Attach 1 - Resolution - Denying the Appeal at 31985 & 31987 Coast Hwy — Laguna Beach City Council, September 22, 2026

RESOLUTION NO. 26.XXX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

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

EXISTING STRUCTURES AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW

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

SUBJECT TO IMPOSING MORE RESTRICTIVE CONDITIONS OF

APPROVAL, AND FINDING THE PROJECT CATEGORICALLY

EXEMPT UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15303
WHEREAS, the property owner, 888 Pacific Holdings LLC and Rama Krishna1 (“Applicant”), of 31985 and 31987 Coast Highway (the “Property”), applied for Design Review (“DR”) 2026-0024 for demolition of the existing structures and construction of a new single-family dwelling with a two-car garage and 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), Variance 2026-0026 for 1) reconstruction of the funicular and associated access components (stairs, landings, terrace, retaining walls, and gates) and maintaining stairs, walkways, and retaining walls within the bluff pursuant to LBMC Section

25.50.004(B)(4) and 2) to exceed the maximum wall height within the front yard setback pursuant to LBMC Section 25.50.012(B)(3), and Coastal Development Permit (“CDP”) 2026-0025 for the above-described improvements pursuant to LBMC Section 25.07.008(A)(1)(c) in the R-1 (Residential Low Density) zone (the “Project”); and
1 The Project’s agent is Morris Skenderian who is within the definition of Applicant. -2- Reso. #
WHEREAS, on February 26, 2026, the Design Review Board (“Board”) held a duly noticed public hearing and considered the Project. After receiving input from staff, the Applicant, and public comments, the Board discussed the Project and approved the Project with a 4-0 vote under Board Resolution No. 2026-0024, conditionally approving the Project and finding the Project categorically exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines Section 15303 (the “Board Approval”); and
WHEREAS, on March 10, 2026, Bryan Menne (“Appellant”) of 31988 10th Avenue, filed an appeal of the Board Approval (“Appeal”); and
WHEREAS, public notice was duly provided to consider the Appeal of the Project at the May 13, 2026 City Council meeting in accordance with LBMC Section 25.05.065; and WHEREAS, on May 13, 2026, the City Council held a public hearing on the Appeal and carefully considered the oral and documentary evidence and arguments presented, and took the following actions: (1) directed the applicant to review the Coastal Commission’s public hearing on the Reyna property, located at 31451 Coast Highway (the “Reyna project”), which was held at the same time as the City Council’s May 13, 2026 public hearing on the appeal of the Project, in an effort to guide the City Council’s decision in a manner that would make the Project successful at the California Coastal Commission, if appealed; and (2) continued the public hearing to the August 4, 2026; and
WHEREAS, on August 4, 2026, the City Council held a public hearing on the Appeal and considered all evidence, closed the public hearing, deliberated, and directed City staff to revise the City Council resolution to uphold the Board Approval and conditionally approve the Project subject to imposing more restrictive conditions of approval based on the City Council deliberations -3- Reso. #
at its August 4, 2026 meeting; and
WHEREAS, on September 22, 2026, the City Council considered the proposed revised resolution on its consent agenda for the meeting.

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

SECTION 1. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution by this reference.

SECTION 2. The City Council hereby makes the following findings in response to grounds for the Appeal stated in Appellants’ notice of Appeal:

1. “Public View Protection, Precedent, and Consistency with Prior Approvals” City Council’s Response
The Appellant asserts that the Project blocks a 45-foot-wide public ocean view corridor and conflicts with policies2 of the Land Use Element (“LUE”), coastal Land Use Plan (“LUP”), 2 LUE Policies 2.8 [“Require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated with natural topographic features, minimize significant alteration of natural topography and/or other significant onsite resources, and protect public views as specified in the Design Guidelines and the Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document”]; 2.9 [“Require the use of appropriate landscaping, special architectural treatments, and/or siting considerations to protect public views for projects visible from major highways and arterial streets”]; 2.10 [“Maximize the preservation of coastal and canyon views (consistent with the principle of view equity) from existing properties and minimize blockage of existing public and private views. Best efforts should be made to site new development in locations that minimize adverse impacts on views from public locations (e.g., roads, bluff top trails, visitor-serving facilities, etc.)”], 3.10 [“Require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated with natural topographic features, minimize significant alteration of natural topography or other significant on-site resources, and protect public views as specified in the Design Guidelines and Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document by maintaining the low-profile character of structures. Require use of appropriate landscaping, special architectural treatments, and siting considerations for projects visible from major highways and arterial streets. Best efforts should be made to site new development in locations that minimize adverse impacts on views from public locations (e.g., roads, bluff-top trails, visitor-serving facilities, etc.).”],

7.3[“Design and site new development to protect natural and environmentally sensitive resources, such as areas of unique scenic quality, public views, and visual compatibility with surrounding uses and to minimize natural landform alterations. (Sane as Policy 10.2.)”], 10.2 [“Design and site new development to protect natural and environmentally sensitive resources such as areas of unique scenic quality, public -4- Reso. #
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. Further, City staff confirmed that the element regulates landscaping and not construction of structures. 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 positioning from Coast Highway and nearby public vantage points such as pedestrian areas and beach accessways.

The Project was also evaluated in the context of the Coastal Commission’s action on the Reyna project, in which the Coastal Commission found substantial issues on two points: (1) the bluff edge determination; and (2) coastal resource (public view impacts). With respect to the bluff edge determination, the Coastal Commission found that its geologist, while relying upon the same language in the City’s Local Coastal Program (“LCP”) to determine the bluff edge as the City’s views, and visual compatibility with surrounding uses and to minimize landform alterations.”].) -5- Reso. #
geologist, arrived at the correct calculation for the bluff edge.3 Nevertheless, in applying the Coastal Commission geologist’s bluff edge determination, the Coastal Commission found that the application would result in a taking of property (i.e., only a 700 square-foot residence would be allowed and it would need to be located underground). To avoid the taking, the Coastal Commission relied upon a provision in the Coastal Act to conclude that it could relax the bluff edge setback of 25 feet. (Pub. Res. Code § 30010; McAllister v. California Coastal Commission (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 912, 939 [government may limit application of resource protection policies to the extent necessary to allow a property owner a constitutionally reasonable economic use the property].) Accordingly, in the Coastal Commission’s analysis, it pivoted to applying the next most stringent setback (i.e., the building stringline), which is a diagonal line that runs from the 3 Land Use Element Actions 7.3.5 [“Prohibit development on oceanfront bluff faces, except public improvements providing public access, protecting coastal resources, or providing for public safety. Permit such improvements only when no feasible alternative exists and when designed and constructed to minimize landform alteration of the oceanfront bluff face to not contribute to further erosion of the oceanfront bluff face, and to be visually compatible with the surrounding area to the maximum extent feasible”]; 10.2.7 [Require all new development located on oceanfront bluffs to be sited in accordance with the stringline but not less than 25 feet from the bluff edge. This requirement shall apply to the principal structure and major accessory structures such as guesthouses and pools that require a structural foundation. The setback shall be increased where necessary to ensure geologic safety and stability of the development.”].) Oceanfront Bluff/Coastal Bluff is defined to mean a bluff overlooking a beach or shoreline or that is subject to marine erosion. Many oceanfront bluffs consist of a gently sloping upper bluff and a steeper lower bluff or sea cliff. The term “oceanfront bluff” or “coastal bluff” refers to the entire slope between a marine terrace or upland area and the sea. The term “sea cliff” refers to the lower, near vertical portion of an oceanfront bluff.

