Correct. Yeah.
Louis Weil:
Let it kick back on. Joe, you got us?
MJ Coveny:
When he's up, he's got to get us re-upped on the...
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
Okay. I'll shut up.
MJ Coveny:
Yeah. So don't give it away. Save it [inaudible 01:21:40].
Louis Weil:
At least you said it and not me.
We're still not there.
Speaker 15:
Recording in progress.
Louis Weil:
Chair, that would be your queue for action.
Speaker 15:
Recording in progress.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
Can I go, Patrick? You guys...
MJ Coveny:
Paula will tell you [inaudible 01:22:36].
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
Oh, Paula's going to tell me?
Speaker 16:
Okay. Here we go.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
Okay. We're good?
Patrick Donegan:
Attachment 20 439
440 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
Chair. Yeah, we are good.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
Okay. So let me try this again. I move that the Design Review Board adopt resolution 24-2588 as revised by the city attorney, denying Coastal Development Permit 24-2588 and Design Review 24-2586. I also need to make the CDP findings.
Patrick Donegan:
And so Chair, as of right now, we have only discussed the Coastal Development Permit findings. There is no need to make a finding on that Design Review. It needs both entitlements. If you guys would like, once again, I'll remind you all that the city council did direct you guys to only look at the objective findings of Design Review, which we did in the staff report. So while I cannot... I'm not a board member, that is up to you guys. If you guys cannot make the findings of the CDP, I think that would be sufficient.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
Okay. So let me restate the motion. The motion is that the Design Review... Before I do that, do I make a sequel finding?
Patrick Donegan:
No. A denial of a project is not a... Let's see, what's the correct section? Does not apply to projects that a public agency rejects or disapproves pursuant to section 15270.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
Okay. Thanks. Just want to be sure. Okay. I move that Design Review Board adopt resolution 24-2588 as revised by the city attorney denying coastal permit 24-2588. Do I have a second? MJ Coveny:
Second.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
Paula, call the role.
Paula:
Board Member Bauta?
Emir Bauta:
No.
Paula:
Board member Coveny?
MJ Coveny:
Yes.
Attachment 20 440
441 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
Paula:
Board member Weil?
Louis Weil:
Yes.
Paula:
Chair Gibbs?
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
Yes.
Paula:
Motion has passed three to one.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
All right. For our last matter of the evening, we haveAttachment 20 441 442 of 654
Updated April 26, 2021
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS &
JUNIOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
(Remain in effect until January 1, 2025, and as of that date is repealed) On January 1, 2020, new State laws went into effect that makes it easier to build Accessory Dwelling Units – aka. granny flats – in California. Provided below is a summary of State regulations (Government Codes 65852.2 and 65852.22). Refer to the Accessory Dwelling Unit Handbook issued by the California Department of Housing and Community Development for more information.
General Standards ▪ADUs and JADUs allowed to any lot with legally permitted single-family or multi-family residential dwelling.
▪ADUs up to 800 square feet in size do not count towards allowable density, floor area ratio, lot coverage, and open space of the lot. ADUs over 800 square feet in size shall be subject to the lot coverage, floor area ratio, and open space requirements as specified in the underlying zone. ▪No minimum lot size requirement.
Permit Process ADUs up to 800 square feet and JADUs:
▪Ministerial approval via Zoning Plan Check and Building Permits.
ADUs greater than 800 square feet and up to 850/1,000 square feet:
▪Ministerial approval via Zoning Plan Check and Building Permits, provided compliance with applicable development standards of underlying zone.
ADUs that deviate from the applicable development standards or exceed 850/1,000 square feet in size:
▪Discretionary review via Zoning Plan Check and Building Permits (may also include Design Review and/or Variance)
Coastal Development Permits continue to apply except that no public hearing is required.
Number of Units (Lots with Existing Single-Family Dwelling) 1 ADU and 1 JADU (Lots with Existing Multi-Family Dwelling)
▪Conversions of non-living to living space: 1 min. up to 25% of the total existing units max. ▪Detached: 2 units max.
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
Size ADU Detached
ADU Attached
ADU Conversions
▪(1-bedroom) 850 square feet max.
▪(2+ bedroom) 1,000 square feet max.
▪Additional 150 square feet for ingress/egress purposes only Whichever is less of the following:
▪50% of floor area of existing primary dwelling OR
▪850 square feet max. or 1,000 square feet max. for more than one-bedroom No size limit
Height ▪ADUs up to 800 square feet: up to 16’ max. for ministerial review. ▪ADUs larger than 800 square feet: up to 12’ max. and any height in excess requires a Variance but exempt from Design Review.
Setback Front Setback: Comply with applicable zoning standards Sides and Rear:
▪ADUs up to 800 square feet: 4’ side and rear setbacks, including properties that do not have rear yards (e.g. through lots)
▪ADUs larger than 800 square feet: comply with development standards of the underlying zone.
Separation between structures: 10’ minimum required between an ADU and any other building. This building separation may be reduced to 3’, provided that the structure is designed to the satisfaction of the Building Official (e.g. fire-protected openings, sprinklers, etc.).
Attachment 21 442
443 of 654
Updated April 26, 2021
Nonconforming Buildings Nonconforming buildings that are converted or demolished to construct an ADU in its place may maintain its existing setbacks and height. Portions of the ADU that expand beyond the nonconforming building shall conform with the height and setback standards above.
Parking Required ▪1 space per ADU or bedroom, whichever is less. ▪Can be tandem on driveway or within setback area unless findings are made that it is not feasible based on specific site or regional topographical or fire and life safety conditions.
Parking Exempt ▪Conversions of existing space
▪Located within ½ mile walking distance of public transit. “Public transit” means a location, including, but not limited to, a bus stop or train station, where the public may access buses, trains, subways, and other forms of transportation that charge set fares, run on fixed routes, and are available to the public. Laguna Beach transit is considered public transit. ▪Located within architecturally/historically significant historic district ▪When on-street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupant of the accessory dwelling unit
▪Located within one block of a car share vehicle
Passageway Passageway, or a pathway that is unobstructed clear to the sky and extends from a street to one entrance of the ADUs is not required.
Sprinklers Required only if sprinklers exist or is proposed for the primary dwelling.
Fire Department Review
Required ▪Detached ADU
▪Conversions of detached structures to an ADU
Utility Connections (Conversions) No new or separate utility connection directly between the ADU and the utility or impose a related connection fee or capacity charge unless the accessory dwelling unit is constructed with a new single-family home.
(Non-Conversions) May require new or separate utility connection directly between the accessory dwelling unit and the utility and may be subject to a connection fee or capacity charge (i.e. sewer connection) that shall be proportionate to the burden of the proposed accessory dwelling unit, based upon either its square feet or the number of its drainage fixture unit (DFU) values, as defined in the Uniform Plumbing Code upon the water or sewer system.
Cert of Occupancy A certificate of occupancy for an ADU shall not be issued prior to the new single-family dwelling unit.
Private Sewage
Disposal System Local health officer approval required
JUNIOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (JADU)
JADU
▪ JADUs means a converted unit that is no more than 500 square feet in size and contained entirely within a single-family dwelling.
▪ May include separate sanitation facilities or share with the existing structure. ▪ Require a separate entrance from the primary dwelling. Passageway, or a pathway that is unobstructed clear to the sky and extends from a street to the entrance is not required. ▪ Require an efficiency kitchen, which includes a cooking facility with appliances; and a food preparation counter and storage cabinets that are of reasonable size in relation to the size of the JADU.
▪ Require the recordation of a deed restriction, which shall run with the land, that includes the following: 1) A prohibition on the sale of the junior accessory dwelling unit separate from the sale of the single-family residence, including a statement that the deed restriction may be enforced against future purchasers. 2) A restriction on the size and attributes of the junior accessory dwelling unit that conforms with this section.
▪ Property owner shall permanently reside, as evidenced by documentation satisfactory to the city, in the primary residential unit. or the JADU.
▪ No parking required.
Attachment 21 443
444 of 654
1 Latham, Daniel CD
From: David Dyrnaes <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2025 7:05 AM
To: Latham, Daniel CD
Subject: 1550 BCD ADU requirements.
Attachments: ADU_Regulations-2_page_Handout_(4.26.2021)[1333].pdf [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.] Daniel,
Per Horst’s team, “ADUs up to 800 square feet are not required to comply with the Landscape Open Space Calculation, as detailed in the attached Laguna Beach ADU Handout.” Please confirm the details with Jaime and Horst.
David
Attachment 22 444
445 of 654
PROJECT TEAM SHEET INDEX PROJECT SUMMARY OWNER: 1560 BCD LLC DAVID DYRNAES 2125 TEMPLE HILLS DR. LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 P. 949.300.7636 VICINITY MAP ADDRESS: DESCRIPTION REQUIRED/ ALLOWED PROPOSED (Yes/No) CONFORMS USE ZONE LOT AREA LOT WIDTH (AVG.) LOT DEPTH (AVG.) LOT SLOPE (%) MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT MAX. HEIGHT - FF,FG,EG SETBACKS: Side Yards LOT COVERAGE max. BSC ZONING STANDARDS PROJECT DATA DESCRIPTION PROPOSED LIVING AREA: GARAGE MECHANICAL ELEVATED DECK TERRACE 1550 BLUEBIRD CANYON DRIVE, LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 RESIDENTIAL Y R-1 YYYYYY TOTAL Y PROJECT SITE (NO CHANGE) SINGLE FAMILY TS TITLE SHEET A1.1 SITE PLAN TP-01 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY ADU AREA CALCULATIONS 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 Mid Level GRADING PLAN 15'-0" Abv. EG @ RPL K Y O T O H O U S E & U N I T B 1550 BLUEBIRD CANYON DR., L A G U N A B E A C H, CA PROJECT DESCRIPTION ADDITION OF A 798 SF. ATTACHED ADU TO A PROPOSED 4,393 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH A DEDICATED 159.60 SF. OF ON-GRADE DECK, AND FIREPIT. 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 (SB9) 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 N/A 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 & EAST A4.1 ADU SECTION B 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 3,017.63 SF 1,191.84 SF 525.22 SF - 4,027.80 SF =32.57% - 18'-6" 8'-0" right, 16'-5" left Y - 8'-0" r., 24'-0" l. - 20'-4" g.,10'-0" h. A2.1 ADU FLOOR PLAN POOL / JACUZZI / WATER FEATURE DETAILS Jacuzzi Reflecting Pond DIMENSIONS (L x W x D) VOLUME / GALLONS TOTAL SITE WORK (ADU) Total GRADING Over Excavation Re-Compactation Outside Building Footprint Cut Fill Net Export 65 CY 65 CY 0 CY 423 CY 65 CY 358 CY 150 CY 20 CY 150 CY 15'-9" 13'-6" 1'-6" 2,385 8'-0" 8'-0" 3'-6" 1,675 4,060 ROOF AREA Lower Level 183.77 SF Inside Building Footprint 208 CY 0 CY 208 CY A6.1 STAKING PLAN A6.2 FIRE ACCESS PLAN ARCHITECT: HORST NOPPENBERGER HORST ARCHITECTS, INC. 247 A FOREST AVENUE, LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 P. 949.494.9569 E: [email protected] CIVIL: ADAM TOAL TOAL ENGINEERING 139 AVENIDA NAVARRO SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92672 T: 949.492.8586 F: 949.498.8625 [email protected] PROPOSED FIXTURE COUNT Low voltage indirect slot light - recessed in wall 125 lm EXTERIOR BUILDING LIGHTING PROPOSED EGRESS DOORS FIXTURE TYPE WATTAGE LUMENS QUANTITY COMMENTS TOTAL 2 W 12 Lightology - 113RL outdoor wall recessed 9 HOUSE + 3 ADU 12 12 PROPOSED FIXTURE COUNT LANDSCAPE LIGHTING FIXTURE TYPE LUMENS QUANTITY COMMENTS TOTAL 33 Down Light 300 lm 6 52 Wall Down Light 150 lm 10 Path Light 125 lm 17 SPJ Lighting SPJ-BJ3 BCAE TOTAL EXTERIOR + LANDSCAPE 64 D Step Light 125 lm 25 LANSCAPED OPEN SPACE N/A IRRIGATED AREA N/A 3,182.10 SF 3,2030 SF N/A N/A N/A 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 DRAWING PREPARED BY: JM K Y O T O H O U S E & U N I T B 1550 BLUEBIRD CANYON DRIVE, LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 LANDSCAPE: M. D. WILKES DESIGN 690 THALIA ST. LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 T: 949.637.1050 [email protected] L2.0 LANDSCAPE PLAN A1.2 ADU ROOF PLAN A6.3 EXTERIOR LIGHTING PLAN SPJ Lighting SPJ-T1 6W SPJ Lighting SPJ-FB-275-3 TSN/A 09.21.2025 SPJ Lighting SPJ-104-RL - - - - - - - - - - - - ------ ------- 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 L4.0 LANDSCAPE LIGHTING PLAN ADU HABITABLE - 798.00 SF - 798.00 SF ADU DECK (ON-GRADE) - 159.60 SF - 159.60 SF C-2 SECTIONS AM&M: DUDEK 38 NORTH MARENGO AVENUE PASADENA, CA 91101 T:626.204.9800 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 447 of 654
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' TW
481.00' NG 487.00' T. FENCE
482.70' NG 488.70 T.FENCE
486.50' NG
466.10' NG
DRIVEWAY 10% SLOPE MAX
FOR FIREFIGHTER ACCESS
480.00' FS 480.00' FS
491.50' TW
28'-0"
GRV-1 501.10 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
42'-1"
27'-7"
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
SPA
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"
LOT A
ADU FOOTPRINT
UP
479.50 FS
UP UP
STN-2
STN-2
484.50 FS
488.00 FS
STN-2
4'-0"
ADU
SYSB
4'-0" ADU RYSB
4'-0" ADU RYSB
4'-0" ADU SYSB
16'-5" SYSB
492.00 FS
492.00 FS
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
GRV-1
GRV-1
3'-5"
28'-2"
2'-6"
17'-10"
24'-6"
14'-6"
18'-6" RYSB
14'-6"
3'-0"
8'-6"
7'-0"
UP
WD-2
WTR
492.00 FS 491.50
FS
488.50
FS
DN
489.12
FS
490.37
FS
DN
DN
DN
GRV-1
GRV-1
WD-2
EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT TO REMAIN
RESERVED AREA
(NO GRADING)
32 52
52 52
52 52
6" CURB 473.5' T.C.
6" CURB 472.5' T.C.
6" CURB
467.32' FS
471.5' T.C.
466.12'
489.12' FS 489.72' FS 490.25' FS 490.83' FS 491.33' FS
489.12' FS 489.75' FS 24'-3" 46'-10"
1 1
47 17
2 28'-6"
1 2
38 15
15 18
18 59
491.33 FS
491.33 FS
491.33 FS 491.33 FS
1 RESERVED AREA
(NO GRADING)
LOCATION OF NEW EDISON POLE
LOCATION OF NEW EDISON POLE
60 60
60 491.33 FS
DN 2:1 SLOPE
DN
489.72
FS
VEG
491.50 FS
SLOPES DN
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
ADU KICHENETTE
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
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 ADU MAX HEIGHT 25' ABV. NG, FG, FF - (WHICHEVER IS MORE RESTRICTIVE) 52 ADU SETBACK - 4'-0"
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
K
Y
O
T
O
H
O
U
S
E
&
U
N I T
B
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
59 JACUZZI ACRYLIC WALL/EDGE
60 NON-STRUCTURAL 6" CURB
N
A1.1
1 4
" = 1'-0"
09.21.2025
ADU SITE PLAN
Project North
448 of 654
5627 41272756 2750240127256 30 AA4.1 AA4.1 BA4.1 BA4.1 SA3.1 NA3.2 EA3.3 WA3.3 DECK 503.00' FS 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 27 GREEN ROOF 503.00' TR 503.50' T SKLT 503.50' T SKLT 503.50' T SKLT 503.50' T SKLT 503.00' TR 503.00' TR
503.00' TR
503.00' TR
504.00' TW 504.00' TW
504.00' TW 504.00' TW 30'-4" 81'-5" 68'-5" 6'-8" 10'-9" 16'-6" 4'-8" 47'-2" 35'-2" 19'-11" 83'-6"
16'-4" 13'-6" 53'-8" 8'-0" 15'-9" 11'-6"
28'-4"
8'-0" 13'-0" 13'-6"11'-3" 3'-3" 2'-6"
33'-0" 10'-6" 21 215240 52 5256 3056 2 WD-2 TPO GLS-1 VEG VEG VEG VEG GLS-1 26'-1" 30'-2" 3'-5" 22'-8" 17'-8" 4'-0" 13'-6" HORST ARCHITECTS EXPRESSLY RESERVES ITS COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT AND OTHER PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THESE DRAWINGS. THESE DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE REPRODUCED, CHANGED, OR COPIED IN ANY FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER NOR ARE THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO ANY THIRD PARTY WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE 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 ADU KICHENETTE 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 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 ADU MAX HEIGHT 25' ABV. NG, FG, FF - (WHICHEVER IS MORE RESTRICTIVE) 52 ADU SETBACK - 4'-0" 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 K Y O T O H O U S E & U N I T B 1550 BLUEBIRD CANYON DRIVE, LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 59 JACUZZI ACRYLIC WALL/EDGE 60 NON-STRUCTURAL 6" CURB A1.214" = 1'-0" 06.20.2025 ROOF PLAN UP 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 18'-6" RYSB 21517 4535372826 2129262 453755 47 53 453715182 BA4.1 BA4.1 BA4.1 NA3.2 EA3.3 WA3.3 1 BATHROOM 492.00' FF COVERED DECK 492.00' FF 34 27'-6" 34'-2" 83'-6"
1'-11" 30'-4" 12'-8" 2'-11" 6'-1" 492.0 FS SPA ADU DECK 492.00 FS 492.00 FS MAIN HOUSE ON-GRADE SPA/DECK 492.00 FS STN-2 ADU BEDROOM 492.00' FF ADU BATH 492.00' FF ADU KICHENETTE 492.00' FF ADU LIVING 492.00' FF ADU DINING 492.00' FF 14'-6" 11'-6" 492.00 FS DN DN DN 16'-5" 19'-10" 22'-6" 27'-11" 20'-2" 3'-0" 8'-0" 7'-0" 28 ENTRY 492.00' FF COURTYARD 492.00' FF DN 2:1 SLOPE 492.00 FS 492.00 FS SLOPES DN 2'-6" 12'-1" INTERIOR COURTYARD 491.50' FF 492.00' FS 4'-0" AUD RYSB 4'-0" AUS SYSB 4'-0" ADU SYSB 4'-0" 1'-9" ADU RYSB 492.00 FS 492.00 FS 492.00 FS 488.50 FS DN 489.12 FS 490.37 FS 492.00' FF 489.75FS 490.28 FS 489.12 FS 489.75 FS 490.86 FS 491.44 FS DN DN 4'-6" 45 45 45 40 39 37 52 52 STN-2 STN-2 GRV-1 STN-2 STN-2 VEG 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 GRV-1 GRV-1 GRV-1 STN-2 GRV-1 GRV-1 GRV-1 GRV-1 STN-2 STN-2 STN-2 STN-2 STN-2 STN-2 STN-2 STN-2 WD-2 WD-2 WTR VEG VEG SPA 491.50 FS SLOPES DN 7'-6" 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 A2.114" = 1'-0" 06.20.2025 ADU FLOOR PLAN 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 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 4810 10 12 4926 174 503.50' FF 4'-0" ADU SYSB 4'-0" ADU SYSB 502.00' PLATE/FF 503.50' FF 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'-0" 12'-0"
10'-0" 1'-0" 11'-0" 1'-0" STUC CON-2 GLS-2 STUC STUC GLS-3 516.25' MAX. HEGHT @ PLANE A PLANE A 45 21026 27 282752109 26272828 10128 1282728 17 STRUCTURE BEYOND STRUCTURE BEYOND 4'-0" ADU RYSB 15'-0" 515.00' ADU MAX. HEGHT @ PLANE A GLS-1 GLS-1 CON-2 MTL-3 A3.114" = 1'-0" 09.20.2025 SOUTH ELEVATION WEST 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 & U N I T B 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 ADU KICHENETTE 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 ADU MAX HEIGHT 25' ABV. NG, FG, FF - (WHICHEVER IS MORE RESTRICTIVE) 52 ADU SETBACK - 4'-0" 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) 502.00' PLATE 503.00' FF/TR 510.50' PLATE 511.50' 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"
3'-6"
3'-6" 502.00' FS 510.50' PLATE 511.50' ROOF 492.00' FF
19'-6"
10'-11" 9'-6"
10'-0" 1'-0" 7'-6" 1'-0" AA4.1 AA4.1 STRUCTURE BEYOND STRUCTURE BEYOND 2 @ SECTION CUT 2617 1 @ SECTION CUT 282728 17 5 52 1 15 501.00' FF 2649 4'-0" ADU RYSB ADU BEDROOM CON-2 STUC 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 - SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN 51 NON-STRUCTURAL 6" CURB 52 NOT USED 53 SCULPTURE 54 LOUVERED VENT DOOR 55 GRAVEL EDGE/TRENCH 56 REDUCED PARAPET 57 LOW WALL 58 BATTERY (SOLAR SYSTEM) A4.114" = 1'-0" 09.20.2025 SECTION B UP 14'-6" 22'-8" 26'-2" 14'-6" 31'-11" 17'-4" 11'-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: 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 ADU FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS ADU 101 102 HABITABLE 798.00 SF DECK 159.60 SF HABITABLE DECK GARAGE MECHANICAL GLS-1 GLS-1 19'-11"
8'-0" 13'-6" 11'-3" 3'-3" 2'-6" 17'-8" 10'-6" 6 503.0' TR 1 503.5' TW 3 503.0' TR 8 503.0' TR 7503.0' TR 5 503.0' TR 2 503.5' TW 503.0' TR 4 1'-9" 46'-0" 13'-6" 1'-0" 9 503.5' T SKLT10 503.0' TR 503.5' T SKLT 503.5' T SKLT 503.0' TR 503.5' TW 503.5' TW 503.5' TW 503.5' TW 23'-9" 27'-11" 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" 09.22.2025 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 78910 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 ADU STAKING PLAN 503.50' TW * 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 503.50' TSKLT 503.50' TSKLT 503.00' TR 503.50' TW 503.50' TW 503.50' TW UP STN-2 ALL WEATHER 3ft WIDE ALL WEATHER 3ft WIDE FIREFIGHTER ACCESS FIREFIGHTER ACCESS LOCATION OF STANDPIPE LOCATION OF STANDPIPE ALL WEATHER 3ft WIDE FIREFIGHTER ACCESS (CONTINUES PER DUDEK'S AM& M REPORT DATED OCT.2025) ALL WEATHER 3ft WIDE FIREFIGHTER ACCESS (CONTINUES PER DUDEK'S AM& M REPORT DATED OCT.2025) 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 DRAWING PREPARED BY: JM K Y O T O H O U S E & U N I T B 1550 BLUEBIRD CANYON DRIVE, LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 A6.214" = 1'-0" 06.20.2025 ADU FIRE FIGHTER ACCESS PLAN STN-2 A A 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 DRAWING PREPARED BY: JM K Y O T O H O U S E & U N I T B 1550 BLUEBIRD CANYON DRIVE, LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 A6.314" = 1'-0" 06.20.2025 ADU EXTERIOR LIGHTING PLAN LOW VOLTAGE INDIRECT SLOT LIGHT - RECESSED IN WALL LIGHTOLOGY - 113RL- 2 WATT PROPOSED FIXTURE COUNT Low voltage indirect slot light - recessed in wall 125 lm EXTERIOR BUILDING LIGHTING PROPOSED EGRESS DOORS ADU FIXTURE TYPE WATTAGE LUMENS QUANTITY COMMENTS TOTAL 3 W 13 Lightology - 113RL outdoor wall recessed 33 3 APLEASE REFER TO SHEET L-04 FOR LANDSCAPE LIGHTING
FIRST LEVEL FF=492.00 PAD= ___.__ LOT A GARAGE FIRST LEVEL FF=492.00 PAD= ___.__SPA ADU FF=492.00 PAD= ___.__ PARCEL 4 LL ADJ 04-01 PARCEL 3 LL ADJ 04-01 (PRIVATELY OWNED) TRACT 990 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT PER SEPARATE PLAN 1 3 9 A v e n i d a N a v a r r o S a n C l e m e n t e , C A 9 2 6 7 2 9 4 9 . 4 9 2 . 8 5 8 6 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 EASEMENT NOTE PRELIMINARY PLAN NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION LEGEND EARTHWORK QUANTITIES OF ADU:
Tt Qrs SECTION Qrs Tt Tt 1 3 9 A v e n i d a N a v a r r o S a n C l e m e n t e , C A 9 2 6 7 2 9 4 9 . 4 9 2 . 8 5 8 6 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 505 FOREST AVENUE ∙ LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 ∙ TEL (949) 497-3311 ∙ FAX (949)497-0771 October 23, 2025
David Dyrnaes
Subject: Zoning Plan Check 24-1691 / Zoning Plan Check 24-1514 1550 and1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive
Date of Submittal: 9/24/25
Dear Mr. Dyrnaes,
I am writing relating to your resubmission of documents on September 24, 2025 relating to development of both (1) 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive (Lot A), which was subject to a Design Review Board continuance on August 14, 2025; and (2) 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive (Lot B), which was subject to City Council remand on August 12, 2025.
