STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date:
February 24, 2026
APPEAL
B
SUBJECT: 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE: PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 25-1431 FOR A NEW
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH ATTACHED TWO-CAR GARAGE,
ELEVATED DECKS, GRADING, AND LANDSCAPING, COASTAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 25-0433 FOR THIS NON-EXEMPT DEVELOPMENT
WITHIN THE COASTAL ZONE AND AN 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 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE, AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3)
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:
1. Conduct a Public Hearing, including receiving a staff report and taking public testimony and evidence relating to the consideration of Design Review 25-0431, Variance 25-0432, Coastal Development Permit 25-0433, and Revocable Encroachment Permit 25-2285, and the California Environmental Quality Act categorical exemption under Section 15303 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines; and
2. Adopt a Resolution titled, “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)”, upholding the Design Review Board’s conditional approval of Design Review 25-0431, Coastal Development Permit 25-0433, Variance 25-0432, and Revocable Encroachment Permit 25-2285, and finding the project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
SUMMARY OF THE MATTER
David Freeland, Architect (“Applicant”)1, for 2058 Crestview Drive (the “Property”) (see aerial map included as Figure 1) 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.
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”). 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. (The May 9, 2024 Staff Report, Plans, Public Comments, and Transcript are attached as Attachments 2 through 5, respectively.) On April 10, 2025, the Board held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the entitlement applications, consisting of DR 25-0431, CDP 25-0433, VAR 25-0432, and REP 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 help address view equity concerns;
2. Modify the driveway to accommodate two standard parking spaces outside of the public right-ofway;
3. Adjust the proposed exterior color to a more rustic tone;
4. Incorporate additional landscaping to enhance privacy; 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).
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
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. (The April 10, 2025 Staff Report, Plans, Public Comments, and Transcript are attached as Attachments 6 through 9, respectively.) 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 REP, the Board decided not to deliberate on the merits of the project and instead continued the item to December 11, 2025.
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).7
2. The third (uppermost) level was shifted 3 feet toward the rear, resulting in a corresponding shift and slight enlargement of the second level, to address views over the building.
3. The 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.
7. A REP 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.
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 7 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 on-site 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. As indicated further below, the Revised Project as conditionally approved would have the effect of increasing the depth of the non-required spaces to meet or exceed the minimum requirements for standard residential spaces.
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
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 located on the Applicant’s southerly retaining wall along the property line.”9
(The December 11, 2025 Staff Report, Plans, Public Comments, Transcript, and Board-adopted Resolution No. 25-0431 are attached as Attachments 10 through 14, respectively.) 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”) (Attachment 15). The Appellant contends that the Board failed to adequately protect view equity, citing six contentions. To facilitate the City Council’s consideration of this matter, this agenda report provides an overview of the City Council appeal procedures; the Board’s public hearings; and City staff’s responses to the Appellant’s contentions in the Appeal.
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. Notices were mailed to owners and occupants within a 300-foot and 100- foot radius of the Property, respectively, posted on the Property, and published in a newspaper of general circulation (Attachment 16).
CITY COUNCIL APPEAL PROCEDURES
A. Standards of Review
Pursuant to LBMC Section 25.05.070, all DR, VAR, CDP, and REP decisions of the Board may be appealed to the City Council by the Applicant or any owner of property within 300 feet of the subject property.
The City Council may uphold, reverse, or remand any appealed decision. (LBMC § 25.05.070(E)(3)(a).) In particular, in reversing a decision, there must be three affirmative votes approving the reversal by adoption of a resolution that sets forth in writing the findings relied on to conclude that the appealed decision was in 9 Implementation of COA No. 32 would have the effect of increasing the depth of the non-required off-street parking spaces located on the Applicant’s Property within the driveway to meet the minimum depth for standard residential parking spaces (i.e., the two parking spaces will now both be greater than or equal to 18 feet deep).
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
error or an abuse of discretion.11 (LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(3)(a).) In upholding a decision, the City Council may also choose to “modify the proposed project or conditions of project approval, by making them more restrictive or may add more restrictive conditions of approval upon the adoption of a resolution and without the need for a finding of error or an abuse of discretion.” (LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(3)(b).) Further, pursuant to LBMC § 25.05.070(E)(2)(d), the City Council’s review is limited to “the plans that were the subject of the decision or determination by the approval authority”; if new plans are submitted, the City Council “shall not consider or act on” them but may determine to remand those plans to the approval authority “for further proceedings pursuant to such direction as may be given the City Council.”
1. Coastal Development Permit, Variance, Revocable Encroachment Permit, and CEQA LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(1) sets forth the procedures and review criteria for non-design review appeals, such as a coastal development permit, variance, revocable encroachment permit, and CEQA. For that review, the City Council shall not be limited to the grounds stated for the appeal and shall not be limited to the evidence that was presented to the Board. The City Council shall exercise its independent judgment and discretion as to the evidence presented at its hearing. Nevertheless, there shall be a presumption that the decision or determination made by the Board was reasonable, valid, and not an abuse of discretion; and the appellant shall have the burden of proof of demonstrating otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence presented.
In its consideration of the Board’s approval of CDP 25-0433, VAR 25-0432, REP 25-2285, and a Class 3 categorical exemption from CEQA, the City Council is not limited to either the evidence in the record or the deliberations of the Board. The Applicant or members of the public may present new evidence for the City Council’s consideration, and the City Council is free to deliberate without being limited to the Board’s findings – in other words, a de novo hearing.
2. Design Review
LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(2) sets forth the procedures and review criteria for appeals of design review decisions. With respect to the standard of review for those decisions, subsection (E)(2)(a) provides:
If the decision or determination was supported by four or more affirmative votes of the approval authority, upon hearing the appeal or request for review, the city council shall be limited to the grounds specifically stated in the notice of appeal, if an appeal was filed, and to the evidence that was presented to the approval authority. The city council shall not conduct a de novo hearing, shall not reweigh the evidence, and shall not exercise its independent judgment and discretion as to the evidence. The city council shall consider whether the approval authority proceeded in the manner required by law and whether the decision or determination is supported by substantial evidence.
There shall be a presumption that the decision or determination made by the approval authority was reasonable, valid, and not an abuse of discretion. The appellant, if there is one, shall have the burden of proof of demonstrating otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence, including plans, presented. 11 An abuse of discretion is defined as the following: (1) the City has "not proceeded in the manner required by law"; (2) the City "decision is not supported by the findings"; or (3) the "findings are not supported by the evidence." (Civil Code § 1094.5.) APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
Accordingly, in its consideration of DR 25-0431, which was approved 4-0, the City Council shall not conduct a de novo hearing. Rather, the City Council shall consider whether the Board proceeded in the manner required by law and whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence.
If the Applicant proposes new plans that result in a redesign, the City Council shall not consider such plans; however, the City Council may (but is not required to) remand such plans to the Board for further review.
Notwithstanding that the City Council cannot review proposed new plans, the City Council can uphold the approval of DR 25-0431, subject to more restrictive conditions of approval that are effectuated through the provision of new plans;13 in such event, remand is not required.
3. City Council Options
The City Council has numerous options in consideration of this matter, which are listed below.
1. Adopt the attached Resolution upholding the Board Approval, and finding the Revised Project categorically exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303;
2. Adopt the attached Resolution upholding the decision of the Board to conditionally approve DR 25- 0431, CDP 25-0433, VAR 25-0432, and REP 25-2285, and finding the Revised Project categorically exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, but modifying the Resolution to include more restrictive conditions of approval;
3. Direct staff to prepare and return at a future meeting with a Resolution overturning the Board Approval, with findings in support of overturning the Board Approval and denying the Revised Project; or
4. Direct staff to prepare and return at a future meeting with a Resolution remanding DR 25-0431, CDP 25-0433, VAR 25-0432, and REP 25-2285 to the Board, with findings in support of the remand and further direction to the Board.
