Laguna Beach City Council
May 26, 2026

Proposed Project
The project proposes construction of a new 1,817-square-foot three-story structure consisting of a singlefamily residence with a 648-square-foot attached garage, a 440-square-foot elevated deck, new landscaping, a spa, 220 Cubic Yards (CY) of grading, and new vehicular access from Glenneyre Street.

Pursuant to Laguna Beach Municipal Code (LBMC) Section 25.05.040(B), Design Review is required for new buildings, new vehicular access, new landscaping, spas and their associated equipment, and elevated decks exceeding three feet above adjacent existing grade.

Vehicular access is proposed from Glenneyre Street via a new 17-foot-wide driveway apron leading to a stone-veneered driveway of the same width. In compliance with LBMC Section 25.53.006(C), which requires one on-street parking space per fifty feet of lot frontage, an 8-foot by 22-foot public parking space is proposed parallel to the street. Per LBMC Section 25.52.008(E), lots fronting on arterial or primary residential collector streets are required to provide a paved turning area or other mechanism that allows vehicles to exit the property in a forward direction. As Glenneyre Street is designated as such a street, the project is subject to this requirement. However, the proposed development does not include an on-site turnaround area, and the applicant is requesting a variance for relief from this standard.

To ensure compliance with the maximum driveway slope of 10 percent required by the Municipal Code, a three foot four-inch-tall retaining wall is proposed within the public right-of-way (and will not encroach into a travel lane). Similarly, a portion of the required three-foot-wide Fire Department access walkway is also proposed within the right-of-way. Both improvements require approval of a Revocable Encroachment Permit (REP), which is included as part of the project request and has been reviewed and approved by the Public Works department.

Consistent with LBMC Section 25.50.004(E)(1), where the natural grade elevation at a point forty feet into the lot is ten feet or more above the curb elevation, the front yard setback may be reduced to ten feet, and to five feet for a required garage. Considering a potential future lot merger, the combined front lot line along Glenneyre Street meets this condition; therefore, the project qualifies for and proposes a five-foot reduced front yard setback for the garage. A condition of approval (Condition No. 22) has been incorporated requiring the respective lots to be merged through a parcel map prior to issuance of building permits.

The proposed 648-square-foot garage accommodates two standard parking spaces and an area for trash bin storage. A portion of the garage, however, encroaches into the required 25-foot watercourse setback, as shown in Figure 1 below. Pursuant to LBMC Section 25.50.030(D), a minimum setback of 25 feet must be maintained from both sides of the center flowline of significant watercourses. Approximately 80 square feet of the garage, which also supports cantilevered portions of the structure above, encroaches into this setback area; therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the encroachment. To support the variance request and the proposed development, the applicant has submitted a Biological Resource Assessment prepared by South Environmental and dated June 2025 (Attachment 6), a Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report prepared by Stoney-Miller Consultants and dated October 2022 (Attachment 7), and a Hydrology Report prepared by Rivertech Inc. dated September 2025 (Attachment 8). All submitted reports were peer-reviewed by the City consultants and the analysis and findings were corroborated, as discussed in more detail below under the section relating to the entitlements. 124
124 of 540
DR 25-1431; CDP 25-1432; VAR 25-1433; REP 25-1434
February 12, 2026

Figure 1 – Garage Encroachment into 25-foot Watercourse Setback Access stairs located east of the proposed garage lead to a 230 squarefoot elevated deck positioned above the garage, which also serves as the primary entry to the residence. The main-level includes an entry opening into a living room with a fireplace and adjoining kitchen area. Short steps to the left lead to a bedroom and a modest bathroom, while an internal staircase within the living room provides access to the upper level.

The upper-level contains a master bedroom with an ensuite bathroom, walk-in closet, and a 138 square foot elevated deck. A hallway toward the rear leads to a laundry room, linen closet, and a secondary bedroom with an ensuite bathroom.

Portions of both the main and upper-levels project over the watercourse setback area, as shown in Figure 2 below. LBMC Section 25.50.030(D)(3) allows decks, balconies, and other structural extensions to project over a required setback, provided no supports extend to the ground within the setback and the encroachment remains at least fifteen feet from the center flowline of the watercourse. The proposed design adheres to this standard to the extent feasible, with portions of the main and upper levels projecting ten feet into the setback while maintaining the required fifteen-foot horizontal distance from the center flowline. However, six caissons are necessary to support the projecting sections are located within the 25-foot setback area and are included in the applicant’s variance request to allow encroachment into the watercourse setback. 125
125 of 540
DR 25-1431; CDP 25-1432; VAR 25-1433; REP 25-1434
February 12, 2026

Figure 2 – Projecting Sections of the Proposed Structure (highlighted in yellow).

The proposed project is within the allowable building envelope, with a maximum height of approximately

24.5 feet and 11.9 feet above the rear property line elevation. Except for the limited encroachment into the watercourse setback, which is addressed through the requested variance, the structure complies with all required setbacks, calculated based on the final lot configuration which is based on approval of a parcel map to combine the three lots. A 136 square foot spa is proposed near the rear of the residence, requiring approximately 8 cubic yards of grading cut and maintaining the required five-foot separation from the side and rear property lines.

A condition of approval has been incorporated (Condition No. 22) requiring that a lot merger be processed through the parcel map procedure in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Laguna Beach Municipal Code and the Subdivision Map Act. This condition ensures that the subject parcels are legally consolidated into a single building site consistent with City regulations and the proposed project scope.

ENTITLEMENTS: Following is an analysis of the project’s design review, coastal development permit, variance, and revocable encroachment permit applications:

Design Review
The following elements requires design review: new single-family residence with attached garage, new vehicular access, new landscaping, new spas and its associated equipment, and elevated decks exceeding 126
126 of 540
DR 25-1431; CDP 25-1432; VAR 25-1433; REP 25-1434
February 12, 2026

three feet above adjacent existing grade (see LBMC Section25.05.040(B)). 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.

The project provides safe and direct vehicular and pedestrian access from Glenneyre Street. A 17- foot-wide driveway leads to a two-car garage, and a dedicated three-foot-wide pedestrian and fire access walkway is provided along the south side of the driveway to minimize conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians. Although LBMC Section 25.52.008(E) requires on-site turnaround capability for lots fronting primary residential collector streets, and Glenneyre Street is such a street, the project site’s size, slope, and configuration present practical constraints to accommodating this feature. The applicant is therefore requesting a variance to allow relief from the turnaround requirement. Similar access conditions are common along this segment of Glenneyre Street, where many properties operate safely without on-site turnaround areas, demonstrating that the proposed design would remain consistent with the established development pattern and functional access characteristics of the neighborhood. The position of the lot along Glenneyre Street and the angle of intersection of the driveway to the Glenneyre Street provides for adequate visibility.

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

The proposed residence is designed to minimize the appearance of mass within the allowable building envelope through a combination of articulation techniques and material transitions. The structure incorporates multiple rooflines, stepped building forms, and varied wall planes that break up its visual bulk. The residence above the garage is distinguished by a change in exterior materials, which visually reduces its scale and helps define separate building elements. The recessed entry, use of stone veneer at the base, and the garage opening beneath a portion of the front deck further articulate the façade and introduce depth and shadow. Together, these design features create a balanced composition that reduces the perception of mass when viewed from Glenneyre Street and surrounding properties.

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.
127
127 of 540
DR 25-1431; CDP 25-1432; VAR 25-1433; REP 25-1434
February 12, 2026

The proposed residence exhibits a cohesive architectural expression consistent with its traditional cottage style. The design integrates materials such as horizontal plank siding, shingle accents, stone veneer, and a Class ‘A’ composition roof, all of which reinforce the intended character. Detailing around windows, trim, and railings is consistent throughout the structure, contributing to a unified and well-composed appearance. The selected materials and finishes complement one another and reflect the architectural integrity of the chosen style.

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.

The proposed development is designed to respond sensitively to the site’s steep terrain and natural features. The residence is sited to follow the existing topography, minimizing grading and maintaining the natural slope of the land. Grading is limited to 220 CY of grading for the project, consisting of 210 CY of cut within the building footprint, and 10 CY outside of the building footprint.

The design incorporates a cantilevered structure over the watercourse setback to reduce ground disturbance and avoid alteration of the drainage channel. This encroachment is limited to the setback area only and does not involve any intrusion into the watercourse or floodway itself. A variance to allow limited encroachment into the watercourse setback area (not the watercourse flowline) is included in the request and is discussed in the Variance section below. The applicant has submitted a Biological Resource Assessment (Attachment 6), Geotechnical Investigation Report (Attachment 7), and Hydrology Study (Attachment 8), to support the project, all of which were reviewed by the City’s consultants and subsequently approved. The Biological Resource Assessment (Attachment 6) determined that the site supports primarily ornamental and non-native vegetation and does not contain suitable habitat for special-status plant or wildlife species or sensitive natural communities.

Should construction activities occur within the nesting season, the project will adhere to the recommendations identified in the biological assessment, including pre-construction surveys prepared by South Environmental. Collectively, these surveys ensure the development respects the site’s environmental context while maintaining the city’s scenic character.

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.
128
128 of 540
DR 25-1431; CDP 25-1432; VAR 25-1433; REP 25-1434
February 12, 2026

The project is consistent with Land Use Policy 2.8 as it is designed and sited to follow the existing topography and minimize disturbance to the natural slope and the on-site watercourse. The building footprint is compact, and grading is limited to 220 CY of grading, reducing alteration of the natural terrain. The design incorporates cantilevered elements to span portions of the watercourse setback, minimizing impacts to the drainage channel and associated habitat. A variance to allow limited encroachment into the watercourse setback is included in the request and is discussed in the Variance section below. The Biological Resource Assessment (Attachment 6) determined that the site supports primarily ornamental and non-native vegetation and does not contain suitable habitat for special-status plant or wildlife species or sensitive natural communities. Should construction activities occur within the nesting season, the project will adhere to the recommendations identified in the biological assessment prepared by South Environmental. The project preserves existing view corridors from Glenneyre Street and surrounding properties, maintaining consistency with the City’s Design Guidelines and the Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document.

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

The project is consistent with Land Use Policy 2.10 as it has been designed and sited to minimize view impacts to both public and private vantage points. The proposed residence is contained within the allowable building envelope and maintains a maximum height of approximately 24.5-feet, consistent with surrounding development patterns. The structure is terraced with the existing slope to reduce its overall visual prominence when viewed from Glenneyre Street and nearby properties.

The project does not obstruct existing public coastal or canyon views and has been designed to maintain view equity consistent with the intent of the General Plan.

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.).

The project is consistent with Land Use Policy 3.10 as it has been designed to conform to the site’s natural topography and minimize alteration of existing landforms and the on-site watercourse. The structure maintains a low-profile character through varied rooflines, stepped massing, and material differentiation that reduce visual bulk. Landscaping is incorporated to blend the development into the surrounding terrain and soften its visual presence from Glenneyre Street, a designated arterial roadway. The project’s height and siting minimize potential impacts on public views from adjacent streets and vantage points, maintaining consistency with the City’s Design Guidelines and the Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document.
129
129 of 540
DR 25-1431; CDP 25-1432; VAR 25-1433; REP 25-1434
February 12, 2026

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 project is consistent with Land Use Policy 7.3 as it has been designed and sited to protect the site’s natural and environmentally sensitive resources. While the property does not contain any formally designated environmentally sensitive areas, it is constrained by the presence of an on-site watercourse, which is itself an environmentally sensitive feature. The building footprint is compact and situated to minimize grading and landform alteration, with only 220 CY of grading. Cantilevered portions of the structure span sections of the watercourse setback to further reduce ground disturbance. A variance to allow encroachment into the required 25-foot watercourse setback ( and not into the watercourse or 100 year floodplain) by nine (9) feet is included in the request and is discussed in the Variance section below. The project also incorporates natural materials and landscaping to promote visual compatibility with its surroundings, thereby supporting the General Plan goal to protect, preserve, and enhance the community’s natural resources.

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

The project is consistent with Land Use Policy 7.10 as it is located within an established residential neighborhood and adjacent to existing development along Glenneyre Street. Although the site itself is currently vacant, it represents one of the few remaining undeveloped parcels within this built-out area. The project confines construction to a compact building footprint and limits grading to 220 CY of grading, thereby minimizing environmental impacts and avoiding unnecessary landform alteration. Its location and design do not extend infrastructure or induce new growth beyond the existing developed context.

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 project is consistent with Land Use Policy 10.2 as it has been designed and sited to protect natural and environmentally sensitive resources while minimizing landform alteration. Although the site does not contain any formally designated environmentally sensitive areas, it is constrained by the presence of an on-site watercourse, which requires sensitivity to any impacts to its function . The structure has been designed with cantilevered elements to reduce grading and disturbance within the watercourse setback, with total grading limited to 220 CY. A variance to allow a nine (9) foot long encroachment (78 square feet) into the watercourse setback (and not into the watercourse or 100 year floodplain) is included in the request and discussed in the Variance section below. The project’s scale, materials, and siting promote visual compatibility with surrounding development while maintaining protection of natural resources and ensuring public health and safety. 130
130 of 540
DR 25-1431; CDP 25-1432; VAR 25-1433; REP 25-1434
February 12, 2026

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

At the November 13, 2025 Design Review Board meeting, the adjacent property owner at 2538 Glenneyre Street raised concerns regarding potential impacts to his residence, which is listed as a historic resource on the City’s Historic Resources List under the Mills Act. He asserted that these potential impacts would preclude the use of a CEQA exemption for the proposed project. Based on review of aerial imagery, site plan for the subject property, and the 2018 Historic Assessment (Attachment 10) for 2538 Glenneyre Street, the proposed project does not result in a “substantial adverse change” to the historic resource under CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(b). The project does not propose demolition, relocation, or alteration of the historic structure itself.

The Historic Assessment identifies the west, street-facing elevation of 2538 Glenneyre as the primary elevation and key public-facing aspect of the resource. While the proposed development at 2500 Glenneyre is designed in a cottage style, it would be clearly distinct from the historic resource and would not visually dominate or overwhelm the historic resource’s primary public-facing elevation. The primary elevation would remain visible and readable from Glenneyre Street and would continue to express its historic scale, form, and character-defining features. The Historic Assessment further notes that the surrounding neighborhood has already undergone substantial redevelopment, which limits the extent to which adjacent new construction would materially impair the resource’s significance.

Potential impacts are limited to indirect effects associated with construction activity and minor alterations to the immediate surroundings. Any concerns related to grading, excavation, or slope stability are typically evaluated through a required geotechnical study, which is submitted and reviewed during the building plan check process. If issues are identified at that stage, the Building Division addresses them prior to and during construction.

In this case, Condition of Approval No. 24 has been incorporated into the resolution to require the inclusion of a monitoring program within the construction plan set. The monitoring program would establish protocols to objectively measure and document any movement or physical impacts to the historic residence located at 2538 Glenneyre Street during construction. With implementation of this condition, and based on the project description and review of available information, the proposed development at 2500 Glenneyre can reasonably be concluded to not have an adverse effect on the adjacent property.

The proposed project itself is located on vacant land with no identified historic or cultural resources.

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. 131
131 of 540
DR 25-1431; CDP 25-1432; VAR 25-1433; REP 25-1434
February 12, 2026

The proposed landscape plan integrates planting with the architectural design of the residence and reflects the natural character of the surrounding hillside environment. The palette consists primarily of drought-tolerant and fire-resistant species, including native and compatible plants such as toyon, manzanita, rosemary, and California lilac, consistent with the City’s Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document. The landscaping softens the structure’s visual presence from Glenneyre Street while preserving existing view corridors to maintain view equity. Irrigation will utilize a fully automated, water-efficient system, and plant selection and placement are designed to ensure long-term sustainability and minimal maintenance consistent with community landscape themes. Final review of the landscape plan for compliance with applicable water efficiency and defensible space requirements will occur during Building Division plan check process.

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 lighting plan provides adequate illumination for safety while minimizing potential impacts to neighboring properties. Exterior building lighting consists of low-intensity, 3-watt LED wall-mounted fixtures located at doorways for a total of 12 fixtures, and landscape lighting includes low-wattage downlights, path lights, and a single pendant fixture, for a total of 21 fixtures. All fixtures are shielded, downward-facing, and designed to limit beyond the property boundaries.

Reflective materials such as high-gloss surfaces and reflective glass are not proposed. The lighting design complies with City standards for minimizing glare and visual intrusion, ensuring illumination is both functional and unobtrusive. Final verification of lighting specifications will occur during Building Division plan check

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 proposed three-story residence is compatible with the existing neighborhood context along Glenneyre Street, which is characterized by a mix of single-family homes exhibiting eclectic and cottage-style architecture with articulated and terraced configurations. The project’s stepped massing, articulated rooflines, and 24.5-foot overall height are consistent with surrounding development patterns. The use of materials such as stone veneer, shingle siding, and muted coastal colors reinforces the cottage character typical of the area. Landscaping and façade articulation further soften the building’s appearance, allowing the design to integrate harmoniously with the established neighborhood setting

10. Pedestrian Orientation: Commercial development design shall enhance and encourage pedestrian uses. Incorporation of articulated building masses, compact open spaces and courtyards, 132
132 of 540
DR 25-1431; CDP 25-1432; VAR 25-1433; REP 25-1434
February 12, 2026

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 project has been revised to minimize potential privacy impacts to adjacent properties, particularly the historic residence located at 2538 Glenneyre Street. Primary outdoor activity areas, including the main- and upper-level decks, are oriented toward Glenneyre Street rather than toward neighboring residences. In response to Board direction, the applicant prepared a detailed Window Privacy Study to evaluate potential lines of sight between the proposed residence and the adjacent historic home. Based on this analysis, specific privacy mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project design, including the use of opaque glazing on select windows, removal of a window where feasible, and modification of operable windows to awning-style windows that allow limited ventilation without direct views toward the adjacent property.

In addition, a six-foot fence following natural grade is proposed along the north side of the property to further restrict views into adjacent outdoor areas, and existing vegetation provides additional screening. Rear-facing windows were evaluated and determined not to create privacy impacts due to their setback and screening by mature trees, while still meeting emergency egress requirements.

With these design revisions and screening measures, the project minimizes direct visual intrusion into neighboring properties and does not result in a substantial invasion of privacy, consistent with the Design Review privacy criterion.

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 133
133 of 540
DR 25-1431; CDP 25-1432; VAR 25-1433; REP 25-1434
February 12, 2026

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.

New construction is required to meet Title 24 energy and Building Code requirements, which include insulated windows and energy efficient lighting. The applicant would be required to provide proof of compliance. 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 proposed project includes a 136-square-foot spa located at the upper northwest corner of the site, positioned away from neighboring residences. The applicant has submitted a Geotechnical Investigation Report (Attachment 7) confirming that on-site geologic conditions are suitable to support the proposed improvement. The spa’s mechanical equipment will be enclosed and equipped with sound attenuation measures to ensure compliance with City noise standards. A condition of approval (Condition No. 19) has been incorporated which limits the operation of the mechanical equipment between the hours of 9:00 AM and 9:00 PM. Associated fencing, gates, and hardscape features, including stone veneer retaining walls and decorative wrought iron elements, are designed to complement the residence and maintain compatibility with neighboring properties.

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.

The project has been designed in accordance with the City’s Design Guidelines to maintain view equity while allowing reasonable development of the subject property. The residence is contained within the allowable building envelope and maintains a maximum height of approximately 24.5 feet, consistent with neighboring structures along Glenneyre Street. The stepped massing, varied rooflines, and use of natural materials help reduce visual bulk and preserve portions of existing view corridors from adjacent properties. Landscaping has been designed to complement the architecture without obstructing neighboring views, achieving an appropriate balance between development rights and view protection.

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, as explained above. 134
134 of 540
DR 25-1431; CDP 25-1432; VAR 25-1433; REP 25-1434
February 12, 2026

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 proposed project represents an appropriately scaled development that responds sensitively to the site’s natural conditions. The three-story residence is designed with stepped massing and varied rooflines that follow the slope, reducing its visual prominence and integrating it into the surrounding terrain. The architectural design reflects a distinctive coastal cottage character through the use of shingle siding, stone veneer, and traditional detailing. Pedestrian access is clearly defined by a walkway adjacent to the driveway leading to an elevated entry deck, enhancing street-level orientation. Overall, the project achieves a balanced and context-sensitive design consistent with the site’s topography and neighborhood setting.

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

The project is not located within any specific plan area and there are no other design review guidelines that apply.

REVOCABLE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT
The applicant requests an approval of a revocable encroachment permit to construct and maintain a low retaining wall to support the required driveway slope and a 3-foot-wide fire department access walkway in 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 right-of-way and will generally conform to the following requirements:

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 encroachments, consisting of a 3-foot four-inch retaining wall and a three-foot-wide fire department access walkway within the Glenneyre Street right-of-way, are designed and located to ensure public safety. Although these improvements are situated within the public right-of-way, they do not extend into the improved portions of the street or impede the existing travel lane. The retaining wall height is minimal and does not obstruct sight visibility for motorists entering or exiting the driveway, and the walkway provides safe pedestrian and emergency access consistent with Fire Department requirements. The improvements have been reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department.

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 encroachments are sufficiently set back from the edge of pavement along Glenneyre Street to maintain adequate travel, parking, and walking lanes. The 3-foot and four-inch retaining wall and three-foot-wide fire department access walkway are located within the undeveloped portion of the right-of-way and do not extend into the paved roadway or existing parking area. Adequate 135
135 of 540
DR 25-1431; CDP 25-1432; VAR 25-1433; REP 25-1434
February 12, 2026

clearance is maintained for vehicles and pedestrians, ensuring that the improvements do not interfere with public access or circulation within the right-of-way.

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 do not conflict with existing public utility structures or infrastructure within the Glenneyre Street right-of-way. As shown on the plans, existing water and sewer service laterals, as well as associated vaults, will remain in place. The proposed retaining wall and fire department access walkway have been designed to maintain adequate clearance from these utilities.

Existing vaults located near the driveway approach will be adjusted to finished grade and fitted with traffic-rated covers to ensure accessibility for maintenance and repair. The improvements will not require relocation of any public facilities at public expense or cause interference with the operation, maintenance, or future relocation of existing utilities.

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 encroachments will not preclude public access, use, or enjoyment of any area that has historically provided such access. The 3-foot four-inch retaining wall and three-foot-wide fire department access walkway are located within an unimproved portion of the Glenneyre Street rightof-way that has not been used by the public for travel or recreation. The improvements are limited to functional infrastructure necessary to support driveway access and safety requirements and do not alter or restrict any existing public pathways or areas of public use.

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.

The proposed encroachments are not precedent-setting and will not create a noticeable projection into the established streetscape along Glenneyre Street. The low retaining wall and fire department access walkway are designed to conform with the grade and alignment of the adjacent right-of-way and are consistent with similar improvements on neighboring properties with steep or complex terrain. The improvements are modest in scale, located entirely outside the paved roadway, and visually integrated with the overall site design. As such, they will not alter the character or appearance of the existing streetscape.

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 encroachments do not create structures of unusual or unacceptable appearance, form, shape, or height that would detract from the quality of the streetscape. The low retaining wall is a simple, utilitarian structure designed solely to support the required driveway slope and will be finished to match standard City and engineering specifications. The adjacent three-foot-wide fire 136
136 of 540
DR 25-1431; CDP 25-1432; VAR 25-1433; REP 25-1434
February 12, 2026

department access walkway is similarly functional in design and will utilize materials compatible with the surrounding right-of-way improvements. Both features are modest in scale, visually unobtrusive, and consistent with the established character of Glenneyre Street.

VARIANCE
The proposed project requires the approval of a variance because a portion of the proposed garage and caissons supporting elevated sections of the residence above encroach into the 25-foot watercourse setback (See LBMC 25.50.030(D)). In addition, the proposed project does not provide required on-site turnaround (See LBMC 25.53.004(C)). Variances are governed by Laguna Beach Municipal Code Section 25.05.025.

A Variance 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: There are special circumstances applicable to the property involved, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings which cause the strict application of the zoning ordinance to deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification.

Watercourse Setback Encroachment:

Special circumstances related to the site’s unique topography, configuration, and the presence of a City-mapped significant watercourse create practical and environmental constraints on development within the property. The lot is highly irregular in shape with a steep 33.5% slope and a watercourse bisecting the site, resulting in a very limited buildable area. Strict application of the 25-foot watercourse setback would preclude development of a single-family residence comparable in size and scale to other homes in the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed encroachment, limited to a small portion of the garage and associated caissons, has been analyzed in a Biological Resource Assessment (Attachment 6), Geotechnical Report (Attachment 7), and Hydrology Report (Attachment 8), all of which were peer-reviewed and conclusions corroborated by the City’s consultants. These studies confirm that the proposed improvements will not physically disturb the watercourse, impair its hydrologic function, or adversely affect ecological conditions. The watercourse itself does not support native riparian habitat or special-status species, and the proposed development will hydrologically preserve the drainage feature while avoiding any degradation of its environmental quality. The Biological Resource Assessment (Attachment 6) determined that the site supports primarily ornamental and non-native vegetation and does not contain suitable habitat for special-status plant or wildlife species or sensitive natural communities. Should construction activities occur within the nesting season, the project shall adhere to the recommendations identified in the biological assessment prepared by South Environmental (Condition No. 23). Therefore, the variance is justified by the site’s unique natural conditions and ensures reasonable use of the property consistent with surrounding residential development.

On-Site Turnaround Variance:

The property’s steep terrain, irregular shape, and limited frontage along Glenneyre Street present distinct physical constraints that prevent compliance with the Municipal Code requirement for onsite vehicular turnaround capability. Providing a compliant turnaround would require extensive 137
137 of 540
DR 25-1431; CDP 25-1432; VAR 25-1433; REP 25-1434
February 12, 2026

grading and the construction of substantial retaining walls, which could potentially encroach into the public right-of-way and further alter the natural landform. The current Revocable Encroachment Permit request includes retaining wall and a 3-foot-wide fire department access walkway to meet required LBMC codes for construction of new structures, avoiding excessive construction within the right-of-way. Nearly all properties along this segment of Glenneyre Street, particularly on the north side, lack on-site turnaround areas due to similar site conditions. Furthermore, when the proposed public parking space along the frontage is unoccupied, it can accommodate a two- or three-point turn, offering limited turning capability without additional grading or disturbance. These special circumstances support the requested variance, allowing reasonable development consistent with existing neighborhood patterns.

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

Watercourse Encroachment Variance:

The requested variance is necessary to preserve the applicant’s right to reasonably develop a singlefamily residence consistent with the privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the same vicinity and zoning district. Strict adherence to the 25-foot watercourse setback would eliminate the buildable area and effectively preclude construction on the site. The proposed encroachment of 78 square-feet into the required 25-foot setback is necessary for a small portion of the garage and supporting caissons, allows development to occur without adverse environmental or hydrologic impacts, as confirmed through peer-reviewed technical studies. Approval of this variance enables the property owner to achieve a comparable level of residential use and design opportunity as neighboring parcels with similar terrain and zoning.

On-site Turnaround Variance:

The variance to waive the requirement for an on-site vehicular turnaround is necessary to preserve a substantial property right enjoyed by other nearby property owners under similar conditions.

Numerous residences along Glenneyre Street, particularly on the north side, do not provide on-site turnaround areas due to comparable topographic and site constraints. Requiring strict compliance would impose an undue burden on this property and result in unnecessary grading, retaining walls, and potential encroachment into the public right-of-way. Allowing the variance ensures the applicant can utilize the property in a manner consistent with surrounding residential development while maintaining public safety and access within the existing street network.

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

Watercourse Encroachment Variance:

Granting the variance to allow limited encroachment into the watercourse setback will not be detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare, nor injurious to nearby properties or improvements. 138
138 of 540
DR 25-1431; CDP 25-1432; VAR 25-1433; REP 25-1434
February 12, 2026

The encroachment is limited to a small portion of the garage and supporting caissons, designed and engineered to avoid any alteration of the natural drainage channel or increase in downstream runoff.

The applicant’s submitted Biological Resource Assessment (Attachment 6), Geotechnical Report (Attachment 7), and Hydrology Report (Attachment 8), each peer-reviewed and conclusions corroborated by the City’s consultants, confirm that the project will not adversely affect the watercourse’s hydrologic or ecological functions. Proper construction practices and stormwater controls will ensure that the variance does not create any hazard or environmental degradation.

On-site Turnaround Variance:

Granting the variance to waive the on-site turnaround requirement will not be detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare, nor injurious to nearby properties or improvements. The project maintains safe vehicular access from Glenneyre Street and provides adequate driveway width and sight visibility. Similar site conditions exist along this segment of Glenneyre Street, where most residences operate safely without on-site turnarounds. The proposed public parking space also provides an opportunity for limited two- or three-point turning when unoccupied. As designed, the project preserves existing roadway conditions and does not introduce any new hazards or obstructions to public circulation.

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

Watercourse Encroachment Variance:

Granting the variance to allow limited encroachment into the watercourse setback is consistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan. The proposed development maintains the intent of the watercourse setback regulations by preserving the natural drainage channel, protecting hydrologic function, and minimizing disturbance to existing environmental features. The project has been designed to follow the natural topography, limit grading, and avoid unnecessary landform alteration. Approval of the variance allows reasonable development of the property while maintaining consistency with General Plan policies that promote environmentally sensitive site design, resource protection, and compatibility with surrounding residential uses.

On-site Turnaround Variance:

Granting the variance to waive the on-site turnaround requirement is not contrary to the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance or the General Plan. The project provides safe vehicular access from Glenneyre Street and maintains adequate sight distance and driveway design consistent with City standards. The variance supports the General Plan’s goals of minimizing grading and preserving natural terrain by avoiding the need for extensive retaining walls or additional encroachment into the public right-of-way. Allowing relief from this requirement under the site’s unique physical constraints upholds the intent of the zoning and General Plan provisions while ensuring safe and functional site access consistent with neighborhood conditions. 139
139 of 540
DR 25-1431; CDP 25-1432; VAR 25-1433; REP 25-1434
February 12, 2026

25.50.030(D)(4) Watercourse Encroachment Variances
Finding No. 5: The proposed encroachment will act to preserve, enhance or restore the significance of the watercourse.

The proposed encroachment will act to preserve and maintain the significance of the on-site watercourse through sensitive siting, structural design, and environmental safeguards that avoid disturbance to the natural drainage channel. The watercourse, which conveys intermittent surface runoff through the property, is identified in the Biological Resource Assessment ((Attachment 6)) as a disturbed drainage feature that supports sparse, non-native vegetation but contains no native riparian habitat or special-status species. The assessment concludes that the proposed development will not adversely affect the biological or ecological functions of the drainage or its surrounding area.

The Hydrology Report ((Attachment 8) confirms that the project maintains existing flow characteristics, including volume, velocity, and peak discharge, consistent with pre-development conditions. The design incorporates cantilevered structural elements that reduce ground disturbance within the setback, and the six caissons located within the setback are positioned outside the active flow line to prevent obstruction or alteration of drainage function. Collectively, these measures preserve the hydrologic stability of the watercourse while protecting its limited ecological value, ensuring that the feature remains a stable and functional natural drainage element within the site.

Finding No. 6: The proposed encroachment is not likely to impair the functional, scenic and ecological purposes of the watercourse.

The proposed encroachment does not impair the functional, scenic, or ecological purposes of the onsite watercourse. The Hydrology Report (Attachment 8), confirms that the project will maintain existing drainage flow patterns and capacities, ensuring that stormwater runoff continues to be conveyed through the site without alteration to the natural channel. The limited encroachment, consisting of a small portion of the garage and six caissons located outside the active flowline, is designed to avoid obstruction of water movement or modification of hydraulic performance.

The Biological Resource Assessment (Attachment 6), describes the drainage as a disturbed feature supporting sparse, non-native vegetation and confirms the absence of native riparian habitat or special-status species. Accordingly, the proposed development will not adversely affect biological resources or diminish the site’s natural character. The use of cantilevered structural elements minimizes grading and disturbance within the setback area, preserving the visual and environmental qualities of the drainage while maintaining its hydrologic function.

Coastal Development Permit
The proposed new single-family residence and associated improvements on a vacant lot 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 140
140 of 540
DR 25-1431; CDP 25-1432; VAR 25-1433; REP 25-1434
February 12, 2026

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 proposed development will not encroach upon any existing or proposed public accessway identified in the City’s certified Local Coastal Program (LCP). The project site is located inland of the coastal bluff and does not contain, adjoin, or obstruct any designated or implied public access routes to the shoreline. No easements or rights-of-way providing coastal access traverse the property, and the site improvements are entirely within private property and portions of the public right-ofway already dedicated to vehicular use. Therefore, the proposed development will not interfere with or diminish existing or potential coastal access opportunities.

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

The proposed development will not adversely affect marine, biological, or cultural resources. The site is located inland on a vacant lot within an established residential neighborhood, separated from the coastal bluff and marine environment by existing development and roadways. The Biological Resource Assessment (Attachment 6), confirms that no environmentally sensitive habitat areas are present and that the on-site watercourse supports only sparse, non-native vegetation with no specialstatus species. The Hydrology Report (Attachment 8), verifies that existing drainage patterns will be maintained. There are no known archaeological or paleontological resources on the site or in the immediate vicinity.

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 site is located inland along Glenneyre Street within an existing residential neighborhood and does not contain or adjoin any recreational or visitor-serving uses. The project is not visible from public coastal viewpoints or shoreline accessways and will not block or degrade any designated coastal view corridors. The residence is consistent in scale and character with surrounding development and utilizes materials and colors that blend with the natural setting, ensuring that the project does not adversely impact the area’s coastal scenic quality.

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. 141
141 of 540
DR 25-1431; CDP 25-1432; VAR 25-1433; REP 25-1434
February 12, 2026

The proposed development is designed to avoid impacts to environmentally sensitive habitats and scenic resources. The site is adjacent to vacant lots at the rear but is not located within or adjoining an open space preserve area. The Biological Resource Assessment (Attachment 6) confirms that no sensitive habitats occur on or near the property and that the on-site watercourse supports only sparse, non-native vegetation. The project maintains an adequate buffer from the drainage feature, and the peer-reviewed technical studies verify that it will not result in adverse environmental impacts.

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

The proposed development minimizes alteration of natural landforms and does not create undue risk from geologic, erosional, flood, or fire hazards. The residence is designed to follow the existing topography, with grading limited to approximately 220 cubic yards of grading for the project. The Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation (Attachment 7) concludes that the site is suitable for the proposed construction with standard engineering practices, and the Hydrology Report(Attachment 8) confirms that drainage patterns and runoff rates will remain consistent with existing conditions, avoiding increased erosion or flood risk. The project will utilize fire-resistant construction materials consistent with code requirements, and additional review of all geotechnical, drainage, and fire safety measures will occur during Building Division plan check.

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

The proposed development is visually compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood along Glenneyre Street. The design reflects the area’s coastal cottage character through its materials, colors, and stepped massing that follow the natural slope. While the site is not visually degraded, the project will improve the appearance of the vacant lot and complement the established streetscape.

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

The proposed development will not have any adverse impacts on archaeological or paleontological resources. The site is a vacant lot within an established residential neighborhood, and there are no known cultural resources on or in the vicinity of the property.

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

The proposed development will be served by adequate utilities, access, drainage, and other necessary facilities. The property fronts Glenneyre Street, which provides direct vehicular access and connections to existing public infrastructure. All essential services, including water, sewer, electricity, and communications, are available in the adjacent right-of-way.

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. 142
142 of 540
DR 25-1431; CDP 25-1432; VAR 25-1433; REP 25-1434
February 12, 2026

Public services and facilities are adequate to serve the proposed development. The project will be connected to existing City infrastructure and public roadway systems that provide sufficient capacity for residential use. Solid waste collection, emergency services, and other municipal services are already established in the area and can accommodate the proposed single-family residence without requiring additional public improvements.

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

LCP COASTAL VIEW POLICIES (CDP)
Land Use Element (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 on-site resources, and protect public views as specified in the Design Guidelines and the Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document.

The project is consistent with Land Use Policy 2.8 as it is designed to follow the existing topography and minimize alteration of the natural landform while protecting public views. The residence is contained within the allowable building envelope and has a maximum height of approximately 24.5 feet. Grading is limited to 220 cubic yards, which minimizes alteration of the existing terrain. The structure’s stepped massing and cantilevered elements allow it to conform to the site’s 33.5 percent slope and avoid unnecessary grading within the watercourse setback. The project does not obstruct any designated public view corridors along Glenneyre Street and maintains visual compatibility with the surrounding residential development and natural setting.

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

The project is consistent with Land Use Policy 2.9 as it incorporates appropriate architectural and landscaping measures to protect public views along Glenneyre Street, which is classified as a collector street. The proposed development is located on the north side of Glenneyre Street, where residences to the rear are situated at higher elevations. The design features stepped massing, articulated rooflines, and natural materials that reduce visual bulk and integrate the structure with the sloping terrain. Landscaping consists of low-growing, drought-tolerant species that maintain open view corridors from the public right-of-way. As proposed, the project preserves the existing visual character of the streetscape and does not obstruct public views along Glenneyre Street.

LU Element Policy 2.10 Maximize the preservation of coastal and canyon views (consistent with the principle of view equity) from existing properties and minimize blockage of existing public and private views. Best efforts should be made to site new development in locations that minimize adverse impacts on views from public locations (e.g., roads, bluff top trails, visitor-serving facilities, etc.) Policy 2.10 includes: Action 2.10.1 Discourage the addition of second stories in established neighborhoods where view equity has historically been achieved through one-story construction. 143
143 of 540
DR 25-1431; CDP 25-1432; VAR 25-1433; REP 25-1434
February 12, 2026

The project is consistent with Land Use Policy 2.10 as it preserves existing public and private views while maintaining view equity within the neighborhood. The proposed residence is located on the north side of Glenneyre Street, where homes to the rear sit at higher elevations and retain ocean and canyon views over the proposed structure. The design conforms to the allowable building envelope, with a maximum height of approximately 24.5 feet, and is comparable in scale to the predominantly two- and three-story homes along this segment of Glenneyre Street. The residence incorporates stepped massing and articulated rooflines to reduce visual bulk and blend with the surrounding hillside context. The project does not conflict with Action 2.10.1, as it is consistent with the established multi-story residential character of the neighborhood.

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

The project is consistent with Land Use Policies 7.3 and 10.2 as it is designed to protect natural features and minimize landform alteration. Grading is limited to approximately 220 cubic yards of grading, and the proposed residence is terraced to follow the existing contours of the property. The Biological Resource Assessment (Attachment 6) confirms no sensitive habitats are present, and the watercourse supports only sparse, non-native vegetation. Cantilevered design elements reduce disturbance within the setback, maintaining compatibility with surrounding development and preserving the site’s natural character.

