Minutes of the Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 1 - Meeting of May 22, 2025
MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT/DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
REGULAR MEETING AND NOTICED HEARING
May 22, 2025
A regular notice meeting of the Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board of the City of Laguna Beach, California held on May 22, 2025.
Present: Chair Tom Gibbs, Chair Pro Tem Jessica Gannon, Board Members Imer Bauta, MJ Coveny, and Louis Weil participated remotely from 17311 W. Glendale Avenue, Waddell, AZ 85355, a location being duly noticed and open to the public. No member of the public was present at the remote location.
Absent: None
Staff Present: Jim Campbell, Interim Planning Manager; Bill Rodrigues, Planning Manager; Patrick Donegan, Assistant City Attorney; Wendy Jung, Principal Planner; Heather Steven, Senior Planner; Daniel Latham, Associate Planner; and Sarah Olsen, Planning Technician.
1. CALL TO ORDER – The meeting was called to order by Chair Gibbs at 5:00 p.m.
2. PUBLIC COMMUNICATION - None
3. MODIFICATION OF AGENDA ORDER
Board Member Coveny suggested moving item 5.5 to be heard before item 5.4. There was unanimous consent from the Board.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
4.1. MINUTES FOR APPROVAL
Approval of the minutes for the Design Review Board/Board of Adjustment meeting on January 23, 2025.
4.2. 607 Short Street | APN : 496-136-11
Design Review 24-0434
Coastal Development Permit 24-0435
Revocable Encroachment Permit 24-0436
Applicant: Drew Blake, (949) 376-9905, [email protected] City Staff: Shaveta Sharma, Senior Planner, (949) 715-0958 | [email protected] Request to continue to June 26, 2025.
The Chair opened the public hearing
Public Comment: None
Minutes of the Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 2 - Meeting of May 22, 2025 The Chair closed the public hearing
Chair Pro Tem Gannon made a motion, seconded by Chair Gibbs, to approve the consent calendar with Board Member Bauta registering an abstention on Item 4.1. The motion carried by the following vote:
Motion JG Second TG Action APPROVED
Bauta __Y__ Coveny __Y__ Gibbs ___Y___ Gannon ___Y___ Weil ___Y___
5. REGULAR BUSINESS
5.1. 935 Baja Street | APN: 644-425-07
Design Review 25-0842, and Coastal Development Permit 25-0841 Applicant: James Conrad, Architect (949) 497-0200 | [email protected] Staff: Daniel Latham, Associate Planner (949) 464-6612 [email protected] The proposed project includes modifications to prior approval including lower-level additions, reduction in the number of covered parking spaces, relocation of doors and windows, pool modification and landscaping.
Disclosures: Ms. Gannon drove by the site. Mr. Weil, Mr. Bauta and Ms. Coveny visited the site and spoke with Jim Conrad. Chair Gibbs drove by the site and spoke with Ali, an associate of Jim Conrad.
Ms. Coveny and Chair Gibbs requested an expedited hearing.
Staff Presentation: Associate Planner Daniel Latham provided a brief description of the project.
Board Questions: None
The Chair opened the public hearing
Project Representative: James Conrad, Architect was available for questions.
Chair Gibbs stated he saw a letter concerned about landscaping potentially blocking views. Mr. Conrad stated the resident wanted to make sure there were not going to be any additional trees that might block their angular views. The only changes were adjusting it to fit the different shape of the pool. He met with the neighbors, and they were satisfied with the landscaping.
Public Testimony: None
Rebuttal: None
Minutes of the Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 3 - Meeting of May 22, 2025 Board Questions: None
The Chair closed the public hearing
Board Comments: Ms. Coveny, Ms. Gannon and Mr. Bauta stated the project meets all design review criteria and the coastal development permit and can approve the project.
Chair Gibbs concurs with the Board Members and has reviewed the location of the ADU and its visual compatibility and supports the project.
Mr. Weil concurs with the Board Members and fully supports the project.
Ms. Coveny made a motion, seconded by Chair Pro Tem Gannon, to adopt Resolution 25-0842 approving the applications and finding the action exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Motion MC Second JG Action APPROVE
Bauta __Y__ Coveny __Y__ Gibbs ___Y___ Gannon ___Y___ Weil ___Y___
5.2. 805 La Mirada Street | APN: 644-433-08
Revocable Encroachment Permit 25-0586
Applicant: Chris Clark, (949) 723-8100, [email protected] Staff: Daniel Latham, Associate Planner (949) 464-6612 [email protected] The proposed project includes landscape and hardscape improvements including irrigation, retaining walls, and lighting within an unimproved portion of the Alisos Avenue public right-of-way.