LEGAL LANDSCAPE
Below is an overview of the applicable state housing laws and the Coastal Act carve outs.
A. Overview of the HAA
The HAA requires a city to notify a developer if the proposed housing development project is inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provisions (to objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria) within 30 days of the date that the application is determined to be complete and failure to take such action will result in the project being deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision (to objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria). (Gov. Code Section 65589.5(j)(2).) 13 By way of example only, the City Council could choose to uphold a DR decision but impose a condition requiring that a wall be moved in three feet (3’) in order to support a view equity finding. In such event, new plans would be required to effectuate the condition, but the plans would not need to be remanded to the DRB or Planning Commission for further consideration.
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, the city must make certain written findings to deny a project that (1) the housing development project “would have a ‘specific, adverse impact’15 upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density”; and (2) there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the identified adverse impact, other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density. (Gov. Code Section 65589.5(j)(1).) The HAA also has a Coastal Act carve out:
Nothing in this section shall be construed to relieve the local agency from complying with . . . the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code).
(Cal. Gov't Code § 65589.5(e).)
B. Application of the HAA to this Property
Pursuant to HCD’s Housing Accountability Act Technical Assistance Advisory Memorandum, the HAA applies to a new single-family residence and new ADU. Thus, the HAA applies to the project.
DISCUSSION
The Board held three public hearings on May 9, 2024, April 10, 2025, and December 11, 2025 and adopted Resolution No. 25-0431 conditionally approving the Revised Project on December 11, 2025. A summary of the Public hearings is set forth below.16
A. May 9, 2024 Board Hearing – The Conceptual Project
1. Staff Report
The subject site is a 6,045 square-foot vacant lot in the Diamond/Crestview Specific Plan (D/CSP) area that maintains a moderate upward slope of approximately 34 percent, with a mapped watercourse traversing along the north property line. The Applicant requested a concept review hearing to construct a 1,971-squarefoot, four-level structure consisting of a residence, attached two-car garage, and attached ADU. 15 A “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. (Gov. Code Section 65589.5(j)(1)(A).)
16 The summaries and charts within this staff report are not exhaustive of all commentary or deliberations, but are intended to be a tool to aid the City Council in its review of the evidence.
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
Figure 1: Aerial View of Project Site
2. Staff Presentation
Staff summarized the project history and the proposed improvements for the new single-family residence and identified key issues for the Board’s consideration. Staff noted that while the project generally complies with applicable development standards, there are outstanding concerns related to permitted height, lot slope calculations, on-street parking, access, roof form, design integrity, and neighborhood compatibility. Staff acknowledged public comments received both prior to and after publication of the staff report, which generally raised concerns regarding mass and scale, privacy, view equity, and neighborhood compatibility, and recommended that the Board consider these comments and provide concept-level feedback on the project.
3. Board Ex Parte Disclosures
Board
Member
Ex Parte Disclosure Transcript
Page Nos.
Jessica
Gannon
Absent -
MJ Coveny Met with Evgenii Kraskow, read all submitted public commentary, and visited the neighborhood.
p. 7 of 21
Louis Weil Met with Edward Sotto and Evgenii Kraskow, called architect’s company but did not get a response, and visited the site.
p. 7 of 21
Thomas
Gibbs
Met with Mike Cjakowski, Evgenii Kraskow, and Edward Sotto and spoke with Matt Lawson.
p. 7 of 21
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
Deborah
Neev
Called architect but did not get a response. Conducted site visit and walked the neighborhood.
p. 7-8 of 21
4. Applicant Presentation
David Freeland, Project Architect, provided an overview of the project and responded to issues raised in the staff report. He stated that the design had been developed over several years to comply with the Diamond Crestview Specific Plan and to address community concerns, noting that the current proposal differed substantially from an earlier iteration that was located higher on the site and raised greater view and policy conflicts. He emphasized that the proposed residence was modest in size at approximately 1,971 square feet, well below the maximum allowable floor area of 3,225 square feet, and had a reduced lot coverage of approximately 26 percent compared to the 35 percent maximum.
Applicant explained that although the home included three levels above the garage, it was carefully sited and provided an increased front setback of approximately 12 feet, exceeding the minimum requirement, to reduce visual and neighborhood impacts. He stated that the structure is significantly embedded into the hillside, with an estimated 30 to 40 percent of the building below grade, and that the roofline remains below the rear property line. He acknowledged that a small portion of the structure exceeds the height limit due to challenging cross slope topography, but noted that this condition is limited.
He further described the architectural approach, stating that the building mass is broken into multiple rotated volumes to reduce perceived scale, allow access to light and views, and minimize obstruction of surrounding views. He noted that material selection and articulation, including a concrete garage base, and board and batten style siding, are intended to further reduce visual bulk and provide a contemporary interpretation of rustic and farmhouse inspired architecture that integrates with the hillside and neighborhood context.
5. Public Testimony
During the public hearing, three individuals provided public testimony. The public testimony is summarized below:
Commenter Summary of Comment Transcript
[Attachment 5]
Page Nos.
Edward Sotto Expressed concerns that the proposed project is incompatible with the Diamond Crestview design standards and surrounding neighborhood context, citing impacts to privacy, views, neighborhood character, and perceived urban density. Raised objections to the scale, materials, and siting of the residence, stating it is perched above the hillside rather than embedded within it. Asserted that the project would affect access, parking, and safety by altering an adjacent driveway and retaining wall within the right of way, potentially resulting in loss of parking, and by creating construction staging and traffic constraints on Crestview Drive that could impede emergency vehicle access.
Also expressed concerns regarding prolonged construction impacts, p. 6-7 of 21
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
including noise, vibration, and potential effects on nearby homes, and urged that the project be redesigned to better comply with area guidelines and minimize impacts to existing residences.
Evgenii
Kraskow
Expressed concerns that the proposed project is incompatible with the Diamond Crestview design standards and surrounding hillside context, describing the structure as excessively tall, vertically stacked, and tower like, with a large garage base and multiple upper levels that elevate the building to capture views at the expense of adjacent properties. Stated that the massing, lack of terracing, and three-story wall facing the neighboring property would significantly affect privacy by introducing multiple windows facing nearby bedrooms without landscaping or privacy buffers. Asserted that the project would substantially obstruct existing views, including views toward the ocean and Catalina Island that are identified for protection in the Diamond Crestview Specific Plan, and objected to the requested height variance as further exacerbating these impacts. Mr. Kraskow also raised concerns regarding reflective and bright materials, lack of natural materials, insufficient integration into the hillside, architectural incompatibility with surrounding homes, and inadequate neighborhood outreach, and requested that any development on the site fully comply with applicable design standards and respect existing privacy and view conditions.
p. 8-9 of 21
Unknown
Speaker
Expressed concerns regarding the proposed project’s landscaping and environmental impacts, stating that it would eliminate a valuable hillside habitat and wildlife migration corridor identified in the Diamond Crestview Specific Plan. Alleged that numerous native trees on the site were removed prior to project commencement, raising concerns about premature disturbance of the site. Also expressed agreement with prior speakers regarding concerns about the project’s design and emphasized the need to protect native vegetation and natural hillside conditions.
p. 9 of 21
6. Applicant Rebuttal
Applicant acknowledged neighborhood concerns regarding construction disturbance and stated that efforts would be made to minimize impacts. He addressed access and safety issues related to the Crestview Drive hairpin turn, explaining that the project would require roadway widening, which would improve access for vehicles and emergency services, and noted that modifications to an existing retaining wall would be completed at the Applicant’s expense to facilitate these improvements. He stated that the residence is substantially embedded into the hillside, is well below allowable floor area limits, and has a reduced footprint to minimize site impacts. In response to landscaping concerns, he explained that limiting the building footprint is intended to reduce disturbance to the site and that the design incorporates landscaping on stepped and rotating building volumes to better integrate the structure with the hillside and surrounding native vegetation. (Attachment 5 [Transcript], pg. 9 of 21).