As you know, on October 21, 2025, City staff met with you relating to your resubmittals and sent you the enclosed correspondence identifying that your applications for both projects were incomplete due to missing cross sections and centerline data, as required by the City’s Zoning Submittal Checklist that is part of the City’s Planning Application, which are both enclosed for reference. (See enclosed Email Communication; Planning Application; and Zoning Plan Check Submittal Requirements Checklist, Paragraphs D and I.)
During our October 21, 2025 meeting, you raised that you included sheets in the resubmittal for 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive, adding an accessory dwelling unit to the single-family residence.
Please note that in order for the City to process the added accessory dwelling unit, you will need to submit the Planning Application and fee for the accessory dwelling unit through the City’s online portal, Energov, or in person at City Hall. You have not submitted such application and fee through the City’s online portal or in person at City Hall. City staff quickly scanned the sheets provided that included the proposed accessory dwelling unit and determined that it conflicts with certain development standards, such as the landscape open space requirement. (See LBMC Section
25.10.008(O).) As such, at a minimum, the proposed accessory dwelling unit will require a coastal development permit and variance. (See LBMC Section 25.07.012(G) [A CDP may be approved only after finding, in part, the project is in conformity with applicable provisions of the certified local coastal program].) City staff will be unable to review the accessory dwelling unit further until an application is submitted and a fee is paid.
The notice for the public hearing for the 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive project did not reference the newly proposed accessory dwelling unit or variance for not meeting the open space requirement.
Therefore, not only can staff not process the accessory dwelling unit submittal because you have not filed an application with the City or paid the required fees, but the Design Review Board cannot Attachment 24 460
461 of 654
October 23, 2025
Zoning Plan Check 24-1691
505 FOREST AVENUE ∙ LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 ∙ TEL (949) 497-3311 ∙ FAX (949)497-0771 consider the accessory dwelling unit during the November 13, 2025 public hearing because it has not been appropriately noticed.
Your email today indicated that you are pursuing the accessory dwelling unit and there is no conflict with the open space requirement for ADU’s under 800 square foot, referencing an April 26, 2021 staff-prepared handout. (Enclosed is a copy of your email and the outdated staff handout.) As an initial matter, this handout—by its own terms—expired on January 1, 2025 (before you submitted plan sheets to the City with a proposed accessory dwelling unit). Please note that the City’s Zoning Code and certified Local Coastal Program govern and regulate accessory dwelling units—and development generally—within the City. Please see Ordinance No. 1713 which is the City’s existing development standards for accessory dwelling units.
Please let me know if I can assist you further.
Sincerely,
Daniel Latham
Associate Planner
City of Laguna Beach
505 Forest Avenue, Laguna Beach, CA 92651
949-464-6612 | [email protected]
Attachments:
1. Incomplete Application Correspondence by Email regarding the Driveways
2. Planning Application
3. Zoning Submittal Checklist
4. Email regarding handout
Sincerely,
Daniel Latham
Associate Planner
City of Laguna Beach
505 Forest Avenue, Laguna Beach, CA 92651
949-464-6612 | [email protected]
Attachment 24 461
462 of 654
Categorical Exclusion Areas Map
Project Site
Attachment 25 462
463 of 654
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
LAGUNA BEACH CITY COUNCIL
The Laguna Beach City Council will hold an in-person Public Hearing in the City Council Chambers, located in City Hall at 505 Forest Avenue, Laguna Beach, to consider:
Appeal of denial of CDP 24-2588 and CEQA Statutory Exemption for a new single-family home with an attached three-car garage and accessory dwelling unit at 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive (Lot A) in the R-1 zone. A coastal development permit is required for the new single-family dwelling and accessory dwelling unit.
Related Project Cases on the property include but are not limited to: DR 24-2510, LLA 04-01, TPM 24- 0117
Applicant: David Parker
The applicant has appealed the decision of the Design Review Board (DRB) to deny the project.
SAID PUBLIC MEETING to be held Tuesday, January 6, 2026, at 3:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter.
For additional information, contact City staff: Daniel Latham, Associate Planner (949) 464-6612 or [email protected]. Comments may be made in writing prior to the hearing (when emailed or mailed to the City Clerk’s office) or in-person in Council Chambers during the public hearing. In order to allow sufficient time for members of the City Council and staff to review and consider your comments, written comments will be accepted for consideration up until the close of business (i.e., 5:30 p.m.) on the business day before the date on which this public hearing is scheduled; however, it is recommended they be submitted to the City Clerk’s office on or before 5:00 p.m. five days prior to the scheduled hearing.
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65009(b), if you challenge this application in court, the issues raised shall be limited to those raised in the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Laguna Beach prior to, or at, the public hearing.
CEQA: This project is statutorily exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, Section 15270 because CEQA does not apply to projects that a public agency rejects or disapproves. In the alternative, the project is categorically exempt 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.
COASTAL: This project is located in the Coastal Zone. This project is located within a non-appealable area of the Coastal Zone. The project is proposed as non-appealable development. The application was filed on February 18, 2025, by Horst Noppenberger and is assigned application number CDP 24-2588. The application was denied by the DRB. The decision by the DRB is appealable to the City Council upon the payment of $2,500 and in accordance with Laguna Beach Municipal Code Section
25.05.070. The decision by the City Council is not appealable to the California Coastal Commission.
Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons with a disability who require a disability-related modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, may request such modification or accommodation from the City Clerk’s Office at (949) 497-0705 (telephone) or (949) 497-0771 (facsimile). Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility to the meeting.
Property Owners within 300 ft./ Tenants within 100 ft./ Property Posted/California Coastal Commission /Interested Persons List /Publish Date: 12/26/2025
Attachment 26 463
464 of 654
Created 12/28/20
CITY COUNCIL ORDER OF TESTIMONY FOR APPEALS
AND REQUESTS FOR REVIEW OF PROJECTS
Purpose: The City Council is committed to assuring that members of the public have the opportunity to speak to any meeting agenda item before final action on projects.
This Order of Testimony establishes the right of persons who specifically wish to speak on projects appealed to or otherwise reviewed by the City Council.
Procedures: There are three types of hearings conducted by the City Council: 1) the appellant is person opposed to the project, 2) the appellant is the applicant, and 3) the project was called up for review by a member of the City Council or the City Manager. The procedures below provide the order in which testimony is considered and the allotted time for public comment. The procedure for each hearing shall be provided as the first attachment to the agenda bill.
II. Appellant is Applicant for Denied or Conditionally Approved Project:
1. Staff report summary provided.
2. The applicant has 5 minutes for opening remarks.
3. Any other persons in support of the appeal may speak for 3 minutes each.
4. Any persons in opposition to the appeal may speak for 3 minutes each.
5. The applicant has 2 minutes to speak in rebuttal.
Attachment 16
Attachment 27 464
465 of 654
466 of 654
467 of 654
468 of 654
1 McKay, Ann Marie CC
Subject: 1550 and 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive - Items B and C on January 6th Council Agenda Attachments: Site Condition Opinion Letter - 26-9931PP.pdf From: David Dyrnaes
Sent: Tuesday, January 6, 2026 9:14 AM
To: Orgill, Mark <[email protected]>; Jones, Hallie <[email protected]>; Rounaghi, Alex <[email protected]>; Whalen, Bob <[email protected]>; Kempf, Sue <[email protected]>
Cc: Bill Cumming; Latham, Daniel CD <[email protected]>; Schneider, Matthew CD <[email protected]>; Kiff, Dave CM <[email protected]>; Garibaldi, Megan AO <[email protected]>; Horst Noppenberger; David Parker; Abzug, Jane AO <[email protected]>; Donegan, Patrick AO <[email protected]>; McKay, Ann Marie CC <[email protected]>; Gallagher, Morgan L.; steve kawaratani
Subject: RE: 1550 and 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive - Items B and C on January 6th Council Agenda Good morning Mayor Orgill and Council members,
This morning we received the aƩached opinion leƩer from Geofirm regarding the site’s historical condiƟons confirming the lack of any natural landforms that qualify for protected status under the city’s LCP. Their assessment is consistent with the findings by the Planning department as detailed in the Staff Reports for both projects.
The leƩer has also been added to the following dropbox folder. hƩps://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/g39sz3er5s7hdhgraqgby/ANdvQzx91WL5tcapF4knMs?rlkey=fxz9h2uvs4b6o5mybadqvx1jp&st=9p5097oe&dl=0 Sincerely,
David Dyrnaes
949-735-3283
From: David Dyrnaes
Sent: Monday, January 5, 2026 1:58 PM
Subject: RE: 1550 and 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive - Items B and C on January 6th Council Agenda Good aŌernoon Mayor Orgill and Councilmembers,
Below is a dropbox link containing our PresentaƟon material for tomorrow. AddiƟonally, we have included other supporƟng documents; a video flyby of the sites, a copy of both the Geotechinical and Fire Safety AM&M reports and a copy of the Civil Engineer’s street survey showing up to 4.5’ of encroachment into the street by the neighbors on the south side of Bluebird Canyon Drive.
hƩps://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/g39sz3er5s7hdhgraqgby/ANdvQzx91WL5tcapF4knMs?rlkey=6g08u1pnuo6mha6fmr8qcw3ut&st=o7xl3gc3&dl=0 Please let me know if you have any quesƟons or issues with accessing the provided files.
Sincerely,
469 of 654
January 5, 2026
1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive, LLC Project No. 72786-01
c/o David Dyrnaes Report No. 26-9931
668 N Coast Hwy, Unit 504
Laguna Beach, California 92651
Subject: Site Historic Review and Geotechnical Feasibility New Residential Development
1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive (Parcel 1 and Parcel 2)
Laguna Beach, California
Dear Mr. David Dyrnaes:
As requested, we have prepared this letter to provide our opinions and conclusions on the existing geologic and geotechnical conditions for the subject site and feasibility as it relates to future site development. We have reviewed a staff report prepared by City of Laguna Beach, a Project Seeking Coastal
Development Permit 24-2510 and Design Review 24-2509 for Construction of a Single-family Dwelling with an Attached Two-Car Garage, Accessory Dwelling Unit, and Other Improvements in the R-1 (Residential Low Dens
the appeal dated January 6, 2026.
Based on a review of the commentary within the CLB Staff Report (p. 24 - 25), the City recognizes that previous grading of the hillside knoll occurred within the near vicinity and within the subject site and was likely made to create an access road for an extant water tank observed to be present prior to 1938. Our review of the referenced historic photographs confirms these conclusions from the City Staff Report.
Based on our review of the historic aerial photographs, the natural topographical condition appears to have been altered or modified during this early phase of development within the region. It appears that the natural hillside ridgeline or knoll was trimmed and graded for an access road during the period before 1938. This road and grading appear to have occurred in the area between Bluebird Canyon Dr. and Morningside Drive along the crest of the hillside and within the limits of the existing property boundary, and extending to the east toward Morningside Circle.
Further, based on a review of several photos and Google Earth images, it appears that the abundant vegetation, with only seasonal and
minimal regrowth. It is likely that the cut condition exposed mostly dense to very dense bedrock in the area, which likely only allows for limited growth with minimal soil available for plant root systems to take hold. Additionally, it is possible that the area is periodically groomed for fire abatement purposes.
470 of 654
January 5, 2026 Project No: 72786-01
Report No: 26-9931
Page No: 2
Photo 1 and Image 1 below depict the site conditions, previous road grading, and current development relative to the subject site.
Photo 1, (c-21960): 1955 photo with approximate boundaries of site imposed.
Image 1, (Google Earth, 2025): Current image with approximate boundaries of site imposed.
471 of 654
January 5, 2026 Project No: 72786-01
Report No: 26-9931
Page No: 3
The subject site currently has a maximum elevation of about +502 feet along the eastern boundary. The existing 1940s residence is located less than 15 feet to the west at a similar elevation, and the existing 2014 residence located toward the east is at a higher elevation of about 520± feet. Other residential developments to the east along Morningside Circle are located at elevations of about ±520 feet.
Our referenced geotechnical investigation included a review of two boring logs extending to a maximum depth of ±71 feet, and six test pits within the general area of the site were limited to a maximum depth of ±12.5 feet (Geofirm, 2019). The test pits/borings revealed near-surface, undocumented artificial fill with a maximum of about 1.5 feet of fill in TP-2 north of the existing water tank, shallow residual soils, and shallow bedrock. Limited artificial fills were encountered in the areas of our test pits and borings.
It is our opinion, from a geologic and geotechnical perspective, that the site is suitable for residential development. The geologic findings and geotechnical recommendations provided within the referenced report remain valid. Recommendations for applicable building code updates and updated analysis can be provided upon request.
Thank you for this opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions, please contact this office.
Respectfully submitted,
GEOFIRM
Jesse Bearfield, P.E. 84335 Kevin A. Trigg, P.G., E.G. 1619 Associate Engineer Principal Engineering Geologist
JDB/KAT: mr
Distribution: Addressee via Email
Attachment: Appendix A - References
472 of 654
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
473 of 654
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
Aerial Photographs
UCSB Framefinder
a. c-21960.tif (1955)
b. ami-oc-70.tif (1970)
c. tg-7400_6-18.tif (1974)
Reports
1. -Family
Residence, 1560 Bluebird Canyon Road, APN# 644-321-31, Parcel 4, Block F, Laguna -00, Report No. 19-8482, dated February 5.
2. Geotechnical Update Letter Proposed Single-Family Residence, 1560 Bluebird Canyon Road, APN# 644-321-31, Parcel 4, Block F, Laguna Beach, California 2415-01, Report No. 22-9214, dated September 9.
3. Response to City of Laguna Beach Geotechnical Report, Geotechnical Report Review Checklist, 1st Review, dated September 30, 20222, 1560 Bluebird Canyon Road, APN# 644321-31, Parcel 4, Block F, Laguna Beach, California, ZPC-2020- Project No. 72415-00, 1560 Bluebird Canyon Road, APN# 644-321-31, Parcel 4, Block F, Laguna Beach, California 2415-01, Report No. 22-9214, dated November 29.
4. Geofirm, 2024,
Proposed Two-Lot Residential Development, 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive (Parcel 1 -00, Report No. 24-9616,
dated August 22.
5. Geofirm, 2024, Response to City of Laguna Beach Geotechnical Report Geotechnical Review Checklist, 1st Review, dated September 16, 2024, 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive Project No. 72786-01, Report No.
24-9669, dated October 14.
474 of 654
475 of 654
476 of 654
1 McKay, Ann Marie CC
Subject: Opposition Note to 1550 and 1560 Bluebird Canyon on Appeal Agenda 1/6/26 From: Joe Cover
Sent: Monday, January 5, 2026 5:18 PM
To: Orgill, Mark <[email protected]>; Jones, Hallie <[email protected]>; Rounaghi, Alex <[email protected]>; Whalen, Bob <[email protected]>; Kempf, Sue <[email protected]>
Cc: Garibaldi, Megan AO <[email protected]>; McKay, Ann Marie CC <[email protected]> Subject: Opposition Note to 1550 and 1560 Bluebird Canyon on Appeal Agenda 1/6/26 Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
I am writing to express my continued opposition to the proposed developments at 1550 and 1560 Bluebird Canyon, and to encourage you to uphold the DRB’s decision to deny these projects, which are on the agenda for the appeal hearing on January 6th. I don’t have many new points to add since nothing has changed on these projects, so I will reiterate the concerns I have previously shared with the board and council members.
Both projects would be massive eyesores atop the Morningside-Bluebird knoll and would forever alter the quaint character established by the beautiful, modest homes surrounding the area. I understand there is confusion regarding the application of SB9 and SB450 in conjunction with existing rules and regulations designed to protect coastal resources. These laws and codes have been discussed extensively in numerous DRB and City Council meetings. The continued opposition from nearly every neighbor living near the project site, along with repeated DRB denials, demonstrates that these projects are objectively harmful to the community.
My family has plans to build on the Morningside Drive side of the knoll, and those plans were approved by the DRB and upheld by this City Council early last year. Our project had broad community support because it minimized the impact on the natural landform of the knoll by leaving a substantial portion of the west side undeveloped and by being built into the hillside rather than on top of it. The applicant will likely compare his projects to ours using street-to-roof metrics. However, those metrics are misleading because the positioning of the homes on the respective lots is very different. Our project is terraced into the hillside so the main home sits far back from the street, whereas the 1550 project appears to hang over the street with sharp lines and angles, and the 1560 project is situated high on the knoll with a winding driveway leading to an elevated garage before the home even begins.
For context, the distance from the street to the nearest roof on our 1536 Morningside project is 57 feet—more than double that of the 1550 and 1560 projects, which measure 20 and 22 feet respectively from the street. The height of the 1550 structure reaches 515 feet, even higher than our project despite our lot being uphill from 1550. The 1560 project is positioned even higher relative to both. Regarding retaining walls, the large wall on our project runs perpendicular to the street, minimizing visual impact. In contrast, the applicant’s retaining walls run parallel for hundreds of feet along the frontage and climb the hillside, creating the appearance of a five-story commercial building which further detracts from the natural landform. Objectively, these projects are vastly more imposing than 1536 Morningside, which was approved by the DRB and upheld by Council. 477 of 654
2 Everyone—except the applicant and his attorneys—recognizes that these projects are out of place within the Morningside-Bluebird knoll community. If allowed to proceed, they would irreparably damage a unique and special part of our beautiful city. Thank you for your time and for your commitment to keeping our city safe and beautiful.
Regards,
Joe Cover and Family
478 of 654
479 of 654
480 of 654
January 5, 2026
Laguna Beach City Council
City of Laguna Beach
505 Forest Avenue
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
RE: Item B, 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive, Lot A and Item C, 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive, Lot B for 1.6.26 appeal’s hearing
To Mayor Orgill and Council Members:
I continue to oppose the two projects, Items B & C, on the agenda today. I am asking you to uphold Design Review Board’s denials & return these projects to the applicant.
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.
The designs have not been reduced in scale & bulk for new construction to be compatible with 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 to return the projects (Items B & C) back to the applicant for redesign, keeping in mind past DRB’s recommendations, City Council & neighborhood suggestions.
Thank you for your time & consideration.
Pamela Adams
481 of 654
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF ISSUES & KEY QUESTIONS
1550 AND 1560 BLUEBIRD CANYON DRIVE CC APPEAL 1/6/2026
1. Roadway Does Not Appear to Meet Minimum Widths / No Remediation The current road width is 18 feet in areas and not adequate for cars to maneuver around an emergency vehicle. Will the road width be at least 20’ all along the property frontage per Cal Fire standards, and perhaps should be even wider to 24’ given Bluebird Canyon is in a Very High Severity Fire Zone? Plan Sheet Observations
● Site Plan (Sheet A0.0, 1560 BB) labels roadway as a “half-paved road” measured from centerline. ● Sheet A0.0 shows a 20-foot roadway encroaching ~two (2) feet into adjacent landscaped area. ● Sheet A0.0 also shows road width of ~18′-10½″, which is below OCFA’s min unobstructed width. ● These are inconsistent & substandard road widths, raising compliance & public safety concerns.
Site Location & Hazard Context
● Fire safety is Laguna’s #1 priority. Bluebird Canyon is within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. ● Upper Bluebird Cyn is one of City’s three most extreme fire-risk and access-impaired areas. ● Jul-25 Rancho Fire illustrates the need for unimpaired access. Fire was within ~1,300 feet of 1550 and 1560. Fire location blocked Morningside as the designated evac route forcing travel to Bluebird Cyn. ● The Rancho Fire had fortunate circumstances (no wind) that cannot be assumed in future events.
Regulatory Basis
● LBMC §21.12.170 – Half-Width Streets Prohibited: Streets must be fully improved to req’d width ● LBMC §21.12.190 – Greater Width Where Necessary: Allows roads to exceed min standards for safety ● OCFA Guideline B-09 (2017): Fire apparatus access roads to be at least 20 feet excluding shoulders ● Safety Element Policy S-1.5: Upgrade substandard road widths, where feasible for emergency access
2. The Knoll Appears To Be A Natural Landform
Contrary to Applicant’s statement, Lots A and B do appear to be natural land forms. This is important b/c the level of custodianship for City/Applicant is higher for natural land forms. Bluebird Canyon Road was graded up there but the knoll was not formed as a result of pushing spoils upslope as Applicant contends.
3. Visual Neighborhood Compatibility As A Coastal Resource Neighborhood visual compatibility is a coastal resource worth protecting. The proposed homes’ garage finished floors are 17 feet in the air resulting in homes that are 50+ feet above the adjacent road grade.
Comparing to Applicant’s 15 selected homes as comparison for FAR, which he deemed as an important compatibility measure on several occasions, 1550 and 1560 far exceed the height of the comparables. ● Applicant insists at-grade garage doesn’t work but has never presented this to staff as an earnest study ● The Cover’s home, approved on Morningside Drive has a garage 4’ above grade. ● Applicant has insisted that the mere fact an at-grade garage may require a variance substantiates lifting it into the air but that’s not for the greater good of the neighborhood.
4. 1550 and 1560 Are Precedent-Setting Decisions
Despite lawsuits which have been threatened, the area residents are asking the Council to exercise careful consideration before making a decision. 1550 and 1560 will forever change the character of a 100 year old neighborhood and set precedent for the adjacent knoll-top property owners, Romitas, who are drafting the efforts and outcomes of Mr. Dyrnaes.We are asking for the City to exercise its protection over the existing earnest residents and homeowners, most of whom have lived here at least 10 years. 482 of 654
FINDINGS / CITATIONS REGARDING ROAD WIDTH & FIRE SAFETY Road Width - Public Safety and Emergency Access
● Municipal Code Authority
○ LBMC §21.12.190 authorizes the City to require roadway widths greater than minimum standards where necessary due to public safety, emergency access, traffic operations, topography, or other site-specific conditions.
● Half-Width Streets Prohibited
○ LBMC §21.12.170 prohibits permanent half-width streets. ○ The Site Plan (Sheet A0.0, 1560 plan submittal) depicts a half-paved roadway and inconsistent widths, including segments below minimum standards.
● Fire Authority Minimum Standards
○ OCFA Guideline B-09 (2017) requires fire apparatus access roads to maintain an unobstructed width of not less than twenty (20) feet, exclusive of shoulders. ○ This standard establishes a minimum access requirement and does not limit the City’s authority to require additional width.
● Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
○ The project site is located within a designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, requiring roadways to function reliably for both emergency response and evacuation during wildfire events. ● Site-Specific Constraints
○ The roadway is constrained by steep slopes and unique topographic limitations. ○ Steep grades on adjacent improved roadways limit vehicle control and stopping distance. ○ Sight distance is limited at both ends of the roadway. ○ Sharp horizontal curves and roadway curvature at both ends of the proposed improvement constrain emergency vehicle maneuverability. Alternative access routes are limited. ● Operational Safety Concerns
○ Roadway widths at or near minimum standards may not safely accommodate simultaneous evacuation and emergency response.
○ Narrow or inconsistent widths increase risk related to fire apparatus off-tracking, roadway obstructions, and emergency congestion.
● Need for Increased Roadway Width
○ A 24-foot paved roadway width may be necessary to address VHFHSZ conditions, steep topography, limited sight distance, roadway curvature, and constrained access. ○ Increased width supports two functional lanes and improved emergency vehicle maneuverability during wildfire events.
● Nexus to Public Safety and Emergency Access
○ OCFA access standards establish minimum requirements; site-specific conditions may necessitate additional roadway width to ensure safe emergency operations. ○ A direct nexus exists between the required road width & identified public safety and evacuation risks. ● General Plan Consistency
○ The roadway width requirement is consistent with the General Plan Safety Element, including Policy S-1.5, which calls for upgrades to substandard road widths to ensure adequate evacuation and emergency access.
● Reasonableness of Requirement
○ The roadway width requirement is site-specific, safety-based, and reasonable in scope. ○ The requirement does not constitute a roadway reclassification. 483 of 654
QUESTIONS ABOUT HAA and FIRE SAFETY REQUIREMENTS
1. OVERVIEW
Roadway improvements to widen Bluebird Canyon Drive to a minimum width of 20 feet are a requirement of the project. The properties located at 1550 and 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive are within a designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. However, the 1560 submittal Sheet AO.O depicts roadway widths that are less than 20 feet in locations and, in other areas, shows the roadway encroaching into the subject property.
No roadway improvement plans have been submitted to the City to establish the final road edge or ultimate roadway configuration. As a result, the precise roadway limits have not been determined, and the current project drawings may require revision once roadway improvements are properly designed. Proceeding with building design in the absence of approved roadway improvement plans places the development sequence out of order and raises concerns regarding consistency, feasibility, and public safety compliance. ● Fire safety in the #1 priority in Laguna Beach, a community located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ)
● The project is located in Upper Bluebird Canyon, 1 of the 3 most extreme fire-risk and access-impaired neighborhoods identified in the City’s 2021 Emergency Fire Evacuation Time Study. ● Upper Bluebird Canyon, located in a box canyon, faces severe evacuation constraints due to limited ingress/egress and narrow, substandard roadways.