Here, the City Council finds that the Project complies with both the blufftop setback (by an additional 10 feet beyond the required 25 foot setback) and the building stringline setback.

Accordingly, the Project adequately protects the coastal resource (i.e., the bluff).

With respect to the coastal resource impacts, the Coastal Commission found that the Reyna project adversely impacted public views. The Coastal Commission noted Open Space and Conservation Element Policy 7-M, which states the following: “[n]ew development along Pacific Coast Highway shall preserve existing views where feasible and, where topography allows, new development shall be terraced below the grade of Pacific Coast Highway.” For the Reyna project, the Coastal Commission considered the steepest allowable driveway approach to the site and then reduced the height of the single-family residence as much as possible to keep consistency with the required grade for the driveway approach. Accordingly, the Coastal Commission reduced the -7- Reso. #
height of the Reyna project to two feet and eleven inches above Coast Highway—since that is what the topography allows.

Here, consistent with the Coastal Commission analysis in the Reyna project, the City Council considered the topography of the site, which gets steeper the further north on the site, and the desire to protect the coastal bluff by continuing to meet and exceed the blufftop setback and building stringline setback, and the maximum grade of the driveway at the maximum of 14 percent slope and the plate heights of the garage and residence. Based upon the evidence, the City Council added the following more restrictive conditions of approval, without finding abuse of discretion of the Board Approval:
a. Relocate the residence to provide a minimum 16-foot south side yard setback and a 10- foot, three-inch north side yard setback, for a combined side yard setback of not less than 26 feet, three inches.
b. Reduce the maximum roof elevation of the garage to no higher than an elevation of 162.00 feet.
c. Reduce the maximum roof elevation of the main residence to no higher than an elevation of 162.50 feet.
d. To preserve views over and across the structure, no improvement, as defined in Section

25.08.018 of the Laguna Beach Municipal Code, shall project above the building envelope established by the maximum roof elevations of the garage and main residence, whether located in front of or behind the residence and garage. e. Within the view corridor between the south side property line and the south corner of the garage, no improvement shall exceed sixteen (16) inches above curb height, -8- Reso. #
including groundcover or other at-grade landscaping.

The City Council finds that the Project, as revised by the City Council, reduces the perceived bulk and creates a lower visual profile by lowering the garage and residences’ heights and results in viewing corridors that are not less than 26 feet, 3 inches (a minimum 16-foot south side yard setback and a 10-foot, 3-inch north side yard setback).

While Coast Highway is a public travel corridor, opportunities for the public to safely stop and experience stationary ocean views in the immediate vicinity of the Project site are limited. The Project frontage and surrounding segments of Coast Highway are predominantly lined with red curbs on both sides, restricting vehicle stopping and parking. On the ocean side of the highway, much of shoulder consists of curb cuts for existing driveway improvements, which further restrict parking opportunities. Given these conditions, the Project frontage functions primarily as a passthrough visual corridor rather than a designated or practical public viewing area.

Additionally, 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. -9- Reso. #
No comparable designated public view corridor exists at or near the Project site.

The City Council finds that the Project, as revised by the City Council, minimizes impacts to public coastal views and the blufftop while maintaining reasonable residential development of the Property.

2. “Bluff Development and Environmental Constraints”
City Council’s Response
The record does not support these assertions. The Project is located on a previously developed infill residential site, and no environmentally sensitive habitat area (“ESHA”) has been identified on the Property. The Project proposes to consolidate 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 City Council finds that the Project, as revised by the City Council, minimizes impacts to public coastal views and the blufftop while maintaining reasonable residential development of the Property.

The Board evaluated and approved the requested variances for the funicular and related improvements on the bluff face, 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. 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 -10- Reso. #
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. These related improvements to the funicular (i.e., the stairs, walkways and retaining walls) provide an important public service because they provide an alternative route up or down the bluff face for emergency response personnel should the funicular be filled-to-capacity. 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.

The Project was reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and determined to be exempt, with no substantial evidence of significant environmental impacts requiring further review. The CEQA determination is supported by specific findings that the Project qualifies for a Class 3 categorical exemption (CEQA Guidelines §15303) as it involves demolition of existing development and construction of a single-family residence with accessory improvements in a residential (R-1) zone. The record confirms there is no substantial evidence of unusual circumstances or a reasonable possibility of significant environmental effects. The site, while oceanfront, does not contain environmentally sensitive habitat areas, is not located on a -11- Reso. #
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. None of the exceptions under CEQA Guidelines §15300.2 apply. Claims regarding infeasibility of the proposed improvements or the need for additional variances are speculative and not supported by the record.

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

With respect to the Appellant’s assertion that the alternative driveway design would provide safer access, the Project was evaluated through the City’s established review process, including consideration of site-specific constraints such as topography, sight distance, and access alignment with Coast Highway. The approved driveway location and design were found to provide safe and functional vehicular access consistent with City standards. The existence of other -12- Reso. #
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 a nonconforming condition by redesigning the driveway to 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 herein, applicable policies require that visual impacts be minimized to the -13- Reso. #
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”
City Council’s Response
With respect to building width and massing, the subject site is atypical in that it consists of two legal lots under common ownership, resulting in an overall site width of approximately 104 feet. This condition distinguishes the Property from the prevailing lot pattern in the area, where parcels are typically 40 to 50 feet in width. It should also be noted that the site was previously developed with two single-family dwellings (one of which was demolished in 2018 pursuant to an issued and finaled building permit in 2018), and the proposed Project contemplates merging two lots into one lot and two single family dwellings into one single family dwelling.

The Project, as revised by the City Council, includes a minimum 16-foot south side yard setback and a minimum 10-foot, three-inch north side yard setback, resulting in a combined side yard setback of not less than 26 feet, three inches. These setbacks exceed the minimum Code requirements of approximately 10.4 feet each side (20.86 feet combined), as well as the typical 4- to 5-foot side yard setbacks associated with standard 40- to 50-foot-wide lots. Additionally, the Project, as revised by the City Council results in setbacks that provide greater separation between the proposed residence and adjacent development. The increased side yard setbacks also create a wider visual opening across the site from Coast Highway, thereby enhancing public view -14- Reso. #
opportunities while maintaining compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood.

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

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

Furthermore, the surrounding development pattern along Coast Highway is characterized by a mix of residential structures with varying widths, heights, and architectural forms, rather than a uniform or consistent building envelope. The 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 -15- Reso. #
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 Project, as revised by the City Council, enhances neighborhood compatibility by reducing the visual presence of the structure along Coast Highway and providing greater spacing between development than the Board Approval.

