Laguna Beach City Council
July 7, 2026

@ 0' - 3" Asphalt Concrete over 3.5" Aggregate Base
R-1 2
2 4
107.3 14.9 SC @ 5' - Clayey SAND: brown, very moist, loose R-2 3
3 3
109.4 13.1 @ 7.5' - Clayey SAND: brown, very moist, loose R-3 3
6 10
112.7 16.3 CL @ 10' - Sandy CLAY: dark olive brown, moist, stiff AL CN
SPT-1 3
3 6

16.3 @ 15' - Sandy CLAY: brown, moist, stiff
R-4 19
50/5" 108.7 16.6 SM @ 20' - Silty SAND: grayish brown, very moist, very dense
SPT-2 29
50/5" 17.9 @ 25' -Silty SAND : light gray, very moist, very dense B-1 Last Edited: 6/26/2023 45 @ 0' to 7.5' - Artificial Fill by Others (afo)
@ 7.5' to 20' - Quaternary Terrace Deposits (Qt)
@ 20' to T.D. - Topanga Formation (Tt)
744
744 of 830
60 TEST TYPES: DSMD
SA
S&H

EI DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SIEVE AND HYDROMETER

EXPANSION INDEX
55 50
45 40
35 Elevation (ft) Depth (ft) Graphic Log Sample Number Blow Count Dry Density (pcf) Moisture (%) USCS Symbol DESCRIPTION Type of Test Date:

Project Name:

Project Number:

Elevation of Top of Hole:

Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map
Drilling Company:

Type of Rig:

Drop:

Drive Weight:

Hole Diameter:
30 CN CONSOLIDATION

CR CORROSION

AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE
-#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE
THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS

PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS

AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS.

SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE

SPT STANDARD PENETRATION

TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE
40 35
30 25
20 Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole HS-1
6/20/2023
~74' MSL
6"
Truck Mounted Rig
30"
140 pounds
2R Drilling
Woodhart LLC- Laguna Beach
23106-01
Logged By JMN
Sampled By JMN
Checked By RLD

R-5 50/5" 104.1 13.0 ML @ 30' - Sandy SILT: gray, moist, hard SPT-3 27
50/4" 29.4 SM @ 35' - Silty SAND: gray, wet, very dense R-6 50/1" 109.3 17.6 CL @ 40' - Sandy CLAY: gray, moist, hard SPT-4 50/1" 9.9 @ 45' - Sandy CLAY: gray, moist, hard
Total Depth = 45' (Auger Refusal)
Groundwater Not Encountered
Caving: Hole Measured approximately 22' after Removal
of the Augers
Backfilled with Cuttings and Capped with AC Cold Patch
on 6/20/2023
745
745 of 830
THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS

PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS

AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS. CN CONSOLIDATION

CR CORROSION

AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE
-#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE

DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SIEVE AND HYDROMETER

EXPANSION INDEX
TEST TYPES: DSMD
SA
S&H
EI
SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE

SPT STANDARD PENETRATION

TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 Elevation (ft) Depth (ft) Graphic Log Sample Number Blow Count Dry Density (pcf) Moisture (%) USCS Symbol DESCRIPTION Type of Test Hole Diameter:

Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map
Drop:

Type of Rig:

Project Number:

Elevation of Top of Hole: Drive Weight:

Drilling Company:

Project Name:

Date:
70 65
60 55
50 Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole HS-2
6/20/2023
~75' MSL
6"
Truck Mounted Rig
30"
140 pounds
2R Drilling
Woodhart LLC- Laguna Beach
23106-01
Logged By JMN
Sampled By JMN
Checked By RLD

@ 0' - 1" Asphalt Concrete over 2" Aggregate Base
R-1 10
12 15
117.1 13.2 SC @ 5' - Clayey SAND: brown, moist, medium dense R-2 3
6 16
114.1 14.4 CL @ 7.5' - Sandy CLAY: olive, moist, very stiff R-3 7
14 19
114.8 15.0 @ 10' - Sandy CLAY: brown, moist, very stiff DS
R-4 12
14 18
115.3 15.2 @ 15' - Sandy CLAY: brown, moist, very stiff SPT-1 16
23 50/5"

18.9 SM @ 20' - Silty SAND: olive brown, wet, very dense R-5 50/5" 110.8 15.0 @ 25' - Silty SAND: olive gray, very moist, very dense Total Depth = 25.5'
Groundwater Not Encountered
Caving: Hole measured approximately 11' after Removal
of the Augers
Backfilled with Cuttings and Capped with AC Cold Patch
on 6/20/2023 B-1 Last Edited: 6/26/2023
@ 0' to 5' - Artificial Fill by Others (afo)
@ 5' to 20' - Quaternary Terrace Deposits (Qt)
@ 20' to T.D - Topanga Formation (Tt)
746
746 of 830
THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS

PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS

AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS. CN CONSOLIDATION

CR CORROSION

AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE
-#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE

DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SIEVE AND HYDROMETER

EXPANSION INDEX
TEST TYPES: DSMD
SA
S&H
EI
SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE

SPT STANDARD PENETRATION

TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 Elevation (ft) Depth (ft) Graphic Log Sample Number Blow Count Dry Density (pcf) Moisture (%) USCS Symbol DESCRIPTION Type of Test Hole Diameter:

Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map
Drop:

Type of Rig:

Project Number:

Elevation of Top of Hole: Drive Weight:

Drilling Company:

Project Name:

Date:
62 57
52 47
42 Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole HS-3
6/20/2023
67' MSL
6"
Truck Mounted Rig
30"
140 pounds
2R Drilling
Woodhart LLC- Laguna Beach
23106-01
Logged By JMN
Sampled By JMN
Checked By RLD

@ 0' - 3.5" Asphalt Concrete with no Aggregate Base -#200 MD
CR
EI
DS
R-1 3
7 17
104.4 10.1 SM @ 5' - Silty SAND: dark brown, moist, medium dense R-2 5
5 9
107.9 8.1 SM @ 7.5' - Silty SAND: yellowish brown, moist, medium dense
R-3 7
10 13
109.8 13.5 CL @ 10' - CLAY with Sand: olive, moist, very stiff AL CN
SPT-1 4
4 8

15.6 SC @ 15' - Clayey SAND: brown, moist, medium dense, after 15' water added to assist with drilling process
R-4 4
7 7
119.4 2.9 SM @ 20' - Silty SAND: yellowish brown, moist, medium dense
SPT-2 2
3 4

25.4 CL @ 25' - Sandy CLAY: brown, moist, stiff
Total Depth = 26.5'
Groundwater Not Encountered
Caving: Hole measured approximately 11.5' after Removal of the Augers
Backfilled with Cuttings and Capped with AC Cold Patch on 6/20/2023 B-1 Last Edited: 6/26/2023
@ 0' to 10' - Artificial Fill by Others (afo)
@ 10' to T.D. - Quaternary Terrace Deposits (Qt)
SC Clayey SAND: dark olive gray
747
747 of 830
THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS

PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS

AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS. CN CONSOLIDATION

CR CORROSION

AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE
-#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE

DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SIEVE AND HYDROMETER

EXPANSION INDEX
TEST TYPES: DSMD
SA
S&H
EI
SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE

SPT STANDARD PENETRATION

TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 Elevation (ft) Depth (ft) Graphic Log Sample Number Blow Count Dry Density (pcf) Moisture (%) USCS Symbol DESCRIPTION Type of Test Hole Diameter:

Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map
Drop:

Type of Rig:

Project Number:

Elevation of Top of Hole: Drive Weight:

Drilling Company:

Project Name:

Date:
64 59
54 49
44 Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole HS-4
6/20/2023
69' MSL
6"
Truck Mounted Rig
30"
140 pounds
2R Drilling
Woodhart LLC- Laguna Beach
23106-01
Logged By JMN
Sampled By JMN
Checked By RLD

@ 0' - 3" of AC over 3" AB
R-1 8
7 8

99.0 8.2 SC @ 5' - Clayey SAND: light brown, moist, medium dense R-2 7
10 12
112.6 10.8 SC @ 7.5' - Clayey SAND: light brown, moist, medium dense
R-3 8
9 13

99.8 16.5 CL @ 10' - Sandy CLAY: olive brown, moist, very stiff R-4 3
6 6
108.5 11.6 SM @ 15' - Silty SAND: brown, moist, loose -#200 CO
SPT-1 23
41 37

23.4 SM @ 20' - Silty SAND: gray, moist, very dense, oxidation R-5 35
50/4" 102.8 18.9 SM @ 25' - Silty SAND: olive gray, moist, very dense, signs of oxidation B-1 Last Edited: 6/26/2023
@ 0' to 15' - Artificial Fill by Others (afo)
@ 15' to 20' - Quaternary Terrace Deposits (Qt)
@ 20' to T.D. - Topanga Formation (Tt)
748
748 of 830
60 TEST TYPES: DSMD
SA
S&H

EI DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SIEVE AND HYDROMETER

EXPANSION INDEX
55 50
45 40
35 Elevation (ft) Depth (ft) Graphic Log Sample Number Blow Count Dry Density (pcf) Moisture (%) USCS Symbol DESCRIPTION Type of Test Date:

Project Name:

Project Number:

Elevation of Top of Hole:

Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map
Drilling Company:

Type of Rig:

Drop:

Drive Weight:

Hole Diameter:
30 CN CONSOLIDATION

CR CORROSION

AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE
-#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE
THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS

PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS

AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS.

SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE

SPT STANDARD PENETRATION

TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE
34 29
24 19
14 Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole HS-4
6/20/2023
69' MSL
6"
Truck Mounted Rig
30"
140 pounds
2R Drilling
Woodhart LLC- Laguna Beach
23106-01
Logged By JMN
Sampled By JMN
Checked By RLD

SPT-2 40
50/5"
Total Depth = 31'
Groundwater Not Encountered
Backfilled with Cuttings and Capped with AC Cold Patch
on 6/20/2023
@ 30' - Sandy SILT: light brownish gray, moist to slightly moist, hard

17.3 ML
749
749 of 830
THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS

PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS

AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS. CN CONSOLIDATION

CR CORROSION

AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE
-#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE

DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SIEVE AND HYDROMETER

EXPANSION INDEX
TEST TYPES: DSMD
SA
S&H
EI
SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE

SPT STANDARD PENETRATION

TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 Elevation (ft) Depth (ft) Graphic Log Sample Number Blow Count Dry Density (pcf) Moisture (%) USCS Symbol DESCRIPTION Type of Test Hole Diameter:

Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map
Drop:

Type of Rig:

Project Number:

Elevation of Top of Hole: Drive Weight:

Drilling Company:

Project Name:

Date:
82 77
72 67
62 Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole HA-1
6/21/2023
87' MSL
3"
Truck Mounted Rig
N/A"
N/A pounds
LGC Geotechnical
Woodhart LLC- Laguna Beach
23106-01
Logged By JMN
Sampled By JMN
Checked By RLD

SM @ 0' - dry vegetation
@ 1' - Silty SAND: brown, dry, some gravel DS
R-1 B-1@ 2' - Silty,Clayey SAND: brown, dry, friable, some gravel
@ 5' - Silty SAND: light brown, slightly moist, 1-2" clasts, some asphalt
Total Depth = 5'
Groundwater Not Encountered
Backfilled with Cuttings on 6/20/2023

99.5 5.5 SC-SM

4.1 SM
750
750 of 830
THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS

PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS

AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS. CN CONSOLIDATION

CR CORROSION

AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE
-#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE

DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SIEVE AND HYDROMETER

EXPANSION INDEX
TEST TYPES: DSMD
SA
S&H
EI
SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE

SPT STANDARD PENETRATION

TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 Elevation (ft) Depth (ft) Graphic Log Sample Number Blow Count Dry Density (pcf) Moisture (%) USCS Symbol DESCRIPTION Type of Test Hole Diameter:

Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map
Drop:

Type of Rig:

Project Number:

Elevation of Top of Hole: Drive Weight:

Drilling Company:

Project Name:

Date:
77 72
67 62
57 Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole HA-2
6/21/2023
82' MSL
3"
N/A
N/A"
N/A pounds
LGC Geotechnical
Woodhart LLC- Laguna Beach
23106-01
Logged By JMN
Sampled By JMN
Checked By RLD

10.0 SM @ 0' - Silty SAND: brown, dry, friable
GB-1 @ 1' - Silty SAND: brown, slightly moist, friable, roots GB-2
@ 3' - Clayey SAND: dark brown, moist, cohesive

13.3 CL
@ 4' - Clayey SAND: dark brown, moist, cohesive
GB-3
@ 5' - Sandy CLAY: brown, moist, pieces of roots
GB-4
@ 6' - Silty SAND: orangish brown, moist, friable GB-5

7.3 @ 7' - Silty SAND: brown, moist, friable
Total Depth = 7'
Groundwater Not Encountered
Backfilled with Cuttings on 6/21/2023 Last Edited: 6/26/2023 SM
SC
751
751 of 830
THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS

PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS

AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS. CN CONSOLIDATION

CR CORROSION

AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE
-#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE

DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SIEVE AND HYDROMETER

EXPANSION INDEX
TEST TYPES: DSMD
SA
S&H
EI
SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE

SPT STANDARD PENETRATION

TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 Elevation (ft) Depth (ft) Graphic Log Sample Number Blow Count Dry Density (pcf) Moisture (%) USCS Symbol DESCRIPTION Type of Test Hole Diameter:

Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map
Drop:

Type of Rig:

Project Number:

Elevation of Top of Hole: Drive Weight:

Drilling Company:

Project Name:

Date:
79 74
69 64
59 Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole HA-3
6/21/2023
84' MSL
3"
N/A
N/A"
N/A pounds
LGC Geotechnical
Woodhart LLC- Laguna Beach
23106-01
Logged By JMN
Sampled By JMN
Checked By RLD

@ 0' - Silty SAND: brown, slightly moist, roots
@ 2' - Silty SAND: brown, thick roots, moist
@ 3' - Clayey SAND: brown, moist, roots
@ 4' - Clayey SAND: brown, very moist
@ 5' - Clayey SAND: brown, very moist
Total Depth = 5'
Groundwater Not Encountered
Backfilled with Cuttings on 6/21/2023 Last Edited: 6/26/2023 SM
SC
752
752 of 830
Appendix C
Laboratory Test Results
753
753 of 830
Project No. 23106-01 C-1 December, 2025

APPENDIX C
Laboratory Test Results
The laboratory testing program was directed towards providing quantitative data relating to the relevant engineering properties of the soils. Samples considered representative of site conditions were tested in general accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) procedure and/or California Test Methods (CTM), where applicable. The following summary is a brief outline of the test type and a table summarizing the test results.

Moisture and Density Determination Tests: Moisture content (ASTM D2216) and dry density determinations (ASTM D2937) were performed on driven samples obtained from the test borings. The results of these tests are presented in the boring logs. Where applicable, only moisture content was determined from undisturbed or disturbed samples.

Grain Size Distribution/Fines Content: Representative samples were dried, weighed, and soaked in water until individual soil particles were separated (per ASTM D421) and then washed on a No. 200 sieve (ASTM D1140). Where applicable, the portion retained on the No. 200 sieve was dried and then sieved on a U.S. Standard brass sieve set in accordance with ASTM D6913 (sieve).

Sample Location Description % Passing #
200 Sieve
HS-3 @ 1-5 ft Clayey Sand 34
HS-4 @ 15 ft Silty Sand 45
Atterberg Limits: The liquid and plastic limits (“Atterberg Limits”) were determined per ASTM D4318 for engineering classification of fine-grained material and presented in the table below. The USCS soil classification indicated in the table below is based on the portion of sample passing the No. 40 sieve and may not necessarily be representative of the entire sample. The plots are provided in this Appendix.

Sample Location Liquid Limit
(%)
Plastic Limit
(%)
Plasticity
Index (%)
USCS
Soil
Classification
HS-1 @ 10 ft 30 14 16 CL
HS-3 @ 10 ft 36 18 18 CL
754
754 of 830
APPENDIX C (Cont’d)
Laboratory Test Results
Project No. 23106-01 C-2 December, 2025
Expansion Index: The expansion potential of selected representative samples was evaluated by the Expansion Index Test per ASTM D4829. The results are presented in the table below.

Sample
Location
Expansion
Index
Expansion
Potential*
HS-3 @ 1-5 ft 4 Very Low
* Per ASTM D4829
Direct Shear: Direct shear tests were performed on selected driven and remolded (90 percent relative compaction) samples, which were soaked for a minimum of 24 hours prior to testing.

The samples were tested under various normal loads using a motor-driven, strain-controlled, direct-shear testing apparatus (ASTM D3080). The plots are provided in this Appendix.

Consolidation: Consolidation tests were performed per ASTM D2435. Samples (2.4 inches in diameter and 1 inch in height) were placed in a consolidometer and increasing loads were applied. The samples were allowed to consolidate under “double drainage” and total deformation for each loading step was recorded. The percent consolidation for each load step was recorded as the ratio of the amount of vertical compression to the original sample height.

The consolidation pressure curves are provided in this Appendix.

Collapse/Swell Potential: A collapse test was performed per ASTM D4546. Samples (2.4 inches in diameter and 1 inch in height) were placed in a consolidometer and loaded to their approximate in-situ effective stress. The curve is presented in this Appendix.

Laboratory Compaction: The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of typical materials were determined in accordance with ASTM D1557. The results are presented in the table below.

Sample Location Sample Description
Maximum
Dry Density
(pcf)
Optimum
Moisture
Content (%)
HS-3 @ 1-5 ft Dark Olive Gray Clayey Sand 128.5 8.5
755
755 of 830
APPENDIX C (Cont’d)
Laboratory Test Results
Project No. 23106-01 C-3 December, 2025
Soluble Sulfates: The soluble sulfate contents of selected samples were determined by standard geochemical methods (CTM 417). The test results are presented in the table below.

Sample Location Sulfate Content
(ppm)
Sulfate Content
( %)
HS-3 @ 1-5 ft 117 < 0.02
Chloride Content: Chloride content was tested per CTM 422. The results are presented below.

Sample Location Chloride Content
(ppm)
HS-3 @ 1-5 ft 41
Minimum Resistivity and pH Tests: Minimum resistivity and pH tests were performed in general accordance with CTM 643 and standard geochemical methods. The results are presented in the table below.

Sample Location pH Minimum Resistivity
(ohm-cm)
HS-3 @ 1-5 ft 7.5 1,950
756
756 of 830
HS-1 R-3 10' - 30 14 16 CL
HS-3 R-3 10' - 36 18 18 CL
Laguna Beach
Project Number:

Plasticity
Index (%) PI
23106-01
Date: Jul-23
Symbol Location.: Sample No.: USCS Plastic Limit
(%) PL
Liquid Limit
(%) LL
Passing No.
200 Sieve
(%)
Depth (ft)

ATTERBERG LIMITS
(ASTM D 4318)
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
0 20 40 60 80 100
Plasticity Index (P.I.)
Liquid Limit (L.L.)

PLASTICITY CHART - CLASSIFICATION OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS 757
757 of 830
Project Name: Laguna Beach Tested By: G. Bathala Date: 07/06/23 Project No.: 23106-01 Checked By: J. Ward Date: 07/12/23 Boring No.: Sample Type: Ring
Sample No.: Depth (ft.): 2.0
Soil Identification:

2.415 2.415 2.415

1.000 1.000 1.000
165.83 166.47 166.44

45.58 45.53 45.18
Before Shearing
186.34 186.34 186.34
182.28 182.28 182.28

58.78 58.78 58.78

0.0000 0.2588 0.2604
-0.0546 0.3714 0.4168
After Shearing
199.35 202.23 192.86
178.71 183.87 173.85

65.21 70.32 59.15

2.70 2.70 2.70

62.43 62.43 62.43
HA-1
Olive gray silty, clayey sand (SC-SM)
Sample Diameter(in):

Weight of Wet Sample+Cont.(gm):

Vertical Rdg.(in): Final
Vertical Rdg.(in): Initial
Sample Thickness(in.):

Weight of Sample + ring(gm):

R-1

DIRECT SHEAR TEST
Consolidated Drained - ASTM D 3080
Water Density(pcf):

Specific Gravity (Assumed):

Weight of Container(gm):

Weight of Dry Sample+Cont.(gm):

Weight of Ring(gm):

Weight of Container(gm):

Weight of Dry Sample+Cont.(gm):

Weight of Wet Sample+Cont.(gm):

DS HA-1, R-1 @ 2
758
758 of 830
Normal Stress (kip/ft²)
Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft²)
Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf)
Deformation Rate (in./min.)
Initial Sample Height (in.)
Diameter (in.)
Initial Moisture Content (%)
Dry Density (pcf)
Saturation (%)
Soil Height Before Shearing (in.)
Final Moisture Content (%)
07-23
Project No.: 23106-01
Sample Type:

Ring
Olive gray silty, clayey sand
(SC-SM) 12.0

0.9454

18.2 Laguna Beach DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Consolidated Drained - ASTM D 3080

12.2 0.8436

16.6 1.000

0.789

0.786

0.0025

1.000

2.415

1.000

2.415

2.000

1.371

1.368

0.0025

4.000

2.738

2.732

0.0025

12.1 0.8874

16.2 Soil Identification: 3.29

97.4 3.29

96.8 97.6

1.000

2.415

3.29 Boring No.

Sample No.

Depth (ft)
HA-1
R-1
2 0.00

1.00 2.00

3.00 4.00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Shear Stress (ksf)
Horizontal Deformation (in.)

0.00 1.00

2.00 3.00

4.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00
Shear Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress (ksf)
DS HA-1, R-1 @ 2
759
759 of 830
Tested Sample:

HA-1 at 2 ft

33.2 Degrees 33.2 Degrees

0.11 ksf 0.10 ksf
Peak: At 0.30" Displacement:

DIRECT SHEAR PLOT
Project Number: 23106-01
Date: Jul-23
Laguna Beach
0 1
2 3
4 5
0 1 2 3 4 5
Shear Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress (ksf)
Peak At 0.30" Displacement
760
760 of 830
Project Name: Laguna Beach Tested By: G. Bathala Date: 06/29/23 Project No.: 23106-01 Checked By: J. Ward Date: 07/12/23 Boring No.: Sample Type: Ring
Sample No.: Depth (ft.): 7.5
Soil Identification:

2.415 2.415 2.415

1.000 1.000 1.000
203.33 207.42 206.36

42.48 45.69 43.05
Before Shearing
189.81 189.81 189.81
172.16 172.16 172.16

58.54 58.54 58.54

0.0000 0.2399 0.2372
-0.0118 0.2601 0.2641
After Shearing
217.59 226.54 233.00
191.97 200.85 208.69

55.47 65.21 70.32

2.70 2.70 2.70

62.43 62.43 62.43
HS-2
Olive lean clay (CL)
Sample Diameter(in):

Weight of Wet Sample+Cont.(gm):

Vertical Rdg.(in): Final
Vertical Rdg.(in): Initial
Sample Thickness(in.):

Weight of Sample + ring(gm):

R-2

DIRECT SHEAR TEST
Consolidated Drained - ASTM D 3080
Water Density(pcf):

Specific Gravity (Assumed):

Weight of Container(gm):

Weight of Dry Sample+Cont.(gm):

Weight of Ring(gm):

Weight of Container(gm):

Weight of Dry Sample+Cont.(gm):

Weight of Wet Sample+Cont.(gm):

DS HS-2, R-2 @ 7.5
761
761 of 830
Normal Stress (kip/ft²)
Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft²)
Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf)
Deformation Rate (in./min.)
Initial Sample Height (in.)
Diameter (in.)
Initial Moisture Content (%)
Dry Density (pcf)
Saturation (%)
Soil Height Before Shearing (in.)
Final Moisture Content (%)
06-23
Project No.: 23106-01
Sample Type:

Ring
Olive lean clay (CL)

92.0 0.9882

18.8 Laguna Beach DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Consolidated Drained - ASTM D 3080

96.7 0.9731

17.6 1.000

1.283

0.827

0.0017

1.000

2.415

1.000

2.415

2.000

1.877

1.358

0.0017

4.000

3.031

2.543

0.0017

93.6 0.9798

18.9 Soil Identification: 15.53
116.4

15.53 115.8 117.6

1.000

2.415

15.53 Boring No.

Sample No.

Depth (ft)
HS-2
R-2

7.5 0.00

1.00 2.00

3.00 4.00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Shear Stress (ksf)
Horizontal Deformation (in.)

0.00 1.00

2.00 3.00

4.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00
Shear Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress (ksf)
DS HS-2, R-2 @ 7.5
762
762 of 830
Tested Sample:

HS-2 at 7.5 ft

30.2 Degrees 29.9 Degrees

0.71 ksf 0.23 ksf
Peak: At 0.30" Displacement:

DIRECT SHEAR PLOT
Project Number: 23106-01
Date: Jul-23
Laguna Beach
0 1
2 3
4 5
0 1 2 3 4 5
Shear Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress (ksf)
Peak At 0.30" Displacement
763
763 of 830
Project Name: Laguna Beach Tested By: G. Bathala Date: 07/05/23 Project No.: 23106-01 Checked By: J. Ward Date: 07/12/23 Boring No.: Sample Type: 90% Remold
Sample No.: Depth (ft.): 1-5
Soil Identification:

2.415 2.415 2.415

1.000 1.000 1.000
196.73 197.27 196.36

45.38 45.57 44.61
Before Shearing
164.40 164.40 164.40
155.85 155.85 155.85

52.57 52.57 52.57

0.0000 0.2628 0.2544
-0.0097 0.2792 0.2744
After Shearing
218.00 211.89 219.61
199.85 194.63 202.84

61.83 56.84 64.65

2.70 2.70 2.70

62.43 62.43 62.43
HS-3
Dark olive gray clayey sand (SC)
Sample Diameter(in):

Weight of Wet Sample+Cont.(gm):

Vertical Rdg.(in): Final
Vertical Rdg.(in): Initial
Sample Thickness(in.):

Weight of Sample + ring(gm):

B-1

DIRECT SHEAR TEST
Consolidated Drained - ASTM D 3080
Water Density(pcf):

Specific Gravity (Assumed):

Weight of Container(gm):

Weight of Dry Sample+Cont.(gm):

Weight of Ring(gm):

Weight of Container(gm):

Weight of Dry Sample+Cont.(gm):

Weight of Wet Sample+Cont.(gm):

DS HS-3, B-1 @ 1-5
764
764 of 830
Normal Stress (kip/ft²)
Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft²)
Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf)
Deformation Rate (in./min.)
Initial Sample Height (in.)
Diameter (in.)
Initial Moisture Content (%)
Dry Density (pcf)
Saturation (%)
Soil Height Before Shearing (in.)
Final Moisture Content (%)
07-23
Project No.: 23106-01
Sample Type:
90% Remold
Dark olive gray clayey sand
(SC) 49.7

0.9903

13.2 Laguna Beach DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Consolidated Drained - ASTM D 3080

50.1 0.9800

12.1 1.000

0.912

0.726

0.0025

1.000

2.415

1.000

2.415

2.000

1.569

1.342

0.0025

4.000

2.842

2.713

0.0025

50.0 0.9836

12.5 Soil Identification: 8.28
116.5

8.28 116.2 116.6

1.000

2.415

8.28 Boring No.

Sample No.

Depth (ft)
HS-3
B-1
1-5

0.00 1.00

2.00 3.00

4.00 0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Shear Stress (ksf)
Horizontal Deformation (in.)

0.00 1.00

2.00 3.00

4.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00
Shear Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress (ksf)
DS HS-3, B-1 @ 1-5
765
765 of 830
Tested Sample:

HS-3 at 1-5 ft

32.7 Degrees 33.6 Degrees

0.28 ksf 0.04 ksf
Samples Remolded to 90% Relative Compaction
Peak: At 0.30" Displacement:

DIRECT SHEAR PLOT
Project Number: 23106-01
Date: Jul-23
Laguna Beach
0 1
2 3
4 5
0 1 2 3 4 5
Shear Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress (ksf)
Peak At 0.30" Displacement
766
766 of 830
Project Name: Tested By: GB/JD Date: 06/28/23
Project No.: Checked By: J. Ward Date: 07/12/23
Boring No.: Depth (ft.):

Sample No.: Sample Type:

Soil Identification:

Sample Diameter (in.): 2.415
Sample Thickness (in.): 1.000
Weight of Sample + ring (g): 209.18
Weight of Ring (g): 45.68
Height after consol. (in.): 0.9386
Before Test
Wt. of Wet Sample+Cont. (g): 191.94
Wt. of Dry Sample+Cont. (g): 174.73
Weight of Container (g): 56.13
Initial Moisture Content (%) 14.5
Initial Dry Density (pcf) 118.7
Initial Saturation (%): 87
Initial Vertical Reading (in.) 0.1105
After Test
Wt. of Wet Sample+Cont. (g): 273.18
Wt. of Dry Sample+Cont. (g): 254.24
Weight of Container (g): 65.58
Final Moisture Content (%) 13.25
Final Dry Density (pcf): 126.7
Final Saturation (%): 100
Final Vertical Reading (in.) 0.1750
Specific Gravity (assumed): 2.78
Water Density (pcf): 62.43

0.10 0.1118 0.9987 0.00 0.13 0.460 0.13

0.25 0.1221 0.9884 0.05 1.16 0.445 1.11

0.50 0.1289 0.9816 0.11 1.84 0.436 1.73

1.00 0.1380 0.9725 0.19 2.75 0.424 2.56

2.00 0.1482 0.9624 0.29 3.77 0.411 3.48

2.00 0.1483 0.9623 0.29 3.78 0.411 3.48

4.00 0.1552 0.9554 0.43 4.47 0.403 4.04

8.00 0.1701 0.9404 0.58 5.96 0.383 5.38

16.00 0.1902 0.9203 0.76 7.97 0.356 7.21

4.00 0.1859 0.9246 0.58 7.54 0.360 6.96

1.00 0.1788 0.9317 0.41 6.83 0.368 6.42

0.25 0.1750 0.9355 0.31 6.45 0.372 6.14
HS-1
R-3
Time
Corrected
Deformation (%)
PROPERTIES of SOILS
Ring
Void
Ratio
Dark olive brown sandy lean clay s(CL)
Time Readings
Elapsed
Time (min)

10.0 Pressure
(p)
(ksf) Dial Rdgs.
(in.) Date

ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION
ASTM D 2435
23106-01
Laguna Beach
Deformation
% of Sample
Thickness Square
Root of
Time
Final
Reading
(in.)
Apparent
Thickness
(in.)
Load
Compliance
(%)

0.340

0.360

0.380

0.400

0.420

0.440

0.460

0.480

0.10 1.00 10.00 100.

