Scher Letter.docx
Newmeyer & Dillion LLP
895 Dove Street
Second Floor
Newport Beach, CA 92660
(949) 854-7000
Las Vegas | Newport Beach | Walnut Creek
newmeyerdillion.com
Charles S. Krolikowski
[email protected]
February 17, 2026
VIA E-MAIL
Laguna Beach Planning Commission
c/o City Clerk
505 Forest Avenue
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
[email protected]
Re: 600 Buena Vista Way – APN 641-373-43 (Heystee and Cozzens) - GPA 25- 2345/LCPA 25-2369
Dear Members of the Laguna Beach Planning Commission:
Please be advised that this office represents Mr. Marc Scher (“Scher”), the owner and resident of property located at 644 Buena Vista Way, Laguna Beach, California 92651 (“Scher Property”). We understand that Susan Heystee (“Heystee”) and Davis Cozzens (“Cozzens”) are seeking certain approvals to continue with the redevelopment of their property located at 600 Buena Vista Way, Laguna Beach, California 92651 (“Heystee Property”). The Scher and Heystee Properties are located adjacent to each other.
Based on notice received, it appears that Heystee/Cozzens are seeking legislative approvals for General Plan Amendment (“GPA”) 25-2345 and Local Coastal Program Amendment (“LCPA”) 25-2369 to remove a “mapped significant natural watercourse” on/near the Heystee Property. As you are likely aware, watercourses (natural or manmade) come with a unique set of issues and questions, including but not limited to the following:
How does the existing watercourse receive and direct waterflows based on historic drainage patterns and the watershed?
Do any resource agencies, such as the California Department of Fish & Wildlife, the Army Corps of Engineers, the California Coastal Commission, the Orange County Flood Control District, etc., have any oversight with respect to the requested removal of the watercourse?
Attachment 6
107
City Clerk
February 17, 2026
Las Vegas | Newport Beach | Walnut Creek
newmeyerdillion.com
Have any jurisdictional delineations been performed with respect to the watercourse, and if so, what have they revealed with respect to the location and scope of jurisdictional areas?
To the extent the watercourse is removed, how will it impact or affect the properties both upstream and downstream, and who will be required to monitor/maintain the same?
Will removing/disturbing the watercourse impact any flora and/or fauna (biological resources) such that an environmental review is necessary for the proposed project (GPA 25-2345 and LCPA 256-2369)? Has the California Coastal Commission been advised that the City is seeking to amend its Local Coastal Program with respect to the removal of the watercourse?
What findings/conditions were made when Resolution No. 84.37 was adopted by the City in 1984 with respect to the continuation of the watercourse on the Open Space Element Major Watersheds and Drainage Courses Map?
By potentially altering the flow of the natural watercourse, the City (and Heystee/Cozzens) are exposing themselves to significant liability to the extent drainage/flood waters are redirected onto other properties that historically would not receive the same.
In addition to the above comments and questions regarding the proposed GPA and LCPA, Scher is concerned that Heystee/Cozzens are already building their project in violation of the approved plans for the same.
For example, the beginning of the retaining wall along the frontage of the Heystee Property was approved to be only 25.2 inches in height. This wall is now 72 inches tall. The City has already confirmed that this retaining wall, along with other walls on the Heystee Property, has been constructed in contravention of the approved plans, but has not taken any action to remedy the same. This issue needs to be resolved before the City makes any more decisions to allow the project to proceed.
As City Staff has recommended that the hearing on the above items be continued to March 4, 2026, this should give staff enough time to review and respond to the above comments and questions. We look forward to an open dialogue regarding the same. 108
City Clerk
February 17, 2026
Las Vegas | Newport Beach | Walnut Creek
newmeyerdillion.com
In the meantime, if you have any questions or comments concerning the above, do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
Charles S. Krolikowski
cc: Client
Larry Nokes, Esq. (via e-mail)
109
110
PLANNING COMMISSION – CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH
Re: 600 Buena Vista Way; Response to 02-17-2026 Letter
February 25, 2026
Agency oversight/jurisdiction. Jurisdiction typically requires a jurisdictional resource.
The LSA report identified no wetlands, drainage features, or riparian habitat on the subject site, and, thus, no basis for USACE/CDFW permitting. The requested action is a City map correction acknowledging inactivity—no in‑channel fill or alteration is proposed. The LCPA is being processed by the City and, if adopted, will be submitted to the Coastal Commission for certification as required.
