Attach 1 - Resolution - 31985 & 31987 Coast Highway — Laguna Beach City Council, August 4, 2026

RESOLUTION NO. 26.XXX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL AND
SUSTAINING THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD’S APPROVAL OF
DESIGN REVIEW 2026-0024, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
2026-0025, AND VARIANCE 2026-0026 FOR DEMOLITION OF THE

EXISTING STRUCTURES AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW

SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH A TWO-CAR GARAGE AND
OTHER RELATED IMPROVEMENTS AT 31985 AND 31987 COAST
HIGHWAY IN THE R-1, RESIDENTIAL LOW-DENSITY ZONE

SUBJECT TO IMPOSING MORE RESTRICTIVE CONDITIONS OF

APPROVAL, AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES
SECTION 15303
WHEREAS, the property owner, 888 Pacific Holdings LLC and Rama Krishna1 (“Applicant”), of 31985 and 31987 Coast Highway (the “Property”), applied for Design Review (“DR”) 2026-0024, Coastal Development Permit (“CDP”) 2026-0025 for demolition of the existing structures and construction of a new single-family dwelling with a two-car garage in the R-1 (Residential Low Density) zone. Design review is required for the new structure, new vehicular access, elevator height, elevated decks, grading, retaining walls, pool, spa, pedestrian entry feature, landscaping, and construction in an environmentally sensitive area (due to oceanfront proximity) pursuant to Laguna Beach Municipal Code (“LBMC”) Section

25.05.040(B)(1). A coastal development permit is required for the above-described improvements [LBMC Section 25.07.008(A)(1)(c)]. A variance is requested for 1) reconstruction of the funicular and associated access components (stairs, landings, terrace, retaining walls, and gates) and maintaining stairs, walkways, and retaining walls within the bluff [LBMC Section

25.50.004(B)(4)]; and 2) to exceed the maximum wall height within the front yard setback [LBMC 1 The Project’s agent is Morris Skenderian who is within the definition of Applicant.

Attachment 1
10 -2- Reso. #
Section 25.50.012(B)(3)] (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, on February 26, 2026, the Design Review Board (“Board”) held a duly noticed public hearing and considered the Project. After receiving input from staff, the Applicant, and public comments, the Board discussed the Project and approved the Project with a 4-0 vote under Board Resolution No. 2026-0024, conditionally approving the Project, and including the approval of a categorical exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines Section 15303 (the “Board Approval”); and WHEREAS, on March 10, 2026, Bryan Menne (“Appellant”) of 31988 10th Avenue, filed an appeal of the Board Approval (“Appeal”); and
WHEREAS, public notice was duly provided to consider the appeal of the Project at the May 13, 2026 City Council meeting in accordance with LBMC Section 25.05.065; and WHEREAS, on May 13, 2026, the City Council held a public hearing on the Appeal and carefully considered the oral and documentary evidence and arguments presented, and continued the hearing to the August 4, 2026, City Council meeting, to allow the Applicant an opportunity to evaluate potential design modifications that could reduce the building height as viewed from Coast Highway; and
WHEREAS, on August 4, 2026, the City Council held a public hearing on the Appeal and carefully considered the oral and documentary evidence and arguments presented.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH DOES RESOLVE:

SECTION 1. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution by this reference.
11 -3- Reso. #
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby makes the following findings in response to grounds for the Appeal stated in Appellants’ notice of Appeal:

1. “Public View Protection, Precedent, and Consistency with Prior Approvals” City Council’s Response
The Appellant asserts that the Project blocks a 45-foot-wide public ocean view corridor and conflicts with policies2 of the Land Use Element (“LUE”), coastal Land Use Plan (“LUP”), and the Landscape and Scenic Highways Element. As an initial matter, while the Appellant references the Landscape and Scenic Highways Element generally, the Appeal does not identify any specific policy language with which the Project is inconsistent. In the absence of identified policy conflicts, there is no substantial evidence demonstrating that the project violates any particular provision of that Element. Notwithstanding, the Project was reviewed for consistency with all applicable General Plan and LUP policies, including those related to scenic resources and public views.

The applicable policies do not require absolute preservation of all existing public or private views, nor do they mandate the creation or maintenance of a fixed-width public view corridor.

Rather, these policies require that new development protect and minimize impacts to public views to the extent feasible, while balancing other considerations such as site constraints, property rights, and compatible development. The project was evaluated in this context, including analysis of its visibility from Coast Highway and nearby public vantage points such as pedestrian areas and beach accessways.
2 LUE Policies 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 3.10, 7.3, 10.2; and LUP Policy 2.9 12 -4- Reso. #
While the City Council finds that the Board Approval could be found generally consistent with these policies, the Council further finds that additional modifications are appropriate to better implement the City's public view protection objectives and to provide greater view permeability from Coast Highway. Accordingly, the Council has imposed additional conditions of approval requiring increased side yard setbacks and reductions in the overall roof elevations of both the residence and garage. These modifications represent a more conservative design solution that further minimizes visual obstruction while remaining consistent with the applicable zoning regulations.

The Board found that the proposed structure’s height, setbacks, and stepped massing reduce perceived bulk while flat roof elements and articulated forms maintain a lower visual profile relative to allowable envelope limits. The City Council finds that the additional more restrictive conditions of approval further enhance these design characteristics by increasing the combined side yard setbacks to not less than 26 feet, 3 inches, including a minimum 16-foot south side yard setback and a 10-foot, 3-inch north side yard setback, thereby widening the visual corridor between adjacent development as viewed from Coast Highway. In addition, limiting the maximum roof elevation of the main residence to Elevation 163.50 and the garage to Elevation 162.00 further reduces the apparent mass and scale of the Project from public vantage points along Coast Highway.

Based on City Council’s review of the administrative record, site visits, and photographic simulations, the City Council finds that the Project with more restrictive conditions of approval will provide an enhanced public view corridor compared to the Board Approval while continuing to avoid complete obstruction of coastal views from Coast Highway or nearby public vantage 13 -5- Reso. #
points. Views remain available from multiple locations along the corridor, and the required reductions in height and increased building separation further improve the openness of these intermittent coastal views. Board Member Gannon stated, “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 the view for people.3” Board Member Coveny noted, “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.4 ”Accordingly, the Board
concluded that the Project is consistent with applicable view protection policies, which allow for some degree of impact when balanced against property rights and design constraints.

The City’s Design Guidelines and Local Coastal Program (“LCP”) define “view equity” as a balancing standard, not an absolute protection of existing views. The approved Project was conditioned and reviewed to reduce bulk through articulation, setbacks, and terracing; remains within the applicable zoning envelope; is comparable in scale to other residences along this 3 Attachment 9 February 26, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 12 [Gannon]. 4 Attachment 9 February 26, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 12 [Coveny]. 14 -6- Reso. #
segment of Coast Highway, which include large, multi-level homes due to topography and lot configuration. The Board considered public input and determined that the project does not unreasonably deprive adjacent properties of views, nor does it exceed what is typical for the area.

The Project with the more restrictive conditions of approval advances this balancing objective by reducing building mass, increasing side yard setback areas, and improving view opportunities from the public right-of-way while remaining within the City’s development standards.

Currently, ocean views from Coast Highway in the vicinity of the project are intermittent, occurring in the gaps between existing residential structures and experienced primarily by passing motorists, rather than stationary viewers (Figure 1). The Board Approval would maintain view opportunities along the public right-of-way, particularly through the spacing afforded by the 100- foot-wide lot (Figure 2). Although the proposed residence will continue to occupy a portion of the site, the additional more restrictive conditions of approval, consisting of the increased setbacks and reduced roof elevations, lessen the degree to which the Project narrows existing oblique view angles and further minimizes impacts to public coastal views. The Project with the more restrictive conditions of approval does not eliminate a designated or formally recognized public view corridor, as none exists at this location, nor would it obstruct a notably prominent view of the coastline. In addition, broader and more prominent ocean and coastline views remain available elsewhere in the City and at various South Laguna locations. In this area, both existing and proposed public views are better characterized as brief, secondary ocean views, which are typical along the ocean side of Coast Highway in South Laguna, where narrow “windows to the sea” are created between structures on adjacent lots within their side yard setback areas. 15 -7- Reso. #
Figure 1: Existing Intermittent Views and Relative Building Heights of Nearby Residential Development Along Coast Highway
Prior Coastal Commission decisions have determined that limited or transitory view obstructions do not constitute a significant adverse impact. For example, in Appeal No. A-6-PEN23-00535 , the Commission found no significant adverse impact where a project obstructed only “fleeting” views from a public roadway. Similarly, in Appeal No. A-6-DMR-22-00346, the Commission concluded that a view obstruction from a single vantage point did not constitute a substantial impact where the view is restored upon movement along the public way. Overall, while the project introduces some additional structure within the existing gap, it does not result in a significant adverse impact to a protected or established public viewing resource and provides for the removal of some vegetation which may open up views. The City Council nevertheless concludes that the additional conditions of approval further reduce potential view impacts beyond 5 https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2024/2/Th19b/Th19b-2-2024-report.pdf 6 https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2022/9/W17a/w17a-9-2022-report.pdf 16 -8- Reso. #
those previously analyzed by lowering the roof profile and increasing the open space between structures, thereby providing greater consistency with the City's view protection objectives.

Figure 2: Existing and Proposed Street Elevation Renderings 17 -9- Reso. #
Figure 3: Existing Site Conditions and Staking of the Project The subject site is located along Coast Highway and consists of an approximately 100- foot-wide frontage. While Coast Highway is a public travel corridor, opportunities for the public to safely stop and experience stationary ocean views in the immediate vicinity of the project site are limited. The Project frontage and surrounding segments of Coast Highway are predominantly lined with red curbs on both sides, restricting vehicle stopping and parking. On the ocean side of the highway, much of shoulder consists of curb cuts for existing driveway improvements, which further restrict parking opportunities. Figure 4 depicts the nearest area where members of the public are likely to park and access views from the intersection of Coast Highway and 7th Avenue in the Providence Mission Hospital vicinity, located inland and approximately 850 feet northwest of the Project site. Given these conditions, the Project frontage functions primarily as a passthrough visual corridor rather than a designated or practical public viewing area.

More suitable public coastal viewing opportunities are provided at established recreation and access points along Coast Highway, which are designed to accommodate visitation. These 18 -10- Reso. #
locations offer designated access and improved vantage points, including access to Thousand Steps Beach, where the public can experience broader and more scenic ocean views. The availability of these proximate, purpose-built facilities further supports that the Project frontage is not a significant or functional public coastal viewing area.

