further affect remaining character-defining features. Although this observation is not determinative of eligibility, it provides relevant context regarding the property’s integrity and long-term preservation potential.
However, ESA’s analysis is largely confirmatory in nature and relies heavily on previously prepared reports rather than substantially expanding the evidentiary record. The memorandum does not include a robust comparative analysis of similar homestead properties within Orange County or the broader region, which would strengthen its conclusions regarding the property’s relative significance. Additionally, ESA does not directly engage with HRG’s argument that the property’s rarity may elevate its significance, leaving this key issue largely unaddressed. A more explicit evaluation of rarity in relation to established significance thresholds, as well as a more detailed articulation of the integrity analysis, would improve the overall defensibility of the conclusions.
Overall, ESA’s memorandum provides a well-reasoned and professionally grounded evaluation that supports the conclusion that the property does not meet eligibility criteria for listing in the CRHR or NRHP. While the analysis would benefit from additional depth in certain areas, it is consistent with accepted standards and reinforces the distinction between historical association and demonstrated historical significance.
Peer Review Analysis – Historic Resources Group (HRG) Response HRG’s Response to Peer Review Memorandum (March 23, 2026) provides a more detailed and focused argument in support of the property’s eligibility and directly addresses several issues raised in GPA’s prior peer review. The response strengthens the original analysis by expanding the historic context to include “Homesteading in Orange County,” offering additional background on regional settlement patterns, land availability, and the relative rarity of successful homesteads. HRG also presents new research intended to support its position that the subject property may represent a rare surviving example of a homestead residence in Orange County and attempts to address prior concerns regarding the lack of comparative analysis by asserting that few, if any, comparable properties remain that retain sufficient integrity. In addition, HRG appropriately reiterates that a property need not retain all seven aspects of integrity to be eligible for listing and emphasizes that the subject property retains integrity of location, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
The response further introduces the argument that adjacent preserved open space contributes to the property’s ability to convey aspects of its historic setting.
While HRG’s response represents a meaningful expansion of the original analysis and demonstrates a good-faith effort to address prior comments, several key issues remain insufficiently resolved. Although the argument for rarity is more fully developed, the response does not clearly establish that rarity alone rises to the level of historical significance as required under National Register Bulletin 15. The analysis does not demonstrate that the property is among the most important or illustrative examples of the identified historic context, and the comparative framework remains largely inferential, relying on the absence of comparable properties rather than a documented evaluation of similar resources within a defined geographic and thematic scope.
Additionally, while HRG acknowledges the diminished integrity of setting, the response does not fully resolve whether the loss of the surrounding agricultural context materially affects the property’s ability to convey its significance under Criterion A/1. The assertion that adjacent preserved open space provides a sufficient environmental context is noted; however, the analysis does not clearly demonstrate that this open space reflects the property’s historic agricultural use, as opposed to a broader natural landscape that is not directly tied to the property’s period of significance. Similarly, although the expanded regional context provides useful background, the response does not clearly establish how the subject property stands out within this broader context in a manner that meets the threshold for significance. As in the original report, key conclusions regarding integrity and significance remain interpretive and do not fully resolve the differing interpretations identified in prior reviews.
Overall, HRG’s response provides additional context and supporting information that is relevant to the evaluation of the property and strengthens certain aspects of the original argument. However, the response does not fully address the core issues identified in GPA’s prior peer review, particularly with respect to the relationship between 647
646 of 821
rarity and significance, the adequacy of comparative analysis, and the impact of diminished integrity of setting on the property’s ability to convey significance under applicable criteria.
Conclusion and Recommendations
Based on GPA’s review of the expanded record, including the Historic Resource Technical Memorandum prepared by Environmental Science Associates (ESA), the Response to Peer Review Memorandum prepared by Historic Resources Group (HRG), previously submitted historic resource assessments, and public comments, GPA finds that the evidence does not sufficiently support a conclusion that the subject property meets the eligibility criteria for listing in the CRHR or the NRHP.
Both ESA and HRG present arguments grounded in accepted professional standards; however, ESA’s conclusions are more consistently supported by the available evidence and more closely aligned with the evaluative framework set forth in National Register Bulletin 15 and related guidance. ESA appropriately distinguishes between historical association and demonstrated historical significance and concludes that, while the property is associated with early homesteading activity in South Laguna, this association alone is insufficient to establish eligibility without a clear showing that the property is an important or representative example within a defined historic context.
HRG’s response provides a meaningful expansion of the original analysis, particularly with respect to the development of a broader historic context and the argument for rarity. However, while the additional research strengthens the narrative surrounding homesteading in Orange County, it does not conclusively demonstrate that the subject property rises to the level of significance required under applicable criteria. In particular, the relationship between rarity and significance remains insufficiently substantiated, and the comparative framework continues to rely on the absence of comparable properties rather than a demonstrated evaluation of relative importance within a defined context.
Additionally, while HRG maintains that the property retains sufficient integrity to convey its significance, the loss of the historic agricultural setting remains a critical factor in evaluating the property under Criterion A/1. The available evidence does not clearly demonstrate that the property retains the necessary physical and contextual characteristics to effectively convey its association with early homesteading in a manner that meets established thresholds for eligibility. For instance, Laguna Beach is known for its early cottage construction as second homes or as artists’ residences; the construction style, form, and techniques for properties constructed under this context is similar to the Egan property, but significant properties under this context would not require the setting to be intact to interpret its significance as an early beach cottage or its association with a particular artist.
However, for a property to convey its association under a broad context such as homesteading, the setting is critical to conveying that significance, especially in light of the fact that it was established as a rural agricultural property and not simply a second beach home. Without even a partial surrounding rural or agricultural setting, the Egan residence does not clearly convey its association with the Homestead Act any more than it could be confused as an early beach cottage. This is why the setting of this particular property is imperative in demonstrating its association with Homesteading. Regardless of the argument of a loss of integrity, the property was not clearly demonstrated to be significant within the context that it was identified. As stated in GPA’s previous review, this property would be better identified simply as one of the earliest examples of pioneering residences within the South Laguna area (without its tie to the Homestead Act) under the City’s local ordinance.
Accordingly, GPA concludes that the subject property does not meet the criteria for listing in the CRHR or NRHP and does not qualify as a historical resource under CEQA. While the property may possess local historical interest, particularly as an early residence associated with the development of South Laguna, the available evidence does not support a finding of historical significance at the level required for designation under state or federal criteria.
However, in light of the entire record, should the City wish to further explore potential recognition at the local level, additional evaluation under a more narrowly defined local context may be warranted, subject to applicable provisions of the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance. 648
647 of 821
Notwithstanding the conclusions above, GPA notes that under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a resource need not be formally listed in, or determined eligible for, the California Register of Historical Resources to be treated as a historical resource for purposes of environmental review. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)(4), a lead agency may determine that a property is a historical resource if it is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record, including professional evaluations and public input. In this case, while GPA finds that the available evidence does not support eligibility for listing in the California or National Registers, the record does include professional and public assertions that the property may have local historical importance as one of the earliest residences associated with the development of South Laguna. As such, the City, in its role as lead agency, retains the discretion to determine whether the property should be treated as a historical resource for purposes of CEQA.
If the City elects to treat the property as a historical resource, it may also consider the implementation of appropriate measures to reduce potential impacts, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.5(b) and 15126.4(b), which address the treatment of historical resources and the development of feasible mitigation measures. Such measures may include documentation, interpretation, or other preservation-oriented strategies, similar to those recommended by ESA. However, CEQA requires that mitigation measures be roughly proportional to the level of impact, and mitigation is only required where a project would result in a significant impact to a historical resource. Accordingly, any consideration of mitigation should be commensurate with the degree of significance attributed to the resource and the severity of the potential impact.
I want to thank you for your consideration of our review. Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Andrea Galvin
Vice President, GPA Consulting
Principal Architectural Historian
649
648 of 821
ADDENDUM TO APPEAL: ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS AND POLICY REVIEW Regarding: Design Review 24-0658 / Coastal Development Permit 24-0657 Property: 31526 Valido Road, Laguna Beach, California
Submitted by: Sofia Chamberlain, 31551 Toto Loma Lane, Laguna Beach, CA Date: January 25, 2026
Purpose of This Addendum
This addendum is submitted in support of our pending appeal, filed on October 6, 2025, to provide a focused environmental and policy-based review of the proposed development at 31526 Valido Road. It identifies specific inconsistencies with the California Coastal Act, the City of Laguna Beach Local Coastal Program (LCP), Fire Code requirements, and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), with particular attention to impacts on the Ceanothus Creek riparian corridor, hillside stability, fire safety, and wildlife connectivity.
The purpose of this addendum is not to restate the full appeal record, but to clarify discrete environmental concerns, document applicable policy requirements, and specify the procedural actions necessary to bring the project into compliance prior to approval.
I will be referencing the following codes and policies:
Policy / Code Requirement
Coastal Act §30231 Protect riparian buffers and natural stream processes Coastal Act §30240(a,b) Prevent degradation of ESHA and adjacent development LCP §25.07.006(b) Development within 100 ft of a stream is appealable LCP §25.15.004(A)(5-7) Minimize grading; protect hillside stability Fire Code §4911 Fuel-Modification compliance required
CEQA §15303 Exemption inapplicable in sensitive environments
1. Possible Riparian Habitat Proximity and Buffer Violation Request: The City should require a site redesign or biological assessment demonstrating compliance with the Coastal Act, including the establishment of a scientifically supported riparian buffer consistent with the 100-foot stream protection standard, prior to project approval.
Concerns: The City’s determination that a 65-foot setback provides adequate protection appears inconsistent with the requirements of the Coastal Act and Laguna Beach Municipal Codes.
Attachment 24
650
649 of 821
The proposed 3,600 sq. ft. two-story residence and approximately 3,750 cubic yards of excavation are located within approximately 65 feet of Ceanothus Creek, a natural watercourse supporting amphibian, mammal, and bird species and providing habitat connectivity between canyon slopes and coastal ecosystems.
Laguna Beach Municipal Code designates development within 100 feet of a stream or wetland as appealable to the Coastal Commission. The Coastal Act requires maintenance of natural vegetation buffers to protect riparian habitats and minimize stream alteration, and requires adjacent development to be sited and designed to prevent significant degradation of environmentally sensitive habitat areas.
2. Excavation and Possible Hillside Instability
Request: The City should require a geotechnical and hydrological analysis evaluating slope stability, erosion potential, and sediment transport impacts to Ceanothus Creek, and require project redesign or grading reduction to conform with LCP hillside protection standards and Coastal Act.
Concerns: The project proposes approximately 3,750 cubic yards of excavation on a steep slope within the Residential/Hillside Protection Zone, which requires development to be sensitive to hillside terrain, minimize grading, follow natural topography, and avoid slopes exceeding 30 percent where feasible.
Ceanothus Canyon’s steep grades and erosive soils increase the risk of slope instability, erosion, and sediment transport into the adjacent riparian corridor. These risks conflict with Coastal Act, which requires development to assure site stability and avoid contributing to erosion or geologic instability.
3. Questionable CEQA Exemption
Request: The City should require a full environmental review, either an Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or Environmental Impact Report, to evaluate potential impacts to Ceanothus Creek and associated habitats.
Concerns: The City applied CEQA Categorical Exemption (New Construction of Small Structures), which is intended for minor development without significant environmental impacts.
Replacing an existing 1,113 sq. ft. residence with a 3,600 sq. ft. two-story structure involving approximately 3,700 cubic yards of excavation within an Environmentally Sensitive Area does not appear to meet the intent of this exemption. LCP requires development to avoid adverse effects on environmentally sensitive areas.
4. Possible Fire Safety and Fuel-Modification Conflicts 651
650 of 821
Request: The City should require documented compliance with Fuel Modification Zone (FMZ) standards, including an analysis of how required vegetation clearance would be implemented without degrading environmentally sensitive habitat, prior to project approval.
Concerns: The site is located within both an Appealable Coastal Zone and a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Fire Codes require new development in Fuel Modification areas to comply with FMZ standards.
The Coastal Act requires development in high fire-hazard areas to minimize risks to life and property. Approval of a new residence on a steep, vegetated canyon slope without demonstrated FMZ compliance raises unresolved safety and habitat-disturbance concerns.
5. Possible Cumulative Impacts on Wildlife Corridor
Request: The City should conduct a cumulative impact analysis evaluating excavation, construction activity, and runoff effects on the Ceanothus Creek wildlife corridor to ensure compliance with the Coastal Act.
Concerns: The City’s Environmentally Sensitive Areas Map identifies natural canyons and watercourses, including Ceanothus Creek, as critical wildlife corridors connecting hillside, riparian, and canyon-bottom ecosystems.
The project’s scale, excavation intensity, and expanded development footprint increase the risk of landslides, sediment-laden runoff, and pollutant discharge into Ceanothus Creek, particularly during storm events. These impacts may degrade water quality, riparian vegetation, and habitat conditions for amphibians and aquatic species, resulting in cumulative habitat degradation, which appears to be inconsistent with the Coastal Act.
652
651 of 821
1 Steven, Heather CD
From: Rodrigues, Bill CD
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2026 10:55 PM
To: Viera, Anthony CD; Steven, Heather CD; Schneider, Matthew CD Subject: Fw: Formal Objection to Appeal of Design Review Board Determination Regarding the Egan Homestead and Request for Procedural and Substantive Accountability Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
FYI…
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Matt Karam <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2026 10:47 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Gannon, Jessica <[email protected]>; Coveny, Mary Jo <[email protected]>; Bauta, Imer <[email protected]>; Weil, Louis <[email protected]>; Design Review Board <[email protected]>; Rodrigues, Bill CD <[email protected]>; Baldridge, Cheryl CC <[email protected]>; McKay, Ann Marie CC <[email protected]>; Beier, Samantha CD <[email protected]>; Dubin, Jorg <[email protected]>; Goldman, Steven <[email protected]>; Steven Kellenberg <[email protected]>; Sadler, Ken <[email protected]>; Whitin, Susan <[email protected]>; Frimond, Jeremy CM <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Formal Objection to Appeal of Design Review Board Determination Regarding the Egan Homestead and Request for Procedural and Substantive Accountability
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.]
To the Honorable Members of the Laguna Beach City Council, I write as a resident of Laguna Beach and as an active agricultural land steward in California to formally express profound concern and growing distrust regarding the City Council’s recent actions, decisionmaking processes, and procedural handling of matters relating to historic preservation, land use governance, and public accountability—specifically the pending appeal concerning the demolition authorization of the Egan Homestead.
This communication is submitted in advance of the City Council hearing scheduled for February 24 regarding the appeal of the Design Review Board’s determination that the Egan Homestead property is 653
652 of 821
2 not historic and may therefore be demolished.
At issue is not merely the fate of a single structure. Rather, the matter implicates the City’s fidelity to lawful process, evidentiary standards, institutional competence, and the integrity of its stewardship over Laguna Beach’s historical and environmental heritage.
---
I. Procedural Irregularities and Institutional Misallocation of Authority It is deeply concerning that the determination regarding the historic status of the Egan Homestead was placed primarily within the jurisdictional action of the Design Review Board rather than the City’s Heritage Committee or equivalent body specifically tasked with historic evaluation and preservation matters.
This procedural routing raises legitimate questions regarding:
- Proper administrative jurisdiction
- Subject-matter expertise
- Adherence to preservation review protocols
- Whether the most qualified evaluative body was intentionally or inadvertently bypassed Historic resource determinations are not aesthetic design matters. They are preservation determinations requiring specialized historical, cultural, and land-use analysis. Routing such a decision through a body not principally tasked with historical designation undermines public confidence in the neutrality and rigor of the review process.
---
II. Failure of Evidentiary Balance and Consultant Integrity The record indicates that:
- Two independent historical consultants concluded the property is eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources and the National Register of Historic Places. - Their findings link the property directly to the implementation of the Homestead Act of 1862. - A competing historical report funded by the developer disputes those findings.
The City’s handling of these conflicting expert conclusions raises material concerns regarding evidentiary weighting, consultant independence, and funding transparency.
Equally troubling is the apparent absence of meaningful integration of analysis or position statements from long-established local historical institutions, including:
- Laguna Beach Historical Society
- Village Laguna
- South Laguna Civic Association
654
653 of 821
3 These organizations possess accumulated institutional knowledge that cannot be replicated through isolated commissioned reports. Their expertise should not merely be acknowledged—it should be substantively incorporated into decision-making.
---
III. Agricultural and Land Stewardship Context: Evident Lack of Local Land Knowledge As an active grower and agricultural operator with working land in California, I find the apparent lack of land-based historical inquiry in this matter deeply troubling.
The Egan Homestead represents a functional agricultural settlement of its era. Any competent historical assessment of such a property requires basic agrarian inquiry, including:
- What crops were cultivated on the Egan farmland?
- What was the site’s water acquisition method?
- Was groundwater accessed or developed?
- What building materials were available and used in early 1900s homestead construction? - What logistical constraints shaped settlement patterns at that time? These are not peripheral questions. They are foundational to understanding whether a property embodies the historical realities of early homesteading life.
Failure to rigorously investigate these matters suggests not merely an incomplete historical review, but a fundamental absence of working knowledge regarding agricultural settlement history in Laguna Beach.
As a fellow agricultural producer—like the Egan family and their contemporaries—I find it extraordinary that such basic land-use and survival questions appear to have been insufficiently explored before authorizing demolition of what may be one of the last remaining homesteader structures in Orange County.
---
IV. Fiscal Stewardship and Public Trust Concerns
Equally troubling is the City’s handling of public funds in relation to:
- Historic evaluation processes
- Consultant compensation and selection
- Use or non-use of City historical bodies
- Transparency in evidentiary review
- Allocation of resources toward demolition approval processes Public funding associated with historic review must meet the highest standards of transparency, neutrality, and methodological rigor. The present situation does not reflect those standards. ---
655
654 of 821
4 V. Governance Implications
The cumulative effect of these procedural choices, evidentiary inconsistencies, and apparent institutional bypasses has significantly eroded public confidence in the City Council’s capacity to function as an impartial and trustworthy local governing body in matters of historic preservation and land stewardship.
This is not a rhetorical concern. It is a governance concern.
When residents observe:
- Jurisdictional misalignment
- Uneven evidentiary consideration
- Limited transparency
- Apparent marginalization of established historical institutions - Insufficient land-based historical inquiry
they reasonably question whether decision-making is being conducted with the level of integrity, diligence, and neutrality required of municipal authority. ---
VI. Requested Actions
Accordingly, I respectfully request that the City Council:
1. Conduct a fully transparent and procedurally appropriate review of the Egan Homestead’s historical eligibility.
2. Formally incorporate analysis from recognized local historical organizations into the evidentiary record.
3. Provide public accounting of consultant selection, funding, and evaluative methodology.
4. Clarify why the Design Review Board, rather than appropriate historic review bodies, served as the primary decision authority.
5. Suspend any demolition authorization until a properly structured historic determination process is completed.
---
Conclusion
The Egan Homestead is not merely a structure. It represents a tangible link to early agricultural settlement, land survival, and the lived implementation of federal homesteading policy. Structures of this nature are finite and irreplaceable once removed.
Municipal authority carries with it a fiduciary duty to history, land, and public trust. The present handling of this matter calls that duty into serious question.
656
655 of 821
5 I urge the Council to proceed with the highest degree of procedural integrity, evidentiary rigor, and historical responsibility at the February 24 hearing.
Land owner and resident of South Laguna, CA for 35 years now.
Respectfully submitted,
Matthew Karam
Resident, South Laguna, California
Agricultural Land Owner/Steward & Grower
[email protected]
949.887.7510
For privacy and personal safety reasons, I am intentionally not including my residential address in this correspondence. This decision is made due to concerns regarding confidentiality, potential retaliation (direct or indirect), and the possibility of discriminatory treatment in connection with current or future interactions involving the City Council, the Design Review Board, and affiliated committees of the City of Laguna Beach. I will provide contact information through appropriate secure channels if and when necessary.
657
656 of 821
1 Steven, Heather CD
Subject: FW: Preserving the Historic Eagan House and Laguna Beach’s Cultural Heritage From: Carey Strombotne <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 6, 2026 1:57 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Preserving the Historic Eagan House and Laguna Beach’s Cultural Heritage [NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Dear Mayor Orgill and City Council Members:
I am writing to urge you to reconsider the demolition of the Eagan House, one of Laguna Beach’s earliest homesteads and the oldest remaining original cottage in our community.
The Eagan House is not simply an old structure—it is a tangible link to the origins of Laguna Beach. As one of the first homesteads in the area, it represents the perseverance, craftsmanship, and way of life of the earliest settlers who shaped this town long before it became the vibrant coastal city we know today.
Once such places are lost, they can never be replaced.
Historic preservation is not about resisting progress; it is about honoring identity. Laguna Beach’s character, charm, and cultural richness are rooted in its history. Visitors and residents alike are drawn to this city because it has retained its sense of place. Preserving historic structures like the Eagan House safeguards that identity and ensures that future generations can experience the physical stories of those who came before them.
Across California, communities are increasingly recognizing that historic preservation provides economic, educational, and environmental benefits. Adaptive reuse of historic homes often proves more sustainable than demolition and redevelopment, while also offering opportunities for cultural tourism, community engagement, and historical education.
Demolishing the Eagan House would represent an irreversible loss—not only of a building, but of an irreplaceable chapter in Laguna Beach’s story. I respectfully ask the City Council to explore alternatives to demolition, including landmark designation, preservation incentives, or partnerships that would allow this historic ranch to be protected and thoughtfully integrated into the city’s future.
Laguna Beach has long been a steward of art, culture, and heritage. Preserving the Eagan House would affirm that commitment and demonstrate that our city values its past as much as its future.
Thank you for your time, consideration, and service to our community.
Respectfully,
658
657 of 821
2 Carey Strombotne
Laguna Beach, CA
659
658 of 821
Anthony Viera
Deputy Director of Community Development
City of Laguna Beach
January 8, 2026
Re: Appeal for 31526 Valido Road
Dear Anthony,
Thank you for the written response to our letter of December 24, 2025. However, we are disappointed in the course of action you have outlined regarding the historical research on the Egan Homestead property at 31526 Valido Road. We urge city staO to reconsider. The finding on the historic significance of the property should not be based on critiques of the reports, but upon the actual qualities and history of the property.
The city should seriously consider: How could a structure, begun in 1907 as part of establishing a homestead claim, now the oldest house in South Laguna, and the only local remaining house of a homesteader, not be a historical resource? If not a property like this, does anything qualify?
Every eOort should be made to address any possible deficiencies in the research/reports so that as much correct information as possible is presented to the Council and public for review.
This is why we urge you to contract with HRG to do additional research and amend their report accordingly. They are the most qualified and objective consultant to address the concerns that GPA pointed out. GPA’s work was limited and did not include any additional research. Their scope of work states:
“ The City is not seeking a new (and 3rd) independent assessment of the property, but, rather, a memo analysis based on the reports provided to the City…
1. A new assessment is not requested. The peer review will be concerned with the methodology, accuracy, and completeness of the report and will not re-evaluate the property.
2. Extensive property-specific or contextual research will not be conducted. GPA will review existing documentation available from the City and/or GPA’s past projects in the vicinity.
3. A site visit will not be conducted.”
This last item—no site visit by GPA—is an important example of why GPA’s report critique work should not be a determinant in decisions on this property. Chronicle’s main argument against finding the Egan property a historic resource is impairment of the setting. GPA 660
659 of 821
accepts this argument as being true without ever having visited the site and observing the setting for themselves! Thus they missed the importance 60% of the original 40 acre homestead preserved as part of Aliso and Wood Canyons Wilderness Park--just as William and Bertie Egan found it. The lot in question, with its house and outbuilding, directly adjoins that naturally vegetated Park property and this provides the setting that makes it possible for observers to see and imagine exactly the landscape the Egans encountered and lived with.
Without any additional research, the questions that GPA raised are not likely to be answered, and their further involvement, unless it includes analysis of additional research provided by the City’s consultant, is unlikely to produce the documentation they state as being necessary.
We also want to point out that the additional report from the SOIS qualified architectural historian, Francesca Smith, is important to include in the historical analysis. The information in that report addresses the context and rarity issues that GPA questioned.
HRG should address this information and add any more that they may develop in their amended report.
Below is a summary of the experience of Francesca Smith in evaluating homesteads:
• Fallon Range Training Complex Modernization Draft EIS. Van Vorhis Airfield, Nevada.
United States Department of Defense, United States Navy. 2018. Evaluated more than 20 abandoned homestead properties, among numerous other properties, for National Register eligibility. Of those, Loraine Spencer Homestead, Devore Homestead, Ellis Homestead and H Homestead (Derrick Complex) were each determined eligible for the National Register with Nevada State Historic Preservation OOicer (SHPO) concurrence.
• Interstate 15 South Corridor Improvements Project. Las Vegas, Nevada. Federal Highway Administration. 2007. Evaluated 753 properties for National Register eligibility, including two homestead properties. None was determined eligible. Nevada SHPO concurred.
We also want to point out additional research by Lee Hanson that resulted in a series of articles printed in Stu News and the Laguna Beach Independent. Her research produced material from the National Archives such as the actual homestead application and evaluation documents by William Egan and James Shrewsbury. Early prominent community leaders John N. (Nick) Isch (Laguna’s postmaster) and Joseph S. (Joe) Thurston (whose father filed the homestead claim for Aliso Canyon land) signed testimonial documents verifying Egan and Shrewsbury’s occupation and improvements on the homestead property. We are attaching those Homestead Case Files for Egan and Shrewsbury.
These provide additional information that will be helpful to HRG. 661
660 of 821
In addition we have an 1885 topography map created by the U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey on which the homestead boundaries have been overlaid. Structures documented on that survey are highlighted in red. None of those structures exist today. This is part of the documentation that establishes the context of the Egan homestead. The post-1885 buildings are documented on a 1948 USGS map that shows the Egan house. For example, the Thurston buildings in Aliso Canyon that show on the 1885 map are not on the 1948 map. The Rogers ranch house on the Damron homestead has been replaced by City Hall, and the Harvey Hemenway house in Laguna Canyon and the Robert Anderson house on the Shrewsbury homestead show on the 1948 map but have since been destroyed. The maps provide documentation showing where homestead structures were, and through analyzing these maps it can seen that they are no longer extant.
We only have this detail because of the research we have done for the SLCA history of South Laguna book. Certainly HRG in their initial report could not have been expected to do this level of research, and it took many months for us to document. Now that this information is available, HRG should include it in their report.
Apparently the city is allowing the applicant/developer to submit additional reports. As appellants we are representing the public interest in preserving evidence of the heritage of our city. We have had to pay a large fee to try to see that the policies of the General Plan regarding historic preservation are implemented. We ask that the city staO do all it can to see that all of the historic information is gathered and completely and fairly presented for council and public review, and that staO be in regular communication with us as well as with the applicant/developer. We also request that any new report be forwarded to us as soon as submitted to the city.
Ann Christoph
cc: Dave KiO, city manager, Matthew Schneider, Community Development Director Lee Hanson chapters published in Stu News:
1. Homestead Challenge (published Nov 7)
https://stunewslaguna.com/the-house-on-valido-road-110725/
2. Homestead Honeymoon (published Nov 14)
https://stunewslaguna.com/the-house-on-valido-road-111425/
3. Dwelling, House, Home (published Nov 21)
https://stunewslaguna.com/the-house-on-valido-road-112125/
4. Farm on Fire (published Nov 28)
662
661 of 821
https://stunewslaguna.com/the-house-on-valido-road-112825/
5. See How It Grew (published Dec 5)
https://stunewslaguna.com/the-house-on-valido-road-120525/
6. Hearth and Home (published Dec 12)
https://stunewslaguna.com/the-house-on-valido-road-121225/
7. Egan Family Traditions (published Dec 19)
https://stunewslaguna.com/the-house-on-valido-road-121925/
8. Resilience (published Jan 2) - the last article in the series https://stunewslaguna.com/the-house-on-valido-road-resilience-010226/ 663
662 of 821
664
665
1 Egan House Celebrates 119 years: Will It See Another? By Lee C. Hanson, Ph.D.
With historic descrip-ons from Esther Egan, daughter of the Egan Homesteaders In 1902, my father, Will Egan, and his uncle, James Shrewsbury were on a camping trip to Laguna Beach and found that some of the South Laguna property was open to homesteaders.
This drama*c opening line, wri4en by Esther Egan (youngest daughter of Will and Ber*e Egan) vividly describes the struggles of her parents, as they carved their homestead out of the hills and canyons of South Laguna, building their family home known as the “house on the hill.”
In 1906, Will Egan filed his homestead applica*on for 40 acres of land in South Laguna.
Although filing for land was prac*cally free, there were other costs involved; homesteaders needed to clear the land, plow the soil, add amendments, level the field, create rows to plant, and maintain the crops throughout several months. During that *me, shelter and food for people and animals needed to be provided. All of these steps required hard labor as well as
enough money to survive the first
year with no income in sight.
From Esther’s family story we learn
that The property was covered
with deep underbrush which had
to be cleared with teams of horses
and terribly hard work.
Our father and Uncle Jim Built the
first dwelling, a room 10’ x 16’
(which later became the kitchen in
the Egan home). It is sNll there Underbrush covers the South Laguna hills and flatlands above West Street .
