Laguna Beach City Council
January 6, 2026

Thomas Gibbs:

Time review board is back in session. Please note talking in the audience. The next item, and it's the last one, is 5.8 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive, Lot A, Design Review 24-2586, Coastal Development Permit 24- 2588, Revocable Encroachment Permit 24-2587. Ex parte, please.

MJ Coveny:

I met at the property with Hoppenberger (sic). Oh, Horst, I killed it. And also many of the neighbors again.

Jessa Gannon:

I had a site visit and spoke with Horst on the phone.

Thomas Gibbs:

I had a site visit, spoke with Horst at the site visit, and met with numerous neighbors who we had met with before.

Louis Weil:

All the neighbor contingency, we have the pleasure of meeting with Horst at the site. Brought my children to the site and got their opinion. So Kellen and Lockheed both got to come. They were more interested in their phones, but we had a brief chat.

Imer Bauta:

I met with the same group except for Lewis' children.

Thomas Gibbs:

Alrighty. Thank you very much. Daniel, you're on.

Daniel Latham:

All right. So item 5.8 is for the project at 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive. It requires design and vehicles development permit and an REP. The project site is located on the knoll. It was part of a SB9 lot subdivision. And the project was previously heard on May 8th, and the board continued the project with comments. There were several changes to the project that are summarized in detail in the staff report.

And here are side by sides.

And I wanted to point out one change that wasn't mentioned in the staff report, which is the height change with three feet on the east increase, as well as the finished floor elevation increase of one foot.

And here, we have a side by side of the previous proposed footprint and the current footprint of the home, as well as the change of the driveway reconfiguration, as well as landscape change. And we can go back if you would like to discuss these.

And as part of the project is the revocable encroachment permit, and that area is highlighted in yellow here. And I'll turn it over to our assistant city attorney.

Patrick Donegan:

Call me Pat.

Attachment 16 327
328 of 654
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

Daniel Latham:

Pat.

Patrick Donegan:

Thank you, Mr. Latham. I did just want to by way of brief background, I know we briefly touched on this topic the last time this project was before the board, as well as the project at 1560. So staff did want to address the issue raised as it pertains to state housing laws, particularly SB 450.

To be clear, the city acknowledges and agrees that if a project is compliant with SB 450, then it applies.

City doesn't think that it's exempt. City doesn't think that, "Hey, we can just ignore SB 450." And in fact, the processing analysis and presentation of this project is consistent with that position.

As I'm sure you are all aware, explicit in SB 450 is a Coastal Act Savings Clause, which it says, and I quote, "SB 450 does not supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effects or application of the California Coastal Act of 1976." As I'm sure you are all aware, we implement the Coastal Act via our certified LCP.

Finally, staff is not aware of any authority in these state housing laws that mandates that this board is prescripted to give away public land in the form of an REP. It's a discretionary approval. You guys are a discretionary body. You are free to analyze the merits of this, weigh the evidence and apply those standards. Next slide, Mr. Latham.

Also instructive is the decision that the city council made earlier this week. The city council heard the appeal on 1560 Bluebird. There are a few slight differences in the projects, which I can get into. The city council remanded that item back to this very board, the DRB, to resolve an issue with the irrevocable encroachment permit.

In short, the city council found that the proposed REP was violative of municipal code section 1150.030 as if it was to be revoked, and then the proposed driveway retaining wall was to be removed. There would be a non-conforming condition or unlawful condition in kind of the form of, and Mr. Rodriguez, I may need some help here, kind of a floating driveway that is kind of unsupported. So hearing no objection from Bill, I'm going to continue.

Should the DRB want to follow that playbook that the city council took on Tuesday night, the REP should really be the foundational decision for you all on the project tonight. If you all as a board can make those findings, you should then proceed to the two other requested entitlements, the CDP and, of course, design review. If you cannot, from my perspective, from a legal perspective, it is sufficient to end there.

Of course, you guys are the city decision maker, not myself. So if you'd want to go into the other entitlements, I cannot stop you. I will simply state that the REP, those findings are sufficient.

In its adopted resolution of remand, the city council found, and it's important that for qualifying SB 450 projects, the design review criteria should be disregarded based on the city's council's findings that the CDP permit, coastal development permit, findings and criteria adequately protect coastal resources.

Once again, that's for the coastal development permit for projects that qualify for SB 450, which means you are in the box. It's all objective. You check all the boxes. There's no issues. And I'm sure Horst and council will get to that later. But so just keep that in mind and hearing the rest of the presentation and, of course, their presentation as well.

Further, in providing some insight, however, not a formal motion, not formal, anything like that, there was direction as it pertains to the CDP findings for once again, 41560, to focus on coastal resources, including natural land forms and public views and risk of fire hazards.

So for 1560, city council, I will say, examined and did take a look at this board's CDP findings. There wasn't a formal disapproval. There wasn't a formal reversal. I will say though, honestly, there was not Attachment 16 328
329 of 654
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

unanimous support or there was not a majority of support for this board's original CDP findings on the 1560 project, which I get is different.

But however, unless this site does have substantive differences in the board's eyes as it pertains to the CDP and the required findings, I'm going to advise you to take that city council direction. The city council is the ultimate city decision maker. They ultimately set policy. They ultimately give direction. And with that, I'm done. I'm going to turn it back over to Mr. Latham. And, of course, I'm available for questions after he.

Daniel Latham:

So I lost internet connectivity. So the rest of my slides aren't there, but essentially it was just staff's recommendation, which is approve the project if sufficient facts to support the project for the entitlements are found. And also want to point out that several comment letters from neighbors in opposition were submitted.

Patrick Donegan:

Did you want me to bring up your PowerPoint or are you all set? Daniel Latham:

It's okay.

Patrick Donegan:

Okay.

Thomas Gibbs:

All right. Any questions of staff? Seeing none, applicant, you have five minutes.

Horst Noppenberger:

Thank you. Good evening, city council members. I'm Horst Noppenberger. Horst Architects are the project architects for David Dorneus who owns the property. To my left is Chris Burt. He is David Dorneus's legal representative.

I want to thank the Design Review Board members for your time. I know this is a project with a lot of community implications, a lot of moving parts. And we've all put a lot of time into it, and we are grateful for your time. We're also grateful for the feedback that the neighbors. We've had several neighborhood meetings, learned a lot about the neighborhood, learned a lot about what the neighbor's objectives were. And I do honestly thank the neighbors for making this a better project with their input.

So with that said, I'm going to go ahead and introduce the project quickly, and then I'm going to go through the changes that we made. So the Kyoto House seeks to harmonize with the abundant nature of this Bluebird Canyon site, a minimalist composition of two intersecting pavilions floating above the natural topography, along with the warm tactile materials, which include board form concrete, wood, and steel, integrate the structure into the natural contours and textures of the site, simplicity and restraint, encourage contemplation and introspection. Next slide, please, Daniel.

So this exhibit demonstrates the changes that we made. We took out about 750 square feet of enclosed floor area. 250 square feet of that was habitable floor area. The other 500 came from the garage.

Removing a floor area in the garage also helped to reduce the amount of excavation.

Attachment 16 329
330 of 654
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

The proposed amount of excavation was reduced from 1,900 cubic yards to 1,550 cubic yards. We also reduced the site lot coverage with these changes from 29.92% to 25.8%. We also pulled the house further away from Susan Whiten's house, our adjacent neighbor on the west, and also relocated the jacuzzi to a location on the site where it's less impactful to Susan's property. Next slide, please.

So one of the biggest changes that we made is we have come back. I was at the city council meeting on Tuesday, and I think Patrick did an amazing job characterizing what happened at that meeting. Chris will speak to that in more detail, but one of the things we did for this, based upon the comments that we got, we were able to take the driveway completely out of the right of way.

So the right of way is the distance from existing street paving to the property line, which on average is about 10 feet. With this redesign, we've moved the driveway further uphill. And in red, we've eliminated a retaining wall that was proposed for the right of way.

In my discussion with a couple of the board members, I believe board members, Gibbon Wild, we did acknowledge that there is a small retaining wall at the base of the driveway on the left-hand side as you ascend the driveway, but should that little... And that retaining wall is no more than a foot and a half above existing grade. The driveway slopes up about a foot and a half.

Should that retaining well be removed, if the city does take over the entire right of way for street widening purposes, the driveway will still be in conformance because the driveway currently has a 10% slope. The city's maximum is 14%. We're going to do turf block on that driveway, which is a highly malleable material. So that will allow us to remove the retaining wall in the event of street widening and soften. So we're not putting ourselves into a non-conforming condition, and we can go into that in more detail, but there's just a couple more things to cover. Next slide, please.

At the neighbor's request, we did look at the idea of a three-car garage at the street level, and what we found is it actually creates more excavation. A three-car garage at street level conforming to the fivefoot garage setback creates about 650 cubic yards of excavation, whereas the ascending driveway is only 500 cubic yards of excavation. We also feel like this would be an undesirable solution because it's very unsafe. I'm backing onto a Bluebird Canyon with 14-foot retaining walls on both sides. Next slide, please.

Just about finished. And here, you can see in pink what that sectional cut would look like, 645 cubic yards of excavation, highly in safe condition. Next slide, please.

We also looked at an alternative driveway configuration. Rather than going up the hill toward the Whiten residence, we would go the other way, starting at the low point on Bluebird Canyon. But by the time we got to the top, we would be 20 feet below existing grade using the city's 14% maximum, but we justJessa Gannon:

Horst, your time is over.

Horst Noppenberger:

Oh, I'm sorry.

Thomas Gibbs:

I was thinking about something. The red light went off when I was sleeping here, and so I'm glad my other board members woke me up. I was looking at some plans relating to what you were talking about.

So we'll come back to you.

Attachment 16 330
331 of 654
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

How many members of the public wish to speak? A lot. We're going to limit to two minutes given a late hour. And please come up, whoever's the first, and make sure that the person following is standing up behind there so we don't waste any time between speakers. Please state your name before you begin, and two minutes each.

Mary Figris:

Good evening. Mary Figris, 1561 Morningside Drive. We welcome the better and more appropriate design of the house structure, but still have concerns with siding of structures, including decks and spa on top of the knoll ridge. The structures tower on the ridge and are very visible from our home on Morningside.

Looking into our front patio entry and a bedroom, size and mass are still out of context with neighborhood compatibility. All the reductions are minor considering the location of the structures, regarding setting a precedent, floor ratio to lot size. Again, an error with statements. Our home is approximately 2,800 square feet and a lot size of 7,740 square feet. This structure would set a precedent for our neighborhood regarding driveway.

The issue of revocable encroachment permit, retaining walls using a crib wall system will not make a difference. Error and statement again, indicating there are other similarities in the neighborhood. We do have two uphill driveways on Morningside, but the topography is very different, and one is a shared driveway. None of the three structures sit on a ridge line.

Regarding articulation, this design would be fine if it was terraced into the hillside. Our major concerns are with the revocable encroachment permit, the driveway length, and retaining walls, the siding of the major structure, the new site of the spa on top of the knoll, the outside areas, garden, reflecting pool, decks. All the structures on top of the knoll ridge will create a problem for privacy, light, noise, and blocking the view of the sky for our residents on Bluebird and Morningside. Our local policies, land use, open space elements, our municipal code and local plan still apply to this lot.

Thomas Gibbs:

Your time is up.

Mary Figris:

Thank you so much.

Thomas Gibbs:

Thank you very much. Next speaker, please.

William Horner:

Hi. William Horner, 1565 Bluebird. Chair Gibbs and members of the board. So first, slope alteration and stability. This hillside has a history of slope failure right above our home. About 15 years ago, it failed under the roadway, required extensive repairs. It's the area right above our master bedroom.

So looking at the LCP and the municipal code 2507012, project must not result in undue risk from geological erosional forces. We're not trying to completely derail things. We just want reasonable guarantees for kind of down slope protections. Curious whether they're willing to indemnify the city to protect the city and neighbors.

Attachment 16 331
332 of 654
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

Second, privacy, brought this up with the applicant team on the first time around, as well as the second time around. I think a few members saw this as well. The south-southwest facing dining room wall includes unshielded glass section. On the elevation is the leftmost portion. That looks down into our bedroom and living room windows. Simply replacing that small section with a solid wall would preserve our privacy while allowing ample light through the remaining large section of shielded glazing.

This is more a courtesy. Just curious about pump placement for the reflecting pool and clarity on whether any fountains or waterfall features are planned that could generate kind of ongoing noise. And then fourth, just on the CDP findings, obviously, with the coastal protection kind of carve outs and SP9 SB-450.

We were disappointed that council did not hold an official hearing on those. It was effectively a defacto one. Applicant team was able to ample time to address it. The public was not. It seems like those findings are now being applied to this project. Thank you.

Thomas Gibbs:

Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Eileen Slur:

Good evening. Eileen Slur. I'm at 1545 Bluebird Canyon Drive. My concern is the cantilevered dining room, the 400 or 360 square foot dining room that comes out with the glazing. It looks into my galley going into my bedroom right into my house, and it's really bothersome that it can't be pulled back or made a little bit smaller, or maybe the glazing not be so pronounced. Thank you.

Thomas Gibbs:

Thank you. Next speaker.

Peter Groman:

I'm Peter Groman. I live across the street from the project at 1573 Bluebird Canyon. In the previous design review meeting, the applicant was told reduce the mass height and square footage and terrace it into the hill and up the hill.

The result, the applicant refuses to consider a streetside garage. He demands a driveway up the hill to be on top of the hill. The square footage was only slightly reduced by 250 square feet and the height increased by three feet. The result is basically the same design incompatible with the neighborhood.

And the export of 1,550 square yard, which is about 200 truckloads, are a heavy toll on the fragile cut and field road. The home would be a beacon of light on top of the knoll and higher than anything else.

The project needs a revocable encroachment permit. The intent of the permit is to [inaudible 00:19:34] minor classes of construction.

This is not minor, and it's a massive permanent structure, and the revocable encroachment permit should be denied.

Thomas Gibbs:

Thank you very much. Next speaker.

Harpal Settle:

Attachment 16 332
333 of 654
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

Good evening. Harpal Settle, Chair Gibbs and the members of the board. So I'll be brief. We want to stick with the most objective comments and sort of look at this project for lot A. The REP, we're being told that the improvements that are going into the right of way are... They don't violate the REP, but we think, and if you look at some of those pages there, for example, the highlighted areas in the slope of the wall in the public right of way, it looks to us as if it is retaining the driveway, which I don't know how you would remove it, but that's something that should be pointed out.

And then second is the CDP findings. We think objectively that land use policy 2.1 regarding the compatibility with the surrounding residences is being violated. If you look at the photo slides on the following, what we've done is we've taken a list of 15 comparable properties that were submitted by Mr. Dorneus himself and showing you the street level view of what that looks like.

And so, objectively, I think anybody could say which one of these things is not like the other? And lot A does not look compatible with the photos provided. And then also land use policy 2.8 regarding siding of the home and integration. So basically, we want the house to integrate, not dominate. And you could do it through some more terracing which you've already talked about. The last point I'll make is, we do appreciate that there was a grade level garage study provided.

But we don't think it's really as rigorous as it could be. For example, if you push a little bit harder, the home siding was not at all modified or changed to try and accommodate the garage. It was just sort of walls were put up at the grade level to say why your views would be obstructed. You could step the walls to avoid the view impairment. Thank you.

Thomas Gibbs:

Thank you. Next speaker.

Joe Grover:

Hey guys, Joe Grover 1536 Morningside. Not even quite sure exactly what's in play here. I'm still confused about this whole thing. So I guess all I'm asking you guys is, I think subjectively, the majority of you know that this is bad for our neighborhood. Simple as that.

You guys have looked at this product before. You've given feedback. None of that's really changed. So we're really asking you guys to objectively help to identify things that you can put into play that you can consider through whatever rules and regulations there are out there to help us to get something that we can agree on with these guys. Get something that is palatable for everybody.

For us, we have approved project. We're 513 feet in the air. Our max grade is 513 feet on the land, our natural grade. These guys are at 502, max natural grade. Their project goes up to 515 feet. It goes higher than our project, which is up the hillside from it. So that's pretty objective to me, right? Harpal gave you guys that list of homes, and that helps you to see that objectivity. The mass of the glazing. The glazing, same thing. It's going to have glazing, much more than any other home in that area.

That's objective. It objectively has a lot more. I don't know if that's an objective thing in what you guys can actually consider, but I guess what I'm asking you again is to just understand that subjectively we all feel like this is bad. We know that you can't consider that, but help us out. Try to be objective in your own minds as you're considering this project and see what you can do to give advice to make this palpable for them and palatable for us.

Thanks.

Thomas Gibbs:

Attachment 16 333
334 of 654
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

Thank you. Susan.

Susan Whiten:

Good evening. Susan Whiten, 1540 Bluebird. I have three comments. One, the staff report is incomplete.

It emits critical facts and doesn't reflect what's in the submiddle drawings. The finished floor of the building has been raised by one foot. The eastern edge of the roof height has increased by three feet, and the building is now overall two feet higher from the street level, now 52 feet versus 50 previously.

Regarding the REP, the exhibits that you have are a snapshot of the C1 engineering plan which shows that the retaining wall in the right of way is four and a half feet high at the property line, sloping down to approximately a foot. And that the gradient on the driveway is 19% down to 10% in that road right of way. It's not approvable. Privacy, there's no discussion in the staff report about privacy comparing the revised to the original building elevations. The building is still objectively a glass box.

Second comment, DRB must make findings for the REP and the CDP to approve the project. This project does not conform with Laguna-certified LCP and the objective standards in the land use element, including policy 2.1, quote, "Minimize the scale and bulk of new construction and require development to be compatible with surrounding residences."
Policy 2.8 require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated with natural topographic features. The two Morningside projects have done this with garages slightly above the street and roofs at a couple of feet higher than the ridgeline.

Privacy, there is no privacy. And my house is 75% glass on Morningside and on Bluebird. In conclusion, this is the second submittal, and it still fails to meet objective requirements for approval and ignores repeated DRB and public input. I respectfully request the DRB require revisions and a a third hearing or you deny the project.

Thomas Gibbs:

Thank you. All right. Oh, one more. Come on up. Maybe, two more.

Pamela Adams:

Chair and members of the design review board and city staff. My name is Pamela Adams, a reasonable person, and I live on Morningside Drive. I remain opposed to the applicant's minor revisions to the project at 1550 Bluebird Canyon Road Drive.

For these reasons, the project remains sitting on the ridge line of the knoll instead of being nestled into the terrain. The small square footage of reduction is minimal as are the reductions to the decks and garage. It nonetheless exceeds neighborhood compatibility in its mass and scale for such a small divided lot.

Three, the applicant's monolithic design is in direct contrast to the eclectic, rustic, wood-like homes in the existing neighborhood of Bluebird. The glazing remains extensive throughout the exterior wood slat screening or not, including the glass wind breaks for the rooftop deck and stairs. The light-colored troweled stucco adds additional glare and light intrusion to the neighbors.

Five, the placement of the spot at the top of the knoll butts up to the neighboring properties, creating privacy and noise intrusions to the neighbors and across the canyons. I suggest nestling it down to be incorporated closer to the living space, maybe in the atrium area.

Six, and staff has suggested a traffic plan for Bloomberg Canyon's proposed projects, moving through Morningside Drive to its lower end, and then execute a hairpin turn onto Bloomberg Canyon Drive. This Attachment 16 334
335 of 654
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

is not safe. A more appropriate staging plan must be addressed before any approval. Please deny this project. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thomas Gibbs:

Thank you. Thank you very much. Next.

Marsha Stallworth:

Hi, I'm Marsha Stallworth for the Romitas who own the knoll up on top. I want to congratulate Horst on his award for the design. I understand that he won an award for the design of this property. This home does not have any impact on Romitas' property and they are very supportive of it. I hope that everybody can come together in the neighborhood, and we can all get along and come up with some really good solutions for everybody and make this whole process. I know it's difficult, a lot easier for everybody, but the Romitas are in support of this project.

Thomas Gibbs:

Thank you very much. Any other speakers? All right. Horst, you have three minutes.

Chris Burt :

Good evening, board members. My name's Chris Burt with Cox, Castle & Nicholson. I just wanted to discuss a few items here. One with respect to the REP. So as represented earlier, there are retaining walls in the right of way. The majority of those are related to providing the proposed on-street parking space. The retaining wall related to the driveway, if and when the city requires use of that right of way and revokes the revocable encroachment permit, there would be no non-conformity created.

In fact, if the city didn't require the on-street parking space right now, no retaining would need it to be constructed in the right of way. And as an aside, I understand that the on-street parking space is a requirement, but that it can be waived at the discretion of the design review board. So I question whether or not that's an actual objective standard at the outset.

Second, as represented, this project is an SB 450 project, which means it has state law housing protections. The project is consistent with all objective standards. So as represented earlier by the city attorney, the city council has provided direction that with respect to such projects, the design review findings are inapplicable.

And finally, with respect to the LCP, the city council was very clear in circumstances like this where SB 450 applies, the question is not one of unfettered discretion and subjectivity of neighborhood compatibility. The question is whether or not the project implicates coastal resources that are onsite or could be affected by the project.

In fact, the city council discussed that issue on Tuesday and ultimately concluded with respect to the neighboring site that there were no coastal resources, there were no view impacts, and things like that.

So I just wanted to reiterate kind of the discretion that this board has with respect to this project under the confines of state law.

And then wanted to emphasize again the REP question, there would be no non-conformity created if the city came and asked for those encroachments to be removed.

Thomas Gibbs:

Okay.

Attachment 16 335
336 of 654
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

Chris Burt :

Thank you.

Thomas Gibbs:

Anything further? Okay. Questions. I got some questions. Can you pull up C1 please, Diana? I believe it's the site plan, grading, and drainage plan. Of course, I'm going to be directing my questions to you. If you could look at this. It's also kind of on this corner.

Horst Noppenberger:

Yeah, I have looked at it.

Thomas Gibbs:

No. Let me ask the questions first.

Horst Noppenberger:

Please, go ahead.

Thomas Gibbs:

Okay. Thank you. All right. It shows here the property line. I'm referring specifically to the retaining wall that's on one side of the driveway.

Horst Noppenberger:

Yes.

Thomas Gibbs:

Okay. You know which one I'm talking about?
Horst Noppenberger:

I do.

Thomas Gibbs:

Okay. Good. Now it shows the property line of the applicant, which is a dash line. And below that is the right of way. Then it shows the current street. You showed us something else. Is this what the proposal is currently?
Horst Noppenberger:

Yeah. So let's take aThomas Gibbs:

Okay. Let me ask you. Just follow me, and then I'll let you talk, okay? Horst Noppenberger:

I thought youAttachment 16 336
337 of 654
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

Thomas Gibbs:

Then, you're going to answer my questions. I just want to understand, I'm focusing in on something, and then it's not that I'm cutting you off. All right. So what is grade or what is the elevation at where the current street meets at the street line where it meets where the proposed retaining walls to begin? Horst Noppenberger:

Yes. So the elevation on sheet C1, which is the precise grading plan, the top of curb elevation, which is the edge of street, is 466.7.

