STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date:
May 13, 2026
APPEAL
C
SUBJECT: 31985 AND 31987 COAST HIGHWAY: PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 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 AT 31985 AND 31987 COAST HIGHWAY IN THE R-1 ZONE, AND CATEGORICAL
EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3)
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:
1. Conduct a Public Hearing, receive a staff report and take public testimony and evidence relating to the consideration of Design Review 2026-0024, Coastal Development Permit 2026-0025, and Variance 2026-0026, and the California Environmental Quality Act exemption under Section 15303 of the state CEQA Guidelines; and
2. Adopt the Resolution titled, “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 AT 31985 AND 31987 COAST HIGHWAY IN THE R-1, RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY ZONE, AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15303”, upholding the Design Review Board’s conditional approval of Design Review 2026-0024, Coastal Development Permit 2026-0025, and Variance 2026-0026, and finding the project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.
SUMMARY OF THE MATTER
The property owner, 888 Pacific Holdings LLC and Rama Krishna1 (“Applicant”), of 31985 and 31987 Coast Highway (the “Property”) (see aerial map included as Figure 1) applied for Design Review (“DR”) 2026-0024, Coastal Development Permit (“CDP”) 2026-0025, and Variance (“VAR”) 2026-0026 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 CDP is required for the abovedescribed 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 1 The Project’s agent is Morris Skenderian and the Project’s architect is Geoff Sumich, who are within the definition of Applicant.
Attachment 3
155
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0024, CDP 2026-0025, AND VAR 2026-0026 AT 31985 & 31987 COAST HIGHWAY
May 13, 2026
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 Section 25.50.012(B)(3)].
On February 26, 2026, the Design Review Board (“Board”) held a duly noticed public hearing and considered the project that consisted of the demolition of the existing structures and construction of a new single-family dwelling with a two-car garage, new vehicular access, elevator height, elevated decks, grading, retaining walls, pool, spa, pedestrian entry feature, landscaping, construction in an environmentally sensitive area (due to oceanfront proximity), 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, and to exceed the maximum wall height within the front yard setback (the “Project”).
After carefully considering the oral and documentary evidence from staff, the Applicant, and members of the public, and upon review of the staff recommendation for approval, the Board voted (4-0)3, to approve the Project, subject to the conditions of approval set forth in the staff report and subject to the following Project-specific conditions, and a finding that the Project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (the “Board Approval”):
1) The house shall be moved an additional 5 feet to provide for a 13-foot south side yard setback and that the electrical panel will be placed inside the garage; and 2) A lifeguard locker will be constructed/installed along with water and electrical power service below the lower platform at the base of the funicular and the design of this locker and specific placement of the water and electrical service will be worked out between that City and the applicant during the building permit plan check phase and that the locker and water and power service and maintenance obligations thereof will be included in the funicular’s easement document executed between the City and applicant; and, that the existing stairs and improvements that will remain shall be included in the funicular’s easement document executed between the City and applicant to ensure their use by emergency response personnel with the appropriate maintenance obligations, The February 26, 2026 Board-Adopted Resolution No. 2026-0024, Staff Report, Plans, Public Comments, Draft Minutes, and Transcript, are attached as Attachments 4 through 9, respectively.4 3 Board Member Bauta was absent.
4 The February 26, 2026 Design Review Board Meeting Video is available to view on the City’s website at the following link (Refer to Agenda Item 5.9): https://lagunabeachcity.granicus.com/player/clip/2921?view_id=3&redirect=true 156
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0024, CDP 2026-0025, AND VAR 2026-0026 AT 31985 & 31987 COAST HIGHWAY
May 13, 2026
Figure 1: Aerial Views of Project Site
157
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0024, CDP 2026-0025, AND VAR 2026-0026 AT 31985 & 31987 COAST HIGHWAY
May 13, 2026
Figure 2: Existing Street Frontage of Project Site
Figure 3: Proposed Street-Facing Elevation of the Project Figure 4: Proposed 3D Renderings of the Project
158
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0024, CDP 2026-0025, AND VAR 2026-0026 AT 31985 & 31987 COAST HIGHWAY
May 13, 2026
On March 10, 2026, Bryan Menne (“Appellant”) of 31988 10th Avenue, filed an appeal of the Board Approval (the “Appeal”) (Attachment 2) for the following reasons, as summarized by staff:
1. The project fails to preserve the existing 45-foot-wide public view corridor along the southern property boundary and is inconsistent with the Landscape and Scenic Highways Element policies.