Disclosures: Ms. Gannon drove by the site. Ms. Coveny drove by the site and spoke with Mr. Clark. Mr. Bauta Spoke with the applicant and met the owners on site. Mr.
Weil visited the site and met with the owners. Chair Gibbs met with the owner Chris Clark and walked the site.
Chair Gibbs requested an expedited hearing.
Staff Presentation: Associate Planner. Daniel Latham provided a brief description of the project and staff’s recommendation for approval.
Board Questions: None
The Chair opened the public hearing
Project Representative: Chris Clark presented the project.
Public Testimony: None
Minutes of the Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 4 - Meeting of May 22, 2025 Rebuttal: None
Board Questions: None
The Chair closed the public hearing
Board Comments: Mr. Weil stated the biggest part of this project was already defined by the City Council as a right-of-way use for private enjoyment or fencing and beautification. It’s mostly landscaping, pathways and a few stairs and he thinks the REP should be granted.
Ms. Gannon and Ms. Coveny concur with Mr. Weil.
Mr. Bauta recommended approval and commended the presentation.
Chair Gibbs finds the REP meets all the requirements including that there is no present or prospective public use of the right-of-way, no impact on water course or other potential use. It meets the applicable Arch Beach Heights specific plan standards and at some point, suggests presenting this again to the City Council for the abandonment of the right-of-way and he supports the project.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon made a motion, seconded by Ms. Coveny, to adopt Resolution 25-0586 approving the application and finding said action exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Motion JG Second MC Action APPROVE
Bauta __Y__ Coveny __Y__ Gibbs ___Y___ Gannon ___Y___ Weil ___Y___
5.3. 175-177 Dumond Drive | APN: 656-161-03
Design Review 24-1742, Coastal Development Permit 24-1743, and Variance 24-1744 Applicant: Warren Hutcherson, Designer (949) 338-6905, [email protected] City Staff: Heather Steven, Senior Planner (949) 497-0332, [email protected] The proposed project includes the construction of two tandem covered parking spaces and a lower-level access to a planned elevator below an existing duplex on a 4,675 square foot lot in the R-2 (Residential Medium Density) zone. A variance is requested to exceed the maximum height limit due to the excavation below the existing building.
Disclosures: Mr. Bauta and Ms. Gannon met with Steve Kawaratani and Warren Hutcherson. Ms. Coveny spoke with Mr. Kawaratani and went by the site. Chair Gibbs and Mr. Weil visited the site and spoke with Mr. Kawaratani and Mr. Hutcherson.
Staff Presentation: Senior Planner Heather Steven provided a brief description of the project and staff’s recommendation for denial.
Minutes of the Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 5 - Meeting of May 22, 2025 Board Questions: Mr. Weil asked if the elevator was a project on its own, would it meet the standards for heights or is the garage triggering the height variance. Ms. Steven stated the elevator is allowed to go up 36 feet and meets the code requirement.
The Chair opened the public hearing
Project Representative: Mr. Kawaratani presented the project.
Public Testimony: None
Rebuttal: None
Board Questions: Mr. Bauta asked about the garage spaces and a potential Jr. ADU.
Mr. Weil asked if the applicant would agree to the condition that the garage be nonhabitable and if requested to become habitable it would be subject to design in the future. Mr. Donegan to add to that condition unless otherwise dictated by state law.
The Chair closed the public hearing
Board Comments: Chair Gibbs finds that it meets the guidelines and agrees with the staff report that the only issue is the variance. To deny the variance would deny the homeowners the privilege that the neighboring homes have regarding parking four cars on their property in this parking impacted neighborhood, therefore he could support the variance request.
Ms. Gannon, Mr. Bauta, Ms. Coveny and Mr. Weil agree with Chair Gibbs and is ready to approve the project.
The Board discussed agreed to add a condition that the added garage area, that creates the need for the variance, to be used primarily for parking.