Jurisdictional delineation. The biological assessment functions as a jurisdictional screen and confirms no jurisdictional waters occur; vegetation is disturbed/ruderal/ornamental, not riparian.
Upstream/downstream effects and maintenance. The hydrology shows no redirection of flows onto properties that would not historically receive them; rather, the system reduces uncontrolled surface flow by capturing and piping runoff to Temple Hills Drive. Private drainage facilities will be maintained per standard conditions of approval.
Biological impacts/CEQA. Because no wetlands/drainage/riparian features exist and no sensitive species/habitats are present, removing an inactive line from a map causes no physical environmental effect. The City will select the appropriate CEQA pathway, but the evidence supports a finding of no significant environmental impact from the mapping correction itself.
Coastal Commission notice for the LCPA. The LCPA track inherently provides for Commission certification after City adoption; the City’s application record (including hydrology and biology) supplies the evidentiary basis.
Historic Resolution 84.37 (1984 mapping). The 1984 map predates today’s built environment and parcel‑level drainage infrastructure. Subsequent City actions reflect reality on the ground (e.g., 2007 Singer variance based on an “inactive” watercourse; 2004 Staff Memo allowing a turnaround within the “watercourse” for safety). The current technical record is the proper basis for updating the map.
Liability for redirected drainage. The design does not redirect water to non‑receiving properties. The built environment captures and conveys stormwater to Temple Hills with adequate 100‑year capacity, eliminating uncontrolled sheet flow that may have existed when the map was created. These conditions have not existed for years, and the area identified as a “water course” has been dry.
MISCHARACTERIZATION OF WALL HEIGHT AND ADJACENT CONDITIONS The construction complaint (retaining wall at the property line). This allegation, which we dispute, is outside the scope of the GPA/LCPA. Any field compliance item is addressed by Staff through the building/inspection process and does not bear on the technical merits of updating a nonfunctional mapping line.
111
PLANNING COMMISSION – CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH
Re: 600 Buena Vista Way; Response to 02-17-2026 Letter
February 25, 2026
But the complaint by Mr. Scher is rich.
Mr. Scher’s allegation that a retaining wall at 600 Buena Vista Way “was approved to be only 25.2 inches and is now 72 inches tall” is inaccurate and misleading. [Scher Letter dated February 17, 2026.] The wall matches the retained grade behind the wall, as a retaining wall is intended to do. This condition has been observed by the Building Department.
What his letter omits is that Scher’s property also features a retaining wall which, unlike the 600 Buena Vista Way wall, extends approximately four feet into the public street right‑of‑way, next to the wall he now complains about. City records confirm that Scher’s wall at 644 Buena Vista Way was approved through Revocable Encroachment Permit 94‑08/#472, allowing a retaining wall extending roughly four feet into the right‑of‑way and expressly limited to a height of 2.5 feet (i.e., under three feet) with revocable status and removal obligations at the owner’s expense upon notice. [City Council Minutes & Encroachment Permit 94‑08/#472, January 1995.] Although the approved permit was limited to 2.5 feet for the wall (Exhibit B), Scher’s encroaching wall was actually built to a height of 4.5 feet – in excess of the permitted wall height (Exhibit C).
In reality, the Scher retaining wall sits immediately adjacent to (approximately four feet from) the wall on the Heystee/Cozzens property and is effectively the same height as the portion of the 600 Buena Vista Way wall that Scher challenges. The selective complaint in his February 17th letter disregards the existence, height, encroachment, and revocable status of his own retaining wall. This discrepancy undermines the credibility of Mr. Scher’s claim and suggests the wall‑height issue is being raised ~ not as a matter of objective compliance, but as a selective and inconsistent objection to the Applicants’ project ~ carrying forward his incessant complaints and attempted hindrances of the Cozzens/Heystee project.
For clarity, the retaining wall at 600 Buena Vista Way matches the existing retained grade – its height reflects the grade differential being supported at that location, not an above‑grade, free‑standing condition. This is consistent with standard engineering practice for retaining structures and underscores that the comparison advanced by Mr. Scher is not an apples‑to‑apples assessment of wall height.
