Laguna Beach City Council
August 12, 2025

STAFF REPORT
B
Meeting Date:

August 12, 2025
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DENIAL OF 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, ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS IN THE R-1 (RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY) ZONE LOCATED AT 1560 BLUEBIRD

CANYON DRIVE (LOT B)
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:

1. Conduct a public hearing, including receiving a staff report and taking public testimony and all evidence relating to the consideration of Design Review 24-2509, Coastal Development Permit 24- 2510, and Revocable Encroachment Permit 24-2511, and the California Environmental Quality Act exemption under Section 15270 of the state CEQA Guidelines; and

2. Adopt a Resolution titled, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TO DENY 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, AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS AT 1560 BLUEBIRD

CANYON DRIVE (LOT B), AND FINDING THE ACTION EXEMPT FROM THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO STATE CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15270,” upholding the Design Review Board’s denial of Design Review 24-2509, Coastal Development Permit 24-2510, and Revocable Encroachment Permit 24-2511 and finding the denial of the Project exempt from CEQA.

Appropriation: $0 Fund: N/A
Submitted By: . Approved:

Matthew Schneider, Director of
Community Development
Dave Kiff, City Manager

SUMMARY OF THE MATTER
The property owner, David Dyrnaes (“Applicant”)1, of 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive (the “Property”) (see 1 The Project’s architect is David Parker, who is within the definition of Applicant.

Appeal of the Denial of DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, and REP 24-2511 at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive August 12, 2025

The property owner, David Dyrnaes (“Applicant”)2, of 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive (the “Property”) (see aerial map included as Figure 1 and Attachment 2) applied for Design Review (“DR”) 24-2509, Coastal Development Permit (“CDP”) 24-2510, and Revocable Encroachment Permit (“REP”) 24-2511 to construct a single-family dwelling with an attached two-car garage, an attached accessory dwelling unit (“ADU”), and other improvements in the R-1 (Residential Low Density) zone.3 Design review is required for the new single-family dwelling and garage, vehicular access, elevated decks, spa, grading, retaining walls, trash enclosure in the front setback, and landscaping pursuant to Laguna Beach Municipal Code (“LBMC”) Section 25.05.040(B)(1), a Revocable Encroachment Permit 24-2511 is required to construct and maintain improvements in the public right-of-way, including walls, stairs, irrigation, drainage facilities, and lighting pursuant to LBMC Section 11.50.030, and a coastal development permit is required for the new development, including a new single-family dwelling, attached garage, attached ADU, and site improvements under LBMC Sections 25.07.004 and 25.07.006.

On January 23, 2025, the Design Review Board (“Board”) held a duly noticed public hearing and considered the project. After receiving input from staff, the Applicant, and public comments, the Board discussed the project, provided direction to the Applicant, and tabled the discussion with a 5-0 vote. The Board identified the following issues with the proposed project:
• Neighborhood compatibility as it relates to the long driveway and location of the garage. • Neighborhood compatibility relating to the size, mass, and visibility of the home sitting on the upper part of the site (i.e., the knoll).
• The amount of decking that could generate privacy issues. • The amount of glazing that could create excessive lighting. (The January 23, 2025 Staff Report, Minutes, Public Comments, Plans, AM&M, and Geotechnical Report, and Transcript, are attached as Attachments 5 through 11, respectively.) On May 22, 2025, the Board held a duly noticed public hearing to consider a revised project (the “Project”).

An Applicant-prepared summary of the changes that Applicant elected to make are set forth below:
• Floor Area Reduction: The total living space was reduced from 3,600 s.f. to 2,443 s.f. • Attached ADU: The majority of the upper level that was the primary bedroom suite was redesigned to be a separate 1,000 s.f. ADU with a 155 s.f. deck added to the upper level. • Upper Level Reductions: The upper-level footprint was reduced and pulled back to the east. The south-facing wall was pulled back 3 feet. The main house upper level was reduced from 1,359 s.f. to 147 s.f.
2 The Project’s architect is David Parker, who is within the definition of Applicant. 3 The Applicant is proceeding under Senate Bill (“SB 9”), as amended by SB 450 (collectively referred to herein as “SB 9”), which allows ministerial urban lot splits and two-unit development projects under certain qualifying conditions, subject to the California Coastal Act. (See Government Code § 65852.21(l)[“Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California Coastal Act of 1976. . . .”].) On June 13, 2024, the Community Development Director granted administrative coastal development permit approval of Tentative Parcel Map 24-0940, an urban lot split pursuant to SB 9 that subdivided an existing parcel to create two new parcels, including the Property. Final Map 24-117 was subsequently recorded with the County to effectuate the lot split.

Appeal of the Denial of DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, and REP 24-2511 at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive August 12, 2025

• Deck Reductions: The main house total deck area was reduced from 896 s.f. to 779 s.f. The upperlevel deck was pulled back on the west and south sides. • Roof Reductions: The east edge of the roof was lowered from a 10’-2” plate to an 8’-4” plate. The overall profile of the roof was reduced.
• Garage Reductions: The garage area was reduced from 553 s.f. to 535 s.f. The south-facing wall was pulled back 18”. The roof overhangs were pulled back and a planted roof was proposed to soften the exterior.
• Architectural Style: The style of the house was changed from modern to a “contemporary craftsman” style incorporating natural materials, detailing, and earth tone colors. Flat roofs, with the exception of deck areas, were eliminated.
• Retaining Wall Reductions: Overall height of retaining walls were lowered throughout the property. Most walls were at or near 6’ in height. Stone was added to the majority of the walls. • Fencing: A 6-foot-high wrought iron, non-climbable security fence was proposed at the rear yard, and along the west and east property lines.
• Glazing Reductions: The glazing was reduced by approximately 20%. • Landscaping: 4 new trees were proposed at the front of the property to assist in screening the sight lines to the house. Additional landscaping was proposed around the house and in front of retaining walls. Vines were proposed along all retaining walls which would quickly provide coverage and create green “living walls.” A planter was proposed in front of the garage to allow vines to grow down the retaining wall at the stairs.
• Access Stair Reconfiguration: The access stairs leading to both lots A and B were reconfigured to accommodate a future Edison transformer box.

Following the public hearing, the Board directed staff to prepare a resolution denying the Project by a 3-2 vote (Board members Bauta and Gannon dissenting). (The May 22, 2025 Staff Report, Minutes, Public Comments, Plans, and Transcript, are attached as Attachments 12 through 16, respectively.) On June 12, 2025, the Board considered the draft resolution denying the Project on consent and adopted the resolution denying the Project with certain changes read into the record, including a finding that the denial of the Project is exempt from CEQA (the “Board Denial”). (See Attachment 3 [Board Resolution 25-2409].) On June 4, 20254, the Applicant filed an appeal of the Board’s denial of the Project (the “Appeal”) (Attachment 4). The Applicant contends that the Board abused its discretion in denying the application for the following reasons:

1. “The Board majority unreasonably imposed an unjustified re-siting of the proposed residence, which would result in the unprecedented loss of substantial property rights of the owner, without providing objective findings to support their decision.”
4 While Applicant submitted an untimely Appeal on June 4, 2025—before the Board Denial—the City accepted the Appeal for processing as of the date of the Board Denial (i.e., June 12, 2025). (See LBMC § 25.05.070; see also Tran v. County of Los Angeles (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 154 [a local agency decision or determination is when the substantive resolution is formally adopted].)
Appeal of the Denial of DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, and REP 24-2511 at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive August 12, 2025

2. “The Board majority made false and unsupported assumptions regarding the appearance of the mass and scale as it relates to the project sitting and based on subjective criteria.”

3. “The Board majority disregarded factual evidence provided by the Applicant proving that other approved and completed projects possessed similar siting, garage locations, and access driveways, capriciously claiming such findings were not applicable to the subject property, and arbitrarily deeming that the project design is not neighborhood compatible.” LBMC Section 25.05.070 requires certain forms of public notice for an appeal. Public notice was duly provided to consider the Appeal of the Project at the August 12, 2025 City Council meeting in accordance with LBMC Section 25.05.065. Notices were mailed to owners and occupants within a 300-foot and 100- foot radius of the Property, respectively, posted on the Property, and published in a newspaper of general circulation. (Attachment 17.)
A. Standards of Review
Pursuant to LBMC Section 25.05.070, decisions of the Board may be appealed to the City Council by the applicant or any owner of property within 300 feet of the subject property.

The City Council may uphold, reverse, or remand any appealed decision. (LBMC § 25.05.070(E)(3)(a).) In particular, in reversing a decision, there must be three affirmative votes approving the reversal by adoption of a resolution that sets forth in writing the findings relied on to conclude that the appealed decision was in error or an abuse of discretion.5 (LBMC § 25.05.070(E)(3)(a).) Further, pursuant to LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(2)(d), the City Council’s review is limited to “the plans that were the subject of the decision or determination by the approval authority”; if new plans are submitted, the City Council “shall not consider or act on” them but may determine to remand those plans to the approval authority “for further proceedings pursuant to such direction as may be given the City Council.”

1. Coastal Development Permit and Revocable Encroachment Permit LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(1) sets forth the procedures and review criteria for non-design review appeals, such as a coastal development permit and revocable encroachment permit. For that review, the City Council shall not be limited to the grounds stated for the appeal and shall not be limited to the evidence that was presented to the Board. The City Council shall exercise its independent judgment and discretion as to the evidence presented at its hearing. Nevertheless, there shall be a presumption that the decision or determination made by the Board was reasonable, valid, and not an abuse of discretion; and the appellant shall have the burden of proof of demonstrating otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence presented.

