single-family dwelling and garage, vehicular access, elevated decks, spa, grading, retaining walls, trash enclosure in the front setback, and landscaping pursuant to Laguna Beach Municipal Code ("LBMC") Section 25.05.040(B)(l), a Revocable Encroachment Permit 24-2511 is required to construct and maintain improvements in the public right-of-way, including walls, stairs, irrigation, drainage facilities, and lighting pursuant to LBMC Section 11 .50.030, and a coastal development permit is required for the new development, including a new single-family dwelling, attached garage, attached ADU, and site improvements under LBMC Sections 25.07.004 and 25.07.006.
On January 23, 2025, the Design Review Board ("Board") held a duly noticed public hearing and considered the project. After receiving input from staff, the Applicant, and public comments, the Board discussed the project, provided direction to the Applicant, and tabled the discussion with a 5-0 vote. The Board identified the following issues with the proposed project:
• Neighborhood compatibility as it relates to the long driveway and location of the garage. • Neighborhood compatibility relating to the size, mass, and visibility of the home sitting on the upper part of the site (i.e., the knoll).
• The amount of decking that could generate privacy issues. • The amount of glazing that could create excessive lighting. (The January 23, 2025 Staff Report, Minutes, Public Comments, Plans, AM&M, and Geotechnical Report, and Transcript, are attached as Attachments 5 through 11, respectively.) On May 22, 2025, the Board held a duly noticed public hearing to consider a revised project (the "Project").
An Applicant-prepared summary of the changes that Applicant elected to make are set forth below:
• Floor Area Reduction: The total living space was reduced from 3,600 s.f. to 2,443 s.f. • Attached ADU: The majority of the upper level that was the primary bedroom suite was redesigned to be a separate 1,000 s.f. ADU with a 155 s.f. deck added to the upper level. • Upper Level Reductions: The upper-level footprint was reduced and pulled back to the east. The south-facing wall was pulled back 3 feet. The main house upper level was reduced from 1,359 s.f. to 147 s.f.
• Deck Reductions: The main house total deck area was reduced from 896 s.f. to 779 s.f. The upperlevel deck was pulled back on the west and south sides. • Roof Reductions: The east edge of the roof was lowered from a 10'-2" plate to an 8'-4" plate. The overall profile of the roof was reduced.
• Garage Reductions: The garage area was reduced from 553 s.f. to 535 s.f. The south-facing wall was pulled back 18". The roof overhangs were pulled back and a planted roof was proposed to soften the exterior.
• Architectural Style: The style of the house was changed from modem to a "contemporary craftsman" style incorporating natural materials, detailing, and earth tone colors. Flat roofs, with the exception of deck areas, were eliminated.
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.
Attachment 4
90 90 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
• Retaining Wall Reductions: Overall height of retaining walls were lowered throughout the property. Most walls were at or near 6' in height. Stone was added to the majority of the walls. • Fencing: A 6-foot-high wrought iron, non-climbable security fence was proposed at the rear yard, and along the west and east property lines.
• Glazing Reductions: The glazing was reduced by approximately 20%. • Landscaping: 4 new trees were proposed at the front of the property to assist in screening the sight lines to the house. Additional landscaping was proposed around the house and in front of retaining walls. Vines were proposed along all retaining walls which would quickly provide coverage and create green "living walls." A planter was proposed in front of the garage to allow vines to grow down the retaining wall at the stairs.
• Access Stair Reconfiguration: The access stairs leading to both lots A and B were reconfigured to accommodate a future Edison transformer box.
Following the public hearing, the Board directed staff to prepare a resolution denying the Project by a 3-2 vote (Board members Bauta and Gannon dissenting). (The May 22, 2025 Staff Report, Minutes, Public Comments, Plans, and Transcript, are attached as Attachments 12 through 16, respectively.) On June 12, 2025, the Board considered the draft resolution denying the Project on consent and adopted the resolution denying the Project with certain changes read into the record, including a finding that the denial of the Project is exempt from CEQA (the "Board Denial"). (See Attachment 3 [Board Resolution 25-2409].) On June 4, 20253
, the Applicant filed an appeal of the Board's denial of the Project (the "Appeal") (Attachment 4). The Applicant contends that the Board abused its discretion in denying the application for the following reasons:
1. "The Board majority umeasonably imposed an unjustified re-siting of the proposed residence, which would result in the unprecedented loss of substantial property rights of the owner, without providing objective findings to support their decision."
2. "The Board majority made false and unsupported assumptions regarding the appearance of the mass and scale as it relates to the project sitting and based on subjective criteria."
3. "The Board majority disregarded factual evidence provided by the Applicant proving that other approved and completed projects possessed similar siting, garage locations, and access driveways, capriciously claiming such findings were not applicable to the subject property, and arbitrarily deeming that the project design is not neighborhood compatible." LBMC Section 25.05.070 requires certain forms of public notice for an appeal. Public notice was duly provided to consider the Appeal of the Project at the August 12, 2025 City Council meeting in accordance with LBMC Section 25.05.065. Notices were mailed to owners and occupants within a 300-foot and 100- 3 While Applicant submitted an untimely Appeal on June 4, 2025-before the Board Denial-the City accepted the Appeal for processing as of the date of the Board Denial (i.e., June 12, 2025). (See LBMC § 25.05.070; see also Tran v. County of Los Angeles (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 154 [a local agency decision or determination is when the substantive resolution is formally adopted].)
Attachment 4
91 91 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
foot radius of the Property, respectively, posted on the Property, and published in a newspaper of general circulation. (Attachment 17.)
A. Standards of Review
Pursuant to LBMC Section 25.05.070, decisions of the Board may be appealed to the City Council by the applicant or any owner of prope1ty 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.4 (LBMC § 25.05.070(E)(3)(a).) Further, pursuant to LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(2)(d), the City Council's review is limited to "the plans that were the subject of the decision or determination by the approval authority"; if new plans are submitted, the City Council "shall not consider or act on" them but may determine to remand those plans to the approval authority "for further proceedings pursuant to such direction as may be given the City Council."
1. Coastal Development Permit and Revocable Encroachment Permit LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(l) sets forth the procedures and review criteria for non-design review appeals, such as a coastal development permit and revocable encroachment permit. For that review, the City Council shall not be limited to the grounds stated for the appeal and shall not be limited to the evidence that was presented to the Board. The City Council shall exercise its independent judgment and discretion as to the evidence presented at its hearing. Nevertheless, there shall be a presumption that the decision or determination made by the Board was reasonable, valid, and not an abuse of discretion; and the appellant shall have the burden of proof of demonstrating otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence presented.
In its consideration of the Board's denial of CDP 24-2510 and REP 24-2511, the City Council is not limited to either the evidence in the record or the deliberations of the Board. The Applicant or members of the public may present new evidence for the City Council's consideration, and the City Council is free to deliberate without being limited to the Board's findings - in other words, a de novo hearing.
2. Design Review
LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(2) sets forth the procedures and review criteria for City Council requests for review of design review decisions. With respect to the standard of review for those decisions, subsection (E)(2)(b) provides:
If the decision or determination was not supported by four or more affirmative votes of the approval authority, upon hearing the appeal or request for review, the city council shall conduct a de novo review of the underlying application but shall be limited to the grounds specifically stated in the notice of appeal, if an appeal was filed, and to the evidence, including plans, that was presented to the approval authority. The city council shall exercise its independent 4 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.) Attachment 4
92 92 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
judgment and discretion as to such evidence. Nevertheless, there shall be a presumption that the decision or determination made by the approval authority was reasonable, valid, and not an abuse of discretion; and the appellant, if there is one, shall have the burden of proof of demonstrating otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence, including plans, presented.
Accordingly, in its consideration of DR 24-2509, which was denied 3-2, the City Council shall conduct a de novo review, but is limited to considering the evidence that was presented to the Board and to the grounds specifically stated in the notice of appeal. Nevertheless, given the lack of four affirmative votes, the City Council exercises its independent judgment on the evidence.
3. City Council Options
The City Council has numerous options in consideration of this matter, which are listed below.
1. Adopt the attached Resolution upholding the Board Denial, and finding the denial of the Project categorically exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15270;
2. Direct staff to prepare and return at a future meeting with a Resolution overturning the Board Denial, with findings in support of overturning the Board Denial and approving the Project, subject to conditions of approval; or
3. Direct staff to prepare and return at a future meeting with a Resolution remanding DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, and REP 24-2511 to the Board, with findings in support of the remand and further direction to the Board.
DISCUSSION
The Board held two public hearings on January 23, 2025 and May 22, 2025 and adopted a Resolution denying the Project on June 12, 2025. A summary of the public hearings and meeting is set forth below.5 A. Januarv 23, 2025 Board Hearing
1. Staff Report
The Project is located towards the top of Bluebird Canyon along Bluebird Canyon Drive between the cross streets of Morningside Drive and Regatta Road. The project site is a steep upsloping lot. The neighborhood consists of single-family residences.
5 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.
Attachment 4
93 93 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
Figure 1: Aerial View and Street Frontage of Project Site Attachment 4
94 94 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
Figure 2: Rendering of project
2. Staff Presentation
City staff noted that the Property is part of a lot split and it is surrounded by vacant lots except for one adjacent home. The project is on a steep hillside lot, featuring a unique driveway design and elements such as elevated decks, grading, retaining walls, landscaping, a spa, and lighting. It includes encroachments into the public right-of-way for infrastructure including walls, stairs, and drainage. Staff noted concerns regarding access, design articulation, landscaping, lighting and glare, compliance with the General Plan, and impacts on neighborhood compatibility, privacy, and view equity.
3. Board Ex Parte Disclosures
Board Ex Parte Disclosure Transcript
Member Page Nos.
Jessica Conducted a site visit with Steve Kawaratani and Mr. Parker, spoke with p. 1 of 17 Gannon Peter Grohmann, and received numerous communications with many of the residents in the Bluebird community, including Morningside, and read every email.
MJ Coveny Met with Steve Kawaratani and Mr. Parker at the site. p. 1 of 17 Louis Weil Spoke with William Homer, Peter Grohman, Marsha Stallworth, Eileen S., p. 1 of 17 Susan Whitin, Steve Kawaratani, and Mr. Parker.
Thomas Met with Mr. Parker and Steve Kawaratani, spoke to Mary Fargus, met p. 1 of 17 Gibbs with Marsha Stallworth who represented Kathy and John Romita, and met with Peter Grohmann, William Homer and Susan Whitin.
Christine Met with Steve Kawaratani, Mr. Parker, William Homer, Susan Whitin, p. 1 of 17 Thalman and a former planning commissioner.
Attachment 4
95 95 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
4. Board Questions and Staff Resvonses
Topic Question and Response Transcript
Page Nos.
rcommenterl
Lot Size Asked about the lot size and the project size. Staff responded that p. 3 of 17 the lot area of the subject property is 8,582 square feet and the [Coveny] square footage living area of the project is 3,598.
Project Asked about the lot size of 1536 Morningside. Staff confirmed that p. 3 of 17 Comparisons the lot area for 1536 Morningside is 13,866 square feet. [Covenyl Geo technical Asked about the submitted geotechnical report, which includes a p. 4 of 17 Report limitations section that notes the site conditions may change over [Thalman] time and that the recommendations are only valid for one year from the report date, which is August 22, 2024. Staff responded that a full geotechnical report will be provided during the building permit phase of the project.
4. Applicant Presentation
Mr. Parker, the project architect, and Mr. Dyrnaes, the property owner, both provided comments during the Applicant presentation. Mr. Parker introduced a 3,600 square foot, two-story, home with a tucked-under garage on an 8,500 square foot lot. He explained that the design is fully code-compliant, requires no variances, and aligns with hillside and neighborhood compatibility guidelines. Mr. Parker noted that the driveway and garage locations were established with staff input to enhance safety, reduce grading, and avoid the need for a variance. Mr. Parker also noted that the design follows the City's direction to use an on-grade driveway, consistent with adjacent properties. Mr. Parker noted that the home steps with the natural slope and is situated on the flattest portion of the lot and nearby homes show similar or larger sizes, with six homes exceeding 3,000 square feet. Mr. Parker emphasized that the project meets all parking and fire code requirements, improves slope stability and drainage, and is designed to enhance the neighborhood.
Mr. Dyrnaes noted the challenges of the lot and credited the engineering team for a solution that strengthens hillside stability through structural caissons. He pointed out that the most visible mass at the street is due to required parking. He shared that early community feedback was limited but more substantial input was received recently, especially from neighbors across the street, and has been incorporated into the design.
He also expressed concern with the staff report's comparisons, stating that the home is only 150 square feet larger than a recently approved nearby project and compares favorably across key criteria.
5. Public Testimony
During the public hearing, eight individuals provided public testimony. The public testimony is summarized below:
Commenter Summary of Comment Transcript
Page Nos.
Pam Adams Cited concerns about increasing density on a fragile, high fire risk knoll p. 6 of 17 due to SB-9 lot splits. She criticized the design as incompatible with the Attachment 4
96 96 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
neighborhood in mass, scale, and materials, describing it as overly glazed, light in tone, and disruptive in terms of light, noise, and hardscape. She argued the project disregards prior feedback and does not preserve or enhance the area's visual character. She urged the Board to deny the project unless major changes are made.
William Expressed support for the Applicant's right to build but raised concerns p. 7 of 17 Homer about neighborhood compatibility, excessive glazing, and how the structure integrates with the slope. He emphasized the imp01iance of preserving the character of the public way, frequently used by neighbors, and suggested design changes such as reducing window size, raising sill heights, and using non-glass balcony materials to improve privacy and balance. He also noted specific concerns about noise amplification into his bedroom from the proposed rooftop deck and requested its size be reduced. Lastly, he mentioned issues with light pollution and encouraged the Board to consider shielding and angles of exterior lighting due to his lower elevation.
Tim Kane Expressed concern about the scale of the proposed project and broader p. 7 of 17 development on the subdivided knoll. He noted that while the Applicant compared the design to the previously approved Riahi home, that project was ultimately overturned by City Council for being too large and incompatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Kane emphasized that viewing the site as a series of small lots downplays the cumulative impact, which could total 25,000 square feet of new development. He urged the Board to consider the City Council's broader perspective on scale and neighborhood compatibility.
Speaker 13 A neighboring resident expressed appreciation for the site visit and voiced p. 8 of 17 strong opposition to the project. They noted the proposed home exceeds 3,500 square feet (excluding the garage), significantly larger than nearby homes averaging 1,600-2,700 square feet, and is stylistically incompatible with the established neighborhood. They raised concerns about safety and access due to extensive excavation, citing an estimated 170 truckloads of soil removal. As a resident directly below the site, they emphasized the narrow 18-foot street and suggested that this project and the adjacent Lot A, facing similar issues, should be reviewed together. They do not support the project in its current form.
Marcia Spoke on behalf of the Romitas, who were out of the country, and p. 8 of 17 Stallworth indicated that the Romitas have not been receiving project notifications despite a submitted change of address. She noted that she has been trying to resolve the issue through the county assessor and City staff. She noted that the Romitas are unaware of the Project's current status or site markings and are concerned about potential impacts, particularly related to setbacks, view obstruction, and nearby walls. They intend to hire professionals to assess how the proposed development may affect their Attachment 4
97 97 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
property. Stallworth emphasized their desire for fair communication and good neighbor relations.
Susan Opposed the project, citing its incompatibility with Design Review Board p. 9 of 17 Whitin guidelines and neighborhood character, as detailed in the staff report and numerous neighbor letters. She emphasized the significant visual and physical impact of the driveway, retaining walls, and extensive glazing on the two-story home atop the knoll, which rises 51 feet above the street.
Ms. Whitin raised concerns about cumulative impacts from multiple closely packed homes being developed simultaneously under SB9, without comprehensive planning. She called for further geological investigation, questioned the timeline and feasibility of required road widening and utility relocation, and stressed the need for coordinated construction management to address access, duration, and overlaooing imoacts.
Richard Urged the Design Review Board to consider the broader context of p. 10 of 17 Bellier development on the knoll, rather than evaluating projects piecemeal. He criticized the proposed long driveway as a means to justify placing a large, glass-heavy structure at the top of the hill, calling it an eyesore. Bellier advocated for designs that excavate into the hillside to reduce visual impact and massing, and emphasized the need to minimize oversized structures across the multiple SB 9-affected lots.
Speaker 17 Spoke in strong support of the Applicant, emphasizing that Applicant is a p. 10 of 17 longtime resident, not a developer, who has contributed meaningfully to the community, notably by helping to prevent large-scale development in Rim Rock Canyon. She highlighted that the project was developed in close coordination with planning staff, complies fully with the General Plan, Municipal Code, and hillside guidelines, and requires no variances. She asserted that the design does not impact neighbors' privacy and urged both the Board and community to support and welcome the Applicant.
6. Applicant Rebuttal
Steve Kawaratani, representing the Applicant, emphasized that the subject is a vacant, buildable lot with no sensitive habitat. He noted the Board's role in balancing competing interests while evaluating the Project under design guidelines, the General Plan, and safety considerations. He highlighted that the proposed driveway does not require a variance, allows safe nose-out access, minimizes grading, and conforms to hillside guidelines. Over half the buildable area lies on the knoll, consistent with nearby development. He noted that a licensed engineer determined the driveway location optimal and presented updated renderings showing added landscaping, reduced wall heights, and less glazing for future submittals. He clarified that neighboring projects are under separate ownership. (Attachment 11 [Transcript], p. 11 of 17).
Attachment 4
98 98 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
7. Board Deliberation
Topic
Mass and Scale;
Siting of
Structures;
Retaining
Walls/Driveway;
Neighborhood
Compatibility;
Lighting and
Glare; Privacy
Discussion
Expressed strong concerns about the proposed design, stating it is incompatible with the character of the neighborhood and appears overly massive, particularly due to the long driveway and retaining walls that create a multi-story appearance.
Noted that surrounding homes are typically more modest, set back with long driveways and minimal visibility, and suggested the project may need to be redesigned from scratch to better follow the hillside contours-even if that requires more excavation.
Recommended reconsidering a street-level garage, as seen on other nearby homes, and emphasized concerns about the size of the upper deck, glazing impacts, and related privacy and glare issues.
While acknowledging the Applicant's right to build, Board Member Gibbs stressed the need to significantly reduce neighborhood impacts, stating that the current proposal is not acceptable in its current form.
Siting of Acknowledged prior community support for a nearby project on Structures; Morningside and suggested it might serve as a useful reference.
Retaining
Walls/Driveway;
Neighborhood
Compatibility;
Lighting and
Glare
Retaining
Walls/Driveway;
Siting of
Agreed that the current design likely needs to start over, noting the driveway-while initially appearing safer-seems too long and problematic for the site.
While she didn't share strong concerns about glazing due to advances in non-reflective materials, she did find the amount of decking excessive.
Expressed support for the proposed driveway, despite it not being the majority view, citing safety concerns with street access.
Structures; Suggested lowering the garage on the hillside to reduce massing certified LCP and possibly limiting the design to a single switchback. compliance
Emphasized the importance of maintaining a code-compliant project without requiring variances and appreciated the fireresistant materials and adequate landscaping.
While generally supportive of the design approach, she
acknowledged the project would likely return for revisions and Transcript
Page Nos.
[Commenterl
p. 11 of 17
[Gibbs]
p. 12 of 17
[Thalman]
p. 12 of 17
[Gannon]
Attachment 4
99 99 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
encouraged reworking the driveway configuration to address safety and compatibility concerns.
Access; Siting of Expressed strong concerns about the Project's design, particularly p 13 of 17 Structures; the proposed access, which is excessively long and steep compared [Weil] Environmental to others.
Context,
Neighborhood Cited six years of experience and noted the Project's placement on Compatibility; a knoll conflicts with environmental guidelines and that the design Mass and Scale fails to meet neighborhood compatibility, glazing, and height standards.
While acknowledging the property is buildable, concluded the current proposal is fundamentally flawed and recommended a complete redesign, suggesting the project be tabled indefinitely.
Neighborhood Clarified that the lot is buildable but emphasized that not eve1y lot p. 15 of 17 Compatibility can be fully maximized. Stated that development must respect both [Coveny] community context and the lot's inherent limitations.
8. Board Action
The Board voted 5-0 to table the Project and continue the public hearing to a date uncertain.
B. May 22, 2025 Board Review
1. Staff Report
In the published staff report to the Board, staff noted that the Applicant provided the following summary of changes to the project:
• Floor Area Reduction: The total living space was reduced from 3,600 s.f. to 2,443 s.f • Attached ADU: The majority of the upper level that was the primary bedroom suite was redesigned to be a separate 1,000 s.f. ADU with a 155 s.f. deck added to the upper level. • Upper Level Reductions: The upper-level footprint was reduced and pulled back to the east. The south-facing wall was pulled back 3 feet. The main house upper level was reduced from 1,359 s.f. to 147 s.f.
• Deck Reductions: The main house total deck area was reduced from 896 s.f. to 779 s.f. The upperlevel deck was pulled back on the west and south sides. • Roof Reductions: The east edge of the roof was lowered from a 10'-2" plate to an 8'-4" plate. The overall profile of the roof was reduced.
• Garage Reductions: The garage area was reduced from 553 s.f. to 535 s.f. The south-facing wall was pulled back 18". The roof overhangs were pulled back and a planted roof was proposed to soften the exterior.
• Architectural Style: The style of the house was changed from modern to a "contemporary craftsman" style incorporating natural materials, detailing, and earth tone colors. Flat roofs, with the exception of deck areas, were eliminated.
Attachment 4
100
100 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
• Retaining Wall Reductions: Overall height of retaining walls were lowered throughout the property. Most walls were at or near 6' in height. Stone was added to the majority of the walls. • Fencing: A 6-foot-high wrought iron, non-climbable security fence was proposed at the rear yard, and along the west and east property lines.
• Glazing Reductions: The glazing was reduced by approximately 20%. • Landscaping: 4 new trees were proposed at the front of the property to assist in screening the sight lines to the house. Additional landscaping was proposed around the house and in front of retaining walls. Vines were proposed along all retaining walls which would quickly provide coverage and create green "living walls." A planter was proposed in front of the garage to allow vines to grow down the retaining wall at the stairs.
• Access Stair Reconfiguration: The access stairs leading to both lots A and B were reconfigured to accommodate a future Edison transformer box.
City staff also provided the below comparison of the project and the revised Project:
Street improveme.nts retaining wall;;; not shown
Figure 3: Rendering of Project revisions
2. Staff Presentation
Staff presented the revised Project on Bluebird Canyon Road, highlighting key site features, updated renderings, and proposed improvements. Staff noted that the project includes a three-level home, new access driveway, retaining walls, spa, landscaping, and public improvements such as road widening6 and parking.
Staff noted the absence of adjacent homes but raised concerns about massing, grading, visual compatibility, and compliance with coastal and zoning policies. Four new conditions were proposed to address construction impacts, including road monitoring, repair, pre-construction surveys, and bonding. While staff acknowledged public concerns, they recognized the Applicant's good faith revisions and recommended the Board to either approve the Project with conditions or provide further direction for a continued hearing. 6 The road widening fluctuates between 2.5 feet and 3.5 feet.
Attachment 4
101
101 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
Figure 4: Rendering of Project
3. Board Ex Parte Disclosures
Board Ex Parte Disclosure
Member
Bauta Met with Mr. Kawaratani, Mr. Grohmann, Mr. Barta, and a few of the neighbors: Joe Kover, the Sadhal family, and Susan Whiten.
Coveny Met with the same group as Board Member Bauta.
Weil Met with the same group as Board Member Bauta.
Gannon Had a site visit with the Applicant team and met with Peter Grohmann.
Gibbs Met with Mr. Kawaratani, Mr. Grohmann, Joe Kover, Harpal Sadhal, and Susan Whiten.
4. Board uestions and Sta
Board Question and Response
Member
Gibbs Inquired about the excavation truck route. Staff responded that while haul routes are typically reviewed at the building permit stage alongside the staging plan, Planning staff discussed routing trucks up Morningside and confirmed that Public Works staff reviewed and a reed with the ro osed conditions.
Transcript
Page Nos.
p. 1 of 40
p. 1 of 40
p. 1 of 40
p . 1 of 40
p. 2 of 40
Transcript
Pa e No.
p. 4 of 40
Coveny Requested to see the updated materials and renderings, noting they were p. 7 of 40 missin from the Board's a enda acket. Staff resented the new color and Attachment 4
102
102 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
materials board and confirmed that the Applicant had a separate presentation, including the renderings.
