RESOLUTION 24-2509
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF
LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA DENYING DESIGN REVIEW 24-2509, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-2510, AND REVOCABLE
ENCROACHMENT PERMIT 24-2511 TO BE LOCATED AT 1560 BLUEBIRD
CANYON DRIVE (LOT B) AND FINDING THE ACTION EXEMPT
PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.
WHEREAS on August 29, 2024, an application was filed by the owner of property located at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive - Lot B ("Applicant"), requesting Design Review 24-2509, Coastal Development Permit 24-2510, and Revocable Encroachment Permit 24-2511 for the construction of a single-family dwelling with an attached two-car garage and an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) in the R-1 (Residential Low Density) zone ("Project"). As part of the City's certified Local Coastal Program, Design Review is required for the new structure, vehicular access, elevated decks, spa, grading, retaining walls, trash enclosure in the front setback, and landscaping. A Revocable Encroachment Permit 24-2511 is requested for improvements proposed within the public right-of-way, including walls, stairs, irrigation, drainage facilities, and lighting.
WHEREAS the Design Review Board conducted a duly noticed public hearing on January 23, 2025, pursuant to Title 25, Zoning, of the Laguna Beach Municipal Code. The Design Review Board considered all public testimony on the proposed Project and all relevant public comments, and all documents and evidence submitted, including but not limited to the staff report, attachments, and materials presented by the Applicant and the Project architect.
WHEREAS at the conclusion of the January 23, 2025, hearing, the Design Review Board provided direction to the applicant to make changes to the Project to make it more compatible with the required Coastal Development Permit, Design Review and Revocable Encroachment Permit findings. Issues raised were the Project's excessive mass and siting of the building (not square footage) with a long driveway and exposed retaining walls and voted unanimously to continue the Project to allow the applicant sufficient time to redesign the Project.
WHEREAS the Design Review Board conducted a duly noticed public hearing on May 22, 2025, pursuant to Title 25, Zoning, of the Laguna Beach Municipal Code. The Design Review Board considered all public testimony on the proposed Project, as revised after the January 23, 2025, Design Review Board hearing, and all relevant public comments, and all documents and evidence submitted, including but not limited to the staff report, attachments, and materials presented by the Applicant and the Project architect.
WHEREAS at the May 22, 2025, hearing, two members of the Design Review Board were in support of the Project as proposed. Each of the three other Design Review Board members had concerns with the Project. At the conclusion of the deliberations, the Applicant was given the choice of a vote on the Project that night or the opportunity to make changes to the Project to try and get an additional affirmative without compromising their goals for the Project and requested a vote on the Project that evening. As a result, the Design Review Board, by a 3-2 vote, directed staff to prepare a resolution for denial rather than continue the item to consider additional design changes.
Design Review Board Resolution 24-2509
WHEREAS all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Design Review Board of the City of Laguna Beach does hereby find, determine, and resolve as follows:
SECTION 1. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution by this reference.
SECTION 2. The Design Review Board hereby finds the denial of the Project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15270 of the CEQA Guidelines because CEQA does not apply to projects that a public agency rejects or disapproves.
SECTION 3. The Design Review Board hereby denies Revocable Encroachment Permit 24-2511 based on the following findings:
Finding No. 1 -LBMC Section 11.50.010 provides, "A revocable encroachment permit consists of a discretionary approval by the Laguna Beach Design Review approval authority to allow minor classes of construction in an otherwise unimproved, unused public right-of-way." Further Section LBMC Section 11.50.030 provides, "This category of Project is intended for small-scale structures such as low fences, retaining walls, walkways, stairs, and other minor features typically associated with landscaping, including steppingstones, paved paths, planter areas, and irrigation systems. This type of compliant conditions if removal is ever required by the City." The Project proposes large retaining walls and slopes within the public right-of-way necessary to support a long and winding driveway to a proposed sing-family dwelling. The improvements are such that they are not minor or small-scale and could not be easily removed without compromising the required vehicular access pursuant to LBMC Section 25.53.004 for the proposed single-family residence should the City require the use of the full width of the right-of-way in the future.