In January 1907, aUer Will Egan had cleared the brush from the property and prepared the fields, he built a one-room “dwelling”—the start of the two-bedroom Egan home that, 119 years later, s*ll stands on Valido Road.
666
665 of 821
2 Will Egan preparing the fields on his 40-acre homestead During the time before the homestead’s final proof in 1910, Will Egan married Alberta McCoy in their hometown of Spadra, CA. Will considered the one-room homestead “dwelling” (built to satisfy requirements of the Homestead Act) no longer adequate for a new bride. He added to the cabin that he and his uncle had been using—enlarging it and adding a fireplace—that our father had so lovingly built for his bride in 1909.
In 1910, Will Egan obtained his
homestead patent and made the
forty-acres his own.
In the same year, the Egans’ first
daughter, Frances, was born. A
second daughter, Esther, arrived
nineteen months later. Additions to
the family also meant additions to
their housing.
The Egan homestead house, addition made ca. 1909-1910
Original “dwelling” at the far left.
Because medical services were severely limited in Laguna, Francis and Esther were born on our ranch in Spadra (near Pomona) but had our first Christmas in our home in South Laguna.
667
666 of 821
3 The Egan house was built on the long slope of a hill overlooking bean fields that stretched “all the way to the ocean” and south toward the Shrewsbury homestead.
The Egan house is the small, white rectangle near the right edge of the photo.
The field laborers lived in the buildings scattered in the grove of trees located at what is now Catalina Avenue. My father William used ‘dry farming,’ and raised melons, string beans, and lima beans. Straight rows of beanfields can be seen in the foreground. The dirt road at the left of the photograph is the Coast Highway—the way to move produce from South Laguna to market.
The Egan house was located not only on a hill
but also on the edge of a small canyon. The
rampant foliage in the foreground hides the
slope that drops down to a small creek
running near the edge of the property. When
the Egan family lived in their house,
Will Egan discovered the source of the fresh
water and (according to his daughter Esther),
aSer hard work, piped it down into our
home.” Even though much of the water has
been diverted over the years, the creek
maintains a small but steady stream of water
throughout the summer months.
Recent photograph of the Egan House taken from
the Toovet Hiking Trail. The adjacent buildings
were digitally removed from the photo so that the
homestead could be seen as it looked in 1928.
668
667 of 821
4 The loca*on of the Egan house can be be4er seen in this aerial photograph that shows more of the Aliso and Wood Canyons Wilderness Park—4,500 acres of coastal canyons, grassland, and woodlands. The Wilderness Park is part of a larger complex: the South Coast Wilderness, an important regional wildlife preserve.
Esther’s notecards men*on the wildlife near their home: it was very scary going from our house to Grandmother’s, especially near dusk when we could hear mountain lions roar or coyotes barking back in the hills. We would sing Jesus Loves Me, all the way.
Esther (leI) and Frances (right) playing in the beanfields in front of their home.
Egan home circled in Bing Maps aerial view
669
668 of 821
5 James Shrewsbury (leI) and William Egan (right) worked their homesteads together ca. 1915.
Life on a homestead is demanding. Esther’s notes reveal the many challenges the Egans met and overcame:
Hard winds would someNmes make it impossible for Mother to use the big cook stove. Bad storms—hail—could wipe out crops in one day.
It took years before we had electricity to our houses because we had to pay for all the poles and wiring.
All of our water had to be caught and stored in cisterns with pumps… Later our father discovered a spring back up our canyon and aSer hard work, piped it down into our home.
The road into Laguna was a dirt wagon track and the windingest one you ever saw.
It went up each canyon and there were many steep hills to climb, especially at Aliso.
The bridge washed out about every year and then our father would swim across the creek and Mr. Isch (a dear friend from Laguna who owned the first store) would bring the groceries out; our father would have to ferry them across in a knapsack on his back.
670
669 of 821
6 The most trauma*c event in the Egans’ lives was undoubtedly the massive wildfire in 1916 that destroyed their crops, beehives, and the surrounding hills. Here are some excerpts that tell the story, taken from Esther’s note cards:
The fire got away and spread over what is now Coast Royal and South Laguna. Only about four houses were there then, no fire department. We just had a cistern for water with a pump. Our dad had beehives up on a hill, and the fire burned the hives and bees, causing honey to run out and down the hill.
Our house roof was in danger of catching fire so our dad went up a ladder and Mother pumped water and handed buckets of water up to him… Frances and I were told to stay inside and pray that God would keep us safe and not let the house burn.
We also kept wet cloths over our mouths.
Small animals came out of the hills down to the house, hoping to find shelter. Many of them with fur on fire. It was a terrible Nme. Our house was surrounded by singed animals, even a deer which broke our hearts. To look out at all of the hills blackened was heartbreaking.
Finally, when the house was safe, our dad set backfires and turned the fire from us, but everywhere you looked it was all black, no vegetaNon leS…It took years for the growth to come back on the hills and all the lovely wildflowers and ferns to reappear.”
It took years for the growth to come back on the hills and all the lovely wildflowers and ferns to reappear.
By 1930, fourteen years aUer the 1916 wildfire wiped out their crops and the beehives, the Egans had recovered very well. The Federal Census lists the “home value” as $80,000 (equivalent to $1.5 million today).
Will Egan's unexpected death near the end of 1930 leU his wife Ber*e solely responsible for the 40-acre homestead they had worked so hard to secure. Realizing the land would eventually be developed, she made a bold decision—she took steps to secure an available water supply for the community. The exis*ng West Street water reservoir was already on property donated by the Egans; Ber*e provided land for a second reservoir above Ceanothus Drive.
Most importantly, Ber*e Egan refused to sell any of her land for subdivision without ironclad assurances that developers would provide water infrastructure to the new 671
670 of 821
7 homeowners—a decision that had a las*ng and posi*ve impact on the South Laguna community.
Twelve years aUer the wildfire, the
Egans constructed an addi*on on
the north side of their home, This
added a second bedroom and
filled the void between the two
exis*ng structures.
The co4age was further unified
with updated windows, new
board-and-ba4en siding, and a
new roof structure with exposed
raUer tails.
The Egan house as it was in 1928
The u*lity pole shows that the family finally had been able to afford electricity. Esther Egan, younger daughter of the family, said It took years before we had electricity to our houses because we had to pay for all the poles and wiring.
Today, the Egan house is looking
old and be4ered. Age, plus lack of
maintenance over recent years,
has taken its toll.
Ber*e’s lush garden is also in poor
shape. Her daughter Esther
reported, Mother kept the
garden; she must have flowers.
Some of Ber*e’s garden s*ll
exists—the hearty Martha
Washington geraniums (her
favorites) can be seen on the
property today, along with a rose
bush here and there.
The Egan house as it looks today
672
671 of 821
8 Last September, Laguna Beach’s Design Review Board approved a request to demolish the Egan house. Several residents read the plans a4ached to the agenda and were concerned about poten*al damage to adjacent proper*es as well as to the environment.
To meet local building height
requirements, the house plans
indicate that the structure would
be set at a lower grade, allowing
for two full stories while
maintaining a roofline no higher
than a single-story home.
This would mean removing
hundreds of cubic yards of dirt to
build the house at a lower level.
The grading around the lowered
house is likely to require even
more dirt removal so that the yard Lines and flags show the outline of the house planned and the driveway will be level with to replace the historic home once it’s torn down. that of the rest of the property.
Many neighboring homeowners ques*on how lowering the level of the property would affect slope stability and the environment of the adjacent canyon and wilderness park.
An appeal has been scheduled for February 2026, when the future of the house will be determined.
The Egan house has had a long life. It has
withstood the elements for over a century,
capturing within its walls the laughter and
tears of a resilient family—the Egans who
homesteaded the property, built the house,
and cul*vated the land. It is a home that
stands as a reminder to another *me—one
that teaches family bonds, resilience, and
the harsh reali*es of homestead life.
Will Egan and daughter Frances (standing)
BerTe and daughter Esther (seated)
673
672 of 821
9 The story of the historic Egan house has a beginning, a middle, but so far, no end.
Perhaps there will be an ending when ques*ons are answered: What will become of the Egan House in the 21st Century? Will it weather the coming storms of urbaniza-on? These ques*ons and the future of the Egan house will be answered in the coming months. The final answer is in the hands of the City of Laguna Beach and its residents. ____________________________________________________________________________________ GUEST OPINION:
Should the Egan Homestead be protected from demoliNon as the last remaining homestead dwelling in Orange County?
A vote of YES means you would like to save the historic Egan homestead house! A vote of NO means you would like to see the Egan house demolished.
Vote now!
h,ps://www.lagunabeachindy.com/poll/should-the-egan-homestead-be-protected-fromdemoliDon-as-the-last-remaining-homestead-dwelling-in/poll_500c4318-37e9-47d1-a8d1- c908ba343f73.html
Researcher/author Dr. Lee Hanson taught in the Art Department at San José State University for several years before moving to southern California where she reTred while serving as Associate Director of Arts EducaTon, Art Department, School of Arts and Architecture, UCLA. 674
673 of 821
10 Extra photos:
House on the Hill-- Egan homestead house, oil painTng by Lagun arTst Lee Hayes Wedding giI presented to Esther Egan by her mother
675
674 of 821
11 Cer*fied Copy of William F. Egan’s Homestead Patent, issued 01/17/1910 676
675 of 821
677
678
677 of 821
679
680
679 of 821
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
686 of 821
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
1 Steven, Heather CD
From: Ann Christoph <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 2, 2026 1:04 PM
To: Schneider, Matthew CD; Viera, Anthony CD; Steven, Heather CD Cc: Kiff, Dave CM; McKay, Ann Marie CC
Subject: Fwd: The House on Valido Road 31526 Valido Road Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] I think you will enjoy this series of articles written by Lee Hanson. Please consider this additional information, add it to the staff report, and pass it on to HRG to incorporate into their addendum.
Ann Christoph
Begin forwarded message:
From: Lee Hanson <[email protected]>
Subject: The House on Valido Road
Date: January 2, 2026 at 10:09:49 AM PST
To: Deborrah Allen <[email protected]>
The House on Valido Road
The Story of the Egan Homestead and the Family that Built it 728
727 of 821
2 A few yards from the start of the Valido Trail in South Laguna, there is a little house—old and weathered—sitting at the top of a driveway that used to be the starting part of the Valido Road.
This historic house has withstood the elements for nearly 120 years, capturing within its walls the spirit of the Egans who homesteaded the property, built the house, and cultivated the land.
The remarkable story of this pioneer family and their historic home is being told in an eight-part series published by Stu News called “The House on Valido Road.” Here are the links that will take you directly to each of the articles in the series:
1. Homestead Challenge (published Nov 7)
https://stunewslaguna.com/the-house-on-valido-road-110725/
2. Homestead Honeymoon (published Nov 14)
https://stunewslaguna.com/the-house-on-valido-road-111425/
3. Dwelling, House, Home (published Nov 21)
https://stunewslaguna.com/the-house-on-valido-road-112125/
4. Farm on Fire (published Nov 28)
https://stunewslaguna.com/the-house-on-valido-road-112825/
5. See How It Grew (published Dec 5)
https://stunewslaguna.com/the-house-on-valido-road-120525/
6. Hearth and Home (published Dec 12)
https://stunewslaguna.com/the-house-on-valido-road-121225/
7. Egan Family Traditions (published Dec 19)
https://stunewslaguna.com/the-house-on-valido-road-121925/
8. Resilience (published Jan 2) - the last article in the series https://stunewslaguna.com/the-house-on-valido-road-resilience-010226/ 729
728 of 821
3 Stop the bulldozers! Last September, the Design Review Board of Laguna Beach approved the demolition of the Egan homestead house on Valido Road. An appeal will be heard by the City Council in February. Join with Village Laguna and the South Laguna Civic Association in preserving this historic homestead! 730
729 of 821
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.
Attachment 25
731
730 of 821
1 McKay, Ann Marie CC
Subject: Appeal A - 31526 Valido Road
From: steve kawaratani
Sent: Saturday, May 9, 2026 8:22 AM
To: Mark Orgill; Jones, Hallie <[email protected]>; Kempf, Sue ; Alex Rounaghi; Whalen, Bob Cc: Kiff, Dave CM <[email protected]>; Garibaldi, Megan AO <[email protected]>; Schneider, Matthew CD <[email protected]>; Viera, Anthony CD <[email protected]>; Steven, Heather CD <[email protected]>; McKay, Ann Marie CC <[email protected]> Subject: Appeal A - 31526 Valido Road
Good morning Mayor Orgill and Council Members,
Happy Mother’s Day weekend to those of you celebrating.
I represent the property owner and applicant team for the proposed project currently under appeal. After three Design Review Board hearings and four separate historic resource assessments, the DRB approved the application on a 4-1 vote. Additionally, by a 3-1 majority, the architectural historians concluded that the property does not meet the definition of a historic resource under CEQA nor qualifes under the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance.
Based upon the substantial evidence in the record, we respectfully request that the City Council support the DRB’s approval and uphold City staff’s recommendation to deny the appeals.
The first appeal asserts that the project creates privacy concerns, an issue the DRB addressed through conditioned approval. In addition, following discussions with the appellant, the project architect has proposed further refinements to the layout intended to enhance privacy protections.
I am available to meet at the property beginning Tuesday, in advance of the Council hearing, and would also be available to discuss the application at your convenience.
The preponderance of the evidence clearly demonstrates that both appeals should be denied, allowing the applicant to move forward with the proposed new residence.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Steve
949.290.0210
731 of 821
732 of 821
733 of 821
734 of 821
735 of 821
736 of 821
737 of 821
738 of 821
739 of 821
740 of 821
741 of 821
1 McKay, Ann Marie CC
Subject: Egan Homestead
From: Kris Evans-Degen
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 11:46 AM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Egan Homestead
The Egan Homestead is the oldest homestead in Laguna Beach. We are proud of our preservation of Laguna's history. Please be consistent by preserving this piece of our history.
Thank you.
Kris Evans
28810 Top of the World Dr.
742 of 821
1 McKay, Ann Marie CC
Subject: EGAN HOMESTEAD
From: Marion Staggs
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 9:30 AM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: EGAN HOMESTEAD
I am in support of preserving and retaining the Egan property and homestead.
It is an important piece of Laguna's history.
Let's leave a piece of it to be for all to remember.
.
Marion Staggs
31618 Scenic Drive So. Laguna
743 of 821
1 McKay, Ann Marie CC
Subject: City Clerk & City Council Public Comment Form
From: Laguna Beach, CA <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 5:40 AM
To: City Council <[email protected]>; McKay, Ann Marie CC <[email protected]>; Baldridge, Cheryl CC <[email protected]>
Subject: *NEW SUBMISSION* City Clerk & City Council Public Comment Form City Clerk & City Council Public Comment Form
Full Name
Deborrah Allen
What is the subject of your comment?
Letter regarding the Egan Homestead home
Is the item you wish to comment about on the upcoming City Council agenda? Yes
If the item is on the agenda, what number is it?
Comment
Dear Laguna City Council, I write with deep sadness following the Design Board’s September 25, 2025 decision to approve the demolition of my great-grandparents’ historic home, built on land homesteaded by my great-grandfather, William Egan, in 1910. This home has been a meaningful part of my life since childhood and represents a tangible connection to my family’s history—their sacrifices, resilience, and contributions to Laguna Beach. I have worked to preserve their legacy through my own writing, and losing this home would mean losing an irreplaceable link to that past. The Egan family played a significant role in the early development of South Laguna. My grandmother, Esther, and her sister Frances remained lifelong residents, and their descendants continue to share their stories. My grandparents, Russ and Esther Hind, operated Russ Hind Jewelry on Coast Highway for over 30 years and were active in the Festival of the Arts and Laguna Beach Presbyterian Church. My grandfather taught free lapidary classes and served as an elder, while my grandmother dedicated over 50 years to teaching Sunday School. Frances and her husband, Less Chatham, also served the community through the VFW and the Laguna Historical Society, contributing to civic life and local preservation efforts. The home on Valido Road is over 100 years old and believed to be the last remaining homesteaded house in Laguna Beach, making it potentially eligible for historic designation at both local and national levels. Family history also notes that my great-grandmother, Bertie Egan, deeded land to the local water company that still serves the community today. Preserving this home would honor not only my family’s legacy but also Laguna Beach’s broader history. It stands as a rare reminder of the community’s early days and could continue to educate and inspire future generations. I respectfully ask that you reconsider this decision. Thank you for your time and consideration. With gratitude, Deborrah Allen, (Great grandaughter of William and Bertie)
744 of 821
1 McKay, Ann Marie CC
Subject: 31526 Valido Rd. Appeal
From: Arman Bernardi
Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2026 8:42 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: 31526 Valido Rd. Appeal
Dear City Council,
We are the Bernardi family at address 31532 West Street, and we share a property line with the Egan House at 31526 Valido Rd. We are writing to request that you reject the "Egan House Appeal - 31526 Valido Rd." and allow the construction of the new proposed residential home at that site.
The current structure at 31526 Valido Rd. is dilapidated and poses a serious fire hazard to our neighborhood. A rotting and neglected house should not be suddenly declared "historic" blocking the owner from replacing it with a home that meets modern safety standards and improves the neighborhood. We have found the new owner's plans acceptable and they have been very proactive in working with us to fit in our neighborhood.
Please allow the construction of the new residential home at 31526 Valido Rd.
With Best Regards,
Arman & Alenush Bernardi
31532 West Street, Laguna Beach, CA 92651
745 of 821
1 McKay, Ann Marie CC
Subject: Egan House Appeal - 31526 Valido Rd.
From: Justin Boshnack
Sent: Saturday, April 4, 2026 11:21 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Egan House Appeal - 31526 Valido Rd.
Dear City Council,
My name is Justin Boshnack (and my wife, Lisa Boshnack). We live at 31538 West Street (in front of the subject property) and we are writing to express, in the strongest of terms, to REJECT the appeal and throw it in the garbage. This is a complete waste of time and merely a fixation of a far reaching, stuck in the past SLCA which is grasping at "history straws" to force an unreasonable and non-qualified claim for an historic registry on the 31526 Valido Rd. property.
Here are our thoughts and findings after fully reading various historic reports, listening to Design Review's decision and the SLCA's news bulletin:
1. The various owners of this property and the SLCA had 110 years to speak with the owners to register the subject property. Why is it that 2 days before their DR hearing do they delay the property owners and make this claim? Why have they not presented an historic report to the listing agent when the property is listed for sale in 2022? Why was this not disclosed to the new buyer of this property? WHy was this not brought to the city council many years ago? How is it legal for a 3rd party to force an historic restriction on a property owner without their consent?
2. William Egan acquired 160 acres for free in 1910 with the Homestead act and his heirs parceled off the properties to be sold and developed for which they made their money. The small remaining subject house was used to store farming equipment and is currently in complete disrepair, ready to fall down at any moment, a very high fire hazard with dry rotted and falling wood, floorboards all bending in, a torn apart roof and overgrown brush which can catch on fire at any moment.
3. This property has ZERO TO VERY LITTLE architectural significance and nobody can see this property from any street (as it is nestled between 5 properties). Most people in South Laguna (before SLCA made a marketing campaign on it) did not even recognize it or knew it existed - because nobody can see it!! Only tourists that are walking on the Aliso Trail in a small section can get a small glimpse of the house.
4. The Egan family (along with Shrewsbury Family) which represents the first families to settle and develop south laguna is still 60% preserved and owned by the county which are the trails and brushlands up into the canyons behind and next to the Ranch. There is also a street named after this family. Is this not enough?!?!?! Why were all the other homes currently on Valido, Paso Del Sur, Rico Rd and West St. able to be developed and renovated to keep up with modern standards and not also kept historic? Should I knock down my house and turn it back into a bean farm?
5. This property is currently infested with Rats, Snakes, Pests and a Kyote Den which should be demolished and renovated to modern times and current safety standards. 746 of 821
2 Thomas Gibbs, head of DR was 100% accurate in his balanced assessment supporting their decision to approve the new construction of a new modern and safe house at 31526 Valido Rd.
If the City Council were to approve or agree with this appeal, it would be a complete safety hazard and crime to the neighborhood and the property owner.
The only 2 logical and reasonable compromises I can agree with (in order to give more - unnecessary memory to the Egans), is 2 options for the appellants and current property owner: (1) Make the existing owner place a prominent sign on Valido Rd at the entrance of their driveway stating that "This property was the home of William Egan in 1906" and give some history or picture of the existing barn/shed. or (2) give the SLCA and Historic Society 90 days to purchase the property at all the owners current costs leading up to the appeal, so they can buy it and restore it.
This great history should be in a museum and books, not in our backyard to continue to be a safety hazard to our family and surrounding residents. The only reason that 2 neighboring residents next to the property would want this appeal is to keep their current view (from their garage and bottom level) or privacy intact, not being reasonable with the current owner and not to give more memory to the Egans.
Thank you for your time and will be making a public comment to support a Rejection of this "far-reaching" appeal application.
Best regards,
Justin & Lisa Boshnack
747 of 821
1 McKay, Ann Marie CC
Subject: Please Protect the Historic Egan House on Valido Road From: Chef Whitney Aronoff
Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2026 7:21 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Please Protect the Historic Egan House on Valido Road Dear Laguna Beach City Council,
I am writing to urge the City Council to protect the historic Egan House on Valido Road from demolition.
As you know, the Egan House is not just another cottage. It is the oldest home in South Laguna and the last remaining homestead house in Orange County. Its historical significance has been well documented, including communication from the South Laguna Civic Association to the real estate agent and involved parties prior to the sale of the property. The historical value of this home was known.
The current property owner still has multiple options besides demolition. The home could be restored, incorporated into a thoughtful redesign, carefully replicated while preserving its historical character, or sold to an individual or organization willing to steward this important piece of Orange County history.
Laguna Beach now has an opportunity to demonstrate that we value preservation, stewardship, and the cultural history that makes this community unique. Spec homes can be built anywhere. Historic homes like the Egan House cannot be recreated once they are destroyed.
This decision will set a precedent for historic cottages throughout Laguna Beach and Orange County. If a home built in 1907 is not considered historically significant, then what is? Must a structure date back to the 1800s to deserve protection? What message does this send about the future of the remaining historic cottages in our community?
Please help preserve the architectural and cultural history of Laguna Beach by protecting the Egan House.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Cheers,
Whitney Aronoff
748 of 821
1 McKay, Ann Marie CC
Subject: Egan Homestead - Preservation and recognized historic resources From: Josephine Torbensen
Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2026 11:00 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>; Gibbs, Thomas <[email protected]>; Weil, Louis <[email protected]>; Coveny, Mary Jo <[email protected]>; Neev, Deborah <[email protected]>; Bauta, Imer <[email protected]> Subject: Egan Homestead - Preservation and recognized historic resources To the Laguna Beach City Council & Design Review Board.
My name is Josephine Torbensen, I am a resident and real estate professional in Laguna Beach. I am writing to urge the Board to reconsider demolition of the Egan Homestead and to support its preservation as a recognized historic resource.
Laguna Beach is only 125 years old. That youth makes our built environment more fragile, not less significant. Every structure we lose takes with it an irreplaceable piece of a still-forming identity. Over the past three decades, original homes have disappeared from our streets at a pace that should worry anyone who cares about what makes this town worth preserving in the first place.
Two independent historical consultants have found that the Egan homestead is eligible for both the California Register of Historical Resources and the National Register of Historic Places. These opinions reflect established criteria for what our state and nation consider worth protecting.
The argument that the surrounding development has diminished the property’s historical context misses the point. The house itself is the context! The fact that the homestead land has been built out around it does not erase what the structure represents — it makes the Egan house all the more remarkable for having survived.
Rarity is not a reason to demolish ~ it is the strongest reason to preserve.
I am also mindful that a developer-commissioned report disputing the property’s significance was placed before the Board alongside the independent assessments. I would ask that the weight given to reports funded by parties with a direct financial interest in demolition be considered carefully in light of that conflict.
And yet here we are, still without meaningful protections for our historic homes. No real incentives for owners to preserve them. No design guidelines to ensure that what replaces them belongs here at all. It is frankly baffling that a town with Laguna’s sense of identity and aesthetic pride has allowed this gap to persist for so long. How many charming, irreplaceable homes do we lose before we can no longer recognize ourselves in our own neighborhoods? The scale is tipping, and it is not tipping in the right direction. There are many ways to respectfully expand and improve a structure while maintaining the historical integrity.
I sincerely hope that someone with the power to change this sees the Egan Homestead for what it is, not just a house worth saving, but an opportunity to draw a line. To set a standard. To say clearly, as a community:
this is what we value, and this is what we will protect. Let the Egan decision be the beginning of that commitment, not another quiet loss we look back on with regret.
With respect and deep investment in this town,
749 of 821
2 Josephine Torbensen
Laguna Beach Resident & Community Advocate
750 of 821
1 McKay, Ann Marie CC
Subject: Support of Appeal against DRB approval of and Coastal Development permit for 31526 Valido Road - Egan Homestead
From: Mike
Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2026 1:50 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Support of Appeal against DRB approval of and Coastal Development permit for 31526 Valido Road - Egan Homestead
Dear Council:
The continued urbanization of Orange County has caused a dramatic and permanent loss of remnants of our shared past.
Please don't allow this significant bit of Laguna Beach's history to be forever lost without a thorough Environmental Impact Report. The EIR process may highlight a solution that would be acceptable to both the new owners of the property and preservation-minded residents. We owe it to ourselves and future residents of Laguna Beach to explore compromise solutions.
Please support the Appeal and overturn the DRB approval of the project.
Thank You,
Michael Morris
751 of 821
1 McKay, Ann Marie CC
Subject: Appeal Regarding DRB approval for 31526 Valido Road Attachments: Valido project exhibits.pdf
From: Lisa Boshnack
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2026 9:26 PM
To: McKay, Ann Marie CC <[email protected]>; City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Appeal Regarding DRB approval for 31526 Valido Road Please include this letter and exhibits into the record for the city council meeting on May 12th 2026 Thank youLisa Boshnack
April 23, 2026
Laguna Beach City Council
505 Forest Avenue
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
RE: Appeal Regarding Design Review Board Approval for 31526 Valido Road Council Members:
I am writing to strongly urge you to uphold the Design Review Board’s September 25, 2025 approval of the project at 31526 Valido Road. As the immediate downhill neighbor at 31538 West Street, my property is directly and significantly affected.
Following the initial proposal, I raised serious privacy concerns regarding second-story windows and balconies that would have looked directly into my master bedroom. In response, I worked collaboratively with the homeowners, their architect, and our adjacent neighbor. Through these discussions, we reached a reasonable and effective compromise: the home was slightly reoriented away from our property, and enhanced landscaping with taller trees was incorporated to protect privacy.
This revised design successfully resolves the most critical impacts. It redirects primary views toward the ocean and canyon—where they belong—while avoiding direct intrusion into neighboring homes.
The appeal filed by the Chamberlains does not reflect the full context of the Design Review Board’s deliberations or the collaborative solutions already achieved. Notably:
The Board did not rush its review. Privacy concerns were discussed multiple times, and the final approval was conditional, specifically requiring landscaping measures to address outstanding concerns. The Chamberlains, whose property sits uphill, are less directly impacted by downward-facing views than those of us below the project.
Further re-articulation of the home to address their concerns would reverse the progress already made, reintroducing direct privacy impacts into my home and my neighbor’s backyard.
The current design represents a careful and balanced solution that protects privacy for all parties while respecting the project’s design intent. Reopening or altering this compromise would create new conflicts rather than resolve existing ones.
752 of 821
2 For these reasons, I respectfully but urgently request that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Design Review Board’s decision.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Lisa Boshnack
31538 West Street
753 of 821
754 of 821
755 of 821
756 of 821
757 of 821
758 of 821
759 of 821
760 of 821
761 of 821
FRANCESCA SMITH
May 4, 2026
The Honorable Mayor Mark Orgill and Members of the Laguna Beach City Council City of Laguna Beach
via e-mail
RE: Agenda Item A, Appeal of Project Approvals for Demolition of Egan Homestead Cottage at 31526 Valido Road, Laguna Beach
Dear Mayor Orgill and Council:
I write to offer my expert opinion regarding the historical significance of the Egan Homestead cottage (the Cottage or the subject property) at 31526 Valido Road in Laguna Beach. I submitted a previous letter to the DRB on September 18, 2025. My CV explaining my credentials is appended.
I share HRG’s conclusion that the property is eligible for the National and California registers under Criterion A and Criterion 1 for its direct association with the Homestead Act, at the local level of significance.1 The Cottage possesses sufficient integrity to communicate that significance. To bolster its findings, HRG has prepared a vastly expanded historic context for the property in its Memo dated March 23, 2026, replying to GPA’s initial peer review. As the last extant, intact homestead cottage in Laguna Beach, and the only known example in all of Orange County, the subject property is of enormous local and regional importance. There is substantial evidence in abundance that the property qualifies as a historic resource under CEQA.
I have read all the materials included in the agenda item and visited the site as described in my 2025 letter to the DRB. I will not rehearse again the history of Laguna Beach or South Laguna or homesteading, as this has been developed ad nauseum in the numerous Reports, much of it coming, it should be said, from the research of Laguna Beach historians as well as Lee Hanson’s recent study of the Egan Homestead and family (see footnotes in ESA Memorandum dated January 27, 2026). Please refer to my 2025 letter for a discussion of homesteading in Laguna Beach and Orange County, with missing comparisons of like properties, which the recent HRG Memo also provided.
