From:
To: Design Review Board
Subject: 2500 Glenneyre Comments
Date: Friday, November 7, 2025 7:11:42 PM
[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.] My wife and I recently purchased Queda Way and are in the process of getting moved in. We are currently in PA and a neighbor in Laguna Beach informed us of the proposed new construction directly across from our property at 2500 Glenneyre. Our recent purchase was, in part, based on the full ocean view and unique privacy of having outdoor living areas next to what we were told is an unbuildable valley lot. I am writing to voice concerns regarding this request for variance and encroachment as it relates to our property.
We have been unable to obtain any building elevations, plans, outdoor living space locations, or lot layout to determine proximity and potential privacy or view impact. We will not be in Laguna Beach until mid to late January and request any details that may assist with review of the proposed project. Should the view impact be minimal, we see no reason to object, but any privacy encroachment would be a significant concern that negatively effects both our use of the property and its market value.
Although we are unable to attend the meeting on November 13th, our assistant lives nearby and may be able to participate if needed. We welcome communication from the Design Review Board, relevant City staff, or the applicant's architect/representatives.
Thank you in advance.
Chris Conrad
Managing Member
Pennsylvania
Attachment 9
170
City of Laguna Beach & Members of the Design Review Board:
I’m the property owner of Glenneyre Drive, the adjacent neighboring property to 2500 Glenneyre St. I do not support for this project for several reasons. It appears staff has failed to identify and acknowledge that my property is a Mills Act Historic Resource located directly next door. After reviewing the Resolution of the Design Review Board it has came to my attention that multiple findings made by the board with respect to Design Review 25-1431 are not consistent with CEQA and the Laguna Beach Land Use Element Guiding Principals which I have elaborated on below. Furthermore, I do not support the (3) variances to approve the project. The variances will allow the structure to be pushed against the north side property line and protrude into the front yard setback which is inconsistent with all of the properties to the north that are all setback from the street and have parking aprons.
The most obvious reasons as to why I’m not in favor of this project are below:
Loss of Privacy - The project’s 24.5 foot height and placement 7 feet away from my home would allow windows, balconies, and decks to overlook into my yard, patios, and indoor living spaces.
Aesthetic and Neighborhood Degradation - A monolithic wall disrupts the visual rhythm of the street. It make the entire block feel cramped and urbanized even in suburban zones.
Fire Safety & Insurance Risk - Near lot-line construction increases fire spread risk (radiant heat & embers). Some insurers raise premiums or require costly upgrades (e.g., fire rated siding) when adjacent structures are too close.
Drainage & Water Runoff Issues - The project’s roof and impervious surfaces will channel more stormwater toward the property and 125 year old foundation.
Without proper grading or retention, risk of flooding, soil erosion, or foundation damage may arise. Excavating 7-9 feet from my property may undermine and cause destabilization.
Diminished Property Value - The proximity to large towering neighboring structures lowers perceived value. Buyers prefer open views, natural light, and space - these qualities will be erased by a wall-like building next door.
Furthermore appraisers often apply a “proximity adjustment” for structures closer than 10-15 feet. Future buyers may demand price concessions or walk away. 171
Reduced Natural Light & Airflow - The project will casts long shadows, blocking sunlight to landscaping and windows which will result in increased utility bills.
Upon reviewing Resolution 25-1431 there are several inconsistencies that need to be addressed. I have cross referenced Laguna Beach General Plan Land Use Element and have concluded that this project does NOT “ensure development is responsive to individual site constraints” as demonstrated below:
Resolution 25-1431
Section 2 - Page 2 - Resolution 25-1431
“Project is exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 because it is construction and location of the Project… Further, none of the exceptions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply… the project will not result in significant adverse impacts to historical resources as defined by CEQA” FALSE: The Project will have a substantial adverse change on a historical resource * The adjacent property is a Mills Act Historical Resource * Per CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2 (Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 14, Exceptions): (F) Historical Resources A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource
Section 3 - Page 3 - #2. Design Articulation - Resolution 25-1431 “Within the allowable building envelope, the appearance of building and retaining wall mass should be minimized… Together, these design features create a balanced composition that reduces the perception of mass when viewed from Glenneyre Street and surrounding properties”
FALSE: Our adjacent property will be confronted with massing, privacy issues, & constricted views by a solid 24 foot wall 7 feet away
Section 3 - Page 3 - #4. Environmental Context - Resolution 25-1431 “Development should preserve and, where possible, enhance the city’s scenic natural setting… The proposed development is designed to respond sensitively to the site’s steep terrain and natural features”
FALSE: The development is not sensitive to the neighbor’s property and will not preserve the views, privacy, and significance of the Mills Act Historical Resource.
The variance will allow the project to cantilever into the natural water course. 172
Section 3 - Page 4 - #5. General Plan Compliance - Resolution 25-1431 “The development shall comply with all applicable policies of the General Plan, including all of its elements, applicable specific plans, and the certified local coastal program”
FALSE: The project does not comply with the General Plan for the following reasons:
Land Use (LU) Policy 2.8 General Plan Policies - Page 4 - Resolution 25-1431 “Require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated with natural topographic features… and/or other significant onsite resources, and protect public views as specified in the Design Guidelines and the Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document”
FALSE: The project is not consistent with Land Use Policy 2.8 & disregards the following:
* Public & private views are significantly diminished and not protected * The project does not preserve existing view corridors - All south side windows and doors lose views
* The project disrupts the aesthetic and neighborhood character by allowing a large house towering over others creating a visual mismatch and undermining the cohesive “curb appeal” of the street
Land Use (LU) Policy 2.10 General Plan Policies - Page 4 - Resolution 25-1431 “Maximize the preservation of coastal and canyon views (consistent with the principle of view equity) from existing properties and minimize blockage of existing public and private views… The project does not obstruct existing public coastal or canyon views…”
FALSE: The project impacts views to both public and private vantage points:
* Adjacent property’s views will be blocked by 24 foot high structure 7 feet away * The project’s application provided no renderings/drawings showing neighboring property to fully reveal the size & scale of the project. This vantage point has been concealed and will have the most impact to the neighboring property by blocking views
Land Use (LU) Policy 3.10 General Plan Policies - Page 5 - Resolution 25-1431 “Require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated… by maintaining the low-profile character of the structures… best efforts should be 173
made to site new development in locations that minimize adverse impacts on views… the project’s height and siting minimize potential impacts on public views…”
FALSE: The project’s design and siting does not maintain low-profile character (24.5 feet tall / 7 feet away) nor does it minimize adverse impacts on views. It will completely remove all south side views.
Land Use (LU) Policy 7.3 General Plan Policies - Page 5 - Resolution 25-1431 “(Same as Policy 10.2) GOAL: Protect, preserve, and enhance the community’s natural resources”
FALSE: This development goes against protecting views, privacy, and preserving a Historical Structure.
