidewalks exist along this narrow street (Crestview Drive). The proposed project is not encroaching on a public coastal accessway, and no new coastal access is proposed.
2. The proposed development will not adversely affect marine resources, environmentally 79 -39- Reso. #26.XXX
sensitive areas, or archaeological or paleontological resources.
There are no known marine resources, archeological, or paleontological resources in the project area. The property has been identified and mapped as an environmentally sensitive area (drainage). The existing watercourse has been significantly modified due to the installation of a City storm drain constructed on the adjacent contiguous property and easements have been established to protect the infrastructure. The revised drainage system no longer uses the V-ditch storm drain and instead collects site runoff, which is piped to the street for conveyance into the City’s storm drain system. Based on previous hydrology reports for the subject property, and a Hydrology Technical Memo prepared in 2022, no impacts to the significant modified watercourse are anticipated. The project primarily involves a new single-family dwelling, including grading, to a site within an established residential neighborhood and is not expected to result in impacts to any of these resources.
3. The proposed development will not adversely affect recreational or visitor-serving facilities or coastal scenic resources.
The site is devoid of significant natural features such as heritage trees, rock outcroppings, ridgelines or natural watercourses. The proposed project is located on a vacant lot designated for single family use by the Local Coastal Program (ADUs are allowed by State law) within an established residential neighborhood and is not adjacent to any recreational or visitor-serving facilities. The proposed project will not impact any coastal scenic resources, such as public ocean views, as it will be stepped into the hillside and the public-right-of-way uphill of the project, Gainsborough Drive, it at a significantly higher elevation.
4. The proposed development will be sited and designed to prevent adverse impacts to 80 -40- Reso. #26.XXX
environmentally sensitive habitats and scenic resources located in adjacent parks and recreation areas, and will provide adequate buffer areas to protect such resources.
The site is devoid of significant natural features such as heritage trees, rock outcroppings, ridgelines or natural watercourses. The proposed project is located on a vacant lot designated for residential use by the Local Coastal Program within an established residential neighborhood. The property has been identified and mapped as an environmentally sensitive area (drainage). The existing watercourse has been significantly modified due to the installation of a City storm drain constructed on the adjacent contiguous property and easements have been established to protect the infrastructure. The revised drainage system no longer uses the V-ditch storm drain and instead collects site runoff, which is piped to the street for conveyance into the City’s storm drain system.
Based on previous hydrology reports for the subject property, and a Hydrology Technical Memo prepared in 2022, no impacts to the significant modified watercourse are anticipated. The site is not within any sensitive biological overlay and is not adjacent to any parks or recreation areas.
5. The proposed development will minimize the alterations of natural landforms and will not result in undue risks from geological and erosional forces and/or flood and fire hazards.
The vacant hillside property will be altered for the construction of a new single-family dwelling. The subject site is within the “Undifferentiated Uncertified and Certified Fill” geologic overlay and is not a natural landform and contains no rock outcroppings. The vacant lot features a west-facing slope. In general, the Seismic and Public Safety Element of the General Plan designates the specific plan area as having high probability for slope instability due to particular types of geologic formation. Historically, the unstable slopes in the Plan area are the steep, south facing slopes underlain by weak bedrock. A geotechnical study shall be required during the 81 -41- Reso. #26.XXX
building plan check review phase to ensure that the proposed construction design and slope remain stable. The project meets the Hillside Design Guidelines as it is designed to be terraced and integrated into the hillside, with an appropriate amount of grading to reduce the appearance of mass.
6. The proposed development will be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and where feasible, will restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas.
The new residence appears to be compatible with the neighborhood and surrounding hillside development. The Project is designed to be stepped into the hillside and incorporates rustic colors and materials which in consistent with the character of the neighborhood.
7. The proposed development will not have any adverse impacts on any known archaeological or paleontological resource.
There are no known archeological or paleontological resources in the project area.
8. The proposed development will be provided with adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities.
The project does not involve any significant changes to existing facilities. The onsite drainage has been designed to collect and convey site runoff to a swale or closed drain for off-site discharge and collection by the City storm drain system.