In its consideration of the Board’s denial of CDP 24-2510 and REP 24-2511, the City Council is not limited to either the evidence in the record or the deliberations of the Board. The Applicant or members of the public may present new evidence for the City Council’s consideration, and the City Council is free to deliberate without being limited to the Board’s findings – in other words, a de novo hearing. 5 An abuse of discretion is defined as the following: (1) the City has “not proceeded in the manner required by law”; (2) the City “decision is not supported by the findings”; or (3) the “findings are not supported by the evidence.” (Civil Code § 1094.5.) Appeal of the Denial of DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, and REP 24-2511 at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive August 12, 2025

2. Design Review
LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(2) sets forth the procedures and review criteria for City Council requests for review of design review decisions. With respect to the standard of review for those decisions, subsection (E)(2)(b) provides:

If the decision or determination was not supported by four or more affirmative votes of the approval authority, upon hearing the appeal or request for review, the city council shall conduct a de novo review of the underlying application but shall be limited to the grounds specifically stated in the notice of appeal, if an appeal was filed, and to the evidence, including plans, that was presented to the approval authority. The city council shall exercise its independent judgment and discretion as to such evidence. Nevertheless, there shall be a presumption that the decision or determination made by the approval authority was reasonable, valid, and not an abuse of discretion; and the appellant, if there is one, shall have the burden of proof of demonstrating otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence, including plans, presented.

Accordingly, in its consideration of DR 24-2509, which was denied 3-2, the City Council shall conduct a de novo review, but is limited to considering the evidence that was presented to the Board and to the grounds specifically stated in the notice of appeal. Nevertheless, given the lack of four affirmative votes, the City Council exercises its independent judgment on the evidence.

3. City Council Options
The City Council has numerous options in consideration of this matter, which are listed below.

1. Adopt the attached Resolution upholding the Board Denial, and finding the denial of the Project categorically exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15270;

2. Direct staff to prepare and return at a future meeting with a Resolution overturning the Board Denial, with findings in support of overturning the Board Denial and approving the Project, subject to conditions of approval; or

3. Direct staff to prepare and return at a future meeting with a Resolution remanding DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, and REP 24-2511 to the Board, with findings in support of the remand and further direction to the Board.

DISCUSSION
The Board held two public hearings on January 23, 2025 and May 22, 2025 and adopted a Resolution denying the Project on June 12, 2025. A summary of the public hearings and meeting is set forth below.6 A. January 23, 2025 Board Hearing

1. Staff Report
6 The summaries and charts within this staff report are not exhaustive of all commentary or deliberations, but are intended to be a tool to aid the City Council in its review of the evidence.

Appeal of the Denial of DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, and REP 24-2511 at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive August 12, 2025

The Project is located towards the top of Bluebird Canyon along Bluebird Canyon Drive between the cross streets of Morningside Drive and Regatta Road. The project site is a steep upsloping lot. The neighborhood consists of single-family residences.

Figure 1: Aerial View and Street Frontage of Project Site Appeal of the Denial of DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, and REP 24-2511 at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive August 12, 2025

Figure 1: Rendering of project

2. Staff Presentation
City staff noted that the Property is part of a lot split and it is surrounded by vacant lots except for one adjacent home. The project is on a steep hillside lot, featuring a unique driveway design and elements such as elevated decks, grading, retaining walls, landscaping, a spa, and lighting. It includes encroachments into the public right-of-way for infrastructure including walls, stairs, and drainage. Staff noted concerns regarding access, design articulation, landscaping, lighting and glare, compliance with the General Plan, and impacts on neighborhood compatibility, privacy, and view equity.

3. Board Ex Parte Disclosures
Board
Member
Ex Parte Disclosure Transcript
Page Nos.

Jessica
Gannon
Conducted a site visit with Steve Kawaratani and Mr. Parker, spoke with Peter Grohmann, and received numerous communications with many of the residents in the Bluebird community, including Morningside, and read every email.
p. 1 of 17
MJ Coveny Met with Steve Kawaratani and Mr. Parker at the site. p. 1 of 17 Louis Weil Spoke with William Horner, Peter Grohman, Marsha Stallworth, Eileen S., Susan Whitin, Steve Kawaratani, and Mr. Parker.
p. 1 of 17
Thomas
Gibbs
Met with Mr. Parker and Steve Kawaratani, spoke to Mary Fargus, met with Marsha Stallworth who represented Kathy and John Romita, and met with Peter Grohmann, William Horner and Susan Whitin.
p. 1 of 17
Christine
Thalman
Met with Steve Kawaratani, Mr. Parker, William Horner, Susan Whitin, and a former planning commissioner.
p. 1 of 17
Appeal of the Denial of DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, and REP 24-2511 at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive August 12, 2025

4. Board Questions and Staff Responses
Topic Question and Response Transcript
Page Nos.
[Commenter]
Lot Size Asked about the lot size and the project size. Staff responded that the lot area of the subject property is 8,582 square feet and the square footage living area of the project is 3,598.
p. 3 of 17
[Coveny]
Project
Comparisons
Asked about the lot size of 1536 Morningside. Staff confirmed that the lot area for 1536 Morningside is 13,866 square feet. p. 3 of 17
[Coveny]
Geotechnical
Report
Asked about the submitted geotechnical report, which includes a limitations section that notes the site conditions may change over time and that the recommendations are only valid for one year from the report date, which is August 22, 2024. Staff responded that a full geotechnical report will be provided during the building permit phase of the project.
p. 4 of 17
[Thalman]

4. Applicant Presentation
Mr. Parker, the project architect, and Mr. Dyrnaes, the property owner, both provided comments during the Applicant presentation. Mr. Parker introduced a 3,600 square foot, two-story, home with a tucked-under garage on an 8,500 square foot lot. He explained that the design is fully code-compliant, requires no variances, and aligns with hillside and neighborhood compatibility guidelines. Mr. Parker noted that the driveway and garage locations were established with staff input to enhance safety, reduce grading, and avoid the need for a variance. Mr. Parker also noted that the design follows the City’s direction to use an on-grade driveway, consistent with adjacent properties. Mr. Parker noted that the home steps with the natural slope and is situated on the flattest portion of the lot and nearby homes show similar or larger sizes, with six homes exceeding 3,000 square feet. Mr. Parker emphasized that the project meets all parking and fire code requirements, improves slope stability and drainage, and is designed to enhance the neighborhood.

Mr. Dyrnaes noted the challenges of the lot and credited the engineering team for a solution that strengthens hillside stability through structural caissons. He pointed out that the most visible mass at the street is due to required parking. He shared that early community feedback was limited but more substantial input was received recently, especially from neighbors across the street, and has been incorporated into the design.

He also expressed concern with the staff report’s comparisons, stating that the home is only 150 square feet larger than a recently approved nearby project and compares favorably across key criteria.

5. Public Testimony
During the public hearing, eight individuals provided public testimony. The public testimony is summarized below:

Commenter Summary of Comment Transcript
Page Nos.

Pam Adams Cited concerns about increasing density on a fragile, high fire risk knoll due to SB-9 lot splits. She criticized the design as incompatible with the p. 6 of 17
Appeal of the Denial of DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, and REP 24-2511 at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive August 12, 2025

neighborhood in mass, scale, and materials, describing it as overly glazed, light in tone, and disruptive in terms of light, noise, and hardscape. She argued the project disregards prior feedback and does not preserve or enhance the area’s visual character. She urged the Board to deny the project unless major changes are made.

William
Horner
Expressed support for the Applicant’s right to build but raised concerns about neighborhood compatibility, excessive glazing, and how the structure integrates with the slope. He emphasized the importance of preserving the character of the public way, frequently used by neighbors, and suggested design changes such as reducing window size, raising sill heights, and using non-glass balcony materials to improve privacy and balance. He also noted specific concerns about noise amplification into his bedroom from the proposed rooftop deck and requested its size be reduced. Lastly, he mentioned issues with light pollution and encouraged the Board to consider shielding and angles of exterior lighting due to his lower elevation.
p. 7 of 17
Tim Kane Expressed concern about the scale of the proposed project and broader development on the subdivided knoll. He noted that while the Applicant compared the design to the previously approved Riahi home, that project was ultimately overturned by City Council for being too large and incompatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Kane emphasized that viewing the site as a series of small lots downplays the cumulative impact, which could total 25,000 square feet of new development. He urged the Board to consider the City Council’s broader perspective on scale and neighborhood compatibility.
p. 7 of 17
Speaker 13 A neighboring resident expressed appreciation for the site visit and voiced strong opposition to the project. They noted the proposed home exceeds 3,500 square feet (excluding the garage), significantly larger than nearby homes averaging 1,600–2,700 square feet, and is stylistically incompatible with the established neighborhood. They raised concerns about safety and access due to extensive excavation, citing an estimated 170 truckloads of soil removal. As a resident directly below the site, they emphasized the narrow 18-foot street and suggested that this project and the adjacent Lot A, facing similar issues, should be reviewed together. They do not support the project in its current form.
p. 8 of 17
Marcia
Stallworth
Spoke on behalf of the Romitas, who were out of the country, and indicated that the Romitas have not been receiving project notifications despite a submitted change of address. She noted that she has been trying to resolve the issue through the county assessor and City staff. She noted that the Romitas are unaware of the Project’s current status or site markings and are concerned about potential impacts, particularly related to setbacks, view obstruction, and nearby walls. They intend to hire professionals to assess how the proposed development may affect their p. 8 of 17
Appeal of the Denial of DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, and REP 24-2511 at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive August 12, 2025

property. Stallworth emphasized their desire for fair communication and good neighbor relations.

