Agenda packet — Laguna Beach City Council, January 6, 2026 (part 3 of 7)

Attachment 9
187
188 of 654
Sadhal Family
1585 Bluebird Canyon Drive, Laguna Beach, CA 92651
_________________________________________________________________ Riahi x1 (1526 Morningside). Together, they represent 15,024 SF of building square footage and 6,255 cubic yards (~480 dump trucks’ worth) of soil excavation and haul-off. Currently there is no mechanism organizing the development sequencing or priority of these homes and theoretically if all were approved, they could be built simultaneously causing a significant impact for the 18-24 month construction duration to the entire Bluebird Canyon neighborhood, but mainly those homes at the top, adjacent to the construction. Our request is that there be a public forum discussion about this topic because essentially this undeveloped area represents a large-lot development tract, which if unmanaged, would be highly disruptive to our quality of life and potentially dangerous. If not through DRB, then by another method.

Coordinated Design Review / Analysis of 1550 and 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive: 1550 and 1560 Bluebird are the result of an SB-9 lot split wherein the two proposed homes share a property line and some physical features like site/fire access stairs. While technically separate, given they are interconnected, should the City be discussing the impacts of both proposed homes together to avoid piecemealing (a concept which generally precludes studying one project now, then another later despite the reliance or sequencing one may have on / from the other)? Neighborhood Disturbance from Soil Export Truck Traffic: The plans note removing 1,900 cubic yards of soil, which equals nearly 150 dump trucks-worth of removal (assuming each truck carries 13 cubic yards). Given the project site is essentially at the top of the Bluebird Canyon, that would be highly disruptive to the daily ongoings of the majority of Bluebird residents for both the queuing up of trucks to receive soil and to haul it off-site. Can the neighborhood handle that amount of heavy truck traffic including safety to pedestrians typically walking and/or biking the roads, particularly if there isn’t a coordinated plan or prioritization with the other proposed developments on the knoll? Hillside / Geological Stability: The noted soil export is a considerable removal and disturbance to the existing hillside. Our concern lies in the unintended consequences which could result to homes downhill by moving that much earth at the top of the hill (e.g. future landslide on the extreme, or even movement of inches or feet, which could cause damage to homes)? What assurances can be provided? We assume the geotechnical engineer has taken at least the required amount of soil boring samples to determine the composition of the soil to formulate the geotechnical design.

Construction Staging / Disruption to Bluebird Canyon Road: The project site is on a steep hill and requires cutting of the slope even prior to staging equipment for actual construction. What are the projected construction staging impacts to Bluebird Canyon Road (e.g. closures of X days, weeks) given the very narrow nature of the road (approx. 18 feet currently)? What about the frequency of proposed closures and access disruptions? Will the neighbors be able to receive postage mail normally, have any disruption to trash removal services, package deliveries, etc.? Lastly - what is the proposed contractor logistics plan for construction worker parking? Will they consume on-street parking or have an off-site location (e.g. Rancho Laguna Drive and be shuttled up?).

Noise / Dust Controls: The project site is an undeveloped greenfield site. The level of earth / soil movement is significant and will generate a lot of noise and dust in addition to noise and dust generated

Page 2 ends

Attachment 9
188
189 of 654
Sadhal Family
, Laguna Beach, CA 92651
_________________________________________________________________ during vertical construction. Our home is downslope from the site and anticipated to receive a fair amount of dust carry and noise impacts. What mitigations, assurances and/or conditions of approval will we have to protect our quality of life and breathing safety during the estimated 18-24 month construction period? We would expect if construction commences, there will be a lot of additional cleaning to the exterior of our home and cars - is that simply our cost to bear? Not to mention can our children play safely outside (e.g. basketball on the driveway) during that time? Will the construction equipment use white noise devices to shield us from construction equipment back-up alarm beeping? Thank you.

Sincerely,
Harpal and Shaheen Sadhal
Owners,
CC Design Review Board Members via Staff Report Materials Distribution Jessica Gannon (Chair)
Kristine Thalman (Chair Pro Tem)
Mary Jo “MJ” Coveny
Louis Weil
Tom Gibbs

Page 3 ends

Attachment 9
189
190 of 654
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
May 4, 2025
Design Review Board, City of Laguna Beach
505 Forest Avenue
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
RE: Agenda Item: Design Review 24-2586
Coastal Development Permit 24-2588
Revocable Encroachment Permit 24-2587
1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive | Lot A
Dear Chair and Members of the Design Review Board,
The “knoll” with lots fronting Morningside Drive and Bluebird Canyon Drive still under development plans are a great concern to our neighborhood. Without a specific subdivision plan each parcel is being developed independently without consideration of the existing neighborhood. The one project our neighborhood supports (1536 Morningside Drive) has finally been approved and can start the construction process.

The city’s staff report is very clear with many concerns which we agree need to be addressed before there is a project that fits in our neighborhood. The new architect has proposed plans which are certainly better than the original plans. But there are still concerns of neighborhood compatibility with the scale, mass, character and placement of the driveway, garage, and other structures. Although some materials may be consistent with our neighborhood the position of the structure perched on the ridgeline reduces its compatibility with the neighborhood and impacts both Bluebird Canyon Drive and Morningside Drive residents.

The placement of the main structure on the crest of the ridgeline impacts our home directly with light, noise, blockage of views, and privacy due to many windows overlooking Morningside Drive.

The noise from an outside spa and outside decks will impact both sides of the knoll.

Thank you for listening to some of our concerns We treasure our neighborhood and understand that homes will be built on the knoll property. We just want them to fit into our Bluebird Canyon mosaic.

Sincerely,
Mary Fegraus Clark Fegraus
Mary Fegraus and Clark Fegraus
Attachment 9
190
191 of 654
1 Nasman, Jordan CD
From: Balmer-Csira, Nancy CD
Sent: Tuesday, May 6, 2025 1:42 PM
To: Nasman, Jordan CD
Subject: FW: Concerns Regarding Proposed Project at 1550 Bluebird Cyn. Dr. Lot A Attachments: SiteVisit.pdf
From: Balmer-Csira, Nancy CD
Sent: Monday, May 5, 2025 10:31 AM
To: Campbell, James CD <[email protected]>; Rodrigues, Bill CD <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Concerns Regarding Proposed Project at 1550 Bluebird Cyn. Dr. Lot A FYI and linking to agenda.

From: Peter Grohmann
Sent: Monday, May 5, 2025 9:12 AM
To: Design Review Board Balmer-Csira, Nancy CD <[email protected]> Subject: Concerns Regarding Proposed Project at 1550 Bluebird Cyn. Dr. 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.] Dear Members of the Design Review Board,
The owner of the vacant hillside lot at 1550 Bluebird Canyon is proposing the construcƟon of a home on the site, which is scheduled for review during the May 8, 2025, Design Review Board meeƟng. I reside downhill from the proposed project at AƩached to this email is a signed agreement requesƟng the Board to visit my residence to evaluate the potenƟal impact of the proposed development.

While I respect the property owner's right to build a home on 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive, Lot A, I would like to share some significant concerns regarding the current proposal:

1. Scale and Neighborhood Character The average home size in our neighborhood ranges between 1,600 and 2,700 square feet, including garages. By contrast, the proposed design features a 4,644-squarefoot living area plus a 1,068-square-foot, three-car garage--significantly larger than any other home in the area. This design is more fiƫng for high-end neighborhoods such as Camel Point or Irvine Cove and would drasƟcally alter the low-density character of Upper Bluebird Canyon.

2. Ridgeline PreservaƟon Guidelines The proposed design places the home atop the ridgeline of the knoll, which contradicts Laguna Beach’s Ridgeline PreservaƟon guidelines. The structure would become a prominent feature visible from Bluebird Canyon Drive and Morningside Drive, disrupƟng the area’s natural landscape.

Attachment 9
191
192 of 654
2 3. Impact on Infrastructure The street in front of the proposed site is only 18 feet wide, and vehicles over

3.0 tons are prohibited in this area. ExcavaƟng 2,100 cubic yards and exporƟng approximately 1,900 cubic yard of dirt will result in substanƟal truck acƟvity, potenƟally causing lasƟng damage to the road.

4. Impact on Neighboring ProperƟes ConstrucƟon at this site will likely have a major negaƟve impact on my property at 1573 Bluebird Canyon Drive. Given the narrow road, I urge the Board to include condiƟons mandaƟng off-site staging for construcƟon materials and off-site parking for workers.

Without such measures, access to emergency services, mail delivery, trash pickup, visitor parking, and my own driveway would be significantly disrupted.

5. Site Suitability for ConstrucƟon The steep hillside poses challenges for construcƟon, especially for a home of this size. While financial feasibility might favor a larger design, this cannot jusƟfy a project that is unsuitable for the site and incompaƟble with the neighborhood.

Thank you for considering my concerns. I appreciate your aƩenƟon to ensuring thoughƞul development that respects the unique character and infrastructure of our community.

Sincerely,
Peter Grohmann
Attachment 9
192
193 of 654
Attachment 9
193
194 of 654
Attachment 9
194
195 of 654
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
January 20, 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.

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 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.

2. Garage and retaining wall
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. Design
This home is designed by David Parker, the same architect who designed the Riahi house at 1526 Morningside. It is remarkably like that project which was turned down on appeal to City Council 5-0.

4. View Equity
The location of the house on the property maximizes the view of the new home at the expense of neighboring homes and future homes on the knoll. Please ensure view protection.

5. Impact on Privacy
The proposed home placed on the top of the knoll as it is, will impact the privacy of nearby homes on both Bluebird Canyon and Morningside Drive. Changes to elevation, lot placement and mass could mitigate this invasion of privacy.

6. Lighting & Glare
Most neighbors 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.

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
Attachment 9
195
196 of 654
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 difficult parcel to develop. 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
196
197 of 654
Attachment 9
197
198 of 654
WILLIAM R. CUMMING
DIRECT DIAL: (714) 754-0120
E-MAIL: [email protected]
3080 BR ISTOL STREET, SU ITE 630, COST A ME SA, CA 92626 TELEPH ONE: 714.432.6494 FACS IM ILE: 714.202.3162
WWW.CUM M IN GA ND AS SO CIATESL AW.C OM
FILE NO. 1944-1
May 1, 2025
VIA MAIL AND E-MAIL ([email protected])
Matthew Schneider
Assistant Director of Community Development
City of Laguna Beach
505 Forest Avenue
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
Dear Mr. Schneider:

Our law firm represents David Dyrnaes. Mr. Dyrnaes is a 25-year Laguna Beach (“City”) resident and owner of 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive, Laguna Beach, California 92651, as well as the newly created lot at 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive.

As you likely know, Mr. Dyrnaes has worked closely with City officials, the neighborhood, and the Design Review Board to obtain approval for plans to build his family home. Our law firm has been monitoring the situation because of some meaningful concerns about the process, and on occasion, we sent correspondence to the appropriate people to address these concerns. Given the status, it is important to share a few concerns.

Susan Whiten sent written correspondence to the Design Review Board members dated April 28, 2025. My client, the professionals he retained to assist him with the project, and I have concerns about Ms. Whiten’s letter. Let me explain why.

First, Ms. Whiten serves on the Planning Commission. Because she serves in this capacity, my sincere hope and expectation is that the Design Review Board would consider any comments from Ms. Whiten solely in her capacity as a neighbor living near the proposed site who does not want the home built as designed.

Moreover, the Design Review Board should give greater scrutiny to Ms. Whitens’ comments, considering her position on the Planning Commission. The need to avoid the appearance of favoritism or deference to Ms. Whiten is important.

Second, most of the statements in the April 28 correspondence are not supported by the facts, can easily be refuted, and seem to represent self-interested opinions. As such, I would ask the Design Attachment 9
198
199 of 654
Matthew Schneider
May 1, 2025

Page 2 ends

____________________________
Review Board to carefully “fact-check” the claims. From my perspective, the failure to do so raises serious credibility issues.

Third, Ms. Whitin’s letter focused substantially on the need to change the garage and access method to the home my client intends to build. Mr. Dyrnaes’ team of professionals, who assisted him with the design of the home, including Toal Engineering, has spent extensive time analyzing the site of the home, garage, driveway, and its compatibility with the neighborhood. I was told the proposed access method, as designed, is consistent with the pattern of development and is also fully compliant with privacy and view equity considerations for all neighbors, including Ms. Whitin.

Stated more simply, the Design Review Board should focus on the opinions of Mr. Dyrnaes’ team of professionals, who are all prior Design Review Board members, rather than a self-interested neighbor who does not want the home to be built.

In short, I am raising the issues above to ensure that the City and the Design Review Board are aware of my client’s concerns. We hope and anticipate that the Design Review Board will work within its parameters in considering my client’s plans and focus exclusively on the facts and objective criteria rather than Ms. Whiten’s misguided, unsubstantiated, and biased comments.

It would be highly unfortunate if the pending staff report for 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive followed the same biased misrepresentations found in the previous 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive staff report that have already been recognized and acknowledged by City staff.

Thank you,
William R. Cumming
Cumming & Associates, APLC
WRC:sd
cc: David Dyrnaes
Attachment 9
199
200 of 654
1 Balmer-Csira, Nancy CD
From: Susan Whitin
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2025 11:06 AM
To: Balmer-Csira, Nancy CD
Subject: 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive
[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.] To: Nancy Balmer-Csira
Re: 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive 4/25/25
These comments regard the architectural drawings for 1550 Bluebird property which abuts my property at Horst Noppenberger, Architect, replaced the original architect with the goal of designing a more site and neighborhood compatible house and has provided me with a copy of his drawing set. The change of architect change was welcomed as a good faith gesture in a neighborhood meeting with Owner and Architect with the caveat that it was a promising first step but attention should be paid to relevant, similar issues identified in the 1/23/25 staff report and DRB meeting for 1560 Bluebird (Lot B).

While respecting Mr Dyrnaes’ right to develop his property and Mr. Noppenberger’s skill as an Architect, I do not support the design as currently proposed for several reasons.

Overview:
-The project (house and site design) is not compatible with and does not complement the scale, mass and character of the neighborhood.
-The mass of the 2 story house is accentuated by its location on the top of the knoll. The knoll itself is approx. 30 feet above the street; the roof of the house is approx. 47 feet above the driveway -The house is a glass box - more than 65% of each individual North, West and South wall elevation is glass. -The side yard (west facing) elevation is designed as a front yard elevation in that activity rooms (kitchen, family room, dining room) and outdoor spaces face bedrooms on the adjacent property. This floor plan does not meet guidelines for side yard relationships specified in LBMC and DRB Design Guidelines.
-Please note that the computer sketch for the updated design does not show the proposed building elevation in the context of the site.

This is misleading in that it suggests the house is above a wall at the street level when it is another approx. 10 feet above the street.

Both the proposed house design and the site design fail to meet conditions in the Design Guidelines, LB Municipal Code, General Plan Land Use Policies and the Revocable Encroachment Permit.

A. Design Guidelines and LBMC:

The following design review guidelines are not met in the proposed project: Neighborhood Compatibility, Design Articulation, Privacy, Access, Lighting and Glare, General Plan compliance and Landscaping.

1. Neighborhood Compatibility
“DESIGN GUIDELINES: A GUIDE TO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT: Neighborhood Compatibility: When building mass is a component of the character of the neighborhood, new development should complement the typical building mass in the neighborhood….11.8 Design new development in such a away that visible mass conforms to the scale of the neighborhood….11.9…Design a building with a perceived number of stories that is consistent with the neighborhood pattern.

11.12 Avoid long, uninterrupted wall planes….Articulate side wall planes to create variety and reduce perceived scale.

The perceived number of stories (4) above Bluebird Canyon Drive is inconsistent with the single (1) story scale of the neighborhood and streetscape
-There is not a single house in the neighborhood or Bluebird Canyon with this verticality and building mass so close to the street. -Houses in the immediate neighborhood are single-story at the street level, with street level garages and down slope living space. -The height of the house is 3 levels from the garage finish floor. The perceived height from the street is 4 levels -The 2nd floor roof is 45-52 feet above the street. (Roof: El 512.0, Driveway: El. 467.0, Street El. at lowest point 460.0) -The existing, undisturbed site encroaches into the street ROW. When Bluebird Canyon Drive is widened as a part of this project the house will be closer to the street further accentuating the perceived height and building mass.

The building has no relationship to neighborhood massing and wall to window ratio Attachment 9
200
201 of 654
2 -The mass and scale of the 2 story house are accentuated by its location on top of the knoll. -The ratio of predominantly glass to solid wall area is unique to the neighborhood. -The North Elevation is 69% glass, West Elevation is 72% glass and South Elevation is 61% glass. -The southeast corner of the roof overhangs the driveway, is 11’-10” feet from the Property Line and 45 feet above the street, appearing to overhang the street
The house square footage is out of scale with the neighborhood:
-The living space is significantly larger than the largest house in the immediate neighborhood. -The square footage of houses in the immediate neighborhood from 1540 BB-1635 BB (across the street in both directions and including 1540 BB) ranges from 1637 square feet to 3241 square feet. -Proposed house: 4,683SF living space + 1,027SF garage/ 4 beds/ 4 bathrooms/ 1 powder room. -Square footage of proposed house is 30% greater then the largest house in the neighborhood Retaining Walls along the street are out of scale and character with the neighborhood and streetscape (see sheet C-1) -The masonry wall along the uphill side of the driveway is between 12’-14’ tall; also visible from the street is a retaining wall along the street side of the driveway that is 7 feet tall (partially screened by landscape); and there is a 10’-12’ tall retaining wall along the street to accommodate the required on street parking space.
-The street frontage is approx. 115 linear feet. Of that approx. 65% is paving and retaining wall. -Easy to overlook is the condition at the shared property line with 1560 BB: a mishmash of retaining walls, stairs, transformer and utility pole. This eyesore along the street - approx. 60 feet long and 20 feet deep into the 2 adjacent properties - is not thoughtfully designed or compatible with the neighborhood.
-Relocating the garage to the street level will eliminate the retaining walls and be consistent with the neighborhood pattern.

Pattern of development:

Sideyard/ west facing elevation is designed as a front yard elevation:
-Atypical for houses in the neighborhood and Laguna Beach is the placement of the activity areas/ceremonial rooms (kitchen, family room) and on the side yard elevation rather than facing the front yard elevation toward Bluebird Canyon Drive. This does not meet standards in the LCMC or Design Guidelines. See also, Privacy, below -The 2 floors of building walls that are primarily glass and a 2nd level deck with glass railings are not side yard conditions that meet LCMC or Design Guidelines. These uses and predominantly glass elevations are typical to front yard elevations.

Garages at street level:
-The pattern of development in this neighborhood is primarily single story, down slope houses with garages on the street level. -Garages for 1525 and 1536 Morningside Drive, located on the opposite side of the knoll, are both at the street level, typical for the neighborhood.

Driveways:
-The neighboring property at 1540 BB has a driveway with a 32 inch retaining wall and street facing slopes which are heavily planted. This is not typical for the neighborhood.
-There are 3 other houses on 2 driveways in the neighborhood: 2 houses at 1313 and 1323 Morningside share a single driveway and 1339 Morningside also has a driveway. These houses are deeply set back from the street and are heavily planted allowing the houses to blend into the canyon landscape.

2. Design Articulation
“LBMC 25.05.040(H) (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.” -The appearance of the building and retaining wall mass is not minimized per the Design Articulation Guideline -The 2 story building sits on top of the knoll which is relatively flat from east to west -The building does not terrace with the topography running north/south down to Bluebird Canyon Drive. -The 2 story building plan is 2 intersecting rectangles with deep roof overhangs in many locations. -The individual walls are continuous planes. 3 walls are primarily (60-70%) glass with approx. 30-40% concrete or stucco. The 4th elevation (facing 1560 BB) is entirely stucco and concrete and has no windows. -The masonry retaining wall below the garage is approx. 12 feet tall, adding another level to the house from the street.

3.Privacy
“LBMC 25.05.040(H). Placement of activity areas (decks, picture windows, ceremonial or entertainment rooms) in locations that result in a substantial invasion of privacy of neighboring properties should be minimized.” DESIGN GUIDELINES: A GUIDE TO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT: Neighborhood Compatibility: 12.1: Site building with maximum consideration for privacy issues. 12.2: Consider floor plans of subject property and adjacent residences. Organize the internal floor plan to place activity areas (living area, kitchen, etc.) away from the more private areas of a neighboring Attachment 9
201
202 of 654
3 residence, especially the bedrooms. Avoid designing large windows that compromise neighbors’ privacy. Locate windows and glass doors where they are not immediately adjacent to the windows and doors of adjacent residences. 12.3 Give thoughtful consideration to the siting and design of outdoor spaces. Locate outdoor activity areas away from noise-or viewsensitive portions of adjacent properties…screen adjacent properties with walls or solid railings.” The family room, kitchen and dining room overlook 3 bedrooms in neighboring residence:
-This relationship creates both visual and acoustic privacy impacts -70% of the west facing/side yard elevation is glass
-Side yard has a jacuzzi
-Side yard also has a 2nd floor deck with glass railings -Sliding glass doors on 1st level open onto 5’ stone area -The garage is also west facing, creating an active and noisy condition facing the neighboring residence. -As described in Pattern of Development, above, there are no examples in the neighborhood of extensive floor to ceiling glass facing a side yard or an adjacent residence.
-There are no houses in the neighborhood with 1st or 2nd floor decks or jacuzzis on the side elevation overlooking a neighboring residence.

4. Access:
-The street frontage of the property is approx. 115 linear feet approx. 65% of which is paving and includes a 12-14’ tall retaining wall for the required parking space. This is not neighborhood compatible. -A street level garage is an an alternative to the proposed driveway. The 2 residences at 1526 and 1536 Morningside Drive, both on the knoll, have street level garages. The previous residential design for 1560, before the lot was subdivided, had a street level garage -Shared driveway: A shared driveway is also an alternative for 1550 and 1560 Bluebird. -See also General Plan Compliance, Policy 2.7 and Policy 2.8, below

5. Lighting and Glare
-The building is a light box on the knoll. 3 of the building walls are predominantly glass (61%,69% and 72% of wall area). The 4th wall (east facing) has no windows.
-There will be significant sun reflection on the south and west elevations. -There will be nighttime light spillage within the neighborhood. The house will be visible also from Rim Rock Canyon and Arch Beach Heights.

6.Landscaping
-The Landscape plan is incomplete. Green roof areas are not included in the Planting Plan. -The 3 street trees are planted on a 2:1 slope, a planting condition not conducive to sustain healthy tree growth. -The maximum mature height of 2 of the street trees is the floor level of the house and will not screen the house. -The evenly spaced layout of the street trees is not compatible with the informal landscape character of the neighborhood and canyon where are no street trees along Bluebird Canyon Drive.

B. General Plan Compliance:
“The development shall comply with all applicable policies of the General Plan, including all its elements…. LUE Policy 2.1, LUE Policy 2.8 and LUP 7.3 “
“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. “
-The neighborhood is an eclectic mix of architectural styles. A minimalist, contemporary style is fine although there are no buildings with extensive glass walls within the neighborhood or canyon. -The mass and bulk of the proposed house is out of scale and character with the neighborhood. -Terracing the house into the hillside and revising the site plan to replace the driveway with an on street garage reduces the bulk and mass.
“Policy 2.8: Require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated with natural topographic features….” -Accepting that the natural landform will be altered with this development, integrating the building into the topography will provide better compliance.
-Replacing the driveway with an on street garage provides better compatibility with the site by reducing the grading and amount of export.
“Policy 2.7: Design and site new development to…minimize natural landform alterations. “ -Replacing the driveway with an on street garage will reduce the landform alteration.

Attachment 9
202
203 of 654
4 -The project export for a 3 car garage can be reduced with a street level garage. -This project has more export (1900CY) than any of the other 3 houses (1221CY, 1414CY, 1720CY) currently proposed on the knoll. -The total amount of export for the 4 houses currently proposed on the knoll is 6,255 cubic yards or 521 dump trucks (12CY trucks). It is likely there will be a minimum or 2 and possibly 3 more houses on the knoll submitted for review.

C. Revocable Encroachment Permit
“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.
….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.”
Retaining walls encroaching into the street ROW directly impact the quality of the streetscape:
-The street level condition at the shared property line with 1560 BB is a mishmash of retaining walls, stairs, a transformer and a utility pole. This hardscape is an eyesore along the street - approx. 60 feet long and 20 feet deep between the 2 adjacent properties with a small triangle of planting area - and is not thoughtfully designed or compatible with the streetscape or neighborhood.

D. Additional Comments:

Infrastructure Improvements:
-Bluebird Canyon Drive will be widened as part of this project. What is the expected duration of this work relative to start of construction on the 1550 and 1560 project?
-What is the extent of the infrastructure improvements for the 1550 and 1560 projects? Will the road widening extend to the existing curb and gutter at 1605 BB regardless of whether the 4th lot on the knoll is/is not on the same development schedule so that neighborhood disturbance happens once not twice?
Construction Access:
-Even with a widened road section, access along this winding and hilly road will continue to be marginal. The geometrics of the road mean that construction traffic will move slowly in and out of Bluebird Canyon and the neighborhood and thus the construction period will be longer than in most locations in Laguna Beach.
-Construction traffic conflicting with the 6 immediately adjacent houses creates a dangerous and disruptive situation. -The total amount of export for the 4 houses currently proposed on the knoll is 6,255 cubic yards or 521 dump trucks (12CY trucks). It is likely there will be a minimum or 2 and possibly 3 more houses on the knoll submitted for review.

Regards,
Susan Whitin
Attachment 9
203
204 of 654

K Y O T O H O U S E
1550 BLUEBIRD CANYON DR., L A G U N A B E A C H, CA

HORST ARCHITECTS EXPRESSLY RESERVES

ITS COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT AND OTHER
PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THESE DRAWINGS.

THESE DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE

REPRODUCED, CHANGED, OR COPIED IN ANY

FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER NOR ARE

THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO ANY THIRD PARTY

WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE EXPRESSEDWRITTEN PERMISSION OF HORST ARCHITECTS.

SHEET NUMBERPLOT DATE:SCALE:
a r c h i t e c t s
9 4 9 4 9 4 9 5 6 9

K Y O T O H O U S E
1550 BLUEBIRD CANYON DRIVE, LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651
DRAWING PREPARED BY: JM CS
N/A

04.15.2025

PROJECT TEAM SHEET INDEX

PROJECT SUMMARY
OWNER: 1560 BCD LLC

DAVID DYRNAES
2125 TEMPLE HILLS DR.

LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651
P. 949.300.7636

VICINITY MAP
ADDRESS:

DESCRIPTION

REQUIRED/
ALLOWED PROPOSED (Yes/No)

CONFORMS
USE
ZONE
LOT AREALOT WIDTH (AVG.)LOT DEPTH (AVG.)LOT SLOPE (%)
MAX. BUILDING HEIGHTMAX. HEIGHT - FF,FG,EG
SETBACKS:

Side Yards
LOT COVERAGE max. BSC

ZONING STANDARDS

PROJECT DATA

DESCRIPTION PROPOSED
LIVING AREA:

GARAGE

MECHANICAL

ELEVATED DECK TERRACE
1550 BLUEBIRD CANYON DRIVE, LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651

RESIDENTIAL Y
R-1 Y
YYYYY
TOTAL
Y

PROJECT
SITE
(NO CHANGE)

SINGLE FAMILY

TS TITLE SHEET
A1.1 SITE PLAN
TP-01 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY

AREA CALCULATIONS LOWER LEVEL
C-1
35% = 4,327.40 SF
Front Yard:

CODE ANALYSIS
CODE: 2022 CBC, CMC, CEC, CPCCONSTRUCTION TYPE: V-B
ZONING DESIGNATION: R1
OCCUPANCY: R-3, U-1
NUMBER OF STORIES: 3

PROJECT ADDRESS
1550 BLUEBIRD CANYON DR. LOT A, LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651
ACCESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERAPN: 644-321-31
LEGAL
PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL
MAP 2024-117
A2.3 UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
Mid Level

GRADING PLAN
C-2
15'-0" Abv. EG @ RPL

K Y O T O H O U S E
1550 BLUEBIRD CANYON DR., L A G U N A B E A C H, CA

SITE SECTIONS

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
NEW 4,643.19 SF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, INCLUDING A 1,027.16 SF 3-CAR GARAGE, A 418.04 SF ELEVATEDDECK, 216.43 SF OF MECHANICAL SPACE, A 4,404 GAL. JACUZZI, A 2,070 GAL. REFLECTING POND, LANDSCAPE,RETAINING WALLS AND DRIVEWAY. above existing grade along
5'-0" garage,10'-0" house
A5.1
6,000 SF
70'-0"
NA

GENERAL NOTES

1. All work, including materials and workmanship, shall conform to the requirements of local codes, laws, and ordinances and as specified by all by all governing authorities where applicable. Reference is to the latest accepted edition or revision. In the event of conflict with code requirements, that code requirement or note which establishes the higher standard shall take precedence.

2. The intention of the Contract Documents is to include all labor and materials, equipment, and transportation necessary for the complete and proper execution of the work.

3. The Contractor shall visit the job site prior to bidding any portion of the work. The Contractor shall verify all dimensions and existing conditions prior to beginning work, including but not limited to existing interior walls and roof structures. Should any condition arise where the intent of the drawings is in doubt or where there is a discrepancy between the Contract Documents and the field conditions, or within the Contract Documents, the Contractor shall notify the Architect immediately for clarification.

Acceptance of these contract documents releases Architect from any liability of inaccurate portray of existing conditions whatsoever as established by consulting engineers and/or surveyors.

4. Dimensions are from face of studs or to center of wall as indicated on drawings, unless noted otherwise.

5. Written dimensions take precedence. Do not scale drawings. Walls not dimensioned are to align with existing walls or be abutted or applied to existing walls per drawings.

Doors not dimensioned and shown jamb tight shall be set 3" from perpendicular wall to outer edge of door jamb.

6. Reference to any detail or drawing is for convenience only and does not limit the application of such details or drawings.

7. The design, adequacy and safety of erection bracing, shoring, temporary supports, etc., is the sole responsibility of the Contractor. The Contractor shall be responsible for the stability of the structure and provide necessary bracing prior to the application of all shear walls, roof and floor diaphragms, and finish materials. The Contractor shall be responsible for initiating, maintaining, and supervising all safety precautions and programs in connection with the work.

8. The Structural, Mechanical, Plumbing, and Electrical Drawings, as well as the drawings of other consultants, are supplementary to the Architectural Drawings. It shall be the responsibility of the General Contractor to check with the Architectural Drawings before the installation of work shown on the drawings of consultants. The Contractor shall bring any discrepancy between the Architectural Drawings and the drawings of the consulting engineers to the attention of the Architect for clarification. Any work installed in conflict with the Architectural drawings and not brought to the Architect's attention shall be corrected by the Contractor at the Contractor's expense and at no expense to the Owner or Architect.

9. Prior to performance of work, the Contractor shall require each subcontractor to notify the Contractor of any work called out in the drawings for his trade that cannot be fully guaranteed.

10. Contractor shall verify the location and size of all openings with all drawings and manufactured items where applicable.11. The Contractor shall supervise and direct the Work and be solely responsible for all construction, means, methods, techniques, sequences, procedures, safety and for coordinating all portions of the Work.

12. The Contractor here-in agrees to repair or replace any or all work, together with any other adjacent work which may be displaced in connection with such replacement, that may prove to be defective in workmanship or materials within a period of one year form the date of acceptance, ordinary wear and unusual abuse or neglect excepted.

13. Contractor shall protect all existing structures, landscaping, materials, etc., during construction. Contractor shall patch and repair all surfaces disrupted or damaged during construction to match existing adjacent surfaces.

14. The Contractor shall on a daily basis keep the premises free form all accumulations of waste material or rubbish caused by his employees, subcontractors, or work, and at the completion of the work shall remove all rubbish, debris, equipment, and surplus materials from in and about the building and leave the premises "broom clean".

15. Any deviation from the Construction Documents or specifications by the Contractor or Owner without the Architect's approval releases the Architect of responsibility and liability in connection with all work so involved.

16. Clarifications on and/or inconsistencies with the drawings and specifications shall be brought to the attention of the Architect by the Contractor prior to commencement of work. Additional charges will not be granted based on claims of incomplete, inaccurate, or inconsistent drawings and specifications.

17. Prior to any excavation, a meeting will be held on site that will be attended by the project engineer, geologist, project building inspector, general and shoring contractors.18. A CAL OSHA permit is required where excavations exceed 5ft and a copy of the permit shall be supplied to the city prior to issuing a building permit.19. The requirements of the 2022edition of the California Building Code (Title 24) have been taken in consideration.

20. All new utilities will be underground to nearest utility pole.21. Prior to commencement of any construction all aplicable provisions pertaining to brush clearance contained in the Uniform Fire code shall comply with the City of Laguna Beach Fire Department.

22. The responsible certified geotechnical engineer will inspect and approve all grading and excavations prior to placement of forms, reinforcing steel or concrete. In cases involving engineered fill, a soils engineer shall provide the inspection and approval.

23. All eaves/projections to be one hour fire resistive, heavy timber or constructed on non-combustible materials. There shall be no openings in the fire resistive construction ( i.e. no eave vents), and the fire rating must be maintained around recessed lighting.

24. All roof/ eave materials to be "Class A" rated.25. Licensed civil engineer/ architect that prepared the drainage plan shall certify at the completion of the project that the site drainage is in substantial compliance with the approved drainage plan.

26. The plans shall comply with the 2022 California Codes. CBC, CPC, CMC and CEC and all applicable Local codes and ordinances.27. Project shall comply with NPDES, SUSMP and BMP requirements.28. Contact dig alert.29. Structural observations by design engineer.

30. Owners on adjacent properties that must underpin their buildings due to the proposed excavation shall be notified in writing ten days prior to beginning the excavation. Copies of these notification letters shall be provided to the city prior to beginning the excavation.

31. Termite protection. In geographical areas where hazard of termite damage is known to be very heavy, wood floor framing shall be of naturally durable species (termite resistant) or preservative treated in accordance with AWPA U1 for the species, product preservative and end use or provided with approved methods of termite protection. 2304.11.6 FIGURE 2603.8

32. Wood supported by exterior foundation walls. Wood framing members, including wood sheathing, that rest on exterior foundation walls and are less than 8 inches (203 mm) from exposed earth shall be of naturally durable or preservative-treated wood. 2304.11.2.2

33. Fasteners for preservative treated and fire-retardant-treated wood shall be of hot dipped zinc-coated galvanized steel, stainless steel, silicon bronze or copper. The coating weights for zinc-coated fasteners shall be in accordance with ASTM A 153. 2304.9.5. Exception: Fasteners other than nails, timber rivets, wood screws and lag screws shall be permitted to be of mechanically deposited zinc coated steel with coating weights in accordance with ASTMB695, Class 55 minimum. 2304.9.5. Fastenings for wood foundations shall be as required in AF&PA Technical Report No. 7.

SYMBOLSABBREVIATIONS
Door symbol - see door schedule
Window symbol - see window schedule
Keynote symbol - see keynotes
Color/material symbol -
see color/fin. list
Equipment symbol - see equipment list
Plumbing fixtures symbol per SCHPlumbing accessories symbol per SCH 2 x stud wall
Concrete Block wallCeiling height symbol
Sheet Number
Sheet Number
Interior ElevationNumber
Section Number
Detail Number
Low wall - refer to
spot elevation
1 2
3 4
2 A9
4 D1
A.B. ANCHOR BOLTABV. ABOVEA.C. ASPHALT CONCRETEA.F.F. ABOVE FINISH FLOORAL ALUMINUMALT ALTERNATEAPP APPROXIMATEARCH ARCHITECTURAL

BD BOARDBLW BELOWBET BETWEENBLDG BUILDINGBM BEAMBOT BOTTOMBYN BEYONDBW BOTH WAYS C.J. CEILING JOISTSC.M.U. CONCRETE MASONRY UNITSC.O. CLEAR OPENINGCAB CABINETCLG CEILINGCEM CEMENTCER CERAMICCLR CLEARCOL COLUMNCONC CONCRETECONN CONNECTIONCONST CONSTURUCTIONCONT CONTINUOUSCONTR CONTRACTOR D DEPTHD.F. DRINKING FOUNTAIN, DOUGLAS FIRD.S. DOWNSPOUTDB. DOUBLEDET DETAILDIA DIAMETERDIM DIMENSIONDN DOWNDR DOORDWG DRAWINGDWR DRAWERE.N. EDGE NAIL(ING)E.W. EACH WAY EA EACHELEC ELECTRIC, ELECTRICALELEV ELEVATIONE.I.F.S. EXTERIOR INSULATION

AND FINISH SYSTEM

EQ EQUALEQUIP EQUIPMENTESMT EASMENTEXH EXHAUST
[E] EXISTING
EXP EXPOSEDF.N. FIELD NAILINGF.O.C. FACE OF CONCRETEF.O.M. FACE OF MASONRYF.O.S. FACE OF STUDFRMG FRAMINGFDN FOUNDATIONFIN FINISHFLR FLOORFT FOOTFTG. FOOTING GA GAUGEGALV GALVINIZEDGAR GARAGEGFF GARAGE FINISH FLOORG.F.I. GROUND FAULT INTERRUPTORG.F.R.C. GLASS FIBER REINFORCED CEMENTG.I. GALVINIZED IRONGLS GLASSGR GRANITEGRD GRADEGYP. BD. GYPSUM BOARD H.M, HOLLOW METALH.C. HOLLOW COREHC HANDICAPPEDHD HIGH DENSITY, HOLD DOWNHDW HARDWAREHR HOURHT HEIGHTHRT. HEATERI.D. INSIDE DIAMETERIN INCHINS. INSULATIONINT. INTERIOR R.O.W. RIGHT OF WAY
S STAINLESSS.C. SOLID CORESCH. SCHEDULESECT. SECTIONSH SHELFSHTG SHEATHINGSHWR SHOWERSIM SIMULARSPEC SPECIFICATIONSSQ SQUAREST. STREETSTD STANDARDSTL STEELSTN STONESTUC STUCCOSTRUCT STRUCTURALSYM SYMMETRICAL

T&B TOP AND BOTTOMT&G TOUNGE AND GROOVET TREAD, TEMPERED GLASSTC TOP OF CONCRETE / CURB / CHIMNEYTD TOP OF DECKTP TOP OF PLATETT TOP OF TRELLISTR TOP OF ROOFTRAIL TOP OF HANDRAILTW TOP OF WALLTEL TELEPHONETHK THICKTYP TYPICAL U.N.O. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISEUR URINAL
V.T. VINYL TILEV.T.R. VENT THROUGH ROUGH
W WIDE, WIDTHW/ WITHW.C. WATER CLOSET, WALL COVERINGWD WOODWP WATERPROOFW.R. WATER RESISTANT A
11 PLA-1
8'-0"
AA
a 0.00' TR
Sheet Number
(NO CHANGE)(NO CHANGE)(NO CHANGE)
Y

EXISTING

VACANT LOT

21.7%
R-1
12,364 SF
80'-0" 92'-4"
122'-0"
(NO CHANGE)
30'-0"
which ever is more restrictive
-
30'-0" 30'-0" Y
18'-6" Y
PARKING - 3 covered

EXISTING
2 covered DRB
JAN. JANITORJT. JOINT
KIT. KITCHENL. LENGTHLAV. LAVATORY
M.C. MEDICINE CHESTM.O. MASONRY OPENINGMAS. MASONRYMAX. MAXIMUMMECH. MECHANICALMED. MEDIUMMFG. MANUFACTURERMIN. MINIMUMMISC. MISCELLANEOUSMTD MOUNTEDMTL. METAL [N] NEW
N.I.C. NOT IN CONTRACTN.T.S. NOT TO SCALENAT. NATURAL
O.C. ON CENTERO.D. OUTSIDE DIAMETEROPN. OPENINGOPP OPPOSITE P/A PLANTING AREAP.S.I. POUNDS / SQUARE INCHPL. PLATEPLAS PLASTERPLY PLYWOODPOL POLISH, POLISHEDPR. PAIRPT. PAINTR RADIUS, RAFTERR.D. ROOF DRAINR.O. ROUGH OPENINGR.R. ROOF RAFTERR.S. ROUGH SAWNRA RETURN AIRREQ REQUIREDRI RISERRM ROOM A10
rear property line
Rear Yard:

Upper Level
A3.1 EXTERIOR ELEVATION - SOUTHA3.2 EXTERIOR ELEVATION - NORTHA3.3 EXTERIOR ELEVATION - EAST & WESTA4.1 SECTIONS A & B

CUT & FILL EXHIBIT

TOTAL REMODEL
4,643.19 SF
418.04 SF
216.43 SF

DEMOLITION REMOVED

DECK AREA

FLOOR AREA

EXTERIOR WALLS
EXISTING REMAINING DEMO TOTAL %

PROJECT SUMMARY TABLES
C-3
3,179.11 SF
1,254.39 SF
1,027.16 SF
-
3,698.25 SF =29.92%
- 18'-6"
8'-0" right, 16'-5" left
Y
A2.1 LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
- 8'-0" r., 24'-0" l.
- 20'-4" g.,10'-0" h.

