DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT
July 24, 2025
Agenda Item 5.9
Case No: Design Review 24-1151, Coastal Development Permit 24-1152, and Variance 24-1153 Request: Addition and remodel of an existing single-family dwelling, a new two-car garage, elevated decks, grading, landscaping, a new pool, and an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) in the R-1 (Residential Low Density) zone (“Project”).
Location: 31731 Seacove Drive, APN: 658-101-04
Applicant: David Parker, Architect
(949) 872-6616 | [email protected]
Owner: Joseph Praner
Staff: Community Development Department
Heather Steven | Senior Planner
(949) 497-0332 | [email protected]
Recommendation:
Conduct a public hearing and, by motion, adopt Resolution 24-1151 approving Design Review 24-1151, Coastal Development Permit 24-1152, and Variance 24-1153 and finding the action exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301.
CEQA:
The project qualifies for a categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines in that the project consists of the repair, maintenance, or minor alteration of existing structures or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use.
Coastal Development Permit:
The project site is located within an area of the Coastal Zone where a final decision by the City to approve the CDP can be appealed to the California Coastal Commission in accordance with LBMC Section
25.07.016(B).
Board Members within a 500’ Radius: None
Attachment 17
480
DR 24-1151, CDP 24-1152, VAR 24-1153
July 24, 2025
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The proposed project includes the addition to and remodel of an existing single-family dwelling, adding a new two-car garage, adding elevated decks, grading, landscaping, a new pool with spa, and accessory dwelling unit (ADU) in the R-1 (Residential Low Density) zone (the “Project”). The addition as designed would encroach within the required front and rear yard setback and the additional building setback. The pool would encroach within the required front setback. The proposed project, including the ADU, is subject to a Coastal Development Permit.
This project had substantive discussion at and was continued from both the January 9, 2025 and the May 22, 2025 Design Review Board (DRB) hearings. The July 24, 2025 DRB hearing is the third and final substantive hearing conducted for this project. Pursuant to LBMC Section 25.05.040(F)(5), the DRB must make a final decision to either approve or deny the project.
The proposed Project would convert an existing attached one-car garage to living area, and demolish an existing concrete deck, cabana, swimming pool, and wood decks. The Project would result in the construction of additions to the existing single-family residence that cross the property line. The proposed project consists of:
• New lower-level addition with a 469 square foot, two-car garage, 78 square feet of interior stairway, and new driveway;
• New mid-level with 180 square foot hallway, stairs, future elevator area, a 928.4 square foot attached ADU, 176 square foot entry patio, and 258 square foot enclosed pool equipment space; and • Upper-level additions including 482 square feet of new living area, 182 square-foot garage conversion to living area, 527.8 square-foot elevated deck (reduced from 735 square feet), and a pool.
Staff finds that there are sufficient facts to support approving the application, including the requested variance. Therefore, staff recommends project approval; however, staff also recommends the Design Review Board determine if potential privacy or view equity issues remain. If these issues (or others) are of concern, the Board should consider conditions of approval to address the issue or concern consistent with Design Review criteria 11 and 16 below:
• Design Review Criteria 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.
• Design Review Criteria 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.
481
DR 24-1151, CDP 24-1152, VAR 24-1153
July 24, 2025
PROPERTY AERIAL PHOTO
SITE PHOTO
PROPERTY INFORMATION
Land Use Designation Village Low Density (1-7 DU/AC)
Zoning Designation R-1 Residential Low Density
Proposed Use One single family dwelling and one ADU – proposed use complies 482
DR 24-1151, CDP 24-1152, VAR 24-1153
July 24, 2025
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 Lot Depth 80’ 40’ (+10’
private road)
No change Existing
nonconforming
Site Coverage 39.7% 22.5% 37.7% Yes
Landscape Open Space 20.69%
(1,223 s.f.)
0.6% (37.5
s.f.)
5.9% (347
s.f.)
Yes
Height (Lowest floor to top of roof) 25’ 9’-8” 22’-5” Yes Setbacks
Front
Side (West)
Side (East)
Rear
20’
24’, 5’ min.
(combined)
10’
4’-10”
5’
67’-2”
4’-6”
4’-10”
5’
19’
4’-6”
No1
Yes
Yes
No1
Parking 2 covered 1 covered 2 covered Yes
Figure 1: Existing site plan
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
Prior Hearings
On January 9, 2025, the DRB considered the project and received public testimony from four members of the public expressing concerns related to the proposed design and size of the elevated deck, and potential 1 Proposed Variance
483
DR 24-1151, CDP 24-1152, VAR 24-1153
July 24, 2025
impacts to their privacy. During the Board’s deliberation, the Board primarily discussed concerns related to reducing the size of the elevated deck and providing landscaping as privacy screening to the neighbor to the north. The Board continued the project to March 13, 2025, to address concerns raised. The applicant requested continuances from March 13, 2025, to March 27, 2025, and again to May 22, 2025.
