Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board January 23, 2025
MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
REGULAR MEETING AND NOTICED HEARING
January 23, 2025
A regular noticed meeting of the Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board of the City of Laguna Beach, California, convened at 5:00 P.M. on January 23, 2025.
Board Members Present: Chair Jessica Gannon, Chair Pro Tem Kristine Thalman, Louis Weil, Tom Gibbs, and MJ Coveny
Staff Present: Principal Planner/Acting Zoning Administrator Wendy Jung, City Attorney Patrick Donegan, Senior Planner Heather Steven, Associate Planner Daniel Latham, Associate Planner Garrett Wank, Associate Planner Shehriyar Khan, Planner Nancy Balmer-Csira, Senior Office Specialist Maria Ballard
1. CALL TO ORDER – The meeting was called to order at 5:02 p.m. by Chair Gannon
2. PUBLIC COMMUNICATION - None
3. MODIFICATION OF AGENDA ORDER
Board Member Weil requested to move item 5.6 to be heard after Item 5.1 and Chair Gannon requested swapping Item 5.9 and Item 5.8. There was unanimous consent of the Board.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
4.1. MINUTES APPROVED
Approval of the minutes for the Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board meeting on November 14, 2024.
4.2. 232 LA BREA STREET (MENDOZA) APN: 053-125-18 CONTINUED TO MARCH 13, 2025
DESIGN REVIEW 24-0484, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-1086 City Staff: Garrett Wank, Associate Planner (949) 464-6626 [email protected] Project Applicant: Brian Wood, Designer, (714) 803-9533, [email protected]
4.3. 999 ORIOLE DRIVE (GIL) APN: 644-162-56 CONTINUED TO FEBRUARY 13, 2025
DESIGN REVIEW 24-1344, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24- 1343, VARIANCE 24-1345, AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION [SECTION 15301]
City Staff: Daniel Latham, Associate Planner (949) 464-6612 [email protected] Project Applicant: Brian Wood, Designer, (714) 803-9533, [email protected] Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board January 23, 2025 Mr. Gibbs made a motion, seconded by Chair Pro Tem Thalman to approve the Consent Calendar.
Motion TG Second KT Action APPROVED
Coveny __Y__ Gibbs ___Y___ Weil ___Y___ Thalman ___Y___ Gannon ___Y___
5. REGULAR
5.1. 48 N PORTOLA (POTGIETER-HAMMOND) APN: 056-171-04 APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW 24-2605 AND CATEGORCIAL EXEMPTION [SECTION 15301] City Staff: Wendy Jung, Principal Planner (949) 497-0321 [email protected] Project Applicant: Todd Skenderian, Architect (949) 533-5984 [email protected] The applicant requests Design Review 24-2605. The proposed project includes an upperlevel addition consisting of legalizing and expanding an existing loft area off the second level, a new elevated deck area for the loft and as-built landscaping.
Disclosures: Mr. Gibbs met with the applicant at the project site. Ms. Coveny met with the applicant and drove by the project site. Mr. Weil evaluated the site and met with the applicant. Chair Pro Tem Thalman went to the site and spoke with the applicant via email.
Chair Gannon spoke with the applicant.
Ms. Thalman suggested proceeding on an expedited basis.
Staff Presentation: Principal Planner, Wendy Jung summarized the staff report.
Chair Gannon opened the public hearing.
Project Representative: Todd Skenderian presented the project.
Public Testimony: None.
Rebuttal: None.
Board Questions: None.
Chair Gannon closed the public hearing.
Board Comments: Mr. Weil stated that the project meets the Design Review criteria and expressed full support for the project.
Chair Pro Tem Thalman, Chair Gannon, and Mr. Gibbs echoed Mr. Weil’s comments.
Ms. Coveny concurred with her colleagues, noting that the Homeowners Association approved of everything.
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board January 23, 2025 Ms. Coveny made a motion, seconded by Mr. Weil, to adopt Resolution 24-2605 approving Design Review 24-2605 for an upper-level addition, elevated deck addition, as-built landscaping in the Three Arch Bay (TAB) Zone and finding said action exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15301. The motion passed 5-0.
Motion MC Second LW Action APPROVED
Coveny __Y__ Gibbs ___Y___ Weil ___Y___ Thalman ___Y___ Gannon ___Y___
5.6. 1639 ELEANOR LANE (COOK & LEVINE), APN 053-092-16 APPROVED
SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS
DESIGN REVIEW24-2307, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT24-2306, AND CATEGORCIAL EXEMPTION [SECTION 15303]
City Staff: Heather Steven, Senior Planner (949) 497-0332 [email protected] Project Applicant: Brion Jeannette, Architect 949-645-5854, [email protected] The applicant requests Design Review (DR) 24-2307 and Coastal Development Permit (CDP) 24-2306. The proposed project includes demolition of an existing structure (2,055 square feet), construction of a new single-family dwelling (5,558.6 square feet), an attached two-car garage, attached one-car garage (third covered parking space) (808.7 square feet of attached garages), elevated decks (1,206 square feet), grading exceeding 20 cubic yards, retaining walls exceeding 5 feet, pool, spa, and landscaping. An attached accessory dwelling unit (780 square feet) is proposed on the lower level, which is not subject to Design Review.
Disclosures: Mr. Weil met with the applicant at the site and met the next-door neighbor.
