From: Harpal Sadhal
To: Design Review Board
Cc: Balmer-Csira, Nancy CD
Subject: Joint Neighbor Letter re: Combining 1550/1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive DRB Review Date: Wednesday, May 14, 2025 11:35:43 AM
Attachments: SIGNED Joint Comment Letter - Combine Dyrnaes 1550 & 1560 Bluebird Projects - 5.13.25.pdf [NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Dear Chair Gibbs and DRB Board Members Bauta, Coveny, Gannon and Weil:
Attached is a joint letter signed by and equally on behalf of 14 property owners in the upper Bluebird Canyon area.
The letter is a humble request that for purposes of DRB review, this board and other relevant agencies within the City, combine the design review of 1550 and 1560 Bluebird Canyon drive.
Each project has gone through one DRB hearing thus far (Lot B on 1/23/25 and Lot A on 5/8/25) with virtually the same key feedback given. Further, the two projects, while separate lots, are clearly interconnected including but not limited to, reliance on shared stairs to satisfy fire access requirements.
The next DRB hearing for Lot B is scheduled for next Thursday 5/22 and we strongly encourage the two projects come back together, potentially on August 14, when Lot A was assigned a second hearing date.
Please review the attached and feel free to reach out to any of us for more perspective.
Respectfully,
Harpal Sadhal
A Letter on Behalf of Upper Bluebird Canyon Neighbors
_________________________________________________________________ May 13, 2025 Re: 1550 & 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive DRB Consolidation Dear Members of the City of Laguna Beach Design Review Board:
To the extent Mr. Dyrnaes continues processing 1550 (Lot A) and 1560 (Lot B) Bluebird Canyon Drive, we humbly request that going forward, the two designs are not piecemealed and be aptly evaluated together. DRB second hearings for Lot B and Lot A are respectively tracking for May 22 and August 14. Both should move to August 14 and include a composite site plan of the homes.
The two homes are very clearly interconnected: Lot B’s fire access plan relies on stairs on Lot A; same owner; same parcel split in two; same design challenges; and essentially the same design team.
Studying them separately is inefficient, confusing and churns already-limited Staff and DRB time.
Demand on neighbors’ time is also increased to absorb and understand the design features and their impacts, tracking changes and attending DRB hearings to make advocacy comments as part of the City’s prescribed process. Further there may possibly be valid legal reasons related to CEQA and the CDP.
Particularly illuminating is the virtually identical key issue design feedback this board has provided both homes since early 2025 (Lot B hearing January 23, 2025 and Lot A on May 8, 2025):
● Respect the Knoll: Design a home that terraces into the knoll vs. dominating it. ● Structure Mass and Scale: Currently mass and scale are too great and warrants reduction. Larger lot size doesn’t mean maximizing home size.
● Access: Proposed long driveways with retaining walls or better to have an at-grade garage? Is a shared driveway prudent and the ultimate solution and can the alternates be demonstrated? ● Privacy: Excessive window glazing and alignment with existing neighboring homes required re-work to minimize privacy encroachments.
● Unintended Cumulative Environmental Impacts: Bluebird Canyon roads are 3-ton weight-limited.
The average standard dump truck weighs ~12 tons when fully-loaded with soil (~13 cubic yards).
Considering Lots A + B would require >250 truck loads of soil export, would this traffic destabilize the road and/or damage existing homes below? Further engineering/testing is required to know.
Sincerely,
______________ Rosanne Beam ______________ ______________ ______________ Pamela Adams & David Duttenhofer Rosanne Beam Richard Beleya Joe Cover Mary & Clark Fegraus ______________ ______________ ______________ ______________ ______________ Vera Wilmot & Peter Grohmann William Horner Matt Kane Tim & Janet Kane Matt Lough ______________ ______________ ______________ ______________ ______________ Harpal Sadhal Mark & Kimberly Samuels Eileen Slora Susan Whitin Peggy Wolff Docusign Envelope ID: F470F755-5162-4B5D-BF57-AE07A5E5FCE9 WILLIAM R. CUMMING
DIRECT DIAL: (714) 754-0120
E-MAIL: [email protected]
3080 BR ISTOL STREET, SU ITE 630, COST A ME SA, CA 92626 TELEPH ONE: 714.432.6494 FACS IM ILE: 714.202.3162
WWW.CUM M IN GA ND AS SO CIATESL AW.C OM
FILE NO. 1944-1
May 15, 2025
VIA MAIL AND E-MAIL ([email protected])
Matthew Schneider
Assistant Director of Community Development
City of Laguna Beach
505 Forest Avenue
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
Dear Mr. Schneider:
On May 8, 2025, I personally attended the Design Review Board hearing that focused on David Dyrnaes’ request to build a home at 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive. The meeting was productive in that the board members had an opportunity to express their thoughts about the positives and negatives of the project. I was encouraged to hear that most board members believed a home could be built on top of the hill, but some adjustments might have to be made to get approval from the Design Review Board.
I was concerned about one aspect of the meeting, which is why I am writing this letter.
Many of the board members expressed concerns about the project and pointed to various reasons for their concerns that fell within both objective and subjective criteria.
For example, the board members discussed privacy issues, the potential glare from the windows, view equity concerns that presumably related to other neighbors, the length of the driveway, the size of the home and garage, the location of the spa, whether the road next to home could properly hold the trucks that will be used to move dirt during excavation, the lot next to 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive, whether the home is consistent with the overall feel of the community, the concerns of other neighbors, and other related issues.
The list of concerns was overwhelming and difficult to follow. Moreover, some of the concerns were seemingly raised for the first time and were never included in other staff reports.
In light of the above, it is important to remind the Design Review Board of its limitations when considering the project in light of SB 9 and SB 450.
Matthew Schneider
May 15, 2025
____________________________
These limitations have not been focused on in the past because Mr. Dyrnaes and his team have attempted to work with the Design Review Board to create a win-win situation. These efforts, however, have caused confusion, delays, and frustration to Mr. Dyrnaes and his team.
Let me explain the limitations in more detail.
SB 9 and SB 450 are directly related laws that work together to expand and protect the rights of homeowners seeking to build new homes, especially on lots previously zoned for single-family use, which is the case with Mr. Dyrnaes’ project.
