DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT
May 9, 2024
Agenda Item No. 5.1
Case No: Concept Review 23-2048
Project Location: 2058 Crestview Drive | APN: 644-291-70 Applicant: Alfonso Buitrago-Jimenez, Agent
(714) 737-2246 | [email protected]
Property Owner: Mike Czajkowski
Prepared By: Community Development Department
Shehriyar Khan | Contract Planner
(949) 715-0672 | [email protected]
Board Members within a
500’ Radius: None
REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant requests a Concept Review for a 1,971 square-foot, four level structure consisting of a two-car garage, 205 square-foot accessory dwelling unit (“ADU”), and 1,767 square-foot residence in the Diamond/Crestview Specific Plan (D/CSP) area. Other improvements include 716 square feet of elevated deck area, grading (528 cubic yards outside the building footprint), retaining walls, street improvements, and landscaping/fuel modification. Design review is required for the new structure, elevated decks, grading, landscaping/fuel modification, height exception within D/CSP, and construction within an environmentally sensitive area (watercourse & slope greater than 30 percent). The ADU does not require Design Review.
In the D/CSP area, Design Review approval is a two-step process:
(1) Concept Review. Concept review is required prior to submittal for approval of the final design of the structure(s).
(2) Final Design Approval. After the Design Review Board (the Board) reviews the location and design of the structure(s) through the concept review process, plans may be submitted to the Community Development Department for final design approval by the Design Review Board.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board review and provide comments regarding the proposed project’s concept design based upon the design review criteria, Hillside Development Guidelines, Diamond/Crestview Specific Plan Design Guidelines, and Diamond/Crestview Specific Plan findings, and Attachment 2
98 Concept Review 23-2048
May 9, 2024
find said action statutorily exempt for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15262.
PROPERTY AERIAL PHOTO
PROPERTY INFORMATION
Land Use Designation Village Low Density (1-7 DU/AC)
Zoning Designation R-1 Residential Low Density
Specific Plan Area Diamond/Crestview Specific Plan (D/CSP) Development Standards Required Proposed Conforms
Site Coverage 35% Max. 26.3% Yes
Allowable Building Area 3,225 SF Max. 1,523 SF Yes
Height (Lowest floor to top of roof)
Height Above Rear Lot Line
29’-0”
12’
31’- 2 1/2”
8’
Yes (w/ DRB)
Yes
Setbacks
Front 5’-0” (Garage) 16’-0” (Garage) Yes
99 Concept Review 23-2048
May 9, 2024
Side (North)
Side (South)
Rear
8’-0” (House)
5’-0”
5’-0”
44’-7 1/4”
35’-0” (House)
5’-3”
6’-3”
46’-0”
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
Site History
The subject site is a 6,045 square-foot vacant lot in the Diamond/Crestview Specific Plan (D/CSP) area that maintains a moderate upward slope of approximately 34 percent. The applicant initially submitted the current project for zoning review on June 24, 2022. Previous submittals for site development were made as early as 2004, with prior Concept Review hearings conducted in 2005, 2006, and 2013. Prior designs required several variances including a variance to encroach into the watercourse setback, to exceed the maximum allowable building height (36’), to encroach into the required side and rear setbacks, and to exceed the maximum allowable retaining wall height (5’). The current project, which has significantly changed in comparison to previously reviewed by staff and the Design Review Board, only includes a request to encroach into the watercourse setback.
On July 25, 2013, after conducting three (3) public hearings on the previous project the Board ultimately denied the application on a 4-0 vote based upon its determination that the project did not comply with the following design review criteria: (1) design articulation, specifically mass and scale; (2) environmental context; (3) landscaping; (4) neighborhood compatibility; and (5) privacy. A primary contention at the time was related to the placement of the structure at rear of the lot. On August 8, 2013, the applicant appealed the Board’s decision and on September 3, 2013, the City Council in a unanimous decision denied the appeal and sustained the Board’s denial of the application. Subsequently, the applicant filed a petition for writ of mandate and a complaint for declaratory relief and violation of equal protection in the Orange County Superior Court. The trial court affirmed the City Council’s decision.