Thomas Gibbs:
466?
Horst Noppenberger:

Yeah, the height of this retaining wall that has come into question.

Thomas Gibbs:

I'm not asking you that, but just go with me.

Horst Noppenberger:

Well, let me finish, Tom.

Thomas Gibbs:

No, let me ask questions,, and then I'll let you talk, okay? I'm trying to figure out exactly the height between the street and the height of the retaining wall where it meets the property line.

Horst Noppenberger:

It's exactly the information I was about to give you.

Thomas Gibbs:

Okay. I just want to work through it so I understand.

Horst Noppenberger:

The elevation of that proposed small retaining wallThomas Gibbs:

Let me get the starting point first. The starting point is at the curb level, it's 466.7.

Horst Noppenberger:

Correct.

Thomas Gibbs:

And at the street level, there's no curb there now, right? At the street level, it's 465.72. Is that right? Attachment 16 337
338 of 654
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

Horst Noppenberger:

That's also a top of curb elevation. The 465.72 is a top of curb elevation.

Thomas Gibbs:

There's no curb there. So what are you referring to?
Horst Noppenberger:

This is a plan from the civil engineer. We didn't produce this plan.

Thomas Gibbs:

Okay. So that's the top of curb. So we're not sure if the street's below that.

Horst Noppenberger:

Yeah.

Thomas Gibbs:

Okay. And then what's the elevation where the retaining wall meets the property line? Horst Noppenberger:

Okay. So that elevation is clear. That's 469.5, top of wall elevation.

Thomas Gibbs:

Okay.

Horst Noppenberger:

So the difference between 469.5 and 466.7 is 2.8. So that's two foot.

Thomas Gibbs:

2.8?
Horst Noppenberger:

Yeah, 2.8 isThomas Gibbs:

And why aren't you using the 465.75?
Horst Noppenberger:

Well, I'm using the 466.7 because that's the top of curb elevation at the beginning of the wall.

Thomas Gibbs:

The one at the street where the street is now, it's 465.72, right? That's the way I read it. Am I reading it wrong?
Attachment 16 338
339 of 654
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

Horst Noppenberger:

Yeah, but that's a couple feet further to the east of where this wall starting.

Thomas Gibbs:

Okay.

Horst Noppenberger:

The 466.7 is an elevation that's given right at the beginning of the retaining wall that's in question. The height of the retaining wall as it hits the property line is 469.5. The difference is 2.8 feet, not the 4.6 feet that the neighbors represented.

Thomas Gibbs:

Okay. And it might be as muchHorst Noppenberger:

And can I maybe just continue becauseThomas Gibbs:

No, because I'm going to ask the question now. I'm really trying to get one thing, and I may go to staff if you don't want to do it.

Horst Noppenberger:

Well, I think the bigger question, Tom, isThomas Gibbs:

Let me go to staff. Bill, maybe you can answer this looking at this. So the elevation from the street, can you tell what the elevation from the current street is? Bill Rodrigues:

I think so. And [inaudible 00:35:37] the applicant mayThomas Gibbs:

Tell me the retaining wall.

Bill Rodrigues:
... certainly chime in, but let me walk you through the plans and show you what I see.

Thomas Gibbs:

Okay. Yeah. Put C1 on the board.

Speaker X:
[inaudible 00:35:46] unstable connection [inaudible 00:35:49] Attachment 16 339
340 of 654
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

Bill Rodrigues:

If you give me a second, let me try andThomas Gibbs:

There it is. Yeah. I'm just trying to get the idea from the street elevation to the retaining wall where it meets the property line.

Bill Rodrigues:

Okay. So I can see my cursor on the screen. I hope everybody else can see that as well. First off, let's just, I guess, maybe get our bearings straight. So where my cursor is following the radius here, that is the proposed retaining wall on one side of the driveway, correct? Horst Noppenberger:

Correct.

Bill Rodrigues:

Yes. This shaded gray area between the retaining wall is the REP area, if you will. It's kind of aHorst Noppenberger:

The shaded area is the proposed street widening.

Bill Rodrigues:

Correct. Because the existing pavement starts or stops kind of in this general area here.

Horst Noppenberger:

Correct.

Bill Rodrigues:

Correct? So there's a gap between the edge of pavement and then where the retaining wall would start and then up to the property line.

Horst Noppenberger:

Yes.

Bill Rodrigues:

So what I'm seeing on this plan, if I were to scroll down a little bit, you can see the reference to Bluebird Canyon Drive and the long dash followed by the two short dashes would represent the center line of the street.

Thomas Gibbs:

I see. And then theBill Rodrigues:

Attachment 16 340
341 of 654
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

And if you look below around that area, if I come over just a little bit, I apologize. I don't know why this yellow box keeps popping up. And there goes my internet.

Thomas Gibbs:

Darn it. I think we can answer this. What I want to go, the bottom line isBill Rodrigues:

No. I understood. Real quick. I can just say that the center line of the street, if I recall, was about a 466.72 elevation. As you then move towards the property, the elevation at the edge of pavement went down a little bit because, typically, there's a slight crown on the streets. I think that was somewhere in the range of 465 point something.

Thomas Gibbs:
465.75, probably.

Bill Rodrigues:

And then as you approach the edge of the REP or the street widening portion where it starts to butt the slope, that rows up to be about 465.72 or 465.9.

Thomas Gibbs:

Okay.

Bill Rodrigues:

And then that's where you hit sort of the beginning of the retaining wall, and then that starts its curvature up onto the property where it tops out, at least at the property line at 469 point something... 469.5.

Thomas Gibbs:

Yeah, I've got 469.5.

Bill Rodrigues:
[inaudible 00:38:25] in maybe a three to three and a half foot [inaudible 00:38:27].

Thomas Gibbs:

So the rise of the driveway from the beginning of the street as widened will be somewhere between 2.8 and four feet. Is that fair?
Bill Rodrigues:

Somewhere in the 3.2 to 3.5 range, but yes.

Thomas Gibbs:

Okay. 3.2 to 3.5. So if the street gets widened, the city decides to widen the street all the way up to the property line, so it would be at grade. There would be a grade break right along the property line of somewhere between 3.2 and 3.5 feet.

Attachment 16 341
342 of 654
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

Bill Rodrigues:

I think that's right. If you set at the property line of 469.5 elevation, and then you bring the street roughly in that 466 elevation straight up to it, there ends up being a grade break. [inaudible 00:39:23].

Horst Noppenberger:

So can I address that?
Thomas Gibbs:

Let me ask you a question, then you can respond the way you want. Don't go too long. Do you agree with the grade break? In other words, do you agreeHorst Noppenberger:

Yes.

Thomas Gibbs:
... that if the city widens the street and takes out the retaining wall all the way up to the property line, there's going to be a grade break of some three feet?
Horst Noppenberger:

Yes, which is remedied because as I mentioned in my presentation, the current proposed driveway slope is 10%. The city's maximum driveway slope, on average, is 14%. So we've done the calculation that if the city were to take over the entire right of way and that three foot grade break that you're referring to, the driveway is going to be turf block. We will start the new driveway at the property line, and it would subtly change the slope. It will be well under 14%.

Thomas Gibbs:

Okay. So you would have to regrade it andHorst Noppenberger:

The driveway.

Thomas Gibbs:
... you have to do something?
Horst Noppenberger:

Correct. And it's built into the plans.

Thomas Gibbs:

Okay. So when you say built into the plans, where are they built in? Horst Noppenberger:

It's built into the plans because the driveway is currently proposing a 10% slope. The city maximum is 14%.

Attachment 16 342
343 of 654
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

Thomas Gibbs:

Okay.

Horst Noppenberger:

I honestly didn't think we would be arguing a two-foot retaining wall tonight, but I mean, it's highly possible. It's more than possible. It's probable.

Thomas Gibbs:

Okay. So I see a 19% grade for some 14 feet on the plans. What's that about? Horst Noppenberger:

No. Excuse me. The city's maximum of 14% is based upon the overall slope. The first 20 feet of the driveway has a maximum 10% slope, but we have to have soft transitions. So in the first 20 feet of the driveway, we're not sloping 14%. We're sloping 5%. We're sloping 10%. it's the overall slope of the driveway, Tom, top to bottom. And we're at 10% average.

Thomas Gibbs:

Okay. So what I'm seeing is 10% for three feet, 19% for four feet, right? Horst Noppenberger:

Yeah. All those numbers are correct, but it's the overall average of the driveway slope, including the area at the top opposite the garage. When the city looks at this, they take the entire slope, and they average it out, and it can't be more than 14%. And my answer to you sincerely is we're at 10%. So if we have to slightly change the slope of that driveway, it's 100% that we can do it.

Thomas Gibbs:

No, I know you can do it. I don't know that, but I hear that you're saying you can do it. But with a grade break of some three feet, that alone, that condition, is it your feeling that that's compliant with the conditions and required under the code?
Horst Noppenberger:

Yes. Well, Chris can speak to that.

Chris Burt :

I think this is an interesting discussion we're talking about, and it's good you brought it up. I note that the same condition that we're talking about would be applicable at every other property, including the one directly to the west where you would extend the road. There's a current driveway that's based upon the grade of the existing road and its level.

And if you extend the road inward, likewise, you will have a distinction between the then height of the roadway and where it now cuts into that driveway. So you'll have a circumstance where lots of other properties are likewise going to have to engage in this slight regrading so that they can access. They can make up for the distinction that you're talking about, that height disparity. So this project is ultimately not going to be any different in the future than others that are similarly situated.

Attachment 16 343
344 of 654
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

Louis Weil:

But you're discussing comments on houses that may have been developed under different standards at different times and different eras, and you're using those older examples as reasons to meet today's standards. They may have met them back then, but they're not part of an application in front of us to meet today's standards. Your application is.

Chris Burt :

Okay. So it sounds like the city is comfortable treating this property significantly different than other properties that exist in the immediate vicinity.

Louis Weil:

No. Absolutely not. It's just, does it meet today's standards? Thomas Gibbs:

I think that we're beyond questioning and into debating. Any other questions? Louis Weil:

And I'm just not hearing that it does.

Thomas Gibbs:

No. We'll talk about that.

Chris Burt :

There's no standard that applies because that condition doesn't exist.

Thomas Gibbs:

We'll talk about that in deliberations. Any other questions? Hearing none, I close the public hearing, and let me begin.

First of all, just so it's very clear, I've listened to the city council meeting on 1560, and I listened to it in some detail. I don't know if it's 100% clear in my mind, but a couple things are clear. So let me deal with the REP.

The one thing that was very clear is that the city council fully requires and is expecting us to apply the rules relating to revocable encroachment permits. And they specifically focused on the provision of

11.50.030, which provides this category of project is intended for small scale structures such as low fences, retaining walls, walkways, stairs, and other minor features typically associated with landscaping, including stepping stones, pass, planter areas, and irrigation systems.

This type of permit is not appropriate for any structure or improvement that would result in code violations or other non-compliant conditions if removal is ever acquired by the city.

And I remember that there was a debate between Mr. Byrd and as I recall, Bob Whalen, although it might have been Mayor Ghani, where you were making the argument, "Well, if you change things, if the city is widened and they kept coming back, no, it's as planned." And that's how we're supposed to be dealing with this, to look at the proposal and to say, and to examine whether there is any either violations or non-compliant conditions if removal is ever required by the city.

Attachment 16 344
345 of 654
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

And I think unquestionably there is. If the road is extended and you saw all the reasons in the resolution, I hadn't come out yet, but they went through it at the council about the need to widen this road, that we need to take very seriously evaluating the widening of the road, that there would be a gradient break between 3.2 and 3.5 feet.

Maybe, it's 2.8, maybe it's four, but it's significant. That is a condition that is clearly non-compliant.

Something would need to be done. Now, I don't know why you... That's actually not the right question. I think given that, I don't see how given the direction of city council that we could ever make the finding required for a revocable encroachment permit, given that the removal of that retaining wall and stretching the road to the property line would create a clearly non-compliant condition.

I appreciate council's argument that while there's others in the neighborhood, we don't have that. We don't know what the conditions were, whether there was revocable encroachment permits or not. The point is that the clear direction from council was that we are to look at the condition if the road is widened to the property line. So I can't make that finding.

I also note that this is not a small structure. We generally don't approve retaining walls for long driveways, but that's just an add-on. The primary problem is the non-compliance.

Now, with respect to, and this goes to all the neighbors that express a lot of concerns to the design review guidelines, I think the council was very clear that we're not to consider design review guidelines in connection with the 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive project, and that was the direction of the city council.

I think as far as this project goes, I don't see a significant or material difference that would entitle us to consider design review guidelines. It's essentially in a similar condition of being an SB 9 lot spit with all the other related provisions. There is no ADU with this project, but I think that council was, at least appeared to me, although there was some confusion whether they were moved by the ADU to make a lot of their statements.

But I think for now, as far as I'm concerned, because of the SB 9 and SB 450 component, we are not to consider design review guidelines. And that means privacy and light and air. It's not my place to say my view of that, but that's where we are.

With respect to the coastal development permit, the way I read what the council directed was that the coastal development permit, we still must make the findings.

The court or the council analyzed that in the context, basically they said this, as my understanding, in the context of SB 450 projects, the analysis should be geared toward coastal resources, including natural land forms and public views and risk of fire hazard. I'm not sure what coastal resources mean. It seems to me to be pretty broad.

The council did not define it. I also note that the SB 9, SB 450, and the ADU law all carves out as the carve-out for the Coastal Act, including our LCP and our land use elements, and that certainly would include the coastal development permit.

So let me go through two findings. Notwithstanding, I'm not sure the other board members are going to stop with the REP. So I'm going to make my views known on the CDP as well. Finding one, the project is in conformity with the applicable provisions of the certified local coastal program, including the following review criteria, which by the way, are in our local coastal plan, as I understand it.

Criteria five, the proposed development will minimize the alterations of natural land forms and will not result in undue risks from geological and erosional forces and/or floods and fire hazards.

Attachment 16 345
346 of 654
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

This project definitely deals with natural land forms, not only the long driveway that goes up the slope, but more importantly, the lack of terracing of this project, it all being on top of the ridge, impacts the natural land flow.

So I don't think I personally can make the finding required by finding one criteria five. With respect to criteria six, which as we all know, deals with the visual compatibility with the character of surrounding areas, as presently designed, I could not make that finding. I think that that is difficult. It's really questionable whether the council's directed us not to apply criteria six. I think it's ambiguous. I think it does potentially deal with natural land forms and coastal resources, coastal resources being not only the natural beauty, but also the physical resources potentially.

So with that being said, I'm less sure about criteria six, but I don't think I could... In the context of this case, and given my understanding of the CDP law and the carve-outs of SB 9 and SB 450 can find it because it is so out of character for the neighborhood in this whole area, it being large, it containing significant glazing, including that invades the privacy of neighbors and particularly Susan Whiten. I don't know of a single house in that area that it's visually compatible with. And for that reason, I would have a tough time finding criteria six.

So those are my comments to summarize. I don't think the REP, we can make the required finding because of the grade break. And with respect to at least criteria five, I think the city councils directed us and enabled us to make that analysis, and I could not make that finding nor finding six... criteria six. With that said, who wants to go next?
Imer Bauta:

I'll give it a go. So I'm sure Chair Gibbs gave a great summary of the items that we're supposed to focus on tonight, and the basis is for objective enforcement. So I'll go through my list, and then I'll circle back to the REP.

The objective standard that the LCP states speaks to visual resource protection, which includes line of sight and public viewpoints. Objectively, I can say this project complies with those. I can continue on natural land form alterations, and it speaks to natural landform alterations.

So the understanding is that there are going to be alterations for a project on private land, which this is.

The cut and fill volumes are maintained. And as the project architect presented here today, he presented an option with at-grade parking, which would actually increase the natural land form alteration.

So I think pertaining to this specific site, the cut fill volumes are approached in a considerate matter.

Furthermore, the third item was the fire hazard avoidance and the access standards are going to be reviewed by the fire department. Again, objectively, I think those findings could be made. I think the road widths and lengths meet the code requirements that we can review. And objectively, I think again, the site meets those requirements.

The fourth one is ridgeline protection. I don't believe this is on a ridgeline, even though there's been multiple communications toward that. If there were specific findings, I'd be willing to hear it. I think the way the site is laid out, I think there's consideration to the private land forms that are there. So I do believe the finding could be made that the ridgeline is being protected.

The last one is public view corridors, and I just don't think this is public view corridor. This is a private lot.

I've got immense support for this. I think it's got the empty lot syndrome that we speak about on other sites. And objectively, we have to consider these standards based on the code that's being presented to us by the state.

Attachment 16 346
347 of 654
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

So for that standpoint, I can approve this project. Now, I'll get into the REP, and the way the code reads, the way I read the code for an REP, they do enable retaining walls. And I believe this is a minor retaining wall. I don't think this is a major... When you consider the magnitude of a brand new Horst architect project, I think to get lost on a couple linear feet of retainer wall and not allow for the REP would be a disservice to the amount of effort that the applicant and the design team put together to get this thing to where it is today. I'd really love the board support on this.

I think between those items and the REP, I think we should support that with the understanding that we cannot comment on the DRB's typical subjective items, and we have to continue along with this project.

So that's where I'm at with it.

Thomas Gibbs:

Let's go next.

Jessa Gannon:

I can follow that up. So we can't talk about privacy because really that's my only issue.

Patrick Donegan:

Go ahead.

Thomas Gibbs:

No, you answer it.

Patrick Donegan:

So Madam Vice Chair, I would say that you are limited to the criteria in the coastal development permit.

I'm not a city decision maker. Obviously, I won't read them to you. In seeing those, I don't see a ton of language regarding privacy. I do see something about visually compatible with the character of the surrounding areas, but unfortunately privacy is not explicitly called out. So I would advise this board not to rely on privacy as it pertains to reviewing this project.

Jessa Gannon:

Okay. Then I'll keep it simple. I'll echo what Board Member Bauta said and going back to, just to add a few things, the retaining wall down at the bottom. We've waived the parking requirements on other lots. So if the other board members would favor that, I would be in favor of that as well.

But as to Mr. Bauta's comments, that it's such a minor retaining wall and such a little sector, and the way that you described that want to be an impact shall that road be widened in the future, it made sense to me. I understand what you're talking about with grading 14% from 10%.

So I'm good with what's proposed, and I would also be good with waiving the parking requirement. I'm also good with the findings laid out in the staff report for the coastal development permit. And then pertaining to that or pertaining to number six, the Morningside that was approved had a 22-foot retaining wall. And so I can't let that go.

And so I can make the findings for the coastal development permit, that number six. Let me see. So right. So the DRB recently approved two new homes on adjacent vacant lots building site. It's the take access from the Morningside Drive. The one Morningside, I forget which one it was, the one where the appeal was denied, 1536 Morningside, that had a giant retaining wall. So to fuss over a three foot, two Attachment 16 347
348 of 654
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

and a half foot retaining wall, even if it's a four-foot retaining wall, it's kind of a moot point. Those are my comments.

Thomas Gibbs:

Who wants to go next? MJ.

Louis Weil:

Go for it. All right.Oh, this is what makes design review a lot of fun. Where to begin? I echo the comments of Chair Gibbs. There's a lot of complications with the site, and I do find his findings in the REP to be adequate to elaborate on the REP. I think the board has the general direction or the authority to approve the right components in the right of way.

And I think as I talked in the last hearing, access was one of the bigger challenges and access for the right of way is still a challenge. And I use language in terms of the REP for defining the road width within the nearby vicinity. And what I meant by that, and to elaborate further, is the development standards as you come up from Morningside to Bluebird Canyon, the curb is 24 feet at a minimum.

I measured it in a couple different spots. It was like 26 feet in different spots, but right where the curb to curb ends is 24 feet. All right. That curb ends at what are the start of these three vacant lots that wrap around Bluebird Canyon. So that is the new development pattern that we need to establish based off of the nearby vicinity.

So I need the travel width to be 24 feet. And as explained in the prior staff report, there needs to be the curb that also matches that on your side, which seemed to be an agreement at one point that the curb was going to be installed or some fashion of that.

Now, I get it can break into the retaining walls and those components. But as the REP goes in front of this application, what I'm looking for is the right of passage, the safety for the fire equipment, safety for the general bigger trucks, trash trucks, Amazon delivery trucks, the general flow for the neighborhood needs of a clear space. And so that's how I'm making my determination is by the nearby pattern of development.

Now, as it pertains to your pull up, in the right of way as drawn, shows a 19% grade on the plans, right as the driveway accesses. For me, I think that area all the way up to the property line needs to be relatively flat or meet the requirements of street, of what level grade of the street needs to be. And then you start your incline.

By your red line example, I don't see that clarification enough to make that determination here tonight where I do normally accept red line determinations. There's just a point of unclarity that isn't being clarified.

And then for the other components in the REP, the retaining walls, I'm fully accepting that retaining walls need to be there. The parking spot needs to be there. There's no reason for a lot this size with this much frontage and the usable right of way space that cannot be accommodated for that to be emitted from the plans.

But as on the right side of the driveway, you have some stem walls that are coming out for no real good reason other than just blockage of the right of way. You're going to hold up this development and the next one that's right in front of there. I don't know what you're doing with that because in your red lines, you didn't even include that.

Attachment 16 348
349 of 654
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

As for the parking space retaining wall that's jutting out, I'd like to see that pulled back further to catch up to the driveway retaining wall if that driveway is to be the applicant's only availability for accessing his property, which that's a second conversation, which I'll touch on.

But I'd like to see that wall leave as much availability in the right of way and come back over to where the fire hydrant is. And then it can catch up just like it would a neighboring property as a stem wall. But we're going to try to use the space to make the access for that parking space as accessible as possible and make the right of way width as available for the fire safety and public safety components. That's what's not meeting the objective for me.

As far as the land use elements that are within the CDP findings, I agree with some of the commentary on policy 2.1 and policy 2.8, right? Let me just minimize scale, bulk, new construction and renovation required for development. I'm challenged with it because as the public brought forward, the height of this exceeds the top of the topography on the site significantly.

Now, the board has heard two other projects that are on the other side of this hill. This board has approved both of them, right? Let that sink in. We've approved both of them. This board is not trying to deter this applicant from gaining a reasonable development on the site. Where I find inconsistency and lack of good faith is that from hearing one to hearing two, we've discussed bulk and mass significantly, but our bulk and mass got higher. Our floor heights got higher in drawings.

