Case No:

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT

October 15, 2020

Agenda Item No. 8

Design Review (DR 20-6841)

Project Location:

Applicant:

Property Owner:

Prepared By:

648 Canyon View Drive APN: 641-373-20

Phillip LoSasso(714) 809-6033 philliplosasso

Cardenas Three, LLC

yahoo.com

Community Development DepartmentChris Dominguez Associate Planner(949) 497-0745 cdominguez lagunabeachcity.net

REQUESTED ACTJON: The applicant requests design review for modifications to a private vehicular andpedestrian gate as directed by City Council in the R-I (Residential Low Density) zone. Modifications includenew gates, refaced columns, and new keypad pedestal in the same location as the existing gate.

RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached D.R.B. Resolution, approving DR 20-6841 with conditions forthe modified private vehicular and pedestrian gate, subject to the attached Exhibit ‘A’ and Exhibit ‘B.’ Staff’srecommendation is based on the findings included in the Staff Report.

ATTACHMENTS:1) Vicinity Map2) City Council Minutes- I 7 203) Public Correspondence4) Draft Resolution -

• Exhibit ‘A’: General Plan Goals and PoliciesLocal Coastal Program Goals and Policies

• Exhibit ‘B’: Proposed Plans

DR-20-684 I10/15/2020

Page 1

PROPERTY INFORMATIONLand Use Designation Village Low Density (3-7 DU/AC)Zoning Designation R-1 Residential Low DensityEnvironmentally Sensitive Areas VHFI-ISZ, Fuel Modification, & Earthquake Fault.

. 6,761 square-foot, single-family residenceExisting Site Improvements • Attached 1,035 square-foot, four-car garage

• Vehicular and pedestrian access gates• January 7, 2020: City Council conditionally approved Design

Review 19-3844 on appeal for modifications to a prior approval,including additions (237 square feet), elevated decks (193 squarefeet), skylights, exterior material changes, door and windowchanges, new pool and spa, and landscaping. As a condition ofapproval, the City Council determined that the vehicular andpedestrian access gates are subject to design review and directedthe applicant to submit an application for design review within 30days.

• March 28, 2006: City Council approved Lot Line Adjustment 05-07 to modify an interior lot line between the subject property andthe property located at 641 Canyon View Drive.

• July 12, 2001: Community Development Director approvedDesign Review 01-250 for construction of a 5-20 foot highretaining wall for the purpose of slope stabilization.

• August 4, 1983: Design Review Board approved Design Review83-38 for construction of a three-level single-family residence andattached four-car garage.Prior Approvals

• September 9, 1982: Design Review Board approved DesignReview 82-155 for a road extension with the condition that anyother construction on the road other than what was submittedreturn to the Board for approval. The decision was appealed to theCity Council who sustained the Board’s decision on December 7,1982, and added a condition that the road be designed so thatwater runoff from the slope above be carried to the existing stormdrain on Bayview Place.

• July 12, 1978: City Council conditionally approved LandDivision 78-5 to recognize a lot created by deed transfer in 1966with access via private driveway easement. Included in the 11conditions of approval was a variance to allow 22 feet of pavingwidth.

DR-20-684 I10/15/2020

Page 2

PROJECT DESCRIPTIONThe applicant is requesting design review approval to reconfigure and remodel an existing vehicular andpedestrian access gate in its current location. Improvements include: removal of decorative features (i.e.,light fixtures and planter pots); re-facing the gate support columns from stucco to stone veneer;replacement of the vehicle gate with a contemporary design resulting in a 5.5 inch reduction in height;replacement of the pedestrian gate re-orienting it to be located fully on the subject property; addition ofproperty addressing to the columns; and addition of a keypad entry for security and Knox Box to meetthe Fire Department’s emergency access requirements. A “before and after” comparison of the existinggate and proposed remodel is shown below:

EXISTING-WALL

‘1~0

PREVIOUS ENTRY GATE (PERMITTED IN 1993)ELEVATION

NEW FREE STANDING WALLPEDESTRIAN GATE BEHIND

ENTRY GATE (REPLACE IN KIND) ELEVATION

2

DR-20-684 I10/15/2020

Page 3

ZONING REVIEWThe proposed project complies with applicable zoning standards and guidelines as described in theLaguna Beach Municipal Code for the R- I zone. No variances are requested.

DESIGN REVIEWPursuant to LBMC Section 25.05.040 , physical improvements and site developments subjectto design review shall be designed and located in a manner which best satisfies the intent and purposeof design review, the city’s village atmosphere and the design review criteria. These guidelinescomplement the zoning regulations by providing conceptual examples of potential design solutionsand design interpretations.1. The vehicular and pedestrian access gates require design review as directed by City Council.

Design Review Criteria Consistency (N/A If Not Applicable)Yes, with conditions. The existing vehicular and pedestrian access gate islocated adjacent to 669 Canyon View Drive and 681 Bayview Place andfacilitates access to three properties, including 641, 648, and 654 CanyonView Drive. The underlying street is privately owned (originally by theowner of 641 Canyon View Drive and currently by the applicant) andmaintains a 30-foot wide non-exclusive easement for road and utilitypurposes. An additional easement grants vehicular parking rights to threeneighboring property owners (669, 679, and 681 Canyon View Drive) inthe right-of-way in front of their properties. The City does not enforceprivate easements; however, the proposed gate design does not impact aneasement holder’s parking rights since the access gates swing inward andexisting encroachments (such as a previously installed keypad) will berelocated outside of the easement area.

