June 25, 2026
RE: Item 5.1 at 31552 Eagle Rock Way
Design Review Board:
South Laguna Civic Association (SLCA) recommends that the Design Review Board deny the variances requested and instruct the applicant to redesign the project to conform with the standards provided in the code while responding to the village character of the neighborhood.
We disagree with staƯ’s statement, “The requested variances are necessitated by the site’s physical constraints and existing legal nonconforming conditions…since the code was tailored to these exact conditions which are typical for most lots in this special Village Community zone.
Variances are requested for 1) the proposed additions to encroach into the required south side setback, 2) for the proposed on-site parking space to encroach into the front yard setback, and 3) to not provide the second required covered parking space. And yet these three separate requests are rolled into a single variance (2026-0923) and the findings discussions are lumped together as if there is a single request. There should be three separate sets of discussions about the three separate variance requests. We can see that there could be justification of the encroachment for parking within the front yard setback due to existing non-conforming conditions, but the other variances are due to self-imposed design decisions, not atypical site constraints.
A variance for intruding into the 5’ setback on the Wildwood Road side cannot be justified.
A 5’ setback as required by code is feasible. Regarding the parking variance, if the house were kept at 1420 sq. ft. instead of 1561, only one oƯ-street parking space would be required. Therefore a variance for parking would not be needed and the allowable floor area would not be exceeded. This would also facilitate an elevation on the Wildwood Road side that would complement the neighborhood and allow space for a complete landscape setting for the house.
SLCA has played a key role in planning for our community since 1971. Our work started with preparing the award-winning South Laguna General Plan (adopted by the County in 1974), the South Laguna Specific Plan and Local Coastal Plan (1979) which included a specific zoning district tailored to the unique conditions presented Tract 849, with its small lots. After annexation to Laguna Beach these codes were transferred into the Laguna Beach Local Coastal Plan and zoning code as the Village Community zone.
Attachment 7 116
Tract 849 was recorded in 1927, (not 1906) with 50’ wide avenues (1st or Eagle Rock) through 11th perpendicular to the highway. Most lots were 35’ wide fronting on those avenues and 125’ deep. When the depression hit, the developers were having trouble selling those large lots so they decided to divide each 125’ long lot into 3 smaller lots. Lots on the avenues were 45’ wide, and 2 more lots were 40’ wide each. The property is one of the 45’ wide lots.
The newly subdivided lots were to be accessed by a network of private streets made up of 35’ wide lots that became streets like Wildwood Road. The 35’ wide street was divided in half (17.5’) and sold along with the adjacent lot, but restricted by deed /easement to provide street access to others in the tract and to the public.
The dimensions of the lot in question are typical of most of the lots facing the avenues.
The size of this lot is not unique. Lots of this size and relationship to the streets are exactly what the codes are designed to address.
Therefore, the justifications for the variance as presented in the application do not apply.
One justification states, “The lot is small and 1/3 is restricted by being an easement for Wildwood Road.” Most of the lots in the zone are similar in size and include street easements. This is not a special circumstance.
The proposed project will not be compatible in size and character because of the intrusion of the 2-story façade closer to the street than is allowed. Detailed study of the reasons for previously granted variances reveals that many of the other street-facing facades include decks, stairwells, porches and smaller rooms—none with the impact of this proposed addition.
The variances requested are avoidable and the design of the Wildwood-facing façade needs to be less imposing and more articulated.
We don’t agree with staƯ’s statement that the project is compatible with the character of the Village Community neighborhood. It introduces a building form, and mass (the Wildwood Road facing addition/façade) that is inconsistent with the surrounding residential context. We also disagree with approval of the landscape plan as it is incomplete.
Thank you for helping to protect our community character by respecting the well-thoughtout provisions of the code and requiring the applicant to rethink the design.
John Thomas
Vice President
Attachment 7 117