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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 31
32 33
34 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 37
39 40
41 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 48
49 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 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
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 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.” 53 505 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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