Agenda packet — Laguna Beach City Council, January 6, 2026 (part 2 of 7)

Because the Applicant did not pursue an ADU or second unit in the Original Project, Revised Project, or Second Revised Project, the HAA does not apply. As an overview of the extensive application history, the Original Project was submitted before SB 450 and was submitted without an ADU or second unit (so the HAA did not apply). The Revised Project did not include an ADU or a second unit (so the HAA did not apply). As discussed below, in response to Contention Nos. 5 and 6 in the Appeal, Applicant did attempt to add an ADU into the Second Revised Project by adding some plans sheets reflecting the ADU when the Applicant was also removing the improvements in the public right of way in response to Board direction at the August 14, 2025 public hearing. However, because Applicant would not consent to processing the required variance for the ADU and did not pay the fees for the CDP and Variance triggered by the added ADU, the ADU is not part of the Second Revised Project and could not be considered by the Board (and cannot be considered by the City Council).

B. SB 9/SB 450
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. . . .”].) The Coastal Act21 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. . . .”22 The Coastal Act is to be “liberally construed to accomplish its purposes and objectives.”23 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.24 Unless subject to an exemption, almost all development within the coastal zone requires a coastal development permit.25 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 21 Pub. Res. Code, § 30000 et seq.
22 Pub. Res. Code, § 30001, subds. (a) and (d).
23 Pub. Res. Code, § 30009.
24 Id.; see also Pub. Res. Code, §§ 30001.5; 30500–526. 25 Pub. Res. Code § 30600, subd. (a).
25 of 654
Appeal of the Denial of CDP 24-2588 at 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive January 6, 2026

Page 25 of 39 ends

Commission delegates its development review authority to the local government.31 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 implementation32:

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].33 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.34
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.35 The Land Use Plan represents a descriptive text and evaluation of coastal problems and issues.36 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.37 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 31 Pub. Res. Code §§ 30600(d), 30519(emphasis added), 30600.5(emphasis added). 32 City of Dana Point v. California Coastal Com. (2013) 217 Cal. App. 4th 170, 186. 33 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.
34 LCP Technical Appendix.
35 Id.
36 Id.
37 Id.
26 of 654
Appeal of the Denial of CDP 24-2588 at 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive January 6, 2026

Page 26 of 39 ends

except for development that is specifically exempted and excepted under Sections 25.07.008 and

25.07.010.45
Finding and Facts Relied Upon by Board to Deny CDP
Here, the proposed development, which includes a new single-family dwelling, attached garage, and site improvements, requires a CDP under LBMC Sections 25.07.004 and 25.07.006. As reflected in Board Resolution 24-2588 (Attachment 4), the Board denied CDP 24-2588 based on its inability to make Finding 1 (Criteria 5 and 6), as reflected below:
“SECTION 4. The Design Review Board hereby denies Coastal Development Permit 24- 2588 based on the following findings:

Finding No. 1: The Project is 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):

To ensure compliance with the Certified Local Coastal Program, Laguna Beach Municipal Code Section 25.07.012(F), requires that nine criteria be incorporated into the review of all application for coastal development permits. From amongst these criteria the Design Review Board determined that the Project was inconsistent with Criterion Nos. 5 and 6, for the reasons described below:

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, with its long and sloping driveway distinctly alters the natural landforms as compared to a street level garage. Further, siting the project on top of the knoll does not contour to the natural landform and instead proposes a series of retaining walls with little effort to naturally flow or follow the natural hill. Terracing the Project further into the slope will better protect the natural landform and minimize its alteration.

As a result, the Project is not designed in a way to minimize alteration of naturally occurring landforms on the Project site.

Further, the location of the existing utility poles would impede a possible road widening in order to ensure the maximum possible fire access. As such, the DRB could only support a Project design that re-sites these poles in such a way that allows for a widest possible road and will not result in undue risk from fire hazards.
45 LBMC § 25.07.004.
27 of 654
Appeal of the Denial of CDP 24-2588 at 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive January 6, 2026

Page 27 of 39 ends

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 single-family home would sit atop a knoll supported by a series of retaining walls within the project site that result in the visual appearance of an imposing and bulky development that protrudes significantly above the ridge of the knoll as the highest building in the area — unlike other properties in the area. The proposed project disrupts the visual natural progression of the ridge up the slope. The overall height of the building and retaining walls would be extending above the ridge of the knoll by 10 to 15 feet, resulting in a structure more than 50 feet above street grade which finds no comparison in the surrounding areas. The top height of the development on neighboring properties are either below the ridge of the knoll or just a foot or so above the ridge of the knoll- which maintains the visual appearance of the ridge from various public areas and roads. 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 as visually imposing and maintains the visual character of the surrounding area by preserving the ridge of the knoll 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 mentioned as a possible solution; however, the Applicant declined to make such a change to the Project.

In contrast to the proposed project, the Bluebird Canyon neighborhood is characterized by lower 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 requiring additional grading and retaining walls that are not typically found in the neighborhood and thus increases the visual incompatibility of this Project.

Unlike certain state housing laws, like AB 201133 and SB 3534, which both disqualify certain sensitive areas within the coastal zone from their qualifying housing projects, and subject qualifying projects in nonsensitive areas of the coastal zone to a more limited, objective-only CDP requirement, SB 9/SB 450 and the HAA do not expressly limit the City to reviewing a CDP subject to objective standards only. Therefore, the City is authorized by law to apply the discretionary findings and criteria under its CDP in the City’s certified LCP. While City staff may have recommended the approval of the Second Review Project, the Board ultimately makes its own independent decisions based on the record before it. Similarly, the City Council should consider the Project before it and the Board’s decision pursuant to the above-mentioned standard of review.

Page 28 of 39 ends

Staff’s Response
In the Board Denial, the Board address the location of the existing utility poles as an impediment to a possible road widening. From City staff’s perspective, and in response to Applicant’s Appeal contention, there is no evidence that the current location of SCE’s power poles would cause a fire hazard. The power poles are located in an urbanized area along an existing street and are being replaced as part of an SCE fire safety upgrade project, as indicated in the Applicant’s Appeal follow up letter (Attachment 6).Road widening may necessitate subsequent power pole relocation if necessary.

3. “The Board incorrectly alleged that the “natural profile” of the property is a coastal resource. DRB’s position is inconsistent with State law and the City’s own documents. There is no public viewpoint or environmentally sensitive area on the property, as confirmed by City Staff in the November 13th staff reports.”
Staff’s Response
As stated in the November 13, 2025 Board staff report, “The proposed project is located on a hill that is approximately a mile from the ocean, surrounded by single-family development and not within an environmentally sensitive area.” Despite the Project’s distance from the coast, the Project is located within the Coastal Zone and subject to the Coastal Act and the City’s certified LCP. Indeed, the Property is located outside of the area that the Coastal Commission categorically excluded from the CDP requirements (Attachment 25).47 There are 11 such categorical exclusion areas in the City, generally located away from the coastline. Because the general project area was not included within one of the numbered categorical exclusion areas on the map depicting said exclusion areas, it stands to reason that the Coastal Commission at least envisioned that there may be instances where projects in this general area would impact coastal resources. By virtue of being subject to the coastal development permit requirements, it was appropriate and necessary for the Board to perform its own evaluation of whether coastal resources exist and the impacts to coastal resources through the application of its findings, criteria, and certified LCP development standards to the Project.

The City has a history of treating hillsides within the City as coastal resources. Indeed, the Open Space and Conservation Element, which is part of the City’s certified LCP, includes hillsides visual resources within the definition of visual resources (which are expressly protected by the Coastal Act as “coastal scenic resources”):

Hillside Visual Resources: Nearly 30% of the City consists of undeveloped hillside lands. These lands support a great diversity of visual resources, with prominent exposure from both public and private property. Generally, these features include: (1) unique topographic forms - vertically exposed rock faces, bluffs, headlands and noticeably steep slopes; (2) unique vegetative forms, including stands of oak, sycamore and eucalyptus trees, and riparian or canyon land plant communities; (3) natural watercourses and associated canyon bottoms; (4) special land features such 47 On May 13, 1993, the California Coastal Commission adopted Categorical Exclusion Order E-93-1, which excludes singlefamily residential development and other specified types of development from the City’s coastal permitting requirements within 11 geographic areas. The Project is located approximately 1,800 feet from the nearest categorical exclusion area (Exclusion Area No. 8 – Arch Beach Heights).
29 of 654
Appeal of the Denial of CDP 24-2588 at 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive January 6, 2026

Page 29 of 39 ends

as prominent ridgelines, escarpments and rock outcroppings; and (S) visual edges or boundaries consisting of contrasting features where rock outcroppings may meet with surrounding vegetation or man-made features such as roads and buildings.
(OSCE, p. 33.)
The Open Space and Conservation Element further sets forth that the City preserve as much as possible the natural character of the landscape, including hillsides and ridgelines, and require recontouring and replanting where natural landscape has been disturbed:

Policy 7-K: Preserve as much as possible the natural character of the landscape (including coastal bluffs, hillsides and ridge lines) by requiring proposed development plans to preserve and enhance scenic and conservation values to the maximum extent possible, to minimize impacts on soil mantle, vegetation cover, water resources, physiographic features, erosion problems, and require recontouring and replanting where natural landscape has been disturbed.49 In a different but recent appeal, the City Council did a detailed analysis on the public view impacts of a project to coastal resources, including hillsides. By comparison, here, the Board denied the Project, not on the basis of public view impacts to coastal scenic resources (CDP Finding 1, Criteria No. 3), but its impact to the natural landforms and contribution to fire hazards (CDP Finding 1, Criteria No. 5) and its compatibility (visually) with the character of the surrounding areas (CDP Finding 1, Criteria No. 6).

Nevertheless, it is City staff’s position generally that undeveloped hillside lands are coastal resources.

In the Board’s analysis of whether the Second Revised Project “will minimize the alterations of natural landforms,” the Board found that the “Project[] with its long and sloping driveway distinctly alters the natural landforms as compared to a street level garage”:

The proposed Project, with its long and sloping driveway distinctly alters the natural landforms as compared to a street level garage. Further, siting the project on top of the knoll does not contour to the natural landform and instead proposes a series of retaining walls with little effort to naturally flow or follow the natural hill. Terracing the Project further into the slope will better protect the natural landform and minimize its alteration. As a result, the Project is not designed in a way to minimize alteration of naturally occurring landforms on the Project site. (Attachment 4, Board Denial Resolution 24-2588.)
At the November 13, 2025 Board hearing, the Applicant disputed that the knoll is a natural landform and referred the Board to the topographic survey prepared for the Project, alleging that the top of the knoll was graded prior to 1940.
30 of 654
Appeal of the Denial of CDP 24-2588 at 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive January 6, 2026

Page 30 of 39 ends

Figure 3. Still from Applicant’s November 13, 2025 presentation for the proposed project located at 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive. According to the Applicant, the topographic survey should serve as evidence that the topography of the two lots is not natural, with the top of the knoll “fully graded pre-1940.” Based on staff research, the top of the knoll appears to have been graded prior to 1938 for an access road to an extant water tank. The road disappears from aerial photographs between 1960 and 197051, at which point photos begin to show the Morningside Circle cul-de-sac to the east of the extant water tank and in an area where the access road previously traversed. The knoll may have had a small crest at its summit before it was altered by construction, as is common for undeveloped hilltops in the area. Staff is unable to ascertain how much grading occurred to construct the road, which no longer exists. It is likely that the road was unpaved and became eroded and overgrown with vegetation over time once maintenance of the access road ceased.

While portions of the knoll may have been graded, in its evaluation of the CDP findings, the City Council should determine whether the knoll constitutes a natural landform, and whether the Project “will minimize the alterations of natural landforms . . . .” (CDP Finding No. 1, Criteria No. 5.) Based on the record, the Board considered the knoll as a natural landform despite the grading that occurred. The knoll is generally characterized by its steep slopes, general lack of improvements, and wild vegetation. It appears that large portions of the knoll have not been graded. The knoll continues to maintain a natural appearance, free of retaining walls, hardscape, ornamental landscaping, and other clear signs of manmade alterations. Several individuals who provided public comments as well as the Board have referred to the knoll as a natural feature, as its history of manmade alteration to a portion of the natural landform is not readily apparent to the eye.

4. “The Board alleged the projects were inconsistent with LU policies, including LU Policies 7.3 and

10.2, well after the City was required to inform the applicant of any project inconsistency with applicable policies pursuant to Gov. Code Section 65852.21(h)(1) and Gov. Code Section 65589.5(j)(2).”
51 https://www.ocgis.com/ocpw/historicalimagery/index.html 31 of 654
Appeal of the Denial of CDP 24-2588 at 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive January 6, 2026

Page 31 of 39 ends

Staff’s Response
The HAA applies to “residential units.”53 The HAA requires a city to notify a developer if the proposed housing development project is inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provisions (to objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria) within 30 days of the date that the application is determined to be complete and failure to take such action will result in the project being deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision (to objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria). (Gov.

Code Section 65589.5(j)(2).)
When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, the city must make certain written findings that (1) the housing development project “would have a ‘specific, adverse impact’54 upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density”; and (2) there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the identified adverse impact, other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density. (Gov. Code Section 65589.5(j)(1).) The HAA also has a Coastal Act carve out:

Nothing in this section shall be construed to relieve the local agency from complying with . . . the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code).
(Cal. Gov't Code § 65589.5(e).)
Here, because the Applicant did not pursue an ADU or second unit in the Original Project, Revised Project, or Second Revised Project, the HAA does not apply and therefore the City is not required by law to provide notice of inconsistency, as required under the HAA. As an overview of the extensive application history, the Original Project was submitted before SB 450 and was submitted without an ADU or second unit (so the HAA did not apply). The Revised Project did not include an ADU or a second unit (so the HAA did not apply). As discussed below, and in response to Contention 5 in the Appeal, Applicant did attempt to add an ADU into the Second Revised Project by adding some plans sheets reflecting the ADU when the 53 The HAA only applies to applications for a “housing development project,” which is defined in the HAA as follows: (1) a project with residential units only; mixed use developments with at least two thirds of the square footage designated for residential use; or (3) transitional or supportive housing. (Gov. Code Section 65589.5(h)(2).) 54 A “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. (Gov. Code Section 65589.5(j)(1)(A).)
32 of 654
Appeal of the Denial of CDP 24-2588 at 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive January 6, 2026

Page 32 of 39 ends

Applicant was also removing the improvements in the public right of way in response to Board direction at the August 14, 2025 public hearing.

On September 24, 2025, Applicant submitted the revised plan sheets to the City. Applicant did not expressly call out the addition of the ADU. When City staff located the new plan sheets identifying the ADU during a meeting with Applicant on October 21, 2025, City staff reviewed the plans and identified that the ADU did not comply with the City’s ADU Urgency Ordinance No. 1713 or the State ADU Law, including the carve out for the Coastal Act and therefore would require a variance. The Applicant did not agree, referring to a repealed handout57 (Attachments 21 and 22). City staff asked the Applicant to purchase public noticing so that staff could issue a revised public notice that would include an updated project description referencing the Applicant’s proposed ADU, including the Variance and CDP. The Applicant refused.58
On October 23, 2025, the City sent an incomplete letter to Applicant identifying the missing information from the application, the proposed ADU’s conflict with certain provisions of the City’s certified LCP, including the landscape open space requirement pursuant to LBMC Section 25.10.008(O), and the City’s inability to process the ADU with the remainder of the Second Revise Project due to Applicant’s delay and refusal to consent to the Variance application:

You have not submitted such application and fee through the City’s online portal or in person at City Hall. City staff quickly scanned the sheets provided that included the proposed accessory dwelling unit and determined that it conflicts with certain development standards, such as the landscape open space requirement. (See LBMC Section

25.10.008(O).) As such, at a minimum, the proposed accessory dwelling unit will require a coastal development permit and variance. (See LBMC Section 25.07.012(G) [A CDP 57 The handout states: “Remain in effect until January 1, 2025, and as of that date is repealed”. The Applicant’s first submission of ADU plans for this Project occurred on September 24, 2025, nearly nine months after the handout became invalid. 58 The proposed ADU was designed as an attached ADU that would be located at the rear of the property at the crest of the knoll.

An attached ADU is not exempt from the CDP requirements. (LBMC Section 25.07.008). CDP applications must meet certain minimum public noticing requirements. (LBMC Section 25.07.014). Accordingly, the November 13, 2025 Design Review Board hearing was not properly noticed to consider a CDP application or Variance application for an attached ADU. 33 of 654
Appeal of the Denial of CDP 24-2588 at 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive January 6, 2026

Page 33 of 39 ends

may be approved only after finding, in part, the project is in conformity with applicable provisions of the certified local coastal program].) City staff will be unable to review the accessory dwelling unit further until an application is submitted and a fee is paid.

The notice for the public hearing for the 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive project did not reference the newly proposed accessory dwelling unit or variance for not meeting the open space requirement. Therefore, not only can staff not process the accessory dwelling unit submittal because you have not filed an application with the City or paid the required fees, but the Design Review Board cannot consider the accessory dwelling unit during the November 13, 2025 public hearing because it has not been appropriately noticed.

Given that this issue could not be resolved before sending out public hearing notices on the Second Revised Project or posting the agenda, the ADU and Variance could not be discussed or deliberated at the November 13, 2025 public hearing for lack of notice to the public and for lack of consent and payment of fees from the Applicant to proceed with the CDP and Variance for the ADU.

On November 13, 2025, the Board denied the Revised Project, in relevant part, on the basis that the Revised Project is inconsistent with Coastal Development Permit Finding No. 1, which requires compliance with the certified LCP, including Criteria 5 (i.e., “[t]he proposed development will minimize the alterations of natural landforms and will not result in undue risks from geological and erosional forces and/or floor and fire hazards”) and Criteria 6 (i.e., “[t]he proposed development will be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and where feasible, will restore.) CDP Finding No. 1, Criteria Nos. 5 and 6—largely incorporate Land Use Element Policies 7.3 and 10.2 stated below:

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.

Therefore, the Board did not allege the project was inconsistent with LU policies, including LU Policies

7.3 and 10.2, well after the City was required to inform the applicant of any project inconsistency with applicable policies pursuant to the HAA; the HAA does not apply to the Second Revised Project. Further, neither SB 9 nor SB 450 require the City to issue a letter of inconsistency. 34 of 654
Appeal of the Denial of CDP 24-2588 at 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive January 6, 2026

Page 34 of 39 ends

5. “The Board improperly excluded the Accessory Dwelling Unit that was added to Lot A on September 24th from their consideration on the CDP for Lot A. The ADU does not change any facts in the Staff Reports and does not require a variance. The applicant is specifically appealing the ADU to the City Council as part of the present appeal.”
Staff’s Response
A. Background

1. The State Accessory Dwelling Unit (“ADU”) Law
Under the “State ADU Law” (codified at Government Code § 66310, et seq.), an “ADU is defined to mean “an attached or a detached residential dwelling unit that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons and is located on a lot with a proposed or existing primary residence. . . .” (Gov. Code § 66313(a).) An ADU must contain “permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as the single-family or multifamily dwelling is or will be situated.” (Id.) A city is authorized to “provide for the creation of ADUs in areas zoned to allow single-family or multifamily dwelling residential use” by way of ordinance. (Gov. Code Section 66314.) Any ordinance governing the creation of an ADU must provide an approval process that includes only ministerial provisions for the approval of ADUs and must not include any discretionary processes, provisions, or requirements for those ADUs, except as otherwise allowed by the State ADU Law. (Gov. Code Section 66316.) A permit application for an ADU or JADU must be considered and approved ministerially without discretionary review or hearing. (Gov. Code Section 66317.) Notwithstanding the above provisions, the State ADU Law does not supersede or alter the application of the Coastal Act, except that a city is not required to hold a public hearing on coastal development permit applications for ADUs:

Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect of application of the Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code), except that the local government shall not be required to hold public hearings for coastal development permit applications for accessory dwelling units. (Gov. Code Section 66329 [emph. added].) Under this provision, and as discussed further below, the City imposes the provisions of its certified Local Coastal Program (“LCP”) as it relates to ADUs.

Page 35 of 39 ends

Community Development’s (“HCD”) ADU Handbook advises that State ADU Law applies in the coastal zone, but “do[es] not alter or lessen the effect or application of Coastal Act resource protection policies.” (HCD’s January 2025 ADU Handbook, at pg. 21.)61
The City’s regulations governing the approval of ADUs and JADUs are provided in the City’s LCP, specifically Chapter 25.17 (Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units) of Title 25 (Zoning) of the Laguna Beach Municipal Code. On November 16, 2021, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1665, which identified self-contained accessory dwelling units as subject to the coastal development permit application process. On September 7, 2023 LCP5-LGB-22-0003-3 Part B (Coastal Development Permits) was certified by the Coastal Commission. The City updated Chapter 25.17 to comply with State ADU Law via LCP Amendment No. 21-8239, which was certified by the Coastal Commission on September 7, 2023.

In 2024, the California Legislature approved, and the Governor signed into law, Assembly Bill 2533 (“AB 2533”) and Senate Bill 1211 (“SB 1211”), which further amended State ADU Law and came into effect on January 1, 2025. Below is an overview of the City Council’s most recent actions relating to its requirements for ADUs and JADUs, in part, in response to AB 2533 and SB 1211:
• On December 10, 2024, the City Council found that there was a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare and adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 1707. • On January 14, 2025, the City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 1709 extending Urgency Ordinance No. 1707 and implementing certain modifications to Chapter 25.17 and directed staff to consider additional modifications.
• On March 11, 2025, the City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 1713, implementing additional minor modifications to Chapter 25.17.
• On March 25, 2025, the City adopted non-urgency Ordinance No. 1715 to mirror the ADU and JADU requirements reflected in Urgency Ordinance No. 1713. The City also submitted Ordinance No. 1715 to the Coastal Commission for certification.

More restrictive development standards may be imposed on an ADU . . . as needed to protect coastal resources consistent with the requirements of the [certified LCP]. . . .” (LBMC Section 25.17.020.) Further, it states that there are “provisions in the City’s certified LCP that apply to residential development generally.

No ADU . . . may cause a violation of any provision in the certified LCP.” (LBMC Section 25.17.020(d).) 61 HCD’s ADU Handbook is authorized by Gov. Code § 66327, which provides that HCD may “review, adopt, amend, or repeal guidelines to implement uniform standards or criteria that supplement or clarify the terms, references, and standards set forth in this section.” The ADU Handbook is available at the following location:
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/building-standards/adu/handbook
36 of 654
Appeal of the Denial of CDP 24-2588 at 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive January 6, 2026

Page 36 of 39 ends

25.07.012(G)(1).) The City’s certified LCP is implemented through development regulations, specific plans, special studies, and permitting procedures, including, but not limited to, LBMC Title 25 (Zoning Code).

B. Applicant’s Submission of ADU Plans, Staff’s Notice of Incompleteness and Inconsistency, and Applicant’s Refusal to Consent to a Variance Application and Failure to Pay Fees for Variance and CDP for ADU
An ADU was not included in the Original Project, Revised Project, or Second Revised Project. After the Board’s direction at the August 14, 2025 public hearing on the Revised Project relating to removal of conflicts created by the improvements requiring an REP, Applicant did attempt to add an ADU into the Second Revised Project by adding some plans sheets reflecting the ADU when the Applicant was also removing the improvements in the public right of way in response.

On September 24, 2025, Applicant submitted the revised plan sheets to the City. Applicant did not expressly call out the addition of the ADU. When City staff located the new plan sheets identifying the ADU during a meeting with Applicant on October 21, 2025, City staff reviewed the plans and identified that the ADU did not comply with the City’s ADU Urgency Ordinance No. 1713 or the State ADU Law, including the carve out for the Coastal Act and therefore would require a variance. The Applicant did not agree referring to a repealed handout63 (Attachment 21). City staff asked the Applicant to purchase public noticing so that staff could issue a revised public notice that would include an updated project description referencing the Applicant’s proposed ADU, including the Variance and CDP. The Applicant refused.64 On October 23, 2025, the City sent an incomplete letter to Applicant identifying the missing information from the application, the proposed ADU’s conflict with certain provisions of the City’s certified LCP, including the landscape open space requirement pursuant to LBMC Section 25.10.008(O), and the City’s inability to process the ADU with the remainder of the Second Revise Project due to Applicant’s delay and refusal to consent to the Variance application:
63 The handout states: “Remain in effect until January 1, 2025, and as of that date is repealed”. The Applicant’s first submission of ADU plans for this Project occurred on September 24, 2025, nearly nine months after the handout became invalid. 64 The proposed ADU was designed as an attached ADU that would be located at the rear of the property at the crest of the knoll.

An attached ADU is not exempt from the CDP requirements. (LBMC Section 25.07.008). CDP applications must meet certain minimum public noticing requirements. (LBMC Section 25.07.014). Accordingly, the November 13, 2025 Design Review Board hearing was not properly noticed to consider a CDP application for an attached ADU, irrespective of the fact that the attached ADU also required design review for building site coverage exceedance and a variance to not provide the minimum landscaped open space.
37 of 654
Appeal of the Denial of CDP 24-2588 at 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive January 6, 2026

Page 37 of 39 ends

25.10.008(O).) As such, at a minimum, the proposed accessory dwelling unit will require a coastal development permit and variance. (See LBMC Section 25.07.012(G) [A CDP may be approved only after finding, in part, the project is in conformity with applicable provisions of the certified local coastal program].) City staff will be unable to review the accessory dwelling unit further until an application is submitted and a fee is paid.