When the property was subdivided in 1978, a variance was grantedallowing the paved width of the private street to be reduced to 22 feet. TheNo. I I Access. .proposed gate design shows 21 feet, 6 inches of clearance when the gate isopened, so staff recommends that at least 22 feet of clearance be maintainedfor consistency with the approved paved width for the private street. Acondition of approval has been included in the draft resolution to addressthis issue.

Per the City’s Guide to Residential Development, “vehicular access pointsand on-site parking spaces should be located to facilitate access by all usersand to avoid impeding emergency access.” The City’s Fire Marshal hasreviewed (and approved) the proposed plan, which includes a Knox Switchfor swift operation of the gate in an emergency, to ensure that access byfirst responders will not be impeded as a result of the gate’s location ordesign.

With the recommended condition of approval, staff believes that conflictsbetween vehicles, pedestrians, and other modes of transportation will be

3

DR-20-684 I10/15/2020

Page 4

minimized, in that existing easements will not be impacted, the approvedpaved width for the private street will be maintained, and safe and adequatesite access for vehicles, pedestrians, and first responders will bemaintained.

Yes. The proposed design features contemporary elements to improveconsistency with the architectural style of the remodel approved recentlyfor the single-family residence located on the subject property. The

. . remodeled residence will feature metal roofs, steel trellises, and aNo. 3 I Design Integrity. . .combination of stucco and stone siding. These design elements are

reflected in the proposed steel construction for the gates with geometricdesigns, and stone veneer for the support columns.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) DETERMINATIONIn accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the project iscategorically exempt pursuant to Section 15302 - Replacement or Reconstruction, in that thereplacement or reconstruction of existing structures where the new structure will be located on the samesite, substantially the same purpose, and capacity as the structure replaced.

October 6, 2020

Jeff& Debbie Mulligan681 Bayview P1Laguna Beach, CA 92651

Design Review Board Meeting: October 15, 2020 Agenda Item: #2. 648 Canyon View Drive

Members of Design Review Board

My wife and I live at 681 Bayview P1, our house is adjacent to the gate on Canyon View Drive. Ourconcern with the gate in question goes back to December of 2018 when the landscape company, MyBotanica under the direction of Cardenas Three LLC., began excavating the slope below our house.This work was taking place on our property, without permission, the intent was to build a wallalongside the pedestrian gate. This excavation is visible on the plans submitted by M. D. Wilkes for thisproject. I immediately went to city hall and filed a complaint, and a “Stop Work” was issued onDecember 13, 2018. 1 contacted Phillip Losasso, who represents Cardenas Three, LLC., the propertyowner, he expressed concern and assured me that the damage would be corrected. In May 2019,1-larold Larson Structural Design prepared plans for a retaining wall and a replacement stairway leadingfrom our property to Canyon View Drive outside of the gate. I was told the necessary documents wouldbe submitted to the City of Laguna Beach, and when approved repairs would be made. It is nearly twoyears and the repairs have not been made.

Last night I downloaded the plans for the remodel of the gate to see what is being proposed, prior tothis I was unaware that a new proposal was being submitted. It appears there is no intention ofrepairing any damage that was caused in December of 2018. Additionally when I studied the plans, itappears that this project has become a “spite” project. Because I have expressed on several occasionsthat the gate is a nuisance alongside our home, with each opening being accompanied by “clanging”.With the possibility of two additional homes being constructed behind the gate, the noise will onlyincrease. I feel that it should be moved away from neighbors homes and further up the street wherethere are no houses alongside the gate. I even offered to share with some of the costs of moving thegate, and testified to that at either a design review meeting or city council meeting. I believe theconcern of Cardenas Three is that if the gate were to be moved, it would no longer be allowed to be 8’4” tall.

COMMENTS REGARDING PLANS SUBMITTED

The new “fi~ee standing” wall (L-4) is not a retaining wall. It is in two sections with approximately a10’ space between the sections. The portion of the wall near the stairs (E-l) seems to serve no purposeother than to block the stairs. Even though it would be easy to walk around the wall to access CanyonView Drive, this is going to create an odd situation where the stairs will remain but lead to the backside of the new wall thus leading nowhere. It appears the reason for the gap between the sections is tomake it possible for the pedestrian access around the gate pilaster to not be too confined. If the wallwere continuous, not having this gap, the pedestrian sidewalk would only be 12” wide, or less. Even

with the gap, the sidewalk will only be 18’ wide. This will be a narrow sidewalk which will have a 36”wide gate leading to it. If I should decide to build a fence along this portion of my property, this willleave a narrow and confined sidewalk.

The original 1993 permit for this gate does not mention a pedestrian gate. The existing pedestriangate was built on my property prior to my purchasing the property in October 1994. The permit wasfor a 28’ wide gate, yet the opening as built is only 21’ 6”. The proposed plans do accomplish removingthe gate from my property, but the footprint for the project is now different from what was approved in1993. Should there be a review of the entire structure because of this change? I would considerallowing the pedestrian gate as it is now built on my property if it were to tie into a retaining wall. Ihave not been asked for permission, and this would only satisfy my concerns and would not resolveother neighbors concerns about the gate.

There are no details for the footing for the “free standing” wall, is it going to be necessary toposition a portion of this structure on my property?

SUMMARY

This gate has been an issue for all parties involved, with many hard feelings on all sides. It appearsthe city could have done a better job of oversight in 1993, as there remain many questions about thelocation and size of this gate. There is a lack of definitive information available from city documents.

