I have no issues with the lot coverage being exceeded. I think it's very minimal. I also think there were measures taken to preserve the vegetation, preserving that tree I think does a lot to give the corner some relief. So that's what I was hoping for. I think for this home, I think the design meets neighborhood compatibility. I think it's well thought out. I think it meets the criteria for design review. I think also the findings can be made for the variances and I could definitely approve this tonight. So I think we have consensus. MJ, I don't know if you're still on the fence or you thinking of coming on? MJ Coveny: [inaudible 00:28:58]. I don't think it's an egregious build here. My concern is the long term growth of this area. So it's like where do you start to draw a line? But again, I think the house is designed well. I just think when it was so in line with the neighbors, it just seemed like... And it was so high at that turn, just felt imposing from a neighborhood compatibility criteria. I don't think I have answered you.
Chair Imer Bauta: That's all right.
MJ Coveny: Let me just check one thing.
Debbie Neev: Katie, would you mind putting up the slide that... I'm sorry, Kate. I called you Katie. My niece is Katie. That shows all of the other variance requests and the houses that exceed the lot coverage. Thank you. I wanted to look at that corner there.
Chair Imer Bauta: Any way to zoom in to that corner? All right. It seems like we've got a consensus. Do we have a motion?
Debbie Neev: I'll go ahead and make a motion. I move to adopt resolution 20260922 approving design review 2026-0922 and variance 2026-0923 for the property located at 31552 Eagle Rock Way and find said action categorically exempt pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15301 and 15305. And don't we... Yes.
Chair Imer Bauta: And I would like to add, we would like to adopt the revised attachment one resolution 2026-0922.
Debbie Neev: Yes.
Louis Weil: I'll second that.
Chair Imer Bauta: Sarah, please call the roll.
Sarah: Board member Coveny?
MJ Coveny: Yes, based on findings one and two.
Attachment 8 126
11112222777 of 11114444666
Sarah: Board Member Weil?
Louis Weil: Yes.
Sarah: Chair Pro Tem Neev?
Debbie Neev: Yes.
Sarah: Chair Bauta?
Chair Imer Bauta: Yes. Congratulations.
Horst Noppenberger: Thank you.
Chair Imer Bauta: All right. Moving to our next regular order of business. We have item numberAttachment 8 127 11112222888 of 11114444666
Created 12/28/20
CITY COUNCIL ORDER OF TESTIMONY FOR APPEALS
AND REQUESTS FOR REVIEW OF PROJECTS
Purpose: The City Council is committed to assuring that members of the public have the opportunity to speak to any meeting agenda item before final action on projects.
This Order of Testimony establishes the right of persons who specifically wish to speak on projects appealed to or otherwise reviewed by the City Council.
Procedures: There are three types of hearings conducted by the City Council: 1) the appellant is person opposed to the project, 2) the appellant is the applicant, and 3) the project was called up for review by a member of the City Council or the City Manager. The procedures below provide the order in which testimony is considered and the allotted time for public comment. The procedure for each hearing shall be provided as the first attachment to the agenda bill.
I. Appellant is Person Opposed to Approved Project:
1. Staff report summary provided.
2. The appellant has 5 minutes for opening remarks.
3. Any persons in support of the appeal may speak for 3 minutes each.
4. The applicant has 5 minutes to speak in opposition to the appeal.
5. Any other persons in opposition to the appeal may speak for 3 minutes each.
6. The appellant has 2 minutes to speak in rebuttal.
II. Appellant is Applicant for Denied or Conditionally Approved Project:
1. Staff report summary provided.
2. The applicant has 5 minutes for opening remarks.
3. Any other persons in support of the appeal may speak for 3 minutes each.
4. Any persons in opposition to the appeal may speak for 3 minutes each.
5. The applicant has 2 minutes to speak in rebuttal.
Attachment 16
Attachment 9 128
11112222999 of 11114444666
Created 12/28/20
III. City Council or City Manager Review of Decision:
1. Staff report summary provided.
2. The City Manager may comment on the reason for review. City Council members will usually comment after hearing comments from the applicant and members of the public.
