DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT

June 10,2021

Agenda Item No. 4

Case No: Design Review 21-9059Coastal Development Permit 21-9060Variance 21-9061Categorical Exemption

Project Location: 1751 Thurston Drive APN: 641-381-19

Applicant: Monica Fuerst, Designer(949) 494-6407 monica@monicafiierst.com

Property Owner: Flores Residence

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

REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant requests design review and a coastal development permit toconstruct an 842 square-foot detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) over an existing garage in the R-1(Residential Low Density) zone. Design review is required for an upper-level addition (for the ADU),elevated decks (167 square feet), skylights, a portable spa, and landscaping. A coastal development permitis requested for the ADU, and a variance is requested to exceed the maximum allowed 16-foot height for anADU [LBMC 25.17.030(G) and Government Code Section 65852.2(c)(2)(C)].

RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 21-9059, approving Design Review 21-9059, CoastalDevelopment Permit 21-9060, and Variance 21-9061, for the proposed additions, subject to the attachedExhibits ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’; and adopt Categorical Exemption pursuant to the California EnvironmentalQuality Act (CEQA).

ATTACHMENTS1) Public Correspondence2) Variance Application3) Draft Resolution4) Exhibit ‘A’: General Plan Goals and Policies

Local Coastal Program Goals and Policies5) Exhibit ‘B’: Conditions of Approval6) Exhibit ‘C’: Proposed Plans

DR 21-9059, CDP 21-9060, & VA 21-9061June 10, 2021

Page 2

PROPERTY AERIAL PHOTOurson

4 Thurston

44.

¶f~~/g ~W~€C~ IPP

a

1r774 Pal Dr

17 0 Palm Dr

PROPERTY INFORMATION, _________________________

Land Use Designation ____________________________________________________Zoning Designation

Village Low Density (3-7 DU/AC)

R-1 Residential Low DensityEnvironmentally Sensitive Areas Earthquake Fault.Site Constraints Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.Existing Site Improvements • Single-family residence and detached two-car garage.

• October 10, 1974, the Board of Adjustment approved avariance (VA 2558) to connect two structures with an additionthereby creating one structure that encroaches into the rearsetback.

Prior Approvals

DR 21-9059, CDP 21-9060, & VA 21-9061June 10, 2021

Page 3

ZCNING aVIEW .

The proposed project complies with applicable zoning standards and guidelines as shown in the summarytable below, except for building height, which is discussed under the Variance section below.

rDeveioprnent StandArd .‘.• ‘ Required . :‘~ Existing . ~

Height for Accessory Dwelling Unit 1 6’O” N/A 21 ‘-0”(Lowest floor to top of roof)Setbacks (Accessory Dwelling Unit)

Front 20’-O” 56’-O” No change-. - Side (North) 4’-O” 17’-4” 16’-O”

Side (South) 4’-O” 66’-O” No changeRear 4’-O” 35’-O” 30’-S”

PROJECTDESCRIPTIONThe applicant proposes to construct an 842 square-foot accessory dwelling unit (ADU) over the existingdetached garage on-site. The ADU will consist of a living room, kitchen, a bedroom and bathroom, and a167 square-foot elevated deck. An exterior entrance is provided at the rear of the unit and will also beaccessible from the garage via a new elevator. The garage is proposed to be expanded by 112 square feetto accommodate the ADU. Additional improvements include three skylights and a portable spa that hasalready been installed. No changes are proposed for the existing residence or landscaping, although an“as-planted” landscape plan has been provided.

DESIGN REVIEWPursuant to LBMC Section 25.05.040 H , physical improvements and site developments subjectto design review shall be designed and located in a manner which best satisfies the intent and purposeof design review, the city’s village atmosphere and the design review criteria. These guidelinescomplement the zoning regulations by providing conceptual examples of potential design solutionsand design interpretations. The table below lists the guidelines and the proposed project’s applicabilityand compliance. The following project components require Design Review:

A. New elevated deck area totaling 167 square feet.B. Skylights.C. Portable spa.D. Landscaping.

— ~a,:.1... .~~S.q~f4t4p . ~ LW . — •~L . .j •

~Desi~ff~Review Cntena ~Consistency ~Yes,.No~N/AJf~NoøApphcable~. ~.

Yes. The proposed project will not impact access in that theexisting two-car garage meets the City’s covered parking

No. 1 I Access requirement for a residence less than 3,600 square feet in size andwill be expanded to accommodate the proposed ADU andelevated deck.Yes. The proposed project includes an elevated deck that will

. . . provide visual interest and reduce the appearance of mass andNo. 2 I Design Articulation scale of the new two-story garage structure as viewed from the

street.