I don't know how that happened. And generally, as we do projects in general, when applicants go the wrong way, they get denied. They go the right way because they're trying to do the right thing for the community. I want to see that happen. I'm still giving that availability to this applicant because the right thing can happen. All right.

As I did an analysis on the four lots that we've seen of recent, Mr. [inaudible 01:06:31] spoke of his at five ... His top of the topography on his lot was 513. The top of his roof's at 513. The one next door at Ed Riahi's house, top of his lot was 520. Top of his development for bulk and mass was 521.

So he's within a foot. And yes, he compromised in this process, right? We asked him to bring down eight feet of his initial development, and he did it, and he got an approval from this board.

Where I'm looking at your lot for here, we're at highest point on the lot is 502, yet, we're standing up 13 higher feet, or sorry, it was nine. Now we're 11 feet higher or 12. I don't know. Sorry. I'm getting long in the words. But that's what's driving the mass. So when I go back into our LCP and we're looking at our hillside guidelines, Horst, you described the project as two floating masses. You opened up with it.

They're two floating ... I wrote it down.

Horst Noppenberger:

Pavillions.

Louis Weil:

They're two floating pavilions above the topography is what you meant. And when I go to hillside guidelines, it's pretty clear. Floating above is no. Built into the hillside, grading. Balanced terrace is a yes.

I can't get any more objective than that. No on floating, yes on built into the hillside.

And that's what got the approvals done for the other two is because they carved in. That was guideline five. Guideline two is this, where we're standing down at the street looking up at a massive bulk and structure. We're talking 52 feet. Now, we will make exceptions, and we have, and we do, but this is a very clear no.

Attachment 16 349
350 of 654
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

Whereas kind of terraced and built in is a yes. Same thing. Building stuck up in the air, in the air, floating as described by the architect of the project. No. I don't know how to get any more objective than that when it comes to defining quantitative things that relate to our land use elements and define the coastal development permit.

So for those reasons, I can't support it. I'd want to support a project here. There is a buildable site on this project, but I need more compromise to get us there, and the topography needs to be balanced in nature. I also take an issue with the staircases.

The staircases are windy and extensive, and the one on the right side is over 100 feet long that really disrupts the natural topography of the flow of the site. Now, I'd like to see that be more... give it some more shape, be it tucked into the house so that landscaping can be provided more in the side yard setback to provide that relief and meet that natural topography look and feel as described by the CDP.

There's other things I wish we could just work on and work together, but the good faith components are going the wrong way. And for me, that's what I've got to hold onto.

Thomas Gibbs:

Before I turn over to MJ, I think thatMJ Coveny:

I'm good. I'll be finished. I'm going to wrap it up with me. Do I give my comments or no? Thomas Gibbs:

Yeah, I just want to amplify on one thing he said and then the floor is yours.

MJ Coveny:

You want to amplify?
Thomas Gibbs:

Yeah. The simply put, I think to meet the requirements for the REP is that the driveway begin at the property line where the potential street rating may extend to. I think that is what's necessary to comply with the code and with the direction given by city council. MJ, go.

MJ Coveny:

That's good. I was going to say that.

Thomas Gibbs:

I read your bio.

MJ Coveny:

I did. I had it all worked out. You see why I let Louis go before me. Thank you, Louis. You took the words right out of my mouth. I concur with my colleagues, Board Member Weil and Chair Gibbs, especially with the CDP number five and number six. I think that the mass and scale, we requested that that be looked at and reconfigured in some way to help that not appear so out of character for the neighborhood.

A cantilever of dining rooms over the street are not in keeping with the neighborhood. So that's number six and number five. And then as far as the public parking space, I disagree with Ms. Gannon here Attachment 16 350
351 of 654
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

regarding no space. It's essential to have one in this. Especially at a lot that large and in an area that is so tight and encumbered with limited parking, it would be unacceptable. So to not be redundant, I concur.

And that's my comments.

Thomas Gibbs:

Okay. So the question is, do we do a continuance or a denial? Before we address whether the grounds for a third hearing are present, do you want a continuance? Patrick Donegan:

I think we deserve a continuance.

Thomas Gibbs:

Oh, I'm not saying you're not going to get one, but I... No. Horst, on thePatrick Donegan:

Correct.

Thomas Gibbs:

Yeah. Listen to me.

Patrick Donegan:

If you guys want a continuanceHorst Noppenberger:

We want a continuance.

Thomas Gibbs:

Okay. That's all I'm asking because I don't want to debate it if you don't want a continuance. All right. I think... Yeah. The last time on the other project... Okay. We're good. All right. I think that there's adequate grounds for a continuance in this case. I think there were good faith steps toward improving the plans, but I think even more importantly than the good faith and the requirement and the entitlement to a third, we had a major hearing on Tuesday that gave direction.

It's unclear fully in my mind what the nature and extent of the direction is, but I think it's important that... And this is a request to the applicant and to David Dorneus who's not here. It gives an opportunity to maybe make a better project. I think you can design potentially with the grade, and I'm taking you at your word, Horst, that the grade's not going to be a problem if you start the driveway at the property line, but I think you can design that into the project.

Secondly, I feel strongly the criteria five still applies. I feel less strongly on six, although I haven't ruled it out, but I think you can do a lot toward dealing with, I think, the well-stated objections that were raised by Board Member Weil. So with that, how long continuance? Let's see. Do you want the next date. What do you want? Jessa Gannon:

Attachment 16 351
352 of 654
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

Are we allowed to make comments real quick?
Thomas Gibbs:

Oh, sure. Absolutely. I don't mean to let anybody off.

Horst Noppenberger:

Yeah. We'd like the next date.

Jessa Gannon:

Of course. If you do decide to come back, which it sounds like you do, can you please mitigate the privacy towards Ms. Whiten's?
Horst Noppenberger:

Yes.

Thomas Gibbs:

I am terribly troubled.

Horst Noppenberger:

I did forget to mention that we did reduce the glazing by 20%. Ind in other areas, we put perforate swings.

Jessa Gannon:

But I'm talking about plants. I'm talking about landscaping.

Thomas Gibbs:

You can look right into her backyard through all these windows.

Horst Noppenberger:

Sure. Of course. Yeah. And TomThomas Gibbs:

That's a request. It's not a requirement. That is aHorst Noppenberger:

Correct. Tom, to your point, it's very easy to come backJessa Gannon:

It is a request, yes.

Horst Noppenberger:
... with a revised driveway plan that reflects no [inaudible 01:14:30] in the right of way.

Attachment 16 352
353 of 654
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

Thomas Gibbs:

Okay. I'm just telling you that was the problem.

Horst Noppenberger:

I didn't anticipate that that was going to be an issue because it just seems so minor.

Patrick Donegan:

Mr. Chair, I believe Bill may have some dates.

Thomas Gibbs:

Yeah, let's get to the date. All right. Go ahead.

Bill Rodrigues:

All right. So your date options, looking at my calendar is going to be October 9th or November 13th, I believe it is.

Thomas Gibbs:

What's on the 9th so far? Is it busy?
Bill Rodrigues:

The 9th has penciled in about 10 other items.

Thomas Gibbs:

What's the next day?
Bill Rodrigues:

Then, you're looking at 11/13.

Thomas Gibbs:

Actually, I don'tLouis Weil:
[inaudible 01:15:03].

Thomas Gibbs:

What?
Bill Rodrigues:

It'll be here soon.

Louis Weil:

It'll be here quick. November [inaudible 01:15:07].

Attachment 16 353
354 of 654
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

Thomas Gibbs:

Yeah, let's do November because this is always going to have a lot of people. We already got a pretty busy schedule on the other days. So November what?
Louis Weil:
13th.

Thomas Gibbs:

Okay. I make the motion that item 5.8 for 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive Lot A be set for November 13, 2025 board meeting. Do I have a second?
MJ Coveny:

Second that.

Thomas Gibbs:

Okay. Call the roll.

Speaker 20:

Board Member Bauta?
Imer Bauta:

Yes.

Speaker 20:

Board Member Coveny?
MJ Coveny:

Yes.

Speaker 20:

Board Member Weil?
Louis Weil:

Yes.

Speaker 20:

Chair Pro Tem Gannon?
Jessa Gannon:

Yes.

Speaker 20:

Chair Gibbs?
Attachment 16 354
355 of 654
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

Thomas Gibbs:

Yes.

Speaker 20:

Project has been continued to November 13th.

Thomas Gibbs:

Okay. Thank you, everybody. You want to wait till they leave? [inaudible 01:16:09] Attachment 16 355
356 of 654

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT
November 13, 2025
Agenda Item No. 5.10
Item: Coastal Development Permit 24-2588
Design Review 24-2586
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 24-2588 (Attachment 1) approving Coastal Development Permit 24-2588 and Design Review 24-2586 and find 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 17 356
357 of 654
CDP 24-2588, DR 24-2586
November 13, 2025

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The Applicant, Horst Noppenberger, Architect, is requesting approval of Design Review 24-2586 and Coastal Development Permit 24-2588 for construction of a single-family dwelling with an attached two-car garage, vehicular access, elevated decks, spa, water feature, grading, retaining walls, and landscaping within the coastal zone (the “Project”) at 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive (the “Property”), which is the result of an SB 9 lot split. Staff has included a proposed resolution of approval as Attachment 1.

Previously, on February 27, 2025, the project initially appeared on the Design Review Board’s agenda.

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 Board conducted a public hearing, reviewed and considered the proposed project, provided direction to the Applicant regarding design articulation, lighting, spa location, and privacy, and continued the project to the August 14, 2025 Board meeting.

On August 12, 2025, the City Council considered an appeal of the Board’s decision on a neighboring SB 9/SB 450 project at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive, Lot B, and remanded the appealed decision back to the Board with the following direction:

A. Consider granting a Revocable Encroachment Permit for improvements in the public right-of-way, including walls, stairs, irrigation, drainage facilities, and lighting, with such improvements located closer to the Applicant’s property line to create “safe vehicular access from a ‘usable vehicular right-of-way of record’ to off-street parking facilities on the property requiring such facilities” with an expectation that the Revocable Encroachment Permit may be revoked in the future. (LBMC §

25.53.004(B); LBMC § 11.50.030.)
B. Consider a Coastal Development Permit for the revised design based on direction in Paragraph A, above, and recognition of coastal resources, including natural landforms and public views, and risk of fire hazards.

C. Disregard Design Review requirements in conflict with SB 450, for a qualifying project, based on changes in state law brought by SB 450, which became effective on January 1, 2025, and based on the City Council’s finding that the Coastal Development Permit findings and criteria adequately protect coastal resources.

The City Council’s direction on such neighboring project was informative to the Board on the instant SB 9/SB 450 project at 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive/the Property. On August 14, 2025, the Board conducted a public hearing on the proposed project at 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive and provided direction consistent with the City Council’s August 12, 2025 direction.

Since the Board’s direction on August 14, 2025 for this Property, the Applicant has eliminated proposed improvement in the public right of way that requires a revocable encroachment permit, thereby eliminating the request for the revocable encroachment permit, and has provided additional information, demonstrating the project complies with LBMC 11.50.030. This will be the third Design Review Board hearing for this project and therefore the Board must render a decision at this public hearing.

Attachment 17 357
358 of 654
CDP 24-2588, DR 24-2586
November 13, 2025

PROPERTY AERIAL PHOTO

EXISTING STREET FRONTAGE

PROPERTY INFORMATION
Land Use Designation Village Low Density (1-7 DU/AC)
Zoning Designation R-1 Residential Low Density
Attachment 17 358
359 of 654
CDP 24-2588, DR 24-2586
November 13, 2025

PROPERTY INFORMATION
Development
Standard Required 5/8/25Proposed
8/14/25
Proposed
11/4/25
Proposed Conforms
Building Site Coverage
- Maximum

35.00 %
4,327.4 SF

29.92%
3,698.25

25.88 %
3,199.8 SF
No Change
Yes
Landscaped Open
Space- Minimum

31.4 %
3,887.3 SF

35.5 %
4,392.1 SF

34.12%
4,219 SF

34.98%
4,326.1 SF Yes
Height (Above rear lot
line)
15’ 15’-0” No Change No Change Yes
Height (Lowest floor to
top of roof)
30’ 30’-0” No Change No Change Yes
Setbacks: Front
Front
Side (East)
Side (West)
Rear (Shallow Lot)
Garage 5’
House 10’
8’
16’-5”
18’-6”
20’-4”
10’-0”
8’-0”
24’-0”
18’-6”
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Driveway Slope
First 20 feet

Next 20-130 feet
Average 10%
maximum
Average 14%
maximum
- -

6.1%

10.3%
Yes
Yes
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:

Proposed Project
As discussed above, the Applicant is requesting approval of Design Review 24-2586 and Coastal Development Permit 24-2588 for construction of a single-family dwelling with an attached two-car garage, vehicular access, elevated decks, spa, water feature, grading, retaining walls, and landscaping within the coastal zone (the “Project”). The Project includes the construction of a 4,393 square-foot two-story singlefamily dwelling with an attached 525 square-foot two-car garage. Access to the garage is provided by a 127-foot-long driveway, 364 square feet of elevated decks, a 2,104-gallon spa, 2,385 gallon reflecting pond, 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. 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.

Attachment 17 359
360 of 654
CDP 24-2588, DR 24-2586
November 13, 2025

Changes Resulting in the Project
As discussed above and in the attached summary of changes document provided by the Applicant (Attachment 3), the Applicant has revised the project to eliminate the request for the revocable encroachment permit and the additional changes are summarized below1
:
• Three Palo Verde trees have been added to the front of the property.

• The previously proposed poured in place concrete retaining walls have been revised to crib wall construction and allows for planting pockets that assist with covering the wall in vegetation. • The improvements in the right of way requiring a Revocable Encroachment Permit have been eliminated. The proposed curb and paving in the public right of way are subject to a public works permit.
• The Applicant has submitted additional cut sections to provide additional information regarding the driveway profile to better illustrate how the driveway complies with the onsite slope requirements and will connect to the street should this portion of Bluebird Canyon Road be widened or fully built out with parkway improvements such as curbs and sidewalks in the future as it is complying with the adopted Public Works standard street plans.

State Housing Laws and the City’s Review Process
As the Board is aware, the State has passed numerous housing laws with the stated purpose of introducing certainty and more timely review of certain housing projects by local agencies.

In 2021, Senate Bill 9 (“SB 9”) was signed into law. Since January 1, 2022, it has required cities to allow any lot in a single-family residential zone to be: (1) split, roughly into halves, with resulting lots as small as 1,200 sf (termed an “urban lot split”); and (2) developed with a second primary dwelling unit. SB 9 required cities to approve urban lot splits and second primary dwelling unit projects ministerially (i.e., without discretionary review, conditions, or a hearing). SB 9 allowed cities to impose objective zoning, subdivision, and design standards on SB 9 projects, subject to some limitations. Notwithstanding the foregoing, SB 9 had an explicit Coastal Act savings clause:
“Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with 1 The Applicant submitted plans for an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) and relocated spa on September 24, 2025 for Zoning Plan Check. However, as communicated previously to the Applicant, that scope is not being considered at this hearing because the request was submitted to the City the same day that noticing for this public hearing had to be published, the Applicant did not pay the fees for the ADU application at the time of the request before publishing occurred, and the proposed ADU requires a variance request as it does not comply with the latest ADU Ordinance (Ordinance 1713) and the Applicant did not pay the required fees for a variance application and did not submit an application for a variance or authorize processing of a variance. Given that neither the ADU nor the variance have been properly noticed for a public hearing, the Board is not authorized by law to discuss the ADU during this public hearing.

Attachment 17 360
361 of 654
CDP 24-2588, DR 24-2586
November 13, 2025

Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code), except that the local agency shall not be required to hold public hearings for Coastal Development Permit applications for a housing development pursuant to this section.”
In 2024, Senate Bill 450 (“SB 450”) was signed into law. Since January 1, 2025, cities no longer have authority to:
• Impose standards on second primary dwelling units “that do not apply uniformly to development within the underlying zone” … that is, unless the SB 9/SB 450-specific standards “are more permissive.”2
• Impose standards on urban lot splits that are “not related to the design or to improvements of a parcel.”3
Just like SB 9, SB 450 does not modify the City’s authority under its certified LCP pursuant to the California Coastal Act4 and the City may continue to require a CDP for an urban lot split and a two unit development project, except for a JADU that is part of a two unit development project.

Here, the vacant lot on which this Project is proposed is the result of an SB 9 lot split. In light of the City’s effort to harmonize SB 450 and the City’s obligations and responsibilities under the Coastal Act, the City Council gave direction on a neighboring property to disregard Design Review requirements in conflict with SB 450--in light of a Coastal Development Permit’s ability to adequately protect coastal resources in the Design Review process-- and to apply objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design standards that apply uniformly to development within the underlying zone under SB 450.

City staff has gone through the exercise of identifying the objective findings and criteria within Design Review for the Board’s consideration below. Further, in light of the City Council direction to consider protection of coastal resources through the Coastal Development Permit process, City staff has included a Coastal Development Permit analysis of the full findings and criteria for the Board’s consideration below.

ENTITLEMENTS: This project is subject to the following entitlements: coastal development permit and design review.

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 2 Gov. Code § 65852.21, subd. (b)(3).
3 Gov. Code § 6411.7, subd. (c)(1).
4 Gov. Code §§ 65852.21(l) [two-unit projects], 66411.7(o)[urban lot splits] both include the Coastal Act protections:
“Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code), except that the local agency shall not be required to hold public hearings for coastal development permit applications for a housing development pursuant to this section.”
Attachment 17 361
362 of 654
CDP 24-2588, DR 24-2586
November 13, 2025

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.

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.

Attachment 17 362
363 of 654
CDP 24-2588, DR 24-2586
November 13, 2025

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.

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 public 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, 7.3 and 10.2
LU Policy 2.1 states:
“Maintain the diversity and uniqueness of individual neighborhoods.

Development standards and Design Review guidelines shall minimize the scale and bulk of new construction and/or renovation and require development to be compatible with the surrounding residences. Goal: Preserve, enhance and Attachment 17 363
364 of 654
CDP 24-2588, DR 24-2586
November 13, 2025

respect the unique character and identity of Laguna’s residential neighborhoods.”
LU Policy 2.8 states:
“Require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated with natural topographic features, minimize significant alteration of natural topography and/or other significant onsite resources, and protect public views as specified in the Design Guidelines and the Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document. Goal: Preserve, enhance and respect the unique character and identity of Laguna’s residential neighborhoods.”
LU Policies 7.3 and 10.2 require the following:
“Design and site new development to protect natural and environmentally sensitive resources, such as areas of unique scenic quality, public views, and visual compatibility with surrounding uses and to minimize natural landform alterations. GOAL: Protect, preserve, and enhance the community’s natural resources and ensure that proposals for new development, subdivisions, and major remodels are sufficiently evaluated to protect public health and safety and natural resources.”
The proposed project would alter and obscure the entire property to a point that the natural profile of the site would be developed and obscured. The Bluebird Canyon area is an enclave of predominantly hillside and ridgeline development between two open space canyon areas that is largely surrounded by additional higher ridgeline and hillside development. Open Space and Conservation Element Policy 13-B requires that development proposals, including additions and alterations to existing buildings, incorporate protection of the natural profile of ridgelines as visual resources. The proposed Project is sited furthest away from the street on the top of the hill, impacting the profile of the ridgeline. However, this ridgeline contains other single-family homes of various sizes and heights, and the property is not in a environmentally sensitive area. In addition, there are no public viewpoints in close proximity to the project site, it could be argued that the project complies with these Land Use Policies.

Coastal Land Use Plan Technical Appendix Section 30251 The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural landforms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and where feasible to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. New development in highly scenic areas ... shall be subordinate to the character of its setting.

The long driveway extending up the hill and siting of the structure either atop or close to the top of the ridgeline results in grading and alteration of the natural landform. However, designing a house that is built into the side of hill and follows the existing grade would result in additional alteration of the site, requiring more grading. The project does not block views towards the ocean and scenic coastal areas. The surrounding single-family home area is not visually degraded by a new singlefamily home on this vacant lot that does not contain coastal scenic resources.

Attachment 17 364
365 of 654
CDP 24-2588, DR 24-2586
November 13, 2025

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
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.

Design Review
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. Based on the above discussion regarding SB 450, City Council direction, and the City’s attempt to harmonize its obligations under the Coastal Act while effectuating the goals and intent of SB 450, the following objective standards in the following findings are considered in relation to the proposed development:

First, as explained above, the Project is consistent with the following objective standards: building site coverage, landscaped open space, height (above rear lot line), heigh (lowest floor to top of roof), setbacks (front, east, west, and rear) and driveway slope.

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

Attachment 17 365
366 of 654
CDP 24-2588, DR 24-2586
November 13, 2025

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

No handicapped access is required.

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

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

LU Element (LUE) Policy 2.1 Maintain the diversity and uniqueness of individual neighborhoods. Development standards and design review guidelines shall minimize the scale and bulk of new construction and/or renovation and require development to be compatible with the 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.

3. Landscaping: Landscaping shall be incorporated as an integrated part of the structure’s design and relate harmoniously to neighborhood and community landscaping themes. View equity Attachment 17 366
367 of 654
CDP 24-2588, DR 24-2586
November 13, 2025

shall be an important consideration in the landscape design. The relevant landscaping guidelines contained in the City’s “Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document” should be incorporated, as appropriate, in the design and planned maintenance of proposed landscaping.

Yes, landscaping is incorporated into the Project.

4. Lighting and Glare: Adequate lighting for individual and public safety shall be provided in a manner which does not significantly impact neighboring properties. Reflective materials and appurtenances that cause glare or a negative visual impact (e.g., skylights, white rock roofs, high-gloss ceramic tile roofs, reflective glass, etc.) should be avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance in those locations where those surfaces are visible from neighboring properties.

Adequate lighting for individual and public safety is provided.

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 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:

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

Attachment 17 367
368 of 654
CDP 24-2588, DR 24-2586
November 13, 2025

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. On August 14, 2025, the Board reviewed the project and then continued it again to this November 13, 2025 Design Review Board meeting.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

No public commentary has been submitted and received since the hearing on August 14, 2025 to the time of writing this report.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1 – Resolution 24-2588
Attachment 2 – Project Plans
Attachment 3 – Summary of Changes
Attachment 4 – August 12, 2025 City Council Meeting Minutes for 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive Appeal Attachment 17 368
369 of 654
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
November 10, 2025
Design Review Board, City of Laguna Beach
505 Forest Avenue
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
RE: 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive and 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive, Agenda Items 5.10 and 5.11 on November 13, 2025
Dear Chair and Members of the Design Review Board,
The “knoll” with street frontage on Morningside Drive and Bluebird Canyon Drive still under development plans is a great concern to our neighborhood. We have submitted letters previously which are still relevant to these applications.

