[{"_1":2,"_97":-5,"_98":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,74,86],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},"mediaId",6542089,"mediaKeyId","3793881-04213c9c04448233665a082261b2a28f","parentId",3793881,"title","Design Review Board adopts resolution denying Bluebird Canyon project; applicant cites Housing Accountability Act","audioSeconds",165,"startMs",1170000,"endMs",1335000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3793881-04213c9c04448233665a082261b2a28f&start=1170&end=1335","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3793881-04213c9c04448233665a082261b2a28f/thumbnail_1170000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6542089/Laguna-Beach/Orange-County/California/Design-Review-Board-adopts-resolution-denying-Bluebird-Canyon-project-applicant-cites-Housing-Accountability-Act","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6542089-08b9771e0bc1226d76276e79c6d35610/orig.mp4?Expires=1771188323&Signature=bdqIosND09XRKJp0crYe2SLFD3wTtGR6GJ2oDyv9FsQ2TjoZCS~H55XIAfxNg18Vganhy2uGQzLjY6-r7hWaoyKyiGRM1I81cZgUFf4wpOlqPdvzXtw5pN19DTnkF2RmbAoEQ2WBR4fF-4VUVUmYVj8zfrNFlCA011gtaDK7TuzWj8cLyVULWT1ZlASJv5XQ5bOwrB9PalO1HzQI9Fqv28WNa7OwNf08Pb2vu~SIM51QuJ6XNychf~6tf~ogZf9zdMjSQzM2Oo8NaJJKBXJ0fcxuNfiR3AVtZ6mV~qZ94q6UXGmTMLGn524kWAlTaB0stSBgCxFBCuzz1hoAn9HQeA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-06-12T23:49:53Z","article","At its June 12 meeting the Laguna Beach Design Review Board adopted a resolution denying the application for a project on Bluebird Canyon (design review 24‑2509; coastal development permit 24‑2510; revocable encroachment permit 24‑2511). The decision followed brief public comment and applicant presentations focused on whether the board’s prior deliberations had used allowable objective standards.

What the board decided: The board approved a staff‑prepared resolution memorializing the board’s prior direction and denying the project; the resolution included findings and a statement that the action is exempt from CEQA under the cited guideline in the staff report. The motion passed on a recorded roll call as follows: Bauta — No; Coveney — Yes; Weil — Yes; Gannon — No; Gibbs — Yes.

Applicant and legal argument: The applicant and their counsel attended and asked the board to limit comment to the contents of the resolution. The applicant’s attorney said the city attorney had confirmed in a letter that the project is subject to the Housing Accountability Act and related state housing statutes (as referenced in the hearing: SB 330, SB 450 and other housing laws). Counsel argued those laws require approval of housing projects that comply with objective design standards and said the prior hearing had included largely subjective commentary: “When we were sitting here a couple weeks ago before you, we heard a lot of subjective comments on this project,” the attorney said on the record. The attorney urged reconsideration and the availability of legal remedies.

Board response and edits: During deliberation a board member proposed edits to ensure the resolution accurately summarized the prior meeting’s statements about other board members’ concerns; the board adopted a more concise wording that summarized the three members’ concerns as shared. The board also added specificity in one finding about street width at the driveway access point, noting a street width measurement and safety observations that staff would incorporate into the final resolution.

Appealability and next steps: Staff reminded the public that parties residing within 300 feet of a project have 14 days to appeal a board action under the city’s rules. The applicant also noted it had legal remedies available and that the matter could be pursued in court if the applicant believed state housing laws had been violated.

Quotes (on the record)
- Applicant counsel: “The city attorney confirmed in a letter today that the project is subject to the Housing Accountability Act and SB 330 and SB 450…The primary purpose of those laws is to approve housing projects only subject to objective design standards, and that is not what happened here a couple weeks ago.”
- Chair Gibbs (on the record while amending language): “I think the three other design review members had concerns with the project.”

