February 26, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript (Agenda Item 5.9 – 31985 & 31987 Coast Highway) 022626_DRB Agenda Item 5.9 Page 1 of 21
Thomas Gibbs:
Meeting's back on, let me call the next and last item. It's 5.9, 31985 and 31987 Coast Highway. Design Review 2026-0024, Coastal Development Permit 2026-0025, and Variance 2026-0026. Ex parte, please.
Jessica Gannon:
Trey had a site visit and met with Morris Skenderian at his office. Oh, and I met with the Mennes.
MJ Coveny:
Mennes, is that how it's pronounced?
Thomas Gibbs:
Mennes.
MJ Coveny:
I met with Morris and I also met at the site with the Mennes.
Thomas Gibbs:
Louis? Oh, Louis is not back. Louis, you're muted if you're not back. Well, let me do my ex parte. I met with Morris at the site and I met with the Mennes. So, we need to wait till Louis gets back. Patrick, can I proceed with the ...
Patrick Donegan:
I mean, so my only concernThomas Gibbs:
With the staff report? We've all read it, she's summarizing it.
Patrick Donegan:
Yeah, that's probably fair. But when he does come back, we'll have to confirm that he familiarized himself with the staff report in that nothing ... He's coming right now? Okay. I apologize, Chair. It's probably best to wait only because of the number, and we don't want him comingLouis Weil:
I'm here. Sorry.
Thomas Gibbs:
All right, Louis. Ex parte. This is on the Coast Highway 5.9.
Louis Weil:
Met with the Mennes down at the site. Morris Skenderian. Talked to the attorney that sent us the letter.
Michelle, I think was her name.
Attachment 9
413
February 26, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript (Agenda Item 5.9 – 31985 & 31987 Coast Highway) 022626_DRB Agenda Item 5.9 Page 2 of 21
Thomas Gibbs:
All right. Nancy, you're up.
Nancy Balmer-Csira:
Sure, thank you. You've already introduced the case number so you can go on to the next slide, please.
This is the project site. You can see there are two lots, 31985 and 31987 that will be joined before the permit is pulled. And on the right side of the slide, there's the frontage. You can see the existing home and the fence that blocks access currently to the site where the house was demolished, and then the bottom image shows what's out there now. The prior oceanward house has been demolished and the gunite on the slope has been removed as part of a prior approval. Next slide, please.
So, the design review and the coastal development permit applications are for the demolition of the existing structures. The new single family home is 6,529 square feet, the two car garage is 587 square feet, and the elevated decks are 2,833 square feet. Design review is required for elevator height, which is higher than the maximum 30, allowed to go to 36 feet. New vehicular access, it is required to have onsite turnaround. The grading is 2,685 cubic yards. Retaining walls greater than five feet also required design review. There's a pool and a spa located under the home at the lowest level. There's a pedestrian entry feature, landscaping, and design review is required for construction in an environmentally sensitive area because the property is ocean front. I wanted to point out here the setbacks. The orange area or yellow area, the way it shows, that is the bluff top setback.
I've zoomed in on just the proposed house here, the rest of the ocean front area is not shown, but this is to show the setbacks. That's the 25-foot setback from the bluff top. The front setback is 10 feet along Coast Highway. And the required setbacks for the sides are a combined 21 feet, four feet minimum. The applicant has chosen to use 14.5 on one side and 6.5 on the other. The house is set back 34.8 feet from the top of the bluff. Next slide, please.
The variances. There are three variances. This slide tries to depict where these variances occur. The first one is to reconstruct the funicular in the bluff, and that is the green area. The blue dotted area shows the top of the bluff, but then the bluff's set back. That's why the green is past that towards the street. So the funicular is the green slide, the obsolete bluff structures is the red area. And then, the area in the front setback is yellow and the slide at the bottom tries to depict the area that's above four feet. And you can go on to the next slide, please.
The variance findings, staff is supportive of rebuilding the funicular because there are special circumstances, and it provides public safety necessity, I'm sorry. Not supportive of the obsolete bluff structures, because we believe it's a private benefit and it conflicts with the Coastal Act and the LCP, and it's inconsistent with the land use element action 7.3.8. And staff is supportive of the area of the walls that are more than four feet. It's consistent with the development pattern, it's set 10 feet back from the sidewalk. It improves coast highway vehicular safety, and maintains pedestrian flow. Next slide, please.
These are the renderings. They were in the plan set, and I put them in here in case we want to go back to them. Next slide, please.
414
February 26, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript (Agenda Item 5.9 – 31985 & 31987 Coast Highway) 022626_DRB Agenda Item 5.9 Page 3 of 21
And the next slide, please. And the next slide, please. These are the colored elevations and the materials that have been chosen, and this is all in the staff report and the plan set. Next slide, please. This is the depiction of the front elevation. The top one is the existing elevation that shows the existing home higher than the current one. You can see it's dotted in the lower frame, and the landscaping will be removed. And we can go back to that slide if necessary also in the future. Next slide, please. So, we've received correspondence and I've summarized it here based on the summarization of the correspondence basically is the size, mass, scale, width of the structure and neighborhood compatibility, impacts to privacy and views, both public and private for the views, traffic safety during construction and emergency rescues, the unjustified variances, prior application determinations, and there was support to retain the obsolete structures in the bluff.
Next slide, please. And in conclusion, the project complies with the design review guidelines. The variance to reconstruct the funicular in the bluff and to exceed the wall height and the front setback is supported by staff and findings can be made. The variance to retain obsolete structures in the bluff is not supported by staff and believes that findings cannot be made, and the project does not substantially impair, spelling error, sorry about that, privacy, and will be compatible with the types and scale of improvements, spelling error, present in the neighborhood. Next slide, please. And the recommendation is conduct the hearing and adopt a resolution approving the project. I'm available for any questions, thank you.