Your email today indicated that you are pursuing the accessory dwelling unit and there is no conflict with the open space requirement for ADU’s under 800 square foot, referencing an April 26, 2021 staff-prepared handout. (Enclosed is a copy of your email and the outdated staff handout.) As an initial matter, this handout—by its own terms—expired on January 1, 2025 (before you submitted plan sheets to the City with a proposed accessory dwelling unit). Please note that the City’s Zoning Code and certified Local Coastal Program govern and regulate accessory dwelling units—and development generally— within the City. Please see Ordinance No. 1713 which is the City’s existing development standards for accessory dwelling units.
(Attachment 24.) Given that this issue could not be resolved before sending out public hearing notices on the Second Revised Project or posting the agenda, the ADU and Variance could not be discussed or deliberated at the November 13, 2025 public hearing for lack of notice to the public and for lack of consent and payment of fees from the Applicant to proceed with the CDP and Variance for the ADU. 38 of 654
Appeal of the Denial of CDP 24-2588 at 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive January 6, 2026

Page 38 of 39 ends

In conclusion, the Board did not improperly excluded the ADU from its consideration on the CDP. The ADU does require a Variance and payment of fees for a CDP and Variance. As referenced above, the City Council cannot consider new plans consisting of the ADU on appeal. (LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(2)(d).)

FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The recommended action has no financial impact to the budget.

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 grant 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
39 of 654
Appeal of the Denial of CDP 24-2588 at 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive January 6, 2026

Page 39 of 39 ends

1. City Council Resolution - Option A (Pgs. 40-70)

2. City Council Resolution - Option B (Pgs. 71-113)

3. Aerial Map (Pg. 114)

4. DRB Denial Resolution No. 24-2588 (Pgs. 115-117 )

5. Appeal (Pgs.118-120)

6. Appeal Follow Up Letter (Pgs.121-124 )

7. May 8, 2025 DRB Staff Report (Pgs. 125-144)

8. May 8, 2025 DRB Minutes (Pgs. 145-149)

9. May 8, 2025 DRB Public Comments (Pgs. 150-203 )

10. May 8, 2025 DRB Project Plans (Pgs. 204-230)

11. May 8, 2025 DRB Transcript (Pgs. 231-257 )

12. August 14, 2025 DRB Staff Report (Pgs. 258-274)

13. August 14, 2025 DRB Minutes (Pgs. 275-279)

14. August 14, 2025 DRB Public Comments (Pgs. 280-301)

15. August 14, 2025 DRB Plans (Pgs.302-326)

16. August 14, 2025 DRB Transcript (Pgs. 327-355)

17. November 13, 2025 DRB Staff Report (Pgs. 356-368)

18. November 13, 2025 DRB Public Comments (Pgs.369-382)

19. November 13, 2025 DRB Plans (Pgs. 383-409)

20. November 13, 2025 DRB Transcript (Pgs. 410-441)

21. Repealed ADU Handout (Pg. 442-443)

22. October 23, 2025 Email from Applicant (Pg. 444 )

23. September 24, 2025 ADU Plans (Pgs. 445-459)

24. October 23, 2025 Incomplete Letter (Pgs. 460-461)

25. Exclusion Areas Map (Pg. 462)

26. Public Notice (Pg. 463)

27. Order of Testimony (Pg. 464)
Submitted By: Matthew Schneider Approved: .David A Kiff Matthew Schneider, Director of
Community Development
Dave Kiff, City Manager
Report Prepared By: Coordinated With:

Daniel Latham, Associate Planner Jane Abzug, Assistant City Attorney Anthony Viera, Deputy Director of Community
Development
40 of 654
RESOLUTION NO. 25.XXX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE

DECISION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TO DENY
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-2588 FOR THE

CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING

WITH AN ATTACHED TWO-CAR GARAGE AND OTHER
IMPROVEMENTS AT 1550 BLUEBIRD CANYON DRIVE
(LOT A) IN THE R-1, RESIDENTIAL LOW-DENSITY

ZONE, AND FINDING THAT THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DOES NOT APPLY TO

PROJECTS THAT ARE DISAPPROVED
WHEREAS, the property owner, David Dyrnaes (“Applicant”)1, of 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive (the “Property”) seeks Design Review (“DR”) 24-2586 and Coastal Development Permit (“CDP”) 24-2588 to construct a single-family dwelling with an attached two-car garage and other improvements in the R-1 (Residential Low Density) zone. Design review is required for the new single-family dwelling and garage, vehicular access, elevated decks, spa, grading, retaining walls, and landscaping pursuant to Laguna Beach Municipal Code (“LBMC”) Section

25.05.040(B)(1) and a coastal development permit is required for the new development, including a new single-family dwelling, attached garage and site improvements under LBMC Sections 25.07.004 and 25.07.006; and
WHEREAS, 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 1 The Project’s architect is Horst Noppenberger, who is within the definition of Applicant.

Attachment 1 40
41 of 654
-2- Reso. #
in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California Coastal Act of 1976. . . .”].)2; and
WHEREAS, on May 8, 2025, the Design Review Board (“Board”) held a duly noticed public hearing and considered the project that consisted of DR for a new single-family dwelling and garage, vehicular access, elevated decks, spa, grading, retaining walls, and landscaping, a CDP to construct new development, including a single-family dwelling, attached garage, and site improvements, and an REP3
to construct and maintain improvements in the public right-of-way, including retaining walls to support the driveway and access to the home (the “Original Project”). The Board provided direction to the Applicant, and continued the project to August 14, 2025 with a 4-0 vote (Board member Bauta absent); and
WHEREAS, on August 14, 2025, the Board held a duly-noticed public hearing to consider a revised project consisting of various changes (the “Revised Project”).4 Following the public hearing, a majority of the Board did not think the findings for approval could be made and 2 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.
3 REP 24-2587 was needed for the Original Project. REP 24-2587 was thereafter eliminated for the project as described in more detail below.
4 Relatedly, on August 12, 2025, Applicant’s separate and distinct project at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive, also proceeding under SB 9, was considered as an appeal by the City Council. In the appeal on 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive, the City Council provided the following direction on 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive: (1) Consider granting a Revocable Encroachment Permit for improvements in the public right-of-way, including walls, stairs, irrigation, drainage facilities, and lighting, with such improvements located closer to the Applicant’s property line to create “safe vehicular access from a ‘usable vehicular right-of-way of record’ to off-street parking facilities on the property requiring such facilities” with an expectation that the Revocable Encroachment Permit may be revoked in the future. (LBMC § 25.53.004(B); LBMC § 11.50.030.); (2) Consider a Coastal Development Permit for the revised design based on direction in Paragraph A, above, and recognition of coastal resources, including natural landforms and public views, and risk of fire hazards; and (3) Disregard Design Review requirements in conflict with SB 450, for a qualifying project, based on changes in state law brought by SB 450, which became effective on January 1, 2025, and based on the City Council’s finding that the Coastal Development Permit findings and criteria adequately protect coastal resources.

Attachment 1
41 42 of 654
-3- Reso. #
the Board voted 5-0 to continue the Revised Project to the November 13, 2025 Board meeting; and
WHEREAS, on September 25, 2025, the Applicant submitted revised plans to City staff, which eliminated the need for REP-24-2587 (the “Second Revised Project”). On October 21, 2025, City staff identified missing items from the application and deemed the application incomplete. While the Applicant tried to add an accessory dwelling unit (“ADU”) to the Second Revised Project, ultimately Applicant did not pay the fees for the required coastal development permit or consent to the processing of a variance for the ADU, as discussed in more detail below.

Therefore, the Second Revised Project proceeded without an ADU; and WHEREAS, on November 13, 2025, the Board held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Second Revised Project. The Board voted 3-1 (Board member Bauta in dissent and Board member Gannon absent) to deny the Second Revised Project on the basis that the Second Revised Project is inconsistent with Coastal Development Permit Finding No. 1, which requires compliance with the certified LCP, including Criteria 5 (i.e., “[t]he proposed development will minimize the alterations of natural landforms and will not result in undue risks from geological and erosional forces and/or floor and fire hazards”) and Criteria 6 (i.e., “[t]he 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”) (the “Board Denial”); and
WHEREAS, on November 17 2025, the Applicant filed an appeal of the Board’s denial of the Project (the “Appeal”); and
Attachment 1
42 43 of 654
-4- Reso. #
WHEREAS, public notice was duly provided to consider the Appeal of the Second Revised Project (or hereinafter referred to as “Project”) at the January 6, 2025 City Council meeting in accordance with LBMC Section 25.05.065; and
WHEREAS, on January 6, 2026, the City Council held a public hearing on the Appeal and carefully considered the oral and documentary evidence and arguments presented.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH DOES RESOLVE:

SECTION 1. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution by this reference.

SECTION 2. The City Council hereby makes the following findings in response to grounds for appeal stated in Appellants’ notice of Appeal:

1. “The Board relied on subjective standards to deny Lot A and B in violation of SB 450 and the Housing Accountability Act. City Staff confirmed in the November 13th staff reports that the projects are consistent with all LCP policies and all applicable objective design standards. Therefore, under SB 450 and the Housing Accountability Act, the Board did not have the authority to deny the projects.”
City Council’s Response
The Applicant’s Project requires two entitlements from the City: (1) CDP 24-2588 for the new development, which includes a new single-family dwelling, attached garage, and site improvements under LBMC Sections 25.07.004 and 25.07.006; and (2) DR 24-2586 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).

Attachment 1
43 44 of 654
-5- Reso. #
At the August 12, 2025 City Council meeting on the appeal in 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive, the City Council directed the Board to “[d]isregard Design Review requirements in conflict with SB 450, for a qualifying project, based on changes in state law brought by SB 450, which became effective on January 1, 2025, and based on the City Council’s finding that the Coastal Development Permit findings and criteria adequately protect coastal resources.” Accordingly, in the August 14, 2025 and November 13, 2025 public hearings for the projects at 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive, the Board reviewed the objective requirements in the City’s DR permit for the new single-family dwelling and garage, vehicular access, elevated decks, spa, grading, retaining walls, trash enclosure in the front setback, and landscaping and the discretionary requirements of the CDP with a focus on coastal resources. Because the Board could not make all of the required CDP findings, they denied the application for CDP 24-2588 on November 13, 2025 and determined that their consideration of the application seeking approval of DR 24-2586 was moot.

Below is an overview of applicable state housing laws and Coastal Act carve outs and the findings and facts relied upon by the Board to deny the entitlements.

Applicable State Housing Laws and Coastal Act Carve Outs A. HAA

1. Overview of the HAA
The HAA requires a city to notify a developer if the proposed housing development project is inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provisions (to objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria) within 30 days of the date that the application is determined to be complete and failure to take such action will result in the project being deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, Attachment 1
44 45 of 654
-6- Reso. #
requirement, or other similar provision (to objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria). (Gov. Code Section 65589.5(j)(2).) When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, the city must make certain written findings to deny a project that (1) the housing development project “would have a ‘specific, adverse impact’5 upon
the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density”; and (2) there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the identified adverse impact, other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density. (Gov. Code Section 65589.5(j)(1).)
The HAA also has a Coastal Act carve out:

2. Application of the HAA to this Property
Because the Applicant did not pursue an ADU or second unit in the Original Project, Revised Project, or Second Revised Project, the HAA does not apply. As an overview of the extensive 5 A “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. (Gov. Code Section 65589.5(j)(1)(A).) Attachment 1
45 46 of 654
-7- Reso. #
application history, the Original Project was submitted before SB 450 and was submitted without an ADU or second unit (so the HAA did not apply). The Revised Project did not include an ADU or a second unit (so the HAA did not apply). As discussed below, in response to Contention Nos. 5 and 6 in the Appeal, Applicant did attempt to add an ADU into the Second Revised Project by adding some plans sheets reflecting the ADU when the Applicant was also removing the improvements in the public right of way in response to Board direction at the August 14, 2025 public hearing. However, because Applicant would not consent to processing the required variance for the ADU and did not pay the fees for the CDP and Variance triggered by the added ADU, the ADU is not part of the Second Revised Project and could not be considered by the Board (and cannot be considered by the City Council).

B. SB 9/SB 450
As noted above, the Applicant is proceeding under 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. . . .”].)
The Coastal Act6 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 6 Pub. Res. Code, § 30000 et seq.

Attachment 1
46 47 of 654
-8- Reso. #
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. . . .”7
The Coastal Act is to be “liberally construed to accomplish its purposes and objectives.”8 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.9 Unless subject to an exemption, almost all development within the coastal zone requires a coastal development permit.10 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.11 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 implementation12:

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 7 Pub. Res. Code, § 30001, subds. (a) and (d).
8 Pub. Res. Code, § 30009.
9 Id.; see also Pub. Res. Code, §§ 30001.5; 30500–526.
10 Pub. Res. Code § 30600, subd. (a).
11 Pub. Res. Code §§ 30600(d), 30519(emphasis added), 30600.5(emphasis added). 12 City of Dana Point v. California Coastal Com. (2013) 217 Cal. App. 4th 170, 186.

Attachment 1
47 48 of 654
-9- Reso. #
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].13 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.14
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.15 The Land Use Plan represents a descriptive text and evaluation of coastal 13 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.
14 LCP Technical Appendix.
15 Id.

Attachment 1
48 49 of 654
-10- Reso. #
problems and issues.16 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.17 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 25.07.010.18
Finding and Facts Relied Upon by Board to Deny CDP
Here, the proposed development, which includes a new single-family dwelling, attached garage, and site improvements, requires a CDP under LBMC Sections 25.07.004 and 25.07.006. As reflected in Board Resolution 24-2588, the Board denied CDP 24-2588 based on its inability to make Finding 1 (Criteria 5 and 6), as reflected below:
“SECTION 4. The Design Review Board hereby denies Coastal Development Permit 24-2588 based on the following findings:

Finding No. 1: The Project is 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):

Attachment 1
49 50 of 654
-11- Reso. #
these criteria the Design Review Board determined that the Project was inconsistent with Criterion Nos. 5 and 6, for the reasons described below:

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.

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.

The proposed project disrupts the visual natural progression of the ridge up the slope. The overall height of the building and retaining walls would be extending above the ridge of the knoll by 10 to 15 feet, resulting in a structure more than 50 feet above street grade which finds no comparison in the surrounding areas. The top height of the development on neighboring properties are either below the ridge of the knoll or just a foot or so above the ridge of the knoll- which maintains the visual appearance of the ridge from various public areas and roads. 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 as visually imposing and maintains the visual character of the surrounding area by preserving the ridge of the knoll 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 mentioned as a possible solution; however, the Applicant declined to make such a change to the Project.

Attachment 1
51 52 of 654
-13- Reso. #
Unlike certain state housing laws, like AB 201133 and SB 3534, which both disqualify certain sensitive areas within the coastal zone from their qualifying housing projects, and subject qualifying projects in non-sensitive areas of the coastal zone to a more limited, objective-only CDP requirement, SB 9/SB 450 and the HAA do not expressly limit the City to reviewing a CDP subject to objective standards only. Therefore, the City is authorized by law to apply the discretionary findings and criteria under its CDP in the City’s certified LCP. While City staff may have supported the approval of the Second Revised Project, the Board ultimately makes the decision on the CDP.

The City Council finds that the Board did not commit an abuse of discretion.

2. “The Board improperly cited replacement of a Southern California Edison pole in front of the applicant’s property to allege a fire hazard when the applicant has no control over SCE’s replacement of the SCE pole and there is no evidence in the record that replacement of the SCE pole will cause a fire hazard.”
City Council’s Response
In the Board Denial, the Board address the location of the existing utility poles as an impediment to a possible road widening. In response to Applicant’s Appeal contention, there is no evidence that SCE’s power poles would cause a fire hazard. The power poles are located in an urbanized area along an existing street and are being replaced as part of an SCE fire safety upgrade project, as indicated in the Applicant’s Appeal follow up letter. The City Council finds that the location of the existing utility poles was an inappropriate basis for the Board Denial, but further finds that the Board cited to other facts that could appropriately support the Board Denial and therefore any reference to the SCE power poles as a basis to the deny the Second Revised Project is harmless error.

Attachment 1
52 53 of 654
-14- Reso. #

Indeed, the Property is located outside of the area that the Coastal Commission categorically excluded from the CDP requirements.19 There are 11 such categorical exclusion areas in the City, generally located away from the coastline. Because the general project area was not included within one of the numbered categorical exclusion areas on the map depicting said exclusion areas, it stands to reason that the Coastal Commission at least envisioned that there may be instances where projects in this general area would impact coastal resources. By virtue of being subject to the coastal development permit requirements, it was appropriate and necessary for the Board to perform its own evaluation of whether coastal resources exist and the impacts to coastal resources through the application of its findings, criteria, and certified LCP development standards to the Project.
19 On May 13, 1993, the California Coastal Commission adopted Categorical Exclusion Order E-93-1, which excludes single-family residential development and other specified types of development from the City’s coastal permitting requirements within 11 geographic areas. The Project is located approximately 1,800 feet from the nearest categorical exclusion area (Exclusion Area No. 8 – Arch Beach Heights).

Attachment 1
53 54 of 654
-15- Reso. #
The City has a history of treating hillsides within the City as coastal resources. Indeed, the Open Space and Conservation Element, which is part of the City’s certified LCP, includes hillsides visual resources within the definition of visual resources (which are expressly protected by the Coastal Act as “coastal scenic resources”):

Hillside Visual Resources: Nearly 30% of the City consists of undeveloped hillside lands.

These lands support a great diversity of visual resources, with prominent exposure from both public and private property. Generally, these features include: (1) unique topographic forms - vertically exposed rock faces, bluffs, headlands and noticeably steep slopes; (2) unique vegetative forms, including stands of oak, sycamore and eucalyptus trees, and riparian or canyon land plant communities; (3) natural watercourses and associated canyon bottoms; (4) special land features such as prominent ridgelines, escarpments and rock outcroppings; and (S) visual edges or boundaries consisting of contrasting features where rock outcroppings may meet with surrounding vegetation or man-made features such as roads and buildings.
(OSCE, p. 33.)
The Open Space and Conservation Element further sets forth that the City preserve as much as possible the natural character of the landscape, including hillsides and ridgelines, and require recontouring and replanting where natural landscape has been disturbed:

Policy 7-K: Preserve as much as possible the natural character of the landscape (including coastal bluffs, hillsides and ridge lines) by requiring proposed development plans to preserve and enhance scenic and conservation values to the maximum extent possible, to minimize impacts on soil mantle, vegetation cover, water resources, physiographic Attachment 1
54 55 of 654
-16- Reso. #
features, erosion problems, and require recontouring and replanting where natural landscape has been disturbed.20
In a different but recent appeal, the City Council did a detailed analysis on the public view impacts of a project to coastal resources, including hillsides. By comparison, here, the Board denied the Project, not on the basis of public view impacts to coastal scenic resources (CDP Finding 1, Criteria No. 3), but its impact to the natural landforms and contribution to fire hazards (CDP Finding 1, Criteria No. 5) and its compatibility (visually) with the character of the surrounding areas (CDP Finding 1, Criteria No. 6).

As a result, the Project is not designed in a way to minimize alteration of naturally occurring landforms on the Project site.
(Board Denial Resolution 24-2588.)
Attachment 1
55 56 of 654
-17- Reso. #
At the November 13, 2025 Board hearing, the Applicant disputed that the knoll is a natural landform and referred the Board to the topographic survey prepared for the Project, alleging that the top of the knoll was graded prior to 1940.

While portions of the knoll may have been graded, the City Council finds that the knoll constitutes a natural landform, and the Project does not “minimize the alterations of natural landforms . . . .” (CDP Finding No. 1, Criteria No. 5.) Based on the record, the Board considered the knoll as a natural landform despite the grading that occurred. The knoll is generally characterized by its steep slopes, general lack of improvements, and wild vegetation. It appears that large portions of the knoll have not been graded. The knoll continues to maintain a natural appearance, free of retaining walls, hardscape, ornamental landscaping, and other clear signs of manmade alterations. Several individuals who provided public comments as well as the Board have referred to the knoll as a natural feature, as its history of manmade alteration to a portion of the natural landform is not readily apparent to the eye.

The City Council agrees with the Board and finds that the knoll constitutes a natural landform, and the Project does not “minimize the alterations of natural landforms . . . .” 21 https://www.ocgis.com/ocpw/historicalimagery/index.html Attachment 1
56 57 of 654
-18- Reso. #

4. “The Board alleged the projects were inconsistent with LU policies, including LU Policies

7.3 and 10.2, well after the City was required to inform the applicant of any project inconsistency with applicable policies pursuant to Gov. Code Section 65852.21(h)(1) and Gov. Code Section 65589.5(j)(2).”
City Council’s Response
The HAA applies to “residential units.”22 The HAA requires a city to notify a developer if the proposed housing development project is inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provisions (to objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria) within 30 days of the date that the application is determined to be complete and failure to take such action will result in the project being deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision (to objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria). (Gov. Code Section 65589.5(j)(2).) When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, the city must make certain written findings that (1) the housing development project “would have a ‘specific, adverse impact’23 upon the public 22 The HAA only applies to applications for a “housing development project,” which is defined in the HAA as follows: (1) a project with residential units only; mixed use developments with at least two thirds of the square footage designated for residential use; or (3) transitional or supportive housing. (Gov. Code Section 65589.5(h)(2).) 23 A “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. (Gov. Code Section 65589.5(j)(1)(A).) Attachment 1
57 58 of 654
-19- Reso. #
health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density”; and (2) there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the identified adverse impact, other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density. (Gov.

Code Section 65589.5(j)(1).)
The HAA also has a Coastal Act carve out:

25.10.008(O), and the City’s inability to process the ADU with the remainder of the Second Revise Project due to Applicant’s delay and refusal to consent to the Variance application:

As you know, on October 21, 2025, City staff met with you relating to your resubmittals and sent you the . . . correspondence identifying that your applications for both projects were incomplete due to missing cross sections and centerline data, as required by the City’s Zoning Submittal Checklist that is part of the City’s Planning Application, which are both enclosed for reference. (See enclosed Email Communication; Planning Application; and Zoning Plan Check Submittal Requirements Checklist, Paragraphs D and I.)
24 The handout states: “Remain in effect until January 1, 2025, and as of that date is repealed”. The Applicant’s first submission of ADU plans for this Project occurred on September 24, 2025, nearly nine months after the handout became invalid.
25 The proposed ADU was designed as an attached ADU that would be located at the rear of the property at the crest of the knoll. An attached ADU is not exempt from the CDP requirements. (LBMC Section 25.07.008). CDP applications must meet certain minimum public noticing requirements. (LBMC Section 25.07.014). Accordingly, the November 13, 2025 Design Review Board hearing was not properly noticed to consider a CDP application or Variance application for an attached ADU.

Attachment 1
59 60 of 654
-21- Reso. #
During our October 21, 2025 meeting, you raised that you included sheets in the resubmittal for 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive, adding an accessory dwelling unit to the single-family residence. Please note that in order for the City to process the added accessory dwelling unit, you will need to submit the Planning Application and fee for the accessory dwelling unit through the City’s online portal, Energov, or in person at City Hall. You have not submitted such application and fee through the City’s online portal or in person at City Hall. City staff quickly scanned the sheets provided that included the proposed accessory dwelling unit and determined that it conflicts with certain development standards, such as the landscape open space requirement. (See LBMC Section 25.10.008(O).) As such, at a minimum, the proposed accessory dwelling unit will require a coastal development permit and variance. (See LBMC Section 25.07.012(G) [A CDP may be approved only after finding, in part, the project is in conformity with applicable provisions of the certified local coastal program].) City staff will be unable to review the accessory dwelling unit further until an application is submitted and a fee is paid.

Attachment 1
60 61 of 654
-22- Reso. #
Your email today indicated that you are pursuing the accessory dwelling unit and there is no conflict with the open space requirement for ADU’s under 800 square foot, referencing an April 26, 2021 staff-prepared handout. (Enclosed is a copy of your email and the outdated staff handout.) As an initial matter, this handout— by its own terms—expired on January 1, 2025 (before you submitted plan sheets to the City with a proposed accessory dwelling unit). Please note that the City’s Zoning Code and certified Local Coastal Program govern and regulate accessory dwelling units—and development generally—within the City. Please see Ordinance No. 1713 which is the City’s existing development standards for accessory dwelling units.

Attachment 1
61 62 of 654
-23- Reso. #
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.

Therefore, the Board did not allege the project was inconsistent with LU policies, including LU Policies 7.3 and 10.2, well after the City was required to inform the applicant of any project inconsistency with applicable policies pursuant to the HAA; the HAA does not apply to the Second Revised Project. Further, neither SB 9 nor SB 450 require the City to issue a letter of inconsistency.

The City Council finds that the Board did not commit an abuse of discretion.

1. The State Accessory Dwelling Unit (“ADU”) Law
Under the “State ADU Law” (codified at Government Code § 66310, et seq.), an “ADU is defined to mean “an attached or a detached residential dwelling unit that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons and is located on a lot with a proposed or existing primary residence. . . .” (Gov. Code § 66313(a).) An ADU must contain “permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as the single-family or multifamily dwelling is or will be situated.” (Id.)
Attachment 1
62 63 of 654
-24- Reso. #
A city is authorized to “provide for the creation of ADUs in areas zoned to allow single-family or multifamily dwelling residential use” by way of ordinance. (Gov. Code Section 66314.) Any ordinance governing the creation of an ADU must provide an approval process that includes only ministerial provisions for the approval of ADUs and must not include any discretionary processes, provisions, or requirements for those ADUs, except as otherwise allowed by the State ADU Law. (Gov. Code Section 66316.) A permit application for an ADU or JADU must be considered and approved ministerially without discretionary review or hearing. (Gov. Code Section 66317.) Notwithstanding the above provisions, the State ADU Law does not supersede or alter the application of the Coastal Act, except that a city is not required to hold a public hearing on coastal development permit applications for ADUs:

Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect of application of the Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code), except that the local government shall not be required to hold public hearings for coastal development permit applications for accessory dwelling units.
(Gov. Code Section 66329 [emph. added].) Under this provision, and as discussed further below, the City imposes the provisions of its certified Local Coastal Program (“LCP”) as it relates to ADUs.

