Hymettus estates

COMMUNITY CHARACTER STUDY

HYMETTUS ESTATES DEVELOPMENT

Encinitas, California February 2016

Completed By:

Table of Contents

This page intentionally left blank

ii

Community Character Study | Hymettus Estates

TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction............................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Executive Summary........................................................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Background....................................................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Purpose and Need............................................................................................................................................. 4 1.4 Summary of Public Involvement....................................................................................................................... 4 1.4.1 Notifying Methods............................................................................................................................................... 4 1.4.2 Meeting Summary............................................................................................................................................... 4 1.4.3 Concerns and Issues Raised During the Meetings............................................................................................ 5 1.4.4 Site Plan Revisions.............................................................................................................................................. 5

Environmental Setting.............................................................................................................................. 7

2.1 Definitions of Scale for Various Settings .......................................................................................................... 8 2.1.1 City Description................................................................................................................................................... 8 2.1.2 Community Study Area Description................................................................................................................... 8 2.1.3 Neighborhood Study Area Description............................................................................................................... 8 2.1.4 Visual Assessment Units.................................................................................................................................... 9 2.2 Land Use and Development Patterns............................................................................................................. 10 2.2.1 Development Characteristics and Trends........................................................................................................ 10 2.2.2 Existing Land Use Patterns.............................................................................................................................. 12 2.3 Existing Views.................................................................................................................................................. 12 2.3.1 Visual Analysis Process Data Sources............................................................................................................. 12 2.3.2 Project Visibility................................................................................................................................................. 12 2.3.3 Public View Corridors from Public Roads........................................................................................................ 14 2.3.4 Private View Corridors...................................................................................................................................... 15 2.3.5 Public View Corridors from an Adopted Trail................................................................................................... 16 2.3.6 Public View Corridor from a Recreational Area............................................................................................... 16 2.4 Existing Character........................................................................................................................................... 18 2.4.1 Site Development Character............................................................................................................................ 18 2.4.2 Site Features Character.................................................................................................................................... 24 2.4.3 Architectural Character.................................................................................................................................... 30 2.4.4 Right-Of-Way Character................................................................................................................................... 42

Proposed Project Character.....................................................................................................................45

3.1 Project Overview.............................................................................................................................................. 47 3.2 Project Character............................................................................................................................................ 52 3.2.1 Site Development Character............................................................................................................................. 52 3.2.2 Site Features Character..................................................................................................................................... 60 3.2.3 Architectural Character..................................................................................................................................... 64 3.2.4 Summary of Project Consistency with Existing Neighborhood Character...................................................... 71

Analysis of Project Impact........................................................................................................................73

4.1 Impact Analysis Methods and Tools................................................................................................................ 74 4.2 Impact Level Definitions.................................................................................................................................. 74 4.2.1 Impact Levels..................................................................................................................................................... 74 4.2.2 Thresholds for Determining Significance......................................................................................................... 74 4.3 Key Views......................................................................................................................................................... 76 4.3.1 Candidate Key Views.......................................................................................................................................... 76 4.3.2 Selected Key Views............................................................................................................................................ 83 4.4 Community Character Impacts....................................................................................................................... 88 4.4.1 Impacts Based on Visual Simulations .............................................................................................................. 88 4.4.2 Impacts Based on Existing Neighborhood Characteristics............................................................................. 91 4.4.3 Impacts Based on City’s Community Character Criteria ................................................................................ 92 4.4.4 Consistency with Applicable Provisions in the City’s Design Review Guidelines............................................ 93 4.5 Landform Character Impacts........................................................................................................................ 102 4.6 Land Use Impacts.......................................................................................................................................... 104 4.7 View Impacts.................................................................................................................................................. 108 4.8 Other Visual Quality Impacts......................................................................................................................... 112

i

Table of Contents

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1: Existing Site........................................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 1-2: Proposed Site........................................................................................................................................ 3 Figure 2-1: Project Boundaries............................................................................................................................... 8 Figure 2-2: Visual Assessment Units...................................................................................................................... 9 Figure 2-3: General Plan Land Use Designations................................................................................................. 11 Figure 2-4: Existing Land Use................................................................................................................................ 11 Figure 2-5: Views of Proposed Project (NOAA LIDAR).......................................................................................... 13 Figure 2-6: Ocean Views from Public Roads......................................................................................................... 14 Figure 2-7: Ocean Views from Private Residences............................................................................................... 15 Figure 2-8: Parks and Open Space........................................................................................................................ 16 Figure 2-9: Lot Size and Shape.............................................................................................................................. 19 Figure 2-10: Lot Coverage & Building Footprint................................................................................................... 20 Figure 2-11: Setbacks & Building Location........................................................................................................... 21 Figure 2-12: Driveway Layout & Material.............................................................................................................. 23 Figure 2-13: Fencing.............................................................................................................................................. 25 Figure 2-14: Building Position on Slope................................................................................................................ 27 Figure 2-15: Landscaping and Vegetation............................................................................................................. 29 Figure 2-16: Building Height.................................................................................................................................. 30 Figure 2-17: Roof Form.......................................................................................................................................... 31 Figure 2-18: Roof Material..................................................................................................................................... 33 Figure 2-19: Siding Material.................................................................................................................................. 35 Figure 2-20: Building Color.................................................................................................................................... 36 Figure 2-21: Window Style..................................................................................................................................... 37 Figure 2-22: Garage Placement............................................................................................................................. 38 Figure 3-1: Aerial Views of Proposed Project Looking North............................................................................... 48 Figure 3-2: Aerial Views of Proposed Project Looking East.................................................................................. 48 Figure 3-3: Aerial Views of Proposed Project Looking South............................................................................... 49 Figure 3-4: Aerial Views of Proposed Project Looking West................................................................................. 49 Figure 3-5: Elevation of Lot 1................................................................................................................................. 50 Figure 3-8: Elevation of Lot 4................................................................................................................................. 50 Figure 3-7: Elevation of Lot 2................................................................................................................................. 50 Figure 3-6: Elevations of Lot 3............................................................................................................................... 50 Figure 3-9: Elevation of Lot 5................................................................................................................................. 50 Figure 3-11: Elevation of Lot 6............................................................................................................................... 51 Figure 3-12: Elevation of Lot 8............................................................................................................................... 51 Figure 3-10: Elevation of Lot 7............................................................................................................................... 51 Figure 3-13: Elevation of Lot 9............................................................................................................................... 51 Figure 3-14: Lot Size and Shape............................................................................................................................ 53 Figure 3-15: Lot Coverage .................................................................................................................................... 54 Figure 3-16: Building Footprint............................................................................................................................. 55 Figure 3-17: Setbacks............................................................................................................................................ 56 Figure 3-18: Building Location ............................................................................................................................. 57 Figure 3-19: Driveway Layout & Materials............................................................................................................ 59 Figure 3-20: Fencing.............................................................................................................................................. 60 Figure 3-21: Landscaping and Vegetation............................................................................................................. 61 Figure 3-22: Building Position on Slope................................................................................................................ 63 Figure 3-23: Building Height.................................................................................................................................. 64 Figure 3-24: Roof Form.......................................................................................................................................... 65 Figure 3-25: Roof Material..................................................................................................................................... 66 Figure 3-26: Siding Material.................................................................................................................................. 67

ii

Community Character Study | Hymettus Estates

Figure 3-27: Building Color.................................................................................................................................... 68 Figure 3-28: Window Style..................................................................................................................................... 69 Figure 3-29: Garage Placement............................................................................................................................. 70 Figure 4-1: Candidate Key Views Map................................................................................................................... 76 Figure 4-2: Candidate Key Views with Model Overlays......................................................................................... 78 Figure 4-3: Photo Simulation from Key View 1...................................................................................................... 84 Figure 4-4: Photo Simulation from Key View 9...................................................................................................... 85 Figure 4-5: Photo Simulation from Key View 13.................................................................................................... 86 Figure 4-6: Photo Simulation from Key View 15.................................................................................................... 87

LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1: Site Development Characteristics........................................................................................................ 39 Table 2-2: Landform Characteristics..................................................................................................................... 40 Table 2-3: Architectural Characteristics............................................................................................................... 41 Table 3-1: Lot Size.................................................................................................................................................. 52 Table 3-2: Lot Shape.............................................................................................................................................. 53 Table 3-3: Lot Coverage ........................................................................................................................................ 54 Table 3-4: Building Footprint................................................................................................................................. 55 Table 3-5: Setbacks................................................................................................................................................ 56 Table 3-6: Building Location ................................................................................................................................. 57 Table 3-7: Driveway Layout.................................................................................................................................... 58 Table 3-8: Driveway Materials............................................................................................................................... 59 Table 3-9: Fencing.................................................................................................................................................. 60 Table 3-10: Landscaping and Vegetation............................................................................................................... 61 Table 3-11: Building Position on Slope.................................................................................................................. 62 Table 3-12: Building Height................................................................................................................................... 64 Table 3-13: Roof Form............................................................................................................................................ 65 Table 3-14: Roof Material....................................................................................................................................... 66 Table 3-15: Siding Material.................................................................................................................................... 67 Table 3-16: Building Color..................................................................................................................................... 68 Table 3-17: Window Style....................................................................................................................................... 69 Table 3-18: Garage Placement.............................................................................................................................. 70 Table 3-19: Project Consistency with Existing Neighborhood Character............................................................. 71 Table 4-1: Candidate Key Views............................................................................................................................. 77 Table 4-2: Project Consistency with the City’s Design Review Guidelines............................................................ 93 Table 4-3: Project Consistency with Municipal Policies Regarding Land Use.................................................... 106 Table 4-4: Project Consistency with the City of Encinitas Policies on Public and Private Views........................ 110

iii

Table of Contents

This page intentionally left blank

iv

1 INTRODUCTION

Chapter 1 | Introduction

1.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report provides a community character study and visual impact analysis for the proposed Hymettus Estates development located at 378 Fulvia Street in Encinitas, CA. The proposed development, submitted by CityMark Communities, LLC, includes nine single-family residences and a private easement for a bioretention basin within the 2.25 acre site. The existing property is partially developed with a two-story residence, two detached garages, a cottage, two sheds, and a variety of ornamental landscaping. The existing property also includes two unpaved access drives, one served by Fulvia Street and the other by Hymettus Avenue. The immediately adjacent properties have been developed as single-family residences, with multi-family residences and greenhouses in the surrounding neighborhoods.

Results from Geographic Information System (GIS)-based visibility analyses determined the project has a less than significant impact on both public and private views. All significant (ocean) views that are currently available from the neighborhood will not be obstructed by the proposed development.

Chapter 2 includes additional information regarding views.

Regarding the proposed development’s compatibility with the existing community character, the study analyzed various elements that contribute to community character (site development characteristics, landform characteristics, architectural characteristics, and right-of-way characteristics).

Results from this analysis concluded that the majority of elements within the proposed development were compatible with the existing neighborhood, and therefore, the proposed development would have a less than significant impact on existing community character. Although the majority of design elements within the proposed project were consistent with the existing neighborhood, several elements including driveway material, fencing, and landscaping were considered inconsistent. Roof form and building height were considered partially consistent. Chapter 2 includes the inventory of existing conditions and Chapter 3 includes the comparison of these results with the proposed development. Community character and visual impacts were also assessed using a series of photo simulations representing the project following construction. The simulations were used to analyze view quality, landform quality, visual quality, and community character. The proposed development was found to have a less than significant impact for each of the simulations but did identify several elements including landscaping, roof material, driveway materials, and fencing that are not consistent with the existing neighborhood. Chapter 4 includes in-depth process description and analysis for each simulation.

Finally, the proposed project was evaluated for consistency with the city’s Urban Design Guidelines.

This evaluation revealed that the project is consistent with 74% and partially consistent with 16% of the applicable Urban Design Guidelines. Additional analysis provided significance determinations for overall land use impacts, landform character impacts, and view impacts for each of the criteria listed scope provided by the City of Encinitas. Chapter 4 includes the details for each of the impact determinations.

1.2 BACKGROUND

CityMark Communities, LLC submitted a development proposal for a 2.25-acre property located at 378 Fulvia Street in Encinitas, CA. The property is located in the northwestern portion of the city, south of Leucadia Boulevard and west of Hymettus Avenue. The project includes nine single-family residences and a 0.08-acre private easement for a bioretention basin. Street dedications along Fulvia Street and Hymettus Avenue and a private access easement total 0.09 acres, leaving a net developable area of 2.16 acres.

Currently, the project site is partially developed with a two-story residence, two garages, a cottage, and two sheds. The majority of the site is vacant and includes a variety of mature trees in various levels of health. The site is accessed by a unpaved driveway off of Fulvia Street. Although there is an additional unpaved driveway off of Hymettus Avenue, it is inaccessible due to a locked fence.

The existing structures, hardscape and landscape will be removed and regraded for the proposed development. See Figure 1-1 and Figure 1-2 for an overview of the existing and proposed site.

The proposed development includes eight two-story and one single-story residences ranging in size from 3,360 to 4,715 square feet. Each residence includes a two-car garage. The architectural styles, color schemes, and building materials vary from house to house. The property is zoned R-3 (three single-family residential dwelling units per acre), which allows for up to six single-family residential

2

Community Character Study | Hymettus Estates

Figure 1-1: Existing Site Garage

Driveway (inaccessible)

Cottage

Hymettus Avenue

Fulvia Street

Sheds Two-Story Residence

Garage

Access Driveway

Figure 1-2: Proposed Site Masonry Retaining Walls

Aluminum Tubular Fences

Hymettus Avenue

Lot 9

Bioretention Basin

Lot 8

Lot 6 Lot 7

Lot 5

Lot 1

Lot 4 Lot 2

Lot 3

Fulvia Street Porous Paving Parking Areas

Landscape BMP Areas Permeable Paver Driveway

Wooden Fences

3

Chapter 1 | Introduction

dwelling units on the 2.25-acre parcel. Building heights are limited to two stories or 26 feet, whichever is less. The proposed development includes eight market rate residences and one affordable housing unit, which entitles the developer to a density bonus per state code (Govt. Code 65915). As a result, the permitted number of units increases from six to nine and regulations for lot size and lot dimensions are also decreased. The surrounding neighborhood consists of single-family residences also zoned R-3, with several properties to the west zoned R-8.

1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED

The City of Encinitas requires a Community Character Study and Visual Quality Analysis to ensure new development is consistent with existing community character. As stated in the city’s General Plan, “Every effort shall be made to ensure that the existing desirable character of the communities is maintained.”

The purpose of this study is to assess the visual impacts and compatibility of the proposed Hymettus Estates Development with existing community character. The report determines the significance of impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the city’s land use/community character/visual quality analysis, and the city’s Design Guidelines. In addition, the report identifies mitigation measures for potential impacts that the proposed development may have on the visual quality or community character of the existing neighborhood.

As part of the Environmental Impact Review (EIR) process, the City of Encinitas proposed an alternative site plan for the site that includes five, rather than nine, residential units.

1.4 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

The following information (provided by City Mark Communities, LLC) is a summary of the Citizens Participation Plan implemented for the Hymettus Estates development project. Meetings were used as an introductory forum in which attendees were provided an opportunity to voice their issues and concerns about the proposed project.

1.4.1 Notifying Methods The Citizen Participation Program (CPP) for this project was approved by the City of Encinitas, on October 16th, 2013. On October 18th, 2013 all adjacent property owners and residents were notified by mail regarding the applicant’s filings for a Tentative Map, Density Bonus, Coastal Development Permit, and Design Review for the property located at 378 Hymettus Boulevard. The mailing list was created using information from the latest County Assessor parcel maps and approved by City of Encinitas staff.

The notification mailing included a description of the project, a preliminary site plan and a vicinity map. The notification letter also extended an invitation to a neighborhood workshop meeting to be held at the Encinitas Community Center on November 13th, 2013 from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. The letter stated that the purpose of the meeting was to address any questions or concerns generated by the proposed project. The project was presented and discussed at this meeting to give neighbors a better understanding of the entire project. Those who were not able to attend the meeting were given the opportunity to contact the developer by email or phone with their questions or concerns. Property owners were notified for each subsequent meeting using the same process as the first meeting.

1.4.2 Meeting Summary The first meeting was held on November 13th, 2013. Due to a scheduling conflict with the City Council meeting, several neighbors were unable to attend the meeting. As a result, the developer set up a second meeting for December 7th, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. on-site. Due to the large number of participants at the December 7th, 2013 meeting, another meeting was held at the Encinitas Community Center on March 19th, 2014. Although the number of attendees decreased significantly, a fourth meeting was held three weeks later on April 8th, 2014 at the Howard Johnson Hotel located at 607 Leucadia Boulevard.

The meetings included representatives from CityMark Communities, Pasco Laret Suiter & Associates, JPBLA and the Dahlin Group. Each meeting began with introductions of the development team, their consultants and a description of the current project.

4

Community Character Study | Hymettus Estates

1.4.3 Concerns and Issues Raised During the Meetings Q: Attendees expressed concerns about the density of the proposed project. More specifically, citizens had questions regarding the density bonus program.

A: The density calculations for the project were explained. Additionally, the state density bonus law was explained.

Q: Attendees inquired about the amount and type of landscaping proposed with the project. One attendee expressed specific concerns about the amount of irrigation required.

A: The proposed landscape plans were presented and attendees were encouraged to provide input.

It was explained that drought tolerant native species were selected.

Q: Attendees expressed concerns regarding future homes on the site. Questions regarding the architectural style, building height and building square footage were raised.

A: The architecture of the homes was discussed by both the owner and the project architect.

Included in these discussions were building square footage, style of homes, location of homes within the lot and number of stories.

Q: Attendees raised question regarding the current zone and lot density.

A: It was explained that the project is a density bonus project and as such was entitled to increased density in exchange for providing affordable housing.

Q: Attendees raised questions and expressed concerns regarding the existing flooding at the intersection of Fulvia and Hymettus and the impact this development would have on the existing drainage infrastructure inadequacies.

A: It was explained that the proposed project was not obligated to “fix” the existing drainage and flooding problems. However, the proposed developed would improve the drainage situation.

It was explained that porous materials would be used in lieu of impervious hardscape where feasible and that the project would have a large bioretention basin on site to ensure the peak rate of runoff was not increased.

Q: Several neighbors raised concerns over the existing trees and general condition of the site. Several neighbors expressed displeasure with the unkempt condition of both the house and landscaping.

A: It was explained that the developer could not speak to questions regarding the site’s existing condition.

1.4.4 Site Plan Revisions Although not every request from the community could be incorporated, the developer and development team made numerous revisions to the project. Some of the revisions made as a result of the community meetings include: ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■

Reduced total dwelling unit count from 10 to 9 Revised plans from 10 individual detention basins to 1 central detention basin Increased average lot size from 9,597 square feet to 10,663 square feet Revised architecture with enhanced articulation and building materials Changed impervious surfaces from asphalt and concrete to permeable pavers Removed the decomposed granite walkway from the property frontage

5

Chapter 1 | Introduction

This page intentionally left blank

6

2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

Chapter 2 | Environmental Setting

2.1 DEFINITIONS OF SCALE FOR VARIOUS SETTINGS

2.1.1 City Description The City of Encinitas encompasses 12,534 acres and is divided into five communities: Olivenhain, New Encinitas, Old Encinitas, Cardiff-by-the-Sea, and Leucadia. The site for the proposed development is located in the northwestern portion of Encinitas, within the Leucadia community. This site is situated south of Leucadia Boulevard between two major roadways, Interstate 5 and Highway 101 as seen in Figure 2-1.

2.1.2 Community Study Area Description The community study area encompasses the proposed development site and the surrounding properties with the highest likelihood of being visually impacted by character changes resulting from the proposed project. This boundary was established through an analysis of existing neighborhood development patterns, viewsheds, and topographical features. The eastern boundary is delineated by the existing ridgeline which creates a visual boundary to the east. The western boundary is delineated by the physical and visual barrier created by the railroad tracks and Highway 101. The southern boundary terminates at a school/park located along Union Street and the northern boundary stretches 0.4 miles north of the proposed development to Glaucus Street.

2.1.3 Neighborhood Study Area Description The neighborhood study area includes the properties immediately adjacent to the proposed development site. The limits of the neighborhood were determined by the ability to see the project in context with the adjacent neighborhood structures. These 25 properties were inventoried for existing design and development features in order to evaluate the compatibility of the proposed development with the existing neighborhood.

Figure 2-1: Project Boundaries Batiquitos Lagoon

LA COSTA

1ST

LEUCADIA OLIVENHAIN LEUCADIA

OLIV EN HAIN

TA FE

REAL

E NCINITA S

HO

SA N

MINO E L CA

VULCAN

OLD ENCINITAS

NEW ENCINITAS

§ ¦ ¨

RA NC

5

SANTA FE

£ ¤ ST E

R

101

SAN

MA

H NC

E

O

ELIJ

CARDIFF-BYTHE-SEA

Pacific Ocean

San Elijo Lagoon

LEGEND City Boundary Encinitas Communities Community Study Area

0

8

0.5

1

mi

Neighborhood Study Area

Community Character Study | Hymettus Estates

2.1.4   Visual Assessment Units The neighborhood study area can be divided into four visual assessment units based on topographical and site development features. The visual impact of the proposed development will be measured using these categories, seen in Figure 2-2. Categories include: North - Houses built on large lots and located at the top of the slope with possible ocean views.

East - Older single-family, single-story homes with similar architectural character, built on a relatively flat area with no possible ocean views.

South - Newer, larger single-family homes built at the edge of the flat area near western slopes with possible ocean views.

West - Mix of two-story, single-family and duplex houses with diverse architectural character, positioned below street level to address sloping topography with possible ocean views.

Figure 2-2: Visual Assessment Units e venu ttus A Hyme

NORTH

vard Boule adia Leuc

EAST

enue ia Av Hyge

PROPOSED SITE WEST t Stree Fulvia

SOUTH

9

Chapter 2 | Environmental Setting

2.2 LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS

2.2.1   Development Characteristics and Trends1 Permanent settlement in the Encinitas area began in the late 19th Century following the development of the railroad line from San Diego to Los Angeles. However, population growth from 1880 to 1922 was slow due to a lack of freshwater in the area. As a result, early settlers relied on dry farming practices, bee keeping, kelp processing, and cultivation of alfalfa, fruit, and lima beans. In 1922, the San Dieguito Irrigation District and Hodges Dam provided a reliable source of freshwater for the area, promoting rapid expansion in both population and farming practices, particularly avocado farms and flower bulb production. Intensive agricultural production continued to grow throughout the decades, spurring the development of large greenhouse facilities and agricultural areas throughout Encinitas, some of which can still be seen today.

