DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT
May 22, 2025
Agenda Item No. 5.7
Case No: Design Review 24-2509, Coastal Development Permit 24-2510, and Revocable Encroachment Permit 24-2511
Request: Construction of a single-family dwelling with an attached two-car garage and an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) on a vacant building site in the R-1 (Residential Low Density) zone.
Location: 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive | Lot B
Applicant: David Parker, Architect
(949) 872-6616 | [email protected]
Owner: David Dyrnaes, 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive LLC
Staff: Community Development Department
Jim Campbell, Interim Planning Manager
(949) 464-6686 | [email protected]
Recommendation:
Conduct a public hearing and if the Design Review Board finds sufficient facts to support the applications, adopt Resolution No. 24-2509 (Attachment 1) approving Design Review 24-2509, Coastal Development Permit 24-251, Revocable Encroachment Permit 24-2511 and finding the action exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303.
CEQA:
The project qualifies for a categorical exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, Section 15303 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, in that the project consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small structures.
Coastal Development Permit:
The project requires a Coastal Development Permit Pursuant to Laguna Beach Municipal Code (LBMC) Chapter 25.07 and the project site is located within a non-appealable area of the Coastal Zone, and therefore action on a CDP is not appealable to the California Coastal Commission.
Board Members within a 500’ Radius: None
DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, REP 24-2511
5/22/2025
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Applicant, David Parker, Architect, is seeking the subject entitlements for the construction of a singlefamily dwelling with an attached two-car garage and an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) in the R-1 (Residential Low Density) zone. Design review is required for the new structure, vehicular access, elevated decks, spa, grading, retaining walls, trash enclosure in the front setback, and landscaping. A Revocable Encroachment Permit 24-2511 is requested for improvements proposed within the abutting public right-ofway that include walls, stairs, irrigation, drainage facilities, and lighting. The applicant is widening the street and providing one required on-street public parking space. The proposed ADU is not subject to design review. The entire project requires a Coastal Development Permit pursuant to LBMC Chapter 25.07. The proposed project is depicted within the project plans (Attachment 2). The certified staking plan Attachment 3 and the updated color and material board is Attachment 4). This is a second hearing on the matter.
PROPERTY AERIAL PHOTO
DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, REP 24-2511
5/22/2025
STREET FRONTAGE
PROPERTY INFORMATION
Land Use Designation Village Low Density (1-7 DU/AC)
Zoning Designation R-1 Residential Low Density
Development Standard Required Proposed Conforms
Building Site Coverage 35.00 % maximum
(3,003.70 SF)
34.50 %
2,962.00 SF Yes
Landscape Open Space 25.14 % minimum
(2,157.52 SF)
25.22 %
2,164.38 SF Yes
Building Height
(Above rear lot line)
15’-0” 15’-0” Yes
Building Height
(Lowest floor to top of roof)
30’-0” 26’-8” Yes
Setbacks Front
Side (West)
Side (East)
Rear (Shallow lot)
Garage 5’-0”
House 10’-0”
4’-0”
13’-0”
19’-3”
10’-3”
27’-2”
4’-0”
15’-7”
19’-7”
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Driveway Slope First 20 feet
Next 20-150 feet
Average 10% maximum
Average 14% maximum
10%
14%
Yes
DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, REP 24-2511
5/22/2025
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
Prior Meeting
The project was considered by the Design Review Board (DRB) on January 23, 2025. The staff report for the prior meeting is Attachment 5 of this report. After receiving input from staff, the applicant and public comments, the DRB discussed the project and provided direction to the applicant to modify the design.
Ultimately, the DRB tabled the discussion with a 5-0 vote. The Board identified the following issues with the proposed project:
• Neighborhood compatibility as it relates to the long driveway and location of the garage. • Neighborhood compatibility relating to the size, mass and visibility of the home sitting on the upper part of the site (AKA the knoll).
• The amount of decking that could generate privacy issues. • The amount of glazing that could create excessive lighting.
Changes to the Project
The applicant provided the following summary of changes to the project:
• Floor Area Reduction: The total living space was reduced from 3600 s.f. to 2443 s.f. • Attached ADU: The majority of the upper level that was the primary bedroom suite has been redesigned to be a separate 1000 s.f. ADU with a 155 s.f. deck added to the upper level. • Upper Level Reductions: The upper level footprint has been reduced and pulled back to the east.
The south facing wall has been pulled back 3 feet. The main house upper level has been reduced from 1359 s.f. to 147 s.f.
• Deck Reductions: The main house total deck area has been reduced from 896 s.f. to 779 s.f. The upper level deck has been pulled back on the west and south sides. • Roof Reductions: The east edge of the roof has been lowered from a 10’-2” plate to an 8’-4” plate.
The overall profile of the roof has been reduced.
• Garage Reductions: The garage area has been reduced from 553 s.f. to 535 s.f. The south facing wall has been pulled back 18”. The roof overhangs have been pulled back and a planted roof is proposed to soften the exterior.
• Architectural Style: The style of the house has changed from modern to a “contemporary craftsman” style incorporating natural materials, detailing, and earth tone colors. Flat roofs, with the exception of deck areas, have been eliminated. The new design is more in harmony with the neighborhood styles.
• Retaining Wall Reductions: Overall height of retaining walls have been lowered throughout the property. Most walls are at or near 6’ in height. Stone has been added to the majority of the walls. • Fencing: A 6-foot high wrought iron, non-climbable security fence is proposed at the rear yard, and along the west and east property lines.