It should be noted that the current project proposal is revised and substantially different than previously submitted designs and the Board should consider it as a new project.
Proposed Project
The applicant requests concept review to construct a 1,523 square-foot, four-level structure consisting of a 476 square-foot two-car garage, 222 square-foot accessory dwelling unit (“ADU”), and 1,716 square-foot residence. Other improvements include 852 square feet of elevated deck area, grading (504 cubic yards outside the building footprint), retaining walls, street improvements, and landscaping/fuel modification and on street parking. As described above, the proposed structure is in compliance with all setbacks, floor area ratio (allowable building area), and lot coverage requirements of the D/CSP. The applicant requests approval to exceed the maximum building height, as noted below.
A mapped watercourse runs along the north of the property line and diagonally towards the rear of the property line (see Property Aerial Photo). Significant modified watercourses include those that have been channeled, piped, culverted or otherwise improved or diverted. The existing watercourse has been significantly modified due to the installation of a City storm drain constructed on the adjacent contiguous 100
Concept Review 23-2048
May 9, 2024
property. Based on previous hydrology reports for the subject property, no impacts to the significant modified watercourse are anticipated. An updated hydrology report or letter will be required prior to design review. Although the watercourse has been modified, pursuant to the municipal code, a variance is still required to encroach within 25 feet of the centerline of the watercourse.
The garage is accessed from an 18’-2” long uphill sloping driveway. The garage finished floor (elevation
88.25’) is 7 feet above the centerline of the street (elevation 81.28’). Stairs abutting the garage to the north are proposed to access a 222 square-foot ADU and a 495 square-foot uncovered deck on the first floor,
16.43 feet above the garage finished surface. Exterior stairs attached to the ADU access a second uncovered deck and the primary dwelling on the second level (third story). The primary dwelling itself consists of two levels with the main entry, kitchen, dining room and den on the second level (elevation 115.68’) and three bedrooms on the next level, or the fourth story (elevation 126.68’).
Site Constraints for the property include steep topography (34.2%), fuel modification, drainage, and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ).
Height Exception
The permitted height allowed within the D/CSP for lots with slopes over 35% is 29 feet. The proposed building height is 31.2 feet and will exceed the permitted height by 2.2 feet. According to the D/CSP, the height requirement may be modified by the Design Review Board when it is determined that “unique topography and/or site conditions make such modification unavoidable and when proposed development preserves and maintains viewsheds, air, light and privacy and neighborhood character, minimizes building mass and bulk, and is consistent with the city’s design guidelines for hillside development”. Current site conditions indicate the presence of a man-made ‘V-Gutter’ ditch. According to the applicant, the ditch is remnant of a drain system that was installed more than 40 years as a temporary measure. The difference between the base grade elevation and the story pole height placed on top the ditch is 31.4 feet. The applicant maintains that in order to develop near the edge of the ditch it is necessary for the permitted height to be exceeded. The request for the increased height is limited to an area where the development approaches the existing v-ditch. See Figure 1 below that demonstrates the area that exceeds the 29-foot height limit. 101
Concept Review 23-2048
May 9, 2024
Figure 1: North Elevation (Partial)
In addition, the project plans include discrepancies related to grade elevations at the property corners. The topographic survey and site plan present differing elevations at the property corner which causes inconsistent lot slope calculation. The project plans note the lot slope at 34.2%, however, staff calculations result in lot slope calculations between 41% and 54%. Staff will require these inconsistencies to be corrected before the Board acts on the project and prior to the certification of staking.
ENTITLEMENTS: After preliminary review, the project is determined to be subject to design review and requires a coastal development permit, and variance for encroachment into a significant watercourse.
Design Review
The proposed project requires the approval of design review. (See LBMC Section 25.05.040(H)). In the D/CSP area, Design Review approval is a two-step process:
(1) Concept Review. Concept review is required prior to submittal for approval of the final design of the structure(s).