Weil Asked staff to confirm whether the Project is subject to design review and if p. 8 of 40 the Applicant has been participating transparently and in good faith. Staff affirmed that they believe that to be the case.
5. Applicant Presentation
Mr. Parker, the architect for the Project, presented the revised Project, highlighting key changes made in response to Board feedback from the initial hearing. He shared before-and-after comparisons and outlined reductions in size, mass, and visibility, including a decrease in total living space from 3,600 to 2,443 square feet and significant setbacks to the upper level, roof, deck, and garage. The design style was changed from modem to contemporary craftsman with sloped roofs, earth-tone materials, and increased landscaping to reduce visual mass. Glazing was reduced by 20%, and new light and privacy controls were added. Retaining walls were lowered and softened with vines, and the landscape plan was enhanced and made codecompliant. The access stairs were relocated outside the right-of-way. Mr. Parker emphasized that alternate siting options were explored but found infeasible due to slope impacts and safety. He concluded that the project is compliant, neighborhood-compatible, and offers improvements such as slope stabilization, fire safety, and enhanced aesthetics, asserting it would be a positive addition to Bluebird Canyon.
6. Public Testimony
During the public hearing, six individuals provided public testimony. The public testimony is summarized below:
Commenter Summary of Comment Transcript
Page Nos.
Pamela Acknowledged the Applicant's effort to shift the design toward a more p. 10 of 40 Adams neighborhood-compatible craftsman style but remained opposed to the Project. She cited concerns that the home is still sited on the ridgeline rather than integrated into the terrain, as previously requested by the Board. She questioned the legitimacy of the 1,000-square-foot ADU and its glass deck, suggesting it misrepresents the reduced mass and scale. She also raised concerns about potential noncompliance with SB 9 restrictions and the noise impact of the spa at the hilltop. Additionally, she opposed the proposed construction truck route via lower Morningside, urging the Board to deny the Project.
Susan Opposed the Project, arguing it remains fundamentally unchanged from the p. 11 of 40 Whitin January version. Noted it still appears over 50 feet tall from the street, retains the same siting, driveway, and retaining walls, and that the reduced square footage is mainly due to relabeling the top floor as an ADU. She stated the changes are largely cosmetic and do not address key concerns. Cited multiple policy violations, including failure to meet findings for the Coastal Development Permit related to landform alteration and visual compatibility, and raised issues with the Revocable Encroachment Permit, emphasizing Attachment 4
103
103 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
Joe Kover
Mary
Fegraus
Eileen Slora
Peter
Grohmann
that the Board-not Public Works-must approve it. She warned the 10- foot retaining wall would set a negative precedent and degrade the streetscape. She called for actionable design changes to achieve compliance and emphasized that true good-faith compromise means both sides must make concessions-something she believes has not yet occurred.
Expressed continued opposition to the Project, stating that despite feedback p. 12 of 40 from staff, neighbors, and the Board, the Applicant's revisions are superficial. He acknowledged that the updated exterior is an improvement but argued the changes amount to little more than cosmetic wrapping.
Questioned the legitimacy of classifying the upper level as an ADU, noting that the loft and deck remain outside its scope and should still be reviewed under the Coastal Development Permit. He compared the Project's height to his own approved adjacent lot, stating that the proposed structure exceeds the ridgeline by 11-12 feet, unlike his, which remains at or below it. He also raised concerns about the west- and south-facing decks and excessive glazing, citing privacy impacts to surrounding homes. He urged the board to critically assess whether meaningful changes were made and emphasized that the Project remains incompatible with the neighborhood.
Acknowledged some progress on the Project but maintained strong concerns p. 13 of 40 about neighborhood compatibility, massing, the siting of the house and driveway, and potential impacts on noise, privacy, and skyline views for Morningside residents. She stressed that approval of this Project could set a precedent for adjacent Lot A. Fegraus, citing herself as a former planning commissioner, strongly disagreed with the staffs claim that no ridgeline exists on the site, citing her experience with the City's Open Space and Conservation Element. She asserted that the knoll is clearly a ridgeline visible from multiple neighborhoods and should be subject to the same regulations as any other. She concluded by calling for a more compatible design that respects the neighborhood and ridgeline protections.
Expressed opposition to the Project, stating it fails to meet Coastal p. 13 of 40 Development Permit findings 5 and 6. She argued that the proposed eastwest driveway significantly alters the natural landform by disturbing the lower two-thirds of the slope and requiring tall retaining walls, including a ten-foot wall m the public right-of-way-unprecedented m the neighborhood. She dismissed proposed vine plantings as a cosmetic fix that do not mitigate the wall's height. Noted that the Project's massing, at up to 55 feet from street grade, resembles a four-story commercial building and is visually incompatible with surrounding homes. She criticized the relabeling of the top floor as an ADU, stating it may satisfy regulatory definitions but not the actual physical impact. Finally, she pointed out that the Project's 40% floor area ratio exceeds the neighborhood average of 32%, further contributing to incompatibility.
Criticized the revised proposal for disregarding previous Board directives to p. 14 of 40 reduce height, mass, and square footage, and to terrace the home from the Attachment 4
104
104 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
street upward. He noted the Applicant continues to insist on a long driveway to build atop the knoll, avoiding a street-level garage. Argued the reduction in square footage is misleading, as it primarily involves labeling a portion as an ADU. He described the Project as largely unchanged, incompatible with the neighborhood, and likely to become a glaring "light beacon" on the hill. He also opposed the revocable encroachment permit, stating that the retaining walls within the public right-of-way are too large and permanent to meet the permit's intended use for minor, revocable structures. He urged the Board to deny the Project.
7. Applicant Rebuttal
Mr. Dyrnaes, property owner, emphasized that the Project is fully code compliant, with no variances, view, or privacy impacts, and meets all general plan and hillside guidelines. Due to unique site conditions, the only buildable area is atop the hill, and relocating the home downward would violate guidelines by increasing grading and export. Engineering analysis confirms the current design is optimal for minimizing impact, grading, and massing. The site's top was graded in 193 8 and is not a natural ridgeline, making the build consistent with nearby properties that have long uphill driveways. The home's height and footprint are comparable or smaller than neighboring homes. Mr. Dyrnaes stressed a lack of dialogue with neighbors and highlighted benefits like street widening and hillside stabilization. He concluded that the current placement of the home, driveway, and garage is the best solution to minimize environmental and visual impacts.
8. Board Deliberation
Topic Discussion Transcript Page Nos.
f Commenterl
Retaining Noted the Project's large scale, long steep p. 21 pf 40 [Gibbs] Walls/Driveway driveway, and massmg that IS unlike
anything in the neighborhood.
Landscaping; Design Acknowledged some improvements m p. 21 pf 40 [Gibbs] Integrity; and Lighting landscaping, materials, and glazing and Glare reduction.
Mass and Scale; Siting Noted that the mass and scale, driven by the p. 21 pf 40 [Gibbs] of Structures; Retaining building's location, size, driveway, and Walls/Driveway; garage, remain problematic and inconsistent Neighborhood with neighborhood character.
Compatibility
Driveway /Retaining Expressed doubts about the Applicant's p. 21 pf 40 [Gibbs] Walls; Grading claim that alternatives like terracing and a street-level garage are not feasible and
highlighted concerns about excavation and
environmental impacts under the CDP.
Driveway /Retaining Questioned whether the project complies p. 21 pf 40 [Gibbs] Walls; Grading with key CDP criteria regarding visual
Attachment 4
105
105 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
compatibility and minimizing alteration of
natural landforms, citing concerns about the
long driveway and large retaining walls.
Driveway /Retaining Discussed challenges with applying a p. 21 pf 40 [Gibbs] Walls revocable encroachment permit for
substantial retaining walls in the public rightof-way, noting such structures may interfere with public use and detract from streetscape
quality.
Mass and Scale; Recommended significantly reducing mass p. 21 pf 40 [Gibbs] Grading; Siting of and height, especially the top floor and deck, Structures terracing the building into the hillside, and seriously reconsidering garage placement
with creative architectural solutions like
elevators.
Support of Mass and Reviewed the revised Project against the first p. 24 of 40 [Bauta] Scale proposal and noted significant changes,
including a substantial floor area reduction
from 3,600 to 2,400 square feet, deck and
roof reductions, and lowered plate height.
Acknowledged the addition of an ADU and
its consideration under the CDP.
Support of Siting of Regarding the garage, argued that its current p. 24 of 40 [Bauta] Structures setback from the street reduces visual
massing compared to moving it forward,
which would create a taller, more prominent
structure.
Support of Mass and Stated that the Project terracing and p. 24 of 40 [Bauta] Scale; Grading excavation effectively minimize the overall mass and impact despite appearances.
Support of Compared the Property to a nearby property p. 24 of 40 [Bauta] Neighborhood at 1540 Bluebird Canyon Drive, which sits
Compatibility higher above grade, and found the Project consistent with neighborhood development
patterns
Support of Certified Concluded that the Project meets p. 24 of 40 [Bauta] LCP Compliance neighborhood development standards and is ready for approval.
Support of Certified Agreed with Board Member Bauta's p. 27 to 40 [Gannon] LCP Compliance; DR assessment regarding the general plan, findings; CDP findings
Attachment 4
106
106 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
design review criteria, and coastal
development permit.
Support of Noted that the driveway fits the p. 27 to 40 [Gannon] Driveway/Garage; neighborhood pattern and improves safety, Siting of Structures while placing the garage at the street would increase mass, scale, and require a variance.
Support of Found that the chosen materials and color p. 27 to 40 [Gannon] Neighborhood palette are appropriate and consistent with Compatibility; Design local development.
Integrity
Support of Certified Noted no view concerns. p. 27 to 40 [Gannon] LCP Compliance
Regarding Views
Support of Certified Highlighted that the project meets open p. 27 to 40 [Gannon] LCP Compliance space and lot coverage requirements.
Lighting/Glare Suggested a condition of approval for use of p. 27 to 40 [Gannon] engineered glass that minimizes light glare.
Mass and Scale; Siting Mass and scale remain major concerns, p. 27 to 40 [Coveny] of Structures largely due to the home's high placement on the ridge, which makes it feel precarious and
oversized.
Mass and Scale While the floor area was reduced, adding an p. 27 to 40 [Coveny] ADU and a large roof deck still contribute to
the building's imposing presence.
Mass and Scale; Siting Noted that neighboring properties like the p. 27 to 40 [Coveny] of Structures Cover home benefit from larger lots, making mass less noticeable, but this Project's tight,
high location exacerbates the scale issue.
Retaining Noted that the grading and retaining walls p. 27 to 40 [Coveny] Walls/Driveway; and also add to the massing effect, and though the Siting of Structures driveway design is appealing, the size of the retaining walls feels substantial compared to
others nearby. The presence of a ridgeline on
the knoll is accepted as natural and noted it is
important to consider in placement and
design, with the suggestion to use nearby
homes as a reference for limits.
Views Stated that future development on adjacent p. 27 to 40 [Coveny] lots behind the Project should also be
factored in to avoid blocking potential views.
Retaining Noted that the revocable encroachment p. 27 to 40 [Coveny] Walls/Driveway; Siting permit IS discretionary; while the road of Structures dedication IS appreciated, the house
Attachment 4
107
107 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
Lighting/Glare
Fire Safety
Neighborhood
Compatibility; Siting of
Structures
Fire Safety; Retaining
Walls/Driveway;
Grading; Certified LCP
Compliance
Siting of Structures;
Mass and Scale; Privacy
Fire Safety
Retaining
Walls/Driveway; Mass
and Scale
placement currently complicates this
approval.
Suggested reducing window glazing to help p. 27 to 40 [Coveny] decrease perceived mass, especially at night,
and expressed
Expressed concern about shared fire escape p. 27 to 40 [Coveny] stairs, recommended separate access for
safety.
Overall, acknowledged progress on the p. 27 to 40 [Coveny] design, but noted the project still needs to
address mass, scale, placement, and
neighborhood compatibility more
thoroughly.
Noted pnmary concern 1s site access, p. 30 of 40 [Weil] highlighting that the existing Bluebird
Canyon road varies in width and his own
measurements showed it narrower than
reported. Appreciated the proposed street
widening and parking but pointed out that
permanent retaining walls encroach on the
public right-of-way, potentially creating
non-conforming access if removed, and
recommended movmg them outside the
right-of-way.
Stressed the need to lower the finished p. 30 of 40 [Weil]; p. 31 of 40 garage floor relative to street level to better [Gibbs] integrate the Project, reduce mass and scale,
and address privacy concerns for neighbors.
Stated could not support the coastal
development permit findings due to the
building's height and topography
relationship. Reiterated the need for height
reduction and better hillside integration.
Regarding fire safety, noted that shared p. 30 of 40 [Weil] stairways depend on proper development of
an adjacent lot (Lot A), which remains
unresolved, creating a safety gap given the
high fire severity zone.
Found the driveway length and lot coverage p. 30 of 40 [Weil] inconsistent with guidelines and called for
more creative design solutions beyond the
Applicant's current "most efficient"
approach. Believed the Project size is
Attachment 4
108
108 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
potentially approvable but required
significant redesign.
Views Expressed fewer concerns about view p. 30 of 40 [Weil] impacts.
Lighting and Glare Supported minimizing lighting glare per a p. 30 of 40 [Weil] fellow Board member recommendation.
Driveway /Retaining
Walls; Grading
Access;
Driveway /Retaining
Expressed a firm stance against approving a
revocable encroachment permit for
permanent structures like the roadway and
retaining walls in the public right-of-way,
emphasizing the need for creative grading
solutions and compromises to meet
applicable regulations.
Regarding access, he said the Applicant has
two options: either a street-level garage or a
Walls; Siting
Structures
of lowered garage with a creatively designed
access road, which he could support. Agreed
that any elevated driveway and retaining
walls must be pulled out of the public rightof-way.
Mass and Scale; Height;
Siting of Structures;
Driveway /Retaining
Walls
Certified
compliance
LCP
9. Board Action
Summarized consensus that the project has
excessive mass and scale; and the building
height must be reduced and terraced into the
slope if the current square footage is to be
maintained. Clarified that building atop the
hill is not prohibited, but height must come
down. Stated a need to remove
encroachments from the right-of-way, and
address concerns about the long driveway by
potentially lowering the garage to reduce
driveway length.
Clarified that while the Project respects the
setbacks and acknowledges the Applicant
has a buildable lot, the current proposal
doesn't meet the guidelines as presented.
Believed the Applicant could still achieve
their program within the buildable area but
needs to redesign the Project to better comply
with the standards.
p. 31 of 40 [Gibbs]
p. 31 of 40 [Gibbs]
p. 31 of 40 [Gibbs]
Weil p. 37 of 40 [Weil],
[Coveny], and [Gibbs]
The Board voted 3-2 (Board members Bauta and Gannon dissenting) to direct staff to prepare a resolution for denial of the Project and to put it on the consent calendar at the next meeting.
Attachment 4
109
109 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
C. June 12, 2025 Board Denial
1. Staff Presentation
The Chair pulled the project off consent and asked if staff had anything to add before the Applicant presents.
Staff clarified that the item before the Board is whether or not staff accurately memorialized the direction from the Board at the last meeting on May 22, 2025. (Attachment 20 [June 20, 2025 DRB Transcript].)
2. Applicant Presentation
Applicant's attorney addressed the Board and stated that during the prior hearing, the Board's feedback was largely subjective, which the attorney for the Applicant argued violates the Housing Accountability Act and SB 450. The attorney for the Applicant opined that these laws require project review based only on objective design standards and urged the Board to reconsider its position and offered to answer questions about the applicable laws. 7
3. Board Discussion
Board Discussion Transcript
Member Page Nos.
Thomas Acknowledged that the Board carefully considered the Project and arrived at p. 2 of 4 Gibbs independent yet respectful conclusions. Proposed a revision to the resolution, clarifying that the three board members voting for denial shared common concerns, rather than having entirely separate or varying issues. They suggested simplifying the language to state that "each of the three other design review members had concerns with the project," noting that the record already reflects the specifics.
Louise Requested that more specific comments be added to Finding B on page three p. 3 of 4 Weil of the REP section. Referenced their deliberation about the developed street width in the nearby vicinity, which was measured curb to curb at 24 feet.
4. Board Adoption of Resolution Denying the Application Board voted 3-2 to adopt Resolution No. 24-2509 denying the Project with the changes to Resolution No. 24-2509 that were read into the record.
RESPONSES TO ISSUES RAISED ON APPEAL
As noted above, the Applicant submitted an Appeal of the Board's decision (Attachment 4). As indicated under Standards of Review, in the City Council's review of non-design review appeals, such as a coastal development permit and revocable encroachment permit, the Council shall conduct a de novo review of the underlying application and shall not be limited to the grounds stated for the appeal, nor is the Council limited to the evidence that was presented to the Board. Accordingly, in its consideration of the Board's denial of CDP 24-2510 and REP 24-2511, the Council is free to deliberate without being limited to the Board's findings-in other words, a de novo hearing. For the consideration of DR 24-2509, the City Council shall conduct a de novo review, but is limited to considering the evidence that was presented to the Board and may exercise its independent judgment on such evidence. Further, for DR-2509, the City Council is limited to the grounds specifically stated in the notice of Appeal. 7 These comments are addressed in the Board Resolution and also in the analysis in response to the Appeal.
Attachment 4
110
110 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
Below are the grounds for Appeal and City staff's response.
1. "The Board majority unreasonably imposed an unjustified re-siting of the proposed residence, which would result in the unprecedented loss of substantial property rights of the owner, without providing objective findings to support their decision.
Staff's Response
The Applicant's Project requires three entitlements from the City: (1) REP 24-2511 to construct and maintain improvements in the public right-of-way, including walls, stairs, irrigation, drainage facilities, and lighting pursuant to LBMC Section 11.50.030; (2) CDP 24-2510 for the new development, which includes a new single-family dwelling, attached garage, attached ADU, and site improvements under LBMC Sections 25.07.004 and 25.07.006; and (3) DR 25-2509 for the new single-family dwelling and garage, vehicular access, elevated decks, spa, grading, retaining walls, trash enclosure in the front setback, and landscaping pursuant to LBMC Section 25.05.040(B)(l). Below is an overview of the findings and facts relied upon by the Board to deny the entitlements and an analysis supporting that the Board did not commit an abuse of discretion.
A. REP 24-2511 to construct and maintain improvements in the public right-of-way, including walls, stairs, irrigation, drainage facilities, and lighting pursuant to LBMC Section 11.50.030
The Applicant proposed certain private improvements within an unimproved portion of the City's public right-of-way to facilitate the Applicant's preferred driveway design, which is long and winding. The REP is required for such private improvements, consisting of retaining walls, stairs, irrigation, drainage facilities, and lighting. The development plans call for a sloping retaining wall that extends approximately nine feet into the right of way to support the winding driveway that cuts into the hillside. Relative to the elevation at the edge of the street pavement, the retaining wall has an exposed height of 10 feet at the property line.
In accordance with state law, a city may prohibit encroachments into and obstructions on public property and may provide for the removal of any prohibited encroachments. (Gov. Code§ 38775.) A city may also regulate encroachments on public property by requiring an encroachment permit and permitting the encroachment under specified conditions. (Laura Vincent Co. v. City of Selma (1941) 43 Cal.App.2d 473.) The regulatory scheme must have a reasonable tendency to preserve or protect the public safety or convenience. (Id. At 476.) A city council's determination of what constitutes an obstruction or encroachment will not be upset by the courts in the absence of fraud, oppression, or a manifest abuse of discretion. (Id.; Irvin v. City of Manhattan Beach (1966) 65 Cal.2d 13.) Here, consistent with the state law above, the City of Laguna Beach, through adoption of its Municipal Code, has declared that "[a]nything which ... unlawfully obstructs the free passage or use, in the customary manner, of any ... public ... street ... is a nuisance." (LBMC § 7.24.020(e); California Civil Code§ 3479.) The City of Laguna Beach, also through adoption of its Municipal Code, has created a regulatory scheme that allows certain types of encroachments into the public street through a revocable encroachment permit process. (See LBMC Chapter 11.50 (Revocable Encroachment Permits). Such regulatory scheme includes Attachment 4
111
111 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
findings and criteria to assist decisionmakers in analyzing the findings and criteria, which serve to protect the public safety or convenience.
As reflected in Board Resolution 24-2509 (Attachment 3), the Board denied REP 24-2511 based on its inability to make Finding 1 and Finding 2 (Criteria (b), (e), and (f)) for the permit under Laguna Beach Municipal Code Chapter 11.50 (Revocable Encroachment Permits), as reflected below:
"SECTION 3. The Design Review Board hereby denies Revocable Encroachment Permit 24-2511 based on the following findings:
Finding No. 1 - LBMC Section 11.50.010 provides, 'A revocable encroachment permit consists of a discretionary approval by the Laguna Beach Design Review approval authority to allow minor classes of construction in an otherwise unimproved, unused public right-of-way.'
Further Section [sic] LBMC Section 11.50.030 provides, 'This category of project is intended for small-scale structures such as low fences, retaining walls, walkways, stairs, and other minor features typically associated with landscaping, including steppingstones, paved paths, planter areas, and irrigation systems. This type of permit is not appropriate for any structure or improvement that would result in code violations or other non-compliant conditions if removal is ever required by the City.'
The Project proposes large retaining walls and slopes within the public right-of-way necessary to support a long and winding driveway to a proposed sing-family [sic] dwelling. The improvements are such that they are not minor or small-scale and could not be easily removed without compromising the required vehicular access pursuant to LBMC Section
25.53.004 for the proposed single-family residence should the City require the use of the full width of the right-of-way in the future.
Finding No. 2 - LBMC Section 11.50.050 states the required criteria and evaluation for issuance of a revocable encroachment permit:
(a) It should be located in a manner that is not hazardous to the traveling public, including motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians;
(b) It should be sufficiently set back from the edge of pavement or street centerline to provide adequate travel, parking and walking lanes; ( c) It should not conflict with preexisting public utility structures, especially hydrants, vault and service meters in any manner that necessitates relocation thereof at public expense or causes any other unacceptable interference, including impediments to the maintenance, relocation or repair of pipelines, conduits or substructures of any public utility;
Attachment 4
112
112 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
( d) It will not preclude public access, use or enjoyment of any area that has historically established such access, use or enjoyment; ( e) It is not precedent setting in nature to the extent that it creates a noticeable projection into the streetscape as established by existing construction and improvements on neighboring properties; and
(f) It does not create structures of unusual or unacceptable appearance, form, shape or height that detract from the general quality of the streetscape.
Finding (b): The proposed large retaining walls and slopes within the public right-of-way would not be set back sufficiently to provide adequate travel, parking, and walking lanes should the City require the full use of the width of the right-of-way to expand vehicle or pedestrian access or emergency access in the future on Bluebird Canyon Drive. If installed as proposed, any future road widening would be infeasible. Further, for some other properties in the surrounding areas, the width of the street is 24' at the access point of the driveway. As proposed, the street would be 20' which is not sufficiently set back from the centerline of the street.
Finding ( e ): This section of Bluebird Canyon Drive does not have other revocable encroachments of this size and scale. The proposed encroachment could be precedent setting as there are other projects proposed in and around this Project. Effectively forfeiting this area of the public right-of-way due to the size and scale of the proposed retaining walls and slopes that create a noticeable projection in a possibly precedential
setting way is not consistent with the required findings for a revocable encroachment permit.
Finding (f): The size of the proposed retaining walls and slopes would create an unusual or unacceptable appearance of shape and height that would detract from the quality of the existing streetscape. Homes on the opposite side of Bluebird Canyon Drive are all (or most) built downslope and there are no similarly sized encroachment on Bluebird Canyon Drive on the same side of the street as the Proposed Project.
(Attachment 3 [Board Resolution].) While the Board Resolution speaks for itself, it is worth noting that the Board did appropriately deny the REP based on inability to make the required findings and justified such inability to make the findings on certain facts and is also worth emphasizing that the Board identified public safety issues and code compliance issues with the REP, as discussed in more detail below.