We still have concerns about the applications meeting objective standards set out in our city’s Local Coastal Plan. Although the lots are the result of a SB 9 split the development the development must still meet our city’s objective Land Use Element policy items that are part of the Local Coastal Plan.

Specifically:

Land Use Element Policy 2.1 minimize the scale and bulk of new construction and/or renovation to be compatible with the surrounding residences.

Land Use Element Policy 2.8 require building design and siting to be compatible with and integrated with the natural topographic features, minimize significant alteration of natural topography.

Please deny these projects as they are presented.

Thank you for listening to 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 Upper Bluebird Canyon mosaic.

Sincerely,
Mary Fegraus
Clark Fegraus
Mary Fegraus and Clark Fegraus
Attachment 18 369
370 of 654
Rosanne Beam
Design Review Board
[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 Chair and DRB Members,
On Thursday, you will be faced with a decision to approve or disapprove the proposed buildings at 1550 and 1560 Bluebird Canyon. I am requesting that both proposals be denied.

From the street, both of these buildings will look like a 5-story office building! They have been plunked down on top of the knoll as opposed to being tiered down the slope as most of the other homes in the neighborhood are.

Neither of these buildings meet the following criteria:
• Laguna Beach LU Element Policy 2.1: “…minimize the scale and bulk of new construction and/or renovation require development to be compatible with the surrounding residences”;
• Laguna Beach LU Element Policy 2.8: “Require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated with the natural topographic features, minimize significant alteration of natural topography...”
Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Rosanne Beam
Attachment 18 370
371 of 654
November 11, 2015
Design Review Board
City of Laguna Beach
505 Forest Avenue
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
RE: Item 5.10, 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive, Lot A and Item 5.11, 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive, Lot B for 11.13.2025 review.

Dear Chair & Members of the Design Review Board,
The original Bluebird Canyon knoll lot was carved up, taking advantage of CA’s SB9 law, into two smaller lots with two massive, over-developed designs presented to you again tonight. The designs have not been reduced in scale & bulk for new construction to be compatible to neighboring residences. The designs sit on top of the ridgeline of the knoll instead of being nestled into the natural topography of the land. I am asking you again to return the projects back to the applicant(s) for redesign, keeping in mind past DRB’s recommendations & City Council & neighborhood suggestions.

Thank you for your time & consideration.

Pamela Adams
Morningside Drive
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
Attachment 18 371
372 of 654
Attachment 18 372
373 of 654
Attachment 18 373
374 of 654
11/13/25
Re: DRB Agenda Items 5.10 and 5.11 | 1550 & 1560 Bluebird Canyon Dr.

To: Chair Gibbs and DRB members Bauta, Coveny, Gannon and Weil:

By law - as pointed out by the City Attorney at the August 12, 2025 City Council hearing - under terms of the California Coastal Act, SB 9 and SB 450 projects must be in conformance with objective requirements of our certified Local Coastal Plan. These include the Land Use Policies and Title 25 of Laguna’s Municipal Code.

To approve projects, the LCP provides Findings, Policies and Design Review Criteria requiring that projects minimize landform alterations and that development be compatible - including structural height, mass, size and scale - with surrounding areas.

Summary of applicable policies and review criteria:

CDP Finding #1: conformance with the applicable CDP review criteria #5 “:…minimize alterations of natural landforms….” and #6: “…proposed development will be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas….” Objective Design Review standards in LBMC 25.05.040(H) include: Neighborhood Compatibility including structural height, mass, scale and size and Privacy including avoiding location of entertainment rooms of proposed house facing bedrooms of adjacent houses.

Land Use Policies: Policies 2.1, 2.8, 7.3 and 10.2. In addition to their incompatibility with the immediate surrounding area due to objective measurements of size, height, bulk and alteration of landforms, these projects are visible from Morningside Drive, throughout upper Bluebird Canyon, portions of lower Bluebird Canyon and the public trail at Arch Beach Heights.

Policy 2.1: “…shall minimize scale and bulk of new construction…and require development to be compatible with the surrounding residences.

Policy 2.8: “Require building design and siting to be...integrated with natural topographic features, minimize significant alteration of topography….”

OBJECTIVE METRICS
The chart titled Objective Metrics provides a basis to make Findings and Design Review requirements.

Comparison to 1536 Morningside illustrates objective and measurable differences such that the same findings cannot be made for 1550 and 1560 as were made to approve 1536.

The 3 projects share similar metrics for height and soil export. Other metrics are measurably different.

Measurable differences among the 3 projects:

1. Site area graded: approximately 90% and 95% of the 2 Bluebird project sites are graded compared to 65% of the 1536 Morningside site.

2. Lot coverage metrics: 1536 has 18% coverage compared to the 2 Bluebird projects with 26% and 34%.

3. House and lot size: The 1536 Morningside house is about equal to 1560 (Lot B) but on a lot that is 40% larger.

The 1536 Morningside project is on a lot about 10% larger than 1550 with a house about 45% smaller than 1550.

Attachment 18 374
375 of 654
Specifics about verticality metrics: There are no similar vertical building or retaining wall conditions at the street level in the surrounding area that are comparable to #4-7 following:

4. Maximum building height & distance to height from street:

While the 3 houses are approximately the same maximum height as measured from the street (between 48-51 feet - the height of a 5 story building), the highest point of the 2 Bluebird projects is about 3 times closer to the street than 1536 Morningside

5. Distance of closest building wall to the street & wall height:
1550 Bluebird : at the minimum 10’ front yard setback and 20’ from the street, the roof of the 1st floor is 37’ above the street (nearly 4 stories tall)
1560 Bluebird: at the minimum 10’ front yard setback and 22’ from the street, the roof eave of the garage is about 28' above the public parking space (nearly 3 stories tall)

6. Retaining walls and stairs are nearly continuous across 2/3 of the frontage of the 2 adjacent lots.

Also contributing to the verticality are the retaining walls on the uphill side of the 2 driveways. These retaining walls are between 2’-19’ tall at 1550 and between 6'-15’ tall at 1560. Additionally, 3.5 foot high guardrails are required on top of the retaining walls.

To compare, 1536 has a 12’ retaining wall with planting pockets perpendicular to the street and does not have a driveway.

7. Garages: The staff report states that the perpendicular garage orientation is the same on all 3 projects. More relevant is a comparison of the finish floor elevations. At 15 and 17 feet above the street, the elevated Bluebird garages and driveways contribute to the verticality at street level. To compare, the 1536 garage finish floor elevation is 4’ above the street.

We recognize this is a challenging situation for the City. Mr Dynares has a right to build on his properties. At previous meetings DRB recommended changes to the projects in order that required LCP findings could be made to approve the projects. The applicant has not made a good faith effort to make any substantive (not cosmetic) changes suggested by DRB and the neighborhood. For example, a Civil Engineer has not studied terracing these projects into the landform with the garage located on a shortened driveway or a perpendicular garage at the street in order to compare these metrics with the projects as proposed. It is possible to design these properties to be compatible with the surrounding area and Bluebird Canyon.

Because the objective metrics and findings cannot be made as required by the LCP under the California Coastal Act, I respectfully request the DRB deny these projects.

Sincerely,
Susan Whitin
Bluebird Canyon Drive
Attachment 18 375
376 of 654
Attachment 18 376
377 of 654
Attachment 18 377
378 of 654
From:

Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2025 10:06 AM
To: Jung, Wendy CD <[email protected]>
Subject: 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive lot A 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive lot B [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.] Costal Development Permit 24-2588
Design Review Item 24-2586
1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive / lot A
There has been no effort in good faith to make any changes to the plan as recommended by the DRB and concerned neighbors.

Costal Development Permit 24-2510
Design Review Item 24-2509
1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive / lot B
There has been no effort in good faith to make any changes to the plan as recommended by the DRB and concerned neighbors.

Kind regards,
Eileen Slora
Bluebird Canyon Drive
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
Attachment 18 378
379 of 654
11/13/25
Re: DRB Agenda Items 5.10 and 5.11 | 1550 & 1560 Bluebird Canyon Dr.

To: Chair Gibbs and DRB members Bauta, Coveny, Gannon and Weil:

By law - as pointed out by the City Attorney at the August 12, 2025 City Council hearing - under terms of the California Coastal Act, SB 9 and SB 450 projects must be in conformance with objective requirements of our certified Local Coastal Plan. These include the Land Use Policies and Title 25 of Laguna’s Municipal Code.

To approve projects, the LCP provides Findings, Policies and Design Review Criteria requiring that projects minimize landform alterations and that development be compatible - including structural height, mass, size and scale - with surrounding areas.

Summary of applicable policies and review criteria:

CDP Finding #1: conformance with the applicable CDP review criteria #5 “:…minimize alterations of natural landforms….” and #6: “…proposed development will be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas….” Objective Design Review standards in LBMC 25.05.040(H) include: Neighborhood Compatibility including structural height, mass, scale and size and Privacy including avoiding location of entertainment rooms of proposed house facing bedrooms of adjacent houses.

Land Use Policies: Policies 2.1, 2.8, 7.3 and 10.2. In addition to their incompatibility with the immediate surrounding area due to objective measurements of size, height, bulk and alteration of landforms, these projects are visible from Morningside Drive, throughout upper Bluebird Canyon, portions of lower Bluebird Canyon and the public trail at Arch Beach Heights.

Policy 2.1: “…shall minimize scale and bulk of new construction…and require development to be compatible with the surrounding residences.

Policy 2.8: “Require building design and siting to be...integrated with natural topographic features, minimize significant alteration of topography….”

OBJECTIVE METRICS
The chart titled Objective Metrics provides a basis to make Findings and Design Review requirements.

Comparison to 1536 Morningside illustrates objective and measurable differences such that the same findings cannot be made for 1550 and 1560 as were made to approve 1536.

The 3 projects share similar metrics for height and soil export. Other metrics are measurably different.

Measurable differences among the 3 projects:

1. Site area graded: approximately 90% and 95% of the 2 Bluebird project sites are graded compared to 65% of the 1536 Morningside site.

2. Lot coverage metrics: 1536 has 18% coverage compared to the 2 Bluebird projects with 26% and 34%.

3. House and lot size: The 1536 Morningside house is about equal to 1560 (Lot B) but on a lot that is 40% larger.

The 1536 Morningside project is on a lot about 10% larger than 1550 with a house about 45% smaller than 1550.

Attachment 18 379
380 of 654
Specifics about verticality metrics: There are no similar vertical building or retaining wall conditions at the street level in the surrounding area that are comparable to #4-7 following:

4. Maximum building height & distance to height from street:

While the 3 houses are approximately the same maximum height as measured from the street (between 48-51 feet - the height of a 5 story building), the highest point of the 2 Bluebird projects is about 3 times closer to the street than 1536 Morningside

5. Distance of closest building wall to the street & wall height:
1550 Bluebird : at the minimum 10’ front yard setback and 20’ from the street, the roof of the 1st floor is 37’ above the street (nearly 4 stories tall)
1560 Bluebird: at the minimum 10’ front yard setback and 22’ from the street, the roof eave of the garage is about 28' above the public parking space (nearly 3 stories tall)

6. Retaining walls and stairs are nearly continuous across 2/3 of the frontage of the 2 adjacent lots.

Also contributing to the verticality are the retaining walls on the uphill side of the 2 driveways. These retaining walls are between 2’-19’ tall at 1550 and between 6'-15’ tall at 1560. Additionally, 3.5 foot high guardrails are required on top of the retaining walls.

To compare, 1536 has a 12’ retaining wall with planting pockets perpendicular to the street and does not have a driveway.

7. Garages: The staff report states that the perpendicular garage orientation is the same on all 3 projects. More relevant is a comparison of the finish floor elevations. At 15 and 17 feet above the street, the elevated Bluebird garages and driveways contribute to the verticality at street level. To compare, the 1536 garage finish floor elevation is 4’ above the street.

We recognize this is a challenging situation for the City. Mr Dynares has a right to build on his properties. At previous meetings DRB recommended changes to the projects in order that required LCP findings could be made to approve the projects. The applicant has not made a good faith effort to make any substantive (not cosmetic) changes suggested by DRB and the neighborhood. For example, a Civil Engineer has not studied terracing these projects into the landform with the garage located on a shortened driveway or a perpendicular garage at the street in order to compare these metrics with the projects as proposed. It is possible to design these properties to be compatible with the surrounding area and Bluebird Canyon.

Because the objective metrics and findings cannot be made as required by the LCP under the California Coastal Act, I respectfully request the DRB deny these projects.

Sincerely,
Susan Whitin
Bluebird Canyon Drive
Attachment 18 380
381 of 654
Attachment 18 381
382 of 654
Attachment 18 382
383 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 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 CSN/A 09.20.2025
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 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 437.83 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 SECTIONS TOTAL REMODEL 4,393.24 SF 437.83 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 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 109 9 PROPOSED FIXTURE COUNT LANDSCAPE LIGHTING FIXTURE TYPE LUMENS QUANTITY COMMENTS TOTAL 33 Down Light 300 lm 6 63 Wall Down Light 150 lm 12 Path Light 125 lm 20 SPJ Lighting SPJ-BJ3 BCAE TOTAL EXTERIOR + LANDSCAPE 72 D Step Light 125 lm 25 LANSCAPED OPEN SPACE Y IRRIGATED AREA N/A 34.98% = 4,326.1 SF 4,374.0 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 09.22.2025 SPJ Lighting SPJ-104-RL - - - - - - - - - - - - CUT & FILL EXHIBIT ------ ------- 4,393.24 SF 437.83 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 CS COVER SHEET C-4 EROSION CONTROL PLAN C-5 CONSTRUCTION STAGING PLAN AM&M: DUDEK 38 NORTH MARENGO AVENUE PASADENA, CA 91101 T:626.204.9800 FD-SAP FIRE DEPARTMENT SITE ACCESS PLANDaniel Latham Digitally signed by Daniel Latham DN: C=US, [email protected], CN=Daniel Latham Date: 2025.11.05 11:01:28-08'00'
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 YOF 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 AL ICENSED LAND SURVEYO VIKTOR P.

RMEUM
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 386 of 654
495.60' NG
501.60' T. FENCE
481.00' NG 487.00' T. FENCE
498.50
FS
498.00
FS
497.00
FS
GRV-1
GRV-1
GRV-1
GRV-1
GRV-1
GRV-1
496.00
495.00 FS
FS
499.00
FS
494.00
FS
GRV-1
493.00
FS
492.00
FS
491.00
FS
489.00
FS
491.50
FS
VEG
VEG
1 17
7 2
STN-2
492.00 FS
14 SPA
32 5'-6"

BLUEBIRD CANYON DRIVE
LOT A

BUILDING FOOTPRINT
480.00
FS
482.58 FS
UP
UP
Sewer manhole TBM Rim elev=458.08
471.00' FS
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
505.90' 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
28'-0"
GRV-1 501.10 FS
491.50
FS
VEG
VEG
VEG
VEG
VEG
VEG
VEG
STN-2
12 11
8 23
16 12
15 TB 55
15 15
17 GRV-1
GRV-1
GRV-1
1 58
22 13
1 2
16'-5"
SYSB
A
A4.1
A
A4.1
B
A4.1
B
A4.1
8'-0"
SYSB
18'-6" RYSB
8'-0"
SYSB
16'-5"
SYSB
59'-2"
10'-0" FYSB
10'-0" FYSB 43'-4" 8'-6" 23'-0"
16'-6"
29'-1"
3 7
9'-1" 30'-8"
39'-10" 74'-10"
17 STN-2
492.00 FS
28 42
28 1
2 2
1 24'-10"
24 17'-4" GARAGE TO PL
10'-0" ROOF TO PL
S
A3.1
N
A3.2
E
A3.3
W
A3.3
14 24
497.50 T.FENCE
TB 6'-1" 2'-11" 12'-8" 21'-8" 6'-6" 2'-0" 20'-0" 3'-0"
479.24' FS
492.00 FS
482.00' TW
468.00' FS
481.00' TW
467.50' FS
2:1 SLOPE
STN-2
2:1 SLOPE
22 44
43 12'-0"
UP
479.50 FS
UP UP
STN-2
STN-2
484.50 FS
488.00 FS
STN-2
16'-5" SYSB
492.00 FS
STN-2
STN-2
UP
467.50 FS
UP
481.50 FS
483.30 FS
STN-2
STN-2
STN-2

ADJACENT PROPERTY (LOT B

PROJECT ) BY OTHERS
UP
UP
2'-6"
18'-6" RYSB
UP

EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT TO REMAIN
38'-0"
48'-2"
6" CURB 473.5' T.C.
6" CURB 472.5' T.C.
6" CURB
467.32' FS
471.5' T.C.
466.12' 46'-10" 24'-3"
27'-7"
28'-6"
WTR
491.50' TW
47 17
2 55
2 14
1 55
2 1
17 18
18 500.55 FS
500.00 FS
499.50
FS
15 RESERVED AREA
(NO GRADING)

RESERVED AREA
(NO GRADING)

LOCATION OF NEW EDISON POLE

LOCATION OF NEW EDISON POLE
51 51
51 JACUZZI ALTERNATE

LOCATION

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

INTERIOR GAS BURNING FIREPLACE
42 43
GUARDRAIL - 42" ABV. FS
44 SITE WALL OR FENCE - MAX ABV. E.G. 4' IN FYSB, 6' IN SYSB 45 COLUMN

CLERESTORY WINDOW
46 MECH/STORAGE CLOSET
47 EXISTING UTILITY POLE TO BE REMOVED
48 49
50 OPEN TO BELOW

FURNITURE 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
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 - SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN

HABITABLE AREA / WALL

CABINETRY/BUILT-IN FEATURE

SOFTSCAPE AREA - REFER TO

LANDSCAPE PLAN

PROJECTION ABV/BYD/BLW

PROPERTY LINE

SETBACK

LOW WALL / HARDSCAPE
51 NON-STRUCTURAL 6" CURB
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 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