SB 9 (signed in 2021, effective 2022) is known as the California Housing Opportunity and More Efficiency (HOME) Act. Generally, SB 9 allows homeowners to split a single-family residential lot into two lots (urban lot split) and build up to two housing units on each lot, enabling up to four homes where only one was previously allowed. SB 9 requires local governments to approve these projects ministerially (without discretionary review), but allows cities to impose objective standards (like setbacks or design rules) if they do not make projects infeasible.
After SB 9’s passage, many cities used loopholes by imposing strict or unique local standards, such as excessive setbacks, low height limits, or subjective design reviews, to effectively block SB 9 projects. This undermined the law’s intent to increase housing supply on single-family lots.
SB 450 (signed in 2024, effective January 1, 2025) was enacted specifically to address these local barriers and reinforce SB 9’s effectiveness. The key changes and protections introduced by SB 450 include:
1. Limits Local Authority: Cities can no longer impose standards on SB 9 projects that are not uniformly applied to all properties in the same zone.
2. Faster Approvals: Local governments must approve or deny SB 9 applications within 60 days and if they do not, the project is automatically approved.
3. Reduced Grounds for Denial: Denials can only be based on clear public health and safety risks and not vague or environmental pretexts.
4. State Oversight: The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) now has explicit authority to enforce compliance, giving applicants recourse if cities try to block projects.
In summary, SB 9 opened the door for new home construction on single-family lots, and SB 450 keeps that door open and prevents cities from quietly closing it again.
Together, these laws create a powerful framework for increasing housing supply by allowing more homes on existing lots and protecting applicants from local obstruction.
Matthew Schneider
May 15, 2025
____________________________
Now, let me address the “objective standards” the Design Review Board must follow when considering Mr. Dyrnaes’ project.
Objective standards are those that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant and public officials before submittal. Examples include measurable requirements like specific setbacks, height limits, lot coverage, or unit size.
Key Requirements for cities include:
1. Consistency: Standards must be consistent across all properties in the same zoning district, and cities cannot create SB 9 specific restrictions that do not apply to other similar developments.
2. No Discretionary Review: All approvals must be ministerial (by right), with no subjective or discretionary review processes.
3. Timeliness: Under SB 450, cities must approve or deny SB 9 applications within 60 days.
Some examples of permissible objective standards include:
1. Minimum lot size (as long as it does not preclude SB 9 projects).
2. Setback requirements.
3. Height limits.
4. Lot coverage ratios.
5. Parking requirements (within state limits).
6. Design standards that are clearly measurable and uniformly applied.
What cities cannot do include:
1. Impose subjective design review or require discretionary permits.
2. Create additional or more restrictive standards targeted solely at SB 9 projects.
3. Use objective standards to effectively block all SB 9 development.
The following identifies the objective criteria that apply to this project and explains why the project meets those objective criteria (specific to Lot B/1560 BCD, but most apply equally to 1550 BCD).
No. Description of Objective
Criteria
Why Meets Objective Criteria Meets
Objective
Criteria
1. City Municipal Code – Lot
Line Setbacks
• The Zoning Plan Check verified are code
compliant.
• Reduced 5-foot front setback not possible
due to driveway width.
Yes
Matthew Schneider
May 15, 2025
____________________________
No. Description of Objective
Criteria
Why Meets Objective Criteria Meets
Objective
Criteria
2. City Municipal Code – Home
Height
The Zoning Plan Check verified are code
compliant.
Yes
3. City Municipal Code – Lot Size The Zoning Plan Check verified are code compliant.
Yes
4. (Prior) City Municipal Code -
Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
• Old Max 50% FAR no longer in effect.
• Client conducted local neighborhood
FAR assessment of 15 homes:
Application of 40% FAR is lower than
average 41% FAR on 1500/1600 BCD
Yes
Much of the focus of the Design Review Board’s analysis and discussion relates to whether the “project design” is consistent with the pattern of development within the community. As discussed above, these types of issues are subjective criteria and can no longer be relied upon, given the change in the law. However, Mr. Dyrnaes and his team are sensitive to these issues and want to be helpful.
To demonstrate this point, the following identifies “subjective criteria” outside the scope of SB 9 and SB 450 that the Design Review Board has raised in the past and explains why the project meets the subjective criteria.
No. Description of Subjective
Criteria
Why The Project Meets Subjective Criteria
1. Privacy & View Equity • 1560 BCD bordered by empty lots and already consider future privacy in design.
• Design create minimizes noise and mass/scale impact
to 1500 Block BCD by hilltop home/garage
placement.
• Morningside Drive homes are downhill and have no
privacy impact or claim.
2. Neighborhood Compatibility:
Home Size
• Main home of 2,443 is 28.5% FAR and below 41%
average (even with 1000 SF ADU)
• 94% of home is on 1st floor at 505’ elevation.
3. Neighborhood Compatibility:
Home Placement/Siting
• 50% of buildable, in-setback area is located on top of hill above 504’ elevation.
• All 3 existing homes on south ridgeline are on top of hill (1540 BCD & 1480, 1486 MD)
• 2 of the 3 existing homes are 2 story. 1540 BCD is 1
story with over 3000 SF lot coverage on hill top.
• Recent 1536 MD approval 4 story home projects up
hill to beyond/513.4’ elevation (height of 1560 BCD
1 st floor roofline)
Matthew Schneider
May 15, 2025
____________________________
No. Description of Subjective
Criteria
Why The Project Meets Subjective Criteria
4. Neighborhood Compatibility:
Garage Placement/Siting
• Terraced into the hill on grade below main home’s 1st floor (at 492’) fully compliant general plan and
hillside guidelines.
• Not located at street due to violating ingress/egress on narrow street, requirement for excessive grading &
dirt export, increased appearance of mass & scale and
separation from main home site.
5. Neighborhood Compatibility:
Access – Use of Right-of-Way
• +7’ vertical transition by on-grade driveway onto lot is over Right of Way consistent with neighboring 3
homes that all share steep vertical transition from road caused by RoW slope.
• 1540, 1545, 1565 BCD all transition 8’-10’ in vertical elevation across Right-of-Way to access property and
buildable lot area within established setbacks.