Susan
Whitin
Opposed the project, citing its incompatibility with Design Review Board guidelines and neighborhood character, as detailed in the staff report and numerous neighbor letters. She emphasized the significant visual and physical impact of the driveway, retaining walls, and extensive glazing on the two-story home atop the knoll, which rises 51 feet above the street.

Ms. Whitin raised concerns about cumulative impacts from multiple closely packed homes being developed simultaneously under SB9, without comprehensive planning. She called for further geological investigation, questioned the timeline and feasibility of required road widening and utility relocation, and stressed the need for coordinated construction management to address access, duration, and overlapping impacts. p. 9 of 17
Richard
Bellier
Urged the Design Review Board to consider the broader context of development on the knoll, rather than evaluating projects piecemeal. He criticized the proposed long driveway as a means to justify placing a large, glass-heavy structure at the top of the hill, calling it an eyesore. Bellier advocated for designs that excavate into the hillside to reduce visual impact and massing, and emphasized the need to minimize oversized structures across the multiple SB 9-affected lots.
p. 10 of 17
Speaker 17 Spoke in strong support of the Applicant, emphasizing that Applicant is a longtime resident, not a developer, who has contributed meaningfully to the community, notably by helping to prevent large-scale development in Rim Rock Canyon. She highlighted that the project was developed in close coordination with planning staff, complies fully with the General Plan, Municipal Code, and hillside guidelines, and requires no variances. She asserted that the design does not impact neighbors’ privacy and urged both the Board and community to support and welcome the Applicant. p. 10 of 17

6. Applicant Rebuttal
Steve Kawaratani, representing the Applicant, emphasized that the subject is a vacant, buildable lot with no sensitive habitat. He noted the Board’s role in balancing competing interests while evaluating the Project under design guidelines, the General Plan, and safety considerations. He highlighted that the proposed driveway does not require a variance, allows safe nose-out access, minimizes grading, and conforms to hillside guidelines. Over half the buildable area lies on the knoll, consistent with nearby development. He noted that a licensed engineer determined the driveway location optimal and presented updated renderings showing added landscaping, reduced wall heights, and less glazing for future submittals. He clarified that neighboring projects are under separate ownership. (Attachment 11 [Transcript], p. 11 of 17).

Appeal of the Denial of DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, and REP 24-2511 at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive August 12, 2025

7. Board Deliberation
Topic Discussion Transcript
Page Nos.
[Commenter]
Mass and Scale;
Siting of
Structures;
Retaining
Walls/Driveway;
Neighborhood
Compatibility;
Lighting and
Glare; Privacy
Expressed strong concerns about the proposed design, stating it is incompatible with the character of the neighborhood and appears overly massive, particularly due to the long driveway and retaining walls that create a multi-story appearance.

Noted that surrounding homes are typically more modest, set back with long driveways and minimal visibility, and suggested the project may need to be redesigned from scratch to better follow the hillside contours—even if that requires more excavation.

Recommended reconsidering a street-level garage, as seen on other nearby homes, and emphasized concerns about the size of the upper deck, glazing impacts, and related privacy and glare issues.

While acknowledging the Applicant’s right to build, Board Member Gibbs stressed the need to significantly reduce neighborhood impacts, stating that the current proposal is not acceptable in its current form.
p. 11 of 17
[Gibbs]
Siting of
Structures;
Retaining
Walls/Driveway;
Neighborhood
Compatibility;
Lighting and
Glare
Acknowledged prior community support for a nearby project on Morningside and suggested it might serve as a useful reference.

Agreed that the current design likely needs to start over, noting the driveway—while initially appearing safer—seems too long and problematic for the site.

While she didn’t share strong concerns about glazing due to advances in non-reflective materials, she did find the amount of decking excessive.
p. 12 of 17
[Thalman]
Retaining
Walls/Driveway;
Siting of
Structures;
certified LCP
compliance
Expressed support for the proposed driveway, despite it not being the majority view, citing safety concerns with street access.

Suggested lowering the garage on the hillside to reduce massing and possibly limiting the design to a single switchback.

Emphasized the importance of maintaining a code-compliant project without requiring variances and appreciated the fireresistant materials and adequate landscaping.

While generally supportive of the design approach, she
acknowledged the project would likely return for revisions and p. 12 of 17
[Gannon]
Appeal of the Denial of DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, and REP 24-2511 at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive August 12, 2025

encouraged reworking the driveway configuration to address safety and compatibility concerns.

Access; Siting
of Structures;
Environmental
Context,
Neighborhood
Compatibility;
Mass and Scale
Expressed strong concerns about the Project’s design, particularly the proposed access, which is excessively long and steep compared to others.

Cited six years of experience and noted the Project’s placement on a knoll conflicts with environmental guidelines and that the design fails to meet neighborhood compatibility, glazing, and height standards.

While acknowledging the property is buildable, concluded the current proposal is fundamentally flawed and recommended a complete redesign, suggesting the project be tabled indefinitely. p 13 of 17
[Weil]
Neighborhood
Compatibility
Clarified that the lot is buildable but emphasized that not every lot can be fully maximized. Stated that development must respect both community context and the lot’s inherent limitations.
p. 15 of 17
[Coveny]

8. Board Action
The Board voted 5-0 to table the Project and continue the public hearing to a date uncertain.

B. May 22, 2025 Board Review

1. Staff Report
In the published staff report to the Board, staff noted that the Applicant provided the following summary of changes to the project:
• Floor Area Reduction: The total living space was reduced from 3,600 s.f. to 2,443 s.f. • Attached ADU: The majority of the upper level that was the primary bedroom suite was redesigned to be a separate 1,000 s.f. ADU with a 155 s.f. deck added to the upper level. • Upper Level Reductions: The upper-level footprint was reduced and pulled back to the east. The south-facing wall was pulled back 3 feet. The main house upper level was reduced from 1,359 s.f. to 147 s.f.
• Deck Reductions: The main house total deck area was reduced from 896 s.f. to 779 s.f. The upperlevel deck was pulled back on the west and south sides. • Roof Reductions: The east edge of the roof was lowered from a 10’-2” plate to an 8’-4” plate. The overall profile of the roof was reduced.
• Garage Reductions: The garage area was reduced from 553 s.f. to 535 s.f. The south-facing wall was pulled back 18”. The roof overhangs were pulled back and a planted roof was proposed to soften the exterior.
• Architectural Style: The style of the house was changed from modern to a “contemporary craftsman” style incorporating natural materials, detailing, and earth tone colors. Flat roofs, with the exception of deck areas, were eliminated.

Appeal of the Denial of DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, and REP 24-2511 at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive August 12, 2025

• Retaining Wall Reductions: Overall height of retaining walls were lowered throughout the property. Most walls were at or near 6’ in height. Stone was added to the majority of the walls. • Fencing: A 6-foot-high wrought iron, non-climbable security fence was proposed at the rear yard, and along the west and east property lines.
• Glazing Reductions: The glazing was reduced by approximately 20%. • Landscaping: 4 new trees were proposed at the front of the property to assist in screening the sight lines to the house. Additional landscaping was proposed around the house and in front of retaining walls. Vines were proposed along all retaining walls which would quickly provide coverage and create green “living walls.” A planter was proposed in front of the garage to allow vines to grow down the retaining wall at the stairs.
• Access Stair Reconfiguration: The access stairs leading to both lots A and B were reconfigured to accommodate a future Edison transformer box.

City staff also provided the below comparison of the project and the revised Project:

Figure 3: Rendering of Project revisions

2. Staff Presentation
Staff presented the revised Project on Bluebird Canyon Road, highlighting key site features, updated renderings, and proposed improvements. Staff noted that the project includes a three-level home, new access driveway, retaining walls, spa, landscaping, and public improvements such as road widening7 and parking.

Staff noted the absence of adjacent homes but raised concerns about massing, grading, visual compatibility, and compliance with coastal and zoning policies. Four new conditions were proposed to address construction impacts, including road monitoring, repair, pre-construction surveys, and bonding. While staff acknowledged public concerns, they recognized the Applicant’s good faith revisions and recommended the Board to either approve the Project with conditions or provide further direction for a continued hearing. 7 The road widening fluctuates between 2.5 feet and 3.5 feet.

Appeal of the Denial of DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, and REP 24-2511 at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive August 12, 2025

Figure 4: Rendering of Project

3. Board Ex Parte Disclosures
Board
Member
Ex Parte Disclosure Transcript
Page Nos.

Bauta Met with Mr. Kawaratani, Mr. Grohmann, Mr. Barta, and a few of the neighbors: Joe Kover, the Sadhal family, and Susan Whiten. p. 1 of 40
Coveny Met with the same group as Board Member Bauta. p. 1 of 40 Weil Met with the same group as Board Member Bauta. p. 1 of 40 Gannon Had a site visit with the Applicant team and met with Peter Grohmann. p. 1 of 40 Gibbs Met with Mr. Kawaratani, Mr. Grohmann, Joe Kover, Harpal Sadhal, and Susan Whiten.
p. 2 of 40

4. Board Questions and Staff Responses
Board
Member
Question and Response Transcript
Page No.

Gibbs Inquired about the excavation truck route. Staff responded that while haul routes are typically reviewed at the building permit stage alongside the staging plan, Planning staff discussed routing trucks up Morningside and confirmed that Public Works staff reviewed and agreed with the proposed conditions. p. 4 of 40
Coveny Requested to see the updated materials and renderings, noting they were missing from the Board’s agenda packet. Staff presented the new color and p. 7 of 40
Appeal of the Denial of DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, and REP 24-2511 at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive August 12, 2025

materials board and confirmed that the Applicant had a separate presentation, including the renderings.

