Laguna Beach City Council
August 12, 2025

This transcript was exported on Jul 22, 2025 - view latest version here.

May 22, 2025 (Completed 07/17/25)
Transcript by Rev.com

Thomas Gibbs:
[inaudible 00:00:01] Let's get the applicant in here before we do exporting.

Louis Weil:
[inaudible 00:00:08].

Thomas Gibbs:

Oh, there's a massive exit. Yeah.

Louis Weil:

Don't let Cortoni use the side door. He'll always want the side door, [inaudible 00:00:16] the parking lot.

Thomas Gibbs:

There he is.

Louis Weil:

No, I'm just kidding.

Thomas Gibbs:

Come on up. You've been called. Hey, you're going to lose. All righty. Let's do ex parte. Start with you, Mr. Bata.

Mr. Barta:

Ex parte. I met with the applicant and spoke with Steve Cortoni and I met with a few of the neighbors.

Joe Kover, the Zidol family, and Susan Witten.

Thomas Gibbs:

Jess? MJ, go ahead.

MJ Coveny:
[inaudible 00:00:57]. I met with the same group that Amir just responded to.

Louis Weil:
[inaudible 00:01:02].

Jessica Gannon:
[inaudible 00:01:02]. Oh.

Thomas Gibbs:

Go ahead.

Jessica Gannon:

I had a site visit with the applicant team, and met with Peter Groman.

This transcript was exported on Jul 22, 2025 - view latest version here.

May 22, 2025 (Completed 07/17/25)
Transcript by Rev.com

Thomas Gibbs:

All right. I met with Mr. Cortoni. Mr. Groman. Joe Kover. Harpay Sadai and Susan Witten.

Louis Weil:

I think it's Harpal.

Thomas Gibbs:

No. All right. We need to get... I know. We need to get staff in here. Oh, you're doing it James, right? James:

Yes, I am, chair.

Thomas Gibbs:

All right, go for it. You're up.

James:

This is item 5.7, 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive Lot B. It is a design review coastal development permit and a revocable encroachment permit. This is the second hearing for this item. It was heard earlier this year in January, and my slides are not advancing.

Louis Weil:

That's probably all you needed to say. No, I'm just kidding.

James:

I've got lots of nice pretty pictures, Board Member Wild, but I do not know why this is not working. All right, here we go. The project site is here before you on Bluebird Canyon Road. The project site is generally depicted with the yellow polygon. We have some photographs here kind of showing the overall setting of the site. There are homes... This is a view from Morningside on the upper slide, showing homes on the downward slope of Morningside. We have another slide here showing a view from uphill. This is a picture kind of facing towards the west or northwest showing the project side under the arrow. We have some homes that you see below the arrow that are on Bluebird Canyon Road again on the downward sloping side. And again, another picture from Morningside. This is a close-up of the project site here. It's basically underneath that tree, underneath the arrow there and Morningside is below you.

Lost... Oops. All right, street views. So this is Bluebird Canyon Drive looking from the north and south, you can see the slope on the right and the left of these diagrams or pictures with the telephone poles.

So we have that kind of steep slope that was cut when the street was put in and the project site is basically on that slope and above that slope. This is the proposed site plan. It does have the house in yellow. The applicant's got a lot more slides to show as well, but the house is basically diagrammed in yellow and the driveway that is in orange and the spa is up in the upper part of the diagram. We have a design review for new structures, vehicular access, elevated deck spa, grading, retaining walls and landscaping. We have coastal development permit for the entire project site. Again the single family home and all the pertinent structures.

This transcript was exported on Jul 22, 2025 - view latest version here.

May 22, 2025 (Completed 07/17/25)
Transcript by Rev.com

We have public improvements, so the roadway will be widening two feet. We have curb and gutter going in there as well. We're going to get a 20-foot overall width of the street consistent with the municipal code. They are providing that public parking space, which does cut into that hill and creates a retaining wall, as you may recall. They are requesting that we waive the sidewalk standard and the design board can do that if it's found to not be consistent with the neighborhood and there are no sidewalks anywhere in this neighborhood. I think if we were to add that sidewalk, it would just further cut into the hill and create retaining walls that might be of an issue to the board. We have a revocable encroachment permit or an REP for those walls, steps, walkways, landscaping and irrigation within the right of way.

So this is the rendering that was provided of the structure. Again, it's a three level structure above, some retaining walls for the driveway that's down below, and the street is at the bottom of the diagram.

Again, this is another view, up the driveway looking up at the house. This is the back view at the spa, which I guess faces the Covers property. And again, this is another street view looking up Bluebird Canyon at the project site. That retaining wall that you see on the left-hand side on the lower left hand is where the public parking spaces would be. And I think the difference here from the prior proposal is the applicant has provided some stacked stone veneers on this. It's a lighter color with the landscaping to kind of help blend that into the area. This is the elevation drawing from the street. This is the west elevation. This is the one that faces 1550 blue Word Canyon, which is a different project site. And this is the back elevation. The spa would be in the foreground of this and this is the east elevation that faces another vacant property.

The colors and materials board. This is the updated colors and materials board. I apologize, we had the wrong color and materials board attached to the staff report. So I wanted to show this and replace the one that's in the report with this. So they are a change and I'll let the applicant kind of describe some of those changes a little bit better than I can. So some of the potential issues were raised at the prior hearing, neighborhood compatibility, mass and scale, compliance with policies. The access driveway was debated quite a bit. Grading minimized, lighting and glare from windows. Part of what the applicant has done with this new design is to reduce the glazing. Privacy view equity typically are of concern.

We do have vacant properties around here. We have future development coming behind the project site and then obviously 1550 Bluebird Canyon. And so we might want to look at those questions, but again, there is no direct house abutting this project site. Now there will be a fair amount of grading with this project site. I'm going by memory here. I think we're looking at about 1400 cubic yards coming out of this particular site. So heavy construction vehicles and construction actions might be of concern. So I think the biggest questions here is the LCP and zoning code consistency. And again, these are related to the design review criteria. Also with the findings of the coastal development permit. Specifically, will the project be visually compatible with the character of the surrounding area? And I think this is the big question for the board to deliberate.

I've got several different conditions of approval that I want to go over with the board should the board want to go ahead and approve this project. I think there's been some concerns expressed about the heavy construction traffic in the neighborhood. So I've got four conditions that I wanted to add. I've asked the applicant about these conditions and they do agree with them. One is about a qualified geotechnical consultant be maintained and monitor the roadway so that the roadway is safe. It provides for the ability of the city to modify the construction techniques, if you will, to ensure that we protect the roadway and thereby also protecting the houses on the other side of the street. The permittee shall also repair and seal damage to Bluebird Canyon Drive. This is a typical condition that we might otherwise add, but I neglected this one in this case. And again, this is a basic condition. If they damage the roadway, they have to fix it.

This transcript was exported on Jul 22, 2025 - view latest version here.

May 22, 2025 (Completed 07/17/25)
Transcript by Rev.com

A pre-construction photographic survey, this is a really good idea and especially if we're having a lot of construction traffic coming through, we do a pre-construction survey. This is routinely done for large projects. The applicant is agreeable to this and that basically sets the baseline condition under which then we would go back to and say, "Hey, we've got some cracking. We've got an issue here." So we bring it back to the condition that it was before subject to the city engineer's review and approval. Then bonding. If we do have some damage in the roadway, we then identify what the cost of that might be and we have the applicant provide a bond to the city to cover that costs. So in the event that anything goes awry, we can pull that bond and go affect some of the repairs as well. So these are the three, I'm sorry, four conditions that I wanted to add.

Ultimately, we do want the board to conduct a public hearing and if the facts support project approval, adopt the resolution that's in the staff report, which would approve the project to make findings under the California Environmental Quality Act that it would be exempt. We do have a lot of public comments that have come forward in the form of letters. I know you've been out to the sites and spoken to a lot of folks and so there's a lot of concern about the massing of the project site, how the site is graded and how the driveway goes forward. And so obviously we want all that to be factored in your deliberations.

But again, if you feel the facts support project approval, you've got that resolution before you tonight.

Alternatively, if we don't, we do feel that the applicant has made some good faith efforts to change this project despite what some residents might believe. We do feel that this project is getting closer and so if you don't feel that the facts are there to support the project at this time, provide direction to the applicant and bring it back for a third hearing and that's what our recommendation would be in that instance. With that, available for any questions you might have and that's it.

Thomas Gibbs:

I have a question.

James:

Yes. Yes sir.

Thomas Gibbs:

I may have missed it, but I think we had talked about the route of travel of the excavation trucks. Is that in your conditions or where are you on that?
James:

We did discuss a truck haul route map.

Thomas Gibbs:

Right.

James:

And I apologize, I don't have that for this presentation. That's an oversight on my part. We typically would look at a construction haul route with a construction staging plan at the building permit stage.

But in talking with public works and going through kind of the condition of the roadway and discussing these conditions and the Public Works Department has reviewed these conditions and does concur with them, but we did discuss having the trucks coming up-
This transcript was exported on Jul 22, 2025 - view latest version here.

May 22, 2025 (Completed 07/17/25)
Transcript by Rev.com

Thomas Gibbs:

Coming Morningside, and then around [inaudible 00:11:16].

James:

Coming up Morningside, and the empty trucks coming up Bluebird Canyon and then coming and going out on Morningside because theMJ Coveny:
[inaudible 00:11:26].

Thomas Gibbs:

No, the other way.

Jessica Gannon:

The other way around, yeah.

Thomas Gibbs:

Yeah. The other way around. What you and I talked about was the empty trucks going up Morningside to the top and around on Bluebird, picking up the excavation material in front of the project and then immediately going down the hill.

James:

I think you and I have a different recollection of the conversation. I think I had it flipped, butThomas Gibbs:

We could make that. That would beMJ Coveny:

Yeah, that's fine. That's easy.

James:

We can do that. But what we don't want to do is take the trucks down the winding path of Bluebird Canyon because they're going to go down Bluebird to Regatta and then back out. So we're going to try to keep the trucks away from as many homes as possible. So that's the purpose of the truck haul route.

And I can pull up a map here if you like.

Jessica Gannon:

And those streets are really skinny and blind turns.

Thomas Gibbs:

Here, I just want to make sure that we have the route worked out now rather than waiting because you and I talked about that. So why don't you pull up the route and tell us what route, because I am This transcript was exported on Jul 22, 2025 - view latest version here.

May 22, 2025 (Completed 07/17/25)
Transcript by Rev.com

uncomfortable with full excavation trucks going up Bluebird Canyon Drive, given how narrow that road is, all the way going up there and the condition of that road.

Jessica Gannon:

Isn't [inaudible 00:12:38].

