NOKES & QUINN, LLP
410 Broadway Street, Suite 200, Laguna Beach, CA 92651 • Phone: (949) 376-3500 September 21, 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 Response to September 19, 2026 South Laguna Civic Association Submission
Dear Mayor Orgill and Members of the City Council:
The South Laguna Civic Association's September 19th submission should be recognized for what it is: a policy argument urging the City to administer variances more restrictively, using Adam McNicol’s already-approved project as the vehicle. SLCA is entitled to advocate for a different variance policy. But having chosen not to appeal the DRB’s unanimous approval, it should not be permitted to use a Councilmember call-up as a second chance to obtain the appeal it declined to file or to impose a variance test the Municipal Code does not contain.
SLCA presented substantially the same objections to the Design Review Board.
The Board heard them, the City Attorney’s office answered SLCA's procedural objection, the Board deliberated at length, and the project was approved 4-0. SLCA then made a consequential choice: it did not appeal. Only after Mayor Orgill’s Councilmember call-up placed the matter before the Council did SLCA return with its September 19th submission asking for redesign and broader policy direction. That sequence matters.
I. This Council Review should not become the Appeal the SLCA Chose Not to File.
SLCA participated fully before the DRB through written comments and oral testimony. Its principal arguments were aired, answered, and rejected in a 4-0 decision.
SLCA then chose not to invoke the ordinary appeal process. The City’s September staff report states the point directly: “an appeal was not filed” and there is “no appellant” in a Councilmember request for review. That distinction cannot be blurred now.
City Council – CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH
Re: 31552 Eagle Rock Way / 09/22/2026 Hearing ~ SLCA September 19th Submission September 21, 2026
A Councilmember call-up is not SLCA’s appeal, and it should not be converted into one after the fact.
The undisputed public record is enough: SLCA did not appeal. It knew its objections, had already presented them, and had the same opportunity as any other opponent to file a timely appeal, pay the prescribed fee, and state its grounds. It chose not to do so. The Councilmember call-up should not now operate as a no fee, no grounds substitute that gives SLCA the practical benefit of an appeal it elected not to pursue.
That is especially important because the September 19th submission does not merely comment on Mr. McNicol’s design; it asks the Council to require redesign and to “redirect staff and DRB.” Those are precisely the kinds of grounds and remedies SLCA could have placed before the City through a timely appeal. Its decision not to appeal should have procedural significance; otherwise the appeal requirements imposed on ordinary members of the public become largely optional whenever a Councilmember later calls up the matter.
II. SLCA’s Central Legal Premise is Not the Variance Ordinance the Council Adopted.
SLCA repeatedly argues that because a conforming design is theoretically “feasible,” the variances are unjustified, and it urges that variances be limited to “exceptional circumstances.” That is not the test in LBMC section 25.05.025.
Section 25.05.025(F) requires four findings: (1) special circumstances involving size, shape, topography, location or surroundings that would cause strict application of the zoning ordinance to deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and same zone; (2) preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other owners under like conditions in the same vicinity and zone; (3) no detriment to public health, safety, convenience, welfare or nearby property; and (4) consistency with the objectives of the zoning ordinance and General Plan.
There is no fifth finding requiring an applicant to prove that every conceivable conforming redesign is impossible. SLCA's proposed rule would effectively repeal the variance ordinance by implication. A variance necessarily concerns something an applicant could avoid by changing the project. If “you could build less” were dispositive, the substantial property right finding and the comparison to owners under like conditions would have little work left to do. The ordinance asks a different question: whether the findings the Council itself adopted can be made. Staff says they can. The DRB unanimously said they can. The September staff report again says they can. ///
///
City Council – CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH
Re: 31552 Eagle Rock Way / 09/22/2026 Hearing ~ SLCA September 19th Submission September 21, 2026
III. SLCA Criticizes Staff for Applying Flexibility the Code Expressly Provides.
SLCA accuses staff of “trying to shape the rules to conform to the project” and treats the floor area and building site coverage adjustments as evidence that staff has wandered away from the Code. The opposite is true. The flexibility staff applied is written into the Code.
Perhaps the clearest example is SLCA’s criticism that staff called the prescribed floor area limit “inappropriate.” That is presented as evidence that staff is disregarding the Code. In fact, LBMC section 25.43.070(H) expressly provides that the Village Community floor area maximum may be modified upon a finding that the requirement is “inappropriate due to existing development patterns in the surrounding area.” SLCA is criticizing staff for applying the ordinance in the language the ordinance itself supplies.
Likewise, the applicable building site coverage provisions expressly authorize modification where necessary to preserve views or privacy, reduce height, or maintain neighborhood development patterns. Applying those provisions is not disregarding the development standards. It is applying the development standards as written.
IV. The “Mega-Variance” Argument Was Already Answered by the City Attorney.
SLCA again contends that the setback and parking requests were improperly “lumped together” in a single variance application. That point was raised at the June 25th hearing and answered directly by the City Attorney’s office. Multiple development standards may trigger variance relief within one variance application; what matters is that each triggered standard be considered through the required findings. That is exactly what occurred here.
Repeating the same procedural objection in a new letter does not make the City’s legal answer disappear.
V. “Typical” Neighborhood Conditions Do Not Eliminate the Required Comparative Analysis.
SLCA’s principal substantive argument is that the lot’s constraints cannot be “special” because many properties in Tract 849 share small lots and private street easements. That argument omits critical language from Section 25.05.025.