Figure 4: Project Site Along Coast Highway and Nearby Parking Conditions For these reasons, the City Council finds that the Board Approval is generally consistent with applicable policies related to protection of public views and would not result in a significant 19 -11- Reso. #
adverse impact requiring denial of the Project or the full extent of the modifications requested by the Appellant. Any intermittent view interruption associated with the proposed development would be minor, peripheral, and limited to a narrow vantage point along Coast Highway. As such, the effect is brief and not materially different from the types of “fleeting” or location-specific obstructions previously determined not to constitute significant adverse impacts. Nevertheless, in the exercise of its independent discretion, the City Council has determined that additional conditions requiring increased side yard setbacks and reduced roof elevations will further enhance the openness of the public view corridor along Coast Highway and better implement the City's General Plan, certified Local Coastal Program, and Design Guidelines. The City Council finds that these modifications further minimize impacts to public coastal views while maintaining a reasonable balance between protection of public scenic resources and the reasonable residential development of the property.

Pedestrian activity in this vicinity is also transient in nature; individuals traveling along Coast Highway are typically en route to coastal access points such as Thousand Steps Beach rather than lingering along the roadway (Figure 5). This segment functions primarily as a through-traffic corridor within a predominantly residential area, and meaningful public ocean views are more fully realized upon arrival at the beach itself. From a motorist perspective, views along this stretch are similarly intermittent and constrained, generally limited to brief, oblique glimpses between existing residential development and roadside conditions, rather than broad or sustained viewing opportunities. Moreover, there is no signalized intersection along the Project frontage where both pedestrians and motorists are more likely to stop to take in the ocean view. 20 -12- Reso. #
Figure 5: View Looking Southbound Demonstrating Motorist Perspective and Pedestrian Activity, the Project Site is in the Foreground to the Right Additionally, the absence of sidewalk infrastructure along the east (inland) side of Coast Highway in this location further limits the likelihood that members of the public would experience the asserted impact from the specific vantage point identified by the Appellant.

Figure 6: View Looking East Along Coast Highway, Across the Highway from the Project Site and Predominately Lined with Red Curbs with Absence of Sidewalk Infrastructure The Appellant conflates incidental, localized corridor views with recognized public coastal viewpoints. More expansive and intentional public ocean views are available at nearby coastal access points, including the Montage area and Aliso Beach, which provide broad, elevated, and largely unobstructed coastal vistas with designated public access and parking and other public amenities. These locations function as primary public viewing destinations and offer significantly more expansive view opportunities than those available along this segment of Coast Highway. 21 -13- Reso. #
Figure 7: Montage Views, Shown Looking Northbound (above) and West (below) Figure 8: Aliso Beach Views, Shown Looking Southbound (above) and Northbound (below) By contrast, the Project site is located along a developed residential stretch of Coast Highway that is not identified as a protected public view corridor under the City’s certified LCP, including the Open Space and Conservation Element. This segment is distinguishable from areas 22 -14- Reso. #
such as the vicinity of Montage Laguna Beach, Thousand Steps Beach, and Aliso Beach, where established access points and designated view corridors support intentional public coastal viewing.

No comparable designated public view corridor exists at or near the Project site.

Accordingly, while the City Council does not find that the Board Approval created a significant adverse impact to public coastal views, it finds that the additional conditions of approval provide additional protection of public views by increasing view permeability and reducing the visual prominence of the proposed residence. These conditions more effectively implement the General Plan, certified Local Coastal Program, and Design Guidelines concerning protection of scenic resources while allowing development consistent with the underlying zoning.

Interpreting minor, location-specific view interruptions as constituting adverse impacts would be inconsistent with established Coastal Commission precedent and would effectively preclude a wide range of otherwise permissible development throughout Laguna Beach. This is especially relevant here because the lot is wider than most nearby properties. A wider lot naturally allows for a broader building footprint, which can affect views differently than the narrower, more typical lots in the area.

The Appellant references precedent; however, the City Council’s review of nearby properties with similar frontage widths indicates variability in design outcomes and no uniform requirement for curb-height rooflines. 31971 Coast Highway and 32161 Coast Highway are both developed on lots of comparable width of approximately 100 feet. Each accommodates residential structures that partially frame and limit ocean views from Coast Highway, and neither site preserves a full-width, unobstructed public view corridor. The proposed Project is consistent with this established pattern, providing comparable spacing and view permeability relative to similarly 23 -15- Reso. #
sized parcels.

Figure 9: Comparative Street View of 31971 Coast Highway (left) and 32161 Coast Highway (right)
With respect to the Appellant’s claim regarding precedent, the identification of two prior projects approved at different locations within the City does not establish a binding or controlling standard applicable to all development along Coast Highway. Land use determinations are inherently site-specific and must be evaluated based on the unique physical characteristics, the Project’s setting, zoning regulations, and applicable policies of each property. The City is not legally obligated to apply identical design constraints across dissimilar sites, particularly where the General Plan does not prescribe a uniform development standard such as a curb-height roofline limitation. Moreover, the broader development pattern along the Coast Highway corridor consists predominantly of residential, commercial and mixed-use structures with varying heights, massing, and architectural forms. The subject Project is consistent with this established pattern of development and does not introduce a scale or form that is materially out of character with the surrounding area. The additional project-specific conditions imposed by the City Council respond 24 -16- Reso. #
to the unique visibility of this site and further advance public view protection objectives.

The project site does not contain a formally recognized or protected public view corridor.

Public viewing opportunities at this location are limited, intermittent, and primarily experienced in transit. The proposed development maintains a level of view permeability consistent with nearby properties of similar width. Significant public ocean views remain readily available at nearby designated coastal access points. Nevertheless, through the required increase in side yard setbacks, reduction in roof elevations, and Director of Community Development review of the revised plans for substantial conformance with the City Council's action, the Project with the additional conditions of approval will provide greater visual openness and improved public view opportunities from Coast Highway than the originally approved design. Accordingly, as modified by the Council's conditions of approval, the Board Approval is consistent with applicable General Plan policies, the certified Local Coastal Program, and the Laguna Beach Municipal Code regarding protection of public coastal views while remaining compatible with surrounding development.

2. “Bluff Development and Environmental Constraints”
City Council’s Response
The record does not support these assertions. The project is located on a previously developed infill residential site, and no environmentally sensitive habitat area (“ESHA”) has been identified on the Property. The Project consolidates two legal lots into a single parcel, thereby eliminating a potential building site farther down the bluff. As a result, development is intentionally concentrated closer to the street, reducing the need for additional bluff encroachment and minimizing disturbance of the lower bluff area. This design approach concentrates 25 -17- Reso. #
improvements in a less environmentally sensitive portion of the site and is consistent with policies encouraging reduced intensity and greater protection of coastal bluff resources.

The Board evaluated and approved the requested variances for the funicular, stairs, and related improvements, finding them consistent with site constraints, surrounding development patterns, and applicable findings. The Board also determined that these features provide a public safety benefit, including enhanced emergency access, and incorporated project-specific conditions of approval. The variance findings collectively support the funicular as a justified public safety improvement due to the site’s unique conditions and constrained access to Thousand Steps Beach.

The Property’s unusual width and location along a heavily used beach with a single, steep, and congested stairway (approximately 223 steps) create exceptional circumstances that limit timely emergency response. The proposed funicular secured for first responder use via easement provides a reliable, faster, and safer “express” route for emergency access and patient transport, supplementing existing stair access and aligning with privileges afforded to similarly situated properties. No general public access is contemplated. Given the high volume of rescues and medical incidents in the area, the project enhances public health and safety without detriment to the surrounding neighborhood and is consistent with General Plan policies that allow bluff development for public safety purposes. Moreover, the bluffs that overlook Thousand Steps Beach in this general area are typified not by pristine, natural conditions, but by limited improvements that traverse the bluff face down to the beach, which include private beach access stairs. In some cases, developed properties in the area also maintain dwelling units at beach level. While these conditions are legal, non-conforming as they do not comply with the blufftop setback requirement, the intensity of residential development is such that there is no known ESHA on the Project site. 26 -18- Reso. #
The project was reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and determined to be exempt, with no substantial evidence of significant environmental impacts requiring further review. The CEQA determination is supported by specific findings that the Project qualifies for a Class 3 categorical exemption (CEQA Guidelines §15303) as it involves demolition of existing development and construction of a single-family residence with accessory improvements in a residential (R-1) zone. The record confirms there is no substantial evidence of unusual circumstances or a reasonable possibility of significant environmental effects. The site, while oceanfront, does not contain environmentally sensitive habitat areas, is not located on a hazardous materials site, and will not impact historical resources. Additionally, the Project will not result in cumulative impacts, nor will it damage scenic resources along Coast Highway, as the improvements are limited in height and scale relative to the surrounding streetscape. The Board further found that none of the exceptions under CEQA Guidelines §15300.2 apply. Accordingly, the approved entitlement record substantiates the exemption. Claims regarding infeasibility of the proposed improvements or the need for additional variances are speculative and not supported by the entitlement record.

With respect to Coastal Act policies, the site is within an urbanized coastal area. The Project is compatible with the surrounding built environment and incorporates design measures to reduce visual prominence in that it is proposed less than eight feet above the curb along Coast Highway. The Board’s findings appropriately apply Coastal Act and Local Coastal Program standards, which require visual compatibility, not the elimination of all development impacts7 .
7 May 13, 2026 Agenda Report Attachment 4 Signed Final Resolution 2026-0024, Section 4 (Pages 9-15). LCP Oceanfront and Bluff Top Policies: Land Use Element (LUE) Policy 2.10, LUE Actions 7.3.3, 7.3.4, 7.3.5, 7.3.5,

7.3.6, 7.3.8, 7.3.11; LCP Coastal View Policies: LUE Policy 2.8, 2.10, 3.10, 7.3, 10.2; and Coastal Land Use Plan Technical Appendix Section 30251.
27 -19- Reso. #
Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that the Project, including bluff-related improvements, is consistent with applicable environmental and coastal resource policies.

3. “Driveway Access, and Alternative Site Plan Proposal” City Council’s Response
The City’s Zoning Code regulates driveway design, location, and maximum allowable slopes for new development. While certain existing conditions may be considered legal, nonconforming (“grandfathered”), such conditions may not be preserved when a property is redeveloped, nor do they establish a right to replicate or expand nonconforming features. New development is required to comply with current Zoning Code standards to the maximum extent feasible, including provisions related to driveway gradients, safety, and site circulation, unless a variance is granted. The approved project was reviewed for consistency with these standards, and the proposed driveway configuration was determined to meet applicable Zoning Code requirements and public safety considerations.

With respect to the Appellant’s assertion that the alternative driveway design would provide safer access, the Project was evaluated through the City’s established review process, including consideration of site-specific constraints such as topography, sight distance, and access alignment with Coast Highway. The approved driveway location and design were found to provide safe and functional vehicular access consistent with City standards. The existence of other driveways in the vicinity with steeper gradients does not establish a requirement or preference for similar configurations, as each property must be evaluated on its own physical characteristics and in compliance with current regulations. The existing driveway for 31987 Coast Highway, which 28 -20- Reso. #
has an approximate slope of 15%, does not conform to the gradient standards set forth in LBMC Section 25.52.008(I)(3) and, as such, cannot and should not be maintained in its current configuration. The Code limits driveway gradients to an average of ten percent within the first twenty feet from the right-of-way, fourteen percent for the next 130 feet, and twelve percent thereafter, unless specific exceptions apply. The proposed project corrects this nonconforming condition by redesigning the driveway to better align with current municipal standards, while responding to the inherent constraints of the site’s hillside topography.

