Chair Imer Bauta: Moving on to our regular order of business, for design review item 2026-0922, variance 2026-0923 for the site located at 31552 Eagle Rock Way. This is item number 5.1 for tonight's agenda. Ex parte disclosures.
Debbie Neev: Yes. I visited the site and corresponded with Horst.
Chair Imer Bauta: I did the same.
MJ Coveny: Same.
Chair Imer Bauta: Thank you. Staff, will you please present your summary presentation? Thank you, Kate.
Kate Kazama: Good evening, design review board and members of the public. I'm Kate Kazama and item 5.1 is a request to construct lower and upper level additions, landscaping, new window and door openings and new vehicular access for the creation of one onsite parking space at 31552 Eagle Rock Way. The subject property is located within the village community zone, also known as the South Laguna Village neighborhood in an area characterized by small lots, limited open space, nonconforming setbacks and deficient onsite parking. Many of the lots in the neighborhood, including the subject property, contain a 35 foot wide roadway easement which reduces a buildable area of the property. The project site is currently developed with an approximately 1,140 square foot home with no onsite parking. Existing nonconformities include existing building encroachments into all required setbacks.
This slide illustrates the proposed site plan. The applicant is proposing 424 square feet of additions shown in purple, consisting of 252 square feet at the lower level and 172 square feet at the upper level. This proposal is intended to modernize and improve the functionality of the existing residence. Additional improvements include new window and door openings on the northwest and south elevations, modified landscaping and new vehicular access for the creation of one onsite parking space shown in yellow. The existing elevated deck facing Eagle Rock Way would cantilever over the proposed parking space.
In order to construct the additions, the proposal requires approval to exceed the allowable building site coverage by 1.6% or approximately 25 square feet and exceed the maximum allowable floor area by approximately 40 square feet.
Variance approval is also required to allow the addition to encroach into the required south side setback by two feet, permit the proposed parking space within the front yard setback and only provide one onsite parking space where typically two spaces are required.
This slide shows the existing and proposed street elevations. The left hand images illustrate the view from Wildwood Road and the right hand images illustrate the view from Eagle Rock Way. To accommodate the upper level addition and reduce the perception of massing, approximately 77 square feet of Attachment 8 118
existing elevated deck area would be removed as shown on the left hand images. The additions are generally proposed on the west side of the property and extend the existing structure towards Wildwood Road and the neighboring property to the south. The project would maintain the existing maximum roof height of 21 feet 6 inches and retain the existing contemporary design by incorporating materials and colors consistent with the existing home. These are the existing proposed east and south elevations, which both face neighboring properties.
The proposed project complies with applicable development standards and staff is able to make the required findings for the design review, access building site coverage and floor area and variance requests. Overall, staff finds the project to be compatible with the neighborhood and would not adversely impact view equity and privacy. The city did receive one letter in opposition of the project this morning. And to conclude staff's recommendation tonight is for the board to adopt resolution 2026-0922 approving the project. This concludes our presentation. I am available to address any questions.
Chair Imer Bauta: Thank you, Kate. Do any of my fellow board members have questions for staff? Sarah: No.
Chair Imer Bauta: No questions. We will move forward with... Public comment is declared open.
Applicant team, you will have five minutes for a presentation.
Horst Noppenberger: Okay. Thank you. Good evening, Chair Bauta and design review board members.
Nice to be here this evening. Horst Noppenberger, project architect for Adam McNichol, the property owner sitting to my left. And Kate, thank you for that very detailed project description. This is a neighborhood that means a lot to me.
We lived in that neighborhood for 25 years. I think Eagle Rock is probably one of the most whimsical and a very special street in Laguna so we wanted to do something really interesting, something that would complement the character of that part of South Laguna.
When Adam first contacted me, we walked around the neighborhood and one of the things that became apparent to us very quickly is that quite a few of the houses had the same sort of proximity to the street, to Wildwood and Adam's house was actually quite set back further so we thought that there would be an opportunity to be able to accommodate Adam and his family. It's a family of four living in an 1,100 square foot house. So we saw that as an opportunity to make an expansion of the house that would be consistent with the pattern of development. I think we do have a couple slides. Just go through them quickly, maybe.
This is the elevation from the corner. We tried to balance the desire to increase the size of the house with creating some components that would kind of give back to the neighborhood. There was no onsite parking so we're proposing one Attachment 8 119
onsite parking space. Next slide please. These are just quickly graphic representations of where we're proposing. This is the lower level where we're proposing to add the additional habitable floor area. Next slide please. This is the upper level where that additional floor area is being proposed. Next slide.