Thomas Gibbs:
Any questions? With that, I open the public hearing. Morris, you have five minutes.
Morris Skenderian:
Thank you. And Nancy, thank you. I think she did a great job of explaining the elements of the project.
Jim Dockstader is our landscape architect on the team, he's here in case you have any questions. Jeff Sumich is a design architect that I'm collaborating with on the project. A little history on the project. The property was before you many years ago for a demolition of a house that was on the bluff, and it went to Coastal Commission on an appeal. The applicant withdrew his application and donated the property to a nonprofit, which in turn sold the property, of which my client benefited from that. And he purchased the property and came to me to design a house for him on that property. I encouraged him to purchase the second property above us if it was available, which at the time that the prior project was done it was not available for sale.
And in fact, that person objected to the design of the lower slope house. And coincidentally, the timing was mutually beneficial for the seller and my client. He bought them both, and then I became more interested in helping him because it gave us more opportunities to do things on both lots together versus either one of them separately. So with that, we sent out 89 early neighborhood notification cards about a year and a half ago, 89, and I received three responses. One from Bryan Menne, one from Mark Saylor, and one from Beverly Factor. I met with Bryan, I met with Mark Saylor, I spoke to Beverly Factor over the phone. And subsequent to that, I reached out to Mark Fudge, Laura Combs, I received a call from Kasan Kazmouz, the doctor who lives up on Virginia Way. Talked to him, and I talked to the neighbor, Derek Peterson, on the south side, trying to gather information to see what the constraints were, what their concerns were before we even started designing the project.
So considering public views, neighbor's views, all of that, the site constraints, the blufftop, we arrived at this solution. And this solution is spread out, as you know, and I've gone over it with you. We have a 415
February 26, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript (Agenda Item 5.9 – 31985 & 31987 Coast Highway) 022626_DRB Agenda Item 5.9 Page 4 of 21
105-foot wide lot, which allows us to go further back up the slope away from the bluff even further, much greater setback from Coast Highway, 35 feet instead of 10. Lower, the house that you're looking at is seven and a half feet above Coast Highway, whereas the existing house is 17 feet above Coast Highway. There are no public views from the highway over the existing house and the northerly side of it with all the vegetation. We're removing all of that. There is a public view down the driveway to the old house, which we have a setback on that side of eight feet, and on the north side we have a setback of 18 feet.
So, we have greater setbacks than the other homes along there because they don't have the benefit of a 105-foot wide lot. Their lots are 40, maybe 30, 40, and 50 feet. So, they have the benefit of a side yard, maybe four to five feet. So, you can't look between the houses. Some of them are down low enough where you look over them, but most of them with the gates and fences and so forth, there's no views from Coast Highway. So, we're attempting to satisfy several aspects, views from Virginia Way and all the houses uphill looking over the site, which is blocked right now by the two-story house and all the vegetation, opening up a northerly view on the north side of the property for people walking by on Coast Highway and driving by, although you're not supposed to be looking at the ocean when you're driving by.
And as a result we have three variances, not result of the design but result of some self-imposed. One is security from Coast Highway. That's why we're asking for a four-foot fence measured from the sidewalk, not from the topography below at the setback, which puts the fence way below Coast Highway, to the funicular we're asking, and we have support for Marine Safety who we've proposed to construct, pay for, and maintain for Marine Safety, but then we're also asking for it to retain the existing steps for maintenance of the slopes because there's otherwise no way to get to it. AndThomas Gibbs:
Morris, yourMorris Skenderian:
... that concludes my presentation.
Thomas Gibbs:
Yeah, we've read everything. Appreciate your comments. Now I open up to the general audience. Raise your hand if you're going to speak. Okay. First one, please come to the podium. You'll each have three minutes, and when the one person is done please don't require me to coax the next person to come up.
We can say it. Go ahead. All right.
Paola Miller:
Oh, sorry.
Pat Menne:
No?
Thomas Gibbs:
No.
416
February 26, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript (Agenda Item 5.9 – 31985 & 31987 Coast Highway) 022626_DRB Agenda Item 5.9 Page 5 of 21
Bryan Menne:
It's not [inaudible 00:14:19]
Thomas Gibbs:
We can see it. Go ahead.
Bryan Menne:
All right. Good evening. Do you want to pass out the ...
Pat Menne:
I did already.
Bryan Menne:
Okay. My name is Bryan Menne. I've lived at this site opposite this project for 31 years. And the project, we met with Morris and the only thing we asked for was keeping our view corridor down the left side of the property, and keeping the building set back that was existing right now. That measures out at 45 feet. Morris came back with a plan that reduced it to eight feet, and put a corridor on the other side. I don't know if it was to spite us or just to ignore us, but there has been no equity at all to preserve what we have. And since then, we've discovered that the scenic corridor element for the city of Laguna Beach, part of the General Plan says, "We will protect all view corridors and public views." So it's not for you to come to my house, it's for you to judge for what's good for the public.
And the sidewalk view, you can see the wave action and the swells when you're standing at the sidewalk. And so, the point is I've lived there for 31 years, I always look at the surf and see the waves rolling in, decide whether I'm going diving or going surfing that day. So, to take this away is to take away the enjoyment I've had for 31 years, and you take the public's right to the scenic corridor that they've requested. So, I prepared a plan here of an alternative site plan. I tried to meet with the owner, I tried to email him, contact him. I contacted Morris and he says, "I don't want any further meetings because we're just preparing a plan for the owner's program and we're not going to prepare to change anything." So, we have no concession and no protection for the landscape element that says you're going to protect the views for the public.
