1 McKay, Ann Marie CC
Subject: Public Comment for Appeal B
Attachments: 31987 Appeal-Aerial 9.3.18 Bluff-Face Plan, oblique view (2).pdf; 31987 Coast Hwy-Menne CC Appeal - 5.13.26 Table 1.pdf; 31987 Appeal-11 direct neighbors Aerial exhibit 5.13.26.pdf From: Viera, Anthony CD <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2026 2:10 PM
To: McKay, Ann Marie CC <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment for Appeal B
Begin forwarded message:
From: bryan menne
Subject: FW: 31985-87 Coast Hwy- Krishna Residence Proposed not following City Council Directives of Coastal Commission & City Policies.
Date: July 30, 2026 at 8:13:57 AM PDT
To: "Kempf, Sue" <[email protected]>, "Whalen, Bob" <[email protected]>, "Jones, Hallie" <[email protected]>, Mark Orgill, Alex Rounaghi Cc: "Kiff, Dave CM" <[email protected]>, "gkazmouz", Bryan Menne Hi Sue, and City Council Members- Per Sue’s request -resending my Copy of my 6/11/26 Email sent to City Council. See Attachments above & Email Below:
Here’s the Precedents City Council directed the Applicant to follow: itemized below set by Coastal Commission, and my 3 Proposed Conditions of Approval for City to impose- with these met I agreed not to appeal to Coastal Commission.
However, per new Staking onsite-Applicant Morris has chosen to ignore City Council’s Directive to follow the Coastal Commission’s Precedent Roof Height at Zero Curb/sidewalk Height for Shopoff Residence which had all its Topography below Curb height = as does this Krishna Proposed Residence’s topography all being below Curb Height of 160’ Elevation- yet now Applicant proposes 48” Roof Height, 78 feet wide which isn’t subordinate to Scenic Hwy. Public Views, doesn’t respect existing 45’ wide Open Scenic Hwy. Ocean View Corridor from Property Line now at just 16’ wide south setback.
(A compromise 68’ wide home with 30’ setback from south PL = Same as previous home(see 1 stAttachment-Depaulo Residence circa 2014), and still larger than any home on this 9th St. Beach Neighborhood- and must be set below Curb/Sidewalk Height – the same as all 11 adjacent homes that have roofline heights below Curb/Sidewalk Height, and is Not Neighborhood Compatible as staked)- See 4th Aerial attachment and Table 1 – page 3 of 3rd Attachment) Reyna’s Roof height Precedent set by Coastal Commission on 5/13/26 has a 2’11” height existing Topography that allowed existing Topo/Wall to be used with its Roof Height limit.
This doesn’t apply to Krishna new development- as its to be Subordinate to Public’s Scenic Hwy View Corridors per Coastal Commission & City Policies/Guidelines and has no existing condition Topography/ elevations above Curb/Sidewalk Height which Reyna has- so no Rooflines may be above Zero Height Curb/Sidewalk =160’ Elevation.
City Planning has again chosen to ignore its own City & Coastal Commission’s policies and expanded its previous 28-page Staff Reports to a New 195-page City Council approval Draft Document (3rd incorrect/inaccurate) Staff Report ignoring City Policies/General Plan & Scenic Guidelines for this 105’ wide Lot- Public’s Scenic Hwy & Public’s 45’ existing south edge Property line 2 Ocean, Island & Wave View Corridor’s = compromising these Ocean View Corridor’s instead of New Development being Subordinate to these 2 existing Scenic Highway View Corridors that are supposed to be Preserved & Protected for the Public’s Benefit.
This Contradicts existing City Policy, a failure by Planning Dept.( by separate mtg. with Matt & Anthony on 3/9/26 and now 3 Staff Reports that followed) to protect the General Plan Policies & Public’s Scenic Hwy. Ocean View Corridors- It must be sent back to DRB to enforce after 4 failure’s – for a redesign to Conform to City & Coastal Commission Policies & Precedents (as Council Directed) set on their recent hearings for Shopoff/Reyna and now pending Calif. Coastal Commission’s own current Appeal review of 32005 Coast Hwy. Bluff Top Setbacks.( The Shopoff & Reyna “New Development Precedent’s” have been ignored and deflected by Planning Dept. to 2 projects built over 30 years ago and have no current bearing for comparison of current Coastal Commission rulings-which City Council directed to review Renya CCC decision that was on same day-5/13/26, & City Scenic Hwy Resource Document was amended to in 2018)
I’d appreciate a brief site visit at Driveway to visualize loss of Public’s Scenic Hwy. Ocean View Corridor & Blue water/ Wave views lost to one private Development- clearly not Subordinate or Protected for Public’s Existing Resource preservation.