● The July 7, 2025 Rancho Fire burned within approximately 1,300 feet of 1550 and 1560 Bluebird Canyon, blocking the Morningside evacuation route and forcing reliance on Bluebird Canyon for egress. ● Substandard roads and box canyon conditions significantly increase evacuation and fire response risk and the outcome of the Rancho Fire relied on fortunate circumstances, including no wind and available fire personnel, that cannot be assumed in future events.
● No roadway improvement plans currently exist for Bluebird Cyn at 1550 and 1560
2. FIRE SAFETY RELATED TO ROADWAY DIMENSIONS 1560 BLUEBIRD Site Plan Road Dimensions
● The Site Plan (Sheet A0.0, 1560 plan submittal) labels the roadway as a “half-paved road” measured from the road centerline.
● Sheet A0.0 shows a 20-foot roadway encroaching approximately two (2) feet into adjacent landscaped area.
● Another dimension on Sheet A0.0 indicates a roadway width of approximately 18′-10½″, which is below minimum 20’-0” unobstructed width.
● The plans therefore depict inconsistent and substandard roadway widths, raising compliance and public safety concerns.
Regulatory Basis
● LBMC §21.12.170 – Half-Width Streets Prohibited
Streets must be fully improved to required width; permanent half-width streets are not permitted. ● LBMC §21.12.190 – Greater Width Where Necessary
Authorizes roadway widths exceeding minimum standards where required due to public safety, emergency access, traffic operations, topography, or site-specific conditions. ● OCFA Guideline B-09 (2017)
“Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than twenty (20) feet, exclusive of shoulders.”
484 of 654
● Safety Element Policy S-1.5
Calls for upgrades to substandard road widths, where feasible, to ensure adequate evacuation and emergency access
3. QUESTIONS ABOUT HAA AND FIRE SAFETY REQUIREMENTS
The Housing Accountability Act (HAA) does not override or nullify fire-safety requirements because a local jurisdiction overlooked them during the 30-day completeness review.
Explanation
● What the 30-day completeness review does
Under the Permit Streamlining Act (Gov. Code §65943), a jurisdiction must determine within 30 days whether an application is complete for processing. If the agency fails to identify missing items in that window, the application may be deemed complete—but only procedurally. ● Completeness ≠ compliance
A completeness determination does not mean the project complies with all applicable laws. Fire and building codes, including requirements applicable in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZs), remain independently enforceable state and local laws.
● Administrative error does not waive public safety laws If the jurisdiction’s completeness response overlooks a fire-safety consideration, that mistake does not waive or eliminate the obligation to comply with fire codes, access standards, defensible space, or other objective safety requirements. Public safety laws are not forfeited by clerical or timing errors. ● How the HAA fits in
The HAA limits arbitrary denials of compliant housing, but it does not repeal fire-safety law. If a later-identified fire issue:
○ is objective and code-based, and
○ is supported by substantial evidence,
the jurisdiction may still require compliance, condition approval, or (if necessary) deny the project—provided it makes the HAA’s required findings of a specific, adverse public-health or safety impact that cannot be feasibly mitigated without rendering the project infeasible. ● Practical effect of the oversight
While the oversight does not override fire safety, it can increase scrutiny. Late-raised issues must be clearly tied to objective standards and supported by evidence; vague or subjective concerns raised after completeness are vulnerable under the HAA.
4. BOTTOM LINE: Nexus to Public Safety and Emergency Access ● Project must meet fire-safety requirements including full width street. ● The minimum 20’- 0” roadway is not shown on the submittal Sheet AO.O. As shown, the 20’-0” road edge encroaches into the adjacent landscape area.
● Currently road improvement plans for the 2 projects do not exist. ● A missed fire-safety issue during the 30-day completeness review does not get “cured” by the HAA.
The application may be deemed complete for processing, but fire-safety requirements still apply and remain enforceable.
485 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 Assumes full road width is achieved by is expanded into existing homes on south side of Bluebird Canyon PARCEL 1 LL ADJ 04-01
Plans propose only half paved road 10' from ROW edge. Other measures show 20' roadway but from a starting point within the ROW, not from the edge. Other measures are 18'road width which is substandard for a Very High Severity Fire Zone like Bluebird Canyon.A typical fire engine with outriggers extended could span 15 feet leaving inadequate area for a vehicleto move around it in an emergency evacuation.
COMPARISON OF OBJECTIVE METRICS | City Council Appeal January 6, 2026
OVERVIEW
The Design Review Board’s denial of the projects, together with comments from the City Attorney, is based on the California Coastal Act provisions applicable to SB 9 and SB 450 development, under which the Local Coastal Program remains in effect. In this case, the DRB was unable to make Finding No. 1, specifically Criteria 5 and 6, which address consistency with the natural landform and compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood, and LCP Policies 2.1, 2.8, 7.3, and 10.2.
Applying the objective standards set forth in Criteria 5 and 6, the projects as currently designed do not comply with the Laguna Beach LCP.. The objective standards relied upon include, but are not limited to, the applicant’s submitted floor-area-ratio comparables, overall building height, the placement of structures approximately fourteen (14) feet above the existing landform, garages located approximately sixteen (16) feet above street level, and the extensive use of retaining walls.
As proposed, nearly continuous retaining walls ranging from approximately five (5) to ten and one-half (10.5) feet in height—exclusive of an additional six-inch curb and a three-foot vehicle barrier—extend for approximately 400 linear feet along the street frontage of 1550 and 1560, interrupted only by two driveways. Additional retaining walls are proposed along the upper sides of both driveways, with heights ranging from approximately six (6) to eighteen (18) feet, exclusive of the 6” curb and 3’ vehicle barrier.
The combined retaining wall configuration was presented only in a 3-D video at the last City Council appeal hearing and has not been reviewed as part of the DRB process. A screen capture of the 3-D video illustrating the 2 projects with retaining walls side-by-side are provided in a separate document.
These objective metrics demonstrate that the projects, in their current form, do not conform to the Local Coastal Program standards for landform sensitivity and neighborhood compatibility. For additional detail, reference is made to the Objective Metrics Chart below. ● Required Coastal Findings
○ Approval of the projects at 1550 and 1560 requires that all findings be made for CDP Finding No. 1, CDP Finding No. 2, and Local Coastal Program Land Use Policies 2.1, 2.8, 7.3, and 10.2, as mandated by the California Coastal Act.
● Role of Objective Metrics
○ The Objective Metrics provide specific, quantifiable evidence demonstrating that 1550, 1560, and 1536 Morningside are not similarly situated projects.
○ These metrics indicate that the required CDP and Land Use Policy findings cannot be made for the projects as currently designed.
● Limited Similarities Among Projects
○ The three projects share similarity only in maximum building height and cubic yards of export. ○ Beyond these two metrics, the projects differ substantially in objective, measurable characteristics. ● Relevant Objective Comparisons
○ Meaningful Objective Metrics include:
■ Building and retaining wall heights and setbacks from the street / Proximity and scale of buildings and retaining walls relative to the public right-of-way/ Percentage of lot coverage/Percentage of graded lot area/ Total building square footage/ Lot square footage. ○ These comparisons demonstrate objective dissimilarities among the 3 projects. ○ Additional comparisons regarding floor area ratio (FAR) are provided in a separate document. 488 of 654
● Limitations of Staff Comparisons
○ The DRB staff report relied on only two metrics - topography and garage orientation - to compare the three projects.
○ Other nearby properties, including four neighboring properties directly across Bluebird Canyon Drive and 1540 Bluebird Canyon Drive, were not included in the comparative analysis Subject Properties (11/13/25 DRB Hearing)
Metric 1536 Morningside (Cover) 1550 Bluebird (Lot A) 1560 Bluebird (Lot B) Maximum Top-of-Roof (TR)
Height & Distance (D) to Max
TR Height from Street Edge
48’ TR / 60’ D 48’ TR / 50’ D 51’ TR / 46’ D
Distance (D) to Nearest Roof
From Street & Top-of-Roof
(TR) Height Above Street
57’ D / 42’ TR 20’ D / 37’ TR 22’ D / 26’ TR
Maximum Height from Grade
at Rear of Property Line 12.5 feet 15 feet 15 feet
Garage Finish Floor Height
Above Street at Bottom of
Driveway
4 feet 15 feet 17 feet
Height (H) of Retaining Walls
(RW) on Uphill Side of
Driveway
NONE / 12’ H RW
PERPENDICULAR TO
STREET
2’-19’ H plus 42” HIGH
RAILING, 115’
DRIVEWAY
6’-15.5’ H RW plus 42”
HIGH RAILING, 120’
DRIVEWAY
Retaining Wall Height for
On-Street Parking Space (at
PL)
2’-10’ HIGH, ANGLED
UP/DOWN
6’-9.5’ HIGH plus 42”
HIGH RAILING
3.5’-7’ HIGH plus 42”
HIGH RAILING
Lot Size 13,866 SF (10% > 1550 /
40% > 1560) 12,364 SF 8,582 SF
House Size 2,372 SF (-46% 1550 / -3%
1560) 4,392 SF 2,442 SF
Decks 397 SF (-10% OR +8%
1550 / -50% 1560) 437 SF (OR 364 SF) 779 SF
Lot Coverage 18% 26% 34% +
% Site that is Graded
(Approximated take-off) 65% 90% 95%
Soil Net Export 1,720 CY 1,550 CY 1,756 CY
Sincerely,
Susan Whitin | 1540 Bluebird Canyon Drive
Harpal Sadhal | 1585 Bluebird Canyon Drive
489 of 654
1 1550 / 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive (Lots A & B)
Coastal Act and Local Coastal Program Applicability – Project CDP Policy Violations 1/4/26
STATEMENT OF FACTS• Despite being SB 9 and SB 450 projects, Lots A and B are explicitly subject to the California Coastal Act and Local Coastal Programs (LCP):
“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”. • City’s Land Use Element is one governing LCP document. CDP approval requires conformity with ALL provisions of the LCP. • OBJECTIVE VIOLATION #1 (LB 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
”
o From adjacent street level to top-of-structure, Lot A is 52 feet and Lot B is 55 feet, equal to a 5-story office building (see next page)o LU Element “Neighborhood Compatibility” says new development “… should be compatible with the existing development in the neighborhood and respect neighborhood character”; “…including historical patterns of development (e.g., structural heights, mass, scale or size)” o Comparing Lot A and B design to 15 neighborhood comparable homes (defined by the Applicant), a reasonable person can objectively see that none of the existing home comparables are 52 feet from grade-to-top with very tall concrete retaining walls (structural height, mass/scale). o Therefore, Lot A and B design is incompatible with the character of the surrounding area. • VIOLATION #2 (LB 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... ”
o Lots A and B are both sited atop the knoll vs. being integrated into the slope, an objective violation of LU Policy 2.8.o Detailed garage-at-grade studies: If DRB or City have not received integrated and accurate studies, these should be requested. o The 8/14/25 DRB applicant’s package had two slides (Attachment 9, pages 2 and 3) as a “Garage @ Street Level” study, however, as acknowledged by Applicant’s Lot A architect verbally at the 8/9/25 neighborhood charrette, this 8/14 study minimally evaluated the house siting and size in conjunction with the lowered garage.
Exhibit 1: 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive (Lot A)
Scale Comparison: 5-Story Commercial Office Building vs. Home Design Street/ROW(Elev 463’)
Top of Struct(Elev 515’)
A five-story office building with 11 foot floor-to-floor height (55 feet) before the 5 foot top parapet wall
(rooftop safety wall).
The proposed residential design presented at the 8/14/25 DRB hearing. Elevation 463’ from the street, where neighborhood pedestrians will travel, to elevation 515’, top-of-structure is 52 feet.
11’ 0”
11’ 0”
11’ 0”11’ 0”11’ 0”
Mid Level Floor(Elev 492’)
52’
Not depicted in this section view is the lower level
garage and retaining walls down to the street grade
1st Floor
2nd Floor
3rd Floor
4th Floor
5th Floor
Street/ROW
(Elev 472’)
Top of Struct(Elev 527’)
A five-story office building with 11 foot floor-to-floor height (55 feet) before the 5 foot top parapet wall
(rooftop safety wall)
The proposed residential design presented at the 5/22/25 DRB hearing. Elevation 472’ from the driveway to elevation 527’, top-of-structure is 55 feet. 11’ 0”
11’ 0”
11’ 0”11’ 0”11’ 0”
Garage Floor(Elev 492’)
20’ 0”
Exhibit 2: 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive (Lot B)
Scale Comparison: 5-Story Commercial Office Building vs. Home Design List of Applicant-Provided Neighborhood Comparison Homes
• The Applicant has 2x submitted a list of 15 nearby comparable properties to justify floor-area-ratio for Lots A & B (map below). • Using this exact list to define the “surrounding neighborhood”, a reasonable person can objectively say Lot A and B design is INCOMPATIBLE. • NONE of the comparable properties:
o are +50 feet tall from street grade to top-of-structureo have the same extent of 10+ foot concrete retaining walls • See following pages 5-8 showing the street views as evidence 1550 Bluebird Lot A: Subject Property Rendering. No street level views have been provided by the Applicant for accurate comparison. 1540 Bluebird (1,926 SF)
1545 Bluebird (2,850 SF) 1565 Bluebird (1,961 SF)
Exhibit 3: Street-Level Comparison of Project to Comparables Images provided herein are sourced from Google Maps Street View, image pull dated 8/13/25, except 1575 Bluebird from the MLS. Comparable heights are relative approximations, not surveyed heights. Page 5 1550 Lot A (3,442 SF) 1560 Lot B (4,393 SF)
52’
55’
10’
15’
32’
1573 Bluebird (2,711 SF) 1575 Bluebird (2,621 SF)
Street-Level View Comparison of Project to Comparable Homes 1585 Bluebird (2,558 SF) 1595 Bluebird (1,601 SF)
Images provided herein are sourced from Google Maps Street View, image pull dated 8/13/25, except 1575 Bluebird from the MLS Page 6 15’
12’
12’ 11’
Street-Level View Comparison of Project to Comparable Homes 1605 Bluebird (3,241 SF) 1615 Bluebird (1,893 SF)1619 Bluebird (3,199 SF) 1635 Bluebird (3,954 SF) Images provided herein are sourced from Google Maps Street View, image pull dated 8/13/25, except 1575 Bluebird from the MLS Page 7 15’ 12’
10’ 20’
Street-Level View Comparison of Project to Comparable Homes 1649 Bluebird (3,110 SF) 1657 Bluebird (3,306 SF)
1663 Bluebird (3,708 SF) 1675 Bluebird (2,160 SF)
Images provided herein are sourced from Google Maps Street View, image pull dated 8/13/25, except 1575 Bluebird from the MLS Page 8 18’
12’ 18’
12’
Bluebird Canyon Circa 1945-1950
Location Reference:
1160 Jefferson
Bluebird Cyn Drive
Already Cut
1550 / 1560 Parcels –
Appear Similar to PreRoad Condition and
similar to 2026 indicating
site not pre-graded and
likely a natural landform
Likely small access
road for water tank
access
498 of 654
STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date:
January 6, 2026
Appeal
C
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DENIAL OF A PROJECT SEEKING COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-2510 AND DESIGN REVIEW 24-2509 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING
WITH AN ATTACHED TWO-CAR GARAGE, ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS IN THE R-1 (RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY) ZONE LOCATED AT 1560 BLUEBIRD CANYON DRIVE (LOT B)
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:
1. Conduct a public hearing, including receiving a staff report and taking public testimony and all evidence relating to the consideration of Coastal Development Permit 24-2510 and Design Review 24-2509 and the California Environmental Quality Act; and
2. Following deliberation, take action to either adopt a Resolution upholding the decision of the Design Review Board to deny the project (Option A), or adopt a Resolution granting the appeal and overturning the Design Review Board’s denial of the project (Option B):
a. Option A – Uphold Design Review Board Denial: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE
DECISION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TO DENY COASTAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-2510 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLEFAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED TWO-CAR GARAGE, AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS AT 1560 BLUEBIRD CANYON DRIVE (LOT B) IN THE R-1, RESIDENTIAL LOW-DENSITY ZONE, AND FINDING
THAT THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DOES NOT APPLY TO PROJECTS THAT ARE DISAPPROVED”, upholding the Design Review Board’s denial of Coastal Development Permit 24-2510 and finding the denial of the Project exempt from CEQA.
b. Option B – Overturn Design Review Board Denial: Adopt a Resolution titled, “A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, OVERTURNING THE DECISION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TO DENY COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-2510 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
OF A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED TWO-CAR GARAGE, ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS IN THE R-1 (RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY) ZONE LOCATED AT 1560 BLUEBIRD CANYON
DRIVE (LOT B) AND FINDING THE PROJECT CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO STATE CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3)”, overturning the Design Review Board’s denial of Coastal Development Permit 24-2510, approving Coastal Development Permit 24-2510 and Design Review 24-2509, and finding the approval of the Project exempt from CEQA.
1 of 922
Appeal of the Denial of CDP 24-2510 at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive January 6, 2026
SUMMARY OF THE MATTER
The property owner, David Dyrnaes (“Applicant”)1, of 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive (the “Property”) (see aerial map included as Figure 1 and Attachment 3) seeks Design Review (“DR”) 24-2509 and Coastal Development Permit (“CDP”) 24-2510 to construct a single-family dwelling with an attached two-car garage, an attached accessory dwelling unit (“ADU”), and other improvements in the R-1 (Residential Low Density) zone. While Revocable Encroachment Permit (“REP”) 24-2511 was previously needed to construct and maintain improvements in the public right-of-way, including walls, stairs, irrigation, drainage facilities, and lighting pursuant to LBMC Section 11.50.030, Applicant has revised the project since the last time the City Council considered this proposed development to eliminate REP 24-2511.
Applicant is proceeding under Senate Bill (“SB 9”), as amended by SB 450 (collectively referred to herein as “SB 9”), which allows ministerial urban lot splits and two-unit development projects under certain qualifying conditions, subject to the California Coastal Act. (See Government Code § 65852.21(l)[“Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California Coastal Act of 1976. . . .”].)2 Below is a summary of the history of the applications.
On January 23, 2025, the Design Review Board (“Board”) held a duly noticed public hearing and considered the first version of the project that consisted of DR for a new single-family dwelling and attached two-car garage, vehicular access, elevated decks, spa, grading, retaining walls, trash enclosure in the front setback, and landscaping, a CDP to construct new development, including a single-family dwelling, attached garage, and site improvements, and an REP to construct and maintain improvements in the public right-of-way, including walls, stairs, irrigation, drainage, and lighting (the “Original Project”).3 After receiving input from staff, the Applicant, and public comments, the Board discussed the Original Project, provided direction to the Applicant, and tabled the discussion with a 5-0 vote.
On April 1, 2025, the Applicant submitted new plans to the City that included a new attached ADU constituting a new application.4 A coastal development permit application fees in the amount of $533 were not paid for the review of the added ADU. The new plans also included other changes to the floor area, upper level, deck, roof, garage, architectural style, retaining walls, fencing, glazing, landscaping, and access stairs (collectively with the added ADU, the “Revised Project”). 1 The Project’s architect is David Parker, who is within the definition of Applicant. 2 On June 13, 2024, the Community Development Director granted administrative coastal development permit approval of Tentative Parcel Map 24-0940, an urban lot split pursuant to SB 9 that subdivided an existing parcel to create two new parcels, including the Property. Final Map 24-117 was subsequently recorded with the County to effectuate the lot split. 3 Notably, an ADU was not included in the Original Project and an REP was required for the Original Project. 4 An ADU is a separate trigger for a coastal development permit application under the City’s Coastal Commission-certified local coastal program (“certified LCP”). (LBMC Section 25.07.008(A)(1)(a).) 2 of 922
Appeal of the Denial of CDP 24-2510 at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive January 6, 2026
On May 22, 2025, the Board held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Revised Project. Following the public hearing, the Board directed staff to prepare a resolution denying the Revised Project by a 3-2 vote (Board members Bauta and Gannon dissenting). The Board noted inability to make the required REP Finding Nos. 1 and 2 based on a conflict with LBMC Section 25.53.004; public safety risk relating to fire as the Property is located in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (“VHFHSZ”); and inability to make the required CDP Finding No. 1, Criteria No. 5 (i.e., “[t]he proposed development will minimize the alterations of natural landforms and will not result in undue risks from geological and erosional forces and/or floor and fire hazards”) and Criteria No. 6 (i.e., “[t]he proposed development will be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and where feasible, will restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas”). On June 12, 2025, the Board considered the draft resolution denying the Project on consent and adopted the resolution denying the Revised Project with certain changes read into the record, including a finding that the denial of the Project is exempt from CEQA (the “First Board Denial”).
On June 4, 2025, the Applicant filed an appeal of the First Board Denial (the “First Appeal”). The Applicant contended that the Board abused its discretion in denying the Revised Project. On August 12, 2025, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the First Appeal and remanded the Revised Project back to the Board for a single hearing with the following direction:
A. Consider granting a Revocable Encroachment Permit for improvements in the public right-ofway, 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.
(Attachments 4 and 5 are the August 12, 2025 City Council Staff Report, including all attachments, and City Council Resolution 25.075 [remanding the Revised Project with direction].) On September 25, 2025, the Applicant submitted revised plans to City staff, which eliminated the need for REP 24-2511 (the “Second Revised Project”). On October 21, 2025, City staff identified missing items from the application and deemed the application incomplete. On November 13, 2025, the Board held a public hearing on the Second Revised Project and denied it with a 3-1 vote (Board members Bauta dissenting and Gannon absent), on the basis that the Second Revised Project is inconsistent with Coastal Development Permit Finding No. 1, which requires compliance with the certified LCP, including Criteria 5 (i.e., “[t]he proposed development will minimize the alterations of natural landforms and will not result 3 of 922
Appeal of the Denial of CDP 24-2510 at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive January 6, 2026
in undue risks from geological and erosional forces and/or floor and fire hazards”) and Criteria 6 (i.e., “[t]he proposed development will be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and where feasible, will restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas”) (the “Second Board Denial”). (The Resolution for the Second Board Denial is included as Attachment 6.) On November 17, 2025, the Applicant filed an appeal of the Second Board Denial (“Second Appeal”) (Attachment 7).9 The Applicant contends that the Board abused its discretion and acted contrary to state law in denying the application for the following reasons:
1. “The Board relied on subjective standards to deny [the Second Revised Project] in violation of SB 450 and the Housing Accountability Act. City Staff confirmed in the November 13th staff reports that the projects are consistent with all LCP policies and all applicable objective design standards. Therefore, under SB 450 and the Housing Accountability Act, the Board did not have the authority to deny the projects.”
2. “The Board improperly cited replacement of a Southern California Edison pole in front of the applicant’s property to allege a fire hazard when the applicant has no control over SCE’s replacement of the SCE pole and there is no evidence in the record that replacement of the SCE pole will cause a fire hazard.”
3. “The Board incorrectly alleged that the ‘natural profile’ of the property is a coastal resource. [The Board’s] position is inconsistent with State law and the City’s own documents. There is no public viewpoint or environmentally sensitive area on the property, as confirmed by City Staff in the November 13th staff reports.”
4. “The Board alleged the projects were inconsistent with LU policies, including LU Policies
7.3 and 10.2, well after the City was required to inform the applicant of any project inconsistency with applicable policies pursuant to Gov. Code Section 65852.21(h)(1) and Gov. Code Section 65589.5(j)(2).”
5. “The Board improperly excluded the Accessory Dwelling Unit that was added to Lot A on September 24th from their consideration on the CDP for Lot A. The ADU does not change any facts in the Staff Reports and does not require a variance. The applicant is specifically appealing the ADU to the City Council as part of the present appeal.” LBMC Section 25.05.070 requires certain forms of public notice for an appeal. Public notice was duly provided to consider the Second Appeal at the January 6, 2026 City Council meeting in accordance with LBMC Section 25.05.065. Notices were mailed to owners and occupants within a 300-foot and 100-foot radius of the Property, respectively, posted on the Property, and published in a newspaper of general circulation. (Attachment 8.)
9 The Applicant has filed appeals of two denials for projects located at 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive and 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive. Both projects were denied by the Board on November 13, 2025 and appealed to the City Council on November 17, 2025.
Both appeals identify the same five appeal contentions, although one of the five contentions apply only to the project located at 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive. The 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive appeal is analyzed by staff in a separate agenda report, and both appeals will be heard by the City Council at the January 6, 2026, special meeting. 4 of 922
Appeal of the Denial of CDP 24-2510 at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive January 6, 2026
A. Standards of Review
Pursuant to LBMC Section 25.05.070, decisions of the Board may be appealed to the City Council by the applicant or any owner of property within 300 feet of the subject property.
The City Council may uphold, reverse, or remand any appealed decision. (LBMC § 25.05.070(E)(3)(a).) In particular, in reversing a decision, there must be three affirmative votes approving the reversal by adoption of a resolution that sets forth in writing the findings relied on to conclude that the appealed decision was in error or an abuse of discretion.11 (LBMC § 25.05.070(E)(3)(a).) Further, pursuant to LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(2)(d), the City Council’s review is limited to “the plans that were the subject of the decision or determination by the approval authority”; if new plans are submitted, the City Council “shall not consider or act on” them but may determine to remand those plans to the approval authority “for further proceedings pursuant to such direction as may be given the City Council.”