6. Neighborhood Compatibility:
Access – On-grade Driveway
• 150’ driveway transitioning +17’ from highest point
on street (475’ elevation) to lowest point on setback
for accessible garage placement (492’ elevation) is
consistent with 3 neighboring homes sharing
excessive vertical transition from street to buildable
lot setback area.
• 1540 BCD, 1313 & 1339 MD are the only 3 existing
homes in the immediate area that share the same >13’
uphill transition and all have long uphill driveways
(not shared) and all >20% slope (non-code compliant)
while 1560 BCD is fully code compliant and <14%
slope.
• Construction of retaining walls, grading and in-ground caissons all designed per city reviewed and cleared
Geotechnical report to ensure hillside safety.
7. Neighborhood Compatibility:
Style of Home
• Fully redesigned to craftsman style with 20% less
glazing and ADU addition.
8. Neighborhood Compatibility:
Landscaping
• Fully reviewed and approved through the city for
Landscaping Code, Fire Code, and with supplemental
Fire Safety AM&M review & mitigation measures
added and cleared by Building & Fire.
• Fire Safety measures fully mitigate Very High Fire
Zone exception under SB 9 for Ministerial review
qualification.
9. Neighborhood Compatibility:
Density Increase
• Lot, as graded in 1938, has been designated a single
family home building site consistently through 5
separate lot line adjustments and is included in all
existing area density calculations.
Matthew Schneider
May 15, 2025
____________________________
In closing, if the Design Review Board believes there are more objective criteria to consider, we are happy to add to the list above. Moreover, if the Design Review Board believes the conclusions in the “objective chart” above are inaccurate, please let us know. This would need to take the form of objective and verifiable alternatives or corrections that have already been uniformly applied to other recently approved lots, including 1536 MD.
Moving forward, we are asserting our rights under SB 9 and SB 450 and now demand that the Design Review Board follow the law and only consider the objective criteria above, and no longer rely on any subjective criteria. So, the next staff report should only focus on the objective criteria above.
The overall goal is to ensure all parties are focused on a limited number of objective standards.
Mr. Dyrnaes and his team want to and intend to work with the Design Review Board in good faith and collaborate to reach an agreed-upon resolution to allow Mr. Dyrnaes to build the home a family has dreamed about for decades.
We appreciate the time and attention the Design Review Board has already given to the project. We are hopeful that with a change of focus, as discussed above, we can move forward quickly and efficiently.
Finally, Mr. Dyrnaes retained the law firm of Cox, Castle & Nicholson because the firm focuses on land use issues and has extensive experience in dealing with the City of Laguna Beach. So, moving forward, I anticipate you will receive correspondence from the firm.
Thank you,
William R. Cumming
Cumming & Associates, APLC
WRC:sd
cc: David Dyrnaes
Sean Matsler (attorney at Cox, Castle & Nicholson)
Morgan Gallagher (attorney at Cox, Castle & Nicholson)
Megan Garibaldi, City Attorney
David Contreras, Community Development Director
www.coxcastle.com Los Angeles | Orange County | San Francisco Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP
3121 Michelson Drive, Suite 200
Irvine, California 92612-5678
P: 949.260.4600 F: 949.260.4699
Morgan L. Gallagher
949.260.4674
[email protected]
May 15, 2025
Megan Garibaldi
City Attorney
City of Laguna Beach
505 Forest Avenue
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
Re: 1550 and 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive
Ms. Garibaldi:
We represent the Dyrnaes family with respect to two proposed single-family homes (“Project”) on property located at 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive (“Lot A”) and 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive (“Lot B”) in the City of Laguna Beach (“Property”). We understand a Design Review Board Staff Report will be published this afternoon for Lot B. The purpose of this letter is to strongly urge the City to (i) apply only objective criteria to the Project in the Staff Report as required by California law and (ii) recommend approval of Lot B to the Board in the Staff Report as required by California law.
Up to this point, the Dyrnaes family has chosen to follow the typical DRB process, even though the Project qualifies for ministerial review, in the hopes that the City would comply with their legal responsibilities and provide reasonably objective feedback. That does not appear to be the case. If the City continues to delay the Project and impose subjective criteria on the Project, the Dyrnaes family will assert their rights under Senate Bill (“SB”) 9, as amended by SB 450 (hereafter collectively referred to as “SB 450”), which is set forth in Government Code Section 65852.21(a)(1) through (5).
In relevant part, SB 450 provides a streamlined, ministerial approval process for qualifying projects of two or fewer residential units that limits the City’s discretion to deny or conditionally approve such projects. This Project meets the eligibility criteria for SB 4501.
Pursuant to SB 450, “a proposed housing development containing no more than two residential units within a single-family residential zone shall be considered ministerially, 1 SB 450 requires eligible projects to be outside very high fire hazard severity zones unless fire hazard mitigation measures pursuant to existing building standards or state fire mitigation measures applicable to the development have been adopted. (Gov. Code § 65913.4(a)(6)(D).) The Property is within a very high fire hazard severity zone.
However, fire hazard mitigation measures have been approved in a Fire Safety AM&M Report to the satisfaction of the City’s Building and Fire Departments. As noted in the January 23, 2025 DRB Staff Report for Lot B, an SB 9 lot split was approved by the City in 2024, illustrating the Property’s eligibility.
May 15, 2025
without discretionary review or a hearing, if the proposed housing development meets all of the” listed eligibility requirements. (Emphasis added.) “An application for a proposed housing development” under SB 450 “shall be considered and approved or denied within 60 days from the date the local agency receives a completed application” and if the local agency fails to approve or deny the application within 60 days, “the application shall be deemed approved.” An agency may only deny a project that qualifies for SB 450 if the project would have a specific, adverse impact on public health and safety with no feasible mitigation. The agency’s determination must be based on written findings and a preponderance of the evidence. This Project would not have any health and safety impacts.
SB 450 limits applicable standards to only objective standards that do not conflict with SB 450. Applicable objective standards are defined to “mean standards that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant… and the public official prior to submittal.” (Gov. Code § 65852.21(j)(2).) SB 450 prohibits an agency from imposing any subjective standards.