(2) Final Design Approval. After the Design Review Board (the Board) reviews the location and design of the structure(s) through the concept review process, plans may be submitted to the Community Development Department for final design approval by the Design Review Board. 102
Concept Review 23-2048
May 9, 2024
Design review is governed by Laguna Beach Municipal Code 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:
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 proposed design includes a two-car garage that meets the City’s covered parking requirement for a residence with less than 3,600 square feet of floor area. However, the required onstreet parking space is proposed to be located within the required 10-foot-wide travel lane and along 601 Diamond Street and 775 Gainsborough Drive, approximately 131 feet from the subject property.
The location of this space is within the public right-of-way. Finally, a Street Improvement Plan (Sheet A-1.7) has been provided identifying areas of proposed street widening but does not satisfy a minimum 10-foot-wide travel lane as required by the D/CSP. For this reason, this criterion has not been met. Staff recommends the on-street parking space to be revised to meet the minimum requirements. The location of the public parking space is subject to design review. The Board should evaluate the proposed location and provide direction to the applicant if there are any concerns.
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 proposed project is designed to step up from Crestview Drive and maintains the appearance of four levels consisting of a garage and three levels of living area (including the ADU). The front (West) elevation is articulated with terracing and varied projections/offsets. It should be noted that due to a lack of variation in color/materials the side elevations (North and South) may appear massive. Staff has received concerns from neighbors with regard to massing. The Board should evaluate the project and provide direction as it relates to this criterion.
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.
No. The D/CSP seeks to ensure that “the proposed new residences and modifications to existing residences are compatible with the rustic character of the neighborhood by requiring varied and eclectic architectural styles and moderate scale and mass with low-profile design that respect the topography of the land…”. The proposed project features a contemporary style that does not utilize rustic colors or materials. The contemporary style resembles a ‘container style’ architecture that incorporates box like features, which with the absence of a variety of colors and materials and the emphasis on ‘Light Mist’ as a color contributes to monotony, and compromises design integrity.
Staff recommends that an alternative color to ‘Light Mist’ be incorporated into the final design as the D/CSP discourages the use of “bright colors including white and highly reflective materials.” 103
Concept Review 23-2048
May 9, 2024
With these changes, and upon staff review, this criterion may be met. The Board should evaluate the project and provide direction as it relates to the exterior finishes of the building.
4. Environmental Context: Development should preserve and, where possible, enhance the city’s scenic natural setting. Natural features, such as existing heritage trees, rock out-cropping, ridgelines and significant watercourses should be protected. Existing terrain should be utilized in the design and grading should be minimized.
Yes. The significant watercourse located along the north property line is already modified, channelized, and culverted and does not require further protection or preservation. Based on previous hydrology reports for the subject property, no impacts to the significant modified watercourse are anticipated.
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.
Based on a preliminary review, the project complies with applicable General Plan policies, however the project is not consistent with several design guidelines of the Diamond Crestview Specific Plan, and Hillside Development Guidelines. These inconsistencies arise from issues with design integrity related to neighborhood compatibility, and colors and materials.
General Plan Policies
After review, staff believe that the project is consistent with the General Plan policies listed below.
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 design incorporates articulation techniques such as offsets and terracing to integrate with the hillside topography of the site. The modified significant watercourse onsite is protected through a City installed drain and no further alteration is being proposed.
LU 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.).
The proposed project siting considers previous privacy and view equity concerns and attempts to minimize potential impacts by providing a terraced design and siting the building further from the rear setback. Some conflict with coastal views from existing neighboring properties may be inevitable and the Board should evaluate any impacts per the view equity criteria. 104
Concept Review 23-2048
May 9, 2024
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.).
The building design and siting is compatible and integrated with the natural topographic features.
The modified significant watercourse onsite is protected through a City installed drain and no further alteration is being proposed.
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.
The modified significant watercourse is protected through a City installed drain and does not require further protection.
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.
The proposed construction and associated grading is within a mostly developed neighborhood of single-family residences. Staff believes the environmental impact of the project will not be significant.
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.
Considering that the significant watercourse on site is already modified through a City installed drain on the adjoining property, the design and siting of the new development does not harm the resource.
The design guidelines of the Diamond Crestview Specific Plan and Hillside Development Guidelines are discussed further below.