The Appellant submitted an exhibit as part of the appeal depicting the north elevation and highlighting an area alleged to require a variance. The Appellant’s conclusion is based on a misinterpretation of the elevation drawing, which shows architectural articulation and varying wall planes rather than a uniform building face. While portions of the structure appear taller in the elevation view, compliance with height limits is determined by “the vertical distance from any point on the finished roof surface to the finished floor surface of the lowest floor measured directly below or to the natural or finished grade, whichever is more restrictive or lower4 ,” as verified in
the building sections and not by isolated visual projections in an elevation. The complete plan set, including all sections, demonstrates that no portion of the structure exceeds the maximum allowable building height at any point. As such, the perceived need for a height variance is not supported by the actual code-compliant height measurements reflected in the approved plans.

The Project was reviewed for compliance with the City’s Zoning Code, including standards governing height, floor area, setbacks, and site development regulations. The sections (Figures 1- 3) clearly demonstrate that the structure remains within the maximum allowable height for the 4 Laguna Beach Municipal Code Section 25.08.016(a) Words beginning with “H,” “Height, building.” -16- Reso. #
zone. The Project complies with the applicable height measurement provisions of the Zoning Code5
, and no variance is required. Due to the Project’s articulated design and the stepping of the building along the site’s down-sloping topography, height is distributed across varying elevations rather than concentrated at a single plane. This design approach is consistent with the City’s height measurement methodology and Design Guidelines, and it ensures that the Project complies with all applicable height limits. In fact, the figure below demonstrates that the originally proposed residence would be set eight feet below the maximum allowed building height at Coast Highway.

Figure 1: Building Site Section A - Sheet A.3.1
Demonstrating Compliance with Maximum Building Height Envelope 5 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. -17- Reso. #
Figure 2: Building Site Section B - Sheet A.3.2
Demonstrating Compliance with Maximum Building Height Envelope Figure 3: 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)
-18- Reso. #
In addition, the reduced roof elevations and revised side yard setbacks required by the City Council further reduce the perceived scale and massing of the residence by increasing the amount of open space surrounding the structure and lowering the residence’s height above the street, thereby improving its visual compatibility with adjacent development and enhancing view permeability from the public right-of-way. Accordingly, substantial evidence in the administrative record supports the finding that the Project complies with applicable Zoning Code standards, including height limits, and satisfies the City’s Design Review Criteria and Design Guidelines related to scale, massing, and neighborhood compatibility.

The Project, as modified by the City Council, provides additional separation from adjoining properties, enhances the public view corridor along Coast Highway, and further reduces the apparent visual mass of the residence while remaining compatible with the established pattern of development in the surrounding neighborhood. The Project will demolish an existing residence that presents a taller, two-story appearance along Coast Highway with a comparatively lowerprofile residence that reads as a one-story structure at the highway, consistent with development patterns in the immediate vicinity, which include both one- and two-story buildings along the highway frontage. In addition, because the Project is located on the upper portion of the subject property, the residence and associated decking would be set back approximately 160 feet northeast of the sandy beach, whereas many surrounding properties contain structures that are situated substantially closer to the beach, including numerous examples within 100 feet. The Appellant has not demonstrated that the Project, as modified by the City Council, is inconsistent with these requirements or that a variance is warranted.

5. “General Plan Consistency and Staff Report Accuracy” -19- Reso. #
City Council’s Response
It is acknowledged that the Board staff report contains inaccuracies regarding the extent of public ocean view impacts, including the discussion of compliance with LUE Policy 2.10. The record indicates that some level of public view impact will occur. However, the presence of such impacts does not necessarily render them significant or inconsistent with applicable Local Coastal Program policies as those policies do not require the complete absence of impacts to public ocean views from every public vantage point. General Plan Consistency does not require perfect conformity with every policy or the elimination of all impacts. Under established California land use law, a project is considered consistent if, on balance, it aligns with the General Plan’s goals, policies, and objectives. The City retains discretion to interpret and apply its adopted policies, including balancing competing objectives such as protection of visual resources (e.g., LUE Policies 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 3.10, 7.3, and 10.2, and CLU Policy 2.9) and the reasonable development of private property. 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.

The response to Appeal Contention No. 1 is incorporated herein by reference. The City Council finds that the Project, as conditioned by the City Council, protects public coastal views and scenic resources.

With respect to neighborhood compatibility and view equity, the Design Review Criteria -20- Reso. #
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 Project, as conditioned by the City Council, increases the combined side yard setback of not less than 26 feet, three inches, together with the reduction in the maximum roof elevations of the residence and garage, further reduces the perceived scale and bulk of the Project, increases building separation, and creates a wider and more open visual corridor across the site from Coast Highway.

To contextualize this within its surroundings, the Project’s height, bulk, and overall profile are consistent with and in several respects less visually prominent than nearby developed properties of similar zoning designation, with a proposed height of less than 3.6 feet above the curb elevation at Coast Highway on the north side. Adjacent and nearby buildings exhibit a mix of one- and twostory 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, as conditioned by the City Council, remains compatible with this established pattern of development while providing greater visual openness and reduced massing than the original proposal. The Project remains within allowable lot coverage limits (35% maximum; 28% proposed) and reduces apparent bulk through articulation and terracing. Front, side, and rear setbacks in the vicinity are consistent with zoning standards, with some properties built closer to property lines. The Project exceeds the minimum required setbacks, creating greater separation than is typical in the area. The modified side yard setbacks substantially exceed the minimum zoning requirements and provide greater separation than is typical within the surrounding neighborhood, while the reduced roof -21- Reso. #
elevations further lessen the visual profile of the residence as viewed from Coast Highway.

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

6. “Public Input and Process Concerns”
City Council’s Response
The administrative record demonstrates that public input was appropriately solicited, documented, and considered throughout the review process. The public hearing notice noted oral testimony could be provided at the public hearing and accepted written comments until 5:30 p.m. on the business day preceding the hearing, ensuring a reasonable opportunity for participation. The Board agenda similarly provided for in-person and written submissions via mail and email, with a defined deadline to allow adequate time for review. Public correspondence received after agenda posting is distributed to Board members and linked to the agenda to be included as part of the public record. The record includes the notice, agenda, and submitted comments, confirming that public input was received and made available for consideration. Additionally, the staff report accurately summarized written correspondence received from neighboring property owners prior -22- Reso. #
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 effects6.

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 provided 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 6 Refer to the Public Correspondence section of the February 26, 2026 DRB Staff Report – Pages 27-28 (May 13, 2026 Agenda Report, Attachment 5).
-23- Reso. #
review process.

Lastly, the City Council conducted a duly notice public hearing on the Appeal and provided the opportunity for public comment.

7. “Grading Impacts”
City Council’s Response
Grading and structural design were reviewed for compliance with applicable Municipal Code, geotechnical, and safety standards. The Project includes approximately 2,885 cubic yards of export, consisting entirely of cut, and is primarily intended to lower the structure into the existing slope. This design approach is a key component of the Project’s overall strategy to reduce building height, minimize visual prominence, and preserve public and private ocean views to the extent feasible. Grading is confined to the previously developed portion of the site and does not extend into undisturbed areas, the ocean bluff, or the required bluff setback. No environmentally sensitive habitat areas, significant natural features, or watercourses are present or impacted. The 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 -24- Reso. #
the Project to maintain a low, single-story profile at Coast Highway, maximizing public ocean views in accordance with applicable General Plan policy and the View Equity design review criterion.