The Project is fully Code-compliant and meets all applicable objective standards. As such, the City will exceed the bounds of SB 450 if the Staff Report includes subjective standards or if it does not recommend approval of the Project. The City’s January 23, 2025 Staff Report for Lot B concluded that Design Review findings could not be met, and based that conclusion on subjective and unsupported statements that were not uniformly applied to similarly situated projects. Below are some of the many examples of subjective standards contained in the Staff Report:
“The applicant should consider alternative designs that site the home closer to the street and reorients the garage entry to eliminate the long driveway which would reduce the number of retaining walls and fourth level.” o This is a subjective personal preference by staff, not a uniformly verifiable standard. It is also an inaccurate depiction of the Project (i.e., a “fourth level”).
o There is no possibility of considering alternative designs. The Project as sited meets all objective criteria.
“[T]he massing is out of scale with the neighborhood.” o This statement is a subjective personal judgment by staff of what is “out of scale.” It is not uniformly verifiable and has not been uniformly applied to other similarly situated properties.
o The owner has made attempts to reduce the massing and scale of the Project by siting it back on the lot, despite staff’s subjective comments.
May 15, 2025
“Staff recommends that the Board consider requiring additional landscaping specifically trees to soften and enhance the retaining walls, building mass, and setting.”
o No objective standard is cited. This is a subjective preference by staff that is not uniformly verifiable.
o The owner has extensively redesigned the landscaping, despite the subjective nature of the comment.
Staff’s actions in January are directly contrary to the mandate of SB 450 and should not be repeated in the Staff Report published later today. In addition, staff should not include the subjective CDP findings that were included in the recent Lot A Staff Report in today’s Lot B Staff Report. Attempts to shift the subjective Design Review comments to CDP comments would be improper under SB 450. We urge the City to review the recent staff report for 1536 Bluebird Canyon Drive that has many parallels to the Project. All standards that were applied to 1536 Bluebird Canyon Drive should be consistently applied to the Project. The bounds of the standards applied to 1536 Bluebird Canyon Drive are the limits of what can be applied to the Project. Staff cannot introduce any new standards. In addition to the mandates of SB 450, the Project must be approved under the Housing Accountability Act. The Housing Accountability Act states that a project for residential uses only (Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(2)(A)), such as this Project, is subject to only “objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete” (id, subd. (j)(l)). “Objective” means “involving no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and being uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official.” (Id., subd. (h)(8).) As noted above, the Project complies with all objective standards that are uniformly verifiable by reference to external benchmarks. There are no health and safety issues that would allow the City to ignore the Housing Accountability Act’s directive to approve the Project.
Our client has spent countless hours and a substantial amount of money in an effort to be cooperative. He underwent a major redesign of the Project to try to satisfy the City’s subjective preferences. Unfortunately, the City has continued to assert subjective, unsupported, and conflicting statements, and has continually delayed the Project, rather than following the mandates of California law. If the City includes subjective standards in its May 15, 2025 Staff Report or fails to recommend approval of the Project, our client will have no choice but to exercise the full extent of his legal rights.
We appreciate the City’s attention to this important matter.
May 15, 2025
Sincerely,
Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP
Morgan L. Gallagher
Cc: David Contreras, Community Development Director
Matthew Schneider, Assistant Director of Community Development Jane Abzug, Assistant City Attorney
Bill Cumming, Cumming & Associates
Sean Matsler, Cox Castle
!"
#
#
$%
&'
&'
#
(
)
$
* +
,&-# $ $ $$%.-/
0
*
/
#"#
)
1
,
2
34
3
#
!
#
!
5678869:;8<:<=>?#"
.
3@
#
34
#
"
ABCDECFGHIJKLMNNOBNNPLMQHRJSH KJCHHJJFDTUFORVWMXVYNHCFVQLVP*
( /
Z#
2
34
[4"
#
#
*
!/\34
]
,&-
^
_34*`abcdcef/
gh8i:jh:klmn87opp7mnjqrst.
3*
&
$].-/#
@
u
v#&
wu
#w
\?\3
##
,
u
#
!
#
! # "
!
*
"
x
/
y7zi:jh:{r|:8}~pj6lqj:s.
3
]
*
?2^0`abcdce
/#
"
wt-#
+!
*`abcdce/#
"
w t-
t-
#
t-#
" !
+*
/
?#
3 &
ymm<=87iopp7mn8;s! #.
3
&
-3,_
!
* "
/
" @
$*`abcdce/
4
.
3
&
$
+
"
lm<qr:m<s4
#
!
4
,&-
?-
##
2
4
# !*
/#
+
!
*
/#
]
,&--3
*
\u/
!
u$
*
\/
!
!
"
#$%
&
'(()*
+,
"
'-,
&
.
/
0
1
0
2
0
1
3
3
3
)
$
$
4567879:;
4567879<;
I’d also point out that in granting the requested Revocable Encroachment Permit, the Board should consider maintaining the right-of-way area, clear of any permanent projections above the street grade (i.e. concrete retaining walls), in order to facilitate future street widening considerations in front of knoll properties abutting Bluebird Canyon Drive.
Sincerely,
Ed Riahi
Sadhal Family
_____________________________________________________________________ May 20, 2025
Dear Members of the Laguna Beach Design Review Board.
Direct Request: As property owners across from Lot B, we urge you to continue this item on May 22 to a future date to further provide the applicant repeated and perhaps clearer input to bring this project in line with the character of the neighborhood.