Regarding the proposed alternative site plan, the City’s review authority is limited to the Project as submitted by the Applicant. While Design Review includes consideration of site planning, massing, and neighborhood compatibility pursuant to the City’s Design Review Criteria and adopted Design Guidelines, it does not obligate the decision-making body to redesign a project or require adoption of an alternative concept proposed by a third party. The approved Project was found to be consistent with applicable Design Review Criteria, including those related to scale, massing, and integration with the natural topography, as well as compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood context.

The Appellant’s alternative proposal also assumes the preservation of a fixed public view corridor across private property; however, neither the Zoning Code, Design Review Criteria, nor the City’s Design Guidelines require the dedication or maintenance of such a corridor in this context. As discussed in herein, applicable policies require that visual impacts be minimized to the extent feasible, not eliminated entirely.

The approved Project’s driveway design and overall site plan comply with applicable Zoning Code standards, satisfy Design Review Criteria, and provide safe and functional access. 29 -21- Reso. #
The Appellant has not demonstrated that the approved design is inconsistent with applicable regulations or that the proposed alternative is required to achieve compliance.

4. “Project is Not Compatible with Neighborhood”
City Council’s Response
With respect to building width and massing, the subject site is atypical in that it consists of two legal lots under common ownership, resulting in an overall site width of approximately 104 feet. This condition distinguishes the Property from the prevailing lot pattern in the area, where parcels are typically 40 to 50 feet in width. It should also be noted that the site was previously developed with two single-family dwellings, and the proposed Project reduces overall density by merging two legal building sites into one. The approved Project, while approximately 76.8 feet in width, is situated on a substantially wider site and has been further conditioned by the City Council to relocate the residence to provide a minimum 16-foot south side yard setback and a minimum 10-foot, three-inch north side yard setback, resulting in a combined side yard setback of not less than 26 feet, three inches. These setbacks exceed the minimum Code requirements of approximately 10.4 feet each side (20.86 feet combined), as well as the typical 4- to 5-foot side yard setbacks associated with standard 40- to 50-foot-wide lots. Additionally, these setbacks provide greater separation between the proposed residence and adjacent development than the Board Approval. The increased side yard setbacks also create a wider visual opening across the site from Coast Highway, thereby enhancing public view opportunities while maintaining compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood.

The Design Review Criteria and the City’s Design Guidelines – A Guide to Residential Development emphasize that compatibility is not determined solely by numerical comparisons of 30 -22- Reso. #
building size, but rather by the relationship of a structure to its site, its articulation, and its integration with surrounding development and topography. In this case, the Project incorporates stepped massing, varied roof forms, and articulated elevations that break up building bulk and reduce the perception of scale. In particular, the Project was designed to step with the topography and maintain a single-story building appearance from the highway. Deck and courtyard areas are integrated into the overall design and are consistent with residential use in coastal settings, and their placement does not result in visual or spatial impacts that would render the project incompatible with the neighborhood.

The City Council further finds that the revised roof elevations and setback configuration improves the relationship of the residence to the unusually wide parcel by increasing the openness between adjacent structures, reducing the perceived horizontal mass of the building as viewed from Coast Highway, and reinforcing the visual pattern of building separation that characterizes this portion of the coastal neighborhood.

Furthermore, the surrounding development pattern along Coast Highway is characterized by a mix of residential structures with varying widths, heights, and architectural forms, rather than a uniform or consistent building envelope. The Board made the following finding regarding neighborhood compatibility8
, “The area is a coastal residential neighborhood situated on a bluff above the shoreline, immediately adjacent to a primary coastal roadway (Coast Highway) with local residential streets extending inland. Development reflects a long-established coastal village pattern, where homes are closely integrated with the natural bluff, beach access points, and oceanoriented views. The proposed home is generally compatible with the existing coastal neighborhood 8 DRB Resolution 2026-0024, Section 3; Finding 1, Criterion 9 (Page 6). 31 -23- Reso. #
character, particularly in terms of height, architectural style, and response to topography. The design aligns with the prevailing pattern of contemporary, multi-level coastal residences along the bluff.”
The City Council agrees with this general conclusion and further finds that the modified roof elevations and side yard setbacks imposed as conditions of approval enhance neighborhood compatibility by reducing the visual presence of the structure along Coast Highway and providing greater spacing between development than the Board Approval.

The Appellant submitted an exhibit as part of the appeal depicting the north elevation and highlighting an area alleged to require a variance. The Appellant’s conclusion is based on a misinterpretation of the elevation drawing, which shows architectural articulation and varying wall planes rather than a uniform building face. While portions of the structure appear taller in the elevation view, compliance with height limits is determined by “the vertical distance from any point on the finished roof surface to the finished floor surface of the lowest floor measured directly below or to the natural or finished grade, whichever is more restrictive or lower9 ,” as verified in
the building sections and not by isolated visual projections in an elevation. The complete plan set, including all sections, demonstrates that no portion of the structure exceeds the maximum allowable building height at any point. As such, the perceived need for a height variance is not supported by the actual code-compliant height measurements reflected in the approved plans.

The Project was reviewed for compliance with the City’s Zoning Code, including standards governing height, floor area, setbacks, and site development regulations. The sections (Figures 10- 12) clearly demonstrate that the structure remains within the maximum allowable height for the 9 Laguna Beach Municipal Code Section 25.08.016(a) Words beginning with “H,” “Height, building.” 32 -24- Reso. #
zone. As conditioned and approved, the Project complies with the applicable height measurement provisions of the Zoning Code10, and no variance is required. Due to the project’s articulated design and the stepping of the building along the site’s down-sloping topography, height is distributed across varying elevations rather than concentrated at a single plane. This design approach is consistent with the City’s height measurement methodology and Design Guidelines, and it ensures that the Project complies with all applicable height limits. In fact, the figure below demonstrates that the originally proposed residence would be set eight feet below the maximum allowed building height at Coast Highway.

Figure 10: Building Site Section A - Sheet A.3.1
Demonstrating Compliance with Maximum Building Height Envelope 10 Maximum building height permitted above curb elevation is 15 feet. Maximum building height permitted above finished or natural grade, whichever is more restrictive, is 30 feet. 33 -25- Reso. #
Figure 11: Building Site Section B - Sheet A.3.2
Demonstrating Compliance with Maximum Building Height Envelope Figure 12: Building Site Section C – Sheet A3.3 Depicting Proposed Structure is Below Maximum Building Height Requirements (15-feet Above Curb Elevation and 30-feet Above Finished Grade)
34 -26- Reso. #
In addition, the reduced roof elevations and revised side yard setbacks required by the City Council further reduce the perceived scale and massing of the residence by increasing the amount of open space surrounding the structure and lowering the residence’s height above the street, thereby improving its visual compatibility with adjacent development and enhancing view permeability from the public right-of-way.

Accordingly, substantial evidence in the administrative record supports the finding that the Project complies with applicable Zoning Code standards, including height limits, and satisfies the City’s Design Review Criteria and Design Guidelines related to scale, massing, and neighborhood compatibility. As further modified by the City Council's conditions of approval requiring reduced roof elevations and increased side yard setbacks, the Project provides additional separation from adjoining properties, enhances the public view corridor along Coast Highway, and further reduces the apparent visual mass of the residence while remaining compatible with the established pattern of development in the surrounding neighborhood. The Project would demolish an existing residence that presents a taller, two-story appearance along Coast Highway with a comparatively lower-profile residence that reads as a one-story structure at the highway, consistent with development patterns in the immediate vicinity, which include both one- and two-story buildings along the highway frontage. In addition, because the Project is located on the upper portion of the subject property, the residence and associated decking would be set back approximately 160 feet northeast of the sandy beach, whereas many surrounding properties contain structures that are situated substantially closer to the beach, including numerous examples within 100 feet. The Appellant has not demonstrated that the project, as modified by the City Council, is inconsistent with these requirements or that a variance is warranted. 35 -27- Reso. #

5. “General Plan Consistency and Staff Report Accuracy” City Council’s Response
It is acknowledged that the Board staff report contains inaccuracies regarding the extent of public ocean view impacts, including the discussion of compliance with LUE Policy 2.10. The record indicates that some level of public view impact will occur. However, the presence of such impacts does not necessarily render them significant or inconsistent with applicable Local Coastal Program policies as those policies do not require the complete absence of impacts to public ocean views from every public vantage point. General Plan Consistency does not require perfect conformity with every policy or the elimination of all impacts. Under established California land use law, a project is considered consistent if, on balance, it aligns with the General Plan’s goals, policies, and objectives. The City retains discretion to interpret and apply its adopted policies, including balancing competing objectives such as protection of visual resources (e.g., LUE Policies 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 3.10, 7.3, and 10.2, and CLU Policy 2.9) and the reasonable development of private property.

Although the City Council finds that the Board Approval could be found generally consistent with the General Plan and certified Local Coastal Program, the City Council further finds that additional modifications through more restrictive conditions of approval are appropriate to better implement the City's adopted policies concerning protection of public coastal views, scenic resources, and neighborhood compatibility. Accordingly, the City Council has imposed more restrictive conditions of approval requiring: (1) relocation of the residence to provide a minimum 16-foot south side yard setback and a minimum 10-foot, three-inch north side yard setback, for a combined side yard setback of not less than 26 feet, three inches; (2) reduction of 36 -28- Reso. #
the maximum roof elevation of the main residence to no higher than Elevation 163.50 and the maximum roof elevation of the garage to no higher than Elevation 162.00; and (3) review and approval of revised plans by the Director of Community Development to ensure the plans are in full conformance with the City Council's action and remain consistent with all applicable provisions of the Laguna Beach Municipal Code and the conditions of approval.

As discussed in detail under Appeal Contention No. 1, the Appellant’s claims regarding view obstruction and scenic highway impacts do not demonstrate a policy violation. The cited LUE and LUP policies require that development protect and minimize impacts to public views and scenic resources to the extent feasible; they do not mandate the preservation of a specific view corridor width, nor do they prohibit all view impairment. The Project was evaluated with respect to its visibility from Coast Highway and other public vantage points and incorporates design features including stepped massing, articulated building forms, and varied roof elements that reduce perceived bulk and maintain a lower visual profile. As further modified by the City Council, the increased side yard setbacks expand the visual opening between adjacent structures along Coast Highway, while the reduced roof elevations further lessen the apparent height and visual prominence of the residence and garage. Collectively, these modifications further minimize impacts to public coastal views and improve view permeability from the public right-of-way. Site observations and visual simulations demonstrate that while some views are affected, public coastal views are not eliminated and remain available from multiple locations. Accordingly, as modified by the City Council’s conditions of approval, the Project is consistent with the intent and requirements of the cited view protection and scenic resource policies. While the Appellant’s private ocean views would be somewhat impacted, the Board found that the Project achieves View 37 -29- Reso. #
Equity11, and the City Council finds that the Project with more restrictive conditions of approval provides an improved balance between preservation of public coastal views, view equity, and the reasonable development of private property.