I've reviewed the staff report, and the staff report, I've never seen one written like this where I found over 35 entries that are just untrue statements, misinformation, and inaccurate information as related to the city policies and our benefits versus their benefits. It's fictional. I've asked for a rewrite. I've talked to Dave Kiff and I've talked to ... I've emailed him. I've said I'm prepared to share this thing, this report.
You guys make your decisions based on this, I've never seen so much fiction in my life in a report. It completely benefits the applicant, has nothing to do with the impacts of before and after that we have on our property. This is the 45-foot view, this is completely gone. We ask that you utilize the ... I'm speaking for four people, they can't be here todayThomas Gibbs:
But your time's up, but weBryan Menne:
417
February 26, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript (Agenda Item 5.9 – 31985 & 31987 Coast Highway) 022626_DRB Agenda Item 5.9 Page 6 of 21
Okay, but I want to speak about the residences.
Thomas Gibbs:
You can't. Your time's up, sir. We've talked to you on the site, we've read all the materials that you have.
So, next speaker, please. No, nextBryan Menne:
Okay, well I have a site plan here to review.
Thomas Gibbs:
Okay, thank you. Next speaker. That's what I don't want to have. If there's another speaker, please come up now. I don't want to have to wait between speakers. Thank you. Go ahead, Ann, please come up. You seem like the only one who's prepared, so please come up. The next speaker after him, or after Ann, her, please be ready or I'm going to close the public hearing. I'm not going to wait for a long time for speakers to come up. Ann, please, you're on.
Ann:
Thank you, Board. I'm hoping that this is the first of a couple of hearings, because I think this project needs your scrutiny in detail. And I think that overall the project is too ambitious, the house is too large and impinges on important coastal views. And I believe they've put the large setback on the wrong side of the lot. It should be on the north side, and so that the setback on the south is larger. Derek Peterson and I worked together on the previous historical house issue. I don't know what it was. Morris probably knows how many years ago that was, 8 or 10. And so, I'm familiar with his house and I went down there.
He can't come today because his daughter is ill. And the impact of what's going on in the setback with the funicular and the closeness of the house to his dining room and his kitchen where he is looking out to the north, these are significant.
And if they had the larger setback on the south side, it would address Bryan's concern and it would address Derek's concern. I worked on the Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document, and I've shown you the plans that SH4 is the typical plan for that portion of Coast Highway, and it requires a fivefoot sidewalk, not a four-foot, and it also projects some trees actually. And I think the place for some of those trees might be on the north end.
The other thing that we should consider is the Shopoff property, because we're trying to improve public views from the highway and there are very few of them. You've got one at Montage, you've got one in the Grove property, and intermittent views like at the Shopoff property near West Street that was protected by requiring the house to be completely below the level of the highway. And we've appealed the neighborhood, the neighboring project to the Coastal Commission with that same request so that that view will be open. And with this lot being as wide as it is, it's another opportunity to provide a public glimpse of the ocean. So I think that that again gets into the setbacks, it gets into the size of the house could be reduced lengthwise, and we could achieve that.
Thomas Gibbs:
Thank you, Ann.
418
February 26, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript (Agenda Item 5.9 – 31985 & 31987 Coast Highway) 022626_DRB Agenda Item 5.9 Page 7 of 21
Ann:
Please look into the character of the house, which does not fit South Laguna. Thank you.
Thomas Gibbs:
Thank you, Ann. Next speaker, please. Thank you.
Kayla Shigi:
Good evening, chair, members of the design review board. My name is Kaela Shiigi, and I am here on behalf of my client who owns property adjacent to the proposed project. And thank you very much for the opportunity to address the board this evening. As noted in the comment letter that we submitted yesterday, the project applicant has not reached out to our client to directly discuss this project whose property will be directly impacted by the project, because it is next door. So, accordingly we present these comments to document our concerns in front of the board, and respectfully request that the board consider imposing conditions of approval on the project to protect neighboring properties from any damage. First, we ask that the board consider how the project may disrupt neighboring properties during construction. Prior demolition work on the project site did cause the retaining wall on the north edge of the property that provides structural support and borders of pathway needed to access the lower portion of our client's house to fall and cut off a critical access point.
So in order to avoid additional damage, we urge the board to consider the impacts this project may have due to construction, vibration, noise, geologic impacts and erosion. Second and critically, we ask that the board require the project applicant to construct a parallel retaining wall along the northern boundary of the project site. Given that demolition activities have already damaged my client's retaining wall in the past, we believe that there must be adequate structural support to ensure that the activities that will occur as part of this project do not cause further damage to the wall or cause further structural issues. Third, we understand that the sewer line underlying the project site directly connects to the sewer line serving our client's property, and this has caused backup issues in the past where the city has had to come onto our client's property to resolve issues associated with the project site.
If this hasn't been done so already, which isn't apparent from the drawings, we request that the city require the applicant to cap any neighboring sewer connections. Fourth, we did voice concerns about the view for the project, but that is mainly because we were not consulted and did not have adequate time to properly review the drawings before this hearing. And finally, we understand that there is an easement for consideration, and we request that any such easement be restricted to the existing footprint of funicular and not extended to any other portion of the property. So in closing, we ask the board to carefully consider these comments to ensure the project proceeds in a manner that respects the rights and properties of its neighbors, especially its next door and adjacent neighbors, and we really appreciate your time and attention to these concerns.
MJ Coveny:
And who were you representing? I'm sorry, I didn't get the name of the neighbor.