2. The City’s ADU Ordinance
In recent years, the Legislature has approved, and the Governor has signed into law, numerous bills that amended the State ADU Law to impose new limits on local authority to regulate accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units. Notwithstanding this legislation, as stated above, State ADU Law provides that it “shall not be construed to supersede or in any way Attachment 1
63 64 of 654
-25- Reso. #
alter or lessen the effect or application of the Coastal Act of 1976. . . .” (Gov. Code § 66329.) The California Department of Housing and Community Development’s (“HCD”) ADU Handbook advises that State ADU Law applies in the coastal zone, but “do[es] not alter or lessen the effect or application of Coastal Act resource protection policies.” (HCD’s January 2025 ADU Handbook, at pg. 21.)26
The City’s regulations governing the approval of ADUs and JADUs are provided in the City’s LCP, specifically Chapter 25.17 (Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units) of Title 25 (Zoning) of the Laguna Beach Municipal Code. On November 16, 2021, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1665, which identified self-contained accessory dwelling units as subject to the coastal development permit application process. On September 7, 2023 LCP5-LGB22-0003-3 Part B (Coastal Development Permits) was certified by the Coastal Commission. The City updated Chapter 25.17 to comply with State ADU Law via LCP Amendment No. 21-8239, which was certified by the Coastal Commission on September 7, 2023.

In 2024, the California Legislature approved, and the Governor signed into law, Assembly Bill 2533 (“AB 2533”) and Senate Bill 1211 (“SB 1211”), which further amended State ADU Law and came into effect on January 1, 2025. Below is an overview of the City Council’s most recent actions relating to its requirements for ADUs and JADUs, in part, in response to AB 2533 and SB 1211:
26 HCD’s ADU Handbook is authorized by Gov. Code § 66327, which provides that HCD may “review, adopt, amend, or repeal guidelines to implement uniform standards or criteria that supplement or clarify the terms, references, and standards set forth in this section.” The ADU Handbook is available at the following location:
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/building-standards/adu/handbook
Attachment 1
64 65 of 654
-26- Reso. #
• On December 10, 2024, the City Council found that there was a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare and adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 1707. • On January 14, 2025, the City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 1709 extending Urgency Ordinance No. 1707 and implementing certain modifications to Chapter 25.17 and directed staff to consider additional modifications. • On March 11, 2025, the City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 1713, implementing additional minor modifications to Chapter 25.17.
• On March 25, 2025, the City adopted non-urgency Ordinance No. 1715 to mirror the ADU and JADU requirements reflected in Urgency Ordinance No. 1713. The City also submitted Ordinance No. 1715 to the Coastal Commission for certification.

Urgency Ordinance No. 1713 applies to this Project. It expressly states, Chapter 25.17 (Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units) “must not be implemented in a way that would be inconsistent with any other coastal resource protection policy or regulation within the certified LCP or the Coastal Act. More restrictive development standards may be imposed on an ADU . . . as needed to protect coastal resources consistent with the requirements of the [certified LCP]. . . .” (LBMC Section 25.17.020.) Further, it states that there are “provisions in the City’s certified LCP that apply to residential development generally. No ADU . . . may cause a violation of any provision in the certified LCP.” (LBMC Section 25.17.020(d).)

3. The City’s Coastal Development Permit Ordinance
In order to approve a CDP, the reviewing body must find that the project is in conformity with all the applicable provisions of the certified LCP (LBMC Section 25.07.012(F)) and thereafter make the requisite findings (LBMC Section 25.07.012(G)). Amongst other things, this requires a finding that “the project is in conformity with all the applicable provisions of the certified local coastal Attachment 1
65 66 of 654
-27- Reso. #
program.” (LBMC Section 25.07.012(G)(1).) The City’s certified LCP is implemented through development regulations, specific plans, special studies, and permitting procedures, including, but not limited to, LBMC Title 25 (Zoning Code).

After the Board’s direction at the August 14, 2025 public hearing on the Revised Project relating to removal of conflicts created by the improvements requiring an REP, Applicant did attempt to add an ADU into the Second Revised Project by adding some plans sheets reflecting the ADU when the Applicant was also removing the improvements in the public right of way in response.

On September 24, 2025, Applicant submitted the revised plan sheets to the City. Applicant did not expressly call out the addition of the ADU. When City staff located the new plan sheets identifying the ADU during a meeting with Applicant on October 21, 2025, City staff reviewed the plans and identified that the ADU did not comply with the City’s ADU Urgency Ordinance No. 1713 or the State ADU Law, including the carve out for the Coastal Act and therefore would require a variance. The Applicant did not agree referring to a repealed handout. 27 City staff asked
the Applicant to purchase public noticing so that staff could issue a revised public notice that would include an updated project description referencing the Applicant’s proposed ADU, including the Variance and CDP. The Applicant refused.28 27 The handout states: “Remain in effect until January 1, 2025, and as of that date is repealed”. The Applicant’s first submission of ADU plans for this Project occurred on September 24, 2025, nearly nine months after the handout became invalid.
28 The proposed ADU was designed as an attached ADU that would be located at the rear of the property at the crest of the knoll. An attached ADU is not exempt from the CDP requirements. (LBMC Section 25.07.008). CDP Attachment 1
66 67 of 654
-28- Reso. #
On October 23, 2025, the City sent an incomplete letter to Applicant identifying the missing information from the application, the proposed ADU’s conflict with certain provisions of the City’s certified LCP, including the landscape open space requirement pursuant to LBMC Section

25.10.008(O), and the City’s inability to process the ADU with the remainder of the Second Revise Project due to Applicant’s delay and refusal to consent to the Variance application:

As you know, on October 21, 2025, City staff met with you relating to your resubmittals and sent you the . . . correspondence identifying that your applications for both projects were incomplete due to missing cross sections and centerline data, as required by the City’s Zoning Submittal Checklist that is part of the City’s Planning Application, which are both enclosed for reference. (See enclosed Email Communication; Planning Application; and Zoning Plan Check Submittal Requirements Checklist, Paragraphs D and I.)
During our October 21, 2025 meeting, you raised that you included sheets in the resubmittal for 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive, adding an accessory dwelling unit to the single-family residence. Please note that in order for the City to process the added accessory dwelling unit, you will need to submit the Planning Application and fee for the accessory dwelling unit through the City’s online portal, Energov, or in person at City Hall. You have not submitted such application and fee through the City’s online portal or in person at City Hall. City staff quickly scanned the sheets provided that included the proposed accessory dwelling unit and applications must meet certain minimum public noticing requirements. (LBMC Section 25.07.014). Accordingly, the November 13, 2025 Design Review Board hearing was not properly noticed to consider a CDP application for an attached ADU, irrespective of the fact that the attached ADU also required design review for building site coverage exceedance and a variance to not provide the minimum landscaped open space.

Attachment 1
67 68 of 654
-29- Reso. #
determined that it conflicts with certain development standards, such as the landscape open space requirement. (See LBMC Section 25.10.008(O).) As such, at a minimum, the proposed accessory dwelling unit will require a coastal development permit and variance. (See LBMC Section 25.07.012(G) [A CDP may be approved only after finding, in part, the project is in conformity with applicable provisions of the certified local coastal program].) City staff will be unable to review the accessory dwelling unit further until an application is submitted and a fee is paid.

In conclusion, the City Council finds that the Board did not improperly excluded the ADU from its consideration on the CDP. The ADU does require a Variance and payment of fees for a CDP and Variance. The City Council cannot consider new plans consisting of the ADU on appeal. (LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(2)(d).)
SECTION 3. The City Council hereby finds and determines, in accordance with CEQA, that the Project is categorically exempt pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15270(a) as CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves.

SECTION 4. The City Council hereby denies the Appeal and sustains the Design Review Boards’s determination on the Project, as reflected in Board Resolution No. 24-2588.

ADOPTED this 6th day of January, 2026.

Mark Orgill, Mayor
ATTEST:

Ann Marie McKay, City Clerk
Attachment 1
69 70 of 654
-31- Reso. #
I, Ann Marie McKay, City Clerk of the City of Laguna Beach, certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 25.XXX was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City held on January 6, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

City Clerk, City of Laguna Beach, California
Attachment 1
70 71 of 654
RESOLUTION NO. 25.XXX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, OVERTURNING THE DECISION

OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TO DENY COASTAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-2588 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED TWOCAR GARAGE AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS AT 1550 BLUEBIRD CANYON DRIVE (LOT A) IN THE R-1, RESIDENTIAL

LOW-DENSITY ZONE, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING DESIGN
REVIEW 24-2586 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-
2588; AND FINDING THE PROJECT CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT

FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
PURSUANT TO STATE CEQA GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15303
(CLASS 3)
WHEREAS, the property owner, David Dyrnaes (“Applicant”)1, of 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive (the “Property”) seeks Design Review (“DR”) 24-2586 and Coastal Development Permit (“CDP”) 24-2588 to construct a single-family dwelling with an attached two-car garage and other improvements in the R-1 (Residential Low Density) zone. Design review is required for the new single-family dwelling and garage, vehicular access, elevated decks, spa, grading, retaining walls, and landscaping pursuant to Laguna Beach Municipal Code (“LBMC”) Section 25.05.040(B)(1) and a coastal development permit is required for the new development, including a new singlefamily dwelling, attached garage and site improvements under LBMC Sections 25.07.004 and

25.07.006; and
WHEREAS, 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 1 The Project’s architect is Horst Noppenberger, who is within the definition of Applicant.

Attachment 2 71
72 of 654
-2- Reso. #
in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California Coastal Act of 1976. . . .”].)2; and
WHEREAS, on May 8, 2025, the Design Review Board (“Board”) held a duly noticed public hearing and considered the project that consisted of DR for a new single-family dwelling and garage, vehicular access, elevated decks, spa, grading, retaining walls, and landscaping, a CDP to construct new development, including a single-family dwelling, attached garage, and site improvements, and an REP3to construct and maintain improvements in the public right-of-way, including retaining walls to support the driveway and access to the home (the “Original Project”).

The Board provided direction to the Applicant, and continued the project to August 14, 2025 with a 4-0 vote (Board member Bauta absent); and
WHEREAS, on August 14, 2025, the Board held a duly-noticed public hearing to consider a revised project consisting of various changes (the “Revised Project”).4 Following the public 2 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.
3 REP 24-2587 was needed for the Original Project. REP 24-2587 was thereafter eliminated for the project as described in more detail below.
4 Relatedly, on August 12, 2025, Applicant’s separate and distinct project at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive, also proceeding under SB 9, was considered as an appeal by the City Council. In the appeal on 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive, the City Council provided the following direction on 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive: (1) Consider granting a Revocable Encroachment Permit for improvements in the public right-of-way, including walls, stairs, irrigation, drainage facilities, and lighting, with such improvements located closer to the Applicant’s property line to create “safe vehicular access from a ‘usable vehicular right-of-way of record’ to off-street parking facilities on the property requiring such facilities” with an expectation that the Revocable Encroachment Permit may be revoked in the future. (LBMC § 25.53.004(B); LBMC § 11.50.030.); (2) Consider a Coastal Development Permit for the revised design based on direction in Paragraph A, above, and recognition of coastal resources, including natural landforms and public views, and risk of fire hazards; and (3) Disregard Design Review requirements in conflict with SB 450, for a qualifying project, based on changes in state law brought by SB 450, which became effective on January 1, 2025, and based on the City Council’s finding that the Coastal Development Permit findings and criteria adequately protect coastal resources.

Attachment 2 72
73 of 654
-3- Reso. #
hearing, a majority of the Board did not think the findings for approval could be made and the Board voted 5-0 to continue the Revised Project to the November 13, 2025 Board meeting; and WHEREAS, on September 25, 2025, the Applicant submitted revised plans to City staff, which eliminated the need for REP-24-2587 (the “Second Revised Project”). On October 21, 2025, City staff identified missing items from the application and deemed the application incomplete.

While the Applicant tried to add an accessory dwelling unit (“ADU”) to the Second Revised Project, ultimately Applicant did not pay the fees for the required coastal development permit or consent to the processing of a variance for the ADU, as discussed in more detail below. Therefore, the Second Revised Project proceeded without an ADU; and WHEREAS, on November 13, 2025, the Board held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Second Revised Project. The Board voted 3-1 (Board member Bauta in dissent and Board member Gannon absent) to deny the Second Revised Project on the basis that the Second Revised Project is inconsistent with Coastal Development Permit Finding No. 1, which requires compliance with the certified LCP, including Criteria 5 (i.e., “[t]he proposed development will minimize the alterations of natural landforms and will not result in undue risks from geological and erosional forces and/or floor and fire hazards”) and Criteria 6 (i.e., “[t]he 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”) (the “Board Denial”); and
WHEREAS, on November 17 2025, the Applicant filed an appeal of the Board’s denial of the Project (the “Appeal”); and
Attachment 2 73
74 of 654
-4- Reso. #
WHEREAS, public notice was duly provided to consider the Appeal of the Second Revised Project (or hereinafter referred to as “Second Revised Project” or “Project”) at the January 6, 2025 City Council meeting in accordance with LBMC Section 25.05.065; and WHEREAS, on January 6, 2026, the City Council held a public hearing on the Appeal and carefully considered the oral and documentary evidence and arguments presented.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH DOES RESOLVE:

SECTION 1. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution by this reference.

SECTION 2. The City Council hereby makes the following findings in response to grounds for appeal stated in Appellants’ notice of Appeal:

Attachment 2 74
75 of 654
-5- Reso. #
At the August 12, 2025 City Council meeting on the appeal in 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive, the City Council directed the Board to “[d]isregard Design Review requirements in conflict with SB 450, for a qualifying project, based on changes in state law brought by SB 450, which became effective on January 1, 2025, and based on the City Council’s finding that the Coastal Development Permit findings and criteria adequately protect coastal resources.” Accordingly, in the August 14, 2025 and November 13, 2025 public hearings for the projects at 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive, the Board reviewed the objective requirements in the City’s DR permit for the new single-family dwelling and garage, vehicular access, elevated decks, spa, grading, retaining walls, trash enclosure in the front setback, and landscaping and the discretionary requirements of the CDP with a focus on coastal resources. Because the Board could not make all of the required CDP findings, they denied the application for CDP 24-2588 on November 13, 2025 and determined that their consideration of the application seeking approval of DR 24-2586 was moot.

Below is an overview of applicable state housing laws and Coastal Act carve outs and the findings and facts relied upon by the Board to deny the entitlements.

Applicable State Housing Laws and Coastal Act Carve Outs A. HAA

1. Overview of the HAA
The HAA requires a city to notify a developer if the proposed housing development project is inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provisions (to objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria) within 30 days of the date that the application is determined to be complete and failure to take such action will result in the project being deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, Attachment 2 75
76 of 654
-6- Reso. #
requirement, or other similar provision (to objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria). (Gov. Code Section 65589.5(j)(2).) When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, the city must make certain written findings to deny a project that (1) the housing development project “would have a ‘specific, adverse impact’5upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density”; and (2) there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the identified adverse impact, other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density. (Gov. Code Section 65589.5(j)(1).)
The HAA also has a Coastal Act carve out:

2. Application of the HAA to this Property
Because the Applicant did not pursue an ADU or second unit in the Original Project, Revised Project, or Second Revised Project, the HAA does not apply. As an overview of the extensive 5 A “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. (Gov. Code Section 65589.5(j)(1)(A).) Attachment 2 76
77 of 654
-7- Reso. #
application history, the Original Project was submitted before SB 450 and was submitted without an ADU or second unit (so the HAA did not apply). The Revised Project did not include an ADU or a second unit (so the HAA did not apply). As discussed below, in response to Contention Nos. 5 and 6 in the Appeal, Applicant did attempt to add an ADU into the Second Revised Project by adding some plans sheets reflecting the ADU when the Applicant was also removing the improvements in the public right of way in response to Board direction at the August 14, 2025 public hearing. However, because Applicant would not consent to processing the required variance for the ADU and did not pay the fees for the CDP and Variance triggered by the added ADU, the ADU is not part of the Second Revised Project and could not be considered by the Board (and cannot be considered by the City Council).

B. SB 9/SB 450
As noted above, the Applicant is proceeding under 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. . . .”].)
The Coastal Act6is 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 6 Pub. Res. Code, § 30000 et seq.

Attachment 2 77
78 of 654
-8- Reso. #
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. . . .”7
The Coastal Act is to be “liberally construed to accomplish its purposes and objectives.”8 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.9 Unless subject to an exemption, almost all development within the coastal zone requires a coastal development permit.10 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.11 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 implementation12:

Attachment 2 78
79 of 654
-9- Reso. #
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].13 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.14
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.15 The Land Use Plan represents a descriptive text and evaluation of coastal problems and issues.16 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.17 13 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.
14 LCP Technical Appendix.
15 Id.
16 Id.
17 Id.

Attachment 2 79
80 of 654
-10- Reso. #
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

Finding No. 1: The Project is 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):

Attachment 2 80
81 of 654
-11- Reso. #

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.

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.

The proposed project disrupts the visual natural progression of the ridge up the Attachment 2
81 82 of 654
-12- Reso. #
slope. The overall height of the building and retaining walls would be extending above the ridge of the knoll by 10 to 15 feet, resulting in a structure more than 50 feet above street grade which finds no comparison in the surrounding areas. The top height of the development on neighboring properties are either below the ridge of the knoll or just a foot or so above the ridge of the knoll- which maintains the visual appearance of the ridge from various public areas and roads. 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 as visually imposing and maintains the visual character of the surrounding area by preserving the ridge of the knoll 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 mentioned as a possible solution; however, the Applicant declined to make such a change to the Project.

Unlike certain state housing laws, like AB 201133 and SB 3534, which both disqualify certain sensitive areas within the coastal zone from their qualifying housing projects, and subject qualifying projects in non-sensitive areas of the coastal zone to a more limited, objective-only CDP Attachment 2
82 83 of 654
-13- Reso. #
requirement, SB 9/SB 450 and the HAA do not expressly limit the City to reviewing a CDP subject to objective standards only. Therefore, the City is authorized by law to apply the discretionary findings and criteria under its CDP in the City’s certified LCP. While City staff may have supported the approval of the Second Revised Project, the Board ultimately makes the decision on the CDP.

The City Council finds that the finding and facts supporting the findings can be made for the CDP and DR, as discussed in more detail below.

The City Council finds that the Project meets CDP Finding No. 1, Criteria No. 5 relating to fire hazards, as discussed in more detail below.

Hillside Visual Resources: Nearly 30% of the City consists of undeveloped hillside lands.

These lands support a great diversity of visual resources, with prominent exposure from 19 On May 13, 1993, the California Coastal Commission adopted Categorical Exclusion Order E-93-1, which excludes single-family residential development and other specified types of development from the City’s coastal permitting requirements within 11 geographic areas. The Project is located approximately 1,800 feet from the nearest categorical exclusion area (Exclusion Area No. 8 – Arch Beach Heights).

Attachment 2
84 85 of 654
-15- Reso. #
both public and private property. Generally, these features include: (1) unique topographic forms - vertically exposed rock faces, bluffs, headlands and noticeably steep slopes; (2) unique vegetative forms, including stands of oak, sycamore and eucalyptus trees, and riparian or canyon land plant communities; (3) natural watercourses and associated canyon bottoms; (4) special land features such as prominent ridgelines, escarpments and rock outcroppings; and (S) visual edges or boundaries consisting of contrasting features where rock outcroppings may meet with surrounding vegetation or man-made features such as roads and buildings.
(OSCE, p. 33.)
The Open Space and Conservation Element further sets forth that the City preserve as much as possible the natural character of the landscape, including hillsides and ridgelines, and require recontouring and replanting where natural landscape has been disturbed:

Policy 7-K: Preserve as much as possible the natural character of the landscape (including coastal bluffs, hillsides and ridge lines) by requiring proposed development plans to preserve and enhance scenic and conservation values to the maximum extent possible, to minimize impacts on soil mantle, vegetation cover, water resources, physiographic features, erosion problems, and require recontouring and replanting where natural landscape has been disturbed.20
In a different but recent appeal, the City Council did a detailed analysis on the public view impacts of a project to coastal resources, including hillsides. By comparison, here, the Board denied the Project, not on the basis of public view impacts to coastal scenic resources (CDP Finding 1, Criteria Attachment 2
85 86 of 654
-16- Reso. #
No. 3), but its impact to the natural landforms and contribution to fire hazards (CDP Finding 1, Criteria No. 5) and its compatibility (visually) with the character of the surrounding areas (CDP Finding 1, Criteria No. 6).

As a result, the Project is not designed in a way to minimize alteration of naturally occurring landforms on the Project site.
(Board Denial Resolution 24-2588.)
At the November 13, 2025 Board hearing, the Applicant disputed that the knoll is a natural landform and referred the Board to the topographic survey prepared for the Project, alleging that the top of the knoll was graded prior to 1940.

The top of the knoll appears to have been graded prior to 1938 for an access road to an extant water tank. The road disappears from aerial photographs between 1960 and 197021, at which point photos begin to show the Morningside Circle cul-de-sac to the east of the extant water tank and in an area where the access road previously traversed. The knoll may have had a small crest at its summit 21 https://www.ocgis.com/ocpw/historicalimagery/index.html Attachment 2
86 87 of 654
-17- Reso. #
before it was altered by construction, as is common for undeveloped hilltops in the area. Based on the record, the Board considered the knoll as a natural landform despite the grading that occurred.

The City Council finds that the Project does minimize impacts to alteration of natural landforms, as discussed in more detail below under CDP Finding No. 1, Criteria No. 5.

4. “The Board alleged the projects were inconsistent with LU policies, including LU Policies

7.3 and 10.2, well after the City was required to inform the applicant of any project inconsistency with applicable policies pursuant to Gov. Code Section 65852.21(h)(1) and Gov. Code Section 65589.5(j)(2).”
City Council’s Response
The HAA applies to “residential units.”22 The HAA requires a city to notify a developer if the proposed housing development project is inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provisions (to objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria) within 30 days of the date that the application is determined to be complete and failure to take such action will result in the project being deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision (to objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria). (Gov. Code Section 65589.5(j)(2).) When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, including design review standards, in effect at the 22 The HAA only applies to applications for a “housing development project,” which is defined in the HAA as follows: (1) a project with residential units only; mixed use developments with at least two thirds of the square footage designated for residential use; or (3) transitional or supportive housing. (Gov. Code Section 65589.5(h)(2).) Attachment 2
87 88 of 654
-18- Reso. #
time that the application was deemed complete, the city must make certain written findings that (1) the housing development project “would have a ‘specific, adverse impact’23 upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density”; and (2) there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the identified adverse impact, other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density. (Gov.

Code Section 65589.5(j)(1).)
The HAA also has a Coastal Act carve out:

Nothing in this section shall be construed to relieve the local agency from complying with . . . the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code).
(Cal. Gov't Code § 65589.5(e).)
Here, because the Applicant did not pursue an ADU or second unit in the Original Project, Revised Project, or Second Revised Project, the HAA does not apply and therefore the City is not required by law to provide notice of inconsistency, as required under the HAA. As an overview of the extensive application history, the Original Project was submitted before SB 450 and was submitted without an ADU or second unit (so the HAA did not apply). The Revised Project did not include an ADU or a second unit (so the HAA did not apply). As discussed below, and in response to Contention 5 in the Appeal, Applicant did attempt to add an ADU into the Second Revised Project by adding some plans sheets reflecting the ADU when the Applicant was also 23 A “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. (Gov. Code Section 65589.5(j)(1)(A).) Attachment 2
88 89 of 654
-19- Reso. #
removing the improvements in the public right of way in response to Board direction at the August 14, 2025 public hearing.

25.10.008(O), and the City’s inability to process the ADU with the remainder of the Second Revise Project due to Applicant’s delay and refusal to consent to the Variance application:

As you know, on October 21, 2025, City staff met with you relating to your resubmittals and sent you the . . . correspondence identifying that your 24 The handout states: “Remain in effect until January 1, 2025, and as of that date is repealed”. The Applicant’s first submission of ADU plans for this Project occurred on September 24, 2025, nearly nine months after the handout became invalid.
25 The proposed ADU was designed as an attached ADU that would be located at the rear of the property at the crest of the knoll. An attached ADU is not exempt from the CDP requirements. (LBMC Section 25.07.008). CDP applications must meet certain minimum public noticing requirements. (LBMC Section 25.07.014). Accordingly, the November 13, 2025 Design Review Board hearing was not properly noticed to consider a CDP application or Variance application for an attached ADU.

