RESOLUTION NO. 25.XXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE DECISION
OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TO DENY DESIGN REVIEW
24-2509, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-2510, AND
REVOCABLE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT 24-2511 FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN
ATTACHED TWO-CAR GARAGE, AN ACCESSORY DWELLING
UNIT, AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS AT 1560 BLUEBIRD
CANYON DRIVE (LOT B), AND FINDING THE ACTION
EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO STATE CEQA GUIDELINES
SECTION 15270
WHEREAS, the property owner, David Dyrnaes (“Applicant”)1, of 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive (the “Property”) (see aerial map included as Figure 1 and Attachment 2) applied for Design Review (“DR”) 24-2509, Coastal Development Permit (“CDP”) 24-2510, and Revocable Encroachment Permit (“REP”) 24-2511 to construct a single-family dwelling with an attached two-car garage, an attached accessory dwelling unit (“ADU”), and other improvements in the R-1 (Residential Low Density) zone.2 Design review is required for the new single-family dwelling and garage, vehicular access, elevated decks, spa, grading, retaining walls, trash enclosure in the front setback, and landscaping pursuant to Laguna Beach Municipal Code (“LBMC”) Section
25.05.040(B)(1), a Revocable Encroachment Permit 24-2511 is required to construct and maintain improvements in the public right-of-way, including walls, stairs, irrigation, drainage facilities, and lighting pursuant to LBMC Section 11.50.030, and a coastal development permit is required for the new development, including a new single-family dwelling, attached garage, attached ADU, 1 The Project’s architect is David Parker, who is within the definition of Applicant. 2 The Applicant is proceeding under Senate Bill (“SB 9”), as amended by SB 450 (collectively referred to herein as “SB 9”), which allows ministerial urban lot splits and two-unit development projects under certain qualifying conditions, subject to the California Coastal Act. (See Government Code § 65852.21(l)[“Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California Coastal Act of 1976. . . .”].) On June 13, 2024, the Community Development Director granted administrative coastal development permit approval of Tentative Parcel Map 24-0940, an urban lot split pursuant to SB 9 that subdivided an existing parcel to create two new parcels, including the Property. Final Map 24-117 was subsequently recorded with the County to effectuate the lot split. -2- Reso. #
and site improvements under LBMC Sections 25.07.004 and 25.07.006; and WHEREAS, on January 23, 2025, the Design Review Board (“Board”) held a duly noticed public hearing and considered the project. After receiving input from staff, the Applicant, and public comments, the Board discussed the project, provided direction to the Applicant, and tabled the discussion with a 5-0 vote; and
WHEREAS, on May 22, 2025, the Board held a duly noticed public hearing to consider a revised project (the “Project”). Following the public hearing, the Board directed staff to prepare a resolution denying the Project by a 3-2 vote (Board members Bauta and Gannon dissenting); and WHEREAS, on June 12, 2025, the Board considered the draft resolution denying the Project on consent and adopted the resolution denying the Project with certain changes read into the record, including a finding that the denial of the Project is exempt from CEQA (the “Board Denial”); and
WHEREAS, on June 4, 20253, the Applicant filed an appeal of the Board’s denial of the Project (the “Appeal”); and
WHEREAS, public notice was duly provided to consider the Appeal of the Project at the August 12, 2025 City Council meeting in accordance with LBMC Section 25.05.065; and WHEREAS, on August 12, 2025, 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 3 While Applicant submitted an untimely Appeal on June 4, 2025—before the Board Denial—the City accepted the Appeal for processing as of the date of the Board Denial (i.e., June 12, 2025). (See LBMC §
25.05.070; see also Tran v. County of Los Angeles (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 154 [a local agency decision or determination is when the substantive resolution is formally adopted].) -3- Reso. #
this Resolution by this reference.
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby makes the following findings in response to grounds for appeal stated in Appellants’ notice of Appeal:
1. “The Board majority unreasonably imposed an unjustified re-siting of the proposed residence, which would result in the unprecedented loss of substantial property rights of the owner, without providing objective findings to support their decision.
The Applicant’s Project requires three entitlements from the City: (1) REP 24-2511 to construct and maintain improvements in the public right-of-way, including walls, stairs, irrigation, drainage facilities, and lighting pursuant to LBMC Section 11.50.030; (2) CDP 24-2510 for the new development, which includes a new single-family dwelling, attached garage, attached ADU, and site improvements under LBMC Sections 25.07.004 and 25.07.006; and (3) DR 25-2509 for the new single-family dwelling and garage, vehicular access, elevated decks, spa, grading, retaining walls, trash enclosure in the front setback, and landscaping pursuant to LBMC Section
25.05.040(B)(1). Below is an overview of the findings and facts relied upon by the Board to deny the entitlements and an analysis supporting that the Board did not commit an abuse of discretion.
A. REP 24-2511 to construct and maintain improvements in the public right-ofway, including walls, stairs, irrigation, drainage facilities, and lighting pursuant to LBMC Section 11.50.030
The Applicant proposed certain private improvements within an unimproved portion of the City’s public right-of-way to facilitate the Applicant’s preferred driveway design, which is long and winding. The REP is required for such private improvements, consisting of retaining walls, stairs, irrigation, drainage facilities, and lighting. The development plans call for a sloping retaining wall that extends approximately nine feet into the right of way to support the winding driveway that cuts into the hillside. Relative to the elevation at the edge of the street pavement, the retaining wall has an exposed height of 10 feet at the property line.