3. The applicant has 5 minutes to present the project.
4. Any persons in support of or in opposition to the project may speak for 3 minutes each.
5. The applicant has 2 minutes to speak in rebuttal.
Attachment 9 129
11113333000 of 11114444666
NOKES & QUINN, LLP
410 Broadway Street, Suite 200, Laguna Beach, CA 92651 • Phone: (949) 376-3500 September 15, 2026
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL ONLY
Mayor Mark Orgill and Members of the City Council
Ann Marie McKay, City Clerk
CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH
505 Forest Avenue
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
Re: 31552 Eagle Rock Way: Design Review 2026-0922 | Variance 2026-0923 Supplemental Applicant Comments Regarding September 22, 2026 Staff Report
Dear Mayor Orgill and Members of the City Council:
Our August 25, 2026 letter is already part of the record and sets out Applicant Adam McNicol's position concerning the June 25, 2026 Design Review Board approval, the requested variances, the Councilmember call up, and the standard of review.
The September 22nd staff report was prepared after that submission and changes one important aspect of the hearing posture. Staff now concludes that the subsequently adopted Urgency Design Review Efficiency Ordinance requires the Council to conduct a de novo hearing, notwithstanding that the application was filed, heard, approved 4-0, and called up under the prior ordinance.
I. Adam McNicol Followed the Rules, Won Under the Rules, and the Rules Were Changed After He Won.
The chronology matters. Mr. McNicol filed this application on September 12, 2024.
He proceeded through the City's required entitlement process for nearly two years. On June 25, 2026, after a duly noticed public hearing at which the principal opposition was fully presented, the DRB approved the project by a 4-0 vote and adopted detailed findings.
At the time of that approval, the Municipal Code afforded a four-vote DRB designreview decision a defined procedural protection: the Council could review whether the Board proceeded in the manner required by law and whether substantial evidence supported the decision, but it could not conduct a de novo hearing, reweigh the evidence, or exercise independent judgment as to the evidence. Mayor Orgill invoked Council review on July 9, 111133331111 of 11114444666
City Council – CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH
Re: 31552 Eagle Rock Way / 09/22/2026 Hearing ~ Supplemental Applicant Comments re Staff Report September 15, 2026
2026 under that existing framework and without stating grounds, as the then-applicable Code permitted.
The City did not adopt the urgency legislation on which staff now relies for de novo review until July 21, 2026 – after the application had been filed, after the DRB hearing had occurred, after the unanimous 4-0 approval had been entered, and twelve days after the Council review had already been initiated. The staff report acknowledges the central anomaly: the urgency ordinance “was not in effect at the time of the Review Request,” yet staff concludes that the later-enacted de novo standard now governs. In practical terms, the City proposes to apply a broader review rule to a proceeding that had already been initiated under a narrower one.
The City now proposes to use that later-enacted ordinance to enlarge the scope of a pending review and eliminate the principal protection the 4-0 approval carried when review began. We respectfully preserve our objection to that result. The concern is not technical. A member of the public should be able to follow the rules in effect, participate in the required process, obtain a unanimous approval, and expect that the rules governing review of that approval will not be materially expanded after the fact.
Had an ordinary resident wished to challenge the June 25th approval, that person would have been required to make a deliberate decision to appeal, pay the prescribed fee, and identify the specific grounds being asserted. Those requirements impose both accountability and focus. No such appeal was filed. Instead, a Councilmember initiated review without stated grounds or fee. The call up supplied the same second-tier review without those ordinary disciplines, and the subsequent ordinance change now gives that pending review an even broader scope than existed when it was initiated.
Viewed cumulatively, the process has placed Mr. McNicol in a uniquely disadvantaged position despite his having followed every rule the City imposed. He processed the application for nearly two years, received a 4-0 approval after a contested public hearing, and entered the Council review process with the protection against de novo reconsideration then provided by the Municipal Code. No private appeal was filed. Instead, a Councilmember initiated review without stated grounds or fee; the hearing was later continued; and, while that review remained pending, the City changed the rules so that the successful applicant is now required to defend the entire application anew. At every turn, the procedural burden has increased for the applicant while the opponents have been relieved of the ordinary burdens associated with pursuing an appeal. That is not merely inconvenient. It is the kind of procedural imbalance that should concern any resident who expects the City's land use process to be predictable and evenhanded.