Void Ratio
Pressure, p (ksf)
Inundate with
Tap water
Consol HS-1, R-3 @ 10
767
767 of 830
Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Soil Identification:

Time Readings
118.7 0.372 87 100
Degree of
Saturation (%) Dry Density (pcf)

0.462
Void Ratio
10 14.5
Dark olive brown sandy lean clay s(CL)
Project No.:

Laguna Beach
07-23
23106-01
Boring
No.

Sample
No.

Depth
(ft.)
Moisture
Content (%)

ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION
PROPERTIES of SOILS
ASTM D 2435
HS-1 R-3 13.2 126.7

0.0000

0.2000

0.4000

0.6000

0.8000

1.0000

1.2000

0.1 1.0
Deformation Dial Reading (in.)
Log of Time (min.)

0.00 1.00

2.00 3.00

4.00 5.00

6.00 7.00

8.00 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00
Deformation (%)
Pressure, p (ksf)

0.0000

0.2000

0.4000

0.6000

0.8000

1.0000

1.2000

0.0 10.0
Square Root of Time (min.1/2)
Inundate with
Tap water
768
768 of 830
Project Name: Tested By: GB/JD Date: 06/28/23
Project No.: Checked By: J. Ward Date: 07/12/23
Boring No.: Depth (ft.):

Sample No.: Sample Type:

Soil Identification:

Sample Diameter (in.): 2.415
Sample Thickness (in.): 1.000
Weight of Sample + ring (g): 198.67
Weight of Ring (g): 44.80
Height after consol. (in.): 0.9969
Before Test
Wt. of Wet Sample+Cont. (g): 207.01
Wt. of Dry Sample+Cont. (g): 193.18
Weight of Container (g): 56.97
Initial Moisture Content (%) 10.2
Initial Dry Density (pcf) 116.2
Initial Saturation (%): 61
Initial Vertical Reading (in.) 0.0166
After Test
Wt. of Wet Sample+Cont. (g): 264.13
Wt. of Dry Sample+Cont. (g): 241.86
Weight of Container (g): 57.93
Final Moisture Content (%) 16.01
Final Dry Density (pcf): 116.1
Final Saturation (%): 96
Final Vertical Reading (in.) 0.0225
Specific Gravity (assumed): 2.70
Water Density (pcf): 62.43

0.10 0.0170 0.9996 0.00 0.04 0.450 0.04

0.25 0.0202 0.9964 0.04 0.36 0.446 0.32

0.50 0.0223 0.9943 0.09 0.57 0.444 0.48

1.00 0.0247 0.9919 0.15 0.81 0.441 0.66

2.00 0.0275 0.9891 0.25 1.09 0.439 0.84

2.00 0.0230 0.9936 0.25 0.64 0.445 0.39

4.00 0.0273 0.9893 0.37 1.07 0.441 0.70

8.00 0.0353 0.9813 0.49 1.87 0.431 1.38

16.00 0.0470 0.9696 0.65 3.04 0.416 2.39

4.00 0.0416 0.9750 0.51 2.50 0.422 1.99

1.00 0.0295 0.9871 0.39 1.29 0.438 0.90

0.25 0.0225 0.9941 0.28 0.59 0.446 0.31
HS-3
R-3
Time
Corrected
Deformation (%)
PROPERTIES of SOILS
Ring
Void
Ratio
Olive lean clay with sand (CL)s
Time Readings
Elapsed
Time (min)

10.0 Pressure
(p)
(ksf) Dial Rdgs.
(in.) Date

ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION
ASTM D 2435
23106-01
Laguna Beach
Deformation
% of Sample
Thickness Square
Root of
Time
Final
Reading
(in.)
Apparent
Thickness
(in.)
Load
Compliance
(%)

0.410

0.415

0.420

0.425

0.430

0.435

0.440

0.445

0.450

0.455

0.10 1.00 10.00 100.

Void Ratio
Pressure, p (ksf)
Inundate with
Tap water
Consol HS-3, R-3 @ 10
769
769 of 830
Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Soil Identification:

Time Readings
116.2 0.446 61 96
Degree of
Saturation (%) Dry Density (pcf)

0.451
Void Ratio
10 10.2
Olive lean clay with sand (CL)s
Project No.:

Laguna Beach
07-23
23106-01
Boring
No.

Sample
No.

Depth
(ft.)
Moisture
Content (%)

ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION
PROPERTIES of SOILS
ASTM D 2435
HS-3 R-3 16.0 116.1

0.0000

0.2000

0.4000

0.6000

0.8000

1.0000

1.2000

0.1 1.0
Deformation Dial Reading (in.)
Log of Time (min.)

0.00 0.50

1.00 1.50

2.00 2.50

3.00 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00
Deformation (%)
Pressure, p (ksf)

0.0000

0.2000

0.4000

0.6000

0.8000

1.0000

1.2000

0.0 10.0
Square Root of Time (min.1/2)
Inundate with
Tap water
770
770 of 830
Project Name: Tested By: G. Bathala Date: 07/07/23
Project No.: Checked By: J. Ward Date: 07/12/23
Boring No.: HS-4 Sample Type: Ring
Sample No.: R-4 Depth (ft.) 15.0
Sample Description: Olive gray silty clay (CL-ML)
Initial Dry Density (pcf): 110.5 Final Dry Density (pcf): 112.1 Initial Moisture (%): 11.40 Final Moisture (%) : 18.0
Initial Length (in.): 1.0000 Initial Void ratio: 0.5255 Initial Dial Reading: 0.0019 Specific Gravity(assumed): 2.70 Diameter(in): 2.415 Initial Saturation (%) 58.6

0.100 0.9999 0.00 -0.01 -0.01

2.000 0.9881 0.25 -1.19 -0.94
H2O 0.9879 0.25 -1.21 -0.96
Percent Swell (+) / Settlement (-) After Inundation = -0.02 Load
Compliance
(%)
Apparent
Thickness
(in)

ONE-DIMENSIONAL SWELL OR SETTLEMENT

POTENTIAL OF COHESIVE SOILS
ASTM D 4546
Corrected
Deformation
(%)
Laguna Beach
23106-01

0.5109

0.0020

0.0138

0.0140
Pressure (p)
(ksf)

0.5254

0.5112
Final Reading
(in) Void Ratio
Swell (+)
Settlement (-)
% of Sample
Thickness

0.5100

0.5120

0.5140

0.5160

0.5180

0.5200

0.5220

0.5240

0.5260

0.5280

0.100 1.000 10.000
Void Ratio
Log Pressure (ksf)
Void Ratio - Log Pressure Curve
Inundate with
Tap water
Swell or Settlement HS-4, R-4 @ 15
771
771 of 830
Appendix D
Infiltration Test Data
772
772 of 830
Boring Number:

Test hole dimensions (if circular)
5 8
3 Pre‐Test (Sandy Soil Criteria)*
1 8:00 8:25 25.0 1.87 1.88 0.01
2 8:25 8:50 25.0 1.88 1.89 0.01
Main Test Data
1 8:55 9:25 30.0 1.89 1.89 0.00 0.0
2 9:25 9:55 30.0 1.89 1.90 0.01 0.0
3 9:55 10:25 30.0 1.9 1.91 0.01 0.0
4 10:25 10:55 30.0 1.91 1.92 0.01 0.0
5 10:55 11:25 30.0 1.92 1.93 0.01 0.0
6 11:25 11:55 30.0 1.93 1.95 0.02 0.0
7 11:55 12:25 30.0 1.95 1.96 0.01 0.0
8 12:25 12:55 30.0 1.96 1.98 0.02 0.0
9 12:55 13:25 30.0 1.98 1.98 0.00 0.0
10 13:25 13:55 30.0 1.98 1.99 0.01 0.0
11 13:55 14:25 30.0 1.99 2.00 0.01 0.0
12 14:25 14:55 30.0 2.00 2.01 0.01 0.0
Feasibility Factor of Safety 2.0

0.0 Sketch:

Infiltration Test Data Sheet
LGC Geotechnical, Inc
131 Calle Iglesia Suite 200, San Clemente, CA 92672 tel. (949) 369‐6141 Project Name: Woodhart LLC- Laguna Beach
Project Number: 23106-01
Date: 6/22/2023
I-1
Test pit dimensions (if rectangular)
Boring Depth (feet)*: Pit Depth (feet):

Boring Diameter (inches): Pit Length (feet):

Pipe Diameter (inches): Pit Breadth (feet): *measured at time of test Trial No. Start Time
(24:HR)
Stop Time
(24:HR)
Time Interval
(min)
Initial Depth to
Water (feet)
Final Depth
to Water
(feet)
Total Change
in Water Level
(feet)
Greater Than or
Equal to

0.5 feet (yes/no)
No
No
*If two consecutive measurements show that six inches of water seeps away in less than 25 minutes, the test shall be run for an additional hour with measurements taken every 10 minutes. Otherwise, pre-soak (fill) overnight, and then obtain at least twelve measurements per hole over at least six hours (approximately 30 minute intervals) with a precision of at least 0.25 inches Trial No. Start Time
(24:HR)
Stop Time
(24:HR)
Time Interval,
Dt (min)
Initial Depth to
Water, Do (feet)
Measured Infiltration Rate (With Factor of Safety)
Based on Guidelines from: South Orange County 9/28/2017 Spreadsheet Revised on: 10/30/2019
Final Depth
to Water,
Df(feet)
Change in
Water Level,
DD (feet)
Measured
Infiltration
Rate(in/hr)
Measured Infiltration Rate (No Factor of Safety) 0.0
Notes: Standing water was observed in
infiltration boring 24 hrs after presoak
773
773 of 830
Boring Number:

Test hole dimensions (if circular)
5 8
3 Pre‐Test (Sandy Soil Criteria)*
1 8:12 8:37 25.0 3.14 3.23 0.09
2 8:38 9:03 25.0 2.97 3.07 0.10
Main Test Data
1 9:03 9:33 30.0 3.07 3.2 0.13 0.3
2 9:34 10:04 30.0 2.99 3.10 0.11 0.2
3 10:05 10:35 30.0 2.91 3.04 0.13 0.2
4 10:35 11:05 30.0 3.04 3.15 0.11 0.2
5 11:06 11:36 30.0 2.92 3.04 0.12 0.2
6 11:37 12:07 30.0 3.00 3.11 0.11 0.2
7 12:08 12:38 30.0 3.00 3.11 0.11 0.2
8 12:39 13:11 32.0 3.04 3.16 0.12 0.2
9 13:12 13:42 30.0 3.04 3.14 0.10 0.2
10 13:44 14:14 30.0 3.05 3.15 0.10 0.2
11 14:15 14:45 30.0 3.02 3.13 0.11 0.2
12 14:46 15:16 30.0 3.05 3.17 0.12 0.2
Feasibility Factor of Safety 2.0

0.1 Sketch:

Measured Infiltration Rate (With Factor of Safety)
Based on Guidelines from: South Orange County 9/28/2017 Spreadsheet Revised on: 10/30/2019
Notes: Standing water was observed in
infiltration boring 24 hrs after presoak
Final Depth
to Water,
Df(feet)
Change in
Water Level,
DD (feet)
Measured
Infiltration
Rate(in/hr)
Measured Infiltration Rate (No Factor of Safety) 0.2
Total Change
in Water Level
(feet)
Greater Than or
Equal to

0.5 feet (yes/no)
No
No
*If two consecutive measurements show that six inches of water seeps away in less than 25 minutes, the test shall be run for an additional hour with measurements taken every 10 minutes. Otherwise, pre-soak (fill) overnight, and then obtain at least twelve measurements per hole over at least six hours (approximately 30 minute intervals) with a precision of at least 0.25 inches Trial No. Start Time
(24:HR)
Stop Time
(24:HR)
Time Interval,
Dt (min)
Initial Depth to
Water, Do (feet)
Trial No. Start Time
(24:HR)
Stop Time
(24:HR)
Time Interval
(min)
Initial Depth to
Water (feet)
Final Depth
to Water
(feet)
*measured at time of test
Boring Depth (feet)*: Pit Depth (feet):

Boring Diameter (inches): Pit Length (feet):

Pipe Diameter (inches): Pit Breadth (feet):

Date: 6/22/2023
I-2
Test pit dimensions (if rectangular)
Infiltration Test Data Sheet
LGC Geotechnical, Inc
131 Calle Iglesia Suite 200, San Clemente, CA 92672 tel. (949) 369‐6141 Project Name: Woodhart LLC- Laguna Beach
Project Number: 23106-01
774
774 of 830
Appendix E
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
775
775 of 830
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading

1.0 General

1.1 Intent
These General Earthwork and Grading Specifications are for the grading and earthwork shown on the approved grading plan(s) and/or indicated in the geotechnical report(s). These Specifications are a part of the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report(s). In case of conflict, the specific recommendations in the geotechnical report shall supersede these more general Specifications. Observations of the earthwork by the project Geotechnical Consultant during the course of grading may result in new or revised recommendations that could supersede these specifications or the recommendations in the geotechnical report(s).

1.2 The Geotechnical Consultant of Record
Prior to commencement of work, the owner shall employ a qualified Geotechnical Consultant of Record (Geotechnical Consultant). The Geotechnical Consultant shall be responsible for reviewing the approved geotechnical report(s) and accepting the adequacy of the preliminary geotechnical findings, conclusions, and recommendations prior to the commencement of the grading.

Prior to commencement of grading, the Geotechnical Consultant shall review the "work plan" prepared by the Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) and schedule sufficient personnel to perform the appropriate level of observation, mapping, and compaction testing.

During the grading and earthwork operations, the Geotechnical Consultant shall observe, map, and document the subsurface exposures to verify the geotechnical design assumptions. If the observed conditions are found to be significantly different than the interpreted assumptions during the design phase, the Geotechnical Consultant shall inform the owner, recommend appropriate changes in design to accommodate the observed conditions, and notify the review agency where required.

The Geotechnical Consultant shall observe the moisture-conditioning and processing of the subgrade and fill materials and perform relative compaction testing of fill to confirm that the attained level of compaction is being accomplished as specified. The Geotechnical Consultant shall provide the test results to the owner and the Contractor on a routine and frequent basis.

1.3 The Earthwork Contractor
The Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) shall be qualified, experienced, and knowledgeable in earthwork logistics, preparation and processing of ground to receive fill, moistureconditioning and processing of fill, and compacting fill. The Contractor shall review and accept the plans, geotechnical report(s), and these Specifications prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall be solely responsible for performing the grading in accordance with the project plans and specifications. The Contractor shall prepare and submit to the owner and the Geotechnical Consultant a work plan that indicates the sequence of earthwork grading, the number of “equipment” of work and the estimated quantities of daily earthwork General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading Page 1 776
776 of 830
contemplated for the site prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall inform the owner and the
Geotechnical Consultant of changes in work schedules and updates to the work plan at least 24 hours in advance of such changes so that appropriate personnel will be available for observation and testing. The Contractor shall not assume that the Geotechnical Consultant is aware of all grading operations.

The Contractor shall have the sole responsibility to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the earthwork in accordance with the applicable grading codes and agency ordinances, these Specifications, and the recommendations in the approved geotechnical report(s) and grading plan(s). If, in the opinion of the Geotechnical Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as unsuitable soil, improper moisture condition, inadequate compaction, insufficient buttress key size, adverse weather, etc., are resulting in a quality of work less than required in these specifications, the Geotechnical Consultant shall reject the work and may recommend to the owner that construction be stopped until the conditions are rectified. It is the contractor’s sole responsibility to provide proper fill compaction.

2.0 Preparation of Areas to be Filled

2.1 Clearing and Grubbing
Vegetation, such as brush, grass, roots, and other deleterious material shall be sufficiently removed and properly disposed of in a method acceptable to the owner, governing agencies, and the Geotechnical Consultant.

The Geotechnical Consultant shall evaluate the extent of these removals depending on specific site conditions. Earth fill material shall not contain more than 1 percent of organic materials (by volume). Nesting of the organic materials shall not be allowed.

If potentially hazardous materials are encountered, the Contractor shall stop work in the affected area, and a hazardous material specialist shall be informed immediately for proper evaluation and handling of these materials prior to continuing to work in that area.

As presently defined by the State of California, most refined petroleum products (gasoline, diesel fuel, motor oil, grease, coolant, etc.) have chemical constituents that are considered to be hazardous waste. As such, the indiscriminate dumping or spillage of these fluids onto the ground may constitute a misdemeanor, punishable by fines and/or imprisonment, and shall not be allowed. The contractor is responsible for all hazardous waste relating to his work. The Geotechnical Consultant does not have expertise in this area. If hazardous waste is a concern, then the Client should acquire the services of a qualified environmental assessor.

2.2 Processing
Existing ground that has been declared satisfactory for support of fill by the Geotechnical Consultant shall be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches. Existing ground that is not satisfactory shall be over-excavated as specified in the following section. Scarification shall continue until soils are broken down and free of oversize material and the working surface is reasonably uniform, flat, and free of uneven features that would inhibit uniform compaction.

General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading Page 2 777
777 of 830

2.3 Over-excavation
In addition to removals and over-excavations recommended in the approved geotechnical report(s) and the grading plan, soft, loose, dry, saturated, spongy, organic-rich, highly fractured or otherwise unsuitable ground shall be over-excavated to competent ground as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading.

2.4 Benching
Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical units), the ground shall be stepped or benched. Please see the Standard Details for a graphic illustration. The lowest bench or key shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide and at least 2 feet deep, into competent material as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant. Other benches shall be excavated a minimum height of 4 feet into competent material or as otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. Fill placed on ground sloping flatter than 5:1 shall also be benched or otherwise over-excavated to provide a flat subgrade for the fill.

2.5 Evaluation/Acceptance of Fill Areas
All areas to receive fill, including removal and processed areas, key bottoms, and benches, shall be observed, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or tested prior to being accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant as suitable to receive fill. The Contractor shall obtain a written acceptance from the Geotechnical Consultant prior to fill placement. A licensed surveyor shall provide the survey control for determining elevations of processed areas, keys, and benches.

3.0 Fill Material

3.1 General
Material to be used as fill shall be essentially free of organic matter and other deleterious substances evaluated and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement. Soils of poor quality, such as those with unacceptable gradation, high expansion potential, or low strength shall be placed in areas acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant or mixed with other soils to achieve satisfactory fill material.

3.2 Oversize
Oversize material defined as rock, or other irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 8 inches, shall not be buried or placed in fill unless location, materials, and placement methods are specifically accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant. Placement operations shall be such that nesting of oversized material does not occur and such that oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted or densified fill. Oversize material shall not be placed within 10 vertical feet of finish grade or within 2 feet of future utilities or underground construction.

General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading Page 3 778
778 of 830

3.3 Import
If importing of fill material is required for grading, proposed import material shall meet the requirements of the geotechnical consultant. The potential import source shall be given to the Geotechnical Consultant at least 48 hours (2 working days) before importing begins so that its suitability can be determined and appropriate tests performed.

4.0 Fill Placement and Compaction

4.1 Fill Layers
Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill (per Section 3.0) in near-horizontal layers not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness. The Geotechnical Consultant may accept thicker layers if testing indicates the grading procedures can adequately compact the thicker layers. Each layer shall be spread evenly and mixed thoroughly to attain relative uniformity of material and moisture throughout.

4.2 Fill Moisture Conditioning
Fill soils shall be watered, dried back, blended, and/or mixed, as necessary to attain a relatively uniform moisture content at or slightly over optimum. Maximum density and optimum soil moisture content tests shall be performed in accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM Test Method D1557).

4.3 Compaction of Fill
After each layer has been moisture-conditioned, mixed, and evenly spread, it shall be uniformly compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density (ASTM Test Method D1557). Compaction equipment shall be adequately sized and be either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently achieve the specified level of compaction with uniformity.

4.4 Compaction of Fill Slopes
In addition to normal compaction procedures specified above, compaction of slopes shall be accomplished by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers at increments of 3 to 4 feet in fill elevation, or by other methods producing satisfactory results acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant. Upon completion of grading, relative compaction of the fill, out to the slope face, shall be at least 90 percent of maximum density per ASTM Test Method D1557.

4.5 Compaction Testing
Field tests for moisture content and relative compaction of the fill soils shall be performed by the Geotechnical Consultant. Location and frequency of tests shall be at the Consultant's discretion based on field conditions encountered. Compaction test locations will not necessarily be selected on a random basis. Test locations shall be selected to verify adequacy of compaction levels in areas that are judged to be prone to inadequate compaction (such as close to slope faces and at the fill/bedrock benches).

General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading Page 4 779
779 of 830

4.6 Frequency of Compaction Testing
Tests shall be taken at intervals not exceeding 2 feet in vertical rise and/or 1,000 cubic yards of compacted fill soils embankment. In addition, as a guideline, at least one test shall be taken on slope faces for each 5,000 square feet of slope face and/or each 10 feet of vertical height of slope. The Contractor shall assure that fill construction is such that the testing schedule can be accomplished by the Geotechnical Consultant. The Contractor shall stop or slow down the earthwork construction if these minimum standards are not met.

4.7 Compaction Test Locations
The Geotechnical Consultant shall document the approximate elevation and horizontal coordinates of each test location. The Contractor shall coordinate with the project surveyor to assure that sufficient grade stakes are established so that the Geotechnical Consultant can determine the test locations with sufficient accuracy. At a minimum, two grade stakes within a horizontal distance of 100 feet and vertically less than 5 feet apart from potential test locations shall be provided.

5.0 Subdrain Installation
Subdrain systems shall be installed in accordance with the approved geotechnical report(s), the grading plan, and the Standard Details. The Geotechnical Consultant may recommend additional subdrains and/or changes in subdrain extent, location, grade, or material depending on conditions encountered during grading. All subdrains shall be surveyed by a land surveyor/civil engineer for line and grade after installation and prior to burial. Sufficient time should be allowed by the Contractor for these surveys.

6.0 Excavation
Excavations, as well as over-excavation for remedial purposes, shall be evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading. Remedial removal depths shown on geotechnical plans are estimates only.

The actual extent of removal shall be determined by the Geotechnical Consultant based on the field evaluation of exposed conditions during grading. Where fill-over-cut slopes are to be graded, the cut portion of the slope shall be made, evaluated, and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope, unless otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant.

7.0 Trench Backfills

7.1 The Contractor shall follow all OHSA and Cal/OSHA requirements for safety of trench excavations.

7.2 All bedding and backfill of utility trenches shall be done in accordance with the applicable provisions of Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction. Bedding material shall have a Sand Equivalent greater than 30 (SE>30). The bedding shall be placed to 1 foot over General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading Page 5 780
780 of 830
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading Page 6 the top of the conduit and densified by jetting. Backfill shall be placed and densified to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum from 1 foot above the top of the conduit to the surface.

7.3 The jetting of the bedding around the conduits shall be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant.

7.4 The Geotechnical Consultant shall test the trench backfill for relative compaction. At least one test should be made for every 300 feet of trench and 2 feet of fill.

7.5 Lift thickness of trench backfill shall not exceed those allowed in the Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction unless the Contractor can demonstrate to the Geotechnical Consultant that the fill lift can be compacted to the minimum relative compaction by his alternative equipment and method.
781
781 of 830
782
782 of 830
783
783 of 830
784
784 of 830
785
785 of 830
786
786 of 830
787
787 of 830
788
788 of 830
789
789 of 830
790
790 of 830
791
791 of 830
792
’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ SITE LOT 11 LOT 9 LOT 7 LOT 5 LOT 3 LOT 1 LOT 12 LOT 10 LOT 8 LOT 6 LOT 4 LOT 2 LOT 24
LOT 25
LOT 26
LOT 27
LOT 20
LOT 19
LOT 18
LOT 22
LOT 23 LOT 21 LOT 99 LOT 17 LOT 16 LOT 15 LOT 14 LOT 13 PARCEL 2
PARCEL 3 PARCEL 4
PARCEL 1 PARCEL 1 LAGUNA TERRACE MM 4/80 TENTATIVE PARCEL NO. 2025-118 FOR LAND SUBDIVISION PURPOSES CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH COUNTY OF ORANGE STATE OF CALIFORNIA EXISTING MAPPING CONDITION PROPOSED MAPPING CONDITION 793

S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W WWW W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W 794
W

W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W WWW W W W W W W W W W W W W W S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 795
Brattle Street Ventures LLC Appendix A
Attachment F:

Hydromodification Report
796
796 of 830
San Juan Creek
San Juan Creek
Chiquita, Cañada
San Juan Creek Watershed
Aliso Creek Watershed
San Mateo Creek Watershed
Laguna Coastal Streams Watershed
San Clemente Coastal Streams Watershed
Dana Point Coastal Streams Watershed
Aliso Creek
Bell Canyon
Tijeras Canyon
Oso Creek
Gabino Canyon
Salt Creek
Lucas Canyon
San Juan Creek Gobernadora, Cañada Cold Spring Canyon
Wood Canyon
Long Canyon
Lion Canyon
Trabuco, Arroyo
Dove Canyon
Verdugo Canyon
Crow Canyon
Blind Canyon
Emerald Canyon
Live Oak Canyon
Horno Creek
Rose Canyon Cristianitos Creek
Hickey Canyon
Falls Canyon
Sulphur Creek
Aliso Canyon
Moro Canyon
Holy Jim Canyon
Talega Canyon
English Canyon
Fox Canyon
Trampas Canyon
Rim Rock Canyon
Laguna Canyon
Hobo Canyon
San Juan Canyon
Oso Creek Oso Creek
Aliso Creek
Segunda Deshecha Cañada
Boat Canyon
Paz Canyon, La
Hot Spring Canyon
Prima Deshecha Canada
ORANGE
COUNTY
IRVINE

NEWPORT BEACH MISSION
VIEJO

LAKE FOREST

SAN CLEMENTE
ORANGE
COUNTY

LAGUNA NIGUEL

SAN JUAN

CAPISTRANO
LAGUNA
BEACH
ALISO
VIEJO

DANA POINT

RANCHO SANTA

MARGARITA
LAGUNA
HILLS

LAGUNA WOODS
Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Base Map
± Watershed Boundaries
024 1
Miles
Figure A-1 Base Map
Inland Receiving Waters
City Boundaries
MS4 Catchments
Publication Date: June 2018
797
797 of 830
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*#*#*#*
#*
#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*#*#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
San Juan Creek
San Juan Creek
Chiquita, Cañada
San Juan Creek Watershed
Aliso Creek Watershed
San Mateo Creek Watershed
Laguna Coastal Streams Watershed
San Clemente Coastal Streams Watershed
Dana Point Coastal Streams Watershed
Aliso Creek
Bell Canyon
Tijeras Canyon
Oso Creek
Gabino Canyon
Salt Creek
Lucas Canyon
San Juan Creek Gobernadora, Cañada Cold Spring Canyon
Wood Canyon
Long Canyon
Lion Canyon
Trabuco, Arroyo
Dove Canyon
Verdugo Canyon
Crow Canyon
Blind Canyon
Emerald Canyon
Live Oak Canyon
Horno Creek
Rose Canyon Cristianitos Creek
Hickey Canyon
Falls Canyon
Sulphur Creek
Aliso Canyon
Moro Canyon
Holy Jim Canyon
Talega Canyon
English Canyon
Fox Canyon
Trampas Canyon
Rim Rock Canyon
Laguna Canyon
Hobo Canyon
San Juan Canyon
Oso Creek Oso Creek
Aliso Creek
Segunda Deshecha Cañada
Boat Canyon
Paz Canyon, La
Hot Spring Canyon
Prima Deshecha Canada
Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community ± 024 1
Miles
Figure A-2 Dry Weather Flow Condition
Dry Weather Flow Condition
In-channel Points
Dry
Ponded
Flow
Coastal Points
#* Dry
#* Ponded
#* Flow
Outfall Points
Dry
Ponded
Flow
kj Springs
Inland Receiving Waters
Watershed Boundaries
MS4 Catchments Publication Date: June 2018
798
798 of 830
San Juan Creek
San Juan Creek
San Juan Creek
San Juan Creek Watershed
Aliso Creek Watershed
San Mateo Creek Watershed
Laguna Coastal Streams Watershed
San Clemente Coastal Streams Watershed
Dana Point Coastal Streams Watershed
Aliso Creek
Bell Canyon
Tijeras Canyon
Oso Creek
Gabino Canyon
Salt Creek
Lucas Canyon
San Juan Creek Gobernadora, Cañada Cold Spring Canyon
Wood Canyon
Long Canyon
Lion Canyon
Trabuco, Arroyo
Dove Canyon
Verdugo Canyon
Crow Canyon
Blind Canyon
Emerald Canyon
Live Oak Canyon
Horno Creek
Rose Canyon Cristianitos Creek
Hickey Canyon
Falls Canyon
Sulphur Creek
Aliso Canyon
Moro Canyon
Holy Jim Canyon
Talega Canyon
English Canyon
Fox Canyon
Trampas Canyon
Rim Rock Canyon
Laguna Canyon
Hobo Canyon
San Juan Canyon
Oso Creek Oso Creek
Aliso Creek
Segunda Deshecha Cañada
Boat Canyon
Paz Canyon, La
Hot Spring Canyon
Prima Deshecha Canada
Aliso Creek
Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community ± 0 1 2 4
Miles
Figure A-3 Channel Type
Channel Type
Engineered
Engineered Earth
Natural Watercourse
Watershed Boundaries
MS4 Catchments Publication Date: June 2018
799
799 of 830
/
")
")
")
")
")
/
/
/")
")
/
")
/
/
/
")
")
/
/
/
/
/
/
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
/ /
")
")
")
/
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
/
/
")
#*
#*
#*#*#*#*#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#* #*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*0
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
0 #*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#* #*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
.
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( .
!(
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_ ^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
San Juan Creek
San Juan Creek
Chiquita, Cañada
San Juan Creek Watershed
Aliso Creek Watershed
San Mateo Creek Watershed
Laguna Coastal Streams Watershed
San Clemente Coastal Streams Watershed
Dana Point Coastal Streams Watershed
Aliso Creek
Bell Canyon
Tijeras Canyon
Oso Creek
Gabino Canyon
Salt Creek
Lucas Canyon
San Juan Creek Gobernadora, Cañada Cold Spring Canyon
Wood Canyon
Long Canyon
Lion Canyon
Trabuco, Arroyo
Dove Canyon
Verdugo Canyon
Crow Canyon
Blind Canyon
Emerald Canyon
Live Oak Canyon
Horno Creek
Rose Canyon Cristianitos Creek
Hickey Canyon
Falls Canyon
Sulphur Creek
Aliso Canyon
Moro Canyon
Holy Jim Canyon
Talega Canyon
English Canyon
Fox Canyon
Trampas Canyon
Rim Rock Canyon
Laguna Canyon
Hobo Canyon
San Juan Canyon
Oso Creek Oso Creek
Aliso Creek
Segunda Deshecha Cañada
Boat Canyon
Paz Canyon, La
Hot Spring Canyon
Prima Deshecha Canada
Aliso Creek
Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community ± 024 1
Miles
Figure A-4 Dry Weather Bacteria CCME Index
Note: Data presented in this figure collected from
2010 through 2015
^_ Limit of Propagation
(Transition to Predominantly Non-MS4)
ChannelCoastalOutfall
Inland Receiving Waters
Score
. 0
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
/
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
Data not considered
in propagation