In accordance with state law, a city may prohibit encroachments into and obstructions on public property and may provide for the removal of any prohibited encroachments. (Gov. Code § 38775.) A city may also regulate encroachments on public property by requiring an encroachment permit and permitting the encroachment under specified conditions. (Laura Vincent Co. v. City of Selma (1941) 43 Cal.App.2d 473.) The regulatory scheme must have a reasonable tendency to preserve or protect the public safety or convenience. (Id. At 476.) A city council’s determination of what constitutes an obstruction or encroachment will not be upset by the courts in the absence of fraud, oppression, or a manifest abuse of discretion. (Id.; Irvin v. City of Manhattan Beach (1966) 65 Cal.2d 13.)
Here, consistent with the state law above, the City of Laguna Beach, through adoption of its Municipal Code, has declared that “[a]nything which . . . unlawfully obstructs the free passage or use, in the customary manner, of any . . . public . . . street . . . is a nuisance.” (LBMC § 7.24.020(e); California Civil Code § 3479.) The City of Laguna Beach, also through adoption of its Municipal -4- Reso. #
Code, has created a regulatory scheme that allows certain types of encroachments into the public street through a revocable encroachment permit process. (See LBMC Chapter 11.50 (Revocable Encroachment Permits). Such regulatory scheme includes findings and criteria to assist decisionmakers in analyzing the findings and criteria, which serve to protect the public safety or convenience.
As reflected in Board Resolution 24-2509 (Attachment 3), the Board denied REP 24-2511 based on its inability to make Finding 1 and Finding 2 (Criteria (b), (e), and (f)) for the permit under Laguna Beach Municipal Code Chapter 11.50 (Revocable Encroachment Permits), as reflected below:
“SECTION 3. The Design Review Board hereby denies Revocable Encroachment Permit 24-2511 based on the following findings:
Finding No. 1 – LBMC Section 11.50.010 provides, ‘A revocable encroachment permit consists of a discretionary approval by the Laguna Beach Design Review approval authority to allow minor classes of construction in an otherwise unimproved, unused public right-of-way.’ Further Section [sic] LBMC Section 11.50.030 provides, ‘This category of project is intended for small-scale structures such as low fences, retaining walls, walkways, stairs, and other minor features typically associated with landscaping, including steppingstones, paved paths, planter areas, and irrigation systems. This type of permit is not appropriate for any structure or improvement that would result in code violations or other non-compliant conditions if removal is ever required by the City.’ The Project proposes large retaining walls and slopes within the public right-of-way necessary to support a long and winding driveway to a proposed sing-family [sic] dwelling. The
improvements are such that they are not minor or small-scale and could not be easily removed without compromising the required vehicular access pursuant to LBMC Section 25.53.004 for the proposed single-family residence should the City require the use of the full width of the right-of-way in the future.
Finding No. 2 - LBMC Section 11.50.050 states the required criteria and evaluation for issuance of a revocable encroachment permit:
(a) It should be located in a manner that is not hazardous to the traveling public, including motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians; (b) It should be sufficiently set back from the edge of pavement or street centerline to provide adequate travel, parking and walking lanes;
(c) It should not conflict with preexisting public utility structures, especially hydrants, vault and service meters in any manner that -5- Reso. #
necessitates relocation thereof at public expense or causes any other unacceptable interference, including impediments to the maintenance, relocation or repair of pipelines, conduits or substructures of any public utility;
(d) It will not preclude public access, use or enjoyment of any area that has historically established such access, use or enjoyment; (e) It is not precedent setting in nature to the extent that it creates a noticeable projection into the streetscape as established by existing construction and improvements on neighboring properties; and (f) It does not create structures of unusual or unacceptable appearance, form, shape or height that detract from the general quality of the streetscape.
Finding (b): The proposed large retaining walls and slopes within the public right-of-way would not be set back sufficiently to provide adequate travel, parking, and walking lanes should the City require the full use of the width of the right-of-way to expand vehicle or pedestrian access or emergency access in the future on Bluebird Canyon Drive. If installed as proposed, any future road widening would be infeasible. Further, for some other properties in the surrounding areas, the width of the street is 24’ at the access point of the driveway. As proposed, the street would be 20’ which is not sufficiently set back from the centerline of the street.
Finding (e): This section of Bluebird Canyon Drive does not have other revocable encroachments of this size and scale. The proposed encroachment could be precedent setting as there are other projects proposed in and around this Project. Effectively forfeiting this area of the public right-of-way due to the size and scale of the proposed retaining walls and slopes that create a noticeable projection in a possibly precedential
setting way is not consistent with the required findings for a revocable encroachment permit.
Finding (f): The size of the proposed retaining walls and slopes would create an unusual or unacceptable appearance of shape and height that would detract from the quality of the existing streetscape. Homes on the opposite side of Bluebird Canyon Drive are all (or most) built downslope and there are no similarly sized encroachment on Bluebird Canyon Drive on the same side of the street as the Proposed Project. (Attachment 3 [Board Resolution].) While the Board Resolution speaks for itself, it is worth noting that the Board did appropriately deny the REP based on inability to make the required findings and justified such inability to make the findings on certain facts and is also worth emphasizing that the Board identified public safety issues and code compliance issues with the REP, as discussed in more detail below.