QUANTITATIVE / TECHNICAL ISSUES
Coastal Development Permit Findings Inadequate: Per LBMC 25.07.012, “A coastal development permit application may be approved or conditionally approved only after the approving authority has reviewed the development project and made all of the following findings”. Findings 5 and 6 are inadequate as follows:
● Finding No. 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.” ○ Discussion: The undue risk comes from exporting 1,400 cubic yards of soil specifically along Bluebird Canyon Drive, a cut/fill road known to be fragile and by the City Public Works’ own sign postings, is limited to 3-ton trucks (see below). Relevant questions: 1) If the City had finding to post 3-ton limit signs, how will the road immediately be able to support 4X more weight on an extended basis, without issue (average fully loaded dump truck weighs 12 tons x 110 trucks)? 2) Why not simply pause to verify this through focused geotechnical analysis and soil boring samples? 3) Is the City and/or the Owner willing to post a bond to cover potential damage from destabilization of Bluebird Canyon Road and damage to the many homes below? Exhibit 1: Photo at Bluebird / Rancho Laguna - “No Trucks Over 3 Tons” Sadhal Family
_____________________________________________________________________ ● Finding No. 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.” ○ Discussion: The character of the homes along Bluebird Canyon Drive in this vicinity, are not 4-story in mass with 55-foot height from adjacent road grade (elev 472) to top-of-structure (elev 527). The owner/applicant claims the now-designated ADU is not part of “the project”, which might satisfy statutory check boxes, but the physical impacts to the neighborhood will be long-standing. Lot B’s total livable area results in a 40% FAR while the adjacent homes on Bluebird Canyon average 32% (more detail below).
If you have visited this site, consider being the person at the bottom of this rendering, looking up at the structure above, equivalent to a 5-story commercial building (11 foot floor-to-floor heights).
Exhibit 2: Lot B West Elevation (Sheet A 4.3 from Plan Set dated Feb 21, 2025) Project Scale/Mass (Floor-Area-Ratio): The proposed Lot B livable area floor-area-ratio is among the highest of the neighborhood comparables at 0.40 FAR of total livable space (3,443 SF on an 8,582 SF lot) compared to the neighborhood comparable average of 0.32 FAR and the only DRB-approved home on “the knoll” at 1536 Morningside at 0.23 FAR. This comparison includes the Lot B proposed top-floor ADU, which is a simple re-label of the same top floor proposed in the January plans; the mass/scale still conflict with the neighborhood scale and mass. An important point the owner missed in his analysis, is that he includes VERY SMALL lots in the FAR comparison, which inherently don’t scale the same way an 8,500 SF lot does, therefore the analysis should be normalized to remove lots smaller than 5,000 SF.
Sadhal Family
_____________________________________________________________________ Address Floor Area Lot Area Floor-Area-Ratio Year Built 1540 Bluebird Canyon Drive 1,900 12,197 16% 1940
1545 Bluebird Canyon Drive 2,850 7,150 40% 2008
1605 Bluebird Canyon Drive 3,241 10,320 31% 1973
1615 Bluebird Canyon Drive 1,893 9,625 20% 1973
1619 Bluebird Canyon Drive 3,199 9,583 33% 1999
1635 Bluebird Canyon Drive 3,954 7,800 51% 1974
1649 Bluebird Canyon Drive 3,110 10,005 31% 1977
1657 Bluebird Canyon Drive 3,306 10,000 33% 1975
1663 Bluebird Canyon Drive 3,708 9,240 40% 1976
1675 Bluebird Canyon Drive 2,034 9,149 22% 1973
Average Existing Neighbor FAR - - 32% -
1536 Morningside Drive
(Cover Home / DRB Approved) 3,219 13,866 23% -
1560 (Lot B) Bluebird Canyon
(Proposed Project) 3,443 8,582 40%
Road Width: In front of Lot B, Bluebird Canyon is 18 feet wide. Even with the proposed 2 foot expansion, 20 feet is very narrow. A standard dump truck is 10 feet wide, leaving only 10 feet for work activity to occur along the hillside and allow other vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians to safely pass; there are no bypass streets here.
Exhibit 3: Photo Simulation - 18 Foot Width of Bluebird Canyon at Lot B Edge Sadhal Family
_____________________________________________________________________
QUALITATIVE ISSUES
1. No Significant Changes to the Project: Page 5 of the 5/22 Lot B staff report has a table comparing 16 statistical metrics of the project between the 1/23 and 5/22 DRB. 13 of the 16 (80%) of metrics show no material change including access, house siting, total program SF and building site coverage.
We find this odd because in January, three of the five DRB board members (60%) directed a full redesign of the Lot B project. As a result, the Board voted unanimously (100%) to continue the project to a date uncertain. It is not possible that the project would now be approvable with two simple changes: 1) calling the top floor an ADU; and 2) re-imaging the house fascia.
The project is returning to DRB now virtually unchanged and without the additional study information requested to satisfy the Board’s questions, including but not limited to:
○ Pros/cons of a 150’ long driveway + large retaining walls vs. lowering the garage to street level ○ Reducing mass and scale to avoid dominating the knoll and neighborhood ○ Resolving privacy, light/glare and glazing issues
Further, the tone of the January vs. current staff reports is dramatically different, coinciding with a mid-project change of case planner for Lot B. The change is questionable, particularly when considering this current report is much more accepting of the design, containing many statements relying on the owner’s insistence on design preferences or requirements, not independently verified/investigated (e.g. “Applicant contends” & “Applicant prefers”).
2. Indirect Access Allowed or Not Allowed?: The staff report appears to contain conflicting information which we are raising for discussion/satisfaction pertaining to how a shared driveway may violate LBMC.
LBMC 25.08.002 states “Access, Indirect: means access, as defined above ["Access" means the place, means or way by which vehicles shall have safe, adequate and usable ingress and egress to a property and/or use as required by this title]; located so as to provide access to a building site across a lot line which is not contiguous to a street or alley at the point of crossing.” a. A shared driveway between Lots A and B, if placed correctly, does not seem to violate this. b. A shared driveway may reduce required soil export, but hasn’t been demonstrated. c. Possibly, different but we raise the point that Lot B has shared (indirect) access stairs with Lot A for fire access, yet those are not being cited as problematic. Is it a matter of convenience? Sadhal Family
_____________________________________________________________________
3. Top Floor ADU Designation: Classifying the upper floor as an ADU is a clear attempted end run around City of Laguna Beach regulations and the design process using State of CA statute to skirt intended review. While potentially legal, this move is not right and underscores that to the owner, this neighborhood and its residents are something to conquer, similar to treatment of the knoll - maximizing vs. respecting; extracting financial value from the land vs. trying to design something integrated and tasteful. What’s now called an ADU is identical to the top floor presented on 1/23/25 except with “ADU” written on the plans adding a kitchenette, which demonstrates this space was always proposed for inclusion and is not truly creating new housing opportunities under the intended ADU law.
