STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date:
August 4, 2026
APPEAL
B
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 AND OTHER RELATED IMPROVEMENTS 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 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”, upholding the Design Review Board’s conditional approval of Design Review 2026-0024, Coastal Development Permit 2026-0025, and Variance 2026-0026, subject to more restrictive conditions of approval, and finding the project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.
SUMMARY OF THE MATTER
On February 26, 2026, the Design Review Board (”Board”) conditionally approved (4-01) Design Review 2026-0024, Coastal Development Permit 2026-0025, and Variance 2026-0026 for the demolition of the existing residence and construction of a new single-family residence 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 1 Board Member Bauta was absent.
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0024, CDP 2026-0025, AND VAR 2026-0026 AT 31985 & 31987 COAST HIGHWAY
August 4, 2026
within the front yard setback at 31985 and 31987 Coast Highway3 (the “Project”) and found the Project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) under state CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (“Board Approval”). As project-specific conditions in the Board Approval, the Board required an increased south side yard setback4 and provisions for a lifeguard locker and emergency access improvements associated with the funicular easement5.
On March 10, 2026, an appeal of the Board's Approval was filed by Bryan Menne (“Appellant”) of 31988 10th Avenue, raising concerns related to public view preservation, bluff development and environmental impacts, driveway configuration, project scale and neighborhood compatibility, General Plan consistency, grading impacts, public noticing, and the adequacy of the Board's review (the “Appeal”) On May 13, 2026, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the Appeal and unanimously voted to continue the matter 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. Under the applicable standard of review, the City Council may modify the appealed project by imposing more restrictive conditions of approval. However, because the Project includes a request for Design Review, the Council may neither consider nor take action on new plans.
The May 13, 2026 City Council Staff Report, Public Comments, and Minutes are attached as Attachments 3 through 5, respectively.6
Following the continuance, the Applicant evaluated potential modifications, and staff reviewed the information provided to determine whether revisions to the conditions of approval could address the City Council's direction. Staff has prepared proposed more restrictive conditions of approval for the City Council's consideration that would establish additional setback and building height limitations. 3 Figures 1 and 2 depict existing aerial views and existing project street frontage for context. 4 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.
5 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.
6 The May 13, 2026 City Council Meeting Video is available to view on the City’s website at the following link (Refer to Agenda Item C): https://lagunabeachcity.granicus.com/player/clip/2997?view_id=3&redirect=true APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0024, CDP 2026-0025, AND VAR 2026-0026 AT 31985 & 31987 COAST HIGHWAY
August 4, 2026
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0024, CDP 2026-0025, AND VAR 2026-0026 AT 31985 & 31987 COAST HIGHWAY
August 4, 2026
Figure 1: Aerial Views of Project Site
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0024, CDP 2026-0025, AND VAR 2026-0026 AT 31985 & 31987 COAST HIGHWAY
August 4, 2026
Figure 2: Existing Street Frontage of Project Site
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.11 (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 11 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.) APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0024, CDP 2026-0025, AND VAR 2026-0026 AT 31985 & 31987 COAST HIGHWAY
August 4, 2026
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 supported by four or more affirmative votes of the approval authority, upon hearing the appeal or request for review, the city council shall be limited to the grounds specifically stated in the notice of appeal, if an appeal was filed, and to the evidence that was presented to the approval authority. The city council shall not conduct a de novo hearing, shall not reweigh the evidence, and shall not exercise its independent judgment and discretion as to the evidence. The city council shall consider whether the approval authority proceeded in the manner required by law and whether the decision or determination is supported by substantial evidence. There shall be a presumption that the decision or determination made by the approval authority was reasonable, valid, and not an abuse of discretion. 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; 13 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, subject to more restrictive conditions of 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, subject to more restrictive conditions of approval, and finding the approval of the Project categorically exempt from CEQA 13 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.
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0024, CDP 2026-0025, AND VAR 2026-0026 AT 31985 & 31987 COAST HIGHWAY
August 4, 2026
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.
PURPOSE OF THE CONTINUANCE
On May 13, 2026, the City Council continued the public hearing on the appeal to allow the Applicant an opportunity to evaluate whether limited design modifications could reduce the Project's perceived building height as viewed from Coast Highway. The City Council also directed staff to evaluate revisions to the conditions of approval that could implement such modifications. Accordingly, staff is providing a diagrammatic representation of certain height reductions and setback modifications that can be imposed on the Project through a more restrictive condition of approval. No revised plans are before the City Council for consideration, and the Appeal remains limited to the Board Approval and the issues properly within the scope of the appeal.