A2.2 MID LEVEL FLOOR PLAN

POOL / JACUZZI / WATER FEATURE DETAILS
Jacuzzi
Reflecting Pond
DIMENSIONS (L x W x D) VOLUME / GALLONS
TOTAL

SITE WORK
Total GRADING
Over Excavation
Re-Compactation
Outside
Building Footprint
Cut
FillNet Export
180 CY180 CY
0 CY
2100 CY
200 CY
1900 CY
870 CY
20 CY
850 CY
16'-10" 11'-6" 1'-6" 2,070
16'-10" 11'-8" 3'-0" 4,404
6,474
L1.0 OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS

ROOF AREA
Lower Level 209.89 SF
Inside
Building Footprint
1050 CY
0 CY
1050 CY
A5.2 AREA CALCULATIONS MID LEVELA5.3 AREA CALCULATIONS UPPER LEVELA6.1 STAKING PLANA6.2 FIRE ACCESS PLAN ARCHITECT: HORST NOPPENBERGER
HORST ARCHITECTS, INC.
247 A FOREST AVENUE,
LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651
P. 949.494.9569E: [email protected]
CIVIL: ADAM TOAL

TOAL ENGINEERING
139 AVENIDA NAVARRO
SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92672
T: 949.492.8586 F: 949.498.8625
[email protected]

PROPOSED FIXTURE COUNT
Low voltage indirect slot light -
recessed in wall 125 lm

EXTERIOR BUILDING LIGHTING

PROPOSED EGRESS DOORSFIXTURE TYPE WATTAGE LUMENS QUANTITY COMMENTS TOTAL
2 W 9 Lightology - 113RL outdoor wall recessed
99 9

PROPOSED FIXTURE COUNT

LANDSCAPE LIGHTING

FIXTURE TYPE LUMENS QUANTITY COMMENTS
TOTAL
33 Down Light 300 lm 7
54 Wall Down Light 150 lm 15
Path Light 125 lm 22 SPJ Lighting SPJ-BJ3
BCAE
TOTAL EXTERIOR + LANDSCAPE 63
D Step Light 125 lm 10

LANSCAPED OPEN SPACE YIRRIGATED AREA N/A

35.26% = 4,360 SF
4,628 SF
N/AN/A

31.4% = 3,887.3 SF
N/A
- - -

HORST ARCHITECTS EXPRESSLY RESERVES

ITS COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT AND OTHER
PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THESE DRAWINGS.

THESE DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE

REPRODUCED, CHANGED, OR COPIED IN ANY

FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER NOR ARE

THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO ANY THIRD PARTY

WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE EXPRESSEDWRITTEN PERMISSION OF HORST ARCHITECTS.

SHEET NUMBERPLOT DATE:SCALE:
a r c h i t e c t s
9 4 9 4 9 4 9 5 6 9

KYOTOHOUSE
1550BLUEBIRDCANYONDRIVE,LAGUNABEACH,CA92651
DRAWING PREPARED BY: JM
LANDSCAPE: M. D. WILKES DESIGN
690 THALIA ST.

LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651
T: 949.637.1050
[email protected]
L2.0 LANDSCAPE PLANL3.0 IRRIGATION PLAN
L4.0 LANSCAPE LIGHTING PLAN
A1.2 ROOF PLANA6.3 EXTERIOR LIGHTING PLAN
SPJ LightingSPJ-T1 6WSPJ Lighting
SPJ-FB-275-3
TS
N/A

04.15.2025
SPJ Lighting
SPJ-104-RL
- - -- - -- - -- - -
C-4 EROSION CONTROL PLANC-5 CONSTRUCTION STAGING PLAN
------
-------
4,643.19 SF
418.04 SF
216.43 SF
3,179.11 SF
1,254.39 SF
1,027.16 SF
209.89 SF

INTERIOR WALLS
-----
-
15'-0" Abv. EG @ RPL

CS COVER SHEET
IMPERVIOUS SURFACES N/A N/A 7,718 SF N/A
PARCEL 4
LL ADJ 04-01
PARCEL 1
LL ADJ 04-01
PARCEL 3
LL ADJ 04-01
(PRIVATELY OWNED)
TRACT 990
BENCHMARK NOTE:

OCSBM 3Z-38-71
ELEV=933.758
NAVD88 DATUM, 1991 ADJ.

JOB NO. SHEET
1 3 9 A v e n i d a N a v a r r o
S a n C l e m e n t e , C A 9 2 6 7 2
9 4 9 . 4 9 2 . 8 5 8 6
w w w . t o a l e n g i n e e r i n g . c o m

C I V I L E N G I N E E R I N G

L A N D S U R V E Y I N G

S T O R M W A T E R Q UA L I T Y
OF
PREPARED FOR:

APVD. DATE R E V I S I O N S BY DATE
APPD.:

DATE:

DWG. NO.

H. SCALE:

SURVEY DATE: V. SCALE:

CHD.:

DRN.:

DAVID DYRNAES

STAT E OF CA L I FORN I A

L ICENSED LAND SURVEYO
VIKTOR P.

R
MEUM
No. 8682
VIKTOR P. MEUM
P.L.S. 8682
DATE:
1/8"=1'
10-3-18 -
3-5-24
MCH
MSF
VM
24016 1 1
TP-01PARCEL 4, LL ADJ 04-01 1560 BLUEBIRD CANYON DRIVE, LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA

TOPOGRAPHIC AND BOUNDARY SURVEY
SCALE: 1/8"=1'

EASEMENT NOTE
MSF 12-12-19 1 UPDATED PLAT TO REFLECT RECORD OF SURVEY NO. 2019-1019 (RSB 307/50)MSF 3-5-24 2 ADJUSTED ELEVATIONS TO MATCH TRUE BENCHMARK 207 of 654

FIRST LEVEL
FF=505.00
PAD= ___.__
SPA
LOT B
PARCEL 4
LL ADJ 04-01
PARCEL 3
LL ADJ 04-01
(PRIVATELY OWNED)
TRACT 990

FIRST LEVEL
FF=491.00
PAD= ___.__
LOT A
GARAGE
MECH/

STORAGE

FIRST LEVEL
FF=491.00
PAD= ___.__

PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT

PER SEPARATE PLAN
1 3 9 A v e n i d a N a v a r r o
S a n C l e m e n t e , C A 9 2 6 7 2
9 4 9 . 4 9 2 . 8 5 8 6
w
w
w. t o a l e n g i n e e r i n g . c o m

C I V I L E N

G I N E E R I N
G
L A
N
D S U
R

V E Y I N
G
STO
R
M
W
ATER
Q
U

AL I T Y

EASEMENT NOTE

PRELIMINARY PLANNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

DEVELOPMENT STATISTICS

PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION NOTES
LEGEND

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

SECTION
Qrs
Tt
Qrs
Qrs
Tt
Tt
Tt
Qrs

SECTION
Qrs Tt
Tt
1 3 9 A v e n i d a N a v a r r o
S a n C l e m e n t e , C A 9 2 6 7 2
9 4 9 . 4 9 2 . 8 5 8 6
w
w
w. t o a l e n g i n e e r i n g . c o m

C I V I L E N

G I N E E R I N
G
L A
N
D S U
R

V E Y I N
G
STO
R
M
W
ATER
Q
U

AL I TY

PRELIMINARY PLANNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION NOTES

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES
PARCEL 4
LL ADJ 04-01
PARCEL 3
LL ADJ 04-01
(PRIVATELY OWNED)
TRACT 990

PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT

PER SEPARATE PLAN

FIRST LEVEL
FF=491.00
PAD= ___.__
LOT A
GARAGE
MECH/

STORAGE

FIRST LEVEL
FF=491.00
PAD= ___.__
1 3 9 A v e n i d a N a v a r r o
S a n C l e m e n t e , C A 9 2 6 7 2
9 4 9 . 4 9 2 . 8 5 8 6
w
w
w. t o a l e n g i n e e r i n g . c o m

C I V I L E N

G I N E E R I N
G
L A
N
D S U
R

V E Y I N
G
STO
R
M
W
ATER
Q
U

AL I TY
LEGEND:

EARTHWORK QUANTITIES:

PRELIMINARY PLANNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
PARCEL 4
LL ADJ 04-01
PARCEL 3
LL ADJ 04-01
(PRIVATELY OWNED)
TRACT 990

FIRST LEVEL
FF=491.00
PAD= ___.__
LOT A
GARAGE
MECH/

STORAGE

FIRST LEVEL
FF=491.00
PAD= ___.__
1 3 9 A v e n i d a N a v a r r o
S a n C l e m e n t e , C A 9 2 6 7 2
9 4 9 . 4 9 2 . 8 5 8 6
w
w
w. t o a l e n g i n e e r i n g . c o m

C I V I L E N

G I N E E R I N
G
L A
N
D S U
R

V E Y I N
G
STO
R
M
W
ATER
Q
U

AL I TY

PRELIMINARY PLAN

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
EROSION CONTROL BMPs

TEMPORARY SEDIMENT CONTROL

WIND EROSION CONTROL

TRACKING CONTROL

WASTE MANAGEMENT AND MATERIALS POLLUTION CONTROL

NON-STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

YEAR-ROUND BMP REQUIREMENTS
LEGEND
NOTE

STAPLE DETAIL
PLAN

SECTION B-B SIGN DETAIL
DETAIL

WATERPROOFED CONCRETE WASHOUT AREA
DETAIL

GRAVEL BAG BERM

SECTION X-X PLAN
DETAIL

STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION
DETAIL

STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE

FIRST LEVEL
FF=491.00
PAD= ___.__
LOT A
GARAGE
MECH/

STORAGE

FIRST LEVEL
FF=491.00
PAD= ___.__
PARCEL 4
LL ADJ 04-01
PARCEL 3
LL ADJ 04-01
(PRIVATELY OWNED)
TRACT 990
PAD=479.0
PAD=490
1 3 9 A v e n i d a N a v a r r o
S a n C l e m e n t e , C A 9 2 6 7 2
9 4 9 . 4 9 2 . 8 5 8 6
w
w
w. t o a l e n g i n e e r i n g . c o m

C I V I L E N

G I N E E R I N
G
L A
N
D S U
R

V E Y I N
G
STO
R
M
W
ATER
Q
U

AL I TY

PRELIMINARY PLANNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
EROSION CONTROL BMPs

TEMPORARY SEDIMENT CONTROL

WIND EROSION CONTROL

TRACKING CONTROL

WASTE MANAGEMENT AND MATERIALS POLLUTION CONTROL

NON-STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

YEAR-ROUND BMP REQUIREMENTS
LEGEND
NOTE
CONSTRUCTION STAGING PLAN NOTE:CONSTRUCTION PARKINGS MUST BE ON THE SITE AND SHALL NOT OBSTRUCT TRAFFIC FLOW.

BLUEBIRD CANYON DRIVE
LOT A

BUILDING FOOTPRINT
478.60
FS
482.35
FS
469.59FS
480.00
FS
482.58
FS
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
Sewer manhole
TBM Rim elev=458.08
470.00' TW
471.00' TW
474.00' TW
474.50' TW
484.00' TW
484.50' TW
469.50' TW
472.50' TW
478.50' TW
480.00' TW
482.00' TW
487.00' TW
493.00' T. FENCE
490.00' TW
491.50' TW
AVERAGE WIDTH 122.03'
AVERAGE WIDTH 92.35'
DRIVEWAY 10% SLOPE MAX

FOR FIREFIGHTER ACCESS
483.70' NG
485.30' NG
502.40' NG
508.40' T. FENCE
495.60' NG
501.60' T. FENCE
481.00' NG
487.00' T. FENCE
482.70' NG
488.70 T.FENCE
486.50' NG
466.10' NG
DRIVEWAY 10% SLOPE MAX

FOR FIREFIGHTER ACCESS
480.00' FS
480.00' FS
491.50' TW
482.35
FS
482.35
FS
484.93 FS
25'-6"
UP
UP
501.10
FS 500.55
FS
500.0
FS
498.50
FS
498.00
FS
497.00
FS
GRV-1
GRV-1
GRV-1
GRV-1
GRV-1
GRV-1
GRV-1
496.00
495.00 FS
FS
499.00
FS
500.0 FS
494.00
FS
GRV-1
493.00
FS
492.00
FS
491.00
FS
489.00
FS
488.00
FS
490.50
FS
VEG
VEG
VEG
VEG
VEG
VEG
VEG
VEG
VEG
VEG
VEG
VEG
STN-2
STN-2
STN-2
STN-2
STN-2
STN-2
12 11
8 23
14 16
12 15
17 TB 55
15 15
17 GRV-1
GRV-1
GRV-1
55 1
1 17
7 2
42 22
22 23
13 18
14 18
14 17
57 1
2 16'-5"
SYSB
A
A4.1
A
A4.1
B
A4.1
B
A4.1
8'-0"
SYSB
18'-6"
RYSB
18'-6"
8'-0"
SYSB
16'-5"
SYSB
25'-0"
29'-0"
35'-10"
70'-0"
34'-2"
10'-0"
FYSB
10'-0"
FYSB
46'-0" 6'-10" 23'-0"
36'-0"
44'-8"
8'-0"
16'-6"
25'-1"
3 7
9'-4" 24'-6"
33'-10"
7'-11"
75'-10"
4'-0"
10'-7"
17 STN-2
491.00 FS
28 43
28 1
2 2
1 1
2 36'-2"
11'-10"

HOUSE TO PL
24 24
26 26
20'-4"

GARAGE TO PL
8'-10"

ROOF TO PL
S
A3.1
N
A3.2
E
A3.3
W
A3.3
14 14
14 24
507.50' T. FENCE
497.50 T.FENCE

HORST ARCHITECTS EXPRESSLY RESERVES

ITS COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT AND OTHER
PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THESE DRAWINGS.

THESE DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE

REPRODUCED, CHANGED, OR COPIED IN ANY

FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER NOR ARE

THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO ANY THIRD PARTY

WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE EXPRESSED

WRITTEN PERMISSION OF HORST
ARCHITECTS.

SHEET NUMBER
PLOT DATE:

SCALE:

DRAWING PREPARED BY: JM
a r c h i t e c t s
9 4 9 4 9 4 9 5 6 9
1 PROPERTY LINE
REQ. BUILDING SETBACK
ADDITIONAL BUILDING SETBACK - 1:1 SLOPE, 15'-0" ABV. N.G. AT FYSB & RYSB AVG. LOT WIDTH/DEPTH

EDGE OF ROOF/ CEILING/ FLOOR/DECK (ABV/ BLW/ BYD AS OCCURS) 2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 12
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
30 31
32 EDGE OF WALL (ABV/ BLW/ BYD AS OCCURS)
HANDRAIL – 36” ABOVE ADJACENT FINISHED SURFACE

EDGE OF STAIRS (ABV/ BLW/ BYD AS OCCURS)

ON-GRADE STEPS/HARDSCAPE
(E) CURB/ EDGE OF PAVEMENT

FIXED DATUM POINT/ BENCHMARK
PARKING STALL - 18'-0' X 8'-8" MIN.
(E) GRADE / CONTOUR LINE
PUBLIC/GUEST PARKING - 8'-0' X 22'-" MIN.

CENTERLINE OF DRIVEWAY

FS/ FG/ EG (ABOVE/ BELOW/ BEYOND AS OCCURS)
MAX ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT - 15' ABOVE E.G. AT REAR PROPERTY LINE

EXTERIOR FIREPIT
33 34

SKYLIGHT (ABV/ BLW/ BYD AS OCCURS) , INSTALL NIGHT SHADES 35 36
37 38

CASEWORK
39 40
41 STAIRWAY

FURNITURE PER INTERIOR DESIGNER
SPA SECURITY GATE - 5FT MIN, SELF-LATCHING, SELF-CLOSING, NON-CLIMBABLE MAX. ALLOW. BLDG. HT. 30' ABV. NG, FG, FF - (WHICHEVER IS MORE RESTRICTIVE) PHOTOVOLTAIC PANELS - SUN POWER E-18/225 MODEL
AC UNIT IN SOUND ATTENUATED VAULT - PRHP14 X-Series Coil AC Condenser (37.5 dB) TRASH
K
Y
O
T
O
H
O
U
S
E 15
5 0
B
L
U
E
BIR
D
C
A
N
Y
O
N
D
RIV
E, L
A
G
U
N
A
B
E
A
C
H, C
A
9 2
6 51
SHARED FIREFIGHTER ACCESS PATH - ALL WEATHER MIN 3FT WIDE

VERDURA MSE RETAINING WALL SYSTEM - PER CIVIL

RETAINING WALL

PLANTER/SOFTSCAPE AREA
REFLECTING POND - 18" DEEP MAX.

JACUZZI WITH COVER

NON-WALKABLE GREEN ROOF

ELEVATOR

WINE WALL

SPA EQUIPMENT IN SOUND ATTENUATED VAULT

OPERABLE PRIVACY SCREEN

TAPERED EDGE FLAT ROOF

CANTILEVERED NON-STRUCTURAL ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE
11 CENTERLINE OF RIGHT OF WAY
13 TREE

HABITABLE AREA / WALL

CABINETRY/BUILT-IN FEATURE

SOFTSCAPE AREA - REFER TO

LANDSCAPE PLAN

PROJECTION ABV/BYD/BLW

PROPERTY LINE

SETBACK

LOW WALL / HARDSCAPE
51 CATCH BASIN
52 INFINITY EDGE
53 SCULPTURE
54 LOUVERED VENT DOOR
55 GRAVEL EDGE/TRENCH
STN-1
GLS-1 TRANSPARENT GLASS
STN-2 STONE FLOORING
GLS-2 GLASS GUARDRAIL
CON-1

INTEGRALLY COLORED STUC
MTL-1 STRUCTURAL STEEL

LANDSCAPE GRAVEL - GRAV

VEGETATION VEG

WOOD SCREENS
WD-2
CON-2
WD-3

WOOD FLOORING

WTR WATER
MTL-2 BREAK METAL

PER LANDSCAPE PLAN
2" DIA. MAX.

SMOOTH TROWEL STUCCO
MTL-4 CORRUGATED METAL

TPO TPO ROOFING

STONE CLADDING

CONCRETE FLOORING

BOARD-FORM CONCRETE

W/ EPOXY FINISH
MTL-3 CORTEN METAL PLATE

ACR ACRYLIC PANEL

CLADDING
WD-1 WOOD CLADDING

TB TURF-BLOCK
56 REDUCED PARAPET
57 LOW WALL
58 ROOF VALLEY

MATERIALS
LEGEND

KEYNOTES
a) All exterior flame producing devices, structures or equipment shall be gas b) Such devices, structures or equipment shall not be used for the disposal of c) Such devices, structures or equipment shall be located per the manufacturer’s d) Properties shall not be permitted to have such devices, structures or equipment NOTES
rubbish, trash or combustible materials.
burning only.
recommendations relating to the separation from any combustible structure. within 10’ of all non-fire-resistive vegetation or undeveloped wildland.

GLS-3 TRANSLUCENT GLASS
N
A1.1
1 4" = 1'-0"

04.15.2025

SITE PLAN
Project North
213 of 654
33'-0"
76'-6"
70'-9"
15'-2"
6'-8"
11'-2"
35'-8"
40'-10"
18'-6"
4'-2"
18'-2"
29'-11"
33'-5"
36'-0"
87'-4"
16'-6" 16'-10" 54'-0" 6'-5" 18'-8" 8'-4"
26'-7"
11'-6"
TPO
VEG
TPO
GLS-1

SLOPES DN

GREEN ROOF
500.00' TR
ROOF
510.50' TR
ROOF
512.00' TR
512.00' TR
511.50' T SKLT
511.50' T SKLT 511.25' T SKLT
511.25' T SKLT
510.50' TR
510.50' TR
510.50' TR510.50' TR
502.00' TR
502.00' TR502.00' TR 502.00' TR
502.00' TR 502.00' TR502.00' TR
74'-0" 56
27 56
27 41272758
2750
2 40
1 27
2 56
30 A
A4.1
A
A4.1
BA4.1
BA4.1
WD-2
SA3.1
NA3.2
EA3.3
WA3.3

HORST ARCHITECTS EXPRESSLY RESERVES

ITS COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT AND OTHER
PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THESE DRAWINGS.

THESE DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE

REPRODUCED, CHANGED, OR COPIED IN ANY

FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER NOR ARE

THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO ANY THIRD PARTY

WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE EXPRESSEDWRITTEN PERMISSION OF HORST ARCHITECTS.

SHEET NUMBERPLOT DATE:SCALE:

DRAWING PREPARED BY: JM
a r c h i t e c t s
9 4 9 4 9 4 9 5 6 9
1 PROPERTY LINE
REQ. BUILDING SETBACK
ADDITIONAL BUILDING SETBACK - 1:1 SLOPE, 15'-0" ABV. N.G. AT FYSB & RYSB AVG. LOT WIDTH/DEPTH

EDGE OF ROOF/ CEILING/ FLOOR/DECK (ABV/ BLW/ BYD AS OCCURS) 2345678
9 1012
1415
16171819
20212223242526272829
303132

EDGE OF WALL (ABV/ BLW/ BYD AS OCCURS)
HANDRAIL – 36” ABOVE ADJACENT FINISHED SURFACE

EDGE OF STAIRS (ABV/ BLW/ BYD AS OCCURS)

ON-GRADE STEPS/HARDSCAPE(E) CURB/ EDGE OF PAVEMENT

FIXED DATUM POINT/ BENCHMARK
PARKING STALL - 18'-0' X 8'-8" MIN.
(E) GRADE / CONTOUR LINE
PUBLIC/GUEST PARKING - 8'-0' X 22'-" MIN.

CENTERLINE OF DRIVEWAY

FS/ FG/ EG (ABOVE/ BELOW/ BEYOND AS OCCURS)
MAX ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT - 15' ABOVE E.G. AT REAR PROPERTY LINE

EXTERIOR FIREPIT
33 34

SKYLIGHT (ABV/ BLW/ BYD AS OCCURS) , INSTALL NIGHT SHADES 35 363738

CASEWORK
39 4041

STAIRWAY

INTERIOR GAS BURNING FIREPLACE
4243
GUARDRAIL - 42" ABV. FS
44 SITE WALL OR FENCE - MAX ABV. E.G. 4' IN FYSB, 6' IN SYSB 45 COLUMNCLERESTORY WINDOWS ABV.
46 MECH/STORAGE CLOSET
47 EXISTING UTILITY POLE TO BE REMOVED
48 49
50 OPEN TO BELOWFURNITURE PER INTERIOR DESIGNER
GATE, - MAX 4' IN FYSB, MAX 6' IN SYSB
MAX. ALLOW. BLDG. HT. 30' ABV. NG, FG, FF - (WHICHEVER IS MORE RESTRICTIVE) PHOTOVOLTAIC PANELS - SUN POWER E-18/225 MODEL

AC UNIT IN SOUND ATTENUATED VAULT
TRASH

KYOTOHOUSE
1550BLUEBIRDCANYONDRIVE,LAGUNABEACH,CA92651
SHARED FIREFIGHTER ACCESS PATH - ALL WEATHER MIN 3FT WIDEVERDURA MSE RETAINING WALL SYSTEM - PER CIVIL

RETAINING WALL

PLANTER/SOFTSCAPE AREA
REFLECTING POND - 18" DEEP MAX.JACUZZI WITH COVER

NON-WALKABLE GREEN ROOF

ELEVATOR

WINE WALL

SPA EQUIPMENT IN SOUND ATTENUATED VAULT

OPERABLE PRIVACY SCREEN

TAPERED EDGE FLAT ROOF

CANTILEVERED NON-STRUCTURAL ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE
11 CENTERLINE OF RIGHT OF WAY13
TREE

HABITABLE AREA / WALL

CABINETRY/BUILT-IN FEATURE

SOFTSCAPE AREA - REFER TO

LANDSCAPE PLAN

PROJECTION ABV/BYD/BLWPROPERTY LINESETBACKLOW WALL / HARDSCAPE 51 CATCH BASIN
52 INFINITY EDGE
53 SCULPTURE
54 LOUVERED VENT DOOR
55 GRAVEL EDGE/TRENCH
STN-1
GLS-1 TRANSPARENT GLASS
STN-2 STONE FLOORING
GLS-2 GLASS GUARDRAIL
CON-1

INTEGRALLY COLORED STUC
MTL-1 STRUCTURAL STEEL

LANDSCAPE GRAVEL - GRAV VEGETATION VEG

WOOD SCREENS
WD-2
CON-2
WD-3

WOOD FLOORING

WTR WATER
MTL-2 BREAK METAL
2" DIA. MAX. PER LANDSCAPE PLAN

SMOOTH TROWEL STUCCO
MTL-4 CORRUGATED METAL

TPO TPO ROOFING

STONE CLADDING

CONCRETE FLOORINGBOARD-FORM CONCRETEW/ EPOXY FINISH
MTL-3 CORTEN METAL PLATE

ACR ACRYLIC PANEL

CLADDING
WD-1 WOOD CLADDING

TB TURF-BLOCK
56 REDUCED PARAPET
57 LOW WALL
58 ROOF VALLEY

MATERIALS
LEGEND

KEYNOTES
A1.2
1 4" = 1'-0"

03.28.2025

ROOF PLAN
GARAGE
480.50' FF
GARAGE
480.75' FF

LAUNDRY
481.0' FF

MECH/STORAGE
481.0' FF
UP
UP
UP
25'-6"
12'-2"
20'-0" 23'-0" 480.00' FS
480.74' FS
481.00' FS

MECH/TRASH
480.0' FF
UP
UP
CON-1
CON-1
CON-1 GRV-1
STN-2
STN-2
STN-2
BA4.1
35'-6"
35'-11"
27'-8" 10'-6"
6'-0"
11'-2"
7'-8"
25'-0" 24'-6"
35'-11"
10'-11" 25'-0"
30'-0"
3'-0" 20'-0" 7'-0" 23'-7"
16'-6"
SYSB

DRIVEWAY
10% AVG. SLOPE
TB
STN-2
12 10'-0" FYSB
152924551517
2242541246162815
2215
43 16
2 28
2 153429
2 8
17191814
14 24
BA4.1
B
A4.1
B
A4.1
15 2521
42 WA3.3
MECH
14 480.50' FS
UP UP

HORST ARCHITECTS EXPRESSLY RESERVES

ITS COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT AND OTHER
PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THESE DRAWINGS.

THESE DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE

REPRODUCED, CHANGED, OR COPIED IN ANY

FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER NOR ARE

THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO ANY THIRD PARTY

WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE EXPRESSEDWRITTEN PERMISSION OF HORST ARCHITECTS.

SHEET NUMBERPLOT DATE:SCALE:

DRAWING PREPARED BY: JM
a r c h i t e c t s
9 4 9 4 9 4 9 5 6 9
1 PROPERTY LINE
REQ. BUILDING SETBACK
ADDITIONAL BUILDING SETBACK - 1:1 SLOPE, 15'-0" ABV. N.G. AT FYSB & RYSB AVG. LOT WIDTH/DEPTH

EDGE OF ROOF/ CEILING/ FLOOR/DECK (ABV/ BLW/ BYD AS OCCURS) 2345678
9 1012
1415
16171819
20212223242526272829
303132

EDGE OF WALL (ABV/ BLW/ BYD AS OCCURS)
HANDRAIL – 36” ABOVE ADJACENT FINISHED SURFACE

EDGE OF STAIRS (ABV/ BLW/ BYD AS OCCURS)

ON-GRADE STEPS/HARDSCAPE(E) CURB/ EDGE OF PAVEMENT

FIXED DATUM POINT/ BENCHMARK
PARKING STALL - 18'-0' X 8'-8" MIN.
(E) GRADE / CONTOUR LINE
PUBLIC/GUEST PARKING - 8'-0' X 22'-" MIN.

CENTERLINE OF DRIVEWAY

FS/ FG/ EG (ABOVE/ BELOW/ BEYOND AS OCCURS)
MAX ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT - 15' ABOVE E.G. AT REAR PROPERTY LINE

EXTERIOR FIREPIT
33 34

SKYLIGHT (ABV/ BLW/ BYD AS OCCURS) , INSTALL NIGHT SHADES 35 363738

CASEWORK
39 4041

STAIRWAY

AC UNIT IN SOUND ATTENUATED VAULT
TRASH

KYOTOHOUSE
1550BLUEBIRDCANYONDRIVE,LAGUNABEACH,CA92651
SHARED FIREFIGHTER ACCESS PATH - ALL WEATHER MIN 3FT WIDEVERDURA MSE RETAINING WALL SYSTEM - PER CIVIL

RETAINING WALL

PLANTER/SOFTSCAPE AREA
REFLECTING POND - 18" DEEP MAX.JACUZZI WITH COVER

NON-WALKABLE GREEN ROOF

ELEVATOR

WINE WALL

SPA EQUIPMENT IN SOUND ATTENUATED VAULT

OPERABLE PRIVACY SCREEN

TAPERED EDGE FLAT ROOF

CANTILEVERED NON-STRUCTURAL ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE
11 CENTERLINE OF RIGHT OF WAY13
TREE

HABITABLE AREA / WALL

CABINETRY/BUILT-IN FEATURE

SOFTSCAPE AREA - REFER TO

LANDSCAPE PLAN

INTEGRALLY COLORED STUC
MTL-1 STRUCTURAL STEEL

LANDSCAPE GRAVEL - GRAV VEGETATION VEG

WOOD SCREENS
WD-2
CON-2
WD-3

WOOD FLOORING

WTR WATER
MTL-2 BREAK METAL
2" DIA. MAX. PER LANDSCAPE PLAN

SMOOTH TROWEL STUCCO
MTL-4 CORRUGATED METAL

TPO TPO ROOFING

STONE CLADDING

CONCRETE FLOORINGBOARD-FORM CONCRETEW/ EPOXY FINISH
MTL-3 CORTEN METAL PLATE

ACR ACRYLIC PANEL

CLADDING
WD-1 WOOD CLADDING

TB TURF-BLOCK
56 REDUCED PARAPET
57 LOW WALL
58 ROOF VALLEY

MATERIALS
LEGEND

KEYNOTES
A2.1
1 4" = 1'-0"

04.15.2025

LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
UP
DINING
491.00' FF
POND
490.92' FS

JACUZZI
490.92' FS
ENTRY
491.00' FF
FAMILY
491.00' FF

KITCHEN
491.00' FF
POWDER
491.00' FF

BATHROOM
491.00' FF

BEDROOM
491.00' FF

BATHROOM
491.00' FF

BEDROOM
491.00' FF

BATHROOM
491.00' FF

BEDROOM
491.00' FF
DN
DN
PANTRY
491.00' FF
DN
DN
DN

SLOPES DN

SLOPES DN
STN-2
STN-2
STN-2
STN-2
STN-2
STN-2
STN-2
STN-2
STN-2
STN-2
GRV-1
GRV-1
STN-2
WTR
WTR
25'-6"
3'-6"
29'-0"
44'-8"
8'-0"
5'-1"
52'-8"
18'-6" RYSB 18'-6" RYSB
11'-6"
36'-0"
87'-4"
5'-3" 15'-10" 7'-11" 23'-9" 1'-2" 16'-11" 12'-6" 4'-0"
33'-5"
6'-5" 24'-6" 2'-6"
34'-8"
63'-8"
13'-0"
15'-6"
11'-0"
4"
11'-6"
4"
11'-0"
1'-0"
STN-2
STN-2
STN-2
2 15
17 525149
453637
2 4535
STN-2
37 2
19 VEG2855
19 VEG
1721292526342039
453755
47 53151517
45 37
1518
2 5'-0"
19 VEG
57 31
32 B
A4.1
B
A4.1
BA4.1
BA4.1
20 5'-5"
SA3.1
NA3.2
EA3.3
WA3.3
14 HORST ARCHITECTS EXPRESSLY RESERVES

ITS COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT AND OTHER
PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THESE DRAWINGS.

THESE DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE

REPRODUCED, CHANGED, OR COPIED IN ANY

FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER NOR ARE

THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO ANY THIRD PARTY

WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE EXPRESSEDWRITTEN PERMISSION OF HORST ARCHITECTS.

SHEET NUMBERPLOT DATE:SCALE:

DRAWING PREPARED BY: JM
a r c h i t e c t s
9 4 9 4 9 4 9 5 6 9
1 PROPERTY LINE
REQ. BUILDING SETBACK
ADDITIONAL BUILDING SETBACK - 1:1 SLOPE, 15'-0" ABV. N.G. AT FYSB & RYSB AVG. LOT WIDTH/DEPTH

EDGE OF ROOF/ CEILING/ FLOOR/DECK (ABV/ BLW/ BYD AS OCCURS) 2345678
9 1012
1415
16171819
20212223242526272829
303132

EDGE OF WALL (ABV/ BLW/ BYD AS OCCURS)
HANDRAIL – 36” ABOVE ADJACENT FINISHED SURFACE

EDGE OF STAIRS (ABV/ BLW/ BYD AS OCCURS)

ON-GRADE STEPS/HARDSCAPE(E) CURB/ EDGE OF PAVEMENT

FIXED DATUM POINT/ BENCHMARK
PARKING STALL - 18'-0' X 8'-8" MIN.
(E) GRADE / CONTOUR LINE
PUBLIC/GUEST PARKING - 8'-0' X 22'-" MIN.

CENTERLINE OF DRIVEWAY

FS/ FG/ EG (ABOVE/ BELOW/ BEYOND AS OCCURS)
MAX ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT - 15' ABOVE E.G. AT REAR PROPERTY LINE

EXTERIOR FIREPIT
33 34

SKYLIGHT (ABV/ BLW/ BYD AS OCCURS) , INSTALL NIGHT SHADES 35 363738

CASEWORK
39 4041

STAIRWAY

AC UNIT IN SOUND ATTENUATED VAULT
TRASH

KYOTOHOUSE
1550BLUEBIRDCANYONDRIVE,LAGUNABEACH,CA92651
SHARED FIREFIGHTER ACCESS PATH - ALL WEATHER MIN 3FT WIDEVERDURA MSE RETAINING WALL SYSTEM - PER CIVIL

RETAINING WALL

PLANTER/SOFTSCAPE AREA
REFLECTING POND - 18" DEEP MAX.JACUZZI WITH COVER

NON-WALKABLE GREEN ROOF

ELEVATOR

WINE WALL

SPA EQUIPMENT IN SOUND ATTENUATED VAULT

OPERABLE PRIVACY SCREEN

TAPERED EDGE FLAT ROOF

CANTILEVERED NON-STRUCTURAL ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE
11 CENTERLINE OF RIGHT OF WAY13
TREE

HABITABLE AREA / WALL

CABINETRY/BUILT-IN FEATURE

SOFTSCAPE AREA - REFER TO

LANDSCAPE PLAN

INTEGRALLY COLORED STUC
MTL-1 STRUCTURAL STEEL

LANDSCAPE GRAVEL - GRAV VEGETATION VEG

WOOD SCREENS
WD-2
CON-2
WD-3

WOOD FLOORING

WTR WATER
MTL-2 BREAK METAL
2" DIA. MAX. PER LANDSCAPE PLAN

SMOOTH TROWEL STUCCO
MTL-4 CORRUGATED METAL

TPO TPO ROOFING

STONE CLADDING

CONCRETE FLOORINGBOARD-FORM CONCRETEW/ EPOXY FINISH
MTL-3 CORTEN METAL PLATE

ACR ACRYLIC PANEL

CLADDING
WD-1 WOOD CLADDING

TB TURF-BLOCK
56 REDUCED PARAPET
57 LOW WALL
58 ROOF VALLEY

MATERIALS
LEGEND

KEYNOTES
A2.2
1 4" = 1'-0"

04.15.2025

MID LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
OPEN

TO BELOW

MASTER SUITE
501.00' FF
DN

SLOPES DN

SLOPES DN
UP
WD-2
STN-2
STN-2
STN-2
STN-2

MASTER BATH
501.50' FF

WALK-IN CLOSET
501.50' FF

HALLWAY
501.00' FF
OFFICE
501.00' FF
DECK
502.00' FS
WD-2
33'-0"
72'-0"
25'-10"
15'-6"
23'-0"
10'-6"
2'-4"
68'-4"
27'-0"
5'-0"
23'-6"
10'-4"
2'-6"
33'-0"
4'-0"
21'-2"
10"
7'-0"
STN-2
STN-2
STN-2
212537
33 26
3845
452126
26 3448293549
484940 ABV
6"
6"
2 37
50 22 30
56 30
27272627
33 A
A4.1
A
A4.1
BA4.1
BA4.1
1 2
2 1
SA3.1
NA3.2
EA3.3
WA3.3
202028
22'-6"
28 12'-8"
13'-11"
16'-11"
28'-5"

LANDING
501.00' FS
14 HORST ARCHITECTS EXPRESSLY RESERVES

ITS COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT AND OTHER
PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THESE DRAWINGS.

THESE DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE

REPRODUCED, CHANGED, OR COPIED IN ANY

FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER NOR ARE

THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO ANY THIRD PARTY

WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE EXPRESSEDWRITTEN PERMISSION OF HORST ARCHITECTS.

