LAGUNA
BEACH RECEIVED
CITY
APR 0 8 2026
CALIFORNI
City Clerk's Office
CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH City, of Laguna Beach, CA
NOTICE OF APPEAL
NOTICE:
Appeals of decisions regarding administrative use permits, administrative design review, coastal development permits, conditional use permits, design review, interpretations, reasonable accommodation, temporary use permits and variances may be filed by the applicant or any other aggrieved property owner within three hundred feet of the subject property•
2. A CEQA determination in connection with the decisions described above are subject to Public Resources Code section 21151(c) and may be appealed by any person.
3. The appeal fee of $2,500.00 must accompany the appeal at submittal.
4. This form must be received by the City Clerk within 14 calendar days of the appealed decision or determination.
5. All information requested below must be provided. Attach additional pages if necessary.
Prior to completing this form you may wish to read Laguna Beach Municipal Code section
25.05.070, which pertains to appeals.
APPEAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Email:
Name of Appellant: Robin Williams Phone No.
Address of Appellant: Virsinia Paris Drive, Lagura Beach, CA 12651 Address of Subject Property: 855 La Vista Drive, Lagun Beach, CA 92651 Gregg Abel
Owner of Subject Property:
Board/Commission/Officer responsible for Decision Appealed: (Select One) Design Review/Board of Adjustment
Planning Commission
• Other: (Explain)
Date of Decision/Hearing: March 26, 2026
Appeal of: (Select One)
Approva
Denial
• CEQA Determination (Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21151(c)) Other: (Explain)
505 Forest Ave. Laguna Beach, CA 92651 TEL (949) 497-3311 FAX (949) 497-0771 Generally Describe:
The type of permit, relief or action originally sought for the subject property: APPrOVal WAS Sought for Design Review 2026-0278, lustall Development Permit 2026-0279, and Variance 2026.0280 for encroachment into a mapled Watercourse Setback.
REASON FOR THE APPEAL:
see attalhed "Reason for APPeal' Packet.
The foregoing statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Date APril 8, 2026
(Signature of Appellant)
PROCEDURE FOR REQUESTING A CONTINUANCE OF A PUBLIC HEARING :
Continuances may be granted at the discretion of the City Council. Either the applicant (owner of the subject property or his/her designee) or the appellant may request a continuance at or, preferably, before the time of the public hearing. If, no later than the Wednesday prior to the public hearing, the applicant submits a written request accompanied by $684 to cover the cost of renoticing, the City staff has the authority to continue the hearing, if in the judgement of the staff, there is no valid or legal reason not to continue the hearing. Such requests are to be submitted to the City Clerk.
Appeal Received By:
Date Filed:
Appeal Fee:
Date of Hearing:
505 Forest Ave Laguna Beach, CA 92651 TEL (949) 497-3311 FAX (949) 497-0771
ATTACHMENT TO NOTICE OF APPEAL
Reason for Appeal
Robin Williams
Appellant Virginia Park Drive, Laguna Beach, CA
92651
Subject Property 855 La Vista Drive, Laguna Beach, CA 92651 Applicant / Owner Gregg Abel
Approval and associated CEQA categorical
Appealed Action
exemption
Hearing Date March 26, 2026
Design Review 2026-0278 | CDP 2026-0279 |
Case Numbers
Variance 2026-0280
Relief Requested
• Reverse the Design Review Board approval and associated CEQA determination for the project as approved on March 26, 2026.
• In the alternative, remand the matter for a new hearing and a revised resolution supported by substantial evidence, after completing the necessary hydrology / drainage analysis, clarifying access and construction staging, completing full-envelope staking, correcting the CEQA and watercourse findings, revising the design review and coastal development findings to address the project's true downhill size, visibility, and hazard impacts, and adding enforceable conditions for construction staging, parking, access, drain design and maintenance, and all applicable watercourse-specific code requirements.
Purpose and scope
This attachment specifically states the grounds for appeal under LBMC section 25.05.070(B)(2) on behalf of Appellant Robin Williams. It is intended to satisfy the "REASON FOR THE APPEAL" portion of the City's Notice of Appeal form and to challenge both the Design Review Board's March 26, 2026 approval of Design Review 2026-0278, Coastal Development Permit 2026-0279, and Variance 2026-0280, and the associated CEQA categorical exemption for 855 La Vista Drive.
The associated CEQA determination is separately appealable under Public Resources Code section 21151(c).
Attachment to Notice of Appeal - 855 La Vista Drive - March 26, 2026 DRB action This appeal is based only on the evidence and plans presented to the Design Review Board and presently available to Appellant: the Staff Report dated March 26, 2026; the agenda-attachment version of Resolution 2026-0278 currently available in the hearing packet (referred to below as the "Draft Resolution"); the Plans; the Certified Staking Plan; the agenda item sheet; and the unofficial hearing transcript. The final signed resolution / notice of action has not yet been made available to Appellant. Accordingly, the grounds below are stated as fully and specifically as possible based on the present administrative record
Because the design review decision was approved by only three affirmative votes and not four or more, City Council review falls under LBMC section 25.05.070(E) (2)(b): Council conducts a de novo review of the underlying application, but only as to the grounds specifically stated in the notice of appeal and only as to the evidence, including plans, presented to the Design Review Board. Each numbered section below is intended to state a separate, specific, and independent ground for appeal, and each ground applies to the approval, the variance, the coastal development permit, and the CEQA determination to the extent applicable.
How this attachment is organized. This appeal is not based on generalized neighborhood opposition. It argues that the DRB approved the project without meeting the requirements imposed by governing law. To make Council's review easier under LBMC section 25.05.070, each numbered ground below is organized the same way: (1) the applicable legal standard and the authorities that establish it; (2) what the DRB approved and found at the hearing; and (3) why that approval cannot be sustained under the governing standard on the record presented to the DRB.
Why this appeal warrants close City Council review
• Chair Gibbs called the project a "significant encroachment into the watercourse" and said he was "very close to saying no." (Transcript pp. 8-9.)
• Board Member Coveny abstained, was "not completely clear on the watercourse," and questioned the absence of hydrology review. (Transcript p. 9.)
• Staff explained that no hydrology study was required because the City was "placing more faith" in an approx. 25-year-old Public Works analysis of the piped drainage. (Transcript pp. 9-10.) • The project nevertheless passed with only three yes votes and two abstentions, and the motion relied on a "direction to the building department" and a "strong suggestion to the applicant" rather than a binding drainage condition. (Transcript p. 12.)
Attachment to Notice of Appeal - 855 La Vista Drive - March 26, 2026 DRB action
1. The DRB approved the watercourse encroachment without the substantial evidence the code required.
Applicable Legal Standard and Authorities. LBMC section 25.50.030(D)(1) requires a 25-foot setback from both sides of the centerflow line of a significant watercourse. Under section
25.50.030(D)(3), buildings and structures are prohibited within that setback except for limited deck extensions with no supports that stay at least 15 feet from the centerflow line. Any other encroachment requires both the ordinary variance findings in LBMC section 25.05.025(F) and the additional watercourse findings in LBMC section 25.50.030(D) (4) and (5), including findings that the encroachment will preserve, enhance or restore the significance of the watercourse, will not impair its functional, scenic, or ecological purposes, and will be subject to the code's mandatory watercourse conditions. Under Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 515, the DRB's findings must disclose the analytic route from the evidence to the decision and must be supported by substantial evidence.