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
7. Board Questions and Responses
Topic Question and Response Transcript
[Attachment
5] Page Nos.
[Commenter]
Project
Compliance
Board member Weil asked staff if the references in the
presentation and staff’s report regarding the project’s nonconformance with certain elements of the Diamond/Crestview Specific Plan were accurate. Staff confirmed that it was. pg. 10-11 of 21
[Weil, Khan]
Roadway
Expansion
Board Member Weil asked staff whether the proposed driveway or roadway expansion within the public right-of-way is being required and overseen by the Public Works Department and whether it is being driven primarily by the Applicant’s access needs rather than a broader public safety or infrastructure benefit.
Staff responded by informing the Board member that the
Diamond/Crestview Specific Plan Area requires street
improvements to take place in front of the property, which includes street widening and paving.
p. 11 of 21
[Weil, Khan]
Public Right-ofWay and
Interdepartmental
Review
Board Member Gibbs raised questions regarding the proposed modifications to driveways and a retaining wall located within the public right of way, specifically seeking clarification on whether Planning or Public Works would oversee the work to ensure safety, access, and proper vehicle circulation between adjacent garages.
Staff responded that Planning and Public Works would coordinate review of the proposed removal or modification of the retaining wall encroaching into the public right of way, and that any required work would involve an agreement with the adjacent property owner. Staff noted that Public Works’ prior comments were limited to replacement parking and did not address the retaining wall, and stated that the issue would be forwarded to Public Works for further review and comment.
p. 11-12 of 21
[Gibbs, Khan,
Dobson]
Setbacks Board member Coveny asked whether the building could be set back further on the lot and reoriented to reduce impacts to an adjacent property, including whether moving the structure approximately 10 feet rearward would remain compliant with required setbacks and potentially alter garage placement. Staff explained that the Diamond Crestview Specific Plan requires setbacks to be distributed across 40 percent of the lot depth, providing the Applicant with flexibility to allocate setbacks within that area, subject to minimum front setback requirements. Staff indicated there may be some opportunity to adjust the building placement but noted that changes to garage orientation could be p. 12 of 21
[Coveny,
Khan]
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
constrained by steep topography and roadway conditions, and deferred further explanation to the project architect.
Lot Slope
Discrepancy
Board member Neev asked for clarification regarding a
discrepancy in the calculated slope of the site, questioning whether it was due to existing drainage patterns and topography or differences in calculation methods. Staff responded that the discrepancy was the result of differing calculations and stated that staff’s analysis determined the lot slope exceeds 40 percent, which allows the proposed maximum building height of 29 feet under applicable regulations
p. 13 of 21
[Neev, Khan]
8. Board Deliberation
Topic Discussion Transcript
[Attachment
5] Page Nos.
[Commenter]
Buildability,
Mass and Scale,
and
Neighborhood
Compatibility
The Board generally agreed that the site is buildable despite its challenging topography and history of prior design iterations. One member concluded that the proposed mass and scale are appropriate given the constraints of the lot and are comparable to nearby homes that feature stacked, block-like forms. While acknowledging concerns raised by neighbors, the Board found that the overall size of the residence is modest relative to what could be permitted and that the stepped articulation helps reduce perceived bulk. Several members noted that contemporary architecture exists in the neighborhood, but emphasized that the project’s brightness and modern character should be softened through the use of more rustic, earth-toned materials consistent with Diamond Crestview. One Board member found the building form overly “boxy,” stating that the design contributes to view impacts and could be improved through alternative roof forms and articulation.
pg. 13-20
[Gibbs, Weil,
Coveny, and
Neev]
Siting,
Orientation, and
View Equity
The Board generally supported the proposed placement of the residence, noting that it is set back farther from the street than adjacent homes and helps protect uphill views. Board members found that minor height increases were acceptable given site conditions and did not materially interfere with views from uphill properties. The Board concluded that overall view equity is largely achieved for both adjacent neighbors, though some Board members requested further study of limited view impacts to the Krasko property and encouraged exploration of modest adjustments to improve view corridors without requiring major reductions in building height or floor area.
pg. 13-20
[Gibbs, Weil,
Coveny, and
Neev]
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
Privacy Impacts
and Mitigation
While the Board did not find privacy impacts sufficient to preclude development, members expressed concern about the proximity of the structure to the adjacent southern property, particularly overlooking windows near the rear yard. The Board requested additional privacy mitigation measures, including landscaping, hedging, window treatments such as opaque glass, and other design refinements to soften visual impacts and improve neighbor privacy.
Pg. 15,16,
19,20
[Coveny,
Gibbs]
Design
Articulation and
Materials
Board members generally supported the project’s articulation and breakdown of mass through porches, stair elements, and stepped volumes, but agreed that the exterior materials and color palette should be revised. Board members emphasized the importance of using darker, more natural, and rustic materials to better integrate the home into the hillside environment and reduce the perception of scale, even within a contemporary design approach.
Pg. 14, 17, 19,
20 [Gibbs,
Coveny, Weil,
Neev]
Access, Parking,
and Public
Right-of-Way
Improvements
The Board emphasized the importance of resolving access and parking issues along Crestview Drive, particularly given the narrow roadway and blind curve serving multiple homes. Board members supported roadway widening and the proposed off-site parking location, citing safety benefits for residents and emergency vehicles.
However, concerns were raised regarding driveway alignment, vehicle conflicts, and modifications within the public right of way, including impacts to adjacent properties. The Board stressed that these issues must be fully resolved through coordination with Planning and Public Works prior to approval
Pg. 17, 18, 19
[Gibbs, Weil,
Coveny]
Watercourse
Encroachment
The Board generally agreed that the watercourse is a modified feature and does not present a significant obstacle to the project. The Board indicated that a variance related to the watercourse encroachment could be supported.
Pg. 16, 17, 20
[Gibbs, Weil,
Neev]
Specific Plan
Findings
Board member Weil indicated challenges with several
Diamond/Crestview Specific Plan findings, particularly related to grading, massing, and compatibility, and requested more accurate staking and additional refinement before the project returns.
Pg. 17 [Weil]
9. Board Action
As the application was reviewed at the conceptual plan stage, the Board did not take formal action. Instead, the Board provided detailed direction for further refinement and encouraged the Applicant to return with revised plans addressing privacy mitigation, material and color selection, view sensitivity, and access and safety concerns. Board members indicated that, with additional modifications, the project could better balance neighborhood compatibility with reasonable development of the site. Chair Pro Tem Neev confirmed for the public that the project would be re-noticed prior to a future hearing, and no date was set for the item’s return.
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
B. April 10, 2025 Board Hearing – The Original Project
1. Staff Report
In the staff report published to the Board and public for the Original Project, staff noted revisions made by the Applicant since the prior hearing and summarized the changes as follows:
• Additional landscaping was added along the south side of the proposed structure to address privacy concerns associated with the adjacent property at 2100 Crestview Drive, including the installation of two Arbutus unedo (strawberry trees).
• Exterior color was modified from a “light mist” to a “cape cod blue,” and a limestone veneer was added to the garage face.