Public Safety
As reflected in the Board Resolution, the Board was unable to make the finding that the improvements sought through the revocable encroachment permit, consisting of the large retaining walls, graded slopes, and driveway were sufficiently set back from the edge of the pavement or street centerline to provide adequate travel, parking, and walking lanes. The Board supported the inability to make the finding, in part, Attachment 4
113
113 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
based on the City needing the "full use of the width of the right-of-way to expand vehicle or pedestrian access or emergency access in the future on Bluebird Canyon Drive." Indeed, the City previously hired KLD Engineering, P.C. to prepare a Wildfire Egress Study dated July 2021 to analyze evacuation times within the City. (Attachment 18.) The Wildfire Egress Study concludes that Bluebird Canyon Drive is one of three neighborhoods in the City that is access-impaired and may be unable to evacuate during a fire:
At the conclusion of the survey, three neighborhoods were deemed to be access impaired:
Canyon Acres Drive, Bluebird Canyon, and Diamond Street & Crestview Drive, as shown in Figure 8-3. These neighborhoods share several characteristics in common: they are surrounded by wooded areas (fuel consisting of tall trees that can burn easily), ingress/egress routes are very narrow at sections ( often only the width of a single car), and ingress/egress routes followed a winding path with hairpin turns in some sections. These neighborhoods would require early notification during a wildfire emergency as they would be unable to be evacuated if a fire were present.
(Attachment 18, p. 117 of 432.)
The Wildfire Egress Study further concludes Bluebird Canyon is narrow and may not be passable:
Bluebird Canyon - a LOT of fuel on this road. Goats are brought in to eat some of the brush on this road. The road is pretty good as it is wide with some street parking towards the top of the mountain. The road follows a winding path. There was a landslide along this road recently that destroyed several homes. The road becomes much narrower and follows a winding path as you travel downhill towards the coast. This road would not be passable in a fire.
(Attachment 18, p. 116 of 432.)
While the City does not have a pending Public Works project to widen Bluebird Canyon Drive, the City did widen a portion of Bluebird Canyon Drive between approximately 800 feet east of Oriole and Rancho Laguna in 2023, demonstrating that the City views this area as posing a legitimate need for street widening.
Further, Fire Chief Niko King and Fire Marshall Robert Montaghami have been consulted on whether widening at this section of Bluebird Canyon Drive would serve public safety or convenience. The Fire Marshall noted that Fire Code Section 503 requires a fire apparatus of20 feet wide. The Fire Chief described the location of Bluebird Canyon Drive as technically passable by standard fire apparatus; however, it is narrow, winding, and lacks sufficient turnouts or shoulders in some segments. This can create significant congestion during peak evacuation or emergency response conditions. The segment between Rancho Laguna Road and Oriole Drive, in particular, presents tight conditions and limited sight distance. Fire Chief King noted the below potential safety improvements that could enhance conditions:
• Road widening (where feasible), especially near blind curves and pinch points. • Establishment of formal turnout areas to allow two-way vehicle movement during evacuations. • Improved roadside vegetation management to reduce encroachment and improve fire apparatus access.
Attachment 4
114
114 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
• Striping or signage improvements to enhance driver awareness of narrow conditions and evacuation directionality.
• Mirrors or traffic calming measures on certain curves to improve visibility.
Code Compliance
As identified in the Board Resolution, the improvements, consisting of the retaining walls and graded slopes, within the public right-of-way, support a long and winding driveway to a proposed single-family dwelling. It also extends to a garage for the code-required parking. Further, the Board Resolution references the Municipal Code provision that states that an REP "is not appropriate for any structure or improvement tltat would result in code violations or otlter non-compliant conditions if removal is ever required by tlte City." (LBMC § 11.50.030.) Code compliance, therefore, must be analyzed assuming that a revocable encroachment permit will be revoked at some point in the future.
If the City revoked the revocable encroachment permit and demanded the removal of the retaining wall and graded slopes in accordance with LBMC Chapter 11.50 (to widen the street, for example), the required access to the site would result in a code violation or other non-compliant condition because there would no longer be "safe vehicular access from a 'usable vehicular right-of-way of record' to off-street parking facilities on the property requiring such facilities." (LBMC § 25.53.004(B).) The project instead needs to be designed in a manner that contemplates code compliant or safe vehicular access to the site without an REP. In other words, the associated grading would also need to comply with LBMC Section 25.53.004(B), referenced in the Board Resolution, which requires safe access to parking facilities from the road. Although such design may require more grading, it is based on concerns of wildfire egress in Bluebird Canyon. Indeed, most recently, on July 7, 2025, the Rancho Fire in Laguna Beach ignited near Bluebird Canyon. It should also be noted that the Wildfire Egress Study assumed virtually no population growth from 2010 to 2020 in Bluebird Canyon-which is undercut by recent housing laws enacted, such as SB 9, and 18 applications for development of new units received by the City in Bluebird Canyon since July 1, 2020.
Lastly, while not reflected in the Board Resolution, as proposed, the retaining walls also appear to conflict with a development standard prohibiting retaining walls for cut slopes with a cut face steeper than 2: 1 from exceeding five feet in height:
(b) Design Standards For Cut Slopes.
(1) Maximum Slope. No excavation shall be made with a cut face steeper in slope than two horizontal to one vertical, unless said cut face is to be immediately supported with a retaining wall or other approved support for which a building permit has been obtained. Said retaining walls shall not exceed five feet maximum height. The appearance of the retaining walls shall be subject to the approval of the design review board. (2) Exception.
(A) Less Than Two to One (2: 1) Slope. Where the city determines that a less steep slope is necessary in order to ensure the stability of the Attachment 4
115
115 of 922
Appeal of the Denial ofDR24-2509, CDP 24-2510, and REP 24-2511 at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive August 12, 2025
excavation and general safety, it may require a cut slope less steep than two horizontal to one vertical.
(B) Greater Than Two to One (2: 1) Slope. When the engineering geologist certifies in his report that the site has been investigated and in his opinion the material in cut areas will be stable, resistant to erosion and free from hazardous rock fall if cut to a steeper slope, the city may permit a cut slope steeper than two horizontal to one vertical subject to such conditions as it may require. The city may waive the requirement for an engineering geologic report in grading of individual building sites where conditions are favorable. Such slopes may not exceed five feet in vertical height.
(LBMC Section 22.06.0l0(b). 8
) The Board did not commit an abuse of discretion in denying REP 24-2511.
B. CDP 24-2510 for the new development, which includes a new single-family dwelling, attached garage, attached ADU, and site improvements under LBMC Sections
25.07.004 and 25.07.006
As noted above, the Applicant is proceeding under SB 9, which allows ministerial urban lot splits and twounit development projects under certain qualifying conditions, subject to the California Coastal Act. (See Government Code § 65852.2l(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 .... "].)9 The Coastal Act10 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 .... " 11 The Coastal Act is to be "liberally construed to accomplish its purposes and objectives."12 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. 13 Unless subject to an exemption, almost all development within the coastal zone requires a coastal 8 Title 22 (Excavating, Grading and Filing) is part of the City's certified LCP. 9 In response to Applicant attorney's public comment that the Board Denial violates the Housing Accountability Act, it should be noted that the Housing Accountability Act similarly includes the same carve out for the full application of the Coastal Act. (See Gov. Code§ 65589.5(e)["Nothing in this section shall be construed to relieve the local agency from complying with ... the California Coastal Act of 1976 .... "].) 10 Pub. Res. Code, § 30000 et seq. 11 Pub. Res. Code,§ 30001, subds. (a) and (d). 12 Pub. Res. Code,§ 30009. 13 Id.; see also Pub. Res. Code,§§ 30001.5; 30500-526.
Attachment 4
116
116 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
development permit. 14 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. 15 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 implementation 1 6:
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]. 17 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. 18
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. 19 The Land Use Plan represents a descriptive text and evaluation of coastal problems and issues.20 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.21 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 14 Pub. Res. Code § 30600, subd. (a). 15 Pub. Res. Code§§ 30600(d), 30519(emphasis added), 30600.S(emphasis added). 16 City of Dana Point v. California Coastal Com. (2013) 217 Cal. App. 4th 170, 186. 17 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. 18 LCP Technical Appendix. 19 Id.
20 Id.
21 Id.
Attachment 4
117
117 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
25.07.010.22 Here, the proposed development, which includes a new single-family dwelling, attached garage, attached ADU, and site improvements, requires a coastal development permit under LBMC Sections 25.07.004 and 25.07.006.
As reflected in Board Resolution 24-2509 (Attachment 3), the Board denied CDP 24-2510 based on its inability to make Finding 1 (Criteria 5 and 6) and Finding 2 for the permit under Laguna Beach Municipal Code Chapter 25.07 (Coastal Development Permits), as reflected below:
"SECTION 4. The Design Review Board hereby denies Coastal Development Permit 24- 2510 based on the following findings:
Finding No. 1: The Project is not in conformity with all the applicable provisions of the certified local coastal program, including the following review criteria provided in LBMC Section 25.07.012(F):
5. The proposed development will minimize the alterations of natural landforms and will not result in undue risks from geological and erosional forces and/or flood and fire hazards.
No. The proposed Project includes the grading alteration of the entire project site and includes a grading export of approximately 1,398 cubic yards of soil. Project development alters the entire lot leaving no area of the site in a natural or near natural condition despite the installation of ornamental landscaping. As a result, the Project is not designed in a way to minimize alteration of naturally occurring landforms on the Project site.
6. The proposed development will be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and where feasible, will restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas.
No. The proposed three-level, single-family home would sit atop a series ofretaining walls within the building envelope that would result in the visual appearance of an imposing and bulky development. The design of the retaining walls, including the materials, color, and landscaping will not sufficiently soften the appearance of mass. The overall height of the building and retaining walls would be approximately 50 feet above the center of the proposed driveway where it intersects the street to the top of the highest roof. The overall height of the building and retaining walls would be approximately 49 feet above the street at the center of the property to the proposed deck guardrail above the great room. This design of the Project would result in development that is visually incompatible with the surrounding area where other properties are either developed closer to the street or in a way that is not a visually imposing when viewed from various public rights-of-way. Lowering of the Project (but keeping the same square footage) such that it is closer to the street was 22 LBMC § 25.07.004.
Attachment 4
118
118 of 922
Appeal of the Denial ofDR24-2509, CDP 24-2510, and REP 24-2511 at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive August 12, 2025
mentioned as a possible solution; however, the Applicant declined to make such a change to the Project.
Further, the Project alters and develops the entire lot leaving no area of the site in a natural or near natural condition despite the installation of ornamental landscaping. Thus, the natural topography of the site is not used to maximize visual compatibility.
The Bluebird Canyon neighborhood is characterized by understated hillside development with vehicular access to garages being provided (predominantly) directly from the street without long sloping driveways and exposed retaining walls. The proposed Project would create a long sloping driveway to a motor court requiring additional grading and retaining walls that are not typically found in the neighborhood and thus increases the visual incompatibility of this Project.
The discussion and facts presented under LU Policies 2.1, 2.8, 7.3/10.2, and Open Space and Conservation Element Policy 13-B further support the Design Review Board's inability to make this finding and are incorporated herein by reference.
Finding No. 2: The Project is not in conformity with all the applicable provisions of the certified Local Coastal Program as follows:
Land Use Element (LU) Policies 2.1, 2.8, and 7.323 and Open Space and Conservation Element Policy 13-B
No. The proposed Project as presented to the Design Review Board would alter and obscure the entire property to a point that the natural profile of the site would be developed and obscured. The Bluebird Canyon area is an enclave of predominantly hillside and ridgeline development between two open space canyon areas that is largely surrounded by additional higher ridgeline and hillside development to the northwest, north, and southeast. A public access trail provides public views of the Project site from the northeast. As a result, the site is highly visible from many surrounding homes and publicly accessible scenic viewing points making protection of the natural profile of the ridgeline on the Project site as a visual resource necessary. Open Space and Conservation Element Policy 13-B requires that development proposals, including additions and alterations to existing buildings, incorporate protection of the natural profile ofridgelines as visual resources. The proposed Project is sited furthest away from the street, impacting the natural profile of the ridgeline.
Further, LU Policy 2.1 states:
"Maintain the diversity and uniqueness of individual neighborhoods. Development standards and Design Review guidelines shall minimize the scale and bulk of new construction and/or renovation and require development to be compatible with the 23 The Laguna Beach Land Use Element of the General Plan is a component of the City's Certified LCP.
Attachment 4
119
119 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
surrounding residences. Goal: Preserve, enhance and respect the unique character and identity of Laguna's residential neighborhoods. "
The area of the proposed Project is characterized by older hillside development and custom homes that have a lower appearance of mass. Older homes tend to be smaller than newer homes and most homes in the area are downslope and are accessed from the road above.
Homes constructed down a slope are less massive when viewed from the street above because most of the building is out of direct sight below the upper level. These downslope homes are more visible from lower and typically more distant vantage points and as a result, the mass is not perceived more acutely. Additionally, these downslope homes are typically developed with short driveways (a car length or less) leading to a garage or carport. A more limited number of homes are built up from the street with short driveways leading to a garage. Few homes are developed with longer sloping driveways leading up to a home located at a higher elevation than the street. Hornes built up from a street appear more massive because the viewer is closer and is looking up while on the street.
The proposed three-level, single-family home would sit atop a series of retaining walls within the building envelope that add to the overall bulk of development. The design of the retaining walls, including the materials, color, and landscaping will not sufficiently soften the appearance of mass. The overall height of the building and retaining walls would be approximately 50 feet above the center of the proposed driveway where it intersects the street to the top of the highest roof. The overall height of the building and retaining walls would be approximately 49 feet above the street at the center of the property to the proposed deck guardrail above the great room. The appearance of building mass would be excessive if the Project were developed as designed.
LU Policy 2.8 states:
"Require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated with natural topographic features, minimize significant alteration of natural topography and/or other significant onsite resources, and protect public views as specified in the Design Guidelines and the Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document.
Goal: Preserve, enhance and respect the unique character and identity of Laguna's residential neighborhoods. "
The proposed Project is inconsistent with this LU policy. The discussion and facts presented under Coastal Development Permit criteria #6 is incorporated herein by reference, support finding the Project inconsistent with Policy LU 2.8 and are incorporated herein by reference.
Finally, LU Policies 7.3 and 10.2 require the following:
"Design and site new development to protect natural and environmentally sensitive resources, such as areas of unique scenic quality, public views, and visual compatibility with surrounding uses and to minimize natural landform alterations.
GOAL: Protect, preserve, and enhance the community's natural resources and Attachment 4
120
120 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
ensure that proposals for new development, subdivisions, and major remodels are sufficiently evaluated to protect public health and safety and natural resources. " The proposed Project is inconsistent with this LU policy. The discussion and facts presented under Coastal Development Permit criteria #6 is incorporated herein by reference, support finding the Project inconsistent with Policy LU Policies 7.3 and 10.2 and are incorporated herein by reference. The proposed Project is not designed in such a way as to be visually compatible with the surrounding uses.
Coastal Land Use Plan Technical Appendix Section 30251 The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural landforms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and where feasible to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. New development in highly scenic areas ... shall be subordinate to the character of its setting.
For the above reasons, the proposed Project is not sited and designed to minimize the alteration of natural landforms. The long, winding driveway and siting of the Project either atop or close to the top of the ridgeline results in grading and alteration of the natural landform. This is incompatible with the character of the surrounding area where homes are either built downslope or if built upslope, they have short driveways leading to a garage.
Few homes are developed with longer sloping driveways leading up to a home located at a higher elevation than the street and the proposed Project would be the most imposing and visually impactful in the area."
While the Board Resolution speaks for itself, it is worth noting that the Board did appropriately deny the CDP based on inability to make the required findings and justified such inability to make the findings on certain facts and also worth emphasizing that the Board identified issues with the siting of the structures at the top of the hill as opposed to the bottom of the hill, closer to the right of way.
Further, while not specifically addressed in the Board Resolution, it is worth adding to the City Council's consideration that the Project may also result in undue risks from fire hazards in light of the siting of the structures which relies on the revocable encroachment permit and would permanently remove the City's ability to widen Bluebird Canyon Drive in front of the Property. In order to approve a coastal development permit, the decision-making body must consider whether the "proposed development ... will not result in undue risks from ... fire hazards." (See LBMC Section 25.07.012 (F)(5).) City staff also believes that the Project, as proposed, will result in undue risks from fire hazards, based on the analysis herein.
The Board did not commit an abuse of discretion in denying CDP 24-2510.
C. DR 25-2509 for the new single-family dwelling and garage, vehicular access, elevated decks, spa, grading, retaining walls, trash enclosure in the front setback, and landscaping pursuant to LBMC Section 25.05.040(B)(l)
Attachment 4
121
121 of 922
Appeal of the Denial ofDR24-2509, CDP 24-2510, and REP 24-2511 at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive August 12, 2025
The City's Design Review process is also part of the City's Certified LCP since it is part of Title 25. While an accessory dwelling unit is exempt from design review under the City's certified LCP2 4, the remainder of
the development discussed under DR is not exempt from design review under the City's certified LCP.
As reflected in Board Resolution 24-2509 (Attachment 3), the Board denied DR 24-2509 based on its inability to make Finding 1 (Criteria 2 (Design Articulation), Criteria 4 (Environmental Context), Criteria 5 (General Plan Compliance), Criteria 6 (Lighting and Glare), and Criteria 8 (Neighborhood Compatibility) in order to approve the permit under Laguna Beach Municipal Code Chapter 25.05.040 (Design Review), as reflected below:
"SECTION 5. As part of the City's certified Local Coastal Prograrn,25 the Design Review Board hereby denies Design Review 24-2509 based on the following findings:
Finding No. 1: The proposed physical improvements and site development related to the Project are not designed and located in overall consistency with the Design Review criteria specified in Sections 25.05.040(H)(2), 25.05.040(H)(4), 25.05.040(H)(5), 25.05.040(H)(8),
25.05.040(H)(9), as set forth below:
2. Design Articulation: Within the allowable building envelope, the appearance of building and retaining wall mass should be minimized. Articulation techniques including, but not limited to, separation, offsets, terracing and reducing the size of any one element in the structure may be used to reduce the appearance of mass.
No. The proposed three-level, single-family home would sit atop a series of retaining walls within the building envelope that add to the overall bulk of development. The design of the retaining walls, including the materials, color, and landscaping will not sufficiently soften the appearance of mass. The overall height of the building and retaining walls would be approximately 50 feet above the center of the proposed driveway where it intersects the street to the top of the highest roof. The overall height of the building and retaining walls would be approximately 49 feet above the street at the center of the property to the proposed deck guardrail above the great room. The appearance of building mass would be excessive if the Project were developed as designed and in the proposed location. Lowering of the Project (but keeping the same square footage) such that it is closer to the street was mentioned as a possible solution; however, the Applicant declined to make such a change to the Project.
24 LBMC § 25.05.040(B)(2)(s).
25 Throughout the Project's review, the Applicant and his counsel have argued that because of SB 450 and the Housing Accountability Act, the City is prohibited from imposing any subjective criteria whatsoever on the Project. However, both SB 450 and the Housing Accountability Act explicitly require that the City comply with the Coastal Act- which is implemented in the City via its certified Local Coastal Program. Thus, as part of its mandatory duty to implement the requirements and standards of Coastal Act, the City is applying the Design Review criteria as its part of this certified Local Coastal Program.
Attachment 4
122
122 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
4. Environmental Context: Development should preserve and, where possible, enhance the city's scenic natural setting. Natural features, such as existing heritage trees, rock outcropping, ridgelines and significant watercourses should be protected Existing terrain should be utilized in the design and grading should be minimized No. The Project alters and develops the entire lot leaving no area of the site in a natural or near natural condition despite the installation of ornamental landscaping.
5. General Plan Compliance: The development shall comply with all applicable policies of the General Plan, including all of its elements, applicable specific plans, and the certified local coastal program.
Open Space and Conservation Element Policy 13-B Require that development proposals, including additions and alterations to existing buildings, incorporate protection of the natural profile of ridge lines as visual resources.
Inconsistent. The proposed Project as presented to the Design Review Board would alter and obscure the entire property to a point that the natural profile of the site would be developed and obscured. The Bluebird Canyon area is an enclave of predominantly hillside and ridgeline development between two open space canyon areas that is largely surrounded by additional higher ridgeline and hillside development to the northwest, n01ih, and southeast. A public access trail provides public views of the Project site from the northeast.
As a result, the site is highly visible from many surrounding homes and publicly accessible scenic viewing points making protection of the natural profile of the ridgeline on the Project site as a visual resource necessary.
Land Use Element (LU) Policy 2.1 Maintain the diversity and uniqueness of individual neighborhoods. Development standards and Design Review guidelines shall minimize the scale and bulk of new construction and/or renovation and require development to be compatible with the surrounding residences. Goal: Preserve, enhance and respect the unique character and identity of Laguna's residential neighborhoods.
Inconsistent. The area is characterized by older hillside development and custom homes that have a lower appearance of mass. Older homes tend to be smaller than newer homes and most homes in the area are downslope and are accessed from the road above. Homes constructed down a slope are less massive when viewed from the street above because most of the building is out of direct sight below the upper level. These downslope homes are more visible from lower and typically more distant vantage points and as a result, the mass is not perceived more acutely. Additionally, these downslope homes are typically developed with short driveways (a car length or less) leading to a garage or carport. A more limited number of homes are built up from the street with short driveways leading to a garage. Few homes are developed with longer sloping driveways leading up to a home located at a higher elevation than the street. Homes built up from a street appear more massive because the viewer is closer and is looking up.
Attachment 4
123
123 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
The proposed three-level, single-family home would sit atop a series of retaining walls within the building envelope that add to the overall bulk of development. The design of the retaining walls, including the materials, color, and landscaping will not sufficiently soften the appearance of mass. The overall height of the building and retaining walls would be approximately 50 feet above the center of the proposed driveway where it intersects the street to the top of the highest roof. The overall height of the building and retaining walls would be approximately 49 feet above the street at the center of the property to the proposed deck guardrail above the great room. The appearance of building mass would be excessive if the Project were developed as designed.
Land Use Element Policy 2.8 Require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated with natural topographic features, minimize significant alteration of natural topography and/or other significant onsite resources, and protect public views as specified in the Design Guidelines and the Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document.
Goal: Preserve, enhance and respect the unique character and identity of Laguna's residential neighborhoods.
Inconsistent. The discussion and facts presented under design criteria #2 Design Articulation and #4 Environmental Context, incorporated herein by reference, support finding the Project inconsistent with Policy LU 2.8 and are incorporated herein by reference.
Land Use Element Policies 7.3 and Policy 10.2 Design and site new development to protect natural and environmentally sensitive resources, such as areas of unique scenic quality, public views, and visual compatibility with surrounding uses and to minimize natural landform alterations. GOAL: Protect, preserve, and enhance the community's natural resources and ensure that proposals for new development, subdivisions, and major remodels are sufficiently evaluated to protect public health and safety and natural resources.
Inconsistent. The discussion and facts presented under design criteria #2 Design Articulation, and #4 Environmental Context, and LU Policy 2.1, incorporated herein by reference, support finding the Project inconsistent with Policy LU 7.3 and Policy 10.2.
8. Lighting and Glare: Adequate lighting for individual and public safety shall be provided in a manner which does not significantly impact neighboring properties. Reflective materials and appurtenances that cause glare or a negative visual impact (e.g., skylights, white rock roofs, high-gloss ceramic tile roofs, reflective glass, etc.) should be avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance in those locations where those surfaces are visible from neighboring properties.
No. The north, south and west elevations would be highly visible from surrounding properties. The north elevation has approximately 50% of the wall area as windows. The Attachment 4
124
124 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
south elevation has approximately 55% of the wall area as windows. The west elevation also has approximately 55% of the wall area as windows. The amount of proposed window glazing will result in excessive sun reflection during certain hours of the day that cannot be mitigated by interior window coverings or window tinting and interior light illumination at night detracting from the more rural character of the area.
9. Neighborhood Compatibility: Development shall be compatible with the existing development in the neighborhood and respect neighborhood character. Neighborhood character is the sum of the qualities that distinguish areas within the city including historical patterns of development (e.g., structural heights, mass, scale or size), village atmosphere, landscaping themes and architectural styles.
No. The Bluebird Canyon neighborhood is characterized by understated hillside development with vehicular access to garages being provided (predominantly) directly from the street without long sloping driveways and exposed retaining walls. The proposed Project would create a long sloping driveway to a motor court requiring additional grading and retaining walls that are not typically found in the neighborhood. The discussion and facts presented under design criteria #2 Design Articulation, and #4 Environmental Context, and LU Policy 2.1, incorporated herein by reference, support finding the Project inconsistent with this Design Review criterion."
While the Board Resolution speaks for itself, it is worth noting that the Board did appropriately deny the DR based on inability to make the required findings and justified such inability to make the findings on certain facts and also worth emphasizing that the Board identified issues with the siting of the structures at the top of the hill as opposed to the bottom of the hill, closer to the right of way.