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

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

Additionally, the Board conducted independent site visits and considered the Project from multiple vantage points, including surrounding public areas and adjacent properties. The Board -25- Reso. #
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 Approval was based on substantial evidence in the administrative record, including but not limited to the story pole installation, Project plans, staff analysis, and public testimony. The decision-making body also exercised its discretion to impose Project-specific conditions and modifications to address site design and compatibility considerations.

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

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

Finding No. 1: Physical improvements and site developments related to the Project are designed and located in a manner in overall consistency with the design review criteria specified in Section 25.05.040(H), as set forth below:
-26- Reso. #

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

Handicapped access shall be provided as required by applicable statutes.

The Project, as conditioned by the City Council, is not expected to create conflicts between vehicular, pedestrian, or other modes of transportation. Site access will continue to be provided from Coast Highway. The required onsite turnaround has been provided, and vehicles will exit the site nosing into traffic. The existing sidewalk will jog at the new driveway apron. A vehicular gate is setback from the sidewalk where vegetation is proposed.

A wall and vehicular driveway gate are proposed within the front setback and have been staked with story poles. A variance is concurrently sought for the encroachment into the setback.

However, the Project, as conditioned by the City Council, reduces the extent of such encroachment. The wall and vehicular driveway gate are consistent with the existing streetscape character, where walls, fences, gates, and garages are commonly located at or near the sidewalk.

The proposed wall and fence height is limited in accordance with the conditions of approval.

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

The Project, as conditioned by the City Council, minimizes the appearance of mass through a terraced and stacked design that follows the natural down slope of the site. The City Council finds that the Project, as revised by the City Council, reduces the perceived bulk and creates a lower visual profile by lowering the garage and residences’ heights and results in viewing corridors -27- Reso. #
that are not less than 26 feet, 3 inches (a minimum 16-foot south side yard setback and a 10-foot, 3-inch north side yard setback).

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

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

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

The Project has been designed to step with the existing gently sloping terrain. No heritage trees, significant natural features, or watercourses are present on the property. The Project includes approximately 2,885 cubic yards of grading export, which is primarily proposed to lower the -28- Reso. #
building into the slope to preserve neighboring ocean views. As a result, the Project is not expected to adversely affect the City’s scenic natural setting.

5. General Plan Compliance: The development shall comply with all applicable policies of the General Plan, including all of its elements, applicable specific plans, and the certified local coastal program.

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

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

The Project, as conditioned by the City Council, has been designed to be compatible with and integrated into the site’s existing gently sloping topography through a stepped and terraced building form that follows the natural down slope of the property. The siting and massing of the structure minimizes perceived bulk and reduces visual impacts when viewed from the public rightof-way and surrounding properties. While grading is proposed, it is limited to only cut and is primarily intended to lower the building into the slope, thereby minimizing building height and preserving neighboring and public ocean views. No significant onsite natural resources are present or impacted by the development. As designed, the Project is consistent with LU Policy 2.8 and the applicable Design Guidelines by respecting existing terrain, minimizing topographic alteration to the extent feasible, and protecting public views.
-29- Reso. #
LU Policy 2.10 Maximize the preservation of coastal and canyon views (consistent with the principle of view equity) from existing properties and minimize blockage of existing public and private views. Best efforts should be made to site new development in locations that minimize adverse impacts on views from public locations (e.g., roads, bluff top trails, visitor-serving facilities, etc.).

The Project has been carefully sited and designed to preserve coastal and canyon views from surrounding properties and public viewpoints to the greatest extent feasible. The stepped and terraced building form follows the natural upslope of the site and reduces perceived height and mass. No public bluff-top trails or visitor-serving facilities are within the Project site. Accordingly, the Project is consistent with LU Policy 2.10 and the principle of view equity by minimizing impacts to existing public and private coastal and canyon views.

LU Policy 3.10 Require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated with natural topographic features, minimize significant alteration of natural topography or other -30- Reso. #
significant on-site resources, and protect public views as specified in the Design Guidelines and Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document by maintaining the low-profile character of structures. Require use of appropriate landscaping, special architectural treatments, and siting considerations for projects visible from major highways and arterial streets. Best efforts should be made to site new development in locations that minimize adverse impacts on views from public locations (e.g., roads, bluff-top trails, visitor-serving facilities, etc.).

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

The Project protects public views consistent with the Design Guidelines and the Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document by maintaining roof heights and building massing that remain visually subordinate to the surrounding streetscape.

The Project, as conditioned by the City Council, incorporates appropriate architectural articulation and material variation to reduce visual prominence, and proposed landscaping will further soften building edges and integrate the structure into its hillside setting. The site is visible from designated scenic highways and the beach visitor-serving facilities. The Project, as conditioned by the City Council, minimizes adverse impacts on views from public locations and is consistent with applicable Design Guidelines and scenic resource policies.

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

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

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

The building is set back from the ocean bluff area that consists of approximately 18,166 square feet (52.3% of the property). As designed, the Project minimizes impacts to scenic resources -32- Reso. #
and public views and is consistent with LU Policy 7.3 and the General Plan goal of protecting, preserving, and enhancing the community’s natural resources.

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

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

LU Policy 10.2 Design and site new development to protect natural and environmentally sensitive resources such as areas of unique scenic quality, public views, and visual compatibility with surrounding uses and to minimize landform alterations. (Same as Policy 7.3) GOAL: Ensure that proposals for new development, subdivisions, and major remodels are sufficiently evaluated to protect public health and safety and natural resources.

The development is integrated with the site’s existing gently sloping topography through stepped and terraced building forms that follow the natural contours of the property and maintain a low-profile appearance when viewed from public vantage points. Building massing, roof forms, and architectural articulation reduce visual prominence and ensure compatibility with the scale and character of surrounding residential development. Grading is proposed primarily to lower the -33- Reso. #
structure into the slope, thereby minimizing alteration of the natural landform and preserving public and private views to the extent feasible.

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

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

Neither the Property nor the existing structures on the Property are historic resources within the meaning of Chapter 25.45 as they are not listed on the Federal, California, or local register and there is no evidence of historicity in the record.

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

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

Sheets L-04 & L-05 includes the proposed landscape/fuel modification plan. The maintenance of heights and widths of trees and shrubs are noted. The landscaping is consistent with the Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document. There are no known neighborhood concerns relative to potential hedge impacts. The Project, as conditioned by the City Council, includes further limitations on the allowable landscaping on the Property. -34- Reso. #

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

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

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

The area is a coastal residential neighborhood situated on a bluff above the shoreline, immediately adjacent to a primary coastal roadway (Coast Highway) with local residential streets extending inland. Development reflects a long-established coastal village pattern, where homes -35- Reso. #
are closely integrated with the natural bluff, beach access points, and ocean-oriented views. The proposed home is generally compatible with the existing coastal neighborhood character, particularly in terms of height, architectural style, and response to topography. The design aligns with the prevailing pattern of contemporary, multi-level coastal residences along the bluff.