0.1 - 10.0

10.1 - 20.0

20.1 - 30.0

30.1 - 40.0

40.1 - 50.0

50.1 - 60.0

60.1 - 70.0

70.1 - 80.0

80.1 - 90.0

90.1 - 100.0
Watershed Boundaries
Dry Weather Bacteria
CCME Index
MS4 Catchments
Publication Date: June 2018
800
800 of 830
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
")
")
/
/
/
/
")
")
/
/
/
")
")
")
/ /
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
/
/
")
#*
#* #*#*#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*#*
#* #*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*0
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
0 #*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#* #*
#*
#*
#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( .
!(
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. San Juan Cree
San Juan Creek
San Juan Creek Watershed
Aliso Creek Watershed
Laguna Coastal Streams Watershed
San Clemente Coastal Streams Watershed
Dana Point Coastal Streams Watershed
Gabino Canyon
Salt Creek
Wo
Lucas Ca
Verdugo Canyo
Blind Canyon
Emera
Horno Creek
Cristianitos Creek
Sulphur Creek
Talega Canyon
Trampas Canyon
Rim Rock Canyon
L
Hobo Canyon
San Juan Canyon
Oso Creek
O
Segunda Deshecha Cañada
Boat Canyon
Paz Canyon, La
Prima Deshecha Canada
Aliso Creek
Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community ± 012 0.5
Miles
Figure A-5 Coastal Dry Weather Bacteria CCME Index
Note: Data presented in this figure collected from
2010 through 2015
^_ Limit of Propagation
(Transition to Predominantly Non-MS4)
ChannelCoastal
Outfall
Inland Receiving Waters
Score
. 0
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
/
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
Data not considered
in propagation

0.1 - 10.0

10.1 - 20.0

20.1 - 30.0

30.1 - 40.0

40.1 - 50.0

50.1 - 60.0

60.1 - 70.0

70.1 - 80.0

80.1 - 90.0

90.1 - 100.0
Watershed Boundaries
Dry Weather Bacteria
CCME Index
MS4 Catchments
Publication Date: June 2018
801
801 of 830
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/ /
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
0#*
0 000000
0 00
0 00
0#*
#*0 0#*
0 0
0 0
0 00
00 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 00
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
00 0
0 0
00 0
0 0
0 0
00 0
#*
0 0#*
0#*
0 0
0 !(
!(
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
!(
..
.
.
.
.
..
!(
.
.
.
.
.
!(
.!(
. .
!(
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
^_
^_
^_
^_ ^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
San Juan Creek
San Juan Creek
Chiquita, Cañada
San Juan Creek Watershed
Aliso Creek Watershed
San Mateo Creek Watershed
Laguna Coastal Streams Watershed
San Clemente Coastal Streams Watershed
Dana Point Coastal Streams Watershed
Aliso Creek
Bell Canyon
Tijeras Canyon
Oso Creek
Gabino Canyon
Salt Creek
Lucas Canyon
San Juan Creek Gobernadora, Cañada Cold Spring Canyon
Wood Canyon
Long Canyon
Lion Canyon
Trabuco, Arroyo
Dove Canyon
Verdugo Canyon
Crow Canyon
Blind Canyon
Emerald Canyon
Live Oak Canyon
Horno Creek
Rose Canyon Cristianitos Creek
Hickey Canyon
Falls Canyon
Sulphur Creek
Aliso Canyon
Moro Canyon
Holy Jim Canyon
Talega Canyon
English Canyon
Fox Canyon
Trampas Canyon
Rim Rock Canyon
Laguna Canyon
Hobo Canyon
San Juan Canyon
Oso Creek Oso Creek
Aliso Creek
Segunda Deshecha Cañada
Boat Canyon
Paz Canyon, La
Hot Spring Canyon
Prima Deshecha Canada
Aliso Creek
Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community ± 024 1
Miles
Figure A-6 Wet Weather Bacteria CCME Index
Note: Data presented in this figure collected from
2010 through 2015
^_ Limit of Propagation
(Transition to Predominantly Non-MS4)
ChannelCoastal
Outfall
Inland Receiving Waters
Score
. 0
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
/
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
Data not considered
in propagation

0.1 - 10.0

10.1 - 20.0

20.1 - 30.0

30.1 - 40.0

40.1 - 50.0

50.1 - 60.0

60.1 - 70.0

70.1 - 80.0

80.1 - 90.0

90.1 - 100.0
Watershed Boundaries
Wet Weather Bacteria
CCME Index
MS4 Catchments
Publication Date: June 2018
802
802 of 830
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/ /
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
0#*
0 00000
0 0
0 000#*
0#* 0#*
0 0
0 0
0 00
00 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
00 00
0 0
0 0
0 0
00 0
0 0
000
0 0
0 0
00 #*0
0 0#*
0#*
0 0
0 !(
!(
.
.
.
.
...
.
.
.
.
!( .
!(
.
.
.
!(
.!(
. .
!(
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
San Juan Cree
San Juan Creek
San Juan Creek Watershed
Aliso Creek Watershed
Laguna Coastal Streams Watershed
San Clemente Coastal Streams Watershed
Dana Point Coastal Streams Watershed
Gabino Canyon
Salt Creek
Wo
Lucas Ca
Verdugo Canyo
Blind Canyon
Emera
Horno Creek
Cristianitos Creek
Sulphur Creek
Talega Canyon
Trampas Canyon
Rim Rock Canyon
L
Hobo Canyon
San Juan Canyon
Oso Creek
O
Segunda Deshecha Cañada
Boat Canyon
Paz Canyon, La
Prima Deshecha Canada
Aliso Creek
Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community ± 012 0.5
Miles
Figure A-7 Coastal Wet Weather Bacteria CCME Index
Note: Data presented in this figure collected from
2010 through 2015
^_ Limit of Propagation
(Transition to Predominantly Non-MS4)
ChannelCoastal
Outfall
Inland Receiving Waters
Score
. 0
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
/
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
Data not considered
in propagation

0.1 - 10.0

10.1 - 20.0

20.1 - 30.0

30.1 - 40.0

40.1 - 50.0

50.1 - 60.0

60.1 - 70.0

70.1 - 80.0

80.1 - 90.0

90.1 - 100.0
Watershed Boundaries
Wet Weather Bacteria
CCME Index
MS4 Catchments
Publication Date: June 2018
803
803 of 830
^_
^_
^_
^_ ^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
San Juan Creek
San Juan Creek
Chiquita, Cañada
San Juan Creek Watershed
Aliso Creek Watershed
San Mateo Creek Watershed
Laguna Coastal Streams Watershed
San Clemente Coastal Streams Watershed
Dana Point Coastal Streams Watershed
Aliso Creek
Bell Canyon
Tijeras Canyon
Oso Creek
Gabino Canyon
Salt Creek
Lucas Canyon
San Juan Creek Gobernadora, Cañada Cold Spring Canyon
Wood Canyon
Long Canyon
Lion Canyon
Trabuco, Arroyo
Dove Canyon
Verdugo Canyon
Crow Canyon
Blind Canyon
Emerald Canyon
Live Oak Canyon
Horno Creek
Rose Canyon Cristianitos Creek
Hickey Canyon
Falls Canyon
Sulphur Creek
Aliso Canyon
Moro Canyon
Holy Jim Canyon
Talega Canyon
English Canyon
Fox Canyon
Trampas Canyon
Rim Rock Canyon
Laguna Canyon
Hobo Canyon
San Juan Canyon
Oso Creek Oso Creek
Aliso Creek
Segunda Deshecha Cañada
Boat Canyon
Paz Canyon, La
Hot Spring Canyon
Prima Deshecha Canada
Aliso Creek
Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community ± 024 1
Miles
Figure A-8 Eutrophication Issues
Eutrophication Issues

0.1 - 10.0

10.1 - 20.0

20.1 - 30.0

30.1 - 40.0

40.1 - 50.0

50.1 - 60.0

60.1 - 70.0

70.1 - 80.0

80.1 - 90.0

90.1 - 100.0
Average of Nutrient CCME Indices (Wet
and Dry) and H20 Algal Index
Note: Data presented in this figure collected
from 2010 through 2015
Data not considered in propagation
Inland Receiving Waters
Score
^_ Limit of Propagation
(Transition to Predominantly Non-MS4)
Watershed Boundaries
MS4 Catchments
Publication Date: June 2018
804
804 of 830
2 /
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/ /
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
0 0
000000
0 00
0 00
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 00
00 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 00
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
00 0
0 0
00 0
0 0
0 0
00 0
0 0
0 00
0 0
0 !(
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
..
.
!(
.
!(
.
.
.
.
. .
.
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
.
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_ ^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
San Juan Creek
San Juan Creek
Chiquita, Cañada
San Juan Creek Watershed
Aliso Creek Watershed
San Mateo Creek Watershed
Laguna Coastal Streams Watershed
San Clemente Coastal Streams Watershed
Dana Point Coastal Streams Watershed
Aliso Creek
Bell Canyon
Tijeras Canyon
Oso Creek
Gabino Canyon
Salt Creek
Lucas Canyon
San Juan Creek Gobernadora, Cañada Cold Spring Canyon
Wood Canyon
Long Canyon
Lion Canyon
Trabuco, Arroyo
Dove Canyon
Verdugo Canyon
Crow Canyon
Blind Canyon
Emerald Canyon
Live Oak Canyon
Horno Creek
Rose Canyon Cristianitos Creek
Hickey Canyon
Falls Canyon
Sulphur Creek
Aliso Canyon
Moro Canyon
Holy Jim Canyon
Talega Canyon
English Canyon
Fox Canyon
Trampas Canyon
Rim Rock Canyon
Laguna Canyon
Hobo Canyon
San Juan Canyon
Oso Creek Oso Creek
Aliso Creek
Segunda Deshecha Cañada
Boat Canyon
Paz Canyon, La
Hot Spring Canyon
Prima Deshecha Canada
Aliso Creek
Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community ± 024 1
Miles
Figure A-9 Geomorphic Impact Related to Biology
Geomorphic Impact Related to
Biology
Note: Data presented in this figure collected from
2010 through 2015
^_ Limit of Propagation
(Transition to Predominantly Non-MS4)
ChannelCoastal
Outfall
Score
. 0
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
/
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
Data not considered
in propagation

0.1 - 10.0

10.1 - 20.0

20.1 - 30.0

30.1 - 40.0

40.1 - 50.0

50.1 - 60.0

60.1 - 70.0

70.1 - 80.0

80.1 - 90.0

90.1 - 100.0
Watershed Boundaries
MS4 Catchments
> 10% Cumulative Impervious Cover
(Elevated Hydromodification Risk)
Major Hydromodification Impact
(Rapid Aerial Survey)
* IBI: Index of Biological Integrity
Geomorphic Condition with IBI* Overlay Inland Receiving Waters Publication Date: June 2018
805
805 of 830
^_
^_
^_
^_ ^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
San Juan Creek
San Juan Creek
Chiquita, Cañada
San Juan Creek Watershed
Aliso Creek Watershed
San Mateo Creek Watershed
Laguna Coastal Streams Watershed
San Clemente Coastal Streams Watershed
Dana Point Coastal Streams Watershed
Aliso Creek
Bell Canyon
Tijeras Canyon
Oso Creek
Gabino Canyon
Salt Creek
Lucas Canyon
San Juan Creek Gobernadora, Cañada Cold Spring Canyon
Wood Canyon
Long Canyon
Lion Canyon
Trabuco, Arroyo
Dove Canyon
Verdugo Canyon
Crow Canyon
Blind Canyon
Emerald Canyon
Live Oak Canyon
Horno Creek
Rose Canyon Cristianitos Creek
Hickey Canyon
Falls Canyon
Sulphur Creek
Aliso Canyon
Moro Canyon
Holy Jim Canyon
Talega Canyon
English Canyon
Fox Canyon
Trampas Canyon
Rim Rock Canyon
Laguna Canyon
Hobo Canyon
San Juan Canyon
Oso Creek Oso Creek
Aliso Creek
Segunda Deshecha Cañada
Boat Canyon
Paz Canyon, La
Hot Spring Canyon
Prima Deshecha Canada
Aliso Creek
Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User ± 024 1
Miles
Figure A-10 Water Quality Related to Biology

0.1 - 10.0

10.1 - 20.0

20.1 - 30.0

30.1 - 40.0

40.1 - 50.0

50.1 - 60.0

60.1 - 70.0

70.1 - 80.0

80.1 - 90.0

90.1 - 100.0
Note: Data presented in this figure collected
from 2010 through 2015
Data not considered in propagation
Inland Receiving Waters
Score
^_ Limit of Propagation
(Transition to Predominantly Non-MS4)
Watershed Boundaries
MS4 Catchments
* TDS: Total Dissolved Solids
Average of Dry and Wet Weather TDS* CCME
Index, Dry and Wet Weather CCME Pesticide
Index, and Dry and Wet Weather Toxicity (as
Percent Non-Toxic)
Water Quality Related to Biology
Publication Date: June 2018
806
806 of 830
.
.
.
.
. . . .
.
.
.
.
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .

San Juan Creek
San Juan Creek
Chiquita, Cañada
San Juan Creek Watershed
Aliso Creek Watershed
San Mateo Creek Watershed
Laguna Coastal Streams Watershed
San Clemente Coastal Streams Watershed
Dana Point Coastal Streams Watershed
Aliso Creek
Bell Canyon
Tijeras Canyon
Oso Creek
Gabino Canyon
Salt Creek
Lucas Canyon
San Juan Creek Gobernadora, Cañada Cold Spring Canyon
Wood Canyon
Long Canyon
Lion Canyon
Trabuco, Arroyo
Dove Canyon
Verdugo Canyon
Crow Canyon
Blind Canyon
Emerald Canyon
Live Oak Canyon
Horno Creek
Rose Canyon Cristianitos Creek
Hickey Canyon
Falls Canyon
Sulphur Creek
Aliso Canyon
Moro Canyon
Holy Jim Canyon
Talega Canyon
English Canyon
Fox Canyon
Trampas Canyon
Rim Rock Canyon
Laguna Canyon
Hobo Canyon
San Juan Canyon
Oso Creek Oso Creek
Aliso Creek
Segunda Deshecha Cañada
Boat Canyon
Paz Canyon, La
Hot Spring Canyon
Prima Deshecha Canada
Aliso Creek
Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community ± 024 1
Miles
Figure A-11 Trash Abundance
Trash Abundance at Outfalls
. Not Available
Inland Receiving Waters
Watershed Boundaries
MS4 Catchments
Not Present
Sparse
Abundant
Data represented is from discrete round
of inspections, does not represent
long-term trends Publication Date: June 2018
807
807 of 830
San Juan Creek
San Juan Creek
Chiquita, Cañada
San Juan Creek Watershed
Aliso Creek Watershed
San Mateo Creek Watershed
Laguna Coastal Streams Watershed
San Clemente Coastal Streams Watershed
Dana Point Coastal Streams Watershed
Aliso Creek
Bell Canyon
Tijeras Canyon
Oso Creek
Gabino Canyon
Salt Creek
Lucas Canyon
San Juan Creek Gobernadora, Cañada Cold Spring Canyon
Wood Canyon
Long Canyon
Lion Canyon
Trabuco, Arroyo
Dove Canyon
Verdugo Canyon
Crow Canyon
Blind Canyon
Emerald Canyon
Live Oak Canyon
Horno Creek
Rose Canyon Cristianitos Creek
Hickey Canyon
Falls Canyon
Sulphur Creek
Aliso Canyon
Moro Canyon
Holy Jim Canyon
Talega Canyon
English Canyon
Fox Canyon
Trampas Canyon
Rim Rock Canyon
Laguna Canyon
Hobo Canyon
San Juan Canyon
Oso Creek Oso Creek
Aliso Creek
Segunda Deshecha Cañada
Boat Canyon
Paz Canyon, La
Hot Spring Canyon
Prima Deshecha Canada
Aliso Creek
Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community ± 024 1
Miles
Figure A-12 Invasive Plant Species
Watershed Boundaries
MS4 Catchments
Inland Receiving Waters
Invasive Species
Publication Date: June 2018
808
808 of 830
San Juan Creek
San Juan Creek
Maritime Limits
Chiquita, Cañada
San Juan Creek Watershed
Aliso Creek Watershed San Mateo Creek Watershed
Laguna Coastal
Streams Watershed
San Clemente Coastal
Streams Watershed
Dana Point Coastal
Streams Watershed
Aliso Creek
Bell Canyon
Tijeras Canyon
Oso Creek
Gabino Canyon
Salt Creek
Lucas Canyon
San Juan Creek Gobernadora, Cañada Cold Spring Canyon
Wood Canyon
Long Canyon
Lion Canyon
Trabuco, Arroyo
Dove Canyon
Verdugo Canyon
Crow Canyon
Blind Canyon
Emerald Canyon
Live Oak Canyon
Horno Creek
Rose Canyon Cristianitos Creek
Hickey Canyon
Falls Canyon
Sulphur Creek
Aliso Canyon
Moro Canyon
Holy Jim Canyon
Talega Canyon
English Canyon
Fox Canyon
Trampas Canyon
Rim Rock Canyon
Laguna Canyon
Hobo Canyon
San Juan Canyon
Oso Creek Oso Creek
Aliso Creek
Segunda Deshecha Cañada
Boat Canyon
Paz Canyon, La
Hot Spring Canyon
Prima Deshecha Canada
Aliso Creek
Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community ± 024 1
Miles
Figure A-13 Sensitive Resources
Watershed Boundaries
MS4 Catchments
Areas of Special Biological
Significance
Maritime Limits
Crystal Cove State Marine
Conservation Area
Dana Point State Marine
Conservation Area
Laguna Beach State Marine
Conservation Area
Laguna Beach State
Marine Reserve
Estuaries
Wetlands
Coastal Marsh Areas
Inland Receiving Waters
Sensitive Resources
Data Source: California Department of
Fish and Wildlife Publication Date: June 2018
809
809 of 830
"/
"/"/"/"/"/"/
"/"/"/
"/ "/ "/"/"/
"/"/"/
"/"/
"/
"/
"/
"/"/
"/
"/"/"/
"/
"/
"/"/"/"/"/"/"/
"/"/"/
"/"/"/
"/"/"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/"/
"/
"/
"/"/
"/"/
"/
"/
"/
"/"/
"/
"/
"/
"/ "/"/
"/
"/ "/"/"/"/
"/"/
"/
"/ "/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/"/ "/"/
"/"/"/
"/"/ "/"/"/"/
"/
"/
"/
"/"/
"/
"/
"/"/"/
San Juan Creek
San Juan Creek
Chiquita, Cañada
San Juan Creek Watershed
Aliso Creek Watershed
San Mateo Creek Watershed
Laguna Coastal Streams Watershed
San Clemente Coastal Streams Watershed
Dana Point Coastal Streams Watershed
Aliso Creek
Bell Canyon
Tijeras Canyon
Oso Creek
Gabino Canyon
Salt Creek
Lucas Canyon
San Juan Creek Gobernadora, Cañada Cold Spring Canyon
Wood Canyon
Long Canyon
Lion Canyon
Trabuco, Arroyo
Dove Canyon
Verdugo Canyon
Crow Canyon
Blind Canyon
Emerald Canyon
Live Oak Canyon
Horno Creek
Rose Canyon Cristianitos Creek
Hickey Canyon
Falls Canyon
Sulphur Creek
Aliso Canyon
Moro Canyon
Holy Jim Canyon
Talega Canyon
English Canyon
Fox Canyon
Trampas Canyon
Rim Rock Canyon
Laguna Canyon
Hobo Canyon
San Juan Canyon
Oso Creek Oso Creek
Aliso Creek
Segunda Deshecha Cañada
Boat Canyon
Paz Canyon, La
Hot Spring Canyon
Prima Deshecha Canada
Aliso Creek
Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community ± 0 1 2 4
Miles
Figure A-14 Other Sources
Watershed Boundaries
MS4 Catchments
Inland Receiving Waters
NPDES Permit Type*
Construction
Industrial
Wastewater
*Note: Data is collected from SMARTS
in February 2016
"J Caltrans Outfalls
Landfills
Publication Date: June 2018
810
810 of 830
%,
%,
%,
%,
%, %,%,%,
%,
%,%,%,%,%,%,
%,
%,
%,%,%,
%,%,
%,
%,
%,
%,
%,
%,%, %,%,%,%,
%,%,
%,
%,
XW
XW XW
XW XW
XWXW
XWXW
XW
XW

XWXWXWXWXWXW

XWXWXWXWXWXWXW
XW
XW
XWXW
XW XW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW XW
#*
#*
#*
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW XW
XW
XW
XWXWXW
XW
#*
XW
XW XW
XW
$+
#*
XW
XW

XW XWXW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW XW
San Juan Creek
San Juan Creek
Chiquita, Cañada
San Juan Creek Watershed
Aliso Creek Watershed
San Mateo Creek Watershed
Laguna Coastal Streams Watershed
San Clemente Coastal Streams Watershed
Dana Point Coastal Streams Watershed
Aliso Creek
Bell Canyon
Tijeras Canyon
Oso Creek
Gabino Canyon
Salt Creek
Lucas Canyon
San Juan Creek Gobernadora, Cañada Cold Spring Canyon
Wood Canyon
Long Canyon
Lion Canyon
Trabuco, Arroyo
Dove Canyon
Verdugo Canyon
Crow Canyon
Blind Canyon
Emerald Canyon
Live Oak Canyon
Horno Creek
Rose Canyon Cristianitos Creek
Hickey Canyon
Falls Canyon
Sulphur Creek
Aliso Canyon
Moro Canyon
Holy Jim Canyon
Talega Canyon
English Canyon
Fox Canyon
Trampas Canyon
Rim Rock Canyon
Laguna Canyon
Hobo Canyon
San Juan Canyon
Oso Creek Oso Creek
Aliso Creek
Segunda Deshecha Cañada
Boat Canyon
Paz Canyon, La
Hot Spring Canyon
Prima Deshecha Canada
Aliso Creek
Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community ± 024 1
Miles
Figure A-15 Structural Stormwater Control Measures Watershed Boundaries MS4 Catchments
Inland Receiving Waters
Note: All public inlets in Dana Point
have catch basin retrofits

BMP TYPE
Catchbasin Retrofit
Channel Restoration
XW Landscape Retrofit
#* Treatment System
$+ Water Conservation
Existing Regional Basins
%, Diversions
Publication Date: June 2018
811
811 of 830
Û
Û
Û
Û
Û
Û
Û
Û
Û
Û
Û
Û
San Juan Creek
Salt Creek State Beach San Juan Creek
Doheny State Beach
Brooks Street
T Street Beach
San Clemente State Beach
Strands Beach
Riviera Beach
Linda Lane
Thalia Street
Rockpile
Aliso Creek
Cotton's Point
Chiquita, Cañada
San Juan Creek Watershed
Aliso Creek Watershed
San Mateo Creek Watershed
Laguna Coastal
Streams Watershed
San Clemente Coastal Streams Watershed
Dana Point Coastal Streams Watershed
Aliso Creek
Bell Canyon
Tijeras Canyon
Oso Creek
Gabino Canyon
Salt Creek
Lucas Canyon
San Juan Creek Gobernadora, Cañada Cold Spring Canyon
Wood Canyon
Long Canyon
Lion Canyon
Trabuco, Arroyo
Dove Canyon
Verdugo Canyon
Crow Canyon
Blind Canyon
Emerald Canyon
Live Oak Canyon
Horno Creek
Rose Canyon Cristianitos Creek
Hickey Canyon
Falls Canyon
Sulphur Creek
Aliso Canyon
Moro Canyon
Holy Jim Canyon
Talega Canyon
English Canyon
Fox Canyon
Trampas Canyon
Rim Rock Canyon
Laguna Canyon
Hobo Canyon
San Juan Canyon
Oso Creek Oso Creek
Aliso Creek
Segunda Deshecha Cañada
Boat Canyon
Paz Canyon, La
Hot Spring Canyon
Prima Deshecha Canada
Aliso Creek
Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community ± 024 1
Miles
Figure A-16 High Value Areas
Watershed Boundaries
Inland Receiving Waters
Û Surf Spots
County Parks
Protected Open Space Areas
Publication Date: June 2018
812
812 of 830
/
")
")
")
")
")
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
/ /
")
")
")
/
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
/
/
0#*
0 000000
0 00
0 00
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 #*0
00 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 00
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
00 0
0 0
00 0
0 0
0 0
00 0
0 0
0#*
00 0
0 0
!(
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..!(!(
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
!(
..
.
.
.
.
..
!(
!(
.
!(
.
.
!(
.
. .
!(
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_ ^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
San Juan Creek
San Juan Creek
Chiquita, Cañada
San Juan Creek Watershed
Aliso Creek Watershed
San Mateo Creek Watershed
Laguna Coastal Streams Watershed
San Clemente Coastal Streams Watershed
Dana Point Coastal Streams Watershed
Aliso Creek
Bell Canyon
Tijeras Canyon
Oso Creek
Gabino Canyon
Salt Creek
Lucas Canyon
San Juan Creek Gobernadora, Cañada Cold Spring Canyon
Wood Canyon
Long Canyon
Lion Canyon
Trabuco, Arroyo
Dove Canyon
Verdugo Canyon
Crow Canyon
Blind Canyon
Emerald Canyon
Live Oak Canyon
Horno Creek
Rose Canyon Cristianitos Creek
Hickey Canyon
Falls Canyon
Sulphur Creek
Aliso Canyon
Moro Canyon
Holy Jim Canyon
Talega Canyon
English Canyon
Fox Canyon
Trampas Canyon
Rim Rock Canyon
Laguna Canyon
Hobo Canyon
San Juan Canyon
Oso Creek Oso Creek
Aliso Creek
Segunda Deshecha Cañada
Boat Canyon
Paz Canyon, La
Hot Spring Canyon
Prima Deshecha Canada
Aliso Creek
Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community ± 024 1
Miles
Figure A-17 Dry Weather Metal CCME Index
Note: Data presented in this figure collected from
2010 through 2015
^_ Limit of Propagation
(Transition to Predominantly Non-MS4)
ChannelCoastal
Outfall
Inland Receiving Waters
Score
. 0
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
/
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
Data not considered
in propagation

0.1 - 10.0

10.1 - 20.0

20.1 - 30.0

30.1 - 40.0

40.1 - 50.0

50.1 - 60.0

60.1 - 70.0

70.1 - 80.0

80.1 - 90.0

90.1 - 100.0
Watershed Boundaries
Dry Weather Metal
CCME Index
MS4 Catchments
Publication Date: June 2018
813
813 of 830
")
/
/
/
/
/
")
")
")/
/
")
/
")
")
")
/
/
")
")
")
")
")
")
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
") ")
/
/
/
")
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
")
")
0#*
0 000000
0 00
0 00
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0#*
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 00
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
00 0
0 0
00 0
0 0
0 0
00 0
0 0
0#*
0#*
0 0
0 !(
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
!(
..
.
.
.
.
..
!(
.
.
.
.
.
!(
.
. !(
!(
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
^_
^_
^_
^_ ^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
San Juan Creek
San Juan Creek
Chiquita, Cañada
San Juan Creek Watershed
Aliso Creek Watershed
San Mateo Creek Watershed
Laguna Coastal Streams Watershed
San Clemente Coastal Streams Watershed
Dana Point Coastal Streams Watershed
Aliso Creek
Bell Canyon
Tijeras Canyon
Oso Creek
Gabino Canyon
Salt Creek
Lucas Canyon
San Juan Creek Gobernadora, Cañada Cold Spring Canyon
Wood Canyon
Long Canyon
Lion Canyon
Trabuco, Arroyo
Dove Canyon
Verdugo Canyon
Crow Canyon
Blind Canyon
Emerald Canyon
Live Oak Canyon
Horno Creek
Rose Canyon Cristianitos Creek
Hickey Canyon
Falls Canyon
Sulphur Creek
Aliso Canyon
Moro Canyon
Holy Jim Canyon
Talega Canyon
English Canyon
Fox Canyon
Trampas Canyon
Rim Rock Canyon
Laguna Canyon
Hobo Canyon
San Juan Canyon
Oso Creek Oso Creek
Aliso Creek
Segunda Deshecha Cañada
Boat Canyon
Paz Canyon, La
Hot Spring Canyon
Prima Deshecha Canada
Aliso Creek
Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community ± 024 1
Miles
Figure A-18 Wet Weather Metal CCME Index
Note: Data presented in this figure collected from
2010 through 2015
^_ Limit of Propagation
(Transition to Predominantly Non-MS4)
ChannelCoastal
Outfall
Inland Receiving Waters
Score
. 0
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
/
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
Data not considered
in propagation

0.1 - 10.0

10.1 - 20.0

20.1 - 30.0

30.1 - 40.0

40.1 - 50.0

50.1 - 60.0

60.1 - 70.0

70.1 - 80.0

80.1 - 90.0

90.1 - 100.0
Watershed Boundaries
Wet Weather Metal
CCME Index
MS4 Catchments
Publication Date: June 2018
814
814 of 830
  






!
"
!#
!$%!#&

'&

'(!"

)
815
815 of 830
 






 


 !"

#$
!%
%$
!
&&

%'
$()&&&&***&&
+% 
, 
!% -%
./0123456174389524: ;$
$!

 <$%
$$$=$$!" <


>$
<

$<="
$!$=$?
)


$ &@A;$
$!
$<-



!$


B$
<
=$=$?

"<

<

%$$=

< 
$



"


C


$"

B$
<$
$
-
$ $$%
$B$

$&@A=

D
)

D



EF&&,
!



>$
<
$

 E,

$"

F)
$&& GHIJKIJHHLMNOPIQLRNSIOTQLRPJNOLTUIHLMNLJVVIJRWXJUKMOHHUIJYJOHJUHINLTJYOZJNINLYJROL[KNLVO\KW 816
816 of 830
 






 


 !"

