Laguna Beach City Council
July 7, 2026

Report Prepared By: Coordinated With:

Shehriyar Khan, Associate Planner Anthony Viera, Deputy Director of Community Development
116
117 of 267
Attachment 5
117
118 of 267
118
119 of 267
119
120 of 267
120
121 of 267
121
122 of 267
122
123 of 267
123
124 of 267
124
125 of 267
125
126 of 267
126
127 of 267
127
128 of 267
128
129 of 267
129
130 of 267
130
131 of 267
131
132 of 267
132
133 of 267

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT
March 26, 2026
Agenda Item No. 5.8
Case No: Design Review 2026-0278, Coastal Development Permit 2026-0279, and Variance 2026-0280
Request: Construct a detached accessory dwelling unit with aggregate storage, an elevated deck, grading, stairs, air conditioning unit, and associated retaining walls within a watercourse setback.

Location: 855 La Vista Drive | APN: 641-352-57
Applicant: Gregg Abel
(949) 683-1007 | [email protected]
Owner: Gregg Abel
Staff: Community Development Department
Shehriyar Khan, Associate Planner
(949) 715-0672 | [email protected]
Recommendation:

Adopt Resolution 2026-0278 approving Design Review 2026-0278, Coastal Development Permit 2026- 0279, and Variance 2026-0280 for the property located at 855 La Vista Drive, and find said action categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303.

CEQA:

The project qualifies for a categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15303, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, and Section 15305, Minor Alteration is Land Use Limitations, because the proposed project scope involves the construction of an accessory dwelling unit location partially within a modified (i.e., underground piped) watercourse setback.

Coastal Development Permit:

The project site is located in the 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). Action on the coastal development permit is not appealable to the California Coastal Commission.

Board Members within a 500’ Radius: None
Attachment 6
133
134 of 267
Design Review 2026-0278, Coastal Development Permit 2026-0279, and Variance 2026-0280 March 26, 2026

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The applicant, Gregg Abel, requests approval of a Design Review, Coastal Development Permit, and Variance to allow the construction of a new detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (“ADU”), and associated site improvements on a developed residential property located at 855 La Vista Drive in the R-1 (Single Family Residential) Zone. The proposed development includes a 972-square-foot ADU with an elevated deck, and storage area, retaining walls, and related grading and access improvements necessary to accommodate the site’s sloping topography.

The project site is traversed by a mapped watercourse and associated 25-foot setback; however, the drainage feature has been substantially modified and is currently conveyed through an existing subterranean City installed storm drain system. The requested variance would allow limited encroachments into the setback for improvements that have been carefully sited and designed to respond to the site constraints, minimize grading, and integrate with the surrounding hillside environment.

Staff has analyzed the project and finds that facts to support approval can be made for the requested entitlements. Therefore, staff recommends that the Design Review Board approve Resolution 2026-0278.

PROPERTY AERIAL PHOTO
134
135 of 267
Design Review 2026-0278, Coastal Development Permit 2026-0279, and Variance 2026-0280 March 26, 2026

SITE PHOTOS
135
136 of 267
Design Review 2026-0278, Coastal Development Permit 2026-0279, and Variance 2026-0280 March 26, 2026

PROPERTY INFORMATION
Land Use Designation Village Low Density (1-7 DU/AC)
Zoning Designation R-1 Residential Low Density

ZONING REVIEW
The proposed project complies with applicable zoning standards and guidelines as shown in the summary table below:

Development Standard Required Existing Proposed Conforms Site Coverage % (sf) 35% (12,682)
max

7.83%
(2,836)

11.3%
(4,101)
Yes
Landscape Open Space 35% 84.28%
(30,538)

79.7 %
(28,874)
Yes
ADU Height (Lowest floor to top
of roof)
16’ N/A 16’ Yes
ADU Setbacks
Side (South)
Side (West)
4’
4’
4’ 10’’
5’
Yes
Yes
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:

Site History
The subject property was legally established as Lots 7 and 8 of Tract 503 and Lot B of Tract 825 as a result of a land division prior to 1940. The property was developed with a single-family residence and garage in 1934. Subsequent permits include a sewer permit issued in 1938 and a building permit in 1939 for a residential remodel. In 1987, the Design Review Board approved Design Review 87-161 for additions to the existing residence, including increases in floor area, decks exceeding three feet in height, and construction above street level. In 1988, the City issued a building permit for an addition to the master bedroom deck.

More recently, the property 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.1 The Open Space/Conservation Element of the General Plan identifies a significant natural drainage watercourse and corresponding 25-foot setback on the property. Historically, this drainage feature conveyed natural runoff from the hillside terrain above Skyline Drive through a canyon that extended across the site. 1 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. 136
137 of 267
Design Review 2026-0278, Coastal Development Permit 2026-0279, and Variance 2026-0280 March 26, 2026

Subsequent development of Skyline Drive altered the natural drainage patterns, and in 1999 the City constructed a storm drain system to capture and convey upstream flows.

The existing system consists of catch basins within Skyline Drive that discharge runoff downslope through a storm drainpipe traversing the subject property. As a result, the original open drainage channel has been replaced by subsurface infrastructure, although the mapped watercourse and associated setback continue to apply. The mapped alignment generally follows the northerly portion of the property to the westerly property line. A utility easement exists over the piped segment to allow for access and maintenance of the drainage facility.

Staff conducted a site visit on February 26, 2026, and confirmed that the property is maintained in substantial conformance with its entitlement history.

The property has no pending Code Enforcement activity.

Proposed Project
The project proposes the development of a new detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) and associated site improvements. The proposed improvements include the construction of an approximately 972-square-foot detached ADU with attached storage areas, and a 136-square-foot elevated deck measuring approximately 29 feet in width and 6 feet in depth along the west side of the ADU, oriented toward the entrance from Virginia Park Drive. The project also includes associated grading, perimeter stairs surrounding the ADU, installation of an air conditioning unit, and retaining walls exceeding five feet in exposed height located on north and south side of the ADU and within the watercourse setback.

Design Review is required for the proposed elevated deck, retaining walls, and grading outside of the building footprint. The elevated deck will maintain a four-foot setback from the westerly property line and an approximately 6-foot-7-inch setback from the southerly property line. The project involves approximately 53 cubic yards of cut outside the building footprint and 231 cubic yards within the footprint, for a total net export of 284 cubic yards. Design Review is not required for the ADU; however, the ADU requires a Coastal Development Permit. The applicant also requests a variance for development within the 25-foot watercourse setback.

The project site is currently developed with an existing single-family residence, garage, paved driveway, with approximately 30,538 square feet of landscaped open space (84 percent of the parcel). The project will retain 28,874 square feet of landscaped open space (79 percent), which exceeds the required 35% minimum requirement in the R-1 zone.

The existing residence is set back from La Vista Drive and screened by vegetation. The westerly property line, along which the ADU is proposed to front, is visible from the public right-of-way at the terminus of Virgina Park Way, a dead-end street.

Two parking spaces are provided for the primary residence. No additional parking is required for the ADU, because it is located within one-half mile from a bus stop pursuant to LBMC Section 25.17.010 (g)(4)(B)(i). 137
138 of 267
Design Review 2026-0278, Coastal Development Permit 2026-0279, and Variance 2026-0280 March 26, 2026

No work is proposed within the public right-of-way, and the site has access to all utilities and adequate public services to serve the proposed ADU.

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

Design Review
Design review is required for projects involving elevated decks more than three (3) feet above the adjacent existing grade (LBMC Section 25.05.040(B)(3)(a)(ii)); grading in excess of 20 cubic yards outside the building footprint (LBMC 25.05.040(B)(1)(m)); and retaining walls in excess of five feet in exposed height (LBMC Section 25.05.040(B)(1)(c)). Design review is governed by LBMC Section 25.05.040. Design Review is considered by the Design Review Board at a duly noticed public hearing where the following findings are considered in relation to the proposed development:

Finding No. 1: Physical improvements and site developments related to the Project are designed and located in a manner in overall consistency with the design review criteria specified in Section 25.05.040(H), as set forth below:

1. Access. Conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians and other modes of transportation should be minimized by specifically providing for each applicable mode of transportation. Handicapped access shall be provided as required by applicable statutes.

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 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 138
139 of 267
Design Review 2026-0278, Coastal Development Permit 2026-0279, and Variance 2026-0280 March 26, 2026

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 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, 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.
139
140 of 267
Design Review 2026-0278, Coastal Development Permit 2026-0279, and Variance 2026-0280 March 26, 2026

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.

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 onsite resources, and protect public views as specified in the Design Guidelines and Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document by maintaining the low-profile character of structures.

Require use of appropriate landscaping, special architectural treatments, and siting considerations for projects visible from major highways and arterial streets. Best efforts should be made to site new development in locations that minimize adverse impacts on views from public locations (e.g., roads, bluff-top trails, visitor-serving facilities, etc.).
140
141 of 267
Design Review 2026-0278, Coastal Development Permit 2026-0279, and Variance 2026-0280 March 26, 2026

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 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 growth-inducing 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.

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 141
142 of 267
Design Review 2026-0278, Coastal Development Permit 2026-0279, and Variance 2026-0280 March 26, 2026

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 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 existing neighborhood character.
142
143 of 267
Design Review 2026-0278, Coastal Development Permit 2026-0279, and Variance 2026-0280 March 26, 2026

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 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. 143
144 of 267
Design Review 2026-0278, Coastal Development Permit 2026-0279, and Variance 2026-0280 March 26, 2026

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.

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.

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.
144
145 of 267
Design Review 2026-0278, Coastal Development Permit 2026-0279, and Variance 2026-0280 March 26, 2026

VARIANCE

The proposed encroachments for the ADU, elevated deck, grading, and retaining walls into the watercourse setback requires the approval of a variance pursuant to Section 25.05.030(D)(4). Variances are governed by Laguna Beach Municipal Code Section 25.05.025. A variance is considered by the Design Review Board at a duly noticed public hearing where the following findings are considered in relation to the proposed development:

Finding No. 1: There are special circumstances applicable to the property involved, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings which cause the strict application of the zoning ordinance to deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification.

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. 145
146 of 267
Design Review 2026-0278, Coastal Development Permit 2026-0279, and Variance 2026-0280 March 26, 2026

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.

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.

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 146
147 of 267
Design Review 2026-0278, Coastal Development Permit 2026-0279, and Variance 2026-0280 March 26, 2026

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.

Coastal Development Permit
The proposed detached ADU and associated improvements such as the elevated deck, grading and retaining walls, requires the approval of a coastal development permit (See LBMC Section 25.07.004.) Coastal Development Permits are governed by LBMC Chapter 25.07. A Coastal Development Permit is considered by the Design Review Board at a duly noticed public hearing where the following findings are considered in relation to the proposed development:

Finding No. 1: The project is in conformity with all the applicable provisions of the certified local coastal program, including the following review criteria:

1. The proposed development will not encroach upon any existing physical accessway legally utilized by the public or any proposed public accessway identified in the adopted local coastal program land use plan.

The 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 right-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. 147
148 of 267
Design Review 2026-0278, Coastal Development Permit 2026-0279, and Variance 2026-0280 March 26, 2026

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 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 fireresistant 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.

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. 148
149 of 267
Design Review 2026-0278, Coastal Development Permit 2026-0279, and Variance 2026-0280 March 26, 2026

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.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

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, because 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.
149
150 of 267
Design Review 2026-0278, Coastal Development Permit 2026-0279, and Variance 2026-0280 March 26, 2026

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution 2026-0278 approving Design Review 2026-0278, Coastal Development Permit 2026- 0279, and Variance 2026-0280 for the property located at 855 La Vista Drive, and finding said action categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 and Section 15304 NOTIFICATION:

Pursuant to Title 25 (Zoning) Public Notice, a public hearing notice was mailed on March 4, 2026, which is at least twenty-one (21) days prior to the March 26, 2026 hearing date in accordance with Title 25. In addition, a public hearing notice was posted on the project site on February 27, 2026, which is at least 10 days in advance of the March 26, 2026 hearing date. Further, a public hearing notice was published in a newspaper of general circulation on March 13, 2026, which is at least 10 days in advance of the March 26, 2026, public hearing.

Staking for the deck was installed and certified at the project site on March 2, 2026 (Attachment 5).

PUBLIC COMMENT:

At the time of publishing of the agenda of the Design Review Board meeting of March 26, 2026, staff has not received any public correspondence in regards to the proposed project.

ATTACHMENT(S):

Attachment 1 – Resolution 2026-0278
Attachment 2 – Plans
Attachment 3 – Color and Material Board
Attachment 4 – Colored Elevations and Renderings
Attachment 5 – Certified Staking Plan
150
151 of 267
1/20/26 8:40 AM * Abel 20.pln
A1TYPE REV. DATE

SITE PLAN/FIREFIGHTER

ACCESS PLAN GREGG ABEL
DESIGN & Construction Inc.
855 LA VISTA DR.Laguna Beach CA, 92651 (949) 683-1007
THE ABEL RESIDENCE855 LA VISTA DR. UNIT BLAGUNA BEACH, CA NEW ADU UNIT B (927 sq ft), NEW DECK (136 sqft), NEW STORAGE (927 sq ft), GRADING, SITEWALLS AND STAIRS, AC UNIT

LOT AREA
36,233.3 sq ft
2,888.3 sq ft

IMPERVIOUS SURFACE SITE (E)

BSC (E)

HOUSE/GARAGE
2,703.3 sq ft
A1
A1
N
N
S
S
W
W
E
E
A
A
374'-4
1/2"
ALD
156'-8"
ALW
20'-0"
FYS
15'-8"
SYS
15'-8"
SYS
15'-8"
SYS
20'-0"
RYS
15'-8"
SYS
20'-0"
RYS
15'-8"
SYS
15'-8"
SYS
15'-8"
SYS
6'-10"
(E)
32'-5"
(E)
36'-6
1/2"
(E)
154'-2
1/2"
(E)
REQD.

ADU
4'-0"
5'-0"

EASEMENT
5'-0"

PIPE OFFSET
ADU
5'-0"
201.00'
PC
196.70'
PC
157.50'
PC
195.00'
PC
173.80'
PC
173.00'
PC
219.50'
PC
214.50'
PC
197.50'
PC
197.00'
PC
223.00'
PC
207.00'
PC
221.00'
PC
207.00'
PC
205.50'
PC
201.00'
PC
199.50'
F.F. (E)
176.17'
LANDING (N) 181.17'

LANDING (N)
28,784.8 sq ft
= LANDSCAPED OS

ACTUAL CL OF CITY INSTALLED SUBTERRANEAN DRAINAGE PIPE

FIXED DATUM

ADU INDEPENDENT PATH AND ACCESS STAIRS
WATERCOURSE CENTERLINE - TOAL ENG. SURVEY 8/31/06 #12976 25' WATERCOURSE EASEMENT

AC UNIT
STREET

ABANDONED STREET

ACTUAL CL OF CITY INSTALLED SUBTERRANEAN DRAINAGE PIPE
STORM DRAIN EASEMENT (PORTION LL 88-05)
WATERCOURSE CENTERLINE - TOAL ENG. SURVEY 8/31/06 #12976 25' WATERCOURSE EASEMENT
SEWER DISTRICT - SHEET 049 W/ 5' SEWER PIPE OFFSET
DN

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE
199.50 FF
181.4 EG
180.7 TOP
185.6 EG
181.1 TOP
176.4 TW
174.6 EG
176.1 TW
176.8 TW
175.0 EG
176.8 TW
163.2 TOE
163.2 EG
164.2 TW
164.2 EG
53" EUC
164.8 TOE
157.64 EP
157.52 EP
157.6 EG
160.0 TOE
160.1 EG
172.2 EG
173.07 FS
12" TREES
168.8 EG
174.4 TW
173.2 EG
176.1 TW
176.75 FS
176.0 EG
6" TREE

WOOD WIRE FENCE
182.86 TS
182.4 EG
197.29 FS
197.92 FS
197.9 TW
194.2 EG
197.8 TW
196.3 EG
177.3 EG
180.6 TW
180.1 TW
187.5 TW
184.8 EG

29.16'
N00°50'20"W
S84°05'40"E

30.21'
N53°55'24"W

73.70'
S53°32'07"E

46.07'
N62°16'10"W

12.00'
N34°48'40"E

36.25'
6" TREE
192.8 EG
8" TREE
16" TREE
194.16 TS
199.0 TW
195.8 EG
196.8 TW
18" TREE
197.0 EG
12" TREE
12" TREE
196.68 FS
196.66 FS
202.4 T.PIL
WM
WM
196.28 TS
194.49 TS
196.5 TW
193.96 FS
193.51 TS
189.55 TS
S73°03'59"E

94.47'
187.1 EG
8" TREE
10" PALM
186.8 TOP
187.4 TW
183.8 EG
184.6 EG
8" TREE
184.6 TW
182.5 EG
8" TREE
192.0 EG
192.2 EG
8" TREE
189.4 TW
187.7 EG
190.3 TW
190.6 TW
188.50 TS
185.52 TS
187.5 EG
191.0 TW
12" PALM
185.0 EG
181.44 FS
183.7 TW
181.31 FS
181.76 TS
184.8 TW
183.22 TS
187.0 TW
198.40 FS
198.5 TW
198.46 FS
198.5 TW
198.6 TW
198.42 FS
196.5 EG
198.2 TW
197.98 FS
198.11 FS
198.25 FS
193.34 TS
195.3 TW
198.09 FS
196.4 TW
S26°57'41"W
130.21'
173.9 TOP
175.1 TW
178.6 TS
177.2 EG
180.1 TW
ROCK
181.09 TF
180.45 TS
180.45 TS
183.5 TW
177.44 TS
180.55 TS
193.2 TW
196.38 FS
188.84 FS
189.9 TW
189.03 FS
159.2 EG
FD. 1" IP
159.2 EG
159.9 EG

GRATE INLET
161.0 EG
161.4 EG
159.97 TG
162.4 EG
161.5 EG
164.2 EG
165.9 EG
163.8 EG
193.3 TW
198.14 FS
194.5 EG
14" TREE
188.94 TS
188.2 EG
191.45 TS
191.97 TS
195.28 TS
195.79 FS
188.0 TW
185.4 EG
191.53 TS
190.36 TS
189.69 FS
189.0 EG
189.2 TW
186.9 EG
174.5 TW
173.8 EG
181.02 TS
183.7 T.PIL
185.63 TS
186.79 TS
188.83 TS
192.1 TS
194.7 TS
196.5 TW
195.28 TS

GREENHOUSE
184
186
182
180
178
178
176
174
172
170
168
166
164
160
N34°48'40"E

76.03'
L=53.19'
R=479.02
TBM
190.1 TW
189.97 TS
P
P
P
P
P
L = 3 7 . 6 4 '
R= 1 0 8 . 1 3
855 LA VISTA DR.

LAGUNA BEACH CA

LINE LEGEND

89.3' SOUTH SIDE
125.2' NORTH SIDE
B
B
15'-8"
SYS
15'-8"
SYS
4'-10"
ADU
25'-0"

WATERCOURSE EASEMENT
10'-0"
FFA
49'-9"
FFA
12'-1"
FFA
5'-0
1/2"
FFA
12'-5
1/2"
FFA
15'-11
1/2"
FFA
12'-5
1/2"
FFA
10'-2"
FFA
24'-0
1/2"
FFA
14'-6
1/2"
FFA
11'-4"
FFA
36'-4"
FFA
181.00'

GREENHOUSE/PATIO (E)
174.43'

ADU LOW ROOF
180.43'

ADU HIGH ROOF
= NEW ADU
ROOF
132.9 sq ft BSC (E)

GREENHOUSE
= BSC (E)
2836.2 sq ft
= IMPERVIOUS (E)
2888,3 sq ft
= IMPERVIOUS (N)
= NEW ADU
DECK
2,097.5 sq ft
30" PLANTER WALL
CLB STORM DRAIN SYSTEM 2/2007 SHEET F19a

AREA LEGEND
(FFA) FIREFIGHTER ALL WEATHER
WALKABLE ACCESS 3' MIN. WIDTH

INDEPENDANT ADU ACCESS

DRAWING INDEX
NO.