Finding 1 expressly directs the City to consider the property’s “location” and “surroundings.” Finding 2 then requires the City to determine whether the substantial property right sought by the applicant is possessed by other owners “under like conditions” in the same vicinity and zone. Similar neighborhood conditions therefore are City Council – CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH
Re: 31552 Eagle Rock Way / 09/22/2026 Hearing ~ SLCA September 19th Submission September 21, 2026
not irrelevant to the variance analysis; the Code affirmatively requires a comparison to them.
Here the comparison is concrete. The property has only approximately 1,575 square feet of buildable area after the Wildwood Road easement is excluded; the residence predates current zoning; it has legal nonconforming setbacks on all sides; it has no existing on-site parking; and the immediate neighborhood contains numerous similarly constrained properties that have received setback or parking relief. The Code asks whether strict application would deny this property privileges actually enjoyed by those similarly situated owners. Staff and the DRB answered that question yes.
VI. SLCA’s Description of 31632 Wildwood Road Is Materially Incomplete.
SLCA attempts to distinguish 31632 Wildwood Road, Ms. Christoph’s property, by describing its variance essentially as a historic preservation stairwell accommodation.
The City’s contemporaneous file is substantially broader.
Most significantly, Ms. Christoph’s own 1992 variance application invoked the same statutory concepts now before the Council – special circumstances and the privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity. She and Alfredo Careaga sought and unanimously received Variance 4973 and Design Review 92-122 for additions encroaching into the required front yard, side yard, and additional building setback, together with related parking relief. The public notice described the encroachments. The subsequent approval relied on the siting of the existing house, comparable development in the vicinity, parking conditions, and substantial property rights enjoyed by neighboring owners. The Board’s approving motion was expressly made “based on lot shape and setbacks.”
Historic character was relevant to that project, and we do not minimize it. But the public record does not support SLCA’s present characterization that the variance existed simply because a historic stairwell needed accommodation. Ms. Christoph received the benefit of the same comparative variance analysis SLCA now attacks when staff applies it to her neighbor. That history does not mean Ms. Christoph’s variance automatically compels Mr. McNicol’s; it means the property right the Code directs the City to examine is real, local, and demonstrably enjoyed by a similarly situated property owner on Wildwood Road. The variance provisions cannot operate as a one-way street on Wildwood Road.
VII. SLCA Cannot Dismiss Prior Variances as Irrelevant While Warning That This One Will Be “Precedent.”
SLCA argues that prior approvals should not support Mr. McNicol’s variance, while simultaneously warning that approval of the McNicol project will influence future variance requests. Those positions cannot be reconciled with the ordinance.
City Council – CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH
Re: 31552 Eagle Rock Way / 09/22/2026 Hearing ~ SLCA September 19th Submission September 21, 2026
Prior approvals do not mechanically compel a later variance. But they are necessarily relevant because Finding 2 expressly asks whether other property owners under like conditions possess the same substantial property right. The Council is not being asked to apply “precedent” in a judicial sense. It is being asked to perform the comparative property analysis the Code requires.
VIII. SLCA’s September 19th Submission Confirms this is a Policy Campaign, Not a Project Specific Impact Case.
The final pages of SLCA’s September 19th package attach its objections to unrelated variance applications at 31860 8th Avenue and 31922 Virginia Way and urge the Council to “redirect staff and DRB.” SLCA chose those unrelated matters as exhibits.
That makes the objective plain: this is not merely a project impact objection to the McNicol home; it is part of an ongoing effort to change how the City administers variance relief throughout the Village.
Ms. Christoph’s subsequent communication to a resident who had submitted support for Mr. McNicol is equally revealing. She explained that her concern was not Mr.
McNicol personally, but the City’s processes and methods for approving variances and the broader effect she believes those justifications could have throughout the Village.
That is a policy position. It is not evidence of a view, privacy, traffic, safety, or other project specific impact from 31552 Eagle Rock Way.
SLCA is free to seek a more restrictive variance policy. If it believes Code Section 25.05.025 is too permissive, or that the Village Community standards should never be modified where a smaller conforming design can be imagined, it should ask City Council to amend the Code prospectively. What it should not do is ask the Council to impose that unwritten policy on Mr. McNicol after he followed the existing Code, received staff support, prevailed 4-0 at the DRB, and after SLCA itself chose not to file an appeal.
IX. Requested Action
City Council should evaluate Adam McNicol’s application under the ordinance that actually governs variances, not the more restrictive policy SLCA wishes the ordinance contained. Staff has made the required findings. The DRB made the required findings and approved the project unanimously. The September staff report independently reaches the same result.
SLCA’s September 19th submission asks this Council to do two very different things at once: adjudicate Adam McNicol’s application and redirect the City’s administration of variances throughout South Laguna. Those functions should not be conflated. The McNicol application should be decided under the Code that exists and on the findings applicable to his property. If the Council wishes to change the City’s City Council – CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH
Re: 31552 Eagle Rock Way / 09/22/2026 Hearing ~ SLCA September 19th Submission September 21, 2026
variance policy, development standards, or staff direction, it should do so openly, legislatively, and prospectively – not through the redesign of a single homeowner’s project after that homeowner has already obtained staff support and unanimous DRB approval.
This Council review should not become the appeal SLCA chose not to file nor should the McNicol home become the vehicle for a variance policy SLCA wishes the City had enacted. We respectfully request that the Council reject SLCA’s September 19th request for redesign and adopt the staff recommended resolution approving 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
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, 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.
///
///
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.
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.
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
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 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 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 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.
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.
///
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 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. ///
///
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.
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