The Appellant further asserts that prior City Council approvals established a precedent for curblevel rooflines to preserve such views and requests similar conditions for the subject project.
2. The proposed bluff development encroaches into environmentally sensitive areas, may require additional environmental review and variances, and is inconsistent with Coastal Act and Local Coastal Program policies; removal of these features is requested.
3. The proposal does not maintain the existing driveway configuration, which is described by the Appellant as a grandfathered condition providing safe access for adjacent properties. An alternative site plan is proposed by the Appellant that maintains the existing driveway, reduces building scale, and preserves a public view corridor, and is asserted to improve safety, neighborhood compatibility, and protection of coastal views.
4. The project is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood due to its size, massing, and design, including large decks and building scale, and asserts it exceeds allowable height limits.
5. The project is inconsistent with the General Plan, and the staff report contains inaccuracies, particularly regarding compliance with policies related to view protection, scenic resources, and neighborhood compatibility.
6. Public correspondence from adjacent property owners was misrepresented or not fully considered in the staff report.
7. Concerns with regard to the extent of grading and associated noise, traffic, and construction impacts, and notes that a reduced grading alternative is feasible.
8. Incomplete or compromised story pole installation affected public review, and additional noticing or re-staking should have been required.
LBMC Section 25.05.070 requires certain forms of public notice for an appeal. 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 Chapter 25.07. Notices were mailed to owners and occupants within a 300-foot and 100-foot radius of the Property, respectively, posted on the Property, and published in a newspaper of general circulation (Attachment 3).
159
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0024, CDP 2026-0025, AND VAR 2026-0026 AT 31985 & 31987 COAST HIGHWAY
May 13, 2026
160
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0024, CDP 2026-0025, AND VAR 2026-0026 AT 31985 & 31987 COAST HIGHWAY
May 13, 2026
CITY COUNCIL APPEAL PROCEDURES
A. Standards of Review
Pursuant to LBMC Section 25.05.070, decisions of the Board may be appealed to the City Council by the Applicant or any owner of property within 300 feet of the subject property.
The City Council may uphold, reverse, or remand any appealed decision. (LBMC § 25.05.070(E)(3)(a).) In particular, in reversing a decision, there must be three affirmative votes approving the reversal by adoption of a resolution that sets forth in writing the findings relied on to conclude that the appealed decision was in error or an abuse of discretion.7 (LBMC § 25.05.070(E)(3)(a).) In upholding a decision, the City Council may also choose to “modify the proposed project or conditions of project approval, by making them more restrictive or may add more restrictive conditions of approval upon the adoption of a resolution and without the need for a finding of error or an abuse of discretion.” (LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(3)(b).) Further, pursuant to LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(2)(d), the City Council’s review is limited to “the plans that were the subject of the decision or determination by the approval authority”; if new plans are submitted, the City Council “shall not consider or act on” them but may determine to remand those plans to the approval authority “for further proceedings pursuant to such direction as may be given the City Council.”
1. Coastal Development Permit and Variance
LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(1) sets forth the procedures and review criteria for non-design review appeals, such as a CDP and variance. For that review, the City Council shall not be limited to the grounds stated for the appeal and shall not be limited to the evidence that was presented to the Board. The City Council shall exercise its independent judgment and discretion as to the evidence presented at its hearing. Nevertheless, there shall be a presumption that the decision or determination made by the Board was reasonable, valid, and not an abuse of discretion; and the appellant shall have the burden of proof of demonstrating otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence presented.
