Board tables 852 Diamond Street ADU concept, requests boundary survey and major redesign

The Laguna Beach Design Review Board on Oct. 23 took concept testimony for an accessory dwelling unit proposed at 852 Diamond Street in the Diamond Crestview specific plan area and unanimously tabled the application to a date uncertain, directing the applicant to provide a certified boundary survey and substantially redesign the project.

The proposal sought several variances and entitlements for a narrow, irregular lot with a proposed detached ADU that would be 27.5 feet tall (exceeding the detached ADU 16‑ft height limit by 11.5 feet), retaining walls up to 9 feet exposed in height where the Diamond Crestview plan limits retaining walls to 5 feet exposed, exterior stairs and terraces projecting beyond the 6‑ft projection allowance, and a parking pad that would encroach partially into the public right‑of‑way. The application also requested a revocable encroachment permit for a short retaining segment in the public ROW to support the parking pad.

Numerous neighbors — several with decades‑long tenure on Diamond Street — opposed the concept. Their concerns included: incorrect or incomplete boundary/topographic information (neighbors provided competing surveys and said the submitted topo located a property line adjacent to their stairs); the ADU height and glazing that would create direct views into neighboring living rooms and bedrooms; loss of natural light and sky; and public‑way safety and parking on a narrow, often congested private street. Multiple commenters urged the board to require a boundary (property line) survey before any further review.

The designer and owner, Jeff Eastman, and his team said the lot is unusually narrow (20‑ft frontage), described proposed construction logistics and argued the retaining walls and a small parking pad are needed to make the infill feasible. He said he intended to minimize site impact and use small equipment. The board and staff responded that the absence of a boundary survey and the scale of requested variances prevented meaningful review.

Board direction: The board unanimously voted to table the matter to a date uncertain so the applicant could obtain a certified boundary survey, revisit the design to eliminate encroachment into the public right‑of‑way and reduce exposed retaining‑wall height, and demonstrate on revised plans that ADU height, parking and stair projections meet the Diamond Crestview Specific Plan or that legitimate, documented hardships exist to justify variances. If the applicant returns, staff and the board asked for detailed documentation of boundary lines, neighbor outreach and plan changes.

Why it matters: The item highlights the importance of accurate boundary documentation and how narrow lots and topography can trigger multiple overlapping code relief requests; the board signaled it will not consider substantial variances without clear, certified property‑line information and stronger demonstration that alternative, less intrusive designs are infeasible.