Ending: The resolution denying the Bluebird Canyon application is now part of the public record; staff will finalize the edited resolution language and file it per standard procedures. The denial may be subject to appeal within the 14‑day period or to subsequent legal action from the applicant based on the applicant’s cited state housing statutes.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Design Review Board Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","The board voted June 12 to adopt a resolution denying the design review, coastal permit and encroachment permit for a Bluebird Canyon project (DR 24‑2509). The applicant’s attorney said the project is subject to state housing statutes and argued the board’s earlier meeting relied on subjective standards.","taxTitle","Laguna Beach, Orange County, California","taxId",56774,"location","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":75,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":76,"_41":77,"_43":78,"_45":79,"_47":80,"_49":81,"_51":82,"_53":83,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":84,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":85,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6542093,"Neighbors press Laguna Beach board over Zelle Drive excavation, board approves project with limits",1605,4395000,6000000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3793881-04213c9c04448233665a082261b2a28f&start=4395&end=6000","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3793881-04213c9c04448233665a082261b2a28f/thumbnail_4395000.jpg","/articles/6542093/Laguna-Beach/Orange-County/California/Neighbors-press-Laguna-Beach-board-over-Zelle-Drive-excavation-board-approves-project-with-limits","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6542093-a2ca39f9a19d0d9ede5170132db55656/orig.mp4?Expires=1771188323&Signature=WcNJV3WCaauYaI19fGK764w~Fwl87itEF~5DR1Wa0YJ6IyTjt4X3pLO1inbZd~3e7YvVQENzgLlfDsi-Flyiua1DxVCb-e1OC9TQ5P-ftALHszke3pNiPahIAK1kr4EJrmUOzwVMkeisz7DL3AVJizpoR1Id21jluyV9tCmoQgWxRByDZKQZqXr2xyOJAJqXE0rI19dtL8bw4DI1qOtnJw63V6oVbxj9P3nKcW7z4WOp88YG6UaSyRqYeH~Qaohss6pggbyZ5KKS6BtkbZpn9uObg8OCZnfIWAEtvJvKQ8dPzGDiYdZLu9BAgvuSC~l9c4M2qOnTg~YDNWtEO0VN7Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Laguna Beach Design Review Board voted 4‑1 June 12 to approve a revised design for a new single‑family residence and related site work at 2840 Zelle Drive, but not before an extended hearing that centered on neighbor concerns about deep excavation and privacy.

At issue: The applicant sought approval for a new multi‑level home with attached garage, an upper‑level deck, retaining walls and an in‑ground spa. Neighbors said the project still required significant excavation — roughly 900–1,000 cubic yards by the participants’ estimates — into hard bedrock close to adjacent foundations. Residents and a consulting engineer warned of vibration, dust and potential structural damage without careful monitoring; they asked the board to require a smaller building program or additional site studies.

Why it matters: The property sits on a steep hillside with limited usable yard area; the design’s below‑grade garage and patio areas require rock removal near neighboring foundations. The scale of excavation and the nearby residences made this more than a routine design review; board members weighed geotechnical risk, neighborhood compatibility and the extent of outdoor living areas proposed on the west side of the lot.

Key points from the hearing
- Neighbors’ objections: Multiple neighbors — including 2849 Chelan/Chalon and 2850 Zelle Drive residents — testified that the revised plans still demanded heavy excavation near existing homes, could cause structural damage and produce substantial truck traffic through neighborhood streets. They asked the board to require a bond for potential damage and to reduce the amount of sandstone removal.
- Applicant response: Architect David Parker and the project geologist told the board they expected the bedrock to be “rippable” with heavy equipment rather than requiring blasting. The applicant’s geotechnical engineer recommended pre‑construction condition assessments and vibration monitoring during grading and offered mitigation strategies if vibration readings exceeded thresholds. The team agreed on the record to provide monitoring and to work with building‑department requirements for shoring and protection methods.
- Board conditions and redlines: To address neighbor concerns, the board approved the project only after the applicant agreed to several on‑the‑record changes: (1) reduce the rear patio usable concrete area by following a redline (staff to verify — described during the hearing as roughly a 20–30 percent reduction in usable patio area); (2) remove a fence at the rear property line and replace it with a hedge with a capped height (privet hedge noted in plans, to be maintained below the eave/ridge per board direction); (3) adopt the applicant’s geotechnical recommendations including pre‑construction condition surveys and vibration monitoring during grading; (4) reduce exterior landscape lighting (applicant agreed to cut numbers roughly in half and to change recessed soffit fixtures to narrower‑spread, low‑glare models); and (5) confirm retaining‑wall locations and minor plan adjustments per staff redline.

Board deliberations: Board members split on risk tolerance. One member said the applicant’s geotechnical memo left too much ‘‘unlikely’’ risk and opposed approval absent removing the deep subterranean work; other members emphasized that similar excavation has been accomplished elsewhere in Laguna Beach, that the applicant accepted monitoring and mitigation, and that revised plans reduced mass and grading. The motion passed 4‑1 (Bauta, Coveney, Weil, Gannon in favor; Gibbs opposed).