Weil Asked staff to confirm whether the Project is subject to design review and if the Applicant has been participating transparently and in good faith. Staff affirmed that they believe that to be the case.
p. 8 of 40

5. Applicant Presentation
Mr. Parker, the architect for the Project, presented the revised Project, highlighting key changes made in response to Board feedback from the initial hearing. He shared before-and-after comparisons and outlined reductions in size, mass, and visibility, including a decrease in total living space from 3,600 to 2,443 square feet and significant setbacks to the upper level, roof, deck, and garage. The design style was changed from modern to contemporary craftsman with sloped roofs, earth-tone materials, and increased landscaping to reduce visual mass. Glazing was reduced by 20%, and new light and privacy controls were added. Retaining walls were lowered and softened with vines, and the landscape plan was enhanced and made codecompliant. The access stairs were relocated outside the right-of-way. Mr. Parker emphasized that alternate siting options were explored but found infeasible due to slope impacts and safety. He concluded that the project is compliant, neighborhood-compatible, and offers improvements such as slope stabilization, fire safety, and enhanced aesthetics, asserting it would be a positive addition to Bluebird Canyon.

6. Public Testimony
During the public hearing, six individuals provided public testimony. The public testimony is summarized below:

Commenter Summary of Comment Transcript
Page Nos.

Pamela
Adams
Acknowledged the Applicant’s effort to shift the design toward a more neighborhood-compatible craftsman style but remained opposed to the Project. She cited concerns that the home is still sited on the ridgeline rather than integrated into the terrain, as previously requested by the Board. She questioned the legitimacy of the 1,000-square-foot ADU and its glass deck, suggesting it misrepresents the reduced mass and scale. She also raised concerns about potential noncompliance with SB 9 restrictions and the noise impact of the spa at the hilltop. Additionally, she opposed the proposed construction truck route via lower Morningside, urging the Board to deny the Project.
p. 10 of 40
Susan
Whitin
Opposed the Project, arguing it remains fundamentally unchanged from the January version. Noted it still appears over 50 feet tall from the street, retains the same siting, driveway, and retaining walls, and that the reduced square footage is mainly due to relabeling the top floor as an ADU. She stated the changes are largely cosmetic and do not address key concerns. Cited multiple policy violations, including failure to meet findings for the Coastal Development Permit related to landform alteration and visual compatibility, and raised issues with the Revocable Encroachment Permit, emphasizing p. 11 of 40
Appeal of the Denial of DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, and REP 24-2511 at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive August 12, 2025

Appeal of the Denial of DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, and REP 24-2511 at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive August 12, 2025

that the Board—not Public Works—must approve it. She warned the 10- foot retaining wall would set a negative precedent and degrade the streetscape. She called for actionable design changes to achieve compliance and emphasized that true good-faith compromise means both sides must make concessions—something she believes has not yet occurred.

Joe Kover Expressed continued opposition to the Project, stating that despite feedback from staff, neighbors, and the Board, the Applicant’s revisions are superficial. He acknowledged that the updated exterior is an improvement but argued the changes amount to little more than cosmetic wrapping.

Questioned the legitimacy of classifying the upper level as an ADU, noting that the loft and deck remain outside its scope and should still be reviewed under the Coastal Development Permit. He compared the Project’s height to his own approved adjacent lot, stating that the proposed structure exceeds the ridgeline by 11–12 feet, unlike his, which remains at or below it. He also raised concerns about the west- and south-facing decks and excessive glazing, citing privacy impacts to surrounding homes. He urged the board to critically assess whether meaningful changes were made and emphasized that the Project remains incompatible with the neighborhood. p. 12 of 40
Mary
Fegraus
Acknowledged some progress on the Project but maintained strong concerns about neighborhood compatibility, massing, the siting of the house and driveway, and potential impacts on noise, privacy, and skyline views for Morningside residents. She stressed that approval of this Project could set a precedent for adjacent Lot A. Fegraus, citing herself as a former planning commissioner, strongly disagreed with the staff’s claim that no ridgeline exists on the site, citing her experience with the City’s Open Space and Conservation Element. She asserted that the knoll is clearly a ridgeline visible from multiple neighborhoods and should be subject to the same regulations as any other. She concluded by calling for a more compatible design that respects the neighborhood and ridgeline protections. p. 13 of 40
Eileen Slora Expressed opposition to the Project, stating it fails to meet Coastal Development Permit findings 5 and 6. She argued that the proposed eastwest driveway significantly alters the natural landform by disturbing the lower two-thirds of the slope and requiring tall retaining walls, including a ten-foot wall in the public right-of-way—unprecedented in the neighborhood. She dismissed proposed vine plantings as a cosmetic fix that do not mitigate the wall’s height. Noted that the Project’s massing, at up to 55 feet from street grade, resembles a four-story commercial building and is visually incompatible with surrounding homes. She criticized the relabeling of the top floor as an ADU, stating it may satisfy regulatory definitions but not the actual physical impact. Finally, she pointed out that the Project’s 40% floor area ratio exceeds the neighborhood average of 32%, further contributing to incompatibility.
p. 13 of 40
Peter
Grohmann
Criticized the revised proposal for disregarding previous Board directives to reduce height, mass, and square footage, and to terrace the home from the p. 14 of 40
Appeal of the Denial of DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, and REP 24-2511 at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive August 12, 2025

Appeal of the Denial of DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, and REP 24-2511 at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive August 12, 2025

street upward. He noted the Applicant continues to insist on a long driveway to build atop the knoll, avoiding a street-level garage. Argued the reduction in square footage is misleading, as it primarily involves labeling a portion as an ADU. He described the Project as largely unchanged, incompatible with the neighborhood, and likely to become a glaring “light beacon” on the hill. He also opposed the revocable encroachment permit, stating that the retaining walls within the public right-of-way are too large and permanent to meet the permit’s intended use for minor, revocable structures. He urged the Board to deny the Project.

7. Applicant Rebuttal
Mr. Dyrnaes, property owner, emphasized that the Project is fully code compliant, with no variances, view, or privacy impacts, and meets all general plan and hillside guidelines. Due to unique site conditions, the only buildable area is atop the hill, and relocating the home downward would violate guidelines by increasing grading and export. Engineering analysis confirms the current design is optimal for minimizing impact, grading, and massing. The site’s top was graded in 1938 and is not a natural ridgeline, making the build consistent with nearby properties that have long uphill driveways. The home’s height and footprint are comparable or smaller than neighboring homes. Mr. Dyrnaes stressed a lack of dialogue with neighbors and highlighted benefits like street widening and hillside stabilization. He concluded that the current placement of the home, driveway, and garage is the best solution to minimize environmental and visual impacts.

8. Board Deliberation
Topic Discussion Transcript Page Nos.
[Commenter]
Retaining
Walls/Driveway
Noted the Project’s large scale, long steep
driveway, and massing that is unlike
anything in the neighborhood.
p. 21 pf 40 [Gibbs]
Landscaping; Design
Integrity; and Lighting
and Glare
Acknowledged some improvements in
landscaping, materials, and glazing
reduction.
p. 21 pf 40 [Gibbs]
Mass and Scale; Siting
of Structures; Retaining
Walls/Driveway;
Neighborhood
Compatibility
Noted that the mass and scale, driven by the
building’s location, size, driveway, and
garage, remain problematic and inconsistent
with neighborhood character.
p. 21 pf 40 [Gibbs]
Driveway/Retaining
Walls; Grading
Expressed doubts about the Applicant’s
claim that alternatives like terracing and a
street-level garage are not feasible and
highlighted concerns about excavation and
environmental impacts under the CDP.
p. 21 pf 40 [Gibbs]
Driveway/Retaining
Walls; Grading
Questioned whether the project complies
with key CDP criteria regarding visual
p. 21 pf 40 [Gibbs]
Appeal of the Denial of DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, and REP 24-2511 at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive August 12, 2025

compatibility and minimizing alteration of
natural landforms, citing concerns about the
long driveway and large retaining walls.

Driveway/Retaining
Walls
Discussed challenges with applying a
revocable encroachment permit for
substantial retaining walls in the public rightof-way, noting such structures may interfere with public use and detract from streetscape
quality.
p. 21 pf 40 [Gibbs]
Mass and Scale;
Grading; Siting of
Structures
Recommended significantly reducing mass
and height, especially the top floor and deck,
terracing the building into the hillside, and
seriously reconsidering garage placement
with creative architectural solutions like
elevators.
p. 21 pf 40 [Gibbs]
Support of Mass and
Scale
Reviewed the revised Project against the first
proposal and noted significant changes,
including a substantial floor area reduction
from 3,600 to 2,400 square feet, deck and
roof reductions, and lowered plate height.

Acknowledged the addition of an ADU and
its consideration under the CDP.
p. 24 of 40 [Bauta]
Support of Siting of
Structures
Regarding the garage, argued that its current
setback from the street reduces visual
massing compared to moving it forward,
which would create a taller, more prominent
structure.
p. 24 of 40 [Bauta]
Support of Mass and
Scale; Grading
Stated that the Project terracing and
excavation effectively minimize the overall
mass and impact despite appearances.
p. 24 of 40 [Bauta]
Support of
Neighborhood
Compatibility
Compared the Property to a nearby property
at 1540 Bluebird Canyon Drive, which sits
higher above grade, and found the Project
consistent with neighborhood development
patterns
p. 24 of 40 [Bauta]
Support of Certified
LCP Compliance
Concluded that the Project meets
neighborhood development standards and is
ready for approval.
p. 24 of 40 [Bauta]
Support of Certified
LCP Compliance; DR
findings; CDP findings
Agreed with Board Member Bauta’s
assessment regarding the general plan,
p. 27 to 40 [Gannon]
Appeal of the Denial of DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, and REP 24-2511 at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive August 12, 2025

design review criteria, and coastal
development permit.