Chair Gibbs made a motion, seconded by Mr. Bauta, to continue the item to the June 12, 2025, Design Review Board meeting and direct staff to bring back a resolution of project approval with the condition that the two parking spaces being added will be used primarily for parking. The motion carried by the following vote:
Motion TG Second IB Action CONTINUE TO JUNE 12, 2025
Bauta __Y__ Coveny __Y__ Gibbs ___Y___ Gannon ___Y___ Weil ___Y___
5.4. 31731 Seacove Drive | APN: 658-101-04
Design Review 24-1153
Coastal Development Permit 24-1152
Applicant: David Parker, Architect (949) 872-6616, [email protected] City Staff: Heather Steven, Senior Planner (949) 497-0332, [email protected] Minutes of the Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 6 - Meeting of May 22, 2025 The proposed project includes addition and remodel of an existing single-family dwelling, a new two-car garage, elevated decks, grading, landscaping, a new pool, and an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) in the R-1 (Residential Low Density) zone (“Project”).
Disclosures: Ms. Gannon had a site visit with David Parker and Steve Kawaratani and the neighbors when this was first reviewed. Ms. Coveny had a site visit with Mr. Parker and Mr. Kawaratani and met with Mario Vaughn representing the neighbors across the street the Everhart’s and the Gray’s and Mr. Burke. Mr. Bauta and Mr. Weil met with Mr. Kawaratani, David Parker, Jim Burns and Mario Vaughn. Chair Gibbs met with Mr. Parker, Mr. Kawaratani, Mario Vaughn representing the two homeowners, Jim Burns and Ralph Bertileno.
Staff Presentation: Heather Steven, Senior Planner provided a brief description of the project noting this is the second hearing, and the need to widen the proposed private driveway.
Board Questions: Chair Gibbs asked what the condition was proposing the widening of the driveway from eight feet to ten feet. Ms. Steven stated it was pursuant to the code.
The Chair opened the public hearing
Project Representative: David Parker, Architect presented the project.
Public Testimony: Jim Burns of 31672 Seabluff is concerned with privacy, noise intrusion and is opposed to the project.
Mike Gray lives across the street from the property and stated that he and all the adjacent homeowners are opposed to the project due to privacy, noise and view equity.
David Rowan of 31673 Seacove Drive directly behind the property and his main concern is congestion and thinks additional parking should be provided. He is also concerned with adding trees to provide privacy for the applicant will eliminate his view equity as currently there are overgrown trees on the property; he is opposed to the project.
Speaker 4 representing the Everhart’s of 31674 Seacove Drive are concerned with parking and privacy issues and are opposed to the project.
Rebuttal: Mr. Parker stated they met with all the neighbors, but it is impossible to protect everyone’s views and privacy 100% and are proposing trees to provide some privacy. There are eight decks in close proximity that are larger than the proposed deck and some are visible from the applicant’s property, and it is the nature of a very dense beach community. They are providing more parking, landscaping and open space.
Some trees will be removed and/or trimmed which will likely open views for neighbors and there are places to park during construction. They are amenable to suggestions Minutes of the Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 7 - Meeting of May 22, 2025 from the board.
Board Questions: Ms. Gannon asked if they would be amenable to a condition of approval to have height limits on the landscaping; Mr. replied yes.
Ms. Coveny asked when they designed the home if they considered extending the home and providing sliding doors to create an indoor/outdoor aspect. Mr. Parker replied that one of the owners is an interior designer and was specific in directing him to give them a modest edition. Ms. Coveny then asked what would be used to cover the deck. Mr.
Parker stated that it hasn’t been discussed.
Mr. Bauta asked about the north elevation and the glass windows and if the proposed new vegetation will cover those windows. Mr. Parker stated they are amenable to having part or most of the windows frosted and maintaining the existing row of trees.
Chair Gibbs to see the landscape plans showing the trees and asked if they would be willing to extend the trees and frost all the windows on the north side. It appears they are looking into Mr. Burns’ backyard and need to be changed. Mr. Parker stated they are willing to extend a tall hedge row and frost the glass sufficiently to protect Mr.
Burns’ privacy.
Mr. Bauta asked it the fire pit could be moved closer to the house to maintain privacy with the neighbors to the south. Mr. Parker stated they are willing to eliminate the fire pit. Mr. Bauta then asked about the pool seating location. It was stated that landscaping would protect neighbors on the south side of the property.
Mr. Weil thinks there needs to be more of a triangle cut off where the driveway meets the alley for easier egress and ingress.