///
///
111133332222 of 11114444666
City Council – CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH
Re: 31552 Eagle Rock Way / 09/22/2026 Hearing ~ Supplemental Applicant Comments re Staff Report September 15, 2026
II. Fortunately, Applicant McNicol Prevails Under Either Standard.
The irony is that none of this procedural expansion produces a different planning conclusion. The Council need not resolve the standard of review dispute in order to approve this project. Even after reopening the matter under the broader standard staff now believes applies, the September 22nd staff report independently analyzes the project under the current design review criteria and still recommends that the Council uphold the DRB approval, approve Design Review 2026-0922 and Variance 2026-0923, and find the project categorically exempt from CEQA.
Thus, the project has now been evaluated twice by the City's professional planning staff and once by the DRB. Each evaluation reaches the same result. The additions are modest in scale; the existing 21-foot, 6-inch roof height does not increase; approximately 77 square feet of elevated deck is removed to reduce perceived mass; one covered on-site parking space is added where none exists today; the Wildwood access satisfies width and backup requirements and provides reasonable sight lines; grading is limited to eight cubic yards; the project is compatible with the established Village Community development pattern; and staff finds no significant view or privacy impact.
III. The Variances Are Particularly Well Supported.
The September staff report also independently reaffirms every variance finding. The requested relief is concrete and limited: a two-foot intrusion into the required side setback, one covered parking space within the front setback, and one covered parking space instead of two. The project improves the existing condition by going from zero on-site parking to one covered space, while maintaining the existing building height.
Finding 1 - Special circumstances. The site has only approximately 1,575 square feet of buildable area after exclusion of the Wildwood Road easement; the residence was constructed around 1930 before current zoning; it has legal nonconforming setbacks on all sides; and it has no existing on-site parking. Staff again concludes that strict application of current setback and parking standards would deprive this property of privileges commonly enjoyed by similarly situated properties.
Finding 2 - Preservation of a substantial property right. Staff again identifies nearby properties that received materially comparable setback or parking relief, including 31572 Wildwood Road, 31562 Wildwood Road, 31632 Wildwood Road, 31578 Jewel Street, and 31550 Eagle Rock Way. One of those properties - 31632 Wildwood - belongs to Ann Christoph, the principal opponent of this application. That does not mean her variance dictates the result here. It does mean the property right the Code directs the Council to examine is real, local, and has actually been enjoyed by the person now urging denial of comparable relief to her neighbor. The variance provisions cannot operate as a one-way street on Wildwood Road.
111133333333 of 11114444666
City Council – CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH
Re: 31552 Eagle Rock Way / 09/22/2026 Hearing ~ Supplemental Applicant Comments re Staff Report September 15, 2026
Finding 3 - No detriment. The project maintains the existing height, consists of modest additions, improves parking, and creates no significant view, privacy, access, circulation, or public safety impact. The project remains subject to all applicable Building and Fire Code requirements.
Finding 4 - Consistency with the zoning ordinance and General Plan. The Village Community zone exists to recognize and preserve South Laguna's historic pattern of very small lots, narrow private streets, compact homes, varied setbacks, and lawful nonconforming conditions. The project reinvests in an existing residence while maintaining its low-profile character and is exactly the kind of sensitive infill the zone is designed to accommodate.
IV. The New Public Opposition Does Not Undermine the Findings.
The new written opposition raises a claimed partial hillside view impact, concern that Wildwood Road will feel narrower, and anticipated construction noise and inconvenience.
Staff has now considered the project anew and concludes that the unchanged building height, modest additional mass, and low landscaping will not adversely affect public or private views. Staff also concludes that the Wildwood access meets applicable width and backupdistance requirements and is not expected to create pedestrian or vehicle conflicts.
Temporary construction inconvenience is understandable, but it is not a basis to deny an otherwise approvable project. The proposed resolution already imposes constructionhour, staging, drainage, BMP, and other construction controls. The permanent entitlement findings must turn on the permanent project.