Please call me anytime for a Friday thru Tuesday appointment time before the August 4, 2026 C.C.
Hearing. See it with your own eyes- the Planning Dept 195-page City Council’s draft can’t explain away the Staking showing Wave & Blue Water View Losses of Public’s two Scenic Hwy. Ocean View Corridors compromised from sidewalk and PCH vehicles driving and waiting at 9th St. Signal- actuated 200 times a day.
Respectfully,
Bryan T.S. Menne- Professional Land Planner / Calif. Registered Landscape Architect #1826 949-246-6183
From: bryan menne
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2026 8:17 PM
To: mark orgill; Whalen, Bob <[email protected]>; Jones, Hallie <[email protected]>; Alex Rounaghi; Kempf, Sue <[email protected]>
Cc: Bryan Menne; Patricia Halman-Menne; Mark Fudge; Derek Petersen; Morris Skenderian <[email protected]>; krishna arama
Subject: 31985-87 Coast Hwy- Krishna Residence Proposed.
Mayor Mark Orgill and City Councilmembers;
In the interest of helping the Owner/ Project Applicant being able to get their project Approved/Constructed in the next 1-2 years, I’m summarizing the Constraints, Precedents & COA’s needed to succeed with their redesign/Submittal to City Council by August 4th-Next Hearing at City Council Appeal.
In light of my successful Appeal on 5/13/26 at City Council overturning the DRB approval- (a complete reversal in support of City Policies not followed correctly, and false Staff Reports filled with 57 notations of conflicts/misrepresentations to the 9 City Policies in the LCP, GP with 15 references to preserving Public Views and that new Development will be subordinate to the Scenic Hwy. Views). I’m trusting the redesign will reflect the 2 Precedent’s set below & follows the City Policies for New Development at this resubmittal date and deem future Public Appeals unnecessary.
Precedent #1: *
3 Per our conversation on 5/19/26- I researched the Approved Reyna Project by Coastal Commission & and its Special Conditions that apply to 31985-87 Coast Hwy.( following up on 5/13/26 City Council directive with the 5-0 vote- to identify the Special Conditions the Coastal Commission has set at Reyna’s same date 5/13/26 hearing @ Coastal Commission – Reyna Appeal ) and review of their precedent setting rulings/ approval to be incorporated in Krishna Project as Council directed, avoiding additional conflict with Coastal Commission with their directives noted below. ( As Mark said: wouldn’t they like to avoid not be delayed by 5+ years in Coastal Appeals, & go straight to Construction- as we’d all like to see it built ASAP.
*Attached below is Precedent #1- Coastal Commission Report-Staff Report of Appeal 5/13/26- Substanial Issue & De Novo-A-5-LGB-24-0018 Reyna – 31451 Coast Hwy. Resulting approval Conditions = 180’ Scenic Highway View Corridor over both adjacent Properties https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2026/5/W17a/W17a-5-2026-report.pdf (Reyna- Appeal No. A-5- LGB-24-0018 (SLCA & Christopher Moore- 5/13/26)
P. 2-Summary of Staff Recommendation: “Staff recommends that the Commission determine substantial issue exists…”
“1) The bluff edge determination was not made pursuant to the certified LCP and therefore, all requirements relating to blufftop development were not properly assessed and proposed development would occur on a bluff face;
2)the City did not adequately consider the project’s consistency with the visual resource protection policies of the certified LCP.” …the Commission approve the de Novo permit with the recommended special conditions.”- as follows:
P. 36 Applicant proposed: “This alternative would result in a roof height of 2’-11”above the elevation of the existing curb fronting Coast Highway and maintain the existing approximately 180’ of largely undisturbed blue water views along Coast Hwy( Exhibit 17)”…project would satisfy Policy 7-M by minimizing the obstruction of public views by lowering the proposed project to the extent feasible and as allowed by the topography of the project site” (Note: Reyna’s site Top of existing Wall/Topography elevation is 2’11’ above Curb Height & a factor in this added height above curb-level of Shopoff (Zero elevation).