A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
A7
A8
A9
A10
A11
A12
NAME

SITE PLAN/FIREFIGHTER ACCESS PLAN

EASEMENTS

LOWER STORAGE FLOOR PLAN

ADU FLOOR PLAN

UPPER STORAGE FLOOR PLAN

ROOF PLAN/PLANTING PLAN

ELEVATIONS

SECTIONS
3D VIEWS

STAKING PLAN

SURVEY TOAL

SURVEY SOUTH COAST

DATE REVISION
67'
357'
395'
292'
368'
1479' = .28 MILES

VICINITY MAP
1 SITE PLAN/FIREFIGHTER ACCESS PLAN 1/16" = 1'-0"
4 TRANSIT MAP 1:1886.29
Parcel Information
APN: 641-352-57
PIN:  5050
Zone District:

R1
Specific Plan Area:

N/A
General Plan Land Use:

VLD
Building Site Designation
Yes
Environmentally Sensitive Areas
Drainage/VHFHSZ/CHTree
On Site Turnaround Required
No
Special Subdivision Map Building Setback
None
Special Street Plan Requirements
None
Special Subdivision Map Height Standards
None
1990 Census Tract No.
626.07
2000 Census Tract No.
626.32
2000 Census Block No.
3003
FEMA Flood Zone(s)
X
FEMA Flood Map Effective Date
12/03/2009
FEMA Flood Map Panel No.
06059C0417J
Watershed
LCS
Home Owners' Association
None
Coastal Commission Appeal or Deferred Area
No
Drainage
Yes
Fire Hazard Zone
VHFHSZ
Coastal Zone
No
Water Quality ESA
No
Coastal Exclusion Areas
No
CARITS Road Fees
No
Moulton Parkway Road Fees
No
Storm Drain Pipes
Yes
Sewer Lines
Yes
Sewer Service
Yes
Fault Present
No
Drainage Fee
Yes
Lot Area AC.

0.832
Lot Area SF.
36233.3
Ownership Information
APN: 641-352-57
Property Owners (Last Name First)
ABEL
Property Owners' Street Address
855 LA VISTA DR
Property Owners' City/State/Zip Address
LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651
Property Legal Description
N TR 503 BLK LOT 7 SEC 24 T 7 R 9 POR OF SEC AND T
Assessor Tax Code Area No.
005003
Building Living Area (sq. ft.):
36233.3
1/20/26
8/31/06
8/2023
SCOPE OF WORK: NEW ADU UNIT B (927 sq ft), NEW DECK (136 sq ft), NEW STORAGE (927 sq ft), GRADING, SITE WALLS AND STAIRS, AC UNIT NOTE: ALL NEW EXTERIOR LIGHTING SHALL BE SHIELDED DOWNLIGHTING AND

CONFORM TO THE CITY'S GOOD NEIGHBOR LIGHTING POLICY

NOTE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM PARKING REQUIREMENTS - SEE TRANSIT MAP 151
152 of 267
1/20/26 8:40 AM * Abel 20.pln
A2TYPE REV. DATE

EASEMENTS GREGG ABEL
DESIGN & Construction Inc.
855 LA VISTA DR.Laguna Beach CA, 92651 (949) 683-1007
THE ABEL RESIDENCE855 LA VISTA DR. UNIT BLAGUNA BEACH, CA NEW ADU UNIT B (927 sq ft), NEW DECK (136 sqft), NEW STORAGE (927 sq ft), GRADING, SITEWALLS AND STAIRS, AC UNIT 20'-0" FYS
15'-8" SYS
15'-8" SYS
15'-8" SYS
20'-0" RYS
15'-8" SYS
20'-0" RYS
15'-8" SYS
15'-8" SYS
15'-8" SYS
6'-10" (E)
36'-61/2" (E)
REQD. ADU 4'-0"
5'-0" EASEMENT
5'-0" PIPE OFFSET
ADU 5'-0"
201.00'
PC
196.70'
PC
157.50'
PC
195.00'
PC
173.80'
PC
173.00'
PC
219.50'
PC
214.50'
PC
197.50'
PC
197.00'
PC
223.00'
PC
207.00'
PC
221.00'
PC
207.00'
PC
205.50'
PC
201.00'
PC

ACTUAL CL OF CITY INSTALLED SUBTERRANEAN DRAINAGE PIPE
WATERCOURSE CENTERLINE - TOAL ENG. SURVEY 8/31/06 #12976 25' WATERCOURSE EASEMENT
STORM DRAIN EASEMENT (PORTION LL 88-05)
SEWER DISTRICT - SHEET 049 W/ 5' SEWER PIPE OFFSET

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE
199.50 FF
181.4 EG
180.7 TOP
185.6 EG
181.1 TOP
176.4 TW
174.6 EG 176.1 TW 176.8 TW
175.0 EG 176.8 TW
163.2 TOE
163.2 EG 164.2 TW
164.2 EG 53" EUC 164.8 TOE
157.64 EP 157.52 EP 157.6 EG
160.0 TOE
160.1 EG
172.2 EG
173.07 FS
12" TREES
168.8 EG 174.4 TW 173.2 EG
176.1 TW
176.75 FS 176.0 EG
6" TREE

WOOD WIRE FENCE
182.86 TS 182.4 EG
197.29 FS 197.92 FS 197.9 TW 194.2 EG
197.8 TW 196.3 EG
177.3 EG 180.6 TW 180.1 TW
187.5 TW 184.8 EG

29.16' N00°50'20"W
S84°05'40"E 30.21'
N53°55'24"W

73.70'
S53°32'07"E

46.07'
N62°16'10"W 12.00'
N34°48'40"E 36.25'
6" TREE 192.8 EG 8" TREE 16" TREE 194.16 TS
199.0 TW
195.8 EG 196.8 TW
18" TREE 197.0 EG 12" TREE
12" TREE
196.68 FS 196.66 FS 202.4 T.PIL
WM
WM
196.28 TS
194.49 TS 196.5 TW 193.96 FS
193.51 TS
189.55 TS
S73°03'59"E 94.47'
187.1 EG 8" TREE
10" PALM
186.8 TOP
187.4 TW 183.8 EG
184.6 EG 8" TREE
184.6 TW 182.5 EG
8" TREE 192.0 EG
192.2 EG 8" TREE
189.4 TW 187.7 EG
190.3 TW
190.6 TW
188.50 TS
185.52 TS
187.5 EG 191.0 TW 12" PALM 185.0 EG
181.44 FS 183.7 TW
181.31 FS 181.76 TS
184.8 TW
183.22 TS 187.0 TW
198.40 FS 198.5 TW 198.46 FS 198.5 TW
198.6 TW 198.42 FS
196.5 EG 198.2 TW
197.98 FS
198.11 FS
198.25 FS
193.34 TS 195.3 TW 198.09 FS
196.4 TW
S26°57'41"W 130.21' 173.9 TOP 175.1 TW
178.6 TS 177.2 EG
180.1 TW ROCK
181.09 TF 180.45 TS
180.45 TS 183.5 TW
177.44 TS
180.55 TS
193.2 TW
196.38 FS
188.84 FS 189.9 TW
189.03 FS
159.2 EG FD. 1" IP 159.2 EG 159.9 EG

GRATE INLET
161.0 EG
161.4 EG
159.97 TG
162.4 EG
161.5 EG
164.2 EG
165.9 EG 163.8 EG
193.3 TW
198.14 FS
194.5 EG 14" TREE
188.94 TS 188.2 EG
191.45 TS
191.97 TS 195.28 TS 195.79 FS 188.0 TW 185.4 EG
191.53 TS
190.36 TS
189.69 FS 189.0 EG 189.2 TW 186.9 EG
174.5 TW 173.8 EG
181.02 TS 183.7 T.PIL
185.63 TS
186.79 TS
188.83 TS
192.1 TS
194.7 TS
196.5 TW 195.28 TS

GREENHOUSE
184
186
182
180
178
178
176
174
172
170
168
166
164
160
N34°48'40"E 76.03'
L=53.19' R=479.02
TBM 190.1 TW
189.97 TS
P
P
P
P
P
L = 3 7
. 6 4 '
R= 1 0 8
. 1 3 855 LA VISTA DR. LAGUNA BEACH CA

LINE LEGEND
15'-8" SYS
15'-8" SYS
4'-10" ADU
25'-0" WATERCOURSE EASEMENT
CLB STORM DRAIN SYSTEM 2/2007 SHEET F19a
1 EASEMENTS 1/16" = 1'-0"
152
153 of 267
1/20/26 8:40 AM * Abel 20.pln
A3TYPE REV. DATE

LOWER STORAGE FLOOR

PLAN GREGG ABEL
DESIGN & Construction Inc.
855 LA VISTA DR.Laguna Beach CA, 92651 (949) 683-1007
THE ABEL RESIDENCE855 LA VISTA DR. UNIT BLAGUNA BEACH, CA NEW ADU UNIT B (927 sq ft), NEW DECK (136 sqft), NEW STORAGE (927 sq ft), GRADING, SITEWALLS AND STAIRS, AC UNIT

STORAGE
442.1 sq ft 15'-8" SYS
15'-8" SYS
5'-0" EASEMENT
4'-10" ADU 27'-61/2"
12'-9"
16'-01/2"
ADU 5'-7"
ADU 4'-0" REQ.
181.00'
181.00'
158.42'
WALK
STORAGE F.F.
158.43'

GREENHOUSE (E)

PATIO (E)
STEPS
A1
A1
N
S
W
W
E
A
A
30" PLANTER WALL
LAY BACK SOIL THIS LOC.

B
B
1 LOWER STORAGE FLOOR PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0"
153
154 of 267
1/20/26 8:40 AM * Abel 20.pln
A4TYPE REV. DATE

ADU FLOOR PLAN GREGG ABEL
DESIGN & Construction Inc.
855 LA VISTA DR.Laguna Beach CA, 92651 (949) 683-1007
THE ABEL RESIDENCE855 LA VISTA DR. UNIT BLAGUNA BEACH, CA NEW ADU UNIT B (927 sq ft), NEW DECK (136 sqft), NEW STORAGE (927 sq ft), GRADING, SITEWALLS AND STAIRS, AC UNIT

ADU DECK
RG
REF
DW
W/D
15'-8"
SYS
15'-8"
SYS
ADU
4'-0"
29'-4
1/2"
31'-11
1/2"
29'-2"
4'-4"
5'-0"
7'-0"
7'-0"
2'-2"
2'-6"
1'-0"
2'-6"
3'-0"
5'-1"
10'-6"
3'-0"
3'-9"
4'-10"
ADU
7'-6
1/2"
ADU
49'-8
1/2"
12'-5
1/2"
FFA
15'-11
1/2"
FFA
10'-0"
FFA
49'-9"
FFA
12'-1"
FFA
5'-0
1/2"
FFA
36'-4"
FFA
14'-6
1/2"
FFA
11'-4"
FFA
24'-0
1/2"
FFA
10'-2"
FFA
12'-5
1/2"
FFA
181.00' F.S.

PATIO ABOVE (E)
181.00' F.S.

PATIO ABOVE (E)
181.00' F.S.

PATIO ABOVE (E)
ADU F.F.
164.43'
DECK F.F.
164.43' LANDING
162.00'

LANDING (N)
161.50'

LANDING (N)
164.43'

LANDING (N)
161.67'

LANDING (N)
176.17'

LANDING (N)
181.00'

LANDING
167.00'

LANDING (N)
167.00'

LANDING (N)
178.00'

LANDING (N)
181.17'
A1
A1
DECK

CANTILEVER

LADDER ACCESS TO STORAGE ABOVE

CODE COMPLIANT STAIRS (N)

CODE COMPLIANT STAIRS (N)

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE
CLOSET
MASTER

BEDROOM
QUEEN

BEDROOM
TV

DRESSER
BATH
DINING

KITCHEN
LIVING
ENTRY
CLOSET
STEPS

FULL XL

FULL XL
CLOSET

BEDROOM
MASTER
BATH

LAUNDRY

FOLDING TABLE

SHOWER/
BATH

DRESSER

DRESSER

DRESSER
DESK
DESK
DESK
MICRO
STAIRS
SWALE

PLANTER

PLANTER
N
N
S
W
W
E
E
A
A
W1 EGRESS
5' by 3'-6"
W2 EGRESS
2'-6" by 3'-6"
W3 EGRESS
2'-6" by 3'-6"
ADU
927.2 sq ft
DECK
136.0 sq ft
POW

LIGHTING LEGEND
WALL SCONCE 4
STEP LIGHT 6
B
B

REVISIONS
DATE:

SHEET # :

DESIGN CONSULTANT:

WARREN HUTCHERSON
JOB #: PADACH
CHECKED: WH ADDITION AND REMODEL, DECK ADDITION, AC UNIT (1) JULIE PADACH 302 HAROLD DR.LAGUNA BEACH CA

EXTERIOR AND LANDSCAPELIGHTING PLANS
7/26/23
3D CAD SERVICES
2435 LAGUNA CANYON RD.

LAGUNA BEACH, CA. 92651
(949) 338-6905
A11
5'-0"
FYS G
10'-0"
FYS H
4'-10"
(E)
16'-2"
20'-3"
(E)
U
U
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
-10
1/2"
(E)
16'-2"
(E)
20'-3"
(E)
19'-1"
(E)
3'-4"
(E)
5'-0"
FYS G
10'-0"
FYS H
11'-7"
SYS
15'-9"
RYS

98.95 FL

97.33 FL

98.93 TC

97.38 FL

97.98 TC

96.63 FL

97.27 TC

96.21 FL

96.81 TC
TOP X=2.5'
G
RIDGE
124.7 TOR

SKYLIGHT
123.1 TOP
111.77 FS
W
G
101.1 EG
100.1 EG
100.1 EG
18"YUCCA

99.4 EG

99.4 EG
2-26"YUCCA
107.5 TW

98.8 EG
111.0 EG
6" TREE
111.2 TW
111.76 TS
112.50 FS
112.61 FF
RIDGE
123.5 TOR
108.44 FS
108.49 TD
111.3 EG
111.55 FS
111.64 TS
111.90 FS 111.54 FS
112.00 FS
112.03 FS
RIDGE
123.3 TOR
112.70 FF
112.02 FS
105
3 TW
108.31 TS
107.69 FS
111.29 FS
111.1 TW
111.35 FS
111.1 TW
108.53 TD
107.72 TS

97.70 TS

97.20 FS
108.10 TD

97.82 FS

97.88 GFF
108.19 TD

95.75 FS
111.3 TW
112.34 FS
108.19 TD

97.91 FS
106.6 TW

97.76 FS

96.67 FS
101.1 TW

97.11 FS

98.4 TW

98.0 EG

98.4 TW
111.6 EG
111.1 EG
111.15 FS
111.5 EG
111.49 FS
111.9 EG
111.94 FS
111.73 FS
111.77 FS
112.47 TC
112.37 FS
112.21 FS
112.61 FS
113.8 TW
113.0 EG

EAVE COR
120.1 TOR
113.10 FF
112.41 FS
112.44 TC
112.39 FS

17.0 TOE
117.4 TOE
118.0 TOE
117.9 EG
112.03 FS
111.99 FS
111.98 FS
112.01 FS
112.01 FS
112.49 TC
111.80 FS
112.50 TC
113.0 EG
113.25 FS
110.9 TW
108.6 EG
108.78 TS
108.48 FS
111.0 TW
110.9 EG
108.3 EG
8" TREE
108.17 FS
111.8 EG
10" TREE
111.67 FS
111.2 EG
14" TREE
111.11 FS
POND
111.65 FS
112.03 FS
117.1 TW
112.4 EG
112.09 FS
118.5 TW
P
P
P
P
113..8 TW
112.21 FS
113.0 EG
112.19 FS
111.97 FS
115.6 TW
112.02 FS

POST (TYP)
112.02 FS

BBQ-FIRE PIT
112.03 FS
112.24 FS 112.13 FS
112.40 TW
112.5 TW
111.07 TS
SCO
107.2 TW
105.8 EG
107.3 TW
106.0 EG
106.4 TW
106.1 EG
104.1 TW
102.7 EG
102.9 TW

96.26 FS

97.0 TW

97.97 TS
104.2 TW
103.2 EG
106.0 TW
102.08 TS
110.4 TW
107.72 TS
101.1 TW
105.19 TS
106.9 TW
105.85 FS
111.1 TW
105.93 FS
111.1 TW
BENCH
111.1 TW
106.97 TS

FLAG POLE
106.35 FS
111.1 TW
106.41 FS
POND
104.3 EG
111.2 TW
107.69 FS
108.54 TD
BLDG. CANT.
111.99 BTM
111.09 FS
111.3 EG
112.37 FS
108.31 TD
106.31 FS
111.3 TW
112.3 TW

EAVE COR
121.0 TOR
108.5 EG
2-10" TREE
109.3 EG
2-12"YUCCA
111.0 TW
111.15 FS
111.06 FS
109.90 FS
108.5 EG
110.39 FS
109.11 TS
7" DRAIN
111.66 TG
112.56 FS

EAVE COR
120.6 TOR

EAVE COR
121.1 TOR
115.4 TW
112.04 FS
3 TOP
121.0 TOP
111.99 FS
118.7 TW
8" TREE
112.22 FF
112.31 FS
112.08 FS

EAVE COR
121.0 TOR
1156 EG
EXIST. BLDG.

EXIST. BLDG.

EXIST. BLDG.

CONC
CONC

CONC CONC
CONC
P
88 60'
°57'35"E

65.32'
N09°17'35"W
L=53.94 R=93.39
98 99
100
101
4'-10"
(E)
PC 115.60'
P
U

LIGHTING LEGEND
WALL SCONCE 24
STEP LIGHT 21
PATH LIGHT 22
UP LIGHT 2

99.27' F.F. (N)
113.30' PC
107.78' F.F. (E)
107.78' F.S. (E)
107.78' F.F. (N)
107.78' F.F. (N)
107.78' F.S.
107.78'

DECK (N)

LIGHTING SYMBOLS LE
SYMBOL

1. THE LIGHTING CONTRACTOR INSTALLING

ADEQUATE SLEEVES HAVE BEEN INSTALLED
THE SLEEVES INSTALLED WILL BE 4" SCH. 40
SYSTEM AS WELL. THE TENTATIVE SLEEVE L

2. WHEN THE CONTRACTOR IS READY TO IN

TO THE JOB SITE AND SELECT THE EXACT LO

THE PLAN ARE FOR GENERAL INFORMATION O

3. THE CONTRACTOR SHOULD BE AWARE TH
FOR ENOUGH LEAD TIME.

4. THE LOW VOLTAGE WIRING SHALL BE INS

CONTRACTOR IS TO GUAGE THE LOW VOLTAG

5. NOTE THAT THE TRANSFORMER HAS A MA

THE WIRING LAYOUT AS SHOWN ON THE PLAN

6. THE TRANSFORMER WILL BE CONNECTED

HOUSE CONTROLLER AS PER CODE BY A LICE

CLOCK OR HOUSE COMPUTERIZED CONTROL
TRANSFORMER TO WALL WITH 2 MASONRY A
TRANSFORMERS.

1. ALL EQUIPMENT IS MANUFACTURED BY S

2. LAYOUT OF 12V SYSTEMS, ANY SWITCHIN

COMPONENTS DEEMED NECESSARY AND NO
CLIENT AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.