The Encinitas area experienced a rapid increase in population in the decades following World War II. This population growth lead to significant increases in residential development and has continued to shape the area as a predominantly residential community. In the early 1980s, Encinitas grew at a rapid pace until it became incorporated in 1986. The city has experienced more moderate growth since that time and has grown to a population of approximately 65,000 people (as of 2010). The city is divided into five distinct communities - Leucadia, Old Encinitas, New Encinitas, Cardiff-by-the-Sea, and Olivenhain.

Today, single-family residential development dominates the city with approximately 42% of Encinitas developed as residential and approximately 75% of housing units identified as single-family or duplex. Single-family residential architectural styles vary from older single-story ranches and smallscale cottage homes to newer two-story suburban-style homes with large street-facing garages.

Many of the older homes have unique characteristics that set each property apart from one another, giving neighborhoods an eclectic look. In contrast, newer infill development projects tend to be uniform in character. This type of development creates a contrast with the existing neighborhood due to the lack of architectural or site element diversity. The street pattern is disconnected with large block sizes, curvilinear streets, and cul-de-sacs. Many of the cul-de-sacs have been created in order to redevelop the long, narrow parcels that once contained greenhouses. This narrow lot development is interspersed throughout the community and supports infill development projects.

Growth forecasts anticipate a 40% increase in population over the next 20 years with only a 34% increase in housing stock. The city now has less than 1,000 acres of vacant/underutilized land zoned for future residential development and, therefore, has encouraged denser infill development.

Unfortunately, many of the infill developments from the 1990s to 2010 were implemented with little consideration for the existing neighborhood character. These areas of tract housing create an inconsistent development pattern within existing neighborhoods and detract from the organic and diverse character of the community that resulted from individual lot development.

Adopted Land Use Plans Land use plans establish guidelines for future growth by defining location, type and density of development within a community. The Land Use Element of the Encinitas General Plan, adopted in 1989, includes eighteen land use designations - Residential (10), Commercial (4), Industrial (1), Public/ Institutional (2), and Open Space/Parks (1). Figure 2-3 depicts Encinitas’ adopted land use plan in and around the community study area.

Similar to the patterns seen within the entire city of Encinitas, the land uses within the community study area are primarily lower-density residential. The eastern third of the community study area is designated as R3 residential while the central portion is designated R8 residential. Although both R3 and R8 are intended for lower-density single-family homes, R3 allows for up to three units per acre while R8 allows for up to eight units per acre. The area along Vulcan Avenue is designated for a diverse mix of uses including multi-family residential, mixed-use development, and a mobile home park.

Information regarding general growth in Encinitas was gathered from the Encinitas General Plan Update Current Conditions Report (2011).

1

10

Community Character Study | Hymettus Estates

s Ave Eolu

e ia Av

e es Av

ve tu s A

Hyge

Herm

et Hym

e e Av Pacific Ocean

Saxony Rd

tun Nep

Urania Ave

Figure 2-3: General Plan Land Use Designations

Normandy Rd

§ ¦ ¨ 5

LEGEND Community Study Area

Leucadia Blvd

Neighborhood Study Area

a lvi Fu

Residential (R3) Residential (R5)

St

Residential (R8) Residential (R11) Residential (R15)

Residential (R25)

can Vul

Residential (R20)

Ave

Residential (RR1) Residential (RR2) General Commercial (GC) Mixed Use (MU) Commercial Mixed 1 (CM1) Commercial Mixed 2 (CM2)

Union St

Transportation Corridor Mobile Home Park (MHP)

s Av e

Visitor/Service Commercial (VSC) Limited Visitor/Service Comm (LVSC)

heu

Public/Semi Public (P/SP)

Orp

Ecological Resource/Open Space (ER/OS/P) Agriculture (AG)

Eolu

Normandy Rd

s Ave

ettus Ave

e ia Av

Hyge

e es Av

Herm

Hym

Ave Pacific Ocean

Saxony Rd

tune

Nep

Urania Ave

Figure 2-4: Existing Land Use

§ ¦ ¨ 5

Leucadia Blvd

ia lv Fu St

Ave

Community Study Area

can Vul

LEGEND

Neighborhood Study Area Single Family Detached Single Family Multiple Units Multi-Family Residential

Union St

Mobile Home Park

Intensive Agriculture Open Space/Park/Ecological Resource

heu

Vacant/Undeveloped Land

Orp

Public/Educational/Institutional

s Av e

Commercial/Office/Hotel

11

Chapter 2 | Environmental Setting

2.2.2 Existing Land Use Patterns Figure 2-4 provides an overview of existing land uses within the community study area. Although the existing land uses are more varied than those outlined in the adopted plan, the general pattern of development remains aligned with the goals of the adopted plan. Existing land uses include a mix of single-family and multi-family residential throughout the eastern and central areas. Higherdensity residential and commercial areas, including a mobile home park, are located to the west along Vulcan Avenue. Several areas designated as intensive agriculture, or greenhouses, are located throughout the neighborhoods. Although many of these greenhouses are no longer in service, many of the structures still remain.

2.3 EXISTING VIEWS

2.3.1 Visual Analysis Process Data Sources A variety of Geographic Information System (GIS)-based visibility analyses were conducted to assess impacts of the proposed development on visual resources. The terrain surface was developed using the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) data. LIDAR utilizes airborne laser technology to create a three dimensional representation of the earth’s surface complete with vegetation and buildings. Raw LIDAR data was obtained from the NOAA Digital Coast Data Access Viewer. Although LIDAR is the most representative of existing visibility conditions it is important to note that LIDAR signals frequently penetrate the top of tree canopies, leading to under-represented maximum elevation for most vegetation types. As a result, visibility is still over-represented in LIDAR analyses as the screening benefits of vegetation are not fully incorporated. Due to the uncertainty inherent in using modeled surfaces to represent the earth’s surface, field verification was conducted to verify visibility and inform final conclusions on visual impacts.

2.3.2 Project Visibility Figure 2-5 highlights areas within the community study area that can view the proposed project. and displays the GIS viewshed modeling based on a LIDAR surface data and center points for the nine proposed structures. Each center point was elevated 20-feet to represent a two-story structure.

The viewshed model assesses LIDAR surface data and delineates if there is a direct view of one of the nine proposed structure points. However, the LIDAR data does not account for the full screening benefits of existing vegetation, and thus, the analysis shows higher visibility than would occur in actual observations.

Significant Views A significant view refers to medium- to long-range views of significant and unique features including the coast, ocean, lagoons, canyons, valleys, ridges and other distinctive natural geographic features.

Significant views will also include man-made scenes such as building skylines, diverse and visually prominent landscape designs, parks or cultural improvements and structures.

For this study, significant views can be divided into three categories: regionally significant, subregionally significant, and community significant views. A regionally significant view is defined as a unique set of visual features that are not common in the region (North Coastal San Diego County). A subregionally significant view is similar to a regionally significant view but takes into account a smaller geographic area. Subregionally significant views for this project would include the coastal bluffs and westward facing slopes of Encinitas. Community significant views refer to medium- to short-range views of community features including parks and open space.

Within the study area, the ocean view is the only regionally or subregionally significant view that has the potential to be impacted by the proposed development. The following information discusses the impact of the proposed development on ocean views based on GIS analysis and field research.

As seen in Figure 2-9, there are currently no parks located in the community study area, therefore, the proposed development will not have any significant impacts on existing community significant views.

12

Community Character Study | Hymettus Estates

Eolu

Normandy Rd

s Ave

Ave

e es Av

e ia Av H yge

Herm

ettus H ym

Ave Pacific Ocean

Saxony Rd

tune Nep

Urania Ave

Figure 2-5: Views of Proposed Project (NOAA LIDAR)

§ ¦ ¨ 5

Leucadia Blvd a lvi Fu St

can Vul Ave

Neighborhood Study Area Areas With Views Of Proposed Project

heu

Community Study Area

Orp

LEGEND

s Av e

Union St

13

Chapter 2 | Environmental Setting

2.3.3 Public View Corridors from Public Roads The viewpoints displayed in Figure 2-6 were developed by conducting a GIS line-of-sight analysis between points placed on public roads and a series of points representing ocean views. Public road points were placed every 50 feet along the road centerlines around the proposed project (elevated 6-feet to represent a human’s perspective). Ocean view points were placed every 250-feet along a line parallel to the coast but offset by two miles to the west to account for the ocean surface view blockage caused by the elevated coastline topography. Every potential line-of-sight between the road points and the ocean points were analyzed to determine if the line intersected the LIDAR surface, establishing if the target ocean points were visible from the road viewpoints. Roughly 5,000 lines were analyzed for each iteration. The resulting number of views for each set of points were then counted and manually classified into categories of low (0-30 views), medium (31-60 views) and high (90+ views) and can be seen in Figure 2-7. Since this model uses LIDAR data, the analysis accounts for existing vegetation, topography, and buildings.

There are a low number of views (0-30 views) available from several locations along Leucadia Boulevard. These ocean views, however, are available looking west on Leucadia Boulevard, not across the project site, and will therefore not be impacted by the proposed project. Remaining views (located along Fulvia Street) will not be impacted by the proposed development due to their location west of the site. There were no locations within the neighborhood study area with a medium or high amount of views.

Figure 2-6: Ocean Views from Public Roads

316

e venu ttus A Hyme

898

885

vard Boule adia Leuc 837 835

857

829 827

853

329 327

849

858

879

335 333

835

829

enue ia Av Hyge

819

345 349

807

353

t Stree Fulvia

359

365 405

LEGEND !

No Views Low # of Views Proposed Development Site Neighborhood Study Area

14

375

379

385

419

Community Character Study | Hymettus Estates

2.3.4   Private View Corridors Although CEQA and local ordinances do not provide any explicit or implied level of protection for private views, adjacent property owners are often concerned about possible effects on views from their residence. Private views can be discussed in visual studies, however, based on the State of California definitions and the lack of locally adopted significance thresholds for view impacts on private properties, potential effects on private views are not considered to be significant. Regardless of reaching significant impact levels, private view blockage should be analyzed.

The process for determining ocean views from private residences was similar to the process for determining ocean views from public roads, however, the observer points were placed on the existing neighborhood homes (raised 20-feet from the ground plane to model a 2-story structures). Although not all of these buildings are two-story houses, the analysis was conducted to provide for the best case scenario. The resulting number of views for each set of points were classified into categories of low (0-30 views), medium (31-60 views) and high (90+ views) as shown in Figure 2-8 and Figure 2-9.

Figure 2-7 uses LIDAR data in order to account for existing terrain, vegetation and buildings. Based on the data, there are six residences with a low number of views, three residences with a medium number of views, and no residences with a high number of views. Most of these views do not intersect the proposed development site, therefore, the ocean view for these residences will not be obstructed by the proposed project.

Figure 2-7: Ocean Views from Private Residences

316

e venu ttus A Hyme

898

885

vard Boule adia Leuc 837 835

857

829 827

853

329 327

849

858

879

335 333

enue ia Av Hyge

819

345 349

807

353

t Stree Fulvia

359

LEGEND !

No Views Low # of Views

835

829

365 405 375

379

419

385

Medium # of Views Proposed Development Site Neighborhood Study Area

15

Chapter 2 | Environmental Setting

2.3.5 Public View Corridors from an Adopted Trail The Encinitas Trails Master Plan, adopted in 2002, identifies trail facilities within the community study area. The trail facilities within the community study area are limited to existing sidewalks and proposed paths (natural hard surface in lieu of sidewalk) along Leucadia Boulevard. The proposed project will not impact the views from these existing and proposed trails due to the orientation of the existing views along Leucadia Boulevard rather than across the proposed site.

2.3.6 Public View Corridor from a Recreational Area As seen in Figure 2-8, there are no recreational areas within the community study area, although a park exists to the south of the study area. Views from the park site are oriented towards the ocean and the proposed project site would have no affect on these views or any other view corridor from this public location.

Eolu

Normandy Rd

s Ave

ettus Ave

e ia Av

Hyge

e es Av

Herm

Hym

Ave Pacific Ocean

Saxony Rd

tune

Nep

Urania Ave

Figure 2-8: Parks and Open Space

§ ¦ ¨ 5

Leucadia Blvd

a lvi Fu St

can Vul Ave

Community Study Area

16

heu

Parks

Neighborhood Study Area

Orp

LEGEND

s Av e

Union St

Community Character Study | Hymettus Estates

This page intentionally left blank

17

Chapter 2 | Environmental Setting

2.4 EXISTING CHARACTER

This section provides an inventory of existing conditions within the neighborhood study area. This information will be used to measure the compatibility of the proposed development against the existing neighborhood character. The characteristics of the existing neighborhood can be divided into four categories: ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■

Site Development Site Features Architectural Character Public Right-of-Way

Each category includes various design elements that will be measured to provide a comprehensive analysis of the existing neighborhood character. The analysis for each of these design elements, as well as a summary matrix, is provided in the following section.

2.4.1 Site Development Character Lot Size

16,440 AVERAGE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PARCELS

As seen in Figure 2-9, the parcels in the neighborhood range in size from a high of 71,188 square feet to low of 6,266 square feet. Although there is a large range from the smallest to largest parcel, the majority of the parcels in the neighborhood are similar to the average parcel size of 16,440 square feet. However, the parcels located in the northeast portion of the neighborhood (898, 885, and 858 Hymettus Avenue) are significantly larger than the remaining parcels in the neighborhood. When removing these properties from the calculation and considering only the similarly-sized lots, the average parcel size falls to 11,340 square feet.

Lot Shape The shape of the lots varies greatly throughout the neighborhood but can be organized into three categories: ■■ Rectangular (60%) ■■ Irregular (28%) ■■ Flag (12%) The rectangular-shaped lots are the predominant shape throughout the neighborhood as seen in Figure 2-9. These lots vary in size and are distributed along each street. The irregularly shaped lots are concentrated near the northwestern neighborhood boundary and sporadically along Fulvia Street.

The flag lots are created by properties with no street frontage; a long driveway is provided for access to the main street. Three properties in the neighborhood, all located along Hymettus Avenue, utilize this unique shape.

18

Community Character Study | Hymettus Estates

Figure 2-9: Lot Size and Shape

e venu ttus A Hyme

62,410 9,514

27,946

ard oulev dia B a c u Le

14,660

9,816 14,634 6,266

71,188

19,869

7,357

10,502 7,808

11,261

9,196 enue ia Av Hyge

12,769

9,054 10,151

9,554 9,078

t Stree Fulvia

9,695

LEGEND 1,351 Lot Size (Sq.Ft.)

14,038

Rectangular Lot

11,383 14,477

7,213

21,168

Irregular Lot Flag Lot Neighborhood Study Area

Rectangular Lot

Irregular Lot

Driveway into Flag Lot

19

Chapter 2 | Environmental Setting

Lot Coverage Lot coverage measures the percentage of the parcel that is covered by the building footprint.

Within the neighborhood, the average lot coverage is 24%. There are several parcels that have a lower percentage due to the large lot sizes, however, removing these properties from the calculated average only raises the average lot coverage by 2%. Percent coverage for each lot can be seen in Figure 2-10.

24%

According to zoning regulations, the maximum lot coverage allowed in R-3 is 35% and in R-8 is 40%. Because many of these properties were built prior to the zoning code adoption, there are two properties, located at 349/353 & 419 Fulvia Street, that exceed the maximum lot coverage. The dense landscaping between buildings and along roadways provides a sense that the neighborhood includes more compact development as well.

AVERAGE LOT COVERAGE

Building Footprint The building footprint measures the area of ground covered by the first floor of the building rather than the square footage of the structure. The average size for the building footprint in the neighborhood is 2,933 square feet. The largest footprint size is 5,290 (858 Hymettus Avenue) and the smallest is 1,607 square feet (405 Hymettus Avenue). The footprint for each building can be seen in Figure 2-10.

Figure 2-10: Lot Coverage & Building Footprint

2,153 SF 316

23%

e venu ttus A Hyme

898

885

13% 3,490 SF

5% 3,420 SF ard oulev dia B a c u Le

23%

19% 2,780 SF

2,260 SF 837 835

13%

829 36% 2,227 SF 827

853

7% 5,290 SF

329 36% 3,400 SF 327

879 21% 2,241 SF

333 2,364 SF

enue ia Av Hyge

3,662 SF

3,558 SF

38% 349

353

35%

2,051 SF

365 30%

## Building Footprint Size ## SF SF Building

Neighborhood Study Area

20

3,745 SF 375 27%

807 t Stree Fulvia

2,838 SF

23%

Lot Coverage

835

819 29% 2,650 SF

345

359

#%

3,090 SF 27%

829 3,148 SF 34%

19%

LEGEND

3,129 SF 15% 849

858

29% 2,274 SF 335

LEGEND

857

1,874 SF

1,607 SF 4,040 SF

3,117 SF

405

2,907 SF 419 40%

379 22%

385 19%

14%

Community Character Study | Hymettus Estates

Setbacks The average front yard setback within the neighborhood study area is 24.4 feet (not including garage setbacks) and includes a minimum setback of 4 feet and a maximum setback of 95 feet. The current zoning regulations for the neighborhood study area require a 25-foot front yard setback for all houses.

Because many properties in this area were developed prior to the adoption of the zoning code, many of the buildings within the neighborhood study area do not conform to these updated standards.

Setbacks for each building can be seen in Figure 2-11.

24.4’

Building Location

AVERAGE FRONT YARD SETBACK

Building location describes the placement of the house relative to the front and rear property lines.

The location for each house can be divided into the following categories: ■■ Centered Between Property Lines (48%) ■■ Closer to Front Property Line (48%) ■■ Closer to Rear Property Line (4%) Approximately half of the houses within the neighborhood are located in the center of the lot and the other half of the houses are located closer to the front property line. Due to the small lot sizes, the houses situated close to the street and those located in the center of the lot appear similar from

Figure 2-11: Setbacks & Building Location e venu ttus A Hyme

898

40’

316

20’

885

4’

10’ 14’ 14’ 22’

evard Boul adia Leuc

837 835

58’

829 827 329 327

18’

18’

857

853

16’ 95’

858

16’

879

38’

335 333

enue ia Av Hyge

28’ 349

11’

28’

353 359

Building Position Closer to Front Property Line

807 t Stree Fulvia

25’ 16’

LEGEND Setback Distance

835

819

19’

345

3’

829

18’

26’

849

19’

365

32’

56’ 14’

13’ 17’

375

379

23’

405

419

385

Centered Between Property Lines Closer to Rear Property Line Neighborhood Study Area

21

Chapter 2 | Environmental Setting

the right-of way. Only one property is located closer to the rear property line. However, this property has two detached structures that are located closer to the street, giving this parcel a similar look and feel to the rest of the neighborhood. Although the buildings on the flag lots sit further back from the right-of-way, their lot position is determined by the same lot line used to determine setback.

Driveway Layout Driveway layout refers to the size and shape of the driveway in relation to the garage. Because most of the houses within the neighborhood have a prominent street-facing garage, the driveways occupy a large portion of the properties’ front yards and serve as a dominant feature within the neighborhood.

However, the driveways vary in size and can be divided into the following categories:

50%

OF HOUSES HAVE A DRIVEWAY THE SAME WIDTH OR NARROWER THAN THE GARAGE

■■ Same Width as Garage (50%) ■■ Wider than Garage (42%) ■■ Circular (8%) As seen in Figure 2-12, the driveway layouts are split between those that are the same size or narrower than the garage and those that are wider than the garage. Only two properties along Hymettus Avenue utilize a circular drive, which creates two curb cuts in the property’s front yard. Although the flag lots have a long, narrow access drive, the driveway areas immediately adjacent to the houses are much wider than the garage itself.

Many of the properties along Fulvia Street incorporate additional parking spaces within their property.

Several of these spaces are garage adjacent spaces while some are street-adjacent spaces that have been upgraded from typical roadway shoulders in order to accommodate parking.

Driveway Material Due to the fact that many of the houses have a dominant street-facing garage, the driveway also becomes an important design feature. The variety of driveway materials used throughout the neighborhood creates a unique look for each house and an eclectic feel for the neighborhood as a whole. The driveway materials can be grouped into the following categories:

44%

OF HOUSES HAVE ASPHALT DRIVEWAY

■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■

Asphalt (44%) Standard Concrete (24%) Decorative Concrete or Brick (12%) Concrete with Brick Accents (12%) Gravel or Dirt (8%)

The material used for each driveway can be seen in Figure 2-12. A large percentage of the houses (44%) utilize the same asphalt material as the adjacent roadway, while 24% of the houses use a standard concrete driveway. Neither of these materials adds a high level of visual interest to the property. In contrast, 12% of the houses utilize decorative concrete or brick pavers in order to create a higher visual quality for their property. Similarly, 12% of the properties use brick pavers as an accent to the typical concrete driveway.

22

Community Character Study | Hymettus Estates

Figure 2-12: Driveway Layout & Material

316

e venu ttus A Hyme

S

898

C

885 evard Boul adia Leuc W

837

S 835

857

S

829 S 827 329 327

853 W

W

849

858

S W

879

W

W

335 333 S

C

LEGEND Same Width as Garage

C

Circular

W

Wider Than Garage Additional Parking Spaces

Driveway Material Standard Concrete

S

349

S

353

enue ia Av Hyge

S

819

345

Driveway (& Parking) Layout

835

829

W

S

t Stree Fulvia

359 S W

375

Decorative Concrete or Brick

S

S

365

Asphalt

807

W

379

W

405

419

385

Concrete with Brick Accents Gravel or Dirt Neighborhood Study Area

Wide Brick Paver Driveway

Concrete Driveway

Concrete Driveway with Brick Accents

Designated Parking Area in Front of House

Asphalt Driveway with Parking Area

Upgraded Street Adjacent Parking Spaces

23

Chapter 2 | Environmental Setting

2.4.2 Site Features Character Fencing Most houses within the neighborhood include a fence, gate, or retaining wall. However, the fencing styles vary greatly as seen in Figure 2-13. The fencing styles found within the neighborhood can be grouped into the following categories:

52%

OF HOUSES HAVE WOOD PANEL FENCES

■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■

Wood Panel (52%) Brick/Stone (14%) Chain link (14%) None (8%) Wrought Iron (4%) Wire (4%) Wood Picket (4%)

The predominant fencing style is an unfinished wood panel fence; several are painted or feature a decorative lattice top. Brick/stone and chain link fences are the next most popular fencing styles, each used by 14% of the properties. Wrought iron, wire, and wood picket fencing are each used by one property in the neighborhood. Although two of the properties have been identified as having no fence, both of these properties share a fence with the adjacent property.

Although most houses in the neighborhood include some type of fence, fencing is not a dominant feature due to their placement on the lots and dense vegetation. Many fences are partially or entirely covered by some type of vegetation. In addition, many fences are located between houses rather than across the front yard. Fences range in size but are generally between five and six feet tall. The images below demonstrate the wide variety in fencing materials that are visible within the neighborhood.

