EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The proposed project includes the demolition of the existing single-family dwelling and construction of a new one-story single-family dwelling (2,286 square feet) with an attached two-car garage (480 square feet), skylights, grading, landscaping and a walkway within the public right-of-way.
Staff recommends that the Design Review Board approve the project. Staff has analyzed the project and finds that facts necessary to support project approval can be made for the requested entitlements.
PROPERTY AERIAL PHOTO
83 84 of 201
DR 25-1883, CDP 25-1884, REP 25-1885
November 13, 2025
SITE PHOTOS
PROPERTY INFORMATION
Land Use Designation Village Low Density (1-7 DU/AC)
Zoning Designation R-1 Residential Low Density
ZONING REVIEW
The proposed project complies with applicable zoning standards and guidelines as shown in the summary table below:
Development Standard Required Existing Proposed Conforms Building Site Coverage (BSC) 35.44%
2,765.74
40.90%
3,192.0 SF
35.38%
2,764.5 SF Yes
Landscape Open Space (LOS) 23.84%
1,860.5 SF
19.61%
1,529.80 SF
36.91%
2,880.00 SF Yes
Height (Above curb)
(Lowest floor to top of roof)
25.00’
25.00’
11.33’
10.83’
14.55’
14.75’
Yes
Yes
Setbacks Front
Side (North)
Side (South)
Rear
20.00’
7.19’
7.19’
20.00’
18.66’
4.82’
7.71’
18.66’
23.92’
*4.00’
11.38’
20.75’
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Impervious Surfaces No Requirement 73.82%
3,154.00 SF
40.42%
3,154.00 SF NA
Grading Inside Footprint
360 CY Cut
0 CY Fill
Outside Footprint
90 CY Cut
50 CY Fill
Total Export
400 CY
NA
*The combined side setbacks are 14.38’ and can be redistributed with 4’ minimum on one side. 84 85 of 201
DR 25-1883, CDP 25-1884, REP 25-1885
November 13, 2025
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
Site History
The subject property is Lot 46 of Tract 1616 which was recorded with the County of Orange on December 04, 1952. The 7,804 square-foot rectangular shaped lot has an average lot width of 71.87 feet and an average lot depth of 108.32 feet.
The original home was constructed under Orange County jurisdiction in 1953. A 172 square-foot addition was permitted in 1968, a patio cover was permitted in 1981, and a 145 square-foot screened enclosure was permitted in 2003. Neither the original home nor any subsequent improvements have undergone discretionary design review. All existing improvements on the site will be demolished in conjunction with this project.
Proposed Project
The proposal includes demolition of the existing one-story dwelling and construction of a new one-story 2,286 square-foot single-family dwelling with an attached 480 square-foot two-car garage, new vehicular access, grading more than 20 cubic yards outside the building footprint, landscaping, and a walkway within the public right-of-way.
ENTITLEMENTS: Following is an analysis of the project’s design review, coastal development permit, and revocable encroachment permit applications:
Design Review
The following elements requires design review: new structure, vehicular access, skylights, grading, and landscaping (see LBMC Section 25.05.040(B)(1)(b, m & p)). Design review is governed by Laguna Beach Municipal Code Section 25.05.040. Design Review is considered by the Design Review Board at a duly noticed public hearing where the following findings are considered in relation to the proposed development:
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:
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.
A new vehicular access with a code-compliant driveway is proposed from Driftwood Drive to a twocar garage located at the northern portion of the frontage. This configuration allows for a nose-in approach and replaces the existing southern driveway that served a side-entry garage. Road improvements will be required, including curb and gutter, pavement, and utility extensions.
Driftwood Drive is classified as a local street, so an onsite turnaround is not required. Although not 85 86 of 201
DR 25-1883, CDP 25-1884, REP 25-1885
November 13, 2025
consistent with the existing pattern of development a 3-foot wide sidewalk is proposed along the frontage that offsets at the driveway behind the driveway apron. A portion of the offset sidewalk at the driveway will require a grant of easement to the city for public use. As such, the project will not result in conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians, and other modes of transportation.
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.
Figure 1: Street Facing Rendering
The residence is designed with four gable roof sections, each having a 3:12 slope and oriented parallel to the street, joined at the center by a flat roof element over the main entry. As viewed from the street, the proposed highest roof ridge elevation (219.06’) is approximately 2.9 feet higher than the existing ridge elevation (216.6’), remaining well below the maximum permitted building height of 25 feet above curb level. The home is less than 15 feet above the curb.
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 design draws significant inspiration from the mid-century beach vernacular, reflected in its scale, materiality, and structural expression. Proposed materials include warm-colored aggregate built-up roofing, exposed overhang beams, vertical timber batten siding, and dark bronze anodized aluminum windows and doors.
4. Environmental Context: Development should preserve and, where possible, enhance the city’s scenic natural setting. Natural features, such as existing heritage trees, rock out-cropping, ridgelines and significant watercourses should be protected. Existing terrain should be utilized in the design and grading should be minimized.
86 87 of 201
DR 25-1883, CDP 25-1884, REP 25-1885
November 13, 2025
The proposed project is located within a developed residential neighborhood. The existing site is relatively flat with no existing rock outcroppings, ridgelines, or significant watercourses. The proposed grading includes 400 cubic yards of export mostly to create a crawl space under the building and lower the garage finished floor. This is a nominal amount of grading that will not significantly alter the existing terrain.
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 existing site is generally flat. The project proposes approximately 400 cubic yards of export grading to accommodate a crawl space beneath the one-story single-family dwelling and associated site improvements. The project will not result in substantial alteration of natural or existing landforms, as the property is located within a developed neighborhood and contains no remaining natural landforms.
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 design of the proposed one-story dwelling reduces massing and provides view equity for the adjacent neighbors. There are no public coastal or canyon views across the project site. As such, the project will not result in adverse impacts on views from public locations.
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 significant onsite 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.).
87 88 of 201
DR 25-1883, CDP 25-1884, REP 25-1885
November 13, 2025
The existing site is relatively flat and there are no natural topographic features, or other significant resources on or near the project site. The project proposes minimal grading for the construction of a one-story single-family dwelling which is designed to be compatible with the surrounding development in the neighborhood. The site is not visible from major highways and arterial streets.
As such, the project will not result in adverse impacts on views from public locations.
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 existing site is relatively flat and does not contain any natural or environmentally sensitive resources. The project proposes minimal grading for the construction of a one-story single-family dwelling which is designed to be compatible with the surrounding residential uses. There are no public views across the project site.
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 located in a developed residential neighborhood. The existing topography is relatively flat, and minimal grading is required to accommodate the proposed single-family dwelling. As such the project will not result in environmental impacts or growth-inducing potential.
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 existing site is relatively flat and does not contain any natural or environmentally sensitive resources. The project proposes minimal grading for the construction of a one-story single-family dwelling and includes landscaping designed to be compatible with the surrounding residential uses.
There are no public views across the project site.
6. Historic Preservation: Destruction or alteration to historic resources should be avoided whenever possible. See Chapter 25.45 for more information.
The subject property is not listed on the city’s historic register, nor is there any record of the site or surrounding properties being designated or identified as historic.
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. 88 89 of 201
DR 25-1883, CDP 25-1884, REP 25-1885
November 13, 2025
The planting plan meets both the very high fire hazard severity (VHFHSZ) and fuel modification standards. The relocated multi-trunk palm tree would reach a mature height of 15 feet which would be below the maximum roof height of the structure. All other proposed planting will not exceed 4 feet in height with most planting not higher than 18 inches.
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, highgloss 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.
The proposed project includes building-mounted lighting at seven exterior doors in addition to landscape lighting, as specified on Sheet L3.0. This sheet specifies fixture types and locations. All lighting will consist of low-wattage, shielded LED fixtures directed downward, consistent with the City’s Good Neighbor Lighting Ordinance to minimize potential impacts on adjacent properties. The project also proposes a warm gray built-up roof with a non-reflective finish, ensuring that the material will not produce glare or cause adverse visual impacts to surrounding 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 surrounding area is characterized primarily by one- and two-story cottages and ranch-style residences, with a few contemporary homes in the vicinity. The proposed one-story design, reflecting a mid-century beach vernacular, is compatible with the existing neighborhood context, as its height, scale, and massing are consistent with the established development patterns in the area.
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 window placement has been carefully designed, and primary living and entertainment areas are situated in locations like those of the existing residence. Accordingly, the project will not result in a substantial invasion of privacy for neighboring properties. 89 90 of 201
DR 25-1883, CDP 25-1884, REP 25-1885
November 13, 2025
12. Public Art: Public art is encouraged and shall be displayed where feasible or required by the Art in Public Places ordinance.
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 minimum of 80 square feet of solar ready 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 associated fencing or other site improvements are compatible with neighboring properties.
The project does not include a swimming pool, spa or water feature.
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 designed, the proposed one-story structure is intended to provide for views for the adjacent neighbors. The relocated multi-trunk palm tree would reach a mature height of 15 feet which would be below the maximum roof height of the structure.
90 91 of 201
DR 25-1883, CDP 25-1884, REP 25-1885
November 13, 2025
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 the Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document, 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 existing site is relatively flat. The proposed one-story dwelling is appropriately scaled in relation development in the surrounding neighborhood. The architectural design draws significant inspiration from the mid-century beach vernacular, reflected in its scale, materiality, and structural expression.
Proposed materials include warm-colored aggregate built-up roofing, exposed overhang beams, vertical timber batten siding, and dark bronze anodized aluminum windows and doors. The proposed residence and landscaping has been designed to minimize potential view impacts for neighboring properties.
Finding No. 4. The project is consistent with any specific plan or any other specific zoning design review criteria.
This project is not subject to any other specific plan or additional design review criteria.
Coastal Development Permit
The proposed demolition and construction of a new dwelling requires the approval of a coastal development permit. (See LBMC Section 25.07.004.) Coastal Development Permits are governed by Laguna Beach Municipal Code Chapter 25.07. A Coastal Development Permit is considered by the Design Review Board at a duly noticed public hearing where the following findings are considered in relation to the proposed development:
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, as none exist on or near the site.
2. The proposed development will not adversely affect marine resources, environmentally sensitive areas, or archaeological or paleontological resources.
91 92 of 201
DR 25-1883, CDP 25-1884, REP 25-1885
November 13, 2025
The site is not an oceanfront lot and will not adversely affect marine resources. There are no environmentally sensitive areas or known archaeological or paleontological resources on the site.
3. The proposed development will not adversely affect recreational or visitor-serving facilities or coastal scenic resources.
The proposed development will not adversely affect recreational or visitor-serving facilities or coastal scenic resources. The project is located within an established residential neighborhood. The proposed one-story single-family dwelling is less than 15 feet above the curb and will be set back 20 feet from the front property line. The proposed highest roof ridge is limited to 2.9 feet higher than the existing highest ridge and is consistent with the pattern of development in the neighborhood, as such, will not adversely affect recreational or visitor-serving facilities and will not obstruct or degrade views of the coast or other scenic resources.
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 proposed development will not result in adverse impacts to environmentally sensitive habitats, as none exist on or near the project site. In addition, the proposed residence is not located in proximity to parks or recreation areas. Therefore, the development will not adversely affect scenic resources.
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 existing site is relatively flat, and the project involves only a nominal amount of grading export for the construction of a one-story single-family dwelling. The project will not substantially alter any natural or existing landforms, as the site is located within a developed neighborhood and contains no natural landforms. Additionally, the development will not pose undue risks related to geological, erosional, flood, or fire hazards, as it will be required to comply with all applicable Building Code standards.
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 one-story single-family dwelling has been designed to maintain a building height more than 10 feet below the maximum allowable height limit, consistent with applicable zoning regulations. Additionally, the subject property is not located within a visually degraded area, and the proposed development would not result in adverse visual or aesthetic impacts.
7. The proposed development will not have any adverse impacts on any known archaeological or paleontological resource.
92 93 of 201
DR 25-1883, CDP 25-1884, REP 25-1885
November 13, 2025
There are no known existing archeological 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 site is a buildable lot in a developed neighborhood with adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, and other necessary facilities to serve the proposed new single-family dwelling.
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, including solid waste collection and roadway capacity, are adequate to serve the proposed development.
The project is consistent with all applicable policies of the Certified LCP.
LCP DOCUMENTS
The project conforms with all the following applicable documents of the Certified LCP.
Design Guidelines - A Guide to Residential Development
Land Use Element
Title 22 - Excavation and Grading
Title 25 - Zoning Code
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 development is not located between the sea and the first public road. As detailed above in the facts supporting Finding Number 1, the proposed development is in conformity with the certified local coastal program.
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.
As described further herein, 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.
Revocable Encroachment Permit
The applicant requests an approval of a revocable encroachment permit to construct and maintain a walkway within the public right-of-way. A revocable encroachment permit may be granted by the Design Review Board if the improvements will not interfere with the present and prospective public use of a street or rightof-way and will generally conform to the following requirements:
93 94 of 201
DR 25-1883, CDP 25-1884, REP 25-1885
November 13, 2025
Finding No. 1: It should be located in a manner that is not hazardous to the traveling public, including motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians.
The proposed encroachment is designed and located to not interfere with existing and proposed public street improvements. The walkway is located behind the existing curb and designed for entry into the property adjacent to the driveway, thereby minimizing potential vehicle conflicts.
Finding No. 2: It should be sufficiently set back from the edge of pavement or street centerline to provide adequate travel, parking, and walking lanes.
The proposed encroachment is on grade between the existing curb and property line and does not affect travel, parking, and walking lanes. Public parking spaces located along the street frontage will be preserved. Therefore, this finding can be made.
Finding No. 3: It should not conflict with preexisting public utility structures, especially hydrants, vault and service meters in any manner that necessitates relocation thereof at public expense or causes any other unacceptable interference, including impediments to the maintenance, relocation or repair of pipelines, conduits, or substructures of any public utility.
The proposed encroachments would not conflict with any preexisting or proposed utility structures as all utilities are located below grade on this site.
Finding No. 4: It will not preclude public access, use or enjoyment of any area that has historically established such access, use or enjoyment.
The proposed improvements will not preclude public access or use of the street. Public parking will remain along the street frontage.
Finding No. 5: It is not precedent setting in nature to the extent that it creates a noticeable projection into the streetscape as established by existing construction and improvements on neighboring properties.
Neighboring properties on the street have similar encroachments. Furthermore, the proposed encroachments are not a noticeable projection as they are located behind or in line with the existing curb. Therefore, the proposed encroachment would not be precedent setting.
Finding No. 6: It does not create structures of unusual or unacceptable appearance, form, shape or height that detract from the general quality of the streetscape.
The proposed encroachment would not detract from the general quality of the streetscape because the walkway is customary and typical, pedestrian in scale and on grade. 94 95 of 201
DR 25-1883, CDP 25-1884, REP 25-1885
November 13, 2025
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, the project qualifies for a categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15303 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, in that the project consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small structures. There is no evidence of any unusual or special conditions that would result in a significant effect on the environment. This project fits within the Class 3 exemption because it is construction of a single-family dwelling on an existing legal building site and no structures are proposed within any open space overlay or environmentally sensitive area.
Further, none of the exceptions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply. The project site does not contain any environmentally sensitive areas. There are no unusual circumstances resulting in a significant impact on the environment as the project is similar in scope to other developed properties in the surrounding developed neighborhood. There will be no cumulative impact resulting from successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time. There are no unusual circumstances resulting in a significant impact on the environment. There will be no damage to scenic resources, including trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. The project is not located on a hazardous waste site, or any other site included on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. The project will not result in significant adverse impacts to historical resources as defined by CEQA. Consequently, additional environmental analysis is not necessary to meet the requirements of the CEQA.
RECOMMENDATION:
Conduct a public hearing and adopt Resolution 25-1883 approving Design Review 25-1883, Coastal Development Permit 25-1884, and Revocable Encroachment Permit 25-1885 for the property located at 30801 Driftwood Drive and find said action categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303.
NOTIFICATION:
Pursuant to Title 25 (Zoning) Public Notice, a public hearing notice has been mailed on October 20, 2025, at least twenty-one (21) days prior to the hearing date in accordance with Title 25. In addition, a public hearing notice has been posted on the project site on October 24, 2025, at least 10 days in advance of the hearing date.
CORRESPONDENCE:
Following the installation of the project staking, the property owner of 30722 Driftwood Drive has expressed view equity concerns (Attachment 8).
ATTACHMENT(S):
Attachment 1 – Resolution No. 25-1883
Attachment 2 – Plans
95 96 of 201
DR 25-1883, CDP 25-1884, REP 25-1885
November 13, 2025
Attachment 3 – Certified Staking Plan
Attachment 4 – Colors and Materials
Attachment 5 – Colored Elevations
Attachment 6 – 3D Renderings
Attachment 7 – REP Application
Attachment 8 – Correspondence
96 97 of 201
Re: Opposition to Design Review 25-1883, Coastal Development Permit 25-1885 – 30801 Driftwood Drive (APN: 656-212-03)
Dear Members of the Design Review Board,
I am writing as the owner of to express concern regarding the proposed project at 30801 Driftwood Drive, scheduled for public hearing on November 13, 2025.
I purchased this property earlier this year for $2.9 million with the intention of a complete remodel. My design team is now finalizing plans that carefully protect and even improve shared view corridors. The stakes recently placed at 30801, however, indicate a structure that would rise above the current ridgeline, directly impairing the ocean view from my home—both as it stands today and as it will be rebuilt.
The existing single-story residence at 30801 already enjoys expansive 180-degree ocean views. The applicant’s desire for increased interior ceiling heights and/or a steeper sloped roof can be fully accommodated by excavating downward a modest two to three feet while maintaining the current roof height. This straightforward adjustment would achieve the owner’s goals without compromising neighboring properties or the character of the neighborhood.
Laguna Beach’s view protection policies exist to prevent exactly this kind of incremental encroachment. I respectfully request that the Board require the applicant to revise the design to conform to the existing roof elevations.
I support responsible investment in our community and have no objection to the proposed improvements—provided they are implemented in a manner that respects established sightlines.
If my schedule allows, I plan to attend the November 13 hearing and appreciate the opportunity to include this letter in the record.
Sincerely,
Markus Imhof
Attachment 7
117
98 of 201
November 10, 2025
Mike and Marcela McKibben
Laguna Beach, CA. 92651
Dear Design Review Board,
I’m writing you in regard to the proposed residential new build at 30801 Driftwood Dr. in South Laguna (Case #: DR 25-1883, CDP 25-1884 and REP 25-1884).
My wife and I were under the impression that all residents within a 300’ radius of the project would be invited over to the site on a specific date to review the plans and put forth any questions? We were only notified on 10/20/25 via a Notice of Public Hearing mailed to our home. Are affected neighbors no longer invited to review building plans at the site? We can see the story poles from our living room!
We took it upon ourselves to reach out to our affected neighbors, Tony and Bobbi Speranzo at Driftwood Dr. and Joyce and Henry Brodt at Ocean Vista Dr. to see if their views and privacy would be impacted. In all fairness they told us to wait until the story poles went up to get a better idea. Now that the poles are up and we’ve toured the affected properties again it’s apparent that the owners of 30801 Driftwood Dr. (the Loloi’s) have no idea how much their project would affect the neighboring properties. The Speranzo’s ocean view has been reduced by approximately 60%! That’s totally unacceptable! The Brodt’s view of beautiful Aliso Peak has been completely compromised. 100% blocked by this project from their outdoor seating area and primary view of Aliso Peak. I could almost reach over the Brodt’s fence and touch the story poles, that’s how intrusive this project will be. Again, It’s unacceptable! Since this is a new build, a viable solution would be to grade down the lot and pull in the side set backs. We’ve recently been shown the plans for this project and there is so much wasted space throughout the interior of this project with breezeways etc. to the detriment of the neighbors! If you haven’t visited the site and more importantly viewed the impact it could have on the neighbors I beseech you to do a site visit and see for yourselves.
Best regards,
Mike and Marcela McKibben
118
99 of 201
From: Sheila Jamison
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2025 3:52 PM
To: Balmer-Csira, Nancy CD <[email protected]> Subject: Design Review 25-1883, Coastal Development Permit 25-1884 and Revocable Encroachment Permit 25-1885
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] To Design Review Board,
Our names are Brent and Sheila Jamison and we oppose this project as planned. Our family home at Driftwood Dr. is to the project listed above. The proposed plans will have a negative impact on our home and property. We are asking that you deny the permits at this hearing and request plan changes that will work with all the neighbors.
Thank You
119
100 of 201
From: Glenn Reinus
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2025 6:00 AM
To: Balmer-Csira, Nancy CD <[email protected]> Subject: 30801 Driftwood Drive | APN: 656-212-03
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Dear Members of the Planning Commission,
I am writing as a resident and homeowner at Driftwood Drive to express my strong opposition to the proposed project at 30801 Driftwood Drive.
My family purchased our home in 2021 specifically for its unobstructed ocean view, close proximity to the beach, the welcoming single-story neighborhood character, and the tight-knit community that defines this area. The single-story profile of our street has always been a defining feature that preserves sightlines to the ocean for everyone who lives here.
Currently, my wife and I are in the middle of a remodel of our own home. When we first designed the project, we explored a two-story option that would have given us additional space. After extensive conversations with our neighbors, we learned how significantly that height would have impacted their views and, by extension, their property values. Rather than proceed with a design that prioritized only our needs, we chose to revise our plans. Through thoughtful compromises—lowering rooflines, relocating second-floor elements, and using strategic window placements—we were able to achieve nearly all of our goals while fully protecting our neighbors’ ocean views. The process required creativity and collaboration, but it proved that respectful solutions are possible.
The proposed project before you does not reflect that same level of care. It would permanently block long-held ocean views for multiple neighboring properties and set a precedent that could erode property values across the block. View preservation and thoughtful design are not optional niceties in a coastal neighborhood—they are fundamental to maintaining the quality of life and equity that residents have invested in.
I respectfully urge the Commission to deny the project in its current form and to require the applicant and architect to return with a revised design that incorporates meaningful compromises, just as my family and so many others have done. Solutions exist that can accommodate the homeowner’s objectives without denying neighbors the views they purchased and have enjoyed for years.
Thank you for considering my concerns and for your commitment to balanced, community-sensitive development. I am happy to discuss this further or provide additional information about our own remodel experience if it would be helpful.
Sincerely,
Glenn Reinus
120
101 of 201
121
102 of 201
122
103 of 201
123
104 of 201
Aaron Peluso
Driftwood Dr
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
November 11, 2025
Design Review Board
City of Laguna Beach
505 Forest Avenue
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
Re: Opposition to Design Review 25-1883, Coastal Development Permit 25-1885, Encroachment Permit 25-1884, and Revocable Permit – 30801 Driftwood Drive (APN: 656- 212-03)
Dear Members of the Design Review Board,
I am writing as a nearby resident and stakeholder to formally oppose the proposed project at 30801 Driftwood Drive, as noticed for public hearing on Thursday, November 13, 2025, at 5:00 PM in the City Council Chambers.
Two years ago, my family invested more than $2 million to thoughtfully remodel our home.
Central to that investment was preserving and modestly enhancing the limited ocean view corridor available to us from our downstairs living area—a narrow sightline down the street that is otherwise obstructed on all sides. My wife and I both work from home, so this sliver of ocean is part of our daily environment: it is the backdrop to every video call, the light that fills our office, and the quiet reward after long hours at our desks. We went to extraordinary lengths during our own design review process to ensure our remodel did not impair the view of any uphill neighbor; in fact, by relocating a balcony, we slightly improved one neighbor’s vista.
It is therefore disheartening to see stakes now marking a building envelope at 30801 Driftwood Drive that would materially diminish the very view corridor we worked so hard to protect. The proposed structure appears to raise roof elevations solely to achieve taller interior ceiling heights—an objective that can be fully accomplished by excavating downward a modest two to three feet while retaining the existing roof ridgeline. The current single-story home already enjoys sweeping 180-degree ocean panoramas; elevating the structure is neither necessary for the owner’s enjoyment nor consistent with Laguna Beach’s long-standing view-protection policies.
124
105 of 201
Laguna Beach Municipal Code § 25.05.070 and Design Review Guidelines emphasize that new construction must not unreasonably impair established public or private views, particularly within the Coastal Zone. The subject site lies in a non-appealable area of the Coastal Zone, yet the proposed height increase triggers review precisely because it risks view encroachment. The applicant’s own submittal acknowledges the need for a Revocable Low Density Zone Design review; I respectfully submit that the Board should exercise its authority to require a compliant alternative that maintains the existing roof elevations.
I welcome the applicant’s investment in the neighborhood and have no objection to improvements within the maximum roof elevations of the existing structure. I simply ask that the Board direct the applicant to revise the plans to work within the general roof elevations of the current structure—achievable through minor excavation—thereby preserving the small but cherished ocean view my family secured through considerable expense and careful design.
Thank you for your consideration. I intend to attend the November 13 hearing and speak during public comment, but I submit this letter for the record in advance. Please feel free to contact me with any questions.
Sincerely,
Aaron Peluso
Owner
125
106 of 201
Law Office of Molly K. Zurflueh
Attorney-At-Law
Laguna Beach, California 92651
November 12, 2025
VIA EMAIL
Laguna Beach Design Review Board
City of Laguna Beach
505 Forest Avenue
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
Re: Written Submission Regarding Proposed Project at 30801 Driftwood Drive, Laguna Beach – Request for Modifications
Dear Members of the Laguna Beach Design Review Board:
I am writing on behalf of my clients, Joyce and Henry Brodt and Tony and Bobbie Speranzo, the owners of properties at Ocean Vista Drive and Driftwood Drive, who are directly and adversely impacted by the proposed development project at 30801 Driftwood Drive (the "Project"). As neighbors to the Project site, one residing immediately to the north on Ocean Vista Drive and the other directly across the street on Driftwood Drive, my clients have significant concerns regarding the Project's design, particularly its impact on privacy and view equity in the neighborhood. We respectfully request that the Board require modifications to the Project, including reducing the overall height of the structure, relocating the structure farther from the northern property line, and retracting the extended eaves, to align with the City's Design Review Guidelines and mitigate the substantial view impairments imposed on adjacent properties.
Background and Project Impacts
The Project involves demolition of the existing structure and the construction of a new residence at 30801 Driftwood Drive, which, as currently proposed, features excessive height for the neighborhood, significant massing toward the northern boundary, and protruding eaves that encroach on neighboring views and privacy. The proposed 4 module structure includes a crawl space, extended eaves, and elevated ceilings. While the applicant enjoys a permanent, unobstructed 180-degree ocean view from their property1 which is protected by a recorded 1 In connection with a 1984 recorded easement (Orange County Recorder Document 84-372245) for view preservation, which runs with the land, the owner of 30801 Driftwood will forever enjoy an unobstructed ocean view over the residence at 30832 Marilyn Drive.
126
107 of 201
November 12, 2025
Design Review Board
DRB 25-1883
30801 Driftwood Drive
2 easement, the design fails to account for the equitable sharing of views among neighbors, resulting in disproportionate harm to my clients.
Lack of Neighbor Communication
Until this week, the only communication the applicants had with my clients related to the Project was a neighbor meeting approximately two years ago where the applicants presented what appears to be virtually the same proposed plans. At that time, the applicants visited the Speranzo property at Driftwood Drive to see the impact of their proposed design. The applicant recognized that there would be a drastic impairment of the Speranzo’s views if they moved forward with the Project. As an example of the pattern of development designed to maintain views, Mr.
Speranzo showed the applicants the interior of his home and the low slope of the roofline which was thoughtfully designed and preserves the views of others in the neighborhood. Other neighbors also expressed their concerns with the design/elevated height of the roofline The applicant, Mr.
Loloi, then stated that he would not build a home that was objectionable to the neighbors. He stated that he would rather sell the house than attempt to build an objectionable structure.
Over the intervening two years, Joyce Brodt and the applicants spoke from time-to-time when they visited Laguna from their residence in Dallas, Texas. Periodically, Joyce would inquire with Mrs. Loloi about whether the applicants had any modifications or whether they were proceeding with the project. At no time did the applicants provide any details or information.
Indeed, Mrs. Loloi did not respond on the issue. Given these events, my clients and the many of the neighbors were surprised when the Project was staked recently. My clients immediately requested the plans and attempted to make sense of them. They then requested modifications to address their concerns. It was not until 7:34 pm on November 11, 2025, less than 48 hours before the scheduled DRB hearing, that the project representative asked to view the staking from my clients’ homes.
Impacts on Views and Privacy
For the Speranzo’s at Driftwood Drive, who live full time, directly across the street from the Project, the increased height and northern massing would obstruct approximately 40-50% of their existing ocean view. See attached photos depicting the impact. Their home was thoughtfully designed and situated in such a way as to afford them with expansive ocean and whitewater views while their low roof protects the views of the homes uphill and behind them.
The unique, terraced nature of the lots in this neighborhood and configuration and design of the homes affords all lots a truly special view. The Speranzo’s paid a premium to purchase their home and as with many of the owners in the neighborhood, they have relied on the design review guidelines which when properly applied, continue to afford all homes in the neighborhood with these incredible ocean views. As the proposed project is currently designed, the loss of view is not incidental but a direct consequence of the applicant structure's bulk and placement, which cuts into the Speranzo’s primary view corridor without regard for neighborhood equity. 127
108 of 201
November 12, 2025
Design Review Board
DRB 25-1883
30801 Driftwood Drive
3 The impact on the Brodt’s, full-time residents at Ocean Vista Drive, located immediately to the north of the Project, also is severe. Their modest single-story home, rear yard, and small pool would be overshadowed by the looming new structure, which extends aggressively toward the shared property line. This design would entirely eliminate the Brodt’s south-facing ocean view and obliterate their cherished mountain vista from the backyard, an area where the family, including adult children and young grandchildren, spend the majority of their time. See attached photos depicting the impact. The extended eaves further exacerbate this intrusion, amplifying the sense of enclosure and view blockage. These features would not only diminish the Brodt’s enjoyment and value of their property but also disrupt the harmonious scale of the neighborhood.
Alignment with Laguna Beach Design Review Guidelines
The City's Design Review Guidelines emphasize view equity as a core objective to ensure that new developments contribute positively to the neighborhood's visual landscape. The Project, as submitted, contravenes several key provisions under Section 15, "View Equity," as outlined below:
• Guideline 15.1: Locate and design new buildings or site development to facilitate view equity, anticipating future views from neighboring potential development and to vacant or undeveloped land. The Project's extended eaves, elevated ceilings, crawl space, and massing do not anticipate or facilitate view equity for adjacent properties. Instead, it prioritizes the applicant's views at the expense of neighbors, failing to consider the longterm impacts on developed lots like those of my clients. • Guideline 15.2: Avoid blocking neighbors’ primary views. Locate major building masses and outdoor space to maintain primary views through and across the site from other properties. By increasing height with the elevated ceilings and a crawl space, and concentrating mass on the northern side, the Project directly blocks primary ocean from both neighboring properties and mountain views from the Ocean Vista property. Lowering the height and repositioning the structure away from the northern boundary would help maintain these views across the site.
• Guideline 15.3: Organize buildings to maximize views. Follow hillside topography or step a building down on a site with less topography to allow for view opportunities.
Avoid cutting into the horizon line of a neighbor’s view whenever possible. The site's topography and the terraced layout of the neighborhood offer the applicant opportunities to step down the building or reduce its profile, yet the design cuts prominently into the horizon lines of both neighbors' views, particularly the mountain view from Ocean Vista Drive.
• Guideline 15.4: Minimize mass to maintain neighborhood views. Create low-profile structures. Use transparent materials when feasible. Use a compact building footprint to maintain views above and along the sides of a structure. The proposed height and extended eaves create unnecessary mass that could be minimized through eliminating the crawl space, a lower profile and more compact footprint, preserving side-yard views and reducing the looming effect on the northern neighbor. Furthermore, reducing the unused 128
109 of 201
November 12, 2025
Design Review Board
DRB 25-1883
30801 Driftwood Drive
4 internal space of the project at the junction of the four modules would better comport with this guideline and create a more compact footprint.
• Guideline 15.6: Maintain view corridors when feasible. Locate a building to retain view opportunities through side yards. A more compact footprint and relocating the northwestern-most module southeastward would preserve essential view corridors through the side yards, benefiting both clients without compromising the applicant's primary views. • Guideline 15.7: Design balconies and decks to balance view interests. Position decks or balconies to minimize view impacts on neighbors while maximizing privacy. Use materials that will enhance views. To the extent the design includes balconies or decks with extended eaves, these elements should be retracted to minimize overhangs that further impair neighboring privacy and views.
These guidelines collectively underscore the City's commitment to balanced development that respects the shared visual resources of the community. The Project's current form prioritizes individual gain over neighborhood harmony, warranting Board intervention in the form of modifications to enforce these standards.
To address these concerns and bring the Project into compliance with the Guidelines, we urge the Board to request the applicants to make the following modifications:
1. Reduce the Overall Height of the Structure: Lower the building's height to minimize its intrusion into neighbors' horizon lines and primary view corridors, thereby restoring a significant portion of the obstructed ocean views for both properties and preserving the mountain view for Ocean Vista Drive.