Ms. Coveny is struggling with the Pittosporum Silver Sheen growing over eight feet and asked if it was considered to have some sort of flower box around the deck on each side so something would be six feet up from the deck. Mr. Kawaratani stated that if the Pittosporum Silver Sheen is topped it would stay thick but would consider other plants like Ficus or Cono carpus but with a planter box there can only be a certain amount of depth for the roots so some kind of screening provided by planting in the ground is preferred. Ms. Coveny likes the idea of a hedge to break up all the concrete and homes around it but she is concerned that sixteen feet will be high enough.
Chair Gibbs wants to make sure that the screens are sufficient to block the deck areas from looking into Mr. Burns backyard and from protecting the neighboring houses.
Ms. Gannon suggested a condition of approval be that mature trees are planted. Chair Gibbs asked if the trees would be robust all the way up to six feet above the deck. Mr.
Parker stated that is what they want to achieve, and Mr. Kawaratani would recommend a species that would be dense enough to block views to and from the property.
Mr. Kawaratani stated he originally selected plants that wouldn’t go too high and stated Minutes of the Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 8 - Meeting of May 22, 2025 he would change the hedge to Prunus caroliniana that is extremely thick and tolerant of salt air.
The Chair closed the public hearing
Board Comments: Ms. Gannon was approvable the first time it was presented and did not find a privacy issue from Mr. Burns bedroom or with the other neighbors and is ready to support the project with conditions of approval and staff’s findings for the variance.
Mr. Bauta agreed with Ms. Gannon’s comments and added that the opaqueness of the windows is necessary to maintain privacy and is open to additional vegetation.
Ms. Coveny stated that this is her first review of the project and knows that staff supports the variance and doesn’t see a view equity issue, but a privacy issue and she is weighing the right to build versus the right to maintain quality of privacy. She further stated that she thinks the hedges are a relatively good solution but not trusting the quality of the hedges and is unsure of the privacy of the Everhart’s and the Gray’s and would like to see the deck pulled back around five feet.
Mr. Weil is reviewing this project for the first time and thinks there are a lot of good elements and is supportive of the variances and most of staffs’ findings. He thinks the applicant needs to clean up the plans and resubmit them as they are very close to approval but thinks the deck needs further reduction. He would like the driveway redrawn with the triangle access design as it meets the alley due to its narrowness and agrees that the landscaping needs to be bolstered with a denser foliage and frosting of the windows over the staircase and looks forward to approving at the next hearing.
Chair Gibbs stated in the first review it was made clear that the deck needed a substantial reduction particularly with the length and since the pool is elevated it could also be reduced and thinks the deck is out of character for the neighborhood and has noise and privacy concerns and would like it reduced in half. He is in favor of the screening going six feet above the deck and frosting the windows on Mr. Burns side but is encouraging the board to support pushing the deck back 10 feet. He also asked Mr.
Kawaratani to come back with a landscape plan that shows the trees that are going to be planted to protect Mr. Burns’ privacy. Chair Gibbs would like the applicant to come back with a shorter deck and a clarified landscaping plan before he supports the project.
Mr. Bauta stated that he is less concerned about privacy due to the size of the deck, and the four feet four-inch reduction covers the privacy of all the neighbors, and they agreed to remove the firepit. Ms. Gannon concurs with Mr. Bauta.
Ms. Coveny agrees with Chair Gibbs that the deck should be reduced by ten feet.
Chair Gibbs made a motion, seconded by Mr. Weil, to continue item to July 24, 2025, Design Review Board meeting directing the applicant to modify the project consistent Minutes of the Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 9 - Meeting of May 22, 2025 with the discussion. The motion carried by the following vote:
Motion TG Second LW Action CONTINUE TO JULY 24, 2025
Bauta __Y__ Coveny __Y__ Gibbs ___Y___ Gannon ___Y___ Weil ___Y___
5.5. 130 Irvine Cove Place | APN: 496-201-10
Design Review 25-0857
Coastal Development Permit 25-0037
Applicant: Brandon Architects, Ryan McDaniels, Project Manager (714) 754-4040, [email protected]
City Staff: Wendy Jung, Principal Planner, (949) 497-0321, [email protected] The applicant requests demolition of the existing structure and construction of a new single-family residence with attached four-car garage, elevated deck, additional covered parking, excess building site coverage, grading, retaining walls, pool and spa, hardscape, and 5.5 6 landscaping in the R-1 (Residential Low Density) zone. The new single-family dwelling and an attached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) proposed for the site are subject to a coastal development permit.