In its consideration of the Board’s approval of CDP 2026-0025 and VAR 2026-0026, the City Council is not limited to either the evidence in the record or the deliberations of the Board. The Applicant or members of the public may present new evidence for the City Council’s consideration, and the City Council is free to deliberate without being limited to the Board’s findings – in other words, a de novo hearing.
2. Design Review
LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(2) sets forth the procedures and review criteria for City Council requests for review of design review decisions. With respect to the standard of review for those decisions, subsection (E)(2)(b) provides:
If the decision or determination was not supported by four or more affirmative votes of the approval authority, upon hearing the appeal or request for review, the city council shall conduct a de novo review of the underlying application but shall be limited to the grounds specifically 7 An abuse of discretion is defined as the following: (1) the City has “not proceeded in the manner required by law”; (2) the City “decision is not supported by the findings”; or (3) the “findings are not supported by the evidence.” (Civil Code § 1094.5.) 161
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0024, CDP 2026-0025, AND VAR 2026-0026 AT 31985 & 31987 COAST HIGHWAY
May 13, 2026
stated in the notice of appeal, if an appeal was filed, and to the evidence, including plans, that was presented to the approval authority. The city council shall exercise its independent judgment and discretion as to such evidence. Nevertheless, there shall be a presumption that the decision or determination made by the approval authority was reasonable, valid, and not an abuse of discretion; and the appellant, if there is one, shall have the burden of proof of demonstrating otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence, including plans, presented.
Accordingly, in its consideration of DR 2026-0024, which was approved 4-0, the City Council shall not conduct a de novo hearing. Rather, the City Council shall consider whether the Board proceeded in the manner required by law and whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence.
If the Applicant proposes new plans that result in a redesign, the City Council shall not consider such plans; however, the City Council may (but is not required to) remand such plans to the Board for further review.
Notwithstanding that the City Council cannot review proposed new plans, the City Council can uphold the approval of DR 2026-0024, subject to more restrictive conditions of approval that are effectuated through the provision of new plans; 9 in such event, remand is not required.
3. City Council Options
The City Council has numerous options in consideration of this matter, which are listed below.
1. Adopt the attached Resolution upholding the Board Approval, and finding the approval of the Project categorically exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303;
2. Adopt the attached Resolution upholding the Board Approval and finding the approval of the Project categorically exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guideline Section 15303, but modifying the Resolution to include more restrictive conditions of approval;
3. Direct staff to prepare and return at a future meeting with a Resolution overturning the Board Approval, with findings in support of overturning the Board Approval and denying the Project; or
4. Direct staff to prepare and return at a future meeting with a Resolution remanding DR 2026- 0024, CDP 2026-0025, and VAR 2026-0026 to the Board, with findings in support of the remand and further direction to the Board.
RESPONSES TO ISSUES RAISED ON APPEAL
As noted above, the City received an Appeal of the Board’s decision (Attachment 2). As indicated under Standards of Review, in the City Council’s review of non-design review appeals, such as a CDP and variance, the Council shall conduct a de novo review of the underlying application and shall not be limited 9 By way of example only, the City Council could choose to uphold a DR decision but impose a condition requiring that a wall be moved in three feet (3’) in order to support a view equity finding. In such event, new plans would be required to effectuate the condition, but the plans would not need to be remanded to the Board or Planning Commission for further consideration. 162
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0024, CDP 2026-0025, AND VAR 2026-0026 AT 31985 & 31987 COAST HIGHWAY
May 13, 2026
to the grounds stated for the appeal, nor is the Council limited to the evidence that was presented to the Board. Accordingly, in its consideration of the Board’s approval of CDP 2026-0025 and VAR 2026-0026, the Council is free to deliberate without being limited to the Board’s findings – in other words, a de novo hearing. For the consideration of DR 2026-0024, the City Council shall not conduct a de novo review, shall not reweigh evidence and shall not exercise its independent judgment and discretion as to the evidence. The City Council shall consider whether the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, with a presumption that the decision was reasonable, valid and not an abuse of discretion. The Appellant has the burden to proof, by a preponderance of evidence, that the decision was not. . Further, for DR 2026-0024, the City Council is limited to the grounds specifically stated in the notice of Appeal.