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 a vacant lot.
105
Concept Review 23-2048
May 9, 2024
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.
The proposed project is located within the Diamond/Crestview neighborhood as described in the City’s Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document. This document includes a set of policies and maintenance guidelines to address the issues of tree maintenance, fire safety, heritage tree preservation, view preservation, scenic highways, water conservation, soil stability, invasive plants, and neighborhood landscape character. The proposed landscape plan includes a mix of new trees (such as Arbutus Unedo and Rhus Integrifolio) and small shrubs while eliminating target species for fire safety considerations. The required landscape open space is 21.55% (1,392 SF) and the project provides 3,299 SF, which includes area of natural vegetation. Staff has received a public comment from a neighbor arguing that the proposed landscaping is deficient. Staff will continue to work with the applicant, the City’s landscape consultant, and the Building Department to ensure consistency with this criterion and compliance with fuel modification requirements.
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 lighting plan is shown on sheet A1.6 and includes a total of twenty-five (25) light fixtures, such as lantern wall lights, path lights, step lights, tree spotlights and directional lights.
Overall, the plan provides low level lighting where needed for safety and efficient operation in outdoor activities, terraces, stairs, and walkways.
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 pattern of development in the neighborhood consists of a mixture of three-level and fourlevel residences that are stepped into the hillsides with varying architectural styles and rustic exteriors, including mid-century and Mediterranean styles. Even though part of the proposed building is stepped into the hillside and may occupy less square-footage than other dwellings in the neighborhood, the applicant proposes a contemporary design that is inconsistent with the surrounding pattern of development; Staff recommends that the design incorporate more rustic colors and materials to reduce the appearance of massing on the third and fourth levels of the structure. The Board should evaluate the project and provide direction as it relates to this criterion. 106
Concept Review 23-2048
May 9, 2024
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.
In 2013, when a project was last proposed on the subject property, the property owners located behind the subject property at 785, 803 and 812 Gainsborough Drive expressed concerns about the impact project siting would have on their privacy, view, light and open space. The designs have significantly changed since then. Staff has received a public comment from a neighbor regarding the potential privacy issues the current project may cause. The community member argues that the windows on the North elevation of the building are placed directly across their bedrooms and ocean viewing windows and would therefore infringe privacy. The Board should evaluate the project and provide direction as it relates to this criterion.
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 50 107
Concept Review 23-2048
May 9, 2024
percent of the project’s construction and demolition debris. Finally, to promote future installation of solar panels, a minimum of 250 square-feet of “solar ready” roof area will be provided. 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.
N/A. No pool is proposed.
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.
Yes. Due to the hillside setting and orientation of uphill and downhill homes, significant impacts to views are not anticipated. A consistent concern at the hearings in 2013 was related to project siting which saw the then proposed dwelling at approximately 18 feet from the rear property line prompting opposition from primarily the property owners at 803 Gainsborough Drive, which adjoins the subject property at its rear. The current project proposes a rear setback of 46 feet. Three strawberry trees are proposed to be approximately 14 feet from the rear property line, which with a maintained height of 15’ would not impede views. Staff has received view equity concerns from a neighbor and the Board should evaluate view impacts during site visits.
Design Guidelines for Hillside Development
The Diamond Crestview Specific Plan, Topic 5, discusses Hillside Development. Policy 1 states: Require buildings to utilize designs which follow the natural topography while minimizing mass and scale, respecting the rustic neighborhood character and limiting visual intrusion on the natural landscape as required in the Design Guideline component of this plan and the City’s Hillside Development Guidelines.
The Hillside Development Guidelines are intended to describe the City’s design philosophy for hillside development. The guidelines set forth a framework for the City’s Design Review Process. The guidelines are intended to provide flexibility in the design review process since the evaluation of building design includes the application of judgement, discretion, and independent analysis. Furthermore, the guidelines are intended to provide assistance and direction in the design of hillside projects in a manner that is compatible with the mutual interests of the property owner and the City.
