STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date:
April 28, 2026
APPEALS
A
SUBJECT: 30801 DRIFTWOOD DRIVE: APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 25-1883, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 25-1884, AND REVOCABLE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT 25-1885 FOR DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLEFAMILY DWELLING, NEW TWO-CAR GARAGE, VEHICULAR ACCESS,
SKYLIGHTS, GRADING, LANDSCAPING, AND WALKWAY WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY IN THE R-1, RESIDENTIAL LOW-DENSITY ZONE,
AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3) RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:
1. Continue to conduct the public hearing that was opened at the January 27, 2026 City Council meeting, including receiving an updated staff report and taking public testimony and evidence relating to the consideration of Design Review 25-1883, Coastal Development Permit 25-1884, and Revocable Encroachment Permit 25-1885, and the California Environmental Quality Act exemption under Section 15303 of the state CEQA 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 25-1883 FOR DEMOLITION
OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY
DWELLING, NEW TWO-CAR GARAGE, VEHICULAR ACCESS, SKYLIGHTS, GRADING, AND LANDSCAPING, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 25-1884 FOR NON-EXEMPT
DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE COASTAL ZONE, AND REVOCABLE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT 25-1885 FOR A WALKWAY WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AT 30801 DRIFTWOOD DRIVE LOCATED IN THE R-1, RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY ZONE, AND
CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15303,” upholding the Design Review Board’s conditional approval of Design Review 25-1883, Coastal Development Permit 25-1884, and Revocable Encroachment Permit 25-1885 and finding the project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.
SUMMARY OF THE MATTER
The property owner, Amir and Susan Loloi1 (“Applicant”), of 30801 Driftwood Drive (the “Property”) (see aerial map included as Figure 1) applied for Design Review (“DR”) 25-1883, Coastal Development Permit (“CDP”) 25-1884, and Revocable Encroachment Permit (“REP”) 25-1885 for demolition of the existing structure and construction of a new single-family dwelling, two-car garage, vehicular access, skylights, grading, and landscaping as well as a walkway in the public right of way in the R-1 (Residential Low Density) zone. Design review is required for the demolition, new structure, vehicular access, skylights, 1 The Project’s agents are Raha Talebi, Paul Vantieghem, and Steve Kawaratani, who are within the definition of Applicant.
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-1883, CDP 25-1884, AND REP 25-1885 AT 30801
DRIFTWOOD DRIVE
April 28, 2026
grading in excess of 20 cubic yards outside the building footprint, and landscaping pursuant to Laguna Beach Municipal Code (“LBMC”) Section 25.05.040(B)(1). A coastal development permit is required for the non-exempt development in the coastal zone for the above-described improvements pursuant to LBMC Section 25.07.008(A)(1)(c). A revocable encroachment permit is required for a walkway within the public right-of-way pursuant to LBMC Section 11.50.030.
On November 13, 2025, the Design Review Board (“Board”) held a duly noticed public hearing and considered the project that consisted of the demolition of the existing structure and construction of a new single-family dwelling, two-car garage, vehicular access, skylights, grading, and landscaping, as well as a walkway within the public right-of-way (the “Project”). After carefully considering the oral and documentary evidence from staff, the Applicant, and members of the public, and upon review of the staff recommendation for approval, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to approve the Project, subject to the conditions of approval set forth in the resolution and an additional condition requiring that the eave on the north side be reduced so as not to encroach into the side yard setback, and a finding that the Project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) under CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (the “Board Approval”). (The November 13, 2025 Board-adopted Resolution No. 25-1883, Staff Report, Plans, Public Comments, Minutes, and Transcript, are attached as Attachments 4 through 9, respectively.) On December 1, 2025, Joyce and Henry Brodt and Anthony and Roberta Speranzo (“Appellants”) of 21562 Ocean Vista Drive and 30782 Driftwood Drive, respectively, filed an appeal of the Board Approval (the “Appeal”). (Attachment 2.) The Appeal notes the following reasons for the appeal, as summarized by staff:
1. The Board failed to properly apply the City’s view equity standards and design guidelines, resulting in blockage of primary ocean and horizon views from neighboring properties; deviation from hillside stepping patterns; increases in mass and bulk beyond what is necessary; and elimination of view corridors that could have been preserved through feasible design modifications.
2. The Project causes disproportionate harm to adjacent properties by prioritizing the Applicant’s design preferences over the equitable distribution of views, resulting in significant view loss and visual impacts to neighboring residences.
3. The Board failed to consider a recorded view easement benefiting the Applicant’s property, resulting in an inequitable outcome where neighbors’ primary views are compromised despite the Applicant’s permanently protected views.
4. The Project is inconsistent with the established neighborhood character, which the Appellants describe as consisting of terraced lots and low-profile structures designed to balance views among properties.
5. The Appellants allege procedural deficiencies in the design review process, including a lack of meaningful engagement with neighbors and insufficient opportunity to review and discuss design changes prior to approval.