Attachment 2
89 90 of 654
-20- Reso. #
applications for both projects were incomplete due to missing cross sections and centerline data, as required by the City’s Zoning Submittal Checklist that is part of the City’s Planning Application, which are both enclosed for reference. (See enclosed Email Communication; Planning Application; and Zoning Plan Check Submittal Requirements Checklist, Paragraphs D and I.)
During our October 21, 2025 meeting, you raised that you included sheets in the resubmittal for 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive, adding an accessory dwelling unit to the single-family residence. Please note that in order for the City to process the added accessory dwelling unit, you will need to submit the Planning Application and fee for the accessory dwelling unit through the City’s online portal, Energov, or in person at City Hall. You have not submitted such application and fee through the City’s online portal or in person at City Hall. City staff quickly scanned the sheets provided that included the proposed accessory dwelling unit and determined that it conflicts with certain development standards, such as the landscape open space requirement. (See LBMC Section 25.10.008(O).) As such, at a minimum, the proposed accessory dwelling unit will require a coastal development permit and variance. (See LBMC Section 25.07.012(G) [A CDP may be approved only after finding, in part, the project is in conformity with applicable provisions of the certified local coastal program].) City staff will be unable to review the accessory dwelling unit further until an application is submitted and a fee is paid.

The notice for the public hearing for the 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive project did not reference the newly proposed accessory dwelling unit or variance for not Attachment 2
90 91 of 654
-21- Reso. #
meeting the open space requirement. Therefore, not only can staff not process the accessory dwelling unit submittal because you have not filed an application with the City or paid the required fees, but the Design Review Board cannot consider the accessory dwelling unit during the November 13, 2025 public hearing because it has not been appropriately noticed.

On November 13, 2025, the Board denied the Revised Project, in relevant part, on the basis that the Revised Project is inconsistent with Coastal Development Permit Finding No. 1, which requires compliance with the certified LCP, including Criteria 5 (i.e., “[t]he proposed development will minimize the alterations of natural landforms and will not result in undue risks from geological Attachment 2
91 92 of 654
-22- Reso. #
and erosional forces and/or floor and fire hazards”) and Criteria 6 (i.e., “[t]he proposed development will be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and where feasible, will restore.) CDP Finding No. 1, Criteria Nos. 5 and 6—largely incorporate Land Use Element Policies 7.3 and 10.2 stated below:

Regardless, the City Council finds that the Project is consistent with LU Policies 7.3 and 10.2, as well as Finding No. 1, Criteria Nos. 5 and 6, as discussed in more detail below.

1. The State Accessory Dwelling Unit (“ADU”) Law
Under the “State ADU Law” (codified at Government Code § 66310, et seq.), an “ADU is defined to mean “an attached or a detached residential dwelling unit that provides complete independent Attachment 2
92 93 of 654
-23- Reso. #
living facilities for one or more persons and is located on a lot with a proposed or existing primary residence. . . .” (Gov. Code § 66313(a).) An ADU must contain “permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as the single-family or multifamily dwelling is or will be situated.” (Id.)
A city is authorized to “provide for the creation of ADUs in areas zoned to allow single-family or multifamily dwelling residential use” by way of ordinance. (Gov. Code Section 66314.) Any ordinance governing the creation of an ADU must provide an approval process that includes only ministerial provisions for the approval of ADUs and must not include any discretionary processes, provisions, or requirements for those ADUs, except as otherwise allowed by the State ADU Law. (Gov. Code Section 66316.) A permit application for an ADU or JADU must be considered and approved ministerially without discretionary review or hearing. (Gov. Code Section 66317.) Notwithstanding the above provisions, the State ADU Law does not supersede or alter the application of the Coastal Act, except that a city is not required to hold a public hearing on coastal development permit applications for ADUs:

Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect of application of the Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code), except that the local government shall not be required to hold public hearings for coastal development permit applications for accessory dwelling units.
(Gov. Code Section 66329 [emph. added].) Under this provision, and as discussed further below, the City imposes the provisions of its certified Local Coastal Program (“LCP”) as it relates to ADUs.

Attachment 2
93 94 of 654
-24- Reso. #

2. The City’s ADU Ordinance
In recent years, the Legislature has approved, and the Governor has signed into law, numerous bills that amended the State ADU Law to impose new limits on local authority to regulate accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units. Notwithstanding this legislation, as stated above, State ADU Law provides that it “shall not be construed to supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the Coastal Act of 1976. . . .” (Gov. Code § 66329.) The California Department of Housing and Community Development’s (“HCD”) ADU Handbook advises that State ADU Law applies in the coastal zone, but “do[es] not alter or lessen the effect or application of Coastal Act resource protection policies.” (HCD’s January 2025 ADU Handbook, at pg. 21.)26
The City’s regulations governing the approval of ADUs and JADUs are provided in the City’s LCP, specifically Chapter 25.17 (Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units) of Title 25 (Zoning) of the Laguna Beach Municipal Code. On November 16, 2021, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1665, which identified self-contained accessory dwelling units as subject to the coastal development permit application process. On September 7, 2023 LCP5-LGB22-0003-3 Part B (Coastal Development Permits) was certified by the Coastal Commission. The City updated Chapter 25.17 to comply with State ADU Law via LCP Amendment No. 21-8239, which was certified by the Coastal Commission on September 7, 2023.

In 2024, the California Legislature approved, and the Governor signed into law, Assembly Bill 2533 (“AB 2533”) and Senate Bill 1211 (“SB 1211”), which further amended State ADU Law and 26 HCD’s ADU Handbook is authorized by Gov. Code § 66327, which provides that HCD may “review, adopt, amend, or repeal guidelines to implement uniform standards or criteria that supplement or clarify the terms, references, and standards set forth in this section.” The ADU Handbook is available at the following location:
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/building-standards/adu/handbook
Attachment 2
94 95 of 654
-25- Reso. #
came into effect on January 1, 2025. Below is an overview of the City Council’s most recent actions relating to its requirements for ADUs and JADUs, in part, in response to AB 2533 and SB 1211:
• On December 10, 2024, the City Council found that there was a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare and adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 1707. • On January 14, 2025, the City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 1709 extending Urgency Ordinance No. 1707 and implementing certain modifications to Chapter 25.17 and directed staff to consider additional modifications. • On March 11, 2025, the City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 1713, implementing additional minor modifications to Chapter 25.17.
• On March 25, 2025, the City adopted non-urgency Ordinance No. 1715 to mirror the ADU and JADU requirements reflected in Urgency Ordinance No. 1713. The City also submitted Ordinance No. 1715 to the Coastal Commission for certification.

3. The City’s Coastal Development Permit Ordinance
Attachment 2
95 96 of 654
-26- Reso. #
In order to approve a CDP, the reviewing body must find that the project is in conformity with all the applicable provisions of the certified LCP (LBMC Section 25.07.012(F)) and thereafter make the requisite findings (LBMC Section 25.07.012(G)). Amongst other things, this requires a finding that “the project is in conformity with all the applicable provisions of the certified local coastal program.” (LBMC Section 25.07.012(G)(1).) The City’s certified LCP is implemented through development regulations, specific plans, special studies, and permitting procedures, including, but not limited to, LBMC Title 25 (Zoning Code).

On September 24, 2025, Applicant submitted the revised plan sheets to the City. Applicant did not expressly call out the addition of the ADU. When City staff located the new plan sheets identifying the ADU during a meeting with Applicant on October 21, 2025, City staff reviewed the plans and identified that the ADU did not comply with the City’s ADU Urgency Ordinance No. 1713 or the State ADU Law, including the carve out for the Coastal Act and therefore would require a variance. The Applicant did not agree referring to a repealed handout. 27 City staff asked
27 The handout states: “Remain in effect until January 1, 2025, and as of that date is repealed”. The Applicant’s first Attachment 2
96 97 of 654
-27- Reso. #
the Applicant to purchase public noticing so that staff could issue a revised public notice that would include an updated project description referencing the Applicant’s proposed ADU, including the Variance and CDP. The Applicant refused.28 On October 23, 2025, the City sent an incomplete letter to Applicant identifying the missing information from the application, the proposed ADU’s conflict with certain provisions of the City’s certified LCP, including the landscape open space requirement pursuant to LBMC Section

25.10.008(O), and the City’s inability to process the ADU with the remainder of the Second Revise Project due to Applicant’s delay and refusal to consent to the Variance application:

As you know, on October 21, 2025, City staff met with you relating to your resubmittals and sent you the . . . correspondence identifying that your applications for both projects were incomplete due to missing cross sections and centerline data, as required by the City’s Zoning Submittal Checklist that is part of the City’s Planning Application, which are both enclosed for reference. (See enclosed Email Communication; Planning Application; and Zoning Plan Check Submittal Requirements Checklist, Paragraphs D and I.)
During our October 21, 2025 meeting, you raised that you included sheets in the resubmittal for 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive, adding an accessory dwelling unit submission of ADU plans for this Project occurred on September 24, 2025, nearly nine months after the handout became invalid.
28 The proposed ADU was designed as an attached ADU that would be located at the rear of the property at the crest of the knoll. An attached ADU is not exempt from the CDP requirements. (LBMC Section 25.07.008). CDP applications must meet certain minimum public noticing requirements. (LBMC Section 25.07.014). Accordingly, the November 13, 2025 Design Review Board hearing was not properly noticed to consider a CDP application for an attached ADU, irrespective of the fact that the attached ADU also required design review for building site coverage exceedance and a variance to not provide the minimum landscaped open space.

Attachment 2
97 98 of 654
-28- Reso. #
to the single-family residence. Please note that in order for the City to process the added accessory dwelling unit, you will need to submit the Planning Application and fee for the accessory dwelling unit through the City’s online portal, Energov, or in person at City Hall. You have not submitted such application and fee through the City’s online portal or in person at City Hall. City staff quickly scanned the sheets provided that included the proposed accessory dwelling unit and determined that it conflicts with certain development standards, such as the landscape open space requirement. (See LBMC Section 25.10.008(O).) As such, at a minimum, the proposed accessory dwelling unit will require a coastal development permit and variance. (See LBMC Section 25.07.012(G) [A CDP may be approved only after finding, in part, the project is in conformity with applicable provisions of the certified local coastal program].) City staff will be unable to review the accessory dwelling unit further until an application is submitted and a fee is paid.

Your email today indicated that you are pursuing the accessory dwelling unit and there is no conflict with the open space requirement for ADU’s under 800 square Attachment 2
98 99 of 654
-29- Reso. #
foot, referencing an April 26, 2021 staff-prepared handout. (Enclosed is a copy of your email and the outdated staff handout.) As an initial matter, this handout— by its own terms—expired on January 1, 2025 (before you submitted plan sheets to the City with a proposed accessory dwelling unit). Please note that the City’s Zoning Code and certified Local Coastal Program govern and regulate accessory dwelling units—and development generally—within the City. Please see Ordinance No. 1713 which is the City’s existing development standards for accessory dwelling units.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH DOES RESOLVE:

SECTION 1. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution by this reference.

SECTION 2. The City Council hereby overturns the Board Denial and approves Design Review 24-2586 and Coastal Development Permit 24-2588 for the Second Revised Project based Attachment 2 99
100 of 654
-30- Reso. #
upon the following findings and subject to conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

Design Review 24-2586:

The City Council hereby makes the following findings with respect to Design Review29 24-2586 pursuant to LBMC section 25.05.040, which is part of the City’s Certified Local Coastal Program Finding No. 1: Physical improvements and site developments related to the Project are designed and located in a manner in overall consistency with the design review criteria specified in Section 25.05.040(H), as set forth below:

1. Access. Conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians and other modes of transportation should be minimized by specifically providing for each applicable mode of transportation.

Handicapped access shall be provided as required by applicable statutes.

No handicapped access is required.

2. General Plan Compliance: The development shall comply with all applicable policies of the General Plan, including all its elements, applicable specific plans, and the certified local coastal program.

The project complies with the certified local coastal program and follows the general plan policies as discussed below:

LU Element (LUE) 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 29 Consistent with the analysis of State housing laws in this resolution and the record before the City Council, the City Council is applying those objective design review criteria as well as any other as any design review criteria that affords costal resource(s) protection that is not otherwise addressed/protected by CDP No. 24-2588.

Attachment 2
100
101 of 654
-31- Reso. #
surrounding residences. As discussed under the Neighborhood Compatibility criterion (No. 9), the proposed project is in a neighborhood with diverse architectural styles. The architectural style and materials of the proposed home are compatible with the surrounding residences. To reduce the perceived massing, the applicant has incorporated vegetative screening over the driveway retaining walls to soften their appearance, reduced the overall habitable area, eliminated the tandem garage configuration, and decreased the size of the deck.

Land Use (LU) 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. The proposed project does not impact any public views; however, the project can be seen from a public trail (Aswut Trail) which runs between Top of the World to Arch Beach Heights, and no natural topographic features or significant onsite resources exist. Alteration of the natural topography is necessary for hillside development.

Land Use (LU) Policy 7.3 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. The subject property is located within an established residential neighborhood. A one-story home exists directly adjacent to the west at 1540 Bluebird Canyon Drive and two vacant building sites are located to the east side and rear. While direct comparison with adjacent homes is challenging, the proposed project demonstrates similar massing to the approved residence at 1536 Morningside, located on the opposite side of the same knoll. This similarity is largely due to the site’s topography and the location and orientation of the garage. In terms of mass, the two projects are visually Attachment 2 101
102 of 654
-32- Reso. #
compatible.

3. Landscaping: Landscaping shall be incorporated as an integrated part of the structure’s design and relate harmoniously to neighborhood and community landscaping themes. View equity shall be an important consideration in the landscape design. The relevant landscaping guidelines contained in the City’s “Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document” should be incorporated, as appropriate, in the design and planned maintenance of proposed landscaping.

Yes, landscaping is incorporated into the Project.

4. 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, highgloss 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.

Adequate lighting for individual and public safety is provided.

Finally, the City Council finds that there are no other applicable design review criteria that address or protect coastal resources or further the goals of the Coastal Act that are not otherwise addressed/protected by CDP No. 24-2510.

Coastal Development Permit 24-2588:

Finding No. 1: The project is in conformity with all the applicable provisions of the certified local coastal program, including the following review criteria:

1. The proposed development will not encroach upon any existing physical accessway legally utilized by the public or any proposed public accessway identified in the adopted local coastal program land use plan.

No public accessway exists through the project site. The proposed development will Attachment 2
102
103 of 654
-33- Reso. #
not modify any existing physical accessway utilized by the public or identified in the adopted local coastal program land use plan in that development is limited to the subject lot, which does not provide any such accessways, and a proposed public parking space will be provided in the widened right-of-way to the benefit of public access.

2. The proposed development will not adversely affect marine resources, environmentally sensitive areas, or archaeological or paleontological resources.

The site is a hillside lot located approximately one mile from the Pacific Ocean. No marine resources, environmentally sensitive areas or archaeological or paleontological resources have been identified on the project site.

3. The proposed development will not adversely affect recreational or visitorserving facilities or coastal scenic resources.

No recreational, visitor-serving or coastal scenic resources have been identified on the project site and the project will not significantly increase the demand for recreational or visitor-serving facilities. The project site is located within an area with existing hillside development on a lot designated for residential development by the Certified Local Coastal Program. The discussion and facts presented under design criteria #4 Environmental Context and LU Policy 2.8 support this finding and are incorporated herein by reference.

Project approval will not impact coastal scenic resources.

4. The proposed development will be sited and designed to prevent adverse impacts to environmentally sensitive habitats and scenic resources located in adjacent parks and recreation areas and will provide adequate buffer areas to protect such resources.

Environmentally sensitive habitats have not been identified on or adjacent to the Attachment 2
103
104 of 654
-34- Reso. #
project site. Furthermore, the site is not located adjacent to parks and recreation areas or scenic resources. Therefore, the project is sited and designed to prevent adverse impacts to environmentally sensitive habitats and scenic resources.

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.

The revised project includes grading export of approximately 1,550 cubic yards. As noted previously, this amount of grading is reasonable given the required public street improvements and the hillside development and the need to create a public parking space outside of vehicle lanes. The preliminary geotechnical investigation prepared by Stoney Miller dated August 22, 2024, found that the proposed development is geotechnically feasible and free of undue geologic risks with the incorporation of their recommendations in the final design, which is a standard requirement of the design and construction process and the City’s Building Division. The site is a hillside lot and not within a mapped flood plain. The project site is located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) and the design must be consistent with applicable Building and Fire Codes. The applicant has prepared an Alternative Means and Methods report prepared by Dudek dated October 21, 2025, related to the 150-foot fire hose pull standard. The report concludes that the proposed development will not result in an undue fire risk.

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.

The proposed project is located on a hill that is approximately a mile from the ocean, Attachment 2
104
105 of 654
-35- Reso. #
surrounded by single-family development and not within an environmentally sensitive area.

The addition of a new single-family home will not contribute to further degradation of this established single-family residential neighborhood.

7. The proposed development will not have any adverse impacts on any known archaeological or paleontological resource.

No known archaeological or paleontological resources have been identified on the project site.

8. The proposed development will be provided with adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities.

The proposed development will be provided with adequate utilities and access roads as the property is located within an established residential neighborhood and is immediately surrounded by an improved street that will be widened and single-family uses.

9. Other public services, including, but not limited to, solid waste and public roadway capacity have been considered and are adequate to serve the proposed development.

All public services including solid waste collection presently exist in the City of Laguna beach to serve to the project. Bluebird Canyon Drive, with its modest widening, is adequate to serve the proposed single-family development, which is typical for this area.

The site is designated for residential use and within planned infrastructure requirements.

The project is consistent with all applicable policies of the Certified LCP.

LCP COASTAL VIEW POLICIES
Land Use Element (LU) Policies 2.1, 2.8, 7.3 and 10.2
LU Policy 2.1 states:

Attachment 2 105
106 of 654
-36- Reso. #
“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.”
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.” 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 ensure that proposals for new development, subdivisions, and major remodels are sufficiently evaluated to protect public health and safety and natural resources.”
The proposed 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. Open Space and Conservation Element Policy 13-B requires that development proposals, Attachment 2
106
107 of 654
-37- Reso. #
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 on the top of the hill, impacting the profile of the ridgeline. However, this ridgeline contains other single-family homes of various sizes and heights, and the property is not in a environmentally sensitive area. In addition, there are no public viewpoints in close proximity to the project site, and as such the project complies with these Land Use Policies.

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.

The long driveway extending up the hill and siting of the structure either atop or close to the top of the ridgeline results in grading and alteration of the natural landform.

However, designing a house that is built into the side of hill and follows the existing grade would result in additional alteration of the site, requiring more grading. The project does not block views towards the ocean and scenic coastal areas. The surrounding single-family home area is not visually degraded by a new single-family home on this vacant lot that does not contain coastal resources.

LCP DOCUMENTS
The project must conform with all the following applicable documents of the Attachment 2
107
108 of 654
-38- Reso. #
Certified LCP.

1. Coastal Land Use Plan Technical Appendix (1984)

2. Design Guidelines - A Guide to Residential Development (2010)

3. Fuel Modification Guidelines (1989)

4. Chapter 14.78 Geology Reports - Preparation and Requirements (2005)

5. Land Use Element (2012) 6. Title 21 - Plats and Subdivision (1991)

7. Title 22 - Excavation and Grading (2004)

8. Title 25 - Zoning Code
Finding No. 2. Any development located between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea is in conformity with the certified local coastal program and with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act.

N/A. The subject property is located a mile from the Pacific Ocean and not located between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea.

Finding No. 3. The proposed development will not have any significant adverse impacts on the environment within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act.

The project will not cause any significant adverse impacts on the environment and qualifies for a categorical exemption the project qualifies for a categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15303 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. None of the exceptions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply.

SECTION 3. Based on its review of the entire record before it, the City Council hereby finds and determines that the Project is categorically exempt pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15303 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, which exempts construction Attachment 2 108
109 of 654
-39- Reso. #
and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures, such as one single-family residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone or up to three single-family residences in an urbanized area. Here, the Project fits within this exemption because it proposes a new singlefamily dwelling and related site improvements including grading, spa, landscape, hardscape, and retaining walls on an existing legal building site. The Property is located within a developed neighborhood with all facilities provided and access existing to the parcel.

Further, none of the exceptions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply.

The Project site does not contain any environmentally sensitive areas. There will be no cumulative impact resulting from successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time. The Project site does not contain any environmentally sensitive areas in that the site is fully developed with an existing single-family dwelling and is surrounded on all sides by public streets and developed residential and institutional properties, and the City’s environmentally sensitive areas maps do not identify any such areas on-site or within the immediate Project vicinity. There are no unusual circumstances resulting in a significant impact on the environment. There will be no damage to scenic resources, including trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. The Project is not located on a hazardous waste site or any other site included on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. The Project will not result in significant adverse impacts to historical resources as defined by CEQA. Consequently, additional environmental analysis is not necessary to meet the requirements of the CEQA. Staff will cause to be filed a Notice of Exemption (NOE) with the County Recorder’s Office and State Clearinghouse within 5 days of adoption of this Resolution.

SECTION 4. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution has been based are located at City Hall, 505 Forest Avenue Laguna Beach, Attachment 2 109
110 of 654
-40- Reso. #
CA 92651. The custodian of the record of proceedings is the Director of Community Development.

SECTION 5. If any provision of this Resolution is held invalid, the remainder of this Resolution shall not be affected by such invalidity, and the provisions of the Resolution are severable.

SECTION 6. This Resolution shall become effective immediately.

ADOPTED this 6th day of January, 2026.

Mark Orgill, Mayor
ATTEST:

Ann Marie McKay, City Clerk
I, Ann Marie McKay, City Clerk of the City of Laguna Beach, certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 25.XXX was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City held on January 6, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

City Clerk, City of Laguna Beach, California
Attachment 2 110
111 of 654

EXHIBIT A

CITY COUNCIL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESOLUTION NO. 25-XXX
Standard Conditions:

1. Design Review 24-2586 and Coastal Development Permit 24-2588 are granted for a new single-family residence with an attached two car garage (the “Project”). Approval is granted based on the development plans and landscape plans submitted by Horst Noppenberger on November 3, 2025 and received by City on November 5, 2025. Said plans are approved as submitted and conditioned herein and shall not be altered unless reviewed and approved in accordance with Title 25 of the Laguna Beach Municipal Code.

2. That the conditions of approval contained herein, shall be made part of the construction drawings for the proposed development. Construction drawings shall not be accepted for Plan Check without the conditions of approval incorporated into the construction drawings.

3. In the event that exhibits and written conditions are inconsistent, the written conditions shall prevail. If there are any disparities between these conditions and the plans or final revised plans that are approved for any subsequent phase, the conditions and/or plans as stipulated in the later approval shall prevail.

4. All plans, specifications, studies, reports, calculations, maps, notes, legal documents, and designs shall be prepared, signed, and stamped (when required) only by those individuals legally authorized to do so.

5. Approval of this application does not relieve the applicant from complying with other applicable Federal, State, County or City regulations or requirements.

6. The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Laguna Beach and its officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Laguna Beach, its officers, employees, or agents to attack, set aside, void, or annul any approval or condition of approval of the City of Laguna Beach concerning this Project, including but not limited to any approval or condition of approval of the City Council, Planning Commission, Design Review Board, Community Development Director, or City Planner. The City shall promptly notify the Applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding concerning the Project and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. The City reserves the right, at its own option, to choose its own attorney to represent the City, its officers, employees, and agents in the defense of the matter.

7. The Applicant shall be responsible for informing all subcontractors, consultants, engineers, or other business entities providing services related to the project of their responsibilities to comply with these conditions of approval and all pertinent Attachment 2 111
112 of 654
-2- Reso. #
requirements in the Laguna Beach Municipal Code, including the requirement that a business license be obtained by all entities doing business in the City.

8. The Applicant shall pay all fees at the time fees are determined payable and comply with all requirements of the applicable federal, state, and local agencies. The duty of inquiry as to such requirements shall be upon the applicant.

9. Failure to comply with any of these conditions of approval is grounds for revocation of the entitlement(s) and is subject to any other available remedies to the City.

10. The Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until City staff has verified compliance with all conditions of approval.

11. The effective date of the entitlements granted herein do not commence until all appeals, including those to the California Coastal Commission, have been exhausted, statutes of limitation have expired, and any lawsuits, filed within the statutes of limitation, have concluded.

12. In the event any of the conditions of approval are infeasible, the decision-making body hereby authorizes the Community Development Director to modify those conditions in the most conservative manner possible, in accordance with the limitations of the City’s Municipal Code, to allow for the completion of the project.

Standard Conditions of Approval for Design Review – Community Development Department

13. The approval granted by this Resolution shall lapse and automatically become void two years following the effective date if the privileges authorized by design review are not executed or utilized or, if construction work is involved, such work is not commenced within such two-year period and diligently pursued to completion, unless an extension of time is granted pursuant to the provisions of the Laguna Beach Municipal Code. Extensions of time shall be requested in writing by the applicant or authorized agent prior to the expiration of the entitlements.

14. Landscaping Conditions. The landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the approved landscape plans. Thereafter, the landscaping shall be continuously maintained (including replanting, as necessary) in compliance with the approved landscaping plans, unless such plans are subsequently revised pursuant to a subsequent Design Review approval. Minor landscaping changes which does not have the potential to impact views at mature growth height may be exempt from Design Review

15. Light trespass that results in glare is prohibited.

16. Outdoor lighting must be hooded, fully shielded, and aimed downward.

Attachment 2 112
113 of 654
-3- Reso. #

17. Grading Export. Grading work and hauling of grading materials shall be restricted to the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. No work is permitted to occur on City holidays.