In response to Board Direction, the applicant revised the project by reducing the upper-level deck area by 135.2 square feet, relocating the upper-level deck railing 4 feet, 6 inches to the east and a portion of the northern railing to the south, and revising the landscape plan to add a 15 foot long hedge along the north property line, to be maintained at a height of 16 feet, 4 inches for privacy (Figure 2, shown in darker orange).
At the May 22, 2025 hearing, the Board considered the project and received public testimony from four members of the public expressing continued concerns related to the proposed design and size of the elevated deck, and potential impacts to their privacy. During the Board’s deliberation, the Board discussed the concerns including maintaining existing trees and the type of landscaping to be installed, privacy from proposed upper-level windows, deck and pool, and the size of the proposed deck.
The Board continued the project to the July 24, 2025 hearing with direction to frost the windows on the north elevation at the upper level, further reduce the deck area, revise the landscaping to utilize Carolina Cherry for the hedge along the north property line, and to provide a 10-foot-wide driveway.
In response to the Board’s May 22, 2025 direction, the following modifications have been made:
1. Elevated deck was reduced by 70 s.f., from 597.8 to 527.8 (the original submittal was 733 s.f.) and the firepit was removed. Railing is pulled back to be even with the edge of the pool (Figure 2, shown in light orange).
2. The glass along the rear yard at the stair is frosted, up to 24" from the mitered corner.
3. Proposed screen trees along the north property line are replaced with Carolina Cherry (Prunus carolinian) and will be maintained at a height of 9' above the deck surface (El. 123') (Figure 4, shown in yellow).
4. Existing hedge of screening podocarpus along the north property line will be preserved or replaced and will be maintained at a height of 9' above the deck surface (El. 123'). An existing tree along the north property line, to the east of the proposed additions, will be maintained (Figure 4, shown in green).
5. The podocarpus hedge in front of the pool, from the midpoint of the pool east, is noted to be maintained at 5' above the deck surface (El. 119'), the hedge from the midpoint of the pool west will be maintained at pool height (El. 113’).
6. The driveway entry has been widened to 10 feet.
As the Project landscaping has been revised to address the Design Review Board’s comments from the May 22, 2025 hearing, staff has included the following condition of approval in the draft Resolution (Attachment 1) for the Board’s consideration:
15. Landscaping Conditions. The landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the approved landscape plans. The proposed podocarpus hedge within the front yard setback in front of the pool, from the midpoint of the pool and eastward, shall be maintained at 5 feet above the deck surface (elevation of 119.0’). The proposed podocarpus hedge within the front yard setback from 484
DR 24-1151, CDP 24-1152, VAR 24-1153
July 24, 2025
the midpoint of the pool and westward, shall be maintained at the pool height (elevation of 113.0’). The existing podocarpus hedge and proposed Carolina Cherry (Prunis carolinian) hedge along the rear (north) property line shall be maintained at 9 feet above the upper-level finished surface elevation (elevation of 123’). Thereafter, the landscaping shall be continuously maintained (including replanting, as necessary) in compliance with the approved landscaping plans, unless such plans are subsequently revised pursuant to a subsequent Design Review approval. Minor landscaping changes which do not have the potential to impact views at mature growth height may be exempt from Design Review.
Figure 2: Revised Upper-Level Deck
Proposed Project
The applicant is requesting the following entitlements:
• Design Review for additions that exceed a height of 15 feet above the adjacent ground elevation (641 square feet), decks more than three feet above adjacent grade (527.8 square feet), grading in excess of 20 cubic yards outside the building footprint, landscaping for additions that exceed a height of 15 feet above the adjacent ground elevation, and a swimming pool and its associated equipment. • Variance for additions within the proposed 20-foot front yard setback [Laguna Beach Municipal Code (LBMC) 25.10.008(E)(2)(a))] and 10-foot rear yard setback [LBMC Section 25.50.004(E)(3)], encroachments within the required additional building setback [LBMC Section 25.50.004(D)], and a swimming pool within the 20-foot front yard setback [LBMC Section 25.50.016]. 485
DR 24-1151, CDP 24-1152, VAR 24-1153
July 24, 2025
• Coastal Development Permit for the above-described applications (LBMC Section
25.07.008(A)(1)(c)), including the proposed ADU (LBMC Section 25.17.030(B)(1)). • Separately, a lot merger will be required to combine two lots into one to allow the Project as proposed. Staff has included a condition of approval that reads: “Approval of Resolution 24-1151 is contingent upon the City Council’s approval of a lot line adjustment application to merge Lots 4 and 5 of Record of Survey 4/14 filed in Orange County Records in accordance with applicable law.