POTENTIAL DESIGN CHANGES
Since the prior hearing, the Applicant has been exploring ways to adjust the building program to reduce its appearance at Coast Highway. Based on information provided by the Applicant, potential modifications evaluated include:
• Relocation of the residence farther north on the site to provide a 16-foot south side yard setback (compared to the 13-foot setback approved by the Design Review Board15) and a 10-foot, 3-inch north side yard setback, resulting in a combined side yard setback of 26 feet, 3 inches, where 21 feet is required per Code. This would equate to 3-foot increase in setback on the south side to widen the public view corridor.
• Lowering the maximum roof elevation of the main residence from Elevation 167.50 to Elevation 163.50 (4-foot reduction) and lowering the garage roof from Elevation 165.50 to Elevation 162.00 (3.5-foot reduction). The Applicant has indicated that the revised roof heights have been restaked on the site for public viewing prior to the City Council hearing. 15 As a project-specific condition of approval, the Board required the originally proposed 8-foot south side yard setback to be increased by an additional 5 feet, resulting in a required 13-foot south side yard setback. The potential design changes further increase the south side yard setback by an additional 3 feet, for a total increase of 8 feet compared to the plans originally presented to the Board.
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0024, CDP 2026-0025, AND VAR 2026-0026 AT 31985 & 31987 COAST HIGHWAY
August 4, 2026
Figure 3: Street Elevation Illustrating Potential Building Height Reduction and Setback Modifications (Potential Modifications Shown in Orange) Figure 4: South Elevation Illustrating Potential Height Reduction (Potential Modifications Shown in Orange)
PROPOSED MORE RESTRICTIVE CONDITION OF APPROVAL
Should the City Council determine to condition the Project subject to the Applicant's changes depicted in Figure 3 above, it may impose more restrictive conditions of approval set forth below. The conditions would require specified design modifications, which staff would verify during the building permit review and prior to building permit issuance. Staff would not issue a building permit unless the plans satisfy the height and setback requirements specified below and demonstrate full compliance with the Laguna Beach Municipal Code and all applicable conditions of approval.
Suggested More Restrictive Condition of Approval
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, 3-inch north side yard setback, for a combined side yard setback of not less than 26 feet, 3 inches.
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0024, CDP 2026-0025, AND VAR 2026-0026 AT 31985 & 31987 COAST HIGHWAY
August 4, 2026
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.
SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF ANALYSIS
Consistent with the City Council's direction at the May 13, 2026, public hearing, staff evaluated the potential design modifications identified by the Applicant to determine whether they could be implemented through revisions to the conditions of approval while remaining within the limited scope of the Appeal. Staff's review confirmed that the Project can be modified in accordance with the condition of approval proposed above without introducing new plans into the proceedings. Staff further finds that the resulting Project, as proposed to be further conditioned by the City Council, is expected to comply with all applicable Municipal Code requirements, subject to final verification upon the City’s review of construction-level plans submitted as part of the building permit process.
As part of this evaluation, staff reexamined the appeal contentions related to project scale, massing, and public view preservation. Specifically, staff considered the potential effects of increased side yard setbacks, reduced roof elevations, and a proposed more restrictive condition of approval on the public view impacts identified by the Appellant, as well as consistency with applicable development standards and Design Review criteria.
The results of staff's supplemental analysis have been incorporated, where applicable, into a revised draft resolution provided as Attachment 1, including revisions to the City Council’s responses to the appeal contentions. Additionally, a track changes version has been provided to clearly identify strikethrough/redline revisions to the original findings, analysis, and conditions of approval resulting from staff's evaluation, and is provided as Attachment 2. The City Council's consideration remains limited to the Board Approval and whether to uphold, modify – including through the imposition of additional conditions of approval – or reverse the Board's decision.
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The recommended action has no financial impact to the budget.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0024, CDP 2026-0025, AND VAR 2026-0026 AT 31985 & 31987 COAST HIGHWAY
August 4, 2026
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 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 (Clean Version) (Pgs. 10-81)
2. City Council Resolution (Track Changes Version) (Pgs. 82-154)
3. May 13, 2026 CC Staff Report (Pgs. 155-183)
4. May 13, 2026 CC Public Correspondence (Pgs. 184-190)
5. May 13, 2026 CC Minutes (Pg. 191)
6. Order of Testimony (Pgs. 192-193)
Submitted By: Matthew Schneider Approved: Dave 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