6. The Appellants assert errors in the hearing record, including statements by Board members minimizing view impacts that Appellants claim are contradicted by photographic evidence and APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-1883, CDP 25-1884, AND REP 25-1885 AT 30801
DRIFTWOOD DRIVE
April 28, 2026
testimony. Appellants also assert that feasible design alternatives to reduce impacts were acknowledged but not considered, and fire risk associated with certain design features, were not adequately evaluated by the Board.
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 January 27, 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 3). The appeal hearing was previously continued from the January 27, 2026 City Council meeting to this April 28, 2026 City Council meeting.
A. Standards of Review
Pursuant to LBMC Section 25.05.070, 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 error or an abuse of discretion.3 (LBMC § 25.05.070(E)(3)(a).) Further, pursuant to LBMC Section 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, 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, 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 25-1884 and REP 25-1885 and finding the Project exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, 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. 3 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 25-1883, CDP 25-1884, AND REP 25-1885 AT 30801
DRIFTWOOD DRIVE
April 28, 2026
2. Design Review
LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(2) sets forth the procedures and review criteria for City Council requests for review 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.
Accordingly, in its consideration of DR 25-1883, which was approved 5-0, 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 25-1883, subject to more restrictive conditions of approval that are effectuated through the provision of new plans; 5 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 approval of the Project categorically exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303;
2. Adopt the attached Resolution upholding the Board approval and finding the approval of the Project categorically exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guideline Section 15303, but modifying the Resolution to include more restrictive conditions of approval; 5 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 Board or Planning Commission for further consideration.
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-1883, CDP 25-1884, AND REP 25-1885 AT 30801
DRIFTWOOD DRIVE
April 28, 2026
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 Project; or
4. Direct staff to prepare and return at a future meeting with a Resolution remanding DR 25-1883, CDP 25-1884, and REP 25-1885 to the Board, with findings in support of the remand and further direction to the Board.
DISCUSSION
The Board held one public hearing on November 13, 2025, and adopted a Resolution conditionally approving the Project. A summary of the public hearing is set forth below.7 A. November 13, 2025 Board Hearing
1. Staff Report
The Project is located on the west side of Driftwood Drive, east of Coast Highway. The site consists of a 7,804-square-foot rectangular shaped lot with an average lot width of 71.87 feet, an average lot depth of 108.32 feet, and an average lot slope of 3%. The existing site is developed with a single-family dwelling and attached two-car garage, which were constructed in 1953 under Orange County jurisdiction. Neither the original home nor any subsequent improvements have undergone discretionary design review. All existing improvements on the site will be demolished in conjunction with this Project. The neighborhood consists of single-family residences.
Figure 1: Aerial View and Street Frontage of Project Site 7 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 25-1883, CDP 25-1884, AND REP 25-1885 AT 30801
DRIFTWOOD DRIVE
April 28, 2026
Figure 2: Proposed Street-Facing Rendering of the Project
2. Staff Presentation
Staff provided an overview of the Project, which involves the demolition of the existing one-story home and construction of a new, one-story single-family residence. The presentation included site plans showing the lot layout, street frontage, vehicular access, garage placement, and proposed changes to driveways and walkways. Small circular skylights, grading exceeding 20 cubic yards outside the building footprint, and landscaping were also highlighted. Renderings and materials were presented, including street views and perspectives from the existing home, along with proposed colors and finishes. Staff noted public comments regarding view and privacy concerns, with general support for maintaining a one-story design.
3. Board Ex Parte Disclosures
Board Member Ex Parte Disclosure Transcript
Page Nos.
Imer Bauta Visited the site with Steve Kawaratani. p. 1 of 18 MJ Coveny Visited the site and met with Steve Kawaratani, the neighbors across the street, Appellants Speranzos, and the neighbors next door. p. 1 of 18
Jessica Gannon Visited the site with Armando, Tony and Bobby across the street, and immediately next door at 21562 Ocean Vista.
p. 1 of 18
Thomas Gibbs Visited the site with Mr. Kawaratani, spoke with Marcus Imhof, and met with Appellants Speranzos, Appellants Brodts, and Armando Baez. p. 1 of 18
Louis Weil Visted with Steve Kawaratani, Tony and Bobby across the street, Henry and Joyce, and Armando.
p. 1 of 18
4. Applicant Presentation
Mr. Vantieghem and Ms. Talebi, the Project architects, both provided comments during the Applicant presentation. The Applicant presented the design of the proposed one-story single-family home, emphasizing compliance with the City’s Design Guidelines and sensitivity to neighborhood scale. The design introduces a shallow-pitched roof running parallel to the hillside, eaves set to standard heights, and a division of the home into four smaller modules with slight rotations to reduce long facade planes, lower roof ridges, and to create variable setbacks. Projections and recesses were incorporated to add shadow, depth, and a human scale to the home.
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-1883, CDP 25-1884, AND REP 25-1885 AT 30801
DRIFTWOOD DRIVE
April 28, 2026
The Applicant explained that the renderings, aerial comparisons, and physical models demonstrated that the design respects the existing neighborhood context and aligns with surrounding building heights and setbacks. The design also eliminates an existing sunroof protrusion in the rear yard, sets the house further back from the rear property line, and reduces ridge heights, where possible. Adjustments were made following neighbor feedback, including lowering the finished floor level and roof ridges, resulting in an overall reduction of the Project’s height by approximately one foot.