Disclosures: Ms. Gannon had a site visit wit the owners. Ms. Coveny met on site with Nicole of Brandon Architects. Mr. Bauta met on site with the owners. Mr. Weil evaluated the site and met with the architect team. Chair Gibbs went to the site and spoke to Ryan McDaniels and the owners Ryan and Stacy Day.
Staff Presentation: Wendy Jung, Principal Planner provided a brief description of the project and staff’s recommendation.
Board Questions: Ms. Gannon asked if the building site coverage is just a guideline.
Ms. Jung stated the code allows the DRB the ability to modify the building site coverage keeping in mind the preservation of views, privacy and neighborhood compatibility.
The Chair opened the public hearing
Project Representative: Ryan McDaniels, Architect presented the project.
Public Testimony: None
Rebuttal: Mr. McDaniels indicated no rebuttal but was available to answer questions.
Board Questions: None
The Chair closed the public hearing
Board Comments: Ms. Coveny stated all aspects of design review have been met and Minutes of the Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 10 - Meeting of May 22, 2025 she can support the project; Ms. Gannon, Mr. Bauta, Mr. Weil and Chair Gibbs concurred.
Chair Pro Tem Gannon made a motion, seconded by Mr. Bauta, to adopt Resolution 25- 0857 approving the applications and finding said action exempt from CEQA under Section 15302. The motion carried by the following vote:
Motion JG Second IB Action APPROVE
Bauta __Y__ Coveny __Y__ Gibbs ___Y___ Gannon ___Y___ Weil ___Y___
5.6 1495 Coral Drive | 641-094-07
Design Review 25-0570
Coastal Development Permit 25-0569
Applicant: Scott Schaffer (949) 709-3372, [email protected] Staff: Daniel Latham, Associate Planner, (949) 464-6612, [email protected] The applicant requests a new Single-Family Home with an attached two-car garage.
Disclosures: Mr. Bauta met with Gunther, Jason Karpansky, Barbara Norin, Pam Suesho and Warren Bitme and Scott Schaffer. Ms. Gannon met with Scott Schaffer at the site and visited the homes of 1511, 1510, 1505, 1504 and 1501 Caribbean Way and at 1485 Bounty Way. Ms. Coveny visited the homes of 1501, 1511, 1510 and 1524 Caribbean Way and 1485 Coral, 1455 and 1475 Bounty and went to 1505 Caribbean but they were not home. Mr. Weil met with the applicant team, Barbara walked him through the Whitegons property, met with Melissa Hexter and Warren, Jason and Marilyn, Ms.
Showey and Donald and Barbara. Chair Gibbs met with Mr. Schaffer, Brandon Sharp, Gunther & Malie Gee, Jason Paransky, Barbara & Dave Norton, Theodore Maui, Warren Bedme, Melissa Hexter and Sue Shoe.
Staff Presentation: Associate Planner Daniel Latham provided a brief description of the project and staff’s recommendation.
Board Questions: None
The Chair opened the public hearing
Project Representative: Scott Schaffer presented the project.
Public Testimony:
Dave Whitegone of 1504 Caribbean Way stated the roof should be lowered to protect views.
Brandon Sharp of 1485 Coral Drive is concerned with view equity.
Sue Shu of 1510 Caribbean stated that the project negatively impacts her view.
Minutes of the Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 11 - Meeting of May 22, 2025 Glenn Provos of 1505 Tahiti concerned with the view equity of his neighbors.
Gunther Gee of 1501 Caribbean Way is concerned with the roof height and landscaping that blocks the view of the neighbors.
Lee Eastman of 1525 Caribbean Way agrees with Chair Gibbs regarding view equity preservation and wants the roof and landscaping to be lower.
Barbara Norton of 1511 Caribbean Way believes neighborhood collaboration is important.
Rebuttal: Scott Schaffer stated the height of the project is consistent with the development in the neighborhood and is below the height of the three adjacent neighbors.
Board Questions: Ms. Coveny asked if the finished edge of the project is in the same location as the existing house. Mr. Schaffer stated it is moving about a foot away from the Sharps residence. She then asked if there will be excavation. Mr. Schaffer stated there will be light excavation to lower the floor and the plate heights are approximately 9 feet and door, and window heights are eight feet with a couple of areas with a tenfoot ceiling.