Approval of the lot line adjustment by the City Council must be secured prior to submitting an application for the building and grading permit and no permit shall be issued until evidence that the lot line adjustment has been recorded with the County of Orange is submitted to the City. If the City Council does not approve said lot line adjustment, Resolution 24-1151 shall be null and void and of no force or effect. It shall be as if the Resolution had never been approved.” Constraints to development on the property include required front and rear yard setbacks and the additional building setback requirement. With a property depth of 40 feet (not considering the area of the private street), the R-1 20-foot front setback coupled with the 20-foot rear setback would eliminate any area to develop.
While LBMC Section 25.50.004(E)(3) allows a reduction of the front or rear (but not both) setbacks to 10 feet, the property would be left with a 10-foot-deep area to develop. Other properties on Seacove Drive are similar with limiting property dimensions (lot depth) given the required setbacks.
ENTITLEMENTS: Included within this staff report is an analysis of the following entitlements: Design Review, Variance, and Coastal Development Permit:
Design Review
The following elements requires Design Review: additions that exceed a height of 15 feet above the adjacent ground elevation, decks more than 3 feet above adjacent grade, grading in excess of 20 cubic yards outside the building footprint, landscaping for additions that exceed a height of 15 feet above the adjacent ground elevation, swimming pools and their associated equipment, (See LBMC Sections 25.05.040(B)(1)(j), (B)(1)(m), (B)(1)(p), (B)(1)(r), and (B)(3)(a)(ii)). 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 (LBMC Section 25.05.040 (H)):
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. The proposed Project requires two on-site covered parking spaces. The existing single-car garage will be converted to living space and a new, two-car garage will satisfy the on-site parking requirement. The new minimum 10-foot wide driveway and garage access would replace the existing driveway and garage access, resulting in no net change to vehicle access points; however, the new driveway and garage would reduce conflicts between vehicles by providing space for the residents 486
DR 24-1151, CDP 24-1152, VAR 24-1153
July 24, 2025
to pull into the subject property to access the garage without blocking the pathway of other vehicles on the private road, Seacove Drive. The elimination of the one-car garage will eliminate backing vehicles directly onto the private street.
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.
Yes. The existing house and the proposed extension are low profile as viewed from the street and no upper-level additions are proposed. Two lower-level additions are proposed, below the street level.
The proposed development would terrace with the topography, stepping down with the slope east to west, and would provide low sloped roofs, which will reduce the appearance of mass from the street and surrounding properties.
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 proposed contemporary design style will include materials consistent with the chosen style including stucco, to match the stucco on the existing residence, tile and stone accents, trimless glass wood windows, and wood facia. (Attachment 4) The existing flat roof will be extended over the main-level addition.
Figure 3: South Elevation (revised)
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.
487
DR 24-1151, CDP 24-1152, VAR 24-1153
July 24, 2025
Yes. The proposed Project is located within a developed residential neighborhood, and there are no existing heritage trees, rock out-croppings, ridgelines, or significant watercourses on the site.
Although the Project proposes 351 cubic yards of cut outside the building footprint, the Project would utilize the existing terrain in the terraced design to reduce the appearance of mass.
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.
The Project complies with the General Plan including, but not limited to, the following policies:
General Plan Policies
Land Use (LUE) 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 Project would utilize the existing terrain in the terraced design, stepping down the additions as the terrain slopes east to west. Although the Project proposes 351 cubic yards of cut outside the building footprint, the Project would utilize the existing terrain in the terraced design, integrating the design with the natural topographic features. No public views through or across the site exist, therefore there will be no impact to public views.
LUE Policy 2.10 Maximize the preservation of coastal and canyon views (consistent with the principle of view equity) from existing properties and minimize blockage of existing public and private views. Best efforts should be made to site new development in locations that minimize adverse impacts on views from public locations (e.g., roads, bluff top trails, visitor-serving facilities, etc.).
Yes. The proposed Project would maximize the preservation of coastal views by terracing the development with the natural terrain, thus minimizing private view impacts. No public views through or across the site exist, therefore there will be no impact to public views.
LU Policy 3.10 Require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated with natural topographic features, minimize significant alteration of natural topography or other significant onsite resources, and protect public views as specified in the Design Guidelines and Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document by maintaining the low-profile character of structures.
Require use of appropriate landscaping, special architectural treatments, and siting considerations for projects visible from major highways and arterial streets. Best efforts should be made to site new development in locations that minimize adverse impacts on views from public locations (e.g., roads, bluff-top trails, visitor-serving facilities, etc.).
Yes. Although the Project proposes 351 cubic yards of cut outside the building footprint, the Project would integrate the building design with the natural terrain. The proposed grading and terracing 488
DR 24-1151, CDP 24-1152, VAR 24-1153
July 24, 2025
would result in a low-profile design and minimize impacts to private views. The project site is approximately 120 feet south of Coast Highway and is not visible. No public views through or across the site exist, therefore there will be no impact to public views.
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. (Same as Policy 10.2.) GOAL:
Protect, preserve, and enhance the community’s natural resources.