James:

I think part of our discussion was is to have the inbound legs of the trucks where they're lighter with no dirt in them would be traveling over Bluebird Canyon and then coming out on the more wider section of Morningside.

Thomas Gibbs:

Why don't you pull up the [inaudible 00:12:52].

James:

That's going to be a little challenging. I'm going to try to do that here. I'm going to have to stop sharing and pull up a different program.

Thomas Gibbs:

We looked at a map here. Let me see.

Louis Weil:

I think you guys are saying the same thing.

Thomas Gibbs:

I hope... Maybe we are, maybe we aren't. Here.

David Parker:

I think this a littleThomas Gibbs:

Put up the staff report. Oh, you've got it there because this shows it. Okay, all right. [inaudible 00:13:26].

Yeah, wider and has better conditions. So I want the full trucks, I don't want them just going shooting down, not going [inaudible 00:13:35] Bluebird.

James:

I managed to pull up aThomas Gibbs:

Okay, here we go.

James:

This transcript was exported on Jul 22, 2025 - view latest version here.

May 22, 2025 (Completed 07/17/25)
Transcript by Rev.com

I'm sorry, Google Maps here and so the thought would be Morningside Drive would be used and then we would come all the way down and I'm going to try toThomas Gibbs:

So wait a minute, show me where your route for the empties go, to where they get full after this point.

James:

When they're empty, they're lighter trucks and so the thought was is to bring them up the more narrow streets that are maybe slightly less... Might not have the same condition as Morningside.

Thomas Gibbs:

Use the arrow and show us where.

James:

So the thought would be to come up Morningside Drive, come down Regatta, and then up Bluebird Canyon, pick up soil here at the project site and then swing back around Morningside [inaudible 00:14:21].

Thomas Gibbs:

Oh yeah, we are saying the same thing.

James:

We are saying the same thing.

Thomas Gibbs:

Yeah, that route. So I'd like to make that route, if we're going to approve the project, that route would be a condition, yes.

James:

Correct.

Thomas Gibbs:

Okay. Well at least that's on the table when we get to deliberations, but that's what you want. That's actually better than what you and I talked about. Okay. That said, any other question? MJ Coveny:

I have a question. Yes. I just want him to be able to get back to his original program. Materials, show me that again, because I didn't have that in my agenda items. The new material board as well as, I don't have a render anymore in my... Do you have a render on yours? Thomas Gibbs:

Yeah.

MJ Coveny:

This transcript was exported on Jul 22, 2025 - view latest version here.

May 22, 2025 (Completed 07/17/25)
Transcript by Rev.com

Couldn't find it. I thought I did but I can't find it. It's gone.

Thomas Gibbs:

It's gone. [inaudible 00:15:05] Where is my...

MJ Coveny:

Yeah.

James:

So this is the color materials board that was submitted and again, I apologize for not including this one in the staff report, but so these are the materials and colors that the applicant is proposing.

MJ Coveny:
[inaudible 00:15:22].

Thomas Gibbs:

Okay, the 3D renderings are in the plans first page, but we got more of them from Parker at the site.

James:

Yeah, I think he may have emailed more to us.

MJ Coveny:

This breakdown here is what I need [inaudible 00:15:32].

James:

Mr. chair, the applicant does have another presentation that shows the project with the renderings.

Thomas Gibbs:

Yeah, okay. Thank you. Let's get to that. Any other questions? Lewis, any questions? Louis Weil:

I have one general question I guess. I mean it's come up a couple different times in conversations either at sites or at the prior hearing, but I just wanted to clarify that the proposed development is subject to design review and that the applicant team has been engaging in the process in a transparent and good faith manner to this point. That's directed at staff.

James:

We believe that to be the case, yes.

Thomas Gibbs:

All right, let's go to the applicant. You have five minutes.

David Parker:

This transcript was exported on Jul 22, 2025 - view latest version here.

May 22, 2025 (Completed 07/17/25)
Transcript by Rev.com

Thank you and good evening board members. Can we get our first slide up please? James:

Give me a moment here. I apologize. I have to navigate to another location.

Nearly there. There it is. There you go.

David Parker:

Thank you. And can we start the five minutes at this point? Good evening board members, I'm David Parker, the architect for this project and thank you all for taking the time to meet with us and consider this application and thanks to staff as well. We've redesigned the project that we are presenting tonight and I'd like to show you several before and after comparisons. So next slide please. This is before, the old design. Next, after, new design. Next, old design. Next, new design. Next, before. Next, after. Next, before. Next, and after. Next. Next. You can see how the roof turns down to the east. Next slide, please.

On our first hearing on January 23rd, the board identified the following issues, neighborhood compatibility as it relates to the long driveway and the location of the garage. Neighborhood compatibility relating to the size, mass and visibility of the home sitting on the upper part of the site, the amount of decking that could generate privacy issues and the amount of glazing that could create excessive lighting. Our new design addresses these concerns in the following ways. The total living space was reduced from 3,600 down to 2,443. The upper floor was reduced from 1359 square feet down to 147 and there is 1000 square foot ADU with a 155 square foot deck at the upper level. The upper level was pulled back seven feet to the east. The south wall was pulled back three feet. The main deck was reduced 117 square feet and pulled back to the north and the east. The east edge of the roof has been lowered two feet. The profile of the roof was entirely reduced. The garage area was reduced, the south wall was pulled back to allow for the planting of vines. The new planted roof is reduced. To address neighborhood compatibility and the appearance of mass and scale, we changed the style from modern to contemporary craftsman with wood, stone and earth tone colors. Flat roofs have been replaced with low sloping roofs. Next slide. Other direction. Yeah, thank you.

James:

Is this one you want?
David Parker:

Yeah. The retaining walls were lowered throughout the property, now four feet to six feet high except for the required parking and the right-of-way improvements. The majority of the walls are exposed wood lagging, not concrete and vines will be planted to cover most of the walls. Glazing has been reduced approximately to 20 percent. Automated opaque blinds and day and night light controls will be provided. Low visual transmittance and anti-reflective glazing will be provided. Next slide. Landscaping has been dramatically enhanced. Four new trees are added to the front of the property and more landscaping provided all around the house and in front of the retaining walls. Vines will cover these walls creating green living walls. A slope containing trees and numerous shrubs have been added to the front of the driveway. The landscape plan has been reviewed and is fully code compliant. All these landscape enhancements will greatly reduce the appearance of mass and scale.

The access stairs leading to both lots A and B have been reconfigured and moved out of the right-of-way as preferred by public works. Now we have carefully considered alternate locations for the house and the driveway. However, the current siding and configuration proved to be the only solution. The option This transcript was exported on Jul 22, 2025 - view latest version here.

May 22, 2025 (Completed 07/17/25)
Transcript by Rev.com

of lowering the house down to the street level greatly increases export, decreases vehicular safety and has greater impact to the hill and loss of views for the owner. Compared to the [inaudible 00:20:44] house at 1536 Morningside, our project has 20 percent less export even though it is only three percent larger. The siding and driveway is consistent with pattern of development of other upslope properties, specifically 1339 and 1313 Morningside and 1540 Bluebird Canyon, all of which have long driveways and steeper grades. Next slide.

The hilltop buildable area, which includes the flattest portion of the property at the top of the hill is only 2,500 square feet and 80 to 90 percent of the house sits in this area. Moreover, the building code encourages building on the flat area of the property whenever possible. Next slide. Our new design provides several benefits to the neighborhood, including runoff control, retaining walls to stabilize the slope, vehicular and fire safety, widening of the street by four feet, beautiful landscaping. Moreover, locating the house at the upper portion of the hill actually reduces the appearance of mass as it is farther away and is buffered with landscaping. In conclusion, our project has been designed to be completely compliant, fully neighborhood compatible and follows a pattern of development. Our new design has reasonably addressed concerns of the board and the neighbors. We feel the project will be an enhancement to the neighborhood and preserve the character of Bluebird Canyon. Thank you. I look forward to your comments.

Thomas Gibbs:

Thank you. Mr. Parker. Okay, it's now time. Who is going to be speaking? Please raise your hand. One, two, three. Okay. I'm going to do what I did with the last, I'll give you the full three minutes but when you see the yellow light, start concluding your remarks and I'm going to have a dead stop at the red light, so please come up and if I could have a couple of people waiting so we don't have to wait for people to realize they're up next. So please begin. Let's get a little bit of a line going here, please. Please state your name and your property address if you like.

Pamela Adams:

Okay, good evening, chair, members of the design review board and staff. My name is Pamela Adams. I live on Morningside Drive. I'm not going to give the address. I commend the applicant for refacing the structure with a less sterile exterior and now a wood-like craftsman style which works with the neighborhood character. However, I remain opposed to the applicant's project for these reasons. One, the project remains at the ridgeline of the knoll instead of being nestled into the terrain as requested by DRB. Two, mass and scale were barely reduced by swapping out the master bedroom on the top floor and making it a 1000 square foot ADU with a large glass deck, it appears to misrepresent the applicant's reduced square footage to the main house. My concern is that this ADU doesn't appear to be legitimate.

It was also my understanding that SB9 lot splits could not have rooftop decks or balconies as is being shown here. I'll leave that decision to staff. The placement of the spa or pool at the top will also create a noise pollution to the neighbors and across Bluebird Canyon and Rimrock Canyons. I suggest nestling it nearer to the main house. Learning tonight about the route to move trucks, it's unacceptable in my eyes for the trucks to use lower Morningside. It's just not feasible. Anyway, please deny this proposed project and thank you for your time.

Thomas Gibbs:

Thank you very much. Next speaker?
Susan Witten:

This transcript was exported on Jul 22, 2025 - view latest version here.

May 22, 2025 (Completed 07/17/25)
Transcript by Rev.com

Susan Witten on Bluebird Canyon. This is essentially the same project you reviewed in January. It looks the same from the street. It's still over 50 feet tall from the street, in the same location, with the same story poles and the same retaining walls and driveway. The reduced square footage is a relabeling of the third level as an ADU. Other changes are cosmetic. The project is not a redo, it's not neighborhood compatible as stated by the letter signed by 20 neighbors and residents and sent to the DRB and it is not approvable as currently designed. My comments will cover three topics.

First, policy violations. The meat of the matter is that the project needs to be redesigned to conform with state and local policies for which all findings must be made. First is a cultural development permit.

Findings five and six cannot be made. These address alteration of landforms and visual compatibility.

The ADU is subject to DRB review under the CDP. Additionally, the deck and loft area on the third floor are not a part of the ADU and are within the DRB purview. Another policy violation is the revocable encroachment permit for construction and the right-of-way. I'm going to spend a minute on this because it has been glossed over throughout this review process. The driveway was reviewed by public works, but DRB, not public works is the approval body. As defined in the municipal code, the REP is a discretionary approval by the DRB to allow minor classes of construction. It allows temporary construction which can be revoked and removed at any time. Obviously if a permanent driveway retaining walls are removed on this project, there is no way to access the house with the current design.