This letter will focus on rebutting flawed assumptions, interpretations, and findings in 1 This language can be confusing for people outside the field. Not every property listed on the National Register possesses national significance. Some possess statewide or local significance. That is, the National Register recognizes significant properties worthy of preservation that contribute to a local area’s or a state’s architectural, cultural, economic, social or political history. See the National Park Serviceprepared, National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation under "How to Evaluate a Property Within its Historic Context" in the section "Local, State, and National Historic Contexts," subsection "Local Historic Contexts" (1990; revised 1991, 1995, 1997. Revised for Internet 1995, p. 10). The ESA evaluation acknowledges that properties may be eligible at the local level but does not consider the import of this designation in this case (ESA Memorandum, p. 3). 762 of 821
2 the ESA Memo and GPA peer review (April 5, 2026). The Chronicle Report is very weak; I already discussed some of its shortcomings in my 2025 letter.
I provide this letter not as a paid consultant but as a volunteer who visits Laguna Beach frequently and, more importantly, cares about its history and future. Please know that I do not waste my time researching and preparing evaluations for properties unless I am fully convinced that they qualify as historic resources. This is a very special property.
The crux of the matter, from the ESA Memo and GPA peer review, comes down to these questions: Is the fact that the setting no longer reads as agricultural really fatal to the Cottage’s historical significance for association with the Homestead Act as it played out in Laguna Beach and Orange County, regardless of its rarity? Is the integrity of the subject property so compromised that it cannot communicate its historical significance? The answer to both questions is no.
A Vital Correction
It is noted that none of the consultants reviewed the case files related to the William Egan Homestead claim from the National Archives, attesting to improvements made by Egan. Sworn witness statements, dated February 25, 1909, from neighbors John N. Isch (the postmaster, who saw Egan regularly) and Joseph S. Thurston indicate that Egan built his residence two years earlier, in 1907. Egan began living there around the same time, returning to Spadra to see to his bees. Egan himself stated that he built his residence on the subject property in 1907 and lived there “off and on” before 1908, traveling to care for the bees. Besides the house, other listed improvements include a cistern, reservoir, eucalyptus trees, and 3 - 4 acres of crops. Thus the subject property’s recognized period of significance must begin in 1907 not 1909, and would more logically end in 1930, the year of Egan’s death. Any alterations made during the period of significance cannot be considered intrusions; they are part of the historic property.
The ESA Memorandum
There are a number of red herrings in the ESA Memorandum. (Quotes below are from this document unless otherwise noted.) The most notable are:
• The condition of the building is not only irrelevant to historical significance, but the statement that it “may not be feasible” (pp. 1, 33, 35) to rehabilitate the building without damaging character-defining features is unsupported. ESA did not review a rehabilitation plan and provided no detailed conditions assessment—merely several equivocal photographs. Preservation of the interior is neither proposed nor required. GPA, which did not do a site visit, can be faulted for not pointing out the lack of fact-based evidence for this speculation in its peer review. Nothing in the record—nor my own visit—indicates that the property could not be successfully rehabilitated, including making “major structural upgrades” (p. 35) The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation assume that properties change over time and can be adapted to new “living standards” (ibid.). A designated property would use the California State Historical Building Code.
• ESA’s suggestion that the Shrewsbury Homestead cottage “may be eligible” for the National Register for its association with the history of homesteading in 763 of 821
3 Laguna Beach (p. 28), while the Egan Homestead cottage is not, is absurd and divorced from fact. The Shrewsbury residence was not only moved from its original location to Eagle Rock Way, but was partially demolished and has been altered beyond recognition into a two-story house. HRG properly indicated that it is ineligible for the National and California Registers on the grounds of relocation and substantial alterations , i.e. lack of integrity (Memo, p. 4). • The ESA Memorandum proposed mitigation for the loss of a property that it had found not to be a historic resource. The recommendation includes preparing a Historic American Building Survey (HABS); installing a historical marker; relocating the existing cottage, if feasible, and if not, retention of historic features and their donation to an appropriate museum. If the Egan Homestead cottage were not historic, these standard mitigation measures to compensate the community for its loss would be unnecessary.
The ESA Memo correctly acknowledged that a property need not maintain all seven aspects of integrity, and that depending on the criteria under which the property is found significant, some among the seven aspects of integrity may be more important than others. According to ESA, under Criterion A/1, integrity of the agricultural setting is somehow imperative. ESA did not even prepare an integrity analysis that considers other aspects such as design, materials, and workmanship, as did HRG, which found that it meets six of seven aspects of integrity. For ESA, it is not enough that the Cottage is extant, and that 60 percent of the homestead property (24 of the original 40 acres) remain as open space, and that much of the property looks much as it would have in Egan’s time, as HRG noted in its reply to the Chronicle Report (pp. 3-4).
Figure 1. On the left: aerial photograph with Egan Homestead outlined in yellow and subject property 31526 Valido Rd. in red, north at top, 1938. (HRG Evaluation, Feb. 12, 2025, p. 41.) On the right: Egan Homestead in blue and subject property outlined in blue, north at top. (Google Maps, 2025.) The assertion that the Cottage cannot communicate historical significance because it is no longer surrounded by farmland, and because outbuildings are no longer extant, is simply wrong (p. 33). It relied on a misleading interpretation of National Register Bulletin 15, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, the definitive guidance on 764 of 821
4 this topic (see footnote 1). ESA used this guidance to establish that because the Cottage would be eligible under Criterion A, in this case for its association with homesteading, it must possess integrity of setting: “’a property that is significant for its historic association is eligible if it retains the essential physical features that made up its character or appearance during the period of its association with the important event, historical pattern, or person(s)’” (p. 4). ESA omitted, however, the Bulletin’s very next sentence: “If the property is a site (such as a treaty site) where there are no material cultural remains, the setting must be intact” (p. 52, emphasis added).
To begin with, the subject property is not a “site,” as defined by the National Park Service.2 Second, the whole reason the subject property is under consideration is because its material culture does remain—i.e. the actual residence built by Egan still exists, along with remnants of a stone retaining wall, a planting bed and a stone path (ESA Memo, p. 31). These quotes reveal the opposite of what ESA claimed they mean.
Importantly, the cottage is also still in its original location immediately adjacent to nearly 24 acres of open space. For this reason, while the setting has somewhat diminished integrity, the property has not lost all integrity of its larger setting. Those miraculously preserved, adjacent 24 open space acres that the Cottage overlooks allow it to possess and convey nearly the same vistas of steep hillside scrub that it had in 1907.
Bulletin 15 declares that “setting refers to the character of the place in which the property played its [early Orange County homesteading] historical role. It involves how, not just where, the property is situated and its relationship to surrounding features and open space” (p. 44). The current setting is a full 60 percent of the original setting. With its other intact requisite aspects of integrity, the Egan Homestead retains more than adequate integrity to convey its historical significance.
GPA Peer Review
A peer review must accurately present the facts, arguments, and findings as well as analyze them.
In its first peer review, dated July 28, 2025, GPA hallucinated the following language from Bulletin 15: “Bulletin 15 cautions that ‘a property must be more than simply associated with a historic trend; it must clearly illustrate that trend or be one of the most important properties associated with it.’ In this case, HRG has not conclusively demonstrated that the Egan property rises to a level of distinctiveness, rarity, or illustrative clarity to justify significance under the broad theme of homesteading” (p. 7).
That quotation is nowhere to be found in Bulletin 15, or in any other known guidance.
Despite inventing the language that forms its primary criticism of HRG’s analysis, GPA’s first peer review did usefully identify gaps in HRG’s original research, as I noted in my 2025 letter to the DRB, and which HRG has addressed in its recent Memo. GPA more recently pointed out that ESA’s Memo, by contrast, “does not include a robust comparative analysis of similar homestead properties within Orange County or the broader region, which would strengthen its conclusions regarding the property’s 2 “A site is the location of a significant event, a prehistoric or historic occupation or activity, or a building or structure, whether standing, ruined, or vanished, where the location itself possesses historic, cultural, or archeological value regardless of the value of any existing structure” (National Register Bulletin 15, p. 5). 765 of 821
5 relative significance. Additionally, ESA does not directly engage with HRG’s argument that the property’s rarity may elevate its significance leaving this key issue largely unaddressed” (p. 4).
Both GPA and ESA are way off mark when it comes to the issue of rarity. In Bulletin 15, under Section 8, “How to Evaluate the Integrity of a Property” it directs Rare Examples of a Property Type
Comparative information is particularly important to consider when evaluating the integrity of a property that is a rare surviving example of its type. The property must have the essential physical features that enable it to convey its historic character or information. The rarity and poor condition, however, of other extant examples of the type may justify accepting a greater degree of alteration or fewer features, provided that enough of the property survives for it to be a significant resource (p. 52, emphasis added).
This language is important because it indicates that rarity of a property type allows for greater alterations than if other examples are abundant, and in this case of the subject property is so rare as to be the only example. And as I previously stated, the integrity of the larger setting is diminished but not gone. HRG provided comparative information in “Homesteading in Orange County” in the updated 2026 Memo (pp. 13-17). That information “has further supported the rarity of the Egan Homestead residence as the only extant homestead residence that retains historic integrity in the County” (p. 5, emphasis in text).
The local and regional rarity of the subject property is irrefutable. Nonetheless, GPA and ESA refused to acknowledge its extreme rarity as the only extant, intact example in Laguna Beach and the county, e.g. GPA’s claim that HRG presented “new evidence intended to support its position that the subject property may represent a rare surviving example of a homestead residence in Orange County” (p. 4, emphasis added). Does GPA really mean to suggest that the Egan Homestead cottage is not a rare surviving example? Can it point to any others?
Several times over the course of the six-page peer review, GPA referred approvingly to “the distinction between historical association and historical significance” that ESA drew (pp. 3, 4, 5). This is the same distinction described in GPA’s made-up language as that between a property that is “simply associated with a historic trend” and one that “clearly illustrate[s]” or is the “most important example” of that trend, language that ESA cited in its Memo without correction (p. 15). But in fact, ESA did not successfully draw this distinction. It does not matter that the Egan homestead was claimed 48 years after the Homestead Act of 1862, as reported in the ESA Memo, when it is eligible for listing in the National Register at the local level of significance, not the national level.
Similarly, it does not matter that Thurston claimed his homestead 31 years prior to Egan, when no evidence is offered that the Thurston property retains any historic features, and more important, the house has long since been demolished (ESA Memo, p. 32). Put another way, with reference to GPA’s made-up language, how can it possibly be claimed that the rare Egan property does not “clearly illustrate” homesteading within Laguna Beach and Orange County? There is no dispute that Egan filed a 766 of 821
6 successful homestead claim, quickly improved the land with a residence, and homesteaded the land. Unless ESA and GPA assert that the subject property was never, in fact, a homestead at all, the above information is not relevant. And in the total absence of a comparable extant residence in Laguna Beach and Orange County, it is the only property capable of communicating this historic context.
Conclusion
The subject property at 1526 Valido Road is indeed eligible for listing in the National and California registers as a very rare example of an extant homestead house. HRG has provided the necessary information within its expanded “historic context,” defined in Bulletin 15 as “an organizing structure for interpreting history that groups information about historic properties that share a common theme, common geographical area, and a common time period” (p. 59). The house possesses sufficient integrity to communicate its significance within this context.
I hope these comments aid you in understanding why this property is so important to the city and the county.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Francesca Smith
Francesca Smith
Attachment
767 of 821
FRANCESCA G. SMITH
Experience
Principal Architectural Historian State of California 2011-retired December 2023 As subject-matter expert and professionally qualified staff to a state agency, responsible for built environment review of federal, state and local assistance projects in Los Angeles and Ventura counties. Acted on behalf of Federal Highways Administration under First Amended Programmatic Agreement Among the Federal Highway Administration, The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, The California State Historic Preservation Officer, And The California Department Of Transportation Regarding Compliance With Section 106 of The National Historic Preservation Act, As It Pertains To The Administration of The Federal-Aid Highway Program In California. Prepared determinations of National Register eligibility, analyzed project effects, identifies mitigation measures and prepared agreement documents for federal, state, capital and local projects. Reviewed and approved consultants’ work for conformance with abovereferenced Programmatic Agreement and coordinated with State Historic Preservation Officer and staff. Reviewed all alterations to and maintenance for more than 100 state-owned historic properties.
Senior Architectural Historian various private consulting firms 1990-1997 and 2000-2011 Prepared built environment environmental review, including complex Environmental Impact Statements, Environmental Impact Reports (EIS and EIRs) and technical documents for various projects to comply with federal, state and local requirements for projects undertaken by public agencies and private developers. Successful Section 106, National Environmental Policy Act and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review required management of effective cooperation among junior staff and outside consultants, including transit and transportation, energy, and public works projects. Numerous projects required analysis for compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Treatment (Standards) and or with local design guidelines. Prepared evaluations of historic significance, analyze effects of complex projects for Section 106 clearance, impacts for CEQA conformance, and recommended mitigation measures to avoid or reduce effects (federal) or impacts (state projects).
Prepared draft Memoranda of Agreement and Programmatic Agreements. For Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), prepared evaluations for significance and analyzed project-related effects. Reviewed other consultants’ and disciplines’ work for compliance with requirements in CEQA. Acted as lead on numerous successful certified (tax credit) rehabilitations with developers, architects and engineers and contractors, including limited construction management, completing more than 400 new residential units. Worked closely with building departments and firelife safety reviewers, using the California Historical Building Code, to meet project goals and achieve code consistency. Performed design review, prepared and presented staff reports for review by cities of Beverly Hills, Carmel, Monterey, Orange and Vallejo.
Mills Act Manager, Specialized Historic Preservation Planner Cities of Los Angeles and Pasadena 1997- 2000 Coordinated and oversaw review of new construction as well as historic preservation projects. Prepared and presented complex analyses for staff and City Manager reports, including graphics, as staff to Design and Cultural Heritage commissions as well as City Council. Managed public counters with other planners, assisted the public and performed plan check including design review for conformance with local design guidelines and Standards.
Performed sign review for central district, Old Pasadena and oversaw City of Gardens (multi-family residential) design review, from plan check through issuance of Certificates of Occupancy. Prepared Requests for Proposals and managed contract administration of consultants for successful Certified Local Government Grant projects.
Helped establish Pasadena’s and managed successful, growing Mills Act program in Los Angeles including coordination with County Assessor and property owners.
Education
M.S. Real Estate Development (historic preservation focus), Columbia University, New York 1986 Master’s Thesis- “Redevelopment of Grand Central Market, Los Angeles.” Completed requirements for Historic Preservation master’s program concurrently.
B.A. Political Science (architectural history emphasis), The College of Charleston, South Carolina 1981 Supplemental Experience
The Glendale Historical Society (TGHS), Advisory Council member.
City of Glendale, Design Review Board, former member.
California Preservation Foundation, Los Angeles Conservancy, National Trust for Historic Preservation, TGHS,* Society of Architectural Historians-Southern California Chapter,* Pasadena Heritage* and Los Angeles City Historical Society*- member, former member or former member of Boards of Directors (*). TGHS Advocacy efforts received Los Angeles Conservancy Preservation Award in 2020. Lecturer and teaching assistant, UCLA Extension courses: history, “Undiscovered Los Angeles: Water & Steel” (1997 and 2001); “Historic Preservation- State of the Art” (1997) and Construction Management (1995 and 1996) and USC: historic preservation documentation (2011).
Wells Fargo Realty Advisors, Analyst Officer, 1988-1990. Private real estate development, Project Engineer or Project Manager, 1986-1988. Responsible for development of more than 1.5 million square feet of medical-related, office and retail buildings. 768 of 821
FRANCESCA G. SMITH
2 Partial List of Publications and Reports All projects consisted of preparation of Cultural Resources sections and technical reports in Los Angeles, California, unless otherwise noted.
Homestead Evaluations for Federal Projects
For the Fallon Range Training Complex Modernization Draft EIS. Van Vorhis Airfield, Nevada. United States Department of Defense, United States Navy. 2018
Evaluated more than 20 abandoned homestead properties, among numerous other properties for National Register eligibility. Of those, four (Loraine Spencer Homestead, Devore Homestead, Ellis Homestead, and H Homestead or Derrick Complex) were each determined eligible for the National Register.
Interstate 15 South Corridor Improvements Project. Las Vegas, Nevada. Federal Highway Administration. 2007 Evaluated more than 750 properties for National Register eligibility, including two homestead properties. None was determined eligible as a result of the study. Nevada SHPO concurred.
Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)
West Santa Ana Branch, Transportation Corridor. Los Angeles County Transportation Administration (Metro), 2023. Reviewer for Cultural Resources effects and impacts.
Interstates 105 and 110, ExpressLanes. Caltrans District 7, 2023.
Interstate 110 Flyover. Caltrans District 7, 2021.
Crenshaw LAX Transit Project. Metro 2008, 2010. Prepared Preliminary Environmental Assessment and built environment identification.
Reviewed preliminary analyses of effects and impacts.
Regional Connector. Metro and CDM, 2010. Prepared alternatives analysis and draft built environment cultural resources sections for complex downtown transit project with multiple alternatives.
State Route 180 (Fresno, CA). Caltrans District 6, 2008. Peer-reviewed historic resources and community impact sections.
Mid-Jordan Transit Corridor (Salt Lake County, UT). Utah Transit Authority, 2006. Peer-reviewed parklands and open space, Section 4 (f), and historic resources sections, as well as Determination of Eligibility and Finding of Effects.
Conrail Railroad Acquisition by Norfolk Southern Railroad and CSX. Surface Transportation Board (STB), 1997-98. Prepared Section 106 compliance for nationwide railroad merger in the states of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Ohio, Tennessee and West Virginia.
DART North Central Corridor LRT Extension, with Finding of Effect and Agreement-Based Determination of No Adverse Effect (Dallas, TX).
Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART), Federal Transit Administration, (FTA), 1997.
Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs)
Imperial Hardware (Riverside, CA). City of Riverside, 2011.
Riverside Central Library (Riverside, CA). City of Riverside, 2011.
Stone Boat Yard (Alameda, CA). City of Alameda, 2011.
South of Market (SoMa) Specific Plan (San Francisco, CA) City and County of San Francisco, 2011.
First & Mission (San Francisco, CA) City and County of San Francisco, 2011.
East Los Angeles College Satellite Campus Project (South Gate, CA). Los Angeles Community College District and TAHA, 2009. Prepared built environment identification and analyses of effects. Add-on work included participation in Master Plan team.
Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) New School Construction Program, Program EIR Exemptions. LAUSD, 2005.
Central Los Angeles Area New Learning Center #1 (Ambassador Hotel site). LAUSD, June 2003.
Creekside Center Project (Arroyo Grande, CA). City of Arroyo Grande, 2003. Additional impacts analysis 2004. 9th & Flower, South Park Mixed-Use Development (draft, final and two addenda). CIM Group and CRA, 2002, 2004 and 2005.
Palladium Project (San José, CA). Reviewer, San José Redevelopment Agency (SJRDA) 2002.
Los Angeles Central Area High School #9. LAUSD 2001.
Los Angeles Central Area High School #2. LAUSD 2002.
Maranatha High School (Sierra Madre, CA). (Reviewer) City of Sierra Madre, Dorn-Platz Realty. 2001.
University of California at Irvine Medical Center (Orange, CA). Bonterra Consulting, 2001.
Long Beach Naval Shipyard (Roosevelt Island). City and Port of Long Beach, 1998.
Adelante Eastside Redevelopment Project (draft). CRA, 1997.
Barham Cahuenga Improvement Project, In Los Angeles County (including Historic Resource Evaluation Report). City and County of Los Angeles, City of Burbank, Caltrans District 7, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 1997.
The Grand (Lindon) Hotel Project. City of Beverly Hills, 1996.
Broadway State Office Building. California State Department of General Services, 1996.
Received Los Angeles Conservancy Preservation Award in 2000.
South Central Revitalization Project. CRA, 1995.
East Central Interceptor Sewer. City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Engineering, 1995. 769 of 821
FRANCESCA G. SMITH
3 California Museum of Science & Industry. State of California Department of General Services. 1993.
Playa Vista. Maguire Thomas Partners, City of Los Angeles, 1991. Prepared built environment cultural resources technical report focused on Hughes Aircraft Factory.
Environmental Impact Statements/Environmental Impact Reports (EIS/EIRs) 710 North. Metro and Caltrans, 2017. Cultural Resources reviewer.
Alameda Corridor Transportation Project. Alameda Corridor Authority, 2006. Prepared Section 106 compliance, evaluating bridges for historic significance as part of a regionally significant railroad project.
Mid-City Red Line Extension. Metro, FTA. 1995.
Mission Valley East Transit Improvements Project (Mission Valley, CA). Metropolitan (San Diego) Transit Development Board, FTA, 1995.
Environmental Assessments (EAs)
Interstate 105 ExpressLanes Project. Metro and Caltrans 2020 and 2022. Prepared Section 106 and CEQA compliance for alterations to historically significant freeway. Prepared Finding of Effect and Supplemental Findings of Effect as well as all built environment technical reports.
State Route 14/Avenue N Interchange Improvements Project. City of Palmdale, Caltrans District 7, 2020. Prepared built environment review for Finding of No Significant Impact.
Alameda Corridor East (San Gabriel, CA). Alameda Corridor-East Project, San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments, Caltrans District, 2009. Managed project team, prepared all built environment technical reports as well as Finding of Adverse Effect and Memorandum of Agreement. Reviewed Vibration Monitoring Reports and draft National Historic Landmark nomination, 2020.
Sbx E Street Corridor (San Bernardino, CA). Omnitrans and Parsons, 2009. Prepared Cultural Resources technical reports and EA section for bus rapid transit project.
Interstate-15 Improvements, Sloan Road to Tropicana Boulevard (Las Vegas and Clark County, NV). Nevada Department of Transportation, 2009.
Evaluation of seven parcels (San José, CA). San José Redevelopment Agency (SJRDA), 2002.
Hudson Apartments- 290 North Hudson Avenue (Pasadena, CA). City of Pasadena. 2000. Prepared complete initial environmental study for 140-unit apartment project.
Meridian Court- 591 South Marengo Avenue (Pasadena, CA). City of Pasadena. 1999. Prepared cultural resources section for initial environmental study of 10-unit condominium project, immediately adjacent to Wallace Neff’s former office (b. 1926) including demolition of two residences constructed in 1910s.
Palm Court- 214 South Madison Avenue (Pasadena, CA). City of Pasadena. 1999. Prepared complete initial environmental study for 19- unit condominium project, including relocation of Emma Black House, a Greene & Greene-designed residence built in 1908.
Union Pacific/Southern Pacific Railroads Merger. Section 106 compliance for nationwide railroad merger in states of Texas and Colorado, STB, 1997.
McKinney Avenue Trolley Extension (Dallas, TX). City of Dallas, 1997.
DART Northeast Corridor (Dallas, TX). DART, FTA, 1996.
Del Amo Boulevard Overcrossing, In Los Angeles County. City of Carson, Caltrans District 7, FHWA, 1996.
In-Service Engineering Staging Facility and Engineering Lab at Hangar 19, San Diego. US Air Force, 1994.
North Wardlow Station (Long Beach, CA). Metro, FTA, 1993. Prepared initial environmental study for relocation of light rail station to vacant parcel adjacent to residential area.
State Route-68 (Monterey, CA). Prepared complete initial environmental study for conversion of two-lane highway to freeway. FHWA, 1992.
Certified Rehabilitations (Investment Tax Credits)
Southern California Gas Company Complex. Parts 1, 2 and 3. CIM Group, 2006. Recipient of 2004 Los Angeles Downtown News Downtowners of Distinction “Community Financial District” award. 830 South Flower Street Building. Parts 1 and 2. CIM Group, 2006.
Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel. Early Review and Part 1. Goodwin Gaw, 2005. Subject of E! television series entitled “Hotspot.” Far East Café Building. Parts 1, 2, 3 and tenant improvements. Little Tokyo Service Center, Community Development Corporation, current project. Featured and interviewed on HGTV “Saving America’s Treasures” and Recipient of 2004 Los Angeles Conservancy Preservation Award.
Twohy Building (San José). Parts 1, 2, 3 and tenant improvements. CIM Group, 2003. Recipient of 2004 California Preservation Foundation, Preservation Design Award, Rehabilitation & Reuse category.
Brockman Building. Part 1. Sage Hospitality, 2001.
Homer Laughlin Building. Parts 1 and 2. Ira Yellin, 1991.
Culver Hotel (Culver City, CA). Parts 1 and 2. Louis Catlet, 1991.
Engine Co. No. 28. Parts 1, 2 and 3. Linda Griego and Jerry Magnin, 1986. 770 of 821
FRANCESCA G. SMITH
4 Reviews for Conformance with the Standards
Confidential project originally designed by George Washington Smith with alterations by Cliff May (Santa Barbara County, CA). 2012.
Buchanan Garage (San Francisco, CA). 2011.
Hotel Green, 86 S. Fair Oaks Project. (Pasadena, CA). 2011 and later.
Far Bar (Far East Café/”Chop Suey”). 2011-2017. Reviewed various proposed alterations to National Historic Landmark historic district contributor.
Hugo Reid Adobe (Los Angeles County Arboretum). County of Los Angeles, 2010.
Octagon Barn (San Luis Obispo or SLO, CA). The Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County, 2011. Reviewed proposed alterations to setting of National Register-listed agricultural building.
Holiday Bowl Coffee Shop and Majestic Pontiac sign. Axiom Properties, City of Los Angeles Cultural Heritage Commission and Crenshaw Corridor Specific Plan, 2006.
Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel and Spare Room. Goodwin Gaw, CRA and City of Los Angeles Planning Department, 2005, 2009, 2011.
Shakespeare Bridge. 1999.
California Club. 1999.
Los Angeles Union Station. 1999.
National Historic Landmark and National Register of Historic Places Mission San Gabriel (San Gabriel, CA). Reviewer of NHL nomination for Section 106 mitigation measure. 2021.
Piedras Blancas Light Station (San Simeon, CA). 2009.
Killingsworth, Brady & Smith Building (Long Beach, CA). KSM Architecture, listed 2009.
Far East Café; “Chop Suey” Building. Little Tokyo Service Center, Listed 2003 General Sedgwick Tower (Bronx, NY). Pro bono project- determined eligible for National Register as the “birthplace of hip-hop,” 2007.
Southern California Gas Company Complex. CIM/Flower LLC, three separate buildings listed in National Register 2004.
Twohy Building; el Paseo Building (San José, CA). CIM/Twohy LLC, listed in National Register 2003.
Sam and Alfreda Maloof Complex (Rancho Cucamonga, CA). Listed in National Register 2010.
Breed Street Schul/Congregation Talmud Torah (Boyle Heights). Listed in National Register 2001.
Warner Grand Theatre (San Pedro, CA). Listed in National Register 1998.
US 101 Cahuenga Pass Freeway. Caltrans District 7. Determined eligible for listing in the National Register 1997.
Louisa Guasti School. Caltrans District 7. Determined eligible for listing in the National Register 1994.
National Register Determinations of Eligibility (Listed in California Register) [San Gabriel] Adobes Historic District- various San Gabriel, 2009 Ahmanson Theatre- 135 N. Grand Av. Los Angeles, 2010
Cathedral of Saint Vibiana- 214 S. Main St. Los Angeles, 2010 Cathedral of Saint Vibiana, Rectory- 114 E. 2nd St. Los Angeles, 2010 City Health Building; City Hall South- 111 E. 1st St. Los Angeles, 2010 Dorothy Chandler Pavilion- 135 N. Grand Av. Los Angeles, 2010 Dr. Henry K. Kawamoto Office- 8236 S. Atlantic Bl. Monterey Park, 2015 Early Auto-Related Properties in Pasadena- 267-337 W. Colorado Bl. Pasadena, 2015 First Baptist Church of Dallas- 606 N. Ervay St. Dallas, Texas 1997 Sanctuary destroyed by fire 2024
General Sedgwick House; Sedgwick Towers; “Birthplace of Hip-Hop”- 1520 Sedgewick Av. (Bronx) New York, New York, 2007 Hospital Veterinary- 959 S. Raymond Av. Pasadena, 2015
Interstate 105, Century Freeway Transitway- Post Miles 0.05- 18.2, interstate freeway including three interchanges, 45 bridges, four tunnels and original landscaping, various cities, Caltrans District 7 and Metro, 2019.