1. Coastal Development Permit
LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(1) sets forth the procedures and review criteria for non-design review appeals, such as a coastal development permit. For that review, the City Council shall not be limited to the grounds stated for the appeal and shall not be limited to the evidence that was presented to the Board. The City Council shall exercise its independent judgment and discretion as to the evidence presented at its hearing.
Nevertheless, there shall be a presumption that the decision or determination made by the Board was reasonable, valid, and not an abuse of discretion; and the appellant shall have the burden of proof of demonstrating otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence presented.
In its consideration of the Board’s denial of CDP 24-2510, the City Council is not limited to either the evidence in the record or the deliberations of the Board. The Applicant or members of the public may present new evidence for the City Council’s consideration, and the City Council is free to deliberate without being limited to the Board’s findings – in other words, a de novo hearing.
2. Design Review
LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(2) sets forth the procedures and review criteria for appeals of design review decisions. With respect to the standard of review for those decisions, subsection (E)(2)(b) provides:
If the decision or determination was not supported by four or more affirmative votes of the approval authority, upon hearing the appeal or request for review, the city council shall conduct a de novo review of the underlying application but shall be limited to the grounds specifically stated in the notice of appeal, if an appeal was filed, and to the evidence, including plans, that was presented to the approval authority. The city council shall exercise 11 An abuse of discretion is defined as the following: (1) the City has “not proceeded in the manner required by law”; (2) the City “decision is not supported by the findings”; or (3) the “findings are not supported by the evidence.” (Civil Code § 1094.5.) 5 of 922
Appeal of the Denial of CDP 24-2510 at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive January 6, 2026
its independent judgment and discretion as to such evidence. Nevertheless, there shall be a presumption that the decision or determination made by the approval authority was reasonable, valid, and not an abuse of discretion; and the appellant, if there is one, shall have the burden of proof of demonstrating otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence, including plans, presented.
Because the Board denied CDP 24-2510, it took no action on the application for DR 24-2509.13 Accordingly, in its consideration of DR 24-2509, which was not supported by four or more affirmative votes as it was not reached by the Board at all, the City Council shall conduct a de novo review, but is limited to considering the evidence that was presented to the Board and to the grounds specifically stated in the notice of appeal. Nevertheless, given the lack of four affirmative votes, the City Council exercises its independent judgment on the evidence. Based on past City Council direction, staff is recommending that in considering DR 24-2509, only the objective design review criteria be considered as well as any design review criteria that affords costal resource(s) protection that is not otherwise addressed/protected by CDP 24-2510.
3. City Council Options
The City Council has the following options in consideration of this matter, which are listed below.
1. Adopt the attached Resolution upholding the Second Board Denial, and finding that CEQA does not apply to the denial of the Project under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15270 (Attachment 1); or
Adopt the attached Resolution granting the appeal and overturning the Second Board Denial, with findings in support of overturning the Second Board Denial and approving the Second Revised Project, subject to conditions of approval (Attachment 2).
DISCUSSION
In response to the City Council’s August 12, 2025 remand of the Revised Project, Applicant submitted the Second Revised Project and, on November 13, 2025, the Board held one public hearing on the Second Revised Project and adopted a Resolution denying the Second Revised Project (hereinafter referred to as the “Project”). A summary of the November 13, 2025 public hearing before the Board is set forth below.14 A. November 13, 2025 Board Hearing
1. Staff Report and Presentation
City staff presented an overview of the location of the Property through depiction of aerial photo and street frontage photo:
13 Section 4 of Board-Adopted Resolution No. 24-2510, provided as Attachment 6, states: “Because the Design Review Board denies Coastal Development Permit 24-2510, its consideration of the application seeking approval of Design Review 24-2509 is moot.”
14 The summaries and charts within this staff report are not exhaustive of all commentary or deliberations, but are intended to be a tool to aid the City Council in its review of the evidence. 6 of 922
Appeal of the Denial of CDP 24-2510 at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive January 6, 2026
Figure 1: Aerial View and Street Frontage of Project Site City staff reported that, following City Council remand and direction at the August 12, 2025 public hearing, the Applicant removed all of the proposed right-of-way improvements and relocated all of the improvements onto Applicant’s private property, eliminating the need for an REP application. As a result, City staff reported that only minor contouring and a small curb remain in the right-of-way, which only require a ministerial Public Works Permit as these improvements do not fall under the types of construction that require a Revocable Encroachment Permit pursuant to LBMC 11.50.030.17 Aside from the removal of the improvements requiring an REP, City staff reported that the design remained largely unchanged. City staff depicted images of the Second Revised Project or Project:
17 Although an REP in not required, work within the public right-if-way requires a permit from the City Engineer in accordance with LBMC Section 11.16.010.
7 of 922
Appeal of the Denial of CDP 24-2510 at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive January 6, 2026
Figure 2: Renderings of project
Figure 3: Color elevation of project
8 of 922
Appeal of the Denial of CDP 24-2510 at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive January 6, 2026
The City staff report to the Board disclosed a summary of the changes identified by the Applicant, resulting in the Second Revised Project, as follows:
• 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.
• Adjustment to the rear door to the garage to line up with the fire access stair changes. • No other improvements such as retaining structures, landscaping, lighting, hardscape, or irrigation remain in the public right of way except for the street access grading, driveway pavement and associated 6” curbs.
• The relocated driveway now projects about 9” under the south wall of the garage to bring the retaining wall for the driveway fully onto the property. • The trash area is relocated to the inside the garage. • The access stairs on the west were shifted north slightly due to the Southern California Edison pole location and associated grading.
• The grading in the public right of way extends past the property line into the public right of way in front of 1600 Bluebird Canyon Drive.
• The retaining wall along the property line abutting the 1600 Bluebird Canyon Drive property line was extended (with their permission; easement grant pending entitlements approval).
The City staff report submitted to the Board also provided an overview of the relevant state housing laws and the City’s review process to guide Board deliberations. City staff indicated support for the Project and recommended that the Board adopt a resolution approving the Project.
2. Board Ex Parte Disclosures
Board members disclosed that they had met with the same people and conducted the same site visits concurrently for the project next door at 1550 Bluebird Canyon, which was heard by the Board directly 9 of 922
Appeal of the Denial of CDP 24-2510 at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive January 6, 2026
before this Project at the same Board meeting. For ease of reference, the Board’s disclosures from the 1550 Bluebird Canyon hearing are summarized below and incorporated herein by reference to the project at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive.
Board
Member
Ex Parte Disclosure Transcript
Page Nos.
Louis Weil Spoke with Susan Whitin, Harpal, Vera, Peter, Steve Kawaratani, JB and Rosanne.
p. 1 of 32
MJ Coveny Met with Steve Kawaratani at the site and spoke with Susan Whitin and Harpal Sadal.
p. 1 of 32
Thomas
Gibbs
Met Steve Kawaratani at the site. Spoke to Susan, Harpal, JB Horner Peter Grumman, Vera Wilman, and Rosanne.
p. 1 of 32
Imir Bauta Spoke with the Applicant, Susan Whitin, and Steve Kawaratani. p. 1 of 32 Jessica
Gannon
Absent. N/A
3. Board Questions and Staff Responses
The Board had no questions for staff for this Project as Chair Gibbs indicated the questions and issues raised are similar to the issues for the adjacent 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive project, which was heard by the Board immediately before this Project on the agenda. During the hearing for 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive, Chair Gibbs asked Assistant City Attorney, Patrick Donegan, about the City Council’s direction, particularly in light of removing certain proposed improvements from the REP area. Mr. Donegan advised the Board that reconciling State housing laws with the Coastal Act is a novel and complex issue, with no clear case law or roadmap. He noted that interpretations vary, with some guidance suggesting a coastal resource must exist, while others allow comparison to neighboring homes. He recommended that the Board identify an actual coastal resource when applying the Coastal Act. When asked, he defined coastal resources broadly, including but not limited to natural landforms, public views, fire-risk areas, ocean views, and hillsides and open space. (Attachment 9 [1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive Transcript], p. 9-10 of 32).
4. Applicant Presentation
The project architect, David Parker, outlined the key revisions made to the plans. All structures and improvements originally proposed in the public right-of-way had been removed, including walls, landscaping, hardscape, irrigation, and lighting. The driveway and east fire-access stairs were relocated entirely onto the private property, and the required on-street parking space was shifted north. The revised driveway entrance had been reviewed and approved by Planning Division of the Community Development Department and the Public Works Department, and no REP was required. The home, garage, and upper driveway remained unchanged. He then turned the presentation over to the Applicant’s attorney.
The Applicant’s attorney reiterated the same concerns raised for Lot A, arguing that the Board’s broad interpretation of “coastal resources” is legally unsupported. Applicant’s attorney stated that the Coastal Act, the Coastal Commission, and HCD (California Department of Housing and Community Development) limit 10 of 922
Appeal of the Denial of CDP 24-2510 at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive January 6, 2026
“coastal resources” to specific areas such as sensitive habitats, beaches, and shorelines, not to developed, graded residential lots. They noted that their lawsuit had already been filed against the City. They also emphasized that this is the fifth hearing for Lot B, which they argue constitutes another violation of the Housing Accountability Act.
A Board member then raised concerns about new Southern California Edison (“SCE”) power poles, depicted below.
Figure 4: Relocated Power Pole Location
The Applicant explained that SCE placed the poles 11 feet north of the street’s centerline due to encroachments by neighboring properties on the south side, and that this placement is outside the Applicant’s control. They clarified that while they had offered easements and discussed relocating the poles northward if the project had been approved earlier, delays prevented grading from occurring in time. As a result, SCE installed the poles exactly where they had originally planned, a decision unrelated to the Project. (Attachment 10 [1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive Transcript], p.2 and 3 of 9).
5. Public Testimony
During the public hearing, no new comments were added that were not previously mentioned by the five speakers at the 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive project public hearing, which occurred directly before the hearing for this Project. The public testimony from the 1550 Bluebird Canyon hearing is summarized below and incorporated herein by reference to the project at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive.
Commenter Summary of Comment Transcript
Page Nos.
Harpal
Sadal
Harpal Sadal emphasized that the photos provided illustrate clear neighborhood compatibility issues under Section 2.8 of the Land Use Element. He argued that the proposed homes, standing 52 and 55 feet above street grade with large massing and elevated garage floors, are out of scale with surrounding development. He noted that the 15 “comparable” homes previously submitted by the Applicant are not valid comparisons, as the p. 6 of 32
11 of 922
Appeal of the Denial of CDP 24-2510 at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive January 6, 2026
existing neighborhood homes have long-established, significantly lower heights. Despite the Board’s focus on coastal-resource criteria, he maintained that neighborhood compatibility remains an important and appropriate consideration.
Susan
Whitin
Susan Whitin referenced the August 12, 2025 City Council meeting, noting that the City Attorney affirmed SB 9 and SB 450 projects must comply with the objective standards of the City’s certified LCP. These include CDP findings, land-use policies, and Title 25 requirements—all of which focus on minimizing landform alteration and ensuring compatibility in height, mass, scale, and size.
She argued that objective LCP metrics demonstrate the 1550 and 1560 proposals cannot meet several required findings (CDP Finding 1, Criteria 5 and 6, Title 25 §25.05.040(H), and Land Use Policies 2.1 and 2.8). The projects substantially alter approximately 90% of both landforms, have structural height and mass incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and do not integrate into the terrain to reduce visual impact. She also noted significant privacy issues stemming from the floor plans. Ms Whitin acknowledged the owner’s right to build and stated that homes with similar specifications but different configurations could be approvable. The Board had previously provided a clear path toward compliance, but the Applicant has not made meaningful revisions. Because the LCP findings cannot be made as required under the Coastal Act, she urged the Board to deny both projects.
pgs. 6 and
7 of 32
Mary
Fegraus
Mary Fegraus, a resident of 1561 Morningside Drive, urged the Board to deny the projects. She emphasized that the LCP reflects long-standing community standards, which the projects did not meet. She stated that attempts to resolve issues with the landowner failed and argued that residents should not be pressured to compromise when the projects are incompatible with neighborhood standards.
p. 7 of 32
William
Horner
William “JB” Horner of 1565 Bluebird Canyon Drive addressed the Board to clarify earlier confusion. He acknowledged the difficulty and resulting frustration with the projects but noted that reasonable paths to approval existed. He highlighted a key trade-off between building on top of the hill versus integrating structures into the terrain, observing that rigidity in addressing this has contributed to the current situation. He urged the Board to use all available tools to ensure compliance and neighborhood compatibility, especially in light of perceived intimidation or threatening tactics.
p. 7 of 32
Eileen Slora Eileen Slora of 1545 Bluebird Canyon Drive requested that the projects be denied. She argued that the Applicant has made no good-faith effort to implement design changes recommended by the Board and neighbors. She stated that the project was incompatible with the surrounding area in terms p. 7 of 32
12 of 922
Appeal of the Denial of CDP 24-2510 at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive January 6, 2026
of size and height, citing diagrams provided by Mr. Sadal, and that the houses did not integrate with the landform as required by the LCP.
6. Applicant Rebuttal
The Applicant stated that they are participating in the process in good faith and acknowledged the difficulty of the Board’s role. They emphasized that this hearing represents the final opportunity for a local decision, after which the matter will proceed to litigation. The applicant compared their project to nearby developments, noting that their proposal involves less grading and similar overall height to previously approved projects, and asserted that their home is three stories, not four. They argued that staff has determined there are no protected coastal resources on the site and that the property was previously graded, limiting the Board’s discretion to deny the project. They cautioned that denial could expose the City to significant legal liability and costs. The applicant also raised concerns that proposed street widening could negatively affect neighboring properties by requiring removal of existing encroachments. Finally, the applicant stated that while they were open to reasonable design improvements, a substantial reduction in height was not feasible and that continued delays would significantly increase costs. (Attachment 10 [1560 Bluebird Canyon Transcript], pg. 4 of 9).
7. Board Deliberation
Upon closing the public hearing, no new deliberations were added that were not previously mentioned by the Board during the 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive project public hearing, which occurred directly before the hearing for this Project. Each Board member confirmed as much on the record. The Board members’ deliberations from the 1550 Bluebird Canyon hearing are summarized below and incorporated herein by reference to the project at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive.
Topic Discussion Transcript Page
Nos. [Commenter]
Coastal Act
requirements
Chair Gibbs emphasized the Board’s role in applying the CDP criteria, focusing on minimizing alterations to natural landforms and ensuring visual compatibility with surrounding areas. He rejected the notion that threats of litigation should influence the Board, noting that members are volunteers acting based on the rules. He explained that SB 9, SB 450, and ADU laws include a “carve-out” preserving the Coastal Act, requiring the board to make CDP findings.
p. 10 [Gibbs]
Landform
Alteration; Visual
Compatibility.
Gibbs identified the natural landform as the relevant coastal resource. He concluded that the project fails Criteria 5 and 6:
it heavily grades the site with a long driveway and retaining walls, places the house atop the hill rather than terracing into the slope, and does not contour to the landform. He noted that visual compatibility is also lacking because the structure does not integrate with the surrounding area.
p. 11 [Gibbs]
13 of 922
Appeal of the Denial of CDP 24-2510 at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive January 6, 2026
Landform
Alteration
Board member Bauta raised concerns that minimizing
landform alteration does not mean prohibiting building but only requires fitting structures to the terrain.
Chair Gibbs responded that the project’s grading and driveway construction are excessive and contrary to minimizing
alterations. He disagreed with Board member Bauta’s
interpretation and maintained that the project does not meet the CDP criteria, highlighting repeated opportunities given to the Applicant to reduce impacts.
pgs. 11 to 15 of 32
[Bauta and Gibbs]
Coastal Act
requirements.
Chair Gibbs and Board member Bauta discussed their
differing views on how the Coastal Act’s language should be applied. Chair Gibbs emphasized that the Board’s
responsibility is to enforce minimizing landform alteration through design.
pgs. 11 to 15 of 32
[Bauta and Gibbs]
Landform
Alteration
Board members Coveny, and Bauta and Chair Gibbs debated the interpretation of “minimizing alteration of natural landforms.” Board member Bauta argued that advising the Applicant to lower the house into the hill increases grading, while Board member Coveny and Chair Gibbs countered that the issue is the overall design and placement of the house, not just grading. They emphasized that building atop the hill with large retaining walls and a steep driveway alters the natural landform more than terracing the house into the slope, which would better integrate with the terrain.
Chair Gibbs and Board member Coveny maintained that the current Project significantly impacted natural landforms, while Board member Bauta expressed concern that his
colleagues’ evaluation was incorrect. All three acknowledged their differing interpretations, with no consensus reached. pgs. 15 to 18 of 32
[Coveny, Bauta,
Gibbs]
Visual
Compatibility
Chair Gibbs continued his analysis, addressing Criteria 6 of the Coastal Development Permit review criteria, which
requires visual compatibility with surrounding areas. He stated that the current project was not visually compatible as it sat atop the hill rather than integrating with the natural landform, it stood out compared to neighboring homes, and it appeared jarring. He emphasized that terracing the building into the slope would make it more visually compatible.
Chair Gibbs also referenced relevant Land Use Element
policies (2.1, 2.8, 7.3, and 10.2), noting that the project failed to maintain neighborhood scale, integrate with topography, or p. 18 of 32 [Gibbs]
14 of 922
Appeal of the Denial of CDP 24-2510 at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive January 6, 2026
preserve visual character and public views. While he
acknowledged that the City Council’s direction was unclear regarding these policies, he suggested that they should also be considered if the Project goes back to the City Council. He concluded that, based on the CDP findings for Criteria 5 and 6, he could not approve the Project.
Objective
Standards
Board Member Imer Bauta argued that, objectively, the
Project is approvable. They noted the City Council’s remand focused on natural landforms, public views, and fire risk. He stated that public views and fire hazards were not issues, and that the Project effectively incorporated natural landforms into the design. He contended that cutting the house into the hill would increase grading and disturbance. He emphasized that this was a buildable lot in a buildable neighborhood, that the site is not a protected coastal resource, and that the Project meets objective standards under SB 450. He argued that
subjective design criteria should be set aside, and the Project should be evaluated based on its compliance with objective requirements.
p. 18 and 19 of 32
[Bauta]
Coastal Act
requirements;
Objective
Standards
Chair Gibbs and Board member Bauta debated whether the
Board is limited to objective criteria. Chair Gibbs emphasized that SB 450 includes a carve-out for the Coastal Act, and that the Board may exercise discretion in accordance with the City’s CDP review criteria, even though the criteria may be subjective. He explained that Criteria 5 and 6 involve
observable elements, like minimizing alteration of natural landforms, and are not strictly objective.
Chair Gibbs noted that if only objective criteria applied, the City Council would not have remanded the project for CDP findings. IN response, Board member Bauta argued the
remand also allowed review of the REP application which had since been removed from the Applicant’s Project. Chair Gibbs clarified that the City Council directed the Board to exercise discretion. The discussion included disagreement over what issues were raised in prior hearings, with Chair Gibbs and Board member Coveny asserting that natural landforms had been a concern, contrary to Board member Bauta’s
recollection.
Pgs. 19 and 20 of 32
[Gibbs, Bauta,
Coveny]
Coastal Act
requirements.
Board member Coveny expressed full agreement with Chair Gibbs’ analysis and findings under criteria 5 and 6, praising his detailed interpretation, effort, and legal understanding. She also thanked the community for its sustained involvement in p. 21 of 32
[Coveny]
15 of 922
Appeal of the Denial of CDP 24-2510 at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive January 6, 2026
protecting the area’s character and natural landform. Board member Coveny expressed that the Applicant had made little effort to find a balanced solution for a clearly buildable site.
While acknowledging the architect’s talent and the site’s potential, Board member Coveny supported Chair Gibbs’
analysis.
Visual
Compatibility;
Landform
Alteration;
Access; Fire
Safety.
Board member Weil expressed disappointment that the
process has not led to a workable compromise, finding a balance between Applicant goals and community character.
He noted that projects that fit in well typically involve meaningful compromise from both sides, but in this case, cooperation had been difficult.
He acknowledged that the lot is buildable and could support a large home, but the placement and height of the proposed structure created major issues. The project would rise 10–15 feet above natural grade, far more than recently approved homes nearby, and would be highly visible from the bottom of Bluebird Canyon, disrupting neighborhood character. Weil could not make key CDP findings or find General Plan
consistency, including consistency with Land Use Element policies 2.1, 2.8, 7.3, and 10.2.
He also raised serious concerns about access and fire safety, noting Bluebird Canyon Drive narrows to 16–17 feet in places, below State and Cal Fire standards for two-lane roads, and that existing utility poles, hydrants, and encroachments further reduce required clearances. He concluded that these issues remained unaddressed and prevented him from supporting the Project. Weil argued that the newly installed or relocated power poles along the roadway do not meet required state firesafety standards. He noted that if a local ordinance does not specify standards, the state standards apply, and those standards require adequate clear road width. Measurements show existing poles on the block provide about 24 feet of clear width, but the new poles are placed too close to the street, creating a hazard and failing to account for required road clearance for new development. Because the application does not address this safety issue, Board member Weil stated he is denying the CDP component on the basis that the Project does not meet state fire-safety standards.
Pgs. 21 and 22 of 32
(Weil)
16 of 922
Appeal of the Denial of CDP 24-2510 at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive January 6, 2026
8. Board Action
The Board voted 3-1 (Board member Bauta dissenting and Board member Gannon absent) to adopt Resolution No. 24-2510 denying Coastal Development 24-2510. Because the Board denied the coastal development permit application, its consideration of the application seeking approval of Design Review 24- 2509 was moot and not reached by the Board.
RESPONSES TO ISSUES RAISED ON APPEAL
As noted above, the Applicant submitted the Second Appeal of the Second Board Denial. (Attachment 7).
As indicated under Standards of Review, in the City Council’s review of non-design review appeals, such as a coastal development permit, the Council shall conduct a de novo review of the underlying application and shall not be limited to the grounds stated for the appeal, nor is the Council limited to the evidence that was presented to the Board. Accordingly, in its consideration of the Board’s denial of CDP 24-2510, the Council is free to deliberate without being limited to the Board’s findings – in other words, a de novo hearing. For any consideration of DR 24-2510, the City Council shall conduct a de novo review, but is limited to considering the evidence that was presented to the Board and may exercise its independent judgment on such evidence. Further, for DR 24-2510, the City Council is limited to the grounds specifically stated in the notice of the Second Appeal. Below are the grounds for the Second Appeal and City staff’s response.
1. “The Board relied on subjective standards to deny [the Project] in violation of SB 450 and the Housing Accountability Act. City Staff confirmed in the November 13th staff reports that the projects are consistent with all LCP policies and all applicable objective design standards. Therefore, under SB 450 and the Housing Accountability Act, the Board did not have the authority to deny the projects.”
Staff’s Response
The Applicant’s Project requires two entitlements from the City: (1) CDP 24-2510 for the new development, which includes a new single-family dwelling, attached garage, attached ADU, and site improvements under LBMC Sections 25.07.004 and 25.07.006; and (2) DR 25-2509 for the new single-family dwelling and garage, vehicular access, elevated decks, spa, grading, retaining walls, trash enclosure in the front setback, and landscaping pursuant to LBMC Section 25.05.040(B)(1).
At the August 12, 2025 City Council meeting on the First Appeal, the City Council directed the Board to “[d]isregard Design Review requirements in conflict with SB 450, for a qualifying project, based on changes in state law brought by SB 450, which became effective on January 1, 2025, and based on the City Council’s finding that the Coastal Development Permit findings and criteria adequately protect coastal resources.” Accordingly, the Board reviewed the objective requirements in the City’s DR permit for the new singlefamily dwelling and garage, vehicular access, elevated decks, spa, grading, retaining walls, trash enclosure in the front setback, and landscaping and the discretionary requirements of the CDP with a focus on coastal resources. Because the Board could not make all of the required CDP findings, they denied the application for CDP 24-2510 on November 13, 2025 and determined that their consideration of the application seeking approval of Design Review 24-2509 was moot. The City Council should consider whether the Board committed an abuse of discretion in its Second Board Denial. 17 of 922
Appeal of the Denial of CDP 24-2510 at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive January 6, 2026
Below is an overview of applicable state housing laws and Coastal Act carve outs and the findings and facts relied upon by the Board to deny the entitlements.
Applicable State Housing Laws and Coastal Act Carve Outs A. HAA
1. Overview of the HAA
The HAA requires a city to notify a developer if the proposed housing development project is inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provisions (to objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria) within 30 days of the date that the application is determined to be complete and failure to take such action will result in the project being deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision (to objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria). (Gov. Code Section 65589.5(j)(2).) When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, the city must make certain written findings to deny a project that (1) the housing development project “would have a ‘specific, adverse impact’19 upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density”; and (2) there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the identified adverse impact, other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density. (Gov. Code Section 65589.5(j)(1).) The HAA also has a Coastal Act carve out:
Nothing in this section shall be construed to relieve the local agency from complying with . . . the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code).
(Cal. Gov't Code § 65589.5(e).)
2. Application of the HAA to this Property
As an overview of the extensive application history, the Original Project was submitted before SB 450 and was submitted without an ADU or second unit (so the HAA did not apply). On April 1, 2025, Applicant did add an ADU to the Revised Project, among other changes, by submitting revised plans. However, coastal development permit application fees in the amount of $533 were not paid for the review of the added ADU. On May 22, 2025, the Board identified inconsistencies with the Revised Project at the public hearing by referencing conflicts with the REP and CDP Finding No. 1 and Criteria Nos. 5 and 6. The 19 A “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. (Gov. Code Section 65589.5(j)(1)(A).)