There is reasonable doubt that findings five and six of the REP can be made.

Finding five covers the precedent setting 10-foot-high retaining wall and 40-foot-long driveway wall in the right-of-way, which will set a precedent for the three adjacent parcels yet to be developed. Finding six prohibits a structure of unacceptable height that detracts from the quality of the streetscape. The permanent 10-foot-high retaining wall in the right-of-way will detract from the quality of the streetscape and covering it with vines doesn't solve the problem. Other policy violations are to land use policies and design review guidelines.

My second topic is actionable changes. As described above, the project changes which comply with the state and local policies are actionable modifications likely to result in an approvable project. The last topic is good faith. It comes down to compromise. Essentially at this incredibly challenging location, which two of you described as one of the toughest lots to build on in Laguna Beach, compromise occurs when both sides in a negotiation walk away feeling like they've lost something. The neighborhood. Then could I have 10 seconds?
Thomas Gibbs:

Susan, I really got to limit it because I'd limited it for other people. But I think we understand your points.

Susan Witten:

I think the approach here is binary. It's either it's this or it's not.

Thomas Gibbs:

Susan.

James:

Mr. Chair.

Thomas Gibbs:

This transcript was exported on Jul 22, 2025 - view latest version here.

May 22, 2025 (Completed 07/17/25)
Transcript by Rev.com

Susan, please.

Susan Witten:

Thank you.

Thomas Gibbs:

Okay, next speaker.

Joe Kover:

Hey everybody. Joe Kover, 1536 Morningside. I met with a lot of you guys. Sent a letter late last night, busy season for me at work. I apologize. I'm just going to read from this as well. The applicant has now heard the neighborhood and DRB comments for both lot A on this project. Each was met with significant challenges from city staff, opposition from basically all the neighbors and the request for material modifications by the board to the extent that the applicant was directed to start from scratch. As some of these others have mentioned. Applicant's response was to basically rename the chunk of the house the ADU and rewrap with new siding. I see a lot of good color changes in the pictures when I see the before and after. Not too much different than that. Like I said, the new wrapping paper is a good solid upgrade and really appreciate that.

The three letters ADU, like we talked about. Yeah, I understand that they may disallow that relevant square footage to be included in the zoning docs. We do believe though that it doesn't preclude you guys from considering for the CDP like we've mentioned. And then also that there's still a second story loft that's necessary to classify that upper level as an ADU as well as the deck that is not part of the ADU.

Those should be considered by the board and I think they should be considered in zoning here.

The comment that board member Wild had related to lot A was that the total program height should be closer to the maximum height of the ridge line, as it was for the approved plans on our lot, the adjacent lot of the morning side. So both of our lots do crest at the ridge line, although as we've stated, the service area that he's got on the ridge line is more, so he's got that flat parcel up there. But basically both of our max elevations on those sites are about 513, 514, 515 feet somewhere in that range. So our maximum building height though that's approved with our approved plans is 513. It's right basically at that ridge line. It doesn't really go above that. What we're seeing in here is about 525, 526 feet. So a full 11 to 12 feet higher. And that is with or without the ADU because we have the roof on the loft that is not part of the ADU. And we've also got the elevated decks.

So for the elevated deck that's west-facing the larger one that's in that picture facing west kind of semitriangular deck. The floor height is about 516 and it's got a grass railing up to 519. We're about five feet higher than that max lot elevation. Comparatively, our west-facing deck that we've got really kind of the only deck on the house is at 503 feet with railing going up to 506, which is still seven feet lower than our max elevation. So the deck along with the large decks hanging off the south side, we're concerned about the excessive glazing and the size and they obviously create privacy concerns for the surrounding neighbors to the north and the south. The west-facing deck should be lowered and different material than clear glass should be considered on I think all those deck railings. So for our north-facing decks that look down into the neighborhood houses, we have solid material to help with that privacy concern. We believe there's clearly still a lot more work that has to be done on the project before it's neighborhood compatible. And just encourage all you guys to remember your feedback from the prior meeting or just pull up the potential issues slide that we saw and ask the hard questions about whether material changes were actually made. Thank you.

This transcript was exported on Jul 22, 2025 - view latest version here.

May 22, 2025 (Completed 07/17/25)
Transcript by Rev.com

Thomas Gibbs:

Thank you very much. Next speaker.

Mary Fagris:

Good evening, Mary Fagris 1561, Morningside Drive. We're making progress, some things, but I still have great concerns about neighborhood compatibility.

Speaker 1:
... have great concerns about neighborhood compatibility, mass size, location of structures in the driveway. And then for us on Morningside, noise, skyline, privacy issues with these both because what happens in this lot is most likely if it's approved will happen in the next lot A. So that's really going to impact us. I've been away with visiting grandchildren and kids for the last week, so I just had a chance to look at the staff report and I was absolutely astounded when I saw the staff report saying that a ridgeline is not present here. I was on the planning commission in the nineties that did the open space and conservation element. Ridgeline is defined as a long and narrow crest of higher land.

These are visual resources that serve as an outline of the skyline. I assure you on Morningside and Bluebird Canyon, that Knoll is a ridgeline for us and it determines so much. I have friends though who live over on Cerritos and all those streets off that way and they also see that ridgeline. So I think that we really have to consider more about building on the ridgeline. Regulations apply to all ridgelines. This is from topic 13 in the open space element, large and small. So I think that we still need more work.

Something will fit there that fits with our neighborhood compatibility and I appreciate all of you digging into the rules, understanding the project and understanding our neighborhood. Thank you very much.

PART 1 OF 4 ENDS [00:31:04]
Thomas Gibbs:

Thank you. Next speaker.

Eileen Slora:

Hi. Eileen Slora. I'm at 1545 Bluebird Canyon. Thank you MJ and Tom for coming out this week to visit us and talk about the project. I know everybody's tired so I'll keep this brief. I don't believe that the project complies with CDP requirements five and six. Part of the verbiage is on finding number five is the proposed development will minimize alterations of natural landforms. In the present project, the driveway does alter the natural landform as the driveway runs east-west along the steep landform at the continuous slot frontage, disturbing the lower two-thirds of the natural landform and requires tall retaining walls along the uphill side, which further alters the natural landform. The ten-foot-high retaining wall at the bottom of the driveway would detract from the general quality of those streetscape. There are no retaining walls close to this height in the neighborhood or within the public right-of-way.

Planting vines as shown is a cosmetic gesture which does not reduce the height of a ten-foot wall. In finding number six, the proposed development will be visually compatible with the character of the surrounding area. The character of the homes along Bluebird Canyon Drive in this vicinity are not fourstory in mass with 55 foot height from the adjacent road grade. A person standing on the street will view the lot B Home as the equivalent of a four-story commercial building due to the 11 foot floor-to-floor heights. The owner applicant claims that the now designated ADU on top of the house is not part of the This transcript was exported on Jul 22, 2025 - view latest version here.

May 22, 2025 (Completed 07/17/25)
Transcript by Rev.com

project, which might satisfy the checkboxes, but the physical impacts to the neighborhood will be established if this goes forward. Lot Bs total livable area results in a 40% floor area ratio, while the equivalent adjacent homes on Bluebird Canyon average 32%. Thank you.

Thomas Gibbs:

Thank you very much. Please come to the podium.

Peter Grohman:

I am Peter Grohman. I live on 1573 Bluebird directly below the proposed project. In January, design review said reduce the height, reduce the mass, reduce the square footage, terrace it into the hillside and start from the street and go up from there. The current application, the applicant has consistently refused to even consider putting a garage on the street. He insists he needs a driveway so he can end up on top of the knoll. The square footage is mostly cosmetic by calling part of it an ADU and it's just a run around the city regulations.

The bottom line is, it's more or less the same design incompatible with the neighborhood. It's going to be a massive light beacon on the hill and on top of everything else in the whole area. The project does require revocable encroachment permit. The permit intent is to allow for minor changes. Part of the current retaining walls, one is 45 feet long, the other one is 10 feet long are in the area that is the public right of way. So with that in mind, it's a massive permanent structure. It doesn't meet what the intent is.

And I am suggesting to the board to not grant the revocable encroachment permit.

Thomas Gibbs:

Thank you very much. Any other speakers? Seeing none. Applicant, you have three minute rebuttal.

David Dyrnaes:

This is for the rebuttal.

Louis Weil:

Is there by chance a digital copy of that?
David Dyrnaes:

There is, yes. It's coming up now.

Louis Weil:

Perfect. Thank you.

David Dyrnaes:

I hope there is. Yeah. You can go to the first slide. So this project is fully code compliant, has no variances, it doesn't have any view impacts, any of the name of properties. It doesn't have any privacy impacts. And it meets all the requirements of general plan and hillside guidelines. And most importantly, it's because of the unique conditions of this site. I've sent in a lot of details on this, but the main thing is that the only buildable area on the lot is on the top of the hill, and the only way for me to move it down would be to violate hillside guidelines and general plan by increasing dramatically amount of export. So This transcript was exported on Jul 22, 2025 - view latest version here.

May 22, 2025 (Completed 07/17/25)
Transcript by Rev.com

as the neighbors said, finding CDPs five and six regarding impact to the hill, they're actually making my case because anything other than where we've cited it today would cause a much bigger increase.

And if you look on page five... Can you go to the fifth page of that, please? Toal Engineering specifically said, this is the most optimal presentation for the hill, and anything else is going to be worse. It's going to increase the grading, it's going to increase the export, it's going to increase the appearance of massive scale from the street. This is ultimately the biggest mistake I made, which was, I found the most efficient and the most, actually in this case, the only solution to access this property. And ultimately I can't change the location of the home, the driveway, or the garage. There's no justification that anybody's provided that contradicts what I've said here. If you go to the next page. I've included details about the comparison of project and its relationship to the hill. The first thing is you have a large right of way to get across first, and then from that point on the hill, we have a large flat area to get up to with a driveway. That's about 20 feet difference from where we get onto the lot to the top of the hill.

And we have two slopes. We have a slope on the front that takes us up to the top of the hill and we slope east to west. In deference to Mr. Cover, we have a terraced home that fits within the envelope. It would not have passed zoning plan check if we were not within that envelope. If you go to the next slide, you can see Cover's home. His entire home is sloped, and he is on the side of the hill going up 16 feet on average to that peak he mentioned at 513.4 feet. Our home, and I made a mistake the other day when I spoke to the board members, the deck area at the top there is at 516. It's only E that's at 514 or 514 and a half. It's very close to Mr. Cover's home's height on the west side. But as you move up the hill to the east, that envelope and that rear lot line goes up in height and we are within that envelope.

