From: Ghassan Kazmouz
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2026 7:04 AM
To: Balmer-Csira, Nancy CD <[email protected]> Subject:
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Good morning Ms Balmer
I am writing to express our concerns with regard to proposed home site at 31985/31987 coast highway.
The proposed project is large in scale and high in elevation.
This used to be the site of an old Spanish house that was demolished in 2017.
Unfortunately with the way it is proposed it will cause to completely eleminate our white water views .
I also believe that a project of this size will have a negative impact on the environment and surroundings landscape .
I am voicing my concerns and objections to the height of this proposed project.
I am also attaching photos of how this will impact our limited views that will be completely eliminated if this project proceeds as planned.
I have reached out to the architect and voiced my concerns as well.
Attachment 7
238
239
240
241
Respectfully
Ghassan kazmouz MD
Virginia way
Laguna Beach
92651
Sent from my iPhone
242
1 Miller, Paola CD
From:
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2026 7:35 PM
To: Design Review Board
Subject: South Laguna
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open aƩachments unless you are sure the content is safe.]
Dear Members of the Design Review Board,
I am wriƟng regarding the proposed project at 31987 Coast Highway scheduled for review on February 26, 2026.
I respecƞully urge the Board to require design modificaƟons that preserve the historic public ocean view corridor along Coast Highway, parƟcularly the walking view enjoyed by residents and visitors as they approach the 1000 Steps and 10th Street public beach access.
For decades, this stretch of Coast Highway has provided one of the last remaining publicly experienced ocean views in this area. As pedestrians walk toward the beach, the ability to see the waves breaking and the open horizon is part of what makes Laguna Beach so special. It is not simply a private development maƩer — it is a shared visual and community resource.
Based on the informaƟon circulaƟng, it appears the proposed structure could potenƟally be shiŌed north on the lot in a way that would substanƟally preserve this public walking view corridor while sƟll allowing reasonable development of the property. I respecƞully ask the Board to carefully evaluate whether a site adjustment or redesign could achieve both private property rights and protecƟon of this long-standing public visual access.
Laguna Beach has always taken pride in thoughƞul design, sensiƟvity to coastal character, and preservaƟon of public views. Once a view corridor is blocked, it is lost permanently. Preserving this one would reflect the City’s long tradiƟon of protecƟng its unique coastal idenƟty.
Thank you for your consideraƟon and for your service to our community.
Sincerely,
Silvia Barragan
Laguna Beach Resident
243
1 February 10, 2026
City of Laguna Beach- Planning Division , Dave Kiff – City Manager [email protected], Nancy Balmer-Csira-Planner [email protected] Ph. (949) 715-1284 505 Forest Ave.
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
Re: Proposed New Residence at 31985 & 31987 Coast Hwy , APN’s 056-160-03 & 056-160-41 DR 26-0024, CDP 26-0025, Variance 26-0026 - Morris Skendarian [email protected] Hello Dave & Nancy,
We’re the Owners of Ocean View Residences on directly affected opposite side of Coast Hwy & adjacent to the new residence proposed. Neighbor /Land Planner Bryan (BM)& Pat Menne met with Morris on June 7, 2024 to review our issues for the Proposed Residence/demolition & again on Sept. 27, 2024 with a draft Concept Plan for our Input. He presented a single-story New Roofline no Higher than 10’ above curb/sidewalk adjacent to existing Residence, and we asked he respect the Driveway /View corridor to the Top of Bluff Blue/ Whitewater Ocean views. We collectively have these concerns below, and with your cooperation on these Issues, you will have support of the new consolidated Lot /Residence from our Group for the Project.