-6- Reso. #
Public Safety
As reflected in the Board Resolution, the Board was unable to make the finding that the improvements sought through the revocable encroachment permit, consisting of the large retaining walls, graded slopes, and driveway were sufficiently set back from the edge of the pavement or street centerline to provide adequate travel, parking, and walking lanes. The Board supported the inability to make the finding, in part, based on the City needing the “full use of the width of the right-of-way to expand vehicle or pedestrian access or emergency access in the future on Bluebird Canyon Drive.” Indeed, the City previously hired KLD Engineering, P.C. to prepare a Wildfire Egress Study dated July 2021 to analyze evacuation times within the City. (Attachment 18.) The Wildfire Egress Study concludes that Bluebird Canyon Drive is one of three neighborhoods in the City that is access-impaired and may be unable to evacuate during a fire:
At the conclusion of the survey, three neighborhoods were deemed to be access impaired: Canyon Acres Drive, Bluebird Canyon, and Diamond Street & Crestview Drive, as shown in Figure 8-3. These neighborhoods share several characteristics in common: they are surrounded by wooded areas (fuel consisting of tall trees that can burn easily), ingress/egress routes are very narrow at sections (often only the width of a single car), and ingress/egress routes followed a winding path with hairpin turns in some sections. These neighborhoods would require early notification during a wildfire emergency as they would be unable to be evacuated if a fire were present.
(Attachment 18, p. 117 of 432.)
The Wildfire Egress Study further concludes Bluebird Canyon is narrow and may not be passable:
Bluebird Canyon – a LOT of fuel on this road. Goats are brought in to eat some of the brush on this road. The road is pretty good as it is wide with some street parking towards the top of the mountain. The road follows a winding path. There was a landslide along this road recently that destroyed several homes. The road becomes much narrower and follows a winding path as you travel downhill towards the coast. This road would not be passable in a fire. (Attachment 18, p. 116 of 432.)
While the City does not have a pending Public Works project to widen Bluebird Canyon Drive, the City did widen a portion of Bluebird Canyon Drive between approximately 800 feet east of Oriole and Rancho Laguna in 2023, demonstrating that the City views this area as posing a legitimate need for street widening. Further, Fire Chief Niko King and Fire Marshall Robert Montaghami have been consulted on whether widening at this section of Bluebird Canyon Drive would serve public safety or convenience. The Fire Marshall noted that Fire Code Section 503 requires a fire apparatus of 20 feet wide. The Fire Chief described the location of Bluebird Canyon Drive as technically passable by standard fire apparatus; however, it is narrow, winding, and lacks sufficient turnouts or shoulders in some segments. This can create significant congestion during peak evacuation or emergency response conditions. The segment between Rancho Laguna Road -7- Reso. #
and Oriole Drive, in particular, presents tight conditions and limited sight distance. Fire Chief King noted the below potential safety improvements that could enhance conditions:
• Road widening (where feasible), especially near blind curves and pinch points. • Establishment of formal turnout areas to allow two-way vehicle movement during evacuations.
• Improved roadside vegetation management to reduce encroachment and improve fire apparatus access.
• Striping or signage improvements to enhance driver awareness of narrow conditions and evacuation directionality.
• Mirrors or traffic calming measures on certain curves to improve visibility.
Code Compliance
As identified in the Board Resolution, the improvements, consisting of the retaining walls and graded slopes, within the public right-of-way, support a long and winding driveway to a proposed single-family dwelling. It also extends to a garage for the code-required parking. Further, the Board Resolution references the Municipal Code provision that states that an REP “is not appropriate for any structure or improvement that would result in code violations or other non-compliant conditions if removal is ever required by the City.” (LBMC § 11.50.030.) Code compliance, therefore, must be analyzed assuming that a revocable encroachment permit will be revoked at some point in the future.
If the City revoked the revocable encroachment permit and demanded the removal of the retaining wall and graded slopes in accordance with LBMC Chapter 11.50 (to widen the street, for example), the required access to the site would result in a code violation or other non-compliant condition because there would no longer be “safe vehicular access from a ‘usable vehicular right-of-way of record’ to off-street parking facilities on the property requiring such facilities.” (LBMC §
25.53.004(B).)
The project instead needs to be designed in a manner that contemplates code compliant or safe vehicular access to the site without an REP. In other words, the associated grading would also need to comply with LBMC Section 25.53.004(B), referenced in the Board Resolution, which requires safe access to parking facilities from the road. Although such design may require more grading, it is based on concerns of wildfire egress in Bluebird Canyon. Indeed, most recently, on July 7, 2025, the Rancho Fire in Laguna Beach ignited near Bluebird Canyon. It should also be noted that the Wildfire Egress Study assumed virtually no population growth from 2010 to 2020 in Bluebird Canyon—which is undercut by recent housing laws enacted, such as SB 9, and 18 applications for development of new units received by the City in Bluebird Canyon since July 1, 2020.
Lastly, while not reflected in the Board Resolution, as proposed, the retaining walls also appear to conflict with a development standard prohibiting retaining walls for cut slopes with a cut face steeper than 2:1 from exceeding five feet in height:
(b) Design Standards For Cut Slopes.
(1) Maximum Slope. No excavation shall be made with a cut face steeper in slope than two horizontal to one vertical, unless said cut -8- Reso. #
face is to be immediately supported with a retaining wall or other approved support for which a building permit has been obtained.
Said retaining walls shall not exceed five feet maximum height.
The appearance of the retaining walls shall be subject to the approval of the design review board.
(2) Exception.
(A) Less Than Two to One (2:1) Slope. Where the city
determines that a less steep slope is necessary in order to ensure the stability of the excavation and general safety, it may require a cut slope less steep than two horizontal to one vertical.
