Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the View Equity topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Design review for 2550 Park Avenue continued after hours of public comment on landscaping and views
Summary
The board continued design review 25‑0337 for 2550 Park Avenue after extended public comment focusing on tree removals, privacy, and fire risk; staff and applicant agreed to return with revised landscaping, tree-height limits, and clearer planting/removal timelines.
The Laguna Beach Design Review Board continued consideration of Design Review 25‑0337 for 2550 Park Avenue following extensive public testimony and detailed questioning of the applicant and staff on Aug. 14.
The project proposes upper- and lower-level additions totaling several hundred square feet (upper-level: ~644.4 sq. ft.; lower-level: ~1,165.8 sq. ft.) new decks (about 602 sq. ft.), a spa and pond, new exterior materials and landscaping, and formalization of existing rooftop HVAC equipment. Staff said the site is in a very high fire hazard severity zone and that landscape/fuel modification plans had been reviewed. The applicant and team described removing two large pine trees and pruning other specimen trees; they proposed an Indian laurel as a replacement privacy tree, and staff added a draft resolution condition limiting the Laurel to 20 feet (approximate eave height) although applicants said they preferred 20–25 feet for privacy.
More than a dozen neighbors spoke during public comment, raising concerns about view equity, inconsistent landscape plans (differences between plan legend and site drawings about how many trees would be removed), fire risk from overgrown trees and palms, and alleged prior unpermitted rooftop equipment. Several neighbors asked for any removed trees to be removed within 14 days of the appeals period; multiple speakers asked for enforceable timelines and clearer lists of removals and replacements. The applicant said they would remove a significant number of trees (representing 70% of the on‑site trees per the applicant’s statement) and offered to work with neighbors on replacement species and heights.
Board members pressed the applicant for clarity on species, maximum permitted heights, the rooftop HVAC permitting history and whether equipment would be moved to grade, and the exact list and timeline for tree removals and pruning. Several board members recommended continuance to allow the applicant to return with a tighter landscape plan specifying which trees are removed and preserved, maximum heights for retained and replacement trees (staff had a draft Laurel condition limiting the Indian laurel to 20 feet), and an enforceable schedule for removals or maintenance. The applicant agreed to return with revisions. The board continued the item and set follow-up deadlines for resubmittal; staff directed the applicant to provide revised plans by a date determined during the continuance scheduling.