Clarifying details recorded on the record
- Applicant/engineer: recommended preconstruction surveys and vibration monitoring; reported that no blasting is anticipated and that experienced operators and equipment reduce the likelihood of structural damage.
- Excavation estimate discussed by neighbors: approximately 973 cubic yards (neighbors’ figure; applicant noted reductions from prior submittals). The exact final export quantity will be determined at building‑permit stage.
- Landscaping: hedge specified as privet; board required maximum mature heights not to exceed the roof eave/ridge in critical view corridors.

Next steps: Staff must confirm the applicant’s redline changes and update the resolution text; the building department will require submittal of the geotechnical monitoring plan, vibration limits and a shoring plan (if required) before issuing grading or foundation permits. The approval is appealable under the city’s 14‑day appeal period.

Quotes (on the record)
- “If appropriate equipment and experienced operators and contractors perform the excavations, it is unlikely that such vibrations will be sufficient to promote structural damage to the vicinity,” the applicant’s geotechnical memo said (applicant presentation).
- On public risk, a neighbor’s engineering memo said: “This excavation appears to be into hard bedrock…Damage to the adjacent home is very likely,” and requested additional geotechnical work before approval (neighbor comment).

Ending: The board balanced neighborhood risk concerns and professional mitigation measures; it approved the project with explicit, on‑the‑record modifications to reduce patio area, cap landscape heights and require monitoring during grading.","A contested proposal at 2840 Zelle Drive won design review approval June 12 after neighbors raised concerns about deep excavation into bedrock, noise, dust and potential structural damage; the board approved the project with redlines to reduce rear patio footprint, cap landscape heights and require geotechnical monitoring.",{"_33":87,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":88,"_41":89,"_43":90,"_45":90,"_47":91,"_49":92,"_51":93,"_53":94,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":95,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":96,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6542098,"Laguna Beach Design Review Board approves multiple home projects, denies one coastal resolution",0,1130000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3793881-04213c9c04448233665a082261b2a28f&start=1130&end=1130","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3793881-04213c9c04448233665a082261b2a28f/thumbnail_1130000.jpg","/articles/6542098/Laguna-Beach/Orange-County/California/Laguna-Beach-Design-Review-Board-approves-multiple-home-projects-denies-one-coastal-resolution","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6542098-6114228dff7ea47de16c589c20f1a59e/orig.mp4?Expires=1771188323&Signature=A8nTRzd0YA5oMtyM15KYc6uT83d23Ov0obbpEZQYbKzqDlyNb9hmRjMxGLTfX50ytoAYdssUogmPyUlOCXXfv5SVxd4Ki0BvYI8tYRRL4JUh-UefAr3zRp1Oj4iB5scOsi17LW53ip4vGqqm1lhyUvwHMPOdtly26pUH2pwdo9r3O2JByEUUbEzeYbaxiaa1RqWgV-NiZA2kcp8a412Qj8PuSh6UuVN0DRAW4mrxt6TqG0QDX4P6x-oOKaXP-rIp7cohq9zW9Bg02XKC9XmKtK2fGjc52pAeAnugMKXHnWG0yhXfs0Mca0BobXVZ~xLbzFtiTv9h~Bqr059d~16N-w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Laguna Beach Design Review Board on June 12 approved a slate of housing and site-improvement items — including design reviews, coastal development permits and a CEQA mitigated negative declaration — and adopted a resolution denying one previously heard application. The board approved routine minutes and consent items and took final actions on eight substantive agenda items after public hearings and staff presentations.

The meeting opened with procedural announcements and a roll call. Board members participating in votes were Chair Tom Gibbs, Chair Pro Tem Gannon, Board members Coveney, Balta, Bauta and Weil (where noted). Several contested items drew public comment and detailed deliberation before the board reached final votes.

Why it matters: The board’s decisions permit several single‑family remodels, additions and outdoor improvements that change built form, landscaping and site grading in hillside neighborhoods. One denial preserves the status of a previously contested Bluebird Canyon application and records the project opponents’ and applicants’ legal positions for potential further action.