The Applicant highlighted that the proposed design preserves public view corridors, restores views previously blocked by vegetation, and maintains visual compatibility with the surrounding homes.
Renderings and model studies were shared to illustrate the contextual integration and human-scale proportions of the Project.
5. Public Testimony
During the public hearing, twelve (12) individuals provided public testimony. The public testimony is summarized below:
Commenter Summary of Comment Transcript
Page Nos.
Tony Speranzo
(Appellant)
Expressed concerns that the proposed Project would significantly impair the ocean views from his home, which face directly toward the property under review. He noted that the increase in roof elevation approximately three to four feet above the existing structure would reduce his primary view by 40–50%, affecting key living spaces, including the kitchen, dining, and family room, as well as outdoor patios. Mr. Speranzo also stated that the proposed roof line does not follow the hillside topography and is slightly higher than neighboring homes, which he believes is inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood. He requested that the Board consider modifications to the Project to preserve view equity and maintain consistency with the neighborhood’s scale and topography, emphasizing that the views are integral to the value of his property. p. 3-4 of 18
Harald Vogl Spoke in support of Appellant Tony Speranzo’s comments regarding potential view impacts. He noted a similar situation at his own home in 2019, when a neighboring property was rebuilt with a ridgeline three to four feet higher than the existing structure, which he stated negatively affected his view, quality of life, and property value. Mr. Vogl emphasized that while property owners may seek larger homes or higher ceilings, such changes should not come at the expense of neighboring views. He suggested that grading adjustments on the Applicant’s lot could allow for a larger home without impacting the views of surrounding properties. p. 4 of 18
Joyce Brodt
(Appellant)
Expressed concerns that the proposed Project would severely impact her property’s views, privacy, and sense of scale. She noted that she and her husband designed their home to maintain low building heights and respect neighbors’ views. Ms. Brodt stated that early neighborhood meetings with p. 4-5 of 18
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-1883, CDP 25-1884, AND REP 25-1885 AT 30801
DRIFTWOOD DRIVE
April 28, 2026
the Applicant were brief and uninformative, and follow-up information was not provided until story poles were erected. She argued that the proposed structure’s height, massing, and extended eaves are excessive, loom over her property, and disrupt the established stair-step terrace pattern of the block. She highlighted that the Project would eliminate her primary south-facing mountain and ocean views and substantially reduce privacy from her rear patio and interior spaces. Ms. Brodt requested modifications to reduce overall height, scale back or set in extended eaves, and adjust the design to align with the neighborhood character of Driftwood Drive.
Aaron Peluso Noted that the proposed Project would negatively impact his ocean views, which he carefully preserved during a recent $2 million remodel. He noted that the existing single-story home already enjoys unobstructed views, and raising the roof is unnecessary and inconsistent with Laguna Beach’s view protection policies. Mr. Peluso emphasized that the Project does not follow the “stepping down the hillside” approach outlined in the City’s guidelines and could set a precedent for higher roof elevations in the neighborhood.
While he supports investment and finds the design attractive, he requested that the Applicant revise plans to maintain current ridge heights and conform to existing view-protective standards.
p. 5 of 18
Bill Bailey Opposed the proposed Project, noting that the increased roof height would block roughly 20% of his south-facing ocean views. He highlighted that previous neighborhood rebuilds were modified by the Board to reduce roof pitch and preserve views, consistent with the community’s original 1950s terrace design featuring low-pitch roofs. Mr. Bailey emphasized the importance of protecting ocean views for daily living, family gatherings, and community character, and urged the Board to apply design guidelines consistently to maintain the neighborhood’s visual integrity. p. 5 of 18
Mark Renault Expressed support for his neighbor Appellant Joyce Brodt’s concerns. He noted that he currently has a small “peekaboo” view of the south-facing ocean that would be blocked by the proposed Project if it encroaches toward Appellant Brodt’s property and urged the Board to consider her views in evaluating the Project.
p. 6 of 18
Mike Childs Noted that the proposed Project creates an unacceptable obstruction to Appellant Speranzos’ views. He suggested that the Project could reduce ridge height through adjustments such as lowering the pad elevation, flattening the roof pitch, or other modifications to lessen the visual impact. p. 6 of 18
Mike McKibben Expressed support for Appellants Brodt’s and Appellant Speranzo’s comments. He suggested that lowering the grade of the proposed property and pulling in the side setbacks could reduce impacts on neighbors’ views and privacy, resulting in a design more compatible with the surrounding community.
p. 6 of 18
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-1883, CDP 25-1884, AND REP 25-1885 AT 30801
DRIFTWOOD DRIVE
April 28, 2026
Sheila Jamison Expressed concern about the proposed structure’s proximity to her home and the resulting privacy impacts. She voiced support for the concerns raised by neighboring residents, including Appellants Brodt’s and Appellants Speranzo’s comments, and suggested that scaling down the Project could help address these issues.