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

06.20.2025

SITE PLAN
Project North
387 of 654
56275627 41272756 2750240127256 30 AA4.1 AA4.1 BA4.1 BA4.1 SA3.1 NA3.2 EA3.3 WA3.3 WD-2 DECK 503.00' FS TPO GLS-1 SLOPES DNROOF 514.33' T SKLT 514.33' T SKLT 514.16' T SKLT514.16' T SKLT 515.00' TR 515.00' TR 511.75' TR 511.75' TR 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 30'-4" 81'-5" 68'-6" 6'-8" 10'-9" 16'-6" 4'-8" 47'-2" 35'-2"38'-0" 83'-6"
16'-4" 13'-6" 53'-8" 8'-0" 15'-9" 11'-6"
28'-4" 13'-0"
69'-2"
33'-0" 21 21 56 2 VEG 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) 23456789101214151617181920212223242526272829303132 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 3334 SKYLIGHT (ABV/ BLW/ BYD AS OCCURS) , INSTALL NIGHT SHADES 35363738 CASEWORK 394041 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 COLUMN CLERESTORY WINDOW 46 MECH/STORAGE CLOSET 47 EXISTING UTILITY POLE TO BE REMOVED 484950 OPEN TO BELOW FURNITURE 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 K Y O T O H O U S E 1550 BLUEBIRD CANYON DRIVE, LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 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 - SEE LANDSCAPE PLANHABITABLE AREA / WALL CABINETRY/BUILT-IN FEATURE SOFTSCAPE AREA - REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLAN PROJECTION ABV/BYD/BLW PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LOW WALL / HARDSCAPE 51 NON-STRUCTURAL 6" CURB 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 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 KEYNOTES A1.214" = 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 4316228 2 15 42 WA3.3 MECH 14 480.50' FS UP UP LAUNDRY 481.50' FF 8'-8" 3RD PARKING 18'-0" PARKING STALL 28'-0" TURNAROUND AREA 481.00' FS 479.24' FS 481.50' FF 22 1 12 34'-10" 31'-6" 30'-6"
31'-6"
6'-6" 2'-0" 20'-0" 3'-0" 25'-8" TURNAROUND AREA 3425 STN-2 STN-2STN-2 481.50' FF 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 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) 23456789101214151617181920212223242526272829303132 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 3334 SKYLIGHT (ABV/ BLW/ BYD AS OCCURS) , INSTALL NIGHT SHADES 35363738 CASEWORK 394041 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 COLUMN CLERESTORY WINDOW 46 MECH/STORAGE CLOSET 47 EXISTING UTILITY POLE TO BE REMOVED 484950 OPEN TO BELOW FURNITURE 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 K Y O T O H O U S E 1550 BLUEBIRD CANYON DRIVE, LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 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 - SEE LANDSCAPE PLANHABITABLE AREA / WALL CABINETRY/BUILT-IN FEATURE SOFTSCAPE AREA - REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLAN PROJECTION ABV/BYD/BLW PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LOW WALL / HARDSCAPE 51 NON-STRUCTURAL 6" CURB 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 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 KEYNOTES A2.114" = 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 GRV-1 STN-2 STN-2 STN-2 21517 49 483624535372826 2129262 453755 47 53 453715182 31 BA4.1 BA4.1 BA4.1 20 SA3.1 EA3.3 WA3.3 1 BATHROOM 492.00' FF COVERED DECK 492.00' FF 3445 1 27'-6" 58'-2" 10'-6" 13'-6" 34'-2" 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" 491.50 FS 10'-0" DN DN DN DN 8'-0" 48'-5" 28 ENTRY 492.00' FF COURTYARD 492.00' FF DN 2:1 SLOPE WTR GRV-1 SLOPES DN VEG 18'-6" RYSB 18'-6" RYSB 20 3915 NA3.2 ON GRADE JACUZZI WTR 32 37'-11" 9'-0" STN-2 STN-2 STN-2 STN-2 STN-2 STN-2 STN-2 STN-2 STN-2 STN-2 STN-2 STN-2 VEG VEG VEG VEG VEG GRV-1 GRV-1 GRV-1 GRV-1 GRV-1 GRV-1 STN-2 VEG 471755 JACUZZI ALTERNATE LOCATION 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) 23456789101214151617181920212223242526272829303132 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 3334 SKYLIGHT (ABV/ BLW/ BYD AS OCCURS) , INSTALL NIGHT SHADES 35363738 CASEWORK 394041 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 COLUMN CLERESTORY WINDOW 46 MECH/STORAGE CLOSET 47 EXISTING UTILITY POLE TO BE REMOVED 484950 OPEN TO BELOW FURNITURE 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 K Y O T O H O U S E 1550 BLUEBIRD CANYON DRIVE, LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 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 - SEE LANDSCAPE PLANHABITABLE AREA / WALL CABINETRY/BUILT-IN FEATURE SOFTSCAPE AREA - REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLAN PROJECTION ABV/BYD/BLW PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LOW WALL / HARDSCAPE 51 NON-STRUCTURAL 6" CURB 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 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 KEYNOTES A2.214" = 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 MASTER BATH 503.50' FF WALK-IN CLOSET 503.50' FF WALK-IN CLOSET 503.50' FF HALLWAY 503.00' FF OFFICE 503.00' FF DECK 503.00' FS 2137 333845 4526 26 34 48263549 484940 ABV 6" 6" 2 375022 3056 30 26 AA4.1 AA4.1 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" 2'-6" 30'-4" 5'-6" 20'-9" 4'-1" GREEN ROOF 503.00' FS WD-2 WD-2 WD-2 STN-2 STN-2 STN-2 STN-2 STN-2 VEG VEG 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) 23456789101214151617181920212223242526272829303132 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 3334 SKYLIGHT (ABV/ BLW/ BYD AS OCCURS) , INSTALL NIGHT SHADES 35363738 CASEWORK 394041 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 COLUMN CLERESTORY WINDOW 46 MECH/STORAGE CLOSET 47 EXISTING UTILITY POLE TO BE REMOVED 484950 OPEN TO BELOW FURNITURE 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 K Y O T O H O U S E 1550 BLUEBIRD CANYON DRIVE, LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 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 - SEE LANDSCAPE PLANHABITABLE AREA / WALL CABINETRY/BUILT-IN FEATURE SOFTSCAPE AREA - REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLAN PROJECTION ABV/BYD/BLW PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LOW WALL / HARDSCAPE 51 NON-STRUCTURAL 6" CURB 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 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 KEYNOTES A2.314" = 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 BA4.1 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" BA4.1 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-1STUC STN-2 142 @ PLANE A 48 GLS-1 26 249499 1749 17 9 PLANE A 481.00' FF 1'-0" 16'-5" RYSB WD-3 WD-1 WD-1 A3.114" = 1'-0" 09.22.2025 NORTH ELEVATION 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 2" DIA. MAX. PER LANDSCAPE PLAN 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 KEYNOTES MATERIALS LEGEND 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 GATE, - MAX 4' IN FYSB, MAX 6' IN SYSB 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 NOT USED FURNITURE PER INTERIOR DESIGNER PHOTOVOLTAIC PANELS - SUN POWER E-18/225 MODEL AC UNIT IN SOUND ATTENUATED VAULT 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) 59 NON-STRUCTURAL 6" CURB 60 RESERVED AREA (FUTURE UTILITY POLE & ANCOR) 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" 09.22.2025 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" AA4.1 AA4.1 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 104925 2649489 5432 494849 54869 WD-3 CON-2 481.00' FS1'-0" 504.00' TAPERED ROOF 502.00' PLATE/FF 503.00' ROOF 514.00' PLATE 515.00' ROOF 492.00' FF 502.00' PLATE/FF 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 2102617 2728 282752109 26272828 10128 1282728 17 STRUCTURE BEYOND STRUCTURE BEYOND AA4.1 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 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) 23456789101214151617181920212223242526272829303132 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 3334 SKYLIGHT (ABV/ BLW/ BYD AS OCCURS) , INSTALL NIGHT SHADES 35363738 CASEWORK 394041 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 COLUMN CLERESTORY WINDOWS ABV. 46 MECH/STORAGE CLOSET 47 EXISTING UTILITY POLE TO BE REMOVED 484950 OPEN TO BELOW 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 1550 BLUEBIRD CANYON DRIVE, LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 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 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 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 A3.314" = 1'-0" 09.22.2025 WEST ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION 514.00' PLATE 515.00' ROOF 500.00' PLATE 502.50' FF 491.00' FF 502.00' FF/PLATE 503.00' ROOF 511.50' PLATE 512.50' ROOF 492.00' 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" 8'-0" SYSB BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOMMASTER CLOSET MASTER BATH OFFICE KITCHEN HALLWAY ENTRY 3'-6" BA4.1 2649 2 @ SECTION CUT 4 49 35 26 21 @ SECTION CUT 9 40 502.00' FF 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" AA4.1 STRUCTURE BEYOND STRUCTURE BEYOND 2 @ SECTION CUT 26 1 @ SECTION CUT 282728 17 5 52 11027 15 501.00' FF 2649 A4.114" = 1'-0" 09.22.2025 SECTION A SECTION B 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 2" DIA. MAX. PER LANDSCAPE PLAN 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 KEYNOTES MATERIALS LEGEND 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 GATE, - MAX 4' IN FYSB, MAX 6' IN SYSB 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 NOT USED FURNITURE PER INTERIOR DESIGNER PHOTOVOLTAIC PANELS - SUN POWER E-18/225 MODEL AC UNIT IN SOUND ATTENUATED VAULT 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) 59 NON-STRUCTURAL 6" CURB 60 RESERVED AREA (FUTURE UTILITY POLE & ANCOR) 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 12152924551517 2255541258162815 2915 4316228 2 15 42 WA3.3 MECH 14 480.50' FS UP UP LAUNDRY 481.50' FF 3RD PARKING 481.00' FS 479.24' FS 481.50' FF 22 1 12 3425 STN-2 STN-2STN-2 481.50' FF 1 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 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 A5.114" = 1'-0" 09.22.2025 LOWER LEVEL FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS Lower Level 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 mech mech mech mech habitable garage habitable mech garage 36.65 46.93 34.50 25.50 89.23 62.50 95.11 67.34 462.72 garage mech habitable 525.22 sf 210.92 sf 183.77 sf BUILDING TOTALS habitable 4,393.24 sf deck 437.83 sf mech 210.92 sf garage 462.72 sf HABITABLE DECK GARAGE MECHANICAL 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 GRV-1 STN-2 STN-2 STN-2 21517 49 483624535372826 2129262 453755 47 53 453715182 31 BA4.1 BA4.1 BA4.1 20 SA3.1 EA3.3 WA3.3 1 BATHROOM 492.00' FF COVERED DECK 492.00' FF 3445 1 491.50 FS DN DN DN DN 28 ENTRY 492.00' FF COURTYARD 492.00' FF DN 2:1 SLOPE WTR GRV-1 SLOPES DN VEG 20 3915 NA3.2 ON GRADE SPA WTR 32 STN-2 STN-2 STN-2 STN-2 STN-2 STN-2 STN-2 STN-2 STN-2 STN-2 STN-2 STN-2 VEG VEG VEG VEG VEG GRV-1 GRV-1 GRV-1 GRV-1 GRV-1 GRV-1 STN-2 VEG 471755 201202203 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 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 A5.214" = 1'-0" 09.22.2025 MID LEVEL FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS Mid Level 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 habitable habitable 12.42 31.24 190.45 88.66 155.52 116.65 576.88 13.99 87.88 habitable 3,017.63 sf 210 habitable 344.40 habitable habitable habitable habitable habitable habitable habitable 211 habitable 29.98 212 habitable 1200.72 213 habitable 174.84 BUILDING TOTALS habitable 4,393.24 sf deck 437.83 sf mech 210.92 sf garage 462.72 sf HABITABLE DECK GARAGE MECHANICAL DN 12'-5"
21'-3" 11'-7"
16'-6" 9'-3" 5'-10" 4'-4" 16'-2" 20'-8" 21'-6" 20'-10" 16'-0" 14'-0" 16'-4" 22'-7" OPEN TO BELOW MASTER SUITE 503.00' FF DN SLOPES DN SLOPES DN WD-2 STN-2 MASTER BATH 503.50' FF WALK-IN CLOSET 503.50' FF WALK-IN CLOSET 503.50' FF HALLWAY 503.00' FF OFFICE 503.00' FF DECK 503.00' FS 2137 333845 4526 26 34 48263549 484940 ABV 6" 6" 2 375022 3056 30 26 AA4.1 AA4.1 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 GREEN ROOF 503.00' FS WD-2 WD-2 WD-2 STN-2 STN-2 STN-2 STN-2 STN-2 VEG VEG 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 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 A5.314" = 1'-0" 09.22.2025 UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN CALCULATIONS Upper Level 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 habitable 217.12 155.19 65.52 190.99 89.13 129.48 336.22 443.67 habitable 1,191.84 sf habitable habitable habitable habitable deck deck deck deck 437.83 sf 309 habitable 174.84 BUILDING TOTALS habitable 4,393.24 sf deck 437.83 sf mech 210.92 sf garage 462.72 sf HABITABLE DECK GARAGE MECHANICAL 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" 27'-6" 1'-1" 9'-4" 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 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 A6.118 " = 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: 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 Maximum Elevation 123456 Base Grade Elevation* Story Pole Height from Base Grade Elevation 789101112131415161718 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 HEIGHT WITH GRAPHIC NOTE PARALLEL ALONG STRINGLINE. NEW STAKING POLE LOCATION 0.00' TR HORIZONTAL STAKE REPRESENTS CANTILEVERED ROOF OR DECK. TOP OF ROOF TOP OF CHIMNEY TOP OF WALL TOP OF DECK TRTCTWTDWV (E) EXISTING PROPOSED ROOF WATER VALVE NOTES Please stamp & sign below FD FIXED DATUM TS TOP OF STAIR 0.00' STRINGLINE & HEIGHT LEGEND TOR TOP OF GUARDRAIL TOH TOP OF HANDRAIL 503.00' TD/506.5' TRAIL STAKING PLAN 503.00' TR 511.75' TR 515.00' TR 515.00' TR 511.75' TR 514.16' TSKLT 514.33' 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 set poles due to unforeseen circumstances. In that case, please identify the story poles 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' TR 503.00' TR 503.00' TR 503.00' TR 503.00' TR 503.00' TR 503.00' TD/506.5' TRAIL 503.00' TD/506.5' TRAIL 514.33' TSKLT 514.16' TSKLT GARAGE (VARIES) 480.00' FS TRASH 480.0' FF UP UP CON-1 CON-1 GRV-1 DRIVEWAY 10% AVG. SLOPE TB STN-2 12152924551517 2255541258162815 2915 4316228 2 15 42 WA3.3 MECH 14 480.50' FS UP UP LAUNDRY 481.50' FF 3RD PARKING 481.00' FS 479.24' FS 481.50' FF 22 1 12 3425 STN-2 STN-2STN-2 481.50' FF 1 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 GRV-1 STN-2 STN-2 STN-2 STN-2 21517 49 483624535372826 2129262 453755 47 53 453715182 31 BA4.1 BA4.1 BA4.1 20 SA3.1 EA3.3 WA3.3 1 BATHROOM 492.00' FF COVERED DECK 492.00' FF 3445 1 491.50 FS 492.00 FS DN DN DN UP DN DN 28 ENTRY 492.00' FF COURTYARD 492.00' FF DN 2:1 SLOPE WTR GRV-1 SLOPES DN VEG 20 3915 NA3.2 ON GRADE SPA WTR 32 STN-2 STN-2 STN-2 STN-2 STN-2 STN-2 STN-2 STN-2 STN-2 STN-2 STN-2 STN-2 VEG VEG VEG VEG VEG GRV-1 GRV-1 GRV-1 GRV-1 GRV-1 GRV-1 STN-2 STN-2 VEG 471755 E E E E EE OPEN TO BELOW MASTER SUITE 503.00' FF DN SLOPES DN SLOPES DN WD-2 STN-2 MASTER BATH 503.50' FF WALK-IN CLOSET 503.50' FF WALK-IN CLOSET 503.50' FF HALLWAY 503.00' FF OFFICE 503.00' FF DECK 503.00' FS 2137 333845 4526 26 34 48263549 484940 ABV 6" 6" 2 375022 3056 30 26 AA4.1 AA4.1 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 GREEN ROOF 503.00' FS WD-2 WD-2 WD-2 STN-2 STN-2 STN-2 STN-2 STN-2 VEG VEG 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 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 A6.318 " = 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 DOORS FIXTURE TYPE WATTAGE LUMENS QUANTITY COMMENTS TOTAL 2 W 9 Lightology - 113RL outdoor wall recessed 99 9 E LOW VOLTAGE INDIRECT SLOT LIGHT - RECESSED IN WALL LIGHTOLOGY - 113RL- 2 WATT E 27'-9" 59'-7" 46'-6" 33'-3" 10'-7"
8'-0" 34'-10" 21'-4" 20'-8" 36'-4" 36'-11" 15'-6" 30'-3" 18'-8" BLUEBIRD CANYON DRIVE 1 2 3 4 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 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 L1.014" = 1'-0" 09.22.2025 OPEN SPACE PLAN LANDSCAPE OPEN SPACE 12345 324.9 847.6 2774.1 38.6 TOTAL 4,326.1 SF 340.9 PROVIDE MIN. 3' WIDE ALL WEATHER----�
FIRE ACCESS PATH. SLOPED AREAS
NOT TO EXCEED 10%. WHERE SLOPE
EXCEEDS 10% PROVIDE NON-COMBUSTIBLE
STAIRS COMPLIANT WITH CBC CH. 10.
481.00 NGfi;---
----=-------
­
-_ -- -_ -
-_ -
-
-
-____:_� ... __
,-
-_-_ -_-_ -
- � -i-�- L
�� -
-
- - --- - �- -- ��-
=
/­
,=
l-�!=----- t�-�_,__- - --- - - -
,
,_-_ ±-
V
11 V '
i
'
,i.
1i V V V V V '1

I V V V V V IV
\ v
,.,,,..,'--
'vi
\ V '17
v v v vi
\ vvv '0'
- v • vvv 1
----i� , V V V �
V V V f
V • I
'[
\V
V1
\7
vi
0 0
16'-5"

SIDE YARD

SETBACK
�o o���
0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0, ,0,0,0
b
0 oi0
o
0�
_/1._ 24'
L
,,
- -----,;, 2.. -
� � �-,--.......__
-- -
_
- ---
-+ +
+
_.;--,,.__--i--ev, - �-- + +
-- - + - - + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + +
PA
0 �-!'
,-:;
_02.30 NG
�- ,:?'\
'+
+I
- ;;;r + + � _;;?'+ + + + \
ol � -a.. ,,,._ d',
-� '1),L bi.
(SI ;,:
.... , + + + + + :,,'
,'1-
Cl�
--� + + + + \
Y
'
':.",...
,,; &+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+\
""..I.a�+ ++++
\• / ft + J.>"-<:-----+
+ + + + + \
'" , .... + +
* /+
+ + + 2-0NE,A + +\
� + + ',,----/4. + + + + + �
� + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + IRRtGATED-✓
I
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + � + + + \
+ + + + +
+ +,(!),0, �+
+ + I
+ -i'
+ + �+
\+
+ -j\
+ +
I
,� + +\
+ + i
+
'
,,/
-�
NEW RESIDENCE ti¢{
00 ,
O
,\ V, f
't'l ,r \V - -2(-(q,
1€2,,4;1'
I
I
I' I I \
I I I \
I l \ I
\ \ I \
00 t;����y�o:o

GREEN ROOF
ENTRY
I
I �
I
I �
I
-�
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T-4
I I_)\
1 24" I
I
I
I
\
\
\
T-3
\
\
\
\
I
I
I
LEVEL 2 GARDEN
0 0
,II!!'
" " "
1'1. " "
" " "
ijO' o
0o
0o
0 - oo
o:o:o:o n
Oo?·O
I
\ ,<'
I �
1\ ,..- � q, ;>:
o·o·o·o , , 0
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/ DRIVEWAY
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/"
/
/
,
,"
/ '
/ '
/ '
/ '
/ ' / ' / \ / '
,
/ '
.,,,.,, >, / /,
,/ PARKING ,/0
,,.✓ /, ,
,
,
P.I!-
"
/"
,/
.... �
,,
�-­
�--
'--------PROVIDE 1 O" X 1 O" VINE WELLS

IN STACKED WALL AT
5' ON CENTER
�
s,o�'{P..�
0 s€-i�p._
C¥-
T-2
3 148"
+485.40 NG
T-1
T-2
T-3
T-4

PLANT LEGEND
SHRUBS: MAINTAINED HEIGHT
SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONTAINER SIZE WULCOL WATER USE SIZE IN 5 YEARS �
AGAVE 'BLUE GLOW' BLUE GLOW AGAVE 5GALLON LOW 18" HIGH X 2' WIDE 0 ALOE STRIAT A CORAL ALOE 1 GALLON LOW 1' HIGH X 1B" WIDE 0 CRASSIFOLIUM 'BLUEBIRD' BLUEBIRD JADE PLANT 1 GALLON LOW 2' HIGH X 3' WIDE 0 GALVEZIA SPECIOSA
ISLAND SNAPDRAGON 1 GALLON LOW 3' HIGH X 4' WIDE
0 LEUCOSPERMUM 'VELDFIRE' VELDFIRE PINCUSHION 2GALLON LOW 4' HIGH X 4' WIDE @
PITTOSPORUM CRASSIFOLIUM 'COMPACTUM' DWARF KARO 15 GALLON LOW 2' HIGH X 3' WIDE @
SENECIO BARBBERTONICUS SUCCULENT BUSH SENECIO 1 GALLON LOW 3' HIGH X 3' WIDE ®
TECOMA X 'ORANGE JUBULEE' ESPERANZA 15 GALLON LOW 10' HIGH X 6' WIDE 0 VITEX TRIFOLIUM 'PURPUREA' PERSIAN LILAC 5GALLON LOW B' HIGH X 6' WIDE 0 WESTRINGIA FRUITICOSA 'WYNYABBIE GEM' WYNYABBIE GEM COAST ROSEMARY 5GALLON LOW 54" HIGH X 4' WIDE GROUND COVER: MAINTAINED HEIGHT
SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONTAINER SIZE WULCOL WATER USE SIZE IN 5 VEA.RS �
+ MYOPORUM PARVIFOLIUM 'PUTAH CREEK' PROSTRATE MYOPORUM 1 GALLON @ 60" O.C. LOW 1' HIGH X6' WIDE l:'v'V'v'V
'ggg:1 CARISSA MACROCARPA 'GREEN CARPET' PROSTRATE NATAL PLUM 1 GALLON @ 30" O.C. LOW 12" HIGH X 3' WIDE 'v 'v 'v 'v
[;I]

CEANOTHUS GRISEUS HORIZONTALIS 'YANKEE YANKEE POINT PROSTRATE CALIFORNIA 1 GALLON , 54• 0.C. LOW 2' HIGH X 8' WIDE
- POINT' LILAC
��o�o��
DIANELLA 'LITTLE REV' LITTLE REV FAX LILY 1 GALLON@ 24" O.C. LOW 2' HIGH X 2' WIDE VINES AND TRAILERS: MAINTAINED HEIGHT
SYMBOL BOT AN I CAL NAME COMMON NAME CONTAINER SIZE WULCOL WATER USE SIZE IN 5 YEARS ... FICUS REPENS CREEPNG FIG
1 GALLON, REMOVE
STAKE, ATTACH TO MODERATE 15' HIGH XSPEA.DING

MASONRY WALL
�
5 GALLON , STAKED
DISTICTIS BUCHINATORIA BLOOD RED TRUMPET VINE ATTACH TO METAL MODERATE 5' HIGH X SPREADING

FENCE/ MASONRY WALL
1 GALLON TO TRAIL
" GREVILLEA LANIGERA 'COASTAL GEM' PROSTRATE GREVILLEA OVER PLANTER EDGE LOW 12" HIGH X SPREADING TREES: MAX. MAINTAINED SIZE
SYMBOL BOT AN I CAL NAME COMMON NAME CONTAINER SIZE WULCOL WATER USE SIZE IN 20 YEARS 0 PODOCARPUS GRACILLIOR AFRICAN FERN PINE 36" BOX, COLUMNS MODERATE 12'-20' HIGH X 9' WIDE

REFER TO PLAN FOR

SPECIFIC TREE HEIGHTS
0 PARKINSONIA 'DESERT MUSEUM' DESERT MUSEUM PALO VERDE 48" BOX, LOW 12' HIGH X 12' WIDE

LOW BRANCHING
0 QUERCUS ILEX HOLM OAK 36" BOX, MODERATE
25' HIGH X 15' WIDE

STANDARD
0 ACER PALMATUM 'MIKAWA YATSUBUSA' DWARF JAPANESE MAPLE 24" BOX, LOW BRANCH MODERATE 5' HIGH X6'WIDE

GREEN ROOF

SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME MIX DESCRIPTION RATIO OF MIX MODULE SIZE COVERAGE DETAIL MATURE HEIGHT ��i�
LOMANDRA LONGIFOLIA 'BREEZE' DWARF MAT RUSH TWO 1 GALLON DEEP 95% - 18" HIGH

WITH WITH PER MODULE MODULE ESTABLISHED
SEDUM SPURIUM 'NEW VOO' BASE SEDUM CENTERED 6" DEEP AT TIME OF GREEN ROOF PLANTINGS IN AND SEDUM 30LBSISQ FT(DRY) PLANTING 'LIVEROOF DEEP MODULES' CUTTINGS 50LBS/SQ FT

FLORASOURCE TOM HAWKINS -
(949
) 498-1131
(SATURATED)

FUEL MODIFICATION NOTES
SHEET REF. NOTES:
\ (ii"',LO, \�
/
/
/ / /,
/ /,
/ /, /,
��
�'
�
Q

PROPOSED TREES
'-----f>ROVIDE MIN. 3' WIDE ALL WEATHER
CONCRETE FIRE ACCESS PATH.

SLOPED AREAS NOT TO EXCEED 10%.

WHERE SLOPE EXCEEDS 10% PROVIDE

NON-COMBUSTIBLE STAIRS COMPLIANT
WITH CBC CH. 10.

1. PER FIRE CODE, AND FUEL MODIFICATION

REQUIREMENTS, THE MATURE TREE CANOPY
MUST MAINTAIN A MINIMUM 10' CLEARANCE

BETWEEN TREES ( TREE GROUPINGS) AND

FROM TREE TO BUILDING

1. REFER TO ARCHITECT'S DRAWINGS FOR FIRE

ACCESS ROUTE
2 +
+ +
36"
+ +
+ 70+'
466.10 N�'
\
I
I
/
/
+
+
,
/;
/
/ ,
/
/7 [>:t_
'
'
"
'
Q <o'� '\)�
<o 'v
ROVIDE 8" X 16" VINE WELLS
AT 5' ON CENTER
--l. 0
�� C,

PODOCARPUS GRACILLIOR

AFRICAN FERN PINE

QUERCUS ILEX

HOLM OAK

PARKINSONIA 'DESERT MUSEUM'

DESERT MUSEUM PALO VERDE

ACER PALMATUM
'MIKAWA YATSUBUSA'

DWARF JAPANESE MAPLE

EXISTING PLANTING NOTE

1. ALL EXISTING PLANTS ON SITE TO BE REMOVED
IRRIGATED PLANTING AREA:

EXISTING IRRIGATED AREA

NEW WITHIN PROPERTY

NEW IN RIGHT-OF-WAY
TOTAL NEW:

2. REFER TO ARCHITECT'S DRAWINGS FOR

LANDSCAPE OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS

SITE CONSTRAINTS

1. VHFHSZ

PLANTING NOTES

1. PROVIDE AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION FOR ALL

PLANTING AREAS

2. IRRIGATION SHALL CONSISTING OF A

COMBINATION OF LOW VOLUME DRIP TUBING,

BUBBLERS AND HIGH EFFICIENCY SPRAY HEADS,

CONTROLLED WITH AUTOMATIC VALVES AND A

PROGRAMMABLE WEATHER SENSATIVE
AUTOMATIC CONTROLLER.