DR 21-9059, CDP 21-9060, & VA 21-9061

DESIGN REVIEW

June 10, 2021Page 4

Yes. The proposed project includes a variety of materials that areconsistent with the architectural style of the main residence,No. 3 { Design Integrity including plaster finish, board and batten siding, and dark green

window trim with decorative shutters.N/A. The property does not contain natural site features such as

No. 4 I Environmental Context rock outcroppings, heritage frees, or significant watercourses, andno grading is proposed.Yes. The proposed project complies with the goals and policiesNo. 5 I General Plan Compliance of the General Plan as evidenced in the table in Exhibit ‘A’.

N/A. The property is not on the City’s Historic Register and thereNo. 6 [ Historic Preservation is no evidence of historicity.Yes. An “as-planted” plan has been provided identifying existing

No. 7] Landscaping landscaping that will be maintained on the property, includingseveral mature trees such as a Brazilian Pepper tree and ChineseElm tree.Yes. Three skylights arc proposed for the ADU with automatic

No. 8 I Lighting and Glare nightshades. Eight wall-mounted light fixtures are proposed thatare shielded and directed downward, consistent with the City’sGood Neighbor Lighting Ordinance.Yes. The proposed skylights, elevated deck, and portable spa areNo. 9 I Neighborhood Compatibility consistent with neighborhood development patterns.

No. 10 [ Pedestrian Orientation N/A. This criterion pertains to commercial development.Yes. The proposed project is not expected to cause privacy

No. 1 1 ] Privacy impacts due to the deck’s orientation facing the street. Nocorrespondence has been received from neighbors with privacyconcerns.

No. 12] Public Art N/A. This criterion pertains to commercial development.No. 13 ] Sign Quality N/A. This criterion pertains to commercial development.

Yes. The proposed spa must comply with the City’s waterNo. 14 I Sustainability conservation requirements, including having a cover installed

when not in use, and not utilizing an automatic fill device.Yes. A portable spa is proposed to be located at the rear of the

No. 15 I Swimming Pools, Spas and property and enclosed by a wrought iron fence for security. TheWater Features spa will sit approximately six feet below the grade of adjacent

properties, which will help screen it from view and minimizepotential impacts.Yes. The proposed deck is located at the front of the garage facingthe street and is not expected to impact existing views fromNo. 16 [ View Equity adjacent properties. No correspondence has been received from

neighbors with view equity concerns.

DR 21-9059, CDP 21-9060, & VA 21-9061June 10, 2021

Page 5

VARIANCE:Variances may be granted only when, among other factors, there are special circumstances applicable to theproperty involved, including size, shape, topography, location and surroundings, that would cause the strictapplication of the zoning ordinance to deprive the property of the privileges enjoyed by other similarlysituated property in the vicinity and zone. The following project components require Variance:

1. To exceed the maximum allowed 16-foot height for an accessory dwelling unit by five feet [LBMC25.17.030(G)’ and Government Code Section 65852.2(c)(2)(C)2}.

LIItOrFI~Hfl~CR4t&t~LdA8f

.optncw

Requesid vs,Isnc~ halciwdI.

Section 8-ADUeG.’L!. I/4~.r-o

sTo~Mt’Aw

The Design Review Board may approve, approve in part, or conditionally approve a variance based uponmaking all of the following findings at a noticed public hearing:

(1) There are special circumstances applicable to the property involved, including size, shape,topography, location or surroundings which cause the strict application ofthe zoning ordinance todeprive such property ofprivileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identicalzoning classification.

“An attached or detached second residential unit shall be limited to a single story and shall be no more than twelve feet aboveany point of the existing adjacent rade elevation, including chimneys, skylights and other rooftop equipment, and shall notexceed the highest elevation of the main residence. This height limitation shall not apply to the establishment of a secondresidential unit within an existing structure, provided that no exterior building additions, including new exterior above-gradestairs, are proposed. [...]“ (LBMC 25.17.030(G); emphasis added.)2 “[...](A) local agency shall not establish by ordinance any (requirements) [.1 that does not permit [...](a) unit that is at least

16 feet in height [...]“ (Gov. Code Section 65852.2(c)(2) and (c)(2)(C).)

.152.WMTflJSDdC

\\ \\‘\\\ ~N KSteknILIr N Cent

•144h2’

:‘~“— .140.42, (~fl’flPLA’Tt . I.

Nwelvatddtck 0

oa’ag. aton. in Twe.cn Garage

‘131~3~

txI.T1w. ..*.se

I-I

5O)CAD~

“S.

DR 21-9059, CDP 21-9060, & VA 21-9061June 10, 2021

Page 6

Staff believes there are special circumstances applicable to the subject property which cause strictapplication of the zoning ordinance to deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other propertiesin the vicinity and under identical zoning classification, in that the location and surroundings of thelot constrain the applicant’s ability to construct an ADU within the 16-foot maximum building heightwithout adversely impacting three adjacent properties that maintain established viewsheds over thesubject property. Locating the ADU over the existing garage and within the already developedportion of the lot represents the least significant impact to neighbors. In addition, the topography ofthe lot at the southeast corner rises with a grade of 32 percent limits the development potential of adetached ADU at the rear of the property. For these reasons, staff believes this finding can be made.