Staff is concerned that the project is not consistent with the following Hillside Guidelines:
Hillside Development Guideline No. 4: Follow hillside contours and slope with building forms, particularly roof form, to increase the integration of dwelling and site. 108
Concept Review 23-2048
May 9, 2024
Hillside Development Guideline No. 8: Use changes of material to soften large elevations of building and blend into hillside.
Hillside Development Guideline No. 9: Excavate underground or below grade rooms to dramatically reduce effective bulk, provide energy efficient and environmentally desirable space.
Hillside Development Guideline No. 11: Do not use colors, texture, materials, and forms which will attract attention by not relating to other elements in the neighborhood. No one dwelling should stand out.
Hillside Development Guideline No. 12: Do not use large expanses of a single material on walls, roofs or paving areas. Remember, most dwellings will be seen from below and above by others higher on the hillside.
In addition, staff has received a public comment in opposition to the proposed project regarding Hillside Development Guidelines No. 23, 25, 26, and 29 which are concerned with view preservation, view quality, and partial view blockage. As noted in this report, the project siting has changed significantly from previously submitted designs in consideration of privacy concerns that neighbors had in the past. The new project design may impact views of surrounding neighbors and the Board should evaluate these hillside guidelines and provide direction to the applicant if there are any concerns.
Diamond Crestview Specific Plan Design Guidelines:
The design guideline component of this Specific Plan is composed of written statements, which articulate the City’s basic design philosophy. The design guidelines establish the goals and concepts for design that is appropriate to the area and provide the framework for the City’s design review process. Well-designed buildings, landscaping and open spaces reflect the quality of and values of a community, enhance the visual character of the City and increase the building and property values. The guidelines focus on the composition of good design and represent the design interests and priorities of the City. Each project that requires design review must be consistent with these guidelines.
Architecture
1. Designs should be appropriate to the unique features of the site and should complement the natural terrain.
2. Structures must complement the general design and massing of buildings in the neighborhood. New buildings must be sympathetic to the scale, form and proportion of older development.
3. Design repetition that results in the appearance of sameness between structures must be avoided.
4. A harmonious mixture of materials and color and forms shall be used to blend with the natural hillsides.
5. Architectural details and materials used on the front of the building should be extended to a portion of all sides of the building, including the rear. Treatment to the front façade only is not acceptable.
6. Use of tack-on elements, artificial materials and trendy, imitation design elements are discouraged.
The honest use of materials is encouraged.
7. Tract type massing and “plan-on” details are discouraged.
8. Excessive above-grade decking should be avoided.
109
Concept Review 23-2048
May 9, 2024
The proposed project is inconsistent with applicable architecture guidelines as described within the No.2 Design Integrity section of this report in that the structure does not complement the general design of the buildings in the neighborhood as it features a contemporary style which does not utilize rustic colors or materials.
Alterations and Accessory Structures
1. Accessory structures and alterations to existing structures shall maintain the same architectural style as the primary structure.
2. The same materials, colors, textures and decorative elements used on the existing structure or principle structure generally should be used on all additions and accessory structures.
3. Roofs of additions and accessory structures shall relate style and pitch of the roof to the principal or existing structure.
N/A. The proposed project is a new build.
Building Siting
1. The structures shall relate to the natural topography
2. Unique features of individual site (e.g mature trees, rock outcroppings, drainage courses, geologic, hydrologic, environmentally sensitive biologic resources, etc.) shall be preserved to the greatest extent possible.
3. The preservation of views of coastal and canyon areas from existing residences and public viewpoints should be maximized while respecting rights of property owners proposing new construction.
4. Buildings shall be spaced and oriented in such a way as to project a sense of openness and randomness.
5. The siting of structures shall take into consideration the size and configuration of the lot so as to avoid the appearance of over building (setback to setback) and overcrowding.
6. Structures shall be sited and designed to maintain privacy between adjacent properties.
7. Buildings shall have a desirable visual appearance from all viewpoints, adjoining developments, streets and other view corridors.
The proposed building is sited appropriately. As described within the Design Review Criteria, the front (West) elevation is articulated with terracing and varied projections/offsets providing a sense of openness and randomness. The building is setback 46’ feet from the rear property line and avoids the appearance of overbuilding, while providing privacy to the rear neighbor.