24

Community Character Study | Hymettus Estates

Figure 2-13: Fencing

316

e venu ttus A Hyme

898

885 evard Boul adia Leuc

837 835

857

829 827

853

329 327

849

858

879

335 333

Wood Panel Brick/Stone Chainlink

enue ia Av Hyge

LEGEND

835

829

819

345 349

807

353

t Stree Fulvia

359

365 405

Wrought Iron

375

Wire

379

419

385

Wood Picket None Neighborhood Study Area

Wrought Iron Fence

Wood Panel Fence

Horizontal Wood Panel Fence

Wood Picket Fence

Wrought Iron Gate with Stone Wall

Wood Panel Fence and Chain Link Fence

25

Chapter 2 | Environmental Setting

Building Position on Slope The landform within the neighborhood study area slopes from a high in the northeast towards a low in the west. However, the topography within the neighborhood is extremely varied and includes steep slopes along the western boundary (providing more access to ocean views), more gradual slopes along the southern and eastern boundaries (providing no access to ocean views), and mounded areas within the proposed development area and adjacent property (858 Hymettus Avenue). Leucadia Boulevard slopes dramatically from the east to the west while Hymettus Avenue has a gradual slope down towards Fulvia Street.

56%

OF HOUSES ARE AT STREET GRADE

The position of each property in relation to the existing landform can be grouped into four categories: ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■

House at Street Grade (56%) House at Bottom of Slope (36%) House at Top of Slope (4%) House Built Into Slope (4%)

The designation for each property can be seen in Figure 2-14. The properties along Hymettus Avenue are built on relatively flat lots located at street grade. These properties do not have access to ocean views due to the mounded nature of the parcels to the west. In contrast, most of these houses along Fulvia Street have ocean views from their second stories due to the sloping topography. In order to account for the grade change within the sites, most of these houses sit below street level with the exception of 345 Fulvia Street, which provides first-floor access at the same grade as the roadway.

Although the house at 858 Hymettus Avenue is built at street grade, the western portion of the site has a steep slope down towards Fulvia Street. Similarly, the property at 898 Hymettus Avenue has a steep slope at the edge of the property to Leucadia Boulevard at well as towards the property to the west.

26

House Built at Bottom of Slope

House Built at Street Grade

House Built on Top of Slope

House Built into Slope

Community Character Study | Hymettus Estates

Figure 2-14: Building Position on Slope

316

e venu ttus A Hyme

898

885

ard oulev dia B a c u Le

837 835

857

829 827

853

329 327

849

858

879

335 333

enue ia Av Hyge

819

345 349

807

353 359

LEGEND House on Level Ground House at Bottom of Slope

835

829

t Stree Fulvia

365 405 375

379

419

385

House at Top of Slope House Built Into Slope Neighborhood Study Area

27

Chapter 2 | Environmental Setting

Landscaping & Vegetation Landscaping varies from lot to lot but can be categorized into the following categories:

28%

OF HOUSES HAVE FOUNDATION SHRUBS AND LAWN

28

■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■

Foundation Shrubs and Lawn (28%) Tropical Gardens with Lawns (24%) Southern California Native / Succulent Garden (16%) Tropical Gardens with Succulents (16%) Remnant Orchard (16%)

Landscaping and vegetation throughout the neighborhood study area is extremely dense. In most cases, vegetation is located throughout the property and along the front property line, creating a wall of dense vegetation along Hymettus Avenue and Fulvia Street. 16% of the lots include plantings that reflect the orchard history within the area (avocado trees) while (40%) utilize tropical gardens that reflect the typical Southern California landscape. Due to the varied nature of plantings in the neighborhood, there is no single dominant vegetation palette. The variety of vegetation palettes can be seen in Figure 2-15.

Remnant Orchard or Farm Lot

Remnant Orchard on Residential Lot

Southern California Native / Succulent Garden

Foundation Shrubs and Lawn

Tropical Gardens with Lawns

Tropical Gardens with Succulents

Community Character Study | Hymettus Estates

Figure 2-15: Landscaping and Vegetation

316

e venu ttus A Hyme

898

885 evard Boul adia Leuc

837 835

857

829 827

853

329 327

849

858

879

335 333

enue ia Av Hyge

819

345 349

807

353

t Stree Fulvia

359

LEGEND Remnant Orchard Southern California Native / Succulent Garden Foundation Shrubs and Lawn

835

829

365 405 375

379

419

385

Tropical Gardens with Lawns Tropical Gardens with Succulents Neighborhood Study Area

29

Chapter 2 | Environmental Setting

2.4.3 Architectural Character Building Height As shown in Figure 2-16, the building heights within the neighborhood can be divided into three categories:

52%

■■ One-Story (52%) ■■ Two-Story (40%) ■■ Split-Level (8%)

OF HOUSES ARE ONE-STORY

There is a clear delineation between one-story and two-story homes in the neighborhood study area.

All one-story buildings are located in the eastern portion of the neighborhood while all two-story and split-level houses are located in the western portion of the neighborhood. The two-story and splitlevel homes have access to ocean views from their second stories due to the additional height and the sloping topography to the west.

Figure 2-16: Building Height

316

e venu ttus A Hyme

898

885 ard oulev dia B a c u Le

837 835

857

829 827

853

329 327

849

858

879

335 333

835

829

enue ia Av Hyge

819

345 349

807

353 359

t Stree Fulvia

365 405

LEGEND Two-Story One-Story Split Level Neighborhood Study Area

30

375

379

385

419

Community Character Study | Hymettus Estates

Roof Form The roof form for each structure can be seen in Figure 2-17. This analysis takes into account the roof form of the house as well as the roof form for the detached garages that can be seen from the rightof-way. Roof styles can be divided into the following categories: ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■

33%

Cross Gable (33%) Simple Gable (30%) Gable & Hip (13%) Flat or Parapet (13%) Lean-To (7%) Hip (4%)

OF HOUSES HAVE A CROSS GABLE ROOF

The majority of structures in the neighborhood (63%) utilize either a simple gable roof or a cross gable roof (two or more gables that intersect). Another 13% of structures include a gable and hip combination. The remaining roof types within the neighborhood are split between flat, lean-to, and hip roofs. These roof forms are dispersed throughout the neighborhood with no definitive pattern. As a result, there is no dominant roof form within the neighborhood study area.

Figure 2-17: Roof Form

316

e venu ttus A Hyme

898

885

evard Boul adia Leuc 837 835

857

829 827

853

329 327

849

858

879

335 333

enue ia Av Hyge

LEGEND Simple Gable Multiple Gable Hipped Gable & Hip

835

829

819

345 349

807

353

t Stree Fulvia

359

365 405 375

379

419

385

Flat or Parapet Lean-To Neighborhood Study Area

31

Chapter 2 | Environmental Setting

Roof Materials Roof materials can be divided into the following categories:

56%

OF HOUSES HAVE AN ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF

32

■■ ■■ ■■ ■■

Asphalt shingle (56%) Wood shingle/Faux Wood Tile (20%) Clay tile (16%) Asphalt Membrane (8%)

As seen in Figure 2-18, the majority of roofs (56%) in the neighborhood are made of asphalt shingles.

Five of the houses (20%) utilize a heavier wood or faux wood shingle. Both of the flat roofs utilize an asphalt membrane. The remaining houses (16%) incorporate a more spanish style by using clay tile.

Single Gable, Asphalt Shingle Roof

Gable & Hip, Faux Wood Shingle Roof

Clay Tile, Conical Roof with Multiple Gables

Multiple Gable, Asphalt Shingle Roof

Flat, Asphalt Membrane Roof

Lean-To, Faux Wood Tile Roof

Community Character Study | Hymettus Estates

Figure 2-18: Roof Material

316

e venu ttus A Hyme

898

885 evard Boul adia Leuc

837 835

857

829 827

853

329 327

849

858

879

335 333

enue ia Av Hyge

819

345 349

807

353

t Stree Fulvia

359

LEGEND Asphalt Shingle

365 405

Clay Tile Wood Shingle / Faux Wood Tile

835

829

375

379

419

385

Asphalt Membrane Combination Clay Tile, Asphalt Membrane and Asphalt Shingle Neighborhood Study Area

33

Chapter 2 | Environmental Setting

Siding Materials The siding materials used throughout the neighborhood can be grouped into four categories:

47%

OF HOUSES USE STUCCO SIDING

■■ ■■ ■■ ■■

Stucco (47%) Wood (39%) Brick/Stone (11%) Tile (3%)

Although the predominant siding materials are stucco and wood, several of the houses also incorporate brick, stone and tile detailing. These secondary materials are indicated in Figure 2-19 by the dot on top of the building footprint.

34

Wood Siding with Stucco Base

Stucco Siding with Tile Accents

Wood Siding with Brick Accents

Stone Siding with Wood Accents

Community Character Study | Hymettus Estates

Figure 2-19: Siding Material

316

e venu ttus A Hyme

898

885 evard Boul adia Leuc

837 835

857

829 827

853

329 327

849

858

879

335 333

enue ia Av Hyge

819

345 349

807

353

t Stree Fulvia

359

LEGEND

365

Stucco Wood Brick/Stone

835

829

405 375

379

419

385

Tile Secondary Style Neighborhood Study Area

35

Chapter 2 | Environmental Setting

Building Color Each house in the neighborhood has a unique set of colors for the body, trim, garage door, and front door that work together to create an overall color scheme for the house. However, for the purposes of this study, the main body color of the house is used to categorize each house into one of the following:

48%

■■ Earth Tones - Green, Brown, Beige, & Rust (48%) ■■ White, Off-White (44%) ■■ Muted Colors, Warm or Cool Gray, Pastels (8%)

OF HOUSES HAVE AN EARTH TONE AS THE MAIN COLOR

As seen in Figure 3-17, the color of the houses are split fairly evenly between earth tones and white/ off-white. Each house has a unique body color and accent materials/colors that set them apart from one another. As a result, there is no dominant color scheme used within the existing neighborhood study area. However, despite the variety in color, all of the houses in the existing neighborhood have a relatively neutral color.

Figure 2-20: Building Color

316

e venu ttus A Hyme

898

885 evard Boul adia c u e L

837 835

857

829 827

853

329 327

849

858

879

335 333

835

829

enue ia Av Hyge

819

345 349

807

353

t Stree Fulvia

359

365 405

LEGEND Earth Tones (Brown, Green) White/ Off-White/ Cream Pastels Neighborhood Study Area

36

375

379

385

419

Community Character Study | Hymettus Estates

Window Style The window styles throughout the neighborhood can be divided into the following categories: ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■

Sliding (44%) Fixed Glass (22%) Single or Double Hung (13%) Casement (9%) Clerestory (9%) Bay (3%)

44%

OF HOUSES HAVE SLIDING WINDOWS

Several of the houses incorporate two different window types, therefore, the primary and secondary window styles have been documented and can be seen in Figure 2-21. The majority of houses (66%) utilize either a sliding glass window or fixed-glass window. Two of the houses have a small amount of window space facing the street and use only clerestory windows.

Window placement, size and styles vary throughout the neighborhood. As a result, there is no character defining window style within the existing neighborhood.

Figure 2-21: Window Style

898

316

885

837 835

857

829 827

853

329 327

849

858

879

335 333

819

345 349

807

353

LEGEND Metal Sliding Fixed Glass Single or Double Hung Casement

835

829

359

365 405 375

379

419

385

Transom Secondary Style Neighborhood Study Area

37

Chapter 2 | Environmental Setting

Garage Placement Garage placement can greatly impact the character of a neighborhood. Front-loaded, extended garages highlight the garage as the main feature of the house, while recessed and side-loaded garages help bring more attention to the entryway and other architectural features of the house.

Garage placement within the neighborhood varies greatly, but can be organized into five categories:

41%

■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■

OF HOUSES HAVE ATTACHED, FRONTLOADED, EXTENDED GARAGES

Attached, front-loaded, extended (41%) Attached, front-loaded, recessed (20%) Attached, side-loaded (13%) Detached, front-loaded (13%) Detached, side-loaded (13%)

As seen in Figure 2-22, the majority of houses within the neighborhood (64%) have attached, frontloaded garages. For these properties, as mentioned above, the garages dominate the front elevation of the house. The detached and side-loaded garages are used by approximately one-third of the houses; these houses are much easier to see from the roadway and add more visual character to the neighborhood. The house located along Leucadia Boulevard is the only house in the neighborhood without a garage due to the steep topology and limited space within the lot.

Figure 2-22: Garage Placement

316

e venu ttus A Hyme

898

885

evard Boul adia c u e L

837 835

857

829 827

853

329 327

849

858

879

335 333

enue ia Av Hyge

LEGEND Attached Front Loaded Extended

Attached Front Loaded Recessed Attached Side-Loaded Detached Front-Loaded Detached Side-Loaded None Cars Per Garage Neighborhood Study Area

38

835

829

819

345 349

807

353 359

t Stree Fulvia

365 405 375

379

385

419

Community Character Study | Hymettus Estates

Table 2-1: Site Development Characteristics Building Location

Lot Shape

Driveway Material Gravel or Dirt

Concrete with Brick Accents Decorative Concrete or Brick

Standard Concrete

Asphalt

Circular

Wider than Garage

Same width as Garage

Recessed

Center of Lot

Close to Street

Setback (Feet)

Flag

Lot Building Footprint Coverage (%) (Sq. Ft.)

Irregular

Lot Size (Sq. Ft.)

Rectangular

Address

Driveway Layout

WEST 316 837 & 835 829 & 827 329 & 327 335 & 333 345 349 & 353 359 365 375 WEST PERCENTAGE OR AVERAGE*

9,514

2,153

23%

4



9,816

2,260

23%

10



6,266

2,227

36%

14



7,357

3,400

46%

18





7,808

2,274

29%

16





 



 

2,364

19%

26





38%

28







9,078

2,051

23%

28













2,838

30%

25

3,745

27%

16

9,590*

2,697*

29%*

19*

14,477

3,117

22%

32

21,186

4,040

19%

56



17,832*

3,579*

21%*

44*

50% 50% 0%







3,662

9,695

 

9,554

14,038





12,769





No Garage





   



60% 40% 0% 30% 70% 0% 70% 20% 0% 60% 10% 0% 30% 0%

SOUTH 379 385 SOUTH PERCENTAGE OR AVERAGE*





 







0% 50% 50% 0% 100% 0%

0% 50% 50% 0%

0%

EAST 405 419 807 819 829 835 849 879 853 857 EAST PERCENTAGE OR AVERAGE*

11,383

1,607

14%

17







7,213

2,907

40%

23







10,151

3,558

35%

11





9,054

2,650

29%

19







  







9,196

3,148

34%

18

11,261

3,090

27%

3







19,869

3,129

15%

19







10,502 14,634 14,660

2,241 1,874 2,780

21% 13% 19%

38 16 18





11,792*

2,698*

25%*

18*

71,188

5,290

7%

95

62,410

3,420

5%

40

27,946

3,490

12.5%

20

53,848*

4,067*

8%*

52*

411,025

72,169

N/A

N/A

15

16,441*

2,933*

24%*

24.4*

60% 28% 12% 32% 64% 4% 50% 42% 8% 44% 24% 12% 12% 8%



 



 

  

 



 



70% 0% 30% 40% 60% 0% 40% 50% 10% 50% 10% 20% 0% 20%

NORTH 858 898 885 NORTH PERCENTAGE OR AVERAGE*

Total # Percentage or Average*

























33% 67% 0% 33% 67% 0% 33% 33% 33% 0% 100% 0%

7

3

8

16

1

12

10

2

11

6

3

0%

0%

3

2

39

Chapter 2 | Environmental Setting

Table 2-2: Landform Characteristics Landscape Type

House Built into Slope

House Built at Bottom of Slope

House Built on Top of Slope

House on Level Ground

None

Wood Picket

Wire

Wrought Iron



Chain link

Wood Panel



Brick/Stone

Tropical Gardens with Succulents

Tropical Gardens with Lawns

Foundation Shrubs and Lawn

Southern California Native/ Succulent Garden

Remnant Orchard

Address

Building Position on Landform

Fencing

WEST 316 837 & 835 829 & 827 329 & 327 335 & 333 345 349 & 353 359 365 375 WEST TOTAL

 



  

 











  





 

 10%

20%

30%





 0%





 40%

60%

 10%

0%

0%

0%

10%

20%

0%

10%

80%

10%

SOUTH 379 385 SOUTH TOTAL





 0%

0%

0%

100%

0%

33%

 



33%

33%

 0%

0%

0%

0%

50%

0%

50%

0%

0%

0%

0%

EAST 405 419 807 819 829 835 849 879 853 857 EAST TOTAL













   





















  30%

  



 20%





 40%

10%

0%

60%

10%

10%

10%

10%

0%

0%

100%

NORTH 858 898 885 NORTH TOTAL

Total # Percentage

40







 









67%

0%

33%

0%

0%

0%

33%

67%

0%

0%

0%

0%

100%

0%

0%

0%

4

4

7

6

4

13

4

4

1

1

1

2

14

1

9

1

16%

16%

28%

24%

16%

52%

14%

14%

4%

4%

4%

8%

56%

4%

36%

4%

Two-Story

Split Level 

Hip 

100% 0%

  





Total # Percentage

10

























2

9

0%

0%

10

1

4

4





2

14

4

0% 100% 0%







0% 50% 50% 0%





5

0%

52% 40% 8% 30% 33% 4% 13% 13% 7% 56% 16% 20%

13

 





 





  













 













0% 50% 50% 0%



 



 





















 





















0% 100% 0%













































0% 0% 33% 0% 67% 0% 0% 50%







0%







0%

0%







0%

17

14

4

1

12

11

0% 100% 0%









4

16

4

7

1

4

1

0% 0% 67% 33% 0% 0% 0%





10

0%

5

33%



3

0%



0%

3

3

33% 33%



 50%

8% 47% 39% 11% 3% 44% 41% 15% 44% 22% 13% 9% 9% 3% 41% 20% 13% 13% 13%

2

0% 75% 25% 0%









11% 11%

No Garage

8% 30% 50% 20% 53% 8% 8% 8% 23% 0% 56% 22%







Garage Placement

0% 10% 60% 0% 20% 10% 0% 60% 20% 10% 10% 53% 29% 18% 0% 30% 70% 0% 54% 23% 15% 0% 0% 8% 40% 20% 30% 10%





 













858  898  885  NORTH TOTAL 100% 0%

NORTH

405 419 807 819 829 835 849 879 853 857 EAST TOTAL



379    385     SOUTH TOTAL 0% 100% 0% 0% 50% 50% 0% 0% 0% 50% 50% 0%

EAST



0% 17% 25% 17% 40% 10% 40% 10% 30% 54% 8%







Brick/Stone





Lean-To



Clay Tile 







Dark







Fixed Glass









Casement





  



Clerestory



Cross Gable 

Flat or Parapet 

Stucco



Tile



Light



 



Window Style Bay

0% 80% 20% 33% 8%

One-Story  

Medium 

Sliding



Wood 

Building Color Single or Double Hung



Asphalt Shingle  

Asphalt Membrane Wood Shingle/ Faux Wood 

Siding Material Attached FrontLoaded Extended



Simple Gable

 

Gable & Hip 

Roof Material Attached FrontLoaded Recessed

 



Roof Form Detached SideLoaded Detached FrontLoaded Attached SideLoaded

SOUTH

316 837 & 835 829 & 827 329 & 327 335 & 333 345 349 & 353 359 365 375 WEST TOTAL

WEST

Address

Building Height

Community Character Study | Hymettus Estates

Table 2-3: Architectural Characteristics

41

Chapter 2 | Environmental Setting

2.4.4   Right-Of-Way Character The neighborhood study area includes three roadways: Fulvia Street, and Hymettus Avenue, and Leucadia Boulevard. The following information provides an overview of existing conditions along each roadway.

Leucadia Boulevard Leucadia Boulevard has the highest level of service of the three roads in the neighborhood study area. As one of the only east-west connectors in the Leucadia community, this street serves as a major thoroughfare and is heavily traveled throughout the day. In addition, this street is designated as a scenic highway/visual corridor due to the numerous ocean views available when traveling west along the road.

Leucadia Boulevard has one travel lane in each direction and a center turn lane. It also includes Class II bike lanes in both directions. Sidewalk facilities are available on the north side of the street, however, lighting is only provided near the round-about at the intersection with Hymettus Avenue.

Median streetscaping elements are incorporated into the roundabout but do not continue along the remaining portion of the street.

Dense landscaping, screening, and fencing is provided down the length of Leucadia Boulevard making the proposed development site unlikely to have a significant impact on the view from the roadway.

Ocean Views Looking West

Bike Facilities

Roundabout at Hymettus Avenue

View to the East

Fulvia Street Fulvia Street is a narrow two-lane roadway and does not include any amenities such as sidewalks, lighting, or bike lanes. At-grade driveways are located down the entire length of the road on the south side of the street; there is only one existing driveway along the north side of the street into the proposed development site.

42

Community Character Study | Hymettus Estates

Landscaping along the roadway is very dense on the south side and in most cases comes directly to the edge of the roadway. Curb treatments along the south side vary for each property and include rolled curbs, asphalt surface (walkway or parking area), gravel edge, and typical concrete curb.

Landscaping along the north side is less dense and includes only groundcover. There are no curb treatments along the north side of the street.

View to the East

Edge Treatment

View to the West

Landscaping Elements

Hymettus Avenue Hymettus Avenue is similar to Fulvia Street with only two narrow lanes and no amenities for pedestrians or cyclists (sidewalks, lighting, or bike lanes). Neither side of the street includes curb treatments. The typical street treatment incorporates only natural soil or gravel shoulders. The landscaping along the east said of the street is very dense and comes up to the edge of the roadway. Landscaping along the west side of the roadway to the south is much less dense with only groundcover and natural soil; areas to the north include denser landscaping and mature trees. Driveways are located down the entire length of the east side of the street with only two driveways along the west side into the proposed development site.

View to the South

View to the North

43

Chapter 2 | Environmental Setting

This page intentionally left blank

44

3

PROPOSED PROJECT CHARACTER

Chapter 3 | Proposed Project Character

This page intentionally left blank

46

Community Character Study | Hymettus Estates

3.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW

The proposed project includes nine single-family residences; eight two-story units and one-single story unit. The site is zoned R-3 residential, permitting a maximum of three single-family dwelling units per acre. Due to a density bonus granted by the city for inclusion of one affordable unit, the development will include an additional three units, for a total of nine. Seven of the lots front the street and two of the lots are internally located. The internal lots are accessed by a private driveway off of Hymettus Avenue. The project also includes a 0.08-acre private easement on the northwestern corner of Lot 1 for a bioretention basin. The proposed project maintains the general mounded shape of the site, however, some regarding will be required to accommodate the new houses. The new topography includes a large slope and masonry retaining walls between the units on the east and west sides of the site. Figure 1-1 and Figure 1-2 show a comparison of the existing landform mass with the proposed landform grading necessary to make the proposed project lots fit the site.