• Glazing Reductions: The glazing has been reduced by approximately 20%. • Landscaping: 4 new trees are proposed at the front of the property to assist in screening sight lines to the house. Additional landscaping has been proposed around the house and in front of retaining walls. Vines are proposed along all retaining walls which will quickly provide coverage and create green “living walls”. A planter has been proposed in front of the garage to allow vines to grow down DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, REP 24-2511
5/22/2025
the retaining wall at the stair. The proposed landscaping has been reviewed and is in compliance with city standards. The landscape modifications were planned to greatly reduce the appearance of mass and scale. The paved area between the parking space and the driveway entry is not a landscape slope containing two trees and numerous shrubs.
• Access Stair Reconfiguration: The access stairs leading to both lots A and B have been reconfigured to accommodate a future Edison transformer box.
The applicant has revised the project as summarized in the chart below:
Street improvements retaining walls not shown
DRB 1-23-2025 DRB 5-22-2025 AMOUNT of CHANGE
HEIGHT
Above rear lot line
Above lowest FF
Overall – from garage FF to roof
# of Stories
15’-0”
29’-5”
34’-8”
(47’-3” w/garage ret. wall)
3 (appears as 4)
15’-0”
26’-8”
33’-7”
(46’-2” w/garage ret. wall)
3 (appears as 4)
No Change
- 2’-9”
- 1’-1”
- 1’-1”
No Change
GARAGE
Front Setback
Driveway
2-car / side entry
10’-3”
150’
2-car / side entry
10’-3”
150’
No Change
No Change
No Change
HOUSE
Rear Setback
East Side Setback
West Side Setback
19’-7”
4’-0”
15’-7”
19’-7”
4’-0”
15’-7”
No Change
No Change
No Change
LIVING AREA 3,598 SF 2,443 SF - 1,155 SF
ADU NA 1,000 SF + 1,000 SF
GARAGE 553 SF 535 SF -18 SF
ELEVATED DECK 897 SF 836 SF - 56 SF
MECHANICAL 51 SF 51 SF No Change
TOTAL PROGRAM 5,099 SF 4,865 SF - 234 SF
BUILDING SITE COVERAGE
(% of net lot area)
2,998 SF
(34.9%)
2,962 SF
(34.5%)
- 36 SF
(-0.4%)
LANDSCAPE OPEN SPACE
(% of net lot area)
2,166 SF
(25.3%)
2,158 SF
(25.2%)
- 8 SF
(-0.1%)
IMPERVIOUS SURFACES
(% of net lot area)
4,887 SF
(56.9%)
4,887 SF
(56.9%)
No Change
No Change
GRADING EXPORT 1,414 CY 1,398 CY - 16 CY
DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, REP 24-2511
5/22/2025
The previously proposed primary bedroom suite on the top level is now an attached 1,000 square foot, twobedroom ADU accessed from the on-grade steps along the east side. There is no internal access from the main dwelling. The ADU bedrooms have glass patio doors to access elevated deck areas. The sitting area includes a fire-rated glass wall that allows natural light in and a view through the main residence loft to the deck. The ADU is not subject to design review, however the proposed decks require design review.
The main residence includes two-bedrooms, two bathrooms, a powder room, laundry room, living room, open floor plan kitchen/great room, with elevator access to the garage below and stair up to the uppermost level loft to access a deck. Reductions to the garage, living, and deck areas are noted in the chart as compared to the initial proposal.
The style of the house has changed from modern to a “contemporary craftsman” style. The profile of the uppermost roof has been lowered and glazing has been reduced by approximately 20%. The height of retaining walls have been reduced and finished with include stone veneer or permanent shoring. A six-foothigh wrought iron security fence is proposed along the side and rear property line.
Figure 1: Rendering with proposed mature landscaping
Four trees were added to screening sight lines to the house. Landscaping has been added around the house and in front of retaining walls. Vines are proposed along all retaining walls to create green “living walls”.
A green roof is proposed on top of the garage. A planter in front of the garage allows vines to grow down the retaining wall at the stair. The paved area between the parking space and the driveway entry is now a landscape slope containing two trees and numerous shrubs.
DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, REP 24-2511
5/22/2025
The common fire access stairs between 1550 and 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive have been reconfigured to accommodate a future Edison transformer that is proposed on the west side of the public parking space in the public right-of-way.
DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, REP 24-2511
5/22/2025
The applicant has not modified the proposed driveway and garage location. The applicant contends the proposed driveway is the only way to provide vehicular access to the proposed home consistent with City policies and guidelines to minimize grading and to avoid any variance request. The design incorporates a roughly 27-foot by 29-foot motor court allowing vehicles to turn around, which is a more favorable design feature compared to a driveway that may require vehicles to back up.
The applicant has designed the project to take advantage of the fact that 50% of the buildable area of the lot1 is located to the rear on the flatter and upper portion of the lot. The applicant wishes to take advantage of the enhanced views afforded from that position on the lot. The applicant contends the knoll was graded flatter many decades ago and the upper portion of the lot was always intended to be developed. The applicant also contends that a direct access driveway from the street through the steeper slope will generate a larger cut and more soil export. Additionally, the applicant believes if such a direct access design were required, it creates potential conflicts with cars backing into or out of the site when compared to the proposed design that accommodates vehicles to safely turn around on site. 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive
David Dyrnaes, through a different applicant and ownership entity, is proposing a single-family home on the abutting lot to the west of the subject project. That project was presented to the DRB on May 8, 2025.
The idea to consider the two projects together came up. Additionally, the idea of considering a single driveway to the two adjacent projects was mentioned.
Each lot must provide independent vehicular access from an abutting street pursuant to LBMC Section
25.53.004. Indirect access (i.e. access to one lot through another lot) would not comply and it would require a variance application.
Mr. Dyrnaes has indicated to staff his desire to proceed with considering the subject project independently from the abutting project at 1550 Bluebird Canyon. Additionally, he indicates there is no interest filing for a variance to create a shared driveway with the abutting project. Requiring separate owners and applicants to cooperate to design a project that requires a variance would not be appropriate in the staff’s opinion, as each project must be considered independently based upon the application and design presented.