LUE Policy 3.10 Require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated with natural topographic features, minimize significant alteration of natural topography or other significant 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.).

Policy 3.10 requires protection of public views as specified in the Design Guidelines. The Design Guidelines require View Equity for impacts to public views, and require maintenance of view corridors.

View Equity is defined as: View equity means achievement of a fair, reasonable and balanced accommodation of views and competing obstructions such as structures, trees and/or vegetation, privacy and the use and enjoyment of property.

The Design Review Guidelines refers to Public Views:

15.6 Maintain view corridors when feasible.
∙Consider opportunities for public views.
∙Locate a building to retain view opportunities through side yards. 144
144 of 540
DR 25-1431; CDP 25-1432; VAR 25-1433; REP 25-1434
February 12, 2026

The project is consistent with Land Use Policy 3.10 and the City’s Design Guidelines regarding view equity and public view protection. The residence is designed with stepped massing and a maximum height of approximately 24.5 feet, maintaining a low-profile character consistent with surrounding development along Glenneyre Street. Although visible from a public roadway, the structure is sited to preserve existing view corridors and minimize visual bulk through articulated rooflines and natural materials. The design achieves a fair balance between development potential, neighborhood compatibility, and the preservation of public views in accordance with the City’s view equity principles.

LCP DOCUMENTS
The project conforms with all the following applicable documents of the Certified LCP.

Land Use and Open Space/Conservation General Plan Elements Zoning Map
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 proposed development is not located between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea. As detailed above in the facts supporting Finding Number 1, the proposed development is in conformity with the certified local coastal program.

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, as discussed further herein.

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.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 applies to construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures; installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures; and the conversion of existing small structures from one use to another where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the structure. The numbers of structures described in this section are the maximum allowable on any legal parcel. Examples of this exemption include but are not limited to: (a) One singlefamily residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone. In urbanized areas, up to three singlefamily residences may be constructed or converted under this exemption. . . .”. Here, the project consists of merging three vacant lots into one lot to construct one new 1,817-square-foot residence with a 648-squarefoot attached garage, 440 square feet of elevated decks, new landscaping, a spa, grading, new vehicular access from Glenneyre Street, and other improvements in the right of way (the “Project”). The Project is 145
145 of 540
DR 25-1431; CDP 25-1432; VAR 25-1433; REP 25-1434
February 12, 2026

exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 because it is construction and location of the Project, consisting of one new single-family residence, in an established residential neighborhood on a site that is already served by public utilities and infrastructure.

Further, none of the exceptions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply. The project site is not located in a particularly sensitive environment; the project site does not contain any environmentally sensitive areas, as confirmed by the Biological Resource Assessment (South Environmental, July 2024; updated June 2025), which found only sparse, non-native vegetation within the on-site watercourse and no presence of special-status species or native riparian habitat. The Hydrology Report (Rivertech Inc., October 2024; updated September 2025) confirms that the project will maintain existing drainage patterns and will not result in significant impacts to the on-site drainage course. Additionally, there will be no cumulative impact resulting from successive projects of the same type in the same place over time, as the surrounding area is already developed with similar single-family residences and there are currently no additional projects contemplated in the future on the project site other than those described in the project description. Further, there are no unusual circumstances resulting in a significant impact on the environment, as the project involves a typical residential use consistent with zoning and surrounding development patterns as the project site is located in an established residential neighborhood. There will be no damage to scenic resources, including trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar features, as the site is not located along a designated 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, according to State and City environmental records. The project will not result in significant adverse impacts to historical resources as defined by CEQA, as the site is vacant and contains no known historic or cultural features. Consequently, additional environmental analysis is not necessary to meet the requirements of CEQA.

RECOMMENDATION:

Conduct a public hearing and adopt Resolution 25-1431 approving DR 2025-1431, CDP 2025-1432, VAR 2025-1433, and REP 2025-1434 for the property located at 2500 Glenneyre Street (APNs: 656-126-09, 656-146-01, 656-146-02) and find said action categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303.

NOTIFICATION:

Pursuant to Title 25 (Zoning) Public Notice, on September 2, 2025, a public hearing notice was mailed at least twenty-one (21) days prior to the hearing date in accordance with Title 25. In addition, a public hearing notice was posted on the project site on September 11, 2025, which is at least 10 days in advance of the hearing date. Further, a public hearing notice was published on September 12, 2025 in a newspaper of general circulation which is at least 10 days in advance of the public hearing.

CORRESPONDENCE:

Staff has received one comment expressing concerns related to the watercourse encroachment. 146
146 of 540
DR 25-1431; CDP 25-1432; VAR 25-1433; REP 25-1434
February 12, 2026

ATTACHMENT(S):

Attachment 1 – Resolution No. 2025-1431
Attachment 2 – Plans
Attachment 3 – Color and Material Board
Attachment 4 – Colored Elevations
Attachment 5 – Renderings
Attachment 6 – Biological Assessment
Attachment 7 – Geotechnical Report
Attachment 8 – Hydrology Report
Attachment 9 – Correspondence
Attachment 10 – 2538 Glenneyre Street – Historical Assessment Report 147
147 of 540
Cleared for DRB
02/03/2026 Signature __________ Date _____________ SK 12/08/2026

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD

APPROVED
SIGNATURE ______________________ DATE ___________________________ RESO. NO. __________ skhan 02/12/26 2025-1431
Attachment 8 148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
OYSM
159 of 540
160
160 of 540
161
162
162 of 540
163
163 of 540
Laguna Beach Fire Department Page 19 of 23
Landscape/Fuel Modification Standards and Maintenance
Rev. 12/2019
Attachment 6

TREE AND TREE-FORM SHRUB PRUNNING AND SPACING FOR NEW

PLANTINGS AND THINNING ZONES
Plant Group Spacing
10’
Understory
Height
Understory
Clearance 3y
y

NOT TO SCALE

1. 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 (see figure above). New trees and tree-form shrubs may comply with the lesser if sufficient height is not available to achieve 10 feet. Dead and excessively twiggy growth shall be removed.

2. Plant Group Spacing.
a) Trees and tree-form shrubs shall be single specimens or in a maximum grouping of three plants. Groupings shall be separated by a distance of 10’ (see figure above). Other limited grouping arrangements and spacing may be acceptable if approved by LBFD.
b) Trees shall be single specimens or in a maximum grouping of three plants. Groupings shall be separated by a distance of 10 feet (see figure above). Other limited grouping arrangements and spacing may be acceptable if approved by LBFD.
c) Plant specimens listed in the LBFD “Defensible Space and Home Guideline; Suggestions for Plants and Vegetation” (accessible on the LBFD website) shall comply with plant groupings and spacing requirements specified in this Guideline.

Shrub Height
x
Shrub massing exceeding 18” in height
3 times
between two
nearest edges
of adjacent
islands
Laguna Beach Fire Department Page 20 of 23
Landscape/Fuel Modification Standards and Maintenance
Rev. 12/2019
Attachment 7
UNDESIRABLE PLANT SPECIES (Target Species)
Certain plants are considered to be undesirable in the landscape due to characteristics that make them highly flammable. Plants with these characteristics may not be planted in fuel modification zones, as listed below. Should these species already exist within these areas, they must be removed.

Plans should be submitted to the City for review without the target plants listed below. In cases where undesirable plants are included in a submittal for new planting or preservation, the Applicant must submit a request for use of alternative materials and methods. The request will be evaluated by the Fire Department for acceptability.

The list of undesirable plants is comprehensive, but not complete. Closely related species and varieties having substantially similar flammable characteristics as the identified target species may also not be acceptable.

Applicants are encouraged to maximize fire safety by using plants with high water content, low fuel volume, succulent leaves and stems, low litter, and low amounts of flammable oils and resins.

Avoidance of target species alone does not confer maximum fire safety.

Spacing requirements of Attachment 6 apply to all species and must be reflected in the planting design plan submitted to the City.

Vines are not allowed on combustible structures.

Extensive massing of grasses with heights greater than 12” high may not be acceptable.

Additional factors to consider when selecting plants for wildland interface areas include: deer and rabbit resistance, aesthetic compatibility with hillside character, erosion control, and drought tolerance.

TARGET SPECIES UNACCEPTABLE FOR USE IN ALL FUEL MODIFICATION ZONES (A, B, C, D):

Botanical Name Common Name Form
Acacia longifolia Sydney Golden Wattle Shrub
Acacia redolens NCN Shrub
Adenostoma fasciculatum Chamise Shrub
Artemisia californica California Sagebrush Shrub
Arundo donax Giant Reed Grass
Laguna Beach Fire Department Page 21 of 23
Landscape/Fuel Modification Standards and Maintenance
Rev. 12/2019
Atriplex lentiformis Quail Bush Shrub
Bambusa species Bamboo Grass
Brassica nigra Black Mustard Annual
Brassica rapa Yellow Mustard Annual
Caprobotus edulis Hot N Tot Fig Groundcover
Cedrus species Cedar Tree
Cortaderia selloana Pampas Grass Grass
Cupressus sempervirens Italian Cypress Tree
Cynara cardunculus Artichoke Thistle Perennial
Cytisus species Broom Shrub
Delospermum species Iceplant Groundcover
Drosanthemum species Iceplant Groundcover
Eriogonum fasciculatum Buckwheat Shrub
Eucalyptus species Gums Tree
Fargesia species Bamboo Grass
Hedera canariensis Algerian Ivy Groundcover
Juniperus species (shrubs and trees) Juniper Shrub/Tree Lampranthus species Iceplant Groundcover
Melaleuca linariifolia Flaxleaf Paperbark Tree
Melaleuca quinquenervia Cajeput Tree Tree
Nicotiana glauca Tree tobacco Perennial
Otatea acuminata Mexican Weeping Bamboo Grass
Pennisetum setaceum Fountain Grass Grass
Phyllostachys species Bamboo Grass
Pinus species Pine Tree
Ricinus communis Castor Bean Plant Perennial
Laguna Beach Fire Department Page 22 of 23
Landscape/Fuel Modification Standards and Maintenance
Rev. 12/2019
Salvia (native species and varieties) Sage Shrub
Sascola autails Russian Thistle/Tumbleweed Annual
Semiarundinara fastuosa Narihira Bamboo Grass
Schinus terebinthifolius Brazilian Pepper Grass
Thuja species Arborvitae Shrub
Umbellularia californica California Bay Tree
Vinca major Periwinkle Groundcover
Washingtonia species Fan Palm Palm

ADDITIONAL TARGET SPECIES UNACCEPTABLE FOR USE IN FUEL MODIFICATION ZONE A (Zone closest to combustible structures):

Unacceptable species for Zone A include those listed above for all zones plus the following:

Botanical Name Common Name Form
Acacia species Acacia/Wattle Various
Arctostaphylos species (shrubs and trees) Manzanita Shrub/Tree Atriplex species Saltbush Shrub
Bougainvillea species Bougainvillea Shrub/Vine
Callistemon species Bottlebrush Tree
Cinnamomum camphora Camphor Tree
Cotoneaster species (shrubs and trees) Cotoneaster Shrub/Tree Dodonea viscosa Hopseed Shrub
Hakea suavolens Sweet Hakea Shrub
Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon Shrub/Tree
Laurus nobilis Bay/Grecian Laurel Shrub/Tree
Malosma laurina Sugarbush Shrub/Tree
Melaleuca nesophila Pink Melaleuca Tree
Miscanthus sinensis Silver Grass Grass
Laguna Beach Fire Department Page 23 of 23
Landscape/Fuel Modification Standards and Maintenance
Rev. 12/2019
Muhlenbergia rigens Deer Grass Grass
Pennisetum rubrum Purple Fountain Grass Grass
Phoenix canariensis Canary Island Date Palm Palm
Phoenix dactylifera Date Palm Palm
Rhus integrifolia Lemonade Berry Shrub
Rosmarinus officianalis Upright rosemary Shrub
Schinus molle California Pepper Tree
164
164 of 540
Created 8/24/2023
LANDSCAPE & ARCHITECTURAL LIGHTING Learn more. Visit fxl.com 2500 Glenneyre 4 items
SP - LED20W - 18R - CU

PATH LIGHT
Added 8/24/2023
QTY: 20
MD - LED20WFL - BZ

DOWN LIGHT
Added 8/24/2023
QTY: 2
LS - 12 - CU

PENDANT
LIGHT
Added 8/24/2023
QTY: 1
EX - 150 - SS

STAINLESS STEEL
Added 8/24/2023
QTY: 1
1 of 1 Generated 24 Aug 2023 16:53:09

PROJECT
CATALOG #
TYPE
NOTES

LANDSCAPE & ARCHITECTURAL LIGHTING
Path Lights
The SP/SP-A is designed for minimalist themes or compact spaces, where larger path lights just won't work. The beam spread provides maximum projection with minimum glare.

SP/SP-A Path Light STANDARD PREMIUM
15" (381 mm)

3.6" (92 mm)
Path and Area Lights
Quick Facts
■ Spun, machined, and extruded
brass/copper or aluminum
■ Natural, powder coated, or
antiqued copper/brass
■ G4 bi-pin lamp
■ Compatible with Luxor®
technology
■ Phase dimmable
■ Input voltage: 10-15V

PROJECT
CATALOG #
TYPE
NOTES

LANDSCAPE & ARCHITECTURAL LIGHTING
Down Lights
Down Lights

10.5" (246 mm)

10.5" (239 mm)

2.9" (66 mm) 3.0" (66 mm)
45º
The versatile MD directional down light is available with several mounting options.

Quick Facts
■ Die-cast aluminum
■ Two-layer marine-grade
anodization and powder
coat finish
■ MR-16 GU5.3 lamp base
■ ProAim® adjustability
■ Tamper-resistant features
■ Compatible with Luxor®
technology
■ Phase and PWM
dimmable
■ Input voltage: 10-15V
MD Down Light STANDARD PLUS
7/22/2012 AAA E0000

DATE DRFT REVISION DESCRIPTION ECO REV
N/A
MATERIAL:

PRODUCT:

DRAWN
BY:
7/7/2020
SIZE: B
THIRD ANGLE PROJ.
.XX = ±.01
.XXX = ±.005
.XXXX = ±.0005
SHEET 1 OF 1
Hunter Industries
Engineering
1940 Diamond St.

San Marcos, CA 92078
±1° ANGLES:

N/A
E1 21110214XXXX

MACCHIADISCENDRE (MD) ASSEMBLY
1:2

DO NOT SCALE DRAWING

ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES
SURFACE FINISH:

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED:

PRINT
DATE:

REV. DRAWING NO.

SCALE:

Material
Spec:

Color:

TITLE: REL.

DATE:

DIMENSIONAL
TOLERANCES:

CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY
THIS DRAWING/DOCUMENT CONTAINS TRADE SECRET INFORMATION OF HUNTER INDUSTRIES, INC. USE, PUBLICATION, AND/OR DISCLOSURE OF THIS INFORMATION TO THIRD PARTIES ARE ALL PROHIBITED EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED IN ADVANCE BY HUNTER.

NO PATENT LICENSE IS GRANTED TO ANY INVENTIONS DESCRIBED AND/OR ILLUSTRATED HEREIN. ©COPYRIGHT HUNTER INDUSTRIES, INC.

B1 FORMAT REVISION 1 / 11 / 2018

DENOTES CRITICAL INSPECTION POINTS

DENOTES FUNCTIONALLY CRITICAL POINTS
Optional "e"
international version
E0000 AAA 7/22/2012

REV ECO REVISION DESCRIPTION DRFT DATE
N/A
MATERIAL:

PRODUCT:

DRAWN
BY:
7/7/2020
SIZE: B
THIRD ANGLE PROJ.
.XX = ±.01
.XXX = ±.005
.XXXX = ±.0005
SHEET 1 OF 1
Hunter Industries
Engineering
1940 Diamond St.

San Marcos, CA 92078
ANGLES: ±1°
N/A
21110442XXXX C1

MACCHIADISCENDRE (MD) ASSEMBLY, STRAIGHT SHROUD
1:2

DO NOT SCALE DRAWING

ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES
SURFACE FINISH:

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED:

PRINT
DATE:

DRAWING NO. REV.

SCALE:

Material
Spec:

Color:

REL. TITLE:

DATE:

DIMENSIONAL
TOLERANCES:

CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY
THIS DRAWING/DOCUMENT CONTAINS TRADE SECRET INFORMATION OF HUNTER INDUSTRIES, INC. USE, PUBLICATION, AND/OR DISCLOSURE OF THIS INFORMATION TO THIRD PARTIES ARE ALL PROHIBITED EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED IN ADVANCE BY HUNTER.

NO PATENT LICENSE IS GRANTED TO ANY INVENTIONS DESCRIBED AND/OR ILLUSTRATED HEREIN. ©COPYRIGHT HUNTER INDUSTRIES, INC.

B1 FORMAT REVISION 1 / 11 / 2018

DENOTES CRITICAL INSPECTION POINTS

DENOTES FUNCTIONALLY CRITICAL POINTS

EX Transformer
The EX transformer provides an economical, low-wattage
power and control option for LED lighting projects.

Quick Facts
■ 150 watts
■ Single 15-volt output tap
■ Compact design
■ Powder-coated steel or
stainless steel options
■ Compatible with most
120 VAC plug-in
astronomical timers and
photocells

5.5" (140 mm)

12.3" (312 mm) 4.8" (122 mm)

PROJECT
CATALOG #
TYPE
NOTES

LANDSCAPE & ARCHITECTURAL LIGHTING
Lighting Transformer
760.744.5240
logo (4-color CMYK)
® FX: 63.64.65.36
Luminaire: 0.10.11.34
Learn more about FX Luminaire down lights. Visit: fxl.com LS: Down Light
Incandescent Down Lights
Multiple Effects
Small-scale plants in focal
planter areas can become the
host for a micro moonlighting
effect. When combined with SI
lights, the LS creates a “reflected
light” effect.

Note: This fixture is designed for
down lighting only.

When a moonlighting effect is desired, specify
the LS. This micro down light actually hangs from
the host tree by a cinch tie requiring no screws or
permanent hardware. A small brass hook is included
for beam mounted applications. Milled from heavy
copper and solid brass hardware, this luminaire
incorporates a frosted glass lamp to soften beam
spread edge.
3" to 3.75"/7.62 to 9.55 cm
Adjustable

1.38"/3.5 cm
165
165 of 540
FF=185.27 PROPOSED GARAGE FF=182.60 SPA 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 ww .toalengineeri ng. com 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 QUALITY ADAM L. TOAL R.C.E. 59275 DATE: DEVELOPMENT STATISTICS NOTICE TO CONTRACTOR REQUIRED CERTIFICATIONS / APPROVALS In addition to any certifications required by the agencies having jurisdiction over this project, the following approvals from the Civil engineer of record are required: 1. Foundation forms for improvements on or abutting property lines is required prior to concrete pour. 2. Location, size, and depth of all drain lines prior to backfill. 3. Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) at each significant construction stage and at project completion to ensure that BMPs have been constructed and/or installed in accordance with the approved Grading Plan and Water Quality Management Plan. LEGEND 166
FF=185.27 PROPOSED GARAGE FF=182.60 SPA 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 ww .toalengineeri ng. com 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 QUALITY ADAM L. TOAL R.C.E. 59275 DATE: EARTHWORK QUANTITIES: LEGEND:
167
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 w ww .toalengineeri ng. com 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 QUALITY ADAM L. TOAL R.C.E. 59275 DATE:
168
Thomas Terwilliger L.S.

L.S. 9091 Exp. 03/31/26
July 10, 2025
Certified on July 10, 2025
July 10, 2025
Thomas Terwilliger L.S.
192.42 9.35'
192.32 15.37'
181.06 12.71'
188.62 14.15'
189.21 13.56'
187.69 21.00'
186.42 16.35'
185.28 17.49'
181.54 21.23'
180.41 22.36'
183.36 25.33'
183.59 19.18'
183.13 21.72'
182.70 22.15'
179.53 23.24'
178.50 14.18'
176.56 15.12'
174.37 24.14'
172.60 25.91'
170.12 22.14'
168.62 23.64'
169.54 22.72'
168.91 21.60'
172.71 17.80'
173.19 19.07'
175.15 17.11'
174.63 17.38'
- -
177.43 14.41'
179.84 12.00'
180.48 14.70'
177.23 17.95'
175.86 10.14'
172.42 13.58'
166.94 13.31'
172.24 25.71'
169
169 of 540
From:

To: Design Review Board
Subject: 2500 Glenneyre Comments
Date: Friday, November 7, 2025 7:11:42 PM
[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.] My wife and I recently purchased Queda Way and are in the process of getting moved in. We are currently in PA and a neighbor in Laguna Beach informed us of the proposed new construction directly across from our property at 2500 Glenneyre. Our recent purchase was, in part, based on the full ocean view and unique privacy of having outdoor living areas next to what we were told is an unbuildable valley lot. I am writing to voice concerns regarding this request for variance and encroachment as it relates to our property.

We have been unable to obtain any building elevations, plans, outdoor living space locations, or lot layout to determine proximity and potential privacy or view impact. We will not be in Laguna Beach until mid to late January and request any details that may assist with review of the proposed project. Should the view impact be minimal, we see no reason to object, but any privacy encroachment would be a significant concern that negatively effects both our use of the property and its market value.

Although we are unable to attend the meeting on November 13th, our assistant lives nearby and may be able to participate if needed. We welcome communication from the Design Review Board, relevant City staff, or the applicant's architect/representatives.

Thank you in advance.

Chris Conrad
Managing Member
Pennsylvania
Attachment 9
170
170 of 540
City of Laguna Beach & Members of the Design Review Board:

I’m the property owner of Glenneyre Drive, the adjacent neighboring property to 2500 Glenneyre St. I do not support for this project for several reasons. It appears staff has failed to identify and acknowledge that my property is a Mills Act Historic Resource located directly next door. After reviewing the Resolution of the Design Review Board it has came to my attention that multiple findings made by the board with respect to Design Review 25-1431 are not consistent with CEQA and the Laguna Beach Land Use Element Guiding Principals which I have elaborated on below. Furthermore, I do not support the (3) variances to approve the project. The variances will allow the structure to be pushed against the north side property line and protrude into the front yard setback which is inconsistent with all of the properties to the north that are all setback from the street and have parking aprons.

The most obvious reasons as to why I’m not in favor of this project are below:

Loss of Privacy - The project’s 24.5 foot height and placement 7 feet away from my home would allow windows, balconies, and decks to overlook into my yard, patios, and indoor living spaces.

Aesthetic and Neighborhood Degradation - A monolithic wall disrupts the visual rhythm of the street. It make the entire block feel cramped and urbanized even in suburban zones.

Fire Safety & Insurance Risk - Near lot-line construction increases fire spread risk (radiant heat & embers). Some insurers raise premiums or require costly upgrades (e.g., fire rated siding) when adjacent structures are too close.

Drainage & Water Runoff Issues - The project’s roof and impervious surfaces will channel more stormwater toward the property and 125 year old foundation.

Without proper grading or retention, risk of flooding, soil erosion, or foundation damage may arise. Excavating 7-9 feet from my property may undermine and cause destabilization.

Diminished Property Value - The proximity to large towering neighboring structures lowers perceived value. Buyers prefer open views, natural light, and space - these qualities will be erased by a wall-like building next door.

Furthermore appraisers often apply a “proximity adjustment” for structures closer than 10-15 feet. Future buyers may demand price concessions or walk away. 171
171 of 540
Reduced Natural Light & Airflow - The project will casts long shadows, blocking sunlight to landscaping and windows which will result in increased utility bills.

Upon reviewing Resolution 25-1431 there are several inconsistencies that need to be addressed. I have cross referenced Laguna Beach General Plan Land Use Element and have concluded that this project does NOT “ensure development is responsive to individual site constraints” as demonstrated below:

Resolution 25-1431
Section 2 - Page 2 - Resolution 25-1431
“Project is exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 because it is construction and location of the Project… Further, none of the exceptions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply… the project will not result in significant adverse impacts to historical resources as defined by CEQA” FALSE: The Project will have a substantial adverse change on a historical resource * The adjacent property is a Mills Act Historical Resource * Per CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2 (Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 14, Exceptions): (F) Historical Resources A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource
Section 3 - Page 3 - #2. Design Articulation - Resolution 25-1431 “Within the allowable building envelope, the appearance of building and retaining wall mass should be minimized… Together, these design features create a balanced composition that reduces the perception of mass when viewed from Glenneyre Street and surrounding properties”
FALSE: Our adjacent property will be confronted with massing, privacy issues, & constricted views by a solid 24 foot wall 7 feet away
Section 3 - Page 3 - #4. Environmental Context - Resolution 25-1431 “Development should preserve and, where possible, enhance the city’s scenic natural setting… The proposed development is designed to respond sensitively to the site’s steep terrain and natural features”
FALSE: The development is not sensitive to the neighbor’s property and will not preserve the views, privacy, and significance of the Mills Act Historical Resource.

The variance will allow the project to cantilever into the natural water course. 172
172 of 540
Section 3 - Page 4 - #5. General Plan Compliance - Resolution 25-1431 “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”
FALSE: The project does not comply with the General Plan for the following reasons:

Land Use (LU) Policy 2.8 General Plan Policies - Page 4 - Resolution 25-1431 “Require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated with natural topographic features… and/or other significant onsite resources, and protect public views as specified in the Design Guidelines and the Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document”
FALSE: The project is not consistent with Land Use Policy 2.8 & disregards the following:
* Public & private views are significantly diminished and not protected * The project does not preserve existing view corridors - All south side windows and doors lose views
* The project disrupts the aesthetic and neighborhood character by allowing a large house towering over others creating a visual mismatch and undermining the cohesive “curb appeal” of the street
Land Use (LU) Policy 2.10 General Plan Policies - Page 4 - Resolution 25-1431 “Maximize the preservation of coastal and canyon views (consistent with the principle of view equity) from existing properties and minimize blockage of existing public and private views… The project does not obstruct existing public coastal or canyon views…”
FALSE: The project impacts views to both public and private vantage points:
* Adjacent property’s views will be blocked by 24 foot high structure 7 feet away * The project’s application provided no renderings/drawings showing neighboring property to fully reveal the size & scale of the project. This vantage point has been concealed and will have the most impact to the neighboring property by blocking views
Land Use (LU) Policy 3.10 General Plan Policies - Page 5 - Resolution 25-1431 “Require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated… by maintaining the low-profile character of the structures… best efforts should be 173
173 of 540
made to site new development in locations that minimize adverse impacts on views… the project’s height and siting minimize potential impacts on public views…”
FALSE: The project’s design and siting does not maintain low-profile character (24.5 feet tall / 7 feet away) nor does it minimize adverse impacts on views. It will completely remove all south side views.

Land Use (LU) Policy 7.3 General Plan Policies - Page 5 - Resolution 25-1431 “(Same as Policy 10.2) GOAL: Protect, preserve, and enhance the community’s natural resources”
FALSE: This development goes against protecting views, privacy, and preserving a Historical Structure.

Land Use (LU) Policy 10.2 General Plan Policies - Page 6 - Resolution 25-1431 “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…”
FALSE: The project is inconsistent and does not satisfy Land Use Policy 10.2 as it negatively impacts public and private views, visual compatibility, and negatively impacts a historical resource
Section 3 - Page 6 - #6. Historic Preservation - Resolution 25-1431 “The proposed project is located on vacant land with no identified historic or cultural resources”
FALSE: The project is located next door to a historic resource. This fact has been omitted and reveals improper research for the surrounding area Section 3 - Page 7 - #9. Neighborhood Compatibility - Resolution 25-1431 “Development shall be compatible with the existing development in the neighborhood and respect neighborhood character… including historical patterns of development (e.g., structural heights, mass, scale, or size)…” FALSE: The project is a proposed 24.5 foot three-story residence towering over a historical resource and degrading the overall neighborhood character and aesthetics.
174
174 of 540
Section 3 - Page 7 - #11. Privacy - Resolution 25-1431
“The project has been designed to minimize potential privacy impacts to neighboring properties through thoughtful placement of windows, decks, and outdoor activity areas”
FALSE: The project will be located 7 feet from the adjacent property soaring 24.5 feet tall allowing for direct views into the neighbors home and yard. The large structure will casts long shadows onto the adjacent property blocking sunlight and airflow.

Section 3 - Page 9 - #16. View Equity - Resolution 25-1431 “The project has been designed in accordance with the City’s Design Guidelines to maintain view equity while allowing reasonable development of the subject property.”
FALSE: Every side window and door opening of the adjacent property will lose it’s views. There is ZERO view protection for the adjacent property.

Section 3 - Page 9 - Finding No. 4 - Resolution 25-1431 “The project is consistent with any specific plan or any other specific zoning design review criteria.”
FALSE: The project is not consistent with CEQA and the Laguna Beach Land Use Element Guiding Principals
175
175 of 540
176
176 of 540
E = Exceptional X=Not Yet Rated
K = Key
C = Contributive
Historic Register Index List, July 2024
Date Approved
by Heritage
Committee
Historic
Register
Number
Street
Number Street Name Category Summary Year Built
Recorded with
the County -
Historic
Agreement
Historic
Agreement
Dates Recorded Mills Act
Agreement
131 04/19/94 131 1094 Glenneyre Street K Cottage 1928 Yes 4/28/1994 10/06/2015 144 03/29/96 144 661 Glenneyre Street K Craftsman-Board & Batten 1917 Yes 12/22/1995 153 04/14/97 153 2175-2177 Glenneyre Street K Cottage 1925-35 Yes 3/3/1997 154 04/15/97 154 1390 Glenneyre Street K Clapboard Cottage 1923 Yes 3/4/1997 12/11/2019 161 04/08/97 161 2020 Glenneyre Street C Cottage 1932 Yes 4/14/1997 167 10/27/97 167 1762 Glenneyre Street E Eclectic English 1925 Yes 8/22/2012 01/24/2006 189 01/17/00 189 1428 Glenneyre Street K Cottage 1939 Yes 1/20/2000 12/18/2018 213 07/10/02 213 1575 Glenneyre Street K California Cottage 1941 Yes 7/10/2002 259 07/22/03 257 655 Glenneyre Street K Craftman Beach Cottage 1926 Yes 8/22/2012 08/03/2010 264 07/01/10 263 1860 Glenneyre Street K Clapboard bungalow 1924 Yes 9/17/2012 04/15/2011 313 10/19/2018 313 2538 Glenneyre Street K Board & Batten Beach Cottage 1920 Yes 10/19/2018 12/18/2018 244 08/18/08 244 1422 Glenneyre Street/315 Mountain E Old Brayton Eschback House 1928 Yes 9/17/2012 12/08/2009 245 10/27/08 244 1422 Glenneyre Street/315 Mountain E Eclectic House (315 Mountain) 1939 Yes 9/17/2012 12/08/2009 39 10/27/89 39 571 Graceland E Old Art Gallery 1900 Yes 11/2/2012 12/14/2007 74 07/24/90 74 422 Graceland C Eclectic 1930 Yes 7/10/2001 337 2/27/2023 337 489 Graceland Drive - Beach Cottage 1927 Yes 3/21/2023 12/20/2023 126 01/18/94 126 310* Hawthorne Road E Craftsman Cottage 1917 Yes 9/17/2012 10/13/1995 138 02/08/95 138 310* Hawthorne Road E Craftsman Cottage 1917 Yes 9/17/2012 10/13/1995 247 09/15/08 245 337 Hawthorne Road C Shingle Style Cottage 1927 No 254 04/07/09 252 451 Hawthorne Road K Craftsman 1924 Yes 10/2/2012 04/14/2009 287 4/21/2014 287 369 Hawthorne Road K Colonial Revival 1925 yes 4/1/2015 69 02/01/90 69 482 High Drive E Spanish Med Revival 1938 Yes 6/11/2002 94 01/18/91 94 625 High Drive K Cottage 1913 Yes 4/20/2000 102 01/21/92 102 568 High Drive C Provincial Revival 1922 Yes 5/21/1999 273 06/20/11 272 459 High Drive E Vintage English Cotswald 1924 Yes [removed 1/7/2013] 289 3/16/2009 289 205 High Drive C Mediterranean Revival yes 4/20/2015 316 2/21/2019 316 250 High Drive E Mission Revival 1934 Yes 3/26/2019 12/22/2021 233 06/18/07 233 1617 Hillcrest Drive K Beach Cottage 1950 Yes 3/13/2008 6 177
177 of 540
178
179
179 of 540
180
180 of 540
181
181 of 540
182
182 of 540
183
183 of 540
184
184 of 540
City of Laguna Beach & Members of the Design Review Board:

I’m the property owner of Glenneyre Drive, the adjacent neighboring property to 2500 Glenneyre St. I do not support for this project for several reasons. It appears staff has failed to identify and acknowledge that my property is a Mills Act Historic Resource located directly next door. After reviewing the Resolution of the Design Review Board it has came to my attention that multiple findings made by the board with respect to Design Review 25-1431 are not consistent with CEQA and the Laguna Beach Land Use Element Guiding Principals which I have elaborated on below. Furthermore, I do not support the (3) variances to approve the project. The variances will allow the structure to be pushed against the north side property line and protrude into the front yard setback which is inconsistent with all of the properties to the north that are all setback from the street and have parking aprons.

The most obvious reasons as to why I’m not in favor of this project are below:

Loss of Privacy - The project’s 24.5 foot height and placement 7 feet away from my home would allow windows, balconies, and decks to overlook into my yard, patios, and indoor living spaces.

Aesthetic and Neighborhood Degradation - A monolithic wall disrupts the visual rhythm of the street. It make the entire block feel cramped and urbanized even in suburban zones.

Fire Safety & Insurance Risk - Near lot-line construction increases fire spread risk (radiant heat & embers). Some insurers raise premiums or require costly upgrades (e.g., fire rated siding) when adjacent structures are too close.

Drainage & Water Runoff Issues - The project’s roof and impervious surfaces will channel more stormwater toward the property and 125 year old foundation.

Without proper grading or retention, risk of flooding, soil erosion, or foundation damage may arise. Excavating 7-9 feet from my property may undermine and cause destabilization.

Diminished Property Value - The proximity to large towering neighboring structures lowers perceived value. Buyers prefer open views, natural light, and space - these qualities will be erased by a wall-like building next door.

Furthermore appraisers often apply a “proximity adjustment” for structures closer than 10-15 feet. Future buyers may demand price concessions or walk away. 185
185 of 540
Reduced Natural Light & Airflow - The project will casts long shadows, blocking sunlight to landscaping and windows which will result in increased utility bills.

Upon reviewing Resolution 25-1431 there are several inconsistencies that need to be addressed. I have cross referenced Laguna Beach General Plan Land Use Element and have concluded that this project does NOT “ensure development is responsive to individual site constraints” as demonstrated below:

Resolution 25-1431
Section 2 - Page 2 - Resolution 25-1431
“Project is exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 because it is construction and location of the Project… Further, none of the exceptions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply… the project will not result in significant adverse impacts to historical resources as defined by CEQA” FALSE: The Project will have a substantial adverse change on a historical resource * The adjacent property is a Mills Act Historical Resource * Per CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2 (Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 14, Exceptions): (F) Historical Resources A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource
Section 3 - Page 3 - #2. Design Articulation - Resolution 25-1431 “Within the allowable building envelope, the appearance of building and retaining wall mass should be minimized… Together, these design features create a balanced composition that reduces the perception of mass when viewed from Glenneyre Street and surrounding properties”
FALSE: Our adjacent property will be confronted with massing, privacy issues, & constricted views by a solid 24 foot wall 7 feet away
Section 3 - Page 3 - #4. Environmental Context - Resolution 25-1431 “Development should preserve and, where possible, enhance the city’s scenic natural setting… The proposed development is designed to respond sensitively to the site’s steep terrain and natural features”
FALSE: The development is not sensitive to the neighbor’s property and will not preserve the views, privacy, and significance of the Mills Act Historical Resource.

The variance will allow the project to cantilever into the natural water course. 186
186 of 540
Section 3 - Page 4 - #5. General Plan Compliance - Resolution 25-1431 “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”
FALSE: The project does not comply with the General Plan for the following reasons:

Land Use (LU) Policy 2.8 General Plan Policies - Page 4 - Resolution 25-1431 “Require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated with natural topographic features… and/or other significant onsite resources, and protect public views as specified in the Design Guidelines and the Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document”
FALSE: The project is not consistent with Land Use Policy 2.8 & disregards the following:
* Public & private views are significantly diminished and not protected * The project does not preserve existing view corridors - All south side windows and doors lose views
* The project disrupts the aesthetic and neighborhood character by allowing a large house towering over others creating a visual mismatch and undermining the cohesive “curb appeal” of the street
Land Use (LU) Policy 2.10 General Plan Policies - Page 4 - Resolution 25-1431 “Maximize the preservation of coastal and canyon views (consistent with the principle of view equity) from existing properties and minimize blockage of existing public and private views… The project does not obstruct existing public coastal or canyon views…”
FALSE: The project impacts views to both public and private vantage points:
* Adjacent property’s views will be blocked by 24 foot high structure 7 feet away * The project’s application provided no renderings/drawings showing neighboring property to fully reveal the size & scale of the project. This vantage point has been concealed and will have the most impact to the neighboring property by blocking views
Land Use (LU) Policy 3.10 General Plan Policies - Page 5 - Resolution 25-1431 “Require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated… by maintaining the low-profile character of the structures… best efforts should be 187
187 of 540
made to site new development in locations that minimize adverse impacts on views… the project’s height and siting minimize potential impacts on public views…”
FALSE: The project’s design and siting does not maintain low-profile character (24.5 feet tall / 7 feet away) nor does it minimize adverse impacts on views. It will completely remove all south side views.

Land Use (LU) Policy 7.3 General Plan Policies - Page 5 - Resolution 25-1431 “(Same as Policy 10.2) GOAL: Protect, preserve, and enhance the community’s natural resources”
FALSE: This development goes against protecting views, privacy, and preserving a Historical Structure.

