DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT
January 23, 2025
Agenda Item No. 5.8
Case No: Design Review 24-2509
Coastal Development Permit 24-2510
Revocable Encroachment Permit 24-2511
Project Location: 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive | Lot B
Applicant: David Parker, Architect
(949) 872-6616 | [email protected]
Property Owner: David Dyrnaes, 1560 Bluebird Canyon Drive LLC Prepared By: Community Development Department
Nancy Balmer-Csira, Planner
(949) 715-1284 | [email protected]
Board Members within a
500’ Radius: None
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Design Review Board provide direction on access, design articulation, general plan compliance, landscaping, lighting and glare, neighborhood compatibility, privacy, and view equity relating to Design Review 24-2509, Coastal Development Permit 24-2510, and Revocable Encroachment Permit 24-2511 for construction of a single-family dwelling with an attached twocar garage on a vacant building site in the R-1 Residential Low Density zone, and finding said action exempt from CEQA under Section 15303. Staff has not attached a resolution for approval and recommends the Board provide direction to the applicant during the public hearing.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Applicant, David Parker, Architect, is requesting Design Review 24-2509, Coastal Development Permit 24-2510, and Revocable Encroachment Permit 24-2511. The proposed project includes construction of a single-family dwelling with an attached two-car garage, vehicular access, elevated decks, spa, grading, retaining walls, trash enclosure in the front setback, and landscaping. Additionally, improvements proposed within the public right-of-way include walls, stairs, irrigation, drainage, and lighting (the “Project”).
DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, REP 24-2511
January 23, 2025
PROPERTY AERIAL PHOTO
STREET FRONTAGE
DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, REP 24-2511
January 23, 2025
PROPERTY INFORMATION
Land Use Designation Village Low Density (1-7 DU/AC)
Zoning Designation R-1 Residential Low Density
ZONING REVIEW
The proposed project complies with applicable zoning standards and guidelines as shown in the summary table below.
Development Standard Required Existing Proposed Conforms Building Site Coverage Maximum
35.00 %
3,003.70 SF
N/A 34.90 %
2,998.00 SF Yes
Landscape Open Space Minimum
25.14 %
2,157.52 SF
N/A 25.24 %
2,166.0 SF Yes
Height (Above rear lot line) 15’ N/A 15’-0” Yes
Height (Lowest floor to top of roof) 30’ N/A 29’-5” Yes Setbacks: Front
Side (East)
Side (West)
Rear (Shallow Lot)
Garage 5’
House 10’
4’
13’
19’
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
10’-3”
27’-2”
4’-0”
15’-7”
19’-7”
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
Site History
On May 19, 2004, the City Council approved Lot line Adjustment 04-01 which reconfigured the lot lines associated with four legal building sites, two lots fronting Morningside Drive and two lots fronting Bluebird Canyon Drive. On June 13, 2024, an administrative approval was made by the Director of Community Development for an SB9 urban lot split (Tentative Parcel Map No. 2024-117) that created the vacant project site. The property in its current lot configuration has never been subject to Design Review.
The uphill sloping lot is 8,582 square feet with an average lot slope of 25.8%. The front property line is located approximately 10 feet back and 10 feet above the existing paved street as shown on Section A on Sheet A 3.0 (Attachment 1). The building site abuts three vacant building lots to the east, west and north.
Proposed Project
The proposed project includes the construction of a new 3,598 square-foot single family dwelling with a 553 square-foot attached two-car garage on a vacant building site, including a 150-foot-long driveway, 897 square feet of elevated decks, a spa, grading, retaining walls, and landscaping. The new development requires Design Review and a Revocable Encroachment Permit for proposed improvements within the unimproved portion of the public right-of-way. A Coastal Development Permit is required for the new single-family dwelling located in the Coastal Zone which is not appealable to the California Coastal Commission.
DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, REP 24-2511
January 23, 2025
ENTITLEMENTS: Included within this staff report is an analysis of the following entitlements: Design Review, Coastal Development Permit, and Revocable Encroachment Permit.