Mr. Gibbs met the applicant on site and met with the next-door neighbors. Ms. Coveny spoke with the applicant on the phone and drove by the property. Chair Pro Tem Thalman met with the applicant at the property. Chair Gannon met with the applicant at the property.
Mr. Weil suggested proceeding on an expedited basis.
Staff Presentation: Senior Planner, Heather Steven, described the project and staff’s recommendation.
Chair Gannon opened the public hearing.
Project Representative: Brion Jeanette presented the project.
Public Testimony: Steve Jenkins of 1640 Eleanor Lane recommended going forward with the project.
Toni Hansen of 1636 Eleanor Lane was in support of the project.
Rebuttal: None
Board Questions: None
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board January 23, 2025 Chair Gannon closed the public hearing.
Board Comments: Mr. Weil commended the applicant for reworking the entire project and meeting all of the guidelines. He fully supported the project.
Ms. Thalman echoed Mr. Weil’s comments.
Mr. Gibbs echoed Mr. Weil’s comments but would like to recommend a condition that no construction cars can park in the cul-de-sac.
Ms. Coveny echoed her colleague’s comments.
Chair Gannon supported the project.
Mr. Gibbs made a motion, seconded by Ms. Coveny, to adopt Resolution 24-2307 approving Design Review 24-2307 and Coastal Development Permit 24-2306 for demolition of an existing structure, construction of a new single-family dwelling, an attached two-car garage, attached one-car garage (third covered parking space), elevated decks, grading, retaining walls, pool, spa, and landscaping, and finding said action exempt from CEQA under Section 15303, with the condition that there will be no construction parking in the cul-de-sac area subject to modification by the Building Official. The motion passed 5-0.
Motion TG Second MC Action APPROVED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS Coveny __Y__ Gibbs ___Y___ Weil ___Y___ Thalman ___Y___ Gannon ___Y___
5.2 806 GAINSBOROUGH DRIVE (LUKASZEWSKI), APN 644-291-06 APPROVED
SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS
DESIGN REVIEW 24-2193, VARIANCE 24-2192, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-2194, AND CATEGORCIAL EXEMPTION [SECTION 15303]
City Staff: Shehriyar Khan, Associate Planner (949) 715-0672 [email protected] Project Applicant: Warren Hutcherson, Architect (949) 338-6905, [email protected] The applicant requests Design Review 24-2193, Variance 24-2192, and Coastal Development Permit 24-2194 for a new single-family residence. The proposed project includes the construction of a 1,522 square-foot (building footprint), four-level structure consisting of a 529 square-foot two-car garage, 2,167 square-foot of residence (floor area), 416 square-foot of elevated deck area, elevator/stair/chimney, grading, retaining walls, and fuel modification/landscaping plan. A Variance is requested to encroach into a significant watercourse [LBMC Section 25.50.030(D)(4)], to not provide a required onstreet public parking space [DCSP Section IV(J)(1)], and to exceed the maximum 5-foot exposed retaining wall height [DCSP Section IV(H)]. This project was previously heard at the November 14, 2024, Design Review Board meeting and continued to the January 23, 2025, meeting with Board direction. This is the second hearing.
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board January 23, 2025 Disclosures: Chair Gannon spoke to Matt Lawson and Steve Kawaratani and conducted a site visit. Mr. Weil spoke to Matt Lawson, Steve Kawaratani and the applicant. Chair Pro Tem Thalman spoke with Steve Kawaratani and visited the site and communicated with the applicant via email. Mr. Gibbs spoke with Matt Lawson, Steve Kawaratani and the applicant and also visited the site.
Staff Presentation: Associate Planner, Shehriyar Khan, described the project and staff’s recommendation.
Board Questions: None
Chair Gannon opened the public hearing.
Project Representative: Warren Hutcherson presented the project.
Public Testimony: Matt Lawson would like to maintain a 20-foot circulation lane during the construction period due to emergency apparatus access. Otherwise, he supported the project.
Speaker 2 of 785 Gainsborough Drive concurred with Matt Lawson regarding circulation and supported the project.
Marc Acosta of 812 Gainsborough Drive would like the project moved back to allow for more onsite parking.
Rebuttal: Mr. Hutcherson felt all of the concerns have been met. Steve Kawaratani stated that the requirement requested by Matt Lawson will be accepted.
Board Questions: Ms. Coveny asked whether the lots at 806 and 812 Gainsborough Drive are of the same size. Mr. Hutcherson was unsure but believed they were similar.
Mr. Gibbs asked how the entry to the driveway was reduced to 13 feet. Mr. Hutcherson stated a planter was removed.
Ms. Coveny also asked if all of the homes had two off-street parking spaces. Mr.
Hutcherson stated that they have so far.
Chair Pro Tem Thalman asked for clarification regarding the variance.
Chair Gannon closed the public hearing.
Board Comments: Mr. Gibbs is troubled by the fire safety issue and wanted assurance that two cars can park in the driveway. He could approve the project reluctantly but suggested pulling the stairs back. If that were to happen, he’d be supportive of waiving the $23,000 in-lieu parking fee. He is not requiring this for his support of the project, and if it is not feasible, he would support the project as it stands.
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board January 23, 2025 Ms. Coveny stated that she can support the project.
Chair Pro Tem Thalman stated that, with the changes that were made she could support the project.