Between the attorney’s fees incurred by my neighbors, Cardenas Three and what I might havecontributed to moving the gate, and possibly the city allowing an exception to the height restrictionsthere could have been a better outcome to this ongoing issue.

Dominguez, Christian CD

From: Dave Shipp <dshipp@DSHIPP.COM>Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 8:37 AMTo: Dominguez, Christian CDSubject: 648 Canyon View DR 10/15

[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach — DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unlessyou are sure the content is safe.]

Hi Chris,

I received the notice for the upcoming DR hearing re 648 Canyon View gate. I am a neighbor in su~oort of the gate andthe improvements. What is the best way for me to provide my support for the project? Letter? Attend virtual hearing?Other?

Thanks,

-- Dave ShippD. SHIPP CORPORATION1160 North Coast HwyLaguna Beach, CA 92651

p <>949.715.0741o <> 949.279.1777e o dshipn~dshinp.com

o ~S~—1fl~J~CORPORATIOflac4L~RA%t.. COt.STF~A~CTOfl

Dominguez, Christian CD

From: Larry Nokes <lnokes@nokesquinn.com>Sent Tuesday, September 8, 2020 7:55 PMTo: Dominguez, Christian CDCc: Carol Nilsen; Wiener, Marc CDSubject: Re: 1993 DR provisions

[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach --DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unlessyou are sure the content is safe.]

ChrisRespectfully, this is not a minor alteration or addition. It is a traffic stopping gate that has major impacts on thehomeowners below the gate who’s driveways now become the turn arounds for the end of Canyon View. I don’t think itis safe to assume that they had this in mind, It is also not clear that they considered they development conditionsimposed on the permitting of the road extension. Design review was required for all structures and landscape andhardscape. This entitling document was just an over the counter permit. No public comment or hearing and noconsideration of the requirement or the impacts. By no means was it design review.Respectfully,

Laurence P. NokesNokes & Quinn, Lawyers949.376.3500

On Sep 8, 2020, at 5:51 PM, Dominguez, Christian CD <cdominguez@lagunabeachcity.net> wrote:

Hi Carol,

Thank you for your patience as I have looked into this. At the time the gate was built, the design reviewsection of the City’s Municipal Code had a provision that allowed the Director to approve minoralterations and additions without requiring design review. This provision was unrelated to the firerebuild policies in effect after the 1993 fire and reads as follows:

<imageoo3.png>

The 1993 building permit appears to show that John Gustafson, the Building Official at the time, signedthe zoning and design review clearances on behalf of Kyle Butterwick, the Director. Kyle is referencednumerous times in the record, so it is reasonable to say he was aware of the development activityoccurring on the property and reviewed the gate application prior to John’s approval of the permit.Please keep in mind that despite what occurred in the past, our intention is to follow through with theCity Council’s condition of approval by having the gate be subject to design review at a future hearing.

Let me know if you have any additional questions,

Chris DominguezAssociate Planner I City of Laguna BeachE: cdominguez@lagunabeachcity.netP: (949) 497-0745

1

-Original Message-——From: Larry Nokes <Inokes@nokesquinn.com>Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 6:58 AMTo: Carol Nilsen <cznilsen@gmail.com>Cc: Dominguez, Christian CD <cdominguez@lagunabeachcity.net>Subject: Re: 1993 DR provisions

[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach-- DO NOT CLICK on links or openattachments unless you are sure the content is safe.]

So glad you wrote this. I have a call into Marc Weiner as well.The only thing I can think of is theemergency permitting rules after the fire. But that was for houses, and there were standards imposedwhich, if you met, you get receive expedited administrative approval for a project. A gate on a roadwould not seem to fit the emergency criteria, but I am interested to hear what they say.

Laurence P. NokesNokes & Quinn, Lawyers949.376.3500

> On Aug 31, 2020, at 12:22 PM, Carol Nilsen <cznilsen@gmau.com> wrote:>

>

> Dear Chris,> Thank you for your call this morning. I appreciate Lisette directing my question to you.> Background: Larry Nokes, our attorney, recently understood Phil Kohn to say that a 1993 permit for a28’ gate, roughly 14’ high, located the end of Canyon View Dr, was not subject to a full ORB hearingbecause the Director of Community Development at the time, Kyle Butterwick, was authorized to issuean administrative permit in this instance.>

> Question: What is the documented basis for this authority?>

> I know you’ll need to research this. Thanks for your time.> Carol Nilsen

2

Dominguez, Christian CD

From: Larry Nokes <lnokes@nokesquinn.com>Sent: Friday, July 31, 2020 4:14 PMTo: Dominguez, Christian CDCc: Wiener, Marc CD; Carol Nilsen; Tim CarlyleSubject Re: Canyon View Gate

[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach--DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unlessyou are sure the content is safe.]

Chris,

Carol will want me to reply to this.

I assume the applicant is going to apply to keep the gate where it is.

We are going to oppose that on straight-up DR criteria, because it is a nuisance, causes idling vehicles to belch exhaustinto into the Nilsen and Mulligan homes while waiting for the gate to open, and forces every car making it as far upCanyon View to use residents’ driveways as turn-arounds. So we are confident that this unpermitted gate will berelocated or eliminated.

I would not wait too long for the applicant to submit a plan to move it, because he won’t. We need this scheduled assoon as possible. Jim Conrad has a house scheduled for DR on August 6. That will be another house behind the gate thatthese neighbors will now have to contend with. It is August! This was ordered by the Council in January, with a 30 daydeadline to apply. It is a gate, yet plan check is taking longer than it should for a large house, I know it is not your faultbut the Nilsens are becoming exhausted. Please can we get this going already?