18 of 922
Appeal of the Denial of CDP 24-2510 at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive January 6, 2026
Second Revised Project maintained the ADU. Based on HCD guidance, the City treats development of a single family residence and ADU as subject to the HAA.
B. SB 9/SB 450
As noted above, the Applicant is proceeding under SB 9, which allows ministerial urban lot splits and twounit development projects under certain qualifying conditions, subject to the California Coastal Act. (See Government Code § 65852.21(l)[“Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California Coastal Act of 1976. . . .”].) The Coastal Act21 is a comprehensive scheme to govern land use planning for the state’s entire coastal zone.
As part of its enactment, the Legislature made several findings related to the Act’s purpose: (1) the coastal zone “is a distinct and valuable natural resource of vital and enduring interest to all the people”; (2) that permanent protection of the state’s natural and scenic resources is of paramount concern; (3) that “it is necessary to protect the ecological balance of the coastal zone”; and (4) that “existing developed uses, and future developments that are carefully planned and developed consistent with the policies of [the Coastal Act], are essential to the economic and social well-being of the people of this state. . . .”22 The Coastal Act is to be “liberally construed to accomplish its purposes and objectives.”23 The Coastal Act mandates that local governments within the coastal zone develop local coastal programs (“LCPs”), comprised of a land use plan and implementing ordinances, to promote the Coastal Act’s objectives.24 Unless subject to an exemption, almost all development within the coastal zone requires a coastal development permit.25 After Coastal Commission’s certification of a local coastal program, a coastal development permit is obtained from the local government, except in the appealable jurisdiction area and retained jurisdiction area, for which the Coastal Commission maintains jurisdiction, because the Coastal Commission delegates its development review authority to the local government.26 The delegation of authority is intended to ensure that the state policies prevail over local government concerns—regardless of the involvement of the local government in the Coastal Act’s implementation27:
Although local governments have the authority to issue coastal development permits, that authority is delegated by the Commission. The Commission has the ultimate authority to ensure that coastal development conforms to the policies embodied in the state's Coastal 21 Pub. Res. Code, § 30000 et seq.
22 Pub. Res. Code, § 30001, subds. (a) and (d).
23 Pub. Res. Code, § 30009.
24 Id.; see also Pub. Res. Code, §§ 30001.5; 30500–526. 25 Pub. Res. Code § 30600, subd. (a).
26 Pub. Res. Code §§ 30600(d), 30519(emphasis added), 30600.5(emphasis added). 27 City of Dana Point v. California Coastal Com. (2013) 217 Cal. App. 4th 170, 186. 19 of 922
Appeal of the Denial of CDP 24-2510 at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive January 6, 2026
Act. In fact, a fundamental purpose of the Coastal Act is to ensure that state policies prevail over the concerns of local government. (See City of Chula Vista v. Superior Court (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 472, 489 [Commission exercises independent judgment in approving [local coastal program] because it is assumed statewide interests are not always well represented at the local level].) The Commission applies state law and policies to determine whether the development permit complies with the [local coastal program].35 On January 13, 1993, the Coastal Commission certified the City’s LCP. The coastal zone in the City of Laguna Beach represents approximately 4.78 square miles of land, encompassing the entire city limits except for Sycamore Hills. Sycamore Hills consists of 522 acres at the intersection of Laguna Canyon and El Toro Roads, inland of the city.36
The City’s Land Use Plan component of its LCP centers on five principal subjects: (1) recreation and visitor-serving facilities and use; (2) parking and circulation; (3) environmentally sensitive areas; (4) shoreline access; and (5) undeveloped lands. Because the subjects are closely related to many of the issues in the City’s General Plan, the Land Use Plan is physically integrated into the City’s General Plan.37 The Land Use Plan represents a descriptive text and evaluation of coastal problems and issues.38 The Land Use Element and Open Space/Conservation Elements of the General Plan set forth the actual solutions or responses to these issues in the form of city policies.39 The LCP is further implemented through development regulations, specific plans, special studies, and permitting procedures, including, but not limited to, the Laguna Beach Municipal Code Title 25. Under Title 25, a coastal development permit is required for all proposed development within the coastal zone except for development that is specifically exempted and excepted under Sections 25.07.008 and
25.07.010.40
Finding and Facts Relied Upon by Board to Deny CDP
Here, the proposed development, which includes a new single-family dwelling, attached garage, attached ADU, and site improvements, requires a CDP under LBMC Sections 25.07.004 and 25.07.006. As reflected in Board Resolution 24-2510 (Attachment 6), the Board denied CDP 24-2510 based on its inability to make Finding 1 (Criteria 5 and 6), as reflected below:
35 City of Dana Point, supra, 217 Cal. App. 4th at 186; Charles A. Pratt Construction Co., Inc. v. California Coastal Com. (2018) 162 Cal. App. 4th 1068, 1075-76.
36 LCP Technical Appendix.
37 Id.
38 Id.
39 Id.
40 LBMC § 25.07.004.
20 of 922
Appeal of the Denial of CDP 24-2510 at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive January 6, 2026
“SECTION 3. The Design Review Board hereby denies Coastal Development Permit 24- 2510 based on the following findings:
Finding No. 1: The Project is in conformity with all the applicable provisions of the certified local coastal program:
To ensure compliance with the Certified Local Coastal Program, Laguna Beach Municipal Code Section 25.07.012(F), requires that nine criteria be incorporated into the review of all application for coastal development permits. From amongst these criteria the Design Review Board determined that the Project was inconsistent with Criterion Nos. 5 and 6, for the reasons described below:
5. The proposed development will minimize the alterations of natural landforms and will not result in undue risks from geological and erosional forces and/or flood and fire hazards.
No. The proposed Project, with its long and sloping driveway distinctly alters the natural landforms as compared to a street level garage. Further, siting the project on top of the knoll does not contour to the natural landform and instead proposes a series of retaining walls with little effort to naturally flow or follow the natural hill. Terracing the Project further into the slope will better protect the natural landform and minimize its alteration.
As a result, the Project is not designed in a way to minimize alteration of naturally occurring landforms on the Project site.
Further, the location of the existing utility poles would impede a possible road widening in order to ensure the maximum possible fire access. As such, the DRB could only support a Project design that re-sites these poles in such a way that allows for a widest possible road and will not result in undue risk from fire hazards.
6. The proposed development will be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and where feasible, will restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas.
No. The proposed single-family home would sit atop a knoll supported by a series of retaining walls within the project site that result in the visual appearance of an imposing and bulky development that protrudes significantly above the ridge of the knoll as the highest building in the area — unlike other properties in the area. The proposed project disrupts the visual natural progression of the ridge up the slope. The overall height of the building and retaining walls would be extending above the ridge of the knoll by 10 to 15 feet, resulting in a structure more than 50 feet above street grade which finds no comparison in the surrounding areas. The top height of the development on neighboring properties are either below the ridge of the knoll or just a foot or so above the ridge of the knoll- which maintains the visual appearance of the ridge from various public areas and roads. This design of the Project would result in development that is visually incompatible with the 21 of 922
Appeal of the Denial of CDP 24-2510 at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive January 6, 2026
surrounding area where other properties are either developed closer to the street or in a way that is not as visually imposing and maintains the visual character of the surrounding area by preserving the ridge of the knoll when viewed from various public rights-of-way.
Lowering of the Project (but keeping the same square footage) such that it is closer to the street was mentioned as a possible solution; however, the Applicant declined to make such a change to the Project.
In contrast to the proposed project, the Bluebird Canyon neighborhood is characterized by lower hillside development with vehicular access to garages being provided (predominantly) directly from the street without long sloping driveways and exposed retaining walls. The proposed Project would create a long sloping driveway requiring additional grading and retaining walls that are not typically found in the neighborhood and thus increases the visual incompatibility of this Project.” Unlike certain state housing laws, like AB 201133 and SB 3534, which both disqualify certain sensitive areas within the coastal zone from their qualifying housing projects, and subject qualifying projects in nonsensitive areas of the coastal zone to a more limited, objective-only CDP requirement, SB 9/SB 450 and the HAA do not expressly limit the City to reviewing a CDP subject to objective standards only. Therefore, the City is authorized by law to apply the discretionary findings and criteria under its CDP in the City’s certified LCP. While City staff may have recommended the approval of the Second Review Project, the Board ultimately makes its own independent decisions based on the record before it. Similarly, the City Council should consider the Project before it and the Board’s decision pursuant to the above-mentioned standard of review..
2. “The Board improperly cited replacement of a Southern California Edison pole in front of the applicant’s property to allege a fire hazard when the applicant has no control over SCE’s replacement of the SCE pole and there is no evidence in the record that replacement of the SCE pole will cause a fire hazard.”
Staff’s Response
In the Second Board Denial, the Board address the location of the existing utility poles as an impediment to a possible road widening. From City staff’s perspective, and in response to Applicant’s Appeal contention, there is no evidence that the current location of SCE’s power poles would cause a fire hazard.
The power poles are located in an urbanized area along an existing street and are being replaced as part of an SCE fire safety upgrade project, as indicated in the Applicant’s Appeal follow up letter (Attachment 12). Road widening may necessitate subsequent power pole relocation if necessary.
3. “The Board incorrectly alleged that the “natural profile” of the property is a coastal resource. DRB’s position is inconsistent with State law and the City’s own documents. There is no public viewpoint or environmentally sensitive area on the property, as confirmed by City Staff in the November 13th staff reports.”
Staff’s Response
22 of 922
Appeal of the Denial of CDP 24-2510 at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive January 6, 2026
As stated in the November 13, 2025 Board staff report, “The proposed project is located on a hill that is approximately a mile from the ocean, surrounded by single-family development and not within an environmentally sensitive area.” Despite the Project’s distance from the coast, the Project is located within the Coastal Zone and subject to the Coastal Act and the City’s certified LCP. Indeed, the Property is located outside of the area that the Coastal Commission categorically excluded from the CDP requirements. (Attachment 11).47 There are 11 such categorical exclusion areas in the City, generally located away from the coastline. Because the general project area was not included within one of the numbered categorical exclusion areas on the map depicting said exclusion areas, it stands to reason that the Coastal Commission at least envisioned that there may be instances where projects in this general area would impact coastal resources. By virtue of being subject to the coastal development permit requirements, it was appropriate and necessary for the Board to perform its own evaluation of whether coastal resources exist and the impacts to coastal resources through the application of its findings, criteria, and certified LCP development standards to the Project.
The City has a history of treating hillsides within the City as coastal resources. Indeed, the Open Space and Conservation Element, which is part of the City’s certified LCP, includes hillsides visual resources within the definition of visual resources (which are expressly protected by the Coastal Act as “coastal scenic resources”):
Hillside Visual Resources: Nearly 30% of the City consists of undeveloped hillside lands. These lands support a great diversity of visual resources, with prominent exposure from both public and private property. Generally, these features include: (1) unique topographic forms - vertically exposed rock faces, bluffs, headlands and noticeably steep slopes; (2) unique vegetative forms, including stands of oak, sycamore and eucalyptus trees, and riparian or canyon land plant communities; (3) natural watercourses and associated canyon bottoms; (4) special land features such as prominent ridgelines, escarpments and rock outcroppings; and (S) visual edges or boundaries consisting of contrasting features where rock outcroppings may meet with surrounding vegetation or man-made features such as roads and buildings.
(OSCE, p. 33.)
The Open Space and Conservation Element further sets forth that the City preserve as much as possible the natural character of the landscape, including hillsides and ridgelines, and require recontouring and replanting where natural landscape has been disturbed:
Policy 7-K: Preserve as much as possible the natural character of the landscape (including coastal bluffs, hillsides and ridge lines) by requiring proposed development plans to preserve and enhance scenic and conservation values to the maximum extent possible, to minimize impacts on soil mantle, 47 On May 13, 1993, the California Coastal Commission adopted Categorical Exclusion Order E-93-1, which excludes singlefamily residential development and other specified types of development from the City’s coastal permitting requirements within 11 geographic areas. The Project is located approximately 1,800 feet from the nearest categorical exclusion area (Exclusion Area No. 8 – Arch Beach Heights).
23 of 922
Appeal of the Denial of CDP 24-2510 at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive January 6, 2026
vegetation cover, water resources, physiographic features, erosion problems, and require recontouring and replanting where natural landscape has been disturbed.49 In a different but recent appeal, the City Council did a detailed analysis on the public view impacts of a project to coastal resources, including hillsides. By comparison, here, the Board denied the Project, not on the basis of public view impacts to coastal scenic resources (CDP Finding 1, Criteria No. 3), but its impact to the natural landforms and contribution to fire hazards (CDP Finding 1, Criteria No. 5) and its compatibility (visually) with the character of the surrounding areas (CDP Finding 1, Criteria No. 6).
Nevertheless, it is City staff’s position generally that undeveloped hillside lands are coastal resources.
In the Board’s analysis of whether the Second Revised Project “will minimize the alterations of natural landforms,” the Board found that the “Project[] with its long and sloping driveway distinctly alters the natural landforms as compared to a street level garage”:
The proposed Project, with its long and sloping driveway distinctly alters the natural landforms as compared to a street level garage. Further, siting the project on top of the knoll does not contour to the natural landform and instead proposes a series of retaining walls with little effort to naturally flow or follow the natural hill. Terracing the Project further into the slope will better protect the natural landform and minimize its alteration. As a result, the Project is not designed in a way to minimize alteration of naturally occurring landforms on the Project site. (Attachment 6, Board Denial Resolution 24-2510)
At the November 13, 2025 Board hearing, the Applicant disputed that the knoll is a natural landform and referred the Board to the topographic survey prepared for the Project, alleging that the top of the knoll was graded prior to 1940.
Figure 5. Still from Applicant’s November 13, 2025 presentation for the proposed project located at 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive. According to the Applicant, the topographic survey should serve as evidence that the topography of the two lots is not natural, with the top of the knoll “fully graded pre-1940.” 24 of 922
Appeal of the Denial of CDP 24-2510 at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive January 6, 2026
Based on staff research, the top of the knoll appears to have been graded prior to 1938 for an access road to an extant water tank. The road disappears from aerial photographs between 1960 and 197051, at which point photos begin to show the Morningside Circle cul-de-sac to the east of the extant water tank and in an area where the access road previously traversed. The knoll may have had a small crest at its summit before it was altered by construction, as is common for undeveloped hilltops in the area. Staff is unable to ascertain how much grading occurred to construct the road, which no longer exists. It is likely that the road was unpaved and became eroded and overgrown with vegetation over time once maintenance of the access road ceased.
While portions of the knoll may have been graded, in its evaluation of the CDP findings, the City Council should determine whether the knoll constitutes a natural landform, and whether the Project “will minimize the alterations of natural landforms . . . .” (CDP Finding No. 1, Criteria No. 5.) Based on the record, the Board considered the knoll as a natural landform despite the grading that occurred. The knoll is generally characterized by its steep slopes, general lack of improvements, and wild vegetation. It appears that large portions of the knoll have not been graded. The knoll continues to maintain a natural appearance, free of retaining walls, hardscape, ornamental landscaping, and other clear signs of manmade alterations. Several individuals who provided public comments as well as the Board have referred to the knoll as a natural feature, as its history of manmade alteration to a portion of the natural landform is not readily apparent to the eye.
4. “The Board alleged the projects were inconsistent with LU policies, including LU Policies 7.3 and
10.2, well after the City was required to inform the applicant of any project inconsistency with applicable policies pursuant to Gov. Code Section 65852.21(h)(1) and Gov. Code Section 65589.5(j)(2).”
Staff’s Response
The HAA applies to “residential units.”52 The HAA requires a city to notify a developer if the proposed housing development project is inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provisions (to objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria) within 30 days of the date that the application is determined to be complete and failure to take such action will result in the project being deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision (to objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria). (Gov.
Code Section 65589.5(j)(2).)
51 https://www.ocgis.com/ocpw/historicalimagery/index.html 52 The HAA only applies to applications for a “housing development project,” which is defined in the HAA as follows: (1) a project with residential units only; mixed use developments with at least two thirds of the square footage designated for residential use; or (3) transitional or supportive housing. (Gov. Code Section 65589.5(h)(2).) 25 of 922
Appeal of the Denial of CDP 24-2510 at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive January 6, 2026
When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, the city must make certain written findings that (1) the housing development project “would have a ‘specific, adverse impact’55 upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density”; and (2) there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the identified adverse impact, other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density. (Gov. Code Section 65589.5(j)(1).) The HAA also has a Coastal Act carve out:
Nothing in this section shall be construed to relieve the local agency from complying with . . . the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code).
(Cal. Gov't Code § 65589.5(e).)
Here, the application for development at this Property has had an extensive history within the City. The Original Project was submitted before SB 450 and was submitted without an ADU (so the HAA did not apply).
The Revised Project, added an ADU, so that the project consisted of construction of single-family residence and accessory dwelling unit (i.e., “residential units”). The Applicant never paid fees or submitted an application for the coastal development permit trigger for the ADU. Nevertheless, the City received a copy of the final plans for the Revised Project on April 1, 2025. Even assuming that the City waived its right to require an application and fees (which it did not), the City would have had thirty days to inform the Applicant as to whether the application was complete or the application would be deemed complete. (Gov.
Code, § 65943(b).) Therefore, thirty days from submittal of the final plans on April 1, 2025 would be May 1, 2025 for a completeness determination. Even assuming the application (that was not submitted or paid for) was deemed complete on May 1, 2025, the City would have had until June 1, 2025 to identify standards with which the Revised Project design conflicts under the HAA. On May 1, 2025, City staff emailed Applicant to confirm that the project had been rescheduled for the May 22, 2025 Board meeting (or was complete). On May 22, 2025, at a public hearing on the Revised Project, the Board identified conflicts with CDP Finding No. 1, Criteria Nos. 5 and 6—which largely incorporate Land Use Element Policies 7.3 and
10.2 stated below:
Design and site new development to protect natural and environmentally sensitive resources, such as areas of unique scenic quality, public views, and visual compatibility with surrounding uses and to minimize natural landform alterations. 55 A “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. (Gov. Code Section 65589.5(j)(1)(A).)
26 of 922
Appeal of the Denial of CDP 24-2510 at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive January 6, 2026
On November 13, 2025, the Board denied the Revised Project, in relevant part, on the basis that the Revised Project is inconsistent with Coastal Development Permit Finding No. 1, which requires compliance with the certified LCP, including Criteria 5 (i.e., “[t]he proposed development will minimize the alterations of natural landforms and will not result in undue risks from geological and erosional forces and/or floor and fire hazards”) and Criteria 6 (i.e., “[t]he proposed development will be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and where feasible, will restore.) The Second Revised Project eliminated the need for an REP. On September 25, 2025, the Applicant submitted revised plans for the Second Revised Project. On October 21, 2025, City staff identified missing items from the application rendering the application incomplete. On November 13, 2025, the Board denied the Second Revised Project on the basis that the Second Revised Project is inconsistent with Coastal Development Permit Finding No. 1, which requires compliance with the certified LCP, including Criteria 5 (i.e., “[t]he proposed development will minimize the alterations of natural landforms and will not result in undue risks from geological and erosional forces and/or floor and fire hazards”) and Criteria 6 (i.e., “[t]he proposed development will be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and where feasible, will restore.)
Therefore, the Board did not allege the Revised Project was inconsistent with LU policies, including LU Policies 7.3 and 10.2, well after the City was required to inform the applicant of any project inconsistency with applicable policies pursuant to the HAA. The City received final plans on April 1, 2025 and confirmed the application was sufficient on May 1, 2025 to proceed to the Board on May 22, 2025—when the Board identified inconsistencies with LU Policies 7.3 and 10.2 and the CDP Finding No. 1, Criteria Nos. 5 and 6.
The Board did not allege the Second Revised Project was inconsistent with LU policies, including LU Policies 7.3 and 10.2, well after the City was required to inform the applicant of any project inconsistency with applicable policies pursuant to the HAA. The City received plans on September 25, 2025 and confirmed the application was incomplete on October 21, 2025 and the application proceeded to the Board on November 13, 2025—when the Board identified inconsistencies with LU Policies 7.3 and 10.2 and the CDP Finding No. 1, Criteria Nos. 5 and 6. Neither SB 9 nor SB 450 require the City to issue a letter of inconsistency.
5. “The Board improperly excluded the Accessory Dwelling Unit that was added to Lot A on September 24th from their consideration on the CDP for Lot A. The ADU does not change any facts in the Staff Reports and does not require a variance. The applicant is specifically appealing the ADU to the City Council as part of the present appeal.”
Staff’s Response
This appeal contention does not apply to 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive. It applies to 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive, which will be considered as a separate item on business on the City Council agenda. A response to this contention is included in the City Council agenda item relating to 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive.
RECOMMENDATION
Conduct a public hearing, including receiving a staff report and taking public testimony and all evidence relating to the entitlements for the Second Revised Project, including the findings for California 27 of 922
Appeal of the Denial of CDP 24-2510 at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive January 6, 2026
Environmental Quality Act, and either (Option A) adopt the attached Resolution upholding the Second Board Denial, and finding the denial of the Second Revised Project categorically exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15270 or (Option B) adopt the attached Resolution granting the Second Appeal and overturning the Second Board Denial, with findings in support of overturning the Second Board Denial and approving the Second Revised Project, subject to conditions of approval.
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The recommended action has no financial impact to the budget.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The recommended action of upholding the denial of a project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15270 of the CEQA Guidelines because CEQA does not apply to projects that a public agency rejects or disapproves. Alternatively, if the City Council decides to grant the appeal and reverse the decision of the Board, the City Council should analyze the Project’s qualification for a categorical exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15303 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, since the Project consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small structures.
ATTACHMENTS
1. City Council Resolution (Option A) (Pgs. 29-51)
2. City Council Resolution (Option B) (Pgs. 52-87)
3. Aerial Map (Pg. 88)
4. August 12, 2025 CC Staff Report (Pgs.89-128)
5. August 12, 2025 CC Remand Resolution 25.075 (Pgs.129-141)
6. November 13, 2025 Second DRB Denial Resolution No. 24-2510 (Pgs. 142-145)
7. Second Appeal (Pgs.146-148)
8. Public Notice (Pg. 149)
9. November 13, 2025 DRB Transcript (1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive) (Pgs. 150-181)
10. November 13, 2025 DRB Transcript (1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive) (Pgs. 182-190)
11. Categorical Exclusion Areas Map (Pg. 191)
12. Applicant’s Appeal follow-up Letter (Pgs.192-195)
13. November 13, 2025 DRB Plans (Pgs. 196-226)
14. November 13, 2025 DRB Staff Report (Pgs.227-241)
15. Order of Testimony (Pg.242)
Submitted By: Matthew Schneider Approved: .David A Kiff Matthew Schneider, Director of
Community Development
Dave Kiff, City Manager
Report Prepared By: Coordinated With:
Daniel Latham, Associate Planner Jane Abzug, Assistant City Attorney Anthony Viera, Deputy Director of Community
Development
28 of 922
RESOLUTION NO. 25.XXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE
DECISION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TO DENY
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-2510 FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING
WITH AN ATTACHED TWO-CAR GARAGE, AN
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, AND OTHER
IMPROVEMENTS AT 1560 BLUEBIRD CANYON DRIVE
(LOT B) IN THE R-1, RESIDENTIAL LOW-DENSITY ZONE,
AND FINDING THAT THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DOES NOT APPLY TO
PROJECTS THAT ARE DISAPPROVED
WHEREAS, the property owner, David Dyrnaes (“Applicant”)1, of 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive (the “Property”) seeks Design Review (“DR”) 24-2509 and Coastal Development Permit (“CDP”) 24-2510 to construct a single-family dwelling with an attached two-car garage, an attached accessory dwelling unit (“ADU”), and other improvements in the R-1 (Residential Low Density) zone. While Revocable Encroachment Permit (“REP”) 24-2511 was previously needed to construct and maintain improvements in the public right-of-way, including walls, stairs, irrigation, drainage facilities, and lighting pursuant to LBMC Section 11.50.030, Applicant has revised the project since the last time the City Council considered this proposed development to eliminate REP 24-2511.
WHEREAS, Applicant is proceeding under Senate Bill (“SB 9”), as amended by SB 450 (collectively referred to herein as “SB 9”), which allows ministerial urban lot splits and two-unit development projects under certain qualifying conditions, subject to the California Coastal Act. 1 The Project’s architect is David Parker, who is within the definition of Applicant.
Attachment 1 29
29 of 922
-2- Reso. #
(See Government Code § 65852.21(l)[“Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California Coastal Act of 1976. . . .”].)2 WHEREAS, on January 23, 2025, the Design Review Board (“Board”) held a duly noticed public hearing and considered the first version of the project that consisted of DR for a new singlefamily dwelling and attached two-car garage, vehicular access, elevated decks, spa, grading, retaining walls, trash enclosure in the front setback, and landscaping, a CDP to construct new development, including a single-family dwelling, attached garage, and site improvements, and an REP to construct and maintain improvements in the public right-of-way, including walls, stairs, irrigation, drainage, and lighting (the “Original Project”).3 After receiving input from staff, the Applicant, and public comments, the Board discussed the Original Project, provided direction to the Applicant, and tabled the discussion with a 5-0 vote.