2. Relocate the Structure Away from the Northern Property Line: Shift the building mass southward to create greater separation from Ocean Vista Drive, reducing the looming effect over their home, yard, and pool while maintaining view opportunities through the side yard.
3. Retract Extended Eaves and Overhangs: Pull in any protruding eaves or similar elements to compact the footprint, enhance transparency, and further alleviate view blockages and privacy intrusions.
These changes are feasible, align with the Guidelines, and would equitably distribute view benefits without unduly burdening the applicant.
My clients value the unique character of Laguna Beach and in particular, their special neighborhood. They support responsible development that enhances the community. However, the Project as proposed undermines view equity and the quality of life for directly affected neighbors. We respectfully request that the Board deny approval unless the above modifications are incorporated.
129
110 of 201
November 12, 2025
Design Review Board
DRB 25-1883
30801 Driftwood Drive
5 Thank you for your careful consideration of this matter. We look forward to the opportunity to discuss these concerns further at the upcoming hearing.
Very truly yours,
LAW OFFICE OF MOLLY K. ZURFLUEH
By: __________________________________
MOLLY K. ZURFLUEH,
Attorney-at-Law
Attachments: Photos depicting impact
130
111 of 201
November 12, 2025
Design Review Board
DRB 25-1883
30801 Driftwood Drive
6 Mountain View Loss from Brodt Residence ( Ocean Vista Drive) 131
112 of 201
November 12, 2025
Design Review Board
DRB 25-1883
30801 Driftwood Drive
7 Looming nature of proposed structure as viewed from inside Brodt residence kitchen 132
113 of 201
133
Ocean view loss - Speranzo residence
134
Laguna Beach Design Review Board
505 Forest Avenue
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
Re: Opposition to Proposed Project at 30801 Driftwood Drive, Laguna Beach Dear Members of the Design Review Board,
My husband Henry and I own property located Ocean Vista Dr. We have lived here Since 2013 When we remodeled our home, we carefully and thoughtfully planned considered our neighbors, views and privacy. We took great pains to be communicative and to include them in the process. It resulted in a lovely project that serves our family well but also respects the terraced design of the neighborhood and our neighbor’s views.
Approximately two years ago, the applicants held a brief meeting to discuss a potential project.
Neighbors expressed concerns about the height of the structure, and the loss of views. The meeting ended abruptly and neither the project representative, nor the applicant updated us at any time until the story poles went up. Over the last two years I have requested information about the design and have been met with silence. We were shocked as it appears no changes to the original design were made and the proposed structure will severely and negatively impact us.
It was my understanding that the City encourages applicants to participate in discussions with neighbors and to take steps to address any concerns-as we did with our remodel. That did not happen here.
Ocean and Mountain Views - The proposed structure’s height and massing are excessive, and the extended eaves are too close to our property. It appears that instead of building on slab like the existing structure, they are including a crawl space which unnecessarily raises the height of the structure. Now, it will loom over us.
Every evening my husband sits in our modest rear yard and enjoys the sunsets at they light up the mountains. This project completely removes that mountain view. It is incredibly sad to think we will not only be robbed of our south facing ocean view but that Henry will no longer have those sunset evenings to enjoy-and for what? What is the necessity for increasing the height to this degree? Why are these extreme, extended eaves necessary? Worse, it is inconceivable that the staff report which I reviewed today indicates that the project will not adversely affect us. No one has come to our home and viewed the story poles. We are perplexed as to how staff came to render that opinion. It’s cruel and unfair to not consider the impact on us. The elevated roofline and extended eaves obstruct cherished ocean and mountain views, not just for us but for several of the neighbors.
Privacy – The height and 4-part modular design are incompatible with the terraced character of the neighborhood. The house pops up above ours when all the other homes follow a stair-stepped manner where each house going from north to south is lower than the house above it.
The proximity of the structure to our home creates an imposing and looming presence, resulting in a substantial loss of privacy. Instead of enjoying the ocean view from our kitchen and dining table, we’ll be looking at this structure. In the rear yard, our modest pool is a major factor in visits from our grandkids. It has been a source of fun and joy for our family for many years. The current structure is sufficiently set back so as to allow us privacy and the enjoyment of our rear 135
116 of 201
yard. The new structure is much closer, with eaves extending even farther. It has both a patio and a large window facing our home, pool, and private areas. Yet, the project appears to have a lot of wasted open space in the middle of the 4 modules. The applicant could achieve the desired square footage by utilizing that space and pulling the project away from our home.
We respectfully request that the applicant be required to:
1. Reduce the height of the structure to preserve our view corridors and minimize visual intrusion.
2. Reduce and/or pull in the eaves to reduce bulk and mitigate privacy impacts.
3. Conform the design to the terraced nature of the homes along Driftwood Drive, ensuring architectural harmony and neighborhood consistency.
I have attached mountain view photos at the end of this document. Photos contained are even from the 1980's.
Thank you for hearing our concerns.
Sincerely,
Joyce Brodt
136
117 of 201
137
118 of 201
138
119 of 201
139
120 of 201
140
121 of 201
November 11, 2025
Design Review Board
City of Laguna Beach
505 Forest Avenue
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
Re: Opposition to DRB 25-1883 (30801 Driftwood Drive)
Dear Members of the Design Review Board:
Thank you for the opportunity to submit written comments in opposition to the proposed new home at 30801 Driftwood Drive (DRB 25-1883). My family and I are full-time Laguna Beach residents who moved here in 2019 intending to retire. We selected our home primarily for its ocean and mountain views, which are central to our daily life and to the value of our property.
Our home sits directly across the street from the subject property ( Driftwood Drive), with our principal interior rooms (kitchen, dining room, family room) and our primary outdoor living areas are oriented west toward the ocean. Our primary view corridor lies directly over the applicant’s existing home at 30801 Driftwood. If the project proceeds as submitted, it will drastically reduce our cherished ocean views and therefore our view equity.
Based on the plans submitted, the increase in the roof elevations is approximately 4 feet above the existing structure at its highest point, reducing my primary view by more than 50%. Even at the lower elevation, the increase of about 3 feet would diminish the view by nearly 40%. (Please see the attached photographs) Therefore, my view equity is significantly impaired, constituting a substantial loss for our family.
The Laguna Beach Design Review Guidelines state as a Design Objective that “the design of a building should contribute to view equity in the neighborhood” and direct projects to “locate and design new buildings or site development to facilitate view equity,” to “avoid blocking neighbors’ primary views,” to “follow hillside topography or step a building down,” and to “minimize mass to maintain neighborhood views” (Design Objective; 15.1–15.4). The proposal, as designed, fails to meet those standards in the following respects:
• View equity and view corridors. The proposed massing and higher roofline will block the primary ocean views that we and our neighbors currently enjoy. The design does not locate major masses or outdoor space to maintain primary views “through and across the site,” contrary to 15.2.
• Topography and stair-stepping. The roofline does not stair-step with the neighborhood topography and appears higher than uphill adjacent home. The Guidelines require following hillside topography or stepping a building down to preserve view opportunities (15.3). This community specifically was designed for such a stair-stepped pattern. All of the lots and homes on those lots were configured in such a way so as to afford each home 141
122 of 201
with an expansive ocean view, over the roof of the structure across from it. It is a unique and brilliant neighborhood design that should be preserved. • Massing and neighborhood compatibility. The proposed increase in height and bulk is inconsistent with the low-profile character encouraged by the Guidelines, which call for minimizing mass, creating low-profile structures, and using a compact footprint to maintain views (15.4). The staking indicates there is a large mass of the structure on the north side, which removed a considerable chunk of our ocean view. Furthermore, the design incorporates four modules with a significant amount of wasted space in between them.
• Privacy and looming impacts. The siting, extended eaves, and height create a looming effect over neighboring properties that blocks views and intrudes upon privacy. The Guidelines specifically address locating buildings to retain side-yard view opportunities and positioning decks and balconies to minimize view impacts and maximize privacy (15.6–15.7).
To bring the project into compliance with the Design Review Guidelines and to reasonably preserve view equity and neighbor privacy, I respectfully request that the Board require the applicant to:
1. Reduce the overall height of the proposed structure so it does not intrude into our primary view corridor.
2. Reconfigure the height and massing to stair-step with the natural topography and align with the heights and pattern of adjacent home heights.
3. Pull the structure back from property edges where necessary to preserve side-yard view corridors and reduce looming/privacy impacts.
4. Reduce overall mass through a more compact footprint, eliminating wasted internal space, and implementing lower-profile design elements; where feasible, use materials and design details that lessen visual obstruction.
Our view is integral to our daily life and to the value of our property. The Guidelines prioritize view equity, stair-stepping with topography, minimizing mass, and protecting privacy. The proposed design does not satisfy those objectives. We urge the Board to require meaningful design changes that preserve view corridors and respect neighborhood scale.
Thank you for your consideration.
Anthony J. Speranzo
Driftwood Drive
142
123 of 201
143
124 of 201
144
125 of 201
145
126 of 201
146
127 of 201
147
128 of 201
148
129 of 201
Regarding DRB 25-1883/1884 and 1885 (30801 Driftwood Dr.) November 10, 2025
Dear Design Review Board Members,
We purchased our home on Driftwood Drive nearly six and a half years ago with a clear vision: to create a true family home, a place for love, laughter, and togetherness. For us, a home has always meant more than walls and a roof. It’s a gathering place where both family and friends, many of whom we consider family, come to connect and find comfort.
When we chose our home in Laguna Beach, we prioritized three things:
#1. Ocean view #2. Location-we loved Laguna Beach and #3. a kitchen/dining area to gather together. From the moment we moved in, our home became the heart of our extended circle. It was instantly embraced as the family home by those closest to us.
Over the past six and a half years, we’ve experienced profound loss.
Three dear friends passed away from cancer. Yet during their final months, each of them and their spouses visited our home regularly.
They came to sit, to breathe, and to find solace in the serenity of our precious ocean view. That view became a refuge for them, a source of peace in the midst of unimaginable hardship. Though they are no longer with us, the memory of what this home and the view meant to them remains deeply important to us.
Today, another close friend is in the final stages of her battle with cancer. She and her spouse visit almost weekly, simply to sit and take in 149
130 of 201
the view. We consider our home, and especially our view, a gift we are privileged to share. It is a source of healing.
We respectfully urge the Design Review Board to require modifications to the proposed plans that would preserve this cherished ocean view. Specifically, we ask that the large, elevated skylight be removed and that the overall height of the structure be reduced to match the current building envelope. This could be achieved by eliminating the crawl space, modest excavation, or lowering the ceiling height. Additionally, the new massing proposed at the northern roofline poses a significant obstruction and should be reconsidered or removed.
This view is not just ours. It has been a comfort to many, especially in their most vulnerable moments. We ask that you help us protect it.
With sincere
gratitude,
Roberta (Bobbie)
Speranzo
Driftwood
Drive
150
131 of 201
15.83’
14.55’
Attachment 6
97 132 of 201
RS-1
NO. DESCRIPTION DATE
RECORD SURVEY
VANTIEGHEM TALEBI
PROJECT NUMBER
DATE
SCALE
016
10/30/2024
1' = 1'-0"
30801 DRIFTWOOD DR
LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651
ZONING PLAN CHECK
DESIGN CONSULTANT:
RAHA TALEBI
VANTIEGHEM TALEBI
[email protected]
LANDSCAPE DESIGNER:
CASE FLEHER
LANDSCAPE WORKSPACE
[email protected]
CIVIL ENGINEER:
ADAM TOAL
TOAL ENGINEERING INC.
[email protected]
STAKING
GARO BABIKIAN
G.J. DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT
[email protected]
OWNER DEVELOPMENT AGENT:
STEVE KAWARATANI
KAWARATINI CONSULTING
[email protected]
1 ZONING PLAN CHECK ISSUE 4/6/2024
2 ZONING PLAN CHECK REV.1 08/22/2024
ZONING PLAN CHECK REV.2 10/30/2024
0 LOT
45 LOT
44 LOT 43
LOT 42
LOT
47 LOT
48 LOT
31 LOT
32 LOT
33 LOT
34 LOT
35 LOT
36 LOT
37 LOT
38 LOT
39 LOT
9 LOT
10 LOT
11 R.S.B. 301/43
C.R. 2017/0083
R.S.B. 283/50
S T A T E O F C A L I F O R N I A
PROFESS I ONA L LA ND SURV EYO
WM. ALAN
R
BROOKS
No. 6921
STAT E OF CA L I FORN I A
L ICENSED LAND SURVEYO
LILY M. N.
R
SANDBERG
No. 8402
LOT 41
98 133 of 201
BENCHMARK NOTE:
OCSBM J-167
ELEV=32.779
NAVD88 DATUM, 1991 ADJ.
EASEMENT NOTE:
ALL EASEMENTS SHOWN ON THIS TOPOGRAPHIC AND BOUNDARY
SURVEY ARE PER A PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORT PREPARED BY TICOR TITLE, PRELIM NUMBER TT1003353 DATED FEBRUARY 9, 2024 UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.
5 ITEM 5 OF THE AMENDED PRELIMINARY TITLE REPOT, CC&R'S RECORDED IN BOOK 2430, PAGE 29 O.R. CONTAIN A 5' EASEMENT
RESERVATION FOR UTILITIES AND DRAINAGE FACILITIES, PLOTTED HEREON.
6 ITEM 6 OF THE AMENDED PRELIMINARY TITLE REPOT, A 1' WIDE
EASEMENT FOR ELECTRIC LINE PURPOSES RECORDED IN BOOK
2456, PAGE 119 O.R. PLOTTED HEREON.
7 ITEM 7 OF THE AMENDED PRELIMINARY TITLE REPOT, AN EASEMENT FOR VIEW AND LIGHT PURPOSES RECORDED AS INSTRUMENT NO.
84-372245. THE FULL LOCATION OF THE EASEMENT HAS NOT BEEN
PLOTTED HEREON AS IT DEPENDS ON TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES
THAT WERE NOT LOCATED DURING THIS SURVEY. JOB NO. SHEET 1 3 9 A v e n i d a N a v a r r o
S a n C l e m e n t e , C A 9 2 6 7 2
9 4 9 . 4 9 2 . 8 5 8 6
w w w . t o a l e n g i n e e r i n g . c o m
C I V I L E N G I N E E R I N G
L A N D S U R V E Y I N G
S T O R M W A T E R Q U A L I T Y
OF
PREPARED FOR:
APVD. DATE R E V I S I O N S BY DATE
APPD.:
DATE:
DWG. NO.
H. SCALE:
SURVEY DATE: V. SCALE:
CHD.:
DRN.:
SUSAN LOLOI
STAT E OF CA L I FORN I A
L ICENSED LAND SURVEYO
VIKTOR P.
R
MEUM
No. 8682
VIKTOR P. MEUM
P.L.S. 8682
DATE:
1/8"=1'
3-30-23 -
4-4-23
MSF
-
VM
23051 1 1
TP-01LOT 46, TRACT 1616, APN 656-212-03 30801 DRIFTWOOD DRIVE, LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA
TOPOGRAPHIC AND BOUNDARY SURVEY
SCALE: 1/8"=1'
99 134 of 201
PROPOSED RESIDENCE F.F.=205.00 PAD= 202.67 GARAGE KEY NOTES CONSTRUCTION NOTES LEGEND SECTION SECTION 1 3 9 A v e n i d a N a v a r r o S a n C l e m e n t e , C A 9 2 6 7 2 9 4 9 . 4 9 2 . 8 5 8 6 ww w. t o a l e n g i n e e r i n g . c o m C I V I L E N G I N E E R I N G L A N D S U R V E Y I N G STORMWATER QUAL I TY ADAM L. TOAL R.C.E. 59275 DATE: EASEMENT NOTES BENCHMARK DEVELOPMENT STATISTICS WQMP DETERMINATION PRELIMINARY PLAN NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 100
PROPOSED RESIDENCE F.F.=205.00 PAD= 202.67 GARAGE LEGEND: 1 3 9 A v e n i d a N a v a r r o S a n C l e m e n t e , C A 9 2 6 7 2 9 4 9 . 4 9 2 . 8 5 8 6 ww w. t o a l e n g i n e e r i n g . c o m C I V I L E N G I N E E R I N G L A N D S U R V E Y I N G STORMWATER QUAL I TY ADAM L. TOAL R.C.E. 59275 DATE: PRELIMINARY EARTHWORK QUANTITY ESTIMATE PRELIMINARY PLAN NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 101
SP-1
NO. DESCRIPTION DATE
SITE PLAN
VANTIEGHEM TALEBI
PROJECT NUMBER
DATE
SCALE
016
10/30/2024
1/8" = 1'-0"
30801 DRIFTWOOD DR
LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651
ZONING PLAN CHECK
DESIGN CONSULTANT:
RAHA TALEBI
VANTIEGHEM TALEBI
[email protected]
LANDSCAPE DESIGNER:
CASE FLEHER
LANDSCAPE WORKSPACE
[email protected]
CIVIL ENGINEER:
ADAM TOAL
TOAL ENGINEERING INC.
[email protected]
STAKING
GARO BABIKIAN
G.J. DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT
[email protected]
OWNER DEVELOPMENT AGENT:
STEVE KAWARATANI
KAWARATINI CONSULTING
[email protected]
1 ZONING PLAN CHECK ISSUE 4/6/2024
2 ZONING PLAN CHECK REV.1 08/22/2024
ZONING PLAN CHECK REV.2 10/30/2024
0 205.0' FS
108.32' AVG LOT DEPTH
71.87'
AVG
LOT
WIDTH
13.113' 12.567' 22'
8'
8.474'
SYSB
20.00' FYSB
25.68'
10.374'
4.738'
5.900'
8.735'
58.38'
20' GARAGE CLR.
19' GARAGE CLR.
26.956'
DRIVEWAY
5.089'
5.09'
6.032'
69.622'
64.621'
2.626'
72.708'
4.000'
SYSB
20.00' FYSB
12.576'
6 FIXED DATUM POINT
T.O.CURB 204.5' = 0'-0"
201.9' E.G.
207.5' E.G.
203.0' E.G.
199.9' E.G.
2 3 5
5 4
4 6
7 8
8 6
6 1 2 2
1 1
4 4 1
HVAC CONDENSER
UNIT, STACKED.
SEE SHEET A-6
FOR SPECS
RIDGE
218.09'
205.0' FS
RIDGE
216.90'
RIDGE
219.06'
3:123:12
3:123:12
3:123:12
3:123:12
205.0' FS
205.0' FS
RIDGE
217.03'
204.61' F.S. @ FRONT
205.00' F.S. @ REAR
SITE PLAN
SITE PLAN NOTES:
TRUE
NORTH
PROJECT
1/8" = 1'-0" NORTH
SITE PLAN LEGEND:
1. BUILDING FOOTPRINT
2. LINE OF ROOF OVERHANG
3. DECK OUTLINE
4. PLANTERS INSIDE DECK
5. CLASS B DECKING
6. CLASS A ROOFING
7. EXISTING STRUCTURE TO DEMOLISH
8. NEIGHBORING STRUCTURES
SITE PLAN KEYNOTES:
RESIDENCE AND GARAGE
PERVIOUS HARDSCAPE (EXTERIOR DECK)
IMPERVIOUS MASONRY HARDSCAPE (DRIVEWAY)
PERVIOUS MASONRY HARDSCAPE
ROOF PITCH / DIRECTION
1. UNDERGROUND ALL UTILITY LINES TO THE NEAREST EXISTING POLE. TYPE AND LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED AND VERIFIED ON SITE BY GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND ARCHITECT.
LANDSCAPE OPEN SPACE
IMPERVIOUS HARDSCAPE (DRIVEWAY / APRON)
04 04
X:X
207.6
206.4
206.1
205.0
204.6
201.1
202.4
203.0
203.6
203.7
204.4
204.7
204.8
205.0
205.2
205.2
205.1
204.3
204.4
204.6
203.6
199.3
204.9
204.5
204.6
204.7
204.7
204.9
205.2
205.2
208.4 208.1
207.1 206.2
205.9
206.0
206.2
205.1
205.0
205.1
205.1
204.6
204.9
205.1 205.0
205.2
205.1
205.0
204.9
199.8
200.2 201.3
200.9
202.0 201.6
201.5
201.5
201.7
201.8
202.4
199.4
198.4
200.9
201.1
201.8
202.1
203.1
202.4
202.3
201.1
200.0
200.7
204.9
204.8
201.0
201.0
201.0
201.1
201.1
201.2
201.1
201.2
200.6
200.5
198.8
198.9
208.0
206.9
206.7
206.9
206.5 206.9
206.9
206.9
206.3 206.2
205.9
205.5
205.3
204.6
204.5
202.3
202.3
202.4
202.4
203.1
203.5
203.8
199.9
199.4
201.1
201.4
202.0
202.6
204.9
204.9
204.6
204.7
204.3
204.4
204.1
204.0
203.6
198.5
198.2
198.4
207.9
208.1
208.1
207.9
208.2
202.5
200.1
203.6
204.1
204.6
204.6
204.2
204.2
198.1
200.2
200.6
201.1
201.2
201.8
202.4
202.8
207.7
207.6
208.0
204.2
204.5
207.4
206.9
204.4
204.4
202.1
201.7
196.3
197.9
208.0
204.2
200.0
198.8
196.5
205.0
205.0
204.9
204.8
205.0
206.01
208.12 at garage
200.51
202.55
205.01
207.23
208.56
204.71
204.41
204.49 at garage
198.71
198.69
198.87
203.58
204.25
204.53
204.37
204.31
204.75
204.51
204.69
205.46 205.31
205.23
205.57
204.96
204.99
205.49
205.02
205.48
205.53
205.50
205.40
205.41
205.40
205.38
205.36
205.37
205.30
205.26
205.30
204.99
204.78
207.66
207.86
208.06
208.10
208.21
208.26
200.40
201.06
201.54
202.37
203.04
203.33
203.52
204.14
204.50
204.56
204.89
205.07
205.12
198.32
198.34
198.36
198.38
198.38
198.42
198.55
198.64
198.67
198.80
198.91
198.90
198.94
198.94
204.63
204.50
204.57
204.64
204.64
204.92
205.20
205.40
205.24
205.43
205.42
205.45
205.44
205.54
205.47
205.33
205.33
205.28
205.28
205.21
205.22
205.23
205.19
205.23
205.25
205.22
205.23
205.24
205.20
205.20
205.21
205.27
205.22
205.24
205.24
205.24
205.21
205.20
205.24
205.21
205.24
205.26
205.34
205.24
205.26
204.95
204.76
204.90
204.93
204.99
205.00 204.97
204.79
202.83
203.03
202.55
202.50
201.76
201.82
204.99
204.89
204.47
204.47
204.47
204.81 204.58
204.95
207.75 F.L.
207.37 F.L.
206.97 F.L.
205.73 F.L.
204.54 F.L.
202.96 F.L.
201.05 F.L.
200.86 F.L.
199.87 F.L.
208.37 F.L.
207.92 F.L.
205.82 F.L.
204.21 F.L.
202.90 F.L.
201.16 F.L.
200.25 F.L.
208.14
208.28208.23
204.79
204.98
204.98
204.79
204.97
204.97
205.29
203.04
207.81
207.40
206.97
205.78
204.62
203.01
201.10
200.91
199.94
208.50
208.03
205.84
204.32
202.35
201.25
200.51
203.43
203.48
203.89
204.11
204.21
204.31
204.51
204.54
204.66
204.73
204.69
208.41
208.35
208.20
208.30
208.21
208.45
208.58
208.61
208.63
208.62
208.52
208.50
208.52
203.40
203.33
208.53
208.54
208.49
208.56
208.53
208.60
214.93 Roof ridge
216.15 Roof ridge
214.65 Roof ridge
216.16 Roof ridge
207.84 T.C.
207.58 T.C.
207.80 T.C.
207.43 T.C.
206.16 T.C.
204.97 T.C.
203.44 T.C.
202.86 T.C.
201.31 T.C.
201.45 T.C.
201.29 T.C.
200.35 T.C.
208.81 T.C.
208.34 T.C.
207.72 T.C.
206.09 T.C.
206.28 T.C.
204.64 T.C.
203.38 T.C.
202.80 T.C.
201.42 T.C.
201.61 T.C.
200.71 T.C.
205.52 Threshold
205.55 Threshold
205.64 Threshold
205.49 Threshold
214.39 T.W.
206.41 T.W.
210.46 T.W.
205.11 T.W.
204.93 T.W.
204.17 T.W.
206.20 T.W.
202.07 T.W.
203.99 T.W.
205.58 T.W.
209.80 T.W.
201.23 T.W.
201.33 T.W.
201.35
200.68
T.W.
T.W.
199.45 T.W.
200.66 T.W.
204.93
206.11
T.W.
T.W.
205.08 T.W.
213.52 T.W.
206.99 T.W.
208.28 T.W.
207.09 T.W.
206.48 T.W.
213.40 T.W.
213.00 T.W.
208.15 T.W.
209.81 T.W.
209.75 T.W.
204.40 T.W.
205.79 T.W.
207.74 T.W.
205.77 T.W.
207.76 T.W.
205.81 T.W.
205.83 T.W.
205.77 T.W. 206.49 T.W.
205.29 T.W.
205.02 T.W.
3" drain outlet
Sewer manhole
3" drain outlet
3" drain outlet
Irrigation valve
Water meter
TR2
TR3
Downspout
8"
14" cluster
Sewer CO
3" drain inlet
TG=205.25
3" drain inlet
TG=205.28
10"
Downspout
3" drain inlet
TG=205.14
3" drain inlet
TG=204.99
3" drain inlet
TG=205.17
3" drain inlet
TG=205.37
3" drain inlet
TG=205.37
TR4
3" drain inlet
TG=204.81
Fountain
Spa equip.
3" drain inlet
TG=205.22
3" drain inlet
TG=205.12
3" drain inlet
TG=205.10
3" drain inlet
TG=205.18
3" drain inlet
TG=205.17
3" drain inlet
TG=205.14
3" drain inlet
TG=205.19
TR5
Pool
Downspout
Downspout
Pool
equip.
3" drain inlet
TG=204.74
3" drain inlet
TG=205.94
3" drain inlet
TG=204.78
Gas meter
Downspout
6"
24" cluster
Existing residence
Existing residence
Downspout
205
200
205
205
N 44°20'32" W 75.48'
N 51°26'14" E 108.32'
N 54°35'51" E 110.36'
R = 4 2 0 .0 0 ' = 4 °5 8 ' 2 1 " L = 3 6 .4 5 '
LOT 46
TRACT 1616
LOT 45
LOT 47
LOT 35
LOT 36
LOT 37
DRIFTWOOD DRIVE
R = 1 5 5 .0 0 '
= 1 2 °0 9 ' 4 5 "
L = 3 2 .9 0 '
Fd. 1.5" IP LS2598
Fd. 1.5" IP LS2598
Existing residence
207.5
201.9
TBM Rim elev=206.01
203.0
102
137 of 201
A-1
NO. DESCRIPTION DATE
FLOOR PLAN
VANTIEGHEM TALEBI
PROJECT NUMBER
DATE
SCALE
016
10/30/2024
1/4" = 1'-0"
30801 DRIFTWOOD DR
LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651
ZONING PLAN CHECK
DESIGN CONSULTANT:
RAHA TALEBI
VANTIEGHEM TALEBI
[email protected]
LANDSCAPE DESIGNER:
CASE FLEHER
LANDSCAPE WORKSPACE
[email protected]
CIVIL ENGINEER:
ADAM TOAL
TOAL ENGINEERING INC.
[email protected]
STAKING
GARO BABIKIAN
G.J. DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT
[email protected]
OWNER DEVELOPMENT AGENT:
STEVE KAWARATANI
KAWARATINI CONSULTING
[email protected]
1 ZONING PLAN CHECK ISSUE 4/6/2024
2 ZONING PLAN CHECK REV.1 08/22/2024
ZONING PLAN CHECK REV.2 10/30/2024
0 WALL LEGEND:
GROUND FLOOR PLAN
FLOOR PLAN NOTES:
TRUE
NORTH
PROJECT
1/4" = 1'-0" NORTH
WINDOW / DOOR LEGEND:
1. NEW DOOR
2. NEW WINDOW
3. NEW SLIDING DOOR
4. ENTRANCE PIVOT DOOR
5. EXTERIOR DOUBLE EGRESS DOOR
6. DOUBLE GARAGE DOOR
2x6 WD EXTERIOR FRAMED WALL CONSTRUCTION LINEAR FT.: 118.40 FT. 2x4 WD INTERIOR FRAMED WALL CONSTRUCTION LINEAR FT.: 221.73 FT.
WALLS TO BE DEMOLISHED LINEAR FT.: 341.16 FT.
1. ROOF OVERHANG
2. DECK OUTLINE
3. WALLS TO DEMOLISH
FLOOR PLAN KEYNOTES:
5 1
1 205.0' FS
3 2
1 2
5 2
2 2
1 2
2 1
2 4
6 2
2 2
3 3
5 3
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
3 71/2" 13'-0" 3'-0" 11'-31/2" 4"
4"
15'-1
5/8"
3'-11
1/4"
19'-4
7/8"
2" 71/2" 2'-6"
10'-21/4"
9'-31/4"
8'-71/2"
71/2"
31'-117/8"
71/2" 6" 18'-0" 6" 71/2"
20'-3"
54'-91/2"
71/2" 7 20'-0" 1/2" 4'-71/2" 71/2"
5'-3" 21'-3"
64'-91/4"
71/2" 5'-31/2" 3'-8" 13'-9" 6'-0"
5'-75/8"
71/2" 3'-0" 7'-01/2"
5'-111/4" 3'-71/4" 71/2"
20'-10"
9'-1"
56'-73/8"
19'-0"
20'-0"
3'-55/8" 2'-0"
10'-1" 3'-2" 3'-2" 10'-1"
9'-61/2"
3'-1" 3'-2" 3'-6" 3'-0" 3'-6" 3'-2" 2'-57/8"
3'-0" 13'-8"
6'-3"
8'-23/8"
6'-01/2"
6 7'-1" 1/2" 3'-8" 5'-0" 11'-5"
9'-113/8"
1'-21/2"
3'-0" 8'-5"
13'-21/2"
4'-31/2" 16'-0"
3'-0"
3'-3
3/4"
15'-1
5/8"
23'-113/4"
31/2"
8'-0"
14'-111/4"
7'-95/8"
13'-0
7/8"
6'-31/4"
7'-111/2"
4'-2
3/8"
6'-77/8"
3'-91/2"
71/2" 7'-7" 2'-6" 6'-10" 6'-0" 4'-1" 71/2"
3'-0"
11'-15/8"
3'-0" 1'-65/8" 3'-0" 2'-5" 3'-6" 1'-0"
28'-3"
6'-37/8"
6'-6"
2'-111/4"
4'-105/8"
2" 2'-03/4"
2"
2'-03/4" 2" 2'-03/4"
2" 1'-71/4"
205.00'
1 A-3
1 A-4
2 A-3
1 A-5
1 A-5
2 A-5
2 A-5
2 A-4
MASTER BEDROOM
GUEST BEDROOM
LAVATORY 1
WC
CLOSET
KITCHEN
HALL
LIVING ROOM
GARAGE
GUEST BATH
PANTRY
BATH 3
BATH 2
WC
BEDROOM 3
BEDROOM 2
TOILET
LAVATORY 2
1 2 3
HVAC CONDENSER
UNIT, STACKED.
SEE SHEET A-6
FOR SPECS
205.0' FS
205.0' FS
205.0' FS
204.61' F.S. @ FRONT
205.00' F.S. @ REAR
2 11'-31/2" 13'-0"
103
138 of 201
A-2
NO. DESCRIPTION DATE
ROOF PLAN
VANTIEGHEM TALEBI
PROJECT NUMBER
DATE
SCALE
016
10/30/2024
1/4" = 1'-0"
30801 DRIFTWOOD DR
LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651
ZONING PLAN CHECK
DESIGN CONSULTANT:
RAHA TALEBI
VANTIEGHEM TALEBI
[email protected]
LANDSCAPE DESIGNER:
CASE FLEHER
LANDSCAPE WORKSPACE
[email protected]
CIVIL ENGINEER:
ADAM TOAL
TOAL ENGINEERING INC.
[email protected]
STAKING
GARO BABIKIAN
G.J. DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT
[email protected]
OWNER DEVELOPMENT AGENT:
STEVE KAWARATANI
KAWARATINI CONSULTING
[email protected]
1 ZONING PLAN CHECK ISSUE 4/6/2024
2 ZONING PLAN CHECK REV.1 08/22/2024
ZONING PLAN CHECK REV.2 10/30/2024
0 1
A-3
1 A-4
2 A-3
1 A-5
1 A-5
2 A-5
2 A-5
2 A-4
1'-21/2"
TYP
20'-3" 2'-61/2"
TYP
58'-103/4"
2'-61/2" 28'-3" 3'-61/2"
TYP
4"
2'-57/8"
TYP
28'-3"
2'-71/4"
TYP
33'-41/8"
24'-0" 1'-61/8"
11'-71/2" 18'-01/2"
7'-11"
TYP
29'-8" 1'-6"
11'-1 9'-8" 5/8"
4'-15/8" 20'-95/8" 5'-71/4"
TYP
39'-1" 30'-61/2"
69'-71/2"
2'-6
1/2"
19'-4
7/8"
3'-4
5/8"
TYP
34'-8" 4'-53/8"
25'-4"
64'-71/2"
13'-43/8" 18'-5" 5'-3" 8'-0" 13'-3"
6'-23/4"
TYP
31'-93/8" 5'-0" 21/4" 1'-33/4" 5'-3" 21'-3" 1'-6"
TYP
72'-6"
5'-0"
MIN.