• Grading volume calculations were revised to more accurately reflect how the structure is embedded into the hillside, including:
o An increase of 55 cubic yards of cut within the building footprint o An increase of 272 cubic yards of cut outside the building footprint In addition, staff introduced an additional variance request of the Applicant to allow deviation from the requirement to provide an on-street public parking space, as specified in Diamond Crestview Specific Plan Section IV(J)(1).
2. Staff Presentation
Staff acknowledged public comments raising concerns related to mass and scale, as well as privacy and view impacts, and advised the Board to consider whether these issues affected the Original Project’s compliance with the design review criteria.
3. Ex Parte Disclosures
Board
Member
Ex Parte Disclosure Transcript
[Attachment 9]
Page Nos.
Jessica
Gannon
Met with the Applicant/owner, Mike Czajjowski, and Steve Kawaratani and his client, Evgenii Krasko.
Pg. 1
Imer Bauta Met with the Applicant/owner, Mike Czajjowski, and Steve Kawaratani and his client, Evgenii Krasko.
Pg. 2
MJ Coveny Conducted a site visit, met with adjacent neighbor Evgenii Krasko, and communicated with the Applicant.
Pg. 2
Thomas
Gibbs
Met with the project architect at the site, met with adjacent neighbor Evgenii Krasko, and spoke by telephone with consultant Steve Kawaratani.
Pg. 2
Louis Weil Conducted site visit prior to leaving town, spoke with Steve Kawaratani, and received correspondence
Pg. 2
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
4. Applicant Presentation
Applicant stated that the project has been developed and refined over several years to respond to the Diamond Crestview Specific Plan and community input, noting that the design has been substantially revised since its initial review in 2013 and reduced in size from approximately 3,600 square feet to about 2,000 square feet. He described the site as highly constrained due to its narrow width and significant cross slope, and discussed the existing retaining wall and fire access serving the adjacent southern property, noting that the proposed partial demolition of the retaining wall within the public right-of-way would require review and approval by Building and Safety and Public Works, and that fire access would be maintained. Applicant emphasized that the residence is significantly embedded into the hillside, with a substantial portion below grade, and that the design breaks down mass through stepped volumes and material changes to reduce visual scale. He noted that the architectural character is not uncommon in the neighborhood, referenced nearby contemporary residences, and summarized revisions since the prior hearing, including changes to exterior color and materials. He also stated that additional landscaping has been incorporated to address privacy concerns for adjacent properties, particularly 785 Gainsborough Drive and 2100 Crestview Drive.
Figure 2: Original Project Rendering
5. Public Testimony
During the public hearing, three individuals provided public testimony. The public testimony is summarized below:
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
Commenter Summary of Comment Transcript
[Attachment 9]
Page Nos.
Evgenii
Kraskow
Expressed concerns that the proposed project would adversely affect views, privacy, and neighborhood compatibility for the adjacent property at 785 Gainsborough Drive. Stated that the building would block views of Catalina Island from the master bedroom, contrary to Diamond Crestview Specific Plan
guidelines, and asserted that these impacts could be reduced through modest changes to building placement, grading, or height. Raised privacy concerns regarding multiple windows on the north elevation facing a guest bedroom, and objected to the use of large, unarticulated wall surfaces and materials described as inconsistent with neighborhood quality standards. Asserted that the design does not meaningfully respond to prior Board direction and characterized the project as a direct replication of a residence designed for a different neighborhood, arguing that it fails to account for the site’s specific context. Urged the Board to require redesign of the project to better comply with applicable guidelines and respect surrounding properties.
Pg. 11
Edward Sotto Expressed concerns that the project does not adequately address prior Board direction or comply with the higher design standards of the Diamond Crestview Specific Plan. Stated that the proposed siting and angled orientation of the residence would negatively affect the adjacent property at 2100 Crestview Drive by requiring removal of a portion of an existing retaining wall and resulting in the loss of driveway access and parking spaces, which were described as essential for a family residence. Raised concerns regarding access and safety, asserting that the garage orientation and driveway configuration could interfere with vehicle movements and fire access, and suggested that
alternative siting or access solutions be explored. Objected to the project’s architectural character, stating that the materials and color remain inconsistent with the rustic nature of the neighborhood, and characterized the design as overly modern and reliant on artificial materials. Mr. Sotto also raised privacy concerns regarding windows overlooking the backyard and fire pit area, stating that the proposed landscaping was insufficient to mitigate these impacts, and urged further redesign to better integrate the project into the neighborhood context.
p. 13
Steve
Karawatani
Expressed concerns that, while the current proposal represents an improvement over earlier designs, it does not comply with the Diamond Crestview Specific Plan or DR Board guidelines
Pg. 14
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
related to view protection and privacy. Stated that the project would compromise protected coastal views, including Catalina Island views, and asserted that the Board could not make the required findings to allow the requested height increase.
Recommended that the upper level be moved farther back on the site to reduce view impacts and better comply with hillside development guidelines. Also raised concerns that the proposed landscaping does not provide sufficient space or opportunity to adequately mitigate massing and privacy impacts for adjacent properties, and suggested that modest adjustments to building placement could improve both view and privacy conditions.
6. Applicant Rebuttal
The Applicant responded by stating that additional landscaping has been incorporated to address privacy and view concerns, including the addition of five strawberry trees along the south property line and three additional trees along the rear of the site to provide screening for adjacent properties, including 785 Gainsborough Drive. Asserted that concerns regarding building height should be evaluated in light of the existing drainage improvements that raised grade elevations along the north side of the property, and stated that height measurements taken from this condition should not result in negative impacts to neighboring properties. Emphasized that the site is highly constrained due to its narrow width and steep cross slope, and stated that the design reflects careful consideration of these conditions and ongoing efforts to balance site constraints, regulatory requirements, and neighborhood concerns.
7. Board Questions and Responses
Topic Question and Response Transcript
[Attachment 9] Page
Nos. [Commenter]
Project Revisions. Board Member Weil asked whether the project had materially changed since the prior concept review, noting that while exterior colors and stonework appeared revised, he did not see changes to square footage or building
placement.
Staff confirmed that the building mass, setbacks, and
location on the lot have not changed. The primary revisions consist of changes to exterior colors and materials,
additional landscaping to address privacy concerns, and the introduction of a variance request related to on-street public parking.
Pg. 6 of 34 [Weil,
Khan]
Retaining Wall,
Parking, and
Property Interface
Chair Gibbs asked whether there was unresolved
uncertainty regarding the interface between the Applicant’s property and the adjacent southern property related to the Pgs. 6-7 of 34
[Gibbs, Khan]
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
retaining wall and parking.
Staff explained that the Applicant initially proposed
removing the portion of the existing retaining wall that encroaches into the public right-of-way to widen the
roadway, consistent with Diamond Crestview requirements.
However, staff determined that removal would negatively affect the neighbor’s fire access. Following coordination with Public Works and Building and Safety, staff indicated support for maintaining the existing wall and paving around it, provided that the Applicant constructs a new retaining wall on their side to maintain structural integrity. Staff noted this approach would preserve the neighbor’s parking and allow the Applicant to retain two on-site parking spaces.
Conditions and
Revocable
Encroachment
Permit
Chair Gibbs asked whether this solution would be
formalized as a condition of approval.
Staff stated that a condition could require the Applicant to obtain a revocable encroachment permit at a later stage, processed administratively, and that any alternative
involving removal of the wall would require a mutual
agreement between the two property owners.
Pg. 7 of 34 [Gibbs,
Khan]
Existing Wall
Authorization
Board Member Coveny asked whether the existing retaining wall on the Sotos’ property has a revocable encroachment permit.
Staff indicated that no revocable encroachment permit could be located, but historical building plans show the wall was reviewed and allowed at the time of construction.
Pgs. 7-8 of 34
[Coveny, Khan]
Public Right-ofWay AuthorityBoard Member Weil asked whether improvements constructed within the public right-of-way remain subject to City authority regardless of permitting history.