Therefore, the Krishna Residence proposed (31987 Coast Hwy) maximum Height of onsite topography isthe 160 Elevation @ existing driveway height-within the setback buildable parcel, so this is theMaximum Elevation that should apply to Conditions of Approval for New Construction Roof, Fireplace or any Solar appurtenances approved by City Council to conform to Curb-Level, Elevations set for Roofline maximum Precedent’s #1 & #2 set by Coastal Commission.
Precedent #2:
Previous ruling by Coastal Commission Appeal, & Conditions placed by the City Council/DRB in 2018 for the Shopoff project - adjacent Lot @ 31461 Coast Hwy.- approved with Zero feet (0’) above curb-level rooflines/ railing/fencing, landscape view corridor restrictions to protect the “Scenic Highways View Corridor”. The Driveways for both projects are set at 14% Gradient average /Maximum..
Precedent #3: Ruling made on Dimitry Project by Coastal Commission on 8/13/20 Hearing- Appeal A-5- LGB-17-033. This is the same site = 31987 Coast Hwy address ( Krishna Residence proposed)-The Appeal ruling Set the Bluff Top Elevation by State’s Geologist -Dr. Street: @ Elevation 147-150 for the existing Top of Bluff (See Attachment Above of 2014 DePaulo Residence Bluff-Face Photo-, within South property line-Right side. of 30’ wide Native Bluff-face that still exists today in 2026. (See Aerial Drone Photo after demolition in 2018) and 2 CCC Appeals by D. Peterson & Mark Fudge Th12a-8-2020- report.pdf (Page 24, Dr Street, 147-150 BluƯ-Top elevations. ) DRB previously Approved with a Variance for Existing DePaulo Residence 15% average gradient- same should apply here.
Precedent # 4: 32005 Coast Hwy- Existing /Pending Appeal by 2 Coastal Commissioners- which Appealed the City/ DRB Approval of Feb. 5, 2026- Pending Issue of 150’ Contour Bluff-Top Elevation on 4 3rd property to South of 31987 Coast Hwy -that continues Bluff Top designation on south from 147 to 150 Elevation at 31987 Coast Hwy. This Determination is a Decision of Coastal Commission that is enforceable to the new owner according to Amber Dobson /CCC for Mark Fudge from 10/16/25 Appeal W12b. Th14a-Th14b-2-2026-report Page 13, 150 elevation, per Dr Phil Johnson , Geologist for CCC, https://www.coastal.ca.gov/meetings/agenda/#/2026/2 I believe a compromise will be reached on the Bluff-Top elevation Set by City DRB now at 124.5 elevation for this northern portion of Site (that’s below & outside the 30’ Southern edge of site – identified as being a Native undisturbed Bluff-face protected-never being graded historically within its ESA Bluff Face to the 147 Bluff-Top Determination- of Dr Phillip Johnson ) Previous Northern area developed area (DePaulo Residence)was only limited by former roof height of 156.2- that’s 6’ below existing Driveway 160 elevation, and the former Pearman Residence edge – that formed the 45’ wide Public’s Ocean View Corridor boundary identified & quantified as a View Resource to Scenic Highway and Public Sidewalk Views to be protected.
With the 6.5’ Northern Setback of former DePaulo utilized-this leaves a compromise of 68’ buildable width within the largest existing 104’5’ Lot width total, -not the 78.5’ house width proposed, and avoiding the southern 30’ Setback Area that’s Native Undisturbed ESA Buff-face/ Scenic Ocean View Corridor that’s excluded from any development per Coastal Commission area as a protected ESA & Ocean Scenic View resource- with no construction allowed / prohibited. (See attached Table 1-3rd page- 11 adjacent home rooflines, are below Curb-Level, and Krishna Residence would still be wider & Larger than all 11 adjacent homes in 1000 Steps Ocean Front Neighborhood) .
With these parameters of CCC precedents & COA’s suggested below, I would forego my future appeal to Coastal Commission, and support this project that Protects the Public’s Scenic Ocean View resources.
Conditions of Approval by City Council : Preserves the Existing Public Scenic Highway Ocean, Wave & Island View Corridor of White & Bluewater Resources over the entire 31985-87 Coast Hwy. 104.5 foot Lot-width area of Krishna Residence proposed project. ( Follows Precedent’s set on Shopoff & Reynaapproved by CCC., and is still larger than any of 11 existing adjacent Oceanfront Homes).