What the DRB Approved and Found. The DRB approved Design Review 2026-0278, Coastal Development Permit 2026-0279, and Variance 2026-0280 for a detached ADU, deck, grading, retaining walls, and related improvements within a mapped watercourse setback. In doing so, the DRB necessarily accepted the Staff Report / Draft Resolution findings that the site contains a mapped watercourse and associated 25-foot setback, that the proposed deck is approximately 6 feet 9 inches from the watercourse centerline, that grading and retaining walls occur within the setback, that 284 cubic yards of export are proposed, and that the required variance and watercourse findings could nevertheless be made. (Staff Report pp. 2, 5, 7, 17-18; Draft Resolution pp. 2, 4, 9; Transcript pp. 1, 12-13.)
Why the Approval Cannot Be Sustained Under That Standard. The approval cannot be sustained because the hearing record itself showed unresolved doubt on the very hydrology and safety issues the code required the DRB to resolve before approving this encroachment. Chair Gibbs called the proposal a "significant encroachment into the watercourse," said he was "very close to saying no," and worried about clogged culverts, heavy rain, and a "100-year flood." MJ Coveny abstained, said she was "not completely clear on the watercourse," and believed hydrology studies had been required in similar cases. Bill Rodrigues explained that staff required no hydrology study because it was placing "more faith" in prior Public Works analysis and the past performance of a piped system installed about 25 years ago, rather than in a current project- specific hydrology analysis. The hearing also included the applicant's statement that the applicable setback above a modified watercourse is five feet from the center line, "not 25 feet like the old days," even though the City's own code and staff report treated the 25-foot setback as still operative. (Transcript pp. 2, 8-10.) Under Topanga, findings cannot rest on faith, uncertainty, or internally inconsistent assumptions about the governing setback. Because the extra watercourse findings were mandatory prerequisites to this variance, the lack of substantial evidence is a legal defect requiring reversal or remand.
Attachment to Notice of Appeal - 855 La Vista Drive - March 26, 2026 DRB action
2. The DRB approved a CEQA categorical exemption even though the record showed unusual circumstances and unresolved
drainage risk.
Applicable Legal Standard and Authorities. A categorical exemption is lawful only if the agency identifies a valid exemption and no exception bars its use. CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2(c) bars a categorical exemption where there is a reasonable possibility that unusual circumstances may cause a significant environmental effect. Public Resources Code section 21151(c) separately confirms that a nonelected body's determination that a project is exempt or otherwise not subject to CEQA may be appealed to the elected body. Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1086 confirms that the unusual- circumstances exception is a real limitation on categorical exemptions, and No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 84 explains that close questions should be resolved in favor of environmental review.
What the DRB Approved and Found. The DRB voted to "find said action categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA Guideline 1503" as part of the approval motion, while the agenda item and Draft Resolution referred to Guidelines sections 15303 and 15305 and the Staff Report recommendation page referred to sections 15303 and 15304. In substance, the DRB approved the project without any further environmental document and accepted staff's position that the modified watercourse / storm-drain setting, the grading, the retaining walls, and the runoff concerns did not prevent categorical-exemption treatment. The hearing record nevertheless included the applicant's own description of a landslide on this same property approximately two years earlier that "flooded and wiped out walkways," sent dirt and mud down the slope, and sent mud "way down" the street. (Agenda Item sheet; Draft Resolution p. 2; Staff Report p. 18; Transcript pp. 2, 12.)
Why the Approval Cannot Be Sustained Under That Standard. The approval cannot be sustained because the exemption theory was both internally inconsistent and materially unsupported on the record. The record contains unusual circumstances: a mapped watercourse and storm-drain corridor, development materially inside the 25-foot setback, retaining walls exceeding five feet, 284 cubic yards of export, a sloped site, testimony about recurring mud, rock, and debris runoff to Virginia Park, the applicant's admission that about two years earlier a landslide on the property "flooded and wiped out walkways," and Board discussion of clogged culverts and 100-year flood conditions. (Staff Report pp. 2, 5; Transcript pp. 2-5, 8-10.) Under Berkeley Hillside, a recent landslide on the same property is precisely the sort of site-specific unusual circumstance that prevents casual reliance on a categorical exemption without a stronger evidentiary record. Under No Oil, close questions are supposed to be resolved in favor of review, not bypass. Here, the DRB approved the exemption even though the hearing itself centered on recent slope and drainage problems and the possibility of future drainage, erosion, and flooding consequences. That mismatch between the record and the exemption decision is a serious CEQA defect.
Attachment to Notice of Appeal - 855 La Vista Drive - March 26, 2026 DRB action
3. The DRB approved the project based on later fixes and informal assurances instead of present evidence and enforceable conditions.
Applicable Legal Standard and Authorities. The DRB was required to decide whether the project before it could lawfully be approved on the basis of evidence and conditions actually in the record. CEQA and land-use law do not allow essential environmental analysis, mitigation design, or project details to be deferred until after discretionary approval through later permit review, informal staff direction, or voluntary applicant promises. (14 Cal. Code Regs., section 15004, subdivision (b); Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 307- 309.)
What the DRB Approved and Found. The DRB approved the project while the currently available Draft Resolution deferred several important matters to later permit-stage review, including a construction staging plan, drainage plan, grading plan, and geotechnical monitoring.
At the hearing, Chair Gibbs added only a "direction to the building department" and a "strong suggestion" to the applicant regarding the drain in front of the ADU. The applicant also agreed on the record that all construction parking and staging would be on property. (Draft Resolution pp. 15-16; Transcript pp. 4-5, 12.)
Why the Approval Cannot Be Sustained Under That Standard. The approval cannot be sustained because the DRB used future review and informal assurances to bridge present gaps in the record. Under Sundstrom, the agency cannot approve first and work out the key analysis later when the unresolved issues go to drainage, mitigation, or site impacts. Here, the very topics that caused concern at the hearing (runoff management, storm-drain protection, construction staging, and parking impacts on Virginia Park) were not resolved by enforceable conditions in the record presently available. A "strong suggestion" is not a condition of approval. A later building-department review is not a substitute for present discretionary findings supported by present evidence. The motion's added "direction" and "strong suggestion" about using and maintaining the drain in front of the ADU only underscore the problem: they acknowledge a perceived drainage risk while leaving the operative solution outside an enforceable approval condition. The result is an approval of a project whose critical safeguards were left to later judgment rather than decided at the hearing
4. The DRB approved access and construction-impact findings that did not match the hearing record.
Applicable Legal Standard and Authorities. Access and construction-related findings must be supported by substantial evidence and must correspond to the record before the DRB. Laguna Beach's design review criteria require conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians, and other modes of transportation to be minimized. (LBMC section 25.05.040(H)(1).) The coastal review criteria also require the project to be provided with adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, and other necessary facilities, and that other public services and roadway capacity be considered and adequate. (LBMC section 25.07.012 (F) (8), (9).) Under Topanga, written findings cannot lawfully Attachment to Notice of Appeal - 855 La Vista Drive - March 26, 2026 DRB action resolve an issue one way if the hearing record shows the issue remained materially unsettled. (Topanga, supra, 11 Cal.3d at p. 515.)