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

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

11. Privacy: The placement of activity areas (e.g., decks, picture windows and ceremonial or entertainment rooms) in locations that would result in a substantial invasion of privacy of neighboring properties should be minimized.

The proposed two-story home will be located closer to Coast Highway than both adjacent oceanfront homes that extend down the bluff. The City Council finds that the Project, as revised by the City Council, reduces the perceived bulk and creates a lower visual profile by lowering the garage and residences’ heights and results in spacing from other residences (a minimum 16-foot south side yard setback and a 10-foot, 3-inch north side yard setback). The proposed pool and spa area is located under the home and designed to not impact neighbor privacy. As such, the Project will not result in a substantial invasion of privacy to neighboring properties.

12. Public Art: Public art is encouraged and shall be displayed where feasible or required by the Art in Public Places ordinance.
-36- Reso. #
Design Review Criteria for Public Art is related to commercial development and this residential project is not subject to these criteria.

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

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

14. Sustainability: New development should consider architecture and building practices which minimize environmental impacts and enhance energy efficiency by: (a) reducing energy needs of buildings by proper site and structural design; (b) increasing the building’s ability to capture or generate energy; (c) using low-impact, sustainable and recycled building materials; (d) using the latest Best Management Practices regarding waste and water management; and (e) reducing site emissions.

The new construction will meet Title 24 Energy and Building Code requirements, which include insulated windows and energy-efficient lighting. The applicant will be required to provide proof of compliance. The roof plan includes a solar ready flat roof area. Further, the applicant will be required to reuse, recycle, or divert at least 65 percent of the Project’s construction and demolition debris.

15. Swimming Pools, Spas, and Water Features: Swimming pools, spas and water features shall be located, designed and constructed where: (a) geology conditions allow; (b) noise produced by circulatory mechanical pumps and equipment is mitigated; and (c) any -37- Reso. #
associated fencing or other site improvements are compatible with neighboring properties.

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

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

As conditioned by the City Council, the proposed two-story structure purposely reduces the upper-level massing as viewed from Coast Highway. The Project, as conditioned by the City Council, minimizes the appearance of mass through a terraced and stacked design that follows the natural down slope of the site. The City Council finds that the Project, as revised by the City Council, reduces the perceived bulk and creates a lower visual profile by lowering the garage and residences’ heights and results in viewing corridors that are not less than 26 feet, 3 inches (a minimum 16-foot south side yard setback and a 10-foot, 3-inch north side yard setback).

This significant reduction of upper-level massing and the flat roof designs are intended to provide preservation of views for the adjacent neighbors.

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

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

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

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

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

There are no specific plans or other specific zoning design review criteria applicable to this Project.
-39- Reso. #
SECTION 4. The City Council hereby makes the following findings and facts supporting findings for CDP 2026-0025:

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

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

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

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

The proposed development will not adversely affect marine resources, environmentally sensitive resources or archeological or paleontological resources in that the proposed single-family development is not located within the bluff. The applicant submitted a Geotechnical Investigation and Determination of the Bluff Edge Location report (Stoney-Miller/Geofirm Consultants, Inc., September 25, 2025) which identified the geologic bluff edge and stated that this conforms to the Coastal Act definition as well as the City’s Land Use Element definition of bluff edge. The City peer review confirmed the bluff edge location (Kling Consulting Group, November 18, 2025).

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

The Project site is in a developed residential area of the city. The proposed Project will not -40- Reso. #
adversely affect recreational or visitor-serving facilities as there are no recreational or visitorserving facilities either located on the Project site. The proposed development will also not adversely affect coastal scenic resources, including “land based scenic views from public parks, trains, roads and vista points,” view corridors of beach and ocean from Coast Highway, view corridors from coastal canyons, and open-space easements used to mitigate adverse visual impact of access road, inns, and residence.

Oceanfront Bluff/Coastal Bluff is defined to mean a bluff overlooking a beach or shoreline or that is subject to marine erosion. Many oceanfront bluffs consist of a gently sloping upper bluff and a steeper lower bluff or sea cliff. The term “oceanfront bluff” or “coastal bluff” refers to the entire slope between a marine terrace or upland area and the sea. The term “sea cliff” refers to the lower, near vertical portion of an oceanfront bluff.

Coastal Bluff Edge is defined by the California Coastal Act and Regulations define the oceanfront bluff edge as the upper termination of a bluff, cliff, or sea cliff. In cases where the top edge of the bluff is rounded away from the face of the bluff, the bluff edge shall be defined as that point nearest the bluff face beyond which a downward gradient is maintained continuously to the base of the bluff. In a case where there is a step like feature at the top of the bluff, the landward edge of the topmost riser shall be considered the bluff -41- Reso. #
edge determination, the Coastal Commission found that the application would result in a taking of property (i.e., only a 700 square-foot residence would be allowed and it would need to be located underground). To avoid the taking, the Coastal Commission relied upon a provision in the Coastal Act to conclude that it could relax the bluff edge setback of 25 feet. (Pub. Res. Code § 30010; McAllister v. California Coastal Commission (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 912, 939 [government may limit application of resource protection policies to the extent necessary to allow a property owner a constitutionally reasonable economic use the property].) Accordingly, in the Coastal Commission’s analysis, it pivoted to applying the next most stringent setback (i.e., the building stringline), which is a diagonal line that runs from the outermost edge of the buildings on the two properties on each side of the Reyna project and across the Reyna project site. In applying this building stringline setback, the Coastal Commission concluded that the proposed single-family residence met the building stringline setback but the accessory improvements, such as the pool, needed to be moved landward of the building stringline setback. With this analysis and application, the Coastal Commission also considered that a further setback was not required in light of the present coastal resources. The Coastal Commission considered a biologist report to conclude that no biological resources or habitat would be disturbed when applying the building stringline setback (as opposed to bluff edge setback) and a coastal hazards analysis to conclude that the bluff is stable and could support the improvements located landward of the building stringline setback. edge. Bluff edges typically retreat over time as a result of erosional processes, landslides, development of gullies, or by grading (cut). In areas where fill has been placed near or over the bluff edge, the original bluff edge, even if buried beneath fill, shall be taken to be the bluff edge. -42- Reso. #
Here, the City Council finds that the Project complies with both the blufftop setback (by an additional 10 feet beyond the required 25-foot setback) and the building stringline setback.

Accordingly, the Project adequately protects the coastal resource (i.e., the bluff).

With respect to the coastal resource impacts, the Coastal Commission found that the Reyna project adversely impacted public views. The Coastal Commission noted Open Space and Conservation Element Policy 7-M, which states the following: “[n]ew development along Pacific Coast Highway shall preserve existing views where feasible and, where topography allows, new development shall be terraced below the grade of Pacific Coast Highway.” For the Reyna project, the Coastal Commission considered the steepest allowable driveway approach to the site and then reduced the height of the single-family residence as much as possible to keep consistency with the required grade for the driveway approach. Accordingly, the Coastal Commission reduced the height of the Reyna project to two feet and eleven inches above Coast Highway—since that is what the topography allows.