At our 2
nd Meeting, We repeated any new Residence preserve/maintain the existing “Native Bluff Top Ocean View Corridor” unblocked from PCH existing Driveway opening/ grades to Bluff Top-maximizing the separation from Peterson Residence PL= (33 feet width, turnaround to previous existing/demolished Historic DePaulo Residence @ 31987 Driveway & the 42 feet width at ex. Pearman Residence’s south side (31985 Coast Hwy). This street-level sidewalk Public Ocean View Corridor resource now blocked for last 8.5 years by a 6’ “temporary” construction chain-link/green mesh construction fencing, despite 3 letters to City Bldg. Dept.
Instead, Morris represented that the City (arbitrarily proposed) set an 18’ feet width Ocean View Corridor to be implemented on the North side of this proposed New Residence, where NO View Corridor ever existed and the complete loss of the South Side Public’s Existing Sidewalk Streetview Ocean View Corridor of Bluewater, Catalina & San Clemente Islands that is 42’ wide on this Property.
Why introduce a smaller Ocean View Corridor that doesn’t work, instead of preserving the Public’s 42’ View Ocean View Corridor that does & has existed since these 1 st constructed homes in the 1930-60s?
No Public Ocean View Corridor ever existed on the North side and was historically blocked views by existing fencing trees/ vegetation & fencing, house @ 31987 Coast Hwy.- DePaulo Historic Spanish Estate Residence.
We agreed to his proposed Roof existing height on the south Entry Door 1-Story Roof edge & PCH side lower edge of blue stain-glassed windows of 31985 ex. Residence, with no new Trees/Vegetation to exceed the proposed 10’ Roof height above Curb/Sidewalk, but Morris said the new Residence would obstruct the existing driveway area “Public Ocean View Corridor” between – because he had to do a North side View Corridor per City instructions. We disagreed- left unresolved for future consultation with City. We can resolve this prior to the 2/26/26 DRB hearing if protected as exists and avoid future appeals to California Coastal Commission & City Council by affected Neighborhood group & provide protection from Public’s Ocean View Corridor loss.
Now with the Story Pole Stakes up it is obvious of this Conflict /Take of Public’s & Our View Ocean Bluewater Catalina/San Clemente Island View Corridor Resource. We invite you to make an appointment onsite with us & see for yourself how the larger South Side Ocean View Corridor is the Existing Public View Corridor that should be preserved to its existing width, not the North side where the setback should be restored to 5’ width. (see Attached Photos : ex. Public Ocean View 42’ Corridor, and No existing corridor at North PL/Coast Hwy) 244
2 City of Laguna Beach- DRB Letter- Feb. 9, 2026- Cont’d. Pg. 2 The simple solution is to preserve the Public’s/our Ocean View Resource to gain our approval/support.
We as neighbors ask for this non-existent “Arbitrary North 20 feet wide Ocean View Corridor be shifted from the North side & return it to the South side of the Property-back to it’s Logical & Historic existing Public Ocean View driveway access Corridor. This Preserves the Public’s Street/Sidewalk 42 feet wide View Resource walking experience. This is located along the well-traveled Sidewalk from Coast Hwy. parking, while walking to 1000 Step’s Beach Accessway- shifting New Residence north into the 5’ Setback next to Jackson Residence property line. Preserving existing Public Ocean View Corridor (currently 42’ wide) existing on the south side of ex. Residence Entry Roof down to the “Native Bluff Top Open Space” slope area (33’ wide).
Note: Bryan was personally involved in saving 2 of the 5 Ocean View Corridors remaining preserved below.
South Laguna only has 5 existing Public Street-level / Sidewalk Ocean View-Bluewater Corridors left :
#1 -Treasure Isd. Park-BM made Agm’t. to lowering: public pkg. Garage, Railings, landscape= view corridor #2- Aliso Beach Park – existing preserved Ocean View corridor. #3- Coast Hwy- Subject Property-old Dimitry/DePaulo Resid, = Goal preserve Public’s Ocean View #4- -Coast Hwy.-Groves Property- BM Agm’t. Ltr: 12.23.02 made: City/Groves/L. Steinle -L Arch. = 300’ wide Street level /Sidewalk Public Ocean View Corridor preserved. #5 – West Street Beach Lot- In stakes, Proposed Residence. – possible loss of Public Ocean View corridor We Do Not Support having Emergency Ingress & Egress using your existing Funicular, or PCH Parking- which would move the focus of City Emergency Access Parking/ and disruption of Privacy & Noise away from the Existing 1000 Steps Beach main entry at 9th Street to directly in front of our Residences, causing a new loss of privacy, almost daily disturbances & increase the visibility impairment traffic conflicts of Neighborhood to access our Properties to & from our driveways safely onto Coast Hwy.