Support of
Driveway/Garage;
Siting of Structures
Noted that the driveway fits the
neighborhood pattern and improves safety,
while placing the garage at the street would
increase mass, scale, and require a variance.
p. 27 to 40 [Gannon]
Support of
Neighborhood
Compatibility; Design
Integrity
Found that the chosen materials and color
palette are appropriate and consistent with
local development.
p. 27 to 40 [Gannon]
Support of Certified
LCP Compliance
Regarding Views
Noted no view concerns. p. 27 to 40 [Gannon]
Support of Certified
LCP Compliance
Highlighted that the project meets open
space and lot coverage requirements.
p. 27 to 40 [Gannon]
Lighting/Glare Suggested a condition of approval for use of engineered glass that minimizes light glare.
p. 27 to 40 [Gannon]
Mass and Scale; Siting
of Structures
Mass and scale remain major concerns,
largely due to the home’s high placement on
the ridge, which makes it feel precarious and
oversized.
p. 27 to 40 [Coveny]
Mass and Scale While the floor area was reduced, adding an ADU and a large roof deck still contribute to
the building’s imposing presence.
p. 27 to 40 [Coveny]
Mass and Scale; Siting
of Structures
Noted that neighboring properties like the
Cover home benefit from larger lots, making
mass less noticeable, but this Project’s tight,
high location exacerbates the scale issue.
p. 27 to 40 [Coveny]
Retaining
Walls/Driveway; and
Siting of Structures
Noted that the grading and retaining walls
also add to the massing effect, and though the
driveway design is appealing, the size of the
retaining walls feels substantial compared to
others nearby. The presence of a ridgeline on
the knoll is accepted as natural and noted it is
important to consider in placement and
design, with the suggestion to use nearby
homes as a reference for limits.
p. 27 to 40 [Coveny]
Views Stated that future development on adjacent
lots behind the Project should also be
factored in to avoid blocking potential views.
p. 27 to 40 [Coveny]
Retaining
Walls/Driveway; Siting
of Structures
Noted that the revocable encroachment
permit is discretionary; while the road
dedication is appreciated, the house
p. 27 to 40 [Coveny]
Appeal of the Denial of DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, and REP 24-2511 at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive August 12, 2025

placement currently complicates this
approval.

Lighting/Glare Suggested reducing window glazing to help decrease perceived mass, especially at night,
and expressed
p. 27 to 40 [Coveny]
Fire Safety Expressed concern about shared fire escape
stairs, recommended separate access for
safety.
p. 27 to 40 [Coveny]
Neighborhood
Compatibility; Siting of
Structures
Overall, acknowledged progress on the
design, but noted the project still needs to
address mass, scale, placement, and
neighborhood compatibility more
thoroughly.
p. 27 to 40 [Coveny]
Fire Safety; Retaining
Walls/Driveway;
Grading; Certified LCP
Compliance
Noted primary concern is site access,
highlighting that the existing Bluebird
Canyon road varies in width and his own
measurements showed it narrower than
reported. Appreciated the proposed street
widening and parking but pointed out that
permanent retaining walls encroach on the
public right-of-way, potentially creating
non-conforming access if removed, and
recommended moving them outside the
right-of-way.
p. 30 of 40 [Weil]
Siting of Structures;
Mass and Scale; Privacy
Stressed the need to lower the finished
garage floor relative to street level to better
integrate the Project, reduce mass and scale,
and address privacy concerns for neighbors.

Stated could not support the coastal
development permit findings due to the
building’s height and topography
relationship. Reiterated the need for height
reduction and better hillside integration.
p. 30 of 40 [Weil]; p. 31 of 40
[Gibbs]
Fire Safety Regarding fire safety, noted that shared
stairways depend on proper development of
an adjacent lot (Lot A), which remains
unresolved, creating a safety gap given the
high fire severity zone.
p. 30 of 40 [Weil]
Retaining
Walls/Driveway; Mass
and Scale
Found the driveway length and lot coverage
inconsistent with guidelines and called for
more creative design solutions beyond the
Applicant’s current “most efficient”
approach. Believed the Project size is
p. 30 of 40 [Weil]
Appeal of the Denial of DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, and REP 24-2511 at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive August 12, 2025

potentially approvable but required
significant redesign.

Views Expressed fewer concerns about view
impacts.
p. 30 of 40 [Weil]
Lighting and Glare Supported minimizing lighting glare per a fellow Board member recommendation.
p. 30 of 40 [Weil]
Driveway/Retaining
Walls; Grading
Expressed a firm stance against approving a
revocable encroachment permit for
permanent structures like the roadway and
retaining walls in the public right-of-way,
emphasizing the need for creative grading
solutions and compromises to meet
applicable regulations.
p. 31 of 40 [Gibbs]
Access;
Driveway/Retaining
Walls; Siting of
Structures
Regarding access, he said the Applicant has
two options: either a street-level garage or a
lowered garage with a creatively designed
access road, which he could support. Agreed
that any elevated driveway and retaining
walls must be pulled out of the public rightof-way.
p. 31 of 40 [Gibbs]
Mass and Scale; Height;
Siting of Structures;
Driveway/Retaining
Walls
Summarized consensus that the project has
excessive mass and scale; and the building
height must be reduced and terraced into the
slope if the current square footage is to be
maintained. Clarified that building atop the
hill is not prohibited, but height must come
down. Stated a need to remove
encroachments from the right-of-way, and
address concerns about the long driveway by
potentially lowering the garage to reduce
driveway length.
p. 31 of 40 [Gibbs]
Certified LCP
compliance
Clarified that while the Project respects the
setbacks and acknowledges the Applicant
has a buildable lot, the current proposal
doesn’t meet the guidelines as presented.

Believed the Applicant could still achieve
their program within the buildable area but
needs to redesign the Project to better comply
with the standards.

Weil p. 37 of 40 [Weil],
[Coveny], and [Gibbs]

9. Board Action
The Board voted 3-2 (Board members Bauta and Gannon dissenting) to direct staff to prepare a resolution for denial of the Project and to put it on the consent calendar at the next meeting.

Appeal of the Denial of DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, and REP 24-2511 at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive August 12, 2025

C. June 12, 2025 Board Denial

1. Staff Presentation
The Chair pulled the project off consent and asked if staff had anything to add before the Applicant presents.

Staff clarified that the item before the Board is whether or not staff accurately memorialized the direction from the Board at the last meeting on May 22, 2025. (Attachment 20 [June 20, 2025 DRB Transcript].)

2. Applicant Presentation
Applicant’s attorney addressed the Board and stated that during the prior hearing, the Board’s feedback was largely subjective, which the attorney for the Applicant argued violates the Housing Accountability Act and SB 450. The attorney for the Applicant opined that these laws require project review based only on objective design standards and urged the Board to reconsider its position and offered to answer questions about the applicable laws. 8

3. Board Discussion
Board
Member
Discussion Transcript
Page Nos.

Thomas
Gibbs
Acknowledged that the Board carefully considered the Project and arrived at independent yet respectful conclusions. Proposed a revision to the resolution, clarifying that the three board members voting for denial shared common concerns, rather than having entirely separate or varying issues. They suggested simplifying the language to state that “each of the three other design review members had concerns with the project,” noting that the record already reflects the specifics.
p. 2 of 4
Louise
Weil
Requested that more specific comments be added to Finding B on page three of the REP section. Referenced their deliberation about the developed street width in the nearby vicinity, which was measured curb to curb at 24 feet. p. 3 of 4

4. Board Adoption of Resolution Denying the Application Board voted 3-2 to adopt Resolution No. 24-2509 denying the Project with the changes to Resolution No. 24-2509 that were read into the record.

RESPONSES TO ISSUES RAISED ON APPEAL
As noted above, the Applicant submitted an Appeal of the Board’s decision (Attachment 4). As indicated under Standards of Review, in the City Council’s review of non-design review appeals, such as a coastal development permit and revocable encroachment permit, the Council shall conduct a de novo review of the underlying application and shall not be limited to the grounds stated for the appeal, nor is the Council limited to the evidence that was presented to the Board. Accordingly, in its consideration of the Board’s denial of CDP 24-2510 and REP 24-2511, the Council is free to deliberate without being limited to the Board’s findings – in other words, a de novo hearing. For the consideration of DR 24-2509, the City Council shall conduct a de novo review, but is limited to considering the evidence that was presented to the Board and may exercise its independent judgment on such evidence. Further, for DR-2509, the City Council is limited to the grounds specifically stated in the notice of Appeal. 8 These comments are addressed in the Board Resolution and also in the analysis in response to the Appeal.

Appeal of the Denial of DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, and REP 24-2511 at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive August 12, 2025

Below are the grounds for Appeal and City staff’s response.

1. “The Board majority unreasonably imposed an unjustified re-siting of the proposed residence, which would result in the unprecedented loss of substantial property rights of the owner, without providing objective findings to support their decision.