Standard Conditions of Approval – Building Division
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following condition(s) are set forth to protect the health, safety and welfare of the community and to assure the intent and purpose of the regulations:

18. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the contractor of record shall have a preconstruction meeting with the Building Official. The purpose of the meeting shall be to review the requirements for parking, construction hours, fencing, dust control, monitoring, any documentation from engineers and geologists, etc.

19. The Project shall be required to comply with the City’s Construction hours, which are: 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. weekdays only; Hauling Hours: 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Construction activity shall not be permitted on weekends or any Federal Holiday.

20. The Project must comply with the California Green Building Code (Title 24: Part 11) and include Best Management Practices (BMPs) throughout the construction phase, including but not limited to dust and sediment control, erosion control, and other measures as required by the Building Official.

21. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant may be required to present to the Building Official an asbestos abatement plan and appropriate documentation.

22. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a construction staging plan shall be submitted to the Building Official for review and approval. The plan shall include a site plan that identifies construction material storage areas, construction parking, site access, etc. Refer to the informational guide for Construction Staging:
https://www.lagunabeachcity.net/home/showpublisheddocument/8878/637515890430300 000. Any recommendations made by the Board regarding staging plans or construction management will be forwarded to the Building Official for review and consideration.

23. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a drainage plan prepared by a licensed civil engineer to the Building Official for review and approval.

24. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a grading plan must be submitted to the Building Official for review and approval. Elevations or height must be certified by a licensed surveyor. The compaction of grade must be certified by a licensed Engineer. The Building Official may also require a shoring plan when necessary. A Geotechnical Engineer shall be required to conduct onsite monitoring of the site during excavation and grading activities; and shall document any ground movement and notify the Building Official of any such movement.

Attachment 2 113
114 of 654
1550 Bluebird Canyon Road – Aerial Map
Attachment 3 114
115 of 654
Attachment 4
115
116 of 654
Attachment 4
116
117 of 654
Attachment 4
117
118 of 654
Attachment 5
118
119 of 654
Attachment 5
119
120 of 654
Attachment 5
120
121 of 654
110237\19053160v2
www.coxcastle.com 110237\19053160v3 Los Angeles | Orange County | San Francisco Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP
3121 Michelson Drive, Suite 200
Irvine, California 92612
P: 949.260.4600 F: 646.260.4699
Morgan Gallagher
949.260.4674
[email protected]
November 25, 2025

VIA EMAIL
Bill Rodrigues
Planning Manager
City of Laguna Beach
505 Forest Avenue
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
Re: 1550 and 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive, Laguna Beach
Mr. Rodrigues:

We represent the Dyrnaes family with respect to their projects at 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive (“Lot A”) and 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive (“Lot B”) (collectively, the “Projects”). As you know, DRB denied the Projects on November 13th despite the accurate conclusions in the Staff Reports that (i) the Projects are consistent with all applicable policies of the City’s LCP and (ii) the Projects are consistent with applicable objective design standards.

The DRB Majority’s Decision Was An Abuse of Discretion In Violation of State Law and the City Council’s Guidance.

The DRB majority’s decision to deny the Projects was inconsistent with State law. The decision relied on two components, both of which violate SB 450 and the HAA: (i) that the “natural landform” of the site (i.e. the ‘natural beauty’ of the site as Chair Gibbs said in a previous DRB meeting) is a coastal resource; and (ii) Southern California Edison replaced a power pole within the City’s right of way adjacent to the Projects.

The DRB cannot invent1 new coastal resources as a pretext to deny a project. The property is previously graded and has been zoned and long planned for single-family use. There are no coastal resources identified on the property in the City’s LCP and the ‘natural beauty’ of a site is not a coastal resource recognized by the Coastal Commission, the City, HCD, or the Court. In fact, the City’s own code defines “Coastal Resources” as:
“Coastal resources” include, but are not limited to, public access opportunities, visitor and recreational facilities, water-oriented activities, marine resources, biological resources, 1 The DRB majority did not cite any coastal resources identified in the City’s LCP or any other City document but rather, stated that based on their subjective viewpoint, the site is a coastal resource [“I’ll identify that as a coastal resource cause I think it clearly is… it looks like a natural landform so I’m going on the assumption that it is.” (Chair Gibbs, November 13 DRB hearing at 6:46:40.)].

Attachment 6 121
122 of 654
November 25, 2025

Page 2 ends

110237\19053160v2
110237\19053160v3
environmentally sensitive areas, agricultural lands, and archaeological or paleontological resources.

There is simply no authority whatsoever for the DRB majority’s invention of the ‘natural beauty’ of a site as a coastal resource.

As stated by Assistant City Attorney Patrick Donegan at the DRB meeting, “DRB should identify and gear any discussion toward the protection of an explicit identifiable coastal resource.” Given that there are no documented, identifiable coastal resources on the property, the DRB’s denial of the Projects based on subjective criteria violates State law. The implication of the DRB majority’s determination, if it was correct, would be that DRB has unlimited discretion to impose DR criteria under the auspices of a CDP analysis to all properties in the City that DRB believes have ‘natural beauty.’ Such an interpretation is clearly inconsistent with State law and would render State housing laws meaningless in almost the entire City. That cannot possibly be what the legislature intended when it required SB 9/SB 450 to be “harmonized” with the Coastal Act.

Even if DRB was correct that ‘natural beauty’ was a coastal resource, which it is not, it was too late to introduce a new coastal resource under SB 450 and the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”). As we have reminded the City many times, SB 450 required the City to take action on the Projects within 60 days of the date the City received completed applications; since the City failed to do so, the Projects were deemed approved. (Gov. Code § 65852.21(h)(1).) In addition, the HAA required the City to inform the applicant in writing of any inconsistency with applicable standards within 30 days of the applicant’s submittal of a complete application; because the City failed to identify any inconsistency with the City’s LCP, the Projects were long ago deemed consistent with all applicable LCP standards. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(2).) The invention of a coastal resource by DRB is also inconsistent with the Council’s directive on August 12, 2025 and City staff’s conclusion that there are no coastal resources on the property.

DRB’s reliance on replacement of an SCE power pole (as part of a City permitted SCE fire safety upgrade project) as a secondary reason to deny the Projects was bizarre and misguided.

First, a power pole was already installed at the same street location. Second, the applicant has no control over SCE’s placement of any power pole. Finally, the power pole has nothing to do with the Projects or the applications that were in front of DRB. The DRB’s denial of the Projects based on an allegation, with no evidence to support it, that our client has not fixed an existing problem the City was well aware of and did nothing to prevent is a clear violation of State law, particularly since that alleged existing problem has no nexus to the project. Mr. Dyrnaes twice offered to accommodate relocation of the power pole further from the centerline of the right-of-way to appease DRB but the City’s constant delay in processing the Projects prevented any adjustment before SCE finalized their plans.

Going into the DRB meeting on November 13th, Mr. Dyrnaes addressed every request from the DRB and Council, including removing the REPs from the Projects. The only remaining Attachment 6 122
123 of 654
November 25, 2025

Page 3 ends

110237\19053160v2
110237\19053160v3
demand that was previously articulated by the DRB was that the homes should be lowered in height. This was repeated by multiple Board members in multiple DRB meetings. The current placement of the homes is (i) in the only feasible locations to meet City Code, (ii) is well within the height allowed by the Code, and (iii) is fully compatible and consistent with neighboring properties. In fact, the neighboring property at 1536 Morningside Drive was approved by the DRB at a similar height just last year. The DRB majority’s request for the homes to be reduced in height would require the homes to be pushed underground or for a floor to be removed from the homes.

Both of those scenarios would reduce the density of the Projects in violation of State law. We urge the City to remember the history of both 277 Pearl Street and 1673 Louise Street.

The Dyrnaes family demands an appeal hearing on January 13, 2026.

The City’s Code requires an appeal to be set for a public hearing no more than 60 calendar days after receipt of an appeal. (LBMC § 25.05.070(D)(2).) In addition, SB 450 requires action on the Projects to be taken within 60 days of the date the City received completed applications, meaning the City certainly must act on an appeal within 60 days. As you know, the applicant has invoked Government Code section 65589.5(h)(6) as a result of the City’s failure to cease a course of conduct that is improper and has caused unnecessary delay and cost to the Projects. Further delay in setting the appeal hearing will exacerbate the City’s violations of the HAA. The appeal hearing should include the ADU that was submitted as part of the Lot A project in September. This ADU should have been considered by the DRB on November 13, 2025 and was mistakenly excluded.

Finally, the DRB hearing on November 13th was the 5th hearing for Lot B. The HAA prohibits an agency from holding more than five hearings on a housing project, including continuances. A “hearing” includes any public hearing, workshop, or similar meeting conducted by the local government with respect to the housing project, whether by the legislative body of the city or county, the planning agency, or any other agency, department, board, commission, or any other designated hearing officer or body of the City. The City has clearly held 5 hearings on Lot B and the City Council appeal hearing will be a 6th hearing. A 6th hearing represents another violation of the HAA by the City. By participating in the City Council appeal hearing, the applicant in no way waives his right to assert this additional HAA violation.

Sincerely,
Morgan Gallagher
Cc: David Dyrnaes
Daniel Latham, Associate Planner
Matthew Schneider, Community Development Director
Dave Kiff, City Manager
Attachment 6 123
124 of 654
November 25, 2025

Page 4 ends

110237\19053160v2
110237\19053160v3
Megan Garibaldi, City Attorney
Jane Abzug, Assistant City Attorney
Patrick Donegan, Assistant City Attorney
Horst Noppenberger, Horst Architects
David Parker, Architect
Attachment 6 124
125 of 654

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT
May 8, 2025
Agenda Item No. 5.3
Item: Design Review 24-2586
Coastal Development Permit 24-2588
Revocable Encroachment Permit 24-2587
Request: Construction of a single-family dwelling with an attached three-car garage on a vacant building site in the R-1 (Residential Low Density) zone.

Location: 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive | Lot A
Applicant: Horst Noppenberger, Horst Architects
(949) 494-9569 | [email protected]
Owner: David Dyrnaes, 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive LLC
Staff: Community Development Department
Nancy Balmer-Csira, Planner
(949) 715-1284 | [email protected]
RECOMMENDATION: Conduct a public hearing and provide direction on access, design articulation, general plan compliance, lighting and glare, neighborhood compatibility, privacy, and view equity.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA):

The project qualifies for a categorical exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, Section 15303 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, in that the project consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small structures.

Coastal Development Permit:

The project requires a Coastal Development Permit Pursuant to LBMC Chapter 25.07 and the project site is located within a non-appealable area of the Coastal Zone, and therefore action on a CDP is not appealable to the California Coastal Commission.

Board Members within a 500’ Radius: None
Attachment 7 125
126 of 654
DR 24-2586, CDP 24-2588, REP 24-2587
5/8/2025

Page 2 ends

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The Applicant, Horst Noppenberger, Architect, is requesting approval of Design Review 24-2586, Coastal Development Permit 24-2588, and Revocable Encroachment Permit 24-2587. The proposed project includes construction of a single-family dwelling with an attached three-car garage, covered/tandem parking, vehicular access, elevated decks, spa, grading, retaining walls, and landscaping. Additionally, improvements proposed within in the public right-of-way include retaining walls, steps, walkway, irrigation, and metal gate (the “Project”). Staff has not attached a resolution for approval and recommends the Board provide direction to the applicant during the public hearing.

The project initially appeared on the Design Review Board’s (DRB) February 27, 2025. Without deliberation, the project was continued to May 8, 2025, to allow the applicant additional time for design changes and neighbor outreach.

PROPERTY AERIAL PHOTO
Attachment 7 126
127 of 654
DR 24-2586, CDP 24-2588, REP 24-2587
5/8/2025

Page 3 ends

STREET FRONTAGE

PROPERTY INFORMATION
Land Use Designation Village Low Density (1-7 DU/AC)
Zoning Designation R-1 Residential Low Density

ZONING REVIEW
The proposed project complies with applicable zoning standards and guidelines as shown in the summary table below.

Development Standard Required Existing Proposed Conforms Building Site Coverage - Maximum 35.00 %
4,327.4 SF NA

29.92 %
3,698.25 SF Yes
Landscape Open Space- Minimum 31.4 %
3,887.3 SF NA

35.5 %
4,392.1 SF Yes
Height (Above rear lot line) 15’ NA 15’-0” Yes
Height (Lowest floor to top of roof) 30’ NA 30’-0” Yes
Setbacks: Front
Side (East)
Side (West)
Rear (Shallow Lot)
Garage 5’
House 10’
8’
16’-5”
18’-6”
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
20’-4”
10’-0”
8’-0”
24’-0”
18’-6”
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:

Site History
On May 19, 2004, the City Council approved Lot line Adjustment 04-01 to reconfigure the lot lines associated with four legal building sites. Two of the lots front Morningside Drive and two lots front Bluebird Canyon Drive. On June 13, 2024, an administrative approval was made by the Director of Community Development for an SB9 urban lot split (Tentative Parcel Map No. 2024-117) that created the Attachment 7 127
128 of 654
DR 24-2586, CDP 24-2588, REP 24-2587
5/8/2025

Page 4 ends

vacant project site. An application to develop the property in its current lot configuration has never been subject to design review.

The uphill sloping lot is 12,364 square feet with an average lot slope of 21.7%. The front property line is located approximately 10 feet back and 10 feet above the existing paved street as shown on Section AA on Sheet C-2, in the project plans (Attachment 1). The building site abuts 1540 Bluebird Canyon Drive, which contains a detached single-story, single-family home, and two vacant building lots to the north and east .

The vacant site to the north at 1536 Morningside was recently approved for the development of a singlefamily residence by the City Council on April 22, 2025.

Proposed Project
The proposed project includes the construction of a 4,644 square-foot two-story single-family dwelling with an attached subterranean-level 1,028 square-foot oversized three-car tandem garage. Access to the garage is provided by a 127-foot-long driveway, 419 square feet of elevated decks, a spa, a water feature (pond), grading, retaining walls, and landscaping. Grading is described as 2,100 cubic yards of cut, 200 yards of fill and 1900 cubic yards of export. The new development requires design review and proposed improvements within the unimproved portion of the public right-of-way requires a revocable encroachment permit. A coastal development permit is required for the new single-family dwelling located in the Coastal Zone. The coastal development permit determination is not appealable to the California Coastal Commission.

ENTITLEMENTS: Included within this staff report is an analysis of the following entitlements: design review, coastal development permit, and revocable encroachment permit.

Design Review
The property development standards as delineated in each zone are intended to provide the City with maximum flexibility and discretion in the decision-making process, based upon the particular issues and circumstances in effect at the time development is proposed. These standards shall represent the maximum allowable building envelope for a given property. The actual development allowed after the application of the design review criteria will typically be less than the maximum designated by the general standards for the zone because of localized conditions identified during the design review process. A proposed development that has no variances from the Zoning Code does not have any presumptive development right or "entitlement." (LBMC Section 25.05.040)
The following elements require design review: new structure, covered/tandem parking, vehicular access, elevated decks, spa, water feature, grading, retaining walls, and landscaping. Design review is governed by Laguna Beach Municipal Code Section 25.05.040. Design Review is considered by the Design Review Board at a duly noticed public hearing where the following findings are considered in relation to the proposed development:

Finding No. 1: Physical improvements and site developments related to the Project are designed and located in a manner in overall consistency with the design review criteria specified in Section 25.05.040(H), as set forth below:

Attachment 7 128
129 of 654
DR 24-2586, CDP 24-2588, REP 24-2587
5/8/2025

Page 5 ends

1. Access. Conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians and other modes of transportation should be minimized by specifically providing for each applicable mode of transportation. Handicapped access shall be provided as required by applicable statutes.

The proposed long S-shaped driveway, measuring 127 feet, is steeply sloped and includes multiple sharp turns to access a side-entry garage located approximately 17 feet above street level. A backup area is included to allow vehicles to turn around and exit the property facing forward. The driveway spans nearly the full width of the lot frontage, diagonally crossing the front slope as it ascends at the maximum permitted average grade.

Due to the steep slope of the lot, the property qualifies for a reduced front setback, allowing the garage to be situated as close as five feet from the front property line. However, as currently designed, the garage is set back 20 feet and 4 inches from the front property line.

A three-foot-wide firefighter access path and stairway have been provided around the entire structure. These stairs offer access from the public street to the main entrance of the proposed residence and serve as firefighter access for both the subject property and the proposed residence on the adjacent lot to the east. An easement is required to allow the neighboring property to share a portion of the proposed firefighter access. A condition of approval will be necessary to formalize this access arrangement.

The required parallel public parking space has been accommodated by cutting into the hillside and constructing retaining walls that reach heights of up to 12 feet 6 inches. Planting pockets are proposed at the base of the walls to support vine growth, which will help screen and soften the appearance of the tallest sections.

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.

Attachment 7 129
130 of 654
DR 24-2586, CDP 24-2588, REP 24-2587
5/8/2025

Page 6 ends

Figure 1: Proposed Street Elevation
(Retaining walls required for the driveway on site and in the public right-of-way are not shown) The proposed building would be situated near the top of the lot, set back 18 feet 6 inches from the rear property line, with the highest roof extending 15 feet above that line. Except for the cantilevered dining room element, the structure generally steps back to follow the natural slope of the hillside and remains within the allowable building envelope. However, by positioning the structure higher on the lot, the project results in a more prominent visual mass than positioning the structure lower on the lot. From the street, the building appears as a four-story structure: the driveway retaining wall presents as the first story, the garage as the second, followed by two additional stories of living space above.

An additional third onsite parking space is required because the proposed living area exceeds 3,600 square feet. This additional space is not required to be covered. The Design Review Board (DRB) must determine whether the proposed covered parking space contributes to an increased appearance of mass and bulk. Alternatively, converting the additional covered parking area to living space could potentially reduce the perceived mass of the structure.

Additionally, the third parking space is proposed in a tandem configuration. As currently designed, maneuvering the tandem vehicle may be challenging, as accessing the first vehicle would require relocating the second and third vehicle to the street which may be an impediment for safe and effective ingress and egress.

Retaining walls exceeding five feet in height contribute to the appearance of excessive mass and scale. The applicant is encouraged to explore alternative design solutions that would site the home closer to the street and reorient the garage entry. This approach could eliminate the need for a long driveway, thereby reducing the number of retaining walls and avoiding the appearance of a fourth story while maintaining the square footage of the property.

Attachment 7 130
131 of 654
DR 24-2586, CDP 24-2588, REP 24-2587
5/8/2025

Page 7 ends

In contrast, existing homes on the opposite, downhill side of Bluebird Canyon Drive generally step down the slope and appear as one- to two-story structures when viewed from the street, maintaining a more modest streetscape profile.

3. Design Integrity: Consistency with the applicant’s chosen style of architecture should be achieved using appropriate materials and details. Remodels should be harmonious with the remaining existing architecture.

Yes. The proposed modern architectural style materials include board-formed concrete, stucco, wood screens, and expansive glass with simple black frames. The building is primarily white with gray colored concrete and wood. Seamless glass railings are proposed around the uppermost deck that is surrounded by a green roof.

4. Environmental Context: Development should preserve and, where possible, enhance the city’s scenic natural setting. Natural features, such as existing heritage trees, rock out-cropping, ridgelines and significant watercourses should be protected. Existing terrain should be utilized in the design and grading should be minimized.

Yes. There are no natural scenic features present on the site. Grading export of 1,900 cubic yards is proposed with 110 cubic yards for the proposed public street improvements. The proposed grading export amount is consistent with other hillside development in the city especially when required to provide a public parking space. Additional grading quantities could be considered to lower the structure to preserve the pattern of development and avoid the appearance of mass.

5. General Plan Compliance: The development shall comply with all applicable policies of the General Plan, including all its elements, applicable specific plans, and the certified local coastal program.

The project does not comply with the certified local coastal program and staff has concerns about the following general plan policies as discussed below:

LU Element (LUE) 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.

As discussed under the Neighborhood Compatibility criterion (No. 9), the proposed project is in a neighborhood with diverse architectural styles. The architectural style and materials of the proposed home are compatible with the surrounding residences; however, the massing is out of scale with the neighborhood. As noted above, it is recommended that the home be sited closer to the street and in a manner that does not span four levels above the street. Additionally, it is recommended under the Design Articulation Criteria (No. 2 above), to reduce the overall appearance of mass.

Page 8 ends

significant onsite resources, and protect public views as specified in the Design Guidelines and the Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document.

The proposed project does not impact any public views, and no natural topographic features or significant onsite resources exist. Alteration of the natural topography is necessary for hillside development; however, siting the home closer to the street or reducing the building footprint would preserve more lot area for vegetation which would better integrate the home into the site.

The subject property is located within an established neighborhood. A one-story home exists directly adjacent to the west at 1540 Bluebird Canyon Drive and two vacant building sites are located to the east side and rear. As noted under the Neighborhood Compatibility heading below, the proposed project is not visually compatible with the existing homes in the neighborhood and grading activity should be near the developed street to minimize environmental impacts.

6. Historic Preservation: Destruction or alteration to historic resources should be avoided whenever possible. See Chapter 25.45 for more information.

N/A. The project site is vacant and does not contain historic resources. There are no historic resources abutting the site that would be impacted by the proposed Project.

7. Landscaping: Landscaping shall be incorporated as an integrated part of the structure’s design and relate harmoniously to neighborhood and community landscaping themes. View equity shall be an important consideration in the landscape design. The relevant landscaping guidelines contained in the City’s “Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document” should be incorporated, as appropriate, in the design and planned maintenance of proposed landscaping.

Yes. The Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document provides suggested large, medium, and small trees for Bluebird Canyon Neighborhood #7. The proposed landscape plan, provided as sheet L-2.0, includes a mix of shrubs (18 inches to 10 feet high), groundcover, and vines. Nine trees are proposed in three groupings of three per type ranging in height from 12 feet to 25 feet. The trees help soften the appearance of the retaining walls and building mass.

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, highgloss 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.

The proposed use of extensive glazing may result in excessive sun reflection during the day and interior light spillage at night. Reducing glazing and using a darker stucco color to blend with the hillside will minimize glare.

Attachment 7 132
133 of 654
DR 24-2586, CDP 24-2588, REP 24-2587
5/8/2025

Page 9 ends

Proposed building lighting is shown on Sheet A6.3 and includes nine indirect recessed wall lights located at all exit doors as required by the building code. Proposed site lighting shown on Sheet L4.0 includes a mix of path lights (22), down lights (7), wall mounted down lights (15), and step lights (10). All fixtures are shielded and directed downward to minimize light impacts on adjacent properties.

Figure 2: Neighborhood Pattern of Development

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.

The property qualifies for a reduced setback due to the steep lot condition, with the garage allowed to be five feet from the front property line. The proposed garage setback set back 20’-4” in combination with the turn-in garage design has resulted in a 127-foot-long driveway using retaining walls greater than five feet to support the cut slope. A 216-foot-long driveway provides access to 1540 Bluebird Canyon Drive property which is directly adjacent, however the retaining walls for that driveway are less than five feet high and the existing one-story home is 1,715 square feet with a 420 square-foot two-car garage located at the rear of the home.

The DRB recently approved two new homes on adjacent vacant building sites that take access from Morningside Drive (1526 and 1536). However, neighbors filed appeals to the City Council on both projects. On July 9, 2024, the City Council remanded the 1526 Morningside Drive project to the DRB with direction to address garage design, design articulation, and neighborhood compatibility.

On April 22, 2025, the City Council denied the appeal of the 1536 Morningside Drive project and sustained the DRB approval of that project. Furthermore, on January 23, 2025, the DRB reviewed Attachment 7 133
134 of 654
DR 24-2586, CDP 24-2588, REP 24-2587
5/8/2025

Page 10 ends

an application for a new home on the adjacent lot addressed as 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive (Lot B) and tabled the project with direction to address access (long driveway), design articulation (mass and scale), lighting and glare (expansive glazing), and neighborhood compatibility. The chart below compares the subject project with the three projects noted above.

DESCRIPTION
DRB 5-8-25
1550 Bluebird Cyn Dr

SUBJECT PROPERTY
DRB 1-23-25
1560 Bluebird Cyn Dr

DRB TABLED
DRB 3-14-24
1526 Morningside Dr

CC APPEAL - REMAND
DRB 5-9-24
1536 Morningside Dr
CC APPEAL – DENIED

PROJECT APPROVED
LOT AREA 12,364 SF 8,582 SF 6,800 SF 13,866 SF
HEIGHT
Above rear lot line
Above lowest FF
Overall*
# of Stories
15’-0”
30’-0”
30’-0”
w/driveway ret. wall
3 (appears as 4)
15’-0”
29’-5”
31’-10”
47’-3” w/garage ret. wall
3 (appears as 4)
5’-0”
37’-9”
37’-9”
garage appears detached
3 (appears as 4)
DRB: reduce height 2’
(12’-5”) 10’-5”
(24’-5”) 22’-5”
(44’-1”) 42’-1”
two 2-story buildings
2/2 (appears as 4)
GARAGE
Front Setback
Driveway Length
3-car / side entry
20’-4”
127’
2-car / side entry
10’-3”
150’
2-car / nose-in
10’-2”
21’-0”
2-car / side entry
7’-6”
50’-0”
HOUSE
Front Setback
Rear Setback
Side Setback
Side Setback
10’-0”
18’-6”
8’-0”
16’-5”
21’-4”
19’-7”
4’-0”
15’-7”
22’-0”
16’-0”
5’-0”
12’-0”
13’-7”
16’-0”
20’-2”
39’-4”
LIVING AREA 4,644 SF 3,598 SF 3,542 SF 2,372 SF
ADU NA NA NA 848 SF
GARAGE 1,028 SF 553 SF 652 SF 565 SF
ELEVATED DECK 419 SF 897 SF 572 SF 398 SF
MECHANICAL 217 SF 51 SF 37 SF 198 SF
TOTAL PROGRAM 6,308 SF 5,099 SF 4,803 SF 4,381 SF

SITE COVERAGE
(% of net lot area)
3,699 SF
(29.9%)
2,998 SF
(34.9%)
2,563 SF
(37.6%)
2,504 Sf
(18.0%)

LANDSCAPE

OPEN SPACE
3,493 SF
(35.5%)
2,166 SF
(25.3%)
2,204 SF
(32.4%)
7,750 SF
(55.9%)

IMPERVIOUS

SURFACES
7,728 SF
(62.4%)
4,887 SF
(56.9%)
3,373 SF
(49.6%)
4,995 SF
(35%)
GRADING EXPORT 1,900 CY 1,414 CY 1,221 CY 1,720 CY
*Height measured from the garage finished floor to the top of highest roof.