WHEREAS, on April 1, 2025, the Applicant submitted new plans to the City that included a new attached ADU constituting a new application.4 A coastal development permit application fees in the amount of $533 were not paid for the review of the added ADU. The new plans also included other changes to the floor area, upper level, deck, roof, garage, architectural style, retaining walls, fencing, glazing, landscaping, and access stairs (collectively with the added ADU, the “Revised Project”).
2 On June 13, 2024, the Community Development Director granted administrative coastal development permit approval of Tentative Parcel Map 24-0940, an urban lot split pursuant to SB 9 that subdivided an existing parcel to create two new parcels, including the Property. Final Map 24-117 was subsequently recorded with the County to effectuate the lot split.
3 Notably, an ADU was not included in the Original Project and an REP was required for the Original Project. 4 An ADU is a separate trigger for a coastal development permit application under the City’s Coastal Commissioncertified local coastal program (“certified LCP”). (LBMC Section 25.07.008(A)(1)(a).) Attachment 1 30
30 of 922
-3- Reso. #
WHEREAS, on May 22, 2025, the Board held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Revised Project. Following the public hearing, the Board directed staff to prepare a resolution denying the Revised Project by a 3-2 vote (Board members Bauta and Gannon dissenting). The Board noted inability to make the required REP Finding Nos. 1 and 2 based on a conflict with LBMC Section 25.53.004; public safety risk relating to fire as the Property is located in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (“VHFHSZ”); and inability to make the required CDP Finding No. 1, Criteria No. 5 (i.e., “[t]he proposed development will minimize the alterations of natural landforms and will not result in undue risks from geological and erosional forces and/or floor and fire hazards”) and Criteria No. 6 (i.e., “[t]he proposed development will be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and where feasible, will restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas”). On June 12, 2025, the Board considered the draft resolution denying the Project on consent and adopted the resolution denying the Revised Project with certain changes read into the record, including a finding that the denial of the Project is exempt from CEQA (the “First Board Denial”).
WHEREAS, on June 4, 2025, the Applicant filed an appeal of the First Board Denial (the “First Appeal”). The Applicant contended that the Board abused its discretion in denying the Revised Project. On August 12, 2025, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the First Appeal and remanded the Revised Project back to the Board for a single hearing 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 Attachment 1 31
31 of 922
-4- Reso. #
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.
WHEREAS, on September 25, 2025, the Applicant submitted revised plans to City staff, which eliminated the need for REP 24-2511 (the “Second Revised Project”). On October 21, 2025, City staff identified missing items from the application and deemed the application incomplete.
On November 13, 2025, the Board held a public hearing on the Second Revised Project and denied it with a 3-1 vote (Board members Bauta dissenting and Gannon absent), on the basis that the Second Revised Project is inconsistent with Coastal Development Permit Finding No. 1, which requires compliance with the certified LCP, including Criteria 5 (i.e., “[t]he proposed development will minimize the alterations of natural landforms and will not result in undue risks from geological and erosional forces and/or floor and fire hazards”) and Criteria 6 (i.e., “[t]he proposed development will be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and where Attachment 1 32
32 of 922
-5- Reso. #
feasible, will restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas”) (the “Second Board Denial”).
WHEREAS, on November 17, 2025, the Applicant filed an appeal of the Second Board Denial (“Second Appeal”).5
WHEREAS, public notice was duly provided to consider the Second Appeal of the Project at the January 6, 2026 City Council meeting in accordance with LBMC Section 25.05.065; and WHEREAS, on January 6, 2026, the City Council held a public hearing on the Appeal and carefully considered the oral and documentary evidence and arguments presented.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH DOES RESOLVE:
SECTION 1. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution by this reference.
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby makes the following findings in response to grounds for appeal stated in Appellants’ notice of Second Appeal:
1. “The Board relied on subjective standards to deny [the Project] in violation of SB 450 and the Housing Accountability Act. City Staff confirmed in the November 13th staff reports that the projects are consistent with all LCP policies and all applicable objective design 5 The Applicant has filed appeals of two denials for projects located at 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive and 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive. Both projects were denied by the Board on November 13, 2025 and appealed to the City Council on November 17, 2025. Both appeals identify the same five appeal contentions, although one of the five contentions apply only to the project located at 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive. The 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive appeal is analyzed by staff in a separate agenda report, and both appeals will be heard by the City Council at the January 6, 2026, special meeting.
Attachment 1 33
33 of 922
-6- Reso. #
standards. Therefore, under SB 450 and the Housing Accountability Act, the Board did not have the authority to deny the projects.”
City Council’s Response
The Applicant’s Project requires two entitlements from the City: (1) CDP 24-2510 for the new development, which includes a new single-family dwelling, attached garage, attached ADU, and site improvements under LBMC Sections 25.07.004 and 25.07.006; and (2) DR 25-2509 for the new single-family dwelling and garage, vehicular access, elevated decks, spa, grading, retaining walls, trash enclosure in the front setback, and landscaping pursuant to LBMC Section
25.05.040(B)(1).
At the August 12, 2025 City Council meeting on the First Appeal, the City Council directed the Board to “[d]isregard Design Review requirements in conflict with SB 450, for a qualifying project, based on changes in state law brought by SB 450, which became effective on January 1, 2025, and based on the City Council’s finding that the Coastal Development Permit findings and criteria adequately protect coastal resources.” Accordingly, the Board reviewed the objective requirements in the City’s DR permit for the new single-family dwelling and garage, vehicular access, elevated decks, spa, grading, retaining walls, trash enclosure in the front setback, and landscaping and the discretionary requirements of the CDP with a focus on coastal resources.
Because the Board could not make all of the required CDP findings, they denied the application for CDP 24-2510 on November 13, 2025 and determined that their consideration of the application seeking approval of Design Review 24-2509 was moot. The City Council should consider whether the Board committed an abuse of discretion in its Second Board Denial.
Below is an overview of applicable state housing laws and Coastal Act carve outs and the findings and facts relied upon by the Board to deny the entitlements.
Attachment 1 34
34 of 922
-7- Reso. #
Applicable State Housing Laws and Coastal Act Carve Outs A. HAA
1. Overview of the HAA
The HAA requires a city to notify a developer if the proposed housing development project is inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provisions (to objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria) within 30 days of the date that the application is determined to be complete and failure to take such action will result in the project being deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision (to objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria). (Gov. Code Section 65589.5(j)(2).) When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, the city must make certain written findings to deny a project that (1) the housing development project “would have a ‘specific, adverse impact’6 upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density”; and (2) there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the identified adverse impact, other than the disapproval of the housing 6 A “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. (Gov. Code Section 65589.5(j)(1)(A).) Attachment 1 35
35 of 922
-8- Reso. #
development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density. (Gov. Code Section 65589.5(j)(1).)
The HAA also has a Coastal Act carve out:
Nothing in this section shall be construed to relieve the local agency from complying with . . . the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code).
(Cal. Gov't Code § 65589.5(e).)
2. Application of the HAA to this Property
As an overview of the extensive application history, the Original Project was submitted before SB 450 and was submitted without an ADU or second unit (so the HAA did not apply). On April 1, 2025, Applicant did add an ADU to the Revised Project, among other changes, by submitting revised plans. However, coastal development permit application fees in the amount of $533 were not paid for the review of the added ADU. On May 22, 2025, the Board identified inconsistencies with the Revised Project at the public hearing by referencing conflicts with the REP and CDP Finding No. 1 and Criteria Nos. 5 and 6. The Second Revised Project maintained the ADU. Based on HCD guidance, the City treats development of a single family residence and ADU as subject to the HAA.
B. SB 9/SB 450
As noted above, the Applicant is proceeding under SB 9, which allows ministerial urban lot splits and two-unit development projects under certain qualifying conditions, subject to the California Coastal Act. (See Government Code § 65852.21(l)[“Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California Coastal Act of 1976. . . .”].)
Attachment 1 36
36 of 922
-9- Reso. #
The Coastal Act7 is a comprehensive scheme to govern land use planning for the state’s entire coastal zone. As part of its enactment, the Legislature made several findings related to the Act’s purpose: (1) the coastal zone “is a distinct and valuable natural resource of vital and enduring interest to all the people”; (2) that permanent protection of the state’s natural and scenic resources is of paramount concern; (3) that “it is necessary to protect the ecological balance of the coastal zone”; and (4) that “existing developed uses, and future developments that are carefully planned and developed consistent with the policies of [the Coastal Act], are essential to the economic and social well-being of the people of this state. . . .”8
The Coastal Act is to be “liberally construed to accomplish its purposes and objectives.”9 The Coastal Act mandates that local governments within the coastal zone develop local coastal programs (“LCPs”), comprised of a land use plan and implementing ordinances, to promote the Coastal Act’s objectives.10 Unless subject to an exemption, almost all development within the coastal zone requires a coastal development permit.11 After Coastal Commission’s certification of a local coastal program, a coastal development permit is obtained from the local government, except in the appealable jurisdiction area and retained jurisdiction area, for which the Coastal Commission maintains jurisdiction, because the Coastal Commission delegates its development review authority to the local government.12 The delegation of authority is intended to ensure that 7 Pub. Res. Code, § 30000 et seq.
8 Pub. Res. Code, § 30001, subds. (a) and (d).
9 Pub. Res. Code, § 30009.
10 Id.; see also Pub. Res. Code, §§ 30001.5; 30500–526. 11 Pub. Res. Code § 30600, subd. (a).
12 Pub. Res. Code §§ 30600(d), 30519(emphasis added), 30600.5(emphasis added).
Attachment 1 37
37 of 922
-10- Reso. #
the state policies prevail over local government concerns—regardless of the involvement of the local government in the Coastal Act’s implementation13:
Although local governments have the authority to issue coastal development permits, that authority is delegated by the Commission. The Commission has the ultimate authority to ensure that coastal development conforms to the policies embodied in the state's Coastal Act. In fact, a fundamental purpose of the Coastal Act is to ensure that state policies prevail over the concerns of local government. (See City of Chula Vista v. Superior Court (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 472, 489 [Commission exercises independent judgment in approving [local coastal program] because it is assumed statewide interests are not always well represented at the local level].) The Commission applies state law and policies to determine whether the development permit complies with the [local coastal program].14 On January 13, 1993, the Coastal Commission certified the City’s LCP. The coastal zone in the City of Laguna Beach represents approximately 4.78 square miles of land, encompassing the entire city limits except for Sycamore Hills. Sycamore Hills consists of 522 acres at the intersection of Laguna Canyon and El Toro Roads, inland of the city.15
The City’s Land Use Plan component of its LCP centers on five principal subjects: (1) recreation and visitor-serving facilities and use; (2) parking and circulation; (3) environmentally sensitive areas; (4) shoreline access; and (5) undeveloped lands. Because the subjects are closely related to many of the issues in the City’s General Plan, the Land Use Plan is physically integrated into the 13 City of Dana Point v. California Coastal Com. (2013) 217 Cal. App. 4th 170, 186. 14 City of Dana Point, supra, 217 Cal. App. 4th at 186; Charles A. Pratt Construction Co., Inc. v. California Coastal Com. (2018) 162 Cal. App. 4th 1068, 1075-76.
15 LCP Technical Appendix.
Attachment 1 38
38 of 922
-11- Reso. #
City’s General Plan.16 The Land Use Plan represents a descriptive text and evaluation of coastal problems and issues.17 The Land Use Element and Open Space/Conservation Elements of the General Plan set forth the actual solutions or responses to these issues in the form of city policies.18 The LCP is further implemented through development regulations, specific plans, special studies, and permitting procedures, including, but not limited to, the Laguna Beach Municipal Code Title
25. Under Title 25, a coastal development permit is required for all proposed development within the coastal zone except for development that is specifically exempted and excepted under Sections
25.07.008 and 25.07.010.19
Finding and Facts Relied Upon by Board to Deny CDP
Here, the proposed development, which includes a new single-family dwelling, attached garage, attached ADU, and site improvements, requires a CDP under LBMC Sections 25.07.004 and
25.07.006. As reflected in Board Resolution 24-2510, the Board denied CDP 24-2510 based on its inability to make Finding 1 (Criteria 5 and 6), as reflected below:
“SECTION 3. The Design Review Board hereby denies Coastal Development Permit 24-2510 based on the following findings:
Finding No. 1: The Project is in conformity with all the applicable provisions of the certified local coastal program:
To ensure compliance with the Certified Local Coastal Program, Laguna Beach 16 Id.
17 Id.
18 Id.
19 LBMC § 25.07.004.
Attachment 1 39
39 of 922
-12- Reso. #
Municipal Code Section 25.07.012(F), requires that nine criteria be incorporated into the review of all application for coastal development permits. From amongst these criteria the Design Review Board determined that the Project was inconsistent with Criterion Nos. 5 and 6, for the reasons described below:
5. The proposed development will minimize the alterations of natural landforms and will not result in undue risks from geological and erosional forces and/or flood and fire hazards.
No. The proposed Project, with its long and sloping driveway distinctly alters the natural landforms as compared to a street level garage. Further, siting the project on top of the knoll does not contour to the natural landform and instead proposes a series of retaining walls with little effort to naturally flow or follow the natural hill. Terracing the Project further into the slope will better protect the natural landform and minimize its alteration. As a result, the Project is not designed in a way to minimize alteration of naturally occurring landforms on the Project site.
Further, the location of the existing utility poles would impede a possible road widening in order to ensure the maximum possible fire access. As such, the DRB could only support a Project design that re-sites these poles in such a way that allows for a widest possible road and will not result in undue risk from fire hazards.
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 1 40
40 of 922
-13- Reso. #
No. The proposed single-family home would sit atop a knoll supported by a series of retaining walls within the project site that result in the visual appearance of an imposing and bulky development that protrudes significantly above the ridge of the knoll as the highest building in the area — unlike other properties in the area.
The proposed project disrupts the visual natural progression of the ridge up the slope. The overall height of the building and retaining walls would be extending above the ridge of the knoll by 10 to 15 feet, resulting in a structure more than 50 feet above street grade which finds no comparison in the surrounding areas. The top height of the development on neighboring properties are either below the ridge of the knoll or just a foot or so above the ridge of the knoll- which maintains the visual appearance of the ridge from various public areas and roads. This design of the Project would result in development that is visually incompatible with the surrounding area where other properties are either developed closer to the street or in a way that is not as visually imposing and maintains the visual character of the surrounding area by preserving the ridge of the knoll when viewed from various public rights-of-way. Lowering of the Project (but keeping the same square footage) such that it is closer to the street was mentioned as a possible solution; however, the Applicant declined to make such a change to the Project.
In contrast to the proposed project, the Bluebird Canyon neighborhood is characterized by lower hillside development with vehicular access to garages being provided (predominantly) directly from the street without long sloping driveways and exposed retaining walls. The proposed Project would create a long Attachment 1 41
41 of 922
-14- Reso. #
sloping driveway requiring additional grading and retaining walls that are not typically found in the neighborhood and thus increases the visual incompatibility of this Project.”
Unlike certain state housing laws, like AB 201133 and SB 3534, which both disqualify certain sensitive areas within the coastal zone from their qualifying housing projects, and subject qualifying projects in non-sensitive areas of the coastal zone to a more limited, objective-only CDP requirement, SB 9/SB 450 and the HAA do not expressly limit the City to reviewing a CDP subject to objective standards only. Therefore, the City is authorized by law to apply the discretionary findings and criteria under its CDP in the City’s certified LCP. While City staff may have supported the approval of the Second Review Project, the Board ultimately makes the decision on the CDP.
The City Council finds that the Board did not commit an abuse of discretion.
2. “The Board improperly cited replacement of a Southern California Edison pole in front of the applicant’s property to allege a fire hazard when the applicant has no control over SCE’s replacement of the SCE pole and there is no evidence in the record that replacement of the SCE pole will cause a fire hazard.”
City Council’s Response
In the Second Board Denial, the Board address the location of the existing utility poles as an impediment to a possible road widening. In response to Applicant’s Appeal contention, there is no evidence that SCE’s power poles would cause a fire hazard. The power poles are located in an urbanized area along an existing street and are being replaced as part of an SCE fire safety upgrade project, as indicated in the Applicant’s Appeal follow up letter. The City Council finds that the location of the existing utility poles was an inappropriate basis for the Second Board Denial, but further finds that the Board cited to other facts that could appropriately support the Second Board Attachment 1 42
42 of 922
-15- Reso. #
Denial and therefore any reference to the SCE power poles as a basis to the deny the Second Revised Project is harmless error.
3. “The Board incorrectly alleged that the “natural profile” of the property is a coastal resource. DRB’s position is inconsistent with State law and the City’s own documents. There is no public viewpoint or environmentally sensitive area on the property, as confirmed by City Staff in the November 13th staff reports.”
City Council’s Response
As stated in the November 13, 2025 Board staff report, “The proposed project is located on a hill that is approximately a mile from the ocean, surrounded by single-family development and not within an environmentally sensitive area.” Despite the Project’s distance from the coast, the Project is located within the Coastal Zone and subject to the Coastal Act and the City’s certified LCP.
Indeed, the Property is located outside of the area that the Coastal Commission categorically excluded from the CDP requirements.20 There are 11 such categorical exclusion areas in the City, generally located away from the coastline. Because the general project area was not included within one of the numbered categorical exclusion areas on the map depicting said exclusion areas, it stands to reason that the Coastal Commission at least envisioned that there may be instances where projects in this general area would impact coastal resources. By virtue of being subject to the coastal development permit requirements, it was appropriate and necessary for the Board to perform its own evaluation of whether coastal resources exist and the impacts to coastal resources 20 On May 13, 1993, the California Coastal Commission adopted Categorical Exclusion Order E-93-1, which excludes single-family residential development and other specified types of development from the City’s coastal permitting requirements within 11 geographic areas. The Project is located approximately 1,800 feet from the nearest categorical exclusion area (Exclusion Area No. 8 – Arch Beach Heights).
Attachment 1 43
43 of 922
-16- Reso. #
through the application of its findings, criteria, and certified LCP development standards to the Project.
The City has a history of treating hillsides within the City as coastal resources. Indeed, the Open Space and Conservation Element, which is part of the City’s certified LCP, includes hillsides visual resources within the definition of visual resources (which are expressly protected by the Coastal Act as “coastal scenic resources”):
Hillside Visual Resources: Nearly 30% of the City consists of undeveloped hillside lands.
These lands support a great diversity of visual resources, with prominent exposure from both public and private property. Generally, these features include: (1) unique topographic forms - vertically exposed rock faces, bluffs, headlands and noticeably steep slopes; (2) unique vegetative forms, including stands of oak, sycamore and eucalyptus trees, and riparian or canyon land plant communities; (3) natural watercourses and associated canyon bottoms; (4) special land features such as prominent ridgelines, escarpments and rock outcroppings; and (S) visual edges or boundaries consisting of contrasting features where rock outcroppings may meet with surrounding vegetation or man-made features such as roads and buildings.
(OSCE, p. 33.)
The Open Space and Conservation Element further sets forth that the City preserve as much as possible the natural character of the landscape, including hillsides and ridgelines, and require recontouring and replanting where natural landscape has been disturbed:
Policy 7-K: Preserve as much as possible the natural character of the landscape (including coastal bluffs, hillsides and ridge lines) by requiring proposed development plans to preserve and enhance scenic and conservation values to the maximum extent possible, to Attachment 1 44
44 of 922
-17- Reso. #
minimize impacts on soil mantle, vegetation cover, water resources, physiographic features, erosion problems, and require recontouring and replanting where natural landscape has been disturbed.21
In a different but recent appeal, the City Council did a detailed analysis on the public view impacts of a project to coastal resources, including hillsides. By comparison, here, the Board denied the Project, not on the basis of public view impacts to coastal scenic resources (CDP Finding 1, Criteria No. 3), but its impact to the natural landforms and contribution to fire hazards (CDP Finding 1, Criteria No. 5) and its compatibility (visually) with the character of the surrounding areas (CDP Finding 1, Criteria No. 6).
In the Board’s analysis of whether the Second Revised Project “will minimize the alterations of natural landforms,” the Board found that the “Project[] with its long and sloping driveway distinctly alters the natural landforms as compared to a street level garage”:
The proposed Project, with its long and sloping driveway distinctly alters the natural landforms as compared to a street level garage. Further, siting the project on top of the knoll does not contour to the natural landform and instead proposes a series of retaining walls with little effort to naturally flow or follow the natural hill. Terracing the Project further into the slope will better protect the natural landform and minimize its alteration.
As a result, the Project is not designed in a way to minimize alteration of naturally occurring landforms on the Project site.
(Board Denial Resolution 24-2588.)
Attachment 1 45
45 of 922
-18- Reso. #
At the November 13, 2025 Board hearing, the Applicant disputed that the knoll is a natural landform and referred the Board to the topographic survey prepared for the Project, alleging that the top of the knoll was graded prior to 1940.
The top of the knoll appears to have been graded prior to 1938 for an access road to an extant water tank. The road disappears from aerial photographs between 1960 and 197022, at which point photos begin to show the Morningside Circle cul-de-sac to the east of the extant water tank and in an area where the access road previously traversed. The knoll may have had a small crest at its summit before it was altered by construction, as is common for undeveloped hilltops in the area.
While portions of the knoll may have been graded, the City Council finds that the knoll constitutes a natural landform, and the Project does not “minimize the alterations of natural landforms . . . .” (CDP Finding No. 1, Criteria No. 5.) Based on the record, the Board considered the knoll as a natural landform despite the grading that occurred. The knoll is generally characterized by its steep slopes, general lack of improvements, and wild vegetation. It appears that large portions of the knoll have not been graded. The knoll continues to maintain a natural appearance, free of retaining walls, hardscape, ornamental landscaping, and other clear signs of manmade alterations. Several individuals who provided public comments as well as the Board have referred to the knoll as a natural feature, as its history of manmade alteration to a portion of the natural landform is not readily apparent to the eye.
The City Council agrees with the Board and finds that the knoll constitutes a natural landform, and the Project does not “minimize the alterations of natural landforms . . . .” 22 https://www.ocgis.com/ocpw/historicalimagery/index.html Attachment 1 46
46 of 922
-19- Reso. #
4. “The Board alleged the projects were inconsistent with LU policies, including LU Policies
7.3 and 10.2, well after the City was required to inform the applicant of any project inconsistency with applicable policies pursuant to Gov. Code Section 65852.21(h)(1) and Gov. Code Section 65589.5(j)(2).”
City Council’s Response
The HAA applies to “residential units.”23 The HAA requires a city to notify a developer if the proposed housing development project is inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provisions (to objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria) within 30 days of the date that the application is determined to be complete and failure to take such action will result in the project being deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision (to objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria). (Gov. Code Section 65589.5(j)(2).) When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, the city must make certain written findings that (1) the housing development project “would have a ‘specific, adverse impact’24 upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project 23 The HAA only applies to applications for a “housing development project,” which is defined in the HAA as follows: (1) a project with residential units only; mixed use developments with at least two thirds of the square footage designated for residential use; or (3) transitional or supportive housing. (Gov. Code Section 65589.5(h)(2).) 24 A “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. (Gov. Code Section 65589.5(j)(1)(A).) Attachment 1 47
47 of 922
-20- Reso. #
be developed at a lower density”; and (2) there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the identified adverse impact, other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density. (Gov.
Code Section 65589.5(j)(1).)
The HAA also has a Coastal Act carve out:
Nothing in this section shall be construed to relieve the local agency from complying with . . . the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code).
(Cal. Gov't Code § 65589.5(e).)
Here, the application for development at this Property has had an extensive history within the City.
The Original Project was submitted before SB 450 and was submitted without an ADU (so the HAA did not apply).
The Revised Project, added an ADU, so that the project consisted of construction of single-family residence and accessory dwelling unit (i.e., “residential units”). The Applicant never paid fees or submitted an application for the coastal development permit trigger for the ADU. Nevertheless, the City received a copy of the final plans for the Revised Project on April 1, 2025. Even assuming that the City waived its right to require an application and fees (which it did not), the City would have had thirty days to inform the Applicant as to whether the application was complete or the application would be deemed complete. (Gov. Code, § 65943(b).) Therefore, thirty days from submittal of the final plans on April 1, 2025 would be May 1, 2025 for a completeness determination. Even assuming the application (that was not submitted or paid for) was deemed complete on May 1, 2025, the City would have had until June 1, 2025 to identify standards with which the Revised Project design conflicts under the HAA. On May 1, 2025, City staff emailed Attachment 1 48
48 of 922
-21- Reso. #
Applicant to confirm that the project had been rescheduled for the May 22, 2025 Board meeting (or was complete). On May 22, 2025, at a public hearing on the Revised Project, the Board identified conflicts with CDP Finding No. 1, Criteria Nos. 5 and 6—which largely incorporate Land Use Element Policies 7.3 and 10.2 stated below:
Design and site new development to protect natural and environmentally sensitive resources, such as areas of unique scenic quality, public views, and visual compatibility with surrounding uses and to minimize natural landform alterations.