4. ADU Impact on Overall Structure/Program: If a top floor 1,000 SF master suite ADU is desired, we request DRB guide the applicant to reduce the scale of the lower floor structures in square footage and height. Again, the same total structure is unchanged and therefore presents the same issues as in January - it’s too massive and does not terrace into the hillside as directed. An ADU designation is not contested if legal, but the “balloon” cannot simply be squeezed to move air from one side to the other - it needs to be deflated and reduced in size; otherwise it’s a technical dodging the design issues. Let’s allow this structure to be harmonious with the scale appropriate for the neighborhood and site.
Sincerely,
Harpal and Shaheen Sadhal
Sadhal Family
_____________________________________________________________________ APPENDIX A: SUMMARY OF LOT B JANUARY 23, 2025 DRB MEMBER PROJECT COMMENTS Board Member 1/23/25 Comments re: Lot B Addressed in
5/22 Design?
Coveny
● Current Lot B design is a bad project, which is attacking the knoll and it’s unsettling. Opportunity is to stagger the home up the knoll, not just maximize building on the top.
No
● Has 3 story concrete pathway up to glazed stucco large home. Partial - less stucco
● Doesn’t feel like the applicant is looking out for Bluebird community given the proposed home is trying to capture every possible view. No Gibbs
● This house is not characteristic of Bluebird Canyon or Temple Hills.
Cannot put a massive structure like this in a neighborhood that doesn’t have precedent. What’s presented today just doesn’t work.
No
● Retaining walls are huge and meandering. Drive around Bluebird Canyon and Temple Hills and you won't find a house of this massing. No ● Need to start from scratch, essentially...thinks the lot is developable, though...but needs a lot more consideration. No
● 150' long driveway likely doesn't work on such a steep hill because of retaining walls and confronting building face. Garage needs to be on the street level and bring the house height down.
No
● City needs to get involved with some type of coordinated plan for all the development on the knoll. No
● Construction staging plan needs to be part of the next come-back presentation b/c this will be highly disruptive to the neighbors. No Weil
● Property access has been derived and is a function of maximizing the home size which is the tail wagging the dog. Driveway is 3X longer than really needed.
No
● Structure height is too tall No
● Environmental context is wrong, glazing is wrong, height is wrong and neighborhood compatibility is wrong. No
● Project requires a full redo and table the project to a date uncertain. No Thalman
● Applicant has to start over from scratch. No
● Driveway is too long but may be safer than backing into street. No ● Too much decking No - only 6%
reduction
Gannon ● Supports driveway with one switchback, although consider putting garage lower on the hillside even though that requires a variance No Sadhal Family
_____________________________________________________________________ APPENDIX B: COMMENTS/QUESTIONS/ISSUES WITH 5/22/25 LOT B STAFF REPORT STATEMENTS Staff Report Statement Comment
was reduced from 3600 s.f. to 2443 s.f.
The true reduction in living space on Lot B is 155 SF.
While the ADU may not be part of DRB’s review
scope, it still remains livable area on Lot B. The
proposed Dyrnaes home results in a 0.40 FAR
(3,443 SF of livable space on a 8,582 SF lot) while
the immediate neighborhood average is 0.32
(normalizing for lot-scale issues, taking lots >5,000
SF). DRB has cited a preference for the Cover’s
recently approved home which has a 0.23 FAR
(3,219 SF of livable space, including ADU, on a
13,866 SF lot).
upper level has been reduced from 1,359 s.f. to 147
s.f.
Again, this is an ADU semantics issue and the true
livable area was not reduced and remains effectively
the same intensity on Lot B.
or -234 SF.
This is an illustrative point that the intensity of the program is truly unchanged on Lot B. A statutory
separation of an ADU from the main house doesn’t
lessen the impact to the neighborhood or mitigate the
previous issues of mass/scale through semantics.
dwelling to the upper floor ADU
Incorrect. Plan Sheet A 1.2 shows interior connecting
stairs from the lower level up to the top level. While it may connect to a loft, this is a clear end-run /
technicality to skirt the ADU access. The loft has a
slider access to the deck, which then opens to the
ADU space - not separate in the spirit and intent of
how an ADU should function.
driveway and garage location
DRB has asked, on Lot B and Lot A, for the applicant
to present alternative driveway studies including
bringing the garage down to the street level - these
studies have not been presented for consideration,
instead insists without verification, that it is best.
street-level access may create more grading export
and bring the building closer to the street
Studying and presenting this option would be good
for DRB and the community to understand the
trade-offs.
does add to the overall mass of the project. However,
thoughtful design and landscaping can soften the
aesthetic….at full maturity
Reaching full maturity of landscape and trees can
take years and may be hampered by the
south-facing nature of the project and sun exposure.
Until that future point, the appearance will be jarring.
May 20 2025
Laguna Beach Design Review Board
505 Forest Avenue
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
Re: 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive (Lot B) — Request for Continuance and Substantial Redesign Dear Chair and Members of the Board,
I am William Horner, owner-occupant of , directly below the “knoll” that contains Lots A and B. I write in advance of your 22 May hearing to reiterate, and expand upon, the concerns raised in January. Although the applicant has re-submitted for Lot B, the design before you is materially unchanged; it still conflicts with multiple mandatory findings of the City’s Design Guidelines and the Coastal Act.
In the interest of procedural efficiency and neighborhood consideration, I respectfully request that the Board
1. Continue the item until the applicant provides a bona-fide redesign that addresses your prior direction; and
2. Hear Lots A & B together so that cumulative impacts to the knoll and Bluebird Canyon Drive can be evaluated in a coordinated manner.
By setting a clear expectation now, the Board will avoid piecemeal approvals, reduce litigation risk, and demonstrate consistency with the Coastal Commission’s mandate for comprehensive review of related coastal developments.