V. What Message Does This Process Send to the Public?
There is also a broader message the Council should consider. What message does this process send to residents who participate in good faith in the City's planning process, pay substantial application and professional fees, endure lengthy processing times and extensive regulatory constraints, present their project at a noticed public hearing, and obtain a unanimous approval – only to have that approval called up without stated grounds and then subjected to a broader standard of review adopted after they won? If a resident can do everything the City asks, obtain a 4-0 approval under the rules then in effect, and nevertheless be required months later to start over in substance because a Councilmember invoked review without identifying an error, the public may reasonably ask what value there is in successfully completing the process in the first place.
The City of Laguna Beach properly demands a great deal from property owners who seek discretionary approvals. In return, those property owners are entitled to expect a process that is predictable, evenhanded, and worthy of the considerable time and expense the City requires them to invest in it. Mr. McNicol followed that process. He should not be disadvantaged because he succeeded in it.
111133334444 of 11114444666
City Council – CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH
Re: 31552 Eagle Rock Way / 09/22/2026 Hearing ~ Supplemental Applicant Comments re Staff Report September 15, 2026
VI. Requested Action
The sequence can be stated simply: Adam McNicol followed the rules. He obtained unanimous approval under the rules. The rules were changed after he won. And even under the new rules, staff still recommends approval.
Our August 25th letter preserves Applicant's position that the limited four-vote review standard in effect when the DRB acted and when the Council review was initiated should govern this proceeding. We continue to preserve that objection. But even accepting staff's contrary view for purposes of this hearing, there is no factual or planning basis to deny or reduce this project.
The Council now has before it: (1) a 4-0 DRB approval after full public testimony and deliberation; (2) detailed written variance and design-review findings; (3) the City's renewed staff analysis under the current criteria; and (4) a staff recommendation and proposed resolution again approving the same project.
We respectfully request that the Council adopt the staff recommended resolution and approve Design Review 2026-0922 and Variance 2026-0923 without additional restrictions.
Very truly yours,
Laurence P. Nokes
LPN/dkc
cc: Client
Horst Noppenberger, Horst Architects
Dave Kiff, City Manager
Megan Garibaldi, City Attorney
Matt Schneider, Director of Community Development
Kate Kazama, Senior Planner
11113333555 of 11114444666
NOKES & QUINN, LLP
410 Broadway Street, Suite 200, Laguna Beach, CA 92651 • Phone: (949) 376-3500 August 25, 2026
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL ONLY
Mayor Mark Orgill and Members of the City Council
Ann Marie McKay, City Clerk
CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH
505 Forest Avenue
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
Re: 31552 Eagle Rock Way: Design Review 2026-0922 | Variance 2026-0923 Request to Uphold Resolution 2026-0922 at the September 22nd Call Up Council Hearing
Dear Mayor Orgill and Members of the City Council:
Nokes & Quinn, LLP represents Adam McNicol, the owner of 31552 Eagle Rock Way. On June 25, 2026, the Design Review Board approved Design Review 2026-0922 and Variance 2026-0923 by a 4-0 vote and adopted detailed findings in Resolution 2026- 0922.
On July 9, 2026, Mayor Orgill requested Council review without identifying any alleged error, unsupported finding, contrary evidence, or proposed additional condition.
The hearing was initially noticed for August 4th and later continued to September 22nd.
This is a significant and unwelcome delay for an Applicant with unanimous approval. We respectfully request that the Council uphold the DRB's integrated approval in full and without additional restrictions.
On August 10, 2026, a draft of my comments was provided to Mayor Orgill in hopes of receiving back some clarification of his purpose. As of the time of this writing, none was provided. The public records production received since our August 10th draft letter clarifies the chronology, although it still does not identify what prompted the July 9th call up. On July 16th, Ann Christoph, the South Laguna Civic Association representative (and immediate neighbor of this project) who presented the principal opposition at the DRB, emailed City Manager Dave Kiff and Mayor Orgill concerning this specific review, objected to the August 4th notice, requested that the matter be renoticed, and stated that a later hearing would “give people more time to prepare.” On July 19th, 10 days after the call up, Mayor Orgill sent Community Development Director Matt Schneider the historical Village Community zoning provisions adopted before 11113333666 of 11114444666
City Council – CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH
Re: 31552 Eagle Rock Way / September 22, 2026 Call Up Council Hearing August 25, 2026
annexation, including the original setback, lot coverage, parking, and private street standards. Staff nevertheless continued preparing for the August 4th hearing through July 21st. On July 23rd, staff advised the Applicant that “management” had directed that the hearing be continued to September 22nd. The Applicant was not advised at that time that Ms. Christoph had separately urged Mayor Orgill and the City Manager to move the matter to a later date.