16'-0"
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 7
7 7
8 RIDGE
218.09'
RIDGE
217.03'
RIDGE
216.90'
RIDGE
219.06'
3:123:12
3:123:12
3:123:12
3:123:12
3:123:12
VALLEY
21 3.91"
SOLAR-READY AREA
MIN. 80 SQ.FT.
ROOF PLAN
TRUE
NORTH
PROJECT
1/4" = 1'-0" NORTH
ROOF PLAN NOTES: ROOF PLAN LEGEND:
1. EAVE/RAKE OVERHANG SOLAR READY AREA
2. LINE OF BUILDING PROFILE BELOW
3. SKYLIGHT UPSTAND
4. SKYLIGHT WINDOW
5. LINE OF ROOF OVERHANG UNDER SKYLIGHT
6. SOLAR READY ROOF AREA
7. CIRCULAR SKYLIGHTS
8. EXISTING ROOF TO DEMOLISH
ROOF PLAN KEYNOTES:
ROOF PITCH / DIRECTION
1. ALL NEW BUILDINGS SHALL PROVIDE SOLAR-READY ROOF AREA TO FACILITATE THE INSTALLATION OF FUTURE SOLAR ENERGY EQUIPMENT. a. SUCH SOLAR-READY ROOF AREA SHALL BE:
i. EITHER FLAT, OR SOUTH FACING WITH A 33 PERCENT ROOF SLOPE (FOUR UNITS VERTICAL IN TWELVE UNITS HORIZONTAL) OR LESS; ii. UNSHADED;
iii. FREE FROM OBSTRUCTIONS;
iv. IN CONTIGOUS AREAS OF NO LESS THAN 100 SQUARE FEET; AND v. NOT OTHERWISE REQUIRED TO BE LEFT OPEN AND UNOBSTRUCTED IN ORDER TO ENSURE ADEQUATE FIRE OR LIFE-SAFETY PROTECTION, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO REQUIRED CLEARANCES FOR FIREFIGHTING ACCESS.
b. MINIMUM SOLAR-READY ROOF SPACE REQUIRED:
i. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING: 250 SQUARE FEET; OR
ii. ALL OTHER BUILDINGS: 30 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL ROOF AREA.
ROOF AREA CALCULATIONS:
EXISTING PROPOSED
2864 sq ft. 4164 sq ft.
X:X
104
139 of 201
105
140 of 201
106
141 of 201
202.7’
202.7’
107
142 of 201
A-6
NO. DESCRIPTION DATE
HVAC SPECS
VANTIEGHEM TALEBI
PROJECT NUMBER
DATE
SCALE
016
10/30/2024
1' = 1'-0"
30801 DRIFTWOOD DR
LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651
ZONING PLAN CHECK
DESIGN CONSULTANT:
RAHA TALEBI
VANTIEGHEM TALEBI
[email protected]
LANDSCAPE DESIGNER:
CASE FLEHER
LANDSCAPE WORKSPACE
[email protected]
CIVIL ENGINEER:
ADAM TOAL
TOAL ENGINEERING INC.
[email protected]
STAKING
GARO BABIKIAN
G.J. DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT
[email protected]
OWNER DEVELOPMENT AGENT:
STEVE KAWARATANI
KAWARATINI CONSULTING
[email protected]
1 ZONING PLAN CHECK ISSUE 4/6/2024
2 ZONING PLAN CHECK REV.1 08/22/2024
ZONING PLAN CHECK REV.2 10/30/2024
0 Specifications subject to change without notice.
INDUSTRY LEADING
FEATURES / BENEFITS
Energy Efficiency
• 14.7 - 18 SEER2 / 8.2 - 12.4 EER2 / 8.2 - 9.8 HSPF2
Sound
• Levels as low as 54 dBA
Design Features
• Small Footprint
• Integrated 24V and RS-485 communications
Reliability, Quality and Toughness
• Inverter-driven, variable speed, rotary Compressor
• Line lengths up to 213' (65 m)
• Low ambient operation on high heat models down to -22F (-30C) without the use of wind baffles
• Conventional line set sizes
NOTE: Ratings contained in this document are subject to change at any time. Always refer to the AHRI
directory (www.ahridirectory.org) for the most
up−to−date ratings information.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
MODEL NUMBER NOMENCLATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 STANDARD FEATURES AND ACCESSORIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 DIMENSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 CLEARANCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 PERFORMANCE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 PERFORMANCE - AIR HANDLER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 APPLICATION DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 WIRING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 ELECTRICAL DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 CONNECTION DIAGRAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 24V CONNECTION DIAGRAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 WIRING DIAGRAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Product Data
38MURA
Outdoor Unit Single Zone Heat Pump System
Sizes 1-1/2 to 5 Nominal Tons
38MURA: Product Data
Manufacturer reserves the right to change, at any time, specifications and designs without notice and without obligations. 4 DIMENSIONS
A220414
Fig. 1 — Outdoor Unit
W
D L2
H
L1
Air outlet
Air inlet
Size Unit 1.5T 2T 2.5T 3T 4T 5T
Width (W) in (mm) 31.69 (805) 35.04 (890) 37.24 (946) 37.24 (946) 37.48 (952) 37.48 (952) Height (H) in (mm) 21.81 (554) 26.50 (673) 31.89 (810) 31.89 (810) 52.48 (1333) 52.48 (1333) Depth (D) in (mm) 12.99 (330) 13.29 (338) 16.02 (407) 16.02 (407) 16.34 (415) 16.34 (415) L1 in (mm) 26.1 (663) 26.1 (663) 26.5 (673) 26.5 (673) 25 (634) 25 (634) L2 in (mm) 13.65 (346.7) 13.65 (346.7) 15.85 (402.6) 15.85 (402.6) 15.9 (404) 15.9 (404) Operating Weight lbs (kg) 75.84 (34.4) 102.29 (46.4) 141.76 (64.3) 151.68 (68.8) 217.59 (98.7) 217.15 (98.5) Shipping Width in (mm) 36.02 (915) 39.17 (995) 42.91 (1090) 42.91 (1090) 43.11 (1095) 43.11 (1095) Shipping Height in (mm) 24.21 (615) 29.13 (740) 34.84 (885) 34.84 (885) 58.27 (1480) 58.27 (1480) Shipping Depth in (mm) 14.57 (370) 15.67 (398) 19.69 (500) 19.69 (500) 19.49 (495) 19.49 (495) Shipping Weight lbs (kg) 81.35 (36.9) 109.13 (49.5) 151.46 (68.7) 161.16 (73.1) 248.68 (112.8) 248.46 (112.7) Size Unit 1.5T - HH 2T - HH 2.5T - HH 3T - HH 4T - HH 5T - HH Width (W) in (mm) 35.04 (890) 37.24 (946) 37.24 (946) 37.48 (952) 37.48 (952) 37.48 (952) Height (H) in (mm) 26.50 (673) 31.89 (810) 31.89 (810) 52.48 (1333) 52.48 (1333) 52.48 (1333) Depth (D) in (mm) 13.29 (338) 16.02 (407) 16.02 (407) 16.34 (415) 16.34 (415) 16.34 (415) L1 in (mm) 26.1 (663) 26.5 (673) 26.5 (673) 25 (634) 25 (634) 25 (634) L2 in (mm) 13.65 (346.7) 15.85 (402.6) 15.85 (402.6) 15.9 (404) 15.9 (404) 15.9 (404) Operating Weight lbs (kg) 102.29 (46.4) 141.76 (64.3) 141.76 (64.3) 217.59 (98.7) 217.59 (98.7) 239.86 (108.8) Shipping Width in (mm) 39.17 (995) 42.91 (1090) 42.91 (1090) 43.11 (1095) 43.11 (1095) 43.11 (1095) Shipping Height in (mm) 29.13 (740) 34.84 (885) 34.84 (885) 58.27 (1480) 58.27 (1480) 58.27 (1480) Shipping Depth in (mm) 15.67 (398) 19.69 (500) 19.69 (500) 19.49 (495) 19.49 (495) 19.49 (495) Shipping Weight lbs (kg) 109.13 (49.5) 151.46 (68.7) 151.46 (68.7) 248.68 (112.8) 248.68 (112.8) 271.61 (123.2) 38MURA: Product Data
Manufacturer reserves the right to change, at any time, specifications and designs without notice and without obligations. 7 DIMENSIONS (CONT)
A221418
Fig. 4 —Dimension Sizes 36K HH / 48K HH / 60K / 60K HH
41(1045) W1
37.5(952) W
15.9(404) B
17.6(448) C
52.5(1333) H
16.3(415) D
2.9(74) 25(634) A
27.9(708)
38.4(976)
108
143 of 201
ZAC-0
NO. DESCRIPTION DATE
EXISTING AREA
CALCULATIONS
VANTIEGHEM TALEBI
PROJECT NUMBER
DATE
SCALE
016
10/30/2024
1/4" = 1'-0"
30801 DRIFTWOOD DR
LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651
ZONING PLAN CHECK
DESIGN CONSULTANT:
RAHA TALEBI
VANTIEGHEM TALEBI
[email protected]
LANDSCAPE DESIGNER:
CASE FLEHER
LANDSCAPE WORKSPACE
[email protected]
CIVIL ENGINEER:
ADAM TOAL
TOAL ENGINEERING INC.
[email protected]
STAKING
GARO BABIKIAN
G.J. DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT
[email protected]
OWNER DEVELOPMENT AGENT:
STEVE KAWARATANI
KAWARATINI CONSULTING
[email protected]
1 ZONING PLAN CHECK ISSUE 4/6/2024
2 ZONING PLAN CHECK REV.1 08/22/2024
ZONING PLAN CHECK REV.2 10/30/2024
0 110 108
106
105
109 107
104
103
102 101
115
116
117
118
114
113
112 111
106
115
119
120
112 111
113
110
109
114
116
117
118
121
107
105
102
108
122
101
104
103
4"x4" (E)
~
CL-3
HALL-1
SITTING ROOM
SUNROOM
MECH-2
LIVING ROOM
CL-2
3/4 BATH-3
BEDROOM-3
KITCHEN
PANTRY
ENTRY
HALL-2
BATH
CL-1
3/4 BATH-2
BEDROOM-2
3/4 BATH-1
W.I.C.-1
BEDROOM-1
MECH-1
GARAGE
SHWR
SHWR
SHWR
SLOPE FLOOR
(E) ~ 4" x 6"
(E) ~ 3" x 4" (E) ~ 3" x 7"
(E) ~ 4" x 6" (E) ~ 4" x 6" (E) ~ 4" x 6"
SLOPE FLOOR
(E) GRAVEL
OVEN
DW
REFR
(E) P.A.
(E) GATE
BE RELATIVE TO THIS POINT.
ALL FLOOR HEIGHTS IN DRAWING WILL
COVERED PATIO-2
COVERED
SLOPE FLOOR
PATIO-1
FLOOR SLOPE
SLOPE FLOOR
FLOOR SLOPE
(E)
PANEL
ACCESS
(E)
PROJECTION
PERGOLA
(E) PERGOLA PROJECTION
F.P.
1 TO NOTE
REFER
-0' - 1 1/2" -0' - 2"
0' - 0"
1'-0" / 1/4"
-0' - 3 1/2"
-0' - 4 1/2"
1'-0" / 1/4"
-0' - 2 1/2"
-0' - 4 1/2"
0' - 0"
1'-0" / 1/4"
(E) FINISHED FLOOR 0' - 0"
-0' - 2 1/2"
0' - 0"
1'-0" / 1/8"
0' - 0"
-0' - 1"
-0' - 2"
1/4" 1'-0" /
0' - 0"
-0' - 1"
-0' - 7"
1'-0" / 3/8"
0' - 0"
0' - 0"
0' - 0"
0' - 0"
0' - 0"
0' - 0"
0' - 0"
0' - 0"
0' - 0"
0' - 6 1/2"
0' - 0"
0' - 0"
0' - 0"
-0' - 6 1/2"
-0' - 10 1/2"
-1' - 0"
1/8" / 1'-0"
1' - 0 1/2"
0' - 0"
0' - 0"
MW
1/2" 9'-4
20'-2"
1/2" 11'-10
10'-4" 6'-4" 1/2" 7'-8 1/2" 5'-9 1/2" 3'-4 6'-6" 5'-9" 19'-9" 1/2" 3'-10 1/2" 6'-5 1/2" 8'-10 2'-0" 1/2" 2'-7 4'-4" 2'-2" 2'-1" 10'-1" 1/2" 1'-5 3'-0" 18'-8" 58'-9"
6'-2 1/2" 3'-2" 3'-2 1/2" 1'-2" 3'-7 1/2" 6'-7 1/2" 6'-8 1/2" 7'-5" 5'-3 1/2" 5'-0" 1'-10" 8'-6" 5'-6" 7'-1" 13'-1 1/2"
11'-10 1/2"
10'-10" 10'-4"
5'-6" 20'-2 1/2" 3'-1"
2'-3 1/2" 1'-10 1/2"
4'-7 1/2" 7'-8 1/2" 10'-5" 3'-0 1/2"
1/2" 65'-6
1/2" 5'-7 4'-9" 8'-7" 1/2" 9'-9 11'-4" 5'-9" 1/2" 10'-4 9'-4" 1/2" 9'-3 1/2" 4'-11
1/2" 19'-6
6'-7 1/2" 3'-7"
6'-11"
12'-1 1/2"
17'-6" 6'-6"
1/2" 12'-1
16'-7 1/2"
19'-3"
9'-6" 13'-2" 1/2" 8'-8 7'-3" 3'-11" 19'-1"
1/2" 5'-4
19'-9" 13'-8" 11'-6"
1/2" 9'-10
10'-5"
6'-7"
21'-11" 16'-3 1/2" 5'-10 1/2"
14'-1 1/2" 2'-10" 4'-10"
12'-3"
4'-10 1/2"
5'-1 1/2"
1/2" 7'-8 1/2" 5'-10 7'-4" 1/2" 3'-1 1/2" 11'-7
1/2" 10'-11 1/2" 5'-10 6'-11" 8'-8" 6'-1"
MECHANICAL
AREA
15 sq ft
MECHANICAL
AREA
8 sq ft
HABITABLE AREA = 2,060 sq ft
GARAGE AREA = 390 sq ft
AREA CALCULATIONS:
DESCRIPTION EXISTING PROPOSED
LEGEND:
GROUND FLOOR (CONDITIONED) 2,060 sq ft 2,286 sq ft
GARAGE 390 sq ft 480 sq ft
MECHANICAL 23 sq ft
FIRST FLOOR PLAN (EXISTING)
TRUE
NORTH
PROJECT
1/4" = 1'-0" NORTH
EXISTING HABITABLE AREA
EXISTING GARAGE AREA
EXISTING MECHANICAL
109
144 of 201
ZAC-1
NO. DESCRIPTION DATE
PROPOSED AREA
CALCULATIONS
VANTIEGHEM TALEBI
PROJECT NUMBER
DATE
SCALE
016
10/30/2024
1/4" = 1'-0"
30801 DRIFTWOOD DR
LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651
ZONING PLAN CHECK
DESIGN CONSULTANT:
RAHA TALEBI
VANTIEGHEM TALEBI
[email protected]
LANDSCAPE DESIGNER:
CASE FLEHER
LANDSCAPE WORKSPACE
[email protected]
CIVIL ENGINEER:
ADAM TOAL
TOAL ENGINEERING INC.
[email protected]
STAKING
GARO BABIKIAN
G.J. DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT
[email protected]
OWNER DEVELOPMENT AGENT:
STEVE KAWARATANI
KAWARATINI CONSULTING
[email protected]
1 ZONING PLAN CHECK ISSUE 4/6/2024
2 ZONING PLAN CHECK REV.1 08/22/2024
ZONING PLAN CHECK REV.2 10/30/2024
0 5
1 1
3 2
1 2
5 2
2 2
1 2
2 1
2 4
6 2
2 2
3 3
5 3
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
3 2
GARAGE AREA = 480 sq ft
HABITABLE AREA = 2,286 sq ft
AREA CALCULATIONS:
DESCRIPTION EXISTING PROPOSED
LEGEND:
GROUND FLOOR (CONDITIONED) 2,060 sq ft 2,286 sq ft
GARAGE 390 sq ft 480 sq ft
MECHANICAL 23 sq ft
FIRST FLOOR PLAN (PROPOSED)
TRUE
NORTH
PROJECT
1/4" = 1'-0" NORTH
PROPOSED HABITABLE AREA
PROPOSED GARAGE AREA
110
145 of 201
ZFD-1
NO. DESCRIPTION DATE
FIRE DEPARTMENT SITE
ACCESS PLAN
VANTIEGHEM TALEBI
PROJECT NUMBER
DATE
SCALE
016
10/30/2024
1/8" = 1'-0"
30801 DRIFTWOOD DR
LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651
ZONING PLAN CHECK
DESIGN CONSULTANT:
RAHA TALEBI
VANTIEGHEM TALEBI
[email protected]
LANDSCAPE DESIGNER:
CASE FLEHER
LANDSCAPE WORKSPACE
[email protected]
CIVIL ENGINEER:
ADAM TOAL
TOAL ENGINEERING INC.
[email protected]
STAKING
GARO BABIKIAN
G.J. DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT
[email protected]
OWNER DEVELOPMENT AGENT:
STEVE KAWARATANI
KAWARATINI CONSULTING
[email protected]
1 ZONING PLAN CHECK ISSUE 4/6/2024
2 ZONING PLAN CHECK REV.1 08/22/2024
ZONING PLAN CHECK REV.2 10/30/2024
0 5
1 1
3 2
1 2
5 2
2 2 1
2 2
1 2
4 6
2 2
2 3
3 5
3 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 3
2 207.6
206.4
206.1
205.0
204.6
201.1
202.4
203.0
203.6
203.7
204.4
204.7
204.8
205.0
205.2
205.2
205.1
204.3
204.4
204.6
203.6
199.3
204.9
204.5
204.6
204.7
204.7
204.9
205.2
205.2
208.4 208.1
207.1 206.2
205.9
206.0
206.2
205.1
205.0
205.1
205.1
204.6
204.9
205.1 205.0
205.2
205.1
205.0
204.9
199.8
200.2 201.3
200.9
202.0 201.6
201.5
201.5
201.7
201.8
202.4
199.4
198.4
200.9
201.1
201.8
202.1
203.1
202.4
202.3
201.1
200.0
200.7
204.9
204.8
201.0
201.0
201.0
201.1
201.1
201.2
201.1
201.2
200.6
200.5
198.8
198.9
208.0
206.9
206.7
206.9
206.5 206.9
206.9
206.9
206.3 206.2
205.9
205.5
205.3
204.6
204.5
202.3
202.3
202.4
202.4
203.1
203.5
203.8
199.9
199.4
201.1
201.4
202.0
202.6
204.9
204.9
204.6
204.7
204.3
204.4
204.1
204.0
203.6
198.5
198.2
198.4
207.9
208.1
208.1
207.9
208.2
202.5
200.1
203.6
204.1
204.6
204.6
204.2
204.2
198.1
200.2
200.6
201.1
201.2
201.8
202.4
202.8
207.7
207.6
208.0
204.2
204.5
207.4
206.9
204.4
204.4
202.1
201.7
196.3
197.9
208.0
204.2
200.0
198.8
196.5
205.0
205.0
204.9
204.8
205.0
206.01
208.12 at garage
200.51
202.55
205.01
207.23
208.56
204.71
204.41
204.49 at garage
198.71
198.69
198.87
203.58
204.25
204.53
204.37
204.31
204.75
204.51
204.69
205.46 205.31
205.23
205.57
204.96
204.99
205.49
205.02
205.48
205.53
205.50
205.40
205.41
205.40
205.38
205.36
205.37
205.30
205.26
205.30
204.99
204.78
207.66
207.86
208.06
208.10
208.21
208.26
200.40
201.06
201.54
202.37
203.04
203.33
203.52
204.14
204.50
204.56
204.89
205.07
205.12
198.32
198.34
198.36
198.38
198.38
198.42
198.55
198.64
198.67
198.80
198.91
198.90
198.94
198.94
204.63
204.50
204.57
204.64
204.64
204.92
205.20
205.40
205.24
205.43
205.42
205.45
205.44
205.54
205.47
205.33
205.33
205.28
205.28
205.21
205.22
205.23
205.19
205.23
205.25
205.22
205.23
205.24
205.20
205.20
205.21
205.27
205.22
205.24
205.24
205.24
205.21
205.20
205.24
205.21
205.24
205.26
205.34
205.24
205.26
204.95
204.76
204.90
204.93
204.99
205.00 204.97
204.79
202.83
203.03
202.55
202.50
201.76
201.82
204.99
204.89
204.47
204.47
204.47
204.81 204.58
204.95
207.75 F.L.
207.37 F.L.
206.97 F.L.
205.73 F.L.
204.54 F.L.
202.96 F.L.
201.05 F.L.
200.86 F.L.
199.87 F.L.
208.37 F.L.
207.92 F.L.
205.82 F.L.
204.21 F.L.
202.90 F.L.
201.16 F.L.
200.25 F.L.
208.14
208.28208.23
204.79
204.98
204.98
204.79
204.97
204.97
205.29
203.04
207.81
207.40
206.97
205.78
204.62
203.01
201.10
200.91
199.94
208.50
208.03
205.84
204.32
202.35
201.25
200.51
203.43
203.48
203.89
204.11
204.21
204.31
204.51
204.54
204.66
204.73
204.69
208.41
208.35
208.20
208.30
208.21
208.45
208.58
208.61
208.63
208.62
208.52
208.50
208.52
203.40
203.33
208.53
208.54
208.49
208.56
208.53
208.60
214.93 Roof ridge
216.15 Roof ridge
214.65 Roof ridge
216.16 Roof ridge
207.84 T.C.
207.58 T.C.
207.80 T.C.
207.43 T.C.
206.16 T.C.
204.97 T.C.
203.44 T.C.
202.86 T.C.
201.31 T.C.
201.45 T.C.
201.29 T.C.
200.35 T.C.
208.81 T.C.
208.34 T.C.
207.72 T.C.
206.09 T.C.
206.28 T.C.
204.64 T.C.
203.38 T.C.
202.80 T.C.
201.42 T.C.
201.61 T.C.
200.71 T.C.
205.52 Threshold
205.55 Threshold
205.64 Threshold
205.49 Threshold
214.39 T.W.
206.41 T.W.
210.46 T.W.
205.11 T.W.
204.93 T.W.
204.17 T.W.
206.20 T.W.
202.07 T.W.
203.99 T.W.
205.58 T.W.
209.80 T.W.
201.23 T.W.
201.33 T.W.
201.35
200.68
T.W.
T.W.
199.45 T.W.
200.66 T.W.
204.93
206.11
T.W.
T.W.
205.08 T.W.
213.52 T.W.
206.99 T.W.
208.28 T.W.
207.09 T.W.
206.48 T.W.
213.40 T.W.
213.00 T.W.
208.15 T.W.
209.81 T.W.
209.75 T.W.
204.40 T.W.
205.79 T.W.
207.74 T.W.
205.77 T.W.
207.76 T.W.
205.81 T.W.
205.83 T.W.
205.77 T.W. 206.49 T.W.
205.29 T.W.
205.02 T.W.
3" drain outlet
Sewer manhole
3" drain outlet
3" drain outlet
Irrigation valve
Water meter
TR2
TR3
Downspout
8"
14" cluster
Sewer CO
3" drain inlet
TG=205.25
3" drain inlet
TG=205.28
10"
Downspout
3" drain inlet
TG=205.14
3" drain inlet
TG=204.99
3" drain inlet
TG=205.17
3" drain inlet
TG=205.37
3" drain inlet
TG=205.37
TR4
3" drain inlet
TG=204.81
Fountain
Spa equip.
3" drain inlet
TG=205.22
3" drain inlet
TG=205.12
3" drain inlet
TG=205.10
3" drain inlet
TG=205.18
3" drain inlet
TG=205.17
3" drain inlet
TG=205.14
3" drain inlet
TG=205.19
TR5
Pool
Downspout
Downspout
Pool
equip.
3" drain inlet
TG=204.74
3" drain inlet
TG=205.94
3" drain inlet
TG=204.78
Gas meter
Downspout
6"
24" cluster
Existing residence
Existing residence
Downspout
205
200
205
205
N 44°20'32" W 75.48'
N 51°26'14" E 108.32'
N 54°35'51" E 110.36'
R = 4 2 0 .0 0 ' = 4 °5 8 ' 2 1 " L = 3 6 .4 5 '
LOT 46
TRACT 1616
LOT 45
LOT 47
LOT 35
LOT 36
LOT 37
DRIFTWOOD DRIVE
R = 1 5 5 .0 0 '
= 1 2 °0 9 ' 4 5 "
L = 3 2 .9 0 '
Fd. 1.5" IP LS2598
Fd. 1.5" IP LS2598
Existing residence
207.5
201.9
TBM Rim elev=206.01
203.0
205.0' FS
HOSE PULL "A"
TOTAL = 139.676'
108.32' AVG LOT DEPTH
53.604'
10'-0"
HOSE PULL "A"
10'-0"
HOSE PULL "B"
11.094'
21.467'
32.16'
34.312' 2.367' 3.498'
24.786'
18.411'
25.838'
38.847'
19.078'
7.845'
29.888'
6 201.9' E.G.
207.5' E.G.
203.0' E.G.
199.9' E.G.
2 3 5
5 4
4 6
7 8
8 IMPERVIOUS
DRIVEWAY
FIRE ACCESS
PERVIOUS
HARDSCAPE PATH
FIRE ACCESS
MAX. 10% SLOPE
PERVIOUS
HARDSCAPE PATH
FIRE ACCESS
MAX. 10% SLOPE
CLASS B EXTERIOR
IMPERVIOUS DECK ASSEMBLY
FIRE ACCESS
CLASS B EXTERIOR
IMPERVIOUS DECK ASSEMBLY
FIRE ACCESS
CLASS B EXTERIOR
IMPERVIOUS DECK ASSEMBLY
FIRE ACCESS
6 6
1 2 2
1 1
4 4 1
6' HIGH
LOCKING GATE
6' HIGH FENCE
6' HIGH
LOCKING GATE
FDC SERVES 30801 DRIFTWOOD DRIVE WET
STANDPIPE AND FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM
STANDPIPE
STANDPIPE
HVAC CONDENSER
UNIT, STACKED.
SEE SHEET A-6
FOR SPECS
RIDGE
218.09'
205.0' FS
RIDGE
216.90'
RIDGE
219.06'
3:123:12
3:123:12
3:123:12
3:123:12
205.0' FS
205.0' FS
RIDGE
217.03'
204.61' F.S. @ FRONT
205.00' F.S. @ REAR
FIRE APARATUS ACCESS ROAD
SHALL HAVE UNOBSTRUCTED WIDTH
OF
VERTICAL
20'-0" AND AN UNOBSTRUCTED
CLEARANCE OF 13'-6" DRIFTWOOD DRIVE CENTERLINE FIRE ACCESS ROADWAY HOSE PULL "B"
TOTAL = 149.907'
FIRE DEPARTMENT SITE ACCESS PLAN
TRUE
NORTH
PROJECT
1/8" = 1'-0" NORTH
FIRE DEPARTMENT SITE ACCESS PLAN LEGEND:
1. FIRE MODIFICATION AND/OR FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD SHALL BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION AND/OR LUMBER DELIVERY.
2. REFER TO LANDSCAPE FOR PRELIMINARY PLANTING PLAN AND PLANT PALETTE.
3. ONE GAS BBQ PROPOSED.
4. ALL DISEASED AND DEAD BRANCHES AND FOLIAGE SHALL BE REMOVED ON A REGULAR BASIS.
5. FIRE MITlGATION/JUSTIFICATION; IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE RISK FROM WILDFIRE, THE LANDSCAPE AND EXTERIOR STRUCTURAL DESlGN AND BUILDING HAVE BEEN DESlGNED TO REDUCE THE THREAT.
FUEL MODIFICATION NOTES:
FIRE ACCESS ROUTE
101'
FIRE HYDRANT
LAGUNA BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT REQUIREMENTS
101'
FIRE HYDRANT
FIRE DEPARTMENT NOTES
1. BUILDING FOOTPRINT
2. LINE OF ROOF OVERHANG
3. DECK OUTLINE
4. PLANTERS INSIDE DECK
5. CLASS B DECKING
6. CLASS A ROOFING
7. EXISTING STRUCTURE TO DEMOLISH
8. NEIGHBORING STRUCTURES
SITE PLAN KEYNOTES:
HYDRANT FLOW REPORT:
1. SEE ATTACHED FIRE FLOW REPORT BY OTHERS - SEE SHEET ZFD-2 AM&M SFR
2. CFC 508.3 FIRE FLOW REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE DETERMINED BY THE 2019 CFC APPENDIX B AND COMPLY WITH SPECIFIC FLOW, TO BE COMPLETED BY THE WATER DISTRICT.
3. CFC 508.5 FIRE HYDRANT SYSTEMS AND SPACING SHALL COMPLY WITH THE 2019 CFC APPENDIX C TO BE COMPLETED BY THE WATER DISTRICT. MAXIMUM DISTANCE FROM FRONTAGE TO HYDRANT 25'.
RESIDENCE AND GARAGE
PERVIOUS HARDSCAPE (EXTERIOR DECK)
IMPERVIOUS MASONRY HARDSCAPE (DRIVEWAY)
PERVIOUS MASONRY HARDSCAPE
ROOF PITCH / DIRECTION
LANDSCAPE OPEN SPACE
IMPERVIOUS HARDSCAPE (DRIVEWAY / APRON)
05 05
FIRE HYDRANT LOCATION
FIRE HYDRANT
04 1. CFC 504.1, FUEL MOD AND/OR FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS SHALL BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION AND/OR LUMBER DELIVERIES. BUILDING FRONTS ONTO DRIFTWOOD DRIVE
2. CFC 503.1, FIRE ACCESS ROAD SHALL HAVE AN UNOBSTRUCTED WIDTH OF 20' AND AN UNOBSTRUCTED VERTICAL CLEARANCE OF 13' - 6". DURING CONSTRUCTION, KEEP ALL EQUIPMENT, VEHICLES, AND MATERIALS OFF OF THE STREET TO MAINTAIN 20' CLEARANCE.
3. CFC 506.1 WHEN ACCESS TO OR WITHIN A STRUCTURE OR AN AREA IS RESTRICTED BECAUSE OF A SECURED OPENING.
A KEY BOX MUST BE INSTALLED FOR ACCESS IN LIFE SAVING AND/OR FIREFIGHTING PURPOSES.
4. CFC 504.1, ACCESS TO BUILDING OPENINGS AND ROOF OPENINGS REQUIRED BY THE CBC SHALL BE ACCESSIBLE FOR EMERGENCY ACCESS. PROVIDE A 3' ALL WEATHER ACCESS COMPLETELY AROUND STRUCTURE. MAXIMUM SLOPE ON ACCESS ROAD NOT TO EXCEED 10%, STAIRS >10%.
5. ALL MITlGATION FOR COMMENT/CORRECTIONS SHALL BE PRINTED OR DRAWN ON STRUCTURAL PLANS.
6. CFC 508.3 FIRE FLOW REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE DETERMINED BY 2019 CFC APPENDIX A AND C TO BE COMPLETED BY WATER DISTRICT.
7. CFC 508.5 FIRE HYDRANT SYSTEMS AND SPACING SHALL COMPLY WITH CFC 2019 APPENDIX C, TO BE COMPLETED BY WATER DISTRICT. MAXIMUM DISTANCE FROM FRONTAGE TO HYDRANT IS 250'. A FIRE HYDRANT EXISTS APPROXIMATELY 101' FROM PROPERTY FRONTAGE, SEE DIAGRAM IN THIS SHEET. COMPLIES.
8. CSM 7A, LANDSCAPE PLAN REQUIRED. SEE SHEET L1.0
9. CFC 503.l.I, FARTHEST POINT OF BUILDING SHALL BE >THAN 150' FROM THE FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD. BUILDING COMPLIES, SEE HOSE DRAG CALCULATIONS ON THIS SHEET.
10. CFC 503.2 FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS SHALL BE DESlGNED TO SUPPORT THE IMPOSED LOADS OF THE FIRE APPARATUS (74,000 LBS) AND BE SURFACED TO PROVIDE ALL WEATHER DRIVING CAPABILITIES. DRIFTWOOD DRIVE IS THE
FIRE ACCESS ROAD, AND IS PAVED AND MAINTAINED PUBLIC/PRIVATE ROAD SERVING ALL BUILDINGS ON STREET, LEADING TO OTHER STREETS. COMPLIES.