With respect to neighborhood compatibility and view equity, the Design Review Criteria and Design Guidelines require that projects be compatible in scale, massing, and character, and that they reasonably balance the protection of views with site constraints and development rights.

As modified by the City Council, The Project satisfies these criteria12. As analyzed in prior sections of this report, the Project’s scale and massing are moderated through articulation, setbacks, and terracing, and the structure remains within the applicable zoning envelope. The City Council further finds that the increased combined side yard setback of not less than 26 feet, three inches, together with the reduction in the maximum roof elevations of the residence and garage, further reduces the perceived scale and bulk of the Project, increases building separation, and creates a wider and more open visual corridor across the site from Coast Highway. To contextualize this within its surroundings, the project’s height, bulk, and overall profile are consistent with and in several respects less visually prominent than nearby developed properties of similar zoning designation, with a proposed height of less than eight feet above the curb elevation at Coast Highway. Adjacent and nearby buildings exhibit a mix of one- and two-story forms, with variation in rooflines and building footprints, and are often accompanied by mature vegetation that further softens their visual presence. The surrounding Coast Highway corridor is characterized by a diverse pattern of development, including multi-level structures of varying size and form due to topographic and lot configuration differences. The Project with more restrictive conditions of 11 DRB Resolution 2026-0024, Section 3; Finding 1, Criterion 16 (Page 8). 12 DRB Resolution 2026-0024, Section 3; Finding 1, Criteria 9 and 16 (Page 6 and 8). 38 -30- Reso. #
approval remains compatible with this established pattern of development while providing greater visual openness and reduced massing than the original proposal. The Project remains within allowable lot coverage limits (35% maximum; 28% proposed) and reduces apparent bulk through articulation and terracing. Front, side, and rear setbacks in the vicinity are consistent with zoning standards, with some properties built closer to property lines. The Project exceeds the minimum required setbacks, creating greater separation than is typical in the area. The modified side yard setbacks substantially exceed the minimum zoning requirements and provide greater separation than is typical within the surrounding neighborhood, while the reduced roof elevations further lessen the visual profile of the residence as viewed from Coast Highway.

Regarding the Appellant’s assertion that the staff report contains “inaccuracies”, while the Board report includes statements indicating no impacts to public ocean views, it is acknowledged that some degree of view impact may occur. Nonetheless, the presence of some coastal view impacts on fleeting public views does not, in and of itself, render the project inconsistent with applicable Local Coastal Program policies. The staff report is based on a comprehensive review of the Project, including site inspections, analysis of plans and sections, evaluation of story poles, and application of the City’s adopted policies and guidelines. Moreover, the Board independently reviewed the evidence, considered public testimony, and exercised its own judgment in making the required findings. The decision is therefore supported not only by staff analysis but by the independent evaluation of the hearing body.

Following its independent review of the administrative record and public testimony, the City Council determined that additional modifications to the Project through more restrictive conditions of approval were appropriate to further implement the General Plan and certified Local 39 -31- Reso. #
Coastal Program. The Council's action reflects its independent exercise of discretion to require increased setbacks, lower roof elevations, and subsequent review of revised plans by the Director of Community Development to ensure that the final construction documents implement the City Council's direction while remaining consistent with all applicable provisions of the Laguna Beach Municipal Code and the conditions of approval. Any revisions beyond the scope of the City Council's action shall require review through the applicable approval process.

Based on the full administrative record, including plans, story poles, site analysis, and public testimony, the Board’s findings show that the project is consistent with the General Plan, Local Coastal Program, and Design Guidelines. The City Council further finds that, as modified by the additional conditions of approval requiring increased side yard setbacks, reduced maximum roof elevations, and Director of Community Development review of the revised plans, the Project more effectively advances the General Plan's objectives of protecting public coastal views, minimizing visual impacts, and maintaining neighborhood compatibility while preserving the reasonable development of the property. While the Appellant raises concerns regarding view impacts and interpretation of policies, these issues were appropriately considered and balanced by the Board and subsequently refined through the City Council's action. The City Council therefore concludes that the revised Project minimizes impacts to public views to the maximum extent feasible, is in better alignment with the General Plan, certified Local Coastal Program, and Design Guidelines, and remains consistent with the City's adopted land use policies. The General Plan does not mandate elimination of all impacts but requires reasonable design efforts to minimize them, which the Project satisfies.

6. “Public Input and Process Concerns”
40 -32- Reso. #
City Council’s Response
The administrative record demonstrates that public input was appropriately solicited, documented, and considered throughout the review process. The public hearing notice noted oral testimony could be provided at the public hearing and accepted written comments until 5:30 p.m. on the business day preceding the hearing, ensuring a reasonable opportunity for participation. The Board agenda similarly provided for in-person and written submissions via mail and email, with a defined deadline to allow adequate time for review. Public correspondence received after agenda posting is distributed to Board members and linked to the agenda to be included as part of the public record. The record includes the notice, agenda, and submitted comments, confirming that public input was received and made available for consideration. Additionally, the staff report accurately summarized written correspondence received from neighboring property owners prior to the posting of the agenda (incorporated as Attachment 13 of the DRB Staff Report), including concerns related to building size, height, massing, potential view impacts, privacy, setbacks, and construction-related effects13.

In addition to written correspondence, the Board conducted site visits, received oral public testimony during a duly noticed public hearing, and engaged in deliberation prior to rendering its decision. The Board was therefore fully informed of the range of neighborhood concerns and was not limited to the summaries contained in the staff report.

Furthermore, the record reflects that the Applicant conducted early outreach to surrounding property owners prior to finalizing the project design, including direct meetings and communications with multiple neighbors to understand and respond to potential concerns. This 13 Refer to the Public Correspondence section of the February 26, 2026 DRB Staff Report – Pages 27-28 (May 13, 2026 Agenda Report, Attachment 5).
41 -33- Reso. #
outreach informed the evolution of the Project, including siting, setbacks, and design considerations.

It is important to note that the staff report is intended to provide a summary of key issues and does not reproduce all correspondence verbatim. Allegations that concerns were “misrepresented” reflect a difference in interpretation rather than evidence of procedural deficiency. All submitted correspondence was part of the public record and provide to the Board for independent review.

Accordingly, the City provided adequate public notice, opportunity for input, and fair consideration of community concerns, consistent with applicable legal requirements and due process standards. No evidence has been presented demonstrating that any alleged deficiency in summarizing correspondence prejudiced the Board’s decision or impaired the integrity of the review process.

7. “Grading Impacts”
City Council’s Response
Grading and structural design were reviewed for compliance with applicable Municipal Code, geotechnical, and safety standards. The Project includes approximately 2,885 cubic yards of export, consisting entirely of cut, and is primarily intended to lower the structure into the existing slope. This design approach is a key component of the Project’s overall strategy to reduce building height, minimize visual prominence, and preserve public and private ocean views to the extent feasible. Grading is confined to the previously developed portion of the site and does not extend into undisturbed areas, the ocean bluff, or the required bluff setback. No environmentally sensitive habitat areas, significant natural features, or watercourses are present or impacted. The 42 -34- Reso. #
Project is designed to follow the site’s sloping topography through a stepped and terraced form, thereby minimizing alteration of the natural landform and ensuring consistency with applicable General Plan policies, including those related to scenic resource protection and site integration.

With respect to construction-related impacts such as haul trips, noise, and traffic, these are temporary in nature and typical of residential construction projects of similar scope. Such impacts are regulated through existing Municipal Code provisions and standard construction management practices, including haul route controls, work hour limitations, and noise regulations. No substantial evidence has been provided to demonstrate that these temporary impacts would result in a significant or unmitigable effect. Moreover, it is precisely the Project’s grading that will allow the Project to maintain a low, single-story profile at Coast Highway, maximizing public ocean views in accordance with applicable General Plan policy and the View Equity design review criterion.

While the Appellant suggests that a reduced grading alternative may be feasible, the City is not required to adopt an alternative design where the approved Project already meets applicable development standards and policy objectives. In this case, the proposed grading represents a balanced and intentional design solution that minimizes visual and bulk impacts while maintaining reasonable development of the Property. Accordingly, the record supports the finding that the proposed grading is appropriate, limited to the extent feasible, and consistent with the General Plan, Design Guidelines, and applicable Municipal Code requirements.

8. “Incomplete Story Pole Installation”
City Council’s Response
LBMC Section 25.05.040 requires that staking be installed in a manner sufficient to 43 -35- Reso. #
identify the location and envelope of proposed development so that its potential visual impacts can be reasonably assessed. In this case, the Project was staked in accordance with applicable City requirements and was available for public viewing 21 days prior to the hearing. No concerns regarding the adequacy, accuracy, or visibility of the staking were raised by members of the public, the Appellant, or Board members at any point during the public review process or at the duly noticed hearing. Interested parties had a reasonable opportunity to review and understand the Project’s scale and configuration in the field.

Additionally, the Board conducted independent site visits and considered the project from multiple vantage points, including surrounding public areas and adjacent properties. The Board also received and reviewed a comprehensive set of materials, including architectural plans, certified staking plan, building sections, and renderings, which supplemented the information conveyed by the staking. Board members further engaged with the Applicant and members of the public, including neighboring property owners, to fully evaluate potential impacts prior to rendering a decision.

The Board’s approval was based on substantial evidence in the administrative record, including but not limited to the story pole installation, project plans, staff analysis, and public testimony. The decision-making body also exercised its discretion to impose project-specific conditions and modifications to address site design and compatibility considerations.

The Appellant has not identified any specific deficiency in the staking that would rise to the level of a violation of LBMC Section 25.05.040, nor demonstrated that any alleged deficiency resulted in prejudice or impaired the Board’s ability to make informed findings. Accordingly, the record supports the conclusion that the staking was adequate for purposes of design review, and 44 -36- Reso. #
that the Board’s decision was informed, procedurally proper, and consistent with applicable Municipal Code requirements. Accordingly, this appeal contention does not provide a basis to overturn the approval.

SECTION 3. The City Council hereby makes the following findings and facts supporting findings for DR 2026-0024:

Finding No. 1: Physical improvements and site developments related to the Project are designed and located in a manner in overall consistency with the design review criteria specified in Section

25.05.040(H), as set forth below:

1. Access. Conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians and other modes of transportation should be minimized by specifically providing for each applicable mode of transportation.

Handicapped access shall be provided as required by applicable statutes.