Design Review
The property development standards as delineated in each zone are intended to provide the City with maximum flexibility and discretion in the decision-making process, based upon the particular issues and circumstances in effect at the time development is proposed. These standards shall represent the maximum allowable building envelope for a given property. The actual development allowed after the application of the Design Review criteria will typically 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."
The following elements requires Design Review: new structure, vehicular access, elevated decks, spa, grading, retaining walls, trash storage within the front setback, and landscaping. (See Laguna Beach Municipal Code (LBMC) Section 25.05.040(B)). Design Review is governed by LBMC Section 25.05.040.
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:
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.
No. The required parallel public parking space has been provided by cutting into the hillside and installing retaining walls along the street frontage that vary in height up to 13 feet. The applicant should consider reducing the proposed paving adjacent to the public parking space to the minimum required to allow for more vegetation. As designed, the entire street frontage (117.92 feet) will include concrete paving and/or retaining walls.
The S-shaped 150-foot-long upsloping driveway has been designed to access the side-entry garage that sits 17 feet above the street and includes a back-up area so vehicles can turn around, and then ascend down the driveway and nose into the street when exiting the site. The applicant should consider locating the building closer to the street. The property qualifies for a reduced setback due to the steep lot condition, with the garage allowed to be five feet from the front property line.
The trash storage area enclosed with wood gates is located within the front setback, which requires Design Review but is in a logical location for ease of use.
The required three-foot-wide fire fighter access has been provided around the entire structure. An easement for the portion of the required fire fighter access located on the adjacent west property will be required as a condition of approval. These stairs appear to also provide access from the DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, REP 24-2511
January 23, 2025
public parking spaces for guests to arrive at the main entry to the proposed house and the proposed house planned for the adjacent property.
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.
No. The building is proposed at the top of the lot, 19’-7” from the rear property line and 15’ above the rear property line. Although, the proposed structure generally steps back to follow the sloped hillside and is within the allowable building envelope, constructing the structure further up the hill creates the appearance of mass. When viewed from the street, the building appears two, three, and four stories tall as illustrated in Figure 1 below. As designed, the retaining wall below the garage appears as the first story, the garage as second story and then two stories of living space.
Furthermore, the series of retaining walls greater than five feet high add to the appearance of excessive mass and scale. The applicant should consider alternative designs that site the home closer to the street and reorients the garage entry to eliminate the long driveway which would reduce the number of retaining walls and fourth level. Existing homes on Bluebird Canyon Drive on the opposite “down-hill” side of the street step down the hill, and generally appear as one- to two-story homes from the street level.
Figure 1: Proposed Street Elevation (Public parking space retaining walls not shown) DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, REP 24-2511
January 23, 2025
3. Design Integrity: Consistency with the applicant’s chosen style of architecture should be achieved using appropriate materials and details. Remodels should be harmonious with the remaining existing architecture.
Yes. The proposed modern architectural style materials include concrete, stucco, stone veneer, and glass with simple clean details. The building is primarily off-white stucco with gray colored elements including roof fascia, gutters, and roofing. Extensive aluminum framed glazing and seamless glass railings are proposed throughout. Eldorado stone veneer will be applied to the retaining walls as shown on the street elevation.
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. There are no natural scenic features present on the site. Grading export of 1,414 cubic yards is proposed with 790 cubic yards for the driveway access alone. The proposed grading export amount is consistent with other hillside development in the city especially when required to provide a public parking space. Additional grading quantities could be considered to preserve the pattern of development and avoid the appearance of mass.
5. General Plan Compliance: The development shall comply with all applicable policies of the General Plan, including all its elements, applicable specific plans, and the certified local coastal program.
No. The project does not comply with the general plan policies as discussed below.
LU Element (LUE) 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.
As discussed under the Neighborhood Compatibility criterion (No. 9), the proposed project is in a neighborhood with diverse architectural styles. The architectural style and materials of the proposed home are compatible with the surrounding residences; however, the massing is out of scale with the neighborhood. As noted above, it is recommended that the home be sited closer to the street and in a manner that does not span four levels above the street.
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.