What the DRB Approved and Found. The DRB approved findings in the Staff Report / Draft Resolution that vehicular access would continue from the existing driveway off La Vista Drive and that no vehicular access was proposed from the Virginia Park frontage. The DRB also approved the project without adopting a clear written condition requiring all construction parking, staging, deliveries, and worker parking to occur on-site or from La Vista only. At the hearing, however, Board members explored whether a parking pad or access solution could be created using the adjacent 700 Virginia Park parcel, and staff warned that such a condition on a different parcel was not advisable and could not reliably be made a formal condition of this approval. (Staff Report pp. 6-7; Draft Resolution p. 3; Transcript pp. 4-5, 10-12.) Why the Approval Cannot Be Sustained Under That Standard. The approval cannot be sustained because the hearing record showed this issue was not actually settled. Neighbors testified that the ADU sits at the bottom of the lot fronting Virginia Park, that construction access from La Vista was unclear, and that Virginia Park is a narrow one-way street with very limited parking. During Board questions, Warren Hutcherson said there is access from both Virginia Park Drive and La Vista. The Board then spent several minutes discussing possible parking or access arrangements involving the adjacent 700 Virginia Park parcel. Staff stated it could not say with confidence what that would look like or whether the access dimensions would work; staff also explained the strip was too narrow for vehicular access and advised that conditioning a parking pad on a distinct parcel was not advisable and would not be made a formal condition because the City could not know what would happen to that parcel in the future. (Transcript pp. 3-6, 10-12.) That exchange matters because it shows the Board itself recognized an unresolved access and construction-impact problem and was actively searching for an off-site workaround it could not confidently or reliably impose as part of this approval. The written access findings nevertheless present the issue as resolved. Under Topanga and the City's own design and coastal criteria, that is not substantial evidence; it is an unresolved issue embedded inside a final approval.
5. The DRB approved design review and coastal findings without squarely addressing the project's full downhill mass, visibility, and hazard implications.
Applicable Legal Standard and Authorities. Laguna Beach's design review findings must be correlated with the governing design review criteria, including Design Articulation, Environmental Context, and Neighborhood Compatibility. (LBMC section 25.05.040(H) (2), (4), (9), and (I).) The code also states that zoning standards represent only the maximum allowable envelope and that a project with no variances from general development standards has no presumptive development right or entitlement to the largest possible design. (LBMC section
25.05.040(H).) For the associated coastal development permit, the City also had to find that the project would minimize alteration of natural landforms, avoid undue geological, erosional, flood, and fire hazards, and be visually compatible with the character of the surrounding area. (LBMC Attachment to Notice of Appeal - 855 La Vista Drive - March 26, 2026 DRB action section 25.07.012(F)(5), (6), and (G) (1), (3).) Under Topanga, those findings must be supported by substantial evidence in the actual record.
What the DRB Approved and Found. The DRB approved findings in the Staff Report / Draft Resolution that the project was visually unobtrusive, outside visually prominent areas, compatible with neighborhood character, and not likely to result in undue geological, erosional, flood, or fire hazards. The DRB also approved the project as it was repeatedly presented in shorthand as a "972-square-foot detached ADU," notwithstanding the plans showing additional attached storage and a stepped downhill form. During the hearing, MJ Coveny specifically questioned the upper storage area's windows and the additional two-to-three-foot soffit / void above the five-foot storage height, and the applicant's representative answered that the extra exterior volume was for "design articulation." (Staff Report pp. 5, 7-12, 14-15; Draft Resolution pp. 3-10; Plans A1, A3-A5, A8; Transcript pp. 7-8.)
Why the Approval Cannot Be Sustained Under That Standard. The approval cannot be sustained because the findings do not clearly grapple with the actual form the plans show. The Staff Report itself acknowledges that the westerly property line where the ADU fronts is visible from the public right-of-way at the terminus of Virginia Park Way. The plans show 927.2 square feet of living area, plus 927.2 square feet of attached storage, plus a 136-square-foot deck, and they depict a materially stepped vertical form with a lower storage floor at 158.43 and roof elevations around 180.43. (Staff Report p. 5; Plans A3-A5, A8.) That is a more substantial downhill form than the shorthand "972-square-foot ADU" description suggests. The hearing also established that part of this exterior volume was intentionally created for visual articulation rather than usable interior function: when MJ Coveny asked why the upper storage area had an additional two-to-three feet of soffit / void above the five-foot storage height, the applicant's representative responded, "Design articulation." (Transcript p. 7) That exchange matters because it shows the DRB approved added visible bulk while simultaneously relying on the five- foot non-habitable classification to avoid treating that upper area as living space. Under LBMC section 25.05.040(H)(2), design review requires the appearance of building mass to be minimized, not increased through empty exterior volume that materially enlarges the downhill form. The problem is not merely semantic. The DRB had to decide whether this actual multi-level hillside form minimized visible mass, responded appropriately to the terrain, and remained visually compatible with the neighborhood. Where the written findings downplay the size, visibility, or hazard implications of the real project form, Council should not treat those findings as legally sustainable.
Attachment to Notice of Appeal - 855 La Vista Drive - March 26, 2026 DRB action
6. The DRB approved the project without the complete staking record the code required.
Applicable Legal Standard and Authorities. LBMC section 25.05.040(C)(2) (a) requires staking poles and connecting ribbons that accurately represent the full extent of the proposed structure, including decks and eaves, at least 21 calendar days before the first Design Review Board hearing The same provision states that if complete and certified staking is not in place, the matter shall be continued.
What the DRB Approved and Found. The DRB approved the project after staff reported that "staking for the deck" had been installed and certified. The currently available Certified Staking Plan appears to identify only four deck-rail stake locations rather than the full envelope of the proposed multi-level structure. (Staff Report p. 18; Certified Staking Plan A10.) Why the Approval Cannot Be Sustained Under That Standard. The approval cannot be sustained because the Board made visual and massing findings about the project as a whole even though the current record appears to show certification only of deck staking, not full-envelope staking. Where the structure's visibility, bulk, and downhill profile were disputed issues, incomplete staking is not a technicality. The code uses staking to give the Board and the public a field-level test of massing before approval. If only the deck was staked, the DRB approved without the complete visual record the code requires, which supports remand for complete full-envelope staking and renewed design review.
7. The DRB approved a watercourse variance without all
mandatory watercourse conditions in the written approval currently available.
Applicable Legal Standard and Authorities. LBMC section 25.50.030(D)(5) provides that a watercourse encroachment variance "shall" be subject to specified conditions, including that no physical disturbance of the watercourse shall occur at any time and that, where feasible, specified native riparian vegetation shall be replanted if vegetation is disturbed during construction.
Where the code makes such conditions mandatory, the approval must include them in enforceable form.
What the DRB Approved and Found. The DRB approved Resolution 2026-0278 as moved at the hearing, together with only the added direction / strong suggestion regarding the drain in front of the ADU. Based on the currently available agenda-attachment version of the Draft Resolution, the written conditions do not appear to include all of the watercourse-specific conditions required by LBMC section 25.50.030(D)(5). (Transcript p. 12; Draft Resolution pp. 15-
16.)
Why the Approval Cannot Be Sustained Under That Standard. The approval cannot be sustained because a watercourse encroachment variance cannot lawfully omit conditions the code says "shall" apply. If the final written approval does not contain the mandatory no- Attachment to Notice of Appeal - 855 La Vista Drive - March 26, 2026 DRB action disturbance and riparian-replanting conditions, then the DRB approved a version of the project that does not satisfy the municipal code governing this type of variance. At minimum, Council should remand or modify the approval so that the final resolution expressly includes every mandatory watercourse condition. See Topanga, supra, 11 Cal.3d at page 515 [findings and conditions must disclose the basis of the agency's action sufficiently to permit meaningful review].