Land Use (LU) Policy 10.2 General Plan Policies - Page 6 - Resolution 25-1431 “Design and site new development to protect natural and environmentally sensitive resources such as areas of unique scenic quality, public views, and visual compatibility with surrounding uses…”
FALSE: The project is inconsistent and does not satisfy Land Use Policy 10.2 as it negatively impacts public and private views, visual compatibility, and negatively impacts a historical resource
Section 3 - Page 6 - #6. Historic Preservation - Resolution 25-1431 “The proposed project is located on vacant land with no identified historic or cultural resources”
FALSE: The project is located next door to a historic resource. This fact has been omitted and reveals improper research for the surrounding area Section 3 - Page 7 - #9. Neighborhood Compatibility - Resolution 25-1431 “Development shall be compatible with the existing development in the neighborhood and respect neighborhood character… including historical patterns of development (e.g., structural heights, mass, scale, or size)…” FALSE: The project is a proposed 24.5 foot three-story residence towering over a historical resource and degrading the overall neighborhood character and aesthetics.
174
Section 3 - Page 7 - #11. Privacy - Resolution 25-1431
“The project has been designed to minimize potential privacy impacts to neighboring properties through thoughtful placement of windows, decks, and outdoor activity areas”
FALSE: The project will be located 7 feet from the adjacent property soaring 24.5 feet tall allowing for direct views into the neighbors home and yard. The large structure will casts long shadows onto the adjacent property blocking sunlight and airflow.
Section 3 - Page 9 - #16. View Equity - Resolution 25-1431 “The project has been designed in accordance with the City’s Design Guidelines to maintain view equity while allowing reasonable development of the subject property.”
FALSE: Every side window and door opening of the adjacent property will lose it’s views. There is ZERO view protection for the adjacent property.
Section 3 - Page 9 - Finding No. 4 - Resolution 25-1431 “The project is consistent with any specific plan or any other specific zoning design review criteria.”
FALSE: The project is not consistent with CEQA and the Laguna Beach Land Use Element Guiding Principals
175
176
E = Exceptional X=Not Yet Rated
K = Key
C = Contributive
Historic Register Index List, July 2024
Date Approved
by Heritage
Committee
Historic
Register
Number
Street
Number Street Name Category Summary Year Built
Recorded with
the County -
Historic
Agreement
Historic
Agreement
Dates Recorded Mills Act
Agreement
131 04/19/94 131 1094 Glenneyre Street K Cottage 1928 Yes 4/28/1994 10/06/2015 144 03/29/96 144 661 Glenneyre Street K Craftsman-Board & Batten 1917 Yes 12/22/1995 153 04/14/97 153 2175-2177 Glenneyre Street K Cottage 1925-35 Yes 3/3/1997 154 04/15/97 154 1390 Glenneyre Street K Clapboard Cottage 1923 Yes 3/4/1997 12/11/2019 161 04/08/97 161 2020 Glenneyre Street C Cottage 1932 Yes 4/14/1997 167 10/27/97 167 1762 Glenneyre Street E Eclectic English 1925 Yes 8/22/2012 01/24/2006 189 01/17/00 189 1428 Glenneyre Street K Cottage 1939 Yes 1/20/2000 12/18/2018 213 07/10/02 213 1575 Glenneyre Street K California Cottage 1941 Yes 7/10/2002 259 07/22/03 257 655 Glenneyre Street K Craftman Beach Cottage 1926 Yes 8/22/2012 08/03/2010 264 07/01/10 263 1860 Glenneyre Street K Clapboard bungalow 1924 Yes 9/17/2012 04/15/2011 313 10/19/2018 313 2538 Glenneyre Street K Board & Batten Beach Cottage 1920 Yes 10/19/2018 12/18/2018 244 08/18/08 244 1422 Glenneyre Street/315 Mountain E Old Brayton Eschback House 1928 Yes 9/17/2012 12/08/2009 245 10/27/08 244 1422 Glenneyre Street/315 Mountain E Eclectic House (315 Mountain) 1939 Yes 9/17/2012 12/08/2009 39 10/27/89 39 571 Graceland E Old Art Gallery 1900 Yes 11/2/2012 12/14/2007 74 07/24/90 74 422 Graceland C Eclectic 1930 Yes 7/10/2001 337 2/27/2023 337 489 Graceland Drive - Beach Cottage 1927 Yes 3/21/2023 12/20/2023 126 01/18/94 126 310* Hawthorne Road E Craftsman Cottage 1917 Yes 9/17/2012 10/13/1995 138 02/08/95 138 310* Hawthorne Road E Craftsman Cottage 1917 Yes 9/17/2012 10/13/1995 247 09/15/08 245 337 Hawthorne Road C Shingle Style Cottage 1927 No 254 04/07/09 252 451 Hawthorne Road K Craftsman 1924 Yes 10/2/2012 04/14/2009 287 4/21/2014 287 369 Hawthorne Road K Colonial Revival 1925 yes 4/1/2015 69 02/01/90 69 482 High Drive E Spanish Med Revival 1938 Yes 6/11/2002 94 01/18/91 94 625 High Drive K Cottage 1913 Yes 4/20/2000 102 01/21/92 102 568 High Drive C Provincial Revival 1922 Yes 5/21/1999 273 06/20/11 272 459 High Drive E Vintage English Cotswald 1924 Yes [removed 1/7/2013] 289 3/16/2009 289 205 High Drive C Mediterranean Revival yes 4/20/2015 316 2/21/2019 316 250 High Drive E Mission Revival 1934 Yes 3/26/2019 12/22/2021 233 06/18/07 233 1617 Hillcrest Drive K Beach Cottage 1950 Yes 3/13/2008 6 177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
City of Laguna Beach & Members of the Design Review Board:
I’m the property owner of Glenneyre Drive, the adjacent neighboring property to 2500 Glenneyre St. I do not support for this project for several reasons. It appears staff has failed to identify and acknowledge that my property is a Mills Act Historic Resource located directly next door. After reviewing the Resolution of the Design Review Board it has came to my attention that multiple findings made by the board with respect to Design Review 25-1431 are not consistent with CEQA and the Laguna Beach Land Use Element Guiding Principals which I have elaborated on below. Furthermore, I do not support the (3) variances to approve the project. The variances will allow the structure to be pushed against the north side property line and protrude into the front yard setback which is inconsistent with all of the properties to the north that are all setback from the street and have parking aprons.
The most obvious reasons as to why I’m not in favor of this project are below:
Loss of Privacy - The project’s 24.5 foot height and placement 7 feet away from my home would allow windows, balconies, and decks to overlook into my yard, patios, and indoor living spaces.
Aesthetic and Neighborhood Degradation - A monolithic wall disrupts the visual rhythm of the street. It make the entire block feel cramped and urbanized even in suburban zones.