Lastly, in the interest of community safety, my clients request that Mr. Scher’s wall be removed from the street right-of-way due to the narrow street and impending traffic, especially in the case of emergency and fire vehicles being able to utilize the fire turnaround. At great, personal expense, Ms. Heystee and Mr. Cozzens were required to build to the high fire hazard at this location. The wall should be moved adjacent to theirs at Scher’s property, since the lack of wall there continues to allow dirt and debris to fall into the street right-of-way evidenced by height of fire sprinkler and the lack of dirt at the height of the waterproofing in the photo. ///
112
PLANNING COMMISSION – CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH
Re: 600 Buena Vista Way; Response to 02-17-2026 Letter
February 25, 2026
CONCLUSION
Substantial evidence supports removal of the mapped watercourse: (1) hydrology showing no tributary inflow and engineered capture/discharge with 100‑year capacity; (2) biology showing no wetlands/riparian/drainage features; and (3) City history acknowledging inactivity.
We respectfully request that the Commission recommend approval of GPA 252345 and LCPA 252369 to align the City’s maps with existing site conditions.
Please include this letter and the attached technical references in the administrative record. We appreciate your consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
Laurence P. Nokes
LPN/dkc
cc: City Clerk
Samantha Beier, Staff Liaison
Charles S. Krolikowski, Esq.
Clients
Attachments:
Exhibit A: February 17, 2026 letter from Mr. Scher’s counsel (Newmeyer & Dillion) alleging a 72‑inch wall at 600 Buena Vista Way
Exhibit B: City of Laguna Beach records for 644 Buena Vista Way: City Council Minutes (January 17, 1995) and Revocable Encroachment Permit 94‑08/#472 approving two retaining walls under 3 feet (2.5 feet) encroaching ~4 feet into the right‑of‑way and subject to revocation/removal
Exhibit C: Photos of Scher’s encroaching wall
113
EXHIBIT A
114
Scher Letter.docx
Newmeyer & Dillion LLP
895 Dove Street
Second Floor
Newport Beach, CA 92660
(949) 854-7000
Las Vegas | Newport Beach | Walnut Creek
newmeyerdillion.com
Charles S. Krolikowski
[email protected]
February 17, 2026
VIA E-MAIL
Laguna Beach Planning Commission
c/o City Clerk
505 Forest Avenue
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
[email protected]
Re: 600 Buena Vista Way – APN 641-373-43 (Heystee and Cozzens) - GPA 25- 2345/LCPA 25-2369
Dear Members of the Laguna Beach Planning Commission:
Please be advised that this office represents Mr. Marc Scher (“Scher”), the owner and resident of property located at 644 Buena Vista Way, Laguna Beach, California 92651 (“Scher Property”). We understand that Susan Heystee (“Heystee”) and Davis Cozzens (“Cozzens”) are seeking certain approvals to continue with the redevelopment of their property located at 600 Buena Vista Way, Laguna Beach, California 92651 (“Heystee Property”). The Scher and Heystee Properties are located adjacent to each other.
Based on notice received, it appears that Heystee/Cozzens are seeking legislative approvals for General Plan Amendment (“GPA”) 25-2345 and Local Coastal Program Amendment (“LCPA”) 25-2369 to remove a “mapped significant natural watercourse” on/near the Heystee Property. As you are likely aware, watercourses (natural or manmade) come with a unique set of issues and questions, including but not limited to the following:
How does the existing watercourse receive and direct waterflows based on historic drainage patterns and the watershed?
Do any resource agencies, such as the California Department of Fish & Wildlife, the Army Corps of Engineers, the California Coastal Commission, the Orange County Flood Control District, etc., have any oversight with respect to the requested removal of the watercourse?
115
City Clerk
February 17, 2026
Las Vegas | Newport Beach | Walnut Creek
newmeyerdillion.com
Have any jurisdictional delineations been performed with respect to the watercourse, and if so, what have they revealed with respect to the location and scope of jurisdictional areas?
To the extent the watercourse is removed, how will it impact or affect the properties both upstream and downstream, and who will be required to monitor/maintain the same?
Will removing/disturbing the watercourse impact any flora and/or fauna (biological resources) such that an environmental review is necessary for the proposed project (GPA 25-2345 and LCPA 256-2369)? Has the California Coastal Commission been advised that the City is seeking to amend its Local Coastal Program with respect to the removal of the watercourse?