We request placement of any Driveway Gate/ Fencing be at least 15 feet downslope, preferably on the existing alignment 17% max. paved driveway preserving “Existing Native Blufftop Open Public Ocean View Corridor”.
New Project Residence appears to be 80’+-width from east (PCH) & west (Beach) elevations- which is Not in Character with the surrounding neighborhood properties which range 19’ to 48’width, maximum of 85’length. This Proposed Residence @ Twice the Average Width is Not Compatible on this same site. This Historic Spanish DePaulo Residence demolished in 2018 on this property was the largest @ 70’ wide. No New residence should be permitted this massive width & out of Character with the surrounding Neighborhood Homes. If the Ocean View Corridor is preserved at existing 42’ setback from Peterson Property Line on South, we have no objections to the length extending north where no views are affected & where the historic residence existed & thereby preserves the south side Public’s 42’ wide Bluewater Ocean View Corridor at Sidewalk /Street level. City stated policy is Project being in Character & Compatible with Neighborhood.
There is no mention of the Square Footage of the proposed residence on the Public Notice. If the Ocean View Corridor is preserved at 42’ wide sideyard, and within City setbacks, we will not object Project’s mass /Sq. Ft.
With these Issues met, we also support project & use of the existing Funicular for their Private Residential Use.
Respectfully,
Bryan Menne (BM) & Patricia Menne Anna Straszewski
Derek Peterson -Adjacent Neighbor Laura Coombs
Cc:
245
246
247
248
249
From: bryan menne
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2026 2:31:46 PM
To: Balmer-Csira, Nancy CD <[email protected]>; Kiff, Dave CM <[email protected]>
Cc: >; < >; Ann
Christoph < >; >; Bryan Menne
>; Morris Skenderian <[email protected]>; Patricia Halman-Menne ; Derek Peterson >; lauralinda >;
< >
Subject: 31985, 31987 Coast Hwy- DRB Members- DR 26-0024, CDP 26-0025, Variance 26-0026 - Comments from 4 Neighbors group affected.
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Nancy & Dave,
Attached Above-please see our DRB Comment Letter with following attachments for DRB Members review for the current Pacific Holdings Applicant-please include our Comments & distribute Attachments to DRB Member review with our DRB Letter Comments from these 4 adjacent-the most impacted homeowner/Residents Group with these Collective Issues/Comments & previous summary from - City DRB Recommendations -4/25/19 for these same property issues for previous owner of this same property- the” Dimitry Application” , after all Public Input/DRB Ruling process we went thru 7 years ago!