Here, consistent with the Coastal Commission analysis in the Reyna project, the City Council considered the topography of the site, which gets steeper the further north on the site, and the desire to protect the coastal bluff by continuing to meet and exceed the blufftop setback and building stringline setback, and the maximum grade of the driveway at the maximum of 14% slope and the plate heights of the garage and residence. Based upon the evidence, the City Council added the following more restrictive conditions of approval, without finding abuse of discretion of the Board Approval:
f. Relocate the residence to provide a minimum 16-foot south side yard setback and a 10- foot, three-inch north side yard setback, for a combined side yard setback of not less -43- Reso. #
than 26 feet, three inches.
g. Reduce the maximum roof elevation of the garage to no higher than an elevation of 162.00 feet.
h. Reduce the maximum roof elevation of the main residence to no higher than an elevation of 162.50 feet.
i. To preserve views over and across the structure, no improvement, as defined in Section

25.08.018 of the Laguna Beach Municipal Code, shall project above the building envelope established by the maximum roof elevations of the garage and main residence, whether located in front of or behind the residence and garage. j. Within the view corridor between the south side property line and the south corner of the garage, no improvement shall exceed sixteen (16) inches above curb height, including groundcover or other at-grade landscaping.

While Coast Highway is a public travel corridor, opportunities for the public to safely stop -44- Reso. #
and experience stationary ocean views in the immediate vicinity of the Project site are limited. The Project frontage and surrounding segments of Coast Highway are predominantly lined with red curbs on both sides, restricting vehicle stopping and parking. On the ocean side of the highway, much of shoulder consists of curb cuts for existing driveway improvements, which further restrict parking opportunities. Given these conditions, the Project frontage functions primarily as a passthrough visual corridor rather than a designated or practical public viewing area.

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

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

The development is proposed near the street and not within the bluff that slopes down to the beach. The subject property is not located within an environmentally sensitive habitat area or scenic resources located in adjacent parks and recreation areas. Therefore, there will be no adverse impacts to environmentally sensitive habitats and scenic resources. -45- Reso. #

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

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

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

The proposed development is architecturally compatible and in scale with other homes in the surrounding neighborhood, which is not a visually degraded area. 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 design also places the structure much farther toward the street away from the bluff when compared with neighboring properties. -46- Reso. #

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LCP OCEANFRONT AND BLUFF TOP POLICIES (CDP)
Land Use Element (LU) Policy 2.10 Maximize the preservation of coastal and canyon views (consistent with the principle of view equity) from existing properties and minimize blockage of existing public and private views.

The Project has been carefully sited and designed to preserve coastal and canyon views -47- Reso. #
from surrounding properties and public viewpoints to the greatest extent feasible. The stepped and terraced building form follows the natural upslope of the site and reduces perceived height and mass. No public bluff-top trails or visitor-serving facilities are within the Project site. Accordingly, the Project is consistent with LU Policy 2.10 and the principle of view equity by minimizing impacts to existing public and private coastal and canyon views.

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

A coastal hazards analysis has been provided indicating that the proposed development is safe from coastal hazards (Skelly Engineering. November 25, 2024).

LU Element Action 7.3.4 Require new development to assure stability and structural integrity, and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic stability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. -48- Reso. #
The City’s geotechnical consultant reviewed the geotechnical report and coastal hazards analysis and conceptually approved the Project (Kling Consulting Group, November 18, 2025).

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

As further described under the Variance heading below, improvements that provide for public safety access are proposed to be reconstructed within the bluff and all other obsolete improvements will be removed. Thus, the exception to development on oceanfront bluff faces for public improvements providing for public safety is applicable here. While the improvement is not on public land/property, the City is gaining valuable public safety access to nearby public beaches at no cost as the property owner will pay for the entirety of the improvements. The Construction Monitoring Treatment Plan describes procedures to follow as a program to mitigate impacts to any cultural resources found during construction within the bluff (LSA, March 2018). Furthermore, a bluff restoration plan will be required for building plan check review for the removal of obsolete structures prior to obtaining any building permits.

LU Element Action 7.3.6 Require new development on oceanfront blufftop lots to incorporate drainage improvements, removal of and/or revisions to irrigation systems, and/or use of native or drought-tolerant vegetation into the design to minimize threats to oceanfront bluff recession.
-49- Reso. #
The preliminary grading plan (Sheet C-1) shows drainage improvements and a storm water pump station. The landscape/fuel modification plan (Sheets L-04 & L-05) shows native and drought tolerant vegetation.

LU Element Action 7.3.8 On oceanfront bluff sites, require applications where applicable, to identify and removal all unpermitted and/or obsolete structures, including but not limited to protective devices, fences, walkways, and stairways, which encroach into oceanfront bluffs.

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

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

A Coastal Hazards Analysis has been prepared for the Project concluding it is safe from erosion and high tide conditions over a 75-year period and from storm waves from a 100-year event (Skelly Engineering, November 25, 2024).

LCP COASTAL VIEW POLICIES (CDP)
Land Use Element (LU) Policy 2.8 Require building design and siting to be compatible -50- Reso. #
and integrated with natural topographic features, minimize significant alteration of natural topography and/or other significant on-site resources, and protect public views as specified in the Design Guidelines and the Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document.

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

The Project, as revised by the City Council, maintains view opportunities along the public right-of-way. Although the proposed residence in the Project, as revised by the City Council, will continue to occupy a portion of the site, ranging from 1.37 feet at the south end of the site to 3.6 feet at the north end of the site, a member of the public driving or walking down Coast Highway will still be able to see over the structure and view the ocean. -51- Reso. #
The Project, as conditioned by the City Council, incorporates appropriate architectural articulation and material variation to reduce visual prominence, and proposed landscaping will further soften building edges and integrate the structure into its hillside setting. The site is visible from designated scenic highways and the beach visitor-serving facilities. The Project, as conditioned by the City Council, minimizes adverse impacts on views from public locations and is consistent with applicable Design Guidelines and scenic resource policies.

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

The Project, as conditioned by the City Council, incorporates appropriate architectural articulation and material variation to reduce visual prominence, and proposed landscaping will further soften building edges and integrate the structure into its hillside setting. The site is visible from designated scenic highways and the beach visitor-serving facilities. The Project, as -52- Reso. #
conditioned by the City Council, minimizes adverse impacts on views from public locations and is consistent with applicable Design Guidelines and scenic resource policies.

LU Element Policy 2.10 Maximize the preservation of coastal and canyon views (consistent with the principle of view equity) from existing properties and minimize blockage of existing public and private views. Best efforts should be made to site new development in locations that minimize adverse impacts on views from public locations (e.g., roads, bluff top trails, visitor-serving facilities, etc.) Policy 2.10 includes: Action

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

LU Element Policies 7.3 and 10.2 Design and site new development to protect natural and environmentally sensitive resources, such as areas of unique scenic quality, public views and visual compatibility with surrounding uses and to minimize landform alterations.