The proposed project does not impact any public views and no natural topographic features or significant onsite resources exist. Alteration of the natural topography is necessary for hillside DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, REP 24-2511
January 23, 2025
development; however, siting the home closer to the street or reducing the building footprint would preserve more lot area for vegetation which would better integrate the home into the site.
Land Use (LU) Policy 7.3 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.
The subject property is located within an established neighborhood and surrounded by vacant building sites on both sides and to the rear. The proposed project is not visually compatible with the existing homes in the neighborhood and grading activity should be near the developed street to minimize environmental impacts.
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.
No. The City’s consulting landscape architect reviewed the proposed landscape plan and noted that the landscape plan does not follow the neighborhood landscape guidelines or incorporate suggested trees. The proposed landscape plans, provided as sheet L-2.0, includes a mix of shrubs (18 inches to 8 feet high), groundcover, and vines. The Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document provides suggested large, medium, and small trees for Bluebird Canyon Neighborhood #7.
The landscaping plan lacks trees, which are essential for softening the appearance of the retaining walls and building mass. The plan does not adhere to neighborhood landscape guidelines, and staff recommends the inclusion of neighborhood-appropriate trees.
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.
No. The proposed use of extensive glazing may result in excessive sun reflection during the day and interior light spillage at night. Staff suggests reducing glazing and using a more neutral stucco color to blend with the hillside and minimize glare.
DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, REP 24-2511
January 23, 2025
Proposed building lighting is shown on Sheets A6.0, A6.1, and A6.2 and includes minimal soffit lighting and wall sconce downlights located at all exit doors as required by the building code.
Proposed site lighting shown on Sheet L-4.0 includes a mix of path lights (17), down lights (2), bullet lights (21), and step lights (11). All fixtures are shielded and directed downward to minimize light impacts to adjacent properties. (Attachment 1).
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.
No. The property qualifies for a reduced setback due to the steep lot condition, with the garage allowed to be five feet from the front property line. The proposed garage setback (10’-2.5” feet) in combination with the turn-in garage design has resulted in a 150-foot-long driveway using retaining walls greater than five feet to support the cut slope. A 216-foot-long driveway provides access to 1540 Bluebird Canyon Drive which is close by, however the retaining walls for that driveway are less than five feet high and the existing one-story home is 1,715 square feet with a 420 square-foot two-car garage.
The Design Review Board (DRB) recently approved two new homes on adjacent vacant building sites that take access from Morningside Drive (1526 and 1536). However, both approvals are currently under City Council appeals filed by neighbors. The chart below compares the subject project with the two previously approved projects. The project appears as four stories like the other two homes. The driveway is 100 feet longer than 1536 Morningside Drive, but the grading export is 306 cubic yards less.
DESCRIPTION
SUBJECT PROPERTY
1560 Bluebird Canyon Dr
(Lot B)
DRB
3‐14‐24
1526 Morningside Dr
DRB
5‐9‐24
1536 Morningside Dr
LOT AREA 8,582 SF 6,800 SF 13,866 SF
HEIGHT
Above rear lot line
Above lowest FF
Overall*
# of Stories
15’‐0”
29’‐5”
31’‐10”
(47’‐3” w/garage ret. wall)
3 (appears as 4)
5’‐0”
37’‐9”
37’‐9”
(garage appears detached)
3 (appears as 4)
(DRB condition: reduce height 2’)
(12’‐5”) 10’‐5”
(24’‐5”) 22’‐5”
(44’‐1”) 42’‐1”
(two 2‐story buildings)
2/2 (appears as 4)
GARAGE
Front Setback
Driveway Length
2‐car / side entry
10’‐3”
150 ‘
2‐car / nose‐in
10’‐2”
21’‐0”
2‐car / side entry
7’‐7”
50’‐0”
HOUSE
Front Setback
Rear Setback
21’‐4”
19’‐7”
22’‐0”
16’‐0”
13’‐7”
16’‐0”
DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, REP 24-2511
January 23, 2025
Side Setback
Side Setback
4’‐0”
15’‐7”
5’‐0”
12’‐0”
20’‐2”
39’‐4”
LIVING AREA 3,598 SF 3,542 SF 2,372 SF
ADU NA NA 848 SF
GARAGE 553 SF 652 SF 565 SF
ELEVATED DECK 897 SF 572 SF 398 SF
MECHANICAL 51 SF 37 SF 198 SF
TOTAL PROGRAM 5,099 SF 4,803 SF 4,381 SF
SITE COVERAGE
(% of net lot area)
2,998 SF
(34.9%)
2,563 SF
(37.6%)
2,504 Sf