SHEET NUMBERPLOT DATE:SCALE:

DRAWING PREPARED BY: JM
a r c h i t e c t s
9 4 9 4 9 4 9 5 6 9
1 PROPERTY LINE
REQ. BUILDING SETBACK
ADDITIONAL BUILDING SETBACK - 1:1 SLOPE, 15'-0" ABV. N.G. AT FYSB & RYSB AVG. LOT WIDTH/DEPTH

EDGE OF ROOF/ CEILING/ FLOOR/DECK (ABV/ BLW/ BYD AS OCCURS) 2345678
9 1012
1415
16171819
20212223242526272829
303132

EDGE OF WALL (ABV/ BLW/ BYD AS OCCURS)
HANDRAIL – 36” ABOVE ADJACENT FINISHED SURFACE

EDGE OF STAIRS (ABV/ BLW/ BYD AS OCCURS)

ON-GRADE STEPS/HARDSCAPE(E) CURB/ EDGE OF PAVEMENT

FIXED DATUM POINT/ BENCHMARK
PARKING STALL - 18'-0' X 8'-8" MIN.
(E) GRADE / CONTOUR LINE
PUBLIC/GUEST PARKING - 8'-0' X 22'-" MIN.

CENTERLINE OF DRIVEWAY

FS/ FG/ EG (ABOVE/ BELOW/ BEYOND AS OCCURS)
MAX ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT - 15' ABOVE E.G. AT REAR PROPERTY LINE

EXTERIOR FIREPIT
33 34

SKYLIGHT (ABV/ BLW/ BYD AS OCCURS) , INSTALL NIGHT SHADES 35 363738

CASEWORK
39 4041

STAIRWAY

AC UNIT IN SOUND ATTENUATED VAULT
TRASH

KYOTOHOUSE
1550BLUEBIRDCANYONDRIVE,LAGUNABEACH,CA92651
SHARED FIREFIGHTER ACCESS PATH - ALL WEATHER MIN 3FT WIDEVERDURA MSE RETAINING WALL SYSTEM - PER CIVIL

RETAINING WALL

PLANTER/SOFTSCAPE AREA
REFLECTING POND - 18" DEEP MAX.JACUZZI WITH COVER

NON-WALKABLE GREEN ROOF

ELEVATOR

WINE WALL

SPA EQUIPMENT IN SOUND ATTENUATED VAULT

OPERABLE PRIVACY SCREEN

TAPERED EDGE FLAT ROOF

CANTILEVERED NON-STRUCTURAL ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE
11 CENTERLINE OF RIGHT OF WAY13
TREE

HABITABLE AREA / WALL

CABINETRY/BUILT-IN FEATURE

SOFTSCAPE AREA - REFER TO

LANDSCAPE PLAN

INTEGRALLY COLORED STUC
MTL-1 STRUCTURAL STEEL

LANDSCAPE GRAVEL - GRAV VEGETATION VEG

WOOD SCREENS
WD-2
CON-2
WD-3

WOOD FLOORING

WTR WATER
MTL-2 BREAK METAL
2" DIA. MAX. PER LANDSCAPE PLAN

SMOOTH TROWEL STUCCO
MTL-4 CORRUGATED METAL

TPO TPO ROOFING

STONE CLADDING

CONCRETE FLOORINGBOARD-FORM CONCRETEW/ EPOXY FINISH
MTL-3 CORTEN METAL PLATE

ACR ACRYLIC PANEL

CLADDING
WD-1 WOOD CLADDING

TB TURF-BLOCK
56 REDUCED PARAPET
57 LOW WALL
58 ROOF VALLEY

MATERIALS
LEGEND

KEYNOTES
A2.3
1 4" = 1'-0"

04.15.2025

UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
511.00' PLATE
512.00' ROOF
500.00' PLATE
501.50' FF
491.00' FF481.00' FS
480.00' FS
490.00' PLATE
502.00' ROOF
501.00' FF/PLATE
509.50' PLATE
510.50' ROOF
491.00' FF
B
A4.1
8'-0"
3'-6"
29'-6"
9'-0" 1'-0" 10'-0" 1'-0" 8'-6" 1'-0"
10'-0" 10'-0" 9'-6"
21'-0"
10'-6" 10'-6"
9'-0" 1'-6" 9'-6" 1'-0"
10'-0"
B
A4.1
CON-2
MTL-1 WD-1 CON-2 MTL-2 MTL-2 GLS-1 MTL-2 CON-2
STUC
CON-2
GLS-1 STUC MTL-2 GLS-1 WD-3 STUC STUC
GLS-2 STUC
STN-2
STUC GLS-1
STN-2
1 4
2 @ PLANE A
48 GLS-1
26 4
2 4949
9 1749
2728
17 9

PLANE A
481.00' FF
1'-0"

HORST ARCHITECTS EXPRESSLY RESERVES

ITS COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT AND OTHER
PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THESE DRAWINGS.

THESE DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE

REPRODUCED, CHANGED, OR COPIED IN ANY

FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER NOR ARE

THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO ANY THIRD PARTY

WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE EXPRESSEDWRITTEN PERMISSION OF HORST ARCHITECTS.

SHEET NUMBERPLOT DATE:SCALE:

DRAWING PREPARED BY: JM
a r c h i t e c t s
9 4 9 4 9 4 9 5 6 9

KYOTOHOUSE
1550BLUEBIRDCANYONDRIVE,LAGUNABEACH,CA92651

HABITABLE AREA / WALL

CABINETRY/BUILT-IN FEATURE

SOFTSCAPE AREA - REFER TO

LANDSCAPE PLAN

PROJECTION ABV/BYD/BLWPROPERTY LINESETBACKLOW WALL / HARDSCAPE STN-1
GLS-1 TRANSPARENT GLASS
STN-2 STONE FLOORING
GLS-2 GLASS GUARDRAIL
CON-1

INTEGRALLY COLORED STUC
MTL-1 STRUCTURAL STEEL

LANDSCAPE GRAVEL - GRAV

VEGETATION VEG

WOOD SCREENS
WD-2
CON-2
WD-3

WOOD FLOORING

WTR WATER
MTL-2 BREAK METAL

PER LANDSCAPE PLAN
2" DIA. MAX.

SMOOTH TROWEL STUCCO
MTL-4 CORRUGATED METAL

TPO TPO ROOFING

STONE CLADDING

CONCRETE FLOORINGBOARD-FORM CONCRETEW/ EPOXY FINISH
MTL-3 CORTEN METAL PLATE

ACR ACRYLIC PANEL

CLADDING
WD-1 WOOD CLADDING

TB TURF-BLOCK
1 PROPERTY LINE
REQ. BUILDING SETBACK
ADDITIONAL BUILDING SETBACK - 1:1 SLOPE, 15'-0" ABV. N.G. AT FYSB & RYSB AVG. LOT WIDTH/DEPTH
2345678
9 1012
1415
(E) CURB/ EDGE OF PAVEMENT

FIXED DATUM POINT/ BENCHMARK
(E) GRADE / CONTOUR LINE

CENTERLINE OF DRIVEWAY

FS/ FG/ EG (ABOVE/ BELOW/ BEYOND AS OCCURS)
MAX ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT - 15' ABOVE E.G. AT REAR PROPERTY LINE SITE WALL OR FENCE - MAX ABV. E.G. 4' IN FYSB, 6' IN SYSB

EXISTING UTILITY POLE TO BE REMOVED
MAX. ALLOW. BLDG. HT. 30' ABV. NG, FG, FF - (WHICHEVER IS MORE RESTRICTIVE)

RETAINING WALL
11 CENTERLINE OF RIGHT OF WAY13 EDGE OF ROOF/ CEILING/ FLOOR/DECK (ABV/ BLW/ BYD AS OCCURS) 16171819
20212223242526272829
30 EDGE OF WALL (ABV/ BLW/ BYD AS OCCURS)
HANDRAIL – 36” ABOVE ADJACENT FINISHED SURFACE

EDGE OF STAIRS (ABV/ BLW/ BYD AS OCCURS)

ON-GRADE STEPS/HARDSCAPE
PARKING STALL - 18'-0' X 8'-8" MIN.

PUBLIC/GUEST PARKING - 8'-0' X 22'-" MIN.

STAIRWAY
GUARDRAIL - 42" ABV. FS
COLUMN

OPEN TO BELOW
SPA SECURITY GATE, - 5FT MIN, SELF-LATCHING, SELF-CLOSING, NON-CLIMBABLE SHARED FIREFIGHTER ACCESS PATH - ALL WEATHER MIN 3FT WIDEVERDURA MSE RETAINING WALL SYSTEM - PER CIVIL PLANTER/SOFTSCAPE AREA 3132

EXTERIOR FIREPIT
33 34

SKYLIGHT (ABV/ BLW/ BYD AS OCCURS) , INSTALL NIGHT SHADES 35 363738

CASEWORK
39 4041

INTERIOR GAS BURNING FIREPLACE
424344
45 CLERESTORY WINDOWS ABV.

FURNITURE PER INTERIOR DESIGNER
PHOTOVOLTAIC PANELS - SUN POWER E-18/225 MODEL
AC UNIT IN SOUND ATTENUATED VAULT - PRHP14 X-Series Coil AC Condenser (37.5 dB) TRASH
REFLECTING POND - 18" DEEP MAX.JACUZZI WITH COVER

NON-WALKABLE GREEN ROOF

ELEVATOR

WINE WALL

SPA EQUIPMENT IN SOUND ATTENUATED VAULT
46 MECH/STORAGE CLOSET
4748
49 50

OPERABLE PRIVACY SCREEN

TAPERED EDGE FLAT ROOF

CANTILEVERED NON-STRUCTURAL ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE
TREE
51 CATCH BASIN
52 INFINITY EDGE
53 SCULPTURE
54 LOUVERED VENT DOOR
55 GRAVEL EDGE/TRENCH
56 REDUCED PARAPET
57 LOW WALL
58 ROOF VALLEY

KEYNOTES NOTES MATERIALS LEGEND
a) All exterior flame producing devices, structures or equipment shall be gas b) Such devices, structures or equipment shall not be used for the disposal of c) Such devices, structures or equipment shall be located per the manufacturer’s d) Properties shall not be permitted to have such devices, structures or equipment rubbish, trash or combustible materials. burning only. recommendations relating to the separation from any combustible structure. within 10’ of all non-fire-resistive vegetation or undeveloped wildland.

GLS-3 TRANSLUCENT GLASS
A3.1
1 4" = 1'-0"

03.28.2025

NORTH ELEVATION
8'-0"
SYSB
16'-5"
RYSB
511.00' PLATE
512.00' ROOF
500.00' PLATE
501.50' FF
491.00' FF485.50' FF
480.00' FS
490.00' PLATE
502.00' ROOF
501.00' FF/PLATE
509.50' PLATE
510.50' ROOF
491.00' FF
3'-6"
30'-6"
10'-0" 1'-0" 10'-0" 1'-0" 7'-6" 1'-0"
11'-0" 11'-0" 8'-6"
21'-0"
10'-0" 11'-0"
9'-0" 1'-0" 10'-0" 1'-0"
10'-6"
B
A4.1
B
A4.1
STUC CON-2 WD-3 STUC GLS-1 MTL-2
GLS-1
STUC
STUC GLS-1
CON-2
CON-2
CON-2 GLS-3
STUC
142
481017
17 9
2510282728
1 2
49261017
4 494927
28 STRUCTURE BEYOND
20 2728

STRUCTURE BEYOND

HORST ARCHITECTS EXPRESSLY RESERVES

ITS COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT AND OTHER
PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THESE DRAWINGS.

THESE DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE

REPRODUCED, CHANGED, OR COPIED IN ANY

FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER NOR ARE

THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO ANY THIRD PARTY

WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE EXPRESSEDWRITTEN PERMISSION OF HORST ARCHITECTS.

SHEET NUMBERPLOT DATE:SCALE:

DRAWING PREPARED BY: JM
a r c h i t e c t s
9 4 9 4 9 4 9 5 6 9

KYOTOHOUSE
1550BLUEBIRDCANYONDRIVE,LAGUNABEACH,CA92651

HABITABLE AREA / WALL

CABINETRY/BUILT-IN FEATURE

SOFTSCAPE AREA - REFER TO

LANDSCAPE PLAN

PROJECTION ABV/BYD/BLWPROPERTY LINESETBACKLOW WALL / HARDSCAPE STN-1
GLS-1 TRANSPARENT GLASS
STN-2 STONE FLOORING
GLS-2 GLASS GUARDRAIL
CON-1

INTEGRALLY COLORED STUC
MTL-1 STRUCTURAL STEEL

LANDSCAPE GRAVEL - GRAV

VEGETATION VEG

WOOD SCREENS
WD-2
CON-2
WD-3

WOOD FLOORING

WTR WATER
MTL-2 BREAK METAL

PER LANDSCAPE PLAN
2" DIA. MAX.

SMOOTH TROWEL STUCCO
MTL-4 CORRUGATED METAL

TPO TPO ROOFING

STONE CLADDING

CONCRETE FLOORINGBOARD-FORM CONCRETEW/ EPOXY FINISH
MTL-3 CORTEN METAL PLATE

ACR ACRYLIC PANEL

CLADDING
WD-1 WOOD CLADDING

TB TURF-BLOCK
1 PROPERTY LINE
REQ. BUILDING SETBACK
ADDITIONAL BUILDING SETBACK - 1:1 SLOPE, 15'-0" ABV. N.G. AT FYSB & RYSB AVG. LOT WIDTH/DEPTH
2345678
9 1012
1415
(E) CURB/ EDGE OF PAVEMENT

FIXED DATUM POINT/ BENCHMARK
(E) GRADE / CONTOUR LINE

CENTERLINE OF DRIVEWAY

FS/ FG/ EG (ABOVE/ BELOW/ BEYOND AS OCCURS)
MAX ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT - 15' ABOVE E.G. AT REAR PROPERTY LINE SITE WALL OR FENCE - MAX ABV. E.G. 4' IN FYSB, 6' IN SYSB

EXISTING UTILITY POLE TO BE REMOVED
MAX. ALLOW. BLDG. HT. 30' ABV. NG, FG, FF - (WHICHEVER IS MORE RESTRICTIVE)

EDGE OF STAIRS (ABV/ BLW/ BYD AS OCCURS)

ON-GRADE STEPS/HARDSCAPE
PARKING STALL - 18'-0' X 8'-8" MIN.

PUBLIC/GUEST PARKING - 8'-0' X 22'-" MIN.

STAIRWAY
GUARDRAIL - 42" ABV. FS
COLUMN

EXTERIOR FIREPIT
33 34

SKYLIGHT (ABV/ BLW/ BYD AS OCCURS) , INSTALL NIGHT SHADES 35 363738

CASEWORK
39 4041

INTERIOR GAS BURNING FIREPLACE
424344
45 CLERESTORY WINDOWS ABV.

NON-WALKABLE GREEN ROOF

ELEVATOR

WINE WALL

SPA EQUIPMENT IN SOUND ATTENUATED VAULT
46 MECH/STORAGE CLOSET
4748
49 50

OPERABLE PRIVACY SCREEN

TAPERED EDGE FLAT ROOF

CANTILEVERED NON-STRUCTURAL ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE
TREE
51 CATCH BASIN
52 INFINITY EDGE
53 SCULPTURE
54 LOUVERED VENT DOOR
55 GRAVEL EDGE/TRENCH
56 REDUCED PARAPET
57 LOW WALL
58 ROOF VALLEY

GLS-3 TRANSLUCENT GLASS
A3.2
1 4" = 1'-0"

03.28.2025

SOUTH ELEVATION
480.00' DRIVEWAY
490.00' PLATE
501.00' PLATE
502.00' ROOF
509.50' PLATE
510.50' ROOF
491.00' FF
501.00' PLATE
502.00' ROOF
509.00' PLATE
510.00' ROOF
491.00' FF
15'-0"
3'-6"
A
A4.1
A
A4.1
GLS-2 STUC
STN-2 GLS-1 CON-2 GLS-1 MTL-2 STN-2 STUC
MTL-3 MTL-4 CON-2
STN-2
STUC WD-3 MTL-2 GLS-1 STUC CON-2 STUC
STN-2 CON-2 MTL-3
STUC
19'-6"
11'-0" 8'-6"
10'-0" 1'-0" 8'-6" 1'-0" 1'-0"
30'-0"
11'-0" 9'-6"
10'-0" 1'-0" 8'-6" 1'-0"
10'-6"
1'-0" 9'-6"
510.50' MAX. HEGHT

PLANE A
104949
254
26 264948
9 1521
ACR
5432
494849 5
48 69
CON-2
49 WD-3
CON-2
480.50' FS
499.00' PLATE
500.00' ROOF
501.00' FF
511.00' PLATE
512.00' ROOF
491.00' FF
499.00' PLATE
500.00' ROOF
501.00' FF
511.00' PLATE
512.00' ROOF
491.00' FF
10'-0" 16'-5"
15'-0"
15'-0"
3'-6"
3'-6"
A
A4.1
A
A4.1
21'-0"
10'-0" 11'-0"
9'-0" 1'-0" 10'-0" 1'-0"
21'-0"
10'-0" 11'-0"
9'-0" 1'-0" 10'-0" 1'-0"
STUC
CON-2
CON-2
STN-2
GLS-2
STUC
STUC
GLS-3
516.25' MAX. HEGHT @ PLANE A

PLANE A
45 2
102617
27282728
2827
52 10
9 26272828
10 1
28 1
282728
17 STRUCTURE BEYOND STRUCTURE BEYOND

HORST ARCHITECTS EXPRESSLY RESERVES

ITS COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT AND OTHER
PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THESE DRAWINGS.

THESE DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE

REPRODUCED, CHANGED, OR COPIED IN ANY

FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER NOR ARE

THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO ANY THIRD PARTY

WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE EXPRESSEDWRITTEN PERMISSION OF HORST ARCHITECTS.

SHEET NUMBERPLOT DATE:SCALE:

DRAWING PREPARED BY: JM
a r c h i t e c t s
9 4 9 4 9 4 9 5 6 9
1 PROPERTY LINE
REQ. BUILDING SETBACK
ADDITIONAL BUILDING SETBACK - 1:1 SLOPE, 15'-0" ABV. N.G. AT FYSB & RYSB AVG. LOT WIDTH/DEPTH

EDGE OF ROOF/ CEILING/ FLOOR/DECK (ABV/ BLW/ BYD AS OCCURS) 2345678
9 1012
1415
16171819
20212223242526272829
303132

EDGE OF WALL (ABV/ BLW/ BYD AS OCCURS)
HANDRAIL – 36” ABOVE ADJACENT FINISHED SURFACE

EDGE OF STAIRS (ABV/ BLW/ BYD AS OCCURS)

ON-GRADE STEPS/HARDSCAPE(E) CURB/ EDGE OF PAVEMENT

FIXED DATUM POINT/ BENCHMARK
PARKING STALL - 18'-0' X 8'-8" MIN.
(E) GRADE / CONTOUR LINE
PUBLIC/GUEST PARKING - 8'-0' X 22'-" MIN.

CENTERLINE OF DRIVEWAY

FS/ FG/ EG (ABOVE/ BELOW/ BEYOND AS OCCURS)
MAX ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT - 15' ABOVE E.G. AT REAR PROPERTY LINE

EXTERIOR FIREPIT
33 34

SKYLIGHT (ABV/ BLW/ BYD AS OCCURS) , INSTALL NIGHT SHADES 35 363738

CASEWORK
39 4041

STAIRWAY

INTERIOR GAS BURNING FIREPLACE
4243
GUARDRAIL - 42" ABV. FS
44 SITE WALL OR FENCE - MAX ABV. E.G. 4' IN FYSB, 6' IN SYSB 45 COLUMNCLERESTORY WINDOWS ABV.
46 MECH/STORAGE CLOSET
47 EXISTING UTILITY POLE TO BE REMOVED
48 49
50 OPEN TO BELOWFURNITURE PER INTERIOR DESIGNER
SPA SECURITY GATE, - 5FT MIN, SELF-LATCHING, SELF-CLOSING, NON-CLIMBABLE MAX. ALLOW. BLDG. HT. 30' ABV. NG, FG, FF - (WHICHEVER IS MORE RESTRICTIVE) PHOTOVOLTAIC PANELS - SUN POWER E-18/225 MODEL
AC UNIT IN SOUND ATTENUATED VAULT - PRHP14 X-Series Coil AC Condenser (37.5 dB) TRASH

KYOTOHOUSE
1550BLUEBIRDCANYONDRIVE,LAGUNABEACH,CA92651
SHARED FIREFIGHTER ACCESS PATH - ALL WEATHER MIN 3FT WIDEVERDURA MSE RETAINING WALL SYSTEM - PER CIVIL

RETAINING WALL

PLANTER/SOFTSCAPE AREA
REFLECTING POND - 18" DEEP MAX.JACUZZI WITH COVER

NON-WALKABLE GREEN ROOF

ELEVATOR

WINE WALL

SPA EQUIPMENT IN SOUND ATTENUATED VAULT

OPERABLE PRIVACY SCREEN

TAPERED EDGE FLAT ROOF

CANTILEVERED NON-STRUCTURAL ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE
11 CENTERLINE OF RIGHT OF WAY13
TREE

HABITABLE AREA / WALL

CABINETRY/BUILT-IN FEATURE

SOFTSCAPE AREA - REFER TO

LANDSCAPE PLAN

INTEGRALLY COLORED STUC
MTL-1 STRUCTURAL STEEL

LANDSCAPE GRAVEL - GRAV

VEGETATION VEG

WOOD SCREENS
WD-2
CON-2
WD-3

WOOD FLOORING

WTR WATER
MTL-2 BREAK METAL

PER LANDSCAPE PLAN
2" DIA. MAX.

SMOOTH TROWEL STUCCO
MTL-4 CORRUGATED METAL

TPO TPO ROOFING

STONE CLADDING

CONCRETE FLOORINGBOARD-FORM CONCRETEW/ EPOXY FINISH
MTL-3 CORTEN METAL PLATE

ACR ACRYLIC PANEL

CLADDING
WD-1 WOOD CLADDING

TB TURF-BLOCK
56 REDUCED PARAPET
57 LOW WALL
58 ROOF VALLEY

MATERIALS
LEGEND

KEYNOTES
a) All exterior flame producing devices, structures or equipment shall be gas b) Such devices, structures or equipment shall not be used for the disposal of c) Such devices, structures or equipment shall be located per the manufacturer’s d) Properties shall not be permitted to have such devices, structures or equipment NOTES
rubbish, trash or combustible materials. burning only. recommendations relating to the separation from any combustible structure. within 10’ of all non-fire-resistive vegetation or undeveloped wildland.

GLS-3 TRANSLUCENT GLASS
A3.3
1 4" = 1'-0"

03.28.2025

WEST ELEVATION

EAST ELEVATION
30'-0"
30'-0"
511.00' PLATE
512.00' ROOF
500.00' PLATE
501.50' FF
491.00' FF
480.50' FF
490.00' PLATE
501.00' FF/PLATE
502.00' ROOF
509.50' PLATE
510.50' ROOF
491.00' FF
19'-6"
1'-0" 1'-0" 7'-6" 1'-0"
10'-0" 8'-6" MASTER SUITE
21'-0"
10'-6" 10'-6"
9'-0" 1'-6" 9'-6" 1'-0"
8'-0"
SYSB

BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM
MASTER
CLOSET
MASTER
BATH
OFFICE

KITCHEN HALLWAY

STAIRWAY

LAUNDRY HALLWAY
3'-6"
10'-6"
B
A4.1
2649
2 @ SECTION CUT
4 4949
35 40
212926
2 1 @ SECTION CUT

STRUCTURE BEYOND
9 6
490.00' PLATE
500.00' ROOF/PLATE
501.00' FF
509.00' PLATE
510.00' ROOF
491.00' FF
480.50' FF
29'-6"
10'-6" 10'-0" 9'-0"
9'-6" 1'-0" 9'-0" 1'-0" 8'-0" 1'-0"

STAIRWAY ELEVATOR

ENTRY HALLWAY
MASTER
SUITE
DECK
10'-0"
FYSB
18'-6"
RYSB
15'-0"
15'-0"
3'-6"
3'-6"
490.00' PLATE
502.00' FS
509.00' PLATE
510.00' ROOF
491.00' FF
480.50' FF
29'-6"
10'-6" 10'-0" 9'-0"
9'-6" 1'-0" 9'-0" 1'-0" 8'-0" 1'-0"
7'-7"

HEAD CLEARANCE
A
A4.1

STRUCTURE BEYOND STRUCTURE BEYOND
2 @ SECTION CUT
2617
1 @ SECTION CUT
282728
17 5
28 52
26 1
1027
15 500.00' PLATE
501.00' FF

HORST ARCHITECTS EXPRESSLY RESERVES

ITS COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT AND OTHER
PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THESE DRAWINGS.

THESE DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE

REPRODUCED, CHANGED, OR COPIED IN ANY

FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER NOR ARE

THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO ANY THIRD PARTY

WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE EXPRESSEDWRITTEN PERMISSION OF HORST ARCHITECTS.

SHEET NUMBERPLOT DATE:SCALE:

DRAWING PREPARED BY: JM
a r c h i t e c t s
9 4 9 4 9 4 9 5 6 9

KYOTOHOUSE
1550BLUEBIRDCANYONDRIVE,LAGUNABEACH,CA92651

HABITABLE AREA / WALL

CABINETRY/BUILT-IN FEATURE

SOFTSCAPE AREA - REFER TO

LANDSCAPE PLAN

PROJECTION ABV/BYD/BLWPROPERTY LINESETBACKLOW WALL / HARDSCAPE STN-1
GLS-1 TRANSPARENT GLASS
STN-2 STONE FLOORING
GLS-2 GLASS GUARDRAIL
CON-1

INTEGRALLY COLORED STUC
MTL-1 STRUCTURAL STEEL

LANDSCAPE GRAVEL - GRAV

VEGETATION VEG

WOOD SCREENS
WD-2
CON-2
WD-3

WOOD FLOORING

WTR WATER
MTL-2 BREAK METAL

PER LANDSCAPE PLAN
2" DIA. MAX.

SMOOTH TROWEL STUCCO
MTL-4 CORRUGATED METAL

TPO TPO ROOFING

STONE CLADDING

CONCRETE FLOORINGBOARD-FORM CONCRETEW/ EPOXY FINISH
MTL-3 CORTEN METAL PLATE

ACR ACRYLIC PANEL

CLADDING
WD-1 WOOD CLADDING

TB TURF-BLOCK
1 PROPERTY LINE
REQ. BUILDING SETBACK
ADDITIONAL BUILDING SETBACK - 1:1 SLOPE, 15'-0" ABV. N.G. AT FYSB & RYSB AVG. LOT WIDTH/DEPTH
2345678
9 1012
1415
(E) CURB/ EDGE OF PAVEMENT

FIXED DATUM POINT/ BENCHMARK
(E) GRADE / CONTOUR LINE

CENTERLINE OF DRIVEWAY

FS/ FG/ EG (ABOVE/ BELOW/ BEYOND AS OCCURS)
MAX ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT - 15' ABOVE E.G. AT REAR PROPERTY LINE SITE WALL OR FENCE - MAX ABV. E.G. 4' IN FYSB, 6' IN SYSB

EXISTING UTILITY POLE TO BE REMOVED
MAX. ALLOW. BLDG. HT. 30' ABV. NG, FG, FF - (WHICHEVER IS MORE RESTRICTIVE)

EDGE OF STAIRS (ABV/ BLW/ BYD AS OCCURS)

ON-GRADE STEPS/HARDSCAPE
PARKING STALL - 18'-0' X 8'-8" MIN.

PUBLIC/GUEST PARKING - 8'-0' X 22'-" MIN.

STAIRWAY
GUARDRAIL - 42" ABV. FS
COLUMN

EXTERIOR FIREPIT
33 34

SKYLIGHT (ABV/ BLW/ BYD AS OCCURS) , INSTALL NIGHT SHADES 35 363738

CASEWORK
39 4041

INTERIOR GAS BURNING FIREPLACE
424344
45 CLERESTORY WINDOWS ABV.

NON-WALKABLE GREEN ROOF

ELEVATOR

WINE WALL

SPA EQUIPMENT IN SOUND ATTENUATED VAULT
46 MECH/STORAGE CLOSET
4748
49 50

OPERABLE PRIVACY SCREEN

TAPERED EDGE FLAT ROOF

CANTILEVERED NON-STRUCTURAL ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE
TREE
51 CATCH BASIN
52 INFINITY EDGE
53 SCULPTURE
54 LOUVERED VENT DOOR
55 GRAVEL EDGE/TRENCH
56 REDUCED PARAPET
57 LOW WALL
58 ROOF VALLEY

GLS-3 TRANSLUCENT GLASS
A4.1
1 4" = 1'-0"

03.28.2025

SECTION A

SECTION B
101
106
107
102
109
108
103
105
104
24'-6"
3'-0" 4'-8" 26'-5"
4'-4"
5'-2"
10'-11"
7'-0" 3'-0" 20'-0"
25'-0"
7'-0"
3'-6"
6'-0"
11'-2"
9'-2"
26'-4"

HORST ARCHITECTS EXPRESSLY RESERVES

ITS COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT AND OTHER
PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THESE DRAWINGS.

THESE DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE

REPRODUCED, CHANGED, OR COPIED IN ANY

FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER NOR ARE

THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO ANY THIRD PARTY

WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE EXPRESSEDWRITTEN PERMISSION OF HORST ARCHITECTS.

SHEET NUMBERPLOT DATE:SCALE:
a r c h i t e c t s
9 4 9 4 9 4 9 5 6 9

KYOTOHOUSE
1550BLUEBIRDCANYONDRIVE,LAGUNABEACH,CA92651
DRAWING PREPARED BY: JM A5.1
1 4" = 1'-0"

04.15.2025

LOWER LEVEL FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS
Lower Level
101102103104105106107108109
garagegaragegaragegarage
mechmechmechhabitablehabitable
518.92
317.24
138.39

52.61 66.55

76.3873.5070.00
139.89
garage
mechhabitable
1,027.16 sf
216.43 sf209.39 sf
201
202
203 204 205
206
207
208
210
209
18'-5" 8'-0" 23'-10" 1'-2" 16'-10" 14'-0"
27'-0"
13'-10" 16'-10" 1'-3" 9'-7"
54'-1"
22'-1"
3'-6"
8'-0"
44'-8"
3'-9" 7'-9"
29'-1"
7'-2" 11'-6"

HORST ARCHITECTS EXPRESSLY RESERVES

ITS COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT AND OTHER
PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THESE DRAWINGS.

THESE DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE

REPRODUCED, CHANGED, OR COPIED IN ANY

FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER NOR ARE

THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO ANY THIRD PARTY

WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE EXPRESSEDWRITTEN PERMISSION OF HORST ARCHITECTS.

SHEET NUMBERPLOT DATE:SCALE:
a r c h i t e c t s
9 4 9 4 9 4 9 5 6 9

KYOTOHOUSE
1550BLUEBIRDCANYONDRIVE,LAGUNABEACH,CA92651
DRAWING PREPARED BY: JM A5.2
1 4" = 1'-0"

04.15.2025

MID LEVEL FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS
Mid Level
201202203204205206207208209
habitablehabitable
378.00
140.00170.90
295.33
198.72
221.69
355.33
105.52158.92
habitable 3,219.61 sf
210 habitable 1195.20
habitablehabitablehabitablehabitablehabitablehabitablehabitable DN
304
303
301 302
305
306
307
308
5"
20'-3"
25'-0"
5'-9"
9'-10"
4'-10"
5'-9"
9'-3"
13'-1"
18'-9"
3'-11"
5'-6"
23'-0"
12'-10"
21'-6"
12'-10"
23'-6"
5'-0"
13'-11"
13'-1"
22'-6"

HORST ARCHITECTS EXPRESSLY RESERVES

ITS COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT AND OTHER
PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THESE DRAWINGS.

THESE DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE

REPRODUCED, CHANGED, OR COPIED IN ANY

FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER NOR ARE

THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO ANY THIRD PARTY

WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE EXPRESSEDWRITTEN PERMISSION OF HORST ARCHITECTS.

SHEET NUMBERPLOT DATE:SCALE:
a r c h i t e c t s
9 4 9 4 9 4 9 5 6 9

KYOTOHOUSE
1550BLUEBIRDCANYONDRIVE,LAGUNABEACH,CA92651
DRAWING PREPARED BY: JM A5.3
1 4" = 1'-0"

04.15.2025

UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN CALCULATIONS
Upper Level
301302303304305306307308 habitable

76.24 319.97

21.83268.88
113.02115.50
481.08
275.91
habitable 1,254.39 sfhabitablehabitablehabitablehabitable deckdeckdeckdeck 418.04 sf
13 512.0' TR
14 512.0' TR
16 510.5' TR
11 510.5' TR
12 510.5' TR
15 510.5' TR
18 511.50' TSKLT 17 511.25' TSKLT 19 511.50' TSKLT 20 511.25' TSKLT 510.5' TR 510.5' TR
510.5' TR
510.5' TR
512.0' TR

SLOPES UP

SLOPES UP
2 502.0' TR
1 502.0' TR
3 502.0' TR 4 502.0' TR
6 502.0' TR
5 502.0' TR
7 502.0' TR
502.0' TR
502.0' TR
500.0' TR
502.0' TR
502.0' TR
502.0' TR
502.0' TR
9 502.0' TD
10 8
505.5' TRAIL
502.0' TD 505.5' TRAIL
502.0' TD 505.5' TRAIL
Sewer manhole TBM Rim elev=458.08
73'-8" 5'-0" 16'-10" 20'-0" 25'-0" 8'-10"
13'-0"
26'-0"
24'-6"
33'-5"
36'-3"
41'-0"
4'-2"
6'-8" 18'-6"
7'-0"
7'-10"
4'-0"
4'-0"
4'-0"
4'-6"
11'-6"
3'-4"
2'-6"
36'-0"

EDGE OF WALL

BELOW (OFFICE)

EDGE OF WALL

BELOW (GARAGE)

EDGE OF WALL BELOW (MASTER)
EDGE OF WALL BELOW (MASTER) 11'-2"
33'-0"
6'-6" 18'-8" 8'-4"
11'-10"
3'-10"
505.5' TRAIL
502.0' TR
502.0' TR
6'-6" 15'-0"

EDGE OF WALL

BELOW (FAMILY)

EDGE OF WALL

BELOW (DINING)

EDGE OF WALL

BELOW (KITCHEN)

OPEN TO BELOW

HORST ARCHITECTS EXPRESSLY RESERVES

ITS COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT AND OTHER
PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THESE DRAWINGS.

THESE DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE

REPRODUCED, CHANGED, OR COPIED IN ANY

FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER NOR ARE

THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO ANY THIRD PARTY

WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE EXPRESSEDWRITTEN PERMISSION OF HORST ARCHITECTS.

SHEET NUMBERPLOT DATE:SCALE:
a r c h i t e c t s
9 4 9 4 9 4 9 5 6 9

KYOTOHOUSE
1550BLUEBIRDCANYONDRIVE,LAGUNABEACH,CA92651
DRAWING PREPARED BY: JM A6.1
1 4" = 1'-0"

04.14.2025

ELEVATIONS CERTIFICATIONS
Signature of Registered Land Surveyor
or Civil Engineer
Name (printed or typed)
License No./ Expiration Date
Date
Required Certification Statement:

I hereby certify that the story poles located on the
referenced site were constructed under my supervision
and survey, and the story poles are in conformance with the design, height and location as shown on the
approved staking plan. I further certify that 1) the story pole identification numbers, 2) story pole location base grade elevations, 3) story pole heights and 4) the
proposed maximum height elevations are true and
correct. I acknowledge and understand that the required project staking is for the purpose of informing the owner, architect, designer, City staff, design review authority and the public as to the accurate location and exterior
dimensions of the proposed structure or addition.

Pole
Number
Proposed MaximumElevation
1 2
3 4
5 6
Base GradeElevation*
Story Pole Height from
Base Grade Elevation
7 89
101112131415161718

1. STAKING POLES REPRESENT THE

MOST DISTANT CORNERS OF THE

PROPOSED WALL STRUCTURE
LOCATED OVER TOP OF ROOF.

2. CONNECT ROOF STAKING POLES

WITH STRING LINE TO OUTLINE
ENVELOPE.

3. STRING LINES TO BE CONNECTED

AT TOP OF STAKE UNLESS NOTED
OTHERWISE.

4. VERIFY STRING LINE HEIGHTWITH GRAPHIC NOTE PARALLEL
ALONG STRINGLINE.

NEW STAKING POLE

LOCATION

0.00' TR

HORIZONTAL STAKE

REPRESENTS

CANTILEVERED ROOF OR
DECK.

TOP OF ROOFTOP OF CHIMNEYTOP OF WALLTOP OF DECK

TRTCTWTDWV(E) EXISTING

PROPOSED ROOF

WATER VALVE
NOTES
Please stamp & sign below

FD FIXED DATUMTS TOP OF STAIR

0.00' STRINGLINE & HEIGHT
LEGEND

TOR TOP OF GUARDRAILTOH TOP OF HANDRAIL
19 20
502.00' TD/505.5' TRAIL

STAKING PLAN
502.00' TR510.50' TR510.50' TR512.00' TR512.00' TR510.50' TR510.50' TR 511.25' TSKLT511.50' TSKLT511.50' TSKLT511.25' TSKLT
* If standard base grade elevation nails are not feasible because of the existence of rocks, paving or existing structural improvements, then the surveyor or engineer may use an alternative method of establishing horizontal and vertical control for story poles that can be observed in the field. The surveyor or engineer shall describe the control method used directly on the full-size staking plan. Such alternative methods may include painted markings. It is also recognized that sometimes it may not be feasible to setpoles due to unforeseen circumstances. In that case, please identify the storypoles that were not established and an explanation as to the reason. *Base grade elevations and story pole heights from base grade elevation as noted above are estimations and should be verified by land surveyor according to the fixed benchmark prior to erection of story poles.