9. Other public services, including, but not limited to, solid waste and public roadway capacity have been considered and are adequate to serve the proposed development.
The project does not involve any significant changes to existing public services. The existing public services are considered to be adequate to serve an additional single-family dwelling on a site designated for residential use by the Local Coastal Program. 82 -42- Reso. #26.XXX
The project is consistent with all applicable policies of the Certified LCP.
LCP COASTAL VIEW POLICIES (CDP)
Land Use Element (LU) Policy 2.8 Require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated with natural topographic features, minimize significant alteration of natural topography and/or other significant on-site resources, and protect public views as specified in the Design Guidelines and the Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document.
The subject property is located within the D/CSP area, which features steep topography.
The proposed project is compatible and integrated with the natural topographic features as it incorporates articulation techniques such as offsets and terracing into the design. The watercourse on site has been significantly modified through a City installed storm drain and an easement has been established to protect the infrastructure. Public views from the abutting roadway are away from the subject property to the south and public views from the street above (Gainsborough Drive) are not affected due to the project being at a much lower elevation. The project meets the Hillside Design Guidelines, as it is designed to be terraced and integrated into the hillside, with an appropriate amount of grading to reduce the appearance of mass.
LU Element Policy 2.9 Require the use of appropriate landscaping, special architectural treatments, and/or siting considerations to protect public views for projects visible from major highways and arterial streets.
The landscaping is appropriate for the neighborhood and complies with the City’s landscape requirements. During the Building plan check review phase, the Building Official may require a fuel modification plan or an Alternative Means & Method report. The project is not visible from Coast Highway or arterial streets. Public views from the abutting roadway are away 83 -43- Reso. #26.XXX
from the subject property to the south and public views from the street above (Gainsborough Drive) are not affected due to the project being at a much lower elevation.
LU Element Policy 2.10 Maximize the preservation of coastal and canyon views (consistent with the principle of view equity) from existing properties and minimize blockage of existing public and private views. Best efforts should be made to site new development in locations that minimize adverse impacts on views from public locations (e.g., roads, bluff top trails, visitorserving facilities, etc.) Policy 2.10 includes: Action 2.10.1 Discourage the addition of second stories in established neighborhoods where view equity has historically been achieved through one-story construction.
The Project is designed to be stepped into the hillside in a tiered fashion and conforms to the allowable buildable area. No obstructions to public views of coastal or canyon resources shall be caused by the proposed project because public views from the abutting roadway are away from the subject property to the south and public views from the street above (Gainsborough Drive) are not affected due to the project being at a much lower elevation. Prior to the Concept Review Hearing on May 9, 2024, and Design Review Board hearing on April 10, 2025, the City received view equity concerns from the neighbor located at 785 Gainsborough Drive, north of the subject property. The proposed project may have a minimal yet inevitable impact on the neighbor’s private views. After a site visit, however, a Board member confirmed that the neighbor’s existing landscaping, which would screen the proposed project, already impedes the ocean view.
Furthermore, in response to the Board’s direction, the third level (uppermost) has been shifted toward the rear by 3 feet, promoting partial view retention with the goal to address neighbor’s concerns.
84 -44- Reso. #26.XXX
LU Element Policies 7.3 and 10.2 Design and site new development to protect natural and environmentally sensitive resources, such as areas of unique scenic quality, public views and visual compatibility with surrounding uses and to minimize landform alterations.
The building design and siting is compatible and integrated with the natural topographic features as it incorporates articulation techniques such as offsets and terracing into the design with an appropriate amount of grading to reduce the appearance of mass. The watercourse on site has been significantly modified through a City installed storm drain and an easement has been established to protect the infrastructure. Public views from the abutting roadway are away from the subject property to the south and public views from the street above (Gainsborough Drive) are not affected due to the project being at a much lower elevation.