Kayla Shigi:
Craig Jackson, who lives419
February 26, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript (Agenda Item 5.9 – 31985 & 31987 Coast Highway) 022626_DRB Agenda Item 5.9 Page 8 of 21
MJ Coveny:
Jackson?
Kaela Shiigi:
... north to the property.
MJ Coveny:
Okay, thank you.
Thomas Gibbs:
North of the property. All right, next speaker. Thank you.
Pat Menne:
Hi, Pat Menne. I just pulled the email from Bob Borthwick, just so that you get it was submitted late. He was one of the consultants on the Scenic Highway Corridor. I do want to thank you all for coming out.
This is a huge project, it's a magnificent piece of land. I do applaud the owner. They bought the old house in front, and it's going to be a fabulous estate. I have some comments about the variances. Okay, so number one, what is not shown on the plan is it is exceeding the 30-foot height. As that packet that passed out during Bryan, there is the schematic on the plan and that's not called out needing a variance.
So, there's a problem with that on the plan. I also take exception to the staff report. That staff report did not mention the total program. It talked about the old houses that were demoed or going to be.
You had to dig down into four other attachments to find the square footage in the deck. Number one for me, I think it's far too aggressive of a build. I do support keeping the historic public walking along the sidewalk view of the ocean. That's been there since any of those houses was built, since 1930, since Tom DePaolo's house was built. And so, that is a public benefit, whether it's a walking of 41 feet, whether you're driving by. I think the architect needs to come back and revisit this a little, because I believe that the program could be shifted, shifted north closer to the Barrett Jackson property. And the way Barrett Jackson's home is configured, it's a garage. I think there's one bathroom window along that lineal space.
Now, our neighbor directly across, Derek Peterson, he's the most impacted if they ask for this funicular.
So, bottom line is the city recognized bluff, they've got that funicular being built there. So, that's why they have to ask for the variance. But the tenor right now with Coastal Commission, they're not allowing any of that stuff. Even in a remodel, they want it taken out. But what really upsets me, truly upsets me, is if it's a take. They went and talked to the Marine Safety, to the lifeguard department. If there's a lifesaving measure, if people are bleeding, neck's broken, they're gurneyed and airlifted out. I have a public record request right now with Dave Kiff to ask about the emergency calls. The fire department gurneys people out via airlift. They also have a stair step machine with batteries if they need to take someone out because they broke their leg.
Thomas Gibbs:
Thank you very much.
Pat Menne:
Thank you for your consideration.
420
February 26, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript (Agenda Item 5.9 – 31985 & 31987 Coast Highway) 022626_DRB Agenda Item 5.9 Page 9 of 21
Thomas Gibbs:
Appreciate it. Next speaker. Seeing no other speakers, I return it to the applicant for three minutes.
Thank you, Patrick.
Morris Skenderian:
Thank you. A couple of things, benefits that I didn't have a chance to mention, but we're taking out three approaches to driveways on the south end and putting the curb and gutter back. So, there will be more parking along Coast Highway, whereas currently there's three driveways that go in and out and back out onto Coast Highway, it's a real safety issue. The reason we put the driveway at the north end is because the highway is three feet lower at the north end, and we buy an extra 20 feet of driveway able to steepen the driveway, which we have, and pushes the house further down. If the driveway moves to the center of the property or to the south end of the property, the driveway gets longer, the house goes further down the hill and closer to the bluff.
Now, could the house be smaller? Yes, it can. But keep in mind that because we're 105 feet wide, which is typically for two houses, typically 3,500 square foot houses. So, there could be two structures here that would be the equivalent of 7,000 square feet instead of what we're doing. And that's not some threat that we're going to do that, but the other houses that benefit from the 40-foot widths and 50- foot widths don't have the liberties of doing what we're doing, and we're doing it because we own two pieces of property. There were two houses there, we're putting one back. And by putting one back and putting it in a location that we're putting it, we can be seven and a half feet above the sidewalk. The code envelope for us is 15 feet, existing house is 17 feet. We're going to be seven and a half feet. So, I can't lower the house any further, because if I lower it I keep pushing it out toward the bluff.
So this is a compromise that we've made, we're 35 to 41 feet set back from the bluff, we're 35 feet back from Coast Highway so we can drop it down in a hole, so to speak. And the public benefit, that removing all that vegetation in that two-story house opens up a peripheral view from Dana Point to Newport that does not exist at the present, and Catalina, and does with this design. As far as the Jackson property on the north side, just would comment on that. We're 18 feet away from that house. If there is some issue with terrain, or topography, or a structural issue with a retaining wall, which I'm familiar with the old problem, I thought that was mitigated, but we also stayed away from that because the Jackson House is also dug out and deep into the hole, and would be impacted if our house kept moving closer to it.
So structurally, it's safer where we put it with the 18 feet on the north side. Thank you.
Thomas Gibbs:
Thank you very much. All right, any questions? Louis? Not hearing any questions, I will ... You do? 421
February 26, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript (Agenda Item 5.9 – 31985 & 31987 Coast Highway) 022626_DRB Agenda Item 5.9 Page 10 of 21
Jessica Gannon:
Turn your mic on.
Thomas Gibbs:
What?
Jessica Gannon:
I was telling her to turn her mic on.
Thomas Gibbs:
But she's thinking if she has any questions. She has a questionJessica Gannon:
Talking to herself.
Thomas Gibbs:
... whether she has a question.
MJ Coveny:
I think I'm okay. I think we'll get it in.
Thomas Gibbs:
All right. We'll close the public hearing. Louis, you want to begin? Louis Weil:
Really?