And this is the area where we're proposing to provide onsite parking where parking does not currently exist. The large tree that's off on Eagle Rock is proposed to be maintained so this parking space would not have any impact on the tree. Next slide please. Oh, these are just showing where the existing side yard setback encroachment occurs. Next slide please.
And then Adam's property is the circle in green and the other sort of adjacent properties that have either received similar variance approvals for encroachments into side yards given the small size of these properties are shown in the red color. So the point that we're hoping to make is that what we're asking for is sort of imprinted into the pattern of development and in many cases these are rights or privileges enjoyed by others. Next slide. Adam's property again is in green. Pretty much all of the properties on Wildwood to the end of Wildwood are exceeding the allowable lot coverage. And that's what this diagram depicts. Next slide please. I've always loved that area of South Laguna.
It's very rustic. So we are proposing a material pallet of white painted brick, a corrugated metal roof, quite a bit of wood on the outside to harmonize with the rustic character of South Laguna. Next slide. And that may be it, I think. Yeah.
Thank you. Thanks.
Chair Imer Bauta: Thank you, Horst. We will now move to members of the public. If you wish to speak on item 5.1, please come up to the podium.
Ann Christoph: I didn't know you did two minutes. I hope I get a little extra time.
Chair Imer Bauta: No problem.
Ann Christoph: Thank you. I've been involved in planning in South Laguna since 1971. And part of this effort was to deal with tract 849 and its unusual development pattern which resulted from the developers in the 1930s dividing the properties, the 125 foot long lots into three lots, one 45 feet long and each one further 40 feet long. And that pattern exists throughout the village area. And this zone was made specifically to deal with those unusual lot configurations. And we were faced with the small lots not having a backyard, not having a front yard. And so because we couldn't provide the usual 20 feet on either side, we put in the code that there would be five feet of setback all the way around. And that's the only way to get a little bit of extra open space for the houses there.
So there may be some prior preexisting encroachments. There may be unusual configurations of other houses, but we're trying to at least get that amount of open space and that's in the code. It is also not unusual. The condition of this lot with its street easement on Wildwood is exactly what all the other houses on other streets in South Laguna have. So to look at it as an impediment and a Attachment 8 120
reason for a variance is a faulty conclusion because it is not an unusual situation. It is the way that whole area is designed.
South Laguna Civic Association opposes the front yard setback variance and also the excess over the square footage. If the project were designed to a 1500 square foot limit, they would not need a variance for parking either. Only one car would be required. They wouldn't need that variance. So we feel that the two variances, the front yard setback variance and the parking variance are selfinduced conditions that they could avoid by making some adjustments to the plan.
We're also concerned about the appearance of the facade on Wildwood. It's very tall and very plain and with the variance, there's only three feet to plant in front of it. It's not going to be harmonious with the rest of the street. Where people have encroached, there often are porches or decks, stairwells, small portions of the facade encroach, not a whole large two story straight up and down building. So I would argue that this building is not neighborhood compatible in its appearance from the street. So I think the design review board should ask for a redesign and for reducing the square footage so that the parking variance is not needed and the encroachment on Wildwood is not required.
Chair Imer Bauta: Thank you so much.
Ann Christoph: Thank you.
Chair Imer Bauta: Any other members of the public wish to speak? Come on up to the podium.
Speaker 2: I've lived on Wildwood for 20 years. I went through design review myself and it was my neighbor. He's relatively new to the neighborhood compared to me, but he has a growing family and they're a beautiful, beautiful family. We love having them on the street. And I think when you buy a house in South Laguna and you want to remodel it, you know you're going to be faced with variances. All neighbors understand that and you try to accommodate as best as you can so that those people can continue enjoying that house and also improve it as needed.
So while there are some technical points that Anne brought up, I think the overriding thing is many houses have been remodeled on Wildwood. I went very traditional with mine, but there are other modern facades that don't technically fit with the character and the general feel of South Laguna. So I don't think it's overly offensive is my point. And I understand the family wanting to live in the home they bought and continue to enjoy the neighborhood. So that's my comment.
Chair Imer Bauta: Thank you. Any other members of the public wish to speak on item 5.1? Seeing none, we will return to the applicant for a two minute rebuttal.