Site Topography
City records indicate that the roadway and the site were graded about 90 years. The topographic survey (figure 1 below) clearly shows the steep cut slope created by the construction of Bluebird Canyon Drive located largely within the abutting public right-of-way. The grade differential between the roadway surface and the top of the roadway cut is approximately 12-13 feet. The slope above resembles the natural profile of the site and the previously graded upper third of the property is relatively flat by comparison. 1 Area of the lot area not within required setbacks.
DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, REP 24-2511
5/22/2025
Figure 1 – topographical survey
Figure 2 below is an exhibit prepared by the applicant’s design team that reportedly shows approximately 50% of the buildable area of the site largely on the upper and relatively flatter portion of the buildable area of the project site. The applicant contends the City should not deny him the ability to build in this area. The applicant contends a design with direct access from the street straight into a garage would force a multilevel design into the steep slope generating more grading export and creating more building mass proximate to the street. Staff agrees that such a design could bring more building mass closer to the street.
The proposed design with the long, slope-compliant driveway does require retaining structures, which does add to the overall mass of the project. However, thoughtful design and landscaping can soften the aesthetic.
Staff believes the applicant’s wall design, material choice and color, and landscape plan with trees and vines (at maturity) will achieve the desired result should the project be approved.
DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, REP 24-2511
5/22/2025
Figure 2 – Buildable area exhibit
ENTITLEMENTS: Included within this staff report is an analysis of the following entitlements: design review including a waiver of a required sidewalk pursuant to LBMC 25.53.006(B), revocable encroachment permit, and coastal development permit.
Design Review
The Design Review process is intended to provide the City with the opportunity to review each proposed project, based upon the particular issues and circumstances in effect at the time development is proposed.
The property development standards as delineated in each zone are the maximum allowable building envelope for a given property. The actual development allowed after the application of the design review criteria may be less than the maximum designated by the general standards for the zone because of localized conditions identified during the design review process. A proposed development that has no variances from the Zoning Code does not have any presumptive development right or "entitlement” pursuant to the City’s Zoning Code and Local Coastal Program.
The Design Review process is governed by LBMC Section 25.05.040. The following elements require Design Review: new structure, vehicular access, elevated decks, spa, grading, retaining walls, trash storage within the front setback, and landscaping (LBMC Section 25.05.040(B)). Design Review is governed by LBMC Section 25.05.040 and is part of the City’s certified Local Coastal Program. Design Review is considered by the Design Review Board at a duly noticed public hearing where the following findings are considered in relation to the proposed development:
DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, REP 24-2511
5/22/2025
Finding No. 1: Physical improvements and site developments related to the Project are designed and located in a manner in overall consistency with the design review criteria specified in Section 25.05.040(H), as set forth below:
1. Access. Conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians and other modes of transportation should be minimized by specifically providing for each applicable mode of transportation. Handicapped access shall be provided as required by applicable statutes.
Yes. Bluebird Canyon Drive is a narrow sloping residential street without sidewalks, designated bike paths or transit opportunities. Vehicle speeds and the amount of traffic is low compared to other streets in the City. Vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists must share use of the substandard width street. The driveway slope is no more than the code allows and leads to up to a 27-foot by 29-foot motor court that allows vehicles to turn around thereby allowing vehicles to face the street when exiting the site. The proposed driveway intersects Bluebird Canyon Drive with sufficient area, width and a flatter slope to allow for both left and right turning movements in and out of the site. Walls and landscaping proximate to the driveway are below a driver’s sight lines allowing for good visibility of both the uphill and downhill segments of the roadway thereby supporting safer vehicle maneuvering. The project includes widening the roadway by 2 to 3 feet to accommodate a 20-footwide cross section along the project frontage. Parking for the disabled is not required for residential projects. For these reasons, the project avoids and minimizes potential conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians and other modes of transportation.
LBMC Section 25.53.006(C) requires the street to be improved to a full half width and the applicant has accommodated this requirement in the plans. No waiver of this requirement is permitted without a variance application. LBMC Section 25.53.006(B) requires additional street improvements consisting of curbs, gutters and sidewalks to be installed along the full street frontage. The applicant has included the curb and gutter but no sidewalk because no sidewalks are present in the neighborhood. Section 25.53.006(B) allows the DRB to not require curbs, gutters or sidewalks if it would be out of scale or character with the immediate vicinity or are otherwise unnecessary. The immediate neighborhood does not have sidewalks. Including a sidewalk along the frontage would necessitate a retaining wall and the loss of landscaping the applicant proposes. The Public Works Department supports not requiring a sidewalk across the project site as it would be the only sidewalk in the immediate area. Staff believes requiring a sidewalk would be out of character and recommends waiving the requirement.
2. Design Articulation: Within the allowable building envelope, the appearance of building and retaining wall mass should be minimized. Articulation techniques including, but not limited to, separation, offsets, terracing and reducing the size of any one element in the structure may be used to reduce the appearance of mass.
The proposed three-level, well-articulated building sits atop retaining walls and is approximately 16 feet above the driveway. The retaining walls do add to the overall bulk of development; however, the walls differ in height and position due to topography and the driveway location. The stone veneer, natural color, and landscaping with trees and vines will soften the appearance of mass. The garage is the narrowest and closest portion of the building to the street. The second level is wider and setback DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, REP 24-2511
5/22/2025
further from the street to varying degrees. The top level is smaller and does not extend the full width of the second level and appears stepped back from the edge of the second level below it. The terracing of the design helps mitigate the mass of the building. For these reasons, the project design minimizes the appearance of mass to the extent it can given the proposed siting of the building.