Mr. Weil asked staff is the top of curb was accurate on the plans; staff stated it was accurate. He then asked if this zone has plate height restrictions; staff stated R1 has no restrictions but only height limit above curb.
Mr. Bauta asked if the applicant would reduce the column size for the covered patio.
Mr. Schaffer stated the owner would be willing to reduce the columns as a condition of approval.
Chair Gibbs asked along with reduction the column size would they be willing to make a trellis instead of bringing the house out. The owner is willing to reduce the columns and install a hip roof instead of the gable end roof.
Ms. Coveny asked what the difference in height is between the existing and proposed roof. Mr. Schaffer stated it currently is nine feet six inches and proposed it to be fourteen feet.
Chair Gibbs closed the public hearing
Board Comments: Mr. Weil stated with the smaller posts, the hip roof change and capping the strawberry tree at twelve feet from grade, he can be supportive of the project and stated the height change is consistent with the neighborhood.
Ms. Coveny can support the project with the suggested concessions.
Minutes of the Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 12 - Meeting of May 22, 2025 Ms. Gannon concurs with Mr. Weil and Ms. Coveny and supports the project.
Mr. Bauta supports the project and agrees with the previous board members.
Chair Gibbs concurs with the board and supports the project.
Mr. Weil made a motion, seconded by Mr. Bauta, to adopt Resolution 25-0570 and finding the action exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines, with conditions to modify the roof and support posts of the covered patio consistent with the exhibits presented to the Board and requiring a change to the landscape plan limiting the height of the strawberry tree discussed at twelve feet maximum. The motion carried by the following vote:
Motion TG Second LW Action APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS
Bauta __Y__ Coveny __Y__ Gibbs ___Y___ Gannon ___Y___ Weil ___Y___
5.7 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive | Lot B
Design Review 24-2509, Coastal Development Permit 24-2510, and Revocable Encroachment Permit 24-2511
Applicant: David Parker, Architect, (949) 872-6616, [email protected] Staff: Nancy Balmer-Csira, Planner, (949) 715-1284, [email protected] The proposed project includes construction of a single-family dwelling with an attached two car garage and an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) on a vacant building site in the R-1 (Residential Low Density) zone.
Disclosures: Mr. Bauta and Ms. Coveny met with the applicant and spoke with Mr.
Kawaratani, Joe Cover, the Sadal family and Susan Whitten. Ms. Gannon had a site visit with the applicant team and met with Peter Groman. Chair Gibbs met with Mr. Parker, Mr. Kawaratani, Mr. Groman, Joe Cover, Mr. Sadal and Susan Whitten.
Staff Presentation: Interim Planning Manager, Jim Campbell provided a description of the project and staff’s recommendation for project approval including the update color and materials, and 4 added conditions not in the draft resolution.
Board Questions: Chair Gibbs asked about the route of travel for the excavation trucks; staff stated trucks would enter and exit Morningside Drive. Chair Gibbs would like that to be a condition of approval.
Chair Gibbs opened the public hearing
Project Representation: David Parker described the proposed project Public Testimony:
Minutes of the Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 13 - Meeting of May 22, 2025 Pamela Adams of Morningside Drive opposes the project because of the ridgeline position of the project, the mass and scale, noise pollution and the square footage of the house.
Susan Whitten of Bluebird Canyon stated that the project has not changed, and it is not neighborhood compatible and opposes the project.
Joe Cover of 1536 Morningside Drive opposes the project due to neighborhood compatibility and privacy issues.
Mary Fagris of 1561 Morningside Drive is concerned about neighborhood compatibility, mass and size, location of structures and privacy issues.
Eileen Silora of 1545 Bluebird Canyon Road opposes the project due to its mass and scale.
Peter Gorman of 1573 Bluebird Canyon Road opposes the project due to its height, mass and square footage.
Rebuttal: Mr. David Dyrnaes provided the rebuttal and stated the project is fully code compliant and has no variances or view or privacy impacts on any properties.
Board Questions: Mr. Weil asked about the stairway discrepancy shown on the plan.
Mr. Parker stated that the stairway has been removed.
Mr. Donegan stated the agenda requirement is simply the notice to the public of a description of what may or may not be discussed and this exhibit may not be exactly what is on the other plans.
Ms. Coveny asked if the ADU was attached to the loft. Mr. Parker stated that the loft is a part of the main home and physically separated and is not accessible from the ADU.