1. A SEPARATE (DEFERRED) SUBMITTAL FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS MAY BE REQUIRED. SYSTEM DESIGN MUST COMPLY WITH THE 2019 CFC, 2016 NFPA 13 STANDARD, AND THE LBFD MUNICIPAL CODE. PLANS MUST BE DESIGNED AND INSTALLED BY A QUALIFIED FIRE PROTECTION CONTRACTOR. PLANS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO AND APPROVED BY THE LBFD, WITH PERMIT ISSUED AND APPROPRIATE INSPECTIONS CONDUCTED.
2. A SEPARATE (DEFERRED) SUBMITTAL FOR THE UNDERGROUND PRIVATE FIRE SERVICE MAY BE REQUIRED. SYSTEM DESIGN MUST COMPLY WITH THE 2019 CFC, 2016 NFPA 13 & 24 STANDARDS AND THE LBFD MUNICIPAL CODE. PLANS MUST BE DESIGNED AND SYSTEM INSTALLED BY A QUALIFIED LICENSED CONTRACTOR. PLANS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO AND APPROVED BY THE LBFD, WITH PERMIT ISSUED AND APPROPRIATE INSPECTIONS CONDUCTED.
3. A SEPARATE (DEFERRED) SUBMITTAL FOR FIRE ALARM SYSTEM MAY BE REQUIRED. SYSTEM DESIGN MUST COMPLY WITH THE 2019 CFC, 2016 NFPA 72 AND THE LBFD MUNICIPAL CODE. PLANS MUST BE DESIGNED AND SYSTEM INSTALLED BY A QUALIFIED ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR. PLANS MUST BE SUBMITTED TO AND APPROVED BY THE LBFD, WITH PERMIT ISSUED AND APPROPRIATE INSPECTIONS CONDUCTED.
4. A SEPARATE (DEFERRED) SUBMITTAL FOR UL300 COMPLIANT FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM(S) MAY BE REQUIRED FOR ALL TYPE 1 COOK HOODS. A UL300 COMPLIANT SYSTEM PLAN WILL NEED TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE LBFD FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL, A PERMIT ISSUED AND FINAL INSPECTION REQUIRED. SYSTEM(S) SHALL BE DESIGNED TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF 2019 CFC, CMC, CEC, NFPA 17A & 96.
5. FIRE EXTINGUISHERS ARE TO BE LOCATED AND SIZED AS PER 2019 CFC SECTION 906 AND THE FIRE INSPECTORS’ DIRECTION.
6. MAINTAIN JOBSITE SAFETY DURING CONSTRUCTION AS PER 2019 CFC CHAPTER 33.
7. COMPLETE FIREFIGHTER ACCESS AROUND THE BUILDING IS REQUIRED, AND MUST BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH APPROVED PLANS.
THIS IS SUBJECT TO FINAL FIRE INSPECTION AND REQUIRES APPROVAL PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY.
8. ADDRESS NUMBERS MUST BE PLACED ON THE EXTERIOR FACING THE STREET ADDRESSED TO. MINIMUM SIZE OF UNIT / SUITE NUMBERS IS 4”, WITH THE MINIMUM SIZE OF BUILDING NUMBERS BEING 6”. NUMBER COLOR MUST CONTRAST WITH BACKGROUND.
9. KNOX BOX FIREFIGHTER ACCESS MAY BE REQUIRED. INSTALL AT / NEAR THE MAIN ENTRANCE, AND PROVIDE DWELLING / GATE KEYS TO THE LBFD INSPECTOR FOR PLACEMENT INTO THE KNOX BOX.
10. FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT INSPECTIONS, CALL (949) 497-0352 AT LEAST 3 DAYS IN ADVANCE TO SCHEDULE.
HOSE PULL "A" TOTAL
10.000'
24.786'
3.498'
2.367'
34.312'
32.160'
21.467'
11.094'
____________________
139.676' < 150'
HOSE PULL "B" TOTAL
10.000'
18.411'
25.838'
38.847'
19.078'
7.845'
29.888'
____________________
149.907' < 150'
X:X
111
146 of 201
PAUL D. CRAFT
P.L.S. 8516 / 12-31-2026
10-20-25
100.00 0.77'
APEX LAND SURVEYING, INC.
100.00 0.74'
100.00 3.84'
100.00 3.84'
100.00 -0.56'
100.00 -0.83'
100.00 9.83'
100.00 9.71'
100.00 12.12'
100.00 12.51'
100.00 1.54'
100.00 9.04'
100.00 1.54'
100.00 12.51'
100.00 9.65'
100.00 1.55'
100.00 2.49'
100.00 0.56'
100.00 4.56'
100.00 1.89'
100.00 10.37'
100.00 14.04'
100.00 -0.98'
112
147 of 201
ASSESMENT NOTES AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR
FUEL MODIFICATION , DEFENSIBLE SPACE
ZONE A: SETBACK IRRIGATED ZONE
• EXTENDS FROM THE OUTER EDGE OF THE STRUCTURE OR APPENDAGE TO 20 FT.MINIMUM. • AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEMS TO MAINTAIN HEALTHY VEGETATION WITH HIGH MOISTURE CONTENT. • IRRIGATION MAINTAINED OUTSIDE THE DRIP LINE OF NATIVE OAK TREES. • PRUNING OF FOLIAGE TO REDUCE FUEL LOAD, VERTICAL CONTINUITY, AND REMOVAL OF PLANT LITTER AND DEAD WOOD.
• COMPLETE REMOVAL OF FIRE PRONE PLANT SPECIES (SEE ATTACHMENT 7), MINIMAL ALLOWANCE FOR RETENTION OF SELECTED NATIVE VEGETATION.
• TREES AND TREE FORM SHRUB SPECIES ARE NOT ALLOWED WITHIN 10 FEET OF COMBUSTIBLE STRUCTURES (MEASURED FROM THE EDGE OF A FULL GROWTH CROWN). • TREES AND TREE FORM SHRUB SPECIES ARE NOT ALLOWED TO EXTEND BEYOND THE PROPERTY LINE (MEASURED FROM THE EDGE OF A FULL GROWTH CROWN).
• TREE AND TREE FROM SHRUB SPECIES ARE NOT ALLOWED WITHIN 10 FEET OF ADJACENT TREE SPECIES
AS MEASURED FROM THE EDGE OF A FULL GROWTH CROWN
• SPECIAL CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE GIVEN FOR RARE AND ENDANGERED SPECIES, GEOLOGIC HAZARDS, TREE ORDINANCES, OR OTHER CONFLICTING RESTRICTIONS.
• MAINTENANCE INCLUDING ONGOING REMOVAL AND/OR THINNING OF UNDESIRABLE COMBUSTIBLE
VEGETATION, REPLACEMENT OF DEAD/DYING FIRE RESISTANT PLANTINGS, MAINTENANCE OF THE
OPERATIONS INTEGRITY AND PROGRAMMING OF THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM, REGULAR TRIMMING TO PREVENT LADDER FUELS.
• A MINIMUM OF 36” OF HORIZONTAL CLEARANCE AND UNLIMITED VERTICAL CLEARANCE AROUND THE EXTERIOR OF THE STRUCTURE (360 ) SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR FIREFIGHTER ACCESS FIREFIGHTER ACCESS
SHALL BE MADE WITHOUT THE NEED FOR SPECIAL TOOLS (LADDERS) OR ABILITY AND HAVE PERMANENT IMPROVEMENTS INSTALLED WHEN ASCENDING OR DESCENDING FORM STREET LEVEL (E.G., STAIRS). • NO COMBUSTIBLE CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE ALLOWED IN ZONE A. • NO PERMANENT OR PORTABLE BARBEQUES/GRILLS, FIRE PITS, FIREPLACES OR OTHER FLAME GENERATING DEVICE SHALL BE PERMITTED WITHIN 30’ OF NON-FIRE RESISTIVE PLANTS/VEGETATION. • NO VINES SHALL BE PERMITTED ON COMBUSTIBLE STRUCTURE S (E.G., TYPE V NON-RATED STRUCTURE).
ZONE B: IRRIGATED ZONE (*NA)
• EXTENDS FROM THE EDGE OF ZONE A TO 100 FT FROM THE STRUCTURE. • ALL IRRIGATION SHALL BE KEPT A MINIMUM OF 20 FEET FROM THE DRIP LINE OF ANY EXISTING NATIVE QUERCUS (OAK) SPECIES.
• THIS IRRIGATED ZONE IS 50 FEET TO 75 FEET IN WIDTH. ZONE B SHALL BE CLEARED OF ALL UNDESIRABLE PLANT SPECIES, IRRIGATED, AND PLANTED WITH PLANTS FROM THE APPROVED LBFD OR OCFA PLANT LIST.
EXCEPTIONS TO SAVE DESIRABLE SPECIES MAY BE SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL BY THE FIRE CHIEF ON A SITE-SPECIFIC BASIS.
• GROUND COVER SHALL BE MAINTAINED AT A HEIGHT NOT TO EXCEED 18 INCHES. • IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN PROPER COVERAGE, NATIVE GRASSES SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO GO TO SEED.
NATIVE GRASSES SHALL BE CUT AFTER ANNUAL SEEDING. CUT HEIGHTS SHOULD NOT EXCEED 8 INCHES. • IRRIGATION SHALL BE DESIGNED TO SUPPLEMENT NATIVE VEGETATION AND ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN PLANTED NATIVES AND ORNAMENTALS.
• PLANTING WILL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH PLANTING GUIDELINES AND SPACING STANDARDS ESTABLISHED IN THIS GUIDELINE (SEE ATTACHMENTS 6 AND 7). • IN ZONE B SENSITIVE AND/OR PROTECTED PLANT SPECIES SHALL BE IDENTIFIED ON THE LANDSCAPE/ FUEL MODIFICATION PLANS AND DEALT WITH PER THE CITY’S OPEN SPACE/CONSERVATION PLAN. • TREE AND TREE-FORM SHRUB PRUNING AND SPACING WILL BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH ATTACHMENT 6.
TREE FORM SHRUBS ARE DEFINED AS SHRUBS THAT NATURALLY EXCEED 4 FEET IN HEIGHT. • SHRUBS SHALL BE SPACED SUCH THAT THEY DO NOT CREATE AN EXCESSIVE FUEL MASS AND CAN BE MAINTAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SPECIFIED SPACING AS INDICATED ON THE PLAN. • SPECIAL CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE GIVEN FOR RARE AND ENDANGERED SPECIES, GEOLOGICAL HAZARDS, TREE SUBMITTED FOR PROJECT APPROVAL, UPON FURTHER REVIEW. • REMOVAL OF UNDESIRABLE PLANT SPECIES (SEE ATTACHMENT 7).
ZONEC & D: THINNING ZONES ( NON- IRRIGATED ) (*NA)
• REMOVAL OF ALL DEAD AND DYING VEGETATION, ALL FINE FUELS REDUCED TO A MAXIMUM OF 8-12 INCHES IN HEIGHT.
• IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN PROPER COVERAGE, NATIVE GRASSES SHALL BE ALLOWED TO GO TO SEED.
NATIVE GRASSES SHALL BE CUT AFTER ANNUAL SEEDING. CUT HEIGHTS SHALL NOT EXCEED 8 INCHES. • SPECIALCONSIDERATIONWILLBEGIVENFORRAREANDENDANGEREDSPECIES,GEOLOGICHAZARDS,TREE
ORDINANCES, OR OTHER CONFLICTING RESTRICTIONS AS IDENTIFIED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR PROJECT APPROVAL REVIEW.
• REDUCE FUEL LOADING BY REDUCING THE FUEL IN EACH REMAINING SHRUB OR TREE WITHOUT A SUBSTANTIAL DECREASE IN THE CANOPY COVER OR REMOVAL OF TREE HOLDING ROOT SYSTEMS. • IN ZONES C AND D, SENSITIVE AND/OR PROTECTED PLANT SPECIES SHALL BE IDENTIFIED ON THE FUEL MODIFICATION PLANS AND TAGGED IN THE FIELD FOR FURTHER DISPOSITION. • F. TREE AND TREE-FORM SHRUB PRUNING AND SPACING WILL BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH ATTACHMENT 6. • TREE FORM SHRUBS ARE DEFINED AS SHRUBS THAT NATURALLY EXCEED FOUR FEET IN HEIGHT. • G. SHRUBS LESS THAN 4 FEET IN HEIGHT SHALL BE SPACED SUCH THAT THEY DO NOT CREATE AN
EXCESSIVE FUEL MASS AND CAN BE MAINTAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SPECIFIED SPACING AS INDICATED ON THE PLAN.
• MAINTAIN SUFFICIENT COVER TO PREVENT EROSION WITHOUT REQUIRING PLANTING.
VERTICAL CONTINUITY
• NEW AND EXISTING TREES AND TREE- FORM SHRUBS ( NATURALLY REACHING 4’ AND TALLER), WHICH
WHICH ARE BEING RETAINED WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE LAGUNA BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT, SHALL
BE PRUNED TO PROVIDE CLEARANCE OF THREE TIMES THE HEIGHT OF THE UNDERSTORY PLANT MATERIAL OR 10 FEET, WHICEVER IS GREATER.
• PODOCARPUS GARCILLIOR IN ESPALIAR , HEIGHT WILL BE MAINTAINED BELOW 10’ FOR OPEN SPACE PRESERVE OF THE NEIGHBORING VIEWS. & THE OCEAN
• NEW TREES AND TREE-FORM SHRUBS MAY COMPLY WITH THE LESSER IF SUFFICIENT HEIGHT IS NOT AVAILABE TO ACHIEVE 10 FEET.
• DEAD AND EXCESSIVELY TWIGGY GROWTH SHALL BE REMOVED.
FIRE ACESS ROAD ZONE
• EXTENDS TO A MINIMUM OF 10 FEET FROM THE EDGE OF AN PUBLIC OR PRIVATE ROADWAY THAT MAY BE USED AS ACESS FOR FIRE- FIGHTING APPARATUS OR RESOURCES. • CLEAR AND REMOVE FLAMMABLE GROWTH OF MINIMUM OF 10 FEET ON EACH SIDE OF ‘FIRE ACESS ROADS. (FIRE CODE 325.10) ADDITIONAL CLEARANCE BEYOND 10 FEET MAY BE REQUIRED UPON INSPECTION.
• FIRE ACESS ROADS, DRIVEWAYS AND TURNAROUNDS SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH FIRE CODE. FIRE ACESS RPADS SHALL HAVE UNOBSTRUCTED VERTICAL CLEARNACE FOR A WIDTH OF 20 FEET. (FIRE CODE 503.2.1)
• LANDSCAPING AND NATIVE PLANTS WITHIN THE FIRE ACCESS ROAD ZONE SHALL BE APPROPRIATELY SPACED AND MAINTED TO PROVIDE SAFE EGRESS IN WILDLAND FIRE ENVIRONMENTS. • ALL TREES, UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED, SHALL BE PLANTED FAR ENOUGH FROM STRUCTURES
AND FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESSES AS TP MPT OVERHAND ANY STRUTURE OR ACCESS AT MATURITY
VICINITY MAP
VICINITY MAP: SUBJECT PROPERTY
30801 DRIFTWOOD DR.
LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651
DEFENSIBLE FIRE ZONE PLAN LEGEND
MAINTENACE
ROUTINE MAINTENANCE SHALL BE REGULARLY PERFORMED IN ALL ZONES. REQUIREMENTS INCLUDE ARE NOT LIMITED TO THOSE ITEMS IN THE FUEL MODIFICATION GUIDELINES AND THOSE OUTLINED BELOW:
• REMOVAL OR THINNING OF UNDESIRABLE COMTUSTIBLE VEGETATION AND REMOVAL OF DEAD OR DYING LANDSCAPING TO MEET MINIMUM BRUSH CLEARANCE REQUIREMENTS. • PRUNING AND THINNING TO REDUCE THE OVERAL FUEL LOAD AND CONTINUITY OF FUELS. • FUEL LOADS SHALL BE REDUCED BY PRUNING LOWER BRANCHES OF TREES AND TREE-FORM SHRUBS TO 1/3 OF THEIR HEIGHT, OR 6 FEET FROM LOWEST HANGING BRANCHES TO THE GROUND, TO HELP PREVENT FIRE FOM SPREADING AND MAKE MAINTENANCE EASIER.
• TREES WITH UNDERSTORY PLANTS SHOULD BE LIMBED UP AT LEAST THREE TIMES THE HEIGHT OF THE UNDERLYING VEGETATION OR UP TO A HEIGHT OF 40 FEET, WHICHEVER IS LESS, TO HELP PREVENT FIRE FROM SPREADING UPWARD INTO THE CROWN.
• HOCUMULATED PLANT LITTER AND DEAD WOOD SHALL BE REMOVE. • DEBRIS AND TRIMMINGS PRODUCED BY THINNING AND FRUNING SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE OR CHIPPED AND EVENLY DISPERSED IN THE SAME AREA TO A MAXIMUM DEPTH OF 6 INCHES. • ALL INVASIVE SPECIES AND THEIR PARTS SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE. • MANUAL AND AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEMS SHALL BE MAINTAINED FOR OPERATIONAL INTEGRITY AND PROGRAMMING. EFFECTIVENESS SHOULD BE REGULARLY EVALUATED TO AVOID AVER OR UNDER-WATERING.
• COMPLIANCE WITH THE FIRE CODE IS A YEAR-OUND RESPONSIBILITY. ENFORCEMENT WILL OCCUR
FOLLOWING INSPECTION BY THE LAGUNA BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT • ANNUAL INSPECTIONS FOR BRUSH CLEARANCE CODE REQUIREMENTS ARE CONDUCTED FOLLOWING
THE NATURAL DRYING OF GRASSES AND FINE FUELS, BETWEEN THE MONTHS OF APRIL AND JUNE DEPENDING ON GEOGRAPHIC REGION.
• INSPECTION FOR COMPLIANCE WITH AN APPROVED FUEL MODIFICATION PLAN MAY OCCUR AT ANY TIME OF THE YEAR.
• BRUSH CLEARANCE ENFORCEMENT ISSUES ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO THE LAGUNA BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT.
• ALL FUTURE PLANTINGS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH 2019 LAGUNA BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT
LANDSCAPE/FUEL MODIFICATION STANDARDS AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM (L/FMSMP) AND APPROVED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.
• CHANGES TO THE APPROVED PLAN WHICH REQUIRE AN ADITIONAL PLAN REVIEW WILL INCUR A PLAN REVIEW FEE.
• QUESTIONS REGARDING LANCSCAPE PLANTING AND MAINTENANCE WITH REGARD TO FIRE SAFELY
SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO THE LAGUNA BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT LANDSCAPE/FUEL MODIFICATION STANDARDS AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM (L/FMSMP).
DEFENSIBLE FIRE ZONE PLAN
1/8= 1’0”
1 FIRE ZONE LEGEND
DEFENSIBLE SPACE: ZONE A DEMARCATION LINE
10’ SETBACK FOR TREE & TREE-FORM SHRUBS FROM STRUCTURE
ZONE A:
EXTENDS TO A MINIMUM OF TWENTY FEET FROM STRUCTURE AND APPENDAGE.
THIS ZONE IS THE FUEL ODIFICATION “WET ZONE” COMPROMISING OF FIRE RESISTANT VEGETATION AND IRRIGATION SYSTEM. LAND WITHIN THE ZONE IS TO BE KEPT FREE FROM
DEBRIS, DEAD WOOD, BRANCHES TOUCHING THE GROUND, AND OTHER DRY OR DEAD VEGETATION. HEIGHTS, UNDERSTORY & GROUPING MAINTAINED AS PER ATTACHMENT 6, LAGUNA BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT.
ZONE A: PLANTER.
THIS ZONE IS THE FUEL MODIFICATION “WET ZONE” COMPROMISING OF FIRE RESISTANT VEGETATION AND IRRIGATION SYSTEM.
LOW GROUND COVER PLANTING, BELOW 18” MATURE HEIGHT AS PER LBFD.
NO TREE OR TREE LIKE SHRUB WITHIN 10’. CONSIST OF HIGH MOISTURE PLANT.
FREE FROM DEBRIS, DEAD WOOD, BRANCHES TOUCHING THE GROUND, AND OTHER DRY OR DEAD VEGETATION.
ZONE B: NOT APPLICABLE TO SITE
EXTENDS FROM ZONE A TO A MINIMUM OF ONE HUNDRED FEET FROM ANY STRUCTURE, AND REGARDLESS OF WHERE SUCH STRUCTURE IS LOCATED. THIS IRRIGATED ZONE IS 50 FEET TO 75 FEET IN WIDTH. ZONE B SHALL BE CLEARED OF ALL UNDESIRABLE
PLANT SPECIES, IRRIGATED, AND PLANTED WITH PLANTS FROM THE APPROVED LBFD OR OCFA PLANT LIST.
ZONE C & D: NOT APPLICABLE TO SITE
EXTENDS FROM THE EDGE OF ZONE B TO 200 FT, OR TO THE PROPERTY LINE.
PLANT MATERIALS USED OUTSIDE OF THE IRRIGATED ZONES MUST ALSO BE FIRE RESISTANT AND DROUGHT TOLERANT. ZONE C IS 50 TO 75 FEET IN WIDTH AND REQUIRES 50% THINNING AND REMOVAL OF ALL DEAD AND DYING VEGETATION AND UNDESIRABLE SPECIES.
ZONE D IS 75 TO 100 FEET IN WIDTH AND REQUIRES 30% THINNING WITH REMOVAL OF ALL DEAD AND DYING VEGETATION AND UNDESIRABLE SPECIES.
ZONE.A
ZONE.A
FUEL MODIFICATION NOTES:
• REFER TO LANDSCAPE FOR PRELIMINARY PLANTIN6 PLAN AND PLANT PALETTE • ONE 6AS BBQ PROPOSED
• ALL DISEASED AND DEAD BRANCHES AND FOLIA6E SHALL BE REMOVED ON A RE6ULAR BASIS. • FIRE MITl6ATION/JUSTIFICATION; IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE RISK FROM HILDFIRE, THE LANDSCAPE AND EXTERIOR STRUCTURAL DESl6N AND BUILDIN6 HAVE BEEN DESl6NED TO REDUCE THE THREAT. 0' 5' 15' 30'
GRAPHIC SCALE
EXISTING WALL TO REMAIN
ALL TREES AND TREE-FORM SHRUBS AT 10’ SETBACK
FROM STRUCTURES.
ALL TREES AND TREE-FORM SHRUBS AT 10’ SETBACK
FROM STRUCTURES.
NEW RETAINING WALL
NEW RETAINING WALL
LANDSCAPE
WORKSPACE
238 WESTMINSTER AVE
VENICE CA 90291
P 310 526 1422
[email protected]
www.landscapeworkspace.com LOLOI RESIDENCE 30801 DRIFTWOOD DR LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651
ALL IDEAS, DESIGNS, SPECIFICATIONS AND PLANS
INDICATED OR PRESENTED BY THESE DRAWINGS
ARE THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF LANDSCAPE
WORKSPACE AND WERE CREATED AND DEVELOPED
FOR USE IN CONNECTION WITH THE SPECIFIED
PROJECT. NONE OF SUCH IDEAS, DESIGNS, SPECIFICATIONS OR PLANS SHALL BE USED FOR ANY
PURPOSED WHAT SO EVER WITH OUT THE WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF LANDSCAPE WORKSPACE.
NO. REVISION DATE
DATE:
SHEET TITLE
SHEET NO.
DEFENSIBLE FIRE
ZONE PLAN.
L1.0
12/9/24
01 SUBMITTAL 08/16/24
10/28/24
RE- SUBMITTAL AS PER
02 LSHRD, LBFD & REVIEW NOTES
12/9/24
RE- SUBMITTAL AS PER
03 LSHRD, LBFD & REVIEW NOTES
DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING FOR NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH ATTACHED 2 CAR GARAGE. PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES NEW LANDSCAPING, HARDSCAPING, 2 - A/C UNITS, AND SITE WALLS.
FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONE: VHFHSZ
OCCUPANCY: R1
STORIES: 1
CONSTRUCTION TYPE: -
ASSESOR’S PARCEL NO:
OWNER: SUSAN & AMIR LOLOI
656-212-03
LANDSCAPE ZONE: ZONE G. AREA 12, 12.A DRIFTWOOD/ALISO
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: -
ADDRESS: 30801 DRIFTWOOD DR, LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651
PROJECT INFORMATION:
BUILDING DATA
USE SFR ZONE R1 LOT SLOPE (%)
ZONING STANDARDS
DESCRIPTION REQUIRED EXISTING PROPOSED
LOT AREA
LOT WIDTH (AVG.)
LOT DEPTH (AVG.)
MAX BUILDING H. ABV CURB
MAX HEIGHT FROM GRADE
SETBACKS:
FRONT YARD
REAR YARD
SIDE YARDS (COMB./EACH)
LOT COVERAGE (BSC)
FLOOR AREA RATIO
LANDSCAPE OPEN SPACE
IRRIGATED AREA
PARKING
PROJECT DATA
DESCRIPTION EXISTING PROPOSED TOTAL
MAIN HOUSE:
1ST FLOOR
GARAGE
MECHANICAL
DEMOLITION EXISTING REMOVED REMAINING
ROOF AREA
1ST FLOOR
TOTAL FLOOR + ROOF
TOTAL EXTERIOR WALL
7,804 sq ft
108.32'
71.87'
20'
20'
14.38' / 7.19' N - 7.19' S
20.75'
23.92'
6,000 sq ft NO CHANGE
70.00'
80.00'
25.00' 11.33' 15.06'
25.00' 10.83' 14.75'
15.28' / 4.00' N - 11.28' S
35.44 % 31,45 % 35.44 %
NA NA NA
23.84 % or 1,860.5 sq ft 1,529.80 sq ft 2,880 sq ft
3,122 sq ft 1,530 sq ft 2,273 sq ft
2 2 2
2,060 sq ft (1.) 2,286 sq ft
390 sq ft (1.) 480 sq ft
23 sq ft (1.) NA NA
3,192 sq ft 3,192 sq ft 0 sq ft
2,455 sq ft
5,647 sq ft
2,581 sq ft 2,581 sq ft 0 sq ft
0 sq ft
0 sq ft
NO CHANGE
NO CHANGE
2,286 sq ft
480 sq ft
2,455 sq ft
5,647 sq ft
12.53' / 4.82' N - 7.71' S
18.66'
18.66'
PL
PL
12/9/24
RE- SUBMITTAL AS PER
03 LSHRD, LBFD & REVIEW NOTES
12/9/24
3/20/25
RE- SUBMITTAL AS PER
04 LSHRD, LBFD & REVIEW NOTES
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
LOT: 7,804 SF
DEFENSIBLE SPACE, ZONE A. 20’ OFFSET FROM SITE STRUCTURE & APPENDAGE.
EXTENDS BEYOND PROPERTY LINE
EXTENDS BEYOND PROPERTY LINE DEFENSIBLE SPACE, ZONE A. 20’ OFFSET FROM SITE STRUCTURE & APPENDAGE 113
148 of 201
PLANTING PLAN
LSHRD: LAGUNA BEACH
• PROPERTY FALLS UNDER AREA.12 SOUTH LAGUNA BEACH NEIHBORHOOD. • 12 A: DRIFTWOOD/ ALISO (*PROPOSED PLANT MATERIALS COMPLY WITH THE SUGGESTED PLANT LIST.
SOUTH LAGUNA: NEIGHBORHOOD LANDSCAPE GUIDELINES
1. ENCOURAGE THE USE OF PLANT ON THE SUGGESTED PLANT LIST IN ORDER TO HELP ENHANCE THE UNSTRUCTURED, COLORFUL, AND RUSTIC CHARACTER OF SOUTH LAGUNA.
2. ENCOURAGE PLAN SELECTION THAT EMPHASIZES REINFORCEMENT OF THE EXISTING INFORMAL, RUSTIC PLANTING IN THE
AREA, WITH USE OF A RANGE OF SUB-TROPICAL, COASTAL- ADAPTED PLANT MATERIAL, INCLUDING REESTABLISHMENT OF NATIVE PLANTS.
3. ENCOURAGE INFORAMAL PLANTING SCHEMES WHICH PROVIDE:
A. DIVERSITY IN FORM, TEXTURE, AND COLOR OF PLANT MATERIAL B. A MIXTURE OF CONTAINER SIZES.
C. PLANT MATERIALS WHICH DO NOT HAVE FORMAL SHAPES.
D. MAINTENANCE WITHOUT SHEARING OR CLIPPING
E. VEGETATION OF VARYING HEIGHTS AND TEXTURES ALONG WALLS AND FENCES TO SOFTEN HARD PLANES AND TO CREATE INTEREST AND VARIETY.
4. ENCOURAGE THE USE OF LANDSCAPING TO ACCENTURATE, PRESERVE, AND FRAME THE SCENIC VIEW “WINDOWS” INTO NEIGHBORHOODS, HILLSIDES, PARKS AND OCEANS.
5. ENCOURAGE THE PRESERVATION OF EXISTING TREES AND LANDSCAPING THAT ENHANCES THE SCENIC CHARACTER.
6. ENCOURAGE THE USE OF LOW PERCIPITATION IRRIGATION SYSTEMS TO PREVENT RUNOFF AND CONSERVE WATER AND WHEREVER FEASIBLE, UTILIZE RECLAIMED WATER FOR IRRIGATION.
GENERAL PLANTING NOTES
1. CONTRACTOR SHALL SUPPLY PLANT MATERIAL IN QUANTITIES TO FULFILL INTENT OF PLANS, AND/OR SPACING INDICATED.
2. ALL PLANT MATERIAL IS TO BE SUPPLIED BY THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
3. SHRUB MATERIAL SHALL MEET INDUSTRY STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONTAINER SIZE INDICATED. REDUCTIONS
IN CONTAINER SIZE OR SUBSTITUTIONS CF PLANT TYPE SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED WITHOUT PROR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION BY LANDSCAPE WORKSPACE. ALL PLANTS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO INSPECTION AND APPROVAL BY THE LANDSCAPE WORKSPACE UPON DELIVERY TO THE SITE.
4. PLANT MATERIAL LOCATIONS ON THE PLANTING PLAN ARE APPROXIMATE AND SHALL BE ADJUSTED AS DIRECTED BY LANDSCAPE WORKSPACE.
5. ALL GROUND COVERS SHALL BE WELL-ESTABLISHED ROOTED PLANT MATERIAL IN FLATS OR POTS.
6. BUDS AND BLOOMS ON ALL PLANTS MUST BE PROTECTED AT ALL TIMES, INCLUDING TRANSPORTATION AND INSTALLATION.
7. ALL BOX TREE MATERIAL SHALL BE STAKED OR GUYED AS DIRECTED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.
8. TREES AND SHRUBS SHALL BE SHAPED AND PRUNED AFTER INSTALLATION AS DIRECTED BY CERTIFIED ARBORIST.
9. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL GUARANTEE SHRUBS AND GROUND COVERS SUPPLIED FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS AND TREES FOR ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF FINAL ACCEPTANCE.
1O. ALL VINES SHALL BE REMOVED FROM STAKES AND ATTACHED TO WALLS WITH APPROVED METHOD.
11. ALL SLOPE AREA AT OR EXCEEDING 2:1 SHALL BE COVERED WITH JUTE MATTING PRIOR TO PLANTING. EXCEPT THOSE TO BE HYDROSEEDED.
12. ALL PLANTING AREAS (EXCEPT SOD AND HYDRO-SEEDED SLOPES) SHALL BE MULCHED WITH A 3' THICK LAYER OF SHREDDED BARK MULCH AFTER PLANTING. SAMPLE SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO LANDSCAPE WORKSPACE FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO APPLICATION.
13. SOIL PREPARATION SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS:
FLAT AREAS: NATIVE IMPORT SOIL SHALL BE ROTO-TILLED TO A UNFORM DEPTH OF 6' AND SUBSEQUENTLY RE-TILLED AFTER THE ADDITION OF 6 CU. YDS. NITROGEN STABILIZED COMPOSTED WOOD PRODUCT PER 1000 S.F. OF AREA BACKFILL FOR PLANTING HOLES: ABOVE SOIL WITH GRO-POWER (5-3-1) ADDED TO PLANTING HOLE AT THE MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDED RATE.
IRRIGATION NOTES
1. A FULLY AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE INSTALLED ON A DESIGN/BULD BASIS BY THE CONTRACTOR. THE IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY WATER PRESSURE AT POINT OF SUPPLY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. PRESSURE REGULATOR SHALL BE INSTALLED AS NECESSARY TO ENSURE DYNAMIC PRESSURE IS WITHIN MANUFACTURERS RECOMMENDED PRESSURE RANGE.
2. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH OWNER FOR PROVISION OF 120V. ELECTRICAL SUPPLY FOR SMART CONTROLLER WITH WEATHER OR MOISTURE SENSOR AND BACKUP BATTERY, AND SHALL MAKE FINAL HOOK-UP.