#$
!%
%$
!
&&

%'
$()&&&&***&&

+,,-.,/0.1,23456789:;47575;24<=:>34<57;?=@:;3@:5@4<83;:453@678:8A24B:C=?8=7<3<75CDEFC3:<3 B4<4;7?8A?8835;G?86:A3H:;38I?:C4;D+<<3<<935;=:>3678;2397<;?=J;7J@:;3456789:;475E,2:5KD7?E LMNM/5;3>8:;3@O3=78;PQC3:5H:;38+A;G3A;475RMRP@ST4<;URMVPWSO3=78;SXG;:;3Y4@3 Z[\[]^_`abc_`db`efb_gchhcii`ii`djc_`bi kllmnlolpqnrs itluolpqnr kllmnlbvwxlqyz{ly|}s itlubvwxlqyz{ly|} ~y€vz kllmnluynv|l}rs‚ƒ„ †‡ˆ‰Š

‹Œxznv|zxnrs bvvnzxn itluyzzyvv}uynv| lqzrxmyx|v}Ž[Ž}‘’ zxnv}‘uynv| itluuynv|l}xvrlzzpnyqns elzzpnyqnoynvwl|rs Š

elzzpnyqns Š

bvvn“xznv|
_txjvxqy|uyz”ntvpv|nt|lpwtntv]qnvw|ynv}bvl|nyq}xnwvlynxyzxq“l|mynxlqrnvmŽa]i‘my• avlw|ytxoyz]q“l|mynxlqirnvmŽa]i‘Œxzv –}ynv\Z—Z—\\s_tvxq“l|mynxlq|vvqnv}lqntxmy|v“zvonntv“xqyz–i`ec’y|l˜v}Z[\[[Ž}‘zxn•]“rlpty˜vyqr™pvnxlq |vwy|}xqwntv]qnvw|ynv}bvl|n}ynyyq}xq“l|mynxlqšzvyvvmyxzhl|xjvv|l|oyzz›\œ’\’žŸœ•Œl|yqra]i’|vzynv}™pvnxlqšzvyv vmyxz^x|myziyq}ty|l|oyzzŽ›\œ‘\’žžŸ\• Z[\[]qnvw|ynv}bvl|n ~y [Ž}‘hxn bv“v|vqov dynydluqzly} d|y“nbvl|n  lqnyon– czz czz czzczz
tyqwvyvmy
\[[m [[“n inynvjynv|bvlp|ov lqn|lz¡
¢
£

¤¥¥¦§¥
F:A464A0A3:5G2783C453¨G:5QC3935;3©+¨ :;G:5QC3935;3Q4;Dª3:A2:;,8:6:C>:8 Q:5D757?;C3; H:;38W7@D;D=31Q7:<;:C«ª:DG2783C453 +<<3<<3@:83:1MEMR94C3< /5;3>8:;3@O3=78;A:;3>78D1L ¬­­®­­®¯°±²®³´µ¯¶·¸²¹®º±¸»·®¼µ½®¼·µ¸¾ eyox“xofovyqitl|vzxqvšiyq  zvmvqnv€cšyniyq zvmvqnv xnr {vyotyn_|y“yzwy| yqrlqlpnzvn ¿À

Á†ÂÆÂÄćÄÄÅ‡Ã†Ä  zlv F7CC?;:5;< T4<;45>Æ3A4<475 O3=78;T45K F7;35;4:CG7?8A3< GA23@?C3 ǵÈÈ®¸²­ 817
817 of 830
 






 


 !"

#$
!%
%$
!
&&

%'
$()&&&&***&&

+,

& &-. $
$/,0
$"1
$1

1$!

2&


/$/$ 3
$/$
$






$!$ 3




$/$4"$%

$
$

$!



$
1/

$/$5"$%



$)!1 5
)0)0106
063
07588)09:;<=
818
818 of 830

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
ͮͲͬǤƒ‡”–Ǥ ȁ—‹–‡ͮͬͬȁ‘•–ƒ‡•ƒǡ͵ͮͲͮͲ| ȋ͵Ͱ͵ȌͲͲͬ-ͭ͵͵Ͱ | —”„ƒš”‘ƒ†•Ǥ ‘
DATE: ‘˜‡„‡”ͮͲǡͮͬͮͱ
TO: Craig Farmerǡ Related California
FROM: Robert Vuǡ rban Cro••road•ǡ
n
Ǥ
JOB NO: ͭͲ͵ͭͯ-ͬͭraƥ
emo
SUBJECT: NCC AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRAFFIC MEMORANDUM
rban Cro••road•ǡ
n
Ǥ Ša•
om’leted tŠe follo™ing raƥ
emorandum for tŠe CC ơordable
Housing ȋroŒe
tȌǡ ™Ši
Š is lo
ated at ͯͰͬ tǤ nnǯs ri˜e in tŠe City of aguna ea
ŠǤ Šis
memorandum Šas been ’re’ared to determine if ’ubli
road™ay
a’a
ity on Glenneyre treet and
tǤnnǯs ri˜e Ša˜e been
onsidered and are ade“uate to ser˜e tŠe ’ro’osed de˜elo’mentǤ

PROJECT OVERVIEW
Še roŒe
t is ’ro’osed to
onsist of ͮ͵ aơordable Šousing unitsǤ Še roŒe
t site ’lan
an be found
in Attachment AǤ

PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
ri’ generation re’resents tŠe amount of traƥ
™Ši
Š is botŠ attra
ted to and ’rodu
ed by a
de˜elo’mentǤ etermining traƥ
generation for a s’e
iƤ
’roŒe
t is tŠerefore based u’on
fore
asting tŠe amount of traƥ
tŠat is eš’e
ted to be botŠ attra
ted to and ’rodu
ed by tŠe
s’e
iƤ
land uses being ’ro’osed for a gi˜en de˜elo’mentǤ

n order to estimate tŠe generated traƥ
˜olumes of tŠe ’ro’osed roŒe
tǡ tŠe
nstitute of
rans’ortation ngineers ȋ
Ȍri’ Generation anual (ͭͮtŠ ditionǡ ͮͬͮͱȌ ™as used to estimate tri’s for tŠe siteǤ s sŠo™n in Table ͭǡ tŠe ’ro’osed roŒe
t is anti
i’ated to generate a’’rošimately ͭͰͬ
t™o-™ay tri’s ’er day (in a
tual ˜eŠi
lesȌ ™itŠ ͭͭ  ’ea Šour tri’s and ͭͰ  ’ea Šour tri’sǤ TABLE 1: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
Attachment 15
819
819 of 830
ͭͲ͵ͭͯ-ͬͭ”ƒƥ
‡‘ ơ‘”†ƒ„Ž‡
‘—•‹‰

ROADWAY CAPACITY METHODOLOGY
Še City of aguna ea
Š utiliœes daily traƥ
˜olumes to determine tŠe ade“ua
y of tŠe road™ay
net™orǤ Še
a’a
ity of tŠe road™ay is determined by tŠe number of lanes for ea Š road™ay
segmentǤ Še traƥ
˜olume is tŠen
om’ared to tŠe road™ay
a’a
ityǡ ™Ši
Š
reates a ˜eŠi
le-to-

a’a
ity ratio (V/CȌǤ Še VȀC metŠodology des
ribes tŠe o’eration of a road™ay segment using a
range of  from   (free-ƪo™
onditionsȌ to  F (se˜erely
ongested
onditionsȌǡ based on
tŠe
orres’onding VȀC ratios sŠo™n belo™:

ROADWAY CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Še  analysis is based on tŠe traƥ
˜olumes obser˜ed during tŠe ’ea Šour
onditions using
traƥ

ount data
olle
ted in
anuary ͮͬͮͮǤ rban Crossroads a’’lied gro™tŠ fore
asts
onsistent
™itŠ tŠe metŠodology ’ro˜ided in tŠe aguna ea
Š nŠan
ed obility and Com’lete treets
ransition lan (ͮͬͭͱȌ (referred to as Laguna Beach ReportȌǤ Še aguna ea Š Re’ort utiliœes a ͭά
annual gro™tŠ rate for ey road™aysǡ su
Š as Glenneyre treetǤ Še same gro™tŠ rate is a’’lied to tǤ nnǯs ri˜eǤ Šese road™ays ty’i
ally do not eš’erien
e signiƤ
ant gro™tŠ and tŠereforeǡ tŠis
analysis utiliœes a
onser˜ati˜e estimate of tŠe road™ay ˜olumesǤ Še ͮͬͮͮ
ount data is ’ro˜ided
in Attachment BǤ
Še šisting (ͮͬͮͱȌ and šisting lus roŒe
t (E+PȌ road™ay
a’a
ity results are summarized in Table
ͮǡ ™Ši
Š indi
ates tŠat all ešisting road™ay segments are
urrently o’erating at a

e’table Ǥ
itŠ tŠe addition of tŠe ’ro’osed roŒe
tǡ Glenneyre treet and tǤ nnǯs ri˜e ™ill
ontinue to
o’erate at a

e’table Ǥ
TABLE 2: ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS

CONCLUSION
Še addition of tŠe ’ro’ose roŒe
t daily and ’ea Šour tri’s to tŠe City of aguna ea
Š road™ays
and interse
tions are less-tŠan-signiƤ
ant and ™ould not re“uire additional im’ro˜ements to tŠe road™ays or interse
tionsǤ Še t™o road™aysǡ Glenneyre treet and tǤ nnǯs ri˜eǡ urrently
o’erate at   and ™ill
ontinue to o’erate at   ™itŠ tŠe addition of tŠe ’ro’osed roŒe tǤ
820
820 of 830
ͭͲ͵ͭͯ-ͬͭ”ƒƥ
‡‘ ơ‘”†ƒ„Ž‡
‘—•‹‰
Še ’ubli
road™ay
a’a
ity on Glenneyre treet and tǤ nnǯs ri˜e Ša˜e been
onsidered and are
ade“uate to ser˜e tŠe ’ro’osed de˜elo’mentǤ

f you Ša˜e any “uestionsǡ ’lease
onta
t me dire
tly at r˜u̻urbanšroadsǤ
omǤ
EXP: 03/31/27
821
821 of 830
ͭͲ͵ͭͯ-ͬͭ”ƒƥ
‡‘ ơ‘”†ƒ„Ž‡
‘—•‹‰

ATTACHMENT A

PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
822
822 of 830
ͭͲ͵ͭͯ-ͬͭ”ƒƥ
‡‘   ơ‘”†ƒ„Ž‡
‘—•‹‰
823
823 of 830
ͭͲ͵ͭͯ-ͬͭ”ƒƥ
‡‘ ơ‘”†ƒ„Ž‡
‘—•‹‰

ATTACHMENT B

TRAFFIC COUNT DATA
824
824 of 830

City of Laguna Beach
N/S: St. Ann's Drive
E/W: Glenneyre Street
24 Hour Entering Volume Count
LBH007EW
Site Code: 227-22045
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
Phone: (951) 268-6268
email: [email protected]
Start 19-Jan-22 Eastbound Hour Totals Westbound Hour Totals Combined Totals Time Wed Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon 12:00 11 89 2 95
12:15 2 91 0 72
12:30 3 69 2 83
12:45 0 75 16 324 5 99 9 349 25 673
01:00 1 79 1 77
01:15 0 95 2 81
01:30 0 85 1 69
01:45 2 104 3 363 0 91 4 318 7 681
02:00 1 91 0 82
02:15 2 70 1 74
02:30 0 107 0 62
02:45 0 89 3 357 0 99 1 317 4 674
03:00 0 97 0 100
03:15 0 118 0 105
03:30 0 118 0 96
03:45 0 81 0 414 0 91 0 392 0 806
04:00 0 103 1 82
04:15 0 82 0 68
04:30 0 85 0 95
04:45 0 101 0 371 2 87 3 332 3 703
05:00 1 101 1 76
05:15 3 94 6 86
05:30 5 101 6 69
05:45 5 109 14 405 9 72 22 303 36 708
06:00 7 96 12 53
06:15 11 67 7 44
06:30 18 62 18 41
06:45 24 48 60 273 26 42 63 180 123 453
07:00 44 67 42 39
07:15 60 55 68 30
07:30 63 32 60 21
07:45 64 32 231 186 74 26 244 116 475 302
08:00 66 43 77 28
08:15 81 33 129 14
08:30 87 45 86 16
08:45 84 30 318 151 88 23 380 81 698 232
09:00 99 24 83 14
09:15 54 14 75 12
09:30 70 17 78 12
09:45 64 7 287 62 76 14 312 52 599 114
10:00 87 23 73 13
10:15 74 11 76 10
10:30 75 7 74 13
10:45 71 13 307 54 83 11 306 47 613 101
11:00 85 2 57 11
11:15 68 5 66 5
11:30 65 6 75 3
11:45 81 4 299 17 100 2 298 21 597 38
Total 1538 2977 1538 2977 1642 2508 1642 2508 3180 5485 Combined
Total 4515 4515 4150 4150 8665
AM Peak - 08:15 - - - 08:15 - - - - -
Vol. - 351 - - - 386 - - - - -
P.H.F. 0.886 0.748
PM Peak - - 02:45 - - - 02:45 - - - -
Vol. - - 422 - - - 400 - - - -
P.H.F. 0.894 0.952
Percentag
e 34.1% 65.9% 39.6% 60.4%
ADT/AADT ADT 8,665 AADT 8,665
825
825 of 830

City of Laguna Beach
N/S: St. Ann's Drive
E/W: Glenneyre Street
24 Hour Entering Volume Count
LBH007NS
Site Code: 227-22045
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
Phone: (951) 268-6268
email: [email protected]
Start 19-Jan-22 Northbound Hour Totals Southbound Hour Totals Combined Totals Time Wed Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon 12:00 1 7 10
12:15 0 4 00
12:30 0 11 00
12:45 0 6 1 28 01 11 2 29
01:00 0 9 02
01:15 0 7 01
01:30 0 3 01
01:45 0 3 0 22 00 04 0 26
02:00 0 7 02
02:15 0 4 01
02:30 0 6 01
02:45 0 11 0 28 00 04 0 32
03:00 0 5 0 2
03:15 0 2 0 2
03:30 0 7 0 1
03:45 0 9 0 23 0 4 09 0 32
04:00 0 5 01
04:15 0 4 00
04:30 1 6 00
04:45 0 3 1 18 01 02 1 20
05:00 1 7 05
05:15 1 4 00
05:30 2 6 02
05:45 0 1 4 18 02 09 4 27
06:00 0 4 02
06:15 0 7 00
06:30 1 9 00
06:45 0 10 1 30 00 02 1 32
07:00 4 9 00
07:15 0 5 00
07:30 5 1 0 0
07:45 3 1 12 16 3 0 30 15 16
08:00 6 6 4 0
08:15 1 0 1 1
08:30 4 3 03
08:45 4 3 15 12 25 79 22 21
09:00 4 2 20
09:15 5 3 10
09:30 6 0 00
09:45 11 1 26 6 02 32 29 8
10:00 6 1 11
10:15 4 0 21
10:30 5 0 30
10:45 8 0 23 1 10 72 30 3
11:00 3 0 10
11:15 11 1 20
11:30 10 0 00
11:45 11 0 35 1 30 60 41 1
Total 118 203 118 203 27 44 27 44 145 247
Combined
Total 321 321 71 71 392
AM Peak - 11:00 - - - 07:30 - - - - -
Vol. - 35 - - - 8 - - - - -
P.H.F. 0.795 0.500
PM Peak - - 06:15 - - - 03:00 - - - -
Vol. - - 35 - - - 9 - - - -
P.H.F. 0.795 0.563
Percentag
e 36.8% 63.2% 38.0% 62.0%
ADT/AADT ADT 392 AADT 392
826
826 of 830
827 of 830
June 1, 2026
VIA Electronic Mail
City of Laguna Beach
Planning Commission
c/o Planning Manager
c/o City Clerk’s Office
505 Forest Avenue
Laguna Beach, CA. 92651
[email protected]
[email protected]
Re: Item #5.2 of June 3, 2026, Planning Commission Meeting Dear Planning Commission:

Public Law Center is a nonprofit organization providing free legal services to low-income individuals and families across Orange County, including housing law services. Our clients often constitute the individuals and families who reside in or qualify for lower-income housing. We write to encourage approval of Item 5.2 resolutions related to the affordable housing development at 340 St. Ann’s Drive (the “Project”).

Affordable Housing on Faith and Higher Education Lands Act of 2023 The Affordable Housing on Faith and Higher Education Lands Act of 2023 (the “Act”) (Gov’t Code section 65913.16) provides that certain affordable housing developments that meet the criteria of the Act are by-right uses and do not require discretionary local government review.

We believe that pursuant to City Staff’s determinations and the information contained in the Project’s application, the Project meets the requirements of the Act and therefore is a use by right and accordingly should be approved by the Planning Commission. Furthermore, since the Project qualifies as a by-right use under the Act, the Project is also entitled to the density bonus, concessions, and waivers it is seeking. See Government Code sections 65913.16(j) and 65915.

As correctly identified in the Staff Report, the Planning Commission’s review of the Project is ministerial and part of the streamlining process afforded to projects that qualify for by-right use under the Act. Accordingly, the Planning Commission should approve the Item 5.2 resolutions. 828 of 830
601 Civic Center Drive West ∙ Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 ∙ (714) 541-1010 ∙ Fax (714) 541-5157 Housing Element Requirements
The City identifies 340 St. Ann’s Drive as “Site No. 1” in its 2021-2029 Housing Element “New Sites for RHNA” list. The Housing Element contemplates the development of affordable housing units at 340 St. Ann’s Drive to help satisfy the City’s lower-income RHNA. At over halfway through the current planning cycle, the City reported in its most recent Annual Progress Report that it has exceeded its above-moderate RHNA by over 300 units, but has issued zero permits for affordable housing in the over four and a half years of the planning cycle that have already passed. Approving the project would be an excellent first step toward the City satisfying its lower-income RHNA.

Additionally, Program 5.2-7 of the City’s Housing Element requires that the City “[f]acilitate development of affordable housing on religious use properties identified in sites inventory to achieve the City’s overall goal of 192 affordable units across the very-low to moderate income categories.” As identified in the Staff Report and the Project’s application, the Project also aligns with many of the City’s other Housing Element programs and goals. In fact, any decision other than approval would be inconsistent with the City’s Housing Element and a failure to implement the Housing Element. For these reasons, the City should approve the Item 5.2 resolutions.

Other California Laws
In addition to the Act and State Housing Element laws, the City should approve the project in compliance with other State housing and land use laws, including, but not limited to, the City’s legal obligation to affirmatively further fair housing (Government Code section 8899.50) and the City’s obligation to not discriminate against affordable housing (Government Code section 65008).

Local Need for Affordable Housing
As previously mentioned, the City has not permitted any affordable housing units during the current planning cycle. Indeed, we are informed that there have not been any new affordable units developed in Laguna Beach in over two decades. This is despite the existence of significant need for affordable housing. In the most recent Point In Time Count, the County of Orange identified 86 individuals who are unhoused in the City. Additionally, in the City’s Housing Element, the City recognized that 28.6% of the City’s households are lower-income households and that approximately 2,995 of those households are considered cost burden with about 1,650 households paying half (or more) of their income toward housing costs. The residents of Laguna Beach are in need of the kind of affordable housing the Project will provide, to say nothing of any low-income families and individuals who commute long distances into the City for work because they cannot find affordable housing near their employment. While California law requires that the Planning Commission approve the Project, the City should simply do so on behalf of the many individuals and families in the Laguna Beach community in need of this affordable housing.
829 of 830
601 Civic Center Drive West ∙ Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 ∙ (714) 541-1010 ∙ Fax (714) 541-5157 Conclusion
Since the related staff report establishes that the Project meets the requirements of the Act for byright use and establishes that all other necessary findings can be made for approval in accordance with state and local laws, the Planning Commission should approve the Item 5.2 resolutions. Any denial would be inconsistent with the City’s Housing Element, a failure to implement the Housing Element, and a violation of State housing and land use laws. We encourage the Planning Commission to approve the Item 5.2 resolutions as a start to satisfying its lower-income RHNA and to provide the much-needed affordable housing for the Laguna Beach community.

Sincerely,
Richard Walker
Directing Attorney
Housing and Homelessness Prevention
Public Law Center
601 Civic Center Drive West
Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002
(714) 541-1010 ext. 292
[email protected]
830 of 830

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date:

July 7, 2026
APPEAL
A
SUBJECT: 855 LA VISTA DRIVE: PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 2026-0278 AND COASTAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2026-0279 FOR A NEW DETACHED ACCESSORY

DWELLING UNIT, ELEVATED DECK, RETAINING WALLS EXCEEDING FIVE FEET IN EXPOSED HEIGHT, AND GRADING, AND VARIANCE 2026-0280 TO

ENCROACH INTO A SIGNIFICANTLY MODIFIED WATERCOURSE SETBACK

AREA, AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15303 (CLASS 3) AND 15305 (CLASS 5)
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:

1. Conduct a Public Hearing, receive a staff report, and take public testimony and evidence relating to the consideration of Design Review 2026-0278, Coastal Development Permit 2026-0279, and Variance 2026-0280, and the California Environmental Quality Act exemption under Sections 15303 and 15305 of the State CEQA Guidelines; and

2. Adopt the Resolution titled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL AND SUSTAINING THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD'S APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 2026-0278, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2026-0279, AND VARIANCE 2026-0280 FOR CONSTRUCTION

OF A DETACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT WITH ATTACHED STORAGE, AN

ELEVATED DECK, GRADING, AND RETAINING WALLS EXCEEDING FIVE FEET IN

EXPOSED HEIGHT WITHIN A WATERCOURSE SETBACK, SUBJECT TO IMPOSING MORE RESTRICTIVE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, AT 855 LA VISTA DRIVE IN THE R1, RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY ZONE, AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15303 AND 15305", upholding the Design Review Board's approval of Design Review 2026-0278, Coastal Development Permit 2026-0279, and Variance 2026-0280, imposing more restrictive conditions of approval, and finding the project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.

SUMMARY OF THE MATTER
The property owner, Gregg Abel1 ("Applicant"), of 855 La Vista Drive (the "Property") (see aerial map included as Figure 1) applied for Design Review ("DR") 2026-0278, Coastal Development Permit ("CDP") 2026-0279, and Variance ("VAR") 2026-0280 for the construction of a new detached Accessory Dwelling Unit ("ADU") and associated site improvements on a developed residential property in the R-1 (Residential Low Density) Zone. The proposed development includes a 927-square-foot ADU2 with an elevated deck, 1 The Project’s designer is Warren Hutcherson, who is within the definition of Applicant. 2 The March 26, 2026 Design Review Board staff report cited the ADU floor area as 972 square feet, which was a typographical error. The correct floor area, per the approved plans, is 927 square feet. Where this report references the DRB's findings or the 1 of 267
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0278, CDP 2026-0279, AND VAR 2026-0280 AT 855 LA

VISTA DRIVE
July 7, 2026

attached storage area totaling an additional 927 square feet, retaining walls, grading, perimeter stairs, and an air conditioning unit. A variance was requested to allow limited encroachments into the 25-foot watercourse setback associated with a mapped drainage feature that has been substantially modified and is currently conveyed through a City-installed subterranean storm drain system (the “Project”). DR is required for the elevated decks pursuant to Laguna Beach Municipal Code (“LBMC”) Section

25.05.040(B)(3)(a)(ii), retaining walls in excess of five feet in exposed height pursuant to LBMC Section

25.050.040(B)(1)(c), and grading in excess of 20 cubic yards (“CY”) outside the building footprint pursuant to LBMC Section 25.050.040(B)(1)(m). A CDP is required for the development of a detached ADU and elevated deck in accordance with LBMC Section 25.07.004.5 On March 26, 2026, the Design Review Board ("Board") held a duly noticed public hearing and considered the Project. After carefully considering the oral and documentary evidence from staff, the Applicant, and members of the public, the Board voted 3-0 (with two abstentions)6 to approve the Project, subject to the conditions of approval set forth in the staff report, and finding the Project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (the "Board Approval"). Separate from the Board Approval, the Board also gave direction to the Building Division and Applicant to verify that the final grades maximize the use of the drain adjacent to the ADU, and that the drain be maintained in a clear and functional manner.

The March 26, 2026 Board-Adopted Resolution No. 2026-0278, Staff Report, Plans, Public Comments, and Transcript are attached as Attachments 5 through 9, respectively.7 DRB staff report, the figure of 972 square feet is preserved for accuracy of citation. All other references in this report reflect the correct figure of 927 square feet.
6 The two abstentions were based on concerns regarding the extent of encroachment into the mapped watercourse setback, the absence of a hydrology study, and the absence of an additional, non-required off-street parking space accessed from Virginia Park Drive.
7 The March 26, 2026 Board Meeting Video is available to view on the City’s website at the following link (Refer to Agenda Item No. 5.8): https://lagunabeachcity.granicus.com/player/clip/2947?view_id=3&redirect=true 2 of 267
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0278, CDP 2026-0279, AND VAR 2026-0280 AT 855 LA

VISTA DRIVE
July 7, 2026

Figure 1 – Aerial View of Project Site (855 La Vista Dr.) Figure 2 – Proposed Site Plan
3 of 267
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0278, CDP 2026-0279, AND VAR 2026-0280 AT 855 LA

VISTA DRIVE
July 7, 2026

Figure 2 depicts the project site plan illustrating the proposed development and relevant site conditions.

The yellow shading identifies the footprint of the new 927 SF detached ADU, with the adjacent orange shading representing the new 136 SF elevated deck. Green shading denotes new retaining walls exceeding five feet in exposed height, triggering design review thresholds. The cyan/light blue shading delineates the 25-foot watercourse setback area of the significantly modified watercourse, into which the ADU and associated improvements are encroaching. Existing impervious surfaces, including the house/garage footprint and surrounding hardscape, are shown in diagonal black hatching, with the overall parcel boundary and landscaped open space represented by the light green background shading. The pink/magenta dashed line identifies the city-installed storm drain pipe traversing the property, and the red line depicts the fire access path around the perimeter of the proposed ADU structure.

On April 8, 2026, Robin Williams ("Appellant") of 690 Virginia Park Drive, filed an appeal of the Board Approval (the "Appeal") (Attachment 2) for the following reasons, as summarized by staff:

1. The Board approved the watercourse encroachment variance without the substantial evidence required by code, given unresolved hydrology and safety questions raised during the hearing itself.

2. The Board approved a CEQA categorical exemption despite a record that showed unusual circumstances, including a recent landslide on the property, unresolved drainage risks, and development materially within the mapped watercourse setback.

3. The Board approved the project based on later fixes and informal assurances rather than present evidence and enforceable conditions, improperly deferring critical issues including drainage, grading, and construction staging.

4. The Board approved access and construction-impact findings that did not match the hearing record, given unresolved questions about construction access, parking, and staging at the Virginia Park Drive frontage.

5. The Board approved DR and CDP findings without adequately addressing the project's full downhill mass, visibility from the public right-of-way, and hazard implications.

6. The Board approved the project without the complete staking record required by code, as only the deck was staked rather than the full building envelope of the multi-level structure.

7. The Board approved the watercourse encroachment variance without all mandatory watercourse conditions in the written approval, as required by LBMC Section 25.50.030(D)(5).

Pursuant to LBMC Section 25.05.070, public notice was duly provided to consider the Appeal of the Project at the May 26, 2026 City Council meeting. Notices were mailed to owners and occupants within a 300-foot and 100-foot radius of the Property, respectively, posted on the Property, and published in a newspaper of general circulation (Attachment 3).

At the May 26, 2026 City council meeting, the City Council continued the public hearing to the June 23, 2026 City Council meeting (Attachment 4).

CITY COUNCIL APPEAL PROCEDURES
A. Standards of Review
4 of 267
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0278, CDP 2026-0279, AND VAR 2026-0280 AT 855 LA

VISTA DRIVE
July 7, 2026

Pursuant to LBMC Section 25.05.070, decisions of the Board may be appealed to the City Council by the applicant or any owner of property within 300 feet of the subject property.

The City Council may uphold, reverse, or remand any appealed decision. (LBMC § 25.05.070(E)(3)(a).) In reversing a decision, there must be three affirmative votes approving the reversal by adoption of a resolution that sets forth in writing the findings relied on to conclude that the appealed decision was in error or an abuse of discretion. (LBMC § 25.05.070(E)(3)(a).) In upholding a decision, the City Council may also choose to "modify the proposed project or conditions of project approval, by making them more restrictive or may add more restrictive conditions of approval upon the adoption of a resolution and without the need for a finding of error or an abuse of discretion." (LBMC § 25.05.070(E)(3)(b).) Further, pursuant to LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(2)(d), the City Council's review is limited to "the plans that were the subject of the decision or determination by the approval authority"; if new plans are submitted, the City Council "shall not consider or act on" them but may determine to remand those plans to the approval authority "for further proceedings pursuant to such direction as may be given by the City Council."

1. Design Review
LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(2) sets forth the procedures and review criteria for City Council review of design review decisions. Because the Board's approval of Design Review 2026-0278 was not supported by four or more affirmative votes of the approval authority, the City Council shall conduct a de novo review of the underlying application pursuant to LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(2)(b), but shall be limited to the grounds specifically stated in the notice of appeal and to the evidence, including plans, that was presented to the Board. The City Council shall exercise its independent judgment and discretion as to such evidence. Nevertheless, there shall be a presumption that the decision or determination made by the Board was reasonable, valid, and not an abuse of discretion, and the appellant shall have the burden of proof of demonstrating otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence, including plans, presented.

If the Applicant proposes new plans that result in a redesign, the City Council shall not consider such plans; however, the City Council may (but is not required to) remand such plans to the Board for further review. Notwithstanding that the City Council cannot review proposed new plans, the City Council can uphold the approval of DR 2026-0278, subject to more restrictive conditions of approval that are effectuated through the provision of new plans; 10 in such event, remand is not required.

2. Coastal Development, Variance, and CEQA
LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(1) sets forth the procedures and review criteria for non-design review appeals, such as a CDP, variance, and CEQA. For that review, the City Council shall not be limited to the grounds stated for the appeal and shall not be limited to the evidence that was presented to 10 By way of example only, the City Council could choose to uphold a DR decision but impose a condition requiring that a wall be moved in three feet (3’) in order to support a view equity finding. In such event, new plans would be required to effectuate the condition, but the plans would not need to be remanded to the Board or Planning Commission for further consideration. 5 of 267
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0278, CDP 2026-0279, AND VAR 2026-0280 AT 855 LA

VISTA DRIVE
July 7, 2026

the Board. The City Council shall exercise its independent judgment and discretion as to the evidence presented at its hearing. Nevertheless, there shall be a presumption that the decision or determination made by the Board was reasonable, valid, and not an abuse of discretion, and the appellant shall have the burden of proof of demonstrating otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence presented.

In its consideration of the Board's approval of CDP 2026-0279, VAR 2026-0280, and Class 3 and 5 categorical exemptions from CEQA, the City Council is not limited to either the evidence in the record or the deliberations of the Board. The applicant or members of the public may present new evidence for the City Council's consideration, and the City Council is free to deliberate without being limited to the Board's findings – in other words, a de novo hearing.