Fire Safety & Insurance Risk - Near lot-line construction increases fire spread risk (radiant heat & embers). Some insurers raise premiums or require costly upgrades (e.g., fire rated siding) when adjacent structures are too close.
Drainage & Water Runoff Issues - The project’s roof and impervious surfaces will channel more stormwater toward the property and 125 year old foundation.
Without proper grading or retention, risk of flooding, soil erosion, or foundation damage may arise. Excavating 7-9 feet from my property may undermine and cause destabilization.
Diminished Property Value - The proximity to large towering neighboring structures lowers perceived value. Buyers prefer open views, natural light, and space - these qualities will be erased by a wall-like building next door.
Furthermore appraisers often apply a “proximity adjustment” for structures closer than 10-15 feet. Future buyers may demand price concessions or walk away. 185
Reduced Natural Light & Airflow - The project will casts long shadows, blocking sunlight to landscaping and windows which will result in increased utility bills.
Upon reviewing Resolution 25-1431 there are several inconsistencies that need to be addressed. I have cross referenced Laguna Beach General Plan Land Use Element and have concluded that this project does NOT “ensure development is responsive to individual site constraints” as demonstrated below:
Resolution 25-1431
Section 2 - Page 2 - Resolution 25-1431
“Project is exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 because it is construction and location of the Project… Further, none of the exceptions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply… the project will not result in significant adverse impacts to historical resources as defined by CEQA” FALSE: The Project will have a substantial adverse change on a historical resource * The adjacent property is a Mills Act Historical Resource * Per CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2 (Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 14, Exceptions): (F) Historical Resources A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource
Section 3 - Page 3 - #2. Design Articulation - Resolution 25-1431 “Within the allowable building envelope, the appearance of building and retaining wall mass should be minimized… Together, these design features create a balanced composition that reduces the perception of mass when viewed from Glenneyre Street and surrounding properties”
FALSE: Our adjacent property will be confronted with massing, privacy issues, & constricted views by a solid 24 foot wall 7 feet away
Section 3 - Page 3 - #4. Environmental Context - Resolution 25-1431 “Development should preserve and, where possible, enhance the city’s scenic natural setting… The proposed development is designed to respond sensitively to the site’s steep terrain and natural features”
FALSE: The development is not sensitive to the neighbor’s property and will not preserve the views, privacy, and significance of the Mills Act Historical Resource.
The variance will allow the project to cantilever into the natural water course. 186
Section 3 - Page 4 - #5. General Plan Compliance - Resolution 25-1431 “The development shall comply with all applicable policies of the General Plan, including all of its elements, applicable specific plans, and the certified local coastal program”
FALSE: The project does not comply with the General Plan for the following reasons:
Land Use (LU) Policy 2.8 General Plan Policies - Page 4 - Resolution 25-1431 “Require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated with natural topographic features… and/or other significant onsite resources, and protect public views as specified in the Design Guidelines and the Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document”
FALSE: The project is not consistent with Land Use Policy 2.8 & disregards the following:
* Public & private views are significantly diminished and not protected * The project does not preserve existing view corridors - All south side windows and doors lose views
* The project disrupts the aesthetic and neighborhood character by allowing a large house towering over others creating a visual mismatch and undermining the cohesive “curb appeal” of the street
Land Use (LU) Policy 2.10 General Plan Policies - Page 4 - Resolution 25-1431 “Maximize the preservation of coastal and canyon views (consistent with the principle of view equity) from existing properties and minimize blockage of existing public and private views… The project does not obstruct existing public coastal or canyon views…”
FALSE: The project impacts views to both public and private vantage points:
* Adjacent property’s views will be blocked by 24 foot high structure 7 feet away * The project’s application provided no renderings/drawings showing neighboring property to fully reveal the size & scale of the project. This vantage point has been concealed and will have the most impact to the neighboring property by blocking views
Land Use (LU) Policy 3.10 General Plan Policies - Page 5 - Resolution 25-1431 “Require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated… by maintaining the low-profile character of the structures… best efforts should be 187
made to site new development in locations that minimize adverse impacts on views… the project’s height and siting minimize potential impacts on public views…”
FALSE: The project’s design and siting does not maintain low-profile character (24.5 feet tall / 7 feet away) nor does it minimize adverse impacts on views. It will completely remove all south side views.
Land Use (LU) Policy 7.3 General Plan Policies - Page 5 - Resolution 25-1431 “(Same as Policy 10.2) GOAL: Protect, preserve, and enhance the community’s natural resources”
FALSE: This development goes against protecting views, privacy, and preserving a Historical Structure.
Land Use (LU) Policy 10.2 General Plan Policies - Page 6 - Resolution 25-1431 “Design and site new development to protect natural and environmentally sensitive resources such as areas of unique scenic quality, public views, and visual compatibility with surrounding uses…”
FALSE: The project is inconsistent and does not satisfy Land Use Policy 10.2 as it negatively impacts public and private views, visual compatibility, and negatively impacts a historical resource
Section 3 - Page 6 - #6. Historic Preservation - Resolution 25-1431 “The proposed project is located on vacant land with no identified historic or cultural resources”
FALSE: The project is located next door to a historic resource. This fact has been omitted and reveals improper research for the surrounding area Section 3 - Page 7 - #9. Neighborhood Compatibility - Resolution 25-1431 “Development shall be compatible with the existing development in the neighborhood and respect neighborhood character… including historical patterns of development (e.g., structural heights, mass, scale, or size)…” FALSE: The project is a proposed 24.5 foot three-story residence towering over a historical resource and degrading the overall neighborhood character and aesthetics.
188
Section 3 - Page 7 - #11. Privacy - Resolution 25-1431
“The project has been designed to minimize potential privacy impacts to neighboring properties through thoughtful placement of windows, decks, and outdoor activity areas”
FALSE: The project will be located 7 feet from the adjacent property soaring 24.5 feet tall allowing for direct views into the neighbors home and yard. The large structure will casts long shadows onto the adjacent property blocking sunlight and airflow.
Section 3 - Page 9 - #16. View Equity - Resolution 25-1431 “The project has been designed in accordance with the City’s Design Guidelines to maintain view equity while allowing reasonable development of the subject property.”
FALSE: Every side window and door opening of the adjacent property will lose it’s views. There is ZERO view protection for the adjacent property.
Section 3 - Page 9 - Finding No. 4 - Resolution 25-1431 “The project is consistent with any specific plan or any other specific zoning design review criteria.”