The Board did not commit an abuse of discretion in denying DR 24-2509.
Conclusion
As reflected in the Board Resolution, a majority of the Board found the Project excessive in terms of mass and siting of the building (not square footage) and the long driveway and exposed retaining walls. While only one member explicitly mentioned relocating or re-siting the structure, the record reflects that all three had substantive concerns about the siting of the structures. As indicated by Chair Gibbs, the Project could be designed to terrace the building into the slope to maintain the Applicant's proposed floor area. The Applicant proposed a living area totaling 3,443 square feet, which includes a 1,000-square-foot ADU. The Applicant's contention that a re-siting of the home would cause an unprecedented loss of substantial property rights of the owner is unexplained in the Appeal. As indicated above, the Board majority did not direct a reduced program.
Moreover, the Applicant's living area compares favorably to a new single-family home project on an adjoining lot that was approved by the City Council only recently. On April 22, 2025, the City Council denied an appeal of the Board's approval of DR 23-0919 and CDP 23-0921 for a new single-family Attachment 4
125
125 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
residence with an attached two-car garage and an attached ADU at 1536 Morningside Drive26. As indicated in the comparison table below, the 1536 Morningside Drive project is slightly smaller than the Applicant's proposed Project, with 3,219 square feet of living area proposed. The Applicant's lot is also substantially smaller (approximately by 38%).
Description Sub.iect Property 1536 Morningside Dr.
Lot Area 8,582 S.F. 13,866 S.F.
Living Area (SFD) 2,442.82 S.F. 2,371.9 S.F.
Living Area (ADU) 999.87 S.F. 847.2 S.F.
TOTAL LIVING AREA 3,442.69 S.F. 3,219.1 S.F.
Garage 534.87 S.F. 564.5 S.F.
Elevated Deck 934.52 S.F. 397.4 S.F.
Mechanical 50.17S.F. 197.6 S.F.
TOTAL PROGRAM 4,962.25 S.F. 4,378.6 S.F.
2. "The Board majority made false and unsupported assumptions regarding the appearance of mass and scale as it relates to the project siting and based on subjective criteria." Staff's Response
The Board's evaluation of mass and scale was based on the City's certified LCP, including the Coastal Development Permit findings, which require an analysis of whether the "proposed development will be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas" (Finding No. 1, Criteria No. 6) and whether the proposed development complies with the applicable provisions of the certified LCP (Finding No. 2), such as Land Use Element Policy 2.1, which states "development standards shall minimize the scale and bulk of new construction ... and require development to be compatible with the surrounding residences"; and Land Use Element Policy 2.8. which states "require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated with natural topographic features." The evaluation of mass and .scale is also required for the Design Review findings, which requires "within the allowable building envelope, the appearance of building and retaining wall mass should be minimized" (Finding No. 1, Criteria 2) and compliance with the certified LCP (Finding No. 1, Criteria 5), as previously noted above under the CDP findings.
The concern regarding mass and scale was not an arbitrary or unsupported assumption, but rather a response to proposed location of the home. The most noteworthy condition being the significant height of the proposed structure above the highest point of the lot and its projection well above the natural knoll.27 26 In staffs opinion, this is the most comparable property because (1) both projects are situated on the knoll and are potentially the first projects to be developed following the 2004 lot line adjustment (LLA 04-01) which established the four existing legal building sites in their current configuration; (2) both are recent or currently pending projects; (3) both have ADUs; and (4) the subject lot's general characteristics (lot area, width, depth, topography) make it more similar to other lots on the knoll, than to other lots in the neighborhood. Although 1526 Morningside Drive was discussed during the underlying hearing and is located on the same knoll, it was remanded from the City Council to the Board with further direction. 27 In particular, refer to Design Review Board Resolution No. 24-2509, CDP Finding No. I (Criteria No. 6) and Finding No. 2, and Design Review Finding No. I (Criteria Nos. 2 and 5).
Attachment 4
126
126 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
Board members noted that the elevated finish floor of the garage, relative to the street and surrounding properties, contributes to a perceived bulk inconsistent with other development in the immediate vicinity.
The Project's siting does not sufficiently step with the hillside, which the Board found to be out of character compared to adjacent homes that are better integrated into the existing grade.
These findings were informed by a combination of site-specific measurements (such as the street width) and the Applicant's submitted plans and elevations. The Board's concerns reflect consistency with prior decisions and a thorough application of the certified LCP, which is intended to coastal resources.
3. "The Board majority disregarded factual evidence provided by the Applicant proving that other approved and completed projects possessed similar siting, garage locations, and access driveways, capriciously claiming such findings were not applicable to the subject property and arbitrarily deeming that the project design is not neighborhood compatible." Staff's Response
The Board did not disregard factual evidence from the Applicant but instead evaluated the proposed project within the specific context of the subject site, as required by the certified LCP which emphases a case-bycase review with sensitivity to localized conditions, such as topography, access constraints, and surrounding development patterns. Indeed, as reflected in the Board Resolution, the Board considered all public testimony on the proposed Project and all relevant public comments, and all documents and evidence submitted, including but not limited to the staff report, attachments, and materials presented by the Applicant and the Project architect for both the January 23, 2025 and May 22, 2025 public hearings.
While the Applicant referenced other approved projects with similar siting or driveway configurations, the Board correctly noted that the knoll is unique, for various reasons including, larger lots with different lot widths and depths and the steep topography from the road to top of the knoll, which flattens out at the top.
Referencing those projects was not sufficient justification for replicating similar conditions under current design expectations and code requirements. In fact, the Board explicitly acknowledged the need for creative solutions that address modern development criteria and are compatible with today's standards, especially regarding garage placement, grading, and access along Bluebird Canyon Drive. The Board's findings were not arbitrary but were based on observable differences in site conditions, including the narrowed width of Bluebird Canyon Drive access, the elevated position of the proposed garage slab, and the deviation from the building heights of adjacent homes. These objective differences supported the conclusion that the proposed configuration does not adequately meet the findings for the DR, CDP, and REP.
Rather than dismissing the Applicant's evidence, the Board weighed it alongside other critical factors, such as fire access, hillside grading, visual compatibility, ridgeline development, and public safety, and determined that a more thoughtful and integrated design was necessary to make the DR, CDP, and REP findings.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolution denying the appeal and sustaining the Board's denial of Design Review 24-2509, Coastal Development Permit 24-2510, and Revocable Encroachment Permit 24-2511 and finding the denial of the Project as exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15270.
Attachment 4
127
127 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
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The recommended action has no financial impact.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The recommended action of upholding the denial of a project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15270 of the CEQA Guidelines because CEQA does not apply to projects that a public agency rejects or disapproves. Alternatively, if the City Council decides to sustain the appeal and reverse the decision of the Board, the City Council should analyze the Project's qualification for a categorical exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15303 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, since the Project consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small structures.
ATTACHMENTS
1. City Council Resolution (Pgs. 41 -61)
2. Aerial Map (Pg. 62)
3. DRB Denial Resolution No. 24-2509 (Pgs. 63-71)
4. Appeal (Pgs. 72-73)
5. January 23, 2025 DRB Staff Report (Pgs. 74-89)
6. January 23, 2025 DRB Minutes (Pgs. 90-109)
7. January 23, 2025 DRB Public Comments (Pgs. 110-154)
8. January 23, 2025 DRB Project Plans (Pgs. 155-184)
9. January 23, 2025 DRB AM&M (Pgs. 185-225)
10. January 23, 2025 DRB Geotechnical Report (Pgs. 226-335)
11. January 23, 2025 DRB Transcript (Pgs. 336-352)
12. May 22, 2025 DRB Staff Report (Pgs. 353-377)
13. May 22, 2025 DRB Minutes (Pgs. 378-394)
14. May 22, 2025 DRB Public Comments (Pgs. 395-436)
15. May 22, 2025 DRB Plans (Pgs. 437-467)
16. May 22, 2025 DRB Transcript (Pgs. 468-507)
17. Public Notice (Pg. 508)
18. Wildfire Egress Study
https://www.lagunabeachcity.net/home/ showpublisheddocument/ 102 80/ 63 77 6207 48 84 5 3 0000
19. Order of Testimony (Pg. 509)
20. June 12, 2025 DRB Transcript (Pgs. 510-513)
Report Prepared By:
Daniel Latham, Associate Planner
Coordinated With:
Patrick Donegan, Assistant City Attorney
Jane Abzug, Assistant City Attorney
Anthony Viera, Planning Manager
Attachment 4
128
128 of 922
Attachment 5
129
129 of 922
Attachment 5
130
130 of 922
Attachment 5
131
131 of 922
Attachment 5
132
132 of 922
Attachment 5
133
133 of 922
Attachment 5
134
134 of 922
Attachment 5
135
135 of 922
Attachment 5
136
136 of 922
Attachment 5
137
137 of 922
Attachment 5
138
138 of 922
Attachment 5
139
139 of 922
Attachment 5
140
140 of 922
Attachment 5
141
141 of 922
Attachment 6
142
142 of 922
Attachment 6
143
143 of 922
Attachment 6
144
144 of 922
Attachment 6
145
145 of 922
Attachment 7
146
146 of 922
Attachment 7
147
147 of 922
Attachment 7
148
148 of 922
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 24-2510 and CEQA Statutory Exemption for a new single-family home with an attached two-car garage and accessory dwelling unit at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive (Lot B) 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 24-2509, 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 July 23, 2024, by David Parker and is assigned application number CDP 24-2510. 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 8 149
149 of 922
This transcript was exported on Dec 03, 2025 - view latest version here. 1550 BBC - November 13 2025 - 3rd DRB Meeting - Trim
Transcript by Rev.com
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
Agenda item 5.10, 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive, lot A, Coastal Development Permit 24-2588, Design Review 24-2586. Ex parte, please.
Louis Weil:
Chair, I spoke with Susan Whitten, Harpal, Vera, Peter, Steve Kortani. And then I wrote down JB and I'm drawing a blank on who that was.
MJ Coveny:
And I met Steve at the site and I spoke with Susan Whitten and Harpal Sadal.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
And I met Steve Kartani at the site. I spoke to Susan, Harpal, I believe JB Horner and one other person. I thought it was Peter Grumman, but I don't think it was. It might've been Vera Wilman. Oh, it was you.
What's your name?
Roseanne:
Rosanne.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
Rosanne. Yeah, she was there.
Louis Weil:
Rosanne was there when I was there too.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
Yeah, Roseanne was there too. I knew there was another person. I just couldn't remember.
Emir Bauta:
Chair, I also spoke with the project applicant.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
Oh, that's right [inaudible 00:01:17].
Emir Bauta:
Steve Kartani and Susan Wynn.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
Who's doing the staff report, Bill?
Bill Rodriguez:
I am doing the staff report.
Attachment 9 150
150 of 922
This transcript was exported on Dec 03, 2025 - view latest version here. 1550 BBC - November 13 2025 - 3rd DRB Meeting - Trim
Transcript by Rev.com
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
It better be good.
Bill Rodriguez:
So thank you, Jared Gibbs. And good evening board members. Bill Rodriguez for the community development department. Project Planner Daniel Latham was unable to join us this evening, so I'll be filling in. As the board knows, this item has been before you several times or two times before. This is the item's third hearing before the Design Review Board. And pursuant to our municipal code, a decision needs to be rendered on it tonight. Patrick and I are going to tag team a little bit on this presentation, so I'll do a couple of introductory slides and then turn it over to him. And then back to me and wrap it up.
So the project site, as you know, is located at 1550 Bluebird Canyon Road. This area, it's surrounded.
There's Morningside on one side of this hill or this knoll area. Bluebird on one other side. There are several properties that make up this knoll. Several of them have been received entitlements but are not developed, although there is an adjacent property that is developed that sits at a slightly lower elevation, at the nose of that knoll. And other properties located beyond, higher up Bluebird Canyon and Morningside. They're also developed with some residential projects.
Obviously, residential does exist on the downhill side of Bluebird Canyon across the street and has existed so for many years. Property is also unique in the sense that the developable portion of the lot sits a lot higher than the street, somewhere in the neighborhood of maybe 10 or 12, 13 feet above the actual road elevation. The applicant for this 1550 Bluebird Canyon site is proposing a new single family home. There's an attached two car garage. The site will have three parking spaces that are elevated decks, a lot of glazing on the elevation of the building, spas, reflecting ponds, site grading for development as well as site landscaping are all proposed. At this point, I'm going to ask Patrick to jump in. There's some city council relevant, maybe city council direction that the board should consider. So Patrick will give you a brief overview of that.
Patrick Donegan:
Sure. Thanks, Bill. And as I'm sure this board is aware, review of this project and the next item at 1560 are a bit unique for a variety of reasons, most of which are outlined in the staff report. Most germane for your guys' discussion tonight is that the city council has provided some direction in the context of its review of 1560, which they remanded back to this board, which we'll hear next. However, that direction is applicable to both that project and this one before you currently. In short, in an effort to harmonize the city's obligation under the state housing laws and its Coastal Act requirements under its certified LCP, the city council directed the DRB to only apply those objective standards in the DR entitlement, which were listed in your staff report. And then for the CDP, when examining and applying the facts to the required findings, the DRB should identify and gear any discussion towards the protection of an explicit identifiable coastal resource.
Practically and legally, I would agree that in trying to harmonize these seemingly competing authorities, state housing laws, and their intent to only apply objective design standards with the unequivocally subjective criteria in our CDP findings, that it is a more sound argument if the city's analysis and basis is directly connected to a coastal resource as compared to say just visual compatibility with the character of a surrounding area without identifying how that finding protects a coastal resource. So my advice to you all today is that any discussion on the CDP clearly identify a coastal resource. The city council is the ultimate city decision maker and arbiter of city policy. Here they have provided guidance, and that provided should be given deference. Back to you, Bill.
Attachment 9 151
151 of 922
This transcript was exported on Dec 03, 2025 - view latest version here. 1550 BBC - November 13 2025 - 3rd DRB Meeting - Trim
Transcript by Rev.com
Bill Rodriguez:
Thank you, Patrick. So I believe the sign was back in front of this board, I want to say back in August of this year. At that point in time, there was quite a bit of discussion about some revocable encroachment permit application, and analysis of what was located within the right-of-way, maybe some grade differential discussion. Since that conversation happened, the applicant has gone back. They've made some changes to the project. Most notably is that everything related to the REP has been moved out of the right-of-way and placed on private property. As a result of that, the REP application has been removed. We are no longer considering that application. The only things that are occurring within the right-of-way would be some landform modifications, some small grading activities, and there will be a small curb, create a little bit maybe of just a little planter area and define an on street parking space through that.
But that curb is no different than the six-inch curbs that you would see throughout the city, and is not subject to an REP, but instead just a permit through the Public Works Department itself. Staff spent a lot of time working with the applicant team on making sure that the way that the site driveway would conform with our code, making sure that the grades were correct, making sure the dimensions were correct, making sure that all the retaining walls, including their foundations, are located on private property, making sure that the design of the driveway and the driveway apron from the site, which is located within the public right-of-way within that parkway discussion that I described on the previous application, conform with the city engineering department's standard plans. In terms of the driveway profile and all of the code required gradients, we do find that the driveway is in full compliance with the code.
There have been a few other modifications made to the plans, but nothing substantial in terms of the design of the house, the elevation of the house, the height of the house. I think those are all substantially similar to what the board had seen before. I know the applicant team and the architect is here and they have a presentation that includes a number of slides that they can run through that will show more of the details of the house itself. As the board will remember, staff has been supportive of the project the previous times that it has come before your consideration. Tonight, staff continues to support the project. And so, with that, I will recommend that you conduct your public hearing and adopt the Design Review Board resolutions approving the Design Review application and the Coastal Development Permit, and finding the project exempt pursuant to CEQA. So that will conclude my remarks. Thank you.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
Okay. Just a question for you, Patrick. The way I read the city council's findings was that the Coastal Development Permit findings and criteria adequately protect coastal resources. As I understood it, and I listened to the hearing and I read the documents, the city council is still looking for us to make the findings required for the issuance of a Coastal Development Permit. Is that right? Patrick Donegan:
That is a fair statement. The only thing that I would add, editorialize, is that there be an explicit coastal resource identified when reviewing and making those findings.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
Okay. And I understand that. That's not actually in the findings set forth in the Coastal Development Permit as approved by the local coastal plan. So I'll address that when I get to my comments as to Attachment 9 152
152 of 922
This transcript was exported on Dec 03, 2025 - view latest version here. 1550 BBC - November 13 2025 - 3rd DRB Meeting - Trim
Transcript by Rev.com
whether we have to identify... Is there anything the city council stated in their resolution that required us to identify the specific coastal resource? Maybe I'll ask that. In other words, did the city council direct that we identify a specificEmir Bauta:
I think I could answer this. I think they specifically said do not apply the Design Review criteriaThomas Gibbs - Chair:
No, I understand that.
Emir Bauta:
... if the project meets SB 450.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
Right. I get that. But I'm asking a different question, Ima, which is... I want to make sure we understand the groundwork. Did the city council specifically direct us to identify a coastal resource in making the determinations for the Coastal Development Permit, including criteria five and six? Patrick Donegan:
And so let me double check the resolution.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
Yeah, I did not see it in there. If it is, I'd like to know. Because I don't want to impose a requirement on this board that was not required by the city council. So why don't you look at that? Let's proceed to open the public hearing and the applicant team has five minutes.
Horst Noppenenberger:
Good evening, Design Review Board members. I'm Horst Noppenenberger from Horst Architects, project architect for David Durnayus. We have just a very quick slide presentation. I'll be sharing my time this evening with Morgan, who's sitting to my left. Can we go to just the first slide, please? While we're in this transition, just wanted to reiterate what Bill just outlined. Our primary change to the project was to eliminate any of the previously proposed improvements in the right-of-way that would've required the revocable encroachment permit. So that's been satisfied and that's been reviewed by the city.
Additionally, we added three mature palo verde trees to the downhill elevation to further mitigate the appearance of massive scale. Doesn't look like our slide presentation's coming up.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
It's growing kind of late. If you could proceed without it. Otherwise, of course, if you want it, I'll pause your time. We've seen the project. You didn't change the project.
Horst Noppenenberger:
Yeah.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
Attachment 9 153
153 of 922
This transcript was exported on Dec 03, 2025 - view latest version here. 1550 BBC - November 13 2025 - 3rd DRB Meeting - Trim
Transcript by Rev.com
You did change the REP, and I understand that.
Horst Noppenenberger:
Okay. I'm going to really reach my time today.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
Okay, thank you.
Morgan Gallagher:
Okay.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
Oh, we're up now.
Morgan Gallagher:
Do you want to mention?
Horst Noppenenberger:
Oh, there it is.
Morgan Gallagher:
Yeah.
Horst Noppenenberger:
No, I have nothing to add. Go ahead, please.
Morgan Gallagher:
Okay, great. Thanks. Good evening, board members. My name is Morgan Gallagher with Cox, Castle & Nicholson. I want to focus my comments on the limit of your discretion. And Mr. Rodriguez and Mr.
Donegan touched on this. I just want to make this very clear. The projects are covered by both SB 450 and the Housing Accountability Act. We know that. The city council made it clear that DR criteria does not apply. There's no REP. As we discussed, the REP has been removed from the project entirely. That leaves the CDP. As Mr. Donegan just said, we need a coastal resource to make any subjective findings under the CDP. That's very clear in the law. And the city council made that very clear, an explicit coastal resource. Coastal resources are specifically outlined in chapter three of the Coastal Act. It's public views, natural resources, and coastal resources, meaning access to the coast and other marine resources. What it is not, is a natural profile of a site or the natural beauty of a site or anything else that's not outlined in chapter three of the Coastal Act.
The city has confirmed multiple times, including in the staff report, that there are no public views on or near the site. There's no natural features, heritage trees, rock outcroppings, sensitive habitat, ridge lines, or other significant water courses, absolutely no natural features and no public views. The project is not along the coast. There's no way it could implicate public access to the coast or marine resources, so there are no coastal resources on this property. Meaning that none of the LCP subjective criteria can be applied to this project through the CDP. Even if there was a coastal resource, which there is not, the Attachment 9 154
154 of 922
1550 BBC - November 13 2025 - 3rd DRB Meeting - Trim
Transcript by Rev.com
This transcript was exported on Dec 03, 2025 - view latest version here. city would have had to identify that coastal resource and the project's inconsistency with that resource a long time ago. It is way too late for the city under either SB 450 or the Housing Accountability Act to raise an inconsistency now. SB 450 requires a timeline of 60 days. The Housing Accountability Act requires 30 days for the city to identify an inconsistency. And that never happened.
The city does not have the discretion tonight to say any aspect of the project is inconsistent with city standards or policies. Since the city's staff has confirmed that the project does not require an REP, does not implicate coastal resources and meets all objective standards, which we greatly appreciate Mr.
Rodriguez and his team confirming both those points in the staff reports for both projects, the DRB does not have the discretion to deny the projects under either SB 450 or the Housing Accountability Act. You must approve the projects tonight. If you deny them, the applicant will exercise all legal remedies available to him. And a denial would be such an obvious and egregious violation of state housing law that he would easily win. We urge you not to go down that path and we'd like to remind you of the Pearl Street case and the city's $2.5 million settlement. We do not want to see that happen. This would be worse for the city. We urge you to approve the projects tonight.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
Thank you very much. Members of the public, you'll have two minutes each, please.
Harpal Sadal:
Good evening, Chair and members of the DRB. Harpal Sadal. I'll be brief in my remarks. I'll let the photos do the talking for us. So we're talking about what is legally applicable, legally required here. If you look at the photos that are in front of you, they really speak to compatibility under 2.8 of the land use element. And if you look at the homes that are proposed, they're 52 and 55 feet above the street grade.
They're very large in size. They're elevated garage floors. And if you look at the 15 homes that the applicant has provided in the past as to comparables, none of them are applicable. And I understand that there's a different set of criteria that you guys are being given here about coastal resources, but we still believe that the neighborhood compatibility element is important. You can see that there are measures of the height of these other 15 homes which have existed in this neighborhood for decades and decades. And it is subjective criteria that you can look at and go on. Thank you.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
Thank you very much. Next speaker.
Susan Whitin:
At the city council meeting in August, our city attorney pointed out that SB 9 and SB 450 projects must be in conformance with objective requirements of our certified LCP under the Coastal Act. These include the Coastal Development Permit findings, land use policies, and Title 25 of the municipal code, which require projects to minimize landform alterations, and for development to be compatible with surrounding areas in terms of structural height, mass, scale, and size. Objective metrics within the LCP, such as structural height, mass, scale, and size, provide a basis on which to make findings. The objective metrics of 1550 and 1560 developments demonstrate that the required LCP findings cannot be made for finding one, criteria five and six, nor for Title 25 review standards 2505040H, nor for land use policies 2.1 and 2.8.
The proposed projects are not approvable as proposed due to privacy relationships related to the floor plan. The structural height and mass are objectively not compatible with the surrounding area. Roughly Attachment 9 155
155 of 922
This transcript was exported on Dec 03, 2025 - view latest version here. 1550 BBC - November 13 2025 - 3rd DRB Meeting - Trim
Transcript by Rev.com
90% of both landforms will be altered. And the houses are not integrated into the landforms to reduce the structural height and scale. The metrics also identify and compare the measurable differences from the Morningside project on the other side of the knoll, such that the same findings cannot be made for 1550 and 1560 as 1536. This is a challenging situation. Mr. Durnayus has a right to build on his properties. Houses with the same specs and different configurations are approvable for these projects.
At previous meetings, DRB provided a roadmap to approve the projects. The applicant has not made a good faith effort to make substantive changes suggested by the DRB and the neighborhood. Because the objective metrics and findings in the LCP cannot be made as required by law under the Coastal Act, I respectfully request that DRB deny these projects.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
Thank you very much. Next speaker.
Mary Fagris:
Almost good morning, members of the Design Review Board. Mary Fagris, 1561 Morningside Drive. My husband and I request that you deny this project. We cannot be threatened to not use our local coastal plan. These are documents that reflect our community. They have for years. There are many things about this that we've tried to work out with the landowner to no avail. And it doesn't seem right that we have to give in when really we have documents in our city that say this does not fit in our neighborhood.
Please deny the project. Thank you.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
Thank you very much. Next speaker.