3. PROVIDE A REDUCED PRESSURE BACKFLOW

PREVENTER THAT WILL NOT BE LOCATED IN THE
RIGHT OF WAY.

4. THIS PRELIMINARY PLANTING PLAN IS NOT
INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES.
0 2 4 8 16
n �
These drawings and specifications are
the property and copyright of M.D.

Wilkes Design + Consulting and shall
not be used on any other work. None
of the concepts, ideas, designs, plans
and details shall be used by any
person fim, or corporation for any
purpose whatsoever without the
expressed written consent of M.D.

Wilkes Design+ Consulting. The
owner shall be permitted to retain
copies of this project for infomiation
and reference purposes only.

Written dimensions shall take
preference over scaled dimensions and
shall be verified on the job site. Any
discrepancy shall be brought to the
notice of M.D. Wilkes Design+
Consulting prior to the commencement
of any work.

REVISIONS:
:::::e::::
(.)
w
I
(.)
z
<(
_J
a_
C)
z -
z
0 N
w
en
::)
0 :r:
0 lo
�
C:
.....
(/J
C:
0 <(
lo
_J �
Wco
LO
->NO') a::
0 <(
zO
0 >- :r: z (..)
<( i1i o ca
0 <(
a:: z
- ::> ca
CJ w
<( 3 _J
ca
LO
LO
�
......

LO
CD
(.) -ca>O':>o
_. N E
C: �<( �o
CO _. (_)
·ro LO
c: Cl) E ;:
c, co .c"' 15 r-!.
•- = (.) .r:. M
�coco@co
0 i= [D
Q) � �
(/J (/) �
Q) Oco O') .I<:
a>---
� CD
C:
= ::::, 3: =
� g> . _J 0
.
�
SHEET TITLE:

PRELIMINARY

PLANTING
PLAN
PLOT DATE:20251031
SCALE: 1" =
1 '-0"
8 SHEET:

L-2.0
402 of 654
27'-9" 59'-7" 46'-6" 33'-3" 10'-7"
8'-0" 35'-2" 28'-8" 78'-4" 36'-11" 30'-3"
18'-11" BLUEBIRD CANYON DRIVE 1 2 3 4 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 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 L3.014" = 1'-0" 09.22.2025 IRRIGATION PLAN IRRIGATION AREA 12345 324.9 847.6 2774.1 38.6 TOTAL 4,374.0 SF Irrigated area Proposed building footprint 388.8

ATTACHMENT 2a
Fire Department Site Access Plan - 1550 Bluebird
1 %OXHELUG &DQ\RQ 'ULYH, Laguna Beach, CA AM&M
SOURCE: DAVID M. PARKER, ARCHITECT, and TOAL Engineering, Oct. 2025 FIRE FLOW REQUIREMENTS SHALL COMPLY WITH 2022 CFC APP. B.1.

2. FIRE HYDRANT SYSTEMS AND SPACING SHALL COMPLY WITH 2022 CFC APP. C. WITH A MAXIMUM DISTANCE FROM FRONTAGE TO HYDRANT NOT TO EXCEED 250 FEET.

ADDITIONAL FIRE NOTES

3. ALL STAIRS DESIGNATED AS PART OF THE FIRE ACCESS ARE OF NONCOMBUSTIBLE CONCRETE AND GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION, AND IN COMPLIANCE WITH CBC CHAP. 10.

4. ALL FIREFIGHTER ACCESS PATH WITH A SLOPE EXCEEDING 10%, MUST HAVE COMPLIANT STAIRS.

5. ALL PORTIONS OF THE FIREFIGHTER ACCESS PATHS SHALL HAVE ALLWEATHER SURFACES (CONCRETE, ASPHALT, PAVERS, STONE, OR D.G.) NOTE: THE WET STANDPIPE FDC IS TO BE 2 -2.5-INCH CONNECTIONS, WITH 3-INCH PIPING FROM THE FDC TO THE APPLICABLE LOCATIONS. THE HOSE CONNECTIONS ARE SINGLE 2.5-INCH.

THE WET STANDPIPE SYSTEM CONNECTS TO THE FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM ON THE FIRE SPRINKLER RISER ABOVE THE FLOW SWITCH.

6. 7.

8. NOTE: STANDPIPE SIGNAGE: SIGNAGE TO BE RED WITH WHITE LETTERS,

METAL OR RIGID PLASTIC, AND PERMANENTLY ATTACHED TO THE FDC RISER AND THE STANDPIPE HOSE CONNECTION RISERS. BOTH RISERS ARE TO BE PAINTED OSHA RED. SIGNAGE ON FDC TO READ: "FDC SERVES STANDPIPE AND FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM". SIGNAGE ON HOSE
CONNECTION RISER TO READ: "WET STANDPIPE HOSE CONNECTION".

FIRE DEPARTMENT NOTES

SEE COPY OF APPROVED AM&M REPORT FOR PROJECT SPECIFIC ALTERNATIVE METHODS AND MATERIALS COMPLIANCE.

A SEPARATE (DEFERRED) SUBMITTAL FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS IS REQUIRED.

SYSTEM DESIGN MUST COMPLY WITH THE 2022 CFC AND 2019 NFPA 13 STANDARD. THE SYSTEM AND COVERAGE IN ALL SMALL ROOMS (CLOSESTS, BATHROOMS, ETC.) REGARDLESS OF SIZE. PLANS MUST BE DESIGNED AND INSTALLED BY A QUALIFIED FIRE FIRE PROTECTION CONTRACTOR. PLANS

SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO AND APPROVED BY THE LBFD AND/OR CITY OF

LAGUNA BEACH, WITH PERMIT ISSUED AND APPROPRIATE INSPECTIONS CONDUCTED.

A SEPARATE (DEFERRED) FIRE ALARM SYSTEM IS REQUIRED AND MUST BE DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CFC AND NFPA 72AND INSTALLED BY A QUALIFIED ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR. PLANS MUST INCLUDE MONITORING OF

THE FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM (TAMPER AND FLOW SWITCHES) AND MONITORING OF THE SMOKE DETECTORS IN THE DWELLING. PLANS MUST BE

SUBMITTED TO AND APPROVED BY THE LBFD, WITH PERMIT ISSUED AND APPROPRIATE INSPECTIONS CONDUCTED.

EXTERIOR WET STANDPIPE SYSTEM IS REQUIRED AND MUST BE DESIGNED AND INSTALLED BY A QUALIFIED FIRE PROTECTION CONTRACTOR. PLANS MUST INCLUDE AN FDC WITH A 2.5-INCH CONNECTION NEAR THE STREET, AND A 3-INCH UNDERGROUND STANDPIPE WITH THE 2.5-INCH CONNECTION

IN THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY, ONE IN THE SOUTHEAST

PORTION OF THE PROPERTY AND A THIRD IN THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTYT. PLANS MUST BE SUBMITTED TO AND APPROVED BY THE LBFD, WITH PERMIT ISSUED AND APPROPRIATE INSPECTIONS CONDUCTED.

A.

B.

C.

D.

E. ALL EXPOSED SIDE WINDOWS AND DOOR GLAZING WILL BE DOUBLE PANE

WITH BOTH PANES TEMPERED
H. ALL EXTERIOR FIREPLACES AND FIRE PITS MUST BE GAS FIRED ONLY. NO SOLID FUEL IS ALLOWED PER THE LBFD MUNICIPAL CODE. FIREPLACES BE A MINIMUM 10 FEET FROM ALL COMBUSTIBLE MATEIRALS AND FIRE PITS MUST BE A MINIMUM OF 20 FEET FROM COMBUSTIBLE MATEIRALS.

MAINTAIN JOBSITE SAFETY DURING CONSTRUCTION AS PER CHAPTER 33 OF THE 2022 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 INCHES, AND THEY MUST CONTRAST WITH BACKGROUND.

FOR FIRE DEPARMENT INSPECTIONS, CALL 949-497-0352 AT LEAST 3 DAYS IN ADVANCE TO SCHEDULE.

I .

J .

K.

L .

F ALL DOORS TO BE SELF-CLOSING EXCEPT FOR SLIDERS. .

G. DRYER VENTS TO BE BAFFLED OR HAVE MESH COVERING THEM.

N
Project North
495.60' NG
501.60' T. FENCE
481.00' NG
487.00' T. FENCE
498.50
FS
498.00
FS
497.00
FS
GRV-1
GRV-1
GRV-1
GRV-1
GRV-1
GRV-1
496.00
495.00 FS
FS
499.00
FS
494.00
FS
GRV-1
493.00
FS
492.00
FS
491.00
FS
489.00
FS
491.50
FS
VEG
VEG
1 17
7 2
STN-2
492.00 FS
14 SPA
32 5'-6"

BLUEBIRD CANYON DRIVE
LOT A

BUILDING FOOTPRINT
480.00
FS
482.58 FS
UP
UP
Sewer manhole
TBM Rim elev=458.08
471.00' FS
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
505.90' 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
28'-0"
GRV-1 501.10 FS
491.50
FS
VEG
VEG
VEG
VEG
VEG
VEG
VEG
STN-2
12 11
8 23
16 12
15 TB 55
15 15
17 GRV-1
GRV-1
GRV-1
1 58
22 13
1 2
16'-5"
SYSB
A
A4.1
A
A4.1
B
A4.1
B
A4.1
8'-0"
SYSB
18'-6"
RYSB
16'-5"
SYSB
10'-0"
FYSB
10'-0"
FYSB
43'-4" 8'-6" 23'-0"
16'-6"
29'-1"
3 7
9'-1" 30'-8"
39'-10"
74'-10"
17 STN-2
492.00 FS
28 42
28 1
2 2
1 24'-10"
24 17'-4"

GARAGE TO PL
10'-0"

ROOF TO PL
S
A3.1
N
A3.2
E
A3.3
W
A3.3
14 24
497.50 T.FENCE
TB
6'-1" 2'-11" 12'-8" 21'-8" 6'-6" 2'-0" 20'-0" 3'-0"
479.24' FS
492.00 FS
482.00' TW
468.00' FS
481.00' TW
467.50' FS
2:1 SLOPE
STN-2
2:1 SLOPE
22 44
43 12'-0"
UP
479.50 FS
UP UP
STN-2 STN-2
484.50 FS
488.00 FS
STN-2
16'-5"
SYSB
492.00 FS
STN-2
STN-2
UP
467.50 FS
UP
481.50 FS
483.30 FS STN-2
STN-2
STN-2

ADJACENT PROPERTY (LOT B

PROJECT ) BY OTHERS
UP
UP
2'-6"
18'-6"
RYSB
UP

EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT TO REMAIN
38'-0"
48'-2"
6" CURB
473.5' T.C.
6" CURB
472.5' T.C.
6" CURB
467.32' FS
471.5' T.C.
466.12'
46'-10" 24'-3"
27'-7"
28'-6"
WTR
491.50' TW
47 17
2 55
2 14
1 55
2 1
17 18
18 500.55 FS
500.00 FS
499.50
FS
15 RESERVED AREA
(NO GRADING)

RESERVED AREA
(NO GRADING)

LOCATION OF NEW EDISON POLE

LOCATION OF NEW EDISON POLE
51 51
51 FDC Hose
Inlet
10'-0"
FDC Hose
Connection #2
FDC Hose
Connection #1
150'
110'
125'
150'
Proposed FDC Inlet location
Proposed FDC Connection locations
FDC Supply Line
Engine Hose Within 150’
LEGEND
FDC Hose Beyond 150'
ENGINE
405 of 654
PARCEL 4 LL ADJ 04-01 PARCEL 3 LL ADJ 04-01 (PRIVATELY OWNED) TRACT 990 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT PER SEPARATE PLAN 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 www. 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 STORMWATER QUAL I T Y EASEMENT NOTE PRELIMINARY PLAN NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPMENT STATISTICS LEGEND SECTION Qrs Tt Qrs Qrs Tt Tt Tt Qrs SECTION Qrs Tt Tt PROFILE -DWY LOT A SECTION SECTION 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 www. 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 STORMWATER QUAL I T Y PRELIMINARY PLAN NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PARCEL 4 LL ADJ 04-01 PARCEL 3 LL ADJ 04-01 (PRIVATELY OWNED) TRACT 990 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT PER SEPARATE PLAN 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 ww 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 STORMWATER QUAL I TY LEGEND: EARTHWORK QUANTITIES: PRELIMINARY PLAN NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PARCEL 4 LL ADJ 04-01 PARCEL 3 LL ADJ 04-01 (PRIVATELY OWNED) TRACT 990 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 ww 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 STORMWATER QUAL 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 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 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 ww 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 STORMWATER QUAL 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 NOTECONSTRUCTION STAGING PLAN NOTE: CONSTRUCTION PARKINGS MUST BE ON THE SITE AND SHALL NOT OBSTRUCT TRAFFIC FLOW.

This transcript was exported on Dec 03, 2025 - view latest version here. 1550 BBC - November 13 2025 - 3rd DRB Meeting - Trim
Transcript by Rev.com

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

Agenda item 5.10, 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive, lot A, Coastal Development Permit 24-2588, Design Review 24-2586. Ex parte, please.

Louis Weil:

Chair, I spoke with Susan Whitten, Harpal, Vera, Peter, Steve Kortani. And then I wrote down JB and I'm drawing a blank on who that was.

MJ Coveny:

And I met Steve at the site and I spoke with Susan Whitten and Harpal Sadal.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

And I met Steve Kartani at the site. I spoke to Susan, Harpal, I believe JB Horner and one other person. I thought it was Peter Grumman, but I don't think it was. It might've been Vera Wilman. Oh, it was you.

What's your name?
Roseanne:

Rosanne.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

Rosanne. Yeah, she was there.

Louis Weil:

Rosanne was there when I was there too.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

Yeah, Roseanne was there too. I knew there was another person. I just couldn't remember.

Emir Bauta:

Chair, I also spoke with the project applicant.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

Oh, that's right [inaudible 00:01:17].

Emir Bauta:

Steve Kartani and Susan Wynn.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

Who's doing the staff report, Bill?
Bill Rodriguez:

I am doing the staff report.

Attachment 20 410
411 of 654
This transcript was exported on Dec 03, 2025 - view latest version here. 1550 BBC - November 13 2025 - 3rd DRB Meeting - Trim
Transcript by Rev.com

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

It better be good.

Bill Rodriguez:

So thank you, Jared Gibbs. And good evening board members. Bill Rodriguez for the community development department. Project Planner Daniel Latham was unable to join us this evening, so I'll be filling in. As the board knows, this item has been before you several times or two times before. This is the item's third hearing before the Design Review Board. And pursuant to our municipal code, a decision needs to be rendered on it tonight. Patrick and I are going to tag team a little bit on this presentation, so I'll do a couple of introductory slides and then turn it over to him. And then back to me and wrap it up.

So the project site, as you know, is located at 1550 Bluebird Canyon Road. This area, it's surrounded.

There's Morningside on one side of this hill or this knoll area. Bluebird on one other side. There are several properties that make up this knoll. Several of them have been received entitlements but are not developed, although there is an adjacent property that is developed that sits at a slightly lower elevation, at the nose of that knoll. And other properties located beyond, higher up Bluebird Canyon and Morningside. They're also developed with some residential projects.

Obviously, residential does exist on the downhill side of Bluebird Canyon across the street and has existed so for many years. Property is also unique in the sense that the developable portion of the lot sits a lot higher than the street, somewhere in the neighborhood of maybe 10 or 12, 13 feet above the actual road elevation. The applicant for this 1550 Bluebird Canyon site is proposing a new single family home. There's an attached two car garage. The site will have three parking spaces that are elevated decks, a lot of glazing on the elevation of the building, spas, reflecting ponds, site grading for development as well as site landscaping are all proposed. At this point, I'm going to ask Patrick to jump in. There's some city council relevant, maybe city council direction that the board should consider. So Patrick will give you a brief overview of that.

Patrick Donegan:

Sure. Thanks, Bill. And as I'm sure this board is aware, review of this project and the next item at 1560 are a bit unique for a variety of reasons, most of which are outlined in the staff report. Most germane for your guys' discussion tonight is that the city council has provided some direction in the context of its review of 1560, which they remanded back to this board, which we'll hear next. However, that direction is applicable to both that project and this one before you currently. In short, in an effort to harmonize the city's obligation under the state housing laws and its Coastal Act requirements under its certified LCP, the city council directed the DRB to only apply those objective standards in the DR entitlement, which were listed in your staff report. And then for the CDP, when examining and applying the facts to the required findings, the DRB should identify and gear any discussion towards the protection of an explicit identifiable coastal resource.

Practically and legally, I would agree that in trying to harmonize these seemingly competing authorities, state housing laws, and their intent to only apply objective design standards with the unequivocally subjective criteria in our CDP findings, that it is a more sound argument if the city's analysis and basis is directly connected to a coastal resource as compared to say just visual compatibility with the character of a surrounding area without identifying how that finding protects a coastal resource. So my advice to you all today is that any discussion on the CDP clearly identify a coastal resource. The city council is the ultimate city decision maker and arbiter of city policy. Here they have provided guidance, and that provided should be given deference. Back to you, Bill.

Attachment 20 411
412 of 654
This transcript was exported on Dec 03, 2025 - view latest version here. 1550 BBC - November 13 2025 - 3rd DRB Meeting - Trim
Transcript by Rev.com

Bill Rodriguez:

Thank you, Patrick. So I believe the sign was back in front of this board, I want to say back in August of this year. At that point in time, there was quite a bit of discussion about some revocable encroachment permit application, and analysis of what was located within the right-of-way, maybe some grade differential discussion. Since that conversation happened, the applicant has gone back. They've made some changes to the project. Most notably is that everything related to the REP has been moved out of the right-of-way and placed on private property. As a result of that, the REP application has been removed. We are no longer considering that application. The only things that are occurring within the right-of-way would be some landform modifications, some small grading activities, and there will be a small curb, create a little bit maybe of just a little planter area and define an on street parking space through that.

But that curb is no different than the six-inch curbs that you would see throughout the city, and is not subject to an REP, but instead just a permit through the Public Works Department itself. Staff spent a lot of time working with the applicant team on making sure that the way that the site driveway would conform with our code, making sure that the grades were correct, making sure the dimensions were correct, making sure that all the retaining walls, including their foundations, are located on private property, making sure that the design of the driveway and the driveway apron from the site, which is located within the public right-of-way within that parkway discussion that I described on the previous application, conform with the city engineering department's standard plans. In terms of the driveway profile and all of the code required gradients, we do find that the driveway is in full compliance with the code.

There have been a few other modifications made to the plans, but nothing substantial in terms of the design of the house, the elevation of the house, the height of the house. I think those are all substantially similar to what the board had seen before. I know the applicant team and the architect is here and they have a presentation that includes a number of slides that they can run through that will show more of the details of the house itself. As the board will remember, staff has been supportive of the project the previous times that it has come before your consideration. Tonight, staff continues to support the project. And so, with that, I will recommend that you conduct your public hearing and adopt the Design Review Board resolutions approving the Design Review application and the Coastal Development Permit, and finding the project exempt pursuant to CEQA. So that will conclude my remarks. Thank you.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

Okay. Just a question for you, Patrick. The way I read the city council's findings was that the Coastal Development Permit findings and criteria adequately protect coastal resources. As I understood it, and I listened to the hearing and I read the documents, the city council is still looking for us to make the findings required for the issuance of a Coastal Development Permit. Is that right? Patrick Donegan:

That is a fair statement. The only thing that I would add, editorialize, is that there be an explicit coastal resource identified when reviewing and making those findings.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

Okay. And I understand that. That's not actually in the findings set forth in the Coastal Development Permit as approved by the local coastal plan. So I'll address that when I get to my comments as to Attachment 20 412
413 of 654
This transcript was exported on Dec 03, 2025 - view latest version here. 1550 BBC - November 13 2025 - 3rd DRB Meeting - Trim
Transcript by Rev.com

whether we have to identify... Is there anything the city council stated in their resolution that required us to identify the specific coastal resource? Maybe I'll ask that. In other words, did the city council direct that we identify a specificEmir Bauta:

I think I could answer this. I think they specifically said do not apply the Design Review criteriaThomas Gibbs - Chair:

No, I understand that.

Emir Bauta:
... if the project meets SB 450.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

Right. I get that. But I'm asking a different question, Ima, which is... I want to make sure we understand the groundwork. Did the city council specifically direct us to identify a coastal resource in making the determinations for the Coastal Development Permit, including criteria five and six? Patrick Donegan:

And so let me double check the resolution.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

Yeah, I did not see it in there. If it is, I'd like to know. Because I don't want to impose a requirement on this board that was not required by the city council. So why don't you look at that? Let's proceed to open the public hearing and the applicant team has five minutes.

Horst Noppenenberger:

Good evening, Design Review Board members. I'm Horst Noppenenberger from Horst Architects, project architect for David Durnayus. We have just a very quick slide presentation. I'll be sharing my time this evening with Morgan, who's sitting to my left. Can we go to just the first slide, please? While we're in this transition, just wanted to reiterate what Bill just outlined. Our primary change to the project was to eliminate any of the previously proposed improvements in the right-of-way that would've required the revocable encroachment permit. So that's been satisfied and that's been reviewed by the city.

Additionally, we added three mature palo verde trees to the downhill elevation to further mitigate the appearance of massive scale. Doesn't look like our slide presentation's coming up.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

It's growing kind of late. If you could proceed without it. Otherwise, of course, if you want it, I'll pause your time. We've seen the project. You didn't change the project.

Horst Noppenenberger:

Yeah.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

Attachment 20 413
414 of 654
This transcript was exported on Dec 03, 2025 - view latest version here. 1550 BBC - November 13 2025 - 3rd DRB Meeting - Trim
Transcript by Rev.com

You did change the REP, and I understand that.

Horst Noppenenberger:

Okay. I'm going to really reach my time today.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

Okay, thank you.

Morgan Gallagher:

Okay.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

Oh, we're up now.

Morgan Gallagher:

Do you want to mention?
Horst Noppenenberger:

Oh, there it is.

Morgan Gallagher:

Yeah.