Jardin el Encanto and Cascade Park- 700 el Mercado Av. Monterey Park, 2015 Koyasan Buddhist Temple, Koyasan Church, Koyasan Temple- 342 E. 1st St. Los Angeles, 2010 Louisa Guasti School- 10267 Turner Av. Guasti (Ontario), CA, 1993 Demolished
Los Angeles City Hall- 200 N. Spring St. Los Angeles, 2010 Los Angeles Civic Center Historic District- various Los Angeles, 2010 Los Angeles County Courthouse; Stanley Mosk Los Angeles County Courthouse- 111 N. Hill St. Los Angeles, 2010 Los Angeles County Hall of Administration; Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration- 500 W. Temple Street, 222 N. Grand Av. Los Angeles, 2010
Los Angeles County Hall of Records- 320 W. Temple St. Los Angeles, 2010 Los Angeles Department of Water & Power Building; John Ferraro Office Building- 111 N. Hope St. Los Angeles, 2010 771 of 821
FRANCESCA G. SMITH
5 Maravilla Handball Courts and Centro Grocery- 4787 Hammel St. Los Angeles, 2015 Mark Taper Forum- 135 N. Grand Av. Los Angeles, 2010
Mission San Gabriel Arcángel Historic District- San Gabriel, 2009 Police Facilities Building; Parker Center; Motor Transport Division- 150 N. Los Angeles Street and 151 N. Judge John Aiso St. Los Angeles, 2010
Raymond Florist Historic District- 60-62 E. California Bl. and 597 S. Raymond Av. Pasadena, 2015 San Gabriel Civic Center Historic District- various San Gabriel, 2009 The Mirror Building (Site of Butterfield Stage Station), Los Angeles Times-Mirror Annex, Times Building South, Mirror-News Building- 145 S.
Spring St. Los Angeles, 2010
US 101; Hollywood Freeway; Cahuenga Pass Freeway- Post Miles 8.0 to 9.22, includes freeway, four bridges, related freeway structures and original landscaping elements, 1997
Walt Disney Concert Hall- 111 S. Grand Av. Los Angeles, 2010 White Rock Creek Bridge, Missouri- Kansas- Texas Railroad- Mile Post 758.50 Dallas, Texas 1996 W.K. Kellogg [Winter] Residence, Grounds and Arabian Horse Stables- 3801 W. Temple Av. Pomona, 1995 California Register of Historical Resources Applications Ruth Nelson Taylor House (Laguna Beach, CA). Determined eligible for listing in California Register 2023.
Glendale Civic Auditorium (Glendale, CA). Listed in California Register 2018.
Local Landmark Nominations
Mountain-Allen Historic District (Glendale, CA). 2026.
Brockmont Park Historic District (Glendale, CA). Designated local historic district 2014.
Southern California Gas Company Complex. CIM Group, designated City of Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument (H-CM) #789, 2004.
Fire Station #21. 1187 East 52nd Street. Designated City of Los Angeles HCM #787 2004.
Gans Brothers Building. 814 S. Spring Street. Flatiron Development Group, LLC, designated H-CM #737 2002. 141-147 Bay Street- Bay Craftsman Cluster (Santa Monica, CA). Morris Abram and Bill Bridges, designated local historic district 2000.
Garfield Heights Historic District (Pasadena, CA). Designated local historic district 1991.
Local Landmark and California Register of Historical Resources Applications Glendale Garden Homes (Glendale, CA). Found eligible for listing in local and California Registers 2025.
Neighborhood Congregational Church (Laguna Beach, CA). Village Laguna. Found eligible for listing in local and California Registers 2024.
Ruth Nelson Taylor House (Laguna Beach, CA). Determined eligible for listing in California Register 2023.
Glendale Civic Auditorium (Glendale, CA). Listed in California Register 2018.
Brockmont Park Historic District (Glendale, CA). Designated local historic district 2014.
Southern California Gas Company Complex. CIM Group, designated City of Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument (H-CM) #789, 2004.
Fire Station #21. 1187 East 52nd Street. Designated City of Los Angeles HCM #787 2004.
Gans Brothers Building, 814 South Spring Street. Flatiron Development Group, LLC, designated H-CM #737 2002. 141-147 Bay Street- Bay Craftsman Cluster (Santa Monica, CA). Morris Abram and Bill Bridges, designated local historic district 2000.
Garfield Heights Historic District (Pasadena, CA). Designated local historic district 1991.
Historic Property Survey Reports and Historic Resource Evaluation Reports (selected projects) Interstate 105 Crenshaw. Caltrans District 7, 2021.
Interstate 105 Tunnel Lighting Project. Caltrans District 7, 2021.
Interstate 105 Express Lanes Project (Los Angeles County). Metro and Caltrans District 7, 2019.
Interstate 210 Soundwalls (Glendale and Los Angeles County, CA). Caltrans District 7, 2019.
State Route 14 Avenue N Interchange (Palmdale, CA). Caltrans District 7, 2019.
Interstate 5 Freight Corridor (Los Angeles County). Caltrans District 7, 2018.
Interstate 405 Western/Crenshaw (Torrance, CA). Caltrans District 7, 2016.
San Gabriel Walnut Intersection (San Gabriel, CA). Caltrans District 7, 2014.
Interstate 5 Silverbow to Orr & Day Road (Norwalk, CA). Caltrans District 7, 2012.
Hollywood Crossroads Transit Corridor. CRA, CDM, 2010.
Twin Cities Road/Route 99 Interchange Modification Project (Galt, CA). Caltrans District 3, 2010.
Sunset Avenue Grade Separation Project (Banning, CA). Caltrans District 8, 2010.
North Fort Bragg Coastal Trail (Fort Bragg, CA). Caltrans District 5, 2010. 772 of 821
FRANCESCA G. SMITH
6 Hollister Avenue Bridge Seismic Retrofit Project (Goleta, CA). Evaluated 1880s-era railroad bridge for historic significance. Caltrans District 5. 2010.
Nogales Street Grade Separation and Gale Avenue/Walnut Drive Widening Project (City of Industry, CA). ACE, Caltrans District 7, 2009. 6th Street Viaduct Improvements Project. Caltrans District 7, 2007.
Pacific Electric Inland Empire Bike Trail Project for the City of Fontana. Also prepared Finding of Effect. Caltrans District 8, 2009.
US 101 Del Norte Overcrossing, In Ventura County. City of Oxnard, Caltrans District 7, 2007.
US 101/Wendy Drive Interchange Improvement Project (Newberry Park, CA). Caltrans District 7, 2007.
State Route-57 Widening, Cities of Placentia, Fullerton and Brea, In Orange County. Bonterra Consulting, Caltrans District 12, 2006.
State Route-118 Widening Between Spring Road and Moorpark Avenue, In Ventura County. City of Moorpark, Caltrans District 7, 2006.
Santiago Creek Bicycle Trail Bridge. Responsible for preparation of Archaeological Survey Report as well. City of Orange, Caltrans District 12, 2005.
Santiago Creek Bicycle Trail. City of Orange, Caltrans District 12, Bonterra Consulting, 2002.
Sepulveda Boulevard Overcrossing at Alameda Street, In Los Angeles County. City of Carson, Caltrans District 7, FHWA, 1996.
Orange Show Road Extension, San Bernardino, California. City of San Bernardino, Caltrans District 8, FHWA, 1995.
Interstate 10 Between Baldwin Avenue and Interstate-605, In Los Angeles County (Segment 1). NegDec/FONSI. Caltrans District 7, FHWA, 1993.
Interstate 10 Between Puente and Citrus Avenues, In Los Angeles County (Segment 2). Caltrans District 7, FHWA, 1995.
Interstate 10 Between Citrus Avenue and Routes 57, 71 and 210, In Los Angeles County (Segment 3). Caltrans District 7, FHWA, 1994.
Interstate 10 Between State Route 57/Interstate-210 and The Los Angeles/San Bernardino County Lines and Interstate-15, In Los Angeles County (Segment 4A). NegDec/FONSI. Caltrans District 7, FHWA, 1993.
Interstate 10 Between The Los Angeles/San Bernardino County Lines and Interstate-15, In San Bernardino County (Segment 4B). San Bernardino County Associated Governments, Caltrans District 8, FHWA, 1993.
Proposed Widening of Interstate-Route 15 and Reconstruction of The 15/40 Interchange, From Lenwood Road to East Main Street, Barstow, In San Bernardino County. NegDec/FONSI. Caltrans District 8, Nevada Department of Transportation, FHWA, 1994.
Interstate 10/Monterey Avenue Overcrossing. City of Palm Desert, Caltrans District 11, FHWA, 1992.
State Route-120 Oakdale Bypass Interchange Improvement Project, In Stanislaus County. Caltrans District 10, FHWA, 1993.
Historic Assessments
Leland Stanford Junior University (Menlo Park). Stanford Linear Accelerator, National Accelerator Laboratory. Section 106 review, 2010.
Confidential projects (5 buildings). Major university, 2011.
Confidential public housing project. Housing Corporation for the City of Los Angeles, 2011.
Piedras Blancas Light Station (San Simeon, CA). Piedras Blancas Light Station Board of Directors, 2010.
Cultural Resources Technical Report For Mammoth Crossing Project (Mono County, CA). City of Mammoth, 2009.
Addendum To The Cultural Resources Assessment For The Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension Project (Corona, CA). 2009.
Archaeological Survey, Evaluation And Eligibility Investigation For Three Bedrock Milling Feature Sites (unincorporated San Diego County, CA). Stonemark Estates, 2010.
Preliminary Cultural Resources Survey for Formation of the Wiseburn Unified School District Project (El Segundo, Hawthorne and unincorporated Los Angeles County, CA). TAHA, 2008.
Proposed South Region Elementary School No. 9 Project (South Gate, CA). Cultural Resources Initial Technical Report and Phase I Site Investigation, Intensive Survey. LAUSD 2008.
Proposed South Region Middle School No. 3 Project (Walnut Park, CA). Cultural Resources Initial Technical Report and Phase I Site Investigation, Intensive Survey, LAUSD 2008.
Class III Cultural Resources Inventory For Border Fuel Break Project (San Diego County, CA). Bureau of Land Management, 2008.
Foster’s Old Fashion Freeze Property- 590 Marsh Street (SLO, CA). City of San Luis Obispo, 2008.
Thomas Roads Improvements Projects (Bakersfield, CA). Built Environment Historic Context Statement, 2008. 10757 - 10763½ Wilkins Avenue. Weston Benshoof Rochefort Rubalcava & MacCuish, LLP, 2003.
Strick Residence- 1911 La Mesa Drive (Santa Monica, CA). Evaluation of single-family residence attributed to Oscar Neimeyer for historic significance. Property is only known example in the United States credited to the noted Brazilian architect. Harding, Larmore, Kozal & Kutcher, 2002.
Fire Station #21 – Southeast Los Angeles (1162-1192 East 51st Street and 1165-1187 East 52nd Street) City of Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering, 2002. Designated a City of Los Angeles H-CM as a result of identification, 2004.
Fire Station #65 (9912, 9916 and 9920 Holmes Avenue, 1807, 1811 and 1825 East Century Boulevard and 9909 and 9917 Bandera Street, Watts) City of Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering, 2002. 666 South Bonnie Brae Street. CRA, 2002.
Star Court- 1951-1959 Beachwood Drive (Hollywood, CA). City of Los Angeles, CFF Properties, 2002.
Broad Street Mixed-Use Project (SLO, CA). City of San Luis Obispo, Oasis Landscape Architecture & Planning (Oasis), 2002. 773 of 821
FRANCESCA G. SMITH
7 Walnut-Toro Properties (SLO, CA). City of San Luis Obispo, Oasis, 2002.
Phase I: El Encanto Hotel- 1900 Lassuen Road (Santa Barbara, CA). City of Santa Barbara, with Alexandra Cole, TynanGroup, 2002.
Hillview Apartments- 6807 Hollywood Boulevard (Hollywood). CRA, Millennium Holdings, 2001.
Automobile Club of Southern California, Hollywood Branch Office/Liberty Records- 6902 Sunset Boulevard (Hollywood). CRA, Reliable Properties, 2001.
Gas Station Building- 11757 East Hadley Street (Whittier, CA). City of Whittier, Whittier Redevelopment Agency, Melvyn Green & Associates, Inc., 2001.
Esperion Duarte/Dream Theater Building- 693-699 Lighthouse Avenue; Mission Building- 685-691 Lighthouse Avenue and Garnero’s Hector de Smet Bakery- 665 Lighthouse Avenue (Monterey, CA). The Cannery Row Company, City of Monterey, 2001.
Mutual Don Lee Broadcasting/AIDS Project LA- 1313 North Vine Street (Hollywood). CRA, Accord Interests, 2000. 1351-53, 1357-59 South Alvarado Street and 1336-38 South Hoover Street. CRA, 2000.
Bowden Ranch Estates Project (SLO, CA). City of San Luis Obispo, Oasis, Bowden Ranch Estates, 2000. 811 El Capitan Way- The Log Cabin (SLO, CA). City of San Luis Obispo, Oasis, Covey III, 2000 1230 Montana Avenue- Moeller Murphy Moeller Mortuary (Santa Monica, CA). City of Santa Monica, Damavandi Capital LLC, 2000. 4641 Morro Drive (Woodland Hills, CA). City of Los Angeles, Accord Interests LLC, 2000. 914 Royal Street and 1210 West 30th Street. University of Southern California, 2000. 2600 Wilshire Boulevard- Home Savings of America (Santa Monica, CA). City of Santa Monica, Payless Cellular, Inc., 2000.
Zions German Methodist Episcopal Church (Carson, CA). City of Carson, 1998.
Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fé Railway Yard and Shops (San Bernardino, CA). City of San Bernardino, The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company, 1993-94.
Major Investment Studies
Los Angeles-Bakersfield High Speed Ground Transportation System. Caltrans, FTA, 1993.
The Corridor. Orange County Transportation Authority, 1996.
Environmental Constraints Analyses
State Route 126 (Ventura County, CA). Caltrans District 7, 2020.
Eastern Bypass (Temecula, CA). Western Riverside Council of Governments, 2007.
Ventura Freeway Aerial Alignment Project Study Report. Metro, 1993.
Santa Monica Boulevard Transit Parkway. Metro, 1993.
State Route 68. Monterey County, 1992.
Bridge Alterations, Rehabilitations, Relocations, Evaluation of Adjacent New Construction US 101, Barham Boulevard, Mulholland Pilgrimage Way Bridges Alterations and Construction Vibration Monitoring. Caltrans District 7, 2023.
State Route 39, Van Ornum Bridge Alterations. Caltrans District 7, 2021.
Hollister Bridge Demolition and Replacement Project (SLO, CA). City and County of San Luis Obispo, Cuesta College, 2009. Oversaw preparation of Hollister Adobe Pre- and Post-Construction Survey Reports to monitor vibration and potential damage.
Fletcher Drive Bridge Seismic Retrofit. City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Engineering, Department of Public Works, HDR Engineering, Inc., 2002.
Gerald Desmond Bridge Replacement. City and Port of Long Beach, Caltrans, 2001.
North Broadway/Buena Vista Viaduct Rehabilitation/Reconstruction (seismic retrofit). City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Engineering, Department of Public Works, 1999.
Olympic Boulevard Bridge Rehabilitation/Reconstruction. City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Engineering, Department of Public Works, 1999.
La Loma Bridge, Evaluation of Historic Significance (Pasadena, CA) Listed in National Register in 2004. 1998.
Duck Creek Bridge Relocation (Dallas, TX). DART, US Army Corps of Engineers, FTA, 1997.
White Rock Creek Bridge Rehabilitation and Adjacent New LRT Bridge (Dallas, TX). DART, FTA, 1997.
Photographic Documentation
State New Elementary School #1 (Huntington Park, CA). LAUSD 2002.
Environmental Compliance For Los Angeles County Rail System (Red Line Eastern Extension). Metro, 1997.
Metropolitan Water District (MWD) Headquarters, Union Station. MWD, 1997.
Historic American Buildings Survey/Historic American Engineering Record (HABS/HAER) Arroyo Seco Parkway (Pasadena Freeway). HAER No. CA-265. Caltrans District 7, 1999. Provided research and review.
State Exposition Building (Ahmanson Building, California Museum of Science and Industry). HABS No. CA-2608. State of California, National Park Service, 1996.
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, Master and Preservation Plans Brockton Arcade Design Guidelines (Riverside, CA). City of Riverside, 2011. 774 of 821
FRANCESCA G. SMITH
8 East Los Angeles College Satellite Campus Project (South Gate, CA). Berliner Architects, 2009.
City of Monterey Design Guidelines, Cannery Row Conservation District (Monterey, CA). The Cannery Row Company, Monterey Bay Aquarium and City of Monterey, 2004.
Villa Riviera (Long Beach, CA). Villa Riviera Board of Directors, 2001.
Roosevelt Building. John Ash Group, 1991.
Miscellaneous
Co-Executive Producer
Commodore Schuyler Heim Bridge: Spanning Centuries of Progress. High definition, half-hour documentary film, 2015.
Peer Review
Historic Preservation Ordinance (Carmel-By the Sea Municipal Code, Chapter 17.41). City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, 2002.
General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan, Land Use & Community Character Element. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, adopted 2003.
Mills Act (Historical Property Contract) Applications
324 Lawson Place, Glendale. Confidential client, City of Glendale, 2020-2025.
Tomahawk Building, Los Angeles. DL Gray, AIA, City of Los Angeles, 2002.
Robert R. Blacker House, Pasadena (Greene & Greene, 1907). Confidential client, City of Pasadena, 2003.
Tomahawk Building, Los Angeles. DL Gray, AIA, City of Los Angeles, 2002.
Author or Researcher
"Preserving the Birthplace of Hip Hop, 1520 Sedgwick Tower." With David Gest, Panorama (University of Pennsylvania School of Design), Spring 2007, Vol. XVI.
“Mail Chutes and Downtown Los Angeles Buildings” Los Angeles City Historical Society Newsletter, October 2003, Volume XXX, Issue 4.
Sacramento’s Memorial Auditorium: Seven Decades of Memories. Bonnie Snyder and Paula Boghosian. (Sacramento: Sacramento Heritage Press) 1997.
Southern California’s Car Culture Landmarks: A Drive Thru History of the Southland, Automobile Club of Southern California, 2000. 775 of 821
1 McKay, Ann Marie CC
Subject: 31526 Valido Road, Egan, Homestead Records from the national archives From: ann
Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2026 2:57 PM
To: Steven, Heather CD <[email protected]>
Subject: 31526 Valido Road, Egan, Homestead Records from the national archives Please include these records in the agenda packet.
776 of 821
2 777 of 821
3 778 of 821
4 779 of 821
5 780 of 821
6 781 of 821
7 782 of 821
8 783 of 821
9 784 of 821
10 785 of 821
786 of 821
1 McKay, Ann Marie CC
Subject: Appeal Hearing Agenda Item A. Egan Homestead (31526 Valido Way) -----Original Message-----
From: Catherine Jurca
Sent: Friday, May 8, 2026 5:06 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Cc: Steven, Heather CD <[email protected]>; Viera, Anthony CD <[email protected]> Subject: Appeal Hearing Agenda Item A. Egan Homestead (31526 Valido Way) Dear Mayor Orgill and Council Members:
Thank you for allowing HRG to complete the research to support its conclusion that the Egan Homestead coƩage is eligible for the NaƟonal and California registers, at the local level of significance, for its associaƟon with homesteading in Orange County. Qualified architectural historian Francesca Smith agrees with that conclusion and has submiƩed her own supporƟng materials.
I believe the evidence presented in these evaluaƟons overwhelmingly supports this property’s eligibility. The Staff Report errs in suggesƟng that there is no new informaƟon to warrant a change in opinion since the DRB’s decision (p. 35). The historic context has been greatly amplified, and HRG scoured similar properƟes for comparison only to find that none exist at the local and county levels. Francesca Smith also did a comparison of like properƟes analysis and reached a similar conclusion.
As the only extant, intact homestead residence in Laguna Beach and Orange County, the Egan Homestead coƩage is an incredibly rare resource type that possesses sufficient integrity to communicate its significance. To find a homestead residence immediately adjacent to 24 of its original acres that are preserved in perpetuity as open space, within the megalopolis that spreads from Los Angeles County to the border with Mexico, is remarkable.
While this property is not as grand as more obvious local landmarks such as the Hotel Laguna or the South Coast Theater, its historical importance to this community and its early development is just as profound.
Some of the consultants claim, depending on which conclusion they reach, that the property either is or is not a historic resource under CEQA. But because the property is not designated on any register, the finding that the property qualifies as a historic resource under CEQA is for the City Council to decide, based on substanƟal evidence in the record. SubstanƟal evidence “shall include facts, reasonable assumpƟons predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts” (Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 14, § 15384(b)).
In this case, where experts disagree as to historical significance and there are no egregious errors in fact (although I would argue that the Chronicle review is of poor quality), there is substanƟal evidence in the record to support either conclusion. It is important to understand that ample case law establishes that as long as there is ANY substanƟal evidence in the record to support a finding of historical significance (or alternaƟvely, insignificance), courts defer to the lead agency. This is known as the "substanƟal evidence” standard of review. Courts will not review or reweigh the evidence on which that decision is based. I worry that the aƩorney for the property owner, whom I recognize from similar cases in Glendale (though not involving properƟes eligible for the NaƟonal Register), may try to persuade you that the City is open to difficulty if it exercises its discreƟon under Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 14, § 15064.5(a)(4) and finds the property to be historic. At the DRB hearing, he suggested that there was something outrageous about HRG reaching out to Ann Christoph (he called it “subcontract[ing] out” ) for her feedback on their evaluaƟon (Transcript, Sept. 25, 2025 DRB meeƟng, p. 15). Ann knows more about South Laguna 787 of 821
2 than any of the experts involved in this case, and reaching out to local experts is hardly unusual. Also, the City’s real property report for the property stated that a historic resource evaluaƟon may be necessary, indicaƟng that the property may qualify as a historic resource. Perhaps my concern is misplaced.
While I conƟnue to believe there was an abuse of discreƟon by the DRB—I urge you to read the quotaƟons from Appeal 2 and the helpful transcript of board member comments in aƩachment 8—the evidence does not need to be reiterated. This is a de novo hearing and all of the newly submiƩed evidence as to the property’s historic status renders that argument moot.
I know that most Council members do not share my avid (rabid?) commitment to historic preservaƟon. They may think I support findings of historical significance for too many properƟes, although I would point out that something like fiŌeen properƟes are approved for substanƟal alteraƟon or demoliƟon about every month between DRB and the Planning Commission. More are approved through ADR. The vast majority pass without comment from me.
This property is excepƟonally important and rare, and I hope you will find it so.
Thank you for your consideraƟon.
Best wishes,
Cathy
788 of 821
1 McKay, Ann Marie CC
Subject: Egan house
-----Original Message-----
From: Anita Dobbs
Sent: Saturday, May 9, 2026 1:56 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Egan house
Dear City Council Members:
Our family lives at the corner of Eagle Rock Way and EGAN Road in South Laguna. I have always taken pride in living nearly on a street named for one of Laguna’s early famous ciƟzens. Many of our streets are named for arƟsts, and that’s why I parƟcularly like living at the corner of EGAN Street named aŌer an early Laguna pioneer who built the oldest house in South Laguna.
Having lived here since 1968, I have seen many of Laguna’s famous landmarks fall to the interests of development, financial gain, and neglect as well. I strongly believe we should protect this last remaining homestead house in all of Orange County. If all the old, with its history, disappears from our town and our County, how else do we educate the young ones about what happened here before they were born? Many museums serve that purpose, but here we have a real live example of what life was like for our early seƩlers. Why destroy such a historic landmark, such a part of who we once were before we became the developed, commercial town that we are now.
Surely the developers lusƟng for that Egan house property can find another property without destroying our heritage here in South Laguna.
Regards,
Anita Dobbs and family
xxxxx Eagle Rock Way
Laguna Beach
789 of 821
1 McKay, Ann Marie CC
Subject: Egan Homestead House
-----Original Message-----
From: Elaine Kuyper
Sent: Saturday, May 9, 2026 3:52 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Egan Homestead House
Please save the Egan Homestead House, and please refrain from making Laguna Beach more and more like Newport Beach by allowing too large homes to replace our smaller, older ones that are part of Laguna’s charm.
Thank you,
Elaine Kuyper
Resident since 1969
790 of 821
1 How Rare is the Egan Homestead House?
This question drives the intense debate currently dividing Laguna Beach: should the historic Egan homestead be demolished or preserved? To answer this, we have to look beyond local sentiment and focus on a single, measurable metric: rarity. How can that rarity be judged? The most obvious answer is Quantity. Of the many thousands of “dwellings” built in California under the Homestead Act of 1862, how many are actually still standing?
But survival isn’t just about standing still; it’s about standing true. This is where Quantity meets its partner: Quality. To correctly assess what we have, we must ask: Is the house the original dwelling? Is it built of the original era-appropriate materials? Does it still sit on its original site? Is it connected to the landscape that once defined it? Did the homesteader use any innovative land-wise practices or adaptive farming methods?
These “Double Qs”—Quantity and Quality—form the yardstick for this investigation. By measuring the Egan dwelling against fifteen other historic survivors, we can finally determine if this structure is merely a weathered house or an irreplaceable landmark.
Q1: The Hunt for Homestead Houses
The Homestead Act of 1862 triggered a land rush that transformed millions of acres, but it came with a catch: the “improvement” requirement. To claim their land, settlers had to build a permanent structure—typically a 12’x14’ “dwelling” with a door and a glass window. While these “shacks” or “shanties” were legally required to be primary residences for five years, they were often built as flimsy starter homes, designed to satisfy the law rather than endure for decades.
Ironically, success was often the original cabin’s undoing. As families prospered, they replaced their small, cramped starter homes with larger and sturdier residencies, relegating the old shacks to life as barns or tool sheds—if they weren’t lost to fire, decay, or encroaching suburbs. The attrition has been staggering. For example, of the 2,852 homesteads once recorded in Los Angeles County, only a handful of original houses remain. While 66,738 Californians eventually gained title to their land through the Homestead Act, the humble dwellings that started it all have become what the National Park Service calls “extremely rare.”
Locating these survivors requires
historical detective work. Over a
six-month search, it became clear
that most repurposed shacks have
lost their identity, while others had
that identity erased by California’s
unforgiving landscape. In an era of
open-hearth cooking and lightningsparked brush, a 12’x14’ wooden shack was a tinderbox. For these
pioneers, the five-year residency
was a race against the elements; Sepulveda Adobe in Malibu Creek State Park (Calabasas) was built a single spark could reduce a half in 1863 under the Homestead Act; the dwelling was destroyed by decade of labor to ash in minutes. the Woolsey Fire in 2018, shortly after its 16-year restoration. 791 of 821
2 This vulnerability is not a relic of the past. Today, wildfire remains the leading cause of historical structure loss in California. According to the National Park Service Heritage Documentation Program, contemporary “megafires” move with an intensity that can incinerate rural fringe sites before preservationists can even catalog them. Consequently, many “historic homesteads” celebrated today are actually sturdier, second-generation replacements built after the first cabin succumbed to flames.
These survivors tell a story of resilience, but they often mask the original humbler history of the “improvement” that first secured the land.
Occasionally, however, a structure escapes both the wrecking ball and the wildfire.
What would you do with the shack shown here if you owned the property? Most people would tear it down. But the weathered structure is an original 12’x14’ “dwelling” built under the Homestead Act of 1862. Luckily, this shed was on the Nichelini property, still owned by the family of Anton Nichelini who “proved up” the claim. The family knows the value of the little shack and has preserved its history. How many of California’s original homestead dwellings have been torn down over the last century because people didn’t recognize (or value) them for what they represent? We’ll never know.
Nicholini shed (ca. 2014)
The search results for this “historical detective work” have been narrowed down to a group of fifteen structures. However, these survivors are rarely “pure” examples; they exist on a spectrum of authenticity.
Within this small circle, not all represent the original 1862 starter dwellings. Several are secondgeneration replacements, often using more durable materials or following a slightly different legal path such as the Morrill Act of 1862. A few are highly rated historic buildings with no known connection to the Homestead Act. One or two survivors are even included for their creativity, using strategies so unique it earned them a spot despite falling outside many of the typical metrics.
By grinding through two California counties every week for six months, the investigation chased down approximately 260 potential leads. Most hit a dead end—they weren’t true Homestead Act claims or they have long since disappeared—crumbling to dust or losing their battle with California wildfires.
Out of 66,738 successful claims in state history, this select group remains as the only tangible link to that era. When the Egan House is held up against these few remaining peers, it stops being just another old building; it becomes a statistical marvel.
792 of 821
3 But numbers only tell half the story. To truly apply our “Double Q” yardstick—Quantity and Quality— we have to look at the survivors that set the gold standard. From the salt-aired shacks of the coast to the tinder-dry cabins of the high desert, these fifteen structures represent the final frontier of California’s homestead history. Where does the Egan House fit within this vanishing minority? The following profiles move us from the archives to the field, measuring the Egan’s “improvement” dwelling against the very best of what remains.
The abandoned ruins of
the Knapp Ranch, built
in the late 1890s under
the Homestead Act, now
disintegrating in the rugged,
primitive wilderness of the
Angeles National Forest.
Step into the survival stories of these landmarks in the Homestead House Profiles. Eight profiles (the “top contenders”) are included here; you can see all sixteen historic buildings by clicking the link:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ta55jm73ohjp3lwn8o45w/Homestead-HouseProfiles.pdf?rlkey=pesmgegasvpyvt8cy5hq1221d&st=nxxiwhdd&dl=0 Each house has been separated into a two-page visual audit, using photography and aerial perspectives to pin these homes into their natural landscapes. Beyond the data point, you’ll find the grit—the stories of families who refused to tear down their first homes and the sheer luck that kept the humble “dwellings” standing. The profiles capture the enduring spirit of each property, tracing the history of the home and the families who fought to preserve them. 793 of 821
4 A former cattle ranch, Old Borges Ranch
includes multiple historic buildings, a ranger
station, farm animals, and access to trails.