3. City Council Options
The City Council has numerous options in consideration of this matter, which are listed below.

1. Adopt the attached Resolution upholding the Board Approval, modified to include the mandatory watercourse encroachment conditions required by LBMC Section 25.50.030(D)(5), and a condition requiring that construction plans submitted for building and grading permits accurately reflect the current lot configuration based on the recorded lot line adjustment approvals for the subject property, and finding the approval of the Project categorically exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15303 and 15305;

2. Adopt the attached Resolution upholding the Board Approval, modified to include the mandatory watercourse encroachment conditions required by LBMC Section 25.50.030(D)(5) and a condition requiring that construction plans submitted for building and grading permits accurately reflect the current lot configuration based on the recorded lot line adjustment approvals for the subject property, and finding the approval of the Project categorically exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15303 and 15305, but further modifying the Resolution to include additional more restrictive conditions of approval;

3. Direct staff to prepare and return at a future meeting with a Resolution overturning the Board Approval, with findings in support of overturning the Board Approval and denying the Project; or

4. Direct staff to prepare and return at a future meeting with a Resolution remanding Design Review 2026-0278, Coastal Development Permit 2026-0279, and Variance 2026-0280 to the Board, with findings in support of the remand and further direction to the Board.

LEGAL LANDSCAPE
Below is an overview of the applicable state housing laws and the Coastal Act carve outs.

State ADU Law / City’s ADU Ordinance

1. Overview of the State ADU Law / City’s ADU Ordinance 6 of 267
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0278, CDP 2026-0279, AND VAR 2026-0280 AT 855 LA

VISTA DRIVE
July 7, 2026

The Applicant is proceeding under the State ADU Law, which allows ministerial accessory dwelling units under certain qualifying conditions, subject to the California Coastal Act. (See Government Code § 66329(a)[“. . . nothing in this article shall be construed to supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the [Coastal Act], except that the local government shall, pursuant to Section 66317, either approve or deny a coastal development permit application for an accessory dwelling within 60 days of receiving a completed application, and shall not be required to hold public hearings for coastal development permit applications for accessory dwelling units. The process to approve or deny a coastal development permit application under this subdivision shall happen concurrently with the process to approve or deny an application for an accessory dwelling unit under Section 66317”].) The Coastal Act12 is a comprehensive scheme to govern land use planning for the state’s entire coastal zone.

As part of its enactment, the Legislature made several findings related to the Act’s purpose: (1) the coastal zone “is a distinct and valuable natural resource of vital and enduring interest to all the people”; (2) that permanent protection of the state’s natural and scenic resources is of paramount concern; (3) that “it is necessary to protect the ecological balance of the coastal zone”; and (4) that “existing developed uses, and future developments that are carefully planned and developed consistent with the policies of [the Coastal Act], are essential to the economic and social well-being of the people of this state. . . .”13 The Coastal Act is to be “liberally construed to accomplish its purposes and objectives.”14 The Coastal Act mandates that local governments within the coastal zone develop local coastal programs (“LCPs”), comprised of a land use plan and implementing ordinances, to promote the Coastal Act’s objectives.15 Unless subject to an exemption, almost all development within the coastal zone requires a coastal development permit.16 After Coastal Commission’s certification of a local coastal program, a coastal development permit is obtained from the local government, except in the appealable jurisdiction area and retained jurisdiction area, for which the Coastal Commission maintains jurisdiction, because the Coastal Commission delegates its development review authority to the local government.17 The delegation of authority is intended to ensure that the state policies prevail over local government concerns—regardless of the involvement of the local government in the Coastal Act’s implementation18:

Although local governments have the authority to issue coastal development permits, that authority is delegated by the Commission. The Commission has the ultimate authority to ensure that coastal development conforms to the policies embodied in the state's Coastal Act. In fact, a fundamental purpose of the Coastal Act is to ensure that state policies prevail over the concerns of local government. (See City of Chula Vista v. Superior Court (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 472, 489 [Commission exercises independent judgment in approving [local coastal program] because it is assumed statewide interests are not always well 12 Pub. Res. Code, § 30000 et seq.
13 Pub. Res. Code, § 30001, subds. (a) and (d).
14 Pub. Res. Code, § 30009.
15 Id.; see also Pub. Res. Code, §§ 30001.5; 30500–526. 16 Pub. Res. Code § 30600, subd. (a).
17 Pub. Res. Code §§ 30600(d), 30519(emphasis added), 30600.5(emphasis added). 18 City of Dana Point v. California Coastal Com. (2013) 217 Cal. App. 4th 170, 186. 7 of 267
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0278, CDP 2026-0279, AND VAR 2026-0280 AT 855 LA

VISTA DRIVE
July 7, 2026

represented at the local level].) The Commission applies state law and policies to determine whether the development permit complies with the [local coastal program].26 On January 13, 1993, the Coastal Commission certified the City’s LCP. The coastal zone in the City of Laguna Beach represents approximately 4.78 square miles of land, encompassing the entire city limits except for Sycamore Hills. Sycamore Hills consists of 522 acres at the intersection of Laguna Canyon and El Toro Roads, inland of the city.27
The City’s Land Use Plan component of its LCP centers on five principal subjects: (1) recreation and visitor-serving facilities and use; (2) parking and circulation; (3) environmentally sensitive areas; (4) shoreline access; and (5) undeveloped lands. Because the subjects are closely related to many of the issues in the City’s General Plan, the Land Use Plan is physically integrated into the City’s General Plan.28 The Land Use Plan represents a descriptive text and evaluation of coastal problems and issues.29 The Land Use Element and Open Space/Conservation Elements of the General Plan set forth the actual solutions or responses to these issues in the form of city policies.30 The LCP is further implemented through development regulations, specific plans, special studies, and permitting procedures, including, but not limited to, the Laguna Beach Municipal Code Title 25. Under Title 25, a CDP is required for all proposed development within the coastal zone except for development that is specifically exempted and excepted under Sections 25.07.008 and 25.07.010.31 New, detached ADUs require a CDP. (LBMC Section 25.07.008(A)(1)(a).)

2. Application of the City’s ADU Ordinance to this Property The City’s regulations governing the approval of ADUs and JADUs are provided in the City’s LCP, specifically Chapter 25.17 (Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units) of Title 25 (Zoning) of the Laguna Beach Municipal Code. On November 16, 2021, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1665, which identified self-contained accessory dwelling units as subject to the coastal development permit application process. On September 7, 2023 LCP5-LGB-22-0003-3 Part B (Coastal Development Permits) was certified by the Coastal Commission. The City updated Chapter 25.17 to comply with State ADU Law via LCP Amendment No. 21-8239, which was certified by the Coastal Commission on September 7, 2023.

In 2024, the California Legislature approved, and the Governor signed into law, Assembly Bill 2533 (“AB 2533”) and Senate Bill 1211 (“SB 1211”), which further amended State ADU Law and came into effect on January 1, 2025. Below is an overview of the City Council’s most recent actions relating to its requirements for ADUs and JADUs, in part, in response to AB 2533 and SB 1211:
26 City of Dana Point, supra, 217 Cal. App. 4th at 186; Charles A. Pratt Construction Co., Inc. v. California Coastal Com. (2018) 162 Cal. App. 4th 1068, 1075-76.
27 LCP Technical Appendix.
28 Id.
29 Id.
30 Id.
31 LBMC § 25.07.004.
8 of 267
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0278, CDP 2026-0279, AND VAR 2026-0280 AT 855 LA

VISTA DRIVE
July 7, 2026

• On December 10, 2024, the City Council found that there was a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare and adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 1707. • On January 14, 2025, the City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 1709 extending Urgency Ordinance No. 1707 and implementing certain modifications to Chapter 25.17 and directed staff to consider additional modifications.
• On March 11, 2025, the City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 1713, implementing additional minor modifications to Chapter 25.17.
• On March 25, 2025, the City adopted non-urgency Ordinance No. 1715 to mirror the ADU and JADU requirements reflected in Urgency Ordinance No. 1713. The City also submitted Ordinance No. 1715 to the Coastal Commission for certification.

Based on the number of pending ADU applications (approximately 24 as of December 10, 2024) within the City, the City implemented a policy that applications filed before 5:00 p.m. on December 10, 2024 are subject to the objective design standards and Coastal Act implementing standards in effect under LCP Amendment No. 21-8239 and applications filed after December 10, 2024 are subject to the objective design standards and Coastal Act implementing standards in effect under the City’s existing urgency ordinance.38 Accordingly, LCP Amendment No. 21-8239 applies to this Project.

RESPONSES TO ISSUES RAISED ON APPEAL
As noted above, the City received an Appeal of the Board's decision (Attachment 2). As indicated under Standards of Review above, in the City Council’s review of non-design review appeals, such as a CDP, variance, and the CEQA determination, the Council shall conduct a de novo review and shall not be limited to the grounds stated for the appeal or to the evidence presented to the Board. Accordingly, in its consideration of the Board’s approval of CDP 2026-0279, VAR 2026-0280 and a categorical exemption from CEQA, the Council is free to deliberate without being limited to the Board’s findings – in other words, a de novo hearing. For the consideration of DR 2026-0024, the City Council shall conduct a de novo review, but is limited to considering the evidence that was presented to the Board and may exercise its independent judgment on such evidence. Further, for DR 24-2586, the City Council is limited to the grounds specifically stated in the notice of the Appeal.

Below are the grounds for the Appeal and City staff’s response.

1. “The DRB Approved the Watercourse Encroachment Variance Without the Substantial Evidence Required by Code”
The Appellant contends that the Board approved the watercourse encroachment variance without the substantial evidence required by code, because the hearing record showed unresolved doubts about hydrology, flood risk, and the applicable setback. The Appellant points to Chair Gibbs' statements that he was "very close to saying no" and that the encroachment was "significant," Board Member Coveny's abstention based on uncertainty about the watercourse, the Applicant's representative's statement that the operative setback above a modified watercourse is five feet rather than 25 feet, and staff's reliance on a 25-year-old Public Works analysis rather than a current project-specific hydrology study. 38 On April 8, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution 25.020 ratifying this policy. 9 of 267
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0278, CDP 2026-0279, AND VAR 2026-0280 AT 855 LA

VISTA DRIVE
July 7, 2026

Staff’s Response
Variance 2026-0280, Finding Nos. 1 - 6
The Board found that all required findings could be made to grant Variance 2026-0280, as follows:

Finding No. 1: There are special circumstances applicable to the project 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.

The property is constrained by the presence of a mapped watercourse and its associated 25-foot setback. While the historic drainage feature has been substantially altered and runoff is now conveyed through a subterranean storm drain, the mapped setback continues to apply despite the absence of a functioning natural watercourse. A utility easement exists over the storm drain infrastructure, which the proposed ADU and associated site improvements do not encroach upon.

As a result, the property is subject to a limitation on developable area that is not shared by similarly zoned properties in the vicinity that are not affected by the mapped watercourse. The site’s sloping topography further limits the ability to locate improvements outside of the setback. Consequently, strict application of the zoning ordinance would unnecessarily restrict the reasonable development of the property compared to other properties under the same zoning classification.

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.

The mapped watercourse traverses along multiple adjacent properties, several of which contain existing residential development located within the watercourse setback, including structures and decks. As such, other property owners in the same vicinity and zoning district have been able to reasonably develop their properties despite the presence of the mapped watercourse constraint. For example, residential development at 1103 Skyline Drive is located within the mapped watercourse area. Accordingly, the requested variance is necessary to allow for similar residential development on the subject property, including the placement of the ADU and associated improvements, thereby preserving the applicant’s ability to enjoy a substantial property right consistent with that of other property owners under like conditions in the same zone.

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.

The proposed encroachment into the mapped watercourse setback will not be detrimental to public health, safety, convenience, or welfare, nor will it cause injury to nearby properties or improvements. The drainage feature has been previously modified and no longer functions as a 10 of 267
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0278, CDP 2026-0279, AND VAR 2026-0280 AT 855 LA

VISTA DRIVE
July 7, 2026

natural or environmentally sensitive watercourse. The project’s improvements are limited in scale, designed to maintain existing drainage patterns, and do not introduce conditions that would increase flooding, erosion, or instability on the site or adjacent parcels. All grading and construction activities will be required to comply with applicable building, drainage, and engineering standards to ensure safe development. Given these factors, the variance will not result in adverse impacts to surrounding properties in the vicinity.

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

Granting the variance allows the property to be developed in a manner consistent with surrounding residential uses while remaining fully aligned with the intent of both the LBMC and General Plan policies governing residential development, environmental protection, and public safety. The project meets all applicable zoning and land use policies, including building height, setbacks, open space, site cover, access, parking, and design elements applicable to the R-1 zone and the Village Low Density land use designation.

Finding No. 5: The proposed encroachment will act to preserve, enhance or restore the significance of the watercourse.

The City previously modified the watercourse and conveyed it through a City-installed storm drain.

A utility easement exists over the piped segment to allow for access and maintenance of the drainage infrastructure. Because the watercourse is already substantially altered and functions as part of the City’s storm drain system, the Public Works Department determined that a hydrological report is not required. he proposed improvements are designed to accommodate existing drainage patterns, with on-site surface flows directed around the ADU and associated improvements and conveyed toward the existing storm drain system. Grading and drainage features will ensure that runoff is properly collected and discharged without obstruction or diversion of flows. Based on these existing conditions, the project will not impair the function of the drainage system and maintains the existing condition of the watercourse as a conveyed facility.

Finding No. 6: The proposed encroachment is not likely to impair the functional, scenic and ecological purposes of the watercourse. Because the watercourse no longer functions as an open or natural drainage feature and instead operates as part of the City’s storm drain system, the proposed encroachment will not interfere with its functional, scenic, or ecological purposes. The proposed improvements are designed to accommodate existing drainage patterns, with on-site surface flows directed around the ADU and associated improvements and conveyed toward the existing storm drain system. Grading and drainage features will ensure that runoff is properly collected and discharged without obstruction or diversion of flows. The Public Works Department confirmed that, given the extent of prior modifications, the project will not alter stormwater conveyance or require additional hydrological analysis. Accordingly, the proposed encroachment will not impair any remaining functional, scenic, or ecological attributes associated with the mapped watercourse. 11 of 267
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0278, CDP 2026-0279, AND VAR 2026-0280 AT 855 LA

VISTA DRIVE
July 7, 2026

The record before the Board contains substantial evidence supporting each of the required variance findings, including the additional watercourse encroachment findings under LBMC Section

25.50.030(D)(4)(a) and (b) (Finding Nos. 5 and 6 above). The Appellant's argument conflates the existence of deliberative discussion at a public hearing with the absence of substantial evidence in the record. That Board members raised questions, expressed caution, and deliberated carefully is precisely what the public hearing process is designed to produce. The fact that Chair Gibbs was "close to saying no"40 before ultimately voting yes, after walking the site twice and carefully considering the evidence, reflects a thorough and conscientious exercise of discretion, not a failure of evidentiary support.

With respect to the hydrology analysis, the City's decision not to require a new project-specific hydrological study was reasonable, well-grounded in the existing record, and reflects a correct understanding of the nature of the drainage feature at issue. The storm drain pipe that traverses the subject property is a City-owned, publicly-constructed infrastructure facility constructed in 1999. This pipe is not an incidental or informal drainage feature. It is a permanent, engineered, maintained piece of City infrastructure with a known capacity, known inlet and outlet points, and a documented construction history. The pipe functions as a conveyance conduit carrying storm runoff from upper elevation neighborhoods through the subject Property and discharging into the downstream storm drain system to the southwest (Figure 3).

Figure 3 – City Storm Drain Infrastructure Traversing Subject Site 40 Attachment 9, March 26, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript, Page 15 [Gibbs]. 12 of 267
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0278, CDP 2026-0279, AND VAR 2026-0280 AT 855 LA

VISTA DRIVE
July 7, 2026

The watercourse setback applicable to the subject Property was established to protect natural drainage features from encroachment that could impede flow, cause erosion, or create flood hazard. None of those concerns apply in the same way to an engineered conveyance system utilizing below-ground pipes. The pipes have fixed capacity, fixed alignment, and fixed inlet and outlet structures. An ADU constructed with appropriate separation from the pipe infrastructure42 does not affect the pipe's hydraulic function, cannot cause erosion of a natural bank, and does not create flood exposure in the way that encroachment on a natural open channel would. As Planning Manager Rodrigues explained on the record, the installed system has performed without failure or known deficiency for approximately 25 years, and the City-owned nature of the facility provides an additional safeguard: if any issue arises with the system in the future, the City has the means and authority to remedy any issues. The Board’s reliance on this determination was reasonable and well-supported by the record.

Requiring the applicant to commission a new project-specific hydrology study analyzing a Cityengineered pipe system that the City previously studied and installed (and has full documentation for the pipe system) would serve no meaningful analytical purpose. The Public Works Department’s determination that no such study was required reflects the Department's understanding that the drainage feature in question is engineered City infrastructure, not a natural watercourse requiring hydrologic analysis for each adjacent development project.

With respect to the natural, scenic, and ecological purposes of the watercourse, the variance findings under LBMC Section 25.50.030(D)(4)(a) and (b) require that the proposed encroachment will preserve, enhance, or restore the significance of the watercourse, and that it will not impair the watercourse's functional, scenic, or ecological purposes. As documented in the staff report before the Board and confirmed by the record, the mapped watercourse no longer functions as an open or natural drainage feature. Its flows are conveyed through the City's storm drain system. Neither the administrative record before the Board, nor the Appellant in this appeal, presented any evidence or claim suggesting that native riparian vegetation exists within the mapped setback area on the subject Property, nor that the drainage feature continues to serve a scenic or ecological function in its current condition as a subterranean pipe.

While there is an existing depression consistent with the mapped watercourse location, it merely suggests that the watercourse may have once been active. Due to the development of this area with residences and public streets that have been terraced into the hillside, much of the water runoff from upstream areas is now conveyed through the local street network into receiving drain inlets, including the one found above the site on Skyline Drive, which conveys water into the storm drain buried below the subject property. Localized surface runoff that does not enter the storm drain system, including the nuisance flows and occasional mud and debris referenced by neighboring residents at the hearing, reflects the general character of developed hillside properties in this area rather than the operation of a functioning natural watercourse. Accordingly, the proposed encroachment will not impair any 42 The City requires a five-foot-wide storm drain easement over the infrastructure. The proposed building footprint avoids this easement, which is essential to ensure the Project does not adversely affect the storm drain and to preserve future access for maintenance. Verification that the easement has been recorded is provided as a condition of approval in the draft resolution. 13 of 267
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0278, CDP 2026-0279, AND VAR 2026-0280 AT 855 LA

VISTA DRIVE
July 7, 2026

remaining functional, scenic, or ecological attributes associated with the mapped watercourse, and the variance findings under LBMC Section 25.50.030(D)(4)(a) and (b) are supported by substantial evidence in the record.

With respect to the applicable setback, the Appellant highlights the Applicant's statement that the setback from a modified watercourse is five feet rather than 25 feet. The staff report and resolution both treated the 25-foot setback as operative, and the Board's approval proceeded on that basis. The variance findings address encroachment into the 25-foot setback, and the Board made those findings on the record. Any discrepancy between the Applicant's characterization of the applicable setback and staff's analysis was resolved in the more conservative direction: the Project was reviewed under, and the variance was granted pursuant to, the 25-foot setback standard.

The Board's variance findings under LBMC Section 25.05.025 and the additional watercourse encroachment findings under LBMC Section 25.50.030(D)(4)(a) and (b) are each supported by substantial evidence in the record, including the staff report, the site history established through the lot line adjustment record44, the condition of the mapped watercourse as a fully piped City facility, the Public Works determination regarding the existing system's adequacy, and the site conditions observed during Board members' independent site visits. The Appellant has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the Board's decision was unreasonable, invalid, or an abuse of discretion.

2. “The DRB Approved a CEQA Categorical Exemption Despite Unusual Circumstances and Unresolved Drainage Risk”
The Appellant contends that the CEQA categorical exemption was improper because the record showed unusual circumstances, including a recent landslide on the property, recurring mud and debris runoff to Virginia Park Drive, unresolved drainage concerns, retaining walls exceeding five feet in height, 284 cubic yards of export grading, and development materially within the mapped watercourse setback. The Appellant relies on Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1086 (“Berkeley Hillside”) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2(c) for the proposition that unusual circumstances preclude reliance on a categorical exemption.

Staff’s Response
CEQA Determination
The Board found that the Project qualified for a categorical exemption from CEQA under the Class 3 (New Construction or Construction of Small Structures) and Class 5 (Minor Alteration in Land Use Limitations) exemptions, as follows:
44 The property has been subject to lot line adjustments with the adjacent property at 700 Virginia Park Drive, resulting in the current lot configuration. On October 6, 2015, the City Council approved Lot Line Adjustment 15-1216 and Coastal Development Permit 15-1217, and on August 13, 2024, approved Lot Line Adjustment 23-2191 and Coastal Development Permit 24-0151.

The most recent adjustment was recorded on October 24, 2024, establishing the existing lot line conditions for the subject property. The 2015 lot line adjustment followed the City Council’s abandonment of an approximately 1,500-square-foot portion of Virginia Park Drive right-of-way as part of a broader effort to reconfigure three legal building sites under common ownership into two parcels. The abandoned right-of-way was subsequently merged with the adjacent property at 700 Virginia Park Drive. 14 of 267
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0278, CDP 2026-0279, AND VAR 2026-0280 AT 855 LA

VISTA DRIVE
July 7, 2026

The proposed project scope involves the construction of an accessory dwelling unit located partially within a modified (i.e., underground piped) watercourse setback. Here, the project includes the construction of a single detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) of approximately 972 square feet on a developed residential lot, which is located within an established urbanized residential neighborhood and is also already developed with an existing single-family residence. The project includes limited grading, retaining walls, and an elevated deck associated with residential development, all confined to the immediate area of the ADU and previously disturbed portions of the site. is a detached ADU which requires limited grading and retaining walls on a slope. In addition, the mapped watercourse has been substantially modified and is conveyed through an existing storm drain system. The proposed improvements will not alter drainage patterns or interfere with the function of this infrastructure. There is no evidence of any unusual or special conditions that would result in a significant effect on the environment Further, none of the exceptions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply. The project site does not contain any environmentally sensitive areas. The mapped watercourse has been significantly modified and incorporated as part of the City’s drainage system. The utility easement further protects the subterranean drainage course and infrastructure. There will be no cumulative impacts because the ADU and related improvements are located on an area of the property that has not undergone successive development. There are no unusual circumstances resulting in a significant impact on the environment because the project is an allowed use in the R-1 zone, has been designed to meet zone standards, and the findings can be made to the support the variance request. There will be no damage to scenic resources, including trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway because it is not located within 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.

The project will not result in significant adverse impacts to historical resources as defined by CEQA because the project site is not a historic property. Consequently, additional environmental analysis is not necessary to meet the requirements of the CEQA.

The project qualifies for categorical exemptions under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) and 15305 (Minor Alteration in Land Use Limitations), and none of the exceptions under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply. The Appellant's invocation of the unusual circumstances exception does not withstand scrutiny on this record.

Under Berkeley Hillside, the unusual circumstances exception requires both that unusual circumstances exist and that there is a reasonable possibility those circumstances will produce a significant environmental effect. The Appellant has not demonstrated either prong with respect to this Project.

The landslide referenced at the hearing was caused by conditions originating on an upslope neighboring property, not on the subject Property itself. The Applicant explained on the record that a landslide occurring approximately two years prior originated at an adjacent uphill property and sent mud and debris downslope onto the subject property and Virginia Park Drive. The Applicant worked with the neighboring property owner to address and remediate that event. A mudslide originating on a different 15 of 267
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0278, CDP 2026-0279, AND VAR 2026-0280 AT 855 LA

VISTA DRIVE
July 7, 2026

property and attributable to different site conditions does not constitute an unusual circumstance of the subject property for purposes of CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2(c).

The proposed ADU and related improvements will require issuance of a Building Permit from the City prior to construction. As part of plan check, the Applicant’s construction drawings will be reviewed for compliance with the California Building Code. Foundation design will be based on a geotechnical report prepared by the Applicant and submitted with the Building Permit application. Subsurface investigations and slope stability analysis will inform the engineering recommendations necessary to demonstrate compliance with applicable factors of safety. These recommendations will guide the design of the foundation system, drainage improvements, and grading measures. Accordingly, further review will occur when construction drawings are submitted for permitting, and compliance will be verified through the building inspection process after permit issuance. In addition, the Applicant’s preliminary design plans, including the site plan, building sections, and topographic survey, were reviewed by the City’s Building Division, which determined that the Project is feasible from a Building Code standpoint.

As such, the Project will be safe to construct.

The mud and debris runoff concerns raised by neighbors at the hearing relate primarily to surface water running across the unpaved lower portion of the property at the Virginia Park Drive terminus, a condition that predates and is independent of the proposed Project. The Project is expected to improve, not worsen, this condition. As the Applicant noted on the record, paving or otherwise stabilizing the lower access area would eliminate the source of dirt and debris currently reaching Virginia Park Drive.

Condition Nos. 24 and 25 of Board-adopted Resolution No. 2026-0278 require a construction staging plan and a drainage plan prepared by a licensed civil engineer prior to issuance of a building permit, ensuring that drainage conditions are formally engineered before ground is broken.

Moreover, while the Appellant argues that the landslide history constitutes a special circumstance, the Appellant has not indicated how this history creates a reasonable possibility that it will produce a significant environmental effect. The landslide occurred at 1087 Skyline Drive, with debris falling onto the Applicant’s Property. As demonstrated by Figure 4 below, the area where the landslide occurred falls within a City-mapped seismic hazard landslide area (shown in brown shading), which also extends onto a portion of the Applicant’s Property. However, the proposed Project is located outside of this mapped area, and approximately 200 feet from where the slide occurred. 16 of 267
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0278, CDP 2026-0279, AND VAR 2026-0280 AT 855 LA

VISTA DRIVE
July 7, 2026

Figure 4 – Landslide at 1087 Skyline Drive
The grading volumes and retaining wall heights cited by the Appellant are features of projects routinely approved under the Class 3 and Class 5 exemptions in Laguna Beach's hillside residential context. They do not, individually or collectively, constitute unusual circumstances that distinguish this project from the general class of small residential structure construction for which the exemptions were designed.

The mapped watercourse is not a natural environmental resource; it is a City-installed storm drain system. Its presence does not transform this ADU project into an environmentally sensitive situation requiring further CEQA review.

The Board correctly found that none of the Section 15300.2 exceptions apply. The Project site does not contain environmentally sensitive habitat areas, is not located on a hazardous materials site, will not result in cumulative impacts from successive projects of the same type, will not damage scenic resources within a designated state scenic highway, and does not involve historical resources. The Appellant has not presented substantial evidence of a reasonable possibility of significant environmental effects sufficient to overcome the presumption of exemption.

3. "The DRB Approved the Project Based on Later Fixes and Informal Assurances Rather Than Present Evidence and Enforceable Conditions"
The Appellant contends that the Board improperly deferred essential environmental analysis and project details to later permit review, including a construction staging plan, drainage plan, grading plan, and geotechnical monitoring, and that Chair Gibbs' motion language added only a "direction to the Building 17 of 267
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0278, CDP 2026-0279, AND VAR 2026-0280 AT 855 LA

VISTA DRIVE
July 7, 2026

Department" and a "strong suggestion" to the Applicant regarding the drain in front of the ADU rather than enforceable conditions.

Staff’s Response
The record does not support the Appellant's characterization. The final signed Resolution 2026-0278 includes enforceable conditions of approval that directly address each of the items the Appellant identifies as improperly deferred:

Condition No. 24: “Prior to the issuance of a building permit a construction staging plan shall be submitted to the Building Official for review and approval. The plan shall include a site plan that identifies construction material storage areas, construction parking, site access, etc. Refer to the informational guide for Construction Staging:
https://www.lagunabeachcity.net/home/showpublisheddocument/8878/6375158904303000

00. Any recommendations made by the Board regarding staging plans or construction management will be forwarded to the Building Official for review and consideration.” Condition No. 25: “Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant shall submit a drainage plan prepared by a licensed civil engineer to the Building Official for review and approval.”
Condition No. 26: “Prior to the issuance of a grading permit a grading plan must be submitted to the Building Official for review and approval. Elevations or height must be certified by a licensed surveyor. The compaction of grade must be certified by a licensed Engineer. The Building Official may also require a shoring plan when necessary. A Geotechnical Engineer shall be required to conduct onsite monitoring of the site during excavation and grading activities; and shall document any ground movement and notify the Building Official of any such movement.”
These conditions are standard and appropriate for a project of this scale and type. The design review entitlement phase is a preliminary approval establishing the project's design, siting, and land use compatibility. The building and grading permit phases are where detailed engineering calculations, construction-level drainage analysis, and geotechnical review are properly conducted by licensed professionals and reviewed by City staff with the technical expertise to evaluate them. This sequencing is both legally sound and consistent with standard City practice for ADU-scale projects in Laguna Beach. The Board is not the appropriate entity to design and create these detailed engineering and technical reports and plans.

The Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296 doctrine cited by the Appellant applies to the improper deferral of essential environmental analysis required under CEQA, not to the scheduling of engineering-level construction documents within an established permitting sequence. The drainage plan, grading plan, and geotechnical monitoring required by Condition Nos. 25 and 26 are not substitutes for environmental review that should have occurred earlier; they are routine permit-stage 18 of 267
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0278, CDP 2026-0279, AND VAR 2026-0280 AT 855 LA

VISTA DRIVE
July 7, 2026

engineering deliverables that are appropriately and commonly deferred to the building permit phase for projects of this type throughout California.

With respect to Chair Gibbs' drain-related motion language, that direction is separately captured and forwarded to the Building Official under Condition No. 24, which expressly provides that any recommendations made by the Board regarding staging or construction management will be forwarded to the Building Official for review and consideration. This is not atypical when the Board wants to raise a certain issue with Building Official but understands that they are not the correct entity to review, opine, approve, etc. these detailed engineering and technical reports and plans. The drain itself is a Cityowned facility maintained under a City utility easement, and any improvements to it would be addressed through the City's capital improvement program process, as Planning Manager Rodrigues explained at the hearing. The Applicant's on-record agreement to grade the area around the drain to maximize its effectiveness during storm events is reflected in the Project record and will inform the drainage plan required under Condition No. 25.

The Appellant has not demonstrated that any essential finding was left unresolved or that any required analysis was improperly deferred. The conditions of approval are enforceable, the sequencing is appropriate, and the record supports the Board's approval.

4. "The DRB Approved Access and Construction-Impact Findings That Did Not Match the Hearing Record"
The Appellant contends that the Board approved findings that vehicular access would continue from the existing driveway off La Vista Drive and that no vehicular access was proposed from the Virginia Park frontage, when in fact the hearing record showed that construction access, parking, and staging from Virginia Park Drive was unclear and unresolved, and that the Board recognized an unresolved access problem but was unable to confidently impose a solution.

Staff’s Response
The record does not support the Appellant's characterization. The hearing record reflects a thorough and candid discussion of both permanent access and construction logistics, and the Board's findings are consistent with the evidence presented.