3. A MANUAL SHUTOFF VALVE SHALL BE INSTALLED BETWEEN POINT OF CONNECTION AND BACK-FLOW DEVICE.
4. MATERIALS TO BE: SCH 40 PVC LATERAL LINE PIPING AND SLEEVING WHERE NEEDED. SPRAY HEADS AND DRIP EMITTERS (IF
USED) SHALL BE TORO, RAINBIRD, HUNTER, OR NET-A-FIM BRAND, WITH LOW VOLUME AND MATCHED PRECIPITATION RATES FOR EACH VALVE PER ANSI STANDARD ASABE/ICC802-2014 'LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION SPRINKLER AND EMITTER STANDARD. ALL SPRAY HEADS SHALL BE POP-UP TYPE, UNLESS LOCATED AT REAR OF PLANTERS AWAY FROM TURF OR PAVED AREAS. SMART CONTROLLER TO BE APPROVED BY LANDSCAPE WORKSPACE, CONTRACTOR AND OWNER.
5. THE IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR SHALL FLUSH ALL LINES AND ADJUST ALL HEADS FOR OPTIMUM PERFORMANCE AND TO PREVENT OVERSPRAY ONTO WALKS AND WALLS. THIS SHALL INCLUDE SELECTING THE BEST DEGREE OF ARC TO FIT THE EXISTING SITE
CONDITIONS AND TO THROTTLE THE FLOW CONTROL AT EACH VALVE TO OBTAIN THE OPTIMUM OPERATING PRESSURE FOR EACH SYSTEM.
6. AT THE TME OF FINAL INSPECTION THE OWNER SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION. CERTIFICATE OF INSTALLATION, IRRIGATION SCHEDULE AND SCHEDULE OF LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE.
PLANT LEGEND
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
LOT: 7,804 SF
ATTACHMENT 6: LAGUNA BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT.
1. PLANT GROUP SPACING:
A. TREES AND TREE- FORM SHRUBS SHALL BE SINGLE SPECIMENS OR IN A MAXIMUM GROUPING OF THREE PLANTS. GROUPINGS SHALL BE SEPERATED BY A DISTANCE OF 10’’. OTHER LIMITED GROUPING ARRANGEMENTS AND SPACING MAY BE ACCEPTABLE IF APPROVED BY LBFD.
B. TREES SHALL BE SINGLE SPECIMENS OR IN A MAXIMUM GROUPINGS OF THREE PLANTS. GROUPINGS SHALL BE SEPERATED BY A DISTANCE OF 10’. OTHER LIMITED GROUPING ARRANGEMENTS AND SPACING MAY BE ACCEPTABLE IF APPROBED BY LFBD.
C. PLANT SPECIMENS LISTED IN THE LBFD “DEFENSIBLE SPACE AND HOME GUIDELINE; SUGGESTIONS FOR PLANTS AND VEGETATION” SHALL COMPLY WITH PLANT GROUPINGS AND SPACING REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIED IN THIS GUIDELINE.
D. SHRUB MASSING EXCEEDING 18” IN HEIGHT TO BE 3 TIMES BETWEEN TWO NEAREST EDGES OF ADJACENT ISLAND.
2. VERTICAL CONTINUITY:
NEW AND EXISTING TREES AND TREE-FORM SHRUBS (NATURALLY REACHING 4’ AND TALLER), WHICH ARE BEING RETAINED WITH THE
APPROVAL OF THE LAGUNA BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT, SHALL BE PRUNED TO PROVIDE CLEARANCE OF THREE TIMES THE HEIGHT OF THE UNDERSTORY PLANT MATERIAL OR 10 FEET, WHICHEVER IS GREATER.
NEW TREES AND TREE-FORM SHRUBS MAY COMPLY WITH THE LESSER IF SUFFICIENT HEIGHT IS NOT AVAILABE TO ACHIEVE 10FEET. DEAD AND EXCESSIVELY TWIGGY GROWTH SHALLBE REMOVED.
SUBMITTAL 08/16/24
02 RE- SUBMITTAL AS PER
LSHRD, LBFD & REVIEW NOTES 10/28/24
12/9/24
RE- SUBMITTAL AS PER
03 LSHRD, LBFD & REVIEW NOTES
3/20/25
RE- SUBMITTAL AS PER
04 LSHRD, LBFD & REVIEW NOTES
8/20/25
REVISED PLAN AS PER ZPC
05 REVIEW NOTES
08/20/25
PLANT GROUPINGS AND LIST COMPLY WITH THE SUGGESTED LIST AS PER THE CITY’S GIS WEBSITE & LBFD ATTACHMENT 6 AND ATTACHMENT 7. ALSO COMPLIES WITH LSHRD ZONE 12.A NEIGHBORHOOD PLANT LIST WITH THE INCLUSION OF SUB-TROPICAL, COASTAL-ADAPTED PLANT MATERIAL, INCLUDING REESTABLISHEDMENT OF NATIVE PLANT MATERIALS.
WITH THE COMBINATION OF HIGH MOISTURE CONTENT. PLANT HEIGHT AND SPAN MAINTAINED WITH UNDERSTORY CLEARANCE AS PER ATTACHMENT 6.
NATURAL
STONE FOR STEP
SWORD FERNS & VARYING SPECIES OF BROMELIADS
TO BE MAINTAINED AT HEIGHT BELOW 18”.
LOW PLANTING WITH HIGH MOISTURE.
GROUPINGS OF HIGH MOISTURE
PLANTS.
SWORD FERNS & SELECTED SPECIES OF BROMELIADS
TO BE MAINTAINED AT HEIGHT BELOW 18”.
GROWTH WILL NOT PASS THE PROPERTY LINE AS THE
EXISTING WALL PREVENT ITS.
REMOVED ALL PODOCARPUS GARCILLOR ESPALIAR
ALONG FENCE.
REMOVED AND REPLACED MANZINITA & TASMANIAN TREE FERN WITH FOXTAIL AGAVE & CHAIN FERN. REMOVED PODOCARPUS GARCILLIOR ALONG FENCE.
REPLACED FIG TREE WITH FOXTAIL AGAVE.
GROUPINGS OF AGAVE, CHAIN FERN AND GLOBE ARTICHOKE
GROUPINGS OF SWORD FERN
HIGH MOISTURE CONTENT SPECIES
ALL HEIGHTS TO BE MAINTAINED AT 18”
GROUND COVER TO BE AT 6” MAX.
REPLACED TASMANIAN TREE FERN WITH CHAIN FERN.
GROUPINGS OF CHAIN FERN AND FOXTAIL AGAVE
MAINTAINED AT 18”.
GROUPINGS OF SWORD FERN, CHAIN FERN
& LEOPARD PLANT.
HIGH MOISTURE CONTENT.
MAINTAINED HEIGHT BELOW 18” AND DISTANCE
OF 3X BETWEEN GROUPINGS.
REPLACED TASMANIAN TREE FERNS WITH CHAIN FERN.
GROUPINGS OF CHAIN FERN, SWORD FERN,
FOXTAIL AGAVE & LEOPARD PLANT.
HEIGHT MAINTAINED AT 18”.
CLEARANCE MAINTAINED TO ACCENTURATE, PRESERVE,
AND FRAME THE SCENIC VIEW “WINDOWS” INTO
NEIGHBORHOODS AND OCEANS.
CAREX GROUND COVER BETWEEN GROUPINGS
EXISTING CHAMAEROPS HUMILIS
RELOCATED FOR DRIVEWAY CLEARANCE.
UNDERSTORY PLANTING OF LEOPARD PLANT AND
SWORD FERN, MAINTAINED AT HEIGHTS OF 18”
WITH 3X UNDERSTORY CLEARANCE.
GROUPINGS OF SWORD FERNS.
SWORD FERNS HEIGHT AND
GROWTH RADIUS TO BE MAINTAINED
AT 18”.
GROUPINGS OF HIGH MOISTURE
PLANT SPECIES.
GROUPING OF SWORD FERN & BROMELIADS
HEIGHT & GROWTH RADIUS TO BE MAINTAINED BELOW 18”.
MAINTAINED GROUPINGS DISTANCE OF 4.5’
GROUPINGS OF HIGH MOISTURE
PLANT SPECIES.
BROMELIADS OF VARYING SPECIES
MAINTAINED HEIGHT BELOW 18”.
REPLACED MANZANITA WITH FOXTAIL AGAVE.
GROUPINGS OF CHAIN,SWORD FERNS AND
AGAVE. ALL HEIGHTS TO BE MAINTAINED AT
OR BELOW 18”
COMBINATION OF GROUND COVER
WITH FIBRE ROLL OR GEOTEXTILE MAT FOR
HILLSIDE RETENTION AND SOIL STABIIZATION
0' 5' 15' 30'
GRAPHIC SCALE: 1/8”=1’0”
LANDSCAPE
WORKSPACE
238 WESTMINSTER AVE
VENICE CA 90291
P 310 526 1422
[email protected]
www.landscapeworkspace.com LOLOI RESIDENCE 30801 DRIFTWOOD DR LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651
ALL IDEAS, DESIGNS, SPECIFICATIONS AND PLANS
INDICATED OR PRESENTED BY THESE DRAWINGS
ARE THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF LANDSCAPE
WORKSPACE AND WERE CREATED AND DEVELOPED
FOR USE IN CONNECTION WITH THE SPECIFIED
PROJECT. NONE OF SUCH IDEAS, DESIGNS, SPECIFICATIONS OR PLANS SHALL BE USED FOR ANY
PURPOSED WHAT SO EVER WITH OUT THE WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF LANDSCAPE WORKSPACE.
NO. REVISION DATE
DATE:
SHEET TITLE
SHEET NO.
LANDSCAPE
PLANTING
L2.0
01 SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME MATURE SIZE
(HXW) DECIDUOUS
EVERGREEN OR CONTAINER
SIZE
SUN EXPOSURE NOTE
BABY TEARS
6” H
3” H
EVERGREEN
EVERGREEN
FL
SOLEIROLIA SOLEIROLII FL PARTIAL SUN / FULL SHADE
CAREX PANSA COASTAL DUNE SEDGE
JUTE MESH-FABRIC
CHAMAEROPS HUMILIS (EXIST.) CHAMAEROPS PALM - MULTI 15’ H X 10’ W EVERGREEN 36" BOX PARTIAL TO FULL SUN EXISTING
CA NATIVE
CA NATIVE
CA NATIVE
CA NATIVE
DROUGHT TOLERANT
SHRUB.
DROUGHT TOLERANT
PARTIAL TO FULL SUN
PARTIAL TO FULL SUN
PARTIAL TO FULL SUN
PARTIAL TO FULL SUN
PARTIAL TO FULL SUN
AGAVE ATTENUATA
WOODWARDIA FIMBRIATA
FARFUGIUM JAPONICUM
FOXTAIL AGAVE
LEOPARD PLANT
CHAIN FERN
MAINTAINED AT
18”H X 2’ W
MAINTAINED AT
18”H X 2’W
MAINTAINED AT
18”H X 1.5’
MAINTAINED AT
18” X 2’ W
EVERGREEN
EVERGREEN
EVERGREEN
5G
5G
5G
EUPHORBIA LAMBII
CYNARA SCOLYMUS GLOBE ARTICHOKE
MELIANTHUS COMOSUS HONEY BUSH
FURCRAEA MACDOUGALLII MCDOUGAL CENTURY PLANT
MAINTAINED AT
4’H X 2’W
MAINTAINED AT
4’H X 5’ W
MAINTAINED AT
4’H X3’W
DECIDOUOS
EVERGREEN
EVERGREEN
FULL SUN
PARTIAL SUN TO SHADE
POLYSTICHUM MUNITUM SWORD FERN MAINTAINED AT
18”H X 2’W
EVERGREEN 5G PARTIAL SUN TO SHADE
BROMELIACEAE BROMELIADS VARIES BY SPECIES
18”H X 1’W
EVERGREEN 5G
5G
5G
1G
FULL SUN
FULL SUN
EUPHORBIA EVERGREEN 15G
114
149 of 201
I II III IV
T
T150
T150
T300
T150
S1
QTY
60 2700K 5
6 9
CAST IRON
BRASS
SS BLACK 38 2700K
SYMBOL FIXTURE TYPE IMAGE MANUFACTURER LUMINAIRE DIMENSION POWER 6W MR16 GU10 LED
9-15 VAC, 50/60Hz 12VAC Input
4W, MR16 GU4 Bi-Pin LED
4W, MR16 GU4 Bi-Pin LED
LUMENS MATERIAL BEAM COLOUR TEMP.
WALL SCONCE
I
III
IV
Lumiere
Lumiere
Royal
YARD
3.15” x 4.33” x 3.15”
3.75” x 2.75” x 2”
12”-25” H x 2.5 D x 3.5 W
SS/ST
SS/ST
FEAT.
STEP LIGHTS
PATHWAY LIGHTS 6
SS BLACK 38
50 420
400
400
68 2700K
2700K
II SS/ST 6”-13” H x 2.5 D x 3.5 W
SS/ST
PL
NEIGHBORS GARDEN
NEIGHBORS GARDEN
442 SQFT
75 SQFT
134 SQFT
97 SQFT
62 SQFT
50 SQFT
25 SQFT
58 SQFT
17 SQFT
152 SQFT
156 SQFT
1156 SQFT
32 SQFT
83 SQFT ENTRY DECK
380 SQFT HARDSCAPE
1482 SQFT DECK
15 SQFT
CONCRETE
SIDEWALK
BBQ
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
LOT: 7,804 SF
PL
MODIFIED (EX) STUCCO WALL
REDUCE HEIGHT TO DECK
410 SQFT
DRIVEWAY HARDSCAPE
IRRIGATION NOTES
1. A FULLY AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE INSTALLED ON A DESIGN/BULD BASIS BY THE CONTRACTOR. THE IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY WATER PRESSURE AT POINT OF SUPPLY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. PRESSURE REGULATOR SHALL BE INSTALLED AS NECESSARY TO ENSURE DYNAMIC PRESSURE IS WITHIN MANUFACTURERS RECOMMENDED PRESSURE RANGE.
2. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH OWNER FOR PROVISION OF 120V. ELECTRICAL SUPPLY FOR SMART CONTROLLER WITH WEATHER OR MOISTURE SENSOR AND BACKUP BATTERY, AND SHALL MAKE FINAL HOOK-UP.
3. A MANUAL SHUTOFF VALVE SHALL BE INSTALLED BETWEEN POINT OF CONNECTION AND BACK-FLOW DEVICE.
4. MATERIALS TO BE: SCH 40 PVC LATERAL LINE PIPING AND SLEEVING WHERE NEEDED. SPRAY HEADS AND DRIP EMITTERS (IF
USED) SHALL BE TORO, RAINBIRD, HUNTER, OR NET-A-FIM BRAND, WITH LOW VOLUME AND MATCHED PRECIPITATION RATES FOR EACH VALVE PER ANSI STANDARD ASABE/ICC802-2014 'LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION SPRINKLER AND EMITTER STANDARD. ALL SPRAY HEADS SHALL BE POP-UP TYPE, UNLESS LOCATED AT REAR OF PLANTERS AWAY FROM TURF OR PAVED AREAS. SMART CONTROLLER TO BE APPROVED BY LANDSCAPE WORKSPACE, CONTRACTOR AND OWNER.
5. THE IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR SHALL FLUSH ALL LINES AND ADJUST ALL HEADS FOR OPTIMUM PERFORMANCE AND TO PREVENT OVERSPRAY ONTO WALKS AND WALLS. THIS SHALL INCLUDE SELECTING THE BEST DEGREE OF ARC TO FIT THE EXISTING SITE
CONDITIONS AND TO THROTTLE THE FLOW CONTROL AT EACH VALVE TO OBTAIN THE OPTIMUM OPERATING PRESSURE FOR EACH SYSTEM.
6. AT THE TME OF FINAL INSPECTION THE OWNER SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION. CERTIFICATE OF INSTALLATION, IRRIGATION SCHEDULE AND SCHEDULE OF LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE.
WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE INFORMATION
APPLICATION:
LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR:
TOTAL IRRIGATION LANDSCAPE AREA (100% NEW): 2580 SF (100% SHRUB/G.C. NO TURF) WATER SUPPLY: LAGUNA BEACH WATER DISTRICT
I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PRESCRIPTIVE COMPLIANCE
OPTION TO MAWA
LANDSCAPE OPEN SPACE DIAGRAM (3’MIN ANY DIRECTION)
LOT SIZE= 7,804 SF LANDSCAPE OPEN SPACE. : 2,880 SF
TOTAL IRRIGATION AREA : 2,773 SF
LIGHTING NOTES
1. LIGHTING LAYOUT IS FOR PLANNING PURPOSES AND
FIXTURE SELECTION AND LOCATION TO BE APPROVED BY
OWNER/ LANDSCAPE DESIGNER.
2. FINAL LIGHTING ADJUSTMENTS SHOULD BE MADE IN
EVENING LIGHT FOR APPROVAL.
3. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR SIZING
TRANSFORMER(S) AND CONDUIT TO PROVIDE FULL POWER
TO EACH FIXTURE AND CONNECTIONS TO TRANSFORMER.
120V POWER SUPPLY AND TRANSFORMER LOCATION TO BE
CONFIRMED BY OWNER.
4. ALL LIGHTTING TO BE 2700K OR 3000K WARM WHITE
LIGHT UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED.
SITE PLAN: SQFT LIGHTING PLAN
0' 5' 15' 30'
GRAPHIC SCALE: 1/8”=1’0”
NATURAL
STONE FOR STEP
RE- SUBMITTAL AS PER REVIEW
REDUCED LIGHTS TO 26
FIXTURES
10/28/24
12/9/24
RE- SUBMITTAL AS PER
03 LSHRD, LBFD & REVIEW NOTES
12/9/24
3/20/25
RE- SUBMITTAL AS PER
04 LSHRD, LBFD & REVIEW NOTES
LIGHTING FIXTURES HAVE BEEN REDUCED TO A TOTAL OF 26.
THIS INCLUDES BOTH ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPE EXTERIOR LIGHTS
LANDSCAPE
WORKSPACE
238 WESTMINSTER AVE
VENICE CA 90291
P 310 526 1422
[email protected]
www.landscapeworkspace.com LOLOI RESIDENCE 30801 DRIFTWOOD DR LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651
ALL IDEAS, DESIGNS, SPECIFICATIONS AND PLANS
INDICATED OR PRESENTED BY THESE DRAWINGS
ARE THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF LANDSCAPE
WORKSPACE AND WERE CREATED AND DEVELOPED
FOR USE IN CONNECTION WITH THE SPECIFIED
PROJECT. NONE OF SUCH IDEAS, DESIGNS, SPECIFICATIONS OR PLANS SHALL BE USED FOR ANY
PURPOSED WHAT SO EVER WITH OUT THE WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF LANDSCAPE WORKSPACE.
NO. REVISION DATE
DATE:
SHEET TITLE
SHEET NO.
SITE PLAN SQFT
& LV LIGHTING PLAN
L3.0
8/16/24
REDUCED LIGHTING FIXTURE
UPDATED SITE PLAN AS PER
CIVIL & ARCHITECT
01 02
115
150 of 201
I II III IV
T
T150
T150
T300
T150
S1
QTY
60 2700K 5
6 9
CAST IRON
BRASS
SS BLACK 38 2700K
SYMBOL FIXTURE TYPE IMAGE MANUFACTURER LUMINAIRE DIMENSION POWER 6W MR16 GU10 LED
9-15 VAC, 50/60Hz 12VAC Input
4W, MR16 GU4 Bi-Pin LED
4W, MR16 GU4 Bi-Pin LED
LUMENS MATERIAL BEAM COLOUR TEMP.
WALL SCONCE
I
III
IV
Lumiere
Lumiere
Royal
YARD
3.15” x 4.33” x 3.15”
3.75” x 2.75” x 2”
12”-25” H x 2.5 D x 3.5 W
SS/ST
SS/ST
FEAT.
STEP LIGHTS
PATHWAY LIGHTS 6
SS BLACK 38
50 420
400
400
68 2700K
2700K
II SS/ST 6”-13” H x 2.5 D x 3.5 W
SS/ST
PL
NEIGHBORS GARDEN
NEIGHBORS GARDEN
442 SQFT
75 SQFT
134 SQFT
97 SQFT
62 SQFT
50 SQFT
25 SQFT
58 SQFT
17 SQFT
152 SQFT
156 SQFT
1156 SQFT
32 SQFT
83 SQFT ENTRY DECK
380 SQFT HARDSCAPE
1482 SQFT DECK
15 SQFT
CONCRETE
SIDEWALK
BBQ
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
LOT: 7,804 SF
PL
MODIFIED (EX) STUCCO WALL
REDUCE HEIGHT TO DECK
410 SQFT
DRIVEWAY HARDSCAPE
IRRIGATION NOTES
1. A FULLY AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE INSTALLED ON A DESIGN/BULD BASIS BY THE CONTRACTOR. THE IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY WATER PRESSURE AT POINT OF SUPPLY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. PRESSURE REGULATOR SHALL BE INSTALLED AS NECESSARY TO ENSURE DYNAMIC PRESSURE IS WITHIN MANUFACTURERS RECOMMENDED PRESSURE RANGE.
2. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH OWNER FOR PROVISION OF 120V. ELECTRICAL SUPPLY FOR SMART CONTROLLER WITH WEATHER OR MOISTURE SENSOR AND BACKUP BATTERY, AND SHALL MAKE FINAL HOOK-UP.
3. A MANUAL SHUTOFF VALVE SHALL BE INSTALLED BETWEEN POINT OF CONNECTION AND BACK-FLOW DEVICE.
4. MATERIALS TO BE: SCH 40 PVC LATERAL LINE PIPING AND SLEEVING WHERE NEEDED. SPRAY HEADS AND DRIP EMITTERS (IF
USED) SHALL BE TORO, RAINBIRD, HUNTER, OR NET-A-FIM BRAND, WITH LOW VOLUME AND MATCHED PRECIPITATION RATES FOR EACH VALVE PER ANSI STANDARD ASABE/ICC802-2014 'LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION SPRINKLER AND EMITTER STANDARD. ALL SPRAY HEADS SHALL BE POP-UP TYPE, UNLESS LOCATED AT REAR OF PLANTERS AWAY FROM TURF OR PAVED AREAS. SMART CONTROLLER TO BE APPROVED BY LANDSCAPE WORKSPACE, CONTRACTOR AND OWNER.
5. THE IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR SHALL FLUSH ALL LINES AND ADJUST ALL HEADS FOR OPTIMUM PERFORMANCE AND TO PREVENT OVERSPRAY ONTO WALKS AND WALLS. THIS SHALL INCLUDE SELECTING THE BEST DEGREE OF ARC TO FIT THE EXISTING SITE
CONDITIONS AND TO THROTTLE THE FLOW CONTROL AT EACH VALVE TO OBTAIN THE OPTIMUM OPERATING PRESSURE FOR EACH SYSTEM.
6. AT THE TME OF FINAL INSPECTION THE OWNER SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION. CERTIFICATE OF INSTALLATION, IRRIGATION SCHEDULE AND SCHEDULE OF LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE.
WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE INFORMATION
APPLICATION:
LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR:
TOTAL IRRIGATION LANDSCAPE AREA (100% NEW): 2580 SF (100% SHRUB/G.C. NO TURF) WATER SUPPLY: LAGUNA BEACH WATER DISTRICT
I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PRESCRIPTIVE COMPLIANCE
OPTION TO MAWA
LANDSCAPE OPEN SPACE DIAGRAM (3’MIN ANY DIRECTION)
LOT SIZE= 7,804 SF LANDSCAPE OPEN SPACE. : 2,880 SF
TOTAL IRRIGATION AREA : 2,773 SF
LIGHTING NOTES
1. LIGHTING LAYOUT IS FOR PLANNING PURPOSES AND
FIXTURE SELECTION AND LOCATION TO BE APPROVED BY
OWNER/ LANDSCAPE DESIGNER.
2. FINAL LIGHTING ADJUSTMENTS SHOULD BE MADE IN
EVENING LIGHT FOR APPROVAL.
3. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR SIZING
TRANSFORMER(S) AND CONDUIT TO PROVIDE FULL POWER
TO EACH FIXTURE AND CONNECTIONS TO TRANSFORMER.
120V POWER SUPPLY AND TRANSFORMER LOCATION TO BE
CONFIRMED BY OWNER.
4. ALL LIGHTTING TO BE 2700K OR 3000K WARM WHITE
LIGHT UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED.
SITE PLAN: SQFT LIGHTING PLAN
0' 5' 15' 30'
GRAPHIC SCALE: 1/8”=1’0”
NATURAL
STONE FOR STEP
RE- SUBMITTAL AS PER REVIEW
REDUCED LIGHTS TO 26
FIXTURES
10/28/24
10/28/24
LIGHTING FIXTURES HAVE BEEN REDUCED TO A TOTAL OF 26.
THIS INCLUDES BOTH ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPE EXTERIOR LIGHTS
LANDSCAPE
WORKSPACE
238 WESTMINSTER AVE
VENICE CA 90291
P 310 526 1422
[email protected]
www.landscapeworkspace.com LOLOI RESIDENCE 30801 DRIFTWOOD DR LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651
ALL IDEAS, DESIGNS, SPECIFICATIONS AND PLANS
INDICATED OR PRESENTED BY THESE DRAWINGS
ARE THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF LANDSCAPE
WORKSPACE AND WERE CREATED AND DEVELOPED
FOR USE IN CONNECTION WITH THE SPECIFIED
PROJECT. NONE OF SUCH IDEAS, DESIGNS, SPECIFICATIONS OR PLANS SHALL BE USED FOR ANY
PURPOSED WHAT SO EVER WITH OUT THE WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF LANDSCAPE WORKSPACE.
NO. REVISION DATE
DATE:
SHEET TITLE
SHEET NO.
SITE PLAN SQFT
& LV LIGHTING PLAN
L3.0
8/16/24
REDUCED LIGHTING FIXTURE
UPDATED SITE PLAN AS PER
CIVIL & ARCHITECT
01 02
116
151 of 201
Attachment 8
151
152 of 201
152
153 of 201
153
154 of 201
154
155 of 201
155
156 of 201
156
157 of 201
157
158 of 201
158
159 of 201
159
160 of 201
160
161 of 201
161
162 of 201
162
163 of 201
163
164 of 201
164
165 of 201
165
166 of 201
166
167 of 201
167
168 of 201
168
169 of 201
169
170 of 201
170
171 of 201
171
172 of 201
172
173 of 201
173
174 of 201
174
175 of 201
175
176 of 201
Transcript – November 13, 2025 Design Review Board Agenda Item 5.7 – 30801 Driftwood Drive 111325_DRB Agenda Item 5.7
Transcript by Rev.com
Board Member Weil:
Chair, I visited with Steve Kawaratani, Tony and Bobby across the street, Henry and Joyce, and Mr.
Armando.
Board Member Bauta:
Chair, I visited the site with Steve Kawaratani.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
I visited the site with Mr. Armando, forgot the last name, there he is, also across the street Tony and Bobby and immediately next door at 21562 Ocean Vista.
Board Member Coveny:
I also went to the site and met with Steve Kawaratani, the neighbors across the street, the Speranzo’s and the neighbors next door.
Chair Gibbs:
I visited the site with Mr. Kawaratani, Marcus Imhof I talked to, the Speranzo’s I met, the Brodt’s I met and Armando Baez
Nancy Balmer-Csira:
3 0 8 0 1 Driftwood Drive. The proposal requires design review, coastal development permit and revocable encroachment permit. Next slide please. The project is demolition of the existing home. The left side you can see the site plan in yellow represents the lot and then the street frontage view of the existing one-story home. Currently there is a side access into the garage as you can see in the driveway photo. Next slide please. So the entitlements for the project includes the demolition of the single-family residence and the site plan here you can see the new vehicular axis is shown. The apron is highlighted in green just to show you where that happens. There are skylights, they're pretty small and circular, but they're highlighted in this plan in green. Grading is proposed because it's more than 20 cubic yards outside the building footprint and landscaping. Because the development permit is for the non-exempt development in the coastal zone and there's a very small area highlighted in blue, which is the REP for the walkway and that's the portion between the sidewalk area they're proposing and the property line.
Next slide please. These are the applicant provided renderings. The right image is the street view and then a view. The second view shows views that they get from their home. The next slide is the colors and materials. This is also as available in the staff report. We've heard from neighbors that have view and privacy impacts and are generally in favor of a one-story home but preserving views. The last slide is staff's recommendation to conduct the hearing, adopt the resolution approving the design review, the coastal development permit and the revocable encroachment permit. And I'm available for questions.
Thank you.
Chair Gibbs:
Thank you, Nancy. Excuse me. Any questions? Seeing none, I open the public hearing. Applicant, you have five minutes.
Attachment 9
176
177 of 201
Transcript – November 13, 2025 Design Review Board Agenda Item 5.7 – 30801 Driftwood Drive 111325_DRB Agenda Item 5.7
Transcript by Rev.com
Paul Vantieghem, Applicant:
To present. Thank you to the Board for giving the time to the Laguna Beach community and for allowing us to present the design of this single-family, one-story home on Driftwood Drive in Laguna. I see the first diagram. Next please. So learning from Laguna Beach design guidelines, no owner is entitled to the maximum approvable building masses shown in this diagram. It is the existing character of the neighborhood that is guiding and the most important for approval. That is why. Next slide please. That's why we began by carefully introducing a one-story pitch through volume with eaves heights set to basic standards. The shallow pitch through roof runs parallel to the direction of the hill to reduce mass in scale. Should I continue without the graphic material?
Chair Gibbs:
Hold on a second. Are you having problems, Paola? With the slide? Patrick Donegan, Assistant City Attorney:
She got kicked off. Correct. Yeah, she was just removed from the zoom and there's an internet connection issue going on in council chambers. Mr. Chair.
Chair Gibbs:
Why don't we wait till we get it ready and then we can start your time.
Paul Vantieghem, Applicant:
Thank you. You can move on to the next slide please. So that is why we carefully place a one-story pitch to roof on the side with eaves, heights set to basic standards heights and the shallow pitch to roof runs parallel to the direction of the hill to reduce mass and scale. Next slide please. In the next design step, we divided the building house into four smaller modules. This lowered the height of the roof ridge substantially and each module is slightly rotated to avoid long facade planes and to introduce variable setbacks and building heights. Finally, projections and recesses are introduced to create shadow and depth and create a human scale to the home. Next slide please. As this physical model shown shows, this results in a design expression that blends into the scale of the surrounding neighborhood very well.
Next slide please. That's the existing aerial image and in the next slide you see an overlap, an overlap of the new design and existing showing again this scale compliance to the neighborhoods. Next slide. In the zoom we noticed that compared to the existing building, the current situation that the roof currently protrudes not further than the existing home. Actually, it corrects the situation where a sunroof at the moment in the existing situation protrudes in the backyard and this will obviously be demolished. The house will actually sit further back.
Raha Talebi, Applicant:
Next slide please. Here you see where we find the Laguna Beach supportive variable setbacks very strong and we believe it's working to not place any burden on any single side yard, slide please.
Following the neighbor's concerns as we did meet them, we immediately dropped the finished floor level by the maximum we could compared to the existing. We dropped it by six inches lower than the existing, which is allowable max to the driveway slope. And then we additionally lowered the roof ridges with another six inches resulting in the project's overall height reduction of currently one foot compared to what was previously presented in the neighborhood meeting. You see as we illustrated in the previous slide that the protruding sunroof, which is highlighted in blue in the rear yard is eliminated. So in fact the new volume significantly sets back from the rear yard line. What you also see is that the new 177
178 of 201
Transcript – November 13, 2025 Design Review Board Agenda Item 5.7 – 30801 Driftwood Drive 111325_DRB Agenda Item 5.7
Transcript by Rev.com
ridge, the four modules as Paul referenced, require additional height relative to the existing, but there are also areas where it has been purposely dropped everywhere we could in the ridges and valleys to respect the context. So that's where you see the blue versus the elevation. Next slide please. But that doesn't count because that's before the I'm going to go fast, I promise.
Chair Gibbs:
It's still green.
Raha Talebi, Applicant:
Thank you. Our team has made six render impressions and we believe we've been very open about these to help illustrate the deep aim for contextual compatibility in the human scale. Next slide please.
We'll walk you through these impressions. Is that five minutes, 30 seconds? Chair Gibbs:
You have 30 seconds.
Raha Talebi, Applicant:
For each, we’ve traced the existing view line of both existing structures of this existing vegetation. So you can go like this and you can go next. So you can see that we’ve also reduced. Next slide please.
Reduced existing vegetation and in this specific case something quite interesting and happy happened for us because public view corridors became open again, you see on the left side of the image where it once didn’t exist. Next slide please. Next slide please. It’s the same.
Chair Gibbs:
Your time's up. We're going to go to public hearing. You'll have three minutes to come back to if you want to make any comments that you would've made. Alright, is there a lot of people here going to speak? Raise your hand if you're going to speak. Okay, there's quite a few people. I want to keep it flowing. Keep in mind that we've read everything, we've seen everything, so keep your comments to what is most important to you. With that said, also begin by stating your name. You're on for two minutes.