The historic ranch features a restored 1901
redwood farmhouse, barns, and outbuildings
that reflect early pioneer ranch life. While no
longer a working ranch, the site retains its
agricultural heritage through a partnership
with the Pleasant Hill 4-H whose members
care for the ranch’s resident farm animals.
(Old) Borges Ranch Walnut Creek, Contra Costa County, CA In 1899, Portuguese immigrant Francisco Borges purchased 700 acres in the Mt. Diablo foothills, infilling a landscape shaped by the Homestead Act. At the time, records from the National Register of Historic Places show the property only held a small cabin and an apricot grove.
Responding to the increased size of his family, Frank built a five-room farmhouse in 1901, using tongue-in-groove redwood. Five generations of the Borges family lived and worked at the farm until it was sold to the City of Walnut Creek in 1976.
By the early 1970s, as urban development intensified, Old Borges Ranch stood as the final surviving cattle ranch in the area. In response to mounting urbanization, Walnut Creek voters approved a $6.75 million bond measure in 1974 to acquire and preserve the foothills as public open space.
In 1976, bond measure funds were used to purchase the historic Borges Ranch with the City of Walnut Creek taking ownership. The Walnut Creek Open Space Foundation, a nonprofit organization, became the ranch’s primary advocate, promoting and caring for the ranch.
The City hired Ron White as the first ranger for the newly formed Walnut Creek Open Space which included the Old Borges Ranch. He lived and worked on the ranch for nearly 27 years and played a major role in maintaining it as both a wildlife habitat and a historical resource.
The Old Borges Ranch was registered as a California Point of Historical Interest and also placed on the National Register of Historic Places. Both events occurred simultaneously on July 7, 1981.
The Old Borges Museum and Visitor Center typically holds an open house from 1:00 to 4:00 p.m. on Saturdays. The grounds are open daily from 8:00 a.m. until sunset for visitors to explore the outbuildings and animal pens at their own pace. The City of Walnut Creek provides a 90-minute history curriculum program for 1st through 5th grade students; interactive tours at the ranch allow children to experience ranch chores—pumping water from the windmill or grooming the animals.
Additional
Information
The farmhouse on the Old Borges Ranch currently operates as a museum and the Walnut Creek Open Space Visitor Center. The district contains several other structures: horse and cow barns, wagon shed, blacksmith shop, windmill, corrals, and small auxiliary structures including a designated woodshed and milkhouse.
Information about the Borges Ranch is located in records held by the Bureau of Land Management, application and inventory records of the National Register of Historic Places, Contra Costa Historical Society documents, newspaper reports, and City of Walnut Creek records. 794 of 821
5 Borges Ranch Lat, Lon: 37.8901032762493, -122.0024884490838 The historic Old Borges Ranch is located at the base of Shell Ridge in the Mt. Diablo foothills and is a key feature of Contra Costa County's 2,600-acre Walnut Creek Open Space. The ranch originally was part of a Mexican land grant, the Arroyo de las Nueces Y Bolbones (“Stream of the Walnuts and Bolbones”—the local indigenous group). The historic rancho inspired the name of today’s City of Walnut Creek.
During the 1960’s, residents of Walnut Creek began to express their concern over the potential development of the hills and ridgelines within the city. When a development in a portion of Shell Ridge was proposed in the early 70’s, a grassroots effort went into effect. Citizens were able to overturn the development in a referendum to protect open space. The result was the formation of the Contra Costa Service Area R-8, approved by voters in June of 1974, providing $6.75 million to acquire open space land in and around Walnut Creek. Approximately 2,700 acres of parks, open space, and trail easements are now protected.
The Morgan Fire (2013) burned through over 3,000 acres in the Mount Diablo foothills, directly threatening the Borges Ranch. While the wildfire came dangerously close to the historic structures, the ranch was successfully defended by firefighters and did not burn.
Old Borges Ranch serves as a primary trailhead for exploring the Shell Ridge wilderness and is a rare, well-preserved example of the turn-of-the-century California cattle ranch. Managed by the City of Walnut Creek Open Space Division, the Ranch serves as a historic “living” museum. Today, visitors can explore the grounds to experience a firsthand look at the daily operation and rural lifestyle of California’s early 20th-century ranchers.
795 of 821
6 In 1884, twenty-five German families
formed a utopian agricultural colony on a
former Mexican Ranch called “Rancho Las
Encinitas.” Among the first colonists was
German immigrant Herman Bumann who
purchased a claim for a 160-acres of land
close to the colony. He hired himself out to
nearby ranches, returning to his
homestead on weekends to make his own
homestead improvements. Included in the
improvements was the small (10’ x 12’)
cabin called “the Shanty” (see photo).
Bumann Ranch Encinitas, San Diego County, CA
The Bumann homestead was located in Olivenhain (once a German immigrant colony, now a section of the modern-day town of Encinitas). In 1886, Herman Bumann filed a claim for ownership of the 160-acre homestead, satisfied the federal homesteading requirements for “improvements” under the Homestead Act of 1862, and obtained his patent on January 5, 1892.
Bumann continued to acquire land and eventually owned 480 acres. Of these, only ten acres remain today as a small-scale working ranch owned by the third generation of the Bumann family.
Bumann’s original homestead house, the 10’ x 12’ “Shanty” was built in 1865 and remains on-site alongside the larger main house constructed in 1892. Now a museum, this home displays family photographs and artifacts spanning over 130 years.
Multiple original buildings remain on the Bumann homestead, not only the Shanty and main house but also a bee house, granary, blacksmith shop, and barns from the 1890s. The buildings, machinery, and other contents are entirely original and unchanged. The family continued to work the land with horse-drawn equipment until 1965.
The historic homestead ranch was added to the National Register of Historic Places in 2020 as “one of the last remaining, active, and largely unchanged 19th-century homesteads in San Diego County.” Buhmann’s ranch was designated a state landmark in 2019 by California’s Historical Resources Commission.
Much of the current work at the ranch involves maintaining the ranch’s 19th-century appearance, but the farm still produces oat hay to feed the Buhmann cattle.
The ranch is a private residence and is not generally open to the public; access is restricted to twiceyearly guided bus tours organized by the Encinitas Preservation Association. During the summer, the ranch also hosts “Farmyard Friends Camp” and “Open Gate Afternoons” as educational programs.
Additional
Information
The photograph above shows the Shanty (built 1885) with the main house behind (built 1892). Historic Photographs of the Bumann Ranch can be found at https://kylethomasphotography.com/historic-bumann-ranch-of-olivenhainencinitas-magazine-june-2017-words-photos-by-kyle-thomas/ Information about the Bumann Ranch is located in records held by the Bureau of Land Management, application and inventory records of the National Register of Historic Places, Historical Society documents, property tax records at the San Diego County Archives, and information brochures (online and printed) about the homestead.
796 of 821
7 Bumann Ranch Lat, Lon: 33.057639097064964, -117.20149070859782 The Bumann Ranch began as a modest claim and grew into a massive self-sustaining operation that once spanned 480 acres. While only 10 acres remain today, the land’s history is a rare record of San Diego’s transition from Mexican ranchos to American homesteads.
Herman Bumann arrived in 1884 as part of the Olivenhain Colony in Encinitas, but the community quickly fractured due to land sale disputes and water scarcity. In 1886, Bumann purchased a fleeing colony officer’s 160-acre homestead for just $50. By continuing to acquire neighboring homesteads, Bumann expanded his ranch to its peak size of 480 acres by the 1920s. Pieces of the original ranch were sold off in the 1950s to pay rising property taxes. The surrounding areas have experienced significant development, making the remaining ten acres a pocket of preserved rural history.
The Bumann Ranch features approximately twenty original buildings, including the Main House (built in 1892), a blacksmith’s shed, an 1890s bee house and granary, and two late-19th-century barns that still house the family’s workhorse stalls (and the horses’ nametags) exactly as they were. The site's centerpiece is “the Shanty,” a 10’ by 12’ single room “dwelling” (built under the Homestead Act) where Herman Bumann lived for six years while fulfilling Homestead Act requirements; the Shanty still contains his original table where he worked and ate his meals.
The ranch was unoccupied when the 1943 wildfire struck (Herman Bumann was in the military).
Family members used wet gunny sacks to beat back the flames, saving the main house and barns.
As the last remaining still-active homestead in the region, the Bumann Ranch serves as an irreplaceable outdoor classroom, offering a rare, firsthand encounter with the agricultural traditions of early California ranch life.
797 of 821
8 In 1906, William F. Egan filed for 40 acres of
government land in part of the unincorporated
coastline area of Orange County. Egan and his
uncle, James Shrewsbury, worked the land
together as a joint farming venture with
Shrewsbury obtaining an additional 160 acres
(adjacent to the Egan homestead) in 1907. The
historic site represents a unique connection to
its original land-use patterns (dry farming and
water management). The Egan house, still on
its original site, is the last remaining intact
homestead house in Orange County.
Egan Homestead House Laguna Beach, Orange County, CA
The original 10’ x 16’ Egan homestead “dwelling” (built in 1907) was a required improvement under the Homestead Act of 1862. In 1909, with his bride soon to move in, Will Egan added a second room and a fireplace, converting the original one-room shed into the homestead’s kitchen.
Will Egan was officially granted his land patent on Jan. 17, 1910. The “improvements” included the original two-room dwelling, cleared acreage (prepared and producing crops) as well as a 12-foot dam with a reservoir and cisterns for crop irrigation and water storage. The property currently stands as a key example of the area’s pioneer, dry-farming history in the early 1900s.
Frozen in time since 1928, the Egan house is a classic early-1900s redwood homestead. The 1,113- square-foot cottage evolved alongside the family, integrating the original 1910 dwelling— repurposed as a kitchen—into a traditional two-bedroom layout, typical in the early 1900s.
The intact house is still on its original location, now on approximately a third of an acre overlooking a ravine and a creek that were originally part of the 40-acre homestead; 24 acres of the original plat are now preserved as part of the adjacent Aliso and Wood Canyons Wilderness Park.
The Valido Trail (the entrance was once part of the Egan homestead) provides access to the protected, rugged natural habitat of a wildlife sanctuary set aside to protect rare and endangered plants, animals, and woodlands.
After the death of her husband in 1930, Bertie Egan lived on the homestead and managed the property for nearly twenty years. Her management was defined by strategic philanthropy (providing land for the Coast Royal and West Street reservoirs) and civic leverage (withholding titles until developers provided water access). Her approach prioritized community welfare over short-term gain, establishing the infrastructure that defines the region today.
Likely eligible but is not currently registered in either the National or California Historic Registers.
Additional
Information
When the 1916 wildfire swept through the homestead, the Egan house remained intact, thanks to Will and Bertie Egan who fought and saved their home. The Egan house now is the only surviving homestead house in Orange County and one of the last remaining examples of pioneer dry-farming lifestyle in California.
Information about the Egan Homestead is located in Case Files (National Archives), federal census records, the Bureau of Land Management, Orange County property and tax records, the Laguna Beach Historical Society, the Laguna Beach newspaper files, and the personal files of the Egan family, including a family-member eyewitness account of the early years, located in the Los Angeles FamilySearch Library.
798 of 821
9 Egan Homestead Lat, Lon: 33.50605345818235, -117.74400672161404 The original Egan 40-acre
homestead (the area
bordered in blue) is located in
South Laguna.
Twenty-four acres of the
original Egan homestead
(masked with green filter) are
now preserved as part of the
Aliso and Wood Canyons
Wilderness Park, a regional
wildlife preserve containing
approximately 4,500 acres of
coastal canyons, old-growth
forest, chaparral and
grasslands as well as yearround streams and creeks.
The large circular structure
(lower right- corner) and the
two small circular structures
(upper left corner) are on
land once owned by the
Egans; both are reservoirs
that provided water for their communities.
Two hiking trails can be seen through the green filter: the upper (connected to the reservoir) is the Toovet Trail; the Valido Trail (lower, connected to Valido Road) runs diagonally near the lower border of the park. Situated on roughly a third of an acre, the historic homestead house is circled in yellow. It overlooks the creek where Will Egan developed an irrigation system consisting of a twelve-foot dam and cisterns designed to divert water to the crops he was growing, using dry-farming methods.
While the aerial view shows the Egan Homestead as a peaceful fixture of the landscape today, its survival was never guaranteed. In 1916, the historic house faced the ultimate California trial: a wildfire that nearly erased it from the map. An eyewitness account given by one of the daughters of the household describes her parents’ desperate, heroic battle that saved the structure from becoming another anonymous statistic:
We just had a cistern for water with a pump… Our house was in danger of catching fire so our dad went up a ladder and Mother pumped water and handed buckets of water up to him. The roof did catch in spots, but it was saved… Small animals came out of the hills down to the house, hoping to find shelter. Many of them with fur on fire… Our dad had beehives up on a hill and the fire burned the hives and bees, causing honey to run out and down the hill… Finally when the house was safe, our dad set backfires and turned the fire from us, but everywhere you looked it was all black, no vegetation left… To look out at all of the hills blackened was heartbreaking, but we were so thankful.
799 of 821
10 Jeremiah Hodgdon Sr. (pioneer and head of
the California branch of the family) filed a
claim in 1879 for a 160-acre homestead in
Aspen Valley. The family had already
established a spring/fall grazing station in a
nearby area. Both properties were part of
the seasonal ranching cycle, originating in
the Hodgdon’s foothill ranch in the San
Joaquin Valley. With the establishment of
the Yosemite National Park in 1890, private
homesteading in the area was abolished.
Pre-existing claims (such as those by settlers
like the Hodgdons), became involved in years
of conflict with the federal government.
Hodgdon Homestead Cabin Wawona, Mariposa County, CA
Jeremiah Hodgdon Sr. built the two-story homestead log cabin in Aspen Valley in 1879 to fulfill the requirements for a “dwelling” under the Homestead Act of 1862.
Jeremiah Sr. (the Hodgdon family patriarch) received the patent on Dec. 23, 1887.
With the establishment of the Yosemite National Park in 1890, private homesteading in the area was abolished; the Hodgdon land became a “private inholding” (a parcel of privately owned land located within boundaries of federally managed public lands). In the late 1950s, the property was purchased by the National Park Service and transferred back to its natural state within the park.
The Yosemite National Park Service made cattle grazing illegal. To avoid losing their land, the family expanded the homestead to a tourist complex known as the “Aspen Valley Lodge.” In 1960, the two-story pioneer log cabin was saved from demolition by relocating it to the Yosemite History Center (an outdoor museum of historic places) located in Wawona. The cabin was photographed as it was taken apart and each log numbered for reassembly in its new location.
Yosemite’s “only surviving two-story pioneer log cabin in Yosemite National Park” was placed on the National Register of Historic Places and also listed as a California Historical Resource in 1978.
Open to public; admission is included in the Yosemite National Park entry fee.
Additional
Information
The two-story log cabin served as a billet for U.S. Army cavalry soldiers (the very ones who revoked the Hodgdon’s grazing privileges, actively dispersing cattle from the meadows in and around Aspen Valley). The homestead cabin also housed Chinese laborers traveling on the Great Sierra Wagon Road, and served as a storehouse for the Aspen Valley Lodge complex.
Information about the Hodgdon Homestead Cabin is located in Homestead Act Records, the Bureau of Land Management, relocation documentation in the Yosemite National Park files, county title records, local newspapers, and the nomination forms for the National Register of Historic Places. 800 of 821
11 Hodgdon Homestead Cabin Lat, Lon: 37.539174161209004, -119.65587627218733 When John Muir arrived in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, he was so alarmed by the over-grazing of meadows, logging of giant sequoias, and other damage to the wilderness, he became an advocate for environmental protection. Through his influence, the U.S. Congress established the Yosemite National Park in October 1890 to protect the country’s “reserved forest lands” from “degradation.” The new Park included the Hodgdon homestead; they had proved up the land and received their patent in 1888. The Hodgdons were unique because they were legal homesteaders with an “inholding” (private property within park boundaries). The U.S. Army could evict itinerant herders who had no land rights, but they could not legally remove the Hodgdons from their own land.
However, the U.S. Calvary could (and did) permanently revoke the family’s grazing privileges.
Without the high-altitude summer grazing in Aspen Valley, the Hodgdons seasonal ranching cycle (moving from the San Joaquin Valley to the mountains for the summer) was broken. Rather than leave their land (and their log cabin), the family turned their homestead into a tourist complex, selling hot meals and lodging to travelers along the Tioga Road (originally the great Sierra Wagon Road).
Following the Hodgdon family’s decision to demolish their 1879 log cabin in the 1950s, the National Park Service acquired the structure to preserve its history. The cabin was dismantled, each log numbered, and relocated at the Yosemite History Center in 1960. The historic cabin was placed near the center’s sole existing, large-scale structure, the 1857 Wawona Covered Bridge. 801 of 821
12 In 1867, William B. Post acquired land in
Big Sur through the Homestead Act and
built a single-room, “dwelling.” Ten years
later, Will’s son Joseph added a two-story
wing—creating the distinctive New
England saltbox style. The new exterior
displayed a variety of horizontal sidings
including hand-split lap siding, milled drop
siding, and vertical board-and-batten. The
building featured an irregular roof plan
with a mix of low and steep-pitched gable
and shed roofs.
Joseph W. Post Ranch House Big Sur, Monterey County, CA William B. Post initially applied for a 160-acre homestead in 1867. The family lived in the original homestead “dwelling,” a single-story, small rectangular single-room dwelling built using locally sourced redwood, split and planed by hand on the property.
A two-story addition was added on in 1877. The original homestead house was preserved and integrated, serving as the kitchen and living area for the expanded home.
William B. Post obtained the patent for the 160-acre homestead on Sep.25, 1888, approximately twenty years after applying for the land. The cause of the delay was due to the rugged, unsurveyed nature of the Big Sur coast. Government surveys were notoriously difficult to make in the steep terrain; Post had to wait for the land to be formally surveyed and mapped before his title could be finalized.
The family raised cattle and hogs on the Post Ranch; they also maintained a thriving apple orchard that exported apples to stores throughout Monterey County. The historic orchard survived for over a century; horticulture experts have used the orchard to study heirloom fruit varieties that existed before the mid-20th-century.
Listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Sep. 12, 1985. The house has historical significance due to its association with the exploration and settlement of the Big Sur region.
The Post House is also recognized by the California Office of Historic Preservation as a registered historical landmark and the oldest redwood frame house in the Big Sur area.
The Post ranch was adjacent to the Andrew Molera State Park, a 4,800-acre park crisscrossed with coastal and ridge trails.
The historic house is privately owned and is only visible to travelers driving past.
Additional
Information
William’s wife Anselma Onésimo—a Rumsen Ohlone woman—served as the family matriarch and a vital cultural bridge, connecting the settlers to the broader network of Spanish, Mexican, and indigenous families in the region.
Information for the Joseph W. Post house is located in the Bureau of Land Management, the application for the National Register of Historic Places, federal census records, county land and tax records, as well as in family records (the Bill and Luci Post Archives, managed by the Big Sur Historical Society).
802 of 821
13 Joseph W. Post Ranch House Lat, Lon: 36.22914762976443, -121.76446105686702 The homestead ranch owned by the Post family was located four miles south of Big Sur on Highway 1 on Post Summit, a prominent peak with a plateau below where the Post Family built their homestead. The plateau’s flat arable land was rare in the rugged Big Sur terrain. Joseph W.
Post, the youngest son of William B. Post, played a pivotal role in consolidating and securing the family’s legacy. He purchased the claims of both his and his wife’s families, accumulating nearly 1,500 acres. Joe and his wife Elizabeth Gilkey not only managed the family ranch but also acquired additional property in the Big Sur wilderness area.
Located at the terminus of the original coast trail from Monterey, the Post homestead was the communication hub for the early Big Sur community. For many years, W.B. Post personally carried mail from Monterey back to his neighbors in Big Sur. In 1889, the Post family home became region’s first continuously operating post office; the official name for this stop was simply “Posts.” The Massive Soberanes Fire (2016) threatened the Post Ranch house. Firefighters established defensive lines around the historic property; it survived despite the fire burning large swaths of the surrounding Post Ranch Property.
The National Register of Historic Places highlights the home’s vital role in Big Sur’s early development, noting that its position at the end of the Monterey coast trail provided a critical gateway to the Big Sur frontier. For isolated 19th-century settlers, the Post homestead served not only as the region’s first post office but as a vital lifeline to the outside world. It was a primary gathering point where pioneers kept pace with national news and utilized mail-order catalogs to secure tools and supplies otherwise unavailable in the rugged coastal wilderness. 803 of 821
14 William Keys was working in the Desert
Queen Mine as a supervisor. In 1917, he
obtained the mill site and the mine as back
payment for wages. Keys officially
homesteaded the property in 1917-1919
and constructed a 12’ x 14’ frame cabin as
one of the “improvements” needed to
satisfy the Homestead Act of 1862. This
small, one-room “dwelling” became the
core of what would eventually expand into
the sprawling, two-story ranch house seen
today.
Keys Desert Queen Ranch Twentynine Palms, San Bernardino County, CA William Keys Ranch Homestead’s first two patents were for 80 acres (Sep. 20, 1917) and then 80 more acres (3 Nov 1919). The historic homestead is located in Joshua Tree National Park.
The original “Ranch House” was a small 12’ x 14’ cabin that eventually grew to a two-story structure with wood framing and a gable roof. Other homestead improvements (part of “proving up”) included corrals, machine and blacksmith shops, dams and cisterns, and a school house.
The Keys homestead house is part of the Keys Ranch Historic District, 880 acres of federally protected land in Joshua Tree National Park. The homestead complex is one of the three properties listed on the National Register.
The homestead is of local significance for its association with the William F. Keys family and their influence in agriculture and industry in the Mojave Desert. It was registered as a California state historical resource on Sep. 13, 1974, and was added to the National Register of Historic Places on Oct. 30, 1975.
The main homestead complex acts as an outdoor museum showing how homesteaders thrived in the desert. The property is significant as an expression of farming, mining, and homesteading patterns particular to this desert region.
The Keys Ranch Historic District is maintained by the National Park Service as a “cultural landscape” that preserves human modification and historic artifacts.
The site has limited accessibility and is only open to the public as a 90-minute guided walking tour led by rangers (only offered October through May).
Additional
Information
Although the ranch is located in a remote, rocky canyon, the homestead has access to natural water resources which the Keys family expanded by constructing a multi-dam system and a series of reservoirs and windmills. Despite limited tools, Bill Keys was a master at working the local stone to create precise, durable stone blocks for his dam walls; he used old mining equipment, car parts, and hand-mixed concrete to reinforce his structures.
Information for the Keys Desert Queen Ranch is located in the Bureau of Land Management, the application for the National Register of Historic Places, federal census records, county land and tax records, archival documents and photographs managed by the National Park Service, well as in a biography, William F. Keys Joshua Tree National Park by Thomas Crochetiere. 804 of 821
15 Keys Ranch Lat, Lon: 34.04573473879585, -116.16909508157597 While the rest of the American West raced toward urbanization, the high deserts of California and the Southwest remained the final frontiers for homesteaders. As the aerial map illustrates, the Keys Ranch (within the yellow circle) was located in a rocky desert canyon where settlers were faced with the triple threat of scorching heat, scarce water, and extreme isolation.
Living for 60 years on the marginal fringes of the Mojave Desert, the Keys family maintained an “oldfashioned” existence, surviving through grueling manual labor, sheer grit, and a “waste not” policy.
By figuring out how to reuse old parts and not letting anything go to waste, Bill Keys and his family were able to transform a seemingly hostile wasteland into a prosperous ranch and mining operation.
The Keys Ranch Historic District features a collection of historic structures preserved in a “frozen-intime” state. The structures are considered “vernacular desert architecture and engineering,” meaning the buildings were created by everyday people, using local materials and intuitive designs to survive the desert climate.
The 29 structures include the main ranch house, three mining-style cabins and two shed-roof additions, the school house, a storehouse, guest houses, a machine shop, five ore mills, an adobe barn, an arrastra, tack shed, and the “Disney Shed” (a metal building that housed filming equipment).
Walt Dsney Studios filmed two episodes of Walt Disney Presents at the ranch, including the 1961 film The Wild Burro of the West (Bill Keys co-starred in the production).
The 1999 Quail Fire burned right to the edge of the ranch complex; firefighters prioritized the site, and though surrounding Joshua trees and brush were scorched, the historic buildings were saved. 805 of 821
16 Minnie Hill, the daughter of
homesteaders James and Rhoda Hill,
was born on Nov. 30, 1886 in the
original homestead “dwelling,” later
torn down to make room for a larger
home. Minnie lived in the historic
house most of her life, inheriting the
ranch and later selling the property to
the City of Los Angeles. As a condition
of the sale, Minnie had a “life estate”
allowing her to live rent-and-tax-free
for nearly two decades (until age 90).
Minnie Hill Palmer House Chatsworth, Los Angeles County, CA James and Rhoda Hill settled the 110-acre site in the San Fernando Valley in 1886; they received the patent for their homestead on Aug 15, 1901.
The original “dwelling” (required by the Homestead Act of 1862) was demolished in 1911 to make room for a newer, larger residence. The replacement house is a redwood Stick-Eastlake style of American Craftsman-Bungalow.
The replacement home (known as the Minnie Hill Palmer House) was built between 1911 and 1913; it retains architectural and historical characteristics that provide a sense of the 1911 era.
A small portion (1.3 acres of the original 110-acre homestead) has been preserved and is now in located in a city park, the Chatsworth Park South. The site is known as the “Homestead Acre.” The Minnie Hill Palmer House was designated as a “Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument” (1974) in honor of the pioneers who homesteaded the San Fernando Valley. The Palmer House warranted monument status based on “the part Ms. Palmer and her family played in the area’s history” and the “significant life cycle of Ms. Palmer at the property.” The house was listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 1979.
The Minnie Hill Palmer House is considered the “last remaining homestead cottage in the San Fernando Valley.” The house serves as the headquarters for the Chatsworth Historical Society, the conservators of the property since 1978.
Open to public: tours by appointment and on the first Sunday of the month; volunteers from the Chatsworth Historical Society conduct the tours.
Additional
Information
Owned by the City of Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation; maintained by the Chatsworth Historical Society as a museum and monument “to the pioneers who homesteaded the San Fernando Valley.” The Palmer House has become a popular location for weddings and private parties; the historic house is also rented as a movie location.
Information for the Minnie Hill Palmer House is located in the Bureau of Land Management, the application for the National Register of Historic Places, federal census records, county land and tax records, and the Chatworth Historical Society.
806 of 821
17 Minnie Hill Palmer House Lat, Lon: 34.260210720413184, -118.61529138800154 The Minnie Hill Palmer House is located in Chatsworth Park South, a city-owned park in Los Angeles.
The house and 1.3-acre site (known as the “Homestead Acre”) is designated as Los Angeles HistoricCultural Monument #133.
In 1935, Minnie Hill Palmer sold the ranch but retained a “life tenancy” on the Homestead Acre. This allowed her to live rent- and tax-free for over twenty years in the home where she was raised.
During this time, she maintained a true pioneer lifestyle, completing tasks such as daily tending her garden with a hand plow and annually canning over 300 jars of jelly.
Minnie’s tenacity was best displayed during the 1970 fires when she refused to evacuate, working alongside firefighters to save her historic home. She was not around to fight the 2018 Woolsey fire, but her home was spared from the flames that scorched the surrounding parklands.
Today, the 1.3-acre site in Chatworth Park South is the last remaining homestead in the San Fernando Valley, representing the original 230-acre Hill Family Ranch. Because the Park serves as the eastern border for the State Historic Park, the Palmer House acts as a gateway to the 670-acre Santa Susana Pass State Historic Park; visitors can actually enter the State Park through trails starting near the homestead.
807 of 821
18 Located on Sage Canyon Road, the historic Nichelini
Winery has been in operation since 1890, holding the
title of “Napa County’s oldest continuously familyowned winery.” Founded by Swiss settler Anton Nichelini, the estate spans 540 acres, featuring 75
acres of vineyards. The property is listed on the
National Register of Historic Places with the
homestead “dwelling” (a fully restored 12’ x 14’
redwood cabin) listed as a “contributing resource.”
Nichelini Homestead Cabin St. Helena, Napa County, CA
Anton Nichelini homesteaded a 160-acre tract of wilderness in Chiles Valley in what was considered a “a rugged wilderness” at the time. The patent was issued on Feb. 8, 1892.
The homestead cabin, built in 1886 as the initial home for the Nichelini family, was exactly 12’ by 14’, matching the requirement for a “dwelling” under the Homestead Act of 1862.
In 1895, the Nichelinis built the secondary home, the “Great House,” to meet the needs of their growing family. The two-story, seven-bedroom house and the hand-hewn stone winery form the broader Nichelini Winery complex. Still standing in front of the cellar is the massive wooden lever wine press used continuously in the family winery from 1895 to 1955.
During Prohibition, the Nichelini homestead cabin served as a secret site for illegal wine production. In 1923, Anton Nichelini received a warning and a fine for the illegal sales of his wine. In the following year, he was arrested during a 1924 federal raid and sentenced to the St. Helena jail. In a curious turn of events, Nichelini served his time only on weekends. This allowed him to maintain the winery during the week where, despite his arrest, he continued to produce and deliver wine from the little homestead cabin until the end of Prohibition.