If the DRB feels project mass is not sufficiently minimized consistent with this criterion, the DRB should provide additional direction to the applicant to reduce the appearance of mass to further reduce the height or size of the project or to provide additional mitigating design features.
3. Design Integrity: Consistency with the applicant’s chosen style of architecture should be achieved by the use of appropriate materials and details. Remodels should be harmonious with the remaining existing architecture.
Yes. The design uses craftsman-style materials including lap siding, stone veneer, and metal roofing.
The consistent use of materials and colors throughout the design are appropriate for the proposed style.
4. Environmental Context: Development should preserve and, where possible, enhance the city’s scenic natural setting. Natural features, such as existing heritage trees, rock out-cropping, ridgelines and significant watercourses should be protected. Existing terrain should be utilized in the design and grading should be minimized.
Yes. The site is not developed but has been graded previously. Natural features, such as heritage trees, rock out-cropping, sensitive habitats, ridgelines and significant watercourses are not present.
A sense of open space is present is present and canyon and ocean views are present; however, the site is designated for residential use and as a result, the loss of open space attributed to development of this private property is planned for.
1. The Prior to issuance of a building permit, a record of survey shall be submitted to verify the location of all property lines. If the record of survey reflects property lines that are different than the site plan approved by the Design Review Board, submittal of a new Zoning Plan Check will be required to verify consistency with the Board’s approval and the Zoning Code. Additionally, any project modifications may be subject to Design Review approval.
Element of the General Plan prioritizes the preservation of significant ridgelines, while applying the policies to all ridgelines. These policies were adopted in 1995 given how Laguna Beach expanded up into the hills and canyons and then up onto the ridges. An excerpt of the Open Space and Conservation Element that relates to ridgelines is contained in Attachment 6.
The primary significance of ridgelines as open space stems from their function as a visual resource.
The City has extensive and highly visible hillside and ridgeline development interspersed with open areas. Some of these open spaces are publicly owned for preservation and others are not. Nonbuildable sites in private ownership cannot be developed without street access and infrastructure.
The project site is privately held, buildable (due to the presence of the street and necessary infrastructure) and it is designated for residential use by the Land Use Element of the General Plan.
DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, REP 24-2511
5/22/2025
The Open Space and Conservation Element recognizes there are differences in ridgelines and as a result, some should be afforded more protection than others. Some are well defined, others are not and the level of significance is usually determined by the following conditions:
1. Physical stature and prominence of the ridgeline.
2. Special physical characteristics of the ridgeline (e.g., sharp edges, rugged form).
3. Prominent physical features located along the ridgeline.
4. Visibility of the ridgeline within the surrounding viewshed.
5. Exposure of the ridgeline to large numbers of people.
The following policies apply to ridgeline development.
13-A Preserve the function of ridgelines, hillsides and canyons as a link between adjoining open space areas.
13-B Require that development proposals, including additions and alterations to existing buildings, incorporate protection of the natural profile of ridgelines as visual resources. 13-C Discourage ridgeline development in order to protect highly visible and exposed portions of the ridgeline, including outstanding physical features, such as rock outcroppings, vertical slopes and caves, and study the feasibility of prohibiting development on the prominent ridgelines.
13-D Require environmental impact reports for ridgeline development projects include a viewshed analysis with cross-sections and recommended mitigation measures. 13-E Discourage the utilization of uninterrupted, linear design patterns for ridgeline subdivisions and encourage the use of innovative design techniques like variable setbacks and building heights.
13-F Require all ridgeline development to be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board.
13-G Encourage the dedication of suitable ridgeline sites for public viewing and access purposes.
13-H Preserve public views of coastal and canyon areas from ridgelines.
The allowed use of the property must be factored in. The property is not a significant ridgeline due in part to its location and surrounding development. The ridgeline on the subject lot does not link to adjoining open spaces. Visibility from the roadway is limited to the roadway cut and slope above which is not truly discernable due to past grading. In staff’s opinion, distant views of the site’s ridgeline are not noteworthy due to the lack of rock-outcroppings, vertical slopes, caves or significant vegetation, and existing nearby development on the landform.
Developing a single-family home into the steepest part of the slope facing the street (i.e. a plan without the long driveway) to avoid the upper part of the site to preserve the ridgeline will block visibility of the topographic feature one might seek to preserve. Another way to put it, such a design might preserve the intrinsic value of the landform, but the public will not retain the ability to see it.
There are no natural scenic features present on the site. Grading export of 1.398 cubic yards is proposed, and this amount of export amount is consistent with other hillside development in the city DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, REP 24-2511
5/22/2025
for houses of this size especially when some of this quantity is necessary to provide a public parking space outside vehicle travel lanes.
In summary, staff believes the project is consistent with applicable policies of the Open Space and Conservation Element related to ridgelines.
If the DRB feels the project significantly modifies the ridgeline and is not consistent with this criterion, the DRB should provide additional direction to the applicant to either site the project in a more sensitive way related to the ridgeline or provide additional setbacks to enhance visibility of the ridgeline. Other design alternatives could also be considered.
5. General Plan Compliance: The development shall comply with all applicable policies of the General Plan, including all of its elements, applicable specific plans, and the certified local coastal program.
General Plan Policies
Land Use Element (LU) Policy 2.1 Maintain the diversity and uniqueness of individual neighborhoods. Development standards and design review guidelines shall minimize the scale and bulk of new construction and/or renovation and require development to be compatible with the surrounding residences.
Consistent. The area is characterized by hillside development and custom homes. Older homes tend to be smaller and newer homes larger due principally driven by high land values, high construction costs, and modern preferences. Most homes are downslope and are accessed from the road above. A more limited number of homes are built up from the street with a few with longer driveways leading up to the home similar to what the applicant proposes. Many of these designs tend to be very vertical and many terrace up or down the slope if the size of the lot allows it. Regardless, all multi-level hillside homes have an appearance of mass depending on the vantage point. Homes built up from a street appear more massive because the viewer is closer and is looking up. Homes constructed down a slope are less massive when viewed from the street above because most of the building is out of direct sight below the upper level. These homes are more visible from lower and typically more distant vantage points and as a result, the mass is not perceived more acutely.