3. ALLOW SIX WEEKS LEAD TIME FOR ORDE

GENERAL NOTES
SPJ-K4221
SPJ19-06-BB (2 PER LIGHT)
UL/CSA LISTED 12V DIRECT

FIXTURE
MR. UNIVERSE-MBR-45
MTP600-SS
L

T-2
SPJ-HPL-9 LED-MBR L
SPJ17-09-LED-MBR L
SPJ-MW-1000-B-MBR L


LIGHTING SYSTEM NOT
UPLIGHT (3 WATT)
MR. UNIVERSE
WELL UPLIGHT (3 WATT)
SPJ-MW1000-P-GR
#SPJ-MSL2-6
STEPLIGHT (3 WATT) PATHLIGHT (4 WATT)
SPJ-JB100
1 2 UPPER FLOOR EXTERIOR AND LANDSCAPE LIGHTING PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0"

ALL NEW LIGHTING TO BE LOW

VOLTAGE SHROUDED DOWN LIGHTS

AND CONFORM TO THE CITY'S GOOD

NEIGHBOR LIGHTING GUIDELINES
INDUSTRIAL 1-LIGHT OUTDOOR WALL SCONCE
10118BK
CLOUDY BAY LOW V Dimmable LED Step Light
DATE:

SHEET # :

DESIGN CONSULTANT:

WARREN HUTCHERSON
JOB #: PADACH
CHECKED: WH ADDITION AND REMODEL, DECK ADDITION, AC UNIT (1) JULIE PADACH 302 HAROLD DR.LAGUNA BEACH CA

EXTERIOR AND LANDSCAPELIGHTING PLANS
7/26/23
A11
5'-0"
FYS G
10'-0"
FYS H
4'-10"
(E)
16'-2"
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
16'-2"
(E)
3'-4"
(E)
5'-0"
FYS G
10'-0"
FYS H
11'-7"
SYS

96.63 FL

97.27 TC

96.21 FL

96.81 TC
TOP X=2.5'
RIDGE
124.7 TOR

SKYLIGHT
123.1 TOP
107.5 TW

98.8 EG
111.0 EG
6" TREE
111.2 TW
111.76 TS
112.50 FS
112.61 FF
RIDGE
123.5 TOR
108.44 FS
108.49 TD
111.3 EG
111.55 FS
111.64 TS
111.90 FS 111.54 FS
112.00 FS
112.03 FS
RIDGE
123.3 TOR
112.70 FF
112.02 FS
106.1 TW
105.3 TW
107.1 TW
106.5 TW
C.L. FENCE
111.93 FS 111.84 FS
111.68 TS
111.38 FS
111.3 EG 110.5 EG
111.24 FS
108.4 TW
107.4 EG
111.27 FS
108.31 TS
107.69 FS
113.2 TW
111.29 FS
111.1 TW
111.35 FS
111.1 TW
108.53 TD
107.72 TS

97.70 TS

97.20 FS
108.10 TD

97.82 FS

97.88 GFF
108.19 TD

95.75 FS
111.3 TW
112.34 FS
108.19 TD

97.91 FS
106.6 TW

97.76 FS

96.67 FS
101.1 TW

97.11 FS

98.4 TW

98.0 EG

98.4 TW
111.1 EG
111.15 FS
112.03 FS
111.99 FS
111.98 FS
112.01 FS
112.01 FS
112.03 FS
117.1 TW
112.4 EG
112.09 FS
118.5 TW
P
P
P
P
113..8 TW
112.21 FS
113.0 EG
112.19 FS
111.97 FS
115.6 TW
112.02 FS

POST (TYP)
112.02 FS
RE PIT
112.03 FS
FS 112.13 FS
112.40 TW
112.5 TW
111.07 TS
SCO
107.2 TW
105.8 EG
107.3 TW
106.0 EG
106.4 TW
106.1 EG
104.1 TW
102.7 EG
102.9 TW

96.26 FS

97.0 TW

97.97 TS
104.2 TW
103.2 EG
106.0 TW
102.08 TS
110.4 TW
107.72 TS
101.1 TW
105.19 TS
106.9 TW
105.85 FS
111.1 TW
105.93 FS
111.1 TW
BENCH
111.1 TW
106.97 TS

FLAG POLE
106.35 FS
111.1 TW
106.41 FS
POND
105.2 EG
104.3 EG
111.2 TW
107.69 FS
108.54 TD
BLDG. CANT.
111.99 BTM
111.09 FS
111.3 EG
112.37 FS
108.31 TD
106.31 FS
111.3 TW
112.3 TW

EAVE COR
121.0 TOR
108.5 EG
0 109.3 EG
2-12"YUCCA
TW
111.15 FS
111.06 FS
109.90 FS
115.4 TW
112.04 FS
111.99 FS
118.7 TW
8" TREE
112.22 FF
112.31 FS
112.08 FS

EAVE COR
121.0 TOR
117.1 TW
115.6 EG
EXIST. BLDG.

EXIST. BLDG.

EXIST. BLDG.

CONC
CONC

CONC CONC
CONC
P

88.60' N60°38'00"W
L=53.94 R=93.39
98 4'-10"
(E)

15.60'
P
U

LIGHTING LEGEND
WALL SCONCE 24
STEP LIGHT 21
PATH LIGHT 22
UP LIGHT 2
3'-4"

99.27' F.F. (N)
113.30' PC
107.78' F.F. (E)
107.78' F.S. (E)
107.78' F.F. (N)
107.78' F.S. (N)
107.78' F.F. (N)
107.78' F.F. (N)
107.78' F.S.
107.78'

DECK (N)
T-2

COMPONENTS DEEMED NECESSARY AND NOT INCLUDED IN THIS PLAN, TO BE COORDINAT CLIENT AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.

3. ALLOW SIX WEEKS LEAD TIME FOR ORDERING ALL NECESSARY EQUIPMENT. 1 3 GARAGE EXTERIOR AND LANDSCAPE LIGHTING PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 UPPER FLOOR EXTERIOR AND LANDSCAPE LIGHTING PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0" MAIN FLOOR EXTERIOR AND LANDSCAPE LIGHTING PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0"

ALL NEW LIGHTING TO BE LOW

VOLTAGE SHROUDED DOWN LIGHTS

AND CONFORM TO THE CITY'S GOOD

NEIGHBOR LIGHTING GUIDELINES
CLOUDY BAY LOW V Dimmable LED Step Light
1 ADU FLOOR PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0"

ALL NEW LIGHTING TO BE LOW VOLTAGE SHROUDED DOWN LIGHTS AND CONFORM TO THE CITY'S

GOOD NEIGHBOR LIGHTING GUIDELINES

OR SIMILAR

OR SIMILAR
154
155 of 267
1/20/26 8:40 AM * Abel 20.pln
A5TYPE REV. DATE

UPPER STORAGE FLOOR

PLAN GREGG ABEL
DESIGN & Construction Inc.
855 LA VISTA DR.Laguna Beach CA, 92651 (949) 683-1007
THE ABEL RESIDENCE855 LA VISTA DR. UNIT BLAGUNA BEACH, CA NEW ADU UNIT B (927 sq ft), NEW DECK (136 sqft), NEW STORAGE (927 sq ft), GRADING, SITEWALLS AND STAIRS, AC UNIT

STORAGE
485.1 sq ft
A1
A1
28'-0"
17'-4"
ADU 4'-0"
5'-0" EASEMENT
4'-10" ADU
STORAGE F.F.
173.43'
N
S
W
W
E
A
A

LADDER ACCESS TO LIVING BELOW
B
B
1 UPPER STORAGE FLOOR PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0"
155
156 of 267
1/20/26 8:40 AM * Abel 20.pln
A6TYPE REV. DATE

ROOF PLAN/PLANTING PLAN GREGG ABEL
DESIGN & Construction Inc.
855 LA VISTA DR.Laguna Beach CA, 92651 (949) 683-1007
THE ABEL RESIDENCE855 LA VISTA DR. UNIT BLAGUNA BEACH, CA NEW ADU UNIT B (927 sq ft), NEW DECK (136 sqft), NEW STORAGE (927 sq ft), GRADING, SITEWALLS AND STAIRS, AC UNIT

ADU ROOF (N)

GREENHOUSE
/PATIO (E)
A1
A1
N
S
W
W
E
A
A
15'-8" SYS
15'-8" SYS
ADU 4'-0"
37'-71/2"
31'-21/2"
34'-101/2"
4'-0" ADU
31'-41/2"

PATIO (E)
181.00'

GREENHOUSE PATIO (E)
181.00'

PATIO (E)
181.00'
157.50'
PC

HIGH ROOF (N)
180.43'

LOW ROOF (N)
174.43'

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE
NOTE: ALL NEW ROOFS FLAT
B
B
EXIST. ±60' HIGH EUCALYPTUS TREE TO REMAIN

NEW PODOCARPUS
HEDGE MAX. HT. 15'

NEW PODOCARPUS
HEDGE MAX. HT. 15'

PLANTING LEGEND
NO. NAME SCIENTIFIC HxW PLANTING SIZE NOTES
1 EUCALYPTUS Myrtaceae ±60'x60' EXISTING
2 PODOCARPUS Podocarpus 3'x15' 5 gal.

NOTE: ALL OTHER EXISTING VEGETATION TO REMAIN
1 ROOF PLAN/PLANTING PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0"
156
157 of 267
1/20/26 8:40 AM * Abel 20.pln
A7TYPE REV. DATE

ELEVATIONS GREGG ABEL
DESIGN & Construction Inc.
855 LA VISTA DR.Laguna Beach CA, 92651 (949) 683-1007
THE ABEL RESIDENCE855 LA VISTA DR. UNIT BLAGUNA BEACH, CA NEW ADU UNIT B (927 sq ft), NEW DECK (136 sqft), NEW STORAGE (927 sq ft), GRADING, SITEWALLS AND STAIRS, AC UNIT 15'-8"
SYS
158'-5" ADU ROOF (N)
164'-5" DECK F.F. (N)
168' ADU F.F. (N) 168' DECK RAIL (N)
174'-5" ADU ROOF (N)
180'-5" ADU ROOF (N)
181' GREENHOUSE F.F. (E)
190'-6" F/F. (E)
199'-6" F/F. (E)
5'-2
1/2"
ADU
16'-0"
MAX. HT.

ADU EXTERIOR LIGHT

ADU ACCESS

STORAGE ACCESS
PC

GREENHOUSE (E)
30" PLANTER WALL
LAY BACK SOIL THIS LOC.
15'-8"
SYS
158'-5" STORAGE F.F. (N)
164'-5" ADU F.F. (N)
168' DECK RAIL (N)
174'-5" ADU ROOF (N)
180'-5" ADU ROOF (N)
181' GREENHOUSE F.F. (E)
190'-6" F.F. (E)
199'-6" F.F. (E)
16'-01/2"
MAX. HT.

PL

GREENHOUSE (E)
158'-5" STORAGE F.F. (N)
164'-5" ADU F.F. (N)
168' DECK RAIL (N)
174'-5" ADU ROOF (N)
180'-5" ADU ROOF (N)
181' GREENHOUSE F.F. (E)
190'-6" F.F. (E)
199'-6" F.F. (E)
15'-8"
SYS
16'-0"
MAX. HT.

ADU EXTERIOR LIGHT
PL

GREENHOUSE(E)
3 W WEST ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 S SOUTH ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 N NORTH ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0"
NOTE: ADU COLOR AND MATERIALS SHALL MATCH THE EXISTING SFR 157
158 of 267
1/20/26 8:40 AM * Abel 20.pln
A8TYPE REV. DATE

SECTIONS GREGG ABEL
DESIGN & Construction Inc.
855 LA VISTA DR.Laguna Beach CA, 92651 (949) 683-1007
THE ABEL RESIDENCE855 LA VISTA DR. UNIT BLAGUNA BEACH, CA NEW ADU UNIT B (927 sq ft), NEW DECK (136 sqft), NEW STORAGE (927 sq ft), GRADING, SITEWALLS AND STAIRS, AC UNIT 158'-5" STORAGE F.F. (N)
164'-5" ADU F.F. (N)
171'-6" DECK RAIL (N)
173'-5" STORAGE F.F. (N)
174'-5" ADU ROOF (N)
180'-5" ADU ROOF (N)
181' PATIO F.S./

GREENHOUSE (E)
15'-8"
SYS
16'-0"
MAX. HT.
9'-0"
PLATE
5'-0"
PLATE
16'-0"
MAX. HT.
8'-0"
PLATE
5'-0"
PLATE

GRADE (E)
PL

STORAGE
LIVING

STORAGE
15'-8"
SYS
158'-5" STORAGE F.F. (N)
164'-5" ADU F.F. (N)
174'-5" ADU ROOF (N)
16'-0"
MAX. HT.
5'-0"
PLATE
9'-0" PLATE

GRADE (E)
PL
LIVING

STORAGE
15'-8"
SYS
164'-5" ADU F.F. (N)
173'-5" SRORAGE F.F. (N)
180'-5" ADU ROOF (N)
16'-0"
MAX. HT.
5'-0"
PLATE
8'-0"
PLATE

GRADE (E)
PL

BEDROOM

STORAGE

BEDROOM HALL
1 A SECTION 1/4" = 1'-0"
3 B SECTION 1/4" = 1'-0"
2 A1 SECTION 1/4" = 1'-0"
158
159 of 267
1/20/26 8:40 AM * Abel 20.pln
A9TYPE REV. DATE
3D VIEWS GREGG ABEL
DESIGN & Construction Inc.
855 LA VISTA DR.Laguna Beach CA, 92651 (949) 683-1007
THE ABEL RESIDENCE855 LA VISTA DR. UNIT BLAGUNA BEACH, CA NEW ADU UNIT B (927 sq ft), NEW DECK (136 sqft), NEW STORAGE (927 sq ft), GRADING, SITEWALLS AND STAIRS, AC UNIT 159
160 of 267
1/20/26 8:40 AM * Abel 20.pln
A10 TYPE REV. DATE

STAKING PLAN GREGG ABEL
DESIGN & Construction Inc.
855 LA VISTA DR.Laguna Beach CA, 92651 (949) 683-1007
THE ABEL RESIDENCE855 LA VISTA DR. UNIT BLAGUNA BEACH, CA NEW ADU UNIT B (927 sq ft), NEW DECK (136 sqft), NEW STORAGE (927 sq ft), GRADING, SITEWALLS AND STAIRS, AC UNIT REQD.

ADU
4'-0"
19'-6
1/2"
9'-8"
ADU
5'-0"
157.50'
PC
159.97'

FIXED DATUM
1 2
3 4

FIXED DATUM

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE
199.50 FF
181.4 EG
180.7 TOP
185.6 EG
181.1 TOP
176.4 TW
174.6 EG
176.1 TW
176.8 TW
175.0 EG
176.8 TW
164.5 EG
6" TREE
6" TREE
168.4 EG
164.1 EG
160.9 EG
162.1 TW
161.1 EG
163.1 TW
165.3 EG
174.3 EG
162.3 EG
164.2 TW
162.4 EG
163.9 TW
163.2 TOE
163.2 EG
164.2 TW
164.2 EG
53" EUC
164.8 TOE
157.64 EP
157.52 EP
157.6 EG
160.0 TOE
160.1 EG
172.2 EG
173.07 FS
12" TREES
168.8 EG
174.4 TW
173.2 EG
176.1 TW
176.75 FS
176.0 EG
6" TREE

WOOD WIRE FENCE
182.86 TS
182.4 EG
177.3 EG
180.6 TW
180.1 TW
187.5 TW
184.8 EG
S73°03'59"E

94.47'
184.6 EG
8" TREE
184.6 TW
182.5 EG
12" PALM
185.0 EG
179.2 EG
6" TREE
178.2 TOP
181.44 FS
183.7 TW
181.31 FS
181.76 TS
184.8 TW
183.22 TS
187.0 TW
179.6 EG
8" TREES
196.4 TW
S26°57'41"W
130.21'
173.9 TOP
175.1 TW
178.6 TS
177.2 EG
180.1 TW
ROCK
181.09 TF
180.45 TS
180.45 TS
183.5 TW
177.44 TS
159.2 EG
FD. 1" IP
159.2 EG
159.9 EG

GRATE INLET
159.97 TG
161.5 EG
14" TREE
188.94 TS
188.2 EG
191.45 TS
191.97 TS
195.28 TS
195.79 FS
188.0 TW
185.4 EG
191.53 TS
190.36 TS
189.69 FS
189.0 EG
189.2 TW
186.9 EG
174.5 TW
173.8 EG
181.02 TS
183.7 T.PIL
185.63 TS
186.79 TS
188.83 TS
192.1 TS
194.7 TS
195.2 LANDING
196.5 TW

GREENHOUSE
182
180
178
178
176
174
172
170
168
166
164
160
TBM
190.1 TW
189.97 TS
P
15'-8"
SYS
15'-8"
SYS
4'-10"
ADU
32'-1
1/2"
6'-5"
3'-3"
15'-2"
25'-0"
168.00'
168.00'
168.00'
168.00'

STORYPOLES SHALL BE STRUNG WITH STRING OR RIBBON THE DEPICT THE BUILDING ENVELOPE RIBBON
1 DECK RAIL
2 DECK RAIL
3 DECK RAIL
4 DECK RAIL
1 STAKING PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0"
160
161 of 267
161
162 of 267
1/20/26 8:40 AM * Abel 20.pln
A12 TYPE REV. DATE

SURVEY SOUTH COAST GREGG ABEL
DESIGN & Construction Inc.
855 LA VISTA DR.Laguna Beach CA, 92651 (949) 683-1007
THE ABEL RESIDENCE855 LA VISTA DR. UNIT BLAGUNA BEACH, CA NEW ADU UNIT B (927 sq ft), NEW DECK (136 sqft), NEW STORAGE (927 sq ft), GRADING, SITEWALLS AND STAIRS, AC UNIT 162
163 of 267
162.03 5.97'
MARCH 2, 2026
855 LA VISTA DR., LAGUNA BEACH, CA. 92651

THOMAS TERWILLIGER
159.97 FIXED DATUM
162.03 5.97'
160.01 7.99'
160.01 7.99'
Thomas Terwilliger L.S.

L.S. 9091 Exp. 03/31/26
March 2, 2026
163
164 of 267
1 Miller, Paola CD
From: Robin Williams
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2026 12:18 PM
To: Design Review Board
Cc: Khan, Shehriyar CD
Subject: Written Public Comment in Opposition – Agenda Item 5.8 – 855 La Vista Drive – Design Review 2026-0278 / CDP 2026-0279 / Variance 2026-0280
Attachments: Formal Opposition to Agenda Item 5-8.pdf
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Dear Chair Gibbs and Members of the Design Review Board, Please accept the attached written public comment and opposition packet for Agenda Item 5.8 on the March 26, 2026 Design Review Board hearing regarding 855 La Vista Drive (APN 641-352-57), Design Review 2026-0278, Coastal Development Permit 2026-0279, and Variance 2026-0280.

I respectfully request that this packet be included in the administrative record and distributed to the Board in connection with this hearing.

Please acknowledge receipt of this email and attachment when you have a moment. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Best regards,
Robin Williams
Virginia Park Drive
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
Attachment 8
164
165 of 267
165
166 of 267
855 La Vista Drive Opposition Packet - March 26, 2026 Hearing established watercourse setback when they have no supports in the setback and do not encroach closer than 15 feet to the centerflow line.

Here, staff states that the proposed deck would be approximately 6 feet 9 inches from the watercourse centerline. As summarized in Exhibit B, that places the project well inside the limited deck-projection allowance and makes this a true encroachment-variance case, not a routine projection.

Under Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, a variance approval must rest on findings supported by substantial evidence in the record. That standard matters here because the public packet repeatedly concludes that the project will maintain existing drainage patterns, will not increase flooding, erosion, or instability, and will not impair stormwater conveyance, yet the same record states that Public Works determined a hydrological report was not required and that no additional hydrological analysis was needed. The public packet does not appear to include a separate hydrology report or drainage-impact study. On this record, the Board is being asked to accept technical no-impact conclusions without the technical analysis that would ordinarily support them.

I do not dispute that the mapped corridor creates site constraints. But those constraints do not automatically justify the specific relief requested. The current record does not show why this exact footprint, deck, retaining walls, grading, and unusually large attached storage program represent the least intrusive feasible response to those constraints. Nor do prior encroachments on other nearby properties supply the findings for this project. The Board must make those findings based on this design and this record.

The same problem applies to the added watercourse findings. The Board must be able to find that the encroachment will preserve, enhance, or restore the significance of the watercourse and will not impair its functional, scenic, or ecological purposes. A conclusion that the watercourse has already been modified is not the same as affirmative evidence that this new encroachment satisfies those findings. If the Board is not prepared to deny the requested variance, it should continue the matter and require a clear overlay showing the centerflow line as determined by the City Engineer, the 25- foot setback, the storm-drain and utility easement area, the actual footprint of the proposed improvements, and at least one materially reduced-encroachment alternative.

2. The CEQA categorical exemption is not supportable on this record.

The City relies on CEQA Guidelines sections 15303 and 15305 for a categorical exemption, while the recommendation page cites sections 15303 and 15304. That inconsistency alone warrants caution.

More importantly, CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2(c) provides that a categorical exemption cannot be used where unusual circumstances create a reasonable possibility of a significant environmental effect.

Here, the unusual circumstance is not merely that the project is an ADU. It is that the project places new construction, grading, retaining walls, and deck improvements within a mapped watercourse setback over a subterranean City storm drain on a sloping site. Under Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1086, the relevant question is whether unusual site conditions create a reasonable possibility of a significant environmental effect. On this record, that possibility has not been negated with substantial evidence.
166
167 of 267
855 La Vista Drive Opposition Packet - March 26, 2026 Hearing At minimum, the current record presents a fair argument, and therefore a reasonable possibility, regarding potential drainage impacts, erosion and slope-instability effects, and cumulative impacts from repeated encroachments into the mapped watercourse corridor. The project may or may not ultimately be approvable, but the City should not rely on a categorical exemption without the hydrology, drainage, and related environmental analysis necessary to evaluate these issues through the level of CEQA review required by law.