Finding No. 2 - LBMC section 11.50.050 states the required criteria and evaluation for issuance of a revocable encroachment permit:
(a) It should be located in a manner that is not hazardous to the traveling public, including motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians;
(b) It should be sufficiently set back from the edge of pavement or street centerline to provide adequate travel, parking and walking lanes;
(c) It should not conflict with preexisting public utility structures, especially hydrants, vault and service meters in any manner that necessitates relocation thereof at public expense or causes any other unacceptable interference, including impediments to the maintenance, relocation or repair of pipelines, conduits or substructures of any public utility; (d) It will not preclude public access, use or enjoyment of any area that has historically established such access, use or enjoyment;
Design Review Board Resolution 24-2509
(e) It is not precedent setting in nature to the extent that it creates a noticeable projection into the streetscape as established by existing construction and improvements on neighboring properties; and (Đ) It does not create structures of unusual or unacceptable appearance, form, shape or height that detract from the general quality of the streetscape.
Finding (b): The proposed large retaining walls and slopes within the public right-of-way would not be set back sufficiently to provide adequate travel, parking, and walking lanes should the City require the full use of the width of the right-of-way to expand vehicle or pedestrian access or emergency access in the future on Bluebird Canyon Drive. If installed as proposed, any future road widening would be infeasible. Further, for some other properties in the surrounding areas, the width of the street is 24' at the access point of the driveway. As proposed, the street would be 20' which is not sufficiently set back from the centerline of the street.
Finding (e): This section of Bluebird Canyon Drive does not have other revocable encroachments of this size and scale. The proposed encroachment could be precedent setting as there are other projects proposed in and around this Project. Effectively forfeiting this area of the public right-of-way due to the size and scale of the proposed retaining walls and slopes that create a noticeable projection in a possibly precedential
setting way is not consistent with the required findings for a revocable encroachment permit.
Finding (f): The size of the proposed retaining walls and slopes would create an unusual or unacceptable appearance of shape and height that would detract from the quality of the existing streetscape. Homes on the opposite side of Bluebird Canyon Drive are all (or most) built downslope and there are no similarly sized encroachment on Bluebird Canyon Drive on the same side of the street as the Proposed Project.
SECTION 4. The Design Review Board hereby denies Coastal Development Permit 24-2510 based on the following findings:
Finding No. 1: The Project is not in conformity with all the applicable provisions of the certified local coastal program, including the following review criteria provided in LBMC Section 25.07.012(F):
5. The proposed development will minimize the alterations of natural landforms and will not result in undue risks from geological and erosional forces and/or flood and fire hazards.
No. The proposed Project includes the grading alteration of the entire project site and includes a grading export of approximately 1,398 cubic yards of soil. Project development alters the entire lot leaving no area of the site in a natural or near natural condition despite the installation of ornamental landscaping. As a result, the Project is not designed in a way to minimize alteration of naturally occurring landforms on the Project site.
6. The proposed development will be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and where feasible, will restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas.
No. The proposed three-level, single-family home would sit atop a series of retaining walls within the building envelope that would result in the visual appearance of an imposing and bulky development. The Design Review Board Resolution 24-2509
appearance of mass. The overall height of the building and retaining walls would be approximately 50 feet design of the retaining walls, including the materials, color, and landscaping will not sufficiently soften the above the center of the proposed driveway where it intersects the street to the top of the highest roof. The overall height of the building and retaining walls would be approximately 49 feet above the street at the result in development that is visually incompatible with the surrounding area where other properties are center of the property to the proposed deck guardrail above the great room. This design of the Project would public rights-of-way. Lowering of the Project (but keeping the same square footage) such that it is closer to either developed closer to the street or in a way that is not a visually imposing when viewed from various the street was mentioned as a possible solution; however, the Applicant declined to make such a change to the Project.
condition despite the installation of ornamental landscaping. Thus, the natural topography of the site is not Further, the Project alters and develops the entire lot leaving no area of the site in a natural or near natural used to maximize visual compatibility.
access to garages being provided (predominantly) directly from the street without long sloping driveways The Bluebird Canyon neighborhood is characterized by understated hillside development with vehicular and exposed retaining walls. The proposed Project would create a long sloping driveway to a motor court requiring additional grading and retaining walls that are not typically found in the neighborhood and thus increases the visual incompatibility of this Project.
The discussion and facts presented under LU Policies 2.1, 2.8, 7.3/10.2, and Open Space and Conservation Element Policy 13-B further support the Design Review Board's inability to make this finding and are incorporated herein by reference.