The homestead dwelling underwent a major reconstruction and restoration in 2015 to restore it to its original 19th-century appearance (the project used original materials and followed historical architectural standards to preserve the cabin’s authenticity).
In 2015, the cabin was added as a “contributing resource” to the winery’s placement on the National Register of Historic Places. The historic homestead cabin was also listed on the Napa Valley Historical Society’s “10 Treasures” list in 2014. The small homestead cabin is considered a rare, surviving example of an original homestead dwelling.
Visitors to the winery can view the historic buildings including the original cabin (1886) and the “Great House” and winery (1895).
Additional
Information
An amendment was submitted to the National Register of Historic Places in 2014 to highlight the cabin’s unique architecture and the 1862 Homestead Act’s “proving up” process.
Information for the Nichelini Homestead Cabin is located in Bureau of Land Management records, the winery’s application for the National Register of Historic Places, federal court records, documents held by the St. Helena Historical Society, in family records, and local news reports (detailing the 1924 federal raid and sentencing).
808 of 821
19 Nichelini Homestead Cabin Lat, Lon: 38.49857042318783, -122.29335518300373 In 1884, Anton Nichelini arrived in Chiles Valley on horseback to homestead a 160-acre tract of rugged wilderness, converting about 30 acres into vineyards. While proving up his claim, Nichelini lived in the small redwood “dwelling.” Originally situated on a steep hillside along Sage Canyon Road, the cabin was moved after 1895 to its current location to be closer to the new family home, the “Great House.”
Construction on the hand-hewn stone winery began in 1890, using locally quarried rock hauled in by Italian miners. Inspired by Anton’s original home in the Ticino region of Switzerland, the cellar was built into the hillside to maintain the constant year-round temperature needed for aging wine.
To accommodate his growing family—which eventually numbered twelve children—Nichelini constructed the “Great House.” Completed in 1895, the two-story, Greek revival-style home was built on top of his wine cellar. In a practical yet unique architectural touch, Nichelini installed a small trapdoor in the floor, allowing him to drop wine bottles straight into the cellar to keep them chilled.
No longer a private residence, both floors of the Great House serve as areas for wine tasting. Because the original homestead cabin sits on a steep, less accessible hill, a replica cabin was built to show visitors how the family lived when they first settled the land.
The historic Nichelini property, now managed by the family’s sixth generation, has remained standing for over 130 years despite recurring wildfire threats since 2017. While the structures were successfully defended on multiple occasions, the winery faced a critical threat during the 2020 Hennessy Fire when flames advanced to within feet of the buildings. Today, the intact winey encompasses 540 acres with thirteen blocks of vines; twelve blocks are named for the Nichelini children and the thirteenth for Anton himself.
809 of 821
20 Surviving the Great Eliminators
While each of these sixteen homes possesses its own history, they share a common, invisible trait:
they are the only ones to have survived a century-long culling process. Their presence today is not the result of traditional preservation but rather a stubborn endurance against a persistent landscape designed to destroy them.
Under the Homestead Act of 1862, 66,738 homesteaders successfully “proved up” their claims, yet most of the dwellings they built have since disappeared. Historic records reveal the “Great Eliminators” responsible for this erasure: demolition and fire. For four of our survivors, escape required physical relocation. Though moving a building is rarely the preferred preservation method, it was the only way to rescue these structures from the path of the developers:
• The Hodgdon Log Cabin found a new home at the Yosemite’s History Center, an outdoor museum of historic places located in Wawona.
• The Nelson Ranch House was preserved by moving it to Old Poway Park where it serves as a historic house museum.
• The Smith-Enos House now sits on the six-acre Enos Ranch Park alongside a Japanese Community Center.
• The Weber House was saved by its relocation to La Verne’s Heritage Park and sits adjacent to a historic orange orchard.
The other “Eliminator,” wildfire, has also taken down thousands of historic houses over the years.
Eight of the survivors on our list were threatened by fire but stood firm while other dwellings vanished in smoke. Here are the eight elite homes that won their battles with the Great Eliminator:
The Borges Ranch in Walnut Creek: the Morgan Fire (September 2013) Started by target shooting off Morgan Territory Road, the fire spread rapidly through roughly 3,100 acres of dry chaparral and timber. The wildfire moved through the Shell Ridge Open Space and reached withing striking distance of the ranch’s historic buildings. Firefighters established defensive lines around the historic ranch and were able to save it.
Bumann Ranch in Encinitas: the 1943 Fire (October 1943) As the fire raced through the property, it ignited two buildings but the main house and barns were saved. The ranch was unoccupied; Herman Bumann (the owner) was fighting in the military. Family members and neighbors rushed to the site, filling barrels with water and using wet gunny sacks to beat back the flames. Charred posts remain on the property today as a reminder of the event.
Joseph W. Post Ranch House in Big Sur: Threatened by three fires The Basin Complex Fire (June 21, 2008) The fire, caused by a lightning storm, eventually burned over 160,000 acres. Firefighters and staff at the Post Ranch Inn worked to defend the property as flames reached nearly ridge lines.
The Pfeiffer Fire (December 16, 2013) This late-season fire threatened the exclusive Post Ranch Inn and the historic ranch land nearby, destroying 17 homes in the vicinity.
The Soberanes Fire (July 22, 2016) One of the costliest fires in U.S. history, it burned for 83 days and consumed over 132,000 acres. Once again, flames did not reach the original Post family ranch house. 810 of 821
21 Keys Desert Queen Ranch in Joshua Tree National Park: the Quail Fire (May 1999) While the fire burned roughly 273 acres of park wilderness, it was located 2.5 miles northwest of the Keys View scenic overlook and did not reach the ranch structures.
Minnie Hill Palmer House: the Clampett Fire (September 25, 1970) Minnie Hill was born on the homestead and lived in the homestead house most of her life. When fires devastated the area in 1970, she refused to evacuate and fought alongside firefighters to save her historic cottage. Minnie was known for her “pioneer style” of living which she maintained well into her 90s: gardening with an antique hand plow and living with modern amenities like electricity until after World War II.
Nichelini Homestead Cabin in St. Helena: the Hennessey Fire (August 18, 2020) The original 1880s redwood homestead cabin was threatened but did not burn. Several family members stayed on-site to assist fire crews clear vegetation and establish fire breaks around the historic cabin.
Sikes Adobe Historic Farmstead in Escondido: the Witch Creek Fire (October 21, 2007) The Witch Creek Fire caused a near total loss of the Sikes Adobe Historic Farmstead in Escondido. The fire completely destroyed the wooden portions of the structure and severely compromised its adobe walls. Fallen adobe blocks were crushed, mixed with water, and reused to reinforce the surviving walls. Because the site had been meticulously documented during a 2002-2004 restoration, historians were able to use those records to guide a full reconstruction (completed in 2010).
The Egan Homestead House in Laguna Beach: (August 1916) Thanks to a family history written by Esther Egan, daughter of homesteaders Will and Bertie Egan, we know a great deal about the family and their struggle to save their home from the wildfire of 1916.
Here in her own words is the description of that memorable day.
A man burning brush let the fire get away and it spread over what is now Coast Royal and South Laguna. Only about four houses were there then, no fire department. We just had a cistern for water with a pump. Our dad had beehives up on a hill, and the fire burned the hives and bees, causing honey to run out and down the hill.
Our house was in danger of catching fire so our dad went up a ladder and Mother pumped water and handed buckets of water up to him. The roof did catch in spots, but it was saved.
Esther and I were told to stay inside and pray that God would keep us safe and not let the house burn. We also kept wet cloths over our mouths. That was something neither of us will ever forget. Small animals came out of the hills down to the house, hoping to find shelter.
Many of them with fur on fire. It was a terrible time. … Our house was surrounded by singed animals, even a deer which broke our hearts. To look out at all of the hills blackened was heartbreaking but we were so thankful.
Finally, when the house was safe, our dad set backfires and turned the fire from us, but everywhere you looked it was all black, no vegetation left. We had some pups at the time, and I went out and covered them up with wet gunny sacks, so they could breathe, and they were saved.
811 of 821
22 Next morning, several of our friends from Laguna came and expected to find us burned out and staying on the beach, but thanks to our Heavenly Father and the efforts of our parents, it turned out we were all right. Course there was much to be done to get back to “normal living.” It took years for the growth to come back on the hills and all the lovely wildflowers and ferns to reappear.
A newspaper interview of Bertie Egan was printed many years later in the South Coast News. She, too, remembered the fire, saying to her daughters, “I pumped bucketsful of water for your daddy to use on the roof. Whenever I glanced in the windows, I could see you two down on your knees praying. Your prayers certainly were answered, for the next morning everything around us was burned except our house.”
Like many survivors of fires, the family faced the hard work of restoring their homestead. From the little house they had saved, they started over, slowly regaining all that they had lost. Esther was right; It took a long time to get back to “normal living.” But that is what these pioneers did.
After the Great Eliminators did their worst, we were left with a scattered few survivors. To determine which of these remaining structures truly represent the era, we applied our Double Q Yardstick. This allows us to measure both the Quantity of survivors and the specific Quality traits that distinguish an original Homestead Act dwelling from other historic structures.
When it comes to proving that the Egan Homestead House is “rare,” The Great Eliminators have done most of the work for us. Few of the 66,738 homestead houses have survived. Now we need to narrow the field even further. Here’s where we can apply categorical filtering.
Historic Characteristics:
#1. Built under the Homestead Act of 1862
#2. Largely intact
#3. Still standing where it was built
#4. Built by the homesteader (using materials of the time) #5. Surrounding landscape looks like the homestead’s era, #6. The building changed but is still recognizable
#7. Heritage authorities have identified the house as important #8. The homesteader used innovative farming methods
#9. The building is considered “rare” in its county
#10. The house is open to the public
812 of 821
23 Categorical Filtering: Adding up the numbers
◊ Indicates a “Land-Link,” a feature showing a strong connection to the land and homestead era.
Our method is straightforward: the chart above lists our sixteen structures (including the Egan Homestead House) against a list of ten defining historical characteristics listed across the top. A checkmark means the trait is present; a blank box means the trait is missing. By totaling the number of marks, we applied a quantity filter to separate the “also-rans” from the true champions of the era.
The results reveal a clear hierarchy:
Gold Medal: Keys Ranch takes the Gold with a dominant ten checkmarks.
Silver Medal: A crowded podium (with nine checks each) featuring the Bumann, Post, Minnie Hill Palmer and Nichelini sites.
Bronze Medal: Borges Ranch, the Hodgdon Cabin, and the Egan Homestead round out the elite tier with eight checks each.
813 of 821
24 But wait. Rarity isn’t just about adding up the number of characteristics. It’s also about how much of the original essence remains in the structure. To define true rarity, we moved beyond simple checkmarks and developed a Quality Criteria—a 100-point weighted system.
Scoring Guide: The Quality Criteria
Foundation The Big Three: Origin, Evolution, Location (12 points each) #1 The house is the original “dwelling,” built as an “improvement” under the Homestead Act of 1862.
#2 (Vernacular Evolution) The historic house is largely intact, showing gradual changes over time to meet changing needs of the occupants. #3 (Original Location) The dwelling remains in situ on its original site either repurposed, as a standalone, or as part of a larger house.
Integrity (10 points each)
#4 (Materials and Workmanship) The dwelling utilizes character-defining building materials and embodies the workmanship of the pioneer builder.
#5 (Setting and “Land Link”) The environment surrounding or adjacent to the historic house preserves the character of the homestead’s era. In some cases, the property forms a link to open space ecosystems that echo the home’s original natural setting.
#6 (Association and Feeling) The evolved building stands frozen in time, providing a tangible connection to a specific moment in history. #7 (Threshold for Significance) The homestead house has met the threshold for significance (importance) set by local, state, or national heritage authorities. #8 (Period and Areas of Significance). Early and/or innovative agricultural techniques introduced and/or landscape modifications that contributed to the homestead’s success.
Extras (7 points each)
#9 (Acknowledged Importance) The California historic structure has been identified as the last remaining house of its type in its county or region. #10 (Public Benefit and Living History) The property is accessible to the public, offering “living history,” environmental education, or community programs that connect residents to the pioneer era.
Definitions have been expanded, and extra weight (points) has been assigned to the ten characteristics. 814 of 821
25 The Scoring Guide gives the most weight to the “Big Three” Foundation traits: Was it born of the 1862 Homestead Act? Has it evolved naturally? Is it still on its original site? This acknowledges the fact that some history is “heavier” or more important than others. While many houses are “old,” our winners must carry a high concentration of historical DNA.
“Integrity,” the second section of the scoring device, focuses on the Materials, Workmanship, Setting, Feeling, and Association of each of the historic houses. These ideas aren’t new; they are aspects of historic structures created by the National Park Service (the federal agency that manages the National Register of Historic Places). Integrity items #4 through #8 are defined in simple, everyday language. In some cases, an additional term has been added to provide more clarity:
Agricultural Technology (“Agri-Tech”) has been added in Integrity (item #8) to refocus attention on early, innovative agricultural techniques developed on the property (such as the multi-dam system and series of reservoirs and windmills on the Keys Ranch). “Land Link” is a modification that amplifies “Setting” (item #5). Here, we’re looking at homestead houses that have lost some of their land but have maintained a connection to an expansive wilderness that was the landscape of the pioneer era.
The chart below identifies Land Linked houses that have maintained a connection to an open-space wilderness—one that echoes the original landscape of the pioneer era. The homes still view the same landforms as they did a century ago; their adjacency to protected lands serves as a living bridge to their past.
815 of 821
26 Historic Property Connection to Open Space Acreage and Management ◊Borges Ranch Walnut Creek Open Space
(Embedded)
3,000 acres of protected wilderness
Managed by the Walnut Creek Open
Space Foundation
◊Egan Homestead House
Aliso and Wood Canyons
Wilderness Park (Abuts,
shares a boundary)
4,500 acres of protected wilderness
Managed by Orange County Parks;
(25 acres of the Egan Homestead are
now part of the Wilderness Park)
◊Joseph Post Ranch House
Ventana Wilderness in the
Los Padres National Forest
(Abuts, shares a boundary)
Over 240,000 acres
Managed by the U.S. Forest Service
◊Keys Ranch
Keys Ranch Historic District
(Embedded deep within the
Joshua National Park)
880 acres within the historic district
795,000 acres Joshua National Park;
Managed by the National Park Service
◊Minnie Hill Palmer House
Santa Susana Pass State
Historic Park (Adjacent) “acts
as a gateway”
671 acres
Managed by the California State Parks
(Angeles District)
◊Sikes Adobe Farmstead San Dieguito River Park
(Embedded)
92,000 acres
Managed by the San Dieguito River Park
Joint Powers Authority (JPA)
◊Walker Cabin
(located at the Placerita Canyon
Natural Area)
Placerita Canyon State Park
(Embedded) Once part of the
Walker family holdings.
Approximately 330-360 acres
Owned by the State of California;
Managed by the Los Angeles County
Department of Parks and Recreation
Rather than adjusting the scoring criteria, the seven premier Land-Linked houses are marked with a diamond (◊), a way to show their stronger connection to the land and to the homesteading era.
These houses (the Land Links) are the heavy hitters. They are houses that live on the edge of wilderness and still breathe the same air as the open space next door.
The Land Link category also features four other historic sites: the Bumann Ranch, the Hodgdon Homestead Cabin, the Nicholini Homestead Cabin, and the Weber House. Although these properties do not share the same elite Land Links status as the primary seven, they offer unique historical values—ranging from the Nicholini’s 600 untouched acres to the Weber House’s heritage orange grove.
While our eyes are drawn to the gaps in the scoring sheet, missing points for minor things such as public access or agricultural technology don’t weaken a home’s foundational core. In fact, a house that scores high Foundation traits (things like its original footprint and its vernacular evolution) carries far more historical weight than a perfectly restored museum piece that has been moved three times.
Looking at the Egan Homestead House Profile, the empty boxes are temporary gaps, a matter of timing, not a lack of merit. They have potential. The fact that the Egan House hasn’t yet been formally designated by a heritage authority or open to the public is simply because the community is only now catching up to its story. The home’s historic importance is an intrinsic quality; the Egan house has possessed it since 1907 when its first boards were nailed together. Official recognition will merely validate what the Foundation and Integrity scores have already shown. 816 of 821
27 Weighted Scoring: From Sixteen to One
Armed with the weighted standards, the Quality Criteria were applied and a ruthless process of elimination began. First, we filtered for lineage, keeping only those born of the Homestead Act. That cut eight candidates. Next, we hunted for the “first-born,” homes never replaced by “second houses,” removing two more survivors. Finally, we looked for the purists: houses still standing on their original footprints.
In three steps, our list of sixteen withered to just four: Bumann Ranch, the Joseph W. Post Ranch House, the Keys Desert Queen Ranch, and the Egan Homestead House. These are the elite—original buildings on original sites, defying the years by remaining exactly where they were formed.
If 66,738 historic houses entered the race and only four remain, we are looking at a fraction of a percent. The Egan House belongs to the 0.006% that didn’t decay, burn, or fall to the bulldozer.
But there is one final, ruthless filter: the legal requirement for farming government land.
The Homestead Act of 1862 was designed to cultivate an agrarian middle class through small family farms. Five years of residency was required along with proof that the homesteader had “cultivated a portion of the land” for agricultural crops. Cattle ranchers (like those at the Keys, Borges, Bumann, Post, and Hodgdon properties in our study), used the 1862 Act even though it didn’t fully meet their needs. Not until the Stock-Raising Homestead Act of 1916 was there land available “chiefly valuable for grazing.” Before then, ranchers scraped together whatever funds they could find; the 1862 Homestead Act was sometimes one source.
If we use the intent of the Act of 1862 and focus on small family farms, The Egan Homestead House suddenly stands alone. It is no longer one of a handful; it is the venerable survivor of one. 817 of 821
28 The Venerable Survivor: How Well Does It Score?
The Egan Homestead House started out as a “dwelling”
(a place where a homeowner lived) built as an
“improvement” under the Homestead Act of 1862.
It is largely intact, on its original site, part of a larger home.
The house was built by Will Egan using redwood
and was constructed in stages (at times when he could
afford the materials); the added-on look was typical of his work and created a readable sequence of his labor.
Phase 2 (original dwelling at left) before 1910
The Egan property abuts the Aliso and Wood
Canyons Wilderness Park, forming a Land Link with
the 4,500 acres of protected Wilderness. Roughly
25 acres of the original Egan Homestead is now
part of the Park.
in 1928, the evolved building stands “frozen in time,”
providing a tangible connection to a specific
time in the early 1900s pioneer farming era.
The historic Egan house has not been declared Phase 3 (original dwelling at left) after 1910 “significant” (important) by state or national heritage authorities. However, the Historic Resources Group
report (Nov 22, 2024) states that the structure qualifies for the National Register Criteria A and the California Register Criterion 1. It’s likely that the historic house will qualify in the future—if it’s still around.
Will Egan used dry-farming techniques and pioneered
a water irrigation system that utilized a 12-foot dam and a cistern, as well as a reservoir to store water for the farm’s thirsty crops. As an experienced beekeeper, Will Phase 4 (1928) introduced bees to the coastal environment to boost
crop yield and establish a secondary income.
The patent for Will Egan’s homestead was issued in
January 1910; his first child was born five months later.
The “gradual evolution” of the house had started.
In 1928, the final addition to the house was made, providing a second bedroom. The cottage was unified in design by
board and batten siding and a new roof structure with
exposed rafter tails. The house has been identified as the last remaining homestead house In Orange County.
2014
818 of 821
29 More than a House:
In the end, our "Double Q" yardstick reveals a truth far deeper than a spreadsheet tally. The Egan Homestead House has achieved the statistically impossible, surviving a century-long culling process that claimed nearly every other structure of its kind. Today, it stands as the 0.006%—the lone survivor of a pioneer farming era that once defined the California coast before it vanished under urban sprawl.
Though 66,738 homesteads fell to fire, decay, or the wrecking ball, the Egan house remains. This scarcity is rooted in its unique “Land Link.” By sitting on its original 1907 footprint, the house serves as a living anchor between today’s modern community and the 4,500-acre wilderness beyond. It remains the final, solitary observer of the same canyon light and rugged ridgeline that Will Egan saw when he first broke ground.
The Egans built more than a house; they built a legacy. Through backbreaking labor and the refusal to abandon their dream, they represent the resilient homesteaders who bent the wild, coastal frontier to their will. Preserving this 119-year-old home is more than an act of nostalgia, it is a way to connect the community to its historic past and provide a powerful inspiration for generations to come. Who among us would destroy this “venerable survivor” and the life lessons it has yet to tell? 819 of 821
May 11, 2026
Mayor Mark Orgill
City Council
Laguna Beach, CA
[email protected]
re: Agenda Item A, Egan Homestead, 31526 Valido Road
To the Mayor and City Council:
Preserve Orange County strongly supports the recognition of 31526 Valido Road as a significant resource representing a key aspect of Laguna Beach’s history.
We are a county-wide organization promoting conservation of our county’s architectural and cultural heritage. Laguna Beach’s history is an important component of our County’s character that continues to attract tourists, residents, and underpins our economic vitality.
Nonetheless, this character is easily lost if not protected.
We understand that you have received reports from experts that argue both for and against the Egan Homestead’s historic significance. We firmly agree with the conclusion of Historic Resources Group (HRG), and historian Francesca Smith; if we may offer a suggestion to weigh these opposing opinions, we offer two salient points for consideration:
1) This 1909 structure clearly embodies its original modest character (so distinct from most twenty-first century structures) that relates to Laguna’s modest cottages that historically established the simplicity, rusticity and art-colony character that still gives the city the charming appearance that draws residents and tourists to live and visit there. 2) Set next to and looking out on 180 degree views of Aliso and Woods Canyon Wilderness Area, the house still retains the integrity of its original 40 acre homestead setting. This open space is preserved in perpetuity, so the house’s character-defining relation to its open space site still exists.
1 Preserve Orange County 615 N. Bush Street, #145 Santa Ana, California 92702 www.preserveorangecounty.org [email protected]
820 of 821
These two points affirm with certainty that the Egan Homestead embodies character defining features of Laguna Beach, historically and today: the original rusticity that drew people to this unique location, and its integral relation to the natural landscape of mountains, ranches, ocean. These need to be reaffirmed by recognizing it as a historic resource.
Thank you for your consideration of these ideas.
Sincerely,
Alan Hess
Board Chair
Preserve Orange County
cc:
[email protected]
[email protected]
2 Preserve Orange County 615 N. Bush Street, #145 Santa Ana, California 92702 www.preserveorangecounty.org [email protected]
821 of 821
STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date:
May 13, 2026
APPEAL
B
SUBJECT: 238 CHIQUITA STREET: PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DENIAL OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2026-0148 FOR A DETACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT IN THE R-2, RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY ZONE AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET, AND FINDING THAT
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DOES NOT APPLY TO
PROJECTS THAT ARE DISAPPROVED
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:
1. Conduct a Public Hearing, including receiving a staff report and taking public testimony and evidence relating to the consideration of Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148 and the California Environmental Quality Act; and
2. Adopt the Resolution titled, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL AND SUSTAINING THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD’S DENIAL OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2026-0148 FOR A DETACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT IN THE R-2, RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM
DENSITY ZONE, AND DETERMINING THAT THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DOES NOT APPLY TO PROJECTS THAT ARE DISAPPROVED ”, upholding the Design Review Board’s denial of Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148, and finding the denial of the Project exempt from CEQA.
SUMMARY OF THE MATTER
Jonathan Lukoff (“Applicant”), property owner of 238 Chiquita Street (the “Property”) (see aerial map included as Figure 1) applied for Coastal Development Permit (“CDP”) 2026-0148 for a detached accessory dwelling unit (“ADU”) with excess building site coverage (the “Project”).
On February 23, 2026, the Heritage Committee (“Committee”) held a public meeting to consider the Project and provide a recommendation to the Design Review Board (“Board”). The Committee evaluated the proposed design and received public testimony, which focused primarily on neighborhood compatibility, view impact concerns, the Property’s Mills Act contract1, and the Project’s compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (“SOIS”). Following discussion, the Committee voted 5-0 to recommend that the Board deny the Project based on incompatibility with the SOIS and a conflict with Section 3b of the Applicant’s Mills Act contract with the City. (The February 23, 2026 Transcript is attached as Attachment 2.)
1 A Mills Act contract requires a property owner to preserve, maintain, and where necessary restore the property and its characterdefining features. Further, it requires any and all changes to comply with applicable City regulations and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. The Mills Act contract is automatically renewed on an annual basis on March 24th. If the Mills Act contract is canceled due to the owner’s failure to comply with the terms of the contract, the owner shall pay a fee to the County Auditor a cancelation fee of 12.5% of the current fair market value of the property. 1 of 1108
APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026
On February 26, 2026, the Board held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Project. During the hearing, the Board evaluated the proposed design and received public testimony, which focused primarily on neighborhood compatibility, view impact concerns, the Property’s Mills Act contract, and the Project’s compliance with the SOIS. After considering all public testimony on the proposed Project and all documents and evidence submitted, the Board voted 4-0 (Bauta absent) to direct staff to revise the draft resolution presented with the staff report to reflect the additional reasons stated by the Board in support of the Project denial, and continued the public hearing to March 12, 2026. (The February 26, 2026 Staff Report, Plans, Public Comments, and Transcript are attached as Attachments 3 through 6, respectively.) Project revisions or possible modifications were not explored during this meeting as the Applicant vacated chambers midway through the Board’s deliberations.
On March 12, 2026, the Board considered the revised draft Resolution. The Board received public testimony from the Applicant’s attorney, contending that the denial of the application would be “legally problematic” and requesting that the Board remand the matter to the Community Development Director for ministerial processing. The Board also heard testimony from neighbors and their representatives encouraging the Board to adopt the resolution denying the Project. After considering all evidence and public testimony, the Board found that the draft resolution attached to the staff report accurately and completely incorporated the Board’s direction from the prior hearing and voted 3-0 (Bauta abstaining and Coveny absent) to adopt Resolution No. 2026-0148 to deny the Project (the “Board Denial”). (The March 12, 2026 Staff Report, Public Comments, Transcript, and Board-adopted Resolution No. 2026-0148 are attached as Attachments 11 through 14, respectively.)
On March 18, 2026, Edwin Keseil (the “Appellant”), the attorney representing the Applicant, filed a notice of appeal of the Board Denial (the “Appeal”) (Attachment 13). The Appellant contends that the Board’s denial is factually and legally unsupported, citing errors in the findings related to neighborhood compatibility and historic resource analysis. The Appeal further asserts that the project qualifies for ministerial approval under State ADU Law, that the City misapplied Coastal Act and Local Coastal Program standards, and that the application should be deemed complete under the Permit Streamlining Act. The Appellant also raises concerns regarding CEQA and alleges that the denial constitutes an unconstitutional taking. To facilitate the City Council’s consideration of this matter, this agenda report provides an overview of the City Council appeal procedures; the Board’s public hearings; and City staff’s responses to the Appellant’s contentions in the Appeal.
LBMC Section 25.05.070 requires certain forms of public notice for an appeal. Public notice was duly provided to consider the Appeal of the Project at the May 13, 2026 City Council meeting in accordance with LBMC Section 25.05.065. Notices were mailed to owners and occupants within a 300-foot and 100- foot radius of the Property, respectively, posted on the Property, and published in a newspaper of general circulation (Attachment 16).
CITY COUNCIL APPEAL PROCEDURES
A. Standards of Review
Pursuant to LBMC Section 25.05.070, all CDP decisions of the Board may be appealed to the City Council by the Applicant or any owner of property within 300 feet of the subject property. 2 of 1108
APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026
The City Council may uphold, reverse, or remand any appealed decision. (LBMC § 25.05.070(E)(3)(a).) In particular, in reversing a decision, there must be three affirmative votes approving the reversal by adoption of a resolution that sets forth in writing the findings relied on to conclude that the appealed decision was in error or an abuse of discretion.3 (LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(3)(a).) In upholding a decision, the City Council may also choose to “modify the proposed project or conditions of project approval, by making them more restrictive or may add more restrictive conditions of approval upon the adoption of a resolution and without the need for a finding of error or an abuse of discretion.” (LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(3)(b).) Further, pursuant to LBMC § 25.05.070(E)(2)(d), the City Council’s review is limited to “the plans that were the subject of the decision or determination by the approval authority”; if new plans are submitted, the City Council “shall not consider or act on” them but may determine to remand those plans to the approval authority “for further proceedings pursuant to such direction as may be given the City Council.”
1. Coastal Development Permit and CEQA
LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(1) sets forth the procedures and review criteria for non-design review appeals, such as a coastal development permit and CEQA. For that review, the City Council shall not be limited to the grounds stated for the appeal and shall not be limited to the evidence that was presented to the Board.
The City Council shall exercise its independent judgment and discretion as to the evidence presented at its hearing. Nevertheless, there shall be a presumption that the decision or determination made by the Board was reasonable, valid, and not an abuse of discretion; and the appellant shall have the burden of proof of demonstrating otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence presented.