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

LUE Policy 3.10 Require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated with natural topographic features, minimize significant alteration of natural topography or other significant on-site resources, and protect public views as specified in the Design Guidelines and Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document by maintaining the low-profile character of structures. Require use of appropriate landscaping, special architectural treatments, and siting considerations for projects visible from major highways and arterial -54- Reso. #
streets. Best efforts should be made to site new development in locations that minimize adverse impacts on views from public locations (e.g., roads, bluff-top trails, visitor-serving facilities, etc.).

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

The Project, as revised by the City Council, maintains view opportunities along the public right-of-way. Although the proposed residence in the Project, as revised by the City Council, will continue to occupy a portion of the site, ranging from 1.37 feet at the south end of the site to 3.6 feet at the north end of the site, a member of the public driving or walking down Coast Highway will still be able to see over the structure and view the ocean. -55- Reso. #
The Project, as conditioned by the City Council, incorporates appropriate architectural articulation and material variation to reduce visual prominence, and proposed landscaping will further soften building edges and integrate the structure into its hillside setting. The site is visible from designated scenic highways and the beach visitor-serving facilities. The Project, as conditioned by the City Council, minimizes adverse impacts on views from public locations and is consistent with applicable Design Guidelines and scenic resource policies.

The Design Review Guidelines refers to Public Views:

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

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

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

The proposed development is in conformity with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Local Coastal Act. Because of the newly acquired public safety -56- Reso. #
component of the proposed development, existing public beach access and coastal recreation areas will be better served by the City’s public safety personnel.

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

Section 30212 New development projects
(a) Public access from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline and along the coast shall be provided in new development projects except where: (1) it is inconsistent with public safety, military security needs, or the protection of fragile coastal resources, (2) adequate access exists nearby, or (3) agriculture would be adversely affected. Dedicated accessway shall not be required to be opened to public use until a public agency or private association agrees to accept responsibility for maintenance and liability of the accessway. (b) For purposes of this section, "new development" does not include:
(1) Replacement of any structure pursuant to the provisions of subdivision (g) of Section 30610.
(2) The demolition and reconstruction of a single-family residence; provided, that the reconstructed residence shall not exceed either the floor area, height or bulk of the former structure by more than 10 percent, and that the reconstructed residence shall be sited in the same location on the affected property as the former structure. (3) Improvements to any structure which do not change the intensity of its use, which do -57- Reso. #
not increase either the floor area, height, or bulk of the structure by more than 10 percent, which do not block or impede public access, and which do not result in a seaward encroachment by the structure.
(4) The reconstruction or repair of any seawall; provided, however, that the reconstructed or repaired seawall is not a seaward of the location of the former structure. (5) Any repair or maintenance activity for which the commission has determined, pursuant to Section 30610, that a coastal development permit will be required unless the commission determines that the activity will have an adverse impact on lateral public access along the beach. As used in this subdivision "bulk" means total interior cubic volume as measured from the exterior surface of the structure.
(c) Nothing in this division shall restrict public access nor shall it excuse the performance of duties and responsibilities of public agencies which are required by Sections 66478.1 to 66478.14, inclusive, of the Government Code and by Section 4 of Article X of the California Constitution.

Section 30214 Implementation of public access policies; legislative intent (a) The public access policies of this article shall be implemented in a manner that takes into account the need to regulate the time, place, and manner of public access depending on the facts and circumstances in each case including, but not limited to, the following:
(1) Topographic and geologic site characteristics.
(2) The capacity of the site to sustain use and at what level of intensity. (3) The appropriateness of limiting public access to the right to pass and repass depending on such factors as the fragility of the natural resources in the area and the proximity of the access area to adjacent residential uses.
-58- Reso. #
(4) The need to provide for the management of access areas so as to protect the privacy of adjacent property owners and to protect the aesthetic values of the area by providing for the collection of litter.
(b) It is the intent of the Legislature that the public access policies of this article be carried out in a reasonable manner that considers the equities and that balances the rights of the individual property owner with the public's constitutional right of access pursuant to Section 4 of Article X of the California Constitution. Nothing in this section or any amendment thereto shall be construed as a limitation on the rights guaranteed to the public under Section 4 of Article X of the California Constitution.

Here, the Project, as revised by the City Council, includes the provision of a funicular that provides public safety personnel the right to traverse up and down the bluff to the sand more quickly and efficiently than current public access. Although the funicular will not be open to the public, the public will receive a benefit of safer access to the coast.

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

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

SECTION 5. The City Council hereby makes the following findings and facts supporting findings for VAR 2026-0026. A variance is requested 1) to reconstruct a funicular and associated access components (stairs, landings, terrace, retaining walls, and gates) within the bluff [LBMC Section 25.50.004(B)(4)]; 2) to maintain stairs, walkways, and retaining walls within the bluff -59- Reso. #
[LBMC Section 25.50.004(B)(4)];]; and 3) to exceed the maximum wall height within the front setback [LBMC Section 25.50.012(B)(3)]:

Finding No. 1: There are special circumstances applicable to the property involved, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings which cause the strict application of the zoning ordinance to deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification.

The subject property is unique as compared to its peers that front the isolated cove known as Thousand Steps Beach and this uniqueness provides support for allowing the reconstruction of a bluff face improvement known as a funicular and to retain other bluff face improvements. Similarly, granting additional height for walls is supportable because of the property’s topography and this allowance grants parity with other properties nearby that have been granted the same courtesy.

Each of these is discussed more specifically below:

As to the bluff face improvement that would allow reconstruction of the funicular, the Board finds that the width of the subject property presents a truly unique opportunity to provide for easier and quicker and more reliable access to Thousand Steps Beach. Thousand Steps Beach is one of South Laguna’s largest and most heavily used beaches. Notwithstanding this, access to the beach itself is limited to a single staircase near the intersection of 9th Avenue and Coast Highway. This staircase consists of approximately 223 individual steps and, due to the steepness of the bluff face, feels like many more. Use of this staircase is popular for access to the beach by the general public and is also popular for those interested in walking/running the steps for fitness purposes. Collectively, this makes for a crowded and complex pathway for the City’s first responders to utilize to access Thousand Steps Beach when responding to emergency calls. -60- Reso. #
Congestion on the stairs and the number of steps and steepness of the bluff all create challenges to providing timely response in emergency situations.

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

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

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

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

Given that the public health safety and welfare sit atop the most important responsibilities of government, granting a variance to reconstruct the existing funicular improvement on the bluff face seems to be a reasonable trade-off of governments interest in protecting the coastline and protecting the public. The funicular would be a privately-owned improvement that is accessible to -61- Reso. #
the City/first responders all day, everyday pursuant to a recorded agreement that would include maintenance responsibilities and performance standards. The funicular would not be open to the general public as they would continue to utilize the existing stairs. As such, the funicular allows for separation of general public foot traffic from this “express lane” down to the beach by first responders. As a mechanical lift, the funicular provides for a more constant rate of speed up and down the bluff face than does walking the stairs and allows for patient being extracted from the beach to be moved in a more comfortable manner. Most other properties along Thousand Steps Beach are narrow and don’t contain the side yard widths of the proposed development. Because of this ease of access compared to the subject property is constrained and the subject lots additional width provides the right set of circumstances to grant the bluff face improvement variance to allow the funicular to be reconstructed based on government utmost interest to provide for the public health, safety, and welfare.