Finding No. 2: The Project is not in conformity with all the applicable provisions of the certified Local Coastal Program as follows:
Land Use Element (LU) Policies 2.1, 2.8, and 7.3' and Open Space and Conservation Element Policy 13-B
No. The proposed Project as presented to the Design Review Board would alter and obscure the entire property to a point that the natural profile of the site would be developed and obscured. The Bluebird Canyon area is an enclave of predominantly hillside and ridgeline development between two open space canyon areas that is largely surrounded by additional higher ridgeline and hillside development to the northwest, result, the site is highly visible from many surrounding homes and publicly accessible scenic viewing points north, and southeast. A public access trail provides public views of the Project site from the northeast. As a making protection of the natural profile of the ridgeline on the Project site as a visual resource necessary. Open Space and Conservation Element Policy 13-B requires that development proposals, including additions and alterations to existing buildings, incorporate protection of the natural profile of ridgelines as visual resources. The proposed Project is sited furthest away from the street, impacting the natural profile of the ridgeline.
Further, LU Policy 2.1 states:
' The Laguna Beach Land Use Element of the General Plan is a component of the City's Certified LCP.
Design Review Board Resolution 24-2509
"Maintain the diversity and uniqueness of individual neighborhoods. Development standards and Design Review guidelines shall minimize the scale and bulk of new construction and/or renovation and respect the unique character and identity of Laguna's residential neighborhoods. " and require development to be compatible with the surrounding residences. Goal: Preserve, enhance a lower appearance of mass. Older homes tend to be smaller than newer homes and most homes in the area The area of the proposed Project is characterized by older hillside development and custom homes that have are downslope and are accessed from the road above. Homes constructed down a slope are less massive when viewed from the street above because most of the building is out of direct sight below the upper level. result, the mass is not perceived more acutely. Additionally, these downslope homes are typically developed These downslope homes are more visible from lower and typically more distant vantage points and as a are built up from the street with short driveways leading to a garage. Few homes are developed with longer with short driveways (a car length or less) leading to a garage or carport. A more limited number of homes sloping driveways leading up to a home located at a higher elevation than the street. Homes built up from a street appear more massive because the viewer is closer and is looking up while on the street. envelope that add to the overall bulk of development. The design of the retaining walls, including the The proposed three-level, single-family home would sit atop a series of retaining walls within the building materials, color, and landscaping will not sufficiently soften the appearance of mass. The overall height of the building and retaining walls would be approximately 50 feet above the center of the proposed driveway where it intersects the street to the top of the highest roof. The overall height of the building and retaining walls would be approximately 49 feet above the street at the center of the property to the proposed deck guardrail above the great room. The appearance of building mass would be excessive if the Project were developed as designed.
LU Policy 2.8 states: "Require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated with natural topographic features, minimize significant alteration of natural topography and/or other significant onsite resources, and protect public views as specified in the Design Guidelines and the Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document. Goal: Preserve, enhance and respect the unique character and identity of Laguna's residential neighborhoods. "
The proposed Project is inconsistent with this LU policy. The discussion and facts presented under Coastal Development Permit criteria #6 is incorporated herein by reference, support finding the Project inconsistent with Policy LU 2.8 and are incorporated herein by reference.
Finally, LU Policies 7.3 and 10.2 require the following: "Design and site new development to protect natural and environmentally sensitive resources, such to minimize natural landform alterations. GOAL: Protect, preserve, and enhance the community's as areas of unique scenic quality, public views, and visual compatibility with surrounding uses and natural resources and ensure that proposals for new development, subdivisions, and major remodels are sufficiently evaluated to protect public health and safety and natural resources. " The proposed Project is inconsistent with this LU policy. The discussion and facts presented under Coastal Development Permit criteria #6 is incorporated herein by reference, support finding the Project inconsistent Design Review Board Resolution 24-2509
with Policy LU Policies 7.3 and 10.2 and are incorporated herein by reference. The proposed Project is not designed in such a way as to be visually compatible with the surrounding uses. areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be Coastal Land Use Plan Technical Appendix Section 30251 The scenic and visual qualities of coastal sited and designed to protect views along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural landforms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and where feasible to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. New development in highly scenic areas... shall be subordinate to the character of its setting.
landforms. The long, winding driveway and siting of the Project either atop or close to the top of the For the above reasons, the proposed Project is not sited and designed to minimize the alteration of natural ridgeline results in grading and alteration of the natural landform. This is incompatible with the character of the surrounding area where homes are either built downslope or if built upslope, they have short driveways leading to a garage. Few homes are developed with longer sloping driveways leading up to a home located at a higher elevation than the street and the proposed Project would be the most imposing and visually impactful in the area.