Roofs
1. Roof design should minimize mass. Building forms, particularly roof forms, should step to follow the hillside contours and slope to increase the integration of the dwelling and site.
2. The pitch and scale of the roof shall be in proportion to the size of the structure and the size and configuration of the lot.
3. On sloping roofs, mechanical equipment, plumbing vents and skylight curbs should be located so they do not visually interrupt roof planes or profiles.
4. Roof protrusions, such as roof-mounted air conditioning units and solar collector panels, should be screened from view or otherwise incorporated into the design of the structure. 110
Concept Review 23-2048
May 9, 2024
5. Excessive roof projections, overhangs and cantilevers should be avoided.
The proposed roof is designed as a flat plane and does not follow the hillside contours and does not increase the integration of the dwelling to the site.
Materials and Colors
1. Colors are critical to maintain the rustic character of the neighborhood and shall be neighborhood sensitive. The use of colors shall be sensitive to the neighborhood and shall enhance the rustic character of the neighborhood.
2. Roof materials shall be of a type and quality consistent with the architectural design of the structure and shall be of fire resistive construction consistent with the current Uniform Fire Code. Roof colors shall be of darker tones, including browns, black, greens and terracotta. Bright colors including white and highly reflective materials shall be avoided.
3. Surface materials shall be rough textured to blend with the coarseness of landscaping and natural vegetation. Textured stucco, wood, earth tone brick and coarse block are appropriate.
4. Windows shall not have bare, untreated aluminum frames.
As described within the No.2 Design Integrity section of this report, the proposed project is devoid of any rustic colors and materials. In addition, the absence of a variety of colors and materials and the emphasis on ‘Light Mist’ as the sole color contributes to monotony and does not enhance the rustic character of the neighborhood. Furthermore, the color of the roof is the same as the exterior faces of the building. Staff recommends that an alternative color to ‘Light Mist’ be incorporated into the final design as the D/CSP discourages the use of “bright colors including white and highly reflective materials.” Grading
1. Buildings shall be terraced to follow the slope of the site.
2. Topographic variations within the site should be utilized rather than obliterated. Existing rock outcroppings and trees, for example, can be preserved by deigning split levels, offsets in planes and courtyards. Soil disruption, displacement and compaction should be minimized and should not impact high value biological and unique geological features.
3. Hard edges left by cut and fill operations should be given a rounded appearance that more closely resembles the natural contours of the land.
4. Where cut or fill conditions are created, slopes should be varied rather than left at a constant angle which may be unstable or create an unnatural, rigid, “engineered” appearance.
The lot is half-pipe/pie shaped and the proposed building is terraced to follow the slope of the site to a certain extent. Proposed grading includes a net export of 504 cubic yards outside the building footprint, and net export of 482 cubic yards inside the building footprint.
Landscaping
1. Landscaping coverage and stabilization of graded slopes shall be designed to be compatible with surrounding natural vegetation or to replace removed natural vegetation and should recognize climatic, soil and ecological characteristics of the region. 111
Concept Review 23-2048
May 9, 2024
2. Where development occurs adjacent to undeveloped, natural open space, landscape planting shall provide a gradual transition from new ornamental material to native types. Hard, defined plant “edges” are discouraged.
3. Landscaping shall be used to preserve and frame the scenic view “windows” of hillsides, parks and ocean from adjacent lots.
4. Landscaping should be planned so as to be sensitive to the goal of public and private preservation.
5. Diversity in form, texture and color of plant material is encouraged.
6. Clustered, informal planting schemes are encouraged to reflect a natural, unstructured theme.
7. Xerophytic materials, especially those native to the area shall be selected wherever feasible.
8. Plant materials shall be fire resistant and fire retardant.
9. Discourage the use of plants that are highly combustible.
10. Plant materials that require excessive water after becoming established should be avoided.
11. Drip irrigation systems rather than conventional sprinklers are encouraged to conserve water and prevent runoff.
The proposed landscape plan includes a mix of new trees (such as Arbutus Unedo and Rhus Integrifolio) and small shrubs while eliminating target species for fire safety considerations. The required landscape open space is 21.55% (1,392 SF) and the project provides 3,299 SF, which includes area of natural vegetation.