p. 6 of 18
Marcus Imhof Expressed support for the concerns raised by neighboring residents regarding view impacts and neighborhood character. Mr. Imhof emphasized that approving the Project as currently designed could set a precedent for future roof height increases in the area. p. 7 of 18
Molly Zurflueh Attorney representing Appellants Brodt (21562 Ocean Vista Drive) and Appellants Speranzo (30782 Driftwood Drive) expressed concern that the proposed Project’s increased height, crawl space, concentrated massing along the northern property line, elevated ceilings, and extended eaves would intrude on neighbors’ primary view corridors and create a looming effect. Ms. Zurflueh noted that Appellants Speranzo could lose 40–50% of their ocean view, while the Appellants Brodt would lose south-facing ocean views and mountain views from their backyard. She stated the design conflicts with the City’s view equity guidelines by prioritizing the Applicant’s view over neighbors’ and suggested modifications including lowering overall height, shifting mass away from the north property line, and retracting extended eaves to reduce the Project’s visual impact. p. 7 of 18
Armando Baez Emphasized neighborhood compatibility and view equity. Mr. Baez noted that homes on the west side of Driftwood were built to similar heights, while east-side homes like theirs are higher on the slope, allowing views of Catalina, sunsets, and the ocean for all. He stressed that the neighborhood was intentionally designed to provide equitable views for every lot and expressed concern that the proposed Project’s increased ceiling heights and massing would compromise their limited views without benefiting the Applicant. The speaker urged the Board to preserve existing view equity while allowing thoughtful development.
p. 7-8 of 18
6. Applicant Rebuttal
Raha Talebi, the Project architect, emphasized how the Project carefully addresses neighborhood context, setbacks, and privacy. The south side yard features variable setbacks that exceed those of the existing home, and the north side maintains privacy through the placement of a single angled window and retention of an existing hedge. The four-module design, including valleys and varied roof heights, reinforces a human scale while minimizing bulk. Overlays and plans clarified that eaves and roof projections remain within established boundaries and do not extend beyond the existing footprint. The Applicant also addressed materials, landscaping, and lighting, emphasizing a rustic, informal approach that complements the neighborhood. Fire safety considerations were highlighted, including the use of an 18-inch mechanical crawlspace instead of a ventilated attic and lowered finished floor levels. Each module’s interior ceiling heights were carefully tailored to the program while respecting site constraints.
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-1883, CDP 25-1884, AND REP 25-1885 AT 30801
DRIFTWOOD DRIVE
April 28, 2026
7. Board Deliberation
Topic Discussion Transcript
Page Nos.
[Commenter]
Neighborhood
Compatibility;
Access; Privacy;
View Equity
Board member Coveny praised the Applicant for thoughtfully addressing neighborhood design considerations, respecting the scale, character, and constraints of the community while introducing a fresh design. Board member Coveny observed that view impacts were minimal compared to existing conditions, contrary to neighbors’ concerns about significant obstruction. She also noted that privacy, neighborhood compatibility, parking, and access were adequately addressed, and commended design elements such as window placement and material choices. She concluded the Project was consistent with Design Review criteria and expressed support for approval.
p. 13 of 18
[Coveny]
View Equity Chair Pro Tem Gannon noted that most neighbors would experience minimal view impacts, observing that existing rooflines already limit certain skyline views. The only potential impact identified was in the kitchen view of Appellants Speranzo’s home, which was considered minor. She suggested a slight reduction of the eaves by about a foot to further minimize any impact, indicating that with that adjustment, the Project would receive her support.
p. 13 of 18
[Gannon]
Design
Articulation;
Design Integrity;
Neighborhood
Compatibility;
View Equity
Board member Weil commended the Project’s careful design, articulation, and material choices, noting that the breaking up of masses and single-story configuration were handled in a unique and sensitive way. He observed that view impacts were minimal, with minor adjustments suggested only for the roof above the living room, which could be slightly lowered to better respect downhill neighbors. He concluded that the Project meets the design review criteria and is compatible with the neighborhood context.
p. 14 of 18
[Weil]
Design Integrity Board member Bauta expressed support for the Project and complimented the design as a “beautiful home.”
p. 14 of 18
[Bauta]
View Equity Chair Gibbs emphasized that the issue is view equity, not absolute view preservation, noting that the Project’s minor view intrusions are within acceptable limits under the guidelines. He acknowledged neighbors’ concerns, including terracing and changes to views, but confirmed that the Project complies with view equity standards and that the Board must apply the criteria fairly and consistently. Chair Gibbs agreed with slight roof modifications suggested by colleagues and confirmed that the Applicant was amenable.
p. 14 of 18
[Gibbs]
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-1883, CDP 25-1884, AND REP 25-1885 AT 30801
DRIFTWOOD DRIVE
April 28, 2026
8. Board Adoption of Resolution Approving the Application The Board voted 5-0 to adopt Resolution No. 25-1883 approving the Project, which includes the conditions of approval provided in the resolution, and subject to the following Project-specific condition:
1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the plans shall be modified to show that the eave on the north side of the residence is pulled back toward the house so as to not be located within the side yard setback. If staff and the Applicant are unable to agree on how to accomplish this, the matter shall return to the Design Review Board for resolution.