Land Use (LU) Policy 10.2 General Plan Policies - Page 6 - Resolution 25-1431 “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…”
FALSE: The project is inconsistent and does not satisfy Land Use Policy 10.2 as it negatively impacts public and private views, visual compatibility, and negatively impacts a historical resource
Section 3 - Page 6 - #6. Historic Preservation - Resolution 25-1431 “The proposed project is located on vacant land with no identified historic or cultural resources”
FALSE: The project is located next door to a historic resource. This fact has been omitted and reveals improper research for the surrounding area Section 3 - Page 7 - #9. Neighborhood Compatibility - Resolution 25-1431 “Development shall be compatible with the existing development in the neighborhood and respect neighborhood character… including historical patterns of development (e.g., structural heights, mass, scale, or size)…” FALSE: The project is a proposed 24.5 foot three-story residence towering over a historical resource and degrading the overall neighborhood character and aesthetics.
188
188 of 540
Section 3 - Page 7 - #11. Privacy - Resolution 25-1431
“The project has been designed to minimize potential privacy impacts to neighboring properties through thoughtful placement of windows, decks, and outdoor activity areas”
FALSE: The project will be located 7 feet from the adjacent property soaring 24.5 feet tall allowing for direct views into the neighbors home and yard. The large structure will casts long shadows onto the adjacent property blocking sunlight and airflow.

Section 3 - Page 9 - #16. View Equity - Resolution 25-1431 “The project has been designed in accordance with the City’s Design Guidelines to maintain view equity while allowing reasonable development of the subject property.”
FALSE: Every side window and door opening of the adjacent property will lose it’s views. There is ZERO view protection for the adjacent property.

Section 3 - Page 9 - Finding No. 4 - Resolution 25-1431 “The project is consistent with any specific plan or any other specific zoning design review criteria.”
FALSE: The project is not consistent with CEQA and the Laguna Beach Land Use Element Guiding Principals
189
189 of 540
City of Laguna Beach & Members of the Design Review Board:

I’m the property owner of 2538 Glenneyre Drive, the adjacent neighboring property to 2500 Glenneyre St. I do not support for this project for several reasons. It appears staff has failed to identify and acknowledge that my property is a Mills Act Historic Resource located directly next door. After reviewing the Resolution of the Design Review Board it has came to my attention that multiple findings made by the board with respect to Design Review 25-1431 are not consistent with CEQA and the Laguna Beach Land Use Element Guiding Principals which I have elaborated on below. Furthermore, I do not support the (3) variances to approve the project. The variances will allow the structure to be pushed against the north side property line and protrude into the front yard setback which is inconsistent with all of the properties to the north that are all setback from the street and have parking aprons.

The most obvious reasons as to why I’m not in favor of this project are below:

Loss of Privacy - The project’s 24.5 foot height and placement 7 feet away from my home would allow windows, balconies, and decks to overlook into my yard, patios, and indoor living spaces.

Aesthetic and Neighborhood Degradation - A monolithic wall disrupts the visual rhythm of the street. It make the entire block feel cramped and urbanized even in suburban zones.

Fire Safety & Insurance Risk - Near lot-line construction increases fire spread risk (radiant heat & embers). Some insurers raise premiums or require costly upgrades (e.g., fire rated siding) when adjacent structures are too close.

Drainage & Water Runoff Issues - The project’s roof and impervious surfaces will channel more stormwater toward the property and 125 year old foundation.

Without proper grading or retention, risk of flooding, soil erosion, or foundation damage may arise. Excavating 7-9 feet from my property may undermine and cause destabilization.

Diminished Property Value - The proximity to large towering neighboring structures lowers perceived value. Buyers prefer open views, natural light, and space - these qualities will be erased by a wall-like building next door.

Furthermore appraisers often apply a “proximity adjustment” for structures closer than 10-15 feet. Future buyers may demand price concessions or walk away. 190
190 of 540
Reduced Natural Light & Airflow - The project will casts long shadows, blocking sunlight to landscaping and windows which will result in increased utility bills.

Upon reviewing Resolution 25-1431 there are several inconsistencies that need to be addressed. I have cross referenced Laguna Beach General Plan Land Use Element and have concluded that this project does NOT “ensure development is responsive to individual site constraints” as demonstrated below:

Resolution 25-1431
Section 2 - Page 2 - Resolution 25-1431
“Project is exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 because it is construction and location of the Project… Further, none of the exceptions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply… the project will not result in significant adverse impacts to historical resources as defined by CEQA” FALSE: The Project will have a substantial adverse change on a historical resource * The adjacent property is a Mills Act Historical Resource * Per CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2 (Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 14, Exceptions): (F) Historical Resources A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource
Section 3 - Page 3 - #2. Design Articulation - Resolution 25-1431 “Within the allowable building envelope, the appearance of building and retaining wall mass should be minimized… Together, these design features create a balanced composition that reduces the perception of mass when viewed from Glenneyre Street and surrounding properties”
FALSE: Our adjacent property will be confronted with massing, privacy issues, & constricted views by a solid 24 foot wall 7 feet away
Section 3 - Page 3 - #4. Environmental Context - Resolution 25-1431 “Development should preserve and, where possible, enhance the city’s scenic natural setting… The proposed development is designed to respond sensitively to the site’s steep terrain and natural features”
FALSE: The development is not sensitive to the neighbor’s property and will not preserve the views, privacy, and significance of the Mills Act Historical Resource.

The variance will allow the project to cantilever into the natural water course. 191
191 of 540
Section 3 - Page 4 - #5. General Plan Compliance - Resolution 25-1431 “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”
FALSE: The project does not comply with the General Plan for the following reasons:

Land Use (LU) Policy 2.8 General Plan Policies - Page 4 - Resolution 25-1431 “Require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated with natural topographic features… and/or other significant onsite resources, and protect public views as specified in the Design Guidelines and the Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document”
FALSE: The project is not consistent with Land Use Policy 2.8 & disregards the following:
* Public & private views are significantly diminished and not protected * The project does not preserve existing view corridors - All south side windows and doors lose views
* The project disrupts the aesthetic and neighborhood character by allowing a large house towering over others creating a visual mismatch and undermining the cohesive “curb appeal” of the street
Land Use (LU) Policy 2.10 General Plan Policies - Page 4 - Resolution 25-1431 “Maximize the preservation of coastal and canyon views (consistent with the principle of view equity) from existing properties and minimize blockage of existing public and private views… The project does not obstruct existing public coastal or canyon views…”
FALSE: The project impacts views to both public and private vantage points:
* Adjacent property’s views will be blocked by 24 foot high structure 7 feet away * The project’s application provided no renderings/drawings showing neighboring property to fully reveal the size & scale of the project. This vantage point has been concealed and will have the most impact to the neighboring property by blocking views
Land Use (LU) Policy 3.10 General Plan Policies - Page 5 - Resolution 25-1431 “Require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated… by maintaining the low-profile character of the structures… best efforts should be 192
192 of 540
made to site new development in locations that minimize adverse impacts on views… the project’s height and siting minimize potential impacts on public views…”
FALSE: The project’s design and siting does not maintain low-profile character (24.5 feet tall / 7 feet away) nor does it minimize adverse impacts on views. It will completely remove all south side views.

Land Use (LU) Policy 7.3 General Plan Policies - Page 5 - Resolution 25-1431 “(Same as Policy 10.2) GOAL: Protect, preserve, and enhance the community’s natural resources”
FALSE: This development goes against protecting views, privacy, and preserving a Historical Structure.

Land Use (LU) Policy 10.2 General Plan Policies - Page 6 - Resolution 25-1431 “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…”
FALSE: The project is inconsistent and does not satisfy Land Use Policy 10.2 as it negatively impacts public and private views, visual compatibility, and negatively impacts a historical resource
Section 3 - Page 6 - #6. Historic Preservation - Resolution 25-1431 “The proposed project is located on vacant land with no identified historic or cultural resources”
FALSE: The project is located next door to a historic resource. This fact has been omitted and reveals improper research for the surrounding area Section 3 - Page 7 - #9. Neighborhood Compatibility - Resolution 25-1431 “Development shall be compatible with the existing development in the neighborhood and respect neighborhood character… including historical patterns of development (e.g., structural heights, mass, scale, or size)…” FALSE: The project is a proposed 24.5 foot three-story residence towering over a historical resource and degrading the overall neighborhood character and aesthetics.
193
193 of 540
Section 3 - Page 7 - #11. Privacy - Resolution 25-1431
“The project has been designed to minimize potential privacy impacts to neighboring properties through thoughtful placement of windows, decks, and outdoor activity areas”
FALSE: The project will be located 7 feet from the adjacent property soaring 24.5 feet tall allowing for direct views into the neighbors home and yard. The large structure will casts long shadows onto the adjacent property blocking sunlight and airflow.

Section 3 - Page 9 - #16. View Equity - Resolution 25-1431 “The project has been designed in accordance with the City’s Design Guidelines to maintain view equity while allowing reasonable development of the subject property.”
FALSE: Every side window and door opening of the adjacent property will lose it’s views. There is ZERO view protection for the adjacent property.

Section 3 - Page 9 - Finding No. 4 - Resolution 25-1431 “The project is consistent with any specific plan or any other specific zoning design review criteria.”
FALSE: The project is not consistent with CEQA and the Laguna Beach Land Use Element Guiding Principals
194
194 of 540
195
195 of 540
196
196 of 540
Edwin C. Kisiel, Esq.

October 9, 2025
City of Laguna Beach
Design Review Board
505 Forest Avenue
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
Re: Public Comment Letter - Design Review 25-1431, Variance 25-1433 Application APN: 656-126-09; 656-146-01; 656-146-02
Address: 2500 Glenneyre Street (2500 Glenneyre, 2500 Queda, 2500 Pala) also known as 2548 Glenneyre Street
References:

1. Matthew South, Biological Resource Assessment (South Environmental 2025) (“Biological”)

2. Tamim Atayee, Hydrologic Assessment (Rivertec 2025) (“Hydrology”) Dear Design Review Board:

I am writing to provide information to the Design Review Board (DRB) as it considers Design Review 25-1431 or construction of a single-family residence and accompanying Variance 25-1433 for the homesite at 2500 Glenneyre Street (also known as 2548 Glenneyre Street) in the City of Laguna Beach (Subject Property). The proposed variances for watercourse setback and turnaround meet the standards of the General Plan and Laguna Beach Municipal Code (LBMC), and there is ample justification and precedent for the variances, supported by hydrology and biological reports that have been reviewed and accepted by the City. Since sound supporting rationale, research, and precedent exists for the variance findings, as discussed in detail in this letter, we recommend that the DRB approve the variances under review.

Background
In September 2023, architect Mark Abel submitted plans for an 1817 square foot singlefamily residence in a traditional Laguna cottage style on a 0.21-acre parcel. The Subject Property is owned by Mark and Sue Winner, longtime residents of Laguna Beach, and it will be constructed as a primary residence for their family members, who are also Laguna Beach residents. The home is modest in size compared to other homes in the neighborhood. Due to the topography of the lot and the presence of a watercourse setback running through the middle of the site, the applicants request variances to (1) encroach into the watercourse setback for structural support and to provide on-site parking and (2) to vary from the requirement for onsite turnaround. The applicant’s variance applications are supported by the peer-reviewed hydrology and biological assessment. Without the variances, the applicants will be unable to make an economically viable use of their property. The variances will ensure that the property owners 197
197 of 540
2 can enjoy the same privileges of other owners in the vicinity, which is construction of a functional single-family home.

Discussion
In order to grant a variance, the DRB makes findings pursuant to LBMC § 25.05.025 and § 25.50.030 for encroachment into a significant watercourse. Variance findings required by LBMC § 25.05.025 are that:
(1) There are special circumstances applicable to the property involved, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings which cause the strict application of the zoning ordinance to deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. (2) Such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, which right is possessed by other property owners under like conditions in the same vicinity and zone.
(3) The granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, convenience and welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity in which the property is located.
(4) The granting of such a Variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the zoning ordinance or the General Plan.

For encroachment into a watercourse setback, additional findings under LBMC § 25.50.030(4) are:
(a) The proposed encroachment will act to preserve, enhance or restore the significance of the watercourse
(b) The proposed encroachment is not likely to impair the functional, scenic, and ecological purposes of the watercourse.

For LBMC § 25.50.030(4)(a) findings, only one of the three criteria needs to be met. Based on the information provided to the DRB through the project design, hydrology, biological assessment, and precedent, the DRB is able to make the required findings for variance approval.

Watercourse Setback Variance
The housing development project seeks a variance for encroachment of six 1’ diameter columns, for a variance of 4.71 square feet, and 75.75 square feet variance for the corner of a garage to provide two covered parking spaces required under City code, for a total of 80.46 square feet. The required findings under LBMC § 25.05.025 and LBMC § 25.50.030 will be satisfied for the Design Review Board to grant a variance to encroach into the 25-foot watercourse setback with the proposed project. The variance findings are able to be satisfied, as discussed in detail below:

1. It is clear that there are special circumstances applicable to the Subject Property that cause strict application of the zoning ordinance to deprive the owners of the Subject Property of 198
198 of 540
3 privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification.

This is an R-1 zoned property for single family residential and is a legal building site. The Subject Property has conditions of steep topography (33.5% slope) and a watercourse running down the middle of the property with a setback that would prevent construction of a singlefamily residence unless a variance is provided. All other owners of building sites in the vicinity have been able to construct single-family homes. The applicant seeks to build a 1,817 squarefoot single-family home on a 0.21 acre lot, which is much smaller footprint home than other homes in the vicinity, which can range up to 4,350 square feet. Without the variance, the owner would not be able to build on the Subject Property.

2. A watercourse variance is necessary for preservation of the enjoyment of the right of the applicant to construct a single-family home, which is a right possessed by other property owners under like conditions in the vicinity. All surrounding building sites in the vicinity are improved with single-family homes. Additionally, there is precedent in the area for granting a variance to construct within a watercourse setback. For example, Ruby Place (Variance No. 5015, granted Nov. 1992), Agate Street (Variance No. 7113, granted Aug. 2004) and Moss Place (Variance No. 3283, granted Feb. 1980) received variances to construct improvements in a watercourse setback. Other homes in the vicinity were also constructed within this watercourse setback prior to the setback requirement, as shown on the diagram below (downstream from 2548 Glenneyre Street). Furthermore, for the Subject Property, a watercourse setback variance (Variance No. 3185) for a single-family home was granted in 1979 and a building permit was issued in 1982, but the home was never constructed. 199
199 of 540
4 3. The granting of a variance will not be injurious to public health, safety, convenience, or welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The watercourse is in a steep, narrow ravine at a significantly lower elevation compared to the improvements. Based on the hydrology report, even under a 100-year storm scenario, the water level will never rise to the level of the proposed improvements, including the variance elements of the columns or garage corner encroachments (Hydrology, p. 6). In a 100-year storm, the water will flow over Glenneyre Street, so water cannot reach any of the structure (Hydrology, p. 6). Additionally, there is no net increase in runoff from the encroachments or the home itself (Hydrology, p. 5).

These findings have been confirmed by the City’s peer reviewer.

4. The granting of the variance will ensure that the proposed single-family home conforms to the objectives of the General Plan and zoning ordinance. The variance is necessary for the residence to meet the requirement for covered, off-street parking. The proposed project is for a single-family residence in the R-1 zone which is an allowable use of the property by-right under the zoning ordinance and General Plan. Additionally, as noted above and confirmed by the City’s peer reviewer, even under a 100-year storm scenario, the water level will never rise to the level of the proposed improvements, including the variance elements of the columns or garage corner encroachments (Hydrology, p. 6). In a 100-year storm, the water will flow over Glenneyre Street, so water cannot reach any of the structure (Hydrology, p. 6). Additionally, there is no net increase in runoff from the encroachments or the home itself (Hydrology, p. 5).

The specific variance findings for the watercourse setback are able to be met, as discussed below:
a. As to the first watercourse variance finding, the proposed encroachments will act to preserve, enhance, or restore the significance of the watercourse. The design and articulation of the home, including the encroachments, honors the watercourse as it steps up the hill towards the back of the site. As demonstrated in the hydrology report, and confirmed by the City’s peer reviewer, even in a 100-year storm scenario, the water level will never rise to the level of the columns or garage corner encroachments (Hydrology, p. 6). Additionally, there is no increase in runoff from the encroachments or the home itself (Hydrology, p. 5). Constructing the proposed improvements will also prevent the site and watercourse area from being used for camping by homeless individuals, who the owners have had to require the City to evict in the past. b. As to the second watercourse variance finding, the proposed encroachments will not impair the functional, scenic, or ecological purposes of the watercourse. i. The hydrology report proves that lack of functional impairment. As stated in the hydrology report, and confirmed by the City’s peer reviewer, even in a 100-year storm scenario there is no water obstruction since the water level will never rise to the level of the columns or garage corner encroachments or any of the structure (Hydrology, p. 6). Additionally, there is no increase in runoff from the encroachments or the home itself (Hydrology, p. 5). ii. The proposed encroachment will not impact any scenic purposes of the watercourse. The watercourse has no scenic value as it is not visible from offsite areas due to 200
200 of 540
5 slope, vegetation, and tree canopy coverage. The watercourse is dry except during rain events.

From a visual standpoint, the design of the home is complementary with the watercourse, and the watercourse is incorporated as a design element in the proposed project. Thus, scenic purposes are not impaired.
iii. Based on the biological assessment, the proposed encroachments will not impair any ecological purpose of the watercourse. The biological assessment concluded there is no persistent water source in the drainage, precluding any fish or amphibian habitat (Biological, p. 13). The biological assessment also concluded that the project site is not native habitat and does not have the potential to support any special-status species (Biological, p. 22). The project is outside of the drainage and does not impact the streambeds (Biological, p. 24). Finally, based on the site plan, there will not no physical disturbance of the watercourse (Hydrology, p. 7) and best management practices will be implemented, as determined by the Public Works Department.

Turnaround Variance
The housing development project seeks a variance from the requirement for an onsite turnaround. The required findings under Laguna Beach Municipal Code § 25.05.025 will be satisfied for the Design Review Board to additionally grant a variance from this requirement.

The variance findings are able to be fulfilled, as discussed in detail below:

1. It is clear that there are special circumstances applicable to the Subject Property that cause strict application of the zoning ordinance to deprive the owners of the Subject Property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification.

The Subject Property has conditions of steep topography (33.5% slope) and a watercourse running down the middle of the property that limits the amount of developable space. This means that there is not adequate space along the driveway for provision of a turnaround, especially with the required addition of a new public parking space. All other owners of building sites in the vicinity have been able to construct single-family homes. The applicant seeks to build a 1,817 square-foot single-family home on a 0.21 acre lot, which is much smaller footprint home than other homes in the vicinity, which can range up to 4,350 square feet. Without the variance, the owner would not be able to build on the Subject Property.

2. A variance is necessary for preservation of the enjoyment of the right of the applicant to construct a single-family home, which is a right possessed by other property owners under like conditions in the vicinity. All surrounding building sites in the vicinity are improved with singlefamily homes. Additionally, there is precedent on the street for granting a variance from the requirements for an onsite turnaround. For example, 293 Upland Road (Variance No. 6401, granted Apr. 1997), 2450 Glenneyre Street (Variance No. 7544, granted Oct. 2008), 2510 Glenneyre Street (Variance No. 2810, granted Jan. 1977), 2512 Glenneyre Street (Variance No. 2730, granted Jun. 1976), 2604 Glenneyre Street (Variance No. 3223, granted Dec. 1979), and 2626 Glenneyre Street (Variance No. 4947, granted Apr. 1992) received variances from the requirement for an onsite turnaround. Furthermore, the neighboring residence at 2538 Glenneyre, which was the property owners’ prior residence, (built before the zoning code) does not have an onsite turnaround.
201
201 of 540
6 3. The granting of a variance will not be injurious to public health, safety, convenience, or welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The existing conditions include a 25 MPH speed limit and traffic calming speedbump on Glenneyre Street at the project site. Many other homes in the vicinity on Glenneyre Street lack onsite turnarounds without creating an apparent issue for public health, safety, convenience, welfare or injury to property or improvements. The owners and applicants have decades of experience with the exit from the driveway onto Glenneyre Street from both the Subject Property and from neighboring 2538 Glenneyre Street, without issue. Here, as with the other homes on the street without onsite turnarounds, there will be no impact to public health, safety, convenience, or welfare and the variance will not injure any property or improvements in the vicinity by granting of the variance.

4. The granting of the variance will ensure that the proposed single-family home conforms to the objectives of the General Plan and zoning ordinance, including the provision of a new on-street public parking space. The proposed project is for a single-family residence in the R-1 zone which is an allowable use of the property by-right under the zoning ordinance and General Plan.

Conclusion
Based on the justification and research provided above, including peer-reviewed hydrology and biological reports, the findings for approval of each variance are able to be satisfied. Accordingly, we recommend that the DRB approve both the watercourse setback variance and turnaround variance under review as Variance 25-1433. We thank you for your time and consideration of the proposed the housing development project at 2500 Glenneyre Street and variance applications. Please reach out to architect Mark Abel if you have any questions about this project, the research provided, or to schedule a site visit. He may be contacted by phone at
Respectfully,
Edwin C. Kisiel, Esq.
202
202 of 540
Edwin C. Kisiel, Esq.
1205 Victory Walk
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
(949) 549-9650
[email protected]
October 9, 2025
City of Laguna Beach
Design Review Board
505 Forest Avenue
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
Re: Public Comment Letter - Design Review 25-1431, Variance 25-1433 Application APN: 656-126-09; 656-146-01; 656-146-02
Address: 2500 Glenneyre Street (2500 Glenneyre, 2500 Queda, 2500 Pala) also known as 2548 Glenneyre Street
References:

1. Matthew South, Biological Resource Assessment (South Environmental 2025) (“Biological”)

2. Tamim Atayee, Hydrologic Assessment (Rivertec 2025) (“Hydrology”) Dear Design Review Board:

I am writing to provide information to the Design Review Board (DRB) as it considers Design Review 25-1431 or construction of a single-family residence and accompanying Variance 25-1433 for the homesite at 2500 Glenneyre Street (also known as 2548 Glenneyre Street) in the City of Laguna Beach (Subject Property). The proposed variances for watercourse setback and turnaround meet the standards of the General Plan and Laguna Beach Municipal Code (LBMC), and there is ample justification and precedent for the variances, supported by hydrology and biological reports that have been reviewed and accepted by the City. Since sound supporting rationale, research, and precedent exists for the variance findings, as discussed in detail in this letter, we recommend that the DRB approve the variances under review.

Background
In September 2023, architect Mark Abel submitted plans for an 1817 square foot singlefamily residence in a traditional Laguna cottage style on a 0.21-acre parcel. The Subject Property is owned by Mark and Sue Winner, longtime residents of Laguna Beach, and it will be constructed as a primary residence for their family members, who are also Laguna Beach residents. The home is modest in size compared to other homes in the neighborhood. Due to the topography of the lot and the presence of a watercourse setback running through the middle of the site, the applicants request variances to (1) encroach into the watercourse setback for structural support and to provide on-site parking and (2) to vary from the requirement for onsite turnaround. The applicant’s variance applications are supported by the peer-reviewed hydrology and biological assessment. Without the variances, the applicants will be unable to make an economically viable use of their property. The variances will ensure that the property owners 203
203 of 540
2 can enjoy the same privileges of other owners in the vicinity, which is construction of a functional single-family home.

Discussion
In order to grant a variance, the DRB makes findings pursuant to LBMC § 25.05.025 and § 25.50.030 for encroachment into a significant watercourse. Variance findings required by LBMC § 25.05.025 are that:
(1) There are special circumstances applicable to the property involved, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings which cause the strict application of the zoning ordinance to deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. (2) Such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, which right is possessed by other property owners under like conditions in the same vicinity and zone.
(3) The granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, convenience and welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity in which the property is located.
(4) The granting of such a Variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the zoning ordinance or the General Plan.

For encroachment into a watercourse setback, additional findings under LBMC § 25.50.030(4) are:
(a) The proposed encroachment will act to preserve, enhance or restore the significance of the watercourse
(b) The proposed encroachment is not likely to impair the functional, scenic, and ecological purposes of the watercourse.

For LBMC § 25.50.030(4)(a) findings, only one of the three criteria needs to be met. Based on the information provided to the DRB through the project design, hydrology, biological assessment, and precedent, the DRB is able to make the required findings for variance approval.

Watercourse Setback Variance
The housing development project seeks a variance for encroachment of six 1’ diameter columns, for a variance of 4.71 square feet, and 75.75 square feet variance for the corner of a garage to provide two covered parking spaces required under City code, for a total of 80.46 square feet. The required findings under LBMC § 25.05.025 and LBMC § 25.50.030 will be satisfied for the Design Review Board to grant a variance to encroach into the 25-foot watercourse setback with the proposed project. The variance findings are able to be satisfied, as discussed in detail below:

1. It is clear that there are special circumstances applicable to the Subject Property that cause strict application of the zoning ordinance to deprive the owners of the Subject Property of 204
204 of 540
3 privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification.

This is an R-1 zoned property for single family residential and is a legal building site. The Subject Property has conditions of steep topography (33.5% slope) and a watercourse running down the middle of the property with a setback that would prevent construction of a singlefamily residence unless a variance is provided. All other owners of building sites in the vicinity have been able to construct single-family homes. The applicant seeks to build a 1,817 squarefoot single-family home on a 0.21 acre lot, which is much smaller footprint home than other homes in the vicinity, which can range up to 4,350 square feet. Without the variance, the owner would not be able to build on the Subject Property.

2. A watercourse variance is necessary for preservation of the enjoyment of the right of the applicant to construct a single-family home, which is a right possessed by other property owners under like conditions in the vicinity. All surrounding building sites in the vicinity are improved with single-family homes. Additionally, there is precedent in the area for granting a variance to construct within a watercourse setback. For example, 2166 Ruby Place (Variance No. 5015, granted Nov. 1992), 319 Agate Street (Variance No. 7113, granted Aug. 2004) and 325 Moss Place (Variance No. 3283, granted Feb. 1980) received variances to construct improvements in a watercourse setback. Other homes in the vicinity were also constructed within this watercourse setback prior to the setback requirement, as shown on the diagram below (downstream from 2548 Glenneyre Street). Furthermore, for the Subject Property, a watercourse setback variance (Variance No. 3185) for a single-family home was granted in 1979 and a building permit was issued in 1982, but the home was never constructed. 205
205 of 540
4 3. The granting of a variance will not be injurious to public health, safety, convenience, or welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The watercourse is in a steep, narrow ravine at a significantly lower elevation compared to the improvements. Based on the hydrology report, even under a 100-year storm scenario, the water level will never rise to the level of the proposed improvements, including the variance elements of the columns or garage corner encroachments (Hydrology, p. 6). In a 100-year storm, the water will flow over Glenneyre Street, so water cannot reach any of the structure (Hydrology, p. 6). Additionally, there is no net increase in runoff from the encroachments or the home itself (Hydrology, p. 5).

These findings have been confirmed by the City’s peer reviewer.

4. The granting of the variance will ensure that the proposed single-family home conforms to the objectives of the General Plan and zoning ordinance. The variance is necessary for the residence to meet the requirement for covered, off-street parking. The proposed project is for a single-family residence in the R-1 zone which is an allowable use of the property by-right under the zoning ordinance and General Plan. Additionally, as noted above and confirmed by the City’s peer reviewer, even under a 100-year storm scenario, the water level will never rise to the level of the proposed improvements, including the variance elements of the columns or garage corner encroachments (Hydrology, p. 6). In a 100-year storm, the water will flow over Glenneyre Street, so water cannot reach any of the structure (Hydrology, p. 6). Additionally, there is no net increase in runoff from the encroachments or the home itself (Hydrology, p. 5).

The specific variance findings for the watercourse setback are able to be met, as discussed below:
a. As to the first watercourse variance finding, the proposed encroachments will act to preserve, enhance, or restore the significance of the watercourse. The design and articulation of the home, including the encroachments, honors the watercourse as it steps up the hill towards the back of the site. As demonstrated in the hydrology report, and confirmed by the City’s peer reviewer, even in a 100-year storm scenario, the water level will never rise to the level of the columns or garage corner encroachments (Hydrology, p. 6). Additionally, there is no increase in runoff from the encroachments or the home itself (Hydrology, p. 5). Constructing the proposed improvements will also prevent the site and watercourse area from being used for camping by homeless individuals, who the owners have had to require the City to evict in the past. b. As to the second watercourse variance finding, the proposed encroachments will not impair the functional, scenic, or ecological purposes of the watercourse. i. The hydrology report proves that lack of functional impairment. As stated in the hydrology report, and confirmed by the City’s peer reviewer, even in a 100-year storm scenario there is no water obstruction since the water level will never rise to the level of the columns or garage corner encroachments or any of the structure (Hydrology, p. 6). Additionally, there is no increase in runoff from the encroachments or the home itself (Hydrology, p. 5). ii. The proposed encroachment will not impact any scenic purposes of the watercourse. The watercourse has no scenic value as it is not visible from offsite areas due to 206
206 of 540
5 slope, vegetation, and tree canopy coverage. The watercourse is dry except during rain events.

From a visual standpoint, the design of the home is complementary with the watercourse, and the watercourse is incorporated as a design element in the proposed project. Thus, scenic purposes are not impaired.
iii. Based on the biological assessment, the proposed encroachments will not impair any ecological purpose of the watercourse. The biological assessment concluded there is no persistent water source in the drainage, precluding any fish or amphibian habitat (Biological, p. 13). The biological assessment also concluded that the project site is not native habitat and does not have the potential to support any special-status species (Biological, p. 22). The project is outside of the drainage and does not impact the streambeds (Biological, p. 24). Finally, based on the site plan, there will not no physical disturbance of the watercourse (Hydrology, p. 7) and best management practices will be implemented, as determined by the Public Works Department.

Turnaround Variance
The housing development project seeks a variance from the requirement for an onsite turnaround. The required findings under Laguna Beach Municipal Code § 25.05.025 will be satisfied for the Design Review Board to additionally grant a variance from this requirement.

The variance findings are able to be fulfilled, as discussed in detail below:

1. It is clear that there are special circumstances applicable to the Subject Property that cause strict application of the zoning ordinance to deprive the owners of the Subject Property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification.

The Subject Property has conditions of steep topography (33.5% slope) and a watercourse running down the middle of the property that limits the amount of developable space. This means that there is not adequate space along the driveway for provision of a turnaround, especially with the required addition of a new public parking space. All other owners of building sites in the vicinity have been able to construct single-family homes. The applicant seeks to build a 1,817 square-foot single-family home on a 0.21 acre lot, which is much smaller footprint home than other homes in the vicinity, which can range up to 4,350 square feet. Without the variance, the owner would not be able to build on the Subject Property.

2. A variance is necessary for preservation of the enjoyment of the right of the applicant to construct a single-family home, which is a right possessed by other property owners under like conditions in the vicinity. All surrounding building sites in the vicinity are improved with singlefamily homes. Additionally, there is precedent on the street for granting a variance from the requirements for an onsite turnaround. For example, 293 Upland Road (Variance No. 6401, granted Apr. 1997), 2450 Glenneyre Street (Variance No. 7544, granted Oct. 2008), 2510 Glenneyre Street (Variance No. 2810, granted Jan. 1977), 2512 Glenneyre Street (Variance No. 2730, granted Jun. 1976), 2604 Glenneyre Street (Variance No. 3223, granted Dec. 1979), and 2626 Glenneyre Street (Variance No. 4947, granted Apr. 1992) received variances from the requirement for an onsite turnaround. Furthermore, the neighboring residence at 2538 Glenneyre, which was the property owners’ prior residence, (built before the zoning code) does not have an onsite turnaround.
207
207 of 540
6 3. The granting of a variance will not be injurious to public health, safety, convenience, or welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The existing conditions include a 25 MPH speed limit and traffic calming speedbump on Glenneyre Street at the project site. Many other homes in the vicinity on Glenneyre Street lack onsite turnarounds without creating an apparent issue for public health, safety, convenience, welfare or injury to property or improvements. The owners and applicants have decades of experience with the exit from the driveway onto Glenneyre Street from both the Subject Property and from neighboring 2538 Glenneyre Street, without issue. Here, as with the other homes on the street without onsite turnarounds, there will be no impact to public health, safety, convenience, or welfare and the variance will not injure any property or improvements in the vicinity by granting of the variance.

4. The granting of the variance will ensure that the proposed single-family home conforms to the objectives of the General Plan and zoning ordinance, including the provision of a new on-street public parking space. The proposed project is for a single-family residence in the R-1 zone which is an allowable use of the property by-right under the zoning ordinance and General Plan.

Conclusion
Based on the justification and research provided above, including peer-reviewed hydrology and biological reports, the findings for approval of each variance are able to be satisfied. Accordingly, we recommend that the DRB approve both the watercourse setback variance and turnaround variance under review as Variance 25-1433. We thank you for your time and consideration of the proposed the housing development project at 2500 Glenneyre Street and variance applications. Please reach out to architect Mark Abel if you have any questions about this project, the research provided, or to schedule a site visit. He may be contacted by phone at (949) 813-8058 or email at [email protected].

Respectfully,
Edwin C. Kisiel, Esq.
208
208 of 540
Outlook
Comment on Variance 25-1433 for Sept 25 public hearing
From Jennifer Bryson <[email protected]>
Date Thu 9/18/2025 8:39 PM
To Design Review Board <[email protected]>; Khan, Shehriyar CD <[email protected]>; Gannon, Jessica <[email protected]>; Gibbs, Thomas <[email protected]>; Coveny, Mary Jo <[email protected]>; Bauta, Imer <[email protected]>; Weil, Louis <[email protected]>
3 attachments (5 MB)
watercourse_image_from_june_2020.jpeg; proximity_to_blue_house_2.jpg; proximity_to_blue_house_1.jpg; [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 Design Review Team and Shehriyar Khan,
I want to submit a comment about the proposed new house at 2500 Glenneyre Street that will "encroach within a mapped watercourse setback".  Here's my comment:

In 2020, my now husband and I put in an offer on the historic blue house (2538 Glenneyre) next door to the property in discussion (2500 Glenneyre). Prior to putting in that offer, I went down to the city to learn about this property. I have a photo (attached) from June 6, 2020 of a city document showing the watercourse setback that made it look impossible for this property to be developed. With that information and our desire to live in a place with natural areas around us, my husband and I decided to spend our life savings and future earnings to buy that historic blue house. We were outbid, and I really feel for the other buyer today. Not only have people, such as myself, made major life decisions based on the property rules, but also it would be incredibly sad to see an encroachment on the natural watercourse get passed. Natural environments are diminishing everyday, and it’s hard to see another one go, and for no reason other than the benefit of two individuals. Finally, I’d like to say that I attended the meeting at the property on August 11 and I was told that the watercourse setback was followed. Upon receiving the notice of public hearing that stated an encroachment on the watercourse, I feel lied to. Please don’t allow this encroachment on nature to happen.

Case No.: Design Review 25-1431, Coastal Development 25-1432, Variance 25-1433, Revocable Encroachment Permit 25-1434
Please let me know if I have emailed this to the wrong place as this is my first time submitting a comment.  Also do I have to attend the Sept 25 meeting for my comment to be considered? Thanks! Best,
Jennifer Bryson
Homeowner at 2618 Queda Way
209
209 of 540
Attachment 10
210
210 of 540
211
211 of 540
212
212 of 540
213
213 of 540
214
214 of 540
215
215 of 540
216
216 of 540
217
217 of 540
218
218 of 540
219
219 of 540
220
220 of 540
221
221 of 540
222
222 of 540
223
223 of 540
224
224 of 540
225
225 of 540
226
226 of 540
227
227 of 540
228
228 of 540
229
229 of 540
230
230 of 540
231
231 of 540
232
232 of 540
233
233 of 540
234
234 of 540
235
235 of 540
Biological Resources Assessment
2500 Glenneyre Project, City of Laguna Beach, California July 2024 (updated June 2025)
Prepared For:

Edwin Kisiel
949-549-9650
[email protected]
Prepared By:

Matthew South - Principal Biologist
James McNutt – Biologist
Dana Briggs – Biologist
South Environmental
2061 N. Los Robles Avenue, Ste. 205
Pasadena, California 91104
email: [email protected]
mobile: 303-818-3632
Attachment 11
236
236 of 540
Biological Resources Assessment
2500 Glenneyre Project
South Environmental i May 2024 (updated June 2025)
Table of Contents
Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................................iii

1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................1

1.1 Project Description.......................................................................................................................................1

1.2 Methodology..................................................................................................................................................6

2. Environmental Setting..........................................................................................................................................8

2.1 Topography and Climate ...........................................................................................................................8

2.2 Soils....................................................................................................................................................................8

2.3 Plants .............................................................................................................................................................. 10

2.4 Plant Communities and Land Cover................................................................................................... 11

2.5 Wildlife........................................................................................................................................................... 12

2.6 Special-Status Species ............................................................................................................................. 14

2.7 Sensitive Natural Communities ............................................................................................................ 15

2.8 Protected Trees........................................................................................................................................... 13

2.9 Hydrology Features................................................................................................................................... 13

2.10 Habitat Linkages and Wildlife Migration Corridors ...................................................................... 14

3. Impacts Analysis.................................................................................................................................................. 18

3.1 Regulatory Setting..................................................................................................................................... 18

3.2 Project Impacts ........................................................................................................................................... 20

4. Bibliography.......................................................................................................................................................... 23 Figures
Figure 1. Regional Location.........................................................................................................................................2 Figure 2. Project Vicinity...............................................................................................................................................3 Figure 3. Proposed Development.............................................................................................................................5 Figure 4. Soils....................................................................................................................................................................9 Figure 5. Plant Communities and Land Cover................................................................................................... 11 Figure 6. Hydrology Features .................................................................................................................................. 17 237
237 of 540
Biological Resources Assessment
2500 Glenneyre Project
South Environmental ii May 2024 (updated June 2025)
Appendices
Appendix A: Photograph Log
Appendix B: Special-Status Species Analysis
Appendix C: Site Plan
Appendix D: Biologist Qualifications
238
238 of 540
Biological Resources Assessment
2500 Glenneyre Project
South Environmental iii May 2024 (updated June 2025)
Executive Summary
Introduction: This report includes the findings of a Biological Resources Assessment (BRA) conducted by South Environmental where developments have been proposed (project site) in the City of Laguna Beach, California.

Proposed Development: The applicant proposes to develop a single-family house with attached garage, a spa, and a property driveway. The proposed development footprint is approximately

0.054-acres in size.

Plant Communities/ Land Cover: The project would be constructed on 0.051-acre of Mixed Ornamental Woodland and 0.003-acre of developed / ornamentally landscaped land cover where it has been proposed to develop a single-family house with attached garage, a spa, and driveway.

These areas are not native habitats and they do not have the potential to support special-status species as described in Section 2.6 and they would not be considered California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Sensitive Natural Communities because they do not have a Global or State ranking due to the ornamental and non-native status. Therefore, the project would avoid impacts to habitat for special-status species and CDFW Sensitive Natural Communities.