Mr. Weil concurred with Ms. Coveny and Chair Pro Tem Thalman. He felt the project met the Design Review criteria, and that he can support it.
Chair Gannon concurred with Mr. Weil’s comments and believed all of the criteria have been met and she can approve the project.
Chair Pro Tem Thalman made a motion, seconded by Ms. Coveny, to adopt Resolution 24- 2193 approving Design Review 24-2193, Variance 24-2192, and Coastal Development Permit 24- 2194 for a new single-family residence with an attached two-car garage on a vacant building site in the Diamond/Crestview Specific Plan (DCSP) area. Design Review is required for the new structure, elevated decks, skylight, elevator, hardscape, grading, and fuel modification/landscaping plan. A Coastal Development Permit is required for a new single-family home in the Coastal Zone [Laguna Beach Municipal Code (LBMC) Section 25.07.004]. A Variance is requested to encroach into a significant modified watercourse [LBMC Section
25.50.030(D)(4)], to exceed the maximum 5-foot exposed retaining wall height [DCSP Section IV(H)], and to not provide a required on-street public parking space [DCSP Section IV(J)(1)] and finding said action exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, and subject to the condition that the parking area as submitted, Exhibit D, would be implemented with no construction parking in the cul-de-sac and maintain a 20-foot lane of unobstructed traffic subject to change or modification by the Building Official. The motion passed 5-0.
Motion KT Second MC Action APPROVED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS Coveny __Y__ Gibbs ___Y___ Weil ___Y___ Thalman ___Y___ Gannon ___Y___
5.3 505 BLUMONT STREET (LOWN), APN 641-272-57 CONTINUED TO APRIL 10, 2025
DESIGN REVIEW 24-1652, REVOCABLE ENCROACMENT PERMIT 24-1661, AND CATEGORCIAL EXEMPTION [SECTION 15303]
City Staff: Garrett Wank, Associate Planner (949) 464-6626 [email protected] Project Applicant: Brandon Architects, Brian Jowett, Project Manager 714-754-4040, [email protected]
The applicant requests Design Review 24-1652 and Revocable Encroachment Permit 24- 1661. The proposed project includes demolishing an existing single-family dwelling with an attached one-car garage and constructing a new single-family dwelling with an attached two-car garage, elevated decks, spa, grading, and landscaping. A revocable encroachment permit is required for street improvements and decorative pavers within the public rightof-way. This project was previously heard at the October 10, 2024, Design Review Board meeting and continued to the January 23, 2025, meeting with Board direction. This is the second hearing.
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board January 23, 2025 Disclosures: Mr. Gibbs met with the architect, Alyce and Lee Coffey, Jeanne Marquez and Gary Berman. Chair Pro Tem Thalman met with the Berman’s, the Marquez’s and Coffey’s at the site. Chair Gannon, Mr. Weil and Ms. Coveny had a site visit and met with Gary Berman, Alyce Coffey, Jeanne Marquez and Michael Iannotti.
Staff Presentation: Associate Planner, Garrett Wank, summarized the staff report.
Chair Gannon opened the public hearing.
Board Questions: Ms. Coveny asked if the staking plan was incomplete on the south side.
Staff brought it to the attention of the architect.
Project Representative: John Lown and Brian Jowett presented the project.
Public Testimony: Alyce Coffey of 471 Blumont Street felt the project negatively affects their property due to lack of privacy and views.
Jeanne Marquez of 511 Blumont Street felt the project negatively affects their property due to lack of privacy.
Tom Berryman 480 Blumont Street felt the project negatively affects their property due to a contemporary house between two cottages.
Speaker 4 felt the project has a negative effect on the character of the street.
Rebuttal: Mr. Jowett addressed several points related to the project.
Board Questions: Chair Pro Tem Thalman asked about plate heights. Mr. Weil was concerned that the public parking space appears to belong to the property owners due to the pavers. He asked if the pavers had been replaced with asphalt. Ms. Coveny asked if the driveway encroaches into the public right-of-way and wanted clarification of the story poles, fencing and hedges. Chair Pro Tem Thalman asked for clarification of the hedges.
Ms. Coveny asked about topography and boundaries. Mr. Weil asked about the size of trees being planted. Ms. Coveny asked about the pitch roof.
Chair Gannon closed the public hearing.
Board Comments:
Mr. Weil stated that privacy and views are still an issue along with the property line. He wanted some type of privacy shielding along the fireplace sitting area. He felt the roofline is as fair and equitable as it can be, but it could be balanced a little better.
Chair Pro Tem Thalman agreed with most of Mr. Weil’s comments but felt the Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board January 23, 2025 compatibility with the neighborhood is not an issue. She thought if the structure could be moved a foot or two away from the Coffey’s it could provide some view equity for the Bermans and light and air for the Coffey’s. She also thought that reducing the plate height could make a difference. She wanted the hedge retained behind the 5-foot wall for privacy.
Ms. Coveny is concerned with the Bermans’ view. She wanted the hedge retained for the Coffey’s privacy. She would like the upper deck pulled in a little to facilitate the Marquez’ concerns. Otherwise, she felt it is close to be approved.
Chair Gannon concurred with the other Board members. She was unsure the bird rocks could be preserved, but if the deck was pulled back a little it could mitigate some privacy issues. She felt it was close to approval.