The Assistant City Attorney confirmed that structures built within the public right-of-way do not change its status as public property and may be reclaimed or modified by the City as needed.
Pg. 8 of 34 [Weil,
Donegan]
Plate Heights Board members asked for clarification regarding the proposed floor plate heights for each level of the residence.
The Project Architect responded that most residential levels have plate heights of approximately 10 feet, with the
exception of the garage level, which has a taller floor to floor height due to the steep site conditions. He confirmed that the Pgs. 16-17 of 34
[Gannon, Weil,
Freeland]
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
garage level is approximately 16 feet in height, the first and second residential levels are just under 10 feet each, and the uppermost level has a reduced plate height of approximately
8.5 feet to address overall height limitations.
Grading Chair Gibbs asked for clarification on the total amount of grading export anticipated for the project. The Project Architect confirmed that the total export is approximately 1,300 cubic yards, as reflected in the civil engineering plans.
Pg. 17 of 34 [Gibbs,
Freeland]
Retaining Wall
and Impact to
Adjacent Property
Parking
The Chair asked whether the project proposes any changes to the existing retaining wall adjacent to the Sottos’
driveway and whether such changes would affect their
parking. The Project Architect stated that the project is intended to retain existing grades at the property line and does not propose removal or modification of the existing retaining wall. He indicated that the wall is intended to remain in place and not interfere with the adjacent property or its parking.
Staff explained that an earlier concept included removal of the portion of the retaining wall encroaching into the public right of way to facilitate roadway widening. Following
consultation with Public Works, staff determined that the wall could remain, with paving accommodated around it.
Staff noted that some of the adjacent driveway parking
spaces extend into the public right of way and that removal of the wall could require reconfiguration of fire access stairs, potentially affecting driveway access. Staff expressed a preference for retaining the wall and indicated that
alternative solutions would require mutual agreement
between the property owners. Staff provided background on the wall, explaining that it was constructed decades ago to support the adjacent property and fire access stairs, with a portion extending into the public right of way. Staff stated that the wall must remain to maintain fire access and that the Applicant may need to construct or extend a supporting wall on their side to maintain structural integrity. Staff explained that such work would require a revocable encroachment
permit, which is not part of the current application, and could be addressed administratively prior to building permit issuance. Staff confirmed that the proposed wall solution would not interfere with parking or driveway access for either property and that any modification or removal of the Pgs. 17-20 of
34[Gibbs, Khan,
Campbell]
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
existing wall would require agreement from both property owners.
Public Right-ofWay
Encroachment
and Future Street
Improvements
Board Member Weil questioned how Public Works
evaluates an existing retaining wall that encroaches into the public right-of-way, and whether prior nonconforming
encroachments should constrain future improvements. He
expressed concern that allowing a new project to construct additional wall improvements to “match” an existing
encroachment could perpetuate or worsen right-of-way
impairments on already constrained Diamond Crestview
streets.
Staff explained that the existing wall was constructed
decades ago as part of the neighboring home’s development to support the slope and provide fire access, and while it was permitted by the City, no revocable encroachment permit was processed at that time. He agreed it would be preferable to avoid expanding encroachments into the right-of-way, but stated that Public Works is agreeable to leaving the existing wall in place given current conditions and safety needs, including maintaining the required fire access
stairway. He noted that this approach would require the Applicant to retain and support the earth beneath the
stairway and adjacent right-of-way area, resulting in side by side driveways with two parking spaces per property. He characterized this as an acceptable compromise, though not an ideal long-term right-of-way condition.
Pages 20 -21 of 34
[Weil, Campbell]
8. Board Deliberation
Topic Discussion Transcript
[Attachment
9] Page Nos.
[Commenter]
Parking,
Driveway
Capacity, and
Public Safety
Board members focused on whether the driveway can accommodate two on-site spaces given the constrained roadway conditions and lack of practical on-street parking in the area. Chair Pro Tem Gannon stated she would require two standard (18 foot) spaces for safety and cited prior Board precedent on a similar project. Board Member Weil agreed that parking and access needed clearer resolution, including how the right-of-way and shared driveway interface near the Sottos would function, and requested stronger documentation and a more definite solution rather than remaining “gray.” Board Member Coveny generally supported the driveway Pgs. 22, 23,
24, 27
[Coveny,
Gannon,
Gibbs, Weil]
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
configuration and felt the Applicant should not be overly penalized for existing right of way constraints, but encouraged exploring minor adjustments (including pushing the building back or grading) to better accommodate two standard spaces. Chair Gibbs
emphasized that the retaining wall serving the Sottos’ should remain and that parking must be workable for both properties; he stated he would prefer the Board review the final parking/wall solution rather than deferring it to an administrative process.
Retaining Wall
and Adjacent
Property Impacts
Multiple Board members emphasized that the Sottos’ retaining wall and related features should not be adversely affected by the project.
Board Member Bauta stated the wall is an established feature and should not be penalized or altered due to the Applicant’s development. Chair Gibbs strongly agreed that the wall should remain and that the Applicant’s design must avoid encroachment or changes that would reduce the Sottos’ parking or access.
Pgs. 26, 27, 28
[Bauta, Gibbs]
Views and View
Equity
Board members differed on the extent of view impacts to the Krasko property and what design changes are warranted. Chair Pro Tem Gannon stated that blocking a primary Catalina view is a significant concern and should be corrected, suggesting the upper level be pushed back into the hillside. Board member Weil stated view protection in the Diamond Crestview area is a central requirement and did not believe the project sufficiently responded to prior direction, including grading and hillside integration that could reduce impacts. Chair Gibbs reiterated his view that overall view equity is achieved, particularly for primary living areas of the Krasko home, but acknowledged that modest design adjustments could help address Board concerns and improve the project’s support.
Pgs. 22, 24, 27,
28 [Gannon,
Gibbs, Weil]
Height, Mass
and Scale, and
Hillside Fit
Chair Gibbs stated he did not have concerns with height, mass, or scale and found the proposal generally neighborhood compatible on those points. Board Member Bauta suggested that the requested height modification warranted closer scrutiny and that reducing the exceedance could meaningfully address neighborhood concerns.
Board Member Weil reiterated that the project should better follow hillside guidelines and that more could be done to sit the structure into the slope, including evaluating garage height and grading, and he stated the project did not reflect enough change from the prior hearing.
Pgs. 24, 26, 27
[Bauta, Gibbs,
Weil]
Design Integrity,
Neighborhood
Character, and
Materials
Several members stated that the design still reads as overly “container like” or too modern for the area’s rustic character. Chair Pro Tem Gannon and Chair Gibbs both said the form and materials do not yet align with neighborhood design expectations. Board Member Coveny praised the overall concept and noted
Pgs. 22, 25, 28
[Gannon,
Coveny,
Gibbs]
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
improvements from the prior iteration, but stated the color and exterior treatment remain critical to reducing the “container” perception and better integrating the building with the hillside.
Privacy and
Landscape
Screening
Chair Gibbs stated he did not see a privacy issue with the Krasko property due to separation and window orientation, but encouraged the Applicant to work with the Sottos on landscaping solutions and make privacy mitigation clearer in the next submittal. Board Member Coveny indicated that privacy mitigation appeared improved, especially with added trees, but suggested further landscape measures could help address remaining concerns.
Pgs. 25-28
[Coveny,
Gibbs]
9. Board Action
Following deliberation, the Board voted 5–0 to continue the hearing to allow the Applicant additional time to revise the project in response to Board direction and to engage further with neighboring property owners.