The proposed project would add to the diversity and uniqueness of the area by introducing a large custom home that is dissimilar to most hillside homes in the neighborhood. The proposed project is compatible with the neighborhood because the appearance of mass of the proposed three-level design is minimized and mitigated by the design features summarized under Design Review Criteria
2. Design Articulation with the facts in support incorporated herein by reference.
If the DRB feels the mass and size of the proposed design is not compatible with the neighborhood, the DRB should provide additional direction to the applicant to further reduce the project to make it more compatible.
DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, REP 24-2511
5/22/2025
Land Use (LU) Policy 2.8 Require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated with natural topographic features, minimize significant alteration of natural topography and/or other significant onsite resources, and protect public views as specified in the Design Guidelines and the Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document.
Consistent. The discussion and facts presented under design criteria #2 Design Articulation and #4 Environmental Context support a finding of consistency with Policy LU 2.8 and are incorporated herein by reference. Public views are not provided over the project from any nearby public vantage point. Public views of the site from higher or lower public vantage points are too distant to affect the visual quality of the view. The project site is located on the inland an uphill side of Bluebird Canyon Drive and any public views to the Pacific Ocean are not over the project site.
If the DRB does not find the project consistent with design criteria #2 Design Articulation and #4 Environmental Context, a finding of consistency with Policy LU 2.8 cannot be made at this time.
The DRB should provide additional direction to the applicant to further reduce the project to make it more compatible.
LU Policy 7.3 and Policy 10.2 Design and site new development to protect natural and environmentally sensitive resources, such as areas of unique scenic quality, public views, and visual compatibility with surrounding uses and to minimize natural landform alterations. GOAL: Protect, preserve, and enhance the community’s natural resources.
Consistent. The discussion and facts presented under design criteria #2 Design Articulation, and #4 Environmental Context, and LU Policy 2.1 support a finding of consistency with Policy LU 7.3.
Public views are not provided over the project from any nearby public vantage point. Public views of the site from higher or lower public vantage points are too distant to affect the visual quality of the view. The project site is located on the inland an uphill side of Bluebird Canyon Drive and any public views to the Pacific Ocean are not over the project site.
If the DRB does not find the project consistent with design criteria #2 Design Articulation and #4 Environmental Context, a finding of consistency with Policy LU 2.8 cannot be made at this time.
The DRB should provide additional direction to the applicant to further reduce the project to make it more compatible.
6. Historic Preservation: Destruction or alteration to historic resources should be avoided whenever possible. See Chapter 25.45 for more information.
N/A. The project site is vacant and does not contain historic resources. There are no historic resources abutting the site that would be impacted by the proposed Project.
7. Landscaping: Landscaping shall be incorporated as an integrated part of the structure’s design and relate harmoniously to neighborhood and community landscaping themes. View equity shall be an important consideration in the landscape design. The relevant landscaping guidelines contained in the City’s “Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document” should be incorporated, as appropriate, in the design and planned maintenance of proposed landscaping.
DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, REP 24-2511
5/22/2025
Yes. The proposed landscape plan, provided as Sheet L-2.0, includes a mix of shrubs (18 to 54 inches high), groundcover, and vines. Four Western Redbud trees maintained at 12 feet high, and one Holm Oak tree maintained at 25 feet high along with shrubs and vines help soften the appearance of the retaining walls and building mass. The Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document provides suggested large, medium, and small trees for Bluebird Canyon Neighborhood #7 and the landscape plan is consistent. The location and limited maintained height of the proposed trees should not create any future view equity issues.
8. Lighting and Glare: Adequate lighting for individual and public safety shall be provided in a manner which does not significantly impact neighboring properties. Reflective materials and appurtenances that cause glare or a negative visual impact (e.g., skylights, white rock roofs, highgloss ceramic tile roofs, reflective glass, etc.) should be avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance in those locations where those surfaces are visible from neighboring properties.
Yes. The amount of proposed window glazing may result in sun reflection during the day and interior light spillage at night. The revised design reduces the amount of glazing from the original design as directed by the DRB, and the Board needs to determine if the amount of glazing would create a significant nuisance. Interior lighting can be further controlled, or shades can be installed if the DRB concludes night lighting from interior spaces remains an issue.
Proposed exterior building lighting is shown on Sheets A6.0, A6.1, and A6.2 and includes indirect recessed wall lights (6) and recessed soffit lights (7) located at all exit doors as required by the building code. Proposed site lighting shown on Sheet L4.0 includes a mix of path lights (17), down lights (2), wall mounted down lights (20), and step lights (11). All fixtures are shielded and directed downward to minimize light impacts on adjacent properties. Exterior lighting of the building and site are minimal and should not create undue lighting nuisance.
9. Neighborhood Compatibility: Development shall be compatible with the existing development in the neighborhood and respect neighborhood character. Neighborhood character is the sum of the qualities that distinguish areas within the city including historical patterns of development (e.g., structural heights, mass, scale or size), village atmosphere, landscaping themes and architectural styles.
Yes. The discussion and facts presented under design criteria #2 Design Articulation, and #4 Environmental Context, and LU Policy 2.1 support a finding of consistency with this design review criterion and the discussion and facts are incorporated herein by reference.
If the DRB believes proposed design is not compatible with the neighborhood for whatever reason, the DRB should provide additional direction to the applicant to make the project more compatible.