Thanksl

Have a good weekend.

Laurence P. NokesNokes & Quinn) Lawyers949.376.3500

On Jul 31, 2020, at 3:45 PM, Dominguez, Christian CD <cdominguez@lagunabeachcity.net> wrote:

Hi Marc,

The plans are close to being complete; however, given the information below that the gatelocation will be subject to design review, I will need to discuss the issue with the applicantbefore moving forward. The applicant is obviously opposed to moving the gate.

Chris DominguezAssociate Planner I City of Laguna BeachE: cdominguez@lagunabeachcity.net

1

P: (949) 497-0745

From: Larry Nokes <Inokes@nokesquinn.com>Sent: Friday, July 31, 2020 10:37 AMTo: Wiener, Marc CD <mwiener@lagunabeachcity.net>; Dominguez, Christian CD<cdominguez@lagunabeachcity.net>Cc: Carol Nilsen <cznilsen@gmail.com>; ‘Tim Carlyle <tcarlyle@sr-firm.com>Subject: RE: Canyon View Gate

[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach--DO NOT CLICK on links oropen attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.]

Thanics Marc,

Since the applicant was ordered by the Council to have an application in within 30 days ofJanuary 7, 2020, this thing seems to be moving at a snail’s pace. I know they are applying for abig gate in the same location. We would really like to get this moving. Christian needs to bear inmind that the applicant DOES NOT WANT TO DO ANYTHING, So he is getting what hewants by failing to submit a conforming plan.

There is an active code enforcement based on the lack of valid permits for the gate. If there is noaction on submitting colTect plans, we would ask that code enforcement proceed.

Laurence P. Nokes, Esq.‘cimageflO2.jpg>Nokes & Quinn410 Broadway Street Suite 200Laguna Beach, CA 926510: (9493 376-3500F: (949) 376-3070lnokes~n okeso uinn .comwww .1 aeunabeach lawyers. corn

cl mage003 . png>WARNING: This e-mail (including any attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is legally privileged. It contains information from the law firm of Nokes & Quinn, which maybe privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Dissemination or copying of this byanyone other than the addressee or the addressee’s agent is strictly prohibited. If this electronic transmission isreceived in error, please noti& Nokes & Quinn immediately at (949) 376-3500. Thank you.

From: Wiener, Marc CD <mwiener@lagunabeachcity.net>Sent: Friday, July 31, 2020 10:25 AMTo: Larry Nokes <lnokes@nokesquinn.com>; Dominguez, Christian CD<cdominguez@lagunabeachcity.net>Subject: Canyon View Gate

Hello Larry,

2

After speaking with Phil yesterday, we have determined that the Design Review application willgo before DRB and the location of the gate is subject to review. That said, checked with ChrisDominguez and the plans are still deemed incomplete and are not ready for a public hearing.

Chris, can you provide some insight on how close this is to being ready?

Marc Wiener, AICPCommunity Development DirectorCity of Laguna BeachPhone: (949) 497-0361Email: mwiener@lagunabeachcity.net

<imageoo4.png>

3

City of Laguna Beach 648 Canyon View DriveAerial Map

U12 1t~urston 0l7o4Thurston Dr

Note: Property lines depictedin GIS are inaccurate due to a2005 lot line adjustment

.28 Temple Hills Dr

631 Buena Vista Wy

600 Buena Vista V~,I.

S

644 Canyon View Dr

648 Canyon View 0

I I

I’

.1I

-t

l694Thurstcn Dr

1682 Thurston Dr

171~Thurston 0

1720 Palm D

Approximate property lines forthe subject property areoutlined in red at left.

BUENA VISTA WV

&

1660 Thurston Dr

68 Buena Vista681 Canyon Viav D’

- _~, 4.

709 Canyon view Or._..- ~L,

1 /l68UenipleHiflsO

1676 Temple Hills D

0z.01 .

-

~1645 Temple HillsD

644 Buena Vista Wy

4, 679 Canyon View Or

4

S

•tP

- lGSlThurstonD

1640 Thurston Dr

k

‘V S

/_ f/r I671 Bayview P1 1 1~omurston Or— 4,- -

I

~ _~ —. 4/ ‘.;_ I, I

-( -F. .lo2canyonViewflr -~ -~ . .. ...~

I 1598 Temple Hills DraD :‘~1,js - — _ -

fl_/, .

Temple lSSOTempIe Hills

Approximate vehicle gatelocation

161 0 80 161 Feet Data layem that appear on this map may or may notw be accurate, current or other~s~se reliable.

I 12117/2019 oCitycItagunaO.a~

Moved by Mayor Pro Tern Dicterow seconded by Mayor Whalen and carried unanimously5/0 to deny the appeal, grant the application and incorporate the findings andrecommendations made by the Design Review Board and staff for the Variance, CoastalDevelopment Perrnit, Revocable Encroachment Permit, and Categorical Exemption.

B. APPEAL OF DENIAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 19-3844 AND CATEGORICALEXEMPTION FOR MODIFICATIONS TO A PRIOR APPROVAL. INCLUDINGADDITIONS. ELEVATED DECKS, SKYLIGHTS, EXTERIOR MATERIAL CHANGES,DOOR AND WINDOW CHANGES, POOL, SPA. AND AIR CONDiTIONING AT 648CANYON VIEW DRIVE IN THE R-1 (RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY’) ZONE Proposalfor modifications to a prior approval at an existing residence in the R-I Zone.