We do not contend that these communications establish improper coordination or that accommodating public participation was improper. They do, however, make two points important to a fair September 22nd proceeding:
• First, the written record still discloses no record-based defect that caused the call up. Had Ms. Christoph pursued an ordinary appeal, she would have been required to pay the prescribed appeal fee and identify the specific grounds on which the DRB decision was challenged. The dispute would therefore have been defined at the outset. Here, the call up eliminated both requirements while leaving the successful Applicant to anticipate every possible basis for reconsideration.
• Second, the policy concerns now apparent from the historical zoning inquiry substantially overlap the issues Ms. Christoph raised and the DRB expressly considered. The September hearing, therefore, should not become a second evidentiary proceeding in which those issues are retried under a different standard or supplemented with new factual material.
The practical problem created by an unexplained call up remains significant.
Without an identified issue, Applicant McNicol and his architect must prepare to defend every design review criterion, every variance finding, every calculation, every aspect of the plans, and every conceivable project restriction. That is de novo-style preparation even though Laguna Beach Municipal Code section 25.05.070(E)(2)(a) expressly prohibits a de novo hearing, reweighing of the evidence, or the exercise of independent judgment as to the evidence. A councilmember may initiate review without stating reasons; the resulting proceeding nevertheless must remain focused, record-based, and limited.
I. The Four-Vote Limited Standard Applies to the Entire Integrated Approval, Including the Variance.
Laguna Beach Municipal Code section 25.05.070(E)(1) states the general de novo rule but expressly excepts the design review decisions governed by subsection (E)(2).
Under subsection (E)(2)(a), when a decision or determination “with regard to a design review application” receives four or more affirmative votes, the Council may determine whether the approval authority proceeded in the manner required by law and whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence. The Council may not conduct a de novo 11113333777 of 11114444666
City Council – CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH
Re: 31552 Eagle Rock Way / September 22, 2026 Call Up Council Hearing August 25, 2026
hearing, reweigh the evidence, or exercise independent judgment and discretion as to the evidence.
Resolution 2026-0922 is one integrated decision approving the design review and the variance for the same plans. The applications were supported by one staff report, considered at one, noticed hearing on one evidentiary record, deliberated together, approved by one motion, and embodied in one resolution. Four Board members – Coveny, Weil, Neev, and Bauta – voted yes; no member voted no; and Gibbs was absent. (Resolution 2026-0922, p. 11.)
The ordinance does not create a separate de novo track merely because part of the integrated approval is a variance. LBMC section 25.05.025(G) provides that variance appeals are subject to section 25.05.070; it does not require that every variance be reheard de novo, nor does state law compel that result. Government Code sections 65903 and 65904 leave zoning appeal procedures to local ordinance and do not require de novo variance review.
A split standard would largely nullify subsection (E)(2)(a). The Council could purport to defer to the DRB on design review while reweighing the same plans, neighborhood comparisons, setback conditions, parking evidence, and testimony under the label of “variance” and reach the opposite result. Nothing in the Code authorizes that end run. The Council should resolve this threshold issue at the outset and apply subsection (E)(2)(a) to the entire integrated approval.
II. The DRB Heard and Rejected the Principal Policy and Project Specific Objections.
Ms. Christoph’s DRB testimony was not overlooked. She explained the historic subdivision pattern of Tract 849, emphasized the five-foot setback concept, argued that the Wildwood roadway easement and small lot pattern were common rather than special, characterized the front setback and parking variances as self-induced, urged reduction of the residence below 1,500 square feet, and criticized the Wildwood elevation as too tall, plain, and close to the street. She asked the Board to require redesign.
The Board heard the Applicant’s response and expressly addressed those issues.