With respect to permanent vehicular access, the Project's primary access point is and will remain the existing driveway off La Vista Drive, which has served the property since 1934. The site plan shows stair access from La Vista Drive connecting down to the ADU level, consistent with the Property's established circulation and the Fire Department's required perimeter access path. The ADU is exempt from off-street parking requirements pursuant to LBMC Section 25.17.010(g)(4)(B)(i) due to its location within one-half mile of a bus stop.

The property has a secondary access point at the lower Virginia Park Drive frontage. At the hearing, Mr. Hutcherson confirmed that access exists from both La Vista Drive and Virginia Park Drive, with fire access stairs connecting the two levels. When asked directly whether the lower Virginia Park access would be used for regular vehicular access to the ADU, Mr. Hutcherson stated that was not the intent, 19 of 267
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0278, CDP 2026-0279, AND VAR 2026-0280 AT 855 LA

VISTA DRIVE
July 7, 2026

though he acknowledged it could occur on occasion. Mr. Abel similarly acknowledged that possibility46.

This is consistent with the approved plans, which do not propose a formal vehicular driveway from Virginia Park Drive. The finding that no vehicular access is proposed from the Virginia Park frontage accurately reflects the project as designed and approved, while the record candidly acknowledges the physical reality that the lower access point exists and may be used incidentally.

With respect to construction logistics, Mr. Hutcherson committed on the record that all construction parking, staging, and materials would be kept on property, and Mr. Abel reinforced that commitment, specifically noting that construction workers would not park in front of the Williams family or other Virginia Park Drive neighbors47. When Chair Gibbs confirmed this commitment on the record and asked whether the Applicant was agreeable to making it a condition of approval, Mr. Abel responded affirmatively. In context, the "on property" area referenced by the Applicant refers to the adjacent parcel at 700 Virginia Park Drive, which is under the same family's ownership, is currently vacant, and directly adjoins the ADU construction zone at the lower end of the subject property, making it the most logical and practical area for construction parking and staging. While the City cannot formally bind the applicant to the use of 700 Virginia Park Drive as a separate legal parcel through a condition on this approval, the family's ownership, the parcel's vacancy, and its physical adjacency to the work area make it a realistic and available resource consistent with the Applicant's on-record commitments.

This commitment is further captured in Condition No. 24 of the final resolution, which requires a construction staging plan identifying material storage areas, construction parking, and site access to be submitted to and approved by the Building Official prior to permit issuance. If construction activity is ultimately accessed from Virginia Park Drive, Condition No. 24 ensures that parking, access, and staging will be addressed through that process accordingly. It should also be noted that constrained sites are not unusual in Laguna Beach. New building construction regularly takes place in the City’s hillside areas and along narrow streets, including areas such as Alta Vista Way and the Diamond/Crestview Specific Plan area. The City therefore has substantial experience reviewing and approving construction staging plans that must respond to the practical constraints of hillside access and limited roadway frontage. This review is routinely conducted through the Building Permit application process and has been successfully implemented on projects throughout the City.

To the extent the Appellant is concerned about disruption to Virginia Park Drive during construction, the conditions of approval directly address these concerns through multiple enforceable mechanisms.

Condition No. 20 requires a pre-construction meeting between the contractor of record and the Building Official to review requirements for parking, construction hours, fencing, dust control, monitoring, and related matters prior to permit issuance. Condition No. 21 restricts construction activity to weekdays between 7:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., with hauling hours further limited to 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., and prohibits construction on weekends and Federal Holidays. Condition No. 24 further requires a construction staging plan, incorporating by reference the City's Construction Staging informational guide, which addresses noise, haul routes, and neighborhood impacts in additional detail. These are 46 March 26, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript, Page 18, 19 [Warren, Gregg] 47 March 26, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript, Page 6 [Gregg] 20 of 267
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0278, CDP 2026-0279, AND VAR 2026-0280 AT 855 LA

VISTA DRIVE
July 7, 2026

standard, enforceable requirements applicable to residential construction projects throughout Laguna Beach, and they provide the neighboring residents of Virginia Park Drive with meaningful, concrete protections during the construction period.

The Appellant does not have a legal entitlement to be free from the temporary and incidental effects of lawful construction activity on adjacent private property, and the applicable standard is whether those impacts can be managed within the City's established construction management framework. The record supports the conclusion that they can.

The Appellant has not demonstrated that the access findings are unsupported by substantial evidence or that any material access or construction issue was left unresolved in the approval. The conditions of approval are enforceable, the applicant's commitments are on the record, and the property's physical characteristics support the conclusion that construction can be conducted in a manner consistent with the City's construction management standards and with reasonable consideration for neighboring properties.

5. “The DRB Approved Design Review and Coastal Findings Without Squarely Addressing the Project's Full Downhill Mass, Visibility, and Hazard Implications” The Appellant contends that the Board's findings did not adequately address the Project's actual downhill form, including 927 square feet of living area, 927 square feet of attached storage, and a 136- square-foot deck, a stepped, multi-level profile with a lower storage floor at elevation 158.43 and roof elevations around 180.43, and exterior volume intentionally added for design articulation rather than functional use. The Appellant argues that the shorthand characterization of the project as a "972-squarefoot ADU" obscures the structure's true mass and that the findings do not grapple with the project's visibility from Virginia Park Way or its geological and flood hazard implications.

Staff’s Response
The Board's design review and coastal development permit findings are supported by substantial evidence and accurately reflect the project before it.

A. The scope of the design review application.

As an initial matter, it is important to clarify the scope of what was before the Board. Under LBMC Section 25.05.040(B)(2)(s), ADUs are exempt from design review, as they are governed by LBMC Chapter 25.17. Design review was required in this case for specific improvements associated with the proposed ADU, namely the elevated deck more than three feet above adjacent existing grade, the retaining walls exceeding five feet in exposed height, and grading in excess of 20 cubic yards outside the building footprint. A coastal development permit was required for the ADU and all associated improvements given the property's location within the Coastal Zone, and the variance for encroachment into the watercourse setback was subject to Board approval. While the ADU structure itself was not the subject of design review, it was nonetheless reviewed in consideration of the City's applicable LCP policies and CDP findings.
21 of 267
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0278, CDP 2026-0279, AND VAR 2026-0280 AT 855 LA

VISTA DRIVE
July 7, 2026

The appeal cites the design review criteria, including Design Articulation, Environmental Context, and Neighborhood Compatibility, and paraphrases the Design Articulation criterion, which requires “the appearance of building mass to be minimized.”50 (Attachment 2, Appeal, Contention No. 5). The Appeal goes on to argue that the “multi-level hillside form” does not minimize visible mass. However, as noted above, the ADU structure is not subject to design review. Furthermore, this appeal contention does not identify how the portions of the Project that are subject to design review – namely, the elevated deck, the retaining walls with more than five feet in exposed height, and the grading outside of the building footprint – fail to satisfy the applicable design review criteria.

Here, the Board appropriately evaluated the proposed elevated deck, retaining walls, and grading in its consideration of DR 2026-0278, as demonstrated by the following design review findings:

DR 2026-0278, Finding No. 1, Review Criteria No. 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 mapped watercourse has been substantially altered from its natural condition and is now conveyed through the City’s storm drain system. The proposed deck, located approximately 6 feet 9 inches from the watercourse centerline, along with associated project grading and retaining walls within the 25-foot watercourse setback, will not adversely affect the remaining functional or scenic characteristics of the drainage feature. The project is designed to utilize the existing terrain, with improvements concentrated in previously disturbed areas near the existing residence. Grading is limited to what is necessary to accommodate the ADU, fire access, and site circulation, thereby minimizing disturbance to the surrounding hillside. No impacts to heritage trees, ridgelines, or other prominent natural features are proposed. Additionally, all improvements are located outside of visually prominent areas, ensuring the site’s overall natural character is preserved.

DR 2026-0278, Finding No. 1, Review Criteria No. 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.

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. 50 The actual language of the LBMC states: “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.” (LBMC Section 25.05.040(H)(2).)
22 of 267
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0278, CDP 2026-0279, AND VAR 2026-0280 AT 855 LA

VISTA DRIVE
July 7, 2026

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.) As described above, the proposed improvements are designed to respond to the site’s natural downward slope toward the western property line, with grading limited to what is necessary to accommodate the ADU and required access improvements. The elevated deck extends outward from the ADU and does not require additional grading, thereby minimizing disturbance to the surrounding terrain. Grading results in a stepped condition that reflects the underlying slope and is confined to the area of development. The project is located off a dead-end road, will be nestled along the hillside, and screened by existing vegetation. No adverse impacts on views from public locations will result.

B. Visual compatibility with the character of surrounding areas.

The Appellant also argues that under the CDP findings, “the City also had to find that the project would… be visually compatible with the character of the surrounding area.” CDP 2026-0279, Finding No. 1, Review Criteria No. 6
The Board found that the Project satisfied CDP Review Criteria No. 6, as follows:

Finding No. 1, Review Criteria No. 6: The proposed ADU and elevated deck, grading, retaining walls, and other proposed improvements will be compatible with the character of the surrounding area that has existing single-family residential development. The use of materials ensures the improvements to the property will integrate well with the surrounding architecture including a dark roof, gray stucco, and white trim. The project does not occupy a visually degraded area, but the new structure given its architectural design will be an aesthetic enhancement to the neighborhood.

The 972-square-foot figure cited by the Appellant and referenced in the Board staff report and Boardadopted Resolution No. 2026-0278, which is actually 927 square feet, represents the ADU's habitable floor area as defined under California Building Code52. The attached storage areas are non-habitable spaces with interior ceiling heights of five feet, which fall below the minimum 7’-6” ceiling height required for habitable space under the California Building Code. As staff explained at the hearing, and as Planning Manager Rodrigues confirmed, these areas cannot be converted to habitable space without triggering additional review under Title 25, and the approved plans constitute the baseline from which any modifications would require City review and approval. Notwithstanding the size of the attached 52 A Habitable Space is a space in a building for living, sleeping, eating or cooking. Bathrooms, toilet rooms, closets, halls, storage or utility spaces and similar areas are not considered habitable spaces (California Building Code 2025). As previously noted in this report, the March 26, 2026 Design Review Board staff report cited the ADU floor area as 972 square feet, which was a typographical error. The correct floor area, per the approved plans, is 927 square feet. 23 of 267
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0278, CDP 2026-0279, AND VAR 2026-0280 AT 855 LA

VISTA DRIVE
July 7, 2026

storage areas – which total to 927 square feet – the entire ADU structure complies with the maximum 16-foot height allowed for a detached ADU without design review (Figure 4).

Figure 4 – Building section
The Project utilizes a stepped, terraced design to maintain a low height profile that is compatible with the multi-story homes that typify the project area54 and is precisely the type of hillside-responsive architecture that the City's design guidelines encourage (Figures 5 and 6). The structure steps with the natural grade of the site, reducing apparent mass when viewed from public vantage points and minimizing the extent of grading required. The retaining wall subject to design review steps down with the natural slope and is set back approximately 38 feet from the westerly property line, limiting its visibility from Virginia Park Way. The elevated deck is minimal in scale at 136 square feet and oriented away from adjacent residences.
54 The proposed ADU would be located at the terminus of Virginia Park Drive, with the nearest existing residence being the Appellant’s single-family home at 690 Virginia Park Drive. That residence was constructed in 1940 and, although the City does not have a record of its exact height, it presents as a two-story structure from the street, with a gable roof over the second story.

Based on its street-facing elevation, the structure likely exceeds 16 feet in height. 24 of 267
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0278, CDP 2026-0279, AND VAR 2026-0280 AT 855 LA

VISTA DRIVE
July 7, 2026

Figure 5 – ADU and Deck West Elevation
Figure 6 – ADU and Deck Southwest 3D View
With respect to visibility from Virginia Park Way, the applicable standard under the City's design review criteria is not that a project be invisible from public vantage points, but that it be visually compatible with the surrounding neighborhood character, which the Board found to be satisfied based on the evidence before it. As demonstrated by Figure 7 below, the four residential properties closest to the Project on Virginia Park Drive are all improved with two-story residential structures. 25 of 267
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0278, CDP 2026-0279, AND VAR 2026-0280 AT 855 LA

VISTA DRIVE
July 7, 2026

Figure 7 – Surrounding Neighborhood Character
C. Geological, erosional, flood, and fire hazard.

The Appellant also argues that under the CDP findings, “the City also had to find that the project would minimize alteration of natural landforms, avoid undue geological, erosional, flood, and fire hazards…” Staff’s Responses to Appeal Contention Nos. 1 and 2 relating to flood and landslide hazards, respectively, are hereby incorporated by reference to Staff’s Response to Appeal Contention No. 5. As indicated below, the Board found that the Project satisfies the CDP review criterion referenced by the Appellant.

CDP 2026-0279, Finding No. 1, Review Criteria No. 5
The Board found that the Project satisfied CDP Review Criteria No. 5, as follows:

Finding No. 1, Review Criteria No. 5: The project minimizes alterations to the natural topography, by limiting grading to the footprint required for the ADU and associated access.

It will not result in undue risks from geological risk, and erosional forces, flood, and fire hazards since the site is located on a portion near a developed area of the lot in an urbanized 26 of 267
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0278, CDP 2026-0279, AND VAR 2026-0280 AT 855 LA

VISTA DRIVE
July 7, 2026

area with improvements that are limited to a new detached ADU. There are no geological constraints associated with the property, including earthquake faults or landslide areas. The project will comply with the City’s fire safety requirements, incorporating fire-resistant materials and construction will conform to the Building Code and Fire Code requirements.

With respect to geological, erosional, flood, and fire hazard implications, the staff report addressed each of these under the coastal development permit findings, finding that the project minimizes landform alteration, will not result in undue geological or erosional risk, incorporates fire-resistant materials, and complies with Building and Fire Code requirements. During the preliminary plan review process, the City's Building and Safety Division reviewed the proposed project and determined that a three-foot wide firefighter access path around the perimeter of the proposed structure was required. In response, the applicant adjusted the ADU's placement on the site to accommodate this requirement, and the approved plans reflect the resulting configuration, including the L-shaped retaining wall that defines and supports the required fire access path along the north and east sides of the structure. Condition 25 requires a drainage plan prepared by a licensed civil engineer prior to permit issuance, and Condition 26 requires a grading plan with geotechnical monitoring during excavation and grading activities. These conditions ensure that the detailed engineering analysis of site-specific hazard conditions will be completed and reviewed by qualified professionals before ground is broken.

The architectural plans have been reviewed by the Building Division, which confirmed that the site access and other Project design features will be Fire Code-compliant. Further, the Project site is not located within an access-impaired neighborhood per the 2021 Wildfire Egress Study.56 The Appellant has not demonstrated that any specific finding is unsupported by substantial evidence or that the Board failed to consider any material aspect of the Project's form or associated impacts. The record reflects a thorough evaluation of the project's design, mass, visibility, and hazard implications by a Board that was fully informed of the project's complete downhill form and made its findings accordingly.

6. "The DRB Approved the Project Without the Complete Staking Record Required by Code" The Appellant contends that LBMC Section 25.05.040(C)(2)(a) requires staking poles and connecting ribbons that accurately represent the full extent of the proposed structure, including decks and eaves, at least 21 calendar days before the hearing, and that because only deck staking was certified, the Board approved mass and visibility findings without the complete visual record the LBMC requires.

Staff’s Response
The staking that was installed and certified for this project was appropriate and consistent with applicable code requirements for the elements that triggered design review. 56 The Wildfire Egress Study prepared by KLD Engineering, P.C. and dated July, 2021 may be accessed online here:
https://www.lagunabeachcity.net/live-here/emergency-management/plans-policies-reports 27 of 267
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0278, CDP 2026-0279, AND VAR 2026-0280 AT 855 LA

VISTA DRIVE
July 7, 2026

LBMC Section 25.05.040 requires design review for the proposed elevated deck, retaining walls exceeding five feet in exposed height, and grading in excess of 20 cubic yards outside the building footprint. The ADU structure itself is exempt from design review in accordance with LBMC Section

25.05.040(B)(2)(s). Staking was certified for the elevated deck on March 2, 2026, 24 days prior to the March 26, 2026 hearing, satisfying the 21-day requirement with respect to the element for which design review was required.

In any event, the Board's ability to assess the project's mass, scale, and visual impact was not dependent solely on staking. All five Board members conducted independent site visits prior to the hearing, as reflected in their ex parte disclosures. The Board had before it a comprehensive set of materials including architectural plans, building sections, certified staking plan for the elevated deck, colored elevations, and three-dimensional renderings. Board members engaged directly with the Applicant and members of the public, including neighboring property owners, to fully evaluate the Project. No Board member, Applicant, or member of the public raised any concern at the hearing regarding the adequacy, accuracy, or visibility of the staking.

The Appellant has not identified any specific deficiency in the staking that rises to the level of a code violation, nor demonstrated that any alleged deficiency resulted in prejudice or impaired the Board's ability to make informed findings. The record supports the conclusion that the staking was adequate for the design review elements before the Board, and that the Board's decision was informed by a comprehensive evidentiary record extending well beyond the certified staking plan.

7. "The DRB Approved the Watercourse Encroachment Variance Without All Mandatory Watercourse Conditions in the Written Approval".

The Appellant contends that LBMC Section 25.50.030(D)(5) provides that a watercourse encroachment variance "shall" be subject to specified mandatory conditions, including that no physical disturbance of the watercourse shall occur at any time and that, where feasible, native riparian vegetation disturbed during construction shall be replanted with specified native riparian species, and that the currently available final resolution does not expressly include these mandatory conditions.

Staff’s Response
Staff acknowledges that the Board-adopted Resolution No. 2026-0278 does not expressly set forth the mandatory conditions of approval required by LBMC Section 25.50.030(D)(5) in connection with the approval of Variance 2026-0280. These conditions are not discretionary; the LBMC states they "shall" apply to any watercourse encroachment variance. Their absence from the written resolution does not vitiate their application to the Project. However, should the Council feel a belt and suspenders type approach is warranted, the following more restrictive condition could be included:

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. (LBMC Section 25.50.030(D)(5).)
28 of 267
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0278, CDP 2026-0279, AND VAR 2026-0280 AT 855 LA

VISTA DRIVE
July 7, 2026

However, this issue does not require reversal or remand of the Board Approval. The Board made all required findings, including the additional watercourse encroachment findings under LBMC Sections

25.50.030(D)(4)(a) and (b), and the Project was reviewed for consistency with the substantive standards those conditions are designed to protect.

It is also worth noting the practical context in which these mandatory conditions would apply. The watercourse encroachment conditions under LBMC Section 25.50.030(D)(5) are plainly oriented toward the protection of natural or functioning watercourses, where physical disturbance of an active channel and the loss of native riparian vegetation would represent meaningful environmental impacts.

In this case, the mapped watercourse has been substantially modified and its flows are fully conveyed through a City-installed subterranean storm drain system. The drainage feature no longer functions as an open or natural watercourse, and no native riparian vegetation associated with a natural watercourse is known to exist within the mapped setback area on the subject property. As a result, while the mandatory conditions are legally required and should be included in the resolution, their practical effect in this context is limited: the no-disturbance condition will reinforce the protection of the City's underground storm drain infrastructure, and the riparian replanting condition will apply only to the extent feasible given the absence of existing native riparian vegetation to restore.

Pursuant to LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(3)(b), the City Council may modify an approved project or its conditions of approval by making them more restrictive, or may add more restrictive conditions of approval, without the need for a finding of error or abuse of discretion. Staff recommends that the City Council consider exercising this authority by adopting a Resolution upholding the Board Approval, modified to include the following mandatory watercourse encroachment conditions required by LBMC Section 25.50.030(D)(5):

No physical disturbance of the mapped watercourse or the City-installed storm drain infrastructure traversing the subject property shall occur at any time in connection with the approved improvements; and
Where feasible, any native riparian vegetation disturbed during construction activities shall be replanted with native riparian species appropriate to the site, as specified by a qualified biologist or landscape professional and approved by the Building Official prior to final inspection.

Adding these conditions corrects the drafting omission, ensures the approval complies with all mandatory code requirements, and fully resolves this ground of appeal without requiring reversal or remand.

FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The recommended action has no financial impact to the budget.

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
29 of 267
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0278, CDP 2026-0279, AND VAR 2026-0280 AT 855 LA

VISTA DRIVE
July 7, 2026

In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, the project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15303, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, and Section 15305, Minor Alteration in Land Use Limitations. Here, the Project includes the construction of a single detached ADU of approximately 927 square feet on a developed residential lot within an established urbanized residential neighborhood that is already developed with an existing single-family residence. The Project includes limited grading, retaining walls, and an elevated deck associated with residential development, all confined to the immediate area of the ADU and previously disturbed portions of the site.

The mapped watercourse has been substantially modified and is conveyed through an existing City-installed storm drain system. The proposed improvements will not alter drainage patterns or interfere with the function of this infrastructure. There is no evidence of any unusual or special conditions that would result in a significant effect on the environment. Further, none of the exceptions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply. As discussed in detail under Appeal Contention No. 2 above, the project site does not contain any environmentally sensitive areas, the mapped watercourse has been significantly modified and incorporated as part of the City's drainage system, and the utility easement further protects the subterranean drainage infrastructure. The landslide referenced at the hearing originated on an adjacent upslope property and does not constitute an unusual circumstance of the subject property attributable to this project. There will be no cumulative impacts because the ADU and related improvements are located on an area of the property that has not undergone successive development. There are no unusual circumstances resulting in a significant impact on the environment because the project is an allowed use in the R-1 zone, has been designed to meet applicable zone standards, and the findings can be made to support the variance request. There will be no damage to scenic resources, including trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway, as the project is not located within 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. The project will not result in significant adverse impacts to historical resources as defined by CEQA because the project site is not a historic property. Consequently, additional environmental analysis is not necessary to meet the requirements of CEQA.

ATTACHMENTS

1. City Council Resolution (Pgs. 32-88)

2. Appeal (Pgs. 89-113)

3. May 26, 2026 City Council Appeal Public Notice (Pg. 114)

4. May 26, 2026 City Council Continuance Report (Pgs. 115-116)

5. Adopted DRB Resolution No. 2026-0278 (Pgs. 117-132)

6. March 26, 2026 DRB Staff Report (Pgs. 133-150)

7. March 26, 2026 DRB Project Plans (Pgs. 151-163)

8. March 26, 2026, DRB Public Correspondence (Pgs. 164-170)

9. March 26, 2026 DRB Transcript (Pgs. 171-194)

10. Order of Testimony (Pg. 195)
Submitted By: Matthew Schneider Approved: .David A Kiff 30 of 267
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0278, CDP 2026-0279, AND VAR 2026-0280 AT 855 LA

VISTA DRIVE
July 7, 2026

Matthew Schneider, Director of
Community Development
Dave Kiff, City Manager
31 of 267
APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0278, CDP 2026-0279, AND VAR 2026-0280 AT 855 LA

VISTA DRIVE
July 7, 2026

Report Prepared By: Coordinated With:

Shehriyar Khan, Associate Planner Patrick Donegan, Assistant City Attorney Anthony Viera, Deputy Director of Community
Development
32 of 267
RESOLUTION NO. 26.XXX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL
AND SUSTAINING THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD’S
APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 2026-0278, COASTAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2026-0279, AND VARIANCE 2026-
0280 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED ACCESSORY

DWELLING UNIT WITH ATTACHED STORAGE, AN

ELEVATED DECK, GRADING, AND RETAINING WALLS

EXCEEDING FIVE FEET IN EXPOSED HEIGHT WITHIN A

WATERCOURSE SETBACK, SUBJECT TO IMPOSING

MORE RESTRICTIVE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, AT
855 LA VISTA DRIVE IN THE R-1, RESIDENTIAL LOW

DENSITY ZONE, AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER

THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15303 AND 15305
WHEREAS, the property owner, Gregg Abel (“Applicant”) of 855 La Vista Drive (the “Property”) applied for Design Review ("DR") 2026-0278, Coastal Development Permit ("CDP") 2026-0279, and Variance ("VAR") 2026-0280 for the construction of a new detached Accessory Dwelling Unit ("ADU") and associated site improvements on a developed residential property in the R-1 (Residential Low Density) Zone. The proposed development includes a 9271-square-foot ADU with an elevated deck, attached storage area, retaining walls exceeding 5 feet in exposed height, grading in excess of 20 cubic yards, perimeter stairs, and an air conditioning unit. A variance was requested to allow limited encroachments into the 25-foot watercourse setback associated with a mapped drainage feature that has been substantially modified and is currently conveyed through a City-installed subterranean storm drain system (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, on March 26, 2026, the Design Review Board (“Board”) held a duly noticed public hearing and considered the Project. After receiving input from staff, the Applicant, and public 1 The Design Review Board staff report dated March 26, 2026 referenced an ADU floor area of 972 square feet. This figure contained a typographical error. The correct floor area as reflected in the approved plans is 927 square feet. All findings and conditions set forth in this Resolution are based upon the correct figure of 927 square feet.

Attachment 1
32 33 of 267
-2- Reso. #26.XXX
comments, the Board discussed the Project and adopted Board Resolution No. 2026-0278 by a 3-0-2 vote (Board members Coveny and Bauta abstaining), conditionally approving the Project, and finding the Project categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines Sections 15303 and 15305 (the “Board Approval”); and WHEREAS, April 8, 2026, Robin Williams (“Appellant”) of 690 Virginia Park Drive, filed an appeal of the Board Approval (“Appeal”); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to LBMC Section 25.05.065, public notice was duly provided to consider the Appeal of the Project at the May 26, 2026 City Council meeting in accordance with LBMC Sections 25.05.065 and 25.07.014; and
WHEREAS, on May 26, 2026, the City Council held a public hearing on the Appeal and continued the hearing to the June 23, 2026 City Council meeting; and WHEREAS, on June 23, 2026, the City Council held a public hearing on the Appeal and continued the hearing to the July 7, 2026 City Council meeting at the request of the Applicant; and WHEREAS, on July 7, 2026, the City Council held a public hearing on the Appeal and carefully considered the oral and documentary evidence and arguments presented.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH DOES RESOLVE:

SECTION 1. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution by this reference.

SECTION 2. The City Council hereby makes the following findings in response to grounds for the Appeal stated in Appellants’ notice of Appeal:

1. “The DRB Approved the Watercourse Encroachment Variance Without the Substantial 33 34 of 267
-3- Reso. #26.XXX
Evidence Required by Code”
City Council’s Response:

Variance 2026-0280, Finding Nos. 1 - 6
The Board found that all required findings could be made to grant Variance 2026-0280, as follows:

Finding No. 1: There are special circumstances applicable to the project 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.

The property is constrained by the presence of a mapped watercourse and its associated 25-foot setback. While the historic drainage feature has been substantially altered and runoff is now conveyed through a subterranean storm drain, the mapped setback continues to apply despite the absence of a functioning natural watercourse. A utility easement exists over the storm drain infrastructure, which the proposed ADU and associated site improvements do not encroach upon.

As a result, the property is subject to a limitation on developable area that is not shared by similarly zoned properties in the vicinity that are not affected by the mapped watercourse. The site’s sloping topography further limits the ability to locate improvements outside of the setback. Consequently, strict application of the zoning ordinance would unnecessarily restrict the reasonable development of the property compared to other properties under the same zoning classification.

Finding No. 2: Such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a 34 35 of 267
-4- Reso. #26.XXX
substantial property right of the applicant, which right is possessed by other property owners under like conditions in the same vicinity and zone.

The mapped watercourse traverses along multiple adjacent properties, several of which contain existing residential development located within the watercourse setback, including structures and decks. As such, other property owners in the same vicinity and zoning district have been able to reasonably develop their properties despite the presence of the mapped watercourse constraint. For example, residential development at 1103 Skyline Drive is located within the mapped watercourse area. Accordingly, the requested variance is necessary to allow for similar residential development on the subject property, including the placement of the ADU and associated improvements, thereby preserving the applicant’s ability to enjoy a substantial property right consistent with that of other property owners under like conditions in the same zone.

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.

The proposed encroachment into the mapped watercourse setback will not be detrimental to public health, safety, convenience, or welfare, nor will it cause injury to nearby properties or improvements. The drainage feature has been previously modified and no longer functions as a natural or environmentally sensitive watercourse. The project’s improvements are limited in scale, designed to maintain existing drainage patterns, and do not introduce conditions that would 35 36 of 267
-5- Reso. #26.XXX
increase flooding, erosion, or instability on the site or adjacent parcels. All grading and construction activities will be required to comply with applicable building, drainage, and engineering standards to ensure safe development. Given these factors, the variance will not result in adverse impacts to surrounding properties in the vicinity.

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

Granting the variance allows the property to be developed in a manner consistent with surrounding residential uses while remaining fully aligned with the intent of both the LBMC and General Plan policies governing residential development, environmental protection, and public safety. The project meets all applicable zoning and land use policies, including building height, setbacks, open space, site cover, access, parking, and design elements applicable to the R-1 zone and the Village Low Density land use designation.

Finding No. 5: The proposed encroachment will act to preserve, enhance or restore the significance of the watercourse.

The City previously modified the watercourse and conveyed it through a City-installed storm drain. A utility easement exists over the piped segment to allow for access and maintenance of the drainage infrastructure. Because the watercourse is already substantially altered and functions as part of the City’s storm drain system, the Public Works Department determined that a hydrological report is not required. he proposed improvements are designed to accommodate 36 37 of 267
-6- Reso. #26.XXX
existing drainage patterns, with on-site surface flows directed around the ADU and associated improvements and conveyed toward the existing storm drain system.

Grading and drainage features will ensure that runoff is properly collected and discharged without obstruction or diversion of flows. Based on these existing conditions, the project will not impair the function of the drainage system and maintains the existing condition of the watercourse as a conveyed facility.

Finding No. 6: The proposed encroachment is not likely to impair the functional, scenic and ecological purposes of the watercourse. Because the watercourse no longer functions as an open or natural drainage feature and instead operates as part of the City’s storm drain system, the proposed encroachment will not interfere with its functional, scenic, or ecological purposes.

The proposed improvements are designed to accommodate existing drainage patterns, with on-site surface flows directed around the ADU and associated improvements and conveyed toward the existing storm drain system.

Grading and drainage features will ensure that runoff is properly collected and discharged without obstruction or diversion of flows. The Public Works Department confirmed that, given the extent of prior modifications, the project will not alter stormwater conveyance or require additional hydrological analysis.

Accordingly, the proposed encroachment will not impair any remaining functional, scenic, or ecological attributes associated with the mapped watercourse.