Yes. The low-profile Project would not affect the views from existing public vantage points as the proposed additions are less than 15 feet in height from existing grade and are below the height of the existing roof line and the site is not visible from Coast Highway. The proposed design and materials would be visually compatible with the surrounding single-family residential uses. The proposed additions will be located at the lower elevation on the site to minimize the alterations to the existing landform.
LU Policy 7.10 Require new construction and grading to be located in close proximity to preexisting development to minimize environmental impacts and growth-inducing potential.
Yes. The parcel is surrounded by residential uses and the development is proposed on a developed parcel in an area with an existing pool and hardscape improvements.
LU 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 landform alterations. (Same as Policy 7.3) GOAL: Ensure that proposals for new development, subdivisions, and major remodels are sufficiently evaluated to protect public health and safety and natural resources.
Yes. The low-profile Project would not affect the views from existing public vantage points as the proposed additions are less than 15 feet in height from existing grade and are below the height of the existing roof line and the site is not visible from Coast Highway. The proposed design and materials would be visually compatible with the surrounding single-family residential uses. The proposed additions will be located at the lower elevation on the site to minimize the alterations to the existing landform.
6. Historic Preservation: Destruction or alteration to historic resources should be avoided whenever possible. See Chapter 25.45 for more information.
There are no historic resources located on the subject property..
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. 489
DR 24-1151, CDP 24-1152, VAR 24-1153
July 24, 2025
Yes. The Project is considered a minor remodel; therefore, a landscape plan is not required.
However, the applicant has provided a landscape plan showing existing landscaped areas to remain and the proposed new landscaped areas. The landscaping plan (Sheet L-1) is consistent with the City’s requirements. The Project would provide a new landscape planter in the area of the existing driveway, and landscaping around the proposed pool and new driveway. The Project is proposing to remove one existing Ficus tree along the northern property line in the area of the new addition. One existing tree along the northern property line, behind the existing structure, will be retained. The row of podocarpus trees along the northern property line will also be retained or replaced (Figure 4, highlighted in green). A hedge of Carolina Cherry will be installed to provide further screening for the neighbor to the north. The project has been conditioned to maintain these hedges to an elevation 123 ’. A proposed hedges within the front yard setback have been conditioned to be maintained at and elevation of 113’ at the western half of the pool and at an elevation of 119.0 feet at the eastern half of the pool, as required by LBMC Section 25.50.012(B)(1).
The subject property is located in the South Laguna Village neighborhood in the City’s Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document, which encourages informal, rustic planting and diversity in form, shape and height for the South Laguna Village area. The proposed landscaping provides a diverse plant palate in form and height including the following recommended plants listed in the City’s Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document: aloe, lavender, and Creeping Fig.
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 proposed Project lighting (Sheet EL-1) shows the fixture type and location for the building and landscaping. All lighting will be hooded, shielded, and aimed downward, consistent with the City’s Good Neighbor Lighting Ordinance. No up lights are proposed. The proposed remodel minimizes the addition of glazing on the street-facing façade, maintaining consistency with the existing structure. On the ocean-facing side, the existing glazing spans most of the wall’s length and height, and the proposed addition continues this design without significantly increasing the amount of glazing. This façade is oriented away from the street and neighboring properties. All aluminum doors and windows will include anti-reflective, low visual transmittance glazing to minimizing potential impacts. No new skylights are proposed. The new lower-level addition features glazing that faces a retaining wall separating the property from the adjacent neighbor across Sea Bluff Lane.
This addition is situated at least one story below the neighboring property, which serves to mitigate light and glare impacts. Furthermore, no new windows are proposed on the east elevation of the existing house, preserving privacy for the neighbor.
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., 490
DR 24-1151, CDP 24-1152, VAR 24-1153
July 24, 2025
structural heights, mass, scale or size), village atmosphere, landscaping themes and architectural styles.
Yes. The Project proposes height and mass similar to the existing neighborhood. Many properties along Seacove Drive, and Seacliff Drive to the south, are configured as wide and shallow lots, and many of the homes have reduced front and rear setbacks. Nearby homes are large, with two and three stories visible from the street. The proposed lower-level addition of this Project will be below street level to minimize the visible height from the surrounding properties. In addition, the architectural styles in the neighborhood vary, and include many contemporary and modern homes, with architecture similar to the proposed Project proposes architectural materials and a pattern of development that would be visually compatible with the surrounding uses.
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.
Design Review Criteria for Pedestrian Orientation is related to commercial development and this residential project is not subject to those criteria.
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.
The Project proposes windows on the north elevation and an elevated deck and pool area which, as an activity area, could impact privacy of neighboring properties. The applicant has revised the plans to specify the new windows on the upper-level of the north elevation will be frosted glass to eliminate privacy concerns for the property to the north. In response to privacy concerns, the deck area has been further reduced in size from the previous design. The western-most railing was relocated a further 4 feet, 5 inches eastward from the previous location to align with the edge of the pool. In addition, the landscape plan has been revised to maintain or replace existing podocarpus trees and install a Carolina Cherry hedge along the northern property line to screen the view of the deck from the neighbor to the north (31672 Sea Bluff Lane). The project has been conditioned to maintain the hedges at a maximum height at 9 feet above the upper-level finished floor elevation (123’ elevation).