Tony Speranzo (08:58):
Thank you, Tom. My name is Tony Speranzo. My wife Bobby and I reside at 3 0 7 8 2 Driftwood Drive. In 2019 we moved out to our home in Laguna Beach with the intention of retiring in this home we have full-time residents of Laguna Beach. We chose this location primarily for its ocean views, understanding that much of the home's value is directly tied to that view. Our home sits directly across the street from the property under review, the front of our home faces west and therefore our kitchen, dining room, living room, I'm sorry, kitchen, dining, living room and outdoor patio and spaces are oriented towards the ocean. As you can imagine, we spend most of our time there enjoying the view. Our primary view corridor lies directly over the existing home at 3 0 8 0 1 Driftwood. If this project moves forward as submitted, it will significantly impair that view and therefore our view equity not only from our outdoor patios but also from our kitchen, dining area, and family room.
Based on the plan submitted, the increase in the roof elevations is approximately four feet above the existing structure At its highest point, reducing my primary view by more than 50% even at the lower 178
179 of 201
Transcript – November 13, 2025 Design Review Board Agenda Item 5.7 – 30801 Driftwood Drive 111325_DRB Agenda Item 5.7
Transcript by Rev.com
elevation, the increase of about three feet would diminish the view by nearly 40%. Therefore, my view equity is significantly impaired. The other important aspect of this proposed project is that the higher roof line in the design does not stair-step with the hillside topography of the neighborhood. In fact, it is slightly higher than the home above and next to it. I do not believe it is fair or equitable for our view, an integral part of our property's value and the reason we purchased our home to be so drastically compromised by the post construction, especially where the applicant benefits from an unobstructed 180-degree ocean view. I respectfully request that the Design Review Board require modifications to the proposed design specifically such that it does not impair our view equity and be more consistent with the character and topography of the neighborhood and such that it would not diminish the equity value of our property.
Chair Gibbs:
Thank you very much. Next speaker.
Harald Vogl:
Hi, my name is Harald Vogl, live at 2 1 5 6 1 Ocean Vista Drive. Note the name of that street. This is we're here to support Bobby and Tony Speranzo who just spoke. We had almost identical situation here in 2019 where the house across the street was being torn down, a new home built. Louis was there and the issue was almost identical. They wanted to build a house with a ridgeline was three to four feet higher than the existing ridge height. Our complaint, my wife and I, was that we purchased a home that had a view and we didn't want to lose any of that view. That's what we paid for and affected our quality of life and the value of our property. So our view was if you want to have higher ceilings or bigger home, grade your lot down. Take it out of your view, not our view. This home that they intend to build existing home has a great view right now and if they took their lot down they'd still have a great view and it wouldn't affect the view of their neighbors. And that's it.
Chair Gibbs:
Thank you very much.
Harald Vogl:
What can I do with my extra time?
Chair Gibbs:
You’re giving it to a good cause, us getting out early. All right, next speaker please.
Joyce Brodt:
My name is Joyce Brodt and my husband Henry and I own property at 2 1 5 6 2 Ocean Vista Drive. We have lived here many years and when we remodeled our home, we planned carefully to keep our building height low and to respect our neighbor’s views and privacy. Two years ago, applicants held brief meeting about a potential project. Neighbors raised concerns about height and lost views. Meeting ended abruptly and we received no follow-up until story poles were erected. Over the last two years I repeatedly asked for design information and was met with silence. We are shocked. Proposed structure will severely and negatively affect us. Project’s height, massing and extended eaves are excessive and sit too close to our property. Finished height will loom over us. Laguna Beach’s own design review guideline publication when addressing view equity states, patios, decks and balconies can provide prime view opportunities. We agree our patio views are our prime views of mountains. Project removes entire 179
180 of 201
Transcript – November 13, 2025 Design Review Board Agenda Item 5.7 – 30801 Driftwood Drive 111325_DRB Agenda Item 5.7
Transcript by Rev.com
south mountain view from us and some of our south facing ocean views within our home. Design is incompatible with established stair-step terrace rhythm of our block. Its proximity, window and rear patio will substantially reduce our privacy and replace our ocean view from living room, kitchen and dining table with a blank wall. We request applicant to one, reduce overall height. Two, reduce or pull in extended eaves to lessen bulk and privacy impact. And three conform design to character of Driftwood Drive so it fits neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration.
Chair Gibbs:
Thank you very much. Next speaker.
Aaron Peluso:
My name is Aaron Peluso. I live at 3 0 7 1 2 Driftwood Drive. I'm uphill on the next block. Two years ago, we spent about $2 million remodeling our home and one of the centerpieces was to protect and expand our narrow ocean view down the street and over this home. During our own design review we went out of our way to avoid impacting any uphill neighbor and in fact improve the view of one uphill neighbor.
Now we have these stakes at the applicant's property, and the building envelope would eliminate part of the view we fought so hard to keep. The current single-story house already enjoys sweeping views, elevating it is unnecessary and directly violates Laguna Beach's view protection policies. I wrote you an email, I think it violates 15.1 through 15.5 and as others have said, your guidelines say that projects should be stepping down the hillside and this one goes up. I welcome the investment in our neighborhood. It looks like a beautiful project to me. I just think it should be developed within the existing roof elevations. I simply ask that you direct the applicant to revise the plans, evacuate modestly, keep the current ridge line and follow the guidelines you already set. In addition to the direct impact on my view, I'm very concerned that this project will create a precedent for increased roof elevations in our neighborhood, if approved. We already have a precedent in our neighborhood, and it is the existing roof elevations. Thank you for your time.
Chair Gibbs:
Thank you very much. Next speaker.
Bill Bailey:
My name is Bill Bailey. My wife Kathy and I reside at 3 0 7 5 2 Driftwood Drive. Our home sits kitty corner on the northeast side of Driftwood Drive. We are opposed to the construction project under review. The proposed orange flag roof height on the property will impact approximately 20% of our south facing ocean views. We have lived here for the past 11 years and had two other total home rebuilds that could have affected our view. However, the Laguna Beach Design Review Board took action on both of these projects to reduce the proposed roof pitch height to ensure the views of the surrounding residents were not impacted. Both homes were designed beautifully and fit in with the neighborhood and respect and preserve the ocean views. We all love and appreciate this unique South Laguna neighborhood was designed in 1950s as terrace community with very low pitch roofs to ensure views for all residents. Like many of the residents we have southwest facing coastal views. We have front patios where gatherings of family and friends come to enjoy the views. This is where our family gathers to celebrate holidays, birthdays, special events. We're hopeful that the Design Review Board will be consistent in its application of the design restriction and preserve our community's views. Thank you. 180
181 of 201
Transcript – November 13, 2025 Design Review Board Agenda Item 5.7 – 30801 Driftwood Drive 111325_DRB Agenda Item 5.7
Transcript by Rev.com
Chair Gibbs:
Thank you very much. Next speaker.
Mark Renault:
Hi, my name's Mark Renault. I live 2 1 6 0 1 Ocean Vista Drive just straight up the hill from this project and I want to thank Joyce the way she explained what was going on on her property because I have one great, what do you call it, peekaboo view straight down south of the ocean and it's between the existing house and your house. It's gone for me if it goes over towards Joyce's house. So all I want to say is take care of her and I'm happy.
Chair Gibbs:
Thank you very much. Next speaker.
Mike Childs:
My name is Mike Childs, my wife and I live at 2 1 6 1 2 Ocean Vista Drive. We're right up immediately above the Speranzo’s. I believe there's opportunity to reduce the ridge height on this property through either a reduction in the pad elevation, flattening the roof pitch or other modification of the project. I think it presents a unacceptable view obstruction to the Speranzo’s view. Thank you.
Chair Gibbs:
Thank you very much. Next speaker.
Mike McKibben:
Hi, my name is Mike McKibben. I own the house at 2 1 5 4 1 Ocean Vista Drive. I'm here. I'll keep it short and sweet. I'm here in support of Joyce and Henry and Tony and Bobby and it's been said I think that you could easily lower the grade on the proposed property, pull in the side setbacks and everybody would be happy with that. I think it would make quite the difference. And that's all I have to say.
Chair Gibbs:
Thank you very much. Any other speakers?
Chair Gibbs:
I see one more. Two more.
Sheila Jamison:
My name's Sheila Jamison and our family home is located directly below this project at 3 0 8 1 1 Driftwood and I just want to, I'm more concerned about the setbacks. It's the privacy issue because the property is going to be built so close to our house and I want to support Bobby and Tony and Henry and Joyce. We've been neighbors forever, excuse me, 50 some years. So I just support their opinion and their concerns as well as ours because of the property coming so close to ours at the 3 0 8 1 1 Driftwood. And I hope that maybe they can revise some of the plans so they can scale this whole project down. Thank you.
181
182 of 201
Transcript – November 13, 2025 Design Review Board Agenda Item 5.7 – 30801 Driftwood Drive 111325_DRB Agenda Item 5.7
Transcript by Rev.com
Chair Gibbs:
Next speaker.
Marcus Imhof:
Hi, my name is Marcus Imhof. I own the property at 3 0 7 2 2 Driftwood next to Aaron Peluso. So where I'm kind of up the street a little ways, everything that has been said in support of the current residents and the kind of look and feel of the neighborhood I agree with. I just like to say one thing Aaron touched on this already is that I believe if this project were to continue in the way it's drawn now, it would set a precedent that would enable future roof raising. And so that's it. So just I hope the Design Review Board kind of takes us all into account. Thank you.
Chair Gibbs:
Thank you very much. Next.
Molly Zurflueh:
Hi. Good evening, Chair and members of the Design Review Board. My name is Molly Zurflueh. I represent Joyce and Henry Brodt and Tony Bobby Speranza, respectively 2 1 5 6 2 Ocean Vista Drive and 3 0 7 8 2 Driftwood Drive. They're the immediate neighbors of this proposed project. My client support thoughtful neighborhood sensitive development. This design’s increased height, new crawl space, concentrated massing towards the northern property line, elevated ceilings and extended eaves intrude into both neighbor's primary view corridors and create a looming and closing effect on adjacent properties. The Speranzo’s who live directly across the street would lose roughly 40 to 50% of their ocean view, as Tony explained. Their home was designed to preserve views for the neighbors behind them and then they take advantage of the views in front. So they're losing 40 to 50% of that which their home went through design review and through this entire process so that they could capture that view and protect it.
The Brodt’s immediately to the north would lose their south facing ocean view from inside of their home and their gorgeous mountain view from the backyard. The structure’s placement and overhangs would overshadow their single-story home, their modest yard and pool and eliminate spaces where their family routinely gathers. The design conflicts with the city's view equity guidelines by prioritizing the applicant's easement protected view while failing to equitably preserve the neighbor's views.
Reasonable modifications will avoid disproportionate harms. They can lower the overall building height.
They can utilize internal areas within those modules to shift the building mass away from the north property line and to restore those view corridors and they can retract the extended eaves and overhangs to more compact the profile of the design. Thank you so much for your time and service to the city.
Chair Gibbs:
Thank you very much. Armando.
Armando Baez:
I'm coming slowly but I'm coming.
182
183 of 201
Transcript – November 13, 2025 Design Review Board Agenda Item 5.7 – 30801 Driftwood Drive 111325_DRB Agenda Item 5.7
Transcript by Rev.com
Chair Gibbs:
You got a second and a half? No, Just kidding. Take your time.
Armando Baez:
I know, I know I will not bore you anymore with photos of the impact of my ceremonial view, but I want to talk about two issues. One is neighborhood compatibility. The structures on the west side of Driftwood were all built to match the same height. You see it as you go by the street, the street curves and drops, but the houses are all about the same height. The structures on the east side like mine were built higher on the slope, on the lot slope and are accessible by stairs. This provided both sides of the street with views of Catalina Sunset and ocean. The homes in the west have killer views. Our side have good views. We have never complained about our lot in life, but we all cherish what we have, equity. So let me talk about equity. Equity means treating everyone the same to assure that all have equal opportunity to views.
Did you enjoy the 180-degree view when you visited that property? It's amazing. So all I ask is for my view to be protected. Our neighborhood views were designed to spotlight Catalina sunset and ocean views from every lot. That's why you have so many neighbors here talking about our neighborhood. It's a wonderful neighborhood. I am now challenged by climbing the stairs up to my front door every day, but I am grateful that the architects who designed the track many years ago, like 70 years, we're so careful to provide view equity to every lot. The task of the Board is to do everything possible to help existing residents and new residents achieve view equity. What is the purpose of taking my limited view simply to increase the ceiling heights across the street when it does not act to their view. Because they're new residents, I have a new copy of It Takes a Villager written by Arnold Hano and I will deliver it to the Loloi family if I see them next time.
Chair Gibbs:
Thank you, Armando. All right, thank you. Your time’s up. Alright, Armando Baez:
I'll be done to go slowly.
Chair Gibbs:
We'll wait, no hurry. Any other speakers? Seeing none, I return this to the applicant for three minutes.
Raha Talebi, Applicant:
I will go quickly so we can go to the next slide. As we've seen this for a long time, this is the south side yard. It's about the setbacks so we can look in the plan. They're variable and if you compare it to the current building, it's more than the existing. So I think we can look at that in the plan. We can go next and this is an impression of the north, and I think that's really important because we're still trying to bring in the human scale. We bring in the valleys as much as possible. We break down the four modules.
There's a significant hedge on the north that was always there that we also respected because there's only one window in the north to the design and that window is actually angled in so it doesn't even, there's so many layers of privacy that was considered on that north side yard as well. Next, this is the existing, I assume everyone's been there, but we can, and that's sort of the line of the building and as well as the sunroof and the column structure. Next, this is an overlay just to understand where those 183
184 of 201
Transcript – November 13, 2025 Design Review Board Agenda Item 5.7 – 30801 Driftwood Drive 111325_DRB Agenda Item 5.7
Transcript by Rev.com
dotted red lines are coming on for us to reference and next. And you see that it's very clear that the eaves are within that boundary. So that's what we were referencing. I hope it's clear that's what we were referencing to show where the existing versus the new is sitting in the rear yard.
Next, materials we've seen and landscaping is as much as possible rustic and informal within the immediate planting area. Next, it's the lighting that's no one discussed. I think now that I have a little bit of time I want to discuss the crawlspace, the vaulted ceiling and potentially other things. But the crawlspace for us was very important, the project. We lost our children's school to the Palisades fire personally and a big no-no for that that we've been learning is that ventilated attics are not great. So I think in that sense we are two steps. We did drop, the finished floor is six inches, and we are maximized to the driveway and the garage is there because it's the lowest program, clear height that you need and it's at the highest point of the site. So these things are really almost diagrams to build. I hope we can build them exactly to those levels. So high fire zone, I think that's something to be discussed and to be considered. Therefore, this system of mechanical levels help mitigate that risk. I have more but.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
You have 30 seconds. You’re doing great.
Raha Talebi, Applicant:
Oh, sorry. I’m a good student. Yeah, I think that as the project is based on the design of four modules, each internal ceiling is different and adjusted to the program. So I hope that that was very considered.
The setbacks were very considered. Sometimes there we don’t even have windows facing the side yards in the north.
Chair Gibbs:
Okay, your time's up now.
Raha Talebi, Applicant:
Yeah.
Chair Gibbs:
Let me ask you a question. The crawl space, how high is the crawl space? Raha Talebi, Applicant:
It's 18 inches.
Chair Gibbs:
And is that for your mechanical?
Raha Talebi, Applicant:
Yes.
Chair Gibbs:
You have your air conditioning ducts and all that underneath? 184
185 of 201
Transcript – November 13, 2025 Design Review Board Agenda Item 5.7 – 30801 Driftwood Drive 111325_DRB Agenda Item 5.7
Transcript by Rev.com
Raha Talebi, Applicant:
Yeah, we'll have some handling units in the places where we have seven and a half foot ceilings. Locally we can fit between the vault, but we are avoiding the ventilated attic that way.
Chair Gibbs:
Okay. Your ceilings, is there any sub-ceiling or is it, I mean is there any sub-ceiling to your roof.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
Insulation.
Chair Gibbs:
Or is just roof.
Raha Talebi, Applicant:
Roof, sorry, sub ceiling. Yeah, there's a built-up roof with insulation.
Chair Gibbs:
Okay. How tall is the built-up roof?
Raha Talebi, Applicant:
I have that.
Chair Gibbs:
Just, yeah, 12 inches. My house has nothing like that.
Raha Talebi, Applicant:
I would have to look that up while you do that. Well I think it depends on where we put the beams in the end, but it could be like six.
Chair Gibbs:
Okay. And then the plate height, and I know you've got open roofing, so what does it go from and in your project, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it goes 10 to 13 feet, is that right? Raha Talebi, Applicant:
Yes, exactly.
Chair Gibbs:
Okay.
Raha Talebi, Applicant:
In the bottom of the roof ridges. I apologize for interrupting. 185
186 of 201
Transcript – November 13, 2025 Design Review Board Agenda Item 5.7 – 30801 Driftwood Drive 111325_DRB Agenda Item 5.7
Transcript by Rev.com
Chair Gibbs:
No, go ahead.
Raha Talebi, Applicant:
The bottom of the roof, let's say the valleys are seven and a half typical. So we really, even the depth of the structure would be limited so we tried to lower it where we could. And then.
Chair Gibbs:
So what's the roof pitch? Generally.
Raha Talebi, Applicant:
It's three to 12.
Chair Gibbs:
Three to 12
Raha Talebi, Applicant:
And it's a built-up roof.
Chair Gibbs:
What about lowering the house? Any lowering the whole structure, in other words, doing some excavation to lower the structure.
Raha Talebi, Applicant:
In that sense we did lower it six inches. The existing, no, and the driveway is, Chair Gibbs:
I'm talking about further.
Raha Talebi, Applicant:
Yeah, the driveway is maximized at its slope and the garage is in the point where we could have the lowest height roof as well.
Chair Gibbs:
So you're worried about a reverse slope going into the garage so you have it as low the garage at least as low as it can go.
Raha Talebi, Applicant:
Also. Yes, exactly.
Chair Gibbs:
Okay. I don't have any other questions. Any other questions? 186
187 of 201
Transcript – November 13, 2025 Design Review Board Agenda Item 5.7 – 30801 Driftwood Drive 111325_DRB Agenda Item 5.7
Transcript by Rev.com
Board Member Coveny:
I was wanting to see if I can get Nancy to bring us back to the image of the roof with the outline of the trees and the roof. No back, back, back right around there, but yeah, right here. Oh there's. That's one.
Okay, there's one. Okay, thank you sir. Perfect.
Chair Gibbs:
You got it?
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
Yeah. Alright. Well for the eaves, are they in the setback or are they on the property line? Depends which the six-foot eaves that you have facing towards the ocean, that's next door to the Raha Talebi, Applicant:
The largest eave is within the
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
Henry and Joyce.
Raha Talebi, Applicant:
The largest eave is within the existing property line. And then the other ones vary from one and a half feet to three, depends on where we, which house
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
Next door to the right. If you're facing the ocean, if you're facing your house next door to the right, it's Henry and Joyce. That eave in particular
Raha Talebi, Applicant:
The one facing Henry and Joyce? Yes. Eave is protruding beyond the rear 20-foot setback.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
So it's within the setback, not within the property line. You could pull it out of the setback and onto the property line. You could reduce it.
Raha Talebi, Applicant:
We can reduce the eave closest to their house. Yeah. Then the one at the, let's say the kitchen house, that one is already way even it conforms to even the existing building. So it's very Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
Yeah, my only concern was just that one eave next door to Henry and Joyce.
Raha Talebi, Applicant:
If it betters them, that's no problem.
Chair Gibbs:
187
188 of 201
Transcript – November 13, 2025 Design Review Board Agenda Item 5.7 – 30801 Driftwood Drive 111325_DRB Agenda Item 5.7
Transcript by Rev.com
Alright, any other questions with that? I close the public hearing. Who wants to begin? MJ it’s your night. Go for it.
Board Member Coveny:
First of all, have you guys worked in Laguna before?
Raha Talebi, Applicant:
No, we're in Venice.
Board Member Coveny:
God, unbelievable. Wow. Okay. So the way you took into consideration so many of the requirements is a lesson for many of a lot of architects. I really, really appreciate it and especially in this neighborhood that's such a tight neighborhood and was designed in a specific way. You were very respectful to how to bring something fresh and accommodate the needs of the homeowner and still stay within the confines of the restrictions of this neighborhood or what are perceived restrictions. I personally and based on design review criteria will say that the impact of the view is minor, especially when you look at the outline of what's existing and what I noticed when I was there from all the points that I stood and drove, it's a minimal impact. It's nowhere close to 50% or any of the other callouts of looming and such that were coming from some of the neighbors. I get the passion of the neighbors; I get the fear of increased view. View as my Board Members would agree is my biggest concern because once you start inching away, it could become a big deal. In this case, the impact of the view is so minor and the opportunity for your design to be flourished is extraordinary. I mean I just think that the choice of materials, the choices you made of angling windows to avoid any privacy concerns, to keep it an organic to the nature is really commendable.
So no view impact of any substance, no privacy impact, definitely neighborhood compatible in size, scale and integrity and articulation and I think obviously access is there parking's there as far as the REP for that little extra walkway? I think that's fine. I'm just amazed and I thank you. So, you got my support.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
Yeah, I'll follow suit. I have this similar sentiment. I'm looking at photos now. So from Armando's view, I stood in his living room, and he has a full ocean skyline view. It's however minimum, but if you follow that skyline to the current roof line, the current roof line as is it already takes away his skyline view. So you're not taking any more skyline view. He still maintains that little bit of view to the left. The only place that I saw any view impact, potential view impact was across the street from Tony and Bobby's, from the kitchen. It's so minimal the view impact from their main living space. The skyline view is maintained but it's very minimal. So if you could reduce that by a foot, that would be beneficial, I think.
Yeah, because right at the skyline with this proposal, mostly it's really that eve for the next door neighbor, Tony and no, Henry and Joyce, when I was at their house in the backyard, it just looked like it crossed over their property line. That's how protruding it was. So if you could have that reduced, you would have my support.
Board Member Weil:
Just to be clear, you're talking about the side yard eave, not the rear one on the north side. 188
189 of 201
Transcript – November 13, 2025 Design Review Board Agenda Item 5.7 – 30801 Driftwood Drive 111325_DRB Agenda Item 5.7
Transcript by Rev.com
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
Yep. Just the side yard connecting to Henry and Joyce.
Board Member Weil:
I can follow it up. I think MJ hit it really on the head at the beginning. This is an amazing start for kind of a first time group coming in and the amount of care and detail you guys put into this, it's about a spot on as I've seen. So I really appreciate the characteristics, the breaking up of the masses. This was done in a very unique way. I haven't seen this done in this kind of style to maintain a single-level home. And I think the articulation's fantastic. The material choices are absolutely stunning. I think overall it meets the design review criteria, the views as Board Member Gannon was talking about, there's some subtle views. I mean when we talk about view equity, it's about sharing the views. It doesn't mean that the roof structures are permanent in place. There can be some evolutions and yes, in these areas where we do have kind of terraced lots, it is sensitive for the downhill lots and I think the architect's team did a really good job. I think the only roof that I'd want to see a little touch lower is the one above the living room.
Everything else is very compatible. That one just pops up just a little higher and I think because it's on the rear portion of the lot, if it could come down just a bit, I think that maintains the overall roof height and the total program. But outside of that, it meets the design review criteria for me and I'm willing to hear the rest of my Board colleagues.
Board Member Bauta:
Beautiful home. Welcome to Laguna.
Chair Gibbs:
All right. Yeah, I concur with my fellow Board Members and particularly MJ’s comments. And this is to all your neighbors, it is not view preservation, it's view equity and if it gives you any comfort, we have allowed more view intrusion in this and found view equity. Your views are amazing and are largely unimpeded. Yet this house in very relatively small ways, intrudes on the view a little bit. And we don't like change, and I can see the terracing issue, but this doesn't come close to where we find view equity is not satisfied and we have to be consistent. I'm very sensitive to all of your feelings. We had a tremendous number of residents come out and give very sincere and heartfelt comments.
But I want you to know we're not authorized to do view production, an applicant and you may be an applicant sometime, an applicant is entitled to have a fair and unbiased application of the design criteria including view equity, and none of us, it's unanimous. I said to several of you folks, listen to our deliberations. It would be unfair to the system, unfair to the guidelines to say that what's proposed does not achieve view equity. And all of us agree on that. I concur with the slight modifications proposed by two of the Board Members and it sounds to me like that's fine with the applicant. So with that said, do I have a motion?
Board Member Weil:
Just to clarify,
Chair Gibbs:
You said lower,
189
190 of 201
Transcript – November 13, 2025 Design Review Board Agenda Item 5.7 – 30801 Driftwood Drive 111325_DRB Agenda Item 5.7
Transcript by Rev.com
Board Member Weil:
So let me just touch on the two recaps. Okay. Alright, so Board Member Gannon was talking about the side yard eave on the north side to have a reduction. Right now, I believe the length is three feet of an eave. Is that six feet? No, on the side yard. How wide is the eave on the side yard? Raha Talebi, Applicant:
Can we just look at the drawings? So we observing, I want to be clear about it. Is the roof plan okay? Board Member Weil:
Yeah.
Raha Talebi, Applicant:
Should I bring it?
Board Member Weil:
No, you can just talk to it.
Patrick Donegan, Assistant City Attorney:
You can just describe it.
Raha Talebi, Applicant:
So this is the living room. That's the house we're in talking about. And this is the I'm I have a red pen.
This is the roof.
Chair Gibbs:
The eave on the corner of the living room next to the of course to the Brodt’s house.
Board Member Bauta:
What sheet are you looking at?
Steve Kawaratani:
Board Member Gannon. Just to make it easy. You would like no encroachment into that side yard setback, correct? So if we pull the eave back outside the side yard setback, it was never over the property line. We're allowed to cantilever 20% into the side yard. We'll pull it back. So no eave on that north side encroaches into the side yard setback.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
That would be lovely. Thank you.
Chair Gibbs:
That works for you. And then what about you Louis?
Board Member Weil:
190
191 of 201
Transcript – November 13, 2025 Design Review Board Agenda Item 5.7 – 30801 Driftwood Drive 111325_DRB Agenda Item 5.7
Transcript by Rev.com
Okay.
Steve Kawaratani:
And then additionally to address Board Member Gannon again and perhaps Louis, we're willing to take the highest roof ridge and reduce it by a foot.
Board Member Weil:
Okay. One foot and just on the living room eave.
Steve Kawaratani:
It's going to have a ripple effect.
Board Member Weil:
Or does it take the whole thing down?
Steve Kawaratani:
It takes the whole thing down. If we could just go down maybe six inches, that might work better for us.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
Because you're already taking away six inches. All you need is because I just thought maybe a foot. So if you take six inches, that totals one foot.
Chair Gibbs:
Wait, you're saying for all the roofs, take the whole roof, all system, the whole roof down.
Board Member Weil:
So the whole thing's linked to, it's not broken.
Raha Talebi, Applicant:
Steve told me. Don't get too complicated, but it's a system.
Chair Gibbs:
Okay, so take benefit. You're willing to roof, take the system down one foot.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
Raha Talebi, Applicant
The total, well the maximum one would be they're different, but Chair Gibbs:
The maximum height
191
192 of 201
Transcript – November 13, 2025 Design Review Board Agenda Item 5.7 – 30801 Driftwood Drive 111325_DRB Agenda Item 5.7
Transcript by Rev.com
Raha Talebi, Applicant:
One is one foot one. Yeah. The living room would drop one foot.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
Is that in addition to the six-foot reduction that you talked about? Or six inches? Raha Talebi, Applicant:
That's in addition to already 12-inch. We did six-inch drop. The finish floor, we did six-inch roof drop. So this would now be a total of two feet.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
I was just asking for six more inches.
Board Member Weil:
Okay, let's leave it then
Board Member Coveny:
I have no issue with the existing roof.
Board Member Weil:
Let's leave the roof where it is. It's fine. Anybody? It really is fine. It hovers that line. It hovers, it really does. It leaves the horizon line from what I saw at most sites. So we'll just make the no eave in the side yard setback. Okay, I'll make the motion. Item number 5.7. I'll move item number 5.7 at project location 3 0 8 0 1 Driftwood Drive that the Board adopts Resolution 25-1883, approving Design Review, 25-1883, Coastal Development Permit 25-1884, and Revocable Encroachment Permit 25-1885. That the said action is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant 15303. The project will be approved with one condition that the eave on the north side be reduced not to be within the side yard setback. Okay, Board Member Bauta:
I second that. Call the roll please.
Paola Miller, Senior Office Specialist:
Board Member Bauta.
Board Member Bauta:
Yes.
Paola Miller, Senior Office Specialist:
Board Member Coveny.
Board Member Coveny:
Yes.
192
193 of 201
Transcript – November 13, 2025 Design Review Board Agenda Item 5.7 – 30801 Driftwood Drive 111325_DRB Agenda Item 5.7
Transcript by Rev.com
Paola Miller, Senior Office Specialist:
Board Member Weil.
Board Member Weil:
Yes.
Paola Miller, Senior Office Specialist:
Chair Pro Tem Gannon.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
Yes.
Paola Miller, Senior Office Specialist:
Chair Gibbs.
Chair Gibbs:
Yes.
Paola Miller, Senior Office Specialist:
Motion has passed. 5-0.
193
194 of 201
Created 12/28/20
CITY COUNCIL ORDER OF TESTIMONY FOR APPEALS
AND REQUESTS FOR REVIEW OF PROJECTS
Purpose: The City Council is committed to assuring that members of the public have the opportunity to speak to any meeting agenda item before final action on projects.
This Order of Testimony establishes the right of persons who specifically wish to speak on projects appealed to or otherwise reviewed by the City Council.
Procedures: There are three types of hearings conducted by the City Council: 1) the appellant is person opposed to the project, 2) the appellant is the applicant, and 3) the project was called up for review by a member of the City Council or the City Manager. The procedures below provide the order in which testimony is considered and the allotted time for public comment. The procedure for each hearing shall be provided as the first attachment to the agenda bill.
I. Appellant is Person Opposed to Approved Project:
1. Staff report summary provided.
2. The appellant has 5 minutes for opening remarks.
3. Any persons in support of the appeal may speak for 3 minutes each.
4. The applicant has 5 minutes to speak in opposition to the appeal.
5. Any other persons in opposition to the appeal may speak for 3 minutes each.
6. The appellant has 2 minutes to speak in rebuttal.
II. Appellant is Applicant for Denied or Conditionally Approved Project:
1. Staff report summary provided.
2. The applicant has 5 minutes for opening remarks.
3. Any other persons in support of the appeal may speak for 3 minutes each.
4. Any persons in opposition to the appeal may speak for 3 minutes each.
5. The applicant has 2 minutes to speak in rebuttal.
Attachment Attachment 10 16
194
195 of 201
Created 12/28/20
III. City Council or City Manager Review of Decision:
1. Staff report summary provided.
2. The City Manager may comment on the reason for review. City Council members will usually comment after hearing comments from the applicant and members of the public.
3. The applicant has 5 minutes to present the project.
4. Any persons in support of or in opposition to the project may speak for 3 minutes each.
5. The applicant has 2 minutes to speak in rebuttal.
195
196 of 201
RESOLUTION NO. 26.XXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE
WITHDRAWAL OF THE APPEAL, UPHOLDING THE DESIGN
REVIEW BOARD’S APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 25-1883
FOR DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AND
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING,
NEW TWO-CAR GARAGE, VEHICULAR ACCESS,
SKYLIGHTS, GRADING, AND LANDSCAPING, COASTAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 25-1884 FOR NON-EXEMPT
DEVELOPMENT IN THE COASTAL ZONE, AND REVOCABLE
ENCROACHMENT PERMIT 25-1885 FOR A WALKWAY
WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, SUBJECT TO
IMPOSING A MORE RESTRICTIVE CONDITION OF
APPROVAL, AT 30801 DRIFTWOOD DRIVE LOCATED IN THE
R-1, RESIDENTIAL LOW-DENSITY ZONE, AND FINDING THE
ACTION CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT UNDER THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
GUIDELINES SECTION 15303
WHEREAS, the property owner, Amir and Susan Loloi (“Applicant”), of 30801 Driftwood Drive (the “Property”), applied for Design Review (“DR”) 25-1883 for demolition of the existing structure and construction of a new single-family dwelling, two-car garage, vehicular access, skylights, grading, and landscaping, Coastal Development Permit (“CDP”) 25-1884 for such non-exempt development in the coastal zone, and Revocable Encroachment Permit 25-1885 for a walkway within the public right-of-way in the R-1 (Residential Low Density) zone pursuant to Laguna Beach Municipal Code (“LBMC”) Section 25.05.040, Section 25.07.004, and Section 11.50.030 (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, on November 13, 2025, 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 adopted Board Resolution No. 25-1883, 197 of 201
-2- Reso. #
by a 5-0 vote, conditionally approving the Project, and finding the Project categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines Section 15303 (the “Board Approval”); and
WHEREAS, on December 1, 2025, Joyce and Henry Brodt and Anthony and Roberta Speranzo (“Appellants”) of 21562 Ocean Vista Drive and 30782 Driftwood Drive, respectively, filed an appeal of the Board Approval (“Appeal”); and
WHEREAS, public notice was duly provided to consider the Appeal of the Project at the January 27, 2026 City Council meeting in accordance with LBMC Section 25.05.065; and WHEREAS, on January 27, 2026, the City Council held a public hearing on the Appeal and continued the hearing to the April 28, 2026 City Council meeting; and WHEREAS, on April 21, 2026, the City posted the staff report and related attachments in anticipation of the April 28, 2026 City Council public hearing on the Appeal; and WHEREAS, on April 27, 2026, the City learned from representatives of both the Applicant and Appellant that the Applicant and Appellant agreed to the following condition of approval to resolve the pending Appeal: a 12 inch reduction in height of the two rear modules (A and B) and a six inch height reduction in the two front modules (C and D); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Laguna Beach Municipal Code Section 25.05.070(D)(1), an appeal may be withdrawn only upon majority vote of the City Council; and WHEREAS, on April 28, 2026, the City Council held a public hearing on the Appeal and carefully considered the oral and documentary evidence and arguments presented.