City legal counsel answered the Association’s objection that multiple variance requests had been improperly grouped. During deliberations, Board members discussed the small lots, setbacks, parking deficiency, neighborhood development pattern, lot coverage, project scale, landscaping, preservation of the existing tree, and compatibility of the Wildwood elevation. One member initially expressed reservations about the size of the project but returned to the governing criteria and ultimately voted yes. Other members characterized the additions as modest or “super modest,” found the new on-site parking 11113333888 of 11114444666
City Council – CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH
Re: 31552 Eagle Rock Way / September 22, 2026 Call Up Council Hearing August 25, 2026
beneficial, and expressly concluded that the variance findings could be made. The vote was 4-0.
The historical Village Community materials Mayor Orgill sent to Director Schneider on July 19th explain a legitimate policy concern: the original South Laguna regulations deliberately addressed tiny lots, private streets, setbacks, coverage, and parking. But those historical standards do not answer the adjudicatory question before the Council. Variance provisions exist precisely because generally applicable development standards may operate differently on particular properties, and the current ordinance requires consideration of special circumstances and of substantial property rights enjoyed by owners under like conditions. Those circumstances are often triggered or influenced by the built environment.
That distinction is particularly important because one of the required variance findings asks whether strict application of the ordinance would deprive Applicant McNicol of a substantial property right enjoyed by other owners under like conditions in the same vicinity and zone. The City’s own staff report identifies 31632 Wildwood Road – Ms. Christoph’s property – as a nearby comparable where residential additions were approved within required front, side, and additional building setbacks. The City’s 1992 file shows that Ms. Christoph, herself, obtained that variance relief based on the existing siting of her house, Tract 849’s development pattern, nearby homes close to property lines, comparable variances, and the property rights enjoyed by owners under like conditions. The significance of 31632 Wildwood is not that one variance compels another. It is that the very property right the ordinance directs the City to examine is demonstrably enjoyed by an owner under like conditions on the same street – and, unusually, by the principal opponent of this application. In other words, the comparative property analysis is not an invention devised for Mr. McNicol; it is the same analysis the City applied when Ms. Christoph sought relief for her own home.
There is a practical irony here, but also a serious legal point. Ms. Christoph was entitled to seek and receive variance relief when the required findings could be made for her property, and Mr. McNicol is entitled to the same fair application of the ordinance.
The variance provisions cannot operate as a one-way street on Wildwood Road. Ms.
Christoph had a full opportunity to oppose this project before the DRB and did so. The Board heard her objections and rejected them in a 4-0 decision.
Ms. Christoph did not have to perfect a separate appeal identifying specific grounds in order to obtain a second forum; Mayor Orgill’s call up now provides that opportunity. That circumstance does not make the review improper, but it makes it especially important that the Council not convert the call up into a fresh policy hearing or allow an opponent who has already been heard to obtain, in substance, a de novo reconsideration that the Code expressly forbids.
11113333999 of 11114444666
City Council – CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH
Re: 31552 Eagle Rock Way / September 22, 2026 Call Up Council Hearing August 25, 2026
III. The Variance Relief Is Narrow, Concrete, and Supported by Each Required Finding.
The variance should not be discussed as though it were a single, amorphous departure from the Code. The approval contains several discrete forms of relief, each tied to the physical conditions of this particular lot and each addressed in the staff report, the written resolution, and the Board’s deliberations. Stated concretely, the DRB approved the following:
1. Side-yard setback. The addition extends two feet into the required side-yard setback. The existing residence already contains legal nonconforming setbacks, the lot has only approximately 1,575 square feet of buildable area after exclusion of the Wildwood Road easement, and the proposed addition remains consistent with the closely spaced development pattern of the immediate neighborhood.
2. Parking within the front-yard setback. The project creates one, covered on-site parking space accessed from Wildwood Road where the property presently has none. Locating that space within the front setback is a direct response to the lot’s dimensions and existing development. Staff found the access met width and backup distance requirements, provided reasonable sight lines, and was typical of nearby conditions.
3. One covered parking space rather than two. The property currently provides no on-site parking. The approved project improves that condition by providing one covered space on an exceptionally constrained lot. The record also identifies nearby approvals in which additions were allowed without the otherwise required parking, including 31562 Wildwood Road and 31550 Eagle Rock Way.