FALSE: The project is not consistent with CEQA and the Laguna Beach Land Use Element Guiding Principals
189
City of Laguna Beach & Members of the Design Review Board:
I’m the property owner of 2538 Glenneyre Drive, the adjacent neighboring property to 2500 Glenneyre St. I do not support for this project for several reasons. It appears staff has failed to identify and acknowledge that my property is a Mills Act Historic Resource located directly next door. After reviewing the Resolution of the Design Review Board it has came to my attention that multiple findings made by the board with respect to Design Review 25-1431 are not consistent with CEQA and the Laguna Beach Land Use Element Guiding Principals which I have elaborated on below. Furthermore, I do not support the (3) variances to approve the project. The variances will allow the structure to be pushed against the north side property line and protrude into the front yard setback which is inconsistent with all of the properties to the north that are all setback from the street and have parking aprons.
The most obvious reasons as to why I’m not in favor of this project are below:
Loss of Privacy - The project’s 24.5 foot height and placement 7 feet away from my home would allow windows, balconies, and decks to overlook into my yard, patios, and indoor living spaces.
Aesthetic and Neighborhood Degradation - A monolithic wall disrupts the visual rhythm of the street. It make the entire block feel cramped and urbanized even in suburban zones.
Fire Safety & Insurance Risk - Near lot-line construction increases fire spread risk (radiant heat & embers). Some insurers raise premiums or require costly upgrades (e.g., fire rated siding) when adjacent structures are too close.
Drainage & Water Runoff Issues - The project’s roof and impervious surfaces will channel more stormwater toward the property and 125 year old foundation.
Without proper grading or retention, risk of flooding, soil erosion, or foundation damage may arise. Excavating 7-9 feet from my property may undermine and cause destabilization.
Diminished Property Value - The proximity to large towering neighboring structures lowers perceived value. Buyers prefer open views, natural light, and space - these qualities will be erased by a wall-like building next door.
Furthermore appraisers often apply a “proximity adjustment” for structures closer than 10-15 feet. Future buyers may demand price concessions or walk away. 190
Reduced Natural Light & Airflow - The project will casts long shadows, blocking sunlight to landscaping and windows which will result in increased utility bills.
Upon reviewing Resolution 25-1431 there are several inconsistencies that need to be addressed. I have cross referenced Laguna Beach General Plan Land Use Element and have concluded that this project does NOT “ensure development is responsive to individual site constraints” as demonstrated below:
Resolution 25-1431
Section 2 - Page 2 - Resolution 25-1431
“Project is exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 because it is construction and location of the Project… Further, none of the exceptions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply… the project will not result in significant adverse impacts to historical resources as defined by CEQA” FALSE: The Project will have a substantial adverse change on a historical resource * The adjacent property is a Mills Act Historical Resource * Per CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2 (Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 14, Exceptions): (F) Historical Resources A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource
Section 3 - Page 3 - #2. Design Articulation - Resolution 25-1431 “Within the allowable building envelope, the appearance of building and retaining wall mass should be minimized… Together, these design features create a balanced composition that reduces the perception of mass when viewed from Glenneyre Street and surrounding properties”
FALSE: Our adjacent property will be confronted with massing, privacy issues, & constricted views by a solid 24 foot wall 7 feet away
Section 3 - Page 3 - #4. Environmental Context - Resolution 25-1431 “Development should preserve and, where possible, enhance the city’s scenic natural setting… The proposed development is designed to respond sensitively to the site’s steep terrain and natural features”
FALSE: The development is not sensitive to the neighbor’s property and will not preserve the views, privacy, and significance of the Mills Act Historical Resource.
The variance will allow the project to cantilever into the natural water course. 191
Section 3 - Page 4 - #5. General Plan Compliance - Resolution 25-1431 “The development shall comply with all applicable policies of the General Plan, including all of its elements, applicable specific plans, and the certified local coastal program”
FALSE: The project does not comply with the General Plan for the following reasons:
Land Use (LU) Policy 2.8 General Plan Policies - Page 4 - Resolution 25-1431 “Require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated with natural topographic features… and/or other significant onsite resources, and protect public views as specified in the Design Guidelines and the Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document”
FALSE: The project is not consistent with Land Use Policy 2.8 & disregards the following:
* Public & private views are significantly diminished and not protected * The project does not preserve existing view corridors - All south side windows and doors lose views
* The project disrupts the aesthetic and neighborhood character by allowing a large house towering over others creating a visual mismatch and undermining the cohesive “curb appeal” of the street
Land Use (LU) Policy 2.10 General Plan Policies - Page 4 - Resolution 25-1431 “Maximize the preservation of coastal and canyon views (consistent with the principle of view equity) from existing properties and minimize blockage of existing public and private views… The project does not obstruct existing public coastal or canyon views…”
FALSE: The project impacts views to both public and private vantage points:
* Adjacent property’s views will be blocked by 24 foot high structure 7 feet away * The project’s application provided no renderings/drawings showing neighboring property to fully reveal the size & scale of the project. This vantage point has been concealed and will have the most impact to the neighboring property by blocking views
Land Use (LU) Policy 3.10 General Plan Policies - Page 5 - Resolution 25-1431 “Require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated… by maintaining the low-profile character of the structures… best efforts should be 192
made to site new development in locations that minimize adverse impacts on views… the project’s height and siting minimize potential impacts on public views…”
FALSE: The project’s design and siting does not maintain low-profile character (24.5 feet tall / 7 feet away) nor does it minimize adverse impacts on views. It will completely remove all south side views.
Land Use (LU) Policy 7.3 General Plan Policies - Page 5 - Resolution 25-1431 “(Same as Policy 10.2) GOAL: Protect, preserve, and enhance the community’s natural resources”
FALSE: This development goes against protecting views, privacy, and preserving a Historical Structure.
Land Use (LU) Policy 10.2 General Plan Policies - Page 6 - Resolution 25-1431 “Design and site new development to protect natural and environmentally sensitive resources such as areas of unique scenic quality, public views, and visual compatibility with surrounding uses…”
FALSE: The project is inconsistent and does not satisfy Land Use Policy 10.2 as it negatively impacts public and private views, visual compatibility, and negatively impacts a historical resource
Section 3 - Page 6 - #6. Historic Preservation - Resolution 25-1431 “The proposed project is located on vacant land with no identified historic or cultural resources”
FALSE: The project is located next door to a historic resource. This fact has been omitted and reveals improper research for the surrounding area Section 3 - Page 7 - #9. Neighborhood Compatibility - Resolution 25-1431 “Development shall be compatible with the existing development in the neighborhood and respect neighborhood character… including historical patterns of development (e.g., structural heights, mass, scale, or size)…” FALSE: The project is a proposed 24.5 foot three-story residence towering over a historical resource and degrading the overall neighborhood character and aesthetics.
193
Section 3 - Page 7 - #11. Privacy - Resolution 25-1431
“The project has been designed to minimize potential privacy impacts to neighboring properties through thoughtful placement of windows, decks, and outdoor activity areas”
FALSE: The project will be located 7 feet from the adjacent property soaring 24.5 feet tall allowing for direct views into the neighbors home and yard. The large structure will casts long shadows onto the adjacent property blocking sunlight and airflow.