(B) Greater Than Two to One (2:1) Slope. When the
engineering geologist certifies in his report that the site has been investigated and in his opinion the material in cut areas will be stable, resistant to erosion and free from hazardous rock fall if cut to a steeper slope, the city may permit a cut slope steeper than two horizontal to one
vertical subject to such conditions as it may require. The city may waive the requirement for an engineering
geologic report in grading of individual building sites where conditions are favorable. Such slopes may not
exceed five feet in vertical height.
(LBMC Section 22.06.010(b).4) The Board did not commit an abuse of discretion in denying REP 24-2511.
B. CDP 24-2510 for the new development, which includes a new single-family dwelling, attached garage, attached ADU, and site improvements under LBMC Sections 25.07.004 and 25.07.006
As noted above, the Applicant is proceeding under SB 9, which allows ministerial urban lot splits and two-unit development projects under certain qualifying conditions, subject to the California Coastal Act. (See Government Code § 65852.21(l)[“Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California Coastal Act of 1976. . . .”].)5
The Coastal Act6 is a comprehensive scheme to govern land use planning for the state’s entire coastal zone. As part of its enactment, the Legislature made several findings related to the Act’s purpose: (1) the coastal zone “is a distinct and valuable natural resource of vital and enduring 4 Title 22 (Excavating, Grading and Filing) is part of the City’s certified LCP. 5 In response to Applicant attorney’s public comment that the Board Denial violates the Housing Accountability Act, it should be noted that the Housing Accountability Act similarly includes the same carve out for the full application of the Coastal Act. (See Gov. Code § 65589.5(e)[“Nothing in this section shall be construed to relieve the local agency from complying with . . . the California Coastal Act of 1976. . . .”].)
6 Pub. Res. Code, § 30000 et seq.
-9- Reso. #
interest to all the people”; (2) that permanent protection of the state’s natural and scenic resources is of paramount concern; (3) that “it is necessary to protect the ecological balance of the coastal zone”; and (4) that “existing developed uses, and future developments that are carefully planned and developed consistent with the policies of [the Coastal Act], are essential to the economic and social well-being of the people of this state. . . .”7
The Coastal Act is to be “liberally construed to accomplish its purposes and objectives.”8 The Coastal Act mandates that local governments within the coastal zone develop local coastal programs (“LCPs”), comprised of a land use plan and implementing ordinances, to promote the Coastal Act’s objectives.9 Unless subject to an exemption, almost all development within the coastal zone requires a coastal development permit.10 After Coastal Commission’s certification of a local coastal program, a coastal development permit is obtained from the local government, except in the appealable jurisdiction area and retained jurisdiction area, for which the Coastal Commission maintains jurisdiction, because the Coastal Commission delegates its development review authority to the local government.11 The delegation of authority is intended to ensure that the state policies prevail over local government concerns—regardless of the involvement of the local government in the Coastal Act’s implementation12:
Although local governments have the authority to issue coastal development permits, that authority is delegated by the Commission. The Commission has the ultimate authority to ensure that coastal development conforms to the policies embodied in the state's Coastal Act. In fact, a fundamental purpose of the Coastal Act is to ensure that state policies prevail over the concerns of local government. (See City of Chula Vista v. Superior Court (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 472, 489 [Commission exercises independent judgment in approving [local coastal program] because it is assumed statewide interests are not always well represented at the local level].) The Commission applies state law and policies to determine whether the development permit complies with the [local coastal program].13 On January 13, 1993, the Coastal Commission certified the City’s LCP. The coastal zone in the City of Laguna Beach represents approximately 4.78 square miles of land, encompassing the entire city limits except for Sycamore Hills. Sycamore Hills consists of 522 acres at the intersection of Laguna Canyon and El Toro Roads, inland of the city.14
The City’s Land Use Plan component of its LCP centers on five principal subjects: (1) recreation and visitor-serving facilities and use; (2) parking and circulation; (3) environmentally sensitive areas; (4) shoreline access; and (5) undeveloped lands. Because the subjects are closely related to 7 Pub. Res. Code, § 30001, subds. (a) and (d).
8 Pub. Res. Code, § 30009.
9 Id.; see also Pub. Res. Code, §§ 30001.5; 30500–526.
10 Pub. Res. Code § 30600, subd. (a).
11 Pub. Res. Code §§ 30600(d), 30519(emphasis added), 30600.5(emphasis added). 12 City of Dana Point v. California Coastal Com. (2013) 217 Cal. App. 4th 170, 186. 13 City of Dana Point, supra, 217 Cal. App. 4th at 186; Charles A. Pratt Construction Co., Inc. v.
California Coastal Com. (2018) 162 Cal. App. 4th 1068, 1075-76. 14 LCP Technical Appendix.
-10- Reso. #
many of the issues in the City’s General Plan, the Land Use Plan is physically integrated into the City’s General Plan.15 The Land Use Plan represents a descriptive text and evaluation of coastal problems and issues.16 The Land Use Element and Open Space/Conservation Elements of the General Plan set forth the actual solutions or responses to these issues in the form of city policies.17 The LCP is further implemented through development regulations, specific plans, special studies, and permitting procedures, including, but not limited to, the Laguna Beach Municipal Code Title
25. Under Title 25, a coastal development permit is required for all proposed development within the coastal zone except for development that is specifically exempted and excepted under Sections
25.07.008 and 25.07.010.18 Here, the proposed development, which includes a new single-family dwelling, attached garage, attached ADU, and site improvements, requires a coastal development permit under LBMC Sections 25.07.004 and 25.07.006.
