Council remands Bluebird Canyon revocable‑encroachment appeal to design review board with direction on public‑safety and coastal findings

Laguna Beach — The City Council on Tuesday remanded an appeal of the Design Review Board’s denial of a revocable encroachment permit (REP) for a proposed single‑family home at 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive, directing the board to hold one hearing on a revised submittal that solves the REP concern while giving guidance on coastal‑resource findings.

The project — a new home with an attached accessory dwelling unit and an uphill garage — would place retaining walls and a short driveway into the Bluebird Canyon public right‑of‑way. At a May hearing the Design Review Board denied the REP, finding the walls and driveway were not “minor” encroachments and could create nonconforming conditions if the city later widened the street.

The applicant and neighborhood advocates presented sharply different legal and planning views to the council. Appellants’ counsel argued state housing laws (including the Housing Accountability Act and SB 450) limit local discretion on housing projects and that the city’s denial flouts those laws. Neighbors and Design Review Board members countered the REP would remove public right‑of‑way that the city might need for wildfire egress and that the scale of the encroachment was precedent‑setting.

City Attorney staff said the code’s key test for an REP — Municipal Code §11.50.030 — prohibits issuance of permits that would produce a code violation if the city later revoked the encroachment. Staff and the board concluded the project as designed could create such nonconforming conditions because revocation would leave the development without the required on‑site vehicle access.

After deliberation the council remanded the case to the Design Review Board with explicit direction: the board should consider a revised REP (or a redesign that avoids REP encroachment) that locates improvements as close as possible to the applicant’s property line to preserve as much roadway width as possible; evaluate coastal development findings with attention to concrete coastal resources (natural landforms, public coastal views and fire hazard/egress risks); and recognize that if a project fully complies with state SB 450 objective design standards it need not proceed under local design‑review standards.

Mayor and councilors also instructed staff to ensure faster, coordinated feedback for any applicant resubmittal so the applicant can get an early, comprehensive read on code compliance. The council’s remand leaves open the possibility the project will be redesigned and returned to the board; if the board cannot resolve the REP the case may return to council.

Ending — The decision attempts to balance state housing laws, coastal protections and the city’s interest in preserving public right‑of‑way for safety. Council members and staff emphasized the remand was intended to produce a clearer, defensible path for a revised application rather than immediate litigation.