LUE Policy 3.10 Require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated with natural topographic features, minimize significant alteration of natural topography or other significant on-site resources, and protect public views as specified in the Design Guidelines and Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document by maintaining the low-profile character of structures. Require use of appropriate landscaping, special architectural treatments, and siting considerations for projects visible from major highways and arterial streets. Best efforts should be made to site new development in locations that minimize adverse impacts on views from public locations (e.g., roads, bluff-top trails, visitor-serving facilities, etc.).
Policy 3.10 requires protection of public views as specified in the Design Guidelines. The Design Guidelines require View Equity for impacts to public views, and require maintenance of view corridors.
View Equity is defined as: View equity means achievement of a fair, reasonable and 85 -45- Reso. #26.XXX
balanced accommodation of views and competing obstructions such as structures, trees and/or vegetation, privacy and the use and enjoyment of property.
The Design Review Guidelines refers to Public Views:
15.6 Maintain view corridors when feasible.
∙Consider opportunities for public views.
∙Locate a building to retain view opportunities through side yards.
The Project is designed to be stepped into the hillside in a tiered fashion. No obstructions to public views of coastal or canyon resources shall be caused by the proposed project because the public right-of-way (Gainsborough Drive) uphill from the subject property, is at a significantly higher elevation and the subject property is surrounded by developed properties. The side yards meet the required setbacks and retain view opportunities. Three strawberry trees are proposed to be approximately 14 feet from the rear property line, and two strawberry trees have been proposed along the south property line, which with a maintained height of 15’ would not impede views.
Prior to the Concept Review Hearing on May 9, 2024, and the Design Review Board hearing on April 10, 2025, the City received view equity concerns from the neighbor located at 785 Gainsborough Drive, north of the subject property. Based on a site visit, it appears the neighbor’s existing landscaping effectively screens the proposed project and already impedes the ocean view.
Furthermore, in response to the Board’s direction, the third level (uppermost) has been shifted toward the rear by 3 feet, effectively addressing the neighbor’s concerns Open Space Conservation Element (OSCE) 7A As best possible, preserve the quality of public views from the hillsides and along the City’s shoreline.
The Project is designed to be stepped into the hillside in a tiered fashion. No obstructions 86 -46- Reso. #26.XXX
to public views of coastal or canyon resources would be caused by the proposed project because public views from the abutting roadway are away from the subject property to the south and public views from the street above (Gainsborough Drive) are not affected due to the Project being at a much lower elevation.
LCP DOCUMENTS
The project conforms with all the following applicable documents of the Certified LCP.
Design Guidelines for Hillside Development (as adopted by Resolution 89.104) Finding No. 2. Any development located between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea is in conformity with the certified local coastal program and with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act.
The Project is not located between the sea and first public road paralleling the sea.
Finding No. 3. The proposed development will not have any significant adverse impacts on the environment within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act.
As described further herein, the Project does not have any significant adverse environmental impacts. The Project qualifies for a categorical exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15303, as discussed further herein.
SECTION 4. The City Council hereby makes the following findings and facts supporting findings for VAR 25-0432 for variances from encroachments into a significant watercourse setback (LBMC Section 25.50.030(D)(4)) and not to provide a required on-street public parking space (D/CSP Section IV(J)(1)):
Finding No. 1: There are special circumstances applicable to the property involved, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings which cause the strict application of 87 -47- Reso. #26.XXX
the zoning ordinance to deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification.
The lot is triangular in shape and has 40-foot-wide street frontage and also has steep topography (41% slope). These factors significantly limit the buildable area of the lot. The on-site mapped watercourse runs along the north property line and diagonally towards the rear property line and it requires a 25-foot setback buffer. The “watercourse” is not natural and is highly modified due to being piped underground and a small concrete V-ditch. The existing watercourse has also been significantly modified due to the installation of a City storm drain constructed on the adjacent contiguous property and easements have been established to protect the infrastructure.
The watercourse setback is a regulatory constraint that further restricts the development of the property.