Staff Report: Associate Planner Chris Dominguez provided a sumrnary of the proposedapplication stating that the property owner/appellant at 648 Canyon View Drive applied formodifications to a prior approval which included a minor addition and remodel. He showeda Vicinity Map and said it was important to note that the property line on the cities mappingsystem was not accurate following a Lot Line Adjustment approved around 2005.Dominguez noted that the property involved a private road that served multiple propertieson the street and the private street maintained easements for the neighbors providing accessto their properties and parking. He said that after three hearings, the Board was generallysupportive of the project and did not request any further design changes. Dominguez saidview equity had been achieved and the focus was on fire and public safety concerns relatedto issues concerning a driveway gate that bore no nexus to the proposed minor remodel. Heprovided the historical information about the vehicular access gate and the 1,600 square feetof floor area in the home. Dominguez said the Board denied the project on a 4-1 vote basedupon the unresolved fire and public safety concerns related to the access gate.

Questions of the Staff: The City Councilmembers had a discussion related to the access gateand whether it had anything to do with the proposed minor remodel.

Councilmember Peter Blake said it seemed the DRB approved the minor remodel of thehouse, and if the gate had not been modified, the appeal would not be before the City Council.He said there was nothing about the house that was an issue, and the only issue was relatedto the gate.

Associate Planner Chris Dominguez confirmed that the DRB did not have an issue with thedesign of the house.

Public Testimony in Support of the Appeal: Anders Lasater, Architect for the project,explained the reasoning for overturning the DRB denial of the project. He said an error ofjudgement was made by the DRB. Lasater said the Board chose to deny the project based onan existing permitted access gate that was not part of the project application. He noted thatover the course of three DRB hearings, the Board unanimously praised the design of thehome. Lasater showed a PowerPoint of the project and access gate and said the gate wascurrently in Code Enforcement because the owner remodeled the gate without a perrnit. Hesaid the owner was doing everything possible to get the gate approved, and he said therelocation of the gate was the only thing driving the entire hearing.

Phillip LoSasso acknowledged that he errored in undertaking the enhancements to theaesthetics of the gate. He said he was working with Code Enforcement and providedeverything they had asked for. LoSasso said the enhancements made to the gate were allwithin the dimensions of what existed before which was approved in 1993. He asked that theproject related to the minor remodel be approved to move forward and the gate would remainand be dealt with by Code Enforcement.

Councilmember Toni Iseman asked why it necessary to excavate on the upside near thepedestrian gate and questioned the stability of the hillside.

Phillip LoSasso explained that a small slide had occurred, so he installed a retaining wall. Henoted that the landscapers used a jackhammer for the installation of the retaining wall due tothe existing bedrock. LoSasso said the soil engineer reported that the hillside was stable afterthe work was done on the hillside.

Mayor Bob Whalen confirmed that the new security gate keypad/box on the left side of thegate would be relocated to the uphill side of the street and would be installed in thelandscaped area within the property line and would not hang over the curb.

Kenneth Blay, Attorney representing the applicant, said if his client had not touched the gate,the appeal would not be before the City Council tonight. He said all the permits required bythe City would be obtained to bring the gate to code.

Public Testimony in Opposition of the Appeal: Attorney Larry Nokes, representing theNilsens’, owners of 669 Canyon View Drive, said the remodel of the existing gate shouldhave been part of the project. He discussed the history of the project and said that in 1975,Canyon View went all the way from Temple Hills to the end of the Nilsen’s house and theyhad a recorded easement so they could have access to their home. Nokes showed theconditions of development, and he said number nine of the conditions stated that “allstructures should be subject to Design Review and the proposed gate was a structure.” Hedisplayed a picture of the permit and a drawing that showed the gate with a note at the topof the permit that said “the gate at the end of Canyon View Drive” which was the southboarder of 648 Canyon View Drive. Nokes said the simple solution would be to move thegate.

Attorney Tim Carlyle, representing the Nilsens’, owners of 669 Canyon View Drive, said hesubmitted documents last week regarding the project and the access criteria. He providedbackground information and said all criteria should be reviewed by the DRB. Carlyle saidthe gate was clearly the subject of the application and involved the location, construction,approvals, impact on public safety, and the substantial interference with his client’s propertyrights. He requested that the City Council affirm the decision of the DRB and deny theappeal.

Phil Rhiner, owner of 1682 Thurston Drive, said he opposed the proposed additions basedon negative view impacts. He said if the City Council chooses to grant the appeal, to do sobased on the revised plans discussed at the September 12, DRB hearing which includedelimination of both chimneys, elimination of a proposed roof parapet that previously requireda Variance, appropriate automatic shades for skylights, amended materials and colors,shielded exterior light fixtures, reduction of the deck areas and other changes to insure theimprovements would be less intrusive to his view and home.

Monica Tuchscher, representing the Nilsens’, said she would like to dispute some of themisinformation provided earlier. She stated that an email from the City Fire Marshalconfirmed that there had been no approval from the Fire Department related to the gate.Tuchscher said the second item was the misrepresentation of the 1993 gate consent letterfrom the neighbors. She said the neighbor’s letter was conditional and she listed threeconditions relating to the gate and easements. Tuchscher said the two gates shown to the CityCouncil were not the original gates that were at the property. She said the original gate thatwas there was located closer to the Nilsen’s property, was about four feet high and muchwider. Tuchscher said she believed the existing gates, pilasters and keypad within theroadway were illegal and represented a significant public health, safety and welfare issue.She concluded by stating that if the gates, pilasters, foundations and the keypads wereremoved totally or pushed where they were originally approved, the Nilsens’ would supportAnders Lasater’s proposal and would not make an issue related to the Coastal DevelopmentPermit.