RESPONSES TO ISSUES RAISED ON APPEAL
As noted above, the City received an Appeal of the Board Approval (Attachment 2). As indicated under Standards of Review, in the City Council’s review of an appeal of non-design review approvals, such as a coastal development permit and revocable encroachment permit, 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 25-1884 and REP 25-1885, 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 25-1883, the City Council shall conduct a de novo review and is limited to considering the evidence that was presented to the Board and must consider whether the Board proceeded in the manner required by law and whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence. Further, for DR 25-1883, the City Council is limited to the grounds specifically stated in the notice of Appeal.
Below are the grounds for the Appeal and City staff’s response.
1. “Failure to Apply View Equity Guidelines”
In short, the Appellants contend that the Speranzo and Brodt residences both lose primary views, falling short of the view equity design review criterion. The Appellants allege that the Project does not step with the hillside topography and is designed with excessive mass that obstructs views, specifically referencing the crawl space, elevated ceilings, and extended eaves. Finally, the Appellants posit that there were reasonable adjustments that would have sufficiently mitigated the view loss.
Staff’s Response
The Board applied the City’s view equity standards and relevant Design Guidelines, which require balancing the protection of neighboring views with a property owner’s right to reasonable development.
The Design Guidelines do not guarantee preservation of existing views. The Board considered view impacts, massing, roof configuration, setbacks, and site context and determined that the Project achieves an acceptable balance consistent with the intent of the design guidelines. Specifically, the Board found that the Project complied with Finding No. 1, Criteria No. 16 (View Equity) as follows:
“As designed, the proposed one-story structure is intended to provide for views for the adjacent neighbors. The relocated multi-trunk palm tree would reach a mature height of 15 feet which would be below the maximum roof height of the structure.”
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-1883, CDP 25-1884, AND REP 25-1885 AT 30801
DRIFTWOOD DRIVE
April 28, 2026
The hearing record reflects that Board members visited the site, reviewed sightlines from surrounding properties, and evaluated photographic and illustrative evidence presented by both the Applicant and the public. The hearing record also reflects that view equity was a central focus of the Board’s review. Indeed, a majority of the Board specifically deliberated Criteria No. 16 (View Equity) and reached consensus that view equity was achieved. Board member Coveny observed that view impacts were minimal compared to existing conditions, contrary to neighbors’ concerns about significant obstruction.9 Chair Pro Tem Gannon noted that most neighbors would experience minimal view impacts, observing that existing rooflines already limit certain skyline views.10 Chair Pro Tem Gannon noted that the only potential impact identified was in the kitchen view of Appellants Speranzo’s home, which was considered minor.11 She suggested a slight reduction of the eaves by about a foot to further minimize any impact.12 Board member Weil observed that view impacts were minimal, with minor adjustments suggested only for the roof above the living room, which could be slightly lowered to better respect downhill neighbors.13 Chair Gibbs emphasized that the issue is view equity, not absolute view preservation, noting that the Project’s minor view intrusions are within acceptable limits under the Design Review Guidelines.14 He acknowledged neighbors’ concerns, including terracing and changes to views, but confirmed that the Project complies with view equity standards and that the Board must apply the criteria fairly and consistently.15 Chair Gibbs agreed with slight roof modifications suggested by colleagues.16
After discussion, the Board concluded that while the Project would result in some view intrusion, those impacts were limited in scope, did not eliminate primary horizon lines, and remained consistent with prior interpretations of view equity under the Design Guidelines. The Board further exercised its discretion to impose an additional condition requiring the reduction of the north side eave to eliminate encroachment into the side yard setback, thereby addressing a specific concern raised during the hearing. (See COA No.
28.)
As demonstrated by the approved plans and Figure 3 below, the proposed residence is located on a relatively flat portion of the site and would maintain a single level of building program below a pitched roof, which is typical of development in the surrounding area. The proposed crawl space is mostly below the existing grade, and the proposed 3:12 roof pitch is generally considered to be a low- to moderately-sloping roof form. The proposed residence does not step down with the hill because the lot is generally flat, with very little change in the topographic conditions within the building footprint. 9 Attachment 9 [Transcript], p. 13 of 18.
10 Attachment 9 [Transcript], p. 13 of 18.
11 Attachment 9 [Transcript], p. 13 of 18.
12 Attachment 9 [Transcript], p. 13 of 18.
13 Attachment 9 [Transcript], p. 14 of 18.
14 Attachment 9 [Transcript], p. 13 of 18.
15 Attachment 9 [Transcript], p. 13 of 18.
16 Attachment 9 [Transcript], p. 13 of 18.
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-1883, CDP 25-1884, AND REP 25-1885 AT 30801
DRIFTWOOD DRIVE
April 28, 2026
Figure 3: Proposed building section with existing grade dashed in green.