Chair Gibbs closed the public hearing
Board Comments: Chair Gibbs stated this should have been a major redesign from the previous design considered in January and that was not accomplished. The location of the building, the driveway and garage are all contributing factors to the mass and scale.
Chair Gibbs indicated he feels the project would meet the CEQA exemption after a discussion with staff provided the added conditions introduced by staff during the meeting that protect the road.
Chair Gibbs stated the proposed development would not be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas which CDP criteria #4 requires. The development is too large and too tall and not terraced enough. He further stated the natural landforms and coastal slopes are not preserved and is not convinced that a garage at street level does not work. He read and CDP criteria #5 and questioned whether it could meet it.
Minutes of the Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 14 - Meeting of May 22, 2025 To gain his approval the mass and height should be reduced particularly at the top level and reduce the top story deck to preserve privacy and terrace more into the hillside and consider placing the garage at street level. He discussed a variety of ways to redesign the project to reduce mass and meet the necessary findings and criteria.
Chair Gibbs would also like to see a construction staging plan. Mr. Donegan stated a staging plan would only be in a draft form; Chair Gibbs withdrew his request for a staging plan.
Mr. Bauta reviewed the January meeting via video and believes substantial changes were made and does not see placing the garage at street level reduces mass and scale.
He asked staff to present the section drawings and discussed potential garage changes and how it might affect mass, scale and grading. He indicated there is substantial terracing of the project. He indicated the project siting can be found compatible and noted no significant privacy issue. He also stated the 4 trees in front adds a level of privacy and is a good aesthetic for the neighborhood along with the vines and can approve the project tonight.
Ms. Gannon concurred with Mr. Bauta. She supports the added safety of the long driveway. She indicated that having the driveway on the street creates added mass and scale. She indicated the color and materials are perfect for the neighborhood. Three stories is compatible, no view equity issues, landscaping is adequate and lessens the impact of the scale. The project would beautify the neighborhood. She suggested a privacy barrier for the spa as suggested by Board member Bauta. She suggested adding a condition of approval to have the engineered glass that keeps the light from protruding out.
Ms. Coveny is concerned with the mass and scale. She noted a few design components that affect mass and scale including the placement of the home along with the retaining walls. She indicated that more grading might be necessary to reduce mass and scale.
She believes there may be a ridge to be protected here. She suggested lowering the roof ridge relative to the ridge but wasn’t sure how to affect that. She discussed the encroachment permit indicating that she didn’t agree with the siting of the house to begin with and the walls in the right-of-way were not essential. She noted the amount of glazing was not reduced sufficiently from the prior proposal and there being a potential issue there at night. She was concerned about the loft to access the above the second-floor deck and it adds mass.
Mr. Weil read an excerpt of the Municipal Code regarding Design Review process for context. He indicated his open-mindedness through his evaluation. He indicated access was a significant concern. He discussed the street width suggested a 24-foot street width similar other portions of Bluebird Canyon. He thinks the variable height from the finished street level to the finished floor of the garage needs to be lowered. Building higher on the lot creates privacy issues. He could not make the CDP findings based on the current design. The shared emergency access stair link the two side-by-side projects.
Mr. Weil asked for a more creative design as there is an approval project in size for the Minutes of the Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 15 - Meeting of May 22, 2025 size of the lot in there. He is asking for a much more significant redesign and to move the spa to a less impactful location. He does not see a significant view issue even factoring in future abutting. Access is a problem and is not compatible with the neighborhood. He supports a continuance provided a good faith effort to by the applicant to respond to Board comments.
Chair Gibbs agreed with Mr. Weil’s comments and is concerned about the elements including the long driveway, the retaining walls in the right-of-way and an issue with the findings for the CDP in that it is not visually compatible with the area. The project needs a grading solution pushing the project down and into the slope. The retaining walls in the encroachment permit area requires compromise and a creative solution. He indicated the project was repackaged and not redesigned since the first hearing.
Mr. Gibbs indicated he sees two Board members what would approve the project and three that would not and that he thought there might be several added conditions based on Board Member comments should the project move forward.
Mr. Weil asked the applicant if it is in his interest to redesign the project in good faith compliance with Board comments for get to a third hearing? Chair Gibbs asked the applicant if they wanted a third hearing if you will redesign in good faith?