In its consideration of the Board’s denial of CDP 2026-0148 and the finding that CEQA does not apply to projects that are disapproved, the City Council is not limited to either the evidence in the record or the deliberations of the Board. The Applicant or members of the public may present new evidence for the City Council’s consideration, and the City Council is free to deliberate without being limited to the Board’s findings – in other words, a de novo hearing.
2. City Council Options
The City Council has numerous options in consideration of this matter, which are listed below.
1. Adopt the attached Resolution upholding the Board Denial, and finding that CEQA does not apply to projects that are disapproved;
2. Direct staff to prepare and return at a future meeting with a Resolution overturning the Board Denial, with findings in support of overturning the Board Denial, approving the Project, and finding the Project categorically exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (New Construction), subject to conditions; and
3. Direct staff to prepare and return at a future meeting with a Resolution remanding CDP 2026-0148 to the Board, with findings in support of the remand and further direction to the Board, which may include direction to staff to initiate the preparation of an Initial Study pursuant to CEQA. 3 An abuse of discretion is defined as the following: (1) the City has "not proceeded in the manner required by law"; (2) the City "decision is not supported by the findings"; or (3) the "findings are not supported by the evidence." (Civil Code § 1094.5.) 3 of 1108
APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026
BACKGROUND
A. The State ADU Law
Under the “State ADU Law” (codified at Government Code § 66310, et seq.), an “ADU is defined to mean “an attached or a detached residential dwelling unit that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons and is located on a lot with a proposed or existing primary residence. . . .” (Gov. Code § 66313(a).) An ADU must contain “permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as the single-family or multifamily dwelling is or will be situated.” (Id.) A city is authorized to “provide for the creation of ADUs in areas zoned to allow single-family or multifamily dwelling residential use” by way of ordinance. (Gov. Code Section 66314.) Any ordinance governing the creation of an ADU must provide an approval process that includes only ministerial provisions for the approval of ADUs and must not include any discretionary processes, provisions, or requirements for those ADUs, except as otherwise allowed by the State ADU Law. (Gov. Code Section 66316.) A permit application for an ADU or JADU must be considered and approved ministerially without discretionary review or hearing. (Gov. Code Section 66317.) Notwithstanding the above provisions, the State ADU Law does not supersede or alter the application of the Coastal Act, except that a city is not required to hold a public hearing on coastal development permit applications for ADUs:
Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect of application of the Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code), except that the local government shall not be required to hold public hearings for coastal development permit applications for accessory dwelling units. (Gov. Code Section 66329 [emph. added].) Under this provision, and as discussed further below, the City imposes the provisions of its certified Local Coastal Program (“LCP”) as it relates to ADUs.
B. The City’s ADU Ordinance
In recent years, the Legislature has approved, and the Governor has signed into law, numerous bills that amended the State ADU Law to impose new limits on local authority to regulate accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units. Notwithstanding this legislation, as stated above, State ADU Law provides that it “shall not be construed to supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the Coastal Act of 1976. . . .” (Gov. Code § 66329.) The California Department of Housing and Community Development’s (“HCD”) ADU Handbook advises that State ADU Law applies in the coastal zone, but “do[es] not necessarily alter or lessen the effect or application of Coastal Act resource protection policies.” Accordingly, HCD opines, a local government could, for example, impose stricter setback or parking standards in the coastal zone “if required by a local [c]oastal [p]rogram.” (HCD’s July 2022 ADU Handbook, at pgs. 15-16, 27-28.)5
5 HCD’s ADU Handbook is authorized by Gov. Code § 66327, which provides that HCD may “review, adopt, amend, or repeal guidelines to implement uniform standards or criteria that supplement or clarify the terms, references, and standards set forth in this section.” The ADU Handbook is available at the following location:
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-07/ADUHandbookUpdate.pdf 4 of 1108
APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026
The City’s regulations governing the approval of ADUs and JADUs are provided in the City’s LCP, specifically Chapter 25.17 (Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units) of Title 25 (Zoning) of the Laguna Beach Municipal Code. On November 16, 2021, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1665, which identified self-contained accessory dwelling units as subject to the coastal development permit application process. On September 7, 2023 LCP5-LGB-22-0003-3 Part B (Coastal Development Permits) was certified by the Coastal Commission. The City updated Chapter 25.17 to comply with State ADU Law via LCP Amendment No. 21-8239, which was certified by the Coastal Commission on September 7, 2023.
In 2024, the California Legislature approved, and the Governor signed into law, Assembly Bill 2533 (“AB 2533”) and Senate Bill 1211 (“SB 1211”), which further amended State ADU Law and came into effect on January 1, 2025. Below is an overview of the City Council’s most recent actions relating to its requirements for ADUs and JADUs, in part, in response to AB 2533 and SB 1211:
• On December 10, 2024, the City Council found that there was a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare and adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 1707. • On January 14, 2025, the City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 1709 extending Urgency Ordinance No. 1707 and implementing certain modifications to Chapter 25.17 and directed staff to consider additional modifications.
• On March 11, 2025, the City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 1713, implementing additional minor modifications to Chapter 25.17.
• On March 25, 2025, the City adopted non-urgency Ordinance No. 1715 to mirror the ADU and JADU requirements reflected in Urgency Ordinance No. 1713. The City also submitted Ordinance No. 1715 to the Coastal Commission for certification.
Based on the number of pending ADU applications (approximately 24 as of December 10, 2024) within the City, the City implemented a policy that applications filed before 5:00 p.m. on December 10, 2024 are subject to the objective design standards and Coastal Act implementing standards in effect under LCP Amendment No. 21-8239 and applications filed after December 10, 2024 are subject to the objective design standards and Coastal Act implementing standards in effect under the City’s existing urgency ordinance.7 Accordingly, LCP Amendment No. 21-8329 applies to this Project as it was filed before 5:00 pm on December 10, 2024.
B. The City’s Coastal Development Permits Ordinance
In order to approve a CDP, the reviewing body must find that the project is in conformity with all the applicable provisions of the certified local coastal program (LBMC Section 25.07.012(F)) and thereafter make the requisite findings (LBMC Section 25.07.012(G)). Amongst other things, this requires findings that the “proposed development will not adversely affect . . . coastal scenic resources and that the proposed development will be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas.” (LBMC Section
25.07.012(F) (3) and (6), CDP Finding 1, Criteria No. 3.) 7 On April 8, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution 25.020 ratifying this policy. 5 of 1108
APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026
While a CDP that is the sole required entitlement may be approved or denied by the Director (LBMC Section 25.07.012(D)(1)), the Project was appropriately reviewed by the Board due to the proposed building site coverage exceeding the maximum permitted. Pursuant to LBMC Section 25.12.008(C)(9), lots improved with one single-family dwelling are subject to maximum building site coverage standards, and “[t]he building site coverage may be modified by the design review board when it is necessary to preserve views or to maintain neighborhood development patterns.” Because the proposed ADU resulted in the building site coverage exceeding the maximum, Board consideration was required to evaluate whether such excess could be supported through the necessary findings related to view preservation and neighborhood compatibility.
Accordingly, the Board was the appropriate reviewing authority for the Project.
DISCUSSION
The Board held a public hearing on February 26, 2026 and directed staff to amend the draft resolution presented with the staff report to reflect the additional reasons stated by the Board in support of the Project denial. On March 12, 2026, the Board adopted Resolution No. 2026-0148 to deny the Project. A summary of the Public hearings is set forth below.9
A. February 23, 2026 Heritage Committee Hearing
1. Staff Presentation
Staff summarized the Project history and proposed construction of a 799-square-foot, two-story detached ADU located in front of a historic residence subject to an active Mills Act contract. Staff explained that while the Project complies with objective ADU development standards, including height, setbacks, and maximum size, it requires a CDP and Board consideration due to excess building site coverage.
Staff outlined the Project’s evolution through multiple design iterations and noted differing historic evaluations, explaining that the Applicant’s consultant (Sapphos) found the Project consistent with the SOIS. Staff further clarified that the City’s consultant (HRG) was initially retained to peer review the Sapphos analysis and later to evaluate the revised design, who concluded that the proposed ADU would adversely impact the historic resource by impairing its visibility and spatial relationship to the site. Staff stated that HRG reaffirmed this conclusion for the current design.
Staff further explained that although the project is not subject to full design review, the Board must make findings to allow increased building site coverage, specifically related to preservation of views and neighborhood compatibility. Staff noted that a staking plan was requested to evaluate visual impacts, but the Applicant declined to provide one. Staff indicated that the item was being brought forward for Heritage Committee recommendation and subsequent Board action.
9 The summaries and charts within this staff report are not exhaustive of all commentary or deliberations, but are intended to be a tool to aid the City Council in its review of the evidence. 6 of 1108
APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026
2. Public Testimony
During the public hearing, two individuals provided public testimony. The Applicant was not present for this meeting. The public testimony is summarized below:
Commenter Summary of Comment Transcript
[Attachment 2]
Page Nos.
Mark Lewis He stated opposition to the proposed ADU, citing impacts to private views, light, and air from the adjacent property at 248 Chiquita Street.
He stated that prior approvals for expansions to the existing residence were understood to represent the maximum development potential of the site, and he argued that the current proposal constitutes an overintensification of the property. He raised concerns regarding the scale, massing, and forward placement of the ADU, asserting that it would obstruct both private and public views, including views of the ocean and the historic residence from the public right-of-way. He further contended that the proposed structure was incompatible with the historic character of the property and surrounding neighborhood.
Pg. 5-6 of 16
Melanie Lewis She stated opposition to the proposed ADU, emphasizing the importance of preserving the unique character of Laguna Beach, including view, light, and open space. She stated that the proposed structure would significantly impact the only available view corridor from her property, resulting in loss of light, air, and ocean views. She raised concerns regarding the scale and placement of the ADU, asserting that it would negatively affect both private and public views and diminish neighborhood character. She further emphasized the value of maintaining existing community patterns and respecting neighboring properties, noting the long-term residency and collective efforts within the neighborhood to preserve views and compatibility.
Pg. 6-7 of 16
3. Committee Questions and Responses
Topic Question and Response Transcript
[Attachment
2] Page Nos.
[Commenter]
Project Processing
and Background
Staff explained that the Applicant initially sought guidance in 2022–2023 and obtained a historic assessment from Sapphos supporting the Project. The City subsequently retained Historic Resources Group (HRG), which reached the opposite
conclusion. The current proposal represents the third design iteration. The Project required Board consideration due to excess building site coverage and must be acted upon within statutory timeframes under State ADU law. Staff confirmed that staking was requested but the Applicant declined to provide it. The City pg. 3-5 of 16
[Henry, Jurca]
7 of 1108
APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026
proceeded with noticing the Project in order to continue processing within required timelines.
Zoning and Code
Applicability
Staff clarified that the application was submitted on November 8, 2024, and was therefore subject to the ADU regulations in effect at that time, prior to the adoption of the urgency ordinances.
pg. 2 of 16
[Henry]
Parking
Reconfiguration
Staff indicated that while the parking configuration changes, the driveway access itself was not substantially altered in a way that independently triggers Design Review. Staff explained that the existing garage would no longer function as a garage due to changes in access and would instead be used for storage. pg. 1-2 of 16
[Henry]
ADU
Categorization
Staff confirmed that the ADU was considered a detached
structure.
pg. 2-3 of 16
[Henry]
Project Compliance Staff confirmed that the project met objective ADU standards for height, setbacks, and size. However, the project exceeded allowable building site coverage and raised concerns regarding impacts to the historic resource based on HRG’s analysis. Staff explained that Board approval was required solely due to the excess building site coverage. The Board would need to
determine whether such modification is appropriate to preserve views and maintain neighborhood compatibility.
pg. 9-10 of 16
[Henry]
CDP
Considerations
Staff clarified that CDP findings focus on impacts to public views from public rights-of-way and impacts to publicly visible historic resources, rather than private views. Staff explained that private view impacts are not a basis for denial. However, impacts to public views and the visibility of the historic resource are valid considerations. Staff indicated that if the building site coverage was not being exceeded, the project could potentially be processed through a simplified CDP process.
pg. 9-10 of 16
[Henry]
Jurisdiction and
Process
Staff stated that because the property was subject to a Mills Act contract and was a designated historic resource, the Heritage Committee would still provide a recommendation to the
decision-maker, even if the Board was not the approval
authority. Staff clarified that since this is an ADU within the Coastal Zone, this project involved discretionary review due to the Coastal Development Permit, historic resource
considerations, and the building site coverage exception.
Pg.11-12 of 16
[Jurca]
Staff
Recommendation
Staff clarified that it was recommending that the Board deny the project.
Pg. 4 of 16
[Jurca]
8 of 1108
APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026
4. Committee Deliberation
Topic Discussion Transcript
[Attachment
2] Page Nos.
[Commenter]
Incompatibility
with Historic
Resource and
Site Constraints
The Committee stated that while ADUs may be appropriate on some historic properties, the subject site cannot accommodate an ADU without compromising the historic residence. They
emphasized that the proposed location, massing, and two-story design would obscure the primary elevation and disrupt the spatial relationship between the structure and the street, which were key character-defining features.
Pgs. 7-9 of 16
(Henry,
Morgenlander,
Jurca,
Drucker,
Stordahl)
Impacts to
Public Views
and Mills Act
Intent
Raised concerns that the project would obstruct public views of both the historic resource and coastal views, undermining the public benefit associated with the Mills Act contract. Noted that preservation of visibility from the public right-of-way was integral to maintaining the historic character of the property.
Pgs. 7-9 of 16
(Henry,
Morgenlander,
Jurca,
Drucker,
Stordahl)
NonCompliance
with Historic
Preservation
Standards
Concurred with the City’s historic consultant (HRG) that the project did not comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, particularly those related to preserving spatial relationships and avoiding obstruction of historic resources. Also expressed concern that the Applicant’s historic analysis was incomplete and did not adequately identify character-defining features.
Pgs. 7-9 of 16
(Henry,
Morgenlander,
Jurca,
Drucker,
Stordahl)
Neighborhood
Compatibility
and Prior
Development
Context
Noted that the project would negatively affect surrounding properties through impacts to views, light, and neighborhood character, and referenced prior approvals indicating that the property may have already reached its maximum development potential.
Pgs. 7-9 of 16
(Henry,
Morgenlander,
Jurca,
Drucker,
Stordahl)
Unanimous
Opposition
Expressed unanimous opposition to the proposed project, concluding that it was fundamentally incompatible with the site, the historic resource, and applicable preservation standards.
Pgs. 7-9 of 16
(Henry,
Morgenlander,
Jurca,
Drucker,
Stordahl)
5. Committee Recommendation
Following the close of the public hearing, the Heritage Committee recommended denial of the Project to the Board based on incompatibility with Secretary of the Interior Standards 2 and 9 and a conflict with Mills Act Section 3b with a unanimous vote (5-0).
9 of 1108
APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026
B. February 26, 2026 Board Hearing
6. Staff Report
The subject property is developed with a 2,499-square-foot, two-story single-family residence constructed in 1925 and designated on the City’s Historic Register and is subject to a Mills Act contract. The approximately 4,500-square-foot lot is located in the R-2 (Medium Density Residential) zone within the Coastal Zone and is characterized by a deep front setback of approximately 50 feet from Chiquita Street.
The Applicant proposes to construct a new 799-square-foot, two-story detached ADU with an integrated carport located between the historic residence and the public right-of-way, resulting in total building site coverage of approximately 48 percent, exceeding the maximum allowable 42.88 percent.
Figure 1: Aerial View of Project Site
10 of 1108
APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026
Figure 2: Site Photo
Figure 3: Context Elevation, with the proposed ADU shaded blue and the historic residence in the background
11 of 1108
APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026
7. Staff Presentation
Staff summarized the project history and proposed development of a new 799-square-foot, two-story detached ADU located on a property developed with a designated historic residence subject to a Mills Act contract. Staff identified key issues for the Board’s consideration, including the project’s inconsistency with required CDP findings, exceedance of allowable building site coverage, and potential impacts to coastal scenic resources, neighborhood compatibility, and the integrity and visual setting of the historic resource.
Staff discussed the historic analysis prepared for the project, noting conflicting conclusions between the Applicant’s consultant and the City’s peer review consultant (HRG), and highlighted the HRG determination that the proposed ADU does not comply with the SOIS due to its siting and resulting view obstruction of the historic residence from the public right-of-way. Staff further noted that the proposed development would result in building site coverage exceeding the maximum allowed and that the required findings to permit such modification could not be made.
Staff acknowledged public comments received prior to the hearing, which raised concerns related to view impacts, neighborhood compatibility, and historic resource preservation. Staff also noted that the Heritage Committee recommended denial of the project. Based on the foregoing, staff recommended that the Board adopt a resolution denying Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148.
8. Board Ex Parte Disclosures
Board
Member
Ex Parte Disclosure Transcript
Page Nos.
MJ Coveny Met with the applicant and visited the subject property. p. 1 of 16 Jessica
Gannon
Visited the site. p. 1 of 16
Thomas
Gibbs
Visited the site and met with Mark and Melanie Lewis p. 1 of 16 Louis Weil Visited the site. p. 1 of 16
Imer Bauta Absent
9. Applicant Presentation
Jonathan Lukoff, property owner and Applicant, provided an overview of the project and responded to issues raised in the staff report. The Applicant stated that the Project had been revised over several years in response to City feedback and asserted that he had made substantial efforts to comply with applicable requirements. The Applicant emphasized that the proposed ADU is modest in size at 799 square feet and is consistent with State ADU law, which he believes requires ministerial approval of the Project.
The Applicant discussed the historic analyses prepared for the project, noting that his retained consultant, Sapphos Environmental, concluded that the proposed ADU complies with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. The Applicant expressed disagreement with the peer review conclusions in the HRG report, stating that the analysis relies on qualitative assessments of views and massing rather than objective standards. The Applicant asserted that the proposed design preserves a majority of views of the historic 12 of 1108
APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026
residence and that portions of the existing structure, particularly the lower level, are not original to the historic resource.
The Applicant further stated that the property is located in the R-2 zone and is a buildable lot, and that construction of a secondary structure in the front portion of the Property is consistent with development patterns along the street. The Applicant indicated that the Project had been reduced in size from earlier iterations and described the current proposal as a one-bedroom, two-story structure designed to minimize impacts while maintaining development rights. The Applicant also expressed concerns regarding the review process, including differing direction provided by staff and consultants, and characterized the siting constraints as conflicting.
In conclusion, the Applicant requested that the Board approve the Project or allow modifications to the siting of the ADU, including potential placement within the front setback area, in order to comply with State law while addressing concerns related to views and historic resource impacts. (Attachment 6 [Transcript], pgs. 3-4 of 16).
10. Public Testimony
During the public hearing, five individuals provided public testimony. The public testimony is summarized below:
Commenter Summary of Comment Transcript
[Attachment 6]
Page Nos.
Mark Lewis Expressed concerns that the proposed project is incompatible with the scale, character, and development pattern of the surrounding neighborhood, citing impacts to light, air, and views from adjacent properties. He stated that the property has previously undergone extensive review and development, resulting in an approved expansion that was understood to represent the maximum allowable development for the site, and asserted that the proposed ADU exceeds that capacity. He raised concerns regarding consistency with the property’s Mills Act contract and historic preservation requirements, noting that the proposed ADU would obscure key features of the historic residence and conflict with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, as identified in the historic consultant’s analysis. He referenced findings from prior and current historic reports indicating that the size, massing, and proximity of the ADU would block views of the residence from the public right-of-way and negatively affect its historic character. He further asserted that the proposed structure would obstruct public views, including views of the historic residence and coastal views along Chiquita Street, and would not be compatible with the existing neighborhood context due to its massing and placement. He concluded that the project represents overdevelopment of the site and urged denial of the application.
p. 5 of 16
13 of 1108
APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026
Melanie Lewis Expressed concerns that the proposed project is inconsistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and the City’s emphasis on preservation of historic resources, views, light, and open space.
She stated that these elements are defining features of the community and should be considered in evaluating the project’s impacts. She raised concerns regarding the project’s massing, height, and placement within the front portion of the lot, asserting that the proposed ADU would obstruct primary view corridors from adjacent properties, including ocean views, and reduce access to light and air.
She noted that the existing residence already limits views from neighboring properties, and that the proposed structure would further constrain those limited view corridors. She also expressed concerns regarding lack of coordination and communication with neighboring property owners during the project’s development, including the absence of story poles to accurately depict the project’s visual impacts. Finally, she emphasized the importance of maintaining neighborhood compatibility and minimizing impacts to adjacent properties, and urged that the project be denied or redesigned to better preserve views and neighborhood character.
p. 5-6 of 16
Ian Wolcott
(attorney
representing
owners of 245
Cajon St.)
Expressed support for denial of the project, stating that the proposal may be lawfully denied notwithstanding State ADU law due to applicable Coastal Act and Local Coastal Program requirements. He supported staff’s analysis regarding impacts to coastal scenic resources and asserted that the proposed ADU would obstruct public views of the coastline and surrounding hillsides from Chiquita Street and nearby vantage points, while noting that the absence of story poles limited the ability to fully assess visual impacts. He raised concerns that the project would substantially obscure public views of a designated historic residence subject to a Mills Act contract, asserting that the property owner has an obligation to preserve the historic resource in exchange for associated benefits. He referenced the Heritage Committee’s unanimous recommendation for denial and concurred with its findings regarding incompatibility with historic preservation standards. He also noted that the project exceeds allowable building site coverage and expressed concerns regarding resulting impacts to neighboring properties, including view obstruction and neighborhood compatibility. He urged the Board to uphold staff’s recommendation and consider the cumulative impacts identified in the record.
p. 6-7 of 16
Cliff Legalt Expressed concerns that the proposed project would be incompatible with the existing streetscape and neighborhood character, noting that the scale and appearance of development along Chiquita Street have remained largely consistent over time. He stated that the proposed ADU would introduce a level of massing and visual change that is p. 7 of 16
14 of 1108
APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026
inconsistent with the established pattern of development. He raised concerns regarding impacts to public views, asserting that the project would obstruct views of the ocean, including beach and sunset views, from the public right-of-way. He emphasized the importance of preserving the existing character and visual quality of the neighborhood and urged denial of the project.
Adam
Rochber
(HRG
representative)
Provided a summary of the historic analysis prepared by Historic Resources Group and stated that the subject property is a designated historic resource subject to a Mills Act contract, requiring a high level of compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. He indicated that the project was evaluated strictly against the applicable standards for new construction adjacent to historic resources. He stated that the proposed ADU does not comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, citing its location in front of the historic residence and resulting incompatibility with the property. He explained that the proposed siting would obscure the primary elevation of the historic structure from the public right-ofway and would adversely affect the spatial relationships that characterize the property, including its relationship to the street and surrounding neighborhood.
p. 7 of 16
11. Applicant Rebuttal
The Applicant acknowledged concerns regarding potential view impacts, stating that all development inherently affects views to some degree and asserting that the proposed ADU has been designed to minimize those impacts. He emphasized that the proposed structure is modest in scale relative to the existing residence, noting that the ADU is limited to 799 square feet and 16 feet in height, and stated that the design incorporates elevation changes and cantilevering to allow partial preservation of views from the public right-of-way.
He reiterated that the Property is located in the R-2 zone and is a buildable lot, asserting that State ADU law entitles him to construct an ADU of the proposed size and height. He expressed concerns regarding siting constraints imposed during the review process, stating that the required setbacks and differing direction from staff and consultants created conflicting requirements that limited feasible placement options for the structure. The Applicant did not address the Coastal Act savings clause noted above nor explain why he was somehow exempt from the requirements of the City’s LCP.
He further indicated that the Project design was intended to maintain required parking while minimizing impacts to the existing residence and surrounding properties. He stated that alternative siting, including placement within the front setback area, could better address view concerns and comply with State requirements. In conclusion, the Applicant requested approval of the project or direction regarding a feasible location on the site that would allow development consistent with applicable laws. (Attachment 6 [Transcript], pg. 8 of 16).
15 of 1108
APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026
12. Board Questions and Responses
Topic Question and Response Transcript
[Attachment
6] Page Nos.
[Commenter]
Historic
Restriction
Chair Pro Tem Gannon asked if for a heritage project like this, if it is a state law to not be able to build in front of the house.
Assistant City Attorney Patrick Donegan responded by saying the City does not hold the position that nothing can be built on the lot, but any application will have to go through the required process and will be held to contractual obligations laid out in the Mills Act contract.
pg. 8-9 of 16
[Gannon,
Donegan]
13. Board Deliberation
Topic Discussion Transcript
[Attachment
6] Page Nos.
[Commenter]
Coastal Act and
Local Coastal
Program
The Board determined that, notwithstanding State ADU law, the project is subject to the requirements of the California Coastal Act and the City’s certified Local Coastal Program (LCP), which require approval of a Coastal Development Permit. The Board found that the applicable standards and findings under the LCP govern the review of the project, including consistency with coastal resource protection policies, land use elements, and zoning provisions. pg. 9-12
[Gibbs, Weil,
Coveny, and
Gannon]
Visual
Compatibility
The Board found that the proposed ADU is not visually compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. The Board noted that development along the relevant portion of Chiquita Street is characterized by smaller-scale structures, with second-story elements generally set back from the street. The Board determined that the proposed two-story ADU, located in front of the existing residence, would introduce a level of massing and prominence that is inconsistent with the established development pattern and would be visually intrusive within the streetscape.
pg. 9-12
[Gibbs, Weil,
Coveny, and
Gannon]
Coastal Scenic
Resources
The Board found that the project would adversely affect coastal scenic resources. Specifically, the Board determined that the location and height of the proposed ADU would obstruct public views of the ocean from the public right-of-way, which are protected as coastal visual resources under the LCP. The Board further determined that the obstruction of these views constitutes an adverse impact under the applicable Coastal Development Permit criteria.
pg. 9-12
[Gibbs, Weil,
Coveny, and
Gannon]
16 of 1108
APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026
Historic
Resources and
SOIS
Compliance
The Board found that the project would adversely impact a designated historic resource and did not comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. The Board relied on the analysis prepared by the City’s historic consultant, which concluded that the proposed ADU would obscure the primary elevation of the historic residence from the public right-of-way and disrupt the spatial relationships that characterize the property. The Board determined that the placement of a new structure in front of the historic residence was incompatible with the applicable standards and would impair the integrity of the resource. pg. 9-12
[Gibbs, Weil,
Coveny, and
Gannon]
Consistency
with General
Plan and LCP
Policies
The Board found that the project was inconsistent with applicable General Plan and LCP policies, including Land Use Element Policy
2.2 and Open Space and Conservation Element Policy 12-C, which require preservation of historically significant structures and protection of their visual setting. The Board determined that the proposed ADU would not preserve the character-defining features of the historic residence and would alter the established relationship between the structure and the street.
pg. 9-12
[Gibbs, Weil,
Coveny, and
Gannon]
Mills Act
Contract
The Board noted that the property is subject to a Mills Act contract, which provides financial incentives in exchange for preservation of the historic resource. The Board determined that the proposed ADU, by obscuring the historic residence from the public right-of-way, would be inconsistent with the preservation obligations associated with the contract.
pg. 9-12
[Gibbs, Weil,
Coveny, and
Gannon]
Building Site
Coverage
The Board found that the proposed project exceeds the maximum allowable building site coverage and that the required findings to permit such modification could not be made. Specifically, the Board determined that the additional coverage does not serve to preserve views or maintain neighborhood development patterns, as required by the Municipal Code.
pg. 9-12
[Gibbs, Weil,
Coveny, and
Gannon]
CEQA The Board noted that denial of the project is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Board further noted that, even if the project were otherwise considered for approval, potential impacts to a historic resource would preclude reliance on a categorical exemption and would require further environmental review.
pg. 9-12
[Gibbs, Weil,
Coveny, and
Gannon]
Conclusion Based on the foregoing, the Design Review Board concluded that the project does not comply with the applicable provisions of the City’s certified Local Coastal Program and that the required findings for approval of a Coastal Development Permit cannot be made. The Board therefore directed denial of the project. pg. 9-12
[Gibbs, Weil,
Coveny, and
Gannon]
17 of 1108
APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026
14. Board Action
Following the close of the public hearing, the Board deliberated on the proposed Project and expressed consensus that the required CDP findings could not be made. Board members cited concerns related to visual compatibility, impacts to coastal scenic resources, inconsistency with applicable General Plan and Local Coastal Program policies, noncompliance with the SOIS, and exceedance of allowable building site coverage.
The Board discussed the applicable legal framework, including the relationship between State ADU law and the requirements of the Coastal Act and the City’s certified Local Coastal Program (“LCP”), and determined that the project is subject to discretionary CDP review. Board members also considered the historic designation of the property and associated Mills Act contract in evaluating the Project’s impacts.
Rather than taking final action on the resolution at the hearing, the Board voted 4-0 to direct staff to prepare a revised resolution of denial incorporating the findings and analysis discussed during deliberations. The Board continued the item to the March 12, 2026 meeting for consideration of the revised resolution on the consent calendar, without reopening the public hearing. (Attachment 6 [Transcript], pgs. 14-16 of 16.) C. March 12, 2026 Board Adoption of the Denial Resolution
1. Public Testimony
During the public hearing, three individuals provided public testimony. The public testimony is summarized below:
Commenter Summary of Comment Transcript
[Attachment 13]
Page Nos.