The Design Review Board should determine if privacy criterion has been met. 491
DR 24-1151, CDP 24-1152, VAR 24-1153
July 24, 2025
Figure 4: Proposed Deck and Hedge
12. Public Art: Public art is encouraged and shall be displayed where feasible or required by the Art in Public Places ordinance.
Design Review Criteria for Public Art is related to commercial development and this residential project is not subject to those criteria.
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.
Design Review Criteria for Signage is related to commercial development and this residential project is not subject to those criteria.
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 would be required to provide proof of compliance. Further, the applicant would be required to reuse, recycle, or divert at least 50 492
DR 24-1151, CDP 24-1152, VAR 24-1153
July 24, 2025
percent of the Project’s construction and demolition debris. For these reasons, this criterion has been met.
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 property contains a 520-square-foot, in-ground swimming pool on the western portion of the site (Lot 5) that will be demolished. The Project proposes to locate a 192 square-foot (5,457 gallon), elevated swimming pool and spa within the front yard setback, adjacent to a proposed elevated deck off the main living area. The associated pool equipment will be located within an enclosed area under the elevated pool, thus mitigating noise and aesthetics.
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 properties to the north, east and south are two stories and are on higher ground looking over the project site. Properties to the west are generally two stories and are bluff properties and are at a lower elevation with respect to the subject property. The proposed project does not propose a second story above the existing structure. The development appears to balance a reasonable opportunity to develop and preservation of views by terracing the development with the topography, which along with a low-sloped roof, maintains a low-profile project, minimizing view impacts to neighboring properties. View equity concerns were raised by neighboring property owners because of the proposed addition and deck extending farther toward the ocean and potentially into their views. The overall deck area has been reduced from the previous proposal by relocating the deck railing, and removing one existing Ficus tree along the north property line. The maximum heights of all proposed hedges have been conditioned to preserve views while maintaining privacy. In their review of the project, the Design Review Board should validate if project revisions have adequately addressed the view equity criterion.
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 Project is consistent with the Residential Design Review Guidelines, as explained above in Finding No. 1 The Project is consistent with South Laguna Community Design and Landscape Guidelines in that the Project proposes to cut into the terrain rather than building up from the terrain, avoid major disparities of height and bulk from adjacent structures, eliminate noise of mechanical pool equipment, and place vegetation along walls and fences to soften hard planes.
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.
493
DR 24-1151, CDP 24-1152, VAR 24-1153
July 24, 2025
Yes. The Project is designed to terrace with the natural terrain and match the existing neighborhood in mass and scale as explained above in Design Review criterion #4.
Finding No. 4. The project is consistent with any specific plan or any other specific zoning design review criteria.
Yes. The Project is consistent with the Residential Design Review Guidelines and South Laguna Community Design and Landscape Guidelines as explained above in Findings #1 and #2.
Variance
The proposed additions within the 20-foot front yard setback (LBMC Section 25.10.008(E)(2)(a)) and 10- foot rear yard setback (LBMC Section 25.50.004(E)(3)), encroachments within the required additional building setback (LBMC Section 25.50.004(D)), and swimming pool within the 20-foot front yard setback (LBMC 25.50.016) require a variance. Variances are governed by LBMC Section 25.05.025. A Variance 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: There are special circumstances applicable to the property involved, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings which cause the strict application of the zoning ordinance to deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification.
Yes. The lot shape with its limited depth, coupled with the minimum required front and rear yard setback standards, is a special circumstance that deprives the property owner of the ability to construct a single-family residence consistent with similarly zoned properties in the vicinity. The subject property has a nonconforming lot depth of 50 feet where 80 feet is required. The first 10 feet of Lots 4 and 5 are a dedicated private road easement. With a resulting property depth of 40 feet, the R-1 zone development standards require a 20-foot front setback coupled with the 10-foot rear setback2 which would leave no useful area to develop. It is not feasible to construct a single-family home, add on to an existing home, construct significant accessory improvements like a pool or construct an ADU within a 10-foot deep area and relief from the front and rear setbacks is necessary to develop the property consistent with the allowed use of the property. Other properties on Seacove Drive are similar with limiting property dimensions given the required setbacks but were allowed to develop with reduced setbacks. Allowing variances for a 4-foot, 10-inch front yard setback, a 4- foot, 6-inch rear yard setback, and to allow the structure to encroach into the required additional building setback area will allow the property owners to enjoy privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification.
Finding No. 2: Such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, which right is possessed by other property owners under like conditions in the same vicinity and zone.