Nesting Birds and Raptors: The proposed development would require potential removal of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants that could provide potential nesting habitat for birds and raptors protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), Migratory Bird Protection Act (MBPA), and the California Fish and Game Code. If present at the time of vegetation removal, active nests, eggs, or young could be destroyed or otherwise disturbed to a point at which the young do not survive, which would be a violation of the MBTA, MBPA, and the Fish and Game Code. In addition, indirect impacts from noise or vibration have the potential to disturb an active bird nest that may occur in adjacent landscaping to the point of failure if the nest is within immediate proximity to project activities, and this would also be a violation of the MBTA and Fish and Game Code. To avoid impacts to active bird nests, eggs, or young, preconstruction nesting bird surveys and monitoring is required per the MBTA and Fish and Game Code as described in BIO-1.

Special-Status Species: No special-status plants were found during the survey, and none would occur on the site due to a lack of habitat resulting from disturbance and development. No specialstatus wildlife was found during the survey, and none would occur on the site due to a lack of habitat resulting from disturbance and development. The onsite plant community is dominated by non-native, ruderal, and ornamental trees with a few mixed native species. The groundcover is entirely dominated by ruderal and aggressive non-native and ornamental species such as Algerian ivy that would preclude special-status plants from establishing. The lack of native habitats, the small and isolated nature of the onsite plant communities, and surrounding developments have 239
239 of 540
Biological Resources Assessment
2500 Glenneyre Project
South Environmental iv May 2024 (updated June 2025)
disturbed the plant community to such a degree that it is not capable of supporting special-status wildlife as described in Section 2.6. Therefore, the project would have no impact on special-status species.

Protected Trees: There are no protected trees on the project site, and therefore none would be impacted by the project.

Water Resources: A drainage occurs in the center of the project site that is potentially under the jurisdiction of the CDFW and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). No formal jurisdictional delineation has been conducted but it is unlikely that the project would impact areas under the jurisdiction of RWQCB because the project would occur outside of the drainage and would avoid direct impacts to the streambed itself. However, the project has the potential to impact CDFW riparian areas that surround the drainage as shown in Figure 6. Because no formal delineation has been completed the extent of the potential impacts is not currently known. If the project were to impact a CDFW riparian area by removing trees or other vegetation within a CDFW riparian area then it could be considered a significant impact according to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). To determine if impacts would occur and to reduce these potential impacts to a less than significant level according to CEQA, South Environmental recommends mitigation measure BIO-2 that includes the preparation of a formal jurisdictional delineation and permitting with CDFW if riparian areas are impacted during the removal of vegetation near the drainage. The project would also be required to adhere to requirements within the City of Laguna Beach General Plan Open Space and Conservation section regarding water resources.

Wildlife Movement Corridors and Habitat Linkages: Based on the site visit and review of aerial photographs and reference materials, the study area is surrounded by urban development and has no connectivity to any open space or park areas that could serve as a wildlife movement area.

The only expected wildlife movement on the project site would be from common urban species.

Therefore, the project site and study area are not within a wildlife movement area or habitat linkage and no impacts to wildlife movement areas or habitat linkages would result from the project.

Cumulative Impacts: There are no other known proposed projects within 500-feet of the site and this area is already urban development. With the implementation of measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 potential impacts to biological resources would be reduced to a less than significant level according to CEQA. Therefore, the project would not result in cumulative impacts to biological resources in the City of Laguna Beach.
240
240 of 540
Biological Resources Assessment
2500 Glenneyre Project
South Environmental 1 May 2024 (updated June 2025)

1. Introduction
This report includes the findings of a Biological Resources Assessment (BRA) conducted by South Environmental regarding new developments for the 2500 Glenneyre Project (project site) in the City of Laguna Beach, California. The purpose of this report is to identify and characterize biological resources that occur on the project site and surrounding 500 feet (study area), quantify and assess potential impacts to protected biological resources, and propose measures to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. The scope of this report includes a description of the proposed development, methods used to assess the biological resources, the environmental setting including technical characterizations and maps of vegetation communities, an assessment of the potential for special-status plants and animals to occur on the study area, a description of the regulatory setting, an analysis of the potential for the project to impact biological resources according to the thresholds of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and detailed recommendations for avoiding or mitigating impacts. Representative photographs of the study area are in Appendix A.

1.1 Project Description
Location and Setting
The project site includes Assessor Identification Number [AIN] 656-126-09, 656-146-01, and 656- 146-01; additionally, it is on the Laguna Beach, California USGS 7.5-minute quad in Section 31 of Township 07 South and Range 08 West. The project site includes 0.21-acres and is located northeast of Glenneyre Street, northwest of both Queda Way and Pala Way, and west of Alta Vista Way. More broadly, the project site is approximately 350 feet northeast of South Coast State Highway 1 and is within the City of Laguna Beach, California (attached Figure 1 and Figure 2).

Some disturbed chaparral is northeast of the project site, and developments and ornamental landscaping surround the project site in all directions.

Proposed Development
As shown in Figure 3, the applicant proposes to develop a single-family house with attached garage, a spa, and a property driveway. The proposed development footprint is approximately

0.05-acres in size. The Site Plan is attached in Appendix C. 241
241 of 540
Source: ESRI USA Topo Maps and World Topo Map 2024

1. Regional Location 0 1,000 2,000 Feet
Project Location is within Laguna Beach, California, in Orange County on the USGS Laguna Beach 7.5-minute quadrangle map in
Section 31 of Township 07 South and Range 08 West
Center Coordinate (Decimal Degrees):

Latitude: 33.5244976N Longitude: -117.7641902W
Project Site Scale: 1:24,000
Study Area (500-Foot Buffer)
2500 Glenneyre Project
242
242 of 540
Source: BING Aerial Map 2024

2. Project Vicinity 0 125 250 Feet
Project Site Scale: 1:2,500
Study Area (500-Foot Buffer)
USFWS - National Wetland Inventory (NWI)
2500 Glenneyre Project
243
243 of 540
Source: BING Aerial Map 2024

3. Proposed Development 0 15.5 31 Feet
Project Site Scale: 1:300
Driveway
Single-Family House with Attached Garage
Spa and Spa Equipment
2500 Glenneyre Project
244
244 of 540
Biological Resources Assessment
2500 Glenneyre Project
South Environmental 5 May 2024 (updated June 2025)

1.2 Methodology
This biological resource assessment is based on information compiled through a reconnaissance survey and a literature review involving an assessment of appropriate reference materials and literature regarding the biological resources of the region.

Literature Review
The assessment of the project began with a review of literature relating to the natural resources — flora, fauna, and water resources — that are possibly within the study area and project site. The following were consulted:

Flora and Fauna
• The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) was reviewed to identify special-status plants and animals that have previously recorded in the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Laguna Beach 7.5” quad in which the project site is located, and the six surrounding USGS 7.5” quads: Newport Beach, Tustin, El Toro, Newport Beach OE S, San Juan Capistrano, and Dana Point (CDFW 2024a).
• CDFW California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) life history accounts and range maps (CDFW 2024b)
• United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) (USFWS 2024a) • USFWS Designated and Proposed Critical Habitat GIS data (USFWS 2024b) • California Native Plant Society (CNPS) online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS 2024a)
Water Resources
• National Hydrography Dataset (USGS 2024a)
• National Wetlands Inventory (USFWS 2024c)
• California Protected Areas Database (CPAD 2024)
Soil Resources
• US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soils Database (USDA 2024)
245
245 of 540
Biological Resources Assessment
2500 Glenneyre Project
South Environmental 6 May 2024 (updated June 2025)
Field Reconnaissance
South Environmental biologist Dana Briggs conducted a field reconnaissance on April 25, 2024, to record plants and animals observed on the site, characterize and map plant communities, and assess the potential for special-status species to occur. The findings described in the reports are cited in the Literature Review, and results are referenced throughout the analysis in this report. 246
246 of 540
Biological Resources Assessment
2500 Glenneyre Project
South Environmental 7 May 2024 (updated June 2025)

2. Environmental Setting
The parcel (project site) is at 2500 Glenneyre Street. Broadly, the project site is approximately 350 feet northeast of South Coast State Highway 1 and is within the City of Laguna Beach, California.

Developments and ornamental landscaping surround the project site in all directions.

2.1 Topography and Climate
The topography for the project site and study area dips to the southwest and follows a regional dip towards the Pacific Ocean. The highest elevation for the project site is approximately 211 ft above mean sea level (amsl) at the northeastern border. The lowest elevation for the project site is approximately 175 ft amsl within at the southwestern border (USGS 2024). The climate in the region is temperate, with average summer high temperatures in the upper 70s and average winter lows in the mid-40s. Average yearly rainfall is approximately 13.55-inches, and the wettest months are December – March. There is almost no precipitation between June-September.

2.2 Soils
Two soil type occurs on the project site/ study area as shown in Figure 4 (USDA/NRCS 2024):
• Modjeska gravelly loam, 9 to 15 percent slopes occurs within the southwest part of the study area and it absent from the project site. This is terrace and summit soil and is well drained.
• Soper gravelly loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes, MLRA 20 occurs within the central and northeast part of the study area and all of the project site. This is a backslope and hills soil and is well drained.
247
247 of 540
Source: BING Aerial Map 2024

4. Soils 0 110 220 Feet
Project Site Scale: 1:2,200
Study Area (500-Foot Buffer)
Modjeska gravelly loam, 9 to 15 percent slopes
Soper gravelly loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes, MLRA 20
2500 Glenneyre Project
248
248 of 540
Biological Resources Assessment
2500 Glenneyre Project
South Environmental 9 May 2024 (updated June 2025)

2.3 Plants
A total of 30 plant species were identified on the project site. Five are native to this region of California and 25 are non-native due to the ornamental landscaping and disturbed regions throughout the study area. The habit of the species consisted of succulents, trees, shrubs, perennials, annuals, and palms. A list of the species observed on the site is presented below in Table 1.

Table 1. List of plant species at the project site in Laguna Beach, California.

Scientific name Common name Habit On
Parcel? CRPR*
Agapanthus praecox lily of the nile Perennial herb* Yes NR Agave americana century plant Perennial succulent Yes NR Aloe aborescens candelabra aloe Perennial succulent* Yes NR Bromus catharticus rescuegrass Annual herb* Yes NR
Calystegia sepium hedge bindweed Vine* Yes NR
Cenchrus setaceus crimson fountain grass Grass* Yes NR
Citrus limon lemon Tree* Yes NR
Crassula ovata jade plant Perennial succulent* Yes NR
Ehrharta erecta panic veldt grass Grass* Yes NR
Erigeron canadensis horseweed Annual herb* Yes NR
Ficus benjamina weeping fig Tree* Yes NR
Ficus carica common fig Tree* Yes NR
Hedera canariensis Algerian ivy Vine* Yes NR
Heteromeles arbutifolia toyon Perennial shrub Yes NR
Myoporum laetum Ngaio tree Tree* Yes NR
Nicotiana glauca tree tobacco Perennial/ annual herb* Yes NR Opuntia ficus-indica prickly pear Perennial succulent* Yes NR Oxalis pes-caprae Bermuda buttercup Annual herb* Yes NR Pelargonium hortorum geranium Perennial/ annual herb* Yes NR Platanus racemosa western sycamore Tree Yes NR
Prunus ilicifolia hollyleaf cherry Tree Yes NR
Rhus integrifolia lemonade berry Perennial shrub Yes NR Ricinus communis castor bean Annual/ perennial herb* Yes NR Schinus molle Peruvian pepper Tree* Yes NR
Schinus terebinthifolia Brazilian pepper Tree* Yes NR
Sequoia sempervirens coast redwood Tree No NR
Sonchus asper spiny sowthistle Annual herb* Yes NR
Tecoma capensis cape honeysuckle Vine* Yes NR
Tropaeolum majus nasturtium Annual/ perennial herb* Yes NR Washingtonia robusta Mexican fan palm Palm* No NR
Yucca gigantea spineless yucca Perennial shrub* Yes NR
* = Non-native species; NR = Not Ranked
249
249 of 540
Biological Resources Assessment
2500 Glenneyre Project
South Environmental 10 May 2024 (updated June 2025)

2.4 Plant Communities and Land Cover
There is one land cover type and one plant communities in the study area and the project site. They are shown in Figure 5 below and acres of each is summarized in Table 1 below.

Table 1. Summary of Plant Communities on the Study Area and Project Site Community or Cover Type Acres on
Study Area
Acres on
Project Site
Acres
Permanently
Impacted by
Project
New Fuel
Modificati
on
Global/State
Rarity Rank
(G#/S#)
Developed / Ornamental
Landscaped 22.25 0.01 0.003 0 Not Ranked
Mixed Ornamental Woodland 0.71 0.20 0.051 0 Not Ranked
Total 22.96 0.21 0.054 0
• Developed / Ornamental Landscaped areas occur on 22.25-acres of the study area and

0.01-acres of the project site. A total of 0.003-acre of the land cover will be impacted by the proposed development. The developed areas include buildings, driveways, parking lots, and sidewalks. Ornamental landscaping is mixed with the developed areas. Plant observed within this land cover include lily if the Nile (Agapanthus praecox), century plant (Agave americana), Candelabra aloe (Aloe arborescens), crimson fountaingrass (Cenchrus setaceus), lemon (Citrus limon), jade plant (Crassula ovata), weeping fig (Ficus benjamina), Algerian ivy (Hedra canariensis), Ngaio tree (Myoporum laetum), prickly pear (Opuntia ficus-indica), geranium (Pelargonium hortorum), Peruvian pepper (Schinus molle), Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolia), coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), cape honeysuckle (Tecoma capensis), nasturtium (Tropaeolum majus), Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia robusta), and spineless yucca (Yucca gigantea). Developed and landscaped areas are not considered habitat for native plants and animals.
• Mixed Ornamental Woodland occurs on 0.71-acres of the study area and 0.20-acres of the project site. A total of 0.051-acre of the community will be impacted by the proposed development. The community is dominated in the canopy by weeping fig, Peruvian pepper, and Brazilian pepper; and there are natives and nonnative cover at a lesser dominance in the tree and shrub layer represented by common fig (Ficus carica), tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca), castor bean (Ricinus communis), holly leaf cherry (Prunus ilicifolia), toyon (Hetermoles arbutifolia), western sycamore (Platanus racemosa), and lemonade berry (Rhus integrifolia). Among others, plants observed in the ground layer include rescuegrass (Bromus catharticus), panic veldt grass (Ehrharta erecta), horseweed (Erigeron canadenis), Bermuda buttercup (Oxalis pes-caprae), spiny sowthistle (Sonchus asper), Algerian ivy, and nasturtium. 250
250 of 540
Source: BING Aerial Map 2024

5. Plant Communities and Land Cover
¯
0 110 220 Feet
Project Site Scale: 1:2,200
Study Area (500-Foot Buffer)
Proposed Development Footprint
Plant Communities and Land Cover
Developed / Ornamental Landscaped
Mixed Ornamental Woodland
2500 Glenneyre Project
251
251 of 540
Biological Resources Assessment
2500 Glenneyre Project
South Environmental 12 May 2024 (updated June 2025)

2.5 Wildlife
Table 3 below shows wildlife that was observed during the site visit, as well as records for wildlife occurrences near the project site (iNaturalist, 2024).

Table 3. Summary of Wildlife Observed on iNaturalist within the Study Area Scientific name Common name Status
Birds
Buteo lineatus Red-shouldered hawk None
Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow None
Haemorhous mexicanus House finch None
Junco hyemalis Dark-eyed junco None
Leiothlypis celata Orange-crowned warbler None
Pipilo maculatus Spotted towhee None
Selasphorus sasin Allen's hummingbird None
Spinus psaltria Lesser goldfinch None
Reptiles
Sceloporus occidentalis Western fence lizard None
Insects
Apis mellifera European honeybee None
Bombus vosnesenskii Yellow-faced bumble bee None

2.6 Special-Status Species
The literature analysis of the CNDDB, CNPS, and IPAC databases for special-status species with the potential to inhabit the project site resulted in 130 special-status species, including 63 animals and 67 plants. The list includes rare, threatened, endangered species at a federal and state level. In the case of plants, it also includes California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) species with a classification of 1-4.

Due to the lack of native plant communities, the isolated nature of the ornamental woodland that is surrounded by existing developments, and the overall pervasiveness of the ruderal and aggressive ground cover plants such as Algerian ivy and others the potential for special-status species is limited on the project site.

Special-Status Plants
The 67 special-status plant species that CNDDB, CNPS, and IPAC identify as occurring in the region of the project and an assessment of their likelihood to inhabit the project site are presented in Appendix B. No special-status plant species were observed during the survey. Based on the analysis in Appendix B, none of the special-status plants have the potential to occur in the project site due to a lack of habitat and a disturbed environment. The site has a dense groundcover of non-native 252
252 of 540
Biological Resources Assessment
2500 Glenneyre Project
South Environmental 13 May 2024 (updated June 2025)
and invasive ornamentals that creates conditions that are too disturbed for special-status plant species to occur. No special-status plants are present on the site based on the survey and none are expected to occur there in the future due to the level of disturbance.

Special-Status Wildlife
The 63 special-status animal species that CNDDB, CNPS, and IPAC identify as occurring in the region of the project and an assessment of their likelihood to inhabit the project site are presented in Appendix B. No special-status animal species were observed during the survey. Based on the analysis in Appendix B, none of the special-status animals have the potential to occur on the project site due to a lack of native habitat and a disturbed environment. The site has aggressive ground cover species and the shrub and tree layer are dominated by non-native and ornamental species, including the ruderal Brazilian peppertree. The isolated and small nature of the site lacks the characteristics needed for larger wildlife to sustain itself or to migrate through the site. The lack of a persistent water source in the drainage precludes fish and amphibians from occurring, and the disturbed nature of the ground cover reduces the quality for small reptiles and mammals to occur.

The nearby developments would deter bats, and the lack of a permanent water source and small potential foraging area for bats would also result in a lack of characteristics that would support bat species. For these reasons, the project site is unlikely to support special-status wildlife.

2.7 Sensitive Natural Communities
CDFW 2018 Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities defines sensitive natural communities as those that are “of limited distribution statewide or within a county or region and are often vulnerable to environmental effects of projects.” CDFW considers a natural community sensitive if it has a Global or State rarity rank of 1-3, which includes communities that are vulnerable (G3/S3), imperiled (G2/S2), and critically imperiled (G1/S1). CDFW uses the alliances and groups described in the California Natural Community List (CDFW 2024c) and the California Natural Communities List from A Manual of California Vegetation Online (CNPS 2024b) to characterize California’s natural communities. The current global and state rarity rank for natural communities of California are listed in these resources. The Mixed Ornamental Woodland and developed / ornamentally landscaped areas do not have a Global or State rarity rank; therefore, no sensitive natural communities occur on the study area or project site.

2.8 Protected Trees
The City of Laguna Beach establishes protection of trees by establishing a permit process prior to the removal of trees categorized as Heritage trees, design review approved trees, and privately maintained trees in the public right-of-way. Permits are required for the removal of these trees to 253
253 of 540
Biological Resources Assessment
2500 Glenneyre Project
South Environmental 14 May 2024 (updated June 2025)
be in compliance with the City of Laguna Beach General Plan (City of Laguna Beach 2019). No protected trees are on the project site.

2.9 Jurisdictional Features
The project site is located within the Aliso-San Onofre watershed (HUC8) and within the Salt CreekFrontal Gulf of Santa Catalina sub-watershed (HUC12).

During the South Environmental field visit the survey area was inspected for the presence of potential jurisdictional features such as wetlands, streams, lakes, or other water features. No formal delineation of jurisdictional waters was performed, only a preliminary investigation was conducted.

A drainage traverses across the project site and flows generally from the northeast to the southwest.

The drainage enters the site via a dirt lined drainage from the northern adjacent property that directs runoff into a cobble-lined streambed through the center of the site that enters a culvert under Glenneyre Street as it leaves the project site. Water was not present during the site visit and the upstream areas would provide little natural water into the streambed, and the drainage likely only flows during rain events that direct the runoff onto the property. Due to the presence of a bed and bank and the overstory of trees that are associated with the drainage, this drainage and the associated surrounding woodlands are potentially under the jurisdiction of the CDFW and Regional Water Quality Control Board (Figure 6, Appendix A: Photograph Log).

2.10 Habitat Linkages and Wildlife Migration Corridors
The assessment of the potential for wildlife movement to and from the project site consisted of consulting the following resources:
• United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) (USFWS 2024a) • USFWS Designated and Proposed Critical Habitat GIS data online (USFWS 2024b) • GreenInfo Network, Park Information online (2024)
• California Protected Areas Database Map online (CPAD 2024) • South Coast Missing Linkages: A Wildland Network for the South Coast Ecoregion (SC Wildlands 2006)
Aerial photographs were used to assess the level of connectivity of habitat to the site. The foremost considerations were whether there was a direct connection of high-quality habitat to the site — without interference from development — and whether the connecting habitat linked to large habitat tracts.
254
254 of 540
Source: BING Aerial Map 2024

6. Jurisdictional Features
¯
0 15.5 31 Feet
Drainage Scale: 1:302
CDFW Riparian
Project Site
Proposed Development Footprint
2500 Glenneyre Project
255
255 of 540
Biological Resources Assessment
2500 Glenneyre Project
South Environmental 16 May 2024 (updated June 2025)
During the South Environmental field visit the project site and surrounding 500-ft survey area were assessed for their potential use as a wildlife corridor or habitat linkage. The level of disturbance of the site and surrounding areas are by way of development that includes roads, houses and commercial structures, fences, and lighting. The survey area was assessed for the presence of a corridor of linkage of habitat that connects the project site to potential higher-quality habitat.

Based on the site visit and review of aerial photographs and reference materials, the study area is surrounded by urban development and has no connectivity to any open space or park areas that could serve as a wildlife movement area. The only expected wildlife movement on the project site would be from common urban species. Therefore, the project site and study area is not within a wildlife movement area or habitat linkage.
256
256 of 540
Biological Resources Assessment
2500 Glenneyre Project
South Environmental 17 May 2024 (updated June 2025)

3. Impacts Analysis
For the purposes of this report, impacts to protected biological resources are analyzed within the context of the regulatory setting. Below is an overview of the federal, state, and local regulations pertaining to protected biological resources in the study area, and an analysis of impacts to those resources that may occur as a result of the proposed development follows.

3.1 Regulatory Setting
Federal Regulations
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) protects individuals as well as any part, nest, or eggs of any bird listed as migratory. In practice, federal permits issued for activities that potentially impact migratory birds typically have conditions that require pre-disturbance surveys for nesting birds. In the event nesting is observed, a buffer area with a specified radius must be established, within which no disturbance or intrusion is allowed until the young have fledged and left the nest, or it has been determined that the nest has failed. If not otherwise specified in the permit, the size of the buffer area varies with species and local circumstances (e.g., presence of busy roads, intervening topography, etc.), and is based on the professional judgment of a monitoring biologist. A list of migratory bird species protected under the MBTA is published by USFWS.

California Regulations
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is a statute that requires state and local agencies to identify the significant environmental impacts of their actions and to avoid or mitigate those impacts, if feasible. CEQA applies to certain activities of state and local public agencies. A public agency must comply with CEQA when it undertakes an activity defined by CEQA as a “project.” A project is an activity undertaken by a public agency or a private activity which must receive some discretionary approval (meaning that the agency has the authority to deny the requested permit or approval) from a government agency which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect change in the environment.

An Initial Study (IS) is prepared when a proposed action is determined to be a “project” under CEQA, and the project does not qualify for a statutory or categorical exemption. The IS is a checklist that asks specific questions about the project’s level of environmental impacts in many categories, 257
257 of 540
Biological Resources Assessment
2500 Glenneyre Project
South Environmental 18 May 2024 (updated June 2025)
including biological resources. The checklist includes a series of questions to determine the projects level of potential impacts in each of the categories. The CEQA Checklist includes the following questions regarding biological resources:
• Would the project:
o Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? o Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
o Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
o Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
o Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance
o Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Potential level of impact choices includes: No Impacts, Less Than Significant Impact, Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated, and Potentially Significant Impact. For projects that have no impact or less than significant impact a Negative Declaration is prepared, for those with Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration, and for those with a Potentially Significant Impact prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

State of California Fish and Game Code Section 3500
Section 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code states that it is “unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the order Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds of prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.” Activities that result in the abandonment of an active bird of prey nest may also be considered in violation of this code. In addition, California Fish and Game Code, Section 3511 prohibits the taking of any bird listed as fully protected, and California Fish and Game Code, Section 3515 states that is it unlawful to take any non-game migratory bird protected under the MBTA.
258
258 of 540
Biological Resources Assessment
2500 Glenneyre Project
South Environmental 19 May 2024 (updated June 2025)
California Migratory Bird Protection Act
The California Migratory Bird Protect Act (MBPA) was enacted in September 2019 to reinforce the MBTA at the state level. The Act states:
• “It is unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird as designated in the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. Sec. 703 et seq.) before January 1, 2017, any additional migratory nongame bird that may be designated in that federal act after that date, or any part of a migratory nongame bird described in this section, except as provided by rules and regulations adopted by the United States Secretary of the Interior under that federal act before January 1, 2017, or subsequent rules or regulations adopted pursuant to that federal act, unless those rules or regulations are inconsistent with this code.” This section is inactive on January 20, 2025 and the following language below will be adopted. • “It is unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird as designated in the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. Sec. 703 et seq.), or any part of a migratory nongame bird described in this section, except as provided by rules and regulations adopted by the United States Secretary of the Interior under that federal act.” This section is operative starting on January 20, 2025.

Local Regulations
County of Orange Central and Coastal Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (CONCCP/HCP)
The County of Orange Central and Coastal Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (CONCCP/HCP) is a regional planning effort to provide effective protection and conservation of the regions wildlife while continuing to allow appropriate development and growth.

The planning effort focuses on multiple-species and multiple-habitat reserve system that includes long-term adaptive management to protect coastal sage scrub (CSS) and other habitats and species located within the CSS habitat mosaic, while providing for economic uses that will meet the social and economic needs of the people of the subregion.

The primary goal of the CONCCP/HCP is to protect and manage habitat supporting a broad range of plant and animal populations within the region through a subregional habitat reserve system that includes a program to manage biological resources within the habitat reserve. The system protects coastal sage scrub, chaparral, grasslands, riparian, oak woodlands, cliff and rock, forest and other habitats. This is a subregional effort and is not focused on a project-by-project conservation system. The system is designed to conserve habitat for three target species: coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica), coastal cactus wren (Campylorhynchus 259
259 of 540
Biological Resources Assessment
2500 Glenneyre Project
South Environmental 20 May 2024 (updated June 2025)
brunneicapillus), and orange-throated whiptail (Aspidoscelis hyperythra). The plan also protects Dana Point Headlands site that has coastal California gnatcatcher, Pacific pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris pacificus), and five designated plants.

City of Laguna Beach General Plan
The City of Laguna Beach General Plan includes provisions for protecting and conserving biological resources in the Open Space Conservation Element. The Plan includes open space for the preservation of natural resources, managed production of resources, for outdoor recreation, and for public health and safety. The project is not within the coastal zone so the coastal zone provisions do not apply to the project and the Plan protects and conserves open space that is not within proximity to the project. However, the Plan includes policies for protecting water ways such as those that would feed into the Pacific Ocean. The Plan includes the following Polices regarding waterways within the City:
• 9-A Promote the preservation and restoration ·of Laguna's natural drainage channels, freshwater streams, lakes and marshes to protect wildlife habitat and to maintain watershed, ground water and scenic open space.
• 9-B Prohibit filling and substantial alteration of streams and/or diversion or culverting of such streams except as necessary to protect existing structures in the proven interest of public safety, where no other methods for protection of existing structures in the flood plain are feasible or where the primary function is to improve fish and wildlife habitat. This provision does not apply to channelized sections of streams without significant habitat value. • 9-C a. Streams on the Major Watershed and Drainage Courses Map which are also streams as identified on the USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Series, shall be identified and mapped on the Coastal Environmentally Sensitive Areas Map of the Land Use Plan. For a these streams, a minimum setback of 25 feet from the top of the stream banks shall be required in all new developments. A greater setback may be necessary in order to protect all riparian habitat based on a site-specific assessment. No disturbance of major vegetation, or development, shall be allowed within the setback area. This provision shall not apply to channelized sections of streams without significant habitat value. Where development is proposed on an existing subdivided lot which is otherwise developable consistent with all City ordinances and other policies on this Plan except that application of this setback would result in no available building site on the lot, the setback may be reduced provided it is maintained at a width sufficient to protect all existing riparian habitat on the site and provided all other feasible alternative measures, such as modifications to the size, siting and design of any proposed structures, have been exhausted.
• 9-C b. Require a setback of a m1n1mum of 25 feet measured from the centerflow line of all natural drainage courses other than streams referenced in 9-C(a) above. Such setback shall be increased upon the recommendation of the city engineer and environmental planner 260
260 of 540
Biological Resources Assessment
2500 Glenneyre Project
South Environmental 21 May 2024 (updated June 2025)
through the environ mental review process. However, a variance may be given in special circumstances where it can be proven that design of a proposed structure on an affected lot will preserve, enhance or restore the significance of the natural watercourse. At no time shall grubbing of vegetation, elimination of trees, or disturbance of habitat be allowed within the setback area before or after construction.
• 9-D Permit extensions of decks and other portions of a structure within the required setback for significant natural drainage areas only if:
o a. There are no supports to the ground within the setback areas; o b. The extensions do not encroach closer than fifteen feet from the centerline of flow. • 9-E Require Design Review for development projects which include portions of a natural drainage course.
• 9-F Where possible, require restoration of deteriorated significant natural drainage courses that have been disturbed by development, but which retain potential for natural function. • 9-G Develop standards for maintenance of free and adequate flow in natural drainage channels.
• 9-H Coordinate, wherever possible, natural and man-made drainage structures so that natural channels will contribute to transport a volume of runoff equal (or as close as possible) to that which would have occurred if the project watershed were in its natural condition before development.
• 9-I Require new development projects to control the increase in the volume, velocity and sediment load of runoff from the greatest development areas at or near the source of increase to the greatest extent feasible.
• 9-J Require new developments to maintain runoff characteristics as near as possible to natural discharge characteristics by maintaining the natural conditions of the watershed. • 9-K Promote preservation and enhancement of the natural drainage of Laguna Beach. • 9-L In conjunction with the County of Orange, prepare a flood control plan and program of implementation for Laguna Canyon and all tributaries, pending funding availability. • 9-M Where feasible, require flood control programs to incorporate non-structural methods, such as preservation of watershed lands and natural drainage channels, rather than structural methods such as concrete flood channels and engineering works. In cases where structural methods are necessary, drainage structures shall be invisible conveyances, undergrounded and revegetated to camouflage any disturbance created during construction in order to provide the least damaging environmental alternative possible. • 9-N Encourage private property owners to inspect and maintain private drainage structures, particularly before the rainy season and during heavy storms. • 9-O Investigate methods of establishing and maintaining debris collection devices at suitable locations in the major canyon areas prior to the rainy season, pending funding availability.
261
261 of 540
Biological Resources Assessment
2500 Glenneyre Project
South Environmental 22 May 2024 (updated June 2025)
• 9-P Initiate proceedings to amend the Master Plan of Drainage to allow expenditure of funds for debris collection devices.
• 9-Q Oppose new development within the City's surrounding areas that would result in significant adverse impacts to the City's hydrology.
• 9-R Periodically review the City Master Plan of Drainage to ensure it promotes the objectives of the City's General Plan.
• 9-S Erosion control measures shall be required for new develop ment in areas designated Hillside Management/Conservation, as specified in Title 22 of the City's Municipal Code for properties adjacent to the Aliso Greenbelt. No grading, trenching or similar activity shall be permitted within Aliso/Wood Canyon Watershed during the rainy season from October 1 to April 1.
• 9-T All graded areas shall be planted and maintained for erosion control and visual enhancement purposes. Use of native plant species shall be emphasized. • 9 -U Restore and retain Aliso creek in a natural state and protect the Creek from infringement of new development.
• 9 -V Protect Aliso Canyon Area from any increase in flow which might have adverse impacts on the water quality in Aliso Creek and prevent excessive erosion and sedimentation and emphasize the prevention of siltation from adversely impacting the South Laguna Marine Life Refuge.
• 9 -W Actively work with the County on approval of Aliso Viejo Drainage Plan to ensure the integrity of water quality in Aliso Creek.

City of Laguna Beach Municipal Code Chapter 12.06
The City of Laguna Beach establishes protection of trees by establishing a permit process prior to the removal of trees categorized as Heritage trees, design review approved trees, and privately maintained trees in the public right-of-way. Permits are required for the removal of these trees (City of Laguna Beach 2019).

3.2 Project Impacts
Impacts to Plant Communities/Habitat/Sensitive Natural Communities The project would be constructed on 0.051-acre of Mixed Ornamental Woodland and 0.003-acre of developed / ornamentally landscaped land cover where it has been proposed to develop a singlefamily house with attached garage, a spa, and driveway. These areas are not native habitats and they do not have the potential to support special-status species as described in Section 2.6 and they would not be considered CDFW Sensitive Natural Communities because they do not have a Global or State ranking due to the ornamental and non-native status. Therefore, the project would avoid impacts to habitat for special-status species and CDFW Sensitive Natural Communities. 262
262 of 540
Biological Resources Assessment
2500 Glenneyre Project
South Environmental 23 May 2024 (updated June 2025)
Impacts to Nesting Birds and Raptors
The proposed development would require potential removal of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants that could provide potential nesting habitat for birds and raptors protected by the MBTA, MBPA, and the Fish and Game Code. If present at the time of vegetation removal, active nests, eggs, or young could be destroyed or otherwise disturbed to a point at which the young do not survive, which would be a violation of the MBTA, MBPA, and the Fish and Game Code. In addition, indirect impacts from noise or vibration have the potential to disturb an active bird nest that may occur in adjacent landscaping to the point of failure if the nest is within immediate proximity to project activities, and this would also be a violation of the MBTA and Fish and Game Code. To avoid impacts to active bird or raptor nests, eggs, or young, preconstruction nesting bird surveys and monitoring is required per the MBTA and Fish and Game Code as described in BIO-1.

BIO-1: Preconstruction Nesting Bird and Raptor Survey
• If possible, ground disturbing activities and vegetation removal should be timed to occur between September 1 – January 31, which is outside the bird and raptor nesting season. • If ground disturbing activities or vegetation removal (including tree trimming) are scheduled between February 1 – August 31, which is the bird nesting season, a preconstruction survey for nesting birds should be conducted within 72 hours prior to construction activities. The survey should be conducted by a qualified biologist with prior experience conducting nesting bird surveys for construction projects. The study area should include the affected area and suitable habitat within a 500-foot buffer, or a buffer size determined by the qualified biologist based on level of proposed disturbance and access. If no active nests are found, no additional measures are required.
• If active nests are found the biologist will map the location and document the species and nesting stage. A no-work buffer will be established around the active nest as determined by the qualified biologist and based on the species sensitivity to disturbance and the type and duration of the disturbance. No construction activities shall occur within the no-work buffer until the biologist has determined the nest is no longer active.

Impacts to Special-Status Species
No special-status plants were found during the survey, and none would occur on the site due to a lack of habitat resulting from disturbance and development. No special-status wildlife was found during the survey, and none would occur on the site due to a lack of habitat resulting from disturbance and development. The onsite plant community is dominated by non-native, ruderal, and ornamental trees with a few mixed native species. The groundcover is entirely dominated by 263
263 of 540
Biological Resources Assessment
2500 Glenneyre Project
South Environmental 24 May 2024 (updated June 2025)
ruderal and aggressive non-native and ornamental species such as Algerian ivy that would preclude special-status plants from establishing. The lack of native habitats, the small and isolated nature of the onsite plant communities, and surrounding developments have disturbed the plant community to such a degree that it is not capable of supporting special-status wildlife as described in Section

2.6. Therefore, the project would have no impact on special-status species.

Impacts to Water Resources/Waterways Protected by the General Plan A drainage occurs in the center of the project site that is potentially under the jurisdiction of the CDFW and RWQCB. In addition, the City General Plan protects drainage courses within the City, including the one on the project site. No formal jurisdictional delineation has been conducted but it is unlikely that the project would impact areas under the jurisdiction of RWQCB because the project would occur outside of the drainage and would avoid direct impacts to the streambed itself.

However, the project has the potential to impact CDFW riparian areas that surround the drainage as shown in Figure 6. Because no formal delineation has been completed the extent of the potential impacts is not currently known. The project would avoid removing trees within the potential CDFW riparian areas but would likely be constructed beneath the canopy of trees within the riparian area and would therefore have the potential to impact the CDFW riparian areas by building the permanent construction areas at the edge of the riparian areas. If the project were to impact a CDFW riparian area then it could be considered a significant impact according to CEQA. To determine if impacts would occur and to reduce these potential impacts to a less than significant level according to CEQA, South Environmental recommends mitigation measure BIO-2 below that includes the preparation of a formal jurisdictional delineation and permitting with CDFW if riparian areas are impacted during the removal of vegetation near the drainage. The project site does not include any significant water features (such as those on the USGS topographic map) that would be protected or regulated by the General Plan, but the small drainage on the site does drain into the Pacific Ocean and would be subject to some provision of the General Plan.

BIO-2: Formal Jurisdictional Delineation and Permitting for Potential Impacts • A formal jurisdictional delineation should be conducted to quantify the potential impacts to CDFW riparian area from the project, if any.
• If the project would result in impacts to CDFW riparian areas or other jurisdictional features then a permit (i.e. Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement) should be obtained pursuant to Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code.
• The project shall adhere to the provisions in the City of Laguna Beach General Plan described in Section 3.1 of this report and in the Laguna Beach General Plan Open Space/Conservation Section.
264
264 of 540
Biological Resources Assessment
2500 Glenneyre Project
South Environmental 25 May 2024 (updated June 2025)
Impacts to Protected Trees
The City of Laguna Beach Municipal Code includes protection of trees by establishing a permit process prior to the removal of trees categorized as Heritage trees, design review approved trees, and privately maintained trees in the public right-of-way. Under the City of Laguna Beach General Plan permits are required for the removal of these trees (City of Laguna Beach 2019). There are no protected trees on the project site; therefore, no protected trees will be impacted by the project and no permit would be required.

Impacts to Wildlife Movement Corridors and Habitat Linkages Based on the site visit and review of aerial photographs and reference materials, the study area is surrounded by urban development and has no connectivity to any open space or park areas that could serve as a wildlife movement area. The only expected wildlife movement on the project site would be from common urban species. Therefore, the project site and study area is not within a wildlife movement area or habitat linkage and no impacts to wildlife movement areas or habitat linkages would result from the project.