More importantly, the entire top of the hill is not natural hillside. It was graded in 1938. It is not a natural ridge line that is but defined to be protected. It is a home site that was built back then to be built on, but it took 85 years for somebody like me to find a solution to it. And ultimately, I've said these details before, if you go to the three things that really matter, the driveway itself is consistent with the few properties in the area that have this condition, which is 1540 Bluebird Canyon, 1313 Morningside Drive and 1339 Morningside Drive. They have a long uphill driveway that's vertically transitioning 20 feet or more from the street to the flat buildable area. We are compatible with the right of way use for the neighbors that are immediately there, 1540, 1545 and 1565. All of them go up at least 10 or down 10 feet through their right of way transition to get to their buildable area.

And the placement of the home, if you go to page nine, it is consistent with 1480 and 1486 as well as 1540 on the top of that ridge line. Susan Winton's home with her garage covers well more than 3000 square feet of a building area on the top of that, that lot of hers. And she is very visible at nighttime even. And there's even some nighttime views in here. But I think one of the problems I've got is that there's no dialogue going on between the neighbors and me. They send all this stuff in, they don't talk to me about it. Go to the next page please. You can see the Sadhal family, they included this spreadsheet this morning in what they sent, and they leave their own home and all the homes across the street off of this. Go to the next page. They call it 32% average far. It's actually 41 if you include their homes.

Ultimately, I'm trying to be objective about all these measures, I really understand the fear and the concerns the neighbors have. I've done everything I can to try to explain why we don't have any other options for its placement. And I know the board has heard this over and over again and I've written tomes of information. Ultimately, you can go to the... Two more slides please. You can go to the comparative on the Morningside Drive properties that are being built to this one. And there's a lot of good differences that we have. Height, size is all justifiable. The ADU on the top, that is going to be in my wife [inaudible 00:43:36] home. The lower floor will eventually be taken over one my daughters, one of them is here today. Ultimately, we are doing everything we can to give the neighbors what they want.

We have a lot of benefits.

This transcript was exported on Jul 22, 2025 - view latest version here.

May 22, 2025 (Completed 07/17/25)
Transcript by Rev.com

The last page of this thing. A lot of benefits that we provide including widening the street, the retaining walls and the caissons underneath it are going to greatly improve the strength and stability of that hillside. And if we do any damage to that street, we will repair it. We actually can use even a conveyor from the top down on the Morningside to take all the dirt off that way and not even put one truck on the street. There's a lot of solutions that we can put in place, but it starts with a dialogue. And unfortunately they send all this material into you and none of it comes to us. And they basically end up giving you guys the impetus of we're not listening to them. We don't have many options for this property.

And certainly the placement of the home, the driveway and the garage are literally not only the only option, but as told as attested to, it is the optimal solution to minimize the impact to the disturbance of the hill and the visibility. And ultimately, any claim that moving the home down to the street is going to improve the appearance of mass scale is just simply contrary to the facts. Most of the home is hiding onThomas Gibbs:

May we use the timer here?
Speaker 3:

Yes, we did, Chairman.

Thomas Gibbs:

You've gone beyond your time here.

David Dyrnaes:

Yeah. I think we're almost four minutes.

Speaker 3:

Thank you.

David Dyrnaes:

Thank you very much for your time.

Thomas Gibbs:

Okay. Thank you. At this time, questions for the applicant or staff? Do you have any? Lewis, go ahead.

Louis Weil:

I have a question. There's an exhibit in the REPD exhibit three. Is that still a valid exhibit? Because it doesn't match up with the site plans. Or exhibit C, sorry, exhibit C. I don't find those to be consistent, and so I'd like a clarification.

Thomas Gibbs:

Exhibit C?
Louis Weil:

C as in cat.

This transcript was exported on Jul 22, 2025 - view latest version here.

May 22, 2025 (Completed 07/17/25)
Transcript by Rev.com

Thomas Gibbs:

Attachment seven. Okay, I got it.

David Dyrnaes:

Is it one of yours?
Louis Weil:

So exhibit C indicates that the right-of-way and there's a staircase yet the plans, and exhibit C also shows the retaining walls coming into the right-of-way. On the plan set, I don't see the staircase. And my other question is, the AMNA indicate an encroachment dependent on site A, the other site's development. So I'm curious if that encroachment has been recorded or is part of the conditions in the... Because right now the two don't match up. So can staff clarify that?
James Campbell:

Lewis, Jim Campbell. This is the exhibit that was submitted originally. I don't believe that it's been updated to reflect the change here of the staircase being eliminated in the right-of-way, but maybe the applicant can provide better clarification.

David Dyrnaes:

We've submitted the RAPs with updated drawings and they are consistent with what's been submitted.

There might be a mix-up in what was presented in the artifacts to the board, but we have submitted them to theThomas Gibbs:

That would be also what was on the agenda.

David Dyrnaes:

Yes, we did remove the stairs from the right-of-way.

Louis Weil:

But in the noticing packet, it shows that. So it creates a confusion at this hour.

Thomas Gibbs:

Yeah.

Eileen Slora:

I don't see stairs in the right-of-way of mine.

David Dyrnaes:

Took them out.

Thomas Gibbs:

Yeah. I don't see stairs in the right-of-way either.

This transcript was exported on Jul 22, 2025 - view latest version here.

May 22, 2025 (Completed 07/17/25)
Transcript by Rev.com

Louis Weil:

No. In the revocable encroachment proposal, attachment seven.

David Dyrnaes:

Right.

Louis Weil:

In the plan is the actual language for the RAP and the exhibits to support it. Number one just shows the right-of-way width. It's exhibit C, page seven, shows the drawing of the stairs in the right-of-way in front of this property.

David Dyrnaes:

You're saying off to the left. Is that right?
Louis Weil:

On the left side, it's [inaudible 00:48:17] drawing from 813, 24.

David Dyrnaes:

Yeah. There's new ones been submitted to the city.

James Campbell:

Well, I don't have that in front of us here today, so if you have access you can email it to me. What I would say in general is that this exhibit would need to be modified and updated and we may have that in our files that would be consistent with the final approved site plan that the board might approve. And so I think this discrepancy between these two is not as significant as it might be portrayed here. So in reality, whatever the board ultimately approves, this exhibit would've to change to match that.

Thomas Gibbs:

Yeah. We haven't portrayed anything yet, but I understand your point. We don't have it in front of us. It may not have been agendized, it may not make a difference. But any other questions, Lewis? Louis Weil:
[inaudible 00:49:06].

Patrick D:

I just want want to be clear, the agenda requirement is simply the notice to the public that a short description of what may or may not be discussed about. So the fact that this exhibit may not be exactly what is on the other plans. There's no due process, there's no brown act, there's no agenda issue with that.

Thomas Gibbs:

Okay. That's helpful. Thank you much, Patrick. All right. Lewis, any other questions? Louis Weil:

This transcript was exported on Jul 22, 2025 - view latest version here.

May 22, 2025 (Completed 07/17/25)
Transcript by Rev.com

... on mute. Sorry. No, I just wanted clarification for the discrepancy.

Thomas Gibbs:

Okay. Any other questions from the board?
MJ Coveny:

One quick question. The loft that's attached to the ADU, is that on the same to access it? Is it through the ADU?
David Dyrnaes:

No, the loft is part of the main home, and is used to come up from the main home to the second floor to the outside deck. It's physically separated from the ADU.

MJ Coveny:

And the deck is not accessible from the ADU?
David Dyrnaes:

They're separate. They actuallyMJ Coveny:

You can't access your deck from the ADU?
David Dyrnaes:

That we have a front deck on the ADU.

MJ Coveny:

The large deck...

David Dyrnaes:

The large deck is for the main home below.

MJ Coveny:
... that's on the roof, you can't access it from the ADU? David Dyrnaes:

That's per code. No, you can't.

Speaker 4:

There is a loft that belongs to the main house that accessDavid Dyrnaes:
147 square feet.

This transcript was exported on Jul 22, 2025 - view latest version here.

May 22, 2025 (Completed 07/17/25)
Transcript by Rev.com

MJ Coveny:

And is that on the...

Speaker 4:
[inaudible 00:50:31].

Thomas Gibbs:

You need to speak into the mic.

MJ Coveny:

Is that on the same finished floor as the ADU?
David Parker:

Yes, it's on the same level, but it's between the ADU and the deck. And the loft accesses the deck and it's part of the main house. The ADU is blocked.

MJ Coveny:

The loft is attached to the main house via staircase?
David Parker:

Correct.

MJ Coveny:

And then the loft is the only thing that can access the deck? David Parker:

Correct.

MJ Coveny:

Good to know. Thank you.

Thomas Gibbs:

So the whole deck, upstairs deck, that's adjacent to the ADU is not accessible to the ADU? David Parker:

Correct.

Thomas Gibbs:

Okay. That's helpful. Any other questions?
Louis Weil:

But that whole area is subject to design review for mass scale and volume, correct? This transcript was exported on Jul 22, 2025 - view latest version here.

May 22, 2025 (Completed 07/17/25)
Transcript by Rev.com

Thomas Gibbs:

Correct. Subject to SB9 is a complicated question. I'll get into it in a second. All right. Any other questions? Okay. With that said, I'm going to close the public hearing and I'll start with the comments.

First of all, I appreciate the efforts that were made, but this is complicated. It's a complicated project.

And it's made complicated by a number of other things that are interplaying. So I'll start by saying this is SB9 lot split. It's a large project on a narrow low road with loss of excavation, very long driveway going up a steep slope, large mass overhanging the street. I don't see anything like it in the neighborhood. As I said, previous hearings and on your 1560 project, this should be planned carefully with input from and consideration of impacts to neighbors and the community as a whole. I'm not pointing fingers at anyone as to whether that happened or not. The prior direction of the board was I thought very clear. We made clear that a major redesign was in order, and for this reason we voted unanimously to table the project.

We rarely do that. And it was because of some of the issues I'll talk about that the neighbors talked about mass scale, etc. The current proposal I don't think reaches the major redesign that at least I was looking for or I thought the board was looking for. As I think it was pretty clear from the slides, the comparison slides, Mr. Parker showed that the envelope of the building is essentially unchanged. Some minor tweaks here and there and there's less glazing for sure. I think the major improvement was the landscaping, the lowering of the retaining walls and the materials to make it look less like a four-story building. But it doesn't impact the towering size of this project. So in other words, the mass and scales is still a big problem.