Story Pole Construction Notes Table
Date:

Site Address : 1550 Bluebird Canyon Dr., Laguna Beach
Datum Benchmark : 458.08' FS (Sewer manhole)
Name of Surveyor or Engineer :

STATEMENT LEGEND
502.00' TR502.00' TR502.00' TR502.00' TR502.00' TR502.00' TR 502.00' TD/505.5' TRAIL502.00' TD/505.5' TRAIL
488.06 13.94494.70486.20487.59489.15489.18492.59493.15492.70494.50493.69495.84501.05495.91495.15492.58498.17498.87498.85498.34

7.30 15.8014.4112.8512.82

9.41 8.85/12.359.30/12.807.50/11.00

16.8114.6613.9413.9413.3517.9213.0812.6312.6512.91

BLUEBIRD CANYON DRIVE
LOT A

BUILDING FOOTPRINT
478.60
FS
482.35
FS
469.59FS
480.00
FS
482.58
FS
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
Sewer manhole
TBM Rim elev=458.08
DRIVEWAY 10% SLOPE MAX

FOR FIREFIGHTER ACCESS
DRIVEWAY 10% SLOPE MAX

FOR FIREFIGHTER ACCESS
482.35
FS
482.35
FS
484.93 FS
UP
UP
501.10
FS 500.55
FS
500.0
FS
498.50
FS
498.00
FS
497.00
FS
GRV-1
GRV-1
GRV-1
GRV-1
GRV-1
GRV-1
GRV-1
496.00
495.00 FS
FS
499.00
FS
500.0 FS
494.00
FS
GRV-1
493.00
FS
492.00
FS
491.00
FS
489.00
FS
488.00
FS
490.50
FS
VEG
VEG
VEG
VEG
VEG
VEG
VEG
VEG
VEG
VEG
VEG
VEG
STN-2
STN-2
STN-2
STN-2
STN-2
STN-2
TB
GRV-1
GRV-1
GRV-1
STN-2
491.00 FS
Sewer manhole
TBM Rim elev=458.08

FIRE APPARATUS
STANDPIPE 2 - 2½" Hose Valve
10'-0"

FIRE HYDRANT

SHARED FIREFIGHTER ACCESS

LOT A & LOT B

SHARED FIREFIGHTER ACCESS

LOT A & LOT B
HOSE PULL 150'
STANDPIPE 2 - 2½" Hose Valve
FDC
2 - 2 ½ " Snoots

HORST ARCHITECTS EXPRESSLY RESERVES

ITS COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT AND OTHER
PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THESE DRAWINGS.

THESE DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE

REPRODUCED, CHANGED, OR COPIED IN ANY

FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER NOR ARE

THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO ANY THIRD PARTY

WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE EXPRESSED

WRITTEN PERMISSION OF HORST
ARCHITECTS.

SHEET NUMBER
PLOT DATE:

SCALE:
a r c h i t e c t s
9 4 9 4 9 4 9 5 6 9
K
Y
O
T
O
H
O
U
S
E 15
5 0
B
L
U
E
BIR
D
C
A
N
Y
O
N
D
RIV
E, L
A
G
U
N
A
B
E
A
C
H, C
A
9 2
6 51
DRAWING PREPARED BY: JM
N
A6.2
1 4" = 1'-0"

03.28.2025

FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS PLAN
GENERAL NOTES:
- THE PROJECT IS REQUIRED TO INCLUDE NFPA 13D FIRE
SPRINKLERS.
- THE PROJECT IS REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH 2019 CFC AND 2019 CBC CH. 7A
- THE PROJECT IS REQUIRED TO USE BRANDGUARD VENTS OR

APPROVED EQUAL
- ALL GLAZING TO BE DUAL PANED INSULATED WITH A SINGLE PANE TEMPERED.
- FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS AREAS WITHOUT STAIRS NOT TO HAVE SLOPE EXCEEDING 10%.
- SEE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS AND SECTIONS THAT INDICATE

OPERABLE WINDOWS AND SLIDERS FOR SECONDARY EGRESS AND

FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS
FUEL MODIFICATION NOTES:
- EXISTING CONDITION: SITE CONSISTS OF AN EMPTY LOT WITH SPORADIC

VEGETATION
- AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM WILL MAINTAIN HEALTHY VEGETATION WITH HIGH MOISTURE CONTENT ON ENTIRE SITE.
- FOLIAGE WILL BE PRUNED TO REDUCE FUEL LOADS, REDUCE VERTICAL CONTINUITY, AND TO REMOVE PLANT LITTER AND DEAD WOOD.

MAINTENANCE WILL BE PROVIDED ON AN ONGOING BASIS.
- A MINIMUM OF 36" WIDE FIREFIGHTER ACCESS IS PROVIDED AROUND THE STRUCTURE.
- NO VINES ARE PROPOSED ON THE RESIDENCE STRUCTURE.
- TREES AND TREE-FORM SHRUB CANOPIES ARE NOT TO EXTEND BEYOND

THE PROPERTY LINE (MEASURED FROM THE EDGE OF A FULL GROWTH CROWN).
- VERTICAL CLEARANCE FOR ACCESS ROAD IN EXCESS OF 13'-6" DATUM

POINT (REFER TO

SURVEY)

0.00'

FOOTPRINT OF PROPOSED

RESIDENCE

ALL-WEATHER EMERGENCY
ACCESS PATH MIN 3' WIDE
150' MAX HOSE PULL
FIRE

APPARATUS
FIRE

HYDRANT

EXISTING

GATE (REFER TO

SURVEY)

STANDPIPE

CORTEN STEEL STEPS

TURF BLOCK

LANDSCAPE GRAVEL -
2" DIA. MAX.

CONCRETE

EMERGENCY
ACCESS
GATE
KNOX
SWITCH
AM&M NOTES:
- PER THE AM&M: A SEPARATE (DEFERRED) SUBMITTAL FOR THE

FDC, STANDPIPE HOSE CONNECTION AND PIPING SYSTEM IS
REQUIRED. THE SYSTEM DESIGN MUST COMPLY WITH THE 2019
CFC, AND NFPA 13/14/24 STANDARDS. IT MUST BE DESIGNED AND INSTALLED BY A QUALIFIED FIRE PROTECTOR CONTRACTOR. PLANS MUST INCLUDE FDC WITH A TWO 2.5" CONNECTION NEAR THE
STREET, A 3 INCH UNDERGROUND PIPE THAT CONNECTS TO THE
FIRE SPRINKLER RISER ABOVE THE FLOW SWITCH, AND TWO 2.5" STANDPIPE HOSE CONNECTIONS. ONE MUST BE NEAR THE REAR
ON THE NORTH SIDE, WITH THE ONE ON THE SOUTH SIDE. PLANS

MUST BE SUBMITTED TO AND APPROVED BY THE LBFD, WITH
PERMIT ISSUED AND APPROPRIATE INSPECTIONS CONDUCTED.
- PER THE AM&M: THE FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM DESIGN MUST
INCLUDE A 4 HEAD HYDRAULIC CALCULATION, AND SPRINKLER

HEADS IN ALL ROOMS/AREAS (REGARDLESS OF SIZE) INCLUDING SMALL BATHROOMS AND CLOSETS.

FIRE DEPARTMENT NOTES:
- A SEPARATE ( DEFERRED) SUBMITTAL FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS IS REQUIRED. SYSTEM DESIGN MUST COMPLY WITH THE 2019 CFC, 2019 NFPA 13D AND THE LBMC. PLANS MUST BE DESIGNED AND INSTALLED BY A QUALIFIED FIRE PROTECTION CONTRACTOR. PLANS

SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO AND APPROVED BY THE LBFD, WITH PERMIT ISSUED AND APPROPRIATE INSPECTIONS CONDUCTED.
- ALL EXTERIOR FIRE PLACES AND FIRE PITS MUST BE GAS FIRED ONLY. NO SOLID FUEL IS ALLOWED PER THE LBFD MUNICIPAL CODE. FIRE PLACES MUST BE A MINIMUM OF 10 FEET FROM ALL COMBUSTIBLE MATERIALS, AND FIRE PITS MUST BE A MINIMUM OF 20 FEET FROM COMBUSTIBLE MATERIALS.
- MAINTAIN JOBSITE SAFETY DURING CONSTRUCTION AS PER CHAPTER 33 OF THE 2019 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE.
- COMPLETE FIREFIGHTER ACCESS AROUND THE BUILDING IS REQUIRED, AND MUST BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH DRB APPROVED PLANS. SEE THIS SHEET FOR DETAILS. THIS IS SUBJECT TO FINAL FIRE INSPECTION AND REQUIRES APPROVAL PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY. - ADDRESS NUMBERS MUST BE PLACED ON THE EXTERIOR FACING THE STREET ADDRESSED TO. MINIMUM SIZE OF NUMBERS IS 4", ND THEY MUST CONTRAST WITH BACKGROUND.
- FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT INSPECTIONS, CALL (949) 497-0352 AT LEAST 3 DAYS IN ADVANCE TO SCHEDULE.
- THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE VERY HIGH HAZARD SEVERITY ZONE, AND AS SUCH ALL VEGETATION ON SITE MUST COMPLY WITH THE 2019 LBFD FUEL MODIFICATION STANDARD.

STONE FLOORING
226 of 654
E
E
E
E
E
E
EE
DN
E

HORST ARCHITECTS EXPRESSLY RESERVES

ITS COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT AND OTHER
PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THESE DRAWINGS.

THESE DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE

REPRODUCED, CHANGED, OR COPIED IN ANY

FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER NOR ARE

THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO ANY THIRD PARTY

WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE EXPRESSEDWRITTEN PERMISSION OF HORST ARCHITECTS.

SHEET NUMBERPLOT DATE:SCALE:
a r c h i t e c t s
9 4 9 4 9 4 9 5 6 9

KYOTOHOUSE
1550BLUEBIRDCANYONDRIVE,LAGUNABEACH,CA92651
DRAWING PREPARED BY: JM A6.3
1 8 " = 1'-0"

03.28.2025

EXTERIOR LIGTHING PLAN

LOWER LEVEL UPPER LEVEL

MID LEVEL

PROPOSED FIXTURE COUNT
Low voltage indirect slot light -
recessed in wall 125 lm

EXTERIOR BUILDING LIGHTING

PROPOSED EGRESS DOORSFIXTURE TYPE WATTAGE LUMENS QUANTITY COMMENTS TOTAL
2 W 9 Lightology - 113RL outdoor wall recessed
99 9
E
LOW VOLTAGE INDIRECT SLOT LIGHT - RECESSED IN WALLLIGHTOLOGY - 113RL- 2 WATT E
UP
1 2
3 4
43'-6"
27'-9"
59'-7"
46'-6"
33'-3"
15'-0"
11'-6"
34'-2"
21'-3"
28'-8"
50'-5"
36'-11"
57'-6"

HORST ARCHITECTS EXPRESSLY RESERVES

ITS COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT AND OTHER
PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THESE DRAWINGS.

THESE DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE

REPRODUCED, CHANGED, OR COPIED IN ANY

FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER NOR ARE

THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO ANY THIRD PARTY

WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE EXPRESSEDWRITTEN PERMISSION OF HORST ARCHITECTS.

SHEET NUMBERPLOT DATE:SCALE:
a r c h i t e c t s
9 4 9 4 9 4 9 5 6 9

KYOTOHOUSE
1550BLUEBIRDCANYONDRIVE,LAGUNABEACH,CA92651
DRAWING PREPARED BY: JM L1.0
1 4" = 1'-0"

03.28.2025

OPEN SPACE PLAN

LANDSCAPE OPEN SPACE
1 2
3 4
TOTAL
378.34
1187.57
2714.91

79.25 4,360.07 SF

UP
1 2
3 4
5 43'-6"
27'-9"
59'-7"
46'-6"
33'-3"
15'-0"
11'-6"
34'-2"
21'-3"
22'-6"
28'-8"
50'-5"
36'-11"
57'-6"
6'-8"
19'-2"
9'-5"

HORST ARCHITECTS EXPRESSLY RESERVES

ITS COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT AND OTHER
PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THESE DRAWINGS.

THESE DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE

REPRODUCED, CHANGED, OR COPIED IN ANY

FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER NOR ARE

THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO ANY THIRD PARTY

WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE EXPRESSEDWRITTEN PERMISSION OF HORST ARCHITECTS.

SHEET NUMBERPLOT DATE:SCALE:
a r c h i t e c t s
9 4 9 4 9 4 9 5 6 9

KYOTOHOUSE
1550BLUEBIRDCANYONDRIVE,LAGUNABEACH,CA92651
DRAWING PREPARED BY: JM L3.0
1 4" = 1'-0"

03.28.2025

IRRIGATION PLAN

IRRIGATION AREA
1 2
3 4
5 410.36
1187.57
2714.91

79.25 TOTAL 4,628.63 SF
Irrigated areaProposed building footprint
236.54

This transcript was exported on Dec 05, 2025 - view latest version here.

May 8, 2025 - 1st DRB Meeting - Trim (Completed 12/03/25) Transcript by Rev.com

Page 1 of 27 ends

Thomas Gibbs:

Development Permit 24-2588. Revocable Encroachment Permit 24-2587. While the applicant gets ready, why don't we proceed with ex parte?
Speaker 1:

Chair, I had a site visit with Horst and Susan Whitten. I also spoke with Steve Kortani.

Speaker 2:

And I did the same.

Mr. Weil:

Oh, sorry. I met with Peter and his wife, who are the neighbors across the street, Susan Whitten, Nikki, who's the neighbor up the way, I just caught her in the driveway and she was coming home, and then Steve Kortani and Horst at the site.

Thomas Gibbs:

Alrighty. I met with Steve and Horst at the site. I also spoke to Mr. Kortani a few times. I met Peter Groman, Susan Whitten, and William Horner. All right.

Mr. Weil:

Chair, I spoke with William.

Thomas Gibbs:

Okay. We do not have a ... Are you doing it?
Jim:

Yeah. Chair Gibbs, Bill and I are going to tag Team on this one. So I'll go ahead and start. First of all, this is Item 5.3, 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive, Lot A. First, I want to let everyone know that we've got some addressing issues. We have some two new lots here. And in the past, we've referred to this as 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive, Lot A, which is the original address for the project site. Just for the record, I want to make sure everyone knows that this address is 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive. That address was assigned fairly recently. Apologize for that confusion.

But again, this is a project by Mr. Derneyus for a single family home, coastal development permit, design review, and a revocable encroachment permit. So project planner is Nancy Ballmer Sistra, and she is not here this evening, so Bill is going to go ahead and give you a showcase of the project, and then we'll have the applicant give their presentation, okay?
Bill Rodriguez:

Great. Thank you, Jim. And good evening, Chair Gibbs and board members. I'm Bill Rodriguez for the community development department. As ... Oops, one moment. Is that not sharing? Okay. All right. So the subject property, Jim had indicated is located at 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive. It is about a 12,300 square foot lot. The applicant has submitted plans to develop a detached single family house on the property. Entitlements that are required to realize that proposal include a design review, coastal development permit, and a revocable encroachment permit from the city.

Attachment 11 231
232 of 654
This transcript was exported on Dec 05, 2025 - view latest version here.

May 8, 2025 - 1st DRB Meeting - Trim (Completed 12/03/25) Transcript by Rev.com

Page 2 of 27 ends

The property is located kind of in a hillside area. We do have a few images to share with the board this evening from different vantage points, showing the property in its context, kind of from a north, south, east, and west perspective. You can see the subject lot identified here with the downward facing or pointing arrows. And again, from a couple different perspectives, you get a sense of the other homes that exist in the nearby neighborhood, and then the lot itself. So I don't have an outline of where the property line is located here, but you see where the arrow is located. The property line located to the north is generally located where that single or lone tree is, kind of on the right-hand side of the image.

Most of the development will be taking place though in the vicinity of where the arrow is located at. The house itself would consist of about 4,644 square feet in two stories with a subterranean 1028 square foot three car tandem garage.

There are entitlements that are required from the city also include for grading, which will include about 1900 cubic yards of export from the site. There will be retaining walls and landscaping, as well as some improvements within the public right of way to include an approximate 12-foot-high retaining wall to accommodate an additional parking space adjacent to the public right-of-way.

The development itself ... Actually, before I go onto the development itself, I've got a couple of views here looking up and down Bluebird Canyon Road. The property itself does sit a few feet above the subject right of way, just beyond or to the left of the distribution pole that you can see there. The subject property will be developed with a two-story, more contemporary style home. I'll let the architect get into some of those details in their presentation, but the property does or is proposed to be compliant with all of the city's development standards for the R1 Zoning District. However, as part of the design review process, the board has the ability to look at things related to the structure itself, its location of vehicular access, any elevated decks that are on the site. The applicant also proposes some spas and water features as part of the property in addition to the grading and landscaping that I had mentioned earlier.

So in terms of the project itself, the house will look like this. We have images of the front elevation, which would face out towards Bluebird Canyon. The image in the lower right-hand corner is the rear or side elevation, which would look more down through sort of the canyon areas and out towards the Pacific Ocean. As part of the design review criteria, the board members are very familiar. There are a number of standards that the city has. Some of them are listed here. They include concerns over access, the design articulation of the building itself, compliance with the city's general plan, issues pertaining to potential light and glare impacts of the development. Neighborhood compatibility is a significant issue, as well as privacy and view equity.

In terms of reviewing the project against the coastal development permit standards, their Criteria 6 is one of the important ones that requires that the proposed development be found to be visually compatible with the character of the surrounding area, and that new development in particularly scenic areas are to be subordinate to the character of the setting.

Relative to the project, staff has taken a neutral position on it this evening, and is requesting some direction and feedback from the board as to any design direction that the board may have for the project in terms of being able to make findings required for design review compliance or the coastal development permit findings. So with that, I will conclude my remarks. I know we have the applicant team here who would like to make a presentation before you begin your deliberations. So thank you.

Thomas Gibbs:

Thank you, Bill. Very good presentation. Any questions of staff? Attachment 11 232
233 of 654
This transcript was exported on Dec 05, 2025 - view latest version here.

May 8, 2025 - 1st DRB Meeting - Trim (Completed 12/03/25) Transcript by Rev.com

Page 3 of 27 ends

Speaker 3:

One question to Bill.

Thomas Gibbs:
[inaudible 00:07:14].

Speaker 3:

Sorry. If I may, Mr. Chair, I just wanted to add one brief thing to that staff report, if that's okay? The city did receive some correspondence about commentary submitted by a resident that happens to be a planning commissioner. I did just want to briefly address that. City officials retain their First Amendment rights, they're free to petition other boards as well as the city council. That being said, any allegation that her comments were given undue deference or weight, completely without merit. The drafting of the staff report went through the normal, impartial and fair process. My office was similarly consulted, as is typical, and I can assure you no extra weight was given. And even though I don't need to likely say it, I would advise the board to weigh all evidence before it tonight in a fair and impartial manner, and no extra weight should be given to any public comment based on their role or lack of a role with the city in any official capacity. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thomas Gibbs:

Okay. I appreciate those comments. And Mr. Weil, you have a question.

Mr. Weil:

Yeah. You concluded your comments with the staff that is a neutral, but there was more specifics to the design criteria. Which ones were specifically highlighted, I think it's in the front page, that you'd like us to review?
Bill Rodriguez:

So I think staff is looking for some feedback from the board relative to the building's location on the site, height of the building, its general orientation, perhaps the amount of grading that is proposed to occur, whether or not the positioning of the building on the site sort of on the hillside itself is acceptable or maybe opportunities to set it into the property a little bit more, just overall compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood or that's kind of some of the feedback and concerns that we're looking for from the board.

Jim:

Chair Gibbs, additionally, we're looking for feedback on view equity and privacy. These are some of the issues and concerns that we've been hearing from the neighborhood. So I want to add that to the list as well.

Thomas Gibbs:

Yeah. So it's clear, as I understand it, and from reading the staff report, the staff was giving us facts and information for us to consider, but has taken no position, including a position of denial on any of those criteria. Is that correct, Mr. Rodriguez?
Bill Rodriguez:

Attachment 11 233
234 of 654
This transcript was exported on Dec 05, 2025 - view latest version here.

May 8, 2025 - 1st DRB Meeting - Trim (Completed 12/03/25) Transcript by Rev.com

Page 4 of 27 ends

It is.

Thomas Gibbs:

All right. Any other questions before we go to the applicant? Okay. Not hearing any. Horst, you have five minutes.

Horst Noppenberger:

Thank you. Good evening, board members and city staff. I'm Horst Noppenberger, the architect, Horst Architects. I'm working with the property owner. I'm here with Michael Wilkes to my left, our landscape architect, and also Steve Kortani. Can we go to our presentation, please? We just have a few slides to go through.

And maybe just to keep things going while we look for the presentation. So we started this project a couple months ago, and as you may know, there was a previous design for this property that was fully staked, had gone through zoning. The first thing that we did in the office, along with the owners, is we hosted a neighborhood meeting. It was a very productive neighborhood meeting, I think, for the most part. I mean, people will speak this evening. We learned a lot. At that neighborhood meeting, we learned that in order of magnitude, the issues are access, mass and scale, compatibility, privacy, and view equity, as Bill very eloquently laid out.

So this is the front elevation of the project, but can we go to the next slide, please? So in speaking with the neighbors, so what we're looking at here is we're looking at a site plan. And in red is the footprint of the previous project that was proposed for the property. What I was hearing from the neighbors is that the previous design looked very imposing from Bluebird Canyon. So we pulled our new design back about an additional 15 feet from Bluebird Canyon, to minimize the appearance of mass and scale. In addition to the neighborhood meetings, I've had a couple very productive creative meetings with Susan Whitten, the adjacent property owner to the west, I guess the southwest, and we saw an opportunity to actually pull the sort of westerly edge of the structure back an additional five feet. So in doing these things, we reduced the floor area, the habitable floor area from 5,200 to 4,600, and we also reduced the site coverage from 34% to 29%. Next slide, please.

Okay. One of the main issues that we discussed with the neighbors was the size of the house. And it's a little hard for me to see, but our floor area that we're proposing, our 4,600 square feet of habitable space on the 13,000 square foot lot is roughly a 40% floor area or an FAR, as it's sometimes referred to.

The property owner, David Derneyus, did some very intensive investigation of properties on Bluebird Canyon, both the 1500 block and the 1600 block, and found that the average floor area to lot size is right around 40%. And I can't really read it very well from this distance, but it's all in that document, and we can certainly pick through that a little bit more. We have a lot to cover. Next slide, please.

Okay. What you'll see when we go into the design images, we're proposing a house which is essentially two pavilions. There's a single story pavilion and there's a two-story pavilion. The two-story pavilion is partially cut into the hill, and so it's partially subterranean. We have a garage tucked underneath the single-story pavilion. The houses that you see in yellow are houses that are three stories or more, and the subject site is shown in green. So as you can see, predominantly, there are three-story houses within the pattern of development. Next slide, please.

Ooh, running out of time. This is really important. 70% of the buildable area on the property is above the top of the slope. The area in yellow is 70% of the buildable portion of the property. Not only is it the substantial buildable portion, but it's also where there's views and where we can integrate interior and Attachment 11 234
235 of 654
This transcript was exported on Dec 05, 2025 - view latest version here.

May 8, 2025 - 1st DRB Meeting - Trim (Completed 12/03/25) Transcript by Rev.com

Page 5 of 27 ends

exterior living, hence the ascending driveway that we're proposing. Next slide, please. Let's skip this one.

This is other properties that have ascending driveways. Next slide, please.

In my meetings with Susan Whitten, we talked about looking at an alternate driveway location. And I can save that for the rebuttal if you like.

Thomas Gibbs:

Of course, you have three minutes on rebuttal, if you could save it? Horst Noppenberger:

Sure.

Thomas Gibbs:

Actually, because we got a lot of people.

Horst Noppenberger:

Yeah, that's a good place to start.

Thomas Gibbs:

Okay. Thank you.

Horst Noppenberger:

Thank you.

Thomas Gibbs:

Before we go to the public comments, how many people intend to speak? If you could raise your hand.

Okay. I'm going to keep it at three minutes, but I want to tell you when the yellow light goes on, start wrapping up your comments. I am not going to allow to go beyond the red light. And it's really important to stay within that time period, so be concise. Also be aware, we've talked to many of you, and have read the materials. So with that, if we get a lineup and start with the public comment, now's the time. Come up to the podium. Let's get going. Also, I'd appreciate it, you're not required to, but it's helpful for us, if you could state your name and your property address at the beginning? I won't charge you time for that one, all right?
Joe Cover:

You got it. Everybody, Joe Cover. Good to see you guys again. 1536 Morningside. We have the undeveloped parcel that's adjacent to the north of the applicant's property. I'm going to keep my comments brief. I sent in a letter, and I think most of everything's probably going to be covered by everybody else. So I guess the only things I wanted to address real quick were, for us, view equity is actually not that big of a concern.

I think David, you mentioned that. The view equity that we were talking about were three trees that were in the project's outline. African Fern Pines, when I looked them up, they can grow up to like 40 to 50 feet tall. I understand that there would be a limit that was capped on them, but still doesn't necessarily mean that they won't grow higher than that. And I think for where they are right now on the property, they're at a like 497, 496, and 493 foot of elevation, which at 12, 15, and 20 feet of height, Attachment 11 235
236 of 654
This transcript was exported on Dec 05, 2025 - view latest version here.

May 8, 2025 - 1st DRB Meeting - Trim (Completed 12/03/25) Transcript by Rev.com

Page 6 of 27 ends

basically brings them up to about 510 feet, which is actually higher than ... It's about level with the top of the current proposed structure, but it's actually higher than the first floor structure, which is kind of where we are looking to the west, that first floor structure kind of juts out a little bit north.

And so I guess what my thought was capping it so that really the trees just kind of go as high as whatever the ultimate height of the building goes, so that we're not really looking at trees that are bushy that are much higher than the proposed structure. I understand the need for privacy and the challenges on the hillside, and I'm fully in agreement with the need for privacy there. So finding a good solution I think is important to me. And then the only other thing is just reiterating. Glazing is just, I think the biggest thing for a lot of us. A lot of big windows in the house and inclusive of on that north side that would kind of look into our yard and then back at our patio.

So I understand there's some louvering in there. I'm not quite sure how that works, but I guess if there's going to be louvering that kind of helps with that privacy concern, having the louvers on the outside of the windows that kind of lead to a peekaboo view kind of going frontwards rather than towards the back so that it continually gives them privacy inside theirs and us privacy on our side. So that's all I got.

Thank you.

Thomas Gibbs:

Thank you. Next.

Eileen Slora:

Hi, good evening. I'm Eileen Slora. I live at 1545 Blueberry Canyon Drive, and it's sort of diagonal to the house. And I have a couple concerns with the proposed project. The first one's the elevation and location of the extensive floor-to-ceiling glass windows in the dining room, which projects towards Bluebird Canyon and also directly into my bedroom area. I did mention it to Horst, there's a tree that I know is being removed, so that definitely will be in my area. So I respectfully request that the design element be reviewed and revised to eliminate this invasive view line.

The second concern is the spa reflection pool. Again, the location of the spa. During the day you hear birds singing at night, you hear coyotes howling, and you hear owls hooting, and it makes the area really, really special. And it's a refuge of calm and serenity, which is unique to Laguna Beach. My concern is the constant humming from the spa equipment and also the noise that people may be using it at all times during the day, and it will disrupt the tranquility of the surrounding neighbors. So I would hope it could be designed in a space to mitigate the perceived noise pollution.

And then lastly, the structure is very visible, as it sits on top of the knoll, and there are really very tall retaining walls at the street level, which weren't shown on the rendering. And I would just hope that these 12-foot walls aren't concrete, and that they're designed to really enhance the area and flow with it. Thank you.

Thomas Gibbs:

Next.

Susan Whitten:

Susan Whitten, 1540 Bluebird. This project is hugely impactful, obviously, to me, but also to our entire neighborhood. I went back and looked at the land use element, and one of the things that we don't often talk about are the guiding principles. Principle 7 seems to encapsulate perfectly the challenges of the site, and it provides clear guidelines for development of challenging sites such as this one. Principle 7 Attachment 11 236
237 of 654
This transcript was exported on Dec 05, 2025 - view latest version here.

May 8, 2025 - 1st DRB Meeting - Trim (Completed 12/03/25) Transcript by Rev.com

Page 7 of 27 ends

says, "Ensured development is responsive to individual site constraints." It says, "The general plan sets forth the philosophy that avoidance of negative impacts is preferred to mitigation of these impacts." It also says, "Most development will involve building on difficult sites with multiple constraints. General plan policies set forth that planning, access, siting, and design choices should reflect a response to the particular challenges of a site. Projects should be compatible in design, skill and character with a surrounding neighborhood and preserve views and privacy to the greatest extent feasible." Neighborhood had high hopes, we still have high hopes now that Mr. Derneyus' hired horse would change some of the fundamentals of the project. But the fundamentals, some of the fundamentals of the project have not changed. The house is still on the top of the knoll, and the floor plan is still oriented in a way that is against the municipal code, which is to say the public areas are specifically called out in the code, living room, kitchen, decks, overlooking bedrooms of the adjacent house should not happen.

And this is the exact relationship, and it's the same floor plan that was in the original design by the previous architect.

The policies and the land use element regarding how to integrate the house into the hilly site have not been fulfilled. The municipal code standards about privacy and design articulation have been ignored.

Multiple residential design guidelines have been disregarded. We do not dispute the right to build a house on this property. We are looking for a solution. The solution to these problems is straightforward.

Meet the standards of the land use element, the general plan policies, and design guidelines, and take the direction of the design review board.

An appropriate project would do the following. It would move the house off the ridge and terrace it into the topography. Two, it would substantially reduce the mass scale and size of the building. Three, it would relocate the driveway and relocate the garage to the street level. Four, it would revise the floor plan to relocate the family room, DR, et cetera. Five, it would substantially reduce the amount of picture windows. And six, it would eliminate the retaining walls over five feet at the street level.

Thomas Gibbs:

Thank you, Susan.

Susan Whitten:

Thank you.

Thomas Gibbs:

Next.

Mary Fegres:

Good evening, Mary Fegres, 1561 Morningside. I compliment the architect. Certainly, the structure is better, but we still have major concerns with scale, mass, character, and placement of all the structures, including the driveway, the garage. Some of the materials are great, but it does not fit in our neighborhood. And this is too bad, we didn't have a subdivision map in the beginning for the whole knoll. We're facing now this constant hearings. It's just wearing our neighborhood down. But now, the way the structure is still coming back, perched up on the ridge, right at the crest, it's not only impacting Bluebird Canyon Drive, but it's also impacting Morningside Drive. I am going to look right up into [inaudible 00:24:04]-
Mary Fegres:

Attachment 11 237
238 of 654
This transcript was exported on Dec 05, 2025 - view latest version here.

May 8, 2025 - 1st DRB Meeting - Trim (Completed 12/03/25) Transcript by Rev.com

Page 8 of 27 ends

... In Morningside Drive. I am going to look right up into bedrooms and they are going to look down into our bedroom that faces Morningside Drive. The lights, the noise, it's not there yet, it needs more help.

We realize that there is a right to develop the land, but we need to do it so it really does fit in our neighborhood. This is putting a lot of stress on our upper Bluebird Canyon neighborhood. Thank you so much.

PART 1 OF 4 ENDS [00:24:04]
Thomas Gibbs:

Thank you. Next.

Speaker 4:

Hello, I'm Marsha Stallworth for the Ramedas again, 1600 Bluebird Drive. They're unable to join us this evening. So I'm just relaying a few messages on their behalf. They still haven't received any notices of any of these hearings or meetings that you guys have been having, but hopefully the assessor has told me that there's good news in the future and hopefully they'll be receiving some notifications. The Ramedas are very supportive of everybody being able to build a home, even if it's on the top of the knoll. They have expressed an interest in if there's something that they can do to lessen the negative impact on the neighborhood, they would like to know about it.

They're willing to work with the city, the neighbors, possibly a shared driveway. They've even talked about grading. I know that truckloads of dirt being removed from the area has been very concerning to the neighbors. And they're not sure if this is something that's even feasible or not, but we're just putting it out there. If possible, if one of the neighbors can grade and push it up on the Romeda property for compaction, if that will help us alleviate some of the pain in the neighborhood, they would be open to talking to people about that and working something out. Whatever they can do to help the neighborhood, the neighbors, they are open to communication. Thank you.

Thomas Gibbs:

Thank you very much. Next.

Speaker 5:

I'm Peter Grohman. I live directly below the property side. I do agree. Everybody has a right to build a home on their site, but everybody also has the obligation to conform to what the rules say. This house here, the proposed size is way, way larger than anything there. The upper Bluebird Canyon, the 1500 block, they're small homes. This one here is a 4,600 and change massive property. The design might be great for a high end area like Irvine Cove, but it's totally out of character for the Bluebird Canyon area.

The ridge line preservation is, again, the home is supposed to not be on the ridge line. This one is now right on top and it's definitely visible from both sides. Morningside as well as Bluebird Canyon.

The export of 1,900 cubic yard of dirt on the road that is limited to three tons. And it's a cut and fill road.

And it's very narrow, 18 feet wide at the property site. That is concern for problems. Whatever the approval is, because the road is small, there should be a requirement to have offsite staging for both for the people, the workers, as well as for the material, otherwise access to my house, the postal deliveries, everybody there is severely restricted. And last item, while a larger size properly might be financially of interest to the applicant, that doesn't mean approval should be granted just to make it financially easier for him. Thank you.

Attachment 11 238
239 of 654
This transcript was exported on Dec 05, 2025 - view latest version here.

May 8, 2025 - 1st DRB Meeting - Trim (Completed 12/03/25) Transcript by Rev.com

Page 9 of 27 ends

Thomas Gibbs:

Thank you very much. Next.

Speaker 6:

William Horner, 1565 Bluebird. So I'm directly across the street from the proposed project. I echo a lot of the concerns of the neighbors. I also do want to recognize the hiring of Horst I think was greatly appreciated. And I think it helped bring the aesthetic a little bit more in line with the canyon character.

However, the fundamental issues really weren't addressed by the redesign, in my opinion. If you think about mass and scale, you think about access issues, privacy issues with the glazing, noise and potential slope issues with the spa and the excavation. My sense is I think the neighbors would get on board with something that was much more thoughtfully scaled and context considerate. And I think there's still a pretty wide gap there. And so I'd love the board to explore basically some process ideas for how we might be able to narrow that gap. And essentially it's become a pretty poor use, I think, of the community's time and the board's time. And honestly, probably the applicant's time. So I'd love to get some creative ideas on the table for how we might cut through this. Thanks.

Thomas Gibbs:

Thank you very much. Next.

Susan Whitten:

Good evening, chair and members of the design review board and city staff. My name's Pam Adams. I live up on Morningside Drive, probably the furthest one from all the other speakers, but I am opposed to the applicant's project. Whether it's 1550 or 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive, I guess it's called Lot A now.

And I'm opposed to it for these reasons. The design sits on top of the ridge line of the knoll instead of being nestled into the terrain. It exceeds neighborhood compatibility in its mass and scale with a smaller subdivided lot due to SB-9. Why the city approved that? I just still bothered by that. It is a sterile monolithic design and in direct contrast to the eclectic Bohemian homes in the existing neighborhood.

Character-wise, it doesn't fit.

The massive glazing and light intrusion will be a nuisance to the neighbors. I understand there's a spa or a pool that's going to be put on top of the ridge. Will also create increased noise pollution to the neighbors and across the canyon both ways, through Archbeach Heights and also Rim Rock. I hear there's two pools across from us on Morningside at Rim Rock, and the noise is deafening. The lack of current infrastructure on Bluebird Canyon Drive is really inadequate. So the city needs to address that before any approval along that portion. I mean, there's no gutters, there's nothing. And like Mr.

Grohmann had said earlier, that the road is very, very narrow. I just don't even understand how they're going to be able to stage a project like this. Anyway, so deny this project and thank you for your time.

Thomas Gibbs:

Thank you very much.

Speaker 7:

Hello. My name is Christie Miller. My husband and I are... Well, I'm here to speak and my husband and I have been friends with David and his family for years. They've been in the community for 25 years. I remember when they purchased the property, they were so excited to build their forever home in that wonderful neighborhood. And I know that for over a year, David has worked closely with the city, Attachment 11 239
240 of 654
This transcript was exported on Dec 05, 2025 - view latest version here.

May 8, 2025 - 1st DRB Meeting - Trim (Completed 12/03/25) Transcript by Rev.com

Page 10 of 27 ends

starting with the optional DMT concept review process during which time it was determined where the best sitting for the home was determined. I know that David met with the neighbors many times and he took their comments to heart and so much so that he chose to delay the project, bring in a completely new architect and redesign the property with their comments and concerns in mind.

Given that the neighbors were aware of the redesign, I was a bit surprised when I was reading the multitude of letters that came in. Although, and I do have to say, I've had to go through a project by our house that was being proposed. And I know it's a lot. It's a lot of change when you have something coming into your neighborhood and you've got dirt going... You got all these concerns and those make sense. But in terms of building the property, the property comes in and it's co-compliant, it's general plan compliant, it's Hilltop Bluff compliant, and it has no variation. So it meets all the criteria for approval this evening. But some of the concerns that I didn't understand is one of the neighbors seems to be leading the concern about not having the home to be on the knoll, yet 70% of the lot is on the Knoll.

So where else would you put it? Then there's some considerations for the neighbor next door who seems to have a concern with the driveway. The proposed driveway here is 130 foot long, yet hers is 216 foot long, 23% run up to the hill leads up to the house, which is 20 feet above the street. So this one is proposed to be even less than that. The right of way seems to be a concern for most neighbors yet... I'm sorry, the street width seems to be a concern, yet most of the house are built into the right of way that makes the street only 18 feet.

This project would be required to bring those two feet back to widen the street back to 20 feet. One of the neighbors, and I heard him say this, he's concerned about the size of the home. And I understand if you're going to compare that to your own home when this lot is two and a half times the size, you have to multiply that to get to the size of the house. At the end of the day, this is a legal buildable lot. Code compliant, meets general plans, hilltop guidelines, requirements, no variances, criteria again to approve the application. Lastly, it is a SB-9 and SB-9 is a sensitive subject given that it's state requirements. And we want to make sure that we don't have any issues based on that. Thank you.

Thomas Gibbs:

Thank you. Anyone else from the public? All right. Horst, you have three minute rebuttal.

Horst Noppenberger:

Okay. Well, that's a lot to address in three minutes, but what I would say is we are grateful to the neighbors. We've had great communication with them. They have excellent ideas. We might not agree on everything, but we have benefited from their comments. We've taken their comments to heart.

We've made substantial changes to the project. In terms of sighting, there's really, I think, two different ways of doing this project. One is what the majority of the neighbors want, and that is to put the house on the street level. Invariably, what you're going to get is you're going to get more excavation. You're probably going to get a three-story house because you're going to have a garage probably in two levels.

Above that you're going to have a house that doesn't have any connectivity to the yard space.

Once again, 70% of the buildable area of this site is on the top. This is not a ridge line. This particular site does not fit the definition of ridge line. We know we can't build on ridge lines, but the buildable portion of the site, 70%, is at the top. The people who developed Susan Whiten's property, what, 70, 80 years ago, they had the foresight to understand that there were two ways to develop that property. We're going to put a house on the street. We're not going to have any connection to garden space. A house on the street is going to have a lot of retaining walls on the uphill side. It's going to have dark rooms. It's an Attachment 11 240
241 of 654
This transcript was exported on Dec 05, 2025 - view latest version here.

May 8, 2025 - 1st DRB Meeting - Trim (Completed 12/03/25) Transcript by Rev.com

Page 11 of 27 ends

infeasible way to develop, in my opinion, a property like this. We looked at the alternative driveway locations with Susan.

But if we bring the driveway up the other direction, we're starting at an elevation on Bluebird, which is six feet lower than the high end where we're starting. So consequently, we get a much longer driveway, and then we're going up to the higher portion of the site. So we end up having 15 foot retaining walls in our auto court. So we looked at it with an open mind. It doesn't make any sense. I don't even know why we're really even talking about putting a house on the street level. It is not only infeasible, but it's just not good design.