(18.0%)
LANDSCAPE
OPEN SPACE
2,166 SF
(25.3%)
2,204 SF
(32.4%)
7,750 SF
(55.9%)
IMPERVIOUS
SURFACES
4,887 SF
(56.9%)
3,373 SF
(49.6%)
4,995 SF
(35%)
GRADING EXPORT 1,414 CY 1,221 CY 1,720 CY
*Height measured from the garage finished floor to the top of highest roof SUBJECT PROPERTY 1526
DRB conditions: Relate to lighting &
landscaping CC Appeal: Remand to DRB to address
garage design, design articulation &
neighborhood compatibility
1536
DRB conditions: Relate to lighting &
landscaping and reduce roof 2 feet
PC: Approved indirect access variance
& recommended CC approve easement
CC Appeal & Easement pending
Comparing the street front elevations of the three projects, they appear very similar in overall height. The DRB required the 1536 Morningside Drive project to reduce the top roof height by two feet. Retaining walls greater than five feet are unavoidable to provide the required public parking space and are not shown on the elevations above for the subject property or 1536 Morningside Drive. The DRB approved tall retaining walls at 1536 Morningside Drive that are offset to allow for the main entry steps; the lower wall is shown brown, and the upper wall is shown gray. Staff recommends that the Board consider requiring additional landscaping specifically trees to soften and enhance the retaining walls, building mass, and setting.
DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, REP 24-2511
January 23, 2025
Lastly, as noted above, these projects are under appeal and have not yet been approved. Until the City Council appeals are reviewed, it is unclear if these homes should be used to define the pattern of development in the neighborhood.
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.
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.
No. Privacy concerns have been identified from the property owner of the vacant building site located at 1526 Morningside Drive relative to spa location and associated noise impacts.
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.
DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, REP 24-2511
January 23, 2025
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 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 equipment between the hours of 9:00 AM and 9:00 PM. The spa requires a cover. A five-foot-tall wrought iron pool security fence is proposed which encloses the back yard.
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 concept of view equity is intended to balance the property owner’s right to reasonably develop their home while maintaining as much of the neighbor’s view corridors as feasible. One neighbor has expressed potential view equity impacts from his vacant building site that is pending DRB approval.
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.
No. The project is inconsistent with the Residential Design Review Guidelines, as explained above.
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.
Staff's concerns center on the excessive massing and scale of the proposed development, which appears out of character with the neighborhood, partly due to its four-story appearance and extensive use of retaining walls up to 11 feet high. The 150-foot-long driveway, required for the side-entry garage, contributes to significant grading (1,414 cubic yards) and environmental impacts, and staff suggests re-siting the home closer to the street to reduce these effects. The landscape plan lacks trees and fails to align with neighborhood guidelines, offering minimal softening of the structure’s visual impact. Additionally, the extensive glazing may result in glare and light spillage, and the overall design does not sufficiently integrate with the natural topography or adhere to policies aimed at maintaining neighborhood diversity and scale. Recommendations include resiting the home, adding trees, reducing glazing, and adopting a more neutral color palette to mitigate visual and environmental impacts. Furthermore, a neighbor has expressed concerns with potential privacy and view equity impacts.
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
January 23, 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 an approval of a Revocable Encroachment Permit to construct and maintain walls, stairs, irrigation, drainage, and lighting in the unimproved portion of the public right-of-way. 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.
The proposed encroachments (walls, stairs, irrigation, drainage, and lighting) are located to not interfere with existing and proposed public street improvements. A final street curb and gutter improvement plan will be required to improve the function and safety of the street.
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 to provide adequate travel lanes.