Thomas Gibbs:
I'll tell you what, let me begin on this because I am troubled by an issue so I'm not going to take a position on it now, but I'm going to state why I'm troubled. And then I'd be interested, I want you guys to have an open mind about it and I want to hear what you think. And that is the location of the building. This is what's got the neighbors upset, this is what a lot of the public comments were. My issue, and I talked to Morris about it earlier, is neighborhood compatibility and the views of the ocean issues. So, it comes into neighborhood compatibility, ocean view on the south side, land use elements, they all fall within the same issue. Looking at neighborhood compatibility, this is a wide lot. It's a little bit like Baja, back on Baja and Arch Beach Heights where the 5,000 square foot lots were treated differently than the 2,500 square foot lots.
And if you look at the size lots where they have broad building coverage, they're the more narrow lots, which I think Morris referred to in his comments. This is a wider lot. And where you see the wider lots in this area, 31971 and others in the area, they generally have a house on one side of the lot and then a house on the other side, or a part of the house on the other side that's a much lower elevation. So, you have view corridors for both the public and for the residents that are north of Coast Highway. 422
February 26, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript (Agenda Item 5.9 – 31985 & 31987 Coast Highway) 022626_DRB Agenda Item 5.9 Page 11 of 21
This is an unusual lot because it was a narrow lot surrounded almost like a key hole with a much bigger property that had the house at the lower end, but we need to look at it as one big lot. I know the property's conditioned on the lots being combined. So looking at that, this house is potentially too large for the location of the house. More program needs to go down or potentially needs to go down the hill.
The problem with making a large house is that you're blocking the longstanding view corridor. So, I'm looking at that house, the three one. You're blocking a longstanding view corridor. I mean, arguably this property as it was developed originally had the smaller house with view corridor with a lower house at the 31987, which would be consistent with the pattern of development. I have a real question whether this is consistent with the pattern of development.
The second thing is it does block primary views for the Mennes' house, and that under design review deals with the view equity issue. The new house has obviously incredible ocean views where you have view impacts on the Menne house. The coastal development permit issues are similar. The criteria three deals with coastal scenic resources, criteria six deals with visual compatibility, which I've covered with the design review criteria, and the land use policies, particularly policy 2.10 deals with public and neighbor views. So, I'm really troubled by the location of the building. I talked to Morris and asked him if he could move the building 10 feet to the north. I don't see a view protection issue on any of those issues, including view equity by moving the house to the north, because it's already blocked with vegetation. The view equity issues and the other issues are to the south. And Morris I think presented a good case here, and to me that it would require a full redesign of the house and going smaller.
So, I'm on the fence on that as to whether to require it. Morris said, I don't want to misquote you, if I'm wrong raise your hand and I'll open the public hearing, but you said you might be able to move it three feet to the north. I'm concerned that that's not enough. I want to hear what my colleagues view. So, that's my big question mark. And I'm not taking a position now, I want to hear what you guys have to say. With respect to the variance, this is where I come out. With the funicular, I think that it's appropriate. I think it meets the criteria, and it provides a significant public service. I support that. I would like to see as a condition, that there'd be a lifeguard storage area at the bottom of the funicular where they have the platform, because the less equipment that has to be carried down and the more handy.
And so, the condition would be to work with the lifeguard to determine ... I think there's been preliminary reach out by staff that they would like to see that happen. And I don't think it's a great cost, but it could be a huge public service to work with them as a condition. The stairs, walkways, and retaining walls within the bluff, I also find that that meets the criteria for the variance, and also provides an important public service. If emergency staff cannot fit on the funicular with the ... Let's say there's a multiple person injury where they need to get people up, where emergency staff that are not needed to be on the funicular can run up the stairs, I think that's a huge public benefit. The other reason is numerous homes along Thousand Steps Beach have walkways down to the beach, and this is a historic walkway, and I think that it would be depriving this owner of a feature that other owners enjoy that's historic and provides a significant public service.
So I think the variance, I would make the findings and support the variance. And then, exceeding the maximum wall height within the front setback, I think that's also the findings can be made based upon the facts set forth in the staff report. So with that said, those are my views on variance. I'm very 423
February 26, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript (Agenda Item 5.9 – 31985 & 31987 Coast Highway) 022626_DRB Agenda Item 5.9 Page 12 of 21
interested to hear what other members have to say about the issue of the location and size of the house.
Jessica Gannon:
I agree with the variance findings, that was part of for the one that you mentioned that you called out specifically. So I agree with you on that. As far as public views go, the house is lower than all the other homes. You're removing trees so it's a giving. It's not even a taking, it's a giving because the house is lower than all the other homes that are surrounding it. And then you're giving, you're going to take out the trees so that opens up the view for people. And then as far as the Mennes, private views from the Mennes, when I was there for a previous meeting, I don't remember there being an impact in that down below for ... You kind of look over, not kind of, you look over all the properties. So, you have a phenomenal horizon panoramic view almost. So as far as that goes, I think the view impacts are minimal.
As far as view impacts for the neighbors, I did not observe any impacts. The Horst project is also on South Coast Highway, I think it's South Laguna is riddled with old homes and at some point they're all going to become new homes. And I think this is neighborhood compatible, it's where the construction is or development is heading. The lot coverage floor area ratio, it's all phenomenal. All the objective findings can be made. As far as subjective findings, that would be public views, neighborhood compatibility, and I believe you meet this criteria. Oh, and as far as the sensor, yes, we can make a condition of approval that a sensor can be placed so that during construction, if there is movement then the alarms will sound and all construction will stop. And that's all I have. Yeah.
Thomas Gibbs:
MJ?