William Horner:
William Horner, also known as JB Horner, to clear up the confusion earlier. 1565 Bluebird. I think given the difficulty of the project, obviously there's a lot of frustration. I think there have been very reasonable pass forward to get an approved project. I think fundamentally it comes down to a trade-off between either the site planning being on top of the hill or integrating into it. I think there's plenty of trade-offs and concessions that could have been made. I think there's been a lot of rigidity around that. I think that's how we have ended up where we are today. Given a lot of the intimidation and threatening tactics, I do encourage the board to use all the tools available to you to encourage compliance and compatibility. Thank you.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
Thank you very much. Next speaker.
Eileen Slora:
Good morning. Eileen Slora, 1545 Bluebird Canyon Drive. I ask that this project not be approved. There was no good faith effort made to make changes to the design as was recommended by the Design Review Board and concerned neighbors. The proposed project design is not compatible with the surrounding area in size and height, as Harpal has done the diagram for you. There has been no integration with the house to the landform as required by the LCP. Thank you.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
Attachment 9 156
156 of 922
1550 BBC - November 13 2025 - 3rd DRB Meeting - Trim
Transcript by Rev.com
This transcript was exported on Dec 03, 2025 - view latest version here.
Thank you much. Any other speakers? Seeing none. I return to the applicant. You have three minutes.
Mr. Durnayus:
You can hand these out. Just one moment while she prepares.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
You can go ahead, Mr. Durnayus.
Mr. Durnayus:
So the bottom line for this project is that when I bought the property and split it up, the staff at the city last year approved the final map under SB 9 at the time, which is now protected by SB 450.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
450.
Mr. Dyrnaes:
At that time, the city made a commitment to follow those guidelines. And they're fairly straightforward that this project is not subject to subjective reviews. These particular things that they're bringing up now have very little to do with anything that you have in front of you to decide. And really, Louis came down very consistently the last three meetings saying that what he wants to see is he wants to see the removal of the structures in the right-of-wayThomas Gibbs - Chair:
Can you speak a little closer? I'm having trouble hearing you.
Mr. Dyrnaes:
Sorry. He wants to see the removal of the structures in the right-of-way, which we did on both properties. And he wanted to see the homes lowered. Well, first of all, the homes themselves are already an average of only under 12 feet above standard grade. There is a peak of nearly 15 feet on both properties, but that's because of the slope and the fact that we have a second floor on each one. But ultimately, that's already a 15-foot limit that's half what it is normally because it is a standard that the city has to protect it that we don't put 30 foot high buildings on the top of hills. So we're already under a restricted environment. But none of that matters in the sense that we comply with city code and we have done everything we can to mitigate the concerns of the neighbors and the city, and there's no variance required for this or other issues that should be brought up.
And I've put quite a few additional things in here, but the most important thing is if you can go to page, I think it's 10 where there's a plot map. This has been graded a long time ago. It is not a natural site. It's always been prepared for development. In 1940 something, they graded this site. There's nothing natural about this site. It was always been intended to be a home or a site for a home. There's 15 or so different variations of properties that were supposed to be put up here. And at the end of the day, you have a choice, you can either approve it or deny it. But here's the facts. If you approve it, we have a lawsuit already filed against the city and we will be open to negotiating settling it. But if you deny it and we continue to push this along, we are not going to settle anything. This is going to court and it's going to end up being found in my favor, and the cost of the city is going to be immense.
Attachment 9 157
157 of 922
1550 BBC - November 13 2025 - 3rd DRB Meeting - Trim
Transcript by Rev.com
This transcript was exported on Dec 03, 2025 - view latest version here.
So ask yourself, what's going to happen when this gets appealed to this council? What are they going toThomas Gibbs - Chair:
Your time's up, Mr. Durnayus.
Mr. Dyrnaes:
What are they going to decide? Are they going to approve it or are they going to deny it? Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
Okay. Thank you very much. Any questions of... I have a question to you. Are we required to identify a specific... Were we directed by...
Patrick Donegan:
Yeah. So I can read you the language verbatim.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
And what's it from?
Patrick Donegan:
The city council resolution.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
Okay, good.
Patrick Donegan:
So it's consider a Coastal Development Permit for the revised design based on direction in paragraph A above, paragraph A, dealt with the removing the permanent structures from the REP area, and recognition of coastal resources, including natural landforms, public views, and risk of fire hazards.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
Okay. It's an interpretation.
Patrick Donegan:
But if you will, Chair, I would advise that in this somewhat novel issue, once again, how to reconcile these state housing laws along with the city's obligation under the Coastal Act, my advice remains the same. That is in the context of the Coastal Act. Its purposes drilled down to its base level is to protect coastal resources. I will be honest with you all. As you can imagine, my past days have been focused on this very issue. And there's not a citable case I can point to. There's no clear roadmap I can point you to different authority that can be read both ways. That's in dicta for other cases. That language does come verbatim from the Coastal Act. So some Coastal Commission staff reports treat it different directions, i.e., yes, there needs to be a coastal resource there or alternatively, hey, it's just look at the other houses up and down the neighborhood.
But once again, in that context, my advice remains the same that in applying that, identify a coastal resource. And I'm open for any more questions, Mr. Chair.
Attachment 9 158
158 of 922
This transcript was exported on Dec 03, 2025 - view latest version here. 1550 BBC - November 13 2025 - 3rd DRB Meeting - Trim
Transcript by Rev.com
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
How do you define coastal resource?
Patrick Donegan:
How do I define coastal resource?
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
Right.
Patrick Donegan:
Yeah, sure. So that's a pretty wide net. I know that the city council talked about natural landforms, public views, risk of fire hazards. That's only a very small subset of it. It can be views of the ocean. It can be protecting, I believe the city's open space talks about protecting the hillsides, things of that nature.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
Okay. And I think at the last hearing back in August 14, I said it was a fairly broad term, not specifically defined either by the city council to us or in the LCP. So with that said, I don't have any other questions.
Any questions? All right. I close the public hearing and I'll begin. First of all, we are here as a board to apply, in this case, a CDP evaluation, and to the extent applicable land use. It is particularly not important to be threatening us with the city being sued if we don't agree with everything you say. You have your legal remedies. It's appropriate to deal with the merits rather than to try to threaten this committee. I personally don't appreciate it. And I think it's too bad that you set the tone in a public meeting creating the impression that we're all doing this to avoid a big, bad law firm suing the city.
That's not how I operate. I operate in applying the rules and do... We are volunteers and we do this because we take our job seriously, not because we act because of threats of taking this city down.
Second of all, I also take the applicable law very seriously, and I try to figure it out. I'm not always right. I was a practicing attorney doing exactly what you do for some 40 years, and I have a position to make. I haven't always been right. And such certitude is particularly unimportant, given my understanding of how this thing works. All right. I'll start by pointing out that SB 9 and SB 450 and the ADU law have a carve out, which says "Nothing in this section shall be..." Effectively, this is from SB 9, but there's some similar provisions in the other code. "Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California Coastal Act of 1976. That carve out was done for a reason, in my view. And that reason is because the vote that led to the Coastal Act was designed to protect the coast. And in adopting these provisions, the State of California was desirous of promoting residential development to deal with the housing crisis.
But at the same time, say that it doesn't apply to coastal zones to preserve the coast of California as was voted in by the citizens back in 1976, which not to date myself, I voted for back then. So I think that carve out on its face means that we can apply and should apply and are obligated to apply at least the Coastal Development Permit. That it doesn't supersede the objective... I'll take that back. I'll get to the objective issue in a second. It doesn't supersede the statute you're relying on to make your threats. So I listened very carefully to the city council meeting and then also to the resolutions and so forth. I don't read the city council as having direct us in as narrow a framework as you would propose. In fact, the city council directed us as a board to consider not only the REP, which you've eliminated, but also the CDP. If it was so clear that we have no choice, they wouldn't have sent it back to us, but they did.
Attachment 9 159
159 of 922
This transcript was exported on Dec 03, 2025 - view latest version here. 1550 BBC - November 13 2025 - 3rd DRB Meeting - Trim
Transcript by Rev.com
Also, the local coastal plan as approved by the Coastal Commission as set forth in our general plan also has policies and elements that I think also fall within the carve out. I believe the city council was less clear about that. So I'm going to focus my comments on the CDP and make a few final comments on the land use element and policies. On the CDP, I agree with the understanding that our city attorney or assistant city attorney gave. The city council did view the application of the criteria for the Coastal Development Permit should be tied to a coastal resource. I don't know that they required we identify one, but I think it's very broad. I don't think it's limited to just being able to see the ocean. The Coastal Act covered a lot more than just seeing the ocean. The coastal resources are within the jurisdiction of the Coastal Act, and that includes hillsides. And in fact, if you look at the elements that was approved by the Coastal Commission, it goes way beyond just a very limited view of coastal resources.
I find that I cannot... Rather than I find. From seriously considering this, I cannot make the findings required for criteria five or criteria six, of finding one for a Coastal Development Permit. The proposed development, this is criteria five, the proposed development will minimize the alteration of natural landforms and will not result in undue risk of geological and erosional forces and/or floods and fire hazards. So natural landforms is a coastal resource. So I'll identify that as a coastal resource, because I think it clearly is. The driveway and long slope distinctly alters the natural landform that a ground level garage would not. I have asked repeatedly, not only on this project, but other project to fully consider the garage on the street. And that clearly, I think a different attack was decided here, which is not to deal with that issue, but rather to threaten litigation.
So based upon the record, I do not see that that criteria has been met. Moreover, it's not been met because the project sitting on top of the hill or ridge, and I don't know if it fits within the legal definition of ridge, definitely does not contour to the natural landform, further creating an alteration. Rather, what's done is a series of retaining walls, creating a massive looking structure, and then putting the house on top. With no effort in the three hearings... This is the third hearing, this is one with the third hearing, the other project was appealed to city council. With no effort at all to address criteria six and make the project more in conformance with the natural landform of the hill. And I've seen no evidence of any grading previously of this hill. And I don't think there's anything in the record, and it looks like a natural landform, so I'm going on the assumption that it is.
With respect to criteria six, it reads, "The proposed development will be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas and where feasible will restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas." So the way I read that in terms of coastal resource, in a coastal area, the character of surrounding areas is a resource that is worth protecting. And that's why it's in the CDP as distinguished from the Design Review guidelines.
Emir Bauta:
Chair, you mind if I butt in? Pertaining to the remand, when we're objectively looking at this, are we to look at it from a standpoint of subjectively? Because I think objectively, if we're looking at the landform, the act requires that development minimize the alteration of landforms through practices such as designing buildings to fit into terrain. And I think what I'm hearing is that nothing can be developed here. This is a buildable site, right?
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
I didn't say that.
Emir Bauta:
Attachment 9 160
160 of 922
This transcript was exported on Dec 03, 2025 - view latest version here. 1550 BBC - November 13 2025 - 3rd DRB Meeting - Trim
Transcript by Rev.com
Yeah.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
Okay. Let me address your [inaudible 00:37:43].
Emir Bauta:
Are you're considering the view, but I think that the site's buildingThomas Gibbs - Chair:
I didn't mention the view.
Emir Bauta:
The landform.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
I mentioned the landform.
Emir Bauta:
Yeah. So you're considering it. But I think it's very clear with the coastal resources, that they're very specific that if you minimizeThomas Gibbs - Chair:
Let me finish my comments and then you can address it. Because I disagree with that and we can disagree. That's what we do. I think I've explained that coastal resources is broad. I've explained on criteria five what the coastal resource there is, which is the natural landform. All four of us are going to have to make our own decisions about this. So I'm explaining mine and then I want to hearEmir Bauta:
But the act is clear on the minimization of the minimization of the landform alteration. They're not saying you cannot build on the landform.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
I didn't say they can't build. I said it'sEmir Bauta:
I know. But you're mentioning it as if it's this broad thing, and I think it's very specific that it says to minimize it, not to eliminate it. And I think we were remanded to just look at those elements pertaining to the CDP.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
Okay. Let me respond to you. Number one is, in evaluating the CDP, there was no direction that we consider only objective criteria. And I'm not going to debate whether what I'm describing here is objective or subjective. I'm not sure it falls into either category that well. With respect to minimizing the alterations of natural landform, that is, I think, an objective. Are you minimizing the alteration of natural Attachment 9 161
161 of 922
This transcript was exported on Dec 03, 2025 - view latest version here. 1550 BBC - November 13 2025 - 3rd DRB Meeting - Trim
Transcript by Rev.com
landform? The city council directed us specifically to make the Coastal Development Permit findings and criteria adequately... Let me finish.
Emir Bauta:
Okay.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
And city's finding that the Coastal Development Permit findings and criteria adequately protect coastal resources. So basically what the city council was directing us to do is to make these findings. And if we make those findings, it will adequately protect coastal resources. So IEmir Bauta:
It clearly says in the minimizing landforms alterations.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
You're talking about criteria five?
Emir Bauta:
Yeah. No, not criteria five. Through practices such as designing buildingsThomas Gibbs - Chair:
What are you reading from?
Emir Bauta:
... to fit into terrain. The act, the Coastal Act. "The act requires that the development minimize the alteration of natural landforms through practices such as designing buildings to fit into the terrain rather than heavily grading the site."
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
That's such as. It's an example.
Emir Bauta:
Yeah. Yeah. I think it's very clear.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
And I think that actually is apt here because that would require terracing and not cutting into landforms, for example, putting in major retaining walls.
Emir Bauta:
Yeah. And I think this board had the opinion, I would say namely Louis, with bringing it down. And we gave that suggestion to the applicant on three hearings on both projects. And I think that was incorrect.
And I'd like to really debate this and talk through this.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
Attachment 9 162
162 of 922
This transcript was exported on Dec 03, 2025 - view latest version here. 1550 BBC - November 13 2025 - 3rd DRB Meeting - Trim
Transcript by Rev.com
No, no, and I think we are. I think what you've just read is consistent with terracing and bringing down the project because that isEmir Bauta:
I disagree. It says the exact opposite.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
Let me finish. That is minimizing the alterations of natural landforms.
Emir Bauta:
No. It says "Rather than heavily grading the site." If you are going down, you are digging the site down.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
Heavily grading the site?
Emir Bauta:
That's mass excavation.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
They're going to be taking out 1800 cubic yardsEmir Bauta:
That's grading.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
... to create this driveway to put the building on top of the slope or top of the ridge. That's notEmir Bauta:
Yeah, but you're saying from the opposite side. So it's literally sayingThomas Gibbs - Chair:
No. I'm saying that's not minimized.
Emir Bauta:
... "Design it to fit the terrain rather than heavily grading the site." Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
They're heavily grading the site to put in the driveway so they can put the building on top of the hill rather than terracing it into the slope to make it less impactful on... So it's the exact... In all due respect, EmirEmir Bauta:
You're saying the opposite.
Attachment 9 163
163 of 922
This transcript was exported on Dec 03, 2025 - view latest version here. 1550 BBC - November 13 2025 - 3rd DRB Meeting - Trim
Transcript by Rev.com
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
... I know you think differently. Maybe we have to agree to disagree. It's the exact opposite of what you're describing.
Emir Bauta:
Well, what do you consider grading?
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
Grading is taking dirt away, moving dirt. I'm not going to get into fully a definition of gradingEmir Bauta:
Well, I think it's important.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
... because the language you read was by way of example. I'm just following the criteria, which is minimizing the alterations of natural landform. They do the opposite here. They cut into the hill to create this driveway up a steepEmir Bauta:
But the board told them to go down. The board has literally, in these hearings, we have saidThomas Gibbs - Chair:
Don't say the board. I have alwaysEmir Bauta:
The majority of the board has said, "Take it down." And I think that's incorrect. I really do.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
I disagree with you. I think it is entirely correct. Go ahead, [inaudible 00:42:41].
MJ Coveny:
When you say take it downEmir Bauta:
Could you mic?
MJ Coveny:
We advised take it down. We said takeEmir Bauta:
The board has advised on numerous occasions, bring the program down further into the hill.
MJ Coveny:
Attachment 9 164
164 of 922
This transcript was exported on Dec 03, 2025 - view latest version here. 1550 BBC - November 13 2025 - 3rd DRB Meeting - Trim
Transcript by Rev.com
Yes.
Emir Bauta:
So that increases grading.
MJ Coveny:
No.
Emir Bauta:
It does.
MJ Coveny:
So here's the... No.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
No. It didn't make itMJ Coveny:
No. No. No, no, no. Can I finish?
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
Go ahead.
MJ Coveny:
This is one way to look at it. I could be wrong. I don't think so, but it'd be the first time. You have to grade to get to the top. And you have to grade a very interesting driveway and support that with your grading. And then you also change the topography and the nature of this natural resource with a big home that's almost 52 feet above that. So you've graded and you've put this up there, as opposed to building the home within the natural, which will still require grading, but you will no longer have that mass and density, the mass rather, on top of the hill and the height.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
And then when it talks about alteration of natural landforms, it's looking at the end result, not only the grading. And what you read was by way of example.
MJ Coveny:
It's the whole thing together.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
It looks at the end result. In other words, it's the difference between terracing houses into a hill and making it more natural with the terrain, rather than putting houses on the top of the hill with big retaining walls and big driveways. One is much more minimalMJ Coveny:
Attachment 9 165
165 of 922
This transcript was exported on Dec 03, 2025 - view latest version here. 1550 BBC - November 13 2025 - 3rd DRB Meeting - Trim
Transcript by Rev.com
It affects natural landforms.
Emir Bauta:
You're playing both sides of it.
MJ Coveny:
No. No, we're not.
Emir Bauta:
You are. You're saying you got to go up, but you can't go upMJ Coveny:
No, no, no.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
I thinkEmir Bauta:
You just can't go down.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
I think we've argued this out. I can't tell you how much I disagree with you, but I think weEmir Bauta:
You're not receiving it because what you're saying on one handThomas Gibbs - Chair:
I know exactly what I'm saying.
Emir Bauta:
... does not apply to the other side. And I think that's the concern.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
It does.
Emir Bauta:
That's what I have the biggest concern with, because you're not objectively looking at it for the coastal purposes.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
I disagree.
MJ Coveny:
Attachment 9 166
166 of 922
This transcript was exported on Dec 03, 2025 - view latest version here. 1550 BBC - November 13 2025 - 3rd DRB Meeting - Trim
Transcript by Rev.com
I disagree.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
Anyway, I [inaudible 00:44:41] disagree.
MJ Coveny:
I also disagree.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
Let me go on the criteria six, and then you can come back to it, Emir, with your comments, but we're going in circles now. I happen to think that reducing the building further down and terracing it into the slope, even if it might include more excavation, although they've got a ton of excavation, we'll minimize the alteration of the natural landform. Then with respect to criteria six, the proposed development will be visually compatible with the characters surrounding areas, again, a coastal resource. And there's a reason why they talk about visual compatibility with the character surrounding resources without saying, "Well, it's only public views of oceans." I think it's much broader than that. And as presently designed, I cannot make this finding for a couple of reasons. Some of them are objective. One is, it's the highest... Again, it's the visually compatible with the hillside, with other houses in the community, with the overall area in which this project resides.
There's nothing like it. It stands out. It's not visually compatible. If anything, it is jarring, because it's not built into the hillside and it is not even attempted to design to follow the natural landforms and preserve the public resources of the surrounding area. Rather, it's put on top of the hill, I think, to maximize views. So for those reasons, I can't make the findings for criteria five and six. I'll make a few brief comments about the land use element 2.1 because many neighbors raised it, 2.8 and 7.3 and 10.2.
I don't think those elements are satisfied here. And again, I believe my own view is the carve out allows us to fully consider them. However, because the city council was far less clear and did not give us the clear direction to make Coastal Development Permit findings, to make findings on these other criteria, I'm not going to base my denial on those elements. It sounds like this is going to go before city council again. I hope they read my comments to reconsider that, and apply those land use element policies to also deny this project.
For example, 2.1 deals with maintaining the diversity and uniqueness of individual. It'll minimize the scale and bulk of new construction and/or renovation and required development to be comparable with surrounding residences. Doesn't come close. Policy 2.8 required building design and siting to be comparable and integrated with national topographic features. For the reason I said dealing with the Coastal Development Permit, it doesn't meet that. And then land use policy 7.3 and 10.2 to preserve unique seen equality, public views and visual compatibility in surrounding areas. So for all those reasons, and I'm willing to listen to other arguments, and even if you want to repeat the argument, Emir, but those are my views. You want to go next, Louis? Or Emir, you want to...
Emir Bauta:
Yeah, I'll go for it. I think this objectively is an approvable project. I think we were remanded by the council to recognize the cul-de-sac and look at the natural landforms, public views, risk of fire hazards. I don't think anyone has any issue with the public views or the risk of fire hazards. I think with natural landforms, I think the project does a very good job of incorporating that into their design. And I understand that we're used to subjective criteria being applied, but objectively this project clears that Attachment 9 167
167 of 922
This transcript was exported on Dec 03, 2025 - view latest version here. 1550 BBC - November 13 2025 - 3rd DRB Meeting - Trim
Transcript by Rev.com
burden, clears that barrier. I think that consideration for the coastal resources should be looked at on a much grander scale. This is a buildable site. There is a project here that works. And cutting it into the hill would just only increase the grading and it would only increase further disturbance of that excavation.
And I think that the objective standards that we're applying here today can apply to every single home that's in the CDP. And I don't think we do that here on the board.
And we do that purposefully because these are buildable homes. These homes are very much on a buildable lot. This is not a coastal resource. So I think that's what I've just been trying to get through because I think we got to look at it for what it is. This is a buildable lot in a buildable neighborhood. And objectively this is a buildable house. And we have to ignore our subjective process that we normally go through with the 16 criteria. We have to ignore that. The SB 450 is very, very clear on that. And I think we need to... It is. MJ, it is. It's very clear.
MJ Coveny:
It has a carve out.
Emir Bauta:
For subjective criteriaMJ Coveny:
A carve out.
Emir Bauta:
... we have to agree.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
No. It carves out the Coastal Development Act, which the CDP was adopted pursuant to and approved by the Coastal Commission. That's not correct.
Emir Bauta:
Yeah. Do you know what the Coastal Act is?
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
If we were required to only consider objective criteria, then the city council wouldn't have directed us to make the findings under criteria five or criteria six. The word objective doesn't appear in them. Now, whether something's objective or subjective, is minimizing the alteration of natural landforms, is that an objective determination or a subjective determination? Well, it isn't privacy and it isn't view equity, which requires a balancing. It is something that's observable and you apply words in their ordinary sense. There's no language in any of this that says we can only apply "objective criteria." If it was objective criteria, I suppose you're talking about what's in the zoning code. Why do we even consider a Coastal Development Permit at all at Design Review if there were strictly objective elements? Why did the city council return it to us to make a Coastal Development Permit determination if it was all objective criteria, in the sense that if it complies with the zoning code, it's done? Emir Bauta:
Attachment 9 168
168 of 922
This transcript was exported on Dec 03, 2025 - view latest version here. 1550 BBC - November 13 2025 - 3rd DRB Meeting - Trim
Transcript by Rev.com
I think city council has given us a chance to re-review the REP that was removedThomas Gibbs - Chair:
No, they want us to exercise discretion.
Emir Bauta:
Because that was the big commentary on the last code.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
They could have made that determination.
Emir Bauta:
Tom, did you bring up natural landforms last time? You did not.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
So I did. You're so wrong.
MJ Coveny:
That's part of it.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
It's being in my notes on everyone.
Emir Bauta:
Your main concern last time was the REP and reducing the house side.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
That's just not true.
Louis Weil:
I'm going to call a timeout.
MJ Coveny:
I'm going to go next. Can I go next?
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
Go next.
MJ Coveny:
Or do you want to go?
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
You want to go next?
Attachment 9 169
169 of 922
This transcript was exported on Dec 03, 2025 - view latest version here. 1550 BBC - November 13 2025 - 3rd DRB Meeting - Trim
Transcript by Rev.com
Louis Weil:
Let's just stay on topic with our own individual comments and let's justMJ Coveny:
Can I roll with mine then, because I'm going to be quick about it because it's going to be aThomas Gibbs - Chair:
Go ahead, MJ.
MJ Coveny:
Mine are going to beThomas Gibbs - Chair:
And then Louis. I think you and I probably talked it out.