(2) Such variance is necessaryfor the preservation and enjoyment ofa substantial property right oftheapplicant, which right is possessed by other property owners under like conditions in the samevicinity and zone.

The requested variance is necessary for the preservation of a substantial property right of theapplicant, which right is possessed by other property owners under like conditions in the samevicinity and zone, in that construction of living space above a garage is a common developmentwithin the neighborhood, including at 1715 and 1765 Temple Hills Drive. The ADU is proposed tobe constructed below the underlying 25-foot height limitation for the property similar to other two-story garages in the vicinity, so staff believes this finding can be made.

(3) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, convenience andwelfare or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity in which the property is located.

The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, convenience andwelfare or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity in which the property is located inthat the proposed addition to establish the accessory dwelling unit meets all setback requirementsand will be structurally designed to meet public health and safety codes. Therefore, staff believesthis finding can be made.

(4) The granting ofsuch a variance will not be contrary to the objectives ofthe zoning ordinance or thegeneral plan.

The requested variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the zoning ordinance or the generalplan in that the intent of the R-l zone is for low-density, single-family residential areas, whichprovide a suitable environment for family life for residents and a quiet living environment.Additionally, the proposed development is compatible with the immediate residential neighborhoodwith respect to scale, mass and height. Finally, the establishment of the accessory dwelling unit willprovide for an additional rental unit and complies with the goals and policies of the Housing Elementof the City’s General Plan. For these reasons, staff believes this finding can be made.

DR 21-9059, CDP 21-9060, & VA 21-9061June 10, 2021

Page 7

COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMITAccording to the 1993 Coastal Commission certified Post-LCP Certification Permit and Appeal Jurisdictionmap, the project site is located within the appealable area of the Coastal Zone. Pursuant to LBMC Chapter25.07, the proposed project requires a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) to ensure compliance with thecertified Local Coastal Program. The following criteria shall be incorporated into the review of allapplications for coastal development permits:CDP Criteria Consistency (Yes, No, or N/A if not applicable)No. 1 I The proposed development will notencroach upon any existing physical accessway N/A. The proposed accessory dwelling unit is containedlegally utilized by the public or any proposed entirely upon a developed building site and does notpublic accessway identified in the adopted local maintain any physical accessways utilized by the public.coastal program land use plan.

Yes. The construction of the accessory dwelling unit. will require temporary site best management practices

No. 2 I The proposed development will not . . . . .

. during construction activities to limit any potentialadversely affect marine resources,. . . water runoff occurring from the site, and is not located

environmentally sensitive areas, or ..

. . within an environmentally sensitive area or an area thatarchaeological or paleontological resources. is known to have any archaeological or paleontological

resources.. Yes. The accessory dwelling unit is located on aNo. 3 I The proposed development will not

. . . . developed residential lot and will not adversely affectadversely affect recreational or visitor-serving . . . . .

. . . . recreational or visitor-serving facilities or coastal scenicfacilities or coastal scemc resources. resources.No. 4 I The proposed development will be sitedand designed to prevent adverse impacts to ..

. . . . . N/A. The site is not located within an environmentallyenvironmentally sensitive habitats and scenic . .

. . . sensitive habitat area or scenic resources located inresources located in adjacent parks and recreation

. . adjacent parks and recreation areas.areas and will provide adequate buffer areas toprotect such resources.No. 5 I The proposed development will minimize . .

. . Yes. The proposed addition is located within thethe alterations of natural landforms and will not .

. . . footprint of the existing garage and will not require anyresult in undue risks from geological and

. landform alterations.erosional forces and/or flood and fire hazards.No. 6 The proposed development will be . .

. . . Yes. The accessory dwelling unit will be visuallyvisually compatible with the character of .

. . . compatible with the character of the surroundingsurrounding areas, and where feasible, will .

. . . . development and will enhance the visual quality of therestore and enhance visual quality in visually property.degraded areas.No. 7 [ The proposed development will not have N/A. There are no known archaeological orany adverse impacts on any known paleontological resources within the vicinity or on thearchaeological or paleontological resource. property.No. 8 The proposed development will be Yes. The accessory dwelling unit will be provided withprovided with adequate utilities, access roads, adequate utilities and access roads as the unit is locateddrainage and other necessary facilities, on a developed lot within an established neighborhood.

DR 21-9059, CDP 21-9060, & VA 21-9061June 10, 2021

Page 8

COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMITNo. 9 Other public services, including but not . .

* . . . Yes. The site is considered adequate to provide for solidlimited to, solid waste and public roadway waste and the roadways are considered adequate tocapacity have been considered and are adequate serve the proposed development.to serve the proposed development.

