Laguna Beach City Council
July 7, 2026

RESOLUTION NO. 26.XXX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

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

DWELLING UNIT WITH ATTACHED STORAGE, AN

ELEVATED DECK, GRADING, AND RETAINING WALLS

EXCEEDING FIVE FEET IN EXPOSED HEIGHT WITHIN A

WATERCOURSE SETBACK, SUBJECT TO IMPOSING

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

DENSITY ZONE, AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here, the project includes the construction of a single detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) of approximately 972 square feet on a developed residential lot, which is located within an established urbanized residential neighborhood and is also already developed with an existing single-family residence. The project includes limited grading, retaining walls, and an elevated deck associated with residential 4 The property has been subject to lot line adjustments with the adjacent property at 700 Virginia Park Drive, resulting in the current lot configuration. On October 6, 2015, the City Council approved Lot Line Adjustment 15-1216 and Coastal Development Permit 15-1217, and on August 13, 2024, approved Lot Line Adjustment 23-2191 and Coastal Development Permit 24-0151. The most recent adjustment was recorded on October 24, 2024, establishing the existing lot line conditions for the subject property. The 2015 lot line adjustment followed the City Council’s abandonment of an approximately 1,500-square-foot portion of Virginia Park Drive right-of-way as part of a broader effort to reconfigure three legal building sites under common ownership into two parcels. The abandoned right-of-way was subsequently merged with the adjacent property at 700 Virginia Park Drive. 42 -12- Reso. #26.XXX
development, all confined to the immediate area of the ADU and previously disturbed portions of the site. is a detached ADU which requires limited grading and retaining walls on a slope. In addition, the mapped watercourse has been substantially modified and is conveyed through an existing storm drain system. The proposed improvements will not alter drainage patterns or interfere with the function of this infrastructure. There is no evidence of any unusual or special conditions that would result in a significant effect on the environment Further, none of the exceptions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply. The project site does not contain any environmentally sensitive areas. The mapped watercourse has been significantly modified and incorporated as part of the City’s drainage system. The utility easement further protects the subterranean drainage course and infrastructure. There will be no cumulative impacts because the ADU and related improvements are located on an area of the property that has not undergone successive development. There are no unusual circumstances resulting in a significant impact on the environment because the project is an allowed use in the R-1 zone, has been designed to meet zone standards, and the findings can be made to the support the variance request. There will be no damage to scenic resources, including trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway because it is not located within a designated state scenic highway. The project is not located on a hazardous waste site or any other site included on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. The project will not result in significant adverse 43 -13- Reso. #26.XXX
impacts to historical resources as defined by CEQA because the project site is not a historic property. Consequently, additional environmental analysis is not necessary to meet the requirements of the CEQA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A. The scope of the design review application.

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

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

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

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

DR 2026-0278, Finding No. 1, Review Criteria No. 4:

Environmental Context: Development should preserve and, where possible, enhance the city’s scenic natural setting. Natural features, such as existing heritage trees, rock out-cropping, ridgelines and significant watercourses should be protected. Existing terrain should be utilized in the design and grading should be minimized.

The mapped watercourse has been substantially altered from its natural condition and is now conveyed through the City’s storm drain system. The proposed 7 The actual language of the LBMC states: “Design Articulation. Within the allowable building envelope, the appearance of building and retaining wall mass should be minimized. Articulation techniques including, but not limited to, separation, offsets, terracing and reducing the size of any one element in the structure may be used to reduce the appearance of mass.” (LBMC Section 25.05.040(H)(2).) 54 -24- Reso. #26.XXX
deck, located approximately 6 feet 9 inches from the watercourse centerline, along with associated project grading and retaining walls within the 25-foot watercourse setback, will not adversely affect the remaining functional or scenic characteristics of the drainage feature. The project is designed to utilize the existing terrain, with improvements concentrated in previously disturbed areas near the existing residence. Grading is limited to what is necessary to accommodate the ADU, fire access, and site circulation, thereby minimizing disturbance to the surrounding hillside. No impacts to heritage trees, ridgelines, or other prominent natural features are proposed. Additionally, all improvements are located outside of visually prominent areas, ensuring the site’s overall natural character is preserved.