The driver is the location of the building, the size of the building and the driveway and the garage. Those were all contributing factors to the mass and scale, which takes this, in my opinion, out of as a unique project in the neighborhood, which is going to set a standard for that hill on the Bluebird canyon side. To address that, we discussed in the last meeting in January, reducing the size and location of the upper floor, terracing the building into the hill and putting the garage on the street. I hear what the applicant has said that none of that in his mind is possible. I'm personally not convinced based upon the evidence.

So I'll start with the environmental review, the sequa. As you know with 1560, I was very concerned whether we can apply a categorical exemption to this project, to 1560 and the same thing to this project, and whether they needed to be combined in light of the exceptions to the categorical exemption.

I'm not going to repeat them here except for the public, some of which it looks at significant effects and cumulative impacts that might have significant effect on the environment. And I wasn't satisfied based upon the evidence. So I met with public works and with Jim and we discussed some facts which in my mind satisfy me that the categorical exemption applies. And this is important because it deals with the excavation issue, which seems to me from the applicant standpoint to be a major impediment to doing things that improve the site. And my point to you is that I think that it may be necessary to do more excavation unfortunately to achieve a project that meets the requirements of the coastal development permit and the land use elements and indeed potentially even the revocable encroachment permit. And the reason I think we find that is that, number one, the road Bluebird Canyon is likely a cut road from looking at the terrain, and the fact that heavy vehicles have been traveling on Bluebird Canyon in this portion of it for a long time.

And while the road does not look great, it has not had, to my knowledge, major repairs or major failures, which suggests to me that the likelihood that I don't have sufficient facts to find that the exceptions don't apply. Excavation also occurred with other homes in the neighborhood, including along Bluebird, no doubt. And again, the road survived. So with the conditions that have been described, which protects the road, I can find number one that the categorical exemption applies, and two, that several other factors that we can consider, which I can get into in the guidelines. But I think those conditions are This transcript was exported on Jul 22, 2025 - view latest version here.

May 22, 2025 (Completed 07/17/25)
Transcript by Rev.com

appropriate and I'm not hearing any objection from the applicant, which is a good thing. The next item is the coastal development permit. And this is really important because legally is not the issue here, we are asked to make those findings as to your project, including the ADU.

So by making the upstairs a thousand square foot ADU doesn't mean that it magically is removed from consideration of the findings for the coastal development permit. So I'm going to hit criteria six first because criteria five creates an issue in mind that I'm going to be asking for input from my other board members because I am leaning one way, but I think I need their input really make a decision. But criteria six, it's pretty clear in my mind. And that reads, 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. So visual compatibility with the character of surrounding areas. And as I said last time on this project, and as I said on your project at 1560, in my view, it's not. It is too large. It is too large an appearing house in particular because it's not terraced into the slope and the third story is just way too tall.

Or the top story, I don't want to get into counting because whether you count the garage or not. It needs in my view to be significantly scaled back at the third floor and terraced in if you want to preserve your 4,000 plus square foot home. And then I think again with visual compatibility, and I'll get to eliminating the driveway and relocating the garage to the street level now because that also invokes criteria five. Criteria five reads the proposed development will minimize the alterations of natural land forms and will not result in undue risk from geological and erosional forces and/or floods or hazards. So the question is alteration of natural land forms, which indicates a clear policy under the coastal act to preserve coastal slopes and coastal environment. And putting in 150 foot driveway raises serious questions about whether that is. And I just got to say, I'm not convinced that a garage at street level doesn't work. Now it was done for 1530 Mr. Cover's property, but it's different. You're higher up on the slope, maybe you shouldn't be.

One of the things we asked was to really study carefully whether excavation, and I think the response we got from the applicant is to do a street level garage requires significant excavation, more excavation.

And maybe you have to do that to make this project comply with the coastal development permit requirements, including the elimination of the driveway and the upper tier. I'm not a hundred percent...

I'm not even decided on that. I really want to hear my other board member's discussion on the ground level garage versus this massive lengthy driveway going up the slope, which does impact. And by the way, I looked at the other houses that have the driveways. For example, with Ms. Whiten's driveway, it's insular, it's discrete, it is not the kind of impact on the slope that you have with this project. So that's why I want to talk about criteria five.

Again, I really want to hear what everybody here says about that on the driveway. Even though I really have a lot of heartburn with it, not heartburn at a personal desire, heartburn whether we can make the findings for the coastal development permit with that. All right. Now the coastal view policies, the LCP coastal view policies include the land used elements. So those also are coastal development requirements, which I think potentially require us to consider not only your SB9 stuff, but your ADU, that would require you make these findings even though you've done all that. And land use element policy

2.1 requiresThomas Gibbs:

Element Policy 2.1 requires, "Maintain the diversity and uniqueness of individual neighborhoods." Again, I'm not seeing that. Large, out of scale, I just don't think you've followed our request from the earlier hearing, nor does it meet this policy. Policy 2.8, "Require building design and sitting to be compatible and integrated with natural topographic features." This is where terracing is important to consider.

This transcript was exported on Jul 22, 2025 - view latest version here.

May 22, 2025 (Completed 07/17/25)
Transcript by Rev.com

Some terracing will definitely improve and indeed would be required by 2.8. Land use policy 7.3 and

10.2 more to the same effect, visual compatibility, etc. And then coastal land use plan, technical appendix section 30251, I'm not going to read that, but then it talks about alterations of natural land forms. Permitted development shall be cited and designed to protect views along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, and this is most important, to minimize the alteration of natural land forms and to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas.

So that's even before we get to the guidelines. Now, I know there's some question about whether the guidelines implies in light of SB9 objective language, but I will mention it because I think the guidelines are important. I think the articulation is improved with what you've done. Access seems to me to be one or the other, whether it's a street level garage or the 150-foot switchback road in the garage up at the house. Neighborhood compatibility, that just again supports what we've talked about. Lighting and glazing, because I can't support the project tonight because of the mass and scale, and I heard your comments about the neighbor's not communicating with you. Well, I put a challenge when you come back, it may get approved tonight but I can't support it, but if it's not approved tonight and you come back, I tell neighbors when you deal with a project of this site and this scope with the mitigations and I appreciate the mitigations on the lighting and the like and the reduction of the glazing, it's hard for me to really dig in given I think the project needs to be changed.

But that needs to be important, I mean that needs to be addressed because of the location of this project. It is very visible not only to Bluebird Canyon, to the residents there, but also to Morningside and indeed the whole community. So that needs to be carefully thought out and neighbors, I'm not saying you didn't, but that's really important and same thing with privacy. I need to be satisfied on both of those with the redesign for me to support the project.

Lastly, revocable encroachment permit and this goes back to the issue of the ground level garage versus what you proposed. I've been on this committee for two years and maybe two months. I've never seen these kinds of retaining walls in a revocable encroachment permit. So I went back and looked at the rules. The section I think one of the public mentioned that the municipal code defines a revocable encroachment permit under 11.50.010 as a quote, discretionary approval by the DRB to allow minor classes of construction in otherwise unapproved or unused public, end quote.

Again, that driveway does not, what's going to be in the 10-foot right of way doesn't strike me, and again, I want to hear what other board members have to say as minor. Then the for granting a revocable encroachment permit, it may be granted by the design review board if the improvements will not interfere with the present and prospective public use of a street or right of way. That's a right of way and I don't think you can ever say it's never going to be used and putting in the access the way it is, essentially makes that permanent. So I question whether we have the authority to do that because it seems to me to interfere with the present and prospective use of a street or right of way. So I have some heartburn over that one, and then that was finding one by the way, finding six says it does not create structures of unusual or unacceptable appearance form, shape, or height that detract from the general quality of the street scape, and I think this project raises that issue.

So these were my suggestions on the comeback. Reduce the mass and height particularly at the top level. Also reduce the top story deck. I think the deck's too big and creates privacy problems. I think the building, if you want to maintain the square foot, which you have every right to do, you need to terrace that into the hillside. I think it needs a serious study on the feasibility of the garage. Your architects are one of the good ones in town, I think he can design something with access including potential elevator.

We just had another project today. Were you involved in that project where you put the elevator in the back of the house? Who is that? That was Warren. Oh yeah, he wasn't here. We've seen that done in other projects where elevator is integrated into a lower, it's not unusual to have a lower garage from the This transcript was exported on Jul 22, 2025 - view latest version here.

May 22, 2025 (Completed 07/17/25)
Transcript by Rev.com

residents on High Street in North Laguna and numerous other places. It's a common feature, and then finally I think at the last hearing I mentioned that I wanted to see a construction staging plan. I'm a little ambivalent. Every time I ask for one it never happens, so I disagree with you, but anyway, it is within our purview.

In fact, you'd be wrong respectfully. Well, I know on an appeal to the city council on one of DRB decisions, they required it and also if I look at the guidelines, we can absolutely require it. So whether it's been done before or not, I've just kind of thought about that and I'm not going to require it on this one for my vote, although I'd love to see one. Anyway, hypothetically, Pat, do you have anything to say whether we can do a staging plan?
PART 2 OF 4 ENDS [01:02:04]
Patrick:

So I wouldn't say it's not permitted. I would say that it would be a draft form and we would still need to defer to planning and of course public works for any issues that would come up down the road that we can't see. So I'm not going to say that a draft couldn't be provided. I'm going to say that I would advise against this board trying to lock that into stone without some discretion to the actual on the ground elements.

Thomas Gibbs:

I think where I see it is if the city council wants to require a staging plan, they can do it on an appeal. If there's something specific that we want included in a staging, we can make that a condition. Right now I'm withdrawing my request for a staging plan that I've boldly stated at the last hearing. So thank you for your listening to that somewhat long dialogue. So feel free also to disagree. Let's talk. Let's not make final decision until everybody's had a chance to talk and then we've had another round of talk. Go ahead.

MJ Coveny:

Okay, does someone want to go next? Do you want to go next? Imer Bauta:

I'll go next, yeah. So I had a chance to review the first meeting via video and I believe that there were substantial changes made from the initial plan set. Although the general appearance from elevations may be hard to see when you go to actual floor sections, you'll see that there's been a major floor area reduction. Obviously there's been the addition of the ADU and we can consider that as we would with regard to the CDP, but I think overall the floor area reduction was substantial. We went down from 3,600 square feet to 2,400, which also reduced the upper level reductions for the home where they're limiting it to that one access room for that deck. They did substantial deck reductions as well and also eve the roof and made some roof reductions as well. Taken the plate height from 10' 2" to 8' 4".

For the garage I think you bring up a great point in your deliberation with it and I went back and forth and I looked at this over and over again and I think there were some general public comment that wanted to see it toward the street and I don't think that helps with the massing and scaling. If anything, I think it may impede the massing and scaling substantially. I think if you bring that garage forward, you're going to see that garage as much taller object versus where it is set back currently. It's substantially behind the front of the property line, and just to kind of show that on C2, I don't know if we have the This transcript was exported on Jul 22, 2025 - view latest version here.