Pursuant to LBMC Section 25.07.012(G), a coastal development permit application may be approved orconditionally approved only after the Design Review Board has reviewed the development project and madeall the following findings.

(1) The project is in conformity with all the applicable provisions of the general plan, including thecerqfied local coastal program and any applicable specific plans;

The proposed project is in conformity with the applicable provisions of the General Plan and certifiedLocal Coastal Program as evidenced in Exhibit A. There is no applicable Specific Plan. Additionally,the accessory dwelling unit contributes to the provision of housing opportunities in the City.Therefore, staff believes this finding can be made.

(2) Any development located between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea is inconformity with the cert~fled local coastalprogram and with the public access andpublic recreationpolicies ofChapter 3 ofthe Coastal Act;

The subject property is not located between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea andis not subject to the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act.Therefore, this finding is not applicable.

(3) The proposed development will not have any sign~JIcant adverse impacts on the environment withinthe meaning ofthe Caflfornia Environmental Quality Act.

The accessory dwelling unit is in compliance with the applicable rules and regulations set forth inthe Municipal Code and will not cause any significant adverse impacts on the environment withinthe meaning of CEQA. Therefore, staff believes this finding can be made.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

Public CorrespondenceStaff has received four letters of support (attached) from neighbors at 1770 Palm Drive, 1760 Palm Drive,1791 Palm Drive, and 1771 Thurston Drive. No letters of opposition have been received.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) DeterminationIn accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the project iscategorically exempt pursuant to Section 15303 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, inthat the project consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small structures There isno evidence of any unusual or special conditions that would result in a significant effect on the environment.

Dominguez, Christian CD

From: Enrique Lavernia <enrique.lavernia@gmaii.com>Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2021 9:22 AMTo: Balmer-Csira, Nancy CD; Dominguez, Christian CD; Gannon, Jessica; Neev, Deborah; Sheridan, Don;

Thalman, Kristine; Weil, LouisCc: monica@monicafuerst.com; Sherrie Surterre Properties; Kitty Cygan; ralph cygan; jmschoenungSubject: Proposed ADU Construction in 1751 Thurston Drive

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

Dear Zoning Administrator, Associate Planner, and Design Review Board Members:

Our residence is 1770 Palm Drive, and we write to retract our letter dated November 4, 2019 and associateddocuments in which we described our objections to the construction of an ADU in 1751 Thurston Drive.

Since that time, we have had the opportunity to work with our neighbors (Toni and Stan Flores) and theirarchitect (Monica Fuerst), and they have arrived at a new design that we are pleased with.

We are grateful to the Flores for accommodating our concerns, and we would like to offer our strong supportfor this project. We sincerely hope that you will approve this project in an expeditious manner.

Thank you and please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or concerns.

Sincerely, Enrique and Julie

Enrique J. Lavernia, Ph.D., M.I.T.Distinguished ProfessorDoctor of Science in Technology honoris causa, Aalto University, Helsinki, FinlandNational Academy of EngineeringNational Academy of Inventors

Julie M. Schoenung, Ph.D., MITProfessor and Founding Chair, Department of Materials Science and EngineeringSamueli School of Engineering, UCI

Dominguez, Christian CD

From: sherrie larsen <sherrielarsen@gmail.com>Sent Saturday, February 27, 2021 11:18AMTo: Enrique LaverniaCc: Balmer-Csira, Nancy CD; Dominguez, Christian CD; Cannon, Jessica; Neev, Deborah; Sheridan, Don;

Thalman, Kristine; Well, Louis; monica f; Kitty Cygan; ralph cygan;jmschoenung; DaddySubject: Re: Proposed ADU Construction in 1751 Thurston Drive

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

Dear Zoning Administrator, Associate Planner, and Design Review Board Members:

Our residence is 1760 Palm Drive, and we write to fully retract our letter dated November 12,2019 inwhich we described our objections to our neighbors (Stan and Tani Flores) construction of an ADU in1751 Thurston Drive.

Stan and Toni Flores and their architect, (Monica Fuerst) have addressed the initial design concernsand we would like to now offer our full support for their project.

While walking on Thurston a few months back, I witnessed Toni trip and fall in the street resulting in a severebroken hip. Since her surgery and recovery, we’ve had many conversations about the need for an ADU asessential living space for future in-home care. We wish for a swift DRB approval for their proposed ADUproject.

Please feel free to reach out directly with any additional questions or concerns.

Kind regards,

Troels and Sherrie Larsen

On Sat Feb 27, 2021 at 9:21 AM Enrique Lavernia <enripue.lavernia@gmail corn> wrote:Dear Zoning Administrator, Associate Planner, and Design Review Board Members:

Our residence is 1770 Palm Drive, and we write to retract our letter dated November 4, 2019 and associateddocuments in which we described our objections to the construction of an ADU in 1751 Thurston Drive.