DR 2026-0278, Finding No. 1, Review Criteria No. 5
General Plan Compliance: The development shall comply with all applicable policies of the General Plan, including all of its elements, applicable specific plans, and the certified local coastal program.

LU Policy 3.10 Require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated with natural topographic features, minimize significant alteration of natural topography or other significant onsite resources, and protect public views as specified in the Design Guidelines and Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document by maintaining the low-profile character of structures.

Require use of appropriate landscaping, special architectural treatments, and siting considerations for projects visible from major highways and arterial streets.

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

B. Visual compatibility with the character of surrounding areas.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Encroachment variances shall be subject to the conditions that no physical disturbance of the watercourse shall occur at any time; and that, where feasible, specified native riparian vegetation shall be replanted where disturbance of vegetation occurs during construction. (LBMC Section 25.50.030(D)(5).)
However, this issue does not require reversal or remand of the Board Approval. The Board made all required findings, including the additional watercourse encroachment findings under LBMC Sections 25.50.030(D)(4)(a) and (b), and the Project was reviewed for consistency with the substantive standards those conditions are designed to protect.

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Access. Conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians and other modes of transportation should be minimized by specifically providing for each applicable mode of transportation.

Handicapped access shall be provided as required by applicable statutes.

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

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

2. Design Articulation: Within the allowable building envelope, the appearance of building and retaining wall mass should be minimized. Articulation techniques including, but not limited to, separation, offsets, terracing and reducing the size of any one element in the structure may be 66 -36- Reso. #26.XXX
used to reduce the appearance of mass.

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Environmental Context: Development should preserve and, where possible, enhance the city’s scenic natural setting. Natural features, such as existing heritage trees, rock out-cropping, ridgelines and significant watercourses should be protected. Existing terrain should be utilized in the design and grading should be minimized.

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

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

5. General Plan Compliance: The development shall comply with all applicable policies of the General Plan, including all of its elements, applicable specific plans, and the certified local coastal program.

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

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

The proposed project is consistent with this policy as demonstrated in the design articulation, environmental context, and neighborhood compatibility criteria. The proposed improvements are designed in harmony with the site’s natural downward slope toward Virginia Park Drive, minimizing the need for significant alteration of existing topography The proposed elevated deck is designed to extend with the natural grade of the site, reducing the extent of grading required and allowing the structure to remain visually integrated with the hillside setting. The project will not impact public views as it is setback from any major streets and screened by existing vegetation.
69 -39- Reso. #26.XXX
LU Policy 2.10 Maximize the preservation of coastal and canyon views (consistent with the principle of view equity) from existing properties and minimize blockage of existing public and private views. Best efforts should be made to site new development in locations that minimize adverse impacts on views from public locations (e.g., roads, bluff top trails, visitor-serving facilities, etc.)
The elevated deck, grading, and retaining walls will be located at the end of Virginia Park Drive on the lower portion of the lot, well below the La Vista Drive frontage and outside any identified public coastal or canyon view corridors. Due to the site’s topography and existing mature vegetation, the improvements will not conflict with public views along street-facing property lines. The westerly location of the deck, grading area, and retaining walls ensures that no coastal views, canyon views, or other scenic resources are obstructed. Overall, the project upholds view equity principles and demonstrates a thoughtful design approach that minimizes visual impacts while enhancing compatibility with the neighborhood setting.

LU Policy 3.10 Require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated with natural topographic features, minimize significant alteration of natural topography or other significant on-site resources, and protect public views as specified in the Design Guidelines and Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document by maintaining the low-profile character of structures. Require use of appropriate landscaping, special architectural treatments, and siting considerations for projects visible from major highways and arterial streets. Best efforts should be made to site new development in locations that minimize adverse impacts on views from public locations (e.g., roads, bluff70 -40- Reso. #26.XXX
top trails, visitor-serving facilities, etc.)
As described above, the proposed improvements are designed to respond to the site’s natural downward slope toward the western property line, with grading limited to what is necessary to accommodate the ADU and required access improvements. The elevated deck extends outward from the ADU and does not require additional grading, thereby minimizing disturbance to the surrounding terrain. Grading results in a stepped condition that reflects the underlying slope and is confined to the area of development. The project is located off a dead-end road, will be nestled along the hillside, and screened by existing vegetation. No adverse impacts on views from public locations will result.