1) Coastal Development Permit Findings 5 & 6 Are Not
Met
Finding 5 — Protection of Natural Landforms & Hazards
● Mass earth export (≈1,400 c.y.) requires roughly 110 fully-loaded 12-ton trucks on a roadway posted for a 3-ton limit, resulting in the Swiss cheesing of a significant topographical feature spanning the entire north frontage of our stretch of Bluebird, as well as introducing unknowable and unacceptable slope-failure risk to downhill homes.. ● Practicable alternatives—such as a shorter shared driveway or a street-level garage—have not been provided for scrutiny, contrary to LBMC 25.07.012 and Coastal Act §30253 as well as direction from DRB in January. Applicant conceded at the latest neighborhood meeting, when pressed, that his refusal to consider a shared driveway was based on his personal preference. Let’s get some creative ideas on the board for a shared driveway, even if it requires a variance to start the drive from the upslope end of the street.
Finding 6 — Visual Compatibility
● The structure stands ≈55 ft above road grade, giving the appearance of a four+ story building when viewed from the public way.
● At 0.40 FAR, it exceeds the comparable Bluebird Canyon average of 0.32 FAR and nearly doubles the only DRB-approved residence already on the knoll (0.23 FAR at 1536 Morningside).
● Minor siding changes and added landscaping do not mitigate the excessive massing, glazing, or unarticulated multi-story wall plane.
Because both findings are mandatory, the Board lacks discretion to approve the project in its present form.
2) Neighborhood Compatibility, Scale & Privacy
The applicant’s comparison table (Staff Report, 5 May) shows 13 of 16 quantitative metrics unchanged since January, including siting, building footprint, height, glazing, and the 150-ft switch-back driveway.
The upper-level floor area has simply been relabeled an ADU; no habitable square footage has been removed. This semantic device leaves bulk, overlook, and nighttime light spill intact.
Your January minutes reflect unanimous direction that the project be “started over from scratch,” “re-terraced into the hillside,” and “garage lowered to street level.” None of those directives has been met.
3) Access, Grading & Construction Logistics
Bluebird Canyon Drive is 18 ft wide along the frontage (20 ft after the proposed widening). A standard 10-ft dump truck would leave no more than 5 ft of clearance in total, blocking emergency vehicles and daily traffic.
No haul-route study, geotechnical borings, or staging plan—each requested by DRB members—has been provided. In past projects, contractor vehicles have damaged retaining walls and pavement; the proposed export volume magnifies those risks. 4) for a Coordinated Review of Lots A & B
Both lots share the same promontory, use overlapping access, and create cumulative impacts in grading, traffic, and visual bulk. Hearing them separately frustrates Coastal Act §30604(c) requirements for cumulative-impact analysis and invites piecemeal findings.
I therefore urge the Board to process the two applications together—or, at minimum, to condition any action so that no grading or building permit for Lot B is issued until a joint evaluation of Lots A and B is complete.
5) Community Engagement, Good Faith & Precedent
For more than five months, neighbors have invested hundreds of volunteer hours in site walks, technical plan reviews, written comments, and small-group meetings with the applicant’s team—always grounding our feedback in the Design Guidelines, LBMC standards, and the Coastal Act. The plans submitted today, however, contain only cosmetic tweaks (new siding swatches and a few shrubs), while the vast majority of quantitative metrics remain unchanged.
This confirms a fear we hoped was unfounded: that the outreach process was performative rather than substantive, aimed at “checking the box” rather than collaborating in good faith.
Such tactics erode goodwill and, if rewarded, will set a precedent that encourages applicants city-wide to exploit loopholes and legal intimidation to bypass Design Review.
Let me be clear: this project, as proposed, imposes significant and undue externalities on the neighborhood. Allowing bully tactics to prevail would abdicate the City’s duty to enforce democratically adopted standards. We therefore urge the Board—and, if necessary, the City Council and Coastal Commission—to use every available enforcement and appellate tool to ensure equitable, guideline-compliant outcomes.
6) Additional Concerns Carried Forward from January
● Privacy & Light – reduction in window area remain necessary. ● Noise – Two exterior condensers are still shown on the west wall; relocating them to the interior yard and fully enclosing them acoustically is essential. Eliminate the spa. ● Dark-Sky Compliance – Motion-activated, fully shielded fixtures and automated interior shades are indispensable to maintain Bluebird Canyon’s rural night character. ● Topographical impacts —, its elevated position magnifies the visual and environmental impacts described above.
7) Procedural Fairness & Appeal Rights
We recognize the applicant’s right to develop property, but that right is conditioned on meeting adopted standards. Approving a non-conforming design out of fear of litigation does not immunize the City. Any approval inconsistent with Findings 5 and 6 would be subject to appeal under LBMC §25.05, de novo review by the Coastal Commission, and potential judicial challenge by adversely affected residents. We prefer cooperation, not conflict, but we are fully prepared to exhaust administrative and judicial remedies to protect the neighborhood and the Coastal Zone.
Requested Actions
1. Continue the hearing and direct the applicant to submit a genuine redesign that:
○ Terraces the structure into the knoll,
○ Reduces FAR to comparable neighborhood norms (~0.23-0.30), ○ Lowers the garage to street grade or demonstrates an equally protective alternative,
○ Eliminates excess glazing and roof-deck mass, and height of the den to avoid privacy issues and light spillage and degradation of the topography. ○ Provides a haul-route/geotechnical study and a detailed construction-staging plan as well as enforceable protections for geotechnical impacts to homes down-slope.
2. Consolidate Lots A & B into a single future agenda item.
3. Require compliance with Coastal Development Permit Findings 5 & 6 through enforceable conditions, including bonding for potential slope failure.
Thank you for your continued stewardship of Laguna Beach’s irreplaceable coastal resources and topography and for demonstrating that the Coastal and Design Review process cannot be circumvented. I remain available for further dialogue.
Respectfully submitted,
William Horner
• Laguna Beach, CA 92651
1 Nasman, Jordan CD
From: Joe Cover
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2025 10:07 PM
To: Bauta, Imer <[email protected]>
Cc: Campbell, James CD <[email protected]>; Balmer-Csira, Nancy CD <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Comment Letter Regarding 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive (Lot B) [NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Hi Imer!
It was great meeting you yesterday. I apologize… I clicked the send button too quickly without including your email address on the list.
Please see below for the letter I just passed along to city staƯ and DRB.
Thank you!