Horst Noppenenberger:

No, I have nothing to add. Go ahead, please.

Morgan Gallagher:

Okay, great. Thanks. Good evening, board members. My name is Morgan Gallagher with Cox, Castle & Nicholson. I want to focus my comments on the limit of your discretion. And Mr. Rodriguez and Mr.

Donegan touched on this. I just want to make this very clear. The projects are covered by both SB 450 and the Housing Accountability Act. We know that. The city council made it clear that DR criteria does not apply. There's no REP. As we discussed, the REP has been removed from the project entirely. That leaves the CDP. As Mr. Donegan just said, we need a coastal resource to make any subjective findings under the CDP. That's very clear in the law. And the city council made that very clear, an explicit coastal resource. Coastal resources are specifically outlined in chapter three of the Coastal Act. It's public views, natural resources, and coastal resources, meaning access to the coast and other marine resources. What it is not, is a natural profile of a site or the natural beauty of a site or anything else that's not outlined in chapter three of the Coastal Act.

The city has confirmed multiple times, including in the staff report, that there are no public views on or near the site. There's no natural features, heritage trees, rock outcroppings, sensitive habitat, ridge lines, or other significant water courses, absolutely no natural features and no public views. The project is not along the coast. There's no way it could implicate public access to the coast or marine resources, so there are no coastal resources on this property. Meaning that none of the LCP subjective criteria can be applied to this project through the CDP. Even if there was a coastal resource, which there is not, the Attachment 20 414
415 of 654
1550 BBC - November 13 2025 - 3rd DRB Meeting - Trim
Transcript by Rev.com

This transcript was exported on Dec 03, 2025 - view latest version here. city would have had to identify that coastal resource and the project's inconsistency with that resource a long time ago. It is way too late for the city under either SB 450 or the Housing Accountability Act to raise an inconsistency now. SB 450 requires a timeline of 60 days. The Housing Accountability Act requires 30 days for the city to identify an inconsistency. And that never happened.

The city does not have the discretion tonight to say any aspect of the project is inconsistent with city standards or policies. Since the city's staff has confirmed that the project does not require an REP, does not implicate coastal resources and meets all objective standards, which we greatly appreciate Mr.

Rodriguez and his team confirming both those points in the staff reports for both projects, the DRB does not have the discretion to deny the projects under either SB 450 or the Housing Accountability Act. You must approve the projects tonight. If you deny them, the applicant will exercise all legal remedies available to him. And a denial would be such an obvious and egregious violation of state housing law that he would easily win. We urge you not to go down that path and we'd like to remind you of the Pearl Street case and the city's $2.5 million settlement. We do not want to see that happen. This would be worse for the city. We urge you to approve the projects tonight.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

Thank you very much. Members of the public, you'll have two minutes each, please.

Harpal Sadal:

Good evening, Chair and members of the DRB. Harpal Sadal. I'll be brief in my remarks. I'll let the photos do the talking for us. So we're talking about what is legally applicable, legally required here. If you look at the photos that are in front of you, they really speak to compatibility under 2.8 of the land use element. And if you look at the homes that are proposed, they're 52 and 55 feet above the street grade.

They're very large in size. They're elevated garage floors. And if you look at the 15 homes that the applicant has provided in the past as to comparables, none of them are applicable. And I understand that there's a different set of criteria that you guys are being given here about coastal resources, but we still believe that the neighborhood compatibility element is important. You can see that there are measures of the height of these other 15 homes which have existed in this neighborhood for decades and decades. And it is subjective criteria that you can look at and go on. Thank you.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

Thank you very much. Next speaker.

Susan Whitin:

At the city council meeting in August, our city attorney pointed out that SB 9 and SB 450 projects must be in conformance with objective requirements of our certified LCP under the Coastal Act. These include the Coastal Development Permit findings, land use policies, and Title 25 of the municipal code, which require projects to minimize landform alterations, and for development to be compatible with surrounding areas in terms of structural height, mass, scale, and size. Objective metrics within the LCP, such as structural height, mass, scale, and size, provide a basis on which to make findings. The objective metrics of 1550 and 1560 developments demonstrate that the required LCP findings cannot be made for finding one, criteria five and six, nor for Title 25 review standards 2505040H, nor for land use policies 2.1 and 2.8.

The proposed projects are not approvable as proposed due to privacy relationships related to the floor plan. The structural height and mass are objectively not compatible with the surrounding area. Roughly Attachment 20 415
416 of 654
This transcript was exported on Dec 03, 2025 - view latest version here. 1550 BBC - November 13 2025 - 3rd DRB Meeting - Trim
Transcript by Rev.com

90% of both landforms will be altered. And the houses are not integrated into the landforms to reduce the structural height and scale. The metrics also identify and compare the measurable differences from the Morningside project on the other side of the knoll, such that the same findings cannot be made for 1550 and 1560 as 1536. This is a challenging situation. Mr. Durnayus has a right to build on his properties. Houses with the same specs and different configurations are approvable for these projects.

At previous meetings, DRB provided a roadmap to approve the projects. The applicant has not made a good faith effort to make substantive changes suggested by the DRB and the neighborhood. Because the objective metrics and findings in the LCP cannot be made as required by law under the Coastal Act, I respectfully request that DRB deny these projects.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

Thank you very much. Next speaker.

Mary Fagris:

Almost good morning, members of the Design Review Board. Mary Fagris, 1561 Morningside Drive. My husband and I request that you deny this project. We cannot be threatened to not use our local coastal plan. These are documents that reflect our community. They have for years. There are many things about this that we've tried to work out with the landowner to no avail. And it doesn't seem right that we have to give in when really we have documents in our city that say this does not fit in our neighborhood.

Please deny the project. Thank you.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

Thank you very much. Next speaker.

William Horner:

William Horner, also known as JB Horner, to clear up the confusion earlier. 1565 Bluebird. I think given the difficulty of the project, obviously there's a lot of frustration. I think there have been very reasonable pass forward to get an approved project. I think fundamentally it comes down to a trade-off between either the site planning being on top of the hill or integrating into it. I think there's plenty of trade-offs and concessions that could have been made. I think there's been a lot of rigidity around that. I think that's how we have ended up where we are today. Given a lot of the intimidation and threatening tactics, I do encourage the board to use all the tools available to you to encourage compliance and compatibility. Thank you.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

Thank you very much. Next speaker.

Eileen Slora:

Good morning. Eileen Slora, 1545 Bluebird Canyon Drive. I ask that this project not be approved. There was no good faith effort made to make changes to the design as was recommended by the Design Review Board and concerned neighbors. The proposed project design is not compatible with the surrounding area in size and height, as Harpal has done the diagram for you. There has been no integration with the house to the landform as required by the LCP. Thank you.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

Attachment 20 416
417 of 654
1550 BBC - November 13 2025 - 3rd DRB Meeting - Trim
Transcript by Rev.com

This transcript was exported on Dec 03, 2025 - view latest version here.

Thank you much. Any other speakers? Seeing none. I return to the applicant. You have three minutes.

Mr. Durnayus:

You can hand these out. Just one moment while she prepares.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

You can go ahead, Mr. Durnayus.

Mr. Durnayus:

So the bottom line for this project is that when I bought the property and split it up, the staff at the city last year approved the final map under SB 9 at the time, which is now protected by SB 450.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
450.

Mr. Dyrnaes:

At that time, the city made a commitment to follow those guidelines. And they're fairly straightforward that this project is not subject to subjective reviews. These particular things that they're bringing up now have very little to do with anything that you have in front of you to decide. And really, Louis came down very consistently the last three meetings saying that what he wants to see is he wants to see the removal of the structures in the right-of-wayThomas Gibbs - Chair:

Can you speak a little closer? I'm having trouble hearing you.

Mr. Dyrnaes:

Sorry. He wants to see the removal of the structures in the right-of-way, which we did on both properties. And he wanted to see the homes lowered. Well, first of all, the homes themselves are already an average of only under 12 feet above standard grade. There is a peak of nearly 15 feet on both properties, but that's because of the slope and the fact that we have a second floor on each one. But ultimately, that's already a 15-foot limit that's half what it is normally because it is a standard that the city has to protect it that we don't put 30 foot high buildings on the top of hills. So we're already under a restricted environment. But none of that matters in the sense that we comply with city code and we have done everything we can to mitigate the concerns of the neighbors and the city, and there's no variance required for this or other issues that should be brought up.

And I've put quite a few additional things in here, but the most important thing is if you can go to page, I think it's 10 where there's a plot map. This has been graded a long time ago. It is not a natural site. It's always been prepared for development. In 1940 something, they graded this site. There's nothing natural about this site. It was always been intended to be a home or a site for a home. There's 15 or so different variations of properties that were supposed to be put up here. And at the end of the day, you have a choice, you can either approve it or deny it. But here's the facts. If you approve it, we have a lawsuit already filed against the city and we will be open to negotiating settling it. But if you deny it and we continue to push this along, we are not going to settle anything. This is going to court and it's going to end up being found in my favor, and the cost of the city is going to be immense.

Attachment 20 417
418 of 654
1550 BBC - November 13 2025 - 3rd DRB Meeting - Trim
Transcript by Rev.com

This transcript was exported on Dec 03, 2025 - view latest version here.

So ask yourself, what's going to happen when this gets appealed to this council? What are they going toThomas Gibbs - Chair:

Your time's up, Mr. Durnayus.

Mr. Dyrnaes:

What are they going to decide? Are they going to approve it or are they going to deny it? Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

Okay. Thank you very much. Any questions of... I have a question to you. Are we required to identify a specific... Were we directed by...

Patrick Donegan:

Yeah. So I can read you the language verbatim.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

And what's it from?
Patrick Donegan:

The city council resolution.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

Okay, good.

Patrick Donegan:

So it's consider a Coastal Development Permit for the revised design based on direction in paragraph A above, paragraph A, dealt with the removing the permanent structures from the REP area, and recognition of coastal resources, including natural landforms, public views, and risk of fire hazards.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

Okay. It's an interpretation.

Patrick Donegan:

But if you will, Chair, I would advise that in this somewhat novel issue, once again, how to reconcile these state housing laws along with the city's obligation under the Coastal Act, my advice remains the same. That is in the context of the Coastal Act. Its purposes drilled down to its base level is to protect coastal resources. I will be honest with you all. As you can imagine, my past days have been focused on this very issue. And there's not a citable case I can point to. There's no clear roadmap I can point you to different authority that can be read both ways. That's in dicta for other cases. That language does come verbatim from the Coastal Act. So some Coastal Commission staff reports treat it different directions, i.e., yes, there needs to be a coastal resource there or alternatively, hey, it's just look at the other houses up and down the neighborhood.

But once again, in that context, my advice remains the same that in applying that, identify a coastal resource. And I'm open for any more questions, Mr. Chair.

Attachment 20 418
419 of 654
This transcript was exported on Dec 03, 2025 - view latest version here. 1550 BBC - November 13 2025 - 3rd DRB Meeting - Trim
Transcript by Rev.com

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

How do you define coastal resource?
Patrick Donegan:

How do I define coastal resource?
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

Right.

Patrick Donegan:

Yeah, sure. So that's a pretty wide net. I know that the city council talked about natural landforms, public views, risk of fire hazards. That's only a very small subset of it. It can be views of the ocean. It can be protecting, I believe the city's open space talks about protecting the hillsides, things of that nature.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

Okay. And I think at the last hearing back in August 14, I said it was a fairly broad term, not specifically defined either by the city council to us or in the LCP. So with that said, I don't have any other questions.

Any questions? All right. I close the public hearing and I'll begin. First of all, we are here as a board to apply, in this case, a CDP evaluation, and to the extent applicable land use. It is particularly not important to be threatening us with the city being sued if we don't agree with everything you say. You have your legal remedies. It's appropriate to deal with the merits rather than to try to threaten this committee. I personally don't appreciate it. And I think it's too bad that you set the tone in a public meeting creating the impression that we're all doing this to avoid a big, bad law firm suing the city.

That's not how I operate. I operate in applying the rules and do... We are volunteers and we do this because we take our job seriously, not because we act because of threats of taking this city down.

Second of all, I also take the applicable law very seriously, and I try to figure it out. I'm not always right. I was a practicing attorney doing exactly what you do for some 40 years, and I have a position to make. I haven't always been right. And such certitude is particularly unimportant, given my understanding of how this thing works. All right. I'll start by pointing out that SB 9 and SB 450 and the ADU law have a carve out, which says "Nothing in this section shall be..." Effectively, this is from SB 9, but there's some similar provisions in the other code. "Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California Coastal Act of 1976. That carve out was done for a reason, in my view. And that reason is because the vote that led to the Coastal Act was designed to protect the coast. And in adopting these provisions, the State of California was desirous of promoting residential development to deal with the housing crisis.

But at the same time, say that it doesn't apply to coastal zones to preserve the coast of California as was voted in by the citizens back in 1976, which not to date myself, I voted for back then. So I think that carve out on its face means that we can apply and should apply and are obligated to apply at least the Coastal Development Permit. That it doesn't supersede the objective... I'll take that back. I'll get to the objective issue in a second. It doesn't supersede the statute you're relying on to make your threats. So I listened very carefully to the city council meeting and then also to the resolutions and so forth. I don't read the city council as having direct us in as narrow a framework as you would propose. In fact, the city council directed us as a board to consider not only the REP, which you've eliminated, but also the CDP. If it was so clear that we have no choice, they wouldn't have sent it back to us, but they did.

Attachment 20 419
420 of 654
This transcript was exported on Dec 03, 2025 - view latest version here. 1550 BBC - November 13 2025 - 3rd DRB Meeting - Trim
Transcript by Rev.com

Also, the local coastal plan as approved by the Coastal Commission as set forth in our general plan also has policies and elements that I think also fall within the carve out. I believe the city council was less clear about that. So I'm going to focus my comments on the CDP and make a few final comments on the land use element and policies. On the CDP, I agree with the understanding that our city attorney or assistant city attorney gave. The city council did view the application of the criteria for the Coastal Development Permit should be tied to a coastal resource. I don't know that they required we identify one, but I think it's very broad. I don't think it's limited to just being able to see the ocean. The Coastal Act covered a lot more than just seeing the ocean. The coastal resources are within the jurisdiction of the Coastal Act, and that includes hillsides. And in fact, if you look at the elements that was approved by the Coastal Commission, it goes way beyond just a very limited view of coastal resources.

I find that I cannot... Rather than I find. From seriously considering this, I cannot make the findings required for criteria five or criteria six, of finding one for a Coastal Development Permit. The proposed development, this is criteria five, the proposed development will minimize the alteration of natural landforms and will not result in undue risk of geological and erosional forces and/or floods and fire hazards. So natural landforms is a coastal resource. So I'll identify that as a coastal resource, because I think it clearly is. The driveway and long slope distinctly alters the natural landform that a ground level garage would not. I have asked repeatedly, not only on this project, but other project to fully consider the garage on the street. And that clearly, I think a different attack was decided here, which is not to deal with that issue, but rather to threaten litigation.

So based upon the record, I do not see that that criteria has been met. Moreover, it's not been met because the project sitting on top of the hill or ridge, and I don't know if it fits within the legal definition of ridge, definitely does not contour to the natural landform, further creating an alteration. Rather, what's done is a series of retaining walls, creating a massive looking structure, and then putting the house on top. With no effort in the three hearings... This is the third hearing, this is one with the third hearing, the other project was appealed to city council. With no effort at all to address criteria six and make the project more in conformance with the natural landform of the hill. And I've seen no evidence of any grading previously of this hill. And I don't think there's anything in the record, and it looks like a natural landform, so I'm going on the assumption that it is.

With respect to criteria six, it reads, "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." So the way I read that in terms of coastal resource, in a coastal area, the character of surrounding areas is a resource that is worth protecting. And that's why it's in the CDP as distinguished from the Design Review guidelines.

Emir Bauta:

Chair, you mind if I butt in? Pertaining to the remand, when we're objectively looking at this, are we to look at it from a standpoint of subjectively? Because I think objectively, if we're looking at the landform, the act requires that development minimize the alteration of landforms through practices such as designing buildings to fit into terrain. And I think what I'm hearing is that nothing can be developed here. This is a buildable site, right?
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

I didn't say that.

Emir Bauta:

Attachment 20 420
421 of 654
This transcript was exported on Dec 03, 2025 - view latest version here. 1550 BBC - November 13 2025 - 3rd DRB Meeting - Trim
Transcript by Rev.com

Yeah.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

Okay. Let me address your [inaudible 00:37:43].

Emir Bauta:

Are you're considering the view, but I think that the site's buildingThomas Gibbs - Chair:

I didn't mention the view.

Emir Bauta:

The landform.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

I mentioned the landform.

Emir Bauta:

Yeah. So you're considering it. But I think it's very clear with the coastal resources, that they're very specific that if you minimizeThomas Gibbs - Chair:

Let me finish my comments and then you can address it. Because I disagree with that and we can disagree. That's what we do. I think I've explained that coastal resources is broad. I've explained on criteria five what the coastal resource there is, which is the natural landform. All four of us are going to have to make our own decisions about this. So I'm explaining mine and then I want to hearEmir Bauta:

But the act is clear on the minimization of the minimization of the landform alteration. They're not saying you cannot build on the landform.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

I didn't say they can't build. I said it'sEmir Bauta:

I know. But you're mentioning it as if it's this broad thing, and I think it's very specific that it says to minimize it, not to eliminate it. And I think we were remanded to just look at those elements pertaining to the CDP.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

Okay. Let me respond to you. Number one is, in evaluating the CDP, there was no direction that we consider only objective criteria. And I'm not going to debate whether what I'm describing here is objective or subjective. I'm not sure it falls into either category that well. With respect to minimizing the alterations of natural landform, that is, I think, an objective. Are you minimizing the alteration of natural Attachment 20 421
422 of 654
This transcript was exported on Dec 03, 2025 - view latest version here. 1550 BBC - November 13 2025 - 3rd DRB Meeting - Trim
Transcript by Rev.com

landform? The city council directed us specifically to make the Coastal Development Permit findings and criteria adequately... Let me finish.

Emir Bauta:

Okay.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

And city's finding that the Coastal Development Permit findings and criteria adequately protect coastal resources. So basically what the city council was directing us to do is to make these findings. And if we make those findings, it will adequately protect coastal resources. So IEmir Bauta:

It clearly says in the minimizing landforms alterations.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

You're talking about criteria five?
Emir Bauta:

Yeah. No, not criteria five. Through practices such as designing buildingsThomas Gibbs - Chair:

What are you reading from?
Emir Bauta:
... to fit into terrain. The act, the Coastal Act. "The act requires that the development minimize the alteration of natural landforms through practices such as designing buildings to fit into the terrain rather than heavily grading the site."
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

That's such as. It's an example.

Emir Bauta:

Yeah. Yeah. I think it's very clear.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

And I think that actually is apt here because that would require terracing and not cutting into landforms, for example, putting in major retaining walls.

Emir Bauta:

Yeah. And I think this board had the opinion, I would say namely Louis, with bringing it down. And we gave that suggestion to the applicant on three hearings on both projects. And I think that was incorrect.

And I'd like to really debate this and talk through this.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

Attachment 20 422
423 of 654
This transcript was exported on Dec 03, 2025 - view latest version here. 1550 BBC - November 13 2025 - 3rd DRB Meeting - Trim
Transcript by Rev.com

No, no, and I think we are. I think what you've just read is consistent with terracing and bringing down the project because that isEmir Bauta:

I disagree. It says the exact opposite.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

Let me finish. That is minimizing the alterations of natural landforms.

Emir Bauta:

No. It says "Rather than heavily grading the site." If you are going down, you are digging the site down.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

Heavily grading the site?
Emir Bauta:

That's mass excavation.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

They're going to be taking out 1800 cubic yardsEmir Bauta:

That's grading.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
... to create this driveway to put the building on top of the slope or top of the ridge. That's notEmir Bauta:

Yeah, but you're saying from the opposite side. So it's literally sayingThomas Gibbs - Chair:

No. I'm saying that's not minimized.

Emir Bauta:
... "Design it to fit the terrain rather than heavily grading the site." Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

They're heavily grading the site to put in the driveway so they can put the building on top of the hill rather than terracing it into the slope to make it less impactful on... So it's the exact... In all due respect, EmirEmir Bauta:

You're saying the opposite.

Attachment 20 423
424 of 654
This transcript was exported on Dec 03, 2025 - view latest version here. 1550 BBC - November 13 2025 - 3rd DRB Meeting - Trim
Transcript by Rev.com

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
... I know you think differently. Maybe we have to agree to disagree. It's the exact opposite of what you're describing.

Emir Bauta:

Well, what do you consider grading?
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

Grading is taking dirt away, moving dirt. I'm not going to get into fully a definition of gradingEmir Bauta:

Well, I think it's important.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
... because the language you read was by way of example. I'm just following the criteria, which is minimizing the alterations of natural landform. They do the opposite here. They cut into the hill to create this driveway up a steepEmir Bauta:

But the board told them to go down. The board has literally, in these hearings, we have saidThomas Gibbs - Chair:

Don't say the board. I have alwaysEmir Bauta:

The majority of the board has said, "Take it down." And I think that's incorrect. I really do.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

I disagree with you. I think it is entirely correct. Go ahead, [inaudible 00:42:41].

MJ Coveny:

When you say take it downEmir Bauta:

Could you mic?
MJ Coveny:

We advised take it down. We said takeEmir Bauta:

The board has advised on numerous occasions, bring the program down further into the hill.

MJ Coveny:

Attachment 20 424
425 of 654
This transcript was exported on Dec 03, 2025 - view latest version here. 1550 BBC - November 13 2025 - 3rd DRB Meeting - Trim
Transcript by Rev.com

Yes.

Emir Bauta:

So that increases grading.

MJ Coveny:

No.

Emir Bauta:

It does.

MJ Coveny:

So here's the... No.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

No. It didn't make itMJ Coveny:

No. No. No, no, no. Can I finish?
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

Go ahead.

MJ Coveny:

This is one way to look at it. I could be wrong. I don't think so, but it'd be the first time. You have to grade to get to the top. And you have to grade a very interesting driveway and support that with your grading. And then you also change the topography and the nature of this natural resource with a big home that's almost 52 feet above that. So you've graded and you've put this up there, as opposed to building the home within the natural, which will still require grading, but you will no longer have that mass and density, the mass rather, on top of the hill and the height.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

And then when it talks about alteration of natural landforms, it's looking at the end result, not only the grading. And what you read was by way of example.

MJ Coveny:

It's the whole thing together.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

It looks at the end result. In other words, it's the difference between terracing houses into a hill and making it more natural with the terrain, rather than putting houses on the top of the hill with big retaining walls and big driveways. One is much more minimalMJ Coveny:

Attachment 20 425
426 of 654
This transcript was exported on Dec 03, 2025 - view latest version here. 1550 BBC - November 13 2025 - 3rd DRB Meeting - Trim
Transcript by Rev.com

It affects natural landforms.