DRB Letter Attachments:
1. Photo of 31985-87 Coast Hwy. - Existing Public 42’ wide Ocean View Corridor at Street Sidewalk Level, Vehicular View
2. Photo of 31985-87 Coast Hwy.- North Dwy. View-No View Corridor exists
3. Photo of 31987 Coast Hwy.- Fencing blocking Public’s 42’ Ocean View Corridor for 8.5 years
4. Photo of 31995 Coast Hwy.-Derek Peterson’s Entry arrival driveway to motor court- staking blocked Ocean View
5. Photo of 31995 Coast Hwy.-Derek Petersons downhill estate Driveway to Entry Courtstaking blocked Ocean View
6. Photo of 31995 Coast Hwy.-Dereck Peterson’s Entry Court- staking blocked Ocean View looking North
7. Photo of 31988 10th Ave.- Bryan & Pat Menne’s Office/ Living room- fencing /stakes blocking Ocean View Corridor of Bluewater / Ocean swell waves
8. Photo of 31988 10th Ave.- Bryan & Pat Menne’s 2 decks - fencing /stakes blocking Ocean View Corridor of Bluewater / Ocean swell waves
9. Photo of 31988 10th Ave.- Bryan & Pat Menne’s Office - fencing screen off/stakes blocking Ocean View Corridor of Bluewater / Ocean swell waves
10. Photo of 31988 Coast Hwy.- Bryan & Pat Menne’s Street level - fencing screen off/stakes blocking Ocean View Corridor of Bluewater
11. Photo of 31985 Virginia Way- Anna Straszewski’s Master Bedroom - stakes blocking Ocean View Corridor/Bluewater
12. Photo of 31985 Virginia Way- Anna Straszewski’s Dining/Kitchen & Deck- stakes blocking Ocean View Corridor/Bluewater
250
13. Photo of 31987- Dimitry Residence final City DRB Comments from 4/25/19- same Ocean View issues, and sliding New Home North to 5’ setback PL.
14. DRB Letter Comments from 4 most Impacted Homes/Residents on the 888 Pacific Holdings Proposal.
15. Photo from 31988 10th - weekly view of 1000 steps Medical calls/Emergency Vehicles( 4) blocking ex. Driveways and view impairments on Coast Hwy. 251
252
253
254
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN JR., GOVERNOR
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION CENTRAL COAST DISTRICT OFFICE 725 FRONT STREET, SUITE 300
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
PHONE: (831) 427-4863
FAX: (831) 427-4877
WEB: WWW.COASTAL.CA.GOV
W12b
A-5-LGB-17-0033 (DIMITRY DEMO SFD)
AUGUST 10, 2017
EXHIBITS
Table of Contents
Exhibit 1 Vicinity Map
Exhibit 2 City Council Resolution No. 17.032
Exhibit 3 Site Survey
Exhibit 4 Appeal of Derek Peterson
Exhibit 5 Appeal of Mark Fudge
255
VICINITY MAP A-5-LGB
-17-0033
EXHIBIT 1a
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Good Morning:
This is unbelievable! I have been reviewing the planning documents for this Project - slated to be heard at DRB - February 26th. Yes - I have been up all night.
As Council Members - and City Department heads - you all need to be aware of this divisive development ploy that is being promoted by the City's Marine Safety Department.
I understand the project is in front of the DRB - "the process" however - the variance request by this private oceanfront developer owner - will damage the entire existing neighborhood - out for his personal gain is wrong at the loss of many adjoining properties.
I did not purchase a home at "ground zero" ocean access - and now if this variance is approved it will essentially extend the public access , commotion and busy activity a full block further south - to 10th ave - right in front of our home of 30 years. This variance will be taking our privacy and quality of life at our home. This commotion - is not what we bargained for! As it is - during summer weekends - there is constant emergency operations that take place at 9th St / 1000's steps Coastal Access.
The variance request is also flawed and does not take into account the arc of the road - Coast hwy is at this location and the lack of visual site line for safe ingress and egress from a line of properties along this stretch of hwy.
This discussion should not even be on the table by the Marine Safety Department! And this public emergency access topic needs to be stopped immediately.
Please advise that you received this email.
Pat Menne
949-246-6182
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
1 Patricia Halman-Menne
31988 10th Ave.
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
[email protected]
949-246-6182
February 20, 2026
Attn: Design Review Board
City of Laguna Beach
505 Forest Ave.
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
Re: Design Review 2026-0024
31985 & 31987 Coast Highway (APN: 056-160-03 & 045-160-41) Coastal Development Permit 2026-0026
Formal Opposition to Variance Request –2026-0026
Dear Members of the Board,
I write in strong opposition to the variance request submitted for the bluff-top property located at 31985 & 31987 Coast Highway, Case No. 2026-0024.