Councilmember Peter Blake, confirmed with Tuchscher that the Nilsens’ signed anagreement related to the road and gate around 1993, and he said 27 years later the gatebecame an issue. He said staff stated that the Fire Department was in the process of approvingthe gate and Tuchscher stated that the Fire Department had not approved the gate. Blake saidthe statements were conflicting.

Monica Tuchscher discussed the timeline of the gate and said many things had transpiredsince 1966, and all of it had not been conforming to the City’s code.

Jeff Mulligan, owner of 681 Bayview Place, said the only permission he gave to encroach onhis property was to repair the damage that was done to the slope. He said permission wasgranted after the damage had occun~ed to his property. Mulligan said the current “man-gate”currently encroached two feet, seven inches onto his property and he requested that the gatebe moved.

Carol Nilsen, 669 Canyon View Drive, discussed the history and size of the gate. She said adifferent gate in a different location was built than what was approved by the permit.

Applicant Rebuttal: Anders Lasater said two of the three property owners that gained accessfrom the gate were not at the meeting tonight. He said the DRB approved the home butdenied the application because of the gate. Lasater said the Fire Department approved thegate and he felt the appeal was a “hostage-type situation.”

Council Comments: Councilmember Peter Blake asked if everyone involved with the gatewould contribute funds to move the gate. He asked if the City Council could approve thehome remodel and keep the gate a separate issue. Blake said he would like the two issues tobe separate.

A discussion ensued pertaining to City Council action and if the gate issue could be separatedfrom the proposed home remodel.

Mayor Whalen confirmed with the applicant that he would be OK with the access gateportion of the appeal being subject to design review which would be appealable to the CityCouncil if necessary.

Moved by Mayor Whalen seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Dicterow and carried unanimously4/0 to: A) Grant the appeal, overturn the decision of the Design Review Board, and approveDesign Review 19-3844 for the property located at 648 Canyon View Drive on the basis ofabuse of discretion in that there is no nexus or relevancy between the minor improvementsproposed in the application and issues pertaining to the access gate on Canyon View Driveor the prior residential addition; B) The access gate portion of the appeal shall be subject todesign review which will be appealable to the City Council if necessary; the applicant mustfile an application for the access gate within 30 days; and C) Adopt Resolution No. 20.004memorializing the City Council action, and adoption of a Categorical Exemption for theproject.

Councilmember Toni Iseman abstained.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business, Mayor Whalen at 8:54 p.m. on Tuesday, January 7, 2020,adjourned to the City Council Retreat at 9:00 a.m., Saturday, January 11, 2020, at South CoastWater District, 31592 West Street, Laguna Beach, followed by the Closed Session at 3:00 p.m.,the Joint City Council/Laguna Beach Unified School Meeting at 4:00 p.m., and the RegularCity Council Meeting at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, January 21, 2020, at City Hall, 505 ForestAvenue, Laguna Beach, California.

Approved January 21, 2020 1~f //frlB0r halen....ayor

~tte Ch~ -Walker, City Clerk

D.R.B. RESOLUTION

A RESOLUTION OF THE OF THE DESIGN REVIEW OF THECITY OF LAGUNA BEACH APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW FOR[MODIFICATIONS TO A PRIVATE VEHICULAR ANDPEDESTRIAN GATE (DR-20-6841).

648 Canyon View Drive (APN: 641-373-20)

WHEREAS, the proposed project is exempt from the provisions of the CaliforniaEnvironmental Quality Act in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15302 -

Replacement or Reconstruction, in that the replacement or reconstruction of existing structureswhere the new structure will be located on the same site, substantially the same purpose, andcapacity as the structure replaced.; and

WHEREAS, on September 22, 2020, a notice was mailed to all property owners within a300’ radius and tenants within a 100’ radius announcing the October 15, 2020 public hearing of theDesign Review Board for the proposed project; and

WHEREAS, on October 15, 2020, the Design Review Board carefully considered the oraland documentary evidence and arguments presented at the duly noticed hearing.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF LAGUNABEACH DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERM~lNE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1: Design Review (DR-20-6841) for modifications to a private vehicular andpedestrian gate as directed by City Council in the R- I (Residential Low Density) zone (“ProposedProject”) is approved with the condition that at least 22 feet of clearance is maintained when thegate is in an “open” position.

Section 2: The proposed project is consistent with the applicable Title 25 developmentstandards and guidelines.

Section 3: The proposed project is consistent with the Design Review criteriaincluding access and design integrity, in that conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians, and othermodes of transportation have been minimized, adequate emergency access has been maintained,and the proposed gate design is compatible with the contemporary architectural style of the single-family residence on-site.

Section 4: The project is in conformity with all the applicable provisions of the generalplan and any applicable specific plans, as evidenced in the attached Exhibit ‘A.’

Section 5: Expiration. The proposed project will expire if development has notcommenced within two years from the final action of the approval authority on the application.Development, once commenced, shall be pursued in a diligent manner and completed in areasonable period of time. An application for extension of the permit must be made prior to theexpiration date.