Attachment 8 121
Horst Noppenberger: Thank you. We do really appreciate the comments that the neighbors have expressed this evening. We started this project a long time ago with a neighborhood meeting and Ann Christoph was at that meeting and we had a discussion around this similar to the discussion we're having this evening. And I think we had probably 12 neighbors at that meeting and everybody similar to the gentleman who just spoke last kind of acknowledged that these particular properties in South Laguna are very small. And as a community, we're trying to keep families in these neighborhoods. So we feel, and I believe... I can't speak for the other neighbors, but the discourse that we had with the neighbors was very different than what Ann expressed this evening. It was everybody understood that these properties on Wildwood are constrained, that Adam's property is set back much further on Wildwood than every other house on the street, including Ann Christoph's house, which my understanding is that her house is also encroaching into the required setback from Wildwood as is every other house on the street.
So we tried to give back a little bit by creating the parking space which currently does not exist. Having lived in that neighborhood, I know that this time of the year you've got the entire Eagle Rock all the way up to Mar Vista. At the top, people are parking there. So parking really is an issue. So we're asking for the variance. We are very confident that the legal findings for the variance have been met. What we're asking for is consistent with the pattern of development.
And probably most importantly, what we're looking at is a family that would like to continue to live in that beautiful neighborhood currently once again in an 1,100 square foot house. And we're trying to get that up to just a little bit over 1,500 for a family of four. So I don't feel that that's unreasonable and we really do appreciate your support.
Chair Imer Bauta: Thank you, Horst. So we will... Do any members of the board have any questions of the applicant or any members of the public? No questions. We will close the public comment and the board will enter into discussion and deliberation. Does anyone want to begin?
Debbie Neev: I'll begin.
Chair Imer Bauta: Thank you, Deb.
Debbie Neev: I'll begin with a question for legal. I know that in reading the letter from the South Laguna Association, there was some concern that the variances had been grouped. And so if you could just address that to put that on the record, that would be great.
Jane Abzug: Yes, thank you for the question. So when multiple variances are requested, it's not necessary that there be separate application forms for each variance. It's important that each development standard that is triggering a variance be analyzed and considered in terms of the findings for a variance. But just like there could be several items that trigger design review, there can be several Attachment 8 122
items that trigger a variance and the city still considers that as part of one application.
Debbie Neev: Thank you. I like that clarification. And then I'll go ahead and deliberate? Chair Imer Bauta: Yeah.
Debbie Neev: Deliberate. Okay. So I think that when I visited the site [inaudible 00:18:33] and walked around the neighborhood, I think that there's... It's a beautiful house already and it's already a modern house. And I think that your request for a little over 400 square feet is quite modest. I appreciate that you're getting one parking spot. I think that that's necessary, certainly. And I appreciate staff for pulling together all the variances and the lot line coverage issue, pulling that neighborhood compatibility slide or if that was you, the applicant team, I think that that helps a lot with these small lots in that whole area. And I appreciate what Ann had said regarding how they were all split up. You're trying to live.
You're trying to expand just to make it livable. So I think that even though you do encroach into those setbacks, I think that staff has outlined the legal findings for those variances and I agree with those variances as well.
I think it's very important to try to have that one on site. And you only exceed the 1500 square feet by like 60 feet. So I think that to try to say, okay, just to get under that number by whacking off, I don't know, two feet or whatever it would be, I think is just not a very reasonable request to ask of you. So I can support all of the variances and your plans as presented this evening.
Chair Imer Bauta: Thank you, Debbie. MJ?
MJ Coveny: Yeah.
Chair Imer Bauta: Yeah.
MJ Coveny: Yeah. I kind of struggled with this one because I always have to go back to criteria because when I look at this, I see everybody wants what they want, but there's restrictions and there's restrictions for a reason. So if you buy a small lot, you build a small house. It kind of goes hand in hand. But then I also look at the big picture of Laguna growing and we wanting to get younger people in there, maybe people that can't afford the big lot with the big house or have what they have and want to expand their family and the impact of moving is huge. So there's all those kind of personal, thinky, broad community concepts that I play around with. But then I come back just to what my goal is here, which is the criteria. Do you meet criteria? And ultimately in many cases, you don't.