The landscape plan does not provide clustered or informal planting schemes, or landscaping to minimize the appearance of massing at the north elevation. Staff has received a public comment from a neighbor arguing that the proposed landscaping is deficient. Staff will continue to work with the applicant, the City’s landscape consultant, and the Building Department to ensure consistency with this criterion and compliance with fuel modification requirements.
Lighting
1. Lighting fixtures shall be compatible with the appearance of the residence.
2. Exterior lighting shall be located and shielded so as not to impact adjacent properties and/or the public viewshed.
The proposed lighting plan is shown on sheet A1.6 and includes a total of twenty-five (25) light fixtures, such as lantern wall lights, path lights, step lights, tree spotlights and directional lights. Overall, the plan provides low level lighting where needed for safety and efficient operation in outdoor activities, terraces, stairs and walkways.
Street Improvements, Parking and Signage
1. Required retaining walls within the street right-of-way should use components that avoid straight vertical and horizontal lines and should be terraced or stepped where feasible.
2. Retaining walls within the street right-of-way should be screened with landscaping using native vegetation wherever possible and should use materials that conform with and blend into the hillside.
3. Street signage shall be designed and constructed with natural materials and earth-toned colors that are consistent with the rustic nature of the neighborhood.
4. The use of permeable materials or grass road pavers shall be encouraged for on-site parking as alternatives for concrete or asphalt.
112
Concept Review 23-2048
May 9, 2024
Apart from the proposed on-street parking space, which requires a retaining wall at the limit of the public right-of-way, the project does not propose any other walls within the public right-of-way.
Fencing
1. Fencing shall not interfere with identified animal migration corridors.
2. Chainlink fencing is not permitted.
3. Retaining walls or other support structures should be designed to minimize their visual impact by avoiding straight vertical and horizontal lines such as terracing, stepping, crib walls and appropriate landscaping.
4. Retaining walls should use materials that conform with and blend into the hillscape; these materials include cribbing, treated timber and rockwork veneers using native materials.
5. Retaining walls within the street right-of-way should be screened with landscaping using native vegetation wherever possible.
6. Walls and fences shall integrate materials and colors used in the façade of the structure.
7. Walls and fences that are visible from the public right-of-way shall be designed to incorporate visual interest.
Staff believes that landscaping and stepping along the retaining wall abutting the stairs at the front of the property should be incorporated to minimize its visual impact.
DIAMOND CRESTVIEW SPECIFIC PLAN FINDINGS
No. 1 | The proposed use is compatible with surrounding land uses and is consistent with the intent and purpose established in the specific plan;
Yes, the land use designation within the specific plan area is “Village Low Density” which allows for 3 to 7 dwelling units per acre. The proposed use is a single-family dwelling with an attached twocar garage, an attached ADU and three elevated decks. The proposed elements will not alter the residential character of the surrounding neighborhood and are therefore consistent with the surrounding pattern of development.
No. 2 | The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed development; Yes, the subject property is 6,450 square-feet and holds a fan-like shape. The proposed project complies with all development standards for the Diamond/Crestview Specific Plan (D/CSP) apart from the permitted height, which may be modified by the Board, and the variance requested for construction within a significant mapped watercourse. Staff believes the site is adequate to accommodate the proposed development.
No. 3 | All necessary public improvements have been provided or will be required as conditions of approval;
The proposed project requires the provision of a public parking space, the location of which is subject to design review. The proposed on-street public parking space does not conform to standards and revision shall be required.
113
Concept Review 23-2048
May 9, 2024
No. 4 | The project will not cause any significant environmental impact and appropriate mitigation measures, if any, have been incorporated into the project or are attached as conditions of approval; Staff does not anticipate the project to have any significant adverse impacts on the environment and will provide a recommended determination with the project’s return to the Board after the conclusion of the Concept Review Hearing.
No. 5 | The project complies with the development standards and design guidelines of the specific plan; and
The project does not comply with the permitted height of 29 feet for lots with slopes of over 35%.