Requested Action
Why these grounds warrant relief. The issues set forth above are not simply matters of policy disagreement. Each one identifies a specific legal standard, shows what the DRB approved despite that standard, and explains why the approval is not legally sustainable on the record presently available. Under LBMC section 25.05.070(E)(3), Appellant respectfully requests that City Council:
• reverse the Design Review Board's approval of Design Review 2026-0278, Coastal Development Permit 2026-0279, Variance 2026-0280, and the associated CEQA categorical exemption;
• or, if Council does not reverse, remand the matter for a new hearing and a revised resolution supported by substantial evidence, after: preparing an appropriate hydrology / drainage analysis; clarifying access and construction staging; completing full-envelope staking; correcting the CEQA and watercourse findings; revising the design review and coastal development findings to address the project's actual downhill size, visibility, and hazard impacts, including its stepped design, attached storage, deck, visibility from the public right- of-way, neighborhood compatibility, and geological, erosional, flood, and fire risks; and adding enforceable conditions for construction staging, parking, access, drain design and maintenance, and all applicable watercourse-specific code requirements.
If the applicant presents revised plans after the appeal is filed, Appellant requests remand rather than Council action on new plans, consistent with LBMC section 25.05.070(E) (2)(d).
Attachment to Notice of Appeal - 855 La Vista Drive - March 26, 2026 DRB action Record Materials Referenced in this Attachment
Source Key pages / sheets Why it matters
Shows the Board's expressed
uncertainty about the
watercourse, the lack of
Unofficial Hearing Transcript pp. 2-12 hydrology review, the access/staging discussion, and
the exact motion adopted.
Contains the 25-foot setback
description, 284 cubic yards of
export, Virginia Park visibility
Staff Report pp. 2, 5-7, 14-18 and access findings, CEQA exemption discussion, and the
deck-only staking notice.
Contains the written findings
Resolution 2026-0278 (agenda and the currently available pp. 2-10, 15-16
attachment version) permit-stage conditions being
challenged on appeal.
Shows the 927.2 sq ft ADU +
927.2 sq ft storage + 136 sq ft
deck, the stepped downhill form
Plans Sheets A1, A2, A3, A5, A8, A10 and elevations, the watercourse/easement
relationship, and the staking
sheet.
Attachment to Notice of Appeal - 855 La Vista Drive - March 26, 2026 DRB action Unofficial Transcript of Proceedings
City of Laguna Beach Design Review Board
Meeting of March 26, 2026
Re: Agenda Item 5.8 - 855 La Vista Lane, APN 641-352-57 Design Review 2026-0278 | Coastal Development Permit 2026-0279 Variance 2026-0280 Chair Thomas Gibbs: 279, Variance 2026-0280. Ex parte, please.
Jessica Gannon: Chair, I had a site visit with Gregg Abel.
Imer Bauta: I did the same, and I also spoke with Warren.
Louis Weil: Spoke with the dynamic duo and visited the site.
MJ Coveny: I drove by the site.
Chair Gibbs: I met with Warren and Gregg at the site.
Gregg Abel: Thank you.
Chair Gibbs: Did we get yours, MJ? Okay, good. Mr. Khan, you're up again.
Shehriyar Khan: Thank you, [unintelligible 00:00:35]. This is Item Number 5.8, request for design review, coastal development permit, and variance approval for an ADU with a deck encroaching into a watercourse setback area located at 855 La Vista Drive. Next slide, please.
Gregg: Oh, [unintelligible 00:01:02]?
Secretary: Sorry, give me a quick second.
[pause 00:01:07]
Shehriyar: The subject property is approximately 36,000 square feet in area, and is located at 855 La Vista Drive. It's currently developed with an approximately 2,700 square foot two-story residence and a two-car garage. A mapped watercourse traverses through the site as well. Next slide, please.
The proposed project includes development of a new 972-square-foot detached ADU, shown on the slide in yellow, with a 136-square-foot elevated deck, shown in orange, and associated site improvements. The improvements include associated grading, parameter stairs surrounding the ADU, installation of an air conditioning unit, and retaining walls exceeding 5 feet in exposed height, located on the north side of the ADU, shown in bright green. As you can see, a watercourse, shown in blue, traverses this area of the lot, and encroachment within the water course setback area requires approval of a variance. Next slide, please.
As mentioned earlier, a 136-square-foot, 6-foot-high elevated deck is proposed Attached to the ADU, which is subject to design review, the proposed deck is minimal in scale and does not contribute to visual mass, and is consistent with the architectural character of the proposed ADU. Next slide, please.
The elevation and rendering shown on the slide show the deck and the retaining wall exceeding 5 feet in exposed height shown in bright green. The retaining wall is also subject to design review. It's located at the northeast side of the ADU. It's L-shaped and wraps along the north and east sides, defining the required fire access path.
Next slide, please.
Property is constrained by the presence of a mapped watercourse and its associated 25-foot watercourse setback area. While the historic drainage feature has been substantially altered and runoff is now conveyed through a subterranean storm drain system installed by the city, the mapped setback continues to apply despite the absence of a functioning natural watercourse. A utility easement exists over the storm drain infrastructure, which the proposed ADU does not encroach upon. The project's improvements are limited in scale designed to maintain existing drainage 1 patterns and do not introduce conditions that would increase flooding, erosion, or instability on the site or adjacent parcels. All grading and construction activities will be required to comply with applicable building drainage and engineering standards to ensure safe development. Next slide, please.
In conclusion, the project is consistent with the applicable design guidelines, zoning standards, with the exception of the requested watercourse encroachment variance.
As detailed in the staff report, the required variance findings can be made and the ADU is compatible with the neighborhood and would not create significant impacts to views or privacy. Next slide, please.
Since the agenda was published last week, staff received public correspondence in opposition, raising concerns about record sufficiency, which have been added to the agenda as part of the public record. Then staff recommends that the board approve the requested entitlements and find the action exempt from CEQA. This concludes staff's presentation, and I'm available for questions. Thank you.
Chair Gibbs: Thank you very much. With that, any questions? Seeing none, I open the public hearing. You have five minutes.
Warren Hutcherson: Hi, everyone. We dealt extensively with Public Works on every utility that's running through that property. That one plan, Shehriyar, that you showed, the site plan, I obtained all those from Public Works, mapped them, met with them, made sure that we're clear of all easements. The variance for the, let's say, highly modified watercourse is typical. I think we just had approval on one a couple weeks ago in Bluebird there. I think to me, obviously, what Public Works and the city is realizing that there are highly modified watercourses all over town.
This one, it was put in, what, like 20 years ago.
Gregg: About 20, yes.