And then you have the entire buildable portion of your property behind you. And the whole tenet of building a modern house in California is the integration of the interior and the ex exterior spaces. You don't have that if you put the house on the street. Susan enjoys, and I love her house, and I love the integration of the garden with the living space, and we're just asking for the same rights and privileges. If we're too big, we can reduce this house, but I think it's a good project. It's an honor to be working in Bluebird Canyon. Bluebird Canyon is where Lamont Langworthy, William lives in a Lamont Langworthy house. We tried to make this building light on the hill using rustic materials, elegance through simplicity to intersecting volumes. It's single story next to Susan's house. There's a lot of stuff going on Here that we haven't even touched on this evening. Thank you.

Thomas Gibbs:

Okay. Thanks Horst. I appreciate everybody staying reasonably within the time periods. We will now have board questions. Do you have any?
Mr. Weil:

I've got a couple. Horst, with redesigning, were there any parameters that weren't allowed to be changed when you were coming up with concepts for re-imagining the site? Horst Noppenberger:

Yeah. When I committed to taking on the project, I agreed with the owner that the ascending driveway up the hill was non-negotiable. I talked to David about maybe turning the driveway around so that it could be shared with the adjacent property that David owns and that maybe we would have one driveway, less retaining walls. And we study that with an open mind and I have drawings. If you'd like, I can open up that exhibit. So yeah, that was one of the things that we agreed to. But other than that, I mean, David gave us free rein to create a work of art and architecture that would reflect the character of Bluebird Canyon, and that would be the best use of the property in terms of views and integrating interior and exterior living, the best use of the property. One of the things about the driveway going toward Susan's property is when you get to the top, that's the lower area of the site. And there's a retaining wall at the auto court. So that retaining wall would help to mitigate headlights onto Susan's property and help to create some separation.

Mr. Weil:

I guess one more question about the grading associated with the site. About how much of it's associated with the driveway? Obviously it's 1,900 or change in cubic yards grading. Do you have that with what's associated with the driveway in terms of percentage?
Horst Noppenberger:

Attachment 11 241
242 of 654
This transcript was exported on Dec 05, 2025 - view latest version here.

May 8, 2025 - 1st DRB Meeting - Trim (Completed 12/03/25) Transcript by Rev.com

Page 12 of 27 ends

Yeah, I would say, that's a great question. I mean, like I was saying earlier, the two... I don't know, can we go back to the images? I won't spend too much time on them, but the image that shows the two different pavilions. I don't know if that's possible, Sarah. Maybe back just a little bit further. The only area where we're grading for the house itself is underneath the two-story pavilion. And that's probably just a couple hundred square feet of grading. We did some preliminary calculations, Lewis, because you mentioned, oh, this is a good one to look at right here, we did some preliminary calculations.

If we were to put the garage at the street level, the right of way, the distance from the edge of the street to the front property line on average is about 13 feet. The garage would require a five-foot setback. So already the doors of the garage would be 18 feet away from the edge of the existing street on average, and then a 20 or a 22-foot garage. The retaining wall for the garage would be close to the back retaining wall at street level would be close to 30 feet. There's actually... Oh, Steve just passed me a note that the driveway is 600 cubic yards. He's so much better at answering these questions than I am.

A garage on street level would require more excavation.

Mr. Weil:

We'll get to it on C3 later with staff. Thank you.

Thomas Gibbs:

All right, Horace, I have a couple.

Horst Noppenberger:

Sure.

Thomas Gibbs:

You're excavating a thousand square foot subterranean garage. Am I misreading that? Horst Noppenberger:

The garage is subterranean. On average, the garage is probably eight to 10 feet below grade.

Thomas Gibbs:

No, square footage of the garage.

Horst Noppenberger:

Oh, the square footage? It's a three car garage. So it's roughly 600 square feet. I can get the exact number.

Thomas Gibbs:

The staff report said a thousand square feet. Is that wrong? Horst Noppenberger:

I think that's probably off.

Thomas Gibbs:

Attachment 11 242
243 of 654
This transcript was exported on Dec 05, 2025 - view latest version here.

May 8, 2025 - 1st DRB Meeting - Trim (Completed 12/03/25) Transcript by Rev.com

Page 13 of 27 ends

The plans show 1,000? Okay. How much of the excavation cubic yards is associated with digging out the subterranean garage? Or do you know?
Horst Noppenberger:

Well, so Steve just passed me a note that said the driveway itself is 600 cubic yards. The area underneath the bedroom wing is probably a couple of hundred cubic yards. So the garage itself up there, I would say maybe 500 cubic yards. I don't think our civil engineers really broke it down like that, but I...

Thomas Gibbs:

Okay. The other question I had is you're putting retaining walls into the public right of way, the encroachment area.

Horst Noppenberger:

Yeah. Can IThomas Gibbs:

You haven't heard my question yet.

Horst Noppenberger:

Sorry. I had a image on that we have for that.

Thomas Gibbs:

Yeah. Why don't you put up that image and tell me the location and how high they are.

Horst Noppenberger:

Okay. It's a little bit further, Sarah, into the deck there. So I love the way Susan's driveway works because there's very little retaining on the uphill side. The neighbors were concerned about the look a little bit further back, a little bit further in. A couple more slides maybe. So rather than... A couple more, please. Should be coming up in just a sec. Maybe a couple more. Might be the next one. One more, please. One more. Okay. It is the next one after this. Oh, one more. Sorry. Boy. One more. Forward. No, this is back. Okay. So we're going backward.

It's toward the end of the presentation. It's a picture of the retaining wall system. There it is right there.

So rather than using concrete for the uphill cut for the driveway, this is a crib wall system which was used at Heisler Park. I love this because it's interlocking concrete bars. You lay it back at a slight angle and within those open webs, plants can grow. And the site, as you've seen, is very steep in the front. So eventually as the plants grow over the concrete bars, this retaining wall, and you can see it in the lower portion of theThomas Gibbs:

Again, my question was the height of it and the location.

Horst Noppenberger:

I'm so sorry. Eight feet is the highest.

Attachment 11 243
244 of 654
This transcript was exported on Dec 05, 2025 - view latest version here.

May 8, 2025 - 1st DRB Meeting - Trim (Completed 12/03/25) Transcript by Rev.com

Page 14 of 27 ends

Thomas Gibbs:

Is it in the public right of way there that you're seeking the encroachment property? Horst Noppenberger:

There is no retaining wall other than the off-street parking space. And that's about a 10-foot retaining wall.

Thomas Gibbs:

For the off-street parking space. So there's no retaining wall. It's the subject of the revocable encroachment permit except to make the public parking space? Horst Noppenberger:

That's correct.

Thomas Gibbs:

Bill, I just want to make sure that that's correct.

Speaker 8:

It actually looks like there's a very low retaining wall, maybe just upwards of a foot or so.

Thomas Gibbs:

And just one tail end of theSpeaker 8:

Yeah. Yeah. But most of it is the larger retaining wall to support the [inaudible 00:46:15].

Horst Noppenberger:

The project has been approved for the revocable encroachment permit from Public Works.

Thomas Gibbs:

Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to know that. All right. I don't have any further questions.

Speaker 9:

I have a question. Is the pool and spa location, is that in the side yard? Horst Noppenberger:

Oh, thank you for asking that question. That is actually, it is a side yard. With the previous design, that spa was right up against the property line with Susan's house, Susan Whiten's house. But what we did here... Oh, thank you for that, Sarah, this is the correct image. We pulled the spa back into like a tree well area so that the spa is enveloped by the house on three sides. We thought that would be a much more neighbor sensitive location for the spa. It used to be right on the property line.

Speaker 9:

Attachment 11 244
245 of 654
This transcript was exported on Dec 05, 2025 - view latest version here.

May 8, 2025 - 1st DRB Meeting - Trim (Completed 12/03/25) Transcript by Rev.com

Page 15 of 27 ends

Again. And so just to clarify, your plans do show a garage with 1,027.16 square feet. Are you saying that's incorrect?
Horst Noppenberger:

No, whatever our plans say is correct. I just haven't opened them, but most likely what we're including then is the staircase that goes from the garage up to the house, because it is a three car garage, which is typically 600 square feet. So I was just going to shooting from the hip on that one.

Mr. Weil:

On that same garage, it's less common for new builds to incorporate a tandem garage, especially on ones that are 12,000 plus square feet lots. So what was the direction for that? Horst Noppenberger:

Well, honestly, we inherited that from the previous design. I didn't see any issue with it because what it was doing is it was pushing that tandem spaceHorst Noppenberger:
... as it was pushing that tandem space completely subterranean. So when you look at the garage doors, you're just seeing a two car garage door as opposed to a three car garage door, so I just accepted that as maybe the best way to proceed, but we're certainly open on that. We could do a three car garage very easily. We just have to extend the auto cord. You can see it here in the image, the garage door is underneath the body of water there. It's that darker material.

PART 2 OF 4 ENDS [00:48:04]
Thomas Gibbs:

All right. Lewis? Any other questions? Alrighty, I will close the public hearing and I'm going to begin the comments. So first off, so everybody's clear, the job of the design review board is to fairly evaluate and approve projects that meet the guidelines and the other requirements. That's our job. We don't take sides, we don't have bias. The second thing I want to make clear is that we are an independent body, a citizen body. Staff reports and recommendations are informational only for us. So are letters from the applicant and letters from the neighbors. We independently do our own fact finding and we make our own decisions. So any misconceptions out there, and I think there are, that were unduly influenced is just mistaken. It misunderstands each one of us on the board, our experience, how we read staff reports, the fact that we go out and look.

Horst, I talked to you for a long time. Neighbors, I talked to each of you that I spoke to who asked to meet. There is no undue bias. The fact that Susan Whitten is on planning commission has no impact on any board member. She is entitled to level her complaints, to ask for a site inspection, just like the applicant is, just like any other neighbor is. So just get rid of those misconceptions because I'll be blatant, they're false and I don't want to hear them.

With respect to this project, it's an SB-9 lot split. The board is well aware of that. It's a large project at 4,644 square feet plus a thousand square foot subterranean garage that goes well into the slope. It is a large mass and there's lots of glazing, and importantly, as my comments will talk about, there's a significant amount of excavation at over 1,900 cubic yards. So this project raises lots of issues and complications and does have impacts on three sides. It has impacts on Upper Bluebird, on Sue Whitten's Attachment 11 245
246 of 654
This transcript was exported on Dec 05, 2025 - view latest version here.

May 8, 2025 - 1st DRB Meeting - Trim (Completed 12/03/25) Transcript by Rev.com

Page 16 of 27 ends

property because it's at the top of the Knoll on Morningside. It's a project that should be planned carefully with input and consideration of impacts to neighbors and the community as a whole, and I'm glad Horst is on it because that's been certainly my experience with Horst.

Sometimes, it takes a second hearing to really understand it and I'll go on to this comment. In my opinion, it's going to need another hearing. I cannot approve the project as is tonight, so I'm going to go through what I think are the important guidelines and issues relating to the coastal development permit and there's issues concerning CEQA in this case.

Access. I am torn over this long driveway and the feasibility of putting the garage at the street level. I'm not 100% convinced you can't, but if I was to lean one way based upon the evidence, that the only way to really do this project is through a driveway that goes up, not a street level driveway. I'm going to talk about this project in conjunction with Mr. Durnays' other project and whether both projects having their own driveways make sense given the tightness of the neighborhood, and that's going to relate to my CEQA analysis when I get there.

Design articulation, the guideline reads in pertinent part that the building envelope and the appearance of the building and retaining wall mass should be minimized, and that includes by terracing and reducing the size of elements of the project. In my opinion, it does not meet that guideline, primarily for the reason that it's just too massive. And I appreciate Horace's comment that you're willing to reduce it, and as I go through my comments, I'll tell you my thoughts on that and the importance, not just of the guidelines, but also of the coastal development permit requirements.

General plan compliance with the land use element, which is also part of the coastal development permit, so that impacts, as attorneys here may know, SB9 compliance. Land use element 2.1 I'm concerned about, maintain the diversity and uniqueness of individual neighborhoods. Guidelines shall minimize the scale and bulk of new construction and requirement, development to be compatible with surrounding residences. Again, I think the mass and scale, and I know that neighborhood, I've driven it for the Morningside projects and for Mr. Durnays' prior project, it truly is the largest house I've seen in that neighborhood.

Mass and scale of the towering, I understand that the buildable area is at the top of the ridge, but you put a 4,000 plus square foot home there, it's going to be huge and it's going to be seen by everybody.

And I think you've done some very creative elements down below to make it look like a two story. I think that does some good, maybe not totally, but you put a massive house on top of that ridge. I want to challenge you to do some terracing there to bring in some design articulation and land use element policy 2.1 to make it work. I know you can do that. I don't believe terracing is impossible, at least for some of the components of your project.

Lighting and glare, way too much glazing, and that's going to also come down later when I talk about privacy, so I'll go through that. Neighborhood compatibility. We're setting the neighborhood compatibility on the Bluebird side with your project, which for the prior two projects on Morningside set that neighborhood standard. It's really important that the standard be set appropriately consistent with the guidelines. I recognize it's going to be a bigger house, it's a bigger lot, but I think you've got to reduce the size, bring it into more of a terrace design, articulate it to make me, at least me, feel comfortable that the compatibility is being set in the appropriate way, which is going to guide the other, I believe, two more homes or three more homes on that side of Bluebird Canyon.

I think it's a good start. I don't have a problem with modern. No, I would never own one, but you do awesome modern. I've always told you that and I think that that is neighborhood compatible given the eclectic nature of this town, filled with modern everywhere, not alone, but mixed in, and I think it would be an appropriate addition.

Attachment 11 246
247 of 654
This transcript was exported on Dec 05, 2025 - view latest version here.

May 8, 2025 - 1st DRB Meeting - Trim (Completed 12/03/25) Transcript by Rev.com

Page 17 of 27 ends

Privacy. I think what I want to hear, those louvers are here and there, I'm very concerned about the privacy, particularly from the bottom floor level to the Whitten property. It's right up against, very near the property line, there's glazing everywhere. I'm also concerned about glazing at night. I'm probably most concerned because I think you've done some good louvering on the Morningside side of it, but not so much on the Bluebird Canyon side and the Susan Whitten side. If I was to look at neighborhood compatibility, the amount of your glazing is just way too much, so that would need to be produced when you come back.

Revocable encroachment permit. My only concern is the retaining wall in the encroachment area.

However, if it's just to add public parking on that street, which is seriously needed, I think I can make the findings on that. I'm interested what other board members have to say about the REP.

Coastal development permit. This is really important for you and your client to understand. There's five under finding one, which reads, "The project is in conformity with all applicable provisions of the certified local coastal program, including the following criteria," and it lists several criteria. I think three are in direct play here. Criteria five reads, "The proposed development will minimize the alterations of natural land forms and will not result in undue risk from geological and erosional forces and/or floods and fire hazards."
With the size and location of the structure and 1900 cubic yards of export, including for a large subterranean garage, in fact, it's tandem, so you're really digging in there - I'd be surprised if it was only 600 cubic yards, but I leave that to you - you cannot say that this project as proposed minimizes the alterations of natural land forms. More importantly, I'm very concerned that the removal of that export, including the truck size and trips necessary, will result in an undue risk from geological and erosional forces on the narrow Bluebird Road. I talked to you about that. The road looks in pretty bad shape, it has really bad drainage. It's a cut fill road. Who knows what the shape of that is? And if those trucks start running, it could jeopardize the stability of the houses below.

I have read, not every page, the geological report that you provided. I'm not sure it's fully current because it was done under prior homes, but one thing is very clear from the report as I read it, is that it did not do any testing or investigation of the road. Because there is a risk to that road, in my opinion, from the removal of that amount of excavation, and particularly since there are road signs all around Bluebird Canyon limiting the trucks to three tons, I am very concerned without more study and a proposal as to how the condition of that road and its suitability for that kind of excavation removal can be done. I can't in good conscience make finding five.

I don't think it's hard to do. Get some borings out there, come up with a plan of action to figure out how you're going to remove how many trucks and so forth, and when I get to the CEQA analysis, I think I'm going to strongly recommend that you think about combining Mr. Durnays' two projects to talk about compliance with finding five and what I'm going to talk about with respect to CEQA. So we have a building plan that deals with the excavation and removal of both projects in a sequined organized basis so that it eliminates or deals with the risks that are described in criteria number five.

Next, criteria number six. "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." As it presently stands, for the reasons I've described for mass and scale apply 100% to this criteria. So I could not in good conscience make that finding on the present project, but I know you're going to be able to come up with one that I can, and it's important that we do that because a coastal development permit is required.

Lastly, criteria number eight. "The proposed development will provide with an adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, and other necessary facilities." That finding relates directly to what I've asked you to do Attachment 11 247
248 of 654
This transcript was exported on Dec 05, 2025 - view latest version here.

May 8, 2025 - 1st DRB Meeting - Trim (Completed 12/03/25) Transcript by Rev.com

Page 18 of 27 ends

on criteria five on dealing with Bluebird Canyon, including that the drainage, that the access road will be adequate, also relating to the finding of the coastal development permit. On this project, I'm also going to ask you to do a staging plan, and the reason is because that road's so narrow. The unusual circumstances here, it's also going to relate to CEQA which I'll get to in a second, the unusual circumstances here of such a narrow road and with such a vast amount of excavation and the lack of parking, I think it's important to have a well-thought-out plan so that we can make the fine Meetings of criteria five and criteria six.

Lastly, and I know I've gone on a little longer but it's important. This project is complicated and I spent a lot of time on it. I know other board members have as well. All right, so the categorical exemption is what we apply, and there needs to be certain things that need to be established for me to make a categorical exemption here. The exemption being requested is 15303, which is the appropriate one.

Section 15300.2 deals with exceptions to the class three categorical exemption, which is found in 15303, and there's two exceptions, both of which I think are applicable here potentially.

Exception C reads, it basically deals with significant effects. "A category exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances." I am very concerned about whether there's a significant effect from the excavation and the trucks on Blueberry Canyon. Alleviate that concern, I will gladly say that that exception no longer applies.

The last one is the more complicated one. Cumulative impacts. "All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place over time is significant." Mr. Durnays has successive projects here, and I haven't made a final decision on it, but I'll tell you, I'm very tempted to. I'm interested in how the other board members feel about this. I think that the cumulative impacts, particularly with the excavation for the two projects, call for them to be considered at the same time for purposes of evaluating whether the categorical exemption applies.

In other words, we are able to consider cumulative impacts in making that determination. I am not sure that I can make that determination based solely on this project without considering Mr. Durnays' second project.

Okay. So those are my comments, but I don't want to lose the forest through the trees, and this is to you, Mr. Durnays. There is definitely a buildable house there. I wasn't convinced of that earlier. I am more convinced now. It needs to be reduced in size and maybe materially, I'm not using the word significantly. It needs some terracing and it needs to deal with that road. All right. Those are my comments. Thanks for your patience.

Speaker 10:

So I'll go second. The comments that you just last said, I agree with pretty much everything that you said, but the last comment about how the two projects need to be reviewed at the same time, I would say that all those projects, all those lots, including the one that was just recently reviewed, should be required to be reviewed at the same time. If you're going to ask him to review the projects at the same time, they should all be reviewed.

Thomas Gibbs:

Yeah. The problem is I don't think we have the authority to do that. I think with Mr. Durnays having the two projects, we can combine them. There has been some discussion with at least some information provided to the city and the city council, and they haven't moved on that so we're left with what we have.

Attachment 11 248
249 of 654
This transcript was exported on Dec 05, 2025 - view latest version here.

May 8, 2025 - 1st DRB Meeting - Trim (Completed 12/03/25) Transcript by Rev.com

Page 19 of 27 ends

Speaker 10:

Yeah, we'll leave that to the attorneys. So I'm just going to read what I have here. So yes, I concur with all of, or most of what Chair had commented. So for access, local... Let me get that. Bless you. Local agencies can no longer deny SB9 projects. They may only be denied based solely on specific adverse impacts to the public health and safety with substantial objective evidence. I'd say that there is substantial evidence to allow a driveway and garage as proposed for access. Otherwise, someone would have to back out of their driveway if the driveway was at the street, like how the development in Diamond Crestview, a lot of that development, those houses, the way that they build into the hillside.

Also, that street is very narrow and it's also a blind... There's multiple blind curves, so it would be the public safety of mind. So with public safety in mind, the driveway should go the other direction, so not as proposed, but I do believe that to go opposite of where it is proposed so that access can be achieved smoothly, with ease rather than with the necessity of a hairpin U-turn, or worse, a three-point turn arriving and departing.

For neighborhood compatibility, it goes along with access or complements access. I find the proposed driveway but switched to go in the reverse direction to be neighborhood compatible as multiple driveways exist in the immediate area, including the adjacent neighbor, Mrs. Whitten's.

The maximum lot coverage is 35%. The proposed lot coverage is well below the maximum at 29.92. The minimum landscape open space is 31.4%. Proposed is well above the minimum, which is 35.26%. And the articulation and design integrity, they go hand in hand. The home is well articulated, but it creates massive privacy issues. The design looks directly across another property. Your choice in materials are compatible with all of Laguna, but especially with Bluebird. The wood accents are methodically dispersed, which helps reduce the massing.

Privacy, I'd say flip the script so that the bedrooms are on the first floor. This will align with Mrs.

Whitten's bedrooms, so you have bedrooms to bedrooms. Minimize the windows on that lower level that's facing across Mrs. Whitten's. The floor to ceiling, wall to wall glazing, that's your signature style and it's a beautiful architectural style. It's just not going to fit in this location. Because the second floor is well articulated from Mrs. Whitten's, it just looks like a popup. Maybe that's where you can add the primary living space, the kitchen, the primary living space.

For lighting, part of Bluebird's beauty is the dark sky at night, bright moon cycles and stars. I recommend minimum lighting by code, and then for view equity, the properties with potential view impacts have yet to be built, so we can't determine the impacts for them. With the condition of approval to cap the height limits of the trees, the landscape, view equity could be achieved. I have to take a look at that later. And for the spa, I don't support a pool or spa feature located in a side yard, so that will have to be relocated.

And for environmental context, it reads... Oops, sorry. God dang it. "The existing terrain should be utilized and the design and gradient should be minimized." So if building the garage at the street would be detrimental to the environment, I'd like for you to come back and show us the difference between grading with the garage being built off the street and with the proposed garage in the driveway. And that's all my comments for now. Yeah.

MJ Coveny:

Okay, I'll go. Thanks to board member Gibbs and Gannon for doing the heavy lifting there. I just will reiterate a couple of things and just give some points of view. First, I think the design is lovely, as you often do. Not disappointed in that. As far as neighborhood compatibility, it doesn't quite fit the neighborhood compatibility as far as what's there now, but as Laguna evolves and as these houses get Attachment 11 249
250 of 654
This transcript was exported on Dec 05, 2025 - view latest version here.

May 8, 2025 - 1st DRB Meeting - Trim (Completed 12/03/25) Transcript by Rev.com

Page 20 of 27 ends

bought and sold, this is going to start to transition into more contemporary, I think, homes. And I think that we're different here and we have variety, and that's one of the...

MJ Coveny:

And I think that we're different here and we have variety and that's one of the things that makes us cool. So I think that that's manageable from a design perspective. I think what's making this not fit is mass and scale, and that obviously has been repetitive here. If you took this thing and took the plug out of one end and took some of the air out of it, I think you'd be in a real sweet spot and still have a stunning home with plenty of places to grow and enjoy. And we don't want to set a precedent for the future as this knoll gets built up and as this hillside starts to get flipped over.

I do agree with Board Member Gibbs that I do think that each lot ownership should be looked at as a whole. Because what happens a lot here is you know, they'll say, "Oh, well you did it. You approved it over there." And well it worked there. So it just can get us in a little bit of a pickle and everything is not apples to apples. So I think if you look at them as a whole, there could be opportunities and maybe actually ones that would benefit everybody. So that's something we can discuss. I don't know how that gets looked at from a city perspective.

I think you had mentioned that the lot coverage, you said that 70% area is buildable. And so that's where mass and scale comes in, right? You can't build it, but it's there. So you kind of call it yours, but it's like... So you just can't have both. So that's where you have to come down. You can't just claim that it's only 70% buildable and then claim all that other land as size for scale, for mass. Also the smaller your house, it allows for more integration to the outdoors, which would be nice to be able to utilize. Michael, why do I not remember you? You're so adorable and I don't remember you. Sorry. His beautiful landscaping skills.

Lighting and glare, as mentioned, don't want this to be Skyline Drive. Which when I go up there sometimes I'm just aghast at the amount of, I call them spaceships sitting up there. Love your glass. And I don't know if there's some new materials. We could put a man on the moon. You think we could figure a way to allow the light to provide the homeowner what they want by day and at night keep it from looking like a spaceship on the hill. So maybe there's something there where you don't have to lose your glass, but you can at least not let it be a glow through the night. I don't know. I don't know what the build opportunities are there.

Landscape, we can look at that as we move forward. You know the rules on keeping it low. Talk to your neighbors as you've done. And I think that's really helpful. Find out, especially as Mr. Cover mentioned, what's going on between his land, Susan and her home. What's going to keep them feeling like they have what they need and you have what you need and we're not impeding in sight lines for the home, for their opportunity to get view. But you also provide the privacy but not overgrown. I think privacy as mentioned is a concern from the amount of windows and the placement of the house right now. If it is all scaled back and perhaps you do the switcharoo of the sleeping rooms and the ceremonial rooms, maybe some of that can be mitigated there. But view equity, I don't feel like there's any view equity issue with anybody right now. So that's one of the few times that that doesn't come into play.

Staging, as they both pointed out, yes, I mean, that's going to be essential. I don't know what our jurisdiction is there, but it would be great to come up with something because as Tom eloquently pointed out, there's a lot of impact on this hillside. And by doing that, you put a lot of the neighborhood at risk, all of the public. So I think that has to be really drilled down, but we're a ways from that. I think that that's something to keep into consideration as you design this.

Attachment 11 250
251 of 654
This transcript was exported on Dec 05, 2025 - view latest version here.

May 8, 2025 - 1st DRB Meeting - Trim (Completed 12/03/25) Transcript by Rev.com

Page 21 of 27 ends

I don't know if I talked about the driveway specifically. I'm confused, to be honest with you, about this driveway. I don't know why that would go that way and why you'd want that curve and everything just from in and out and accessibility. Tandem garage and a lot this size and a home this size, I just can't get behind that. So that has to be sort of adjusted. This is another opportunity to look at potentially looking at your other property. And as I believe the representative for the other homeowner's property there talked about, maybe we can come up with something that doesn't attack the hillside. Provides everybody access and kind of their own opportunity to create their own environment, but doesn't attack the hillside. It's probably heavy lifting, but these are beautiful homes.

This is an expensive property and it's a neighborhood that needs to be considered. So I think that taking the time to look at that and maybe finding some solutions there might be a great opportunity with this driveway because it just doesn't make sense where it is. I don't know if it's an excess issue or a public safety issue, but something feels wrong about it and definitely not the tandem.

Let's see. And then when you reference like Susan's driveway being large, her retaining walls are very low. This was built way back in the day and I don't think anybody knew these knolls were going to be SB9'd and you just really can't really use that as a calling card, but I don't have a problem with you making your way to the capture the view and the opportunity there. It just has to be mitigated, the amount of impact in that hillside.

I think that's it for now. I think you've got plenty to go on. I just kind of reiterated in my words kind of how I felt about it and just wanted to thank you all of you guys for reaching out to the neighbors again.

That was really helpful and I feel like they've been through a lot. This is a lot to go through in a neighborhood and it's going to keep going because there's more to build. So I think you guys in this particular lot are really going to set the tone for where it all falls from here. Albeit it would have been great if the city had found a different way on this. I don't know how all that plays out. I'm just not that knowledgeable of city business, but I do think it's respectful and incumbent upon us to try to make an effort here to set a tone.

PART 3 OF 4 ENDS [01:12:04]
Thomas Gibbs:

Mr. Weil.

Mr. Weil:

Yeah. Thank you board members and chair. In general, I support the comments from my colleagues, especially Chair Gibbs when it comes to the CDP and the general plan comments. In the CDP, I wanted to add that the utilities, it's also confusing right now. It's very clear that the utilities are being potentially relocated or those kind of things are going on right now at the same time. I'd like the city to kind of look into that with Edison or SDG&E, whichever one's up there, to just make sure that it works in conjunction with the potential developments and their relocation doesn't impact the design or outcome as we haven't gotten there yet. So that's also of concern.

For me, I'm not supportive of the project as it's proposed. I think Horst, you've done some elements that have really articulated this and it's a clever design, except for me at a high level, it doesn't work on the site for a couple of reasons and I'll get into it. Access is the one that's really driving the starting point and it's hard with the way the access was proposed to imagine the rest of the site when that's what needs the most work.

Attachment 11 251
252 of 654
This transcript was exported on Dec 05, 2025 - view latest version here.

May 8, 2025 - 1st DRB Meeting - Trim (Completed 12/03/25) Transcript by Rev.com

Page 22 of 27 ends

If you look at chapter 11.16, locate garages, driveways in a manner compatible with the established neighborhood pattern, I think it's a little unfair to be characterizing other examples within this neighborhood that were non-compatible. When you're using the neighbor's site, that property was built in the 40s. The road wasn't even fully built or developed then. This was kind of a main access feature for that home at the time. And to say what they did in the 40s, 40 years before design review came about is what you're using as the guide to create your design feature for access, it's a bad comparable for me.

And the few examples that were shown really don't highlight the majority of the neighborhood, because if you look at Starlight or other parts of Bluebird Canyon, they're much more conforming where they're more comparable in scale to the street for the access feature for the uphill ones.

For the downhill properties, same thing. They're close to the street. There's narrow setbacks or abbreviated setbacks. The garages are close. And in this case, the road's not fully developed in front of these locations. 11.17, design garages to preserve the existing scale and neighborhood. Same thing. It doesn't fit for me. As I made other notes for the access, I appreciated the staff report doing the comparisons to some of the other approvals. One of the things that was really ... I went back and looked at some of the plans. The elevation change for your site is somewhere between 14 feet for the entrance of the driveway to the finished floor to almost 20 feet. The neighboring property, which is also the applicant's, had an 18-foot rise from the street level of entrance. The ones that we did approve from this body had a two and a four-foot rise to finished grade. Maybe give or take a few more feet given that the slope of Morningside's a little steeper at various points in the lot. So for me, that's not compatible or comparable to what we've already discussed within this proximity in recent developments.

For access, I also wanted to iterate that the 127 feet was too long. The proposed access conflicts with chapter six, the environmental context, 6.1 and 6.3 for the proposed building is on or excessive ... The driveway is creating a popup in the design that makes the property or the development or the design exceed the knoll. Whereas when we were looking at the Morningside project and those were approved, those properties didn't exceed the highest points on those lots by maybe a foot from the roof line. And so I'd like to see that same scale brought into this project. Doesn't mean you can't build in that buildable area of the lot. I'm just saying it needs to be compressed down to be in comparable space to where we approved the other ones.

And it's also not compliant with 4.16, locate the garage minimize perceived mass due to the height off the street grade. Design articulation, the tandem parking is subject to design review and due to the size of the lot, as I commented earlier, I don't find it consistent or necessary for this size of property, and it doesn't necessarily make the access feature for that third car very feasible. It's just creating more mechanical space and uninhabitable room in the lot. I would encourage shared access with the neighboring, as mentioned by board member Gibbs, to review these two sites together because there are features that are being shared. Fire access features, the right of way improvements are being considered together as it's improving the street. So I think there's a nexus to see them side by side.

We have precedent of doing that for other properties recently. If we looked at old Bluebird a few years ago, sites 21572 and 21552 Treetop Lanes, we did the same thing with those sites and new developments for those lots as those were full tear downs and rebuilds for that neighborhood. The REP, it's a concern for the Bluebird [inaudible 01:24:27] because I went up there with a measuring tape and at the narrowest I measured 16 feet, whereas not far around the corner, just past the Ficus tree on the more properly developed Bluebird Canyon Road, it's curb to curb and that's a 24-foot road. So I need to see the right of way reach a much better depth than where we're at right now for access. For not only the safety of the fire, but for the utilities and all the other features that really need to be preserved in making this a safer neighborhood and considering this project.

Attachment 11 252
253 of 654
This transcript was exported on Dec 05, 2025 - view latest version here.

May 8, 2025 - 1st DRB Meeting - Trim (Completed 12/03/25) Transcript by Rev.com

Page 23 of 27 ends

The retaining walls, there are structural retaining walls that potentially are between one and three, five feet that do exceed into the right of way. I consider those permanent structures and those really should be pulled back closer to the property line as we've done that in other applications because it would limit the future development and fire access or something for that site if that road was to be further developed.

Environmental context, I concur with the staff report that the grading could be beneficial to lowering the site. For grading, it's a balance. I mean, I think mass and scale, view and privacy are all considerations when we consider heavier grading on sites. I think this is much more of a similar stance to what we do in Diamond Crestview. I know you've developed some properties up there, and I not necessarily want to shove the whole house into the hillside, but I do think given the nature and topography of the lot, there is some elements that do need to be pushed into the hillside more carefully to provide more environmental context for the area and shape.

The setback pattern, most homes are closer to the street, as I mentioned earlier.I didn't see the criteria met for 11.10, 11.16, 11.17. I already touched on those. The general plan compliance, I saw staff highlighted a few examples. I would take issues with those as well. And I do think, as mentioned by other board members, there's potentially further compliance issues that might need to be evaluated.

View, as I was talking about the view, I didn't really see too much of a view issue, but I do think it needs to be comparable to the other lots, as I mentioned. The heights of those ones incomparable to those lots, I think that needs to be considered in this one. Privacy, there's potentially some privacy concerns with the downhill lot, which is Ms. Whitten's, and then the covert lot, which is approved for design that could create some privacy if we don't carefully design those louvres or lower the design as well.

Lighting and glare as mentioned, I think we need to reference the project at 1000 Flamingo. I think that's the address. It was one on the other side of Bluebird Canyon. Pretty large home. I want to say it was closer to 8,000 square feet, but we did work out where they did have some expansive windows, but they used much more significant glass for tempering that down. And I think if you're trying to do within this modern design, you really need to propose what that glass type is to also help limit that glare.

The design of the pools, which is touched by Ms. Gannon, the side yard is not appropriate location for this. There's plenty of room on this site to incorporate it where it's a much more private component.

And I touched on those other things. So for me, this project needs a lot more work and a lot more careful consideration. I do agree with Board Member Gibbs and the other board members that this is a buildable site. A home will go here. We just need to work more as a community and as an applicant team and as a board to find that right fit. And that right home is in the reach of the developer and I think we can find that balance because that's what design review is supposed to create, is the balance for the development and for the impacts. And I think we can achieve it.

Thomas Gibbs:

Thank you, Mr. Weil. I'm going to make some comments and then I'm going to throw it back to the board members for any additional comments or comments on my comments. Because of the number of items that were raised, it's difficult to say specifically what the consensuses are, except to say I think there's pretty broad scale consensus to the key issues with this project, which I'll describe.

I'll start with access. Access is a real problem. I mean, I had it with the prior project next door. Having this driveway go up essentially 17 feet or however high it is just creates mass and scale. Also, it's a very difficult thing. The far preferential thing would be to have a garage at the street level. I joined with Board Member Gannon's comments upon that, which I also heard similar comments from other board members if that can be done.

Attachment 11 253
254 of 654
This transcript was exported on Dec 05, 2025 - view latest version here.

May 8, 2025 - 1st DRB Meeting - Trim (Completed 12/03/25) Transcript by Rev.com

Page 24 of 27 ends

Second, as a fallback, and I don't know whether it can be done. I kind of indicated maybe it can't. I don't know, but I think that needs to be explored. Secondly, to the extent that changing the driveway as proposed by Board Member Gannon enables a joint driveway situation with the adjoining property, that should be explored because you're going to have the cumulative impacts issue anyway. Also, I think the tandem garage, I failed to mention this, the additional excavation to do that just puts more burden on the street creating the problems, not only under the guidelines, but the coastal development permit and CEQA. So work on that.

Mass and scale, every board member had a problem with it. Your design's cool, but it needs to be, I said materially, not a ham sandwich. And I think particularly at the upper level and the expanse, I think you kind of have two homes. You have a single level, what did you call it? A platform? Speaker 11:

A pavilion.

Thomas Gibbs:

Pavilion. And I love your pavilions. I've seen some awesome pavilions, but better integrating those and thinking about where mass and scale shows the most, and that's certainly on the Bluebird Canyon side.

Then you have privacy, light, and glare and glazing, which are all in one bundle. I know you're going to be able to work magic with that. The spa definitely can't stay. You've got two board members and I would join them in considering what they had to say on the spa issue.

So I think you have quite a bit of work to do. And I think particularly given the city council's view that we should be going to two hearings and we need to make the findings on three, I'm going to encourage you, Horst, to do two things, make material changes to accommodate our concerns. And secondly, communicate on privacy issues and light and glare issues with the most affected neighbors, the very reasonable people, Susan, who you know, and the other people who spoke that are directly below this on Bluebird Canyon and then I think the Morningside Drive property. 1536, I believe it is. So those are your challenges. I think you can meet them, but let's make some real progress so we don't need a third meeting or if we do, it's very minor. Any comments from board members? Okay. So let's talk about a continuation. First of all, how much time do you think you need to do all of this?
Speaker 11:

Two months to submittal.

Thomas Gibbs:

Two months to submittal.

Speaker 11:

Yeah.

Thomas Gibbs:

So where does that put us? Who's scheduling? Sarah, are you doing that or James? Speaker 12:

Attachment 11 254
255 of 654
This transcript was exported on Dec 05, 2025 - view latest version here.

May 8, 2025 - 1st DRB Meeting - Trim (Completed 12/03/25) Transcript by Rev.com

Page 25 of 27 ends

I'm looking it up.

Thomas Gibbs:

Excuse me.

Speaker 12:

Pulling up the schedule now.

Thomas Gibbs:

Real quick. Seriously think about putting both projects together because I mean, I'm mistaken, and we're not making a final decision, but the cumulative effects of the environmental concerns here are going to very likely be necessary to make the determination of the categorical exemption applies for the reasons I've described. If you guys disagree at the second round, please put that in writing and I'll absolutely ... I haven't made a final decision, but I would consider it. Go ahead.

Speaker 12:

In looking at the calendar that we've kind of established, if we could get the revised drawings in by June 4th, we could theoretically make the July 24th hearing.

Thomas Gibbs:

No, no. He said two months before submittal.

Speaker 12:

I understand that. I'm trying to accommodate the 8th.

Thomas Gibbs:

No, no, not for a hearing. He wants submittal to be in two months, so it'd be a hearing later than that.

September. Yeah.

Speaker 12:

Yeah. Okay. Let me look at that. I apologize.

Speaker 13:

There's only one hearing.

MJ Coveny:

August. In August? Yeah.

Speaker 12:

Yeah.

Thomas Gibbs:

Also, just so you know, I may be out of town in August. Oh, you can't? Attachment 11 255
256 of 654
This transcript was exported on Dec 05, 2025 - view latest version here.

May 8, 2025 - 1st DRB Meeting - Trim (Completed 12/03/25) Transcript by Rev.com

Page 26 of 27 ends

MJ Coveny:

It would be August 14th.