After discussion regarding scheduling and required submittal timelines, the Board continued the item to July 10, 2025. The Applicant subsequently requested additional continuances to September 11, 2025 and then to October 9, 2025. At the October 9, 2025 hearing, the Board determined that the application did not include a required REP request and, as a result, did not deliberate on the merits of the project. The Board continued the item to a date certain of December 11, 2025.
C. December 11, 2025 Board Hearing – The Revised Project
1. Staff Report
In the staff report published to the Board and public, staff noted revisions made by the Applicant in response to the Board’s direction and feedback since the prior hearing and summarized the changes as follows:
• 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.
• The third (uppermost) level was shifted 3 feet toward the rear, resulting in a corresponding shift and slight enlargement of the second level, to address views over the building. • The exterior color was updated to Sagre Green and additional limestone veneer was added to the garage face.
• Vertical siding was removed in two areas on the front elevation and replaced with stucco to soften the structure’s box-like appearance.
• Additional landscaping along the north and south-side property lines, including two Arbutus unedo (Strawberry trees), was included to address privacy concerns. • The structure was also further embedded into the hillside to reduce the appearance of mass. • A REP 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.
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
The table below summarizes the changes made since the April 10, 2025 DR hearing:
DRB April 10, 2025 Changes DRB December 11,
2025
Building Site Coverage 23.6% (1,523 SF) +47 SF 24.3% (1,569 SF) Height 31.4 Feet -2.4 Feet 29 Feet
Front Yard Setback (Garage) 14 Feet +2 Feet 16 Feet
Rear Yard Setback (House) 54 Feet -3 Feet 51 Feet
Deck 1 (Level 1) 496 Feet -91 SF 405 Feet
Deck 2 (Level 2) 291 SF -23 SF 268 SF
Deck 3 (Level 3) 65 SF +15.50 115.5 SF
Level 2 Area 836 SF +88 SF 924 SF
Landscaping (North) 0 Trees +1 Count 1 Strawberry Tree
Landscaping(South) 2 Strawberry Trees +1 Count 3 Strawberry Trees Grading (Cut inside footprint) 823 CY +30 CY 853 CY
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
Figure 3: Revised Project Renderings
2. Staff Presentation
Staff presented the Revised Project, highlighting modifications made since the prior hearing, including updated elevations, a revised landscape plan, and a revocable encroachment permit application for a 10- foot-high retaining wall and foldable fire-access ladder. Staff acknowledged public comments raising concerns related to mass and scale, as well as privacy and view impacts.
3. Ex Parte Disclosures
Board
Member
Ex Parte Disclosure Transcript
[Attachment
13]
Page Nos.
Louis Weil Spoke with the Applicant/owner, Mike Czajkowski, and conducted a site visit.
Pg. 1
MJ Coveny Reviewed past meetings and spoke with City Staff about a few things. Pg. 1 Jessica
Gannon
Drove by the site and previously met with the neighbor above, Mr.
Kraskow and Steve Karawatani
Pg. 1
Imer Bauta Visited the site and spoke with Steve Karawatani Pg. 1 Thomas
Gibbs
Absent -
4. Applicant Presentation
Applicant presented the Revised Project for the single-family residence, noting that the design has been substantially refined in response to prior Board direction and neighbor concerns. He described the site as a APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
deep, narrow parcel with steep slopes in two directions and surrounded by multiple adjacent homes, requiring careful balancing of views, privacy, and access. The architect stated that the current design has been significantly reduced from earlier versions reviewed in 2012, decreasing from approximately 3,000 square feet to about 1,800 square feet,19 and relocated lower on the site to better embed the structure into the hillside. He explained that portions of the upper level previously identified as affecting views were pulled back, resulting in increased grading but improved view equity for neighboring properties. Additional revisions include updated exterior colors and materials to better blend with the canyon setting, the introduction of stone elements for a more rustic character, and landscaping adjustments to address privacy concerns. The Applicant also addressed the revocable encroachment permit, stating that the proposed approach would improve safety and access conditions along the constrained roadway.
5. Public Testimony
During the public hearing, two individuals provided public testimony. The public testimony is summarized below:
Commenter Summary of Comment Transcript
[Attachment 13]
Page Nos.
Evgenii
Kraskow
Evgenii Krasko, an adjacent property owner, reiterated his ongoing concerns regarding view obstruction, neighborhood compatibility, and building quality. He stated that the project continues to break the horizon line and obstruct a significant portion of his Catalina Island view from the master bedroom, and that the Board’s prior direction to address these impacts through grading and terracing has only been minimally implemented. He expressed frustration that the Applicant has not coordinated with him to address privacy concerns and stated that windows remain unscreened and oriented toward neighboring homes. He further asserted that the project does not reflect the rustic character of the neighborhood, describing the design as container-like and inconsistent with the Diamond Crestview Specific Plan, and objected to what he characterized as selective use of stone materials. Mr. Krasko also contended that the project appears to replicate a residence built elsewhere and that the building height and raised garage were intentionally designed to maximize views at the expense of adjacent properties. He concluded by stating that, while he supports reasonable development, he does not believe the current proposal reflects good faith efforts to address the Board’s direction or achieve equitable treatment of neighboring views.
Pgs. 5-6
19 Here, the Applicant appears to be referring to the living area of the single-family dwelling only, as proposed with the Revised Project. The Revised Project also includes a 221.93-square-foot ADU.
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
Steve
Kawaratani
Steve Kawaratani, a neighbor’s representative and prior participant in the proceedings, expressed a desire to see the project approved but stated that the Applicant has not adequately engaged with adjacent property owners to resolve ongoing concerns. He noted that, despite prior suggestions, the Applicant did not reach out to Mr. Krasko to seek a mutually acceptable solution. Mr. Kawaratani asserted that the project continues to conflict with the Diamond Crestview Specific Plan and DR guidelines related to view equity, as well as Land Use Element policies calling for protection of coastal views. He stated that the proposed structure blocks a substantial portion of the Catalina Island view from the neighboring master bedroom and identified the height of the garage level as a primary contributor to the impact, noting it is significantly taller than a typical garage. He suggested that lowering the project by several feet could substantially reduce view impacts and allow him to support the project, concluding that projects which prioritize one property’s views at the expense of another’s should not be approved Pg. 6
6. Applicant Rebuttal
Applicant responded to view equity concerns by presenting visual simulations intended to approximate the project’s effect on views from 785 Gainsborough Drive. He explained that wide-angle photographs were taken from the back of the subject property at different elevations to estimate how the proposed residence would appear from neighboring viewpoints. Based on these simulations, the Applicant stated that the proposed residence would affect approximately 10 percent of the lower-level viewshed, primarily at a single corner of the structure, and would not impact views from the neighbor’s main living areas. He emphasized that the DR process requires balancing preservation of existing views with the right to reasonably develop property, noting that views may evolve as surrounding parcels are developed. He concluded that the proposal achieves view equity by retaining meaningful view access for adjacent properties while allowing reasonable development of the site.
7. Board Questions and Responses
Topic Question and Response Transcript
[Attachment
13] Page Nos.
[Commenter]
Firefighter Access
and Ladder
Design.
Board Member Weil asked whether the revised firefighter access proposal, which replaces a previously discussed fixed ladder extending into the public right of way with a retractable ladder mounted to the wall, adequately minimizes risk within the rightof-way. The Fire Marshal responded that he personally reviewed the proposal, conducted a site visit, and consulted with an onduty fire captain to confirm operational suitability. He stated that Pgs. 8-9 of 27
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
the proposed retractable ladder meets firefighter access requirements and represents an improvement over the existing condition. He noted that a condition was added requiring a breakaway lock so firefighters would not need special tools to deploy the ladder, and confirmed that the ladder would be rated to support approximately 300 pounds to accommodate
firefighters and equipment. The Fire Marshal further stated that the existing staircase providing firefighter access is in poor condition and that the proposed ladder would significantly improve safety and access for both the subject property and the adjacent property.