Emir Bauta:

You're playing both sides of it.

MJ Coveny:

No. No, we're not.

Emir Bauta:

You are. You're saying you got to go up, but you can't go upMJ Coveny:

No, no, no.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

I thinkEmir Bauta:

You just can't go down.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

I think we've argued this out. I can't tell you how much I disagree with you, but I think weEmir Bauta:

You're not receiving it because what you're saying on one handThomas Gibbs - Chair:

I know exactly what I'm saying.

Emir Bauta:
... does not apply to the other side. And I think that's the concern.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

It does.

Emir Bauta:

That's what I have the biggest concern with, because you're not objectively looking at it for the coastal purposes.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

I disagree.

MJ Coveny:

Attachment 20 426
427 of 654
This transcript was exported on Dec 03, 2025 - view latest version here. 1550 BBC - November 13 2025 - 3rd DRB Meeting - Trim
Transcript by Rev.com

I disagree.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

Anyway, I [inaudible 00:44:41] disagree.

MJ Coveny:

I also disagree.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

Let me go on the criteria six, and then you can come back to it, Emir, with your comments, but we're going in circles now. I happen to think that reducing the building further down and terracing it into the slope, even if it might include more excavation, although they've got a ton of excavation, we'll minimize the alteration of the natural landform. Then with respect to criteria six, the proposed development will be visually compatible with the characters surrounding areas, again, a coastal resource. And there's a reason why they talk about visual compatibility with the character surrounding resources without saying, "Well, it's only public views of oceans." I think it's much broader than that. And as presently designed, I cannot make this finding for a couple of reasons. Some of them are objective. One is, it's the highest... Again, it's the visually compatible with the hillside, with other houses in the community, with the overall area in which this project resides.

There's nothing like it. It stands out. It's not visually compatible. If anything, it is jarring, because it's not built into the hillside and it is not even attempted to design to follow the natural landforms and preserve the public resources of the surrounding area. Rather, it's put on top of the hill, I think, to maximize views. So for those reasons, I can't make the findings for criteria five and six. I'll make a few brief comments about the land use element 2.1 because many neighbors raised it, 2.8 and 7.3 and 10.2.

I don't think those elements are satisfied here. And again, I believe my own view is the carve out allows us to fully consider them. However, because the city council was far less clear and did not give us the clear direction to make Coastal Development Permit findings, to make findings on these other criteria, I'm not going to base my denial on those elements. It sounds like this is going to go before city council again. I hope they read my comments to reconsider that, and apply those land use element policies to also deny this project.

For example, 2.1 deals with maintaining the diversity and uniqueness of individual. It'll minimize the scale and bulk of new construction and/or renovation and required development to be comparable with surrounding residences. Doesn't come close. Policy 2.8 required building design and siting to be comparable and integrated with national topographic features. For the reason I said dealing with the Coastal Development Permit, it doesn't meet that. And then land use policy 7.3 and 10.2 to preserve unique seen equality, public views and visual compatibility in surrounding areas. So for all those reasons, and I'm willing to listen to other arguments, and even if you want to repeat the argument, Emir, but those are my views. You want to go next, Louis? Or Emir, you want to...

Emir Bauta:

Yeah, I'll go for it. I think this objectively is an approvable project. I think we were remanded by the council to recognize the cul-de-sac and look at the natural landforms, public views, risk of fire hazards. I don't think anyone has any issue with the public views or the risk of fire hazards. I think with natural landforms, I think the project does a very good job of incorporating that into their design. And I understand that we're used to subjective criteria being applied, but objectively this project clears that Attachment 20 427
428 of 654
This transcript was exported on Dec 03, 2025 - view latest version here. 1550 BBC - November 13 2025 - 3rd DRB Meeting - Trim
Transcript by Rev.com

burden, clears that barrier. I think that consideration for the coastal resources should be looked at on a much grander scale. This is a buildable site. There is a project here that works. And cutting it into the hill would just only increase the grading and it would only increase further disturbance of that excavation.

And I think that the objective standards that we're applying here today can apply to every single home that's in the CDP. And I don't think we do that here on the board.

And we do that purposefully because these are buildable homes. These homes are very much on a buildable lot. This is not a coastal resource. So I think that's what I've just been trying to get through because I think we got to look at it for what it is. This is a buildable lot in a buildable neighborhood. And objectively this is a buildable house. And we have to ignore our subjective process that we normally go through with the 16 criteria. We have to ignore that. The SB 450 is very, very clear on that. And I think we need to... It is. MJ, it is. It's very clear.

MJ Coveny:

It has a carve out.

Emir Bauta:

For subjective criteriaMJ Coveny:

A carve out.

Emir Bauta:
... we have to agree.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

No. It carves out the Coastal Development Act, which the CDP was adopted pursuant to and approved by the Coastal Commission. That's not correct.

Emir Bauta:

Yeah. Do you know what the Coastal Act is?
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

If we were required to only consider objective criteria, then the city council wouldn't have directed us to make the findings under criteria five or criteria six. The word objective doesn't appear in them. Now, whether something's objective or subjective, is minimizing the alteration of natural landforms, is that an objective determination or a subjective determination? Well, it isn't privacy and it isn't view equity, which requires a balancing. It is something that's observable and you apply words in their ordinary sense. There's no language in any of this that says we can only apply "objective criteria." If it was objective criteria, I suppose you're talking about what's in the zoning code. Why do we even consider a Coastal Development Permit at all at Design Review if there were strictly objective elements? Why did the city council return it to us to make a Coastal Development Permit determination if it was all objective criteria, in the sense that if it complies with the zoning code, it's done? Emir Bauta:

Attachment 20 428
429 of 654
This transcript was exported on Dec 03, 2025 - view latest version here. 1550 BBC - November 13 2025 - 3rd DRB Meeting - Trim
Transcript by Rev.com

I think city council has given us a chance to re-review the REP that was removedThomas Gibbs - Chair:

No, they want us to exercise discretion.

Emir Bauta:

Because that was the big commentary on the last code.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

They could have made that determination.

Emir Bauta:

Tom, did you bring up natural landforms last time? You did not.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

So I did. You're so wrong.

MJ Coveny:

That's part of it.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

It's being in my notes on everyone.

Emir Bauta:

Your main concern last time was the REP and reducing the house side.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

That's just not true.

Louis Weil:

I'm going to call a timeout.

MJ Coveny:

I'm going to go next. Can I go next?
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

Go next.

MJ Coveny:

Or do you want to go?
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

You want to go next?
Attachment 20 429
430 of 654
This transcript was exported on Dec 03, 2025 - view latest version here. 1550 BBC - November 13 2025 - 3rd DRB Meeting - Trim
Transcript by Rev.com

Louis Weil:

Let's just stay on topic with our own individual comments and let's justMJ Coveny:

Can I roll with mine then, because I'm going to be quick about it because it's going to be aThomas Gibbs - Chair:

Go ahead, MJ.

MJ Coveny:

Mine are going to beThomas Gibbs - Chair:

And then Louis. I think you and I probably talked it out.

MJ Coveny:

Mine are going to be concurring comments with Chair Gibbs. So I just want to... I'm not going to go through every point, the findings of five and six. I agree wholeheartedly with your detail and your interpretation and your efforts to figure out this carve out and figure out how to protect this landform in the way that I think is incumbent upon us to do so. I'm grateful for your insight. I'm grateful for the time you put into it and I'm grateful for the legal knowledge that you have. I'm also very grateful to the community who has made a tireless effort and time spent to support the beauty and the safety and the integrity of what our community stands for. So I really appreciate that. I don't appreciate being threatened with a lawsuit, but that's beside the point. The reality is we got to this place because there was very little efforts made to find a balanced solution that would allow you to build absolutely a buildable site, beautiful site. It's going to have a beautiful home on it. And Horst, you're at an astounding architect, no doubt about that.

So all this could have been solved. But I stick with the details that Chair Gibbs articulated, and I support those, and that's my standing tonight.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

Louis, you're up.

Louis Weil:

Yeah. I wish we'd be at a better spot with this. I think there's been challenges on a lot of fronts. In all honesty, I'm a volunteer on this board to try to work with the community, work with applicants to find reasonable solutions, to find the right fit developments that balance the community character that we have here in Laguna Beach. And in serving for seven years, there's been some fantastic projects. Horst, you've done quite a few of them over the years. The ones that fit really well take elements of compromise from both the applicants and the neighbors. And I do appreciate the neighbor's comments that they've been very specific. They've been tied to the program. And it's been full of context. And the applicant, you've made good efforts to provide your stance and your case all along the way.

Some of the challenges was... I mean, the lawsuit thing has been threatened from the beginning. When I first met with the applicant, I had to walk away from the conversation because I was threatened on the Attachment 20 430
431 of 654
This transcript was exported on Dec 03, 2025 - view latest version here. 1550 BBC - November 13 2025 - 3rd DRB Meeting - Trim
Transcript by Rev.com

top of the hill and I had to leave. The good faith effort along the journey, making changes has been extremely difficult. I've been trying to provide the right direction to get an approvable project. And the inching and the continual challenges haven't come to fruition. And I wish we'd be having a different conversation tonight because this is a buildable lot and a large development, something of this size can fit up there. But how it's placed on the lot is, I think, the biggest challenge that we're trying to fit the right balance on the lot to meet the CDP requirements. And I think I concur with Board Member Gibbs that the LUE has been challenged. And I'm hard-pressed to make some of the findings for the P 2.8, P

7.3, 10.2.

2.1 being the more specific call out, the mass and scale out of character because of height. Height of grade of the null far exceeds other projects that have been approved. I've mentioned it at other times where the two on the other side that of recent, we did approve them. They're only popping out of grade by a foot or two. This is popping out of grade by 10 to 15 feet. And that's just significant. When I'm down entering Bluebird Canyon, the whole neighborhood, from the bottom, you can see this protruding well above roof lines. It's not tucked down to be within the characteristic of the total neighborhood. It exceeds it. It stands out like a sore thumb from all the way down by the tennis courts. You can see it. I was trying to find my picture. I took it. But I couldn't find it tonight, but it's visible throughout. And it will change the characteristics of the community.

And I think that's why the neighborhood has come at large to try to find compromise. And they're coming to the board and to council to try to find that balance, strike that balance with the applicant.

And it just hasn't been achieved. I did have issues with the access all along the way. I was requesting that we try to meet the right standards for the road, because I do view this as a new subdivision that's been created with SB 9. On the Morningside, well-established road, curb and curb on both sides. So this wasn't an issue on that side. On this side, we have existing homes. We have much more narrowing of the street. The AMNM calls out 18 to 24 to 28 feet of Bluebird Canyon at different lengths. When I'm up there, I'm measuring about 17 or 16 feet of existing. I know there's some proposals to widen it, but I still think when we look at Cal Fire, a two-lane road, which is Bluebird Canyon, it's a two-lane road. The standard is 20 feet from the state requirements. Unobstructed should be 24 feet.

So right around the nearby vicinity, just where the curb to curb ends is a power pole, the curbs, the street. The pole is specifically 24 feet, the brand new one that's just up there. I sent a picture into staff that we can pull that up. But these new poles and the utilities and the fire hydrants are all encroaching into that 20 feet. The new pole, I measured it, is literally 19 feet across. I don't know how that new pole didn't meet fire standards. I don't know who screwed that up, messed it up, but it's not being addressed in the application tonight. Did you get my photos, Bill? Bill Rodriguez:

Yeah. I didn't realize it.

Louis Weil:

Not that one. You got to pull the next one.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

The power pole is in the 20 foot?
Louis Weil:

It's only 19 feet.

Attachment 20 431
432 of 654
This transcript was exported on Dec 03, 2025 - view latest version here. 1550 BBC - November 13 2025 - 3rd DRB Meeting - Trim
Transcript by Rev.com

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

That's crazy.

Louis Weil:

For where the new pole line is, because it's already partially being placed. I don't know who's driving that, but it doesn't meet the state standards. And when I read the state standards, it says if the local doesn't have a specific ordinance calling out for immediates, the state standard applies. So I don't see these criteria as being met. And from a CDP standard, we're specifically asked to look at fire safety for this area. Those are the old existing poles. The new ones are being placed just as tight to the existing street with no consideration, there's one of the pull wires.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

That right there.

Louis Weil:

Yeah. There's right there. It's being tucked in and it's creating a hazard for your development that needs to be addressed, because new development needs to address the right road width. I don't know what to make of it, but the AMNM doesn't call out... Oh, that's the curb to curb in the nearby vicinity, just shy of 24 feet. It's the 23-foot mark. The next one should show the power pole. Yeah, 23.6 was curb to curb where I measured it. That's the newest replaced pole on this block that people were telling me about.

It's clearly got 24 feet of clear width. So I don't know how these new ones being relocated don't meet the standard for fire safety. And it's not being addressed in the application. So for that reason, I'm denying that CDP element because I don't think it's meeting the state standards.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

All right. Before I give everybody more time, the debate that Emir and I had, that's what we're supposed to do. Emir, I totally respect you for your views. And if we can't debate each other on important issues, we're not acting, I think, as we should as a board. So I want to encourage people if they have more comments to make them. Emir, do you have anything you want to add or address? Emir Bauta:

No, I think that there is... It seems like there's a clear three to one vote that's going to happen here, it seems like. I think it's worth the consideration to really consider the SB 450 as it pertains to this specific project. I think that that'll come up again. But that's all I can say tonight.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

MJ, anything more to add?
MJ Coveny:
[inaudible 01:02:11].

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

All right. At this point, we don't have... Go ahead.

Attachment 20 432
433 of 654
This transcript was exported on Dec 03, 2025 - view latest version here. 1550 BBC - November 13 2025 - 3rd DRB Meeting - Trim
Transcript by Rev.com

Patrick Donegan:

Yeah. And so, I just want to be sure. Chairs, because this is the third one, I've been taking copious notes.

Why don't you guys go ahead and wrap up your final comments? I'm requesting a five minuteThomas Gibbs - Chair:

I was going to ask you, I was going to look to you and I say, do you want to do a resolution to [inaudible 01:02:33]?
Patrick Donegan:

I'm going to do one. I'm going to share it on the screen. As I said before, I'll probably only need about five minutes. The one clarification, I understand the issue that Board Member Weil brought up. I didn't hear potential agreement with that. And then if there is agreement with that, you guys are going to have to walk me throughThomas Gibbs - Chair:

Do you want us to continue it and do the resolution on consent calendar? Patrick Donegan:

No. Well, we need to do it tonight.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

Okay, sure.

Louis Weil:

And the code section I was referencing was 2020 14CCR chapter 171273.01. And then it also is in OCFA as a guideline B 01 for very high high fire severity zones. 28 feet.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

You want us to take a short break? Because it's probably going to be at least potentially a similar resolution for the next time.

Patrick Donegan:

Correct. And so, we are going to want to take one, but I do want to [inaudible 01:03:33].

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

What?
Patrick Donegan:

I do want to drill down on that, that if there's... Is there a majority of the quorum, i.e. three of you? And then if so, I understand those references are to the fire code and maybe to the municipal code. I'm not necessarily seeing a direct connection to the CDP findings. And so, if you want to include that in the resolution of denial, I got criteria fiveThomas Gibbs - Chair:

Attachment 20 433
434 of 654
This transcript was exported on Dec 03, 2025 - view latest version here. 1550 BBC - November 13 2025 - 3rd DRB Meeting - Trim
Transcript by Rev.com

Oh, definitely.

Patrick Donegan:
... I got criteria six. If this fire issue needs a bit where you're going to need to wrap that up in a bow.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

Okay.

Patrick Donegan:

And I apologize if I'm notThomas Gibbs - Chair:

You got five and six because I'm denying it based upon five and six.

Patrick Donegan:

Correct. I believe I have five and six. And once again, but can you give me five minutes? I'm going to type it up and show it on the screen for you guys.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

Okay. And you want to hear the fire thing?
Louis Weil:

The fire correlates to CDP finding number eight, quasi number nine, and somewhat number one. In the sense that number eight, the proposed development will provide adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and facilities. The road needs to be compatible for a two lane road that it is. There's three vacant lots that are trying to be developed on the uphill side that there is the right-of-way available to create the 24 feet.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

Which ones again?
Louis Weil:

So CDP eight, access to roads. Proposal will be other nine [inaudible 01:05:18] but not limited to solid waste, public roadway capacity. Number one, the proposed development will not encroach upon any existing physical access ways legally utilized by the public.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

I'm not sure we see one. I see eight. Eight would be the [inaudible 01:05:39] will be provided with adequate utilities. And given the location of the poles, you questioned whether there's adequate utilities, access roads, and other facilities. Where's the fire one? Louis Weil:

Well, the council told us on fire that was in there, that fire safety needed to be a component of it. So that council's direction was BE, "Consider the Coastal Development Permit, revised design, based Attachment 20 434
435 of 654
This transcript was exported on Dec 03, 2025 - view latest version here. 1550 BBC - November 13 2025 - 3rd DRB Meeting - Trim
Transcript by Rev.com

directions, paragraph A, above recognition, coastal resources, including natural forms, public views, and risk of fire hazard."
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

Yeah. It's erosional floor or flat or fire. It's five. Five is what you want.

Louis Weil:

Okay.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

So make it based upon five, and I think potentially eight. But it's primarily five. So I could support it on five.

MJ Coveny:

I can too, if you need to hear it from my list. Yes.

Patrick Donegan:

The board needs three to act. Okay. So Chair, if I may, with your indulgence, maybe between five to 10 minutes. It is imperative because the item is still open. I would encourage you all not to talk to anyone, not to talk to each other. Usually during the recess, there's some back and forth. This is a little bit different because the item is still going. So mum is the word. And once again, everyone's here. I will give you the signal after I get with Bill and wrap it up.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

Okay. Why don't you take the time. When you're ready, you let me know and I'll call the meeting to order.

Patrick Donegan:

Thank you, Chair.

MJ Coveny:

Thanks.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

Meetings on break.

Seats. And Mr. Donegan, you have the floor. [inaudible 01:13:43] What? No. [inaudible 01:13:52].

Patrick Donegan:

Excuse me. So just for everyone's edification, I believe I copied all the whereas is, but the direction that I will seek from the board is to make sure that those are all consistent with all the dates and so on and so forth. Obviously, we have the CEQA for a denial and then here's what I'm going to want you guys to take a look at. And if you want I can... Let me make that a little bit bigger. And this is basically denying the CDP based off of the following findings, obviously finding one and then criteria five. If it's easier, I'll just Attachment 20 435
436 of 654
This transcript was exported on Dec 03, 2025 - view latest version here. 1550 BBC - November 13 2025 - 3rd DRB Meeting - Trim
Transcript by Rev.com

shut up for a second and let you guys read it as compared to reading it out loud so I don't confuse anyone.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

Move your arrow, your cursor.

Instead of would more, I would say "Will better protect the natural landform and minimize its alteration."
As a result is [inaudible 01:15:09] a naturally occurring landform on the project site. Yeah, I think that's good for the location. Let me read that.

Okay. That should fall within... Oh yeah, that goes perfect. Are you good with the further, because it does fall within the right criteria? I'll go to number six.

Louis Weil:

Yep. I just put the compatible with the Cal Fire standard. The Cal Fire...

Patrick Donegan:

Right. And so I mean, once again, you guys are the decision makers.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

Yeah. I would say that allows for a widest possible road, and I would do this, complies with...

Patrick Donegan:

I just want to be sure though that I understand that that cite to the fire code, I'm not doubting it.

Louis Weil:

Okay.

Patrick Donegan:

That is the fire marshal and the fire department. So I want to make sure that I have no idea if there's exceptions, if there's another code that says, "Hey, under X, Y, Z." Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

Do this after where it says wide as possible road, and then add, "And will not result in undue risk from fire hazards.

Speaker 15:
12:27 AM.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

Okay. That then tracks the criteria. All right, number six.

Mercy. Okay.

Okay. I want to make one.

Attachment 20 436
437 of 654
This transcript was exported on Dec 03, 2025 - view latest version here. 1550 BBC - November 13 2025 - 3rd DRB Meeting - Trim
Transcript by Rev.com

Where it says above the knoll by 10 to 15 feet, I would do comma, "Resulting in a structure approximately 52 feet above grade."
Patrick Donegan:

Street grade?
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

Yeah. Above street grade.

MJ Coveny:

I think it's higher than that.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

Is it higher? 54?
Louis Weil:

This was 52.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

I would do, "Resulting in a structure more than 50 feet above grade." Because I think it's not clear, but it's definitely above 50. Say "More than 50 feet above grade, which finds no comparison in surrounding areas."
Okay. Then I'm good through this.

I'm good with that paragraph.

Okay. I'm good with it. Those are my only changes at this hour.

Louis Weil:

Where's another section?
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

Keep in mind, if this does go before the city council, it's a three vote, so it's a de novo review, and they'll have the opportunity to consider what we've written and to make any changes that the city council may desire.

Patrick Donegan:

That is correct, Chair.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

All right. I'm good with this. Do we have a resolution? I'm happy to make... Is this carry the same resolution number that you have? So is it resolution 24-... Ooh, that's the wrong one. Hold on a second.

Let me go back toPatrick Donegan:

Attachment 20 437
438 of 654
This transcript was exported on Dec 03, 2025 - view latest version here. 1550 BBC - November 13 2025 - 3rd DRB Meeting - Trim
Transcript by Rev.com

I have that wrong.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

I'm on 12.

Louis Weil:
2588. Yeah. [inaudible 01:20:04].

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

Yeah. Is this...

Patrick Donegan:

Correct. Yeah. So weThomas Gibbs - Chair:
... 24-2509?
Patrick Donegan:

No, it would be 20-
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

I went to [inaudible 01:20:20].

Patrick Donegan:

Yeah. So yeah. It would be 24-2588. Look at that. I think I got it right.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
24-2588. Okay. With that said, I make a motion that the board adopt resolution 24-2588 as revised and presented by the city attorney, which denies coastal permit 24-2588 and Design Review. I'm just reading from the thing, so correct me if I'm wrong, Patrick. And Design Review 24-2586.

Patrick Donegan:

Chair, I do apologize. I believe our Zoom just stopped. We're going to fire up a new one. Give us one second. We want to make sure that this is not lost, as I'm sure the applicant is going to be very interested in this.

Thomas Gibbs - Chair:

Yeah. So the resolution denies both the CDP andLouis Weil:

Wait, wait, it's [inaudible 01:21:27].

Patrick Donegan:

Attachment 20 438
439 of 654
This transcript was exported on Dec 03, 2025 - view latest version here. 1550 BBC - November 13 2025 - 3rd DRB Meeting - Trim
Transcript by Rev.com