Staff’s Response
The Applicant’s Project requires three entitlements from the City: (1) REP 24-2511 to construct and maintain improvements in the public right-of-way, including walls, stairs, irrigation, drainage facilities, and lighting pursuant to LBMC Section 11.50.030; (2) CDP 24-2510 for the new development, which includes a new single-family dwelling, attached garage, attached ADU, and site improvements under LBMC Sections 25.07.004 and 25.07.006; and (3) DR 25-2509 for the new single-family dwelling and garage, vehicular access, elevated decks, spa, grading, retaining walls, trash enclosure in the front setback, and landscaping pursuant to LBMC Section 25.05.040(B)(1). Below is an overview of the findings and facts relied upon by the Board to deny the entitlements and an analysis supporting that the Board did not commit an abuse of discretion.

A. REP 24-2511 to construct and maintain improvements in the public right-of-way, including walls, stairs, irrigation, drainage facilities, and lighting pursuant to LBMC Section 11.50.030
The Applicant proposed certain private improvements within an unimproved portion of the City’s public right-of-way to facilitate the Applicant’s preferred driveway design, which is long and winding. The REP is required for such private improvements, consisting of retaining walls, stairs, irrigation, drainage facilities, and lighting. The development plans call for a sloping retaining wall that extends approximately nine feet into the right of way to support the winding driveway that cuts into the hillside. Relative to the elevation at the edge of the street pavement, the retaining wall has an exposed height of 10 feet at the property line.

In accordance with state law, a city may prohibit encroachments into and obstructions on public property and may provide for the removal of any prohibited encroachments. (Gov. Code § 38775.) A city may also regulate encroachments on public property by requiring an encroachment permit and permitting the encroachment under specified conditions. (Laura Vincent Co. v. City of Selma (1941) 43 Cal.App.2d 473.) The regulatory scheme must have a reasonable tendency to preserve or protect the public safety or convenience. (Id. At 476.) A city council’s determination of what constitutes an obstruction or encroachment will not be upset by the courts in the absence of fraud, oppression, or a manifest abuse of discretion. (Id.; Irvin v. City of Manhattan Beach (1966) 65 Cal.2d 13.) Here, consistent with the state law above, the City of Laguna Beach, through adoption of its Municipal Code, has declared that “[a]nything which . . . unlawfully obstructs the free passage or use, in the customary manner, of any . . . public . . . street . . . is a nuisance.” (LBMC § 7.24.020(e); California Civil Code § 3479.) The City of Laguna Beach, also through adoption of its Municipal Code, has created a regulatory scheme that allows certain types of encroachments into the public street through a revocable encroachment permit Appeal of the Denial of DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, and REP 24-2511 at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive August 12, 2025

process. (See LBMC Chapter 11.50 (Revocable Encroachment Permits). Such regulatory scheme includes findings and criteria to assist decisionmakers in analyzing the findings and criteria, which serve to protect the public safety or convenience.

As reflected in Board Resolution 24-2509 (Attachment 3), the Board denied REP 24-2511 based on its inability to make Finding 1 and Finding 2 (Criteria (b), (e), and (f)) for the permit under Laguna Beach Municipal Code Chapter 11.50 (Revocable Encroachment Permits), as reflected below:
“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 [sic] 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 permit is not appropriate for any structure or improvement that would result in code violations or other non-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 [sic] 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;
Appeal of the Denial of DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, and REP 24-2511 at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive August 12, 2025

(d) It will not preclude public access, use or enjoyment of any area that has historically established such access, use or enjoyment; (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
(f) 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.
(Attachment 3 [Board Resolution].) While the Board Resolution speaks for itself, it is worth noting that the Board did appropriately deny the REP based on inability to make the required findings and justified such inability to make the findings on certain facts and is also worth emphasizing that the Board identified public safety issues and code compliance issues with the REP, as discussed in more detail below.

Public Safety
As reflected in the Board Resolution, the Board was unable to make the finding that the improvements sought through the revocable encroachment permit, consisting of the large retaining walls, graded slopes, and driveway were sufficiently set back from the edge of the pavement or street centerline to provide Appeal of the Denial of DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, and REP 24-2511 at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive August 12, 2025

adequate travel, parking, and walking lanes. The Board supported the inability to make the finding, in part, based on the City needing 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.” Indeed, the City previously hired KLD Engineering, P.C. to prepare a Wildfire Egress Study dated July 2021 to analyze evacuation times within the City. (Attachment 18.) The Wildfire Egress Study concludes that Bluebird Canyon Drive is one of three neighborhoods in the City that is access-impaired and may be unable to evacuate during a fire:

At the conclusion of the survey, three neighborhoods were deemed to be access impaired:

Canyon Acres Drive, Bluebird Canyon, and Diamond Street & Crestview Drive, as shown in Figure 8-3. These neighborhoods share several characteristics in common: they are surrounded by wooded areas (fuel consisting of tall trees that can burn easily), ingress/egress routes are very narrow at sections (often only the width of a single car), and ingress/egress routes followed a winding path with hairpin turns in some sections. These neighborhoods would require early notification during a wildfire emergency as they would be unable to be evacuated if a fire were present.
(Attachment 18, p. 117 of 432.)
The Wildfire Egress Study further concludes Bluebird Canyon is narrow and may not be passable:

Bluebird Canyon – a LOT of fuel on this road. Goats are brought in to eat some of the brush on this road. The road is pretty good as it is wide with some street parking towards the top of the mountain. The road follows a winding path. There was a landslide along this road recently that destroyed several homes. The road becomes much narrower and follows a winding path as you travel downhill towards the coast. This road would not be passable in a fire.
(Attachment 18, p. 116 of 432.)
While the City does not have a pending Public Works project to widen Bluebird Canyon Drive, the City did widen a portion of Bluebird Canyon Drive between approximately 800 feet east of Oriole and Rancho Laguna in 2023, demonstrating that the City views this area as posing a legitimate need for street widening.

Further, Fire Chief Niko King and Fire Marshall Robert Montaghami have been consulted on whether widening at this section of Bluebird Canyon Drive would serve public safety or convenience. The Fire Marshall noted that Fire Code Section 503 requires a fire apparatus of 20 feet wide. The Fire Chief described the location of Bluebird Canyon Drive as technically passable by standard fire apparatus; however, it is narrow, winding, and lacks sufficient turnouts or shoulders in some segments. This can create significant congestion during peak evacuation or emergency response conditions. The segment between Rancho Laguna Road and Oriole Drive, in particular, presents tight conditions and limited sight distance. Fire Chief King noted the below potential safety improvements that could enhance conditions:
• Road widening (where feasible), especially near blind curves and pinch points. • Establishment of formal turnout areas to allow two-way vehicle movement during evacuations. • Improved roadside vegetation management to reduce encroachment and improve fire apparatus access.

Appeal of the Denial of DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, and REP 24-2511 at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive August 12, 2025

• Striping or signage improvements to enhance driver awareness of narrow conditions and evacuation directionality.
• Mirrors or traffic calming measures on certain curves to improve visibility.

Code Compliance
As identified in the Board Resolution, the improvements, consisting of the retaining walls and graded slopes, within the public right-of-way, support a long and winding driveway to a proposed single-family dwelling. It also extends to a garage for the code-required parking. Further, the Board Resolution references the Municipal Code provision that states that an REP “is not appropriate for any structure or improvement that would result in code violations or other non-compliant conditions if removal is ever required by the City.” (LBMC § 11.50.030.) Code compliance, therefore, must be analyzed assuming that a revocable encroachment permit will be revoked at some point in the future.

If the City revoked the revocable encroachment permit and demanded the removal of the retaining wall and graded slopes in accordance with LBMC Chapter 11.50 (to widen the street, for example), the required access to the site would result in a code violation or other non-compliant condition because there would no longer be “safe vehicular access from a ‘usable vehicular right-of-way of record’ to off-street parking facilities on the property requiring such facilities.” (LBMC § 25.53.004(B).) The project instead needs to be designed in a manner that contemplates code compliant or safe vehicular access to the site without an REP. In other words, the associated grading would also need to comply with LBMC Section 25.53.004(B), referenced in the Board Resolution, which requires safe access to parking facilities from the road. Although such design may require more grading, it is based on concerns of wildfire egress in Bluebird Canyon. Indeed, most recently, on July 7, 2025, the Rancho Fire in Laguna Beach ignited near Bluebird Canyon. It should also be noted that the Wildfire Egress Study assumed virtually no population growth from 2010 to 2020 in Bluebird Canyon—which is undercut by recent housing laws enacted, such as SB 9, and 18 applications for development of new units received by the City in Bluebird Canyon since July 1, 2020.

Lastly, while not reflected in the Board Resolution, as proposed, the retaining walls also appear to conflict with a development standard prohibiting retaining walls for cut slopes with a cut face steeper than 2:1 from exceeding five feet in height:
(b) Design Standards For Cut Slopes.
(1) Maximum Slope. No excavation shall be made with a cut face steeper in slope than two horizontal to one vertical, unless said cut face is to be immediately supported with a retaining wall or other approved support for which a building permit has been obtained. Said retaining walls shall not exceed five feet maximum height. The appearance of the retaining walls shall be subject to the approval of the design review board. (2) Exception.
(A) Less Than Two to One (2:1) Slope. Where the city determines that a less steep slope is necessary in order to ensure the stability of the Appeal of the Denial of DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, and REP 24-2511 at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive August 12, 2025

excavation and general safety, it may require a cut slope less steep than two horizontal to one vertical.
(B) Greater Than Two to One (2:1) Slope. When the engineering geologist certifies in his report that the site has been investigated and in his opinion the material in cut areas will be stable, resistant to erosion and free from hazardous rock fall if cut to a steeper slope, the city may permit a cut slope steeper than two horizontal to one vertical subject to such conditions as it may require. The city may waive the requirement for an engineering geologic report in grading of individual building sites where conditions are favorable. Such slopes may not exceed five feet in vertical height.
(LBMC Section 22.06.010(b).9) The Board did not commit an abuse of discretion in denying REP 24-2511.

