Dana Point council continues contested hillside-variance appeal, asks applicant to seek neighbor compromises

The Dana Point City Council on Jan. 20 agreed to continue its public hearing on an appeal of a Planning Commission approval for a three‑story single‑family home at 33911 Calle La Primavera, giving the applicant time to prepare concept revisions and to meet with neighbors.

Alyssa Gonzalez, the city project planner, told the council the proposal seeks a site development permit for hillside conditions and an overheight retaining wall and a variance to exceed the city’s height limits. The project would build a roughly 4,405‑square‑foot, three‑story house with a 462‑square‑foot garage; the applicant proposes converting prior mechanical/storage area into about 426 square feet of habitable space.

Neighbors said the current plans would materially injure adjacent properties by blocking ocean views, reducing privacy, and harming the canyon’s character. Homeowner Randy Moore said the development could cause “a $200,000 property devaluation” for nearby owners and showed photos and staking/balloon images he said demonstrate the project’s intrusion into the canyon. Architect Cliff Neiman for neighbors termed the requested increase “extraordinarily unusual,” noting variances in practice rarely exceed 10% of code standards.

The applicant’s architect, James Carlson, responded that staking and balloon demonstrations depict roof overhangs and balcony projections rather than the building face and that the plan has evolved since a prior 2019 approval. Carlson said the design team had invested significant time and money but acknowledged the project could be redesigned if needed.

Council discussion focused on three technical points: how the city measures height (from the lowest existing grade), how cantilevered projections can increase perceived height for downslope neighbors, and whether the request reflects a “self‑created” hardship. Councilmembers also discussed parking and the possibility of shifting the building forward or reducing ceiling heights as mitigation measures.

Councilmember Pagano proposed, and a majority supported, a substitute motion to continue the hearing to allow the applicant and neighbors to work on concept changes. In a roll call on the substitute motion, Councilmember Federico voted no; Councilmembers Vilar and Pagano and Mayor Pro Tem Frost voted yes; Mayor Gabbard voted no. The substitute motion passed 3–2. The council later set March 17 as the date for the continued hearing to receive concept revisions and possible staff guidance.

What’s next: The public hearing is continued to March 17 for concept revisions; the council asked the applicant to meet with neighbors and explore size, setback and ceiling‑height adjustments before returning.

Quotes in context: Neighbor Randy Moore, explaining why he appealed, asked the council, “If this gets approved, then how do we compensate ourselves for having property devaluation?” Architect Cliff Neiman characterized the magnitude of the requested increases as “extraordinarily unusual.”

Provenance: City staff presentation and the bulk of public testimony and council deliberations are from the Jan. 20 council meeting.