­

Appeal A:
 

GW: A neighbor of 200 Alta Vista Way appealed this project for a new residence to the City Council to review the (DRB) Design Review Board’s 5-0 approval. It is on an unimproved site, meaning that no structure has ever been built on the site. The 200 Alta Vista Way site is fully vegetated and may be habitat for protected species.
The existing vegetation may be holding the soil in place. An Initial Study should have been done to assess the potential environmental impacts. It is also a steep hillside site at the corner of Alta Vista and Highland so a soil and geology study is necessary to determine the suitability of the site for a 2,700 plus sq. ft. home and 500 plus sq. ft. garage. (larger as the owner now wants to include an ADU)

At the meeting I asked Community Development Director, Marc Weiner, how DRB members determine if provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) should be applied. I was informed that the DRB relies on city staff to make this decision. That is fundamentally wrong as DRB is an independent decision-making body that should be trained to make these decisions with input from the city staff. City Council members must be trained in CEQA as well. Marc Weiner also said that single family homes in Laguna are typically exempt from CEQA. However, there are several exceptions to the CEQA exemptions as follows:

15300.2 CEQA EXCEPTIONS

(a) Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located -a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply in all instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies.
(b) Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant.

(c) Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.

(d) Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified EIR.

(e) Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.

(f) Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

Summary:
GW: City Council remanded this project back to DRB as the boundary of the property was found to be inaccurate. The City accepts site boundary maps as accurate if signed off by a licensed surveyor. In this case the County’s records show a one-foot variance from the survey submitted by the applicant. It is seeming prudent that City staff should check County records to verify all survey submissions. In addition, the applicant now wants to expand the project even more by adding a ADU. After DRB reviews the project, I am hopeful they will require an Initial Study and require the applicant to develop a construction plan. This site sits at the corner of two narrow hilly streets, so the major excavation needed, and construction will have major impacts on traffic flow, and noise affecting the quality of life of the neighborhood.