1. Building Roofline/Appurtenance elevations are certified as below the 160 Curb-Level, and outside the 30’ minimum Southern setback /Buffer to Peterson Residence Property Line- maintains an undisturbed Bluff-Face to 147 elevation – without any Building, Landscape, Gate/Fencing or other intrusions into the Blue Water/ Wave & Whitewater views being protected from the Sidewalk vantage point of the existing driveway being preserved, granted with a Variance (15% average as exists on South side of property entry- 31987 Coast Hwy. thereby protecting the safe exit visibility of 2 southern adjacent driveways, and existing Scenic Highway View Corridor).
2. Maximum Roofline/Appurtenances set at 160’ Elevation across entire site to preserve overview Corridor for Scenic Highway- Ocean & Island Blue water Ocean Views specified in 9 City Policies for preservation, including all structures/ onsite Security Fencing/Gates, existing overgrown weeds/ vegetation & Landscaping allowed to block historic view corridor since the 2018 demolition/ clean site status.
3. Maintain a 30’ wide unobstructed Ocean View Corridor on South property edge = a Building & Landscape Setback from the South Peterson Property line fence/ wall limiting the elevation to the 147 Sightline Elevation without intrusions blocking the Ocean, in perpetuity for maintenance of the existing Public Ocean View corridor to the 14 feet(147 Elev. ) below maximum of existing driveway/sidewalk(160 elev.) . provides the protected Scenic Highway Ocean View Corridor of Wave & Whitewater Ocean Views from the existing 3.5 foot high sightline for Coast Highway vehicle views and 5’ Public Sidewalk pedestrian eye height(includes 12 inch maximum ground cover height above 147 Elevation Bluff-Top CCC Determination) 5 ILLECAL CLEARING
NATIVE COASTAL ELUFF COAST BLUFF TOP LINE 30 WIDEL
EXHT.N DRONE VIDED - DATE 9/3/18
ILLEGAL CLEARING
NATIVE COASTAL BUFF COASTAL BLUFF TOP LINE 30
EXHT.L
DRON RONE VIDED - DATE 9/3/18
31987 Coast Hwy. – Menne Appeal: Protect Public “Scenic Hwy.” Ocean View Precedent is set of (0’) Zero height Rooflines on new construction since 2018- West St @ PCH • GP, Public’s “Landscape & Scenic Highways Element” protects Ocean View Corridors (exht.) “New development in highly scenic areas…shall be subordinate to the character of its setting” • Roofline below curb-level precedent set@ 31497 Bluff Dr/Coast Hwy-Shopoff Res. In 2018(see Exht.) • Roofline below Curb per pending CCC appeal @ 31451 Coast Hwy- Reyna Res.-3/12/24(see Exht.) • 105’ wide Lot affords longer Dwy. to meet precedent set- West St. /Coast Hwy 2018 Project(Shopoff) • 11 homes adjacent to Project have Rooflines below Curb-level height.(see aerial,map) 1930 DePaulo Estate home-this property had Elev. 148 roofline, 11’ below 159 curb. (See photo) • Property is 1 of only 5 “Scenic Highway” View Corridors remaining in S. Laguna = protect Protect ex. 45’ wide Ocean / Island View Corridor“Scenic Highway”(1930/ 96 yrs -see Photo) Protected “Scenic Hwy.” Ocean View Corridor = Blocked by 8’ high x 78.5’ wide Roofline.(see Photo) • 17 homes & 3 Streets have 20% Gradients next to & near this Project Lot (5th to 3 Arch Bay) 1 Variance onsite- ex. historic 20% dwy., 14% ave. = “Scenic Hwy” Ocean View Policies preserved!! • Variances for 10’ &14’ Retaining walls -Front Setback & Bluff-top Setbacks are not justifiable. • Plan violates 9+ City Policies of General Plan, LUE, LUP, LCP, Des. Guidelines, M.Code(see exhibit) (See highlighted DRB-SR comments delivered on 3/4/26)Staff Report reviewed in 1.5 hour mtg. w/ CDD-Matthew Schneider & DDCD Anthony Viera & City-DRB letter 3/10/26).