Mr. Gibbs concurred with Mr. Weil and Chair Pro Tem Thalman and thought the project was close for approval. He thought the wood should be highlighted to conform with the classic neighborhood. He was concerned with the Berman’s view and privacy concerns of the Marquez’ and Coffey’s. If the plate height was lowered to 8 or 9 feet it would improve the Berman’s view and tucking in the corner. He wanted the Coffey’s historic house and entryway to be respected and would like the building to be pulled back at least a foot and have a hedge on the side of the Coffey’s to preserve the entryway. He requested the architect to work with the neighbors and come back for the final review.
The applicant has been following the spirit of the Board's directions and in good faith the Board believed the applicant was moving in the direction of the Boards comments and further design work is in the best interest of the community.
Mr. Weil made a motion, seconded by Chair Gannon, to continue item 5.3 at 505 Blumont Street to the April 10, 2025, Design Review Board meeting. The motion passed 5-0.
Motion LW Second JG Action CONTINUED TO APRIL 10, 2025
Coveny __Y__ Gibbs ___Y___ Weil ___Y___ Thalman ___Y___ Gannon ___Y___
5.4 547 ALTA VISTA WAY (ABRAHAM FAMILY TRUST), APN 056-143-25
APPROVED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS
DESIGN REVIEW 23-1452, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 23-1453, REVOCABLE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT 23-1452, AND CATEGORCIAL EXEMPTION [SECTION 15303] City Staff: Heather Steven, Senior Planner (949) 497-0332 [email protected] Project Applicant: Horst Noppenberger, Architect (949) 494-9569 [email protected] The applicant requests Design Review 23-1452, Coastal Development Permit 23-1453, and Revocable Encroachment Permit 23-1454. The proposed project includes demolition of an existing single-family residence with attached garage and construction of a new single-family residence with attached garage, elevated decks, retaining walls, grading, new vehicular access, pool, spa, water feature, landscaping, and improvements in the public right-of-way including two public parking spaces. A Revocable Encroachment Permit is requested to maintain entry steps from the right-of-way/edge of pavement to the Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board January 23, 2025 property line (7’-10”), new steps on-grade, retaining wall, guardrail, landscape and irrigation, new lighting on entry steps, and two public parking spaces, in the public rightof-way. This project was continued from the November 14, 2024, Design Review Board hearing; this is the second hearing.
Disclosures: Mr. Weil, Chair Pro Tem Thalman and Char Gannon spoke with Yolanda and Mark’s representative and Steve Kawaratani. Mr. Gibbs did the same in addition to speaking to the applicant and the owner of 568 Alta Vista Way. Ms. Coveny visited the site and spoke with Steve Kawaratani and Yolanda.
Staff Presentation: Senior Planner, Heather Steven, summarized the staff report.
Chair Gannon opened the public hearing.
Board Questions: None
Project Representative: Horst Noppenberger presented the project.
Public Testimony:
Scott Gregg of 568 Alta Vista Way felt the project negatively affects their property due to lack of compatibility and view equity.
Speaker 2 felt the project negatively affects their property due to taking away their southern view.
Chris O’Donnell of 550 Alta Vista Way felt the project negatively affects his property due to taking away his view.
Yolanda felt the project negatively affects her property due to taking away her city view.
Rebuttal: Mr. Noppenberger felt there is very little impact on the views from 550 and 568 Alta Vista Way and major changes have been made to accommodate the neighbors.
Board Questions: Chair Pro Tem Thalman asked about the vegetation.
Ms. Coveny asked if square footage and public parking spaces were added.
Chair Gannon asked what percentage of the home is used on the lot.
Chair Gannon closed the public hearing.
Board Comments: Mr. Weil stated the design is immaculate and it works in the neighborhood, and he is extremely close to supporting the project.
Mr. Gibbs concurred with most of Mr. Weil’s comments and thought the project was Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board January 23, 2025 neighborhood compatible. He can support the project as it stands.
Ms. Coveny agreed that views and privacy have been achieved, and she can support the project.
Chair Pro Tem Thalman agreed with the Board’s comments and thought that the home was a beautiful design and supported the project.
Char Gannon agreed with the Board and supported conditional approval of the project with a five-foot setback instead of four and a 12-foot-high hedge planted along the inside of the retaining wall from the front of the property to the end of the deck railing, approximately 58 feet.
Mr. Weil made a motion, seconded by Mr. Gibbs, to approve Design Review 23-1452, Coastal Development Permit 23-1453, and Revocable Encroachment Permit 23-1454 for demolition of an existing single-family residence with attached garage and construction of a new single-family residence with attached garage, elevated decks, retaining walls, grading, new vehicular access, pool, spa, water feature, landscaping, and improvements in the public right-of-way including two public parking spaces and finding said action exempt from CEQA under Section 15303, and subject to the condition that the east side setback be five feet and a 12-foot hedge be planted along the eastern side of the wall from the front of the property as redlined by staff. The motion passed 5-0.
Motion LW Second TG Action APPROVED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS Coveny __Y__ Gibbs ___Y___ Weil ___Y___ Thalman ___Y___ Gannon ___Y___
5.5 1223 SKYLINE DRIVE (RUSS), APN 641-303-04 APPROVED SUBJECT TO
CONDITIONS
DESIGN REVIEW 24-1859, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-1860, AND CATEGORCIAL EXEMPTION [SECTION 15303]
City Staff: Wendy Jung, Principal Planner (949) 497-0321 [email protected] Project Applicant: Anders Lasater, Architect (949) 497-1827 [email protected]
The applicant requests Design Review 24-1859 and Coastal Development Permit 24-1860.