The project is not expected to create conflicts between vehicular, pedestrian, or other modes of transportation. Site access will continue to be provided from Coast Highway. The required onsite turnaround has been provided, and vehicles will exit the site nosing into traffic.

The existing sidewalk will jog at the new driveway apron. A pedestrian entry feature and vehicular gate are setback approximately 8 feet from the back of the sidewalk where vegetation is proposed.

A pedestrian entry feature, wall, and vehicular driveway gate are proposed within the front setback and have been staked with story poles. These elements are set back ten (10) feet from the back of sidewalk and are consistent with the existing streetscape character, where walls, fences, gates, and garages are commonly located at or near the sidewalk. The proposed wall and fence height is limited to four (4) feet. Refer to the Variance section below for justification to exceed the permitted wall and fence height.
45 -37- Reso. #

2. Design Articulation: Within the allowable building envelope, the appearance of building and retaining wall mass should be minimized. Articulation techniques including, but not limited to, separation, offsets, terracing and reducing the size of any one element in the structure may be used to reduce the appearance of mass.

The project minimizes the appearance of mass through a terraced and stacked design that follows the natural down slope of the site. As viewed from the street, the proposed highest roofline is approximately four and one half (4.5) feet above the curb, ten and one half (10.5) feet less than the existing home that will be demolished and the 15-foot maximum height limit above the curb.

3. Design Integrity: Consistency with the applicant’s chosen style of architecture should be achieved by the use of appropriate materials and details. Remodels should be harmonious with the remaining existing architecture.

The architectural style reflects a modern aesthetic, incorporating characteristic elements such as varied height parapet roof forms. Proposed exterior finishes reinforce this style and include a medium tan colored smooth stucco, rough and smooth limestone veneer, and extra dark bronze metal framed doors and windows, fencing, railings, and garage door. Glass deck railings are also proposed.

4. Environmental Context: Development should preserve and, where possible, enhance the city’s scenic natural setting. Natural features, such as existing heritage trees, rock outcropping, ridgelines and significant watercourses should be protected. Existing terrain should be utilized in the design and grading should be minimized.

The project has been designed to step with the existing gently sloping terrain. No heritage trees, significant natural features, or watercourses are present on the property. The project includes 46 -38- Reso. #
approximately 2,885 cubic yards of grading export, which is primarily proposed to lower the building into the slope to preserve neighboring ocean views. As a result, the project is not expected to adversely affect the City’s scenic natural setting.

5. General Plan Compliance: 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.

The project complies with the General Plan, including, but not limited to, the following policies:

General Plan Policies
Land Use (LU) Policy 2.8 Require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated with natural topographic features, minimize significant alteration of natural topography and/or other significant onsite resources, and protect public views as specified in the Design Guidelines and the Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document.

The project has been designed to be compatible with and integrated into the site’s existing gently sloping topography through a stepped and terraced building form that follows the natural down slope of the property. The siting and massing of the structure minimize perceived bulk and reduce visual impacts when viewed from the public right-of-way and surrounding properties.

While grading is proposed, it is limited to only cut and is primarily intended to lower the building into the slope, thereby minimizing building height and preserving neighboring and public ocean views. No significant onsite natural resources are present or impacted by the development. As designed, the project is consistent with LU Policy 2.8 and the applicable Design Guidelines by respecting existing terrain, minimizing topographic alteration to the extent feasible, and protecting 47 -39- Reso. #
public views.

LU Policy 2.10 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. Best efforts should be made to site new development in locations that minimize adverse impacts on views from public locations (e.g., roads, bluff top trails, visitor-serving facilities, etc.).

The project has been carefully sited and designed to preserve coastal and canyon views from surrounding properties and public viewpoints to the greatest extent feasible. The stepped and terraced building form follows the natural upslope of the site and reduces perceived height and mass.

As viewed from Coast Highway, the highest roofline is approximately ten and one half (10.5) feet below the allowable height limit above the curb, ensuring compatibility with the established streetscape and minimizing impacts to public views. No public bluff-top trails or visitor-serving facilities are within the project site. Accordingly, the project is consistent with LU Policy 2.10 and the principle of view equity by minimizing impacts to existing public and private coastal and canyon views.

LU Policy 3.10 Require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated with natural topographic features, minimize significant alteration of natural topography or other significant on-site resources, and protect public views as specified in the Design Guidelines and Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document by maintaining the low-profile character of structures. Require use of appropriate landscaping, special architectural treatments, and siting considerations for projects visible from major highways and arterial streets. Best efforts should be 48 -40- Reso. #
made to site new development in locations that minimize adverse impacts on views from public locations (e.g., roads, bluff-top trails, visitor-serving facilities, etc.).

The project has been designed and sited to be compatible with and integrated into the site’s existing gently sloping topography through a stepped and terraced building form that maintains a low-profile appearance. The building is set back from the ocean bluff area that consists of 18,166 square feet (52.3% of the property). The design minimizes perceived height and mass and reduces the need for excessive grading. Proposed grading cut is primarily intended to lower the structure into the slope, thereby minimizing alteration of the natural topography while preserving public and neighboring views.

The project protects public views consistent with the Design Guidelines and the Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document by maintaining roof heights and building massing that remain visually subordinate to the surrounding streetscape. As viewed from Coast Highway, the highest roofline is approximately four and one half (4.5) feet above the curb, ensuring a low-profile character when viewed from the public right-of-way.

The project incorporates appropriate architectural articulation and material variation to reduce visual prominence, and proposed landscaping will further soften building edges and integrate the structure into its hillside setting. The site is visible from designated scenic highways and the beach visitor-serving facilities. As designed, the project represents a best-effort siting strategy that minimizes adverse impacts on views from public locations and is consistent with applicable Design Guidelines and scenic resource policies.

LU Policy 7.3 Design and site new development to protect natural and environmentally sensitive resources, such as areas of unique scenic quality, public views, and visual compatibility 49 -41- Reso. #
with surrounding uses and to minimize natural landform alterations. (Same as Policy 10.2.) GOAL:

Protect, preserve, and enhance the community’s natural resources.

The development is integrated with the site’s existing gently sloping topography through stepped and terraced building forms that follow the natural contours of the property and maintain a low-profile appearance when viewed from public vantage points. Building massing, roof forms, and architectural articulation reduce visual prominence and ensure compatibility with the scale and character of surrounding residential development. Grading is proposed primarily to lower the structure into the slope, thereby minimizing alteration of the natural landform and preserving public and private views to the extent feasible.

The building is set back from the ocean bluff area that consists of 18,166 square feet (52.3% of the property). As designed, the project minimizes impacts to scenic resources and public views and is consistent with LU Policy 7.3 and the General Plan goal of protecting, preserving, and enhancing the community’s natural resources.

LU Policy 7.10 Require new construction and grading to be located in close proximity to preexisting development to minimize environmental impacts and growth-inducing potential.

The project is consistent with LU Policy 7.10, which encourages new construction and grading to be in proximity to preexisting development to minimize environmental impacts and reduce growth-inducing potential. The new construction occupies areas already developed, and no expansion into previously undisturbed portions of the lot is proposed. Grading is concentrated within the existing development envelope, minimizing disturbance to natural terrain. By situating the new building largely on the footprint of the prior structure, the project minimizes impacts on the site’s natural features and limits potential growth-inducing effects, consistent with the intent 50 -42- Reso. #
and objectives of LU Policy 7.10.

LU Policy 10.2 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 and to minimize landform alterations. (Same as Policy 7.3) GOAL: Ensure that proposals for new development, subdivisions, and major remodels are sufficiently evaluated to protect public health and safety and natural resources.

The building is set back from the ocean bluff area that consists of 18,166 square feet (52.3% of the property). As designed, the project minimizes impacts to scenic resources and public views and is consistent with LU Policy 10.2 and the General Plan goal of protecting public health and safety and natural resources.

6. Historic Preservation: Destruction or alteration to historic resources should be avoided whenever possible. See Chapter 25.45 for more information.

The existing residence is not listed on the City’s Historic Register, as such, this criterion is satisfied.

7. Landscaping: Landscaping shall be incorporated as an integrated part of the structure’s 51 -43- Reso. #
design and relate harmoniously to neighborhood and community landscaping themes.

View equity shall be an important consideration in the landscape design. The relevant landscaping guidelines contained in the City’s “Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document” should be incorporated, as appropriate, in the design and planned maintenance of proposed landscaping.

Sheets L-04 & L-05 includes the proposed landscape/fuel modification plan. The maintenance of heights and widths of trees and shrubs are noted. The landscaping is consistent with the Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document. There are no known neighborhood concerns relative to potential hedge impacts.

8. Lighting and Glare: Adequate lighting for individual and public safety shall be provided in a manner which does not significantly impact neighboring properties. Reflective materials and appurtenances that cause glare or a negative visual impact (e.g., skylights, white rock roofs, high-gloss ceramic tile roofs, reflective glass, etc.) should be avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance in those locations where those surfaces are visible from neighboring properties.

Site lighting is shown on Sheet L-06 and includes 11 low voltage LED recessed fixtures and 10 well lights along the driveway. Low voltage building lighting is shown on Sheet L.1 and includes a total of 120 fixtures (66 step lights, 42 sconces, 3 courtyard up-lights, and 9 recessed cans). All lighting except for the lower-level courtyard up-lights) will be low wattage LED, shielded, and directed downward, consistent with the City’s Good Neighbor Lighting Ordinance to avoid impacts to neighboring properties. Proposed non-reflective materials are specified for roofing, smooth stucco, and limestone stone veneer. Therefore, materials should not cause glare 52 -44- Reso. #
or a negative visual impact to other properties.

9. Neighborhood Compatibility: Development shall be compatible with the existing development in the neighborhood and respect neighborhood character. Neighborhood character is the sum of the qualities that distinguish areas within the City, including historical patterns of development (e.g., structural heights, mass, scale or size), village atmosphere, landscaping themes and architectural styles.

The area is a coastal residential neighborhood situated on a bluff above the shoreline, immediately adjacent to a primary coastal roadway (Coast Highway) with local residential streets extending inland. Development reflects a long-established coastal village pattern, where homes are closely integrated with the natural bluff, beach access points, and ocean-oriented views. The proposed home is generally compatible with the existing coastal neighborhood character, particularly in terms of height, architectural style, and response to topography. The design aligns with the prevailing pattern of contemporary, multi-level coastal residences along the bluff.

10. Pedestrian Orientation: Commercial development design shall enhance and encourage pedestrian uses. Incorporation of articulated building masses, compact open spaces and courtyards, mixed use developments, use of landscaping as part of design, and orientation to pedestrian access should be maximized.

Design Review Criteria for Pedestrian Orientation is related to commercial development and this residential project is not subject to these criteria.