Each residence is centrally located on its lot and includes a front yard setback of at least 19 feet. Lots range in size from 6,227 to 18,813 square feet and housing units range in size from 3,360 to 4,715 square feet. The general layout, form of the parcels, and building orientation within these parcels is shown on Figure 3-1 through Figure 3-4.

Each unit includes a two-car garage, while an additional eight parking spaces are provided along the right-of-way on Hymettus Avenue and Fulvia Street. All driveways and parking areas utilize permeable concrete pavers. Fencing for each unit includes wood panel fencing (at a height of either five or six feet) and aluminum tubular fencing (at a height of five feet). Landscaping elements include three species of trees, four species of shrubs, four species of groundcover, and nine species of bioretention plantings. Landscaping elements are provided around the perimeter of each lot with lawn in the remaining portions of the site. Bioretention areas and plantings are placed along the rights-of-way on Fulvia Street and Hymettus Avenue.

The architectural forms of the project, building materials, and colors are displayed in the elevations in Figure 3-5 through Figure 3-13. Lot layout, topography, and landscape treatments are displayed in Figure 3-1 through Figure 3-4. Figure 3-1 through Figure 3-4 are included to assist the reader in understanding the proposed project, although they should not be used for assessing or determining character. The high viewing elevation used to generate the obliques will never be seen by viewers in the area and the distance from the project obscures many important details. The simulations in Chapter 4 include actual viewing locations and viewing distances appropriate for assessing contrast and identifying potential character impacts.

47

Chapter 3 | Proposed Project Character

Figure 3-1: Aerial Views of Proposed Project Looking North

me

Hy s ttu ue

en Av

Fulvia Str e

et

Figure 3-2: Aerial Views of Proposed Project Looking East Hymettus Avenue

via Ful

48

t

e Stre

Community Character Study | Hymettus Estates

Figure 3-3: Aerial Views of Proposed Project Looking South

Av en ue

Fu lv

ia

Str e

Hy

me ttu s

et

Figure 3-4: Aerial Views of Proposed Project Looking West

et

tre aS

vi

l Fu

Hymettus Avenue

49

Chapter 3 | Proposed Project Character

Figure 3-5: Elevation of Lot 1

Figure 3-6: Elevations of Lot 3

Figure 3-7: Elevation of Lot 2

Figure 3-8: Elevation of Lot 4

50

Figure 3-9: Elevation of Lot 5

Community Character Study | Hymettus Estates

Figure 3-11: Elevation of Lot 6

Figure 3-10: Elevation of Lot 7

Figure 3-12: Elevation of Lot 8

Figure 3-13: Elevation of Lot 9

51

Chapter 3 | Proposed Project Character

3.2 PROJECT CHARACTER

This chapter compares the character of the existing neighborhood (inventoried in Chapter 2) with the character of the proposed project. The characteristics of the proposed development are divided into the same categories as the existing neighborhood character inventory in Chapter 2: ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■

Site Development Site Features Architectural Character Public Right-of-Way

The table included with each design element compares the visual assessment units (defined in Chapter 2) with the overall neighborhood study area and the proposed development. The cells with gray fill color indicate the most prevalent feature within each area.

3.2.1 Site Development Character Lot Size The average lot size for the proposed development is 35% smaller than the average lot size for the existing neighborhood. However, this discrepancy can be attributed to the large lot sizes within the north visual assessment unit. When excluding the properties in the north visual assessment unit, the remaining 88% of the properties in the existing neighborhood have an average lot size of 11,340 square feet­—just 5% larger than the average size of the proposed lots.

It should also be noted that the lot at 898 Hymettus Avenue is actually three separate parcels.

However, for this study they have been combined into one larger parcel because they are under the same ownership and include only one house. The average lot size for the existing neighborhood decreases to 15,222 square feet, or 29% larger than the proposed development, when separating these lots.

When assessing each visual assessment unit individually, the average lot size for the proposed development is comparable to the existing west (9,590 square feet) and east (11,792 square feet) visual assessment units, which collectively represent 75% of the housing units within the neighborhood study area.

Lot sizes for the existing neighborhood and proposed development can be seen in Figure 3-14 and Table 3-1.

Table 3-1: Lot Size Visual Assessment Units

52

Average Lot Size (Sq. Ft.)

North

53,848

East

11,792

South

17,832

West

9,590

Existing Neighborhood

16,441

Proposed Development

10,730

Community Character Study | Hymettus Estates

Figure 3-14: Lot Size and Shape e venu ttus A Hyme

NORTH EAST

62,410

PROPOSED SITE

WEST

9,514

27,946

SOUTH

evard Boul adia c u e L

Key Map: Visual Assessment Units

14,660

9,816 14,634 6,266

71,188

19,869

7,357 8,823

7,808 18,813

11,143

enue ia Av Hyge

1,351 Lot Size (Sq.Ft.)

8,886

12,769 9,053

11,831

11,261

9,196 9,054 10,151

9,554

8,106 9,078

LEGEND

10,502

6,227

13,685 t Stree Fulvia

9,695

Rectangular Lot LEGEND Size (Sq.Ft.) 1,351 Lot Irregular Lot

14,038

11,383 14,477

7,213

21,168

Rectangular Lot Flag Lot Irregular ProposedLot Project Boundary Flagpole Lot Study Area Neighborhood

Lot Shape

Lot Shape Rectangular

Irregular

Flagpole

The majority of lots within the proposed development are irregularly shaped due to the curvilinear shape of the parcel. In contrast, the majority of lots within the existing neighborhood are rectangular in shape. However, the proposed development provides a mix of lot shapes (rectangular, irregular, and flag lots) which matches the variety present in of the existing neighborhood. Additionally, the proportion of flag lots within the existing neighborhood and proposed development is similar, and the proportion of irregularly shaped lots within the north visual assessment unit is the same as the proposed development.

Lot shapes for the existing neighborhood and proposed development can be seen in Figure 3-14 and Table 3-2.

Table 3-2: Lot Shape

North

33%

67%

0%

East

70%

0%

30%

South

50%

50%

0%

West

60%

40%

0%

Existing Neighborhood

60%

28%

12%

Proposed Development

22%

67%

11%

Visual Assessment Units

53

Chapter 3 | Proposed Project Character

Table 3-3: Lot Coverage

Lot Coverage Lot coverage for the proposed development (29%) is slightly higher than lot coverage for the entire neighborhood (24%).

The lot coverage in the west (29%), south (21%), and east (25%) visual assessment units, which make up the majority of houses in the existing neighborhood, are also consistent with the proposed development. Due to the large size of the parcels in the north visual assessment unit, the lot coverage percentage is much lower than the remainder of the visual assessment units (8%). Lot coverage for the existing neighborhood and proposed development can be seen in Figure 3-15 and Table 3-3.

Visual Assessment Units

Lot Coverage (%)

North

8%

East

25%

South

21%

West

29%

Existing Neighborhood

24%

Proposed Development

29%

Figure 3-15: Lot Coverage

e venu ttus A Hyme

NORTH EAST

898

PROPOSED SITE WEST

316 5%

23%

SOUTH

12.5%

885

evard Boul adia Leuc 19%

Key Map: Visual Assessment Units 837 835

23% 13%

829 827

36%

329 327

36%

849

Lot 8

335 29% 13%

19%

enue ia Av Hyge

345

32%

28% Lot 7

Lot 1

38%

Lot 9

879

30%

21%

34%

34%

32%

349

23%

353

Lot 3 34%

30%

30%

LEGEND #% Lot Coverage #%

Lot Coverage Proposed Project Boundary

Building Footprint ## SF Neighborhood Study Area

54

819

807 t Stree Fulvia

14% 22%

375

29%

35%

Lot 4

27%

365

27% 835

829

28% Lot 6

Lot 5

Lot 2

359

LEGEND

15%

858

333

857

853

7%

405 19%

379

385

40% 419

Community Character Study | Hymettus Estates

Table 3-4: Building Footprint

Building Footprint The average size building footprint for the existing neighborhood study area is consistent with the proposed development, with only a 34 square foot or 1% difference between the two. The average building footprint size for the proposed development is only 8% larger than both the east and west visual assessment units, which encompass the majority of houses in the existing neighborhood. The north and south visual assessment units have average building footprints that are significantly larger than the proposed development - 39% larger for the north and 22.5% larger for the south. These differences in building footprint size are mitigated by the dense landscaping along the lot frontages.

Average building footprint sizes in the existing neighborhood and proposed development can be seen in Figure 3-16 and Table 3-4.

Building Footprint (Sq. Ft.)

Visual Assessment Units North

4,067

East

2,698

South

3,579

West

2,697

Existing Neighborhood

2,887

Proposed Development

2,921

Figure 3-16: Building Footprint

e venu ttus A Hyme

NORTH EAST

898

PROPOSED SITE WEST

2,153 SF 316

3,490 SF

885

3,420 SF SOUTH

evard Boul adia Leuc

Key Map: Visual Assessment Units 2,260 SF 837 835 829 827

853

5,290 SF

3,400 SF

335

2,274 SF

Lot 8 2,823 SF 2,445 SF

2,364 SF

Lot 7

enue ia Av Hyge

Lot 2 3,785 SF

3,662 SF 349 353

2,051 SF

879

1,868 SF Lot 9

3,120 SF

Lot 1

345

3,129 SF 849

858

333

2,241 SF

2,756 SF

807

Lot 4 4,105 SF

2,838 SF

t Stree Fulvia

1,607 SF

365 3,117 SF 375 3,745 SF

379

405 385

835

819 2,650 SF 3,558 SF

2,897 SF Lot 5

Lot 3

3,090 SF

829 3,148 SF

2,488 SF Lot 6

359

LEGEND

857

1,874 SF

2,227 SF

329 327

2,780 SF

2,907 SF 419

4,040 SF

## SF Building Size

Proposed Project Boundary Neighborhood Study Area

55

Chapter 3 | Proposed Project Character

Table 3-5: Setbacks

Setbacks The 21-foot average front yard setback in the proposed development is slightly smaller, but still consistent with the 24.4foot average front yard setback in the existing neighborhood.

Similarly, the average setback for the proposed development is consistent with the average setback in the west visual assessment unit at 19 feet and in the east visual assessment unit at 18 feet.

Setback (Feet)

Visual Assessment Units

The south and north visual assessment units, which include only 5 of the 25 houses within the neighborhood study area, have significantly larger setbacks than the proposed development due to the large size of the lots. These lots include remnant farm lots, which are set farther back from the street than typical houses.

However, the dense landscaping throughout the neighborhood, which creates a “street wall” along the right-of-way, changes the perception of the distance between the street and the house.

Average setbacks for the existing neighborhood and proposed development can be seen in Figure 3-17 and Table 3-5.

North

52

East

18

South

44

West

19

Existing Neighborhood

24.4

Proposed Development

21

Figure 3-17: Setbacks

e venu ttus A Hyme

NORTH EAST

898

40’

PROPOSED SITE WEST

316

SOUTH

885

20’

4’ ard oulev dia B a c u Le

Key Map: Visual Assessment Units

10’ 14’ 14’ 22’

837 835

58’

829 827 329 327

18’

18’

95’

858

16’

19’ 19’

333

26’

Lot 7

Lot 1

enue ia Av Hyge

25’ 28’

345 349

359

25’

Lot 3

879

25’ 18’

Lot 5

Lot 2

28’

353

Lot 6

Lot 4

16’ 25’

32’ 10’ 56’ 14’

25’ 19’ 11’

13’

Setback Distance Existing Setback Distance Proposed Project Project Boundary LEGEND Setback Distance Neighborhood Study Area

56

375

379

385

835

819

807 t Stree Fulvia

17’ LEGEND

3’

829

25’ 365

849

19’

19’ 38’

Lot 9

Lot 8

335

857

853

16’

405

23’ 419

Community Character Study | Hymettus Estates

Table 3-6: Building Location

Building Location

Building Location Closer to Front Property Line

Centered Between Property Lines

Closer to Rear Property Line

Due to the limited size of the proposed development area and necessary setback allowances, all of the houses are centrally located within each of the proposed lots. Similarly, the existing neighborhood, and each of the visual assessment units also have the majority of houses located on the center of the lot. The south visual assessment unit, containing only two properties along Fulvia Street (379 & 385) is split evenly with one building located on the center of the lot and one building located closer to the rear property line. The building positions for the existing neighborhood and proposed development can be seen in Figure 3-17 and Table 3-5.

North

33%

67%

0%

Visual Assessment Units East

40%

60%

0%

South

0%

50%

50%

West

30%

70%

0%

Existing Neighborhood

32%

64%

4%

Proposed Development

0%

100%

0%

Figure 3-18: Building Location

e venu ttus A Hyme

NORTH EAST

898

PROPOSED SITE WEST

316

885

SOUTH

evard Boul adia Leuc

Key Map: Visual Assessment Units 837 835

857

829 827

853

329 327

849

858 Lot 9

Lot 8

335

879

333 Lot 7

Lot 1

Lot 6

enue ia Av Hyge

819

345

Lot 5

Lot 2 349 353

Lot 3

Lot 4

359

Building Position Close To Street Center of Lot

835

829

807 t Stree Fulvia

365 405 375

379

419

385

Recessed

LEGEND

Proposed Project Boundary Center of Lot Study Area Neighborhood

57

Chapter 3 | Proposed Project Character

Driveway Layout The proposed development consists of seven lots accessed directly from Fulvia Street and Hymettus Avenue and two flag lots accessed from a private access easement off of Hymettus Avenue. The lots with direct access (78%) have a driveway that is the same width as the garage, while the flag lots (22%) have driveways that are wider than the garage. This pattern is consistent with the west visual assessment unit and similar to the existing neighborhood, which has a majority of driveways that are the same width as the garage.

Although the remaining visual assessment units are divided between the three categories differently, the dense landscaping throughout the existing neighborhood minimizes the perception of the differences between the various driveway layouts. In addition, the proposed development is reducing the number of driveway access points by not using circular driveways, Similar to the existing neighborhood, the proposed development includes eight street-adjacent parking spaces. However, the parking spaces provided in the existing neighborhood vary in material from asphalt to decorative pavers. The proposed development uses the consistent porous paving material for all street-adjacent parking spaces. The driveway layouts used in the existing neighborhood and proposed development can be seen in Figure 3-19 and Table 3-7.

Table 3-7: Driveway Layout Driveway Layout Same width as garage

Wider than garage

Circular

33%

33%

33%

40%

50%

10%

0%

100%

0%

70%

20%

0%

Existing Neighborhood

50%

42%

8%

Proposed Development

78%

22%

0%

Visual Assessment Units

58

North East South West

Community Character Study | Hymettus Estates

Figure 3-19: Driveway Layout & Materials

e venu ttus A Hyme

NORTH S

EAST

898

PROPOSED SITE WEST

316

C

885

SOUTH

evard Boul adia Leuc

Key Map: Visual Assessment Units

W

837 S 835

329 327

853 858

S

333 S

C

Circular

W

Wider Than Garage Additional Parking Spaces

Driveway Material Standard Concrete Asphalt

Lot 7

Lot 1

enue ia Av Hyge

Same or Narrower Than Garage

W

Lot 9

835

829

Lot 6

C S

819

Lot 5

Lot 2 349

W

S

S

345

879

W

W

LEGEND

849

S

Lot 8

335

S

W

W

W

Driveway (& Parking) Layout

857

S

829 S 827

S

S S

353

Lot 3

S

359

Lot 4

S

W

S

t Stree Fulvia

S

S

S

365

W

LEGEND

Decorative Concrete or Brick Driveway Material Concrete with Brick Accents Permeable Pavers

807

375

W

379

W

419

405

385

Gravel or Dirt Driveway Layout S

Permeable Pavers Same or Narrower Than Garage

W

Project Site Garage Boundary Wider Than

Driveway Materials

Driveway Material Asphalt

Standard Concrete

Decorative Concrete or Brick

Concrete with Brick Accents

Gravel or Dirt

Permeable Pavers

The proposed development uses the same permeable concrete pavers for every driveway. In contrast, the existing neighborhood uses a variety of driveway materials as seen in Figure 3-6. None of the properties in the existing neighborhood study area use the same permeable driveway concrete paver used by the proposed development. Although several of the houses within the existing neighborhood use some type of decorative concrete or brick paver, the style and color of pavers used vary from house to house. Due to the lack of variety in driveway materials for the proposed development, the driveway material for the proposed development is not consistent with the existing neighborhood.

The driveway materials used within the existing neighborhood and proposed development can be seen in Figure 3-19 and Table 3-8.

Table 3-8: Driveway Materials

North

0%

100%

0%

0%

0%

0%

East

50%

10%

20%

0%

20%

0%

South

0%

50%

50%

0%

0%

0%

West

60%

10%

0%

30%

0%

0%

Existing Neighborhood

44%

24%

12%

12%

8%

0%

Proposed Development

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

100%

Visual Assessment Units

59

Chapter 3 | Proposed Project Character

3.2.2 Site Features Character

Table 3-9: Fencing

Fencing

Fencing Wrought Iron

Wire

Wood Picket

None

Aluminum Tubular

Chain link

Brick/Stone

Wood Panel

The proposed development uses predominantly one fencing material, a wood panel fence that transitions between 5’ and 6’ high, throughout the development. The remaining 25% of the proposed development uses a 5’ high taupe aluminum tubular fence.

North

0% 33% 67% 0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

East

60% 10% 10% 10% 10% 0%

0%

0%

South

33% 33% 33% 0%

0%

0%

0%

West

60% 10% 0%

0% 10% 20% 0%

Visual Assessment Units

Although the existing neighborhood and most of the visual assessment units use wood panels as the predominant style of fencing, the fence designs vary greatly. Fences incorporate different colors, lattice tops, and horizontal positioning of the panels. Although the proposed development uses the same predominant material for fencing, the lack of variety in the style of fencing makes this element inconsistent with the existing character of the neighborhood. The fencing materials used within the existing neighborhood and proposed development can be seen in Figure 3-20 and Table 3-9.

0%

Existing Neighborhood

52% 14% 14% 4%

4%

4%

8%

Proposed Development

75% 0%

0%

0%

0% 25%

0%

0%

Figure 3-20: Fencing

e venu ttus A Hyme

NORTH EAST

898

PROPOSED SITE WEST

316

885

SOUTH

ard oulev dia B a c u Le

Key Map: Visual Assessment Units 837 835

857

829 827

853

329 327

849

858

879

Lot 9

Lot 8

335 333

Brick/Stone Chainlink Wrought Iron Wire Wood Picket

Lot 7

Lot 1

enue ia Av Hyge

Wood Panel

Lot 6 819

345

Lot 5

Lot 2 349 353

Lot 3

Lot 4

359

5’ Wooden Fence

5’ Wooden Tubular Fence Fence 5’ Aluminum 6’ Wooden Fence Proposed Project Boundary 5’ AluminumStudy Tubular Fence Neighborhood Area

60

807 t Stree Fulvia

365

None

LEGEND 6’ Wooden Fence

835

829

LEGEND

405 375

0%

379

385

419

0%

Community Character Study | Hymettus Estates

Table 3-10: Landscaping and Vegetation

Landscape Types The landscape treatments within the proposed development can be categorized as foundation shrubs and lawn which is the same as approximately 28% of the existing neighborhood. Each visual assessment unit has a different predominant vegetation type which displays the large variety of planting palettes within the existing neighborhood.

Landscape and Vegetation Remnant Orchard

Southern California Native/Succulent Garden

Foundation Shrubs and Lawn

Tropical Gardens with Lawns

Tropical Gardens with Succulents

Although the proposed landscape treatment does not highly contrast with the setting, all lots are treated the same with a landscape treatment that contrasts with the arid and semi-arid succulent treatments of the existing neighborhood. Increasing plant diversity and design between each lot would dramatically help the project blend with the existing neighborhood. The landscaping and vegetation treatments within the existing neighborhood and proposed development can be seen in Figure 3-21 and Table 3-10.

North

67%

0%

33%

0%

0%

East

20%

30%

40%

10%

0%

South

0%

0%

0%

100%

0%

West

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Existing Neighborhood

16%

16%

28%

24%

16%

Proposed Development

0%

0%

100%

0%

0%

Visual Assessment Units

Figure 3-21: Landscaping and Vegetation

e venu ttus A Hyme

NORTH EAST

898

PROPOSED SITE WEST

316

885

SOUTH

Key Map: Visual Assessment Units

evard Boul adia Leuc

837 835

857

829 827

853

329 327

849

858 Lot 9

Lot 8

335

879

333 Lot 7

Lot 1

enue ia Av Hyge

LEGEND

Lot 6 819

345

Lot 5

Lot 2 349 353

Lot 3

Lot 4

Foundation Shrubs and Lawn Tropical Gardens with Lawns

807 t Stree Fulvia

359

Remnant Orchard Southern California Native / Succulent Garden

835

829

365 405 375

379

419

385

Tropical Gardens with Succulents Proposed Project Boundary Neighborhood Study Area

61

Chapter 3 | Proposed Project Character

Building Position on Slope The landform for the proposed site generally follows the existing topography of the site. The proposed residence located on the corner of Leucadia Boulevard and Fulvia Street sits at the lowest elevation and the site slopes up gradually along Fulvia Street towards Hymettus Avenue. The site gradually slopes up again along Hymettus from Fulvia Street to Leucadia Boulevard.

All of the houses along Fulvia Street and Hymettus Avenue appear relatively level with the street, with some small slopes from the street to the front yard elevation. These slopes are somewhat obscured by the proposed landscaping. In contrast, the two internal lots on the proposed site are classified as “houses built on top of slope� since the most prevalent view of the house from Fulvia Street, shows these houses sitting at the top of the slope/retaining walls located behind the bioretention basin and Lot 1. The view of these houses from Hymettus Avenue is mostly hidden by the houses along Hymettus Avenue, which minimizes the contrast of these higher elevation slopes and landforms.

The landform for the proposed development is generally consistent with the existing neighborhood since it takes advantage of the existing topography rather than creating a completely different landform within the neighborhood. In addition, the new development places a majority of the houses at street level, a pattern that is consistent with the existing neighborhood and most of the visual assessment units. The building positions within the existing neighborhood and proposed development can be seen in Figure 3-22 and Table 3-11.