May 22, 2025 (Completed 07/17/25)
Transcript by Rev.com

ability to pull it up on the plan section. If you look at project plan section C2, it shows the section of the cuts that are going to be made from a toll drawing.

Thomas Gibbs:

On C2?
Imer Bauta:

Yeah.

Thomas Gibbs:

Give me a moment.

Imer Bauta:

Toward the back of the set, it's a toll drawing and you look at the section off of the existing grade, which is way up hereThomas Gibbs:

Hold on a second, let me get to it.

Speaker 6:

What page is that?
Thomas Gibbs:

What page is it on?
Imer Bauta:

I don't know if I have that. 28.

Thomas Gibbs:

Someone else is sharingImer Bauta:
28 of 31. So on C2, they show the existing grade in the proposed driveway. So if you're looking at that section, you see that dotted line at the top? That's the existing grade. So I think this is being terraced from what I can tell from this section cut. I believe it's being terraced. So that if you were to move that garage location, assuming that's the rectangle of the proposed garage, if you were to move it. Yeah, if you were to move that garage section, so right now the garage is in this area. If you were to move it up front, that's the first level.

Speaker 5:

Make sure thatImer Bauta:

This transcript was exported on Jul 22, 2025 - view latest version here.

May 22, 2025 (Completed 07/17/25)
Transcript by Rev.com

I'll turn my screen.

Speaker 5:

No, yeah, just it's on the screen. Just yeah, just describe it visually, so not pointing to it.

Imer Bauta:

Okay, so where the number two circle is, that's the proposed driveway elevation for the garage roughly.

Thomas Gibbs:

No, the garage floor is right here.

Imer Bauta:

No, that's the ground floor.

Thomas Gibbs:

It says garage.

Imer Bauta:

Yeah, that's the ground floor is at the top. So where that is it's already set back substantially from the roadway. So I see that as being a less of an impediment than if it were brought up to the roadway. Just from an angle standpoint if you're looking up, I think the terrace is substantial. I think the excavation is substantial even though it may not look like it from the staking, from the plans and what they're proposing to do with the actual build, it does come down substantially to avoid not as much of a massive effect as I think is perceived. So I just want to point that out to everybody that C2 sections important. I also wanted to address the four trees that were added in front. I think that's in great taste with the neighborhood.

It provides a level of privacy and also a good aesthetic for the neighborhood, and then the vines great touch as well. I think that solves a lot of those visual aesthetics that could be considered. I also wanted to just address the pattern of development. I think we have to consider 1540 in our viewpoint of this project. 1540 is at the top of that ridge and it's built out over 14 feet roughly above the grade, and I think if you were to consider this ground four level, it actually is not at that height. So if you're only looking at that ground four level, assuming the AD is slightly out of our purview, I think this definitely meets the pattern of development for that area.

So yeah, I think they've done a lot to meet it. I think there's very limited privacy issues on the backside. I think I've heard some concerns from one of the neighbors pertaining to the spa. So maybe if there's some kind of consideration that could be made there maybe some kind of privacy barrier, I think that would go a long way. I don't have concerns of construction access. I think that could be planned appropriately through the course of construction, but I had a chance to really review this in detail and I feel like I can approve this tonight. I think it meets the pattern of development for the neighborhood and it's going to be an awesome project for the neighborhood. So thank you all for your time.

Speaker 6:

And I'd like to follow that up if you don't mind.

This transcript was exported on Jul 22, 2025 - view latest version here.

May 22, 2025 (Completed 07/17/25)
Transcript by Rev.com

Thomas Gibbs:

Go ahead.

Jessica Gannon:

I can echo pretty much verbatim what a board member was it Belta emits all the objective findings for the general plan, the design review criteria and the coastal development permit. For access, I have not only does the driveway meet the pattern of development as there are multiple driveways within the area, including two doors down, having a driveway enhances the safety of the public as well as the property owner. Putting the driveway in the garage at the street would not only create mass and scale, but also it would create a variance. Of neighborhood compatibility, the choice of materials that you guys proposed this evening is the perfect choice of materials for Bluebird. The color palette and the appearance of three stories is consistent with the pattern of development. View equity, I didn't see any view equity concerns. Privacy, no privacy was observed. The landscape is adequately designed to mitigate a lot of the massing and scale. With the cascade, I loved your choice of cascading down the retaining walls.

It makes it less impactful to the neighborhood, more or less impactful than the Morningside project that was approved. It's going to beautify that neighborhood. It's a tired old neighborhood. This is going to bring beauty back in life, young life back to the neighborhood. I agree that with a privacy barrier near the spa, I didn't even take that into consideration, but I like that idea. I like to point out that the proposed application meets the requirements for open space and lock coverage, and then my only other note is for the VT glass or for the glazing, if you guys can for a condition of approval to have the engineered glass that keeps the light from protruding out. Okay, those are my comments.

Thomas Gibbs:

MJ.

MJ Coveny:

Great, I'll go. First of all, 1540, is that the other property A? Where is 1540? Thomas Gibbs:

No, that's the Susan, Witten's property.

MJ Coveny:

Oh okay, that's not even comparable. Okay, sorry. I thought it was the non-built one. So I think from last round, the change of materials was a great choice. I think it much more integrates with the canyon, which is great. I think adding plants on top of the garage is really helpful in making it again, integrating not feeling as large as it is. I think one of my biggest concerns is mass and scale still, and I think sadly that's for you because I know you're very adamant about the placement on top of the ridge there or on the knoll is placement. I think that by placing something that high up right at the edge feels like it's falling as opposed to placing it in and building up a stair. So that's something I haven't been able to rectify with the placement of the home. It is contributing in my opinion, to mass and scale.

I do think your materials helped mitigate some of the mass and scale by toning down the way the house appears, but placement is a big concern. I think that you to Mr. Bautista's point, you did pull back on your square footage but you added an ADU, and we can't comment on the ADU. So I mean we've seen it before. I think it's a card I think everybody would potentially play, but essentially mass and scale's still This transcript was exported on Jul 22, 2025 - view latest version here.

May 22, 2025 (Completed 07/17/25)
Transcript by Rev.com

there. Same thing with the loft to that essentially roof deck, a loft accessing to a big roof deck that creates mass and scale. That roof deck seems out of place structurally it is a good-looking building, and then you have this kind of what I think is kind of a funky deck, but that deck does make the whole building seem larger. So I feel like that's something that should be looked at to again mitigate the mass and scale.

What else do I have? I think you might've mentioned the cover home and I know we've pushed back on this a lot. They have a double lot and that's my whole thing with them. It makes it seem less mass in scale. If you were on a double lot with this thing, push back a little bit down, we'd be all over it. I just think when you're in this space so high up positioned with no breath, that appears mass in scale and if you won't come down on the size, which is your prerogative to have the square footage, you're within the rights of the zoning to have the square footage, but mass and scale is an issue that I think falls under a couple different guidelines. I'm sorry I'm not an expert at the CDPs.

Thomas Gibbs:

The CDPs also required for the ADUs. So visual compatibility applies to the ADUs.

MJ Coveny:

Okay, I'm not a CDP expert, but these are just things that I see that seem off and that I feel like need to be rectified in order to be accommodating to the Laguna requirements. So grading is funky, right? Because either way you're going to be grading a lot. So I think that's something we have to kind of suspend until we see if and how everybody goes here and what's the best solution to bring down mass and scale, and it might mean more grading but in the long run it helps eliminate the mass and scale, which I think is the biggest neighborhood concerns. Same thing with the retaining walls. As nice as it is to have that winding driveway. I think you mentioned the Witten's property, they have like 30 inch retaining walls that bring you up to that property. So it's not as impeding, it doesn't feel so massive scale. When you have these staggered ones, even though love the stone, love the green, it creates a size of a mass. It gives a feeling of a building. So not immense but it all these components together.

Oh, the ridge, I believe there's a ridge there. I believe every knoll has a ridge. I don't care if someone came and sliced off the top of the ridge and said, "Build a house." Every knolls got a ridge. I think it's the nature of the earth, but I'm not a geologist but I have a pretty good idea that there should be a ridge there and that should be addressed, and I think perhaps based on sort of other points of view relating to kind of trying to be consistent as this knoll continues to expand with home building that we use perhaps the covers house as the criteria for where you start, how much you can exceed the ridge, but again that's honestly it feels like that's the right math to use, but I'm not sure how that works out as far as placement for this house.

The other is the homes behind you will be being built, and I know there is some rules here and I'm sorry I don't know the particular callouts. I would have to get those about blocking their potential site lines as well. I'm always on the fence about somebody's forward-thinking because they might not ever build so everybody else is stuck not doing anything, but I think that we have to keep in mind that these are buildable lots behind you and especially with the sensitivity of this whole SP9 knoll, I think we have to be really careful about that and make sure we're not hampering their future opportunity to build and what might come their way.

Revocable encroachment permit. Yeah, it's at our discretion. I love that they're giving the road with so that shouldn't become an issue, but again, by taking all that generally we give those for driveway access as well as if there's any safety or privacy concerns for many lots that tend to go down slope, sometimes This transcript was exported on Jul 22, 2025 - view latest version here.

May 22, 2025 (Completed 07/17/25)
Transcript by Rev.com

we have to put a wall there in order to protect the public. In this case, I don't see it as being essential, but again, I don't feel like the house is where it needs to be so I don't know if I could really address revocable right now based on what your requirements are.

Oh, glazing. Yeah, I don't think you took much glazing off. If there's a lot, even though you're using the shades and the tinting, they're all packed in there and I just think if you can add some more wall, plus you've got this great siding you're going to use in the stone and I feel like you're going to have so much light and sunshine coming in. Personally, I would say cut back on some of that and it would also benefit and it also I think brings down mass and scale when you don't have these big windows that are at night, lit up, which appears that there's something big there when there's less of it. It minimizes the structure size at night and by day as well, and I still think you can get a lot of great light and visual for all that you need.

Shared stair for fire. I don't know what the city's fire department says about that, but being that we're in such a fire mentality now as we should be, I can't imagine that sharing is the way to go, especially if there is a fire on that knoll, and you need access to everything. Sharing isn't caring in this regard. So I'd look at that. I think that you need separate stairs for all the homes, but I don't know what the policies are and I don't know what the restrictions are and I'm sorry if that's something that can't be driven by a fire department requirement or a specific city funding.

Sorry, this is super important so I want to make sure that I hit everything. Square footage, mass and scale. I think that covers it, but I think we've made progress as much as a couple people didn't, I think we have. I do think that your neighbors are willing to speak, so I'm disappointed and kind of surprised actually to think they haven't shared with you. Maybe there's sort of a perception reality component here that needs to be addressed, but if there is and I suggest everybody do it, and I also caution you on things like adding a loft in order to access a roof deck. I think those kind of things are not looked upon as really very neighborly and probably not very nice, but I also think just from a mass and scale, that upper deck is just, "Wow, it's big." And that's it, thank you.

