The San Clemente Design Review Subcommittee convened Oct. 21 to take public comment and give preliminary feedback on a proposed subdivision and design concept for the Boca bluffs at parcels identified as 320–326 La Rambla and 312–314 Boca Del Canon. The applicant proposed reconfiguring seven existing parcels into six single‑family home lots, creating a public viewpoint atop the bluff and formalizing a beach access stairway in roughly the current informal location.

The meeting was advisory: Cameron Cosgrove, chair of the subcommittee, emphasized the session was a “preliminary request” and not a full application. “This is a preliminary review of their plans before they submit their application,” said Zach Ream, principal planner, who described the session as an opportunity for staff, commissioners and the public to identify key issues that the formal submittal and environmental review must address.

Why this matters: the site is on an oceanfront bluff with a history of instability and prior landslides. State and local coastal policies require new bluff‑edge development to demonstrate geologic stability without reliance on shoreline protective devices and to preserve public views and access. Because of those constraints, staff and neighbors said the project will almost certainly require a CEQA review (likely an EIR) and a thorough geotechnical demonstration that the proposed houses and any grading will be safe for the project’s expected lifetime.

Project summary and staff concerns
The applicant team, led by applicant Lee (Li) Wong (licensed landscape architect/site planner) and including Brand Architects and Total Engineering, described a tentative tract map that would produce six homes, one public lot with a viewpoint (to be paid for and maintained by the proposed HOA) and a formal beach stair where an informal trail currently exists. Zach Ream told the subcommittee staff’s December comment letter and the staff memo circulated that week flagged the principal issues: bluff‑edge setbacks and geologic stability; public views from the beach and trail; public access and the ownership/maintenance of the proposed viewpoint; grading, haul‑off and construction staging; landscape, drainage and water‑quality treatment; and retaining‑wall heights and massing.

“The most difficult hurdle is just the oceanfronting and bluff portion of the site and the setback from there and the geologic stability,” Ream said. Staff noted city policy requires a 25‑foot setback measured from a defined bluff edge and discourages shoreline protective devices that would arm or heavily hardscape the bluff face. Ream said staff and the applicant agreed CEQA review is “very likely required” and the applicant would fund the environmental analysis.

Applicant presentation and design choices
Applicant representatives said the owners intend two of the lots for family members and three to help offset construction costs; the team said they reduced the number of houses from prior proposals and designed the layout to keep dwellings behind the city‑identified bluff edge where possible. Lee Wong said the proposal would keep structures outside the 25‑foot bluff buffer and provide a publicly accessible viewing area paid for and maintained by the new HOA. “We want to build a public space, and we even want to build a viewing deck … the cost will be paid by this development and will be maintained by the HOA of these six houses,” Lee Wong said.

Architect Justin Johnson described terraced retaining walls shared between lots, garages pulled into hillsides where possible, and an inland focus for most building massing while keeping ocean‑facing lots smaller to preserve the bluff character. The civil engineer, Caleb Rios, summarized that water‑quality management and drainage can be handled on a lot‑by‑lot basis or combined across lots; he said final drainage plans will show where gravity drainage or pumps are needed.

Community concerns and public comments
More than a half‑dozen residents raised broad concerns about bluff stability, historic landslides, public access and scale. Tom Cullen, who identified himself as a long‑time user of the bluff lookout, urged the subcommittee not to allow the applicant to “control” public access or to reduce setbacks for private gain. “Do not allow him to control it. Do not allow him to change setbacks for driveways or bluff edges to accommodate his overdevelopment of the site,” Cullen said.

Neighbors described the bluff as a long‑used public viewpoint for family events, weddings and daily sunset watching. Several speakers called for a larger, unobstructed public viewpoint with low‑glare lighting, room for groups, and clear 24‑hour access without gated restrictions. Others emphasized technical concerns: possible large export of fill (one commenter recalled prior estimates in the tens of thousands of cubic yards), high retaining walls in places (staff and the applicant identified exposed walls up to roughly 10.5 feet and a design sheet that listed a 14.5‑foot exposed wall in a rear area), and the risk that extensive caisson or excavation work could expose subsurface elements and affect neighboring properties.

Ownership, easements and HOA questions
Speakers and commissioners probed the legal status of the private road/turnaround at the top of La Rambla (referred to in the project materials as Lot A or the private street). Residents said the parcel had historically been treated as city property or as a public turnaround; staff said recorded easement instruments and a title report are necessary to determine rights and ownership. Zach Ream and commissioners said the applicant should include a title report and recorded easement documents with the formal application so the city can determine whether the city has any ownership or only easement rights.

Process, next steps and subcommittee guidance
Staff summarized the remaining steps: another written feedback letter incorporating subcommittee comments, the applicant’s decision whether to revise, a full application and CEQA process, a development management team completeness review, likely further design review subcommittee visits, planning commission review of development permits, city council approval for a tentative tract map and Coastal Commission review/approval. Ream said the CEQA work and environmental consultants would be selected by the city and paid for by the applicant.

Commissioners told the applicant they expect to see: a comprehensive geotechnical investigation demonstrating the project’s 75‑year stability without shoreline armoring; a construction‑hauling and staging plan showing truck counts and a haul route; a thorough drainage and low‑impact development plan demonstrating no runoff over the bluff; completed top‑of‑wall elevations and view‑shed simulations from the beach and trail; clear documentation of existing easements and HOA boundaries; and a demonstration of public benefit (for example, the viewpoint design and public access) if the applicant requests reduced setbacks or other discretionary relief.

Votes at a glance
- The only formal action at the meeting was approval of the previous meeting’s minutes. The minutes were approved by the subcommittee (tally: yes 2, no 0). No votes were taken on the Boca bluffs preliminary plan; the hearing produced staff and public input only.

What’s next
Staff will issue written follow‑up feedback to the applicant reflecting public comment and subcommittee direction. The applicant may revise the plans and then must submit a full application and fund the city’s environmental review. If the project proceeds, it faces city discretionary review and Coastal Commission review; several residents said they expect the Coast Commission to scrutinize bluff setbacks and public access.

This advisory hearing produced substantive questions the applicant must answer in engineering, environmental and legal documentation before the project can be considered for entitlements.