On November 13, 2025, the Board denied the Revised Project, in relevant part, on the basis that the Revised Project is inconsistent with Coastal Development Permit Finding No. 1, which requires compliance with the certified LCP, including Criteria 5 (i.e., “[t]he proposed development will minimize the alterations of natural landforms and will not result in undue risks from geological and erosional forces and/or floor and fire hazards”) and Criteria 6 (i.e., “[t]he proposed development will be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and where feasible, will restore.)
The Second Revised Project eliminated the need for an REP. On September 25, 2025, the Applicant submitted revised plans for the Second Revised Project. On October 21, 2025, City staff identified missing items from the application rendering the application incomplete. On November 13, 2025, the Board denied the Second Revised Project on the basis that the Second Revised Project is inconsistent with Coastal Development Permit Finding No. 1, which requires compliance with the certified LCP, including Criteria 5 (i.e., “[t]he proposed development will minimize the alterations of natural landforms and will not result in undue risks from geological and erosional forces and/or floor and fire hazards”) and Criteria 6 (i.e., “[t]he proposed development will be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and where feasible, will restore.) Attachment 1 49
49 of 922
-22- Reso. #
Therefore, the Board did not allege the Revised Project was inconsistent with LU policies, including LU Policies 7.3 and 10.2, well after the City was required to inform the applicant of any project inconsistency with applicable policies pursuant to the HAA. The City received final plans on April 1, 2025 and confirmed the application was sufficient on May 1, 2025 to proceed to the Board on May 22, 2025—when the Board identified inconsistencies with LU Policies 7.3 and 10.2 and the CDP Finding No. 1, Criteria Nos. 5 and 6. The Board did not allege the Second Revised Project was inconsistent with LU policies, including LU Policies 7.3 and 10.2, well after the City was required to inform the applicant of any project inconsistency with applicable policies pursuant to the HAA. The City received plans on September 25, 2025 and confirmed the application was incomplete on October 21, 2025 and the application proceeded to the Board on November 13, 2025—when the Board identified inconsistencies with LU Policies 7.3 and 10.2 and the CDP Finding No. 1, Criteria Nos. 5 and 6. Neither SB 9 nor SB 450 require the City to issue a letter of inconsistency.
The City Council finds that the Board did not commit an abuse of discretion.
5. “The Board improperly excluded the Accessory Dwelling Unit that was added to Lot A on September 24th from their consideration on the CDP for Lot A. The ADU does not change any facts in the Staff Reports and does not require a variance. The applicant is specifically appealing the ADU to the City Council as part of the present appeal.” City Council’s Response
This appeal contention does not apply to 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive. It applies to 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive, which will be considered as a separate item on business on the City Council agenda.
A response to this contention is included in the City Council agenda item relating to 1550 Bluebird Attachment 1 50
50 of 922
-23- Reso. #
Canyon Drive.
SECTION 3. The City Council hereby finds and determines, in accordance with CEQA, that the Project is categorically exempt pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15270(a) as CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves.
SECTION 4. The City Council hereby denies the Second Appeal and sustains the Design Review Boards’s determination on the Project, as reflected in Board Resolution No. 24-2510.
ADOPTED this 6th day of January, 2026.
Mark Orgill, Mayor
ATTEST:
Ann Marie McKay, City Clerk
I, Ann Marie McKay, City Clerk of the City of Laguna Beach, certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 25.XXX was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City held on January 6, 2026, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
City Clerk, City of Laguna Beach, California
Attachment 1 51
51 of 922
RESOLUTION NO. 25.XXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, OVERTURNING THE DECISION
OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TO DENY COASTAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-2510 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED TWOCAR GARAGE, AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS AT 1560 BLUEBIRD CANYON DRIVE (LOT B)
IN THE R-1, RESIDENTIAL LOW-DENSITY ZONE, APPROVING
DESIGN REVIEW 24-2509 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT 24-2510, AND FINDING THE PROJECT
CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO STATE CEQA
GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15303 (CLASS 3)
WHEREAS, the property owner, David Dyrnaes (“Applicant”)1, of 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive (the “Property”) seeks Design Review (“DR”) 24-2509 and Coastal Development Permit (“CDP”) 24-2510 to construct a single-family dwelling with an attached two-car garage, an attached accessory dwelling unit (“ADU”), and other improvements in the R-1 (Residential Low Density) zone. While Revocable Encroachment Permit (“REP”) 24-2511 was previously needed to construct and maintain improvements in the public right-of-way, including walls, stairs, irrigation, drainage facilities, and lighting pursuant to LBMC Section 11.50.030, Applicant has revised the project since the last time the City Council considered this proposed development to eliminate REP 24-2511.
WHEREAS, Applicant is proceeding under Senate Bill (“SB 9”), as amended by SB 450 (collectively referred to herein as “SB 9”), which allows ministerial urban lot splits and two-unit development projects under certain qualifying conditions, subject to the California Coastal Act. 1 The Project’s architect is David Parker, who is within the definition of Applicant.
Attachment 2 52
52 of 922
-2- Reso. #
(See Government Code § 65852.21(l)[“Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California Coastal Act of 1976. . . .”].)2 WHEREAS, on January 23, 2025, the Design Review Board (“Board”) held a duly noticed public hearing and considered the first version of the project that consisted of DR for a new singlefamily dwelling and attached two-car garage, vehicular access, elevated decks, spa, grading, retaining walls, trash enclosure in the front setback, and landscaping, a CDP to construct new development, including a single-family dwelling, attached garage, and site improvements, and an REP to construct and maintain improvements in the public right-of-way, including walls, stairs, irrigation, drainage, and lighting (the “Original Project”). 3 After receiving input from staff, the
Applicant, and public comments, the Board discussed the Original Project, provided direction to the Applicant, and tabled the discussion with a 5-0 vote.
WHEREAS, on April 1, 2025, the Applicant submitted new plans to the City that included a new attached ADU constituting a new application.4 A coastal development permit application fees in the amount of $533 were not paid for the review of the added ADU. The new plans also included other changes to the floor area, upper level, deck, roof, garage, architectural style, retaining walls, fencing, glazing, landscaping, and access stairs (collectively with the added ADU, the “Revised Project”).
2 On June 13, 2024, the Community Development Director granted administrative coastal development permit approval of Tentative Parcel Map 24-0940, an urban lot split pursuant to SB 9 that subdivided an existing parcel to create two new parcels, including the Property. Final Map 24-117 was subsequently recorded with the County to effectuate the lot split.
3 Notably, an ADU was not included in the Original Project and an REP was required for the Original Project. 4 An ADU is a separate trigger for a coastal development permit application under the City’s Coastal Commissioncertified local coastal program (“certified LCP”). (LBMC Section 25.07.008(A)(1)(a).) Attachment 2
53 53 of 922
-3- Reso. #
WHEREAS, on May 22, 2025, the Board held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Revised Project. Following the public hearing, the Board directed staff to prepare a resolution denying the Revised Project by a 3-2 vote (Board members Bauta and Gannon dissenting). The Board noted inability to make the required REP Finding Nos. 1 and 2 based on a conflict with LBMC Section 25.53.004; public safety risk relating to fire as the Property is located in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (“VHFHSZ”); and inability to make the required CDP Finding No. 1, Criteria No. 5 (i.e., “[t]he proposed development will minimize the alterations of natural landforms and will not result in undue risks from geological and erosional forces and/or floor and fire hazards”) and Criteria No. 6 (i.e., “[t]he proposed development will be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and where feasible, will restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas”). On June 12, 2025, the Board considered the draft resolution denying the Project on consent and adopted the resolution denying the Revised Project with certain changes read into the record, including a finding that the denial of the Project is exempt from CEQA (the “First Board Denial”).
WHEREAS, on June 4, 2025, the Applicant filed an appeal of the First Board Denial (the “First Appeal”). The Applicant contended that the Board abused its discretion in denying the Revised Project. On August 12, 2025, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the First Appeal and remanded the Revised Project back to the Board for a single hearing 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 Attachment 2
54 54 of 922
-4- Reso. #
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.
WHEREAS, on September 25, 2025, the Applicant submitted revised plans to City staff, which eliminated the need for REP-2511 (the “Second Revised Project”). On October 21, 2025, City staff identified missing items from the application and deemed the application incomplete.
On November 13, 2025, the Board held a public hearing on the Second Revised Project and denied it with a 3-1 vote (Board members Bauta dissenting and Gannon absent), on the basis that the Second Revised Project is inconsistent with Coastal Development Permit Finding No. 1, which requires compliance with the certified LCP, including Criteria 5 (i.e., “[t]he proposed development will minimize the alterations of natural landforms and will not result in undue risks from geological and erosional forces and/or floor and fire hazards”) and Criteria 6 (i.e., “[t]he proposed development will be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and where Attachment 2
55 55 of 922
-5- Reso. #
feasible, will restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas”) (the “Second Board Denial”).
WHEREAS, on November 17, 2025, the Applicant filed an appeal of the Second Board Denial (“Second Appeal”).5
WHEREAS, public notice was duly provided to consider the Second Appeal of the Project at the January 6, 2026 City Council meeting in accordance with LBMC Section 25.05.065; and WHEREAS, on January 6, 2026, the City Council held a public hearing on the Appeal and carefully considered the oral and documentary evidence and arguments presented.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH DOES RESOLVE:
SECTION 1. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution by this reference.
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby makes the following findings in response to grounds for appeal stated in Appellants’ notice of Second Appeal:
1. “The Board relied on subjective standards to deny [the Project] in violation of SB 450 and the Housing Accountability Act. City Staff confirmed in the November 13th staff reports that the projects are consistent with all LCP policies and all applicable objective design 5 The Applicant has filed appeals of two denials for projects located at 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive and 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive. Both projects were denied by the Board on November 13, 2025 and appealed to the City Council on November 17, 2025. Both appeals identify the same five appeal contentions, although one of the five contentions apply only to the project located at 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive. The 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive appeal is analyzed by staff in a separate agenda report, and both appeals will be heard by the City Council at the January 6, 2026, special meeting.
Attachment 2
56 56 of 922
-6- Reso. #
standards. Therefore, under SB 450 and the Housing Accountability Act, the Board did not have the authority to deny the projects.”
City Council’s Response
The Applicant’s Project requires two entitlements from the City: (1) CDP 24-2510 for the new development, which includes a new single-family dwelling, attached garage, attached ADU, and site improvements under LBMC Sections 25.07.004 and 25.07.006; and (2) DR 25-2509 for the new single-family dwelling and garage, vehicular access, elevated decks, spa, grading, retaining walls, trash enclosure in the front setback, and landscaping pursuant to LBMC Section
25.05.040(B)(1).
At the August 12, 2025 City Council meeting on the First Appeal, the City Council directed the Board to “[d]isregard Design Review requirements in conflict with SB 450, for a qualifying project, based on changes in state law brought by SB 450, which became effective on January 1, 2025, and based on the City Council’s finding that the Coastal Development Permit findings and criteria adequately protect coastal resources.” Accordingly, the Board reviewed the objective requirements in the City’s DR permit for the new single-family dwelling and garage, vehicular access, elevated decks, spa, grading, retaining walls, trash enclosure in the front setback, and landscaping and the discretionary requirements of the CDP with a focus on coastal resources.
Because the Board could not make all of the required CDP findings, they denied the application for CDP 24-2510 on November 13, 2025 and determined that their consideration of the application seeking approval of Design Review 24-2509 was moot. The City Council should consider whether the Board committed an abuse of discretion in its Second Board Denial.
Below is an overview of applicable state housing laws and Coastal Act carve outs and the findings and facts relied upon by the Board to deny the entitlements.
Attachment 2
57 57 of 922
-7- Reso. #
Applicable State Housing Laws and Coastal Act Carve Outs A. HAA
1. Overview of the HAA
The HAA requires a city to notify a developer if the proposed housing development project is inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provisions (to objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria) within 30 days of the date that the application is determined to be complete and failure to take such action will result in the project being deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision (to objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria). (Gov. Code Section 65589.5(j)(2).) When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, the city must make certain written findings to deny a project that (1) the housing development project “would have a ‘specific, adverse impact’ 6 upon
the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density”; and (2) there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the identified adverse impact, other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a 6 A “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. (Gov. Code Section 65589.5(j)(1)(A).) Attachment 2
58 58 of 922
-8- Reso. #
lower density. (Gov. Code Section 65589.5(j)(1).)
The HAA also has a Coastal Act carve out:
Nothing in this section shall be construed to relieve the local agency from complying with . . . the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code).
(Cal. Gov't Code § 65589.5(e).)
2. Application of the HAA to this Property
As an overview of the extensive application history, the Original Project was submitted before SB 450 and was submitted without an ADU or second unit (so the HAA did not apply). On April 1, 2025, Applicant did add an ADU to the Revised Project, among other changes, by submitting revised plans. However, coastal development permit application fees in the amount of $533 were not paid for the review of the added ADU. On May 22, 2025, the Board identified inconsistencies with the Revised Project at the public hearing by referencing conflicts with the REP and CDP Finding No. 1 and Criteria Nos. 5 and 6. The Second Revised Project maintained the ADU. Based on HCD guidance, the City treats development of a single family residence and ADU as subject to the HAA.
B. SB 9/SB 450
As noted above, the Applicant is proceeding under SB 9, which allows ministerial urban lot splits and two-unit development projects under certain qualifying conditions, subject to the California Coastal Act. (See Government Code § 65852.21(l)[“Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California Coastal Act of 1976. . . .”].)
Attachment 2
59 59 of 922
-9- Reso. #
The Coastal Act7is a comprehensive scheme to govern land use planning for the state’s entire coastal zone. As part of its enactment, the Legislature made several findings related to the Act’s purpose: (1) the coastal zone “is a distinct and valuable natural resource of vital and enduring interest to all the people”; (2) that permanent protection of the state’s natural and scenic resources is of paramount concern; (3) that “it is necessary to protect the ecological balance of the coastal zone”; and (4) that “existing developed uses, and future developments that are carefully planned and developed consistent with the policies of [the Coastal Act], are essential to the economic and social well-being of the people of this state. . . .”8
The Coastal Act is to be “liberally construed to accomplish its purposes and objectives.”9 The Coastal Act mandates that local governments within the coastal zone develop local coastal programs (“LCPs”), comprised of a land use plan and implementing ordinances, to promote the Coastal Act’s objectives.10 Unless subject to an exemption, almost all development within the coastal zone requires a coastal development permit.11 After Coastal Commission’s certification of a local coastal program, a coastal development permit is obtained from the local government, except in the appealable jurisdiction area and retained jurisdiction area, for which the Coastal Commission maintains jurisdiction, because the Coastal Commission delegates its development review authority to the local government.12 The delegation of authority is intended to ensure that the state policies prevail over local government concerns—regardless of the involvement of the 7 Pub. Res. Code, § 30000 et seq.
8 Pub. Res. Code, § 30001, subds. (a) and (d).
9 Pub. Res. Code, § 30009.
10 Id.; see also Pub. Res. Code, §§ 30001.5; 30500–526. 11 Pub. Res. Code § 30600, subd. (a).
12 Pub. Res. Code §§ 30600(d), 30519(emphasis added), 30600.5(emphasis added).
Attachment 2
60 60 of 922
-10- Reso. #
local government in the Coastal Act’s implementation13:
Although local governments have the authority to issue coastal development permits, that authority is delegated by the Commission. The Commission has the ultimate authority to ensure that coastal development conforms to the policies embodied in the state's Coastal Act. In fact, a fundamental purpose of the Coastal Act is to ensure that state policies prevail over the concerns of local government. (See City of Chula Vista v. Superior Court (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 472, 489 [Commission exercises independent judgment in approving [local coastal program] because it is assumed statewide interests are not always well represented at the local level].) The Commission applies state law and policies to determine whether the development permit complies with the [local coastal program].14 On January 13, 1993, the Coastal Commission certified the City’s LCP. The coastal zone in the City of Laguna Beach represents approximately 4.78 square miles of land, encompassing the entire city limits except for Sycamore Hills. Sycamore Hills consists of 522 acres at the intersection of Laguna Canyon and El Toro Roads, inland of the city.15
The City’s Land Use Plan component of its LCP centers on five principal subjects: (1) recreation and visitor-serving facilities and use; (2) parking and circulation; (3) environmentally sensitive areas; (4) shoreline access; and (5) undeveloped lands. Because the subjects are closely related to many of the issues in the City’s General Plan, the Land Use Plan is physically integrated into the 13 City of Dana Point v. California Coastal Com. (2013) 217 Cal. App. 4th 170, 186. 14 City of Dana Point, supra, 217 Cal. App. 4th at 186; Charles A. Pratt Construction Co., Inc. v. California Coastal Com. (2018) 162 Cal. App. 4th 1068, 1075-76.
15 LCP Technical Appendix.
Attachment 2
61 61 of 922
-11- Reso. #
City’s General Plan.16 The Land Use Plan represents a descriptive text and evaluation of coastal problems and issues.17 The Land Use Element and Open Space/Conservation Elements of the General Plan set forth the actual solutions or responses to these issues in the form of city policies.18 The LCP is further implemented through development regulations, specific plans, special studies, and permitting procedures, including, but not limited to, the Laguna Beach Municipal Code Title
25. Under Title 25, a coastal development permit is required for all proposed development within the coastal zone except for development that is specifically exempted and excepted under Sections
25.07.008 and 25.07.010.19
Finding and Facts Relied Upon by Board to Deny CDP
Here, the proposed development, which includes a new single-family dwelling, attached garage, attached ADU, and site improvements, requires a CDP under LBMC Sections 25.07.004 and
25.07.006. As reflected in Board Resolution 24-2510, the Board denied CDP 24-2510 based on its inability to make Finding 1 (Criteria 5 and 6), as reflected below:
“SECTION 3. The Design Review Board hereby denies Coastal Development Permit 24-2510 based on the following findings:
Finding No. 1: The Project is in conformity with all the applicable provisions of the certified local coastal program:
To ensure compliance with the Certified Local Coastal Program, Laguna Beach Municipal Code Section 25.07.012(F), requires that nine criteria be incorporated 16 Id.
17 Id.
18 Id.
19 LBMC § 25.07.004.
Attachment 2
62 62 of 922
-12- Reso. #
into the review of all application for coastal development permits. From amongst these criteria the Design Review Board determined that the Project was inconsistent with Criterion Nos. 5 and 6, for the reasons described below:
5. The proposed development will minimize the alterations of natural landforms and will not result in undue risks from geological and erosional forces and/or flood and fire hazards.
No. The proposed Project, with its long and sloping driveway distinctly alters the natural landforms as compared to a street level garage. Further, siting the project on top of the knoll does not contour to the natural landform and instead proposes a series of retaining walls with little effort to naturally flow or follow the natural hill. Terracing the Project further into the slope will better protect the natural landform and minimize its alteration. As a result, the Project is not designed in a way to minimize alteration of naturally occurring landforms on the Project site.
Further, the location of the existing utility poles would impede a possible road widening in order to ensure the maximum possible fire access. As such, the DRB could only support a Project design that re-sites these poles in such a way that allows for a widest possible road and will not result in undue risk from fire hazards.
6. The proposed development will be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and where feasible, will restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas.
No. The proposed single-family home would sit atop a knoll supported by a series Attachment 2
63 63 of 922
-13- Reso. #
of retaining walls within the project site that result in the visual appearance of an imposing and bulky development that protrudes significantly above the ridge of the knoll as the highest building in the area — unlike other properties in the area.
The proposed project disrupts the visual natural progression of the ridge up the slope. The overall height of the building and retaining walls would be extending above the ridge of the knoll by 10 to 15 feet, resulting in a structure more than 50 feet above street grade which finds no comparison in the surrounding areas. The top height of the development on neighboring properties are either below the ridge of the knoll or just a foot or so above the ridge of the knoll- which maintains the visual appearance of the ridge from various public areas and roads. This design of the Project would result in development that is visually incompatible with the surrounding area where other properties are either developed closer to the street or in a way that is not as visually imposing and maintains the visual character of the surrounding area by preserving the ridge of the knoll when viewed from various public rights-of-way. Lowering of the Project (but keeping the same square footage) such that it is closer to the street was mentioned as a possible solution; however, the Applicant declined to make such a change to the Project.
In contrast to the proposed project, the Bluebird Canyon neighborhood is characterized by lower hillside development with vehicular access to garages being provided (predominantly) directly from the street without long sloping driveways and exposed retaining walls. The proposed Project would create a long sloping driveway requiring additional grading and retaining walls that are not Attachment 2
64 64 of 922
-14- Reso. #
typically found in the neighborhood and thus increases the visual incompatibility of this Project.”
Unlike certain state housing laws, like AB 201133 and SB 3534, which both disqualify certain sensitive areas within the coastal zone from their qualifying housing projects, and subject qualifying projects in non-sensitive areas of the coastal zone to a more limited, objective-only CDP requirement, SB 9/SB 450 and the HAA do not expressly limit the City to reviewing a CDP subject to objective standards only. Therefore, the City is authorized by law to apply the discretionary findings and criteria under its CDP in the City’s certified LCP. While City staff may have supported the approval of the Second Review Project, the Board ultimately makes the decision on the CDP.
The City Council finds that the finding and facts supporting the findings can be made for the CDP and DR, as discussed in more detail below.
2. “The Board improperly cited replacement of a Southern California Edison pole in front of the applicant’s property to allege a fire hazard when the applicant has no control over SCE’s replacement of the SCE pole and there is no evidence in the record that replacement of the SCE pole will cause a fire hazard.”
City Council’s Response
In the Second Board Denial, the Board address the location of the existing utility poles as an impediment to a possible road widening. In response to Applicant’s Appeal contention, there is no evidence that SCE’s power poles would cause a fire hazard. The power poles are located in an urbanized area along an existing street and are being replaced as part of an SCE fire safety upgrade project, as indicated in the Applicant’s Appeal follow up letter.
Attachment 2
65 65 of 922
-15- Reso. #
The City Council finds that the Project meets CDP Finding No. 1, Criteria No. 5 relating to fire hazards, as discussed in more detail below.
3. “The Board incorrectly alleged that the “natural profile” of the property is a coastal resource. DRB’s position is inconsistent with State law and the City’s own documents. There is no public viewpoint or environmentally sensitive area on the property, as confirmed by City Staff in the November 13th staff reports.”
City Council’s Response
As stated in the November 13, 2025 Board staff report, “The proposed project is located on a hill that is approximately a mile from the ocean, surrounded by single-family development and not within an environmentally sensitive area.” Despite the Project’s distance from the coast, the Project is located within the Coastal Zone and subject to the Coastal Act and the City’s certified LCP.
Indeed, the Property is located outside of the area that the Coastal Commission categorically excluded from the CDP requirements.20 There are 11 such categorical exclusion areas in the City, generally located away from the coastline. Because the general project area was not included within a categorical exclusion area, it stands to reason that the Coastal Commission at least envisioned that there may be instances where projects in this general area would impact coastal resources. By virtue of being subject to the coastal development permit requirements, it was appropriate and necessary for the Board to perform its own evaluation of whether coastal resources exist and the impacts to coastal resources through the application of its findings, criteria, and certified LCP development standards to the Project.
20 On May 13, 1993, the California Coastal Commission adopted Categorical Exclusion Order E-93-1, which excludes single-family residential development and other specified types of development from the City’s coastal permitting requirements within 11 geographic areas. The Project is located approximately 1,800 feet from the nearest categorical exclusion area (Exclusion Area No. 8 – Arch Beach Heights).
Attachment 2
66 66 of 922
-16- Reso. #
The City has a history of treating hillsides within the City as coastal resources. Indeed, the Open Space and Conservation Element, which is part of the City’s certified LCP, includes hillsides visual resources within the definition of visual resources (which are expressly protected by the Coastal Act as “coastal scenic resources”):
Hillside Visual Resources: Nearly 30% of the City consists of undeveloped hillside lands.
These lands support a great diversity of visual resources, with prominent exposure from both public and private property. Generally, these features include: (1) unique topographic forms - vertically exposed rock faces, bluffs, headlands and noticeably steep slopes; (2) unique vegetative forms, including stands of oak, sycamore and eucalyptus trees, and riparian or canyon land plant communities; (3) natural watercourses and associated canyon bottoms; (4) special land features such as prominent ridgelines, escarpments and rock outcroppings; and (S) visual edges or boundaries consisting of contrasting features where rock outcroppings may meet with surrounding vegetation or man-made features such as roads and buildings.
(OSCE, p. 33.)
The Open Space and Conservation Element further sets forth that the City preserve as much as possible the natural character of the landscape, including hillsides and ridgelines, and require recontouring and replanting where natural landscape has been disturbed:
Policy 7-K: Preserve as much as possible the natural character of the landscape (including coastal bluffs, hillsides and ridge lines) by requiring proposed development plans to preserve and enhance scenic and conservation values to the maximum extent possible, to minimize impacts on soil mantle, vegetation cover, water resources, physiographic Attachment 2
67 67 of 922
-17- Reso. #
features, erosion problems, and require recontouring and replanting where natural landscape has been disturbed.21
In a different but recent appeal, the City Council did a detailed analysis on the public view impacts of a project to coastal resources, including hillsides. By comparison, here, the Board denied the Project, not on the basis of public view impacts to coastal scenic resources (CDP Finding 1, Criteria No. 3), but its impact to the natural landforms and contribution to fire hazards (CDP Finding 1, Criteria No. 5) and its compatibility (visually) with the character of the surrounding areas (CDP Finding 1, Criteria No. 6).