Table 3-11: Building Position on Slope Building Position on Slope House Built into Slope

House Built at Bottom of Slope

62

House Built on Top of Slope

House on Level Ground

Visual Assessment Units North

100%

0%

0%

0%

East

100%

0%

0%

0%

South

50%

0%

50%

0%

West

0%

10%

80%

10%

Existing Neighborhood

56%

4%

36%

4%

Proposed Development

78%

22%

0%

0%

Community Character Study | Hymettus Estates

Figure 3-22: Building Position on Slope

e venu ttus A Hyme

NORTH EAST

898

PROPOSED SITE WEST

316

885

SOUTH

evard Boul adia Leuc

Key Map: Visual Assessment Units 837 835

857

829 827

853

329 327

849

858 Lot 9

Lot 8

335

879

333 Lot 7

Lot 1

Lot 6

enue ia Av Hyge

819

345

Lot 5

Lot 2 349 353

Lot 3

Lot 4

359

Building Position Close To Street Center of Lot

835

829

807 t Stree Fulvia

365 405 375

379

419

385

Recessed

LEGEND

Proposed Project Boundary Center of Lot Study Area Neighborhood

63

Chapter 3 | Proposed Project Character

3.2.3  Architectural Character

Table 3-12: Building Height

Building Height

Building Height One-Story

Two-Story

Split Level

As seen in Figure 3-23 and Table 3-12, the building heights for the proposed development include eight two-story houses and one single-story house. A two-story height is consistent with the south and west visual assessment units, but inconsistent with the east and north visual assessment units. The proposed development does not have the same balance of one-story and two-story houses as the existing neighborhood.

100%

0%

0%

Visual Assessment Units North East

100%

0%

0%

South

0%

100%

0%

West

0%

80%

20%

Existing Neighborhood

52%

40%

8%

Proposed Development

11%

89%

0%

Figure 3-23: Building Height

e venu ttus A Hyme

NORTH EAST

898

PROPOSED SITE WEST

316

885

SOUTH

ard oulev dia B a c u Le

Key Map: Visual Assessment Units 837 835

857

829 827

853

329 327

849

858 Lot 9

Lot 8

335

879

333 Lot 7

Lot 1

Lot 6

enue ia Av Hyge

819

345

Lot 5

Lot 2 349 353

Lot 3

Lot 4

359

LEGEND Two-Story One-Story

LEGEND

Split Level Two-StoryProject Boundary Proposed One-Story Neighborhood Study Area

64

835

829

807 t Stree Fulvia

365 405 375

379

385

419

Community Character Study | Hymettus Estates

Table 3-13: Roof Form

Roof Form All of the houses in the proposed development utilize a hip roof design. However, three of the houses in the proposed development also incorporate gables into a portion of the roof.

The majority of existing houses in the neighborhood study area have either simple or cross gable roofs.

Roof Form Hip

Gable & Hip

Flat or Parapet

Lean-To

Cross Gable

Simple Gable

Although the majority of roofs within the existing neighborhood are gable, they also incorporate hip roofs into their designs. The proposed development incorporates elements of the existing neighborhood (gables) into the several of the roofs. In addition, the varied layouts of the houses in the proposed development provide variation in the visual character and form of the roofs and building masses, similar to the variety present in the existing neighborhood. The roof forms within the existing neighborhood and proposed development can be seen in Figure 3-24 and Table 3-13.

North

33% 67%

0%

0%

0%

0%

East

18% 55%

0%

18%

9%

0%

South

0%

33% 33%

0%

0%

0%

West

33%

8%

0%

17%

25%

17%

Visual Assessment Units

Existing Neighborhood

22% 36%

4%

16%

12%

8%

Proposed Development

0%

56% 44%

0%

0%

0%

Figure 3-24: Roof Form

e venu ttus A Hyme

NORTH EAST

898

PROPOSED SITE WEST

316

885

SOUTH

Key Map: Visual Assessment Units

evard Boul adia Leuc 837 835

857

829 827

853

329 327

849

858 Lot 9

Lot 8

335

879

333 Lot 7

Lot 1

Simple Gable Multiple Gable

enue ia Av Hyge

LEGEND

Lot 6 819

345

Lot 5

Lot 2 349 353

Lot 3

Lot 4

359

Flat or Parapet

807

t Stree Fulvia 365

Hipped Gable & Hip

835

829

405 375

379

419

385

LEGEND Lean-To Hipped Proposed Project Boundary Neighborhood Study Area

65

Chapter 3 | Proposed Project Character

Table 3-14: Roof Material

Roof Material Every house in the proposed development utilizes the same asphalt shingle roof material. Although the existing houses in the neighborhood study area utilize a wider variety of materials for their roofs, the majority of houses also utilize the asphalt shingle roof. This would make the proposed project mostly consistent with a majority of the existing neighborhood roof treatments.

The lack of variation between the units, however, would not be consistent.

Roof Material Asphalt Shingle

Clay Tile

Wood Shingle/Faux Wood

Asphalt Membrane

North

100%

0%

0%

0%

East

60%

20%

10%

10%

South

50%

50%

0%

0%

West

Visual Assessment Units

The proposed development adds variety to roof material by incorporating a metal into the pent roofs on lots 3, 5, and 9. A pent roof is a smaller shed style roof placed above the first floor of a building to protect the doors, windows and lower walls from rain and used to better define entrances and windows.

This is consistent with the house located at 385 Fulvia Street which incorporates a similar metal roof into their first floor. The roof materials within the existing neighborhood and proposed development can be seen in Figure 3-25 and Table 3-14.

40%

10%

40%

10%

Existing Neighborhood

56%

16%

20%

8%

Proposed Development

100%

0%

0%

0%

Figure 3-25: Roof Material

e venu ttus A Hyme

NORTH EAST

898

PROPOSED SITE WEST

316

885

SOUTH

ard oulev dia B a c u Le

Key Map: Visual Assessment Units 837 835

857

829 827

853

329 327

849

858 Lot 9

Lot 8

335

879

333 Lot 7

Lot 1

Asphalt Shingle Clay Tile

enue ia Av Hyge

LEGEND

Lot 6 819

345

Lot 5

Lot 2 349 353

Lot 3

Lot 4

359

Metal (First Floor) Secondary Style Combination Clay Tile, Asphalt LEGEND

Membrane and Asphalt Shingle Shingle Project Boundary Proposed Metal (First Floor) Neighborhood Study Area

66

807 t Stree Fulvia

Wood Shingle / Faux Wood Tile Asphalt Membrane

835

829

365 405 375

379

385

419

Community Character Study | Hymettus Estates

Table 3-15: Siding Material

Siding Material The predominant siding materials for the existing houses in the neighborhood study area are wood and stucco. The proposed development also incorporates stucco into all of the houses, but does not use wood. Instead, the proposed development incorporates fiber cement siding with a wood texture into all of the houses.

Siding Material

Visual Assessment Units

Fiber Cement Siding Wood Pattern

Tile

Brick/Stone

Wood

Stucco

The proposed development adds variety to the use of the fiber cement siding by utilizing different patterns including board and batten and channel design. Additionally, two of the houses in the proposed development incorporate stone/brick into the siding, providing a greater diversity in materials. As a result, the proposed development’s selection of materials and variety in design provides consistency with the existing houses in the neighborhood study area. The siding materials used throughout the existing neighborhood and proposed development can be seen in Figure 3-26 and Table 3-15.

North

75%

25%

0%

0%

0%

East

53%

29%

18%

0%

0%

South

50%

50%

0%

0%

0%

West

30%

54%

8%

8%

0%

Existing Neighborhood

47%

39%

11%

3%

0%

Proposed Development

45%

0%

10%

0%

45%

Figure 3-26: Siding Material e venu ttus A Hyme

NORTH EAST

898

PROPOSED SITE

316

WEST

885

SOUTH

Key Map: Visual Assessment Units

ard oulev dia B a c u Le

837 835

857

829 827

853

329 327

849

858 Lot 9

Lot 8

335

879

333 Lot 7

Lot 1

Stucco Fiber Cement Siding Wood Brick/Stone Tile LEGEND Board & Batten Stucco

enue ia Av Hyge

LEGEND

835

829 Lot 6 819

345

Lot 5

Lot 2 349 353

Lot 3

Lot 4

359

807 t Stree Fulvia

365 405 375

379

419

385

Secondary Material Wood Proposed Project Boundary Brick/Stone Neighborhood Study Area Tile

67

Chapter 3 | Proposed Project Character

Table 3-16: Building Color

Building Color Similar to the existing neighborhood, each house in the proposed development has a unique set of colors for the body, trim, garage door, and front door. However, for the purposes of this study, each house is categorized based on the main body color of the structure.

Building Color White, Off-White

Muted Colors, Warm or Cool Gray, Pastels

Earth Tones (Green, Brown, Beige, & Rust)

Highly Saturated Colors

As seen in Figure 3-27 and Table 3-16, the largest percentage of houses (45%) have a body color that is muted, gray, or pastel and another 33% of houses are identified as earth tone. In the existing neighborhood, the largest percentage of houses have an earth tone.

North

0%

0%

100%

0%

East

50%

10%

40%

0%

Visual Assessment Units

Although the dominant color category for the existing neighborhood and proposed development are not the same, the proposed development provides a variety of color combinations similar to the existing neighborhood. In addition, all of the houses use a relatively neutral color similar to the existing neighborhood.

South

0%

0%

100%

0%

West

30%

10%

80%

0%

Existing Neighborhood

44%

8%

48%

0%

Proposed Development

11%

45%

33%

0%

Figure 3-27: Building Color e venu ttus A Hyme

NORTH EAST

898

PROPOSED SITE WEST

316

885

SOUTH

Key Map: Visual Assessment Units

evard Boul adia c u e L

837 835

857

829 827

853

329 327

849

858 Lot 9

Lot 8

335

879

333

835

829 Lot 7

Lot 1

Lot 6

enue ia Av Hyge

819

345

Lot 5

Lot 2 349 353

Lot 3

Lot 4

359

807 t Stree Fulvia

365

LEGEND Earth Tones (Brown, Green)

LEGEND White/ Off-White/ Cream Earth Tones (Brown, Green) Pastels Proposed Project Boundary White/ Off-White/ Cream Neighborhood StudyBeige, Area Light Blue) Beach Tones (Sand,

68

405 375

379

385

419

Community Character Study | Hymettus Estates

Table 3-17: Window Style

Window Style The window styles within the proposed development include sliding, fixed glass, and single-hung. In addition, each house features at least two different window styles.

Window Style Sliding

Fixed Glass

Single or Double Hung

Casement

Clerestory

Bay

Although the majority of houses in the east and west visual assessment units (which make up a majority of houses in the existing neighborhood) use sliding metal windows, they also incorporate fixed glass, single or double hung, and clerestory windows. Since there is no character defining window style in the existing neighborhood, the variety in window styles within the proposed development creates a consistency with the existing neighborhood diversity. In addition, the proposed development incorporates decorative shades and shutters into several houses to further diversify the window character of the houses. Figure 3-18 identifies the primary and secondary windows for each house in the proposed project and existing neighborhood, and Table 3-17 identifies the percentage of window styles.

North

0%

67%

33%

0%

0%

0%

East

54%

23%

15%

0%

0%

8%

South

0%

33%

0%

67%

0%

0%

Visual Assessment Units

53%

8%

8%

8%

23%

0%

Existing Neighborhood

West

44%

22%

13%

9%

9%

3%

Proposed Development

23%

36%

41%

0%

0%

0%

Figure 3-28: Window Style

NORTH EAST

898

PROPOSED SITE WEST

316

885

SOUTH

Key Map: Visual Assessment Units 837 835

857

829 827

853

329 327

849

858 Lot 9

Lot 8

335

879

333 Lot 7

Lot 1

Lot 6 819

345

Lot 5

Lot 2 349

LEGEND Metal Sliding Fixed Glass

353

Lot 3

Lot 4

Transom

807

359

365

Single or Double Hung Casement

835

829

405 375

379

419

385

Secondary Style Proposed Project Boundary Neighborhood Study Area

69

Chapter 3 | Proposed Project Character

Table 3-18: Garage Placement

Garage Placement The proposed development has predominantly attached, frontloaded, recessed garages. Although lot 4 is categorized as sideloaded, the garage is still a prominent visual element, similar to the front-loaded garages. This front-loaded characteristic is consistent with a majority of the existing neighborhood, however, the majority of existing houses have extended, not recessed garages. This difference is minor and is minimized by the dense landscaping in the existing neighborhood.

Garage Placement Attached FrontLoaded Extended

Attached FrontLoaded Recessed

Attached SideLoaded

Detached FrontLoaded

Detached SideLoaded

North

0%

33%

0%

33%

33%

East

40%

20%

30%

10%

0%

South

50%

0%

0%

0%

50%

West

56%

22%

0%

11%

11%

Visual Assessment Units

The recessed garages in the new development help to minimize the dominance of the garage and keeps the focus on other architectural features of the house. In addition, all of the proposed houses include a two-car garage, which is consistent with 89% of the garages in the existing neighborhood study area. The garage placement within the existing neighborhood and proposed development can be seen in Figure 3-29 and Table 3-18.

Existing Neighborhood

41%

20%

13%

13%

13%

Proposed Development

11%

78%

11%

0%

0%

Figure 3-29: Garage Placement

e venu ttus A Hyme

NORTH EAST

898

PROPOSED SITE WEST

316

885

SOUTH

ard oulev dia B a c u Le

Key Map: Visual Assessment Units 837 835

857

829 827

853

329 327

849

858 Lot 9

Lot 8

335

879

333 Lot 7

Lot 1

Attached Front Loaded Extended

enue ia Av Hyge

LEGEND

Attached Front Loaded Recessed

Lot 6 819

345

Lot 5

Lot 2 349 353

Lot 3

Lot 4

359

Detached Side-Loaded

LEGEND None Cars Per Garage Attached Front Loaded Recessed ProposedFront Project Boundary Attached Loaded Extended Attached Side-Loaded Neighborhood Study Area

70

807 t Stree Fulvia

Attached Side-Loaded Detached Front-Loaded

835

829

365 405 375

379

385

419

Community Character Study | Hymettus Estates

3.2.4 Summary of Project Consistency with Existing Neighborhood Character The information in this chapter provides an analysis of the proposed project’s consistency with the existing neighborhood based on a variety of design elements. Each element is discussed in detail and a quantitative comparison is provided between the existing neighborhood and proposed project.

Each design element is also evaluated based on qualitative data and information gathered from field verification. As a result, the consistency determinations are not based only on the percentages listed in the related tables, but incorporate the information presented in the text as well. Table 3-19 provides a consistency determination for each of the design elements discussed in this chapter.

Table 3-19: Project Consistency with Existing Neighborhood Character Page #

Design Element

Consistency Determination

52

Lot Size

Consistent

53

Lot Shape

Consistent

54

Lot Coverage

Consistent

55

Building Footprint

Consistent

56

Setback

Consistent

57

Building Location

Consistent

58

Driveway Layout

Consistent

59

Driveway Material

Not Consistent*

60

Fencing

Not Consistent*

61

Landscape Type

Not Consistent*

62

Building Position on Slope

Consistent

64

Building Height

Partially Consistent

65

Roof Form

Consistent

66

Roof Material

Partially Consistent

67

Siding Material

Consistent

68

Building Color

Consistent

69

Window Style

Consistent

70

Garage Placement

Consistent

*’Not Consistent’ determinations will be discussed in further detail in Chapter 4.4.

71

Chapter 3 | Proposed Project Character

This page intentionally left blank

72

4

ANALYSIS OF PROJECT IMPACT

Chapter 4 | Analysis of Project Impact

4.1 IMPACT ANALYSIS METHODS AND TOOLS

An analysis of potential community character and visual quality impacts requires consideration of how the proposed project would affect the overall visual quality, community character, landform quality, and view quality within the neighborhood study area. Each of these categories includes a list of variables that need to be evaluated in order to determine the proposed project’s level of consistency with the existing neighborhood and, in turn, level of community character or visual quality impact.

This chapter provides an impact analysis for each of these variables, taking into consideration the information presented in Chapters 2 and 3 regarding the visual and community character setting of the existing neighborhood and how the proposed project may contrast or impact the existing setting. In addition, this chapter provides a series of key views and simulations that illustrate the potential impacts of the proposed development. These simulations are used as an objective way of determining impacts and in communicating likely changes to the character of the study area.

This impact analysis follows the format and scope of the Land Use / Community Character / Visual Quality Analysis prepared by the City of Encinitas. The analysis also utilizes the standard Appendix G sample questions provided by the State of California through the Association of Environmental Professionals.

4.2 IMPACT LEVEL DEFINITIONS

4.2.1 Impact Levels The following definitions will be used in subsequent sections of this document to determine the level of significance for each variable: No impact: No visual impact would occur as a result of construction of the project. Actual improvements to the visual environment may also occur in this category.

Less than significant impact: Changes to existing visual resources will not be perceived negatively by viewers, or the contrast is too small and occurs in an area with low visual quality and low sensitivity to visual changes, or the proposed project incorporates features that reduce the potential contrast of the overall project to less than significant levels. A less than significant impact normally does not require mitigation measures.

Significant impact: A moderate or high level of contrast to the visual resource is expected with a moderate or high level of negative viewer response. Mitigation would be required to reduce the impact to a less than significant level. If after mitigation, the project impact is still considered to be significant, then it would be considered an unmitigable significant impact.

4.2.2 Thresholds for Determining Significance A significant visual quality, landform quality, community character or view quality impact can only exist if all of the following prerequisites are met: ■■ A project feature is seen by viewers as seen from public viewing locations; and ■■ The visible project feature potentially contrasts with the existing setting; and ■■ The contrasting change is considered to be mostly negative to the viewer groups that can see this change.

The location of the proposed project features meet all of the listed prerequisites. The quantity of viewers is low due to the low volume of traffic located on area streets, but viewers can see the project from the roadway right of ways. The project will contrast with the current setting. However, this contrast may or may not be significant, depending on the analysis that follows this section. A negative viewer response is likely, considering the extreme concern that adjacent neighbors have expressed on changes in the neighborhood character. Although the project may meet these three criteria, is should not be construed that these changes are considered to be significant impacts.

74

Community Character Study | Hymettus Estates

For each of the primary visual categories of review, a project will generally be considered to have a significant effect if it proposes any of the following changes. Conversely, if a project does not propose any of the following changes, it will be considered to not have a significant effect on visual resources.

Visual Quality The project would result in the removal or substantial change of one or more features that contribute to the valued visual quality or image of the neighborhood, community, or localized area, including but not limited to designated landmarks, historic resources, trees, and rock outcroppings.

Landform Quality The project would result in the removal or substantial change of a visually prominent landform in the area, assuming the landform is naturally occurring and that the changes to the landform are dominant and not natural in appearance.

Community Character The project introduces features that would detract from or contrast with the existing visual character of a neighborhood, community, or localized area by conflicting with important visual elements such as theme, style, setbacks, density, size, massing, coverage, scale, color, architecture, building materials, etc., or by being inconsistent with applicable design guidelines.

View Quality The project would substantially obstruct, interrupt, or detract from a valued focal and/or panoramic vista as seen from: ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■

A public road A trail (or pathway) within an adopted Federal, State, County or Encinitas trail system A scenic vista or highway A recreational area

75

Chapter 4 | Analysis of Project Impact

4.3 KEY VIEWS

4.3.1 Candidate Key Views Fifteen representative views or “candidate key views” were identified for this project. The 15 candidate key views were selected based on the degree of visibility and the greatest number of viewers. The location, direction, and details of each candidate key view is shown on Figure 4-1 and described in Table 4-1. As seen in Figure 4-2, each candidate key view includes two photos, one view of the existing condition and one view of the existing with an overlay of the proposed development model.

These graphics are not intended to be refined simulations. However, they do provide an insight into how much of the project will be seen from this direction and if the changes are likely to be dominant and contrast with the existing setting.

Of the fifteen candidate key views, four were selected for full simulation and in-depth analysis. The selected views include key views 1, 9, 13, and 15. The photo simulations (Figure 4-3 through Figure 4-6) were developed through the use of three-dimensional computer modeling of the proposed development. The model was transposed over photographs of the existing site to ensure the scale and perspective were correct. Foreground and background images that are affected by the project were also modified in order to ensure proper layering of foreground, middle ground, and background content. Additional texture, color, details, and shadows were added to increase the realistic look of the simulations. Each figure shows the existing condition, the model overlay (in isolation), and the combined simulation to represent the project after construction.

Figure 4-1: Candidate Key Views Map

e venu ttus A Hyme

898

316

6

837 835

885

evard Boul adia Leuc

5

7

857

829 827 329 327

853

4 8

849

858 Lot Lot 99

Lot 8

335

879

333

835

829 9

Lot 7

Lot 1

Lot 6

3

enue ia Av Hyge

819

345

Lot 5

Lot 2 10

349 11

353 359

Lot 3

807

Lot 4

12

t Stree Fulvia

2

1

LEGEND 1

Candidate Key Views

1

Selected Key Views Existing Buildings Proposed Buildings

76

Neighborhood Study Area

13 14

365

15

405 375

379

385

419

Community Character Study | Hymettus Estates

Table 4-1: Candidate Key Views

1

Fulvia and Hymettus

2

Drivers, walkers, residents, & cyclists

Short

Moderate

Hymettus



Drivers, walkers, residents, & cyclists

Short

Moderate

3

Hymettus



Drivers, walkers, residents, & cyclists

Long

High

4

Hymettus



Drivers, walkers, residents, & cyclists

Short

Moderate

5

Leucadia Blvd.



Drivers, walkers, residents, & cyclists

Short

Moderate

6

Leucadia Blvd.



Residents

Long

High

7

Fulvia



Drivers, walkers, residents, & cyclists

Short

Moderate



8

Fulvia



Drivers, walkers, residents, & cyclists

Short

Moderate





9

Fulvia





Residents

Long

High

10

Fulvia





Drivers, walkers, residents, & cyclists

Short

High



Drivers, walkers, residents, & cyclists

Short

Moderate



Drivers, walkers, residents, & cyclists

Long

High



Drivers, walkers, residents, & cyclists

Short

Moderate

Street Context



Project Overview

Viewer Sensitivity

Public View

Viewer Duration

Local Adjacent Residence

Viewer Groups





Notes

Simulate?

Good overview from view with the largest corner lot visibility

Yes

Good view to show street context but better to use "11" for this

No



Shows street context as well as building character of new project

No



Would be a good alternative to "11"

Yes



Important view, with views of Ocean, but project does not affect

No



The existing plants block this view. The project is visible.

No



Initial view of project going south on Fulvia.