3. The project is materially bulkier than the packet's shorthand description and does not adequately minimize visible mass.

The packet repeatedly frames the proposal as a 972-square-foot ADU. But the plans show 927.2 square feet of living area, plus 442.1 square feet of lower storage and 485.1 square feet of upper storage, for an additional 927.2 square feet of attached storage. The result is roughly 1,854 square feet of enclosed building area, before even counting the 136-square-foot deck. As reflected in the sections, the structure steps down the hillside from a lower storage level to the roof, creating an approximately 22-foot vertical built form at the downhill face.

That difference matters. On a downhill-facing site visible from Virginia Park Drive and surrounding homes, the visible form is materially larger than the packet's shorthand description suggests. Laguna Beach's design review standards expressly treat zoning standards as a maximum envelope, not an entitlement to the largest possible design. Even on a constrained parcel, the Board may require a less intrusive form that better minimizes visible mass and responds to the site.

The plans, sections, and staking record already show a materially larger downhill form than the packet's shorthand description suggests. If the Board concludes that the visual record remains incomplete, the matter should be continued until complete full-envelope staking of the actual structure, roof, and deck extents has been made available for public review.

4. The Board should not approve now while key technical and visual issues remain deferred or incomplete.

This is not a minor ministerial ADU review. As summarized in Exhibit B, the project includes 284 cubic yards of net export and retaining walls exceeding five feet in exposed height within the mapped setback.

Yet the proposed resolution defers the construction staging plan, drainage plan, grading plan, and other permit-stage technical details until after discretionary approval. On this record, the Board is being asked to make affirmative findings before the full visual and technical record is complete.

The same incompleteness appears in the staking record. The Staff Report states only that 'staking for the deck' was installed and certified. Where visibility and bulk are central issues, that is not an adequate substitute for full-envelope staking of the actual structure, roof and deck extents. If complete staking has not been made available for public review, the better course is to continue the matter until it has.

The CEQA record should likewise be clarified before approval. The Staff Report references Sections 15303 and 15305, while the recommendation page references Sections 15303 and 15304. Whatever the ultimate CEQA conclusion, the Board should not approve on an internally inconsistent record.

5. If the Board does not deny the project, it should impose a strict La Vista Drive-only construction condition.

Staff states that vehicular access to the subject property will continue from the existing driveway off La Vista Drive and that no vehicular access is proposed from the Virginia Park frontage. That statement should be converted into an express condition of approval. 167
168 of 267
168
169 of 267
855 La Vista Drive Opposition Packet - March 26, 2026 Hearing

EXHIBIT A
Demonstrative Parcel Map / Mapped Corridor Screenshot
Demonstrative parcel map showing the subject parcel highlighted in yellow and the mapped corridor / setback area in light blue. This exhibit is offered as a visual aid only and not as a substitute for the City Engineer's approved centerflow-line determination.
169
170 of 267
170
171 of 267
March 2026 – Design Review Board Transcript (Agenda Item 5.8 – 855 La Vista drive) lagunabeachcity_4891ceaf-e428-4fbd-853f-0b3cb9f4... (Completed 05/20/26) Transcript by Rev.com

Thomas Gibbs (00:00):

All right, let's go to the next one. Moving right along here, 5.8 at 855 La Vista Lane, Design Review 2026- 0278. Coastal Development Permit 2026-0279. Variance 2026-0280. Ex parte, please.

Jessica Gannon (00:28):

Chair, I had a site visit with Greg Abel.

Imer Bauta (00:31):

I did the same and I also spoke with Warren.

Louis Weil (00:34):

Spoke with the dynamic duo and visited the site.

MJ Coveny (00:37):

I drove by the site.

Thomas Gibbs (00:40):

And I met with Warren and Greg at the site.

Jessica Gannon (00:43):

Thank you.

Thomas Gibbs (00:43):

We get yours, MJ? Yeah. Okay. So, Mr. Kahn, you're up again.

Shehriyar Khan (00:54):

Good evening, Board, this is item number 5.8, request for design review, coastal development permit, and variance approval for an ADU with a deck encroaching into a watercourse setback area located at 855 La Vista Drive. Next slide, please.

Linda Morgan Lander (01:23):

Sorry, give me a quick second.

Shehriyar Khan (01:55):

All right. The subject property is approximately 36,000 square feet in area and is located at, well, 855 La Vista Drive. It's currently developed with an approximately 2,700 square foot, two-story residence, and a two-car garage. A mapped watercourse traverses through the site as well. Next slide, please. (02:19):

The proposed project includes development of a new 972 square foot detached ADU, shown on the slide in yellow, with a 136 square foot elevated deck, shown in orange, and associated site improvements.

The improvements include associated grading, parameters stairs surrounding the ADU, installation of an air conditioning unit, and retaining walls exceeding five feet in exposed height, located on the north side of the ADU shown in bright green. As you can see, a water course shown in blue traverses this area of Attachment 9
171
172 of 267
March 2026 – Design Review Board Transcript (Agenda Item 5.8 – 855 La Vista drive) lagunabeachcity_4891ceaf-e428-4fbd-853f-0b3cb9f4... (Completed 05/20/26) Transcript by Rev.com

the lot and encroachment within the water course setback area requires approval of a variance. Next slide, please.
(02:55):

As mentioned earlier, 136 square foot, 6 foot high elevated deck is proposed attached to the ADU, which is subject to design review. The proposed deck is minimal in scale and does not contribute to visual mass, and is consistent with the architectural character of the proposed ADU. Next slide, please. (03:13):

The elevation and rendering shown on the slide show the deck and the retaining wall exceeding five feet in exposed height, shown in bright green. And the retaining wall is also subject to design review. It's located at the northeast side of the ADU, is L-shaped and wraps along the north and east sides, defining the required fire access paths. Next slide, please.
(03:35):

Property is constrained by the presence of a mapped watercourse and its associated 25-foot watercourse setback area. While the historic drainage feature has been substantially altered, and runoff is now conveyed through a subterranean storm drain system installed by the city, the mapped setback continues to apply, despite the absence of a functioning natural watercourse. (03:57):

A utility easement exists over the storm drain infrastructure, which the proposed ADU does not encroach upon. 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. Next slide, please. (04:22):

In conclusion, the project is consistent with the applicable design guidelines, zoning standards, with the exception of the requested watercourse encroachment variance. And as detailed in the staff report, the required variance findings can be made, and the AD is compatible with the neighborhood and would not create significant impacts to views or privacy. Next slide, please. (04:45):

Since the agenda was published last week, staff received public correspondence in opposition, raising concerns about record sufficiency, which have been added to the agenda as part of the public record.

And then staff recommends that the board approve the requested entitlements and find the action exempt from CEQA. This concludes staff's presentation and I'll move on for questions. Thank you.

Thomas Gibbs (05:06):

Thank you very much. With that, any questions? Seeing none, I open the public hearing. You have five minutes.

Warren (05:16):

Hi, everyone. So, we've dealt extensively with Public Works on every utility that's running through that property. That one plan, Shehriyar, that you showed, the site plan. I obtained all those from Public Works, mapped them, met with them, made sure that we're clear of all easements. (05:46):
172
173 of 267
March 2026 – Design Review Board Transcript (Agenda Item 5.8 – 855 La Vista drive) lagunabeachcity_4891ceaf-e428-4fbd-853f-0b3cb9f4... (Completed 05/20/26) Transcript by Rev.com

The variance for the, let's say, highly modified watercourse is typical. I think we just had approval on one a couple of weeks ago in Bluebird there. Well, I think to me, obviously what Public Works and the city is realizing, that there are highly modified water courses all over town. This one was put in what, like 20 years ago.

Greg (06:22):

About 20 years. Yeah.

Warren (06:23):

It's subterranean pipe. It hasn't failed. Goes straight down the middle of the property. They got an easement for it. There's a sewer easement. There's a electrical easement, all kinds of stuff on this property.
(06:36):

So, this variance is not at all unlike others that you've approved quite recently, and I believe will be approving in the future. And Greg, did you want to...

Greg (06:50):

Yeah. Warren made a good point. I did work some time with Bill Rodriguez and the rest of the team to figure out what's going on with these modified watercourses, to help a lot of people at Laguna Beach and my fellow architectural designers. So the setback is five feet from the center line above a water course that's been modified, not 25 feet like the old days, which you folks saw two weeks ago for Mr.

Frias at 868 Bloomberg.
(07:16):

And we did design this property to be simple, clean lines, nothing too fancy, just clean, not encroach into people's views. Our next door neighbors, Arjuna and Lucy have been very good friends. I designed their remodels and their additions. They're currently living back east right now, so they're renting their property. And I know we're going to get some comments from our neighbors down the street, so I'll just quiet down now and see how we do. Okay?
Warren (07:41):

So just to add a little bit, there is some runoff from the property, that it's dirt there at the end of Virginia Park Drive. This will help get rid of the dirt. Certainly, as we get to the building department, we will obviously keep... We'll keep all staging materials on the property, all workers on the property, all parking on the property. It's a big area down there. So, that's all I got, too.

Greg (08:22):

And one last comment. About two years ago, you may have heard we had a landslide below the home above us at Chase Offield's house. And it flooded and wiped out walkways, all of our grass, all the dirt came down the street.
(08:37):

So I know that our neighbors also went through a little bit of horror and scariness because all that mud that came way down from our upper neighbor, who, of course, associated with the project and fixed it for us together. We did try to clean up that mud slide as fast as possible with respect to our friends down the street at Virginia Park. Thank you.
173
174 of 267
March 2026 – Design Review Board Transcript (Agenda Item 5.8 – 855 La Vista drive) lagunabeachcity_4891ceaf-e428-4fbd-853f-0b3cb9f4... (Completed 05/20/26) Transcript by Rev.com

Thomas Gibbs (08:58):

All right. The public hearing's already open. Speakers, please come up. You'll have three minutes each.

State your name first.

Ben Simon (09:06):

Good evening. I'm Ben Simon at 661 Virginia Park Drive. Thank you, Jessica. You've been amazing over the last six years. You really have. This is the first I heard from Warren about parking on site, but my concerns are regarding the construction period and its negative effects on my street and neighborhood where the proposed ADU is actually located.
(09:28):

The staff report states that the access will be from the La Vista Drive. This relates to the completed ADU and it is not necessarily true during construction. Warren in an email stated that, "Ample parking is available and will be used for construction on site, including staging," but where and how it is accessed is unclear. The location of the ADU, coupled with the topography of the site and common sense, implies that the ADU will be built access to Virginia Park Drive and not La Vista Drive. To date, either Greg nor Warren had replied to my inquiry about this. I sent them both an email. (10:01):

Everyone in Virginia Park Drive is quite concerned about what happens to us and our street during construction, assuming La Vista is not used. We are a tiny, narrow, on way street with extremely limited parking to begin with. Some of the homes have no garages and no driveways at all. Beginning this June, the new problem at the high school will be under construction, which will exacerbate the parking problem, plus a massive new build on Hillage is coming this summer. (10:27):

We are simply requesting that the Abel's current fence, located at the end of Virginia Park Drive is, and this would be a condition of approval, temporary relocated, moved way back on their biggest site in Laguna Beach to accommodate 100% of their construction parking and staging areas. If the workers park on our street, we will not have any room for ourselves, our guests, or our service people. (10:51):

While the watercourse is technically modified, the still street gets major amounts of mud, gravel, and debris from the Abels during the heavy rains. At one point, I heard that Greg had promised a mutual neighbor sandbags, but it didn't happen. We just clean it up over and over, but our time and our water is valuable. Please help the residents of Virginia Park Drive during this period of construction, as we really need your assistance and are very worried. Thank you.

Thomas Gibbs (11:18):

Thank you very much. Next speaker.

Linda Morgan Lander (11:20):

Hi, Linda Morgan Lander, 671 Virginia Park Drive. Hi, Imer. Oh, first of all, thank you, Jessica. You're fabulous. But anyway, good luck. I just want to echo what Ben said. We have a real issue with parking on Virginia Park and I'm really hoping that all of the parking for construction workers will be off the street. (11:43):
174
175 of 267
March 2026 – Design Review Board Transcript (Agenda Item 5.8 – 855 La Vista drive) lagunabeachcity_4891ceaf-e428-4fbd-853f-0b3cb9f4... (Completed 05/20/26) Transcript by Rev.com

The other thing is that technically the watercourse doesn't function like a watercourse, but it kind of does. When we had our big rains in the past few months, and I know he's cleaned up the mudslide, but it's still the runoff comes right down, right to my house with the rocks and the mud right there, and it makes a turn. And nothing's been done with sandbagging, so I'm a little bit suspicious about how this is going to go down. So I'm hoping that they build in some kind of a system to catch all of the debris. I'm supportive of the project. I just have the parking and the mud concerns. (12:17):

And also, I wanted to refer you to Robin Williams Jr's letter. He sent something that was very profound, I think. He's very, very affected by it. He has a very, very ill dad and his mother is not well either, and this is going to really affect them the most. So with the trucks coming in and out, I hope that there's a good rapport with the contractor and that it is a happy project. Thank you.

Thomas Gibbs (12:39):

Thank you. Any other speakers? Come on up.

Craig Bershat (12:45):

Hello.

Greg (12:45):

Hi there, Mike.

Craig Bershat (12:46):

Hi, my name's Craig Bershat. I live at 651 Virginia Park Drive, and I've been there for about 50 years, so I've known the family for a long time as well. I'm coming in support of Robin Williams, who couldn't be here himself, and in support of his father and mother who have been on that street as long as I have.

They had some questions on their letter, which brought up questions for me that I hadn't addressed with the applicant yet.
(13:14):

But one of the questions was the size, including storage. So I know that an ADU can be a certain size, but I don't know if the square footage of the storage is also included in that. Including the storage, I think this gets up to about 1,800 square feet or maybe a little bit more. So I don't know what the requirements are there. I'm basically asking the question. (13:35):

It also states in the approval that vehicular access will be made off of La Vista. I don't know how they're going to get from La Vista down to this house. I didn't see any stairs from La Vista down to the house, so it looks to me like vehicular access is actually coming from Virginia Park Drive. So I just wanted some clarity on that as well.
(14:00):

Unfortunately, we've had a number of fire trucks on our street in the last couple of years for different issues. And then it brought up the question for me, is how does fire service be... How is it dealt with on this street? This is at the very end of a very narrow street on Virginia Park, and if there's a fire emergency, I don't know how the fire truck's going to get up there, turn around, do whatever they do. I don't know if there's even water up there to handle for the firetruck. So it's really a question I'm asking at this point in time.
175
176 of 267
March 2026 – Design Review Board Transcript (Agenda Item 5.8 – 855 La Vista drive) lagunabeachcity_4891ceaf-e428-4fbd-853f-0b3cb9f4... (Completed 05/20/26) Transcript by Rev.com

(14:36):

Obviously, parking during construction has been addressed. As you know, we're going to have a new pool built around the corner, which you guys don't have anything to do with, but we're already starting to see significant parking coming up the street from the students, taking what little spots we have on the street. So few questions, a few issues to address, and I'm supportive what Ben and Linda said as well. So thank you.

Thomas Gibbs (15:01):

Thank you very much. Any other speakers? All right. With that, turn it to the applicant. You have three minutes.

Warren (15:08):

Thank you. So, earlier with Todd's project, there was discussion about a responsible builder. This is the responsible the builder, as far as I'm concerned. Clean sites, happy neighbors, forever resident. He knows how to build. He knows how to keep it clean. You should see the construction sites. They're immaculate. They come in every day and sweep it up.
(15:44):

There are, shown on the plans, stair access from La Vista down to the ADU, clearly. They're required fire department site access stairs. All the parking, as I said, and staging will be on site 100%. There's no reason to park anywhere else. The lot is huge. That area down there can hold 10 cars, 10 trucks, whatever. I was going to say more, but...

Greg (16:25):

Well, I think to back up what he's saying, yes, we have a large area there. You all saw that, pull our cars in there. You saw that one tractor still there from picking up all the debris from our landslide that took place two years ago. So, in respect from our neighbors down the street, we will definitely let that whole space be our parking spot for construction, and not anywhere parked in front of the Williams family or Arjuna and Lucy, all of our friends and neighbors, all that. So we'll definitely respect that. (16:56):

And there is access from the street at the end of La Vista. There's always been brick stairs coming all the way down to the greenhouse, which is right behind our ADU, been here since 1937. And the stairs will go down and connect also to the ADU, as well as from down below. So we'll do what we can to be very, very sensitive to their needs.
(17:18):

And I respect the parking issue, they talked about the pool, 'cause already I've noticed how many more kids are coming up, not only in their electric bikes, but their cars on Manzanita and all the way up La Vista in the last couple of weeks, because it's going to be happening soon. So thank you.

Thomas Gibbs (17:36):

All right. Let me ask a quick question.

Greg (17:38):

Yeah, Tom.
176
177 of 267
March 2026 – Design Review Board Transcript (Agenda Item 5.8 – 855 La Vista drive) lagunabeachcity_4891ceaf-e428-4fbd-853f-0b3cb9f4... (Completed 05/20/26) Transcript by Rev.com

Thomas Gibbs (17:39):

Just I want to confirm, you're agreeable to make as a condition that all parking, construction parking and staging will be on property?
Greg (17:46):

Absolutely.

Thomas Gibbs (17:47):

Okay.

Greg (17:47):

I respect that.

Thomas Gibbs (17:47):

Any other questions?
Jessica Gannon (17:49):

I do. Are you offering a dedicated parking pad? I know it's not a requirement because I parked at your driveway up top and we were able to walk down. But would you consider an off-street parking pad by the ADU?
Greg (18:04):

Sure.

Jessica Gannon (18:06):

Does this help with the access and usability? Mr. Khan, is that possible? Shehriyar Khan (18:16):

This parking pad would have to actually be on the adjacent property, which is also owned by Mr. Abel, 700 Virginia Park. Staff, I can't say with conference right now what that would look like. We'll have to evaluate the access dimensions.

Thomas Gibbs (18:33):

We can make it a condition that the assuming staff can make it work, it will be required.

Jessica Gannon (18:39):

Yeah.

Imer Bauta (18:40):

It seems like it's a large enough lot. Even if it was not a required, it could just be a compacted grade.

Jessica Gannon (18:47):

Yeah, dedicated parking pad.
177
178 of 267
March 2026 – Design Review Board Transcript (Agenda Item 5.8 – 855 La Vista drive) lagunabeachcity_4891ceaf-e428-4fbd-853f-0b3cb9f4... (Completed 05/20/26) Transcript by Rev.com

Imer Bauta (18:48):

Yeah.

Greg (18:49):

But as Warren said, we've parked as many during the slide problem for cleanup. I've parked as many as six trucks in that spot there, three wide, two back to back just to pick up the debris. (19:03):

And I will say in most of my construction sites, the one I'm doing on Summit and one up on Dorn Court, even in those areas there, we're able to keep it down to a majority, just a minor part. And if they have to park somewhere else, we don't have them blocking other neighbor's driveways either.

Jessica Gannon (19:19):

Perfect. And thenGreg (19:19):

We can come up in somebody else's truck, leaders down the street.

Jessica Gannon (19:22):

And then for my next question, so when you were talking about the neighbors were talking about the flooding that came through there, the storage, was that strategic so that in case in the event of another flood that doesn't affect the living space?
(19:39):

Because on the East Coast, in Delaware, it's underwater. It's below sea level, so we have a lot of floods.

So our houses are built on top of storage spaces and built on top of garages. So was that part of your strategic plan design?
Warren (19:56):

So I used to work in South Carolina in the flood area. Their flood height is eight feet. So everything, all mechanical has to be up eight feet. It wasn't designed specifically for that, but it would certainly... It helps raise the house up five feet out of the ground.

Greg (20:20):

Yes.

Jessica Gannon (20:20):

Okay. Thank you.

Warren (20:21):

While still keeping the maximum heights.

