Board continues contentious Bluebird Canyon Lot A project after heavy neighborhood opposition

The Design Review Board continued Design Review 24‑2586 and its associated coastal and revocable‑encroachment permits for Lot A at 1550 Bluebird Canyon Drive to the Nov. 13 meeting after extensive testimony and board deliberations.

The application proposes a modern two‑pavilion house sited on a knoll (the “Kiyoto House” in the applicant’s materials), using board‑formed concrete, wood and metal to create a low, minimalist composition. The applicant described reductions made in response to earlier board feedback — about 306 square feet of floor area removed overall and excavation reduced from roughly 1,900 cubic yards to 1,550 cubic yards — plus a reconfigured driveway and revised landscaping. The applicant also noted changes intended to reduce visibility and impact, and offered turf‑block driveway material to allow a future street‑widening scenario.

Neighbors provided extended testimony objecting to the project on multiple grounds: visual dominance of the ridgeline, privacy impacts from glass walls and a cantilevered dining room, large volumes of earthwork and heavy truck traffic, cumulative massing in a neighborhood of smaller homes, and the creation of retaining walls within the public right‑of‑way that could create nonconforming conditions if the city later widens the street.

The city attorney and staff briefed the board on legal context: the interplay between state housing law and the Coastal Act (and recent council direction in a related Bluebird Canyon case). Board members questioned the proposed right‑of‑way retaining wall dimensions, asked for clarity about driveway grades and how the REP would be handled if the city requires street widening, and noted that the project’s roof and plate heights could be reduced. Several board members said they could not make required Coastal Development Permit findings for criteria that protect natural landforms and visual compatibility without more substantial design changes and clearer right‑of‑way solutions. The board directed the applicant to return with revised design options addressing ridgeline/visual impacts, terracing/terrace‑into‑hillside approaches, reduced plate heights and a revised REP/driveway design that begins the driveway at the property line if needed. The applicant agreed; the item was continued to Nov. 13.