2 A 20-foot rear yard setback is required pursuant to LBMC Section 25.10.008(E)(4)(a)) except Section 25.50.004(E)(3) allows a reduction of the front or rear (but not both) setback to 10 feet. 494
DR 24-1151, CDP 24-1152, VAR 24-1153
July 24, 2025
Yes. The substantial property right in this case is the ability to construct a single-family home, or add to an existing single-family home including an ADU consistent with the allowed use of the property as designated by the Land Use Element of the General Plan and Zoning Code. It is not possible to construct or expand a single-family home or an ADU within a 10-foot-deep buildable area consistent with the front and rear yard setback standards. The existing single-family dwelling on the property is constructed with a 5-foot, 2-inch setback (4-foot, 10-inch garage setback) from the edge of the Seacove Drive easement and a 4-foot, 6-inch setback at the rear of the property.
Applying the required 20-foot front yard and 10-foot rear yard setbacks to the property would result in a 10-foot-deep buildable area on the site. Other properties on Seacove Drive were allowed to develop with reduced setbacks. There are seven other homes on Seacove Drive all of which are developed with reduced building setbacks at the front, side, and rear property lines. Approval of the proposed variances is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, which right is possessed by other property owners under like conditions in the same vicinity and zone.
Finding No. 3: The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, convenience and welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity in which the property is located.
Yes. The variance request for encroachments into the required front and rear yard setbacks, encroachment into the additional building setback, and a pool in the front yard setback would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, convenience and welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity in which the property is located, because the proposed additions will not interfere with the use of the private road easement, the new driveway and two-car garage will be located such that vehicles will be able to exit without having to back out into the private road easement, and existing neighboring properties are constructed within setbacks with structures ranging from one-story to three-stories, and containing elevated decks. The proposed elevated deck and pool at the site will be approximately 30 feet from the residence to the southeast. Relocating the existing at-grade pool to the front yard will increase the separation from the properties to the west and north. The existing structure is developed with reduced setbacks similar to the proposed project and the development pattern has not proven detrimental to the community (see Figure 6).
Finding No. 4: The granting of such a variance would not be contrary to the objectives of the zoning ordinance or the general plan.
Yes. The objective of the zoning code is to provide for the orderly and safe development of land resources consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Setbacks are intended to promote safety while providing separation and access to structures, light, air and privacy. Setbacks also provide usable open space. The granting of such a variance would not be contrary to the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance or the General Plan in that the proposed setbacks align with the existing setbacks of other properties on Seacove Drive in the vicinity and under identical zoning standards. The Zoning Code also provides a path for relief when special circumstances exist that would otherwise deprive property owners of the right to develop their lot consistent with the General Plan.
495
DR 24-1151, CDP 24-1152, VAR 24-1153
July 24, 2025
Coastal Development Permit
The proposed single-family residence addition and remodel results in an increase of more than 10% of the existing floor area and, therefore, is not exempt from a CDP (LBMC Section 25.07.008 (A)(1)(c)). In addition, the ADU requires a CDP (LBMC 25.17.030(B)(1)). (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 would 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 property does not provide any form of public access through or adjacent to 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 the subject property contains no existing accessways legally utilized by the public, no such public accessways are identified in the adopted land use plan.
2. The proposed development would not adversely affect marine resources, environmentally sensitive areas, or archaeological or paleontological resources.
The proposed development will not adversely affect marine resources, environmentally sensitive resources or archeological or paleontological resources in that the Project site is located within an established residential neighborhood, no such resources are known to exist in the immediate Project area, and the property is not immediately adjacent to the beach, and is not within a blufftop setback area.
3. The proposed development would not adversely affect recreational or visitor-serving facilities or coastal scenic resources.
The site is developed with a single-family residence and the project site does not provide any public recreational or visitor-serving uses. As a result, the proposed development will not affect recreational or visitor-serving facilities in that the subject site is not adjacent to recreational facilities and is located on a private street and would not impact public views.
4. The proposed development would be sited and designed to prevent adverse impacts to environmentally sensitive habitats and scenic resources located in adjacent parks and recreation areas, and would provide adequate buffer areas to protect such resources.
The project site is not located proximate to environmentally sensitive habitats or parks. The proposed development will have no adverse impacts to environmentally sensitive habitats and scenic resources 496
DR 24-1151, CDP 24-1152, VAR 24-1153
July 24, 2025
located in adjacent parks and recreation areas in that the Project site is located within an established residential neighborhood, no such areas abut the Project site, and no buffer areas are needed to protect such resources.
5. The proposed development will minimize the alterations of natural landforms and would not result in undue risks from geological and erosional forces and/or flood and fire hazards.
The site is fully developed with the existing single-family home, pool and decks. There are no existing natural landforms. The proposed development would result in a total of 670 cubic yards of grading and export (351 c.y. outside the building footprint, 319 c.y. within the building footprint) which would allow the Project to terrace with the natural topography and maintain a low profile in relation to surrounding development. The proposed development will not cause or create undue risks from geological and erosional forces and/or flood and fire hazards in that the proposed development will be required to meet applicable Building Code requirements, including a geotechnical report as applicable.