Thomas Gibbs:

I'm not for sure.

Speaker 14:

Anywhere now.

MJ Coveny:

Well it can be scheduled and then ...

Thomas Gibbs:

All right. I don't have any present plans. So I definitely want to be at this hearing.

Speaker 12:

Yeah, I think August 14th would be the hearing date that we'd shoot for.

Thomas Gibbs:

Okay. I think that should work out. We were going to be leavingMJ Coveny:

And what is the submittal date?
Speaker 12:

In reading this, it would be ... This is June 25th.

Mr. Weil:

Is that enough time?
Speaker 11:

Yeah, we're good with that.

Thomas Gibbs:

Okay. So August 14th. Do I have a motion to continue this to August 14th? MJ Coveny:

I'll second that.

Speaker 12:

I'll move item number 5.3 for continued to August 14th with the board direction.

Thomas Gibbs:

Attachment 11 256
257 of 654
This transcript was exported on Dec 05, 2025 - view latest version here.

May 8, 2025 - 1st DRB Meeting - Trim (Completed 12/03/25) Transcript by Rev.com

Page 27 of 27 ends

And I'll second that.

Speaker 15:

Board member Coveny?
MJ Coveny:

Yes.

Speaker 15:

Board member Weil?
Mr. Weil:

Yes.

Speaker 15:

Chair Pro Tem Gannon and Chair Gibbs.

Speaker 14:

Yes.

Speaker 13:

Yes.

Thomas Gibbs:

All right. So I do not believe there's any other business on the agenda. So we are going to adjourn to ...

When's the next hearing date? Does anyone know? I don't have my ...

Speaker 13:

May 22nd.

Thomas Gibbs:

We're adjourned to May 22nd at 5:00 PM.

PART 4 OF 4 ENDS [01:35:58]
Attachment 11 257
258 of 654

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT
August 14, 2025
Agenda Item No. 5.8
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 two-car garage on a vacant building site in the R-1 (Residential Low Density) zone.

Location: 1550 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
Daniel Latham, Associate Planner
(949) 464-6612 | [email protected]
RECOMMENDATION:

Conduct a public hearing and if the Design Review Board finds sufficient facts to support the applications, adopt Resolution 24-2586 (Attachment 1) approving Design Review 24-2586, Coastal Development Permit 24-2588, Revocable Encroachment Permit 24-2587 and finding the action exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303.

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 Laguna Beach Municipal Code (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 12 258
259 of 654
DR 24-2586, CDP 24-2588, REP 24-2587
August 14, 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 two-car garage, vehicular access, elevated decks, spa, water feature, grading, retaining walls, and landscaping. Additionally, improvements proposed within the public right-of-way include retaining walls, steps, walkways, irrigation, and a metal gate (the “Project”).

Staff has included a resolution for approval as Attachment 1.

The project initially appeared on the Design Review Board’s (DRB) agenda for 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.

On May 8, 2025, the Design Review Board conducted a public hearing, reviewed and considered the proposed project, including public testimony received, provided direction to the applicant regarding design articulation, lighting, spa location, and privacy and continued the project to the August 14, 2025 Design Review Board meeting.

PROPERTY AERIAL PHOTO
Attachment 12 259
260 of 654
DR 24-2586, CDP 24-2588, REP 24-2587
August 14, 2025

Page 3 ends

EXISTING 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 5/8/25
Proposed
8/14/25
Proposed Conforms
Building Site Coverage - Maximum 35.00 %
4,327.4 SF NA

29.92%
3,698.25

25.88 %
3,199.8 SF Yes
Landscaped Open Space- Minimum 31.4 %
3,887.3 SF NA

35.5 %
4,392.1 SF

34.12%
4,219 SF Yes
Height (Above rear lot line) 15’ NA 15’-0” No Change Yes Height (Lowest floor to top of roof) 30’ NA 30’-0” No Change 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”
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:

Proposed Project
The proposed project includes the construction of a 4,393 square-foot two-story single-family dwelling with an attached 525 square-foot two-car garage. Access to the garage is provided by a 127-foot-long Attachment 12 260
261 of 654
DR 24-2586, CDP 24-2588, REP 24-2587
August 14, 2025

Page 4 ends

driveway, 364 square feet of elevated decks, a 2,104-gallon spa, grading, retaining walls, and landscaping.

Grading is described as 1,720 cubic yards of cut, 170 yards of fill and 1,550 cubic yards of export. The associated retaining walls range in height up to 10 feet in height and are located at the front of the property for the parking space, driveway and pedestrian access stairs. The new development is subject to design review and proposed retaining walls, steps, walkway, irrigation, and a metal gate within the unimproved portion of the public right-of-way require approval of 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.

Prior Meeting
The project was considered by the Design Review Board (DRB) on May 8, 2025. The staff report for the prior meeting is included as Attachment 10 of this report. After receiving input from staff, the applicant and public comments, the DRB discussed the project and provided direction to the applicant to modify the design. The Board provided the following comments regarding the proposed project:

• The Board expressed several concerns regarding the overall scale of the project recommending a reduction in size.
• Design elements such as the extent of glazing and exterior lighting were identified as requiring refinement to reduce visual impact and limit light transmittance. • Site access remains an issue; however, the Board indicated potential support for a revised ascending driveway.
• Further improvements to building articulation and mass are necessary, and concerns were raised that the proposal may set an undesirable precedent.
• Additional issues requiring resolution include privacy impacts, geotechnical stability, road repair responsibilities, and construction staging plans.
• The Board also requested justification for why a street-level garage is not feasible, relocation of the spa, elimination of tandem parking, and widening of the street width to improve access and safety.

Changes to the Project
The applicant has addressed the Board’s concerns through a series of design revisions and clarifications, summarized below and in Attachment 8:
• To respond to concerns about project scale, reductions have been made to the habitable floor area, from 4,643.19 SF to 4,393.24 SF for a total reduction of 249.95 SF. Additionally, the proposed lot coverage has been reduced from 29.92% to 25.88%. The floor area of the Garage has also been reduced from 1,027.16 SF to 525.22 SF, a total reduction of 501.24 SF. The size of the proposed elevated decks has been reduced from 418.04 SF to 364.05 SF.

Attachment 12 261
262 of 654
DR 24-2586, CDP 24-2588, REP 24-2587
August 14, 2025

Page 5 ends

• Exterior glazing has been reduced by approximately 20%, with the specification of tinted, lowtransmittance glass (Cardinal 366) to minimize glare and light pollution. Exterior lighting has been limited to the minimum levels allowed by building code. • In response to site access concerns, the applicant retained the ascending driveway, citing site constraints and neighborhood precedents. A crib wall system is proposed to screen retaining walls with vegetation. The building articulation and massing were refined by dividing the structure into two intersecting pavilions aligned with the topography, and the single-story volume adjacent to the neighboring property was set back by five feet to reduce bulk and improve privacy. • To mitigate concerns about setting an undesirable precedent, the applicant provided data confirming the proposed floor area ratio (FAR) of 35.5% falls within the range of comparable nearby properties. • Privacy is further addressed by reducing glazing and incorporating wood slat privacy screens. A geotechnical report confirming project feasibility has been submitted, along with a construction staging plan (Sheet A6.4 in Attachment 2). A road repair bond will be posted prior to permitting. • Regarding the garage, the applicant reaffirmed the impracticality and safety risk of a street-level garage due to steep slopes and retaining wall requirements and provided a diagram to illustrate these constraints (Attachment 9). The spa has been relocated to the rear of the property and reduced in size from 4,404 gallons to 2,104. The size of the reflecting pond has been increased from 2,070 to 2,385 gallons. Tandem parking has been eliminated, reducing excavation volume, with the parking space relocated adjacent to the garage. Street widening is proposed to improve the travel lane widths. The redesign has necessitated adjustments to planting locations to accommodate the new configuration.

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 pursuant to LBMC 25.05.040(B)(1): new structure, vehicular access, elevated decks, spa, water feature, grading, retaining walls, and landscaping. Design review is governed by LBMC 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:

Attachment 12 262
263 of 654
DR 24-2586, CDP 24-2588, REP 24-2587
August 14, 2025

Page 6 ends

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.

The proposed long S-shaped driveway, measuring over 100 feet, is steeply sloped and includes multiple sharp turns to access a side-entry garage located approximately 15 to 22 feet above streetlevel. A back-up 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, 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 17 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 10 feet in height. The applicant is proposing an interlocking crib-wall system which allows for planting in between the cells of the crib wall system. The crib wall system will be completely concealed by the planting and appear to be an extension of the surrounding natural vegetation.

The proposed driveway intersects Bluebird Canyon Drive with sufficient area, width and a flatter slope to allow for both left and right turning movements in and out of the site. Walls and landscaping near the driveway are low enough to remain below a driver’s line of sight, ensuring clear visibility of both uphill and downhill sections of the road and supporting safer vehicle maneuvering. The project includes the widening of the road by 2 to 3 feet to accommodate a 20-foot wide cross section along the project frontage. Parking for the disabled is not required for residential projects. For these reasons, the project avoids and minimizes potential conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians and other modes of transportation.

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 12 263
264 of 654
DR 24-2586, CDP 24-2588, REP 24-2587
August 14, 2025

Page 7 ends

The proposed building would be situated near the top of the lot, set back 18 feet 6 inches from the rear property line, which is the minimum allowed due to the shallow lot. The roof extends 15 feet above the rear property line, which is the maximum allowed due to the topography of the lot. 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.

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, and is proposed to be situated adjacent to the garage.

Retaining walls over five feet in height can create a sense of excessive mass and scale. To mitigate this, the applicant proposes an interlocking crib-wall system designed to accommodate planting within its cells. Once fully vegetated, the system will be entirely concealed by greenery, blending seamlessly with the surrounding natural vegetation.

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 incorporates materials such as board-formed concrete, stucco, wood screens, and expansive glass framed in simple black. The building features a primarily white palette, accented with gray concrete and natural wood tones. Seamless glass railings are proposed for the uppermost deck, which is bordered 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. The Project includes 1,550 cubic yards of grading export and 1,720 cubic yards of fill. This level of grading is consistent with other hillside developments in the city, particularly when accommodating a required public parking space, which necessitates additional grading beyond the project site. Additional grading may also be considered to lower the structure, helping to preserve surrounding development pattern and minimize 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 complies with the certified local coastal program and follows the general plan policies as discussed below:

Attachment 12 264
265 of 654
DR 24-2586, CDP 24-2588, REP 24-2587
August 14, 2025

Page 8 ends

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. 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 compatible.

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

The project site is currently vacant and contains no historic resources. Additionally, there are no adjacent historic resources 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 Attachment 12 265
266 of 654
DR 24-2586, CDP 24-2588, REP 24-2587
August 14, 2025

Page 9 ends

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 (12 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 glazing may result in excessive sun reflection during the day and interior light spillage at night. Using a darker stucco color may help minimize glare.

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 1: 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., Attachment 12 266
267 of 654
DR 24-2586, CDP 24-2588, REP 24-2587
August 14, 2025

Page 10 ends

structural heights, mass, scale or size), village atmosphere, landscaping themes and architectural styles.

The property qualifies for a reduced front setback due to the steep condition, with the garage allowed to be five feet from the front property line. The proposed garage setback of 17’-4” in combination with the turn-in garage design has resulted in a driveway that exceeds 100 feet using retaining walls greater than five feet to support the cut slope. A an existing 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 Design Review Board (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 June 12, 2025, the DRB denied an application (same applicant as this project) for a new home on the adjacent lot addressed as 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive (Lot B). That decision has been appealed by the applicant and has been scheduled for August 12, 2025 City Council meeting.

Although difficult to compare this project with the adjacent homes, when comparing this project against the home that was approved at 1536 Morningside, which is located on the other side of the same knoll, there is similar massing due to the topography of the lot and the location and orientation of the garage. These projects are visually compatible with each other in terms of massing.

If the DRB determines that the proposed design is not compatible with the neighborhood, it should provide specific guidance to the applicant to help revise the project for improved compatibility.

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.

Design Review Criteria for Pedestrian Orientation is related to commercial development and is not applicable to the proposed residential 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.

At the time thisreport was prepared, staff had had not received any public correspondence regarding privacy concerns. However, privacy issues had been previously noted for the property at 1540 Bluebird Canyon Drive.

Attachment 12 267
268 of 654
DR 24-2586, CDP 24-2588, REP 24-2587
August 14, 2025

Page 11 ends

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

Design Review Criteria for Public Art is related to commercial development and is not applicable to the proposed residential 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 physical environment in terms of color, scale and size. Use of natural materials in the construction of signs is encouraged.

Design Review Criteria for Signage is related to commercial development and is not applicable to the proposed residential 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 65 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 sited at the rear of the property in an area with suitable geological conditions, and all associated equipment is located within the garage. A standard condition of approval will restrict equipment operation to between 9:00 AM and 9:00 PM. The spa will be equipped with a cover, and the required minimum 5-foot security fencing is provided on the property.

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. After visiting the site, the Design Review Board will find that the project is in conformance with the View Equity Attachment 12 268
269 of 654
DR 24-2586, CDP 24-2588, REP 24-2587
August 14, 2025

Page 12 ends

criterion in that the proposed structure maintains view corridors from surrounding residences as necessary.

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.

Refer to the neighborhood compatibility and design articulation design review criteria sections 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.

The extended driveway provides on-site vehicle turnaround, enhancing access compared to a garage located at the street, but it also contributes to the overall massing. The proposed planting of the retaining walls helps mitigate this visual mass. However, by situating the structure higher on the lot, the project creates a more prominent visual presence than if it were recessed into the hillside.

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

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

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 LBMC 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:

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.

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.

Attachment 12 269
270 of 654
DR 24-2586, CDP 24-2588, REP 24-2587
August 14, 2025

Page 13 ends

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.

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.

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 1,550 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 Division.

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 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. The project at 1536 Morningside is 2,372 square feet of living area with smaller site coverage than the proposed project. The DRB required the 1536 Morningside Drive project to reduce the top roof height by two feet.

Although it is difficult to compare this project with the adjacent homes as their lots are uniquely different in terms of size and topography. When comparing this project against the home that was approved at 1536 Morningside, which is located on the other side of the same knoll, there is similar massing due to the topography of the lot and the location and orientation of the garage. These projects are visually compatible with each other in terms of massing.

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

Attachment 12 270
271 of 654
DR 24-2586, CDP 24-2588, REP 24-2587
August 14, 2025

Page 14 ends

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.

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 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.

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 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.

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.

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)

8. Title 25 - Zoning Code
Attachment 12 271
272 of 654
DR 24-2586, CDP 24-2588, REP 24-2587
August 14, 2025

Page 15 ends

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.

The subject property is not located between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea. As detailed above in the facts supporting Finding Number 1, the proposed development is in conformity with the certified local coastal program.

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.

Revocable Encroachment Permit
The applicant requests approval of a revocable encroachment permit to construct and maintain retaining walls, steps, walkway, irrigation, and a 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:

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

Yes. 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.

Yes. 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.

Yes. 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.

Attachment 12 272
273 of 654
DR 24-2586, CDP 24-2588, REP 24-2587
August 14, 2025

Page 16 ends

Yes. 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.

Yes. Neighboring properties along Bluebird Canyon Drive have minor encroachments, some of which protrude into the perceived travel lane. The landscaped walls, stairs and landscaping proposed are residential in character and are located well outside travel lanes. Therefore, the proposed encroachment would not set a precedent.

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.

Yes. The landscaped walls and landscaping proposed are residential in character and are located well outside travel lanes and would not detract from the general quality of the streetscape.

THIRD HEARING FINDING:

This is the second hearing for the project. Per LBMC Section 25.05.040 (F)(5), Design review hearings on a proposed residential development project shall usually be limited to a maximum of two hearings. A third hearing may be permitted if the approval authority makes a finding that the applicant followed the authority's direction(s) from the initial hearing in good faith and further design work on the project is in the best interest of the community. The approval authority may allow up to two continuances of hearings at which no substantive discussion of the application occurs. Concept review hearings for residential dwelling units of three units or less are not allowed, except where required by current City ordinance. If required, concept review shall be limited to one hearing and shall count as one of the above limited hearings.

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.

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 Attachment 12 273
274 of 654
DR 24-2586, CDP 24-2588, REP 24-2587
August 14, 2025

Page 17 ends

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:

NOTIFICATION:

Pursuant to Title 25 (Zoning) Public Notice, a public hearing notice has been mailed on February 3, 2025, at least twenty-one (21) days prior to the original hearing date (February 27, 2025) in accordance with Title

25. In addition, a public hearing notice was posted on the project site at least 10 days in advance of the original hearing date on February 6, 2025. On the February 27, 2025, the project was not heard and continued to May 8, 2025. On May 8, 2025, the Board reviewed the project and then continued it again to the August 14, 2025 Design Review Board meeting to give the applicant time to respond to the Board’s comments.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

No public commentary has been received since the hearing on May 8, 2025 to the time of writing this report.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1 – Resolution 24-2586
Attachment 2 – Project Plans
Attachment 3 – Certified Staking Plan
Attachment 4 – Colors and Materials
Attachment 5 – Geotechnical Report
Attachment 6 – Alternative Material & Methods
Attachment 7 – Revocable Encroachment Plan
Attachment 8 – Summary of Changes
Attachment 9 – Changes and Street level Garage Analysis Attachment 10 – May 8, 2025 DRB Staff Report
Attachment 11 – 3D Model
Attachment 12 274
275 of 654
Attachment 13 275
276 of 654
Attachment 13 276
277 of 654
Attachment 13 277
278 of 654
Attachment 13 278
279 of 654
Attachment 13 279
280 of 654
Attachment 14 280
281 of 654
Attachment 14 281
282 of 654
Attachment 14 282
283 of 654
Attachment 14 283
284 of 654
Attachment 14 284
285 of 654
Attachment 14 285
286 of 654
Attachment 14 286
287 of 654
Attachment 14 287
288 of 654
Attachment 14 288
289 of 654
Attachment 14 289
290 of 654
Attachment 14 290
291 of 654
Attachment 14 291
292 of 654
Attachment 14 292
293 of 654
Attachment 14 293
294 of 654
Attachment 14 294
295 of 654
Attachment 14 295
296 of 654
Attachment 14 296
297 of 654
Attachment 14 297
298 of 654
Attachment 14 298
299 of 654
Attachment 14 299
300 of 654
Attachment 14 300
301 of 654
Attachment 14 301
302 of 654
PROJECT TEAM SHEET INDEX PROJECT SUMMARY OWNER: 1560 BCD LLC DAVID DYRNAES 2125 TEMPLE HILLS DR. LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 P. 949.300.7636 VICINITY MAP ADDRESS: DESCRIPTION REQUIRED/ ALLOWED PROPOSED (Yes/No) CONFORMS USE ZONE LOT AREA LOT WIDTH (AVG.) LOT DEPTH (AVG.) LOT SLOPE (%) MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT MAX. HEIGHT - FF,FG,EG SETBACKS: Side Yards LOT COVERAGE max. BSC ZONING STANDARDS PROJECT DATA DESCRIPTION PROPOSED LIVING AREA: GARAGE MECHANICAL ELEVATED DECK TERRACE 1550 BLUEBIRD CANYON DRIVE, LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 RESIDENTIAL Y R-1 YYYYYY TOTAL Y PROJECT SITE (NO CHANGE) SINGLE FAMILY TS TITLE SHEET A1.1 SITE PLAN TP-01 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY AREA CALCULATIONS LOWER LEVEL C-1 35% = 4,327.40 SF Front Yard: CODE ANALYSIS CODE: 2022 CBC, CMC, CEC, CPC CONSTRUCTION TYPE: V-B ZONING DESIGNATION: R1 OCCUPANCY: R-3, U-1 NUMBER OF STORIES: 3 PROJECT ADDRESS 1550 BLUEBIRD CANYON DR. LOT A, LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 ACCESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER APN: 644-321-31 LEGAL PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP 2024-117 A2.3 UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN Mid Level GRADING PLAN C-2 15'-0" Abv. EG @ RPL K Y O T O H O U S E 1550 BLUEBIRD CANYON DR., L A G U N A B E A C H, CA PROJECT DESCRIPTION NEW 4,393.24 SF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, INCLUDING A 525.22 SF 2-CAR GARAGE, A 364.05 SF ELEVATED DECK, 210.923 SF OF MECHANICAL SPACE, A 2,104 GAL. JACUZZI, A 2,385 GAL. REFLECTING POND, LANDSCAPE, RETAINING WALLS AND DRIVEWAY. above existing grade along 5'-0" garage,10'-0" house A5.1 6,000 SF 70'-0" NA GENERAL NOTES 1. All work, including materials and workmanship, shall conform to the requirements of local codes, laws, and ordinances and as specified by all by all governing authorities where applicable. Reference is to the latest accepted edition or revision. In the event of conflict with code requirements, that code requirement or note which establishes the higher standard shall take precedence. 2. The intention of the Contract Documents is to include all labor and materials, equipment, and transportation necessary for the complete and proper execution of the work. 3. The Contractor shall visit the job site prior to bidding any portion of the work. The Contractor shall verify all dimensions and existing conditions prior to beginning work, including but not limited to existing interior walls and roof structures. Should any condition arise where the intent of the drawings is in doubt or where there is a discrepancy between the Contract Documents and the field conditions, or within the Contract Documents, the Contractor shall notify the Architect immediately for clarification. Acceptance of these contract documents releases Architect from any liability of inaccurate portray of existing conditions whatsoever as established by consulting engineers and/or surveyors. 4. Dimensions are from face of studs or to center of wall as indicated on drawings, unless noted otherwise. 5. Written dimensions take precedence. Do not scale drawings. Walls not dimensioned are to align with existing walls or be abutted or applied to existing walls per drawings. Doors not dimensioned and shown jamb tight shall be set 3" from perpendicular wall to outer edge of door jamb. 6. Reference to any detail or drawing is for convenience only and does not limit the application of such details or drawings. 7. The design, adequacy and safety of erection bracing, shoring, temporary supports, etc., is the sole responsibility of the Contractor. The Contractor shall be responsible for the stability of the structure and provide necessary bracing prior to the application of all shear walls, roof and floor diaphragms, and finish materials. The Contractor shall be responsible for initiating, maintaining, and supervising all safety precautions and programs in connection with the work. 8. The Structural, Mechanical, Plumbing, and Electrical Drawings, as well as the drawings of other consultants, are supplementary to the Architectural Drawings. It shall be the responsibility of the General Contractor to check with the Architectural Drawings before the installation of work shown on the drawings of consultants. The Contractor shall bring any discrepancy between the Architectural Drawings and the drawings of the consulting engineers to the attention of the Architect for clarification. Any work installed in conflict with the Architectural drawings and not brought to the Architect's attention shall be corrected by the Contractor at the Contractor's expense and at no expense to the Owner or Architect. 9. Prior to performance of work, the Contractor shall require each subcontractor to notify the Contractor of any work called out in the drawings for his trade that cannot be fully guaranteed. 10. Contractor shall verify the location and size of all openings with all drawings and manufactured items where applicable. 11. The Contractor shall supervise and direct the Work and be solely responsible for all construction, means, methods, techniques, sequences, procedures, safety and for coordinating all portions of the Work. 12. The Contractor here-in agrees to repair or replace any or all work, together with any other adjacent work which may be displaced in connection with such replacement, that may prove to be defective in workmanship or materials within a period of one year form the date of acceptance, ordinary wear and unusual abuse or neglect excepted. 13. Contractor shall protect all existing structures, landscaping, materials, etc., during construction. Contractor shall patch and repair all surfaces disrupted or damaged during construction to match existing adjacent surfaces. 14. The Contractor shall on a daily basis keep the premises free form all accumulations of waste material or rubbish caused by his employees, subcontractors, or work, and at the completion of the work shall remove all rubbish, debris, equipment, and surplus materials from in and about the building and leave the premises "broom clean". 15. Any deviation from the Construction Documents or specifications by the Contractor or Owner without the Architect's approval releases the Architect of responsibility and liability in connection with all work so involved. 16. Clarifications on and/or inconsistencies with the drawings and specifications shall be brought to the attention of the Architect by the Contractor prior to commencement of work. Additional charges will not be granted based on claims of incomplete, inaccurate, or inconsistent drawings and specifications. 17. Prior to any excavation, a meeting will be held on site that will be attended by the project engineer, geologist, project building inspector, general and shoring contractors. 18. A CAL OSHA permit is required where excavations exceed 5ft and a copy of the permit shall be supplied to the city prior to issuing a building permit. 19. The requirements of the 2022edition of the California Building Code (Title 24) have been taken in consideration. 20. All new utilities will be underground to nearest utility pole. 21. Prior to commencement of any construction all aplicable provisions pertaining to brush clearance contained in the Uniform Fire code shall comply with the City of Laguna Beach Fire Department. 22. The responsible certified geotechnical engineer will inspect and approve all grading and excavations prior to placement of forms, reinforcing steel or concrete. In cases involving engineered fill, a soils engineer shall provide the inspection and approval. 23. All eaves/projections to be one hour fire resistive, heavy timber or constructed on non-combustible materials. There shall be no openings in the fire resistive construction ( i.e. no eave vents), and the fire rating must be maintained around recessed lighting. 24. All roof/ eave materials to be "Class A" rated. 25. Licensed civil engineer/ architect that prepared the drainage plan shall certify at the completion of the project that the site drainage is in substantial compliance with the approved drainage plan. 26. The plans shall comply with the 2022 California Codes. CBC, CPC, CMC and CEC and all applicable Local codes and ordinances. 27. Project shall comply with NPDES, SUSMP and BMP requirements. 28. Contact dig alert. 29. Structural observations by design engineer. 30. Owners on adjacent properties that must underpin their buildings due to the proposed excavation shall be notified in writing ten days prior to beginning the excavation. Copies of these notification letters shall be provided to the city prior to beginning the excavation. 31. Termite protection. In geographical areas where hazard of termite damage is known to be very heavy, wood floor framing shall be of naturally durable species (termite resistant) or preservative treated in accordance with AWPA U1 for the species, product preservative and end use or provided with approved methods of termite protection. 2304.11.6 FIGURE 2603.8 32. Wood supported by exterior foundation walls. Wood framing members, including wood sheathing, that rest on exterior foundation walls and are less than 8 inches (203 mm) from exposed earth shall be of naturally durable or preservative-treated wood. 2304.11.2.2 33. Fasteners for preservative treated and fire-retardant-treated wood shall be of hot dipped zinc-coated galvanized steel, stainless steel, silicon bronze or copper. The coating weights for zinc-coated fasteners shall be in accordance with ASTM A 153. 2304.9.5. Exception: Fasteners other than nails, timber rivets, wood screws and lag screws shall be permitted to be of mechanically deposited zinc coated steel with coating weights in accordance with ASTMB695, Class 55 minimum. 2304.9.5. Fastenings for wood foundations shall be as required in AF&PA Technical Report No. 7. SYMBOLS ABBREVIATIONS Door symbol - see door schedule Window symbol - see window schedule Keynote symbol - see keynotes Color/material symbol - see color/fin. list Equipment symbol - see equipment list Plumbing fixtures symbol per SCH Plumbing accessories symbol per SCH 2 x stud wall Concrete Block wall Ceiling height symbol Sheet Number Sheet Number Interior Elevation Number Section Number Detail Number Low wall - refer to spot elevation 1 2 3 4 2A94D1 A.B. ANCHOR BOLT ABV. ABOVE A.C. ASPHALT CONCRETE A.F.F. ABOVE FINISH FLOOR AL ALUMINUM ALT ALTERNATE APP APPROXIMATE ARCH ARCHITECTURAL BD BOARD BLW BELOW BET BETWEEN BLDG BUILDING BM BEAM BOT BOTTOM BYN BEYOND BW BOTH WAYS C.J. CEILING JOISTS C.M.U. CONCRETE MASONRY UNITS C.O. CLEAR OPENING CAB CABINET CLG CEILING CEM CEMENT CER CERAMIC CLR CLEAR COL COLUMN CONC CONCRETE CONN CONNECTION CONST CONSTURUCTION CONT CONTINUOUS CONTR CONTRACTOR D DEPTH D.F. DRINKING FOUNTAIN, DOUGLAS FIR D.S. DOWNSPOUT DB. DOUBLE DET DETAIL DIA DIAMETER DIM DIMENSION DN DOWN DR DOOR DWG DRAWING DWR DRAWER E.N. EDGE NAIL(ING) E.W. EACH WAY EA EACH ELEC ELECTRIC, ELECTRICAL ELEV ELEVATION E.I.F.S. EXTERIOR INSULATION AND FINISH SYSTEM EQ EQUAL EQUIP EQUIPMENT ESMT EASMENT EXH EXHAUST [E] EXISTING EXP EXPOSED F.N. FIELD NAILING F.O.C. FACE OF CONCRETE F.O.M. FACE OF MASONRY F.O.S. FACE OF STUD FRMG FRAMING FDN FOUNDATION FIN FINISH FLR FLOOR FT FOOT FTG. FOOTING GA GAUGE GALV GALVINIZED GAR GARAGE GFF GARAGE FINISH FLOOR G.F.I. GROUND FAULT INTERRUPTOR G.F.R.C. GLASS FIBER REINFORCED CEMENT G.I. GALVINIZED IRON GLS GLASS GR GRANITE GRD GRADE GYP. BD. GYPSUM BOARD H.M, HOLLOW METAL H.C. HOLLOW CORE HC HANDICAPPED HD HIGH DENSITY, HOLD DOWN HDW HARDWARE HR HOUR HT HEIGHT HRT. HEATER I.D. INSIDE DIAMETER IN INCH INS. INSULATION INT. INTERIOR R.O.W. RIGHT OF WAY S STAINLESS S.C. SOLID CORE SCH. SCHEDULE SECT. SECTION SH SHELF SHTG SHEATHING SHWR SHOWER SIM SIMULAR SPEC SPECIFICATIONS SQ SQUARE ST. STREET STD STANDARD STL STEEL STN STONE STUC STUCCO STRUCT STRUCTURAL SYM SYMMETRICAL T&B TOP AND BOTTOM T&G TOUNGE AND GROOVE T TREAD, TEMPERED GLASS TC TOP OF CONCRETE / CURB / CHIMNEY TD TOP OF DECK TP TOP OF PLATE TT TOP OF TRELLIS TR TOP OF ROOF TRAIL TOP OF HANDRAIL TW TOP OF WALL TEL TELEPHONE THK THICK TYP TYPICAL U.N.O. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE UR URINAL V.T. VINYL TILE V.T.R. VENT THROUGH ROUGH W WIDE, WIDTH W/ WITH W.C. WATER CLOSET, WALL COVERING WD WOOD WP WATERPROOF W.R. WATER RESISTANT A11 PLA-1 8'-0" AAa 0.00' TR Sheet Number (NO CHANGE) (NO CHANGE) (NO CHANGE) Y EXISTING VACANT LOT 21.7% R-1 12,364 SF 80'-0" 92'-4" 122'-0" (NO CHANGE) 30'-0" which ever is more restrictive - 30'-0" 30'-0" Y 18'-6" Y PARKING - 3 covered EXISTING 2 covered DRB JAN. JANITOR JT. JOINT KIT. KITCHEN L. LENGTH LAV. LAVATORY M.C. MEDICINE CHEST M.O. MASONRY OPENING MAS. MASONRY MAX. MAXIMUM MECH. MECHANICAL MED. MEDIUM MFG. MANUFACTURER MIN. MINIMUM MISC. MISCELLANEOUS MTD MOUNTED MTL. METAL [N] NEW N.I.C. NOT IN CONTRACT N.T.S. NOT TO SCALE NAT. NATURAL O.C. ON CENTER O.D. OUTSIDE DIAMETER OPN. OPENING OPP OPPOSITE P/A PLANTING AREA P.S.I. POUNDS / SQUARE INCH PL. PLATE PLAS PLASTER PLY PLYWOOD POL POLISH, POLISHED PR. PAIR PT. PAINT R RADIUS, RAFTER R.D. ROOF DRAIN R.O. ROUGH OPENING R.R. ROOF RAFTER R.S. ROUGH SAWN RA RETURN AIR REQ REQUIRED RI RISER RM ROOM A10 rear property line Rear Yard: Upper Level A3.1 EXTERIOR ELEVATION - SOUTH A3.2 EXTERIOR ELEVATION - NORTH A3.3 EXTERIOR ELEVATION - EAST & WEST A4.1 SECTIONS A & B CUT & FILL EXHIBIT TOTAL REMODEL 4,393.24 SF 364.05 SF 210.92 SF DEMOLITION REMOVED DECK AREA FLOOR AREA EXTERIOR WALLS EXISTING REMAINING DEMO TOTAL % PROJECT SUMMARY TABLES C-3 3,017.63 SF 1,191.84 SF 525.22 SF - 3,199.80 SF =25.88% - 18'-6" 8'-0" right, 16'-5" left Y A2.1 LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN - 8'-0" r., 24'-0" l. - 20'-4" g.,10'-0" h. A2.2 MID LEVEL FLOOR PLAN POOL / JACUZZI / WATER FEATURE DETAILS Jacuzzi Reflecting Pond DIMENSIONS (L x W x D) VOLUME / GALLONS TOTAL SITE WORK Total GRADING Over Excavation Re-Compactation Outside Building Footprint Cut Fill Net Export 150 CY 150 CY 0 CY 1,720 CY 170 CY 1,550 CY 820 CY 20 CY 800 CY 15'-9" 13'-6" 1'-6" 2,385 10'-0" AVG 7'-6" AVG 3'-6" 2,104 4,489 L1.0 OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS ROOF AREA Lower Level 183.77 SF Inside Building Footprint 750 CY 0 CY 750 CY A5.2 AREA CALCULATIONS MID LEVEL A5.3 AREA CALCULATIONS UPPER LEVEL A6.1 STAKING PLAN A6.2 FIRE ACCESS PLAN ARCHITECT: HORST NOPPENBERGER HORST ARCHITECTS, INC. 247 A FOREST AVENUE, LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 P. 949.494.9569 E: [email protected] CIVIL: ADAM TOAL TOAL ENGINEERING 139 AVENIDA NAVARRO SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92672 T: 949.492.8586 F: 949.498.8625 [email protected] PROPOSED FIXTURE COUNT Low voltage indirect slot light - recessed in wall 125 lm EXTERIOR BUILDING LIGHTING PROPOSED EGRESS DOORS FIXTURE TYPE WATTAGE LUMENS QUANTITY COMMENTS TOTAL 2 W 9 Lightology - 113RL outdoor wall recessed 99 9 PROPOSED FIXTURE COUNT LANDSCAPE LIGHTING FIXTURE TYPE LUMENS QUANTITY COMMENTS TOTAL 33 Down Light 300 lm 7 54 Wall Down Light 150 lm 15 Path Light 125 lm 22 SPJ Lighting SPJ-BJ3 BCAE TOTAL EXTERIOR + LANDSCAPE 63 D Step Light 125 lm 10 LANSCAPED OPEN SPACE Y IRRIGATED AREA N/A 34.12% = 4,219 SF 4,219 SF N/A N/A 31.4% = 3,887.3 SF N/A- - - HORST ARCHITECTS EXPRESSLY RESERVES ITS COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT AND OTHER PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THESE DRAWINGS. THESE DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE REPRODUCED, CHANGED, OR COPIED IN ANY FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER NOR ARE THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO ANY THIRD PARTY WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE EXPRESSED WRITTEN PERMISSION OF HORST ARCHITECTS. SHEET NUMBER PLOT DATE: SCALE: a r c h i t e c t s 9 4 9 4 9 4 9 5 6 9 K Y O T O H O U S E 1550 BLUEBIRD CANYON DRIVE, LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651
DRAWING PREPARED BY: JM LANDSCAPE: M. D. WILKES DESIGN 690 THALIA ST. LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 T: 949.637.1050 [email protected] L2.0 LANDSCAPE PLAN L3.0 IRRIGATION PLAN L4.0 LANSCAPE LIGHTING PLAN A1.2 ROOF PLAN A6.3 EXTERIOR LIGHTING PLAN SPJ Lighting SPJ-T1 6W SPJ Lighting SPJ-FB-275-3 TSN/A 06.24.2025 SPJ Lighting SPJ-104-RL - - - - - - - - - - - - EROSION CONTROL PLAN ------ ------- 4,393.24 SF 364.05 SF 210.92 SF 3,017.63 SF 1,191.84 SF 525.22 SF 183.77 SF INTERIOR WALLS ----- - 15'-0" Abv. EG @ RPL IMPERVIOUS SURFACES N/A N/A 7,692 SF N/A A6.4 CONSTRUCTION STAGING PLAN Daniel Latham Digitally signed by Daniel Latham DN: C=US, [email protected], CN=Daniel Latham Date: 2025.07.30 09:48:19-07'00'
PARCEL 4
LL ADJ 04-01
PARCEL 1
LL ADJ 04-01
PARCEL 3
LL ADJ 04-01
(PRIVATELY OWNED)
TRACT 990
BENCHMARK NOTE:

OCSBM 3Z-38-71
ELEV=933.758
NAVD88 DATUM, 1991 ADJ.

JOB NO. SHEET
1 3 9 A v e n i d a N a v a r r o
S a n C l e m e n t e , C A 9 2 6 7 2
9 4 9 . 4 9 2 . 8 5 8 6
w w w . t o a l e n g i n e e r i n g . c o m

C I V I L E N G I N E E R I N G

L A N D S U R V E Y I N G

S T O R M W A T E R Q UA L I T Y
OF
PREPARED FOR:

APVD. DATE R E V I S I O N S BY DATE
APPD.:

DATE:

DWG. NO.

H. SCALE:

SURVEY DATE: V. SCALE:

CHD.:

DRN.:

DAVID DYRNAES

STAT E OF CA L I FORN I A

L ICENSED LAND SURVEYO
VIKTOR P.