In the Board’s analysis of whether the Second Revised Project “will minimize the alterations of natural landforms,” the Board found that the “Project[] with its long and sloping driveway distinctly alters the natural landforms as compared to a street level garage”:
The proposed Project, with its long and sloping driveway distinctly alters the natural landforms as compared to a street level garage. Further, siting the project on top of the knoll does not contour to the natural landform and instead proposes a series of retaining walls with little effort to naturally flow or follow the natural hill. Terracing the Project further into the slope will better protect the natural landform and minimize its alteration.
As a result, the Project is not designed in a way to minimize alteration of naturally occurring landforms on the Project site.
(Board Denial Resolution 24-2588.)
Attachment 2
68 68 of 922
-18- Reso. #
At the November 13, 2025 Board hearing, the Applicant disputed that the knoll is a natural landform and referred the Board to the topographic survey prepared for the Project, alleging that the top of the knoll was graded prior to 1940.
The top of the knoll appears to have been graded prior to 1938 for an access road to an extant water tank. The road disappears from aerial photographs between 1960 and 197022, at which point photos begin to show the Morningside Circle cul-de-sac to the east of the extant water tank and in an area where the access road previously traversed. The knoll may have had a small crest at its summit before it was altered by construction, as is common for undeveloped hilltops in the area. Based on the record, the Board considered the knoll as a natural landform despite the grading that occurred.
The City Council finds that the Project does minimize impacts to alteration of natural landforms, as discussed in more detail below under CDP Finding No. 1, Criteria No. 5.
4. “The Board alleged the projects were inconsistent with LU policies, including LU Policies
7.3 and 10.2, well after the City was required to inform the applicant of any project inconsistency with applicable policies pursuant to Gov. Code Section 65852.21(h)(1) and Gov. Code Section 65589.5(j)(2).”
City Council’s Response
The HAA applies to “residential units.”23 The HAA requires a city to notify a developer if the proposed housing development project is inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar 22 https://www.ocgis.com/ocpw/historicalimagery/index.html 23 The HAA only applies to applications for a “housing development project,” which is defined in the HAA as follows: (1) a project with residential units only; mixed use developments with at least two thirds of the square footage designated for residential use; or (3) transitional or supportive housing. (Gov. Code Section 65589.5(h)(2).) Attachment 2
69 69 of 922
-19- Reso. #
provisions (to objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria) within 30 days of the date that the application is determined to be complete and failure to take such action will result in the project being deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision (to objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria). (Gov. Code Section 65589.5(j)(2).) When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, the city must make certain written findings that (1) the housing development project “would have a ‘specific, adverse impact’ upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density”; and (2) there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the identified adverse impact, other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density. (Gov.
Code Section 65589.5(j)(1).)
The HAA also has a Coastal Act carve out:
Nothing in this section shall be construed to relieve the local agency from complying with . . . the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code).
(Cal. Gov't Code § 65589.5(e).)
Here, the application for development at this Property has had an extensive history within the City.
The Original Project was submitted before SB 450 and was submitted without an ADU (so the HAA did not apply).
Attachment 2
70 70 of 922
-20- Reso. #
The Revised Project, added an ADU, so that the project consisted of construction of single-family residence and accessory dwelling unit (i.e., “residential units”). The Applicant never paid fees or submitted an application for the coastal development permit trigger for the ADU. Nevertheless, the City received a copy of the final plans for the Revised Project on April 1, 2025. Even assuming that the City waived its right to require an application and fees (which it did not), the City would have had thirty days to inform the Applicant as to whether the application was complete or the application would be deemed complete. (Gov. Code, § 65943(b).) Therefore, thirty days from submittal of the final plans on April 1, 2025 would be May 1, 2025 for a completeness determination. Even assuming the application (that was not submitted or paid for) was deemed complete on May 1, 2025, the City would have had until June 1, 2025 to identify standards with which the Revised Project design conflicts under the HAA. On May 1, 2025, City staff emailed Applicant to confirm that the project had been rescheduled for the May 22, 2025 Board meeting (or was complete). On May 22, 2025, at a public hearing on the Revised Project, the Board identified conflicts with CDP Finding No. 1, Criteria Nos. 5 and 6—which largely incorporate Land Use Element Policies 7.3 and 10.2 stated below:
Design and site new development to protect natural and environmentally sensitive resources, such as areas of unique scenic quality, public views, and visual compatibility with surrounding uses and to minimize natural landform alterations.
On November 13, 2025, the Board denied the Revised Project, in relevant part, on the basis that the Revised Project is inconsistent with Coastal Development Permit Finding No. 1, which requires compliance with the certified LCP, including Criteria 5 (i.e., “[t]he proposed development will minimize the alterations of natural landforms and will not result in undue risks from geological and erosional forces and/or floor and fire hazards”) and Criteria 6 (i.e., “[t]he proposed Attachment 2
71 71 of 922
-21- Reso. #
development will be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and where feasible, will restore.)
The Second Revised Project eliminated the need for an REP. On September 25, 2025, the Applicant submitted revised plans for the Second Revised Project. On October 21, 2025, City staff identified missing items from the application rendering the application incomplete. On November 13, 2025, the Board denied the Second Revised Project on the basis that the Second Revised Project is inconsistent with Coastal Development Permit Finding No. 1, which requires compliance with the certified LCP, including Criteria 5 (i.e., “[t]he proposed development will minimize the alterations of natural landforms and will not result in undue risks from geological and erosional forces and/or floor and fire hazards”) and Criteria 6 (i.e., “[t]he proposed development will be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and where feasible, will restore.) Therefore, the Board did not allege the project was inconsistent with LU policies, including LU Policies 7.3 and 10.2, well after the City was required to inform the applicant of any project inconsistency with applicable policies pursuant to the HAA. Further, neither SB 9 nor SB 450 require the City to issue a letter of inconsistency.
Regardless, the City Council finds that the Project is consistent with LU Policies 7.3 and 10.2, as well as Finding No. 1, Criteria Nos. 5 and 6, as discussed in more detail below.
5. “The Board improperly excluded the Accessory Dwelling Unit that was added to Lot A on September 24th from their consideration on the CDP for Lot A. The ADU does not change any facts in the Staff Reports and does not require a variance. The applicant is specifically appealing the ADU to the City Council as part of the present appeal.” City Council’s Response
This appeal contention does not apply to 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive. It applies to 1550 Bluebird Attachment 2
72 72 of 922
-22- Reso. #
Canyon Drive, which will be considered as a separate item on business on the City Council agenda.
A response to this contention is included in the City Council agenda item relating to 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive.
SECTION 3. The City Council hereby overturns the Design Review Board’s denial of Coastal Development Permit 24-2510 and approves Design Review 24-2509 and Coastal Development Permit 24-2510 for the Second Revised Project, based on the below City Council findings and subject to conditions of approval in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
Design Review 24-2509:
The City Council hereby makes the following findings with respect to Design Review24 24-2509 pursuant to LBMC section 25.05.040, which is part of the City’s Certified Local Coastal Program:
Finding No. 1: Physical improvements and site developments related to the Project are designed and located in a manner in overall consistency with the design review criteria specified in Section 25.05.040(H), as set forth below:
1. Access. Conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians and other modes of transportation should be minimized by specifically providing for each applicable mode of transportation.
Handicapped access shall be provided as required by applicable statutes.
No handicapped access is required.
2. General Plan Compliance: The development shall comply with all applicable policies of the General Plan, including all its elements, applicable specific plans, and the certified local 24 Consistent with the analysis of State housing laws in this resolution and the record before the City Council, the City Council is applying those objective design review criteria as well as any other as any design review criteria that affords costal resource(s) protection that is not otherwise addressed/protected by CDP No. 24-2510.
Attachment 2
73 73 of 922
-23- Reso. #
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 Attachment 2
74 74 of 922
-24- Reso. #
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 shall be an important consideration in the landscape design. The relevant landscaping guidelines contained in the City’s “Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document” should be incorporated, as appropriate, in the design and planned maintenance of proposed landscaping.
Yes, landscaping is incorporated into the Project.
4. Lighting and Glare: Adequate lighting for individual and public safety shall be provided in a manner which does not significantly impact neighboring properties. Reflective materials and appurtenances that cause glare or a negative visual impact (e.g., skylights, white rock roofs, highgloss ceramic tile roofs, reflective glass, etc.) should be avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance in those locations where those surfaces are visible from neighboring properties.
Adequate lighting for individual and public safety is provided.
Finally, the City Council finds that there are no other applicable design review criteria that address or protect coastal resources or further the goals of the Coastal Act that are not otherwise addressed/protected by CDP No. 24-2510.
Coastal Development Permit 24-2510:
Attachment 2
75 75 of 922
-25- Reso. #
Finding No. 1: The project is in conformity with all the applicable provisions of the certified local coastal program, including the following review criteria:
1. The proposed development will not encroach upon any existing physical accessway legally utilized by the public or any proposed public accessway identified in the adopted local coastal program land use plan.
No public accessway exists through the project site. The proposed development will not modify any existing physical accessway utilized by the public or identified in the adopted local coastal program land use plan in that development is limited to the subject lot, which does not provide any such accessways, and a proposed public parking space will be provided in the widened right-of-way to the benefit of public access.
2. The proposed development will not adversely affect marine resources, environmentally sensitive areas, or archaeological or paleontological resources.
The site is a hillside lot located approximately one mile from the Pacific Ocean. No marine resources, environmentally sensitive areas or archaeological or paleontological resources have been identified on the project site.
3. The proposed development will not adversely affect recreational or visitorserving facilities or coastal scenic resources.
No recreational, visitor-serving or coastal scenic resources have been identified on the project site and the project (one single family residence with an ADU) will not significantly increase the demand for recreational or visitor-serving facilities. The project site is located within an area with existing hillside development on a lot designated for residential development by the Certified Local Coastal Program. The discussion and facts presented under design criteria #4 Environmental Context and LU Policy 2.8 support this Attachment 2
76 76 of 922
-26- Reso. #
finding and are incorporated herein by reference. Project approval will not impact coastal scenic resources.
4. The proposed development will be sited and designed to prevent adverse impacts to environmentally sensitive habitats and scenic resources located in adjacent parks and recreation areas and will provide adequate buffer areas to protect such resources.
Environmentally sensitive habitats have not been identified on or adjacent to the project site. Furthermore, the site is not located adjacent to parks and recreation areas or scenic resources. Therefore, the project is sited and designed to prevent adverse impacts to environmentally sensitive habitats and scenic resources.
5. The proposed development will minimize the alterations of natural landforms and will not result in undue risks from geological and erosional forces and/or flood and fire hazards.
The revised project includes grading export of approximately 1,398 cubic yards. As noted previously, this amount of grading is reasonable given the required public street improvements and the hillside development and the need to create a public parking space outside of vehicle lanes. The preliminary geotechnical investigation prepared by Stoney Miller dated August 22, 2024, found that the proposed development is geotechnically feasible and free of undue geologic risks with the incorporation of their recommendations in the final design, which is a standard requirement of the design and construction process and the City’s Building Division. The site is a hillside lot and not within a mapped flood plain. The project site is located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) and the design must be consistent with applicable Building and Fire Codes. The applicant has prepared an Alternative Means and Methods report prepared by Dudek dated October Attachment 2
77 77 of 922
-27- Reso. #
21, 2025, related to the 150-foot fire hose pull standard. The report concludes that the proposed development will not result in an undue fire risk.
6. The proposed development will be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and where feasible, will restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas.
The proposed project is located on a hill that is approximately a mile from the ocean, surrounded by single-family development and not within an environmentally sensitive area.
The addition of a new single-family home and accessory dwelling unit will not contribute to further degradation of this established single-family residential neighborhood.
7. The proposed development will not have any adverse impacts on any known archaeological or paleontological resource.
No known archaeological or paleontological resources have been identified on the project site.
8. The proposed development will be provided with adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities.
The proposed development will be provided with adequate utilities and access roads as the property is located within an established residential neighborhood and is immediately surrounded by an improved street that will be widened and single-family uses.
9. Other public services, including, but not limited to, solid waste and public roadway capacity have been considered and are adequate to serve the proposed development.
All public services including solid waste collection presently exist in the City of Laguna beach to serve to the project. Bluebird Canyon Drive, with its modest widening, is Attachment 2
78 78 of 922
-28- Reso. #
adequate to serve the proposed single-family development and ADU, which is typical for this area. The site is designated for residential use and within planned infrastructure requirements.
The project is consistent with all applicable policies of the Certified LCP.
LCP COASTAL VIEW POLICIES
Land Use Element (LU) Policies 2.1, 2.8, 7.3 and 10.2
LU Policy 2.1 states:
“Maintain the diversity and uniqueness of individual neighborhoods. Development standards and Design Review guidelines shall minimize the scale and bulk of new construction and/or renovation and require development to be compatible with the surrounding residences. Goal: Preserve, enhance and respect the unique character and identity of Laguna’s residential neighborhoods.”
LU Policy 2.8 states:
“Require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated with natural topographic features, minimize significant alteration of natural topography and/or other significant onsite resources, and protect public views as specified in the Design Guidelines and the Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document. Goal: Preserve, enhance and respect the unique character and identity of Laguna’s residential neighborhoods.” LU Policies 7.3 and 10.2 require the following:
“Design and site new development to protect natural and environmentally sensitive resources, such as areas of unique scenic quality, public views, and visual compatibility with surrounding uses and to minimize natural landform alterations. GOAL: Protect, preserve, and enhance the community’s natural resources and ensure that proposals for Attachment 2
79 79 of 922
-29- Reso. #
new development, subdivisions, and major remodels are sufficiently evaluated to protect public health and safety and natural resources.”
The proposed would alter and obscure the entire property to a point that the natural profile of the site would be developed and obscured. The Bluebird Canyon area is an enclave of predominantly hillside and ridgeline development between two open space canyon areas that is largely surrounded by additional higher ridgeline and hillside development. Open Space and Conservation Element Policy 13-B requires that development proposals, 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.
Attachment 2
80 80 of 922
-30- Reso. #
However, designing a house that is built into the side of hill and follows the existing grade would result in additional alteration of the site, requiring more grading. The project does not block views towards the ocean and scenic coastal areas. The surrounding single-family home area is not visually degraded by a new single-family home on this vacant lot that does not contain coastal resources.
LCP DOCUMENTS
The project must conform with all the following applicable documents of the Certified LCP.
1. Coastal Land Use Plan Technical Appendix (1984)
2. Design Guidelines - A Guide to Residential Development (2010)
3. Fuel Modification Guidelines (1989)
4. Chapter 14.78 Geology Reports - Preparation and Requirements (2005)
5. Land Use Element (2012) 6. Title 21 - Plats and Subdivision (1991)
7. Title 22 - Excavation and Grading (2004)
8. Title 25 - Zoning Code
Finding No. 2. Any development located between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea is in conformity with the certified local coastal program and with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act.
N/A. The subject property is located a mile from the Pacific Ocean and not located between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea.
Finding No. 3. The proposed development will not have any significant adverse impacts on the environment within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act.
Attachment 2
81 81 of 922
-31- Reso. #
The project will not cause any significant adverse impacts on the environment and qualifies for a categorical exemption the project qualifies for a categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15303 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. None of the exceptions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply.
SECTION 4. Based on its review of the entire record before it, the City Council hereby finds and determines that the Project is categorically exempt pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15303 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, which exempts construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures, such as one single-family residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone or up to three single-family residences in an urbanized area. Here, the Project fits within this exemption because it proposes a new singlefamily dwelling and accessory dwelling unit and related site improvements on an existing legal building site. The Property is located within a developed neighborhood with all facilities provided and access existing to the parcel.
Further, none of the exceptions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply.
The Project site does not contain any environmentally sensitive areas. There will be no cumulative impact resulting from successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time. The Project site does not contain any environmentally sensitive areas in that the site is fully developed with an existing single-family dwelling and is surrounded on all sides by public streets and developed residential and institutional properties, and the City’s environmentally sensitive areas maps do not identify any such areas on-site or within the immediate Project vicinity. There are no unusual circumstances resulting in a significant impact on the environment. There will be no damage to scenic resources, including trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. The Project is not located on a hazardous Attachment 2
82 82 of 922
-32- Reso. #
waste site or any other site included on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. The Project will not result in significant adverse impacts to historical resources as defined by CEQA. Consequently, additional environmental analysis is not necessary to meet the requirements of the CEQA. Staff will cause to be filed a Notice of Exemption (NOE) with the County Recorder’s Office and State Clearinghouse within 5 days of adoption of this Resolution.
SECTION 5. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution has been based are located at City Hall, 505 Forest Avenue Laguna Beach, CA 92651. The custodian of the record of proceedings is the Director of Community Development.
SECTION 6. If any provision of this Resolution is held invalid, the remainder of this Resolution shall not be affected by such invalidity, and the provisions of the Resolution are severable.
SECTION 7. This Resolution shall become effective immediately.
ADOPTED this 6th day of January, 2026.
Mark Orgill, Mayor
ATTEST:
Ann Marie McKay, City Clerk
Attachment 2
83 83 of 922
-33- Reso. #
I, Ann Marie McKay, City Clerk of the City of Laguna Beach, certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 25.XXX was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City held on January 6, 2026, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
City Clerk, City of Laguna Beach, California
Attachment 2
84 84 of 922
EXHIBIT A
CITY COUNCIL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESOLUTION NO. 25-XXX
Standard Conditions:
1. Design Review 24-2509 and Coastal Development Permit 24-2510 are granted for the construction of a single-family dwelling with an attached two-car garage and an accessory dwelling unit. Approval is granted based on the development plans and landscape plans submitted by David Parker on November 5, 2025 and received by City on November 5, 2025. Said plans are approved as submitted and conditioned herein and shall not be altered unless reviewed and approved in accordance with Title 25 of the Laguna Beach Municipal Code.
2. That the conditions of approval contained herein, shall be made part of the construction drawings for the proposed development. Construction drawings shall not be accepted for Plan Check without the conditions of approval incorporated into the construction drawings.
3. In the event that exhibits and written conditions are inconsistent, the written conditions shall prevail. If there are any disparities between these conditions and the plans or final revised plans that are approved for any subsequent phase, the conditions and/or plans as stipulated in the later approval shall prevail.
4. All plans, specifications, studies, reports, calculations, maps, notes, legal documents, and designs shall be prepared, signed, and stamped (when required) only by those individuals legally authorized to do so.
5. Approval of this application does not relieve the applicant from complying with other applicable Federal, State, County or City regulations or requirements.
6. The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Laguna Beach and its officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Laguna Beach, its officers, employees, or agents to attack, set aside, void, or annul any approval or condition of approval of the City of Laguna Beach concerning this Project, including but not limited to any approval or condition of approval of the City Council, Planning Commission, Design Review Board, Community Development Director, or City Planner. The City shall promptly notify the Applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding concerning the Project and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. The City reserves the right, at its own option, to choose its own attorney to represent the City, its officers, employees, and agents in the defense of the matter.
7. The Applicant shall be responsible for informing all subcontractors, consultants, engineers, or other business entities providing services related to the project of their responsibilities to comply with these conditions of approval and all pertinent Attachment 2
85 85 of 922
-2- Reso. #
requirements in the Laguna Beach Municipal Code, including the requirement that a business license be obtained by all entities doing business in the City.
8. The Applicant shall pay all fees at the time fees are determined payable and comply with all requirements of the applicable federal, state, and local agencies. The duty of inquiry as to such requirements shall be upon the applicant.
9. Failure to comply with any of these conditions of approval is grounds for revocation of the entitlement(s) and is subject to any other available remedies to the City.
10. The Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until City staff has verified compliance with all conditions of approval.
11. The effective date of the entitlements granted herein do not commence until all appeals, including those to the California Coastal Commission, have been exhausted, statutes of limitation have expired, and any lawsuits, filed within the statutes of limitation, have concluded.
12. In the event any of the conditions of approval are infeasible, the decision-making body hereby authorizes the Community Development Director to modify those conditions in the most conservative manner possible, in accordance with the limitations of the City’s Municipal Code, to allow for the completion of the project.
Standard Conditions of Approval for Design Review – Community Development Department
13. The approval granted by this Resolution shall lapse and automatically become void two years following the effective date if the privileges authorized by design review are not executed or utilized or, if construction work is involved, such work is not commenced within such two-year period and diligently pursued to completion, unless an extension of time is granted pursuant to the provisions of the Laguna Beach Municipal Code. Extensions of time shall be requested in writing by the applicant or authorized agent prior to the expiration of the entitlements.
14. Landscaping Conditions. The landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the approved landscape plans. Thereafter, the landscaping shall be continuously maintained (including replanting, as necessary) in compliance with the approved landscaping plans, unless such plans are subsequently revised pursuant to a subsequent Design Review approval. Minor landscaping changes which does not have the potential to impact views at mature growth height may be exempt from Design Review
15. Light trespass that results in glare is prohibited.
16. Outdoor lighting must be hooded, fully shielded, and aimed downward.
Attachment 2
86 86 of 922
-3- Reso. #
17. Grading Export. Grading work and hauling of grading materials shall be restricted to the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. No work is permitted to occur on City holidays.
Standard Conditions of Approval – Building Division
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following condition(s) are set forth to protect the health, safety and welfare of the community and to assure the intent and purpose of the regulations:
18. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the contractor of record shall have a preconstruction meeting with the Building Official. The purpose of the meeting shall be to review the requirements for parking, construction hours, fencing, dust control, monitoring, any documentation from engineers and geologists, etc.
19. The Project shall be required to comply with the City’s Construction hours, which are: 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. weekdays only; Hauling Hours: 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Construction activity shall not be permitted on weekends or any Federal Holiday.
20. The Project must comply with the California Green Building Code (Title 24: Part 11) and include Best Management Practices (BMPs) throughout the construction phase, including but not limited to dust and sediment control, erosion control, and other measures as required by the Building Official.
21. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant may be required to present to the Building Official an asbestos abatement plan and appropriate documentation.
22. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a construction staging plan shall be submitted to the Building Official for review and approval. The plan shall include a site plan that identifies construction material storage areas, construction parking, site access, etc. Refer to the informational guide for Construction Staging:
https://www.lagunabeachcity.net/home/showpublisheddocument/8878/637515890430300 000. Any recommendations made by the Board regarding staging plans or construction management will be forwarded to the Building Official for review and consideration. 23Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a drainage plan prepared by a licensed civil engineer to the Building Official for review and approval. 24Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a grading plan must be submitted to the Building Official for review and approval. Elevations or height must be certified by a licensed surveyor. The compaction of grade must be certified by a licensed Engineer. The Building Official may also require a shoring plan when necessary. A Geotechnical Engineer shall be required to conduct onsite monitoring of the site during excavation and grading activities; and shall document any ground movement and notify the Building Official of any such movement.
Attachment 2
87 87 of 922
AERIAL MAP – 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive (LOT B)
Attachment 3 88
88 of 922
AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date
August 12, 2025
Appeal
B
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DENIAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 24-2509, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-2510, AND REVOCABLE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT 24-2511 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
OF A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED TWO-CAR
GARAGE, ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS IN THE R-1 (RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY) ZONE LOCATED AT 1560 BLUEBIRD
CANYON DRIVE (LOT B)
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:
1. Conduct a public hearing, including receiving a staff report and taking public testimony and all evidence relating to the consideration of Design Review 24-2509, Coastal Development Permit 24-2510, and Revocable Encroachment Permit 24-2511 , and the California Environmental Quality Act exemption under Section 15270 of the state CEQA Guidelines; and
2. Adopt a Resolution titled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAGUNA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TO DENY DESIGN REVIEW 24-2509, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-2510, AND REVOCABLE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT 24-2511 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLEFAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED TWO-CAR GARAGE, AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS AT 1560 BLUEBIRD CANYON DRIVE (LOT B), AND FINDING THE ACTION EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO STATE CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15270," upholding the Design Review Board's denial of Design Review 24-2509, Coastal Development Permit 24-2510, and Revocable Encroachment Permit 24-2511 and finding the denial of the Project exempt from CEQA.
Appropriation: ______________ Fund Name: ____________ _ .)
irector of Community
Development
SUMMARY OF THE MATTER
Dave Kiff, City Manager
The property owner, David Dymaes ("Applicant") 1
, of 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive (the "Property") (see
aerial map included as Figure 1 and Attachment 2) applied for Design Review ("DR") 24-2509, Coastal Development Permit ("CDP") 24-2510, and Revocable Encroachment Permit ("REP") 24-2511 to construct a single-family dwelling with an attached two-car garage, an attached accessory dwelling unit ("ADU"), and other improvements in the R-1 (Residential Low Density) zone. 2 Design review is 'required for the new
1 The Project's architect is David Parker, who is within the definition of Applicant. 2 The Applicant is proceeding under Senate Bill ("SB 9"), as amended by SB 450 (collectively referred to herein as "SB 9"), which allows ministerial urban lot splits and two-unit development projects under certain qualifying conditions, subject to the California Coastal Act. (See Government Code § 65852.21(l)["Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California Coastal Act of 1976 .. .. "].) On June 13, 2024, the Community Development Director granted administrative coastal development permit approval of Tentative Parcel Map 24-0940, an urban Attachment 4
89 89 of 922
Appeal of the Denial of DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, and REP 24-2511 at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive August 12, 2025