Votes at a glance
- Consent calendar (4.1–4.4): Approved unanimously; continuances and minute approvals recorded as proposed.
- 4.5 (51560 Bluebird Canyon, DRB 24‑2509; CDP 24‑2510; Revocable Encroachment 24‑2511): Board adopted a resolution denying the earlier design review and related permits and found the action exempt from CEQA guidelines cited in the staff report. Roll call: Bauta — No; Coveney — Yes; Weil — Yes; Gannon — No; Gibbs — Yes. Outcome: denial (resolution adopted).
- 5.1 (175–177 Dumont Drive, DR 24‑1742; CDP 24‑1743; Variance 24‑1744): Resolution approving the project and required variance; conditions added to limit tandem garage space to vehicle parking. Roll call: Balta — Yes; Coveney — Yes; Weil — Yes; Gannon — Yes; Gibbs — Yes. Outcome: approved.
- 5.3 (2878 Chelan Way, DR 25‑0746): Approval for retaining walls, patio, fireplace, in‑ground spa and grading outside the house footprint; CEQA exemption cited. Roll call: Bauta — Yes; Coveney — Yes; Weil — Yes; Gannon — Yes; Gibbs — Yes. Outcome: approved.
- 5.2 (2840 Zelle Drive, DR 23‑0834; CDP 24‑2429): After extended public comment and negotiation with neighbors, the board approved the project with conditions including a reduced rear patio footprint (staff to confirm redline), landscape revisions (height limits on new plantings), reduction of certain lighting, and removal of a specified window. Roll call: Bauta — Yes; Coveney — Yes; Weil — Yes; Gannon — Yes; Gibbs — No. Outcome: approved with conditions.
- 5.4 (1211 Skyline Drive, DR 25‑0641): Approved with plan modifications agreed at the meeting, including a revised deck plan that pulls the deck back and added privacy screening/trellis above the spa area; condition added to ensure spa equipment meets the city noise code. Roll call: Bauta — Yes; Coveney — Yes; Weil — Yes; Gannon — Yes; Gibbs — No. Outcome: approved with modifications.
- 5.5 (1234 La Mirada Street, DR 25‑0908): Approved as presented following staff review; no public objections at the hearing. Roll call: Balta — Yes; Coveney — Yes; Weil — Yes; Gannon — Yes; Gibbs — Yes. Outcome: approved.
- 5.7 (1265 La Mirada Street, DR 25‑0989; Variance 25‑0990): Approved; the board found the proposed retaining wall and related alterations meet variance criteria for the steep lot. Roll call: Bauta — Yes; Coveney — Yes; Weil — Yes; Gannon — Yes; Gibbs — Yes. Outcome: approved.
- 5.8 (1425 Samoa Way, DR 25‑0774; CDP 25‑0775): Approved following staff and applicant presentations about terraced design and fire‑safety access improvements. Roll call: Bauta — Yes; Coveney — Yes; Weil — Yes; Gannon — Yes; Gibbs — Yes. Outcome: approved.
- 5.9 (2354 San Clemente Street, DR 21‑8817; CDP 21‑8819; Variance 21‑8820; adoption of IS/MND 23‑0346): Board adopted the mitigated negative declaration and approved the revised project and variance after staff confirmed revised plans address prior board direction and include required mitigation measures and fire‑safety provisions. (Roll call recorded with attending members; staff noted one member had stepped away earlier in the meeting.) Outcome: CEQA MND adopted; project and variance approved.

What the board added or required most often: the board frequently attached site‑specific conditions: (1) limits on landscape heights where neighbors raised view/privacy concerns; (2) reductions in exterior lighting intensity and fixture type to reduce glare; (3) clarifications and redlines to reduce patio or deck footprints to limit grading and privacy impacts; and (4) adoption of geotechnical monitoring recommendations where proposals required deep excavation.

Speakers, appearances and roles (selected): Chair Tom Gibbs; Chair Pro Tem Gannon; Board members Coveney, Balta, Bauta, Weil; staff presenters Heather Stevens (Senior Planner), Kate Kazama (staff); architects and applicants including David Parker, Steve Hartman, and Scott Rosenbaum; neighbors and members of the public who registered to speak during public comment periods.

Next steps: Most approvals included standard conditions and will be subject to building‑permit review; several approvals were conditional on staff reviewing redline plan changes and confirming compliance with the board’s on‑record modifications. The denial (4.5) was appealed‑eligible by nearby residents within the statutory 14‑day period noted in the board’s procedures.

Ending: The board adjourned to its next meeting on June 26, 2025 at 5:00 p.m. Items approved at this meeting will move forward to department review for permit checks and construction plan review per standard municipal processes.","At its June 12, 2025 meeting the Laguna Beach Design Review Board adopted several project approvals and one denial. Major approvals included projects on Dumont Drive, Chelan Way, Zelle Drive, Skyline Drive and multiple La Mirada properties; the board also adopted an MND tied to a San Clemente Street project.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Design Review Board adopts resolution denying Bluebird Canyon project; applicant cites Housing Accountability Act

Neighbors press Laguna Beach board over Zelle Drive excavation, board approves project with limits

Laguna Beach Design Review Board approves multiple home projects, denies one coastal resolution