MJ Coveny:
Mine are going to be concurring comments with Chair Gibbs. So I just want to... I'm not going to go through every point, the findings of five and six. I agree wholeheartedly with your detail and your interpretation and your efforts to figure out this carve out and figure out how to protect this landform in the way that I think is incumbent upon us to do so. I'm grateful for your insight. I'm grateful for the time you put into it and I'm grateful for the legal knowledge that you have. I'm also very grateful to the community who has made a tireless effort and time spent to support the beauty and the safety and the integrity of what our community stands for. So I really appreciate that. I don't appreciate being threatened with a lawsuit, but that's beside the point. The reality is we got to this place because there was very little efforts made to find a balanced solution that would allow you to build absolutely a buildable site, beautiful site. It's going to have a beautiful home on it. And Horst, you're at an astounding architect, no doubt about that.
So all this could have been solved. But I stick with the details that Chair Gibbs articulated, and I support those, and that's my standing tonight.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
Louis, you're up.
Louis Weil:
Yeah. I wish we'd be at a better spot with this. I think there's been challenges on a lot of fronts. In all honesty, I'm a volunteer on this board to try to work with the community, work with applicants to find reasonable solutions, to find the right fit developments that balance the community character that we have here in Laguna Beach. And in serving for seven years, there's been some fantastic projects. Horst, you've done quite a few of them over the years. The ones that fit really well take elements of compromise from both the applicants and the neighbors. And I do appreciate the neighbor's comments that they've been very specific. They've been tied to the program. And it's been full of context. And the applicant, you've made good efforts to provide your stance and your case all along the way.
Some of the challenges was... I mean, the lawsuit thing has been threatened from the beginning. When I first met with the applicant, I had to walk away from the conversation because I was threatened on the Attachment 9 170
170 of 922
This transcript was exported on Dec 03, 2025 - view latest version here. 1550 BBC - November 13 2025 - 3rd DRB Meeting - Trim
Transcript by Rev.com
top of the hill and I had to leave. The good faith effort along the journey, making changes has been extremely difficult. I've been trying to provide the right direction to get an approvable project. And the inching and the continual challenges haven't come to fruition. And I wish we'd be having a different conversation tonight because this is a buildable lot and a large development, something of this size can fit up there. But how it's placed on the lot is, I think, the biggest challenge that we're trying to fit the right balance on the lot to meet the CDP requirements. And I think I concur with Board Member Gibbs that the LUE has been challenged. And I'm hard-pressed to make some of the findings for the P 2.8, P
7.3, 10.2.
2.1 being the more specific call out, the mass and scale out of character because of height. Height of grade of the null far exceeds other projects that have been approved. I've mentioned it at other times where the two on the other side that of recent, we did approve them. They're only popping out of grade by a foot or two. This is popping out of grade by 10 to 15 feet. And that's just significant. When I'm down entering Bluebird Canyon, the whole neighborhood, from the bottom, you can see this protruding well above roof lines. It's not tucked down to be within the characteristic of the total neighborhood. It exceeds it. It stands out like a sore thumb from all the way down by the tennis courts. You can see it. I was trying to find my picture. I took it. But I couldn't find it tonight, but it's visible throughout. And it will change the characteristics of the community.
And I think that's why the neighborhood has come at large to try to find compromise. And they're coming to the board and to council to try to find that balance, strike that balance with the applicant.
And it just hasn't been achieved. I did have issues with the access all along the way. I was requesting that we try to meet the right standards for the road, because I do view this as a new subdivision that's been created with SB 9. On the Morningside, well-established road, curb and curb on both sides. So this wasn't an issue on that side. On this side, we have existing homes. We have much more narrowing of the street. The AMNM calls out 18 to 24 to 28 feet of Bluebird Canyon at different lengths. When I'm up there, I'm measuring about 17 or 16 feet of existing. I know there's some proposals to widen it, but I still think when we look at Cal Fire, a two-lane road, which is Bluebird Canyon, it's a two-lane road. The standard is 20 feet from the state requirements. Unobstructed should be 24 feet.
So right around the nearby vicinity, just where the curb to curb ends is a power pole, the curbs, the street. The pole is specifically 24 feet, the brand new one that's just up there. I sent a picture into staff that we can pull that up. But these new poles and the utilities and the fire hydrants are all encroaching into that 20 feet. The new pole, I measured it, is literally 19 feet across. I don't know how that new pole didn't meet fire standards. I don't know who screwed that up, messed it up, but it's not being addressed in the application tonight. Did you get my photos, Bill? Bill Rodriguez:
Yeah. I didn't realize it.
Louis Weil:
Not that one. You got to pull the next one.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
The power pole is in the 20 foot?
Louis Weil:
It's only 19 feet.
Attachment 9 171
171 of 922
This transcript was exported on Dec 03, 2025 - view latest version here. 1550 BBC - November 13 2025 - 3rd DRB Meeting - Trim
Transcript by Rev.com
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
That's crazy.
Louis Weil:
For where the new pole line is, because it's already partially being placed. I don't know who's driving that, but it doesn't meet the state standards. And when I read the state standards, it says if the local doesn't have a specific ordinance calling out for immediates, the state standard applies. So I don't see these criteria as being met. And from a CDP standard, we're specifically asked to look at fire safety for this area. Those are the old existing poles. The new ones are being placed just as tight to the existing street with no consideration, there's one of the pull wires.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
That right there.
Louis Weil:
Yeah. There's right there. It's being tucked in and it's creating a hazard for your development that needs to be addressed, because new development needs to address the right road width. I don't know what to make of it, but the AMNM doesn't call out... Oh, that's the curb to curb in the nearby vicinity, just shy of 24 feet. It's the 23-foot mark. The next one should show the power pole. Yeah, 23.6 was curb to curb where I measured it. That's the newest replaced pole on this block that people were telling me about.
It's clearly got 24 feet of clear width. So I don't know how these new ones being relocated don't meet the standard for fire safety. And it's not being addressed in the application. So for that reason, I'm denying that CDP element because I don't think it's meeting the state standards.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
All right. Before I give everybody more time, the debate that Emir and I had, that's what we're supposed to do. Emir, I totally respect you for your views. And if we can't debate each other on important issues, we're not acting, I think, as we should as a board. So I want to encourage people if they have more comments to make them. Emir, do you have anything you want to add or address? Emir Bauta:
No, I think that there is... It seems like there's a clear three to one vote that's going to happen here, it seems like. I think it's worth the consideration to really consider the SB 450 as it pertains to this specific project. I think that that'll come up again. But that's all I can say tonight.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
MJ, anything more to add?
MJ Coveny:
[inaudible 01:02:11].
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
All right. At this point, we don't have... Go ahead.
Attachment 9 172
172 of 922
This transcript was exported on Dec 03, 2025 - view latest version here. 1550 BBC - November 13 2025 - 3rd DRB Meeting - Trim
Transcript by Rev.com
Patrick Donegan:
Yeah. And so, I just want to be sure. Chairs, because this is the third one, I've been taking copious notes.
Why don't you guys go ahead and wrap up your final comments? I'm requesting a five minuteThomas Gibbs - Chair:
I was going to ask you, I was going to look to you and I say, do you want to do a resolution to [inaudible 01:02:33]?
Patrick Donegan:
I'm going to do one. I'm going to share it on the screen. As I said before, I'll probably only need about five minutes. The one clarification, I understand the issue that Board Member Weil brought up. I didn't hear potential agreement with that. And then if there is agreement with that, you guys are going to have to walk me throughThomas Gibbs - Chair:
Do you want us to continue it and do the resolution on consent calendar? Patrick Donegan:
No. Well, we need to do it tonight.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
Okay, sure.
Louis Weil:
And the code section I was referencing was 2020 14CCR chapter 171273.01. And then it also is in OCFA as a guideline B 01 for very high high fire severity zones. 28 feet.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
You want us to take a short break? Because it's probably going to be at least potentially a similar resolution for the next time.
Patrick Donegan:
Correct. And so, we are going to want to take one, but I do want to [inaudible 01:03:33].
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
What?
Patrick Donegan:
I do want to drill down on that, that if there's... Is there a majority of the quorum, i.e. three of you? And then if so, I understand those references are to the fire code and maybe to the municipal code. I'm not necessarily seeing a direct connection to the CDP findings. And so, if you want to include that in the resolution of denial, I got criteria fiveThomas Gibbs - Chair:
Attachment 9 173
173 of 922
This transcript was exported on Dec 03, 2025 - view latest version here. 1550 BBC - November 13 2025 - 3rd DRB Meeting - Trim
Transcript by Rev.com
Oh, definitely.
Patrick Donegan:
... I got criteria six. If this fire issue needs a bit where you're going to need to wrap that up in a bow.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
Okay.
Patrick Donegan:
And I apologize if I'm notThomas Gibbs - Chair:
You got five and six because I'm denying it based upon five and six.
Patrick Donegan:
Correct. I believe I have five and six. And once again, but can you give me five minutes? I'm going to type it up and show it on the screen for you guys.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
Okay. And you want to hear the fire thing?
Louis Weil:
The fire correlates to CDP finding number eight, quasi number nine, and somewhat number one. In the sense that number eight, the proposed development will provide adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and facilities. The road needs to be compatible for a two lane road that it is. There's three vacant lots that are trying to be developed on the uphill side that there is the right-of-way available to create the 24 feet.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
Which ones again?
Louis Weil:
So CDP eight, access to roads. Proposal will be other nine [inaudible 01:05:18] but not limited to solid waste, public roadway capacity. Number one, the proposed development will not encroach upon any existing physical access ways legally utilized by the public.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
I'm not sure we see one. I see eight. Eight would be the [inaudible 01:05:39] will be provided with adequate utilities. And given the location of the poles, you questioned whether there's adequate utilities, access roads, and other facilities. Where's the fire one? Louis Weil:
Well, the council told us on fire that was in there, that fire safety needed to be a component of it. So that council's direction was BE, "Consider the Coastal Development Permit, revised design, based Attachment 9 174
174 of 922
This transcript was exported on Dec 03, 2025 - view latest version here. 1550 BBC - November 13 2025 - 3rd DRB Meeting - Trim
Transcript by Rev.com
directions, paragraph A, above recognition, coastal resources, including natural forms, public views, and risk of fire hazard."
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
Yeah. It's erosional floor or flat or fire. It's five. Five is what you want.
Louis Weil:
Okay.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
So make it based upon five, and I think potentially eight. But it's primarily five. So I could support it on five.
MJ Coveny:
I can too, if you need to hear it from my list. Yes.
Patrick Donegan:
The board needs three to act. Okay. So Chair, if I may, with your indulgence, maybe between five to 10 minutes. It is imperative because the item is still open. I would encourage you all not to talk to anyone, not to talk to each other. Usually during the recess, there's some back and forth. This is a little bit different because the item is still going. So mum is the word. And once again, everyone's here. I will give you the signal after I get with Bill and wrap it up.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
Okay. Why don't you take the time. When you're ready, you let me know and I'll call the meeting to order.
Patrick Donegan:
Thank you, Chair.
MJ Coveny:
Thanks.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
Meetings on break.
Seats. And Mr. Donegan, you have the floor. [inaudible 01:13:43] What? No. [inaudible 01:13:52].
Patrick Donegan:
Excuse me. So just for everyone's edification, I believe I copied all the whereas is, but the direction that I will seek from the board is to make sure that those are all consistent with all the dates and so on and so forth. Obviously, we have the CEQA for a denial and then here's what I'm going to want you guys to take a look at. And if you want I can... Let me make that a little bit bigger. And this is basically denying the CDP based off of the following findings, obviously finding one and then criteria five. If it's easier, I'll just Attachment 9 175
175 of 922
This transcript was exported on Dec 03, 2025 - view latest version here. 1550 BBC - November 13 2025 - 3rd DRB Meeting - Trim
Transcript by Rev.com
shut up for a second and let you guys read it as compared to reading it out loud so I don't confuse anyone.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
Move your arrow, your cursor.
Instead of would more, I would say "Will better protect the natural landform and minimize its alteration."
As a result is [inaudible 01:15:09] a naturally occurring landform on the project site. Yeah, I think that's good for the location. Let me read that.
Okay. That should fall within... Oh yeah, that goes perfect. Are you good with the further, because it does fall within the right criteria? I'll go to number six.
Louis Weil:
Yep. I just put the compatible with the Cal Fire standard. The Cal Fire...
Patrick Donegan:
Right. And so I mean, once again, you guys are the decision makers.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
Yeah. I would say that allows for a widest possible road, and I would do this, complies with...
Patrick Donegan:
I just want to be sure though that I understand that that cite to the fire code, I'm not doubting it.
Louis Weil:
Okay.
Patrick Donegan:
That is the fire marshal and the fire department. So I want to make sure that I have no idea if there's exceptions, if there's another code that says, "Hey, under X, Y, Z." Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
Do this after where it says wide as possible road, and then add, "And will not result in undue risk from fire hazards.
Speaker 15:
12:27 AM.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
Okay. That then tracks the criteria. All right, number six.
Mercy. Okay.
Okay. I want to make one.
Attachment 9 176
176 of 922
This transcript was exported on Dec 03, 2025 - view latest version here. 1550 BBC - November 13 2025 - 3rd DRB Meeting - Trim
Transcript by Rev.com
Where it says above the knoll by 10 to 15 feet, I would do comma, "Resulting in a structure approximately 52 feet above grade."
Patrick Donegan:
Street grade?
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
Yeah. Above street grade.
MJ Coveny:
I think it's higher than that.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
Is it higher? 54?
Louis Weil:
This was 52.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
I would do, "Resulting in a structure more than 50 feet above grade." Because I think it's not clear, but it's definitely above 50. Say "More than 50 feet above grade, which finds no comparison in surrounding areas."
Okay. Then I'm good through this.
I'm good with that paragraph.
Okay. I'm good with it. Those are my only changes at this hour.
Louis Weil:
Where's another section?
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
Keep in mind, if this does go before the city council, it's a three vote, so it's a de novo review, and they'll have the opportunity to consider what we've written and to make any changes that the city council may desire.
Patrick Donegan:
That is correct, Chair.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
All right. I'm good with this. Do we have a resolution? I'm happy to make... Is this carry the same resolution number that you have? So is it resolution 24-... Ooh, that's the wrong one. Hold on a second.
Let me go back toPatrick Donegan:
Attachment 9 177
177 of 922
This transcript was exported on Dec 03, 2025 - view latest version here. 1550 BBC - November 13 2025 - 3rd DRB Meeting - Trim
Transcript by Rev.com
I have that wrong.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
I'm on 12.
Louis Weil:
2588. Yeah. [inaudible 01:20:04].
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
Yeah. Is this...
Patrick Donegan:
Correct. Yeah. So weThomas Gibbs - Chair:
... 24-2509?
Patrick Donegan:
No, it would be 20-
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
I went to [inaudible 01:20:20].
Patrick Donegan:
Yeah. So yeah. It would be 24-2588. Look at that. I think I got it right.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
24-2588. Okay. With that said, I make a motion that the board adopt resolution 24-2588 as revised and presented by the city attorney, which denies coastal permit 24-2588 and Design Review. I'm just reading from the thing, so correct me if I'm wrong, Patrick. And Design Review 24-2586.
Patrick Donegan:
Chair, I do apologize. I believe our Zoom just stopped. We're going to fire up a new one. Give us one second. We want to make sure that this is not lost, as I'm sure the applicant is going to be very interested in this.
Thomas Gibbs - Chair:
Yeah. So the resolution denies both the CDP andLouis Weil:
Wait, wait, it's [inaudible 01:21:27].
Patrick Donegan:
Attachment 9 178
178 of 922
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
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 9 179
179 of 922
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 9 180
180 of 922
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 9 181 181 of 922
1560 BBC - November 13 2025 - 3rd DRB Meeting - ... (Completed 12/02/25) Transcript by Rev.com
This transcript was exported on Dec 02, 2025 - view latest version here.
Chair Gibbs (00:02):
Five point 11 15 60 Bluebird Canyon Drive, lot B Coastal Development Permit 24 dash 2 5 10. Design review. 24 dash 25 9. Staff report. Oh, first ex party. Same. Same. I don't, yeah, same as I did for five point 10. Yeah. Okay. Staff report.
Bill Rodrigues (00:36):
Just one second. Calling up the presentation. Go for it. Okay. Ready? Are you running? Okay. Alright. So board members Bill Rodrigues for the community development Department presenting on behalf of Daniel Latham project planner. The subject application before use for development of 1560 Bluebird Canyon. This is if you will, the sort of the companion project to the application that we just acted on.
This was the immediately adjacent lot. Next slide. So again, I think that's the wrong PowerPoint. I will apologize. The image outlining the subject property is the 1550 site.
Chair Gibbs (01:43):
This is 1565 point 11. We're doing now is 1560.
Bill Rodrigues (01:48):
We're doing 1560 now. Correct. Right. Okay. Give me one second. (02:09):
There we go. Okay, next slide. Okay. Alright, we're back. So the subject property is located on Bluebird Canyon. It is adjacent to the property or the application that we just acted on. As I'd mentioned, this is kind of the companion project. This project has been before the design review board. Previously the design review board took action to deny development application for this property. That project, or that decision was appealed to the city council. City council then acted to remand it back to the design review board in Remanding it. There was direction for the design review board hold one hearing and then to make a decision on that project. So again, we are looking for a final action tonight. Couple slides here just to highlight what the concept of the project is pal, if I could get the next slide please. So here you'll see it's, go back a slide. Okay. So here we're looking at a detached single family house, attached two car garage. There's also an A DU on the uppermost level of the proposed residence. There are elevated decks, a spa, it'll also be site grading and retaining walls and landscaping developed on the site. Next slide please. So at this point, much like the last presentation, I'll go ahead and ask Patrick if you have any other information that you'd like to add here. It's kind of the same, Pat Donegan (03:52):
Correct. I will kind of defer to the discretion of the chair. I can of course repeat what I said previously, but all of the exact same points are identical for this one. Mr. Chair.
Chair Gibbs (04:02):
Yeah, I concur with counsel. I think the issues raised for 1560 are identical to the one we just addressed.
So I don't think there's any need for you to repeat those and I think we understand the ground rules. So with that said, any questions of staff? Are you done with your presentation? Bill Rodrigues (04:34):
I wasn't done but only had two more slides. Go for it. Maybe the, Attachment 10 182
182 of 922
1560 BBC - November 13 2025 - 3rd DRB Meeting - ... (Completed 12/02/25) Transcript by Rev.com
This transcript was exported on Dec 02, 2025 - view latest version here.
Chair Gibbs (04:36):
I didn't mean to rush
Bill Rodrigues (04:37):
Just real quick. Give me 30 seconds if you got it. So very much like the last project, the applicant went back based on some council direction and took all of the proposed right of way improvements out of the project. So everything's been moved onto the private property as a result of that. There is no REP application associated with this. The applicant has provided cross sections within your plan set that show that the new or that the proposed driveway conforms with all the cities criteria. In terms of slopes, there is only a small six inch curb located within the public right of way. There was some small or contouring of the earth within the public right of way, but nothing that qualifies as for an REP application under the city code. Any improvements within this area would require just a simple public works permit. There were some other minor project changes that were made, but again, the proposed house is substantially similar to what was seen before. The major revision to the project was everything within the right of way being eliminated and all those retaining walls and all that grading activity just occurring on onsite. So with that staff has again been supportive of this project in the past, notwithstanding the board's prior action staff is still supportive of this application and recommends that the design review board adopt the resolution in approving the project. But that'll conclude my remarks.
Chair Gibbs (06:03):
Okay, thank you very much with that set. Any questions from staff or for staff? No. Open the public hearing. You have five minutes.
David Parker (06:15):
Thank you. But before we start the clock, could we have the slides up please quickly. And I need you to go to slide number seven please.
(06:48):
Back up one please. Yeah. Thank you. Good evening board members. I'm David Parker. I'm the architect for this project. Thank you for your time and your endurance tonight. The following modifications were made to the project. All structures were removed from the right of way, driveway and east fire access stairs were moved completely onto the private lot. We removed all walls, landscaping, hardscaping, irrigation and lighting. From the right of way, the mandatory on street parking space moved north. The driveway entrance has been reviewed and approved by planning and public works and we require no REP, the home garage and upper driveway remain unchanged. Next slide please. These views show the driveway and the right of way. Next slide please. These also show the driveway and the right of way.
And now I'd like the applicant's land use attorney to continue.
Morgan Gallagher (07:52):
Thank you David. Good evening. I have the same comments as I had for lot a I just want to point out really briefly that there is no authority for the broad interpretation that you've expressed tonight. On lot A, the Coastal Act, the Coastal Commission and HCD has taken a different position. The Coastal Act, coastal resources are not broadly interpreted as any property in the city. Certainly not a graded lot that is a buildable lot in a single family residential area. HD has been very clear that it's limited to items such as sensitive habitats, shorelines and beaches. So I just want to caution you that that is an incorrect interpretation of the law. I also want to make the point that we are not threatening the city. That's a Attachment 10 183
183 of 922
1560 BBC - November 13 2025 - 3rd DRB Meeting - ... (Completed 12/02/25) Transcript by Rev.com
This transcript was exported on Dec 02, 2025 - view latest version here. mischaracterization. We've already filed a complaint. You know that we're warning the city of the risks of not following the law. And I think that's our responsibility and I want to point that out. One more thing that I want to point out is that this is a fifth hearing for lot B. That is another housing accountability act violation by the city.
David Dyrnaes (09:04):
Just one moment. The new power poles that are in, that's the Edison Safety upgrade. I granted them two easements to allow them to pull the wires from the lower south properties and they were 11 feet north of the center line. That street. The issue that Mr. Wheel pointed out is because of encroachment by the neighbors on the south side into the street. So there's no way for us to resolve that. And if we had been approved back in May and got our retaining wells in, I had worked a deal with Edison to move those poles north into the right of way to make it wider. That unfortunately is not happening and they're putting them exactly where they intended to, which is at the edge of the street.
Louis Weil (09:48):
So you manipulated Edison to move them closer to the center line of the street? David Dyrnaes (09:52):
No, that's not what I said. Mr. Wheel. I said that I made a deal with them to try to move them closer to my property line north if we were able to get our retaining walls in and grading in ahead of them coming out for the safety upgrade. But the delays in this project has led to the fact that we have not started our project and therefore they put them exactly where they intended to put them at the edge of the street. I did not make any deal with 'em to move them anywhere else.
Louis Weil (10:20):
So their desire was to move them further away. Originally their David Dyrnaes (10:23):
Desire was to put them exactly where they are. They said if we had graded the site by the time they got there, they would consider moving them north. And I gave them easements to allow them to do it in either place depending upon the condition of the site. And because it wasn't graded, they put them where they originally intended to before I even contacted them about the city's need to widen the street.
Morgan Gallagher (10:49):
Regardless, it's completely out of the control of the applicant. Unrelated to the project, completely related to Edison for the record.
Chair Gibbs (10:57):
Okay. Anything further? You have a little time left.
Morgan Gallagher (11:00):
Thank you. No.
Chair Gibbs (11:01):
Attachment 10 184
184 of 922
1560 BBC - November 13 2025 - 3rd DRB Meeting - ... (Completed 12/02/25) Transcript by Rev.com
This transcript was exported on Dec 02, 2025 - view latest version here.
Okay. Members of the public is your opportunity. Two minutes each. If you don't have anything more to add from what you said previously, don't feel compelled. Okay. And the chair's acknowledgement that the comments were equally applicable to both and the chair and the board will take it as such. We'll turn to you for three minutes if you desire. And by you I meant the applicant.
David Dyrnaes (11:34):
Yeah. Thank you. And look, I want to start by saying that I appreciate the difficulty of this project and the commitment that this board makes to trying to arbitrate this Solomon spit in the baby type problem. I don't really know why I'm characterized as not being in good faith participant here, but I am. And unfortunately this is the last opportunity for this decision to be made here. After this, it's all going through court. So I want to make sure you understand. We are grading this site a lot B at 1,490 square feet or cubic yards of Earth. The previous project was 1,550. Both of those projects, they have a height that is equivalent to the Culver height. And in the case of 1550, it's exactly the same height from the garage. The driveway entry to the top of the roof, it's 51 feet or something and theirs is graded 1,770 cubic yards.
(12:36):
So when you talk about disturbance of the hill, they far exceed what we do. There are four story home.