11. Privacy: The placement of activity areas (e.g., decks, picture windows and ceremonial or entertainment rooms) in locations that would result in a substantial invasion of privacy of neighboring properties should be minimized.
53 -45- Reso. #
The proposed two-story home will be located closer to Coast Highway than both adjacent oceanfront homes that extend down the bluff. The home placement, subject to more restrictive conditions of approval, creates side yards of 10 feet, three inches to the north and 16 feet to the south. The proposed pool and spa area is located under the home and designed to not impact neighbor privacy. As such, the project will not result in a substantial invasion of privacy to neighboring properties.

12. Public Art: Public art is encouraged and shall be displayed where feasible or required by the Art in Public Places ordinance.

Design Review Criteria for Public Art is related to commercial development and this residential project is not subject to these criteria.

13. Sign Quality: Signs shall be incorporated into the architecture of the structure and shall be made of high-quality materials, be simple in design and be visually compatible with the surrounding physical environment in terms of color, scale and size. Use of natural materials in the construction of signs is encouraged.

Design Review Criteria for Signage is related to commercial development and this residential project is not subject to these criteria.

14. Sustainability: New development should consider architecture and building practices which minimize environmental impacts and enhance energy efficiency by: (a) reducing energy needs of buildings by proper site and structural design; (b) increasing the building’s ability to capture or generate energy; (c) using low-impact, sustainable and recycled building materials; (d) using the latest Best Management Practices regarding waste and water management; and (e) reducing site emissions. 54 -46- Reso. #
The new construction will meet Title 24 Energy and Building Code requirements, which include insulated windows and energy-efficient lighting. The applicant will be required to provide proof of compliance. The roof plan includes a solar ready flat roof area. Further, the applicant will be required to reuse, recycle, or divert at least 65 percent of the project’s construction and demolition debris.

15. Swimming Pools, Spas, and Water Features: Swimming pools, spas and water features shall be located, designed and constructed where: (a) geology conditions allow; (b) noise produced by circulatory mechanical pumps and equipment is mitigated; and (c) any associated fencing or other site improvements are compatible with neighboring properties.

The proposed swimming pool, baja shelf, and spa are located below the home at the rear of the building where impacts to adjacent properties are expected to be minimal. The pool equipment will also be located under the home. The equipment specifications will be reviewed prior to building permit issuance for conformance to the maximum allowed noise levels for singlefamily residential properties. The project is conditioned to allow pool equipment to be operated between the hours of 9:00 am and 9:00 pm only and to require installation of a timer to ensure compliance. The required pool security requirements will be reviewed during building plan check.

16. View Equity: The development, including its landscaping, shall be designed to protect existing views from neighboring properties without denying the subject property the reasonable opportunity to develop as described and illustrated in the City’s “Design Guidelines.” The “Design Guidelines” are intended to balance preservation of views with the right to develop property.

As conditioned by the City Council, the proposed two-story structure purposely reduces 55 -47- Reso. #
the upper-level massing as viewed from Coast Highway by limiting the roof height to 10.5 feet below the maximum 15-foot height limit measured above the curb and the existing home to be removed. This significant reduction of upper-level massing and the flat roof designs are intended to provide preservation of views for the adjacent neighbors.

Finding No. 2. The physical improvements and site developments related to the Project are designed and located in a manner in overall consistency with all other applicable design guidelines.

The project is consistent with the Residential Design Review Guidelines and South Laguna Community Design and Landscape Guidelines, as explained above.

Finding No. 3. The physical improvements and site developments related to the Project are characterized by appropriately scaled development, diverse and unique architectural designs, pedestrian orientation, and sensitivity to the natural conditions of the site.

The project is located at the uppermost part of the lot and is consistent with the existing developed neighborhood in mass and scale. The proposed improvements are consistent with the neighborhood diverse and unique architectural styles designs and allow views of ocean from neighboring properties without disturbance to the natural conditions of the site.

Finding No. 4. The project is consistent with any specific plan or any other specific zoning design review criteria.

There are no specific plans or other specific zoning design review criteria applicable to this project.

SECTION 4. The City Council hereby makes the following findings and facts supporting findings for CDP 2026-0025:

Finding No. 1: The project is in conformity with all the applicable provisions of the certified local 56 -48- Reso. #
coastal program, including the following review criteria:

1. The proposed development will not encroach upon any existing physical accessway legally utilized by the public or any proposed public accessway identified in the adopted local coastal program land use plan.

The subject property does not contain, nor is it adjacent to, any existing or proposed public accessways identified in the adopted Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. The proposed development will not alter or encroach upon any legally utilized public accessway.

2. The proposed development will not adversely affect marine resources, environmentally sensitive areas, or archaeological or paleontological resources.

The proposed development will not adversely affect marine resources, environmentally sensitive resources or archeological or paleontological resources in that the proposed single-family development is not located within the bluff. The applicant submitted a Geotechnical Investigation and Determination of the Bluff Edge Location report (Stoney-Miller/Geofirm Consultants, Inc., September 25, 2025) which identified the geologic bluff edge and stated that this conforms to the Coastal Act definition as well as the City’s Land Use Element definition of bluff edge. The city peer review confirmed the bluff edge location.

3. The proposed development will not adversely affect recreational or visitor-serving facilities or coastal scenic resources.

The Project site is in a developed residential area of the city. The proposed Project will not adversely affect recreational or visitor-serving facilities as there are no recreational or visitorserving facilities either located on the Project site. The proposed development will also not adversely affect coastal scenic resources, including “land based scenic views from public parks, 57 -49- Reso. #
trains, roads and vista points,” view corridors of beach and ocean from Coast Highway, view corridors from coastal canyons, and open-space easements used to mitigate adverse visual impact of access road, inns, and residences because scenic views are not present in the vicinity of the property or at elevations relative to the existing and proposed improvements. In other words, the Project consists of new development that is located close to the street, out of the bluff, and where the existing will be demolished.

4. The proposed development will be sited and designed to prevent adverse impacts to environmentally sensitive habitats and scenic resources located in adjacent parks and recreation areas and will provide adequate buffer areas to protect such resources.

The development is proposed near the street and not within the bluff that slopes down to the beach. The subject property is not located within an environmentally sensitive habitat area or scenic resources located in adjacent parks and recreation areas. Therefore, there will be no adverse impacts to environmentally sensitive habitats and scenic resources.

5. The proposed development will minimize the alterations of natural landforms and will not result in undue risks from geological and erosional forces and/or flood and fire hazards.

The proposed development area of the site does not contain any significant natural landforms. Any grading required for the home is not within the 25-foot bluff setback, The Project is subject to all requirements of the Laguna Beach Building and Fire Codes. Additionally, the site is not located in a designated flood or high fire hazard zone, and the project will not result in undue risk from geological, erosional, flood, or fire hazards.

6. The proposed development will be visually compatible with the character of surrounding 58 -50- Reso. #
areas, and where feasible, will restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas.

The proposed development is architecturally compatible and in scale with other homes in the surrounding neighborhood, which is not a visually degraded area.

7. The proposed development will not have any adverse impacts on any known archaeological or paleontological resource.

There are no known archaeological or paleontological resources in the Project area.

8. The proposed development will be provided with adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities.

The project involves the demolition of the existing structures and construction of a new single-family dwelling with an attached two-car garage. The project site is currently served by existing utilities, access roads, drainage, and other necessary facilities. Given the scope of the proposed development, it is anticipated that the existing infrastructure can accommodate the home without significant impact. No major deficiencies in utility or service capacity are currently known.

9. Other public services, including, but not limited to, solid waste and public roadway capacity have been considered and are adequate to serve the proposed development.

Other public services, such as solid waste collection and public roadway capacity, have been considered and are adequate to serve the proposed development. Since the Project site is already served by these utilities and infrastructure, the new home will not overburden existing public services.

The project is consistent with all applicable policies of the Certified LCP.

LCP OCEANFRONT AND BLUFF TOP POLICIES (CDP)
59 -51- Reso. #
Land Use Element (LU) Policy 2.10 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.

There are no significant on-site resources. The proposed Project is designed to integrate with the topography of the site, and is set back from the bluff area. In addition, the City Council has imposed more restrictive conditions of approval requiring increased side yard setbacks and reduced maximum roof elevations to further minimize the Project's visual presence and enhance the public view corridor along Coast Highway. As modified, the City Council finds that the Project minimizes impacts to public coastal views to the maximum extent feasible, remains compatible with the surrounding coastal setting, and will not result in a significant adverse impact to public views.

LU Element Action 7.3.3 Design and site new development to avoid hazardous areas and minimize risks to life and property from coastal and other hazards.

A coastal hazards analysis has been provided indicating that the proposed development is safe from coastal hazards.

LU Element Action 7.3.4 Require new development to assure stability and structural integrity, and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic stability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs.

The City’s geotechnical consultant reviewed the geotechnical report and coastal hazards analysis and conceptually approved the project.

LU Element Action 7.3.5 Prohibit development on oceanfront bluff faces, except public 60 -52- Reso. #
improvements providing public access, protecting coastal resources, or providing for public safety. Permit such improvements only when no feasible alternative exists and when designed and constructed to minimize landform alteration of the oceanfront bluff face, to not contribute to further erosion of the oceanfront bluff face, and to be visually compatible with the surrounding area to the maximum extent feasible.

As further described under the Variance heading below, improvements that provide for public safety access are proposed to be reconstructed within the bluff and all other obsolete improvements will be removed. Thus, the exception to development on oceanfront bluff faces for public improvements providing for public safety is applicable here. While the improvement is not on public land/property, the City is gaining valuable public safety access to nearby public beaches at no cost as the property owner will pay for the entirety of the improvements. The Construction Monitoring Treatment Plan describes procedures to follow as a program to mitigate impacts to any cultural resources found during construction within the bluff. Furthermore, a bluff restoration plan will be required for building plan check review for the removal of obsolete structures prior to obtaining any building permits.

LU Element Action 7.3.6 Require new development on oceanfront blufftop lots to incorporate drainage improvements, removal of and/or revisions to irrigation systems, and/or use of native or drought-tolerant vegetation into the design to minimize threats to oceanfront bluff recession.

The preliminary grading plan (Sheet C-1) shows drainage improvements and a storm water pump station. The landscape/fuel modification plan (Sheets L-04 & L-05) shows native and drought tolerant vegetation.
61 -53- Reso. #
LU Element Action 7.3.8 On oceanfront bluff sites, require applications where applicable, to identify and removal all unpermitted and/or obsolete structures, including but not limited to protective devices, fences, walkways, and stairways, which encroach into oceanfront bluffs.

As described under the Variance heading below, all existing obsolete improvements will be required to be demolished.

LU Element Action 7.3.11 Require all coastal development permit applications for new development on an oceanfront or on an oceanfront bluff property subject to wave action to assess the potential for flooding or damage from waves, storm surge, or seiches, through a wave uprush and impact report prepared by a licensed civil engineer with expertise in coastal processes. The conditions that shall be considered in a wave uprush study are a seasonally eroded beach combined with long-term (75 years) erosion; high tide conditions, combined with long-term (75 year) projections for sea level rise; storm waves from a 100- year event or a storm that compares to the 1982/83 El Niño event.