Warren: It's subterranean pipe. It hasn't failed. Goes straight down the middle of the property. They got an easement for it. There's a sewer easement. There's an electrical easement, all kinds of stuff on this property. This variance is not at all unlike others that you've approved quite recently and I believe will be approving in the future. Gregg, do you want to--
Gregg: Yes. Warren made a good point. I did work some time with Bill Rodrigues and the rest of the team to figure out what's going on with these modified watercourses to help a lot of people at Laguna Beach and my fellow architects and designers. The setback is five feet from the center line above a watercourse that's been modified, not 25 feet like the old days, which you folks saw two weeks ago trom Mr. Frias at 868 Bluebird. We did design this property to be simple, clean lines, nothing too fancy, just clean, not encroached into people's views. Our next-door neighbors, Arjun and Lucy, have been very good friends. I designed their remodels and their additions. They're currently living back east right now, so they're renting their property. I know we're going to get some comments from our neighbors down the street, so I'll just quiet down now and see how we do.
Warren: Just to add a little bit, there is some runoff from the property. It's dirt there at the end of Virginia Park Drive. This will help get rid of the dirt. Certainly as we get to the building department, we will obviously keep all staging materials on the property, all workers on the property, all parking on the property. Yes, it's a big area down there. That's all I got too.
Gregg: One last comment. About two years ago, you may have heard we had a landslide below the home above us at [unintelligible 00:08:10] house. It flooded and wiped out walkways, all of our grass, all the dirt came down the street. I know that our neighbors also went through a little bit of horror and scariness because all that mud, it came way down from our upper neighbor who, of course, associated with the project and fixed it for us together. We did try to clean up that mud slide as fast as possible with respect to our friends down the street at Virginia Park. Thank you.
Chair Gibbs: All right. I'm open-- the public hearing is already open. Speakers, 2 please come up. You'll have three minutes each. State your name first.
Ben Simon: Good evening. I'm Ben Simon, 661 Virginia Park Drive. Thank you, Jessica. You've been amazing over the last six years, really have. This is the first I heard from Warren about parking on site but my concerns are regarding the construction period and its negative effects on my street and neighborhood where the proposed ADU is actually located. The staff report states that the access will be from La Vista Drive. This relates to the completed ADU, and it is not necessarily true during the construction.
Warren, in an email, stated that ample parking is available and will be used for construction on site, including staging, but where and how it is accessed is unclear.
The location of the ADU coupled with the topography of the site and common sense implies that the ADU will be built to access to Virginia Park Drive and not La Vista Drive. To date, neither Gregg nor Warren had replied to my inquiry about this. I sent Everyone at Virginia Park Drive is quite concerned about what happens to us and our street during construction, assuming La Vista is not used. We are a tiny, narrow, one-way street with extremely limited parking to begin with. Some of the homes have o garages and no driveways at all. Beginning this June, the new problem at the iah school will be under construction, which will exacerbate the parking problem Plus, a massive new build on [unintelligible 00:10:07] is coming this summer.
We are simply requesting that the Abels' current fence located at the end of Virginia Park Drive is, and this would be a condition of approval, temporary relocated, moved way back on their biggest site in Laguna Beach to accommodate 100% of their construction, parking, and staging areas. If the workers park on our street, we will not have any room for ourselves, our guests, or our service people. While the watercourse is technically modified, the street gets major amounts of mud, gravel, and debris from the Abels during the heavy rains. At one point, I heard that Gregg had promised a mutual neighbor sandbags, but it didn't happen. We just clean it up over and over, but our time and our water is valuable. Please help the residents of Virginia Park Drive during this period of construction as we really need vour assistance and our very worried. Thank you.
Chair Gibbs: Thank you very much. Next speaker.
Linda Morgan Lander: Linda Morgan Lander, 671 Virginia Park Drive. I just wanted to echo what Ben-- oh, first of all, thank you, Jessica. You're fabulous. Anyway, good luck. I just want to echo what Ben said. We have a real issue with parking on Virginia Park, and I'm really hoping that all of the parking for construction workers will be off the street. The other thing is that this, technically, the watercourse doesn't function like a watercourse, but it kind of does. When we had our big rains in the past few months, and I know he's cleaned up the mud slide, but it's still, the runoff comes right down, right to my house with the rocks and the mud right there, and it makes a turn, and nothing's been done with sandbagging.
So I'm a little bit suspicious about how this is going to go down. I'm hoping that they build in some kind of a system to catch all of the debris. I'm supportive of the project.
I just have the parking and the mud concerns. Also, I wanted to refer you to Robin Williams Jr.'s letter. He sent something that was very profound, I think. He's very, very affected by it. He has a very, very ill dad, and his mother is not well either, and this is going to really affect them the most. With the trucks coming in and out, I hope that there's a good rapport with the contractor and that it is a happy project. Thank Chair Gibbs: Thank you. Any other speakers? Come on up.
Craig Brachet: Hello.
Gregg: Hi, buddy.
Craig: Hi. My name's Craig Brachet. I live at 651 Virginia Park Drive, and I've been there for about 50 years, so l've known the family for a long time as well. I'm coming 3 in support of Robin Williams, who couldn't be here himself, and in support of his father and mother, who have been on that street as long as I have. They had some questions on their letter, which brought up questions for me that I hadn't addressed with the applicant yet. One of the questions was the size, including storage. I know that an ADU cannot be a certain size, but I don't know if the square footage of the storage is also included in that. Including the storage, I think this gets up to about 1,800 square feet or maybe a little bit more, so I don't know what the requirements are there. I'm basically asking the question.
It also states in the approval that vehicular access will be made off of La Vista. I don't know how they're going to get from La Vista down to this house. I didn't see any stairs from La Vista down to the house, so it looks to me like vehicular access is actually coming from Virginia Park Drive. I just wanted some clarity on that as well.
Unfortunately, we've had a number of fire trucks on our street the last couple of years for different issues. Then it brought up the question for me is, how does fire service be-- how is it dealt with on this street? This is at the very end of a very narrow street on Virginia Park. If there's a fire emergency, I don't know how the fire truck's going to get up there, turn around, do whatever they do. I don't know if there's even water up there to handle for the fire truck. It's really a question I'm asking at this point in time.
Obviously, parking during construction has been addressed. As you know, we're oina to have a new pool built around the corner, which you guys don't hav nythina to do with, but we're already starting to see significant parking coming u the street from the students, taking what little spots we have on the street. A few questions, a few issues to address, and I'm supportive of what Ben and Linda said as well. Thank you.
Chair Gibbs: Thank you very much. Any other speakers? All right. With that, turn it to the applicant. You have three minutes.
Warren: Thank you. Earlier with Todd's project, there was discussion about a responsible builder. This is the responsible builder as far as I'm concerned. Clean sites, happy neighbors, forever resident. He knows how to build, he knows how to in every day and sweep it up. There are, shown on the plans, stair access from La Vista down to the ADU, clearly. The required fire department site access stairs. All the parking, as I said, and staging will be on site, 100%. There's no reason to park anywhere else. The lot is huge. That area down there, it can hold 10 cars, 10 trucks, whatever. I was going to say more, but--
Gregg: Well, I think-- to back up what he's saying, yes, we have a large area there.
You all saw that, pull our cars in there. You saw that one tractor still there from picking up all the debris from our landslide, which took place two years ago. In respect for our neighbors down the street, we will definitely let that whole space be our parking spot for construction, and not anywhere parked in front of the Williams amily or Arjun and Lucy, all of our friends and neighbors, all that. We'll definitel! espect that. There is access from the street at the end of La Vista There's always been brick stairs coming all the way down to the greenhouse, which is right behind our ADU. It's been here since 1937, and the stairs will go down and connect also to the ADU as well as from down below. We'll do what we can to be very, very sensitive to their needs. I respect the parking issue, they talked about the pool, because already I've noticed how many more kids are coming up, not only on their electric bikes, but their cars on Manzanita and all the way up La Vista in the last couple of weeks because it's going to be happening soon. Thank you.