10. Pedestrian Orientation: Commercial development design shall enhance and encourage pedestrian uses. Incorporation of articulated building masses, compact open spaces and courtyards, mixed use developments, use of landscaping as part of design, and orientation to pedestrian access should be maximized.
DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, REP 24-2511
5/22/2025
N/A. Design Review Criteria for Pedestrian Orientation is related to commercial development and is not applicable to the proposed project.
11. Privacy: The placement of activity areas (e.g., decks, picture windows and ceremonial or entertainment rooms) in locations that would result in a substantial invasion of privacy of neighboring properties should be minimized.
Potential privacy concerns to existing homes across Bluebird Canyon Drive should be considered; however, these homes are oriented toward ocean views and away from the project site, and therefore privacy issues appear insignificant. Privacy concerns were raised by a neighbor regarding the proposed spa location that is in the rear yard. No changes to the spa location have been proposed by the applicant. Existing homes along the Bluebird Canyon will not see or hear the spa due to the position of the proposed home. There is no existing residence abutting the rear of the project site that would be affected.
12. Public Art: Public art is encouraged and shall be displayed where feasible or required by the Art in Public Places ordinance.
N/A. Design Review Criteria for Public Art is related to commercial development and is not applicable to the proposed project.
13. Sign Quality: Signs shall be incorporated into the architecture of the structure and shall be made of high quality materials, be simple in design and be visually compatible with the surrounding physical environment in terms of color, scale and size. Use of natural materials in the construction of signs is encouraged.
N/A. Design Review Criteria for Signage is related to commercial development and is not applicable to the proposed project.
14. Sustainability: New development should consider architecture and building practices which minimize environmental impacts and enhance energy efficiency by: (a) reducing energy needs of buildings by proper site and structural design; (b) increasing the building’s ability to capture or generate energy; (c) using low-impact, sustainable and recycled building materials; (d) using the latest Best Management Practices regarding waste and water management; and (e) reducing site emissions.
Yes. New construction is required to meet Title 24 energy and Building Code requirements, which include insulated windows and energy efficient lighting. The applicant will be required to provide proof of compliance. Further, the applicant will be required to reuse, recycle, or divert at least 50 percent of the project’s construction and demolition debris. The proposed design also includes the means for future installation of solar panels to further sustainability goals.
15. Swimming Pools, Spas, and Water Features: Swimming pools, spas and water features shall be located, designed and constructed where: (a) geology conditions allow; (b) noise produced by DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, REP 24-2511
5/22/2025
circulatory mechanical pumps and equipment is mitigated; and (c) any associated fencing or other site improvements are compatible with neighboring properties.
Yes. The spa is in a location where geologic conditions allows, and the equipment is below grade in a vault which will help mitigate noise. In addition, a standard condition of approval will limit the hours of operation of the spa equipment between the hours of 9:00 AM and 9:00 PM. The spa requires a cover, and a six-foot-high wrought iron pool protection fence is proposed, which encloses the entire back yard. The proposed fencing is functional and is less intrusive than a solid fence or wall.
16. View Equity: The development, including its landscaping, shall be designed to protect existing views from neighboring properties without denying the subject property the reasonable opportunity to develop as described and illustrated in the City’s “Design Guidelines.” The “Design Guidelines” are intended to balance preservation of views with the right to develop property.
The proposed project does not present any view equity issues due to the location, height, and position of the proposed building given the location, design and elevation of nearby properties and predominant view planes. View equity concerns were reviewed and not deemed significant by the DRB at the prior meeting; however, if additional residents suggest a significant view issue, the DRB should determine if view equity is achieved.
Finding No. 2. The physical improvements and site developments related to the Project are designed and located in a manner in overall consistency with all other applicable design guidelines.
Yes. The discussion and facts in support of each of the 16 design review criteria suggest the physical improvements and overall site development are designed in a consistent manner. However, the DRB may feel the project remains too massive and not compatible with the neighborhood. In that case, the DRB should provide additional direction to the applicant to modify the project further to address design or compatibility concerns.
Finding No. 3. The physical improvements and site developments related to the Project are characterized by appropriately scaled development, diverse and unique architectural designs, pedestrian orientation, and sensitivity to the natural conditions of the site.
The revised project including all associated accessory improvements adds to the diverse and unique architectural style of the neighborhood and the City at large. The discussion and facts in support of design review criterion #2 Design Articulation and #4 Environmental Context support this finding and are hereby incorporated herein by reference.
If the DRB feels project mass is not sufficiently minimized consistent with applicable policy and criterion, or significantly modifies the landform in an incompatible way, the DRB should provide additional direction to the applicant to reduce the appearance of mass and/or site the project in a more sensitive way.
Finding No. 4. The project is consistent with any specific plan or any other specific zoning design review criteria.
DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, REP 24-2511
5/22/2025
N/A. The project is not subject to other specific plans or additional design review criteria other than the Residential Design Review Guidelines, as explained above.
Revocable Encroachment Permit
The applicant requests a Revocable Encroachment Permit (Attachment 7) to construct and maintain walls, stairs, irrigation, drainage facilities, and lighting in the unimproved portion of the public right-of-way. The portion of the proposed driveway in the public right-of-way does not require a REP and only requires a ministerial encroachment permit from the Public Works Department. The REP request and the driveway encroachment permit has been reviewed by Public Works engineers, and they recommend approval.
A Revocable Encroachment Permit may be granted by the Design Review Board if the improvements will not interfere with the present and prospective public use of a street or right-of-way and will generally conform to the following requirements:
Finding No. 1: It should be located in a manner that is not hazardous to the traveling public, including motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians.
Yes. The proposed encroachments (walls, stairs, irrigation, drainage, and lighting) are located to not interfere with existing and proposed public street improvements that would widen the street by 2-3 feet to achieve an overall street width of 20 feet. The discussion and facts in support of design review criterion #1 Access support this finding and are hereby incorporated herein by reference. Final street improvement plans are required to improve the function and safety of the street and must be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to the construction of the improvements.