What findings/conditions were made when Resolution No. 84.37 was adopted by the City in 1984 with respect to the continuation of the watercourse on the Open Space Element Major Watersheds and Drainage Courses Map?
By potentially altering the flow of the natural watercourse, the City (and Heystee/Cozzens) are exposing themselves to significant liability to the extent drainage/flood waters are redirected onto other properties that historically would not receive the same.
In addition to the above comments and questions regarding the proposed GPA and LCPA, Scher is concerned that Heystee/Cozzens are already building their project in violation of the approved plans for the same.
For example, the beginning of the retaining wall along the frontage of the Heystee Property was approved to be only 25.2 inches in height. This wall is now 72 inches tall. The City has already confirmed that this retaining wall, along with other walls on the Heystee Property, has been constructed in contravention of the approved plans, but has not taken any action to remedy the same. This issue needs to be resolved before the City makes any more decisions to allow the project to proceed.
As City Staff has recommended that the hearing on the above items be continued to March 4, 2026, this should give staff enough time to review and respond to the above comments and questions. We look forward to an open dialogue regarding the same. 116
City Clerk
February 17, 2026
Las Vegas | Newport Beach | Walnut Creek
newmeyerdillion.com
In the meantime, if you have any questions or comments concerning the above, do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
Charles S. Krolikowski
cc: Client
Larry Nokes, Esq. (via e-mail)
117
EXHIBIT B
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
EXHIBIT C
127
128
129
16790234.1
Newmeyer & Dillion LLP
895 Dove Street
Second Floor
Newport Beach, CA 92660
(949) 854-7000
Las Vegas | Newport Beach | Walnut Creek
newmeyerdillion.com
Charles S. Krolikowski
[email protected]
March 3, 2026
VIA E-MAIL
Laguna Beach Planning Commission
c/o City Clerk
505 Forest Avenue
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
[email protected]
Re: 600 Buena Vista Way – APN 641-373-43 (Heystee and Cozzens) - GPA 25- 2345/LCPA 25-2369
Dear Members of the Laguna Beach Planning Commission:
Please be advised that this office represents Mr. Marc Scher (“Scher”), the owner and resident of property located at 644 Buena Vista Way, Laguna Beach, California 92651 (“Scher Property”). We understand that Susan Heystee (“Heystee”) and Davis Cozzens (“Cozzens”) are seeking certain approvals to continue with the redevelopment of their property located at 600 Buena Vista Way, Laguna Beach, California 92651 (“Heystee Property”).
We previously submitted a letter to the Planning Commission on February 17, 2026, outlining several questions about the requested removal of the "mapped significant natural watercourse" and concerns about the current development of the Heystee Property. In response, counsel for Heystee/Cozzens submitted a letter to the Planning Commission attempting to explain the circumstances allegedly supporting their application (GPA 25-2345 and LCPA 25-2369) and a rebuff about the height of their retaining wall. Despite this letter, Scher still has more concerns about the project.
First, despite the claim that no waters flow into the natural drainage course from other locations, the Toal hydrology report and analysis does not take into consideration the accumulation of water and runoff within the drainage course itself during a large storm event.
Second, the LSA biology report is stale (2024) and misses an important point. LSA concludes that due to the absence of water and certain plants, there is no possibility of either habitat or the movement of animals. This does not make sense as certain animals do live and move through dry drainage channels. 130
City Clerk
March 3, 2026
Las Vegas | Newport Beach | Walnut Creek
newmeyerdillion.com
Third, City staff asserts in its staff report that the mapped drainage channel is considered "dedicated open space" and will not induce additional development.
However, why would Heystee/Cozzens seek to have the mapping removed if they have no intentions of seeking to develop this area in the future? It is more likely that they will seek to develop the same and conditions should be imposed now to prohibit such development in the dedicated open space area.
Finally, Heystee/Cozzens claim that Scher's predecessor constructed certain retaining wall improvements long ago with an approval from the City as a diversion from their own improper construction activities. Despite this intended diversion, Heystee/Cozzens could not affirmatively state that the retaining wall in question is not 72 inches high in contravention of the plans.
As such, and based on the record, Scher respectfully requests that the application be denied as there are still unanswered questions about whether the drainage course "no longer serves a distinct functional, scenic or ecological purpose." (See LBMC, §
25.50.030(B).)
Very truly yours,
Charles S. Krolikowski
cc: Client
Larry Nokes, Esq. ([email protected])
131