R
MEUM
No. 8682
VIKTOR P. MEUM
P.L.S. 8682
DATE:
1/8"=1'
10-3-18 -
3-5-24
MCH
MSF
VM
24016 1 1
TP-01PARCEL 4, LL ADJ 04-01 1560 BLUEBIRD CANYON DRIVE, LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA

TOPOGRAPHIC AND BOUNDARY SURVEY
SCALE: 1/8"=1'

EASEMENT NOTE
MSF 12-12-19 1 UPDATED PLAT TO REFLECT RECORD OF SURVEY NO. 2019-1019 (RSB 307/50)MSF 3-5-24 2 ADJUSTED ELEVATIONS TO MATCH TRUE BENCHMARK 304 of 654
PARCEL 4
LL ADJ 04-01
PARCEL 3
LL ADJ 04-01
(PRIVATELY OWNED)
TRACT 990

FIRST LEVEL
FF=492.00
PAD= ___.__

FIRST LEVEL
FF=505.00
PAD= ___.__
SPA

LOT A LOT B
GARAGE

FIRST LEVEL
FF=492.00
PAD= ___.__
SPA

PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT

PER SEPARATE PLAN
1 3 9 A v e n i d a N a v a r r o
S a n C l e m e n t e , C A 9 2 6 7 2
9 4 9 . 4 9 2 . 8 5 8 6
w
w
w. t o a l e n g i n e e r i n g . c o m

C I V I L E N

G I N E E R I N
G
L A
N
D S U
R

V E Y I N
G
STO
R
M
W
ATER
Q
U

AL I TY

EASEMENT NOTE

PRELIMINARY PLANNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

DEVELOPMENT STATISTICS

PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION NOTES
LEGEND

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES
PARCEL 4
LL ADJ 04-01
PARCEL 3
LL ADJ 04-01
(PRIVATELY OWNED)
TRACT 990

PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT

PER SEPARATE PLAN

FIRST LEVEL
FF=492.00
PAD= ___.__
LOT A
GARAGE

FIRST LEVEL
FF=492.00
PAD= ___.__
SPA
1 3 9 A v e n i d a N a v a r r o
S a n C l e m e n t e , C A 9 2 6 7 2
9 4 9 . 4 9 2 . 8 5 8 6
w
w
w. t o a l e n g i n e e r i n g . c o m

C I V I L E N

G I N E E R I N
G
L A
N
D S U
R

V E Y I N
G
STO
R
M
W
ATER
Q
U

AL I TY
LEGEND:

EARTHWORK QUANTITIES:

PRELIMINARY PLANNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
PARCEL 4
LL ADJ 04-01
PARCEL 3
LL ADJ 04-01
(PRIVATELY OWNED)
TRACT 990

FIRST LEVEL
FF=492.00
PAD= ___.__
LOT A
GARAGE

FIRST LEVEL
FF=492.00
PAD= ___.__
SPA
1 3 9 A v e n i d a N a v a r r o
S a n C l e m e n t e , C A 9 2 6 7 2
9 4 9 . 4 9 2 . 8 5 8 6
w
w
w. t o a l e n g i n e e r i n g . c o m

C I V I L E N

G I N E E R I N
G
L A
N
D S U
R

V E Y I N
G
STO
R
M
W
ATER
Q
U

AL I TY

PRELIMINARY PLAN

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
EROSION CONTROL BMPs

TEMPORARY SEDIMENT CONTROL

WIND EROSION CONTROL

TRACKING CONTROL

WASTE MANAGEMENT AND MATERIALS POLLUTION CONTROL

NON-STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

YEAR-ROUND BMP REQUIREMENTS
LEGEND
NOTE

STAPLE DETAIL
PLAN

SECTION B-B SIGN DETAIL
DETAIL

WATERPROOFED CONCRETE WASHOUT AREA
DETAIL

GRAVEL BAG BERM

SECTION X-X PLAN
DETAIL

STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION
DETAIL

STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE

BLUEBIRD CANYON DRIVE
LOT A

BUILDING FOOTPRINT
469.59FS
480.00
FS
482.58
FS
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
Sewer manhole
TBM Rim elev=458.08
470.00' TW
471.00' FS
484.00' TW
484.50' TW
478.50' TW
480.00' TW
482.00' TW
487.00' TW
493.00' T. FENCE
490.00' TW
491.50' TW
AVERAGE WIDTH 122.03'
AVERAGE WIDTH 92.35'
DRIVEWAY 10% SLOPE MAX

FOR FIREFIGHTER ACCESS
483.70' NG
485.30' NG
502.40' NG
508.40' T. FENCE
495.60' NG
501.60' T. FENCE
481.00' NG
487.00' T. FENCE
482.70' NG
488.70 T.FENCE
486.50' NG
466.10' NG
DRIVEWAY 10% SLOPE MAX

FOR FIREFIGHTER ACCESS
480.00' FS
480.00' FS
491.50' TW
481.27
FS
487.64 FS 28'-0"
UP
501.10
FS 500.55
FS
500.0
FS
498.50
FS
498.00
FS
497.00
FS
GRV-1
GRV-1
GRV-1
GRV-1
GRV-1
GRV-1
GRV-1
496.00
495.00 FS
FS
499.00
FS
500.0 FS
494.00
FS
GRV-1
493.00
FS
492.00
FS
491.00
FS
489.00
FS
491.50
FS
VEG
VEG
VEG
VEG
VEG
VEG
VEG
VEG
VEG
VEG
VEG
STN-2
STN-2
STN-2
STN-2
STN-2
12 11
8 23
16 16
12 15
17 TB 55
15 15
17 GRV-1
GRV-1
GRV-1
55 1
1 17
7 2
58 22
23 13
18 14
18 14
17 57
1 2
16'-5"
SYSB
A
A4.1
A
A4.1
B
A4.1
B
A4.1
8'-0"
SYSB
18'-6"
RYSB
18'-6"
8'-0"
SYSB
16'-5"
SYSB
23'-6"
27'-6"
59'-2"
28'-9"
34'-2"
10'-0"
FYSB
10'-0"
FYSB
43'-4" 8'-6" 23'-0"
36'-0"
44'-8"
8'-0"
16'-6"
25'-1"
3 7
9'-1" 30'-8"
39'-10"
74'-10"
4'-0"
10'-7"
17 STN-2
492.00 FS
28 42
28 1
2 2
1 1
2 24'-10"
14'-5"

HOUSE TO PL
24 24
26 17'-4"

GARAGE TO PL
10'-0"

ROOF TO PL
S
A3.1
N
A3.2
E
A3.3
W
A3.3
14 14
14 24
507.50' T. FENCE
497.50 T.FENCE
TB
479.34
FS
481.92
FS
485.14
FS
6'-1" 2'-11" 12'-8" 21'-8" 6'-6" 2'-0" 20'-0" 3'-0"
479.24' FS
492.00 FS
SPA
32 5'-6"
VEG
482.00' TW
468.00' FS
481.00' TW
469.00' FS
480.00' TW
467.50' FS
468.59FS
UP
485.14 FS
2:1 SLOPE
STN-2
2:1 SLOPE
22 44
43 490.00' TW
489.00' TW
487.50' TW
491.00' TW
486.50' TW
486.50' TW
12'-0"

HORST ARCHITECTS EXPRESSLY RESERVES

ITS COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT AND OTHER
PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THESE DRAWINGS.

THESE DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE

REPRODUCED, CHANGED, OR COPIED IN ANY

FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER NOR ARE

THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO ANY THIRD PARTY

WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE EXPRESSED

WRITTEN PERMISSION OF HORST
ARCHITECTS.

SHEET NUMBER
PLOT DATE:

SCALE:

DRAWING PREPARED BY: JM
a r c h i t e c t s
9 4 9 4 9 4 9 5 6 9
1 PROPERTY LINE
REQ. BUILDING SETBACK
ADDITIONAL BUILDING SETBACK - 1:1 SLOPE, 15'-0" ABV. N.G. AT FYSB & RYSB AVG. LOT WIDTH/DEPTH

EDGE OF STAIRS (ABV/ BLW/ BYD AS OCCURS)

ON-GRADE STEPS/HARDSCAPE
(E) CURB/ EDGE OF PAVEMENT

FIXED DATUM POINT/ BENCHMARK
PARKING STALL - 18'-0' X 8'-8" MIN.
(E) GRADE / CONTOUR LINE
PUBLIC/GUEST PARKING - 8'-0' X 22'-" MIN.

CENTERLINE OF DRIVEWAY

FS/ FG/ EG (ABOVE/ BELOW/ BEYOND AS OCCURS)
MAX ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT - 15' ABOVE E.G. AT REAR PROPERTY LINE

EXTERIOR FIREPIT
33 34

SKYLIGHT (ABV/ BLW/ BYD AS OCCURS) , INSTALL NIGHT SHADES 35 36
37 38

CASEWORK
39 40
41 STAIRWAY

VERDURA MSE RETAINING WALL SYSTEM - PER CIVIL

RETAINING WALL

PLANTER/SOFTSCAPE AREA
REFLECTING POND - 18" DEEP MAX.

JACUZZI WITH COVER

NON-WALKABLE GREEN ROOF

ELEVATOR

WINE WALL

SPA EQUIPMENT IN SOUND ATTENUATED VAULT

OPERABLE PRIVACY SCREEN

TAPERED EDGE FLAT ROOF

CANTILEVERED NON-STRUCTURAL ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE
11 CENTERLINE OF RIGHT OF WAY
13 TREE

HABITABLE AREA / WALL

CABINETRY/BUILT-IN FEATURE

SOFTSCAPE AREA - REFER TO

LANDSCAPE PLAN

PROJECTION ABV/BYD/BLW

PROPERTY LINE

SETBACK

LOW WALL / HARDSCAPE
51 NOT USED
52 NOT USED
53 SCULPTURE
54 LOUVERED VENT DOOR
55 GRAVEL EDGE/TRENCH
STN-1
GLS-1 TRANSPARENT GLASS
STN-2 STONE FLOORING
GLS-2 GLASS GUARDRAIL
CON-1

INTEGRALLY COLORED STUC
MTL-1 STRUCTURAL STEEL

LANDSCAPE GRAVEL - GRAV

VEGETATION VEG

WOOD SCREENS
WD-2
CON-2
WD-3

WOOD FLOORING

WTR WATER
MTL-2 BREAK METAL

PER LANDSCAPE PLAN
2" DIA. MAX.

SMOOTH TROWEL STUCCO
MTL-4 CORRUGATED METAL

TPO TPO ROOFING

STONE CLADDING

CONCRETE FLOORING

BOARD-FORM CONCRETE

W/ EPOXY FINISH
MTL-3 CORTEN METAL PLATE

ACR ACRYLIC PANEL

CLADDING
WD-1 WOOD CLADDING

TB TURF-BLOCK
56 REDUCED PARAPET
57 LOW WALL
58 BATTERY (SOLAR SYSTEM)

MATERIALS
LEGEND

GLS-3 TRANSLUCENT GLASS
N
A1.1
1 4" = 1'-0"

06.20.2025

SITE PLAN
Project North
308 of 654
56 27
56 27
41272756
2750
2 40
1 27
2 56
30 A
A4.1
A
A4.1
BA4.1
BA4.1
SA3.1
NA3.2
EA3.3
WA3.3
WD-2
DECK
503.00' FS
TPO
GLS-1

SLOPES DN
ROOF
514.33' T SKLT
514.33' T SKLT 514.16' T SKLT
514.16' T SKLT
515.00' TR
515.00' TR
511.75' TR
511.75' TR
VEG

GREEN ROOF
503.00' TR
503.00' TR
503.00' TR
503.00' TR 503.00' TR
503.00' TR 503.00' TR503.00' TR
27 HORST ARCHITECTS EXPRESSLY RESERVES

ITS COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT AND OTHER
PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THESE DRAWINGS.

THESE DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE

REPRODUCED, CHANGED, OR COPIED IN ANY

FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER NOR ARE

THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO ANY THIRD PARTY

WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE EXPRESSEDWRITTEN PERMISSION OF HORST ARCHITECTS.

SHEET NUMBERPLOT DATE:SCALE:

DRAWING PREPARED BY: JM
a r c h i t e c t s
9 4 9 4 9 4 9 5 6 9
1 PROPERTY LINE
REQ. BUILDING SETBACK
ADDITIONAL BUILDING SETBACK - 1:1 SLOPE, 15'-0" ABV. N.G. AT FYSB & RYSB AVG. LOT WIDTH/DEPTH

EDGE OF ROOF/ CEILING/ FLOOR/DECK (ABV/ BLW/ BYD AS OCCURS) 2345678
9 1012
1415
16171819
20212223242526272829
303132

EDGE OF WALL (ABV/ BLW/ BYD AS OCCURS)
HANDRAIL – 36” ABOVE ADJACENT FINISHED SURFACE

EDGE OF STAIRS (ABV/ BLW/ BYD AS OCCURS)

ON-GRADE STEPS/HARDSCAPE(E) CURB/ EDGE OF PAVEMENT

FIXED DATUM POINT/ BENCHMARK
PARKING STALL - 18'-0' X 8'-8" MIN.
(E) GRADE / CONTOUR LINE
PUBLIC/GUEST PARKING - 8'-0' X 22'-" MIN.

CENTERLINE OF DRIVEWAY

FS/ FG/ EG (ABOVE/ BELOW/ BEYOND AS OCCURS)
MAX ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT - 15' ABOVE E.G. AT REAR PROPERTY LINE

EXTERIOR FIREPIT
33 34

SKYLIGHT (ABV/ BLW/ BYD AS OCCURS) , INSTALL NIGHT SHADES 35 363738

CASEWORK
39 4041

STAIRWAY

AC UNIT IN SOUND ATTENUATED VAULT
TRASH

KYOTOHOUSE
1550BLUEBIRDCANYONDRIVE,LAGUNABEACH,CA92651
SHARED FIREFIGHTER ACCESS PATH - ALL WEATHER MIN 3FT WIDEVERDURA MSE RETAINING WALL SYSTEM - PER CIVIL

RETAINING WALL

PLANTER/SOFTSCAPE AREA
REFLECTING POND - 18" DEEP MAX.JACUZZI WITH COVER

NON-WALKABLE GREEN ROOF

ELEVATOR

WINE WALL

SPA EQUIPMENT IN SOUND ATTENUATED VAULT

OPERABLE PRIVACY SCREEN

TAPERED EDGE FLAT ROOF

CANTILEVERED NON-STRUCTURAL ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE
11 CENTERLINE OF RIGHT OF WAY13
TREE

HABITABLE AREA / WALL

CABINETRY/BUILT-IN FEATURE

SOFTSCAPE AREA - REFER TO

LANDSCAPE PLAN

PROJECTION ABV/BYD/BLWPROPERTY LINESETBACKLOW WALL / HARDSCAPE 51 NOT USED
52 NOT USED
53 SCULPTURE
54 LOUVERED VENT DOOR
55 GRAVEL EDGE/TRENCH
STN-1
GLS-1 TRANSPARENT GLASS
STN-2 STONE FLOORING
GLS-2 GLASS GUARDRAIL
CON-1

INTEGRALLY COLORED STUC
MTL-1 STRUCTURAL STEEL

LANDSCAPE GRAVEL - GRAV VEGETATION VEG

WOOD SCREENS
WD-2
CON-2
WD-3

WOOD FLOORING

WTR WATER
MTL-2 BREAK METAL
2" DIA. MAX. PER LANDSCAPE PLAN

SMOOTH TROWEL STUCCO
MTL-4 CORRUGATED METAL

TPO TPO ROOFING

STONE CLADDING

CONCRETE FLOORINGBOARD-FORM CONCRETEW/ EPOXY FINISH
MTL-3 CORTEN METAL PLATE

ACR ACRYLIC PANEL

CLADDING
WD-1 WOOD CLADDING

TB TURF-BLOCK
56 REDUCED PARAPET
57 LOW WALL
58 BATTERY (SOLAR SYSTEM)

MATERIALS
LEGEND

KEYNOTES
A1.2
1 4" = 1'-0"

06.20.2025

ROOF PLAN
GARAGE
(VARIES)
480.00' FS
TRASH
480.0' FF
UP
UP
CON-1
CON-1
GRV-1
16'-6"
SYSB

DRIVEWAY
10% AVG. SLOPE
TB
STN-2
12 10'-0" FYSB
152924551517
2255541258162815
2915
43 16
2 28
2 14
B
A4.1
15 42
WA3.3
MECH
14 480.50' FS
UP
UP

LAUNDRY
481.50' FF
8'-8" 3RD PARKING
18'-0"
28'-0"

TURNAROUND AREA
UP
481.00' FS
479.24' FS
481.50' FF
22 1623
1 12
34'-10"
31'-6"
30'-6"
31'-6"
6'-6" 2'-0" 20'-0" 3'-0"
25'-8"

TURNAROUND AREA
3425

HORST ARCHITECTS EXPRESSLY RESERVES

ITS COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT AND OTHER
PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THESE DRAWINGS.

THESE DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE

REPRODUCED, CHANGED, OR COPIED IN ANY

FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER NOR ARE

THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO ANY THIRD PARTY

WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE EXPRESSEDWRITTEN PERMISSION OF HORST ARCHITECTS.

SHEET NUMBERPLOT DATE:SCALE:

DRAWING PREPARED BY: JM
a r c h i t e c t s
9 4 9 4 9 4 9 5 6 9
1 PROPERTY LINE
REQ. BUILDING SETBACK
ADDITIONAL BUILDING SETBACK - 1:1 SLOPE, 15'-0" ABV. N.G. AT FYSB & RYSB AVG. LOT WIDTH/DEPTH

EDGE OF ROOF/ CEILING/ FLOOR/DECK (ABV/ BLW/ BYD AS OCCURS) 2345678
9 1012
1415
16171819
20212223242526272829
303132

EDGE OF WALL (ABV/ BLW/ BYD AS OCCURS)
HANDRAIL – 36” ABOVE ADJACENT FINISHED SURFACE

EDGE OF STAIRS (ABV/ BLW/ BYD AS OCCURS)

ON-GRADE STEPS/HARDSCAPE(E) CURB/ EDGE OF PAVEMENT

FIXED DATUM POINT/ BENCHMARK
PARKING STALL - 18'-0' X 8'-8" MIN.
(E) GRADE / CONTOUR LINE
PUBLIC/GUEST PARKING - 8'-0' X 22'-" MIN.

CENTERLINE OF DRIVEWAY

FS/ FG/ EG (ABOVE/ BELOW/ BEYOND AS OCCURS)
MAX ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT - 15' ABOVE E.G. AT REAR PROPERTY LINE

EXTERIOR FIREPIT
33 34

SKYLIGHT (ABV/ BLW/ BYD AS OCCURS) , INSTALL NIGHT SHADES 35 363738

CASEWORK
39 4041

STAIRWAY

AC UNIT IN SOUND ATTENUATED VAULT
TRASH

KYOTOHOUSE
1550BLUEBIRDCANYONDRIVE,LAGUNABEACH,CA92651
SHARED FIREFIGHTER ACCESS PATH - ALL WEATHER MIN 3FT WIDEVERDURA MSE RETAINING WALL SYSTEM - PER CIVIL

RETAINING WALL

PLANTER/SOFTSCAPE AREA
REFLECTING POND - 18" DEEP MAX.JACUZZI WITH COVER

NON-WALKABLE GREEN ROOF

ELEVATOR

WINE WALL

SPA EQUIPMENT IN SOUND ATTENUATED VAULT

OPERABLE PRIVACY SCREEN

TAPERED EDGE FLAT ROOF

CANTILEVERED NON-STRUCTURAL ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE
11 CENTERLINE OF RIGHT OF WAY13
TREE

HABITABLE AREA / WALL

CABINETRY/BUILT-IN FEATURE

SOFTSCAPE AREA - REFER TO

LANDSCAPE PLAN

INTEGRALLY COLORED STUC
MTL-1 STRUCTURAL STEEL

LANDSCAPE GRAVEL - GRAV VEGETATION VEG

WOOD SCREENS
WD-2
CON-2
WD-3

WOOD FLOORING

WTR WATER
MTL-2 BREAK METAL
2" DIA. MAX. PER LANDSCAPE PLAN

SMOOTH TROWEL STUCCO
MTL-4 CORRUGATED METAL

TPO TPO ROOFING

STONE CLADDING

CONCRETE FLOORINGBOARD-FORM CONCRETEW/ EPOXY FINISH
MTL-3 CORTEN METAL PLATE

ACR ACRYLIC PANEL

CLADDING
WD-1 WOOD CLADDING

TB TURF-BLOCK
56 REDUCED PARAPET
57 LOW WALL
58 BATTERY (SOLAR SYSTEM)

MATERIALS
LEGEND

KEYNOTES
A2.1
1 4" = 1'-0"

06.20.2025

LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
UP
DINING
492.00' FF
GARDEN
491.92' FS
ENTRY
492.00' FF
FAMILY
492.00' FF

KITCHEN
492.00' FF
POWDER
492.00' FF

BATHROOM
492.00' FF

BEDROOM
492.00' FF

BATHROOM
492.00' FF

BEDROOM
492.00' FF

BEDROOM
492.00' FF
PANTRY
492.00' FF
DN

SLOPES DN

SLOPES DN
STN-2
STN-2
STN-2
STN-2
STN-2
STN-2
STN-2
STN-2
STN-2
GRV-1
STN-2
18'-6" RYSB 18'-6" RYSB
STN-2
STN-2
STN-2
2 15
17 49
483639
2 4535
STN-2
37 2
VEG
2826
15 VEG
1721292634
20 39
453755
47 531515
17 45
37 1518
2 19
VEG
57 31
B
A4.1
B
A4.1
BA4.1
BA4.1
20 SA3.1
NA3.2
EA3.3
WA3.3
1 BATHROOM
492.00' FF
STN-2
479.34

COVERED DECK
492.00' FF
UP
487.64 FS
485.14
FS
UP
485.14 FS
STN-2
STN-2

ON GRADE SPA
WTR
34 32
1745
1 48'-5"
27'-6"
58'-2"
10'-6"
13'-6"
34'-2"
1'-0"
33'-6"
27'-2"
9'-8" 12'-0" 5'-6"
83'-6"
3'-7" 12'-8" 13'-6" 1'-11" 30'-4" 12'-8" 2'-11" 6'-1"

HORST ARCHITECTS EXPRESSLY RESERVES

ITS COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT AND OTHER
PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THESE DRAWINGS.

THESE DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE

REPRODUCED, CHANGED, OR COPIED IN ANY

FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER NOR ARE

THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO ANY THIRD PARTY

WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE EXPRESSEDWRITTEN PERMISSION OF HORST ARCHITECTS.

SHEET NUMBERPLOT DATE:SCALE:

DRAWING PREPARED BY: JM
a r c h i t e c t s
9 4 9 4 9 4 9 5 6 9
1 PROPERTY LINE
REQ. BUILDING SETBACK
ADDITIONAL BUILDING SETBACK - 1:1 SLOPE, 15'-0" ABV. N.G. AT FYSB & RYSB AVG. LOT WIDTH/DEPTH

EDGE OF ROOF/ CEILING/ FLOOR/DECK (ABV/ BLW/ BYD AS OCCURS) 2345678
9 1012
1415
16171819
20212223242526272829
303132

EDGE OF WALL (ABV/ BLW/ BYD AS OCCURS)
HANDRAIL – 36” ABOVE ADJACENT FINISHED SURFACE

EDGE OF STAIRS (ABV/ BLW/ BYD AS OCCURS)

ON-GRADE STEPS/HARDSCAPE(E) CURB/ EDGE OF PAVEMENT

FIXED DATUM POINT/ BENCHMARK
PARKING STALL - 18'-0' X 8'-8" MIN.
(E) GRADE / CONTOUR LINE
PUBLIC/GUEST PARKING - 8'-0' X 22'-" MIN.

CENTERLINE OF DRIVEWAY

FS/ FG/ EG (ABOVE/ BELOW/ BEYOND AS OCCURS)
MAX ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT - 15' ABOVE E.G. AT REAR PROPERTY LINE

EXTERIOR FIREPIT
33 34

SKYLIGHT (ABV/ BLW/ BYD AS OCCURS) , INSTALL NIGHT SHADES 35 363738

CASEWORK
39 4041

STAIRWAY

AC UNIT IN SOUND ATTENUATED VAULT
TRASH

KYOTOHOUSE
1550BLUEBIRDCANYONDRIVE,LAGUNABEACH,CA92651
SHARED FIREFIGHTER ACCESS PATH - ALL WEATHER MIN 3FT WIDEVERDURA MSE RETAINING WALL SYSTEM - PER CIVIL

RETAINING WALL

PLANTER/SOFTSCAPE AREA
REFLECTING POND - 18" DEEP MAX.JACUZZI WITH COVER

NON-WALKABLE GREEN ROOF

ELEVATOR

WINE WALL

SPA EQUIPMENT IN SOUND ATTENUATED VAULT

OPERABLE PRIVACY SCREEN

TAPERED EDGE FLAT ROOF

CANTILEVERED NON-STRUCTURAL ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE
11 CENTERLINE OF RIGHT OF WAY13
TREE

HABITABLE AREA / WALL

CABINETRY/BUILT-IN FEATURE

SOFTSCAPE AREA - REFER TO

LANDSCAPE PLAN

INTEGRALLY COLORED STUC
MTL-1 STRUCTURAL STEEL

LANDSCAPE GRAVEL - GRAV VEGETATION VEG

WOOD SCREENS
WD-2
CON-2
WD-3

WOOD FLOORING

WTR WATER
MTL-2 BREAK METAL
2" DIA. MAX. PER LANDSCAPE PLAN

SMOOTH TROWEL STUCCO
MTL-4 CORRUGATED METAL

TPO TPO ROOFING

STONE CLADDING

CONCRETE FLOORINGBOARD-FORM CONCRETEW/ EPOXY FINISH
MTL-3 CORTEN METAL PLATE

ACR ACRYLIC PANEL

CLADDING
WD-1 WOOD CLADDING

TB TURF-BLOCK
56 REDUCED PARAPET
57 LOW WALL
58 BATTERY (SOLAR SYSTEM)

MATERIALS
LEGEND

KEYNOTES
A2.2
1 4" = 1'-0"

06.20.2025

MID LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
OPEN

TO BELOW

MASTER SUITE
503.00' FF
DN

SLOPES DN

SLOPES DN
WD-2
STN-2
STN-2
STN-2 MASTER BATH
503.50' FF

WALK-IN CLOSET
503.50' FF

HALLWAY
503.00' FF
OFFICE
503.00' FF
DECK
503.00' FS
WD-2
STN-2
STN-2
2137
33 3845
452126
26 34
48263549
484940 ABV
6"
6"
2 37
50 22 30
56 30
26 A
A4.1
A
A4.1
BA4.1
BA4.1
1 2
2 1
SA3.1
NA3.2
EA3.3
WA3.3
202056
14 VEG

GREEN ROOF
503.00' FS
28 30'-4"
74'-7"
9'-2"
5'-10"
10'-4"
13'-6"
14'-11"
18'-6"
2'-4"
22'-6"
65'-10"
45'-0"
18'-4"
30'-4"
5'-6"
20'-9"
4'-1"

HORST ARCHITECTS EXPRESSLY RESERVES

ITS COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT AND OTHER
PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THESE DRAWINGS.

THESE DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE

REPRODUCED, CHANGED, OR COPIED IN ANY

FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER NOR ARE

THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO ANY THIRD PARTY

WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE EXPRESSEDWRITTEN PERMISSION OF HORST ARCHITECTS.

SHEET NUMBERPLOT DATE:SCALE:

DRAWING PREPARED BY: JM
a r c h i t e c t s
9 4 9 4 9 4 9 5 6 9
1 PROPERTY LINE
REQ. BUILDING SETBACK
ADDITIONAL BUILDING SETBACK - 1:1 SLOPE, 15'-0" ABV. N.G. AT FYSB & RYSB AVG. LOT WIDTH/DEPTH

EDGE OF ROOF/ CEILING/ FLOOR/DECK (ABV/ BLW/ BYD AS OCCURS) 2345678
9 1012
1415
16171819
20212223242526272829
303132

EDGE OF WALL (ABV/ BLW/ BYD AS OCCURS)
HANDRAIL – 36” ABOVE ADJACENT FINISHED SURFACE

EDGE OF STAIRS (ABV/ BLW/ BYD AS OCCURS)

ON-GRADE STEPS/HARDSCAPE(E) CURB/ EDGE OF PAVEMENT

FIXED DATUM POINT/ BENCHMARK
PARKING STALL - 18'-0' X 8'-8" MIN.
(E) GRADE / CONTOUR LINE
PUBLIC/GUEST PARKING - 8'-0' X 22'-" MIN.

CENTERLINE OF DRIVEWAY

FS/ FG/ EG (ABOVE/ BELOW/ BEYOND AS OCCURS)
MAX ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT - 15' ABOVE E.G. AT REAR PROPERTY LINE

EXTERIOR FIREPIT
33 34

SKYLIGHT (ABV/ BLW/ BYD AS OCCURS) , INSTALL NIGHT SHADES 35 363738

CASEWORK
39 4041

STAIRWAY

AC UNIT IN SOUND ATTENUATED VAULT
TRASH

KYOTOHOUSE
1550BLUEBIRDCANYONDRIVE,LAGUNABEACH,CA92651
SHARED FIREFIGHTER ACCESS PATH - ALL WEATHER MIN 3FT WIDEVERDURA MSE RETAINING WALL SYSTEM - PER CIVIL

RETAINING WALL

PLANTER/SOFTSCAPE AREA
REFLECTING POND - 18" DEEP MAX.JACUZZI WITH COVER

NON-WALKABLE GREEN ROOF

ELEVATOR

WINE WALL

SPA EQUIPMENT IN SOUND ATTENUATED VAULT

OPERABLE PRIVACY SCREEN

TAPERED EDGE FLAT ROOF

CANTILEVERED NON-STRUCTURAL ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE
11 CENTERLINE OF RIGHT OF WAY13
TREE

HABITABLE AREA / WALL

CABINETRY/BUILT-IN FEATURE

SOFTSCAPE AREA - REFER TO

LANDSCAPE PLAN

INTEGRALLY COLORED STUC
MTL-1 STRUCTURAL STEEL

LANDSCAPE GRAVEL - GRAV VEGETATION VEG

WOOD SCREENS
WD-2
CON-2
WD-3

WOOD FLOORING

WTR WATER
MTL-2 BREAK METAL
2" DIA. MAX. PER LANDSCAPE PLAN

SMOOTH TROWEL STUCCO
MTL-4 CORRUGATED METAL

TPO TPO ROOFING

STONE CLADDING

CONCRETE FLOORINGBOARD-FORM CONCRETEW/ EPOXY FINISH
MTL-3 CORTEN METAL PLATE

ACR ACRYLIC PANEL

CLADDING
WD-1 WOOD CLADDING

TB TURF-BLOCK
56 REDUCED PARAPET
57 LOW WALL
58 BATTERY (SOLAR SYSTEM)

MATERIALS
LEGEND

KEYNOTES
A2.3
1 4" = 1'-0"

06.20.2025

UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
514.00' PLATE
515.00' ROOF
502.00' PLATE
503.00' FF
492.00' FF
480.00' FS
491.00' PLATE
503.00' ROOF
502.00' FF/PLATE
511.00' PLATE
511.75' ROOF
492.00' FF
B
A4.1
8'-0"
3'-6"
23'-0"
10'-0" 1'-0" 10'-0" 1'-0" 8'-0" 9"
12'-0" 11'-0" 8'-9"
23'-0"
11'-0" 12'-0"
10'-0" 1'-0" 11'-0" 1'-0"
B
A4.1
CON-2
MTL-1 WD-1 CON-2 MTL-2 MTL-2 GLS-1 MTL-2 CON-2
STUC
CON-2 WD-3
GLS-1 MTL-2 WD-1
GLS-1
STUC
STUC
GLS-2 STUC
STN-2
GLS-1
STUC
STN-2
1 4
2 @ PLANE A
48 GLS-1
26 2
4949
9 1749
17 9

PLANE A
481.00' FF
1'-0"
16'-5"
RYSB
WD-3 WD-1
WD-1

HORST ARCHITECTS EXPRESSLY RESERVES

ITS COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT AND OTHER
PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THESE DRAWINGS.

THESE DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE

REPRODUCED, CHANGED, OR COPIED IN ANY

FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER NOR ARE

THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO ANY THIRD PARTY

WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE EXPRESSEDWRITTEN PERMISSION OF HORST ARCHITECTS.

SHEET NUMBERPLOT DATE:SCALE:

DRAWING PREPARED BY: JM
a r c h i t e c t s
9 4 9 4 9 4 9 5 6 9

KYOTOHOUSE
1550BLUEBIRDCANYONDRIVE,LAGUNABEACH,CA92651

HABITABLE AREA / WALL

CABINETRY/BUILT-IN FEATURE

SOFTSCAPE AREA - REFER TO

LANDSCAPE PLAN

PROJECTION ABV/BYD/BLWPROPERTY LINESETBACKLOW WALL / HARDSCAPE STN-1
GLS-1 TRANSPARENT GLASS
STN-2 STONE FLOORING
GLS-2 GLASS GUARDRAIL
CON-1

INTEGRALLY COLORED STUC
MTL-1 STRUCTURAL STEEL

LANDSCAPE GRAVEL - GRAV

VEGETATION VEG

WOOD SCREENS
WD-2
CON-2
WD-3

WOOD FLOORING

WTR WATER
MTL-2 BREAK METAL

PER LANDSCAPE PLAN
2" DIA. MAX.

SMOOTH TROWEL STUCCO
MTL-4 CORRUGATED METAL

TPO TPO ROOFING

STONE CLADDING

CONCRETE FLOORINGBOARD-FORM CONCRETEW/ EPOXY FINISH
MTL-3 CORTEN METAL PLATE

ACR ACRYLIC PANEL

CLADDING
WD-1 WOOD CLADDING

TB TURF-BLOCK
1 PROPERTY LINE
REQ. BUILDING SETBACK
ADDITIONAL BUILDING SETBACK - 1:1 SLOPE, 15'-0" ABV. N.G. AT FYSB & RYSB AVG. LOT WIDTH/DEPTH
2345678
9 1012
1415
(E) CURB/ EDGE OF PAVEMENT

FIXED DATUM POINT/ BENCHMARK
(E) GRADE / CONTOUR LINE

CENTERLINE OF DRIVEWAY

FS/ FG/ EG (ABOVE/ BELOW/ BEYOND AS OCCURS)
MAX ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT - 15' ABOVE E.G. AT REAR PROPERTY LINE SITE WALL OR FENCE - MAX ABV. E.G. 4' IN FYSB, 6' IN SYSB

EXISTING UTILITY POLE TO BE REMOVED
MAX. ALLOW. BLDG. HT. 30' ABV. NG, FG, FF - (WHICHEVER IS MORE RESTRICTIVE)

EDGE OF STAIRS (ABV/ BLW/ BYD AS OCCURS)

ON-GRADE STEPS/HARDSCAPE
PARKING STALL - 18'-0' X 8'-8" MIN.

PUBLIC/GUEST PARKING - 8'-0' X 22'-" MIN.

STAIRWAY
GUARDRAIL - 42" ABV. FS
COLUMN

EXTERIOR FIREPIT
33 34

SKYLIGHT (ABV/ BLW/ BYD AS OCCURS) , INSTALL NIGHT SHADES 35 363738

CASEWORK
39 4041

INTERIOR GAS BURNING FIREPLACE
424344
45 CLERESTORY WINDOWS ABV.

NON-WALKABLE GREEN ROOF

ELEVATOR

WINE WALL

SPA EQUIPMENT IN SOUND ATTENUATED VAULT
46 MECH/STORAGE CLOSET
4748
49 50

OPERABLE PRIVACY SCREEN

TAPERED EDGE FLAT ROOF

CANTILEVERED NON-STRUCTURAL ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE
TREE
51 NOT USED
52 NOT USED
53 SCULPTURE
54 LOUVERED VENT DOOR
55 GRAVEL EDGE/TRENCH
56 REDUCED PARAPET
57 LOW WALL
58 BATTERY (SOLAR SYSTEM)

GLS-3 TRANSLUCENT GLASS
A3.1
1 4" = 1'-0"

03.28.2025

NORTH ELEVATION
8'-0" SYSB 16'-5" RYSB 514.00' PLATE 515.00' ROOF 502.00' PLATE 492.00' FF 491.00' PLATE/T.WALL 503.00' ROOF 502.00' FF/PLATE 511.00' PLATE 511.75' ROOF 492.00' FF 3'-6"
19'-8"
1'-0" 10'-0" 1'-0"
8'-0"
9"
11'-0" 8'-9"
23'-0"
11'-6" 11'-6"
10'-0" 1'-6" 10'-6" 1'-0" BA4.1 BA4.1 STUC CON-2 WD-3 STUC GLS-1 MTL-2 GLS-1 STUC STUC GLS-1 CON-2 CON-2 GLS-3 CON-2 STUC 142 481017 17910 12 4926 10174 2728 503.50' FF HORST ARCHITECTS EXPRESSLY RESERVES ITS COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT AND OTHER PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THESE DRAWINGS. THESE DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE REPRODUCED, CHANGED, OR COPIED IN ANY FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER NOR ARE THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO ANY THIRD PARTY WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE EXPRESSED WRITTEN PERMISSION OF HORST ARCHITECTS. SHEET NUMBER PLOT DATE: SCALE:

DRAWING PREPARED BY: JM a r c h i t e c t s 9 4 9 4 9 4 9 5 6 9 K Y O T O H O U S E 1550 BLUEBIRD CANYON DRIVE, LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 HABITABLE AREA / WALL CABINETRY/BUILT-IN FEATURE SOFTSCAPE AREA - REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLAN PROJECTION ABV/BYD/BLW PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LOW WALL / HARDSCAPE STN-1 GLS-1 TRANSPARENT GLASS STN-2 STONE FLOORING GLS-2 GLASS GUARDRAIL CON-1 INTEGRALLY COLORED STUC MTL-1 STRUCTURAL STEEL LANDSCAPE GRAVEL - GRAV VEGETATION VEG WOOD SCREENS WD-2 CON-2 WD-3 WOOD FLOORING WTR WATER MTL-2 BREAK METAL PER LANDSCAPE PLAN 2" DIA. MAX. SMOOTH TROWEL STUCCO MTL-4 CORRUGATED METAL TPO TPO ROOFING STONE CLADDING CONCRETE FLOORING BOARD-FORM CONCRETE W/ EPOXY FINISH MTL-3 CORTEN METAL PLATE ACR ACRYLIC PANEL CLADDING WD-1 WOOD CLADDING TB TURF-BLOCK 1 PROPERTY LINE REQ. BUILDING SETBACK ADDITIONAL BUILDING SETBACK - 1:1 SLOPE, 15'-0" ABV. N.G. AT FYSB & RYSB AVG. LOT WIDTH/DEPTH 2345678910121415 (E) CURB/ EDGE OF PAVEMENT FIXED DATUM POINT/ BENCHMARK (E) GRADE / CONTOUR LINE CENTERLINE OF DRIVEWAY FS/ FG/ EG (ABOVE/ BELOW/ BEYOND AS OCCURS) MAX ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT - 15' ABOVE E.G. AT REAR PROPERTY LINE SITE WALL OR FENCE - MAX ABV. E.G. 4' IN FYSB, 6' IN SYSB EXISTING UTILITY POLE TO BE REMOVED MAX. ALLOW. BLDG. HT. 30' ABV. NG, FG, FF - (WHICHEVER IS MORE RESTRICTIVE) RETAINING WALL 11 CENTERLINE OF RIGHT OF WAY 13 EDGE OF ROOF/ CEILING/ FLOOR/DECK (ABV/ BLW/ BYD AS OCCURS) 161718192021222324252627282930 EDGE OF WALL (ABV/ BLW/ BYD AS OCCURS) HANDRAIL – 36” ABOVE ADJACENT FINISHED SURFACE EDGE OF STAIRS (ABV/ BLW/ BYD AS OCCURS) ON-GRADE STEPS/HARDSCAPE PARKING STALL - 18'-0' X 8'-8" MIN. PUBLIC/GUEST PARKING - 8'-0' X 22'-" MIN. STAIRWAY GUARDRAIL - 42" ABV. FS COLUMN OPEN TO BELOW SPA SECURITY GATE, - 5FT MIN, SELF-LATCHING, SELF-CLOSING, NON-CLIMBABLE SHARED FIREFIGHTER ACCESS PATH - ALL WEATHER MIN 3FT WIDE VERDURA MSE RETAINING WALL SYSTEM - PER CIVIL PLANTER/SOFTSCAPE AREA 3132 EXTERIOR FIREPIT 3334 SKYLIGHT (ABV/ BLW/ BYD AS OCCURS) , INSTALL NIGHT SHADES 35363738 CASEWORK 394041 INTERIOR GAS BURNING FIREPLACE 42434445 CLERESTORY WINDOWS ABV. FURNITURE PER INTERIOR DESIGNER PHOTOVOLTAIC PANELS - SUN POWER E-18/225 MODEL AC UNIT IN SOUND ATTENUATED VAULT - PRHP14 X-Series Coil AC Condenser (37.5 dB) TRASH REFLECTING POND - 18" DEEP MAX. JACUZZI WITH COVER NON-WALKABLE GREEN ROOF ELEVATOR WINE WALL SPA EQUIPMENT IN SOUND ATTENUATED VAULT 46 MECH/STORAGE CLOSET 47484950 OPERABLE PRIVACY SCREEN TAPERED EDGE FLAT ROOF CANTILEVERED NON-STRUCTURAL ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE TREE 51 NOT USED 52 NOT USED 53 SCULPTURE 54 LOUVERED VENT DOOR 55 GRAVEL EDGE/TRENCH 56 REDUCED PARAPET 57 LOW WALL 58 BATTERY (SOLAR SYSTEM) KEYNOTES NOTES MATERIALS LEGEND a) All exterior flame producing devices, structures or equipment shall be gas b) Such devices, structures or equipment shall not be used for the disposal of c) Such devices, structures or equipment shall be located per the manufacturer’s d) Properties shall not be permitted to have such devices, structures or equipment rubbish, trash or combustible materials. burning only. recommendations relating to the separation from any combustible structure. within 10’ of all non-fire-resistive vegetation or undeveloped wildland. GLS-3 TRANSLUCENT GLASS A3.214" = 1'-0" 03.28.2025 SOUTH ELEVATION 480.00' DRIVEWAY/GARAGE
490.00' PLATE
501.00' PLATE
502.00' ROOF
511.00' PLATE
511.75' ROOF
491.00' FF
502.00' PLATE
503.00' ROOF/FF
511.00' PLATE
511.75' ROOF
491.00' FF
15'-0"
3'-6"
A
A4.1
A
A4.1
GLS-2 STUC
GLS-1 STN-2 CON-2 GLS-1 WD-3 STN-2 STUC
MTL-4 CON-2
STN-2
STUC
CON-2
STUC WD-3 GLS-1
STUC MTL-2
CON-2 MTL-4
STUC
19'-8"
11'-0" 8'-9"
10'-0" 1'-0" 8'-0" 9"
22'-1"
11'-0" 8'-9"
10'-0" 1'-0" 8'-0" 9"
11'-0"
1'-0" 10'-0"
512.00' MAX. HEGHT @ PLANE A

PLANE A
1049
25 26
4948
9 5432
494849
5 48
69 WD-3
CON-2
481.00' FS
1'-0"
504.00' TAPERED ROOF
502.00' PLATE
503.50' FF
514.00' PLATE
515.00' ROOF
492.00' FF
502.00' PLATE
503.00' ROOF
514.00' PLATE
515.00' ROOF
492.00' FF
10'-0" 18'-6"
15'-0"
15'-0"
3'-6"
3'-6"
23'-0"
11'-6" 11'-6"
10'-0" 1'-6" 10'-6" 1'-0"
23'-0"
11'-6" 11'-6"
10'-0" 1'-6" 10'-6" 1'-0"
STUC
CON-2
CON-2
STN-2
GLS-2
STUC
STUC
GLS-3
516.25' MAX. HEGHT @ PLANE A

PLANE A
45 2
102617
2728
2827
52 10
9 26272828
10 1
28 1
282728
17 STRUCTURE BEYOND

STRUCTURE BEYOND
503.50' FF
A
A4.1

HORST ARCHITECTS EXPRESSLY RESERVES

ITS COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT AND OTHER
PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THESE DRAWINGS.

