April 14, 2026
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL ONLY
Mark Orgill, Mayor
Hallie Jones, Mayor Pro Tem
Sue Kempf
Alex Rounaghi
Bob Whalen
CITY COUNCIL – CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH [email protected] Re: 600 Buena Vista Way – GPA 25-2345 / LCPA 25-2369
Response to Untimely Objections and Support for Approval Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:
I represent the property owners and Applicants, Susan Heystee and David Cozzens, with respect to the above-referenced application to remove a mapped significant natural watercourse from the City’s Open Space and Conservation Element Major Watersheds and Drainage Courses map.
This letter responds to objections submitted on April 13, 2026 – more than one month after the Planning Commission’s March 4, 2026 action – and provides clarification based on the administrative record.
At the outset, it is important to recognize that the April 13th submissions attempt to expand the scope of this item beyond the limited question before the Council. The issue presented is narrow: whether the mapped feature continues to meet the criteria for designation as a significant natural watercourse under the Municipal Code. The objections instead invite the Council to consider matters such as potential future development, private litigation, and generalized concerns about drainage and wildlife. Those issues are separate and should not displace the specific finding required here.
I. Procedural Defect: Untimely Challenge to the Planning Commission Decision Under Laguna Beach Municipal Code Section 25.05.070, any appeal of a Planning Commission decision must be filed within fourteen (14) days. No appeal was filed within that statutory period.
City Council – CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH
Re: 600 BUENA VISTA WAY (Cozzens)
April 14, 2026
To the extent that the April 13th submissions attempt to challenge the Planning Commission’s action, no appeal was filed within the time permitted by the Municipal Code. In any event, even considering the substance of those submissions, they do not undermine the technical record supporting the recommendation before the Council.
II. The Requested Action is a Map Amendment, Not a Development Approval.
The Council is not being asked to approve grading, construction, access improvements, or any other physical development. The requested action is limited to a map amendment. It does not authorize any physical change to the property, nor does it expand existing entitlements. The requested action is limited to a map amendment. It does not authorize any physical change to the property, nor does it expand existing entitlements.
Any future physical proposal – if one were ever made – would be subject to separate review under the applicable standards at that time. The possibility of hypothetical future applications does not alter the nature of the action before the Council or transform this map amendment into a development approval.
III. The Administrative Record Confirms the Watercourse is Not Functioning.
The uncontroverted technical record demonstrates that the mapped feature does not function as a natural drainage course.
The hydrology analysis shows that drainage across and above the site is intercepted and conveyed through existing and proposed infrastructure to Temple Hills Drive. Under postdevelopment conditions, no runoff is directed to the mapped feature, and the drainage system is designed to accommodate a 100-year storm event. City-retained peer reviewers evaluated and confirmed these conclusions. The question is not whether water can flow downhill in the abstract, but whether the mapped feature functions as a watercourse under actual site conditions.
The record establishes that it does not.
IV. Biological Evidence Does Not Support Retention of the Designation.
The biological resources review found no wetlands, riparian habitat, or environmentally sensitive drainage features on the site. That analysis was independently reviewed and validated.
The objections rely in part on anecdotal observations of wildlife. While such observations reflect the presence of common species within the broader area, they do not establish that the mapped feature itself currently serves the distinct ecological function required for designation as a significant natural watercourse.
The applicable determination is a technical one, and the Council has before it professional analysis directed to that standard.
City Council – CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH
Re: 600 BUENA VISTA WAY (Cozzens)
April 14, 2026
V. CEQA: The Action Does Not Constitute Improper Piecemealing.
The City’s determination that the project is exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) is appropriate.
This action does not approve or implement physical development. It corrects a mapping designation. The suggestion that it constitutes improper piecemealing rests on speculation regarding hypothetical future projects, which are not before the Council and would be subject to independent review if ever proposed.
CEQA does not require environmental analysis based on conjectural future scenarios.
VI. Response to Generalized Concerns Regarding Topography, Drainage, and Liability One submission raises broader concerns regarding natural topography, the principle that water flows downhill, potential drainage risks, and possible municipal liability associated with removal of the mapped designation.
These concerns, while understandable at a general level, do not alter the analysis required under the Municipal Code and are addressed by the technical record before the Council.
The hydrology analysis does not dispute that water follows topography. Rather, it demonstrates that, under existing and proposed conditions, drainage across and above the site is intercepted and conveyed through established infrastructure to Temple Hills Drive. The relevant inquiry is not whether water may flow downhill in the abstract, but whether the mapped feature functions as a natural drainage course under actual site conditions. The evidence establishes that it does not.