Section 3 - Page 9 - #16. View Equity - Resolution 25-1431 “The project has been designed in accordance with the City’s Design Guidelines to maintain view equity while allowing reasonable development of the subject property.”
FALSE: Every side window and door opening of the adjacent property will lose it’s views. There is ZERO view protection for the adjacent property.
Section 3 - Page 9 - Finding No. 4 - Resolution 25-1431 “The project is consistent with any specific plan or any other specific zoning design review criteria.”
FALSE: The project is not consistent with CEQA and the Laguna Beach Land Use Element Guiding Principals
194
195
196
Edwin C. Kisiel, Esq.
October 9, 2025
City of Laguna Beach
Design Review Board
505 Forest Avenue
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
Re: Public Comment Letter - Design Review 25-1431, Variance 25-1433 Application APN: 656-126-09; 656-146-01; 656-146-02
Address: 2500 Glenneyre Street (2500 Glenneyre, 2500 Queda, 2500 Pala) also known as 2548 Glenneyre Street
References:
1. Matthew South, Biological Resource Assessment (South Environmental 2025) (“Biological”)
2. Tamim Atayee, Hydrologic Assessment (Rivertec 2025) (“Hydrology”) Dear Design Review Board:
I am writing to provide information to the Design Review Board (DRB) as it considers Design Review 25-1431 or construction of a single-family residence and accompanying Variance 25-1433 for the homesite at 2500 Glenneyre Street (also known as 2548 Glenneyre Street) in the City of Laguna Beach (Subject Property). The proposed variances for watercourse setback and turnaround meet the standards of the General Plan and Laguna Beach Municipal Code (LBMC), and there is ample justification and precedent for the variances, supported by hydrology and biological reports that have been reviewed and accepted by the City. Since sound supporting rationale, research, and precedent exists for the variance findings, as discussed in detail in this letter, we recommend that the DRB approve the variances under review.
Background
In September 2023, architect Mark Abel submitted plans for an 1817 square foot singlefamily residence in a traditional Laguna cottage style on a 0.21-acre parcel. The Subject Property is owned by Mark and Sue Winner, longtime residents of Laguna Beach, and it will be constructed as a primary residence for their family members, who are also Laguna Beach residents. The home is modest in size compared to other homes in the neighborhood. Due to the topography of the lot and the presence of a watercourse setback running through the middle of the site, the applicants request variances to (1) encroach into the watercourse setback for structural support and to provide on-site parking and (2) to vary from the requirement for onsite turnaround. The applicant’s variance applications are supported by the peer-reviewed hydrology and biological assessment. Without the variances, the applicants will be unable to make an economically viable use of their property. The variances will ensure that the property owners 197
2 can enjoy the same privileges of other owners in the vicinity, which is construction of a functional single-family home.
Discussion
In order to grant a variance, the DRB makes findings pursuant to LBMC § 25.05.025 and § 25.50.030 for encroachment into a significant watercourse. Variance findings required by LBMC § 25.05.025 are that:
(1) There are special circumstances applicable to the property involved, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings which cause the strict application of the zoning ordinance to deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. (2) Such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, which right is possessed by other property owners under like conditions in the same vicinity and zone.
(3) The granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, convenience and welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity in which the property is located.
(4) The granting of such a Variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the zoning ordinance or the General Plan.
For encroachment into a watercourse setback, additional findings under LBMC § 25.50.030(4) are:
(a) The proposed encroachment will act to preserve, enhance or restore the significance of the watercourse
(b) The proposed encroachment is not likely to impair the functional, scenic, and ecological purposes of the watercourse.
For LBMC § 25.50.030(4)(a) findings, only one of the three criteria needs to be met. Based on the information provided to the DRB through the project design, hydrology, biological assessment, and precedent, the DRB is able to make the required findings for variance approval.
Watercourse Setback Variance
The housing development project seeks a variance for encroachment of six 1’ diameter columns, for a variance of 4.71 square feet, and 75.75 square feet variance for the corner of a garage to provide two covered parking spaces required under City code, for a total of 80.46 square feet. The required findings under LBMC § 25.05.025 and LBMC § 25.50.030 will be satisfied for the Design Review Board to grant a variance to encroach into the 25-foot watercourse setback with the proposed project. The variance findings are able to be satisfied, as discussed in detail below:
1. It is clear that there are special circumstances applicable to the Subject Property that cause strict application of the zoning ordinance to deprive the owners of the Subject Property of 198
3 privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification.
This is an R-1 zoned property for single family residential and is a legal building site. The Subject Property has conditions of steep topography (33.5% slope) and a watercourse running down the middle of the property with a setback that would prevent construction of a singlefamily residence unless a variance is provided. All other owners of building sites in the vicinity have been able to construct single-family homes. The applicant seeks to build a 1,817 squarefoot single-family home on a 0.21 acre lot, which is much smaller footprint home than other homes in the vicinity, which can range up to 4,350 square feet. Without the variance, the owner would not be able to build on the Subject Property.
2. A watercourse variance is necessary for preservation of the enjoyment of the right of the applicant to construct a single-family home, which is a right possessed by other property owners under like conditions in the vicinity. All surrounding building sites in the vicinity are improved with single-family homes. Additionally, there is precedent in the area for granting a variance to construct within a watercourse setback. For example, Ruby Place (Variance No. 5015, granted Nov. 1992), Agate Street (Variance No. 7113, granted Aug. 2004) and Moss Place (Variance No. 3283, granted Feb. 1980) received variances to construct improvements in a watercourse setback. Other homes in the vicinity were also constructed within this watercourse setback prior to the setback requirement, as shown on the diagram below (downstream from 2548 Glenneyre Street). Furthermore, for the Subject Property, a watercourse setback variance (Variance No. 3185) for a single-family home was granted in 1979 and a building permit was issued in 1982, but the home was never constructed. 199
4 3. The granting of a variance will not be injurious to public health, safety, convenience, or welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The watercourse is in a steep, narrow ravine at a significantly lower elevation compared to the improvements. Based on the hydrology report, even under a 100-year storm scenario, the water level will never rise to the level of the proposed improvements, including the variance elements of the columns or garage corner encroachments (Hydrology, p. 6). In a 100-year storm, the water will flow over Glenneyre Street, so water cannot reach any of the structure (Hydrology, p. 6). Additionally, there is no net increase in runoff from the encroachments or the home itself (Hydrology, p. 5).
These findings have been confirmed by the City’s peer reviewer.