The applicant seeks to retain a private funicular and has represented to the City that it may be made available for emergency access to the coastal bluff. While presented as a public benefit, this proposal fails to satisfy the legal standards required for granting a variance and instead introduces substantial impacts into an established residential neighborhood.
Failure to Demonstrate Hardship
A variance may only be granted upon a showing of a unique and unnecessary hardship arising from special physical conditions of the property. No such hardship has been demonstrated. The bluff-top location is not unique in a manner that deprives the owner of reasonable use of the property. Rather, the request appears rooted in the desire to retain a private amenity.
Personal preference or convenience does not constitute legal hardship.
Improper Reliance on a Private Structure for Public Function The applicant’s offer to allow emergency access via a privately owned funicular does not create a legally enforceable or permanent public benefit. There is no evidence of a recorded easement, binding covenant, indemnification agreement, inspection protocol, maintenance guarantee, or operational standards that would run with the land and bind all future owners.
Absent such legally binding mechanisms, the proposed access is discretionary and revocable. 394
2 Emergency infrastructure should not depend upon:
• The continued goodwill of a private property owner
• The mechanical reliability of a privately maintained system • The financial capacity of future owners
• Informal or non-binding assurances
Any mechanical conveyance system carries risk of failure, deferred maintenance, power interruption, or eventual removal. If emergency responders or members of the public were injured while using such a system, the City could face liability exposure for having relied upon a privately controlled mechanism without full regulatory oversight.
Functional Change in Use – Variance vs. Conditional Use This proposal effectively converts a private residential property into a quasi-public access facility. That constitutes a functional change in use, not a dimensional adjustment.
A variance is intended to address narrow physical constraints — not to authorize a new or intensified use inconsistent with zoning. If the property is to serve a public emergency access function, that issue should require full land use review through a Conditional Use Permit or similar discretionary process, with appropriate findings, environmental review, and enforceable conditions.
Granting this request through a variance circumvents the appropriate level of scrutiny.
Existing Public Access Undermines Claimed Public Safety Need Designated public access to the coastal bluff already exists one block away. The presence of established access undermines any claim that this private funicular is necessary to advance public safety.
If the applicant argues that the funicular enhances emergency response, such enhancement is speculative and does not cure the absence of hardship. A claimed public safety benefit cannot substitute for the statutory findings required for a variance.
A variance cannot be granted merely because a proposal may be convenient or arguably beneficial. The Board must be able to make all required findings based on hardship, consistency with zoning intent, and absence of detriment to neighboring properties. Those findings cannot lawfully be made here.
395
3 Detrimental Impacts
Approval would:
• Increase vehicular traffic and emergency activity in a “red curbed” restricted visual site line highway
• Intensify congestion and safety risks for ingress and egress of neighboring residential homes
• Disrupt residential character
• Diminish neighboring property values
• Establish precedent for private amenities to be repurposed as informal public infrastructure
Zoning protections exist to provide predictability, fairness, and neighborhood stability. Allowing a private residential property to function as de facto public-serving infrastructure shifts burden onto neighboring homeowners and erodes the integrity of the zoning framework.
Conclusion
The applicant has not demonstrated the required hardship. The claimed public benefit is neither necessary nor legally enforceable. The proposal constitutes a functional change in use inappropriate for variance relief. Required statutory findings cannot be made.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Board deny this variance in its entirety.
Thank you for your careful consideration and for protecting the integrity of our community’s zoning framework.
Sincerely,
Patricia Halman-Menne
396
397
From: Derek Peterson
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2026 11:22 AM
To: Balmer-Csira, Nancy CD <[email protected]>; Kiff, Dave CM <[email protected]>
Subject: 31987, 31985 Coast Highway DRB
Nancy / Dave,
I own the residence to the south of the above noted properties ( Coast Highway) currently going through design review and would like to express my serious concern with the project as currently planned. The two main issues are (1) the loss of privacy by the overall scale of the project and the granting of a marine safety easement along my property line resulting in a significant loss of value to my property and (2) severe and likely deadly traffic dangers resulting from emergency vehicle parking.