Edwin Kisiel Asserted that the draft resolution should be disapproved and the matter remanded for ministerial processing consistent with State ADU law, arguing that review by the Design Review Board was improper. He contended that the proposed ADU would result in only minor and non-significant public view impacts that do not meet the threshold for adverse effects under the Coastal Act, and that treating slight view obstruction as grounds for denial would unduly restrict development citywide. He further argued that the Board improperly classified the historic residence as a coastal scenic resource, stating that such resources are limited to ocean and hillside views under the Local Coastal Program. He also maintained that the application of the Mills Act in the Board’s analysis was legally flawed and does not constitute consent to a regulatory taking.
Pg. 1-2
Ian Wolcott
(attorney
representing
homeowners
Asserted that the Design Review Board had already conducted a thorough review of the project on February 26 and adopted detailed findings supporting denial, and that no new facts had been presented to warrant reconsideration. He stated that the applicant’s retention of legal counsel did not justify revisiting the p. 2
18 of 1108
APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026
of 245 Cajon
Street)
decision and that doing so would be inconsistent with the City’s procedural requirements. He emphasized that the appropriate remedy was to pursue a formal appeal rather than re-litigate the matter before the Board, and urged the Board to maintain the denial and proceed to the appeal process.
Melanie
Lewis
Expressed support for the Design Review Board’s prior decision to deny the proposed project, referencing previously submitted written and verbal testimony. She commended the Board’s thorough review and direction to staff in preparing the resolution, and supported adoption of the resolution memorializing the denial.
Pg. 2-3
2. Board Deliberation
Topic Discussion Transcript
[Attachment
13] Page Nos.
[Commenter]
Updated
Resolution No.
2026-0148
Stated that the purpose of the hearing was to confirm that the draft resolution accurately reflected the Board’s prior direction, finding that the resolution was well written, well reasoned, and consistent with the Board’s previous findings. They noted that recent comments and legal arguments largely reiterated issues already considered and were not persuasive. They concluded that the record, including the staff report and prior deliberations, sufficiently supported the Board’s decision, and expressed support for approving the resolution as presented.
Pgs. 3-4
[Gibbs,
Gannon, Weil]
3. Board Action
Following deliberation, the Board voted 3-0 (Bauta abstaining and Coveny absent) to adopt Resolution No. 2026-0148 denying CDP 2026-0148 and finding said action not subject to CEQA. Board Member Imer Bauta abstained due to his absence from the February 26, 2026 hearing.
RESPONSES TO ISSUES RAISED ON APPEAL
As noted above, the Appellant submitted an Appeal of the Board’s decision (Attachment 15). As indicated under Standards of Review, in the City Council’s review of non-design review appeals, such as a CDP and CEQA, the Council shall conduct a de novo review of the underlying application and shall not be limited to the grounds stated for the appeal, nor is the Council limited to the evidence that was presented to the Board. Accordingly, in its consideration of the Board’s denial of CDP 2026-0148, the Council is free to deliberate without being limited to the Board’s findings – in other words, a de novo hearing.
Below are the grounds for Appeal and City staff’s response:
1. “Neighborhood Compatibility Finding: The factual findings of the resolution regarding the neighborhood compatibility finding are flawed because they are woefully incomplete. The 19 of 1108
APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026
compatibility finding states, “Here, many of the homes along Chiquita are single-story structures (including 248 Chiquita St. directly to the north and 239 Chiquita St., directly across the street) or appear as a single-story from the street. A two-story ADU in front of a two-story home would not maintain this neighborhood development pattern.” This conclusory analysis fails to note that there are two-story homes and two-story ADUs within the Hillcrest neighborhood. Additionally, from review of GIS map, which was shown by City staff during the hearing, there appear to be many other R-2 zoned lots in the vicinity developed with multiple units. This property is near 1673 Louise Street, where the City approved a second-story ADU. For the 1673 Louise Street approval, which is in the same Hillcrest neighborhood, the City made that a finding for a second-story ADU was met because the surrounding areas “consist of both one-story and two-story homes” (CDP 25-0036).
Additionally, as was presented to the Design Review Board, there is a mix of one- and two-story homes in the Hillcrest neighborhood of North Laguna, including apartment buildings with up to four units, which is evident during any site visit. Finally, the City’s consultant report provided by HRG concluded that “the proposed ADU will be a compatible design and differentiated from the existing residence, that it will not impact the setting of the neighborhood because it will retain the required setback, and that it will be a stand-alone structure and not physically impact the existing residence” (emphasis added). The DRB chose to ignore the findings of the City’s own consultant that did not suit the City’s findings, demonstrating an unreasonable decision and abuse of discretion.
Staff’s Response
The Appellant asserts that the Board’s neighborhood compatibility finding is incomplete because the broader Hillcrest neighborhood includes a mix of one- and two-story homes, some multi-unit development, and at least one recently approved second-story ADU. The Appellant further contends that the Board disregarded a statement in the HRG analysis indicating that the proposed ADU would be a compatible design that would not impact the setting of the neighborhood. However, these recommendations and overall topic were addressed head on and discussed in substance by the Board during its deliberations.
The Board found that the Project did not comply with CDP Review Criteria No. 6 (LBMC Section
25.07.012(F)(6)), which requires that development “will be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and where feasible, will restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas,” as follows (from Board-adopted Resolution No. 2026-0148):
“Here, many of the homes along Chiquita are single-story structures (including 248 Chiquita St. directly to the north and 239 Chiquita St., directly across the street) or appear as a single-story from the street. A two-story ADU in front of a two-story home would not maintain this neighborhood development pattern.
Due to the historic home’s placement on the City’s Historic Register, the home itself is also considered a coastal resource. The City’s historic consultant has determined in the HRG Report and Supplemental HRG Report that the size of the ADU and its placement on the site would cause it to block views of the historic home. The Project does not preserve the historic integrity of the existing single-family residence. HRG reviewed the Project and determined it did not comply with the Secretary of Interior Standards ‘because there is not enough room on the property to accommodate 20 of 1108
APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026
the ADU as designed without impairing the view of the historic resource and negatively impacting the spatial relationship that characterizes the property.’” The record does not support the conclusion that the Board’s neighborhood compatibility finding is erroneous or unsupported. The issue before the Board was not whether two-story structures exist somewhere within the broader Hillcrest neighborhood, nor whether other R-2 properties in North Laguna contain multiple units. Rather, the required inquiry under Coastal Development Permit Criterion 6 was whether the proposed development, as designed and sited on this specific property, would be visually compatible with the character of the surrounding area. That is a site-specific determination that turns on the relationship of the proposed ADU to the existing historic residence, the street frontage, and the immediately surrounding development pattern.
Here, the Board reasonably focused on the relevant portion of Chiquita Street and the immediate context of the subject Property. The record reflects that the existing historic residence is set well back from the street and that the front portion of the lot has historically remained open, without structures. The proposed Project would place a new, two-story structure between the street and the historic residence, approximately 3 feet from the front porch and approximately 9 feet 8 inches from the front façade of the existing home.
As analyzed in the staff report and discussed during the public hearing, the proposed ADU would span approximately 31 feet in width, exceeding the width of the primary façade of the historic residence, and would obscure a substantial portion of the residence when viewed from the public right-of-way. In that respect, the Board’s finding was not based simply on the fact that the ADU is two stories tall; it was based on the combined effect of the ADU’s height, width, massing, and sitting in front of a designated historic residence on a lot with an established open front setback pattern.
The Appellant’s reference to other two-story homes, apartment buildings, and second-story ADUs in the Hillcrest neighborhood does not establish that the Board’s finding was incomplete. A neighborhood may contain a range of development types while still supporting a finding that a particular Project is visually incompatible in its specific context. The presence of other two-story development in the broader area does not compel a conclusion that any new two-story structure is compatible regardless of siting, relationship to the street, or effect on a historic resource. The Board was entitled to distinguish between development located elsewhere in the neighborhood and the proposed placement of a new detached two-story ADU in front of the subject property’s historic residence and its relation to the surrounding areas. Addressing this finding is not a matter of simply searching neighborhood-wide for other properties that may have secondstory ADUs; instead, a site-specific analysis based on the whole of the record is more appropriate Similarly, the Appellant’s reliance on the City’s approval of another ADU at 1673 Louise Street is unpersuasive. That approval involved a different property, different lot conditions, different surrounding context, and a different project design. Land use determinations are inherently parcel-specific. The fact that the City was able to make compatibility findings for a second-story ADU on another site does not establish that the same finding must be made here. The Board was required to evaluate this Project based on the actual conditions at 238 Chiquita Street, including its Mills Act status, the location of the historic residence, the historic open front yard condition, and the visual relationship of the proposed ADU to the surrounding portion of Chiquita Street.
21 of 1108
APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026
The Appellant’s argument also overstates the significance of one statement in the HRG analysis. HRG’s review was directed primarily to compliance with the SOIS and the effect of the proposed ADU on the historic resource. Even if one sentence in the report suggests that the ADU would be differentiated from the existing residence or would not physically attach to it, the report as a whole does not support the Appellant’s position. To the contrary, HRG’s ultimate conclusion was that the Project does not comply with the applicable standards because there is not enough room on the property to accommodate the ADU as designed without impairing the view of the historic resource and negatively affecting the spatial relationship that characterizes the property. The Board was entitled to read the consultant’s analysis as a whole and rely on its ultimate conclusions rather than isolate a single statement divorced from the report’s overall findings.
More fundamentally, neighborhood compatibility under CDP Review Criterion 6 (LBMC Section
25.07.012(F)) is not delegated to HRG. HRG’s role was to evaluate the Project’s effect on the historic resource. The ultimate determination regarding visual compatibility with the surrounding area was for the Board to make based on the full administrative record, including the staff report, plans, photographs, public testimony, site visits, and its own observations of the neighborhood context. The Board expressly did so.
Chair Gibbs stated that he walked the area and found the relevant visual context to be middle and lower Chiquita, where the proposed ADU would be visually prominent and inconsistent with the established streetscape. Other Board members concurred with that conclusion. That determination falls squarely within the Board’s discretion.
The record also supports the Board’s determination that the Project would not maintain neighborhood development patterns. As set forth in both the staff report and Resolution No. 2026-0148, the proposed Project would exceed maximum allowable building site coverage, and the Municipal Code allows modification of that standard only where necessary to preserve views or maintain neighborhood development patterns. The Board found that the Project does neither. Thus, the neighborhood compatibility issue was not only relevant to CDP Review Criterion 6, but also directly related to the separate finding required to justify excess building site coverage. The Board’s conclusions on these points are internally consistent and supported by the same body of evidence. Additionally, while the Applicant refused to stake the Project, the Board’s findings are clearly supported by the Project plans, which depict a detached ADU at the front yard setback with a vertical, two-story appearance and a general lack of modulation of the building mass, with both the first and second floors stacked near the setback line along Chiquita Street. 22 of 1108
APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026
Figure 4: Proposed South Elevation
Finally, the Appellant characterizes the Board’s finding as “woefully incomplete,” but the record demonstrates the opposite. The issue of neighborhood compatibility was the subject of staff analysis, public testimony, expert input, and Board deliberation. Nearby property owners raised concerns regarding the Project’s scale, massing, and effect on the streetscape. The HRG representative testified that the proposed placement would negatively affect the relationship of the property to the street and surrounding neighborhood. The Heritage Committee recommended denial, in part based on mass, scale, and neighborhood compatibility. The Board then discussed the visual character of the area and concluded that the proposed ADU would not be compatible with the surrounding development pattern. That is precisely the type of evidence-based, discretionary determination the Board is charged with making.
Accordingly, staff finds that the Design Review Board did not ignore relevant evidence, misstate the neighborhood context, or abuse its discretion in making the neighborhood compatibility finding. Rather, the Board evaluated the Project in its actual physical and historic setting and reasonably concluded, based on substantial evidence in the record, that the proposed ADU would not be visually compatible with the character of the surrounding area and would not maintain neighborhood development patterns.
2. “Misplaced Reliance on Erroneous City-Procured Consultant Report: It is clear that the DRB based its findings on errors contained in the City-procured HRG consultant reports. The earlier 2023 Sapphos report found that a two-story ADU project was consistent with Secretary of the Interior Standards for historic preservation. That report analyzed a larger structure than what was considered by the DRB. A core factual inconsistency between the reports, leading to the divergent conclusions, is that the Sapphos report states that the significant characteristics of the home are the upper story windows and cross-gabled roof… Mr. Lukoff’s belief is that the historically significant features of the property as he understood it were the upper story windows and cross-gable roof.
This is consistent with Sapphos’ opinion. Mr. Lukoff’s position is also grounded in a 2013 historical report for the property, contained in City records, that the City of Laguna Beach relied on for a prior addition to Mr. Lukoff’s property. The GPA report found that on the front façade of the property, the pergola, first floor window, porch, and main entry door “are non-character defining.” On the other hand, the City’s consultant incorrectly asserts that Mr. Lukoff’s entire front façade is historical, including the 1960s or later modifications made to the front entry. As Mr. Lukoff stated 23 of 1108
APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026
at the DRB hearing, during prior discussions of Mills Act rehabilitation projects, the City had asked Mr. Lukoff to modify front entry door, first-floor picture window, porch, and pergola to make them more historically compatible. This provides further evidence of the City’s understanding that these are not historically significant features. Starting from a faulty understanding of the historically significant characteristics of the property leads to faulty analysis and conclusions regarding potential compliance with Secretary of Interior Standards. The through line for the historic reports is that the significant features of the property are the upper story windows and cross-gable roof.
Mr. Lukoff’s design preserves way more than 50% of the views of these significant features, meeting the Secretary of the Interior Standards. Also, in terms of discussing Mills Act requirements, it is important to consider the contract terms as they were at the time the contract was commenced and not 17 years later. See, e.g., King v. Dep’t of Navy, 130 F.3d 1031, 1033 (Fed. Cir, 1997). This includes Mr. Lukoff’s obligations regarding preservation of the significant features of the historic residence. Extrinsic evidence is available to aid in contract interpretation when contract terms may be ambiguous. See, e.g., Beta Sys. v. U.S., 838 F.2d 1179, 1183 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In that vein, the 2013 GPA report, finding that the “[t]he extant pergola, front first floor window, porch, and main entry door are non-character defining” is more contemporaneous to the Mills Act transaction than the City-procured 2023 HRG report, and the 2013 GPA report is thus more reliable for interpretation of the Mills Act contract. From a factual standpoint, the DRB’s decision rests on erroneous analysis from HRG and ignores precedent from the 2013 report available in City records and dismissing the Sapphos report, which found that a (larger) two-story ADU project was consistent with the Secretary of the Interior Standards for historic preservation.” Staff’s Response
The Appellant asserts that the Board improperly relied on the HRG reports, which allegedly contain factual errors and are inconsistent with prior historic analyses, including the 2013 GPA report and the 2023 Sapphos report. The Appellant further contends that HRG incorrectly identified the historically significant features of the residence and that this alleged error undermines the Board’s findings regarding compliance with the SOIS and the Mills Act contract.
The Board found that the Project did not comply with the following applicable provisions of the Certified LCP and the Historic Resources Element.
General Plan Land Use Element Policy 2.2 - Encourage the preservation of historically significant residential structures and protect the character-defining components of Laguna Beach’s traditional neighborhoods.
Here, the Project does not preserve the historic integrity of the existing single-family residence. The property owner has received a significant incentive in the form of a reduced property tax rate as a result of their participation in the Mills Act program. A condition of this incentive is compliance with the Secretary of Interior Standards. HRG reviewed the Project and determined it did not comply with the SOIS “because there is not enough room on the property to accommodate the ADU as designed without impairing the view of the historic resource and negatively impacting the spatial relationship that characterizes the property.”
24 of 1108
APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026
General Plan Historic Resources Element - Goal #1: Preserve and enhance buildings and structures of historic significance in Laguna Beach. Assure that neighborhoods which have a preponderance of older homes and which greatly contribute to the village atmosphere be maintained as cohesive neighborhood units through consistency of size, scale and character.
Here, the Project does not preserve the historic integrity of the existing single-family residence. The property owner has received a significant incentive in the form of a reduced property tax rate as a result of their participation in the Mills Act program. A condition of this incentive is compliance with the Secretary of Interior Standards. HRG reviewed the Project and determined it did not comply with the SOIS “because there is not enough room on the property to accommodate the ADU as designed without impairing the view of the historic resource and negatively impacting the spatial relationship that characterizes the property.”
Open Space and Conservation Element Policy 12-C: Development adjacent to a place, structure or feature found to be of historical significance shall be designed so that the uses permitted and the architectural design will protect the visual setting of the historical site.
Here, the proposed ADU would not protect the visual setting of the historical site in that it would be placed in front of the existing residence, altering the spatial relationship that characterizes the property. The existing residence was constructed at the rear of the parcel and has approximately a 50-foot setback from the street. Placing the ADU within the setback will remove a space that has been historically open since the residence was constructed in 1925. In addition, because the ADU will be located 10 feet from the existing residence it will obscure a majority of the view of the residence from the street.
LBMC Chapter 25.45.010 Procedures for alteration of a historic resource: “Prior to the issuance of a building permit to remodel or alter any historic resource, City staff shall review the proposed changes to determine if the proposal is consistent with the design review criteria, the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (SOIS) or the City’s Local Design Guidelines.” Here, HRG evaluated the Project and determined in the HRG Report and Supplemental HRG Report the proposed Project did not comply with the Secretary of Interior Standards.” The record does not support the conclusion that the Board’s reliance on the HRG reports was misplaced or erroneous. To the contrary, the Board considered multiple historic evaluations, including the Sapphos report, the HRG peer review, and HRG’s updated memorandum, and exercised its discretion in weighing those materials alongside the applicable regulatory framework.
First, the existence of differing professional opinions between qualified historic consultants does not render one report “erroneous” or invalidate the Board’s reliance on one analysis over another. It is not uncommon in historic preservation matters for consultants to reach different conclusions regarding the application of the SOIS, particularly where the analysis involves qualitative considerations such as spatial relationships, setting, and visibility of a historic resource. The Board, as the decision-making body, is charged with evaluating conflicting evidence and determining which analysis is more persuasive based on the entirety of 25 of 1108
APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026
the record – not disregarding one report in favor of the other. Here, this is exactly what the Board did. After careful deliberations it reasonably found HRG’s analysis to be more consistent with the applicable standards and the specific conditions of the site.
Second, the Appellant’s argument improperly narrows the scope of historic analysis to a limited set of individual architectural features, such as upper-story windows and the cross-gabled roof, while minimizing the importance of broader contextual and spatial characteristics that are expressly protected under the SOIS.
The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards do not limit preservation to isolated architectural elements; rather, they require that new construction be compatible with the historic property’s setting, massing, scale, and spatial relationships. Standard 2 requires that the historic character of a property be retained and preserved, including the property’s distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. Standard 9 further requires that new additions and adjacent construction not destroy historic materials or alter spatial relationships that characterize the property.
HRG’s analysis addressed these broader considerations, concluding that the proposed ADU’s location in front of the historic residence, in close proximity to the primary façade, would impair the spatial relationship between the residence and the street and obscure the historic resource from the public right-of-way. These conclusions are independent of whether certain individual elements of the front façade may have been modified in the mid-20th century. Even assuming, as the Appellant argues, that certain features such as the porch or entry elements are not character-defining, the overall spatial configuration of the residence—set back from the street with an open front yard—is itself a defining characteristic of the property. The Board was entitled to rely on HRG’s conclusion that this spatial relationship would be materially altered by the proposed ADU.
Third, the Appellant’s reliance on the 2013 GPA report is misplaced. That report was prepared in connection with a prior project involving alterations to the existing residence and addressed a different scope of work.
While it may have identified certain elements of the front façade as non-character-defining for purposes of that project, it does not follow that the entire front yard area or the visual relationship between the residence and the street is non-historic or may be disregarded in evaluating new construction. Historic resource analysis is context-specific, and the question before the Board was not whether individual façade elements are historic, but whether the placement of a new structure would adversely affect the integrity of the historic resource as a whole.
Similarly, the Sapphos report evaluated an earlier iteration of the project and reached a different conclusion regarding SOIS compliance. However, as noted in the staff report and confirmed by HRG’s peer review and updated memorandum, the proposed design before the Board differs in siting and configuration, and HRG concluded that the current proposal does not comply with Standards 2, 4, and 9. The Board was not required to adopt the conclusions of the Sapphos report, particularly where another qualified consultant provided a reasoned analysis reaching the opposite conclusion. The Board’s role is to weigh the evidence, not to defer to a single consultant selected by the Applicant.
Fourth, the Appellant’s argument that the Project preserves “more than 50%” of views of certain features does not establish compliance with the SOIS. The SOIS do not establish a quantitative threshold for visibility, nor do they permit partial obstruction of a historic resource based on a percentage calculation. 26 of 1108
APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026
The relevant inquiry is whether the proposed new construction would impair the ability to perceive and understand the historic resource and its relationship to its setting. Substantial evidence in the record, including the HRG reports, staff analysis, and Board observations, supports the conclusion that the proposed ADU would obscure a majority of the primary elevation of the residence and materially alter its spatial relationship to the street. The Board did not find that maintaining a view of the residence’s roofline and a portion of its second floor met the applicable criteria under SOIS. The Board found that the Project substantially impaired the view of the primary façade of the historic resource.
Fifth, with respect to the Mills Act, the Appellant asserts that the contract should be interpreted based on the understanding of significant features at the time of execution in 2009. However, the Mills Act contract requires the continued preservation and maintenance of the historic resource in accordance with applicable standards, including the SOIS, which are applied at the time of review of proposed alterations. The contract does not freeze the scope of review to a prior consultant’s interpretation, nor does it limit the City’s ability to evaluate new construction adjacent to the resource under current preservation standards or a Projectspecific review by a qualified architectural historian. The Board appropriately considered the Mills Act obligations in conjunction with the SOIS and the City’s historic preservation policies and standards.
Finally, the administrative record demonstrates that the Board did not ignore the Sapphos report or other prior analyses. Rather, those materials were included in the agenda packet, acknowledged by staff, and considered as part of the overall evidentiary record. The Board ultimately found HRG’s conclusions more persuasive, particularly with respect to the impact of the proposed ADU on the spatial relationship and visibility of the historic residence. This constitutes a permissible exercise of discretion and does not amount to an abuse of discretion.
Accordingly, staff finds that the Board’s reliance on the HRG reports was appropriate and supported by substantial evidence. The presence of differing consultant opinions does not invalidate the Board’s findings, and the record supports the conclusion that the proposed Project does not comply with the SOIS or the requirements applicable to a designated historic resource under the Mills Act and the City’s Local Coastal Program.
3. “Application Deemed Complete by Operation of Law: We recognize that when the DRB made its decision, it stated that it was treating the application as if it was complete under the Permit Streamlining Act. However, to the extent that the DRB made its decision based on an allegedly “incomplete” application as stated in the staff report, Mr. Lukoff disputes the City Staff’s assertion that the application is “incomplete” and asserts that his application is deemed complete by operation of law under the Permit Streamlining Act. Pursuant to Gov. Code § 65943, for a government agency to deem a development application incomplete, the list of incomplete items “shall be limited to those items actually required on the lead agency’s submittal requirement checklist.” When Mr. Lukoff’s architect submitted the application on November 8, 2024, it is Mr.
Lukoff’s position that the City did not request a certified staking plan in its checklist for the application, which is why Mr. Lukoff has not provided staking for the project. In the November 2024 timeframe, staking plans were not a City-mandated ADU application requirement but is instead a more recent demand. Previously, the approach was that only projects requiring Design Review needed a certified staking plan. Additionally, the City was holding Mr. Lukoff’s application as 27 of 1108
APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026
“incomplete” to extort peer review fees for consultant reports that had been obtained prior to the submission of the application to conduct a regulatory taking. In order to more fully develop this argument, we are awaiting the results of Public Records Act requests 2026-0149 and 2026-0150.
Indeed, with regards to Mr. Lukoff’s ADU application, there was constant turnover of staff assigned to the project, each of whom made different demands, to which Mr. Lukoff responded by submitting revised plans for a smaller structure. City Staff consistently moved the goalposts and made demands that are not permitted under Gov. Code § 65943, which applies to ministerially handled projects.
The City’s processing of Mr. Lukoff’s ADU application for a hearing of the Design Review Board also shows an indication that the City indeed treated Mr. Lukoff’s application as complete; otherwise, the City would have simply refused to process it. Based on these factual errors in the Resolution and underlying analysis for the DRB’s decision, the DRB resolution to deny Mr. Lukoff’s project application is unreasonable, invalid, and constitutes an abuse of discretion.” Staff’s Response
The Appellant asserts that the application was deemed complete by operation of law under the Permit Streamlining Act (“PSA”) and that the City improperly characterized the application as incomplete by requesting materials not included in the submittal checklist. The Appellant further contends that the City “moved the goalposts,” improperly required additional materials such as staking plans, and used the incompleteness determination to delay processing and impose additional consultant review.
The record does not support these assertions, and, more importantly, the issue of application completeness was not the basis for the Board’s denial of the Project.
As a threshold matter, the Board expressly clarified on the record that it was evaluating the Project on the merits and not relying on application completeness as a basis for its decision. As stated during the February 26, 2026 hearing, the City maintained its position regarding completeness (or rather, the application’s incompleteness); however, in light of the Applicant’s insistence that the City approve his application without any further changes, staff elected to bring the Project forward for a public hearing to ensure that the application was reviewed substantively. The Board confirmed that it would “evaluate this project as if the application was complete,” and the denial was based entirely on the Project’s failure to meet required findings under the CDP criteria, the LCP, building site coverage provisions, and the SOIS. Accordingly, even if there were a dispute regarding completeness under the PSA, it would not affect the validity of the Board’s decision, which rests on independent substantive grounds.
With respect to the Permit Streamlining Act, Government Code Section 65943 requires that a local agency identify incomplete items based on its submittal requirements. The City maintains established application requirements for Coastal Development Permits and projects involving historic resources, which may include technical materials necessary to evaluate visual impacts, site conditions, and compliance with applicable standards. The Appellant’s assertion that certain materials were not historically required or were newly requested does not establish a violation of the PSA, particularly where the Project involves a combination of factors—coastal permitting, historic resource considerations, and site-specific visual impacts—that necessitate adequate documentation for proper review. 28 of 1108
APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026
Additionally, the Appellant’s characterization of the City’s request for additional information as improper or coercive is not supported by the record. The City’s use of peer review consultants, including HRG, is a standard and widely accepted practice for projects involving historic resources, and is also the City’s standard practice. Such review ensures that the City has sufficient technical expertise to evaluate compliance with preservation standards and does not constitute an improper or unlawful requirement.
Indeed, the City does not have a qualified architectural historian on staff.11 The Appellant voluntarily proceeded with the application knowing that the Project would be subject to review under the LCP and the City’s historic preservation regulations.
The Appellant also suggests that staff turnover and evolving feedback resulted in inconsistent or shifting requirements. While staff assignments may change over the course of a multi-year application, the underlying regulatory framework did not change. The Project remained subject to the same applicable standards, including CDP findings, building site coverage limitations, and the requirements associated with a Mills Act-designated historic resource. The submission of revised plans in response to staff feedback is a typical part of the development review process and does not indicate that the City imposed unlawful or inconsistent requirements.
The ADU design that was submitted November 8, 2024 was reviewed by a previous planner, who issued comments on December 6, 2024. A staking plan was also requested during this review, in that case due to the design’s inclusion of an elevated deck. Decks elevated more than three feet above the adjacent grade require design review, whether they are associated with primary dwellings or ADUs.
The Applicant has dealt with the same planner and same set of applicable zoning regulations since the last major design change proposed by the Applicant on July 2, 2025.12 The current planner deemed this design’s application incomplete and indicated that a staking plan was required on August 1, 2025. When the Applicant resubmitted, a staking plan was not provided, and as such, the City was unable to deem the application complete. In this case, a staking plan was requested due to the proposed excess building site coverage and the potential for public coastal view impacts.
Finally, the Appellant’s argument that the City’s decision to process the application through a Board hearing demonstrates that the application must have been complete is incorrect. The City explicitly stated that it was proceeding with a merits-based review to avoid potential procedural complications related to statutory timelines, not because it had conceded completeness. Processing an application for public hearing under these circumstances does not waive the City’s position regarding completeness nor does it establish a violation of the PSA.
11 The City does not have staff that meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards as defined in 36 CFR, Part 61. As such, the City regularly retains qualified architectural historians to perform historic assessments. In those cases where an applicant commissions the preparation of a historic assessment, it is not solely City staff that reviews and verifies the information. For the same reason as above, the City will retain a qualified architectural historian to peer review the information and make a professional recommendation to City staff and ultimately, to the decision-making authority. This process is no different than for other technical disciplines, including but not limited to biology, hydrology, traffic engineering, and geotechnical.
12 On July 2, 2025, new plans were submitted by the Applicant’s new designer for the Project, Bill Dickey. This iteration of the project was a significant departure from the prior design, with changes including the removal of the elevated deck from the scope and the addition of a replacement carport.
29 of 1108
APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026