Thomas Gibbs:

All right, Lewis, you've been waiting patiently. You're up.

Louis Weil:

Thanks for leaving me last. Okay, obviously it's a complicated site. I really appreciate the comments on my board, the staff report and the commentary from the public and from the applicants team. It's all been well crafted. I've been a volunteer in this role for a little over six and a half years. I've seen it all and I still get surprised from different applications, and I kind of got to go back to page one of the design review guidelines on projects like this. I guess it's from chapter 25.05.0408, the design review board for residential projects is on a case-by-case basis using criteria sensitive to urban design with emphasis of respect for context design, creativity, compatibility of scale, and the pedestrian experience. The property development standards contain the municipal code, in the municipal code, represent the potential maximum development given to a property. The actual development allowed will often be less than the maximum allowed by code because of localized conditions identified during the design review process.

So I have to take that into context and in evaluating this one, I've kept an open mind. It's a difficult lot. I feel like I've fairly communicated with both the applicant teams and the neighbors and all the evaluations that I've done, even though I'm not in sight have been solely on my own and subject and not subject to any outside influence, whether it's the staff report, it's all been information that's brought to This transcript was exported on Jul 22, 2025 - view latest version here.

May 22, 2025 (Completed 07/17/25)
Transcript by Rev.com

me and I've tried to interpret it, and these are my findings. As I stated in the first hearing, access was my number one issue with the project. The following access improvements require shall apply in all zones, specifically exempted or sorry, access. I had to go back to chapter 25.53.002 from applicability. The following access and improvement requirements shall apply in all zones unless specifically exempted by other approvals of subdivision, land division conditional use permits, variances, design review, precise street plans unless specifically waived by the city council or applications would cause hazardous or undesirable situations.

That comes to mind, especially when I read the AMA report, and the AMA report identifies bluebird access, which varies in width from 18 to 28 feet, which I actually took a tape measure and asphalt to asphalt was only 16 feet. So I mean I get you're widening it for the parking spaces, which is much appreciated. Those retaining walls come back to the property line. You create almost a 28-foot zone in that space. I find that available for parking where the common street width for parking is 25 feet. Also noted in the AMA report for one side of the street, chapter 25.53006 access and street improvements to provide proper access for the user and prevent congestion or other hazard related to the use of land permitted the following application zones. The following improvements are deemed and must be provided by the owner and reviewed by the design review board.

The access that I'm referring to for Bluebird Canyon when I looked at the houses heading towards Regatta, where these three vacant lots end immediately starts a curb and the curb availability for homes accessing their lots. Granted it's the downhill site is approximately 24 feet from the start of the curb to their house. In your drawings, I see it at 20 feet. I need that reduction to match the development in the immediate vicinity at 24 feet to start your rise and run. Therefore, moving the board member, Gibbs identified those permanent retaining walls, if ever removed, would create a non-conforming condition under today's standards for you to access your property. So I think it's a reasonable ask and it's something we've done for significant permanent structures to require them to be out of the right of way. So moving that when it comes to the access to the driveway, I think we've had issues. I know you put some graphics on the board that indicate various heights from finished floor of garage...

Louis Weil:
... the board that indicate various heights from finished floor of garage and relative to your project. But one of the elements that's missing is the variable height from the finished street level to your finished floor of garage. And for me, I need that to be lowered, and I think that would solve a lot of problems by bringing the project down. I mentioned it for privacy in a prior hearing that some of the balance that I evaluated for the other sites in this immediate vicinity was the relationship to the top of the topography on the lot. And in order for me to balance mass and scale, I need a relative size to that. Being 15 feet or close to 15 feet above the highest part of your lot allows you the privacy impairments to your neighbors on the other side and the houses that you're looking down on into the canyon because it so far exceeds the null.And to Board Member Gibbs' comments, I can't make that finding for the CVP because of that dynamic.

Whereas, I could make that on the other ones because they were more relative to the overall shape of the hillside and built into the context. Fire accessing the AMNA suggest a lot split and the shared running of the stairway, I find a nexus that lot A needs to be developed or being heard or have approved project in order for me to say that this configuration works on this lot because the AMNA report identifies Lot A as needing the proper access first. So without that, it's a gap. I also alluded to the gap earlier of the gap in the REP as published in the staff report under the REP documents in context to the actual plans. I understand your intent and what you're trying to accomplish, but there's a handful of variables in that This transcript was exported on Jul 22, 2025 - view latest version here.

May 22, 2025 (Completed 07/17/25)
Transcript by Rev.com

fire safety hazard is a crucial component in this identified as a very high fire severity zone. So I need to make sure that you're safe as the applicant and the neighborhood's safe as well.

Then when we get into the guidelines, chapter 11, I don't find it consistent with lot coverage and hardscape given the length of the driveway. I think there's definitely room for balancing the grading component to maintain and achieve your development goals. A large project can appear much smaller and less massive with the right design and criteria. I think my advice to the applicant in this situation is we've talked about this on the project and the answer that keeps coming back is it's the most efficient way, it's the most whatever. We're asking for a more creative solution, and I hope you can take that to heart to help us find the right balance for your project to achieve the goals you want because I believe it's approvable in size for this size lot, but I need a different design.

I asked for redesign in the first hearing and I'm still asking for a much more significant redesign at this hearing. The SPA location on the rear end of the property line, I think it's elevated. I think there's other locations that would be less impactful on the site and I'd be open to alternative solutions. View impact, it's less of a view. I do have to consider the other undevelopable lots. They have reasonable buildable envelopes, but at this time, I don't necessarily see a significant view impairment other than the reduction in overall height and more tapering into the hillside. Privacy, because of that, I already touched on that. Lighting and glare, I appreciate the reductions. I think Board Member Gannon's recommendation is a positive one to minimize glare.

Then circling back to the access still being the problem, when we go into design review criteria chapter

11.16 and 11.17, garages and driveways need to be compatible. I think referencing sites that are nonconforming and are built of a completely different era than the standards that are afforded to the development standards today is not the right approach for the site and we need more creative solutions. But the guidelines do call for creative solutions, and so I'm not sure this is the best alternative in this fit. So for me, I could be supportive of a continuance, given more good faith of the applicant to really work on the significant elements of the project or take further consideration from discussion from the board as to where to go.

PART 3 OF 4 ENDS [01:33:04]
Thomas Gibbs:

All right. Thank you, Mr. Weil. Let me make a few comments and I'm going to put it, again, open to any additional comments from the board members. I appreciate everyone's comments. Obviously, we don't have presently, and there may be changes as we talk, but I had some clarifications and things that I see from based on Mr. Weil's comments, which for the most part, I agree with. He talked in terms of guidelines. I think that those comments particularly dealing with mass and scale visual compatibility, the long driveway and the garage going so high, all in my mind and if I was to base it on anything, it would be based on the coastal development permit and the land use elements of the general plan.

Also, I think that I'm a little bit more firm on the issue of the revocable encroachment permit. I have a hard time approving the kind of elements including the roadway and the retaining walls in the encroachment in the publicly owned right of way because of their permanence. And what I thought was pretty pertinent to that is that grading solutions to move that back act should be considered and there is a creative solution to this. But sometimes to get solutions to comply with the applicable rules and regulations including the coastal development permit, the land use element and your request that we have authority to grant or not grant for a revocable encroachment permit requires some compromises and some creative solutions.

This transcript was exported on Jul 22, 2025 - view latest version here.

May 22, 2025 (Completed 07/17/25)
Transcript by Rev.com

When I went back and listened, I thought we made that clear that we wanted a creative solution and that's why we tabled it to say come back and rethink. And instead of rethinking it it was repackaged.

Now I have two board members who would approve your project. I totally respect them, and they have that view, but there's three who don't. I just wanted to comment on my impressions. I obviously disagree with my two board members who would approve the project and find it in compliance.

Although I respect their views, their talk didn't change my view and I had some modifications based on what Mr. Weil says and also on MJ. So does any other board member have a comment before I guess we deal with a motion? Do you have any comments? Mr. Weil you have anything? Louis? Louis Weil:

It's question to the applicant if it's in his interest of good faith to require a third hearing or toThomas Gibbs:

Okay, I'm going to make a motion to continue this. Oh, yeah, do you want a third hearing? I think part of it is, will you approach it in good faith for a third hearing in light of our comments? David Dyrnaes:

The problem is you don't define creative, and we've presented here that there is almost no solution that doesn't become very negatively impactful on those same CDP criteria as you're talking about. So we can continue it and we can look further, but I don't know how we can make the kind of changes you're suggesting without doing something like maybe removing the ADU completely or something like that.

But the buildable area is on top of the hill. The garage, if it's put at the street means that me, a nearly 60-year-old guy is going to move into a retirement home and have to climb up three stories to get to my home. And there's no real improvement there because an elevator under the ground up to the main home is still going to be supplemented by paths and walking stairs that are going to tear up that hill on the outside anyway and look somewhat like a driveway anyway. So we can go back and be creative, if you want to continue it. But I don't know what we're going to be able to come back with.

Thomas Gibbs:

Let me describe what I think is the consensus is, and if you want to go back in good faith to try to come up with something that will meet where I think the consensus is assuming the people who agree with my consensus concur, fine. Then with that kind of understanding, I'll support a third hearing. It's a discretionary thing. You're not entitled to a third hearing. If you don't, then we'll put a vote, a yay or nay vote. So it's going to be up to you. But the way I understand the consensus so it's clear, 'cause I think you may be under somewhat of a misimpression on the garage, the consensus is too much mass and scale. The building needs to be lowered and terraced if you want to maintain the square footage. If you build a smaller building that changes things. But I'm not asking you to build a smaller building.

David Dyrnaes:

So not building on the top of the hill.

Thomas Gibbs:

Again, you're not listening to me. I'm going to say what the consensus is. I'm not saying that you can't build on the top of the hill. I'm saying the height of the building needs to be reduced, and if you want to This transcript was exported on Jul 22, 2025 - view latest version here.

May 22, 2025 (Completed 07/17/25)
Transcript by Rev.com

maintain the square footage, you need to terrace it into the slope. That's where I'm hearing the consensus, and it's a three-person consensus. The second thingLouis Weil:

And creative access.

Thomas Gibbs:

Pardon me?
Louis Weil:

And creative access.

Thomas Gibbs:

Yeah, I going to get to the access.

Louis Weil:

The REP.