Similarly, concerns regarding flooding, erosion, or downstream impacts are directly addressed by the engineering analysis, which confirms that the site’s drainage system is designed to accommodate a 100-year storm event and that post-development conditions reduce, rather than increase, any flow historically associated with the mapped feature.
The suggestion that removal of the designation creates municipal liability is also misplaced. Aligning the City’s mapping with verified physical and hydrologic conditions reduces, rather than increases, the risk of misapplication of regulatory standards.
Finally, the assertion that this action represents a broader erosion of environmental protections is not supported by the record. This application is based on site-specific technical evidence and has undergone independent peer review. Approval would reflect the application of the Code to the facts of this property, not a departure from established policy.
Date: April 13, 2026
To: City Council City of Laguna Beach
RE: Objection to GPA 25-2345 and LCPA 25-2369 (Removal of Significant Natural Watercourse – 600 Buena Vista Way)
City Council Members,
I object to the Planning Commission’s recommendation to approve General Plan Amendment 25-2345 and Local Coastal Program Amendment 25-2369. This proposal seeks to remove a "significant natural watercourse" from the City’s Major Watersheds and Drainage Courses map, based on the assertion that it no longer serves a functional, scenic, or ecological purpose.
The Council should reject this recommendation for the following reasons:
1. Natural Topography vs. Administrative Definitions The staff report suggests that because the watercourse may have been modified or currently lacks "distinct functional roles," it no longer exists in a meaningful way. However, geography is not a matter of administrative convenience.
Water follows the path of least resistance determined by gravity and topography. By removing this designation, the City is essentially pretending that the natural drainage path of the hillside has vanished. In an era of increasingly severe and unpredictable weather events, ignoring established natural drainage routes poses a long-term risk to infrastructure and downstream properties.
2. Preservation of the Local Coastal Program (LCP) The LCP and General Plan are designed to protect the unique environmental character of Laguna Beach. Deleting a mapped watercourse to facilitate development sets a dangerous precedent of "piecemeal" planning. If every property owner is allowed to de-designate natural features through private hydrology reports, the integrity of our citywide watershed protections will be systematically eroded.
3. Ecological and Scenic Value Even if a watercourse is dry for much of the year, it remains part of the "scenic and ecological" fabric of our hillsides. These features provide critical corridors for local wildlife and contribute to the open-space character that defines our community.
4. CEQA Concerns I am concerned that finding this action exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) ignores the cumulative impacts of removing watershed protections. A full comprehensive neighborhood environmental review of all homes below should be required to ensure that the removal of this watercourse does not increase erosion, sedimentation, or flooding risks for the surrounding neighborhood.
5. Increased Municipal Liability By formalizing the removal of this watercourse from the General Plan, the City is assuming significant legal and financial liability. If the City Council affirmatively votes to ignore a known natural drainage path and subsequent flooding, mudslides, or property damage occurs—either on the subject property or to downslope neighbors—the City could be held liable under the doctrine of Inverse Condemnation. By "demapping" a natural feature to accommodate development, the City is effectively vouching for the safety of a site that nature has already designated as a drainage route.
6. Circumvention of Required Setbacks The City’s own Municipal Code and Land Use Element require specific setbacks from significant watercourses to protect the community from erosion and drainage failures.
• Removing this designation appears to be a maneuver to bypass these safety buffers, allowing for a larger building footprint than the land can safely support. • Setbacks exist for a reason: they provide a "buffer of safety" for both the natural environment and the built structure.
• If the City allows a developer to build where a setback should be, it is prioritizing square footage over the long-term structural integrity of the hillside.
Man-made maps and staff reports do not determine the way water flows down a hill; gravity does.
I ask the City Council to prioritize the long-term safety and environmental health of Laguna Beach over the immediate interests of a single development project. Please deny GPA 25-2345 and LCPA 25-2369 and maintain the "significant natural watercourse" designation as currently mapped.