The height requirement may be modified by the Board when it is deemed that unique topography and/or site conditions make such modification unavoidable and when the proposed development preserves and maintains viewsheds, air, light and privacy, and neighborhood character, minimizes building mass and bulk, and is consistent with the City’s design guidelines for hillside development.
In addition, the project requires a significant watercourse encroachment variance. Lastly, the proposed project does not comply with the architecture, roofs, materials and colors components of the design guidelines of the specific plan;
No. 6 | The project mitigates or avoids environmental constraints of the lot as identified in the sitespecific studies and/or overlay maps of high and very high value habitats and unique geological features (Figures 5 &7).
The subject property is not included within any biologic overlay that may warrant additional review or studies and is within the “Undifferentiated Uncertified and Certified Fill” geologic overlay. The site constraints include steep topography, which the proposed design attempts to embrace, and a modified significant watercourse which is already protected and preserved.
VARIANCE
The proposed single-family residence requires the approval of a variance to encroach into the watercourse setback (See LBMC Section 25.50.03) Variances are governed by Laguna Beach Municipal Code 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.
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.
114
Concept Review 23-2048
May 9, 2024
Finding No. 3: The granting of the variance will 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.
Finding No. 4: The granting of such a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the zoning ordinance or the general plan.
Additional Considerations:
25.50.030(D)(4) Watercourse Encroachment Variances
Variances for the purpose of placing a building or structure within an established watercourse setback area may be granted only when the following findings are made in addition to those listed above:
Finding No. 5: The proposed encroachment will act to preserve, enhance or restore the significance of the watercourse.
The significant watercourse located along the north property line is already modified, channelized and culverted due to the installation of a City storm drain on the adjacent contiguous property and does not require further protection or preservation. Based on previous hydrology reports for the subject property, no impacts to the significant modified watercourse are anticipated.
Finding No. 6: The proposed encroachment is not likely to impair the functional, scenic and ecological purposes of the watercourse.
Considering that the existing drainage course has been piped underground (modified) and because proposed development will tie into existing drainage facilities, no effects on the modified drainage course are anticipated.
At prior hearings, the Board Members indicated that they could make the findings for the watercourse setback variance. Specifically, there are special circumstances applicable to the property including the location of the existing watercourse and the City installed storm drain and sewer. The property immediately above the subject site was improved with a new single-family dwelling without the need for a variance to encroach into the 25-foot watercourse setback, likely due to the modified state of the watercourse. Current policies and regulations require variance approval to encroach into any watercourse setback, whether modified or natural. That property development was also constrained by the city easements required for the underground storm drain and sewer easements.
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT:
The proposed new single-family dwelling requires the approval of a coastal development permit. (See LBMC Section 25.07.004.) Coastal Development Permits are governed by Laguna Beach Municipal Code Chapter 25.07. Findings for the Coastal Development permit will be provided for consideration after the Concept Review Hearing and upon submission of final designs. 115
Concept Review 23-2048
May 9, 2024
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15262, the proposed project is exempt from CEQA under the “feasibility and planning studies” statutory exemption, since the proposal is currently in its nascent stages and any direction provided to the applicant at this time will have no legally binding effects on later activities.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board review and provide comments regarding the proposed project’s concept design based upon the design review criteria, Hillside Development Guidelines, Diamond/Crestview Specific Plan Design Guidelines, and Diamond/Crestview Specific Plan findings, and find said action statutorily exempt for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under section 15262.
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. Further, a public hearing notice has been published in a newspaper of general circulation at least 10 days in advance of the public hearing.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
The City has received two public comments regarding the current proposed project to date. The public comments raise concerns related to staking, mass and scale, neighborhood compatibility and potential view impacts, and privacy. Staff has identified these concerns in the Design Review Criteria, Hillside Development Guidelines, and D/CSP Design Guidelines sections of the report.
ATTACHMENT(S):
Attachment 1 – Project Plans.
Attachment 2 – Public Commentary
116
EXHIBIT ‘B’
PROPOSED PLANS
117