The Project site is in the Diamond/Crestview Specific Plan area (D/CSP), which is characterized by steeply sloping developed and non-developed lots accessed by narrow sloping streets. The existing development pattern (e.g. existing driveways, narrow streets, and on-street parking) coupled with existing slopes and vegetation are physical constraints to providing access to lots and to providing additional safe on-street parking spaces. Specifically, the project site is located on a steeply sloping street with limited pavement width proximate to a hairpin curve with.
The width of the street in the nearby vicinity is consistently less than 25 feet and some cases less than 18 feet.
D/CSP Section IV(J)(1) states that upon the development of a building site, “one (1) onstreet public parking space shall be provided”. The development standard further adds that “if the provision of on-street parking is found to be infeasible, an equivalent parking space shall be 88 -48- Reso. #26.XXX
provided on-site. Only upon exhaustion of all possible alternatives to provide a parking space either on-street or on-site and with the approval of a variance, an in-lieu fees as established by the City Council, shall be paid to fund the future construction of parking in the neighborhood.” To satisfy the requirement, two on-street public parking spaces were proposed. The first parking space, near the intersection of Crestview Drive and Diamond Street, was found infeasible due to inadequate pavement width by the Public Works Department. Adding a designated space in that location would force oncoming cars into one another, increasing the risk of accidents. After coordination with the Public Works Department and the Planning Division, a second potential parking location was identified further to the west of the site close to ‘hairpin’ turn on Crestview Drive. The revised location (and other potential locations along the ‘hairpin’ turn) were ultimately found infeasible due to insufficient pavement width even with creating retaining walls.
Additionally, any reduction in lane width with the provision of a new public on-street parking space would impede emergency fire access based on input from the City Fire Marshall. A potential public parking space across from the subject property proximate to 2025 Crestview was also examined and deemed infeasible due to the need to construct 6-8-foot-high retaining walls and the loss of existing vegetation creating privacy issues for that property owner. Additionally, that potential space is close to the hairpin curve in Crestview Drive and existing vegetation can create sight distance constraints and additional safety risks. No other potential locations to accommodate the on-street parking have been identified within 200 feet of the subject property, already significantly far from the property’s line-of-sight.
The project design provides code-required covered parking in a two-car garage, and it can accommodate two parking spaces on the driveway (a conforming parking space and an additional 89 -49- Reso. #26.XXX
sub-standard parking space) but these spaces could not accommodate the public as it would prevent access to the garage. All possible alternatives within a reasonable distance of the project site have been exhausted. Therefore, a variance is being sought with the payment of an in-lieu fee as established by the City Council.
Finding No. 2: Such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, which right is possessed by other property owners under like conditions in the same vicinity and zone.
Granting the variance to the watercourse setback standard and provision of on-street parking is necessary to permit the construction of a single-family home and appurtenant accessory improvements in a safe and compatibly way consistent with the existing development pattern of the area. This privilege is enjoyed by all developed lots in the D/CSP area (zone) and without variance approval, the property owner is deprived of the ability to develop the buildable lot compatible with the neighborhood.
The property immediately above (803 Gainsborough Drive) the subject site was granted a variance allowing construction of a new single-family dwelling within the 25-foot watercourse setback. That property was identically constrained by the watercourse setback to a significantly modified and non-existent watercourse and City easements.
Finding No. 3: The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, convenience and welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity in which the property is located.
The granting of the two variances would not be detrimental to the public because the watercourse is significantly altered, and the proposed design incorporates all the necessary 90 -50- Reso. #26.XXX
drainage improvements to accommodate stormwater as shown on the plans and addressed in the associated hydrology report for the proposed development. No setback to the “watercourse” is necessary as a result. Providing a public-on-street parking space in the immediate area would increase risks of accidents due to reduced lane width. It would potentially impede fire emergency access and create privacy issues for nearby homes. No feasible location exists in the vicinity of the project site and the applicant will pay an in-lieu fee to the City in the amount established by the City Council to provide a space in the larger neighborhood. The project design provides its own required parking, and it accommodates two additional spaces in the driveway, reducing the need for off-site parking. Due to these facts, the grant of variances will not be detrimental to public health, safety, convenience and welfare.
Finding No. 4: The granting of such a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the zoning ordinance or the general plan.