Finding No. 2: It should be sufficiently set back from the edge of pavement or street centerline to provide adequate travel, parking, and walking lanes.
The proposed encroachments are setback sufficiently from travel lanes to provide adequate space for travel especially given the required street widening.
Finding No. 3: It should not conflict with preexisting public utility structures, especially hydrants, vault and service meters in any manner that necessitates relocation thereof at public expense or causes any other unacceptable interference, including impediments to the maintenance, relocation or repair of pipelines, conduits, or substructures of any public utility.
Yes. No utility easements exist within the area between the existing paved street and the property line. Utilities are located under the roadway itself and the proposed encroachments would not conflict with any preexisting or proposed utility structures.
Finding No. 4: It will not preclude public access, use or enjoyment of any area that has historically established such access, use or enjoyment.
DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, REP 24-2511
5/22/2025
Yes. The public currently has use if the street and the area below the roadway cut for pedestrian and vehicular access. The location of the proposed walls and stairs will not preclude public access or use of the street in its widened condition.
Finding No. 5: It is not precedent setting in nature to the extent that it creates a noticeable projection into the streetscape as established by existing construction and improvements on neighboring properties.
Yes. Neighboring properties along Bluebird Canyon Drive have minor encroachments, some of which protrude into the perceived travel lane. The landscaped walls, stairs and landscaping proposed are residential in character and are located well outside travel lanes. Therefore, the proposed encroachment would not be precedent setting.
Finding No. 6: It does not create structures of unusual or unacceptable appearance, form, shape or height that detract from the general quality of the streetscape.
Yes. The landscaped walls, stairs and landscaping proposed are residential in character and are located well outside travel lanes and would not detract from the general quality of the streetscape.
Coastal Development Permit
The proposed single-family dwelling requires the approval of a Coastal Development Permit. (See LBMC Section 25.07.004.) Coastal Development Permits are governed by LBMC Chapter 25.07. A Coastal Development Permit is considered by the Design Review Board at a duly noticed public hearing where the following findings are considered in relation to the proposed development:
Finding No. 1: The project is in conformity with all the applicable provisions of the certified local coastal program, including the following review criteria:
1. The proposed development will not encroach upon any existing physical accessway legally utilized by the public or any proposed public accessway identified in the adopted local coastal program land use plan.
Yes. No public accessway exists through the project site. The proposed development will not modify any existing physical accessway utilized by the public or identified in the adopted local coastal program land use plan in that development is limited to the subject lot, which does not provide any such accessways, and a proposed public parking space will be provided in the widened right-of-way to the benefit of public access.
2. The proposed development will not adversely affect marine resources, environmentally sensitive areas, or archaeological or paleontological resources.
Yes. The site is a hillside lot located approximately one mile from the Pacific Ocean. No marine resources, environmentally sensitive areas or archaeological or paleontological resources have been identified on the project site.
DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, REP 24-2511
5/22/2025
3. The proposed development will not adversely affect recreational or visitor-serving facilities or coastal scenic resources.
Yes. No recreational, visitor-serving or coastal scenic resources have been identified on the project site and the project (one single family residence with an ADU) will not significantly increase the demand for recreational or visitor-serving facilities. The project site is located within an area with existing hillside development on a lot designated for residential development by the Certified Local Coastal Program. The discussion and facts presented under design criteria #4 Environmental Context and LU Policy 2.8 support this finding and are incorporated herein by reference. Project approval will not impact coastal scenic resources.
4. The proposed development will be sited and designed to prevent adverse impacts to environmentally sensitive habitats and scenic resources located in adjacent parks and recreation areas and will provide adequate buffer areas to protect such resources.
Yes. Environmentally sensitive habitats have not been identified on or adjacent to the project site.
Furthermore, the site is not located adjacent to parks and recreation areas or scenic resources.
Therefore, the project is sited and designed to prevent adverse impacts to environmentally sensitive habitats and scenic resources.
5. The proposed development will minimize the alterations of natural landforms and will not result in undue risks from geological and erosional forces and/or flood and fire hazards.
Yes. The revised project includes grading export of approximately 1,398 cubic yards. As noted previously, this amount of grading is reasonable given the required public street improvements and the hillside development and the need to create a public parking space outside of vehicle lanes. The discussion and facts under design review criterion #4 Environmental context support this finding and are incorporated herein by reference. The preliminary geotechnical investigation prepared by Stoney Miller dated August 22, 2024 (Attachment 8), found that the proposed development is geotechnically feasible and free of undue geologic risks with the incorporation of their recommendations in the final design, which is a standard requirement of the design and construction process and the City’s Building Division. The site is a hillside lot and not within a mapped flood plain. The project site is located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) and the design must be consistent with applicable Building and Fire Codes. The applicant has prepared an Alternative Means and Methods report prepared by Dudek dated September 24, 2024, (Attachment 9) related to the 150-foot fire hose pull standard. The report has been reviewed and approved by the Building Official, and as a result, the proposed development will not result in an undue fire risk.
6. The proposed development will be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and where feasible, will restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas.
Yes. The discussion and facts presented under Design Review Criteria #2 Design Articulation, #4 Environmental Context, # 9 Neighborhood Compatibility, and LU Policy 2.1 support this DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, REP 24-2511
5/22/2025
finding and are incorporated herein by reference. The project site is not a visually degraded area despite its past grading.
7. The proposed development will not have any adverse impacts on any known archaeological or paleontological resource.
Yes. No known archaeological or paleontological resources have been identified on the project site.
8. The proposed development will be provided with adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities.
Yes. The proposed development will be provided with adequate utilities and access roads as the property is located within an established residential neighborhood and is immediately surrounded by an improved street that will be widened and single-family uses.