The applicant indicated the Board hasn’t defined with is creative. He indicated there is likely no solution to address Board comments that doesn’t negatively impact the program. He said you can continue it, but he doesn’t see how he can comply with Board direction without doing something like removing the ADU completely. He reiterated his belief that the building pad is at the top of the hill. A garage at the street would require stairs and paths that would impact the hill.
Chair Gibbs indicated he would describe what he thought was the consensus of the Board if the applicant would go back and redesign in good faith for a third hearing. He noted the applicant is not entitled to a third hearing. He noted the choice would be the applicant’s and if the applicant doesn’t want a third hearing, the Board could vote to either approve or deny the project. Chair Gibbs then described what he thought was the consensus of the Board as to reducing the height and scale of the project and to address access (e.g. a straight level garage at the street or a lowered garage with a driveway without the elevated driveway or retaining walls in the public right-of-way).
Mr. Bauta suggested asking the applicant what they would be prepared to do in terms of a redesign so the Board could provide more clarity. Chair Gibbs indicated that was not his preference to get into abstract changes without seeing the full redesign. Chair Gibbs indicated his belief that the redesign needs to be substantial from the current proposal.
Ms. Coveny asked if there was a reduction in height based on the ridge height that could be suggested. Chair Gibbs indicated he did not have a specific height and other Minutes of the Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 16 - Meeting of May 22, 2025 Board members could differ. Chair Gibbs identified what he thought the issues were to get a consensus to approve.
The applicant requested a moment to consider.
The meeting was recessed for 5 minutes with an admonishment from Assistant City Attorney Donegan to Board members not to discuss the project during the recess.
The meeting was reconvened by the Chair.
The applicant responded that he felt the Board’s comments were a veiled attempt to not allow the project to be constructed on top of the knoll. He appreciates the comments and concerns, but he can only build atop the knoll. He would not change the siting of the home and if he built the garage at the street, it would be harmful to safety and harm his interest in the property. He indicated he appreciated and respects Board comments, but he did not see a material change that would satisfy Board direction. He further requested as much consideration as the Board could grant and to vote your conscience.
Mr. Bauta requested further deliberations and suggested the project could be approved subject to conditions. Chair Gibbs indicated he needs to see a comprehensive redesign rather than approve it with conditions.
Mr. Weil indicated he felt there may be a misunderstanding on the applicant’s part. Mr.
Weil indicate he can respect the setbacks and buildable area of the lot and there is a way to meet the applicable criteria, but the way the project is designed now doesn’t meet the criteria.
Ms. Coveny agreed with Mr. Weil, and we need to see a redesign rather than attempt to condition an approval.
Chair Gibbs indicated he agreed with his colleagues, especially with Mr. Weil’s comments about respecting the buildable area, noting he felt the Board was not saying you cannot build on the flat area on the top of the lot.
Chair Gibbs again asked the applicant if they wanted a continuance to redesign.
The applicant indicated, vote your conscience.
Interim Planning Manager Campbell indicated that it would be appropriate to direct staff to prepare a resolution for denial and to bring that back for adoption at the next meeting.
Chair Gibbs made a motion to continue the item to June 12, 2025, and Mr. Weil asked if this would be a vote to continue or a vote to deny. A discussion ensued about the nature of the motion.
Assistant City Donegan clarified the Board might not want to consider continuing the Minutes of the Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 17 - Meeting of May 22, 2025 public hearing to the next meeting as that would invite further comments on the project, but that it is up to the Board. Chair Gibbs agreed with that approach.
Assistant City Donegan clarified the discussion at the next meeting would be limited to the accuracy of the resolution for denial if that is the direction.
Chair Gibbs moved to direct staff to prepare a resolution for denial of the applications and place it on the consent calendar at the next Design Review meeting of June 12, 2025.
Mr. Weil second the motion.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Motion TG Second LW PREPARE RESOLUTION FOR DENIAL
Bauta __N__ Coveny __Y__ Gibbs ___Y___ Gannon ___N___ Weil ___Y___
6. OTHER BUSINESS
None.
7. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Gibbs at 10:07 p.m., Thursday, May 22, 2025, adjourned the meeting to the next regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board to be held at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 12, 2025, in the City Council Chambers in City Hall, 505 Forest Avenue, Laguna Beach, California.
Approved on July 10, 2025
Thomas Gibbs, Chair
Attest
Bill Rodrigues Planning Manager