Driftwood Drive is located to the right of the building section.
Based on the record, the Board proceeded in the manner required by law and the decision is supported by substantial evidence.
2. “Disproportionate Harm to Adjacent Properties”
In short, the Appellant contends that the residences at 21562 Ocean Vista Drive (Appellant Brodt) and 30782 Driftwood Drive (Appellant Speranzo) were designed and remodeled with low roof forms, that Appellant Brodt’s residence would be overshadowed by the new structure, and that the extended eaves at the rear of the new structure would serve no purpose while impacting a south-facing view.
Staff’s Response
For context, below is a vicinity map showing the relation of Applicant’s property, Appellant Brodt’s property, and Appellant Speranzo’s property.
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-1883, CDP 25-1884, AND REP 25-1885 AT 30801
DRIFTWOOD DRIVE
April 28, 2026
Figure 4: Vicinity map
Staff’s Response to Appeal Contention No. 1 relating to View Equity is hereby incorporated by reference to Staff’s Response to Appeal Contention No. 2. With respect to massing considerations, the Board found that the Project complied with Finding No. 1, Criteria No. 2 (Design Articulation) as follows:
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-1883, CDP 25-1884, AND REP 25-1885 AT 30801
DRIFTWOOD DRIVE
April 28, 2026
The residence is designed with four gable roof sections, each having a 3:12 slope and oriented parallel to the street, joined at the center by a flat foot element over the main entry. As viewed from the street, the proposed highest roof ridge elevation (219.06') is approximately 2.9 feet higher than the existing ridge elevation (216.6'), remaining well below the maximum permitted building height of 25 feet above curb level. The home is less than 15 feet above the curb.
Further with respect to massing, the Board found that the Project complied with Finding No. 1, Criteria No. 9 (Neighborhood Compatibility) as follows:
The surrounding area is characterized primarily by one- and two-story cottages and ranch-style residences, with a few contemporary homes in the vicinity. The proposed one-story design, reflecting a mid-century beach vernacular, is compatible with the existing neighborhood context, as its height, scale, and massing are consistent with the established development patterns in the area.
As reflected in the record, the Board evaluated the Project’s visual impacts from neighboring properties within the framework of the Design Guidelines, which recognize that new development may result in changes to existing views. Testimony regarding alleged view loss, massing, and privacy impacts including impacts to Appellant Brodt residence was carefully considered alongside site observations, renderings, and comparisons between the existing and proposed conditions.
With respect to Appellant Brodt’s property, the Board considered concerns regarding roof height, massing along the north side, extended eaves, and potential view and privacy impacts. The Applicant explained that the Project incorporates articulated building modules, shallow roof pitches, variable setbacks, limited and angled fenestration on the north elevation, and existing landscaping to reduce perceived bulk and maintain privacy. Based on these design features and independent site visits, Board members concluded that the Project does not create excessive massing relative to Appellant Brodt’s residence. Indeed, Board member Weil commended the Project’s careful design, articulation, and material choices, noting that the breaking up of masses and single-story configuration were handled in a unique and sensitive way.25 During deliberations, the Board specifically addressed the north side eave adjacent to the Brodt property.
The Applicant confirmed that the eave could be reduced, and the Board imposed a condition of approval requiring that the north side eave be reduced so that it does not encroach into the side yard setback. (BoardAdopted Resolution No. 25-1883, Condition No. 28.) This modification was determined to further mitigate potential visual impacts.
Board members stated on the record that the magnitude of view impacts asserted by neighbors was not supported by the evidence or their observations, and that any remaining impacts are limited, consistent with the range anticipated by the Design Guidelines, and do not constitute a disproportionate burden under view equity when balanced against the Applicant’s right to develop the property in compliance with applicable 25 Attachment 9 [Transcript], p. 14 of 18.
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-1883, CDP 25-1884, AND REP 25-1885 AT 30801
DRIFTWOOD DRIVE
April 28, 2026
standards.27 Based on the evidence, the Board proceeded in the manner required by law and the decision is supported by substantial evidence.
3. “Recorded Easement and Inequity”
In short, Appellants contend that the Applicant benefits from a recorded view easement, guaranteeing a permanent, unobstructed 180-degree ocean view over a residence located at 30832 Marilyn Drive to the southeast of the subject Property, and that the view impacts to the Appellant properties at 30782 Driftwood Drive and 21562 Ocean Vista Drive are inequitable in light of the Applicant’s guaranteed view rights.
Staff’s Response
Staff’s Response to Appeal Contention No. 1 relating to View Equity is hereby incorporated by reference to Staff’s Response to Appeal Contention No. 3.
The Appeal includes as an attachment an easement granted by the property owners of 30832 Marilyn Drive to the property owners of 30801 Driftwood for a right of unobstructed access to light, air, and view of a described area. Marilyn Drive is located below Driftwood Drive, and the easement thereby restricts the rights of 30832 Marilyn Drive to develop higher and obstruct the views of 30801 Driftwood. The referenced view easement is a private property matter negotiated between private landowners and does not expand or limit the City’s land use authority. The Board’s review appropriately focused on compliance with City regulations and Design Guidelines, including View Equity.