Greg (20:25):

And one thing we can do, the drain you see right there in front of the property that the city put in years ago that connects itself to the drain pipe down below, that was put in when they came on our property 178
179 of 267
March 2026 – Design Review Board Transcript (Agenda Item 5.8 – 855 La Vista drive) lagunabeachcity_4891ceaf-e428-4fbd-853f-0b3cb9f4... (Completed 05/20/26) Transcript by Rev.com

to take care of some of the water and came down the hillsides, not so much the old watercourse. So we can embrace that drainage area with a grate on it there, Tom, and be sure the water that comes in there from the property can drain it as well, though.

Jessica Gannon (20:55):

So that it funnels?
Warren (20:57):

I meant to say, it could be nice to maybe make a suggestion. This might not be the actual place to do it, but to have Public Works take a look at that inlet, because there's still water coming down the property, and that grate there could certainly be improved to catch some mud.

Louis Weil (21:20):

Let me ask this question. It's all on the same line. So, if I'm looking at the topography survey, you have your lot, the lot across the way, but there's probably a 10-foot separation. Is that an easement or is that a separate parcel that's like the road extension?
Warren (21:33):

Yeah, that used to be the end of Virginia Park Drive. It's 12 feet wide That was abandoned during the process of designing and permitting the house that never got built.

Louis Weil (21:50):

The one across the way?
Warren (21:51):

Yes
Louis Weil (21:52):

So I guess again, I can't require part of this application, but I might encourage you to go through the process to do the road extension, so you asphalt up to, at some point, that storm drain if your desired access is on the lower portion of the slot.

Greg (22:08):

And we would definitely get rid of the dirt and mud.

Louis Weil (22:10):

Obviously it doesn't have a nexus for an ADU to require that, but it would be heavily encouraged. For the buildable site that's across the way, that's completely separate. That's also your ownership. It'd probably be in the best interest that you get that road extension done at some point.

Greg (22:23):

Yeah. I think the asphalt would be better, Lou, as opposed to gravel and sand, 'cause that'll roll down the street to my neighbors.
179
180 of 267
March 2026 – Design Review Board Transcript (Agenda Item 5.8 – 855 La Vista drive) lagunabeachcity_4891ceaf-e428-4fbd-853f-0b3cb9f4... (Completed 05/20/26) Transcript by Rev.com

Louis Weil (22:29):

In that process, that'll help take care of the drainage to get into that vault.

Greg (22:33):

Control the water and pave it nicely. That'd be good.

Louis Weil (22:35):

All right.

Thomas Gibbs (22:36):

Let me ask about something, 'cause this project really bothers me about the water course. The inlet that's going to be within feet of the new ADU, can that be improved so that water or excess runoff, let's say in the event... And I don't know if you've studied or they studied 100 year storm where that culvert up above gets caught, but I've had cases where culverts have gotten jammed, restoring the modified water course.
(23:14):

And this building is going way into the water course area, and it makes me nervous. But there is a drain there, and looking down below property... Let me talk to him. I understand where you guys are coming from. You and I talked about this a little bit. It looks like if the water can be picked up by that drain that provides an extra element of protection in the event the culvert gets caught or if there's a mudslide. So I don't know if you guys looked at that, but that's something. Can that be something that is built into a condition that the plan, the building can make sure is done effectively? Do you know what I'm talking about?
Bill Rodrigues (23:58):

Yeah. You're talking about the one that's sort of rightThomas Gibbs (24:01):

It'd be right next toBill Rodrigues (24:02):
... just inside of Virginia Park Drive [inaudible 00:24:03]- Thomas Gibbs (24:03):

And then a condition that it be kept clear and maintained, you know that whole thing? Bill Rodrigues (24:06):

Yeah. I would say staff is certainly happy to talk to Public Works about looking into that. I don't know that we can condition it. I'm not sure that there's a nexus with this project. It's a cityThomas Gibbs (24:16):

They can be a direction from us to180
181 of 267
March 2026 – Design Review Board Transcript (Agenda Item 5.8 – 855 La Vista drive) lagunabeachcity_4891ceaf-e428-4fbd-853f-0b3cb9f4... (Completed 05/20/26) Transcript by Rev.com

Bill Rodrigues (24:19):

It would be. Yeah. I think we can take a direction from the dais. Staff will certainly have the conversation with the Public Works management staff to look into that. It is a city easement. It's a city facility. There's probably a capital improvement process we'd have to go through in order to improve it [inaudible 00:24:36]-
Thomas Gibbs (24:35):

And it's the City of Culvert up above?
Bill Rodrigues (24:37):

Yeah.

Thomas Gibbs (24:37):

And the city's obligated to keep it clear? In the event of a storm, they do that anyway.

Louis Weil (24:42):

They access your property to evaluate it every so often, don't they? You had a sign there for city officials to enter the project.

Greg (24:49):

Absolutely.

Warren (24:49):

That was for the mudslide that happened, but yeah.

Thomas Gibbs (24:52):

Okay. No, that clarifies it for me.

MJ Coveny (24:54):

I just had a quick question about the storage. The lower level storage, what's the material on the front of that? It looks like some sort of grading. Is that open air or is that...

Warren (25:06):

Well, it's a door. It's a sliding door.

MJ Coveny (25:15):

Sliding doors?
Warren (25:16):

Yeah.

MJ Coveny (25:16):

Oh, and then the upstairs storage as well has windows, quite a few windows and a deck181 182 of 267
March 2026 – Design Review Board Transcript (Agenda Item 5.8 – 855 La Vista drive) lagunabeachcity_4891ceaf-e428-4fbd-853f-0b3cb9f4... (Completed 05/20/26) Transcript by Rev.com

Greg (25:24):

Ventilation from the attic is up there.

MJ Coveny (25:25):
... coming off of it. And it also seems to have an excessive amount of ceiling space above it. Even though you only have a foot plate height, you have an additional three feet of soffit.

Warren (25:38):

Two, actually, butMJ Coveny (25:40):

Why would you do that?
Warren (25:43):

Design articulation.

MJ Coveny (25:44):

Oh, okay. Shehriyar, why is storage not part of the square footage? Shehriyar Khan (25:54):

It's because it's considered non-habitable. In this case, both storage areas are feet in height, which therefore sort of disqualified from the habitable status.

MJ Coveny (26:05):

So they just dropped it enough and then added a soffit. So, how do we control something like that, that once we walk away, that they then extend their ceiling heights inside and make it an accessible living [inaudible 00:26:18]?
Shehriyar Khan (26:18):

Sure. So, even if they do extend the ceiling height, in this case, it's not going to cause any zoning problems 'cause it would still meet the maximum 16-foot height because of the terrace design of the ADU.

MJ Coveny (26:30):

How about the square footage?
Shehriyar Khan (26:32):

Square footage? No it would increase the volume, but it won't increase the square foot.

MJ Coveny (26:40):

I thought there was a limit. There's not a limit on square footage with ADUs? Shehriyar Khan (26:43):
182
183 of 267
March 2026 – Design Review Board Transcript (Agenda Item 5.8 – 855 La Vista drive) lagunabeachcity_4891ceaf-e428-4fbd-853f-0b3cb9f4... (Completed 05/20/26) Transcript by Rev.com

There is, but I think at least the square footage on the top is not going to interfere.

MJ Coveny (26:50):

But the bottom? If you added both of them together and it became a full onShehriyar Khan (26:56):

Yeah, but the storage area at the bottom is not accessible from the living area of the ADU. It's sort of beneath the elevated deck area.

Jessica Gannon (27:04):

And it's only five foot in height. Right?
Shehriyar Khan (27:07):

Yeah.

Jessica Gannon (27:09):

And the minimum is seven feet forWarren (27:11):

Six.

Jessica Gannon (27:11):

Seven, six?
Thomas Gibbs (27:16):

It would no longer qualify as an ADU if that upstairs storage space is increased to be livable space. Right? So they can't get around that.

Bill Rodrigues (27:25):

Correct. So, I think actually condition number one probably speaks to this, which is the plans that you're approving today are the plans that we expect to happen in the field. And if there's anything that changes in that, then it has to come back to the city, we'd look at it again. (27:37):

And if they increase the height so that it could be qualified as habitable space, then that adds to square footage, and then that potentially raises other issues under the code. And that'd have to come backwards, and that potentially would have to come back to the board. (27:50):

So, I think it's sort of a self-effectuating control that regulates what the size of this ADU is going to look like. So, what you see on the plans is what's before you to be approved, and that's what would be permitted and expected to be built, and no changes happening in the field.

Louis Weil (28:05):

Right. Well said, but if they vault the ceiling, it doesn't add any scruff footage. It just adds volume. 183
184 of 267
March 2026 – Design Review Board Transcript (Agenda Item 5.8 – 855 La Vista drive) lagunabeachcity_4891ceaf-e428-4fbd-853f-0b3cb9f4... (Completed 05/20/26) Transcript by Rev.com

MJ Coveny (28:12):

Yeah. And if they make it livable, that's different.

Bill Rodrigues (28:15):

Correct. But to Shehriyar's point, it's designed at a five-foot height. Now, if you were to increase or vault, the ceiling in some way, you get over seven feet in height, that potentially qualifies as a habitable space, then that becomes square footage, and then that adds to the roughly, was it, I believe, 972 [inaudible 00:28:31]?
MJ Coveny (28:29):
972.

Thomas Gibbs (28:31):

And I think we have to follow that. The condition states that, "The SID plans are approved as submitted and conditioned herein, and shall not be altered unless reviewed and approved in accordance with Title

25." So, I don't think we can disapprove an ADU because of the potential of additional space.

MJ Coveny (28:48):

Yeah, I just was curious. That's all. Yeah.

Thomas Gibbs (28:52):

But the safety valve is...

MJ Coveny (28:53):

Yeah. And then just access, 'cause I'm sorry, I didn't get to meet you up there. Access for the ADU for cars, bicycles, whatever, is from the lower area?
Warren (29:04):

It's from lower. There is access to Virginia Park Drive. There's also access to a [inaudible 00:29:09]- MJ Coveny (29:09):

So you have two points of access on this lot?
Warren (29:11):

Correct.

Greg (29:11):

Yes, we do.

Warren (29:11):

Yeah. The fire department access stairs wrap around, go both top to bottom.

Greg (29:15):
184
185 of 267
March 2026 – Design Review Board Transcript (Agenda Item 5.8 – 855 La Vista drive) lagunabeachcity_4891ceaf-e428-4fbd-853f-0b3cb9f4... (Completed 05/20/26) Transcript by Rev.com

Right.

MJ Coveny (29:15):

Okay.

Greg (29:15):

They do.

Thomas Gibbs (29:19):

All right. Any other questions?
Imer Bauta (29:21):

Deliberations?
Thomas Gibbs (29:22):

Yeah. I'm going to close public hearing, and let me talk briefly about the water course issue, just to get the board of the benefit of my views, and then I'll turn it over on the other issues. This is a significant encroachment into the water course, and it causes me very much concern because I've seen what happens when coverts are clogged up and a water course is interfered with. (29:50):

And we have to find, essentially in this case, that this water course is not so we impacted that we can't otherwise make the findings for the variance, and the ADU law doesn't help them. We are entitled to reject this project if we can't find the grounds justifying a variance, given the encroachment in the water course.
(30:14):

I walked it, and I actually went back and walked it again. I lean in favor of the project. I was very close to saying no, that you got to pull back that ADU. It's so close to the water course. But if you look at the overall thing, if there's a mudslide, it's going to be a problem, but I don't think that's going to impact it. I think it's going to impact the ADU more than it's going to impact the neighborhood. (30:41):

In fact, a lot more. I think what I worry about is a heavy rain, 100 year rain. And I think with that drain that's there right by it, it's right in front of your property, and it needs to be... And with a motion I'll make a direction, I'll follow that, by assuming the board otherwise approves this project, that that be built in, that the grading be done.
(31:09):

And I tell you, Greg, this is for your own benefit 'cause you're going to get your butt sued putting that there if there is a water 100 year flood and your ADU comes off its foundations and runs into another house. Don't laugh, it can happen. It has to be a pretty bizarre incident, but it could happen. (31:29):

But I think having that alternative course for in the event that there is a heavy rain for your own runoff, it's a very big drain to begin with. So, I would direct building, and I would strongly suggest to you that you build around that drain to take maximum effect of that drain in the event of a storm, which partially or totally, but potentially partially blocks the uphill culvert causing a water deluge. 185
186 of 267
March 2026 – Design Review Board Transcript (Agenda Item 5.8 – 855 La Vista drive) lagunabeachcity_4891ceaf-e428-4fbd-853f-0b3cb9f4... (Completed 05/20/26) Transcript by Rev.com

(32:06):

Okay. So I'll leave it to the other people. I otherwise think the project's fine. I mean, I'm not bothered by the storage personally. I think it meets the guidelines. With that, Louis, you want to go next? Jessica Gannon (32:17):

Over here, I can go ahead. He's stuttering. And I can piggyback off of what you said. Yeah, I'm overall supportive of the project. I think unknowingly it was a brilliant design, having the storage unit underneath, just for the fact of the case there's 100 year flood, it gives protection to the living space. All the objective findings can be met. Site coverage satisfies that, landscape open space. It's a large lot, so that was easily accomplished.
(32:48):

And then yeah, just look at off-street parking. It just makes it easier for when your kids are there, that let's say your daughter-in-law is pregnant, she doesn't want to go up and down those stairs. It's not safe.

I know I'm not as sure-footed as I used to be, and I was able to make it, but so think of your future daughter-in-law's future and just create a little parking pad. (33:12):

It also, like Board Members Weil said, it also helps for the mud that will eventually come down, it helps mitigate that. And then yes, storage access, dedicated parking pad. Yeah, it hits all the design review criteria. I can make all the findings for the variance. And we approved, just last board meeting two weeks ago, one in Bluebird, and then the board approved one in January in Woods Cove on Glenary. So yeah, I can improve this project.

Thomas Gibbs (33:46):

Louis?
Louis Weil (33:47):

Yeah. So just like the other board members are saying, I do find this variance to be consistent with a modified watercourse variance. It's something we've approved, not only in this area, but in the surrounding piped water courses in the nearby vicinity. So I think it's appropriate. (34:04):

I do think I would highly recommend trying to get the street improvements to get up at least to that drain so it minimizes some of the debris, and also helps the drainage of the impacts of this area to get to the storm drains. So that's why they're built.
(34:19):

So, it should be able to take that as it's currently draining into that storage drain now, and it wouldn't create any more water than what's there. As far as the ADU, I find it compatible with the law and generally meets the intent of the context. So it's design review compatible and I can support this project.

Greg (34:41):

Thank you.

Thomas Gibbs (34:41):
186
187 of 267
March 2026 – Design Review Board Transcript (Agenda Item 5.8 – 855 La Vista drive) lagunabeachcity_4891ceaf-e428-4fbd-853f-0b3cb9f4... (Completed 05/20/26) Transcript by Rev.com

Eva? MJ?
MJ Coveny (34:51):

Okay. I'm just not completely clear on the water course, so I'm not sure I can vote on this. I might have to abstain on this one. I don't like that they're impeding it. I have to trust staff on this, but I don't feel...

Does a hydro get done at some point? Does someone come in and test all this prior to us approving it? Because I thought in the past we've always had hydros on this kind of stuff. We made them do it on Glenneyre.

Bill Rodrigues (35:16):

We have in the past. I think the reason we didn't do it here, it's for a couple of reasons, but maybe just from a little bit of a historical context. My understanding is that the watercourse maps that are now memorialized within the GIS system, that staff looks at when they're reviewing these projects, was developed in the 1970s or thereabout.
(35:35):

This water course was, at some point in the past, obviously was on the surface running through the property. About 1999, 2000 is when the city acquired an easement through the property, and then went through with our Public Works Department, the process of designing this modified water course where we piped. We built in it for Mr. Khan, I believe it was an 18-inch diameter pipe. And that is actually connected to a catch basin further up on Skyline that comes underneath the street and then drops down into this property, and then continues to point further west. (36:12):

So that was done about 25 years ago. As Mr. Warren Hutcherson had mentioned, there's been no, at least not to our knowledge, any failures of that system over the last 25 years. And so what was a surface water course has now been placed into a pipe. There is a grate that's on the site that picks up some of the whatever water runoff that just lands on the property itself. (36:34):

But in terms of the larger watershed that used to flow through that area, that's been piped, picked up on Skyline Drive, taken under the property. So we're dealing with the localized water that maybe hits some of the slopes, conveys down to the lower portions of the property, should then mostly be picked up by the grate that was referenced in these conversations, taken underground. There may still be some water that is just sort of nuisance water just runs off of the property and down a portion of Virginia Park. (37:02):

But the reason we didn't do the hydro studies is because we're placing more faith in the analysis that was done by the city's Public Works Department when this project was designed many years ago. And as most good engineers will do, there's always going to be an additional buffer zone that's accounted for in terms of the overall design when they're analyzing how much water needs to be picked up and conveyed off that site.
(37:24):

So, we're we trusting that the Public Works system is designed well. It hasn't, to our knowledge, shown any deficits over the last 25 years, and so the faith is just placed into that system. And knowing that it is a city easement, it is a city facility, and so if there do become problems in the future, that we can control that solution and that revised design if necessary.
187
188 of 267
March 2026 – Design Review Board Transcript (Agenda Item 5.8 – 855 La Vista drive) lagunabeachcity_4891ceaf-e428-4fbd-853f-0b3cb9f4... (Completed 05/20/26) Transcript by Rev.com

Thomas Gibbs (37:49):

And I'm sorry to point out one other thing. The drain that's right next to it is designed to pick up the water that's running below the culvert, and it's a big drain. That's why it kind of alleviates some of my concern. The other thing that alleviates my concern, even if the culvert has a failure, is the water will go down the street into culvert below. It's not like running right into a house. (38:15):

So, notwithstanding that we've been in other projects, we need to look at each one where... The water course is still there, guys. Yeah, there is a pipe underneath, but it's still a watercourse. It's not like the water course has been moved laterally, but like I say, I totally get your concerns, MJ, and I'm very close on this one.

Imer Bauta (38:38):

I've got a question for staff, could they implement some kind of a driveway off of that street that could be functional as a parking? Even though there's not a permanent spot there, it could be a driveway to access the ADU?
Shehriyar Khan (38:57):

I don't think that's going to be possible, considering the fact that 700 Virginia Park Drive is a separate parcel. So, accommodating a parking space on that individual parcel for the potential vehicular needs of the ADU, it's going to be tricky.
(39:17):

And then especially considering the narrow width of Virginia Parkway Drive over there, that it narrows in and then ultimately goes to maybe three or four feet wide strip, essentially. (39:32):

And then yeah, it would impede any future development plans for 700 Virginia Driveway Park, sorry, Virginia Park Drive as well. And then I'd like to point out that the ADU itself is exempt from parking requirements.

Imer Bauta (39:46):

Copy that. Is the intent that you're going to drive up to the ADU, full candidness? We'd love to ask this question to the applicant.

Warren (39:49):

I'm sorry. I'm going to say, say that again?
Thomas Gibbs (39:56):

You can answer.

Imer Bauta (40:03):

Do you intend on using the access that you have down below to drive up to the ADU off of Virginia Park? Warren (40:10):

That's not the intent, but I'm sure that would probably happen once in a while, but188 189 of 267
March 2026 – Design Review Board Transcript (Agenda Item 5.8 – 855 La Vista drive) lagunabeachcity_4891ceaf-e428-4fbd-853f-0b3cb9f4... (Completed 05/20/26) Transcript by Rev.com

Greg (40:14):

There's a possibility.

Warren (40:16):
[inaudible 00:40:16] for that.

Imer Bauta (40:17):

So, is there any way to add a portion of just padded area that may or may not be used for parking that you probably will use for parking, as part of this program? Warren (40:29):

Well, that sounds kind of like the same thing that Jessica was alluding to or asking for. So, the end of Virginia Park that was abandoned, the street part, half of it went to 700, the other half went to 855.

There is some room there.

Greg (40:57):

There is. There is. Yeah.

Warren (40:58):

Probably. So it was a 12-foot wide strip leaving 6 feet, but then that 6 feet is right up to where there's grade break. Right?
Shehriyar Khan (41:13):

Yeah. It's pretty narrow. It would be insufficient for vehicular access.

Imer Bauta (41:19):

Greg, do you own 700?
Greg (41:21):

What's that?
Imer Bauta (41:21):

Do you own 700?
Greg (41:22):

Yes.