Consistency with the CONCCP/HCP
The project is within the City of Laguna Beach and the City participates in the regional CONCCP/HCP to protect the regional natural and biological resources. The project site does not have any of the habitat types that would be conserved under the CONCCP/HCP, which focuses on coastal sage scrub and adjacent habitats. The project site does have a drainage and some minor riparian areas but these are not significant wildlife habitats as they are dominated by non-native and landscaped species and are of low quality to native wildlife. This area is also heavily disturbed by nearby developments such as roads and houses which result in removal of native communities and management of the area to have brush clearance and other destructive practices that eliminate native habitats. For the reasons stated above the project is consist with the goals and provision of the CONCCP/HCP.

Cumulative Impacts
There are no other known proposed projects within 500-feet of the site and this area is already urban development. With the implementation of measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 potential impacts to biological resources would be reduced to a less than significant level according to CEQA. Therefore, the project would not result in cumulative impacts to biological resources in the City of Laguna Beach.
265
265 of 540
Biological Resources Assessment
2500 Glenneyre Project
South Environmental 26 May 2024 (updated June 2025)

4. Bibliography
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2024a. California Natural Diversity Database (available by subscription) and Rarefind. CDFW: Sacramento, California. Portal Online Access:
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data
CDFW. 2024b. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships life history accounts and range maps.

Accessed online: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CWHR/Life-History-and-Range CDFW. 2024c. California Natural Community List. Accessed online:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=153609&inline CDFW. 2024. NCCP Plan Summary – San Diego Multiple Habitat Conservation Program. Accessed online: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Planning/NCCP/Plans/San-Diego-MHCP City of Laguna Beach. 2019. Tree Removal Permit Process. Accessed online:
https://www.lagunabeachcity.net/?splash=https%3a%2f%2flagunabeach.prod.govaccess.org% 2fhome%2fshowdocument%3fid%3d8214&____isexternal=true
California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2024a. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California. California Native Plant Society. Available online (http://cnps.web.aplus.net/cgibin/inv/inventory.cgi).

CNPS. 2024b. A Manual of California Vegetation Online - California Natural Communities List.

Accessed online: http://vegetation.cnps.org/
CPAD. 2024. California Protected Areas Database Map. Available online: https://www.calands.org/ iNaturalist. 2024. Observation Search for the project site. Available online:
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?nelat=33.5257957802915&nelng=- 117.7628820197085&place_id=any&subview=map&swlat=33.5230978197085&swlng=- 117.7655799802915
SC Wildlands. 2008. South Coast Missing Linkages: A Wildland Network for the South Coast Ecoregion.

US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 2024. Online Web Soil Survey Mapper (https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm).

United State Geological Service (USGS). 2024a. National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) The National Map Viewer. Accessed online: https://viewer.nationalmap.gov/services/ 266
266 of 540
Biological Resources Assessment
2500 Glenneyre Project
South Environmental 27 May 2024 (updated June 2025)
USGS. 2024b. The National Geologic Map Database, Map View. Available online (http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/maps/mapview/). U.S. Department of the Interior. Washington, DC.

USGS. 2024c. California Geologic Map Data. Available online (http://mrdata.usgs.gov/geology/state/ state.php?state=CA). U.S. Department of the Interior.

Washington, DC.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2024a. Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC). Accessed online:
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/
USFWS. 2024b. Critical Habitat GIS Data. Available for download online:
(https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/fws-critical-habitat-for-threatened-and-endangered-speciesdataset).

USFWS. 2024c. National Wetlands Inventory Online Wetlands Mapper. Accessed online:
https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html
267
267 of 540
Appendix A
Photograph Log
268
268 of 540
Image 1) View of 2500 Glenneyre St. property sloping uphill from street with dense canopy, facing northeast.

Image 2) View of 2500 Glenneyre St. and adjacent eastern residential developments.
269
269 of 540
Image 3) View of 2500 Glenneyre St. and adjacent western residential developments.

Image 4) Depicts open, undeveloped area with a mix of native and nonnative/ ornamental vegetation in the southwest region of the parcel near Glenneyre St., facing north.
270
270 of 540
Image 5) View of undeveloped understory and drainage area in background, facing east.

Image 6) View of drainage area running approximately north to south with an understory dominated by non-native vegetation and a canopy with native and non-native vegetation.
271
271 of 540
Image 7) View of man-made drainpipe that leads under Glenneyre St., facing southwest.

Image 8) Depicts drainage area continuing northeast through property with cobble lining the drainage path and non-native plants dominating the understory.
272
272 of 540
Image 9) Depict drainage areas from northern region of property, facing south.

Image 10) View of northern property line divided by wire fence in drainage area.
273
273 of 540
Image 11) View of northeastern property line with neighboring property’s bridge structure crossing drainage path, facing northeast.

Image 12) View of sloped northwestern region of property with non-native nasturtium and Algerian ivy dominating understory; drainage lies between nasturtium and ivy.
274
274 of 540
Appendix B
Special-Status Species Analysis
275
275 of 540
Special-Status Species
Special-status species are those plants and animals that, because of their recognized rarity or vulnerability to various causes of habitat loss or population decline, are recognized by federal, state, or other agencies as under threat from human-associated developments. Some of these species receive specific protection that is defined by federal or state endangered species legislation. Others have been designated as special-status based on adopted policies and expertise of state resource agencies or organizations with acknowledged expertise, or policies adopted by local governmental agencies such as counties, cities, and special districts to meet local conservation objectives. Special-status species include:
• Plants or wildlife listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered, or are candidates for possible future listing as threatened or endangered, under the federal Endangered Species Act or the California Endangered Species Act; • Plants or wildlife that meet the definitions of rare or endangered under CEQA Guidelines Section 15380.
• Plants or wildlife covered under an adopted NCCP/HCP; • Plants considered by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) to be rare, threatened, or endangered (List 1A, 1B and 2 plants) in California;
• Plants listed by the CNPS as plants in which there is limited information about distribution (List 3);
• Plants listed as rare under the California Native Plant Protection Act (Fish and Game Code 1900 et seq.);
• Wildlife designated by CDFW as species of special concern; • Wildlife "fully protected" in California (California Fish and Game Code Sections 3511, 4700, and 5050); and
• Wildlife protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MTBA).

Federally-Protected Status
All references to Federally-protected species in this BRA include the most current published status or candidate category to which each species has been assigned by USFWS. For purposes of this assessment the following acronyms are used for Federal status species, as applicable:
276
276 of 540
FE Federally-listed as Endangered
FT Federally-listed as Threatened
FPE Federally proposed for listing as Endangered
FPT Federally proposed for listing as Threatened
FPD Federally proposed for delisting
FC Federal candidate species (former C1 species)
State-Protected Status
For the purposes of this BRA, the following acronyms are used for State status species, as applicable:

SE State-listed as Endangered
ST State-listed as Threatened
SR State-listed as Rare
SCE State candidate for listing as Endangered
SCT State candidate for listing as Threatened
SFP State Fully Protected
SSC California Species of Special Concern
California Rare Plant Rank
The CNPS is a private plant conservation organization dedicated to the monitoring and protection of special-status species in California. CNPS has compiled an inventory comprised of the information focusing on geographic distribution and qualitative characterization of Rare, Threatened, or Endangered vascular plant species of California (CNPS 2018). The list serves as the candidate list for listing as Threatened and Endangered by CDFW. CNPS has developed six categories of rarity known as the California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR), of which Ranks 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B are particularly considered sensitive:

Rank 1A Presumed extinct in California.

Rank 1B Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and elsewhere.

Rank 2A Presumed extinct in California, but more common elsewhere.

Rank 2B Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, but more common elsewhere.

Rank 3 Plants about which we need more information – a review list.

Rank 4 Plants of limited distribution – a watch list.

The CNPS recently added “threat ranks” which parallel the ranks used by the CNDDB. These ranks are added as a decimal code after the CNPS List (e.g., Rank 1B.1). The threat codes are as follows:
277
277 of 540
.1 Seriously threatened in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened/high degree and immediacy of threat);
.2 Moderately threatened in California (20-80% occurrences threatened); .3 Not very threatened in California (<20% of occurrences threatened or no current threats known).

Potential to Occur Assessment
Special-status species that present or are likely (high or medium potential) to occur within the parcel are a based on one or more of the following:
• the direct observation of the species within the parcel during any field surveys; • a record reported in the CNDDB, CNPS, or IPAC; and
• the parcel is within known distribution of a species and contains appropriate habitat.

Special-status species that are unlikely (low potential) to occur are based on one of the following:
• the parcel has the general habitat types but lacks necessary habitat elements such as suitable microhabitat or soils; or
• the parcel is outside the known elevation range or distribution of the species, and has otherwise suitable habitats;
Special-status species that have no potential to occur on the parcel are labeled as none due to the absence of suitable habitat.
278
278 of 540
Special-Status Animals
Sceintific Name Common
Name
Taxon
Group
Fed Cal Other General Habitat Microhabitat Potential to Occur at the Site
Anaxyrus
californicus
Arroyo toad Amphibians Endangered None CDFW_SSC-Species of Special Concern |
IUCN_ENEndangered
Semi-arid regions near
washes or intermittent
streams, including valleyfoothill and desert riparian, desert wash, etc.

Rivers with sandy banks,
willows, cottonwoods, and
sycamores; loose, gravelly
areas of streams in drier parts
of range.

None. The project site is
either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or
a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable
habitat is present for the
species.

Spea hammondii western
spadefoot
Amphibians None None BLM_S-Sensitive |
CDFW_SSC-Species
of Special Concern |
IUCN_NT-Near
Threatened
Occurs primarily in grassland
habitats, but can be found in
valley-foothill hardwood
woodlands.

Vernal pools are essential for
breeding and egg-laying.

None. The project site is
either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or
a disturbed Mixed
Ornamental Woodland. No
suitable habitat is present
for the species.

Accipiter cooperii Cooper's hawk Birds None None CDFW_WL-Watch List | IUCN_LC-Least
Concern
Woodland, chiefly of open,
interrupted or marginal type.

Nest sites mainly in riparian
growths of deciduous trees, as
in canyon bottoms on river
flood-plains; also, live oaks.

None. The project site is
either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or
a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable
habitat is present for the
species.

Agelaius tricolor tricolored
blackbird
Birds None Threatened BLM_S-Sensitive |
CDFW_SSC-Species
of Special Concern |
IUCN_ENEndangered |
NABCI_RWL-Red
Watch List |
USFWS_BCC-Birds
of Conservation
Concern
Highly colonial species, most
numerous in Central Valley
and vicinity. Largely endemic
to California.

Requires open water,
protected nesting substrate,
and foraging area with insect
prey within a few km of the
colony.

None. The project site is
either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or
a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable
habitat is present for the
species.

Aimophila
ruficeps
canescens
southern
California
rufous-crowned
sparrow
Birds None None CDFW_WL-Watch
List
Resident in Southern
California coastal sage scrub
and sparse mixed chaparral.

Frequents relatively steep,
often rocky hillsides with grass
and forb patches.

None. The project site is
either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or
a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable
habitat is present for the
species.
279
279 of 540
Ammodramus
savannarum
grasshopper
sparrow
Birds None None CDFW_SSC-Species
of Special Concern |
IUCN_LC-Least
Concern
Dense grasslands on rolling
hills, lowland plains, in valleys
and on hillsides on lower
mountain slopes.

Favors native grasslands with a
mix of grasses, forbs and
scattered shrubs. Loosely
colonial when nesting.

None. The project site is
either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or
a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable
habitat is present for the
species.

Athene
cunicularia
burrowing owl Birds None None BLM_S-Sensitive |
CDFW_SSC-Species
of Special Concern |
IUCN_LC-Least
Concern |
USFWS_BCC-Birds
of Conservation
Concern
Open, dry annual or perennial
grasslands, deserts, and
scrublands characterized by
low-growing vegetation.

Subterranean nester,
dependent upon burrowing
mammals, most notably, the
California ground squirrel.

None. The project site is
either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or
a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable
habitat is present for the
species.

Buteo regalis ferruginous
hawk
Birds None None CDFW_WL-Watch
List | IUCN_LC-Least
Concern
Open grasslands, sagebrush
flats, desert scrub, low
foothills and fringes of pinyon
and juniper habitats.

Eats mostly lagomorphs,
ground squirrels, and mice.

Population trends may follow
lagomorph population cycles.

None. The project site is
either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or
a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable
habitat is present for the
species.

Campylorhynchus
brunneicapillus
sandiegensis
coastal cactus
wren
Birds None None CDFW_SSC-Species
of Special Concern |
USFS_S-Sensitive |
USFWS_BCC-Birds
of Conservation
Concern
Southern California coastal
sage scrub.

Wrens require tall opuntia
cactus for nesting and
roosting.

None. The project site is
either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or
a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable
habitat is present for the
species.

Charadrius
nivosus nivosus
western snowy
plover
Birds Threatened None CDFW_SSC-Species
of Special Concern |
NABCI_RWL-Red
Watch List
Sandy beaches, salt pond
levees and shores of large
alkali lakes.

Needs sandy, gravelly or friable
soils for nesting.

None. The project site is
either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or
a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable
habitat is present for the
species.

Coccyzus
americanus
occidentalis
western yellowbilled cuckooBirds Threatened Endangered BLM_S-Sensitive | NABCI_RWL-Red
Watch List |
USFS_S-Sensitive
Riparian forest nester, along
the broad, lower floodbottoms of larger river
systems.

Nests in riparian jungles of
willow, often mixed with
cottonwoods, with lower story
of blackberry, nettles, or wild
grape.

None. The project site is
either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or
a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable
habitat is present for the
species.
280
280 of 540
Coturnicops
noveboracensis
yellow rail Birds None None CDFW_SSC-Species
of Special Concern |
IUCN_LC-Least
Concern |
NABCI_RWL-Red
Watch List |
USFS_S-Sensitive |
USFWS_BCC-Birds
of Conservation
Concern
Summer resident in eastern
Sierra Nevada in Mono
County.

Freshwater marshlands. None. The project site is
either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or
a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable
habitat is present for the
species.

Elanus leucurus white-tailed kite Birds None None BLM_S-Sensitive | CDFW_FP-Fully
Protected |
IUCN_LC-Least
Concern
Rolling foothills and valley
margins with scattered oaks
and river bottomlands or
marshes next to deciduous
woodland.

Open grasslands, meadows, or
marshes for foraging close to
isolated, dense-topped trees
for nesting and perching.

None. The project site is
either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or
a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable
habitat is present for the
species.

Eremophila
alpestris actia
California
horned lark
Birds None None CDFW_WL-Watch
List | IUCN_LC-Least
Concern
Coastal regions, chiefly from
Sonoma County to San Diego
County. Also main part of San
Joaquin Valley and east to
foothills.

Short-grass prairie, "bald" hills,
mountain meadows, open
coastal plains, fallow grain
fields, alkali flats.

None. The project site is
either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or
a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable
habitat is present for the
species.

Icteria virens yellow-breasted
chat
Birds None None CDFW_SSC-Species
of Special Concern |
IUCN_LC-Least
Concern
Summer resident; inhabits
riparian thickets of willow and
other brushy tangles near
watercourses.

Nests in low, dense riparian,
consisting of willow,
blackberry, wild grape; forages
and nests within 10 ft of
ground.

None. The project site is
either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or
a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable
habitat is present for the
species.

Laterallus
jamaicensis
coturniculus
California black
rail
Birds None Threatened BLM_S-Sensitive |
CDFW_FP-Fully
Protected |
IUCN_NT-Near
Threatened |
NABCI_RWL-Red
Watch List
Inhabits freshwater marshes,
wet meadows and shallow
margins of saltwater marshes
bordering larger bays.

Needs water depths of about 1
inch that do not fluctuate
during the year and dense
vegetation for nesting habitat.

None. The project site is
either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or
a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable
habitat is present for the
species.

Pandion haliaetus osprey Birds None None CDF_S-Sensitive | CDFW_WL-Watch
List | IUCN_LC-Least
Concern
Ocean shore, bays, freshwater
lakes, and larger streams.

Large nests built in tree-tops
within 15 miles of a good fishproducing body of water.

None. The project site is
either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or
a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable
habitat is present for the
species.
281
281 of 540
Passerculus
sandwichensis
beldingi
Belding's
savannah
sparrow
Birds None Endangered USFWS_BCC-Birds
of Conservation
Concern
Inhabits coastal salt marshes,
from Santa Barbara south
through San Diego County.

Nests in Salicornia on and
about margins of tidal flats.

None. The project site is
either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or
a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable
habitat is present for the
species.

Phoebastria
albatrus
short-tailed
albatross
Birds Endangered None CDFW_SSC-Species
of Special Concern |
IUCN_VUVulnerable
None. The project site is
either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or
a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable
habitat is present for the
species.

Polioptila
californica
californica
coastal
California
gnatcatcher
Birds Threatened None CDFW_SSC-Species
of Special Concern |
NABCI_YWL-Yellow
Watch List
Obligate, permanent resident
of coastal sage scrub below
2500 ft in Southern California.

Low, coastal sage scrub in arid
washes, on mesas and slopes.

Not all areas classified as
coastal sage scrub are
occupied.

None. The project site is
either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or
a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable
habitat is present for the
species.

Rallus obsoletus
levipes
light-footed
Ridgway's rail
Birds Endangered Endangered CDFW_FP-Fully
Protected |
NABCI_RWL-Red
Watch List
Found in salt marshes
traversed by tidal sloughs,
where cordgrass and
pickleweed are the dominant
vegetation.

Requires dense growth of
either pickleweed or cordgrass
for nesting or escape cover;
feeds on molluscs and
crustaceans.

None. The project site is
either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or
a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable
habitat is present for the
species.

Riparia riparia bank swallow Birds None Threatened BLM_S-Sensitive | IUCN_LC-Least
Concern
Colonial nester; nests
primarily in riparian and other
lowland habitats west of the
desert.

Requires vertical banks/cliffs
with fine-textured/sandy soils
near streams, rivers, lakes,
ocean to dig nesting hole.

None. The project site is
either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or
a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable
habitat is present for the
species.

Setophaga
petechia
yellow warbler Birds None None CDFW_SSC-Species
of Special Concern
Riparian plant associations in
close proximity to water. Also
nests in montane shrubbery
in open conifer forests in
Cascades and Sierra Nevada.

Frequently found nesting and
foraging in willow shrubs and
thickets, and in other riparian
plants including cottonwoods,
sycamores, ash, and alders.

None. The project site is
either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or
a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable
habitat is present for the
species.
282
282 of 540
Sternula
antillarum browni
California least
tern
Birds Endangered Endangered CDFW_FP-Fully
Protected |
NABCI_RWL-Red
Watch List
Nests along the coast from
San Francisco Bay south to
northern Baja California.

Colonial breeder on bare or
sparsely vegetated, flat
substrates: sand beaches, alkali
flats, land fills, or paved areas.

None. The project site is
either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or
a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable
habitat is present for the
species.

Strix occidentalis
occidentalis
California
spotted owl
Birdss None None BLM_S-Sensitive |
CDFW_SSC-Species
of Special Concern |
USFS_S-Sensitive |
USFWS_BCC-Birds
of Conservation
Concern
Mixed conifer forest, often
with an understory of black
oaks and other deciduous
hardwoods. Canopy closure
>40%.

Most often found in deepshaded canyons, on northfacing slopes, and within 300 meters of water.

None. The project site is
either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or
a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable
habitat is present for the
species.

Vireo bellii
pusillus
least Bell's vireo Birds Endangered Endangered IUCN_NT-Near Threatened |
NABCI_YWL-Yellow
Watch List
Summer resident of Southern
California in low riparian in
vicinity of water or in dry river
bottoms; below 2000 ft.

Nests placed along margins of
bushes or on twigs projecting
into pathways, usually willow,
Baccharis, mesquite.

None. The project site is
either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or
a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable
habitat is present for the
species.

Branchinecta
sandiegonensis
San Diego fairy
shrimp
Crustaceans Endangered None IUCN_ENEndangeredEndemic to San Diego and Orange County mesas.

Vernal pools. None. The project site is
either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or
a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable
habitat is present for the
species.

Streptocephalus
woottoni
Riverside fairy
shrimp
Crustaceans Endangered None IUCN_ENEndangeredEndemic to Western Riverside, Orange, and San
Diego counties in areas of
tectonic swales/earth slump
basins in grassland and
coastal sage scrub.

Inhabit seasonally astatic pools
filled by winter/spring rains.

Hatch in warm water later in
the season.

None. The project site is
either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or
a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable
habitat is present for the
species.

Eucyclogobius
newberryi
tidewater goby Fish Endangered None AFS_ENEndangered | IUCN_VUVulnerable
Brackish water habitats along
the California coast from
Agua Hedionda Lagoon, San
Diego County to the mouth
of the Smith River.

Found in shallow lagoons and
lower stream reaches, they
need fairly still but not
stagnant water and high
oxygen levels.

None. The project site is
either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or
a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable
habitat is present for the
species.
283
283 of 540
Gila orcuttii arroyo chub Fish None None AFS_VU-Vulnerable |
CDFW_SSC-Species
of Special Concern |
IUCN_VUVulnerable |
USFS_S-Sensitive
Native to streams from
Malibu Creek to San Luis Rey
River basin. Introduced into
streams in Santa Clara,
Ventura, Santa Ynez, Mojave
and San Diego river basins
Slow water stream sections
with mud or sand bottoms.

Feeds heavily on aquatic
vegetation and associated
invertebrates.

None. The project site is
either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or
a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable
habitat is present for the
species.

Oncorhynchus
mykiss irideus
pop. 10
steelhead -
southern
California DPS
Fish Endangered None AFS_ENEndangeredFederal listing refers to populations from Santa Maria
River south to southern
extent of range (San Mateo
Creek in San Diego County).

Southern steelhead likely have
greater physiological
tolerances to warmer water
and more variable conditions.

None. The project site is
either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or
a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable
habitat is present for the
species.

Rhinichthys
osculus ssp. 9
Santa Ana
speckled dace
Fish None None AFS_TH-Threatened
|
CDFW_SSC-Species
of Special Concern |
USFS_S-Sensitive
Headwaters of the
Santa Ana and San Gabriel
rivers. May be extirpated from
the Los Angeles River system.

Requires permanent flowing
streams with summer water
temps of 17-20 C. Usually
inhabits shallow cobble and
gravel riffles.

None. The project site is
either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or
a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable
habitat is present for the
species.

Bombus crotchii Crotch bumble
bee
Insects None None Coastal California east to the
Sierra-Cascade crest and
south into Mexico.

Food plant genera include
Antirrhinum, Phacelia, Clarkia,
Dendromecon, Eschscholzia,
and Eriogonum.

None. The project site is
either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or
a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable
habitat is present for the
species.

Cicindela
hirticollis gravida
sandy beach
tiger beetle
Insects None None Inhabits areas adjacent to
non-brackish water along the
coast of California from San
Francisco Bay to northern
Mexico.

Clean, dry, light-colored sand
in the upper zone.

Subterranean larvae prefer
moist sand not affected by
wave action.

None. The project site is
either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or
a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable
habitat is present for the
species.

Cicindela
latesignata
western beach
tiger beetle
Insects None None Mudflats and beaches of
coastal estuaries from San
Diego County to Los Angeles
County.

Typically inhabit wet or dry
sandy beaches and mud, sand,
or salt flats.

None. The project site is
either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or
a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable
habitat is present for the
species.
284
284 of 540
Coelus globosus globose dune
beetle
Insects None None IUCN_VUVulnerableInhabitant of coastal sand dune habitat; erratically
distributed from Ten Mile
Creek in Mendocino County
south to Ensenada, Mexico.

Inhabits foredunes and sand
hummocks; it burrows beneath
the sand surface and is most
common beneath dune
vegetation.

None. The project site is
either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or
a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable
habitat is present for the
species.

Danaus plexippus
pop. 1
monarch -
California
overwintering
population
Insects Candidate None USFS_S-Sensitive Winter roost sites extend along the coast from northern
Mendocino to Baja California,
Mexico.

Roosts located in windprotected tree groves
(eucalyptus, Monterey pine,
cypress), with nectar and water
sources nearby.

None. The project site is
either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or
a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable
habitat is present for the
species.

Euphydryas
editha quino
quino
checkerspot
butterfly
Insects Endangered None Sunny openings within
chaparral and coastal sage
shrublands in parts of
Riverside and San Diego
counties.

Hills and mesas near the coast.

Need high densities of food
plants Plantago erecta, P.
insularis, and Orthocarpus
purpurescens.

None. The project site is
either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or
a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable
habitat is present for the
species.

Habroscelimorpha
gabbii
western tidalflat tiger beetleInsects None None Inhabits estuaries and mudflats along the coast of
Southern California.

Generally found on darkcolored mud in the lower zone;
occasionally found on dry
saline flats of estuaries.

None. The project site is
either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or
a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable
habitat is present for the
species.

Panoquina errans wandering
(=saltmarsh)
skipper
Insects None None IUCN_NT-Near
Threatened
Southern California coastal
salt marshes.

Requires moist saltgrass for
larval development.

None. The project site is
either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or
a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable
habitat is present for the
species.

Chaetodipus
californicus
femoralis
Dulzura pocket
mouse
Mammals None None Variety of habitats including
coastal scrub, chaparral, and
grassland primarily in San
Diego County.

Attracted to grass-chaparral
edges.

None. The project site is
either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or
a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable
habitat is present for the
species.
285
285 of 540
Chaetodipus fallax
fallax
northwestern
San Diego
pocket mouse
Mammals None None Coastal scrub, chaparral,
grasslands, sagebrush, etc. in
western San Diego, Riverside,
San Bernardino, and Los
Angeles Counties, inclusive of
Orange County.

Sandy, herbaceous areas,
usually in association with
rocks or coarse gravel.

None. The project site is
either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or
a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable
habitat is present for the
species.

Choeronycteris
mexicana
Mexican longtongued batMammals None None CDFW_SSC-Species of Special Concern |
IUCN_NT-Near
Threatened |
WBWG_H-High
Priority
Occasionally found in San
Diego County, which is on the
periphery of their range.

Feeds on nectar and pollen of
night-blooming succulents.

Roosts in relatively well-lit
caves, and in and around
buildings.

None. The project site is
either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or
a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable
habitat is present for the
species.

Dipodomys
stephensi
Stephen’s
kangaroo rat
Mammals Threatened Threatens IUCN_VUVulnerablePrimarily annual and perennial grasslands, but also
occurs in coastal scrub and
sagebrush with sparse canopy
cover.

Prefers buckwheat,
chamise, brome grass and
filaree. Will burrow into firm
soil.

None. The project site is
either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or
a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable
habitat is present for the
species.

Eumops perotis
californicus
western mastiff
bat
Mammals None None BLM_S-Sensitive |
CDFW_SSC-Species
of Special Concern |
WBWG_H-High
Priority
Many open, semi-arid to arid
habitats, including conifer
and deciduous woodlands,
coastal scrub, grasslands,
chaparral, etc.

Roosts in crevices in cliff faces,
high buildings, trees and
tunnels.

None. The project site is
either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or
a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable
habitat is present for the
species.

Lasiurus cinereus hoary bat Mammals None None IUCN_LC-Least Concern |
WBWG_M-Medium
Priority
Prefers open habitats or
habitat mosaics, with access
to trees for cover and open
areas or habitat edges for
feeding.

Roosts in dense foliage of
medium to large trees. Feeds
primarily on moths. Requires
water.

None. The project site is
either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or
a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable
habitat is present for the
species.

Myotis
yumanensis
Yuma myotis Mammals None None BLM_S-Sensitive |
IUCN_LC-Least
Concern |
WBWG_LM-LowMedium Priority
Optimal habitats are open
forests and woodlands with
sources of water over which
to feed.

Distribution is closely tied to
bodies of water. Maternity
colonies in caves, mines,
buildings or crevices.

None. The project site is
either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or
a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable
habitat is present for the
species.
286
286 of 540
Neotoma lepida
intermedia
San Diego
wood desert rat
Mammals None None CDFW_SSC-Species
of Special Concern
Coastal scrub of Southern
California from San Diego
County to San Luis Obispo
County.

Moderate to dense canopies
preferred. They are particularly
abundant in rock outcrops,
rocky cliffs, and slopes.

None. The project site is
either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or
a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable
habitat is present for the
species.

Nyctinomops
macrotis
big free-tailed
bat
Mammals None None CDFW_SSC-Species
of Special Concern |
IUCN_LC-Least
Concern |
WBWG_MHMedium-High
Priority
Low-lying arid areas in
Southern California.

Need high cliffs or rocky
outcrops for roosting sites.

Feeds principally on large
moths.

None. The project site is
either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or
a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable
habitat is present for the
species.

Onychomys
torridus ramona
southern
grasshopper
mouse
Mammals None None CDFW_SSC-Species
of Special Concern
Desert areas, especially scrub
habitats with friable soils for
digging. Prefers low to
moderate shrub cover.

Feeds almost exclusively on
arthropods, especially
scorpions and orthopteran
insects.

None. The project site is
either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or
a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable
habitat is present for the
species.

Perognathus
longimembris
pacificus
Pacific pocket
mouse
Mammals Endangered None CDFW_SSC-Species
of Special Concern
Inhabits the narrow coastal
plains from the Mexican
border north to El Segundo,
Los Angeles County.

Seems to prefer soils of fine
alluvial sands near the ocean,
but much remains to be
learned.

None. The project site is
either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or
a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable
habitat is present for the
species.

Sorex ornatus
salicornicus
southern
California
saltmarsh shrew
Mammals None None CDFW_SSC-Species
of Special Concern
Coastal marshes in Los
Angeles, Orange and Ventura
counties.

Requires dense vegetation and
woody debris for cover.

None. The project site is
either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or
a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable
habitat is present for the
species.

Taxidea taxus American
badger
Mammals None None CDFW_SSC-Species
of Special Concern |
IUCN_LC-Least
Concern
Most abundant in drier open
stages of most shrub, forest,
and herbaceous habitats, with
friable soils.

Needs sufficient food, friable
soils and open, uncultivated
ground. Preys on burrowing
rodents. Digs burrows.

None. The project site is
either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or
a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable
habitat is present for the
species.
287
287 of 540
Tryonia imitator mimic tryonia
(=California
brackishwater
snail)
Mollusks None None IUCN_DD-Data
Deficient
Inhabits coastal lagoons,
estuaries and salt marshes,
from Sonoma County south
to San Diego County.

Found only in permanently
submerged areas in a variety of
sediment types; able to
withstand a wide range of
salinities.

None. The project site is
either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or
a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable
habitat is present for the
species.

Anniella stebbinsi Southern
California
legless lizard
Reptiles None None CDFW_SSC-Species
of Special Concern |
USFS_S-Sensitive
Generally south of the
Transverse Range, extending
to northwestern Baja
California. Occurs in sandy or
loose loamy soils under
sparse vegetation. Disjunct
populations in the Tehachapi
and Piute Mountains in Kern
County.

Variety of habitats; generally in
moist, loose soil. They prefer
soils with a high moisture
content.

None. The project site is
either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or
a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable
habitat is present for the
species.

Arizona elegans
occidentalis
California
glossy snake
Reptiles None None CDFW_SSC-Species
of Special Concern
Patchily distributed from the
eastern portion of San
Francisco Bay, southern San
Joaquin Valley, and the Coast,
Transverse, and Peninsular
ranges, south to Baja
California.

Generalist reported from a
range of scrub and grassland
habitats, often with loose or
sandy soils.

None. The project site is
either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or
a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable
habitat is present for the
species.

Aspidoscelis
hyperythra
orangethroated
whiptail
Reptiles None None CDFW_WL-Watch
List | IUCN_LC-Least
Concern | USFS_SSensitive
Inhabits low-elevation coastal
scrub, chaparral, and valleyfoothill hardwood habitats.

Prefers washes and other
sandy areas with patches of
brush and rocks. Perennial
plants necessary for its major
food: termites.

None. The project site is
either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or
a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable
habitat is present for the
species.

Aspidoscelis tigris
stejnegeri
coastal whiptail Reptiles None None CDFW_SSC-Species
of Special Concern
Found in deserts and semiarid areas with sparse
vegetation and open areas.

Also found in woodland and
riparian areas.

Ground may be firm soil,
sandy, or rocky.

None. The project site is
either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or
a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable
habitat is present for the
species.

Crotalus ruber red-diamond
rattlesnake
Reptiles None None CDFW_SSC-Species
of Special Concern |
USFS_S-Sensitive
Chaparral, woodland,
grassland, and desert areas
from coastal San Diego
County to the eastern slopes
of the mountains.

Occurs in rocky areas and
dense vegetation. Needs
rodent burrows, cracks in rocks
or surface cover objects.

None. The project site is
either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or
a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable
habitat is present for the
species.
288
288 of 540
Emys marmorata western pond
turtle
Reptiles None None BLM_S-Sensitive |
CDFW_SSC-Species
of Special Concern |
IUCN_VUVulnerable |
USFS_S-Sensitive
A thoroughly aquatic turtle of
ponds, marshes, rivers,
streams and irrigation ditches,
usually with aquatic
vegetation, below 6000 ft
elevation.

Needs basking sites and
suitable (sandy banks or grassy
open fields) upland habitat up
to 0.5 km from water for egglaying.

None. The project site is
either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or
a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable
habitat is present for the
species.

Phrynosoma
blainvillii
coast horned
lizard
Reptiles None None BLM_S-Sensitive |
CDFW_SSC-Species
of Special Concern |
IUCN_LC-Least
Concern
Frequents a wide variety of
habitats, most common in
lowlands along sandy washes
with scattered low bushes.

Open areas for sunning,
bushes for cover, patches of
loose soil for burial, and
abundant supply of ants and
other insects.

None. The project site is
either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or
a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable
habitat is present for the
species.

Salvadora
hexalepis
virgultea
coast patchnosed snakeReptiles None None CDFW_SSC-Species of Special Concern
Brushy or shrubby vegetation
in coastal Southern California.

Require small mammal
burrows for refuge and
overwintering sites.

None. The project site is
either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or
a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable
habitat is present for the
species.

Thamnophis
hammondii
two-striped
gartersnake
Reptiles None None BLM_S-Sensitive |
CDFW_SSC-Species
of Special Concern |
IUCN_LC-Least
Concern |
USFS_S-Sensitive
Coastal California from
vicinity of Salinas to
northwest Baja California.

From sea to about 7,000 ft
elevation.

Highly aquatic, found in or
near permanent fresh water.

Often along streams with rocky
beds and riparian growth.

None. The project site is
either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or
a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable
habitat is present for the
species.

Special-Status Plants
Scientific Name Common
Name
Taxon
Group
CESA FESA CRPR Habitat Micro Habitat Elevation
Low_ft
Elevation
High_ft
Potential to Occur
Abronia
maritima
red sandverbenaPlants None None 4.2 Coastal dunes 0 330 None. The project site is either Developed / Ornamentally Landscaped or a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable habitat is present for the
species.

Abronia villosa
var. aurita
chaparral
sandverbena
Plants None None 1B.1 Chaparral, Coastal scrub,
Desert dunes
Sandy 245 5250 None. The project site is either Developed / Ornamentally Landscaped or a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable habitat is present for the
species.
289
289 of 540
Acanthomintha
ilicifolia
San Diego
thorn-mint
Plants FT CE 1B.1 Chaparral, coastal scrub,
valley and foothill
grassland, vernal pools.

Endemic to active
vertisol clay soils of
mesas and valleys.

Usually on clay
lenses within
grassland or
chaparral
communities.
82 3100 None. The project site is either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable habitat is present for the
species.

Aphanisma
blitoides
aphanisma Plants None None 1B.2 Coastal bluff scrub,
Coastal dunes, Coastal
scrub
Gravelly
(sometimes), Sandy
(sometimes)
5 1000 None. The project site is either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable habitat is present for the
species.

Astragalus
brauntonii
Braunton’s
milk vetch
Plants FE Nine 1B.1 Chaparral, coastal scrub,
valley and foothill
grassland.

Recent burns or
disturbed areas;
usually on sandstone
with carbonate
layers. Soil specialist;
requires shallow soils
to defeat pocket
gophers and open
areas, preferably on
hilltops, saddles or
bowls between hills.
10 2099 None. The project site is either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable habitat is present for the
species.

Astragalus
hornii var.
hornii
Horn's milkvetchPlants None None 1B.1 Meadows and seeps, Playas
Alkaline, Lake
Margins
195 2790 None. The project site is either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable habitat is present for the
species.

Astragalus
pycnostachyus
var.
lanosissimus
Ventura
Marsh milkvetch
Plants CE FE 1B.1 Coastal dunes, Coastal scrub, Marshes and swamps
5 115 None. The project site is either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable habitat is present for the
species.

Atriplex coulteri Coulter's
saltbush
Plants None None 1B.2 Coastal bluff scrub,
Coastal dunes, Coastal
scrub, Valley and foothill
grassland
Alkaline
(sometimes), Clay
(sometimes)
10 1510 None. The project site is either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable habitat is present for the
species.

Atriplex pacifica south coast
saltscale
Plants None None 1B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal dunes, Coastal scrub, Playas
0 460 None. The project site is either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable habitat is present for the
species.

Atriplex parishii Parish's
brittlescale
Plants None None 1B.1 Chenopod scrub, Playas,
Vernal pools
Alkaline 80 6235 None. The project site is either Developed / Ornamentally Landscaped or a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable habitat is present for the
species.
290
290 of 540
Atriplex
serenana var.
davidsonii
Davidson's
saltscale
Plants None None 1B.2 Coastal bluff scrub,
Coastal scrub
Alkaline 35 655 None. The project site is either Developed / Ornamentally Landscaped or a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable habitat is present for the
species.

Brodiaea filifolia Threeleaved
brodiaea
Plants FT CE 1B.1 Chaparral (openings),
cismontane woodland,
coastal scrub, playas,
valley and foothill
grassland, vernal pools.

Usually associated
with annual
grassland and vernal
pools; often
surrounded by
shrubland habitats.

Occurs in openings
on clay soils.
49 3379 None. The project site is either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable habitat is present for the
species.

Calochortus
catalinae
Catalina
mariposa
lily
Plants None None CBR Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland
50 2295 None. The project site is either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable habitat is present for the
species.

Calochortus
plummerae
Plummer’s
mariposa
lily
Plants None None 4.2 Coastal scrub, chaparral, valley and foothill grassland, cismontane woodland, lower montane
coniferous forest. Occurs on rocky and sandy
sites, usually of granitic or alluvial material. Can be very common after fire.
196 8202 None. The project site is either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable habitat is present for the
species.