It should be noted that General Plan Land Use Element Action 7.3.5 prohibits development on oceanfront bluff faces, except public improvements providing public access, protecting coastal resources, or providing for public safety. To support construction of the funicular and related improvements, a condition of approval requiring an easement and agreement with the property owner for City public safety use (Condition No. 23). Plan Sheets A.0.7 and A.0.8 show the proposed easement. The new funicular track that is in alignment with the existing funicular track and the car will meet the Marine Safety and Fire Department requirements to accommodate a gurney and City staff.

Regarding the variance to maintain obsolete structures within the bluff, this request is consistent with the Land Use Element Action 7.3.5, which allows development on oceanfront -62- Reso. #
bluffs when necessary to provide public access, protect coastal resources, or ensure public safety.

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

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

Finding No. 2: Such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, which right is possessed by other property owners under like conditions in the same vicinity and zone.

Many other properties fronting on Thousand Steps Beach have direct access down the bluff face to the beach. These conditions have existed for many years and while perhaps not the most desirable situation involving new development, the subject property and its setting offer unique -63- Reso. #
circumstance that in this one-off condition (as explained in Variance Finding 1) justify granting approval to re-construct/re-establish this access via the funicular.

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

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

Finding No.3: The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, convenience and welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity in which the property is located.

The subject property is unique as compared to its peers that front the isolated cove known as Thousand Steps Beach and this uniqueness provides support for allowing the reconstruction of a bluff face improvement known as a funicular and to retain other bluff face improvements. -64- Reso. #
Similarly, granting additional height for walls is supportable because of the property’s topography and this allowance grants parity with other properties nearby that have been granted the same courtesy. Each of these is discussed more specifically below:

Congestion on the stairs and the number of steps and steepness of the bluff all create challenges to providing timely response in emergency situations.

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

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

Total Incident Type Definition
1,860 Rescues To physically assist a person from the ocean. 1,315 Medical Aids The immediate treatment or care given to a person suffering from an injury or illness until more advanced care is provided or the person recovers.
-65- Reso. #
34,117 Ordinance
Advisements
An advisement or enforcement of local, state, and federal laws.

Given that the public health safety and welfare sit atop the most important responsibilities of government, granting a variance to reconstruct the existing funicular improvement on the bluff face seems to be a reasonable trade-off of governments interest in protecting the coastline and protecting the public. The funicular would be a privately-owned improvement that is accessible to the City/first responders all day, everyday pursuant to a recorded agreement that would include maintenance responsibilities and performance standards. The funicular would not be open to the general public as they would continue to utilize the existing stairs. As such, the funicular allows for separation of general public foot traffic from this “express lane” down to the beach by first responders. As a mechanical lift, the funicular provides for a more constant rate of speed up and down the bluff face than does walking the stairs and allows for patient being extracted from the beach to be moved in a more comfortable manner. Most other properties along Thousand Steps Beach are narrow and don’t contain the side yard widths of the proposed development. Because of this ease of access compared to the subject property is constrained and the subject lots additional -66- Reso. #
width provides the right set of circumstances to grant the bluff face improvement variance to allow the funicular to be reconstructed based on government utmost interest to provide for the public health, safety, and welfare.

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

As for those walls and the driveway gate that exceed the 4-foot height limit within the front setback, the Board finds that this request is consistent with nearby pattern of development. Existing -67- Reso. #
walls and fences in the immediate vicinity located along the west side of Coast Highway that exceed the maximum 4-foot height include but are not limited to 31949, 31951, 31995, 32001, and 32021 Coast Highway. These proposed elements are set back ten (10) feet from the back of sidewalk and like many other properties along Coast Highway allows a car to pull out of the traffic flow in order to gain entry to the private property. These improvements also do not interfere with pedestrian flow along the public sidewalk. For these reasons, the Board finds that this variance is reasonable and appropriate and not out of character for its setting.

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

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

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

Granting the variance to maintain obsolete structures within the bluff is consistent with the -68- Reso. #
Land Use Element Action 7.3.5, which allows development on oceanfront bluffs when necessary to provide public access, protect coastal resources, or ensure public safety. These stairs, walkways and retaining walls and related improvements provide an important public service because they provide an alternative route up or down the bluff face for emergency response personnel should the funicular be filled-to-capacity. Additionally, these improvements are consistent with the historic pattern of development occurring on nearby parcels and that, if removed, would deprive the subject property of this historic feature that other nearby properties have and still do enjoy.

SECTION 6. Based on its review of the entire record before it, the City Council hereby finds and determines, in accordance with CEQA, that the Project is categorically exempt pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 – New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, in that the project consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small structures.

Here, the Project involves the demolition of existing structures and the construction of a singlefamily dwelling with an attached two-car garage with new vehicular access, elevated decks, grading, retaining walls, pool, spa, pedestrian entry feature, and landscaping. Furthermore, the project is an allowed residential use in the R-1 zone.

Further, none of the exceptions outlined in CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2 apply. The project site does not contain any environmentally sensitive areas except for being an oceanfront property. There will be no cumulative impact resulting from successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time. There are no unusual circumstances resulting in a significant impact on the environment. There will be no damage to scenic resources, including trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway as it is proposed less than 3.6 feet above the curb along Coast Highway which is -69- Reso. #
a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. The Project is not located on a hazardous waste site or any other site included on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. The Project will not result in significant adverse impacts to historical resources as defined by CEQA. Consequently, additional environmental analysis is not necessary to meet the requirements of the CEQA.

SECTION 7. The City Council hereby denies the Appeal and sustains the Design Review Boards’s determination on the Project, as reflected in Board Resolution No. 2026-0024, including all of the conditions of approval contained therein as though they are set forth explicitly herein, based on the findings and facts in this Resolution and subject to the following more restrictive conditions of approval that must be satisfied before issuance of a building permit:
a. Relocate the residence to provide a minimum 16-foot south side yard setback and a 10- foot, three-inch north side yard setback, for a combined side yard setback of not less than 26 feet, three inches.
b. Reduce the maximum roof elevation of the garage to no higher than elevation 162.00 feet.
c. The maximum roof height elevation of the main residence shall be reduced by one (1) foot to elevation 162.50 feet.
d. To preserve views over and across the structure, no improvement, as defined in Section

25.08.018 of the Laguna Beach Municipal Code, shall project above the building envelope established by these maximum roof elevations, whether located in front of or behind the residence.
e. Within the view corridor between the south side property line and the south corner of -70- Reso. #
the garage, no improvement shall exceed sixteen (16) inches above curb height, including groundcover or other at-grade landscaping.
f. Be subject to review and approval by the Director of Community Development, who shall determine that the revised plans are in full conformance with the City Council's approval and remain consistent with all applicable provisions of the Laguna Beach Municipal Code and conditions of approval. Any revisions beyond the scope of this condition shall require review through the applicable approval process.

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

ADOPTED this 4th day of August, 2026.

Mark Orgill, Mayor
ATTEST:

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

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

City Clerk, City of Laguna Beach, California

Laguna Beach City CouncilSeptember 22, 2026

Laguna Beach City Council
September 22, 2026