6. The proposed development would be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and where feasible, would restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas.
The proposed development would be visually compatible with the character of the surrounding area in that other properties on Seacove Drive have similar or the same setbacks and the proposed twostory structure would blend with the other two-story properties. The analysis provided in design review criteria #9 (neighborhood compatibility) is incorporated herein by reference.
7. The proposed development will not have any adverse impacts on any known archaeological or paleontological resource.
The proposed development will not have any adverse impacts on any known archaeological or paleontological resource in that such resources are not known to exist in the Project area, and the Project site is located within an established residential neighborhood.
8. The proposed development would be provided with adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities.
The subject site has existing utilities, road access, and other necessary facilities to serve existing development. The Project would tie into existing drainage, and such facilities will remain adequate to serve the addition, remodel, and ADU. The incremental increase in utility usage for the expanded single-family home including the ADU is minimal and within the planned utility capacities.
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 subject site has existing public services that are adequate to serve the proposed the addition, remodel, and ADU.
497
DR 24-1151, CDP 24-1152, VAR 24-1153
July 24, 2025
The Project is consistent with the following applicable policies of the Certified LCP.
LCP COASTAL VIEW POLICIES (CDP)
Land Use Element (LUE) 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 on-site resources, and protect public views as specified in the Design Guidelines and the Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document.
Yes. The Project would utilize the existing terrain in the terraced design, stepping down the additions as the terrain slopes east to west. Although the Project proposes 351 cubic yards of cut outside the building footprint, the Project would utilize the existing terrain in the terraced design, integrating the design with the natural topography, maintain a low profile in relation to surrounding development, and protect public views.
LUE Policy 2.10 Maximize the preservation of coastal and canyon views (consistent with the principle of view equity) from existing properties and minimize blockage of existing public and private views. Best efforts should be made to site new development in locations that minimize adverse impacts on views from public locations (e.g., roads, bluff top trails, visitor-serving facilities, etc.) Policy 2.10 includes: Action 2.10.1 Discourage the addition of second stories in established neighborhoods where view equity has historically been achieved through one-story construction.
Yes. The Project would maximize the preservation of coastal views by terracing the development with the natural terrain, thus minimizing view impacts to private views. No public views through or across the site exist, therefore there will be no impact to public views. Properties to the north, east and south are two stories and are on higher ground looking over the project site. Properties to the west are generally two stories and are bluff properties and are at a lower elevation with respect to the subject property. The proposed project does not propose a second story above the existing structure. The development appears to balance a reasonable opportunity to develop and preservation of views by terracing the development with the topography, which along with a low-sloped roof, maintains a low-profile project, minimizing view impacts to neighboring properties. The Project site is not an ocean front lot and is not within the blufftop setback.
LUE Policies 7.3 and 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 landform alterations.
Yes. The low-profile Project would not affect the views from existing public vantage points as the proposed additions are less than 15 feet in height from existing grade and are below the height of the existing roof line and the site is not visible from Coast Highway. The proposed design and materials would be visually compatible with the surrounding single-family residential uses. The proposed additions will be located at the lower elevation on the site to minimize the alterations to the existing landform. The proposed project does not propose a second story above the existing structure. The development appears to balance a reasonable opportunity to develop and preservation of views by terracing the development with the topography, which along with a low-sloped roof, 498
DR 24-1151, CDP 24-1152, VAR 24-1153
July 24, 2025
maintains a low-profile project, minimizing view impacts to neighboring properties. No public views through or across the site exist, therefore there will be no impact to public views.
LUE Policy 3.10 Require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated with natural topographic features, minimize significant alteration of natural topography or other significant onsite resources, and protect public views as specified in the Design Guidelines and Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document by maintaining the low-profile character of structures.
Require use of appropriate landscaping, special architectural treatments, and siting considerations for projects visible from major highways and arterial streets. Best efforts should be made to site new development in locations that minimize adverse impacts on views from public locations (e.g., roads, bluff-top trails, visitor-serving facilities, etc.).
Yes. Although the Project proposes 351 cubic yards of cut outside the building footprint, the Project would integrate the building design with the natural terrain. The proposed grading and terracing would result in a low-profile design and minimize impacts to private views. The project site is approximately 120 feet south of Coast Highway and is not visible from major roadways or arterial streets. No public views through or across the site exist, therefore there will be no impact to public views.
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 proposed development considers and protects the scenic and visual qualities of public coastal views in that the Project would integrate the building design with the natural terrain, and the proposed grading and terracing would result in a low-profile design and minimize impacts to public views.
LCP DOCUMENTS
The Project conforms with the following applicable document of the Certified LCP:
South Laguna Community Design and Landscape Guidelines (as adopted by Resolution 89.104).