Calochortus
weedii var.
intermedius
intermediat
e mariposalily
Plants None None 1B.2 Chaparral, Coastal scrub,
Valley and foothill
grassland
Rocky 345 2805 None. The project site is either Developed / Ornamentally Landscaped or a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable habitat is present for the
species.

Camissoniopsis
lewisii
Lewis'
eveningprimrose
Plants None None 3 Cismontane woodland,
Coastal bluff scrub,
Coastal dunes, Coastal
scrub, Valley and foothill
grassland
Clay (sometimes),
Sandy (sometimes)
0 985 None. The project site is either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable habitat is present for the
species.

Centromadia
parryi ssp.
australis
southern
tarplant
Plants None None 1B.1 Marshes and swamps, Valley and foothill grassland, Vernal pools
0 1575 None. The project site is either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable habitat is present for the
species.

Chaenactis
glabriuscula
var. orcuttiana
Orcutt's
pincushion
Plants None None 1B.1 Coastal bluff scrub,
Coastal dunes
0 330 None. The project site is either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable habitat is present for the
species.

Chloropyron
maritimum ssp.
maritimum
salt marsh
bird's-beak
Plants CE FE 1B.2 Coastal dunes, Marshes
and swamps
0 100 None. The project site is either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable habitat is present for the
species.
291
291 of 540
Cistanthe
maritima
seaside
cistanthe
Plants None None 4.2 Coastal bluff scrub,
Coastal scrub, Valley and
foothill grassland
Sandy 15 985 None. The project site is either Developed / Ornamentally Landscaped or a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable habitat is present for the
species.

Comarostaphyli
s diversifolia
ssp. diversifolia
summer
holly
Plants None None 1B.2 Chaparral, Cismontane
woodland
100 2590 None. The project site is either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable habitat is present for the
species.

Convolvulus
simulans
smallflowered
morningglory
Plants None None 4.2 Chaparral, Coastal scrub,
Valley and foothill
grassland
Clay, Seeps,
Serpentinite
100 2430 None. The project site is either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable habitat is present for the
species.

Deinandra
paniculata
paniculate
tarplant
Plants None None 4.2 Coastal scrub, Valley and
foothill grassland, Vernal
pools
Sandy (sometimes),
Vernally Mesic
(usually)
80 3085 None. The project site is either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable habitat is present for the
species.

Dichondra
occidentalis
western
dichondra
Plants None None 4.2 Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland
165 1640 None. The project site is either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable habitat is present for the
species.

Diplacus
clevelandii
Cleveland’s
bush
monkeyflow
er
Plants None None 4.2 Chaparral, cismontane
woodland, lower montane
coniferous forest.

Disturbed gravelly
roadsides and
slopes. Gabbro soils.
1476 6561 None. The project site is either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable habitat is present for the
species.

Dudleya
blochmaniae
ssp.
blochmaniae
Blochman’s
dudleya
Plants None None 1B.1 Coastal scrub, coastal
bluff scrub, chaparral,
valley and foothill
grassland.

Open, rocky slopes;
often in shallow
clays over serpentine
or in rocky areas
with little soil.
16 951 None. The project site is either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable habitat is present for the
species.

Dudleya
cymose ssp.
ovatifolia
Santa
Monica
dudleya
Plants FT None 1B.1 Chaparral, coastal scrub. In canyons on volcanic or
sedimentary
substrates; primarily
on north-facing
slopes.
492 1099 None. The project site is either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable habitat is present for the
species.

Dudleya
multicaulis
manystemmed
dudleya
Plants None None 1B.2 Chaparral, Coastal scrub,
Valley and foothill
grassland
Clay (often) 50 2590 None. The project site is either Developed / Ornamentally Landscaped or a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable habitat is present for the
species.

Dudleya
stolonifera
Laguna
Beach
dudleya
Plants CT FT 1B.1 Chaparral, Cismontane
woodland, Coastal scrub,
Valley and foothill
grassland
Rocky 35 855 None. The project site is either Developed / Ornamentally Landscaped or a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable habitat is present for the
species.
292
292 of 540
Eleocharis
parvula
small
spikerush
Plants None None 4.3 Marshes and swamps 5 9910 None. The project site is either Developed / Ornamentally Landscaped or a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable habitat is present for the
species.

Eryngium
aristulatum var.
parishii
San Diego
buttoncelery
Plants CE FE 1B.1 Coastal scrub, Valley and
foothill grassland, Vernal
pools
Mesic 65 2035 None. The project site is either Developed / Ornamentally Landscaped or a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable habitat is present for the
species.

Euphorbia
misera
cliff spurge Plants None None 2B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal scrub, Mojavean
desert scrub
Rocky 35 1640 None. The project site is either Developed / Ornamentally Landscaped or a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable habitat is present for the
species.

Harpagonella
palmeri
Palmer's
grapplingh
ook
Plants None None 4.2 Chaparral, Coastal scrub,
Valley and foothill
grassland
Clay, Openings 65 3135 None. The project site is either Developed / Ornamentally Landscaped or a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable habitat is present for the
species.

Helianthus
nuttallii ssp.
parishii
Los Angeles
sunflower
Plants None None 1A Marshes and swamps 35 5005 None. The project site is either Developed / Ornamentally Landscaped or a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable habitat is present for the
species.

Hordeum
intercedens
vernal
barley
Plants None None 3.2 Coastal dunes, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland, Vernal pools
15 3280 None. The project site is either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable habitat is present for the
species.

Horkelia
cuneata var.
puberula
mesa
horkelia
Plants None None 1B.1 Chaparral, Cismontane
woodland, Coastal scrub
Gravelly
(sometimes), Sandy
(sometimes)
230 2660 None. The project site is either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable habitat is present for the
species.

Isocoma
menziesii var.
decumbens
decumbent
goldenbush
Plants None None 1B.2 Chaparral, Coastal scrub 35 445 None. The project site is either Developed / Ornamentally Landscaped or a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable habitat is present for the
species.

Juglans
californica
Southern
California
black
walnut
Plants None None 4.2 Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub, Riparian woodland
165 2955 None. The project site is either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable habitat is present for the
species.

Juncus acutus
ssp. leopoldii
southwester
n spiny rush
Plants None None 4.2 Coastal dunes, Marshes and swamps, Meadows and seeps
10 2955 None. The project site is either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable habitat is present for the
species.

Lasthenia
glabrata ssp.
coulteri
Coulter's
goldfields
Plants None None 1B.1 Marshes and swamps, Playas, Vernal pools 5 4005 None. The project site is either Developed / Ornamentally Landscaped or a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable habitat is present for the
species.
293
293 of 540
Lepidium
virginicum var.
robinsonii
Robinson's
peppergrass
Plants None None 4.3 Chaparral, Coastal scrub 5 2905 None. The project site is either Developed / Ornamentally Landscaped or a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable habitat is present for the
species.

Lycium
californicum
California
box-thorn
Plants None None 4.2 Coastal bluff scrub,
Coastal scrub
15 490 None. The project site is either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable habitat is present for the
species.

Malacothrix
saxatilis var.
saxatilis
cliff
malacothrix
Plants None None 4.2 Coastal bluff scrub,
Coastal scrub
10 655 None. The project site is either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable habitat is present for the
species.

Microseris
douglasii ssp.
platycarpha
smallflowered
microseris
Plants None None 4.2 Cismontane woodland,
valley and foothill
grassland, coastal scrub,
vernal pools.

Alkaline clay in river
bottoms.
49 3511 None. The project site is either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable habitat is present for the
species.

Monardella
hypoleuca ssp.
intermedia
Intermediat
e
monardella
Plants None None 1B.3 Chaparral, cismontane
woodland, lower montane
coniferous forest
(sometimes).

Often in steep,
brushy areas.
640 5495 None. The project site is either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable habitat is present for the
species.

Nama
stenocarpa
mud nama Plants None None 2B.2 Marshes and swamps 15 1640 None. The project site is either Developed / Ornamentally Landscaped or a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable habitat is present for the
species.

Nasturtium
gambelii
Gambel's
water cress
Plants CT FE 1B.1 Marshes and swamps 15 1085 None. The project site is either Developed / Ornamentally Landscaped or a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable habitat is present for the
species.

Navarretia
prostrata
prostrate
vernal pool
navarretia
Plants None None 1B.2 Coastal scrub, Meadows and seeps, Valley and foothill grassland, Vernal pools
10 3970 None. The project site is either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable habitat is present for the
species.

Nemacaulis
denudata var.
denudata
coast
woollyheads
Plants None None 1B.2 Coastal dunes 0 330 None. The project site is either Developed / Ornamentally Landscaped or a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable habitat is present for the
species.

Nolina
cismontana
chaparral
nolina
Plants None None 1B.2 Chaparral, coastal scrub. Primarily on sandstone and shale
substrates; also
known from gabbro.
459 3609 None. The project site is either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable habitat is present for the
species.

Orcuttia
californica
California
Orcutt grass
Plants CE FE 1B.1 Vernal pools 50 2165 None. The project site is either Developed / Ornamentally Landscaped or a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable habitat is present for the
species.
294
294 of 540
Pentachaeta
aurea ssp.
allenii
Allen's
pentachaet
a
Plants None None 1B.1 Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland 245 1705 None. The project site is either Developed / Ornamentally Landscaped or a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable habitat is present for the
species.

Pentachaeta
aurea ssp.
aurea
goldenrayed
pentachaet
a
Plants None None 4.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, lower montane coniferous forest, valley and
foothill grassland, riparian woodland.
262 6070 None. The project site is either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable habitat is present for the
species.

Phacelia hubbyi Hubby’s
phacelia
Plants None None 4.2 Chaparral, coastal scrub,
valley and foothill
grassland.

Gravelly, rocky areas
and talus slopes.
0 3280 None. The project site is either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable habitat is present for the
species.

Pseudognaphali
um
leucocephalum
white
rabbittobacco
Plants None None 2B.2 Riparian woodland, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, chaparral. Sand, gravelly sites.
114 1689 None. The project site is either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable habitat is present for the
species.

Quercus
dumosa
Nuttall's
scrub oak
Plants None None 1B.1 Chaparral, Closed-cone coniferous forest, Coastal scrub
50 1310 None. The project site is either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable habitat is present for the
species.

Rhinotropis
cornuta var.
fishiae
Or
Polygala
cornuta var.
fishiae
Fish’s
milkwort
Plants None None 4.3 Cismontane woodland, riparian woodland, chaparral. Scree slopes, brushy ridges, and along
creeks; often with oaks.
328 3280 None. The project site is either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable habitat is present for the
species.

Romneya
coulteri
Coulter's
matilija
poppy
Plants None None 4.2 Coastal scrub, chaparral. In washes and on slopes; also after
burns
66 3937 None. The project site is either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable habitat is present for the
species.

Selaginella
cinerascens
ashy spikemossPlants None None 4.1 Chaparral, coastal scrub. 66 2100 None. The project site is either Developed / Ornamentally Landscaped or a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable habitat is present for the
species.

Senecio
aphanactis
chaparral
ragwort
Plants None None 1B.2 Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub 50 2625 None. The project site is either Developed / Ornamentally Landscaped or a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable habitat is present for the
species.

Sidalcea
neomexicana
salt spring
checkerbloo
m
Plants None None 2B.2 Chaparral, Coastal scrub, Lower montane coniferous forest, Mojavean desert scrub, Playas
50 5020 None. The project site is either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable habitat is present for the
species.
295
295 of 540
Suaeda esteroa estuary
seablite
Plants None None 1B.2 Marshes and swamps 0 15 None. The project site is either Developed / Ornamentally Landscaped or a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable habitat is present for the
species.

Suaeda taxifolia woolly
seablite
Plants None None 4.2 Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal dunes, Marshes and swamps
0 165 None. The project site is either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable habitat is present for the
species.

Symphyotrichu
m defoliatum
San
Bernardino
aster
Plants None None 1B.2 Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub, Lower montane coniferous forest, Marshes and swamps,
Meadows and seeps, Valley and foothill grassland
5 6695 None. The project site is either Developed /
Ornamentally Landscaped or a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable habitat is present for the
species.

Verbesina
dissita
big-leaved
crownbeard
Plants CT FT 1B.1 Chaparral, Coastal scrub 150 675 None. The project site is either Developed / Ornamentally Landscaped or a Mixed Ornamental
Woodland. No suitable habitat is present for the
species.
296
296 of 540
Appendix C
Site Plan
297
297 of 540
298
298 of 540
Appendix D
Biologist Qualifications
299
299 of 540
Email: [email protected]
Mobile: 303-818-3632

EDUCATION
B.S., Wildlife Ecology, University
of Wisconsin-Madison, 2004

CERTIFICATIONS
Certified Wildlife Biologist, The
Wildlife Society 2014
Certified Technical Service
Provider (TSP) for Fish and
Wildlife Management Plans,
USDA NRCS 2017
Authorized Desert Tortoise
Biologist – Numerous BOs
Unmanned Aircraft System Pilot
Certification, FAA #4177603

TRAINING
Wetland Delineation Training
Course – The Wetland Institute
(2014)
Southwest Willow Flycatcher
Workshop, 2017
USGS Desert Tortoise Health
Assessment and Tissue
Collection Techniques Training,
2009
Matthew South

PRINCIPAL BIOLOGIST
Matthew South founded South Environmental in 2018. He is a certified wildlife biologist with over 17 years of professional experience providing natural resources consulting services for a wide variety of clients that include residential, commercial, government, utility, infrastructure, research, and non-profit projects. For the last 14 years, Mr. South has been an environmental consultant in southern California acting as a Wildlife Biologist and Geographic Information System (GIS) Analyst. In early 2018 he started South Environmental and has since been supporting clients in Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties.

Mr. South’s background in ecology has led to a passion for conservation planning and resources assessments for the purpose of preservation and management. The integration of the latest technologies such as advanced GIS systems, mobile computing, and drone sensing allows him to innovate new data collection, analysis, and collaboration tools for the environmental sciences that produce more accurate data and better-informed resource managers.

EXPERTISE
• Conservation and Management Planning. Mr. South’s has extensive experience preparing mitigation and monitoring plans, habitat conservation plans, and technical biological resources management plans that are compliant with federal, state, and local regulations. Mr.

South is the only active NRCS TSP for Fish and Wildlife Plans Certified in California.
• Biological Resources Assessment. Mr. South has completed dozens of biological resources assessments throughout southern California. • Rare Plants and Arborist Services. Mr. South has surveyed and assessed thousands of native and landscaped trees in southern California. He is a certified arborist with 5-years of tree survey experience working closely with some of the most experienced arborists in California. In addition, he has performed hundreds of hours of rare plant surveys and habitat assessments.
• Wetland & Jurisdictional Delineations. Mr. South has conducted dozens of jurisdictional and wetland delineations per the guidelines and methods from the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and the state Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB).
• GIS. Mr. South is an expert at spatial data collection and analysis using ESRI mobile and desktop software products and Trimble hardware. 300
300 of 540
Matthew South Resume, Page 2

SELECT PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Moreno Valley Dracaea Street Improvements Plan Tract 32834, Moreno Vally, Riverside County, California (2023). South Environmental completed a jurisdictional delineation for the project and obtained permits from the CDFW and RWQCB for the road improvements project. Mr. South was the lead biologist that conducted the field survey, prepared the reports, and negotiated the permits.

EVMWD Rice Canyon Reservoir Access Road and New Conduit Project, City of Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California (2022). South Environmental was retained to complete biological and cultural resources services. Biological resources work included a Jurisdictional Delineation Report, a Biological Resources Assessment/MSHCP Consistency Analysis, Rare Plant Surveys, Burrowing Owl Surveys, and mitigation planning.

Matthew South was the Principal Biologist on the project.

Southern California Edison (SCE) Permitting and Jurisdictional Delineations (2021-ongoing). As a subconsultant on this contract for multiple Primes (SWCA, EI, Rincon, Cardno, and ERM), South Environmental has focused its biological resources services on wetland delineations and permitting efforts for SCE throughout all its regions. From single pole delineations in roadside ditches to several hundred poles through miles of wet meadows in the Sierras, the projects vary in size and complexity as well as location. Primarily, delineations have been in the Sierras with the largest and most complex projects in Inyo and Mono Counties and several in Kern and Tulare. A few of the specific projects include
• Pickle Meadow: Aquatic Resources Delineation Report and Permitting for 300-poles located in a wet meadow behind Bridgeport Reservoir.
• Kern River: Wetland Delineation and Permitting for 15 pole replacements in Kernville. • June Lake to Tom’s Place: Wetland Delineation and Permitting for 40 poles spread through Inyo and Mono Counties.
• Cajon Wash: Jurisdictional Delineation and SBKR Assessment and Permitting for 10 pole replacements and realignment for a capital project located in SBKR Critical Habitat. • Pipes Wash: Delineation and Permitting for 25-poles that are within Pipes Wash, a large ephemeral wash in the San Bernardino desert.

City of Palmdale - Palmdale Warehouse Project (2022-on going). South Environmental prepared a jurisdictional delineation and permit applications to CDFW and RWQCB for the project. Services included EPIMS application and RWQCB Dredge and Fill Application and coordination including for mitigation management and alternatives analysis and permit negotiations. Currently South Environmental is overseeing the compliance monitoring for the project.

Private Development Waters Delineation Services in Southern California. Oversaw and managed jurisdictional and wetland delineation work and habitat assessment work for biological resource assistance regarding industrial, commercial, and residential projects throughout southern California. Activities have included overseeing data collection for conducting wetland and jurisdictional delineations, jurisdictional delineation and habitat assessment reporting.

Notable Private Development Delineation Projects:
• TTM 48307 housing development near Lakeview Drive in Palmdale, • land for truck stop developments in Temescal Valley,
301
301 of 540
Matthew South Resume, Page 3
• land for housing developments in Lake Elsinore,
• land for industrial development near the Los Angeles River in Long Beach, • Avenue I and 30th Street in Lancaster,
• Silverlake Equestrian Park in Norco, and
Wendy’s in Calimesa Project, Riverside County, California (2023). South Environmental was retained to complete a Biological Resources Assessment and Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis Report. Mr. South served as the Principal Biologist on the Project.

Southern California Gas (SCG) As-Needed Biological and Cultural Resources Services (2022-ongoing).

As a subconsultant on this contract Mr. South has overseen the assessment numerous resources from single point locations to many miles of pipelines. More recently he has begun to conduct biological assessment in the coastal zone in Santa Barbara County as well as endangered species Biological Assessments (BAs) in support of Coastal Development Permits for SCG. Wetland delineation and permitting, biological resources assessments, and resources surveys and monitoring are services that Mr. South both provides personally and oversees a team of specialists that support the environmental impacts analysis and permitting for SCG.

Notable SGC Delineation Projects:
• Aliso Canyon Facility,
• L-85 Line north of Castaic,
• L-404 Line near Oak Park,
• L-127 Line in Montecito,
• Sylmar Gould Canyon, and
• L324 near Salt Canyon Creek
Local Government Environmental Services in Southern California. Oversaw and managed jurisdictional and wetland delineation work and habitat assessment work for biological resource assistance regarding municipal and county projects throughout southern California. Activities have included data collection for conducting wetland and jurisdictional delineations, jurisdictional delineation and habitat assessment reporting, and permit generation for RWQCB, USACE, and CDFW compliance.

Notable Local Government Delineation Projects:
• Bell Canyon Creek for City of Los Angeles Recreation and Parks Department, • Bronson Canyon Playground in Griffith Park for City of Los Angeles Recreation and Parks Department, • Almond Street Road extension in Rancho Cucamonga, and • City of Oxnard at the Oxnard Fire Station.
302
302 of 540
Email: [email protected]
Mobile: 818-201-7689

EDUCATION
M.S., Earth, Environmental, and
Physical Science, Wichita State
University, 2012
B.S., Bachelor of Science,
Biology, Wichita State University,
2004

PROFESSIONAL

EXPERIENCE
South Environmental (2021-
Present), Senior Biologist
AGEISS, Inc. (2020-2021),
Environmental Scientist
Timberwolf Environmental
(2019), Senior Project Manager
Nebraska Oil and Gas
Conservation Commission
(2018-2019), Project Manager
Stelbar Oil Corporation, Inc.
(2006-2018), Project Manager
GIS
ESRI ArcGIS Pro, ArcCollector,
Survey123, AccGIS online
Trimble GPS
James McNutt, M.S.

SENIOR BIOLOGIST AND LEAD WATERS DELINEATOR
James McNutt is a Senior Environmental Scientist and Lead Delineator with 19 years of professional experience in environmental project management, jurisdictional and wetland delineations, environmental permitting, technical documents, biological resource and community identification, and geology. Mr.

McNutt brings over 15 years of experience completing jurisdictional and wetland delineations as a lead delineator in accordance with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 1987 Delineation Manual Protocols. Mr. McNutt brings 5 years of experience identifying non-wetland features using the Arid West OHWM Identification Manual.

Since starting at South Environmental in early 2021, Mr. McNutt has completed dozens of jurisdictional and wetland delineations throughout Southern California. This experience includes utility project for Southern California Gas (SoCal Gas) and Southern California Edison (SCE) as well as private enterprise developments, and local government projects. He has been responsible for determining the boundary of jurisdictional features using Trimble GIS to accurately collect data, while using modules such as ArcCollector and Survey123 to validate all data collection processes. He is also a GIS analyst that creates figures for data packages regarding jurisdictional delineation reporting and permitting documents.

As a project manager, environmental scientist, and geologist for oil and gas companies, environmental consultants, and agencies in the west and Midwest, he oversaw wetland investigations and delineations on client assets such as leaseholds and drill-sites using the Criteria Determination Methodologies for Vegetation, Soil, and Hydrology. In these roles, he has also completed permit applications and successfully negotiated wetlands and non-wetland permits for dozens of projects, while closely coordinating with clients, agencies, and managers. This includes projects requiring compliance with the implementation of Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Plans, regulatory compliance, and data management processes.

EXPERTISE
• Environmental Regulations and Permitting
• Environmental Project Management
• Jurisdictional and Wetland Delineations
• Biological Habitat Assessment Reporting
• USACE Section 401/404 Compliance
• Biological Data Collection and Assessment Methods
303
303 of 540
James McNutt, M.S. Resume, Page 2

SELECT WATERS DELINEATION PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Southern California Gas On-Call Waters Delineation Services. Conducted standard jurisdictional and wetland delineation work, as well emergency repair jurisdictional and wetland delineation work, for biological resource assistance regarding construction and maintenance projects throughout southern California.

Activities have included data collection near protected resources for conducting wetland and jurisdictional delineations, jurisdictional delineation and habitat assessment reporting, and permit generation for RWQCB, USACE, and CDFW compliance.

Notable SGC Delineation Projects:
• Aliso Canyon Facility,
• L-85 Line north of Castaic,
• L-404 Line near Oak Park,
• L-127 Line in Montecito,
• Sylmar Gould Canyon, and
• L324 near Salt Canyon Creek
Southern California Edison On-Call Waters Delineation Services. Conducted standard jurisdictional and wetland delineation work, as well emergency repair jurisdictional and wetland delineation work, for biological resource assistance regarding construction and maintenance projects throughout southern California.

Activities have included data collection near protected resources for conducting wetland and jurisdictional delineations, jurisdictional delineation and habitat assessment reporting, and permit generation for RWQCB, USACE, and CDFW compliance.

Notable SCE Delineation Projects:
• Dozens of utility projects throuhgout Los Angeles County, San Bernardino County, Riverside County, Ventura County, Kern County, and Santa Barbara County.

Private Development Waters Delineation Services in Southern California. Conducted standard jurisdictional and wetland delineation work and habitat assessment work for biological resource assistance regarding industrial, commercial, and residential projects throughout southern California. Activities have included data collection for conducting wetland and jurisdictional delineations, jurisdictional delineation and habitat assessment reporting, and permit generation for RWQCB, USACE, and CDFW compliance.

Notable Private Development Delineation Projects:
• Trader Joes’ Warehouse in Palmdale,
• TTM 48307 housing development near Lakeview Drive in Palmdale, • land for truck stop developments in Temescal Valley,
• land for housing developments in Lake Elsinore,
• land for industrial development near the Los Angeles River in Long Beach, • Avenue I and 30th Street in Lancaster,
• Silverlake Equestrian Park in Norco, and
304
304 of 540
James McNutt, M.S. Resume, Page 3
• land for housing developments in San Bernardino County.

Local Government Environmental Services in Southern California. Conducted standard jurisdictional and wetland delineation work and habitat assessment work for biological resource assistance regarding municipal and county projects throughout southern California. Activities have included data collection for conducting wetland and jurisdictional delineations, jurisdictional delineation and habitat assessment reporting, and permit generation for RWQCB, USACE, and CDFW compliance.

Notable Local Government Delineation Projects:
• Bell Canyon Creek for City of Los Angeles Recreation and Parks Department, • Bronson Canyon Playground in Griffith Park for City of Los Angeles Recreation and Parks Department, • Rice Canyon for EVMWD,
• Almond Street Road extension in Rancho Cucamonga, and • land near Santa Clara River for city of Oxnard Fire Station. 305
305 of 540
Email: [email protected]
Mobile: 714-330-6290

EDUCATION
B.S., Ecology, Evolution, &
Organismal Biology, California
State University, Monterey Bay,
2017
M.S., Conservation and
Restoration Science, University
of California, Irvine, 2022
SKILLS
-Scientific collection and
management of field data
-Technical writing
-Project management and
risk assessment
-Plant and animal
identification through
dichotomous keys, field
guides, and experience
-Statistical analyses through
R Studio

CERTIFICATIONS
-Wilderness First Aid
Certification
Dana Briggs Wyler

BIOLOGIST
Dana Briggs Wyler is a current environmental professional and recent graduate from University of California, Irvine's Masters in Conservation and Restoration Science program. Here, she specialized in project management, restoration design, and field monitoring in areas with sensitive species. She has extensive field data collection and restoration experience in central and southern California learned while in school. While at UCI, she was involved with a project monitoring a fuel modification zone using native plant species to support regional biodiversity, especially Least Bell’s Vireo and California Gnatcatcher. She also participated in a restoration and monitoring program of native grasslands in Irvine aimed to provide data for community resilience to fire. More recently, she worked for Southern California Coastal Water Research Project as a toxicologist where she conducted research and assessments of southern California’s water resources.

EXPERTISE
• Field Data Collection. Dana has extensive experience collecting data in diverse terrestrial and aquatic habitats in both southern and central California.
• Biological Monitoring. Dana has diverse experience identifying wildlife species throughout the Southern California region.
• Plant Identification. Dana is proficient in identifying native, non-native, and invasive plant species throughout southern California, specifically in coastal, wetland, riparian, and chaparral.
• Technical Writing. Dana has prepared numerous biological resource assessments reports for the city of Los Angeles. Reports include detailoriented descriptions of biological resources, surveys for specialstatus species, biological resources maps, and assessments of potential impacts to biological resources from development. • Data Management and Analysis. Dana has significant expertise in statistical analyses as well as producing statistical figures through R Studio. She has extensive experience working with both single data sets as well as large databases.
306
306 of 540
Dana Briggs Wyler Resume, Page 2

SELECT PROJECT EXPERIENCE
South Environmental, Monitoring Biologist. Ramona Expressway (2023-present). As a Biologist for South Environmental, Dana’s responsibilities were to provide WEAP trainings and biological monitoring for the Ramona Expressway project with First Carbon. Duties included:
• Conduct Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training to all onsite construction personnel to describe species of concern and requirements to protect them under the Endangered Species Act and the Western Riverside Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan and mitigation measures being implemented on the project site to conserve the species of concern. • Monitoring construction activities for the duration of project activities to ensure that all practicable measures are being employed to avoid incidental disturbance of habitat and species:
o establish environmentally sensitive areas around sensitive biological resources on the project site during the construction phase.
o ensure that vegetation clearance activities limit disturbance to the smallest practical area and that construction personnel and activities do not enter environmentally sensitive areas. o perform daily pre-construction sweeps of work areas prior to initiation of daily construction activities.
o inspect open trenches, pits, and pipes or other materials within which a covered species or other sensitive species may become entrapped or hide within.
o Summarize relevant findings in a letter report that will be prepared at the completion of ground disturbing activities.

Aliso Canyon Emergency Monitoring Project Southern California Gas (2023-present). Dana is the lead monitor for a long-term project that includes the removal of sediment from catch basins where sensitive wetlands and wildlife such as coast range newt occurs. Dana is responsible for overseeing the monitoring effort, daily reports, and overall project compliance.

City of LA Recreation and Parks City Park Brush Clearance Monitoring within Riparian Areas (2023).

Dana was the primary monitor that conducted nesting bird surveys and compliance monitoring at White Point Park where brush clearance is performed annually to meet LA Fire Department requirements. The work was within and near riparian areas and wetland and riparian vegetation and wildlife were the target species. Also, Dana monitored nesting coastal California gnatcatchers at this site and protected the nest during the project.

City of Los Angeles Biological Resources Assessments (2023 – present). Dana conducts site assessments for biological resources, surveys for special-status plants and animals, maps and characterizes plant communities and wetlands/streams, and assesses potential impacts to biological resources from proposed developments. Dana has worked on the following reports:
• 41 Mar Vista Biological Resources Report in the Santa Monica Mountains Local Coastal Program (LCP) • 4801 Knob Hill Drive Biologist’s Statement of Biological Resources • 1746 Mandeville SB9 Statement of Habitat
• 2460 Sunset Plaza SB9 Statement of Habitat
• 21050 San Miguel SB9 Statement of Habitat
• 11496 Orum SB9 Statement of Habitat & California Wildlife Habitat Relationship (CWHR) Assessment 307
307 of 540
Dana Briggs Wyler Resume, Page 3
• 230 Carolwood Biologist’s Statement of Biological Resources • 2383 Mandeville Canyon Biologist’s Statement of Biological Resources • 4960 Calvin SB9 Statement of Habitat
• 8152 Ellenbogen SB9 Statement of Habitat
• 10826 Tuxford Statement of Habitat
Dana has also conducted the following monitoring projects:
• Ramona Expressway monitoring biologist
• Glenoaks/ SoCal Edison compliance monitoring
• White Point nesting bird survey and monitoring
Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (2021 – 2022). Dana was a laboratory and field assistant for coastal wetlands project. Dana later was promoted to research technician in the toxicology department where she coordinated and implemented a water toxicology experiment that support southern California wetlands and waters.
308
308 of 540
24001 Calle de la Magdalena #3397 Laguna Hills, California USA 92654-3397 949.273.2222  www.rivertec.com technical memo
Date: September 17, 2025
To: Mr. Edwin Kisiel and Ms. Amanda Kisiel
2500 Glenneyre Street, Laguna Beach, California 92651
From: A. Tamim Atayee, PE
RE: Hydrologic Assessment, 2500 Glenneyre Street, Laguna Beach, Orange County, California The purpose of this technical memorandum is to provide an assessment of the drainage patterns and ensure compliance with City of Laguna Beach “significant watercourse” ordinance1 for the property located at 2500 Glenneyre Street, Laguna Beach, California, and shown in Figure 1 below. The site plan2 and ordinance are exhibited in the appendix.

Figure 1. Vicinity map and significant watercourse
It should be emphasized that this analysis, as documented in this technical memo, is not a:
 Hydraulic design of drainage structures (e.g., channel, storm drain pipe, inlet, et al.), 1 Significant Watercourses, Ordinance of the City of Laguna Beach, Chapter 25.50.030, https://ecode360.com/42901665#42901744
2 Center Street Residence, 2500 Glenneyre Street, Laguna Beach, California 92651, prepared by Mark Abel Architects September 15, 202.

Attachment 12
309
309 of 540
Hydrologic Assessment
2500 Glenneyre Street, Laguna Beach, California
September 2025 ֍ P a g e | 2
2  Demonstration of floodplain compliance, as codified in municipal code 25.38.3, which applies only to special flood hazard areas (SFHA), as defined by FEMA, thus does not have jurisdiction at this site, or
 Site drainage plan or water quality management plan (WQMP), which is typically performed by the general civil engineer.

A significant watercourse is not defined by a flood event of a specific recurrence interval, e.g., 2-, 10-, 25-, 100-year, et al. In fact, we are not aware of any documentation or justification that the mapped significant watercourses correlate to any standard or convention, e.g., drainage area, magnitude of flood, observed channel formations, etc. In the absence of any analysis, its delineation appears to be very subjective and lacking a consistent application in the City of Laguna Beach GIS. On a few occasions, Rivertech has requested from the City of Laguna Beach the basis of the mapped significant watercourses but have yet to receive a response, unfortunately.

Accordingly, we estimated flows for a range of recurrence intervals because there is no specific event that defines a significant watercourse, as stated above. A range of flows pragmatically encompasses the "significant" watercourse, which is an otherwise ambiguous term.

Furthermore, the hydrology model confirms the existence of a significant watercourse on the site and establishes a more refined delineation. As was the case with other studies that we have previously submitted to the City of Laguna Beach, the hydrology software employs a utility that delineates watercourses based on flow direction and accumulation using a digital terrain surface. This digital delineation, by itself, establishes the significant watercourse, irrespective of flow estimates.

Floodplain limits do not explicitly relate to the significant watercourse code. However, we performed the floodplain analysis because a riparian habitat is defined as adjacent to the watercourse and within the floodplain, which is relevant to the conservation and avoiding disturbance of riparian vegetation, per §25.50.030(D)(5). Furthermore, we demonstrated that the project improvements are outside of the floodplain limits, which is a case of going the extra mile. Further discussion is provided in the later sections of this memo.

According to the watercourse and property delineated in Figure 1, which was obtained from the City of Laguna Beach geographic information system (GIS) online portal4, the existing significant watercourse and 25-foot statutory setback traverse the property. There is an existing 24-inch corrugated metal pipe (CMP) storm drain pipe that collects runoff upstream of Glenneyre Street at the southern property line. The storm drain culvert inlet intercepts runoff from the

7.8-acre subarea draining to it, and conveys a portion of it to the 24-inch CMP that crosses under Glenneyre Street discharging into the downstream significant watercourse traversing 2553 Glenneyre Street. The storm drain pipe has capacity for the 10-year flow but flood events of greater magnitude will overtop the Glenneyre Street.

Hydrologic Modeling
We digitally delineated the watershed draining to the project site using 1m resolution digital elevation model (DEM), as depicted in Figure 2. Using the Watershed Modeling System (WMS) 3 Floodplain Management, Ordinance of the City of Laguna Beach, Chapter 25.38, https://ecode360.com/42900815#42900815 4 City of Laguna Beach GIS Map, https://lagunabeach.maps.arcgis.com/ 310
310 of 540
Hydrologic Assessment
2500 Glenneyre Street, Laguna Beach, California
September 2025 ֍ P a g e | 3
3 software, we determined the drainage area to the property downstream limit at Glenneyre Street (hydrologic node 40C) to be 7.8 acres.5 A wide scale map is exhibited in the appendix.

Using the Rational Method, as prescribed in the Orange County Hydrology Manual (OCHM), the peak flows were estimated.6 The hydrologic soil group within the watershed is C, with the supporting soil survey exhibited in the appendix. The land use within the watershed is comprised of single-family units. Using a random sample of parcels within the watershed delineated in Figure 2, the average parcel size is approximately 5,000 ft2, which is analogous to the single-family residential land use (8 – 10 dwellings per acre), as prescribed in OCHM (Figure C-4).

Figure 2. Watershed map.

Runoff is characterized as overland that eventually is concentrated and conveyed by street gutters and storm drain inlets and pipes. Table 1 summarizes the input of the hydrology model, which is shown in more detail in the appendix. The site is located in Basin 275B. The proposed development adds 0.071 acres of impervious surface to the site, which is reflected in the proposed condition for Basin 275B (see below). Hence, the proposed development increases the impervious surface by

1.6% in the watershed. The proposed condition is modeled as 68% impervious for Basin 275B, 5 Watershed Modeling System (WMS), Version 11.2.9, Aquaveo LLC, March 12, 2024. 6 Orange County Hydrology Manual, Orange County Environmental Management Agency, October 1986. 311
311 of 540
Hydrologic Assessment
2500 Glenneyre Street, Laguna Beach, California
September 2025 ֍ P a g e | 4
4 which is relatively high in comparison to aerial measurements of surface area (i.e., approximately 46%), but serves as a measure of conservatism.

Table 1. Hydrologic modeling parameters
Basin Area (ac) Ap
Fp
(in/hr)
Fm
(in/hr)
Pervious Area
(ac)
Impervious
Area (ac)
262B 1.26 0.5 0.25 0.125 0.63 0.63
263B 0.75 0.4 0.25 0.1 0.3 0.45
264B 0.36 0.4 0.25 0.1 0.144 0.216
265B 0.23 0.4 0.25 0.1 0.092 0.138
266B 0.16 0.4 0.25 0.1 0.064 0.096
267B 1.13 0.5 0.25 0.125 0.565 0.565
268B 0.6 0.4 0.25 0.1 0.24 0.36
269B 0.29 0.4 0.25 0.1 0.116 0.174
270B 0.54 0.4 0.25 0.1 0.216 0.324
271B 1.27 0.4 0.25 0.1 0.508 0.762
272B 0.39 0.4 0.25 0.1 0.156 0.234
273B 0.23 0.4 0.25 0.1 0.092 0.138
274B 0.24 0.4 0.25 0.1 0.096 0.144
275B 0.39 0.5 0.25 0.125 0.195 0.195
Existing 7.84 TOTAL 3.41 4.43
275B 0.39 0.32 0.25 0.125 0.124 0.266
Proposed 7.84 TOTAL 3.34 4.50
Where: Ap is pervious fraction; Fp is maximum loss rate for pervious area; and Fm is maximum loss rate Node 40C represents the downstream hydrologic concentration point of the site and serves as a comparison of the pre- versus post-project scenarios. Time of concentration of the initial subareas, which are illustrated in Figure 2, is computed using the Kirpich Equation, per OCHM:

Tc= K ቆ
L
3 H
ቇ

0.2 Where: L is length of initial area (ft); K is the development/zoning coefficient; and H is the difference in elevation between ends of initial area (ft) The travel time of runoff between concentration points can be estimated using the options provided in WMS. Most of the travel paths are overland in swales on residential lots with the remainder along streets, as can be seen in Figure 2 (and the wide format map in the appendix). We used a generalized trapezoidal shape with medium-to-dense vegetation (i.e., roughness coefficient, n = 0.060) to simulate these small shallow swales. Table 2 summarizes the hydrology results.