Chair Gibbs: All right. Let me ask a quick question. Just I want to confirm, you're agreeable to make as a condition that all parking, construction parking, and staging will be on property?
Gregg: Absolutely. I respect that.
Chair Gibbs: Any other questions?
Jessica: I do. Are you offering a dedicated parking pad? I know it's not a 4 requirement because I parked at your driveway up top and we were able to walk down, but would you consider an off-street parking pad by the ADU? Gregg: Sure. We'd be okay with it, right?
Jessica: It would just help with the access and usability.
Warren: Is that possible? Maybe you could--
Jessica: Mr. Khan, is that possible?
Shehriyar: This parking pad would have to actually be on the adjacent property which is also owned by Mr. Abel, 700 Virginia Park. Staff, I mean, I can't say with confidence right now what that would look like. We'll have to evaluate the access dimensions.
Chair Gibbs: If we can make it a condition that the swimming staff can make it work, it will be required.
Jessica: Yes.
Imer: It seems like it's a large enough lot. Even if it was not a required, it could just be a compacted grade.
Jessica: Yes, dedicated parking pad.
Gregg: As Warren said, we've parked as many during the slide problem for cleanup.
I've parked as many as six trucks in that spot there. Three wide, two back-to-back just to pick up the debris. I will say in most of my construction sites, the one I'm doing on Summit and one up on Dorn Court even in those areas there, we were able to keep it down to a majority-- just a minor part. If they have to park somewhere else, we don't have them blocking other neighbors' driveways either. [crosstalk] somebody else's truck, later it's down the street.
Jessica: Then for my next question, when you were talking about-- the neighbors were talking about the flooding that came through there, the storage, was that strategic so that in case in the event of another flood, that doesn't affect the living space? Because like on the East Coast, in Delaware, it's underwater. It's below sea level. We have a lot of floods. Our houses are built on top of storage spaces and built on top of garages. Was that part of your strategic plan design? Warren: I used to work in South Carolina in the flood area. There, flood height is eight feet. Everything, all mechanical has to be at eight feet. It wasn't designed specifically for that, but it was certainly-- it helps raise the house five feet out of the ground while still keeping the maximum height.
Gregg: One thing we can do, the drain you see right there in front of the property that the city put in years ago that connects itself to the drain pipe down below, that was put in when they came on our property to take care of some of the water and came down the hillsides. Not so much the old watercourse. We can embrace that drainage area with a grade on it there, Tom, and be sure the water that comes in there from the property, it can drain it as well, too.
Jessica: So that it funnels?
Warren: It could be nice to maybe make a suggestion. This might not be the actual place to do it, but to have Public Works take a look at that inlet because there's still water coming off-. down the property and that grade there should certainly be improved.
Louis: Let me ask this question. It's all on the same line. If I'm looking at the topography survey, you have your lot, the lot across the way, but there's probably like a 10-foot separation. Is that an easement or is that a separate parcel that's like the Warren: Yes, that used to be the end of Virginia Park Drive. It's 12 feet wide. That 5 was abandoned during the process of designing and permitting the house that never got bullt.
Louis: The one across the way?
Warren: Yes.
Louis: Again, I can't require part of this application, but I might encourage you to go through the process to do the road extension, so you asphalt up to, at some point, that storm drain if your design is [crosstalk] on the lower portion of the lot.
Gregg: Yes, we will definitely get rid of the dirt and the mud.
Louis: [inaudible 00:21:52] it doesn't connect us for an ADU to require that, but it would be heavily encouraged for the buildable site that's across the way, that's completely separate, that's also your ownership. It'd probably be in the best interest that you get that road extension [crosstalk]
Gregg: Yes, I think the asphalt would be better, Lou, as opposed to gravel and sand because that'll roll down the street to my neighbors. So I won't-- Louis: In that process, that'll help take care of the drainage to get into that vault.
Gregg: Control the water and pave it nicely. That'd be good.
Chair Gibbs: Let me ask about something because this project really bothers me about the watercourse. The inlet that's going to be within feet of the new ADU, can that be improved so that water or excess runoff, let's say in the event, and I don't know if you've studied or they studied a 100-year storm where that culvert up above gets caught? I've had cases where culverts have gotten jammed, restoring the modified watercourse. This building is going way into the watercourse area and it makes me nervous. There is a drain there and looking down below property.
Let me talk to him and understand where you guys are coming from. You and I talked about this a little bit. It looks like if the water can be picked up by that drain, that provides an extra element of protection in the event the culvert gets caught or if there's a mudslide. I don't know if you guys looked at that, but can that be something that is built into a condition that the plan-- the building can make sure is done effectively? Do you know what I'm talking about?
Bill Rodrigues: Yes. You're talking about the one that's right-- Chair Gibbs: It'd be right next to.
Bill: Just inside of Virginia [inaudible 00:23:45]
Chair Gibbs: Then a condition that it'd be kept clear and maintained, you know, that whole thing?
Bill: Yes. I would say staff is certainly happy to talk to Public Works about looking into that. I don't know that we can condition it. I'm not sure that there's a nexus with this project. It's a city-
Chair Gibbs: It can be a direction from us.
Bill: It would be. I think we can take direction from the dais. Staff will certainly have the conversation with the Public Works management staff to look into it. It is a city easement. It's a city facility. There's probably a capital improvement process we'd have to go through in order to improve it.
Chair Gibbs: It's a city culvert up above, and city's obligated to keep it clear in the event of a storm. They do that anyway.
Bill: They access your property to evaluate it every so often, don't they? You had to sign there for city officials to enter the project.
6 Gregg: That was for the mudslide that happened, but yes.
Chair Gibbs: Okay. No, that clarifies it for me.
MJ Coveny: I just had a quick question about the storage. The lower-level storage, what's the material on the front of that? It looks like some sort of grading. Is that open air? Is that--
Warren: Well, it's a sliding door.
MJ: Sliding doors? Oh, and then the upstairs storage as well has windows, quite a few windows and a deck coming off of it. It also seems to have an excessive amount of ceiling space above it. Even though you only have a five-foot plate height, you have an additional like three feet of soffit. Why would you do that? Warren: Two actually. Design articulation.
MJ: Oh, okay. Shehriyar, why is storage not part of the square footage? Shehriyar: It's because it's considered non-habitable. In this case, both storage areas are five feet in height, which therefore, disqualified from the habitable status.
MJ: So they just dropped it enough and then added a soffit. How do we control something like that once we walk away, that they then extend their ceiling heights inside and make it an accessible living room?
Shehriyar: Sure. Even if they do extend the ceiling height, in this case, it's not going to cause any zoning problems because it would still meet the maximum 16-foot height because of the terrace design.
MJ: How about the square footage?
Shehriyar: Square footage, no. It would increase the volume, but it won't increase the square footage.
MJ: And so there's not a limit on square footage with ADUs? Shehriyar: There is, but at least the square footage on the top is not going to interfere.
MJ: With the bottom. If you add both of them together, it became a full-on-- Shehriyar: Yes, but the storage area at the bottom is not accessible from the living area of the ADU. It's beneath the elevated deck area
Jessica: It's only five foot in height, right? The minimum is seven feet, four, seven, six?