The general purpose of the General Plan and Zoning Code is to provide for the orderly, safe, and compatible development of the City consistent with a community approved land use plan.
The General Plan and Zoning Code allow for the development of a single-family home and appurtenant accessory improvements on the project location and the proposed project is consistent with the allowed use.
The purpose of the 25-foot watercourse setback is to protect existing or planned development and ensure compatible development and use near mapped watercourses. In this case, the watercourse is significantly modified due to underground piping, and it is a concrete V-ditch.
The proposed design incorporates all the necessary drainage improvements to accommodate stormwater as shown on the plans and addressed in the associated Hydrology Technical Memo for 91 -51- Reso. #26.XXX
the proposed development. No setback to the “watercourse” is necessary as a result. The project improvements will preserve the drainage carrying capacity of the site, ensuring the safe transference of storm water protecting the subject and neighboring properties thereby protecting the functional significance of the watercourse.
The watercourse has no scenic or ecological value given that it is so highly modified. The watercourse is not connected to a natural watercourse and the concrete v-ditch connects existing channels and drainage pipes, therefore the encroachments within the watercourse setback will not impair the functional, scenic and ecological purposes of the watercourse.
The purpose of the requirement to provide a public on-street parking space with new home development is to increase the parking supply in the D/CSP area that has very limited on-street parking spaces for general use where it is feasible to do so. The specific requirement provides for relief if it is determined that no space can be accommodated. In this case, several proximate locations were examined by the applicant and the City and all either created unacceptable risks to vehicular or fire access or they would create undue privacy issues due to the loss of vegetation and potential safety concerns due to limited sight distance for vehicles on a steeply sloping street at a hairpin curve. Additionally, the proposed design provides 4 on-site parking spaces, reducing the need for residents and guests of the project to park on the street. Granting relief from the on-site parking requirement will avoid safety and privacy issues and would therefore not be detrimental to the public.
25.50.030(D)(4) Watercourse Encroachment Variances
92 -52- Reso. #26.XXX
Variances for the purpose of placing a building or structure within an established watercourse setback area may be granted only when the following findings are made in addition to those listed above.
Finding No. 5: The proposed encroachment will act to preserve, enhance or restore the significance of the watercourse.
The “watercourse” has not maintained its natural form and is highly modified due to being piped underground via a small concrete V-ditch. The existing watercourse has also been significantly modified due to the installation of a City storm drain constructed on the adjacent contiguous property and easements have been established to protect the infrastructure. The proposed project encroaches into the 25-foot watercourse setback buffer but does not encroach into the established easement and will therefore preserve the significant modified watercourse.
Finding No. 6: The proposed encroachment is not likely to impair the functional, scenic and ecological purposes of the watercourse.
The proposed encroachment is not likely to impair any functional, scenic and ecological purposes of the modified watercourse. There is no scenic or ecological purpose of the mapped watercourse. Man-made swales were created 20 years ago after the 1980 Del Mar landslide that occurred uphill from the subject site. Significant modified watercourses are typified by the continuous presence of a topographic swale or depression and the ability to conduct overflow runoff. The respective watercourse is highly modified due to being piped underground and a small concrete V-ditch. The existing watercourse has also been significantly modified due to the installation of a City storm drain constructed on the adjacent contiguous property and easements have been established to protect the infrastructure.
93 -53- Reso. #26.XXX
SECTION 6. The City Council hereby makes the following findings and facts supporting findings for REP 25-2285:
Finding No. 1: It should be located in a manner that is not hazardous to the traveling public, including motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians.
The proposed retaining wall and foldable fire access ladder are located along the uphill edge of the public right of way where no sidewalks exist and where pedestrian activity is minimal. The improvements do not project into the travel lane and do not reduce the existing roadway width. When in the closed position, the ladder remains mounted flat against the retaining wall and does not encroach into the roadway. In an emergency, the ladder would be deployed by public safety personnel and extended onto the street under controlled conditions. Public Works staff, Building and Safety staff, and the Fire Marshal have reviewed the proposal and determined that the location and design will not create a hazard for motorists, bicyclists, or pedestrians.