Maintenance
Responsibility
Board Member Coveny asked about long-term maintenance
responsibilities and upkeep requirements for the ladder. The Fire Marshal responded that the ladder is designed to be weather resistant and requires minimal maintenance, comparable to exterior fire escape systems, with periodic painting every five to ten years. The Assistant City Attorney clarified that maintenance responsibility would rest with the property owner and would be coordinated with the City as part of the approval and compliance process.
Pg. 9 of 27
Fall Protection Board Member Bauta asked whether fall protection would be required along the leading edge of the fire access walkway, noting that while portions appear at grade, some renderings suggest a steep drop-off. He sought clarification on whether additional safety measures had been considered. Staff noted that a gate is located at the top of the ladder near the neighboring property, which limits access and serves as an existing safety precaution. The Assistant City Attorney acknowledged the concern but stated that fall protection measures had not been specifically evaluated, emphasizing that the primary purpose of the access route is to allow rapid firefighter access. He explained that adding guardrails or similar features could interfere with emergency operations and undermine the intended function of the fire access system.
Pgs. 10-11 of
27 Parking Location
and Public Safety
Chair Pro Tem Gannon questioned whether the Applicant was prepared to move the house farther back so that the two driveway parking spaces would be fully outside of the public right of way and front setback. She referenced prior projects on Gainsborough Drive where parking was required to be relocated out of the right of way and emphasized that the subject driveway is located at a tight blind corner, creating a public safety concern if vehicles extend into the right of way when parking or backing out. The Applicant and architect responded that the identified parking Pg. 11 of 27
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
space is shown as 18 feet in length and noted that shorter parking spaces, as short as 16 feet, have been approved elsewhere. Chair Pro Tem Gannon maintained that given modern vehicle sizes and the constrained corner condition, partially encroaching parking could pose safety risks.
Building Height,
Garage Plate
Height, and View
Impacts
Board Member Weil raised concerns regarding the overall height of the structure and reiterated prior Board direction to reduce height impacts, particularly as they relate to preserving Catalina Island views for the uphill neighbor. He questioned whether the rear portion of the house or the entire structure could be lowered, including reducing the garage plate height, to improve the horizon line and view equity. Chair Pro Tem Gannon specifically asked whether the garage height could be reduced from
approximately 15 feet to a more typical height. The Applicant stated that the house is already embedded into the hillside by approximately 40 percent and that lowering the structure further would result in the south side of the house being largely buried, significantly reducing sunlight and views from the project site.
The Applicant and architect explained that the current siting reflects a compromise that places the home into the narrower portion of the lot and balances grading constraints, light access, and views. Board Member Weil responded that many homes
within the Diamond Crestview area are embedded 60 to 70 percent into hillsides and emphasized that further lowering the structure could still be feasible while better protecting neighborhood views, consistent with the Specific Plan.
Pg. 12 of 27
8. Board Deliberation
Topic Discussion Transcript
[Attachment
13] Page Nos.
[Commenter]
Overall
Compliance
with Design
Review Criteria
Board Member Bauta stated that despite multiple hearings and clear prior direction, the project does not currently meet DR criteria. He identified unresolved issues related to view equity, neighbor privacy, egress safety, and parking, and expressed concern that these matters could have been addressed prior to the hearing. He concluded that, for these reasons, he could not support approval.
Pg. 15 of 27
Safety, Parking,
and Access
Chair Pro Tem Gannon emphasized safety as her primary concern, stating that the project should be held to the same high safety standards applied to nearby properties, particularly given the blind curve and narrow roadway. She reiterated concerns about driveway access, parking safety, and emergency access, noting that access Pg. 15 of 27
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
improvements are necessary to protect residents and motorists.
Board Member Bauta similarly cited egress and parking as unresolved safety issues.
View Equity and
Height
Reduction
Chair Pro Tem Gannon and Board Member Weil both emphasized protection of Catalina Island views as a key issue. Chair Pro Tem Gannon stated that Catalina is a significant view that should be protected and suggested that lowering the garage plate height could mitigate the impact. She noted that incomplete staking made it difficult to assess exact impacts but estimated that a reduction of several feet could address view concerns. Board Member Weil echoed this position, stating that view equity remained his primary concern and that lowering the structure by approximately four to five feet could preserve the horizon line and improve compliance with the Diamond Crestview Specific Plan.
Pg 15-16 of 27
Neighborhood
Context,
Privacy, and
Project
Modifications
Board Member Coveny expressed a contrasting view, stating that she was prepared to approve the project. She acknowledged the difficulty of building on the site and felt that view impacts had been sufficiently addressed through setbacks and modest pullbacks of the upper levels. She stated that driveway parking dimensions appeared adequate for modern vehicles and did not see privacy impacts as unusual given the dense neighborhood context. She also emphasized that additional concessions could unreasonably limit the Applicant’s right to build and cited the Fire Marshal’s approval of the proposed access solution as a positive factor.
Pg. 15 of 27
Design Quality
and Project
Evolution
Board Member Weil acknowledged that the Applicant had made progress in addressing several issues over the course of the hearings, including parking layout, garage placement, access improvements, and material refinements. However, he stated that the overall building height and its effect on view equity had remained largely unchanged, which prevented him from supporting the project as proposed.
Pg. 16 of 27
Potential
Modification
and Board Split
Board Member Weil noted that the Board appeared split and suggested that further concessions, particularly lowering portions of the structure, could potentially change the outcome. Board Member Bauta asked whether the Applicant should be given an opportunity to present an alternative approach, while Board Member Weil responded that any such proposal would need to be straightforward and responsive, given the number of remaining agenda items.
Pg. 16 of 27
Applicant
Willingness to
Modify Height
and Siting
The Applicant stated that the house has already been significantly downsized and lowered into the hillside, resulting in reduced views and sunlight for the project site. He expressed concern that further reductions would overly compromise his ability to enjoy light and views but offered a potential compromise by lowering the overall Pg. 17 of 27
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
building height by two feet and adjusting the garage placement further into the hillside. He requested that the Board consider a twofoot reduction instead of the four feet previously discussed.
Board
Negotiation on
Height
Reduction and
View Protection
Board members discussed whether a two-foot reduction would be sufficient to address view impacts, particularly the Catalina Island view. Chair Pro Tem Gannon and Board Member Weil indicated that additional reduction was needed to protect the horizon line, with Chair Pro Tem Gannon initially stating that a four-foot reduction would be preferable. Through discussion, members acknowledged that a combination of pushing the structure back into the hillside and lowering it could achieve similar results. The Board generally agreed that pushing the upper level back and reducing overall height would help preserve views while allowing reasonable development.
Pg 17-20 of 27
Garage
Relocation and
Parking
The Applicant agreed to slide the garage two feet further into the hillside to improve driveway access and reduce encroachment concerns near the blind curve. Board members viewed this as a positive step toward improving safety and addressing prior access concerns. Clarifications were made that the adjustment would primarily affect the garage, while the ADU would remain in place.
Pg. 17-20 of
27 Cantilevering
and Upper Level
Adjustments
Board members discussed the mechanics of implementing the proposed changes, including cantilevering the upper levels back toward the hillside and lowering both the third and fourth levels together. The architect confirmed that the upper portions of the structure would move back and down as a unified adjustment, resulting in a lower roof ridge height. Board members generally agreed that a two-foot reduction combined with a two-foot pushback represented a meaningful improvement.
Pg. 18-20, 23
of 27
Retaining Walls
and Fall
Protection
Considerations
Board Member Bauta raised concerns regarding potential fall hazards along a retaining wall adjacent to the fire access area and suggested that this issue be addressed now to avoid future conflicts.