MJ Coveny:
Yeah. Well, I concur with your variance details, so I'll get that out of the way. I think the biggest thing here that seems to be that keeps coming up is public view impact. I don't see public view impact in this particular lot because of where it situates on PCH. You can't drive by and look, you are just keeping your eye on the road because there's a lot of activity right there. The place at the Montage, thank you for that. And the place down at the Shopoff’s, those areas are really active areas to walk or to drive very open. You have much more space, it's not an active area like where this particular lot is. So, public views aren't really impacted from PCH proper. From the sidewalk, you are still allowing for public view because of the height of this house. So, it's not impacting public views there. So, I feel like the public view element is a non-issue with this particular home and the placement of the home.
Neighborhood compatibility. Anything on the ocean side to me is not ... It's South Laguna but it's not South Laguna because it's the big money ticket items pretty much growing up on that whole hillside now. Things are flipping, and it's a pretty big ticket and homes are going to get bigger. And there are still a few cute cottages and A frames down on Thousand Steps, but this feels like it fits into the topography so well. The materials are so organic, and the articulation of the home is so thoughtful, it makes the mass and scale not feel like the square footage that you have on paper here, the 7,000-ish, I think, and then with your decking. So, I don't struggle at all with neighborhood compatibility because I feel like it's subtle. And if you had two houses there, this would open up so many more problems of activity, cars coming in and out, whose views are getting blocked, noise and privacy, it would just layer upon layer. 424
February 26, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript (Agenda Item 5.9 – 31985 & 31987 Coast Highway) 022626_DRB Agenda Item 5.9 Page 13 of 21
So, this actually condenses the potential problems for builds in that area. And again, because you're doing it so, articulating it so well, it doesn't feel massive and so it fits. I have so many little notes, but I think ... What else do I have? Oh, and your driveway placement and the way you're entering and exiting the vehicle safety, I feel like you've really cleaned that up compared to what's there presently or what would happen if we had two individual homes there. So, I think unless something else gets triggered, that gives you a general view of where I'm at.
Thomas Gibbs:
Louis, you're last. Go up.
Louis Weil:
No, thank you. I appreciate the comments from my colleagues, and I think my sentiments are pretty similar. I think I'll follow suit with Chair Gibbs and the element of the variances. I think the retaining walls and those kind of things are all appropriate. The funicular, I think with the public safety easement and benefits, I think that's a huge win for this area and probably something that probably would've never come about had this beach still been within the county, but because the beach is now within the Laguna Beach District and jurisdiction, that it creates these neat little opportunities to preserve the historical nature of some of these steep hillside homes that access these beaches with creating the right partnerships within the city and public benefit. I think having lived down a Thousand Steps for a few years at one point, the funiculars that exist on this hillside are architectural elements that you can't find on every beach, and they're very unique.
They add to the public experience. I think it's why people come to these beaches to see these unique access components within these homes, to watch them go up and down. It's something neat that brings joy to the public, and these elements should be preserved within the right scope. And I think the way the applicant's trying to approach this is a great balance to preserve that historical access and provide the right benefits. The landing element, I agree with Chair Gibbs that there probably should be some sort of storage component worked out with public works, or not public works, Marine Safety, so they do have a way to store things away from the heavily trafficked Thousand Steps staircase. I think that's another component why this partnership with the access for public safety is so crucial for these beaches is because it allows the safety components to have a separate access that where it won't disrupt the public, because I've been there during emergencies and they pretty much block the access for the beach goers and the exiting of the beach goers during the emergency.
So if they have another way to diverse, and access, and egress that doesn't block the public from their primary access, I think that's a huge benefit for these beaches. I think the easement, when I look at it, I mean, right now it's set very tight to what are the features of today. I think I'd like to try to see the city and the property owner probably come up with something that's more 8 to 10 feet. So, it gives availability for in the future if needs and requirements need to be adjusted, that could accommodate that.
I think the funiculars plan to be rebuilt, so it would meet a fair amount of the new safety standards, but in 50, 80 years, do those standards change? I don't know. So, by creating that extra space I think that could be of benefit in the future, if mutually agreed to. The historical stairs that traverse the property I 425
February 26, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript (Agenda Item 5.9 – 31985 & 31987 Coast Highway) 022626_DRB Agenda Item 5.9 Page 14 of 21
think add two elements, and I think Chair Gibbs touched on one was not everyone will fit in the funicular, but it allows the public safety folks to traverse within the same space. And again, it creates that access away from the public primary access. So, that I think should be preserved and we should find the reasons to support that. Maybe the easements just in the funicular, but there are probably some access agreement to that historical act component for those folks in conjunction with this. I think as far as the home goes, I think Board Member Gannon said it really well, and I agree the home is set down low.
I think it's very consistent with the recent approvals, the Shopoff property, the one next door to newer modern developments. I think there was a couple, Mark Singer house a little further down that were all set just slightly above street grade, so I think this is consistent to that pattern. I think on the south side, as Chair Gibbs was talking, there probably can be some room that can be reworked to create a little bit more separation and a little more buffering on that side. But other than that, I think the program's pretty close. But I think with a little bit more nipping and tucking, and maybe looking at a couple of the roof components, if there is some adjustments that could be lowered just a bit, but I think we're there. I think we're pretty close so I could support continuance.
Thomas Gibbs:
Yeah, let me ask you this because I think Louis is in line with something. I'm not sure that Jess or MJ are.
If we can increase the size of the easement and move the house north by ... You said you could do it by three. How about, could you do it by eight? Could you give us eight more feet there? I think that would open up a view corridor.
MJ Coveny:
Yeah, that's what I was going to sayThomas Gibbs:
Pardon me?