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 198 of 201
-3- Reso. #
this Resolution by this reference.
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby authorizes the withdrawal of the Appeal.
SECTION 3. The City Council hereby upholds the Design Review Board’s determination on the Project, as reflected in Board Resolution No. 25-1883, including all conditions attached thereto, which such Resolution and conditions are incorporated herein by this reference, subject to the following more restrictive condition of approval: prior to the issuance of a building permit, the plans shall be modified to show a 12-inch reduction in height of the two rear modules (A and B) and a six-inch height reduction in the two front modules (C and D).
SECTION 4. By virtue of this action, the Appellant has effectively not filed an appeal of the November 13, 2025 Design Review Board decision.
SECTION 5. This City Council action is the City’s final decision on DR 25-1883, CDP 25-1884, and REP 25-1885.
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.
Examples of projects that qualify for a Class 3 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 include one single-family residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences may be constructed or converted under this exemption. This project fits within the Class 3 exemption because it is construction of a singlefamily dwelling on an existing legal building site and no structures are proposed within any open space overlay or environmentally sensitive area.
199 of 201
-4- Reso. #
Further, none of the exceptions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply.
As indicated above, the Project site does not contain any environmentally sensitive areas in that the site is fully developed with an existing single-family residence and is adjacent to developed residential properties and streets. The City’s environmentally sensitive area maps do not identify any such areas on-site or within the immediate Project vicinity, and there are no mapped watercourses on the subject site. There will be no cumulative impact resulting from successive projects of the same type in the same place over time in that the Project proposes to replace the existing single-family dwelling with a new single-family dwelling that will similarly maintain a single-story building height. There are no unusual circumstances resulting in a significant impact on the environment in that there are no historic resources or heritage trees on the site, or any other unusual circumstances with regards to the Project site. 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 in that the Project would not impact trees, there are no historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources on the site, and the closest officially designated state scenic highway is located near Anaheim1 and therefore the Project will not result in damage to scenic resources within or near such 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 in that there is no historic resource on the site or immediately adjacent to the site. Consequently, additional environmental analysis is not necessary to meet the requirements of the CEQA. The City Council hereby directs staff to cause a notice of exemption 1 https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa 200 of 201
-5- Reso. #
to be filed with the County Clerk and the Office of Planning and Research within five working days of the adoption of this Resolution.
ADOPTED this 28th day of April, 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 April 28, 2026, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
City Clerk, City of Laguna Beach, California
201 of 201
STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date:
April 28, 2026
APPEALS
B
SUBJECT: 511 BROOKS STREET: APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF HEDGE HEIGHT CLAIM 25-1254 FOR HEDGE HEIGHT VIOLATIONS IN THE R-1, RESIDENTIAL LOWDENSITY ZONE, AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15304 (CLASS 4)
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:
1. Continue to conduct the public hearing that was opened at the March 24, 2026 City Council meeting, including receiving an updated staff report and taking public testimony and evidence relating to the consideration of Hedge Height Claim 25-1254, and the California Environmental Quality Act exemption under Section 15304 of the state CEQA Guidelines; and
2. Adopt a Resolution titled, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL AND SUSTAINING THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DESIGNEE’S APPROVAL OF HEDGE HEIGHT CLAIM 25-1254 FOR HEDGE HEIGHT VIOLATIONS ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 511 BROOKS STREET IN THE R-1, RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY ZONE,
AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15304,” upholding the Designee’s conditional approval of Hedge Height Claim 25-1254 and finding the project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.
SUMMARY OF THE MATTER
The property owners, Jeff and Amy Calvert1 (“Claimant”), of 527 Brooks Street (the “Claimant’s Property”) (see aerial map included as Figure 2) submitted Hedge Height Claim (“HHC”) 25-1254, seeking a reduction in the height of vegetation located within the side yard of the adjacent property at 511 Brooks Street (the “Vegetation Owner’s Property”) located in the R-1 (Residential Low Density) zone. The Claimant asserts that the subject vegetation obstructs views of the ocean horizon from the Claimant’s Property.
On January 21, 2026, the Director of Community Development’s designee (“Designee”) held a duly noticed public hearing to evaluate a claim that vegetation located in the side yard of the adjacent property at 511 Brooks Street obstructs ocean views from the subject Property (the “Claim”). After carefully considering the oral and documentary evidence presented by staff, the Claimant, and members of the public, the Designee determined that corrective action was required and approved the Claim subject to the conditions set forth in the staff report, and a finding that the Project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (the “Approval”). (The January 21, 2026 Hearing Notes and Findings is attached as Attachment 4.)
1 The Claimant’s agent is Larry Nokes, who is within the definition of Claimant. 1 of 306
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF HHC 25-1254 AT 511 BROOKS STREET April 28, 2026
Figure 1: “Before” and “After” photographs provided with Claimants’ submitted application materials for HHC 25-1254, annotated to show approximate width of the subject vegetation On February 4, 2026, Angelique Hoskins3 (“Appellant”), of 511 Brooks Street, filed an appeal of the Approval (the “Appeal”) (Attachment 2.) The Appeal contests all the Designee’s determinations and findings in favor of the Claim for the following reasons, as summarized by staff:
3 The Appellant’s agent is Bryan Zuetel who is within the definition of Appellant. 2 of 306
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF HHC 25-1254 AT 511 BROOKS STREET April 28, 2026
1. The decision does not clearly identify a qualifying, pre-existing view protected under City rules and instead relies on a general claim of an “ocean horizon” view. It also appears to consider views created by a recent remodel rather than those that existed before and does not show that the claimant met the required burden of proof.
2. The Appellant contends that the claim was not supported by the required dated photographs and documentation showing how much the hedge blocks the view. The evidence provided does not clearly establish baseline conditions or separate the hedge’s impact from other view obstructions, such as an accessory dwelling unit (“ADU”) and other vegetation.
3. The decision does not adequately demonstrate that the hedge itself is responsible for the view obstruction, especially given the presence of other factors such as nearby structures and vegetation that may also limit the view.
4. The Appellant states that the decision did not properly consider the hedge’s long-standing presence, its benefits, such as privacy and screening, or balance these factors against the claimed view impact, as required by City regulations.
Laguna Beach Municipal Code (“LBMC”) Section 25.05.070 requires certain forms of public notice for an appeal. Public notice was duly provided to consider the Appeal of the Project at the March 24, 2026 City Council meeting in accordance with LBMC Section 25.05.065. Notices were mailed to owners and occupants within a 300-foot and 100-foot radius of the Claimant’s Property, respectively, posted on the Vegetation Owner’s Property, and published in a newspaper of general circulation (Attachment 3). The item was previously continued from the March 24, 2026 City Council meeting to this April 28, 2026 City Council meeting.
A. Standards of Review
Pursuant to LBMC Section 25.05.070, decisions of the Director of Community Development, or Designee, may be appealed to the City Council by the applicant or any owner of property within 300 feet of the subject property.
The City Council may uphold, reverse, or remand any appealed decision. (LBMC § 25.05.070(E)(3)(a).) In particular, in reversing a decision, there must be three affirmative votes approving the reversal by adoption of a resolution that sets forth in writing the findings relied on to conclude that the appealed decision was in error or an abuse of discretion.5 (LBMC § 25.05.070(E)(3)(a).)
1. Hedge Height Claim
LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(1) sets forth the procedures and review criteria for non-design review appeals, such as a hedge height claim. For that review, the City Council shall not be limited to the grounds stated for the appeal and shall not be limited to the evidence that was presented to the Director of Community Development or Designee. The City Council shall exercise its independent judgment and discretion as to 5 An abuse of discretion is defined as the following: (1) the City has “not proceeded in the manner required by law”; (2) the City “decision is not supported by the findings”; or (3) the “findings are not supported by the evidence.” (Civil Code § 1094.5.) 3 of 306
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF HHC 25-1254 AT 511 BROOKS STREET April 28, 2026
the evidence presented at its hearing. Nevertheless, there shall be a presumption that the decision or determination made by the Designee was reasonable, valid, and not an abuse of discretion; and the appellant shall have the burden of proof of demonstrating otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence presented.
In its consideration of the Designee’s approval of HHC 25-1254, the City Council is not limited to either the evidence in the record or the deliberations of the Designee. The Claimant or members of the public may present new evidence for the City Council’s consideration, and the City Council is free to deliberate without being limited to the Designee’s findings – in other words, a de novo hearing.
City Council Options
The City Council has numerous options in consideration of this matter, which are listed below.
1. Adopt the attached Resolution upholding the Designee Approval, and finding the approval of the Claim categorically exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15304;
2. Adopt the attached Resolution upholding the Designee approval and finding the approval of the Claim categorically exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15304, but modifying the Resolution to include more restrictive conditions of approval;
3. Direct staff to prepare and return at a future meeting with a Resolution overturning the Designee Approval, with findings in support of overturning the Designee Approval and denying the Claim; or
4. Direct staff to prepare and return at a future meeting with a Resolution remanding HHC 25-1254 to the Director of Community Development or Designee, with findings in support of the remand and further direction to the Director of Community Development or Designee.
DISCUSSION
The Designee held one public hearing on January 21, 2026, and determined that corrective action was required and approved the Claim. A summary of the public hearing is set forth below.7 A. January 21, 2026 Hedge Height Claim Hearing
7 The summaries and charts within this staff report are not exhaustive of all commentary or deliberations but are intended to be a tool to aid the City Council in its review of the evidence. 4 of 306
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF HHC 25-1254 AT 511 BROOKS STREET April 28, 2026
Figure 2: Aerial View of Claimant’s Property (527 Brooks Street) and Vegetation Owner’s Property (511 Brooks Street) highlighted in yellow and red, respectively
1. Staff Presentation
Staff provided an overview of the administrative hearing process and the subject Claim, which involves a hedge height claim filed by the owner of 527 Brooks Street, alleging that vegetation located on the adjacent property at 511 Brooks Street obstructs ocean views from the Claimant’s property. Staff and Brenda Wisneski, as Designee, conducted site visits to both the Claimant’s and Vegetation Owner’s properties. She also reviewed the application materials and correspondence submitted by both parties. Based on her evaluation, she confirmed that the Claim is eligible, the vegetation qualifies as a hedge, and the hedge is located in the Vegetation Owner’s side yard, where it obstructs the ocean view from the rear of the Claimant’s property. Site visit photographs were presented at the hearing. These included images documenting the existing view conditions, as well as the height and density of the subject Eugenia hedge located within the side yard setback. Comparative “before and after” photographs were also provided to 5 of 306
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF HHC 25-1254 AT 511 BROOKS STREET April 28, 2026
illustrate the extent to which the hedge obstructs the ocean view from the rear yard of the Claimant’s property.
2. Claimant Presentation
Mrs. Calvert, the Claimant, stated that they purchased the property at 527 Brooks Street in April 2020, and have resided there since 2019. She explained that her proposed addition and remodel project went through the City’s Design Review Board (“DRB”) process between 2019 and 2024. During that time, the neighboring hedge was maintained at a lower height, allowing ocean views from her backyard. After the project received DRB approval, the hedge was no longer trimmed to that level and has since grown to obstruct those views. The Claimant also noted that communication with the neighbor was cordial prior to project approval but ceased afterward. She stated that the hedge’s growth had negatively impacted the Claimant’s Property and requested that it be reduced to approximately fence height (about six feet) to restore the prior ocean view.
3. Public Testimony
During the public hearing, two (2) individuals provided public testimony. The public testimony is summarized below:
Commenter Summary of Comment
Larry Nokes A representative of the Claimant stated that he was involved in developing the City’s Hedge Height Claim Ordinance. He described the subject hedge as vegetation growing above a fence in the side yard that blocks ocean views from the Claimant’s property. He stated that the hedge serves no clear purpose in the setback area and functions as an extension of the fence, and he supported reducing its height to approximately six feet.
Bryan Zuetel A representative of the Vegetation Owner argued that the Claim is based on a future or anticipated view rather than an existing one, and therefore, does not meet the City’s requirements. He stated that there is no ocean view from the backyard at ground level and suggested that any prior view may have resulted from a one-time over-trimming of the hedge. He also noted that a nearby ADU and other off-site trees contribute to blocking the view. The representative further stated that the Claimant purchased the property with knowledge of existing conditions, that the hedge had been maintained at a consistent height for over 25 years, and that the submitted photos did not meet the City’s documentation requirements because not all are dated. He added that any required trimming should account for the height of the nearby ADU and comply with applicable limits. He concluded by emphasizing the property owner’s right to maintain vegetation for privacy, aesthetic, and environmental purposes.
4. Designee Determination Approving the Claim
The Designee made the finding that the subject vegetation is non-conforming and is subject to corrective action, thereby approving the Claim, which includes the conditions of approval provided within the Hearing Notes and Findings staff report (Attachment 4). Specifically, the Vegetation Owner (511 Brooks Street) shall trim the subject hedge to a height of ten (10) feet and thereafter shall maintain the height between ten 6 of 306
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF HHC 25-1254 AT 511 BROOKS STREET April 28, 2026
(10) to eleven (11) feet as measured from existing grade to eliminate the obstruction of ocean view within the required side yard setback adjacent to 527 Brooks Street.
RESPONSES TO ISSUES RAISED ON APPEAL
As noted above, the City received an Appeal of the Designee’s decision (Attachment 2). As indicated under Standards of Review, in the City Council’s review of non-design review appeals, such as a hedge height claim, the Council shall conduct a de novo review of the underlying application and shall not be limited to the grounds stated for the appeal, nor is the Council limited to the evidence that was presented to the Designee. Accordingly, in its consideration of the Designee’s approval of HHC 25-1254, the Council is free to deliberate without being limited to the Designee’s findings – in other words, a de novo hearing.
Below are the grounds for the Appeal and City staff’s response.
1. “Misapplication of the Definition of “View” and Claimant’s Burden of Proof” In short, the Appellant contends the decision misapplies LBMC Chapter 12.14 by failing to identify a specific pre-existing “view” that qualifies under LBMC §12.14.030 and instead treating a generalized “ocean horizon” as sufficient without analysis. It does not distinguish between a protected vista and an unprotected expectation of a broader panoramic outlook, and it relies on prospective views associated with the claimant’s remodel rather than established conditions. The findings further fail to demonstrate that the claimant satisfied the burden of proof under LBMC §12.14.060(e), particularly in light of evidence suggesting that any view limitation may result from the claimant’s design changes or other structures rather than the hedge.
Staff’s Response
The appeal contention is not supported by the record. Substantial evidence demonstrates that the Claimant satisfied the burden of proof required under LBMC §12.14.060(e), which requires the complainant to show that the subject hedge obstructs views from the property.
The Claimant provided photographic documentation and testimony consistent with the submittal requirements of LBMC §12.14.050(a) and (c), demonstrating the extent of the view obstruction. This evidence was corroborated through staff site visits to both properties, as well as photographs and testimony presented at the public hearing. Collectively, the record establishes that the subject hedge, as currently maintained, obstructs a coastal view from the Claimant’s rear yard.
The Hearing Officer’s findings are also consistent with the evaluation criteria set forth in LBMC §12.14.070. Specifically, the record supports that: (1) the vegetation meets the definition of a “hedge” pursuant to LBMC §12.14.030; (2) the hedge is located within the side yard; and (3) the hedge obstructs a view from the Claimant’s property. These findings directly address the required criteria and support the determination that the Claimant met the applicable burden of proof.
With respect to the assertion that the observed view limitation may result from the Claimant’s design changes or other structures, the Municipal Code does not require the Claimant to demonstrate that the hedge is the sole source of obstruction. Rather, LBMC §12.14.060(e) requires only that the hedge obstruct views.
The evidence in the record demonstrates that the subject hedge independently contributes to the obstruction, 7 of 306
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF HHC 25-1254 AT 511 BROOKS STREET April 28, 2026
even where other elements within the view corridor, including structures and vegetation, may also be present.
Further, LBMC Chapter 12.14 expressly recognizes that views provide significant and tangible benefits, including contributions to property value and establishes a process to resolve conflicts where vegetation forming hedges adversely impacts views. The regulations do not distinguish between pre-existing views and those that may be newly created – in this case, views that were allegedly created prior to 2022 through an accidental over-cutting of the hedge by the gardener; therefore, it is appropriate to evaluate the impact of the subject hedge on the abutting property based on existing site conditions at the time of the claim.
Consistent with LBMC §12.14.030, the definition of “view” includes features such as “bodies of water.” In this case, the findings identify the impacted feature as the ocean horizon. This characterization does not imply, nor was it interpreted to require, an unobstructed panoramic view. As reflected in the record, other background obstructions, including a recently constructed ADU and additional vegetation within the view corridor were considered in the analysis. These factors informed the determination that a maximum hedge height of 11 feet is appropriate to balance view preservation with the continued benefits of the hedge.
Moreover, although LBMC Chapter 25.14 (Hedge Height Limitations) does not include a definition of a panoramic view, LBMC Chapter 25.16 (View Preservation and Restoration), which similarly addresses view and sunlight disputes related to vegetation, defines “panoramic view” as follows: “an unobstructed and wide view of an extensive area in all directions related to the view in question.” (LBMC §12.16.020).
Because a definition is not a part of LBMC Chapter 25.14, it is left to the decision-maker to determine if the impact merely infringes on an otherwise unobstructed panoramic vista of a view, which is not protected under the Hedge Height Claim process.9 The definition in LBMC Chapter 25.16 is instructive in that it is consistent with the common usage of the term “panorama” or “panoramic.”1011 Here, the viewshed is a corridor view in a single direction to the southwest and does not reasonably qualify as “panoramic” (for example, a broad, multi-directional view such as a 180-degree vista). Further, assuming for the sake of argument that the view was considered panoramic, the evidentiary record includes photographs showing that the hedge eliminates nearly all of the ocean-horizon view from the Claimant’s backyard. The loss of more than three-quarters of the view is not a mere infringement on an otherwise unobstructed panoramic view but fundamentally changes the view.
Accordingly, the Hearing Officer’s decision reflects a reasoned application of the Municipal Code, is supported by substantial evidence in the record, and demonstrates that the Claimant met the burden of proof under LBMC §12.14.060(e).
9 Although the Appellant implies that the view impact may be an impact to a “broader panoramic view” that is not protected by the Hedge Height Claim process, the Appeal does not put forward any arguments for why the view may be panoramic. As indicated above, in its evaluation of this appeal, the City Council shall presume that the decision or determination made by the Designee was reasonable, valid, and not an abuse of discretion; and the appellant shall have the burden of proof of demonstrating otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence presented. 10 “An unobstructed or complete view of an area in every direction.” “Panorama Definition & Meaning.” Merriam-Webster.
Accessed March 29, 2026. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/panorama. 11 “A view of a wide area.” “Panorama Definition.” Cambridge Dictionary. Accessed March 29, 2026. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/panorama 8 of 306
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF HHC 25-1254 AT 511 BROOKS STREET April 28, 2026
2. “Failure to Apply LBMC Evidence Requirements to the Claimant’s Submissions” In short, the Appellant contends the decision does not demonstrate compliance with LBMC §12.14.050, which requires objective, dated photographic and written evidence showing the extent of hedge-caused obstruction. Additionally, the Appellant states the record lacks adequate baseline documentation from the time of purchase and does not isolate the hedge’s impact from other obstructions. The findings rely on generalized assertions of view loss without identifying which evidence was used or explaining how it satisfies the ordinance’s evidentiary standards.
Staff’s Response
The record demonstrates that the Claimant satisfied the evidentiary submittal requirements of LBMC §12.14.050 and that the Hearing Officer appropriately relied on substantial evidence in making the determination.
The Claimant submitted a Hedge Height Claim application that included all required documentation necessary to deem the application complete, in accordance with LBMC §12.14.050. The submittal included a written description of the alleged view obstruction and photographic evidence demonstrating the extent of the obstruction, as required by §12.14.050(a) and (c). Photo documentation in the record is dated February 5, 2022; July 12, 2022; October 26, 2023; and March 11, 2024. Additional photographs documenting the hedge-related view obstruction are dated September 26, 2024; October 13, 2024; and November 27, 2024. There are also photographs dated March 28, May 23, and “today,” which are reasonably interpreted as having been taken in 2025, the year the application was submitted. Collectively, these materials provide objective and dated visual evidence of the extent and progression of the hedge’s impact on the Claimant’s view.
Contrary to the Appellant’s assertion, LBMC §12.14.050 does not require baseline documentation from the time of property purchase, nor does it require the Claimant to isolate the hedge as the sole source of view obstruction. Rather, the Code requires evidence demonstrating “the extent to which the view…has been obstructed by trees and/or vegetation.” This standard was met through the submitted photographic evidence, written materials, and corroborating testimony.
In formulating the determination, the Designee considered the entirety of the administrative record, including the dated photographs, the written application materials, construction plans for the recently approved ADU at 503 Brooks Street, and observations from site visits to both the Claimant’s and Vegetation Owner’s properties. The Hearing Officer also considered testimony and evidence presented at the public hearing.
The findings are not based on generalized assertions, but rather on specific evidence in the record demonstrating that the subject vegetation meets the definition of a “hedge,” is located within a side yard, and obstructs a view from the Claimant’s property, consistent with the evaluation criteria set forth in LBMC §12.14.070. The evidence further demonstrates that, while other elements such as nearby structures and vegetation exist within the view corridor, the subject hedge independently contributes to the obstruction.
The Municipal Code does not require that the hedge be the sole cause of the obstruction, only that it obstructs a view, as required under LBMC §12.14.060(e). 9 of 306
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF HHC 25-1254 AT 511 BROOKS STREET April 28, 2026
Accordingly, the record shows that the City properly applied the evidentiary requirements of LBMC §12.14.050 and that the determination is supported by substantial evidence.
3. “Failure to Establish Hedge-Specific Causation as Required by LBMC § 12.14.070” In short, the Appellant contends that the findings do not satisfy LBMC §12.14.070(c), which requires a determination that the hedge itself causes the alleged obstruction. Although other significant obstructions, such as a neighboring accessory dwelling unit (ADU) and off-site vegetation are acknowledged in the record, the decision does not analyze their relative impact or isolate the hedge’s contribution. Instead, it provides a conclusory determination without substantial evidence establishing hedge-specific causation.
Staff’s Response
LBMC §12.14.070(c) requires a determination that the subject hedge obstructs a view; it does not require the City to isolate the hedge as the sole source of obstruction or to quantify the relative contribution of all elements within the view corridor.
The administrative record contains substantial evidence demonstrating that the hedge itself contributes to the obstruction. Photographs from 2022 through 2025 document the ocean view from the Claimant’s property over time, including periods when the hedge was maintained at a lower height and when it subsequently increased in height. This photographic history allows for comparison of view conditions and demonstrates that the hedge’s increased height corresponds with increased obstruction of the ocean horizon.
The record also reflects consideration of other potential obstructions. The ADU at 503 Brooks Street, constructed in 2024, is shown in photographic evidence dated March 11, 2024 (prior to framing) and September 26, 2024 (post-roof installation), confirming that it obstructs a portion of the blue water view.
However, the same photographic evidence demonstrates that the hedge independently obstructs the ocean horizon.
The findings further reflect that these background obstructions were taken into account in establishing the required hedge height of 11 feet. Specifically, a lower hedge height would not yield additional view restoration due to the presence of the ADU roofline and other vegetation. This demonstrates that the Designee did not rely on a conclusory determination but rather evaluated the hedge’s specific impact within the broader context of existing site conditions.
10 of 306
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF HHC 25-1254 AT 511 BROOKS STREET April 28, 2026
Figure 3: Image provided by Claimant, dated March 11, 2024 (before ADU) 11 of 306
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF HHC 25-1254 AT 511 BROOKS STREET April 28, 2026
Figure 4: Image provided by Claimant, dated September 26, 2024 (ADU in background)
4. “Failure to Consider Long-Standing Landscaping and Ordinance-Recognized Hedge Benefits” In short, the Appellant contends that the decision fails to apply the balancing framework required by LBMC §12.14.020. It does not consider the hedge’s long-standing presence, consistent maintenance, or its recognized benefits, including privacy, screening, and environmental and aesthetic value. Nor does it address reliance interests associated with established landscaping. By focusing exclusively on the asserted view impact, the findings omit the required evaluation of competing interests mandated by the ordinance.
Staff’s Response
The Municipal Code requires consideration of competing interests but does not require that long-standing landscaping or hedge benefits preclude a finding of view obstruction or the imposition of a remedy.
As stated in the hearing notes, on January 15, 2026, the Designee conducted site visits to both the Vegetation Owner’s and Claimant’s properties. Pursuant to LBMC Chapter 25.50.012(B)(3), hedges located within a side yard setback are generally limited to a height of 6 feet. The subject hedge was measured at over 13 feet in height. While hedges may exceed this height absent a claim, they become subject to review under Chapter
12.14 when a hedge height claim is filed. The Appellant does not dispute that the vegetation meets the definition of a hedge and is therefore subject to these provisions. 12 of 306
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF HHC 25-1254 AT 511 BROOKS STREET April 28, 2026
Consistent with LBMC §12.14.010 and §12.14.020, the Designee considered both the benefits of hedges, including privacy, aesthetics, and environmental value, and the adverse impact on views. The record reflects that the hedge’s presence, function, and surrounding site conditions were evaluated through site visits, photographic evidence, and testimony.
Based on the findings and evidence, the hedge was determined to obstruct the ocean view from the Claimant’s property. In balancing the competing interests, the Designee did not require reduction to the maximum allowable fence height of 6 feet but instead established a modified height of 11 feet, approximately two feet below its measured height at the time of inspection. This outcome reflects a reasonable balancing of the Vegetation Owner’s interest in maintaining the hedge with the Claimant’s protected interest in view preservation, consistent with the intent and purpose of LBMC Chapter 12.14.
Accordingly, the record demonstrates that the required balancing framework was applied and that the determination appropriately considered both the benefits of the hedge and its impact on the Claimant’s view.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolution (Attachment 1) denying the appeal and sustaining the Designee’s approval of Hedge Height Claim 25-1254, and finding the Project exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15304.
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The recommended action has no financial impact to the budget.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), this action is categorically exempt pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15304 (Minor Alterations to Land) in that the action consists of minor alterations in the condition of land, water, and/or vegetation which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for forestry and agricultural purposes. There is no evidence of any unusual or special conditions that would result in a significant effect on the environment. Class 4 applies because the proposed action consists of maintaining overgrown vegetation.
Further, none of the exceptions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply. The property subject to the Hedge Height Claim does not contain any environmentally sensitive areas in that the site is fully developed with an existing single-family residence and is adjacent to developed residential properties and streets. The City’s environmentally sensitive area maps do not identify any such areas on-site or within the immediate vicinity, and there are no mapped watercourses on the subject site. There will be no cumulative impact resulting from successive projects of the same type in the same place over time in that the proposed action consists of maintaining overgrown vegetation through the imposition of a maximum height limit and does not require the removal of any vegetation. There are no unusual circumstances resulting in a significant impact on the environment in that there are no historic resources or heritage trees on the site, or any other concerns with regards to the project site. 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 in that the vegetation subject to the Hedge Height Claim is not adjacent to or near a designated state scenic highway, with the closest officially designated state scenic 13 of 306
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF HHC 25-1254 AT 511 BROOKS STREET April 28, 2026
highway located near Anaheim.15 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 in that there is no historic resource on the site or immediately adjacent to the site. Consequently, additional environmental analysis is not necessary to meet the requirements of the CEQA.
ATTACHMENTS
1. City Council Resolution (Pgs. 15-28)
2. Appeal (Pgs. 29-36)
3. City Council Appeal Public Notice (Pg. 37)
4. January 21, 2026 HHC (Hearing Notes and Findings) (Pgs. 38-93)
5. January 21, 2026 HHC Public Comments (Pgs. 94-102)
6. Order of Testimony (Pgs. 103-104)
Submitted By: Matthew Schneider Approved: .David A Kiff Matthew Schneider, Director of
Community Development
Dave Kiff, City Manager
Report Prepared By: Coordinated With:
Wendy Jung, Principal Planner Jane Abzug, Assistant City Attorney Anthony Viera, Deputy Director of Community
Development
15 https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa 14 of 306
RESOLUTION NO. 26.XXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL AND
SUSTAINING THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DESIGNEE’S APPROVAL OF HEDGE HEIGHT
CLAIM 25-1254 FOR HEDGE HEIGHT VIOLATIONS ON THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 511 BROOKS STREET IN THE R-1,
RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY ZONE, AND CATEGORICAL
EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15304
WHEREAS, the property owners, Jeff and Amy Calvert (“Claimant”)1, of 527 Brooks Street (the “Claimant’s Property”), submitted Hedge Height Claim (“HHC”) 25-1254 seeking a reduction in the height of vegetation located within the side yard of the adjacent property at 511 Brooks Street (the “Vegetation Owner’s Property”) located in the R-1 (Residential Low Density) zone pursuant to Laguna Beach Municipal Code (“LBMC”) Chapter 12.14 (the “Claim”); and WHEREAS, on January 21, 2026, the Director of Community Development Designee (“Designee”) held a duly noticed public hearing and considered the Claim. After receiving input from staff, the Claimant, and public comments, the Designee determined that corrective action was required and approved the Claim subject to the conditions set forth in the Hearing Notes and Findings staff report, and including the approval of a categorical exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines Section 15304 (the “Designee Approval”); and
WHEREAS, on February 4, 2026, Angelique Hoskins (“Appellant”) of 511 Brooks Street, filed an appeal of the Designee Approval (“Appeal”); and 1 The Claimant is represented by Larry Nokes, who is within the definition of Claimant.
Attachment 1
15 15 of 306
-2- Reso. #
WHEREAS, public notice was duly provided to consider the appeal of the Claim at the March 24, 2026 City Council meeting in accordance with LBMC Section 25.05.065; and WHEREAS, on March 24, 2026, the City Council held a public hearing on the appeal and continued the hearing to the April 28, 2026 City Council meeting; and WHEREAS, on April 28, 2026, the City Council held a public hearing on the Appeal and carefully considered the oral and documentary evidence and arguments presented.
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. ““Misapplication of the Definition of “View” and Claimant’s Burden of Proof” City Council’s Response
The appeal contention is not supported by the record. Substantial evidence demonstrates that the Claimant satisfied the burden of proof required under LBMC §12.14.060(e), which requires the complainant to show that the subject hedge obstructs views from the property.
The Claimant provided photographic documentation and testimony consistent with the submittal requirements of LBMC §12.14.050(a) and (c), demonstrating the extent of the view obstruction. This evidence was corroborated through staff site visits to both properties, as well as photographs and testimony presented at the public hearing. Collectively, the record establishes that the subject hedge, as currently maintained, obstructs a coastal view from the Claimant’s rear yard. 16 16 of 306
-3- Reso. #
The Hearing Officer’s findings are also consistent with the evaluation criteria set forth in LBMC §12.14.070. Specifically, the record supports that: (1) the vegetation meets the definition of a “hedge” pursuant to LBMC §12.14.030; (2) the hedge is located within the side yard; and (3) the hedge obstructs a view from the Claimant’s property. These findings directly address the required criteria and support the determination that the Claimant met the applicable burden of proof.
With respect to the assertion that the observed view limitation may result from the Claimant’s design changes or other structures, the Municipal Code does not require the Claimant to demonstrate that the hedge is the sole source of obstruction. Rather, LBMC §12.14.060(e) requires only that the hedge obstruct views. The evidence in the record demonstrates that the subject hedge independently contributes to the obstruction, even where other elements within the view corridor, including structures and vegetation, may also be present.
Further, LBMC Chapter 12.14 expressly recognizes that views provide significant and tangible benefits, including contributions to property value and establishes a process to resolve conflicts where vegetation forming hedges adversely impacts views. The regulations do not distinguish between pre-existing views and those that may be newly created – in this case, views that were allegedly created prior to 2022 through an accidental over-cutting of the hedge by the gardener; therefore, it is appropriate to evaluate the impact of the subject hedge on the abutting property based on existing site conditions at the time of the claim.
Consistent with LBMC §12.14.030, the definition of “view” includes features such as “bodies of water.” In this case, the findings identify the impacted feature as the ocean horizon.