Page 1 of 9

Section 6: Terms and Conditions Run with the Land. These terms and conditions shallbe perpetual, and it is the intention of the approval authority and the permittee to bind all futureowners and possessors of the subject property to the tenris and conditions.

Section 7: Indemnification. The permittee shall defend, hold harmless and indemnify,at his/her/its expense, the City, the City Council and other City bodies and members thereotofficials, officers, employees, agents and representatives (collectively, the City) from and againstany and all third-party claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul the approvalof this application for Design Review, or any associated determination made pursuant to theCalifornia Environmental Quality Act. This obligation shall encompass all costs and expensesincurred by the City in defending against any claim, action or proceeding, as well as costs,expenses or damages the City may pay as a result of such claim, action or proceeding. In the eventan action or proceeding is filed in court against the City, the Design Review, or any associateddetermination, the permittee shall promptly be required to execute a formal indemnificationagreement with the City, in a form approved by the City Attorney, which shall include, amongother things, that the City will be defended by the counsel of its choice, and that the permittee shalldeposit with the City sufficient funding, and thereafter replenish the funding, to ensure that theCity’s defense is fully funded, by the permittee. The deposit amount and replenishment scheduleshall be established by the City.

Section 8: Plan Reliance and Modification Restriction. In the absence of specificprovisions or conditions herein to the contrary, the attached Exhibit ‘A’ and Exhibit ‘B’ areincorporated and made a part of this Resolution. It is required that Exhibit ‘A’ and Exhibit ‘B’ becomplied with and implemented in a manner consistent with the approved use and other conditionsof approval. Such exhibits for which this permit has been granted shall not be changed or amendedexcept pursuant to a subsequent amendment to the permit or new permit as might otherwise berequired or granted pursuant to the terms of Title 25 of the Laguna Beach Municipal Code.

Section 9: Grounds for Revocation or Modification. Failure to abide by and faithfullycomply with Exhibit ‘B’ attached to the granting of the proposed project may constitute groundsfor revocation or modification of the permit.

Section 10: Effective Date. The applicant or any other owner of property within threehundred feet of the subject property aggrieved by the Design Review Board’s decision or by anyportion of this decision may appeal to the City Council. Any appeal shall be in written form filedwith the City Clerk within fourteen calendar days of the decision and shall specifically state eachand every ground for the appeal and be accompanied by payment of the required appeal fee. If noappeal is filed timely, the Design Review Board decision will be effective 14 calendar days afterthe date of the decision.

Section 11: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findingsincluded in the Staff Report, Minutes and other records of proceedings, the Design Review Boardof the City of Laguna Beach hereby approves the proposed project, subject to the plans in theattached Exhibit ‘B.’

Page 2 of9

PASSED on October 15, 2020, by the following vote:

AYES:NOES:ABSENT:ABSTAIN:

ATTEST: _____________________

Louis Weil, Chair

Nancy Csira, Zoning Administrator

Page 3 of 9

EXHIBIT ‘A’GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES

Yes, the proposed vehicular andpedestrian gate is approximately I O’-4”high, made of open construction, and notlocated within an established viewcorridor. Therefore, impacts to viewequity are not anticipated.

General Plan Goals and Policies Conform (Y, N OR N/A)

Land Use Element (LU) Policy 2.10 Maximize thepreservation of coastal and canyon views (consistentwith the principle of view equity) from existingproperties and minimize blockage of existing publicand private views.

LU Element Action 7.3.2 Review all applicationsfor new development to determine potential threatsfrom coastal and other hazards.LU Element Action 7.3.3 Design and site new N/Adevelopment to avoid hazardous areas and minimizerisks to life and property from coastal and otherhazards.LU Element Action 7.3.4 Require new

development to assure stability and structuralintegrity, and neither create nor contributesignificantly to erosion, geologic stability, or N/Adestruction of the site or surrounding area or in anyway require the construction of protective devicesthat would substantially alter natural landformsalong bluffs and cliffs.LU Element Action 7.3.5 Prohibit development on

oceanfront bluff faces, except public improvementsproviding public access, protecting coastalresources, or providing for public safety. Permitsuch improvements only when no feasiblealternative exists and when designed and N/Aconstructed to minimize landform alteration of theoceanfront bluff face, to not contribute to furthererosion of the oceanfront bluff face, and to bevisually compatible with the surrounding area to themaximum extent feasible.LU Element Action 7.3.6 Require newdevelopment on oceanfront blufftop lots toincorporate drainage improvements, removal of N/Aand/or revisions to irrigation systems, and/or use ofnative or drought-tolerant vegetation into the designto minimize threats to oceanfront bluff recession.Land Use Element Action 7.3.8 On oceanfrontbluff sites, require applications where applicable, to N/Aidenti& and removal all unpermitted and/or obsoletestructures, including but not limited to protective

