1 McKay, Ann Marie CC
Subject: 31985-87 Coast Hwy-Appeal(Menne) 5/13/26
From: Bryan Menne
Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2026 2:25 PM
To: Kiff, Dave CM <[email protected]>; Schneider, Matthew CD <[email protected]>; Orgill, Mark <[email protected]>; Alex Rounaghi <[email protected]>; Hallie Jones <[email protected]>; Whalen, Bob <[email protected]>; Kempf, Sue <[email protected]> Cc: Viera, Anthony CD <[email protected]>; Whitin, Susan Mclintock; steve kellenberg Subject: 31985-87 Coast Hwy-Appeal(Menne) 5/13/26
We had Drone photos flown today to show DRB & now City Council Story pole stakes are incomplete on the North & West edges-still blown down and just not installed -doesn’t accurately depict the building outlines , DRB’s 5’ changes to the north side/west side stakes still on ground & incomplete , missing rooflines/ Elevator heights not depicted for Required) - not present for 21 days prior for approved DRB2/26/26 & now CC same for review period-missing /story poles not offset 5’ northerly and poles laying on ground are still visible as noted at DRB -review period(Jessica Gannon even noted at our site visit that DRB hearing couldn’t be held 2/26/26 due to incomplete story’s stated to Bryan & Pat Menne on 10:45-11am site visit with us (photo dated evidence 5/10/26 This should render the DRB Approval not legal in question , as well as Current City Council noticing period has been compromised as well.- Please advise City Attorney of inaccurate , Public Noticing , inaccurate/ incomplete story pole staking-photographic proof.
If my Appeal is Approved, corrections to roofline to curb- level with Scenic Hwy ocean view protected including 45’ view corridor protected and preserved- we can ignore public Notice violations as Public views are protected- scenic view corridor resource intact.
Bryan Menne
Attachment 4
184
2 185
1 McKay, Ann Marie CC
Subject: 31985 Coast Highway Appeal
From: Morris Skenderian <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2026 10:23 AM
To: Orgill, Mark <[email protected]>; Rounaghi, Alex <[email protected]>; com' 'bwhalen@sycr. <[email protected]>; Kempf, Sue <[email protected]>; Rounaghi Alex <[email protected]>
Cc: Schneider, Matthew CD <[email protected]>; Krishna A. Rama <[email protected]>; Kaufmann Steven <[email protected]>; Viera, Anthony CD <[email protected]>; Kiff, Dave CM <[email protected]> Subject: 31985 Coast Highway Appeal
All:
If public views are the thrust of the appellant’s argument of the appeal, their argument is not validated as presented, since the public’s only view is when arriving at Coast Highway from upper 10th street and viewing down an existing private driveway with a width of approximately 20-30 ft d(appellant claims 45 ft)
The remaining 75 ft of applicant’s property and alleged views over or through the site are blocked from the 10th street view by the applicants own two story 17 ft high home and trees but also by the appellant’s own trees and landscaping. Any public views from Coast Highway while driving by the applicant’s driveway, are minimal and mostly missed, as drivers are focusing on driving 50 mph and not looking down a 20-30 ft driveway at this location to view the ocean. By the appellant’s own admission, the view down this driveway is his private view from the appellant’s office or living room which he alleges is subject to preservation.
The applicant has received approval, with conditions, to remove the existing two story residence, adjacent trees and vegetation, and create a new residence not 15 ft in height as provided per code, and measured above the sidewalk, but now only 7.5 ft above the sidewalk and in doing so, three public views are created, one 13 feet south side-yard setback, one 13 ft north side-yard setback, and another major view both private and public over the new residence previously encumbered by the existing residence and related vegetation.
In terms of public views, the Staff has made a credible analysis of the “public view” issue and refuted the appellants assertions. In addition, public views are typically and historically valued as those public views enjoyed from locations such as parks, public intersections, public streets, etc. A view down a private driveway by a speeding vehicle should not be considered a public view however, the applicant is creating views over and thru his private property as a gesture to preserve any perceived public or even a private view to the greatest extent possible without compromising his ability to develop his property as proposed.
Examples of public views are presented below including the only perceived public view down 10th street, adjacent to the appellants home, showing the degree of public view blockage by the appellants own vegetation. More specific substantive public views are also shown at locations that would be considered true “public views”. The most recently created public view 186
2 that did not exist prior the creation of the Montage Hotel, is the Treasure Island Park at the south end of the development, as a contribution by the then developer, Athens Group, dedicated to the City for a public park and parking structure below, which public views were previously encumbered by chain link fences and mobile homes, as they existed prior to the Montage development.
The other photos are of public views from Coast Highway signaled intersections, which views can be enjoyed by pedestrians and stopped vehicles alike.
From: Morris Skenderian
187
1 McKay, Ann Marie CC
Subject: 31985 Coast Highway Appeal
From: Morris Skenderian
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2026 1:01 PM
To: Viera, Anthony CD <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 31985 Coast Highway Appeal
188
2 189
3 From: Morris Skenderian
190