The proposed project includes demolition of the existing single family residence (1,180 square feet) and attached garage (500 square feet) and construction of a new two-story, single-family residence (4,409 square feet) and attached three-car garage (675.6 square feet) with tandem parking, elevated decks (1,899 square feet), new vehicular access, site walls and retaining walls, grading, hardscape, landscaping exterior lighting, swimming pool, spa, and associated equipment. This project was continued from the November 14, 2024, Design Review Board hearing. This is the second hearing.
Disclosures: Chair Gannon did a site visit and spoke with Mr. Lasater. Mr. Gibbs did a site visit with Mr. Lasater and met with Vaughn Eldstrom. Ms. Coveny met with Vaughn Eldstrom. Mr. Weil met with Mr. Lasater at the site and spoke to Mr. Eldstrom and tried Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board January 23, 2025 to speak to the painter at the neighboring property. Chair Pro Tem Thalman visited the site.
Staff Presentation: Principal Planner, Wendy Jung, summarized the staff report.
Board Questions: None
Chair Gannon opened the public hearing.
Project Representative: Anders Lasater presented the project.
Public Testimony: Arian Shams of 1217 Skyline Drive expressed issues with staking and the main issue is privacy, pool noise and size.
Christine Shams of 1217 Skyline Drive stressed that privacy is her main concern along with view equity.
Vaughn Eldstrom of 1208 Coronado Drive stated his main concern is privacy and does not believe new plans address the problem. He does not want 17-foot trees beside the house due to fire danger and is against the project.
Michael Morris of Skyline Drive is concerned with fire and evacuation safety. He felt the size is unacceptable.
Ken Roberts of Skyline Drive stated fire evacuation is his main concern. During red flag alerts construction vehicles should not be allowed.
Rebuttal: Mr. Lasater stated that reducing the size of the home will not affect the fire safety concerns and a construction staging plan will be developed. As far as neighborhood compatibility, it is not a neighborhood of small homes and changes were made after meeting with the neighbors to address privacy concerns.
Board Questions: Mr. Gibbs asked if the staking was correct and asked about pool angle.
He also asked about providing a privacy screen.
Ms. Coveny asked for the difference between the deck of the existing home versus the deck of the new home.
Char Gannon closed the public hearing.
Board Comments: Mr. Gibbs thought the project was neighborhood compatible and reasonably oriented, but the neighbor’s privacy concerns are legitimate. He asked if the windows facing the Shams property are opaque.
Char Gannon reopened the public hearing.
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board January 23, 2025 Mr. Lasater stated that the windows are opaque.
Char Gannon closed the public hearing.
Mr. Gibbs did not see any significant privacy impacts on the Shams side but was concerned with privacy issues on the Eldstrom side and felt that trees are not the answer and a variance should be considered.
Ms. Coveny felt that neighborhood compatibility was good, and view equity was not an issue. She indicated perhaps adding a four-foot extension to the wall might provide a little extra buffer. If the deck could be narrowed, she could get behind the project.
Mr. Gibbs stated that if the deck was narrowed that would give the privacy needed.
Chair Pro Tem Thalman concurred with the previous Board members and thought it was a good idea to consider red flag days. She can support the project with the change to the deck.
Mr. Weil concurred and found that the applicant really made a lot of concessions to improve the project considering privacy and view issues. He supported the project with the small changes suggested.
Chair Gannon concurred with the Board members and agreed with the neighbors regarding the issue of planting and not adding more fuel to provide privacy.
Mr. Gibbs suggested pulling the deck back to 10 feet with the Pittosporum softening that side to address the privacy issue. If that is done, he can support the project.
Mr. Weil made a motion, seconded by Chair Pro Tem Thalman, to approve Design Review 24-1859 and Coastal Development Permit 24-1860 for a new single-family residence and attached three-car garage with tandem parking, elevated decks, new vehicular access, site walls and retaining walls, grading, hardscape, landscaping, exterior lighting, swimming pool, spa, and associated equipment, and finding said action exempt from CEQA under Section 15303, with the condition that the length of deck be reduced to 10 feet. The motion passed 5-0.
Motion LW Second KT Action APPROVED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS Coveny __Y__ Gibbs ___Y___ Weil ___Y___ Thalman ___Y___ Gannon ___Y___
5.7 629 BALBOA AVENUE (O’BRIEN), APN 656-058-07 CONTINUED TO APRIL 24, 2025 DESIGN REVIEW 24-1841 AND CATEGORCIAL EXEMPTION [SECTION 15303] City Staff: Daniel Latham, Associate Planner (949) 464-6612 [email protected] Project Applicant: Reza Dadashi, Designer (949) 232-5550 [email protected] The applicant requests Design Review. The proposed project includes a new single-family Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board January 23, 2025 dwelling with an attached four-car garage, new vehicular access, elevated decks, additional covered parking spaces, pool and spa, elevator and stairway height, improvements within an environmentally sensitive area (lot slope exceeding 30%), retaining walls, hardscaping, landscaping and grading.