4. The granting of the variance will ensure that the proposed single-family home conforms to the objectives of the General Plan and zoning ordinance. The variance is necessary for the residence to meet the requirement for covered, off-street parking. The proposed project is for a single-family residence in the R-1 zone which is an allowable use of the property by-right under the zoning ordinance and General Plan. Additionally, as noted above and confirmed by the City’s peer reviewer, even under a 100-year storm scenario, the water level will never rise to the level of the proposed improvements, including the variance elements of the columns or garage corner encroachments (Hydrology, p. 6). In a 100-year storm, the water will flow over Glenneyre Street, so water cannot reach any of the structure (Hydrology, p. 6). Additionally, there is no net increase in runoff from the encroachments or the home itself (Hydrology, p. 5).
The specific variance findings for the watercourse setback are able to be met, as discussed below:
a. As to the first watercourse variance finding, the proposed encroachments will act to preserve, enhance, or restore the significance of the watercourse. The design and articulation of the home, including the encroachments, honors the watercourse as it steps up the hill towards the back of the site. As demonstrated in the hydrology report, and confirmed by the City’s peer reviewer, even in a 100-year storm scenario, the water level will never rise to the level of the columns or garage corner encroachments (Hydrology, p. 6). Additionally, there is no increase in runoff from the encroachments or the home itself (Hydrology, p. 5). Constructing the proposed improvements will also prevent the site and watercourse area from being used for camping by homeless individuals, who the owners have had to require the City to evict in the past. b. As to the second watercourse variance finding, the proposed encroachments will not impair the functional, scenic, or ecological purposes of the watercourse. i. The hydrology report proves that lack of functional impairment. As stated in the hydrology report, and confirmed by the City’s peer reviewer, even in a 100-year storm scenario there is no water obstruction since the water level will never rise to the level of the columns or garage corner encroachments or any of the structure (Hydrology, p. 6). Additionally, there is no increase in runoff from the encroachments or the home itself (Hydrology, p. 5). ii. The proposed encroachment will not impact any scenic purposes of the watercourse. The watercourse has no scenic value as it is not visible from offsite areas due to 200
5 slope, vegetation, and tree canopy coverage. The watercourse is dry except during rain events.
From a visual standpoint, the design of the home is complementary with the watercourse, and the watercourse is incorporated as a design element in the proposed project. Thus, scenic purposes are not impaired.
iii. Based on the biological assessment, the proposed encroachments will not impair any ecological purpose of the watercourse. The biological assessment concluded there is no persistent water source in the drainage, precluding any fish or amphibian habitat (Biological, p. 13). The biological assessment also concluded that the project site is not native habitat and does not have the potential to support any special-status species (Biological, p. 22). The project is outside of the drainage and does not impact the streambeds (Biological, p. 24). Finally, based on the site plan, there will not no physical disturbance of the watercourse (Hydrology, p. 7) and best management practices will be implemented, as determined by the Public Works Department.
Turnaround Variance
The housing development project seeks a variance from the requirement for an onsite turnaround. The required findings under Laguna Beach Municipal Code § 25.05.025 will be satisfied for the Design Review Board to additionally grant a variance from this requirement.
The variance findings are able to be fulfilled, as discussed in detail below:
1. It is clear that there are special circumstances applicable to the Subject Property that cause strict application of the zoning ordinance to deprive the owners of the Subject Property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification.
The Subject Property has conditions of steep topography (33.5% slope) and a watercourse running down the middle of the property that limits the amount of developable space. This means that there is not adequate space along the driveway for provision of a turnaround, especially with the required addition of a new public parking space. All other owners of building sites in the vicinity have been able to construct single-family homes. The applicant seeks to build a 1,817 square-foot single-family home on a 0.21 acre lot, which is much smaller footprint home than other homes in the vicinity, which can range up to 4,350 square feet. Without the variance, the owner would not be able to build on the Subject Property.
2. A variance is necessary for preservation of the enjoyment of the right of the applicant to construct a single-family home, which is a right possessed by other property owners under like conditions in the vicinity. All surrounding building sites in the vicinity are improved with singlefamily homes. Additionally, there is precedent on the street for granting a variance from the requirements for an onsite turnaround. For example, 293 Upland Road (Variance No. 6401, granted Apr. 1997), 2450 Glenneyre Street (Variance No. 7544, granted Oct. 2008), 2510 Glenneyre Street (Variance No. 2810, granted Jan. 1977), 2512 Glenneyre Street (Variance No. 2730, granted Jun. 1976), 2604 Glenneyre Street (Variance No. 3223, granted Dec. 1979), and 2626 Glenneyre Street (Variance No. 4947, granted Apr. 1992) received variances from the requirement for an onsite turnaround. Furthermore, the neighboring residence at 2538 Glenneyre, which was the property owners’ prior residence, (built before the zoning code) does not have an onsite turnaround.
201
6 3. The granting of a variance will not be injurious to public health, safety, convenience, or welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The existing conditions include a 25 MPH speed limit and traffic calming speedbump on Glenneyre Street at the project site. Many other homes in the vicinity on Glenneyre Street lack onsite turnarounds without creating an apparent issue for public health, safety, convenience, welfare or injury to property or improvements. The owners and applicants have decades of experience with the exit from the driveway onto Glenneyre Street from both the Subject Property and from neighboring 2538 Glenneyre Street, without issue. Here, as with the other homes on the street without onsite turnarounds, there will be no impact to public health, safety, convenience, or welfare and the variance will not injure any property or improvements in the vicinity by granting of the variance.
4. The granting of the variance will ensure that the proposed single-family home conforms to the objectives of the General Plan and zoning ordinance, including the provision of a new on-street public parking space. The proposed project is for a single-family residence in the R-1 zone which is an allowable use of the property by-right under the zoning ordinance and General Plan.
Conclusion
Based on the justification and research provided above, including peer-reviewed hydrology and biological reports, the findings for approval of each variance are able to be satisfied. Accordingly, we recommend that the DRB approve both the watercourse setback variance and turnaround variance under review as Variance 25-1433. We thank you for your time and consideration of the proposed the housing development project at 2500 Glenneyre Street and variance applications. Please reach out to architect Mark Abel if you have any questions about this project, the research provided, or to schedule a site visit. He may be contacted by phone at
Respectfully,
Edwin C. Kisiel, Esq.
202
Edwin C. Kisiel, Esq.
1205 Victory Walk
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
(949) 549-9650
[email protected]
October 9, 2025
City of Laguna Beach
Design Review Board
505 Forest Avenue
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
Re: Public Comment Letter - Design Review 25-1431, Variance 25-1433 Application APN: 656-126-09; 656-146-01; 656-146-02
Address: 2500 Glenneyre Street (2500 Glenneyre, 2500 Queda, 2500 Pala) also known as 2548 Glenneyre Street
References:
1. Matthew South, Biological Resource Assessment (South Environmental 2025) (“Biological”)
2. Tamim Atayee, Hydrologic Assessment (Rivertec 2025) (“Hydrology”) Dear Design Review Board:
I am writing to provide information to the Design Review Board (DRB) as it considers Design Review 25-1431 or construction of a single-family residence and accompanying Variance 25-1433 for the homesite at 2500 Glenneyre Street (also known as 2548 Glenneyre Street) in the City of Laguna Beach (Subject Property). The proposed variances for watercourse setback and turnaround meet the standards of the General Plan and Laguna Beach Municipal Code (LBMC), and there is ample justification and precedent for the variances, supported by hydrology and biological reports that have been reviewed and accepted by the City. Since sound supporting rationale, research, and precedent exists for the variance findings, as discussed in detail in this letter, we recommend that the DRB approve the variances under review.