Thomas Gibbs:

I'm going to get to the access. The second thing is with respect to the access, I think you have two options there. One is to build a street-level garage. The other is to lower the garage and have an access road that's lower. Mr. Weil suggested that, I could support that. But it needs to be creative to do that, to have aSpeaker 2:

How much lower?
Thomas Gibbs:

Pardon me?
Speaker 2:

How much lower?
Thomas Gibbs:

Again, we're not the designers, we're not the architects. You need to evaluate whether you want to propose something that we can consider given our comments. Also, it needs to be pulled back out of the right of way as far as any elevated driveway and retaining wall. Louis, that's what I understood you to say and I concur with that. Am I reading you correctly? Louis Weil:

Yeah.

Thomas Gibbs:

This transcript was exported on Jul 22, 2025 - view latest version here.

May 22, 2025 (Completed 07/17/25)
Transcript by Rev.com

Okay.

Imer Bauta:

Can we ask a question of the applicant with regard to what he would be prepared to propose tonight to get a little bit more clarity to see if that might sway a voter? Thomas Gibbs:

No, I'm not going toImer Bauta:

No?
Thomas Gibbs:

I don't want to be getting into abstracts here or getting into potential ideas. Until we see it, we can't evaluate it, but it needs to be substantial. It needs to be a rethought project. Go ahead.

MJ Coveny:

Just wanted to ask a question in regard to ridge height. Is there any directive that would help him understand his height based on the ridge? This is, again, I'm not completely clear.

Thomas Gibbs:

Well, I think your message was clear it needs to come down from the ridge. I'm not sure I'm that set in my ways there. And keep in mind you only need one or two votes. I want to be real about this. You've got two people who are going to support the project very likely, can't predict. So you've heard comments from us, so I was trying to get a consensus. I'm not so wedded that you have to come down off the ridge personally, and Louis can speak for himself, but I'm trying to give you a consensus.

Consistent with what MJ's comments were, what Louis's comments and what mine, the height has to come down.

It needs to be terraced in if you want to maintain the square footage. You need to remove retaining walls out of the public right of way and an elevated driveway there. So you need to pull that back and for mass and scale and for a number of other, I told you I was troubled with how much that driveway, how long that driveway is going up the slope. I think he raises land use element issues and finding five of the CDP issues. One of Mr. Weil's suggestion was to lower the garage to reduce the length of that driveway. That would go a long way, I think, towards solving my concerns about the CDP and the land use issues. So that's about the guidance. I don't think we can give you any more specifics.

David Dyrnaes:

May we have a moment to confer?
Thomas Gibbs:

Absolutely.

Patrick:

Oh, board and so I want to make sure that do we want to take a recess during this time? This transcript was exported on Jul 22, 2025 - view latest version here.

May 22, 2025 (Completed 07/17/25)
Transcript by Rev.com

Thomas Gibbs:

Yeah, why don't we take a five-minute recess?
Speaker 7:

Yeah, five-minute recess.

Thomas Gibbs:

I need to go to the restroom.

Patrick:

Once again please, board, do not discuss the merits of it. Don't discuss it with the applicant. Just five minutes. We did call five minutes. It's only been about 3 1/2.

Thomas Gibbs:

Okay.

Speaker 7:

But that's fine. I just want to make sure that, is Board Member Weil there. Board Member Weil, can you hear us?
Thomas Gibbs:

Mr. Weil, Louis?
Louis Weil:

Just unmuting. Yeah, I'm here.

Thomas Gibbs:

Perfect.

Speaker 7:

I think we can go ahead.

Louis Weil:

The camera just came back on.

Thomas Gibbs:

All right, the meeting is back in session. Do you have a response? David Dyrnaes:

The bottom line is that we believe that this opposition is effectively an attempt to prevent me through a veiled method from building on the top of the knoll. I appreciate that concern of the neighbors and that that is being represented by council members, sorry, board members here, but we can't not build there.

And building a one-story home, which by the way, is already terraced into the hill from west to east, This transcript was exported on Jul 22, 2025 - view latest version here.

May 22, 2025 (Completed 07/17/25)
Transcript by Rev.com

would be basically building a bunker underground. Maybe I'd have one side of it poke out, so I don't see that fundamentally changing.

If I move the garage down to the street, it would be harmful to both safety and my interest for the property. And ultimately, I cannot envision us having a material change that's going to satisfy what, Board Member Gibbs, your clarifications are of what you expect. And certainly, I appreciate them and respect them, but I don't know how we can come back with something that can come anywhere near what you guys are asking for. And ultimately, we would ask that you give us the most consideration you can and vote your conscience.

Thomas Gibbs:

Well, we're going to vote our determination on the findings. So I guess we have a motion to make andImer Bauta:

Can we do additional deliberation considering that newThomas Gibbs:

Absolutely. Go ahead.

Imer Bauta:

So it sounds like he doesn't want to have a third hearing, is that what we're hearing? Thomas Gibbs:

Right. It's going either be a grant for a denialImer Bauta:

Yeah, soThomas Gibbs:
... or approval or denial.

Imer Bauta:

So I think we should make a consideration for a reduction in mass here today. Whatever dimension that may be, one feet, two feet, three feet, I think that would at least give him a condition of approval, which is what he's looking for. We're not in the business of giving approvals to anyone blanket, but I think this consideration should take place here today. I think we could also accommodate some of the driveway concerns through an approval process and also make the findings for those driveway concerns and also the reduced height. What that might look like, I think we should discuss internally and see like, hey, maybe MJ thinks five feet, maybe you think three feet. But I think we can give clear direction to him today so he can leave here with a condition of approval and then we could balance the neighbor's interest how we see fit as the five on the board. So I just wanted to open that up and see if that might be something we might be amenable to.

Thomas Gibbs:

I'll speak first and then I'll turn it to MJ and-
This transcript was exported on Jul 22, 2025 - view latest version here.

May 22, 2025 (Completed 07/17/25)
Transcript by Rev.com

Louis Weil:

Board Member Gibbs, can I... Oh, I'm sorry.

Thomas Gibbs:

Let me just say real quick and I'll turn it over to you guys. Yeah, I think it needs a redesign. I can't give specifics such that we can make them conditions to modify the project to reduce it like three feet here or reduce to lower the garage five feet there. I think the consensus I gave is where I'm at and that would require a redesign. I don't think it is more comprehensive than we would be able to do, in my view, by trying to come up with specific conditions. Louis?
Louis Weil:

There's a misunderstanding on the applicant's part. The buildable lot and the setbacks I can respect on this site, and a buildable project could meet the standards within that footprint of the buildable space.

In respect to those setbacks, I just think the way it's proposed doesn't work or meet the guidelines as we've discussed. There's plenty of opportunity for him to build on the buildable area in the site and achieve his program.

MJ Coveny:

And I agree with Mr. Weil. I think that it's quite an effort to have to redesign this. And for us to try to chip away at it as a board with limited architectural skills, we can go only by our findings and what we've been able to present tonight that gives him the tools he needs and his architect to rethink it and then we can take it from there. But I think it's premature for us to step up at this point.

Thomas Gibbs:

And I echo what both my colleagues said and concur with what Mr. Weils said, that we're not saying you can't build on the flat area up above. I certainly didn't say that, but my comments stand. I don't need to repeat them. So in light of that, unless you want a continuance, I'm going to be making a motion, a different kind of motion. It's up to you.

Speaker 2:

You vote your conscience.

Thomas Gibbs:

All right.

James Campbell:

Mr. Chair, I think what we would be asking you to do is to direct staff... the motion would be to direct staff to bring back a resolution for denial at the next meeting.

Thomas Gibbs:

Right.

James Campbell:

Okay.

This transcript was exported on Jul 22, 2025 - view latest version here.

May 22, 2025 (Completed 07/17/25)
Transcript by Rev.com

Thomas Gibbs:

Because we gave a lot of reasons for denial and I think we need to look at it to make sure that the reasons are accurately stated in the resolution. That's a resolution I want to look at and I'll probably have some input on. All right, so I move that we continue this hearing too and we'll talk about... Oh, what date would be appropriate before I make the motion? James Campbell:

I think we can go to the next meeting 'cause three weeks away and that gives us sufficient time to write the resolution based on the comments.

Thomas Gibbs:

That's June 12th, right?
Louis Weil:

Is it a continuance or is it a vote for denial? I'm just asking for clarification.

Thomas Gibbs:

Let me make sure I understand this, 'cause it's what we did last time. We move to continue and direct staff to prepare a resolution for denial of the application based upon the grounds. And I would suggest it be on the consensus grounds we gave.

Speaker 7:

Correct. And so, Chair, if I may, so there's a slight nuance there that I want to flesh out. Typically, in the past, what we have done is simply direct staff to come back with a resolution, whatever that is, approval or denial, hear if it's denial. Typically, we put it on the consent calendar, so the statement that we're going to continue at the hearing is a bit [inaudible 01:58:14] Thomas Gibbs:

Okay, soSpeaker 7:

Because what that would mean is that then the hearings open. Someone could come and say, "Hey, I want to argue no, that I want X, Y and Z." I just want to make sure that the board is clear. It's up to you guys. You guys can do whateverThomas Gibbs:

No, no, no. So I want to do that. So the motion is to direct staff to prepare a resolution for denial of the application and to put it on the consent calendar at the next meeting.

Speaker 7:

And then just for everyone's edification, so then at that hearing, it is not a, it not a rehearing. It is simply did staff accurately take down and memorialize in the resolution what the board decides here today.

Thomas Gibbs:

This transcript was exported on Jul 22, 2025 - view latest version here.

May 22, 2025 (Completed 07/17/25)
Transcript by Rev.com

Okay, fair enough. All right, so I move that on item 5.71560, Bluebird Canyon Drive, Lot B, Design Review 24-2509, Coastal Development Permit 24-2510. Revocable Encroachment Permit 24-2511, on that item, I move that the board direct staff to prepare a resolution for denial of those applications and that that resolution be put on the consent calendar at the next design review meeting, which is June 12, 2025.

Louis Weil:

I'll second.

Thomas Gibbs:

All right. Please call the roll.

Speaker 8:

Board Member Bauta?
Imer Bauta:

No.

Speaker 8:

Board Member Coveny?
Ms. Coveny:

Yes.

Speaker 8:

Board Member Weil?
Louis Weil:

Yes.

Imer Bauta:

Chair Pro Tem Gannon?
Ms. Gannon:

No.

Imer Bauta:

Chair Gibbs?
Thomas Gibbs:

Yes. All right. With that, we stand adjourned until our next meeting on June 12, 2025.

Louis Weil:

Thanks, guys. Have a good night.

This transcript was exported on Jul 22, 2025 - view latest version here.

May 22, 2025 (Completed 07/17/25)
Transcript by Rev.com

PART 4 OF 4 ENDS [02:00:56]