A. “New Development = Subordinate to Public’s “Scenic Highways view” See Alt. Site Plan w/ DRB,CCC Precedent Curb-level Roofline - Shopoff 31497 Bluff Dr.- ( see photos) • Owner can build Home within the City’s Policies w/ roofline @ set 160 elev. curb-level (see Aerial exht.) • Protect Site -1 of 5 “Scenic Highway Ocean View Corridors” left in S. Laguna – 105’ Lot width(see Alt. Site Plan) • GP/ Public “Landscape & Scenic Highways Element” protects 45’ & 105’ Ocean View Corridors (Policy exht.) B. Neighborhood Character & Compatibility – Summary
• Match 11 homes adjacent to Project, all have Rooflines below Curb-level height (see Aerial) • See West St./PCH- Precedent Curb-level Roofline- Shopoff 31497 Bluff Dr. (see ex. Aerial Photo) (Dimitry 2019 - 2-3 levels 2016-17 = 6,500 SF- CCC appeal, abandoned/ sold) (Roof 156.7) 31987 Coast Hwy.-DePaulo home(1930-2018)= 3,000 SF 2 levels Roof 148.3 31985 Coast Hwy. - Pearman Home = 2,300 SF 2 levels Roof 175.5 31987 Coast Hwy.-Krishna home proposed= 6,529 SF , Decks proposed= 2,832 SF (Total Bldg.= 10,174 SF) Shopoff precedent-8,082sf to 5,855sf(-31%), Decks 1359sf to 550 sf(-60%) = 5,300 SF Home + 1,700 SF Deck = 7,000 SF Total C. Summary Design Constraints - Neighborhood Comparison - (See Table 1 - Exhibit) • Owner can build Home within the City’s Policies w/ roofline set @ 159 curb-level (see Aerial photo, Alt. Site Plan) • Protect GP/ City Policy: “Landscape & Scenic Highways Element” - 105’ Ocean View Corridor (See policy exht.) • Curb-level roofline- Elev. 159 for the property- protect public’s “Scenic Highways” Ocean & Island View Corridor” • Preserve South Setback 30’ Buffer (DePaulo Res.)= Privacy, Scenic View Corridor, North Stbk. @ 6.5’ previous • Set Maximum Bldg. Width to 68’ - Matching former Historic DePaulo Home’s same precedent on ex.104.5’ width • Retain south entry Dwy. for Safe adjacent Lot egress, Grandfather Ex. Driveway 20%, 14% ave.( see Alt. Site Plan) Table 1.- Neighborhood Comps. - Oceanfront- 11 Adjacent Neighbor homes (See aerial photo, Topographic / Lot map- 100 scale )
# Address Owner SQ. FT. Home width Lot width
1. 31965 Coast Hwy.- Zinke 2,707 SF 23’ +- 35’
2. 31971 Coast Hwy.- Ingwerson 5,756 SF 48’ 85’+-
3. 31981 Coast Hwy.- Jackson 5,000 SF 28’ 35’
4. (31987 Coast Hwy.- DePaulo -demo.) (3,000 SF) (68’) (1930-2018) 105’ (Pearman 2,300) New 31987 Coast Hwy.- Krishna (6,529 SF) (78.5’) use 68’ 105’ (10,174 SF)
5. 31995 Coast Hwy.- Peterson 4,100 SF 35’ 28’
6. 32001 Coast Hwy.- DiGenova 3,300 SF 35’ 28’
7. 32007 Coast Hwy.- 32007 LLC 5,150 SF 60’ 50’
8. 32011 Coast Hwy.- Renwick lower 3,000 SF 30’ +- 45’+-
9. 32011 Coast Hwy.- Renwick upper 1,500 SF 35’ +- 45’+-
10. 32013 Coast Hwy.- Schlaerth, Dee 2,425 SF 28’ +- 45’ +-
11. 32015 Coast Hwy.- Early Spring LLC 5,300 SF 40’ +- 45’ +- Total Neighborhood Compatible Residence = 6,100 SF 68’ wide Max., (82% alternative) Maximum Building size for Compatible Residence = 8,300 SF Total (6,100sf Res., 1,700sf Decks, 500sf Gar.) • 2 & 3 levels feasible- Roofline @ 159 Elevation = upper FF146/Garage 149), mid.134 , Lower 122 (See Alt. Site Plan) • Delete any Bluff-Face New Development/Easement, retain Ex. Stairsteps for private access/maintenance/upkeep Funicular • Option to Reverse Floor Plan & have Master Bdrm on 30’ south Bluff Face Setback Area/View Corridor