SECTION 5. As part of the City's certified Local Coastal Program, the Design Review Board hereby denies Design Review 24-2509 based on the following findings:
Finding No. 1: The proposed physical improvements and site development related to the Project are not designed and located in overall consistency with the Design Review criteria specified in Sections
25.05.040(H)(2), 25.05.040(H)(4), 25.05.040(H)(5), 25.05.040(H)(8), 25.05.040(H)(9), as set forth below:
2. Design Articulation: Within the allowable building envelope, the appearance of building and retaining wall mass should be minimized. Articulation techniques including, but not limited to, separation, offsets, terracing and reducing the size of any one element in the structure may be used to reduce the appearance of mass.
No. The proposed three-level, single-family home would sit atop a series of retaining walls within the building envelope that add to the overall bulk of development. The design of the retaining walls, including the materials, color, and landscaping will not sufficiently soften the appearance of mass. The overall height driveway where it intersects the street to the top of the highest roof. The overall height of the building and deck guardrail above the great room. The appearance of building mass would be excessive if the Project were developed as designed and in the proposed location. Lowering of the Project (but keeping the same square footage) such that it is closer to the street was mentioned as a possible solution; however, the Applicant declined to make such a change to the Project. 2 Throughout the Project's review, the Applicant and his counsel have argued that because of SB 450 and the Housing Accountability Act, the City is prohibited from imposing any subjective criteria whatsoever on the Project. However, both SB the City via its certified Local Coastal Program. Thus, as part of its mandatory duty to implement the requirements and 450 and the Housing Accountability Act explicitly require that the City comply with the Coastal Act - which is implemented in standards of Coastal Act, the City is applying the Design Review criteria as its part of this certified Local Coastal Program.
Design Review Board Resolution 24-2509
4. Environmental Context: Development should preserve and, where possible, enhance the city's scenic natural setting. Natural features, such as existing heritage trees, rock out-cropping, ridgelines and significant watercourses should be protected. Existing terrain should be utilized in the design and grading should be minimized.
No. The Project alters and develops the entire lot leaving no area of the site in a natural or near natural condition despite the installation of ornamental landscaping.
5. General Plan Compliance: The development shall comply with all applicable policies of the General Plan, including all of its elements, applicable specific plans, and the certified local coastal program. additions and alterations to existing buildings, incorporate protection of the natural profile of ridgelines as Open Space and Conservation Element Policy 13-B Require that development proposals, including visual resources.
Inconsistent. The proposed Project as presented to the Design Review Board would alter and obscure the entire property to a point that the natural profile of the site would be developed and obscured. The Bluebird canyon areas that is largely surrounded by additional higher ridgeline and hillside development to the Canyon area is an enclave of predominantly hillside and ridgeline development between two open space northwest, north, and southeast. A public access trail provides public views of the Project site from the northeast. As a result, the site is highly visible from many surrounding homes and publicly accessible scenic viewing points making protection of the natural profile of the ridgeline on the Project site as a visual resource necessary.
Land Use Element (LU) Policy 2.1 Maintain the diversity and uniqueness of individual neighborhoods. Development standards and Design Review guidelines shall minimize the scale and bulk of new construction and/or renovation and require development to be compatible with the surrounding residences. Goal: Preserve, enhance and respect the unique character and identity of Laguna's residential neighborhoods.
Inconsistent. The area is characterized by older hillside development and custom homes that have a lower appearance of mass. Older homes tend to be smaller than newer homes and most homes in the area are downslope and are accessed from the road above. Homes constructed down a slope are less massive when viewed from the street above because most of the building is out of direct sight below the upper level. These downslope homes are more visible from lower and typically more distant vantage points and as a result, the mass is not perceived more acutely. Additionally, these downslope homes are typically developed with short driveways (a car length or less) leading to a garage or carport. A more limited number of homes are built up from the street with short driveways leading to a garage. Few homes are developed with longer sloping driveways leading up to a home located at a higher elevation than the street. Homes built up from a street appear more massive because the viewer is closer and is looking up. envelope that add to the overall bulk of development. The design of the retaining walls, including the The proposed three-level, single-family home would sit atop a series of retaining walls within the building materials, color, and landscaping will not sufficiently soften the appearance of mass. The overall height of the building and retaining walls would be approximately 50 feet above the center of the proposed driveway walls would be approximately 49 feet above the street at the center of the property to the proposed deck where it intersects the street to the top of the highest roof. The overall height of the building and retaining Design Review Board Resolution 24-2509
guardrail above the great room. The appearance of building mass would be excessive if the Project were developed as designed.