Attachment 7 134
135 of 654
DR 24-2586, CDP 24-2588, REP 24-2587
5/8/2025

Page 11 ends

1526 Morningside Drive
DRB conditions: Relate to lighting & landscaping CC Appeal: Remand to DRB to address garage design, design articulation & neighborhood compatibility
1536 Morningside Drive
DRB conditions: Relate to lighting, landscaping and roof reduction of 2 feet
PC: Approved indirect access variance
CC: Denied appeal
CC: Approved access easement

LOT A
1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive

SUBJECT PROPERTY
LOT B
1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive
DRB: Tabled with DRB direction to address access (long
driveway), design articulation (mass and scale), lighting and glare (expansive glazing), and neighborhood compatibility

Comparing the street front elevations of the four projects, they appear very similar in overall height.

The proposed project appears as four stories like the other three homes. The driveway is 23 feet shorter than Lot B, because the lot is wider. The DRB required the 1536 Morningside Drive project to reduce the top roof height by two feet. Retaining walls greater than five feet are unavoidable to provide the required public parking space and are not shown on the elevations above for the Lot A and Lot B. The DRB approved tall retaining walls at 1536 Morningside Drive that are offset to allow for the main entry steps; the lower wall is shown brown, and the upper wall is shown gray.

Again, the City Council sustained the appeal of the approvals for 1536 Morningside on April 22, 2025.

Lastly, as noted above, the 1526 Morningside Drive project will be considered at a future DRB meeting. Since the City Council denied the appeal at 1526, this home could be used to define the pattern of development in the neighborhood. Furthermore, the DRB comments on Lot B (1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive) at the January 23, 2025, DRB meeting should also be considered. Here the DRB direction was to address access (long driveway), design articulation (mass and scale), lighting and glare (expansive glazing), and neighborhood compatibility.

Attachment 7 135
136 of 654
DR 24-2586, CDP 24-2588, REP 24-2587
5/8/2025

Page 12 ends

10. Pedestrian Orientation: Commercial development design shall enhance and encourage pedestrian uses. Incorporation of articulated building masses, compact open spaces and courtyards, mixed use developments, use of landscaping as part of design, and orientation to pedestrian access should be maximized.

N/A. Design Review Criteria for Pedestrian Orientation is related to commercial development and is not applicable to the proposed project.

11. Privacy: The placement of activity areas (e.g., decks, picture windows and ceremonial or entertainment rooms) in locations that would result in a substantial invasion of privacy of neighboring properties should be minimized.

The directly adjacent neighbor (1540 Bluebird Canyon Drive) has expressed privacy concerns relative to the west elevation orientation and driveway access. The middle level of the home has been designed with main activity areas that enjoy ocean views across the adjacent property a patio, a spa, and floor to ceiling glazing from the main living areas (Kitchen, Family and Dining Room).

The top level is designed with a deck surrounded by a green roof. Floor to ceiling glazing could be minimized or screened to mitigate privacy concerns.

Figure 3: Activity areas on proposed on west side of building

12. Public Art: Public art is encouraged and shall be displayed where feasible or required by the Art in Public Places ordinance.

N/A. Design Review Criteria for Public Art is related to commercial development and is not applicable to the proposed project.

13. Sign Quality: Signs shall be incorporated into the architecture of the structure and shall be made of high-quality materials, be simple in design and be visually compatible with the surrounding Attachment 7 136
137 of 654
DR 24-2586, CDP 24-2588, REP 24-2587
5/8/2025

Page 13 ends

physical environment in terms of color, scale and size. Use of natural materials in the construction of signs is encouraged.

N/A. Design Review Criteria for Signage is related to commercial development and is not applicable to the proposed project.

14. Sustainability: New development should consider architecture and building practices which minimize environmental impacts and enhance energy efficiency by: (a) reducing energy needs of buildings by proper site and structural design; (b) increasing the building’s ability to capture or generate energy; (c) using low-impact, sustainable and recycled building materials; (d) using the latest Best Management Practices regarding waste and water management; and (e) reducing site emissions.

Yes. New construction is required to meet Title 24 Energy and Building Code requirements, which include insulated windows and energy efficient lighting. The applicant will be required to provide proof of compliance. Further, the applicant will be required to reuse, recycle, or divert at least 50 percent of the project’s construction and demolition debris. The proposed design also includes the means for future installation of solar panels to further sustainability goals.

15. Swimming Pools, Spas, and Water Features: Swimming pools, spas and water features shall be located, designed and constructed where: (a) geology conditions allow; (b) noise produced by circulatory mechanical pumps and equipment is mitigated; and (c) any associated fencing or other site improvements are compatible with neighboring properties.

Yes. The spa is in a location where geological conditions allow, and the equipment is located within the garage. A standard condition of approval will limit the hours of operation of the equipment between the hours of 9:00 AM and 9:00 PM. The spa requires a cover. Six-foot-tall pool security fencing is proposed which encloses the yard.

The spa is integrated into a reflecting pond and spills over an infinity edge. The project renderings show the spa elevated above the driveway and garage which is cut 10 feet below grade.

Figure 4: Grading Section shows spa above the driveway and garage Attachment 7 137
138 of 654
DR 24-2586, CDP 24-2588, REP 24-2587
5/8/2025

Page 14 ends

16. View Equity: The development, including its landscaping, shall be designed to protect existing views from neighboring properties without denying the subject property the reasonable opportunity to develop as described and illustrated in the City’s “Design Guidelines.” The “Design Guidelines” are intended to balance preservation of views with the right to develop property.

The concept of view equity is intended to balance the property owner’s right to reasonably develop their home while maintaining as much of the neighbor’s view corridors as feasible. The property owner of 1526 Morningside Drive contends that the project does not provide view equity. The DRB members should visit the property to view the staking to determine if view equity has been achieved.

Finding No. 2. The physical improvements and site developments related to the Project are designed and located in a manner in overall consistency with all other applicable design guidelines.

See above.

Finding No. 3. The physical improvements and site developments related to the Project are characterized by appropriately scaled development, diverse and unique architectural designs, pedestrian orientation, and sensitivity to the natural conditions of the site.

Staff's concerns center on the excessive appearance of mass and scale of the proposed development, which appears out of character with the neighborhood, partly due to its four-story appearance and extensive use of retaining walls up to 12’-6” high. The 150-foot-long driveway, required for the side-entry garage, contributes to significant grading (1,900 cubic yards) and environmental impacts, and staff suggests re-siting the home closer to the street to reduce these effects. Additionally, the extensive glazing may result in glare and light spillage, and the overall design does not sufficiently integrate with the natural topography or adhere to policies aimed at maintaining neighborhood diversity and scale. Recommendations include re-siting the home, reducing glazing, addressing privacy and view equity concerns, and adopting a more neutral color palette to mitigate visual and environmental impacts.

Finding No. 4. The project is consistent with any specific plan or any other specific zoning design review criteria.

N/A. The project is not subject to other specific plans or additional design review criteria other than the Residential Design Review Guidelines, as explained above.

Revocable Encroachment Permit
The applicant requests an approval of a revocable encroachment permit to construct and maintain retaining walls, steps, walkway, irrigation, and metal gate in the unimproved portion of the public right-of-way. A revocable encroachment permit may be granted by the Design Review Board if the improvements will not interfere with the present and prospective public use of a street or right-of-way and will generally conform to the following requirements:

Attachment 7 138
139 of 654
DR 24-2586, CDP 24-2588, REP 24-2587
5/8/2025

Page 15 ends

Finding No. 1: It should be located in a manner that is not hazardous to the traveling public, including motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians.

The proposed encroachments (retaining walls, steps, walkway, irrigation, and metal gate) are located to not interfere with existing and proposed public street improvements. A final street curb and gutter improvement plan will be required to improve the function and safety of the street.

Finding No. 2: It should be sufficiently set back from the edge of pavement or street centerline to provide adequate travel, parking, and walking lanes.

The proposed encroachments are setback sufficiently to provide adequate travel lanes.

Finding No. 3: 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.

The proposed encroachments would not conflict with any preexisting or proposed utility structures.

Finding No. 4: It will not preclude public access, use or enjoyment of any area that has historically established such access, use or enjoyment.

The proposed walls and stairs will not preclude public access or use of the street.

Finding No. 5: 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.

Neighboring properties on the street have similar encroachments. Therefore, the proposed encroachment would not be precedent setting.

Finding No. 6: It does not create structures of unusual or unacceptable appearance, form, shape or height that detract from the general quality of the streetscape.

The proposed encroachments would not detract from the general quality of the streetscape.

Coastal Development Permit
The proposed single-family dwelling requires the approval of a coastal development permit. (See LBMC Section 25.07.004.) Coastal Development Permits are governed by Laguna Beach Municipal Code Chapter

25.07. A Coastal Development Permit is considered by the Design Review Board at a duly noticed public hearing where the following findings are considered in relation to the proposed development:

Finding No. 1: The project is in conformity with all the applicable provisions of the certified local coastal program, including the following review criteria:

Attachment 7 139
140 of 654
DR 24-2586, CDP 24-2588, REP 24-2587
5/8/2025

Page 16 ends

The proposed development will not modify any existing physical accessway utilized by the public or identified in the adopted local coastal program land use plan in that development is limited to the subject lot, which does not provide any such accessways, and a proposed public parking space will be provided in the widened right-of-way; therefore, this finding can be made.

2. The proposed development will not adversely affect marine resources, environmentally sensitive areas, or archaeological or paleontological resources.

No marine resources, environmentally sensitive areas or archaeological or paleontological resources have been identified on the project site.

3. The proposed development will not adversely affect recreational or visitor-serving facilities or coastal scenic resources.

No recreational, visitor-serving or coastal resources have been identified on the project site.

No environmentally sensitive habitats have been identified on the project site. Furthermore, the site is not located adjacent to parks and recreation areas and scenic resources

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.

The proposed development includes grading export of 1,900 cubic yards. As described in the “environmental context” criterion above, this amount of grading is reasonable given the required public street improvements and the hillside development. Further, the preliminary geotechnical investigation found that the proposed development is geotechnically feasible and fire protection measures will be incorporated into the project as required by the Building Department.

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.

The property qualifies for a reduced setback due to the steep lot condition, with the garage allowed to be five feet from the front property line. The proposed garage setback set back 20’-4” in combination with the turn-in garage design has resulted in a 127-foot-long driveway using retaining walls greater than five feet to support the cut slope. A 216-foot-long driveway provides access to 1540 Bluebird Canyon Drive property which is directly adjacent, however the retaining walls for that driveway are less than five feet high and the existing one-story home is 1,715 square feet with Attachment 7 140
141 of 654
DR 24-2586, CDP 24-2588, REP 24-2587
5/8/2025

Page 17 ends

a 420 square-foot two-car garage located at the rear of the home. Thus, the combination of the 127- foot long driveway with a 4,644 square-foot home with a 1,028 square foot 3-car garage is visually incompatible with the neighboring property.

On April 22, 2025, the City Council denied the appeal of the 1536 Morningside Drive project. This project at 1536 Morningside is 2,372 square feet of living area with smaller cite coverage than the proposed project. The DRB required the 1536 Morningside Drive project to reduce the top roof height by two feet.

Further, other properties in the area do not have the same mass and scale as the proposed project due to its location on the site (higher up the hill) and larger size. Thus, the proposed project is not visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas due to its unique size, mass, scale and location on the site which is higher up the hill.

7. The proposed development will not have any adverse impacts on any known archaeological or paleontological resource.

No archaeological or paleontological resources have been identified on the project site.

8. The proposed development will be provided with adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities.

9. Other public services, including, but not limited to, solid waste and public roadway capacity have been considered and are adequate to serve the proposed development.

The site is considered adequate to provide solid waste service and the roadways are considered adequate to serve the proposed single-family development, which is typical for this area.

The project is not consistent with all applicable policies of the Certified LCP.

LCP COASTAL VIEW POLICIES (CDP)
Land Use Element (LU) Policies 2.1, 2.8, and 7.3
See responses to Design Review criteria No. 5 General Plan Compliance above.

Attachment 7 141
142 of 654
DR 24-2586, CDP 24-2588, REP 24-2587
5/8/2025

Page 18 ends

See responses to CDP criteria No. 6 above.

LCP DOCUMENTS
The project must conform with all the following applicable documents of the Certified LCP.

1. Coastal Land Use Plan Technical Appendix (1984)

2. Design Guidelines - A Guide to Residential Development (2010)

3. Fuel Modification Guidelines (1989)

4. Chapter 14.78 Geology Reports - Preparation and Requirements (2005)

5. Land Use Element (2012)

6. Title 21 - Plats and Subdivision (1991)

7. Title 22 - Excavation and Grading (2004)

The subject property is not located between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea.

Finding No. 3. The proposed development will not have any significant adverse impacts on the environment within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act.

As described in the staff report, the project does not have adverse environmental impacts. The project will not cause any significant adverse impacts on the environment and qualifies for a categorical exemption (as described in the Environmental Impact section below) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, the project qualifies for a categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15303 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, in that the project consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small structures. There is no evidence of any unusual or special conditions that would result in a significant effect on the environment. Here, the proposed project consists of a new single-family dwelling on a vacant lot zoned for single-family use.

Attachment 7 142
143 of 654
DR 24-2586, CDP 24-2588, REP 24-2587
5/8/2025

Page 19 ends

Further, none of the exceptions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply. The project site does not contain any environmentally sensitive areas. There will be no cumulative impact resulting from successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time in that the proposed project involves construction of a new single-family dwelling on a vacant building site within an established neighborhood.

There are no unusual circumstances resulting in a significant impact on the environment. There will be no damage to scenic resources, including trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. The project is not located on a hazardous waste site, or any other site included on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. The project will not result in significant adverse impacts to historical resources as defined by CEQA.

Consequently, additional environmental analysis is not necessary to meet the requirements of the CEQA.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff has not attached a resolution for approval and recommends the Board, after holding a public hearing, provide direction to the applicant. If the Design Review Board determines that the project is consistent with the access, design articulation, general plan compliance, lighting and glare, neighborhood compatibility, privacy, and view equity design review criteria and can make the findings for the Coastal Development Permit, then it is recommended that the Board provide direction to staff to prepare a resolution of approval at a future hearing.

NOTIFICATION:

Pursuant to Title 25 (Zoning) Public Notice, a public hearing notice has been mailed at least twenty-one (21) days prior to the hearing date in accordance with Title 25. In addition, a public hearing notice has been posted on the project site at least 10 days in advance of the hearing date.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Prior to the initial staking installation for the February 27, 2025, DRB meeting, two neighbors expressed concerns relating to incompatibility of the project with the area’s scale, character, and design guidelines.

The contemporary design, with excessive glazing, expansive decks, and long driveway requiring tall retaining walls, is inconsistent with Bluebird Canyon’s traditional aesthetic, which typically features streetlevel garages, shared driveways, and more subdued architectural styles. Its prominent hilltop position, lack of sufficient landscaping, and large uppermost deck creates intrusive nighttime lighting, and exacerbate the structure’s imposing presence. Neighbors are also concerned with the development’s potential safety and infrastructure challenges, including narrow road access, utility relocations, geological risks, and disruptive construction impacts. The neighbors suggest reducing height, glazing, and massing, reorienting the design, incorporating robust landscaping, and addressing infrastructure improvements to better integrate the project into the neighborhood.

After the staking was installed for the initial hearing, public comments were received from the vacant property owner of 1526 Morningside Drive whose new home is currently pending DRB review. He contends that the project does not comply with design review criteria for height, mass, garage configuration, amount of glazing, landscaping, privacy relative to the spa location, and view equity.

Attachment 7 143
144 of 654
DR 24-2586, CDP 24-2588, REP 24-2587
5/8/2025

Page 20 ends

Revisions to the project designed by Horst Architects include the lowering of some retaining walls, a reduction in deck area, a cantilevered projection (Dining Room), relocating the spa, and incorporating additional landscaping.

Public comments received to date are provided in Attachment 8.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1 – Project Plans
Attachment 2 – Certified Staking Plan
Attachment 3 – Renderings
Attachment 4 – Colors and Materials
Attachment 5 – Geotechnical Report
Attachment 6 – Alternative Material & Methods
Attachment 7 – Revocable Encroachment Plan
Attachment 8 – Public Comments
Attachment 7 144
145 of 654
Attachment 8
145
146 of 654
Attachment 8
146
147 of 654
Attachment 8
147
148 of 654
Attachment 8
148
149 of 654
Attachment 8
149
150 of 654
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
May 5, 2025
Design Review Board
City of Laguna Beach
505 Forest Avenue
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
RE: 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive (Lot A)/APN:not assignedDesign Review 24-2586, Coastal Development Permit 24-2588
Dear Chair and Members of the Design Review Board,
I am writing to oppose the above development. Mr. Dyrnaes is submitting a plan which is almost the same home he proposed for 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive except it is 5000+ square feet! His plan for 1560 Bluebird was tabled by the DRB 5 to 0. I was hoping with a new architect, there would be an acceptable structure in our neighborhood that I could support. Unfortunately, that is not the case. In fact, the house is even more unacceptable in that it’s placement on the crest of the ridge dominates the neighborhood worse than the original plan did!

1. Neighborhood Compatibility
The size and scale of this proposed home is a huge intrusion into our neighborhood. This house, plopped on top of the knoll, towers over other neighborhood homes, including my own, like a fortress.

The homes in the immediate area are smaller and are terraced down the slope. It is critical that the size, elevation, and scale of this house be reduced with more of it built into the hill and not placed atop the knoll.

2. Garage and retaining walls
Why is the garage not at street level like most Bluebird homes? This would make it more compatible and lower the height of the house.

3. View Equity
The location of the house on the property at the crest of the knoll maximizes the view of the new home at the expense of many neighboring homes and future homes on the knoll. Please ensure view protection of my home and other homes in our neighborhood. This new structure will impact the view from my home in an extremely negative way.

4. Noise Impact-How will the noise generated by a home this size with decking and possibly a spa impact the serenity of this canyon neighborhood? It just doesn’t belong here!

5. Impact on Privacy
The proposed home placed on the crest of the knoll, will impact the privacy of my and nearby homes on both Bluebird Canyon and Morningside Drive. Changes to elevation, lot placement and mass would mitigate this invasion of privacy. When I walk out my front door, I will see nothing but a huge massive structure on the top of the knoll invading my privacy.

6. Lighting & Glare
Most neighbors, including myself, would look directly at the front interior and exterior lights. On a house this massive with so much glass, it would look like a nightclub venue, destroying the ambience of our tranquil neighborhood.

Attachment 9
150
151 of 654

7. Sunlight
The height of this structure, above the ridgeline, impacts neighbors in winter and early spring when the sun is low in the sky. Blocking sunlight is an issue.

8. Parking
A project of this size generates many cars. With very restricted parking on Bluebird Canyon, where are the residents (who generally use garages for storage not parking), guests, and workers going to park? Probably on Morningside Drive which already has a major parking and traffic problem.

Normally, at least six cars are parked from the corner of Bluebird up to the first home on Morningside (my home). During and after construction, the parking issues will be continuous. Adding more vehicles to the mix will hinder the ability to evacuate this canyon in case of fire or earthquake. I would hate another tragedy like the Paradise Camp Fire to happen here! Although a buildable lot, this is a very difficult parcel to develop, a fact that Mr. Dyrnaes knew when he purchased and split this lot. He has been extremely inflexible in his dealings with the neighborhood. I hope the Design Review board will consider the concerns of the existing homeowners and use your knowledge of hillside development to keep this project compatible with our neighborhood. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Rosanne Beam
Attachment 9
151
152 of 654
May 8th, 2025
Design Review Board
c/o Planning Department
City of Laguna Beach
505 Forest Avenue
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
RE: 1550 Bluebird Canyon Road – May 8th MeeƟng - DR 24-2586, CDP 24-2588, REP 24-2587 (aka 1560 BCD/Lot A)
Dear Board Members,
The leƩer I sent to MaƩ on Monday was directed to planning and a request to fix the unfair staff report published last Thursday night. You were copied as it contained substanƟal supporƟng details for your reference and comparison against all the claims and statements made by neighbors and in the staff report. For your benefit, the most relevant elements are summarized here and hope you review this and consider it carefully during your deliberaƟons today.

As a long Ɵme, Laguna Beach resident and having been on both sides of the DRB applicaƟon and also appeal process, I understand well the need for it and believe it in. There is almost no lot that doesn’t have some unique elements and non-standard impact on the neighbors that just can’t fit into the defined, objecƟve code standards. It is simply impossible to have one uniform municipal code and general plan guidelines that can easily be applied to all properƟes uniformly. This creates a gap in ciƟes like Laguna that needs bridging where the fine adjustments to achieve neighbor-to-neighbor balance & equity must have its ‘Solomon’.

State code provides some guidance instrucƟng each municipality that employs a discreƟonary design review process which contains subjecƟve criteria to ensure it is based on related objecƟve standards. This is where challenges exist for Laguna’s current process. Things like the size of a home is one of those criteria. Our proposed home fully meets city code requirements, is within the legal setbacks and height envelope. It is a reasonable size given the unique condiƟons of the lot and its large flat buildable area (see Exhibit 1). However, since Laguna dropped the max 50% FAR limit, there is no longer an ‘objecƟve’ standard for home size. To ensure our size fit within a neighborhood compaƟble context, we created a local objecƟve standard using a reasonable mix of the closest homes on Bluebird Canyon Drive; half built pre1970 and half built post-1970 (see Exhibits 2 & 3 below). We found an average FAR of 41% and all lots are smaller with only WhiƟn’s property at 1540 BCD being close in size. Our proposal is for a 38% FAR home with 15% larger SF than the largest of 15 homes selected and under 10% larger the largest on Morningside less than 300’ away. This home size is jusƟfied by a uniquely large flat area of 4656 SF (70 % of the 6679 SF within our legal buildable setback area).

Attachment 9
152
153 of 654
What is not an objecƟve criterion (explicitly prohibited by both state) is using a single home to and use it for subjecƟve, discreƟonary criteria such as for neighborhood compaƟbility. In parƟcular, using either 1540 BCD home or 1536 MD project are completely invalid comparisons. 1540 BCD’s home may be 1900 SF, but it is built directly aƩached to her garage (which is not hidden underground like Horst’s design of our home). With Susan’s large garage, her home looks like a huge building covering over 4000 SF of her lot area (her enƟre flat area). She had a long 216’ driveway, 23% slope, transiƟoning 20’ verƟcally up from the street onto her lot and screens the home from the street with high fire risk hedges, and not code compliant.

The 1536 MD recent approval is also not a valid comparison. StarƟng with its lack of buildable lot status due to requiring a variance for indirect access across the city owned lot. That requires, per municipal code, that planning and the board be stricter and allow less leeway for all other elements of consideraƟon in their approval. And yet, their 4-story home averages 51’ height above the street, projects more than 10’ above the ridgeline, grossly violates our privacy and presents the largest of all current project from appearance of mass as scale. Most importantly, it is built right from the edge of the street all 80’ up a nearly 30% slope to 4’ from the rear lot line (over 80’ north to south with the city lot). It includes a 60’ wide, over 20’ high retaining wall that is the definiƟon of poorly arƟculated mass and scale. It is simply unfathomable why it was approved and, if used as a comparison, can only be considered as a set of maximums that are now acceptable for elements directly compared to their such as what the reasonable maximum height of retaining walls (1550 BCD has 12’ maximum retaining walls).

The fundamental differences between both 1536 (and 1526) MD is the fact that 1550 BCD is only sloped on the south edge and almost half of the verƟcal transiƟon onto the lot is in the Right of Way (and not on the lot). To get onto the lot with minimal dirt export, and to be compliant with both general plan and hillside, requires a minimum 90’ driveway. That is a minimum of 9’ verƟcal to get from the highest point on the street to the lowest point on the legal setbacks. The change from the David Parker design to the Horst design places the garage underground and further away from the street and 1540 BCD home. The verƟcal change is 13’ total (not 17’ stated in the staff report) and the driveway increased to nearly 140’ length, with sƟll only the mandatory minimum 90’ visible from the street. This same change increases dirt export by 500 CY to 1900 CY (10% larger than 1536 MD), but a necessary trade off to greatly improve/reduce hillside arƟculaƟon, mass and scale and improved property separaƟon.

If you are going to compare individual homes, the comparisons must be fair and jusƟfied. No one home, either approved within the last month or built in 1947 can set the standard or limit for the hillside. And while I respect the rights of the neighbors to make whatever statements and claims they believe are important and true, the fact and rules under both municipal and Attachment 9
153
154 of 654
state code is what must be considered. The rest of their comments are all simply rhetoric and distract from the key issues at hand. Especially when they focus on things that are mandatory like the mandatory on-street parking, 12’ high retaining walls for that parking (which are 2’ higher due to 2’ of addiƟonal street widening which is also mandatory due to neighbor’s encroachment on the south side of the street).