Disclosures: Chair Gannon met with Mr. Singer, Larry Nokes, Mr. Dadashi and the neighbors to the right of the project. Ms. Covey met with the owners and the next-door neighbor. Mr. Gibbs had meetings prior to January 9th with the applicant and exchanged emails with Mr. Nokes and met with David Singer, Mike Nazemi and Michael Oimette.
Mr. Weil met with the resident and spoke with Tom Davis, Mr. Singer and his wife and Larry Nokes. Chair Pro Tem Thalman met with Mr. Dadashi, spoke with Larry Nokes and met Mr. Nazemi in the neighborhood.
Staff Presentation: Associate Planner, Daniel Latham, summarized the staff report.
Board Questions: Mr. Weil asked what the issue with the pool and spa was.
Associate Planner, Daniel Latham stated the large retaining wall and the location of the pool and spa were located further down the hill.
Project Representative: Reza Dadashi presented the project.
Public Testimony: Speaker 1 stated that this huge house takes away his direct and panoramic view, darkens his home and it is different from all the other houses in the neighborhood.
Mike Nazemi of 715 Nyes Place, stated that this home does not appear to be residential. requested that the home not become a two-street project infringing on the hill.
Pat Krogman of 651 Balboa Avenue lives next door to the project and is concerned with the mass of the project and loss of views and natural light.
Michael Oimette of 639 Bolsana Drive lives above the project and was concerned about the mass and scale of the project and impacts the view to the white waters below. He was looking to preserve a partial view.
Beverly Oimette of 639 Bolsana Drive concurred with the previous speakers and wanted view equity to be considered.
William Dodge of 705 Marlin wants the project approved.
Jason Cardi of 659 Bolsana Drive lives above the project and wanted the project approved.
Rebuttal: Mr. Nokes stated that during the design process neighborhood compatibility was never brought up and the project is consistent with homes that are there.
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board January 23, 2025 Board Questions: Chair Gannon and Chair Pro Tem Thalman asked for clarification of streets affecting the project. Mr. Weil stated since no resolution was presented it’s problematic for the Board to make comments without coming to a conclusion. Mr. Gibbs and Chair Gannon agrees.
Chair Gannon closed public hearing.
Board Comments: Mr. Gibbs suggested focusing on the critical issues.
Mr. Weil stated the proposed design is similar to other homes in the area. The orientation with the neighboring property is concerning and would like to protect some of their view.
He suggested that the third level of the home be tucked back towards the hill and that would open up some views for the lower levels of the neighboring home. He thinks the square footage works but the privacy and view components need to be tweaked a little.
Chair Pro Tem Thalman thought Mr. Weil had given some good suggestions and agreed with Mr. Nokes regarding SB9. She didn’t know if the plate height was lowered would make a huge difference and view preservation and view equity are two different things and felt the neighbors would still have a beautiful view. She felt that the level where the storage area is located was pulled back, it could preserve some of the view for the neighbors on the northside. She also asked if the master bedroom balcony and pool deck would be pulled back if that could be helpful. For the most part she thought the project was compatible with the neighborhood.
Mr. Gibbs disagreed and felt that the project was not neighborhood compatible at all.
There is no other house in the area that looks like this one. The pylons are much larger, further downhill and are highlighted by the elevator and it will stick out like a sore thumb.
He thought if all of the levels were put back and pylons used under the bottom level it would be consistent with the topography. He wouldn’t push the bottom floor back, but it should be consistent with the topography guidelines. Instead of an elevator, switchbacks or a walkway consistent with the terrain could be supported. He thought the amount of glazing was excessive given its prominence. As far as view equity is concerned for the Bolsana residents it appears that there’s one edge of the house that could possibly be redesigned to protect their whitewater views. Privacy and glare impacts should be minimized.
Ms. Coveny felt the house was too large for the narrowness of the lot and was concerned about the pylons underneath the house. She wanted to maintain the whitewater views if possible and consider the lighting from the front windows.
Chair Gannon shared the sentiments of Mr. Gibbs and Ms. Coveny, and stated neighborhood compatibility was not met. She agreed with Mr. Gibbs regarding the traversing down to the pool versus the elevator structure. She agreed that the elevator structure would be nice and could support it if it was tucked into the hillside. She supported the garage and the front-facing design. Privacy issues are not a concern, but view equity needs to be considered. Neighborhood compatibility and design integrity was Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board January 23, 2025 her main concern.
Mr. Gibbs stated that there are divergent views, but three members want a significant reduction in appearance of mass and scale to make it more neighborhood compatible.
Consider making the home a bit smaller, getting rid of the elevator and the large pylons and blending into the hillside more would make a great design.
Chair Gannon would like to see it blend into the hillside more but it’s a great design overall.
Ms. Coveny thinks the neighbors and applicant should meet again and work together.
Mr. Weil made a motion, seconded by Chair Pro Tem Thalman, to continue item 5.7 at 629 Balboa Avenue to the April 24, 2025, Design Review Board hearing, based on the Board’ discussion and deliberation. The motion passed 5-0.
Motion LW Second KT Action CONTINUED TO APRIL 24, 2025
Coveny __Y__ Gibbs ___Y___ Weil ___Y___ Thalman ___Y___ Gannon ___Y___
5.9 2840 ZELL DRIVE (BUVAN CORPORATION), APN 641-133-10 CONTINUED TO APRIL 24, 2025
DESIGN REVIEW 23-0834, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-2429 AND CATEGORCIAL EXEMPTION [SECTION 15303]
City Staff: Garrett Wank, Associate Planner (949) 464-6626 [email protected] Project Applicant: David Parker, Architect (949) 872-6616 [email protected] The applicant requests Design Review 23-0834 and Coastal Development Permit 24-2429.