Sincerely,
Joy Berry
April 10, 2026
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL ONLY
Patrick Donegan, Esq., Assistant City Attorney [email protected] Matthew Schneider, Director of Community Development [email protected] Shaveta Sharma, Senior Planner [email protected]
CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH
Mark Orgill, Mayor
Hallie Jones, Mayor Pro Tem
Sue Kempf
Alex Rounaghi
Bob Whalen
CITY COUNCIL – CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH [email protected] Dave Kiff, City Manager [email protected]
CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH
Re: 600 Buena Vista Way – Objection to Misrepresentation of Condition of Approval No. 16 in the April 14, 2026 Staff Report and Proposed Resolution; Request for Correction Prior to Council Action
Dear Mr. Donegan, Mr. Schneider, Ms. Sharma, Mayor Orgill, City Councilmembers and City Manager Kiff:
I write on behalf of David and Susan Cozzens, owners of 600 Buena Vista Way, to object to a material error that appears in both the April 14, 2026 City Council Staff Report (the “Staff Report”) and in the proposed City Council Resolution (the “Proposed Resolution”) submitted today for Council action. Both documents mischaracterize the current, operative language of Condition of Approval No. 16 in a manner that is factually inaccurate and that, if uncorrected, would embed a false statement of the Cozzens’ entitlement obligations into the City’s permanent administrative record.
This is not a general objection to the GPA and LCPA. My clients continue to support the Council’s adoption of General Plan Amendment 25-2345 and Local Coastal Program Amendment 25-2369, and they appreciate the Planning Commission’s unanimous recommendation in that regard. However, they cannot allow an inaccurate characterization of their entitlement conditions to be incorporated into a formal Council resolution without objection.
///
P. Donegan | M. Schneider | S. Sharma | City Council | D. Kiff – CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH Re: 600 BUENA VISTA WAY (Cozzens)
April 10, 2026
I. What Condition No. 16 Actually Says
On December 12, 2024, the Design Review Board voted unanimously (5-0) to approve Design Review 24-2039 with modified conditions. Among those modifications, the Board expressly amended Condition No. 16 to add language preserving flexibility in the determination of the open space easement’s parameters. The full text of Condition No. 16, as currently in effect, reads:
“Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the residence, the applicant shall execute a new offer of permanent open space easement, in a form and content approved by the City Attorney, dedicating all undeveloped portions of the site below contour elevation 332 feet as open space, and shall record such easement with the County of Orange. The parameters of the open space easement are subject to reasonable modification, at the discretion of the City Attorney and City staff, considering the circumstances existing at the time of the certificate of occupancy subject to review by the Design Review Board if the applicant is not in agreement with staff approved modifications.” (DRB Resolution 24-2039, Condition No. 16; emphasis added.) The italicized sentence is not a minor qualifier. It is a substantive provision, deliberately added by the Board, that expressly reserves the determination of the easement’s parameters to a future proceeding. The scope and location of the open space easement have not been established. They will be determined at the time of certificate of occupancy, with the City Attorney and staff exercising discretion to make reasonable modifications based on then-existing circumstances, subject to DRB review if the applicant disagrees.
It is important to note that the original open space restriction was imposed in 2006 for a project that was never built. Since that restriction was imposed, the City has approved development on the lower portion of the 600 Buena Vista Way property by an adjacent homeowner, not the owner of 600 Buena Vista Way. The Design Review Board recognized that the area included in the open space must be revised.
II. The Staff Report Mischaracterizes Condition No. 16.
The Staff Report, at page 6, describes the open space obligations on the property as follows:
“The subject property is already encumbered by a recorded open space easement established in 2006. In addition, the 2024 Design Review approval for the project includes Condition of Approval No. 16, which requires the dedication of all areas of the property located below the 332-foot contour line as open space prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the approved entitlements. The area of the mapped watercourse is below the 332-foot contour line and is therefore subject to the restrictions of Condition of Approval No. 16 and the open space easement.” (Staff Report, p. 6.)
P. Donegan | M. Schneider | S. Sharma | City Council | D. Kiff – CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH Re: 600 BUENA VISTA WAY (Cozzens)
April 10, 2026
The Staff Report recites only the first sentence of Condition No. 16 — the dedication obligation — and omits entirely the second sentence — the flexibility provision. It then draws from that truncated recitation the affirmative conclusion that the watercourse area “is therefore subject to the restrictions of Condition of Approval No. 16 and the open space easement.” That conclusion does not follow Condition No. 16 as written. By omitting the sentence that makes the easement parameters subject to modification, the Staff Report transforms a contingent, flexible future obligation into a settled, existing restriction. That is not what the DRB approved, and it is not what the condition says.