THESE DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE

REPRODUCED, CHANGED, OR COPIED IN ANY

FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER NOR ARE

THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO ANY THIRD PARTY

WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE EXPRESSEDWRITTEN PERMISSION OF HORST ARCHITECTS.

SHEET NUMBERPLOT DATE:SCALE:

DRAWING PREPARED BY: JM
a r c h i t e c t s
9 4 9 4 9 4 9 5 6 9
1 PROPERTY LINE
REQ. BUILDING SETBACK
ADDITIONAL BUILDING SETBACK - 1:1 SLOPE, 15'-0" ABV. N.G. AT FYSB & RYSB AVG. LOT WIDTH/DEPTH

EDGE OF ROOF/ CEILING/ FLOOR/DECK (ABV/ BLW/ BYD AS OCCURS) 2345678
9 1012
1415
16171819
20212223242526272829
303132

EDGE OF WALL (ABV/ BLW/ BYD AS OCCURS)
HANDRAIL – 36” ABOVE ADJACENT FINISHED SURFACE

EDGE OF STAIRS (ABV/ BLW/ BYD AS OCCURS)

ON-GRADE STEPS/HARDSCAPE(E) CURB/ EDGE OF PAVEMENT

FIXED DATUM POINT/ BENCHMARK
PARKING STALL - 18'-0' X 8'-8" MIN.
(E) GRADE / CONTOUR LINE
PUBLIC/GUEST PARKING - 8'-0' X 22'-" MIN.

CENTERLINE OF DRIVEWAY

FS/ FG/ EG (ABOVE/ BELOW/ BEYOND AS OCCURS)
MAX ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT - 15' ABOVE E.G. AT REAR PROPERTY LINE

EXTERIOR FIREPIT
33 34

SKYLIGHT (ABV/ BLW/ BYD AS OCCURS) , INSTALL NIGHT SHADES 35 363738

CASEWORK
39 4041

STAIRWAY

INTERIOR GAS BURNING FIREPLACE
4243
GUARDRAIL - 42" ABV. FS
44 SITE WALL OR FENCE - MAX ABV. E.G. 4' IN FYSB, 6' IN SYSB 45 COLUMNCLERESTORY WINDOWS ABV.
46 MECH/STORAGE CLOSET
47 EXISTING UTILITY POLE TO BE REMOVED
48 49
50 OPEN TO BELOWFURNITURE PER INTERIOR DESIGNER
SPA SECURITY GATE - 5FT MIN, SELF-LATCHING, SELF-CLOSING, NON-CLIMBABLE MAX. ALLOW. BLDG. HT. 30' ABV. NG, FG, FF - (WHICHEVER IS MORE RESTRICTIVE) PHOTOVOLTAIC PANELS - SUN POWER E-18/225 MODEL
AC UNIT IN SOUND ATTENUATED VAULT - PRHP14 X-Series Coil AC Condenser (37.5 dB) TRASH

KYOTOHOUSE
1550BLUEBIRDCANYONDRIVE,LAGUNABEACH,CA92651
SHARED FIREFIGHTER ACCESS PATH - ALL WEATHER MIN 3FT WIDEVERDURA MSE RETAINING WALL SYSTEM - PER CIVIL

RETAINING WALL

PLANTER/SOFTSCAPE AREA
REFLECTING POND - 18" DEEP MAX.JACUZZI WITH COVER

NON-WALKABLE GREEN ROOF

ELEVATOR

WINE WALL

SPA EQUIPMENT IN SOUND ATTENUATED VAULT

OPERABLE PRIVACY SCREEN

TAPERED EDGE FLAT ROOF

CANTILEVERED NON-STRUCTURAL ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE
11 CENTERLINE OF RIGHT OF WAY13
TREE

HABITABLE AREA / WALL

CABINETRY/BUILT-IN FEATURE

SOFTSCAPE AREA - REFER TO

LANDSCAPE PLAN

INTEGRALLY COLORED STUC
MTL-1 STRUCTURAL STEEL

LANDSCAPE GRAVEL - GRAV

VEGETATION VEG

WOOD SCREENS
WD-2
CON-2
WD-3

WOOD FLOORING

WTR WATER
MTL-2 BREAK METAL

PER LANDSCAPE PLAN
2" DIA. MAX.

SMOOTH TROWEL STUCCO
MTL-4 CORRUGATED METAL

TPO TPO ROOFING

STONE CLADDING

CONCRETE FLOORINGBOARD-FORM CONCRETEW/ EPOXY FINISH
MTL-3 CORTEN METAL PLATE

ACR ACRYLIC PANEL

CLADDING
WD-1 WOOD CLADDING

TB TURF-BLOCK
56 REDUCED PARAPET
57 LOW WALL
58 BATTERY (SOLAR SYSTEM)

MATERIALS
LEGEND

KEYNOTES
a) All exterior flame producing devices, structures or equipment shall be gas b) Such devices, structures or equipment shall not be used for the disposal of c) Such devices, structures or equipment shall be located per the manufacturer’s d) Properties shall not be permitted to have such devices, structures or equipment NOTES
rubbish, trash or combustible materials. burning only. recommendations relating to the separation from any combustible structure. within 10’ of all non-fire-resistive vegetation or undeveloped wildland.

GLS-3 TRANSLUCENT GLASS
A3.3
1 4" = 1'-0"

03.28.2025

WEST ELEVATION

EAST ELEVATION
511.00' PLATE
512.00' ROOF
500.00' PLATE
501.50' FF
491.00' FF
501.00' FF/PLATE
502.00' ROOF
509.50' PLATE
510.50' ROOF
491.00' FF
21'-2"
1'-0" 9'-5" 9"
10'-0" 10'-5" MASTER SUITE
24'-0"
10'-6" 13'-6"
9'-0" 1'-6" 12'-6" 1'-0"

BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM
MASTER
CLOSET
MASTER
BATH
OFFICE

KITCHEN HALLWAY
ENTRY
3'-6"
10'-0"
B
A4.1
2649
2 @ SECTION CUT
4 49
35 26
2 1 @ SECTION CUT9
40 502.00' PLATE
503.00' FF/TR
509.50' PLATE
510.50' ROOF
492.00' FF
19'-6"
11'-0" 8'-6"
10'-0" 1'-0" 7'-6" 1'-0"

ENTRY HALLWAY
MASTER
SUITE
DECK
10'-0"
FYSB
18'-6"
RYSB
15'-0"
15'-0"
3'-6"
3'-6"
502.00' FS
509.50' PLATE
510.50' ROOF
492.00' FF
19'-6"
10'-11" 9'-6"
10'-0" 1'-0" 7'-7" 1'-0"
A
A4.1

STRUCTURE BEYOND STRUCTURE BEYOND
2 @ SECTION CUT
26 1 @ SECTION CUT
282728
17 5
52 1
1027
15 501.00' FF
2649

HORST ARCHITECTS EXPRESSLY RESERVES

ITS COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT AND OTHER
PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THESE DRAWINGS.

THESE DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE

REPRODUCED, CHANGED, OR COPIED IN ANY

FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER NOR ARE

THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO ANY THIRD PARTY

WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE EXPRESSEDWRITTEN PERMISSION OF HORST ARCHITECTS.

SHEET NUMBERPLOT DATE:SCALE:

DRAWING PREPARED BY: JM
a r c h i t e c t s
9 4 9 4 9 4 9 5 6 9

KYOTOHOUSE
1550BLUEBIRDCANYONDRIVE,LAGUNABEACH,CA92651

HABITABLE AREA / WALL

CABINETRY/BUILT-IN FEATURE

SOFTSCAPE AREA - REFER TO

LANDSCAPE PLAN

PROJECTION ABV/BYD/BLWPROPERTY LINESETBACKLOW WALL / HARDSCAPE STN-1
GLS-1 TRANSPARENT GLASS
STN-2 STONE FLOORING
GLS-2 GLASS GUARDRAIL
CON-1

INTEGRALLY COLORED STUC
MTL-1 STRUCTURAL STEEL

LANDSCAPE GRAVEL - GRAV

VEGETATION VEG

WOOD SCREENS
WD-2
CON-2
WD-3

WOOD FLOORING

WTR WATER
MTL-2 BREAK METAL

PER LANDSCAPE PLAN
2" DIA. MAX.

SMOOTH TROWEL STUCCO
MTL-4 CORRUGATED METAL

TPO TPO ROOFING

STONE CLADDING

CONCRETE FLOORINGBOARD-FORM CONCRETEW/ EPOXY FINISH
MTL-3 CORTEN METAL PLATE

ACR ACRYLIC PANEL

CLADDING
WD-1 WOOD CLADDING

TB TURF-BLOCK
1 PROPERTY LINE
REQ. BUILDING SETBACK
ADDITIONAL BUILDING SETBACK - 1:1 SLOPE, 15'-0" ABV. N.G. AT FYSB & RYSB AVG. LOT WIDTH/DEPTH
2345678
9 1012
1415
(E) CURB/ EDGE OF PAVEMENT

FIXED DATUM POINT/ BENCHMARK
(E) GRADE / CONTOUR LINE

CENTERLINE OF DRIVEWAY

FS/ FG/ EG (ABOVE/ BELOW/ BEYOND AS OCCURS)
MAX ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT - 15' ABOVE E.G. AT REAR PROPERTY LINE SITE WALL OR FENCE - MAX ABV. E.G. 4' IN FYSB, 6' IN SYSB

EXISTING UTILITY POLE TO BE REMOVED
MAX. ALLOW. BLDG. HT. 30' ABV. NG, FG, FF - (WHICHEVER IS MORE RESTRICTIVE)

EDGE OF STAIRS (ABV/ BLW/ BYD AS OCCURS)

ON-GRADE STEPS/HARDSCAPE
PARKING STALL - 18'-0' X 8'-8" MIN.

PUBLIC/GUEST PARKING - 8'-0' X 22'-" MIN.

STAIRWAY
GUARDRAIL - 42" ABV. FS
COLUMN

EXTERIOR FIREPIT
33 34

SKYLIGHT (ABV/ BLW/ BYD AS OCCURS) , INSTALL NIGHT SHADES 35 363738

CASEWORK
39 4041

INTERIOR GAS BURNING FIREPLACE
424344
45 CLERESTORY WINDOWS ABV.

NON-WALKABLE GREEN ROOF

ELEVATOR

WINE WALL

SPA EQUIPMENT IN SOUND ATTENUATED VAULT
46 MECH/STORAGE CLOSET
4748
49 50

OPERABLE PRIVACY SCREEN

TAPERED EDGE FLAT ROOF

CANTILEVERED NON-STRUCTURAL ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE
TREE
51 NOT USED
52 NOT USED
53 SCULPTURE
54 LOUVERED VENT DOOR
55 GRAVEL EDGE/TRENCH
56 REDUCED PARAPET
57 LOW WALL
58 BATTERY (SOLAR SYSTEM)

GLS-3 TRANSLUCENT GLASS
A4.1
1 4" = 1'-0"

03.28.2025

SECTION A

SECTION B
19'-0" 12'-6" GARAGE (VARIES) 480.00' FS
TRASH
480.0' FF
UP
UP
CON-1
CON-1
GRV-1

DRIVEWAY
10% AVG. SLOPE
TB
STN-2
MECH
480.50' FS
UP
UP

LAUNDRY
481.50' FF
3RD PARKING

PROPOSED CRIB WALL
UP
481.00' FS
479.24' FS
481.50' FF
5'-0" 5'-6" 5'-9" 3'-0" 10'-6" 5'-0"
6'-6" 2'-0" 20'-0" 2'-11"
22'-5" 5'-0"
101 102 103 104 105
106
108
109
107

HORST ARCHITECTS EXPRESSLY RESERVES

ITS COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT AND OTHER
PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THESE DRAWINGS.

THESE DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE

REPRODUCED, CHANGED, OR COPIED IN ANY

FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER NOR ARE

THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO ANY THIRD PARTY

WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE EXPRESSEDWRITTEN PERMISSION OF HORST ARCHITECTS.

SHEET NUMBERPLOT DATE:SCALE:
a r c h i t e c t s
9 4 9 4 9 4 9 5 6 9

KYOTOHOUSE
1550BLUEBIRDCANYONDRIVE,LAGUNABEACH,CA92651
DRAWING PREPARED BY: JM A5.1
1 4" = 1'-0"

06.24.2025

LOWER LEVEL FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS
Lower Level
101102103104105106107108109
mechmechmechmechhabitable
garage
habitablemech
garage

36.65 46.93

34.50 25.50

89.2362.5095.1167.34
462.72
garage
mechhabitable
525.22 sf
210.92 sf
183.77 sf

BUILDING TOTALS
habitable 4,393.24 sf
deck 364.05 sf
mech 210.92 sf
garage 462.72 sf
3'-2" 2'-11" 30'-4" 1'-9" 13'-6" 12'-7"
27'-2"
12'-8" 15'-7" 3'-6" 24'-0"
34'-11"
22'-1"
3'-6"
48'-5"
13'-6"
8'-0"
30'-4"
3'-6" 11'-6"
UP
DINING
492.00' FF
GARDEN
491.92' FS
ENTRY
492.00' FF
FAMILY
492.00' FF

KITCHEN
492.00' FF
POWDER
492.00' FF

BATHROOM
492.00' FF

BEDROOM
492.00' FF

BATHROOM
492.00' FF

BEDROOM
492.00' FF

BEDROOM
492.00' FF
PANTRY
492.00' FF
DN

SLOPES DN

SLOPES DN
STN-2
STN-2
STN-2
STN-2
STN-2
STN-2
STN-2
STN-2
STN-2
GRV-1
STN-2
STN-2
STN-2
STN-2
2 15
17 49
483639
2 4535
STN-2
37 2
VEG
2826
15 VEG
1721292634
20 39
453755
47 531515
17 45
37 1518
2 19
VEG
57 31
B
A4.1
B
A4.1
BA4.1
BA4.1
20 SA3.1
NA3.2
EA3.3
WA3.3
1 BATHROOM
492.00' FF
STN-2

COVERED DECK
492.00' FF
UP
487.64 FS
485.14
FS
UP
485.14 FS
STN-2
STN-2

ON GRADE SPA
WTR
34 32
1745
1 201
202
203
204
205
206 207
208
209
210
211
213
212
12'-8"

HORST ARCHITECTS EXPRESSLY RESERVES

ITS COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT AND OTHER
PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THESE DRAWINGS.

THESE DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE

REPRODUCED, CHANGED, OR COPIED IN ANY

FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER NOR ARE

THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO ANY THIRD PARTY

WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE EXPRESSEDWRITTEN PERMISSION OF HORST ARCHITECTS.

SHEET NUMBERPLOT DATE:SCALE:
a r c h i t e c t s
9 4 9 4 9 4 9 5 6 9

KYOTOHOUSE
1550BLUEBIRDCANYONDRIVE,LAGUNABEACH,CA92651
DRAWING PREPARED BY: JM A5.2
1 4" = 1'-0"

06.24.2025

MID LEVEL FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS
Mid Level
201202203204205206207208209
habitablehabitable

12.42 31.24
190.45

88.66 155.52116.65
576.88

13.99 87.88
habitable 3,017.63 sf
210 habitable 344.40
habitablehabitablehabitablehabitablehabitablehabitablehabitable 211 habitable 29.98212 habitable 1200.72213 habitable 174.84

BUILDING TOTALS
habitable 4,393.24 sf
deck 364.05 sf
mech 210.92 sf
garage 462.72 sf
DN
18'-7"
21'-3"
15'-10"
4'-10"
5'-9"
11'-8"
9'-3"
5'-10"
4'-4"
16'-2"
20'-8"
21'-6"
20'-10"
16'-0"
14'-0"
5'-10"
4'-0"
22'-7"
OPEN

TO BELOW

MASTER SUITE
503.00' FF
DN

SLOPES DN

SLOPES DN
WD-2
STN-2
STN-2
STN-2 MASTER BATH
503.50' FF

WALK-IN CLOSET
503.50' FF

GREEN ROOF
503.00' FS
28 301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309

HORST ARCHITECTS EXPRESSLY RESERVES

ITS COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT AND OTHER
PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THESE DRAWINGS.

THESE DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE

REPRODUCED, CHANGED, OR COPIED IN ANY

FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER NOR ARE

THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO ANY THIRD PARTY

WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE EXPRESSEDWRITTEN PERMISSION OF HORST ARCHITECTS.

SHEET NUMBERPLOT DATE:SCALE:
a r c h i t e c t s
9 4 9 4 9 4 9 5 6 9

KYOTOHOUSE
1550BLUEBIRDCANYONDRIVE,LAGUNABEACH,CA92651
DRAWING PREPARED BY: JM A5.3
1 4" = 1'-0"

06.24.2025

UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN CALCULATIONS
Upper Level
301302303304305306307308 habitable
261.78

81.62 20.60
190.99

89.13 129.48
336.22
443.67
habitable 1,191.84 sfhabitablehabitablehabitablehabitable deckdeckdeckdeck 364.05 sf
309 habitable 174.84

BUILDING TOTALS
habitable 4,393.24 sf
deck 364.05 sf
mech 210.92 sf
garage 462.72 sf
1 503.0' TR
9 503.0' TD 506.5' TRAIL
10 503.0' TD 506.5' TRAIL
2 503.0' TR

EDGE OF WALL

BELOW (DINING)
4 503.0' TR

EDGE OF WALL

BELOW (GARAGE)
3 503.0' TR
6 503.0' TR
5 503.0' TR
7 503.0' TR
8 503.0' TD 506.5' TRAIL 11 511.75' TR
14 511.75' TR
12 515.0' TR
13 515.0' TR
16 514.33' TSKLT 15 514.16' TSKLT 18 514.33' TSKLT 17 514.16' TSKLT 16'-6"
4'-8"
503.0' TR
503.0' TR
503.0' TR
503.0' TR
503.0' TR
503.0' TR
503.0' TR
503.0' TR 503.0 TR
511.75' TR
515.0' TR
SLOPED
SLOPED
SLOPED
SLOPED 514.16'
514.16'
30'-3"
81'-3"
19'-7" 8'-9"
27'-2"
35'-2"
8'-8" 7'-6" 13'-6" 24'-11" 21'-3" 7'-8"
Sewer manhole TBM Rim elev=458.08
73'-10"
29'-6"
44'-7"
2'-8"
10'-4"
24'-10"
2'-8"
10'-5"
12'-11"
15'-8"
9'-2"
7'-3"
2'-8" 22'-7" 7'-7" 4'-6"
6'-8"
10'-8"

HORST ARCHITECTS EXPRESSLY RESERVES

ITS COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT AND OTHER
PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THESE DRAWINGS.

THESE DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE

REPRODUCED, CHANGED, OR COPIED IN ANY

FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER NOR ARE

THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO ANY THIRD PARTY

WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE EXPRESSEDWRITTEN PERMISSION OF HORST ARCHITECTS.

SHEET NUMBERPLOT DATE:SCALE:
a r c h i t e c t s
9 4 9 4 9 4 9 5 6 9

KYOTOHOUSE
1550BLUEBIRDCANYONDRIVE,LAGUNABEACH,CA92651
DRAWING PREPARED BY: JM A6.1
1 8 " = 1'-0"

06.24.2025

ELEVATIONS CERTIFICATIONS
Signature of Registered Land Surveyor
or Civil Engineer
Name (printed or typed)
License No./ Expiration Date
Date
Required Certification Statement:

Pole
Number
Proposed MaximumElevation
1 2
3 4
5 6
Base GradeElevation*
Story Pole Height from
Base Grade Elevation
7 89
101112131415161718

1. STAKING POLES REPRESENT THE

MOST DISTANT CORNERS OF THE

PROPOSED WALL STRUCTURE
LOCATED OVER TOP OF ROOF.

2. CONNECT ROOF STAKING POLES

WITH STRING LINE TO OUTLINE
ENVELOPE.

3. STRING LINES TO BE CONNECTED

AT TOP OF STAKE UNLESS NOTED
OTHERWISE.

4. VERIFY STRING LINE HEIGHTWITH GRAPHIC NOTE PARALLEL
ALONG STRINGLINE.

NEW STAKING POLE

LOCATION

0.00' TR

HORIZONTAL STAKE

REPRESENTS

CANTILEVERED ROOF OR
DECK.

TOP OF ROOFTOP OF CHIMNEYTOP OF WALLTOP OF DECK

TRTCTWTDWV(E) EXISTING

PROPOSED ROOF

WATER VALVE
NOTES
Please stamp & sign below

FD FIXED DATUMTS TOP OF STAIR

0.00' STRINGLINE & HEIGHT
LEGEND

TOR TOP OF GUARDRAILTOH TOP OF HANDRAIL
503.00' TD/506.5' TRAIL

STAKING PLAN
503.00' TR511.75' TR515.00' TR515.00' TR511.75' TR
514.16' TSKLT514.33' TSKLT
* If standard base grade elevation nails are not feasible because of the existence of rocks, paving or existing structural improvements, then the surveyor or engineer may use an alternative method of establishing horizontal and vertical control for story poles that can be observed in the field. The surveyor or engineer shall describe the control method used directly on the full-size staking plan. Such alternative methods may include painted markings. It is also recognized that sometimes it may not be feasible to setpoles due to unforeseen circumstances. In that case, please identify the storypoles that were not established and an explanation as to the reason. *Base grade elevations and story pole heights from base grade elevation as noted above are estimations and should be verified by land surveyor according to the fixed benchmark prior to erection of story poles.

Story Pole Construction Notes Table
Date:

Site Address : 1550 Bluebird Canyon Dr., Laguna Beach
Datum Benchmark : 458.08' FS (Sewer manhole)
Name of Surveyor or Engineer :

STATEMENT LEGEND
503.00' TR503.00' TR503.00' TR503.00' TR503.00' TR503.00' TR 503.00' TD/506.5' TRAIL503.00' TD/506.5' TRAIL
514.33' TSKLT514.16' TSKLT
LOT A

BUILDING FOOTPRINT
478.60
FS
482.35
FS
469.59FS
480.00
FS
482.58
FS
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
DRIVEWAY 10% SLOPE MAX

FOR FIREFIGHTER ACCESS
DRIVEWAY 10% SLOPE MAX

FOR FIREFIGHTER ACCESS
482.35
FS
482.35
FS
484.93 FS
UP
UP
501.10
FS 500.55
FS
500.0
FS
498.50
FS
498.00
FS
497.00
FS
496.00
495.00 FS
FS
499.00
FS
500.0 FS
494.00
FS
493.00
FS
492.00
FS
491.00
FS
489.00
FS
488.00
FS
490.50
FS
491.00 FS

FIRE APPARATUS
STANDPIPE 2 - 2½" Hose Valve

FIRE HYDRANT

SHARED FIREFIGHTER ACCESS

LOT A & LOT B

SHARED FIREFIGHTER ACCESS

LOT A & LOT B
HOSE PULL 150'
STANDPIPE 2 - 2½" Hose Valve
FDC
2 - 2 ½ " Snoots

BLUEBIRD CANYON DRIVE
UP
Sewer manhole
TBM Rim elev=458.08

PROPOSED BUILDING FOOTPRINT

HORST ARCHITECTS EXPRESSLY RESERVES

ITS COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT AND OTHER
PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THESE DRAWINGS.

THESE DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE

REPRODUCED, CHANGED, OR COPIED IN ANY

FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER NOR ARE

THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO ANY THIRD PARTY

WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE EXPRESSED

WRITTEN PERMISSION OF HORST
ARCHITECTS.

SHEET NUMBER
PLOT DATE:

SCALE:
a r c h i t e c t s
9 4 9 4 9 4 9 5 6 9
K
Y
O
T
O
H
O
U
S
E 15
5 0
B
L
U
E
BIR
D
C
A
N
Y
O
N
D
RIV
E, L
A
G
U
N
A
B
E
A
C
H, C
A
9 2
6 51
DRAWING PREPARED BY: JM
N
A6.2
1 4" = 1'-0"

06.24.2025

OPERABLE WINDOWS AND SLIDERS FOR SECONDARY EGRESS AND

FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS
FUEL MODIFICATION NOTES:
- EXISTING CONDITION: SITE CONSISTS OF AN EMPTY LOT WITH SPORADIC

THE PROPERTY LINE (MEASURED FROM THE EDGE OF A FULL GROWTH CROWN).
- VERTICAL CLEARANCE FOR ACCESS ROAD IN EXCESS OF 13'-6" DATUM

POINT (REFER TO

SURVEY)

0.00'

FOOTPRINT OF PROPOSED

RESIDENCE

ALL-WEATHER EMERGENCY
ACCESS PATH MIN 3' WIDE
150' MAX HOSE PULL
FIRE

APPARATUS
FIRE

HYDRANT

EXISTING

GATE (REFER TO

SURVEY)

STANDPIPE

CORTEN STEEL STEPS

TURF BLOCK

LANDSCAPE GRAVEL -
2" DIA. MAX.

CONCRETE

EMERGENCY
ACCESS
GATE
KNOX
SWITCH
AM&M NOTES:
- PER THE AM&M: A SEPARATE (DEFERRED) SUBMITTAL FOR THE

HEADS IN ALL ROOMS/AREAS (REGARDLESS OF SIZE) INCLUDING SMALL BATHROOMS AND CLOSETS.

STONE FLOORING
321 of 654
GARAGE
(VARIES)
UP
UP
480.00' FS
TRASH
480.0' FF
UP
UP
CON-1
CON-1
GRV-1

DRIVEWAY
10% AVG. SLOPE
TB
STN-2
12 152924551517
2255541258162815
2915
43 16
2 28
2 8
17191814
14 24
B
A4.1
15 42
WA3.3
MECH
14 480.50' FS
UP
UP

LAUNDRY
481.50' FF
3RD PARKING
UP
481.00' FS
479.24' FS
481.50' FF
22 1623
1 12
3425
E
E
UP
DINING
492.00' FF
GARDEN
491.92' FS
ENTRY
492.00' FF
FAMILY
492.00' FF

KITCHEN
492.00' FF
POWDER
492.00' FF

BATHROOM
492.00' FF

BEDROOM
492.00' FF

BATHROOM
492.00' FF

BEDROOM
492.00' FF

BEDROOM
492.00' FF
PANTRY
492.00' FF
DN
DN

SLOPES DN

SLOPES DN
STN-2
STN-2
STN-2
STN-2
STN-2
STN-2
STN-2
STN-2
STN-2
GRV-1
STN-2
STN-2
STN-2
STN-2
STN-2
2 15
17 49
483639
2 4535
STN-2
37 2
VEG
2826
15 VEG
1721292634
20 39
453755
47 531515
17 45
37 1518
2 19
VEG
57 31
B
A4.1
B
A4.1
BA4.1
BA4.1
20 SA3.1
NA3.2
EA3.3
WA3.3
1 BATHROOM
492.00' FF
STN-2
479.34
FS
482.56
481.92
FS
DN
DN

RESERVED

COVERED DECK
492.00' FF
UP
487.64 FS
485.14
FS
UP
485.14 FS
STN-2
STN-2

ON GRADE SPA
WTR
34 32
1745
1 E
E
E
E
EE
OPEN

TO BELOW

MASTER SUITE
503.00' FF
DN

SLOPES DN

SLOPES DN
WD-2
STN-2
STN-2
STN-2 MASTER BATH
503.50' FF

WALK-IN CLOSET
503.50' FF

GREEN ROOF
503.00' FS
28 E

HORST ARCHITECTS EXPRESSLY RESERVES

ITS COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT AND OTHER
PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THESE DRAWINGS.

THESE DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE

REPRODUCED, CHANGED, OR COPIED IN ANY

FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER NOR ARE

THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO ANY THIRD PARTY

WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE EXPRESSEDWRITTEN PERMISSION OF HORST ARCHITECTS.

SHEET NUMBERPLOT DATE:SCALE:
a r c h i t e c t s
9 4 9 4 9 4 9 5 6 9

KYOTOHOUSE
1550BLUEBIRDCANYONDRIVE,LAGUNABEACH,CA92651
DRAWING PREPARED BY: JM A6.3
1 8 " = 1'-0"

03.28.2025

EXTERIOR LIGTHING PLAN

LOWER LEVEL UPPER LEVEL

MID LEVEL

PROPOSED FIXTURE COUNT
Low voltage indirect slot light -
recessed in wall 125 lm

EXTERIOR BUILDING LIGHTING

BLUEBIRD CANYON DRIVE
UP

CONSTRUCTION VEHICLE PARKING

LOCATION OF PORTAPOTTY

RETAINING WALL TO BE BUILT

CONSTRUCTION ACCESS AND PATH

RETAINING WALL TO BE BUILT

RETAINING WALL (MSE WALL) TO BE BUILT

CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL STORAGE

CONSTRUCTION DELIVERY QUEUE

CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL STORAGE

HORST ARCHITECTS EXPRESSLY RESERVES

ITS COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT AND OTHER
PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THESE DRAWINGS.

THESE DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE

REPRODUCED, CHANGED, OR COPIED IN ANY

FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER NOR ARE

THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO ANY THIRD PARTY

WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE EXPRESSED

WRITTEN PERMISSION OF HORST
ARCHITECTS.

SHEET NUMBER
PLOT DATE:

SCALE:
a r c h i t e c t s
9 4 9 4 9 4 9 5 6 9
K
Y
O
T
O
H
O
U
S
E 15
5 0
B
L
U
E
BIR
D
C
A
N
Y
O
N
D
RIV
E, L
A
G
U
N
A
B
E
A
C
H, C
A
9 2
6 51
DRAWING PREPARED BY: JM
N
A6.4
1 8 " = 1'-0"

06.20.2025

DRIVING DIRECTIONS
Project North PRIOR TO TART OF CONSTRUCTION, PROPERTY LINES AND/OR CORNERS SHALL BE CLEARLY FLAGGED AROUND THE PROJECT SITE.

PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION, WRITTEN CERTIFICATION SIGNED BY A LICENSED SURVEYOR SHALL BE PROVIDED

STATING ALL PROPERTY CORNERS ARE MONUMENTED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COUNTY SURVEYOR

UNDER PROVISIONS OF THE

BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA STAGING OF ON-SITE CONSTRUCTION NOT ALLOWED IN THE PROJECT FRONTAGE. ALL STAGING MUST BE OUTSIDE OF THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.

PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, ANY XISTING MONUMENTS AND/OR TIES THAT WILL BE DISTURBED BY DEMOLITION AND/OR CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE TIED OUT AND RESET PER REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS.

DIRECT CONNECTION TO PUBLIC STORM DRAIN SYSTEM FOR WATER QUALITY SYSTEMS WILL NOT BE ALLOWED.

ALL WATER QUALITY DISCHARGES ONTO PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY ARE TO BE VISUALLY OBSERVABLE AT THE FINISH SURFACE.

CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WILL BE SHUTTLED IN FROM CITY PARKING

BUILD UP RETAINING WALLS AND FILL IN DRIVEWAY BUILD UP FIRST, USE THIS SPACE FOR MATERIAL DELIVERY QUEUE. EXCAVATE ADJACENT SPACE FOR MATERIAL STORAGE.

CONSTRUCTION VEHICLE PARKING TO GO AT THE END OF DIAMOND ST. AS INDICATED ON MAP PROTECT IN PLACE EXISTING PLANTS TO REMAIN PER LANDSCAPE PLAN.

CLEAR SITE OF DEAD BRUSH, DEBRIS, AND TARGET SPECIES PLANTS

CREATE CONSTRUCTION ACCESS PATH
PROVIDE AREA FOR TRASH DUMPSTER AND PORTABLE TOILET.

STAGING AREA TO BE COMPLETED AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE DATE: NO FURTHER CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT FINAL INSPECTION APPROVAL BY THE BUILDING DIVISION.

INSTALL TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION SECURITY FENCE.

MAINTAIN MINIMUM PAVED STREET RIGHT OF WAY AT ALL TIMES.

STAGING PLAN AND STAGING PERMIT TO BE ON SITE AT ALL TIMES WHEN STAGING PERMIT IS ACTIVE. PROVIDE

LEGIBLE AND DURABLE SIGN POSTED ON SITE IN PLAIN VIEW SHOWING IDENTITY AND CONTACT OF JOB SITE SUPERINTENDANT.

CONSTRUCTION TO OCCUR ONLY BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 7:30AM AND 6:00PM. NO CONSTRUCTION TO OCCUR ON WEEKENDS OR HOLIDAYS. LBMC 7.25.080

CONSTRUCTION STAGING PLAN
NOTES
323 of 654

BLUEBIRD CANYON DRIVE
UP
Sewer manhole TBM Rim elev=458.08
1 2
3 5
6 4

HORST ARCHITECTS EXPRESSLY RESERVES

ITS COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT AND OTHER
PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THESE DRAWINGS.

THESE DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE

REPRODUCED, CHANGED, OR COPIED IN ANY

FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER NOR ARE

THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO ANY THIRD PARTY

WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE EXPRESSEDWRITTEN PERMISSION OF HORST ARCHITECTS.

SHEET NUMBERPLOT DATE:SCALE:
a r c h i t e c t s
9 4 9 4 9 4 9 5 6 9

KYOTOHOUSE
1550BLUEBIRDCANYONDRIVE,LAGUNABEACH,CA92651
DRAWING PREPARED BY: JM L1.0
1 8 " = 1'-0"

06.24.2025

LANDSCAPED OPEN SPACE PLAN

LANDSCAPE OPEN SPACE
1 2
3 4
TOTAL
349.55
385.22
804.22

44.41 4,219.46 SF
5 2641.93
6 38.54

CALCULATIONS

43'-6"

BLUEBIRD CANYON DRIVE
UP
Sewer manhole TBM Rim elev=458.08
1 2
3 5
6 27'-11"
59'-9"
46'-6"
33'-3"
36'-6"
9'-10"
40'-5"
54'-5"
28'-4"
44'-10"
4 HORST ARCHITECTS EXPRESSLY RESERVES

ITS COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT AND OTHER
PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THESE DRAWINGS.

THESE DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE

REPRODUCED, CHANGED, OR COPIED IN ANY

FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER NOR ARE

THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO ANY THIRD PARTY

WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE EXPRESSEDWRITTEN PERMISSION OF HORST ARCHITECTS.

SHEET NUMBERPLOT DATE:SCALE:
a r c h i t e c t s
9 4 9 4 9 4 9 5 6 9

KYOTOHOUSE
1550BLUEBIRDCANYONDRIVE,LAGUNABEACH,CA92651
DRAWING PREPARED BY: JM L3.0
1 8 " = 1'-0"

06.24.2025

IRRIGATION PLAN

IRRIGATION AREA
Irrigated areaProposed building footprint
1 2
3 4
TOTAL
349.55
385.22
804.22

44.41 4,219.46 SF
5 2641.93
6 38.54

CALCULATIONS

This transcript was exported on Dec 05, 2025 - view latest version here.

August 14 2025 - 2nd DRB Meeting - Trim (Completed 12/03/25) Transcript by Rev.com

Page 1 of 29 ends

Laguna Beach City CouncilJanuary 6, 2026

Laguna Beach City Council
January 6, 2026