B. CDP 24-2510 for the new development, which includes a new single-family dwelling, attached garage, attached ADU, and site improvements under LBMC Sections

25.07.004 and 25.07.006
As noted above, the Applicant is proceeding under SB 9, which allows ministerial urban lot splits and twounit development projects under certain qualifying conditions, subject to the California Coastal Act. (See Government Code § 65852.21(l)[“Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California Coastal Act of 1976. . . .”].)10 The Coastal Act11 is a comprehensive scheme to govern land use planning for the state’s entire coastal zone.

As part of its enactment, the Legislature made several findings related to the Act’s purpose: (1) the coastal zone “is a distinct and valuable natural resource of vital and enduring interest to all the people”; (2) that permanent protection of the state’s natural and scenic resources is of paramount concern; (3) that “it is necessary to protect the ecological balance of the coastal zone”; and (4) that “existing developed uses, and future developments that are carefully planned and developed consistent with the policies of [the Coastal Act], are essential to the economic and social well-being of the people of this state. . . .”12 The Coastal Act is to be “liberally construed to accomplish its purposes and objectives.”13 The Coastal Act mandates that local governments within the coastal zone develop local coastal programs (“LCPs”), comprised of a land use plan and implementing ordinances, to promote the Coastal Act’s objectives.14 Unless subject to an exemption, almost all development within the coastal zone requires a coastal 9 Title 22 (Excavating, Grading and Filing) is part of the City’s certified LCP. 10 In response to Applicant attorney’s public comment that the Board Denial violates the Housing Accountability Act, it should be noted that the Housing Accountability Act similarly includes the same carve out for the full application of the Coastal Act. (See Gov. Code § 65589.5(e)[“Nothing in this section shall be construed to relieve the local agency from complying with . . . the California Coastal Act of 1976. . . .”].)
11 Pub. Res. Code, § 30000 et seq.
12 Pub. Res. Code, § 30001, subds. (a) and (d).
13 Pub. Res. Code, § 30009.
14 Id.; see also Pub. Res. Code, §§ 30001.5; 30500–526.

Appeal of the Denial of DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, and REP 24-2511 at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive August 12, 2025

development permit.15 After Coastal Commission’s certification of a local coastal program, a coastal development permit is obtained from the local government, except in the appealable jurisdiction area and retained jurisdiction area, for which the Coastal Commission maintains jurisdiction, because the Coastal Commission delegates its development review authority to the local government.16 The delegation of authority is intended to ensure that the state policies prevail over local government concerns—regardless of the involvement of the local government in the Coastal Act’s implementation17:

Although local governments have the authority to issue coastal development permits, that authority is delegated by the Commission. The Commission has the ultimate authority to ensure that coastal development conforms to the policies embodied in the state's Coastal Act. In fact, a fundamental purpose of the Coastal Act is to ensure that state policies prevail over the concerns of local government. (See City of Chula Vista v. Superior Court (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 472, 489 [Commission exercises independent judgment in approving [local coastal program] because it is assumed statewide interests are not always well represented at the local level].) The Commission applies state law and policies to determine whether the development permit complies with the [local coastal program].18 On January 13, 1993, the Coastal Commission certified the City’s LCP. The coastal zone in the City of Laguna Beach represents approximately 4.78 square miles of land, encompassing the entire city limits except for Sycamore Hills. Sycamore Hills consists of 522 acres at the intersection of Laguna Canyon and El Toro Roads, inland of the city.19
The City’s Land Use Plan component of its LCP centers on five principal subjects: (1) recreation and visitor-serving facilities and use; (2) parking and circulation; (3) environmentally sensitive areas; (4) shoreline access; and (5) undeveloped lands. Because the subjects are closely related to many of the issues in the City’s General Plan, the Land Use Plan is physically integrated into the City’s General Plan.20 The Land Use Plan represents a descriptive text and evaluation of coastal problems and issues.21 The Land Use Element and Open Space/Conservation Elements of the General Plan set forth the actual solutions or responses to these issues in the form of city policies.22 The LCP is further implemented through development regulations, specific plans, special studies, and permitting procedures, including, but not limited to, the Laguna Beach Municipal Code Title 25.

Under Title 25, a coastal development permit is required for all proposed development within the coastal zone except for development that is specifically exempted and excepted under Sections 25.07.008 and 15 Pub. Res. Code § 30600, subd. (a).
16 Pub. Res. Code §§ 30600(d), 30519(emphasis added), 30600.5(emphasis added). 17 City of Dana Point v. California Coastal Com. (2013) 217 Cal. App. 4th 170, 186. 18 City of Dana Point, supra, 217 Cal. App. 4th at 186; Charles A. Pratt Construction Co., Inc. v. California Coastal Com. (2018) 162 Cal. App. 4th 1068, 1075-76.
19 LCP Technical Appendix.
20 Id.
21 Id.
22 Id.

Appeal of the Denial of DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, and REP 24-2511 at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive August 12, 2025

25.07.010.23 Here, the proposed development, which includes a new single-family dwelling, attached garage, attached ADU, and site improvements, requires a coastal development permit under LBMC Sections 25.07.004 and 25.07.006.

As reflected in Board Resolution 24-2509 (Attachment 3), the Board denied CDP 24-2510 based on its inability to make Finding 1 (Criteria 5 and 6) and Finding 2 for the permit under Laguna Beach Municipal Code Chapter 25.07 (Coastal Development Permits), as reflected below:
“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 of the retaining walls, including the 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. This design of the Project would result in development that is visually incompatible with the surrounding area where other properties are either developed closer to the street or in a way that is not a visually imposing when viewed from various public rights-of-way. Lowering of the Project (but keeping the same square footage) such that it is closer to the street was 23 LBMC § 25.07.004.

Appeal of the Denial of DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, and REP 24-2511 at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive August 12, 2025

mentioned as a possible solution; however, the Applicant declined to make such a change to the Project.

Further, 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. Thus, the natural topography of the site is not used to maximize visual compatibility.

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 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 7.324 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, 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. 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:
“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 24 The Laguna Beach Land Use Element of the General Plan is a component of the City’s Certified LCP.

Appeal of the Denial of DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, and REP 24-2511 at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive August 12, 2025

surrounding residences. Goal: Preserve, enhance and respect the unique character and identity of Laguna’s residential neighborhoods.”
The area of the proposed Project 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 while on the street.

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 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 as areas of unique scenic quality, public views, and visual compatibility with surrounding uses and to minimize natural landform alterations.

GOAL: Protect, preserve, and enhance the community’s natural resources and Appeal of the Denial of DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, and REP 24-2511 at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive August 12, 2025

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 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.

Coastal Land Use Plan Technical Appendix Section 30251 The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be 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.

For the above reasons, the proposed Project is not sited and designed to minimize the alteration of natural landforms. The long, winding driveway and siting of the Project either atop or close to the top of the 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.”
While the Board Resolution speaks for itself, it is worth noting that the Board did appropriately deny the CDP based on inability to make the required findings and justified such inability to make the findings on certain facts and also worth emphasizing that the Board identified issues with the siting of the structures at the top of the hill as opposed to the bottom of the hill, closer to the right of way.

Further, while not specifically addressed in the Board Resolution, it is worth adding to the City Council’s consideration that the Project may also result in undue risks from fire hazards in light of the siting of the structures which relies on the revocable encroachment permit and would permanently remove the City’s ability to widen Bluebird Canyon Drive in front of the Property. In order to approve a coastal development permit, the decision-making body must consider whether the “proposed development . . . will not result in undue risks from . . . fire hazards.” (See LBMC Section 25.07.012 (F)(5).) City staff also believes that the Project, as proposed, will result in undue risks from fire hazards, based on the analysis herein.

The Board did not commit an abuse of discretion in denying CDP 24-2510.

C. DR 25-2509 for the new single-family dwelling and garage, vehicular access, elevated decks, spa, grading, retaining walls, trash enclosure in the front setback, and landscaping pursuant to LBMC Section 25.05.040(B)(1)
Appeal of the Denial of DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, and REP 24-2511 at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive August 12, 2025

The City’s Design Review process is also part of the City’s Certified LCP since it is part of Title 25. While an accessory dwelling unit is exempt from design review under the City’s certified LCP25, the remainder of the development discussed under DR is not exempt from design review under the City’s certified LCP.

As reflected in Board Resolution 24-2509 (Attachment 3), the Board denied DR 24-2509 based on its inability to make Finding 1 (Criteria 2 (Design Articulation), Criteria 4 (Environmental Context), Criteria 5 (General Plan Compliance), Criteria 6 (Lighting and Glare), and Criteria 8 (Neighborhood Compatibility) in order to approve the permit under Laguna Beach Municipal Code Chapter 25.05.040 (Design Review), as reflected below:
“SECTION 5. As part of the City’s certified Local Coastal Program,26 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 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 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.
25 LBMC § 25.05.040(B)(2)(s).
26 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 450 and the Housing Accountability Act explicitly require that the City comply with the Coastal Act – which is implemented in the City via its certified Local Coastal Program. Thus, as part of its mandatory duty to implement the requirements and standards of Coastal Act, the City is applying the Design Review criteria as its part of this certified Local Coastal Program.

Appeal of the Denial of DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, and REP 24-2511 at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive August 12, 2025

4. Environmental Context: Development should preserve and, where possible, enhance the city’s scenic natural setting. Natural features, such as existing heritage trees, rock outcropping, 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.