Table 2. Summary of peak flows at site outlet (Concentration Point 40C) Recurrence Interval
(yr)
Peak Flow, Q (ft3/s)
Pre-Project Post-Project
100 53 53
25 40 40
10 33 33
312
312 of 540
Hydrologic Assessment
2500 Glenneyre Street, Laguna Beach, California
September 2025 ֍ P a g e | 5
5 As can be seen in Table 2, the hydrologic model yields a 100-year peak flow of 53 ft3/s at hydrologic node 40C for the existing (pre-project) and proposed (post-project) conditions. Thus, no net increase in runoff occurs as a result of the implementation of the proposed development. The 25- and 10-year peak flows at node 40C are 40 and 33 ft3/s, respectively, for the existing (pre-project) and proposed (post-project) conditions, as well. The minute increase in impervious area coupled with routing and attenuation accounts for no net increase. The purpose of estimating these peak flows is to input into the hydraulic model, discussed in the following section, and to demonstrate that the proposed improvements do not impact the runoff that is conveyed by the significant watercourse.

Detailed hydrologic results and modeling output for the existing (pre-project) and proposed (postproject) conditions are presented in the appendix.

Hydraulic Modeling
We developed a hydraulic model of the significant watercourse using the HEC-RAS7 hydraulic modeling software for the purpose of depicting the flood potential. Figure 3 illustrates the topography, stream centerline, and hydraulic cross-sections (w/ corresponding river station label). The digital terrain was established using high resolution (1m) topographic data.8 Figure 3. Hydraulic model layout and topographic contours (5-ft intervals). 7 HEC-RAS, River Analysis System, Version 6.4, US Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center, Sacramento, CA, June 2023.
8 Orange County Survey, 1m DEM, from USGS LiDAR data, https://ocpw.maps.arcgis.com/, 2020. 313
313 of 540
Hydrologic Assessment
2500 Glenneyre Street, Laguna Beach, California
September 2025 ֍ P a g e | 6
6 Hydraulic cross-sections were taken at an average of 25-foot intervals (but smaller intervals on the property), as shown in Figure 4 below, to establish a refined one-dimensional hydraulic model. Crosssections are delineated to a sufficient extent such that they contain the 100-year flows.

Execution of the HEC-RAS models for the 100-, 25- and 10-year flood events produced hydraulic results including flood elevations and floodplain limits, among other characteristics of flood flow.

Figure 4 illustrates the 100-year floodplain mapped on the most recent and higher resolution (1m) topographic data and field observations overlaid on the project site plan and reflects the watersurface elevation and top widths from the HEC-RAS output. The 100-year water-surface elevation adjacent to the pathways and stairs is 168.0. Moreover, the at-grade pathways and stairs, and all other elements of the proposed residential structure, are above the flood elevations and outside of the 100-year floodplain limits and thus do not obstruct the flood waters.

As can be seen, at the property downstream (southerly) limit, the 100-year flood elevation is 167.9 feet, where the undersized storm drain culvert produces a backwater effect. Due to the undersized culvert, flow overtops the roadway producing water-surface elevations over the road on the downstream and upstream side at 166.8 and 167.6, respectively.

At the upstream property limit, 100-year water-surface elevation is 190.5 feet. The contours represent 100-year flood elevations intervals (bold every 5 feet). The hydraulic cross sections (in red) are labeled with corresponding stations. It can be seen that the proposed improvements are outside of the 100-year floodplain. Flood events of lower magnitudes produce floodplains of lesser extents (i.e., the modeled 25- and 10-year).

Figure 4. 100-year floodplain on property located at 2500 Glenneyre Street. 314
314 of 540
Hydrologic Assessment
2500 Glenneyre Street, Laguna Beach, California
September 2025 ֍ P a g e | 7
7 The detailed results confirm that the runoff depth in the significant watercourse is typically a foot or less, except at the backwater immediately upstream of the 24-inch storm drain inlet, which is slightly more (i.e., 2 feet or less). Detailed hydraulic results, including HEC-RAS input and output, cross-section and channel profile plots, are exhibited in the appendix.

Verification of Results
The results of this study were verified to ensure that the calculated flows and floodplain limits are not underestimated. In a sensitivity analysis, the drainage area is held constant at 7.8 acres. Table 3 below provides a comparison of the modeled Orange County Hydrology Manual (OCHM) methodology (a modification of the Rational Method) and standard Rational Method, which was developed in 18899 and is used worldwide. The Rational Method is the most widely used method for storm drain design and analysis. The maximum scenario assumes the maximum theoretical value for runoff coefficient and rainfall intensity, which is a function of time of concentration. Five minutes is the lowest time of concentration that can be used with the Rational Method and corresponds to the maximum rainfall intensity. As can be seen in Table 3, the maximum value assumptions produce a 100-year flow that is less than the modeled flow which is another layer of conservativism. We found that the peak flow is much less sensitive to a variation in time of concentration compared to runoff coefficient and rainfall intensity. A time of concentration of 5 minutes is the minimum in the Rational Method, thus, 7 minutes is only slightly higher than the minimum Tc.

Table 3. Sensitivity analysis
Scenario 100-year Peak
Flow, Q100 (ft3/s)
Runoff
Coefficient, C
Rainfall Intensity I
(in/hr)
Time of Concentration,
Tc (min)
Modeled 53 OCHM (3) 5.10 (1) 7
Maximum 50 0.9 6.97 (2) 5
Notes: (1) OCHM, Figure B-3; (2) NOAA Atlas 1410; (3) OCHM uses impervious percentage to estimate runoff coefficient For floodplain management, flows are typically based on expected values (i.e., 50th percentile), which is the FEMA standard. However, in this floodplain analysis we applied the OCHM high confidence limits (85th percentile), which adds another layer of conservatism. The deliberate approach of applying conservative assumptions is to minimize the speculation of the variation of parameters, e.g., impervious cover (land use), time of concentration, et al., by establishing a 90th percentile or higher condition, in which the likelihood of underestimating flows and flood potential is very remote.

Recommendations and Conclusions
Based on our observations and review of the City-mapped significant watercourses, the drainage pattern of the significant watercourse does flow through the property. The proposed encroachment will act to hydrologically preserve, enhance or restore the significance of the watercourse.

Moreover, per 25.50.030 (4) and (5), the proposed encroachment, which is limited to the 25-foot setback on west side of the significant watercourse, is not likely to impair the functional purposes of the watercourse hydrologically; and will cause no physical disturbance of the watercourse at any time. The impact on the scenic and ecological purposes is beyond the scope of this report and is addressed in accompanying report submittals.
9 FHWA 2024. Urban Drainage Design, Fourth Edition, Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 22 (HEC-22), FHWA-HIF-24- 006, https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/engineering/hydraulics/library_arc.cfm?pub_number=22&id=189, p. 24. 10 NOAA Atlas 14, Precipitation Frequency Data Server (PFDS), PF Data Server-PFDS/HDSC/OWP. 315
315 of 540
Hydrologic Assessment
2500 Glenneyre Street, Laguna Beach, California
September 2025 ֍ P a g e | 8
8 In conclusion, the proposed improvements on the site would not negatively impact the significant watercourse hydrologically, thus complying with hydrologic requirements of City Ordinance 25.50.030.

Electronic versions of the digital terrain data, hydrologic and hydraulic models, and output are available for the purposes of technical review, upon request by the City of Laguna Beach. If you have any questions or require more detailed documentation, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely yours,
RIVERTECH INC.

A. Tamim Atayee, PE, F.ASCE
Principal / CEO
[email protected]
316
316 of 540
9 APPENDIX
317
317 of 540
§ 25.50.030. Significant watercourses.
(A) Identification and Definitions. Significant watercourses are those which are depicted on the city's environmentally sensitive areas map. Significant watercourses include significant natural watercourses and significant modified watercourses. (1) "Significant natural watercourses" are those that are in their natural condition and which serve a distinct functional scenic or ecological purpose. As applied, ecological purposes include those related to wildlife habitats, particularly feeding, watering and breeding areas; and biotic habitat areas. Scenic purposes include those related to view corridors, density relief or general aesthetic appeal. Functional purposes include those related to hydrologic considerations.
(2) "Significant modified watercourses" are those that have been altered from their natural condition, but which continue to serve a distinct functional, scenic or ecological purpose as set forth under subsection (A)(1). Significant modified watercourses include those that have been channelized, piped, culverted or otherwise improved or diverted.

Significant modified watercourses are typified by the continuing presence of a topographic swale or depression and the ability to conduct overflow runoff. Significant modified watercourses that are restored may qualify for redesignation as natural watercourses.
(B) Demolition/Deletion Process. Proposals to add or delete watercourses from the environmentally sensitive areas map, or to change the status of significant watercourses shall be reviewed by the planning commission. Public notice shall be subject to the provisions of Sections 25.05.065 and 25.07.026. The planning commission shall make its determination based on its assessment of the watercourse as it relates to the criteria listed in subsection (A); provided, however, that a significant watercourse can be deleted only if it is determined that it no longer serves a distinct functional, scenic or ecological purpose. The decision of the planning commission may be appealed to the city council pursuant to Section 25.05.070. (C) Alterations Prohibited. Significant natural watercourses may not be filled in, diverted, culverted, lined or otherwise altered, except as necessary to enhance its natural characteristics or its functional or ecological purpose, or in the interest of public safety as determined and approved by the city engineer.
(D) Setbacks.
(1) Extent. A setback of twenty-five feet shall be maintained from both sides of the centerflow line (as determined and approved by the city engineer) of significant watercourses. The setback may be increased in the interest of protecting or mitigating stated environmental concerns as approved by the director of community development. (2) Disturbance of Vegetation Prohibited.
(a) No disturbance of the native vegetation within an established watercourse setback area is permitted at any time, except as part of a fuel modification program approved by the director of community development.
(b) The design review board may approve landscape programs within established City of Laguna Beach, CA
Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/LA4953 on 2025-09-17 318
318 of 540
setbacks designed to enhance or restore native riparian vegetation or the aesthetic character of the watercourse.
(3) Building and Structures Prohibited. No building or structure may be placed in an established setback from a significant watercourse, except for bridge structures for access purposes. Extension of decks, balconies and other portions of a structure are permitted to extend over an established setback, provided:
(a) There are no supports to the ground within the setback area; (b) The extensions may encroach no closer than fifteen feet in horizontal distance to the centerflow line of the watercourse.
(4) Encroachment Variances. Variances for the purpose of placing a building or structure within an established watercourse setback area, other than as permitted in subdivision (3) of this subsection may be granted only when the following findings are made in addition to those listed in Section 25.05.025(F).
(a) The proposed encroachment will act to preserve, enhance or restore the significance of the watercourse.
(b) The proposed encroachment is not likely to impair the functional, scenic and ecological purposes of the watercourse.
(5) Encroachment variances shall be subject to the conditions that no physical disturbance of the watercourse shall occur at any time; and that, where feasible, specified native riparian vegetation shall be replanted where disturbance of vegetation occurs during construction.
(E) Design Review.
(1) Design Review Required. All new development as specified in Section 25.05.040(B)(1) proposed on lots located wholly or partially within an established watercourse setback area shall be subject to design review. This requirement shall apply to development that would otherwise be exempt from design review pursuant to Section 25.05.040(B)(2); provided, however, that the review of development under such circumstances shall be limited to those features considered by the design review board to be related to the protection and aesthetic quality of the watercourse.
(2) Exemption. Development proposals on lots in the R-1 zone that support existing development and which are subject to design review only by reason of subdivision (1) of this subsection may be exempted from design review if the director of community development determines that the project is not likely to have any adverse environmental impacts on the watercourse and their restoration of the watercourse, if altered or disturbed, is not feasible and appropriate. In granting such exemptions, the director of community development may invoke conditions as determined necessary for the protection of the watercourse.
(3) Restoration. In cases where previous development, improvements or other alterations have caused deterioration or degradation of the natural condition of a watercourse, the City of Laguna Beach, CA
§ 25.50.030 § 25.50.030
Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/LA4953 on 2025-09-17 319
319 of 540
(Ord. 811 § 1, 1974; Ord. 832 § 29, 1975; Ord. 840 § 1, 1975; Ord. 875 § 1, 1976; Ord. 890 § 1, 1977; Ord. 1142 § 3, 1987; Ord. 1555 § 13, 2011; Ord. 1577 § 13, 2013) design review board shall consider whether restoration of the watercourse is feasible and appropriate. Based on its determination, the board may impose conditions for specified restoration activities.
(F) Temporary Fencing. Significant natural watercourses shall be temporarily fenced as required, during construction at locations determined by the city engineer and the director of community development to assure the preservation of the watercourse and vegetative cover.

The fence shall remain in place until construction is complete, at which time it shall be removed. The required setback and channel shall not be used for storage or dumping of materials.

City of Laguna Beach, CA
§ 25.50.030 § 25.50.030
Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/LA4953 on 2025-09-17 320
320 of 540
Hydrologic Assessment
2500 Glenneyre Street, Laguna Beach, California ֎ October 2024 10 MAPS AND EXHIBITS
321
321 of 540
A.1
2500 Glenneyre Street Site Plan (Source: Mark Abel Architecture) 322
322 of 540
A.2
Hydrologic model (WMS) delineation of watershed
including hydrologic subbasins and nodes
323
323 of 540
A.3
Flow directions (1 of 2)
324
324 of 540
4 Flow directions (2 of 2)
325
325 of 540
5 Significant watercourses and storm drain layout (Source: City of Laguna Beach Online GIS) 326
326 of 540
6 Random sample of parcels within watershed limits
Lot
No. Address APN Area (ft2) Units per Acre
1 2500 Pala Wy 656-145-02 7,008 6.2
2 2518 Pala Wy 656-126-08 7,650 5.7
3 481 Alta Vista Wy 656-143-11 4,006 10.9
4 640 Alta Vista Wy 656-131-19 3,577 12.2
5 2565 Juanita Wy 656-141-11 3,600 12.1
6 2599 Kilo Wy 656-142-23 3,600 12.1
7 465 Alta Vista Wy 656-143-08 3,026 14.4
8 515 Alta Vista Wy 656-143-15 5,238 8.3
9 420 Alta Vista Wy 656-144-03 4,405 9.9
10 2567 Iris Wy 656-131-26 5,002 8.7
11 530 Alta Vista Wy 656-142-27 4,941 8.8
12 547 Alta Vista Wy 656-143-25 8,827 4.9
13 2567 Iris Wy 656-131-26 5,002 8.7
14 410 Alta Vista Wy 656-144-19 5,707 7.6
15 2590 Juanita Wy 656-131-15 2,600 16.8
Average 4,946 9.8
Source: City of Laguna Beach GIS
327
327 of 540
7 Topography and hydraulic cross-sections
328
328 of 540
8 100-year Floodplain aerial map (annotated w/ site plan, flood elevation contours, cross-sections and river stations) 329
329 of 540
A.9

HYDROLOGY

RESULTS
330
330 of 540
A.10
Note: Soil types 201 and 202 correspond to hydrologic soil group C. 331
331 of 540
A.14
Glossary of Terms
Ap pervious fraction
AG above ground
Drop in Elevation, h difference in elevation from the highest point to lowest point of flow path (ft) Fp maximum loss rate for pervious area (in/hr)
Fm maximum loss rate (in/hr)
Flow path length distance flow travels between concentration points (ft) Intensity, I rainfall intensity (in/hr)
Routing type above ground or underground conveyance between concentration points. OCHM implementation in WMS provides the following above ground conveyance types.

Slope longitudinal slope of flow path between concentration points (ft/ft) Tt travel time, min
Tc time of concentration, min
Total area cumulative area draining to the concentration point (ac) 332
332 of 540
15 ORANGE COUNTY HYDROLOGY

RATIONAL METHOD OUTPUT
Existing (Pre-Project) Condition
 100-year
 25-year
 10-year
333
333 of 540
11 Orange County Rational Method (WMS) Summary Output, 100-year High Confidence 334
334 of 540
12 Orange County Rational Method (WMS) Summary Output, 25-year High Confidence 335
335 of 540
13 Orange County Rational Method (WMS) Summary Output, 10-year High Confidence 336
336 of 540
16 Orange County Rational Method Analysis using WMS WMS 11.2.9 (64-bit) (1986 Orange County Hydrology Manual)
2500 Glenneyre
Project:

Date/time of study: Oct 31 2024 17:02
Begin job control data
100-yr High Confidence
Non-mountainous rainfall intensity regression equation: I(t) = a*t^b Regression 'a' factor = 15.560
Regression 'b' factor = -0.573
Mountainous rainfall intensity values
5 min = 9.360
30 min = 2.680
60 min = 1.940
180 min = 1.320
360 min = 1.030
1440 min = 0.470
Note: Mountainous rainfall intensity values are
calculated by interpolating between known
intensity values.

End job control data
Initial sub-area 274B details
Land Use Type = 8-10_dwell/acre
Percent Impervious = 60
Impervious Factor(K) = 0.3740
Flow Length = 269.73
Drop in Elevation(h) = 71.30
Kirpich Equation: Tc = K*(L^3/H)^0.20
Time of Concentration(Tc) = 4.579
End initial sub-area 274B details
Sub-area 274B details
Area = 0.240
Mountainous terrain fraction 0.00
Intensity = 6.507
ap = 0.400
Fp = 0.250
Fm = 0.100
Flow Rate = 1.395
End Sub-area 274B details
Concentration point 43C details
Flow Out Details
Effective area = 0.24
Total area = 0.24
Time of Concentration = 4.579
Comp mtn = 0.000
Intensity = 1.562
Comp ap = 0.400
Comp Fp = 0.250
Comp Fm = 0.100
Flow = 1.395
Max flow path = 269.7
End concentration point details
Reach details FROM concentration point 43C TO concentration point 45C Above ground input
337
337 of 540
17 Type = Trapezoidal channel
Length = 357.84000
Up elevation = 460.30
Down elevation = 336.90
Slope = 0.37696
Sideslope z1 = 3.000
Sideslope z2 = 3.000
Width = 10.000
Maxdepth = 3.000
Mannings roughness = 0.06000
Above ground estimated
Traveltime = 2.036
Flow = 2.67
Velocity 2.930
Flow Depth = 0.089
Above ground final
Flow = 3.67
Velocity 3.333
Flow depth = 0.107
End reach details
Sub-area 270B details
Area = 0.542
Mountainous terrain fraction 0.00
Intensity = 5.271
ap = 0.400
Fp = 0.250
Fm = 0.100
Flow Rate = 2.543
End Sub-area 270B details
Concentration point 45C details
Flow Out Details
Effective area = 0.78
Total area = 0.78
Time of Concentration = 6.615
Comp mtn = 0.000
Intensity = 5.271
Comp ap = 0.400
Comp Fp = 0.250
Comp Fm = 0.100
Flow = 3.669
Max flow path = 627.6
End concentration point details
Initial sub-area 273B details
Land Use Type = 8-10_dwell/acre
Percent Impervious = 60
Impervious Factor(K) = 0.3740
Flow Length = 229.92
Drop in Elevation(h) = 56.14
Kirpich Equation: Tc = K*(L^3/H)^0.20
Time of Concentration(Tc) = 4.365
End initial sub-area 273B details
Sub-area 273B details
Area = 0.235
Mountainous terrain fraction 0.00
Intensity = 6.688
ap = 0.400
338
338 of 540
18 Fp = 0.250
Fm = 0.100
Flow Rate = 1.405
End Sub-area 273B details
Concentration point 41C details
Flow Out Details
Effective area = 0.23
Total area = 0.23
Time of Concentration = 4.365
Comp mtn = 0.000
Intensity = 1.572
Comp ap = 0.400
Comp Fp = 0.250
Comp Fm = 0.100
Flow = 1.405
Max flow path = 229.9
End concentration point details
Reach details FROM concentration point 41C TO concentration point 46C Above ground input
Type = Trapezoidal channel
Length = 292.73000
Up elevation = 394.80
Down elevation = 314.90
Slope = 0.29409
Sideslope z1 = 3.000
Sideslope z2 = 3.000
Width = 10.000
Maxdepth = 3.000
Mannings roughness = 0.06000
Above ground estimated
Traveltime = 1.886
Flow = 2.36
Velocity 2.588
Flow Depth = 0.089
Above ground final
Flow = 3.04
Velocity 2.888
Flow depth = 0.102
End reach details
Sub-area 271B details
Area = 1.271
Mountainous terrain fraction 0.00
Intensity = 5.444
ap = 0.400
Fp = 0.250
Fm = 0.100
Flow Rate = 6.164
End Sub-area 271B details
Sub-area 272B details
Area = 0.392
Mountainous terrain fraction 0.00
Intensity = 5.444
ap = 0.400
Fp = 0.250
Fm = 0.100
339
339 of 540
19 Flow Rate = 1.901
End Sub-area 272B details
Concentration point 46C details
Flow Out Details
Effective area = 2.29
Total area = 1.90
Time of Concentration = 6.251
Comp mtn = 0.000
Intensity = 5.444
Comp ap = 0.400
Comp Fp = 0.250
Comp Fm = 0.100
Flow = 11.107
Max flow path = 522.7
End concentration point details
Initial sub-area 269B details
Land Use Type = 8-10_dwell/acre
Percent Impervious = 60
Impervious Factor(K) = 0.3740
Flow Length = 204.18
Drop in Elevation(h) = 55.18
Kirpich Equation: Tc = K*(L^3/H)^0.20
Time of Concentration(Tc) = 4.079
End initial sub-area 269B details
Sub-area 269B details
Area = 0.288
Mountainous terrain fraction 0.00
Intensity = 6.953
ap = 0.400
Fp = 0.250
Fm = 0.100
Flow Rate = 1.791
End Sub-area 269B details
Concentration point 50C details
Flow Out Details
Effective area = 0.29
Total area = 0.29
Time of Concentration = 4.079
Comp mtn = 0.000
Intensity = 2.002
Comp ap = 0.400
Comp Fp = 0.250
Comp Fm = 0.100
Flow = 1.791
Max flow path = 204.2
End concentration point details
Reach details FROM concentration point 50C TO concentration point 47C Above ground input
Type = Trapezoidal channel
Length = 165.96000
Up elevation = 303.40
Down elevation = 260.00
Slope = 0.27661
Sideslope z1 = 3.000
Sideslope z2 = 3.000
340
340 of 540
20 Width = 10.000
Maxdepth = 3.000
Mannings roughness = 0.06000
Above ground estimated
Traveltime = 0.937
Flow = 3.44
Velocity 2.951
Flow Depth = 0.113
Above ground final
Flow = 4.88
Velocity 3.391
Flow depth = 0.138
End reach details
Sub-area 268B details
Area = 0.597
Mountainous terrain fraction 0.00
Intensity = 6.176
ap = 0.400
Fp = 0.250
Fm = 0.100
Flow Rate = 3.292
End Sub-area 268B details
Concentration point 47C details
Flow Out Details
Effective area = 0.89
Total area = 0.89
Time of Concentration = 5.016
Comp mtn = 0.000
Intensity = 6.176
Comp ap = 0.400
Comp Fp = 0.250
Comp Fm = 0.100
Flow = 4.880
Max flow path = 370.1
End concentration point details
Initial sub-area 266B details
Land Use Type = 8-10_dwell/acre
Percent Impervious = 60
Impervious Factor(K) = 0.3740
Flow Length = 290.64
Drop in Elevation(h) = 40.10
Kirpich Equation: Tc = K*(L^3/H)^0.20
Time of Concentration(Tc) = 5.373
End initial sub-area 266B details
Sub-area 266B details
Area = 0.164
Mountainous terrain fraction 0.00
Intensity = 5.937
ap = 0.400
Fp = 0.250
Fm = 0.100
Flow Rate = 0.869
End Sub-area 266B details
Concentration point 51C details
Flow Out Details
341
341 of 540
21 Effective area = 0.16
Total area = 0.16
Time of Concentration = 5.373
Comp mtn = 0.000
Intensity = 0.974
Comp ap = 0.400
Comp Fp = 0.250
Comp Fm = 0.100
Flow = 0.869
Max flow path = 290.6
End concentration point details
Initial sub-area 265B details
Land Use Type = 8-10_dwell/acre
Percent Impervious = 60
Impervious Factor(K) = 0.3740
Flow Length = 230.04
Drop in Elevation(h) = 46.21
Kirpich Equation: Tc = K*(L^3/H)^0.20
Time of Concentration(Tc) = 4.540
End initial sub-area 265B details
Sub-area 265B details
Area = 0.227
Mountainous terrain fraction 0.00
Intensity = 6.539
ap = 0.400
Fp = 0.250
Fm = 0.100
Flow Rate = 1.326
End Sub-area 265B details
Concentration point 42C details
Flow Out Details
Effective area = 0.23
Total area = 0.23
Time of Concentration = 4.540
Comp mtn = 0.000
Intensity = 1.484
Comp ap = 0.400
Comp Fp = 0.250
Comp Fm = 0.100
Flow = 1.326
Max flow path = 230.0
End concentration point details
Reach details FROM concentration point 51C TO concentration point 44C End reach details
Reach details FROM concentration point 42C TO concentration point 44C End reach details
Sub-area 263B details
Area = 0.749
Mountainous terrain fraction 0.00
Intensity = 6.539
ap = 0.400
Fp = 0.250
Fm = 0.100
Flow Rate = 4.377
342
342 of 540
22 End Sub-area 263B details
Sub-area 264B details
Area = 0.357
Mountainous terrain fraction 0.00
Intensity = 6.539
ap = 0.400
Fp = 0.250
Fm = 0.100
Flow Rate = 2.086
End Sub-area 264B details
Concentration point 44C details
Confluence IN details
Name = 42C
Flow = 5.703
Time of concentration = 4.54
Intensity = 6.539
ap = 0.40
Fp = 0.25
Fm = 0.10
Area = 0.98
Name = 51C
Flow = 2.760
Time of concentration = 5.37
Intensity = 5.937
ap = 0.40
Fp = 0.25
Fm = 0.10
Area = 0.52
Confluence OUT details
Name = 42C
Flow = 14.739
Time of concentration = 4.54
Intensity = 6.539
ap = 0.27
Fp = 0.37
Fm = 0.10
Effective area = 2.52
Name = 51C
Flow = 13.789
Time of concentration = 5.37
Intensity = 5.937
ap = 0.27
Fp = 0.37
Fm = 0.10
Effective area = 2.60
Flow Out Details
Effective area = 2.52
Total area = 1.50
Time of Concentration = 4.540
Comp mtn = 0.000
Intensity = 6.539
Comp ap = 0.268
Comp Fp = 0.373
343
343 of 540
23 Comp Fm = 0.100
Flow = 14.739
Max flow path = 290.6
End concentration point details
Reach details FROM concentration point 44C TO concentration point 48C Above ground input
Type = Trapezoidal channel
Length = 361.79000
Up elevation = 368.10
Down elevation = 261.10
Slope = 0.31687
Sideslope z1 = 3.000
Sideslope z2 = 3.000
Width = 20.000
Maxdepth = 3.000
Mannings roughness = 0.06000
Above ground estimated
Traveltime = 1.331
Flow = 17.89
Velocity 4.529
Flow Depth = 0.192
Above ground final
Flow = 18.99
Velocity 4.660
Flow depth = 0.198
End reach details
Sub-area 262B details
Area = 1.258
Mountainous terrain fraction 0.00
Intensity = 5.643
ap = 0.500
Fp = 0.250
Fm = 0.125
Flow Rate = 6.300
End Sub-area 262B details
Concentration point 48C details
Confluence OUT details
Name = 42C
Flow = 18.987
Time of concentration = 5.87
Intensity = 5.643
ap = 0.35
Fp = 0.37
Fm = 0.11
Effective area = 3.78
Name = 51C
Flow = 17.898
Time of concentration = 6.74
Intensity = 5.216
ap = 0.35
Fp = 0.37
Fm = 0.11
Effective area = 3.86
Flow Out Details
344
344 of 540
24 Effective area = 3.78
Total area = 2.75
Time of Concentration = 5.871
Comp mtn = 0.000
Intensity = 5.643
Comp ap = 0.346
Comp Fp = 0.373
Comp Fm = 0.108
Flow = 18.987
Max flow path = 652.4
End concentration point details
Reach details FROM concentration point 45C TO concentration point 49C Above ground input
Type = Trapezoidal channel
Length = 474.49000
Up elevation = 336.90
Down elevation = 188.40
Slope = 0.33598
Sideslope z1 = 3.000
Sideslope z2 = 3.000
Width = 20.000
Maxdepth = 3.000
Mannings roughness = 0.06000
Above ground estimated
Traveltime = 2.634
Flow = 5.83
Velocity 3.003
Flow Depth = 0.096
Above ground final
Flow = 7.34
Velocity 3.240
Flow depth = 0.111
End reach details
Reach details FROM concentration point 46C TO concentration point 49C Above ground input
Type = Trapezoidal channel
Length = 443.06000
Up elevation = 314.90
Down elevation = 188.40
Slope = 0.30323
Sideslope z1 = 3.000
Sideslope z2 = 3.000
Width = 10.000
Maxdepth = 3.000
Mannings roughness = 0.06000
Above ground estimated
Traveltime = 1.442
Flow = 13.52
Velocity 5.121
Flow Depth = 0.246
Above ground final
Flow = 14.66
Velocity 5.268
Flow depth = 0.258
End reach details
Reach details FROM concentration point 47C TO concentration point 49C 345
345 of 540
25 Above ground input
Type = Trapezoidal channel
Length = 219.32000
Up elevation = 260.00
Down elevation = 188.40
Slope = 0.35340
Sideslope z1 = 3.000
Sideslope z2 = 3.000
Width = 10.000
Maxdepth = 3.000
Mannings roughness = 0.06000
Above ground estimated
Traveltime = 0.844
Flow = 7.71
Velocity 4.331
Flow Depth = 0.169
Above ground final
Flow = 10.12
Velocity 4.827
Flow depth = 0.198
End reach details
Reach details FROM concentration point 48C TO concentration point 49C Above ground input
Type = Trapezoidal channel
Length = 224.04000
Up elevation = 261.10
Down elevation = 188.40
Slope = 0.35072
Sideslope z1 = 3.000
Sideslope z2 = 3.000
Width = 10.000
Maxdepth = 3.000
Mannings roughness = 0.06000
Above ground estimated
Traveltime = 0.000
Flow = 20.57
Velocity 0.000
Flow Depth = 0.000
Above ground final
Flow = 20.57
Velocity 6.228
Flow depth = 0.303
End reach details
Sub-area 267B details
Area = 1.129
Mountainous terrain fraction 0.00
Intensity = 5.343
ap = 0.500
Fp = 0.250
Fm = 0.125
Flow Rate = 5.346
End Sub-area 267B details
Concentration point 49C details
Confluence IN details
Name = 46C
Flow = 14.662
346
346 of 540
26 Time of concentration = 7.69
Intensity = 4.834
ap = 0.43
Fp = 0.25
Fm = 0.11
Area = 3.42
Name = 45C
Flow = 7.344
Time of concentration = 9.25
Intensity = 4.350
ap = 0.46
Fp = 0.25
Fm = 0.11
Area = 1.91
Name = 47C
Flow = 10.117
Time of concentration = 5.86
Intensity = 5.649
ap = 0.46
Fp = 0.25
Fm = 0.11
Area = 2.01
Name = 42C
Flow = 23.304
Time of concentration = 6.46
Intensity = 5.343
ap = 0.38
Fp = 0.37
Fm = 0.11
Area = 4.91
Name = 51C
Flow = 21.988
Time of concentration = 7.34
Intensity = 4.967
ap = 0.38
Fp = 0.37
Fm = 0.11
Area = 4.99
Confluence OUT details
Name = 46C
Flow = 51.479
Time of concentration = 7.69
Intensity = 4.834
ap = 0.42
Fp = 0.27
Fm = 0.11
Effective area = 12.01
Name = 45C
Flow = 47.436
Time of concentration = 9.25
Intensity = 4.350
ap = 0.42
Fp = 0.27
347
347 of 540
27 Fm = 0.11
Effective area = 12.33
Name = 47C
Flow = 51.679
Time of concentration = 5.86
Intensity = 5.649
ap = 0.42
Fp = 0.27
Fm = 0.11
Effective area = 10.28
Name = 42C
Flow = 52.831
Time of concentration = 6.46
Intensity = 5.343
ap = 0.42
Fp = 0.27
Fm = 0.11
Effective area = 11.13
Name = 51C
Flow = 51.910
Time of concentration = 7.34
Intensity = 4.967
ap = 0.42
Fp = 0.27
Fm = 0.11
Effective area = 11.78
Flow Out Details
Effective area = 11.13
Total area = 7.45
Time of Concentration = 6.459
Comp mtn = 0.000
Intensity = 5.343
Comp ap = 0.417
Comp Fp = 0.268
Comp Fm = 0.112
Flow = 52.831
Max flow path = 1102.1
End concentration point details
Reach details FROM concentration point 49C TO concentration point 40C Above ground input
Type = Trapezoidal channel
Length = 147.49000
Up elevation = 188.40
Down elevation = 166.80
Slope = 0.15033
Sideslope z1 = 3.000
Sideslope z2 = 3.000
Width = 50.000
Maxdepth = 5.000
Mannings roughness = 0.05000
Above ground estimated
Traveltime = 0.557
Flow = 53.70
Velocity 4.416
348
348 of 540
28 Flow Depth = 0.240
Above ground final
Flow = 52.83
Velocity 4.369
Flow depth = 0.238
End reach details
Sub-area 275B details
Area = 0.385
Mountainous terrain fraction 0.00
Intensity = 5.096
ap = 0.500
Fp = 0.250
Fm = 0.125
Flow Rate = 1.737
End Sub-area 275B details
Concentration point 40C details
Confluence OUT details
Name = 46C
Flow = 51.479
Time of concentration = 8.26
Intensity = 4.642
ap = 0.42
Fp = 0.27
Fm = 0.11
Effective area = 12.40
Name = 45C
Flow = 47.436
Time of concentration = 9.83
Intensity = 4.200
ap = 0.42
Fp = 0.27
Fm = 0.11
Effective area = 12.72
Name = 47C
Flow = 51.679
Time of concentration = 6.42
Intensity = 5.360
ap = 0.42
Fp = 0.27
Fm = 0.11
Effective area = 10.67
Name = 42C
Flow = 52.831
Time of concentration = 7.02
Intensity = 5.096
ap = 0.42
Fp = 0.27
Fm = 0.11
Effective area = 11.51
Name = 51C
Flow = 51.910
Time of concentration = 7.90
Intensity = 4.762
349
349 of 540
29 ap = 0.42
Fp = 0.27
Fm = 0.11
Effective area = 12.16
Flow Out Details
Effective area = 11.51
Total area = 7.83
Time of Concentration = 7.016
Comp mtn = 0.000
Intensity = 5.096
Comp ap = 0.420
Comp Fp = 0.268
Comp Fm = 0.112
Flow = 52.831
Max flow path = 1249.6
End concentration point details
END Orange County detailed output
350
350 of 540
30 Orange County Rational Method Analysis using WMS WMS 11.2.9 (64-bit) (1986 Orange County Hydrology Manual)
2500 Glenneyre
Project:

Date/time of study: Oct 04 2024 10:26
Begin job control data
25-yr High Confidence
Non-mountainous rainfall intensity regression equation: I(t) = a*t^b Regression 'a' factor = 11.995
Regression 'b' factor = -0.566
Mountainous rainfall intensity values
5 min = 7.560
30 min = 2.080
60 min = 1.510
180 min = 1.030
360 min = 0.800
1440 min = 0.370
Note: Mountainous rainfall intensity values are
calculated by interpolating between known
intensity values.