SInce that time, we have had the opportunity to work with our neighbors (Toni and Stan Flores) and theirarchitect (Monica Fuerst), and they have arrived at a new design that we are pleased with.

We are grateful to the Flores for accommodating our concerns, and we would like to offer our strong supportfor this project. We sincerely hope that you will approve this prolect in an expeditious manner.

Thank you and please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or concerns.

Sincerely, Enrique and Julie

Enrique J. Lavernia, Ph.D., M.I.T.Distinguished Professor

1.

Doctor of Science in Technology honoris causa, Aalto University, Helsinki, FinlandNational Academy of EngineeringNational Academy of Inventors

Julie M. Schoenung, Ph.D., MITProfessor and Founding Chair, Department of Materials Science and EngineeringSamueli School of Engineering, UCI

2

Dominguez, Christian CD

From: ralph cygan <iwcygan@yahoo.com>Sent Monday, March 1, 2021 5:33 PMTo: Balmer-Csira, Nancy CD; Dominguez, Christian CD; Cannon, Jessica; Neev, Deborah; Sheridan, Don;

jmschoenung@gmail.com; monica fuerst; enrique.lavernia@gmail.comSubject: Withdrawal of letter of concern

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

Dear Laguna Beach Zoning Administrator, Associate Planner, and Design Review BoardMembers,

We are writing to withdraw our earlier letter expressing concerns regarding the design impactsof the proposed ADU at the home of the Stan and Toni Flores located at 1751

Thurston Drive. Stan and Toni Flores and their architect, Monica Fuerst, have addressed theinitial design concerns. We own the home located at 1791 Palm Drive and are pleased

to fully support the ADU project as currently designed.

Sincerely,

Ralph and Kitty Cygan

Dominguez, Christian CD

From: Beth Coyle <bethrobbinscoyle@gmail.com>Sent Sunday, May 30, 2021 2:19 PMTo: Dominguez, Christian CD; Neev, Deborah; Well, Louis; Gannon, Jessica; Thalman, Kristine;

asheridan@lagunabeachcity.netCc: monica f; Toni Flores; Andy CoyleSubject: Flores Residence/ADU /Design Review 21-9059

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

To: City Planner & DRB Members

Re: Flores Residence / ADU1751 Thurston Drivel APN 641 381 19Design Review 21-9059Coastal Dev. Permit 21-9060Variance 21-9061

We are Andy and Beth Coyle, residing at 1771 Thurston Drive.We have lived next door to Stan and Toni Flores for 24 years.

The Flores’s have been particularly good neighbors and have been careful to not block our ocean view, and have workedhard to address our concerns regarding the loss of our view and privacy with the new proposed project.

We are in support of the proposed project and encourage the city to grant the variance.

We feel it is important that our neighbors can reasonably enjoy their property and modify it to meet their needs.

In order to protect our remaining views that overlook the Flores’s’ property, the Flores’s have agreed to keep the hedgeand vegetation heights no higher than 48” tall, and that this agreement is documented in the project plans (page 19).

Respectfully,

Andy and Beth Coyle

From: Enrio4Je LaveniiaTo: DaTlInouez. Christian CD; Neev Deboxah; Wed. Louis; Gannon. J~ca Thalrnan. Krlstine, Shendan. DonCc: mnninnkrafiiec~rnn; Sherrie Surterre Pronerbes; ir~ctioenunoSubject: Fwd: Flora ADU I Letter of Support I 1751 Thurston DriveDate: Monday, May 31, 2021 5:35:34 PM

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

Flores Residence / ADU

1751 Thurston Drive I APN 641-381-19

Design Review 21-9059 I Coastal Development Permit 21-9060 I Variance 21-9061

Dear City Planner, Associate Planner, and Design Review Board Members:

We write to provide our support of the proposed construction of an ADU in 1751Thurston Drive. Our residence is 1770 Palm Drive, and we wrote an earlier emailretracting our letter dated November 4, 2019 and associated documents in which wedescribed our objections to the construction of an ADU in 1751 Thurston Drive.

Since that time, we have seen the story poles and we have had the opportunity towork with our neighbors (Toni and Stan Flores) and their architect (Monica Fuerst),and they have arrived at a new design that we are pleased with.

We are grateful to the Flores for accommodating our concerns, and we would like tooffer our strong support for this project. We sincerely hope that you will approve thisproject in an expeditious manner.

Thank you and please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions orconcerns, and it is our plan to attend the meeting scheduled for June 10th.

Sincerely, Enrique and Julie

Enrique J. Lavernia, Ph.D., M.I.T.