Imer Bauta (41:23):

Yeah. So wouldn't it make sense to apply for the variance to transfer? Warren (41:27):

So if I maybe could clarify, his daughter actually owns 700 and his son owns 855. So it's not necessarily their property, if you know what I mean, if you follow that. 189
190 of 267
March 2026 – Design Review Board Transcript (Agenda Item 5.8 – 855 La Vista drive) lagunabeachcity_4891ceaf-e428-4fbd-853f-0b3cb9f4... (Completed 05/20/26) Transcript by Rev.com

Thomas Gibbs (41:44):

So I'm following, Imer. Is this for the dealing with the water runoff or for just adding this parking space? Imer Bauta (41:48):

I think it's more about access. Even if this comes up in the future, even if they go forward with the other bill, that 700 that was previously approved, at some point someone's going to want access to that roadway. I think it'sGreg (42:02):

Exactly.

Imer Bauta (42:03):

Yeah. It makes sense to do it potentially in this application, because if you transfer it and then you allow for both uses of it, and then you design it as a shared space, do it now 'cause you're going to use it. It'd be worth the effort to just get it done 'cause you're planning on parking there.

Warren (42:22):

I would have a question that I would direct to you, Imer, maybe to ask staff, how would that work? So, it appears to me it would be a lot line adjustment of some sort, and I'm not sure ifImer Bauta (42:38):

There's a property on the backside of Riddle Field.

Thomas Gibbs (42:43):

I don't think we can condition including parking on another lot.

Imer Bauta (42:48):

Well, hang on. There's a property on the backside of Allview Terrace that goes to the... There's a park in the back. There's a city park in the back. I can't think of the name of it. It's a private residence that was donated back in I want to say the late '70s or '80s, and it used to be city controlled. (43:11):

Or sorry. Yeah, it used to be city owned and they deeded it to Allview Terrace, which allowed Allview Terrace to maintain their driveway. So I think it can be done. It's just it's going to require doing it now, 'cause worst case scenario, what happens, if that property gets sold off, then neither parcel will have access in the future. I think that could be daunting.

Warren (43:34):

So I think my question then would be, if I may, would that then require a lot line adjustment? Thomas Gibbs (43:43):

I think we're kind of getting a little ahead of ourselves here because we can't require a parking space.

There's certainly access issues, but that's not subject to our review of the ADU, Imer. 190
191 of 267
March 2026 – Design Review Board Transcript (Agenda Item 5.8 – 855 La Vista drive) lagunabeachcity_4891ceaf-e428-4fbd-853f-0b3cb9f4... (Completed 05/20/26) Transcript by Rev.com

Imer Bauta (43:56):

Is access part of our ADU?
Thomas Gibbs (43:58):

No.

Imer Bauta (43:59):

DRB review.

Louis Weil (44:00):

I guess we could tie it to the variance.

Thomas Gibbs (44:04):

Well, the variance has to do with the water course.

Speaker 13 (44:07):

Yeah, the variance is for the watercourse. And so yeah, I would, once again, for what it's worth, and I believe Chair Gibbs, you've said that conditioning a parking pad on a different distinct parcel is not advisable.
(44:20):

Now, once again, if the applicant wants to agree and say, "Hey, we're going to put a pad here or there," I'm not going to stand on the way, but I want the board to know that that's not going to be a formal condition, because once again, we have no idea in the future [inaudible 00:44:34].

Thomas Gibbs (44:33):

So let me ask you guys, are you willing? Well, I don't know if we can even approve a pad on another parcel, so I'm not sure if we wanted to, we could do it even if you were agreeable.

Warren (44:45):

I tend to agree. We would certainly look into it, but I think it would probably require a lot land adjustment, and I'm not even sure if you can lot land adjust an abandoned street, because that's where it would be.

Louis Weil (45:01):

Well, if the abandoned street became your, you couldGreg (45:02):

It is our street.

Louis Weil (45:03):
... you could turn it into an access easement to keep your buildable lots that were gifted to your kids.

Greg (45:11):
191
192 of 267
March 2026 – Design Review Board Transcript (Agenda Item 5.8 – 855 La Vista drive) lagunabeachcity_4891ceaf-e428-4fbd-853f-0b3cb9f4... (Completed 05/20/26) Transcript by Rev.com

Yes, accessible.

Louis Weil (45:12):

I mean, accessible, which I think regardless of what your kids want to do with it, whether they build or sell them, historically you're going to want that access to be provided to those spots.

Thomas Gibbs (45:22):

Yeah, but the problem is that's great, you should do it if you can. We can condition approval on you obtaining that easement, but we can't under this application because it's an ADU, but if you are agreeable to that condition we can, and it would facilitate your ability to do it. Once you got the easement, you'd have the approval for it.

Warren (45:47):

I don't think that would be advisable. That's a long [inaudible 00:45:51].

Thomas Gibbs (45:51):

My suggestion there is it would be good for you to have that parking and to build it into this project, particularly if you ever sell the thing.

Greg (46:00):

I agree with that, too. [inaudible 00:46:01].

Thomas Gibbs (46:01):

And so I would do that by way of a separate application, and candidly I think thatGreg (46:04):

And also one more comment too, Tom, because we want to control the water that flows down to that grid, that grate there, that could also be associated with the parking area too to direct the water, and that'd be a nice thing too, Imer. We could do it. It's our property, so why not? Warren (46:22):

But I would disagree with that.

Thomas Gibbs (46:23):

You probably could get that done by way of administrative design review over the counter. Right? They wanted to do an easement and put in aBill Rodrigues (46:32):
[inaudible 00:46:32] Public WorksGreg (46:33):

You think, Bill, is that possible?
Bill Rodrigues (46:33):
192
193 of 267
March 2026 – Design Review Board Transcript (Agenda Item 5.8 – 855 La Vista drive) lagunabeachcity_4891ceaf-e428-4fbd-853f-0b3cb9f4... (Completed 05/20/26) Transcript by Rev.com

[inaudible 00:46:36].

Greg (46:36):

No, no, I just want to make this opportunity.

Thomas Gibbs (46:41):

Yes. All right. So I think any other deliberation? All right, let me try to do the motion here, if you guys don't mind. Give me a second. Okay. I move that the board adopt Resolution 2026-0278, Approving Design Review 2026-0278, Coastal Development Permit 2026-0279, and Variance 2026-0280 for the property located at 855 La Vista Drive.
(47:21):

And finds it action categorically exempt, pursuant to CEQA guideline 1503, with direction to the Building Department, and strong suggestion to the applicant to make sure that the drain that's in front of the proposed ADU, that grade is done to maximize that drain usage, and that drain is maintained in a clear and functional manner.

Greg (47:49):

Yes.

Thomas Gibbs (47:52):

Do I have a second?
Louis Weil (47:56):

I'll second it.

Thomas Gibbs (47:57):

Call the roll, please.

Linda Morgan Lander (47:59):

Board Member Bauta.

Imer Bauta (48:01):

Abstain.

Linda Morgan Lander (48:02):

Board Member Coveny?
MJ Coveny (48:03):

Abstain.

Linda Morgan Lander (48:04):

Board member Weil?
193
194 of 267
March 2026 – Design Review Board Transcript (Agenda Item 5.8 – 855 La Vista drive) lagunabeachcity_4891ceaf-e428-4fbd-853f-0b3cb9f4... (Completed 05/20/26) Transcript by Rev.com

Louis Weil (48:06):

Yes.

Linda Morgan Lander (48:08):

Chairperson Gannon?
Jessica Gannon (48:09):

Yes.

Linda Morgan Lander (48:09):

Chair Gibbs?
Thomas Gibbs (48:10):

Yes.

Linda Morgan Lander (48:10):

Motion has passed three to two.

Warren (48:12):

Thank you all.
194
195 of 267

CITY COUNCIL ORDER OF TESTIMONY FOR APPEALS

AND REQUESTS FOR REVIEW OF PROJECTS
Purpose: The City Council is committed to assuring that members of the public have the opportunity to speak to any meeting agenda item before final action on projects. This Order of Testimony establishes the right of persons who specifically wish to speak on projects appealed to or otherwise reviewed by the City Council.

Procedures: There are three types of hearings conducted by the City Council: 1) the appellant is person opposed to the project, 2) the appellant is the applicant, and 3) the project was called up for review by a member of the City Council or the City Manager. The procedures below provide the order in which testimony is considered and the allotted time for public comment. The procedure for each hearing shall be provided as the first attachment to the agenda bill.

I. Appellant is Person Opposed to Approved Project:

1. Staff report summary provided.

2. The appellant has 5 minutes for opening remarks.

3. Any persons in support of the appeal may speak for 3 minutes each.

4. The applicant has 5 minutes to speak in opposition to the appeal.

5. Any other persons in opposition to the appeal may speak for 3 minutes each.

6. The appellant has 2 minutes to speak in rebuttal.

Attachment 10
195
196 of 267
197 of 267
Appellant's Reply - 855 La Vista Drive Appeal
Ground 1 — The DRB approved the watercourse encroachment without the substantial evidence the code required.

The question under the Code is whether this project's encroachment will preserve that watercourse and avoid impairing its functional purposes — findings the Board was required to make affirmatively, on evidence. [R-13] The record contains no hydrology, capacity, or overflow analysis specific to this project’s encroachment, and Appellant's Public Records Request #2026- 299 has now confirmed that no such analysis exists to produce. [R-79] Each of the City's ten arguments, below, fails.

1.1 - The Board deliberated extensively.

City's Position. The Board discussed the watercourse at length, questioned staff, and imposed conditions; its deliberation shows the issue was considered.

Appellant’s Response. Deliberation is not evidence. The question is not whether the Board discussed the watercourse — it plainly did — but whether the findings the law requires were supported by evidence when made. LBMC § 25.50.030(D)(4) permits an encroachment variance "only when" two affirmative findings are made in addition to the standard variance findings: that the encroachment "will act to preserve, enhance or restore the significance of the watercourse," and that it "is not likely to impair the functional, scenic and ecological purposes of the watercourse." No hydrology study or overflow analysis specific to this project exists to support either one, and under Topanga, findings must bridge the analytic gap between the evidence and the decision — concern expressed from the dais cannot substitute. [R-38] Indeed, the deliberation the City cites proves the point: two of five members withheld their votes over "the absence of a hydrology study," and the Chair himself described the failure scenario no document had analyzed.

1.2 - The pipe handles the flows.

City's Position. The watercourse is fully contained in an engineered City storm drain with known capacity; the surface no longer conveys significant flows.

Appellant’s Response. A fixed-capacity pipe does not eliminate flood risk; it defines the point at which excess stormwater, sediment, debris, or blocked-inlet flow must travel somewhere else — here, overland, across the low end of the lot where the ADU and its below-grade storage will sit.

The Master Plan of Drainage establishes that City storm drains of this class are designed for a ten-year storm, that flows beyond design capacity are intended to travel overland, and that pads below street grade — as here — “should be carefully checked” for that overflow condition. [R22, R-23, R-25] The 2000 Drainage Study is explicit about where the balance goes: a “Q10 system is recommended” precisely because the street and watercourse “can contain the residual Q100 flow” — the City's own engineering plans for hundred-year flow to travel across the surface of this corridor. [R-27]
2 198 of 267
Appellant's Reply - 855 La Vista Drive Appeal

1.3 - Because it is piped, no hydrology study was required.

City's Position. Because the watercourse is “already substantially altered and functions as part of the City's storm drain system,” Public Works determined a hydrology report is not required. [R-9]
Appellant’s Response. This inverts the Code. The Municipal Code regulates piped watercourses as “significant modified watercourses” precisely because the swale and overflow function persists after piping [R-11] — the Chair's point exactly. [R-73] Piping is the reason analysis is required, not an exemption from it. The City may not treat the watercourse as legally real for the purpose of requiring a variance and functionally nonexistent for the purpose of granting one.

1.4 - The pipe and its easement protect the watercourse function.

City's Position. The storm drain and the utility easement over it preserve the drainage function; the improvements avoid the easement.

Appellant’s Response. The approved plans themselves distinguish the regulated watercourse centerline from the pipe alignment; the variance measures the encroachment from the watercourse centerline, not the pipe. [R-59, R-57] Preserving access to a pipe is not the statutory finding; the finding is preservation of the watercourse and its functional purposes. [R-13] And the easement said to provide this protection is not established of record: staff's own proposed Condition 4 concedes it may not yet be “effectuated.” [R-71, R-76]

1.5 - The pipe has had no failure in ~25 years, and the City can fix future problems.

City's Position. The City states the system has performed without known failure for about 25 years, and that because it is City-owned, the City can remedy any future issues. [R-18] Appellant’s Response. “No known failure” is an absence-of-complaints assertion, and a promise that the City can fix future problems is, if anything, an admission that future problems here are foreseeable. The record affirmatively contradicts the no-incident narrative: neighbors testified to recurring mud, gravel, and debris on the street below [R-28], the Applicant's own family described a debris event that “came way down from our upper neighbor” [R-29], and staff's account of the 2024–2025 event concedes it “sent mud and debris downslope onto the subject property and Virginia Park Drive.” [R-67] Past performance in ordinary weather says nothing about storm water the Master Plan routes overland — through the very setback this project occupies.

1.6 - The City has full documentation for the pipe system.

City's Position. A hydrology study “would serve no meaningful analytical purpose” because the City has “full documentation for the pipe system.” [R-16] 3 199 of 267
Appellant's Reply - 855 La Vista Drive Appeal
Appellant’s Response. The City's own engineering designs pipes of this class for the ten-year storm and routes the residual hundred-year flow overland [R-22, R-23, R-27], so the hazard requiring analysis is not the pipe but the overflow path this building and its below-grade storage will occupy — and the record contains no documentation about where displaced overflow goes.

Second, the Board itself refuted the assertion that a study "would serve no meaningful analytical purpose": the Chair described the unanalyzed blocked-culvert "water deluge" scenario [R-75] and was "very close to saying no" [R-21], and two members abstained citing the missing hydrology study. [R-3] The purpose of a study is measured by the questions the decisionmakers actually asked — and theirs went unanswered.

1.7 - Observed flows are mere nuisance flows.

City's Position. The mud and debris residents described reflect “the general character of developed hillside properties,” not a watercourse function. [R-9] Appellant’s Response. If these flows truly are just the street's ordinary character, the problem is worse, not better: debris reaches Virginia Park Drive even in ordinary weather, before the storm water the City's own Master Plan routes overland has ever been analyzed. The neighbors told the Board: the street "gets major amounts of mud, gravel, and debris" "during the heavy rains," and "[w]e just clean it up over and over." [R-28] Staff never disputed those observations — it only relabeled them. A condition that staff calls the neighborhood's general character, and that residents describe cleaning up "over and over," is exactly what must be analyzed before a habitable structure and below-grade storage are placed in its path. Labeling this as “mere nuisance flows” does not shrink the hazard, it concedes the hazard recurs.

1.8 - The 25-foot setback was applied, so any 5-foot confusion is immaterial.

City's Position. The City says it treated the 25-foot setback as operative and resolved any applicant statement about a five-foot setback in the more conservative direction. [R-64] Appellant’s Response. The City’s concession that the 25-foot setback applies confirms this is a true watercourse-encroachment variance. Because the deck lies roughly 6 feet 9 inches from the centerflow line, and the ADU has ground supports in the setback, the project far exceeds what the Code permits without a variance. [R-12, R-57] The variance findings must justify that intrusion with evidence; none exists.

1.9 - Conditions of approval protect the watercourse.

City's Position. Conditions 24 through 26 (final drainage plan, grading review, geotechnical review) and now Exhibit A's no-disturbance and replanting conditions ensure protection. [R-43, R-71]
4 200 of 267
Appellant's Reply - 855 La Vista Drive Appeal
Appellant’s Response. Conditions that defer analysis cannot retroactively supply the evidence a present finding required. [R-10, R-38] And none of these conditions — including Exhibit A's — contains a performance standard: no sediment limit, no debris-blockage scenario, no protected overflow route, no criterion at all against which the deferred plans could later be measured. A promise that staff will look later, with no standard to look against, is neither evidence nor protection.

1.10 - The lot is constrained, so the variance is justified.

City's Position. The lot's slope, configuration, and the watercourse itself are special circumstances depriving the property of privileges others enjoy, and development within the mapped watercourse area exists at 1103 Skyline Drive. [R-84] Appellant’s Response. Constraint explains why a variance was sought; it does not supply the safety and non-impairment findings the Code requires before one may be granted. [R-13, R-15] The City's sole comparable is a bare reference to residential development “at 1103 Skyline Drive” within the mapped watercourse area — offered without a permit date, variance history, or any analysis. [R-84] An unexamined comparable, which may simply predate the ordinance, proves nothing about whether this encroachment is safe. And the record shows feasible lesserencroachment alternatives were never analyzed: the enclosed storage alone approaches the size of the ADU itself, and no alternative reducing or relocating that mass out of the setback was studied. [R-5, R-63]
Conclusion on Ground 1. The variance and the watercourse-encroachment findings are unsupported by substantial evidence and are contradicted by the City's own Master Plan of Drainage, plans, testimony, and the City’s production of the Appellant’s Public Records Act. The approval should be reversed — or remanded with direction to prepare project-specific hydrology (including design-storm, blocked-inlet, and overflow-route analysis), to evaluate reduced-encroachment alternatives, and to place the City's documentation and the recorded easement instrument in the record. [R-72]
5 201 of 267
Appellant's Reply - 855 La Vista Drive Appeal
Ground 2 — The DRB approved a CEQA categorical exemption even though the record showed unusual circumstances and unresolved drainage risk.

The Board found the project categorically exempt under Classes 3 and 5 without analyzing the exceptions that make those exemptions unavailable. [R-30, R-32, R-33] The City's responses do not cure the defect.

2.1 - The project fits Classes 3 and 5, so the exemption applies.

City's Position. A single ADU with accessory structures is a textbook Class 3 project, and the minor lot-line and grading actions fit Class 5.

Appellant’s Response. Establishing that a project nominally fits a class begins the inquiry; it does not end it. The City must still confirm that no § 15300.2 exception applies. [R-30] Class 5 applies only “in areas with an average slope of less than 20 percent” [R-31], yet the record describes a steep hillside site requiring approximately 284 cubic yards of export and over-five-foot retaining walls, and contains no average-slope calculation at all. [R-5] An exemption cannot rest on an unmade finding.

2.2 - No unusual circumstances exist because hillside ADUs are routine in R-1.

City's Position. ADUs on hillside lots are routine in Laguna Beach; the project is an allowed use designed to zone standards, so no unusual circumstances exist. [R-40] Appellant’s Response. If "it's a permitted use" were enough to defeat the exception, the exception would never apply to anything: nearly every exempt project is a permitted use. [R-39] Under Berkeley Hillside, the California Supreme Court's test is whether this project differs from the typical exempt project — in its size, its location, or its features. [R-36] This one differs four times over, each time on the City's own documents: it needs a variance because it sits inside the 25-foot watercourse setback the Code otherwise forbids; the City's own hazard map shows a landslide area extending onto the property [R-34]; its pad sits below street level — the exact condition the City's own Master Plan of Drainage says must be "carefully checked" for storm overflow [R-25]; and the approved plans' own site-data table places the lot in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. [R-81] The surest proof is the City's own processing: routine projects do not need variances. The City's own paperwork concedes it is not the general run of hillside ADUs as this one could not be approved without special permission to deviate from the Code.

2.3 - There is no fair argument of significant effect.

City's Position. The City argues Appellant has shown only speculation, not substantial evidence of a significant effect, so the exemption stands.
6 202 of 267
Appellant's Reply - 855 La Vista Drive Appeal
Appellant’s Response. The law does not require Appellant to prove a flood or slide will happen.

It asks only whether there is credible evidence one may — because finding out what will happen is what an environmental study is for. The bar is deliberately low: when credible evidence points to possible harm, the tie goes to doing the review. [R-36] And the credible evidence here is not Appellant's — every piece of it comes from the City's record. The City's own drainage engineering says this pipe is designed for ordinary storms and that in larger storms the extra water travels over the surface, through this corridor. [R-23, R-26, R-27] The neighbors told the Board the street gets mud, gravel, and debris that they clean up "over and over." [R-28] Staff's own report concedes the most recent event sent debris across "the subject property and Virginia Park Drive." [R-67] And the Board's own Chair described the danger in his own words: a blocked culvert producing "a water deluge," and a structure that "comes off its foundations." [R-75] Calling that "speculation" gets the record exactly backwards — Appellant is quoting the City. The only unstudied guess in this record is the City's own assurance that nothing will go wrong, which rests on no analysis at all. If the City's engineers, the City's staff report, the neighbors, and the Chair together do not make a fair argument that harm may occur, nothing ever could.