A Coastal Hazards Analysis has been prepared for the project concluding it is safe from erosion and high tide conditions over a 75-year period and from storm waves from a 100-year event.

LCP COASTAL VIEW POLICIES (CDP)
Land Use Element (LU) Policy 2.8 Require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated with natural topographic features, minimize significant alteration of natural topography and/or other significant on-site resources, and protect public views as specified in the Design Guidelines and the Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document. 62 -54- Reso. #
The proposed home and landscaping have been designed and sited to be compatible with and integrated into the site’s natural topography, minimizing alteration of the existing landform.

There are no significant on-site natural resources that would be adversely affected by the Project.

In addition, the City Council has imposed more restrictive conditions of approval requiring increased side yard setbacks and reduced maximum roof elevations to further protect public views from Coast Highway by increasing the visual opening between structures and reducing the apparent mass and height of the residence. As modified, the City Council finds that the Project is consistent with the Design Guidelines and the Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document because it minimizes impacts to public views to the maximum extent feasible while remaining compatible with the site's topographic characteristics and surrounding development.

LU Element Policy 2.9 Require the use of appropriate landscaping, special architectural treatments, and/or siting considerations to protect public views for projects visible from major highways and arterial streets.

Due to the site’s topography, the home is located closer to the street than both neighboring homes and the roofline will be approximately ten and one half (10.5) feet lower than the existing home to be demolished which is visible from Coast Highway, thereby protecting public views.

LU Element Policy 2.10 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. Best efforts should be made to site new development in locations that minimize adverse impacts on views from public locations (e.g., roads, bluff top trails, visitor-serving facilities, etc.) Policy 2.10 includes: Action

2.10.1 Discourage the addition of second stories in established neighborhoods where view 63 -55- Reso. #
equity has historically been achieved through one-story construction.

The Project is in a developed area characterized by multi-level single-family residences with ocean views. The proposed home would not introduce building massing that would compromise established view equity within the neighborhood.

LU Element Policies 7.3 and 10.2 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 and to minimize landform alterations.

The site does not contain significant natural features or environmentally sensitive resources. The proposed Project is designed to be compatible with the mass and scale of other homes in the surrounding neighborhood. It will also minimize view impacts due to the height of the roofline which is approximately ten and one half (10.5) feet lower than the existing home and the maximum 15-foot height limit measured above the curb.

LUE Policy 3.10 Require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated with natural topographic features, minimize significant alteration of natural topography or other significant on-site resources, and protect public views as specified in the Design Guidelines and Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document by maintaining the low-profile character of structures. Require use of appropriate landscaping, special architectural treatments, and siting considerations for projects visible from major highways and arterial streets. Best efforts should be made to site new development in locations that minimize adverse impacts on views from public locations (e.g., roads, bluff-top trails, visitor-serving facilities, etc.).

Policy 3.10 requires protection of public views as specified in the Design Guidelines. The 64 -56- Reso. #
Design Guidelines require View Equity for impacts to public views and require maintenance of view corridors.

View Equity is defined as: View equity means achievement of a fair, reasonable and balanced accommodation of views and competing obstructions such as structures, trees and/or vegetation, privacy and the use and enjoyment of property.

The Design Review Guidelines refers to Public Views:

15.6 Maintain view corridors when feasible.
∙Consider opportunities for public views.
∙Locate a building to retain view opportunities through side yards.

The Project is not anticipated to result in view impacts due to the placement of the home in respect to neighboring properties and has been located to retain view opportunities through side yards.

Coastal Land Use Plan Technical Appendix Section 30251 The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural landforms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and where feasible to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. New development in highly scenic areas ... shall be subordinate to the character of its setting.

The proposed development considers and protects the scenic and visual qualities of public coastal views in that the Project would integrate the building design with the natural terrain, and the proposed grading and terracing would result in a design and minimizing impacts to public 65 -57- Reso. #
views.

LCP DOCUMENTS
The project conforms with all the following applicable documents of the Certified LCP.

General Plan Land Use Element
Zoning Map
Title 25 (Zoning Code)
2010 Design Guidelines – A Guide to Residential Development South Laguna Community Design and Landscape Guidelines (as adopted by Resolution

89.104)
Finding No. 2. Any development located between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea is in conformity with the certified local coastal program and with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act.

The Project site is located between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea. As detailed above in the facts supporting Finding Number 1, the proposed development is in conformity with the certified local coastal program.

The proposed development is in conformity with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Local Coastal Act. Because of the newly acquired public safety component of the proposed development, existing public beach access and coastal recreation areas will be better served by the City’s public safety personnel.

Public Access
Section 30211 Development not to interfere with access
Development shall not interfere with the public's right of access to the sea where acquired through 66 -58- Reso. #
use or legislative authorization, including, but not limited to, the use of dry sand and rocky coastal beaches to the first line of terrestrial vegetation.

Section 30212 New development projects
(a) Public access from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline and along the coast shall be provided in new development projects except where: (1) it is inconsistent with public safety, military security needs, or the protection of fragile coastal resources, (2) adequate access exists nearby, or (3) agriculture would be adversely affected. Dedicated accessway shall not be required to be opened to public use until a public agency or private association agrees to accept responsibility for maintenance and liability of the accessway. (b) For purposes of this section, "new development" does not include:
(1) Replacement of any structure pursuant to the provisions of subdivision (g) of Section 30610.
(2) The demolition and reconstruction of a single-family residence; provided, that the reconstructed residence shall not exceed either the floor area, height or bulk of the former structure by more than 10 percent, and that the reconstructed residence shall be sited in the same location on the affected property as the former structure. (3) Improvements to any structure which do not change the intensity of its use, which do not increase either the floor area, height, or bulk of the structure by more than 10 percent, which do not block or impede public access, and which do not result in a seaward encroachment by the structure.
(4) The reconstruction or repair of any seawall; provided, however, that the reconstructed or repaired seawall is not a seaward of the location of the former structure. 67 -59- Reso. #
(5) Any repair or maintenance activity for which the commission has determined, pursuant to Section 30610, that a coastal development permit will be required unless the commission determines that the activity will have an adverse impact on lateral public access along the beach. As used in this subdivision "bulk" means total interior cubic volume as measured from the exterior surface of the structure.
(c) Nothing in this division shall restrict public access nor shall it excuse the performance of duties and responsibilities of public agencies which are required by Sections 66478.1 to 66478.14, inclusive, of the Government Code and by Section 4 of Article X of the California Constitution.

Section 30214 Implementation of public access policies; legislative intent (a) The public access policies of this article shall be implemented in a manner that takes into account the need to regulate the time, place, and manner of public access depending on the facts and circumstances in each case including, but not limited to, the following:
(1) Topographic and geologic site characteristics.
(2) The capacity of the site to sustain use and at what level of intensity. (3) The appropriateness of limiting public access to the right to pass and repass depending on such factors as the fragility of the natural resources in the area and the proximity of the access area to adjacent residential uses.
(4) The need to provide for the management of access areas so as to protect the privacy of adjacent property owners and to protect the aesthetic values of the area by providing for the collection of litter.
(b) It is the intent of the Legislature that the public access policies of this article be carried out in a reasonable manner that considers the equities and that balances the rights of the individual 68 -60- Reso. #
property owner with the public's constitutional right of access pursuant to Section 4 of Article X of the California Constitution. Nothing in this section or any amendment thereto shall be construed as a limitation on the rights guaranteed to the public under Section 4 of Article X of the California Constitution.

Finding No. 3. The proposed development will not have any significant adverse impacts on the environment within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act.

The Project does not have any significant adverse environmental impacts. The Project qualifies for a categorical exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, as discussed further herein.

SECTION 5. The City Council hereby makes the following findings and facts supporting findings for VAR 2026-0026:

Finding No. 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.

The subject property is unique as compared to its peers that front the isolated cove known as Thousand Steps Beach and this uniqueness provides support for allowing the reconstruction of a bluff face improvement known as a funicular. Similarly, granting additional height for walls is supportable because of the property’s topography and this allowance grants parity with other properties nearby that have been granted the same courtesy. However, the applicant’s request to retain other bluff face improvements can not be supported by staff. Each of these is discussed more specifically below:
69 -61- Reso. #
As to the bluff face improvement that would allow reconstruction of the funicular, staff finds that the width of the subject property presents a truly unique opportunity to provide for easier and quicker and more reliable access to Thousand Steps Beach. Thousand Steps Beach is one of South Laguna’s largest and most heavily used beaches. Notwithstanding this, access to the beach itself is limited to a single staircase near the intersection of 9th Avenue and Coast Highway. This staircase consists of approximately 223 individual steps and, due to the steepness of the bluff face, feels like many more. Use of this staircase is popular for access to the beach by the general public and is also popular for those interested in walking/running the steps for fitness purposes.

Collectively, this makes for a crowded and complex pathway for the City’s first responders to utilize to access Thousand Steps Beach when responding to emergency calls. Congestion on the stairs and the number of steps and steepness of the bluff all create challenges to providing timely response in emergency situations.

To provide a sense of magnitude, the Marine Safety Chief provided rescue statistics for the 9th and 10th Street beaches covering the period from January 1, 2023, through November 9, 2025.

Statistics were collected for both beaches because they share the same public access point and are adjacent to the property at 31987 Coast Hwy.:

Total Incident Type Definition
1,860 Rescues To physically assist a person from the ocean. 1,315 Medical Aids The immediate treatment or care given to a person suffering from an injury or illness until more advanced care is provided or the person recovers.
34,117 Ordinance
Advisements
An advisement or enforcement of local, state, and federal laws.

A few examples of ordinance enforcement include drinking alcohol, dogs on the beach, smoking, using unpermitted easyups or shade coverings, having bonfires, and laws related to disturbing marine life.
70 -62- Reso. #
165,473 Public Contacts Non-safety related contacts. These are typically directions to individuals, families, and groups to places such as bathrooms, parking, restaurants, and more, as well as trolley schedules. 96,260 Preventative
Actions
Safety-related contacts pertaining to people too close to or in danger of impacts from: beach, ocean, water, cliff, rock, reef, cave, rip current, lateral current, sand bar, shore break, storm surge, lightning, flood, fog, tide, surf, etc.