Background
In September 2023, architect Mark Abel submitted plans for an 1817 square foot singlefamily residence in a traditional Laguna cottage style on a 0.21-acre parcel. The Subject Property is owned by Mark and Sue Winner, longtime residents of Laguna Beach, and it will be constructed as a primary residence for their family members, who are also Laguna Beach residents. The home is modest in size compared to other homes in the neighborhood. Due to the topography of the lot and the presence of a watercourse setback running through the middle of the site, the applicants request variances to (1) encroach into the watercourse setback for structural support and to provide on-site parking and (2) to vary from the requirement for onsite turnaround. The applicant’s variance applications are supported by the peer-reviewed hydrology and biological assessment. Without the variances, the applicants will be unable to make an economically viable use of their property. The variances will ensure that the property owners 203
2 can enjoy the same privileges of other owners in the vicinity, which is construction of a functional single-family home.
Discussion
In order to grant a variance, the DRB makes findings pursuant to LBMC § 25.05.025 and § 25.50.030 for encroachment into a significant watercourse. Variance findings required by LBMC § 25.05.025 are that:
(1) There are special circumstances applicable to the property involved, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings which cause the strict application of the zoning ordinance to deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. (2) Such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, which right is possessed by other property owners under like conditions in the same vicinity and zone.
(3) The granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, convenience and welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity in which the property is located.
(4) The granting of such a Variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the zoning ordinance or the General Plan.
For encroachment into a watercourse setback, additional findings under LBMC § 25.50.030(4) are:
(a) The proposed encroachment will act to preserve, enhance or restore the significance of the watercourse
(b) The proposed encroachment is not likely to impair the functional, scenic, and ecological purposes of the watercourse.
For LBMC § 25.50.030(4)(a) findings, only one of the three criteria needs to be met. Based on the information provided to the DRB through the project design, hydrology, biological assessment, and precedent, the DRB is able to make the required findings for variance approval.
Watercourse Setback Variance
The housing development project seeks a variance for encroachment of six 1’ diameter columns, for a variance of 4.71 square feet, and 75.75 square feet variance for the corner of a garage to provide two covered parking spaces required under City code, for a total of 80.46 square feet. The required findings under LBMC § 25.05.025 and LBMC § 25.50.030 will be satisfied for the Design Review Board to grant a variance to encroach into the 25-foot watercourse setback with the proposed project. The variance findings are able to be satisfied, as discussed in detail below:
1. It is clear that there are special circumstances applicable to the Subject Property that cause strict application of the zoning ordinance to deprive the owners of the Subject Property of 204
3 privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification.
This is an R-1 zoned property for single family residential and is a legal building site. The Subject Property has conditions of steep topography (33.5% slope) and a watercourse running down the middle of the property with a setback that would prevent construction of a singlefamily residence unless a variance is provided. All other owners of building sites in the vicinity have been able to construct single-family homes. The applicant seeks to build a 1,817 squarefoot single-family home on a 0.21 acre lot, which is much smaller footprint home than other homes in the vicinity, which can range up to 4,350 square feet. Without the variance, the owner would not be able to build on the Subject Property.
2. A watercourse variance is necessary for preservation of the enjoyment of the right of the applicant to construct a single-family home, which is a right possessed by other property owners under like conditions in the vicinity. All surrounding building sites in the vicinity are improved with single-family homes. Additionally, there is precedent in the area for granting a variance to construct within a watercourse setback. For example, 2166 Ruby Place (Variance No. 5015, granted Nov. 1992), 319 Agate Street (Variance No. 7113, granted Aug. 2004) and 325 Moss Place (Variance No. 3283, granted Feb. 1980) received variances to construct improvements in a watercourse setback. Other homes in the vicinity were also constructed within this watercourse setback prior to the setback requirement, as shown on the diagram below (downstream from 2548 Glenneyre Street). Furthermore, for the Subject Property, a watercourse setback variance (Variance No. 3185) for a single-family home was granted in 1979 and a building permit was issued in 1982, but the home was never constructed. 205
4 3. The granting of a variance will not be injurious to public health, safety, convenience, or welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The watercourse is in a steep, narrow ravine at a significantly lower elevation compared to the improvements. Based on the hydrology report, even under a 100-year storm scenario, the water level will never rise to the level of the proposed improvements, including the variance elements of the columns or garage corner encroachments (Hydrology, p. 6). In a 100-year storm, the water will flow over Glenneyre Street, so water cannot reach any of the structure (Hydrology, p. 6). Additionally, there is no net increase in runoff from the encroachments or the home itself (Hydrology, p. 5).
These findings have been confirmed by the City’s peer reviewer.
4. The granting of the variance will ensure that the proposed single-family home conforms to the objectives of the General Plan and zoning ordinance. The variance is necessary for the residence to meet the requirement for covered, off-street parking. The proposed project is for a single-family residence in the R-1 zone which is an allowable use of the property by-right under the zoning ordinance and General Plan. Additionally, as noted above and confirmed by the City’s peer reviewer, even under a 100-year storm scenario, the water level will never rise to the level of the proposed improvements, including the variance elements of the columns or garage corner encroachments (Hydrology, p. 6). In a 100-year storm, the water will flow over Glenneyre Street, so water cannot reach any of the structure (Hydrology, p. 6). Additionally, there is no net increase in runoff from the encroachments or the home itself (Hydrology, p. 5).
The specific variance findings for the watercourse setback are able to be met, as discussed below:
a. As to the first watercourse variance finding, the proposed encroachments will act to preserve, enhance, or restore the significance of the watercourse. The design and articulation of the home, including the encroachments, honors the watercourse as it steps up the hill towards the back of the site. As demonstrated in the hydrology report, and confirmed by the City’s peer reviewer, even in a 100-year storm scenario, the water level will never rise to the level of the columns or garage corner encroachments (Hydrology, p. 6). Additionally, there is no increase in runoff from the encroachments or the home itself (Hydrology, p. 5). Constructing the proposed improvements will also prevent the site and watercourse area from being used for camping by homeless individuals, who the owners have had to require the City to evict in the past. b. As to the second watercourse variance finding, the proposed encroachments will not impair the functional, scenic, or ecological purposes of the watercourse. i. The hydrology report proves that lack of functional impairment. As stated in the hydrology report, and confirmed by the City’s peer reviewer, even in a 100-year storm scenario there is no water obstruction since the water level will never rise to the level of the columns or garage corner encroachments or any of the structure (Hydrology, p. 6). Additionally, there is no increase in runoff from the encroachments or the home itself (Hydrology, p. 5). ii. The proposed encroachment will not impact any scenic purposes of the watercourse. The watercourse has no scenic value as it is not visible from offsite areas due to 206
5 slope, vegetation, and tree canopy coverage. The watercourse is dry except during rain events.