View equity requires the development to be designed “to protect views from neighboring properties without denying the subject property the reasonable opportunity to develop.” (LBMC Section
25.05.040(H)(16)(italic emphasis added).) Here, the views of 30832 Marilyn Drive are not at issue, and the Board focused on the Applicant’s reasonable opportunity to develop in the context of proposing a new, single-story home and the views of the neighboring properties, including those of Appellants Brodt and Spenzano. Board members stated on the record that the magnitude of view impacts asserted by neighbors was not supported by the evidence or their observations, and that any remaining impacts are limited, consistent with the range anticipated by the Design Guidelines, and do not constitute a disproportionate burden under view equity when balanced against the Applicant’s right to develop the property in compliance with applicable standards.28 Based on the evidence, the Board proceeded in the manner required by law and the decision is supported by substantial evidence.
4. “Inconsistency with Neighborhood Character”
In short, Appellants contend that the neighborhood is defined by terraced lots and low-profile structures to balance views, and that the Project’s bulk, extended eaves, and increased height disrupt this pattern, creating a looming effect inconsistent with the neighborhood scale. 27 Attachment 9 [Transcript], pp. 13-14 of 18.
28 Attachment 9 [Transcript], pp. 13-14 of 18.
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-1883, CDP 25-1884, AND REP 25-1885 AT 30801
DRIFTWOOD DRIVE
April 28, 2026
Staff’s Response
The Board found that the Project complied with Finding No. 1, Criteria No. 9 (Neighborhood Compatibility) as follows:
The surrounding area is characterized primarily by one- and two-story cottages and ranch-style residences, with a few contemporary homes in the vicinity. The proposed one-story design, reflecting a mid-century beach vernacular, is compatible with the existing neighborhood context, as its height, scale, and massing are consistent with the established development patterns in the area.
As reflected in the record, the Board evaluated the Project’s visual impacts from neighboring properties within the framework of the Design Guidelines, which recognize that new development may result in changes to existing views. Testimony regarding alleged view loss, massing, and privacy impacts including impacts to Appellant Brodt residence was carefully considered alongside site observations, renderings, and comparisons between the existing and proposed conditions.
With respect to Appellant Brodt’s property, the Board considered concerns regarding roof height, massing along the north side, extended eaves, and potential view and privacy impacts. The Applicant explained that the Project incorporates articulated building modules, shallow roof pitches, variable setbacks, limited and angled fenestration on the north elevation, and existing landscaping to reduce perceived bulk and maintain privacy. Based on these design features and independent site visits, Board members concluded that the Project does not create excessive massing relative to Appellant Brodt’s residence. Indeed, Board member Weil commended the Project’s careful design, articulation, and material choices, noting that the breaking up of masses and single-story configuration were handled in a unique and sensitive way.31 During deliberations, the Board specifically addressed the north side eave adjacent to the Brodt property.
The Applicant confirmed that the eave could be reduced, and the Board imposed a condition of approval requiring that the north side eave be reduced so that it does not encroach into the side yard setback. (BoardAdopted Resolution No. 25-1883, Condition No. 28.) This modification was determined to further mitigate potential visual impacts.
Board members stated on the record that the magnitude of view impacts asserted by neighbors was not supported by the evidence or their observations, and that any remaining impacts are limited, consistent with the range anticipated by the Design Guidelines, and do not constitute a disproportionate burden under view equity when balanced against the Applicant’s right to develop the property in compliance with applicable standards.32 Based on the evidence, the Board proceeded in the manner required by law and the decision is supported by substantial evidence.
5. “Procedural Deficiencies”
In short, the Appellant contends the Applicant did not meaningfully engage with neighbors prior to the Board hearing.
31 Attachment 9 [Transcript], p. 14 of 18.
32 Attachment 9 [Transcript], pp. 13-14 of 18.
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-1883, CDP 25-1884, AND REP 25-1885 AT 30801
DRIFTWOOD DRIVE
April 28, 2026
Staff’s Response
The Project satisfied all procedural requirements of the Design Review process, including early neighborhood communication [LBMC Section 25.05.040(C)(1)], staking [LBMC Section
25.05.040(C)(2)], Fire Department review [LBMC Section 25.05.040(C)(4)], public notice [LBMC Section
25.05.040(E)], a noticed public hearing, and the opportunity for public testimony. The record reflects that numerous speakers were heard, written correspondence was reviewed, and the Applicant responded to questions from both the public and the Board.
While neighbors expressed dissatisfaction with the extent of informal outreach and pre-hearing coordination, City regulations do not require agreement between applicants and neighbors as a condition of approval. The Board’s decision was based on the totality of the record developed through the public process.
6. “Errors in the DRB Hearing Record”
In short, Appellants contend that the view impact is substantial, that the Applicant’s statements acknowledging the ability to reduce the building height were disregarded, and that the Board failed to consider the Project’s fire risk.