The project as currently planned calls for a 3' easement on the south side of the proposed redevelopment at 31987 which runs the entire length of my property to the funicular that is to be rebuilt. The PCH access and accompanying stairs to the funicular will significantly impact the privacy currently enjoyed in my residence. The staircase will allow everyone accessing the funicular direct visibility into my kitchen and living room. My property, as it currently is, allows occupants to feel a serene sense of privacy while enjoying the ocean views. This may have a significant impact on the value of my property and make it far more difficult to sell. The current scale of the property as designed will likely also have that effect, so this staircase is an additional factor that will cause loss of value to my property.
As noted in the current site plan, the access for the dedicated marine safety staircase is at the southernmost side of 31987. This creates a massive safety issue with the immediate potential for loss of life as a result of a traffic fatality for residents to the proposed development of 31987. As it currently is, any vehicles parked to the north of on the southbound side of PCH block the views as one tries to exit the property. A partial blockage currently exists when marine safety vehicles are parked at the top of the current public access staircase but it is possible to partly see around the bend and rely on the traffic light at 9th street to somewhat safely depart. Relying on the traffic light can still be dangerous because when the northbound traffic is backed up from the traffic light, one can not see if any vehicles are making a left turn from 9th to drive south down PCH. Moving ANY vehicle parking further south on PCH towards not only reduces the visibility of the traffic light at 9th, but also completely eliminates the ability to see oncoming traffic driving south on PCH. Again, I would like to repeat so that it is on record with the city: purposely stationing maring safety and emergency vehicles on PCH directly north of puts anyone departing the property in immediate, life threatening danger. This danger exists 398
even when people are driving at the stated speed limit, even though drivers often exceed the posted speed limit by 10-20MPH. I also ask that, during the entirety of the proposed construction project at 31985/31987, there is a dedicated person to direct traffic whenever deliveries or construction equipment is on site and parked along PCH.
I kindly ask that this property be returned to the drawing board and comply with the neighborly requests of Bryan Menne and others so that the proposed project is less intrusive, more in compliance with local construction, and does not create the potential for life threatening consequences.
Thank you,
Derek Peterson
Owner
Coast Highway
399
To: Laguna Beach Design Review Board (DRB) Re: Opposition to Proposed Development at 31985-87 Coast Hwy – Hearing Item # 5.9 (Feb 26, 20 26) Dear Members of the Design Review Board,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed development at 31985-87 Coast Hwy. The current proposal is drastic
ally out of scale with our neighborhood and directly contradicts several of the City's General Plan Policies regarding view preservation and community character. Furthermore, the recent Staff Report contains misleading findings that unfairly favor the applicant at the expense of residents and public resources. I urge the Board to reject this application Mass, Scale, and Neighborhood Character
● The proposed 6,528 square foot home features three levels, four bedrooms, eight bathrooms, and 2,833 square feet of decks.
● At 80 feet wide, the structure dwarfs all existing residences on 9th Street and the 10 0 0 Steps Beach Park area, which range from 19 to 50 feet wide. ● The proposed home is more than double the size of the 3,0 0 0 square foot historic DePaulo estate that previously occupied this site.
● This massive footprint is out of character with the South Laguna neighborhood and fails to maintain the low-profile character mandated by City Land Use Policy 3.10 .
Devastating Loss of Public and Private Views
● The project will obliterate a 42-foot wide public view corridor of the ocean, waves, and the Catalina and San Clemente Islands.
● With a proposed roofline extending 8 feet above the public sidewalk trail to 10 0 0 Steps Beach, the project eliminates one of the five remaining public view windows from the sidewalk and Coast Highway.