As reflected in Board Resolution 24-2509 (Attachment 3), the Board denied CDP 24-2510 based on its inability to make Finding 1 (Criteria 5 and 6) and Finding 2 for the permit under Laguna Beach Municipal Code Chapter 25.07 (Coastal Development Permits), as reflected below:
“SECTION 4. The Design Review Board hereby denies Coastal Development Permit 24-2510 based on the following findings:
Finding No. 1: The Project is not in conformity with all the applicable provisions of the certified local coastal program, including the following review criteria provided in LBMC Section 25.07.012(F):
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.
No. The proposed Project includes the grading alteration of the entire project site and includes a grading export of approximately 1,398 cubic yards of soil. Project development alters the entire lot leaving no area of the site in a natural or near natural condition despite the installation of ornamental landscaping. As a result, the Project is not designed in a way to minimize alteration of naturally occurring landforms on the Project site.
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.
15 Id.
16 Id.
17 Id.
18 LBMC § 25.07.004.
-11- Reso. #
No. The proposed three-level, single-family home would sit atop a series of retaining walls within the building envelope that would result in the visual appearance of an imposing and bulky development. The design of the retaining walls, including the materials, color, and landscaping will not sufficiently soften the appearance of mass. The overall height of the building and retaining walls would be approximately 50 feet above the center of the proposed driveway where it intersects the street to the top of the highest roof. The overall height of the building and retaining walls would be approximately 49 feet above the street at the center of the property to the proposed deck guardrail above the great room.
This design of the Project would result in development that is visually incompatible with the surrounding area where other properties are either developed closer to the street or in a way that is not a visually imposing when viewed from various public rights-of-way. Lowering of the Project (but keeping the same square footage) such that it is closer to the street was mentioned as a possible solution; however, the Applicant declined to make such a change to the Project.
Further, the Project alters and develops the entire lot leaving no area of the site in a natural or near natural condition despite the installation of ornamental landscaping. Thus, the natural topography of the site is not used to maximize visual compatibility.
The Bluebird Canyon neighborhood is characterized by understated hillside development with vehicular access to garages being provided (predominantly) directly from the street without long sloping driveways and exposed retaining walls. The proposed Project would create a long sloping driveway to a motor court requiring additional grading and retaining walls that are not typically found in the neighborhood and thus increases the visual incompatibility of this Project.
The discussion and facts presented under LU Policies 2.1, 2.8, 7.3/10.2, and Open Space and Conservation Element Policy 13-B further support the Design Review Board’s inability to make this finding and are incorporated herein by reference.
Finding No. 2: The Project is not in conformity with all the applicable provisions of the certified Local Coastal Program as follows:
Land Use Element (LU) Policies 2.1, 2.8, and 7.319 and Open Space and Conservation Element Policy 13-B
No. The proposed Project as presented to the Design Review Board would alter and obscure the entire property to a point that the natural profile of the site would be developed and obscured. The Bluebird Canyon area is an enclave of predominantly hillside and ridgeline development between two open space canyon areas that is largely surrounded by additional higher ridgeline and hillside 19 The Laguna Beach Land Use Element of the General Plan is a component of the City’s Certified LCP. -12- Reso. #
development to the northwest, north, and southeast. A public access trail provides public views of the Project site from the northeast. As a result, the site is highly visible from many surrounding homes and publicly accessible scenic viewing points making protection of the natural profile of the ridgeline on the Project site as a visual resource necessary. Open Space and Conservation Element Policy 13- B requires that development proposals, including additions and alterations to existing buildings, incorporate protection of the natural profile of ridgelines as visual resources. The proposed Project is sited furthest away from the street, impacting the natural profile of the ridgeline.
Further, LU Policy 2.1 states:
“Maintain the diversity and uniqueness of individual neighborhoods.
Development standards and Design Review guidelines shall minimize the scale and bulk of new construction and/or renovation and require development to be compatible with the surrounding residences. Goal:
Preserve, enhance and respect the unique character and identity of Laguna’s residential neighborhoods.”
The area of the proposed Project is characterized by older hillside development and custom homes that have a lower appearance of mass. Older homes tend to be smaller than newer homes and most homes in the area are downslope and are accessed from the road above. Homes constructed down a slope are less massive when viewed from the street above because most of the building is out of direct sight below the upper level. These downslope homes are more visible from lower and typically more distant vantage points and as a result, the mass is not perceived more acutely. Additionally, these downslope homes are typically developed with short driveways (a car length or less) leading to a garage or carport. A more limited number of homes are built up from the street with short driveways leading to a garage. Few homes are developed with longer sloping driveways leading up to a home located at a higher elevation than the street. Homes built up from a street appear more massive because the viewer is closer and is looking up while on the street.
The proposed three-level, single-family home would sit atop a series of retaining walls within the building envelope that add to the overall bulk of development.
The design of the retaining walls, including the materials, color, and landscaping will not sufficiently soften the appearance of mass. The overall height of the building and retaining walls would be approximately 50 feet above the center of the proposed driveway where it intersects the street to the top of the highest roof.
The overall height of the building and retaining walls would be approximately 49 feet above the street at the center of the property to the proposed deck guardrail above the great room. The appearance of building mass would be excessive if the Project were developed as designed.
LU Policy 2.8 states:
-13- Reso. #
“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. Goal: Preserve, enhance and respect the unique character and identity of Laguna’s residential neighborhoods.” The proposed Project is inconsistent with this LU policy. The discussion and facts presented under Coastal Development Permit criteria #6 is incorporated herein by reference, support finding the Project inconsistent with Policy LU 2.8 and are incorporated herein by reference.