MJ Coveny:
I was going to talk about view equity because I missed that component for the Mennes.
Thomas Gibbs:
Yeah. So I mean, I think 10 is aggressive, but I think less than ... I'd like to see eight feet. It would accomplish a lot of things. One, it would open up more of a view corridor for the Mennes, which is my hang-up, and a view corridor for people walking on the sidewalk in that location. It would provide a wider easement for fire. And I think I can get behind that, and I think Louis could too if you could get up to eight feet. Is that about right, Louis? Am I reading you correctly on that? 426
February 26, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript (Agenda Item 5.9 – 31985 & 31987 Coast Highway) 022626_DRB Agenda Item 5.9 Page 15 of 21
Louis Weil:
I mean, I think five feet is an appropriate one for a residential access, but I think if we're going to be traversing two people in a gurney, I think we do need the staircase to be a little bit wider. Or whatever thisThomas Gibbs:
How much? I mean, I had asked Morris to move it 10 feet. What's your feeling? I think that Morris I think factually was very convincing that that's too much, but I'd like to get more than three. I think that needs to be ... It's already 5. In other words, it's 5 feet now moving at maybe another 5 feet so it's a 10-foot easement. Is that something that can be done, Morris? And I'll open the public hearing to have Morris answer.
Louis Weil:
Yeah, Chair, can I touch on that?
Thomas Gibbs:
Yeah, go ahead.
Louis Weil:
I think there is some space. I think Morris is a super talented architect. I think the stairs don't quite go all the way to the property line, so there's probably some room. The stairs can be expanded on either side, and the house reduced three to five or eight feet, depending on the right functionality that they're trying to do. But I do think that 10 foot easement is probably the right length as long as it goes to the property edge and there'sThomas Gibbs:
Yeah, I was talking about ... So it's clear, I was talking about 8 feet from the current 5 foot, 8 inch setback. I think I could go with 5 for a total of a 10-foot easement if that can be done. So at this point, let's hear what Morris has to say.
Morris Skenderian:
Yeah. Let me clarify something first, and then we can talk about what's possible. Right now, the side yard setback is eight feet. The Marine SafetyMJ Coveny:
Eight feet on one side.
Morris Skenderian:
... wanted a five-foot wide walkway stairway. The fire department only requires three.
Thomas Gibbs:
Oh, that's right.
427
February 26, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript (Agenda Item 5.9 – 31985 & 31987 Coast Highway) 022626_DRB Agenda Item 5.9 Page 16 of 21
Morris Skenderian:
So, the stairway is five feet. Why is it five feet? It's for a gurney and four firemen, two on each side, front and back, and then the gates open up for the full five feet. So, that's how we arrived at five feet with Kai Bond and Marine Safety. The easement I believe is for six feet. The easement could be for any amount, but I don't think the stairway itself needs to be wider than five feet. Then in terms of moving the house to open the corridor up a little more, I had suggested three feet because then the driveway could still work at a 15% grade versus 14%. And instead of an 8-foot setback, we'd now have an 11-foot setback.
So the stair and the house would all move north, the north setback, which is 18, would go to 15. So, we'd have a narrower public view on the north side, which doesn't exist at the moment, but walking along the sidewalk you're going to be able to look over that north side today after the house is done, but you can't do that today.
Walking down the south side, you would have 11 feet. If 5 feet, and if I can squeeze the driveway to where it's not unsafe, we could consider that. And I think I had done the math and called Tom, because we've been dialoguing back and forth about what would work without having to redesign the house.
And anything at 10 more feet to 18 on the south side with only 8 on the north side, then I get closer to the Jackson property, which I don't want to do for structural reasons. And so, I guess what I'm saying is we couldThomas Gibbs:
Let's go to if you can do 13 feet, you'll get my vote. Can you do 13 feet? Morris Skenderian:
We can do 8 and 5 is 13, yes.
MJ Coveny:
Yeah, but five's the stairs, eight is the easement, and thenMorris Skenderian:
The stairs would just stay at five feet, they don't need to beThomas Gibbs:
Five feet, which I'm fine.
MJ Coveny:
So, you're wanting 15 feetThomas Gibbs:
So, he'll add an additional five feet, so the side yard on the south side would beMorris Skenderian:
It would be 13.
428
February 26, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript (Agenda Item 5.9 – 31985 & 31987 Coast Highway) 022626_DRB Agenda Item 5.9 Page 17 of 21
Thomas Gibbs:
... 13 feet.
Morris Skenderian:
Correct. So, what happens when the house moves and the concrete stays the same, instead of a threefoot planter up against the Peterson property line, I end up with a six-foot planter, which I think would be a benefit to Peterson as well.
Thomas Gibbs:
Can I make a motion?
MJ Coveny:
So no, I have a quick question about that just from a view. For the corridor, because when I went with the Mennes to look, I did not see from their home. We didn't go to their home. When you were at the Menne's home and opening that up, do you feel like that extra five feet in the easement window there with the five feet of stairway, is that giving them a little more of a corridor there that actually makes a difference? I mean, to me it's like sometimes two feet don't make a differenceMorris Skenderian:
Well, yeah. No, I mean, it's obvious that right now he's got 30 to 40 feet, and that was a benefit, but his house is so low and so close to the highway that he is not going to benefit from the north side widening that we're doing. He will benefit from the removal of the second story house.
MJ Coveny:
Yeah, for sure. And that's the other thing I wanted, because I didn't give my notice on view equity that I feel like that the homes behind on PCH have a straight out view like ChairThomas Gibbs:
President.
MJ Coveny:
... whatever, Gannon said, that there's still a view and you always do your pitch about view equity versus preservation.