The subject property is located in the South Laguna Village neighborhood in the City’s Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document, which encourages informal, rustic planting and diversity in form, shape and height for the South Laguna Village area. The proposed landscaping provides a diverse plant palate in form and height including the following recommended plants listed in the City’s Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document: aloe, lavender, and Creeping Fig.
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.
499
DR 24-1151, CDP 24-1152, VAR 24-1153
July 24, 2025
The subject property is located between the sea and the first public roadway paralleling the sea (Coast Highway), but is not within the blufftop setback (Attachment 6). As detailed in analysis and facts supporting Finding Number 1, the proposed development is in conformity with the certified local coastal program. The proposed development conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Sections 30221, 30222, and 30222.5 of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act in that all development will take place on private property, the subject property contains no existing accessways legally utilized by the public, no such public accessways are identified in the adopted land use plan, the property is not an oceanfront lot, and contains no area for visitor-serving commercial recreation facilities.
Finding No. 3. The proposed development would not have any significant adverse impacts on the environment within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act.
As described further herein, the Project does not have any significant adverse environmental impacts.
The Project qualifies for a categorical exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, as discussed further herein.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, the project qualifies for a categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15301 - Existing Facilities, in that the project consists of the repair, maintenance, or minor alteration of existing structures or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. Examples of projects that qualify for a Class 1 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 include interior or exterior alterations that include such things as interior partitions, plumbing, and electrical conveyances, and additions to existing structures provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50 percent of the floor area of the structures before the additions, or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less. As aforementioned, the Project involves the remodel of and addition to an existing single-family dwelling, one accessory dwelling unit, a pool and deck, and the Project has been conditioned to require approval of a Lot Line Adjustment (lot merger) prior to issuance of grading or building permits. Furthermore, the Project will not expand the use of the subject structure because the single-family home will continue to serve a residential use. Also, these additions will not result in an increase of more than 50 percent of the floor area of the structures before the additions. No evidence has been presented to demonstrate that there is a reasonable possibility that the proposed Project will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances and therefore is exemption from CEQA.
There is no evidence of any unusual or special conditions that would result in a significant effect on the environment in that there are no historic resources or heritage trees on the site.
Further, none of the exceptions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply. The Project site does not contain any environmentally sensitive areas in that the site is fully developed with an existing single-family residence, decks, and pool, and is adjacent to developed residential properties. The City’s environmentally sensitive area maps do not identify any such areas on-site or within the immediate Project vicinity, and there are no mapped watercourses on the subject site. There will be no cumulative impact resulting from successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time in that the Project proposes one accessory dwelling unit and only a junior accessory dwelling could be permitted on the subject site in the future. There are no unusual circumstances resulting in a significant impact on the environment in that 500
DR 24-1151, CDP 24-1152, VAR 24-1153
July 24, 2025
there are no historic resources or heritage trees on the site, or any other concerns with regards to the Project site. 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 in that the Project would not impact trees, there are no historic buildings or rock outcroppings on the site, and the closest officially designated state scenic highway is located near Anaheim3 and therefore the Project will not result in damage to scenic resources within or near such 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 in that there is no historic resource on the site or immediately adjacent to the site. Consequently, additional environmental analysis is not necessary to meet the requirements of the CEQA.
RECOMMENDATION:
Conduct a public hearing and, by motion, adopt a resolution (Attachment 1) approving Design Review 24- 1151, Coastal Development Permit 24-1152, and Variance 24-1153 and finding said action exempt from CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301.
Since this is the third and final hearing for this application, should the Board not be able to make all affirmative findings, the Board would need to identify the reasons why the project is inconsistent with the required criteria, and direct staff to prepare a resolution for denial for consideration as a consent calendar item on a date certain.
NOTIFICATION:
Pursuant to Title 25 (Zoning) Public Notice, a public hearing notice was mailed on December 17, 2024, which is at least twenty-one (21) days prior to the hearing date in accordance with LBMC Section
25.05.065(D). In addition, a public hearing notice was posted on the Project site on December 29, 2024, which is at least 10 days in advance of the hearing date in accordance with LBMC Section 25.05.065(F).
Further, a public hearing notice was published in a newspaper of general circulation on December 30, 2024, which is at least 10 days in advance of the public hearing in accordance with LBMC Section 25.05.065(F).
PUBLIC COMMENT:
At the time that the agenda packet for the July 24, 2025 Design Review Board meeting was published, no public comment letters have been received.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 – Draft Resolution No. 24-1151
Attachment 2 – Plans
Attachment 3 – Certified Staking Plan
Attachment 4 – Color and Material Board
Attachment 5 – Colored Elevations
3 https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa 501
DR 24-1151, CDP 24-1152, VAR 24-1153
July 24, 2025
Attachment 6 – Bluff Edge Determination
Attachment 7 – Variance Application
502