End job control data
Initial sub-area 274B details
Land Use Type = 8-10_dwell/acre
Percent Impervious = 60
Impervious Factor(K) = 0.3740
Flow Length = 269.73
Drop in Elevation(h) = 71.30
Kirpich Equation: Tc = K*(L^3/H)^0.20
Time of Concentration(Tc) = 4.579
End initial sub-area 274B details
Sub-area 274B details
Area = 0.240
Mountainous terrain fraction 0.00
Intensity = 5.070
ap = 0.400
Fp = 0.250
Fm = 0.100
Flow Rate = 1.082
End Sub-area 274B details
Concentration point 43C details
Flow Out Details
Effective area = 0.24
Total area = 0.24
Time of Concentration = 4.579
Comp mtn = 0.000
Intensity = 1.217
Comp ap = 0.400
Comp Fp = 0.250
Comp Fm = 0.100
Flow = 1.082
Max flow path = 269.7
End concentration point details
Reach details FROM concentration point 43C TO concentration point 45C Above ground input
Type = Trapezoidal channel
351
351 of 540
31 Length = 357.84000
Up elevation = 460.30
Down elevation = 336.90
Slope = 0.37696
Sideslope z1 = 3.000
Sideslope z2 = 3.000
Width = 10.000
Maxdepth = 3.000
Mannings roughness = 0.06000
Above ground estimated
Traveltime = 2.232
Flow = 2.05
Velocity 2.671
Flow Depth = 0.075
Above ground final
Flow = 2.80
Velocity 3.026
Flow depth = 0.090
End reach details
Sub-area 270B details
Area = 0.542
Mountainous terrain fraction 0.00
Intensity = 4.049
ap = 0.400
Fp = 0.250
Fm = 0.100
Flow Rate = 1.943
End Sub-area 270B details
Concentration point 45C details
Flow Out Details
Effective area = 0.78
Total area = 0.78
Time of Concentration = 6.811
Comp mtn = 0.000
Intensity = 4.049
Comp ap = 0.400
Comp Fp = 0.250
Comp Fm = 0.100
Flow = 2.803
Max flow path = 627.6
End concentration point details
Initial sub-area 273B details
Land Use Type = 8-10_dwell/acre
Percent Impervious = 60
Impervious Factor(K) = 0.3740
Flow Length = 229.92
Drop in Elevation(h) = 56.14
Kirpich Equation: Tc = K*(L^3/H)^0.20
Time of Concentration(Tc) = 4.365
End initial sub-area 273B details
Sub-area 273B details
Area = 0.235
Mountainous terrain fraction 0.00
Intensity = 5.209
ap = 0.400
Fp = 0.250
352
352 of 540
32 Fm = 0.100
Flow Rate = 1.090
End Sub-area 273B details
Concentration point 41C details
Flow Out Details
Effective area = 0.23
Total area = 0.23
Time of Concentration = 4.365
Comp mtn = 0.000
Intensity = 1.224
Comp ap = 0.400
Comp Fp = 0.250
Comp Fm = 0.100
Flow = 1.090
Max flow path = 229.9
End concentration point details
Reach details FROM concentration point 41C TO concentration point 46C Above ground input
Type = Trapezoidal channel
Length = 292.73000
Up elevation = 394.80
Down elevation = 314.90
Slope = 0.29409
Sideslope z1 = 3.000
Sideslope z2 = 3.000
Width = 10.000
Maxdepth = 3.000
Mannings roughness = 0.06000
Above ground estimated
Traveltime = 2.065
Flow = 1.82
Velocity 2.362
Flow Depth = 0.075
Above ground final
Flow = 2.32
Velocity 2.597
Flow depth = 0.087
End reach details
Sub-area 271B details
Area = 1.271
Mountainous terrain fraction 0.00
Intensity = 4.183
ap = 0.400
Fp = 0.250
Fm = 0.100
Flow Rate = 4.710
End Sub-area 271B details
Sub-area 272B details
Area = 0.392
Mountainous terrain fraction 0.00
Intensity = 4.183
ap = 0.400
Fp = 0.250
Fm = 0.100
Flow Rate = 1.453
353
353 of 540
33 End Sub-area 272B details
Concentration point 46C details
Flow Out Details
Effective area = 2.29
Total area = 1.90
Time of Concentration = 6.430
Comp mtn = 0.000
Intensity = 4.183
Comp ap = 0.400
Comp Fp = 0.250
Comp Fm = 0.100
Flow = 8.486
Max flow path = 522.7
End concentration point details
Initial sub-area 269B details
Land Use Type = 8-10_dwell/acre
Percent Impervious = 60
Impervious Factor(K) = 0.3740
Flow Length = 204.18
Drop in Elevation(h) = 55.18
Kirpich Equation: Tc = K*(L^3/H)^0.20
Time of Concentration(Tc) = 4.079
End initial sub-area 269B details
Sub-area 269B details
Area = 0.288
Mountainous terrain fraction 0.00
Intensity = 5.413
ap = 0.400
Fp = 0.250
Fm = 0.100
Flow Rate = 1.389
End Sub-area 269B details
Concentration point 50C details
Flow Out Details
Effective area = 0.29
Total area = 0.29
Time of Concentration = 4.079
Comp mtn = 0.000
Intensity = 1.559
Comp ap = 0.400
Comp Fp = 0.250
Comp Fm = 0.100
Flow = 1.389
Max flow path = 204.2
End concentration point details
Reach details FROM concentration point 50C TO concentration point 47C Above ground input
Type = Trapezoidal channel
Length = 165.96000
Up elevation = 303.40
Down elevation = 260.00
Slope = 0.27661
Sideslope z1 = 3.000
Sideslope z2 = 3.000
Width = 10.000
354
354 of 540
34 Maxdepth = 3.000
Mannings roughness = 0.06000
Above ground estimated
Traveltime = 1.035
Flow = 2.64
Velocity 2.673
Flow Depth = 0.096
Above ground final
Flow = 3.73
Velocity 3.036
Flow depth = 0.119
End reach details
Sub-area 268B details
Area = 0.597
Mountainous terrain fraction 0.00
Intensity = 4.763
ap = 0.500
Fp = 0.250
Fm = 0.125
Flow Rate = 2.513
End Sub-area 268B details
Concentration point 47C details
Flow Out Details
Effective area = 0.89
Total area = 0.89
Time of Concentration = 5.114
Comp mtn = 0.000
Intensity = 4.763
Comp ap = 0.467
Comp Fp = 0.250
Comp Fm = 0.117
Flow = 3.731
Max flow path = 370.1
End concentration point details
Initial sub-area 266B details
Land Use Type = 8-10_dwell/acre
Percent Impervious = 60
Impervious Factor(K) = 0.3740
Flow Length = 290.64
Drop in Elevation(h) = 40.10
Kirpich Equation: Tc = K*(L^3/H)^0.20
Time of Concentration(Tc) = 5.373
End initial sub-area 266B details
Sub-area 266B details
Area = 0.164
Mountainous terrain fraction 0.00
Intensity = 4.631
ap = 0.400
Fp = 0.250
Fm = 0.100
Flow Rate = 0.674
End Sub-area 266B details
Concentration point 51C details
Flow Out Details
Effective area = 0.16
355
355 of 540
35 Total area = 0.16
Time of Concentration = 5.373
Comp mtn = 0.000
Intensity = 0.760
Comp ap = 0.400
Comp Fp = 0.250
Comp Fm = 0.100
Flow = 0.674
Max flow path = 290.6
End concentration point details
Initial sub-area 265B details
Land Use Type = 8-10_dwell/acre
Percent Impervious = 60
Impervious Factor(K) = 0.3740
Flow Length = 230.04
Drop in Elevation(h) = 46.21
Kirpich Equation: Tc = K*(L^3/H)^0.20
Time of Concentration(Tc) = 4.540
End initial sub-area 265B details
Sub-area 265B details
Area = 0.227
Mountainous terrain fraction 0.00
Intensity = 5.095
ap = 0.400
Fp = 0.250
Fm = 0.100
Flow Rate = 1.029
End Sub-area 265B details
Concentration point 42C details
Flow Out Details
Effective area = 0.23
Total area = 0.23
Time of Concentration = 4.540
Comp mtn = 0.000
Intensity = 1.156
Comp ap = 0.400
Comp Fp = 0.250
Comp Fm = 0.100
Flow = 1.029
Max flow path = 230.0
End concentration point details
Reach details FROM concentration point 51C TO concentration point 44C End reach details
Reach details FROM concentration point 42C TO concentration point 44C End reach details
Sub-area 263B details
Area = 0.749
Mountainous terrain fraction 0.00
Intensity = 5.095
ap = 0.400
Fp = 0.250
Fm = 0.100
Flow Rate = 3.395
End Sub-area 263B details
356
356 of 540
36 Sub-area 264B details
Area = 0.357
Mountainous terrain fraction 0.00
Intensity = 5.095
ap = 0.400
Fp = 0.250
Fm = 0.100
Flow Rate = 1.618
End Sub-area 264B details
Concentration point 44C details
Confluence IN details
Name = 51C
Flow = 2.142
Time of concentration = 5.37
Intensity = 4.631
ap = 0.40
Fp = 0.25
Fm = 0.10
Area = 0.52
Name = 42C
Flow = 4.424
Time of concentration = 4.54
Intensity = 5.095
ap = 0.40
Fp = 0.25
Fm = 0.10
Area = 0.98
Confluence OUT details
Name = 51C
Flow = 10.704
Time of concentration = 5.37
Intensity = 4.631
ap = 0.27
Fp = 0.37
Fm = 0.10
Effective area = 2.60
Name = 42C
Flow = 11.432
Time of concentration = 4.54
Intensity = 5.095
ap = 0.27
Fp = 0.37
Fm = 0.10
Effective area = 2.52
Flow Out Details
Effective area = 2.52
Total area = 1.50
Time of Concentration = 4.540
Comp mtn = 0.000
Intensity = 5.095
Comp ap = 0.268
Comp Fp = 0.373
Comp Fm = 0.100
357
357 of 540
37 Flow = 11.432
Max flow path = 290.6
End concentration point details
Reach details FROM concentration point 44C TO concentration point 48C Above ground input
Type = Trapezoidal channel
Length = 361.79000
Up elevation = 368.10
Down elevation = 261.10
Slope = 0.31687
Sideslope z1 = 3.000
Sideslope z2 = 3.000
Width = 20.000
Maxdepth = 3.000
Mannings roughness = 0.06000
Above ground estimated
Traveltime = 1.468
Flow = 13.84
Velocity 4.106
Flow Depth = 0.164
Above ground final
Flow = 14.54
Velocity 4.211
Flow depth = 0.168
End reach details
Sub-area 262B details
Area = 1.258
Mountainous terrain fraction 0.00
Intensity = 4.347
ap = 0.500
Fp = 0.250
Fm = 0.125
Flow Rate = 4.820
End Sub-area 262B details
Concentration point 48C details
Confluence OUT details
Name = 51C
Flow = 13.745
Time of concentration = 6.87
Intensity = 4.031
ap = 0.35
Fp = 0.37
Fm = 0.11
Effective area = 3.86
Name = 42C
Flow = 14.542
Time of concentration = 6.01
Intensity = 4.347
ap = 0.35
Fp = 0.37
Fm = 0.11
Effective area = 3.78
Flow Out Details
Effective area = 3.78
358
358 of 540
38 Total area = 2.75
Time of Concentration = 6.008
Comp mtn = 0.000
Intensity = 4.347
Comp ap = 0.346
Comp Fp = 0.373
Comp Fm = 0.108
Flow = 14.542
Max flow path = 652.4
End concentration point details
Reach details FROM concentration point 45C TO concentration point 49C Above ground input
Type = Trapezoidal channel
Length = 474.49000
Up elevation = 336.90
Down elevation = 188.40
Slope = 0.33598
Sideslope z1 = 3.000
Sideslope z2 = 3.000
Width = 20.000
Maxdepth = 3.000
Mannings roughness = 0.06000
Above ground estimated
Traveltime = 2.924
Flow = 4.43
Velocity 2.704
Flow Depth = 0.081
Above ground final
Flow = 5.54
Velocity 2.911
Flow depth = 0.094
End reach details
Reach details FROM concentration point 46C TO concentration point 49C Above ground input
Type = Trapezoidal channel
Length = 443.06000
Up elevation = 314.90
Down elevation = 188.40
Slope = 0.30323
Sideslope z1 = 3.000
Sideslope z2 = 3.000
Width = 10.000
Maxdepth = 3.000
Mannings roughness = 0.06000
Above ground estimated
Traveltime = 1.601
Flow = 10.31
Velocity 4.613
Flow Depth = 0.210
Above ground final
Flow = 11.11
Velocity 4.756
Flow depth = 0.219
End reach details
Reach details FROM concentration point 47C TO concentration point 49C Above ground input
359
359 of 540
39 Type = Trapezoidal channel
Length = 219.32000
Up elevation = 260.00
Down elevation = 188.40
Slope = 0.35340
Sideslope z1 = 3.000
Sideslope z2 = 3.000
Width = 10.000
Maxdepth = 3.000
Mannings roughness = 0.06000
Above ground estimated
Traveltime = 0.934
Flow = 5.89
Velocity 3.914
Flow Depth = 0.144
Above ground final
Flow = 7.69
Velocity 4.322
Flow depth = 0.169
End reach details
Reach details FROM concentration point 48C TO concentration point 49C Above ground input
Type = Trapezoidal channel
Length = 224.04000
Up elevation = 261.10
Down elevation = 188.40
Slope = 0.35072
Sideslope z1 = 3.000
Sideslope z2 = 3.000
Width = 10.000
Maxdepth = 3.000
Mannings roughness = 0.06000
Above ground estimated
Traveltime = 0.000
Flow = 16.58
Velocity 0.000
Flow Depth = 0.000
Above ground final
Flow = 16.58
Velocity 5.745
Flow depth = 0.267
End reach details
Sub-area 267B details
Area = 1.129
Mountainous terrain fraction 0.00
Intensity = 4.102
ap = 0.500
Fp = 0.250
Fm = 0.125
Flow Rate = 4.075
End Sub-area 267B details
Concentration point 49C details
Confluence IN details
Name = 47C
Flow = 7.694
Time of concentration = 6.05
360
360 of 540
40 Intensity = 4.331
ap = 0.49
Fp = 0.25
Fm = 0.12
Area = 2.01
Name = 45C
Flow = 5.538
Time of concentration = 9.74
Intensity = 3.308
ap = 0.46
Fp = 0.25
Fm = 0.11
Area = 1.91
Name = 46C
Flow = 11.110
Time of concentration = 8.03
Intensity = 3.689
ap = 0.43
Fp = 0.25
Fm = 0.11
Area = 3.42
Name = 51C
Flow = 16.824
Time of concentration = 7.53
Intensity = 3.827
ap = 0.38
Fp = 0.37
Fm = 0.11
Area = 4.99
Name = 42C
Flow = 17.774
Time of concentration = 6.66
Intensity = 4.102
ap = 0.38
Fp = 0.37
Fm = 0.11
Area = 4.91
Confluence OUT details
Name = 47C
Flow = 39.177
Time of concentration = 6.05
Intensity = 4.331
ap = 0.42
Fp = 0.27
Fm = 0.11
Effective area = 10.23
Name = 45C
Flow = 35.764
Time of concentration = 9.74
Intensity = 3.308
ap = 0.42
Fp = 0.27
Fm = 0.11
361
361 of 540
41 Effective area = 12.33
Name = 46C
Flow = 38.941
Time of concentration = 8.03
Intensity = 3.689
ap = 0.42
Fp = 0.27
Fm = 0.11
Effective area = 12.00
Name = 51C
Flow = 39.386
Time of concentration = 7.53
Intensity = 3.827
ap = 0.42
Fp = 0.27
Fm = 0.11
Effective area = 11.68
Name = 42C
Flow = 40.051
Time of concentration = 6.66
Intensity = 4.102
ap = 0.42
Fp = 0.27
Fm = 0.11
Effective area = 11.06
Flow Out Details
Effective area = 11.06
Total area = 7.45
Time of Concentration = 6.658
Comp mtn = 0.000
Intensity = 4.102
Comp ap = 0.423
Comp Fp = 0.268
Comp Fm = 0.113
Flow = 40.051
Max flow path = 1102.1
End concentration point details
Reach details FROM concentration point 49C TO concentration point 40C Above ground input
Type = Trapezoidal channel
Length = 147.49000
Up elevation = 188.40
Down elevation = 166.80
Slope = 0.15033
Sideslope z1 = 3.000
Sideslope z2 = 3.000
Width = 50.000
Maxdepth = 5.000
Mannings roughness = 0.05000
Above ground estimated
Traveltime = 0.621
Flow = 40.71
Velocity 3.959
Flow Depth = 0.203
362
362 of 540
42 Above ground final
Flow = 40.05
Velocity 3.936
Flow depth = 0.201
End reach details
Sub-area 275B details
Area = 0.385
Mountainous terrain fraction 0.00
Intensity = 3.900
ap = 0.500
Fp = 0.250
Fm = 0.125
Flow Rate = 1.319
End Sub-area 275B details
Concentration point 40C details
Confluence OUT details
Name = 47C
Flow = 39.177
Time of concentration = 6.68
Intensity = 4.096
ap = 0.43
Fp = 0.27
Fm = 0.11
Effective area = 10.62
Name = 45C
Flow = 35.764
Time of concentration = 10.39
Intensity = 3.189
ap = 0.43
Fp = 0.27
Fm = 0.11
Effective area = 12.72
Name = 46C
Flow = 38.941
Time of concentration = 8.66
Intensity = 3.535
ap = 0.43
Fp = 0.27
Fm = 0.11
Effective area = 12.38
Name = 51C
Flow = 39.386
Time of concentration = 8.15
Intensity = 3.658
ap = 0.43
Fp = 0.27
Fm = 0.11
Effective area = 12.07
Name = 42C
Flow = 40.051
Time of concentration = 7.28
Intensity = 3.900
ap = 0.43
363
363 of 540
43 Fp = 0.27
Fm = 0.11
Effective area = 11.45
Flow Out Details
Effective area = 11.45
Total area = 7.83
Time of Concentration = 7.279
Comp mtn = 0.000
Intensity = 3.900
Comp ap = 0.425
Comp Fp = 0.268
Comp Fm = 0.114
Flow = 40.051
Max flow path = 1249.6
End concentration point details
END Orange County detailed output
364
364 of 540
44 Orange County Rational Method Analysis using WMS WMS 11.2.9 (64-bit) (1986 Orange County Hydrology Manual)
2500 Glenneyre
Project:

Date/time of study: Oct 04 2024 10:28
Begin job control data
10-yr High Confidence
Non-mountainous rainfall intensity regression equation: I(t) = a*t^b Regression 'a' factor = 10.209
Regression 'b' factor = -0.573
Mountainous rainfall intensity values
5 min = 6.000
30 min = 1.680
60 min = 1.220
180 min = 0.830
360 min = 0.650
1440 min = 0.290
Note: Mountainous rainfall intensity values are
calculated by interpolating between known
intensity values.

End job control data
Initial sub-area 274B details
Land Use Type = 8-10_dwell/acre
Percent Impervious = 60
Impervious Factor(K) = 0.3740
Flow Length = 269.73
Drop in Elevation(h) = 71.30
Kirpich Equation: Tc = K*(L^3/H)^0.20
Time of Concentration(Tc) = 4.579
End initial sub-area 274B details
Sub-area 274B details
Area = 0.240
Mountainous terrain fraction 0.00
Intensity = 4.269
ap = 0.400
Fp = 0.250
Fm = 0.100
Flow Rate = 0.908
End Sub-area 274B details
Concentration point 43C details
Flow Out Details
Effective area = 0.24
Total area = 0.24
Time of Concentration = 4.579
Comp mtn = 0.000
Intensity = 1.025
Comp ap = 0.400
Comp Fp = 0.250
Comp Fm = 0.100
Flow = 0.908
Max flow path = 269.7
End concentration point details
Reach details FROM concentration point 43C TO concentration point 45C Above ground input
Type = Trapezoidal channel
365
365 of 540
45 Length = 357.84000
Up elevation = 460.30
Down elevation = 336.90
Slope = 0.37696
Sideslope z1 = 3.000
Sideslope z2 = 3.000
Width = 10.000
Maxdepth = 3.000
Mannings roughness = 0.06000
Above ground estimated
Traveltime = 2.412
Flow = 1.71
Velocity 2.472
Flow Depth = 0.068
Above ground final
Flow = 2.31
Velocity 2.774
Flow depth = 0.081
End reach details
Sub-area 270B details
Area = 0.542
Mountainous terrain fraction 0.00
Intensity = 3.350
ap = 0.400
Fp = 0.250
Fm = 0.100
Flow Rate = 1.599
End Sub-area 270B details
Concentration point 45C details
Flow Out Details
Effective area = 0.78
Total area = 0.78
Time of Concentration = 6.991
Comp mtn = 0.000
Intensity = 3.350
Comp ap = 0.400
Comp Fp = 0.250
Comp Fm = 0.100
Flow = 2.306
Max flow path = 627.6
End concentration point details
Initial sub-area 273B details
Land Use Type = 8-10_dwell/acre
Percent Impervious = 60
Impervious Factor(K) = 0.3740
Flow Length = 229.92
Drop in Elevation(h) = 56.14
Kirpich Equation: Tc = K*(L^3/H)^0.20
Time of Concentration(Tc) = 4.365
End initial sub-area 273B details
Sub-area 273B details
Area = 0.235
Mountainous terrain fraction 0.00
Intensity = 4.388
ap = 0.400
Fp = 0.250
366
366 of 540
46 Fm = 0.100
Flow Rate = 0.914
End Sub-area 273B details
Concentration point 41C details
Flow Out Details
Effective area = 0.23
Total area = 0.23
Time of Concentration = 4.365
Comp mtn = 0.000
Intensity = 1.031
Comp ap = 0.400
Comp Fp = 0.250
Comp Fm = 0.100
Flow = 0.914
Max flow path = 229.9
End concentration point details
Reach details FROM concentration point 41C TO concentration point 46C Above ground input
Type = Trapezoidal channel
Length = 292.73000
Up elevation = 394.80
Down elevation = 314.90
Slope = 0.29409
Sideslope z1 = 3.000
Sideslope z2 = 3.000
Width = 10.000
Maxdepth = 3.000
Mannings roughness = 0.06000
Above ground estimated
Traveltime = 2.227
Flow = 1.51
Velocity 2.191
Flow Depth = 0.068
Above ground final
Flow = 1.91
Velocity 2.393
Flow depth = 0.078
End reach details
Sub-area 271B details
Area = 1.271
Mountainous terrain fraction 0.00
Intensity = 3.465
ap = 0.400
Fp = 0.250
Fm = 0.100
Flow Rate = 3.881
End Sub-area 271B details
Sub-area 272B details
Area = 0.392
Mountainous terrain fraction 0.00
Intensity = 3.465
ap = 0.400
Fp = 0.250
Fm = 0.100
Flow Rate = 1.197
367
367 of 540
47 End Sub-area 272B details
Concentration point 46C details
Flow Out Details
Effective area = 2.29
Total area = 1.90
Time of Concentration = 6.592
Comp mtn = 0.000
Intensity = 3.465
Comp ap = 0.400
Comp Fp = 0.250
Comp Fm = 0.100
Flow = 6.993
Max flow path = 522.7
End concentration point details
Initial sub-area 269B details
Land Use Type = 8-10_dwell/acre
Percent Impervious = 60
Impervious Factor(K) = 0.3740
Flow Length = 204.18
Drop in Elevation(h) = 55.18
Kirpich Equation: Tc = K*(L^3/H)^0.20
Time of Concentration(Tc) = 4.079
End initial sub-area 269B details
Sub-area 269B details
Area = 0.288
Mountainous terrain fraction 0.00
Intensity = 4.562
ap = 0.400
Fp = 0.250
Fm = 0.100
Flow Rate = 1.166
End Sub-area 269B details
Concentration point 50C details
Flow Out Details
Effective area = 0.29
Total area = 0.29
Time of Concentration = 4.079
Comp mtn = 0.000
Intensity = 1.314
Comp ap = 0.400
Comp Fp = 0.250
Comp Fm = 0.100
Flow = 1.166
Max flow path = 204.2
End concentration point details
Reach details FROM concentration point 50C TO concentration point 47C Above ground input
Type = Trapezoidal channel
Length = 165.96000
Up elevation = 303.40
Down elevation = 260.00
Slope = 0.27661
Sideslope z1 = 3.000
Sideslope z2 = 3.000
Width = 10.000
368
368 of 540
48 Maxdepth = 3.000
Mannings roughness = 0.06000
Above ground estimated
Traveltime = 1.100
Flow = 2.21
Velocity 2.515
Flow Depth = 0.086
Above ground final
Flow = 3.10
Velocity 2.859
Flow depth = 0.105
End reach details
Sub-area 268B details
Area = 0.597
Mountainous terrain fraction 0.00
Intensity = 3.979
ap = 0.500
Fp = 0.250
Fm = 0.125
Flow Rate = 2.088
End Sub-area 268B details
Concentration point 47C details
Flow Out Details
Effective area = 0.89
Total area = 0.89
Time of Concentration = 5.179
Comp mtn = 0.000
Intensity = 3.979
Comp ap = 0.467
Comp Fp = 0.250
Comp Fm = 0.117
Flow = 3.101
Max flow path = 370.1
End concentration point details
Initial sub-area 266B details
Land Use Type = 8-10_dwell/acre
Percent Impervious = 60
Impervious Factor(K) = 0.3740
Flow Length = 290.64
Drop in Elevation(h) = 40.10
Kirpich Equation: Tc = K*(L^3/H)^0.20
Time of Concentration(Tc) = 5.373
End initial sub-area 266B details
Sub-area 266B details
Area = 0.164
Mountainous terrain fraction 0.00
Intensity = 3.896
ap = 0.400
Fp = 0.250
Fm = 0.100
Flow Rate = 0.565
End Sub-area 266B details
Concentration point 51C details
Flow Out Details
Effective area = 0.16
369
369 of 540
49 Total area = 0.16
Time of Concentration = 5.373
Comp mtn = 0.000
Intensity = 0.639
Comp ap = 0.400
Comp Fp = 0.250
Comp Fm = 0.100
Flow = 0.565
Max flow path = 290.6
End concentration point details
Initial sub-area 265B details
Land Use Type = 8-10_dwell/acre
Percent Impervious = 60
Impervious Factor(K) = 0.3740
Flow Length = 230.04
Drop in Elevation(h) = 46.21
Kirpich Equation: Tc = K*(L^3/H)^0.20
Time of Concentration(Tc) = 4.540
End initial sub-area 265B details
Sub-area 265B details
Area = 0.227
Mountainous terrain fraction 0.00
Intensity = 4.290
ap = 0.400
Fp = 0.250
Fm = 0.100
Flow Rate = 0.863
End Sub-area 265B details
Concentration point 42C details
Flow Out Details
Effective area = 0.23
Total area = 0.23
Time of Concentration = 4.540
Comp mtn = 0.000
Intensity = 0.974
Comp ap = 0.400
Comp Fp = 0.250
Comp Fm = 0.100
Flow = 0.863
Max flow path = 230.0
End concentration point details
Reach details FROM concentration point 51C TO concentration point 44C End reach details
Reach details FROM concentration point 42C TO concentration point 44C End reach details
Sub-area 263B details
Area = 0.749
Mountainous terrain fraction 0.00
Intensity = 4.290
ap = 0.400
Fp = 0.250
Fm = 0.100
Flow Rate = 2.848
End Sub-area 263B details
370
370 of 540
50 Sub-area 264B details
Area = 0.357
Mountainous terrain fraction 0.00
Intensity = 4.290
ap = 0.400
Fp = 0.250
Fm = 0.100
Flow Rate = 1.358
End Sub-area 264B details
Concentration point 44C details
Confluence IN details
Name = 51C
Flow = 1.795
Time of concentration = 5.37
Intensity = 3.896
ap = 0.40
Fp = 0.25
Fm = 0.10
Area = 0.52
Name = 42C
Flow = 3.711
Time of concentration = 4.54
Intensity = 4.290
ap = 0.40
Fp = 0.25
Fm = 0.10
Area = 0.98
Confluence OUT details
Name = 51C
Flow = 8.966
Time of concentration = 5.37
Intensity = 3.896
ap = 0.27
Fp = 0.37
Fm = 0.10
Effective area = 2.60
Name = 42C
Flow = 9.591
Time of concentration = 4.54
Intensity = 4.290
ap = 0.27
Fp = 0.37
Fm = 0.10
Effective area = 2.52
Flow Out Details
Effective area = 2.52
Total area = 1.50
Time of Concentration = 4.540
Comp mtn = 0.000
Intensity = 4.290
Comp ap = 0.268
Comp Fp = 0.373
Comp Fm = 0.100
371
371 of 540
51 Flow = 9.591
Max flow path = 290.6
End concentration point details
Reach details FROM concentration point 44C TO concentration point 48C Above ground input
Type = Trapezoidal channel
Length = 361.79000
Up elevation = 368.10
Down elevation = 261.10
Slope = 0.31687
Sideslope z1 = 3.000
Sideslope z2 = 3.000
Width = 20.000
Maxdepth = 3.000
Mannings roughness = 0.06000
Above ground estimated
Traveltime = 1.562
Flow = 11.59
Velocity 3.861
Flow Depth = 0.147
Above ground final
Flow = 12.05
Velocity 3.910
Flow depth = 0.151
End reach details
Sub-area 262B details
Area = 1.258
Mountainous terrain fraction 0.00
Intensity = 3.622
ap = 0.500
Fp = 0.250
Fm = 0.125
Flow Rate = 3.992
End Sub-area 262B details
Concentration point 48C details
Confluence OUT details
Name = 51C
Flow = 11.370
Time of concentration = 6.98
Intensity = 3.353
ap = 0.35
Fp = 0.37
Fm = 0.11
Effective area = 3.86
Name = 42C
Flow = 12.053
Time of concentration = 6.10
Intensity = 3.622
ap = 0.35
Fp = 0.37
Fm = 0.11
Effective area = 3.78
Flow Out Details
Effective area = 3.78
372
372 of 540
52 Total area = 2.75
Time of Concentration = 6.102
Comp mtn = 0.000
Intensity = 3.622
Comp ap = 0.346
Comp Fp = 0.373
Comp Fm = 0.108
Flow = 12.053
Max flow path = 652.4
End concentration point details
Reach details FROM concentration point 45C TO concentration point 49C Above ground input
Type = Trapezoidal channel
Length = 474.49000
Up elevation = 336.90
Down elevation = 188.40
Slope = 0.33598
Sideslope z1 = 3.000
Sideslope z2 = 3.000
Width = 20.000
Maxdepth = 3.000
Mannings roughness = 0.06000
Above ground estimated
Traveltime = 3.223
Flow = 3.62
Velocity 2.454
Flow Depth = 0.073
Above ground final
Flow = 4.48
Velocity 2.677
Flow depth = 0.083
End reach details
Reach details FROM concentration point 46C TO concentration point 49C Above ground input
Type = Trapezoidal channel
Length = 443.06000
Up elevation = 314.90
Down elevation = 188.40
Slope = 0.30323
Sideslope z1 = 3.000
Sideslope z2 = 3.000
Width = 10.000
Maxdepth = 3.000
Mannings roughness = 0.06000
Above ground estimated
Traveltime = 1.721
Flow = 8.48
Velocity 4.291
Flow Depth = 0.187
Above ground final
Flow = 9.08
Velocity 4.414
Flow depth = 0.194
End reach details
Reach details FROM concentration point 47C TO concentration point 49C Above ground input
373
373 of 540
53 Type = Trapezoidal channel
Length = 219.32000
Up elevation = 260.00
Down elevation = 188.40
Slope = 0.35340
Sideslope z1 = 3.000
Sideslope z2 = 3.000
Width = 10.000
Maxdepth = 3.000
Mannings roughness = 0.06000
Above ground estimated
Traveltime = 1.005
Flow = 4.88
Velocity 3.636
Flow Depth = 0.129
Above ground final
Flow = 6.35
Velocity 4.045
Flow depth = 0.150
End reach details
Reach details FROM concentration point 48C TO concentration point 49C Above ground input
Type = Trapezoidal channel
Length = 224.04000
Up elevation = 261.10
Down elevation = 188.40
Slope = 0.35072
Sideslope z1 = 3.000
Sideslope z2 = 3.000
Width = 10.000
Maxdepth = 3.000
Mannings roughness = 0.06000
Above ground estimated
Traveltime = 0.000
Flow = 13.73
Velocity 0.000
Flow Depth = 0.000
Above ground final
Flow = 13.73
Velocity 5.368
Flow depth = 0.239
End reach details
Sub-area 267B details
Area = 1.129
Mountainous terrain fraction 0.00
Intensity = 3.405
ap = 0.500
Fp = 0.250
Fm = 0.125
Flow Rate = 3.360
End Sub-area 267B details
Concentration point 49C details
Confluence IN details
Name = 47C
Flow = 6.347
Time of concentration = 6.18
374
374 of 540
54 Intensity = 3.594
ap = 0.49
Fp = 0.25
Fm = 0.12
Area = 2.01
Name = 45C
Flow = 4.476
Time of concentration = 10.21
Intensity = 2.696
ap = 0.46
Fp = 0.25
Fm = 0.11
Area = 1.91
Name = 46C
Flow = 9.077
Time of concentration = 8.31
Intensity = 3.034
ap = 0.43
Fp = 0.25
Fm = 0.11
Area = 3.42
Name = 51C
Flow = 13.859
Time of concentration = 7.69
Intensity = 3.172
ap = 0.38
Fp = 0.37
Fm = 0.11
Area = 4.99
Name = 42C
Flow = 14.668
Time of concentration = 6.80
Intensity = 3.405
ap = 0.38
Fp = 0.37
Fm = 0.11
Area = 4.91
Confluence OUT details
Name = 47C
Flow = 32.159
Time of concentration = 6.18
Intensity = 3.594
ap = 0.42
Fp = 0.27
Fm = 0.11
Effective area = 10.18
Name = 45C
Flow = 28.912
Time of concentration = 10.21
Intensity = 2.696
ap = 0.42
Fp = 0.27
Fm = 0.11
375
375 of 540
55 Effective area = 12.33
Name = 46C
Flow = 31.750
Time of concentration = 8.31
Intensity = 3.034
ap = 0.42
Fp = 0.27
Fm = 0.11
Effective area = 11.98
Name = 51C
Flow = 32.220
Time of concentration = 7.69
Intensity = 3.172
ap = 0.42
Fp = 0.27
Fm = 0.11
Effective area = 11.60
Name = 42C
Flow = 32.828
Time of concentration = 6.80
Intensity = 3.405
ap = 0.42
Fp = 0.27
Fm = 0.11
Effective area = 10.99
Flow Out Details
Effective area = 10.99
Total area = 7.45
Time of Concentration = 6.797
Comp mtn = 0.000
Intensity = 3.405
Comp ap = 0.422
Comp Fp = 0.268
Comp Fm = 0.113
Flow = 32.828
Max flow path = 1102.1
End concentration point details
Reach details FROM concentration point 49C TO concentration point 40C Above ground input
Type = Trapezoidal channel
Length = 147.49000
Up elevation = 188.40
Down elevation = 166.80
Slope = 0.15033
Sideslope z1 = 3.000
Sideslope z2 = 3.000
Width = 50.000
Maxdepth = 5.000
Mannings roughness = 0.05000
Above ground estimated
Traveltime = 0.671
Flow = 33.37
Velocity 3.662
Flow Depth = 0.180
376
376 of 540
56 Above ground final
Flow = 32.83
Velocity 3.624
Flow depth = 0.179
End reach details
Sub-area 275B details
Area = 0.385
Mountainous terrain fraction 0.00
Intensity = 3.226
ap = 0.500
Fp = 0.250
Fm = 0.125
Flow Rate = 1.083
End Sub-area 275B details
Concentration point 40C details
Confluence OUT details
Name = 47C
Flow = 32.159
Time of concentration = 6.86
Intensity = 3.386
ap = 0.43
Fp = 0.27
Fm = 0.11
Effective area = 10.57
Name = 45C
Flow = 28.912
Time of concentration = 10.92
Intensity = 2.594
ap = 0.43
Fp = 0.27
Fm = 0.11
Effective area = 12.72
Name = 46C
Flow = 31.750
Time of concentration = 8.99
Intensity = 2.900
ap = 0.43
Fp = 0.27
Fm = 0.11
Effective area = 12.36
Name = 51C
Flow = 32.220
Time of concentration = 8.36
Intensity = 3.023
ap = 0.43
Fp = 0.27
Fm = 0.11
Effective area = 11.99
Name = 42C
Flow = 32.828
Time of concentration = 7.47
Intensity = 3.226
ap = 0.43
377
377 of 540
57 Fp = 0.27
Fm = 0.11
Effective area = 11.38
Flow Out Details
Effective area = 11.38
Total area = 7.83
Time of Concentration = 7.468
Comp mtn = 0.000
Intensity = 3.226
Comp ap = 0.425
Comp Fp = 0.268
Comp Fm = 0.114
Flow = 32.828
Max flow path = 1249.6
End concentration point details
END Orange County detailed output
378
378 of 540
58 ORANGE COUNTY HYDROLOGY

RATIONAL METHOD OUTPUT
Proposed (Post-Project) Condition
 100-year
 25-year
 10-year
379
379 of 540
380
380 of 540
OC Rational Results (25-yr High Confidence)
Concentration Point / Outlet Subarea / Basin Area (ac) Effective Area (ac) Total area (ac) Fp Ap Tt (min) Tc (min) I (in/hr) Fm Fm avg. Q Total (cfs) Flow Path Length (ft) Slope (ft/ft) Velocity (fps) Depth of Flow (ft) Comments 43C 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.25 0.40 4.6 5.07 0.10 0.10 1.1 269.7 0.26434 45C 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.25 0.40 2.23 6.8 4.05 0.10 0.10 2.8 357.8 0.37696 3.0(AG) 0.09(AG) 49C 1.1 1.9 1.9 0.25 0.50 2.92 9.7 3.31 0.12 0.11 5.5 474.5 0.33598 2.9(AG) 0.09(AG) 41C 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.25 0.40 4.4 5.21 0.10 0.10 1.1 229.9 0.24417 46C 1.7 2.3 1.9 2.10 6.5 4.17 0.10 8.4 292.7 0.29409 2.6(AG) 0.09(AG) 49C 1.1 3.4 3.0 0.25 0.50 1.60 8.1 3.68 0.12 0.11 11.1 443.1 0.30323 4.7(AG) 0.22(AG) 50C 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.25 0.40 4.1 5.41 0.10 0.10 1.4 204.2 0.27026 47C 0.6 0.9 0.9 0.25 0.40 1.03 5.1 4.77 0.10 0.10 3.8 166.0 0.27661 3.1(AG) 0.12(AG) 49C 1.1 2.0 2.0 0.25 0.50 0.93 6.0 4.34 0.12 0.11 7.7 219.3 0.35340 4.3(AG) 0.17(AG) 51C 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.25 0.40 5.4 4.63 0.10 0.10 0.7 290.6 0.13797 44C 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.40 0.00 5.4 4.63 0.10 0.10 2.2 0.0 42C 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.25 0.40 4.5 5.09 0.10 0.10 1.0 230.0 0.20088 44C 0.7 1.0 1.0 0.25 0.40 0.00 4.5 5.09 0.10 0.10 4.4 0.0 Head Node - 42C 2.5 0.37 0.27 0.00 4.5 5.09 0.10 11.5 Confluence...

Head Node - 51C 2.6 0.37 0.27 0.00 5.4 4.63 0.10 10.7 Confluence... 44C - Confluence 2.5 1.5 0.37 0.27 0.00 4.5 5.09 0.10 11.5 Confluence...

Head Node - 42C 3.8 0.37 0.35 1.46 6.0 4.35 0.11 14.6 Confluence...

Head Node - 51C 3.9 0.37 0.35 1.49 6.9 4.03 0.11 13.8 Confluence... 48C 1.3 3.8 2.8 0.25 0.50 1.46 6.0 4.35 0.12 0.11 14.6 361.8 0.31687 4.2(AG) 0.17(AG) Head Node - 42C 11.1 0.27 0.42 0.00 6.7 4.10 0.11 40.1 Confluence...

Head Node - 51C 11.7 0.27 0.42 0.00 7.5 3.83 0.11 39.4 Confluence...

Head Node - 45C 12.3 0.27 0.42 0.00 9.7 3.31 0.11 35.8 Confluence...

Head Node - 46C 12.0 0.27 0.42 0.00 8.1 3.68 0.11 38.9 Confluence...

Head Node - 47C 10.2 0.27 0.42 0.00 6.0 4.34 0.11 39.2 Confluence... 49C - Confluence 11.1 7.5 0.27 0.42 0.00 6.7 4.10 0.11 40.1 Confluence...

Head Node - 42C 11.4 0.27 0.41 0.62 7.3 3.90 0.11 40.1 Confluence...

Head Node - 51C 12.1 0.27 0.42 0.62 8.1 3.66 0.11 39.4 Confluence...

Head Node - 45C 12.7 0.27 0.42 0.65 10.4 3.19 0.11 35.8 Confluence...

Head Node - 46C 12.4 0.27 0.42 0.63 8.7 3.53 0.11 38.9 Confluence...

Head Node - 47C 10.6 0.27 0.41 0.63 6.7 4.10 0.11 39.2 Confluence... 40C 0.4 11.4 7.8 0.25 0.32 0.62 7.3 3.90 0.08 0.11 40.1 147.5 0.15033 3.9(AG) 0.20(AG)