Finally, LU Policies 7.3 and 10.2 require the following:
“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. GOAL: Protect, preserve, and enhance the community’s natural resources and ensure that proposals for new development, subdivisions, and major remodels are sufficiently evaluated to protect public health and safety and natural resources.” The proposed Project is inconsistent with this LU policy. The discussion and facts presented under Coastal Development Permit criteria #6 is incorporated herein by reference, support finding the Project inconsistent with Policy LU Policies 7.3 and
10.2 and are incorporated herein by reference. The proposed Project is not designed in such a way as to be visually compatible with the surrounding uses.
Coastal Land Use Plan Technical Appendix Section 30251 The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural landforms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and where feasible to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. New development in highly scenic areas ... shall be subordinate to the character of its setting.
For the above reasons, the proposed Project is not sited and designed to minimize the alteration of natural landforms. The long, winding driveway and siting of the Project either atop or close to the top of the ridgeline results in grading and alteration of the natural landform. This is incompatible with the character of the surrounding area where homes are either built downslope or if built upslope, they have short driveways leading to a garage. Few homes are developed with longer sloping driveways leading up to a home located at a higher elevation than the street and the proposed Project would be the most imposing and visually impactful in the area.”
-14- Reso. #
While the Board Resolution speaks for itself, it is worth noting that the Board did appropriately deny the CDP based on inability to make the required findings and justified such inability to make the findings on certain facts and also worth emphasizing that the Board identified issues with the siting of the structures at the top of the hill as opposed to the bottom of the hill, closer to the right of way.
Further, while not specifically addressed in the Board Resolution, it is worth adding to the City Council’s consideration that the Project may also result in undue risks from fire hazards in light of the siting of the structures which relies on the revocable encroachment permit and would permanently remove the City’s ability to widen Bluebird Canyon Drive in front of the Property.
In order to approve a coastal development permit, the decision-making body must consider whether the “proposed development . . . will not result in undue risks from . . . fire hazards.” (See LBMC Section 25.07.012 (F)(5).) The City Council finds that the Project, as proposed, will result in undue risks from fire hazards, based on the analysis herein.
The Board did not commit an abuse of discretion in denying CDP 24-2510.
C. DR 25-2509 for the new single-family dwelling and garage, vehicular access, elevated decks, spa, grading, retaining walls, trash enclosure in the front setback, and landscaping pursuant to LBMC Section 25.05.040(B)(1) The City’s Design Review process is also part of the City’s Certified LCP since it is part of Title
25. While an accessory dwelling unit is exempt from design review under the City’s certified LCP20, the remainder of the development discussed under DR is not exempt from design review under the City’s certified LCP.
As reflected in Board Resolution 24-2509 (Attachment 3), the Board denied DR 24-2509 based on its inability to make Finding 1 (Criteria 2 (Design Articulation), Criteria 4 (Environmental Context), Criteria 5 (General Plan Compliance), Criteria 6 (Lighting and Glare), and Criteria 8 (Neighborhood Compatibility) in order to approve the permit under Laguna Beach Municipal Code Chapter 25.05.040 (Design Review), as reflected below:
“SECTION 5. As part of the City’s certified Local Coastal Program,21 the Design Review Board hereby denies Design Review 24-2509 based on the following findings:
Finding No. 1: The proposed physical improvements and site development related to the Project are not designed and located in overall consistency with the Design 20 LBMC § 25.05.040(B)(2)(s).
21 Throughout the Project’s review, the Applicant and his counsel have argued that because of SB 450 and the Housing Accountability Act, the City is prohibited from imposing any subjective criteria whatsoever on the Project. However, both SB 450 and the Housing Accountability Act explicitly require that the City comply with the Coastal Act – which is implemented in the City via its certified Local Coastal Program.
Thus, as part of its mandatory duty to implement the requirements and standards of Coastal Act, the City is applying the Design Review criteria as its part of this certified Local Coastal Program. -15- Reso. #
Review criteria specified in Sections 25.05.040(H)(2), 25.05.040(H)(4),
25.05.040(H)(5), 25.05.040(H)(8), 25.05.040(H)(9), as set forth below:
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 used to reduce the appearance of mass.
No. The proposed three-level, single-family home would sit atop a series of retaining walls within the building envelope that add to the overall bulk of development. The design of the retaining walls, including the materials, color, and landscaping will not sufficiently soften the appearance of mass. The overall height of the building and retaining walls would be approximately 50 feet above the center of the proposed driveway where it intersects the street to the top of the highest roof. The overall height of the building and retaining walls would be approximately 49 feet above the street at the center of the property to the proposed deck guardrail above the great room. The appearance of building mass would be excessive if the Project were developed as designed and in the proposed location.
Lowering of the Project (but keeping the same square footage) such that it is closer to the street was mentioned as a possible solution; however, the Applicant declined to make such a change to the Project.
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.
No. The Project alters and develops the entire lot leaving no area of the site in a natural or near natural condition despite the installation of ornamental landscaping.
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.
Open Space and Conservation Element Policy 13-B Require that development proposals, including additions and alterations to existing buildings, incorporate protection of the natural profile of ridgelines as visual resources.
Inconsistent. The proposed Project as presented to the Design Review Board would alter and obscure the entire property to a point that the natural profile of the site would be developed and obscured. The Bluebird Canyon area is an enclave of predominantly hillside and ridgeline development between two open space canyon areas that is largely surrounded by additional higher ridgeline and hillside development to the northwest, north, and southeast. A public access trail provides -16- Reso. #
public views of the Project site from the northeast. As a result, the site is highly visible from many surrounding homes and publicly accessible scenic viewing points making protection of the natural profile of the ridgeline on the Project site as a visual resource necessary.