The same improper characterization reappears at page 8 of the Staff Report in the Environmental Analysis, where it is used to support the CEQA exemption: “the deletion of the watercourse from the property will not induce development on the property as this area of the property is restricted as dedicated open space under the original project entitlements.” The easement has not been recorded. Its parameters have not been determined. It cannot accurately be characterized as an existing restriction of established scope.
III. The Proposed Resolution Independently Compounds the Error.
The problem does not end with the Staff Report. The Proposed Resolution — the formal legal instrument the Council is being asked to adopt today — independently repeats and amplifies the same mischaracterization in three separate provisions. Each one states or implies that the open space restriction on the watercourse area is established and fixed. Not one of them acknowledges the flexibility that Condition No. 16, as amended by the DRB, expressly preserves. The three offending provisions are as follows:
Section 2(C)(i) — Land Use Element consistency finding:
“[R]emoving this mapped feature from the Major Watersheds and Drainage Courses map would not change the City’s requirement to provide dedicated open space over the area currently shown as a mapped watercourse.” Section 2(C)(ii) — Open Space and Conservation Element consistency finding:
“[R]emoving this mapped feature from the Major Watersheds and Drainage Courses map would not change the City’s requirement to provide dedicated open space over the area currently shown as a mapped watercourse.” Section 4 — CEQA exemption findings:
“[T]he deletion of the watercourse from the property will not induce development on the property as this area of the property is restricted as dedicated open space under the original project entitlements.”
///
P. Donegan | M. Schneider | S. Sharma | City Council | D. Kiff – CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH Re: 600 BUENA VISTA WAY (Cozzens)
April 10, 2026
Each of these provisions suffers from the same defect. Each one treats the open space status of the watercourse area as a concluded fact. None acknowledges that Condition No. 16 — the very instrument on which these provisions implicitly rely — expressly provides that the easement parameters are subject to reasonable modification and have not yet been finally determined.
The distinction between a staff report and a resolution is not technical. A staff report is a recommendation document. A resolution is a formal legal act of the City Council. Once adopted, it becomes part of the permanent administrative record of this proceeding. It will be transmitted to the California Coastal Commission as part of the LCPA package. It will be cited in future proceedings involving this property. If the Council adopts findings — three times, in separate sections — that the watercourse area “is restricted as dedicated open space under the original project entitlements,” those findings will follow the Cozzens to every future negotiation over the easement parameters that Condition No. 16 expressly leaves open.
That is precisely the outcome the DRB’s December 2024 amendment was designed to prevent. The Board did not leave the easement parameters open by accident. It did so deliberately, by a unanimous vote, on the motion of the Chair. The Proposed Resolution, as currently drafted, would quietly undo that determination by converting a flexible future obligation into a fixed present restriction — without any hearing, without any findings, and without any acknowledgment that it is doing so.
IV. Request for Correction Before Council Action
We respectfully request that the following corrections be made before the Council acts today:
1. Correct the Staff Report. A supplemental memorandum should be presented to the Council at today’s hearing accurately describing Condition No. 16 as amended by the DRB on December 12, 2024, including the sentence expressly preserving the City’s discretion to modify the easement parameters at the time of certificate of occupancy.
2. Amend the Proposed Resolution. Sections 2(C)(i), 2(C)(ii), and 4 of the Proposed Resolution should be revised to remove the characterization of the watercourse area as restricted dedicated open space of established scope. At minimum, each provision should be amended to reflect that: (a) Condition No. 16 requires execution and recordation of an open space easement prior to certificate of occupancy; (b) the parameters of that easement are expressly subject to reasonable modification at the discretion of the City Attorney and City staff at the time of certificate of occupancy; and (c) the easement has not yet been recorded and its final scope has not been determined.
3. Preserve the DRB’s determination. Neither the resolution nor the Council’s findings should be interpreted or used to foreclose the flexibility expressly preserved by the DRB’s December 12, 2024 action on Condition No. 16.
P. Donegan | M. Schneider | S. Sharma | City Council | D. Kiff – CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH Re: 600 BUENA VISTA WAY (Cozzens)
April 10, 2026
My clients remain fully committed to the open space obligations that apply to their property under existing law and their entitlement conditions. They also remain committed to working cooperatively with the City toward prompt Council approval of the GPA and LCPA.
They ask only that the record — and the resolution the Council adopts — accurately reflect what the DRB approved.
We would welcome the opportunity to discuss this with you before City Council acts.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this important matter.
Respectfully submitted,
Laurence P. Nokes
LPN/dkc
cc: Clients