We may appear four stories, but we are not three stories. Both projects are, and at the end of the day, the word salad that's been thrown out about characterizing these projects is whatever it is, the facts are what my attorneys made clear. You don't have the latitude to deny them. The staff has already put in the reports that there is no coastal resource protected item that's on this property and it was previously graded. The evidence is on the survey map. It shows you where the grading is and at the end of the day you choose what you want to choose for a decision here. But the consequences with the next step here is that the city is going to be liable for the outcome of this decision and it's going to be very costly. (13:28):
Worse bringing into this, the widening the street means the neighbors get dragged into it because we can't widen on the north side now it's going to be widened on the south side and their encroachment is going to have to be removed, which I never intended. So I really appreciate your time and your effort and support on this, but I really need you to think hard about what you're doing here. At the end of the day, it's going downhill fast for everyone. And if we had done this in May and approved it, a lot of the things that we're having to deal with now would never have existed. There would be no lawsuit, there would be no issues with this street widening thing. It would be all done. And I would've loved to have gotten some reasonable options for improving the design of the house. But lowering it by eight feet is not going to happen. And at this point, every dollar I spend is going to come back to me five times multiplied by the violations we have. So this is just simply a matter of time and money.
Chair Gibbs (14:30):
Thank you. Alright, any questions of the applicant or anyone else? Nope. I closed the public hearing. My comments that I made on the 1550 apply equally to the 1560. I referenced them as if I've stated in response to this application and will not repeat them here. Next board member.
MJ Coveny (15:04):
Yeah, we concur that I have the same. I can't talk now the same statements I made for 1550 apply to this. Louis, same.
Attachment 10 185
185 of 922
1560 BBC - November 13 2025 - 3rd DRB Meeting - ... (Completed 12/02/25) Transcript by Rev.com
This transcript was exported on Dec 02, 2025 - view latest version here.
Louise Weil (15:18):
Same
Imer Bauta (15:20):
Same here.
Chair Gibbs (15:22):
Okay,
Patrick Donegan (15:23):
So chair, I just want to make sure once again I'm going to, obviously the resolution is kind of already drafted. I believe Bill is just checking to make sure if you guys have the numbers, I am all ears. Last time for the 1550 we referenced it how it extended anywhere between 10 to 15 feet above the ridge and null resulting in a structure more than 50 feet above street grade. I believe those could be accurate, but I just want to make sure that we're dialed in on that before we, I have to look it up. Make any formal, I'll let you check. I didn't think so. Thank you.
Chair Gibbs (16:11):
Height 55 feet.
Louis Weil (16:14):
That's in the one get on my glass. I'd have to add it because the plan's in the cut Speaker 1 (16:19):
Elevation.
Speaker 7 (16:20):
27 Speaker 1 (16:22):
Here.
Speaker 9 (16:26):
Do you see it on roof?
Speaker 10 (16:40):
5 26.
Speaker 1 (16:49):
Hold. Let him do it. I want to make sure that it's apples to apples.
Speaker 10 (17:34):
The elevation at streets 4, 7 6 top of roof was 5 26 5. So I've got 50 feet, Attachment 10 186
186 of 922
1560 BBC - November 13 2025 - 3rd DRB Meeting - ... (Completed 12/02/25) Transcript by Rev.com
This transcript was exported on Dec 02, 2025 - view latest version here.
Speaker 1 (17:44):
50 and a half feet. It's showing 55 on one thing, but that's why I said in excess of 50 feet. So I think we're good there. Yeah,
Speaker 7 (17:51):
I measured them all from roughly the
Speaker 1 (17:54):
Point
Speaker 7 (17:54):
Of access from the garage. But obviously if you follow the contours of the street, the street drops and it can get anywhere from 50 to 60 feet. Both.
Speaker 1 (18:09):
Alright,
Pat Donegan (18:11):
So then I believe the more than 50 feet still stands is the extending above the ridge of the knoll by 10 to 15 feet. Similarly,
Speaker 1 (18:20):
Right?
Speaker 3 (18:21):
Accurate.
Chair Gibbs (18:23):
Okay, so this is going to go into, if I make the motion resolution 25 5 0 9, right? Do we need to do anything before I make the motion, Patrick? It feels like it's early. Doesn't feel like it's nine o'clock or something.
Speaker 3 (18:43):
I believe it's resolution. What resolution
Speaker 1 (18:45):
Is it? That's the number for 1560. It's 25, excuse me. 24 dash 25 0 9.
Speaker 3 (18:56):
Give me one second. I have resolution number 24 dash 25 1 0.
Speaker 1 (19:03):
I'm reading the staff report on five 11. Am I missing it? Attachment 10 187
187 of 922
1560 BBC - November 13 2025 - 3rd DRB Meeting - ... (Completed 12/02/25) Transcript by Rev.com
This transcript was exported on Dec 02, 2025 - view latest version here.
Speaker 3 (19:11):
That is the design review number. I believe the resolution is number 24 dash two five. But maybe I may back copy
Speaker 1 (19:18):
The one. And the attachment to the agenda item is 24 dash 2 5 10. But the staff report refers to one as 25 0 9. So you want to go with 25, 10?
Speaker 3 (19:31):
I do
Speaker 1 (19:32):
Mr. Chair. Alright. I will make a motion that the board adopt. That's what I'm coming up with.
Speaker 3 (19:39):
Okay. We good? I
Speaker 1 (19:42):
Don't want to go into
Speaker 3 (19:42):
This. No. Yeah. Per bill, it says once again so that it rises above the ridge of the null by 10 to 15 feet.
We're going to keep that language in there.
Speaker 1 (19:49):
Okay.
Speaker 3 (19:50):
Got it.
Chair Gibbs (19:51):
Okay. I move that the board adopt resolution 24 dash 2 509 denying coastal development permit 25.
Should be 24 dash two five oh.
Speaker 3 (20:08):
Correct. Chair.
Chair Gibbs, MJ Coveny (20:11):
That's the motion. Do I get a second? Second, please call the role Speaker 11 (20:16):
Board member bta?
Attachment 10 188
188 of 922
1560 BBC - November 13 2025 - 3rd DRB Meeting - ... (Completed 12/02/25) Transcript by Rev.com
This transcript was exported on Dec 02, 2025 - view latest version here.
Speaker 1 (20:17):
No.
Speaker 11 (20:18):
Board member? Yes.
Speaker 1 (20:20):
Board
Speaker 11 (20:20):
Member Weill?
Speaker 1 (20:21):
Yes.
Speaker 11 (20:21):
Chair Gibbs?
Speaker 1 (20:22):
Yes. Motion
Speaker 11 (20:23):
Is passed three to one.
Chair Gibbs (20:24):
Okay, so the next meeting is December 11, is that right? Bill? 2025.
Speaker 2 (20:32):
Well, technically you have a joint meeting with the planning commission on the 19th of November.
Speaker 1 (20:39):
Okay, so
Speaker 2 (20:39):
We're at six o'clock in these chambers. And then the next regular meeting of the design review board would be December 11th.
Speaker 1 (20:45):
Okay. At
Speaker 2 (20:46):
5:00 PM here.
Attachment 10 189
189 of 922
1560 BBC - November 13 2025 - 3rd DRB Meeting - ... (Completed 12/02/25) Transcript by Rev.com
This transcript was exported on Dec 02, 2025 - view latest version here.
Chair Gibbs (20:47):
With that said, those are our next meetings. I adjourn this meeting. Long one.
Attachment 10 190
190 of 922
Categorical Exclusion Areas Map
Project Site
Attachment 11 191
191 of 922
110237\19053160v2
www.coxcastle.com 110237\19053160v3 Los Angeles | Orange County | San Francisco Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP
3121 Michelson Drive, Suite 200
Irvine, California 92612
P: 949.260.4600 F: 646.260.4699
Morgan Gallagher
949.260.4674
[email protected]
November 25, 2025
VIA EMAIL
Bill Rodrigues
Planning Manager
City of Laguna Beach
505 Forest Avenue
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
Re: 1550 and 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive, Laguna Beach
Mr. Rodrigues:
We represent the Dyrnaes family with respect to their projects at 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive (“Lot A”) and 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive (“Lot B”) (collectively, the “Projects”). As you know, DRB denied the Projects on November 13th despite the accurate conclusions in the Staff Reports that (i) the Projects are consistent with all applicable policies of the City’s LCP and (ii) the Projects are consistent with applicable objective design standards.
The DRB Majority’s Decision Was An Abuse of Discretion In Violation of State Law and the City Council’s Guidance.
The DRB majority’s decision to deny the Projects was inconsistent with State law. The decision relied on two components, both of which violate SB 450 and the HAA: (i) that the “natural landform” of the site (i.e. the ‘natural beauty’ of the site as Chair Gibbs said in a previous DRB meeting) is a coastal resource; and (ii) Southern California Edison replaced a power pole within the City’s right of way adjacent to the Projects.
The DRB cannot invent1 new coastal resources as a pretext to deny a project. The property is previously graded and has been zoned and long planned for single-family use. There are no coastal resources identified on the property in the City’s LCP and the ‘natural beauty’ of a site is not a coastal resource recognized by the Coastal Commission, the City, HCD, or the Court. In fact, the City’s own code defines “Coastal Resources” as:
“Coastal resources” include, but are not limited to, public access opportunities, visitor and recreational facilities, water-oriented activities, marine resources, biological resources, 1 The DRB majority did not cite any coastal resources identified in the City’s LCP or any other City document but rather, stated that based on their subjective viewpoint, the site is a coastal resource [“I’ll identify that as a coastal resource cause I think it clearly is… it looks like a natural landform so I’m going on the assumption that it is.” (Chair Gibbs, November 13 DRB hearing at 6:46:40.)].
Attachment 12 192
192 of 922
November 25, 2025
110237\19053160v2
110237\19053160v3
environmentally sensitive areas, agricultural lands, and archaeological or paleontological resources.
There is simply no authority whatsoever for the DRB majority’s invention of the ‘natural beauty’ of a site as a coastal resource.
As stated by Assistant City Attorney Patrick Donegan at the DRB meeting, “DRB should identify and gear any discussion toward the protection of an explicit identifiable coastal resource.” Given that there are no documented, identifiable coastal resources on the property, the DRB’s denial of the Projects based on subjective criteria violates State law. The implication of the DRB majority’s determination, if it was correct, would be that DRB has unlimited discretion to impose DR criteria under the auspices of a CDP analysis to all properties in the City that DRB believes have ‘natural beauty.’ Such an interpretation is clearly inconsistent with State law and would render State housing laws meaningless in almost the entire City. That cannot possibly be what the legislature intended when it required SB 9/SB 450 to be “harmonized” with the Coastal Act.
Even if DRB was correct that ‘natural beauty’ was a coastal resource, which it is not, it was too late to introduce a new coastal resource under SB 450 and the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”). As we have reminded the City many times, SB 450 required the City to take action on the Projects within 60 days of the date the City received completed applications; since the City failed to do so, the Projects were deemed approved. (Gov. Code § 65852.21(h)(1).) In addition, the HAA required the City to inform the applicant in writing of any inconsistency with applicable standards within 30 days of the applicant’s submittal of a complete application; because the City failed to identify any inconsistency with the City’s LCP, the Projects were long ago deemed consistent with all applicable LCP standards. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(2).) The invention of a coastal resource by DRB is also inconsistent with the Council’s directive on August 12, 2025 and City staff’s conclusion that there are no coastal resources on the property.
DRB’s reliance on replacement of an SCE power pole (as part of a City permitted SCE fire safety upgrade project) as a secondary reason to deny the Projects was bizarre and misguided.
First, a power pole was already installed at the same street location. Second, the applicant has no control over SCE’s placement of any power pole. Finally, the power pole has nothing to do with the Projects or the applications that were in front of DRB. The DRB’s denial of the Projects based on an allegation, with no evidence to support it, that our client has not fixed an existing problem the City was well aware of and did nothing to prevent is a clear violation of State law, particularly since that alleged existing problem has no nexus to the project. Mr. Dyrnaes twice offered to accommodate relocation of the power pole further from the centerline of the right-of-way to appease DRB but the City’s constant delay in processing the Projects prevented any adjustment before SCE finalized their plans.
Going into the DRB meeting on November 13th, Mr. Dyrnaes addressed every request from the DRB and Council, including removing the REPs from the Projects. The only remaining Attachment 12 193
193 of 922
November 25, 2025
110237\19053160v2
110237\19053160v3
demand that was previously articulated by the DRB was that the homes should be lowered in height. This was repeated by multiple Board members in multiple DRB meetings. The current placement of the homes is (i) in the only feasible locations to meet City Code, (ii) is well within the height allowed by the Code, and (iii) is fully compatible and consistent with neighboring properties. In fact, the neighboring property at 1536 Morningside Drive was approved by the DRB at a similar height just last year. The DRB majority’s request for the homes to be reduced in height would require the homes to be pushed underground or for a floor to be removed from the homes.
Both of those scenarios would reduce the density of the Projects in violation of State law. We urge the City to remember the history of both 277 Pearl Street and 1673 Louise Street.
The Dyrnaes family demands an appeal hearing on January 13, 2026.
The City’s Code requires an appeal to be set for a public hearing no more than 60 calendar days after receipt of an appeal. (LBMC § 25.05.070(D)(2).) In addition, SB 450 requires action on the Projects to be taken within 60 days of the date the City received completed applications, meaning the City certainly must act on an appeal within 60 days. As you know, the applicant has invoked Government Code section 65589.5(h)(6) as a result of the City’s failure to cease a course of conduct that is improper and has caused unnecessary delay and cost to the Projects. Further delay in setting the appeal hearing will exacerbate the City’s violations of the HAA. The appeal hearing should include the ADU that was submitted as part of the Lot A project in September. This ADU should have been considered by the DRB on November 13, 2025 and was mistakenly excluded.
Finally, the DRB hearing on November 13th was the 5th hearing for Lot B. The HAA prohibits an agency from holding more than five hearings on a housing project, including continuances. A “hearing” includes any public hearing, workshop, or similar meeting conducted by the local government with respect to the housing project, whether by the legislative body of the city or county, the planning agency, or any other agency, department, board, commission, or any other designated hearing officer or body of the City. The City has clearly held 5 hearings on Lot B and the City Council appeal hearing will be a 6th hearing. A 6th hearing represents another violation of the HAA by the City. By participating in the City Council appeal hearing, the applicant in no way waives his right to assert this additional HAA violation.
Sincerely,
Morgan Gallagher
Cc: David Dyrnaes
Daniel Latham, Associate Planner
Matthew Schneider, Community Development Director
Dave Kiff, City Manager
Attachment 12 194
194 of 922
November 25, 2025
110237\19053160v2
110237\19053160v3
Megan Garibaldi, City Attorney
Jane Abzug, Assistant City Attorney
Patrick Donegan, Assistant City Attorney
Horst Noppenberger, Horst Architects
David Parker, Architect
Attachment 12 195
195 of 922
N E W S I N G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E
T O K Y O H O U S E
O C T 2 8 , 2 0 2 5
Daniel Latham
Digitally signed by Daniel Latham
DN: C=US,
[email protected],
CN=Daniel Latham
Date: 2025.11.05 17:31:12-08'00'
196 of 922
PARCEL 1 LL ADJ 04-01
SECTION A 1/4"=1'
SECTION C 1/4"=1' SECTION B 1/4"=1'
SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4"=1'
205 of 922
EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4"=1'
NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4"=1'
WEST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4"=1'
208 of 922
LIGHTING LEGEND SYMBOL DESCRIPTION FINISH WATTAGE LUMENS KELVINS MANUF QUANTITY TOTAL FIXTURES RECESSED LIGHT: LED, 4 INCH, SLIM. 650 LM 2700 SKU: DL_SLIJ4-10W-4K-1PK POLYCARBONATE - SUNCO WHITE 6 10 WATT LED ALUMINUM - BLK PAINT 5.5 WATT LED 360 LM 3000 Rodham 8 in. Black Integrated LED Hardwired Outdoor Wall Light Lantern Sconce HOME DECORATORS COLLECTION 612
560 Bluebird Canyon Drive, Laguna Beach, CA AM&M
SOURCE: DAVID M. PARKER, ARCHITECT, October 2025
PARCEL 1 LL ADJ 04-01
FIRE DEPARTMENT NOTES
SEE COPY OF APPROVED AM&M REPORT FOR PROJECT SPECIFIC ALTERNATIVEMETHODS AND MATERIALS COMPLIANCE.
A SEPARATE (DEFERRED) SUBMITTAL FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS IS REQUIRED.
SYSTEM DESIGN MUST COMPLY WITH THE 2022 CFC AND 2019 NFPA 13STANDARD. THE SYSTEM AND COVERAGE IN ALL SMALL ROOMS (CLOSESTS,BATHROOMS, ETC.) REGARDLESS OF SIZE. PLANS MUST BE DESIGNED ANDINSTALLED BY A QUALIFIED FIRE FIRE PROTECTION CONTRACTOR. PLANS
SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO AND APPROVED BY THE LBFD AND/OR CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH, WITH PERMIT ISSUED AND APPROPRIATE INSPECTIONSCONDUCTED.
A SEPARATE (DEFERRED) FIRE ALARM SYSTEM IS REQUIRED AND MUST BE DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CFC AND NFPA 72AND INSTALLED BY AQUALIFIED ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR. PLANS MUST INCLUDE MONITORING OFTHE FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM (TAMPER AND FLOW SWITCHES) ANDMONITORING OF THE SMOKE DETECTORS IN THE DWELLING. PLANS MUST BESUBMITTED TO AND APPROVED BY THE LBFD, WITH PERMIT ISSUED ANDAPPROPRIATE INSPECTIONS CONDUCTED.
EXTERIOR WET STANDPIPE SYSTEM IS REQUIRED AND MUST BE DESIGNED AND INSTALLED BY A QUALIFIED FIRE PROTECTION CONTRACTOR. PLANSMUST INCLUDE AN FDC WITH A 2.5-INCH CONNECTION NEAR THE STREET, ANDA 3-INCH UNDERGROUND STANDPIPE WITH THE 2.5-INCH CONNECTIONIN THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY, ONE IN THE SOUTHEASTPORTION OF THE PROPERTY AND A THIRD IN THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THEPROPERTYT. PLANS MUST BE SUBMITTED TO AND APPROVED BY THE LBFD,WITH PERMIT ISSUED AND APPROPRIATE INSPECTIONS CONDUCTED.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E. ALL EXPOSED SIDE WINDOWS AND DOOR GLAZING WILL BE DOUBLE PANE
WITH BOTH PANES TEMPERED
H. ALL EXTERIOR FIREPLACES AND FIRE PITS MUST BE GAS FIRED ONLY. NO SOLID FUEL IS ALLOWED PER THE LBFD MUNICIPAL CODE. FIREPLACESBE A MINIMUM 10 FEET FROM ALL COMBUSTIBLE MATEIRALS AND FIRE PITSMUST BE A MINIMUM OF 20 FEET FROM COMBUSTIBLE MATEIRALS.
MAINTAIN JOBSITE SAFETY DURING CONSTRUCTION AS PER CHAPTER 33 OF THE 2022 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE.
COMPLETE FIREFIGHTER ACCESS AROUND THE BUILDING IS REQUIRED, ANDMUST BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH DRB APPROVED PLANS. SEE THIS SHEET FORDETAILS. THIS IS SUBJECT TO FINAL FIRE INSPECTION AND REQUIRESAPPROVAL PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY.
ADDRESS NUMBERS MUST BE PLACED ON THE EXTERIOR FACING THE STREET ADDRESSED TO. MINIMUM SIZE OF NUMBERS IS 4 INCHES, AND THEY MUSTCONTRAST WITH BACKGROUND.FOR FIRE DEPARMENT INSPECTIONS, CALL 949-497-0352 AT LEAST 3 DAYS INADVANCE TO SCHEDULE.
I .
J .
K.
L .
F ALL DOORS TO BE SELF-CLOSING EXCEPT FOR SLIDERS. .
G. DRYER VENTS TO BE BAFFLED OR HAVE MESH COVERING THEM.
1. FIRE FLOW REQUIREMENTS SHALL COMPLY WITH 2022 CFC APP. B.
2. FIRE HYDRANT SYSTEMS AND SPACING SHALL COMPLY WITH 2022 CFC APP. C. WITH A MAXIMUM DISTANCE FROM FRONTAGE TO HYDRANT NOTTO EXCEED 250 FEET.
ADDITIONAL FIRE NOTES
3. ALL STAIRS DESIGNATED AS PART OF THE FIRE ACCESS ARE OF NONCOMBUSTIBLE CONCRETE AND GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION, AND IN COMPLIANCE WITH CBC CHAP. 10.
4. ALL FIREFIGHTER ACCESS PATH WITH A SLOPE EXCEEDING 10%, MUST HAVE COMPLIANT STAIRS.
5. ALL PORTIONS OF THE FIREFIGHTER ACCESS PATHS SHALL HAVE ALLWEATHER SURFACES (CONCRETE, ASPHALT, PAVERS, STONE, OR D.G.) NOTE: THE WET STANDPIPE FDC IS TO BE 2 -2.5-INCH CONNECTIONS, WITH3-INCH PIPING FROM THE FDC TO THE APPLICABLE LOCATIONS. THE HOSECONNECTIONS ARE SINGLE 2.5-INCH.THE WET STANDPIPE SYSTEM CONNECTS TO THE FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMON THE FIRE SPRINKLER RISER ABOVE THE FLOW SWITCH.
6.7.8. NOTE: STANDPIPE SIGNAGE: SIGNAGE TO BE RED WITH WHITE LETTERS, METAL OR RIGID PLASTIC, AND PERMANENTLY ATTACHED TO THE FDCRISER AND THE STANDPIPE HOSE CONNECTION RISERS. BOTH RISERS ARETO BE PAINTED OSHA RED. SIGNAGE ON FDC TO READ: "FDC SERVESSTANDPIPE AND FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM". SIGNAGE ON HOSECONNECTION RISER TO READ: "WET STANDPIPE HOSE CONNECTION".
ENGINE
ENGINE
FDC HoseConnection #2
FDC HoseConnection #1
FDC Hose
Inlet
Proposed FDC Inlet location
Proposed FDC Connection locations
FDC Supply LineEngine Hose Within 150’
>
'
E
FDC Hose Beyond 150'
Fire Department Site Access Plan - 1560 Bluebird
SHEET
FD-SAP
10-28-25
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 221 of 922
PARCEL 4 LL ADJ 04-01 PARCEL 1 LL ADJ 04-01 PARCEL 2 LL ADJ 04-01 PARCEL 3 LL ADJ 04-01 (PRIVATELY OWNED) PROP. IMPROVEMENT PER SEPARATE PLAN PARCEL 4 LL ADJ 04-01 PARCEL 1 LL ADJ 04-01 PARCEL 2 LL ADJ 04-01 PARCEL 3 LL ADJ 04-01 (PRIVATELY OWNED) GARAGE FIRST LEVEL FF=492.00 PAD= ___.__ FIRST LEVEL FF=505.00 PAD= ___.__ SPA LOT A LOT B FF=505.00 T/SLAB=503.00 FIRST LEVEL FF=505.00 PAD= ___.__ SPA SLOPE(AVG.)=11.02% 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 DEVELOPMENT STATISTICS EASEMENT NOTE LEGEND Tt Qrs Qrs Tt Tt SECTION Tt Qrs Qrs Tt SECTION SECTION PROFILE -DWY LOT B SECTION SECTION 1 3 9 A v e n i d a N a v a r r o S a n C l e m e n t e , C A 9 2 6 7 2 9 4 9 . 4 9 2 . 8 5 8 6 www. t o a l e n g i n e e r i n g . c o m C I V I L E N G I N E E R I N G L A N D S U R V E Y I N G STORMWATER QUAL I T Y PRELIMINARY PLAN NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PARCEL 4 LL ADJ 04-01 PARCEL 1 LL ADJ 04-01 PARCEL 2 LL ADJ 04-01 PARCEL 3 LL ADJ 04-01 (PRIVATELY OWNED) PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT PER SEPARATE PLAN PARCEL 1 LL ADJ 04-01 GARAGE FIRST LEVEL FF=505.00 PAD= ___.__ SPA LOT B FF=505.00 T/SLAB=503.00 FIRST LEVEL FF=505.00 PAD= ___.__ SLOPE(AVG.)=11.02% 1 3 9 A v e n i d a N a v a r r o S a n C l e m e n t e , C A 9 2 6 7 2 9 4 9 . 4 9 2 . 8 5 8 6 ww w. t o a l e n g i n e e r i n g . c o m C I V I L E N G I N E E R I N G L A N D S U R V E Y I N G STORMWATER QUAL I TY LEGEND: EARTHWORK QUANTITIES: PRELIMINARY PLAN NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PARCEL 4 LL ADJ 04-01 PARCEL 1 LL ADJ 04-01 PARCEL 3 LL ADJ 04-01 (PRIVATELY OWNED) PARCEL 4 LL ADJ 04-01 PARCEL 1 LL ADJ 04-01 PARCEL 3 LL ADJ 04-01 (PRIVATELY OWNED) GARAGE FIRST LEVEL FF=492.00 PAD= ___.__ FIRST LEVEL FF=505.00 PAD= ___.__ SPA LOT A LOT B FF=505.00 T/SLAB=503.00 FIRST LEVEL FF=505.00 PAD= ___.__ FIRST LEVEL FF=492.00 PAD= ___.__ SPA SLOPE(AVG.)=11.02% 1 3 9 A v e n i d a N a v a r r o S a n C l e m e n t e , C A 9 2 6 7 2 9 4 9 . 4 9 2 . 8 5 8 6 www. t o a l e n g i n e e r i n g . c o m C I V I L E N G I N E E R I N G L A N D S U R V E Y I N G STORMWATER QUAL I T Y PRELIMINARY PLAN NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION EROSION CONTROL BMPs TEMPORARY SEDIMENT CONTROL WIND EROSION CONTROL TRACKING CONTROL WASTE MANAGEMENT AND MATERIALS POLLUTION CONTROL NON-STORMWATER MANAGEMENT YEAR-ROUND BMP REQUIREMENTS LEGEND NOTE STAPLE DETAIL PLAN SECTION B-B SIGN DETAIL DETAIL WATERPROOFED CONCRETE WASHOUT AREA DETAIL GRAVEL BAG BERM SECTION X-X PLAN DETAIL STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION DETAIL STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE PARCEL 4 LL ADJ 04-01 PARCEL 1 LL ADJ 04-01 PARCEL 2 LL ADJ 04-01 PARCEL 3 LL ADJ 04-01 (PRIVATELY OWNED) PAD=504.0PAD=502.0 PAD=491.0 PAD=508.5 1 3 9 A v e n i d a N a v a r r o S a n C l e m e n t e , C A 9 2 6 7 2 9 4 9 . 4 9 2 . 8 5 8 6 www. t o a l e n g i n e e r i n g . c o m C I V I L E N G I N E E R I N G L A N D S U R V E Y I N G STORMWATER QUAL I T Y PRELIMINARY PLAN NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION EROSION CONTROL BMPs TEMPORARY SEDIMENT CONTROL WIND EROSION CONTROL TRACKING CONTROL WASTE MANAGEMENT AND MATERIALS POLLUTION CONTROL NON-STORMWATER MANAGEMENT YEAR-ROUND BMP REQUIREMENTS LEGEND NOTE CONSTRUCTION STAGING PLAN NOTE: CONSTRUCTION PARKINGS MUST BE ON THE SITE AND SHALL NOT OBSTRUCT TRAFFIC FLOW.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT
November 13, 2025
Agenda Item No. 5.11
Case No: Coastal Development Permit 24-2510
Design Review 24-2509
Request: Construction of a single-family dwelling with an attached two-car garage and an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) on a vacant building site in the R-1 (Residential Low Density) zone.