● This violates Land Use Policies 2.8 and 2.10 , which require the City to maximize the preservation of coastal views and protect public views. 400
● Four uphill neighboring homes will lose the ocean and wave views they have enjoyed for 97 years, directly violating the City's View Equity policy.
Severe Impacts on Adjacent Neighbors
● The adjacent Peterson residence will face a massive sideyard wall with only an 8-foot setback, completely destroying the 42 -foot separation that exists today. ● The Peterson home will completely lose its ocean views from its driveway, estate arrival area, and courtyard.
● The proposed decks will overhang the Peterson's kitchen, dining, and living rooms just 8 feet from the property line, creating a severe loss of privacy and a "fishbowl" intrusion.
Unjustified Variances
● The requested variance for a funicular does not meet the hardship qualification. ● A funicular is entirely unnecessary, as the City already has a 15-foot wide stairway access just 130 feet north and possesses a stair-climbing mechanism for emergency access at 9th Street. Also, the access agreement for the funicular should be part of the DRB review process and there should be documented methods of enforcing the agreement. Unless the agreement is part of the DRB review process the variance should not be approved. ● The variance for new 10-foot retaining walls in the front setback is unnecessary and could be avoided if the applicant reconfigured the site plan to utilize the existing driveway.
We rely on the Design Review Board to protect our public interests, enforce City policies, and balance development with the preservation of our community's natural resources. Please reject this application and require a redesign that respects our neighborh ood's scale and preserves our irreplaceable coastal views.
Sincerely, George Weiss
401
1 Miller, Paola CD
From: Steve Chadima >
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2026 9:06 PM
To: Design Review Board
Cc: Morris Skenderian;
Subject: Support project at 31985 & 31987 Coast Highway [NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Members of the Design Review Board:
We are writing in support of item 5.9 on the February 26, 2026 agenda, the proposed project at 31985 & 31987 Coast Highway, with one modification.
As you may know, we have been strong supporters of the Marine Safety Department, having underwritten the acquisition of the jet skis and the rescue boats used by the lifeguards to make ocean-going experience a much safer one for our residents and visitors. Once again, there is an opportunity to address one of the most challenging spots along our coastline, providing timely rescue services to Thousand Steps Beach, with the approval of this project.
We are grateful that the owner has proposed setting aside parking for emergency vehicles as well as undertaking the effort to restore the funicular and stairs to enable lifeguards to more easily transport injured beachgoers, an all-too-often occurrence at Thousand Steps. While we are glad that the staff has recommended approving the funicular, we disagree with their denial of the proposal to rebuild the stairs. Both can be critical assets to rescue personnel, enabling rapid extraction of injured swimmers to emergency services. This is particularly helpful when there are multiple injuries, which is frequently the case.
We respectfully request that you approve this project with the addition of the requested rebuilding of the stairs.
Thank you for your consideration,
Mark Porterfield and Steve Chadima
South Coast Highway
402
Perkins Coie LLP
Howard Street
February 25, 2026 Michelle W. Chan
City of Laguna Beach Design Review Board
505 Forest Ave.
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
Re: Concerns Regarding the Project Proposed at 31985 & 31987 Coast Highway | APN:
056-160-03 & 056-160- 41
City of Laguna Beach Design Review Board:
We are writing on behalf of an adjacent property owner to express concerns regarding the proposed project at 31985 & 31987 Coast Highway (“Project”). As an initial matter, the Project developer has not attempted to discuss the Project with our client—whose property will be directly impacted by the Project—prior to seeking approvals from the City of Laguna Beach (“City”). The demolition of the previous structure on the Project site has already caused significant damage to our client’s property, and we request that the Design Review Board (“Board”) impose conditions on the Project to address the following issues.
