Dana Point council upholds denial of ADU at 33861 Malaga Drive, citing traffic and safety concerns

The Dana Point City Council on July 15 upheld the Planning Commission's decision and the community development director's denial of an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) permit application for 33861 Malaga Drive, rejecting an appeal by the property owner.

City project planner Alyssa Gonzales told the council the project proposed converting an existing two-car garage into a 384-square-foot studio ADU attached to a three-unit multifamily building on a 3,391-square-foot lot. Staff said the site lacks required parking and driveway length for safe vehicle movements: the zoning requires six parking stalls and a 20-foot driveway; the site has three stalls and a five-foot driveway. Gonzales said onsite and on-street conditions in the Lantern Village create line-of-sight, sidewalk-blocking, and circulation problems that justify denying ministerial approval under the city's local ADU map-area restrictions.

Appellant attorney Dylan Casey urged the council to overturn the denial, saying state ADU law (as cited in the appeal) prioritizes ministerial approval for conversions of existing space and limits local prohibition and replacement-of-parking requirements. "The legislature has firmly decided to prioritize homes for people," Casey said, arguing the proposed conversion would not expand the building footprint and therefore qualifies for ministerial approval under state ADU statutes.

Residents who live near the site urged the council to affirm the denial. Doug Cannon, who lives on Silver Lantern, described chronic overcrowding, cars parked on sidewalks and at intersections, and a recent hit-and-run in the neighborhood. Several council members said the photo evidence and site visits supported staff's findings that parked cars block sidewalks and create unsafe conditions for pedestrians and motorists.

Council members repeatedly framed the decision as one of public safety and traffic management rather than opposition to ADUs in principle. Councilmember Federico said the Lantern Village lacks the on-street capacity and configuration to absorb additional residential parking without worsening pedestrian and traffic hazards. Multiple council members noted the city has approved ADUs in other locations where parking and circulation were adequate.

After council discussion the motion to uphold the Planning Commission and director's denial was made and seconded and passed (recorded vote: all in favor; roll call names not specified in the public record excerpt). The council did not adopt replacement parking or mitigation as conditions; staff noted the applicant had been offered the option to pursue a discretionary Site Development Permit (SDP) process but declined to do so.

The council's decision preserves the planning commission's written findings that the ADU would have a negative impact on public safety and traffic flow in map area 1 of the city's local ADU ordinance.

What the council decided and why

- Action: City Council upheld the Planning Commission and community development director's denial of ADU permit PLN25-0003 for 33861 Malaga Drive. - Primary rationale: documented parking shortfall, substandard driveway length (required 20 feet; observed 5 feet), on-street parking blocking sidewalks and sight-lines, and traffic-engineering review that flagged circulation and pedestrian-safety risks. - Applicant options noted by staff: the property owner was informed he could pursue an SDP (discretionary review) but had not submitted one as of the hearing.

Next steps and context

The appellant (represented by Dylan Casey) indicated litigation or further legal review may follow, saying the parties have differing interpretations of state ADU law and that the issue might be resolved in court if not by compromise. Staff and council members emphasized the decision applies to this site given its specific nonconforming conditions and mapped restrictions; they also reiterated that the city has approved ADUs elsewhere where parking and circulation allow it.

Evidence and public record

The council heard the staff presentation, public comment from the appellant's counsel and neighborhood residents, and reviewed photographic and field-observation evidence compiled during the local ADU mapping and traffic-engineering review. The minutes record that the council held a public hearing and then voted to uphold the denial.