Location: 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive | Lot B
Applicant: David Parker, Architect
(949) 872-6616 | [email protected]
Owner: David Dyrnaes, 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive LLC
Staff: Community Development Department
Daniel Latham, Associate Planner
(949) 464-6612 | [email protected]
Recommendation:
Conduct a public hearing and adopt Resolution No. 24-2509 approving Coastal Development Permit 24- 2510 and Design Review 24-2509 and find the action categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303.
CEQA:
The project qualifies for a categorical exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, Section 15303 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, in that the project consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small structures.
Coastal Development Permit:
The project requires a Coastal Development Permit Pursuant to Laguna Beach Municipal Code (LBMC) Chapter 25.07 and the project site is located within a non-appealable area of the Coastal Zone, and therefore action on a CDP is not appealable to the California Coastal Commission.
Board Members within a 500’ Radius: None
Attachment 14 227
227 of 922
CDP 24-2510, DR 24- 2509
November 13, 2025
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On August 12, 2025, the City Council held a public hearing on an appeal of the Design Review Board’s decision, reflected in Board Resolution No. 24.2590 (Attachment 8), denying Design Review (“DR”) 24- 2509, Coastal Development Permit (“CDP”) 24-2510, and Revocable Encroachment Permit (“REP”) 24- 2511, which was filed by property owner, David Dyrnaes, of 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive (the “Property”).
Among other actions, the City Council remanded the appealed decision 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 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. (Attachment 9 is City Council Resolution 25.075.) While 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 since revised the project to eliminate REP2511.
The Applicant is now seeking DR 24-2509 for construction of a new single-family dwelling and garage, vehicular access, elevated decks, spa, grading, retaining walls, trash enclosure in the front setback, and landscaping and CDP 24-2510 for the new development, including a new single-family dwelling, attached garage, attached ADU, and site improvements, in the coastal zone (the “Second Revised Project”). The Second Revised Project is depicted within the project plans (Attachment 2). The changes are described in more detail below.
Attachment 14 228
228 of 922
CDP 24-2510, DR 24- 2509
November 13, 2025
PROPERTY AERIAL PHOTO
STREET FRONTAGE
Attachment 14 229
229 of 922
CDP 24-2510, DR 24- 2509
November 13, 2025
PROPERTY INFORMATION
Land Use Designation Village Low Density (1-7 DU/AC)
Zoning Designation R-1 Residential Low Density
Development Standard Required Proposed Conforms
Building Site Coverage 35.00 % maximum
(3,003.70 SF)
34.30 %
2,944.00 SF Yes
Landscape Open Space 25.14 % minimum
(2,157.52 SF)
25.3 %
2,166 SF Yes
Building Height
(Above rear lot line)
15’-0” 15’-0” Yes
Building Height
(Lowest floor to top of roof)
30’-0” 26’-8” Yes
Setbacks Front
Front
Side (West)
Side (East)
Rear (Shallow lot)
Garage 5’-0”
House 10’-0”
4’-0”
13’-0”
19’-3”
10’-3”
27’-2”
4’-0”
15’-7”
19’-7”
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Driveway Slope First 20 feet
Next 20-130 feet
Average 10% maximum
Average 14% maximum
0.8%
12%
Yes
Yes
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
Background
On January 23, 2025, the Board held a duly noticed public hearing and considered the project consisting of Design Review for a new single-family dwelling and two-car garage, vehicular access, elevated decks, spa, grading, retaining walls, trash enclosure in the front setback, and landscaping, a Revocable Encroachment Permit to construct and maintain improvements in the public right-of-way, including walls, stairs, irrigation, drainage, and lighting, and a Coastal Development Permit for the new development, including a new singlefamily dwelling, attached garage, and site improvements (“Original Project”). 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 (the “Revised Project”).1 On April 3, 2025, City staff requested additional information and action from the Applicant:
1. Identification of the required ADU parking space on the site plan and delineation of the travel route from the parking space to the ADU entrance.
2. Updated REP exhibits based on PW accepting the new trees proposed in the PROW. 1 Applicant did not pay the application fee for the coastal development permit or the zoning plan check fee for the fourth review of the project.
Attachment 14 230
230 of 922
CDP 24-2510, DR 24- 2509
November 13, 2025
3. The Building Official’s approval of an AM&M for non-compliant vegetation.
While City staff later identified that the ADU did not require its own parking space and Building and Safety Division had a copy of the AM&M, City staff identified that the proposed ADU had issues of compliance with the line-of-sight requirement in the City’s Urgency Ordinance No. 1713 relating to accessory dwelling units. On April 24, 2025, Applicant asked for the status, and City staff responded that the public hearing was tentatively scheduled for June 26, 2025 and the staff report was not completely drafted. On May 1, 2025, upon Applicant’s request, City staff rescheduled the item for May 22, 2025.
On May 22, 2025, the Board held a duly-noticed public hearing to consider the Revised Project consisting of Design Review for the new single-family dwelling and garage, vehicular access, elevated decks, spa, grading, retaining walls, trash enclosure in the front setback, and landscaping, a Revocable Encroachment Permit to construct and maintain improvements in the public right-of-way, including walls, stairs, irrigation, drainage facilities, and lighting, and a Coastal Development Permit for the new development, including a new single-family dwelling, attached garage, attached ADU, and site improvements. 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).
On June 12, 2025, the Board considered the draft resolution denying the Revised Project on the consent calendar and adopted the resolution denying the Revised Project with certain changes read into the record, including a finding that the denial of the Revised Project is exempt from CEQA (the “Board Denial”).
On June 4, 2025, the Applicant filed an appeal of the Board’s denial of the Revised Project (the “Appeal”).
On August 12, 2025, the City Council held a public hearing on the Appeal and carefully considered the oral and documentary evidence and arguments presented. Amongst other actions, the City Council remanded the appealed decision of the Design Review Board, as reflected in Design Review Board Resolution No. 24 2509, denying DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, and REP 24-2511, to the Design Review 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 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.
Attachment 14 231
231 of 922
CDP 24-2510, DR 24- 2509
November 13, 2025
(Attachment 9 is City Council Resolution 25.075) While 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 since revised the project to eliminate REP2511.
The Applicant is now seeking DR 24-2509 for construction of a new single-family dwelling and garage, vehicular access, elevated decks, spa, grading, retaining walls, trash enclosure in the front setback, and landscaping and CDP 24-2510 for the new development, including a new single-family dwelling, attached garage, attached ADU, and site improvements, in the coastal zone (the “Second Revised Project” or hereinafter referred to as “Project”). The Project is depicted within the project plans (Attachment 2).
Changes Resulting in the Project
As discussed above and in the summary of changes document provided by the Applicant (Attachment 3), below are the changes resulting in the Project:
• 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.
Attachment 14 232
232 of 922
CDP 24-2510, DR 24- 2509
November 13, 2025
• 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).
State Housing Laws and the City’s Review Process
As the Board is aware, the State has passed numerous housing laws with the stated purpose of introducing certainty and more timely review of certain housing projects by local agencies.
Senate Bill 9 and Senate Bill 450
In 2021, Senate Bill 9 (“SB 9”) was signed into law. Since January 1, 2022, it has required cities to allow any lot in a single-family residential zone to be: (1) split, roughly into halves, with resulting lots as small as 1,200 sf (termed an “urban lot split”); and (2) developed with a second primary dwelling unit. SB 9 required cities to approve urban lot splits and second primary dwelling unit projects ministerially (i.e., without discretionary review, conditions, or a hearing). SB 9 allowed cities to impose objective zoning, subdivision, and design standards on SB 9 projects, subject to some limitations. Notwithstanding the foregoing, SB 9 had an explicit Coastal Act savings clause:
“Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code), except that the local agency shall not be required to hold public hearings for Coastal Development Permit applications for a housing development pursuant to this section.”
In 2024, Senate Bill 450 (“SB 450”) was signed into law. Since January 1, 2025, cities no longer have authority to:
• Impose standards on second primary dwelling units “that do not apply uniformly to development within the underlying zone” … that is, unless the SB 9/SB 450-specific standards “are more permissive.”2
• Impose standards on urban lot splits that are “not related to the design or to improvements of a parcel.”3
Just like SB 9, SB 450 does not modify the City’s authority under its certified LCP pursuant to the California Coastal Act4 and the City may continue to require a CDP for an urban lot split and a two unit development project, except for a JADU that is part of a two unit development project. 2 Gov. Code § 65852.21, subd. (b)(3).
3 Gov. Code § 6411.7, subd. (c)(1).
4 Gov. Code §§ 65852.21(l) [two-unit projects], 66411.7(o)[urban lot splits] both include the Coastal Act protections: “Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California Coastal Act Attachment 14 233
233 of 922
CDP 24-2510, DR 24- 2509
November 13, 2025
Here, the vacant lot on which this Project is proposed is the result of an SB 9 lot split. In light of the City’s effort to harmonize SB 450 and the City’s obligations and responsibilities under the Coastal Act, the City Council gave direction to disregard Design Review requirements in conflict with SB 450--in light of a Coastal Development Permit’s ability to adequately protect coastal resources in the Design Review process- - and to apply objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design standards that apply uniformly to development within the underlying zone under SB 450. City staff has gone through the exercise of identifying the objective findings and criteria within Design Review for the Board’s consideration below. Further, in light of the City Council direction to consider protection of coastal resources through the Coastal Development Permit process, City staff has included a Coastal Development Permit analysis of the full findings and criteria for the Board’s consideration below.
Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”)
Broadly speaking, the HAA imposes substantive limitations on when a housing development project5 that complies with the City’s “applicable, on objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including Design Review standards, in effect at the time the application was deemed complete,” may be disapproved or conditioned to be developed at a lower density.6 In such event, a local agency must adopt written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) the project would have a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety, unless the project is disapproved or conditioned at a lower density; and (2) there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact on public health or safety, other than disapproval or imposing a condition to be developed at a lower density.
Like SB 9 and SB 450, the HAA has a Coastal Act Savings Clause.
ENTITLEMENTS: This project is subject to the following entitlements: Coastal Development Permit and Design Review.
Coastal Development Permit
The proposed single-family dwelling requires the approval of a Coastal Development Permit. (See LBMC Section 25.07.004.) Coastal Development Permits are governed by LBMC Chapter 25.07. A Coastal Development Permit is considered by the Design Review Board at a duly noticed public hearing where the following findings are considered in relation to the proposed development:
Finding No. 1: The project is in conformity with all the applicable provisions of the certified local coastal program, including the following review criteria:
of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code), except that the local agency shall not be required to hold public hearings for coastal development permit applications for a housing development pursuant to this section.” 5 Under the HAA, a “housing development project” means: (1) a project with residential units only; (2) mixed-use developments with at least two thirds of the square footage designated for residential use, or (3) transitional or supportive housing (Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(2).)
6 HAA broadly defines “lower density” as including “any conditions that have the same effect or impact on the ability of the project to provide housing.” (Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(8).) HCD’s Technical Assistance on the HAA (dated Sept. 15, 2020) concludes that a condition to reduce square footage can be read as a condition to “lower density.” Attachment 14 234
234 of 922
CDP 24-2510, DR 24- 2509
November 13, 2025
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 rightof-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 visitor-serving 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 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 (Attachment 7), found that the proposed development is geotechnically feasible and free of Attachment 14 235
235 of 922
CDP 24-2510, DR 24- 2509
November 13, 2025
undue geologic risks with the incorporation of their recommendations in the final design, which is a standard requirement of the design and construction process and the City’s Building Division.
The site is a hillside lot and not within a mapped flood plain. The project site is located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) and the design must be consistent with applicable Building and Fire Codes. The applicant has prepared an Alternative Means and Methods report prepared by Dudek dated October 21, 2025, (Attachment 6) 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 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 Attachment 14 236
236 of 922
CDP 24-2510, DR 24- 2509
November 13, 2025
construction and/or renovation and require development to be compatible with the surrounding residences. Goal: Preserve, enhance and respect the unique character and identity of Laguna’s residential neighborhoods.”
LU Policy 2.8 states:
“Require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated with natural topographic features, minimize significant alteration of natural topography and/or other significant onsite resources, and protect public views as specified in the Design Guidelines and the Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document.
Goal: Preserve, enhance and respect the unique character and identity of Laguna’s residential neighborhoods.”
LU Policies 7.3 and 10.2 require the following:
“Design and site new development to protect natural and environmentally sensitive resources, such as areas of unique scenic quality, public views, and visual compatibility with surrounding uses and to minimize natural landform alterations.
GOAL: Protect, preserve, and enhance the community’s natural resources and ensure that proposals for new development, subdivisions, and major remodels are sufficiently evaluated to protect public health and safety and natural resources.” The proposed would alter and obscure the entire property to a point that the natural profile of the site would be developed and obscured. The Bluebird Canyon area is an enclave of predominantly hillside and ridgeline development between two open space canyon areas that is largely surrounded by additional higher ridgeline and hillside development. Open Space and Conservation Element Policy 13-B requires that development proposals, including additions and alterations to existing buildings, incorporate protection of the natural profile of ridgelines as visual resources. The proposed Project is sited furthest away from the street on the top of the hill, impacting the profile of the ridgeline.
However, this ridgeline contains other single-family homes of various sizes and heights, and the property is not in a environmentally sensitive area. In addition, there are no public viewpoints in close proximity to the project site, it could be argued that the project complies with these Land Use Policies.
Coastal Land Use Plan Technical Appendix Section 30251 The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural landforms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and where feasible to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. New development in highly scenic areas ... shall be subordinate to the character of its setting.
The long driveway extending up the hill and siting of the structure either atop or close to the top of the ridgeline results in grading and alteration of the natural landform. However, designing a house that is built into the side of hill and follows the existing grade would result in additional alteration of the site, requiring more grading. The project does not block views towards the ocean and scenic coastal areas. The surrounding single-family home area is not visually degraded by a new singlefamily home on this vacant lot that does not contain coastal resources.
Attachment 14 237
237 of 922
CDP 24-2510, DR 24- 2509
November 13, 2025
LCP DOCUMENTS
The project must conform with all the following applicable documents of the Certified LCP.
1. Coastal Land Use Plan Technical Appendix (1984)
2. Design Guidelines - A Guide to Residential Development (2010)
3. Fuel Modification Guidelines (1989)
4. Chapter 14.78 Geology Reports - Preparation and Requirements (2005)
5. Land Use Element (2012) 6. Title 21 - Plats and Subdivision (1991)
7. Title 22 - Excavation and Grading (2004)
8. Title 25 - Zoning Code
Finding No. 2. Any development located between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea is in conformity with the certified local coastal program and with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act.
N/A. The subject property is located a mile from the Pacific Ocean and not located between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea.
Finding No. 3. The proposed development will not have any significant adverse impacts on the environment within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act.
The project will not cause any significant adverse impacts on the environment and qualifies for a categorical exemption the project qualifies for a categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15303 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. None of the exceptions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply.
Design Review
The following elements require Design Review: new structure, vehicular access, elevated decks, spa, grading, retaining walls, trash storage within the front setback, and landscaping (LBMC Section
25.05.040(B)). Design Review is governed by LBMC Section 25.05.040 and is part of the City’s certified Local Coastal Program. Design Review is considered by the Design Review Board at a duly noticed public hearing. Based on the above discussion regarding SB 450, City Council direction, and the City’s attempt to harmonize its obligations under the Coastal Act while effectuating the goals and intent of SB 450, the following objective standards in the following findings are considered in relation to the proposed development:
First, as explained above, the Project is consistent with the following objective standards: building site coverage, landscaped open space, height (above rear lot line), height (lowest floor to top of roof), setbacks (front, east, west, and rear) and driveway slope.
Finding No. 1: Physical improvements and site developments related to the project are designed and located in a manner in overall consistency with the design review criteria specified in Section 25.05.040(H), as set forth below:
Attachment 14 238
238 of 922
CDP 24-2510, DR 24- 2509
November 13, 2025
1. Access. Conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians and other modes of transportation should be minimized by specifically providing for each applicable mode of transportation. Handicapped access shall be provided as required by applicable statutes.
No handicapped access is required.
2. General Plan Compliance: The development shall comply with all applicable policies of the General Plan, including all its elements, applicable specific plans, and the certified local coastal program.
The project complies with the certified local coastal program and follows the general plan policies as discussed below:
LU Element (LUE) Policy 2.1 Maintain the diversity and uniqueness of individual neighborhoods. Development standards and design review guidelines shall minimize the scale and bulk of new construction and/or renovation and require development to be compatible with the surrounding residences. As discussed under the Neighborhood Compatibility criterion (No. 9), the proposed project is in a neighborhood with diverse architectural styles. The architectural style and materials of the proposed home are compatible with the surrounding residences. To reduce the perceived massing, the applicant has incorporated vegetative screening over the driveway retaining walls to soften their appearance, reduced the overall habitable area, eliminated the tandem garage configuration, and decreased the size of the deck.
Land Use (LU) Policy 2.8 Require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated with natural topographic features, minimize significant alteration of natural topography and/or other significant onsite resources, and protect public views as specified in the Design Guidelines and the Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document. The proposed project does not impact any public views; however, the project can be seen from a public trail (Aswut Trail) which runs between Top of the World to Arch Beach Heights, and no natural topographic features or significant onsite resources exist. Alteration of the natural topography is necessary for hillside development.
Land Use (LU) Policy 7.3 Design and site new development to protect natural and environmentally sensitive resources, such as areas of unique scenic quality, public views, and visual compatibility with surrounding uses and to minimize natural landform alterations. The subject property is located within an established residential neighborhood. A one-story home exists directly adjacent to the west at 1540 Bluebird Canyon Drive and two vacant building sites are located to the east side and rear. While direct comparison with adjacent homes is challenging, the proposed project demonstrates similar massing to the approved residence at 1536 Morningside, located on the opposite side of the same knoll. This similarity is largely due to the site’s topography and the location and orientation of the garage. In terms of mass, the two projects are visually compatible.
3. Landscaping: Landscaping shall be incorporated as an integrated part of the structure’s design and relate harmoniously to neighborhood and community landscaping themes. View equity shall Attachment 14 239
239 of 922
CDP 24-2510, DR 24- 2509
November 13, 2025
be an important consideration in the landscape design. The relevant landscaping guidelines contained in the City’s “Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document” should be incorporated, as appropriate, in the design and planned maintenance of proposed landscaping.
Yes, landscaping is incorporated into the Project.
4. Lighting and Glare: Adequate lighting for individual and public safety shall be provided in a manner which does not significantly impact neighboring properties. Reflective materials and appurtenances that cause glare or a negative visual impact (e.g., skylights, white rock roofs, high-gloss ceramic tile roofs, reflective glass, etc.) should be avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance in those locations where those surfaces are visible from neighboring properties.
Adequate lighting for individual and public safety is provided.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, the project qualifies for a categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15303 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, in that the project consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small structures. There is no evidence of any unusual or special conditions that would result in a significant effect on the environment. Here, the proposed project consists of a new single-family dwelling and an accessory dwelling unit on a vacant lot zoned for single-family use.
Further, none of the exceptions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply. The project site does not contain any environmentally sensitive areas. There will be no cumulative impact resulting from successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time in that the proposed project involves construction of a new single-family dwelling on a vacant building site within an established neighborhood.
There are no unusual circumstances resulting in a significant impact on the environment. There will be no damage to scenic resources, including trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. The project is not located on a hazardous waste site, or any other site included on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. The project will not result in significant adverse impacts to historical resources as defined by CEQA.
Consequently, additional environmental analysis is not necessary to meet the requirements of the CEQA.
Questions have been raised about a potential cumulative effect with pending single family home projects (including this project) either under review or approved in proximity to the project site. Concerns about the physical capacity of the roadway and construction related access expressed. Staff has consulted with the Public Works Department engineers, and they are confident the roadway can physically handle all construction-related traffic for the project and the three other known projects in the vicinity (1526 & 1536 Morningside Drive and 1550 & 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive). Regarding neighborhood and emergency access during construction, standard conditions regarding construction staging and management, typically prepared just prior to building or grading permit issuance, will necessitate that all roads be open and available throughout the construction process of all four projects. As a result, there is no cumulative construction-related issue.
Attachment 14 240
240 of 922
CDP 24-2510, DR 24- 2509
November 13, 2025
RECOMMENDATION:
Conduct a public hearing and adopt Resolution No. 24-2509 approving Coastal Development Permit 24- 2510 and Design Review 24-2509 and find the action categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303.
NOTIFICATION:
Pursuant to Title 25 (Zoning) Public Notice, a public hearing notice has been mailed at least twenty-one (21) days prior to the hearing date in accordance with Title 25 on October 22, 2025. In addition, a public hearing notice has been posted on the project site at least 10 days in advance of the hearing date on November 2, 2025.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
As of the date that the November 13, 2025 Design Review Board agenda was published staff had not received any public comments since the City Council hearing on August 12, 2025.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1– Recommended Board Resolution No. 24-2510
Attachment 2 – Project Plans
Attachment 3 – Summary of Project Changes
Attachment 4 – August 12, 2025 City Council Agenda Report Attachment 5 – August 12, 2025 City Council Meeting Minutes Attachment 6 – Alternative Material & Methods Report
Attachment 7 – Geotechnical Report
Attachment 8 – Board Resolution No. 24-2509
Attachment 9 – August 12, 2025 City Council Resolution No. 25.075 Attachment 14 241
241 of 922
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 15 242
242 of 922
243 of 922
244 of 922
245 of 922
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. 246 of 922
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
247 of 922
248 of 922
249 of 922
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
250 of 922
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. 251 of 922
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. 252 of 922
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.”
253 of 922
● 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.
254 of 922
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. 257 of 922
● 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
258 of 922
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