The Assistant City Attorney clarified that permanent improvements beyond the property line are constrained but noted that fall protection on the Applicant’s retaining wall could be considered within the Board’s discretion. Ultimately, the Board indicated that staff could address this issue as part of final DR.
Pg. 20-22 of
27 Board
Consensus
Toward
Conditional
Approval
Following clarification of the proposed modifications, Board members indicated growing consensus that the adjustments could resolve the primary concerns related to views, access, and safety.
Board Member Coveny stated support for approving the project if the agreed-upon changes were incorporated, signaling that the proposed compromise could allow the project to move forward.
Pg. 24 of 27
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
9. Board Adoption of Resolution Approving the Application The Board voted 4-0 (Chair Gibbs absent) to adopt Resolution No. 25-0431, approving the Revised Project and finding the Revised Project exempt from CEA pursuant to the state CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (Class 3). Approval was subject to the conditions presented in the staff report and additional project-specific conditions requiring the Revised Project to be pushed back two feet toward the rear property line, the uppermost roof to be lowered and not exceed the 135-foot elevation mark, and, at the City’s discretion, the installation of a railing for fall protection on the Applicant’s southerly retaining wall along the property line.
RESPONSES TO ISSUES RAISED ON APPEAL
As noted above, the Appellant submitted an Appeal of the Board’s decision (Attachment 15). As indicated under Standards of Review, in the City Council’s review of non-design review appeals, such as a coastal development permit, variance, revocable encroachment permit, and CEQA, the Council shall conduct a de novo review of the underlying application and shall not be limited to the grounds stated for the appeal, nor is the Council limited to the evidence that was presented to the Board. Accordingly, in its consideration of the Board’s approval of CDP 25-0433, VAR 25-0432, REP 25-2285, and Class 3 categorical exemption from CEQA finding, the Council is free to deliberate without being limited to the Board’s findings – in other words, a de novo hearing. For the consideration of DR 25-0431, the City Council shall not conduct a de novo hearing, but is limited to considering whether the Board proceeded in the manner required by law and whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence. Further, for DR 25-0431, the City Council is limited to the grounds specifically stated in the notice of Appeal.
Below are the grounds for Appeal and City staff’s response:
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 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.”
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
Staff’s Response
The Board found that the Project complied with DR 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 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 Board hearing on April 10, 2025, staff 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) in Attachment 2. 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 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 Guidelines”)21 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”)22 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. 21 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 22 DCSP, last amended by Ordinance No. 1532 on August 31, 2010:
https://www.lagunabeachcity.net/home/showpublisheddocument/260/637360447937670000 APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
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 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 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).)
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
As an initial matter, upon receipt of the Appeal and evaluating the contentions, City staff closely rereviewed 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, attached as Attachment 7) and on June 18, 2025 for the Revised Project. (See Sheet A-1.4 of the December 11, 2025 Board plans, attached as Attachment 11.) While this certification was done 21 calendar days prior to the public hearing on the Revised Project, 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). (Attachment 17.) 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 project-specific 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, staff finds that the Board appropriately applied the City’s adopted view equity standards and policies, evaluated view equity in the manner required by the 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 APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
height, massing, and setback compliance. This deficiency undermined the approval related to project conformance with the approved plans and impacts to adjacent properties.” Staff’s 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 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 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 APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
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 demonstrates that the story poles did not accurately represent the approved design, rendering those findings unreliable.”
Staff’s 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, staff 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 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 APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
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. (Attachment 17.) 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 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.”
Staff’s Response
The City’s staking requirements are intended to ensure that story poles accurately depict the height and envelope of a proposed structure for DR 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.25 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. (Attachment 17.) 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. 25 https://www.lagunabeachcity.net/home/showpublisheddocument/23183/638925948831600000 APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
Accordingly, staff 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.”
Staff’s Response
The Appellant asserts that certain story poles were erected off plumb and therefore failed to accurately represent the approved project. Staff 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. (Attachment 17.) As such, the record demonstrates that the story poles were not installed off-plumb.
In addition, even after the staking period, the 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 DR 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, APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
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.” Staff’s 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 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, City staff closely rereviewed 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, attached as Attachment 7) and on June 18, 2025 for the Revised Project. (See Sheet A-1.4 of the December 11, 2025 Board plans, attached as Attachment 11.) While this certification was done 21 calendar days prior to the public hearing on the Revised Project, 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). (Attachment 17.) 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 APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
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 project-specific 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. 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.
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The recommended action has no financial impact to the budget.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, the Revised Project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15303 – New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, in that the project consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small structures. Examples of Class 3 exemptions include single-family residence, second dwelling units, duplexes, and multi-family residential structures totaling no more than four dwelling units. Here, the proposed project includes the construction of a new single-family dwelling with an attached two- car garage and attached ADU within a residential zone. Therefore, this project fits within a Class 3 exemption.
Further, none of the exceptions outlined in CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2 apply. The project site is identified as an environmentally sensitive drainage area due to the presence of a drainage watercourse; however, the Revised Project will not adversely affect the environmentally sensitive area in that the watercourse has been significantly modified and altered due to the installation of a City storm drain constructed on the adjacent contiguous property. Furthermore, 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. (Attachment 18.) Therefore, the Revised Project will not present significant APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
impacts to a particularly sensitive environment. There will be no cumulative impact resulting from successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time. There are no unusual circumstances resulting in a significant impact on the environment. There will be no damage to scenic resources, including trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. The Revised Project is not located on a hazardous waste site or any other site included on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. The Revised Project will not result in significant adverse impacts to historical resources as defined by CEQA. Consequently, additional environmental analysis is not necessary to meet the requirements of the CEQA. Staff will cause to be filed a Notice of Exemption (“NOE”) with the County Recorder's Office and state Clearinghouse within 5 days of adoption of this Resolution.
ATTACHMENTS
1. City Council Resolution (Pgs. 42-97)
2. May 9, 2024, Design Review Board Staff Report (Pgs. 98-117)
3. May 9, 2024, Design Review Board Plans (Pgs. 118-145)
4. May 9, Design Review Board Public Comments (Pgs. 146-176)
5. May 9, 2024 Design Review Board Transcript (Pgs. 177-197)
6. April 10, 2025, Design Review Board Staff Report (Pgs. 198-222)
7. April 10, 2025, Design Review Board Plans (Pgs. 223-249)
8. April 10, 2025, Design Review Board Public Comments (Pgs. 250-281)
9. April 10, 2025, Design Review Board Transcript (Pgs. 282-315)
10. December 11, 2025, Design Review Board Staff Report (Pgs. 316-343)
11. December 11, 2025, Design Review Board Plans (Pgs. 344-371)
12. December 11, 2025, Design Review Board Public Comments (Pgs. 372-375)
13. December 11, 2025, Design Review Board Transcript (Pgs. 376-402)
14. Board Approval Resolution 25-0431 (Pgs. 403-427)
15. Appeal (Pgs. 428-434)
16. City Council Appeal Public Notice (Pg. 435)
17. Ms. De Leon’s Recertified Staking Plan, 2026 (Pg. 436)
18. Hydrology Reports (Pgs. 437-446)
19. Project Renderings (Conceptual, Original, & Revised) (Pgs. 447-464)
20. Order of Testimony (Pgs. 465-466)
Submitted By: Matthew Schneider Approved: .David A Kiff Matthew Schneider, Director of
Community Development
Dave Kiff, City Manager
Report Prepared By: Coordinated With:
Shehriyar Khan, Associate Planner Jane Abzug, Assistant City Attorney Anthony Viera, Deputy Director of Community
Development