Distinguished Professor

Doctor of Science in Technology honoris causa, Aalto University, Helsinki, Finland

National Academy of Engineering

National Academy of Inventors

Julie M. Schoenung, Ph.D., MIT

Professor and Founding Chair, Department of Materials Science and Engineering

Samueli School of Engineering, UCI

CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIAAPPLICATION FOR VARIANCE

To: Board of Adjustment, Planning Commission and/or City Council Variance No._______Date:_______________Hearing Date:______

I hereby request a Variance from the Accessory Dwelling Unit (upper-level) provisions of the ZoningOrdinance, and submit the following information:

Applicant Stan and Toni Flores Telephone: 949-494-0388Mailing A4tjyess: 1751 Thurston Drive, Laguna Beach, CA 92551I am; I the recorded owner of the subject property purchasing the property

agent authorized by the owner lessee of the property

Request Permission to: add an upper level addition of an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) over an existingdetached two-car garage.

on land situated at 1751 Thurston Drive, Laguna Beach, CA 92651(address)

located on the [JnortFLZ}southlileast[Jwest side of said street between Temple Hills Drive(cross street)

and Thalia Drive in the RI zone.(cross street)

Assessor’s Parcel No: AP 641-381-19 The description of this subject property is:(Lot and Tract) Tract: 1099, Block: 9. Lot: 90

State justification for request, to include the following:(attach additional sheets if needed)

(1) What are the special circumstances applicable to the property involved, including size, shape,topography, location or surroundings which cause the strict application of the zoning ordinance todeprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identicalzoning classification:

There are special circumstances applicable to this property, in that the existing site and garage, and ADU

height constraints cause the strict application of the zoning ordinance to deprive the property owner of

privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity.

(2) Why is the requested variance necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantialproperty right of the applicant, which right is possessed by other property owners under likeconditions in the same vicinity and zone:

The variance request is necessary for the enjoyment of a substantial property right of the property

owner, in that properties in the general vicinity possess additions over garages. The Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)

meets State and City’s codes along with providing the required parking.

(3) Why will the granting of the variance not be detrimental to the public health, safety, convenienceand welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity in which the property islocated:

The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, convenience

and welfare or injurious to the property or improvements to adjacent properties, in that

privacy and view issues have been addressed.

(4) Why will the granting of the variance not be contrary to the objectives of the zoning ordinance andthe General Plan:

The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the zoning ordinance andthe General Plan, in that the ADU addition will have minimal impact to adjacent properties

and the proposed improvements will allow increased livability for the property owners.

Any variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that the adjusbuent therebyauthorized shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon otherproperties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is situated.

No variance granted or authorized by the Board of Adjustments shall become effective until after anelapsed period of fourteen (14) calendar days from and after the date of the action authorizing suchvanance.

That licensee and permittee does hereby, understand that a standard condition of approval will beimposed requiring me to defend, hold hanniess and indemnify, at my expense, the City, the City Counciland other City bodies and members thereof; officials, officem~, employees, agents and representativesfrom and against any and all third-party claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annulthe approval, or any associated determination made pursuant to the California Environmental QualityAct, including the City’s defense costs and expenses as well as costs, expenses or damages a court mayrequire the City to pay as a result of such claim, action or proceeding.

I hereby certify that all of the information in this application is, to the best of my knowledge and belief,true and correctly represented and that I have read and understood Chapter 25.05.025 (Variances) of theLaguna Beach Municipal Code.

7t~sc- Ztc_- If owner is other than Applicant:(signature of applicant)

Owner’s Name:__________________________

Signature:

Address:___________________________

DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE

Final Action By:jlBoard of Adjustments _[J_Planning Commission rLCity Council

H DENY

H APPROVED SUBJECT TO ________________________CONDITIONS

LI APPROVED AS SUBMIflED

DR]3 RESOLUTION 21-9059

A RESOLUTION OF THE OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OFTHE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW21-9059, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 21-9060,VARIANCE 21-9061 FOR ADDITIONS AND APPROVING ACATEGORICAL EXEMPTION PURSUANT TO THECALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.

1751 Thurston Drivel APN: 641-381-19

WHEREAS, on May 18, 2021, a notice was mailed to all property owners within a 300radius and tenants within a 100’ radius announcing the June 10, 2021 public hearing of the DesignReview Board for the proposed project; and

WHEREAS, on June 10, 2021, the Design Review Board careflully considered the oral anddocumentary evidence and arguments presented at the duly noticed hearing.

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

Section 1: Variance 21-9061 and Design Review 21-9059 for additions to a single-family residence (“Proposed Project”) are approved. The proposed project is exempt from theprovisions of the California Environmental Quality Act in accordance with State CEQAGuidelines Section 15303 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, in that theproject consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small structures; and

Section 2: The proposed project is consistent with the applicable Title 25 developmentstandards and guidelines for the reasons and factual basis set forth on page 3 of the Staff Report.

Section 3: The proposed project is consistent with the Design Review criteria relatedto access, design articulation, design integrity, environmental context, general plan compliance,landscaping, lighting, neighborhood compatibility, privacy, sustainability, and view equity for thereasons and factual basis set forth on pages 3-4 of the Staff Report.