4. Building site coverage. The zoning table identifies 53 percent as the applicable standard and 54.61 percent as proposed coverage. The modest exceedance allows horizontal expansion without increasing the existing 21’ 6” building height. The additions are split between two levels, principally oriented toward the street frontages, and accompanied by removal of approximately 77 square feet of elevated deck.
5. Floor area. The resulting residence contains approximately 1,561 square feet of floor area. The special floor area finding recognizes that rigid application of the numerical standard is inappropriate in this portion of South Laguna because the surrounding development pattern consists of very small lots, compact homes, narrow setbacks, and numerous lawful nonconforming conditions that predate the present zoning scheme.
///
11114444000 of 11114444666
City Council – CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH
Re: 31552 Eagle Rock Way / September 22, 2026 Call Up Council Hearing August 25, 2026
Those forms of relief were not approved merely because the project seemed reasonable. The ordinance required four general variance findings, plus special findings for the building site coverage and floor area relief. The DRB made all of them expressly.
Each is supported by substantial evidence:
Finding 1 - Special circumstances. The lot is exceptionally small; the 17.5-foot halfwidth contribution to the Wildwood Road easement substantially reduces its buildable area; the residence was constructed around 1930 before current zoning; it has legal nonconforming setbacks on all sides; and it has no on-site parking. The surrounding area is itself characterized by narrow streets, compact lots, closely spaced homes, limited open space, and numerous lawful nonconformities. Strict application of current setback and parking standards would therefore deprive this property of privileges commonly enjoyed by similarly situated properties. (Staff Report, pp. 13-14; Resolution, pp. 7-8.) Finding 2 - Preservation of a substantial property right. The requested relief allows a reasonable modernization of the existing home and the creation of one covered parking space, development opportunities the City has afforded to other owners under like conditions. The record identifies 31572 Wildwood Road, 31562 Wildwood Road, 31632 Wildwood Road, 31578 Jewel Street, and 31550 Eagle Rock Way as nearby examples of setback or parking relief. Most pointedly, 31632 Wildwood is Ms. Christoph’s property.
She obtained relief for additions within required setbacks under the same comparative property principle she now asks the Council to discount. The variance provisions cannot operate as a one-way street on Wildwood Road. (Staff Report, p. 14; Resolution, pp. 8-9.) Finding 3 - No detriment. The project maintains the existing building height, involves modest additions, creates no significant view or privacy impact, and adds on-site parking rather than eliminating it. It remains subject to Building and Fire Code requirements, and staff found no adverse effect on access, circulation, or public safety. (Staff Report, p. 14; Resolution, p. 9.)
Finding 4 - Consistency with the zoning ordinance and General Plan. The Village Community zone exists to recognize and preserve South Laguna’s distinctive historic development pattern – variable small lots, narrow private streets, compact buildings, landscaping, and lawful nonconforming conditions. The project reinvests in an existing residence while maintaining its existing height and low-profile character. Granting the relief, therefore, advances, rather than defeats, the zone’s stated objectives. (Staff Report, pp. 14-15; Resolution, p. 9.)
Finding 5 - The building-site-coverage exceedance preserves views, privacy, reduced height, and the neighborhood development pattern. The project expands horizontally instead of vertically, keeps the existing roof height, divides the additions between two levels, orients them toward Eagle Rock Way and Wildwood Road rather than adjoining residences, removes elevated deck area, and preserves the compact village form. Those 111144441111 of 11114444666
City Council – CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH
Re: 31552 Eagle Rock Way / September 22, 2026 Call Up Council Hearing August 25, 2026
facts directly support the special finding required for the coverage exceedance. (Staff Report, p. 15; Resolution, pp. 9-10.)
Finding 6 - The prescribed floor-area standard is inappropriate in light of the surrounding development pattern. This portion of South Laguna was developed long before current standards on very small lots with narrow setbacks and compact cottagescale homes. The resulting residence remains modest in scale, does not increase height, and is consistent with nearby properties, several of which exceed the prescribed floor area standard. The DRB, therefore, had substantial evidence for the special floor area finding. (Staff Report, pp. 15-16; Resolution, p. 10.)