2.4 - The landslide was off-site and poses no project-level concern.

City's Position. The 2024–2025 landslide originated at 1087 Skyline Drive, approximately 200 feet away, and the project site lies outside the mapped slide area; there are no geological constraints on the property. [R-34, R-35]
Appellant’s Response. Appellant has never contended the slide originated on the property.

Staff's own account is that it originated upslope and “sent mud and debris downslope onto the subject property and Virginia Park Drive” [R-67] — the debris path runs through this site. And the finding the Board adopted — “no geological constraints associated with the property, including earthquake faults or landslide areas” [R-35] — cannot be reconciled with the City's concession that the mapped seismic-hazard landslide area “also extends onto a portion of the Applicant's Property.” [R-34] A letter by Applicant sent to the Appellant removes any doubt about severity: it calls the event a “catastrophic landslide,” notes the family was “very fortunate that neither of our grandchildren were injured,” and describes “a difficult two years, almost 3, trying to get our property back in order and not have all this dirt.” [R-87] The proposed resolution now asks the Council to re-adopt that contradicted finding twice. [R-70] A finding refuted by the agency's own record is the paradigm of error. [R-38]

2.5 - Building-permit review will address any impacts.

City's Position. The City argues that drainage, grading, and geotechnical concerns will be addressed through conditions before permits issue, so no further CEQA analysis is needed now. [R-43]
7 203 of 267
Appellant's Reply - 855 La Vista Drive Appeal
Appellant’s Response. CEQA review may not be deferred to post-approval permitting; the analysis needed to determine whether significant effects may occur must precede the exemption determination, not follow it. [R-37] If those studies are necessary to know whether significant effects may occur, the exemption was premature; if not, the City should not need to rely on them.

2.6 - The project improves existing drainage conditions.

City's Position. Mud and debris are pre-existing neighborhood conditions and that paving and grading the site will improve drainage. The Applicant offered to “embrace that drainage area with a grate” and to “get rid of the dirt and mud.” [R-29]
Appellant’s Response. That a condition pre-exists does not make its interaction with new construction insignificant, and an unstudied expectation of improvement is not substantial evidence. The applicant’s statements that he would “embrace that drainage area with a grade” and “get rid of the dirt and the mud” are expressions of intent that were never reduced to enforceable performance conditions — the motion carried only a “strong suggestion.” [R-33, R45] Unenforceable intentions are not mitigation, and informal mitigation cannot support an exemption in any event.

2.7 - There is no environmentally sensitive area because the watercourse is piped.

City's Position. The site contains no environmentally sensitive resources; the drainage is an underground utility, not a natural feature. [R-40]
Appellant’s Response. The City's own Open Space/Conservation Element maps this as a significant watercourse, and the Code regulates it as such notwithstanding the pipe — with functional, scenic, and ecological purposes the encroachment findings must protect. [R-39, R-11, R-13] The exemption determination never engaged that designation. [R-40]

2.8 - There are no cumulative impacts.

City's Position. The ADU sits on an area of the property “that has not undergone successive development,” so cumulative impacts are impossible. [R-40] Appellant’s Response. The cumulative-impact exception looks to successive projects of the same type in the same place over time — here, serial reconfiguration and intensification of these parcels (the 2015 abandonment, the 2015 and 2024 lot line adjustments, and now hillside development in the setback), together with successive hillside projects loading the same deficient drainage corridor. [R-41, R-26] The Applicant's own letter to Appellant adds a forwardlooking dimension: an announced intent to install “a driveway and of course multiple parking spots” at the bottom of the lot — successive development the exemption determination never considered. [R-87]
8 204 of 267
Appellant's Reply - 855 La Vista Drive Appeal

2.9 - The grading is routine.

City's Position. Approximately 284 cubic yards of grading with retaining walls is modest for hillside construction and is “routinely approved.”
Appellant’s Response. It is the combination that is unusual — ≋284 cubic yards of grading and over-five-foot walls, a below-street pad, and a stepped ≋22-foot downhill face, all within a mapped watercourse setback. [R-5] The unusual-circumstances inquiry looks at the project in its actual setting, where these cumulative works warrant review rather than a categorical pass.

2.10 - The exemption recitals are standard language.

City's Position. The resolution's CEQA recitals follow the City's standard template, and the Board's motion invoked the exemption.

Appellant’s Response. The recitals misstate the law they purport to apply — the motion itself cited “CEQA guideline 1503,” a provision that does not exist [R-33] — and the pattern continues in the Council packet, which twice misidentifies the matter under review (as “DR 2026-0024” and “DR 24-2586”) and alternates between a “927” and a “972”-square-foot ADU. [R-85, R-1, R56] Recitations of this kind are the product of template pasting, not analysis; they underscore that the exceptions were never actually examined. [R-32] Conclusion on Ground 2. The categorical exemption cannot stand. The Council should set it aside and direct that any renewed approval be preceded by the analysis CEQA requires. 9 205 of 267
Appellant's Reply - 855 La Vista Drive Appeal
Ground 3 — The DRB approved the project based on later fixes and informal assurances instead of present evidence and enforceable conditions.

The question is not whether engineering documents are ordinarily finalized at the buildingpermit stage; often they are. It is whether the discretionary findings the Board made, in the present tense, were supported by evidence when made. [R-10, R-38] Three points dispose of the City's response.

3.1 - Conditions 24–26 and building-permit review ensure protection.

City's Position. Condition 24 requires a final drainage plan at building permit; Conditions 25 and 26 require grading and geotechnical review; and Exhibit A now adds the mandatory nodisturbance and replanting conditions. These are “standard and appropriate” conditions for “preliminary approval.” [R-43, R-44, R-71]
Appellant’s Response. Conditions that defer analysis cannot retroactively supply the evidence that findings made in the present tense required. [R-10, R-38] Yet the Board found, in the present tense, that the project would not increase flooding, erosion, or instability and would preserve the watercourse — conclusions that depend on the very analysis the conditions defer. The findings therefore rest on review that has not happened, measured against standards that do not exist.

Staff's own “preliminary approval” framing concedes the sequence: the discretionary findings preceded the analysis.

3.2 - The Board is not the appropriate entity to design the project.

City's Position. Detailed engineering documents are ordinarily prepared at the building-permit stage, and “[t]he Board is not the appropriate entity to design and create these detailed engineering and technical reports and plans.” [R-44]
Appellant’s Response. This answers an argument Appellant never made. Appellant does not ask the Board to engineer anything; Appellant asks that findings follow evidence. Under Topanga and its progeny, findings must bridge the analytic gap between the raw record and the conclusion [R38]; under the watercourse ordinance, the encroachment findings are affirmative prerequisites [R-13]; and under the coastal-permit criteria, hazard avoidance must be found, not assumed. [R53] On CEQA, the deferral is independently fatal: the drainage and geotechnical work postponed to permitting is the very analysis needed to decide whether significant effects may occur, and Sundstrom forbids exactly that postponement. [R-37] For a structure of this mass, on this slope, in this setback [R-5], the gap between “no study” and “no hazard” is unbridgeable. 10 206 of 267
Appellant's Reply - 855 La Vista Drive Appeal

3.3 - The Board's drain direction addresses the drainage risk.

City's Position. The Board directed that final grades maximize use of the drain adjacent to the ADU and that the drain be kept clear and functional, and that direction was “separately captured and forwarded to the Building Official under Condition No. 24” for review and consideration. [R4, R-45] Appellant’s Response. The measure entered the motion only as “direction to the Building Department, and strong suggestion to the applicant” [R-33]; a suggestion forwarded for consideration binds no one. As for the uphill City culvert the Chair worried could block and flood the site, staff itself doubted any fix could even be conditioned — “I don't know that we can condition it. I'm not sure that there's a nexus with this project” — and confirmed any improvement would run through the City's discretionary capital-improvement process. [R-19, R75] The record thus leaves the identified hazard scenario dependent on a suggestion, while the same adjacent drain already failed to prevent the most recent debris event. [R-29, R-67] Conclusion on Ground 3. Because the findings were made before the analysis, the approval should be reversed or remanded for the studies and enforceable performance conditions described in the Requested Relief.
11 207 of 267
Appellant's Reply - 855 La Vista Drive Appeal
Ground 4 — The DRB approved access and construction-impact findings that did not match the hearing record.

The City treats two different questions as one: how the existing residence is reached, and how the new ADU and its construction will be reached. The record shows two access points, likely use of the Virginia Park frontage, and a staging area the City concedes it cannot bind.

4.1 - Permanent access is and will remain from La Vista Drive.

City's Position. Primary access is from La Vista Drive and has existed since 1934; the lower Virginia Park access is incidental. [R-46, R-47]
Appellant’s Response. The record shows the project's practical functioning — construction, deliveries, parking overflow, and day-to-day arrival at a below-street pad — gravitates to the Virginia Park side, as the Applicant's own presentation acknowledged and staff “candidly acknowledge[d]” may occur. [R-46, R-48] The Applicant's own letter to the Appellant [R-87] confirms it, describing “a small ADU with a driveway and of course multiple parking spots as we have almost half an acre down here” — a driveway and parking the approved plans nowhere show, at the bottom of the lot the findings treat as incidental, in an area where recorded Resolution No. 15.025 reserves Virginia Park access to a different parcel. [R-63] Findings premised on the fiction that the lower frontage is irrelevant do not describe this project — or, if they do, the project before the Council is not the project the Applicant intends to build.

4.2 - No additional parking is required by law.

City's Position. State ADU law and LBMC § 25.17.010(g)(4)(B)(i) exempt the ADU from parking because it lies within one-half mile of a bus stop. [R-47] Appellant’s Response. The parking exemption answers a question Ground 4 does not ask. Two Board members abstained in part over “the absence of an additional, non-required off-street parking space accessed from Virginia Park Drive.” [R-3] The design-review compatibility findings and the CDP criteria required the Board to assess the real-world parking and access consequences on this substandard frontage; nothing in the record does. [R-53, R-54]

4.3 - The on-property staging commitment is enforceable and captured by Condition 24.

City's Position. The Applicant agreed at the hearing that “all parking, construction parking and staging will be on property,” and that Condition 24 captures it by requiring a staging plan. [R-49] 12 208 of 267
Appellant's Reply - 855 La Vista Drive Appeal
Appellant’s Response. The commitment never became a condition — the motion contains none [R-33, R-49] — and Conditions 20, 21, and 24 govern haul routes and staging plans procedurally without confining them to the property. [R-51] An oral assurance that the decision-makers relied on but did not impose is precisely the kind of informal mitigation that cannot support findings. [R-43]

4.4 - Staging can occur at 700 Virginia Park Drive.

City's Position. The “on property” area includes the adjacent family-owned, vacant parcel at 700 Virginia Park Drive, which offers a flat and practical staging area. [R-50] Appellant’s Response. Every authority in the record forecloses this. Staff concedes 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.” [R-50] The Chair said the same from the dais of a related easement: “We can condition approval on you obtaining that easement, but we can't under this application because it's an ADU.” [R-77]
Recorded City Council Resolution No. 15.025 — the 2015 right-of-way abandonment — provides by recorded condition (d) that “only the property at 700 Virginia Park Drive shall use the rightof-way abandonment area for access from Virginia Park Drive,” via “[a] maximum of a 150-footlong driveway” (Figure 1) [R-63] — a recorded restriction the staging and access findings never mention, in the very area where the City locates construction staging and the Applicants describe their intended driveway.

And staff's own proposed Condition 3 now directs that the project plans “shall not depict any improvements, encroachments, grading, or development activity on the adjacent parcel at 700 Virginia Park Drive unless separately permitted.” [R-71] The construction-impact finding therefore rests on land the City concedes it cannot bind, that recorded conditions dedicate to another parcel's access, and that the City's own resolution forbids the plans to show. If staging or access through that area is essential to the project's feasibility, it must be secured by recorded instrument before any permit issues; if it is not essential, the finding should not have relied on it.

Figure 1 — Condition (d) of City Council Resolution No. 15.025 (adopted April 21, 2015; recorded May 1, 2015) 13 209 of 267
Appellant's Reply - 855 La Vista Drive Appeal

4.5 - Conditions 20, 21, and 24 protect the neighbors, who have no right to be free of construction effects.

City's Position. Construction on constrained hillside lots is common; the City has “substantial experience” managing it on streets like Alta Vista Way, and “[t]he Appellant does not have a legal entitlement to be free from the temporary and incidental effects of lawful construction activity.” [R-86, R-51]
Appellant’s Response. Appellant claims no immunity from lawful construction. The claim is narrower and legal: findings about this project's construction impacts must rest on evidence about this project — its staging area, its haul route, its frontage — not on the City's general experience elsewhere. [R-38] On this record, the staging premise is legally unavailable (Section

4.4), the frontage is substandard, and the commitment that reassured the Board was never imposed. [R-49]
Conclusion on Ground 4. The access and construction-impact findings are unsupported. Any approval that survives must confine construction access and staging to the subject property and its La Vista frontage or require a recorded staging easement before permit issuance — and the plans must be corrected, on remand, to depict only what is legally available. [R-71, R-8] 14 210 of 267
Appellant's Reply - 855 La Vista Drive Appeal
Ground 5 — The DRB approved design review and coastal findings without squarely addressing the project’s full downhill mass, visibility, and hazard implications.

The City narrows the project, arguing the ADU is exempt from design review so only the deck, walls, and grading mattered. But the coastal-permit and LCP findings reach the whole structure, and the record shows the Board measured mass by habitable area and height by the ADU level alone.

5.1 - The ADU is exempt from design review, so its mass was not before the Board.

City's Position. ADUs are exempt from design review under LBMC § 25.05.040(B)(2)(s); only the deck, walls, and grading required design review, and they were reviewed. [R-55] Appellant’s Response. Staff's theory, stated plainly, is that the Board never had to look at the building — only at its deck, its walls, and its grading. That theory fails three times, each time on the City's own code.

First, the ADU chapter itself takes away the shortcut. Applications that "deviate from the standards of this chapter" — this one did; that is why a variance was required — "shall not qualify for ministerial review" and "shall be subject to applicable design review, variance, coastal development permit, and other entitlements pursuant to Title 25." (LBMC § 25.17.030.) [R-78] Second, the watercourse chapter overrides the exemption staff relies on. Section 25.50.030(E)(1) places all new development on a lot within an established watercourse setback into design review — expressly including development that would otherwise be exempt. [R-52] Third, the coastal permit independently put the whole building before the Board. Staff concedes "[a] coastal development permit was required for the ADU and all associated improvements" [R55], and the Code allows a CDP "only after the approving authority has reviewed the development project," with written findings on visual compatibility, landform alteration, and the "low-profile character of structures." [R-88] Those are findings about how the whole building looks on this hillside; they cannot be made about a structure the Board is told not to look at. The findings themselves prove the stakes: the Board adopted whole-structure visual conclusions — including that this frontage is "limited to pedestrian visibility only" from the Virginia Park terminus — about a building whose true size, on staff's own account, was outside visual review and (see Ground 6) was never staked for anyone to see.

5.2 - Mass is adequately described by habitable area, the 16-foot height, and the stepped design.

City's Position. The ADU is 927 square feet of habitable area; the storage areas are subordinate and the “972” figure is a Building Code habitable-area calculation. [R-56] 15 211 of 267
Appellant's Reply - 855 La Vista Drive Appeal
Appellant’s Response. Habitable floor area is a Building-Code classification, not a measure of physical mass. The structure contains roughly 1,854 square feet of enclosed area before the deck and steps down an ≋22-foot downhill face, while the cited “16-foot” height is measured only from the ADU floor to the roof. [R-5] The compatibility, mass-minimization, and visual findings address the 927-foot fraction only [R-56, R-57]; the City's filings cannot even hold the number steady, alternating between “927” and “972.” [R-1, R-56] The relevant question for visual compatibility and mass minimization is the physical bulk presented to the downhill viewer — the full enclosed structure and its ≋22-foot face, not just the habitable portion or the uppermost level. The project’s own West Elevation (Figure 2) shows the multi-level downhill form the findings did not grapple with.

Figure 2 — Approved West Elevation (Sheet A7): lower storage floor ≈158.4 ft to roof ≈180.4 ft; deck rail 168 ft. [R-5]

5.3 - Visual compatibility, not invisibility, is the standard, and the neighborhood is two-story.

City's Position. The development sits outside visually prominent areas; the retaining wall is set back approximately 38 feet from the westerly property line; vegetation screens the site; and nearby two-story homes, including Appellant's, establish compatibility. [R-57, R-58] 16 212 of 267
Appellant's Reply - 855 La Vista Drive Appeal
Appellant’s Response. Appellant does not argue the project must be invisible; Appellant argues the compatibility and visibility findings were made without analyzing the structure’s actual downhill mass from the public vantage at the Virginia Park Drive terminus. The 38-foot setback applies to the retaining wall, not the building mass or the deck, which sit closer to the downhill frontage, [R-57, R-58] “Screened by vegetation” is conclusory and impermanent, and the staff report's own comparability evidence for the nearest residence — Appellant's home — is an acknowledged guess: the City “does not have a record of its exact height,” but the house “likely exceeds 16 feet.” [R-68] No sightline study, story-pole photograph from the Virginia Park terminus, or comparative massing analysis appears in the record.

5.4 - No geological constraint associated with the property, including landslide areas
City's Position. The City argues that the CDP hazard finding is supported, that there are no geological constraints associated with the property, including landslide areas, and that fire safety is addressed through Building Division review and the 2021 Wildfire Egress Study; Conditions 25 and 26 ensure detailed hazard analysis before ground is broken. [R-35, R-69] Appellant’s Response. The “no landslide areas” finding is refuted by the same packet's concession that the mapped seismic-hazard landslide area extends onto the property (Figure 3) [R-34]. On fire, the approved plans' own site data table designates the site VHFHSZ (Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone) [R-81], yet neither the CDP finding nor staff's response — which addresses egress and materials only [R-69] — ever engages that designation. A hazard finding that ignores the operative hazard designations on the City's own maps and the applicant's own plans cannot stand. [R-53, R-38]
Figure 3 —The landslide hazard overlay extending onto the property (Council Appeal Staff Report, packet p. 45) 17 213 of 267
Appellant's Reply - 855 La Vista Drive Appeal

5.5 - The cumulative effect of prior development is not at issue.

City's Position. The City treats the project as an isolated ADU and does not reconcile the findings with the property’s recent reconfiguration history. [R-41] Appellant’s Response. Staff's own footnote recounts that the 2024 adjustment was processed on a “no development planned” representation while this project was in the pipeline [R-41]; and proposed Condition 3 now concedes the approved plans may not “accurately reflect the current legal lot configuration.” [R-71] The recorded abandonment conditions add a substantive restriction the findings never engage: acquired right-of-way square footage “shall not be used to increase building area, density, and/or setbacks.” [R-63] Findings about setbacks, encroachment distances, lot coverage, and neighboring relationships were made on that unverified — and recorded-restricted — baseline.

Conclusion on Ground 5. The design-review and CDP findings evaluate a fraction of the structure and contradict the City's own hazard record. Reversal or remand is required for wholestructure analysis, a sightline/massing study, and hazard findings consistent with the City's watercourse, seismic-hazard, and VHFHSZ designations.
18 214 of 267
Appellant's Reply - 855 La Vista Drive Appeal
Ground 6 — The DRB approved the project without the complete staking record the code required.

Neither the Board nor the public was ever shown the structure's true height in the field. The City offers three defenses — that only the deck required staking, that other materials made the gap harmless, and that any defect can be cured after the fact. Each fails.

6.1 - Only the design-review elements required staking, and the deck was staked 24 days out.

City's Position. Staking for the elevated deck was certified on March 2, 2026, 24 days before the hearing; the ADU itself is exempt from design review under LBMC § 25.05.040(B)(2)(s), so only the deck, retaining walls, and grading required review; Board members conducted site visits and had renderings; and “[n]o Board member, Applicant, or member of the public raised any concern at the hearing regarding the adequacy, accuracy, or visibility of the staking.” [R-55, R-62] Appellant’s Response. Deck-only staking fails at every step. First, the over-five-foot retaining walls the City concedes required design review [R-55] were never staked.