Land Use Element (LU) Policy 2.1 Maintain the diversity and uniqueness of individual neighborhoods. Development standards and Design Review guidelines shall minimize the scale and bulk of new construction and/or renovation and require development to be compatible with the surrounding residences. Goal:
Preserve, enhance and respect the unique character and identity of Laguna’s residential neighborhoods.
Inconsistent. The area is characterized by older hillside development and custom homes that have a lower appearance of mass. Older homes tend to be smaller than newer homes and most homes in the area are downslope and are accessed from the road above. Homes constructed down a slope are less massive when viewed from the street above because most of the building is out of direct sight below the upper level. These downslope homes are more visible from lower and typically more distant vantage points and as a result, the mass is not perceived more acutely.
Additionally, these downslope homes are typically developed with short driveways (a car length or less) leading to a garage or carport. A more limited number of homes are built up from the street with short driveways leading to a garage. Few homes are developed with longer sloping driveways leading up to a home located at a higher elevation than the street. Homes built up from a street appear more massive because the viewer is closer and is looking up.
The proposed three-level, single-family home would sit atop a series of retaining walls within the building envelope that add to the overall bulk of development.
The design of the retaining walls, including the materials, color, and landscaping will not sufficiently soften the appearance of mass. The overall height of the building and retaining walls would be approximately 50 feet above the center of the proposed driveway where it intersects the street to the top of the highest roof.
The overall height of the building and retaining walls would be approximately 49 feet above the street at the center of the property to the proposed deck guardrail above the great room. The appearance of building mass would be excessive if the Project were developed as designed.
Land Use Element 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. Goal: Preserve, enhance and respect the unique character and identity of Laguna’s residential neighborhoods.
-17- Reso. #
Inconsistent. The discussion and facts presented under design criteria #2 Design Articulation and #4 Environmental Context, incorporated herein by reference, support finding the Project inconsistent with Policy LU 2.8 and are incorporated herein by reference.
Land Use Element Policies 7.3 and 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 natural landform alterations. GOAL: Protect, preserve, and enhance the community’s natural resources and ensure that proposals for new development, subdivisions, and major remodels are sufficiently evaluated to protect public health and safety and natural resources.
Inconsistent. The discussion and facts presented under design criteria #2 Design Articulation, and #4 Environmental Context, and LU Policy 2.1, incorporated herein by reference, support finding the Project inconsistent with Policy LU 7.3 and Policy 10.2.
8. Lighting and Glare: Adequate lighting for individual and public safety shall be provided 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, high-gloss 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.
No. The north, south and west elevations would be highly visible from surrounding properties. The north elevation has approximately 50% of the wall area as windows. The south elevation has approximately 55% of the wall area as windows. The west elevation also has approximately 55% of the wall area as windows. The amount of proposed window glazing will result in excessive sun reflection during certain hours of the day that cannot be mitigated by interior window coverings or window tinting and interior light illumination at night detracting from the more rural character of the area.
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.
No. The Bluebird Canyon neighborhood is characterized by understated hillside development with vehicular access to garages being provided (predominantly) directly from the street without long sloping driveways and exposed retaining walls. The proposed Project would create a long sloping driveway to a motor court requiring additional grading and retaining walls that are not typically found in the -18- Reso. #
neighborhood. The discussion and facts presented under design criteria #2 Design Articulation, and #4 Environmental Context, and LU Policy 2.1, incorporated herein by reference, support finding the Project inconsistent with this Design Review criterion.”
While the Board Resolution speaks for itself, it is worth noting that the Board did appropriately deny the DR based on inability to make the required findings and justified such inability to make the findings on certain facts and also worth emphasizing that the Board identified issues with the siting of the structures at the top of the hill as opposed to the bottom of the hill, closer to the right of way.
The Board did not commit an abuse of discretion in denying DR 24-2509.
Conclusion:
As reflected in the Board Resolution, a majority of the Board found the Project excessive in terms of mass and siting of the building (not square footage) and the long driveway and exposed retaining walls. While only one member explicitly mentioned relocating or re-siting the structure, the record reflects that all three had substantive concerns about the siting of the structures. As indicated by Chair Gibbs, the Project could be designed to terrace the building into the slope to maintain the Applicant’s proposed floor area. The Applicant proposed a living area totaling 3,443 square feet, which includes a 1,000-square-foot ADU. The Applicant’s contention that a re-siting of the home would cause an unprecedented loss of substantial property rights of the owner is unexplained in the Appeal. As indicated above, the Board majority did not direct a reduced program.
Moreover, the Applicant’s living area compares favorably to a new single-family home project on an adjoining lot that was approved by the City Council only recently. On April 22, 2025, the City Council denied an appeal of the Board’s approval of DR 23-0919 and CDP 23-0921 for a new single-family residence with an attached two-car garage and an attached ADU at 1536 Morningside Drive22. As indicated in the comparison table below, the 1536 Morningside Drive project is slightly smaller than the Applicant’s proposed Project, with 3,219 square feet of living area proposed. The Applicant’s lot is also substantially smaller (approximately by 38%).
Description Subject Property 1536 Morningside Dr.
Lot Area 8,582 S.F. 13,866 S.F.
Living Area (SFD) 2,442.82 S.F. 2,371.9 S.F.