Given that the public health safety and welfare sit atop the most important responsibilities of government, granting a variance to reconstruct the existing funicular improvement on the bluff face seems to be a reasonable trade-off of governments interest in protecting the coastline and protecting the public. The funicular would be a privately-owned improvement that is accessible to the City/first responders all day, everyday pursuant to a recorded agreement that would include maintenance responsibilities and performance standards. The funicular would not be open to the general public as they would continue to utilize the existing stairs. As such, the funicular allows for separation of general public foot traffic from this “express lane” down to the beach by first responders. As a mechanical lift, the funicular provides for a more constant rate of speed up and down the bluff face than does walking the stairs and allows for patient being extracted from the beach to be moved in a more comfortable manner. Most other properties along Thousand Steps Beach are narrow and don’t contain the side yard widths of the proposed development. Because of this ease of access compared to the subject property is constrained and the subject lots additional width provides the right set of circumstances to grant the bluff face improvement variance to allow the funicular to be reconstructed based on government utmost interest to provide for the public health, safety, and welfare.
71 -63- Reso. #
It should be noted that General Plan Land Use Element Action 7.3.5 prohibits development on oceanfront bluff faces, except public improvements providing public access, protecting coastal resources, or providing for public safety. To support construction of the funicular and related improvements, a condition of approval requiring an easement and agreement with the property owner for City public safety use (Condition No. 23). Plan Sheets A.0.7 and A.0.8 show the proposed easement. The new funicular track that is in alignment with the existing funicular track and the car will meet the Marine Safety and Fire Department requirements to accommodate a gurney and City staff.

Regarding the variance to maintain obsolete structures within the bluff, this request is consistent with the Land Use Element Action 7.3.5, which allows development on oceanfront bluffs when necessary to provide public access, protect coastal resources, or ensure public safety.

These stairs, walkways and retaining walls and related improvements provide an important public service because they provide an alternative route up or down the bluff face for emergency response personnel should the funicular be filled-to-capacity. Additionally, these improvements are consistent with the historic pattern of development occurring on nearby parcels and that, if removed, would deprive the subject property of this historic feature that other nearby properties have and still do enjoy.

As for those walls and the driveway gate that exceed the 4-foot height limit within the front setback, staff finds that this request is consistent with nearby pattern of development. Existing walls and fences in the immediate vicinity located along the west side of Coast Highway that exceed the maximum 4-foot height include but are not limited to 31949, 31951, 31995, 32001, and 32021 Coast Highway. These proposed elements are set back ten (10) feet from the back of 72 -64- Reso. #
sidewalk and like many other properties along Coast Highway allows a car to pull out of the traffic flow in order to gain entry to the private property. These improvements also do not interfere with pedestrian flow along the public sidewalk. For these reasons, staff finds that this variance is reasonable and appropriate and not out of character for its setting.

Finding No. 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.

Many other properties fronting on Thousand Steps Beach have direct access down the bluff face to the beach. These conditions have existed for many years and while perhaps not the most desirable situation involving new development, the subject property and its setting offer unique circumstance that in this one-off condition (as explained in Variance Finding 1) justify granting approval to re-construct/re-establish this access via the funicular.

As to the variance to maintain obsolete structures within the bluff, this request is consistent with the Land Use Element Action 7.3.5, which allows development on oceanfront bluffs when necessary to provide public access, protect coastal resources, or ensure public safety. These stairs, walkways and retaining walls and related improvements provide an important public service because they provide an alternative route up or down the bluff face for emergency response personnel should the funicular be filled-to-capacity. Additionally, these improvements are consistent with the historic pattern of development occurring on nearby parcels and that, if removed, would deprive the subject property of this historic feature that other nearby properties have and still do enjoy.

As for the wall and gate, other properties along Coast Highway with comparable frontage 73 -65- Reso. #
conditions have been granted relief to construct walls and gates exceeding the standard height limits in order to address privacy, security, and noise concerns associated with adjacency to a major arterial roadway. The requested wall-height variance is therefore consistent with development privileges enjoyed by other properties under like conditions.

Finding No.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.

As to the bluff face improvement that would allow reconstruction of the funicular, staff finds that the width of the subject property presents a truly unique opportunity to provide for easier and quicker and more reliable access to Thousand Steps Beach. Thousand Steps Beach is one of South Laguna’s largest and most heavily used beaches. Notwithstanding this, access to the beach itself is limited to a single staircase near the intersection of 9th Avenue and Coast Highway. This staircase consists of approximately 223 individual steps and, due to the steepness of the bluff face, feels like many more. Use of this staircase is popular for access to the beach by the general public and is also popular for those interested in walking/running the steps for fitness purposes. 74 -66- Reso. #
Collectively, this makes for a crowded and complex pathway for the City’s first responders to utilize to access Thousand Steps Beach when responding to emergency calls. Congestion on the stairs and the number of steps and steepness of the bluff all create challenges to providing timely response in emergency situations.

To provide a sense of magnitude, the Marine Safety Chief provided rescue statistics for the 9th and 10th Street beaches covering the period from January 1, 2023, through November 9, 2025.

Statistics were collected for both beaches because they share the same public access point and are adjacent to the property at 31987 Coast Hwy.:

A few examples of ordinance enforcement include drinking alcohol, dogs on the beach, smoking, using unpermitted easyups or shade coverings, having bonfires, and laws related to disturbing marine life.
165,473 Public Contacts Non-safety related contacts. These are typically directions to individuals, families, and groups to places such as bathrooms, parking, restaurants, and more, as well as trolley schedules. 96,260 Preventative
Actions
Safety-related contacts pertaining to people too close to or in danger of impacts from: beach, ocean, water, cliff, rock, reef, cave, rip current, lateral current, sand bar, shore break, storm surge, lightning, flood, fog, tide, surf, etc.

It should be noted that General Plan Land Use Element Action 7.3.5 prohibits development on oceanfront bluff faces, except public improvements providing public access, protecting coastal resources, or providing for public safety. To support construction of the funicular and related improvements, a condition of approval requiring an easement and agreement with the property owner for City public safety use (Condition No. 23). Plan Sheets A.0.7 and A.0.8 show the proposed easement. The new funicular track that is in alignment with the existing funicular track and the car will meet the Marine Safety and Fire Department requirements to accommodate a gurney and City staff.
76 -68- Reso. #
Regarding the variance to maintain obsolete structures within the bluff, this consistent with the Land Use Element Action 7.3.5, which allows development on oceanfront bluffs when necessary to provide public access, protect coastal resources, or ensure public safety. These stairs, walkways and retaining walls and related improvements provide an important public service because they provide an alternative route up or down the bluff face for emergency response personnel should the funicular be filled-to-capacity. Additionally, these improvements are consistent with the historic pattern of development occurring on nearby parcels and that, if removed, would deprive the subject property of this historic feature that other nearby properties have and still do enjoy.

As for those walls and the driveway gate that exceed the 4-foot height limit within the front setback, staff finds that this request is consistent with nearby pattern of development. Existing walls and fences in the immediate vicinity located along the west side of Coast Highway that exceed the maximum 4-foot height include but are not limited to 31949, 31951, 31995, 32001, and 32021 Coast Highway. These proposed elements are set back ten (10) feet from the back of sidewalk and like many other properties along Coast Highway allows a car to pull out of the traffic flow in order to gain entry to the private property. These improvements also do not interfere with pedestrian flow along the public sidewalk. For these reasons, staff finds that this variance is reasonable and appropriate and not out of character for its setting.

Finding No. 4: The granting of such a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the zoning ordinance or the general plan.

Variances are an appropriate tool to provide relief from certain standards when unique conditions exist relative to location or setting as compared to nearby properties. In this case, the 77 -69- Reso. #
applicant has requested three and the City grants each of these variances. Support for these variances is rooted in the objectives of the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. More specifically, the funicular bluff-face improvement qualifies as a public-safety-related improvement consistent with Land Use Element Action 7.3.5, which allows development on oceanfront bluffs when necessary to provide public access, protect coastal resources, or ensure public safety. The required agreement and easement further ensure that the improvement serves a broader public benefit.

The front setback wall height variance aligns with General Plan and zoning objectives by allowing site-sensitive design solutions that respond to unique physical conditions while maintaining neighborhood compatibility and visual character along Coast Highway.

Granting the variance to maintain obsolete structures within the bluff is consistent with the Land Use Element Action 7.3.5, which allows development on oceanfront bluffs when necessary to provide public access, protect coastal resources, or ensure public safety. These stairs, walkways and retaining walls and related improvements provide an important public service because they provide an alternative route up or down the bluff face for emergency response personnel should the funicular be filled-to-capacity. Additionally, these improvements are consistent with the historic pattern of development occurring on nearby parcels and that, if removed, would deprive the subject property of this historic feature that other nearby properties have and still do enjoy.

SECTION 6. Based on its review of the entire record before it, the City Council hereby finds and determines, in accordance with CEQA, that the Project is categorically exempt pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 – New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, in that the project consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small structures. 78 -70- Reso. #
Here, the Project involves the demolition of existing structures and the construction of a singlefamily dwelling with an attached two-car garage with new vehicular access, elevated decks, grading, retaining walls, pool, spa, pedestrian entry feature, and landscaping. Furthermore, the project is an allowed residential use in the R-1 zone. No evidence demonstrates a reasonable possibility that the project will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.

Further, none of the exceptions outlined in CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2 apply. The project site does not contain any environmentally sensitive areas except for being an oceanfront property. There will be no cumulative impact resulting from successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time. There are no unusual circumstances resulting in a significant impact on the environment. There will be no damage to scenic resources, including trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway as it is proposed less than eight feet above the curb along Coast Highway which is a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. The project is not located on a hazardous waste site or any other site included on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. The project will not result in significant adverse impacts to historical resources as defined by CEQA. Consequently, additional environmental analysis is not necessary to meet the requirements of the CEQA.

SECTION 7. The City Council hereby denies the Appeal and sustains the Design Review Boards’s determination on the Project, as reflected in Board Resolution No. 2026-0024, as modified herein. The Project is approved subject to the conditions of approval contained in Board Resolution No. 2026-0024 and the following more restrictive condition of approval:
79 -71- Reso. #

1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit revised project plans demonstrating full conformance with the City Council's action. The revised plans shall:
a. Relocate the residence to provide a minimum 16-foot south side yard setback and a 10- foot, three-inch north side yard setback, for a combined side yard setback of not less than 26 feet, three inches.
b. Reduce the maximum roof elevation of the main residence to no higher than Elevation 163.50 and the maximum roof elevation of the garage to no higher than Elevation 162.00.
c. Be subject to review and approval by the Director of Community Development, who shall determine that the revised plans are in full conformance with the City Council's approval and remain consistent with all applicable provisions of the Laguna Beach Municipal Code and conditions of approval. Any revisions beyond the scope of this condition shall require review through the applicable approval process.

In the event of a conflict between Board Resolution No. 2026-0024, which is incorporated herein by reference, and this Resolution, this Resolution shall prevail.

ADOPTED this 4th day of August, 2026.

Mark Orgill, Mayor
ATTEST:

Ann Marie McKay, City Clerk
80 -72- Reso. #
I, Ann Marie McKay, City Clerk of the City of Laguna Beach, certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 26.XXX was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City held on August 4, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

City Clerk, City of Laguna Beach, California
81

Laguna Beach City CouncilAugust 4, 2026

Laguna Beach City Council
August 4, 2026