Board continues contentious Crestview Drive project after neighbors raise view, privacy and parking concerns

The Laguna Beach Design Review Board on April 10 continued consideration of a proposed new single-family residence at 2058 Crestview Drive to the board’s July 10 meeting after extended public comment and detailed staff and applicant presentations.

Staff described the project (Design Review 25-0431; Variance 25-0432; Coastal Development Permit 25-0433) as a four-level dwelling with an attached two-car garage and an attached ADU, three elevated decks and associated grading. The applicant revised exterior colors and materials after a prior concept review and provided additional landscaping; staff reported the project remains within the Diamond Crestview Specific Plan except for requested modifications to height and a variance to avoid providing an on-street public parking space. Staff said the proposal would increase net export by 327 cubic yards compared with prior calculations and that approximately 54% of the project volume is above grade and 46% below grade. The north elevation would reach 31.2 feet, 2.2 feet above the permitted height in the specific plan, and staff explained the specific plan allows height modifications when topography makes a modification unavoidable and view sheds, light, privacy and neighborhood character are maintained.

Neighbors and nearby property representatives testified at length, raising three key concerns: protection of coastal views (including view of Catalina Island), privacy from north-facing windows and balconies, and loss of driveway parking for a neighbor where an existing retaining wall encroaches into the public right of way. Yevgeny Krasco, owner of 785 Gainsborough Drive, said the project would obstruct a primary view from his master bedroom and urged modest relocation or design changes; Edward Sotto, representing the family at 2100 Crestview Drive, said removal or reconfiguration of the retaining wall and resulting changes to access could eliminate two of the family’s driveway parking spaces. Several commenters said the design appeared to be a copy of a Los Angeles house and questioned whether the materials and massing meet the Diamond Crestview guidelines.

The applicant’s architect, David Freeland, described the constrained site (40 feet at the street, significant cross slope) and said the design was intended to reduce apparent mass by stepping volumes into the hillside; he pointed out added landscaping (including multiple 15-foot strawberry trees) intended to screen views and address privacy concerns. Staff and public works clarified that the existing retaining wall that encroaches into the public right of way appears to have been built decades earlier and that no revocable encroachment permit (REP) for that wall was found in city records. Public works staff said the department would accept an approach that preserves the existing wall and provides paving around it, but that any new wall or reconstruction to stabilize stairs or access would require a revocable encroachment permit and mutual agreement between the property owners. Staff proposed a condition that the applicant pursue an REP or a mutually agreeable solution before final permits are issued.

Across the board members’ deliberations, three themes emerged: the need for a clearer parking solution that does not remove the neighbor’s parking; reducing the project’s apparent encroachment into the hillside near the north elevation (board members asked the applicant to consider pulling back or otherwise reducing the projecting upper volume that affects neighbors’ views); and design refinements so the house better matches the “rustic” character sought in the Diamond Crestview guidelines. Multiple board members said the applicant had taken some steps in response to earlier direction but that additional revisions were necessary.

Action: The board voted to continue the item to July 10, 2025, and included a board finding that the applicant is moving in the right direction and responding to prior comments; staff set a plan-submittal deadline for revisions to allow neighbor outreach prior to the next hearing.

Vote: Motion to continue to July 10 passed by roll call.