Below are the grounds for the Appeal and City staff’s response.
1. “Public View Protection, Precedent, and Consistency with Prior Approvals” In short, the Appellant contends that the approved project blocks a recognized public ocean view corridor along Coast Highway and nearby public viewpoints, contrary to Landscape and Scenic Highways Element policies. Additionally, the Appellant asserts that prior City Council approvals for similar coastal properties established a precedent requiring rooflines to be set at curb-level to preserve public ocean view corridors along Coast Highway. The Appellant requests application of similar conditions to the subject project at 31985 and 31987 Coast Highway, including a maximum roof elevation aligned with curb height to maintain a 45-foot-wide public view corridor at the southern property boundary.
Staff’s Response
The Appellant asserts that the Project blocks a 45-foot-wide public ocean view corridor and conflicts with policies11 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.
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 11 LUE Policies 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 3.10, 7.3, 10.2; and LUP Policy 2.9 163
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0024, CDP 2026-0025, AND VAR 2026-0026 AT 31985 & 31987 COAST HIGHWAY
May 13, 2026
limits, resulting in a structure that remains visually compatible with the surrounding development pattern along Coast Highway. Based on staff analysis, site visits, and photographic simulations included in the record, the Project does not result in a complete obstruction of coastal views from Coast Highway or nearby public vantage points. Instead, views are partially affected but remain available from multiple locations along the corridor. 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.13” 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.14”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 segment of Coast Highway, which include large, multilevel 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.
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 5). The proposed project would maintain view opportunities along the public right-of-way, particularly through the spacing afforded by the 100-foot-wide lot (Figure 6). Although the Project would somewhat narrow the oblique view angles currently available across the site, it would 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. 13 Attachment 9 February 26, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 12 [Gannon]. 14 Attachment 9 February 26, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 12 [Coveny]. 164
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0024, CDP 2026-0025, AND VAR 2026-0026 AT 31985 & 31987 COAST HIGHWAY
May 13, 2026
Figure 5. 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-PEN-23-005317, 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-22-003418, 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. 17 https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2024/2/Th19b/Th19b-2-2024-report.pdf 18 https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2022/9/W17a/w17a-9-2022-report.pdf 165
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0024, CDP 2026-0025, AND VAR 2026-0026 AT 31985 & 31987 COAST HIGHWAY
May 13, 2026
Figure 6. Existing and Proposed Street Elevation Renderings
Figure 7. 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 166
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0024, CDP 2026-0025, AND VAR 2026-0026 AT 31985 & 31987 COAST HIGHWAY
May 13, 2026
existing driveway improvements, which further restrict parking opportunities. Figure 8 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 pass-through 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 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.
167
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0024, CDP 2026-0025, AND VAR 2026-0026 AT 31985 & 31987 COAST HIGHWAY
May 13, 2026
Figure 8: Project Site Along Coast Highway and Nearby Parking Conditions For these reasons, staff finds that the Project is consistent with applicable policies related to public views and does not result in a significant adverse impact warranting 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 found not to be significant.
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 9). This segment functions primarily as a through-traffic corridor within a predominantly 168
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0024, CDP 2026-0025, AND VAR 2026-0026 AT 31985 & 31987 COAST HIGHWAY
May 13, 2026
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.
Figure 9: 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 10: 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.
169
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0024, CDP 2026-0025, AND VAR 2026-0026 AT 31985 & 31987 COAST HIGHWAY
May 13, 2026
Figure 11: Montage Views, Shown Looking Northbound (above) and West (below) Figure 12: 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 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.
170
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0024, CDP 2026-0025, AND VAR 2026-0026 AT 31985 & 31987 COAST HIGHWAY
May 13, 2026
Accordingly, the evidence does not support a finding that the Project would result in a significant adverse impact to public coastal views. 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, staff’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 sized parcels.