Second, this project was not on a ministerial ADU track: it deviated from the watercourse-setback standard — that is why a variance was required — and the ADU chapter itself provides that deviating applications “shall not qualify for ministerial review” and “shall be subject to applicable design review, variance, coastal development permit, and other entitlements pursuant to Title

25.” (LBMC § 25.17.030.) [R-78]
Third, the coastal permit independently placed the whole development before the Board — staff concedes “[a] coastal development permit was required for the ADU and all associated improvements,” and a CDP may be approved “only after the approving authority has reviewed the development project,” [R-55, R-88] with written findings on visual compatibility, landform alteration, public views, and the "low-profile character of structures." [R-88] The Board adopted exactly such findings — including that this frontage is "limited to pedestrian visibility only" from the Virginia Park terminus — about a building whose true height neither the Board nor the public was ever shown in the field. Visual findings about a structure no one could see are findings without their required evidence. At minimum, the Council should require a written, code-based determination identifying what authorized deck-only staking; no such determination appears anywhere in this record.
19 215 of 267
Appellant's Reply - 855 La Vista Drive Appeal
Figure 4 — Certified Story Pole table (March 2, 2026): four poles, all “DECK RAIL.” [R-61]

6.2 - Site visits, plans, and renderings made any staking gap harmless, and no one objected.

City's Position. The City argues all five Board members made site visits, that the Board had plans, sections, elevations, and renderings, and that no one raised a staking concern at the hearing, so any deficiency was harmless.

Appellant’s Response. Plans and renderings are not substitutes for staking; the Code requires an in-place representation precisely because it conveys mass and visibility that drawings cannot. [R-60] The absence of an objection is not a waiver of a code requirement. And the Board assessed mass and visibility — the subject of Ground 5 — without a full-extent physical representation of the structure it was approving.

6.3 - Any deficiency can be addressed through conditions or later review.

City's Position. The City argues the Appellant has identified no specific deficiency rising to a code violation and no resulting prejudice.

Appellant’s Response. Staking is a pre-hearing requirement — the representation must be in place at least 21 days before the hearing so the decision-makers and the public can evaluate the structure’s extent before the decision. A post-approval condition cannot retroactively cure a prehearing defect; the remedy is a new hearing preceded by complete staking.

Conclusion on Ground 6. The Council should remand for a new noticed hearing preceded by complete, certified staking representing the full extent of the structure — the ADU mass, the over-five-foot walls, the grading, and the deck and eaves — in place at least 21 calendar days before the hearing.
20 216 of 267
Appellant's Reply - 855 La Vista Drive Appeal
Ground 7 — The DRB approved a watercourse variance without all mandatory watercourse conditions in the written approval currently available.

Ground 7 is preserved and, on the merits, conceded. LBMC § 25.50.030(D)(5) makes the nodisturbance and replanting conditions mandatory for any watercourse-encroachment approval, and the Board's adopted resolution omitted them.

Staff acknowledges that Board-adopted Resolution No. 2026-0278 “does not expressly set forth” the mandatory conditions.

City's Position. Staff acknowledges that Board-adopted Resolution No. 2026-0278 “does not expressly set forth” the mandatory conditions but maintains the omission does not “vitiate their application to the Project”; agrees “[t]hese conditions are not discretionary”; offers Exhibit A Conditions 1 and 2 should the Council feel a “belt and suspenders” approach is warranted; and concludes that adding them “fully resolves this ground of appeal without requiring reversal or remand.” [R-14, R-71]
Appellant’s Response. This confirms the approval was legally incomplete when made:
conditions the Code commands appeared nowhere in the adopting resolution. 21 217 of 267
218 of 267
219 of 267
220 of 267
221 of 267
222 of 267
223 of 267
224 of 267
225 of 267

EXHIBIT A
City of Laguna Beach Master Plan of Drainage (1982), excerpts (pp. 6–7, 13–14, 28) The City's own master drainage engineering. These excerpts establish the design philosophy governing the storm drain that crosses the subject property: City storm drains of this class are designed for the ten-year storm and flows beyond design capacity are intended to travel overland.
30 226 of 267
31 227 of 267
32 228 of 267
33 229 of 267
34 230 of 267
231 of 267

EXHIBIT B
2000 Drainage Study, excerpts (pp. 8–10, 16–17)
The City's own drainage study for this tributary system. It recommends a “Q10 system” — a pipe sized for the ten-year storm — precisely because the street and watercourse “can contain the residual Q100 flow.” The City's own engineering plans for major-storm water to travel across the surface of this corridor — the ground where this project will sit.
36 232 of 267
37 233 of 267
234 of 267
39 235 of 267

40 236 of 267
41 237 of 267

EXHIBIT C
City Council Resolution No. 15.025 (adopted April 21, 2015), certified recorded copy, with City planning correspondence quoting and applying recorded conditions (c) and (d)
Two City documents. First, the certified recorded copy of Resolution No. 15.025 (recorded May 1, 2015, Instrument No. 2015000227005, Official Records, Orange County), whose recorded conditions include (c) — acquired abandonment-area square footage “shall not be used to increase building area, density and/or setbacks” — and (d) — “[o]nly the property at 700 Virginia Park Drive shall use the right-ofway abandonment area for access from Virginia Park Drive.” Second, the Planning Division's Incomplete Letter of December 22, 2023 (Case No. LLA-2023-2191), in which the City quoted conditions (c) and (d) and required this applicant to explain compliance with them — the City treating these recorded conditions as live and binding, two years before the approval now on appeal, which never mentions them. 42 238 of 267
239 of 267
240 of 267
241 of 267
242 of 267
243 of 267

48 244 of 267

49 245 of 267

EXHIBIT D
Public Works Routing Form (Nov. 4, 2025) and Public Works telephone confirmation (Jan. 7, 2025)
The entirety of the technical review behind the City's no-hydrology determination.

The Public Works routing form for the project was returned marked “No comments,” and the written confirmation states that “the watercourse is significantly modified by a City-installed storm drain pipe, and with a utility easement in place, no hydrology report or technical memorandum is required.” The determination's own stated premise — an easement “in place” — is the fact the City's proposed Condition 4 now concedes is unverified. 50 246 of 267
Plan Type
☐ Preliminary
☐ Final
Updated 6/2/2021
TO: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Review #(i.e., 1st):

FROM:
(Planner)
Plans routed for review on: _________ Comments due to Planner on: _________ (date) (2 weeks turnaround)
For:
(Property Address)
APN: DRB Approval Date:

Project Type/Description:

Required Entitlements: ☐ CDP ☐ DRB ☐ PC ☐ CC

REVOCABLE ENCROACHMENT
PERMIT (REP) [LBMC 11.50]
☐ Stairs, fences, walls, planters, paving, _____
PARKING [LBMC 25.52]
☐ Driveway Location [LBMC 25.52.008(I)(1)]
☐ Driveway elevation at property line or street
plan line (3” alley, 3 ½” curbed, or 5” noncurbed streets) [LBMC 25.52.008(I)(3)(b)] ☐ Exception: Driveway slope taken from edge
of (e) pavement
ACCESS [LBMC 25.53]
☐ Onsite turnaround [LBMC 25.53.004(C)]
☐ Street widening [LBMC 25.53.006]
☐ Alley Improvements [LBMC 25.53.006(A)]
☐ Sidewalk Required [LBMC 25.53.006(B)]
☐ Public Parking Space(s) [LBMC 25.53.006(C)]
☐ ROW Dedication (Coast/LCR/Glenneyre)
[LBMC 25.53.006(D) & LBMC 25.53.024]
☐ Drainage [LBMC 25.53.008(E)]
☐ Underground Utilities [LBMC 25.53.010]
☐ Trash Enclosure [LBMC 25.53.012]

ADDITIONAL PLANS REQUIRED
☐ Site and Right-of-Way Improvement Plan
(S&RIP)
OTHER
☐ Sewer/Utility
☐ Street Plan Line [LBMC 11.24]
☐ Intersection Visibility [LBMC 11.30]
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

PW COMMENTS:
☐ Comments in memo ☐ Comments on Plans ☐ Conditionally Approved ☐ No comments ☐ Approved
PW Review By: _________________________________ Review Complete: _____________ (date) 51 ■
?
SHEHRIYAR KHAN 855 La Vista Dr 641-352-57 N/A 927 SF ADU encroaching into the watercourse setback area ■ ■

10/27/25 11/10/25
247 of 267
Call with Joshua Mcdonald on 1/7/25 at 305 PM.

Josh confirmed that since the watercourse is significantly modified with a city-installed storm drain pupe and there is a uBlity easement in place protecBng it, no hydrology report or technical memo is required.
52 248 of 267

EXHIBIT E
City of Laguna Beach, Zoning Plan Check 22-2464, Incomplete Letter / 6th Review (October 27, 2025) (excerpt: Required Entitlements)
The City's own entitlement determination for this project, made before the hearing and before this appeal. The letter lists the “Required Entitlements” as “Design review (DR) approval from Design Review Board (DRB) for watercourse encroachment and retaining walls exceeding 5 feet in exposed height.” 53 249 of 267
505 FOREST AVENUE ∙ LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 ∙ TEL (949) 497-3311 ∙ FAX (949)497-0771 October 27, 2025
Gregg Abel
855 La Vista Drive
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
Subject: Zoning Plan Check 22-2464
855 La Vista Drive
Date of Submittal: September 15, 2025 | 6th Review
Dear Gregg
Thank you for submitting the zoning plan check application referenced above. Staff has reviewed the plans and any additional materials you may have submitted, and this letter will serve as a guide intended to assist you with the next steps in the development review process.

Project Description
Please review the project description prepared by the planner that follows:

Detached 927 SF ADU encroaching into a significantly modified watercourse setback area , elevated deck more than three feet above adjacent existing grade, and retaining walls exceeding 5 feet in exposed height.

This description will be used for the entitlement process going forward. If this description is inaccurate or incomplete, contact your assigned planner to provide or seek clarification. If the project changes between this review and submission of a planning application, please provide an update to this project description.

NOTE TO APPLICANT: IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PROPERTY OWNER TO ENSURE THAT DISCREPANCIES DO NOT EXIST BETWEEN THE PROJECT’S DESCRIPTION ON THE PERMIT, THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS AND THE STRUCTURAL PLANS. IF DISCREPANCIES EXIST BETWEEN ARCHITECTURAL PLANS AND STRUCTURAL PLANS, THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE.

ULTIMATELY THE SCOPE OF WORK, AS DESCRIBED ON THE PERMIT AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION, TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER THE PLANS. IF THERE IS A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE PLANS AND THE DESCRIPTION ON THE PERMIT, THE PERMIT GOVERNS. IF THE REQUIRED CORRECTION/ITEMS ARE NOT

RECEIVED BY THE DEPARTMENT WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF THE DATE OF THIS LETTER, THE DEVELOPMENT

WILL AUTOMATICALLY BE DEEMED ABANDONDED AND A NEW APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF CURRENT FEES WILL BE REQUIRED.

Required Entitlements
54 250 of 267
October 27, 2025
Zoning Plan Check 22-2264
505 FOREST AVENUE ∙ LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 ∙ TEL (949) 497-3311 ∙ FAX (949)497-0771 Based on the project description and the plans, the proposed project requires the following entitlements:

1. Design review (DR) approval from Design Review Board (DRB) for watercourse encroachment and retaining walls exceeding 5 feet in exposed height. The Design Review process is intended to provide the City with the opportunity to review each proposed project, based upon the particular issues and circumstances in effect at the time development is proposed. Property development standards provided in the various zones, or those that may be generally applicable, are the maximum allowable building envelope for a given property. The actual development allowed after the application of the design review criteria may be less than the maximum because of localized conditions identified during the design review process. A proposed development that complies with the objective standards of the Zoning Code and that has no variances does not have any presumptive development right or "entitlement” pursuant to the City’s Zoning Code and Local Coastal Program.

There are 16 Design Review Criteria the project must meet, and they are provided in LBMC Section 25.05.040(H). Any deviations from the design review criteria and other applicable design guidelines must be considered minor and reasonably related to good design principles and specific site conditions per Section 25.05.040(I).

2. Coastal Development Permit (CDP) for non-exempt development for a detached ADU within the coastal zone. There are 9 review criteria, and 3 findings required for approval provided in LBMC Sections 25.07.012(F) and 25.07.012(G), respectively. Based on the project location, approval of the CDP is appealable to the Coastal Commission.

3. Variance to Laguna Beach Municipal Code 25.50.030 to allow a 927 SF ADU to encroach into the watercourse setback area.

According to LBMC §25.05.025, “variances may be granted when there are special circumstances applicable to the property involved, including size, shape, topography, location and surroundings, that would cause the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance to deprive the property of the privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and zone.” To grant a variance, the decision-making authority must make four findings, each supported by substantial evidence. As indicated below, the findings relate to the existence of special circumstances, the necessity of a variance to avoid undue hardship, avoidance of impacts to the public health, safety, convenience, and welfare, and that the variance fits with the underlying objectives of the zoning ordinance and is consistent with the general plan. In general, it is expected that almost all properties within a given zone can be developed 55 251 of 267
October 27, 2025
Zoning Plan Check 22-2264
505 FOREST AVENUE ∙ LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 ∙ TEL (949) 497-3311 ∙ FAX (949)497-0771 without a variance. A variance is intended to be the rare exception, not the rule. For these reasons, staff generally recommends that projects be designed to comply with all applicable zoning regulations.

4. Conditional use permits (CUP) provide the City with public input to review various uses, ensuring they harmonize well with their surroundings. This process allows for adjustments to make projects compatible with nearby properties to align them with neighborhood conditions, site layout, and design standards. If a use fails to meet the necessary criteria, it may be denied. There are 5 findings for approval provided in LBMC Section 25.05.030(F).

You are encouraged to provide written justification for the required criteria and findings for each of the above-mentioned applications that are applicable to your project. Your identification of facts in support of the findings or criteria will assist the City to prepare a more timely and thorough analysis of your project. Please note that the required applications listed above could change should you significantly modify your project after the preparation of this letter.

Fees
The fees for the applications listed above are provided in the following table. Full payment of the fees is required to proceed with the entitlement process.

Design Review: $ 2,711
Coastal Development Permit: $ 533
Variance: $ 2,188
Total $ 5,432
Design Review Application Requirements
The items indicated below must be submitted to the City for a complete application and prior to securing a Design Review Board hearing date. There are two exceptions – as indicated in bold text below, the noticing affidavit and certified staking plan must be provided a minimum number of days prior to the public hearing, as specified.

1. Noticing Requirements. Provide receipt of payment to an approved Listing Service which will prepare a mailing list of property owners within 300’ and tenants within 100’ of the subject property. The Listing Service will print and mail the public notices and provide an affidavit to City staff of mailing by the date specified by staff. AFFIDAVIT IS DUE 10 DAYS PRIOR TO HEARING.
56 252 of 267
October 27, 2025
Zoning Plan Check 22-2264
505 FOREST AVENUE ∙ LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 ∙ TEL (949) 497-3311 ∙ FAX (949)497-0771

2. Certified Staking Plan. Poles must be erected and certified to be able to schedule a hearing.

Provide digital Certified Staking plan set directly to project planner for posting online. FOR DRB >DUE 21 DAYS PRIOR TO HEARING.

3. Colored Elevations. Include all sides of structures and retaining walls over 5‘ in height.

Include maximum allowed building envelope. Do not show landscaping on elevations.

4. Color and Material Selections. Include specifications and pictures of all exterior building finishes and roofing. All proposed exterior colors must be identified including manufacturer code specifications.

Early Neighbor Communications for Design Review
The Laguna Beach Municipal Code (LBMC) requires early neighbor communication for all Design Review projects to occur prior to a scheduled hearing date. Please see LBMC § 25.05.040 (C)(1) for the minimum requirements. The purpose of the requirement is to facilitate applicants considering and accommodating neighbor concerns. Resolving design issues ahead of time through effective communications with neighbors can avoid multiple Design Review hearings.

Experience tells us the minimum is insufficient to facilitate a smooth Design Review process. As a result, the Design Review Board has created a set of best practices to assist you in this process.

You are strongly encouraged to implement these best practices as early in the design process as possible. The adopted best practices and a sample report template are attached to this letter, and they can be found on the City’s website.

Corrections
Accompanied by this letter is a digital copy of your plans with corrections or notes from your assigned planner. Some of the corrections or notes may come from the Building Division, Fire Department, Water Quality Department, or the Public Works Department. Please review these corrections and notes and update the plans accordingly should you choose to pursue entitlements.

Failure to make the corrections will cause future delays. If you do not make the corrections, you must provide justification with your planning application as to how the item is addressed. Your entitlement application will be deemed incomplete if you fail to update the plans.

Comments
Staff has the following initial comments or concerns that should be addressed in your application either through revisions to the plans or through providing additional information justifying your design choices.

1. See redlines.
57 253 of 267
October 27, 2025
Zoning Plan Check 22-2264
505 FOREST AVENUE ∙ LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 ∙ TEL (949) 497-3311 ∙ FAX (949)497-0771 a. Retaining walls encroaching into 5’ storm drain easement b. ADU height is exceeding 16 feet

2. Public Works review forthcoming and shall be forwarded upon receipt.

3. Building Division review forthcoming and shall be forwarded upon receipt.

General Information
The following is provided for informational purposes. A response to the following items in this section is not required for a complete application.

1. Building Permit Required. Planning approval, which may include approvals by the Design Review Board, Planning Commission, or by staff through the Administrative Design Review process, does not authorize you to begin construction. Once the Planning approval process has been completed and all applicable appeal periods have lapsed, please submit complete construction drawings for building plan check.

The Building Division will confirm compliance with local and state building safety standards prior to issuance of a building permit.

2. Revisions. Requests for design changes to design review-approved plans may be required to be returned to the approval body as a noticed public hearing item. To avoid additional public hearings, please incorporate all desired design elements in the original plans.

3. Construction Staging Implementation Procedures. Construction projects on sites with physical constraints such as steep topography, unusual configuration or constricted street access have potential to cause traffic delays and other congestion problems. In order to alleviate these problems, construction staging plans and permits are required when determined necessary by the Building Official.

Final Notes
The guidance provided in this letter can be relied upon provided you file a complete entitlement application within 6 months from the date of this letter. However, regulations and policies do change from time to time, and if applicable regulations change, your project must comply with new regulations in effect on the date you file. If the fees identified in this letter change, you will be required to pay the fees in effect at the time you file. Fees typically change every couple of years based on the cost of providing services and inflation.

Staff has made every effort to provide you with the necessary information and their best guidance; however, mistakes do happen. Mistakes or oversights do not relieve the project’s need to comply with applicable regulations, standards, and policies.
58 254 of 267
October 27, 2025
Zoning Plan Check 22-2264
505 FOREST AVENUE ∙ LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 ∙ TEL (949) 497-3311 ∙ FAX (949)497-0771 Changes to your project made after this letter will necessitate additional review and the direction or comments may change during the entitlement process.

Should you choose to proceed with the project, be advised that it is the applicant’s responsibility to provide the necessary facts that support their application. It is the staff’s responsibility to process and analyze the application in an objective and timely manner, and staff will provide a recommendation to the applicable decision-maker (e.g. Community Development Director, Design Review Board, or Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal). The decision-maker is not bound by staff’s recommendation as they arrive at their own conclusion based on the facts, the project setting, project characteristics, adopted policies and regulations, and applicable design guidelines, criteria and findings.

Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide input on your project.

Sincerely,
Shehriyar Khan
Associate Planner
City of Laguna Beach
505 Forest Avenue, Laguna Beach, CA 92651
949-715-0672, [email protected]
Attachments

1. Redlines

2. DRB Submittal Worksheet
59 255 of 267

EXHIBIT F
City's Public Records Act response correspondence and production index Appellant's Public Records Act request for all records supporting the City's nohydrology determination and an index of the complete production. Specific to this project, the production contained no hydrology study, design-storm, or overflow analysis — only the routing form and confirmation (Exhibit D). This exhibit proves the absence on which Ground 1 rests.
60 256 of 267
257 of 267
258 of 267
259 of 267
260 of 267
261 of 267
262 of 267
263 of 267
264 of 267

EXHIBIT G
Letter from Kathleen Abel (Abel Design, 855 La Vista Drive) to Appellant, received June 2026
A letter received by Appellant in June 2026, on Abel Design letterhead over Kathleen Abel's signature. The applicants describe the recent event as a “catastrophic landslide,” and describe their plans for “a small ADU with a driveway and of course multiple parking spots” at the bottom of the lot. Offered on the Council's de novo review: the applicants' own words, against the “no landslide areas” finding and the finding that no Virginia Park Drive vehicular access is proposed.
69 265 of 267
266 of 267
267 of 267