Staff’s Response
Staff’s Response to Appeal Contention No. 1 relating to View Equity is hereby incorporated by reference to Staff’s Response to Appeal Contention No. 3.
The hearing record reflects the Board’s deliberate consideration of the Project’s view impacts and the design options presented during the review process. The Board retains discretion to determine which design alternatives, if any, are appropriate and is not required to adopt modifications proposed during the hearing.
Statements made by Board members reflect their evaluation of the evidence in the record, and the Board need not condition the Project to reduce the building height if the Board finds that the proposed Project height satisfies the View Equity design review criterion and other applicable criteria.
The hearing transcript demonstrates a thorough and detailed discussion of the Project’s design elements, including roof height, floor elevation, eaves, setbacks, crawl space design, ceiling heights, and roof pitch.
The Applicant acknowledged potential view impacts and confirmed that certain modifications were feasible, including reduction of the north side eave.
The Board evaluated these options, questioned the Applicant regarding feasibility, and ultimately imposed a condition of approval requiring the north side eave to be reduced so that it does not encroach into the side yard setback. Additional proposals to further reduce overall roof height were discussed but ultimately not required, based on the Board’s determination that the Project already satisfied the View Equity criterion.
The Project also satisfied all requirements for Fire Department review [LBMC Section 25.05.040(C)(4)].
Concerns regarding fire safety, crawl space design, and construction materials were raised during rebuttal.
These matters are governed by the California Building Code and Fire Code and are reviewed during plan check and permitting. The Applicant’s design plans – which include a Fire Department site access plan and APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-1883, CDP 25-1884, AND REP 25-1885 AT 30801
DRIFTWOOD DRIVE
April 28, 2026
fuel modification plan – were reviewed by the City’s Fire Code Official during the planning application review process, who found the Project feasible from a Fire Code and Building Code perspective. The Project must comply with these codes, including requirements for fire sprinklers, use of dual pane windows, and use of ignition-resistant exterior finishes. Additional reviews will take place once construction drawings are prepared and submitted for permitting, and compliance will be confirmed as part of the building inspection process following the issuance of building permits. Based on the evidence, the Board proceeded in the manner required by law and the decision is supported by substantial evidence.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolution (Attachment 1) denying the appeal and sustaining the Board’s conditional approval of Design Review 25-1883, Coastal Development Permit 25-1884, and Revocable Encroachment Permit 25-1885 and finding the Project exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303.
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The recommended action has no financial impact to the budget.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-1883, CDP 25-1884, AND REP 25-1885 AT 30801
DRIFTWOOD DRIVE
April 28, 2026
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, the Project qualifies for a categorical exemption 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 projects that qualify for a Class 3 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 include one single-family residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences may be constructed or converted under this exemption. This Project fits within the Class 3 exemption because it is construction of a single-family dwelling on an existing legal building site and no structures are proposed within any open space overlay or environmentally sensitive area. Further, none of the exceptions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply. As indicated above, the Project site does not contain any environmentally sensitive areas in that the site is fully developed with an existing single-family residence and is adjacent to developed residential properties and streets. The City’s environmentally sensitive area maps do not identify any such areas on-site or within the immediate Project vicinity, and there are no mapped watercourses on the subject site. There will be no cumulative impact resulting from successive projects of the same type in the same place over time in that the Project proposes to replace the existing single-family dwelling with a new single-family dwelling that will similarly maintain a single-story building height. There are no unusual circumstances resulting in a significant impact on the environment in that there are no historic resources or heritage trees on the site, or any other unusual circumstances with regards to the Project site. 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 in that the Project would not impact trees, there are no historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources on the site, and the closest officially designated state scenic highway is located near Anaheim18 and therefore the Project will not result in damage to scenic resources within or near such highway. The 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 Project will not result in significant adverse impacts to historical resources as defined by CEQA in that there is no historic resource on the site or immediately adjacent to the site. Consequently, additional environmental analysis is not necessary to meet the requirements of the CEQA.
ATTACHMENTS
1. City Council Resolution (Pgs. 21-47)
2. Appeal (Pgs. 48-65)
3. City Council Appeal Public Notice (Pg. 66)
4. Adopted DRB Resolution No. 25-1883 (Pgs. 67-81)
5. November 13, 2025 DRB Staff Report (Pgs. 82-96)
6. November 13, 2025 DRB Project Plans (Pgs. 97-116)
7. November 13, 2025 DRB Public Comments (Pgs. 117-150)
8. November 13, 2025 DRB Minutes (Pgs. 151-175)
9. November 13, 2025 DRB Transcript (Pgs. 176-193)
10. Order of Testimony (Pgs. 194-195)
18 https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-1883, CDP 25-1884, AND REP 25-1885 AT 30801
DRIFTWOOD DRIVE
April 28, 2026
Submitted By: Matthew Schneider Approved: .David A Kiff Matthew Schneider, Director of
Community Development
Dave Kiff, City Manager
Report Prepared By: Coordinated With:
Wendy Jung, Principal Planner Jane Abzug, Assistant City Attorney Anthony Viera, Deputy Director of Community
Development