Better to use "11"

Yes



Good for street context but not as good as "11"

No



Straight view into project with good images of buildings and slopes

No

View Blockage

General Location

Category of Simulation Building Context/ Character

Key View #

As Seen From











Yes Will show clean up of power lines and street context with some buildings at image edge Good close up detail of the proposed buildings, no adjacent context though Positive visual affects from power line removal, not enough of buildings.

11

Fulvia

12

Fulvia

13

Fulvia

14

Fulvia





Drivers, walkers, residents, & cyclists

Long

High





See multiple units, but may be too close

No

15

Fulvia and Hymettus





Drivers, walkers, residents, & cyclists

Long

High





See multiple units, but may be too close

No



















No

No

Yes

77

Chapter 4 | Analysis of Project Impact

Figure 4-2: Candidate Key Views with Model Overlays*

Candidate Key View 1 - Fulvia St. at Hymettus Ave. Looking West

Candidate Key View 1 with Model

Candidate Key View 2 - Hymettus Ave. Looking North

Candidate Key View 2 with Model

Candidate Key View 3 - Hymettus Ave. Looking Northwest

Candidate Key View 3 with Model

* The ‘Candidate Key View with Model’ images combine the conceptual computer model for the proposed project with the existing site photo. These are not intended to portray a realistic simulation of future conditions, but should demonstrate the juxtaposition of existing and proposed elements and demonstrate the potential view. These images are provided in order to determine if the candidate key view should be recommended for full simulation.

78

Community Character Study | Hymettus Estates

Figure 4-2: Candidate Key Views with Model Overlays (continued)

Candidate Key View 4 - Hymettus Ave. Looking South

Candidate Key View 4 with Model

Candidate Key View 5 - Leucadia Boulevard Looking West

Candidate Key View 5 with Model

Candidate Key View 6 - Leucadia Boulevard Looking South

Candidate Key View 6 with Model

79

Chapter 4 | Analysis of Project Impact

Figure 4-2: Candidate Key Views with Model Overlays (continued)

Candidate Key View 7 - Fulvia Street Looking Southeast

Candidate Key View 7 with Model

Candidate Key View 8 - Fulvia Street Looking Southeast

Candidate Key View 8 with Model

Candidate Key View 9 - Fulvia Street Looking East

Candidate Key View 9 with Model

80

Community Character Study | Hymettus Estates

Figure 4-2: Candidate Key Views with Model Overlays (continued)

Candidate Key View 10 - Fulvia Street Looking Southeast

Candidate Key View 10 with Model

Candidate Key View 11 - Fulvia Street Looking Northwest

Candidate Key View 11 with Model

Candidate Key View 12 - Fulvia Street Looking Northeast

Candidate Key View 12 with Model

81

Chapter 4 | Analysis of Project Impact

Figure 4-2: Candidate Key Views with Model Overlays (continued)

Candidate Key View 13 - Fulvia Street Looking Northwest

Candidate Key View 13 with Model

Candidate Key View 14 - Fulvia Street Looking North

Candidate Key View 14 with Model

Candidate Key View 15 - Hymettus Avenue Looking North

Candidate Key View 15 with Model

82

Community Character Study | Hymettus Estates

4.3.2  Selected Key Views Key View 1 was selected for simulation because it represents a key view that displays several buildings in relation to existing residential structures as well as a significant part of the street visual environment.

The simulation was also used to assess if any views from a public viewing location would be negatively affected.

Key View 9 was selected for simulation since it includes both foreground and middle-ground views of the project from a public street. It also shows the area that was previously the farm building and adjacent abandoned orchards. This key view extent allows for the inclusion of the simulated landscape treatments proposed along the street and how the edge of the street will look with the bioswales. This simulation also shows the different heights of the residential structures along with the foreground and middle-ground slopes.

Key View 13 was selected primarily to test the visual quality and view quality changes associated with the removal of the power lines and the regrading of the adjacent slopes.

Key View 15 was selected for simulation to test the contrasts of the street environment and to provide an overview of several of the proposed residential structures. This view shows four of the nine units within one viewing scene. As was the case in key view 13, this key view was selected to assess both visual quality and view quality changes.

83

Chapter 4 | Analysis of Project Impact

Figure 4-3: Photo Simulation from Key View 1

Candidate Key View 1 Existing Conditions

Candidate Key View 1 Proposed Conditions Simulation

84

Candidate Key View 1 with Model

Community Character Study | Hymettus Estates

Figure 4-4: Photo Simulation from Key View 9

Candidate Key View 9 Existing Conditions

Candidate Key View 9 with Model

Candidate Key View 9 Proposed Conditions Simulation

85

Chapter 4 | Analysis of Project Impact

Figure 4-5: Photo Simulation from Key View 13

Candidate Key View 13 Existing Conditions

Candidate Key View 13 Proposed Conditions Simulation

86

Candidate Key View 13 with Model

Community Character Study | Hymettus Estates

Figure 4-6: Photo Simulation from Key View 15

Candidate Key View 15 Existing Conditions

Candidate Key View 15 with Model

Candidate Key View 15 Proposed Conditions Simulation

87

Chapter 4 | Analysis of Project Impact

4.4 COMMUNITY CHARACTER IMPACTS

Four methods were used to assess the visual contrast and impacts on community character associated with the proposed project including: a review of the visual simulations, a comparison with the existing neighborhood character, review of impacts based on city’s community character criteria, and consistency with the City of Encinitas Design Guidelines. The community character impacts will be based on a combination of all four analyses.

4.4.1  Impacts Based on Visual Simulations The following discussion utilizes the comparisons of the existing site condition and the simulated future conditions as shown on Figure 4-3 through Figure 4-6. In order to determine the potential impact of the proposed project, photos of the existing visual environment were compared with photo realistic images of the future condition of the site.

The discussion below provides an overview of the four visual categories of concern based on the visual simulations: visual quality, landform quality, view quality, and community character. If an impact is obvious from any of the simulations, then the worst case scenario would conclude that the project will have an impact on the visual environment, even if these contrasts or impacts are not obvious on the other simulations.

Key View 1 View Quality: No distant view of a regionally or sub-regionally significant viewing scene exists, even with the tree removal resulting from the project.

Landform Quality: The change in the graded slope is not dramatically different from the existing slope. As a result, the landform changes will have a less than significant impact on this view.

Visual Quality: The proposed project provides a moderate level of visual quality. The garage is oriented on the side of the building, creating visual interest in the frontage of the building through a variety of forms. There are also a variety of materials in the facade and roof elevations, creating further interest. The proposed project provides a moderate amount of landscaping, although it does not match the variety or density seen in the surrounding neighborhood.

Community Character: The impacts in this view are less than significant and are related to the change in a rural farmland character to a suburban character. The proposed project would cause the removal of the farmhouse and its abandoned orchard and landscaped areas. However, the adjacent neighborhood is not necessarily compatible with the existing farmhouse on the site either. As seen from the simulation, the project is not out of scale with the neighborhood, has similar characteristics and building materials of the surrounding area and is situated on the parcels in a similar manner as those residences around the site. The adjacent properties have no dominant architectural style, form, material or site features. Each property is substantially different from neighboring parcels, while at the same time consistent with the suburban form of the neighborhood. The primary contrast between the proposed project and its neighbors is related to overly consistent walls, fences, parking areas, driveway materials and landscape treatments. Each parcel of the proposed development has similar characteristics as the adjacent lots. Although an appropriate level of diversity in architectural character, materials, forms, fenestration and roof lines does exist, the same cannot be said for the site features.

Key View 9 View Quality: No distant view of a regionally or sub-regionally significant viewing scene exists, even with the tree removal resulting from the project.

Landform Quality: The change in the graded slope is not dramatically different from the existing slope. As a result, the landform changes will have a less than significant impact on this view.

Visual Quality: The proposed project provides a high level of visual quality. The proposed buildings include a diversity of materials, architectural styles, fenestration of the windows and doors, changes in colors and window types. The garages are either oriented away from the street or partially screened by the landscaping. The landscaping elements, as viewed from this location, display diversity of form and color and are sited at various levels to follow the terrain.

88

Community Character Study | Hymettus Estates

Community Character: As seen from the simulation, the project will cause the removal of a number of trees and other vegetation and farmhouse structures. However, the majority of trees on the farmland property are already dead or in a rapidly declining state of health. This particular view does not show the context of adjacent neighboring structures, so it is not possible to comment on compatibility with adjacent character other than the landform and level of diversity of the project architecture.

Key View 13 View Quality: No distant view of a regionally or sub-regionally significant viewing scene exists, even with the tree removal resulting from the project.

Landform Quality: The change in the graded slope is not dramatically different from the existing slope. The proposed development will decrease the slope of the land adjacent to the roadway slightly and include more landscaping treatments. As a result, the landform changes will have a less than significant impact on this view.

Visual Quality: The proposed project provides a moderate level of visual quality. From this viewing location, a variety of architectural forms are visible, but the number of building materials is few. The siting of homes near the street in the proposed development emphasizes the structures as compared to dominance of vegetation across the street. While the scene provides visual interest, it is unbalanced and accentuates the differences between existing and proposed developments.

Community Character: The contrasts between the proposed development and the existing neighborhood are mostly related to landscape treatments, building heights, and roadway edge conditions. The adjacent neighborhood is dominated by a diverse range of mature trees and scattered arrangement of plant material. In contrast, the proposed project would use the same landscaping materials on each lot resulting in a higher level of consistency than is present in the existing neighborhood. In addition, the existing two-story houses along Fulvia Street sit at a lower elevation than those on the proposed development, which decreases the perceived height of the existing twostory structures. However, the dense landscaping and trees along the right-of-way provide a greater perceived height along Fulvia Street. The lack of similar landscaping elements within the proposed development creates a contrast with the existing neighborhood.

The existing roadway edge is not aesthetically appealing due to the dominance of the power lines, the dead or dying trees, and unmaintained roadway slopes and edges. The proposed improvements will remove these negative elements and the new street edge treatments (intermittent pull-off parking, driveway to roadway pavement that is at the same level, and the consistently planted roadway edges and swales) will be compatible with the typical treatments of the neighborhood. However, the consistent plant material on every parcel does not provide the variety necessary to be compatible with the diverse landscape treatments in the existing neighborhood.

The architectural forms and treatments for the proposed development provide greater diversity in style, color, materials and forms. The uniqueness and eclectic style of the adjacent residential parcels define the character of the neighborhood. As such, the unique character for each of the proposed parcels allows the proposed development to fit into the eclectic and diverse style of the existing neighborhood.

Key View 15 View Quality: No distant view of a regionally or sub-regionally significant viewing scene exists, even with the tree removal resulting from the project.

Landform Quality: The change in the graded slope is not dramatically different from the existing slope. As a result, the landform changes will have a less than significant impact on this view.

Visual Quality: The proposed project provides a moderate level of visual quality. Multiple homes are visible in this view extent and, at this viewing distance, the differences in building materials and forms are minimized. The proposed vegetation, however, helps to screen the view of the buildings and to balance the edge condition of the roadway between existing and proposed. The “stepping� of the homes up the slope also helps to mitigate their dominance and create a balanced view corridor down Hymettus Avenue.

89

Chapter 4 | Analysis of Project Impact

Community Character: Key view 15 shows four of the nine units within one viewing scene and was selected to demonstrate the project’s ability to improve existing neighborhood aesthetics. The existing setting is dominated by the power lines and the relatively unmaintained roadway edge treatment. The proposed project will result in positive aesthetic impacts due to the removal of the power lines and the roadway edge treatment. Similar to key view 13, the homogeneous landscape treatments for the proposed site are not consistent with the eclectic treatments found in the existing neighborhood. The limited variety of species, placement of these trees and the extensive amounts of visible lawn in the proposed development contrasts with the opposite side of the street, which is heavily planted, highly diverse in species and scattered in arrangement. Although the proposed treatment is an aesthetic improvement, it contrasts with the existing neighborhood.

The proposed landscaping is also important to perceived building height. Although the houses located along Hymettus Avenue are only one-story, the dense landscaping and trees along the right-of-way minimizes the perceived difference between the existing one-story and proposed two-story houses. The lack of similar landscaping elements within the proposed development creates a contrast with the existing neighborhood.

The architectural diversity in the proposed development includes enough changes to building materials, roof lines, colors, window fenestration and detailing to be consistent with the diversity in the existing neighborhood. As seen in the simulation, no views of adjacent structures are possible from this viewing location due to the heavy landscaping along the roadway. Most of the structures to the east of the road are single story, stucco buildings. However, since these existing structures cannot be seen at the same time with the proposed project structures, they cannot be considered as having a substantial contrast with the adjacent neighborhood character. Even if the existing and proposed structures were seen from the same viewing location, they would not contrast highly with each other but would look slightly different due to the overall age of the improvement and the maintenance conditions of the sites and structures.

Summary of Community Character Impacts Based on Visual Simulations As a result of the comparison of the simulations and, taking into account the variety of elements found in the neighborhood, the project is expected to have an less than significant impact on community character.

The impact of the proposed project is not considered significant since it does not contrast highly with the neighborhood and since the majority of the elements of the proposed project are consistent with the diverse neighborhood character. The comparison of the existing and proposed project character is also highly limited based on the extensive mature landscaping that hides a majority of the existing neighborhood buildings.

The contrasts with the existing neighborhood include: 1. The contrast between new construction and older construction would be apparent; 2. The contrast of existing mature and diverse landscape treatments would be noticeable; 3. The contrast between the adjacent neighborhood’s diverse character and the proposed lack of variation of fencing materials, roof materials, roadway edge treatments/landscaping; and 4. The contrast between the ratio of one-story and two-story buildings.

These contrasts would be expected between any new project being built within an existing neighborhood.

Since it would be clear that new construction has occurred in any new project, it is not reasonable to use the first contrast to determine compatibility with neighborhood character. The second criteria is more appropriate for evaluation. Although landscape contrasts would be greater at first, they would be reduced over time as plant material grows. Also, if homeowners had the opportunity to adjust and add to the front yard landscapes, this contrast would be diminished dramatically. The third contrast also impacts neighborhood character. Since a few of the elements in the proposed development stand out as being different from the existing neighborhood, they will result in some contrast to the current setting. This is due primarily to the consistency between all parcels of the new development (in certain categories) compared with the parcelby-parcel differences and uniqueness found within the existing neighborhood. However, these differences are slight and would not be considered to be significant.

90

Community Character Study | Hymettus Estates

Below is a summary of specific elements within the proposed project that are not consistent with the proposed project as determined by review of the four visual simulations: 1. The limited variety, quantity and maturity levels of plantings will contrast with the eclectic planting locations, species selection and size of the adjacent neighborhood; 2. The variations between roof materials in the adjacent neighborhood is much more diverse than the single material asphalt composite roofs of the proposed project; 3. The variation between driveway paving materials of the existing neighborhood are much more diverse than the single material choices of the proposed project; and 4. The different forms of fencing are highly diverse in the neighborhood but are mostly the same in the proposed project.

4.4.2 Impacts Based on Existing Neighborhood Characteristics Chapter 2 of this report outlines specific design features within the existing neighborhood and Chapter 3 provides a comparison between the existing neighborhood design features and the proposed development.

The existing neighborhood includes a variety of building styles, colors, sizes, coverage, and building materials, creating an eclectic style that varies from house to house. There is no single feature within the neighborhood that should be replicated within the proposed development. It is the variety of styles within the neighborhood that create the existing character. The proposed development provides variety in the design of its houses, using different colors, styles, sizes, layouts, and building materials in order to integrate the development into the existing neighborhood. These factors all help the proposed project fit in consistently with the existing neighborhood.

However, a few exceptions exist, including: 1. The proposed roof forms and composite materials may be too consistent between all of the nine units when compared to the variety of roof forms and materials found in the neighborhood.

2. One consistent element for a majority of properties within the existing neighborhood is the use of dense landscaping elements such as trees, shrubs, and groundcover. Each property includes a unique mix of landscaping species such as succulents, remnant orchard, tropical plants, and natives dispersed throughout the property. Many of the properties have landscaping features that are located on the property line, creating a facade of dense vegetation along Hymettus Avenue and Fulvia Street. In addition, the properties incorporate these elements throughout the property instead of concentrating the landscaping on one portion of the lot. Although the proposed development provides a variety of landscaping including three tree species, four shrub species, three groundcover species, and nine bioretention species, the layout of the landscaping is essentially the same for each property. This repeated design includes landscaping elements around the periphery of the lot with the remaining area designated as open lawn. Further, the proposed bioretention areas and groundcover occur with a regular frequency around the periphery of the site along Fulvia Street and Hymettus Avenue. Although there are nine species selected for the bioretention areas, there is only one species for the groundcover located between each of the bioretention areas. This consistency around the periphery of the project site may cause the proposed development to stand out from the existing neighborhood.

Since the proposed project does not include landscaping elements around the perimeter of the buildings or within the majority of the side and back yards, these are areas of opportunity for property owners to increase the diversity of the development’s landscape. In addition, property owners should not be restricted nor discouraged to modify the front yard landscapes, as long as the minimum tree and landscaped areas are still met with the replacement plant material. Each resident’s unique landscaping treatments installed and developed over time would help the proposed development become more consistent with the existing landcape diversity in the neighborhood.

3. The proposed fencing system is made up of only two material types, wood panel fencing and aluminum open rail fencing. When compared with the wide variety of fencing types within the existing neighborhood, the proposed project’s fencing is too homogeneous. Although homogeneity helps bind

91

Chapter 4 | Analysis of Project Impact

the design of the project together, it works against the ability of the project to fit into the existing neighborhood. Compatibility with the existing neighborhood character could be better accomplished through the use of varied fencing materials including wood, masonry, wrought iron, and vinyl. A range of fencing heights (5-7’) and colors, along with a variety of spacing between panels, could provide the visual variety consistent with the existing neighborhood. Elements such as lattices could also be incorporated along some fences to enhance diversity in fencing styles. In addition, landscaping elements could help to provide a greater sense of variety along each of the fences within the proposed development.

4. Finally, each of the driveways within the proposed development are constructed using the same material: a porous concrete paver. This uniformity in a prominent feature of the development could cause an impact because it contrasts with the existing neighborhood‘s variety of driveway styles.

4.4.3 Impacts Based on City’s Community Character Criteria The project is consistent with allowable height or bulk regulations or the height and bulk of the existing patterns of development in the vicinity of the project Less than significant impact: As outlined in Chapter 3, the bulk and height of the proposed development is consistent with city’s height regulations of two stories/26 feet for the R-3 zoning designation. Eight of the proposed units are two-stories and 26 feet tall and one unit is one-story and 18 feet tall. However, the proposed project is only partially consistent with the bulk and height of the existing neighborhood.

The building heights within the proposed development include eight two-story houses and one singlestory house. The houses in the existing neighborhood are an even mix of one-story and two-story houses.

As a result, the proposed development is only partially consistent with the existing height of buildings in the neighborhood. However, differences between the two-story and one-story houses within the existing neighborhood are minimized by dense landscaping that creates the perception of similar height throughout the neighborhood.

In terms of bulk, the average building footprint within the proposed development is only 1.2% larger than the average building footprint size in the existing neighborhood. Similarly, the lot coverage for the proposed development is only 5% higher than the lot coverage within the existing neighborhood. As a result, the bulk of the proposed project is consistent with the existing neighborhood.

The project would result in loss of community defining landmarks or visual features Less than significant impact: There are no community defining landmarks in the vicinity of the proposed development site, however, there are currently 90 existing trees located on the proposed development site in various conditions of health. Of these 90 trees, only 12 are classified as healthy ; all of the healthy trees are pinus species. Although the proposed development will remove this large area of mature trees, the poor health of the majority of the trees makes this a less than significant impact. In addition, the proposed development will include 22 new trees on the proposed site.

The project is located in a highly visible area and would strongly contrast with the surrounding development or natural topography Less than significant impact: The proposed project is for a nine-unit single-family residential development within an existing residential neighborhood that includes single-family and multi-family residences. As a result, the proposed development would not contrast with the surrounding development. In addition, the proposed development is retaining, to the extent possible, the general topography of the site which includes a mounded landform with steeper slopes to the west/Fulvia Street and more gradual slopes towards the east/Hymettus Avenue.

The project is located to the south of Leucadia Boulevard, a high traffic east-west connector through the Leucadia community of the city. Although portions of the proposed project would be visible from the Hymettus Avenue and Fulvia Street intersection along Leucadia Boulevard, the majority of the proposed development will be blocked by existing screening elements including retaining walls, berms and trees.

92

Community Character Study | Hymettus Estates

See candidate key views 5 and 6 for the existing and proposed conditions along Leucadia Boulevard.

Although the project would be highly visible from Hymettus Avenue and Fulvia Street, these streets are not high-traffic areas and would therefore the proposed project would not have a significant impact.

The project would have a cumulative effect by opening up a new area for development or changing the overall character of the area No impact: The proposed development would not open up any new, undeveloped area for future development. The proposed project is for a single-family residential infill development within an existing residential neighborhood. Although the proposed development would change the existing lot that includes one residence into a nine-unit residential development, the neighborhood would remain residential in character. In addition, the proposed development incorporates design elements consistent with the existing neighborhood.

4.4.4 Consistency with Applicable Provisions in the City’s Design Review Guidelines Less than significant impact: The city’s design guidelines (dated April 2005) include a variety of guidelines that have the potential to help the project fit specifically into the existing neighborhood character. The analysis provided in Chapter 3 showed the impacts relative to the existing setting while the following information looks at consistency with adopted policies and guidelines. Although it is the purview of City Staff and the Design Review Board to determine consistency, a review of the plan and examination of project features shown in the simulations indicates that most of the design guidelines have been incorporated into the proposed project. Table 4-2 provides an overview of the project’s consistency with the City of Encinitas Design Guidelines. Only the applicable guidelines have been included. Topics that are considered to be inconsistent with the design guidelines can be reviewed by the design review board for suggested changes to make the project more consistent with the existing neighborhood and design guidelines.

93

Chapter 4 | Analysis of Project Impact

Table 4-2: Project Consistency with the City’s Design Review Guidelines Design Guideline Number

Design Guideline Text

Consistency Determination

Site Planning Guidelines 2.1.1

The opportunities and constraints of the site shall determine the project layout and design.

Consistent

2.1.2

Natural assets, such as significant trees, rock outcroppings, natural landforms, creeks and riparian habitats should be preserved and incorporated into the project. Partially consistent, some significant pine, palm and orchard trees could be preserved to maintain existing resources.

Partially consistent, some significant pine, palm and orchard trees could be preserved to maintain existing resources.

2.1.3 2.1.4

The existing character of the land, landscape and structures shall be considered in any new development.

Impacts to significant views from surrounding properties should be minimized by the new development.