Warren: Correct.
Gregg: It would change the review of the-- It would no longer qualify as an ADU if that upstairs storage space is increased to be livable space, right? So they can't get around that.
Bill: Correct. I think actually condition number one probably speaks to this, which is the plans that you're approving today are the plans that we expect to be happening in the field. If there's anything that changes in that, then it has to come back to the city. We look at it [crosstalk] increase the height so that it could be qualified as habitable space. Then that adds to the square footage and then that potentially raises other issues under the code. [crosstalk] That potentially would have to come back to the board. I think it's sort of a self-effectuating control that regulates what the size of this ADU is going to look like. What you see on the plans is what's before you to be approved and that's what would be permitted and expected to be built and no changes happening in the field.
Louis: Right. Well said. If they vault the ceiling, it doesn't add any square footage. It just adds volume.
MJ: Yes. Only if they make it livable. That's true.
Bill: Correct. To Shehriyar's point, it's designed at a five-foot height now. If you were to increase or vault the ceiling [crosstalk] you get over seven feet in height, that potentially qualifies as habitable space. Then that becomes square footage and then that adds to the roughly, what is it, I believe 970 [crosstalk] Chair Gibbs: I think we have to follow that. The condition states that the SID plans are approved as submitted and conditioned herein and shall not be altered unless reviewed and approved in accordance with Title 25. I don't think we can disapprove an ADU because of the potential of additional space.
MJ: Oh, no, no, no. I was just curious. That's all.
Chair Gibbs: The safety valve is--
MJ: Then just access because-- I'm sorry I didn't get to meet you up there. Access for the ADU for cars, bicycles, whatever, is from the lower area? Warren: It's from lower-- there is access to Virginia Park Drive. There's also access to the La Vista.
MJ: You have two points of access on this lot.
Warren: The fire department access stairs wrap around, go both. That's fine.
Gregg: Right. They do.
Chair Gibbs: All right. Any other questions?
Imer: Deliberations
Chair Gibbs: Yes. Let me close public hearing and let me talk briefly about the watercourse issue just to get the board to the benefit of my views. Then I'll turn it over on the other issues. This is a significant encroachment into the watercourse. It causes me very much concern because I've seen what happens when culverts are clogged up and a watercourse is interfered with. We have to find, essentially, in this case, that this watercourse is not so impacted that we can't otherwise make the findings for the variance. The ADU doesn't help them.
We are entitled to reject this project if we can't find the grounds justifying a variance given the encroachment in the watercourse. I walked it. I actually went back and walked it again. I lean in favor of the project. I was very close to saying no, that you've got to pull back that ADU. It's so close to the watercourse. If you look at the overall thing, if there's a mud slide, it's going to be a problem, but I don't think that's going to impact it. I think it's going to impact the ADU more than it's going to impact the neighborhood, in fact, a lot more.
I think what I worry about is heavy rain, 100-year rain. I think with that drain that's there right by it, it's right in front of your property, and it needs to be-- and with the motion, I'll make a direction, I'll follow that, assuming the board otherwise approves this project, that that be built in, that the grading be done-- I'll tell you, Gregg, this is for your own benefit because you're going to get your butt sued putting that there if there is a water, 100-year flood, and your ADU comes off its foundations and runs into another house. Don't laugh, it can happen. It has to be a pretty bizarre incident, but it can happen.
I think having that alternative course for in the event that there is a heavy rain for your own runoff, it's a very big drain to begin with. I would direct building, and I would strongly suggest to you that you build around that drain to take maximum effect of that drain in the event of a storm which partially or totally, but potentially partially, blocks the uphill culvert, causing a water deluge. Okay, so I'll leave it to the other people. I otherwise think the project's fine. I'm not bothered by the storage 8 personally. I think it meets the guidelines. With that, Louis, you want to go next? Jessica: Here, I can go ahead. He's stuttering. I can piggyback off of what you said.
Yes, I'm overall supportive of the project. I think, unknowingly, it was a brilliant design having the storage unit underneath just for the fact of the case there's a 100-year flood, it gives protection to the living space. All the objective findings can be met. Site coverage satisfies that. Landscape open space, it's large lot, so that was easily accomplished. Then, yes, just look at off-street parking if you can-- it just makes it easier for when your kids are there that, let's say your daughter-in-law is pregnant, she doesn't want to go up and down those stairs. It's not safe. I know I'm not as sure-footed as I used to be, and I was able to make it. Think of your future daughter- in-law's future and just create a little parking pad.
It also, like Board Member Weil said, it also helps like for the mud that will eventually come down, it helps mitigate that. Then yes, storage, access, dedicated parking pad.
Yes, it hits all the design review criteria. I can make all the findings for the variance.
We approved just last board meeting two weeks ago, one in Bluebird, and then the board approved one in January in Woods Cove on Glen Eyrie. Yes, I can approve this project.
Chair Gibbs: Louis?
Louis: Yes. Just like the other board members were saying, I do find this variance to be consistent with a modified watercourse variance. It's something we've approved not only in this area, but in the surrounding piped watercourses in the nearby vicinitv.
I think it's appropriate. I do think I would highly recommend trying to get the street improvements to get up at least to that drain so it minimizes some of the debris. Also helps the drainage of the impacts of this area to get to the storm drains. That's why they're built. It should be able to take that as it's currently draining into that storm drain now. It wouldn't create any more water than what's there. As far as the ADU, I find it compatible with the law and generally meets the intent of the context. It's design review compatible, and I can support this project. ?Speaker: Thank you.
Chair Gibbs: Imer? MJ?
MJ: I'm just not completely clear on the watercourse, so I'm not sure I can vote on this. I might have to abstain on this one. I don't like that they're impeding it. I have to trust staff on this, but I don't feel-- does a hydro get done at some point? Does someone come in and test all this prior to us approving it? Because I thought in the past we've always had hydros on this kind of stuff. We made them do it on Glen Bill: We have in the past. I think the reason we didn't do it here, it's for a couple of reasons, but maybe just from a little bit of a historical context. My understanding is that the watercourse maps that are now memorialized within the GIS system that staff looks at when they're reviewing these projects was developed in the 1970s or thereabout. This watercourse was, at some point in the past, obviously, was on the surface running through the property. About 1999, 2000 is when the city acquired an easement through the property and then went through with our public works department the process of designing this modified watercourse where we piped.
We built in, from Mr. Khan, I believe it was an 18-inch diameter pipe? That is actually connected to a catch basin further up on Skyline that comes underneath the street and then drops down into this property and then continues to points further west.
That was done about 25 years ago, as Mr. Warren Hutcherson had mentioned.
There's been no, at least not to our knowledge, any failures of that system over the last 25 years. What was a surface watercourse has now been placed into a pipe.
There is a grade that's on the site that picks up some of the whatever water runoff that just lands on the property itself. In terms of a larger watershed that used to flow through that area, that's been piped, picked up on Skyline Drive, taken under the We're dealing with the localized water that maybe hits some of the slopes, conveys 9 down to the lower portions of the property, should then mostly be picked up by the grade that was referenced in these conversations, taken underground. There may still be some water that is just sort of nuisance water, just runs off of the property and down a portion of Virginia Park. The reason we didn't do the hydro studies is because we're placing more faith in the analysis that was done by the city's public works department when this project was designed many years ago.