The proposed project includes a new single-family dwelling with an attached two-car garage, attached accessory dwelling unit, elevated decks, grading, chimney height, retaining walls, new vehicular access, and landscaping.
Disclosures: Mr. Gibbs met with David Parker, Steve Kawaratani, Evan and Nancy Lindsay and Melinda Cartonis. Chair Gannon and Ms. Coveny had a site visit with Steve Kawaratani and David Parker. Chair Pro Tem Thalman had a site visit with Steve Kawaratani and David Parker and met with the Lindsays and Melinda Cartonis and her husband. Mr. Weil had a site visit with Steve Kawaratani and David Parker.
Staff Presentation: Associate Planner, Garrett Wank, summarized the staff report.
Board Questions: None
Chair Gannon opened the public hearing.
Project Representative: David Parker presented the project.
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board January 23, 2025 Public Testimony: Michael Cartonis of 2832 Zell Drive is concerned with the size of the 5,000 square-foot property versus the average size of the homes on Zell Drive at 2,708 square feet. The view from the north side of his property will be ruined. He also felt that the jackhammering and removal of dirt could compromise the foundation of neighboring homes. The project’s view deck would greatly invade his privacy on the south side, and he would like the size of the house reduced.
Melinda Morgan Cartonis, lives next door and stated that the placement of the home has taken away their view of the hills. She is concerned with the massive size of the home reducing light into her home and the project is not compatible with the neighborhood. She stated noise, privacy and parking is also an issue.
Nancy Lindsay of 2849 Chateau Way stated the project is massive and is not compatible with the neighborhood. She had concerns about excavation, landscaping, wildlife and fire danger.
Evan Lindsay of 2849 Chateau Way is concerned with landscaping blocking views. He requested a reduction of the building and requiring the applicant to cover any costs to cover any damage due to excavation.
Sam Malik lives directly north of the project and had two major concerns, the size of the project not being compatible with the neighborhood and privacy issues.
Rebuttal: Mr. Parker stated that alternate methods to excavating the sandstone without jackhammering would be used that is quieter and less invasive and only happens for an hour or two. He stated the driveway would allow four cars to be placed on the property and some windows were eliminated to maintain some privacy for the neighbors. He stated that the size of the home is 3,194 square and there are eight homes in the neighborhood that are larger.
Board Questions: Mr. Gibbs asked with the total excavation of 1,302 cubic yards how many trucks it will take to remove the dirt and what types of soil are underneath. Mr. Parker is unsure how many trucks will be needed but stated the soil is bedrock and sandstone and a geologist will be onsite. He asked about potential impacts to neighboring homes with excavations, Mr. Parker stated he had not heard of any foundations being damaged. When asked about the fence along the property interfering with access to an Edison utility box, Mr. Parker stated there would be gates allowing access. Mr. Gibbs asked when the project is brought back to make sure landscaping does not prevent view blockage of the neighboring homes. Mr. Parker added that the number of windows would be reduced, and some obscure glass would be used to ensure privacy.
Chair Gannon closed public hearing.
Board Comments: Mr. Weil thought the house was relatively neighborhood compatible and did not impact views. He thought glazing was an issue and needed to be reduced and some windows need to be frosted. The landscaping needed to indicate some minimums and Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board January 23, 2025 maximums, and the chimney needed to be side vented and not on the roof.
Chair Pro Tem Thalman thought the design was beautiful; however, it is big. There are larger homes, but they are on larger lots. She thought it could be a little smaller and shrink the deck back a little to provide more privacy. She was not concerned about the glazing if anti-reflective glass is used. She agreed with Mr. Weil regarding eliminating the chimney.
Ms. Coveny concurred with the Board members, it is a unique design, but she could get behind it if it was a little smaller.
Mr. Gibbs also liked the design but agreed that it was too big for the lot. He thought articulation techniques including too much glazing contribute to the mass. He wanted the chimney removed along with the viewing deck. He thought view equity was achieved but height limitations for trees need to be included so views are not impacted. Mr. Gibbs thought the neighbors have a legitimate concern regarding impacts to their foundations regarding excavation.
Chair Gannon shared the sentiments of the other Board members and agreed that the glazing was too much for the neighborhood. She loved the design and thought it was neighborhood compatible, and the project had a great start although it was a little large.
Mr. Weil made a motion, seconded by Chair Gannon, to continue item 5.9 at 2840 Zell Drive to the April 24, 2025, Design Review Board hearing, based on the Board’ discussion and deliberation. The motion passed 5-0.
Motion LW Second JG Action CONTINUED TO APRIL 24, 2025
Coveny __Y__ Gibbs ___Y___ Weil ___Y___ Thalman ___Y___ Gannon ___Y___
5.8 1560 BLUEBIRD CANYON DR (LOT B) ( DYRNAES - 1560 BLUEBIRD CANYON
DRIVE LLC), APN NOT ASSIGNED TABLED TO A DATE UNCERTAIN DESIGN REVIEW 24-2509, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-2510, REVOCABLE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT 24-2511, AND CATEGORCIAL EXEMPTION [SECTION 15303] City Staff: Nancy Balmer-Csira, Planner at (949) 715-1284 or [email protected].