Consistent Consistent

2.1.5

Site planning should not be repetitive, but should provide a varied experience.

Consistent

2.1.6

Site planning should be used as one of many tools to break up or mitigate the bulk and mass of a building.

Consistent

Setback Areas

2.3.1

The project should include open and private areas along the street in a manner consistent with the character of the neighborhood.

Partially Consistent, although the project does include landscaping elements along the street, the density of the landscaping is not consistent with the existing neighborhood. The proposed project does include off-street parking spaces similar to the existing neighborhood.

2.3.2

Varied, articulated spaces between buildings, and along the street shall be encouraged.

Consistent

2.3.3

Vehicular sight lines that allow safe ingress and egress to properties and safe movements along roadways shall be provided.

Consistent

Building Location

2.4.1

Open space areas should be linked visually and/or physically in order to integrate them into an area-wide wide-open space system.

Partially consistent, some open space through the project site may be possible, especially if it connects with the stormwater runoff pond at the northwest corner.

2.4.2

The orientation of buildings, especially those in clusters, should be carefully designed to preserve and/or create view corridors.

Not Applicable since no public views or private views look through the project site.

Emphasis on pedestrian use of exterior space is encouraged.

Not consistent since pedestrian facilities are not being provided along the property edge nor through the site.

2.4.5

94

Community Character Study | Hymettus Estates

Design Guideline Number

Design Guideline Text

Consistency Determination

Building Location (cont.)

2.4.6

Buildings should be placed to create variety in external space and create a varied street facade.

Partially consistent since the site plan and architecture provides some level of diversity of the street facade, but this diversity is minor

2.4.10

In order to provide visual openness and pedestrian scale along major streets, heights of buildings or portions of buildings should generally be lower adjacent to the street corridor, stepping up to higher elements.

Partially consistent but only a small amount of building step downs towards the street occur

2.4.11

The orientation and placement of garages should be varied so as to avoid the appearance of repetitive garage doors. Techniques to accomplish this include, but are not limited to, garages that are side-loaded, rear-loaded, accessed from alleys, and rear garages accessed from the front. In older neighborhoods, location and access to parking shall respect the existing street and pattern of development.

Partially consistent but only a small amount of variation occurs between garages.

All are oriented towards the street (except the flag lots) and all are internal to the primary structure with garage doors facing the streets

2.4.12

Projects should be designed to relate outward to the surrounding community. To that end, gating of communities and enclosing them within an unarticulated external wall is discouraged.

Consistent

2.5.1

Generally, ground level view corridors should be provided from public streets. This requires space between buildings and/or development of landscaped areas that connect to open space.

Partially consistent, existing view corridors do not exist across the project site.

However, the proposed development does not provide open space between proposed buildings due to continuous fencing

2.5.2

Landscaped areas should be developed and plant materials selected so as to create and/or preserve view corridors.

Consistent

2.5.3

Site planning for individual parcels shall consider internal view (for example, courtyards) as well as views looking outward.

Not Applicable

2.5.3 (A)

Outward views should be framed with tree and shrub massing. Plantings should also soften views of the buildings from surrounding areas.

Consistent

2.5.3 (B)

Where public streets are located at or below grade of development, the adjacent parkways and slopes should be landscaped with diverse plant materials to enhance motorists' views.

Consistent

Views

95

Chapter 4 | Analysis of Project Impact

Design Guideline Number

Design Guideline Text

Consistency Determination

Views (cont.)

2.5.4

Projects should be designed to preserve some of the significant views through the site.

Consistent

2.5.4

Projects should be designed to preserve significant public views. A significant public view is a view of a significant feature (ocean, lagoon or backcountry) as viewed from public parks and General Plan designated vista points and scenic view corridors.

Consistent

2.5.4

Trees and vegetation that are themselves part of the view quality should be retained.

Not Consistent, all trees on the site will be removed

2.5.5

Projects should be designed to preserve some of the significant views through the site enjoyed by residents of nearby properties.

Partially Consistent, the project does preserve some views

2.5.5 (A)

The reckless and unnecessary blockage of views should be avoided to provide for some view preservation. View preservation through the site shall be considered when trees are selected for landscaping the project.

Consistent

Separations and Buffers

2.6.2

Physical barriers should only be used when space requirements are prohibitive or when security/safety reasons dictate their use. If physical barriers are needed, they should be designed to complement the character of the project.

Consistent

2.6.3

Where landforms consisting of slopes and berms are used when separating land uses, they should be appropriately landscaped with a combination of trees, shrubs, and groundcover.

Consistent

2.6.4

Physical separations can be accomplished through the use of thick landscaping.

Partially Consistent, some fences are proposed

2.6.5

Visual screening is best accomplished through the use of trees and shrubs that fill in at eye level.

Not Applicable

2.6.5

Visual screens should not be continuous and should allow for visual penetration through areas with views.

Partially Consistent, some fences are varied to accommodate views through the fence

2.6.6

Retaining walls that are internal to the project should be used only where grading considerations require their use. Retaining walls located on the project boundary are discouraged. If a retaining wall along the boundary is necessary, it shall be landscaped and/or constructed with quality materials with color and texture appropriate to the project’s architecture.

Consistent

2.6.7

Landscaping should be used to define spaces to provide visual screening, and to discourage physical intrusion into certain areas of the project.

Consistent

96

Community Character Study | Hymettus Estates

Design Guideline Number

Design Guideline Text

Consistency Determination

Grading and Landform Guidelines 3.1.1

Development shall consider the constraints and opportunities of the site and adjacent property.

Consistent

3.1.2

The project grading should be sensitive to the existing site topography.

Consistent

3.1.3

The view of the graded landform from private properties and public areas should reflect the existing landform character and minimize a manufactured appearance.

Consistent

3.1.4

Significant natural features shall be incorporated into developments including, but not limited to, rock outcroppings, natural drainage courses, trees, and other visual assets of the site to the extent possible while adhering with the allowed density of the underlying zone.

Partially Consistent, there are no existing significant natural features on the site, however, all existing trees will be removed and the landform will be modified

3.1.5

Excessive grading should be avoided and removal of vegetation shall be limited to the minimum necessary.

Not Consistent, all of the existing trees on the site will be removed and excessive grading will take place

3.1.6

Pads shall not be significantly “built up� above existing topography, unless no feasible alternative exists given engineering constraints.

Consistent

3.2.1

The overall architecture shall complement and reinforce the existing topography.

Consistent

3.2.2

Rather than using extensive grading to create one large pad, projects should create smaller pads gradually terracing up hillsides where feasible. This produces smaller slopes that are more easily revegetated, visually less obtrusive and more suitable for slope contouring and blending.

Consistent

3.2.3

Long, continuous slopes that have hard edges, sharp, angular forms and no transition areas at the top or toe of the slope shall be avoided. "Natural" landform contour grading smoothed to blend with the surrounding natural terrain and with rounding and blending at the top and toe of the slope shall be used to create a more natural appearing slope.

Consistent

3.2.4

Variable slope gradients are encouraged.

Consistent

3.2.4

Smooth, flowing contours of varied gradients from 2:1 to 5:1 are preferred. Slopes may be approved to exceed 2:1 if demonstrated safe by specific site engineering studies.

Consistent

3.2.5

Hillside design should avoid large building pads and should minimize the height of retaining walls.

Consistent

97

Chapter 4 | Analysis of Project Impact

Design Guideline Number

Design Guideline Text

Consistency Determination

3.2.5

Buildings should be integrated into the hillside and be sited to conceal graded slopes and retaining walls where possible.

Partially Consistent, some of the houses conceal the retaining walls but the buildings are not integrated into the slopes created on site

3.2.6

Significant graded slopes shall be landscaped.

Consistent

3.2.7

Retaining walls faced with local stone or of earth-colored and textured concrete are encouraged, and should be used to minimize grading, where practical.

Consistent

3.2.7

Plantable walls are encouraged.

Consistent

3.2.8

All drainage shall be conveyed to vegetated areas or other approved areas of the site in a manner consistent with the City’s Jurisdictional Regional Stormwater Management Program.

Consistent

3.2.9

Grading shall be sensitive to existing natural forms.

Consistent

3.2.10

All hardscape and walkway areas shall be graded to facilitate drainage.

Consistent

3.2.11

All buildings should be equipped with adequate roof drains, downspouts, and/or other drainage conveyances.

Consistent

3.2.12

Permanent landscaping shall be installed as soon as practical during development activity.

Consistent

3.2.13

Pads shall not be significantly built up above the preexisting or natural topography, unless necessary due to engineering constraints.

Consistent

Grading and Landform Guidelines (cont.)

Circulation, Parking and Streetscape Guidelines Public safety and community character should be key factors in streetscape design. The existing community character should be maintained. When considering circulation patterns and standards, primary consideration will be given to the preservation of character and safety of existing residential neighborhoods. Where conflicts arise between convenience of motorists and neighborhood safety/community character preservation, the latter will have first priority.

Consistent

4.1.3

Walkability shall be considered as a major goal in all projects.

Not Consistent, the development does not provide sidewalks or additional pedestrian facilities.

4.1.6

The design of streets and walkways should respect the natural terrain/ features, and minimize cut and fill.

Consistent

4.1.2

98

Community Character Study | Hymettus Estates

Design Guideline Number

Design Guideline Text

Consistency Determination

Architecture Guidelines Buildings shall be designed with the site potentials and constraints in mind. Predesigned buildings or stock plans are rarely appropriate for the site and fail to take advantage of the site opportunities, including, but not limited to, usability, natural terrain, scale, walkability, energy efficiency, solar orientation, advantageous views, relationship to adjoining uses, and prevailing winds.

Consistent

5.1.2

The impact on surrounding uses shall be considered in the building design.

Partially Consistent since the property to the north of the site is located too close to one of the proposed units

5.1.3

The character of the community in which the project is to be built shall be considered when designing the building.

Consistent

5.1.4

The eclectic architectural nature of Encinitas should be reflected in any project.

Consistent

5.1.1

Building Design

5.3.1

Design for buildings should pay special attention to roof area treatment and materials. Pitched roofs or other special roof forms are usually preferred to flat roofs.

Large flat roofs shall be avoided. If visible, flat roofs shall be accompanied by parapets or other design elements to screen them from view. In visible areas, roof materials and the backsides of parapets should be earth tone colors.

Consistent

5.3.1

Large flat roof surfaces should incorporate shed roofs, porches, or trellis-covered exterior walkways to aid in reducing the scale of a structure. In larger buildings, careful attention should be given to the view of the roof surface and appurtenances from off-site locations.

Consistent

5.3.2

Structures should be designed to create transitions in form and scale between large buildings and adjacent smaller buildings.

Partially Consistent, the proposed two-story structures have minimal transitional features such as set-backs.

This creates the perception of a larger mass than is present in the adjacent existing residences. Topographical contribute to this perception.

However, dense landscping helps to mitigate these differences.

5.3.3

Building forms should be designed to create visual interest. Changes in form accomplished by varying levels and planes can create a visually interesting structure while minimizing the appearance of bulk.

Consistent

5.3.4

For subdivisions having five (5) or more lots, a minimum of one (1) in five (5) should be single-story when located within the Rural Residential (RR) through Residential-8 (R-8) zones.

Consistent

5.3.5

Variety in home design is an important element of residential subdivisions. Homes of similar exterior design treatment, floor plan or color scheme should not be located in close proximity to one another. As a general rule for subdivisions of five or more lots, a minimum of three (3) distinctly different floor plans and exterior design treatments should be provided, more in the case of larger subdivisions.

Consistent

99

Chapter 4 | Analysis of Project Impact

Design Guideline Number

Design Guideline Text

Consistency Determination

Building Design (cont.)

5.3.5

No two homes of similar color schemes or floor plans should be located on adjacent lots or directly across the street from one another.

Consistent

5.3.5

No homes of the same exterior design treatment should be located within three (3) lots nor directly across the street from one another.

Consistent

5.3.7

Buildings on sloped sites should be sensitive to the topography and angle of the slope.

Consistent

5.3.7 (A)

Structures should utilize building materials and color, in earth tones, particularly darker hues, when located on hillside topography or in view corridors.

Consistent

5.3.7 (B)

Buildings should provide a variety of floor levels to step with the slope. Roof forms should also follow the slope.

Consistent

5.3.8

Walled patios, loggias, and arcades are encouraged as architectural elements to create places for outdoor activities on the site and to create transitions between indoors and outdoors.

Consistent

5.3.9

Visual interest is strengthened by shadow relief. This is best accomplished by breaking larger masses into smaller parts.

Consistent

Reduction of the Visual Bulk of Structures

5.4.1

The apparent mass of each building should be minimized by placing the building away from adjacent streets, thus allowing space for landscaping to soften the appearance of the building heights. In addition, the wall planes facing the streets should modulate, creating a varying street facade.

Consistent

5.4.2

Large or long unbroken wall planes should be avoided. Building masses should be broken into smaller-scale elements. In order to produce shadows and visual relief, elevations should be articulated with eave overhangs, decks, porches, architectural projections and recesses, varied rooflines, varied materials and color, second story setbacks, courtyards, and projected windows.

Consistent

5.4.3

The topography of the site can be used to reduce the visual bulk of a building. On sloped lots, buildings should be integrated into and step with the slope.

Partially Consistent, the largest buildings are sited at the top of the slope and are therefore not reducing the visual bulk of the building

5.4.4

The roof is the most visible portion of the building and should be designed to provide architectural unity and interest to a building. Roof lines should be varied vertically and horizontally to provide greater visual relief.

Consistent

5.4.4

Roofing material and design should provide texture, pattern and overall interest to the building rather than present a dull, flat appearance.

Partially Consistent, there is a lack of variety in material and form for the majority of roofs in the proposed development

5.4.5

Rooflines should avoid extended flat horizontal lines.

Consistent

5.4.6

Use of engineered vertical walls, including keystone and other block or masonry walls, shall be avoided where possible and minimized where necessary in order to avoid visual impact. Consideration shall be given to rounding of walls and use of offset walls softened with landscape treatment. Retaining walls should be kept to an exposed height not exceeding six feet where possible.

Consistent

5.4.8

A human scale should be achieved near ground level on large buildings and along entryways with the use of human scale elements including, but not limited to, windows, doors, columns, beams, canopies, overhangs, and arcades.

Consistent

100

Community Character Study | Hymettus Estates

Design Guideline Number

Design Guideline Text

Consistency Determination

Colors and Materials

5.5.1

Exterior facing materials are one of the major determinants of a building's visual image. Variety in complementary exterior materials and colors should be used.

Additional colors, materials and details including, but not limited to, fascia, trim, and railings may be applied to small areas to emphasize certain features including entrances, decks, etc. Trim, fascia, rafter tails and the like should be of a sufficient dimension to achieve the desired visual effect and to be consistent with the overall character of the building design.

Consistent

5.5.2

Use of manufactured materials that simulate natural materials (e.g. cultured stone, wood siding panels, etc.) is acceptable. However, the use of such materials should be used in a manner that appears natural (e.g. avoid use of visually unsupported cultured stone, particularly on wainscots not reaching the ground and over openings).

Consistent

5.5.3

Glass, skylights and reflective materials such as aluminum and plastic should be used carefully to minimize their reflective properties. Overhangs should protect large areas of glass. Highly reflective mirrored glass or roofing should be avoided.

Consistent

Architectural Character and Detailing Buildings should include sensitive architectural detailing and careful selection of materials to enhance character definition. Special care should be given to building detailing on all visible sides of developments, particularly at building entrances.

Although side and rear elevations may be less intensely detailed than the front elevation, some recollection of front elevation materials and detailing shall be incorporated.

Consistent

5.6.2

Walls and fences shall be compatible with the surrounding landscape and architecture. Straight, unbroken solid fence or wall lines can become monotonous and should be avoided, through the use of offsets, color changes, columns, and varied material treatments.

Partially Consistent, the proposed site uses predominantly the same wooden fencing throughout but does vary the heights and avoids long runs of similar fencing

5.6.3

Building masses should be arranged so that they create shadows and emphasize the contrast of light and shaded surface.

Consistent

5.6.1

Landscape Guidelines

7.1.1

A variety of plant materials should form the basis for any landscape design rather than excessive repetition of species.

Not Consistent, the same landscape treatment is being applied to the majority of the properties

7.1.2

Native plant materials should be used adjacent to native areas and when consistent with fire safety requirements.

Consistent

7.1.3

Landscape design shall take neighboring property views into consideration.

Consistent

7.1.4

Project landscaping shall take into consideration the constraints and opportunities of the site and adjacent properties.

Consistent

7.1.5

The impacts on surrounding properties shall be considered in a project’s landscape plan.

Consistent

101

Chapter 4 | Analysis of Project Impact

Design Guideline Number

Design Guideline Text

Consistency Determination

Landscape Guidelines (cont.)

7.1.6

The landscape character should be compatible with that of the community and neighborhood.

Not Consistent, proposed landscaping does not provide the variety or density seen in the existing neighborhood

7.3.1

Drought tolerant and native plant materials are encouraged.

Consistent

7.3.2

Graded slopes shall be promptly re-vegetated.

Consistent

7.3.3

Native plants and plant mixes are encouraged for revegetating large sloped areas.

Hydroseed may be used for groundcover and may include shrubs and trees.

Groundcovers shall possess moderate or high erosion control qualities.

Consistent

7.3.4

Landscaping should enhance natural site elements through the careful use of flower and leaf color and texture, plant forms and plant masses.

Consistent

7.3.5

Landscaping should be designed to effectively enhance existing views or provide new view corridor opportunities.

Consistent

7.3.6

Landscape design shall provide effective screening of parking areas, retaining walls, utility enclosures, utility cabinets, service areas, or service corridors to reduce negative visual impacts.

Partially Consistent, retaining walls are located behind proposed units but are not screened

7.3.7

Grouped masses of plant materials shall be designed to complement architectural elevations and rooflines through color, texture, density, and form on both the vertical and horizontal planes.

Consistent

7.3.8

Plant materials known to have root systems that are invasive or destructive shall be avoided.

Consistent

7.3.9

The spacing of the plant material should be commensurate with anticipated mature growth in order to promote natural forms without the need for excessive pruning and maintenance in the future.

Consistent

7.3.10

Deciduous trees should be used in south facing outdoor areas around buildings to provide solar access during winter months, while providing shade in hot summer months.

Consistent

7.3.11

Trees and shrubs on west sides of buildings should be concentrated to reduce heat build-up during hot afternoon hours.

Consistent

7.3.12

To allow visibility at pedestrian levels, landscaping materials in ground level view corridor areas should include trees with taller canopy areas rather than short bushy trees.

Consistent

7.3.13

Plantings designed for major entries should relate directly to the existing surrounding environment.

Not Applicable

7.3.14

Turf areas should be minimized except where recreation areas are required.

Consistent

7.3.15

Large walls or fences, such as around tennis courts, should be softened with appropriately scaled landscaping.

Not Applicable

7.3.16

Perimeter fencing or walls visible to the public and neighboring properties shall avoid monotony by the use of recesses, planting materials and architectural features to visually “break up� their linear appearance.

Partially Consistent, the majority of the retaining walls and fences are not screened

102

Community Character Study | Hymettus Estates

Design Guideline Number

Design Guideline Text

Consistency Determination

Slope Planting Design 7.7.1

Plant materials should be selected for their effectiveness of erosion control, drought tolerance and visual blending.

Consistent

7.7.2

Slope plant selection and location should consider neighbors’ views.

Consistent

7.7.3

Varied species and irregular plant spacing should achieve a natural appearance on disturbed or graded slopes. Trees shall be planted along contour lines in undulating groups to create grove effects that not only reinforce the natural undulating appearance of the slopes, but also soften the line of the graded slopes.

Partially Consistent, no trees are proposed for the slopes and proposed shrubs are not spaced to create a “natural appearance�

7.8.3

Landscape and site design shall incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control pollution in storm water runoff. Landscaped areas within the project shall be provided and used to treat runoff from impervious surfaces and roof drains prior to being discharged into the storm drain system. Landscape and site design shall be reviewed during the discretionary review process.

Consistent

103

Chapter 4 | Analysis of Project Impact

4.5 LANDFORM CHARACTER IMPACTS

An impact would occur if the project were to alter more than 2,000 cubic yards of earth per graded acre by either excavation or fill Less than significant impact: The proposed development will require 11,500 cubic yards of excavation and 600 cubic yards of fill for a total export of 10,900 cubic yards of soil. However, in order for this factor to be significant, one of the following conditions must also apply: a. The project would disturb steep hillsides in excess of the encroachment allowances of the Hillside Inland Bluff Ordinance b. The project would create manufactured slopes higher than ten feet or steeper than 2:1 (50 percent) c. The project would result in a change in elevation of steep hillsides from existing grade to proposed grade of more than four feet of fill or 8 feet of excavation.

The proposed project site includes a total of 2.25 acres. Due to right-of-way and private road dedications, the net developable area is 2.16 acres . Of the developable 2.16 acres, only 0.02 acres are between a 25% to 40% slope. The remaining portion of the site is less than 25% slope. As a result, the project would not qualify as a Hillside/Inland Bluff Overlay Zone (a) and does not include a steep hillside (c).

In addition, there are no manufactured slopes higher than ten feet or steeper than 2:1 (b). Although the largest slope on the proposed site, located behind Lots 1 and 2, reaches a height of 10 feet, it does not exceed 10 feet in height.

An impact would occur if the project were to include mass terracing of natural slopes with cut or fill slopes in order to construct flat-pad structures No impact: The proposed development incorporates two slopes into the proposed development, behind Lots 1 and 2, in order to construct flat-pad structures. However, the remaining portion of the site utilizes the existing topography of the site in order to create developable areas without having to incorporate mass terracing throughout the site.

An impact would occur if the project were to include crib, retaining, or noise walls greater than 6’ in height and 50 feet in length with minimal landscape screening or berming where the walls would be visible to the public Less than significant impact: There are several retaining walls within the proposed development located along the rear of Lots 1 and 2. All of the proposed retaining walls are less than 5 feet in height, but they are greater than 50 feet in length; the wall behind Lot 2 is approximately 100 feet long. Although the slopes behind the walls will include vegetation (shrubs and groundcover, the area immediately in front of the retaining wall will not be screened. However, the view of these walls from the public right-of-way will be mostly obstructed by the landscaping surrounding the bioretention basin and the house on Lot 2.

An impact would occur if the project were to remove all of the Natural Landform Features Less than significant impact: The natural landform of the existing site is a mound with the high point generally located near the center of the lot (between proposed Lots 7 and 8). The topography slopes down from the high point towards the rights-of-way with steeper slopes along the west side and more gradual slopes along the east side. The existing site includes a variety of mature trees and shrubs in various levels of health.