Page 4 of 9

General Plan Goals and Policies Conform (Y, N OR N/A)devices, fences, walkways, and stairways, whichencroach into oceanfront bluffs.LU Element Action 7.3.9 Ensure that newdevelopment, major remodels and additions toexisting structures on oceanfront and oceanfront N/Abluff sites do not rely on existing or futurebluff/shoreline protection devices to establishgeologic stability or protection from coastal hazards.LU Element Action 7.3.10 Allow oceanfront andoceanfront bluff homes, commercial structures, orother principal structures, that are legallynonconforming as to the oceanfront and/oroceanfl~ont bluff edge setback, to be maintained andrepaired; however, improvements that increase thesize or degree of nonconformity, including but not N/Alimited to development that is classified as a majorremodel pursuant to the definition in the Land UseElement Glossary, shall constitute new developmentand cause the pre-existing nonconformingoceanfront or oceanfront bluff structure to bebrought into conformity with the LCP.LU Element Action 7.3.11 Require all coastaldevelopment permit applications for newdevelopment on an oceanfront or on an oceanfrontbluff property subject to wave action to assess thepotential for flooding or damage from waves, stormsurge, or seiches, through a wave uprush and impactreport prepared by a licensed civil engineer withexpertise in coastal processes. The conditions thatshall be considered in a wave uprush study are: aseasonally eroded beach combined with long-term N/A(75 years) erosion; high tide conditions, combinedwith long-term (75 year) projections for sea levelrise; storm waves from a 1 00-year event or a stormthat compares to the 1982/83 El Niño event.OSC Policy 1.5Q Any development application forshoreline construction shall be reviewed withrespect to the criteria contained in the Guidelines forShoreline Protection, including the effects of beachencroachment, wave reflection, reduction in seacliffsand contribution, end effects and aesthetic criteria.

PageS of 9

EXHIBIT ‘A’LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM GOALS AND POLICIES

Local Coastal Program Conform (Y, N or N/A)Yes, the proposed use is

General Plan Land Use Map, excluding Blue Lagoon and consistent with the underlyingThree Arch Bay land use designation of the RI

zone.Land Use and Open Space/Conservation General Plan Yes, refer to General PlanElements Policies Table above.

Yes, the proposed use isZoning Map consistent with the underlying

zoning_designation_of R- 1.Downtown Specific Plan N/ALaguna Canyon Annexation Specific Plan N/ATitle 25 (Zoning Code) Yes, refer to Title 25 table above.Chapter 12.08, Preservation of Heritage Trees Ordinance N/AChapter 14.78 Geology Reports N/ATitle 21 (Plats and Subdivision) N/ATitle 22 (Excavation and Grading) N/AShoreline Protection Guidelines (as adopted by Resolution N/A, the site is not an oceanfront88.43) property.Design Guidelines for Hillside Development (as adopted by N/AResolution 89.104)South Laguna Community Design and Landscape N/AGuidelines (as adopted by Resolution 89.104)Fuel Modification Guidelines (of the Safety General Plan N/A

Element)Summer Festival Parking Agreements N/A

2004 LCP Amendment that includes Title 16 (Water N/AQuality Control)

. . . . . . Yes, refer to the discussion under2010 Design Guidelines — A Guide to Residential . .the Design Review headingDevelopment above.

Page 6 of 9

EXHIBIT ‘A’SPECIFIC PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES

ARCH BEACH HEIGHTS STANDARDS CONFORM (Y, N OR N/A)No. I All designs shall demonstrate anindividuality of design, which should be achieved

. . . . N A, the property is not located within theprimarily through a manipulation of the volume of Arch Beach Heights Specific Plan area.the structure rather than by means of nonessentialarchitectural details.No.2 I While individuality of design should beachieved, the thrust should be scaling down rather N Athan duplication of existing bulk and size ofexisting structures.No. 3 I Lot coverage shall not exceed that specified N Ain the zoning ordinance for R-I development.No. 4 I All designs shall limit areas of large blankwalls by carefully planned windows, porches, and N Asmaller volumes.No. 5 I Harsh boxlike structures, and structureswhich make extensive use of glossy surfaces, or N Astrong, glaring colors, shall be avoided.No. 6 I On downhill homes, all designs shall avoidvertical repetitive detailing which adds to the N Aillusion of height.No. 7 I All designs shall minimize roof penetration N Aby grouping all plumbing vents and ducts together.No. 8 I All vents, gutters, downspouts, louvers,exposed flashings, and service doors shall betreated as architectural design elements, and shall N Abe painted to coordinate with the color scheme ofthe structure.No. 9 Roof decks should not be permitted abovethe uppermost story, nor should parapets, walls,protective roof deck railings or stair enclosures N Aexceed the roof height of the uppermost story,except as approved by design review.No. 10 All exterior lighting should relate to thedesign of the structure, and the light emitted shallnot adversely affect neighboring properties, N Aexceed that reasonably necessary for securitypurposes, nor detract from the aesthetics of theproperty.No. 1 1 All landscape plans shall address thefunctional aspects of landscaping such as drainage, N Aerosion prevention, wind barriers, shade, soundabsorption, dust abatement, and reduction of glare.

Page 7 of 9

ARCH BEACH HEIGHTS STANDARDS CONFORM (Y, N OR N/A)No. 12 Landscaping shall be used in front andrear yards to relieve solid, unbroken elevations and N Ato soften continuous wall expanses.No. 13 All designs shall incorporate the use ofshrubbery and trees to reduce the appearance of N Aheight.No. 14 The area between the underside of thebuilding and finished grade should be completely N Aenclosed, except as approved by design review.No. 15 There shall be provided a storage area forat least two garbage and trash containers,minimum forty-gallon capacity each, completely N Aenclosed from view, easily accessible to the street.Such areas shall be protected by at least one-hourfire rating.No. 16 A general storage area of at least fourhundred cubic feet, completely enclosed from N/Aview, shall be provided within each garage orcarport, except as approved by design review.No. 17 All developments should seek tominimize the difference between the natural gradeand the finished project height by such methods as N Asplit level or stepping down the building alongwith the grade.

Page 8 of 9

EXHIBIT ‘B’PROPOSED PLANS

Page 9 of 9