Figure 13: 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 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. 171
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0024, CDP 2026-0025, AND VAR 2026-0026 AT 31985 & 31987 COAST HIGHWAY
May 13, 2026
Significant public ocean views remain readily available at nearby designated coastal access points. No consistent precedent supports the imposition of a curb-height roofline restriction or a fixed-width public view corridor requirement.
2. “Bluff Development and Environmental Constraints”
In short, the Appellant contends that proposed improvements within the coastal bluff area (including a funicular extension, stairs, decks, and retaining walls) would encroach into environmentally sensitive habitat areas, require variances and environmental review, and would be infeasible or inconsistent with Coastal Act and Local Coastal Program policies. The Appellant supports removal of the proposed public access easement and associated bluff development features.
Staff’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 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.
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 172
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0024, CDP 2026-0025, AND VAR 2026-0026 AT 31985 & 31987 COAST HIGHWAY
May 13, 2026
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 impacts21. 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” In short, the Appellant contends that the approved project does not utilize the existing driveway location and 20% gradient, which is asserted to be a grandfathered condition that currently provides safe access in a similar manner for adjacent properties. The Appellant proposes an alternative site plan that retains the existing driveway configuration, reduces building height and massing, and preserves a designated public view corridor across the site. The alternative design is asserted to improve vehicular safety, maintain neighborhood compatibility, and better protect coastal views.
Staff’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.
21 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. 173
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0024, CDP 2026-0025, AND VAR 2026-0026 AT 31985 & 31987 COAST HIGHWAY
May 13, 2026
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 sitespecific 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 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 the staff analysis, 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. 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”
In short, the Appellant contends that the project is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood due to excessive building width, mass, and overall size, large deck areas and courtyard space, and allegedly exceeds the permitted building height thereby requiring a variance. The project is characterized as substantially larger than surrounding homes and inconsistent with established development patterns.
Staff’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 174
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0024, CDP 2026-0025, AND VAR 2026-0026 AT 31985 & 31987 COAST HIGHWAY
May 13, 2026
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 conditioned by the Board to provide side yard setbacks of approximately 13 feet (south) and 14.5 feet (north). 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.
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 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. 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 compatibility23, “ 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.” The Appellant submitted an exhibit as part of the appeal depicting the north elevation and highlighting an area alleged to require a variance (Attachment 2). 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 lower24,” 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.
23 DRB Resolution 2026-0024, Section 3; Finding 1, Criterion 9 (Page 6). 24 Laguna Beach Municipal Code Section 25.08.016(a) Words beginning with “H,” “Height, building.” 175
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0024, CDP 2026-0025, AND VAR 2026-0026 AT 31985 & 31987 COAST HIGHWAY
May 13, 2026
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 14-16) clearly demonstrate that the structure remains within the maximum allowable height for the zone. As conditioned and approved, the Project complies with the applicable height measurement provisions of the Zoning Code27, 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 proposed residence would be set eight feet below the maximum allowed building height at Coast Highway.
Figure 14: Building Site Section A - Sheet A.3.1
Demonstrating Compliance with Maximum Building Height Envelope 27 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. 176
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0024, CDP 2026-0025, AND VAR 2026-0026 AT 31985 & 31987 COAST HIGHWAY
May 13, 2026
Figure 15: Building Site Section B - Sheet A.3.2
Demonstrating Compliance with Maximum Building Height Envelope Figure 16: 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) 177
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0024, CDP 2026-0025, AND VAR 2026-0026 AT 31985 & 31987 COAST HIGHWAY
May 13, 2026
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. 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 is inconsistent with these requirements or that a variance is warranted.
5. “General Plan Consistency and Staff Report Accuracy” In short, the Appellant contends that the approved project is inconsistent with the City’s General Plan and asserts that the staff report contains numerous inaccuracies and misleading conclusions. These claims focus on alleged inconsistencies with General Plan and Local Coastal Program policies and Design Guidelines, particularly regarding protection of public and private views, scenic highway visual resources, and neighborhood compatibility, including view equity.