LU Policy 7.3 Design and site new development to protect natural and environmentally sensitive resources, such as areas of unique scenic quality, public views, and visual compatibility with surrounding uses and to minimize natural landform alterations. (Same as Policy 10.2.) GOAL: Protect, preserve, and enhance the community’s natural resources.

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

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

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

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

LU Policy 10.2 Design and site new development to protect natural and environmentally sensitive resources such as areas of unique scenic quality, public views, and visual compatibility with surrounding uses and to minimize landform alterations. (Same as Policy 7.3) GOAL: Ensure that proposals for new development, subdivisions, and major remodels are sufficiently evaluated to protect public health and safety and natural resources.
72 -42- Reso. #26.XXX
Consistent with the findings made in Policy 7.3, the project has been designed to protect public views, maintain visual compatibility with the neighborhood, and minimize landform alterations to what is necessary to facilitate construction of the ADU elements including the elevated deck, grading, and retaining walls. As a result, the proposed work preserves the site’s natural character, avoids impacts to environmentally sensitive resources, and upholds the City’s goal of ensuring that new development is evaluated and constructed in a manner that protects public health, safety, and natural resources.

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

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

7. Landscaping: Landscaping shall be incorporated as an integrated part of the structure’s design and relate harmoniously to neighborhood and community landscaping themes. View equity shall be an important consideration in the landscape design. The relevant landscaping guidelines contained in the City’s “Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document” should be incorporated, as appropriate, in the design and planned maintenance of proposed landscaping.

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

8. Lighting and Glare: Adequate lighting for individual and public safety shall be provided 73 -43- Reso. #26.XXX
in a manner which does not significantly impact neighboring properties. Reflective materials and appurtenances that cause glare or a negative visual impact (e.g., skylights, white rock roofs, highgloss ceramic tile roofs, reflective glass, etc.) should be avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance in those locations where those surfaces are visible from neighboring properties.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12. Public Art: Public art is encouraged and shall be displayed where feasible or required by the Art in Public Places ordinance.

Design Review Criteria for Public Art is related to commercial development and 75 -45- Reso. #26.XXX
this residential project is not subject to these criteria.

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

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

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

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

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

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

16. View Equity: The development, including its landscaping, shall be designed to protect existing views from neighboring properties without denying the subject property the reasonable opportunity to develop as described and illustrated in the City’s “Design Guidelines.” The “Design Guidelines” are intended to balance preservation of views with the right to develop property.

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

Finding No. 2. The physical improvements and site developments related to the Project are designed and located in a manner in overall consistency with all other applicable design guidelines.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9. Other public services, including, but not limited to, solid waste and public roadway capacity have been considered and are adequate to serve the proposed development.

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

Finding No. 2. Any development located between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea is in conformity with the certified local coastal program and with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act.

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

Finding No. 3. The proposed development will not have any significant adverse impacts on the environment within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act.

As described further herein, the project does not have any significant adverse environmental impacts. The project qualifies for a categorical exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, as discussed further herein.

SECTION 5. The City Council hereby makes the following findings and facts supporting findings for VAR 2026-0026:
81 -51- Reso. #26.XXX
Finding No. 1: There are special circumstances applicable to the property involved, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings which cause the strict application of the zoning ordinance to deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

25.50.030(D)(4) Watercourse Encroachment Variances:

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

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

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

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

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

As discussed in detail under Appeal Contention No. 2 above, the project site does not contain any environmentally sensitive areas, the mapped watercourse has been significantly modified and incorporated as part of the City's drainage system, and the utility easement further protects the subterranean drainage infrastructure. The landslide referenced at the hearing originated on an adjacent upslope property and does not constitute an unusual circumstance of the subject property attributable to this project. There will be no cumulative impacts because the ADU and related improvements are located on an area of the property that has not undergone successive development. There are no unusual circumstances resulting in a significant impact on the environment because the project is an allowed use in the R-1 zone, has been designed to meet applicable zone standards, and the findings can be made to support the variance request. There will be no damage to scenic resources, including trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway, as the project is not located within a designated state scenic highway. The project is not located on a hazardous waste site or any other site included on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.

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

ADOPTED this 7th day of July, 2026.

Mark Orgill, Mayor
ATTEST:

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

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

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

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

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

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

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