So I struggle because this area of South Laguna is going to continually expand because these homes are the most affordable and people want to stay so they find a way to grow. So where do we draw the line on that growth and the opportunity for the homeowner to have what they want? So overall, if I look at Attachment 8 123
the homes that are surrounding this house, this design is compatible, especially the house next door and the couple more down the street that I noticed just in the things you highlighted. So it's definitely compatible. How those houses got there, I don't know. I don't know whether it was prior to design review. I know the one next door probably was on design review. So I look at where it's sort of going and then how do we control it so that it doesn't become so overbuilt and a wall of homes down the street all at beyond the setbacks and it starts to look like a condo street.
And then is Laguna Laguna? I'm just giving you my psyche that I have to deal with when I look at these things. So the setback issue, you're missing it obviously on most sides. I think that gives you a little breath, but I don't know if that really answers the call. I think it's sort of like taking your shoes off at the airport. It's like, did that really make a difference but it sure did inconvenience a lot of people?
So I'm not sure that the concept of the setback was good in the sense that they thought they were controlling how things grew, but when you lose a foot here, lose a foot there, it doesn't feel that much. If it was supposed to be a 10 foot setback and you're only at two, then we've got issues. But this was a 5 foot to a 3 foot. So I feel like we can make headway there. And sorry if I'm getting a little lengthy. I'm sort of working it out in my head. So that variance I was struggling with purely from mass and scale of this house on this corner.
But I think the design is attractive and it supports the other homes on the street.
So is it neighborhood compatible? Some yes, some no. But I do feel like that's where we're going. So should your homeowner be the one that starts to set a precedent of no building? I don't know if I can make that decision tonight. So I want to hear what my other board members have to say, but ultimately I feel like the variance for the parking, I think, is good. Single parking's fine. Nobody has parking there. One nice thing about when you come before the board is we can fix some of the nonconformities at that time. Some of the other homes in Laguna really have abused... Their nonconformities are huge and we have an opportunity to change those when you come before the board.
In this case, this is such a unique lot and such unique part of Laguna, it's kind of tough because I totally understand why they want to go larger. I get that you've designed something that can fit in there, but in my mind, it still feels large for the lot. And I want to hear what my other board members have to say. So that's just sort of my pattern of my thinking.
Chair Imer Bauta: Thank you, MJ. Lewis?
Louis Weil: Yeah. No, well said by the prior board members. I think I'm more aligned with the comments from Board Member Neev. It is hard to do stuff on some of these smaller lots and keep it in neighborhood compatibility. I think from the design, like Board Member Coveny said, it fits the neighborhood. It's clean. Yes, adding the parking space is probably something that should have been done with the Attachment 8 124
last remodel, but I get why it's being asked for. I think it can be supportive. As far as the upper level expansion, yeah it runs that line of completely maximizing the lot, but I'll go back to the comments of being neighborhood compatible. I think the design can be supported and I can support it this evening.
Chair Imer Bauta: Thank you. Thank you, Louis. MJ, you bring great points. One thing I was looking at on my end pertaining to the neighbor adjacent on Wildwood is the setback that you... I'm going to ask a question of the applicant. Is the setback that you're proposing equivalent to what exists at 31562 Wildwood?
Horst Noppenberger: Would that be the adjacent house?
Chair Imer Bauta: Yeah.
Horst Noppenberger: Yeah. And that's exactly what Adam and I saw when we stood on this property and started contemplating the design is that that house was out, what, about seven feet further? And so we're coming in line with the house.
Chair Imer Bauta: In line. Yeah.
Horst Noppenberger: Yeah.
MJ Coveny: [inaudible 00:26:25] San Francisco row houses.
Chair Imer Bauta: I see.
MJ Coveny: [inaudible 00:26:34].
Chair Imer Bauta: On that face. Okay. So from what I gather, the added single space is warranted and I think that it can be substantiated by the evidence. So that variance I think could be met. I think looking at it from a level by level standpoint, there's a 171 square foot upper level addition and a 251 square foot lower level addition. I think those are super modest. That's like a master closet compared to some of the homes we look at on the board. So that's the way I look at it. I think it is super modest addition. I think the two feet into the side yard setback, when we take into account the adjacent home, I think it warrants it here tonight with conformity of the neighborhood. Not to mention just the adjacent home across the street. It seems like South Laguna and this part of South Laguna, they're all very continuous.
Some of the older homes, the single stories, maybe they're set back a little bit further, but anyone that's come in before us that wants some program for a family, which I can appreciate. I think there's a benefit to the community with the added parking space, but there's also a benefit to the applicant with the added square footage for a family of four.
Attachment 8 125
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
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