From a visual standpoint, the design of the home is complementary with the watercourse, and the watercourse is incorporated as a design element in the proposed project. Thus, scenic purposes are not impaired.
iii. Based on the biological assessment, the proposed encroachments will not impair any ecological purpose of the watercourse. The biological assessment concluded there is no persistent water source in the drainage, precluding any fish or amphibian habitat (Biological, p. 13). The biological assessment also concluded that the project site is not native habitat and does not have the potential to support any special-status species (Biological, p. 22). The project is outside of the drainage and does not impact the streambeds (Biological, p. 24). Finally, based on the site plan, there will not no physical disturbance of the watercourse (Hydrology, p. 7) and best management practices will be implemented, as determined by the Public Works Department.
Turnaround Variance
The housing development project seeks a variance from the requirement for an onsite turnaround. The required findings under Laguna Beach Municipal Code § 25.05.025 will be satisfied for the Design Review Board to additionally grant a variance from this requirement.
The variance findings are able to be fulfilled, as discussed in detail below:
1. It is clear that there are special circumstances applicable to the Subject Property that cause strict application of the zoning ordinance to deprive the owners of the Subject Property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification.
The Subject Property has conditions of steep topography (33.5% slope) and a watercourse running down the middle of the property that limits the amount of developable space. This means that there is not adequate space along the driveway for provision of a turnaround, especially with the required addition of a new public parking space. All other owners of building sites in the vicinity have been able to construct single-family homes. The applicant seeks to build a 1,817 square-foot single-family home on a 0.21 acre lot, which is much smaller footprint home than other homes in the vicinity, which can range up to 4,350 square feet. Without the variance, the owner would not be able to build on the Subject Property.
2. A variance is necessary for preservation of the enjoyment of the right of the applicant to construct a single-family home, which is a right possessed by other property owners under like conditions in the vicinity. All surrounding building sites in the vicinity are improved with singlefamily homes. Additionally, there is precedent on the street for granting a variance from the requirements for an onsite turnaround. For example, 293 Upland Road (Variance No. 6401, granted Apr. 1997), 2450 Glenneyre Street (Variance No. 7544, granted Oct. 2008), 2510 Glenneyre Street (Variance No. 2810, granted Jan. 1977), 2512 Glenneyre Street (Variance No. 2730, granted Jun. 1976), 2604 Glenneyre Street (Variance No. 3223, granted Dec. 1979), and 2626 Glenneyre Street (Variance No. 4947, granted Apr. 1992) received variances from the requirement for an onsite turnaround. Furthermore, the neighboring residence at 2538 Glenneyre, which was the property owners’ prior residence, (built before the zoning code) does not have an onsite turnaround.
207
6 3. The granting of a variance will not be injurious to public health, safety, convenience, or welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The existing conditions include a 25 MPH speed limit and traffic calming speedbump on Glenneyre Street at the project site. Many other homes in the vicinity on Glenneyre Street lack onsite turnarounds without creating an apparent issue for public health, safety, convenience, welfare or injury to property or improvements. The owners and applicants have decades of experience with the exit from the driveway onto Glenneyre Street from both the Subject Property and from neighboring 2538 Glenneyre Street, without issue. Here, as with the other homes on the street without onsite turnarounds, there will be no impact to public health, safety, convenience, or welfare and the variance will not injure any property or improvements in the vicinity by granting of the variance.
4. The granting of the variance will ensure that the proposed single-family home conforms to the objectives of the General Plan and zoning ordinance, including the provision of a new on-street public parking space. The proposed project is for a single-family residence in the R-1 zone which is an allowable use of the property by-right under the zoning ordinance and General Plan.
Conclusion
Based on the justification and research provided above, including peer-reviewed hydrology and biological reports, the findings for approval of each variance are able to be satisfied. Accordingly, we recommend that the DRB approve both the watercourse setback variance and turnaround variance under review as Variance 25-1433. We thank you for your time and consideration of the proposed the housing development project at 2500 Glenneyre Street and variance applications. Please reach out to architect Mark Abel if you have any questions about this project, the research provided, or to schedule a site visit. He may be contacted by phone at (949) 813-8058 or email at [email protected].
Respectfully,
Edwin C. Kisiel, Esq.
208
Outlook
Comment on Variance 25-1433 for Sept 25 public hearing
From Jennifer Bryson <[email protected]>
Date Thu 9/18/2025 8:39 PM
To Design Review Board <[email protected]>; Khan, Shehriyar CD <[email protected]>; Gannon, Jessica <[email protected]>; Gibbs, Thomas <[email protected]>; Coveny, Mary Jo <[email protected]>; Bauta, Imer <[email protected]>; Weil, Louis <[email protected]>
3 attachments (5 MB)
watercourse_image_from_june_2020.jpeg; proximity_to_blue_house_2.jpg; proximity_to_blue_house_1.jpg; [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.] Dear Design Review Team and Shehriyar Khan,
I want to submit a comment about the proposed new house at 2500 Glenneyre Street that will "encroach within a mapped watercourse setback". Here's my comment:
In 2020, my now husband and I put in an offer on the historic blue house (2538 Glenneyre) next door to the property in discussion (2500 Glenneyre). Prior to putting in that offer, I went down to the city to learn about this property. I have a photo (attached) from June 6, 2020 of a city document showing the watercourse setback that made it look impossible for this property to be developed. With that information and our desire to live in a place with natural areas around us, my husband and I decided to spend our life savings and future earnings to buy that historic blue house. We were outbid, and I really feel for the other buyer today. Not only have people, such as myself, made major life decisions based on the property rules, but also it would be incredibly sad to see an encroachment on the natural watercourse get passed. Natural environments are diminishing everyday, and it’s hard to see another one go, and for no reason other than the benefit of two individuals. Finally, I’d like to say that I attended the meeting at the property on August 11 and I was told that the watercourse setback was followed. Upon receiving the notice of public hearing that stated an encroachment on the watercourse, I feel lied to. Please don’t allow this encroachment on nature to happen.
Case No.: Design Review 25-1431, Coastal Development 25-1432, Variance 25-1433, Revocable Encroachment Permit 25-1434
Please let me know if I have emailed this to the wrong place as this is my first time submitting a comment. Also do I have to attend the Sept 25 meeting for my comment to be considered? Thanks! Best,
Jennifer Bryson
Homeowner at 2618 Queda Way
209