The record before the Board contains substantial evidence supporting each of the required variance findings, including the additional watercourse encroachment findings under LBMC Section 37 38 of 267
-7- Reso. #26.XXX

25.50.030(D)(4)(a) and (b) (Finding Nos. 5 and 6 above). The Appellant's argument conflates the existence of deliberative discussion at a public hearing with the absence of substantial evidence in the record. That Board members raised questions, expressed caution, and deliberated carefully is precisely what the public hearing process is designed to produce. The fact that Chair Gibbs was "close to saying no"2 before ultimately voting yes, after walking the site twice and carefully considering the evidence, reflects a thorough and conscientious exercise of discretion, not a failure of evidentiary support.

With respect to the hydrology analysis, the City's decision not to require a new projectspecific hydrological study was reasonable, well-grounded in the existing record, and reflects a correct understanding of the nature of the drainage feature at issue. The storm drain pipe that traverses the subject property is a City-owned, publicly-constructed infrastructure facility constructed in 1999. This pipe is not an incidental or informal drainage feature. It is a permanent, engineered, maintained piece of City infrastructure with a known capacity, known inlet and outlet points, and a documented construction history. The pipe functions as a conveyance conduit carrying storm runoff from upper elevation neighborhoods through the subject Property and discharging into the downstream storm drain system to the southwest (Figure 1). 2 March 26, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript, Page 15 [Gibbs]. 38 39 of 267
-8- Reso. #26.XXX
Figure 1 – City Storm Drain Infrastructure Traversing Subject Site The watercourse setback applicable to the subject Property was established to protect natural drainage features from encroachment that could impede flow, cause erosion, or create flood hazard. None of those concerns apply in the same way to an engineered conveyance system utilizing below-ground pipes. The pipes have fixed capacity, fixed alignment, and fixed inlet and outlet structures. An ADU constructed with appropriate separation from the pipe infrastructure3 does not affect the pipe's hydraulic function, cannot cause erosion of a natural bank, and does not create flood exposure in the way that encroachment on a natural open channel would. As Planning Manager 3 The City requires a five-foot-wide storm drain easement over the infrastructure. The proposed building footprint avoids this easement, which is essential to ensure the Project does not adversely affect the storm drain and to preserve future access for maintenance. Verification that the easement has been recorded is provided as a condition of approval in the draft resolution.
39 40 of 267
-9- Reso. #26.XXX
Rodrigues explained on the record, the installed system has performed without failure or known deficiency for approximately 25 years, and the City-owned nature of the facility provides an additional safeguard: if any issue arises with the system in the future, the City has the means and authority to remedy any issues. The Board’s reliance on this determination was reasonable and wellsupported by the record Requiring the applicant to commission a new project-specific hydrology study analyzing a City-engineered pipe system that the City previously studied and installed (and has full documentation for the pipe system) would serve no meaningful analytical purpose. The Public Works Department’s determination that no such study was required reflects the Department's correct understanding that the drainage feature in question is engineered City infrastructure, not a natural watercourse requiring hydrologic analysis for each adjacent development project.

With respect to the natural, scenic, and ecological purposes of the watercourse, the variance findings under LBMC Section 25.50.030(D)(4)(a) and (b) require that the proposed encroachment will preserve, enhance, or restore the significance of the watercourse, and that it will not impair the watercourse's functional, scenic, or ecological purposes. As documented in the staff report before the Board and confirmed by the record, the mapped watercourse no longer functions as an open or natural drainage feature. Its flows are conveyed through the City's storm drain system.

Neither the administrative record before the Board, nor the Appellant in this appeal, presented any evidence or claim suggesting that native riparian vegetation exists within the mapped setback area on the subject Property, nor that the drainage feature continues to serve a scenic or ecological function in its current condition as a subterranean pipe.

While there is an existing depression consistent with the mapped watercourse location, it 40 41 of 267
-10- Reso. #26.XXX
merely suggests that the watercourse may have once been active. Due to the development of this area with residences and public streets that have been terraced into the hillside, much of the water runoff from upstream areas is now conveyed through the local street network into receiving drain inlets, including the one found above the site on Skyline Drive, which conveys water into the storm drain buried below the subject property. Localized surface runoff that does not enter the storm drain system, including the nuisance flows and occasional mud and debris referenced by neighboring residents at the hearing, reflects the general character of developed hillside properties in this area rather than the operation of a functioning natural watercourse. Accordingly, the proposed encroachment will not impair any remaining functional, scenic, or ecological attributes associated with the mapped watercourse, and the variance findings under LBMC Section

25.50.030(D)(4)(a) and (b) are supported by substantial evidence in the record.

With respect to the applicable setback, the Appellant highlights the Applicant's statement that the setback from a modified watercourse is five feet rather than 25 feet. The staff report and resolution both treated the 25-foot setback as operative, and the Board's approval proceeded on that basis. The variance findings address encroachment into the 25-foot setback, and the Board made those findings on the record. Any discrepancy between the Applicant's characterization of the applicable setback and staff's analysis was resolved in the more conservative direction: the Project was reviewed under, and the variance was granted pursuant to, the 25-foot setback standard.

The Board's variance findings under LBMC Section 25.05.025 and the additional watercourse encroachment findings under LBMC Section 25.50.030(D)(4)(a) and (b) are each supported by substantial evidence in the record, including the staff report, the site history 41 42 of 267
-11- Reso. #26.XXX
established through the lot line adjustment record4, the condition of the mapped watercourse as a fully piped City facility, the Public Works determination regarding the existing system's adequacy, and the site conditions observed during Board members' independent site visits. The Appellant has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the Board's decision was unreasonable, invalid, or an abuse of discretion.

2. “The DRB Approved a CEQA Categorical Exemption Despite Unusual Circumstances and Unresolved Drainage Risk”
City Council’s Response:

The Board found that the Project qualified for a categorical exemption from CEQA under the Class 3 (New Construction or Construction of Small Structures) and Class 5 (Minor Alteration in Land Use Limitations) exemptions, as follows:

The proposed project scope involves the construction of an accessory dwelling unit located partially within a modified (i.e., underground piped) watercourse setback.

Here, the project includes the construction of a single detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) of approximately 972 square feet on a developed residential lot, which is located within an established urbanized residential neighborhood and is also already developed with an existing single-family residence. The project includes limited grading, retaining walls, and an elevated deck associated with residential 4 The property has been subject to lot line adjustments with the adjacent property at 700 Virginia Park Drive, resulting in the current lot configuration. On October 6, 2015, the City Council approved Lot Line Adjustment 15-1216 and Coastal Development Permit 15-1217, and on August 13, 2024, approved Lot Line Adjustment 23-2191 and Coastal Development Permit 24-0151. The most recent adjustment was recorded on October 24, 2024, establishing the existing lot line conditions for the subject property. The 2015 lot line adjustment followed the City Council’s abandonment of an approximately 1,500-square-foot portion of Virginia Park Drive right-of-way as part of a broader effort to reconfigure three legal building sites under common ownership into two parcels. The abandoned right-of-way was subsequently merged with the adjacent property at 700 Virginia Park Drive. 42 43 of 267
-12- Reso. #26.XXX
development, all confined to the immediate area of the ADU and previously disturbed portions of the site. is a detached ADU which requires limited grading and retaining walls on a slope. In addition, the mapped watercourse has been substantially modified and is conveyed through an existing storm drain system. The proposed improvements will not alter drainage patterns or interfere with the function of this infrastructure. There is no evidence of any unusual or special conditions that would result in a significant effect on the environment Further, none of the exceptions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply. The project site does not contain any environmentally sensitive areas. The mapped watercourse has been significantly modified and incorporated as part of the City’s drainage system. The utility easement further protects the subterranean drainage course and infrastructure. There will be no cumulative impacts because the ADU and related improvements are located on an area of the property that has not undergone successive development. There are no unusual circumstances resulting in a significant impact on the environment because the project is an allowed use in the R-1 zone, has been designed to meet zone standards, and the findings can be made to the support the variance request. There will be no damage to scenic resources, including trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway because it is not located within 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. The project will not result in significant adverse 43 44 of 267
-13- Reso. #26.XXX
impacts to historical resources as defined by CEQA because the project site is not a historic property. Consequently, additional environmental analysis is not necessary to meet the requirements of the CEQA.

The project qualifies for categorical exemptions under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) and 15305 (Minor Alteration in Land Use Limitations), and none of the exceptions under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply. The Appellant's invocation of the unusual circumstances exception does not withstand scrutiny on this record.

Under Berkeley Hillside, the unusual circumstances exception requires both that unusual circumstances exist and that there is a reasonable possibility those circumstances will produce a significant environmental effect. The Appellant has not demonstrated either prong with respect to this Project.

The landslide referenced at the hearing was caused by conditions originating on an upslope neighboring property, not on the subject Property itself. The Applicant explained on the record that a landslide occurring approximately two years prior originated at an adjacent uphill property and sent mud and debris downslope onto the subject property and Virginia Park Drive. The Applicant worked with the neighboring property owner to address and remediate that event. A mudslide originating on a different property and attributable to different site conditions does not constitute an unusual circumstance of the subject property for purposes of CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2(c).

The proposed ADU and related improvements will require issuance of a Building Permit from the City prior to construction. As part of plan check, the Applicant’s construction drawings 44 45 of 267
-14- Reso. #26.XXX
will be reviewed for compliance with the California Building Code. Foundation design will be based on a geotechnical report prepared by the Applicant and submitted with the Building Permit application. Subsurface investigations and slope stability analysis will inform the engineering recommendations necessary to demonstrate compliance with applicable factors of safety. These recommendations will guide the design of the foundation system, drainage improvements, and grading measures. Accordingly, further review will occur when construction drawings are submitted for permitting, and compliance will be verified through the building inspection process after permit issuance. In addition, the Applicant’s preliminary design plans, including the site plan, building sections, and topographic survey, were reviewed by the City’s Building Division, which determined that the Project is feasible from a Building Code standpoint. As such, the Project will be safe to construct.

The mud and debris runoff concerns raised by neighbors at the hearing relate primarily to surface water running across the unpaved lower portion of the property at the Virginia Park Drive terminus, a condition that predates and is independent of the proposed Project. The Project is expected to improve, not worsen, this condition. As the Applicant noted on the record, paving or otherwise stabilizing the lower access area would eliminate the source of dirt and debris currently reaching Virginia Park Drive. Condition Nos. 24 and 25 of Board-adopted Resolution No. 2026- 0278 require a construction staging plan and a drainage plan prepared by a licensed civil engineer prior to issuance of a building permit, ensuring that drainage conditions are formally engineered before ground is broken.

Moreover, while the Appellant argues that the landslide history constitutes a special circumstance, the Appellant has not indicated how this history creates a reasonable possibility that 45 46 of 267
-15- Reso. #26.XXX
it will produce a significant environmental effect. The landslide occurred at 1087 Skyline Drive, with debris falling onto the Applicant’s Property. As demonstrated by Figure 2 below, the area where the landslide occurred falls within a City-mapped seismic hazard landslide area (shown in brown shading), which also extends onto a portion of the Applicant’s Property. However, the proposed Project is located outside of this mapped area, and approximately 200 feet from where the slide occurred.

Figure 2 – Landslide at 1087 Skyline Drive
The grading volumes and retaining wall heights cited by the Appellant are features of projects routinely approved under the Class 3 and Class 5 exemptions in Laguna Beach's hillside residential context. They do not, individually or collectively, constitute unusual circumstances that distinguish this project from the general class of small residential structure construction for which 46 47 of 267
-16- Reso. #26.XXX
the exemptions were designed. The mapped watercourse is not a natural environmental resource; it is a City-installed storm drain system. Its presence does not transform this ADU project into an environmentally sensitive situation requiring further CEQA review.

The Board correctly found that none of the Section 15300.2 exceptions apply. The Project site does not contain environmentally sensitive habitat areas, is not located on a hazardous materials site, will not result in cumulative impacts from successive projects of the same type, will not damage scenic resources within a designated state scenic highway, and does not involve historical resources. The Appellant has not presented substantial evidence of a reasonable possibility of significant environmental effects sufficient to overcome the presumption of exemption.

3. “The DRB Approved the Project Based on Later Fixes and Informal Assurances Rather Than Present Evidence and Enforceable Conditions”
City Council’s Response:

The record does not support the Appellant's characterization. The final signed Resolution 2026-0278 includes enforceable conditions of approval that directly address each of the items the Appellant identifies as improperly deferred:

Condition No. 24: “Prior to the issuance of a building permit a construction staging plan shall be submitted to the Building Official for review and approval. The plan shall include a site plan that identifies construction material storage areas, construction parking, site access, etc. Refer to the informational guide for Construction Staging:
https://www.lagunabeachcity.net/home/showpublisheddocument/8878/637515890430300 000. Any recommendations made by the Board regarding staging plans or construction 47 48 of 267
-17- Reso. #26.XXX
management will be forwarded to the Building Official for review and consideration.” Condition No. 25: “Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant shall submit a drainage plan prepared by a licensed civil engineer to the Building Official for review and approval.”
Condition No. 26: “Prior to the issuance of a grading permit a grading plan must be submitted to the Building Official for review and approval. Elevations or height must be certified by a licensed surveyor. The compaction of grade must be certified by a licensed Engineer. The Building Official may also require a shoring plan when necessary. A Geotechnical Engineer shall be required to conduct onsite monitoring of the site during excavation and grading activities; and shall document any ground movement and notify the Building Official of any such movement.”
These conditions are standard and appropriate for a project of this scale and type. The design review entitlement phase is a preliminary approval establishing the project's design, siting, and land use compatibility. The building and grading permit phases are where detailed engineering calculations, construction-level drainage analysis, and geotechnical review are properly conducted by licensed professionals and reviewed by City staff with the technical expertise to evaluate them.

This sequencing is both legally sound and consistent with standard City practice for ADU-scale projects in Laguna Beach. The Board is not the appropriate entity to design and create these detailed engineering and technical reports and plans.

The Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296 doctrine cited by the Appellant applies to the improper deferral of essential environmental analysis required under CEQA, not to the scheduling of engineering-level construction documents within an established 48 49 of 267
-18- Reso. #26.XXX
permitting sequence. The drainage plan, grading plan, and geotechnical monitoring required by Condition Nos. 25 and 26 are not substitutes for environmental review that should have occurred earlier; they are routine permit-stage engineering deliverables that are appropriately and commonly deferred to the building permit phase for projects of this type throughout California.

With respect to Chair Gibbs' drain-related motion language, that direction is separately captured and forwarded to the Building Official under Condition No. 24, which expressly provides that any recommendations made by the Board regarding staging or construction management will be forwarded to the Building Official for review and consideration. This is not atypical when the Board wants to raise a certain issue with the Building Official but understands that they are not the correct entity to review, opine, approve, etc. these detailed engineering and technical reports and plans. The drain itself is a City-owned facility maintained under a City utility easement, and any improvements to it would be addressed through the City's capital improvement program process, as Planning Manager Rodrigues explained at the hearing. The Applicant's on-record agreement to grade the area around the drain to maximize its effectiveness during storm events is reflected in the Project record and will inform the drainage plan required under Condition No. 25.

The Appellant has not demonstrated that any essential finding was left unresolved or that any required analysis was improperly deferred. The conditions of approval are enforceable, the sequencing is appropriate, and the record supports the Board's approval

4. “The DRB Approved Access and Construction-Impact Findings That Did Not Match the Hearing Record”
City Council’s Response:

The record does not support the Appellant's characterization. The hearing record reflects a 49 50 of 267
-19- Reso. #26.XXX
thorough and candid discussion of both permanent access and construction logistics, and the Board's findings are consistent with the evidence presented.

With respect to permanent vehicular access, the Project's primary access point is and will remain the existing driveway off La Vista Drive, which has served the property since 1934. The site plan shows stair access from La Vista Drive connecting down to the ADU level, consistent with the Property's established circulation and the Fire Department's required perimeter access path. The ADU is exempt from off-street parking requirements pursuant to LBMC Section

25.17.010(g)(4)(B)(i) due to its location within one-half mile of a bus stop.

The property has a secondary access point at the lower Virginia Park Drive frontage. At the hearing, Mr. Hutcherson confirmed that access exists from both La Vista Drive and Virginia Park Drive, with fire access stairs connecting the two levels. When asked directly whether the lower Virginia Park access would be used for regular vehicular access to the ADU, Mr. Hutcherson stated that was not the intent, though he acknowledged it could occur on occasion. Mr. Abel similarly acknowledged that possibility5
. This is consistent with the approved plans, which do not propose a formal vehicular driveway from Virginia Park Drive. The finding that no vehicular access is proposed from the Virginia Park frontage accurately reflects the project as designed and approved, while the record candidly acknowledges the physical reality that the lower access point exists and may be used incidentally.

With respect to construction logistics, Mr. Hutcherson committed on the record that all construction parking, staging, and materials would be kept on property, and Mr. Abel reinforced that commitment, specifically noting that construction workers would not park in front of the 5 March 26, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript, Page 18, 19 [Warren, Gregg] 50 51 of 267
-20- Reso. #26.XXX
Williams family or other Virginia Park Drive neighbors6. When Chair Gibbs confirmed this commitment on the record and asked whether the Applicant was agreeable to making it a condition of approval, Mr. Abel responded affirmatively. In context, the "on property" area referenced by the Applicant refers to the adjacent parcel at 700 Virginia Park Drive, which is under the same family's ownership, is currently vacant, and directly adjoins the ADU construction zone at the lower end of the subject property, making it the most logical and practical area for construction parking and staging. While the City cannot formally bind the applicant to the use of 700 Virginia Park Drive as a separate legal parcel through a condition on this approval, the family's ownership, the parcel's vacancy, and its physical adjacency to the work area make it a realistic and available resource consistent with the Applicant's on-record commitments.

This commitment is further captured in Condition No. 24 of the final resolution, which requires a construction staging plan identifying material storage areas, construction parking, and site access to be submitted to and approved by the Building Official prior to permit issuance. If construction activity is ultimately accessed from Virginia Park Drive, Condition No. 24 ensures that parking, access, and staging will be addressed through that process accordingly. It should also be noted that constrained sites are not unusual in Laguna Beach. New building construction regularly takes place in the City’s hillside areas and along narrow streets, including areas such as Alta Vista Way and the Diamond/Crestview Specific Plan area. The City therefore has substantial experience reviewing and approving construction staging plans that must respond to the practical constraints of hillside access and limited roadway frontage. This review is routinely conducted through the Building Permit application process and has been successfully implemented on 6 March 26, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript, Page 6 [Gregg] 51 52 of 267
-21- Reso. #26.XXX
projects throughout the City.

To the extent the Appellant is concerned about disruption to Virginia Park Drive during construction, the conditions of approval directly address these concerns through multiple enforceable mechanisms. Condition No. 20 requires a pre-construction meeting between the contractor of record and the Building Official to review requirements for parking, construction hours, fencing, dust control, monitoring, and related matters prior to permit issuance. Condition No. 21 restricts construction activity to weekdays between 7:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., with hauling hours further limited to 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., and prohibits construction on weekends and Federal Holidays. Condition No. 24 further requires a construction staging plan, incorporating by reference the City's Construction Staging informational guide, which addresses noise, haul routes, and neighborhood impacts in additional detail. These are standard, enforceable requirements applicable to residential construction projects throughout Laguna Beach, and they provide the neighboring residents of Virginia Park Drive with meaningful, concrete protections during the construction period.

The Appellant does not have a legal entitlement to be free from the temporary and incidental effects of lawful construction activity on adjacent private property, and the applicable standard is whether those impacts can be managed within the City's established construction management framework. The record supports the conclusion that they can.

The Appellant has not demonstrated that the access findings are unsupported by substantial evidence or that any material access or construction issue was left unresolved in the approval. The conditions of approval are enforceable, the applicant's commitments are on the record, and the property's physical characteristics support the conclusion that construction can be conducted in a 52 53 of 267
-22- Reso. #26.XXX
manner consistent with the City's construction management standards and with reasonable consideration for neighboring properties.

5. “The DRB Approved Design Review and Coastal Findings Without Squarely Addressing the Project's Full Downhill Mass, Visibility, and Hazard Implications” City Council’s Response:

The Board's design review and coastal development permit findings are supported by substantial evidence and accurately reflect the project before it.

A. The scope of the design review application.

As an initial matter, it is important to clarify the scope of what was before the Board.

Under LBMC Section 25.05.040(B)(2)(s), ADUs are exempt from design review, as they are governed by LBMC Chapter 25.17. Design review was required in this case for specific improvements associated with the proposed ADU, namely the elevated deck more than three feet above adjacent existing grade, the retaining walls exceeding five feet in exposed height, and grading in excess of 20 cubic yards outside the building footprint. A coastal development permit was required for the ADU and all associated improvements given the property's location within the Coastal Zone, and the variance for encroachment into the watercourse setback was subject to Board approval. While the ADU structure itself was not the subject of design review, it was nonetheless reviewed in consideration of the City's applicable LCP policies and CDP findings.

The appeal cites the design review criteria, including Design Articulation, Environmental Context, and Neighborhood Compatibility, and paraphrases the Design 53 54 of 267
-23- Reso. #26.XXX
Articulation criterion, which requires “the appearance of building mass to be minimized.”7 (Attachment 2, Appeal, Contention No. 5). The Appeal goes on to argue that the “multilevel hillside form” does not minimize visible mass. However, as noted above, the ADU structure is not subject to design review. Furthermore, this appeal contention does not identify how the portions of the Project that are subject to design review – namely, the elevated deck, the retaining walls with more than five feet in exposed height, and the grading outside of the building footprint – fail to satisfy the applicable design review criteria.

Here, the Board appropriately evaluated the proposed elevated deck, retaining walls, and grading in its consideration of DR 2026-0278, as demonstrated by the following design review findings:

DR 2026-0278, Finding No. 1, Review Criteria No. 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 mapped watercourse has been substantially altered from its natural condition and is now conveyed through the City’s storm drain system. The proposed 7 The actual language of the LBMC states: “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.” (LBMC Section 25.05.040(H)(2).) 54 55 of 267
-24- Reso. #26.XXX
deck, located approximately 6 feet 9 inches from the watercourse centerline, along with associated project grading and retaining walls within the 25-foot watercourse setback, will not adversely affect the remaining functional or scenic characteristics of the drainage feature. The project is designed to utilize the existing terrain, with improvements concentrated in previously disturbed areas near the existing residence. Grading is limited to what is necessary to accommodate the ADU, fire access, and site circulation, thereby minimizing disturbance to the surrounding hillside. No impacts to heritage trees, ridgelines, or other prominent natural features are proposed. Additionally, all improvements are located outside of visually prominent areas, ensuring the site’s overall natural character is preserved.

DR 2026-0278, Finding No. 1, Review Criteria No. 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.

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 55 56 of 267
-25- Reso. #26.XXX
adverse impacts on views from public locations (e.g., roads, bluff-top trails, visitorserving facilities, etc.) As described above, the proposed improvements are designed to respond to the site’s natural downward slope toward the western property line, with grading limited to what is necessary to accommodate the ADU and required access improvements. The elevated deck extends outward from the ADU and does not require additional grading, thereby minimizing disturbance to the surrounding terrain. Grading results in a stepped condition that reflects the underlying slope and is confined to the area of development. The project is located off a dead-end road, will be nestled along the hillside, and screened by existing vegetation. No adverse impacts on views from public locations will result.

B. Visual compatibility with the character of surrounding areas.

The Appellant also argues that under the CDP findings, “the City also had to find that the project would… be visually compatible with the character of the surrounding area.” CDP 2026-0279, Finding No. 1, Review Criteria No. 6
The Board found that the Project satisfied CDP Review Criteria No. 6, as follows:

Finding No. 1, Review Criteria No. 6: The proposed ADU and elevated deck, grading, retaining walls, and other proposed improvements will be compatible with the character of the surrounding area that has existing single-family residential development. The use of materials ensures the improvements to the property will integrate well with the surrounding architecture including a dark roof, gray stucco, and white trim. The project does not occupy a visually 56 57 of 267
-26- Reso. #26.XXX
degraded area, but the new structure given its architectural design will be an aesthetic enhancement to the neighborhood.

The 972-square-foot figure cited by the Appellant and referenced in the Board staff report and Board-adopted Resolution No. 2026-0278, which is actually 927 square feet, represents the ADU's habitable floor area as defined under California Building Code8. The attached storage areas are non-habitable spaces with interior ceiling heights of five feet, which fall below the minimum 7’-6” ceiling height required for habitable space under the California Building Code. As staff explained at the hearing, and as Planning Manager Rodrigues confirmed, these areas cannot be converted to habitable space without triggering additional review under Title 25, and the approved plans constitute the baseline from which any modifications would require City review and approval. Notwithstanding the size of the attached storage areas – which total to 927 square feet – the entire ADU structure complies with the maximum 16-foot height allowed for a detached ADU without design review (Figure 3).
8 A Habitable Space is a space in a building for living, sleeping, eating or cooking. Bathrooms, toilet rooms, closets, halls, storage or utility spaces and similar areas are not considered habitable spaces (California Building Code 2025).

As previously noted in this report, the March 26, 2026 Design Review Board staff report cited the ADU floor area as 972 square feet, which was a typographical error. The correct floor area, per the approved plans, is 927 square feet. 57 58 of 267
-27- Reso. #26.XXX
Figure 3 – Building section
The Project utilizes a stepped, terraced design to maintain a low height profile that is compatible with the multi-story homes that typify the project area9 and is precisely the type of hillside-responsive architecture that the City's design guidelines encourage (Figures 4 and 5). The structure steps with the natural grade of the site, reducing apparent mass when viewed from public vantage points and minimizing the extent of grading required. The retaining wall subject to design review steps down with the natural slope and is set back approximately 38 feet from the westerly property line, limiting its visibility from Virginia Park Way. The elevated deck is minimal in scale at 136 square feet and oriented away from adjacent residences.
9 The proposed ADU would be located at the terminus of Virginia Park Drive, with the nearest existing residence being the Appellant’s single-family home at 690 Virginia Park Drive. That residence was constructed in 1940 and, although the City does not have a record of its exact height, it presents as a two-story structure from the street, with a gable roof over the second story. Based on its street-facing elevation, the structure likely exceeds 16 feet in height. 58 59 of 267
-28- Reso. #26.XXX
Figure 4 – ADU and Deck West Elevation
Figure 5 – ADU and Deck Southwest 3D View
With respect to visibility from Virginia Park Way, the applicable standard under the City's design review criteria is not that a project be invisible from public vantage points, but that it be visually compatible with the surrounding neighborhood character, which the Board found to be satisfied based on the evidence before it. As demonstrated by Figure 6, below, the four residential 59 60 of 267
-29- Reso. #26.XXX
properties closest to the Project on Virginia Park Drive are all improved with two-story residential structures.

Figure 6 – Surrounding Neighborhood Character
C. Geological, erosional, flood, and fire hazard.

The Appellant also argues that under the CDP findings, “the City also had to find that the project would minimize alteration of natural landforms, avoid undue geological, erosional, flood, and fire hazards…” Staff’s Responses to Appeal Contention Nos. 1 and 2 relating to flood and landslide hazards, respectively, are hereby incorporated by reference to Staff’s Response to Appeal 60 61 of 267
-30- Reso. #26.XXX
Contention No. 5. As indicated below, the Board found that the Project satisfies the CDP review criterion referenced by the Appellant.

CDP 2026-0279, Finding No. 1, Review Criteria No. 5
The Board found that the Project satisfied CDP Review Criteria No. 5, as follows:

Finding No. 1, Review Criteria No. 5: The project minimizes alterations to the natural topography, by limiting grading to the footprint required for the ADU and associated access. It will not result in undue risks from geological risk, and erosional forces, flood, and fire hazards since the site is located on a portion near a developed area of the lot in an urbanized area with improvements that are limited to a new detached ADU. There are no geological constraints associated with the property, including earthquake faults or landslide areas. The project will comply with the City’s fire safety requirements, incorporating fire-resistant materials and construction will conform to the Building Code and Fire Code requirements.

With respect to geological, erosional, flood, and fire hazard implications, the staff report addressed each of these under the coastal development permit findings, finding that the project minimizes landform alteration, will not result in undue geological or erosional risk, incorporates fire-resistant materials, and complies with Building and Fire Code requirements. During the preliminary plan review process, the City's Building and Safety Division reviewed the proposed project and determined that a three-foot wide firefighter access path around the perimeter of the proposed structure was required. In response, the applicant adjusted the ADU's placement on the site to 61 62 of 267
-31- Reso. #26.XXX
accommodate this requirement, and the approved plans reflect the resulting configuration, including the L-shaped retaining wall that defines and supports the required fire access path along the north and east sides of the structure. Condition 25 requires a drainage plan prepared by a licensed civil engineer prior to permit issuance, and Condition 26 requires a grading plan with geotechnical monitoring during excavation and grading activities. These conditions ensure that the detailed engineering analysis of site-specific hazard conditions will be completed and reviewed by qualified professionals before ground is broken.

The architectural plans have been reviewed by the Building Division, which confirmed that the site access and other Project design features will be Fire Codecompliant. Further, the Project site is not located within an access-impaired neighborhood per the 2021 Wildfire Egress Study.10
The Appellant has not demonstrated that any specific finding is unsupported by substantial evidence or that the Board failed to consider any material aspect of the Project's form or associated impacts. The record reflects a thorough evaluation of the project's design, mass, visibility, and hazard implications by a Board that was fully informed of the project's complete downhill form and made its findings accordingly.

6. “"The DRB Approved the Project Without the Complete Staking Record Required by Code”
City Council’s Response:
10 The Wildfire Egress Study prepared by KLD Engineering, P.C. and dated July, 2021 may be accessed online here:
https://www.lagunabeachcity.net/live-here/emergency-management/plans-policies-reports 62 63 of 267
-32- Reso. #26.XXX
The staking that was installed and certified for this project was appropriate and consistent with applicable code requirements for the elements that triggered design review.

LBMC Section 25.05.040 requires design review for the proposed elevated deck, retaining walls exceeding five feet in exposed height, and grading in excess of 20 cubic yards outside the building footprint. The ADU structure itself is exempt from design review in accordance with LBMC Section 25.05.040(B)(2)(s). Staking was certified for the elevated deck on March 2, 2026, 24 days prior to the March 26, 2026 hearing, satisfying the 21-day requirement with respect to the element for which design review was required.

In any event, the Board's ability to assess the project's mass, scale, and visual impact was not dependent solely on staking. All five Board members conducted independent site visits prior to the hearing, as reflected in their ex parte disclosures. The Board had before it a comprehensive set of materials including architectural plans, building sections, certified staking plan for the elevated deck, colored elevations, and three-dimensional renderings. Board members engaged directly with the Applicant and members of the public, including neighboring property owners, to fully evaluate the Project. No Board member, Applicant, or member of the public raised any concern at the hearing regarding the adequacy, accuracy, or visibility of the staking.