9. Other public services, including, but not limited to, solid waste and public roadway capacity have been considered and are adequate to serve the proposed development.
Yes. All public services including solid waste collection presently exist in the City of Laguna beach to serve to the project. Bluebird Canyon Drive, with its modest widening, is adequate to serve the proposed single-family development and ADU, which is typical for this area. The site is designated for residential use and within planned infrastructure requirements.
The project is consistent with all applicable policies of the Certified LCP.
LCP COASTAL VIEW POLICIES
Land Use Element (LU) Policies 2.1, 2.8, and 7.3
All discussion and facts in support of the Design Review criterion #5 General Plan Compliance2 above are incorporated herein by reference and support a finding of consistency with the LCP.
Coastal Land Use Plan Technical Appendix Section 30251 The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural landforms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and where feasible to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. New development in highly scenic areas ... shall be subordinate to the character of its setting.
The discussion and facts presented under design criteria #2 Design Articulation, #4 Environmental Context, #5 General Plan Compliance, and #9 Neighborhood Compatibility support a finding of 2 The Laguna Beach Land Use Element is a component of the City’s Certified Local Coastal Program (LCP).
DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, REP 24-2511
5/22/2025
consistency with Coastal Land Use Plan Technical Appendix and Section 30251 of the Coastal Act and are incorporated herein by reference.
LCP DOCUMENTS
The project must conform with all the following applicable documents of the Certified LCP.
1. Coastal Land Use Plan Technical Appendix (1984)
2. Design Guidelines - A Guide to Residential Development (2010)
3. Fuel Modification Guidelines (1989)
4. Chapter 14.78 Geology Reports - Preparation and Requirements (2005)
5. Land Use Element (2012) 6. Title 21 - Plats and Subdivision (1991)
7. Title 22 - Excavation and Grading (2004)
8. Title 25 - Zoning Code
Finding No. 2. Any development located between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea is in conformity with the certified local coastal program and with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act.
N/A. The subject property is located a mile from the Pacific Ocean and not located between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea.
Finding No. 3. The proposed development will not have any significant adverse impacts on the environment within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act.
The project will not cause any significant adverse impacts on the environment and qualifies for a categorical exemption the project qualifies for a categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15303 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. None of the exceptions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, the project qualifies for a categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15303 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, in that the project consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small structures. There is no evidence of any unusual or special conditions that would result in a significant effect on the environment. Here, the proposed project consists of a new single-family dwelling and an accessory dwelling unit on a vacant lot zoned for single-family use.
Further, none of the exceptions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply. The project site does not contain any environmentally sensitive areas. There will be no cumulative impact resulting from successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time in that the proposed project involves construction of a new single-family dwelling on a vacant building site within an established neighborhood.
There are no unusual circumstances resulting in a significant impact on the environment. There will be no damage to scenic resources, including trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. The project is not located on a hazardous DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, REP 24-2511
5/22/2025
waste site, or any other site included on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. The project will not result in significant adverse impacts to historical resources as defined by CEQA.
Consequently, additional environmental analysis is not necessary to meet the requirements of the CEQA.
Questions have been raised about a potential cumulative effect with four pending single family home projects (including this project) either under review or approved in proximity to the project site. Concerns about the physical capacity of the roadway and construction related access expressed. Staff has consulted with the Public Works Department engineers, and they are confident the roadway can physically handle all construction-related traffic for the project and the three other known projects in the vicinity (1526 & 1536 Morningside Drive and 1550 & 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive). Regarding neighborhood and emergency access during construction, standard conditions regarding construction staging and management, typically prepared just prior to building or grading permit issuance, will necessitate that all roads be open and available throughout the construction process of all four projects. As a result, there is no cumulative construction-related issue.
THIRD HEARING FINDING:
The May 22, 2025, hearing is the second substantive hearing for the project. Should the DRB not be ready to approve the project, staff believes the applicant’s design team has been responsive to the DRB’s direction with their changes. The reduction in building area, smaller deck areas, lowering certain roof elements, reduction in window glazing, and enhanced landscape elements make for a more compatible project. The applicant feels strongly the proposed driveway is a safer and better option as designed. Furthermore, staff believes the applicant has acted in good faith in their response to DRB direction and that further design work would be in the best interest of the community should the DRB not approve the project at the conclusion of the public hearing on May 22, 2025.
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends project approval subject to conditions. Alternatively, the DRB can approve the project while including additional conditions of approval to address design-related issues if necessary for the Board to make all affirmative findings for each requested application. If the DRB feels this first alternative is not feasible due to the nature or number of concerns, the DRB should provide additional direction to the applicant to address the consensus concerns of the Board and continue the project to a future date. As noted, staff believes the applicant has acted in good faith and that a third hearing would be in the community’s best interest.
NOTIFICATION:
Pursuant to Title 25 (Zoning) Public Notice, a public hearing notice has been mailed at least twenty-one (21) days prior to the hearing date in accordance with Title 25. In addition, a public hearing notice has been posted on the project site at least 10 days in advance of the hearing date.
DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, REP 24-2511
5/22/2025
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Public comments received to date are contained in Attachment 10.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 – Draft Resolution No. 24-2509 for project approval Attachment 2 – Project Plans (includes colored elevations & renderings) Attachment 3 – Certified Staking Plan
Attachment 4 – Color and Material Board
Attachment 5 – 1/23/2025 DRB Staff Report (without attachments) Attachment 6 – Ridgeline Excerpt of the Open Space and Conservation Element Attachment 7 – Revocable Encroachment Permit
Attachment 8 – Stoney Miller Geotechnical Report
Attachment 9 – Dudek Alternative Material & Methods Report Attachment 10 – Public Comments