This transcript was exported on Jul 17, 2025 - view latest version here.
June 12 2025 (Completed 07/17/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Mr. Bouta:
Yes.
Sarah:
Board member Coveney?
Ms. Coveney:
Yes.
Sarah:
Board member Weil?
Mr. Weil:
Yes.
Sarah:
Chair pro tem Gannon?
Chair pro tem Gannon:
Yes.
Sarah:
Chair Gibbs?
Chair Gibbs:
Yes. Okay. With respect to 4.5, which I pulled, I pulled for... well first of all on 4.5, let's open the public hearing. Let me first say 4.5 was put on the consent calendar and it's for project, give me a second.
Mr. Weil:
Chair, we need to invite the applicant.
Chair Gibbs:
Yeah. If the applicant's present, the applicant can come to the front table. The project is for 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive, Lot B. Design Review 24-2509. Coastal development permit 24-2510. Revocable encroachment permit 24-2511. Is the applicant here? There he is. We called your item. Okay. So the applicant is sitting at the table so it's clear what we are considering tonight is not the project. We are solely considering the resolution and we will limit the comments to just the contents of the resolution not to relitigate. Does staff have anything to begin with before we turn to the applicant on 4.5? Pat - City Attorney:
Chair. Yeah, if I may once again, just to reiterate the item before the design review board tonight is whether or not staff accurately memorialized the direction from the Design Review Board at the last meeting. That's the only thing I have to add. I'll defer to interim planning manager Campbell.
This transcript was exported on Jul 17, 2025 - view latest version here.
June 12 2025 (Completed 07/17/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Mr. Campbell:
I have nothing additional to that.
Chair Gibbs:
Okay. Applicant, you have five minutes.
David Dyrnaes:
Thank you, board. Not working. Hello? Oh, good. Thank you for the time to speak. There's not a lot for me to say, that hasn't been said. Of course. I think I would like to ask my attorney from Castle Morgan to speak to the key points that I think are valid here, that are important regarding that resolution and the position of the board. And if there's anything else we need to speak to, you can certainly ask us after that.
Applicant Attorney:
Thanks Dave. I'll be brief. I just wanted to mention that when we were sitting here a couple weeks ago before you, we heard a lot of subjective comments on this project and they're written in my letter dated today. I sent them to the city attorney in a letter a couple of days ago. The city attorney confirmed in a letter today that the project is subject to the Housing Accountability Act and SB 450 or SB 9 previously. If the project is subject to those laws, the primary purpose of those laws is to approve housing projects only subject to objective design standards. And that is not what happened here a couple of weeks ago. I heard almost entirely subjective comments on this project and that is prohibited under both the Housing Accountability Act and SB 450. We urge you to reconsider and we're here to answer any questions you may have about those laws. Thank you.
Chair Gibbs:
Okay. I open to the public if anyone has any comments on 4.5? Seeing none, you have the opportunity for the three-minute rebuttal if you want to.
David Dyrnaes:
I just wanted to say that I thank you all for the work you've put in on this. Regardless of the outcome, I know this is a very difficult role you have and this community is not one for people to be quiet about their neighbor's situations and projects like this. So regardless of the outcome, thank you for your support.
Chair Gibbs:
Okay. I'll close. Any questions first board members? Okay. I'll close the public hearing. I'll first say I appreciate those comments, Mr. Deneys. I think that that is correct. I mean the board worked hard on your project and we come to our independent views and I respect your views and appreciate that you respect ours and you have your legal remedies and so forth. All right, I'm going to propose one change in the resolution and I think Mr. Weil may have some comments. On the fifth we are as clause on 1.9 it reads, "Each of the three other design review board members had varying issues with the project, some of which overlapped with one another and some that were independent to each design review board member."
I don't think that's entirely correct. I think that the three board members who were voting for denial really had similar concerns. And I can speak for myself, as Mr. Weil spoke and as MJ spoke, I shared their This transcript was exported on Jul 17, 2025 - view latest version here.
June 12 2025 (Completed 07/17/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
concerns without coming out and stating all of that. I think it was a collective, so my suggested language for that sentence would be, "Each of the three other design review members had concerns with the project." And the record reflect what our concerns were and what we stated. So with that change, do you have any other?
Mr. Weil:
Yeah, I guess page three part of the REP section, I think kind of finding number B, in my deliberation I gave some more specific comments to the nearby vicinity where the developed street was curb to curb and I think it was marked at 24 feet. So I'd like either counsel to either articulate some better notes towards that specific finding at the point of access to be incorporated into finding B.
Pat - City Attorney:
Perfect. So if I may, Mr. Chair, what we may want to do is add the following sentence to that finding B.
Obviously not the actual finding, but in our discussion it would simply say, "Further, for some other properties in the surrounding areas, the width of the street is 24 feet at the access point of the driveway as proposed, the street would be 20 feet, which is not sufficiently set back from the center line of the street."
Chair Gibbs:
Does that work? It works for me.
Mr. Weil:
And then as long as it incorporates the safety of the... which is part of the earlier finding, I accept that.
New Speaker:
Okay.
Chair Gibbs:
Okay. With that said, I move that, excuse me. I move that the board adopt resolution 24-2509 with the modifications that were stated on the record. Denying design review 24- 2509, coastal development permit 24-2510, revocable encroachment permit 24-2511. And finding said action exempt from CEQA guidelines pursuant to 15270.
Mr. Weil:
Second.
Chair Gibbs:
Can you call the role Sarah?
Sarah:
Board member Bouta?
Mr. Bouta:
No.
This transcript was exported on Jul 17, 2025 - view latest version here.
June 12 2025 (Completed 07/17/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Sarah:
Board member Coveney?
Ms. Coveney:
Yes.
Sarah:
Board member Weil?
Mr. Weil:
Yes.
Sarah:
Chair pro tem Gannon?
Chair pro tem Gannon:
No.
Sarah:
Chair Gibbs?
Chair Gibbs:
Yes. Okay. So with that done, we are going to go to the regular agenda to begin with, do we have any suggestions for changing the order of the agenda items? Mr. Weil:
I was just thinking maybe 5.3 be moved up.