Joe Cover
From: Joe Cover
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2025 10:05 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Gibbs, Thomas <[email protected]>; Gannon, Jessica <[email protected]>; Weil, Louis <[email protected]>; Mary Jo Coveny <[email protected]> Subject: Comment Letter Regarding 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive (Lot B) 2 Dear Design Review Board Members and City StaƯ,
Like many others in our neighborhood, I am now writing to address my family's concerns with the proposed project at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive Lot B that is on the agenda at the DRB meeting on Thursday, May 22th. We own the approved adjacent parcel of land to the north at . Again, in the spirit of transparency, I want to mention that the applicant appealed our DRB approval in the Spring of 2024, but city council recently voted to deny the appeal and to let our project go ahead as approved by DRB. This letter of concern is not meant to be retaliatory in any way, but similar to the proposed project for Lot A, the proposed Lot B structure has significant impacts and concerns for our family as we continue moving through the process for our adjacent home build. On a positive note, I do like the new wrapping and coloring of the proposed house compared to the design that was shown to us in the first hearing, so I appreciate that change. However, when I look at the initial plans side by side, that is about the only real upgrade I see.
The following are a couple of comments describing our concerns, many of which mirror concerns of Board members in the initial hearing the May 8th meeting for Lot A, that are relevant to this project as they cannot truly be separated from each other when understanding the impacts:
Relative Height on the Ridgeline – In the May 8th meeting regarding Lot A, Board Member Weil mentioned that the placement of the structures at the very top of the ridgeline is problematic. As many in the neighborhood have stated, this creates issues with the appearance of mass and scale, light pollution, sound pollution, and privacy.
Board Member Weil suggested that 1560 Bluebird structures should be pretty much in line with our approved plans at 1536 Morningside from a height perspective. For purposes of comparison, please note the following:
Highest Natural Lot
Elevation
Max. Structure Height
(Both inclusive and
Exclusive of ADU)
1536 Morningside 513.5’ 513.5’
1560 Bluebird Lot B 514’ 525’ +
The applicant contends that the ADU is not in scope of DRB per state law (although we believe the ADU is still subject to the findings required for issuance of a coastal development permit), however, there are still interior and exterior stairs that go from the first floor of the home to the second floor, that are disconnected from the ADU through a loft and a large elevated deck which are part of the main home. The finished floor height of the loft is 515’ with a roof elevation of somewhere close to 525’, and the large elevated deck is at an elevation of 516.25’ with railing that brings it up to 519.5’.
The loft that is adjacent to the ADU and the large elevated deck are within the zoning scope of DRB approval since they are not part of the ADU. Consistent with Board Member Weil’s concerns about the relative height of structures compared to the only approved plans on the knoll, the Board should require a lowering of the design elements in scope to be 10’ lower, and thereby consistent with our project at 1536 Morningside from the standpoint of maximum natural elevation compared to maximum building elevation. For purposes of comparison of the west facing deck of the Lot B project versus our west facing deck for 1536 Morningside, the second floor Lot B deck is at an elevation of 516.25’ which is 2’ higher than the maximum lot elevation, compared to the deck in our plans which is at 503’, or 10’ lower than the maximum elevation on our Morningside lot. In its current configuration, the Lot B project towers over the knoll and would command the center of attention on both Bluebird and Morningside streets. Moving the height of the project 10’ lower would also help mitigate concerns of mass and scale, alteration of natural landforms (from the driveway and related retaining walls), and neighborhood compatibility by disallowing the structure to tower over all other structures in the vicinity.
Privacy Concerns and Glazing – In addition to the height issues discussed above, glazing continues to be of concern, with insignificant change from the first hearing. There continues to be floor to ceiling windows on the 3 north side of the structure, both on the first floor as well as the ADU and surrounding the elevated deck. If the ADU is not in scope for discussion, then the deck and windows of the loft should be in scope, since they are not part of the ADU. There is significant glazing caused by the floor to ceiling windows that lead to the deck, as well as glass windows that are lining the deck. I would imagine substantial glare and light reflection each afternoon as the sun sets towards the west. The glazing should be reduced in areas that DRB is able to opine on, and the deck railing materials should be considered to help provide for extra privacy.
Spa Equipment/Noise Concerns – This is a concern that I wrote about related to the Lot A project. It is relevant for Lot B as well so I am going to keep in this letter as an ongoing concern. Having spent a significant amount of time on the knoll over the past few years, one of its most striking features is the sound, or lack thereof. It is simply bird chirping in the day and coyotes howling at night. It’s a refuge of peace and tranquility amongst the busyness of Laguna Beach. This project, as well as the owner's other project at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Lot B, have outdoor spas as part of the design. With the proposed elevations on top of the knoll (even the spa sits at 512’ of elevation which is almost as high as our roofline for 1536 Morningside), the humming from the spa equipment and the noise from people using the spas could change the calm feeling for all neighbors in the proximity of the two homes. I understand the spa equipment will be locked away in a vault, but there will still be plenty of noise from spa jets and filters. I understand the desire for a spa, it sounds like a really nice place to watch a sunset. But the ridgeline of the knoll is just not a good place for a spa to be due to noise considerations that could impact neighbors on both Morningside and Bluebird.
Finally, I just want to say that although this latest staƯ report failed to address the constructive comments given by DRB in the first hearing in January, I hope that the Board will re-address each of those comments in the hearing on Thursday, with any relevant changes (or lack thereof) being taken into consideration. These include Member Gibbs comments about the huge decks with the light and glazing issues, the mass and scale reduction, and the concern for the Bluebird Canyon road. Member Gannon remarked about the high location of the garage and the problems with the switchback driveway. Member Weil commented on the same access issue as Member Gannon and that neighborhood compatibility was drastically wrong. Additionally, the January staƯ report included findings that access, general plan compliance, lighting and glare, neighborhood compatibility, and privacy were all significant problems. Additionally, a few of the Members including Member Coveny commented that the initial project would need a complete restart. We understand that this project has complexities for both city staƯ and for the applicant.
Our family is not in support of the project in its current form and believes that is should be continued to a future date once all of its issues have been materially addressed.
Thank you for your consideration and I am happy to field any follow up questions you may have.
Regards,
Joe Cover and Family