This characterization does not imply, nor was it interpreted to require, an unobstructed panoramic view. As reflected in the record, other background obstructions, including a recently constructed 17 17 of 306
-4- Reso. #
ADU and additional vegetation within the view corridor were considered in the analysis. These factors informed the determination that a maximum hedge height of 11 feet is appropriate to balance view preservation with the continued benefits of the hedge.
Moreover, although LBMC Chapter 25.14 (Hedge Height Limitations) does not include a definition of a panoramic view, LBMC Chapter 25.16 (View Preservation and Restoration), which similarly addresses view and sunlight disputes related to vegetation, defines “panoramic view” as follows: “an unobstructed and wide view of an extensive area in all directions related to the view in question.” (LBMC §12.16.020). Because a definition is not a part of LBMC Chapter 25.14, it is left to the decision-maker to determine if the impact merely infringes on an otherwise panoramic vista of a view, which is not protected under the Hedge Height Claim process.2 The definition in LBMC Chapter 25.16 is instructive in that it is consistent with the common usage of the term “panorama” or “panoramic.”34 Here, the viewshed is a corridor view in a single direction to the southwest and does not reasonably qualify as “panoramic” (for example, a broad, multi-directional view such as a 180-degree vista). Further, even if the view were considered panoramic, the evidentiary record includes photographs showing that the hedge eliminates nearly all of the oceanhorizon view from the Claimant’s backyard. The loss of more than three-quarters of the view is not a mere infringement on an otherwise unobstructed panoramic view. 2 Although the Appellant implies that the view impact may be an impact to a “broader panoramic view” that is not protected by the Hedge Height Claim process, the Appeal does not put forward any arguments for why the view may be panoramic. As indicated above, in its evaluation of this appeal, the City Council shall presume that the decision or determination made by the Designee was reasonable, valid, and not an abuse of discretion; and the appellant shall have the burden of proof of demonstrating otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence presented. 3 “An unobstructed or complete view of an area in every direction.” “Panorama Definition & Meaning.” MerriamWebster. Accessed March 29, 2026. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/panorama. 4 “A view of a wide area.” “Panorama Definition.” Cambridge Dictionary. Accessed March 29, 2026. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/panorama 18 18 of 306
-5- Reso. #
Accordingly, the Hearing Officer’s decision reflects a reasoned application of the Municipal Code, is supported by substantial evidence in the record, and demonstrates that the Claimant met the burden of proof under LBMC §12.14.060(e).
2. “Failure to Apply LBMC Evidence Requirements to the Claimant’s Submissions” City Council’s Response
The record demonstrates that the Claimant satisfied the evidentiary submittal requirements of LBMC §12.14.050 and that the Hearing Officer appropriately relied on substantial evidence in making the determination.
The Claimant submitted a Hedge Height Claim application that included all required documentation necessary to deem the application complete, in accordance with LBMC §12.14.050. The submittal included a written description of the alleged view obstruction and photographic evidence demonstrating the extent of the obstruction, as required by §12.14.050(a) and (c). Photo documentation in the record is dated February 5, 2022; July 12, 2022; October 26, 2023; and March 11, 2024. Additional photographs documenting the hedge-related view obstruction are dated September 26, 2024; October 13, 2024; and November 27, 2024. There are also photographs dated March 28, May 23, and “today,” which are reasonably interpreted as having been taken in 2025, the year the application was submitted. Collectively, these materials provide objective and dated visual evidence of the extent and progression of the hedge’s impact on the Claimant’s view.
Contrary to the Appellant’s assertion, LBMC §12.14.050 does not require baseline documentation from the time of property purchase, nor does it require the Claimant to isolate the hedge as the sole source of view obstruction. Rather, the Code requires evidence demonstrating 19 19 of 306
-6- Reso. #
“the extent to which the view…has been obstructed by trees and/or vegetation.” This standard was met through the submitted photographic evidence, written materials, and corroborating testimony.
In formulating the determination, the Designee considered the entirety of the administrative record, including the dated photographs, the written application materials, construction plans for the recently approved ADU at 503 Brooks Street, and observations from site visits to both the Claimant’s and Vegetation Owner’s properties. The Hearing Officer also considered testimony and evidence presented at the public hearing.
The findings are not based on generalized assertions, but rather on specific evidence in the record demonstrating that the subject vegetation meets the definition of a “hedge,” is located within a side yard, and obstructs a view from the Claimant’s property, consistent with the evaluation criteria set forth in LBMC §12.14.070. The evidence further demonstrates that, while other elements such as nearby structures and vegetation exist within the view corridor, the subject hedge independently contributes to the obstruction. The Municipal Code does not require that the hedge be the sole cause of the obstruction, only that it obstructs a view, as required under LBMC §12.14.060(e).
Accordingly, the record shows that the City properly applied the evidentiary requirements of LBMC §12.14.050 and that the determination is supported by substantial evidence.
3. “Failure to Establish Hedge-Specific Causation as Required by LBMC § 12.14.070” City Council’s Response
LBMC §12.14.070(c) requires a determination that the subject hedge obstructs a view; it does not require the City to isolate the hedge as the sole source of obstruction or to quantify the relative contribution of all elements within the view corridor. 20 20 of 306
-7- Reso. #
The administrative record contains substantial evidence demonstrating that the hedge itself contributes to the obstruction. Photographs from 2022 through 2025 document the ocean view from the Claimant’s property over time, including periods when the hedge was maintained at a lower height and when it subsequently increased in height. This photographic history allows for comparison of view conditions and demonstrates that the hedge’s increased height corresponds with increased obstruction of the ocean horizon.
The record also reflects consideration of other potential obstructions. The ADU at 503 Brooks Street, constructed in 2024, is shown in photographic evidence dated March 11, 2024 (prior to framing) and September 26, 2024 (post-roof installation), confirming that it obstructs a portion of the blue water view. However, the same photographic evidence demonstrates that the hedge independently obstructs the ocean horizon.
The findings further reflect that these background obstructions were taken into account in establishing the required hedge height of 11 feet. Specifically, a lower hedge height would not yield additional view restoration due to the presence of the ADU roofline and other vegetation.
This demonstrates that the Designee did not rely on a conclusory determination but rather evaluated the hedge’s specific impact within the broader context of existing site conditions.
4. “Failure to Consider Long-Standing Landscaping and Ordinance-Recognized Hedge Benefits”
City Council’s Response
The Municipal Code requires consideration of competing interests but does not require that long-standing landscaping or hedge benefits preclude a finding of view obstruction or the imposition of a remedy.
21 21 of 306
-8- Reso. #
As stated in the hearing notes, on January 15, 2026, the Designee conducted site visits to both the Vegetation Owner’s and Claimant’s properties. Pursuant to LBMC Chapter
25.50.012(B)(3), hedges located within a side yard setback are generally limited to a height of 6 feet. The subject hedge was measured at over 13 feet in height. While hedges may exceed this height absent a claim, they become subject to review under Chapter 12.14 when a hedge height claim is filed. The Appellant does not dispute that the vegetation meets the definition of a hedge and is therefore subject to these provisions.
Consistent with LBMC §12.14.010 and §12.14.020, the Designee considered both the benefits of hedges, including privacy, aesthetics, and environmental value, and the adverse impact on views. The record reflects that the hedge’s presence, function, and surrounding site conditions were evaluated through site visits, photographic evidence, and testimony.
Based on the findings and evidence, the hedge was determined to obstruct the ocean view from the Claimant’s property. In balancing the competing interests, the Designee did not require reduction to the maximum allowable fence height of 6 feet but instead established a modified height of 11 feet, approximately two feet below its measured height at the time of inspection. This outcome reflects a reasonable balancing of the Vegetation Owner’s interest in maintaining the hedge with the Claimant’s protected interest in view preservation, consistent with the intent and purpose of LBMC Chapter 12.14. Accordingly, the record demonstrates that the required balancing framework was applied and that the determination appropriately considered both the benefits of the hedge and its impact on the Claimant’s view.
SECTION 3. The City Council hereby makes the following findings and facts supporting findings for HHC 25-1254:
22 22 of 306
-9- Reso. #
Finding No. 1: The claimant has provided evidence of a cooperative attempt at initial communication to discuss concernsrelated to views and/or sunlight obstruction, and such attempts have failed.
Documentation submitted by the claimant with the hedge height claim application demonstrates written communication dated September 29, 2024; December 13, 2024; and May 31, 2025. These efforts did not result in resolution.
Finding No. 2: The vegetation at issue is not exempt from the provisions of this chapter pursuant to Section 12.14.040.
The subject vegetation: (1) lies within 100 feet of the claimant’s property; (2) is not the same vegetation acted upon by the same claimant or subsequent owner(s) of the claimant’s property; (3) is not City-maintained vegetation; (4) is not designated as a City Heritage Tree; and (5) is not approved under a landscaping or design review approval for which a maximum height has been established. As such, the subject vegetation is not exempt from the provisions of Laguna Beach Municipal Code (LBMC) Chapter 12.14.
Finding No. 3: Is the subject vegetation consistent with the City’s definition of a hedge pursuant to Section 12.14.030(b)?
The subject vegetation is continuous and dense in form and meets the definition of a hedge pursuant to LBMC Section 12.14.030(b).
Finding No. 4: Does the subject vegetation appear to obstruct views and/or sunlight with respect to the claimant’s property?
The subject vegetation obstructs views of the ocean horizon from the claimant’s rear yard.
Finding No. 5: Does the subject vegetation appear to represent a safety concern? No. The height of the subject vegetation does not create a view obstruction with respect to 23 23 of 306
-10- Reso. #
vehicular or pedestrian ingress or egress from the claimant’s property. As such, the City Council finds that the vegetation subject to the claim is not a safety concern.
Finding No. 6: Is the subject vegetation within City yard setback areas? Yes. The subject vegetation is located within the required side yard setback area.
Finding No. 7: Is the subject vegetation higher than the pertinent setback height restrictions?
Portions of the subject hedge were measured at thirteen (13) feet, three (3) inches in height.
This exceeds the maximum allowable height of six (6) feet within the side yard setback pursuant to LBMC Section 25.50.012(B)(3).
Finding No. 8: Should the hedge be limited in height to the pertinent height restriction or is a different height more appropriate?
The City Council finds that a height different from the maximum allowable six (6) feet is appropriate to address the documented view obstruction while allowing reasonable continued use of the vegetation. Based on the evidence in the record, the City Council finds that limiting the hedge to a maximum height ranging from ten (10) to eleven (11) feet, measured from existing grade, to eliminate the obstruction of ocean view within the side yard setback area is appropriate.
SECTION 4. 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 15304 – Minor Alterations to Land, in that the action consists of minor alterations in the condition of land, water, and/or vegetation which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for forestry and agricultural purposes. There is no evidence of any unusual or special conditions that would result in a significant effect on the environment.
Class 4 applies because the proposed action consists of maintaining overgrown vegetation. 24 24 of 306
-11- Reso. #
Further, none of the exceptions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply.
The property subject to the Hedge Height Claim does not contain any environmentally sensitive areas in that the site is fully developed with an existing single-family residence and is adjacent to developed residential properties and streets. The City’s environmentally sensitive area maps do not identify any such areas on-site or within the immediate vicinity, and there are no mapped watercourses on the subject site. There will be no cumulative impact resulting from successive projects of the same type in the same place over time in that the proposed action consists of maintaining overgrown vegetation through the imposition of a maximum height limit and does not require the removal of any vegetation. There are no unusual circumstances resulting in a significant impact on the environment in that there are no historic resources or heritage trees on the site, or any other concerns with regards to the project site. 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 in that the vegetation subject to the Hedge Height Claim is not adjacent to or near a designated state scenic highway, with the closest officially designated state scenic highway located near Anaheim.
5 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 in that there is no historic resource on the site or immediately adjacent to the site.
Consequently, additional environmental analysis is not necessary to meet the requirements of the CEQA.
SECTION 5. The City Council hereby denies the Appeal and sustains the determination 5 https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa 25 25 of 306
-12- Reso. #
on the Claim, as reflected in the Hearing Notes and Findings staff report for HHC 25-1254, including all conditions attached thereto, which such Hearing Notes and Findings and conditions are incorporated herein by this reference, subject to the standard conditions of approval attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 6. In accordance with the Hearing Notes and Findings staff report for HHC 25-1254, the corrective action shall be completed within thirty (30) calendar days of the effective date of this decision. Trimming shall occur at a minimum interval of every three (3) months and shall be maintained and trimmed at a frequency to eliminate ocean view obstruction from the claimant’s property at 527 Brooks Street to the ocean. Should the hedge exceed the approved height in the future, the claimant may request Code Enforcement action without the need to file a subsequent hedge height claim.
ADOPTED this 28th day of April, 2026.
Mark Orgill, Mayor
ATTEST:
Ann Marie McKay, City Clerk
26 26 of 306
-13- Reso. #
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 April 28, 2026, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
City Clerk, City of Laguna Beach, California
27 27 of 306
EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION NO. 26.XXX
(CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL)
Standard Conditions – Community Development Department
1. The Claimant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Laguna Beach and its officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Laguna Beach, its officers, employees, or agents to attack, set aside, void, or annul any approval or condition of approval of the City of Laguna Beach concerning this Project, including but not limited to any approval or condition of approval of the City Council, Planning Commission, Design Review Board, Community Development Director, City Planner, or Designee. The City shall promptly notify the Claimant of any claim, action, or proceeding concerning the Project and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. The City reserves the right, at its own option, to choose its own attorney to represent the City, its officers, employees, and agents in the defense of the matter.
2. The Claimant shall pay all fees at the time fees are determined payable and comply with all requirements of the applicable federal, state, and local agencies. The duty of inquiry as to such requirements shall be upon the applicant.
3. Failure to comply with any of these conditions of approval is grounds for revocation of the entitlement(s) and is subject to any other available remedies to the City.
4. The effective date of the entitlements granted herein do not commence until all appeals, including those to the California Coastal Commission, have been exhausted, statutes of limitation have expired, and any lawsuits, filed within the statutes of limitation, have concluded. 28 28 of 306
505 Forest Ave. Laguna Beach, CA 92651 TEL (949) 497-3311 FAX (949) 497-0771
CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH
NOTICE OF APPEAL
NOTICE:
1. Appeals of decisions regarding administrative use permits, administrative design review, coastal development permits, conditional use permits, design review, interpretations, reasonable accommodation, temporary use permits and variances may be filed by the applicant or any other aggrieved property owner within three hundred feet of the subject property.
2. A CEQA determination in connection with the decisions described above are subject to Public Resources Code section 21151(c) and may be appealed by any person.
3. The appeal fee of $2,500.00 must accompany the appeal at submittal.
4. This form must be received by the City Clerk within 14 calendar days of the appealed decision or determination.
5. All information requested below must be provided. Attach additional pages if necessary.
6. Prior to completing this form you may wish to read Laguna Beach Municipal Code section
25.05.070, which pertains to appeals.
APPEAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Email: [email protected]________ Name of Appellant: _Angelique Hoskins____________________Phone No: _(949) 494-3236_____ Address of Appellant: __511 Brooks Street, Laguna Beach, 92651___________________________ Address of Subject Property: __511 Brooks Street, Laguna Beach, 92651_____________________ Owner of Subject Property: _Angelique Hoskins_________________________________________ Board/Commission/Officer responsible for Decision Appealed: (Select One) θ Design Review/Board of Adjustment
θ Planning Commission
θ Other: (Explain)_Staff on behalf of the Director of Community Development_________________ Date of Decision/Hearing:__January 21, 2026______________________________ Appeal of: (Select One)
θ Approval
θ Denial
θ CEQA Determination (Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21151(c)) θ Other: (Explain)_Hedge Height Claim determination_____________________________________ Doc ID: 591af012942e96ba79c082fa96a7167e1a3257d5
Attachment 2
29 29 of 306
505 Forest Ave. Laguna Beach, CA 92651 TEL (949) 497-3311 FAX (949) 497-0771 Generally Describe:
The type of permit, relief or action originally sought for the subject property:______________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ REASON FOR THE APPEAL:
___________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ The foregoing statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. ____________________________________________________________________Date____________ (Signature of Appellant)
PROCEDURE FOR REQUESTING A CONTINUANCE OF A PUBLIC HEARING : Continuances may be granted at the discretion of the City Council. Either the applicant (owner of the subject property or his/her designee) or the appellant may request a continuance at or, preferably, before the time of the public hearing. If, no later than the Wednesday prior to the public hearing, the applicant submits a written request accompanied by $684 to cover the cost of renoticing, the City staff has the authority to continue the hearing, if in the judgement of the staff, there is no valid or legal reason not to continue the hearing. Such requests are to be submitted to the City Clerk.
Appeal Received By: __________________
Date Filed: __________________________
Appeal Fee: _________________________
Date of Hearing: ______________________
Please see appeal letter from Appellant's attorney, Bryan Zuetel, dated 02/04/2026, attached and incorporated by reference.
Please see appeal letter from Appellant's attorney, Bryan Zuetel, dated 02/04/2026, attached and incorporated by reference.
02 / 11 / 2026
30 Doc ID: 591af012942e96ba79c082fa96a7167e1a3257d5
30 of 306
February 4, 2026
City of Laguna Beach
City Council
c/o Ann Marie McKay, City Clerk
505 Forest Ave.
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
[email protected]
Re: Appeal Re: Hedge Height Claim: HHC-2025-1254
511 Brooks Street, Laguna Beach, CA 92651
Dear City Clerk:
On behalf of Lique Hoskins, the owner of 511 Brooks Street, this letter serves as her Notice of Appeal from the January 21, 2026, Hearing Notes and Findings and the resulting decision in Hedge Height Claim HHC 2025-1254 issued by the Director of Community Development (the “Director”). Ms. Hoskins respectfully requests that the City Council review the decision and either reverse it or remand the matter for further findings, for the reasons set forth below.
I. Standard of Review Under LBMC § 25.05.070
Ms. Hoskins acknowledges that the City Council’s review under LBMC § 25.05.070 is limited.
The Council may consider only the grounds stated in this notice of appeal and the evidence that was before the Director. It may not conduct a de novo hearing or reweigh the evidence but instead must determine whether the Director proceeded in the manner required by law and whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence. The decision is presumed reasonable and valid, and Ms. Hoskins bears the burden of overcoming that presumption.
Consistent with that standard, this appeal relies exclusively on LBMC Chapter 12.14 (Hedge Height Limitations) and the existing administrative record, including the January 21, 2026, Hearing Notes and Findings and their attachments for HHC 2025-1254.
II. Grounds for Appeal (LBMC § 25.05.070)
Pursuant to LBMC § 25.05.070, Ms. Hoskins limits this appeal to the four grounds set forth below, each based solely on the existing record. For each of these reasons, the decision is not supported by substantial evidence and reflects a failure to proceed in the manner required by law. 31 31 of 306
City of Laguna Beach, City Clerk
February 4, 2026
______________________________________________________________________________ Ground 1 – Misapplication of the Definition of “View” and the Claimant’s Burden of Proof In the decision, the Director concludes that the subject hedge “obstructs views of the ocean horizon from the claimant’s rear yard” and, based on that conclusion, determines that the vegetation is non-conforming and must be trimmed. That conclusion rests on a misapplication of LBMC Chapter 12.14 and a failure to apply both the ordinance’s definition of “view” and its burden-of-proof requirements to the evidence presented.
LBMC section 12.14.030 defines a protected “view” as a “vista of features, including, but not limited to, bodies of water, beaches, coastline, islands, skylines, ridges, hillside terrain, canyons, geologic features and landmarks,” and expressly states that “[t]he term ‘view’ does not mean an unobstructed panorama of these features.” The ordinance therefore draws a clear distinction between a legally protected vista and a broader expectation of an unobstructed or newly created ocean panorama.
The findings do not meaningfully apply that distinction. They adopt the claimant’s description of an “ocean horizon” obstruction without identifying what specific pre-existing vista qualifies as a protected “view,” from what vantage point in the rear yard, or how that alleged view fits within the ordinance’s definition rather than reflecting a desire for a broader panoramic outlook that the ordinance does not protect. This issue is particularly significant here because the Calverts’ remodel was ongoing at the relevant time, and the claim was framed in terms of anticipated views from a newly reconfigured home rather than views that existed before construction.
The treatment of the claimant’s burden of proof further underscores the problem. LBMC section
12.14.060(e) places the burden squarely on the claimant to establish that hedges “constitute a safety hazard and/or obstruct views from or sunlight to the complainant’s property.” At the hearing, Ms. Hoskins, through counsel, specifically argued that the claimant failed to meet that burden for several reasons, including:
1. The claim relied on prospective views from an in-construction residence rather than any existing, legally protected view.
2. The Calverts’ property had an ocean view in its prior configuration, which they chose to alter through their remodel.
3. The trees forming the alleged hedge have been in the same location for more than 33 years and are consistent with approved 1999 landscaping plans.
4. The hedge has been maintained at the same height for decades, aside from a one-time accidental over-cutting by the gardener; and
5. The Calverts did not submit photographs from 2019 or 2020 when they began residing at and later purchased the property to establish what view existed at that time. 32 32 of 306
City of Laguna Beach, City Clerk
February 4, 2026
______________________________________________________________________________ Counsel also emphasized that any potential ocean view from the Calvert property is now significantly constrained by the roofline of the approved ADU immediately to the south, which independently blocks the sightline regardless of the hedge.
These points went directly to whether the claimant had shown that a qualifying view ever existed within the meaning of Chapter 12.14, and whether any alleged obstruction was attributable to the hedge rather than to the Calverts’ design choices or neighboring structures. The written findings, however, do not meaningfully address these arguments. They do not identify a specific preexisting vista that satisfies the ordinance definition of “view,” do not distinguish between a protected vista and a broader panoramic view now sought after the remodel, and do not explain how the evidence shows that the hedge—rather than other acknowledged obstructions—caused any loss of a protected view. Instead, the findings treat the phrase “ocean horizon” as sufficient on its own, effectively presuming the existence and obstruction of a protected view without demonstrating that the claimant met the burden imposed by LBMC sections 12.14.030 and
12.14.060(e).
For these reasons, Ms. Hoskins contends that the Director did not proceed in the manner required by law and that the conclusion that a qualifying view is obstructed is not supported by substantial evidence.
Ground 2 – Failure to Apply LBMC Evidence Requirements to the Claimant’s Submissions
LBMC section 12.14.050 specifies what a hedge height claim must include and how it must be supported. The ordinance requires, among other things, “documented and dated photographic prints” and written testimony that “must show the extent to which the view and/or sunlight access has been obstructed by trees and/or vegetation.” The ordinance’s structure makes clear that generalized assertions of diminished views are insufficient; the claimant must provide objective, time-anchored evidence showing the extent of obstruction caused by the hedges at issue.
Here, the claimant’s June 12, 2025, letter to the City states that the Calverts received design review approval for their remodel in October 2023 and that, after that approval, Ms. Hoskins “stopped trimming her trees,” which “have now blocked our entire ocean view.” The letter characterizes the hedge as a “Spite Fence” and accuses Ms. Hoskins of malicious intent, while also acknowledging that the Calverts “chose to purchase this home” in part because of an existing ocean view. Although the letter references “attached photos dated July 12, 2022,” it does not include photographs from 2019 or 2020 showing the baseline view at the time the Calverts began living at or purchased the property.
At the hearing, Ms. Hoskins’ counsel specifically argued that the claim did not meet Chapter
12.14’s evidentiary requirements because not all photographs were dated, none documented the view at the time of purchase, and the images provided did not isolate the effect of the hedge from other obstructions in the view corridor, including the approved ADU and other vegetation beyond Ms. Hoskins’ property line. Those objections went directly to whether the evidence 33 33 of 306
City of Laguna Beach, City Clerk
February 4, 2026
______________________________________________________________________________ satisfied section 12.14.050(a)’s requirement that it “show the extent” of hedge-caused obstruction.
While the Hearing Notes reflect that staff reviewed the submitted materials and note Ms.
Hoskins’ objection that “the claim fails to meet photo documentation requirements,” the written findings do not resolve that issue. The decision does not identify which photographs were relied upon, whether they are dated as required, or how they demonstrate the extent of obstruction attributable specifically to the hedge. Instead, the findings refer to “submitted photographs” and proceed to the conclusion that the vegetation obstructs the ocean horizon.
Because the decision does not explain how the claimant’s submissions satisfy the evidentiary requirements of LBMC section 12.14.050, it does not demonstrate that the Director proceeded in the manner required by law, and the conclusion reached is not supported by evidence in the existing record.
Ground 3 – Failure to Establish Hedge-Specific Causation as Required by LBMC §
12.14.070.
LBMC section 12.14.070(c) requires a determination that “the hedges that are the subject of the hedge height claim…obstruct views from or sunlight to the property of the complainant.” This requires a finding of hedge-specific causation that the vegetation at issue, rather than other features, is responsible for the alleged obstruction.
Causation was a central issue at the hearing. The record reflects extensive discussion of other significant obstructions in the same sightline, including the roofline of the approved ADU immediately to the south and additional trees beyond Ms. Hoskins’ property. Ms. Hoskins’ counsel argued that these features independently block or materially limit any ocean view from the Calverts’ rear yard and therefore break the causal link between the hedge and the alleged obstruction.
Although the findings acknowledge the existence of the neighboring ADU and even reference its apex in setting a permitted hedge height, they do not perform the analysis required by Chapter
12.14. The decision does not evaluate how the hedge affects the view compared to the ADU or other vegetation, nor does it specify whether the hedge alone causes the obstruction.
Additionally, it lacks an explanation for why only the hedge is considered problematic. The suggestion that the hedge obstructs the view fails to consider several significant barriers that have already been acknowledged.
Where multiple obstructions are documented in the record, a conclusory finding that the hedge obstructs the view, without an analysis isolating its effect, does not constitute substantial evidence of hedge-specific causation. For that reason, the decision fails to demonstrate compliance with LBMC section 12.14.070(c).
Ground 4 – Failure to Consider Long-Standing Landscaping and Ordinance-Recognized Hedge Benefits
34 34 of 306
City of Laguna Beach, City Clerk
February 4, 2026
______________________________________________________________________________ LBMC section 12.14.020 expressly recognizes that hedges provide legitimate and significant benefits, including privacy and buffering, environmental functions such as wind screening and habitat, and aesthetic and economic benefits that help blend and reduce the visual mass of development. Chapter 12.14 reflects a legislative intent to balance view protection against these competing interests.
The record shows that the subject hedge has existed in the same general location for more than 33 years, consistent with historic landscaping plans, and forms part of the established side-yard boundary between the properties. At the hearing, Ms. Hoskins’ counsel specifically raised the hedge’s long-standing nature, consistent maintenance, privacy and screening function, and the associated reliance interests.
The written findings, however, do not address any of these factors. They do not acknowledge the hedge’s longevity, its established role in providing privacy and screening, particularly in light of the neighboring ADU’s use as a short-term vacation rental during summer months or the increased privacy loss resulting from the Calverts’ raised rear porch. Nor do the findings address the environmental and aesthetic benefits that Chapter 12.14 expressly directs the City to consider. Instead, the analysis focuses exclusively on the asserted view impact, without demonstrating that the balancing framework required by Chapter 12.14 was applied at all.
By ordering alteration of long-established landscaping to accommodate a neighboring owner’s remodel without findings showing that these ordinance-recognized interests were considered, the decision fails to demonstrate that the Director proceeded in the manner required by law.
III. Requested Relief
Within the limited scope of review prescribed by LBMC § 25.05.070 and based solely on the existing administrative record, Ms. Hoskins respectfully requests that the City Council reverse the January 21, 2026, decision in Hedge Height Claim HHC 2025-1254 because the Director: 1) misapplied the definition of “view” and the claimant’s burden of proof under LBMC Chapter
12.14; 2) failed to apply the evidentiary standards of LBMC section 12.14.050; 3) did not establish hedge-specific causation as required by LBMC section 12.14.070; and 4) failed to demonstrate that long-standing landscaping and ordinance-recognized hedge benefits were considered.
In the alternative, if the City Council determines that reversal is not warranted, Ms. Hoskins requests that the matter be remanded to the Director of Community Development with instructions to expressly apply the ordinance to the existing record, including: 1) identifying the specific dated photographic and testimonial evidence relied upon and explaining how it demonstrates hedge-caused obstruction; 2) analyzing the impact of other acknowledged obstructions in the view corridor, including the neighboring ADU; and 3) making findings that show the balancing framework required by Chapter 12.14 including long-standing reliance interests and recognized hedge benefits has been applied. 35 35 of 306
City of Laguna Beach, City Clerk
February 4, 2026
______________________________________________________________________________ Ms. Hoskins respectfully looks forward to the City Council’s consideration of this appeal and its decision based on the existing administrative record.
Regards,
Bryan Zuetel
Bryan Zuetel
ZUETEL LAW GROUP
Copy to: Cheryl Baldridge, Deputy City Clerk: [email protected] Jamee Danihels, Accounting Technician: [email protected] John Ciampa, Contract Planner: [email protected] 36 36 of 306
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
LAGUNA BEACH CITY COUNCIL
The Laguna Beach City Council will hold an in-person Public Hearing in the City Council Chambers, located in City Hall at 505 Forest Avenue, Laguna Beach, to consider:
Appeal of approval of Hedge Height Claim 25-1254 and CEQA Categorical Exemption for hedge height violations on the property located at 511 Brooks Street in the R-1 (Residential Low Density) zone. The subject vegetation is located in the side yard and was determined to be in violation of Laguna Beach Municipal Code Chapter 12.14, Hedge Height Limitations, which identifies remedial actions for hedges that adversely impact views from and/or sunlight onto neighboring properties.
Claimant/Applicant: Amy Calvert
A person has appealed the decision of the Community Development Director’s Designee to approve the claim.
SAID PUBLIC MEETING to be held Tuesday, March 24, 2026, at 5:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter.
For additional information, contact City staff: Wendy Jung, Principal Planner (949) 497-0321 or [email protected].
Comments may be made in writing prior to the hearing (when emailed or mailed to the City Clerk’s office) or in-person in Council Chambers during the public hearing. In order to allow sufficient time for members of the City Council and staff to review and consider your comments, written comments will be accepted for consideration up until the close of business (i.e., 5:30 p.m.) on the business day before the date on which this public hearing is scheduled; however, it is recommended they be submitted to the City Clerk’s office on or before 5:00 p.m. five days prior to the scheduled hearing.
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65009(b), if you challenge this application in court, the issues raised shall be limited to those raised in the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Laguna Beach prior to, or at, the public hearing.
CEQA: This project is categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, Section 15304 – Minor Alterations to Land, in that the project consists of minor alterations in the condition of land, water, and/or vegetation, which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees.
COASTAL: This project is located in a non-appealable area of the Coastal Zone. The project is proposed as exempt development under Laguna Beach Municipal Code Chapter 25.07. The review procedure identified in Laguna Beach Municipal Code Section
25.07.012(B)(3) applies to any such determination.
Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons with a disability who require a disability-related modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, may request such modification or accommodation from the City Clerk’s Office at (949) 497-0705 (telephone) or (949) 497-0771 (facsimile). Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility to the meeting.
Notice posted on March 13, 2026, at the following three public places (CA Government Code Section 65090 and 65091):
511 Brooks Street, Laguna Beach, CA; 505 Forest Ave., Laguna Beach, CA; and 380 3rd St., Laguna Beach, CA; and Property Owners within 300 ft./ Tenants within 100 ft./ Publish Date: 3/13/2026 Attachment 3
37 37 of 306
CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HEARING NOTES AND FINDINGS
HEARING DATE: January 21, 2026
CLAIM: Hedge Height Claim – HHC2025-1254
CLAIMANT: Amy Calvert, Owners, 527 Brooks Street
VEGETATION
OWNERS: Lique Hoskins, 511 Brooks Street
HEARING
FACILITATOR: Brenda Wisneski, Principal Planner
John Ciampa, Contract Planner
REQUESTED ACTION
The claimants, Jeff and Amy Calvert, owners of the property located at 527 Brooks Street, are requesting a reduction in the height of vegetation located along the side yard of the adjacent property located at 511 Brooks Street. The claim alleges that views of the ocean horizon from the claimant’s property are obstructed by the subject vegetation.
INTRODUCTIONS AND HEARING PROCEDURE
Staff serves on behalf of the Director of Community Development. This is an administrative review process. As such, ordinance interpretation and associated findings are technical and objective. Views from only the claimant’s property are considered in staff’s evaluation of the vegetation subject to the claim. If vegetation is found to be non-conforming, the vegetation must be removed within thirty (30) calendar days of the hearing. Findings may be appealed to the City Council within fourteen (14) calendar days of the hearing. Staff summarize the process to date, describe the purpose of the hearing, and outlines the process moving forward.
ATTENDEES
Amy Calvert, Claimant, Owner of 527 Brooks Street
Larry Nokes, Representative for Amy Calvert, Owner of 527 Brooks Street Bryan Zuetel, Representative for Lique Hoskin of 511 Brooks Street
TESTIMONY REGARDING THE CLAIM
The following summarizes and paraphrases testimony made by individuals at the hearing.
Attachment 4
38 38 of 306
HHC 25-1254
527 Brooks Street
January 21, 2026