First, we request that the Board ensure that the Project is compatible with neighboring properties pursuant to Municipal Code Section 25.05.040(H)(9) and limits disruptions to neighbors during construction. Prior demolition work on the proposed Project site caused significant damage to our client’s property, including cracks to the building exterior, retaining wall, and fence. Given the close proximity of the proposed Project to our client’s property, the Project applicant must be required to consult with owners of neighboring properties before any construction activities take place on the Project site and require the Project applicant to take adequate measures to ensure that neighboring properties are not impacted by vibrations and dust during construction. In addition, the Project applicant should be required to take measures to ensure that construction activities associated with the Project do not impede or otherwise interfere with adjacent owners’ access to their property, including access to driveways or residential features such as mailboxes.
The Board should also impose conditions on the Project to prohibit construction equipment from being parked or staged on or adjacent to neighboring properties.
Second, we do not believe that the Project applicant and the Board have adequately evaluated the Project’s potential impact on neighboring views. We request that the Board ensure that adequate analysis has been conducted to protect the existing views of neighboring properties pursuant to Municipal Code Section 25.05.040(H)(16). Resolution 2026-0024 and the associated staff report only consider impacts on views from street level and does not evaluate impacts that the Project may have from areas below street level.
Third, the Board should require the Project applicant to include a retaining wall along the northern boundary of the Project site to create greater structural support that will be necessary as a result of the development of the Project, and to minimize the amount of erosion and geological 403
February 25, 2026
disturbance that will happen as a result of the Project in accordance with General Plan Land Use Element Action 7.3.4. A parallel retaining wall of a similar height and functionality to the existing wall at the northern edge of the property had been planned for the previous development on the Project site, and a similar wall should be required here as well. The Project developer should consult with neighboring property owners regarding any planned retaining walls.
Fourth, we request assurances that any sewage and plumbing from the Project will be tied to the City’s sewer line and that any existing sewer lines connected to neighboring properties will be capped. This is not apparent from the design drawings submitted to the Board.
Lastly, we request that the easement for emergency access via the existing funicular be limited to the existing footprint of the funicular and not be expanded to or moved to other portions of the Project site.
Thank you for your consideration of these issues.
Sincerely,
Michelle W. Chan
MWC:ks
404
Dear Design Review Board Members:
As one of the authors of the City of Laguna Beach Landscape & Scenic Highways Resource Document [LSHRD], I urge you to deny the proposed project at the above address. In particular, as the City's consultants, we tried to establish the importance of preserving public views. This project does the opposite.
There are numerous other issues related to setbacks, building mass, and fence heights, among others. All combined, this project is too imposing and does not meet the criteria of neighborhood compatibility.
Hopefully the property owner can find a more appropriate solution for this beautiful residential lot.
Sincerely,
Bob Borthwick, ASLA
Landscape Architect
405
406
The project could provide the recommended tree on the north side front yard.
Setbacks
The large setback should be provided on the south side with the smaller setback on the north. This would provide an opportunity for a privacy buffer for the neighbor on the south whose kitchen and dining areas overlook that side yard setback. The total width of the building could also be reduced in the process of re-evaluating the total size of the building that is appropriate for the neighborhood.
Variances
It is not justified to exceed the 4’ height limit on the fencing just because other properties have exceeded that height. Have those properties received variances to exceed the fence height? Or are they existing because they were built under County governance or built without permits? The slope condition is not a valid reason to exceed the height because a 4’ fence regardless of where it is positioned on the slope still provides an appropriate barrier. The code already provides for gateways that exceed the 4’ height without a variance.
Building size and character
The building design is very institutional/industrial in character and seems a harsh intrusion on the neighborhood. It looks more like the Getty Museum than a sea-side Laguna Beach home. The design needs to relate to the woodsy Chris Abel designed home to the south or the other homes on the inland side of Coast Highway. It should appear to fit its surroundings comfortably, and not seem ostentatious and severe. It does not meet the Design Review neighborhood compatibility provision. Reducing the size would help but rethinking the design is needed.
Sincerely,
Ann Christoph
Landscape Architect FASLA
407
408
409