Thomas Gibbs:
Yeah, but it's public view and [inaudible 00:56:46]
MJ Coveny:
Okay, thank you.
Thomas Gibbs:
All right. I think we got a deal here. I need to get one thing from you. You're good with putting the lifeguard storage locker down at the platform?
429
February 26, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript (Agenda Item 5.9 – 31985 & 31987 Coast Highway) 022626_DRB Agenda Item 5.9 Page 18 of 21
Morris Skenderian:
Yes.
Thomas Gibbs:
Okay, great.
Morris Skenderian:
That's a detail that we would work out with Kai Bond.
Thomas Gibbs:
I want to also commend you, Morris, and the owner for this project in putting in that funicular. I've never walked the stairs and I've never been invited to go on one a Thousand Steps. I've been to most other beaches, but from what I've heard and from fire safety, or for emergency services, it is a significant public service. So with that said, I didn't think I would be making this motion tonight but I am making it happily. All rightNancy Balmer-Csira:
I need some clarification first.
MJ Coveny:
Yes.
Thomas Gibbs:
Go ahead.
Nancy Balmer-Csira:
So in the plan set, your setback on that side is actually six and a half feet because it goes to that electric panel. Can that electric panel be put inside the garage? Morris Skenderian:
Yep.
Nancy Balmer-Csira:
Okay, thank you.
Thomas Gibbs:
Okay. So with that qualification, I will make the motion as follows. I move that the Board adopt Resolution 2026-0024, approving Design Review 2026-0024, Coastal Development Permit 2026-0025 and Variance 2026-0026 for the property located at 31985 and 31987 Coast Highway, and finding said action exempt from CEQA under 15303 with the following conditions. Number one, that the house will be moved an additional five feet from the southern setback. This existing setback is 8 feet, so it'll be moved to 13 feet with the electrical panel being placed inside the garage? 430
February 26, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript (Agenda Item 5.9 – 31985 & 31987 Coast Highway) 022626_DRB Agenda Item 5.9 Page 19 of 21
Nancy Balmer-Csira:
Mm-hmm.
Thomas Gibbs:
Okay. Second, with respect to the funicular and the platform below, the condition will be that there will be a lifeguard locker to be worked out between staff and the applicant during the plan, the construction plan phase, that the maintenance of the locker will be included within the easement. With respect to the stairs, walkways, and retaining walls, the existing ones, as we said, we find that the grounds for the variance exists, but those stairs, walkways, and retaining walls will be included within the easement that's the subject of the funicular, so that that will be an easement made available to emergency personnel with the appropriate maintenance obligations. And I think that's it.
Jessica Gannon:
That's it, I'll second that.
Thomas Gibbs:
Okay. That's it. Paola, please call the roll.
Louis Weil:
Chair Gibbs, one note.
Thomas Gibbs:
Go ahead.
Louis Weil:
It was a note I had and I forgot to mention it. Down at the bottom platform, I wanted to ask if it was amenable or available to include a water and a power source down at the bottom. That way the lifeguards would have access to a hose bib or something.
Thomas Gibbs:
Okay, that's fine. And Morris isLouis Weil:
Or maybe to add that, that could be worked out with Kai Bond based on needs of Marine Safety.
Thomas Gibbs:
Is that acceptable, Morris?
Morris Skenderian:
That's acceptable, and we'll clear it with Kai Bond to make sure that's something that would be a benefit.
431
February 26, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript (Agenda Item 5.9 – 31985 & 31987 Coast Highway) 022626_DRB Agenda Item 5.9 Page 20 of 21
Thomas Gibbs:
Okay. So, add that as a condition?
Patrick Donegan:
Correct. And too, I just want to be clear that it'll be for the city. Obviously Chief Bond is the current head of Marine Safety, we just want to make sure it's notThomas Gibbs:
Marine Safety.
Patrick Donegan:
... the specific individual. And then, I want to make sure the resolution properly encapsulates, I believe I heard the granting of the variance for which staff recommended denial of for the other items. Yeah.
Thomas Gibbs:
Oh, right, right. Yeah. So, do you need to redo the resolution to do that? Patrick Donegan:
I mean, once again, we will need to redo the resolution to include that. Like the last item, it's really up to the Board if you guys want to see it again on consent, or if you think that staff can handle it. As I said, it's up to your guys' discretion.
Jessica Gannon:
I think staff can handle it.
Thomas Gibbs:
I think this one staff can handle.
Patrick Donegan:
Okay.
Thomas Gibbs:
All right. Good.
Jessica Gannon:
Can we get a roll call?
Thomas Gibbs:
Yeah, because we've made the findings in the deliberations so it's clear we find that all the variance findings for the reason I stated during my comments supplemented by other Board members, the findings for the variance can be and are being made now. And that all you have to do is incorporate that into the resolution. So, I don't have a problem with that. Then we're adding the power and the hose bib 432
February 26, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript (Agenda Item 5.9 – 31985 & 31987 Coast Highway) 022626_DRB Agenda Item 5.9 Page 21 of 21
as part of the condition for the funicular, and platform, and part of the easement. With that said, my motion's been modified. Do I have a second?
Jessica Gannon:
Second.
Thomas Gibbs:
And Paola, call the roll please.
Paola Miller:
Board Member Coveny?
MJ Coveny:
Yes.
Paola Miller:
Board Member Weil?
Louis Weil:
Yes.
Paola Miller:
Chair Pro Tem Gannon?
Jessica Gannon:
Yes.
Paola Miller:
Chair Gibbs?
Thomas Gibbs:
Yes.
Paola Miller:
Motion has passed 4-0.
433