Section 4: The Variance findings can be made for the Proposed Project for the reasonsand factual basis set forth on pages 5-6 of the Staff Report.

Section 5: The Coastal Development Permit criteria can be made for the ProposedProject for the reasons and factual basis set forth on pages 7-8 of the Staff Report.

Section 6: The Coastal Development Permit findings can be made for the ProposedProject for the reasons and factual basis set forth on page 8 of the Staff Report.

Section 7: Expiration. The proposed project will expire if development has notcommenced within two years from the final action of the approval authority on the application.Development, once commenced, shall be pursued in a diligent manner and completed in a

Page 1 of 3

reasonable period of time. An application for extension of the permit must be made prior to theexpiration date.

Section 8: Terms and Conditions Run with the Land. These terms and conditions shallbe perpetual, and it is the intention of the approval authority and the permittee to bind all futureowners and possessors of the subject property to the terms and conditions.

Section 9: Indemnification. The permittee shall defend, hold harmless and indemnify,at his/her/its expense, the City, the City Council and other City bodies and members thereot~officials, officers, employees, agents and representatives (collectively, the City) from and againstany and all third-party claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul the approvalof this application for Design Review 21-9059, Coastal Development Permit 21-9060, andVariance 21-9061, or any associated determination made pursuant to the California EnvironmentalQuality Act. This obligation shall encompass all costs and expenses incurred by the City indefending against any claim, action or proceeding, as well as costs, expenses or damages the Citymay pay as a result of such claim, action or proceeding. In the event an action or proceeding isfiled in court against the City, the Design Review, or any associated determination, the permitteeshall promptly be required to execute a formal indemnification agreement with the City, in a formapproved by the City Attorney, which shall include, among other things, that the City will bedefended by the counsel of its choice, and that the permittee shall deposit with the City sufficientfunding, and thereafter replenish the fUnding, to ensure that the City’s defense is fully funded, bythe permittee. The deposit amount and replenishment schedule shall be established by the City.

Section 10: Plan Reliance and Modification Restriction. In the absence of specificprovisions or conditions herein to the contrary, the attached Staff Report and its Exhibits ‘A’, ‘B’,and ‘C’ are incorporated and made a part of this Resolution. It is required that the Exhibits ‘B’ and‘C’ be complied with and implemented in a manner consistent with the approved use and otherconditions of approval. Such exhibits for which this permit has been granted shall not be changedor amended except pursuant to a subsequent amendment to the permit or new permit as mightotherwise be required or granted pursuant to the terms of Title 25 of the Laguna Beach MunicipalCode.

Section 11: Grounds for Revocation or Modification. Failure to abide by and faithfullycomply with Exhibits ‘B’ and ‘C’ attached to the granting of the proposed project may constitutegrounds for revocation or modification of the permit.

Section 12: Right of Appeal and Effective Date. The applicant or any other owner ofproperty within three hundred feet of the subject property aggrieved by the Design Review Board’sdecision or by any portion of this decision may appeal to the City Council. Any appeal shall be inwritten form filed with the City Clerk within fourteen calendar days of the decision and shallspecifically state each and every ground for the appeal and be accompanied by payment of therequired appeal fee. If no appeal is filed timely, the Design Review Board decision will be effective14 calendar days after the date of the decision.

Section 13: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findingsincluded in the Staff Report, Minutes and records of proceedings, the Design Review Board of the

Page 2 of 3

City of Laguna Beach hereby approves the proposed project, subject to the conditions of approvaland plans in the attached Exhibits ‘B’ and ‘C’.

PASSED on June 10, 2021, by the following vote:

AYES:NOES:ABSENT:ABSTAIN:

ATTEST: ____________________________

Louis Weil, Chair

Russell W. Bunim, AICP, Zoning Administrator

Page 3 of 3

EXHIBIT ‘A’

GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES CONFORM (Y, N OR N/A)Land Use Element (LU) Policy 2.10 Maximize thepreservation of coastal and canyon views (consistentwith the principle of view equity) from existing Yes, refer to Design Review Criterion No. 16 above.properties and minimize blockage of existing publicand private views.

LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM CONFORM (Y, N OR N/A)General Plan Land Use Map, excluding Blue Yes, the proposed use is consistent with theLagoon and Three Arch Bay underlying land use designation of VLD.Land Use and Open Space/Conservation General

Yes, refer to General Plan Policies Table above.Plan Elements

Yes, the proposed use is consistent with theZoning Map underlying zoning designation of R-1 Residential

Low Density.Downtown Specific Plan N/ALaguna Canyon Annexation Specific Plan N/ATitle 25 (Zoning Code) Yes, refer to Title 25 table above.Chapter 12.08, Preservation of Heritage Trees N/AOrdinanceChapter 14.78 Geology Reports N/ATitle 21 (Plats and Subdivision) N/ATitle 22 (Excavation and Grading) N/A — no grading is proposed.