Project Applicant: David Parker, Architect (949) 872-6616 [email protected] The applicant requests Design Review 24-2509, Coastal Development Permit 24-2510, and Revocable Encroachment Permit 24-2511. The proposed project includes construction of a single-family dwelling with an attached two-car garage, vehicular access, elevated decks, spa, grading, retaining walls, trash enclosure in the front setback, and landscaping.
Additionally, improvements proposed within the public right-of-way include walls, stairs, irrigation, drainage, and lighting.
Disclosures: Chair Gannon did a site visit with Steve Kawaratani and David Parker and spoke with Peter Grohmann. She received numerous communications from the Bluebird community including Morningside and read every email. Chair Pro Tem Thalman met with Steve Kawaratani and David Parker at the site. Mr. Weil spoke with William Horner, Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board January 23, 2025 Peter Grohmann, Marcia Stallworth, Eileen Sorer, Susan Whitin, Steve Kawaratani, David Parker and visited the site. Mr. Gibbs met with David Parker and Steve Kawaratani and spoke to Mary Fegraus, and met with Marsha Stallworth who represented Kathy and John Romita. He also met with Peter Grohmann, William Horner and Susan Whitin. Ms.
Coveny met with Steve Kawaratani, David Parker, William Horner, Susan Whitin and a former Planning Commissioner.
Staff Presentation: Planner, Nancy Balmer-Csira, summarized the staff report.
Board Questions: Ms. Coveny asked staff to reiterate the lot size of this property and the size of the building. Staff stated the lot is 8,582 square feet and the square footage of the home is 3,598 square feet.
Chair Pro Tem Thalman asked about the geotechnical conditions time period. Staff clarified that the geotechnical report will be submitted again with plan check.
Chair Gannon opened public hearing.
Project Representative: David Parker and Mr. Dyrnaes presented the project.
Public Testimony: Pam Adams of Morningside Drive is opposed to the project due to an increase in density and fire hazard. It is not compatible in mass and scale and light intrusive from extensive glazing and lightness of materials. She wanted the project to be denied with major changes.
William Horner of 1565 Bluebird Canyon Drive had a couple of concerns, the general neighborhood compatibility, mass integration into the topography of the slope and excessive glazing.
Tim Kane of 1515 Morningside Drive was concerned with the size of the project and possible subdivision of the lot.
Speaker 4 felt that the project was too large and the design did not fit with the neighborhood. He did not approve of the project.
Marcia Stallworth, representing the Romitas who are out of the country. The Romitas are not receiving notices regarding the project.
Speaker 6 stated it is well documented that the proposed house does not meet the DRB guidelines and land use policy and is not compatible with the neighborhood.
Richard Belyea of 1494 Morningside Drive wanted to minimize the massive structure and have the development viewed as a whole.
Speaker 8 stated that the home is compatible and is not impacting anyone’s view or privacy and is in favor of approval.
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board January 23, 2025 Rebuttal: Steve Kawaratani stated that the project has been modified with addition of trees and vines and lowering the walls and reduction of glazing.
Board Questions: Mr. Weil asked for an explanation of the green area. Mr. Kawaratani stated that the green area is the footprint of the house and is on the knoll. Mr. Weil asked for the finished floor height of the garage; it is just under 17 feet.
Chair Pro Tem Thalman asked for clarification of SB9. Mr. Donegan stated that the lot could be split to allow two units on the lot.
Char Gannon closed the hearing.
Board Comments: Ms. Coveny thought this is a bad project due to the attack of the knoll.
She stated that it is a three-story concrete pathway up to a glazed stucco monster on a knoll. It’s not organic to the hillside or taking into consideration the growth of the area.
Most projects on hillsides with slopes stagger the building up the knoll.
Mr. Gibbs agreed with Board member Coveny. Both sides of the knoll are being developed with large homes in neighborhoods that don’t have that type of development. The road on Bluebird Canyon is 18 foot wide and in terrible shape. He wants to see a staging plan when the project is brought back. He felt the infrastructure needed to be improved with the development of these homes. He stated the home is totally incompatible with this and any other neighborhood. He thought the glazing created innumerable privacy light and glare issues.
Chair Pro Tem Thalman thought they may need to start all over. She thought the driveway is too long and agreed with most of the Board’s comments.
Chair Gannon supported the driveway but lowering the garage might be helpful and having one switchback instead of two.
Mr. Weil felt that access is the biggest issue. They need to go back to staff and follow their recommendations. He wanted to see a full redo.
Mr. Gibbs agreed that it is a buildable lot and needs to be looked at from a different angle.
Mr. Weil made a motion, seconded by Chair Gannon, to table the project to a date uncertain. The motion passed 5-0.
Motion LW Second JG Action TABLED TO A DATE UNCERTAIN
Coveny __Y__ Gibbs ___Y___ Weil ___Y___ Thalman ___Y___ Gannon ___Y___ Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board January 23, 2025
6. OTHER BUSINESS
None
7. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Gannon at 11:40 p.m., Thursday, January 23, 2025, adjourned the meeting to the next regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board to be held at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, February 13, 2025, in the City Council Chambers in City Hall, 505 Forest Avenue, Laguna Beach, California.
Approved on May 22, 2025
Tom Gibbs, Chair
Attest
Jim Campbell, Interim Planning Manager