The most important facts are that our home siƟng has been squeezed into the most narrow and highly setback posiƟon possible up against the rear and east setbacks. The closest neighbor lot line by far is with 1560 BCD. 90% of the building is located in the legal setback area on the top of the hill (above 490’ elevaƟon; see Exhibit 1). If the board were to aƩempt to deny the placement of our home in this locaƟon, it would be an illegal ‘taking’ and a violaƟon of our rights. There is no raƟonal to move the garage to the street as it would be unsafe and the claims in the staff report are simply false as such a move would actually increase the appearance of mass and scale. The home’s placements is consistent with the paƩern of development on the south ridgeline (see 1540 BCD and 1480 & 1486 MC). The driveway is also consistent with the paƩern of development in the immediate area for homes with verƟcal, uphill transiƟons (1540 BCD & 1313, 1339 MD). There is no way to eliminate a long driveway and no way to share it with the neighboring 1560 BCD property (nor would we ever consider it even if it were possible).

What is very concerning is the significant misleading statements found in the staff report. With the removal of the recommendaƟon for approval, it is simply unjust and usurps the authority of the DRB by denying an approval (with or without condiƟons). Combined with the fact that, since the original applicaƟon submiƩed in August of last year, we have never seen ANY of this detailed concern or criƟcism from Planning Staff (valid or not), it is something that must change. Especially given the lack of any objecƟve criteria used for the DR review that could at least get us into a readably close ballpark when we approach the DRB review and public hearing. DirecƟng us to re-site the garage, driveway or home at this point in the process is simply impossible and would be problemaƟc if recommended by the Board this evening.

The applicaƟon as presented is fully code compliant, requires no variances, meets all general plan, hillside guideline, landscaping & fire code. Building/Fire has cleared the Fire Safety AM&M report. It meets all DR criteria (privacy, view equity and neighborhood compaƟbility), CDP criteria and the REP has already been approved by Public Works. The Board must decide based on subjecƟve criteria regarding privacy, view equity and neighborhood compaƟbility; all of which have been greatly exceeded to beyond anything reasonable or equitable. This includes the Cover’s claim of view impact when we kept their enƟre westerly view from their home clear of obstrucƟon and the trees they complain about are now were added due to the unjusƟfied height of their 4th floor. This 4th floor now dominates the view over our only outside paƟo (the Attachment 9
154
155 of 654
remaining 419 SF on the north side of the home). I know that not everyone is perfect, but why the board approved that 50’ high, 4 story home when their staff report recommended removing the top floor completely sƟll baffles me today.

We strongly urge you to consider including a recommendaƟon for approval for tonight’s agenda. We would be happy to hear feedback on any refinements to Horst’s new redesign of the home and its placement. However, please understand that the overall siƟng of the home, garage and driveway are far past the point of considering any addiƟonal major changes. Horst’s redesign squeezed the last blood from that stone. Further, unlike what the staff report says, this home now presents as a 2 story home, visibly averages around 13’ height (2’ below the building envelope). Also, because we can’t hide it from the street with big hedges like all the neighbors, Horst’s design creates a new architectural statement that greatly enhances the overall neighborhood aestheƟc. The neighbors collaborated on this and no one neighbor’s concerns should substanƟally out weigh the balance between our rights to build and the collecƟve rights of all neighbors. This is especially problemaƟc when poliƟcs and undue influence infects this process and begins to make Solomon look like Stalin.

Respecƞully,
David Dyrnaes
(see aƩached Appendix & Exhibits)
Attachment 9
155
156 of 654
Exhibit 1 – Buildable In-setback area = 6679 SF; above 490’ = 4656 SF (70%):

Attachment 9
156
157 of 654
Exhibit 2 – 1500 & 1600 Block Size/FAR Comparison:

Exhibit 3 – LocaƟons of 1500 & 1600 block BCD homes with relevant MD homes:

Attachment 9
157
158 of 654
Exhibit 4 – 1313 & 1339 MD with long, uphill driveways (like 1540 BCD, not code compliant):

Attachment 9
158
159 of 654
Exhibit 5 –1520 & 1540 BCD Uphill Driveways (not code compliant):

Attachment 9
159
160 of 654
May 5th, 2025
Planning Department
City of Laguna Beach
505 Forest Avenue
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
RE: 1550 Bluebird Canyon Road – May 8th Meeting - DR 24-2586, CDP 24-2588, REP 24-2587 Matt,
We are pretty disappointed with the 1550 BCD staff report that came out on Thursday night. If not addressed before the meeting on Thursday, it is likely to lead us all down very dark path.

On April 22nd at the Cover home ( I watched the Council congratulate Planning Staff on the great improvements to plan processing timeframes. Yet keeping the Staff Report a secret until 1 week before the DRB meeting is a truly, toxic problem and causing delays, resubmission and stokes animosity between neighbors. This practice is simply unconscionable given the incredible amount of time, effort and expense put into these projects with almost no actual feedback.

The fact is, we have had a total of 3 hours of discussions with staff about both of the projects since last July (10 Months) since we first submitted and Nancy was finally assigned to them in late August. Other than the initial incomplete letters (which had little in them and nothing reflecting the actual contents of the Staff Report) we have had no feedback like the unfounded and unsupported rhetoric that has shown up in the Staff Reports.

The 1550 BCD staff report continues to makes unfounded and biased claims that we should resite the home, driveway and garage. This is simply impossible and we keep telling planning staff this and providing extensive substantiation regarding these design points. We expected the opportunity to work with staff to address any concerns they have well before investing the expense and delay time to go to a full DRB meeting and, after suffering through the abusive DRB meeting for 1560 BCD, we still proceeded to completely redesign both projects. Unfortunately, it seems little has changed. All our work and arguments are simply being ignored. Regardless, none of this is going change the facts regarding this lot and our design.

Below are a set of key points that are immutable (complete version in Appendix below) and is what we should have been allowed to discuss with staff in detail many months ago to avoid the situation we are all in now. If you really want to improve the Planning/DRB process, this secrecy around the Staff Report must be addressed. This also includes taking steps to prevent undue influence by city staff or officials with a conflict of interest. Further, under state law, all subjective Design Review criteria must be balanced with objective criteria. Currently, there is Attachment 9
160
161 of 654
nothing objective afforded us or considered in this process and many things in the 1550 BCD report are subjective, unfounded opinions mixed with misleading or factually false statements (which, unintended or otherwise, are easy to confirm as false; a sampler of this follows).

Key Facts about the 1550 BCD project: Our use of the RoW for lot access and the design and placement of the home, garage and driveway’s (see Exhibit 2 visual to help understand these points):
1) Driveway Length:
a. The current elevation of the proposed garage is at 480’. This is 13’ above the street from the driveway entry point; not 17’ that the staff report falsely claims. b. To minimize the driveway length for this lot, it must connect from the highest point on the street (467’) to the lowest point on the buildable setback area at 476’ in the southwest corner. This is a total of 9’ vertical minimum transition required just to access the lot’s buildable setback area.
c. The slope is currently 10% (1’ vertical to 10’ horizontal) due to fire access requirements. The street access at 467’ street high point insures minimum dirt export. So, regardless of the slope, 90’ is the absolute minimum driveway length to reach the buildable lot area. d. Using a 5’ front yard setback would only lower this by 2’ to 474’ (min. 7’ vertical), but our project uses the 10’ setback due to the width of the garage. e. This design also ensures a minimum dirt export volume by cutting the driveway’s south edge into the hill at the natural grade line. This is the best possible compliance to both the general plan and hillside guidelines. Lowering the driveway and garage would greatly increase the volume of dirt export and increase the garage separation from the home (The Horst design locates the home 90% on the top of the hill above 490’ elevation with the garage hidden from view underground at 480’).
f. There are also only 3 other homes in the immediate area with a long, uphill driveway that require >15’ vertical transition onto their buildable lot area. These are 1313 MD, 1323 MD and Whitin’s property at 1540 BCD. All have individual driveways (not shared as Whitin claims) and all access their lot from the highest point on the street exactly like our design.

This is the area’s pattern of development for a lot with these conditions. 1550 BCD is fully compliant for both max slope and length and requires no variances; none of the other examples are.
2) Garage (and Home) Placement:

Attachment 9
161
162 of 654
a. From the lowest point on the buildable setback area, it takes 4’ more to place the driveway into a legal position in the setback area.
b. The garage must face west to access and have a legal, on-site turn around in front of it. A south facing entry would greatly increase the appearance of mass and scale from the street and also increase the volume of export.
c. A driveway shorter than 130’ is simply impossible. Lowering the garage, home and driveway would not shorten the driveway, just unnecessarily increase dirt export volume and harm our rights to use the property.
d. Also, the concept of placing the garage at street level, facing the street is not a viable option and is patently ridiculous because it would create an insane amount of dirt export volume, it would create unsafe street navigation conditions, it would negatively impact ethe view and articulation on the hill… but it would still require a pedestrian, equipment ramp system moving things to the home (a mini-driveway) as a subterranean elevator will not suffice. e. The lot site isn’t sloped at about 30% like Cover’s or Riahi’s on MD, it is a steep, 1:1 vertical and then it is all hill with 75% of the lot above 490’ elevation. Building into the hill would not be terracing it per hillside guidelines, but simply building underground. f. When you get past the RoW, the garage placement is only 3’ above our lot line and the home sits directly on it. It appears as a 2-story home now (not 4 stories and the staff report falsely claims) because the entire garage is underground, in the hill. g. Our street widening of 2’ helps prevent impacting our neighbors across the street by forcing them to remove their street encroachments. This is something we would refuse to accommodate if our project was blocked by an unfair demand to relocate the garage at the street.
3) Right-of-Way Use:
a. The required minimum 9’ vertical transition (and the initial 90’ length of driveway) is actually caused completely by the 10’ high, 10’ wide Right-of-Way transition. (which we reduced and partly minimized by widening the street north by 2’). b. Our RoW is used for the initial 7’ of vertical driveway transition onto the lot. This is less than the 3 immediate neighbors whom share the same narrow street challenge use the RoW for exactly the same vertical transition to their lot’s buildable elevation. c. The driveways for 1540, 1545 & 1565 BCD all transition between 8’ to 10’ vertically (up or down) to get to their buildable lot area. 1545 & 1565’s homes actually are built up to and Attachment 9
162
163 of 654
even into the RoW. We expect fair use and treatment regarding our lot access through the RoW.

Ultimately, the suggested changes to our driveway, garage and home siting only serve to prevent us from building on the top of the hill and the interests of one neighbor at 1540 BCD.

We have included an additional Appendix and set of Exhibits that provide more detail regarding this matter.

We strongly recommend and ask that city staff correct the staff report this week and republish it before the meeting on May 8th. The revised staff report must remove the biased, unsubstantiated misstatements and include a recommendation for approval.

Respectfully,
David Dyrnaes
Owner 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive
(see attached Appendix & Exhibits)
Attachment 9
163
164 of 654
APPENDIX: 1550 BCD Project Overview & DRB Process Impact:

Over the last 25 years as Laguna Beach residents, we have built two separate homes and lived in them each for over 10 years. Both properties are less than a mile north of our new lot at 1550 BCD. We can see all of Morningside Drive and the ‘knoll’ from the rear deck of our current Temple Hills Drive (THD) home. During this time, we have built up extensive experience with the city’s development process. This includes building our first home on Tahiti Avenue, completely remodeling our current home and, together with the local neighborhood (including with Mary F. on Morningside), defending against Dornin Investment Group’s aggressive redevelopment of the neighboring 2095 THD property and attempts to create a new subdivision on the 12 unbuildable open space lots in Rim Rock Canyon.

We actually purchased this new BCD lot because, regardless of how hard we tried through the Planning process, we were unable to fully protect our THD property interests. We felt we needed to move to a new home to reclaim our peace of mind and be comfortable in home as we near retirement. Since we have been through the DR process as both applicants and neighbors, we were committed to working closely throughout this process with the neighbors on the development of our two newly created lots (split through SB9 as of Sept. 2024).

Working with the City:

We spent excessive time, effort and expense hiring the best possible team and working extensively with the city on this project to ensure our lot split and the 1550 BCD’s home, garage and driveway placements were fully compliant and acceptable to everyone. This included conducting a full Department Management Team (DMT) review for both lots in parallel with the Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) review of the proposed lot split. The subsequent submissions to Zoning Plan Check (ZPC) and Final Map submissions (in July and August) were reviewed without issue or any material feedback. When Staff finally sent an incomplete letter in late September, we completed all the corrections and resubmitted on October 15th. Up to that point, there was no negative feedback or expectation of any material changes needed or requested by Staff nor the DRB. Especially nothing regarding the relocation of the home, garage or use of a long driveway.

Working with the Neighbors:

We followed the same extensive efforts in our attempts to engage with neighbors starting during our escrow period and initially focused on the two lots boarding 1550 BCD (1540 BCD & the empty 1536 MD prior to the DRB review). The Cover’s at 1536 MD refused to make any accommodations to their placement (which grossly impacts 1550 BCD’s privacy) even though Staff recommended that their entire top floor (from 502’-513.5’ elevation) be completely removed. Regardless, we committed to protecting their westerly views from their home Attachment 9
164
165 of 654
regardless of the DRB or Council appeal decisions. Susan Whitin completely refused to discuss our project until late September (after everything was done and we were approaching DR). We gave her unfettered access and access to the full plan set. Shortly after this (early October) she sent a letter to Planning staff which was highly critical of the project. We did not hear from staff about the Design Review status or our assigned DRB date until late December when they said they were taking the unprecedented step of not include a recommendation for approval (but without any justifying of why).

We insisted on a meeting and on January 7th were given a set of high-level notes to guide us on their concerns; which, in response to, we spent substantial time making revisions to the plans based on ahead of the DRB meeting. However, we did not see the actual staff report for 1560 BCD until January 14th. These issues, and in particular the excessive focus on the unjustified resiting the home, garage and driveway were central and yet had never been raised as issues by any city department throughout our extensive pre-DR process with the city. They actually first appeared in the letter from Susan to the city which was highly biased and self-serving. Her position and further demands of the city were included in an email letter to the DRB on the morning of the January 23rd DRB meeting. It is clear that staff has inappropriately adopted her one-sided, self-interested position on this matter even in the face of easily demonstratable facts contradicting her position, claims and criticism regarding our project.

Unfair & Undue Influence:

We really question how it is possible for a current Planning Commission member to be allowed to represent such a self-interested, mostly invalid/false position with such authoritative representation especially when all of her comments are subjective elements of the discretionary DR process. In general, the city should have rules to prevent this and an arm’s length process for city officials to avoid even the appearance of impropriety or, what appears in this case to be, actual overt, unfair & undue influence. Regardless of whether the city don’t have restrictions to prevent this, or Susan simply didn’t follow them, this is clearly an unfair and a problematic situation for all involved. If the board and/or council were to take her one-sided position, it would not only harm all the interests of the immediate neighbors across the street, it would be a violation of my rights and easily actionable. Any city official, past or present, whom applies such undue influence is creating significant liability for all involved.

Our belief is that the Design Review process should be fair and balanced; as it is necessary in this city where each lot and its relationship to its neighbors are always individual and unique.

However, this process cannot be arbitrary and capricious as what is happening here appears to be. State code specifically requires that any DR discretionary process which includes subjective standards must also be balanced with corresponding objective standards. If not, the process is deemed unlawful (in violation of state law).

Attachment 9
165
166 of 654
Problems with the April 30th Staff Report:

After reading the Staff Report released on Thursday night, it is clear that the planning process has substantial room to improve. Like the staff report for 1560 BCD in January, this report still contains substantial bias, unsupported and even factually false statements regarding our project. It is even clear that it was copied substantially from the 1560 BCD report. A report which, subsequent to the abusive 1560 BCD DR meeting we suffered through, city staff confirmed was indeed overtly biased and, as such, has undoubtedly contributed to excessive and unjust opposition to our project.

We had cautioned the city both after the January meeting and recently to ensure this type of biased and unfair (if not unlawful) behavior could not be repeated for 1550 BCD’s report. It is clear that this caution was not headed as staff has again taken the unprecedented and unwarranted step of not including a recommendation for approval in the staff report. Further, I am sure this is directly related to undue influence applied by Susan Whitin and goes way beyond protecting her home, but is actually intended to prevent us from building on the top of the hill; on the heart of the property that we own. These assumptions will be easily confirmed during the discovery processing resulting from a legal action that we will likely choose to bring forward if the staff report isn’t revised.

Conclusion:

This project is 100% compliant to all municipal code, landscaping code, fire code, complies fully with the general plan, is consistent with hillside guidelines and requires no variances. It also fully meets all discretionary Design Review criteria for privacy, view equity and neighborhood compatibility as it is 100% consistent with the pattern of development on the hill for placement and for the uphill driveway design in the immediate area. This is to the extent that it can be given that current code prevents some non-code compliant considerations afforded to other comparable neighbors (such as steep driveway sloping and hedge/tree line screening). Further, compatible doesn’t mean that the home must be the same as one nearby neighbor’s home built over 75 years ago.

Lastly, it is not a simple thing to design a home on a unique lot such as this and our extensive work throughout this last year with a highly talented professional team which has created extensive knowledge of what is possible, legal and right for this lot, neighborhood and neighbors. This biased and unfair focus on re-siting the home, driveway and garage are an attempt to prevent us from building on our lot that was graded in the 1930s for single family home use on the hill top and, as such, shows unfair bias toward one neighbor’s interests. The staff report as written is filled with biased opinion, not objective fact, is a gross affront to our team’s exceptional work and a gross abuse of process by the Planning Department.

Attachment 9
166
167 of 654
EXHIBIT 1: Supporting Factual Information (also see diagram exhibit below):

1. The 1550 BCD Lot – Buildable SFR lot created in 1930s:
a. Originally graded as part of the same subdivision as Susan Whitin’s lot at 1540 BCD. It has been a legal SFR buildable lot since then (through multiple lot splits and size reductions to its current 12,364 SF size).
b. The lot is worst case 21.7%. Over 50% of the lot (6679 SF) is within the legal buildable setback. Of that, over 75% is on the top of the hill (at or above 490’ elevation). c. With the street grading along the lot frontage, there is no natural grade or habitat left on this lot as it was fully graded to create a buildable lot in this part of the Bluebird Canyon subdivision.

2. The 2 - 1550 Home designs (new Horst design completely replaced Parker design):
a. The 1550 BCD Parker designed version of the home was submitted to ZPC on August 14th and scheduled for DRB on February 27th (a 6-month delay). b. The 1560 BCD staff report was incredibly biased and contained many misleading and false statements and included unjustified recommendations for re-siting. Prior to its release, staff commented that the 1550 BCD DRB report would be similar to 1560 BCD. c. The home was finally staked in early February and, after conducting extensive meetings with neighbors and in consideration of the pending staff report, we decided we needed Horst to completely redesign the home. This was imperative now that at least the neighbors were willing to be more actively engaged in the process. d. Horst worked extensively with the neighbors on the home redesign and was able to deliver the new design by April 1st.
e. The extreme effort and cost of this redesign demonstrates our commitment to balance our rights and objectives with concerns, needs and rights of the neighbors.

3. The Home siting – 90% on the flat hill top:
a. Horst’s new design pushes the home away from the edge of the hill and onto the hill top which greatly reduces the appearance of mass and scale from the street. b. The design pushes the entire driveway under the home and is no longer visible from the street and the home now appears as a 2-story home (the staff report’s claim of a 4-story appearance is simply false; further, the approved 1536 MD property IS 4-stories). c. The design pushes the home east to 25’ from the property line, over 30’ from the closest point on the 1540 BCD garage and more than 50’ away from the main home’s living room, kitchen and bedrooms. This greatly increases privacy separation and is now well beyond any reasonable expectation of accommodation for 1540 BCD. d. The outside patio/deck area was reduced to a single 419 SF deck on the 1st floor roof on the north side of the home; over 1000 SF less than the 1500 SF in the Parker design.

Attachment 9
167
168 of 654
e. Unlike the 1526 & 1536 MD lots and proposed homes (which are 100% on the north downslope of the knoll), the 1550 BCD lot include 100% of the hill top from north to south ridgelines. Any attempt to try to constrain or justify relocation of the home siting based on those properties is simply an unfair and invalid comparison.

4. Use of the Right-of-Way is Neighborhood Compatible & meets Pattern of Development:
a. The RoW is used to extend the street north by 2’ to widen it back to 20’ due to the corresponding encroachment by neighbors on the south side of BCD. This causes the driveway entrance to start 2’ north and also the mandatory on-street parking space to extend 2’ onto the lot and increases retaining wall heights to over 12’ vertically (increased from approx. 10’ needed without widening).
b. The immediate neighbors (1540, 1545 & 1565 BCD) all use their RoW width to transition vertically to their lot’s buildable areas (20’ up for 1540 and 8’-10’ down for the other two). All 3 properties use > 8’ vertical transition to their lot within the RoW. The homes on both 1545 & 1565 BCD either directly abut or encroach into the RoW. c. The 1550 BCD home/lot access proposes to use the RoW in the same manner but only to transition 7’ of the total 13’ vertical transition needed to access the lot via the new driveway (it intersects the lot at 474’ elevation). This is less than needed by any of the 3 adjacent lots that have the same steep RoW transition challenge on this narrow part of the street.

5. The Driveway design (13’ total; min. 9’ from street to buildable setback):
a. The driveway as proposed is actually about 130’ long, but it only transitions 13’ above the street. The staff report falsely states a 17’ vertical difference which would not be possible per municipal code as the driveway is used for vehicle, pedestrian and fire access and is limited to 10% slope (code max is 1’ vertical per 10’ of length). b. Also, the majority of the driveway length (up to 90’ of it) is required because of the minimum 7’ vertical transition needed to get past the RoW and on to the lot. c. Another 2’ of vertical (9’ total) is needed to get past the lot line and onto the lowest legal building setback elevation on the lot at 476’ (it would be 474’ with a 5’ front setback but that is not possible for this lot).
d. The driveway’s vertical transition is minimized by starting at highest point on the street @ 467’ elevation (2’ into the Right-of-Way) and continues to the lowest point on the buildable setback area @ 476’ (9’ vertical over 90’ total driveway length). e. The south side of the driveway is cut into the hill at original grade daylight line to comply with hillside guidelines and to require the minimum natural grade disturbance/export per general plan compliance.
f. The original Parker home design had placed the garage at the closest point within the setbacks possible for the and at 480’ elevation (4’ additional vertical feet) to ensure the garage placement was also hillside guideline and general plan compliant. As a result, it Attachment 9
168
169 of 654
was more visible and the home appeared as 3-stories, not 2 as it does in the Horst design.
g. Horst’s redesign moved the garage completely underground and further from the west property line shared with 1540 BCD. This was in direct response to the neighbors and city’s feedback regarding appearance of mass and scale. h. The staff report falsely states that to ‘reduce the appearance of mass and scale’ the driveway should be eliminated and the home & garage moved closer to the street.

Doing this would have the opposite effect and make the home appear larger and more massive from the street and all neighbor’s perspectives. i. This 9’ driveway vertical transition from street to legal buildable setback (and the first 90’) is mandatory and this design is the most compliant to all code and guideline requirement and produces the absolute minimum dirt export possible. Any change to it will grossly increase export, unfairly increase costs, be inconsistent with the pattern of development, violate our property rights and destroy our property value. j. The staff report inappropriately praises the 216’ long, 23% sloped driveway with 5’ retaining walls at 1540 BCD that are completely non-compliant with current code. k. There has also been talk by Susan about sharing a driveway between 1550 BCD and 1560 BCD. This isn’t possible because of existing Edison power pole structures. But even if there weren’t, we would not even consider it because one of the homes front yards would simply be a driveway for the other. This would grossly destroy the value and enjoyment we have a right to and benefit of on both properties. l. Susan cited in her letter last Monday 1313 & 1323 MD as examples that share a driveway.

This is not a factual statement. Those two lots each have their own street frontage onto Morningside drive and do not share their driveways. The 1323 garage is at street level and, while 1313’s driveway does abut 1323’s walk way to their home, it is on its own lot. m. Further, the 1313 & 1323 MD lot relationship is different than ours, could not be repeated and there is ultimately no justification to share a driveway when this project is code compliant and requires no variances as currently designed. n. Toal Engineering spent an incredible amount of time to carefully design and test model this driveway solution for 1550 and it simply cannot be improved upon for its simple aesthetic and its practicality in function while still achieving full code compliance.

6. The Driveway is Neighborhood Compatible:
a. Not only is the 1550 BCD proposed design as requested consistent with the RoW use by the immediate neighbors, it is also consistent with the pattern of driveway development with the only 3 homes in the immediate area that have a similar long uphill driveway. b. 1540 BCD, 1313 MD and 1339 MD are the only 3 other close properties all have long >80’ long driveways that transition vertically up from the street. All start at the highest point on the street. All are close to or exceed 20’ of vertical transition. 1550 BCD is only Attachment 9
169
170 of 654
transitioning 13’ and only the first 90’ are visible from the street. This vertical transition also allows the garage to be completely hidden under the home below natural grade. It connects it to the home and prevents the home from being underground and destroying view equity from our property.
c. Unlike 1550 BCD, however, none of the existing 3 nearest examples of uphill long driveways are not code complaint. They violate at least the maximum slope limit (all are over 20% slope) and, if built today, would look like the driveway proposed for 1550 BCD.