The proposed development takes the existing landform into consideration and, to the extent possible, maintains the general mounded shape with the high point located in the same location. Due to the space necessary for each unit, the new slopes within the proposed development will be less gradual than the existing slopes. These slopes will be minimized through the incorporation of trees, shrubs, and groundcover along each of the slopes.

104

Community Character Study | Hymettus Estates

An impact would occur if the project were to create large and dominant manufactured slopes Less than significant impact: The largest and most visually prominent manufactured slope within the proposed development is located between Lot 1 and Lots 7/8. Due to the location of the bioretention basin between the slope and Fulvia Street, the slope is mostly hidden from the street right-of-way by landscaping features. A portion of the slope is located behind Unit 1 and is also mostly obstructed from public view. In addition, the slope will incorporate various landscape elements (shrubs and groundcover) that will minimize the appearance of the slope.

105

Chapter 4 | Analysis of Project Impact

4.6 LAND USE IMPACTS

Compatibility with Existing Land Uses No impact: The proposed project site is located within an existing residential neighborhood that includes single-family and multi-family residences with “R-3: Residential 3” and “R-8: Residential 8” zoning designations. The proposed nine-lot residential development would be zoned “R-3: Residential 3” and include single-family residential use that would be consistent with the existing land uses.

Disruption or Division of an Established Community’s Physical Arrangement No impact: The proposed project would result in the development of a residential subdivision within an existing residential neighborhood. The project site is currently developed with a twostory residence, two garages, a cottage, and two sheds; the majority of the project site is vacant, with scattered landscaping and a dirt driveway off of Fulvia Street. The majority of the site is fenced, precluding access to or through the site. With implementation of the project, a nine-unit residential subdivision would be constructed and integrated with the surrounding residential community. No changes to the existing roadway network are proposed, and access in and around the community would remain similar to existing conditions. The proposed project would not physically disrupt or divide the established community.

Compatibility with Planned Land Uses No impact: The project site is currently surrounded by single-family and multi-family residences. The Future Land Use Map identifies areas to the east of the site as “R-3: Residential 3” and areas to the west of the site as “R-8: Residential 8”. Therefore, the proposed project is compatible with the planned land uses within the area.

Consistency with Adopted City Land Use Plans No impact: The Future Land Use Plan, included in the City’s General Plan, identifies the proposed project site as “R-3: Residential 3” which allows for a density up to 3.0 units per acre. The City’s General Plan also allows density bonuses in return for guarantees of affordable dwelling units in new construction. Since one of the units in the proposed development is designated as “very low income”, the proposed development is eligible for a density bonus. As a result, a total of nine residences would be permitted for the proposed development. Taking both the Future Land Use Plan and General Plan into consideration, the proposed development is consistent with planned land uses.

Consistency with Transportation Plans and Programs Less than significant impact: North County Transit District bus service and the COASTER commuter train are within the vicinity of the project site (NCTD 2014). The closest bus stop to the project is located at Highway 101 and Leucadia Boulevard, approximately 1,600 feet from the project site. The COASTER runs parallel to Highway 101 in Encinitas and has a stop approximately 1 mile south of the proposed project site. The project would not alter or conflict with existing bus stop and train schedules, and impacts related to NCTD and COASTER transit services would not occur.

The nearest bicycle route to the proposed project site is a Class 2 bike path that runs east/west along Leucadia Boulevard (City of Encinitas 2014). The proposed project does not include any transportationrelated improvements and does not include any improvements outside of the project boundary.

Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with adopted transportation plans and programs and would not decrease the performance or safety of any existing facilities.

The proposed project is expected to generate approximately 78 average daily trips (ADT). However, this traffic increase in traffic would not be substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and would not change the current level of service (LOS).

Consistency with Air Quality Plans and Programs Less than significant impact: Projects that propose development that is consistent with the growth anticipated by the relevant land use plans would be consistent with the current San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) air quality plans. Because the project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan or policy and would be consistent with recent growth projections for the region, it would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the current SDAPCD air quality plans.

Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.

106

Community Character Study | Hymettus Estates

At the local level, the City adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) in 2011 to reduce community-wide Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions to 12% below 2005 levels by 2020. Projects that construct fewer than 50 new units would be considered to have a less-than-significant cumulative impact on climate change. As a result, the proposed nine-unit development would have a less-than-significant impact.

Consistency with Water Quality Plans and Programs Less than significant impact: The proposed development site incorporates a bioretention basin for stormwater runoff as well as depressed landscape BMP areas (bioretention) along the perimeter of the development. These elements will reduce the impact of stormwater and pollutant runoff that would impact water quality on the site.

Compliance with the City’s Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Program (JURMP) and the Municipal Stormwater Permit (Order No. 2001-01) would ensure that the project would have a lesssignificant impact on water quality standards during project operation. In addition, the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) would target runoff pollutants that are typical for the proposed project’s land use (e.g., sediment, nutrients, trash and debris, oxygen-demanding substances, oil and grease, bacteria, and pesticides) to reduce impacts on water quality during project operation.

Consistency with Multiple Habitat Conservation Programs No impact: No habitat conservation plans, natural community conservation plans, or other conservation plans apply to the proposed project site.

Consistency with Sustainable Communities Strategy No impact: The Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) is a new element of the 2050 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The SCS lays out how the region will meet greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets set by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). CARB’s targets call for the region to reduce per capita emissions seven percent by 2020 and 13 percent by 2035 from a 2005 baseline.

Consistency with Municipal Policies Regarding Land Use Less than significant impact: The proposed project’s consistency with zoning code regulations is covered in the various design elements discussed in chapter 2 including land use, lot coverage, setbacks, and density. Taking the density bonus into consideration, the project is consistent with the city’s zoning regulations.

Table 4-3 outlines the city’s General Plan goals, objectives, and policies that are applicable to the proposed project and discusses the project’s consistency with each. As described in the table, the proposed project is consistent with, or furthers the intent of, the majority of the applicable General Plan goals, objectives, and/or policies, therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Inconsistencies with the General Plan include the removal of all trees from the site. However, the site includes only 12 healthy, mature trees and the proposed site will include 22 new trees.

107

Chapter 4 | Analysis of Project Impact

Table 4-3: Project Consistency with Municipal Policies Regarding Land Use Land Use Element: Building Height

The existing general plan and zoning designation for the site is R-3 (three single-family residential dwelling units per acre), which allows for up to six single-family residential dwelling units on the 2.25-acre parcel. Building heights on parcels with R-3 zoning/land use designation are limited to two stories or 26 feet, whichever is less.

POLICY 7.10: Both residential and non-residential development shall be limited to a maximum height of two stories and 30 feet. Limited exceptions for non-residential development may be allowed, but only for designated specific sites as developed and adopted through area specific plans.

Land Use Element: Compatibility

Policy 6.5: The design of future development shall consider the constraints and opportunities that are provided by adjacent existing development.

Policy 6.6: The building height of residential and non-residential structures shall be consistent with surrounding development, given topographic and other considerations, and shall protect public views of regional or statewide significance.

Land Use Element: Urban Design

The City seeks to maintain the unique character of the five communities through a number of policies related to urban design. These measures include the establishment of design themes for the communities that make up the City. In addition, design themes are encouraged for the identifiable districts and corridors located within these communities.

Goal 7: Development in the community should provide an identity for the City while maintaining the unique identity of the individual communities. Although common themes for each of the communities may be established, each community may also promote variety in the design of individual projects.

Policy 7.4: Develop regulations and incentives for residential...Developers to vary design, setbacks, driveways, roof lines, materials, colors, landscaping, etc. To ensure variation in the design of individual residential units within larger subdivisions.

Land Use Element: Density Allowance

POLICY 8.3: Residential development on land that has physical constraints shall exclude or discount areas subject to specified constraints from density allowance. Portions of development sites subject to the following constraints shall be excluded from the net lot area used to figure density: floodplains, beaches, permanent bodies of water, significant wetlands, major utility easements, railroad track beds or rights-of-way, and rights-of-way and easements for public/private streets and roads. The remaining net lot area shall then be calculated for density allowance, based on the assigned land use category density range, subject to the following discounts based on site slope: ■■ Portions of site 0-25% slope - 100% density ■■ Portions of site 25-40% slope - approximately 50% density allowance ■■ Portions of site 40%+ slope - no density allowance.

Density allowance shall be limited to the mid-point of the land use category range, as specified by the zoning code, unless findings can be made that the proposed project excels in design excellence and/or provides extraordinary community benefits. Upon such findings, up to the maximum density level of the range may be allowed. In no case shall less than one dwelling per legal lot be allowed.

108

Consistency Determination

Project is Consistent The site is remaining an R-3 land use designation and all proposed structures are 26 feet or less in height. The proposed development has received a density bonus in order to allow for additional units above the six allowed by current zoning.

Consistency Determination

Project is Consistent The heights of the proposed buildings are consistent with surrounding development and do not impact any existing public ocean views.

Consistency Determination

Project is Partially Consistent The proposed development seeks to remain consistent with surrounding development and provide a variety in roof lines, materials, and colors for each units. Several elements (driveway materials, fencing, landscaping) do not provide enough variation to be consistent with the community character.

Consistency Determination

Project is Consistent Based on current zoning of the site, the proposed development is allowed to develop six units. However, one of the units has been designated as a “very low” affordable unit and therefore makes this project eligible for a density bonus. As a result, the number of allowable units has been increased to nine.

Community Character Study | Hymettus Estates

Housing Element: Density Bonus

Continue to provide zoning code provisions to allow density bonuses in return for guarantees of affordable dwelling units in new construction as provided by State law. Review code to insure consistency with requirements of new State law, AB 1863., 1989 statutes. Pursuant to State law, if a developer allocates at least 10% of the units in a housing project to lower income households, 5% of the units for very low income households, or at least 1 acre of land is dedicated to the City for very low income units, the City must grant a density bonus of 35%*. Developers granted a density bonus enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement with the City to ensure the continued affordability of the units. The City’s five year target for affordable units developed through the density bonus program is 50 units.

Consistency Determination

Project is Consistent The existing zoning allows for the development of six units. One of the units (14% of the development) has been designated for “very low” affordable housing which makes the development eligible for a 35% density bonus. As a result, the number of allowable units has been increased to nine.

*The City of Encinitas is in the process of updating their bonus density calculations to align with Government Code 65915.

Housing Element: Housing Opportunities

Policy 1.3: When existing residential units are replaced, they should be replaced with units that are compatible in design with the surrounding residential neighborhood as planned by the City.

Policy 1.4: Require that housing constructed expressly for low- and moderate-income households should not be concentrated in any single community or single area of the City and that such housing should be high quality in terms of design and construction without sacrificing affordability.

Consistency Determination

Project is Consistent The proposed development would be consistent with the existing zoning and land use designations for the site. In addition, this report has found the existing neighborhood character to be compatible with the existing neighborhood.

Because only one of the eight proposed units would be an affordable housing unit, there would be no concentration of affordable units. The design of the affordable unit complements the materials and scale of the eight marketrate units.

Resource Management Element: Landscaping

The importance of preserving natural vegetation has been emphasized in other goals and policies included elsewhere in this Element and is restated here. The following policies stress the importance of landscaping in new development. The following policies establish guidelines for landscaping in all new development in Encinitas which will both enhance the City’s overall appearance and that of the individual developments. The following policies also support the objectives of the Coastal Act concerned with the preservation of plant resources.

GOAL 9: The City will encourage the abundant use of natural and drought tolerant landscaping in new development and preserve natural vegetation, as much as possible, in undeveloped areas. (Coastal Act/30240/30251)

Consistency Determination

Project is Consistent The landscaping within the proposed development includes a variety of groundcover, shrubs and trees around the perimeter of each lot and along the slopes throughout the site. In addition, planted bioretention areas along with a street frontage groundcover are located along the street right-of way around the perimeter of the site.

POLICY 9.6: Require landscaping in the design of new Residential, commercial, and industrial buildings as detailed in the City Zoning Code regulations. (Coastal Act/30251/30253) Resource Management Element: Mature Trees

POLICY 3. 6: Future development shall maintain significant mature trees to the extent possible and incorporate them into the design of development projects.

Consistency Determination

Project is Partially Consistent All (90 total) mature trees will be removed from the site. Only 12 of these trees are identified as healthy and the proposed site will provide 22 new trees.

109

Chapter 4 | Analysis of Project Impact

4.7 VIEW IMPACTS

Chapter 2 provides a detailed description of the GIS-based analysis conducted to assess the impacts of the proposed development on both public and private views.

Impacts to public views from a scenic highway/visual corridor No impact: Leucadia Boulevard, located to the north of the proposed site, is identified as a scenic highway in the city’s General Plan. Ocean views are available along the majority of the Leucadia Boulevard from Hymettus Avenue to Fulvia Street as seen in Figure 2-10. These ocean views are available looking west along Leucadia Boulevard, but not across the project site, and will therefore not be impacted by the proposed development.

Impacts to public views from a General plan vista point No impact: The city’s General Plan identifies 13 vista points located throughout the city, most of which are concentrated along the coastline. The closest vista point to the proposed project site is located approximately 0.3 miles south of the site at the intersection of Union Street and Orpheus Avenue. Due to the distance and location of the vista point, the proposed project would not have an impact on this, or any other, vista point.

The project would have a cumulative effect by opening up a new area for development, which will ultimately cause extensive public view blockage.

No impact: As explained in the previous land use impacts section, the proposed development would not open up any new, undeveloped area for future development. The proposed project is for a single-family residential infill development within an existing residential neighborhood. Although the proposed development would change the existing lot that includes one residence into a nine-unit residential development, the neighborhood would remain residential in character. The public views that are currently available along Fulvia Street and Leucadia Boulevard would not be impacted by the proposed development since the available views do no cross the proposed development site.

Impacts to views from a public road No impact: As shown in Figure 2-10, there are a low number of views (0-30) available from several locations along Leucadia Boulevard and Fulvia Street. These ocean views, however, are available looking west, not across the project site, and will therefore not be impacted by the proposed project.

Impacts to views from an adopted trail No impact: The trail facilities within the community study area are limited to existing sidewalks and proposed paths (natural hard surface in lieu of sidewalk ) along Leucadia Boulevard. These types of walking facilities are not classified as trails and they do not occur in parkland or other designated open space. Since there are no designated trails within the viewsheds of these projects, no impacts to existing or proposed trails will occur.

110

Community Character Study | Hymettus Estates

Impacts to views from a recreational area No impact: There are no recreational areas within the neighborhood or community study area. A park exists immediately to the south of the community area limits of the study. However, this park is not within the viewshed of the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on the views from a recreational area.

Impacts to private viewing corridors Less than significant impact: Figure 2-7 conveys the number of ocean views available from each residence in the neighborhood study area (at a second-story height) based on a NOAA LIDAR surface model. LIDAR surface data accounts for existing terrain, vegetation and buildings in order to create a more accurate analysis of existing views. Although not all of these buildings are two-story houses, the analysis was conducted to provide for the highest level of development possible.

Based on the data, there are three residences with a medium number of views. There are another six residences with a low number of views. However, most of these views are not projected across the proposed development site, therefore, the ocean view for these residences will not be obstructed by the proposed project. Although the property located at 835 Hymettus Avenue is also identified as having a medium number of views, this house is only one-story and has no available views due to dense landscaping and its location behind another property.

Consistency with municipal policies regarding views Less than significant impact: Table 4-4 outlines the city’s policies regarding views that are applicable to the proposed project, and the project’s conformance to those policies:

111

Chapter 4 | Analysis of Project Impact

Table 4-4: Project Consistency with the City of Encinitas Policies on Public and Private Views Resource Management Element: Scenic/Visual Corridor Overlay

The City will designate “Scenic/Visual Corridor Overlay” areas within which the character of development would be regulated to protect the integrity of the Vista Points. It is intended that development would be subject to the design review provisions of the Scenic/ Visual Corridor Overlay Zone for those locations within Scenic View Corridors, along scenic highways and adjacent to significant viewsheds and vista points with the addition of the following design criteria: POLICY 4.5: The City will designate “Scenic/Visual Corridor Overlay” areas within which the character of development would be regulated to protect the integrity of the Vista Points according to the following criteria: Critical viewshed areas should meet the following requirements: ■■ Extend radially for 2,000 feet (610M) from the Vista Point; and ■■ Cover areas upon which development could potentially obstruct, limit, or degrade the view.

Development within the critical viewshed area should be subject to design review based on the following: ■■ Building height, bulk, roof line and color and scale should not obstruct, limit or degrade the existing views; ■■ Landscaping should be located to screen adjacent undesirable views (parking lot areas, mechanical equipment, etc.) (Coastal Act/30251/30253) POLICY 4.7: The City will designate the following view as scenic highway/visual corridor: ■■ Leucadia Boulevard between Hwy 101 and El Camino Real POLICY 4.9: It is intended that development would be subject to the design review provisions of the Scenic/ Visual Corridor Overlay Zone for those locations within Scenic View Corridors, along scenic highways and adjacent to significant viewsheds and vista points with the addition of the following design criteria: ■■ Development Design: Development that is allowed within a viewshed area must respond in scale, roof line, materials, color, massing, and location on site to the topography, existing vegetation, and colors of the native environment. (Coastal Act/30251 / 30253) GOAL 6: Every effort shall be made to ensure that the existing desirable character of the communities is maintained.

POLICY 6. 5: The design of future development shall consider the constraints and opportunities that are provided by adjacent existing development. (Coastal Act/30251) POLICY 6. 6: The construction of very large buildings shall be discouraged where such structures are incompatible with surrounding development. The building height of both residential and nonresidential structures shall be compatible with surrounding development, given topographic and other considerations, and shall protect public views of regional or statewide significance. (Coastal Act/30251/30252/30253)

112

Consistency Determination

Project is Consistent POLICY 4.5: Only properties along the eastern edge of the neighborhood study area are located in the Scenic/ Visual Corridor Overlay Zone. However, these properties do no currently have an ocean view available, therefore, the proposed development will not obstruct any existing views.

POLICY 4.7: Leucadia Boulevard is designated as a scenic highway/visual corridor due to existing ocean views that are available to the west. Since the proposed development is located to the south of Leucadia Boulevard, no existing views will be obstructed.

POLICY 4.9: The proposed project incorporates elements from the existing neighborhood into the design in order to align with current neighborhood design.

Community Character Study | Hymettus Estates

City Design Guidelines: Views

2.5.4 Projects should be designed to preserve some of the significant views through the site.

Projects should be designed to preserve significant public views. A significant public view is a view of a significant feature (ocean, lagoon or backcountry) as viewed from public parks and General Plan designated vista points and scenic view corridors. Trees and vegetation that are themselves part of the view quality should be retained (See Figure 2-7).

2.5.5 Projects should be designed to preserve some of the significant views through the site enjoyed by residents of nearby properties.

A. Complete preservation of these views is difficult, if not impossible. Project viability can be severely reduced or destroyed in an attempt to preserve views for adjacent properties. The smaller the site, the more difficult the solution. On larger sites, however, clustering the buildings can preserve portions of these views or creating view opportunities. The reckless and unnecessary blockage of views should be avoided to provide for some view preservation. View preservation through the site shall be considered when trees are selected for landscaping the project.

B. A significant view refers to a medium- to long-range view from the primary living area of significant features including the coast, ocean, lagoons, backcountry canyons, valleys, ridges and other distinctive geographic features. The primary living area is the area most often occupied by the occupants of the residence relative to other portions of the residence and is where the view is observed. The determination of the primary living area is to be made on a case-by-case basis, but typically would be a living room, family room, kitchen, or dining area, or outdoor patio or deck immediately next to the primary living area.

Consistency Determination

Project is Consistent 2.5.4: The existing significant public views within the neighborhood study area are located along Fulvia Street towards the west and down Leucadia Boulevard. There are no existing public views available across the proposed development site, therefore future development on the site will not impact existing significant public views.

2.5.5: Existing private views in the neighborhood study area are available from several properties along Fulvia Street and Leucadia Boulevard. The proposed development will not impact these existing private views.

113

Chapter 4 | Analysis of Project Impact

4.8 OTHER VISUAL QUALITY IMPACTS

The above discussion covers topics related to the City’s Land Use/Community Character/Visual Quality Analysis. However, the City also utilizes the standard thresholds from the State of California as basic guidance for determining additional visual quality issues. These topics have been restated in their original form, although many of the topics have already been discussed in detail in previous sections.

These guidelines were developed by the Association of Environmental Planners (AEP) and the American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA) to identify visual impacts for projects that may block public views from designated open space, roads, or parks to significant visual landmarks or scenic vistas (the ocean, downtown skylines, mountains, waterways, wide open distant views etc.). To meet this significance threshold, one or more of the following conditions should apply: 1. The project would substantially block a public view through a designated public view corridor as shown in an adopted Community Plan, the General Plan, or the Local Coastal Program. Minor view blockages would not be considered to meet this condition.

Discussion: The project will not negatively affect any known view corridor that exists through the project site or that is tangential to the edge of the site, from any public viewing location. Minor private views may be affected from private properties to the east, if and when they may add a second floor to their existing homes. However, this criteria is based on public views only.

Conclusion: No view corridor impact would occur.

2. The project would cause “substantial” view blockage of a public resource (such as the ocean) that is considered significant by the applicable community plan.

Discussion: the same conclusions of no impact would exist for this project element as well as was the case in the previous criteria.

Conclusion: No view quality impact would occur.

3. The project exceeds the allowed height or bulk regulations, and this causes unnecessary view blockage.

Discussion: The proposed project fits all local regulations associated with the height and bulk for this zone. However, the increase in density may result in more potential view blockage than a lower number of units may have. Based on other obstructions located to the west from existing structures and mature landscaping limit the visibility of regional or subregionally significant viewing scenes.

Conclusion: No view bulk and height exception will result in any view blockage. However, the increase in density above the 6 units, will result in an less than significant enclosing of several viewing corridors that could see ocean views if trees or structures located to the west of the site were to be re-moved in the future.

4. The project would have a cumulative effect by opening up a new area for development, which will ultimately cause “extensive” view blockage.

Discussion: The project is an infill development and its presence will not create momentum for adjacent areas to develop or by providing infrastructure into a new area that would then be under pressure for development. So not cumulative view blockage would result.

Conclusion: No cumulative visual impact will result from opening up new areas for development since the project is an infill project and no undeveloped areas exist around the site.

5. The project would have a substantial impact on a scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

Discussion: The project is not located in or near a scenic highway. The project will result in the removal of some visual resources, including trees and landforms. However, these resources are not part of a scenic highway viewing scene.

Conclusion: The project will have an impact on visual resources in terms of tree removal and some character removal of old grove trees and farmhouse. However, this would not affect a viewing scene from a designated scenic corridor.

114