As many, most good engineers will do, there is always going to be an additional buffer zone that's accounted for in terms of the overall design when they're analyzing how much water needs to be picked up and conveyed off that site. We're trusting that the public works system is designed well. It hasn't, to our knowledge, shown any deficits over the last 25 years. The faith is just placed into that system. Knowing that it is a city easement, it is a city facility. And so if there do become problems in the future, that we can control that solution and that revised design if necessary.
Chair Gibbs: Point out one other thing. The drain that's right next to it is designed to pick up the water that's running below the culvert. It's a big drain. That's why it alleviates some of my concern. The other thing that alleviates my concern, even if the culvert has a failure, is the water will go down the street into culverts below. It's not like running right into a house. Notwithstanding that we've done another project, we need to look at each one where-- the watercourse is still there, guys. Yes, there's a pipe underneath, but it's still a watercourse. It's not like the watercourse has been moved laterally. Like I say, I totally get your concerns, MJ. I'm very close on this one.
Imer: I've got a question for staff. Could they implement some kind of a driveway off of that street that could be functional as a parking? Even though there's not a permanent spot there, it could be a driveway to access the ADU? Shehriyar: I don't think that's going to be possible considering the fact that 700 Virginia Park Drive is a separate parcel. Accommodating a parking space on that individual parcel for the potential vehicular needs of the ADU, It's going to be tricky, especially considering the narrow width of Virginia Parkway Drive over there. It narrows in and then ultimately goes to maybe three or four feet wide strip, essentially. Then, yes, it would impede any future development plans for 700 Virginia Park Drive as well. Then I'd like to point out that the ADU itself is exempt from Imer: Copy that. Is the intent that you're going to drive up to the ADU? Full candidness, would love to ask question to the applicant. Do you intend on using the access that you have down below to drive up to the ADU off of Virginia Park? Warren: That's not the intent, but I'm sure that would probably happen once in a while, but there's no parking there for that.
Imer: Is there any way to add a portion of just a padded area that may or may not be used for parking that you "probably" will use for parking as part of this program? Warren: That sounds like the same thing that Jessica was alluding to or asking for.
The end of Virginia Park that was abandoned, the street part, half of that went to 700. The other half went to 855. There is some room there, probably. It was a 12-foot wide strip, leaving 6 feet. Then that 6 feet is right up to where there's grade break, right?
Shehriyar: Yes, it's pretty narrow. It would be insufficient for vehicular access.
Imer: Do you own 700?
Gregg: Yes.
Imer: Wouldn't it make sense to apply for the variance to [crosstalk] Warren: Well, if I maybe you could clarify. His daughter actually owns 700, and his son owns 855. It's not necessarily their property, if you know what I mean, if you follow that.
10 Chair Gibbs: Following Imer, is this for dealing with a water runoff or for just adding as parking?
Imer: I think it's more about access. Even if this comes up in the future, even if they go forward with the other bill, that 700 that was previously approved, at some point, someone's going to want access to that roadway. It makes sense to do it potentially n this application because if you transfer it, and then you allow for both uses of it and be worou defor to lust get id sac be cause you plause yaris going to use it.
Warren: I would have a question that I would direct to you, Imer, maybe to ask staff, how would that work? With that, it appears to me it would be a lot line adjustment of some sort.
Imer: There's a property on the backside of Riddle Field Chair Gibbs: I don't think we can condition including parking on another lot.
Imer: Hang on. There's a property on the backside of Allview Terrace that goes to the, there's a park in the back, there's a city park in the back, I can't think of the worst-case scenario, what happens if that property gets sold off, then neither parcel will have access in the future. I think that could be daunting.
Warren: I think my question then would be, if I may, would that then require a lot line adjustment?
Chair Gibbs: I think we're getting a little ahead of ourselves here because we can't require a parking space. There's certainly access issues, but that's not subject to our review of the ADU, Imer.
Imer: Is access part of our ADU?
Chair Gibbs: No.
Imer: What about DRB review?
Louis: I guess we could tie it to the variance.
Patrick Donegan: The variance is for the watercourse. Yes, I would, once again, for to agree and say, hey, we're going to put a pad here or there, I'm not going to stand in the way, but I want the board to know that that's not going to be a formal condition because, once again, we have no idea in the future--
Chair Gibbs: Let me ask you guy, are you willing? This is a time that, well, I don't know if we can even approve a pad on another parcel. I'm not sure if we wanted to, we could do it even if you were agreeable.
Warren: I tend to agree. We would certainly look into it, but I think it would probably require a lot-line adjustment. I'm not even sure if you can lot-line adjust an abandoned street because that's where it would be.
Louis: If the [unintelligible 00:44:44] Street became yours- Gregg: It is our street.
Louis: -you could turn it into an easement to continue your, like an access easement to keep your buildable lots that were gifted to your kids. Accessible, which I think, regardless of what your kids want to do with it, whether they build or sell them, historically, you're going to want that access to be provided to those, the lot. 11 Chair Gibbs: The problem is-- that's great, you should do it if you can. We can condition approval on you obtaining that easement, but we can't under this application because it's an ADU. If you are agreeable to that condition, we can, and it would facilitate your ability to do it once you've got the easement, you'd have the approval for it.
Warren: I don't think that would be advisable. That's a long [crosstalk] Chair Gibbs: My suggestion there is, it would be good for you to have that parking and to build it into this project, particularly if you ever sell the thing.
Gregg: I agree with that, too.
Chair Gibbs: I would do that by way of a separate application in [crosstalk] Gregg: Also, one more comment, too, Tom, because we want to control the water that flows down to that grid, that grade there, that can also be associated with the parking area, too, to direct the water, and that'd be a nice thing, too, Imer. We could do it. It's our property, so why not?
Warren: I would disagree with that.
Chair Gibbs: You probably could get that done by way of administrative design review or over-the-counter, right? They wanted to do an easement, and put in a-- Imer: What do you think, Bill, that's possible?
Bill: [inaudible 00:46:19]
Imer: No, I just wanted to make this opportunity.
Chair Gibbs: Yes. All right. Any other deliberation? All right. Let me try to do the motion here, if you guys don't mind. Give me a second. Okay. I move that the board adopt Resolution 2026-0278, Approving Design Review, 2026-0278, Coastal evelopment Permit, 2026-0279, and Variance 2026-0280, for the property locate uideline 1503, with direction to the building department, and strong suggestion t le applicant to make sure that the drain that's in front of the proposed ADU. tha grade is done to maximize that drain usage, and that drain is maintained in a clear and functional manner.
? Bill: Yes.
Chair Gibbs: Do I have a second?
Louis: I'll second it.
Chair Gibbs: Call the roll, please.
Secretary: Board Member Bauta.
Imer: Abstain.
Secretary: Board Member Coveny.
MJ: Abstain.
Secretary: Board Member Weil.
Louis: Yes.
Secretary: Chair Pro Tem Gannon.
Jessica: Yes.
Secretary: Chair Gibbs.
12 Chair Gibbs: Yes.
Secretary: Motion is passed, three to two.
Warren: Thank you, all.
Gregg: Thank you.
Warren: Shehriyar, thank you.
Chair Gibbs: Thank you very much. Next item will be-- do you guys want to take a break now or after the next item?
Louis: Let's keep charging.
Chair Gibbs: You guys are just-- all right. 5.9
[00:48:22] [END OF AUDIO]