7. The Garage:
a. The staff report’s suggestion to move the garage down to street level is unsafe, not justifiable and a violation of both general plan and hillside guidelines. The only viable, code compliant solution to access the 1550 BCD lot is the currently proposed design. b. On-street positioning would create a nose-out situation on an already narrow street with no visibility to avoid accidents.
c. The garage would be completely underground and back 20’ (past 10’ of RoW and 10’ of setback). The natural grade at that location is at 483’ elevation making the front of the garage 16’ below grade and the rear at 494’ elevation 27’ below grade. d. The volume of the garage area export from the street level alone would well exceed 600 CY and the vertical above it (if they cut into the hill like the 1536 MD home) would be double that or close. The total project export would approach 3000 CY or possibly slightly less if the home was stacked on the garage with 3 sides fully underground (like Petra in Jordan).
e. The negative impact of this would be dramatic worse from the perspective of the street and the 1500 block neighbors but financially unfeasible because of the grossly increased costs and the dramatically reduced value of the property. This would effectively deny us our rights to build on the property and be in violation of the law. f. Placing the garage at the street level is simply impossible and not justifiable. It is also unjustified to consider a street level driveway onto the lot with the home placed at street level. Again, the dirt export would increase astronomically. g. While Horst’s new design increases net export by 500 CY compared to the 1400 CY in the Parker design, this achieves positive trade off for the smaller hill top articulation and both appears worth the cost and was expressed as the preference by the neighbors.

Regardless, our export volume to home square footage ratio over 23% more efficient that the Cover project at 1536 MD.
h. To reduce this total volume down to approx. 1700 CY, we have prepared an interior floor height change. This would make the export consistent with the 1536 MD approval which has cleared both DRB and City Council.

8. The Home’s Placement is Neighborhood Compatible:

Attachment 9
170
171 of 654
a. The home as sited is directly above the fully underground garage which is now not visible from the street in the new Horst design.
b. The majority of the home has been pushed back to the rear 2/3rds of the lot with part of the program underground. This substantially reduces its appearance of mass and scale. c. The home is located on the top of the hill and appears as a 2 story home consistent with the 2 of the other 3 existing homes on the south ridgeline (1540 BCD, 1480 & 1486 Morningside Circle).
d. The two MC properties are both 2 stories while 1540 BCD is one (however, it would 2 floors if built to today’s code with the current non-compliant driveway limited to 150’ and the garage built under (and terraced up the hill to) the main home at 480’ as per hillside guidelines).

9. The Home’s Size is Neighborhood Compatible:
a. The 1550 BCD home size has a 38% FAR which is below the 41% average of the 15 closest homes on the 1500 and 1600 blocks of BCD. These 15 homes were chosen because using just the 7 immediate neighbors who’s lots and homes were created pre-1970 and on mostly non-conforming small lots is an invalid and unfair comparison. A blend of the next 8 homes east on the 1600 block built around 1970 and later is a reasonable combination as they all generally meet current code standards (see Exhibit 3 & 4 below). b. The home’s proposed size at 4643 SF (with only 4434 SF now in the 2-stories above grade) is over 500 SF smaller than the original proposed Parker designed home and is under 10% larger than the largest homes within 100 yards (1475 MD @ 4235 SF & 1635 BCD @ 3854 SF). Other homes within 300 yards are larger than the proposed size (ie, 1323 MD @ 4851 SF & 1005 Madison @ 5400 SF).
c. The home is built on the top of the hill with 90% of it located on the flattest part of the legal buildable setback area (where slope is <10%). This flat, in-setback area is larger than any lot in the immediate area and justifies the slightly larger home SF. d. The proposed home is NOT 30% larger than Susan Whitin claimed in her email to the city last week.

10. Privacy & View Equity:
a. The privacy and view equity interests of all neighbors have been extensively accommodated in the home’s design and placement.
b. Privacy for 1540 MD and the 1500 block of BCD have been addressed through excessive additional setbacks, view angle protections, retaining walls and fencing as well as planned future cooperation on joint landscaping plans. This also includes mitigations for both acoustic and lighting & glare impacts.
c. Unfortunately, the DRB and Council has failed to protected the 1550 BCD’s privacy from their recent Cover property approval at 1536 MD. Their upper floor towers up an average of 50’ above MD to 513.4’ elevation. It is a 4 story home higher than 1550 BCD Attachment 9
171
172 of 654
and looks directly down on our only exterior patio/deck area on the north side of the lot.

DRB & Council even rejected staff’s recommendation in their staff report to remove their top floor completely. Both the Cover’s and the board were fully aware of our future homes building locations as we installed staking for them before they went to DRB early last year. Of all the Council and DRB members, only 1 bothered to come to the site and view our concerns. The DRB and Council’s behavior on this matter is unfathomable and unconscionable and their approval in error.
d. Regardless, we committed to the Cover’s to protect their westerly views north of our building. We have met, if not exceeded, this commitment with this design and, as such, view equity has been achieved for them (but at the expense of our property’s privacy).

They also confirmed at the recent council meeting that they have no claims of view corridors southwesterly across our lot’s main building envelope; only the westerly corridor which we have preserved for them.

11. Neighborhood benefits of the proposed project:
a. The street will be widened partially up to 2’ to mitigate on-street encroachment by neighbors on south side of BCD returning the street to 20’ width plus shoulders. b. A public, on-street parking space will be added further improving operability and navigation on the street.
c. The home’s parking will be on-site and off of the street reducing any increased on-street congestion.
d. The combination of retaining walls for the RoW parking and driveways supported by inground caissons down to 15’ underground or more will provide structural support to prevent landslides due to earthquake or rain liquefaction events. The hillside is currently unsupported and undermined due to the creation of Bluebird Canyon Road and puts the homes on the south side of BCD at risk.
e. The landscaping and drainage management will substantially reduce fire risk and eliminate on-street dirt/mud sluffing onto the street.
f. The home, as design, is an impressive architectural statement and will add greatly to the character and aesthetic of the street.

12. Letter from Susan Whitin (1540 BCD) to Planning/DRB (4/28/2025):
a. In the Whitin letter from last Monday there are 74 statements or assertions made. Of these, only 5 of 74 are either partially or fully true. The rest are a mix of unfounded opinions with no supporting facts and misleading statement contradicted by facts. b. While we did prepare a point-by-point rebuttal, but all of the true facts are included above and it is simply not worth repeating.

Attachment 9
172
173 of 654
Exhibit 2 – 1550 BCD Lot Layout and Use:

Attachment 9
173
174 of 654
Exhibit 3 – 1500 & 1600 Block Size/FAR Comparison:

Exhibit 4 – Locations of 1500 & 1600 block BCD homes with relevant MD homes:

Attachment 9
174
175 of 654
Exhibit 5 – 1313 & 1339 MD with long, uphill driveways (like 1540 BCD, not code compliant):

Attachment 9
175
176 of 654
Exhibit 6 –1520 & 1540 BCD Uphill Driveways (not code compliant):

Attachment 9
176
177 of 654
1 Nasman, Jordan CD
From: Balmer-Csira, Nancy CD
Sent: Wednesday, May 7, 2025 8:19 AM
To: Campbell, James CD; Rodrigues, Bill CD
Cc: Nasman, Jordan CD
Subject: FW: Site Visit Request: 1550 Bluebird Canyon Project Attachments: Agreement for Site Visit 524.pdf
From: William Horner
Sent: Wednesday, May 7, 2025 6:30 AM
To: Balmer-Csira, Nancy CD <[email protected]> Subject: Site Visit Request: 1550 Bluebird Canyon Project [NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Hi Nancy,
Please find attached my site visit request form. I've reached out to each member of DRB with the below feedback requesting a site visit.

Best,
William Horner
Design Review Board Members:

I am writing as the homeowner of regarding the proposed development at 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive ("Lot A"), directly opposite my home. This project, together with its sister development at 1560 Bluebird Canyon, has prompted significant concern among neighbors.

While I continue to engage in good faith with detailed and consistent feedback, the current iteration of the project has not adequately addressed fundamental concerns.

Before providing constructive feedback, I commend the applicant for hiring Horst Architects to help reimagine the design—a gesture I greatly appreciate. However, while the revised design demonstrates improvement, the primary underlying issues remain unresolved.

Fundamental Concerns:

Attachment 9
177
178 of 654
2 1. Mass and Scale:

The proposed project size—4,643 square feet plus an over 1,000 square foot garage area—exceeds double that of my residence and significantly surpasses any home within the 1500 block of Bluebird Canyon Drive, the relevant visual vicinity, where no residence exceeds 3,000 square feet. While comparisons to the larger homes in the 1600 block have been made, key differences in street width, infrastructure (including parking, curbs and lighting), accessibility, and ridgeline impacts also need to be considered.

Given the project's prominent ridge location and ridgeline guidelines, the proposed scale should demonstrate increased sensitivity and restraint rather than maximizing allowable limits, particularly through eliminating or significantly reducing the upper level to prevent undue verticality, dominance over the neighborhood and degradation of ridgeline integrity. Situating the project upslope on a site poorly suited to extensive development necessitates difficult concessions.

2. Excavation, Hillside Stability, and Safety:

The project sits atop an ancient landslide complex with loose fill beneath the road. Extensive excavation presents substantial and unpredictable risks to slope stability, especially during heavy rains or from potential water leaks from irrigation, drainage pipes, the proposed spa, and reflecting pool. My master bedroom, situated directly downslope, faces real threats of damage and personal safety should slope failure occur. While the proposed slope engineering potentially stabilizes the site, the construction process disturbs an inherently fragile and not fully knowable geology.

Proposed irrigation, spa, and water features add to the risk of problematic leaks and liquefaction. Robust assurances for downslope properties—such as bonding or similar enforceable measures—should be established to address these risks and guarantee swift action in case of construction-related incidents.

3. Privacy and Glazing:

The extensive use of floor-to-ceiling glazing across numerous primary rooms poses significant twoway privacy concerns. Specifically, from my front door, front yard, and outdoor seating area, there will be direct, unobstructed sightlines into the beds of the proposed project's lower bedrooms and other primary living spaces, including the master bedroom and office. Proposed partial movable shutters and tree plantings offer insufficient shielding; more substantial architectural modifications to glazing are necessary. Our neighborhood highly values discretion and privacy, making this high level of exposure particularly problematic and requiring a more balanced, common-sense resolution.

4. Driveway and Retaining Walls; Incomplete Renderings:

The proposed switchback driveway design creates significant issues related to excessive mass, materiality, and verticality. Current renderings notably omit the approximately 12-foot-high lower retaining wall at street level, substantially understating the project's visual impact. Accurate, streetlevel renderings showing the full extent of these walls should be provided at the May 8 meeting for proper evaluation.

I also encourage serious consideration of and public discussion regarding the merits of a shared driveway solution to serve both the Lot A and Lot B projects.

5. Outdoor Lighting and Light Pollution:

The extensive glazing combined with 63 landscape and exterior lights significantly exceeds neighborhood norms, causing excessive light spillover. A meaningful reduction in lighting, advanced shielding accounting for downslope sightlines, elimination of tree lighting, better shielding of south facing stair lighting (“C” fixtures) and motion-activated fixtures are necessary to preserve the canyon’s Attachment 9
178
179 of 654
3 valued dark-sky ambiance. I encourage DRB members to visit the area after dark to fully appreciate the potential impacts.

7. Construction Traffic, Impacts, and Road Integrity:

Our narrow street, limited to 3-ton vehicles, cannot safely accommodate proposed heavy construction loads. Structural cracking adjacent to my driveway, above my bedroom, and already observed by DRB during a visit for the 1560 project, indicates current stress levels that heavy construction traffic will exacerbate. The inadequate infrastructure poses challenges to safe driveway access and daily life quality, necessitating stringent management and mitigation plans. Specifically, safe and reasonable ingress and egress from my driveway may become practically impossible or, at the very least, highly inconvenient due to construction equipment. I question whether marginal street widening can sufficiently mitigate these issues.

Additionally, construction crews operating directly next to our bedroom windows will cause significant noise disturbances, as sound travels easily through this area. Given my work requires late nights, early morning construction noise over an extended period would impose a substantial burden. Given the tight quarters and significant noise and traffic impacts on neighbors, later construction start times should be seriously considered, especially given the likelihood of concurrent development on the knoll.

Iterative Feedback:

Driveway Orientation and Headlights:

The driveway’s current orientation risks directing vehicle headlights into my west-facing master bedroom and living room windows. Adequate study to determine shielding or landscape buffering should be done to mitigate this impact.

Spa Risks and Impacts:

The spa and reflection pool, with potential leaks, noise, and liquefaction risks, should be reconsidered given the unique challenges and risks of the site. Notably, knowing how much noise travels here from upslope, the proposed infinity edge waterfall feature will be heard from my bedroom, living room, and balcony area. Removing these features and incorporating drought-tolerant native landscaping to reduce irrigation needs and hence leak risks would significantly enhance safety, neighborhood compatibility, and reduce noise and privacy impacts.

Elevated Southwest Dining Room:

The elevated southwest dining room prominently projects towards the street, significantly amplifying visual dominance and privacy issues. Its removal would meaningfully reduce the project's intrusive presence and align better with neighborhood character. The extensive floor to ceiling south facing glazing exacerbates these issues. A solid south facing wall on the western wing of the building should be considered; the wing will still boast generous westward views.

Process Suggestions for DRB, Planning, and City Council:

Transparent Determination of Appropriate Scale:

The methodology for determining suitable square footage and lot coverage should be transparent to all parties, honor the spirit of the guidelines, and demonstrate sound reasoning. Consideration should explicitly include the seven adjacent homes to genuinely honor neighborhood compatibility and seek to determine the merits of including the 1600 block homes. Lack of clarity on these points risks fueling ongoing, unproductive debate.

Coordinated Review and Construction Management:

Attachment 9
179
180 of 654
4 Multiple proposed projects on the knoll are in various planning stages, likely leading to simultaneous construction and substantial neighborhood disruption. A proactive, coordinated development and construction management plan enforced by the City is essential to balance property development rights with safeguards for current residents.

In summary, this letter seeks not to obstruct development rights but firmly advocates for a thoughtfully scaled, context-conscious, and privacy-sensitive design compatible with our stretch of Bluebird Canyon and Laguna’s established design and ridgeline guidelines. I respectfully urge the DRB to require substantial modifications—specifically scale reductions, slope safeguards, less intrusive glazing, restrained lighting, elimination of spa and water features, and serious consideration of a shared driveway solution—to achieve a project that more harmoniously integrates into our unique canyon setting.

I warmly invite members of the Design Review Board to visit my home to view the site and better understand firsthand the unique challenges and impacts posed by the proposed project. The nature of the site and surrounding homes means development entails extensive challenges that are best appreciated through personal observation.

Thank you for your careful and thoughtful consideration. I remain hopeful we can reach a mutually acceptable resolution that respects both the applicant’s objectives and the legitimate concerns of the neighborhood.

Warm regards,
William Horner
Attachment 9
180
181 of 654
1 Nasman, Jordan CD
From: Balmer-Csira, Nancy CD
Sent: Wednesday, May 7, 2025 11:22 AM
To: Campbell, James CD; Rodrigues, Bill CD
Cc: Nasman, Jordan CD
Subject: FW: 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive Lot A
Jim and Bill:

FYI and linking to public comments on the agenda.

From: Joseph Cover
Sent: Wednesday, May 7, 2025 11:15 AM
To: Balmer-Csira, Nancy CD <[email protected]> Cc: Gannon, Jessica <[email protected]>; Gibbs, Thomas <[email protected]>; Coveny, Mary Jo <[email protected]>; Bauta, Imer <[email protected]>; Weil, Louis <[email protected]>; Ina Cover
Subject: 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive Lot A
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Hi Nancy,
I hope you are well. I am the owner of the adjacent property to the north of 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive Lot A (which by the way seems to also be interchangeable with 1550 Bluebird Canyon). Please include this letter in the public comments. I have also copied the emails of board members that I received from the city’s website. If you have any questions don’t hesitate to reach out.

Dear Design Review Board Members and City StaƯ,

I am writing to address my family's concerns with the proposed project at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive Lot A (also referred to as 1550 Bluebird Cyn in various places in the staƯ report) that is on the agenda at the DRB meeting on Thursday, May 8th. We own the adjacent parcel of land to the north at . In the spirit of transparency, I want to mention that the applicant appealed our DRB approval in the Spring of 2024, but city council recently voted to deny the appeal and to let our project go ahead as approved by DRB. This letter of concern is not meant to be retaliatory in any way and is simply meant to provide constructive feedback as DRB members attempt to understand all impacts to parties involved.

I understand that in the staƯ report, a resolution to approve the project has not been included by city staƯ, and the purpose of this meeting seems to be to understand the impacts of the project to the neighborhood and community as a whole, and to advise the client on what should be changed to make it an approvable project. I believe that many of our concerns are in line with concerns mentioned in the staƯ report including the lack of overall neighborhood compatibility, relative height of the structure compared to others being proposed on the hillside, the placement of the structure at the top of the knoll rather than lower on the hillside and closer to the street, the size of the structure both with living area and total program, privacy issues for our family to the North from excessive glazing on various parts of the structure and the height of the northwesterly elevated deck. Additionally, Attachment 9
181
182 of 654
2 our concerns include the height of a few trees on the north border of our two lots, and noise considerations from the spa and spa equipment.

The following are a couple of comments mirroring or adding on to concerns from the staƯ report:

1. Height and Positioning - as the staƯ report seems to state, the placement of the house at the back (north) of the lot causes the highest points of the house to be 15' above the rear lot line. In comparison to our project at , and the appealed project at 1526 Morningside, that is 5-10 feet higher than both projects, both of which were required to be lowered by DRB for approval. This applicant should also be advised that a reduction in height is necessary to achieve compatibility with the other projects on the knoll, and so that all of the properties on the Bluebird canyon side of the street that will eventually be built, won't appear to be such massive structures that tower over everything else around them. The height, along with the excessive glazing, and the lighting that accompanies the glazing, would substantially change the serene nature of the Morningside/Bluebird Canyon loop surrounding the knoll. StaƯ has also suggested the building should move closer to the street which would naturally bring down the height and position to be built into the hillside rather than on top of the hillside.

2. Structure Size/Neighborhood Compatibility - as I have heard from many neighbors on Bluebird Canyon and Morningside Dr, and as was confirmed by the staƯ report, the size of the structure is out of place with the surrounding neighborhood and other projects on the knoll. In fact, based on both living area and garage area, this project is about 100% larger than our project at 1536 Morningside, and based on total program square footage, this project is about 45% larger than our project (the diƯerence being that we have an ADU for the grandparents).

3. Privacy Concerns - for our family, privacy issues caused by location/height and glazing are among our greatest concerns. I totally understand that full privacy can't be achieved when living in a community environment. So that is not the goal and we want to be reasonable in this regard. However, besides the location/height discussed above, glazing seems to be a big a concern for staƯ, and it is a big concern of ours as well. There were only two renderings included in the attachments to the staƯ report, but neither of them really allows us to understand the glazing impact to our project. In looking through the project plans sheet number A3.2 appears to be the North Elevation (even though it may be incorrectly labeled as the South Elevation). From that slide, it appears there are floor to ceiling windows on 75% or more of the whole upper level, and on 50% of the lower level. The elevated deck also looks directly into our project based on where it is situated. Requiring the project to go down up to 10 feet should help fix some of the privacy concerns created by the elevated deck. As the staƯ report suggested, glazing was a big issue in the January DRB meeting regarding the 1560 Lot B project to the East, but those same concerns are very clearly present with this project as well and need to be addressed.

4. Landscaping - in reviewing the landscaping slide, I don't have much comment except that there are a few trees labeled T-1. They African Fern Pines which can grow up to 20' tall and are very bushy. These are situated along the north lot line and the 2 most westerly tree locations could grow well above our view line to the west. I understand they may have been placed there for extra privacy, but they need to be kept at a reasonable height so as not to block views for all potential builds on the Morningside drive side of the street, and to not look so out of place on the knoll that otherwise will have low lying landscaping, and where preservation of native species is of importance to the neighborhood. Additionally, in our family's DRB hearing, we were required to cap landscaping height to something like 5 ft to ensure no view blockage for the project to the East of ours. The same requirement should be in place for this project. I don't know exactly what height achieves a balance of view vs privacy, but such a balance should be a condition for any future DRB approval.

5. Spa Equipment/Noise Concerns - having spent a significant amount of time on the knoll over the past few years, one of its most striking features is the sound, or lack thereof. It is simply bird chirping in the day and coyotes howling at night. It’s a refuge of peace and tranquility amongst the busyness of Laguna Beach. This project, as well as the owner's other project at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Lot B, have outdoor spas as part of the design. With the proposed elevations on top of the knoll, the humming from the spa equipment and the noise from people using the spas could change the calm feeling for all neighbors in the proximity of the two homes. I am not familiar with spa equipment, but if not already included in the plans, and if there is a way Attachment 9
182
183 of 654
3 to fully mitigate all noise created by the equipment, that should be a requirement for allowing a spa to be built in this location.

Thank you for your consideration and I am happy to field any follow up questions you may have.

Regards,

Joe Cover and Family
Attachment 9
183
184 of 654
1 Nasman, Jordan CD
From: Balmer-Csira, Nancy CD
Sent: Wednesday, May 7, 2025 11:22 AM
To: Campbell, James CD; Rodrigues, Bill CD
Cc: Nasman, Jordan CD
Subject: FW: 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive Lot A
Jim and Bill:

FYI and linking to public comments on the agenda.

Dear Design Review Board Members and City StaƯ,

I understand that in the staƯ report, a resolution to approve the project has not been included by city staƯ, and the purpose of this meeting seems to be to understand the impacts of the project to the neighborhood and community as a whole, and to advise the client on what should be changed to make it an approvable project. I believe that many of our concerns are in line with concerns mentioned in the staƯ report including the lack of overall neighborhood compatibility, relative height of the structure compared to others being proposed on the hillside, the placement of the structure at the top of the knoll rather than lower on the hillside and closer to the street, the size of the structure both with living area and total program, privacy issues for our family to the North from excessive glazing on various parts of the structure and the height of the northwesterly elevated deck. Additionally, Attachment 9
184
185 of 654
2 our concerns include the height of a few trees on the north border of our two lots, and noise considerations from the spa and spa equipment.

The following are a couple of comments mirroring or adding on to concerns from the staƯ report:

5. Spa Equipment/Noise Concerns - having spent a significant amount of time on the knoll over the past few years, one of its most striking features is the sound, or lack thereof. It is simply bird chirping in the day and coyotes howling at night. It’s a refuge of peace and tranquility amongst the busyness of Laguna Beach. This project, as well as the owner's other project at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Lot B, have outdoor spas as part of the design. With the proposed elevations on top of the knoll, the humming from the spa equipment and the noise from people using the spas could change the calm feeling for all neighbors in the proximity of the two homes. I am not familiar with spa equipment, but if not already included in the plans, and if there is a way Attachment 9
185
186 of 654
3 to fully mitigate all noise created by the equipment, that should be a requirement for allowing a spa to be built in this location.

Thank you for your consideration and I am happy to field any follow up questions you may have.

Regards,

Joe Cover and Family
Attachment 9
186
187 of 654
Sadhal Family
, Laguna Beach, CA 92651
_________________________________________________________________ May 5, 2025
Nancy Balmer-Csira Via Email: [email protected] Planner
City of Laguna Beach
DRB Comment Letter - Proposed Single Family Residence at 1550 Bluebird Cyn Dr (Lot A) Nancy,
We appreciate the property owner’s (David Dyrnaes) outreach and efforts to educate us on the proposed residential home design and construction at 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive, across the street from us. Our comments are based on meetings with him, several emails and the plan set dated April 15, 2025. ● In general, we support the property owner’s rights to build a home within the City-prescribed guidelines and development standards.
● We do, however, have concerns and questions we ask DRB to consider and have addressed as part of the project review by you and your architect/engineering team. These are requested by the City to be made part of the public commentary for your May 8, 2025 DRB hearing.

PROJECT-SPECIFIC COMMENTS
Scale and Massing: At 4,643 SF of home + 1,027 SF of garage, our view is the Lot A home is not far off, but may warrant a slight reduction (10-15% or closer to a 4,000 SF home) to more accurately scale with some of the larger homes in the neighborhood and given the lot size. Our understanding is dedicated parking must be provided for a third car based on the home size, however, if possible to be uncovered, this would allow for only two enclosed garage spaces (tandem ones), reducing the overall structure size, and therefore reduce the massing, particularly given the verticality of the home from Bluebird Canyon Drive (garage finished floor is 15 feet above street level). The concept of floor-to-area (FAR) ratio for neighborhood comparison is generally accurate, but must consider parcel scale (e.g. FAR on a 3,500 SF lot may warrant being higher than on a 10,000 SF lot).

Building Shadow / Light / Glare: The proposed home design includes a significant clear glazing likely to result in daytime glare and nighttime light spillover; the structure will cast shadows. Understanding these impacts is important as well as view simulations from proposed balconies for managing privacy concerns. Are there ways to reduce the glazing and/or increase the screening?

GENERAL / NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACTS
Coordinated Development with Adjacent Proposed Homes: At least four proposed homes are pending for the “knoll”: 1) Dyrnaes x2 (1550 and 1560 Bluebird); 2) Cover x1 (1536 Morningside) and

Page 1 ends

Laguna Beach City CouncilJanuary 6, 2026

Laguna Beach City Council
January 6, 2026