Open Space and Conservation Element Policy 13-B Require that development proposals, including additions and alterations to existing buildings, incorporate protection of the natural profile of ridgelines as 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 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, 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.

Appeal of the Denial of DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, and REP 24-2511 at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive August 12, 2025

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 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.

Land Use Element Policy 2.8 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.

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 compatibility with surrounding uses and to minimize natural landform alterations. GOAL: Protect, preserve, and enhance the community’s 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.

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.

No. The north, south and west elevations would be highly visible from surrounding properties. The north elevation has approximately 50% of the wall area as windows. The Appeal of the Denial of DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, and REP 24-2511 at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive August 12, 2025

south elevation has approximately 55% 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 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 this Design Review criterion.”
While the Board Resolution speaks for itself, it is worth noting that the Board did appropriately deny the DR based on inability to make the required findings and justified such inability to make the findings on certain facts and also worth emphasizing that the Board identified issues with the siting of the structures at the top of the hill as opposed to the bottom of the hill, closer to the right of way.

The Board did not commit an abuse of discretion in denying DR 24-2509.

Conclusion:

As reflected in the Board Resolution, a majority of the Board found the Project excessive in terms of mass and siting of the building (not square footage) and the long driveway and exposed retaining walls. While only one member explicitly mentioned relocating or re-siting the structure, the record reflects that all three had substantive concerns about the siting of the structures. As indicated by Chair Gibbs, the Project could be designed to terrace the building into the slope to maintain the Applicant’s proposed floor area. The Applicant proposed a living area totaling 3,443 square feet, which includes a 1,000-square-foot ADU. The Applicant’s contention that a re-siting of the home would cause an unprecedented loss of substantial property rights of the owner is unexplained in the Appeal. As indicated above, the Board majority did not direct a reduced program.

Moreover, the Applicant’s living area compares favorably to a new single-family home project on an adjoining lot that was approved by the City Council only recently. On April 22, 2025, the City Council denied an appeal of the Board’s approval of DR 23-0919 and CDP 23-0921 for a new single-family Appeal of the Denial of DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, and REP 24-2511 at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive August 12, 2025

residence with an attached two-car garage and an attached ADU at 1536 Morningside Drive27. As indicated in the comparison table below, the 1536 Morningside Drive project is slightly smaller than the Applicant’s proposed Project, with 3,219 square feet of living area proposed. The Applicant’s lot is also substantially smaller (approximately by 38%).

Description Subject Property 1536 Morningside Dr.

Lot Area 8,582 S.F. 13,866 S.F.

Living Area (SFD) 2,442.82 S.F. 2,371.9 S.F.

Living Area (ADU) 999.87 S.F. 847.2 S.F.

TOTAL LIVING AREA 3,442.69 S.F. 3,219.1 S.F.

Garage 534.87 S.F. 564.5 S.F.

Elevated Deck 934.52 S.F. 397.4 S.F.

Mechanical 50.17 S.F. 197.6 S.F.

TOTAL PROGRAM 4,962.25 S.F. 4,378.6 S.F.

2. “The Board majority made false and unsupported assumptions regarding the appearance of mass and scale as it relates to the project siting and based on subjective criteria.” Staff’s Response
The Board’s evaluation of mass and scale was based on the City’s certified LCP, including the Coastal Development Permit findings, which require an analysis of whether the “proposed development will be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas” (Finding No. 1, Criteria No. 6) and whether the proposed development complies with the applicable provisions of the certified LCP (Finding No. 2), such as Land Use Element Policy 2.1, which states “development standards shall minimize the scale and bulk of new construction . . . and require development to be compatible with the surrounding residences”; and Land Use Element Policy 2.8. which states “require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated with natural topographic features.” The evaluation of mass and scale is also required for the Design Review findings, which requires “within the allowable building envelope, the appearance of building and retaining wall mass should be minimized” (Finding No. 1, Criteria 2) and compliance with the certified LCP (Finding No. 1, Criteria 5), as previously noted above under the CDP findings. 27 In staff’s opinion, this is the most comparable property because (1) both projects are situated on the knoll and are potentially the first projects to be developed following the 2004 lot line adjustment (LLA 04-01) which established the four existing legal building sites in their current configuration; (2) both are recent or currently pending projects; (3) both have ADUs; and (4) the subject lot’s general characteristics (lot area, width, depth, topography) make it more similar to other lots on the knoll, than to other lots in the neighborhood. Although 1526 Morningside Drive was discussed during the underlying hearing and is located on the same knoll, it was remanded from the City Council to the Board with further direction.

Appeal of the Denial of DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, and REP 24-2511 at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive August 12, 2025

The concern regarding mass and scale was not an arbitrary or unsupported assumption, but rather a response to proposed location of the home. The most noteworthy condition being the significant height of the proposed structure above the highest point of the lot and its projection well above the natural knoll.28 Board members noted that the elevated finish floor of the garage, relative to the street and surrounding properties, contributes to a perceived bulk inconsistent with other development in the immediate vicinity.

The Project’s siting does not sufficiently step with the hillside, which the Board found to be out of character compared to adjacent homes that are better integrated into the existing grade.

These findings were informed by a combination of site-specific measurements (such as the street width) and the Applicant’s submitted plans and elevations. The Board’s concerns reflect consistency with prior decisions and a thorough application of the certified LCP, which is intended to coastal resources.

3. “The Board majority disregarded factual evidence provided by the Applicant proving that other approved and completed projects possessed similar siting, garage locations, and access driveways, capriciously claiming such findings were not applicable to the subject property and arbitrarily deeming that the project design is not neighborhood compatible.” Staff’s Response
The Board did not disregard factual evidence from the Applicant but instead evaluated the proposed project within the specific context of the subject site, as required by the certified LCP which emphases a case-bycase review with sensitivity to localized conditions, such as topography, access constraints, and surrounding development patterns. Indeed, as reflected in the Board Resolution, the 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 for both the January 23, 2025 and May 22, 2025 public hearings.

While the Applicant referenced other approved projects with similar siting or driveway configurations, the Board correctly noted that the knoll is unique, for various reasons including, larger lots with different lot widths and depths and the steep topography from the road to top of the knoll, which flattens out at the top.

Referencing those projects was not sufficient justification for replicating similar conditions under current design expectations and code requirements. In fact, the Board explicitly acknowledged the need for creative solutions that address modern development criteria and are compatible with today’s standards, especially regarding garage placement, grading, and access along Bluebird Canyon Drive. The Board’s findings were not arbitrary but were based on observable differences in site conditions, including the narrowed width of Bluebird Canyon Drive access, the elevated position of the proposed garage slab, and the deviation from the building heights of adjacent homes. These objective differences supported the conclusion that the proposed configuration does not adequately meet the findings for the DR, CDP, and REP.

Rather than dismissing the Applicant’s evidence, the Board weighed it alongside other critical factors, such as fire access, hillside grading, visual compatibility, ridgeline development, and public safety, and 28 In particular, refer to Design Review Board Resolution No. 24-2509, CDP Finding No. 1 (Criteria No. 6) and Finding No. 2, and Design Review Finding No. 1 (Criteria Nos. 2 and 5).

Appeal of the Denial of DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, and REP 24-2511 at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive August 12, 2025

determined that a more thoughtful and integrated design was necessary to make the DR, CDP, and REP findings.

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolution denying the appeal and sustaining the Board’s denial of Design Review 24-2509, Coastal Development Permit 24-2510, and Revocable Encroachment Permit 24-2511 and finding the denial of the Project as exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15270.

FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The recommended action has no financial impact.

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The recommended action of upholding the denial of a project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15270 of the CEQA Guidelines because CEQA does not apply to projects that a public agency rejects or disapproves. Alternatively, if the City Council decides to sustain the appeal and reverse the decision of the Board, the City Council should analyze the Project’s qualification for a categorical exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15303 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, since the Project consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small structures.

ATTACHMENTS

1. City Council Resolution (Pgs. 41-61)

2. Aerial Map (Pg. 62)

3. DRB Denial Resolution No. 24-2509 (Pgs. 63-71)

4. Appeal (Pgs. 72-73)

5. January 23, 2025 DRB Staff Report (Pgs. 74-89)

6. January 23, 2025 DRB Minutes (Pgs. 90-109)

7. January 23, 2025 DRB Public Comments (Pgs. 110-154)

8. January 23, 2025 DRB Project Plans (Pgs. 155-184)

9. January 23, 2025 DRB AM&M (Pgs. 185-225)

10. January 23, 2025 DRB Geotechnical Report (Pgs. 226-335)

11. January 23, 2025 DRB Transcript (Pgs. 336-352)

12. May 22, 2025 DRB Staff Report (Pgs. 353-377)

13. May 22, 2025 DRB Minutes (Pgs. 378-394)

14. May 22, 2025 DRB Public Comments (Pgs. 395-436)

15. May 22, 2025 DRB Plans (Pgs. 437-467)

16. May 22, 2025 DRB Transcript (Pgs. 468-507)

17. Public Notice (Pg. 508)

18. Wildfire Egress Study
https://www.lagunabeachcity.net/home/showpublisheddocument/10280/637762074884530000

19. Order of Testimony (Pg. 509)

20. June 12, 2025 DRB Transcript (Pgs. 510-513)
Appeal of the Denial of DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, and REP 24-2511 at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive August 12, 2025

Report Prepared By: Coordinated With:

Daniel Latham, Associate Planner Patrick Donegan, Assistant City Attorney Jane Abzug, Assistant City Attorney
Anthony Viera, Planning Manager