Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Legal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Design Review Board adopts resolution denying Bluebird Canyon project; applicant cites Housing Accountability Act
Summary
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.
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.