Living Area (ADU) 999.87 S.F. 847.2 S.F.
TOTAL LIVING AREA 3,442.69 S.F. 3,219.1 S.F.
22 In staff’s opinion, this is the most comparable property because (1) both projects are situated on the knoll and are potentially the first projects to be developed following the 2004 lot line adjustment (LLA 04-01) which established the four existing legal building sites in their current configuration; (2) both are recent or currently pending projects; (3) both have ADUs; and (4) the subject lot’s general characteristics (lot area, width, depth, topography) make it more similar to other lots on the knoll, than to other lots in the neighborhood. Although 1526 Morningside Drive was discussed during the underlying hearing and is located on the same knoll, it was remanded from the City Council to the Board with further direction. -19- Reso. #
-19- Reso. #
Garage 534.87 S.F. 564.5 S.F.
Elevated Deck 934.52 S.F. 397.4 S.F.
Mechanical 50.17 S.F. 197.6 S.F.
TOTAL PROGRAM 4,962.25 S.F. 4,378.6 S.F.
2. “The Board majority made false and unsupported assumptions regarding the appearance of mass and scale as it relates to the project siting and based on subjective criteria.” The Board’s evaluation of mass and scale was based on the City’s certified LCP, including the Coastal Development Permit findings, which require an analysis of whether the “proposed development will be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas” (Finding No. 1, Criteria No. 6) and whether the proposed development complies with the applicable provisions of the certified LCP (Finding No. 2), such as Land Use Element Policy 2.1, which states “development standards shall minimize the scale and bulk of new construction . . . and require development to be compatible with the surrounding residences”; and Land Use Element Policy
2.8. which states “require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated with natural topographic features.” The evaluation of mass and scale is also required for the Design Review findings, which requires “within the allowable building envelope, the appearance of building and retaining wall mass should be minimized” (Finding No. 1, Criteria 2) and compliance with the certified LCP (Finding No. 1, Criteria 5), as previously noted above under the CDP findings.
The concern regarding mass and scale was not an arbitrary or unsupported assumption, but rather a response to proposed location of the home. The most noteworthy condition being the significant height of the proposed structure above the highest point of the lot and its projection well above the natural knoll.23
Board members noted that the elevated finish floor of the garage, relative to the street and surrounding properties, contributes to a perceived bulk inconsistent with other development in the immediate vicinity. The Project’s siting does not sufficiently step with the hillside, which the Board found to be out of character compared to adjacent homes that are better integrated into the existing grade.
These findings were informed by a combination of site-specific measurements (such as the street width) and the Applicant’s submitted plans and elevations. The Board’s concerns reflect consistency with prior decisions and a thorough application of the certified LCP, which is intended to coastal resources.
3. “The Board majority disregarded factual evidence provided by the Applicant proving that other approved and completed projects possessed similar siting, garage locations, and access driveways, capriciously claiming such findings were not applicable to the subject property and arbitrarily deeming that the project design is not neighborhood compatible.” 23 In particular, refer to Design Review Board Resolution No. 24-2509, CDP Finding No. 1 (Criteria No. 6) and Finding No. 2, and Design Review Finding No. 1 (Criteria Nos. 2 and 5). -20- Reso. #
The Board did not disregard factual evidence from the Applicant but instead evaluated the proposed project within the specific context of the subject site, as required by the certified LCP which emphases a case-by-case review with sensitivity to localized conditions, such as topography, access constraints, and surrounding development patterns. Indeed, as reflected in the Board Resolution, the Board considered all public testimony on the proposed Project and all relevant public comments, and all documents and evidence submitted, including but not limited to the staff report, attachments, and materials presented by the Applicant and the Project architect for both the January 23, 2025 and May 22, 2025 public hearings.
While the Applicant referenced other approved projects with similar siting or driveway configurations, the Board correctly noted that the knoll is unique, for various reasons including, larger lots with different lot widths and depths and the steep topography from the road to top of the knoll, which flattens out at the top. Referencing those projects was not sufficient justification for replicating similar conditions under current design expectations and code requirements. In fact, the Board explicitly acknowledged the need for creative solutions that address modern development criteria and are compatible with today’s standards, especially regarding garage placement, grading, and access along Bluebird Canyon Drive. The Board’s findings were not arbitrary but were based on observable differences in site conditions, including the narrowed width of Bluebird Canyon Drive access, the elevated position of the proposed garage slab, and the deviation from the building heights of adjacent homes. These objective differences supported the conclusion that the proposed configuration does not adequately reflect neighborhood compatibility in this particular context.
Rather than dismissing the Applicant’s evidence, the Board weighed it alongside other critical factors, such as fire access, hillside grading, visual compatibility, ridgeline development, and public safety, and determined that a more thoughtful and integrated design was necessary to make the DR, CDP, and REP findings.
SECTION 3. The City Council determines that, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), the denial of a project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15270 of the CEQA Guidelines because CEQA does not apply to projects that a public agency rejects or disapproves.
SECTION 4. The City Council hereby upholds the decision of the Design Review Board, as reflected in Design Review Board Resolution No. 24-2509, which is incorporated herein by reference, denying DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, and REP 24-2511.
ADOPTED this 12th day of August, 2025.
Alex Rounaghi, Mayor
-21- Reso. #
ATTEST:
Ann Marie McKay, City Clerk
I, Ann Marie McKay, City Clerk of the City of Laguna Beach, certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 25.XXX was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City held on August 12, 2025, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
City Clerk, City of Laguna Beach, California