natural topographic features, minimize significant alteration of natural topography and/or other significant Land Use Element Policy 2.8 Require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated with onsite resources, and protect public views as specified in the Design Guidelines and the Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document. Goal: Preserve, enhance and respect the unique character and identity of Laguna's residential neighborhoods.
Inconsistent. The discussion and facts presented under design criteria #2 Design Articulation and #4 Environmental Context, incorporated herein by reference, support finding the Project inconsistent with Policy LU 2.8 and are incorporated herein by reference.
Land Use Element Policies 7.3 and Policy 10.2 Design and site new development to protect natural and environmentally sensitive resources, such as areas of unique scenic quality, public views, and visual preserve, and enhance the community's natural resources and ensure that proposals for new development, compatibility with surrounding uses and to minimize natural landform alterations. GOAL: Protect, subdivisions, and major remodels are sufficiently evaluated to protect public health and safety and natural resources.
Inconsistent. The discussion and facts presented under design criteria #2 Design Articulation, and #4 Environmental Context, and LU Policy 2.1, incorporated herein by reference, support finding the Project inconsistent with Policy LU 7.3 and Policy 10.2.
8. Lighting and Glare: Adequate lighting for individual and public safety shall be provided in a manner which does not significantly impact neighboring properties. Reflective materials and appurtenances that cause glare or a negative visual impact (e.g., skylights, white rock roofs, high-gloss ceramic tile roofs, reflective glass, etc.) should be avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance in those locations where those surfaces are visible from neighboring properties. elevation has approximately 50% of the wall area as windows. The south elevation has approximately 55% No. The north, south and west elevations would be highly visible from surrounding properties. The north of the wall area as windows. The west elevation also has approximately 55% of the wall area as windows. The amount of proposed window glazing will result in excessive sun reflection during certain hours of the day that cannot be mitigated by interior window coverings or window tinting and interior light illumination at night detracting from the more rural character of the area.
9. Neighborhood Compatibility: Development shall be compatible with the existing development in the neighborhood and respect neighborhood character. Neighborhood character is the sum of the qualities that distinguish areas within the city including historical patterns of development (e.g., structural heights, mass, scale or size), village atmosphere, landscaping themes and architectural styles.
No. The Bluebird Canyon neighborhood is characterized by understated hillside development with vehicular access to garages being provided (predominantly) directly from the street without long sloping driveways and exposed retaining walls. The proposed Project would create a long sloping driveway to a motor court requiring additional grading and retaining walls that are not typically found in the neighborhood. The Design Review Board Resolution 24-2509
and LU Policy 2.1, incorporated herein by reference, support finding the Project inconsistent with this discussion and facts presented under design criteria #2 Design Articulation, and #4 Environmental Context, Design Review criterion.
SECTION 6. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution has been based are located at City Hall, 505 Forest Avenue Laguna Beach, CA 92651. The custodian of the record of proceedings is the Director of Community Development.
SECTION 7. The applicant or any other owner of property within three hundred feet of the subject property aggrieved by the Design Review Board's decision may appeal the decision to the City Council. Any appeal shall be in written form filed with the City Clerk within fourteen calendar days of the adoption of this resolution and shall specifically state each and every ground for the appeal and be accompanied by payment of the required appeal fee. If no appeal is filed timely, the Design Review Board decision will be effective 14 calendar days after the date of the adoption of this Resolution.
SECTION 8. If any provision of this Resolution is held invalid, the remainder of this Resolution shall not be affected by such invalidity, and the provisions of the Resolution are severable.
Adopted on June 12, 2025, by the following vote:
AYES: Coveny, Weil, Gibbs
NOES: Bauta, Gannon
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
On lith
ATTEST Thomas Gibbs, Chair
Bill Rodrigues, AICP, Planning Manager