The Appellant has not identified any specific deficiency in the staking that rises to the level of a code violation, nor demonstrated that any alleged deficiency resulted in prejudice or impaired the Board's ability to make informed findings. The record supports the conclusion that the staking was adequate for the design review elements before the Board, and that the Board's decision was informed by a comprehensive evidentiary record extending well beyond the certified staking plan

7. “The DRB Approved the Watercourse Encroachment Variance Without All Mandatory 63 64 of 267
-33- Reso. #26.XXX
Watercourse Conditions in the Written Approval”
City Council’s Response:

Staff acknowledges that the Board-adopted Resolution No. 2026-0278 does not expressly set forth the mandatory conditions of approval required by LBMC Section 25.50.030(D)(5) in connection with the approval of Variance 2026-0280. These conditions are not discretionary; the LBMC states they "shall" apply to any watercourse encroachment variance. Their absence from the written resolution does not vitiate their application to the Project. However, should the Council feel a “belt and suspenders” type approach is warranted, the following more restrictive condition could be included:

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. (LBMC Section 25.50.030(D)(5).)
However, this issue does not require reversal or remand of the Board Approval. The Board made all required findings, including the additional watercourse encroachment findings under LBMC Sections 25.50.030(D)(4)(a) and (b), and the Project was reviewed for consistency with the substantive standards those conditions are designed to protect.

It is also worth noting the practical context in which these mandatory conditions would apply. The watercourse encroachment conditions under LBMC Section 25.50.030(D)(5) are plainly oriented toward the protection of natural or functioning watercourses, where physical disturbance of an active channel and the loss of native riparian vegetation would represent meaningful environmental impacts. In this case, the mapped watercourse has been substantially 64 65 of 267
-34- Reso. #26.XXX
modified and its flows are fully conveyed through a City-installed subterranean storm drain system. The drainage feature no longer functions as an open or natural watercourse, and no native riparian vegetation associated with a natural watercourse is known to exist within the mapped setback area on the subject property. As a result, while the mandatory conditions are legally required and should be included in the resolution, their practical effect in this context is limited:
the no-disturbance condition will reinforce the protection of the City's underground storm drain infrastructure, and the riparian replanting condition will apply only to the extent feasible given the absence of existing native riparian vegetation to restore.

Pursuant to LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(3)(b), the City Council may modify an approved project or its conditions of approval by making them more restrictive, or may add more restrictive conditions of approval, without the need for a finding of error or abuse of discretion. The City Council exercises this authority by adopting a Resolution upholding the Board Approval, modified to include the following mandatory watercourse encroachment conditions required by LBMC Section 25.50.030(D)(5):

No physical disturbance of the mapped watercourse or the City-installed storm drain infrastructure traversing the subject property shall occur at any time in connection with the approved improvements; and
Where feasible, any native riparian vegetation disturbed during construction activities shall be replanted with native riparian species appropriate to the site, as specified by a qualified biologist or landscape professional and approved by the Building Official prior to final inspection.

Adding these conditions corrects the drafting omission, ensures the approval complies with 65 66 of 267
-35- Reso. #26.XXX
all mandatory code requirements, and fully resolves this ground of appeal without requiring reversal or remand.

SECTION 3. The City Council hereby makes the following findings and facts supporting findings for DR 2026-0278:

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.

Vehicular access to the subject property will continue to be provided from the existing driveway off La Vista Drive, and no modifications to this access point are proposed. The existing driveway serves a low-intensity residential use and does not create significant conflicts with vehicles or pedestrians at its intersection with the public The proposed deck, site grading, and retaining walls are located entirely on private property and will not interfere with vehicles, pedestrians, or other modes of transportation.

While the ADU fronts the westerly property line adjacent to Virginia Park Way, no vehicular access is proposed from this frontage, and the area is limited to pedestrian visibility only from the terminus of the dead-end-street.

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 66 67 of 267
-36- Reso. #26.XXX
used to reduce the appearance of mass.

The proposed elevated deck is minimal in scale and does not contribute to visual mass. Its simple design and placement along the west side of the ADU maintain separation between structural elements and avoid the appearance of a continuous façade plane. The retaining wall subject to design review, located northeast of the ADU, is L-shaped and wraps along the north and east sides of the structure, defining the required fire access path.

The wall measures approximately 7 feet 3 inches in width as viewed from the west elevation and extends approximately 24 feet in length along the north side of the ADU, with its exposed height stepping down with the natural slope of the site. This configuration is driven by site constraints, including existing topography and the requirement to provide wraparound fire access, with the additional width accommodating circulation while avoiding a tunneling condition.

The visual impact of the wall is reduced by its location behind the ADU, its setback of approximately 38 feet from the westerly property line, and the upward-sloping topography that limits visibility from the public right-of-way. In addition, integrated planters break up the wall plane and provide opportunities for landscaping to soften its appearance. Collectively, these design features minimize perceived mass and ensure the development remains compatible with the surrounding hillside environment.

3. Design Integrity: Consistency with the applicant’s chosen style of architecture should be achieved by the use of appropriate materials and details. Remodels should be harmonious with the remaining existing architecture.

The proposed elevated deck and retaining walls are designed to be consistent with 67 68 of 267
-37- Reso. #26.XXX
the architectural character of the ADU through the use of simple forms, cohesive materials, and restrained detailing. The deck’s straightforward design complements the overall building without introducing competing architectural elements, maintaining a unified appearance.

The retaining walls are similarly designed with materials and finishes that are compatible with the structure and surrounding hillside context. Their treatment, along with the incorporation of landscaping elements, ensures they remain visually subordinate to the primary structure. Collectively, these features reinforce a cohesive architectural expression and maintain design integrity throughout the development.

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 mapped watercourse has been substantially altered from its natural condition and is now conveyed through the City’s storm drain system. The proposed deck, located approximately 6 feet 9 inches from the watercourse centerline, along with associated project grading and retaining walls within the 25-foot watercourse setback, will not adversely affect the remaining functional or scenic characteristics of the drainage feature.

The project is designed to utilize the existing terrain, with improvements concentrated in previously disturbed areas near the existing residence. Grading is limited to what is necessary to accommodate the ADU, fire access, and site circulation, thereby minimizing disturbance to the surrounding hillside. No impacts to heritage trees, ridgelines, 68 69 of 267
-38- Reso. #26.XXX
or other prominent natural features are proposed. Additionally, all improvements are located outside of visually prominent areas, ensuring the site’s overall natural character is preserved.

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 proposed project complies with the following policies of the General Plan as discussed below:

General Plan Policies
Land Use (LU) Policy 2.8 Require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated with natural topographic features, minimize significant alteration of natural topography and/or other significant onsite resources, and protect public views as specified in the Design Guidelines and the Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document.

The proposed project is consistent with this policy as demonstrated in the design articulation, environmental context, and neighborhood compatibility criteria. The proposed improvements are designed in harmony with the site’s natural downward slope toward Virginia Park Drive, minimizing the need for significant alteration of existing topography The proposed elevated deck is designed to extend with the natural grade of the site, reducing the extent of grading required and allowing the structure to remain visually integrated with the hillside setting. The project will not impact public views as it is setback from any major streets and screened by existing vegetation.
69 70 of 267
-39- Reso. #26.XXX
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 elevated deck, grading, and retaining walls will be located at the end of Virginia Park Drive on the lower portion of the lot, well below the La Vista Drive frontage and outside any identified public coastal or canyon view corridors. Due to the site’s topography and existing mature vegetation, the improvements will not conflict with public views along street-facing property lines. The westerly location of the deck, grading area, and retaining walls ensures that no coastal views, canyon views, or other scenic resources are obstructed. Overall, the project upholds view equity principles and demonstrates a thoughtful design approach that minimizes visual impacts while enhancing compatibility with the neighborhood setting.

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 on-site 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, bluff70 71 of 267
-40- Reso. #26.XXX
top trails, visitor-serving facilities, etc.)
As described above, the proposed improvements are designed to respond to the site’s natural downward slope toward the western property line, with grading limited to what is necessary to accommodate the ADU and required access improvements. The elevated deck extends outward from the ADU and does not require additional grading, thereby minimizing disturbance to the surrounding terrain. Grading results in a stepped condition that reflects the underlying slope and is confined to the area of development. The project is located off a dead-end road, will be nestled along the hillside, and screened by existing vegetation. No adverse impacts on views from public locations will result.

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 has been intentionally designed and sited to avoid unnecessary disturbance to natural landforms and to preserve the site’s existing environmental characteristics. The use of retaining walls and stairways along the perimeter of the structure limits grading to only what is necessary for safe access and the structural footprint of the proposed improvement, thereby maintaining the integrity of the hillside and minimizing alterations to the natural terrain. Although a mapped drainage course exists on the property, it has been previously modified and does 71 72 of 267
-41- Reso. #26.XXX
not function as a natural or environmentally sensitive resource. As a result, the project will not impact sensitive habitat, natural drainage features, or other environmentally sensitive resources.

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

The proposed development will be located within 20 feet of the existing residence and appurtenant structures, and concentrated along the front of the property. The elevated, cantilevered deck design further reduces ground disturbance by eliminating the need for extensive cut and fill activity. Because the proposed deck and retaining walls are associated with an allowed residential use and do not require new roadways or expansion of public services, the project does not create growth inducing effects. The development will concentrate along the southerly property line adjacent to the existing impervious areas on the property.

Overall, the siting and design maintain a compact development footprint and reduce potential environmental impacts.

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.
72 73 of 267
-42- Reso. #26.XXX
Consistent with the findings made in Policy 7.3, the project has been designed to protect public views, maintain visual compatibility with the neighborhood, and minimize landform alterations to what is necessary to facilitate construction of the ADU elements including the elevated deck, grading, and retaining walls. As a result, the proposed work preserves the site’s natural character, avoids impacts to environmentally sensitive resources, and upholds the City’s goal of ensuring that new development is evaluated and constructed in a manner that protects public health, safety, and natural resources.

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

The subject property is not listed on the City’s Historic Register.

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.

The project does not propose changes to the existing landscaping, and its limited scope does not trigger the need for a landscape plan for Design Review Board consideration. The site will continue to retain approximately 80 percent of the parcel as landscaped open space (about 28,874 square feet), which maintains harmonious visual compatibility with the surrounding area.

8. Lighting and Glare: Adequate lighting for individual and public safety shall be provided 73 74 of 267
-43- Reso. #26.XXX
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.

There are a total of 13 new lighting fixtures proposed for the project, including six downward facing step lights and two decorative wall fixtures, for lighting the stairs access and deck. All exterior lighting is required to comply with the City’s Good Neighbor Outdoor Lighting Ordinance (LBMC Chapter 7.70). As such, the project will not impact neighboring properties.

9. Neighborhood Compatibility: Development shall be compatible with the existing development in the neighborhood and respect neighborhood character. Neighborhood character is the sum of the qualities that distinguish areas within the City, including historical patterns of development (e.g., structural heights, mass, scale or size), village atmosphere, landscaping themes and architectural styles.

The neighborhood is developed with single-family residences having a variety of architectural styles, overall roof heights, mass, and scale. Residences within the neighborhood are developed with decks and retaining walls similar in material and design to what is proposed. The deck is designed for typical residential use associated with the ADU. Given its size and configuration, it will not provide a functional space for large gatherings or activities that could create noise or nuisance impacts. Instead, it will accommodate small-scale, personal residential use consistent with neighboring properties.

Based on this context, the project is compatible with the neighborhood and respects the 74 75 of 267
-44- Reso. #26.XXX
existing neighborhood character.

10. Pedestrian Orientation: Commercial development design shall enhance and encourage pedestrian uses. Incorporation of articulated building masses, compact open spaces and courtyards, mixed use developments, use of landscaping as part of design, and orientation to pedestrian access should be maximized.

Design Review Criteria for Pedestrian Orientation is related to commercial development and this residential project is not subject to these criteria.

11. Privacy: The placement of activity areas (e.g., decks, picture windows and ceremonial or entertainment rooms) in locations that would result in a substantial invasion of privacy of neighboring properties should be minimized.

The proposed elevated deck is oriented away from adjacent residences and is situated at a lower elevation than the nearest adjacent residence at 853 La Vista Drive. The deck functions as an entry porch to the ADU rather than an activity or gathering space, further reducing the potential for privacy impacts. There are no neighboring properties directly to the west, east, or north of the deck area, and the site’s location at the end of a dead end road provides additional separation from surrounding development. No privacy concerns were raised by neighboring property owners during the preparation of this report, and the project will not result in a substantial invasion of privacy given its location on the property, orientation, and design.

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 75 76 of 267
-45- Reso. #26.XXX
this residential project is not subject to these criteria.

13. Sign Quality: Signs shall be incorporated into the architecture of the structure and shall be made of high quality materials, be simple in design and be visually compatible with the surrounding physical environment in terms of color, scale and size. Use of natural materials in the construction of signs is encouraged.

Design Review Criteria for Signage is related to commercial development and this residential project is not subject to these criteria

14. Sustainability: New development should consider architecture and building practices which minimize environmental impacts and enhance energy efficiency by: (a) reducing energy needs of buildings by proper site and structural design; (b) increasing the building’s ability to capture or generate energy; (c) using low-impact, sustainable and recycled building materials; (d) using the latest Best Management Practices regarding waste and water management; and (e) reducing site emissions.

New construction is required to meet Title 24 Energy and Building Code requirements, which include insulated windows and energy efficient lighting. Further, the project will be required to reuse, recycle, or divert at least 65 percent of the project’s construction and demolition debris.

15. Swimming Pools, Spas, and Water Features: Swimming pools, spas and water features shall be located, designed and constructed where: (a) geology conditions allow; (b) noise produced by circulatory mechanical pumps and equipment is mitigated; and (c) any associated fencing or other site improvements are compatible with neighboring properties.

The project does not propose a swimming pool, spa, or water feature. 76 77 of 267
-46- Reso. #26.XXX

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 proposed deck and retaining walls will be located downslope from adjacent residences, and do not extend into established view corridors. From Virginia Park Drive, the project site is partially screened by existing vegetation and will have limited visibility due to the orientation of the lot relative to the right-of-way, which has a narrow width as it terminates near the property. No changes to landscaping are proposed that would introduce new view obstruction. Given the project’s limited height, downslope placement, and consistency with typical residential development patterns in the neighborhood, the improvements preserve view equity and remain consistent with the City’s Design Guidelines.

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.

Yes. The project is consistent with the Residential Design Review Guidelines, as explained above.

Finding No. 3. The physical improvements and site developments related to the Project are characterized by appropriately scaled development, diverse and unique architectural designs, pedestrian orientation, and sensitivity to the natural conditions of the site. 77 78 of 267
-47- Reso. #26.XXX
The elevated deck and retaining walls will be located at the end of Virginia Park Drive and La Vista Drive, and are visually unobtrusive from public viewpoints. The design maintains a pedestrian oriented entry to the ADU and demonstrates sensitivity to the site’s natural conditions by minimizing landform alteration and constraining earthwork to the area primarily within the building footprint, with a maximum of 53 cubic yards of cut outside of the building footprint. The improvements are compatible with the area’s diverse residential character and meet the intent of the finding.

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.

SECTION 4. The City Council hereby makes the following findings and facts supporting findings for CDP 2026-0279:

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 project is located inland and does not directly affect any existing or proposed coastal accessways. The site is not adjacent to public coastal access routes or trails, and there are no public easements or coastal access points on or near the property that would be impacted by the development. There are no proposed improvements in the public right78 79 of 267
-48- Reso. #26.XXX
of-way. As such, the project will not encroach upon or obstruct any existing or planned public accessways.

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

The project site is located within an established residential neighborhood and there are no known marine resources, environmentally sensitive areas, archeological or paleontological resources in the project area.

3. The proposed development will not adversely affect recreational or visitor-serving facilities or coastal scenic resources.

The project consists of a proposed detached ADU with an elevated deck, grading, associated retaining walls, and stairways within an established neighborhood and does not interfere with any nearby recreational or visitor-serving facilities. The proposed improvements would not impact coastal scenic resources.

4. The proposed development will be sited and designed to prevent adverse impacts to environmentally sensitive habitats and scenic resources located in adjacent parks and recreation areas, and will provide adequate buffer areas to protect such resources.

The project site is not located near any environmentally sensitive habitats or adjacent to parks and recreation areas that contain significant scenic resources. The new detached ADU, elevated deck, grading, and retaining walls would be located within the mapped watercourse setback area. However, because it has been highly modified and incorporated into the City’s storm drain system, the proposed encroachments will not impair the functional, scenic, or ecological attributes associated with the mapped modified 79 80 of 267
-49- Reso. #26.XXX
watercourse.

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 project minimizes alterations to the natural topography, by limiting grading to the footprint required for the ADU and associated access. It will not result in undue risks from geological risk, and erosional forces, flood, and fire hazards since the site is located on a portion near a developed area of the lot in an urbanized area with improvements that are limited to a new detached ADU. There are no geological constraints associated with the property, including earthquake faults or landslide areas. The project will comply with the City’s fire safety requirements, incorporating fire-resistant materials and construction will conform to the Building Code and Fire Code requirements.

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 ADU and elevated deck, grading, retaining walls, and other proposed improvements will be compatible with the character of the surrounding area that has existing single-family residential development. The use of materials ensures the improvements to the property will integrate well with the surrounding architecture including a dark roof, gray stucco, and white trim. The project does not occupy a visually degraded area, but the new structure given its architectural design will be an aesthetic enhancement to the neighborhood.

7. The proposed development will not have any adverse impacts on any known archaeological or paleontological resource.
80 81 of 267
-50- Reso. #26.XXX
There are no known archaeological or paleontological resources in the project area

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

The existing site is within an established residential neighborhood that is developed with connections to all necessary utilities, drainage, and other facilities that are adequate to serve the proposed ADU.

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.

The existing site is within an established residential neighborhood with access to all other necessary public services. The site is adequate to serve the proposed ADU.

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 property is not located between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea.

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.

SECTION 5. The City Council hereby makes the following findings and facts supporting findings for VAR 2026-0026:
81 82 of 267
-51- Reso. #26.XXX
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.

The property is constrained by the presence of a mapped watercourse and its associated 25-foot setback. While the historic drainage feature has been substantially altered and runoff is now conveyed through a subterranean storm drain, the mapped setback continues to apply despite the absence of a functioning natural watercourse. A utility easement exists over the storm drain infrastructure, which the proposed ADU and associated site improvements do not encroach upon.

As a result, the property is subject to a limitation on developable area that is not shared by similarly zoned properties in the vicinity that are not affected by the mapped watercourse. The site’s sloping topography further limits the ability to locate improvements outside of the setback. Consequently, strict application of the zoning ordinance would unnecessarily restrict the reasonable development of the property compared to other properties under the same zoning classification.

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.

The mapped watercourse traverses along multiple adjacent properties, several of which contain existing residential development located within the watercourse setback, including structures and decks. As such, other property owners in the same vicinity and 82 83 of 267
-52- Reso. #26.XXX
zoning district have been able to reasonably develop their properties despite the presence of the mapped watercourse constraint. For example, residential development at 1103 Skyline Drive is located within the mapped watercourse area.

Accordingly, the requested variance is necessary to allow for similar residential development on the subject property, including the placement of the ADU and associated improvements, thereby preserving the applicant’s ability to enjoy a substantial property right consistent with that of other property owners under like conditions in the same zone.

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.

The proposed encroachment into the mapped watercourse setback will not be detrimental to public health, safety, convenience, or welfare, nor will it cause injury to nearby properties or improvements. The drainage feature has been previously modified and no longer functions as a natural or environmentally sensitive watercourse. The project’s improvements are limited in scale, designed to maintain existing drainage patterns, and do not introduce conditions that would increase flooding, erosion, or instability on the site or adjacent parcels. All grading and construction activities will be required to comply with applicable building, drainage, and engineering standards to ensure safe development.

Given these factors, the variance will not result in adverse impacts to surrounding properties in the vicinity.

Finding No. 4: The granting of such a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the zoning ordinance or the general plan.
83 84 of 267
-53- Reso. #26.XXX
Granting the variance allows the property to be developed in a manner consistent with surrounding residential uses while remaining fully aligned with the intent of both the LBMC and General Plan policies governing residential development, environmental protection, and public safety. The project meets all applicable zoning and land use policies, including building height, setbacks, open space, site cover, access, parking, and design elements applicable to the R-1 zone and the Village Low Density land use designation.

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 City previously modified the watercourse and conveyed it through a City installed storm drain. A utility easement exists over the piped segment to allow for access and maintenance of the drainage infrastructure. Because the watercourse is already substantially altered and functions as part of the City’s storm drain system, the Public Works Department determined that a hydrological report is not required. he proposed improvements are designed to accommodate existing drainage patterns, with on-site surface flows directed around the ADU and associated improvements and conveyed toward the existing storm drain system. Grading and drainage features will ensure that runoff is properly collected and discharged without obstruction or diversion of flows. Based on these existing conditions, the project will not impair the function of the drainage system and maintains the existing condition of the watercourse as a conveyed facility.

Finding No. 6: The proposed encroachment is not likely to impair the functional, scenic and ecological purposes of the watercourse.
84 85 of 267
-54- Reso. #26.XXX
Because the watercourse no longer functions as an open or natural drainage feature and instead operates as part of the City’s storm drain system, the proposed encroachment will not interfere with its functional, scenic, or ecological purposes. The proposed improvements are designed to accommodate existing drainage patterns, with on-site surface flows directed around the ADU and associated improvements and conveyed toward the existing storm drain system. Grading and drainage features will ensure that runoff is properly collected and discharged without obstruction or diversion of flows. The Public Works Department confirmed that, given the extent of prior modifications, the project will not alter stormwater conveyance or require additional hydrological analysis. Accordingly, the proposed encroachment will not impair any remaining functional, scenic, or ecological attributes associated with the mapped watercourse.

SECTION 6. Based on its review of the entire record before it, the City Council hereby finds and determines, in accordance with CEQA, that the Project is categorically exempt pursuant to State Guidelines Section 15303, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, and Section 15305, Minor Alteration in Land Use Limitations. Here, the Project includes the construction of a single detached ADU of approximately 927 square feet on a developed residential lot within an established urbanized residential neighborhood that is already developed with an existing single-family residence. The Project includes limited grading, retaining walls, and an elevated deck associated with residential development, all confined to the immediate area of the ADU and previously disturbed portions of the site. The mapped watercourse has been substantially modified and is conveyed through an existing City-installed storm drain system. The proposed improvements will not alter drainage patterns or interfere with the function of this infrastructure. 85 86 of 267
-55- Reso. #26.XXX
There is no evidence of any unusual or special conditions that would result in a significant effect on the environment.

Further, none of the exceptions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply.

As discussed in detail under Appeal Contention No. 2 above, the project site does not contain any environmentally sensitive areas, the mapped watercourse has been significantly modified and incorporated as part of the City's drainage system, and the utility easement further protects the subterranean drainage infrastructure. The landslide referenced at the hearing originated on an adjacent upslope property and does not constitute an unusual circumstance of the subject property attributable to this project. There will be no cumulative impacts because the ADU and related improvements are located on an area of the property that has not undergone successive development. There are no unusual circumstances resulting in a significant impact on the environment because the project is an allowed use in the R-1 zone, has been designed to meet applicable zone standards, and the findings can be made to support the variance request. There will be no damage to scenic resources, including trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway, as the project is not located within 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.

The project will not result in significant adverse impacts to historical resources as defined by CEQA because the project site is not a historic property. Consequently, additional environmental analysis is not necessary to meet the requirements of CEQA SECTION 7. The City Council hereby denies the Appeal and sustains the Design Review Boards’s determination on the Project, as reflected in Board Resolution No. 2026-0278, including 86 87 of 267
-56- Reso. #26.XXX
all conditions attached thereto, which such Resolution and conditions are incorporated herein by this reference, and hereby adds the more restrictive conditions of approval contained in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

ADOPTED this 7th day of July, 2026.

Mark Orgill, Mayor
ATTEST:

Ann Marie McKay, City Clerk
I, Ann Marie McKay, City Clerk of the City of Laguna Beach, certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 26.XXX was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City held on July 7, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

City Clerk, City of Laguna Beach, CA
87 88 of 267
EXHIBIT ‘A’

CITY COUNCIL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESOLUTION NO. 26.XX
Additional Project-Specific Conditions of Approval:

1. No physical disturbance of the mapped watercourse or the City-installed storm drain infrastructure traversing the subject property shall occur at any time in connection with the approved improvements.

2. Where feasible, any native riparian vegetation disturbed during construction activities shall be replanted with native riparian species appropriate to the site, as specified by a qualified biologist or landscape professional and approved by the Building Official prior to final inspection.

3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit or grading permit, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall submit project plans to the Community Development Director, or designee, for review and approval demonstrating that the plans accurately reflect the current legal lot configuration of the subject property, Assessor's Parcel Number 641-352-57, as established by the following recorded lot line adjustments: Lot Line Adjustment 15-1216 and Coastal Development Permit 15-1217, approved by the City Council on October 6, 2015, and Lot Line Adjustment 23-2191 and Coastal Development Permit 24-0151, approved by the City Council on August 13, 2024, and recorded on October 24, 2024. The submitted plans shall clearly delineate the property boundaries of the subject property and the adjacent parcel at 700 Virginia Park Drive, Assessor's Parcel Number 641-352-56, consistent with the recorded lot line conditions, and shall not depict any improvements, encroachments, grading, or development activity on the adjacent parcel at 700 Virginia Park Drive unless separately permitted. Any discrepancy between the approved entitlement plans and the recorded lot line configuration shall be resolved to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director prior to permit issuance.
88 89 of 267
90 of 267
91 of 267
92 of 267
93 of 267
94 of 267
95 of 267
96 of 267
97 of 267
98 of 267
99 of 267
100 of 267
101 of 267
102 of 267
103 of 267
104 of 267
105 of 267
106 of 267
107 of 267
108 of 267
109 of 267
110 of 267
111 of 267
112 of 267
113 of 267
114 of 267

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

LAGUNA BEACH CITY COUNCIL
The Laguna Beach City Council will hold an in-person Public Hearing in the City Council Chambers, located in City Hall at 505 Forest Avenue, Laguna Beach, to consider:

Appeal of approval of Design Review 2026-0278, Coastal Development Permit 2026-0279, Variance 2026-0280, and CEQA Categorical Exemption for a detached accessory dwelling unit (“ADU”) with an elevated deck, grading, air conditioning unit, and associated retaining walls at 855 La Vista Drive in the R-1 zone. Design review is required for the proposed deck, which exceeds three feet in height above adjacent grade, grading in excess of 20 cubic yards outside the building footprint, and for retaining walls exceeding five feet in exposed height. A Coastal Development Permit is required for development of an ADU within the coastal zone. A Variance is required for encroachment of the ADU and associated improvements into the setback of a significantly modified watercourse.

Related Project Cases on the property include but are not limited to: LLA-2023-2191, CDP-2024-0151.

Applicant: Gregg Abel
A person has appealed the decision of the Design Review Board (DRB) to approve the project.

SAID PUBLIC MEETING to be held Tuesday, May 26, 2026, at 5:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter.

For additional information, contact City staff: Shehriyar Khan, Associate Planner (949) 715-0675 or [email protected].

Comments may be made in writing prior to the hearing (when emailed or mailed to the City Clerk’s office) or in-person in Council Chambers during the public hearing. In order to allow sufficient time for members of the City Council and staff to review and consider your comments, written comments will be accepted for consideration up until the close of business (i.e., 5:30 p.m.) on the business day before the date on which this public hearing is scheduled; however, it is recommended they be submitted to the City Clerk’s office on or before 5:00 p.m. five days prior to the scheduled hearing.

Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65009(b), if you challenge this application in court, the issues raised shall be limited to those raised in the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Laguna Beach prior to, or at, the public hearing.

CEQA: This project qualifies for a categorical exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, Section 15303 – New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, and Section 15305 – Minor Alteration in Land Use limitations.

COASTAL: The project is located within a non-appealable area of the Coastal Zone. A Coastal Development Permit is requested to authorize development of an accessory dwelling unit pursuant to Laguna Beach Municipal Code (“LBMC”) Chapter 25.17.010(d)(1)(B)(iii).

The project is proposed as non-appealable development. The application was filed on December 21, 2022 by Gregg Abel and is assigned application number CDP-2026-0279. The application was approved by the Design Review Board. The decision by the Design Review Board is appealable to the City Council upon the payment of $2500 and in accordance with Laguna Beach Municipal Code Section 25.05.070. The decision by the City Council is not appealable to the California Coastal Commission.

Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons with a disability who require a disability-related modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, may request such modification or accommodation from the City Clerk’s Office at (949) 497-0705 (telephone) or (949) 497-0771 (facsimile). Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility to the meeting.

Notice posted 10 days prior to hearing date at the following three public places (CA Government Code Section 65090 and 65091):
855 La Vista Drive, Laguna Beach, CA; 505 Forest Ave., Laguna Beach, CA; and 380 3rd St., Laguna Beach, CA; and Property Owners within 300 ft./ Tenants within 100 ft./ California Coastal Commission /Interested Persons List / Publish Date: 05/15/2026 Attachment 3
114
115 of 267

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date:

May 26, 2026
APPEAL
A
SUBJECT: 855 LA VISTA DRIVE: PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 2026-0278 AND COASTAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2026-0279 FOR A NEW DETACHED ACCESSORY

DWELLING UNIT, ELEVATED DECK, RETAINING WALLS EXCEEDING FIVE FEET IN EXPOSED HEIGHT, AND GRADING, AND VARIANCE 2026-0280 TO

ENCROACH INTO A SIGNIFICANTLY MODIFIED WATERCOURSE SETBACK

AREA, AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15303 (CLASS 3) AND 15305 (CLASS 5)
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:

1. Open the public hearing, take public testimony, and continue the public hearing to the June 23, 2026, City Council meeting; and

2. Find that the action to continue the public hearing is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 (b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption).

SUMMARY OF THE MATTER
An appeal of the Design Review Board’s approval of Design Review 2026-0278, Coastal Development Permit 2026-0279 and Variance 2026-0280 was filed with the City Clerk on April 9, 2026. To continue the public hearing on the appeal without re-sending public hearing notices, staff requests that the City Council open the public hearing and continue the matter to June 23, 2026. Staff does not intend to provide a report at this time.

The sole purpose of this item is for City Council to take action on the requested continuance.

FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The recommended action has no financial impact to the budget.

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the recommended actions are exempt from CEQA per Section 15061(b)(3), which is the commonsense exemption that the CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. The action on the determination of the appeal at the continued public hearing will include compliance with CEQA.

Submitted By: . Approved: .
. Dave Kiff, City Manager
Attachment 4
115
116 of 267
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 2026-0278, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2026-0279, AND VARIANCE 2026-0280 AT 855 LA VISTA DRIVE May 26, 2026