This is the point at which the limited standard of review matters most. The Council may not decide this matter by asking whether it would have made precisely the same discretionary judgments in the first instance. The question is whether substantial evidence supports the findings the DRB actually made. On this record, each finding is supported several times over. A contrary result would require the Council to assign different weight to the same lot conditions, neighborhood comparables, parking facts, design features, and testimony – the very reweighing subsection (E)(2)(a) prohibits.
IV. The September 22nd Hearing Should Remain a Limited Review of the Existing Record.
The continuance does not reopen the evidentiary record. Ms. Christoph and other members of the public are, of course, entitled to address the Council, but their arguments must be directed to the evidence presented to the DRB and the limited questions permitted by LBMC section 25.05.070(E)(2)(a). New photographs, measurements, studies, traffic assertions, view or privacy claims, or other post-DRB factual material should not become the evidentiary basis for a different result.
Likewise, subsection (E)(3)(b)’s authority to impose more restrictive conditions does not create a substitute de novo power. Any proposed restriction should be identified sufficiently in advance, tied to a concern supported by the existing record, and limited to what is reasonably necessary to address that concern. Otherwise, the unexplained call up would require the Applicant to anticipate every possible redesign and would accomplish in practice what subsection (E)(2)(a) forbids in law.
For the same reason, substantive ex parte factual communications concerning the project should be disclosed on the record. Constituent contact is not disqualifying, and we draw no inference of bias from it. But the Council’s decision must rest on the DRB record, not on new factual presentations made outside the hearing record. ///
///
111144442222 of 11114444666
City Council – CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH
Re: 31552 Eagle Rock Way / September 22, 2026 Call Up Council Hearing August 25, 2026
V. Requested Action
Mr. McNicol respectfully requests that the City Council:
1. Confirm that LBMC section 25.05.070(E)(2)(a) governs the entire four-vote approval, including Variance 2026-0923, and decline to apply a de novo or hybrid standard;
2. Identify before or at the outset of the hearing any particular DRB error, unsupported finding, or additional restriction proposed for consideration;
3. Limit review to the plans and evidence presented to the DRB, without reweighing that evidence or relying on new post-DRB factual material;
4. Recognize that the principal objections concerning South Laguna’s historic lot pattern, setbacks, parking, project scale, and neighborhood compatibility were fully presented, considered, and rejected by the DRB;
5. Find that the DRB proceeded in the manner required by law and that Resolution 2026-0922 is supported by substantial evidence; and
6. Uphold Design Review 2026-0922, Variance 2026-0923, and the CEQA exemptions in full and without additional restrictions.
On a separate but related “housekeeping” matter, we also request correction of clerical inconsistencies before the Council packet is finalized. The City’s July 14th determination letter identifies APN 056-087-17, while the agenda, staff report, and signed resolution identify the correct APN as 056-087-18. The recommendation on page 16 of the staff report refers to “31522 Eagle Rock Way” rather than 31552 Eagle Rock Way.
These errors do not affect the validity of the DRB decision, but they should not be repeated in the Council materials.
VI. Conclusion
Applicant Adam McNicol’s project is a modest addition to a uniquely constrained, previously developed South Laguna property. City staff recommended approval, the principal opposition was fully heard, the DRB deliberated on the precise issues now likely to be raised again, and all four participating members adopted detailed findings. The later public records production provides useful context for the call up and continuance, but it identifies no defect in the DRB proceeding and no evidentiary basis for reversal.
The lawful and fair result is to apply the limited standard the City enacted and uphold Resolution 2026-0922 without modification.
111144443333 of 11114444666
City Council – CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH
Re: 31552 Eagle Rock Way / September 22, 2026 Call Up Council Hearing August 25, 2026
Mr. McNicol reserves all procedural and substantive rights concerning the Council review and any later proceedings.
Very truly yours,
Laurence P. Nokes
LPN/dkc
cc: Client
Horst Noppenberger, Horst Architects
Dave Kiff, City Manager
Megan Garibaldi, City Attorney
Matt Schneider, Director of Community Development
Kate Kazama, Senior Planner
111144444444 of 11114444666
11114444555 of 11114444666
11114444666 of 11114444666