Finding No. 2: It should be sufficiently set back from the edge of pavement or street centerline to provide adequate travel, parking, and walking lanes.
The proposed retaining wall and foldable fire access ladder are fully located within the uphill portion of the public right of way and do not extend into the paved roadway. The improvements are set back from the edge of pavement in a manner that maintains the existing travel lane width, which Public Works staff has confirmed is adequate for vehicle circulation. There are no public sidewalks or designated on-street parking spaces along this segment of Crestview Drive, and the proposed encroachments do not alter existing walking or parking conditions. Public Works staff has reviewed the plans and determined that the required clearances for travel, parking, and pedestrian movement are maintained. The City Council concurs.
94 -54- Reso. #26.XXX
Finding No. 3: It should not conflict with preexisting public utility structures, especially hydrants, vault and service meters in any manner that necessitates relocation thereof at public expense or causes any other unacceptable interference, including impediments to the maintenance, relocation or repair of pipelines, conduits, or substructures of any public utility.
Electric utility boxes are located beneath the existing base of the neighboring stairs and adjoining retaining wall. Removal of the existing stairs will improve access to these facilities by eliminating the concrete structure currently situated over them. Public Works staff has reviewed the plans and confirmed that the proposed retaining wall and foldable fire access ladder will not interfere with the utility boxes or associated lines, nor will they require any relocation of utility infrastructure at public expense. The proposed encroachments maintain adequate clearance for ongoing utility maintenance, repair, and future work. The City Council concurs.
Finding No. 4: It will not preclude public access, use or enjoyment of any area that has historically established such access, use or enjoyment.
The area of the public right of way where the retaining wall and foldable fire access ladder are proposed has not historically been used for public access or recreational purposes. There are no sidewalks, trails, or designated public spaces in this location, and the existing neighboring stairs serve only as emergency access for the private property at 2100 Crestview Drive. The proposed improvements do not alter or restrict any established public access or use patterns, and emergency access for the neighboring property will be maintained through the new foldable ladder system. As a result, the Project does not preclude public access, use, or enjoyment of any area where such access has historically occurred.
Finding No. 5: It is not precedent setting in nature to the extent that it creates a noticeable 95 -55- Reso. #26.XXX
projection into the streetscape as established by existing construction and improvements on neighboring properties.
The proposed retaining wall and foldable fire access ladder are located along the uphill edge of the public right of way and do not project into the roadway or alter the established streetscape pattern. The existing neighboring stairs already extend into the right of way in this same location, and the proposed improvements represent a reduction in mass and visual presence compared to the existing condition. The ladder remains folded against the wall when not in use and does not introduce a new form or scale of encroachment along the street. As a result, the Project does not create a precedent setting condition or a new type of projection into the streetscape beyond what currently exists on neighboring properties.
Finding No. 6: It does not create structures of unusual or unacceptable appearance, form, shape or height that detract from the general quality of the streetscape.
The proposed retaining wall is similar in scale and appearance to other walls commonly found along hillside streets. The foldable fire access ladder is a functional and compact solution developed to address emergency access needs without leaving a permanent projection into the right of way.
When not in use, the ladder remains folded flat against the wall, which reduces its visibility and presence in the streetscape. Although the ladder is a creative solution rather than a typical access feature, its low profile and utilitarian design do not detract from the general visual quality of the street.
SECTION 7. The City Council hereby denies the Appeal and sustains the Design Review Board’s determination on the Revised Project, as reflected in Design Review Board Resolution No. 25-0431, including all conditions attached thereto, which such Resolution and conditions are incorporated herein by this reference.
96 -56- Reso. #26.XXX
ADOPTED this 24th day of February, 2026.
Mark Orgill, Mayor
ATTEST:
Ann Marie McKay, City Clerk
I, Ann Marie McKay, City Clerk of the City of Laguna Beach, certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 26.XXX was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City held on February 24, 2026, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
City Clerk, City of Laguna Beach, CA
97