Shoreline Protection Guidelines (as adopted byResolution 88.43) N/A, the site is not an oceanfront property.Design Guidelines for Hillside Development (as N/Aadopted by Resolution 89.104)South Laguna Community Design and Landscape N/AGuidelines (as adopted by Resolution 89.104)Fuel Modification Guidelines (of the Safety General N/APlan Element)Summer Festival Parking Agreements N/A2004 LCP Amendment that includes Title 16 (Water N/AQuality Control)2010 Design Guidelines — A Guide to Residential Yes, refer to the discussion under the DesignDevelopment Review heading above.

EXHIBIT ‘B’CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

Standard Conditions:1. The conditions of approval shall be and hereby are obligations of and binding upon the applicant

and his/her heirs, successors, assigns, agents and representatives. The conditions shall constitute acovenant running with and binding the land in accordance with the provisions of California CivilCode Section 1468. Failure to comply with such conditions, and each of them, and any other relatedfederal, state and local regulations may be grounds for revocation of the approval, in addition toother remedies that may be available to the City.

2. The applicable Certificate of Use and/or Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until City staffhas verified compliance with all conditions of approval.

3. Prior to Building Permit issuance, the owner, his architect/designer/structural engineer, andcontractor of the subject property shall sign an Affidavit of Plan Consistency, whereby the signeesaffirm that the structural plans are consistent with the Zoning Division-approved set of plans andany modification will require subsequent review and approval.

4. In the absence of specific provisions or conditions herein to the contrary, the application and allrelevant plans and exhibits are incorporated and made a part of this approval. It is required that suchplans and exhibits be complied with and implemented in a consistent manner with the approved useand other conditions of approval. Such plans and exhibits for which this approval has been grantedshall not be substantially changed or substantially amended except pursuant to a subsequent approvalas might otherwise be required or granted pursuant to the terms of Title 25 of the City of LagunaBeach Municipal Code.

5. The permittee shall defend, hold harmless and indemnii5’, at his/her/its expense, the City, the CityCouncil and other City bodies and members thereof; officials, officers, employees, agents andrepresentatives (collectively, the City) from and against any and all third-party claims, actions orproceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul this approval, or any associated determination madepursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. This obligation shall encompass all costs andexpenses incurred by the City in defending against any claim, action or proceeding, as well as costs,expenses or damages the City may be required by a court to pay as a result of such claim, action orproceeding.

6. Expiration. Coastal development permit approval shall lapse and become void six months followingthe effective date if the privileges authorized by the permit are not executed or utilized, or, ifconstruction work is involved, such work is not commenced within such two-year period anddiligently prosecuted to completion. For City-issued coastal development permits that are notappealed to the Coastal Commission, the approving authority may grant an extension of time, not toexceed an additional six-month period for due cause. Such time extension shall be requested inwriting by the applicant or authorized agent prior to expiration of the two-year period.

7. Landscaping Conditions. The landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the approvedlandscape plans. Thereafter, the landscaping shall be continuously maintained (including replanting,

as necessary) in compliance with the approved landscaping plans, unless such pians are subsequentlyrevised pursuant to a subsequent Design Review approval. Minor landscaping changes which doesnot have the potential to impact views at mature growth height may be exempt from Design Review.

8. Expiration. Design review approval shall lapse and become void two years following the effectivedate if the privileges authorized by design review are not executed or utilized or, if constructionwork is involved, such work is not commenced within such two-year period and diligently pursuedto completion. The approval authority may grant a two-year extension of time and, after that initialextension of time, a final one-year extension of time. Such time extensions shall be requested inwriting by the applicant or authorized agent prior to the expiration of the beginning two-yearapproval period or a subsequently approved extension of time.

9. Reapplication Waiting Period. After denial of a project, no application for a project located on thesame parcel or building site may be filed or accepted for filing for two months.

10. Light trespass that results in glare is prohibited.

11. Outdoor lighting must be hooded, fully shielded, and aimed downward.

12. Modifications. Additions or enlargements of structures upon property for which a variance has beengranted shall not be allowed except pursuant to a subsequent variance as might otherwise be requiredor granted pursuant to the terms of Title 25 of the City of Laguna Beach Municipal Code.

13. Expiration. This approval shall lapse and become void two years following the effective date unlessa shorter approval period is specified for the project or unless: (i) A building permit is issued andconstruction is begun and diligently pursued to completion; or (ii) the Planning Commission orDesign Review Board, as applicable, grants a two-year extension of time or, after that initialextension of time, a final one-year extension of time. Such time extensions shall be requested inwriting by the applicant or authorized agent prior to the expiration of the beginning two-yearapproval period or any subsequently approved extensions of time.

EXHIBIT ‘C’PROPOSED PLANS