Staff’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. However, this issue was not dispositive to the Board’s analysis or decision. 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.
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. Site observations and visual simulations (Figures 6 and 7) demonstrate that while some views are affected, public coastal views are not eliminated and remain available from multiple locations. Accordingly, the Project is consistent with 178
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0024, CDP 2026-0025, AND VAR 2026-0026 AT 31985 & 31987 COAST HIGHWAY
May 13, 2026
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 Equity29.
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. The approved Project satisfies these criteria30. 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. 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 is consistent with this pattern and does not introduce a form or intensity of development that is materially out of character with the area. 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.
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.
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. While the Appellant raises concerns regarding view impacts and interpretation of policies, these issues were appropriately considered and balanced by the Board. The General Plan does not mandate elimination of all impacts but requires reasonable design efforts to minimize them, which the Project satisfies.
29 DRB Resolution 2026-0024, Section 3; Finding 1, Criterion 16 (Page 8). 30 DRB Resolution 2026-0024, Section 3; Finding 1, Criteria 9 and 16 (Page 6 and 8). 179
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0024, CDP 2026-0025, AND VAR 2026-0026 AT 31985 & 31987 COAST HIGHWAY
May 13, 2026
6. “Public Input and Process Concerns”
In short, the Appellant contends that correspondence from multiple adjacent property owners was mischaracterized or inadequately represented in the staff report, limiting full consideration of neighborhood concerns.
Staff’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 inperson 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 effects33.
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 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. 33 Refer to the Public Correspondence section of the February 26, 2026 DRB Staff Report – Pages 27-28 (Attachment 5). 180
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0024, CDP 2026-0025, AND VAR 2026-0026 AT 31985 & 31987 COAST HIGHWAY
May 13, 2026
7. “Grading Impacts”
In short, the Appellant raises concerns regarding the volume of proposed grading, including associated truck trips, noise, and traffic impacts, and asserts that a reduced grading alternative is feasible.
Staff’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 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”
In short, the Appellant contends that required story poles were incomplete or compromised prior to the Board hearing, potentially affecting public review and site visibility, and asserts that re-noticing or restaking should have been required.
Staff’s Response
LBMC Section 25.05.040 requires that staking be installed in a manner sufficient to 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 181
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0024, CDP 2026-0025, AND VAR 2026-0026 AT 31985 & 31987 COAST HIGHWAY
May 13, 2026
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 decisionmaking 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 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.
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The recommended action has no financial impact to the budget.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, the Project qualifies for a categorical exemption pursuant to 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. Here, the Project involves the demolition of existing structures and the construction of a single-family 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. 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 182
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0024, CDP 2026-0025, AND VAR 2026-0026 AT 31985 & 31987 COAST HIGHWAY
May 13, 2026
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.
ATTACHMENTS
1. City Council Resolution (Pgs. 29-94)
2. Appeal (Pgs. 95-106)
3. City Council Appeal Public Notice (Pg. 107)
4. Adopted DRB Resolution No. 2026-0024 (Pgs. 108-134)
5. February 26, 2026 DRB Staff Report (Pgs. 135-162)
6. February 26, 2026 DRB Project Plans (Pgs. 163-237)
7. February 26, 2026 DRB Public Correspondence (Pgs. 238-409)
8. February 26, 2026 DRB Draft Minutes (Pgs. 410-412)
9. February 26, 2026 DRB Transcript (Pgs. 413-433)
10. Order of Testimony (Pgs. 434-435)
Submitted By: Matthew Schneider Approved: .David A Kiff Matthew Schneider, Director of
Community Development
Dave Kiff, City Manager
Report Prepared By: Coordinated With:
Wendy Jung, Principal Planner Jane Abzug, Assistant City Attorney Anthony Viera, Deputy Director of Community
Development
183