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.
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.
The proposed walls and stairs will not preclude public access or use of the street.
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.
Neighboring properties on the street have similar encroachments. 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.
The proposed encroachments would not detract from the general quality of the streetscape.
Coastal Development Permit
DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, REP 24-2511
January 23, 2025
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.
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.
2. The proposed development will not adversely affect marine resources, environmentally sensitive areas, or archaeological or paleontological resources.
No marine resources, environmentally sensitive areas or archaeological or paleontological resources have been identified on the project site.
3. The proposed development will not adversely affect recreational or visitor-serving facilities or coastal scenic resources.
No recreational, visitor-serving or coastal resources have been identified on the project site.
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.
No environmentally sensitive habitats have been identified on the project site. Furthermore, the site is not located adjacent to parks and recreation areas 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.
The proposed development includes grading export of 1,414 cubic yards. As described in the “environmental context” criterion above, this amount of grading is reasonable given the required public street improvements and the hillside development. Further, the preliminary geotechnical investigation found that the proposed development is geotechnically feasible and fire protection measures will be incorporated into the project as required by the Building Department.
DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, REP 24-2511
January 23, 2025
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.
See response to the “neighborhood compatibility” Design Review criterion above.
7. The proposed development will not have any adverse impacts on any known archaeological or paleontological resource.
No 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.
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 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.
The site is considered adequate to provide solid waste service and the roadways are considered adequate to serve the proposed single-family development, which is typical for this area.
The project is not consistent with all applicable policies of the Certified LCP.
LCP COASTAL VIEW POLICIES (CDP)
Land Use Element (LU) Policies 2.1, 2.8, and 7.3
See to responses to Design Review criteria No. 5 General Plan Compliance above.
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.
See responses to Design Review criteria No. 9 Neighborhood Compatibility above.
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) DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, REP 24-2511
January 23, 2025
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.
The subject property is 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.
As described in the staff report, the project does not have adverse environmental impacts. The project will not cause any significant adverse impacts on the environment and qualifies for a categorical exemption (as described in the Environmental Impact section below) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, the project is categorically exempt 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 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 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.
Staff will cause to be filed a Notice of Exemption (NOE) with the County Recorder’s Office should the Project receive final approval.
DR 24-2509, CDP 24-2510, REP 24-2511
January 23, 2025
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has not attached a resolution for approval and recommends the Board provide direction to the applicant during the public hearing. If the Design Review Board determines that the project is consistent with the access, design articulation, general plan compliance, landscaping, lighting and glare, neighborhood compatibility, privacy, and view equity design review criteria then it is recommended that the Board provide direction to staff to prepare a resolution of approval at a future hearing.
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.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Prior to the staking installation, two neighbors expressed concerns relating to incompatibility of the project with the area’s scale, character, and design guidelines. The contemporary design, with excessive glazing, expansive decks, and long driveway requiring tall retaining walls, is inconsistent with Bluebird Canyon’s traditional aesthetic, which typically features street-level garages, shared driveways, and more subdued architectural styles. Its prominent hilltop position, lack of sufficient landscaping, and large uppermost deck creates intrusive nighttime lighting, and exacerbate the structure’s imposing presence. Neighbors are also concerned with the development’s potential safety and infrastructure challenges, including narrow road access, utility relocations, geological risks, and disruptive construction impacts. The neighbors suggest reducing height, glazing, and massing, reorienting the design, incorporating robust landscaping, and addressing infrastructure improvements to better integrate the project into the neighborhood.
After the staking was installed, public comments were received from the vacant property owner of 1526 Morningside Drive whose new home is currently pending DRB review. He contends that the project does not comply with Design Review criteria for height, mass, garage configuration, amount of glazing, landscaping, privacy relative to the spa location, and view equity.
Public commentary is included as Attachment 7.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 – Project Plans
Attachment 2 – Certified Staking Plan
Attachment 3 – Colors and Materials
Attachment 4 – Geotechnical Report
Attachment 5 – Alternative Material & Methods
Attachment 6 – Revocable Encroachment Plan
Attachment 7 – Public Commentary